What do you think?
Rate this book
Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened & Why Do They Say It?
Denying History takes an in-depth look at those claiming the Holocaust never happened, exploring their motivations. While many dismiss Holocaust deniers as antisemitic neo-Nazis not deserving response, historians Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman have immersed themselves in their minds & culture. They've interviewed deniers, read their literature, monitored their Web sites, attended their conferences, debated them, even traveled thru Europe to conduct research at the extermination camps. Uncovering a complex social movement, the authors go deeper than ever before in not only trying to understand deniers' motives, but also refuting their points. In the process, they show how one can be certain the Holocaust happened &, for that matter, how one confirms any historical event.
List of Illustrations
Foreword
A Note on Terminology
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Free Speech & History
Inside the Denial Movement
Arguments & Refutations
Truth & History
Epilogue
Notes
Bibliography
Index
List of Illustrations
Foreword
A Note on Terminology
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Free Speech & History
Inside the Denial Movement
Arguments & Refutations
Truth & History
Epilogue
Notes
Bibliography
Index
330 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
20 people are currently reading
1250 people want to read
About the author
Michael Shermer
101 books1,164 followersMichael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954 in Glendale, California) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating and debunking pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members.
Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2004, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer now describes himself as an agnostic nontheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.
more info:
http://us.macmillan.com/author/michae...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_...
Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2004, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer now describes himself as an agnostic nontheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.
more info:
http://us.macmillan.com/author/michae...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
October 13, 2018
Okay, listen up, we're serious historical revisionists and this is how we roll.
Let's say a survivor of Majdanak talks about how it was well known that they were gassing Jews there. We point out an inaccuracy in this old guy's testimony – there are always inaccuracies, he's probably got Alzheimers by now - and we add that survivors are always exaggerating ( can give examples if you're interested). Okay, so another survivor backs up the first. We say well, what these guys are doing is retailing rumours, incorporating camp rumours into their testimony as fact. That happens a lot. Then an SS guard confesses after the war that he actually saw people being gassed and cremated. Oh well, that's a dunker – we say he was tortured by the whiter-than-white Allies. You think they didn't torture people? Guess again. So then, they'll wheel out the camp commandant who gives all the details of the transports, all those numbers, he coughs the lot. Well, we say he was currying favour, telling the Americans what they wanted to hear. You can't give this stuff any credibility. Ah but look – they'll tell you - he wrote down all that stuff in his autobiography after he'd been given his death sentence. He had nothing to lose! He was telling the truth! This is where we use the Henry Lee Lucas argument. Look at that guy, we say, what was his name, Henry Lee Lucas – supposed to be the most monstrous serial killer ever – turned out he made it all up just to look like some big shot for a few weeks. People confess to all kind of stuff they didn't do. Oh but what about these blueprints and photos? Doctored. Fakes. Propaganda. There was no six million. Then we lean forward and we say Look, let me tell you what really happened.
HOW TO MAKE A MISTAKE IN PUBLIC
You can't get past these deniers. They have an answer for everything. Phil Donahue devoted a tv show to an attempt to nail these bastards in public. He had Bradley Smith and David Cole on there, and he had two actual survivors of Auschwitz there. The results were wretched, horrible. You can see it on youtube. The deniers were pleasant enough, reasonable, they were saying oh no, we don't deny the Holocaust at all, Phil, it just wasn't like what you think it was. The survivors were getting outraged and mentioning human soap – this is something that scholars now think is probably a myth – and the deniers were scoring sharp points right and left even over the survivors, who were getting more and more wound up. Donahue was flailing around out of his depth, the deniers had all the facts at their fingertips. They were good.
THREE LITTLE LIES
What the deniers deny is several things at once.
Their main platform is –
1. It wasn't 6 million, it was approximately 600,000.
2. There were gas chambers all right, but strictly for delousing purposes.
3. There was no genocidal intention. There was chaos of war and there was barbarity on both sides (at which point they launch into descriptions of Dresden and the bombing campaign, Hiroshima, Katyn, and so forth).
They also deny another big thing – what Shermer and Grobman call convergence of evidence. Where's the one irrefutable photograph, or the written order from Hitler for the Final Solution? That's what they demand. What they deny is that every testimony, every statistic, every list of prisoners, all of the actual evidence, points towards one conclusion, the physical liquidation of millions of people.
This book gets into the fine forensic detail of refuting the deniers' allegations. It's exhausting. I can't think that you'll ever need this information, but we should be very glad it's right here.
Okay, so WHY on EARTH would anyone risk their livelihoods, jobs, relationships, and so on, in order to foist Holocaust denial on the world? It's a strange thing, it really is. Well, the question divides into two. In the WEST it's a strange thing, but in the EAST it's pretty normal.
WESTERN DENIERS
There's a tangle of motives. Some of them want to rehabilitate Hitler and the Third Reich – look, he was actually a bastion against the Communists who were the real enemy of civilisation! They're true fans and they don't like their idol being slandered by those official historians. Some of them want to expose Zionism – look at this creation Israel, look at how the Jews hype up the Holocaust and try to make it impossible to oppose their vicious policies… etc etc. (I don't know if this is still true but you used to get a lot of "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Zionist " on the left here in Britain and then a lot of these types were actually anti-Jewish.) Some of them want to weave their "historical revisionism" into various of the symphonies of persecution we call the Grand Conspiracy Theories. You know, The Protocols of the Elders of Walmart. Mostly, what comes through to me, though, is the old reliable solid dependable antisemitism, the mental roofbeam of paranoid men for the last 500 years. You can always count on that. It's remarkably ironic really – they have to downgrade the Nazis' genocide of the Jews in order to peddle their own antisemitism more reasonably.
EASTERN DENIERS
This is the giant bellowing elephant in the room which this book does not touch at all. I cannot believe that the authors were ignorant of all the propaganda from organisations like Hamas, who are explicit deniers.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now famous for his Holocaust denial speeches, became president of Iran in 2005, five years after this book was published. Under his aegis conferences are organised which seek to expose the Holocaust as a hoax. Western observers recoil in horror but the word goes out to the many young uneducated kids.
If there is a future edition of this book, and I bet there is, because denial isn't going away soon, S & G will have to add a chapter about Islamic denial - I think this is where denial is becoming entrenched. And what a sorry state of affairs.
If you survey the history of the Jews from their expulsion by Vespasian in 70 AD to the Enlightenment you see clearly that the Jews had a much better time of it in Muslim countries than they did in Christian countries – this is a very sweeping generalisation of course. Jews and Moslems lived together in Persia, in the Ottoman Empire, all over the Islamic world, and occasionally they were persecuted but not like they were in Russia or Spain – the Inquisition was set up to discover Jews who were passing as Christians, for example. But now, because of what the Muslim world regards as the crusader state of Israel, many Islamic organisations automatically join in with a kneejerk Holocaust denial, as if it's impossible to accept that your political enemy might also have been the victim of crimes or as if to accept the Holocaust's horrible reality would be in some way to undermine the catastrophe which happened to the Palestinians in 1947-8.
HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
This book makes excellent points about what historians do – they revise their views. After WW2 it was thought that most Nazi concentration camps had gas chambers. Turned out to be untrue, three of them did, and a further three extermination camps operated which were not concentration camps. The human soap story turned out not to be true, very probably. There was also an idea that the great majority of Jewish victims were gassed – this was not correct. There was also a concentration on the Jewish Holocaust, not surprisingly, which shoved to one side the other homicidal activities of the Nazis (against the Roma, against Poles, against Russian POWs). All these wrong views have been revised, and revision continues all the time. There is a difference between that and denial which is the difference between day and night.
CONCLUSION
Another great book about a pretty depressing subject - honestly, I feel I should apologise to my GR friends, I've been reading a steady stream of stuff like this recently. But books like this are ESSENTIAL.
Let's say a survivor of Majdanak talks about how it was well known that they were gassing Jews there. We point out an inaccuracy in this old guy's testimony – there are always inaccuracies, he's probably got Alzheimers by now - and we add that survivors are always exaggerating ( can give examples if you're interested). Okay, so another survivor backs up the first. We say well, what these guys are doing is retailing rumours, incorporating camp rumours into their testimony as fact. That happens a lot. Then an SS guard confesses after the war that he actually saw people being gassed and cremated. Oh well, that's a dunker – we say he was tortured by the whiter-than-white Allies. You think they didn't torture people? Guess again. So then, they'll wheel out the camp commandant who gives all the details of the transports, all those numbers, he coughs the lot. Well, we say he was currying favour, telling the Americans what they wanted to hear. You can't give this stuff any credibility. Ah but look – they'll tell you - he wrote down all that stuff in his autobiography after he'd been given his death sentence. He had nothing to lose! He was telling the truth! This is where we use the Henry Lee Lucas argument. Look at that guy, we say, what was his name, Henry Lee Lucas – supposed to be the most monstrous serial killer ever – turned out he made it all up just to look like some big shot for a few weeks. People confess to all kind of stuff they didn't do. Oh but what about these blueprints and photos? Doctored. Fakes. Propaganda. There was no six million. Then we lean forward and we say Look, let me tell you what really happened.
HOW TO MAKE A MISTAKE IN PUBLIC
You can't get past these deniers. They have an answer for everything. Phil Donahue devoted a tv show to an attempt to nail these bastards in public. He had Bradley Smith and David Cole on there, and he had two actual survivors of Auschwitz there. The results were wretched, horrible. You can see it on youtube. The deniers were pleasant enough, reasonable, they were saying oh no, we don't deny the Holocaust at all, Phil, it just wasn't like what you think it was. The survivors were getting outraged and mentioning human soap – this is something that scholars now think is probably a myth – and the deniers were scoring sharp points right and left even over the survivors, who were getting more and more wound up. Donahue was flailing around out of his depth, the deniers had all the facts at their fingertips. They were good.
THREE LITTLE LIES
What the deniers deny is several things at once.
Their main platform is –
1. It wasn't 6 million, it was approximately 600,000.
2. There were gas chambers all right, but strictly for delousing purposes.
3. There was no genocidal intention. There was chaos of war and there was barbarity on both sides (at which point they launch into descriptions of Dresden and the bombing campaign, Hiroshima, Katyn, and so forth).
They also deny another big thing – what Shermer and Grobman call convergence of evidence. Where's the one irrefutable photograph, or the written order from Hitler for the Final Solution? That's what they demand. What they deny is that every testimony, every statistic, every list of prisoners, all of the actual evidence, points towards one conclusion, the physical liquidation of millions of people.
This book gets into the fine forensic detail of refuting the deniers' allegations. It's exhausting. I can't think that you'll ever need this information, but we should be very glad it's right here.
Okay, so WHY on EARTH would anyone risk their livelihoods, jobs, relationships, and so on, in order to foist Holocaust denial on the world? It's a strange thing, it really is. Well, the question divides into two. In the WEST it's a strange thing, but in the EAST it's pretty normal.
WESTERN DENIERS
There's a tangle of motives. Some of them want to rehabilitate Hitler and the Third Reich – look, he was actually a bastion against the Communists who were the real enemy of civilisation! They're true fans and they don't like their idol being slandered by those official historians. Some of them want to expose Zionism – look at this creation Israel, look at how the Jews hype up the Holocaust and try to make it impossible to oppose their vicious policies… etc etc. (I don't know if this is still true but you used to get a lot of "I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm anti-Zionist " on the left here in Britain and then a lot of these types were actually anti-Jewish.) Some of them want to weave their "historical revisionism" into various of the symphonies of persecution we call the Grand Conspiracy Theories. You know, The Protocols of the Elders of Walmart. Mostly, what comes through to me, though, is the old reliable solid dependable antisemitism, the mental roofbeam of paranoid men for the last 500 years. You can always count on that. It's remarkably ironic really – they have to downgrade the Nazis' genocide of the Jews in order to peddle their own antisemitism more reasonably.
EASTERN DENIERS
This is the giant bellowing elephant in the room which this book does not touch at all. I cannot believe that the authors were ignorant of all the propaganda from organisations like Hamas, who are explicit deniers.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now famous for his Holocaust denial speeches, became president of Iran in 2005, five years after this book was published. Under his aegis conferences are organised which seek to expose the Holocaust as a hoax. Western observers recoil in horror but the word goes out to the many young uneducated kids.
If there is a future edition of this book, and I bet there is, because denial isn't going away soon, S & G will have to add a chapter about Islamic denial - I think this is where denial is becoming entrenched. And what a sorry state of affairs.
If you survey the history of the Jews from their expulsion by Vespasian in 70 AD to the Enlightenment you see clearly that the Jews had a much better time of it in Muslim countries than they did in Christian countries – this is a very sweeping generalisation of course. Jews and Moslems lived together in Persia, in the Ottoman Empire, all over the Islamic world, and occasionally they were persecuted but not like they were in Russia or Spain – the Inquisition was set up to discover Jews who were passing as Christians, for example. But now, because of what the Muslim world regards as the crusader state of Israel, many Islamic organisations automatically join in with a kneejerk Holocaust denial, as if it's impossible to accept that your political enemy might also have been the victim of crimes or as if to accept the Holocaust's horrible reality would be in some way to undermine the catastrophe which happened to the Palestinians in 1947-8.
HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
This book makes excellent points about what historians do – they revise their views. After WW2 it was thought that most Nazi concentration camps had gas chambers. Turned out to be untrue, three of them did, and a further three extermination camps operated which were not concentration camps. The human soap story turned out not to be true, very probably. There was also an idea that the great majority of Jewish victims were gassed – this was not correct. There was also a concentration on the Jewish Holocaust, not surprisingly, which shoved to one side the other homicidal activities of the Nazis (against the Roma, against Poles, against Russian POWs). All these wrong views have been revised, and revision continues all the time. There is a difference between that and denial which is the difference between day and night.
CONCLUSION
Another great book about a pretty depressing subject - honestly, I feel I should apologise to my GR friends, I've been reading a steady stream of stuff like this recently. But books like this are ESSENTIAL.
March 28, 2022
Although written in the year 2000 just after the key Holocaust denial cases of Ernst Zundel and David Irving, this book seems as crucial and timely as ever, not only because of the continuing rise of antisemitism but also due to rampant false news and our social-media driven tendencies to distort actual current and historical events for some sort of agenda.
What I really liked about the approach of the authors, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, was how they didn't just lapse into calling the deniers fringe fanatics and Jew haters, but instead they presented some well-structured arguments and actual tenets about what makes some historical research valid and other research weak or invalid. They probed the various actors within the "revisionist history" camp and pulled apart some of the weaker arguments, often pointing to another agenda aside from getting at the "historical truth". The authors admit, also, that there is often legitimate historical revisionism. As new evidence comes to light, a scientific approach to history can revise past assumptions to a more accurate accounting of events. They key word being a "scientific" approach to history.
In any field of study, I find time and time again the validity of research hinges on the scientific method: a hypothesis becomes the best viable model of the truth until it is disproven by multiple counter examples. The problem the authors point out with the Holocaust deniers is that they find tend to find pieces of evidence that support their hypothesis that the Holocaust did not happen or has been exaggerated. They don't look at or for the counter evidence that disproves or invalidates their pieces of evidence. A case in point is one denier who "scientifically" showed that the brick ruins of a certain purported gas chamber only contained the slightest minute traces of cyanide gas. The problem is that he doesn't account for the counter arguments against his evidence: the ruins he sampled had been exposed to the air and rain for over 50 years, cyanide gas doesn't really penetrate very deeply into brickwork, and last but not least, he only had 2-3 brick samples.
Lastly, when it comes to the crux of Holocaust denier arguments, one almost always finds evidence of an unwillingness that something so terrible could have happened in the the civilized Europe of the 2oth century. Germany was indeed a great country filled with brilliant minds in its past: Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Schiller...Understanding the cruel monstrosity of Hitler is indeed difficult.
However, once you look even deeper you do often see damning language of the deniers, as in "exposing the lies of the traditional enemy", where it is obvious that the Jews are the traditional enemy. So sadly, it ultimately often does come down to some degree of antisemitism at the root of the matter.
Indeed a very good book, for which the authors' analyses apply not only to Holocaust deniers, but I would propose, for "false news" promoters everywhere.
What I really liked about the approach of the authors, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, was how they didn't just lapse into calling the deniers fringe fanatics and Jew haters, but instead they presented some well-structured arguments and actual tenets about what makes some historical research valid and other research weak or invalid. They probed the various actors within the "revisionist history" camp and pulled apart some of the weaker arguments, often pointing to another agenda aside from getting at the "historical truth". The authors admit, also, that there is often legitimate historical revisionism. As new evidence comes to light, a scientific approach to history can revise past assumptions to a more accurate accounting of events. They key word being a "scientific" approach to history.
In any field of study, I find time and time again the validity of research hinges on the scientific method: a hypothesis becomes the best viable model of the truth until it is disproven by multiple counter examples. The problem the authors point out with the Holocaust deniers is that they find tend to find pieces of evidence that support their hypothesis that the Holocaust did not happen or has been exaggerated. They don't look at or for the counter evidence that disproves or invalidates their pieces of evidence. A case in point is one denier who "scientifically" showed that the brick ruins of a certain purported gas chamber only contained the slightest minute traces of cyanide gas. The problem is that he doesn't account for the counter arguments against his evidence: the ruins he sampled had been exposed to the air and rain for over 50 years, cyanide gas doesn't really penetrate very deeply into brickwork, and last but not least, he only had 2-3 brick samples.
Lastly, when it comes to the crux of Holocaust denier arguments, one almost always finds evidence of an unwillingness that something so terrible could have happened in the the civilized Europe of the 2oth century. Germany was indeed a great country filled with brilliant minds in its past: Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Schiller...Understanding the cruel monstrosity of Hitler is indeed difficult.
However, once you look even deeper you do often see damning language of the deniers, as in "exposing the lies of the traditional enemy", where it is obvious that the Jews are the traditional enemy. So sadly, it ultimately often does come down to some degree of antisemitism at the root of the matter.
Indeed a very good book, for which the authors' analyses apply not only to Holocaust deniers, but I would propose, for "false news" promoters everywhere.
July 10, 2012
I read this book on the heels of assisting with a Holocaust remembrance program at my library. Before the program I'd gotten geared up for what I'd say to someone trying to hijack the program for the purpose of Holocaust denial. ("Please, we are here to remember something that happened. If you want to remember something that didn't happen, you need to reserve the room for your own program some other time.") After the program (which didn't attract any deniers) I was perusing the book exhibit put together for the program, and this book was on display.
While it does an excellent job of explaining Holocaust denial and, along the way, of presenting evidence to answer the deniers, the best part of the book is what it says about how to think about not only history, but science. Science proceeds by establishing a hypothetical framework and seeing how well it explains the facts. History works the same way, but in the case of history the "facts" are the multifarious pieces of documentary, testimonial, and statistical evidence. Science (and history) must also have an impersonal, nonideological truth as the object and require an open and public examination of competing ideas.
Where Holocaust deniers have demanded a single "smoking gun" as necessary to establish the Holocaust--an intact gas chamber whose purpose was to kill humans--Shermer, a well-known professional skeptic, summarizes the "convergence of evidence" that establishes the historicity of the Holocaust: testimonials of survivors, both Jew and Nazi; documentary evidence from within the Reich; ideological utterances of Nazi leaders; multiple, independent demographic studies; photographic evidence; and the records of ghettos, labor camps, and extermination squads. The denier gas chamber demand--already weakened by the fact that the Nazis intentionally destroyed them in advance of the arrival of the Russians--is completely washed away by a tidal wave of converging evidence confirming the reality of the Holocaust.
An excellent single-volume explanation and refutation of Holocaust Denial, the book's broader perspectives on science and history also make it worth reading for those dealing with such fringe ideologies as Creationism and any type of ethnocentric history.
While it does an excellent job of explaining Holocaust denial and, along the way, of presenting evidence to answer the deniers, the best part of the book is what it says about how to think about not only history, but science. Science proceeds by establishing a hypothetical framework and seeing how well it explains the facts. History works the same way, but in the case of history the "facts" are the multifarious pieces of documentary, testimonial, and statistical evidence. Science (and history) must also have an impersonal, nonideological truth as the object and require an open and public examination of competing ideas.
Where Holocaust deniers have demanded a single "smoking gun" as necessary to establish the Holocaust--an intact gas chamber whose purpose was to kill humans--Shermer, a well-known professional skeptic, summarizes the "convergence of evidence" that establishes the historicity of the Holocaust: testimonials of survivors, both Jew and Nazi; documentary evidence from within the Reich; ideological utterances of Nazi leaders; multiple, independent demographic studies; photographic evidence; and the records of ghettos, labor camps, and extermination squads. The denier gas chamber demand--already weakened by the fact that the Nazis intentionally destroyed them in advance of the arrival of the Russians--is completely washed away by a tidal wave of converging evidence confirming the reality of the Holocaust.
An excellent single-volume explanation and refutation of Holocaust Denial, the book's broader perspectives on science and history also make it worth reading for those dealing with such fringe ideologies as Creationism and any type of ethnocentric history.
September 19, 2018
This is a book I wanted to read for a very long time. Especially in this era of fake news and other crap being seminated, I thought it would be interesting to check on how the worst of denial is constructed.
I was not disappointed, this is a book that is absolutely a recommendation. Well researched with tons of notes, bibliography and index. It delves into the details of why people deny what is so obvious, and it shows us that decent scientific research can provide valid truths. Even more, it describes the tactics of denialism , for instance focussing on anomaly hunting while never providing a decent alternative to explain ALL the facts at the same time. It even delves into some philosophy of history, which I liked (of course) too.
Read this book. It remains valid and a warning for our current situation.
I was not disappointed, this is a book that is absolutely a recommendation. Well researched with tons of notes, bibliography and index. It delves into the details of why people deny what is so obvious, and it shows us that decent scientific research can provide valid truths. Even more, it describes the tactics of denialism , for instance focussing on anomaly hunting while never providing a decent alternative to explain ALL the facts at the same time. It even delves into some philosophy of history, which I liked (of course) too.
Read this book. It remains valid and a warning for our current situation.
October 7, 2023
I have no doubt that the Holocaust occurred or that Sherman & Grobman provide a useful compendium with which to answer those who say that it didn’t. But the authors are naively confident about both the nature of “historical science” and the motivations of Holocaust deniers. “Real revision” and “dogmatic denial” are not necessarily opposites; they can be points on a sliding scale. The authors’ discussion of Derek Freeman’s critique of Margaret Mead (247-48) reveals what a weak reed peer review can be. And that six of the fifteen attendees at the Wannsee Conference held doctorates in law ought suggest the limitations of entrusting the search for truth to professional elites. Despite their attempts at evenhandedness, Sherman and Grobman promote their own ideologies as much as Holocaust deniers do. Biases drive their conclusions as well. Sherman and Grobman are right about the Holocaust, less so in regard to the nature of history or the nature of man
March 20, 2017
If this was the first book I'd ever read about Holocaust Denial, it likely would have fared better. Unfortunately, I've read just everying that was published about the Lipstadt v. Irving case, including Richard J. Evans, Lying About Hitler. This book is fine, but I wasn't all that impressed. Even the expanded update added nothing new.
June 6, 2013
This book might profitably be employed in an historiography course as its general thrust is as regards the determination of historical facts, about which the authors are quite sanguine. The "Holocaust" of 5-6 million Jews at the hands of the German state during WWII and the fact that some "historians" deny the event, its magnitude or its agency constitute a controversial case study in the making of this point.
As a refutation of the deniers, or even one of them, the book is sketchy. Frankly, I'm really only acquainted with Irving, probably the most reputable of the lot and the one most mentioned here. But even in the treatment of his points the authors aren't thorough. Something like the claim that Nazis made soap out of Jewish murder victims is treated in great detail while other disputed facts, such as Nazi medical experiments on prisoners leading to death, are barely mentioned.
Not mentioned as well, except glancingly, are the non-Jewish victims of Nazi racial policy: the homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, Slavs etc. Insofar as attention is paid to these others it's the disabled who are most discussed, but this is because they represent the first group the German state attempted to exterminate, setting the stage for more extensive weedings of the population under later wartime conditions. Here, the great--and possibly quite artificial--gulf between Jewish victims and all the others deserves a treatment the authors don't give it, a treatment I suspect the deniers attend to frequently.
Still, though incomplete, this is a book worth reading, at least as an antidote to the contrary voices.
As a refutation of the deniers, or even one of them, the book is sketchy. Frankly, I'm really only acquainted with Irving, probably the most reputable of the lot and the one most mentioned here. But even in the treatment of his points the authors aren't thorough. Something like the claim that Nazis made soap out of Jewish murder victims is treated in great detail while other disputed facts, such as Nazi medical experiments on prisoners leading to death, are barely mentioned.
Not mentioned as well, except glancingly, are the non-Jewish victims of Nazi racial policy: the homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, Slavs etc. Insofar as attention is paid to these others it's the disabled who are most discussed, but this is because they represent the first group the German state attempted to exterminate, setting the stage for more extensive weedings of the population under later wartime conditions. Here, the great--and possibly quite artificial--gulf between Jewish victims and all the others deserves a treatment the authors don't give it, a treatment I suspect the deniers attend to frequently.
Still, though incomplete, this is a book worth reading, at least as an antidote to the contrary voices.
November 14, 2010
just to clarify, all because i thought this book sucked doesnt mean i dont believe the holocaust happened
November 20, 2018
On a beautiful gusty day , on a promontory at Wing's Neck, Cap Cod, two families met to witness a wedding. Of the 200 guests at that event, 115 were the Bride's family. The Groom's family could only muster 25, half of those traveling from Europe and Israel to attend. THAT is the legacy of the Holocaust, for I was that groom- and that stunted family is my own. My mother could still recite the names of the 20 cousins that had perished, the extended family that is no longer here. Those people are GONE and the Nazis MURDERED THEM ALL. But somehow, a counter story has stayed alive.
In this painstaking and exhaustive work. Shermer and Grobman discuss, parse and debunk all the strains of Holocaust Denial in detail. In doing so they discuss the nature of history, memory and bureaucratic violence. No stone is left unturned, and no canard is allowed to remain standing. By the end of the book, the reader will have both a deeper knowledge of the facts of the holocaust, and the tools with which to annihilate any foolish deniers in arguments.
The factual basis of the book is amazingly well done and patient in its explanations for the less well read on the topic. But it is the ample discussion of WHY people deny the Holocaust is really well done as well. Of course its Anti-Semitism, but there are other layers that make this part of the book fascinating. Sometimes the book seems to dip into philosophy, but always comes back to the point and the sad tale it tells.
This is deep and complex book, and a junior reader under 14 may find it too challenging and depressing. There is little content either for my typical readership, the Gamer/Modeller/Military Enthusiast. This will not help Scenario or Diorama development, but it will edify the reader on the Racial subtext to WWII, and the role of the SS in the destruction of the Jews. The authors show how the "Cleansing" had very real effects on Military Policy during WWII and was part of the War effort. If one can stand the depressing elements to this story, this is a very important book to one's understanding of WWII in all is elements. A strong recommendation.
In this painstaking and exhaustive work. Shermer and Grobman discuss, parse and debunk all the strains of Holocaust Denial in detail. In doing so they discuss the nature of history, memory and bureaucratic violence. No stone is left unturned, and no canard is allowed to remain standing. By the end of the book, the reader will have both a deeper knowledge of the facts of the holocaust, and the tools with which to annihilate any foolish deniers in arguments.
The factual basis of the book is amazingly well done and patient in its explanations for the less well read on the topic. But it is the ample discussion of WHY people deny the Holocaust is really well done as well. Of course its Anti-Semitism, but there are other layers that make this part of the book fascinating. Sometimes the book seems to dip into philosophy, but always comes back to the point and the sad tale it tells.
This is deep and complex book, and a junior reader under 14 may find it too challenging and depressing. There is little content either for my typical readership, the Gamer/Modeller/Military Enthusiast. This will not help Scenario or Diorama development, but it will edify the reader on the Racial subtext to WWII, and the role of the SS in the destruction of the Jews. The authors show how the "Cleansing" had very real effects on Military Policy during WWII and was part of the War effort. If one can stand the depressing elements to this story, this is a very important book to one's understanding of WWII in all is elements. A strong recommendation.
February 18, 2021
This book can be very frustrating, disheartening, and disturbing to read, but it is also incredibly valuable and important. Micheal Shermer and Alex Grobman are masterful in how they communicate the ways that historians ethically study history, how they lay out the extent of the beliefs of Holocaust Deniers, the motivations behind people who deny historical evidence, and the ways historians use evidence to make logical conclusions about this horrific event in history (as well as many others).
I read this book during my undergraduate years of college as part of one of my classes where we discussed how to use and be discerning of sources. This book has always stuck with me, and I was glad while rereading it to be validated that it is just as powerful as I remembered. It was written in 2000 in response to the growing attention that Holocaust denial materials were receiving in the 90s, and this book is incredibly relevant 20 years later, especially in light of multiple historical events in 2020.
From the book, "Consider this: Some Holocaust deniers, particularly those with extreme right-wing leanings, might gain greater acceptance if the crime attached to fascism had never actually happened. Without the Holocaust perhaps fascism would seem a more acceptable alternative to democracy. Moreover, if people can be convinced that the Holocaust never happened, perhaps they can also be persuaded to believe that slavery is a hoax perpetrated by blacks to coerce Congress to institute affirmative action programs. Once we allow the distortion of one segment of history without making an appropriate response, we risk the possible distortion of other historical events. For this reason, Holocaust denial is not just a Jewish issue. It is an attack on all history and on the way we transmit the past to the future."
I read this book during my undergraduate years of college as part of one of my classes where we discussed how to use and be discerning of sources. This book has always stuck with me, and I was glad while rereading it to be validated that it is just as powerful as I remembered. It was written in 2000 in response to the growing attention that Holocaust denial materials were receiving in the 90s, and this book is incredibly relevant 20 years later, especially in light of multiple historical events in 2020.
From the book, "Consider this: Some Holocaust deniers, particularly those with extreme right-wing leanings, might gain greater acceptance if the crime attached to fascism had never actually happened. Without the Holocaust perhaps fascism would seem a more acceptable alternative to democracy. Moreover, if people can be convinced that the Holocaust never happened, perhaps they can also be persuaded to believe that slavery is a hoax perpetrated by blacks to coerce Congress to institute affirmative action programs. Once we allow the distortion of one segment of history without making an appropriate response, we risk the possible distortion of other historical events. For this reason, Holocaust denial is not just a Jewish issue. It is an attack on all history and on the way we transmit the past to the future."
August 3, 2011
Perhaps I spend too much time examining the psychology of the "lunatic fringe", but I can't deny a fascination with anyone who could deny something like the Holocaust, for which there is SO much photographic, documentary and eye-witness evidence. And, if you can make it through all the philosophical/ historical ground rules outlined in the early chapters of Denying History (essentially delineating what is considered to be "proof" in the perspective of main-stream historians), it is then a feast of bizarre, sometimes improbable, but all very human stories of those who do just that -- deny that the Holocaust ever occurred, or at least try to diminish it's scope, and therefore it's historical significance. Anti-Semitism is at the root of all Holocaust denial, although, paradoxically, not all Holocaust deniers appear to know it. And therefore, many otherwise very VERY intelligent people have become, in essence, the "useful idiots" of Holocaust denial's ultimate, anti-Semitic cause. One more oddity jumped out at me, as an expatriate of conservative Orange County CA -- an overwhelming number of Holocaust denial meetings and conferences occur in places like Irvine, CA, Costa Mesa, CA, Huntington Beach, CA, etc. Very odd. Perhaps also a partial answer to my fascination with these folks -- sometimes they are just a little TOO familiar.
November 29, 2025
I never imagined having to bone up on arguments to refute Holocaust deniers, but sadly that appears to be the moment we are living through (see also Alec Ryrie’s The Age of Hitler). This book was very helpful towards that end.
April 19, 2022
Historians are faced with three options when confronted with Holocaust Denial. The first is simply to ignore the deniers, thereby denying them the publicity which they seek. The second option is to expose the ideological motivation behind Holocaust Denial, and thereby unmask it as a modern manifestation of anti-Semitism. This is the path taken most prominently by Deborah Lipstatd in exposing the intention of Deniers but refusing to actually debate with them lest any academic credibility ‘rub off’ onto such opponents. While the internet has made the first option untenable, the second is still the preferred approach. However, there are those who feel that because the arguments presented by deniers may on the surface appear worthy of consideration, historians have a duty to confront and dismantle them. This is the method adopted by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman in their book ‘Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?’.
The book starts by exploring the methodology of Holocaust Denial and describes an important distinction between legitimate historical revisionism and denial. Simply put, deniers are shown not to play by the accepted rules of historical inquiry. Genuine history involves looking at evidence from a variety of sources and looking at the direction such evidence points to. Denial does the opposite: it starts with a conclusion and attempts to fit the evidence around it whilst ignoring that which contradicts the starting conclusion. Holocaust deniers do not follow the rules of historical scholarship. Why do they do this? The authors move on to explore this question, presenting a historical overview of the movement and information on its leading proponents. Shermer and Grobman present a group of loosely-connected individuals who are united by a shared belief in conspiratorial anti-Semitism. A cursory glance through the Journal for Historical Review—the leading Denial journal—makes this so apparent that one wonders why deniers so often bother to deny it.
The second half of the book focuses on the claims made by deniers, particularly the three ‘fundamentals’ which define the movement: Denial of the Nazi intention to commit genocide against the Jewish people; denial of an industrial-scale process to commit genocide, specifically the use of gas chambers; and denial of the death of approximately six million Jew. As the authors are clear to emphasise, no single historical document ‘proves’ any of the above, but all are known to be true based on the convergence of an overwhelming amount of independent evidence. While this available evidence fills volumes on library shelves, the authors present enough within these pages to conclusively demonstrate that denial of the above is totally contrary to the evidence. Many of specific claims made by deniers (e.g. that gas chambers were used for delousing) are shown to be false. If the evidence cannot be distorted or fudged, deniers are shown to be quite willing to engage in outright fabrication. Deniers are, quite literally, telling lies for Hitler.
Shermer and Grobman have performed a great service by writing this book. It is well written, clearly presented, and meticulously destroys the arguments put forward by Holocaust Deniers. It is doubtful it will change the mind of those convinced that ‘The Six Million’ is a hoax, but it will demonstrate to any fair-minded reader that there is nothing honest about those who seek to eradicate the past.
The book starts by exploring the methodology of Holocaust Denial and describes an important distinction between legitimate historical revisionism and denial. Simply put, deniers are shown not to play by the accepted rules of historical inquiry. Genuine history involves looking at evidence from a variety of sources and looking at the direction such evidence points to. Denial does the opposite: it starts with a conclusion and attempts to fit the evidence around it whilst ignoring that which contradicts the starting conclusion. Holocaust deniers do not follow the rules of historical scholarship. Why do they do this? The authors move on to explore this question, presenting a historical overview of the movement and information on its leading proponents. Shermer and Grobman present a group of loosely-connected individuals who are united by a shared belief in conspiratorial anti-Semitism. A cursory glance through the Journal for Historical Review—the leading Denial journal—makes this so apparent that one wonders why deniers so often bother to deny it.
The second half of the book focuses on the claims made by deniers, particularly the three ‘fundamentals’ which define the movement: Denial of the Nazi intention to commit genocide against the Jewish people; denial of an industrial-scale process to commit genocide, specifically the use of gas chambers; and denial of the death of approximately six million Jew. As the authors are clear to emphasise, no single historical document ‘proves’ any of the above, but all are known to be true based on the convergence of an overwhelming amount of independent evidence. While this available evidence fills volumes on library shelves, the authors present enough within these pages to conclusively demonstrate that denial of the above is totally contrary to the evidence. Many of specific claims made by deniers (e.g. that gas chambers were used for delousing) are shown to be false. If the evidence cannot be distorted or fudged, deniers are shown to be quite willing to engage in outright fabrication. Deniers are, quite literally, telling lies for Hitler.
Shermer and Grobman have performed a great service by writing this book. It is well written, clearly presented, and meticulously destroys the arguments put forward by Holocaust Deniers. It is doubtful it will change the mind of those convinced that ‘The Six Million’ is a hoax, but it will demonstrate to any fair-minded reader that there is nothing honest about those who seek to eradicate the past.
December 2, 2020
This is an excellent volume, both on how history is properly done, and how the Holocaust definitely happened. The beginning of the book is the more philosophical part and explains how history should be done (this is a way of looking at, collecting, and interpreting evidence that tries to minimize bias). This then continues into the Holocaust deniers and their motivations (essentially, it answers why do people do other types of "history"), and then finally demolishes the denier arguments with multiple lines of evidence converging on an interpretation or fact. These multiple lines of evidence converging is what makes history reliable.
The final part of the book considers denialism vs historical revisionism more broadly. This is a nice ending and helps give the book its final send-off. The overall message I think is well-stated and the evidence given is entirely convincing.
My only hesitation in giving 5 stars it that I do feel like I must criticize one part of the final section given the book's emphasis. They praise Iris Chang's Rape of Nanking as "first-rate historical detective work", but a simple online search shows many historians with serious reservations about the work as history, at least regarding how Japanese culture has regarded the incident [please do look at this yourself if you're interested, with Wikipedia providing a good overview of criticisms]. This is not to say the work is entirely without merit, but that it has some sound historical critiques attacking its stance about the state of denialism in Japan. To be clear, these historians with critiques [and I] agree that the Rape of Nanking [sometimes called the Nanking Massacre or Nanking incident] happened, and that at least tens of thousands, but likely one or two hundred thousand lives were cruelly murdered in addition to multiple awful, if less lethal, acts committed against the citizenry of Nanking and the surrounding area. For the point of denialism existing on different topics and in different countries, this is a good example, but the details of how Japanese culture has dealt with the dark legacy of WWII, and the Rape of Nanking in particular, is not given the nuance and historical analysis that is needed on a topic like this. Denying History basically just repeats what Chang's book says about how deep denialism is in Japan when the story is much more complicated than presented, even taking into account the age of the books at their time of writing. [Richard B. Frank's Tower of Skulls contains a modern and very good, if brief, introduction to the Rape of Nanking where he looks at estimating the number killed (including the uncertainties) and what the circumstances were leading up to the massacre.]
The final part of the book considers denialism vs historical revisionism more broadly. This is a nice ending and helps give the book its final send-off. The overall message I think is well-stated and the evidence given is entirely convincing.
My only hesitation in giving 5 stars it that I do feel like I must criticize one part of the final section given the book's emphasis. They praise Iris Chang's Rape of Nanking as "first-rate historical detective work", but a simple online search shows many historians with serious reservations about the work as history, at least regarding how Japanese culture has regarded the incident [please do look at this yourself if you're interested, with Wikipedia providing a good overview of criticisms]. This is not to say the work is entirely without merit, but that it has some sound historical critiques attacking its stance about the state of denialism in Japan. To be clear, these historians with critiques [and I] agree that the Rape of Nanking [sometimes called the Nanking Massacre or Nanking incident] happened, and that at least tens of thousands, but likely one or two hundred thousand lives were cruelly murdered in addition to multiple awful, if less lethal, acts committed against the citizenry of Nanking and the surrounding area. For the point of denialism existing on different topics and in different countries, this is a good example, but the details of how Japanese culture has dealt with the dark legacy of WWII, and the Rape of Nanking in particular, is not given the nuance and historical analysis that is needed on a topic like this. Denying History basically just repeats what Chang's book says about how deep denialism is in Japan when the story is much more complicated than presented, even taking into account the age of the books at their time of writing. [Richard B. Frank's Tower of Skulls contains a modern and very good, if brief, introduction to the Rape of Nanking where he looks at estimating the number killed (including the uncertainties) and what the circumstances were leading up to the massacre.]
February 2, 2017
I've read this book mainly because I wanted to understand how anyone could seriously deny this terrible phase of human history. As a German citizen you hear about verdicts regarding this topic every now and then, and I never could comprehend why people would be in denial of this. Only a while back a nearly ninety year old woman (Ursula Haverbeck) was sentenced to prison, because she publicly denied that Auschwitz was a extermination camp.
As someone interested in the history of the Third Reich, the historic evidence for this being true is so overwhelming that I can't even begin to imagine how you can have doubts about it. I also don*t see how you could profit from such a thesis, since only lunatics will buy into this and are willing to spend money on it. But apparently I'm wrong, since there seem to be more than enough people in denial of history, who are willing to spread lies for some political reasons.
On the other hand I never understood why it is punishable law (at least in Germany and apparently also in many other countries) to deny the Holocaust. Yes it was an unprecedented act of systematic mass murdering, but you cannot enforce people to accept that by law. I certainly don't want to be disrespectful and/or endorse anti-Semitism, but people are allowed to believe complete bullshit all day long (including all sorts of world conspiracies, faked moon landings, UFOs & obductions by aliens, creationists, earth flatters, etc.), but if it comes to a particular episode of history, then you enforce the truth it by law. Seems odd to me and it is obvious that this does not work.
By the way: This book is not only about Nazi Germany. The last chapter also contains some references to the massacre of Nanking, which is another bad episode of human history, where Japanese soldiers murdered and raped thousands and thousands of Chinese citizens. Interestingly enough, this episode isn't talked as much about as the Third Reich and at least I can't remember to been taught about it in school (although I knew about it beforehand).
All in all, this book is good. It is well structured and you hear some insights of why people believe such things. It contains good arguments why we know that the Holocaust did actually happen, so if you want to argue the case, you'll find some material here.
As someone interested in the history of the Third Reich, the historic evidence for this being true is so overwhelming that I can't even begin to imagine how you can have doubts about it. I also don*t see how you could profit from such a thesis, since only lunatics will buy into this and are willing to spend money on it. But apparently I'm wrong, since there seem to be more than enough people in denial of history, who are willing to spread lies for some political reasons.
On the other hand I never understood why it is punishable law (at least in Germany and apparently also in many other countries) to deny the Holocaust. Yes it was an unprecedented act of systematic mass murdering, but you cannot enforce people to accept that by law. I certainly don't want to be disrespectful and/or endorse anti-Semitism, but people are allowed to believe complete bullshit all day long (including all sorts of world conspiracies, faked moon landings, UFOs & obductions by aliens, creationists, earth flatters, etc.), but if it comes to a particular episode of history, then you enforce the truth it by law. Seems odd to me and it is obvious that this does not work.
By the way: This book is not only about Nazi Germany. The last chapter also contains some references to the massacre of Nanking, which is another bad episode of human history, where Japanese soldiers murdered and raped thousands and thousands of Chinese citizens. Interestingly enough, this episode isn't talked as much about as the Third Reich and at least I can't remember to been taught about it in school (although I knew about it beforehand).
All in all, this book is good. It is well structured and you hear some insights of why people believe such things. It contains good arguments why we know that the Holocaust did actually happen, so if you want to argue the case, you'll find some material here.
March 11, 2013
It took quite an effort to destroy six million Jewish people. In describing the massive social mobilization that enabled the Holocaust, Emil Fackenheim speaks of the Nazi's "scholastically precise definitition of the victims, juridical procedures, enlisting the finest minds of the legal profession, aimed at the total elimination of the victims' rights; a techical apparatus, including murder trains and gas chambers, and, most importantly, a veritalbe army not only of actual murderers but also of witting and unwitting accomplices --- clerks, lawyers, journalists, bank managers, army officers, railway conductors, entrepreneurs, and an endless list of others." Fackenheim's description of the extent of the Nazi effort offers insight to two recent Holocaust books.
With careful research and a patient presentation, Denying History addresses Holocaust denial. It outlines the science of confirming what really happened in history, issues of free speech related to Holocaust deinal, and looks at those who say the Holocaust never happened --- the arguments and responses. For example, a recent lab study found no poison gas residue in a gas chamber concrete block; some people concluded the entire Holocaust is therefore a hoax. Through corroborating various kinds of evidnence --- eyewitness reports (from the victims as well as perpetrators), physical artifacts, and the like, hostorians can conclusively doument the Holocaust as history. In this case, Shermer ang Grobman demonstrate the depth of of social, economic, medical and political coordination needed to murder six million members of a particular people.
With careful research and a patient presentation, Denying History addresses Holocaust denial. It outlines the science of confirming what really happened in history, issues of free speech related to Holocaust deinal, and looks at those who say the Holocaust never happened --- the arguments and responses. For example, a recent lab study found no poison gas residue in a gas chamber concrete block; some people concluded the entire Holocaust is therefore a hoax. Through corroborating various kinds of evidnence --- eyewitness reports (from the victims as well as perpetrators), physical artifacts, and the like, hostorians can conclusively doument the Holocaust as history. In this case, Shermer ang Grobman demonstrate the depth of of social, economic, medical and political coordination needed to murder six million members of a particular people.
December 14, 2011
This is not a book which attempts to present the case that The Holocaust did not occur, but it's an examination of the logic, arguments, aims, and make-up of the groups who make these outrageous claims. The authors do more than just 'shut-down' these appalling theories, but they aptly demonstrate the questionable logic upon which they are based.
The primary proponent of this fallacious theory is a group called,The Institute for Historical Review. The name itself seems to imply that this obvious travesty of human behavior is somehow in need of a review. Their questionable arguments are framed in an almost impossible manner. It's similar to trying to defend yourself from the following question. "When did you stop beating your wife"?
This book clearly demonstrates that the facts DO NOT speak for themselves, and there needs to be a clear and accepted apparatus for judging what 'is' and what 'is not' part of the historical record. And, DENYING HISTORY's strength is that it successfully engages the reader in this process.
The primary proponent of this fallacious theory is a group called,The Institute for Historical Review. The name itself seems to imply that this obvious travesty of human behavior is somehow in need of a review. Their questionable arguments are framed in an almost impossible manner. It's similar to trying to defend yourself from the following question. "When did you stop beating your wife"?
This book clearly demonstrates that the facts DO NOT speak for themselves, and there needs to be a clear and accepted apparatus for judging what 'is' and what 'is not' part of the historical record. And, DENYING HISTORY's strength is that it successfully engages the reader in this process.
October 1, 2022
Well argued. Compelling, easy to read, and a useful resource. I learned something about historical objectivity, historical relativism, and historical science.
However: I got a copy of this 22-year-old hardcover after learning that one of the authors is being a transphobic jerk in the magazine he runs and on Twitter. Thus, I must dock it a star. Our literary appreciation is determined partly by our awareness of what else the author is doing out in the world, to what other questions they're applying their intellect, and how they're treating others. It just is. They don't cleanly separate. I like what the authors said about responding to Holocaust denial, but at least one of them is not applying these lessons in his own behavior toward trans people today. I argued about this connection on Medium. That's my assessment.
However: I got a copy of this 22-year-old hardcover after learning that one of the authors is being a transphobic jerk in the magazine he runs and on Twitter. Thus, I must dock it a star. Our literary appreciation is determined partly by our awareness of what else the author is doing out in the world, to what other questions they're applying their intellect, and how they're treating others. It just is. They don't cleanly separate. I like what the authors said about responding to Holocaust denial, but at least one of them is not applying these lessons in his own behavior toward trans people today. I argued about this connection on Medium. That's my assessment.
July 27, 2013
Fascinating.
The title of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? pretty much tells it all - it is an academic exploration into the people who deny the Holocaust ever happened and their motivations for making this claim.
Of course, you may be wondering why someone would make a claim like this, despite the film footage of newly-liberated camps, eyewitness testimony from both victims and perpetrators, the population records that show that, indeed, some 6 million Jews did not survive World War II and damning circumstantial evidence from Hitler and members of his inner circle that alludes to a "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem".
Well, the deniers are a motley lot. Some are...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...
The title of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? pretty much tells it all - it is an academic exploration into the people who deny the Holocaust ever happened and their motivations for making this claim.
Of course, you may be wondering why someone would make a claim like this, despite the film footage of newly-liberated camps, eyewitness testimony from both victims and perpetrators, the population records that show that, indeed, some 6 million Jews did not survive World War II and damning circumstantial evidence from Hitler and members of his inner circle that alludes to a "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem".
Well, the deniers are a motley lot. Some are...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...
August 19, 2008
The best part of this book is the brief overview of the way in which historians analyze historical events and decide which interpretations or theories are most likely to be true. Turns out it is much the same way in which scientists or physicists review their peers work and decide whether they hold weight or, being full of hot air, float away. But the weakness of the book is in the paucity of examples given. There are alot of different TYPES of evidence given, but within each type only a few (if that) examples are given. Of course with the Holocaust it seems silly to even have such a discussion, but as Shermer explains, the allegations of Holocaust denial need to be confronted, lest they go the way of the Rape of Nanking, which if you have never heard of, only proves their point.
June 11, 2016
At the risk of making it sound that I am mocking a serious matter, I believe certain things: Elvis is dead. The Earth is round. We did land on the Moon. Oswald acted alone. There was a Holocaust.
Who in their right mind can deny the Holocaust? It’s just amazing to me that people continue to refute it so vehemently and maintain that was just an elaborate hoax. It’s stupefying.
I did not like the way the book presented the information, it was very “text-booky” and at times it felt like reading a bibliography. The beginning wasn’t even about the Holocaust at all, but rather about the theory of history – that part bored me.
Although I can’t say learned anything new, I’d still recommend it because it’s basically a fascinating topic.
Who in their right mind can deny the Holocaust? It’s just amazing to me that people continue to refute it so vehemently and maintain that was just an elaborate hoax. It’s stupefying.
I did not like the way the book presented the information, it was very “text-booky” and at times it felt like reading a bibliography. The beginning wasn’t even about the Holocaust at all, but rather about the theory of history – that part bored me.
Although I can’t say learned anything new, I’d still recommend it because it’s basically a fascinating topic.
March 10, 2018
This is disturbing reading -- and not just because of the graphic descriptions on how to kill six million Jews. If you can get through the first two chapters (which drag like heck) you then get some rewarding reading on why we know what we know. This applies not just to the Holocaust but to other aspects of life so that you can make decisions based on facts and not faith or mere belief.
It was a shame that the book came out before the ending of the David Irving trial because it would have made a triumphant ending for this book (yes -- David Irving lost.)
It was a shame that the book came out before the ending of the David Irving trial because it would have made a triumphant ending for this book (yes -- David Irving lost.)
August 31, 2009
This is a fact-based crushing of the Holocaust denial, or "revisionist" movement, and a lively look at some of the more infamous proponents of that movement, such as David Irving and Ernst Zundel. More than that, however, it's an examination of what history is, whether objective truth is even possible and why it's important. When I read this book, it's like my brain is lifting weights. Better yet, the book itself is readable, fast-paced and even has its moments of humor.
July 27, 2018
Extremely in depth and thoroughly researched book that tries to tackle why people deny the holocaust and proof we have to show it happened. Unfortunately this book also suffers from the authors own bias at times but it's an important read. I would class it more as an academic work than popular science book as it does get technical at times and may seem tough to read.
November 11, 2020
The first part of the book seems to be more for academicians. The middle sections are the most accessible. Not surprisingly there are some psychological conclusions about deniers which, likely true, seem to fall simply into the anti-Semitic area. Still the sections that apply directly to refuting the deniers pseudo-history are enlightening.
October 27, 2021
This book is not only a systematic breakdown of holocaust denial, but also a breakdown of how we understand history itself. For that reason, I think this book has great value as an answer to 'pseudohistory.'
June 30, 2022
Did audio book. It was abridged which is why I only gave 4 stars. Sad that a book like this had to be written, but it was very informative.
December 15, 2022
"𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘵. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘓𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴, 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘨𝘦: 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘩 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨."
Did you know that there is no photographic evidence of any Jewish person inside a gas chamber? It's true! Did you also know that there is no physical evidence of Hitler explicitly saying 'exterminate the Jews'? This is also true!
But wait then, how do we know the Holocaust actually happened? How do we know the historians who tell us that it happened know what they're talking about? Authors Michael Shermer and Alex Groban seek to answer these questions and more in this very insightful book!
For those who are just looking for a book to debunk denialist arguments, you'll get that here. But this book also takes a bottom-up approach. They also explain how historians study the past, the difference between historical revisionism and denialism, the psychology behind denialists, etc.
I've seen far too many people dismiss denialists with shame and disgust. Of course, it's easy to do so! But Shermer and Groban have taken the time to personally interview denialists and understand their arguments. Yes, their arguments are extremely flawed, from extensive cherry-picking to outright falsehoods. But, rather than shaming, the authors take the Socratic approach, believe the idea that we combat bad ideas with better ideas.
"𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳, '𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?' 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘴, '𝘖𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪,' 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬? 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 (𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵?) 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴."
In sum, there are indeed things we don't know about the Holocaust. But what we do know comes from overwhelming evidence taken from many different sources.
1. Hundreds of thousands of written documents
2. Countless eyewitness testimonies from witnesses to survivors to high-ranking Nazis
3. Loads of photographs from the military to ones secretly taken by survivors
4. The physical camps themselves
5. Inferential evidence such as population demographics (millions of Jewish people missing)
For those who aren't big readers, I'd recommend the film "Denial" as an alternative. While the book is detailed in citing the enormous amounts of evidence, the film touches briefly on a few key points denialists tend to use.
Did you know that there is no photographic evidence of any Jewish person inside a gas chamber? It's true! Did you also know that there is no physical evidence of Hitler explicitly saying 'exterminate the Jews'? This is also true!
But wait then, how do we know the Holocaust actually happened? How do we know the historians who tell us that it happened know what they're talking about? Authors Michael Shermer and Alex Groban seek to answer these questions and more in this very insightful book!
For those who are just looking for a book to debunk denialist arguments, you'll get that here. But this book also takes a bottom-up approach. They also explain how historians study the past, the difference between historical revisionism and denialism, the psychology behind denialists, etc.
I've seen far too many people dismiss denialists with shame and disgust. Of course, it's easy to do so! But Shermer and Groban have taken the time to personally interview denialists and understand their arguments. Yes, their arguments are extremely flawed, from extensive cherry-picking to outright falsehoods. But, rather than shaming, the authors take the Socratic approach, believe the idea that we combat bad ideas with better ideas.
"𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳, '𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?' 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘴, '𝘖𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘕𝘢𝘻𝘪,' 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬? 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 (𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵?) 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴."
In sum, there are indeed things we don't know about the Holocaust. But what we do know comes from overwhelming evidence taken from many different sources.
1. Hundreds of thousands of written documents
2. Countless eyewitness testimonies from witnesses to survivors to high-ranking Nazis
3. Loads of photographs from the military to ones secretly taken by survivors
4. The physical camps themselves
5. Inferential evidence such as population demographics (millions of Jewish people missing)
For those who aren't big readers, I'd recommend the film "Denial" as an alternative. While the book is detailed in citing the enormous amounts of evidence, the film touches briefly on a few key points denialists tend to use.
February 23, 2024
A PERSUASIVE CASE AGAINST ‘HOLOCAUST DENIAL’
Michael Shermer (founder and publisher of Skeptic magazine) and historian Alex Grobman wrote in the Introduction to this 2000 book, “There we sat, and Orthodox Jew, a professional skeptic, and one of the world’s authorities on Auschwitz face to face with Ernst Zündel, an all-round Germanophile known for … his media blitzes claiming that the Holocaust never happened. It was… the culmination of years of research that led us … [into] a looking-class world where… the normal rules of reason no longer apply. We not only met with those who deny the Holocaust… We also traveled to the camps themselves… to test the claims that no mass murderers, especially by gassing, took place by intention at those camps… we believe it is not enough to be ivory-tower academics… here we are dealing … with pseudohistory---the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes….
\
“We discovered that most Holocaust deniers are very knowledgeable about very specific aspects of the Holocaust… so that anyone who is not versed in these specifics cannot properly question and answer their claims… The answers are there, but not in ready-made form. Our book remedies this shortcoming… But it does more than this. The purpose of this book is to reveal the difference between history and pseudohistory by using Holocaust denial as a classic case study in how the past may be revised for present political and ideological purposes. In the process we thoroughly refute the holocaust deniers’ claims and arguments… and show precisely, with solid evidence, how we know the Holocaust happened.” (Pg. 1-2)
They note that “on a July 27, 1995, Australian radio show, [David] Irving admitted that perhaps as many as four million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. ‘… I’d have to say a minimum of one million, which is monstrous, depending on what you mean by killed. If putting people into a concentration camp where they die of barbarity and typhus and epidemics is killing, then I would say the four million figure because, undoubtedly, huge numbers did die in the camps in conditions that were very evident at the end of the war.’” (Pg. 50)
Confronted with a quote from Adolf Eichmann’s memoirs, “‘Himmler’ has received orders from the Führer for the physical destruction of the Jews.’ … As time passed, Irving concluded that the memoir is real, but Eichmann lied about [the quote]… [Irving argued, ‘I think his brain is probably rationalizing… trying to find alibis. The alibi that would have been used … would be if he could say that … ALL he did was carry out Hitler’s orders.’ … Eichmann was, of course, captured and tried, and his defense included this argument…” (Pg. 54) Later, they add, “Please note that Eichmann never denied the Holocaust. His argument was that ‘these crimes had been legalized by the state’ and therefore the people who ‘issued the orders’ are responsible. This was, in fact, the classic defense used at Nuremberg by most of the Nazis---denial of responsibility, not denial of the crime.” (Pg. 105)
They report, “The Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg summarized… ‘Whether or not human soap was actually made is completely doubtful. In my opinion it was not… That was a rumor. And rumors … get enlarged. But in the whole pattern of the process there is no indication that soap was made… Skin was apparently tattooed and taken from concentration camp inmates, though it is highly unlikely it was taken from Jews because it was tattooed. There were some human skin lampshades exhibited at the Nuremberg trials but these were one little tiny bizarre development, which is to be expected in a massive undertaking of this sort. Somebody is bound to be a little bit abnormal.” (Pg. 116-117)
They note, “millions did not die in any one gas chamber. Many, perhaps, one-third to one-half of the six million, died from a variety of other causes, including the Einsatzgruppen … shootings, as well as beatings, overwork, starvation, disease, and the general unsanitary conditions at the camps---murder is murder, regardless of the method.” (Pg. 131)
\
They state, “Deniers point out that [Nazi Sergeant Pery] Broad … described the actual process of gassing in gruesome detail… Deniers point out that Broad’s four minutes for the total process is at odds with the statement of others, such as the commandant Hoss who said it was more like twenty minutes. Because of such minor discrepancies, deniers dismiss Broad’s account entirely. A dozen different accounts give a dozen different figures for time of death by gassing, so deniers believe that no one was gassed at all. Does this make sense? No. The time required for the gassing process would vary according to the room’s temperature… the number of people there, the room’s size… not to mention the psychological differences in time perception experienced by different observers.” (Pg. 138)
They report, “The Holocaust denier David Cole makes a point of the fact that the peephole on the door of this gas chamber [at Mauthausen] is not covered with a metal screen to prevent the victims from punching out the glass and letting the air escape… the peephole [glass] is … almost half an inch thick. To break the glass, someone would need a hammer… Moreover, since gas chambers were not under pressure, the gas would not rush out even if a victim did manage to break the glass. And if this chamber were only a shower, as deniers claim, of what use would a heavy steel door with a peephole be?” (Pg. 168)
Of a damning passage in Goebbels’ diary, Irving comments, “‘It’s a very ugly passage… All he’s actually saying here is that the Jews are having a pretty rigorous time. They’re being deported, it’s happening in a systematic way, and not many of them are going to survive it.’ ‘A pretty rigorous time’ seems an extraordinarily loose interpretation of ‘liquidated.’ But the passage is even more prescient than Irving realizes…[In 1942] Goebbels noted in his diary that there were still eleven million Jews in Europe. If, as he notes twenty days later, sixty percent of these ‘will have to be liquidated,’ we have a close approximation of the six million figure, from just about as high a leader in the Nazi regime as can be found.” (Pg. 190)
Irving admits to Shermer, “I agree, Himmler … actually said, ‘We’re wiping out the Jews. We’re murdering them. We’re killing them.’ … Himmler is admitting what I said happened to the 600,000. But… nowhere does Himmler say ‘we are killing millions.’ Nowhere does he even say we are killing hundreds of thousands. He is talking about solving the Jewish problem, about having to kill off women and children too.” (Pg. 193)
They explain, “For years scholars have searched in vain for a signed document by Hitler authorizing the Final Solution. Now there is a consensus among Holocaust historians that such a document probably never existed. A possible reason for this stems from Hitler’s experience with his euthanasia program… Hitler signed a letter… authorizing killing of the handicapped in Germany.” (Pg. 202)
They conclude, “Why the Holocaust happened is a question that all who encounter it… must answer in the spectrum of their own vision of history and humanity. The question WHY eludes a consensus answer… It is for the individual. Each of us must look into the well of our soul as we confront the reality of Auschwitz and ask ourselves: what does it mean? It is for this reason, perhaps more than any other, that we believe Holocaust denial is so dangerous and despicable---it is an attempt not just to deny a true past, but to deny a meaningful one. Whatever else it might be, history is the primary story of the storytelling animal, the narrative of our past that offers meaning to our present and, ultimately, our future.” (Pg. 256)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying the Holocaust, and its deniers.
Michael Shermer (founder and publisher of Skeptic magazine) and historian Alex Grobman wrote in the Introduction to this 2000 book, “There we sat, and Orthodox Jew, a professional skeptic, and one of the world’s authorities on Auschwitz face to face with Ernst Zündel, an all-round Germanophile known for … his media blitzes claiming that the Holocaust never happened. It was… the culmination of years of research that led us … [into] a looking-class world where… the normal rules of reason no longer apply. We not only met with those who deny the Holocaust… We also traveled to the camps themselves… to test the claims that no mass murderers, especially by gassing, took place by intention at those camps… we believe it is not enough to be ivory-tower academics… here we are dealing … with pseudohistory---the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes….
\
“We discovered that most Holocaust deniers are very knowledgeable about very specific aspects of the Holocaust… so that anyone who is not versed in these specifics cannot properly question and answer their claims… The answers are there, but not in ready-made form. Our book remedies this shortcoming… But it does more than this. The purpose of this book is to reveal the difference between history and pseudohistory by using Holocaust denial as a classic case study in how the past may be revised for present political and ideological purposes. In the process we thoroughly refute the holocaust deniers’ claims and arguments… and show precisely, with solid evidence, how we know the Holocaust happened.” (Pg. 1-2)
They note that “on a July 27, 1995, Australian radio show, [David] Irving admitted that perhaps as many as four million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. ‘… I’d have to say a minimum of one million, which is monstrous, depending on what you mean by killed. If putting people into a concentration camp where they die of barbarity and typhus and epidemics is killing, then I would say the four million figure because, undoubtedly, huge numbers did die in the camps in conditions that were very evident at the end of the war.’” (Pg. 50)
Confronted with a quote from Adolf Eichmann’s memoirs, “‘Himmler’ has received orders from the Führer for the physical destruction of the Jews.’ … As time passed, Irving concluded that the memoir is real, but Eichmann lied about [the quote]… [Irving argued, ‘I think his brain is probably rationalizing… trying to find alibis. The alibi that would have been used … would be if he could say that … ALL he did was carry out Hitler’s orders.’ … Eichmann was, of course, captured and tried, and his defense included this argument…” (Pg. 54) Later, they add, “Please note that Eichmann never denied the Holocaust. His argument was that ‘these crimes had been legalized by the state’ and therefore the people who ‘issued the orders’ are responsible. This was, in fact, the classic defense used at Nuremberg by most of the Nazis---denial of responsibility, not denial of the crime.” (Pg. 105)
They report, “The Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg summarized… ‘Whether or not human soap was actually made is completely doubtful. In my opinion it was not… That was a rumor. And rumors … get enlarged. But in the whole pattern of the process there is no indication that soap was made… Skin was apparently tattooed and taken from concentration camp inmates, though it is highly unlikely it was taken from Jews because it was tattooed. There were some human skin lampshades exhibited at the Nuremberg trials but these were one little tiny bizarre development, which is to be expected in a massive undertaking of this sort. Somebody is bound to be a little bit abnormal.” (Pg. 116-117)
They note, “millions did not die in any one gas chamber. Many, perhaps, one-third to one-half of the six million, died from a variety of other causes, including the Einsatzgruppen … shootings, as well as beatings, overwork, starvation, disease, and the general unsanitary conditions at the camps---murder is murder, regardless of the method.” (Pg. 131)
\
They state, “Deniers point out that [Nazi Sergeant Pery] Broad … described the actual process of gassing in gruesome detail… Deniers point out that Broad’s four minutes for the total process is at odds with the statement of others, such as the commandant Hoss who said it was more like twenty minutes. Because of such minor discrepancies, deniers dismiss Broad’s account entirely. A dozen different accounts give a dozen different figures for time of death by gassing, so deniers believe that no one was gassed at all. Does this make sense? No. The time required for the gassing process would vary according to the room’s temperature… the number of people there, the room’s size… not to mention the psychological differences in time perception experienced by different observers.” (Pg. 138)
They report, “The Holocaust denier David Cole makes a point of the fact that the peephole on the door of this gas chamber [at Mauthausen] is not covered with a metal screen to prevent the victims from punching out the glass and letting the air escape… the peephole [glass] is … almost half an inch thick. To break the glass, someone would need a hammer… Moreover, since gas chambers were not under pressure, the gas would not rush out even if a victim did manage to break the glass. And if this chamber were only a shower, as deniers claim, of what use would a heavy steel door with a peephole be?” (Pg. 168)
Of a damning passage in Goebbels’ diary, Irving comments, “‘It’s a very ugly passage… All he’s actually saying here is that the Jews are having a pretty rigorous time. They’re being deported, it’s happening in a systematic way, and not many of them are going to survive it.’ ‘A pretty rigorous time’ seems an extraordinarily loose interpretation of ‘liquidated.’ But the passage is even more prescient than Irving realizes…[In 1942] Goebbels noted in his diary that there were still eleven million Jews in Europe. If, as he notes twenty days later, sixty percent of these ‘will have to be liquidated,’ we have a close approximation of the six million figure, from just about as high a leader in the Nazi regime as can be found.” (Pg. 190)
Irving admits to Shermer, “I agree, Himmler … actually said, ‘We’re wiping out the Jews. We’re murdering them. We’re killing them.’ … Himmler is admitting what I said happened to the 600,000. But… nowhere does Himmler say ‘we are killing millions.’ Nowhere does he even say we are killing hundreds of thousands. He is talking about solving the Jewish problem, about having to kill off women and children too.” (Pg. 193)
They explain, “For years scholars have searched in vain for a signed document by Hitler authorizing the Final Solution. Now there is a consensus among Holocaust historians that such a document probably never existed. A possible reason for this stems from Hitler’s experience with his euthanasia program… Hitler signed a letter… authorizing killing of the handicapped in Germany.” (Pg. 202)
They conclude, “Why the Holocaust happened is a question that all who encounter it… must answer in the spectrum of their own vision of history and humanity. The question WHY eludes a consensus answer… It is for the individual. Each of us must look into the well of our soul as we confront the reality of Auschwitz and ask ourselves: what does it mean? It is for this reason, perhaps more than any other, that we believe Holocaust denial is so dangerous and despicable---it is an attempt not just to deny a true past, but to deny a meaningful one. Whatever else it might be, history is the primary story of the storytelling animal, the narrative of our past that offers meaning to our present and, ultimately, our future.” (Pg. 256)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying the Holocaust, and its deniers.
October 7, 2023
as others have said, it's pretty underwhelming when they touch on
mildly interesting is the free speech stuff, by a ranting libertarian weirdo like Schermer. and there are some amusing bits about pushing through his free speech views, and even poking the bear about lousy scholarship by 'minorities' and nearly equates it to the genocide denialists!
As for WWII history, it's pretty unimpressive stuff, and adds zero to the debate.
As a book dealing with free speech it's well, somewhat better....
some of the talk about historical science is on some pretty shaky opinion, and so are is the psychology and motivations of the genocide denalists. It's all pretty weak there.
Someone actually gave Schermer a kick to the nuts about his ranting about how we need to entrust the search for truth with the professional elites, since six of the people at the Wannsee Conference were Nazis with doctorates in law.
But Schermer has that flaw with his flaky authoritarian form of skepticism, where you appeal to some highly authoritarian expert, that matches your extremely 'narrow viewpoint', and then you go all out fanatical nazi about it.
Shermer turns into a raging lunatic when vitamins are mentioned, trust the doctors, he's no less a lunatic going on about Kennedy's death, saying trust the government.
At least he didn't say Mengele was a doctor, trust him!
Mind you, i tend to think Shermer is just as nuts as Ben Stein, who's got his own wack-a-doodles views about science and authority......
"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
Ben Stein
but then again Shermer and Stein both have seriously flirted with libertarian thought, so i'm not really too surprised they're a little half-baked.
I read some comment on Bart Ehrman's site where he interviewed Shermer, and that person laid it out pretty interestingly from a psychological point of view. Shermer was a fanatical raving conservative Christian in his early years, and it basically bakes in the fanatical urge to preach, rant and rage about your 'unshakable faith' in whatever strange crap you believe.....
and well, Shermer is on his skeptic-libertarian kick and he's still got that nutty preachy intolerant bullshit to his 'opinions' which is thinks are the gospel truth.
...........
Two or three of the reviews on here summed things up fantastically well
"Sherman and Grobman promote their own ideologies as much as Holocaust deniers do. Biases drive their conclusions as well."
"just to clarify, all because i thought this book sucked doesnt mean i dont believe the holocaust happened"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews