Methods and Responses
M.A. Thesis - Holocaust & Genocide Studies (History) - 2013/2014
Genocide denial has been subject to analysis from historians, legal scholars and social scientists for a number of years. It is an aspect of genocide that is seen by the majority of academics as a distinct event that occurs only once the killing-phase of a specific genocide has ended. This thesis refutes this perspective and argues for the inclusion of the concept of denial as a central factor in genocide from the outset. Denial is an integral factor at all stages of genocide. This thesis also seeks to advocate a comparative perspective that offers fruitful grounds for analysis in relation to looking at the methodology employed by deniers as well as legal and academic responses to denial.
The effects of genocide on the target community are felt for countless generations. Denial serves to perpetuate the harm experienced. With this in mind, this thesis suggests future directions of research as well as methods through which denial can be reckoned with.
Introduction Page 1
Understanding and defining denial Page 1
Research Question & Historiography Page 2
Structure, Sources & Methodology Page 5
Chapter I: The Inception of Denial Page 7
Introduction Page 7
Denial as a Tool within Ideology Page 8
Individual Perpetrator Denial Page 11
Denial as a Central Factor in the Early Stages of Genocide Page 15
Chapter II: Post-Genocide Denial – A Comparative Perspective Page 16
Introduction & Historical Background Page 16
Reckoning with the Past: Setting the Stage for Denial Page 19
Can Denial be Academic in Nature? Page 22
Books & Journals Page 23
Conferences Page 27
Political Organisations & Political Statements Page 28
Analysis Page 31
Conclusions & Future Directions Page 34
Chapter III: Historical and Legal Solutions to Post-Genocide Denial Page 35
Introduction Page 35
Arguments for the Legal Responses to Genocide Denial Page 36
Historical Ownership of the Past Page 40
The European Court of Human Rights: Free Speech or Hate Speech? Page 43
Accounting for the Difference Page 50
Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Page 51
Conclusion Page 55
Is There a Solution to Denial? Page 56
Issues & Future Directions of Research Page 57
Final Remarks Page 58
Introduction: Genocide Denial – Introduction & research objectives
Understanding and Defining DenialAs a concept in genocide studies, the idea of genocide denial covers a broad spectrum of attitudes and actions. It ranges from the open, targeted and sustained denial to the purposeful academic and political indifference that prevents our complete understanding of events. Tackling both of these issues is pivotal to resolving the historical neglect, at an individual and societal level, that lies at the core. Genocide denial can be seen as the search for an irrefutable and absolute universal truth accepted by all – one that will not be found, this is a philosophical argument and misrepresentative of the true issue. There will always be constant questioning of widely-accepted information due to highly politicised scenarios, conflicting ideologies and perceived pragmatic psychological reasoning – the true reasons that denial exists. This does not mean, however, that attempting to understand denial and those who choose this path is a futile endeavour. It offers us a perspective on what may appear to be, upon first glance, a concept that is devoid of any humanity or logic. Rather, it is the opposite; those who deny create their own ideas of humanity and logic to which their view conforms. It is hoped that through comparatively looking at how, methodologically, denial occurs across different genocides, a framework through which denial can be seen as a distinct process can be developed and, eventually, reckoned with. Genocide denial is often seen as an event or stage that occurs many years after genocide has taken place. This thesis argues that denial is not only present prior to the killings but also constitutes an integral part of genocide at all stages, particularly for the ground-level perpetrators and the elites that direct them. Furthermore, it seeks to develop a comparative perspective of genocide denial and how to respond to it. Chapter I argues the case that that denial is a concept without which genocide would not be able to occur and the great majority of would-be-perpetrators would not be able to kill. Furthermore, Chapter II demonstrates that denial continues in the post-killing phase of the genocide. This is the more recognised definition of genocide denial. This chapter looks in more depth at how denial is utilised as a tool used to achieve a specific goal based on political, ideological or personal reasons. Chapter III deals with perhaps the most complex question, of how to deal with denial. As reasoned above, there is no perfect solution to denial – however there are methods through which denial can be reduced and the effects subdued.
Understanding denial is not equatable to absolving denial as an ideology or concept. Instead, by understanding denial we can better form an idea about how to deal with it. The quest for understanding represents the antithesis of absolution.
Research Question & Historiography
The main research question for this thesis stands as follows: what can a comparative look at genocide denial offer historians? This question is asked in relation to understanding the methods used to deny genocide as well as developing an effective method through which to combat denial. It accomplishes this through looking at the benefits of analysing the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust in relation to the methods used by deniers. By looking at the denial of these two genocides in comparison, or contrast, it highlights specific areas of difference and similarity that would not be apparent without the comparative perspective. In terms of a research objective, this thesis seeks to understand genocide denial in a comparative fashion in order to discover whether or not denial is a concept with specific commonalities; or whether it has distinct characteristics in each genocide in which it occurs. The history of genocide denial is still developing. It is a fruitful ground for research owing to the relatively limited, in comparison to the events that that the denial surrounds, focus thus far. There are arguably three main historiographical trends of genocide denial, though there is some overlap within the works that tend to pertain to one of the areas. The orthodox works tend to focus on individuals and organisations related to denial of a single genocide; the comparative works focus on denial of multiple genocides and the interdisciplinary works stress the reasoning, psychological and otherwise, behind denial. There is a significantly greater amount of literature that pertains to Holocaust denial in contrast to the relatively small amount of literature dedicated to denial of the Armenian genocide. It is also worthy of note that many works on the Armenian genocide either use denial as a starting point or inspiration for their existence.
There are specific works, outlined below, that have a direct influence on the line of inquiry, through the questions they raise, that this study adheres to.
Early responses to genocide are typically a product of the community which was affected by the genocide in the first instance. They provide a timely reminder in the present that these individuals are the ones most affected by denial. In both cases of genocide discussed in this
thesis, denial became a prominent, significant and active campaign from the 1970s. Erich Kulka’s pamphlet The Holocaust is Being Denied! The Answer of Auschwitz Survivors published in 1977 represents a response to this rise in denial.1 The exclamation mark in the title is clear evidence of the impetus intended to be created as a result of this work. In this pamphlet, Kulka is writing for direct survivors of Auschwitz because of “the growing neo-Nazi activities and the flow of publications denying the Holocaust.”2 Kulka lists many instances of denial that have occurred across a broad spectrum, from protests to published books, and begins to refute them. Despite the expected palpable anxiety present in the pamphlet, it is written with restraint and represents a concerted effort to deal logically with denial. It is hoped that this thesis adheres to a similar level of restraint and objective logic. Gregory Stanton, the President of Genocide Watch, has created a list that contains the 10 stages of genocide. The last stage, according to Stanton, is denial. Within Stanton’s model, denial is solely dispensed by the perpetrators of genocide. Stanton states that “denial is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims.”3 The identification of denial as a stage that ‘lasts throughout’ genocide is not shared among all historians. For example, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman see Holocaust denial in strict historical terms; for them denial is “not just an attempt to deny a true past, but to deny a meaningful one.”4 Similarly, for the Armenian genocide, Richard G. Hovannisian sees denial through a post-genocidal lense rather than as an ever-present concept throughout genocide.5
Hovannisian’s chapter in his edited work, Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide provides an excellent introduction and impetus to the idea of comparing
1 Erich Kulka , The Holocaust Is Being Denied: The Answer Of Auschwitz Survivors, translated by Lilli Kopecky (Tel Aviv: The Committee of Auschwitz Camps Survivors in Israel, 1977)
2 Kulka, The Holocaust Is Being Denied, 1. 3 ‘Genocide Watch,’ accessed 13 May, 2014,
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html.
4 Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who says the Holocaust never happened and why do
they say it?,’ (Berkley: University of California Press, 2000), 251 – 256.
5 Richard G. Hovannisian, ‘Introduction: The Armenian Genocide Remembrance and Denial,’ in Richard G. Hovannisian (Ed), Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), 13-21.
denial of the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. Hovannisian’s introductory remarks induced two specific ideas for this study. He remarked that “deniers and rationalizers of the Armenian genocide during World War I and of the Holocaust during World War II may not be acquainted with one another and may not have read each other’s publications, yet there are striking similarities in the methodologies and objectives.”6 Firstly; the idea of intertwining of rationale and denial as concepts within genocide provided fruitful food for thought for Chapter I. Secondly; it forcibly introduces the idea that there are similarities in the methods and objectives of denial – regardless of the genocide that it pertains to. This is a particularly important concept for Chapters II and III.
A particular influence for the inception of this study, and the reasoning behind Chapter III, was the chapter by Henry Huttenbach in Levon Chorbajian and George Shirinian’s book Studies in Comparative Genocide.7 Huttenbach looks comparatively at the attitudinal and ideological reasoning that lies behind denial. In his conclusion Huttenbach states that “the study of genocide denial is not justified academically unless it leads to the defeat of genocide denial wherever and whenever it rears its heard. Not to do so would be a serious abrogation of the intellectual’s responsibility for the integrity of society as a whole…it must be combated beyond the academic arena. Ways must be found to erase it from public discourse since by its very nature it is an intentionally socially divisive act.”8 This passage is intrinsically linked with the aims of Chapter II and Chapter III of this thesis; Chapter II aim to identify the main methods of denial and reasoning behind these methods. Furthermore, Chapter III attempts to develop a framework of adequately dealing with and eradicating genocide denial.
Overall, the existing literature left distinct impressions that affected the course of this study. Most importantly, genocide denial serves to continue the prejudice that the survivors of genocide dealt with during the violence acted against them. It is due to this that it is imperative to classify, predict and resolve genocide denial. Undoubtedly, a comparative study is the best method to achieve this. Although different genocides, and thus their denial,
6 Richard G. Hovannisian, ‘Denial of the Armenian Genocide in Comparison with Holocaust Denial,’ in Richard G. Hovannisian (Ed), Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), 201.
7 Henry R. Huttenbach, ‘The Psychological and Politics of Genocide Denial: a Comparison of Four Case Studies,’ in Levon Chorbajian & George Shirinian (eds.), Studies in Comparative Genocide, (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 1999), 216 – 230.
are borne of different historical circumstances, there are common elements and a comparative approach highlights these as well as the differences.
Structure, Sources & Methodology
The wide-range of sources required for this thesis reflects the fact that denial comes from many different geographical areas, individuals and organisations. There are also plentiful secondary sources that pertain to specific areas of genocide denial. For Chapter I, secondary literature provided the bulk of information required that describes both how genocides form and the process of individual perpetration. Chapter II utilises secondary sources that describe how genocide has often been inadequately dealt with in the post-killing phase and the effect that this has in forming a landscape where denial can prosper. For the landscape of denial itself, primary sources are the principal information utilised. Specifically, books, journal articles, conference videos, websites, speeches and political statements are subject to analysis. Chapter III has, as is the case with Chapter II, a base provided by secondary literature from which to launch a case-study based on primary evidence. This case study looks at the relative treatment of two cases of denial, one concerning the Armenian genocide and the other the Holocaust, by the European Court of Human Rights.
It is clear that deniers of genocide wish their work to be copied, repeated and given as many platforms as possible. Due to this there is a vast array of denial information on the internet and it is typically written in English. Furthermore, there are often concerted efforts on the part of deniers to make material free and in easy-to-read formats that can be accessed by most individuals with a computer. The Leuchter Report is one example of such a case, and it is discussed in Chapter II.
It is important to address the use of internet sources. The lack of peer-review, scholarly accountability and relative free access are reasons for historians to be wary of information that is published on the internet. However, due to the relative free-reign of individuals to express themselves in any way and the high level or ownership of self-created material using online sources to study genocide denial is particularly fruitful. The use of genocide denial sources on the internet can appear as a paradoxical dilemma for a historian; it is to trust that people are misrepresenting the truth truthfully. However, with recognition of this dilemma and of the more general drawbacks of information gleaned from the internet historians can
employ this source as they would any other. It is, as with all sources, important not to draw conclusions unless that is the only reasonable explanation that the evidence suggests in accordance with corroborating factors.
The structure of this study is as follows: Chapter I relates to the concept of denial as integral for the ideological and practical motivators employed in the early phases of genocide; Chapter II looks comparatively at post-killing denial in the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust with a focus on the methods utilised by deniers; Chapter III looks at the arguments surrounding the different ways to deal with genocide denial, legal or historical, with a case study of the European Court Human Rights. This structure has been chosen for specific reasons. It follows the concept of denial chronologically from the inception to the post-killing phases of genocide and then through to how it has and can be dealt with. This structure provides the reader with an ordered perspective of denial and is demonstrative of the centrality of the concept in genocide.
Chapter I: The Inception of Denial
IntroductionThis chapter looks at how the concept and theory of denial is first introduced prior to and during genocide. It will demonstrate that denial is a core factor in both the over-arching ideology behind genocide and to the process of perpetration that urges people to kill a specific target group. A comparative perspective will be taken for this analysis, with
examples being drawn from different genocides to illustrate this point. Within the construction of ideology, should we see denial as informing the rationale behind genocide? For the process of perpetration, is denial is an after effect of the background causes – a coping mechanism? Is it a separate and distinct process or something that influences existing processes from within? This chapter will establish the centrality of denial in the early (ideological and motivational) and middle (pragmatic) stages of the genocidal process. In order to obtain a full understanding of the denial of perpetrators – both the political elites and the ‘ground level’ where the vast majority of killings take place – we must understand the timeframe in which they begin to form their ideas about the removal of the defined ‘other.’ Genocide denial at the early stages rests predominantly within the perspective that the perpetrators see their actions as justified and morally necessary. Helen Hintjens quotes Barrington Moore in stating that “for injustice to be acceptable evidently it must resemble justice.”9 This chapter will illustrate how the ideology and individual mentality of the perpetrators is shaped to view the ‘injustice’ they commit as ‘justice’ – and denial is the central idea within this created world-view. Concepts familiar to genocide scholars will be summarised and it will be shown how denial interacts with them.
Perpetrators of genocide and mass violence see their actions as justified. The view of seeing their behaviour this way results in a disassociation with reality and the denial of the common humanity of their defined target group that allows killing to take place. It can be difficult to empirically assess and then categorically state the role of the concept of denial in the political elite and ground-level perpetrators at the early stages of genocide. This chapter will illustrate how analysis from other researchers, testimonies from the perpetrators, and other secondary sources that deal with how individuals are able to kill are able to demonstrate the centrality of denial. It is both a concept that is required within the ideology of the political elites and a psychological requirement in order to kill. At this point it is necessary to address the issue of determinism in studies of genocide and mass violence. Examples below will demonstrate how states and individuals have assisted in creating a situation in which mass violence and genocide takes place. This does not mean that in all cases where a political elite is engendering divide a genocide will take place, or that in all cases of ‘us’ and ‘them’ thinking between an armed group and a targeted victim group that
9 Barrington Moore, Injustice: the social basis of obedience and revolt, (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1978), 55. in Helen M. Hintjens, ‘Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda,’ The Journal of Modern African Studies 37, (1999), 263.
genocide or mass violence will occur. However, where genocide does occur, denial is always a key factor.
When investigating the inception of denial, it is cogent to begin with how an individual adapts their thinking towards accepting a new ‘truth.’ Through this method, it is possible to see how the individuals conform their thinking and how this is, in turn, impressed upon larger groups. Is it the case that a pre-existing ideology, such as anti-Semitism, acts as a constant reference point to which they can rely upon for guidance when facing newly proposed dilemmas? Or is denial informed less by ideology and by more supposedly ‘pragmatic’ reasons, such as allowing the killing to be seen as morally just and necessary? Denial as a Tool within Ideology
To begin with, the ideology behind genocide will be the subject of analysis. It must be stressed that the ideology of the perpetrators does not provide the sole basis from which genocide is possible. There are always international and local factors in each case of genocide which prove to be of equal or greater importance. However, the ideology is typically the one thing that is created solely by the perpetrators in the quest for a rationale behind their aims. The first step at which denial is introduced is through one group experiencing – or enforcing – denial concerning their own situation, they create a world view in which they are under attack. The second stage of denial is through the creation of a specific and imagined ‘other’ – this is the enemy that must be removed in order for their group to prosper. The imagined crisis within their manufactured world view can only be dealt with following the removal of the imagined enemy. Jacques Semelin has termed this as “the imaginary constructs of social destructiveness.”10 This ideology is often present many years prior to the first killings in genocide.
There are many examples of individuals, typically political elites, constructing this imagined world view prior to genocide and mass violence. In Rwanda, for example, “Juvénal Habyarimana [then Rwandan President] saw his power slipping after nearly 20 years… he had lost much of his popular base… With the 1990 attack by the RPF, Habyarimana and some around him saw the chance to stop the erosion of their popularity and to try to craft a new
10 Jacques Semelin, Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), Chapter 1.
Hutu solidarity by turning against the Tutsi minority inside the country.”11 This is the creation of a particular world view in response to a perceived threat by the Hutu-led regime in Rwanda at the time. Donald Bloxham also sees the genocide as a method through which the Ottoman government was able to shape its’ reality in response to an imagined threat – that of the Armenians. “The Armenian genocide provided the emblematic and central violence of Ottoman Turkey’s transition into a modernizing nation state.”12 Again, we see a repetition of the idea that through the destruction of one defined group, the state can be allowed to prosper. This represents both an ideological denial of the current state of affairs and denial of the right of the defined group to exist.
Many of these examples can be classed under the guise of ‘utopian politics’ which is perhaps the greatest ideological rejection of reality and acceptance of denial as a central factor in shaping genocidal ideology.13 Eric Weitz has written of the dangers of utopian politics and the effect it can have as a cause of violence in some cases. Weitz writes:
The propensity of utopians to think in homogeneous terms, of creating societies devoid of difference, also lurks behind many of the massive violations of human rights that have occurred in the twentieth century. In so many instances the perpetrators of genocides were those who believed that it was indeed possible to create a future of unlimited prosperity and creativity once the enemies— so often defined in national or racial terms—had been eliminated.14
This ideology gives rise to a scenario whereby individuals have a motivation to kill; it provides them with encouragement and a reference point from which they can achieve constant feedback and assurance that their actions are just and required.
The morality of denial is something that we must attempt to assess. It appears a wholly immoral world-view is required in order to justify the perspective that many
11 Alison Des Forges, ‘Call to Genocide: Radio in Rwanda, 1994,’ in Allan Thompson (ed), The Media and the
Rwanda Genocide, (London: Pluto, 2007), 41.
12 Donald Bloxham, The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the
Ottoman Armenians, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 111.
13 Amir Weiner writes convincingly on the historical genesis of utopian ideologies and the effect they have had in the twentieth century in the Introduction to: Amir Weiner, Landscaping the Human Garden: Twentieth
-Century Population Management in a Comparative Framework, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003),
1-18.
14 Eric Weitz, ‘Utopian Ideologies as Motives for Genocide,’ in Dinah L. Shelton (ed), Encyclopaedia of
perpetrators took prior to either instigating or being physically involved in the act of killing. The ‘just world’ myth can offer some guidance in terms of individual responses to atrocities and, in particular, why some individuals deny atrocities. According to James Waller, this idea hypothesises that, “we cherish our illusion of a world that is fair and just. We must hold on to that notion, however misguided, so that we have the courage to go out into the world and to send our children out into the world. Our need to believe in a just world often overwhelms our recognition that bad things can happen to good people. As a result, we assume that victims deserve, and can be blamed for, their fates.”15 Waller goes on to state that “we show a hardy cognitive tendency to search for ways to blame individuals for their own victimisation.”16 This idea is useful to consider in terms of genocide denial. Although, theoretically, this does not deny that killings took place it does assign blame to the victims. One of the central aspects of genocide is that it typically involves a dominant group, with whom the overwhelming force exists, attacking a smaller group based upon a perceived or real threat. If we look at genocide through the ‘just world’ lense it ceases to be a genocide and becomes a war. This denies the right of the victims and survivors to be recognised in the correct historical context.
The denial inherent within genocidal ideology can be seen in Heinrich Himmler’s speech to SS in Posen, Poland in January, 1943. After discussing the “extermination of the Jewish race” he says “this is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written.”17 Himmler clearly recognised that admission of the fact of genocide will have a negative impact on both the system that advocated it as a course of action and for the individual perpetrators. This quote appears to conflict with the notion that political elites saw genocide as a justified and necessary action. Does the fact that Himmler saw this as something to be forgotten imply that he saw it as an unjust action? Or is this response due to more practical considerations, such as attempting to mitigate a negative international reaction? Rather than simply a coping mechanism or a practical response, denial is used as a tool to undermine the very existence of the victims throughout the genocidal process.
15 James Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 213.
16 Waller, Becoming Evil, 2007, 213.
17 ‘Heinrich Himmler Speech before SS Group Leaders Posen, Poland 1943,’ located at:
The next section of this chapter focuses on how denial intertwines with the process of perpetratration that allows individuals overcome any resistance to killing and assists in developing a routine of killing.
Individual Perpetrator Denial
As it has been demonstrated above, there are clear elements of the concept of denial within the ideology that leads to mass violence and genocide. This section will put forward the argument that denial is also present and a key motivator in the individual ground-level perpetrators. These are the individuals who carry out the physical act of killing. Although denial does not exist within each separate section of the process of perpetration; it is through this multi-faceted process that the perpetrators are able to deny both any common links with the defined victim group and also their right to exist. The process of perpetration provides the gateway through which denial can enter.
Semelin has argued that in order to partake in mass killings individuals “must have recourse to methods or procedures that will allow him to remove himself from the situation – while at the same time participating in it.”18 Through the use of analysis from authors who have written about the process of perpetration and from perpetrator testimony we can develop an understanding of it. James Waller identifies “three disengagement practices necessary for perpetrators to make their reprehensible conduct acceptable and to distance them from the moral implications of their actions: (1) moral justification, (2) dehumanization of the victims, and (3) euphemistic labelling of evil actions.”19 Within these three practices, denial is not always present. However, both dehumanisation and euphemistic labelling have clear links to the concept of denial.
A common method through which the perpetrator achieve an advancement towards denial of the humanity of the target group is achieved is through viewing the individuals as animals or insects. This has the effect of refuting common bonds and seeing the target group as a pest or nuisance species or even as prey. It represents both dehumanization of the victims and euphemistic labelling. Waller argues that “perpetrators so consistently dehumanize their victims that the words themselves become substitutes for perceiving human beings.”20 The
18 Semelin, Purify and Destroy, 267. 19 Waller, Becoming Evil, 2007, 213.
20 James Waller, Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 246.
use of the term Inyenzi – meaning cockroach – in Rwanda utilised the method of adopting a perspective that the Tutsi were both pests and not human. An editorial from Kangura, an extremist magazine in Rwanda during the genocide, stated that “in our language, the Tutsi bears the name cockroach (Inyenzi), because under cover of darkness, he camouflages himself to commit crimes. The word cockroach again reminds us of a very poisonous snake. It is therefore not accidental that the Tutsi chose to be called that way.”21 In Rwanda there are also examples of perpetrators seeing their participation in killing as part of a ‘hunt’ for prey. “We no longer saw a human being when we turned up a Tutsi in the swamps… the hunt was savage, the hunters were savage, the prey was savage – savagery took over the mind.”22 Dave Grossman also sees this as an important issue, but rather than focussing on animalising the target group, he sees perpetrator’s seeing their opponents as subhuman. He writes: “if your propaganda machine can convince your soldiers that their opponents are not really human but are "inferior forms of life,” then their natural resistance to killing their own species will be reduced.”23
The use of denial is a tactic often employed by perpetrators in their interactions with the target groups once the killings have begun. This involves perpetrators denying the genocide as it is underway. This can be a specific and chosen method through which to coerce target groups into cooperating in the lead-up to their own deaths. For example, Calel Perechodnik was a member of the Jewish Ghetto Police in Otwock, Poland. On August 19, 1942 the Nazis planned to deport 8,000 Jews from the town, the Nazis informed Perechodnik and the other Ghetto Police that they should also bring their families to the town square prior to deportation, where they will be separated from the others and, ultimately, freed. The Nazis then proceeded to ignore this earlier promise, made out of the wish for complicity, and deport their families along with the rest of the Jews who had been forced into the square.24 From this we can see that the concept of denial as a ‘tool’ to be utilised by the perpetrators provides them with a method of practical subterfuge that can work in their favour.
21 Editorial, ‘A Cockroach (Inyenzi) Cannot Bring Forth a Butterfly,’ Kangura No. 40, February 1993. 22 Jean Hatzfeld, A Time for Machetes The Rwandan Genocide: The Killers Speak, (Serpent’s Tail: London, 2008), 42.
23 Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, (New York: Back Bay Books, 2009), 161.
24 Calel Perechodnik, Am I a Murderer? Testament of a Jewish Ghetto Policeman, (Colorado: Westview Press, 1996), 32-45.
During genocide, perpetrators often portray the genocide as a case of a civil war – a bipartisan conflict rather than a specifically one-sided conflict – or the responses to an illegitimate uprising. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where a state is likely to concede that they are currently committing genocide – they do not see their actions within this negative category.
Denial was not only present prior to the killing; it was also experienced and propagated after the killings had begun. As Grossman has stated, “the burden of killing is so great that most men try not to admit that they have killed. They deny it to others, and they try to deny it to themselves.”25 Within this phase, the denial is less ideologically based and more focussed within the realms of a psychology as a coping mechanism. Thomas Scheff, writing from a perspective that focuses on the emotional responses to killing, argues that post-killing denial can even lead to more killing, “denial of shame can lead to self-perpetuating loops that generate either complete withdrawal or extreme violence.”26 Scheff sees the inability, or refusal, to psychologically ‘deal’ with the mental burden of killing as an aspect that can lead perpetrators to kill again. Within this guise, denial is a psychological factor that can lead to more killing.
It is arguable that the overarching individual perpetrator denial is the last of the early stages of denial before the killings take place. The processes of perpetration shown above led to the denial of the common humanity of the defined victim group. This removed the last social bond between the perpetrator and victim groups. Within this societal vacuum, the absence of social bonds ensured that there were no common characteristics left between the two groups. This, coupled with another real or perceived crisis in which removal of the victim group is the only ‘cure,’ resulted in a scenario in which individuals committed genocide. The indifference of bystanders could arguably be seen as an active form of genocide denial. By attempting to ‘shut out’ what is happening within their local communities and the wider country, the non-target citizens of a state are allowing the genocide to occur. This is not a geographically limited category, the international community is often a bystander in genocide. Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michal Bilewicz have conducted research on bystanders from a psychological perspective. They have stated that “during genocide,
25 Grossman, On Killing, 91.
26 Thomas J. Scheff, ‘Social-emotional origins of violence: A theory of multiple killing,’ Aggression and Violent
bystanders’ behaviours allow and even encourage perpetrators to commit atrocities, and that perpetrators’ actions significantly affect bystanders’ attitudes toward victims. Bystanders include not only those who are physically present during genocide, but also distant spectators who did not intervene early enough and thereby allowed genocidal acts to occur – such as Americans during the Holocaust or the international community during the genocide in Darfur.”27 A much clearer example of bystander denial is that of the international community during the Rwandan genocide. On 1 May, 1994, a classified discussion paper from the United States Department of Defense warned to “be careful” of classifying the killings in Rwanda as genocide as this “finding could commit the USG [United States Government] to actually ‘do something.’”28 This is clearly a different path of reasoning that leads to international bystander denial in comparison to geographically-proximate denial; here it is likely related to diplomatic and political pressures whereas for local bystanders it may be related to a feeling of helplessness or even acceptance of the genocide.
Should we see Denial as a Central Factor in the Early Stages of Genocide?
It has been demonstrated that denial is a central factor in both the ideology behind genocide and the individual process of perpetration. From the analysis from secondary sources and the information provided in primary sources, we can see that the concept and utilisation of denial was ever present. We should ask ourselves; without denial in these early stages, was genocide possible? The evidence suggests that it was not. However, this does not mean that denial is the predominant factor in genocide; it is equally important as other causes of how individuals and groups commit genocide.
We should not view denial as directly informing the ideology that leads to genocide and mass violence; instead denial should be viewed as an enabling factor that allows the ideology to prosper. Similarly, the psychological denial on behalf of the perpetrators is not a specific aim – it is a mechanism through which they can overcome the natural resistance to killing that is present in the vast majority of humanity. Rather than a distinct and separate
27 Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michal Bilewicz, ‘After the Genocide: Psychological Perspectives on Victim, Bystander, and Perpetrator Groups,’ Journal of Social Issues 69, (March 2013), 7.
28 ‘Discussion Paper, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East/Africa Region, Department of Defense, May 1, 1994.’ Page 1 Located at:
process at this stage, denial is an enabling factor and coping mechanism. It is a central concept, without which advocates of genocidal ideology and perpetrators of violence would not be able to act in accordance with their world view in removing – through mass killing – the target group.
It is important to address any links between the denial present in the ideology and the denial of the ground-level perpetrators. Although it may appear that they are distinct and separate, they combine to provide an over-arching denial of the right of existence of the target group. Furthermore, this denial of existence is presented as an opportunity through which an ideal future state is imagined – the utopia.
The next chapter will take a comparative look at the more traditional concept of denial in the post-killing phase of genocide. It will look at individuals and organisations that have committed resources to perpetuating the argument that a specific case of genocide did not exist for ideological and political reasons. The main thematic continuation from this chapter that involves a link between denial in the early stages of genocide and denial in the post-genocidal phase is that denial is a tool; one to be employed for seemingly practical reasons.
Chapter II: Post-Genocide Denial – A Comparative Perspective on Methods of
Denial
Introduction & Historical Background
The previous chapter introduced the concept of denial as central to both the ideological background and practical implementation of genocide. From this basis, the discussion now moves to how the more traditional concept of denial interacts with the aftermath of genocide – denial has been referred to as the last stage of genocide. Specifically, the methods of denial will be analysed. For the purposes of this discussion and chapter, denial is defined as a concerted attempt to refute the fact that genocide has taken place. It represents a planned attack that endeavours to diminish the suffering of the target group and absolve the perpetrators who are often portrayed as victims. Genocide denial at this stage is more concerned with the modern era, denial is a too used to achieve goals and promote ideas in the present.
With regards to sources, there are a great deal of published books and articles that are useful for looking at genocide denial often published by the deniers themselves. Furthermore, the internet offers a platform that is ideal for deniers: it is an almost global and easily accessible method through which individuals have relative free reign to publish, anonymously or not, anything. Despite the fact that none of the genocides discussed below occurred in English speaking countries, a great deal of literature is published in English; presumably this is so that the material can reach the largest possible audience.
In 2012 Israel Charny, a founder of The Institute on The Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, built upon a previous article in which he had developed a framework that classifies the various types of denial. Within this updated framework, there are eleven specific ‘classifications of denial’:29
1. Malevolent bigotry
2. False charges of a victim people as the perpetrators of a genocidal event 3. Denials of genocidal acts by one’s own victim people
4. Denial as a rejection of available evidence of mass murder
5. Denial of co-victim peoples by other victim peoples who died alongside them 6. Self-serving opportunism
7. ‘Innocent denials’ which maintain views of oneself/society as just
8. ‘Definitionalism’ or insistence of defining cases of mass murders as not genocide 9. Nationalistic hubris that justifies the exclusion of others
10. Human shallowness – the dulling and depletion of a sense of moral outrage 11. Denial as license to say anything that suits the emotional/ideological/political
motives of the denier30
This framework will be utilised in the comparative discussions of genocide denial. One of the key question concerns whether or not different classifications correlate with different backdrops and methods of propagating genocide denial?
29 Israel W. Charny, ‘A classification of denials of the Holocaust and other genocides,’ Journal of Genocide
Research, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2003), 11-34.
30 Israel Charny, ‘A classification of denials of the Holocaust and Other Genocides - Updated 2012,’ Genocide
Prevention Now, Vol. 12 (2012) located at
http://www.genocidepreventionnow.org/Home/WORLDGENOCIDESITUATIONROOMWGSR/CoverupandDenial/ tabid/79/ctl/DisplayArticle/mid/1161/aid/655/Default.aspx.
The study of genocide denial is lacking comparative perspectives; typically genocide denial is assessed on a case-by-case basis. A comparative perspective aids us in our understanding of genocide denial by providing a methodological basis from which we can highlight key points of denial. When comparing cases of genocide denial, the differences and similarities of each case are more pronounced than they are if studied in isolation. Furthermore, it allows us to discover whether or not there is a specific pattern to genocide denial. With this knowledge it is easier to predict and engage with the issue of genocidal denial. Charny argues that “there is an urgent need for a concerted battle against denials which will penetrate the inner mind-structures and propaganda techniques of the deniers so as to combat their explicit and implicit strategies more effectively.”31 He goes on to argue that Coping with denial requires that one plan interventions and policies on the basis of understanding the specific mind constructions and dynamics of argumentations and language that one needs to overcome. Deeper understanding of the many different faces of denials of Holocaust and genocide is a necessary basis for formulating more effective campaigns for responding to the various revisionists.”32 It is hoped that this chapter will play some part in the furthering of the ideals that Charny has expressed by expanding on what is currently known about the methods of denial. The two cases of genocide denial that will be analysed in this chapter are denial of the Holocaust and denial of the Armenian genocide. We will look at two specific areas through which denial is propagated; academia and the political realm. These areas have been chosen as they provide fruitful grounds for looking at the different methods of denial. It is important to note that these areas are not mutually exclusive, there is significant thematic and rhetorical overlap between them all and this will be demonstrated. There will be a focus on the academic realm and how denial interacts with it. This is due to the fact that as historians we share this realm along with those who seek to malform it for their own purposes and thus historians may be best equipped to deal with it.
There are apparent differences between the denials of these two historical events. Yair Auron, an Israeli Historian, writes that “unlike the Holocaust, which has been denied by various fringe groups and individuals, the Armenian Genocide has been officially denied by Turkish governments for almost ninety years. Out of political expediency, other governments, including that of the United States and Israel, have aided and abetted Turkey
31 Charny, ‘A classification of denial,’ (2003) 11. 32 Charny, ‘A classification of denial,’ (2003) 28.
in its rewriting of history.”33 This sums up the divide. Undoubtedly, denial of the Armenian genocide is more widely accepted in the political and social spheres whereas denial of the Holocaust is typically openly rejected and derided.
As we will also see with the denial of the Holocaust, the information and ideology offered to justify the actions taken against the Armenians in 1915 is present in the process of developing denial. Nationalism and the closely related desire to protect and promote a newly created state and imagined idea of ‘Turkishness’ is often at the core of denialist ideology and subsequent literature. Taner Akçam, a leading Turkish scholar of the Armenian genocide, succinctly states that, “if the Turks conceive of themselves as a phoenix rising from the Ottoman ashes, the Armenians are the unwelcome traces of those ashes.”34 If we take this perspective, there is a clear incentive for the Turkish state to deny the Armenian genocide. Furthermore, they see the removal of the Armenians at the core of the founding of the modern Turkish state, through the acknowledgement of genocide the state the Turkish state would be tarnished from the outset.
This chapter will trace the origins of ideological framework through which the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust are disputed, and the methods of implementation employed that promulgates this ideology to others. The practical methods through which denial of the Armenian genocide is disseminated are chosen as they present an academic façade. This aura of credibility that surrounds educational institutions and individuals assists in manifesting the Armenian genocide into a topic that can be debated. To provoke further credibility, denialist literature is often intertwined with legitimate lines of enquiry. It is only through a thorough and complete deconstruction and subsequent insight into the methods of denial utilised that we can begin to identify which methods are used and why. Increasing our skills of identification can lead to a proper classification of the different methods of denial and thus improve our ability to counter it.
Reckoning with the Past: Setting the stage for denial
When attempting to understand denial of the Armenian Genocide, it is crucial to keep in mind that the moral-political framework constructed prior to the genocide is still has never
33 Yair Auron, The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide, (London: Transaction Publishers, 2007), 47.
34 Taner Akçam, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, (New York: Metropolitan Books: 2006), 12.
been fully deconstructed; there has been no fundamental recognition or reassessment of the genocide within Turkish public life. Vahakn Dadrian, a Turkish historian of Armenian descent, argues the following; “as a rule, powerful perpetrators who managed to escape prosecution and ensuing retributive justice in the aftermath of the crime cannot be expected to voluntarily concede culpability and admit guilt. Such confessions usually materialise when the perpetrator is almost totally incapacitated and apprehended at the end of a related war and thereby legally held liable.”35 Dadrian puts forward the view that unlike the aftermath of the Holocaust, in which a genocidal regime was defeated and perceived to have been forced to reckon with their past at the hands of the Allied powers and through the International Military Tribunal, there was no such reckoning in Turkey. There were, however, trials of some of the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide. However, the trials were short-lived and lacked the scope required to adequately prosecute a genocidal regime.36 Akçam sees a link between the nationalism that led to the genocide and the lack of a full and proper dealing with the past. “The Allied desire to partition Anatolia and their desire to punish the perpetrators in the name of humanity were so interwoven that the Turkish National Movement perceived the punishment of perpetrators as a blow to national independence.”37 Despite the fact that leading Nazis were tried, The International Military Tribunal that served to provide a legal platform to prosecute Nazi political and military elites did not view the Holocaust as a central issue. Arieh Kochavi, head of the Strochlitz Institute for Holocaust studies, argues that “military, political and geopolitical considerations dictated their priorities.”38 This is effectively political denial. If the centrality and recognition of genocide is not in the best interests of the states involved then it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that they will deal effectively with genocide. Kochavi goes on to say that “the murder of the Jews of Europe never occupied an important place on the agendas of the British and American governments; consequently the punishment of those who had committed these crimes was not very important to them, either.”39 With this in mind, we should reject the
35 Vahakn N. Dadrian, ‘The signal facts surrounding the Armenian genocide and the Turkish denial syndrome,’
Journal of Genocide Research, Vol 5 (June 2003), 269.
36 Vahank N. Dadrian & Taner Akçam, Judgement at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials, (New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), 264 – 265.
37 Akçam, A Shameful Act, 369.
38 Arieh J. Kochavi, ’The Role of Genocide in the Preparations for the Nuremberg Trials,’ in David Bankier & Dan Mitchman, Holocaust and Justice: Representation & Historiography of the Holocaust in Post-War Trials, (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2010), 80.
argument that Dadrian proposes concerning the effect that the International Military Tribunal had on the perception of the Holocaust and subsequent denial. Rather than seeing the Nuremberg trials as crucial in shaping a realisation and acceptance of the Holocaust, those who deny the Holocaust see Nuremberg in a wholly different light. Christopher Stephen, an associate at Volterra Fietta public international law firm, writes that “the Nuremberg [trial] then and now, faced accusations of victor’s justice.”40 The effect of this view is that it serves to subvert the view of those on trial as perpetrators and portrays them as victims. The previous victims are no longer classed as such within this narrative.
Undoubtedly, denial of the Armenian Genocide is principally political. The successive and calculated failure of Turkish governments to deal with the past in a constructive manner results in a version of the past that does not pertain to the evidence. Akçam cites specific historical events and aspects of Turkish public life that have had a practical effect on the perception of the Armenian genocide;
In general, Turkish society is disinclined to consider its past. In the prevailing culture, not only the Armenian genocide but much of Turkey’s recent history is consigned to silence… The Alphabet Reform of 1928, which changed Turkish script from Arabic to Latin letters, served to compound the problem. With the stroke of a pen, the Turkish people lost their connection to written history. Turkey is a society that cannot read its own newspapers, letters, and diaries if they were written before 1928. It has no access to anything that happened prior to that date. As a result, modern Turkey is totally dependent on history as the state has defined and written it. Of course, the state has a stake in how history is represented, certainly when that history touches on its very legitimacy. In this light, it becomes clear why Turkish society has consigned the Armenian genocide to oblivion.41
In terms of the current state of denial, we can see that there are some significant practical barriers that stand in the way of a complete understanding of the past. It is perhaps more useful to see the above as evidence of how a backdrop of cultural denial exists. If there is an entire portion of history that is effectively cut off from the popular memory of the current
40 Christopher Stephen, ‘International Criminal Law: Wielding the Sword of Universal Criminal Justice’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1 (February 2012), 55.
generation, it is not unreasonable to surmise that denial will be present in many forms. However, this fact should not be seen as inducive to many of the current proponents of denial that argue this perspective for ideological and political reasons. For these individuals, the facts and necessary records are available to them – it is methodological failures, ideological and political commitments that lead them to their views.
Arguably the issue with a societal rejection of the Armenian genocide is not found in German attitudes to the Holocaust. Ian Buruma, a Dutch writer that has focussed on the effect of atrocities on the communities that perpetrators came from, writes that “many German intellectuals would nod their heads in agreement [that Auschwitz is part of the German heritage.] Auschwitz is the past that refuses to go away, the dark blot on the national psyche. It is not just a German problem; it is part of Germany itself.”42 Although discussing the specific case of Auschwitz, this is a term that has come to symbolise the Holocaust for many – it is a symbol that embodies more than the camp itself. Furthermore, denial of the Holocaust is a crime in Germany and this is not the case with the Armenian genocide in Turkey.
As it has been demonstrated, and expected, there are pronounced differences between the historical background of the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. Beyond this, there is also a disparity between societal and legal attempts to reckon with state and societal culpability in genocide. Do these two characteristics influence the methods through which genocide denial is adopted relative to these two cases? In one sense, the almost universal recognition of the Holocaust and related topics induce the idea that the Holocaust is unquestionable to general society. This results in Holocaust denial existing within the shadows of general discourse when compared to the Armenian genocide which is often portrayed as a legitimate line of inquiry.
Can Denial be Academic in Nature?
This section is designed to instil the idea that genocide denial can and does exist under a guise of ‘academia.’ Through utilising methods that appear to be academic in nature deniers add an aspect of respectability and trustworthiness to their discourse. Furthermore, it offers the idea that the deniers have adhered to a greater standard of scholarly research,
42 Ian Buruma, The Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan, (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994), 69.
objectivity and analysis than is the case. Richard Evans, a historian who was an expert witness in the libel case between Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving, composed a report that dissected the works of Irving and demonstrated why he was not a historian. Evans’s comments in this report are not useful solely as an explanation for the circumstances in which they were written, they also prove useful when applied to others who refer to themselves as historians or academics in any sense. Evans writes that “Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian’s primary concern, however, is with the past.”43 From this, we can extrapolate the idea that those who purport to be historians, or other academic entities, are ‘ideologues’ who corrupt and subvert what typically makes historical writings effective: debate; and use historical writings greatest strength: objectivity, to put forward a deliberate case of misinformation for ideological reasons.
It is difficult to reconcile with the fact that there are areas that purport to exist within academia that seek to consistently alter the provable history of events. This is perhaps most evident in the cases of genocide denial. As it will be demonstrated, there are individuals and organisations that purport to be part of academia that assist in advocating the case of genocide denial. How do entities that issue work under the façade being an academic entity deny the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust? What methods do they utilise? This section will answer these questions.
The numerous cases of academic denial are a feature that stands out for the Armenian genocide. Books and journals are regularly published and academic conferences are organised that pursue specific lines of enquiry of disputing the Armenian genocide on semantic terms. They do not seek to deny that Armenian’s were killed, but the killings are presented as part of a bipartisan conflict or locally led massacres thus absolving the state of genocidal responsibility. The idea of ‘all sides suffering equally’ as a method to deflect attention away from the targeted crime of genocide is also evident in Holocaust denial. Lipstadt writes that “deniers often portray Allied actions against Germans as equal to – if not
43 Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, Expert Witness Report by Richard J. Evans, Conclusion, Paragraph 10.
worse than – German war crimes. This is one of the reasons they emphasise the bombings of Dresden.”44
Books & Journals
Michael Gunter’s work, Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, is a clear and premeditated attempt to deny the Armenian genocide. Gunter is an American professor of Political Science who has taught international relations in Ankara, Turkey. Gunter begins his book in stating that his argument “proceeds logically and reads well. It does not get bogged down in mind-boggling analyses that are difficult to follow and comprehend and therefore fail to make their case.”45 If we were to read this with a sceptical mind, as historians should, we should infer that Gunter intends to provide only a partial picture of events. In presuming that his audience would be unable to follow the full and complete argument, Gunter intends to selectively present the evidence and analysis he deems important. This is perhaps the most normative of efforts utilised to purport a denialist perspective. It is perhaps the most basic method through which to withhold the true face of a historical narrative; through the presentation of selective facts that wholly support one argument, an author is able to craft a specific version of history that is reflective of the author’s current ideological stance.
There are also more subtle attempts to manipulate public memory and increase receptiveness of the idea that the Armenia people were not the targets of genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. For example, Vartkes Dolabjian has investigated the entries on the Ottoman Empire and how they have changed over time in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.46 Dolabjian sees three distinct issues with entries in this encyclopaedia that concern the Ottoman Empire and the period of history in which the Armenian genocide occurred. These are: the shifting of blame from perpetrator to victim, utilising flawed accounts and evidence and sanitizing the biography of the perpetrators. Overall, Dolabjian finds there is a clear effort to minimise and deny the history of the Armenian people and the Armenian genocide within the volumes of this encyclopaedia.
44 Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2006), 205.
45 Michael M. Gunter, Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), x.
46 Vartkes S. Dolabjian, ‘The Armenian Genocide as portrayed in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica,’ Journal of
Two significant journals utilised by Holocaust deniers published are Inconvenient History IH) and the Journal for Historical Review (JHR).4748 Both are available online, the JHR was published from 1980 – 2002 and IH began publishing in 2009 with the latest issue published in spring 2014.49 Both present the ‘typical’ façade of an academic journal, though articles in the JHR typically lack footnotes whereas this is not the case in the IH. If a sceptical view were taken, it is arguable that the denialist community is learning from the mistakes made in the JHR and is attempting to make the IH appear more scholarly. Indeed, the IH website states that it “seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement.”50 The articles within these journals serve an important role in Holocaust denial. They provide a self-perpetuating mechanism through which further denial is supported. Through constant referencing of other deniers these journals create an interwoven ‘scholarly web’ that provides a safety-in-numbers mechanism. A lone denier can be insignificant, as soon as that one individual has others publishing positive remarks, in what can appear to be academic journals, they are given an air of authority and legitimacy to the untrained eye. One example of this is an article by Jürgen Graf, a convicted Swiss Holocaust denier, in IH about David Irving, a convicted British Holocaust denier. Despite the fact that in this article, David Irving and the “Aktion Reinhardt Camps”, any façade of academic rigor is quickly dismissed. Graf calls Irving a “brilliant author and historian”, “a tireless researcher” and argues that he “impressed the public with his historical knowledge.”51 This method of denial gives Irving’s ideas weight and adds to his status in the ‘revisionist’ community, it also gives the IH credibility within this same community by referring to the most well-known Holocaust denier in the English speaking world. This is the ‘scholarly web’ of denial at work.
As stated, David Irving is a particularly well known Holocaust denier who began his career as a reputable historian. In particular, his book Hitler’s War and the subsequent libel case he took up against Deborah Lipstadt, a historian of the Holocaust who labelled Irving a Holocaust denier, and Penguin, her publisher, helped propel Holocaust denial into public
47 Published by ‘History Behind Bars Press’ 48 Published by the ‘Institute for Historical Review’
49 Inconvenient History archives can be found at: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/index.php and the
Journal for Historical Review archives are located at: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/volumeindex
50 ‘Who We Are,’ accessed 02 May, 2014, http://inconvenienthistory.com/who_we_are/index.php.
51 Jürgen Graf, ‘David Irving and the “Aktion Reinhardt Camps”,’ Inconvenient History, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 2009) located at:
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2009/volume_1/number_2/david_irving_and_the_aktion_reinhardt_c amps.php
consciousness. Irving’s method of Holocaust denial in Hitler’s War is a combination of misinterpretation and misinformation. He presents information in such a way that it appears scholarly in nature when, in fact, as Richard Evans has conclusively shown, it does not stand up to any real academic scrutiny. If we take this perspective, then we must ask why Irving does this. Irving is, as others do, using genocide denial as a tool to further his ideological convictions. Beginning as a reputable historian, Irving no doubt saw the ability of this discipline to advocate a particular perspective convincingly. Once his ideological convictions became of paramount importance, it is logical that he would utilise the methods he is most familiar with to advocate them.
Justin McCarthy is an American historian who denies the Armenian genocide. McCarthy currently teaches at the University of Louisville. We can see evidence of McCarthy’s denialism in typical academic forums such as book reviews. Although clearly not his intention, McCarthy set out the ideological foundations and methods of his denialist attitude to the Armenian genocide in a book review – and subsequent response to criticism of the review, concerning Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide, which he penned for The American Historical Review.52 53 When discussing the methodological issues that could be encountered during an oral history project, McCarthy also stresses the view of the Armenian genocide as a bipartisan conflict. “The methodological problem that the authors do not consider is the inherently biased nature of such interviews. [The interviews involved asking questions of Armenian’s who were alive, and thus very young, at the time of the genocide] Children may remember evils done to their families, but they are unlikely to remember evils done by their families. Indeed, it is unlikely that they would have even been told.” McCarthy is intertwining denial in with legitimate methodological criticisms. It is correct that historians should be wary of bias when interviewing individuals concerning their personal experiences, but for McCarthy this also implicates them – as children of victims – witnesses of the bipartisan conflict he seeks to promote. In his eyes, these witnesses are not only relations of victims but also of perpetrators. This intertwining of typical historical insight with blatant denialism serves to make McCarthy’s work appear impartial when it is anything but. This is the core of academic denial. A response to McCarthy’s review by Joseph A.
52 Donald E. Miller & Lorna Touryan Miller, Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993)
53 Justin McCarthy, ‘Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide (Review)’ The American Historical
