Holocaust Literature vs. holocaust scholarship:
Thoughts on Finkelstein, Goldhagen and Holocaust Revisionism
HAVING RECENTLY FINISHED reading Nation on Trial,
Norman Finkelstein's
acclaimed critique of Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing
Executioners, I was struck by his identification of an important
distinction. Finkelstein draws a contrast between what he calls
"holocaust scholarship," which he defines as historical and multicausal,
and "Holocaust literature," which he defines as ahistorical and
monocausal.
It is necessary to further consider Finkelstein's differentiation
as it also explains much of the controversy surrounding the debate
between revisionists and exterminationists. Exterminationists are
fond of making the claim that "The Holocaust" is the most documented
event in all history. A trip to the local bookstore would seemingly
confirm or deny this claim. What one finds in both the small and
large stores, and even in specialty gift shops like that at the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is that the vast majority
of titles are simply ahistorical Holocaust literature. Few books
are available which would meet Finkelstein's definition of "holocaust
scholarship."
Holocaust literature, according to Finkelstein, rose out of the
1967 Arab-Israeli war.(p.92) He cites a work by Geoff Eley, entitled:
Holocaust History which was reviewed in the London
Review of Books, 3-16 March 1982. Eley reports, "By the late
Sixties the term 'Holocaust' was appearing regularly in the titles
of essays and books, freshly equipped with both a capital letter
and the definite article." (pp. 92-3) Finkelstein asserts that "The
Holocaust" is simply "the Zionist account of the Nazi holocaust."
(p.94)
Finkelstein classifies only a few titles as works of holocaust
scholarship. These titles include, Raoul Hilberg's The Destruction
of the European Jews, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem,
and Arno Mayer's Why did the Heaven's Not Darken? He
comments that "virtually every seminal work seeking to recast the
debate... has landed on the Holocaust literature index of forbidden
texts." (p.89)
It is unfair to limit the works of holocaust scholarship to those
few mentioned by Finkelstein. I would have added Reitlinger's
Final Solution, Van Pelt's Auschwitz 1270-Present
and the works of Jean-Claude Pressac and Christopher Browning to
the list.
According to Finkelstein, the field of "Holocaust studies" (note
the capital "H") straddles the divide between holocaust scholarship
and Holocaust literature.(p.88n) In reality however, it is more
apt to say that "Holocaust studies" encompasses both the historical
and the ahistorical.
If we were to develop a continuum we might wind up with Holocaust
literature at the far left, holocaust scholarship in the center,
and Holocaust revisionism at the right. Thinking in these terms,
the dilemma of an honest study of the holocaust becomes readily
apparent.
At the left are those who believe as Finkelstein puts it
"the Nazi extermination both justifies the necessity of Israel
and accounts for all hostility directed at it: the Jewish state
is the only safeguard against the next outbreak of homicidal
anti-Semitism and, conversely, homicidal anti-Semitism is behind
every attack on, or even defensive maneuver against, the Jewish
state." (pp.93-4)
Thus from an ideological or political standpoint, attacking "The
Holocaust" amounts to attacking the state of Israel and the Jews
in general. Falling into this category of ahistorical political
accounts is of course Elie Wiesel who has written that he who "refuses
to believe me" is "lending credence to those who deny the Holocaust."
(p.91n)
At the center of this continuum are the works of holocaust scholarship.
These "scholars" however appear to be torn and unable to generally
deal with their topic objectively either. Each new work of holocaust
scholarship in some way addresses the topic of Holocaust revisionism.
Still, these "scholars" also have to keep in mind the ideologues
who are quick to condemn any who cast doubt on their quasi-religious
version of the Holocaust.
These "scholars" unfortunately seem to feel the need to straddle
the mid-ground between the two opposing camps. This has led to many
mini-revisionist victories since ground is constantly being given
up to the revisionists but while specifics are sacrificed, the general
story remains the same, as a sort of tribute to the ideologues who
are quick to use fear and intimidation if their version is not given
credit.
Thus in recent times we have seen Raoul Hilberg revise his magnum
opus by removing his comments about Hitler's orders to carry out
the "Final Solution" which appeared in his earlier edition. Arno
Mayer was to go much further. Mayer was to seriously address the
arguments of the revisionists. One can even find a reference to
Arthur Butz's The Hoax of the Twentieth Century in
the bibliography. Mayer's comments like "more Jews were killed by
so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones" led to the
book's condemnation and ultimately its early demise.(Mayer, p.365)
It was allowed to go out of print while other lesser works of Holocaust
literature get reprinted over and over again.
Jean-Claude Pressac would follow Mayer in addressing the revisionists.
Pressac interestingly is not even mentioned by Finkelstein. His
work although considered "definitive" were kept from the general
public. Pressac's work is largely only available in edited form
as part of the anthology, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp.
Pressac would admit shockingly that at Auschwitz "more than 95 percent
[of Zyklon B ordered was used] for delousing." (Gutman, Berenbaum
ed. p.215) In other words, 95 percent of the killing agent was used
to keep inmates alive while only 5 percent was used to kill them.
Even more recently, Robert Jan-Van Pelt published his Auschwitz
1270 to the Present. This work not only uses a well-known
(in revisionist circles) diagram of a Zyklon B delousing chamber
(complete with Fritz Berg's hand drawn arrows!) but admits that
the "gas chamber" at Auschwitz I is "largely a postwar reconstruction."
Auschwitz is called a "commemorative camp" and Van Pelt admits
"there are no signs to explain these restitutions, they were
not marked at the time, and the guides remain silent about it
when they take visitors through this building that is presumed
by the tourist to be the place where 'it happened.'" (Dwork,
Van Pelt p.364)
The next important venture into the dealing with the revisionists
was Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners. According
to Finkelstein, "Goldhagen's book marks the first foray of a Holocaust
ideologue across the divide into the holocaust field... What
Hitler's Willing Executioners points to is the intellectual
barrenness of Holocaust literature: ignoring as they do the findings
of holocaust scholarship, the claims of Holocaust ideologues prove
unsustainable when put to an empirical test." (p.91)
Thus, Goldhagen attempted to deal with the revisionists by giving
up no ground whatsoever. Actually Goldhagen ran full speed into
the camp of the ideologues. His book was thusly given wonderful
reviews from around the globe for it presented itself as "scholarship"
but merely amplified the ahistorical accounts of the ideologues.
Goldhagen has been thoroughly trounced in A Nation on Trial.
Finkelstein declares, "Goldhagen's book is worthless as scholarship."
(p.4). But where does this leave us? The fault of Goldhagen's volume
is his acceptance of the Holocaust story of the ideologues. But
this fault also runs throughout the works of holocaust scholarship
that Finkelstein otherwise champions. As these "seminal" works debunk
some element of the Holocaust literature their authors clearly understand
the difficulty of challenging the whole. Therefore their attempts
debunk only small pieces of the Holocaust. For these efforts the
authors of such works receive few accolades and much criticism.
Revisionist historians continue to raise pointed questions about
the holocaust. The ideologues, including Goldhagen refuse to give
even an inch, making their position absurd and irreconcilable with
the truth. The holocaust "scholars" meanwhile attempt to straddle
the fence between truth and falsity - an untenable position.
Without attempting to do so, Finkelstein has shown both the bankruptcy
of Goldhagen's book and the shortfalls of Holocaust literature and
holocaust scholarship as well. Until historians can present the
events of the holocaust without fear and intimidation, until the
topic can be freed from its political ramifications, truth will
remain the lone territory of the revisionists.
[This work was published in German as Holocaust-Literatur
versus Holocaust-Wissenschaft in Vierteljahreschefte für
freie Geschichtsforschung 2. Jahrgang, Heft 4, Dezember 1998.
It also appeared in English in The Revisionist No. 1, November
1999]