Jeffrey Katz

SOURCE: "Revisionist History in the Library: To Facilitate Access or Not to Facilitate Access?" in Canadian Library Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4, October, 1991, pp. 319-24.

In her very provocative article, "Lies about the Holocaust," (1980) Lucy Dawidowicz describes the concept of "historical revision" (the practice of "reinterpreting the past") as a necessary part of the historian's job. Herself an eminent historian of the Jewish Holocaust, Dawidowicz makes the observation that "every historical subject has undergone revision as each new generation rewrites the history of the past in the light of its own perspectives and values."

New information and the discovery of hitherto unknown documents or artifacts can change entirely the generally accepted picture of a particular event, era, person, or civilization—even if that picture has lasted for centuries. Consider the Trojan War, dinosaurs, the Etruscans and William Shakespeare. Public officials, national leaders, and celebrities are notorious for witholding information about their personal and professional lives which is eventually "unearthed" by historians when the luminaries in question have departed this life.

In short, the stuff of history is evidence, and when a new bit of evidence seems to outweigh an older bit of evidence in terms of authenticity, the historian must acknowledge this fact and proceed to revise.

However, once we move away from the rather loose, nonthreatening concept of "historical revision" and towards the more precise term "revisionism," we experience (as Dawidowicz also makes clear) an extremely radical shift in meaning. For, unlike "historical revision," which refers to the practice of updating history on the basis of accurate, well-researched facts, "revisionism" concerns the distortion of history by individuals whose primary motivation is the advancement of a personal (often bizarre) ideological position.

Although the term has been used by conscientious historians to describe cases of historical fabrication and tampering (Steven W. Sowards, for example, makes use of the term in his discussion of Samuel Eliot Morison's John Paul Jones), the most common usage of the term "revisionism" has been in relation to the Jewish Holocaust (1933-1945).

Those individuals referred to as "Revisionist Historians" deny flatly that a Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe ever existed and attempt to "prove" that concentration camps, gas chambers, and the entire concept of genocide was just one huge "hoax" concocted by "Zionists" and their cohorts, in order to discredit Germany and advance their own (naturally greedy) causes.

As one might expect, such "Revisionist Historians" (who refer to their opposition as "traditionalists" or, less politely, as "exterminationists") have produced a small but not insubstantial body of literature, which they work fervently to distribute far and wide. One target of this literature, of course, is the library. As a result, the entire "Revisionist" Holocaust history issue is also a library issue.

This article attempts to identify the major questions that have been (and continue to be) raised over the acquisition and dissemination of such "Holocaust-denial" literature in the library, and to discuss whether or not there is any hope that these volatile questions can ever be answered conclusively.

Over the past ten years, Holocaust-denial literature has become one of the most controversial issues in librarianship. Indeed, as a result of the existence of such literature (and the many subsequent decisions that librarians must make regarding its acquisition and public accessibility), the entire library profession has been forced once again to examine its basic philosophy and its fundamental role in society.

At the core of the controversy is the issue of free speech. Purists, like John C. Swan, have maintained that libraries have an obligation to make such material, however distasteful, available and easily accessible to the general public. The concept of intellectual freedom, according to Swan, requires that we place no ideological limits on our collections but, instead, make every effort to provide our library patrons with as wide a body of literature as possible, in order that these patrons might have the opportunity to make their own decisions and choose their own intellectual paths. For support, he cites the intellectual freedom statements that exist in both the United States and Canada.

On the other hand, a large number of librarians have argued against the presence of "Revisionist" Holocaust works in the library because of the essentially racist and hateful nature of this literature. According to librarians of this opinion, who are represented here by Steven Sowards, Noel Peattie, and Grant Burns, librarians in general are under no obligation whatsoever to purchase or acquire Holocaust-denial literature, since such books may be looked upon not only as untrue, but also as designed specifically to promote bigotry and to incite violence against a particular religious or ethnic group.

Also claiming the right of free speech, librarians such as Peattie and Burns maintain that while the publishers of Holocaust-denial literature are at liberty to print whatever they wish (provided it does not violate federal law), they too—as librarians—are at liberty to keep such material out of the library. Holocaust "Revisionists," to quote Burns, "have as much right to propagate their views as any of us," but this "does not mean the rest of us have to go out and facilitate their efforts."

Of course, there are still others, such as Morton Weinfeld and Mark Pendergrast, who recognize the potential research value a "Revisionist" Holocaust text might have for a serious student of, say, anti-Semitism. But they insist that great care be taken within the library insofar as the handling and access of such a text is concerned. Harm could be done, it is felt by Weinfeld and Pendergrast, if no attempt is made by the library to distinguish clearly between a "Revisionist" approach to the Holocaust and a so-called "standard" one.

Accordingly, both Weinfeld and Pendergrast call on reference and technical services librarians to give serious thought to special classifications, shelf locations, catalogue notes, and even labeling, for Holocaust-denial literature. In this way the patron will be alerted to the fact that books such as The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and periodicals such as the Journal of Historical Review, are not works of history, but rather of hate. Such practices in a library, of course, are themselves potentially dangerous and we shall address this problem later.

In a sense, once we acknowledge the fact that "Revisionist" Holocaust history is considered by so many people to be nothing more than thinly disguised hate literature, we deepen the entire controversy in terms of the library. For, although the library strives (or at least should strive) to present a balanced collection of material representing "all points of view on current and historical issues," there are some very real problems created for the librarian when a book's particular "point of view" is at once distorted, constructed upon a foundation of lies, and intentionally harmful to others.

At this point, the librarian might begin to question the accepted ethical policies and the official standards of the profession (as they relate to collection management) and choose, instead, to place greater emphasis on the "good of the community" whose "best interests" would not be served by housing such material.

Once again, of course, we tread upon fairly dangerous ground when we start talking about librarians deciding what is or is not "beneficial" to any particular community. Nevertheless, it does seem rather clear that there is a need for librarians to consider very carefully the actual purpose that is meant to be served by Holocaust-denial literature.

Librarians, as Swan points out, may be dependent more upon freedom than truth as a fundamental professional cause. However, it can be said that librarians have an obligation to be wary of those individuals who would take advantage of the library's great respect for the concept of intellectual freedom in order to give greater voice to their own less-than-respectful ideologies.

That the Holocaust—the wilful destruction of millions of Jews from 1933 to 1945—is a fact, is indisputable. Innumerable documents, eyewitness accounts of both survivors and perpetrators, and well-researched, widely respected historical texts exist which provide proof of its tragic, utterly horrific existence. What then is the motivation of the "Revisionists"?

Dawidowicz, Seidel, and countless others have demonstrated quite clearly that the essence of the Holocaust-denial movement is anti-Semitism and a fanatical devotion to the doctrines of Nazism, and that the publishers and writers of Holocaust-denial literature can be traced to some neo-Nazi or white supremacist group whose primary goal is the achievement of power.

As librarians, of course, it is not our business to "investigate" every item on our shelves in order to determine whether or not its author or publisher is a rabid fascist. However, when we are confronted by a certain group of books, which we can identify as having been created and generated by racists, for the purpose of promoting racism, we are forced to ask some very serious questions about the acquisition and handling of Holocaust-denial literature and its place inside the library.

Should we or should we not, as librarians, acquire material that seeks quite plainly to deny an indisputable historical fact? This question is extremely difficult to answer and has been the subject of much scholarly debate. On opposite sides of the fence sit John C. Swan and Noel Peattie.

Swan, a great champion of free speech and intellectual freedom, insists (as we have seen) that libraries have an obligation, as upholders of the Right to Read, to get the material and put it into circulation. Citing the ALA Intellectual Freedom Manual, Swan declares that "freedom is indivisible" and contends that the librarian must be "committed both to the search for truth and the freedom of expression of untruth." Holocaust-denial literature, therefore, has a right to sit on the shelves of a library just as much as those works which prove that "Revisionism" is a pack of lies. As Swan makes very clear, he himself is fully aware of the "untruth" of the Holocaust-denial literature, but does not deny its right to be accessed in a library:

[Revisionist] arguments will never turn out to be true, and "Creation Science" will always be apologetics masquerading as empiricism, but both have a place in our libraries.

Noel Peattie, on the other hand, argues against the granting of a forum to "racist" literature, since such literature is characterized by "deliberate" falsehoods, "uttered to deceive and hurt people." So-called "Revisionist" history, according to Peattie, is dangerous and must be thought of as being a conscious effort to distort the truth. Peattie, in this sense, would find an ally in Dawidowicz, who likens Holocaust-denial literature to a possible series of books seeking to "prove" that slavery of Africans had never existed in the United States but, instead, was a huge hoax created by blacks in order to gain money and power.

The issue of collection "balance" in this instance becomes quite meaningless since, as Peattie points out, we do not collect books that contain proven falsehoods in order to balance our collection of books that are true. Peattie uses the example of the Flat Earth Society, stating that librarians do not attempt to balance their collection of "round earth books" by stockpiling ones which promote the "flat earth" theory. In short, Peattie finds Swan's devotion to the tenets espoused in the Intellectual Freedom Manual to be admirable but unacceptably restrictive:

We need to understand what intellectual freedom is, what relation it bears to reality, how much of it is unconscious or concealed abuse of privilege, and how we justify using it. We need to understand that if freedom is indivisible, so is human dignity. This would result in a complete rewriting of the Library Bill of Rights which … isn't doing us much good anyway.

Additionally, of course, there is a need to decide which libraries—which kinds of libraries—should be dealing with Holocaust-denial literature in the first place. Most critics agree that academic and research libraries are perfectly justified in acquiring such materials. As S. D. Neill observes: "An academic library could develop a collection of racist materials for research purposes." Indeed, some of the most extensive collections of Holocaust-denial materials in North America may be found in the major Jewish libraries (e.g. the Jewish Public Library in Montreal and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York City).

However, the big problem—the most serious point of contention—seems to involve the position of the public library in the acquisition of such literature. Some public libraries choose to collect whatever they feel the public will demand. Operating on the same philosophy as that of Swan, the attitude of some public libraries is that the patron has the right to decide what he or she will not read, not the library. Edmonton Public Library is one such example and will be discussed later in greater detail.

Other public libraries, however, do not collect Holocaustdenial titles because they are viewed as examples of hate literature and are considered either "inappropriate" for the community, or completely unjustifiable in a time of tight budgets. Vancouver Public Library, for example, carries none of the most notorious "Revisionist" histories. Such institutions, of course, will generally be quite willing to order Holocaust-denial titles upon request, through the interlibrary loan system. However, in such cases patrons must know what they are looking for, since the books in question would be impossible to find in the library by simple browsing.

In many instances, the entire problem of acquiring "Revisionist" histories is solved by federal law; after all, once a book is banned by the government, there is no longer any issue (unless your library wishes to defy the law for some particular reason). Material that is questionable but not yet banned, though, can be a very tricky issue. Because of the uncertain status of all "Revisionist" histories, some libraries might be ambivalent about making an effort to acquire such materials. As Leonidas Hill states: "Laws are vague," and any title could be suppressed at any time as "hate propaganda."

This is especially true here in Canada, where the trials of Jim Keegstra and Ernst Zundel have prompted both the courts and common citizens to be much more careful about books and materials that present an "unconventional" (to put it mildly) approach to the Holocaust. Of course, while certain "Revisionist" works, such as Arthur Butz's The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, have been banned (UBC's copy is now in Special Collections), other titles, such as Walter N. Sanning's The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry remain unsuppressed.

More problems await the library or librarian once a "Revisionist" Holocaust history text has been ordered and received. At this stage, it becomes necessary to decide precisely how the controversial item should be classified and entered into the catalogue. Additionally, it must be decided precisely where in the library the item should be located. Predictably, the critics are quite varied in their suggestions and, equally without surprise, the Library of Congress makes life no easier for the librarian in need of assistance in this matter.

Some of the fundamental questions facing the librarian in this situation include: a) should the item be classified as history or anti-Semitism (or something in between) b) should the item be given a special subject heading, (such as "Holocaust-denial Literature" or the lone LC contribution, "Holocaust, Jewish [1939-1945]—Errors, inventions, etc."), or should it be provided with a more "standard" history heading? c) should the item be labeled—either in the catalogue and/or directly on the cover of the book—as a book of "Historical fabrication?" and d) should the item be placed on a special "Revisionist History" shelf; on a shelf with standard historical texts; on a shelf containing anti-Semitic materials; or in a restricted access area, where it could not be retrieved without the assistance of a librarian?

Such questions, of course, require serious consideration by the librarian and do not lend themselves to answers which are particularly clear-cut. The belief held by many librarians is that some effort must be made to separate or distinguish such potentially volatile material. Indeed, the placement of a Holocaust-denial text on the same shelf as that of a "valid" history of the Holocaust is looked upon by many as both insulting and misleading.

As Peattie points out, we would not expect to find the aforementioned "flat earth" and "round earth" books sitting together comfortably in the geology section of the library. Why then should we as librarians choose to shelve a "Revisionist" work, such as Richard Harwood's Did the Six Million Really Die? in the very same area that contains such "authentic" histories of the Holocaust as Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews, and Gerald Reitlinger's The Final Solution.

Perhaps, as Swan observes, the "sorting out" should be left to the patron. This would not only follow official association guidelines, but would also be a recognition of the patron's ability to make the "best" choices. However, certain scholars argue that such a "transfer of responsibility" might turn out to be more damaging than fruitful.

For example, if a student doing a report comes into the library in search of books on the Nazi persecution of Jews during the Second World War, it is very possible that he or she will be misled if Holocaust-denial works are mixed in with the "standard" works in the field. Moreover, if a "Revisionist" history of the Holocaust is provided in the catalogue with a "standard" subject heading (e.g. "Jews-Europe, Eastern-History" for Sanning's The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry), could it not also be said that the patron, in a sense, is being misled?

It is clear that a very definite impression may be created in the user's mind by a book's simple location on the shelf or by the access points with which it is furnished in the library catalogue. When a single "Revisionist" Holocaust history is found on the same shelf as fifteen "standard" works, that single text is afforded a certain "dignity" or, as Sowards says, a certain "implied stature." While certainly not endorsing the position taken by the book, the library may confer on a Holocaust-denial text a certain respectability by the seemingly simple act of classifying or shelving.

In order to illustrate the problems we have discussed in this article, it might be worthwhile to describe very briefly the recent case involving the Edmonton Public Library (EPL) and its collection of Holocaust-denial literature.

In 1984, a $2,300 federal grant was received by EPL in order to "strengthen [its] collection of Holocaust-related materials." The grant was obtained largely through the efforts of the Jewish Federation of Edmonton, and the titles chosen, subsequent to receipt of the grant, were selected by a team consisting of librarians and representatives of the Holocaust Resource Committee. The idea of "balancing" the collection with "Revisionist" material was neither considered nor discussed at the outset.

In about a year, though, a decision was made to "balance" the Holocaust history collection by adding a group of "Revisionist" histories. The decision, according to EPL Director, Vincent Richards, was based upon the demand created by the Keegstra and Zundel trials, as well as the desire to present an opposing "viewpoint." To quote Richards:

It is the duty of a public library to provide a cross-section of the available literature, both good and bad.… Presumably people who come to our library are literate and trained to engage in some level of actual thinking. We have to give them access to both the revisionist books and the more conventional sources and let them decide for themselves which is valid.

The reaction to the discovery of such Holocaust-denial literature in the EPL was very strong. Led by Wojiciech Buczynski, secretary of the Polish Culture Society of Edmonton, many groups and individuals protested the existence of such material in the library. Buczynski, who came across the questionable titles while browsing the recently-expanded Holocaust section, called for the removal of every Holocaust-denial text: "(Public) libraries should not be depositories of rubbish."

On the other hand, the response of the equally-astonished Jewish Federation was that the books should remain in the library ("the library is free to buy whatever it likes") but there was a need for reclassification and restricted access. The point was made that, in spite of Richards' contention that all "Revisionist" items were "appropriately designated in the catalogue," much of the material boasted subject headings that were misleading: Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? was catalogued by EPL under "Frank, Anne; Jews; Netherlands, Biography."

Throughout the ordeal, EPL kept the books on the shelves and defended its right to continue to keep them there, but promised to discuss the entire matter at length. While Richards expressed sympathy for those who were offended by the material and continued to deny that the mere existence of the material in the library was any indication of EPL's own philosophy, he never swayed from his opinion that such "Revisionist" literature presented an opposing viewpoint to the generally-accepted account of the Jewish experience in World War II. The debate, as of this date, goes on.

The existence of Holocaust-denial literature in the library and, in particular, the public library, has created (and will continue to create) a tremendous amount of anxiety and debate throughout the world. Such anxiety and debate, indeed, is unavoidable. There are no easy answers when it comes to deliberating between free speech and the literary propagation of hatred and lies.

What is especially intriguing about the entire issue is how supportive of the right to speak freely are those who espouse the Holocaust-denial. Doug Christie, lawyer for both Keegstra and Zundel, and founder of the ultra-rightwing Western Canada Concept, cries out: "Let freedom solve the problem of any hatred and intolerance," while Vancouver journalist Doug Collins bemoans the treatment handed out to Zundel and to the works of the "Revisionists" by declaring boldly that "witch-hunts and book burnings are as bad now as ever they were … the Ministry of Truth is here."

It cannot be denied that Holocaust-denial literature is designed to distort the truth, promote hatred, and advance a racist ideology. It also cannot be denied that free speech is, indeed, a right, and that the most fundamental ethic of the library profession is intellectual freedom. The problem for the librarian, therefore, is to find a way to reconcile both truths.