CAN HOLOCAUST DENIERS
BE STOPPED?
A DEBATE AT THE JEWISH
HISTORICAL INSTITUTE
Memoria
The Emanuel Ringelblum Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw hosted a debate titled Can Holocaust Deniers Be Stopped?, the latest in its series Ethics in Holocaust Research. The panelists were legal scholar Prof. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias; Dr. Piotr M. A. Cywiński, Director of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum; and political scientist Prof. Piotr Forecki. Dr. Zofia Trębacz moderated. The debate was organized as part of the work of the Polish National Node of the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI).
The point of departure was the growing presence in public debate of statements that not only distort the history of the Holocaust but also openly challenge established facts. The discussion quickly went beyond the textbook forms of denial, however, such as denying that the gas chambers existed or disputing the number of victims.
Piotr Forecki drew a distinction between denial and legitimate historical revision based on new sources and research. In his view, the particular problem in Poland today is not so much outright Holocaust denial as distortion: relativizing and suppressing facts about how parts of Polish society behaved toward Jews.
“The biggest problem we face is a Polish variant of denial, one that rests on discrediting recent, highly rigorous, and extremely well-documented research,” Forecki said. He pointed to the concept of “deflective negationism,” a form of denial that works by shifting emphasis, diverting attention, and minimizing or relativizing uncomfortable parts of history.
One of the central themes of the discussion was Jedwabne, which the participants presented not only as the site of a specific crime but also as a symbol of a wider dispute over responsibility and memory.
“If you call Jedwabne into question, you can by the same token call a whole range of other studies into question, and challenge Polish complicity in the Holocaust as such,” Forecki said.
He stressed that the significance of Jedwabne goes beyond the history of
a single town. It also points to other crimes committed in the region and to the question of the place of local communities in the history of the Holocaust. In Forecki’s view, the problem is made worse by the way the subject is handled in education, where crimes committed by Poles are sometimes presented as isolated incidents.
Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias pointed out that existing legal instruments are not
a sufficient response, especially when they are applied slowly or ineffectively. She cited Holocaust denial cases that can go on for years, and the reluctance of the justice system to take judicial notice of even fundamental historical facts.
“In cases involving proponents of the ‘Auschwitz lie’ or people who distort the truth about the Holocaust, the process of obtaining justice takes five or six years and still reaches no conclusion,” she said.
She was particularly critical of the practice of calling in experts to confirm to law enforcement authorities that gas chambers existed at Auschwitz. “That in itself is scandalous and should never happen. No judge should resort to such measures,” she stressed.
At the same time, she noted that the solution cannot be confined to the law, because Holocaust denial is increasingly bound up with identity, memory politics, and the belief that acknowledging certain crimes amounts to an attack on the national community.
“As a citizen, I would like the defense of historical truth to finally become a matter of Polish raison d’état,” said Gliszczyńska-Grabias, stressing how important it is for public institutions and political leaders to take a clear position on the distortion of history.
Piotr Cywiński, for his part, pointed to
a significant change in how denial operates in the public sphere. He recalled that as recently as two decades ago, institutions could react to open Holocaust denial very quickly. Today, proceedings over similar statements can take months or years.
At the same time, the Director of the Auschwitz Museum noted that many years of Holocaust education have brought measurable results. Guides working at the Memorial report that young people’s basic historical knowledge is markedly higher today than it was in the 1990s. That does not mean, however, that conventional educational tools are sufficient in the new media landscape.
Social media play a particular role here. Cywiński spoke of a platform business model that rewards polarization, emotion, and unequivocally taking one side or the other. In that environment, a nuanced historical message stands far less chance than provocation or false information.
“Once you have been pigeonholed, you lose your ability to influence people. You are only preaching to the converted. The
30