Published in The Abuse of Holocaust Memory by Manfred Gerstenfeld, 2009

Recent years have seen greatly increased attempts to manipulate Holocaust history and its memory. Among the falsifications, Holocaust denial was the one that, for several decades, received the most attention. Other distortions of the Holocaust, however, have also become increasingly important. The number of their mutations is growing as well.

Many abusers of Holocaust memory come from the world’s currently most prominent anti-Semitic circles: the Arab and Muslim world, the extreme Right, and the extreme Left. Yet falsifications of the history of the Holocaust have also permeated the Western narrative. Among the distorters are leading politicians, academics, journalists, and so on.

The assault on Holocaust memory can best be analyzed by categories of distortions. Some manipulations belong to more than one group.

Holocaust: A Term Changes Meaning

 The meaning of the term Holocaust has changed over the millennia. Nowadays it usually refers to the persecution and extermination of the Jews by the Germans and their allies and supporters during World War II.

The term Holocaust existed, however, long before it was used for the systematic genocide of six million Jews. Its meaning developed over many centuries. The expression Holokauston is found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, where it translates the Hebrew word olah, which signifies a burnt offering.

In the decades before the genocide of the Jews the term was used in disparate contexts referring, for instance, to such varied events as the 1914 San Francisco earthquake, a 1918 forest fire in Minnesota, and earlier to the Turkish massacre of the Armenians. After World War II, the word was frequently used for a potential nuclear war. Only after the 1960s did the word Holocaust take on its now- dominant meaning.1

In France and in a number of other places, scholars and others prefer to use the Hebrew word Shoah rather than Holocaust. The filmmaker Claude Lanzmann, for instance, called his nine-hour movie Shoah. Throughout this book, however, the term Holocaust will mainly be used.

In analyzing the abuses of Holocaust memory and history, its main categories will be discussed first.

Holocaust Justification and Promotion

Holocaust justification consists of “explaining” that the Jews were the cause of their enemies’anti-Semitism and later bore responsibility for their own destruction. The former claim was prominent outside Nazi circles as well even before World War II and occasionally returns nowadays. Blaming Jews for the hatred against them is a common theme in general anti-Semitism as well.

Holocaust promotion consists of the encouragement of genocide against the Jews or Israel. Sometimes this is done explicitly by stating that Jews should be killed. On other occasions it is the logical outcome of proposed policies.

Holocaust promotion is not necessarily accompanied by distortion of Holocaust memory or history. It has to be included in this volume because of its close relation to the abuses of memory and history that are analyzed.

Campaigning for the mass murder of Jews is often done without specific reference to the Holocaust. At other times the perpetrators refer to Hitler or the Germans having failed to complete the extermination of the Jews and say their activities should be continued. One prominent variant of Holocaust promotion is propagating the view that the Jewish state has no right to exist. The only way to achieve this would be by elements of genocide and mass murder. In this context the perpetrators rarely if ever explicitly use the word Holocaust.

Holocaust Denial

Holocaust denial can be defined as the negation of the main facts of the extermination of the Jews in World War II. One frequent statement of deniers is that the Germans did not use gas chambers to kill people. This is often accompanied by another false claim that the majority of Jews died of illness contracted in camps. Other key motifs of such denial are that the Germans had no intention to kill Jews, or that Hitler did not know about the genocidal anti-Jewish measures, but that people lower in the German hierarchy made the decisions.

Another category of abuse of Holocaust memory closely linked to Holocaust denial and often overlapping with it is “minimalization” or “depreciation” of the Holocaust. This means claiming that far fewer Jews were murdered during World War II than the generally agreed figure of around six million.

Holocaust Deflection and Whitewashing

Holocaust deflection entails admitting that the Holocaust happened while denying the complicity or responsibilities of specific groups or individuals. The Holocaust is then blamed on others. This, to a large extent, concerns those countries where, during the war, Germans were helped greatly by local citizens in the despoliation, deportation, and killing of the Jews.

Many nations have tried to present themselves as victims of the Germans and denied or diluted their responsibility or that of their nationals for the Holocaust. One extreme case is Austria, which for many years portrayed itself as the first victim of the Nazis. Another such case is Romania, which under the communist regime denied or greatly downplayed its role in the Final Solution.2

Deflection also appears in different forms within countries. In West Germany many false claims were made that the Wehrmacht, the German army, did not participate in the atrocities.3 This distorting phenomenon sometimes appears combined with other distortion mechanisms. It was official East German policy to de-Judaize the Holocaust. It also whitewashed its own population while blaming West Germany for inadequately dealing with the Nazi heritage.4

Whereas deflection consists of shifting the responsibilities of nations or specific persons to other parties, whitewashing aims at cleansing an individual of blame without necessarily accusing others.

Holocaust De-Judaization

Holocaust de-Judaization consists of a variety of distortions of Holocaust memory. One type of de-Judaization is to void or minimize to a large extent the Jewish character of the victims. This is accompanied by stressing non-Jewish aspects of the Holocaust, taking it out of its specific historical context, and giving minimal attention to its uniqueness.

The Soviet Union made it a policy to de-Judaize the Holocaust by including Jewish victims among local ones. No attention was given to the fact that they had been murdered because they were Jewish.

De-Judaization also often results from the desire to draw an overall message for the human race from the genocide of the Jews. Another subcategory of Holocaust de-Judaization is the extension of the Holocaust to include many people other than Jews who were murdered or died in World War II. The actions against certain groups did indeed have a genocidal character, yet did not aim at their systematic and total extermination.

Holocaust Equivalence

Within Holocaust equivalence there are a number of subcategories of distortion for which the motivations differ. Prewar and wartime Holocaust equivalence are based on the allegation that the Germans’ genocidal behavior during World War II was similar to that of other nations before and during the war. The perpetrators of these distortions mainly aim to whitewash or diminish German crimes.

The postwar variant is based on the claim that there are many events in postwar society that are similar in nature or equivalent to those caused by Germany under Hitler’s rule. This type of distortion is heterogeneous. One aspect of it is the broad claim that Nazism and communism were interchangeable. On the other end of the spectrum are one-line statements that may compare a person with Hitler or another German leader.

Holocaust Inversion

Holocaust inversion is a category of abuse derived from Holocaust equivalence specifically targeting Jews and Israel. Demonization is applied against members of a group who were the major victims of the criminality of Nazi Germany. Holocaust inverters often claim that Israel behaves similarly toward the Palestinians to how Germany behaved toward the Jews in World War II. Frequently used slogans by the inverters include: “The victims have become perpetrators” or “The Jews and/ or the Israelis have become the Nazis of today.” These are expressions of rabid anti-Semitic concepts.5

Holocaust inversion manifests itself in many ways. It is expressed in speech, writing, and visual media, including cartoons, graffiti, and placards. It employs sinister characterizations of Israel and Israelis, Nazi symbols, and sometimes takes the form of Nazi genocidal terminology to describe Israel’s actions.

This way of perverting the Holocaust — aimed at Israel — is particularly prevalent in the Arab and Muslim world, where it is far from limited to government officials, media, and religious authorities. Holocaust inversion often appears jointly with other Holocaust distortions. However mutually exclusive they may seem to be, Holocaust denial and Holocaust inversion are found together in the Arab world. Goetz Nordbruch points out that “articles denouncing Zionism as Nazism often include Holocaust denial as well.”6

Holocaust Trivialization

Holocaust trivialization is another category of abuse derived from Holocaust equivalence. It is a tool for some ideologically or politically motivated activists to metaphorically compare phenomena they oppose with the industrial-scale destruction of the Jews in World War II by the Germans and their allies. Examples include environmental problems, abortion, the slaughter of animals, the use of tobacco, and human rights abuses.

Those abusing Holocaust comparisons for their ideological purposes want to exaggerate the evil nature of a phenomenon they condemn. With the Holocaust symbolizing absolute evil for many, they thus use it as an instrument. Trivialization often does not stem from anti-Semitic motifs but from the perpetrators’ desire to use the Holocaust for their purposes.

Holocaust trivialization manifests itself partly in the growing insertion of Holocaust issues into a large number of disparate events that have no connection to the genocide of Jews. Other trivializers operate out of commercial or artistic considerations, or out of a desire to draw attention or even provoke.

Obliterating Holocaust Memory

The common heading of “obliterating Holocaust memory” groups a variety of different abuses and distortions. The maintaining of collective memory is attacked directly and indirectly, usually intentionally but not always. One type of direct attack is the besmirching or destruction of memorials. Another is disturbing Holocaust ceremonies. Yet another is trying to turn public Holocaust memorial ceremonies into more general remembrance events.

Another distortion mode that attempts to obliterate Holocaust memory is “Holocaust silencing.” This consists of stating that Jews talk about the Holocaust too often. One more form of trying to obliterate Holocaust memory is claiming that Jews abuse the Holocaust for various purposes.

Indirect attacks on  Holocaust  remembrance  involve  the  disappearance of Jewish memorial sites. This occurs particularly in the former communist countries. It may include leveling former Jewish buildings for new construction without leaving a memorial plaque at the location. Or, for instance, it could be the removal of Jewish cemeteries for various local purposes.

Differences between Categories

The aforementioned categories of abuse are not homogeneous. Nor are the perpetrators, who come from many different camps and also include some Jews. Some distortion categories are based on the extreme abuse of free speech, others on attempts to prevent people, in particular Jews, from expressing themselves. Some concern the forgery of history or interpreting it in extremely distorted ways. Others have more of a philosophical or “moral” emphasis. Yet others involve violence or calls for it.

Core elements of some abuses can sometimes be illustrated by analyzing a single case. The attitudes and narrative of Ahmadinejad embody many aspects of contemporary Holocaust promotion. Much of the quintessence of Holocaust denial can be analyzed on the basis of the defamation lawsuit that Holocaust- denier David Irving brought against historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher. Studying how the Anne Frank story has been interpreted over the decades yields a wealth of insight into the de-Judaization of the Holocaust and its motivations. Interpreting the fundamental nature of other abuses, however, requires piecing together disparate elements from many cases.

The scholarly attention given to distortions varies greatly among the categories. Holocaust denial has been the subject of overview books.7 A number of essays on Holocaust deflection have appeared, concerning mainly Central and Eastern European countries. Other distortions such as Holocaust inversion and Holocaust trivialization have hardly been analyzed.

Various categories of distortion require widely disparate degrees of effort by perpetrators. Holocaust deflection may sometimes entail major research efforts so as to construct a thesis that shifts responsibility for a country’s crimes to others. Some deniers also go to great lengths to construct their fabrications. On the other hand, many perpetrators of postwar equivalence or Holocaust trivialization limit themselves to extremely superficial remarks or acts.

A Distortion of Identity

Not all abuses of Holocaust memory fall into the aforementioned eight categories. French sociologist Shmuel Trigano maintains that the way the Holocaust is represented in Europe and particularly in France leads to a structural distortion of the Jews’ identity. He says:

When Europeans recall the Shoah they mainly stress aspects such as the Jews’ suffering and sacrifice. This emphasis on victimhood enables suppressing the Shoah’s political aspects.

In France in particular, the prevailing culture does not permit such a political expression. Remembering the Shoah is the only mode French culture can accept if the Jews want to manifest their collective identity. The memory of the Shoah becomes the only way for Europe to recognize the Jews as a people — a dead and suffering people.

Yet Jews still pay a heavy price, because their enemies now accuse them of promoting a collective identity by sacralizing the Shoah’s memory…. If they presented their collective identity in any other way, they would incur even greater condemnation.

Trigano calls this attitude perverse, saying: “The compassion for the Jewish victims of the Shoah conceals in a sublimated way the non-recognition of the Jews as a people, as a political subject.” In an interview later in this volume Trigano expounds on his views.

Obama’s Speech in Cairo

 Another example of a Holocaust distortion that is not included in the above categories is found in President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009. The discourse was heavily criticized by experts on Islam who pointed to many inaccuracies. Obama also connected the Holocaust to the establishment of Israel. Although Foxman praised the general tenor of the speech, he pointed out that the president, when speaking of America’s ties to Israel, said they were based on the “recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.” Foxman wrote:

He then went on to talk about anti-Semitism in Europe for centuries which “culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.”

It is good that the President addressed these themes but it sends the wrong message to base Israel’s legitimacy simply or essentially on this suffering. The Arab world for decades has argued that Israel was an illegitimate entity imposed on the Arab Middle East by the Europeans who, they claimed, were trying to atone for the murder of six million Jews on European soil. The Arabs argued: why should they pay the price for what the Europeans did to the Jews.

It is a phony argument which is not sustainable because the Jewish claim to Israel doesn’t rest on the Holocaust, even if that tragedy played a role in the climate surrounding discussions about the idea of a Jewish state. Israel’s legitimacy rests on the unbroken connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, a physical connection, a religious connection, a cultural connection, an existential connection. It is hardly too much to say that the Jewish people would not exist today as a people had we not held hope alive for 2,000 years about the return to Zion. In other words, there was Herzl before there was the Holocaust.8

Commemorating Dead Jews as an Alibi

A category apart, in the margins of the subject dealt with in this volume, concerns the respect paid by anti-Israelis to Jews who died in the Holocaust. These people de facto use the genocide as a public “legitimization” to “prove” that they are not anti-Semites.

One among many examples can illustrate this. Norwegian finance minister Kristin Halvorsen is the leader of the Socialist Left Party. In January 2006, she supported a consumer boycott of Israel. She was probably the first Western government minister to do so. The daily Aftenposten reported that subsequently the

U.S. secretary of state threatened Norway with “serious political consequences.” The paper said this was conveyed to the Norwegian embassy in Washington. Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre then wrote to the Israeli government saying Halvorsen’s position did not represent his government’s stance. 9

Every year on Holocaust Memorial Day, a major commemorative event is held at the site of the Holocaust Memorial monument in the port area in Oslo from where the Norwegian Jews were deported in 1942–1943. At this event a government minister gives a keynote speech. In 2007, Halvorsen was the government speaker at the ceremony.10

The Norwegian reactions to Israel’s 2008–2009 Gaza campaign included a variety of incidents. Halvorsen was among those who participated in an anti- Israeli demonstration in Oslo in January. She was the only minister of a European country to do so. It was noted that there had been shouts of “Death to the Jews” at this gathering.11

A few months later a photograph of the rally was published, showing that someone standing very close to Halvorsen was holding a sign that read “The greatest axis of evil — USA and Israel.”12 By not leaving such a gathering and not dissociating herself from it, Halvorsen must be considered as identifying with it.

The Motivations of the Distorters

The modes used to spread Holocaust-distortion ideas vary. The classic media and books played a dominant role in the twentieth century. For categories of abuse such as Holocaust promotion, denial, and inversion, the Internet has become a major tool in recent years.

The perpetrators of the various Holocaust distortions have manifold motivations. The most extreme is a mixture of politics and anti-Semitism aiming at the destruction of Israel.

Although it is difficult to identify all the Holocaust distorters’ motivations, a number of important categories are:

• Many major Holocaust manipulators are driven by anti-Semitism and/or its latest mutation anti-Israelism. To express this they may use Holocaust justification, promotion, denial, and/or Many anti-Semites believe that the Holocaust plays an important role in the attitudes of those who have positive perceptions of Jews and Israel. Others who hate Jews may use, for instance, elements of trivialization to provoke Jews or stir hatred against them.
• An assortment of political These vary according to the perpetrators and the environment where they seek to muster support. For the extreme Right the reasons are often associated with neo-Nazi or fascist ideas. Holocaust denial or minimization serves to weaken accusations against Hitler’s Germany, which they admire.

One of Ahmadinejad’s several aims in distorting the Holocaust is to enhance his standing in the Muslim world, which is so widely suffused with lies about the Holocaust. It may also help boost his position at times when his popularity at home is declining. A further political aim of the Iranian president is to raise his profile in the anti-American and anti-Western struggle. Denying the Holocaust shows that he has no fear of any taboos.

For others, postwar Holocaust equivalence or trivialization can be political tools in their battle against certain people — for instance, politicians — or in favor of certain ideas. One aforementioned example is the battle against global warming presented as the “Climate Holocaust.”

• Absolving oneself, a country, or one’s ancestors of This historical cleansing or “absolution” pertains, for instance, to Holocaust deniers and whitewashers. The same motive may be shared by some inverters who claim that Jews also commit Nazi-type deeds. If everybody is guilty then no one is guilty. Perpetrators of Holocaust deflection and often also of Holocaust equivalence seek to direct the blame for the Holocaust at others, or to distribute it more widely and thus deny or diminish guilt.
• Peer pressure or Many people know little about the Holocaust, Nazis, Jews, or contemporary Israel. Some consider that certain Holocaust distortions make them acceptable to groups they belong to. Others are influenced by members of the media and other societal elites who are Holocaust distorters.
• Distorting the Holocaust is sometimes also an instrument for assessing a third party’s attitudes toward One objective of Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust manipulations may well be to regularly test the West’s reactions to his statements about the destruction of Israel and Holocaust distortion. The fact that the reactions remain verbal may well indicate to him that not much will happen, either, if Iran goes ahead with nuclear armament. One might call this a “political litmus test.”13
• Provoking people and/or gaining publicity are among the other motivations for distortions of the

A variety of motivations thus lead to Holocaust distortion. The consequences of these manipulations are also manifold and disparate. One example is alleviating a personal or national conscience. Thus the motivation leads to the desired result. Others include promoting or supporting activities such as boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel. Yet others involve furthering personal interests in circles where attacks on the Holocaust are viewed positively. Also in this case the motivation may yield the desired result.

The analysis of reactions to distortions is of great importance as well. It often enables improving methods of dealing with or responding to perpetrators. Furthermore, analyzing reactions to Holocaust-memory abuses can shed much light on the current societal environment in which these distortions occur. Also, the categories of distortion used in this volume are valid as well for the analysis of many other subjects unrelated to Holocaust memory and its abuse.

Notes

1. Jon Petrie, “The Secular Word HOLOCAUST: Scholarly Myths, History, and 20thCentury Meanings,” Journal of Genocide Research, V 2, No. 1 (2000): 31–63.
2. Laurence Weinbaum, “The Banality of History and Memory: Romanian Society and the Holocaust,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 45, 1 June 2006.
3. “Es ist nie zu Ende,” Die Zeit, 21 January 2004 [German].
4. Thomas Haury, “Current Anti-Semitism in East Germany,” Post-Holocaust and Anti- Semitism, 59, 1 August 2007.
5. Michael Whine, “The Berlin Declaration and the EUMC Working Definition of Anti- Semitism: Progress in the Struggle in Europe,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 41, 1 February 2006.
6. Goetz Nordbruch, “The Socio-Historical Background of Holocaust Denial in Arab Countries: Reactions to Roger Garaudy’s The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics,” ACTA, 17 (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001),9,
7. g., Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (New York: Plume, 1993); Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000).
8. ADL, “Obama in Cairo: An Error of Omission,” Press Release, 4 June 2009.
9. “USA Threats after Boycott Support,” Aftenposten, 12 January 2006.
10. “Holocaust Memorial Days in the OSCE Region: An Overview of Good Governmental Practices,” OSCE-ODIHR, January 2008.
11. Itamar Eichner, “Geluchei rosh wesarat haotsar,” Yediot Achronot, 14 January 2009 [Hebrew].
12. Bjørn Gabrielsen, “En smak av egen medesin,” Dagens Naeringslev, 2 April 2009 [Norwegian], picture by Scanpix.
13. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Ahmadinejad, Iran, and Holocaust Manipulation: Methods, Aims and Reactions,” Jerusalem Viewpoints, 551, 1 February 2007.