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]