Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an instance of genocide. Denial is an integral part of genocide[1][2][3] and includes the secret planning of genocide, propaganda while the genocide is going on,[1] and destruction of evidence of mass killings. According to genocide researcher Gregory Stanton, denial "is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres".[4]
Some scholars define denial as the final stage of a genocidal process.[1]Richard G. Hovannisian states, "Complete annihilation of a people requires the banishment of recollection and suffocation of remembrance. Falsification, deception and half-truths reduce what was, to what might have been or perhaps what was not at all."[5]
According to Taner Akçam, "the practice of 'denialism' in regard to mass atrocities is usually thought of as a simple denial of the facts, but this is not true. Rather, it is in that nebulous territory between facts and truth where such denialism germinates."[7]
Denial is the final fortress of those who commit genocide and other mass crimes. Perpetrators hide the truth to avoid accountability and protect the political and economic advantages they sought to gain by mass killings and theft of the victims' property, and to cement the new reality by manufacturing an alternative history. Recent studies have established that such denial not only damages the victims and their destroyed communities, it promises a future based on lies, sowing the seeds of future conflict, repression and suffering.[8]
Motives and strategies
Some of the main reasons for denying genocide are to evade moral or even criminal responsibility and to protect the perpetrators' reputation.[9][10]
Gregory Stanton outlines the tactics of genocide denial including: questioning the statistics, denial of intent, definitional debates, and blaming the victims.[11] Genocide scholar Israel Charny outlines five psychological characteristics of denials of genocide.[12]
Genocide scholar Adam Jones proposed a framework for genocide denial that consists of several strategies, including minimizing fatalities, blaming fatalities on unrelated "natural" causes, denying intent to destroy a group, and claiming self-defense in preemptive or disproportionate attacks:[13]
"Hardly anybody died" When the genocides lie far in the past, denial is easier.
"It wasn't intentional" Disease and famine-causing conditions such as forced labor, concentration camps and slavery (even though they may be manufactured by the perpetrator) may be blamed for casualties.
"There weren't that many people to begin with" Minimizing the casualties of the victims, while the criminals destroy or hide the evidence.
"It was self defense" The killing of civilians, especially able bodied males is rationalized in preemptive attack, as they are accused of plotting against the perpetrators. The perpetrator may exterminate witnesses and relatives of the victims.
"There was no central direction" Perpetrators can use militias, paramilitaries, mercenaries, or death squads to avoid being seen as directly participating.
"It wasn't or isn't 'genocide,' because ..." They may enter definitional or rhetorical argumentation.
"We would never do that" Self-image cannot be questioned: the perpetrator sees itself as benevolent by definition. Evidence doesn't matter.
"We are the real victims" They deflect attention to their own casualties/losses, without historical context.
By individuals and non-governmental organizations
In his 1984 book The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas argued that only "a few hundred thousand" Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves because of their behavior, and Zionists had collaborated with the Nazis in an attempt to send more Jews to Israel. In a 2006 interview, without retracting these specific claims, he stated: "The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind."[14]
David Campbell has written of the now defunct British magazine Living Marxism that "LM's intentions are clear from the way they have sought to publicize accounts of contemporary atrocities which suggest they were certainly not genocidal (as in the case of Rwanda), and perhaps did not even occur (as in the case of the murder of nearly 8,000 at Srebrenica)."[17][18] Chris McGreal writing in The Guardian on 20 March 2000 stated that Fiona Fox writing under a pseudonym had contributed an article to Living Marxism which was part of a campaign by Living Marxism that denied that the event which occurred in Rwanda was a genocide.[18]
Scott Jaschik has stated that Justin McCarthy, is one of two scholars "most active on promoting the view that no Armenian genocide took place".[19] He was one of four scholars who participated in a controversial debate hosted by PBS about the genocide.[20]
Darko Trifunovic is the author of the Report about Case Srebrenica,[21] which was commissioned by the government of the Republika Srpska.[22] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reviewed the report and concluded that it "represented one of the worst examples of revisionism, in relation to the mass executions of Bosniaks committed in Srebrenica in July 1995".[23] After the report was published on 3 September 2002, it provoked outrage and condemnation by a wide variety of Balkans and international figures, individuals, and organizations.[22][24]
Patrick Karuretwa stated in the Harvard Law Record that in 2007 the Canadian politician Robin Philpot "attracted intense media attention for repeatedly denying the 1994 genocide of the Tutsis"[25]
On 21 April 2016 a full-page ad appeared in The Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune that directed readers to Fact Check Armenia, a genocide denial website sponsored by the Turkish lobby in the US. When confronted about the ad a Wall Street Journal spokesperson stated, "We accept a wide range of advertisements, including those with provocative viewpoints. While we review ad copy for issues of taste, the varied and divergent views expressed belong to the advertisers."[26]
American philosopher Steven T. Katz has argued that the Holocaust is the only genocide that has occurred in history.[27][28]
By governments
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2021)
The Australian government has been criticized for engaging in genocide denial and historic revisionism, concerning the treatment of Indigenous people.[29] Prominent Australian politicians have refused to acknowledge the genocide.[30][31]
The government of Canada has been criticized for engaging in denial of its role in the genocide of Indigenous people.[32] In 2022, Gregory Stanton, former president of International Association of Genocide Scholars, issued a report of Canada's genocide saying it is in denial.[33]
In Japan, interpretation of the Nanjing Massacre is reflected upon the notions of "pride, honor and shame". Takashi Yoshida describes the Japanese debate over the Nanjing Massacre as "crystalliz[ing] a much larger conflict over what should constitute the ideal perception of the nation: Japan, as a nation, acknowledges its past and apologizes for its wartime wrongdoings; or ... stands firm against foreign pressures and teaches Japanese youth about the benevolent and courageous martyrs who fought a just war to save Asia from Western aggression."[34] In some nationalist circles in Japan, speaking of a large-scale massacre at Nanjing is regarded as "'Japan bashing' (in the case of foreigners) or 'self-flagellation' (in the case of Japanese)".[35] This means that most Japanese youth are oblivious of the massacre because this dark history is not taught in Japanese schools, and the continued worship of Japanese war criminals enshrined in the Yasukuni Shrine by mainstream politicians in Japan.
The government of Pakistan explicitly denied that there was genocide. By their refusal to characterise the mass-killings as genocide or to condemn and restrain the Pakistani government, the US and Chinese governments implied that they did not consider it so.
The genocide is still too little known about in the West. It is, moreover, the subject of shocking degrees of denial among partisan polemicists and manipulative historians.
Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms [in Serbia]. The methods range from the brutal to the deceitful. Denial is present most strongly in political discourse, in the media, in the sphere of law, and in the educational system.[39]
The government of the Republic of Turkey has long denied that the Armenian genocide was a genocide.[40] According to Akçam, "Turkish denialism [of the genocide] is perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organised, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate" and that "fact-based truths have been discredited and relegated to the status of mere opinion".[7] Turkey acknowledges that many Armenians residing in the Ottoman Empire were killed in conflicts with Ottoman forces during World War One, but disputes the statistics and claims that the killings were systematic and amounted to genocide.Measures recognising the Armenian genocide have languished in the US Congress for decades, and US presidents have refrained from labelling it such due to worries about relations with Turkey and intensive lobbying by Ankara. [41]
The government of the United States has been accused of denial of the genocide of its Indigenous peoples[42] by academics such as Benjamin Madley,[43]David Stannard[44] and Noam Chomsky.[45]
Law
The European Commission proposed a European Union–wide anti-racism law in 2001, which included an offence of genocide denial, but European Union states failed to agree on the balance between prohibiting racism and freedom of expression. After six years of debating, a watered down compromise was reached in 2007 which gave EU states freedom to implement the legislation as they saw fit.[46][47][48]
Genocide denial has an impact on both victim and perpetrator groups. Denial of a genocide affects relations between the victim and perpetrator groups or their respective countries, prevents personal victims of the genocide from seeking closure, and adversely affects political decisions on both sides. It can cause fear in the victims to express their cultural identity, retaliation from both parties, and hamper the democratic development of societies.
Effects on personal victims of the genocide
While confrontation of the committed atrocities can be a tough process in which the victim feels humiliated again by reliving the traumatic past,[50] it still has a benign therapeutic effect, helping both victim and perpetrator groups to come to terms with the past.[51] From a therapeutic point of view, letting the victim confront the past atrocity and its related painful memories is one way to reach a closure and to understand that the harm has occurred in the past.[52] This also helps the memories to enter the shared narrative of the society, thereby becoming a common ground on which the society can make future decisions on, in political and cultural matters.[53]
Denying recognition, in contrast, has a negative effect, further victimising the victim which will feel not only wronged by the perpetrator but also by being denied recognition of the occurred wrongdoing. Denial also has a pivotal role in shaping the norms of a society since the omission of any committed errors, and thereby the lack of condemnation and punishment of the committed wrongs, risks normalising similar actions, increasing the society's tolerance for future occurrences of similar errors.[54]
According to sociologist Daniel Feierstein, the genocide perpetrator implements a process of transforming the identity of any survivors and erasing the memory of the existence of the victim group.[55]
Societal effects of genocide denial
Bhargava notes that "[m]ost calls to forget disguise the attempt to prevent victims from publicly remembering in the fear that 'there is a dragon living on the patio and we better not provoke it.'"[56] In other words, while societally "forgetting" an atrocity can on the surface be beneficial to the harmony of society, it further victimizes the target group for fear of future, similar action, and is directly detrimental to the sociocultural development of the victim group.
On the other hand, there are cases where "forgetting" atrocities is the most politically expedient or stable option. This is found in some states which have recently come out of minority rule, where the perpetrator group still controls most strategic resources and institutions, such as South Africa.[57] This was, among others, one of the main reasons for granting amnesty in exchange for confessing to committed errors during the transitional period in South Africa. However, the society at large and the victims in particular will perceive this kind of trade-offs as "morally suspect,"[58] and may question its sustainability. Thus, a common refrain in regard to the Final Report (1998) by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission was "We've heard the truth. There is even talk about reconciliation. But where's the justice?"[59]
Effects on democratic development
The denial has thereby a direct negative impact on the development of a society, often by undermining its laws and the issue of justice, but also the level of democracy itself.[60] If democracy is meant to be built on the rule of law and justice, upheld and safeguarded by state institutions, then surely the omission of legal consequences and justice would potentially undermine the democracy.[61] What is more dangerous from a historical point of view is that such a default would imply the subsequent loss of the meaning of these events to future generations, a loss which is resembled to "losing a moral compass."[62] The society becomes susceptible to similar wrongdoings in the absence of proper handling of preceding occasions.[63] Nonetheless, denial, especially immediately after the committed wrongdoings, is rather the rule than the exception and naturally almost exclusively done by the perpetrator to escape responsibility.
Implicit denial of genocide
While some societies or governments openly deny genocide, in some other cases, e.g. in the case of the "Comfort women" and the role of the Japanese State, the denial is more implicit. This was evident in how an overwhelmingly majority of the surviving victims refused to accept a monetary compensation since the Japanese government still refused to admit its own responsibility (the monetary compensation was paid through a private fund rather than by the state, a decision perceived by the victims about state's refusal to assume any direct responsibility).[64] This can have the same effects on societies as outright denial. For example, atrocity denial and self-victimisation in Japanese historical textbooks has caused much diplomatic tension between Japan and neighbouring victim states, such as Korea and China, and bolstered domestic conservative or nationalist forces.[65]
The Turkish state's Armenian genocide denial has had far-reaching effects on the Turkish society throughout its history in regard to both ethnic minorities, especially the Kurds, but political opposition in general.[66] The denial also affects Turks, in that there is a lack of recognition of Turks and Ottoman officials who attempted to stop the genocide. This lack of recognition of the various actors at play in Turkey could[weasel words] result in a rather homogeneous perception of the nation in question, thus making Armenians (but also third parties) project the perpetrating role onto the entire Turkish society and nation, causing further racial strife and aggravating the prospects of future reconciliation.[67] For example, Armenian terrorist groups (e.g. ASALA and JCAG) committed terrorist acts during 1970's and 1980's as a direct result of the Turkish state denial of the genocide.[54]
Prevention
Denial may be reduced by works of history, preservation of archives, documentation of records, investigation panels, search for missing persons, commemorations, official state apologies, development of truth commissions, educational programs, monuments, and museums. According to Johnathan Sisson, the society has the right to know the truth about historical events and facts, and the circumstances that led to massive or systematic human rights violations. He says that the state has the obligation to secure records and other evidence to prevent revisionist arguments.[68] Genocide scholar Gregory Stanton suggests that prosecution can be a deterrent.[69]
^Bilali, Rezarta, Yeshim Iqbal, and Samuel Freel, 'Understanding and Counteracting Genocide Denial', in Leonard S. Newman (ed.), Confronting Humanity at its Worst: Social Psychological Perspectives on Genocide (New York, 2019; online edn, Oxford Academic, 21 Nov. 2019, pp 285), doi:10.1093/oso/9780190685942.003.0011 "Groups that commit atrocities are judged negatively, ostracized, and singled out. Members of perpetrator groups are therefore motivated to protect the in-group's positive identity and social image by denying or justifying in-group atrocities"
^Fontaine, Theodore (31 October 2014). Woolford, Andrew; Benvenuto, Jeff; Hinton, Alexander Laban (eds.). Colonial Genocide in Indigenous North America. Duke University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv11sn770. ISBN978-0-8223-7614-9. JSTORj.ctv11sn770. Canada, a country with oft-recounted histories of Indigenous origins and colonial legacies, still maintains a memory block in terms of the atrocities it committed to build the Canadian state. There is nothing more comforting in a colonial history of nation-building than an erasure or denial of the true costs of colonial gains. The comforting narrative becomes the dominant and publicly consumed narrative.
^"His article was – from Pakistan's point of view – a huge betrayal and he was accused of being an enemy agent. It still denies its forces were behind such atrocities as those described by Mascarenhas, and blames Indian propaganda."Dummett, Mark (16 December 2011). "Bangladesh war: The article that changed history". BBC Asia. Archived from the original on 28 December 2020. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
^Madley, Benjamin (2016). An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 12. ISBN978-0300181364.
^Stannard, David E. (1994). American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 221. ISBN978-0-19-508557-0.
^Chomsky, Noam (1 September 2010). "Monthly Review | Genocide Denial with a Vengeance: Old and New Imperial Norms". Monthly Review. p. 16. Retrieved 30 March 2023. Settler colonialism, commonly the most vicious form of imperial conquest, provides striking illustrations. The English colonists in North America had no doubts about what they were doing. Revolutionary War hero General Henry Knox, the first Secretary of War in the newly liberated American colonies, described "the utter extirpation of all the Indians in most populous parts of the Union" by means "more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru", which would have been no small achievement. In his later years, President John Quincy Adams recognized the fate of "that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, [to be] among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement".
^Colvin, Christopher J. (2003). "The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political Forgiveness". In Hodgkin, Katherine; Radstone, Susannah (eds.). Contested pasts: The politics of memory. Routledge. p. 156. ISBN0-415-28647-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2020.
^Feierstein, Daniel, (Hinton, Alexander Laban, editor) (2014). Hidden Genocides: Power, Knowledge, Memory. Chapter 5: Beyond the Binary Model: National Security Doctrine in Argentina as a Way of Rethinking Genocide as a Social Practice. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813561646. JSTOR j.ctt5hjdfm. pp 79.
^Sisson, Jonathan (2010). "A conceptual framework for dealing with the past"(PDF). Politorbis. 50 (3): 11–15. In order to re-establish fundamental trust and accountability in society, there is a need to acknowledge publicly the abuses that have taken place. (p. 11) It is based on the inalienable right on the part of society at large to know the truth about past events and the circumstances that led to the perpetration of massive or systematic human rights violations, in order to prevent their recurrence in the future. In addition, it involves an obligation on the part of the State to undertake measures, such as securing archives and other evidence, to preserve collective memory from extinction and so to guard against the development of revisionist arguments. (p. 12) These involve symbolic acts, such as an annual homage to the victims, the establishment of monuments and museums, or the recognition by the State of its responsibility in the form of a public apology, that discharge the duty of remembrance and help to restore victims' dignity. Additional measures in this regard foresee the inclusion of an accurate account of the violations that occurred in public educational materials at all levels. (p. 13) Right to know: Truth commissions, Investigation panels, Documentation, Archives, History books & Missing persons.(pp15)
^Stanton 2020: "The best response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished.... When possible, local proceedings should provide forums for hearings of the evidence against perpetrators who were not the main leaders and planners of a genocide, with opportunities for restitution and reconciliation. The Rwandan gaçaça trials are one example. Justice should be accompanied by education in schools and the media about the facts of a genocide, the suffering it caused its victims, the motivations of its perpetrators, and the need for restoration of the rights of its victims."
![[icon]](File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
