Moderator: Mr. Per Ahlmark
Presenters: Mr. Stéphane Bruchfeld
Mr. Robert Jan van Pelt
Mr. Shimon Samuels
Mr. Irwin Cotler

summary:
The discussion focussed upon the primary importance of education to reject the influence of denial. The role of antisemitism as the driving force for the deniers was stressed. There were strong reason to criminalize denial of the Holocaust. It was crucial to uphold "the integrity of history" for the future.

The moderator, Mr. Per Ahlmark stressed in his introduction that the whole subject of the denial was an obvious perversion. When he first was confronted with the subject in the seventies he could not imagine that it would become a serious matter. But time had proved him wrong. It was clear that those who lie about the crimes of the Nazis were the most likely to repeat them. By lying about the Holocaust the antisemites try to destroy memory. The purpose is to clear Nazism from its criminal stigma and to rehabilitate antisemitism.

The Holocaust is now being transformed from Memory to History. Therefore efficient teaching on the Holocaust is more important than ever. Mr. Ahlmark put for questions as a point of departure for the discussion, namely (in summary)

-Which is the present state of knowledge on the Holocaust in our countries? How do we succeed in transferring information on the subject to young people of today?

-Is education the answer? Or are values even more important than knowledge? Where should the main emphasis be?

-What is most dangerous for the future: the outright denial of the Holocaust or the relativization of the Holocaust.

-What should governments and parliaments do, in more concrete terms, to defend new generations against deniers? Should one make the denial of Holocaust a criminal offence - as is the case in some countries?

Stéphane Bruchfeld gave an account of the result of opinion polls among pupils and teachers in Sweden . The results showed clearly a correlation between higher education and resistance against the allegations of the deniers. There also seem to be a correlation between a general adherence to democratic and humanistic values and certainty about the Holocaust. Among the teachers practically everybody believed that the Holocaust had happened. Until recently the Holocaust had had no place in the school curricula and had rarely been taught on university level. Education was clearly the answer to fight the deniers. When dealing with the Holocaust it was also important to specificly include the Holocaust denial and how to handle this phenomenon.

Robert Jan van Pelt described how the deniers concentrated all their forces on Auschwitz in spite of the fact that the documentation regarding Auschwitz was much richer than in some other cases. Their tactics seemed to be that if they could discredit the seemingly strong historical record concerning Auschwitz they would also have discredited the records concerning other camps. To meet the arguments of the deniers it was important to develop "critical thinking" among young people. Values were certainly also important but the fundamental values were normally given before school age.

Shimon Samuels said that the denial of the Holocaust has had far-reaching deleterious effects for the general society in both Western and Eastern Europe. Specially he pointed Out the dire consequences of media irresponsibility during the Lebanon war in 1982 when it used Holocaust language to describe the State of Israel and Diaspora Jews. He described tendencies of denial in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, which was a sign of undemocratic conditions forming a threat for all minorities in the region. He also pointed out "the hi - tech denial" through Holocaust computer games and their dissemination over the Internet. The task was to defend "the integrity of history." To take on this task an "International Commission for the Integrity of History" should be established.

Irwin Cotler stressed the importance of knowledge of the Holocaust denial. This knowledge existed and should be used. Sweden had earlier been a centre for the denial-circles, for example through Radio Islam. Now it had developed to a "centre of remembrance". It was important to criminalize the denial of the Holocaust, as it amounted to a covering up of the worst crime in history. It was also extremely essential to prosecute war criminals. If those were not sentenced, it could lead to the conclusion that no crimes had been committed.

In the discussion after the introduction of the panelists many view-points were put forward from the audience. It touched upon the role of the Vatican , the methods of education on the Holocaust, the handling of court cases etc. The view was expressed that the denial was not a question of history and historical facts but of antisemitism. Also the view was expressed that it was important - when discussing the Holocaust -to pay attention to other persecuted groups like the romas. Another view was expressed that the romas had a marginal role in the discussion on the denial, but that the discussion as such probably also helped them. The importance of the establishment of facts and documentation was stressed. History must not be distorted.

conclusions:
There was a general agreement of the importance of continuous education to reject the attacks from the deniers and to extinguish their influence. A crucial task was to defend the integrity of history. An interesting proposal to establish an "International Commission for the Integrity of History" was made.