ARMCHAIR ANTISEMITES: A HISTORY OF THE INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW

JAMIE POLESKY

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF HISTORY

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES NORTH BAY, ONTARIO

© Jamie Polesky, April 2015

ii

Abstract

This Major Research Paper (MRP) explores the history of through the

US denial organization, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR). It examines from where denial emerged, how the institute formed in the , and the individual motivations that encouraged IHR members to join the institute. It also comments on how Middle Eastern anti-Zionists have embraced the IHR’s ideas and methods. Using the IHR as an example, this

MRP uses a social profile examining key members’ dates of birth, countries of birth, occupation, education, and political affiliations in order to compare and contrast their social backgrounds. The profile also provides insight into the discussion of denier motivation.

Ultimately this paper argues that while situated in the US, the IHR represents a culmination of a history of and Holocaust denial that began in Europe, and is now moving to receptive Middle Eastern audiences.

iii

Acknowledgments

I owe thanks to many people who have provided assistance throughout this project’s duration. First, I want to thank my family for their endless love and encouragement. I would also like to thank Nipissing University, the graduate studies department, and the history department for providing the tools necessary to complete this project. Thank you to my classmates for the constant support during the school year, particularly Rachel Loewen and

Peter Brath. I also want to thank Rory Currie for reading several drafts and providing very helpful suggestions. I am very grateful for the insightful comments from and . I appreciate that they took the time to respond to my e-mails. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Stephen Connor who spent a great deal of time with the final revisions and really helped focus my paper. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Hilary Earl for the countless hours spent helping turn this paper into something of which to be proud. Without her constant support I would not have made it this far and I owe my success to her.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Introduction ...... 1

Organizational History of the IHR...... 5

A Note on Sources ...... 9

Literature Review ...... 10

Debating Deniers ...... 14

Origins of Modern Western Antisemitism ...... 16

Nazis and Holocaust Deniers ...... 17

French Antisemitism ...... 18

Origins of Holocaust Denial ...... 20

The Rise of the IHR ...... 23

The IHR as an American Institution ...... 25

David Irving vs. and ...... 29

Middle Eastern Denial ...... 33

Holocaust Denial, Free Speech, and the IHR ...... 34

Who are the producers of denial and why do they matter? …...... 35 i. Social Profile ...... 37 ii. Education ...... 38

What Motivates Deniers? i. Opportunism ...... 41 ii. Search for Acceptance ...... 47 iii. True Believers and Antisemitism ...... 49 iv. Germanophilia ...... 52

“The Written Matter and the Spoken Word” ...... 58

Conclusion: The Collective Why and Why this Matters? ...... 59

Bibliography ...... 64 v 1 Introduction

In 2006 Holocaust deniers from around the world gathered in Tehran, at the

“International Conference to Review the Global Vision of ,” or what commentators referred to as the “Holocaust denial conference.”1 According to Iranian Foreign

Minister Manouchehr Mottaki the conference convened “to provide an appropriate scientific atmosphere for scholars to offer their opinions in freedom about an historical issue.”2 Sixty- seven people from 30 countries including the United States, Canada, Germany, and France presented papers, lectures and speeches in which they discussed the “supposed gas chambers” and the “alleged .”3 Collectively, their views reflected then-Iranian president

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s contention that it is a “myth” that systematically killed six million , and furthermore, that Israeli leaders utilized the Holocaust to justify a “fake regime.”4 Although governments and the media in several countries lambasted the conference, describing it as a “disgrace” and an “affront to the entire civilized world[,]” the ideas presented at the conference were neither original nor surprising.5 Middle Eastern anti-Zionists countries, as in those opposed to a Jewish homeland, adopted Holocaust denial as another weapon against

Israel and a means to challenge the state’s legitimacy. Ahmadinejad and his ilk believe that both delegitimizes and justifies attacks against it. To Ahmadinejad, no Holocaust means no Israel. As such, for Israel and many Jews, Holocaust denial represents an existential crisis. Jewish existence in the Middle East is threatened when powerful people adopt Holocaust denial as a tool to delegitimize Israel.

1 “Iran Hosts Anti-Semitic Hatefest in Tehran: About the Conference,” Anti Defamation League (ADL), (December 14, 2006). http://archive.adl.org/main_international_affairs/iran_holocaust_conference.html#.VC6kl75N3zI. (Accessed October 6, 2014). 2 Robert Tait, “Holocaust deniers gather in Iran for ‘scientific’ conference,” , (December 12, 2006). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/12/iran.israel. (Accessed October 7, 2014). 3 Ibid. 4 “Iran Hosts Anti-Semitic Hatefest in Tehran,” ADL. 5 Ali Akbar Dareini, “Iran President: Israel Will Be Wiped Out,” The Washington Post, (December 12, 2006). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200504.html. (Accessed October 6, 2014).

2 Although the conference took place in Iran, people from around the world attended, including members from the American Holocaust denial organization the Institute for Historical

Review (IHR). The three IHR members in attendance were ex-French literature professor

Robert Faurisson, British author , and Frederick Töben, founder of the Holocaust denial organization the . Their attendance is not surprising. Ahmadinejad and other Middle Eastern deniers began consulting with IHR members and referencing IHR material as early as the 1980s, but more so in the late 1990s and early 2000s.6 As such, the Tehran conference was a reflection of how Middle Eastern deniers adopted the so-called “scientific” approach to studying the Holocaust.7 More importantly, it reflected the IHR’s seemingly academic approach to denial. While Middle Eastern Holocaust denial is greatly based on the response to the political conflict between Israel and Palestine, the IHR’s style of seemingly academic denial emerges from a completely different context. In Europe and the United States, a group of deniers exists, including those in the IHR who, unlike those in the Middle East, are without influence in politics or media. These men, there are few active female deniers, wear cardigans and ties and sit with the like-minded, sharing work that does not, on cursory examination, immediately appear racist but rather academic.8 In fact, they attempt to disguise their denial in articles, papers, and books, complete with footnotes and bibliographies. In these works, they claim there are discrepancies in how have investigated and written about the Holocaust. In lieu of holding positions of power to rally followers to deny the Holocaust or

6 Robert S. Wistrich, Holocaust Denial: The Politics of Perfidy, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 23discusses how Arabs translated Faurisson and Garaudy’s books. Also see Meir Litvak Esther Webman, From Empathy to Denial: Arab Responses to the Holocaust, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 180. They discuss events such as Ahmadinejad’s 2006 conference, and how Arab intellectuals such as Issa Nakhel, head of the Palestine Arab Delegation, have embraced tools of Western Holocaust denial. 7 Robert Tait, “Holocaust deniers gather in Iran for ‘scientific’ conference.” 8 Of course this does not mean that there are not any female deniers. There could be many but they are not as public with their denial as are the IHR’s members. Two examples of notable female deniers are Ernst Zündel’s wife, Ingrid Rimland, and Carolyn Yeager, who runs the white supremacist blog carolynyeager.net, which is also home to her radio show “Heretic’s Hour.” For an example of their beliefs see Ingrid Rimland, The Wanderers: The Saga of Three Women Who Survived, (St. Louis: Concordia Pub House, 1977) and Carolyn Yeager, “Carolyn Yeager: Writings, Podcasts, Views,” carolynyeager. http://carolynyeager.net/welcome. (Accessed August 13, 2014).

3 to change the historical record, they attend private conferences and present speeches focused on topics such as “The mechanics of gassing” as if there were some academic utility to such a discussion.9

This Major Research Paper (MRP) explores the history of Holocaust denial as represented by a single group, the IHR, and its development in the Western world with particular attention to the United States. While exploring the history of the IHR, the MRP engages questions about its formation, including how and why it was formed and who was involved in its creation. Moreover, the paper explores denier motivation and examines various factors that encouraged IHR members to join the institute and why they deny the Holocaust.

This paper also engages questions including what kind of person might be attracted to this organization, and to what end they disseminate their material. What they wish to gain from their denial and their participation in the IHR is also addressed. Western denial derived from a

European tradition of antisemitism whereas Middle Eastern antisemitism is the direct result of political conflict and religious difference. In the Middle East, antisemitism and anti-Zionism are the result of the war between Israel and Palestine and as Gilbert Archar notes, Holocaust denial is a “weapon in the struggle” against Israel.10 During the Tehran conference, the motivations and desires of Middle Eastern states and Western deniers overlapped and found mutual benefit.

Overall, the conference illustrated a possible outcome of Holocaust denial. While Western denial and antisemitism seem unthreatening, the conference illustrates that seemingly harmless, although antisemitic, ideas can be powerful. This MRP focuses almost exclusively on the IHR and its Western antisemitic legacy while exploring the individuals who are responsible for the creation and perpetuation of the institute and its antisemitic ideas. Ultimately the paper argues that while situated in the United States, the IHR emerged from a Western denial movement and

9 , “The Mechanics of Gassing,” The Journal of Historical Review 1, no. 1, (Spring, 1980): 23. 10 Gilbert Archar, “Assessing Holocaust Denial in Western and Arab Contexts,” Journal of Palestine Studies 41, no.1 (Autumn, 2011): 92.

4 recently gained an audience in Middle Eastern countries opposed to Israel. These two types of denial emerged from different traditions.

One cannot discuss the history of Holocaust denial and the IHR without discussing antisemitism. Holocaust denial is another form of antisemitism, therefore, the history of the IHR and denial intersects with the of antisemitism. Antisemitism is the hatred and against Jewish people based on the belief that they are intrinsically different and inferior to other “races.”11 That is not to be confused with anti-, which is based on a religious hatred toward Jews rooted in biblical animosity. Anti-Judaism is faith based, whereas antisemitism is based on a notion that Jews are fundamentally distinctive based on their biological makeup.12 While antisemitism is important to understanding Western denier motivation, anti-Zionism is the main contributor to Middle Eastern denial. Many Middle

Easterners opposed the notion that Jews are destined to return to their homeland in what is now

Israel.13 Anti-Zionism is key to understanding Middle Eastern motivations for denial. However, according to Archar, for Western Holocaust deniers whose beliefs are entrenched in antisemitism, Zionism “often serves as a code name for Jews.”14 Overall, although the language may seem similar, the contexts from which the two types of denial emerged are different.

In understanding antisemitism one must understand that it is time and place specific.

Shulamit Volkov illustrates this in her reflection on antisemitism in imperial Germany.15 She argues that in pre-Nazi Germany antisemitism was part of a “cultural code.”16 It was an opportune symbol that was “mainly verbal and of little practical importance in deciding more

11 Donald L. Niewyk, “Solving the ‘Jewish Problem’: Continuity and Change in German Antisemitism, 1871- 1945,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 35, no. 1, (1990): 337. 12 Ibid. 13 Gilbert Archar, “Assessing Holocaust Denial in Western and Arab Contexts,” 85. 14 Ibid. 15 Shulamit Volkov, “Antisemitism as a Cultural Code: Reflections on the History and Historiography of Antisemitism in Imperial Germany,” The LBI Year Book 23, no. 1, (1978): 25-46. 16 Ibid., 34.

5 crucial issues of the day….”17 It was a “conceptual framework” that was fluid, allowing a simple explanation for different social and economic issues, including immigration or even an individual’s financial issues.18 It was not until the Nazi era that antisemitism became focused.19

Words became action, and ideas were concentrated and turned into legislation. Nazis used similar terms and played upon similar attitudes, yet their antisemitism had an aim: the annihilation of Europe’s Jews.20

Antisemitism was a common symbol that “continued to be circulated with the new social, political and cultural context.”21 It changed forms depending on the particular situation to which it was suited. In terms of the IHR, the institute’s inception and how its members express their antisemitism through denial is also specific to its location in the United States and its members’ needs and beliefs. These needs and beliefs include opportunism, search for acceptance, antisemitism, true belief, and Germanophilia. Exploring the history and the membership of the IHR provides insight into how and why the Western style of Holocaust denial that mimics legitimate academia evolved, and why members elected to participate. As this MRP will illustrate, the IHR’s expression of antisemitism is also time and place specific.

Organizational History of the IHR

Since the IHR’s inception in 1978, its members have worked toward rewriting the historical record. Although they claim to focus on all areas of history, “especially socially- politically relevant aspects of the twentieth-century[,]” they primarily focus on the Holocaust.22

Through conferences, books, pamphlets, and its Journal of Historical Review (JHR, defunct since 2002), the IHR and its members aim to provide a seemingly scholarly interpretation of the

17 Volkov, “Antisemitism as a Cultural Code,” 34. 18 Ibid., 41. 19 Ibid., 28. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 45. 22 Mark Weber, “About the IHR: Our Mission and Record,” Institute for Historical Review, (2014). http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml. (Accessed September 29, 2014).

6 Holocaust in order to counter how historians, or as IHR members say, “exterminationists,” allegedly “distort the historical record for self-serving reasons.”23 Deniers from around the world including David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, , Fred Leuchter, and many others, have participated in the IHR through conferences, selling their written material in the IHR bookstore, and as editors of the JHR before current director Mark Weber cancelled the journal. Many historians still consider the institute one of the leading denier organizations in the world.24

Formed in 1978 on a private Technical campus, the IHR soon purchased an office building in Newport Beach, California where they currently operate.25American far right advocate Willis A. Carto, and his employee, David William McCalden (also known as Lewis

Brandon) founded the institute. Carto, also founder of ultra-right organization in

1958, and McCalden, an Irish immigrant and former National Front member, aimed to differentiate their denial from obvious antisemites and extremist, such as skinheads and neo-

Nazis.26 The institute has one director who oversees the day-to-day activities, as well as the board of directors.27 The board, at one point consisting of 29 members, is responsible for determining major IHR decisions, as well as serving as editors for the JHR.28 It is unclear how one would become an IHR member. It appears as though one must simply publish in the JHR, attend and speak at conferences, or sell goods in the bookstore to be considered a member.29

While there is a governing board, it appears that selection is based more on friendship and

23 Michael Hoffman, “The Psychology and Epistemology of ‘Holocaust’ Newspeak,” Journal of Historical Review 6, no. 4, (Winter, 1985-86): 471. 24 Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), 9. 25 “Institute for Historical Review: Contact,” IHR, (2014). http://www.ihr.org/contact. (Accessed January 28, 2015). 26 Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 137-143. McCalden has also used the pseudonyms Sondra Ross, David Berg, Julius Finkelstein, and David Standford. 27 “Extremism in America: Institute for Historical Review,” Anti-Defamation League, 2005. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism _in_America&xpicked=3&item=ihr. (Accessed June 13, 2014). 28 Shermer and Grobman, 44. 29 Ibid., 44.

7 connections. For example, Bradley Smith, current director of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), was only connected to the IHR through his friendship with Mark

Weber. There was no formal job interview, just an invitation to join.30 Currently, due to inner conflict, Weber heads the IHR virtually alone. The conferences, which used to occur annually and host over a dozen speakers, now happen sporadically with only one or two speakers.31

The IHR has experienced financial disasters and several different directors. McCalden lost his position after he proposed an idea to pay fifty thousand dollars to anyone who “could prove that the Nazis operated gas-chambers to exterminate Jews during World War II.”32

Holocaust survivor responded to the offer and subsequently sued and won his case and in 1985 the court ordered the IHR to award the survivor $90, 000.33 This was just one of a few financial setbacks for the IHR. The institute lost another important employee after

Carto was dismissed for allegedly mishandling a $7.5 million donation that Thomas Edison’s grandniece bequeathed to the Legion for Survival of Freedom, a group that Carto also created.34

It was soon discovered that Carto had been mismanaging the funds, from withholding paychecks to embezzling millions for his personal use.35 The IHR members subsequently sued Carto, which resulted in the second major financial setback for the IHR as Carto failed to pay $6.43 million in fines. According to Lipstadt, the IHR was never able to financially recover from the

Carto affair.36 Once the face of the denial movement, the IHR was forced to suspend its journal

30 Mark Oppenheimer, “The Denial Twist, PartII: Meet Mark Weber, self-styled Holocaust-denial academic,” Tablet: A New Read on Jewish Life, (June 24, 2009). http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/7515/the- denial-twist-part-ii. (Accessed July 12, 2014). 31 Shermer and Grobman, 42. The following is Weber’s report about a 2009 conference during which only Weber and Irving spoke: Mark Weber, “Wartime Code-Breaking and an ‘Unknown Holocaust’ Irving, Weber Address Upbeat IHR Meeting,” IHR, (July 25, 2009). http://www.ihr.org/news/july09meeting_report.html. (Accessed January 28, 2015). 32 McCalden in Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 137. 33 Lipstadt, 141. 34 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 45. 35 “The Carto Trials,” ADL, (2005). http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.html. (Accessed October 22, 2013). 36 Lipstadt, 148.

8 from 1993 to 2000.37 They appeared to be on the rise again when they held a conference in

2000, however, they experienced another setback when government authorities prevented a 2001 IHR conference that was to be held in Beirut, Lebanon.38 Since the failed conference Weber has cancelled the JHR, held only a handful of conferences, and runs the IHR primarily through its website.39 However, despite these setbacks, Weber continues to accept donations that pay his alleged $100, 000 annual salary.40

The IRS recognizes the IHR as a “not-for-profit public interest educational enterprise” and the institute is funded mostly through tax-deductible donations.41 Stephen E. Atkins refers to these financial contributors as “fellow travelers” of the denial movement.42 These usually wealthy people provide lumps sums of money but are not directly involved in IHR’s activities, such as Jean Farrell. Since Weber began to head the IHR virtually alone, he has come under fire for his use of these charitable donations.43 Many fellow deniers believe Weber is paying himself too much while not putting enough money into running the IHR.44 This has led to infighting among the IHR members, compelling many to leave the institute.45

In order to explore how and why IHR members joined the institute, it is important to recognize the people involved. Creating a social profile of key IHR members’ backgrounds and exploring how they promote their ideas allows insight into who the IHR members are, how they

37 “The Carto Trials,” ADL. 38 “IHR in Decline,” ADL, (2005). http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.html. (Accessed December 14, 2014). 39 According to the IHR website the institute held its last official conference from June 21-23, 2002 in Irvine, California. “Revisionists Conferences,” Institute for Historical Review. http://www.ihr.org/conference/conferencetoc.html. (Accessed January 28, 2015). 40 , “IHR: Is the Ship Sinking? Background and Effects of a Nine-Year Crisis,” : International and Independent Scientific Historical Research, (last updated 2007). http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/IHRCrisis.html. (Accessed May 21, 2014). 41 Mark Weber, “Donate,” IHR, (2014). http://www.ihr.org/main/support.shtml. (Accessed July 18, 2014). 42 Stephen E. Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, (Westport: Prager, 2009), 3. 43 Robert Faurisson, “Mark Weber must resign from the Institute for Historical Review,” Le Blog Inofficiel, (April 3, 2009). http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.ca/2009/04/ mark-weber-must-resign-from-institute.html. In Rudolf, “IHR: Is the Ship Sinking?” Rudolf analyses of IHR (Weber’s) budget and output, concluding that Weber is mishandling funds. 44 Rudolf, “IHR: Is the Ship Sinking?” 45 Ibid.

9 deny the Holocaust and how they represent an expression of the Western denial movement.

Exploring denier motivation illuminates why IHR members deny the Holocaust and also how and why they have found acceptance from Middle Eastern deniers. Some IHR members are opportunists who use the institute to disseminate their seemingly academic work. Others search for acceptance, which they have found in the IHR and subsequently in other Middle Eastern audiences. Many IHR members are “true believers.”46 They are ideologically motivated, often by an antisemitic worldview. Many IHR members are also Germanophiles and the institute and its denial provides them the chance to illustrate that Germany was not home to “genocidal maniacs.”47 Together, these components illustrate how and why the Holocaust denial movement evolved from a Western tradition, to the IHR, and, finally, to a Middle Eastern phenomenon.

A Note on Sources

Using a denier’s material as a source offers several challenges. The greatest issue is determining truth from lies. Historians have already determined that deniers manipulate evidence when discussing historical events, therefore, it is also likely they are willing to manipulate and falsify information about their own lives. This includes information about their credentials and their rationales behind their denial, or as they say, “revisionism.”48 Discerning denier motivation has shed light on the inconsistencies in the IHR members’ narratives. For example, David Irving, who is an ardent Hitler admirer, provides a detailed memoir on his personal website.49 Similar to many memoirs, the writer will often attempt to cast their actions in a better light and tailor their account to a specific narrative. Irving has structured his memoir in a specific way that appears to mimic Hitler’s . Therefore, it is important to note

46 Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, 3. 47 Ernst Zündel in Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. Directed by , (Lions Gate Films, 1999). 48 For example, Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, Evans, Lying About Hitler, and Shermer and Grobman, Denying History. For a denier’s inaccurate use of the word “revisionism” see: Arthur R. Butz, “A Brief Introduction to Holocaust Revisionism,” The Institute for Historical Review 11, no. 2, (Summer 1991): 252. 49 David Irving, Autobiography Draft, (London: Focal Point Publications, July 29, 2007). http://www.fpp.co.uk/ books/bio/ index.html. (Accessed January 27, 2014).

10 that this can result in multiple narratives. If he says, for example, that he spent a childhood in poverty, one must question whether or not this was true, or if he is manipulating his own past to conform to the image he wants to perpetuate.50 Overall, when reading direct quotes from deniers and IHR members, it is crucial to realize that they often construct their own narratives. While the direct quotes used in this paper have been subjected to scrutiny and fact checking, it is still essential to remember that the members of the group explored in this study are apt to provide inconsistent and false information in their writing, whether discussing historical events or their personal lives. Despite such inconsistencies, this MRP has been crafted tirelessly in an effort to ensure the information is as accurate as possible.

Literature Review

Historians have examined different types of deniers, motivation, historical methodology, and refuted denier claims.51 Some of the earliest studies include Gill Seidel The Holocaust

Denial (1986), Shelley Shapiro in Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the (1990), Kenneth S. Stern in Holocaust Denial (1993), and Pierre Vidal-

Naquet’s Assassins of Memory (1993). These historians explore the origins of denial, generally arguing that the movement was a culmination of centuries of antisemitism.52

50 Irving, “Pure Math,” in Autobiography Draft, 103. 51 Several resources exist for refuting deniers. For example, the is a website dedicated to Holocaust education and providing information to refute denier claims. See “The Nizkor Project,” Holocaust Education Resources, (1991-2012). http://www.nizkor.org. (Accessed January 29, 2014). The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) also provides resources to combat denial. See “Holocaust Denial and Distortion,” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. http://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and- distortion. (Accessed January 27, 2014). Also, Jonathan Harrison, et al, provide a detailed refutation of three deniers and their work in “Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: Holocaust Denial and : A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf, and Kues,” Holocaust Controversiesblog, (December 24, 2012). http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ca/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust.html. (Accessed November 7, 2014). 52 Gill Seidel, The Holocaust Denial:Antisemitism, and the New Right, (Hanover: Leeds, 1986), xxii. Shelly Shapior, Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report, (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundsation, 1990), offers a collection of essays that ultimately aims to discredit the Leuchter Report while also focusing on other deniers including Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, and David Irving. Pierre Vidal- Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust (European Perspectives: A Series on Social Though and Cultural Criticism), (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). The collection of essays are a response to academic deniers such as French denier Robert Faurisson while taking a similar stance to Lipstadt in arguing that deniers do not represent the “other side” of the Holocaust “story.” Also see Kenneth S. Stern,

11 As for motivation, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman provide one of the most detailed analyses in Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say

It?53 They interviewed deniers in an attempt to assess the “psychology of extremism.”54 Overall, they argue deniers are motivated by conspiracy theories and antisemitism. They believe when examining denier motivation it is more important to focus on a denier’s worldview, rather than their ideas about the Holocaust.55 As they state, “Insight into the psychology of believers is to be found in the universals of extremist beliefs systems, not in the details of the claims themselves.”56 They believe deniers, because they are extremists, will whole-heartedly support their ideas, even if they are confronted with irrefutable evidence that their ideas are incorrect.57

Their study illustrates that there is more to Vidal-Naquet’s 1993 assertion that deniers are “an extreme right wing that see [themselves] as an heir to and dreams of its rehabilitation.”58

As this MRP illustrates, there are several reasons why someone would join the movement to deny the Holocaust, beyond Nazism and antisemitism. Some of these reasons include opportunism, a search for acceptance, and Germaophilia.

Perhaps the most influential to discuss this topic is Deborah Lipstadt. Her 1993 book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory argues that although deniers are a minority they have the potential to grow into a more threatening group that may gain influence in the public domain.59 Focusing on European and North American denial,

Lipstadt is particularly attentive to deniers such as those in the IHR who attempted to disguise

Holocaust Denial, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993). He argues that deniers should be taken seriously in fear that they would gain power as their antisemitic beliefs would grow stronger and spread, 11. 53 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History. Also see Katherine A. Parker, “A Chapter from “Holocaust Denial, Three Canadian Case Studies: Ernst Zündel, Jim Keegstra, and Malcolm Ross,” Thesis Writers Seminar, Nipissing University, (November 16, 1990), in which she explores Canadian denier Jim Keegstra’s motivation. She argues that he was religiously motivated and wished to eradicate Judaism in order to establish the “Kingship of Christ in Society,” 5. 54 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 88. 55 Ibid., 89. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory, 90. 59 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, xiii.

12 their antisemitism under a scholarly appearance.60 Lipstadt’s monograph became the topic of a

2000 libel trial in which British author of 35 books, David Irving, sued Lipstadt for libel over the critique presented in her publication. In Denying the Holocaust she called him “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial” and accused him of manipulating evidence

“until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.”61 Irving subsequently sued her for libel which led to a highly publicized trial. In this case, Lipstadt, under British libel law, needed to prove that what she said was true. The trial rested on historical evidence and several expert witnesses including historians Richard J. Evans, Christopher Browning, and

Robert Jan van Pelt offered evidence against Irving’s claims. The evidence identified errors in

Irving’s “historical” work, including the manipulation of evidence in order for it to conform to his thesis that Hitler did not know about the murder of European Jewry.62 In the end, Judge

Charles Grey determined that Irving was in fact racist and antisemitic.63 According to the judgment Irving deliberately “misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him” and it was “incontrovertible… [that] Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier.”64 The trial was a turning point. While historians viewed the trial as a victory, they understood that they could no longer ignore deniers. Denial was obviously an attack on the memory of the Holocaust, but they realized that it also threatened history as a profession.

The trial forced historians to realize that history as a memory and profession was at risk when it came to Holocaust deniers such as those associated with the IHR. They recognized that if deniers such as Irving, or IHR founders Carto and McCalden, could be considered historians simply by publishing, they could work to distort historical memory. When the last survivor dies, there will only be historians left to disseminate information about the Holocaust. If deniers

60 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 2. 61 Ibid., 181. 62 For a full report of the trial and evidence see Richard J. Evans, Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David , (New York: Basic Books, 2001). 63 Ibid., 227. 64 Judge Charles Grey quoted in Ibid., 227.

13 could be considered legitimate historians then they would have the opportunity to manipulate the historical record.65 As such, several historians including Evans, van Pelt, and Shermer and

Grobman set out to define what constitutes proper historical methodology.66 Most notably,

Evans and Robert Eaglestone debated the merits of postmodernism. Evans, who argued that deniers were motivated by “a strange mixture of prejudice and bitter personal experience,” stated that the postmodernist assertion that texts have no fixed meaning encouraged denial.67

Without guidelines for evaluating sources, deniers had more freedom to strategically misinterpret and manipulate evidence. Eaglestone disagreed. He argued, “postmodernism excludes denial as a reasonable debate” because the methodology mandates that a writer’s background and personal beliefs are key to how they write history.68 Therefore, if an antisemite writes an “historical” piece, it is automatically discounted as history because their bias would be too overwhelming no matter how hard they tried to be objective.69

Shermer and Grobman also contribute to the methodology discussion.70 They explain the study of history as “a convergence of independent lines of evidence, all pointing to the same conclusion.”71 Deniers tend to use what the authors refer to as “snapshot fallacy” in which they base their conclusions on one piece of evidence taken out of its historical context.72 Therefore, deniers do not heed accurate historical methodology. Legitimate historians should not disregard evidence simply because it does not support their conclusions. In fact, they should include it.73

While debates still exist among historians, they agree that deniers do not follow proper

65 Evans, Lying About Hitler, 265. 66 Ibid., , The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the David Irving Trial, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), Shermer and Grobman, Denying History. 67 Evans, Lying About Hitler, 1. Evans made this assertion in In Defense of History, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1999), 89. Robert Eaglestone, Postmodernism and Holocaust Denial, (London: Icon Books, 2001), 18. 68 Quote from Eaglestone, 18. Methodolgy and personal beliefs, Eaglestone, 60. 69 Ibid. 70 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 19-35. 71 Ibid., 236. 72 Ibid., 97. 73 Ibid.

14 methodology. Deniers deliberately manipulate evidence in order to meet their ideological ends.

As for Irving, Evans determined he was a “politically motivated liar who does not merit the title or reputation of a historian[,]” an assertion with which most historians agree.74

Debating Deniers

The trial also inspired historians to renew a discussion about responding to deniers.

Since historians began studying Holocaust denial, most notably Lipstadt’s Denying the

Holocaust, a debate arose whether they should engage deniers directly.75 Lipstadt argues that although deniers are dangerous and encourage antisemitism, the best way to combat their work is to ignore them. She contends that engaging them lends legitimacy to their side of the

Holocaust “debate.”76 To Lipstadt, deniers, including the members of the IHR, are not part of

Holocaust historiography. Historians must continue to write about the history of the Holocaust and the “Final Solution” so their information is available to the public. To Lipstadt, this combats deniers more successfully than engaging directly with them.77

Not all historians agree with Lipstadt’s approach. Some question whether they should ignore deniers or should historians directly engage with deniers as Shermer and Grobman. They appeared on The Phil Donahue Show where Shermer debated deniers and former IHR members

David Cole and Bradley Smith.78 Others, such as Evans, believe that it is important to have

74 Evans, Lying About Hitler, 34. 75 See Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, Evans, Lying About Hitler, and Shermer and Grobman Denying the Holocaust for examples of what historians believe is the best way to approach deniers. 76 Lipstadt, 22. Legitimate historians do not question whether or not the “Final Solution” occurred. However, they debate certain aspects such as the extent to which Hitler was involved in the decision making process and whether or not the destruction process was planned from the beginning of the war (known as the intentionalist-functionalist debate). See Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975), for an intentionalist view. For a functionalist interpretation see Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy Toward German Jews, 1933-1939, (Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1990), and for a synthesis of the two approaches see , The “Hitler Myth”: Image and Reality in the Third Reich, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). Many have questioned the number six million wondering if it was slightly more or slightly less, and some historians debate whether perpetrators were unique to Germany. See Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the ‘Final Solution’ in , (New York: Harper Perennial, 1992). 77 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 221. 78 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 109.

15 proper historical interpretations of the Holocaust and World War II available for readers to combat denialist views. Evans initially believed that Holocaust deniers were not powerful enough to change the historical record and, therefore, historians should not engage with their work.79 However, in the wake of the trial, Evans realized deniers are dangerous. First, denial is offensive to the millions who suffered under Hitler’s regime. Second, and more important to

Evans, is his concern that at risk is “the very creation of historical knowledge from the remains that the past has left behind.”80 While he believes directly debating deniers is not helpful, he asserts that historians must fight denial through accurate historical research.

While this debate remains unresolved, there is a consensus that deniers represent a danger to historical memory and are an insult to the Jewish community and to history as a profession. In 1985 in Denying the Holocaust Yisrael Gutman asked, “are we dealing here with merely a passing phenomenon, a transient, ugly wave that may be regarded as a sort of by- product of the 'Final Solution,' or are we faced with an anti-Semitic trend that may have a future, in which case we shall have to confront it?”81 Holocaust denial’s future in the United States is unclear.82 However, it is clear that since Gutman’s 1985 assertion, denial is not “merely a passing phenomenon.”83 In fact, as this paper illustrates, while deniers such as Irving and those in the IHR are dangerous to memory and encourage antisemitism, Middle Eastern deniers have latched onto their work, adding it to their arsenal that poses an existential threat to Jews and

Israelis. This paper demonstrates that IHR members are much more dangerous than the threat to

79 Architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, is similar to Evans’ study as he was also a witness for the defense. While focusing on historical methodology, van Pelt uses architectural evidence to illustrate how gas chambers functioned, concluding that convincing evidence exists to illustrate gas chambers were a reality. 80 Evans, Lying About Hitler, 197. 81 Yisrael Gutman, Denying the Holocaust, (Jerusalem: Graph-Press, Ltd., 1985), 9. 82 See Scott Darnell, “Measuring Holocaust Denial in the United States,” Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Spring, (2010) for an assessment of rates of the rise of Holocaust denial in the United States. Using mostly right- wing and denier websites including Irving’s, Darnell explores how antisemitism is on the rise in the United States. Darnell examines how technology has allowed for easy dissemination of denier material, including the ability to avoid laws against denial. He concludes that Holocaust denial is growing around the world. Based on this work, it may be possible to conclude that Holocaust denial has a future in the United States. However, this MRP will focus on how denial is growing in the Middle East with Western deniers’ help. 83 Gutman, 9.

16 memory and professional history. Motivated by antisemitism, opportunism, a search for acceptance, ideologies, and Germanophilia, deniers turned to the IHR. Then, to expand their audiences and meet their antisemitic ends they looked to receptive Middle Eastern audiences. In sharing their denial technique with anti-Israel Middle Easterners, IHR members provide the tools for people such as Ahmadinejad to turn denial into a weapon against Israel in order to

“wipe out... the Zionist regime, from the forehead of humanity.”84 Regarding the IHR’s relationship with the Middle East, there is more credence to van Pelt’s assertion that

“Academics who choose to ignore Holocaust deniers are like the crew of the Titanic straightening the deck chairs while the ship is going down.”85

Origins of Modern Western Antisemitism

While a clear relationship exists between Middle Eastern and Western desires, the two movements developed from different contexts. For Western denial and the IHR, the is crucial to understanding how the institute’s seemingly academic technique developed. While attitudes toward Jews change based on context, the antisemitism exhibited by

IHR members is rooted in eighteenth and nineteenth century European nationalist-intellectual movements. Enlightenment theories encouraged scientific explanations for issues that were once explained with religion, including the “.”86 Secularization and the rise of science led to ideas such as , a theory that held that humans are biologically divided into several different “races” that struggle for survival against one another, with the strongest race emerging on top.87 Although social Darwinist supporters still maintain traditional Jewish

84 in Rick Gladstone, “Iran’s President Calls Israel ‘an Insult to Humankind’,” , (August 17, 2012). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/middleeast/in-iran-ahmadinejad-calls- israel-insult-to-humankind.html?_r=0. (Accessed November 6, 2014). 85 Robert Jan van Pelt in Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 17. 86 Adam Sutcliffe, “The Enlightenment, French Revolution, Napoleon,” in Antisemitism: A History, Albert S. Lindemann and Richard S. Levy, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 107. 87 Donald L. Niewyk, “Solving the ‘Jewish Problem,’” 337.

17 stereotypes, they add “science,” such as theories, to their antisemitism.88 These theories embrace the notion that Jews pollute pure bloodlines.89 Antisemites combine such beliefs with enduring traditional stereotypes to argue that Jews were purposely “contaminating” the “superior race” in an effort at world domination.90 By the late nineteenth century proponents of declared that Jews were no longer only a religious group, but a biologically inferior race, marking the beginning of the efforts to move beyond faith-based hatred and the narrative of Jews as Christ killers. This meant that Jews were not longer able to convert to

Christianity and assimilate into society. Scientific racism ensured that this was no longer possible. Jews were biologically different and, therefore, simple conversion was not enough.

Such forms the cornerstone of the IHR’s antisemitism. While some members still embrace many of the Christian anti-Judaic stereotypes, their style of Holocaust denial reflects more a secular approach to anti-Jewish attitudes. The IHR members, similar to Enlightenment thinkers, molded ideas about Jews to fit their agendas. For the IHR, that meant Holocaust denial.

Nazis and Holocaust Deniers

While IHR deniers emerged from the Enlightenment antisemitism legacy, some argue

Holocaust denial began with Nazis during World War II.91 Nazis used coded language such as

“liquidation,” “resettlement,” or “Final Solution to the Jewish question” to disguise the and killing process.92 Deniers latched on to this language, claiming it is evidence that there was no overall plan to systematically destroy European Jewry.93 Irving, whose work focuses on exonerating Hitler, went so far as to offer “one thousand U.S. dollars to any person finding a wartime document showing explicitly that knew about the mass

88 Niewyk, “Solving the ‘Jewish Problem,’” 343. 89 Gregory Wegner, “Anti-Semitism and Schooling Under the Third Reich,” (New York: Routledge, 2002), 135. 90 Josh Cohen, “Post-Holocaust Philosophy,” in Dan Stone (ed.), The Historiography of the Holocaust, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004),479. 91 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 50. 92 “Nazi Euphemisms,” Burlington County College. http://staff.bcc.edu/faculty_websites/jalexand/Reading-4-1- and%20Questions--Nazi_Euphemisms.htm. (Accessed July 19, 2014). 93 Lipstadt, 77.

18 liquidation of Western Europe’s Jews.”94 Historians have not found such a document, nor is it likely that one exists at all. Academics are well aware that the “Final Solution,” code for the deliberate and planned murder of all of Europe’s Jews, was executed with mostly verbal rather than written orders.95 However, deniers, existing outside academia, do not build on the existing historiography and point to euphemisms developed during World War II to further claims that the Holocaust did not happen.96 For example, Arthur Butz, associate professor of at , utilizes German documents to claim the “Final

Solution” in “German documents was a program of evacuation, resettlement and deportation of

Jews with the ultimate objective of expulsion from Europe…The legend claims that the motion was mainly for extermination purposes.”97 Deniers such as Butz adopted Nazi euphemisms in an effort to misrepresent the historical record and to claim that Hitler and his Nazis merely wished to resettle Europe’s Jews.98 However, while deniers use this coded language to deny the

Holocaust, their hatred does not necessarily stem from Nazi antisemitism.

French Antisemitism

The seemingly academic version of antisemitism was prominent in France where the first stirrings of what would become modern Holocaust denial surfaced in the early 1950s.99

Unsurprisingly, contemporary denial originated in France, a country that experienced a long history of antisemitism.100 Although France became the first European country to fully

94 Irving, “The International Campaign for Real History,” Focal Point, (1998). http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/ docs/controversies/Reward.html. (Accessed July 31, 2014). 95 Evans, Lying About Hitler, 128. For detailed analysis of the Final Solution and how it was carried out see Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1985), 1028. 96 Robert Jan van Pelt in Morris, Mr. Death. 97 Butz, “A Brief Introduction to Holocaust Revisionism.” Note: “legend” refers to the history of the Final Solution and the Holocaust. 98 Ibid., 252. 99 For example, ’s The Lie of Ulysses: A Glance at the Literature of Concentration Camp Inmates, (Newport Beach: , 1950), offered a critique of life in concentration camps. He condemned how the camps were portrayed and claimed that communists were responsible for any hardships prisoners experienced. These sentiments were the first stirrings that would evolve into denial. 100 Palash Ghosh, “France: A long History of Antisemitism,” International Business Times, (April 2, 2012). http://www.ibtimes.com/france-long-history-anti-semitism-214406. (Accessed August 13, 2014).

19 emancipate Jews as a result of the French Revolution, equality did not follow and antisemitism continued to proliferate.101 While poor treatment of Jewish citizens was not unique as antisemitism was common throughout the Western world, France’s particular historical climate produced important antisemitic notions from Holocaust denial later developed.102

The (1894-1906) reflected the type of modern antisemitism from which the IHR evolved. In this case, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a French Jew, was falsely convicted of providing information to the Germany Embassy in Paris.103 Although France eventually exonerated him, officials hid evidence that would have convicted the real culprit, then charged

Dreyfus with falsifying documents.104 Lengthy court proceedings and numerous trials divided

France politically into two factions known as Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards. One leading

Dreyfusard was famous French write Émile Zola while French journalist, writer, and well know antisemite Édouard Adolphe Drumont headed the anti-Dreyfusards.105 Dreyfus was eventually exonerated and reinstated in the French Army in 1906 yet the scars of the affair cut deep into

French society.106 Some historians argue that French antisemitism was prominent before the incident and that the affair reflected existing French attitudes toward Jews.107 Others such as

Robert F. Burns contend that antisemitic attitudes fluctuated throughout the country’s history and were in fact a “dying movement in France.” However, they note, the affair revitalized

101 I.H. Hersch, “The French Revolution and the Emancipation of Jews,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 19, no. 3, (1907): 540. 102 Jon Henley, “Antisemitism on rise across Europe ‘in worse times since the Nazis’: Experts say attacks go beyond Israel-Palestine conflict as hate crimes strike fear into Jewish communities,” The Guardian, (Thursday August 7, 2014). http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-rise-europe-worst-since-nazis. (Accessed August 13, 2014). 103 Louis Begley, Why the Dreyfus Affair Matters, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), xiii. 104 Ibid. 105 Zola was one of the most influential Dreyfusards, well known for publishing ‘J’accuse,’ which critiqued the French Army and accused it of obstructing justice and antisemitism. Drumont’s most well known written contribution was Les Juifs Contre la Francein which evoked typical antisemitic stereotypes as he discussed France’s Jews. His antisemitic stance made him a popular anti-Dreyfusard. For information on the Zola and Dumont see Piers Paul Read, The Dreyfus Affair: The Scandal that Tore France in Two, (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012), 1, 20. 106 Leslie Derfler, The Dreyfus Affair, (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2002), 120. 107 Ibid., 56.

20 antisemitic sentiments.108 Regardless of the extent to which the Dreyfus Affair reflected French antisemitism, a trigger that incited growth in antisemitic attitudes, or both, the incident was an indication of the techniques with which France’s first deniers would use to deny the Holocaust.

Some anti-Dreyfusard leaders were not necessarily flagrant antisemites who perpetuated obvious hate and disdain for Jews. Drumont, for example, was a journalist and writer. He was an academic and a proponent of scientific racism who disseminated his beliefs in scientific books and in the press.109 The leading anti-Dreyfusards offered French deniers a model for their denial technique. French antisemites embraced the method of disguising the antisemitism as legitimate academia and applied it to Holocaust denial. Similar to the French deniers and IHR members, the anti-Dreyfusards implemented a seemingly academic technique to fight out old hatreds in new ways.

Origins of Holocaust Denial

Soon after World War II, the anti-Dreyfusard techniques were reflected in France. The country was home to some of the first modern Holocaust deniers who laid the groundwork for those who would eventually become part of the IHR. These deniers argued that certain elements of Holocaust history were completely misrepresented. From this assertion emerged the three

“pillars” of Holocaust denial, arguments first coined by the “father of Holocaust denial,” Paul

Rassinier. First, Rassinier denied the use of gas chambers. If employed at all, Rassinier argued, gas was used for delousing, not for killing human beings. Second, he contended that the numbers were all wrong and that six million dead was a gross over estimation. Third, Rassinier argued that there was no systemic plan to destroy European Jewry and that anyone who died,

108 Robert F. Byrnes, “Antisemitism in France before the Dreyfus Affair,” Jewish Social Studies 11, no. 1, (January 1949), 49. 109 Richard S. Levy, ed., Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume I, (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLEO, 2005), 191.

21 did so by accident.110 While Rassinier and subsequent generations of Holocaust deniers outwardly appeared academic, their type of denial was really another form of antisemitism passed off as scholarship, utilizing the same antisemitic stereotypes in place for centuries. Jews have been cited as the cause to the world’s problems from the Black Plague to famines to

America’s debt.111 They were accused of infiltrating government and controlling media in an attempt to gain wealth and, since its establishment in 1947, to gain funding for the Jewish state of Israel.112 Deniers, whatever their technique and appearance, co-opted stereotypes as traditional antisemites in an attempt to argue that the “the legend of several million gassed Jews must be a hoax.”113 However, Rassinier and subsequent deniers attempted to distinguish their work from blatant antisemitism. Therefore, they moved away from the emotional and obvious antisemitism that involved clear indications of neo-Nazi ideas. Instead, they implemented an academic veil to disguise any obvious contempt for Jews. Overall, the style that modern

Holocaust deniers used to promote their ideas was a product of the “scientific” racist movement and a reflection of antisemites such as Drumont.114 While IHR members do not necessarily engage in “scientific” racism, they implement the same façade of legitimate academia to disguise any blatant antisemitism.

After the war, the first stirrings of Western Holocaust denial began in France under

French fascist Maurice Bardèche, who began to share his views in 1947, and former French

Socialist, Rassinier, who began writing in 1948.115 This early version was characterized not by

110 French denier Robert Faurisson was the next development in the evolution of the IHR and he directly followed Rassinier’s arguments. In fact, Faurisson wrote more specifically about the three pillars of Holocaust denial. See Faurisson, “The Mechanics of Gassing,” The Journal of Historical Review 1, no. 1, (Spring 1980). Three pillars of Holocaust denial, see Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 58. 111 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 37. 112 Ibid., 38. 113 Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Execution of European Jewry, (Chicago: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 1976), 20. 114 Louis Begley, Why the Dreyfus Affair Matters, xxiii. 115 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 51. Rassinier is unique in that he was a prisoner at Buchenwald concentration camp. He criticized survivor accounts of camp life, claiming that many fabricated their accounts. While a leftist, his assertions about camp life and gas chambers set the stage for future Holocaust deniers.

22 outright denying the Holocaust but justifying Nazi attacks against Jews, claiming they provoked

Nazi actions, as “the Enemy of the People.”116 These first deniers not only claimed witness accounts of life in Nazi camps were fabricated but that the Jews were in charge of the camps and responsible for any mistreatment.117 If these deniers could paint the Jewish population as aggressors, then they not only justified Nazi persecution, they also legitimized National

Socialism. Rassinier’s political stance represented an exception to the heavily right oriented deniers.118 Many deniers emerge from the far right. For these early deniers, proving the

Holocaust did not happen would legitimize the National Socialist image that was delegitimized after Germany’s defeat in World War II.

While extremists were receptive to Rassinier’s ideas in the 1950s and 1960s, such notions were quickly dismissed as “ravings [of] the lunatic fringe” already susceptible to antisemitism.119 However, the 1970s saw a shift in denial techniques when several deniers such as Rassinier altered their tactics by claiming that the “Zionist establishment” fabricated the story of gas chambers and perpetuated the “ myth.”120 They rebranded themselves as engaging in revisionism, thus co-opting the name of a legitimate academic enterprise of critically re-interpreting evidence to arrive at new conclusions. However, unlike legitimate revisionists, Holocaust deniers manipulated evidence to completely alter the historical record.

116 Peter Vogelsang and Brian Larsen, “Holocaust denial: Historical Review,” The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. http://www.holocaust-education.dk/eftertid/holocaustbaegtelseh.asp. (Accessed August 1, 2014). Bardèche in George F. Held, “Maurice Bardèche’s Vision of the Future, Part I,” The , (July 9, 2013). http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/07/maurice-bardeches-vision-of-the-future-part-1/. (Accessed August 1, 2014). 117 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 50-52. 118 Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory, explains that while the bulk of deniers are from the extreme right, extreme leftist deniers exist. He cites Swedish sociologist and leftist John Bennett, who Faurisson influenced, as an example. He also refers to a small Marxist libertarian group from Italy who Rassinier inspired, as well as the American liberalist and professor, James Martin as examples of deniers on the extreme left, 44. 119 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 65. Quote from Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: , Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time, (New York: Henry Holt and Publishers, 1997), 190. 120 Lipstadt, 55.

23 German-American English literature professor Austin J. App was one of the first deniers to co-opt the term when he published The Six Million Swindle in 1971, which represented an important turning point in the evolution of modern Holocaust denial.121 His book made eight assertions about the Holocaust that can be divided into three categories of denial that have changed little since the 1970s: First, almost all deniers argue that there were no genocidal intentions.122 The Nazis did not possess the means for mass execution and only wanted mass emigration.123 Second, any Jewish deaths were for justifiable reasons, and third, Jewish leaders, scholars, and Israel supporters perpetuate the “hoax” to gain material wealth and political prominence.124 These categories would come to encompass denier arguments for decades, however, the techniques with which deniers presented their ideas changed. As Holocaust denial manifested in the United States, those who would soon form the IHR began to present their ideas in a way that made their denial less obvious.

The Rise of the IHR

While early deniers did not attempt to hide their antisemitism, a new tactic emerged that presented virtually the same arguments but under the guise of legitimate academic scholarship.

In 1976, Arthur Butz published The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the

Presumed Extermination of European Jewry.125 He not only criticized previous revisionists for claiming that Nazis were not antisemitic but also admitted Jews “suffered cruelly and lost many killed” during the war.126 However, he deviated from historically legitimate arguments in vastly understating Jewish deaths and downplaying the Jewish uniqueness by comparing their suffering to others claiming that “They may have even lost a million dead… [compared to] the

121 Austin J. App, The Six Million Swindle, (Tacoma Park: Boniface Press, 1973). 122 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 99. 123 Lipstadt summarizing App’s assertions, Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. 126 Ibid., 191

24 Germans (and Austrians), who lost 10 million dead….”127 Unlike previous deniers, his work mimicked legitimate scholarship as he used footnotes, primary source evidence, particularly reports from the Red Cross, and a bibliography to argue, “The alleged slaughter of millions of the [sic.] Jews by Germans, during WWII, did not happen[,]” and the Holocaust was a “Zionist hoax” perpetrated in an attempt to gain support for the state of Israel.128 Although his arguments were fundamentally similar to previous deniers, his technique differentiated his work by providing an academic façade, a style quickly adopted by other deniers who followed.

Butz’s academic technique was prominent in the next development, the creation of the

IHR in 1978.129 Carto and McCalden aimed to join the effort to “move denial from the lunatic fringe of racial antisemitic extremism to the realm of academic respectability.”130 Unlike previous deniers, the IHR used Butz’s technique and hid obvious evidence of racism in order to convince moderate deniers and antisemites to support the IHR.131 Without their “aura of research” there would be no veil to disguise their “fanatical expressions of neo-Nazism.”132

From its academic name to its professional sounding Journal for Historical Review, the IHR initially appeared as “an educational research and publishing center that works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past.”133 Founded and based in California, the IHR represents Holocaust denial’s most significant manifestation in the

United States and a movement to portray the Holocaust as a conspiracy to perpetuate Jewish

127 Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 316. 128 Ibid., 368. Butz, “Butz: Revisionists Only Deny One Aspect of Holocaust Story,” rense.com, (August, 2005). http://www.rense.com/general69/butzrevisionists.htm. (Accessed June 17, 2014). 129 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 142. 130 Ibid., 137-143. 131 Ibid., 142. 132 Ibid. 133 Mark Weber, “About the IHR: Our Mission and Record,” Institute for Historical Review, (2014). http://www.ihr.org/main /about.shtml. (Accessed June 1, 2014).

25 power and legitimize the state of Israel, an argument Middle Eastern deniers also find appealing.134

The IHR as an American Institution

While Holocaust denial has its roots in Europe, American manifestations of the movement were partly based on how the Holocaust was remembered in the United States.

Historians such as Peter Novick and Tim Cole explore how the Holocaust entered into American cultural consciousness through means such as memorials and popular culture, and why the

United States co-opted the European event as its own.135 While the Holocaust was a purely

European event, after the war Americans co-opted it into their own national memory.136 This is illustrated through the hundreds of memorials and museums in the US, most notably the United

States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC.137 Hollywood filmmakers also embraced the Holocaust narrative and released over one hundred films in the last fifty years.138

In the US, the Holocaust became one of the most talked about historical events of the twentieth century, while in the last few decades, historical literature including books and articles signaled a boom in Holocaust studies. As such, the history of the “Final Solution,” a European event, became increasingly entrenched in American culture in the form of Holocaust memory. In response, some far right advocates in the US adopted the European fraudulent academic technique to deny the Holocaust as a form of protest against this co-option.

134 Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement. 135 Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin), 1999. Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: from Auschwitz to Schindler; How History is Bought, Packaged, and Sold, (New York: Routledge, 1999). 136 Novick, 207. 137 “United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), Washington D.C. http://www.ushmm.org. (Accessed July 31, 2014). 138 A keyword search of “Holocaust” on International Movie Database (IMBb) returns 680 hits. Most of the films on the list are either about the Holocaust or have Holocaust related themes. “Most Popular “Holocaust” Titles,” International Movie Database. http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?keywords=holocaust. (Accessed September 18, 2014).

26 Novick credits the rise in America’s “Holocaust consciousness” to Jewish community leaders who once encouraged assimilation but turned to the memory of the Holocaust as a way to unite its community.139 Through Jewish involvement in media such as Hollywood films, television, magazines, non-Jewish Americans also became culturally cognizant of the

Holocaust. Cole too addresses the media’s role in America’s Holocaust consciousness but credits this rise in awareness to a search for a national narrative.140 He argues that Holocaust related media such as films, books, and museums, have perpetuated inaccurate conclusions about the historical event, including what he refers to as “myths” of heroic actions of individuals, a good versus evil narrative, and the celebration of the victim. According to Novick,

Americans profited from these narratives through films such as Schindler’s List, the Holocaust

Memorial Museum in Washington, the visitation of historical sites such as Auschwitz, and other sites and monuments dedicated to Holocaust commemoration.141 His study not only highlights how symbolism allowed the Holocaust to exist outside of historical events, but how this purely

European event became an American narrative. This cultural co-option of the Holocaust evolved into an American national memory of an historical event.142 As such, some far right Americans turned to Holocaust denial to protest. If the Holocaust did not happen, then the United States would not spend money on memorials, films, reparations, or Israel. While the denial movement evolved from a European tradition, American Holocaust remembrance was one reason denial manifested in the United States under the IHR. As such, those in the institute would adopt the

139 Novick, The Holocaust in American Life. Norman G. Finkelstein also explores the Holocaust narrative in American culture in TheHolocaustIndustry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, (London: Verso, 2000), 22. 140 Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust, 174. 141 Ibid., 25. Using terms such as “the myth of the Holocaust” or “selling the Holocaust” became fuel for deniers. Historians who critique America’s co-option of the Holocaust into their media and national memory run the risk of denier approval. Deniers have cited both Cole and Novick in an attempt to prove that Americans only participate in Holocaust remembrance as an “expression of Jewish-Zionist power, and is designed to further Jewish-Zionist interests.” Mark Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign?” Institute for Historical Review, (February 2006). http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/holocaust_remembrance.shtml. (Accessed July 29, 2014). 142 Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 207.

27 European seemingly academic style to deny the Holocaust. In doing so, they aimed to delegitimize any US funding to Holocaust remembrance, including funding to Israel.

According to , such remembrance and co-option caused several issues, particularly in the United States’ long-term financial support for Israel. While his main focus rests on how Americans profited from the Holocaust in ways ranging from media to survivor reparations, he also attributes the rise in Jewish American interest in the Holocaust to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.143 He asserts that not only did the war spark memories of Nazi persecution and helped many Jews “find religion,” but also deepened financial and diplomatic relationship between the United States and Israel.144 While the US government remained committed to Israel, some Americans, and all deniers, opposed this financial support.

Finkelstein, while not a Holocaust denier, echoed deniers’ criticism of Israel and how the state utilized the Holocaust as a way to validate its formation. IHR members such as Mark Weber claimed that “pro-Israel Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US and Britain into war in .”145 He stated that “only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and defend its policies.”146 He explained,

“for many years the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.”147 For Weber, this was a dangerous relationship as “Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States [and t]he “Jewish

Lobby” is a decisive factor in US support for Israel.”148 This relationship, Weber and many deniers claimed, is “prodding the United States into new wars against Israel’s enemies.”149 Not only did Weber’s remarks reflect deniers’ opposition to US support for Israel, but also reflected

143 Finkelstein, , 81. 144 Ibid., 22. 145 Mark Weber, “A Straight Look at the ,” Institute for Historical Review, (February, 2009). http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml. (Accessed May 17, 2014). 146 Mark Weber, “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby.” 147 Ibid. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid.

28 the backlash against the cultural co-option of the Holocaust. These anti-Israel sentiments were indicative of the IHR’s danger. Those such as Weber shared their opposition of financial support for Israel with Middle Eastern deniers. Therefore, the IHR’s technique provided scholarly support and subsequent justification for Middle Eastern antisemites who believed Israel should be “wiped off the map.”150

From this context of the American adoption of the Holocaust as their national narrative and subsequent support for Israel, the IHR emerged in 1978. While likely already receptive to antisemitic ideas, Carto and his colleagues propagated Holocaust denial because it both fit with their far right ideologies, including , and also critiqued the co-opting of the

Holocaust as an American event. Many deniers criticized American attention to the European event, particularly through media and memorials, and were particularly harsh when considering what they call “America’s dog-like devotion to the state of Israel.”151 With co-option and financial support for Israel, Holocaust denial found a home in the United States. Those who disagreed with this co-option believed if they could prove the Holocaust did not happen, they would delegitimize memorials, Holocaust related media, halt survivor reparations, and cease funding to Israel. As Weber states, “the ‘Holocaust’ campaign is a major weapon in the Jewish-

Zionist arsenal, that it is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable Israeli policies, and as a powerful tool for blackmailing enormous sums of money from Americans and Europeans.”152 In this way, deniers who “proved” that the Holocaust did not happen challenged US financial support for both Holocaust remembrance and Israel.

150 Ahmadinejad in Meir Litvak Esther Webman, From Empathy to Denial, 368. There was some controversy over the statement as some argued that “wiped off the map” was an incorrect translation. For more information on the translation see Ethan Bronner, “Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel,” The New York Times, (June 11, 2006). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?_r=2&. (Accessed September 19, 2014). 151 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 141. 152 Mark Weber, “No to Censorship! No to Bigotry! An Open Letter to Fourteen Arab Intellectuals,” Institute for Historical Review, (April 10, 2001). http://www.ihr.org/conference/beirutconf/010410mwletter.html. (Accessed October 9, 2014).

29 David Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books

The IHR’s style of academic denial was the centre of attention during the Irving vs.

Lipstadt trial. Irving was a mostly independent publisher, however, he was also active in the

IHR. He presented his research at conferences, sold books in the IHR bookstore, and published in JHR.153 As such, when Lipstadt’s team scrutinized Irving’s research during the 2000 trial, they in turn scrutinized the IHR’s so-called “educational research” approach to the Holocaust.154

As far as their denial technique was concerned, the IHR was also on trial.

Events began in 1996 when Irving first sued Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books.

He accused Lipstadt of libeling him in Denying the Holocaust when she accused Irving of bigotry, Holocaust denial, and deliberately manipulating and falsifying evidence to conform to his predetermined conclusions.155 Under British law, the burden of proof was on Lipstadt and

Penguin to prove that what she said was correct, as opposed to Irving proving that Lipstadt’s claims were false. Lipstadt assembled a legal team that consisted of British-Jewish lawyer

Anthony Julius, British historian Richard J. Evans who spent two years examining Irving’s work, Christopher Browning, an American Holocaust historian, , a German historian, architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt, and political science professor, Hajo Funke of the Free University of Berlin.156 Penguin Books representatives hired libel experts Kevin

Bays and Mark Bateman, as well as who served as the libel barrister for both

Penguin and Lipstadt. Irving decided to represent himself.

The trial, which began in 2000, rested mostly on historical evidence. This included evidence that proved the Holocaust did indeed occur, and intense scrutiny of how Irving used primary source evidence in his work. Van Pelt, Browning, and Longerich were responsible for

153 Irving has published 19 articles in the JHR from 1982 and 2000, see “The Journal of Historical Review” IHR, 1984-2000, http://www.ihr.org/jhr/jhrlisting.html#i. (Accessed January 29, 2015). 154 Mark Weber, “About the IHR: Our Mission and Record.” 155 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 181. 156 Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2006), 41.

30 proving the Holocaust did occur. Van Pelt focused exclusively on gas chambers to refute

Irving’s claims that he does “[not]accept that the gas chambers existed.”157 Using architectural and forensic evidence, van Pelt proved gas chambers were indeed used to murder millions of

Jews in Nazi death camps. Judge Charles Grey agreed that, “no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”158

The next task was to prove that Irving was indeed racist, antisemitic, and was associated with extreme right groups, particularly neo-Nazi organizations. In order to prove this, Lipstadt’s defense team explored Irving’s private life and writing. Irving, who is a self-described “mild fascist,” has not only spoken at Neo-Nazi rallies, but also attempted in 1998 to create his own

National Socialist political party in Britain called “Focus.”159 They found further evidence of his racism and antisemitism in his speeches and personal memoirs. In a snippet from Irving’s speech to a Calgary audience in 1991, he mused that he was “going to form an Association of

Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars…A-S-S-H-O-L-S.”160 In another excerpt, Irving recorded a song he wrote for his daughter:

I am a Baby , Not Jewish or Sectarian, I have no plans to marry, An Ape or Rastafarian161

These are just a few examples of the kind of evidence the defense drew upon to prove Lipstadt’s assertions about Irving’s racism and antisemitism were correct.

157 For the report see Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2002. “Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 20,” , (2000).http://www.hdot.org/en/trial /transcripts/day20.html. (Accessed December 14, 2013). 158 Lipstadt, History on Trial, 274. 159 Irving, “Pure Math,” 118, claims that he was a mild fascist. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 8, 161, discusses Irving’s associations with Neo-Nazi groups and his attempt to start a National Socialist political party. 160 Lipstadt, History on Trial, 84. 161 Irving in ibid., 175.

31 Most important to the discussion of denier and IHR methodologies, the defense aimed to prove that Irving, who is “familiar with historical evidence,” will take “accurate information and

[shape] it to conform his conclusions.”162 This was the focus of Evans’ 740-page report.163

Evans and two of his graduate students thoroughly examined Irving’s speeches and written work in order to illustrate that Irving had been manipulating evidence even before he joined the IHR and continues to do so. Evans and his assistants discovered that Irving selectively used only evidence that supported his ideas and also falsified documents. For example, in Irving’s attempt to prove that homicidal gas chambers did not exist and that there was no plan to systematically murder Europe’s Jews, he quoted Second World War British Intelligence Agent Professor Sir

Harry Hinsley.164 Irving stated that Hinsley’s report indicated “that upon analysis of the daily returns of the Auschwitz concentration camp, it becomes completely plain that nearly all of the deaths…were due to disease... and I am quoting this page, there is no reference whatever to any gassing.”165 He clearly states that he is reading from Hinsley’s primary source report. However, when Evans consulted the evidence, he discovered that Hinsley did not claim most deaths were due to disease. The professor only claimed that decrypted radio messages from Auschwitz did not mention gassings, which Evans notes is unsurprising as it was Nazi policy to use coded language.166 This specific example illustrated that Irving lied about Hinsley’s report and falsified the information until it conformed to his conclusions. This instance is just one example of numerous incidents where Irving misrepresented and/or falsified evidence. In the end, Evans concluded:

Not one of Irving’s books, speeches, or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history,

162 Lipstadt, History on Trial, 181. 163 Evans synthesized these findings in Lying about Hitler. 164 Ibid., 116. 165 Ibid. Emphasis added. 166 Ibid.

32 because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about…. If we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not an historian.167

In the end, Judge Grey determined that Lipstadt’s claims were in fact true. He concluded that

Irving was apt to “misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions.”168 He explained that these mistakes “appear to be by their nature unlikely to be innocent” as the defense only found errors in Irving’s work where it worked in his favour.169 Overall, it was determined that Irving knowingly “misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him” and it was “incontrovertible… [that] Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier.”170 Not only was Irving forced to pay Lipstadt’s legal fees, but he was even further discredited as an historian.

Not only did the trial inspire a new methodological area in the historiography of

Holocaust denial, but it also marked a blow to the deceitful academic style of Holocaust denial.

Lipstadt’s defense team illustrated that Irving’s work could not withstand scrutiny of historical methodology. Because Irving’s fraudulent academic style reflected the IHR’s approach, the verdict was also a sentence against the IHR’s methods. To some observers, the trial delegitimized the deceitful academic approach and proved that Holocaust deniers such as Irving and those in the IHR were in fact antisemites and racists. It appeared as though the fraudulent academic style of Irving and the IHR was on the decline.

However, the technique gained a second life in the Middle East. The Tehran conference marked the resurgence of the IHR’s mode of denial. It was there in 2006 when important Middle

Eastern figures such as Ahmadinejad embraced the IHR’s method of denial that utilizes the tools

167 Richard J. Evans, “David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: General Conclusions,” Emory University, 6.21. 168 Lipstadt, History on Trial, 275. 169 Charles Gray, “Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Judgment,” Emory University, (2000). http://www.hdot.org/ en/trial/judgement/13-62.html. (Accessed December 14, 2013). 170 Judge Charles Grey in Evans Lying About Hitler, 227.

33 of academia to promote false information about the Holocaust. Overall, the conference represented the intersection between two Holocaust denial movements that emerged from very different contexts.

Middle Eastern Denial

The 2006 conference in Tehran may have represented an overlap between Western and

Middle Eastern Holocaust denial, however, Middle Eastern denial emerged from a different circumstances. Archar in “Assessing Holocaust Denial in Western and Arab Contexts,” explores the rise of Arab anti-Zionist based denial in the Middle East in contrast to Western denial, which is rooted in antisemitism.171 According to Archar, Middle Eastern Holocaust denial is not rooted in antisemitism but in response the Israeli-Palestine conflict.172 The conflict was an outcome of

Jewish and Arab nationalistic movements that began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As each side attempted to gain sovereignty, tensions rose, and the result was the

Israeli-Palestine conflict in 1947. The major outcome was the partitioning of Palestine to the

Jewish state of Israel in 1948.173 As a result, the region lost 78 percent of its territory and 550-

650 000 were displaced.174 Tension decreased until the 1950s and 1960s with the rise of revolutionary Arab regimes and an increase in nationalism, which eventually amounted in subsequent Arab-Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973.175 It appeared as though the two sides would reach peace until the 2000 Camp David Summit where US President , Israeli Prime

Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat met to discuss a possible end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, they did not reach an agreement and the

171 Gilbert Archar, “Assessing Holocaust Denial in Western and Arab Contexts,” 82. 172 Ibid. 173 Mier Litvak and Esther Webman, From Empathy to Denial,” 2. 174 Ibid., 3. 175 Ibid.

34 conflict has yet to be settled. It is from this context that some Arabs adopted Holocaust denial as a tool to protest against Israel.176

In the Middle East, antisemitism and anti-Zionism is the result of the conflict and

Holocaust denial is a “weapon in the struggle” against Israel.177 It is a “gut reaction” to the observable injustices Israel perpetuates against Arab states, as opposed to the West where denial was the result of antisemitism.178 As Archar explains, Middle Eastern antisemitism is based on two observable facts: the first is the Zionist military state, and second is Western financial support for Israel.179 Denial thus became a reaction against Israel using the Holocaust to justify its military state and a protest against countries that support Israel. Archar also notes that many

Arabs see a contradiction in Israel’s simultaneous recognition of the Holocaust and the refusal to acknowledge their responsibility for the “uprooting, dispossession, and dispersal of the

Palestinians in 1948.”180 The contrast between the Middle East and West illustrates that

Holocaust denial is time and place specific. Antisemitism and denial present in similar ways but often emerge from different contexts and are used as a means to different ends. The following will explore why Holocaust denial presented in the US as the IHR and why certain individuals may have chosen to participate.

Holocaust Denial, Free Speech, and the IHR

An important factor that partly explains how and why the IHR formed in the United

States is free speech laws that offered safety to international deniers.181 The First Amendment protects an American’s right to discussion and can encompass a myriad of unconventional notions from conspiracy theories to racism and antisemitism. Deniers are free to say what they

176 Glen A. Tobias and Abraham H. Foxman, “Holocaust Denial in the Middle East: The Latest Anti-Israel Propaganda Theme,” ADL, (2001), 2. 177Archar, “Assessing Holocaust Denial in Western and Arab Contexts,” 86. 178 Ibid., 91. 179 Ibid., 88. 180 Ibid., 91. 181 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 10.

35 please about the existence of Nazi gas chambers and claim Hitler did not know about the planned murder of Europe’s Jews.182 However, in other countries such as Germany and France,

Holocaust denial is punishable under law.183 In Canada, Ernst Zündel was charged under the

“false news” law and later deported to Germany where, in 2007, he was sentenced to five years in prison for his denial.184 Robert Faurisson and Jim Keegstra, from France and Canada respectively, lost their teaching positions for their anti-Holocaust beliefs.185 Germar Rudolf fled from Germany to the US to avoid imprisonment but was deported back in 2006 and carried out his sentence.186 Also in 2006, Irving was arrested in Vienna and sentenced to three years in prison for a denial speech and interview he gave in 1986.187 These are just a few deniers who were prosecuted for Holocaust denial in countries outside of the United States. As such, the formation and existence of the IHR in the United States not only formed as a backlash against co-option of the Holocaust, but also as a safe haven to disseminate denial material under the protection of the First Amendment.

Who are the Producers of Denial and why does this matter?

Free speech laws, a reaction to Holocaust remembrance, and support for Israel are the collective explanations to why the IHR was created in the United States. However, there are other reasons that help explain why some individuals decided to join the institute and disseminate their ideas. In order to include an analysis of many IHR members, motivations are explored using different categories and comparing the social backgrounds of key members of the institute. The different categories of denier motivation are: opportunists who saw the

182 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 10. 183 Robert Kahn, Holocaust Denial and the Law: A Comparative Study, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), 92. 184 Ibid., 2. 185 For Faurisson see Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 58. He was charged, convicted and prohibited from holding a government position in France. For Keegstra see Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, 200-201. 186 Atkins, 114. 187 “Holocaust denier Irving is jailed,” BBC NEWS, (February 2, 2006). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/ 4733820.stm. (Accessed October 31, 2013).

36 institute as a chance to participate in fraudulent academia, and who joined in hopes for financial gain (or both), those who found group acceptance in the institute, ideologues who truly believe in what the IHR preaches, and the Germanophiles, who joined the IHR in an attempt to exonerate Germany.188 These categories are fluid and overlapping and, as such, some members fit into more than one category.189 The members of the IHR did not necessarily join the institute for the same reasons, nor did they always have the same motivations for publishing. Exploring those who joined the IHR in the form of a categorical analysis offers an opportunity to examine their individual motivations, in order to understand how and why they joined the institute and deny the Holocaust.190

In exploring the reasons certain IHR members joined the institute, it becomes clear that the IHR’s formation is rooted in a long history of antisemitism and Holocaust denial, particularly beginning in the Enlightenment. In the directors’ efforts to appear “non-partisan, non-ideological, and non-sectarian,” the IHR tends to stay clear of religious and emotionally charged anti-Judaism as well as blatant antisemitism. Instead, they attempt to sound academic, similar to how anti-Dreyfusards relied on antisemitism, as opposed to religious anti-Judaism.

The IHR evolved from this modern antisemitism. Increasingly, particularly into the

1990s and 2000s, Holocaust denial evolved once again when deniers and IHR members found a

188 This framework is similar to Atkin’s categorical analysis in Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, 3. He explores “academic research stars,” “media stars,” “Distributors,” “Political deniers,” “Opportunists,” “True believers,” and “Fellow Travellers.” While this paper’s categorical analysis is somewhat similar in format that shares the same title for some categories, they are not quite the same. For example, Atkin’s opportunists are those who turned to denial as an opportunity to disseminate material that was pre-determined by their antisemitism. In this study, opportunists refer to those who turned to denial as an opportunity to engage in academic, to make money, or both. 189 For example, Irving is an opportunist, and a Germanophile. As such, he will serve as a prime example in this study. 190 The evidence gathered for this paper largely emerges from different denial sources, including several denier websites such as the IHR http://www.ihr.org, David Irving’s website http://fpp.co.uk, and his personal unpublished memoirs http://fpp.co.uk/books/bio/index.html, CODOH http://codoh.com, Carolyn Yeager http://carolynyeager.net, and newspaper articles in which deniers and members of the IHR were interviewed. Key word searches including “Institute for Historical Review,” “IHR,” “David Irving” and other important IHR members were utilized in an attempt to determine information about the IHR members and to understand their motivations.

37 willing audience not in European derived nations but in the Middle East. While it is important to understand how denial evolved from its French origins, to the IHR, then to the Middle East, it is also crucial to understand who these men are and why they deny the Holocaust. As such, the following will explore IHR members and their individual motivations.

i. Social Profile

The history of Holocaust denial from its origins in France to the IHR’s inception in the

US illustrates how denial evolved. Stemming from techniques of Enlightenment racists, deniers have increasingly attempted to cloak their antisemitism under research, footnotes, and bibliographies. It is important to understand from where the institute’s deniers emerged and to explore their conclusions about the Holocaust. However, it is also essential to explore those who create and disseminate such beliefs. Understanding individual denier motivation offers insight into why they deny the Holocaust and why they joined the IHR, beyond the antisemitism as the monocausal explanation. Who exactly are the members of the IHR? Do they have anything in common? Are they a similar age? Are they educated? Are its members mostly American? While it is difficult to discuss each denier individually, a qualitative social profile of fifteen key members who are now or have been associated with the IHR provides answers to these questions.191 These fifteen deniers include David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, Arthur

Butz, Fred A. Leuchter, Jim Keestra, Bradley R. Smith, David McCalden, , Mark

Weber, , Thomas Marcellus, Germar Rudolf, , and Jürgen Graf.192

191 The inspiration for this framework and questions was inspired by Dr. Hilary Earl’s The Nuremberg SS- Trial, 1945-1958, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), chapter 3. She created a social profile of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen units and asked similar questions as listed above in regards to her topic. I have used this framework and modified it to fit with an analysis of Holocaust deniers of the IHR. 192 The information for these deniers was gathered from the following sources: David Irving (van Pelt, 15-18), Robert Faurisson (Shermer and Grobman, 58-59), Ernst Zündel (Shermer and Grobman, 66-68), Arthur Butz (Lipstadt, 123-125), Fred A. Leuchter (Atkins, 94), Jim Keegstra (Parker 3-4), Bradley R. Smith (Shermer and Grobman 60), David McCalden (Atkins, 169), Willis Carto (Shermer and Grobman, 43-44), Mark Weber (Shermer and Grobman, 46), David Cole (Shermer and Grobman, 69), Thomas Marcellus (Atkins, 165), Germar Rudolf (Atkins, 112), Doug Christie (Atkins, 197, 201-202), and Jürgen Graf (Jürgen Graf Welcomed in Iran, IHR, (December 24, 2000). http://www.ihr.org/conference/beirutconf/background.html. (Accessed October 2, 2013).

38 Selected based on their participation at the IHR conferences and contributions to the JHR or

IHR store, the profile compares dates of birth, birthplace and nationality, occupation, education, political affiliation, what they argue, and the means by which they disseminate their denial.

Overall, the profile reveals that these fifteen men have little in common. Their dates of birth range from as early as 1921 to 1970.193 Six of the fifteen were born outside of North

America in European countries including Germany, France, and Britain.194 What they share is their associations with extreme rightist organizations, including neo-Nazi groups, National

Socialism, and publishing companies that disseminate racist information such as Carto’s

Noontide Press.195 In terms of education all members, aside from Cole who was expelled from high school, obtained a high school diploma, while at least twelve received post secondary education.196 Four were teachers or professors in areas other than history. In fact, Weber is the only member who has training in history with a Master of Arts in Modern European History of

Indiana University.197 The profiling illustrates that the only aspects they have in common are their association with extreme right organizations, at least a high school education, and their association with Holocaust denial. Aside from these similarities, they have little in common.

However, a comparison of their social backgrounds, particularly education, illuminates possible reasons why some members were attracted to the IHR.

ii. Education:

Their education offers insight into two aspects of the IHR: First, it provides an example of how its members attempt to present the IHR as a genuine academic enterprise and second,

193 Faurisson, born 1921, and Cole, born 1970. 194 Irving is British, Faurisson French, Zündel, Rudolf and Graf are German, and McCalden is Irish. 195 “Willis Carto,” ADL, (2005). http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/carto.html. (Accessed October 24, 2014). 196 Only Bradley Smith and David Cole did not receive post secondary education and it is unclear whether or not Marcellus studied beyond high school. In Denying History Shermer and Grobman recall Cole’s assertion that he was expelled from his high school for “conflicts with the teachers and administration [Cole] chose not to elaborate on further in [their] interview,” 69. 197 Shermer and Grobman, 46. Faurisson was a professor of French Literature, Rudolf is a chemist with a PhD, Butz is a professor of electrical engineering, and Graf, Weber, and Keegstra have spent time as teachers.

39 illuminates the type of person attracted to such an organization. Four of the fifteen men in the profile held a teaching position, including the ex-high school teacher Jim Keegstra, and the ex-

Professor of French Literature, Robert Faurisson, both of whom lost their teaching positions as a result of their Holocaust denial activities.198 Others such as Jürgen Graf and Doug Christie received post secondary training but in areas such as chemistry and law.199 Some members of the IHR who did not obtain post secondary degrees still attempted to gain access to academic institutions. For example, Bradley Smith, holding only a high school diploma, wished to bring his ideas to campuses. He organized the “Campus Project” in which he posted ads in college and university newspapers.200 These ads include titles such as “The Holocaust Story: How Much is

False? The Case for Open Debate.”201 Smith explained that he wanted “to go to students. They are superficial. They are empty vessels to be filled[,]” and they are part of academia.202 If Smith could convince “good students” to at least begin to question whether or not there was a plan to

“exterminate” European Jews, he would succeed in planting such notions in an academic setting. While Smith attempted to spread his ideas throughout campuses, others wrote seemingly historical works, including David Irving. Irving, who has no post secondary degree, utilized the tools of legitimate academia including archival evidence, footnotes, and bibliographies to make unhistorical arguments, including that Hitler was in fact, “The best friend the Jews had in the

198 Shermer and Grobman, 58. 199 Sarah Boesveld, “Controversial free speech defender Douglas H. Christie, lawyer for Canada’s most prominent hatemongers, dead at 66,” National Post, (March 12, 2013). http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/controversial-free-speech-defender-douglas-h-christie-lawyer-for- canadas-most-prominent-hatemongers-dead-at-66/. (Accessed June 12, 2014). Mark Weber, “Swiss Revisionist Forced into Exile for ‘Thought Crime’,” IHR, (December 24, 2000). http://www.ihr.org/conference/beirutconf/background.html. (Accessed October 23, 2013). 200 The campus project ads can be found at “Campus Project Ads & Activities,” CODOH. http://codoh.com/library/series/1068/. (Accessed May 21, 2014). 201 Bradley R. Smith and I. Sarich, “The Holocaust Story: How Much is False? The Case for Open Debate,” CODOH, (April 4, 1991). http://codoh.com/library/document/1069/. (Accessed May 19, 2014). Other titles include Bradley R. Smith, “There is no Liberty without Free Speech and Open Debate: $250, 000 Offer,” CODOH, (January 1, 1998). http://codoh.com/library/document/1077/. (Accessed May 21, 2014). 202 Bradley Smith in, “Bradley Smith,” ADL, (2013). http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/smith_codoh/default.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremi sm_in_America&xpicked=2&item=10. (Accessed May 22, 2014).

40 Third Reich.”203 Where Smith published articles in campus newspapers, Irving wrote books that appear in college and university libraries.204 Smith and Irving are examples of two IHR members who adopted Butz’s quasi-historical approach to Holocaust denial.205 With this approach, they initially appeared scholarly and therefore, were occasionally able to enter academic institutions such as universities. Deniers realized that education meant authority and legitimacy. IHR members realized if they displayed their post-secondary education, which many acquired, they would possess an expertise that skinheads and neo-Nazis do not. Although Weber was the only member to obtain a History degree, several IHR members included their credentials in their writing, although their degrees were irrelevant to history. This was done to further their effort to appear intellectual, and not part of the “lunatic” fringe.206 However, their manipulation of evidence in order to meet their antisemitic ends is not academic. While denier books remain on library shelves, Smith’s ads were rarely published in school newspapers. When school papers did run ads, they were met with controversy.207 However, as the denial movement continued to evolve their techniques became more dangerous, in that their fraudulent academic method made their work more deceptive. Although Western universities increasingly rejected

Smith’s work, he turned his Campus Project to Middle Eastern audiences.208 The 2006 Tehran denial conference inspired Smith to “take the show on the road,” as he saw a potential receptive

203 Johann Hari, “David Irving: ‘Hitler appointed me his biographer’,” , (January 15, 2009). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-irving-hitler-appointed-me-his-biographer- 1366464.html. (Accessed May 23, 2014). 204 Four of Irving’s books are available at Nipissing University’s campus library. For example see Goring: A Biography in the library catalogue: “Item Display,” Nipissing University and Canadore College Libraries. http://cat.nucc.ca/uhtbin/cgisirsi/?ps=tLnuDRAPj4/CAN-NU-ECL/172650014/9. (Accessed October 9, 2014). 205 For example of their pseudo-academic approach, see Bradley R. Smith, “Shoah: Abraham Bomba, and Barber,” The Journal of Historical Review 7, no. 2, (Summer 1986); 244-253, and David Irving, Hitler’s War, (New York: Viking Press, 1977). 206 Butz, “Historical Past vs. Political Present,” Journal for Historical Review 19, no. 6, (2000): 12. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p12_Butz.html. (Accessed May 18, 2014). (See Butz’s biography in the “About the Author” section). 207 Lipstadt, “The Battle for the Campus,” in Denying the Holocaust, 183-208 discusses Smith’s Campus Project controversy. For Smith’s description of the project see Bradley R. Smith, “The Campus Project,” Smith’s Report, no. 26, September, (1995). 208 Smith, “The “Battle for Campus” Goes to Tehran,” Smith’s Report, no. 135, (Jan/Feb, 2007), 1, 8-11.

41 audience in Iran.209 With these initiatives, the IHR and deniers began to disseminate their beliefs in countries such as Iran. The IHR members’ initiatives to appear academic illustrate how and why they were attracted to the IHR and why they turned to the Middle East. The IHR members did not hold positions of influence. They were rejected from academia and were forced to share their ideas with smaller audiences. However, Middle Eastern deniers such as Ahmadinejad were in powerful positions. The Iranian president would be able to raise the IHR from the fringes of

Western society to a legitimate scholarly institution in places such as Iran. From its antisemitic roots, the IHR’s products were increasingly accepted in Middle Eastern countries where denial is dangerous in more than just the world of ideas.

What Motivates Deniers?

Opportunism

IHR members used their education, or perceived education, as a tool to promote their legitimacy as an academic institution. The Middle East’s reception of this illustrates how some have embraced the fraudulent academic technique for their own means. While this explains how the IHR’s technique has been used, it does not explain how and why its members were initially attracted to the institute. An exploration of these reasons illustrates that the technique was not a tool used solely to promote antisemitism and to support Middle Eastern anti-Israel policies.

David Irving offers insight into several reasons why someone may have been attracted to the

IHR. Not only did his ideas evolve into denial over time, but he also represents the opportunist category of denial motivation. The IHR offered the opportunity to engage in scholarly writing.

Born in 1938 in Brentwood, to a commander in the and an illustrator, Irving claimed to have spent his childhood in poverty after his father chose not to return home after his service.210 Although he apparently was a bright student in grammar school he was unable to

209 Smith, “The “Battle for Campus” Goes to Tehran.” 210 van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, 15-16.

42 complete two different attempts at degrees in Economics and Political Ecology at Imperial and

London College, apparently due to lack of finances.211 According to Irving, he did not fit in well at school, which he blamed on the apparent “complete poverty which separated me from the other students.”212 Consequently, he left school and attempted to follow his brother’s footsteps in the (RAF). However, despite that “the immediate psychological and intelligence test was no hurdle” he was rejected.213 After rejection from the RAF he headed to

Germany where he found work in a steel mill.214

Irving did not escape his college years without controversy. He became involved in his school’s newspaper, Carnival Times, in which he added a “secret supplement” to one edition that included a cartoon depicting students marching while holding a sign reading “ is beastly.”215 Under the sign stood a black man with “simian features accentuated for cartoon purposes” while the other students asked “Do we have to march with these people between us?”216 Despite his claim that the caricature represented an “attack on student hypocrisy,” the racist depiction was met with great controversy.217 Perhaps a more telling section of the supplement, indicating Irving’s views on Hitler, was his assertion that Hitler was the “first great unifying force that Europe had known for six hundred years,” and utilized the common antisemitic claim that Jews owned the British press.218 A reporter who interviewed Irving about the incident stated that he seemed “a bit of a mild fascist, if you ask me.”219 Instead of denying

211 Irving, “Pure Math,”103. Overcoming his poverty is a common theme in Irving’s memoir. He depicts his life’s story as a great adventure that involved overcoming many obstacles in an attempt to complete the task that fate had thrust upon him: to redeem Hitler. See Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf – My Struggle, ed. , (Reykjavik: White World, 2014). First published in 1925. 212 Irving, “Pure Math,” 103. 213 Ibid., 108. 214 van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, 18. 215 Irving, “Apartheid and ULU,” Focal Point Publications. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Irving/Carnival_Times/do_we_ have_to.jpg. (Accessed November 13, 2013). 216 Ibid. 217 Irving, “Pure Math,” 117. 218 Hannah Gay, “The History of , 1907-2007: Higher Education in Research in Science, Technology and Medicine,” (London: Imperial College Press, 2007), 431. 219 Irving, “Pure Math,” 118.

43 the claim, Irving embraced it and later said, “I belong to no political party. But you can call me a mild fascist if you like.”220 This comment, along with his involvement in political movements such as advocating for Sir ’s British Union of Fascists in 1961, his attempt to begin his own right-wing political group, allegedly calling for the round up “Coloured people in

England” to deport them, and his racist and antisemitic sentiments in the supplement, would haunt him later in life.221 His political past offered convincing support in the Lipstadt trial as the defense searched for evidence that Irving was both a fascist sympathizer and racist.222

Irving’s evolution toward denial and the IHR continued when he headed to Germany to become a steelworker in the Valley and he developed an interest in writing history.223 Not only did he learn German fluently in just one year, but it was in the steel mill where he first heard about the allied air raids on in February 1945, in which approximately 25,000 civilians were killed.224 After returning to London and briefly attending University College to gain “higher executive jobs,” Irving turned to writing.225 He claimed that he wanted to know more about allied attacks on Dresden and began a personal educational inquest during which he

“procured the books necessary, and as soon as I came off shift in the steel mill, I studied for about eight hours each day, in the men’s dormitory where I had a corner.”226 Eventually, after once again dropping out of school when he realized he could earn money from writing, he published his first book The Destruction of Dresden in 1963 at age 25, utilizing only German

220 Irving, “Pure Math,” 119. 221 Karl Kolcheck, “Suffering Fools Gladly? David Irving and Revisionism.” http://www.davidirving.8m.com. (Accessed February 13, 2014). Note: I use “allegedly” here as Kolcheck is quoting Irving without providing any sources. However, based on the caricature and beliefs that black people are “inferior,” it is likely that Irving’s deportation comment is accurate. 222 Evans, Lying about Hitler, 116, 139. Also see Hari’s interview with Irving, “David Irving.” 223 van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz, 18. 224 Andreas Maercker and Johannes Herrle, “Long-Term Effects of the Dresden Bombings: Relationships to Control Beliefs, Religious Belief, and Personal Growth, Journal of Traumatic Stress 16, no. 6, (December 2003): 579. 225 “David Irving,” ADL, http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_Sub Cat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=irving. (Accessed October 29, 2013). 226 Irving, “Information for Counsel on my Background,” Focal Point, January 1970. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/ PQ17Libel/Background220170.html. (Accessed October 28, 2014).

44 primary source archival material.227 While yet to deny the Holocaust, he minimized German atrocities by focusing on allied attacks.228 He exaggerated the number of German victims, claiming that bombings may “have killed more than 135,000 of the population” proposing that the “documentation suggests very strongly that the figure was certainly between a minimum of

100, 000 and a maximum of 250, 000.”229 Although controversial, the book became a best seller and Irving continued his research into the “German perspective” of World War II.230 With this perspective his research steered his opinions closer to Hitler sympathy and eventually denial.

Although Irving eventually moved from downplaying Germany’s wartime atrocities to denying the Holocaust, his desire to write and distribute history, mostly through books, was one motivation to join the IHR. His publishing career suggests that writing history was his main aspiration when he began researching Germany in World War II. He published more than thirty books, almost exclusively focused on World War II, and his only full time job since his school days was writing and publishing.231 To achieve this Irving combed German archives, and some historians, such as Shermer and Grobman, have credited him as “arguably the most historically sophisticated of the deniers[.]”232 However, it is his manipulation of documents in order to meet his agenda and deny the Holocaust that is problematic.233 Through his books and his archival work, he attempts to appear scholarly in an effort to be viewed as a legitimate historian. In his memoirs, he claimed that he always enjoyed the pursuit of knowledge and often wrote about

227 David Irving, The Destruction of Dresden, (London: William Kimber, 1963). 228 Irving, The Destruction of Dresden, vii. Irving suggests that the figure was “between a minimum of 100, 000 and a maximum of 250, 000.” Richard J. Evans examines Destruction of Dresden in Chapter Six of Lying About Hitler. 229 Ibid, 255. However, most historians, including Earl R. Beck, agree that “reports justify an estimate of between 25, 000 and 35, 000 killed.” Earl R. Beck, Under the Bombs: The German Home Front, 1942-1945, (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1986), 179. 230 “David Irving: Early Life and Writings,” ADL, (2005). http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_Americ a&xpicked=2&item=irving. (Accessed September 18, 2014). 231 A list of Irving’s books published by his company, Focal Point Publications, can be found at “Books by David Irving,” Focal Point Publications. http://fpp.co.uk/books/index.html. (Accessed August 31, 2014). 232 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 46. 233 Ibid., 49.

45 schooling and a desire to learn. He wanted his readers to believe that he was a scholar, and often discussed his study habits including how “On days when I could break off [from work at the mill] early enough, I clumped over the road into the lecture theater to sit in on classes in the back row, the wet cement still dripping off my boots. If I could not get away, I read up the lectures later in my room.”234 His multitude of books and self-depiction as an academic indicates that he wanted to be known for his scholarship. There are several possible reasons as to why Irving decided to join the IHR. However Shermer and Grobman believe that “one defining factor in Irving’s on-again/off-again flirtation with denial is that he earns a living by lecturing and selling books (a difficult challenge for any author).”235 They go on to state that with each book release he received more attention and more opportunities to gain a platform and share his ideas through conferences and book signings.236 Irving continued to embrace the deceptively academic technique that eventually evolved and became the IHR’s denial technique.

He used the seemingly academic style to write and disseminate his version of Holocaust history.

In Irving’s effort to appear academic, he often distanced himself from his audiences and from many in the denial movement. He even once claimed that is “it odious to be in the same company as these people [deniers].”237 Irving believed that he had no other choice than to join the IHR because “if I’ve been denied a platform worldwide, where else can I make my voice heard? As soon as I get back onto regular debating platforms I shall shake off this ill-fitting shoe which I’m standing on at present….”238 When he spotted Michael Shermer at an IHR meeting,

Irving approached the historian and asked, “Are you here because you are becoming more revisionist, or are you an objectivist like me?” Shermer realized that “It was a rhetorical

234 Irving, “Pure Math,” 107. 235 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 53. 236 Ibid., 53. 237 Shermer, “Enigma,” chapter from Denying History, (Oakland: University of California Press, updated and expanded edition, April 2009), 8. 238 Irving in “Enigma,” 8.

46 question meant to distance himself from his host and audience.”239 Irving did not want to be viewed as someone associated with anyone who could be related to extremist organizations, because, similar to many members of the IHR, Irving wanted his work to be viewed as mainstream historical scholarship and thus credible. However, genuine scholarly organizations such as publishers and universities rejected his work.240 He also could not find work in legitimate academic institutions such as universities, partly because he lacked academic credentials, but because of his flawed historical interpretations and the subject matter. However, the IHR accepted Irving and his fraudulent academic approach to history and the Holocaust.

While he could not voice his ideas in classrooms or convince historians to accept his conclusions, the IHR offered both a place to publish and a chance to attend conferences to share his ideas with like-minded individuals. For Irving, the IHR was an opportunity to write and share seemingly academic historical works, a goal that he appeared to have been working toward since he first published The Destruction of Dresden in 1963. For IHR members such as

Irving, revealing the truth about the “Holohoax” was not the only reason they joined the IHR.241

While antisemitism is the common motivation for all deniers, some in the IHR were attracted to the institute as a platform to engage in writing.242 Irving’s evolution to denial indicates he was an opportunist who took the chance to engage in a fraudulent academic world when mainstream institutions, such as universities or publishers, denied him a platform.243

239 Irving in “Enigma,” 8. 240 Ibid., 3. 241 “‘Holohoax Survivors Who Tell the Truth’ Video – over 100,000 Views on Youtube!” CODOH. http://codoh.com/news/1883/. (Accessed August 5, 2014). 242 Irving also held other motivations, including expectations of financial gain. According to Christopher Browning, money motivated Irving’s final leap to denial. He believed that Irving wrote not necessarily to tell his version of the truth, but to secure income and fame. Browning went so far as to speculate that “When the run of best-sellers came to an end, and his reputation began to decline, I suspect Irving - like his admired Führer - blamed it all on the Jews, and hence his leap from Hitler apologetics to Holocaust denial.” For Browning, Irving’s opportunism was evidenced both by his attempts to disseminate his pseudo-academic material, and also in his effort to find financial gain, a feature that also motivated several other members of the IHR. Correspondence with Christopher Browning, (November 8, 2013). 243 Weber, “David Irving: Intrepid Battler for Historical Truth,” Journal for Historical Review 13, 1, (January/February 1993): 10, discusses Irving’s speech/conference cancellations. Irving chronicles how St.

47 Search for Acceptance

While opportunism motivated some in the IHR, others joined simply because they were accepted. Fred A. Leuchter is a good example of one who joined the IHR because he enjoyed feeling important and accepted. Born in Malden, Massachusetts in 1943, the self-professed engineer was self-employed as a capital punishment expert. Despite holding only a bachelor’s degree from Boston University, he specialized in maintaining and repairing so-called

“deplorable condition” of electric chairs in an effort to prevent “torture prior to death.”244

Eventually, he was fined for practicing without a license and currently drives a school bus.245

In 1988 Leuchter was thrust into the IHR limelight during Ernst Zündel’s second “False

News” trial.246 Director Errol Morris followed Leuchter’s journey in his film Mr. Death: The

Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. in which he follows Leuchter’s transition to Holocaust denial.247 In 1988 Zündel commissioned Leuchter to collect samples from the “alleged execution gas chambers” in Poland.248 With Zündel’s money, Leuchter and a team that included a cameraman, translator, draftsman, and Leuchter’s new wife, headed to Poland to illegally collect samples from the ruins of the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.249 While his wife

Carolyn waited in the car (Leuchter joked that the trip to Poland was their honeymoon), he descended into a chamber reduced to rubble and subjected to the elements for fifty years. He chiseled pieces from the walls and floor that he later sent away for chemical testing. As Zündel and Leuchter predicted, the results “proved” that there was not enough residue to

Martin’s press cancelled his contract for his Goebbels biography in “Chronology of the Biggest Publishing Scandal of the Nineties,” Focal Point, (1998). http://www.fpp.co.uk/StMartinsPress/SMPvDI.html. (Accessed August 13, 2014). 244 Fred A. Leuchter Jr., in Mr. Death. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 164 and 165 for Leuchter’s credentials. 245 Joseph P. Bellinger, “Fred Leuchter’s “Indiscretion.” Inconvenient History 5, no 4, (2013). 246 The first trial occurred in 1985 in which his sentence was overturned due to “procedural errors.” He was found guilty during the second trial but the verdict was eventually overturned as some argued the False News law went against Canada’s charter of rights and freedoms. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 160. 247 Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr., directed by Errol Morris. 248 Information from the Zündel trial, Lipstadt, 160. Quote “alleged execution chambers” from Fred A. Leuchter Jr. The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek Poland, (Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review, 1989), 11. 249 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 160.

48 indicate that the chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau were ever used for mass extermination.250

Subsequently, Leuchter published his findings in “The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek Poland,” a document that became famous in the denier movement and that Irving cited as the moment he officially believed implausible the “the design and construction of those buildings have made their use as mass gas-chambers….”251 For Irving, who also served as a witness for Zündel, the

Leuchter report was the definitive proof that gas chambers did not exist. For Leuchter, acceptance of the report by fellow deniers offered a sense of importance and a home in the IHR.

Although historians and chemists quickly proved the report highly flawed, deniers continued to cite it as proof that gas chambers were not used for mass murder, thrusting

Leuchter into , a position he clearly enjoyed.252 Hailed as a hero, he was the denial movement’s “only hope” to “solve the mystery of the gas chambers at Auschwitz.”253 He was

“the trump card” to what deniers call “exterminationists,” meaning historians, and the

“Courageous Defender of Historical Truth” who proved that gas chambers were not used for mass extermination.254 Leuchter himself stated that he “was the only expert in the world that could provide the defence [for Zündel] – there was no one else.”255 His then wife recalled his sense of self-importance and that he enjoyed the attention.256 He was welcomed into the ranks of

250 Mr. Death, directed by Errol Morris. 251 Irving in Richard Widmann, “The 20th Anniversary of the Leuchter Report: An Interview with Fred A. Leuchter,” Smith’s Report, no. 153, (September 2008): 3. 252 Not only did he not consider that the chamber was subjected to the elements for fifty years, but he did not disclose the origins of his samples to the testing facility. Leuchter told the Alpha Analytical Laboratories in Boston that the samples were to be used in a court case about an industrial accident. According to lab manager James Roth, hydrogen would only penetrate the walls to the depth of one tenth of a human hair. As he was unaware of the sample’s origins, the testing process diluted the samples to the point that the chemical was hardly detectable. See Shapiro, Truth Prevails. 253 Ernst Zündel in Mr. Death. 254 Ibid, and Weber, “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth,” The Journal of Historical Review 12, no. 4, (Winter 1992-93): 421. 255 Fred A. Leuchter Jr. in Mr. Death. 256 Ibid.

49 the IHR, spoke at conferences, and his report remains available on their website.257 He relished in the spotlight. As Shelly Shapiro asserts, “I don’t think he’s naïve. I think he was empowered by being part of this group.”258 The IHR provided him with a sense of belonging. Leuchter represents a denier who was greatly motivated by his longing for acceptance and confirmation.

As van Pelt states:

Holocaust denial is story of vanity. It is a way to get in the limelight, to be noticed, to be someone, maybe to be loved… You’re ignored, you’re despised by many people, and then there is a home, and the home is the Institute for Historical Review.259

As Errol Morris later claimed, the film raised questions such as, “What happens if you really need to be loved and the only people who will love you are Nazis?”260 In Leuchter’s case, it meant entering into the denial ranks in order to receive acceptance. Although Leuchter initially gained fame and acceptance in the denial world he was, in the end, merely Zündel’s pawn.

Where Zündel once stated, “Fred Leuchter was our only hope,” he did not help him in his time of need, after it was discovered that he did not have an engineering license. However, Leuchter sought group acceptance and found it in the IHR. Although he was simply a tool for deniers such as Zündel, his longing for acceptance was enough motivation to join the institute.

True Believers and Antisemitism

While some IHR members are motivated by other circumstances including opportunism and the search for acceptance, there are those who truly believe in what they preach. Stephen E.

257 No longer in the bookstore but available in full as an online document: Leuchter, Jr., “The Leuchter Report: The End of a Myth: A Report on the Alleges Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland by an Execution Equipment Expert,” Institute for Historical Review, (1998) is available on the IHR website, http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html. (Accessed September 1, 2014). According to Weber’s article “Fred Leuchter,” Leuchter presented speeches at IHR conferences in 1989, 1990, and 1992, including this speech titled, “Is there Life After Persecution? The Botched Execution of Fred Leuchter,” Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, (October 1992). http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p429_Leuchter.html. (Accessed August 19, 2014). 258 Shelley Shapiro in Mr. Death. 259 Robert Jan van Pelt in Mr. Death. 260 Mark Singer, “How did an electric-chair repairman come to deny the Holocaust? And other odd questions,” The New Yorker, (February 1, 1999).

50 Atkins describes true believers as those who are ideologically driven.261 Their denial emerged from their worldviews, therefore, they honestly believe in the arguments they perpetuate. Atkins explains that true believers are often converted through reading literature or through hearing about it from others.262 Some of these believers were antisemites before they converted to denial, while others were not. For many deniers, antisemitism shapes their worldviews and their ideas about the Holocaust are premised on their antisemitic ideologies.

Willis Carto is a good example of a true believer. Born in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1926,

Carto aimed to become one of the most influential right wing leaders in the United States.263

According to Atkins, as early as the 1950s Carto decided that the political right held the answers to the world’s problems. He created several right-wing groups, most notably the Liberty Lobby, an organization that published The Spotlight, Right, American Mercury, and ran the radio shows

This is the Liberty Lobby and Radio Free America, all of which are “ultra-conservative” and antisemitic.264 He was once part of the John Birch Society, an organization known for its right winged and antisemitic beliefs. Apparently, Carto was fired from this association for his excessive antisemitic views.265 He was also part of the far-right Populist Party, a group that supported former grand wizard, ’s presidency campaign in 1988.266

All of these organizations and publishing outlets reflected Carto’s white supremacist ideologies that were reflected in the IHR’s early years.

Carto’s transition to Holocaust denial began in 1955 when he read Francis Parker

Yockey’s 1949 book Imperium, which is highly critical of “Jewish-American power” and dedicated to Adolf Hitler.267 Many historians agree that Carto adopted Yockey’s National

261 Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, 3. 262 Ibid., 3. 263 Ibid., 166. 264 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 43. 265 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 144. 266 Shemer and Grobman, 43. 267 Atkins, 164.

51 Socialist white supremacist worldview as his own.268 This included Yockey’s belief that the

Jew, or the “culture distorter,” is “spiritually worn out [and] lives solely with the idea of revenge on the nations of the white European-American race.”269 This was evident in Carto’s political and publishing initiatives. He not only published Imperium through Noontide Press, the Liberty

Lobby’s publishing company, but also published works that followed Yockey’s line of argument that “the United States was the engine of liberalism, controlled by Zionist Jews.”270 These initiatives led The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to credit Carto for keeping antisemitism as a

“politically viable movement” from the 1950s to the 1970s.271 The ADL also reports that Carto is one of the most influential “racial theorists” on the US right.272 For Carto, the antisemitic idea that Jews are “waging a ‘permanent revolution’ against the underpinnings of Western civilization,” shapes his worldview.273

Meeting Atkins’ criteria for the true believer category, Carto was converted to denial through reading and tends to stay out of the spotlight. When he formed the IHR he chose to be the treasurer, not the director, the same role he played in the Liberty Lobby.274 While his right wing organizations are an indication of a white supremacist and antisemitic worldview, he often does not speak out. However, a former Liberty Lobby employee discovered a letter (which they turned over to the FBI) that reveals Carto’s views on Hitler, Jews, and the state of the US:275

Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. How could we have been so blind? The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews… If Satan himself… had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have

268 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 80. 269 in, “Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History,” ADL, (2001). http://archive.adl.org/holocaust/carto.html#.VO5FMEJN3zI. (Accessed June 14, 2014). 270 Francis Parker Yockey in, “Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History,” ADL. 271 Ibid. 272 Ibid. 273 Carto in Edmund Connelly, “Willis Carto & the American Far Right,” Counter-Currents Publishing, (2008). http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/willis-carto-and-the-american-far-right/. (Accessed February 28, 2015). 274 Lipstadt, Denying he Holocaust, 144. 275 Shermer and Grobman, 94.

52 done no better than to invent the Jews.276

For Carto, his white supremacist antisemitic worldview includes the belief that “The Jews” always have been and will “remain Public Enemy No. 1.”277 He is ideologically driven and motivated by his theories of white supremacy and antisemitism. Carto chose to join politics in order to promote his beliefs, and then upon reading denial material, he transitioned to Holocaust denial. True belief was his motivation to create the IHR where he could perpetuate his ideologically driven views about white supremacy, Jews, and the Holocaust.

Germanophilia

While Leuchter is an example of an IHR member who turned to denial for group acceptance, Ernst Zündel represents another motivation: Germanophilia. German-Canadian

Holocaust denier, IHR contributor, and author of works including “The Hitler We Loved and

Why,” Zündel, was born in 1939 in Germany.278 After immigrating to Canada when he was nineteen, he joined Canada’s Neo-Nazi movement. An activist denier, as evidenced in 1978 when he organized Concerned Parents of German Decent to protest the TV miniseries

Holocaust, he believed in a “Zionist hate campaign” to “defam[e], vilif[y] and distor[t]”

Germany’s image.279 His activism and denial resulted in several trials and eventual imprisonment, most notably his after second “False News” trial in 1988 during which Leuchter produced his famous report. Zündel epitomizes IHR members devoted to German culture, and obsessed with rehabilitating Germany’s image. Such members are often born in Germany, or are from German descent. Zündel, was further motivated by his version of German nationalism.280

Perhaps one of the more activist members of the IHR, evidenced by his initiatives to disseminate

276 “Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History,” ADL. 277 Willis Carto in Stephen E. Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement, 164. 278 Atkins, 193-194. 279 Ibid., 195, and “Extremism in American: Ernst Zündel,” ADL, (2005). http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/zundel .html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=zundel. (Accessed July 14, 2014). 280 Atkins, 193.

53 neo- and pamphlets, he stated that his goal was to change his homeland’s image so that “We will not go down in history as genocidal maniacs! We. Will. Not!”281 Zündel turned to denial in an attempt to vindicate his country’s image by denying Germany’s greatest crime never happened at all.

Zündel is the most obvious example of IHR members whose nationalism played a role in their participation. One third of the deniers examined in the profile were either born in Germany or are of German lineage.282 While German heritage does not solely explain why they joined the

IHR, nationalism is a logical motivation.283 According to David Wistrich, even respected

German historians such as have engaged in arguments that mimic denial. For example, he claimed that not only was Hitler justified treating some Jewish “hostages” with hostility, but also that the Holocaust, aside from the use of gas chambers, was not unique from any other genocide in the twentieth century.284 According to Wistrich, Nolte, while not a denier, proved unable to hold complete objectivity.285 If, as Wistrich claims, blind spots existed for a legitimate and recognized historian such as Nolte, then IHR members failed to engage the historical record objectively, even as they ceaselessly claimed its importance. Whether or not the IHR’s members have explicitly said they are attempting to vindicate National Socialism or

Germany’s image, to ensure that their ancestors are not remembered as “genocidal maniacs,” it is clear that a sense of German nationalism was a prime motivation for some when they entered the IHR. This motivation was key to their lack of objectivity.

281 Ernst Zündel Mr. Death. 282 Zündel, Rudolf, Graf, were born in Germany, and Butz has German parents. 283 Robert S. Wistrich, Holocaust Denial, 14. 284 Ibid. See Ernst Notle, “Between Myth and Revisionism?” in H.W. Koch, ed, Aspects of the Third Reich, (St. Martin’s: Macmillan, 1985), 36, in which Nolte references to the Final Solution as the “so-called annihilation” of European Jewry. He provides more information on his beliefs about the Holocaust and Final Solution in Three Faces of Fascism, translated by Leila Vennewitz, (London: Weidfel and Nicolson, 1965). Nolte was part of the Historikerstreit (or “historians’ dispute) in which historians from 1986 to 1989 debated, among other issues, the extent to which the Holocaust was unique. For more information on the debate see Richard Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow: West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape the Nazi Past, (New York: Pantheon, 1989). 285 Wistrich, The Politics of Perfidy, 14.

54 Irving certainly falls into the Germanophile category, despite his British birth. While his time in Germany marked a turning point in his evolution toward denial and Hitler sympathy, he expressed interest in German history since childhood. Irving’s brother Nicky recalled his fascination with Germany. He reminisced that when six year old David, upon seeing the remains of houses destroyed by Nazi air-raids, ran up to the rubble and shouted “Heil Hitler!” Although

Irving denied the incident he did admit, however, that he chose Mein Kampf as a prize after winning an award in grammar school.286 Despite his noted interest in Hitler and the Third Reich,

Irving claimed that he grew up in an anti-war household, despite his father’s admiral rank in the

Royal Navy. He also claimed that he often heard sentiments such as, “you don’t have toys because of that man Hitler.”287 In his memoirs, Irving recalled a pivotal childhood moment when he saw cartoons in his hometown newspaper that depicted caricatures of “Nazis parading around – Mr Hitler [sic.] with his crinkly boots and little toothbrush moustache, and there as Dr.

Goebbels with his club foot, and fat old Goering with his medals. And I thought – because of them I’ve got no toys?”288 Similar to Hitler’s Mein Kampf featuring alleged epiphanies; Irving too structured his memoirs to fit with his narrative of Hitler’s “self-appointed autobiographer” and redeemer of his image.289 This mission and enduring interest in Germany remained a consistent focus of writing, beginning with his pro-German and anti-allied depictions and, ultimately, moving fully into Holocaust denial.

When he moved to the Ruhr, Irving became even more entrenched in German culture.

“Over the years that followed,” he wrote, “I learned their language [German] fluently, and practiced in countless public meetings….” 290 Armed with fluent language skills he entered the

286 Johann Hari, “David Irving.” 287 Ibid. 288 Ibid. 289 Ibid. 290 Irving, “Burning Bright,” in Autobiography Draft, 64.

55 German archives, preferring to use only primary source evidence in his books.291 Yet, despite his language skills, access and vast knowledge of archival evidence (during the trial Judge Gray determined Irving indeed “possessed an “unparalleled” knowledge of World War II and a

“remarkable” command of the documents[,]”) he manipulated his evidence to meet his ideological ends.292Using this manipulative technique, Irving went on to write over thirty books.293 Over the course of these writings Irving evolved from Hitler sympathies to Holocaust denial. This transition was also an indication of his Germanophilia that would become increasingly evident as he continued his investigation into the history of the Third Reich.

Irving’s Germanophilia and evolution into denial first became evident when he began research on his Hitler biography, Hitler’s War, released in 1977.294 Reflecting from a prison cell in 2006 while serving three years for a denial speech and interview given in 1986, Irving recalled when he began his research.295 No doubt pleasingly similar to Hitler’s prison authorship of Mein Kampf, he detailed an encounter with one member of Hitler’s inner-circle,

Rear-Admiral Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer.296 The Admiral recounted a conversation with Hitler when he asked for permission to marry. Hitler replied that the admiral was lucky as Hitler could

291 Evans, Lying About Hitler, 4. 292 Ibid., 226. 293 Ibid. Some examples of Irving’s books include The Destruction of Dresden, (London: William Kimber, 1963), Hitler’s War, (New York: Viking Press, 1977), The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939, (London: Michael Joseph Limited, 1978), The Secret Diaries of Hitler’s Doctor, (New York: Scribner, 1983), and Der Morgenthau Plan 1944-45, (: Bremin, Faksimile-Verlag, 1986). His one book that is not necessarily about Germany and WWII is Uprising! One Nation’s Nightmare: 1956, (Focal Point Publications,1981). All are related to Germany and WWII, three of which were written in German Der Morgenthau Plan 1944–45, (Bremen: Faksimile,1986); Das Reich hört mit, (Bremen: Faksimile,1989); Der unbekannte Dr. Goebbels, (London: Focal Point Publications, 1995). His other books written in German include, two monographs, and three books of article collections. He also wrote two monographs in German: Von Guernica bis Vietnam, (London: Focal Point Publications, 1982); Die deutsche Ostgrenze, (Austria: Ares Verlag, 1990) and three separate article collections also in German: Und Deutschlands Städte starben nicht, (Renningen: Schweizer Druck, 1963); Nürnberg: Die letzte Schlacht, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979); Wie krank war Hitler wirklich?(München: Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, 1980). 294 David Irving, Hitler’s War, (New York: Viking Press, 1977). 295 “Holocaust denier Irving is jailed,” BBC NEWS, (February 2, 2006). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm. (Accessed October 31, 2013). 296 Irving, “The Ring,” in Irving, Autobiography Draft, 6.

56 “never get engaged or marry. I am wedded to Germany[.]”297 When Irving asked the approximate date of the exchange, the admiral claimed that he knew the exact date, March 24,

1938, the day he became engaged.298 Irving gasped, “I almost asked him what time of day.

“Herr Admiral,” I said, as though it was a matter of general significance. “That was the afternoon on which I was born.”299 Irving recounts this story as evidence of his destiny to be

Hitler’s defender, and this belief eventually developed into Holocaust denial. With a sense of destiny and mission of rehabilitation, Irving manipulated the historical record to cast his subjects in a favourable light.

While the admiral was the first of many interviews with Hitler’s men, Irving had already entered a “dangerous” agreement with the surviving inner circle, or in his words the “Magic

Circle.”300 He wanted to tell their version of history and Hitler’s men trusted Irving to portray their stories in a positive light. In the end, Irving was co-opted into the group.301 Historians risk co-option when they interview their subjects and develop a relationship with them. For Irving, he began to see his subjects not as Nazis and Hitler’s closest confidents, but average “educated people.”302 Sociologists have studied cases of co-option in which researchers develop a relationship with those who they study, in hope that their subjects will become comfortable enough to share more information.303 However, in some cases the researcher becomes so engrossed in the relationship that they begin to lack the objectivity necessary to provide an accurate analysis of the topic under study. Irving proudly accepted this co-option, which prompted a fight for Hitler’s image and that of the Magic Circle.

297 Irving, “The Ring,” in Irving, Autobiography Draft, 7. 298 Ibid. 299 Irving, “Introduction,” in Irving, Autobiography Draft, 6-7. 300 Excerpt from , Explaining Hitler, (New York: Random House, 1998), 232. In an interview Irving corrects Rosenbaum’s reference to Hitler’s inner circle, labeling it “Magic Circle.” Shermer and Grobman state that Irving’s agreement to write from the “Magic Circle’s” perspective was dangerous, Denying History, 57 301 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 57. 302 Ibid. 303 Ibid.

57 Irving’s writing tends to mimic Hitler’s. Both write about fate and destiny, and both recount several epiphanies.304 They also recount hardships as children and how they paved their own path to success. Irving first found his place a steel mill then in his writing, rather than the trenches and beer halls. When discussing life in the mill Irving stated, “What earthly spectacle can compare to the satanic beauty of a steel mill at full blast?” a similarity shared in tone with

Hitler’s description of war.305 Critics and historians have established that Irving is an “ardent admirer of Hitler.”306 Lipstadt, for example, noted this admiration and explained he “placed a self-portrait of Hitler over his desk [and] described his visit to Hitler’s mountain top retreat as a spiritual experience….”307 Clearly Irving idolized Hitler. As such, he was motivated to write a version of history that would cast the Führer in positive light. While mainstream academia would not accept his interpretations, Irving turned to the IHR in order to defend Hitler, or as

Irving says, “one of the greatest Europeans for centuries.”308

For Irving, what began as a childhood interest in Germany evolved into Germanophilia and ultimately Holocaust denial. He began with exaggerating death tolls at Dresden to portray the allies as the aggressors, and then attempted to absolve Hitler for the Nazi murder of

Europe’s Jews. Then Irving denied gas chambers.309 His admiration for Hitler and his co-option into the “Magic Circle” gave him, as Browning states, “a sense of mission as the self-appointed defense attorney of Hitler [and his inner circle] before the bar of history.”310 It was this co-

304 For example, Hitler believed that he was preserved during the Great War for some kind of divine purpose. Nicholas Fairweather, “Hitler and Hitlerism: A Man of Destiny,” The Atlantic,(March 20, 1952). 305 Irving, “The Ring,” 61. 306 For example, Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 161. 307 Ibid. 308 Daily Mail Reporter, “‘Hitler was a great man and the Gestapo were fabulous police’: Holocaust denier David Irving on his Nazi death camp tour,” Mail Online, (September 28, 2010). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article- 1315591/David-Irving-claims-Hitler-great-man-leads-Nazi-death-camp-tours.html. (Accessed September 30, 2013). 309 In his 1991 version of Hitler’s War Irving removed all references to gas chambers and extermination camps and in other places referred to “the legend.” See Irving’s 1993 speech “The Search for Truth in History,” (Focal Point, 1993). http://www.fpp.co.uk/speeches/SearchforTruth1993/part3.html. (Accessed December 19, 2013). 310 Correspondence with Christopher Browning, (November 6, 2013).

58 option that prompted Shermer and Grobman to ask, “Had Hitler’s war become Irving’s war?”311

Whether or not Irving believed it his destiny to defend Hitler and the “Magic Circle,” it is clear that his co-option represented a step toward his denial and his Germanophilia. For Irving, his individual motivations exemplify several reasons why someone joined the IHR. While these reasons led some to the IHR, it was through writing that Irving and others in the IHR attempted to disprove the Holocaust, an enterprise that would have greater consequences for Middle

Eastern Jews.

“The Written Matter and the Spoken Word”312

Ultimately, the IHR’s denial appears benign. Volkov in “The Written Matter and the

Spoken Word” illustrates this point in her effort to track the evolution of Nazi antisemitism in comparison to pre-World War II fascism. She argues that before the rise of National Socialism, politically centered antisemitism was largely situational. In accordance with traditional Christian anti-Judaism, politicians turned to Jews as scapegoats in troubled times. For example, during the

1873 stock market crash and inflation in the 1890s politicians blamed the “corrupter of capitalism”: the Jew.313 From the nineteenth century to Wilhelmine Germany, this antisemitism was part of written culture. It was part of political and intellectual rhetoric and “neither the politicians nor the ideologues of the movement had any real plan of action.”314 Volkov goes on to explain that antisemitic complaints encompassed the same stereotypes that had been prevalent for centuries, although these views were adjusted and applied to the writer’s specific circumstance. Jews were the enemy, the corruptors, and the greedy infiltrators looking for wealth. This largely political rhetoric was “serving an end in itself, not meant to lead to further

311 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 58. 312 Shulamit Volkov, “The Written Matter and the Spoken Word: On the Gap Between Pre-1914 and Nazi Anti- Semitism,” in Unanswered Questions: Nazi Germany and the Genocide of the Jews, (New York: Schocken Books, 1989). 313 Ibid., 37. 314 Ibid., 45.

59 action.”315 These politicians and intellectuals were happy to write about their antisemitic beliefs, without resorting to physical attacks.

Nazi Germany’s fascism and antisemitism, however, was about action. Through rallies and passionate speeches Hitler called for a solution to the “Jewish question.” However, unlike pre-World War II antisemites, Hitler worked to equip his government to find an answer. Hitler had little use for the written word. The Führer credited movements such as the French revolution and Marxism to spoken words as he claimed that it was “oratory and not ideology, propaganda, and not ideas, which won the day….”316 When he realized the power of the spoken word, he rallied the masses through energetic speeches, not through books and pamphlets. Only when

Hitler was denied a podium did he expressed his ideas in writing through Mein Kampf, the book about his personal struggle that is virtually a speech in print.

This is not how the IHR operates. They harness the written matter over the spoken word.

Similar to the pre-war French fascists, their written work is an end on its own. They are motivated by the opportunity to engage in academia, for group acceptance, to truly espouse their antisemitic beliefs, and to vindicate their country’s image. The members of the IHR did not join the institute to search for answers, nor to actively work to prepare their government to solve the

“Jewish question.” They prefer books to speeches, and conferences over rallies. A book sale or launching a new website is a more important goal than actively seeking an end to Israel.

Conclusion: To What End?: The Collective Why and Why this Matters

From its beginning in France to its inception in the United States as the IHR, Holocaust denial represented an affront to the legitimate study of history, and an assault on memory. In any case it was offensive to survivors of one of the most horrific events of the twentieth century. For

Middle Eastern Jews, denial posed existential crisis for the future of Jews and Israel. However,

315 Volkov, “The Written Matter and the Spoken Word,” 45. 316 Ibid., 46.

60 this result was not necessarily the institute’s goal. As such, to what end did the IHR members disseminate their material? Did they aim to resurrect National Socialism and actively work to discredit Israel? Did they wish to rally people to physically fight to get their version of

Holocaust history into legitimate academic circles? The members of the IHR may not appear to want to take immediate physical action against Jews. This is exemplified through fraudulent academic techniques in which they write books and publish articles, and also the audiences with which they share their denial. Aside from Irving, they do not attend neo-Nazi rallies to gain followers or spread their message, and instead write books and attend conferences to present material to colleagues.317 They are each other’s audience. While many contributed to the JHR only a small group submitted articles on a regular basis, including Irving, Butz, Faurisson, and

Weber, indicating that only a small group actively contribute to the denial movement.318 Further, the major Holocaust denial groups active in the United States, the IHR and CODOH, includes many of the same writers.319 Although they initially attempted to reach campuses, political groups, and academic circles, including the Organization of American Historians (OAH), they were rejected by mainstream academia and reverted to sharing information among each other.320

They turned to one another, not to large crowds they wished to convert. While they IHR do not have a wide audience in the West, they have found an accepting audience in Middle Eastern countries where their words are transformed into direct action.

In this sense, Middle Eastern deniers have given power to the IHR’s words. The institute’s writing became the emotive energy people such as Ahmadinejad. The IHR’s stance

317 Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 49. 318 The JHR ran from 1980-2002 when Weber, as IHR director, suspended the journal. From 1980-2000 several authors have remained key contributors. For example, Irving contributed 19 articles, Butz 20, Faurisson 46, and Weber appeared as an author 128 times. Although dozens have contributed to the journal throughout its duration, there was a key group who actively and often published works in the journal. 319 The main contributors to the JHR were almost all featured prominently in CODOH’s journal/blog, Inconvenient History and in the Smith’s Report. See Journal for Historical Review vol. 1-21, (1980-2002); Inconvenient History vol. 1-6, (2009-2014); Smith’s Report, no. 1-204, (1990-2014). 320 Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 203.

61 on the Holocaust and Israel appealed to Middle Eastern anti-Zionist beliefs. While academic institutions rejected the IHR, Middle Eastern anti-Israel politicians, academics, and media provided a receptive audience and a platform. Ahmadinejad, for example, transmitted IHR arguments when he claimed gas chambers were “Zionist propaganda.”321 Writing in a

Palestinian newspaper, author and Iranian Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Seif ‘Ali Al-

Jarwan stated “[Jews] concocted horrible stories of gas chambers which Hitler, they claimed used to burn them alive.”322 He goes on, “The truth is that such persecution was a malicious fabrication by the Jews…in order to rouse sympathy.” Such arguments reflected IHR members’ findings with their argument that, “the Jews have exploited people with the gas chamber legend” and that “This lie, which is largely of Zionist origin, has made an enormous political and financial fraud possible, whose principal beneficiary is the state of Israel.”323 This was not the only example of Western influence on Middle Eastern denial. As early as 1983, Palestinian statesman Mahmoud Abbas published The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism in Arabic.324 Citing Faurisson, he claimed “it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller, below one million.”325 In 2006 Eastern and Western views coalesced at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran sponsored by Ahmadinejad in an effort to “scientifically” discuss denial arguments. Unsurprisingly strong continuity existed with IHR and Western deniers’ attempts to academically present their interpretations.326 A possible precursor to the “Holocaust denial

Conference” was Jürgen Graf attempted to coordinate a conference on “Revisionism and

321 Ahmadinejad in Bozorgmehr Sharafedin, “Why Iran takes issue with the Holocaust,” BBC, (October 8, 2013). 322 Seif ‘Ali Al-Jarwan, “Jewish Control of the World Media,” Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, (July 2, 1998). 323 Irving in Stern, Holocaust Denial, 33 and Faurisson, “The Problem of the Gas Chambers,” Journal of Historical Review 1, no. 2, (Summer 1980); 103. 324 Mahmoud Abbas, The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism (al-Wajh al-Akhar: al- 'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya), (Brandýs: Dar Ibn Rushd, 1983). 325 Translation from Dr. Harold Brackman and Aaron Breitbart, “Holocaust Denial’s Assault on Memory: Precursor to Twenty-First Century Genocide?” A Report, 2007, 13. 326 Tait, “Britons to attend Iran’s Holocaust conference.”

62 Zionism” in Beirut, Lebanon in 2001.327 Although it was cancelled the success of the 2006 conference inspired deniers. In 2012 Holocaust deniers gathered again in Tehran for the

“Conference on Hollywoodism and Cinema.”328 They discussed “the wrongs of Hollywoodism in shaping the imposture of “the Holocaust,” that is, in building the myth of genocide, gas chambers, and six million Jews killed by the Germans during the Second World War.”329

Gatherings such as these strengthen the relationship between Western and Middle Eastern

Holocaust deniers.

With advances in technology, including the Internet, Holocaust deniers disseminated their material across the globe with ease.330 In countries such as Germany where Holocaust denial is illegal, deniers and their receptive audiences were virtually free to engage in online antisemitism disguised as legitimate historical literature.331 As such, Middle Eastern deniers were able to access IHR information without leaving their homes.332 When powerful statesmen such as Ahmadinejad embraced the fraudulent academic techniques and IHR arguments, he empowered the IHR members’ work. While some, such as Irving, were not physically murdering Jews, their works provided a seemingly scholarly justification to deny the Holocaust and delegitimize Israel. In the end, at the very least IHR deniers assault the legacy of the

Holocaust and history as a profession. In the hands of deniers such as Ahmadinejad, this assault extends to an effort to forcefully ensure that Israel and its Jews cease to exist in the Middle East.

327 Brackman and Breitbart, 11. 328 Robert Faurisson, “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism,” Smith’s Report, no. 190, (March 2012), 1. 329 Faurisson, “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism,” 1. 330 The IHR converted their resources into digital copies, including the JHR and their entire bookstore. Others also turned to the Internet for their independent initiatives: see Irving, “Real History!” Focal Point Publications. http://fpp.co.uk. Germar Rudolf, “Germar Rudolf’s Site,” Germar Rudolf’s Personal Website. http://germarrudolf.com. Zündel, “Home,” The Zündelsite. http://www.zundelsite.org. Faurisson, “Robert Faurisson,” Robert Faurisson The Unofficial Blog. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.ca. Smith, “CODOH: Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” CODOH. http://codoh.com. 331 Scott Darnell, “Measuring Holocaust Denial in the United States,” Harvard Kennedy School of Government, (Spring, 2010). His primary sources include mostly denier websites such as the IHR and Irving’s sites. While arguing that denial and antisemitism is on the rise in the U.S., Darnell explores how technology has allowed for easy dissemination of denier material, including the ability to avoid laws against denial. 332 Archer, “Assessing Holocaust Denial in Western and Arab Contexts,” 84.

63 Now, as the Arab-Israeli conflict intensifies, the potential threat to Israel’s Jewish occupants increases. In comparison, the IHR and its members may appear harmless. However, in the hands of powerful Middle Eastern deniers, their seemingly academic antisemitism becomes a weapon against the future of Jews in the Middle East. As Ahmadinejad’s consultant, Mohammed-Ali

Ramin, contends, “If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt [and t]he resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.”333 The IHR’s version of inactive Holocaust denial, or armchair antisemitism, initially appears nonthreatening. They are, after all, simply ideas, not a call to action. However, Middle Eastern deniers illustrate how these seemingly harmless ideas can be turned into deeds. As Volkov asserts, ideas are the precursor to action. These ideas reappear when necessary and “transform latent hatred into the various forms of active persecution.”334

333 Brackman and Breitbart, “Holocaust Denial’s Assault on Memory,” 13. 334 Volkov, “The Written Matter and the Spoken Word,” 30.

64 Bibliography

Primary Sources

Abbas, Mahmoud. The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism (al- Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya). Brandýs: Dar Ibn Rushd, 1983.

“About the Party: Who is Party on ?” Party on the Right. http://www.partyontheright. com/about-the-party/. (Accessed July 30, 2014).

Admin. “Mark Weber – The Indolent who Failed the IHR.” Mark Weber Must Go Blogspot. December 29, 2010. http://markwebermustgo.blogspot.ca/2010/12/mark-weber-indolent who-failed-ihr.html. (Accessed May 24, 2014).

Al-Jarwan, Seif ‘Ali. “Jewish Control of the World Media.” Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, July 2, 1998.

App, Austin J. The Six Million Swindle. Tacoma Park: Boniface Press, 1973.

Barnes, Harry Elmer. “Revisionism and the Promotion of Peace.” Institute for Historical Review 3, no. 1, Spring 1982: 53-83.

Bellinger, Joseph P. “Fred Leuchter’s Indiscretion.” Inconvenient History 5, no. 4, 2013. http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_4/fred_leuchters_indiscr etion.php.

“Books by David Irving.” Focal Point Publications. http://fpp.co.uk/books/index.html. (Accessed August 31, 2014).

Bronner, Ethan. “Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel.” The New York Times, June 11, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11 bronner.html?_r=2&. (Accessed September 19, 2014).

Butz, Arthur R. “A Brief Introduction to Holocaust Revisionism,” The Institute for Historical Review 11, no. 2, Summer 1991: 251-254.

------. “Historical Past vs. Political Present,” Journal for Historical Review 19, no. 6, 2000: 12.

------. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Execution of European Jewry. Chicago: Thesis and Dissertation Press, 1976.

------. “Two Cutting-Edge Works of Holocaust Revisionism.” Smith’s Report, no. 185, 2011: 3-5.

Carroll, Rory. “Hollywood conservative unmasked as notorious Holocaust revisionist.” The Guardian, May 3, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/david- stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist. (Accessed May 20, 2013).

65 Chait, Jonathan. “Biden Praises Jews, Goes Too Far, Accidently Thrills Anti-Semites.” Daily Intelligencer, May 22, 2013. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/biden- praises-jews-goes-too-far.html. (Accessed July 20, 2014).

Cole, David. Republican Party Animal: The “Bad Boy of Holocaust History” Blows the Lid off Hollywood’s Secret Right-Wing Underground. Port Townsend: Feral House, 2014.

Crosby, Karen. This day in 1985 – Former teacher Jim Keegstra fined for promoting hatred.” Calgary Herald, June 20, 2012. http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/07/20/this- day-in-1985/?__federated=1. (Accessed November 30, 2013).

Daily Mail Reporter. “‘Hitler was a great man and the Gestapo were fabulous police’: Holocaust denier David Irving on his Nazi death camp tour.” Mail Online, September 28, 2010. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315591/David-Irving-claims-Hitler-great- man-leads-Nazi-death-camp-tours.html. (Accessed September 30, 2013).

Dareini, Ali Akbar. “Iran President: Israel Will Be Wiped Out.” The Washington Post, December 12, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121200504.html. (Accessed October 6, 2014).

“Day 8: Monday, 24th January, 2000.” Excerpt from transcript from the Irving v. Lipstadt trial, Focal Point. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day008.htm. (Accessed October 23, 2013).

“Extremism in America: Ernst Zündel.” Anti-Defamation League. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/zundel.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_Sub Cat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=zundel. (Accessed December 19, 2013).

Fairweather, Nicholas. “Hitler and Hitlerism: A Man of Destiny.” The Atlantic, March 20, 1952.

Faurisson, Robert. “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism.” Smith’s Report, no. 190, March 2012: 1-3.

------. “David Irving At the Moment.” January 19, 2000. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.ca/search?q=david+irving&updated-max=2000-05- 05T14:35:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=42&by-date=true. (Accessed March 23, 2014).

------. “Faurisson comments on David Cole’s antics: David Cole is back.” Carolynyeager.net, July 28, 2014. http://carolynyeager.net/faurisson-comments-david- coles-antics. (Accessed July 29, 2014).

------. “Mark Weber must resign from the Institute for Historical Review.” Le Blog Inofficiel, April 3, 2009. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.ca/2009/04/ mark-weber-must-resign-from-institute.html.

------. “The Mechanics of Gassing.” The Journal of Historical Review 1, no. 1, Spring 1980.

66 ------. “On Fred Leuchter.” Smith’s Report, no. 179, February 2011: 10-12.

------. “The Problem of the Gas Chambers,” Journal of Historical Review 1, no. 2, Summer 1980, 103.

------. “The Victories of Revisionism.” December 6, 2006. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.ca/search?q=david+irving&updated-max=2006-12- 11T13:44:00-08:00&max-results=20&start=19&by-date=true.

------. “The Victories of Revisionism (continued).” September 11, 2011. http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.ca/search?q=david+irving&updated-max=2006-12- 11T13:44:00-08:00&max-results=20&start=19&by-date=true.

Guru, Bill. “The Taming of Mark Weber.” Mark Weber Must Go Blogspot. February 1, 2009. http://markwebermustgo.blogspot.ca/2009/06/taming-of-mark-weber_22.html.

Hari, Johann. “David Irving: Hitler appointed me his biography.” The Independent, January 15, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-irving- hitler-appointed-me-his-biographer-1366464.html, (accessed April 20, 2014).

Held, George F. “Maurice Bardèche’s Vision of the Future, Part I.” The Occidental Observer, July 9, 2013. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/07/maurice-bardeches-vision- of-the-future-part-1/. (Accessed August 2, 2014).

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf – My Struggle. Ed. Rudolf Hess, Reykjavik: White World, 2014. First published 1925.

“Holocaust denier Irving is jailed.” BBC NEWS, February 2, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm. (Accessed October 31, 2013).

“‘Holohoax Survivors Who Tell the Truth’ Video – over 100,000 Views on Youtube!” Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. http://codoh.com/news/1883/. (Accessed August 5, 2014).

Irving, David. “A Radical’s Diary, November 4, 2008 (Tuesday).” Focal Point, November 4, 2008. http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2008/ 051108.html. (Accessed July 4, 2014).

------. Autobiography Draft. London: Focal Point Publications, July 29, 2007. http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/bio/index.html. (Accessed January 27, 2014).

------. The Destruction of Dresden.London: William Kimber, 1963.

------. “The Hole in Pelt’s Story: No Holes in the Roof!” Action Report, July 20, 2000.

------. “Information for Counsel on my Background.” Focal Point, January 1970. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/PQ17Libel/Background220170.html. Accessed October 28, 2014.

67 ------. “The International Campaign for Real History.” Focal Point, 1998. http://www. fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/Reward.html. (Accessed July 31, 2014).

------. “Introduction to the Leuchter Report.” London: Focal Point, 1989.

------. “Real History!” Focal Point Publications. http://www.fpp.co.uk.

------. “The Search for Truth in History,” Focal Point, 1993.http://www.fpp.co.uk/ speeches/SearchforTruth1993/part3.html. (Accessed December 19, 2013).

------. The Secret Diaries of Hitler’s Doctor. New York: Scribner, 1983.

------. Uprising! One Nation’s Nightmare: Hungary 1956. Focal Point Publications, 1981.

------. The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939. London: Michael Joseph Limited, 1978.

Kolcheck, Karl. “Suffering Fools Gladly? David Irving and Revisionism.” http://www.davidirving.8m.com. (Accessed October 23, 2013).

Leuchter Jr., Fred A. “Is there Life After Persecution? The Botched Execution of Fred Leuchter,” Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p429_Leuchter.html. (Accessed August 19, 2014).

------. The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek Poland.Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review, 1989.

MacDonald, Kevin. “Mission Statement, A New Web Magazine: Introducing the Occidental Observer.” Occidental Observer. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/mission/. (Accessed April 15, 2014).

Mattogno, Carlo. “Arthur Butz and “Auschwitz” The Case for Sanity” An Insufficiently Dispassionate Review.” Smith’s Report, no. 189, February 2011: 2-4.

------. Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity. : Washington, 2010.

Michael, George. Willis Carto and the American Far Right. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2008.

Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. Directed by: Errol Morris. Lions Gate Films, 1999.

Rudolf, Germar. Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique “Truth” and “Memory.” Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003.

------. “Germar Rudolph’s Site.” Germar Rudolph’s Personal Website. http://germar rudolf.com/. (Accessed June 1, 2013).

68

------. “IHR: Is the Ship Sinking? Background and Effects of a Nine-Year Crisis.” Historical Revisionism: International and Independent Scientific Historical Research, last updated 2007. http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/IHRCrisis.html.

Sharafedin, Bozorgmehr. “Why Iran takes issue with the Holocaust.” BBC, October 8, 2013.

Singer, Mark. “How did an electric-chair repairman come to deny the Holocaust? And other odd questions.” The New Yorker, February 1, 1999.

Smith, Bradley R. “The “Battle for Campus” Goes to Tehran.” Smith’s Report, no. 135, Jan/Feb, 2007; 1, 8-11.

------. “The Campus Project.” Smith’s Report, no. 26, September, 1995.

------. “Campus Project Ads & Activities.” CODOH. http://codoh.com/library/series/ 1068/. (Accessed May 21, 2014).

------. “CODOH: Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.” CODOH. http://codoh.com/. (accessed May 22, 2013)

------. Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist. Los Angeles: Bradley Smith, 1987.

------. “Shoah: Abraham Bomba, and Barber.” The Journal of Historical Review 7, no. 2, Summer 1986; 244-253.

------. “There is no Liberty without Free Speech and Open Debate: $250, 000 Offer.” CODOH, January 1, 1998. http://codoh.com/library/document/1077/. (Accessed May 21, 2014).

------and I. Sarich. “The Holocaust Story: How Much is False? The Case for Open Debate.” CODOH, April 4, 1991. http://codoh.com/library/document/1069/. (Accessed May 19, 2014).

Tait, Robert. “Britons to attend Iran’s Holocaust conference.” The Guardian, December 6, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/06/secondworldwar.iran. (Accessed October 7, 2014).

------. “Holocaust deniers gather in Iran for ‘scientific’ conference.” The Guardian, December 12, 2006. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/12/iran.israel. (Accessed October 7, 2014).

Töben, Fredrick. “Töben reviews David Cole’s book: Republican Party Animal: The “Bad Boy of Holocaust History” blows the lid off Hollywood’s secret right-wing underground.” Carolynyeager.net, July 22, 2014. http://carolynyeager.net/fredrick- tobens-review-david-coles-bad-boy-book. (Accessed July 20, 2014).

Trapper, Jake. “Like Father, Like Son?” abcNews, July 31, 2006.

69 http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2256719. (Accessed August 1, 2014).

Trento, Joseph and Joseph Spear. “How Nazi Nut Power Has Invaded Capitol Hill,” True, November 1969.

“United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: About the Museum,” USHMM, Washington D.C. http://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum. (Accessed July 31, 2014).

Waxman, Sharon. “Who is David Stein? A Strange Hollywood Republican Outs Himself as Holocaust Denier David Cole.” The Wrap: Covering Hollywood, May 4, 2013. http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/who-david-stein-strange-hollywood- republican-outs-himself-holocaust-denier-david-cole-89/. (Accessed May 20, 2013).

Weber, Mark. “About the IHR: Our Mission and Record.” Institute for Historical Review, April 2010. http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml. (Accessed June 1, 2014).

------. “David Irving: Intrepid Battler for Historical Truth.” Journal for Historical Review 13, 1, January/February 1993: 4-7.

------. “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth,” Journal for Historical Review 12, no. 4, Winter 1992-93: 421-428.

------. “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign?” Institute for Historical Review, February 2006. http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/holocaust_ remembrance.shtml. (Accessed July 29, 2014)

------. “How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?” Institute for Historical Review, January 7, 2009. http://www.ihr.org/weber_revisionism_jan09.html.

------. “Institute for Historical Review.” IHR. http://www.ihr.org/. (Accessed January 4, 2014).

------. “No to Censorship! No to Bigotry! An Open Letter to Fourteen Arab Intellectuals.” Institute for Historical Review, April 10, 2001. http://www.ihr.org/conference/beirutconf/010410mwletter.html. (Accessed October 9, 2014).

------. “A Productive Summer and a More Effective IHR.” Institute for Historical Review. September 2008. http://www.ihr.org/news/sept08report.html.

------. “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby.” Institute for Historical Review, February, 2009.

------. “Swiss Revisionist Forced into Exile for ‘Thought Crime’.” Institute for Historical Review, December 24, 2000. http://www.ihr.org/conference/ beirutconf/background.html. (Accessed October 23, 2013).

------. “Vice President Biden Acknowledges ‘Immense’ Jewish Role in

70 American Mass Media and Cultural Life.” Institute for Historical Review, June 2013. http://ihr.org/other/biden_jewish_role.

Widmann, Richard. “The 20th Anniversary of the Leuchter Report: An Interview with Fred A. Leuchter.” Smith’s Report, no. 153, September 2008: 1-5.

Yeager, Carolyn. “The Battle for the IHR.” carolynyeager.net, July 7, 2012. http://carolynyeager.net/battle-ihr.

------. “Carolyn Yeager: Writings, Podcasts, Views.” Carolynyeager.net. http://carolynyeager.net. (Accessed April 30, 2014).

------. “Everything Greg Johnson knows about Holocaust Revisionism he learned from Mark Weber.” carolynyeager.net, August 5, 2012. http://carolynyeager.net/everything-greg-johnson-knows-about-holocaust-revisionism- he-learned-mark-weber.

------. “The Heretics’ Hour: Is the IHR a dead horse or can it be revived under new leadership?” carolynyeager.net, December 16, 2013. http://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-ihr-dead-horse-or-can-it-be-revived-under-new- leadership.

------. “The Unforgivable Sins of Mark Weber.” carolynyeager.net, November 25, 2013. http://carolynyeager.net/unforgivable-sins-mark-weber.

------. “The White Network.” thewhitenetwork.net. (Accessed April 13, 2014).

Zündel, Ernst. “Ancestry is Destiny.” Zundelsite.http://www.zundelsite.org/. (Accessed June 1, 2013).

------. “What Revisionists Say About the Irving Trial.” Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). February 2000. http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/polpen/dirving/rev000220.html#ancre52923.

Secondary Sources

Achcar, Gilbert. “Assessing Holocaust Denial in Western and Arab Culture.” Journal of Palestine Studies 41, no. 1, Autumn 2011:82-95.

American History X. Directed by Tony Kaye, DVD. Los Angeles: New Line Cinema, 1998.

“Antisemitism in History: , 1875-1945.” Holocaust Encyclopedia: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, June 2014. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007171. (Accessed September 29, 2014).

Atkins, Stephen E. Holocaust Denial as an International Movement. Westport: Prager, 2005.

71

Auron, Yair. The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2004.

Beck, Earl R. Under the Bombs: The German Home Front, 1942-1945. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1986.

Begley, Louis. Why the Dreyfus Affair Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Blackbourn, David and Geoff Eley. The Peculiarities of Germany History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth-Century Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Blee, Kathleen M. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

Boesveld, Sarah. “Controversial free speech defender Douglas H. Christie, lawyer for Canada’s most prominent hatemongers, dead at 66.” National Post, March 12, 2013. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/controversial-free-speech-defender-douglas-h- christie-lawyer-for-canadas-most-prominent-hatemongers-dead-at-66/. (Accessed June 12, 2014).

Brackman, Harold and Aaron Breitbart. “Holocaust Denial’s Assault on Memory: Precursor to Twenty-First Century Genocide?” Simon Weisenthal Center Report, April, 2007.

“Bradley Smith.” Anti-Defamation League, 2013. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/smith_ codoh/default.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_Americ a&xpicked=2&item=10. (Accessed May 22, 2014).

“Bradley Smith’s Campus Campaign.” Anti-Defamation League, 1997. http://archive.adl.org/sih/sih-holocaust.html#.U761fP3-XwL.

Brean, Joseph. “Jim Keegstra: Holocaust Denier who took hate speech battle to Supreme Court, dead at 90.” National Post, June 13, 2014. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/13/jim-keegstra-holocaust-denier-who-took-hate- speech-battle-to-supreme-court-dead-at-80/. (Accessed June 14, 2014).

Browning, Christopher. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Perennial, 1992.

Caplan, Marc. Holocaust Denial: A Pocket Guide. New York: Anti-Defamation League, 1997.

Cole, Tim. Selling the Holocaust: from Auschwitz to Schindler; How History is Bought. Packaged, and Sold. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Darnell, Scott. “Measuring Holocaust Denial in the United States.” Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Spring, 2010.

72

“David Irving.” Anti-defamation League. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.html ?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&ite m=irving. (Accessed October 29, 2013).

“David Irving: Early Life and Writings,” Anti-Defamation League, 2005. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_Sub Cat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=irving. (Accessed September 18, 2014).

Dawidowicz, Lucy S. The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945. Indianapolis: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.

Derfler, Leslie. The Dreyfus Affair. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2002.

Dershowitz, Alan. The Case for Israel. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2003.

Eaglestone, Robert. Postmodernism and Holocaust Denial. London: Icon Books, 1997.

Earl, Hilary. The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Evans, Richard J. In Defense of History. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1999.

Evans, Richard J. In Hitler’s Shadow: West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape the Nazi Past. New York: Pantheon, 1989.

Evans, Richard J. Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Finkelstein, Norman G. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London: Verso Press, 2000.

Gay, Hannah. “The History of Imperial College London, 1907-2007: Higher Education in Research in Science, Technology and Medicine.” London: Imperial College Press, 2007.

Ghosh, Palash. “France: A long History of Antisemitism.” International Business Times, April 2, 2012. http://www.ibtimes.com/france-long-history-anti-semitism-214406. (Accessed August 13, 2014).

Gottlieb, Julie V. “‘Motherly Hate’: Gendering Anti-Semitism in the British Union of Fascists.” Gender & History, 14, August 2002.

Guttenplan, D. D. The Holocaust on Trial. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Hayes, Peter, ed. Lessons and Legacies III: Memory, Memorialization, and Denial. Evanston: Northwest University Press, 1999.

Henley, Jon. “Antisemitism on rise across Europe ‘in worse times since the Nazis’:

73 Experts say attacks go beyond Israel-Palestine conflict as hate crimes strike fear into Jewish communities,” The Guardian, Thursday August 7, 2014.

Hersch, I.H. “The French Revolution and the Emancipation of Jews. The Jewish Quarterly Review 19, no. 3, 1907: 540-557

Hilberg, Raul. The Destruction of the European Jews, New York: Holmes and Meier, 1985.

Hitler’s Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda of Holocaust “Revisionism.” New York: Anti-Defamation League B’nai B’rith (ADL), 1993.

“Holocaust Denial.” Anti-Defamation League, 2001. http://archive.adl.org/hatepatrol/holocaust. html#.U6hXfP3-XwI. (Accessed June 7, 2014).

“Holocaust Denial in the Middle East: The Latest anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic Propaganda Theme.” Anti-Defamation League, 2001. http://archive.adl.org/holocaust/denial_me/. (Accessed February 10, 2014).

Holocaust “Revisionism”: Reinventing the Big Lie. New York: Anti-Defamation League B’nai B’rith (ADL): New York, 1989.

“The Institute for Historical Review.” The Anti-Defamation League, 2005. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.html.

“Iran Hosts Anti-Semitic Hatefest in Tehran: About the Conference.” Anti-Defamation League, December 14, 2006. http://archive.adl.org/main_international_affairs/iran_holocaust_ conference.html#.VC6kl75N3z. (Accessed October 6, 2014).

Kahn, Robert. Holocaust Denial and the Law: A Comparative Study. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.

Kamm, Oliver. “Analysis: Listen to him, but remember that he is a liar.” Online, December 11, 2008. http://www.thejc.com/articles/ analysis-listen- him-remember-he-a-liar. (Accessed February 18, 2014).

Kannikova, Maria. “I don’t want to be right.” The New Yorker, May 19, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/mariakonnikova/2014/05/why-do-people- persist-in-believing-things-that-just-arent-true.html. (Accessed May 19, 2014).

Kershaw, Ian. The “Hitler Myth”: Image and Reality in the Third Reich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Koch, H.W. ed. Aspects of the Third Reich. St. Martin’s: Macmillan, 1985.

Levy, Richard S., ed. Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume I. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLEO, 2005.

Lipstadt, Deborah. “California School Asks 8th Graders To Debate Whether the

74 Holocaust Happened.” Tablet: A New Read on Jewish Life, May 6, 2014. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/171856/california-school- holocaust-denial. (Accessed May 7, 2014).

------. Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on truth and memory. New York: Plume, 1994.

------. History on Trial: My day in court with a Holocaust Denier. New York: Ecco, 2006.

Litvak, Meir and Esther Webman. From Empathy to Denial: Arab Responses to the Holocaust. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.

Maercker, Andreas, and Johannes Herrle. “Long-Term Effects of the Dresden Bombings: Relationships to Control Beliefs, Religious Belief, and Personal Growth.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 16, no. 6, December 2003: 579-587.

“Nazi Euphemisms.” Burlington County College. http://staff.bcc.edu/faculty_websites/jalexand/ Reading-4-1-and%20Questions--Nazi_Euphemisms.htm. (Accessed July 19, 2014).

Novick, Peter. The Holocaust in American Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.

Orvice, Vikki and Paul Harris. “Stunning blonde who irons David Irving’s shirts.” Daily Mail, Thursday, July 16, 1992.

Parker, Katherine. “A Chapter From “Holocaust Denial, Three Canadian Case Studies: Ernst Zündel, Jim Keegstra, and Malcolm Ross.” Thesis Writers Seminar, Nipissing University, November 16, 1990.

Perry, Marvin. “Denying the Holocaust: History as Myth and Delusion.” Encore American and Worldwide News. September, 1981: 28-33.

Popper, Nathaniel. “Revisionist: It’s Time To Quit Shoah Fight.” The Jewish Daily Forward, January 15, 2009. http://forward.com/articles/14953/revisionist-it-s-time-to- quit-shoah-fight-/. (Accessed February 18, 2014).

Read, Piers Paul. The Dreyfus Affair: The Scandal that Tore France in Two. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012.

Rimland, Ingrid. The Wanderers: The Saga of Three Women Who Survived, St. Louis: Concordia Pub House, 1977.

Rosenbaum, Ron. Explaining Hitler. New York: Random House, 1998.

Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. “The Controversy That Isn’t: The Debate Over Daniel J. Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners in Comparative Perspective,” Contemporary European History, 8, 1999: 249-273.

Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. “The politics of uniqueness: reflections on the recent polemical turn in

75 Holocaust and Genocide scholarship,” in and Sarah Kavanaugh, Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Ross, James, ed., et al. From the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Holocaust Denial Trials: Challenging the Media, the Law and the Academy. Middlesex: Vallentine Mitchell Publishers, 2007.

Schleunes, Karl A. The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy Toward German Jews, 1933- 1939. Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1990.

“Schooled in Hate: Anti-Semitism on Campus.” Anti-Defamation League, 1997. http://archive.adl.org/sih/sih-holocaust.html#.U761fP3-XwL. (Accessed September 29, 2013).

Seidel, Gill. The Holocaust Denial: Antisemitism, Racism and the New Right. Hanover: Leeds, 1986.

Shapior, Shelly. Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report. New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1990.

Sheehan, James. ‘What is German History? Reflections on the Role of the Nation in German History and Historiography,’ Journal of Modern History 53, 1981: 1-23.

Shermer, Michael, Alex Grobman, and Arthur Hertzberg. Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002.

Stern, Kenneth S. Holocaust Denial. New York: Amer Jewish Community, 1993.

Sterbenz, Christina. “The Largest Religion in Every State Other Than Christianity.” Business Insider, June 20, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-largest-religion-in- every-state-other-than-christianity-2014-6.

Suler, John. “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” Cyber Psychology & Behaviour 7, no. 3, March 2013: 321-326.

Sutcliffe, Adam. “The Enlightenment, French Revolution, Napoleon.” In Antisemitism: A History, Albert S. Lindemann and Richard S. Levy, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Swain, Carol M. The New in America: Its challenge to integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Van Pelt, Robert J. The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002.

Videl-Naquet, Pierre. Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust (European Perspectives: A Series on Social Though and Cultural Criticism). New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

76

Vogelsang, Peter and Brian B.M. Larsen. “Holocaust denial: Historical Review.” The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2002. http://www.holocaust- education.dk/eftertid/holocaustbenaegtelseh.asp. (Accessed August 1, 2014).

Volkov, Shulamit. “The Written Matter and the Spoken Word: On the Gap Between Pre- 1914 and Nazi Anti-Semitism.” In Unanswered Questions: Nazi Germany and the Genocide of the Jews. New York: Schocken Books, 1989, 37.

Wegner, Gregory. “Anti-Semitism and Schooling Under the Third Reich.” New York: Routledge, 2002.

“Willis Carto.” Anti-Defamation League, 2005. http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/carto.html. (Accessed December 12, 2013).

“What is a group? Definition and meaning.” Business Dictionary. http://www.business dictionary.com/definition/group.html.

Wistrich, Robert S. Holocaust Denial: The Politics of Perfidy. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012.

Yakira, Elhanan and Michael Swirsky. Post-Zionism, Post-Holocaust: Three Essays on Denial, Forgetting, and the Delegitimation of Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Zimmerman, John C. Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies. New York: University Press of America, 2000.