I have no doubt that the Holocaust occurred or that Sherman & Grobman provide a useful compendium with which to answer those who say that it didn't. But the authors are naively confident about both the nature of "historical science" and the motivations of Holocaust deniers. "Real revision" and "dogmatic denial" are not necessarily opposites; they may be points on a sliding scale. The authors' discussion of Derek Freeman's critique of Margaret Mead (247-48) reveals what a weak reed peer review can be, and that six of the fifteen attendees at the Wannsee Conference held doctorates in law ought suggest the limitations of entrusting the search for truth to professional elites. Despite the their attempts at evenhandedness, Sherman and Grobman promote their own ideologies as much as Holocaust deniers do. Biases drive their conclusions as well. Sherman and Grobman are right about the Holocaust, less so in regard to the nature of history or the nature of man.

You will not find a more straightforward Holocaust book than Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It. The authors' basic argument is this: The extermination of six million Jews during the Second World War is a historical fact. Those who deny it are wrong.

It's hardly a provocative thesis. But ask yourself this: Would you be able to refute a Holocaust denier? The fact of the Holocaust is like the spherical Earth: Every reasonable person accepts it, but few can prove it. That is why Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer teamed up with historian Alex Grobman to write Denying History. They believe thinking people have a duty to fight Holocaust denial head on; and they want them to come to the battle armed with historical facts.

When the eyes of the public are upon them -- such as during the 1985 trial of Canadian Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel, or the famous 1994 Donahue episode that pitted two Holocaust deniers against Shermer and an Auschwitz survivor -- deniers often get the best of staged confrontations. The most prominent deniers know a lot about the Holocaust, especially arcane subjects like the chemistry of Zyklon-B gas and the architecture of gas chambers. Many of the sound bites they spit out are quite true. It is a fact, for instance, that the Nazis never manufactured soap from Jewish bodies on a mass scale -- contrary to urban legend. Deniers are also correct when they claim that there is no known Holocaust order bearing Hitler's signature. David Irving, the on-again off-again denier who recently lost a defamation suit in Britain, has never had to make good on his $1,000 challenge to any historian who could produce such a document.

But, as Denying History makes clear, there is still a mountain of evidence proving the nature and scale of the Holocaust. The Nazis' use of gas chambers has been established by, among countless other sources, the 1946 Nuremberg confession of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss, as well as the 250-page autobiographical manuscript he wrote while awaiting execution. The estimate of six million killed is supported by a spate of historical studies, and also by Nazi physician Wilhelm Hoettel, who testified at Nuremberg that: "In the various concentration camps approximately four million Jews had been killed, while about two million were killed in other ways." None of this evidence convinces the true denier, of course. He is, by necessity, a conspiracy theorist. To him, every confession was coerced, every photograph faked. As the authors of Denying History demonstrate in psychological profiles of today's most prominent deniers, they see the "holohoax" as a plot by Jews (or, "the traditional enemies of truth" as they are commonly referred to in denier circles) to discredit the Nazi regime and the German people. "There are certain aspects of the Third Reich that are very admirable [such as its eugenics and euthanasia programs] and I want to call people's attention to these," Zündel told Shermer and Grobman in an interview. What the Holocaust has done, he argues, is to "bar so many thinkers from re-looking at the options that National Socialism German-style offers."

It is tempting to mock these confused men (there is a great essay to be written on why there does not exist a single preeminent female denier). But Denying History betrays no contempt for its subjects. The authors believe everyone has a right to be heard; and they treat Holocaust deniers with clinical detachment. This attitude reflects the authors'position of intellectual strength. Hatred for Holocaust deniers is compounded by the helpless fear that the pseudo-historians' specious lies may spread. When one is armed with concrete knowledge, however, that fear is lessened and hatred gives way to pity.

Passions tend to boil with the subject of Holocaust denial, so one would expect, when reading this book, to see some rather heated language. However it does not happen; Shermer and Grobman are cool and methodical as they tackle this thorny subject.

This is as valuable a source on historical methodology as I have seen in quite some time. The authors could simply have dealt with the issue of Holocaust denial, but they choose also to discuss the very nature of the science of history, and how proper historical methodology must be adhered to if the past is to be protected from distortion. The authors draw clear boundaries between legitimate revision and deceptive denial posing as revision. "It is not enough for deniers to concoct an alternative explanation that amounts to nothing more than denying each piece of free-standing evidence. They must proffer a theory that not only explains all of the evidence but does so in a manner superior to the present theory. This they have not done." (p. 172) That is as concise an explanation of what defines true revision as you will find.

The authors methodically confront each of the deniers' contentions, and refute them one by one. The deniers' sloppy methodology (deliberate or otherwise), inconsistent standards regarding evidence, or simple distortion of the historical record are exposed for all to see. The authors accomplish this without resorting to any name-calling. They let the evidence (or lack thereof) speak for itself.

The authors also examine the background of the deniers, showing that the deniers are far from being simple seekers of truth. A clear agenda is at work, and the deniers' claims that they are simple students of history, trying to clarify the historical record, simply doesn't wash.

There have criticisms in other reviews that the authors do not discuss the millions of other victims of the Holocaust, but this is hardly the point of the book. The authors make it clear and explicit that they are dealing with the issue of Holocaust denial and the distortion of history, and are not embarking on an extended discussion of the nature of the Holocaust itself.

It is evident to me that the importance of the sanctity of history, and protecting it from distortion for ideological purposes, is as important to the authors as the specific subject of Holocaust denial. The final chapter, "The Rape of History," mentions the Holocaust only at the end of a lengthy discussion of revision versus denial. The conclusion of this chapter reads, "Whatever else it might be, history is the primary story of the storytelling animal, the narrative of our past that offers meaning to our present and, ultimately, our future." (p. 256) Distorting that past robs us of our meaning today.

No matter your field of interest, if you are a student of history you will find this book invaluable.