Should Germany and Austria
Tolerate
Holocaust Revisionism?
Reflections on the Upcoming
Irving, Zündel and Rudolf Trials
In recent
times three major figures of the Holocaust revisionist movement, Ernst Zündel,
Germar Rudolf, and David Irving, were arrested and are going to be put on
trial for denying the Holocaust. Zündel and Rudolf in Germany, and Irving
in Austria. Germany and Austria both have harsh laws that proscribe Holocaust
revisionist viewpoints.
In the early
part of 2005, the bitter critic of the revisionist movement, Jewish professor
Deborah Lipstadt, published her widely hailed book, History on Trial: My
Day in Court With David Irving.1 It is her version of the famous Irving/Lipstadt
libel trial that took place in London in 2000. Sections of the book touch
upon the justification for the laws that ban Holocaust revisionism in Germany.
One of those
that testified on behalf of Lipstadt's defense team at the London trial
was the German intellectual, Hajo Funke, described in History on Trial as
one of Germany's leading experts on the sociological and political roots
of Germany's hate scene. In a conversation with Lipstadt, Funke railed against
foreigners, such as Irving, who come to Germany to forge common ground with
the haters. Funke insisted that men like David Irving, and the Holocaust
revisionist ideas that he purveys, are a threat to democracy in Germany:
They wreak havoc with German democracy. We have to deal with their aftermath.
Germany serves as their political playground.
Since Funke's
line of reasoning has important consequences for the concept of freedom
of speech in Germany and Austria, let us analyze it in great detail. After
all, his views are simply a mirror image of the current German and Austrian
governments' official policy, and they offer an ideological justification
as to why Holocaust revisionists should be censored and persecuted.
According
to Funke, Irving's public espousal of Holocaust revisionist viewpoints in
Germany coincided with violent extremist attacks upon foreigners and guest
workers. Lipstadt then makes this statement: This extremism, which was rooted
in a loose alliance between national conservatives and radical extremists,
was hostile to multiracial societies and depicted ethnic minorities as criminals
and parasites. Holocaust denial was useful to this alliance because it rehabilitated
the Third Reich's reputation, rendered Nazism a viable political alternative,
and inculcated anger toward Jews. Extremists believed that if the Holocaust,
which was being used to cast an indelible stain on Nazism, could be exposed
as a sham, Nazism could be resurrected.
In other
words, the open promulgation of Holocaust revisionist viewpoints in Germany
would cause the masses to view National Socialism as a better form of government
than that of democracy. This in turn would lead to the violent end of the
current German democratic system, and the development of another totalitarian
National Socialist form of government. Once again, in Funk's own words:
People like David Irving do not throw firebombs. They throw the words that
can cause others to throw firebombs..
First of
all, the current government of Germany is not truly democratic. A true democracy
is tolerant of minority opinion. In Germany today, anyone who publicly disagrees
with the state sponsored view of the Holocaust is persecuted and prosecuted.
This is the behavior of a totalitarian government, not that of a democracy.
It is this open contradiction on the one hand, the claim that the government
is democratic, and on the other hand, the ruthless persecution of anyone
who offers a dissenting view on the Holocaust that causes suspicion and
hostility among the German masses for the so-called German democracy.
If the current
German government wants to show the German people that it is a superior
form of government to that of totalitarian National Socialism, then they
would be tolerant of Holocaust revisionists and sponsor a national, democratic
debate in which Holocaust revisionists are pitted against believers in the
traditional view of the Holocaust. They would then live up to the true meaning
of democracy granting freedom of speech to minority opinions.
In History
on Trial afterward, the famous Harvard Law School attorney, Alan Dershowitz,
declares: Freedom of speech includes the right to expose lies, as Lipstadt
did. It does not grant immunity from criticism to bigots like Irving. The
marketplace of ideas must be open to all, not just neo-Nazis. Indeed, one
reason why false and offensive speech is permitted in most liberal democracies
is precisely because the best answer to bad speech is good speech, rather
than censorship. Further on, Dershowitz adds: [Lipstadt] has proved that
the best response to Holocaust denial is not futile attempts at censorship,
but rather active exposure of the falsehoods of these bigoted claims. Lipstadt
herself has written: Deniers, I argued, should be stopped with reasoned
inquiry, not with the blunt edge of the law.
A similar
logic applies to Germany. If the German government wants to tell its citizens
that contemporary Germany is a liberal democracy, then it is going to have
to behave like one. They will have to cease their censorship of Holocaust
revisionist ideas, and rather, allow Holocaust revisionists the right to
air their viewpoint, and then to attempt to refute them. Putting it in the
language of Dershowitz, the best response of the German government to the
bad speech of Holocaust revisionism would be the "good speech" of the traditional
view of the Holocaust, rather than the banning of Holocaust revisionism.
Undoubtedly
though, the ideologues who are trying to maintain the current political
status quo (like Funke) will use Dershowitz's Orwellian claim: Truth and
Justice are sometimes served only by compromising freedom of speech, as
when nations ban Holocaust denial speech, racist speech, sexist speech,
or other forms of bigoted falsehoods.8
So this line
of reasoning proceeds; Germany is a special case. Considering Germany's
Nazi past, it has to censor its citizens in order to make sure that Nazism
will never rise again. In order to prevent the violent destruction of German
democracy and the development of a totalitarian, National Socialist government
in Germany (as already happened) truth and justice are best served by compromising
freedom of speech, as when the German government bans Holocaust denial and
racist speech.
In effect,
proponents of this viewpoint are arguing that an antidemocratic, autocratic,
oppressive, and totalitarian measure may be used to prevent the development
of an antidemocratic, autocratic, oppressive and totalitarian society. This
is an example of the political fallacy called the-end-justifies-the-means.
As logician Alex C. Michalos points out, any sort of deception or mistake
in an argument that has political significance is a political fallacy. 9
First of
all, truth is never served by banning opposing viewpoints. If hard evidence
for the German government's view of the Holocaust is overwhelming and the
claims of Holocaust revisionists are ridiculous, to engage the latter in
debate would not lend them credibility and respect. Quite the contrary!
Crossing swords with these revisionist cranks would be a golden opportunity
for the German government to expose their quackery and stupidity. Only if
Holocaust revisionism has intrinsic validity will it gain stature by a public
hearing in Germany. The German government's refusal to tolerate Holocaust
revisionist viewpoints carries with it the implicit recognition that revisionism
has more legitimacy than they care to admit
Even if Revisionism
is pure falsity and balderdash, the public interest in Germany would still
be served if it was given serious attention in the national media. The truth
of the German government's official version of the Holocaust could be proven
anew. If the German government is truly interested in the truth, then a
more complete perception of the truth would be gained in a public debate
where their Holocaust fact clashed with Revisionist fiction.
Furthermore,
the German government's refusal to tolerate the Holocaust revisionist viewpoint
is actually an injustice that breeds hostility toward German democracy rather
than quelling it. One of the standard principles of legal justice in a democracy
is that the accused has the inherent right to defend himself. As Revisionist
scholar Faurisson has pointed out: In Germany, no exonerating evidence may
be introduced [when a person is on trial for denying the Holocaust, since
that same evidence would constitute "denial" as well and would merely lead
to another criminal indictment of the defendant and his lawyer.10
By refusing
to allow German people to defend the German nation against charges of genocide
against the Jewish people, the German government is actually engaging in
injustice, because they are denying the accused the right to defend himself.
They are denying the German people the right to attempt to clear their people
and nation of the charge of industrial genocide in German concentration
camps by gassing. This alone breeds hostility and dislike towards the current
German democracy. It is this refusal to tolerate Holocaust revisionist viewpoints
that causes suspicion and hostility among the masses of Germans towards
the current German "democracy." If they want to alleviate this "antidemocratic"
hostility, they will tolerate Holocaust revisionist opinion instead of persecuting
it.
What is argued
here is this: it is not the promulgation of Holocaust revisionist viewpoints
that causes the majority of people to view National Socialism as a viable
alternative. It is the censoring of Holocaust revisionist viewpoints, by
a so-called German democracy, that makes the majority of people loose faith
in democracy and then turn to the totalitarian alternative of National Socialism.
(Undoubtedly, there is a highly visible minority that will use Holocaust
revisionism as a means to rehabilitate National Socialism. But a truly democratic
society even tolerates those groups that reject democracy, as long as they
don't violate other people's rights, and don't engage in violence.)
As anti-National
Socialist historian Allan Bullock pointed out, most Germans in 1919-1924
strongly disliked the contemporaneous democratic German government because
it was associated with the Treaty of Versailles: In 1919 the Republican
Government signed a Peace Treaty the terms of which were universally resented
in Germany; this was looked upon as a fresh act of betrayal, and the Government
was henceforward branded as the agent of the Allies in despoiling and humiliating
Germany.11
As anti-National
Socialist American historian John Toland insinuates, the terms of the Treaty
the German government accepted were biased and unjust: On June 28, 1919,
the victorious Allies signed the Treaty of Versailles. With little delay
the German government ratified its terms. These were harsh. Germany was
forced to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and required to
pay all civilian damage caused by the conflict. Great chunks of territory
were wrested from the Reich: Alsace-Lorraine went to France, the Malmedy
area to Belgium, most of Posen and West Prussia to Poland. Germany also
lost her colonies. Danzig was to be a free state; and plebiscites would
be held in the Saar, Schleswig and East Prussia. Further, the Allies would
occupy the Rhineland for at least fifteen years and a belt of thirty miles
wide on the right bank of the Rhine was to be demilitarized. The humiliation
was made complete by a regulation forbidding the Germans to have submarines
or military aircraft and limiting her army to 100,000 men.12
The upshot
of my argument is this. It was the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles
that was associated with the democratic Weimar Republic that prodded the
German masses to dislike this contemporaneous German democracy and turn
to totalitarian National Socialism. Likewise with the current German government's
association with the censorship of Holocaust revisionism. It is the biased
injustice of their policy "to censor and persecute Holocaust revisionism”
that prods people to view German democracy with disdain, and to lean towards
the totalitarian National Socialist alternative. Just as the Weimar Republic
was associated with a treaty that was widely viewed as humiliating and degrading
to Germany, so too is the current German democracy associated with the traditional
view of the Holocaust, an ideology that degrades and humiliates the German
people. And it is this that predisposes many Germans to turn toward the
National Socialist alternative. The German government's endless promotion
of the Holocaust ideology, and the persecution of those that reject it is
what encourages Germans to look toward the National Socialist alternative.
Let us continue.
Funke claims: [German] extremists believed that if the Holocaust, which
was being used to cast an indelible stain on Nazism, could be exposed as
a sham, Nazism could be resurrected.13 In other words, neo-Nazis would use
Holocaust revisionism as an ideological justification for the violent overthrow
of the current German regime and then replace it with the machinery of nationalist
totalitarianism--a command state, with one-party control of society, censorship
of the press and the open violation of the rights of minority groups.
First of
all, there already is the machinery of totalitarianism in place in today's
German democracy. There is open censorship of Holocaust revisionist ideas.
The Holocaust revisionist minority group is openly persecuted.
Funke is
arguing that the proliferation of Holocaust revisionism in Germany could
lead to National Socialism. What is being argued here is just the opposite--the
suppression and persecution of Holocaust revisionism could lead to totalitarian
National Socialism. The toleration of Holocaust revisionism could lead to
a real German democracy.
If Holocaust
revisionist viewpoints are tolerated and debated in Germany, this will show
the German people that it truly is a democratic society that tolerates minority
opinion, while an intolerant National Socialist type of society disallows
many alternative viewpoints. It will give the German people an opportunity
to clean up their reputation and show the world that Germany is not a nation
of murderers that builds homicidal gas chambers to exterminate whole populations.
This will actually give democracy a good name in Germany, and it will show
that a true democracy is indeed superior to totalitarian National Socialism
that suppressed freedom of speech just as the current German regime does.
Recently,
President Bush urged Chinese leaders to expand freedoms. Yet, under his
administration he allows the stifling of freedom. Germar Rudolf and Ernst
Zündel were denied asylum in the US and deported to German prisons, their
sole crimes being that they rejected the Holocaust ideology.
Undoubtedly,
many of those in the pro-Zionist camp will reject freedom of speech in regard
to the Holocaust issue, and argue for strict censure of Holocaust revisionist
viewpoints, a la Funke. This is not surprising. The censorship of Holocaust
revisionism in Germany serves the sociopolitical interests of political
Zionism and the non-Jewish elites that are allied with them, so as to maintain
the current sociopolitical status quo. Let us see how this is so.
Angela Merkel,
the new German chancellor, admitted in moralistic rhetoric, that the Holocaust
ideology is what justifies Germany's subsidization of Israel. She told the
Israeli newspaper Haaretz that for Germans relations with Israel
are a precious treasure that we must preserve. We and the coming generations
must therefore be aware of our history and the responsibility it entails.
We must take a clear and public stand about maintaining close relations
with the Jewish community in Germany and of course, close relations with
Israel, especially on the level of personal encounters.
The article
goes on to discuss how Germany finances and subsidizes the Zionist military
machine: Israel had requested financing for the construction of two more
Dolphin submarines at an estimated cost of about $1 billion, in addition
to the three it received at the beginning of the 90s, which, according to
foreign reports, carry nuclear warheads. Israel took delivery of the subs
in compensation for Iraqi missile attacks during the first Gulf War. With
two-and-a-half subs already paid for by Germany, defense minister Peter
Struck also expressed support for the deal.14
So don't
be surprised that many in the pro-Zionist camp will argue for strict censure
of Holocaust revisionism in Germany and Austria. Political Zionism benefits
enormously by the law enforced mass acceptance of the Holocaust ideology.
Footnotes
1. Deborah E. Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving
(HarperCollins Publishers, 2005).
2. Ibid.,
p.235.
3. Ibid.,
p.236.
4. Ibid.,
p.237.
5. Ibid.,
p.304.
6. Ibid.,
p.305.
7. Ibid.,
p.xx.
8. Ibid.,
p.301.
9. Alex C.
Michalos, Improving Your Reasoning (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p.92.
10. Fred
A. Leuchter, Jr., Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports:
Critical Edition (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005), p.19.
11. Allan
Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (Harper & Brothers, 1952), p.53.
12. John
Toland, Adolf Hitler (Double Day & Co., Inc., 1976), p.82.
13. Lipstadt,
p.236.
14. Adar
Primor, Would-be German chancellor promises to fight anti-Semitism, Haaretz,
14 September 2005. Online:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/624512.html
|