Jump to content

Historical negationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PBS (talk | contribs) at 12:46, 12 March 2009 (removed bold from title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the critical reexamination of historical facts see Historical revisionism.

Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic correction of existing knowledge about an historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more favourable light. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[1] This article deals solely with the latter, i.e. the illegitimate kind, which – if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes – is also sometimes (but not commonly) called negationism.[2][3]

In contrast to propaganda, which appeals to emotion, revisionism appeals to the intellect, using a number of illegitimate techniques to advance a view. These techniques include presenting as genuine documents which they know to be forged, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing their own conclusions to books and other sources that say the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support their views, and deliberately mistranslating other-language texts.[4]

Examples of illegitimate historical revisionism (negationism) include: Holocaust denial and Soviet historiography. Negationism is also used by hate groups on the Internet, and its effects can be found described in literature (e.g. Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell). In some countries historical revisionism (negationism) of certain historical events is a criminal offense.

Politically motivated historical revisionism

Historical revisionism can be used as a label to describe the views of self-taught or dissident academic historians who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence. This usage has occurred because some authors who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence (such as David Irving, a proponent of Holocaust denial), have called themselves "historical revisionists".[4] This label has been used by others pejoratively to describe them when criticizing their work.

  • Holocaust and Nazism: For example, some people have published popular histories that challenge the generally accepted view of a given period, such as the Holocaust. They do this by downplaying its scale and whitewashing other Nazi war crimes while emphasizing the suffering of the Axis populations at the hands of the Allies and stating or implying that the Allies committed war crimes as well.
  • Communism: Similar examples can be drawn from the other end of the political scale, with communists and socialists who, like the Nazi revisionists, attempt to whitewash or downplay major atrocities carried out under some of those regimes, such as the Great Leap Forward under Mao where up to 43 million starved to death,[5] the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Gulag forced labor camps of the Soviet Union as well as the Holodomor genocide against the people of Ukraine.[6]

Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists

Further information: Criticism of Holocaust denial

It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history". For example, until David Irving lost his British libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and was found to be a "falsifier of history", the general public did not realize that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories.[7]

The distinction rests on the techniques used to write such histories. Accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any scientific discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer review. Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review, revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results.

Richard J. Evans describes the difference thus:

Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account and if necessary amend their own case accordingly. They do not present as genuine documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious but implausible and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments if this is the case, or indeed abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources which in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures as impartially as possible in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events for which there is no historical evidence in order to make their arguments more plausible.[8]

Law and historical revisionism

In some countries, historical revisionism of some issues (such as the Holocaust) is a criminal offense. The Council of Europe defines it as "Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity" (article 6, additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime - see below).

International law

Additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime

An additional protocol to the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention, addressing materials and "acts of racist or xenophobic nature committed through computer networks," was proposed by some member States. This additional protocol was the subject of negotiations in late 2001 and early 2002. Final text of this protocol was adopted by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on 7 November 2002[9] under the title "Additional Protocol to the Convention on cyber-crime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, ("Protocol").[10] The Protocol opened on 28 January 2003 and entry into force is 1 March 2006. By 17 February 2006 6 States had ratified the Protocol and a further 24 had signed the Protocol but had not yet followed with ratifications.[11]

The Protocol requires participating States to criminalize the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems, as well as of racist and xenophobic-motivated threats and insults.[12] Article 6, Section 1 of the Protocol specifically covers the denial of the Holocaust and other genocides recognized as such by other international courts set up since 1945 by relevant international legal instruments. Section 2 of Article 6 allows a Party to the Protocol at their discretion only to prosecute if the offense is committed with the intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence; or to make use of a reservation, by allowing a Party not to apply – in whole or in part – Article 6.[13]

The Council of Europe Explanatory Report of the Protocol states "European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the denial or revision of “clearly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust – [...] would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17” of the ECHR (see in this context the Lehideux and Isorni judgment of 23 September 1998)".[13] However, the United States government does not believe that the final version of the Protocol is consistent with the United States' constitutional guarantees and has informed the Council of Europe that the United States will not become a Party to the protocol.[14]

Domestic law

There are various domestic laws concerning negationism and/or hate speech (under which negationism is then included), such as the Belgian Holocaust denial law or the 1990 French Gayssot Act, which prohibits any "racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic" speech. Other European countries which have outlawed Holocaust denial are Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code), Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penal code), Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947), Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Poland (article 55 of the law creating the Institute of National Remembrance 1998).

23 February 2005 French law on the "positive value" of colonialism

Main article: French law on colonialism

On 23 February 2005, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) conservative majority at the French National Assembly voted a law compelling history textbooks and teachers to "...acknowledge and recognize in particular the positive role of the French presence abroad, especially in North Africa."[15] Criticized by many historians and teachers, among them Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who refused to recognize that the French Parliament had a right to influence the way history is written (while France already has laws against Holocaust denial, see Loi Gayssot). The law was also challenged by left-wing parties and in former French colonies. Several critics also argued that this amounted to a refusal to acknowledge the racism involved in French colonialism and was itself a form of revisionism.

In retaliation against the law, Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika refused to sign the prepared "friendly treaty" with France. In Martinique, Aimé Césaire, the famous author of the Négritude literary movement, refused to receive UMP leader Nicolas Sarkozy, the current president of France. On 26 June 2005, Bouteflika declared that the law "...approached mental blindness, negationism and revisionism."[16]

Supporters of the law were decried as a resurgence of the "colonial lobby," a term used in late 19th century France to label those people (deputies, scientists, businessmen, etc.) who supported French colonialism. The public uproar surrounding this law finally pushed president Jacques Chirac to publicly oppose it and his own majority (the UMP which had voted the law). In defiance of this revisionism, Chirac stated that "In a Republic, there is no official history. It is not to the law to write history. Writing history is the business of historians."[17] He then passed a decree charging the president of the Assembly, Jean-Louis Debré (UMP), with modifying the controversial law, taking out the revisionist article about the "recognition of the positive role of the French presence abroad." In order to do so, Chirac ordered prime minister Dominique de Villepin to seize the Constitutional Council, whose decision would permit the legal repeal of the law.[18] The Constitutional Council judged that history textbooks regulation is not the domain of the law, but of administrative reglementation [regulation] As such, the contested amendment was repealed in the beginning of 2006.

The debate lifted on the 23 February 2005 law point out, however, to a further debate in France concerning colonialism, which is linked to immigration. As the historian Benjamin Stora pointed out, colonialism is a major "memory" stake that is influencing the way various communities and the nation itself represent themselves. Official state history always had a hard time accepting the existence of past crimes and errors. Historian Olivier LeCour Grandmaison also criticized the law. Indeed, the Algerian War (1954-1962), previously qualified as a "public order operation," was only recognized as a "war" by the French National Assembly in 1999.[19] In the same sense, philosopher Paul Ricœur (1981) has underlined the needs for a "decolonization of memory," because mentalities themselves have been colonized during the "Age of imperialism."

Holocaust denial

Main articles: Holocaust denial and Criticism of Holocaust denial

Many Holocaust deniers do not accept "denier" as an appropriate term to describe their point of view, using the term "Holocaust revisionist" instead.[20] Scholars, however, prefer the term "Holocaust denier" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists who consider their goal to be historical inquiry using evidence and established methodology.[21] According to the Holocaust historian Alan Berger, Holocaust deniers argue to support a preconceived theory, namely that the Holocaust simply did not take place or was largely a hoax, ignoring extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[22]

Holocaust-deniers have attached themselves to the issue of the Heimatvertriebenen, and have in the view of their opposition attempted to use the sympathy for the plight of those Germans who suffered so as to blame the Jews for the suffering of the Heimatvertriebenen, or retroactively to minimize the suffering of the Holocaust.

David Irving, discredited[23] author, lost his English libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books (for identifying him as a Holocaust denier[24]). The trial judge Justice Charles Gray concluded that:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favorable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.[25]

On 20 February 2006, Irving was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison for Holocaust denial under Austria's 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism and criminalizing the "public denial, belittling or justification of National Socialist crimes".[26] Besides Austria, eleven other countries[27] — including Belgium (1995 Belgian Holocaust denial law), France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Switzerland — have passed laws which make denial of the Holocaust a criminal offense punishable by prison sentence.[28]

Turkey and the Armenian Genocide

Main article: Denial of the Armenian Genocide

Turkey has drafted laws like Article 301 that state "A person who publicly insults Turkishness, or the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment". This law has been used, for example, to bring charges against writer Orhan Pamuk for stating that "Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it".[29] The charges were later dropped.[30]

On Tuesday 7 February 2006 the trial opened against five journalists charged with insulting the judicial institutions of the State, and also of aiming to prejudice a court case (Article 288 of the Turkish penal code).[31] The five were on trial because they criticized a court order to shut down a conference in Istanbul about the mass killing of Armenians by Turks during the Ottoman Empire – the conference was nevertheless eventually held after having been transferred from a state university to a private university. The case was adjourned until 11 April, when four of the journalists were acquitted on a technicality. The case against the fifth journalist, Murat Belge, proceeded. On 8 June 2006, Murat Belge was acquitted by the Istanbul court. The trial is seen as a test case between Turkey and the European Union (EU), which insists that Turkey must allow increased rights to free expression as part of the negotiations on EU membership.[32][33]

The aim of the conference, organized by a number of academics and intellectuals, was to offer a critical look at the official approach to the events of 1915, a topic that has long been taboo in Turkey.[34]

Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink was assassinated by Ogün Samast because of Dink's personal recognition of the Armenian genocide (for which he had previously been legally prosecuted). While much of the Turkish community condemned the act,[35] several ultranationalist factions lauded it, and even after the assassin was captured, a photo of him was leaked showing Samast posing in front of a Turkish flag and a poster of Ataturk with two police officers on either side, suggesting that such nationalist elements are working within the Turkish government.[36]

Article 301 was introduced as part of a package of penal-law reform introduced to bring Turkey up to EU standards, in the process preceding the opening of negotiations for Turkish EU membership.[37] The Republic of Turkey does not deny the Ottoman Armenian casualties, but claims that they were not genocide. Specifically, the authorities claim that the deaths were due to wartime upheaval plus crimes committed outside the government of the Ottoman Empire and that the crimes were committed without said government's approval.

Examples of historical revisionism

Japanese war crimes

See also: Japanese imperialism and Japanese war crimes

After-action attempts at downgrading the various war crimes committed by Japanese imperialism are examples of historical revisionism.[38] For example, some modern Japanese revisionists claim that Japan's invasion of China and World War II itself was a justified reaction against racist Western practices of the time, just as contemporary political thinkers did so at the time of the invasions. On March 2, 2007, Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe denied that the military had forced women into sexual slavery during World War II in an orchestrated way. He stated, "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion." Before he spoke, a group of Liberal Democratic Party lawmakers also sought to revise Yohei Kono's 1993 apology to former comfort women.[citation needed]

Yasukuni Shrine has been criticized by people such as Tsuneo Watanabe (editor-in-chief of conservative newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun) as a bastion of revisionism: "The Yasukuni Shrine runs a museum where they show items in order to encourage and worship militarism. It's wrong for the prime minister to visit such a place".[39] Others point out that multiple individuals that would today be seen as "Korean" or "Chinese" are enshrined for their military actions carried out as subjects of the Japanese Empire.

The history textbook controversy centers on how a junior-high history textbook called the "Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho" or "New History Textbook" allegedly downplays or "whitewashes" the nature of Japan's military aggression in the First Sino-Japanese War, in Japan's annexation of Korea in 1910, in Second Sino-Japanese War and in World War II. The textbook was created by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, a conservative Japanese organization, which, as its name implies, aims to alter the traditional and international view of Japanese history in that period.

In Japan, the Ministry of Education vets all Japanese history textbooks. Any submitted textbook which does not mention several atrocities committed by Japan during the WWII cannot pass this vetting process.[citation needed] . However, this particular textbook places less emphasis on the nature of wartime atrocities and de-emphasizes the subject of the Chinese and Korean comfort women, which some feel is at least partly inappropriate at the junior high level.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings

Hibakusha and various historians have often criticized the attempts of downgrading the importance of the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which they sometimes call "nuclear holocaust", as an example of revisionist history.[40][41]

Soviet and Russian history

See also: Soviet historiography

During the rule of dictator Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, a variety of revisionist tactics were employed to ignore unpleasant events of the past. Soviet school books would constantly be revised to remove or alter photographs and articles that dealt with politicians who had fallen out of favor with the regime. History was frequently re-written, with past events modified so they always portrayed Stalin's government favorably.

Russian textbooks on the 20th Century

The textbook History of Russia and the World in the 20th Century, written by Nikita Zagladin, in 2004 replaced Igor Dolutsky's National History: 20th Century. Zagladin's text was implemented under the guidance and encouragement of Vladimir Putin, who wanted a textbook that was more "patriotic". Critics of the new book cite a lack of detail in addressing historical events such as the Siege of Leningrad, Gulag labor camps, Soviet attack on Finland and the First and Second Chechen Wars as serious factual inaccuracies. According to these critics, the Holocaust is not mentioned, and the rule of Joseph Stalin is glorified in the book.[43]


Historical revisionism in literature

In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government of the main character's country (Oceania), which is nominally led by the enigmatic Big Brother, is constantly revising history to be in harmony with the current political situation. For instance, if Oceania is at war with Eurasia, then the official position is that they have always been at war with Eurasia. If the situation changes, the civilians are brainwashed accordingly. In this novel, historical revisionism is one of the main policies of the propaganda arm ("Ministry of Truth") of Oceania's government. The main character, Winston Smith, is employed to revise newspaper articles and doctor photographs. This was inspired from the real-life government policies in the Soviet Union (as seen above.)

See also

References

  1. ^ "The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a 'certain body of irrefutable evidence' or a 'convergence of evidence' that suggest that an event - like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust - did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence..." Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0202306704, p. 154.
  2. ^ 'Negationism' derives from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial.(Kornberg, Jacques. The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide.(Review) (book review), Shofar, January, 2001) It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as (PDF) UNESCO against racism world conference 31 August – 7 September 2001 "Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the slave trade comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism."
  3. ^ Kriss Ravetto (2001). The Unmaking of Fascist Aesthetics, University of Minnesota Press ISBN 0816637431. p. 33]
  4. ^ a b "Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial", by Richard J. Evans, 2001, ISBN 0-465-02153-0. pg. 145. The author is a Professor of Modern History, at University of Cambridge and he was a major expert witness at the Irving v. Lipstadt trial, and this book presents both his view of the trial, and much of his expert witness report, including his research on the Dresden death count.
  5. ^ Peng Xizhe (彭希哲), "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70.
    For a summary of other estimates, please refer to this link
  6. ^ Sources differ on interpreting various statements from different branches of different governments as to whether they amount to the official recognition of the Famine as Genocide by the country. For example, after the statement issued by the Latvian Sejm on 13 March 2008, the total number of countries is given as 19 (according to Ukrainian BBC: "Латвія визнала Голодомор ґеноцидом"), 16 (according to Korrespondent, Russian edition: "После продолжительных дебатов Сейм Латвии признал Голодомор геноцидом украинцев"), "more than 10" (according to Korrespondent, Ukrainian edition: "Латвія визнала Голодомор 1932-33 рр. геноцидом українців")
  7. ^ Falsifier:
  8. ^ Richard J. Evans. David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, 6. General Conclusion Paragraphs 6.20,6.21
  9. ^ Frequently asked questions and answers Council of Europe Convention on cybercrime by the United States Department of Justice
  10. ^ Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems on the Council of Europe web site
  11. ^ APCoc Treaty open for signature by the States which have signed the Treaty ETS 185. on the Council of Europe web site
  12. ^ Frequently asked questions and answers Council of Europe Convention on cyber-crime by the United States Department of Justice
  13. ^ a b Explanatory Report on the additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime
  14. ^ Frequently asked questions and answers Council of Europe Convention on cybercrime by the United States Department of Justice
  15. ^ LOI n° 2005-158 du 23 février 2005 portant reconnaissance de la Nation et contribution nationale en faveur des Français rapatriés
  16. ^
    • "Les principales prises de position (concernant la loi du 23 février 2005)". Le Nouvel Observateur. 26 January 2006.
    • "French Revisionism: Case Of Positive Role Of French Colonisation". The Cameroun Post. 18 December 2005.
    • "France under pressure to defend its colonial past". Agence France Presse. 8 December 2005.
  17. ^ "History should not be written by law" says Jacques Chirac (Ce n'est pas à la loi d'écrire l'histoire), quoted by RFI, 11 December 2005: [1]
  18. ^ "Chirac revient sur le 'rôle positif' de la colonisation". RFI. 26 January 2006.
  19. ^ "Colonialism: A Dangerous War of Memories Begin (by Benjamin Stora)". L'Humanité. 6 December 2005 - transl. 17 January 2006 on www.humaniteinenglish.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |date= (help); "At war with France's past (by Claude Liauzu) (English edition)". Le Monde Diplomatique. June 2005.
  20. ^ "Holocaust deniers often refer to themselves as ‘revisionists’, in an attempt to claim legitimacy for their activities." (The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial?, JPR report #3, 2000. Retrieved 16 May 2007)
  21. ^ Denial vs. "revisionism":
    • "This is the phenomenon of what has come to be known as 'revisionism', 'negationism', or 'Holocaust denial,' whose main characteristic is either an outright rejection of the very veracity of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, or at least a concerted attempt to minimize both its scale and importance... It is just as crucial, however, to distinguish between the wholly objectionable politics of denial and the fully legitimate scholarly revision of previously accepted conventional interpretations of any historical event, including the Holocaust." Bartov, Omer. The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation and Aftermath, Routledge, pp.11-12. Bartov is John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History at the Watson Institute, and is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on genocide ("Omer Bartov", The Watson Institute for International Studies).
    • "The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about a historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" or a "convergence of evidence" that suggest that an event - like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust - did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence..." Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0202306704, p. 154.
    • "At this time, in the mid-1970s, the specter of Holocaust Denial (masked as "revisionism") had begun to raise its head in Australia..." Bartrop, Paul R. "A Little More Understanding: The Experience of a Holocaust Educator in Australia" in Samuel Totten, Steven Leonard Jacobs, Paul R Bartrop. Teaching about the Holocaust, Praeger/Greenwood, 2004, p. xix. ISBN 0275982327
    • "Pierre Vidal-Naquet urges that denial of the Holocaust should not be called 'revisionism' because 'to deny history is not to revise it'. Les Assassins de la Memoire. Un Eichmann de papier et autres essays sur le revisionisme (The Assassins of Memory - A Paper-Eichmann and Other Essays on Revisionism) 15 (1987)." Cited in Roth, Stephen J. "Denial of the Holocaust as an Issue of Law" in the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 23, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0792325818, p. 215.
    • "This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the "revisionist" approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the "revisionist" approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice. It concludes that "revisionism" is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation... "Revisionism" is obliged to deviate from the standard methodology of historical pursuit because it seeks to mold facts to fit a preconceived result, it denies events that have been objectively and empirically proved to have occurred, and because it works backward from the conclusion to the facts, thus necessitating the distortion and manipulation of those facts where they differ from the preordained conclusion (which they almost always do). In short, "revisionism" denies something that demonstrably happened, through methodological dishonesty." McFee, Gordon. "Why 'Revisionism' Isn't", The Holocaust History Project, 15 May 1999. Retrieved 22 December 2006.
    • "Crucial to understanding and combating Holocaust denial is a clear distinction between denial and revisionism. One of the more insidious and dangerous aspects of contemporary Holocaust denial, a la Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith and Greg Raven, is the fact that they attempt to present their work as reputable scholarship under the guise of 'historical revisionism.' The term 'revisionist' permeates their publications as descriptive of their motives, orientation and methodology. In fact, Holocaust denial is in no sense 'revisionism,' it is denial... Contemporary Holocaust deniers are not revisionists — not even neo-revisionists. They are Deniers. Their motivations stem from their neo-nazi political goals and their rampant antisemitism." Austin, Ben S. "Deniers in Revisionists Clothing", The Holocaust\Shoah Page, Middle Tennessee State University. Retrieved 29 March 2007.
    • "Holocaust denial can be a particularly insidious form of antisemitism precisely because it often tries to disguise itself as something quite different: as genuine scholarly debate (in the pages, for example, of the innocuous-sounding Journal for Historical Review). Holocaust deniers often refer to themselves as ‘revisionists’, in an attempt to claim legitimacy for their activities. There are, of course, a great many scholars engaged in historical debates about the Holocaust whose work should not be confused with the output of the Holocaust deniers. Debate continues about such subjects as, for example, the extent and nature of ordinary Germans’ involvement in and knowledge of the policy of genocide, and the timing of orders given for the extermination of the Jews. However, the valid endeavour of historical revisionism, which involves the re-interpretation of historical knowledge in the light of newly emerging evidence, is a very different task from that of claiming that the essential facts of the Holocaust, and the evidence for those facts, are fabrications." The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial?, JPR report #3, 2000. Retrieved 16 May 2007.
  22. ^ Alan L. Berger, “Holocaust Denial: Tempest in a Teapot, or Storm on the Horizon?” In Peace, in Deed: Essays in Honor of Harry James Cargas. Ed. Zev Garber and Richard Libowitz. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998, pg 154.
  23. ^ Discredited as historian:
    • "In 1969, after David Irving's support for Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright who accused Winston Churchill of murdering the Polish wartime leader General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph issued a memo to all its correspondents. 'It is incorrect,' it said, 'to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author.'" Ingram, Richard. Irving was the author of his own downfall, The Independent, 25 February 2006.
    • "It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of ‘historian’ to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But 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 a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as ‘historical writer’ instead. Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian’s primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian." Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, Expert Witness Report by Richard J. Evans FBA, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, 2000, Chapter 6.
    • "State prosecutor Michael Klackl said: 'He's not a historian, he's a falsifier of history.'" Traynor, Ian. Irving jailed for denying Holocaust, The Guardian, 21 February 2006.
    • "One of Britain's most prominent speakers on Muslim issues is today exposed as a supporter of David Irving. .. Bukhari contacted the discredited historian, sentenced this year to three years in an Austrian prison for Holocaust denial, after reading his website." Doward, Jamie. "Muslim leader sent funds to Irving", The Guardian, 19 November 2006.
    • "David Irving, the discredited historian and Nazi apologist, was last night starting a three-year prison sentence in Vienna for denying the Holocaust and the gas chambers of Auschwitz." Traynor, Ian. "Irving jailed for denying Holocaust", The Guardian, 21 February 2006.
    • "Conclusion on meaning 2.15 (vi): that Irving is discredited as a historian." David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt/II.
    • "DAVID Irving, the discredited revisionist historian and most outspoken British Holocaust denier, has added further fuel to the controversy over his early release from an Austrian jail by recanting his court statement of regret over his views." Crichton, Torcuil. "Holocaust denier reneges on regret", The Sunday Herald, 24 December 2006.
    • "Discredited British author David Irving spoke in front of some 250 people at a small theatre on Szabadság tér last Monday." Hodgson, Robert. "Holocaust denier David Irving draws a friendly crowd in Budapest", The Budapest Times, 19 March 2007.
    • "An account of the 2000 - 2001 libel trial in the high court of the now discredited historian David Irving, which formed the backdrop for his recent conviction in Vienna for denying the Holocaust." Program Details - David Irving: The London Trial 2006-02-26 17:00:00, BBC Radio 4.
    • "Yet Irving, a discredited right-wing historian, was described by a High Court judge after a long libel trial as a racist anti-semite who denied the Holocaust." Edwards, Rob. "Anti-green activist in links with Nazi writer; Revealed: campaigner", The Sunday Herald, 5 May 2002.
    • "'The sentence against Irving confirms that he and his views are discredited, but as a general rule I don’t think that this is the way this should be dealt with,' said Antony Lerman, director of the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research. 'It is better to combat denial by education and using good speech to drive out bad speech.'" Gruber, Ruth Ellen. "Jail sentence for Holocaust denier spurs debate on free speech", j., 24 February 2006.
    • "Deborah Lipstadt is Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies and director of The Rabbi Donald A. Tam Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University. She is the author of two books about the Holocaust. Her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory led to the 2000 court case in which she defeated and discredited Holocaust denier David Irving." Understanding Auschwitz Today, Task of Justice & Danger of Holocaust Deniers, Public Broadcasting Service.
    • "After the discredited British historian David Irving was sentenced to a three-year jail term in Austria as a penalty for denying the Holocaust, the liberal conscience of western Europe has squirmed and agonised." Glover, Gillian. "Irving gets just what he wanted - his name in the headlines", The Scotsman, 23 February 2006.
    • "...is a disciple of discredited historian and Holocaust denier David Irving." Horowitz, David. The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, Regnery Publishing, 2006, ISBN 0895260034, p. 175.
    • "If the case for competence applies to those who lack specialist knowledge, it applies even further to those who have been discredited as incompetent. For example, why ought we include David Irving in a debate aiming to establish the truth about the Holocaust, after a court has found that he manipulates and misinterprets history?" Long, Graham. Relativism and the Foundations of Liberalism, Imprint Academic, 2004, ISBN 1845400046, p. 80.
    • "Ironically, Julius is also a celebrated solicitor famous for his defence of Schuchard's colleague, Deborah Lipstadt, against the suit for of libel brought by the discredited historian David Irving brought when Lipstadt accused him of denying the Holocaust." "T S Eliot's anti-Semitism hotly debated as scholars argue over new evidence", University of York, Communications Office, 5 February 2003.
    • "Irving, a discredited historian, has insisted that Jews at Auschwitz were not gassed." "Irving vows to continue denial", Breaking News, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 7 February 2007.
    • "David Irving, the discredited historian and Nazi apologist, was on Monday night starting a three-year prison sentence in Vienna for denying the Holocaust and the gas chambers of Auschwitz." "Historian jailed for denying Holocaust", Mail & Guardian, 21 February 2006.
    • "Irving, a discredited historian, has insisted that Jews at Auschwitz were not gassed." "Irving Vows To Continue Denial", The Jewish Week, 29 December 2006.
    • "The two best-known present-day Holocaust deniers are the discredited historian David Irving, jailed last year in Austria for the offence, and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants Israel wiped off the map." Wills, Clair. " Ben Kiely and the 'Holocaust denial'", Irish Independent, 10 March 2007.
    • "[Irving] claimed that Lipstadt's book accuses him of falsifying historical facts in order to support his theory that the Holocaust never happened. This of course discredited his reputation as a historian. .. On 11 April, High Court judge Charles Gray ruled against Irving, concluding that he indeed qualified as a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite and that as such he has distorted history in order to defend his hero, Adolf Hitler." Wyden, Peter. The Hitler Virus: the Insidious Legacy of Adolf Hitler, Arcade Publishing, 2001, ISBN 1559705329, p. 164.
    • "Now that holocaust denier David Irving has been discredited, what is the future of history?" Kustow, Michael. "History after Irving", Red Pepper, June, 2000.
    • "In Britain, which does not have a Holocaust denial law, Irving had already been thoroughly discredited when he unsuccessfully sued historian Deborah Lipstadt in 1998 for describing him as a Holocaust denier." Callamard, Agnès. "Debate: can we say what we want?", Le Monde diplomatique, April, 2007.
    • "Holocaust denier and discredited British historian David Irving, for example, asserts. .. that Auschwitz gas chambers were constructed after World War II." "Hate-Group Web Sites Target Children, Teens", Psychiatric News, American Psychiatric Association, 2 February 2001.
    • "Holocaust denier: An Austrian court hears discredited British historian David Irving's appeal against his jail sentence for denying the Nazi genocide of the Jews.", "The world this week", BBC News, 20 December 2006.
    • "DISCREDITED British historian David Irving began serving three years in an Austrian prison yesterday for denying the Holocaust, a crime in the country where Hitler was born." Schofield, Matthew. "Controversial Nazi apologist backs down, but still jailed for three years", The Age, 22 February 2006.
  24. ^ "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory" by Deborah E. Lipstadt. ISBN 0-452-27274-2
  25. ^ David Pallister Author fights Holocaust denier judgment in The Guardian 21 June 2001
  26. ^ Oliver Duff David Irving: An anti-Semitic racist who has suffered financial ruin 21 February 2006
  27. ^ Holocaust denier Irving to appeal BBC 21 February 2006. "Austria is one of 11 countries with laws against denying the Holocaust."
  28. ^ Laws against denying the Holocaust.
  29. ^ Sarah Rainsford Author's trial set to test Turkey BBC 14 December 2005.
  30. ^ Madeleine Brand speaks with Hugh Pope Charges Against Turkish Writer Pamuk Dropped NPR 25 January 2005.
  31. ^ Writer Hrant Dink acquitted; trials against other journalists continue IFEX 9 February 2006.
  32. ^ Benjamin Harvey Fight halts Turkish journalists' trial in The Independent 8 February 2006.
  33. ^ Associated Press Case Against 4 Turkish Journalists Dropped in The Guardian 11 April 2006.
  34. ^ Sarah Rainsford Turkey bans 'genocide' conference BBC News 22 September 2005.
  35. ^ BBC NEWS | Europe | Fury in Turkey at editor's murder
  36. ^ Turkish police posed for picture with killer of Armenian journalist - Europe, News - Independent.co.uk
  37. ^ Turkey's new penal code touches raw nerves EurActiv 2 June 2005, updated 14 November 2005.
  38. ^ "Forgiving the culprits: Japanse historical revisionism in a post-cold war context published in the International Journal of Peace Studies
  39. ^ "Revenge of the Doves". Newsweek. 6 February 2006.
  40. ^ "Remembering the Atomic Bomb" by P. Joshua Hill and Professor Koshiro, Yukiko, 15 December 1997, Fresh Writing.
  41. ^ "Japan's Atomic Bomb Victims Complain that Their Government Still Neglects Them & Refuses to Take Responsibility". History News Network. 2005-12-08.
  42. ^ Author: David King, text by James Ryan. Trotsky, a pictorial biography See mumbered paragraph 54.
  43. ^ Critics fear history book overlooks crimes by Maria Danilova of the Associated Press in the Daily Herald 17 August 2004. Page A2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical_negationism&oldid=276733836"