This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've learned to be distrustful of mainstream conservative commentators, but I still had hope that Dennis Prager was one of the intellectually honest ones. Having read his latest column, my disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.
I understand that accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty without clear evidence that they are lying is frowned upon here and likely anywhere else that meaningful discussion happens. If anyone has a defensible reading of this column, I would greatly appreciate hearing it, because I can only see two possible readings.
The subject of the holocaust hits so close to home for Prager that he suspends all rational thought when discussing it, leaving him incapable of recognizing his own hypocrisy or recusing himself to avoid embarassment.
He is consciously trying to enforce a norm that you can't question anything about the holocaust; he is aware that this contradicts his encouragement of vaccine hesitancy and other forms of wrongthink, but he doesn't care, because those are forms of wrongthink he likes, and this is one he doesn't like.
The first possibility fills me with pity. The second one fills me with outrage, not only because I consider that attitude to be morally wrong, but because I consider it to be counter-productive. The best way to encourage holocaust denial, and the anti-Semitism that it so often leads to, is to tell people not to question any details about it. And I'm not exaggerating when I say that Prager does not want people to question any details about it whatsoever. He says so himself.
Prager does not define the holocaust as "the German government's mass-murder of Jewish citizens," or even "the deliberate attempt by the German government to kill all of the Jews in Europe." He defines the holocaust specifically as the murder of millions of Jews, meaning that if you put the death toll at anything under 7 figures, you are denying the totality of the event in his mind. If Prager was giving a live lecture, I would excuse this implication as an accidental result of speaking off-the-cuff, but this is a written column, which means he had the opportunity to proof-read his words and think about what they mean, and he still thought that this was acceptable.
Based on my conversations with others about holocaust denial and revisionism, I suspect there's an unspoken implication in this column that people who are neurotypical (or just not autistic in the same way I am) are capable of picking up on: that anyone who questions any detail about the holocaust is a bad faith actor trying to Ship of Theseus it out of the historical record. I've had many people, even in ratspace, tell me that this is so obvious a reason to ostracize holocaust revisionists that it doesn't even have to be stated explicitly when condemning them. Well, not only is it not obvious to me, but I think it takes an astonishingly poor imagination to think that there might not be anyone out there who, in good faith and without denying Hitler's genocidal ambitions, questions how many people were killed in the holocaust or what methods were used.
This is not a defense of Nick Fuentes. While I can't read Fuentes's mind, I have inferred based on his tone when speaking about the holocaust that he likely either doesn't believe it happened or wants other people to not believe it happened. The column, however, is not about Nick Fuentes. It's a column about the general subject of holocaust "denial," and it merely uses Fuentes as an example. And while I'm at it..
Prager, buddy, do you have any idea how many people on my university campus alone denied "Stalin’s mass murder of tens of millions of Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago?" I don't, because once you're counting in the dozens, it's impossible to keep track without administering a structured survey. I know that Bob Avakian's group canvassed there every day for years without incident, while right-wing events were met with hostile protests. I was one of the first people to know that Quentin Tarantino spoke at one of their events, but it took Breitbart a month to report on my tip, and not a single other outlet picked up on it because they didn't care.
What world does Prager live in where Stalin apologists are marginalized, but holocaust denial runs free? It's not the world he lived in five years ago, because 3 minutes into this video, he approvingly quotes a professor's statement that denial Stalin's genocide is common. Did Prager's assessment of the culture change over the past five years, or is he just contradicting himself to effectively enforce his preferred censorial norms? I'm inclined to think the latter, and it's a darn shame. I used to be a Ben Shapiro fan until I caught him doing stuff like this, and my search for people who recognized the problems with wokeness without enforcing their own intellectual taboos drove me further right to places like VDare and Unz, because they were less obviously dishonest. Several years later, I don't think those places are particularly honest, but I'm sure they're more honest than Daily Wire, and I expect many people to get stuck at that level of the radicalization rabbit hole without graduating to the general agnosticism and confusion I'm at. Shit, now I'm getting emotional.
Also, whoever chose that headline did a bad job. Prager is Jewish, and his reference to hell in the column was clearly meant to be a figure of speech. Making it the headline makes it sound literal. I wonder if Prager approved it.
The Holocaust killing millions is very well documented. I'm more of a mistake theorist than a conflict theorist, so I wouldn't call people who say the Holocaust killed 5% of what it actually did are necessarily evil, but I would say they're likely mentally ill(like Kanye) and/or have made some very poor decisions in which sources they want to trust.
The question of when information should be censored is not an easy one in my opinion. Especially because we can never really be sure when information is true or not; even in mathematics "proofs" that are widely accepted can be much later shown to be false. So all information, from the planet being round to evolution to covid policy to the holocaust would be kept open to debate in an ideal society. But in an ideal society then also on the easily answerable questions like the planet being round everyone would quickly come to the right answer, and for even trickier questions like covid policy everyone would quickly dismiss the stupid information like that vaccines are being used to implant microchips.
But we do not live in an ideal society, and if you let debate spread unhindered, you'll get a lot of people believing flat out wrong stuff. And that flat out wrong stuff can have harmful effects. For example, in the 14th century, the belief that Jews were related to the spread of the bubonic plague led to massacres of Jewish communities. I think with the benefit of hindsight, most modern people would agree that if they had the magic power to censor the belief that Jews spread the black plague(and there wouldn't be any butterfly effects through the timeline), they would, since that information was very harmful.
It is actually not well-documented at all. There are no written orders for extermination of millions, likely none ever existed. The "well-documented killings" amounts to historians tallying transports with the assumption that every single person on them was murdered in a gas chamber disguised as a shower room, which is not documented (and in fact documents explicitly refer to these alleged extermination camps with non-homicidal functions, like "transit camp" or "labor camp." Historians say this was all "coded language" to get around the fact that documents paint a different picture for the purposes of these camp than their own assertions). But there's never been a single excavation of a single mass grave at any of the alleged killing sites, despite the fact they exist in precisely known locations. There was never a single autopsy of a single person killed by one of these homicidal gas chambers. Excavations are in fact forbidden by Jewish authorities using the same reasoning as is being used to refuse excavations of the alleged Kamloops Indian Reservation mass graves. They say that excavations at Kamloops would "disturb the spirits of the children" which is practically the exact same reasoning given by rabbinical authorities. More likely, they know that excavations would disprove the prevailing narrative in both cases.
In essence, "If Holocaust Deniers Don’t Go to Hell, There Is No God" is simply the conservative manifestation of the Holocaust dialectic, with the leftist manifestation being Adorno's infamous quote "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric."
Holocaust deniers tend to all focus on Auschwitz, and with good reason: it was a massive operation with three prominent subcamps, it had the most victims and most survivors, it received mostly western and Balkan Jews as well as POWs and political prisoners. In short, it had a wide range of experiences; which is ideal for someone who wants to chip away at a subject that an individual has a very general and non-specific understanding of.
A classic tactic of deniers (and conspiracy theorists in general) is to insert a wedge into the mind of a layman, and then try to lever it. They have a vast array of knowledge of all kinds of minutiae about the subject, and the layman does not. They have an endless arsenal of anecdotes or factoids or even legitimately true things that they known and the layman does not. A classic example would go like this: did you know Auschwitz had a swimming pool? It's true! The Germans even let prisoners use it! Boy, that doesn't sound like the sort of thing a death camp would have, now would it? Huh, I wonder why we never learned about that in history class... wonder what else we're not told about.
And then maybe the layman goes and googles it and boy, sure enough it's true. Of course some of the details are fudged: yes, there was a reservoir for firefighting that the German guards would swim in sometimes, and even let certain privileged political prisoners use from time to time. It was a massive operation, with thousands of guards and support staff that along with lodgings and mess halls needed some form of entertainment. And in the bigger picture it doesn't really change anything: somewhere close to a million people were murdered at Auschwitz, swimming pool or no. Someone posted the link to epistemic learned helplessness: this is the exact kind of thing that heuristic is meant to guard against.
So when @SecureSignals says something like "There are no written orders for extermination of millions", he's hoping you might go google it and think "well jeez, it turns out we don't have a Führerbefehl relating to the Holocaust. Why did I never know that?", and from that be incrementally swayed to his side. Of course, if you were to actually read a history of the Holocaust you would know; but most people don't read history books about any subject, and let pop culture shape their impressions for them.
Holocaust deniers have in previous decades focused on Auschwitz because the historical narrative, and particularly the cultural depiction of the Holocaust in popular culture, was focused on Auschwitz. After all, until the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s it was claimed that four million people were murdered at Auschwitz, only to be revised downwards to the still-wildly inflated 1.5 million. Auschwitz is also the only "extermination camp" which claimed to have an intact gas chamber, the "gas chamber" which you will see frequently posted to the front-page of Reddit and has been visited by millions of unwitting tourists.
It was the Revisionists who visited the archives and procured the blueprints which label this room a morgue (Leichenkeller) during the period it was allegedly a gas chamber. It was Revisionists who exposed in an undercover interview the head of the Auschwitz Museum admitting that the "Zyklon introductory chimneys" in that room were in fact "reconstructions" built post-war in Soviet-occupied Poland, whereas previously all were told that they were original structures attesting to the homicidal function of the room.
If you talk to a smart anti-denier, he will downplay the importance of Auschwitz and in particular the importance of that famous gas chamber on the Auschwitz tour (the only one left standing at any of the extermination camps!). But that's only because Revisionists have forced a retreat.
Well then help bring back the people who would potentially be swayed upon learning that there are no such documents ordering the extermination of the Jews. You say "if you would read a history book, you would know", but can you just explain it to everyone real quick and save them the trouble? Why are there no documents, @johnfabian?
Gee, I guess these American photographers who took pictures like this were all lying and faking too, then, SecureSignals?
Or this one:
Who are the actors playing Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower in this one?
Plainly the Eisenhower presidential library is just unreliable source!
The high mortality at these camps liberated by the Western allies was caused by a collapsing German infrastructure as it was being destroyed in the final days of the war. It is no longer claimed that Buchenwald or its sub-camp Ohrdruf were extermination camps with gas chambers. The high death toll is what initially caused the gas chamber story to center on Western camps. Images can also be deceiving in several ways. For example, one of your images is captioned:
But it's far more likely that this was a makeshift cremation of people who had died from other causes, like epidemic typhus. There are no credible accusations that I am aware of describing the Germans burning prisoners alive, and it is not maintained by official historiography that this took place (although Elie Wiesel claimed to witness this at Auschwitz in his memoir). On the other hand, the cremation of prisoners that had died was standard operating procedure in order to reduce the spread of disease and epidemic typhus.
Another example of a notoriously deceptive image is found in your link to the Eisenhower presidential library. There is an infamous image of the dead prisoners at the Nordhausen camp, captioned "April 12, 1945 - A portion of the bodies found by U.S. troops when they arrived at Nordhausen concentration camp in Germany." But it is well-known that this camp was bombed by the RAF. You can even see the mass destruction in all the buildings surrounding the bodies which have been used as a prop for propaganda. CODOH has an article on the Nordhausen film and image propaganda:
To summarize, the mass death and destruction at Nordhausen concentration camp was caused by RAF bombings of the camp and civilian areas. The United States arrived and produced propaganda films of the aftermath which was submitted as evidence of German brutality at the Nuremberg trial, with no mention that these were victims of Allied bombing. Likewise, the caption of that photograph in the Eisenhower library "A portion of the bodies found by U.S. troops when they arrived at Nordhausen concentration camp in Germany" makes no mention that these people were killed by Allied bombings. In fact, the Nordhausen camp population was minority Jewish. So this is a picture of mostly non-Jewish victims of RAF bombings being posed and passed off as Holocaust victims of a German extermination policy.
The image is real, the context and its use in Holocaust propaganda is highly deceptive.
Speaking of deception, Eisenhower was in command of the Psychological War Division (PWD/SCHAEF) which was the unit which conducted the "investigation" of Buchenwald after its liberation. There's the infamous propaganda film of the forced march of the civilians of Weimar through Buchenwald, which culminates in a table display of human-skin lampshades and shrunken heads allegedly created by the Germans. The shrunken heads were disappeared after they were dramatically presented on the first day of the Nuremberg trial, and the human-skin lampshade was also conveniently disappeared. Historians have also dropped the famous human-skin lampshade story.
Not surprisingly, the famous images of the shrunken heads and human-skin lampshade at Buchenwald did not make it into the album you posted.
What you then claim what happened with Polish Jewish pre-war population? Are you also claiming that forcing Jews into ghettos by Germans was fake? Executing people across conquered territories?
I bet that there is plenty of propaganda (add "soap made from human fat" to that) but presenting in a way that claims "Germans have not mass-murdered millions" is even more misleading.
Also, is it intentional that your username in short is SS?
I think the whole demographic question (ie. what happened to the prewar Jewish population) is the crucial question here, much moreso than the concentration camp doors or camp memoirs etc., but this is also a month old subthread so it's probably not a good place to discuss such issues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
General Lucius Clay, the military governor of the US zone of occupied Germany, explained the lampshade story, "Well, it turned out actually that it was goat flesh. But at the trial [of Ilse Koch] it was still human flesh." (Interview with Lucius Clay, 1976, Official Proceeding of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation Quoted in M. Weber, "Buchenwald: Legend and Reality," The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 7(4), pp. 406-407.)... A similar statement from General Clay:
Moreover, Ilse Koch had left Buchenwald nearly two years prior to the liberation and PWD table display of these artifacts. If you are interested in a deep-dive into the circumstances surrounding this lampshade and shrunken head display, I would suggest this Revisionist film because the circumstances of these legends are far sketchier than you would probably believe.
The "mainstream consensus", however, is to categorically ignore the issue. They just don't talk about it.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh well, that's all right then; they didn't deliberately murder the people they rounded up and held in camps, it was all down to collapsing infrastructure and typhus.
That is not really any better, SecureSignals, because you still have to explain "why did they round up all these people and hold them in camps?"
No, he actually doesn’t have to explain why they were in concentration camps, because the claim of the holocaust is not that Germans kept Jews in camps like the Americans did the Japanese. The claim of the holocaust is the intentional killing of millions of Jews in these camps.
More options
Context Copy link
The reason intentionality was such a big deal for holocaust historiography is because a lot of other nations have this on their records.
The gas chambers and skin lampshades and SS-she-wolves and Looney Tunes electric roller coasters have to be real, because if was all just starvation and cholera and slave camps and mass reprisal executions the holocaust starts looking too familiar. And it has to be seen as a categorically different and historically unique event, not just a quantitatively worse successor.
(Of course, future generations of historians might not care, and will instead prefer to treat the holocaust as just one of many related examples of "naturally evil white devils being evil")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well there were documents ordering the killing of Jews, and unless you read exclusively denialist writers you would know this. With your wording I'm not sure if you're being deliberately dishonest or if you're just nonspecific in your wording. But I'm going to assume honesty and believe you're referring to the lack of a Führerbefehl: an order from Adolf Hitler, starting the Holocaust.
First of all, you might want to flip the question: would you necessarily expect an order to undertake a vast criminal conspiracy to survive? Ignore the context of everything else for a second: there were 9 million Jews in Europe, give or take, in 1939 (the Nazis believed a higher number because of their racial theories). Planning to kill that many people would qualify as the greatest conspiracy of all time. The key perpetrators might want to conceal their decision-making a bit. Certainly the lack of similar documents haven't stopped the same people who believe in Holocaust denial from alleging in 9/11 or moon landing conspiracies, as an aside.
And the Nazis were quite keenly aware of the importance of secrecy in what they were undertaking. Not only were they not so un-self-aware that they anticipated the rest of the world might quibble with them murdering millions of civilians, the Aktion T4 program had been undermined by insufficient internal secrecy leading to a considerable protest movement against it both within and without Germany. Awareness of the systematic murder of Jews, POWs, and "useless mouths" could (and eventually did) harden resistance and resolve to German conquest, pacification, and occupation of lands in the East. Institutional and operational secrecy was as important and necessary as the undertaking itself. It was, as Himmler later said, a "glorious chapter that has not and will not be spoken of."
Take the Commissar Order, for example. It acknowledged quite openly that it was brazenly in violation of international law, and there was a concerted effort to limit possible leaks: only thirty copies of the original were created, and the ultimate promulgation to the Army Groups was only extended to 340, and ultimately all copies were ordered to be destroyed. If they had been, presumably you'd also argue that "there was no proof of the order to kill Soviet commissars!" which would again be untrue, because even if the primary source documents had not survived we have plenty of contemporary secondary sources, both of those who received the order (including many who subsequently lied about receiving it) and of those who carried it out.
That at some point Hitler ordered the extermination of Jewry is not contested among historians. The specific date is contested; some favour an "early" hypothesis (around September 1941) and some favour a "late" hypothesis (around November-December 1941). The order was almost certainly issued verbally to Heinrich Himmler, hence the lack of "documents", but many of the key figures in the Nazi regime discussed being aware of such an order. In any case, by the time this order had been issued somewhere between 500,000 and a million Jews had already been murdered, but that's a different discussion and deniers tend to very pointedly ignore the Holocaust by bullets anyways.
The big problem deniers have to always work around is that the Nazis themselves never denied the Holocaust. While individuals might have tried to shirk their specific responsibility, when it came to the criminal trials and executions the one legal defence never attempted was "it didn't happen."
Let's not do a Motte and Bailey here, there were documents ordering the killing of a lot of people in WWII. There are of course documents, well-studied by Revisionists, explicating the executions of Jewish partisans and reprisals against the local population. The executions and reprisals are the grain of truth within the wider Holocaust lore, but at the time reprisals were legal under international law and those reprisals were not even considered a warcrime at Nuremberg for that reason. When people talk about the Holocaust and the "final solution", they are obviously referring to the historical assertion that the extermination of the Jews became a matter of policy of the German government as the "final solution" to the Jewish question, and that most of six million Jews were exterminated in makeshift gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. "There were documents ordering the killing of Jews" is a Motte and Bailey at a comical level.
Let's see how the most eminent Holocaust Historian, Raul Hilberg, describes the origin of the "final solution":
You correctly posit the Holocaust as one of the greatest conspiracies in human history- the trans-continental extermination of millions of people in bedroom-sized gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, using Zyklon B pellets or carbon monoxide from the engine of captured Soviet tanks. But Hilberg would have us believe that there was no plan, no blueprint, no budget for this mass conspiracy. It wasn't carried out by a "plan" but by "an incredible meeting of minds, and consensus mind-reading".
On the other hand, a simple matter like an order for the execution of Commissars, was unable to escape exposure in the documentary body of evidence despite being limited to 30 documents that they tried to keep secret and later tried to destroy. Hilberg and you would have us believe that the greatest conspiracy in human history was accomplished without the benefit or survival of written plans, blueprints, or budgets. It was just mind-reading across the German bureaucracy, according to Hilberg.
If the Commissar order couldn't escape being exposed in the documentary body of evidence, it is entirely incomprehensible that the trans-continental extermination of millions of people in bedroom-sized gas chambers was accomplished without the survival of explicitly written plans, blueprints, or budgets, and without bodies or mass graves that have ever been excavated. The Commissar order was directly exposed in the documents, why wouldn't this far more gargantuan conspiracy?
Actually, some historians suggest that it could have not been known by Hitler but that's besides the point. The assertion that this was a homicidal gas chamber disguised as a shower room used to gas Jews is also not contested among historians, but it has been completely refuted by Revisionists nonetheless.
Historians are all over the place in formulating a date on when the extermination was apparently decided upon, but none of them are internally consistent. Historians who pick a date too early are contradicted by documents proving Hitler and Nazi Leadership still considered the Madagascar Plan to be the "Final Solution." Historians who pick a date later than that run into the fact that it is claimed extermination camps were already built and operational, so they are saying the order came after the construction of the earliest extermination centers. But there is no consensus because there is no evidence to establish any of their positions.
Here's an alternative hypothesis: there was no order and never a plan to exterminate the Jews as the "final solution", and that's why the historians have been unable to find documents or even agree on a basic timeline of how this occurred.
Lastly, I'm sure you are aware that upon liberation it was the Western camps which featured most prominently in the propaganda surrounding German "death camps," like Dachau, which were claimed to be the centers of gas chamber extermination. But the Western Allies investigated those claims and found them to be false. The entire death camp narrative shifted to the East, where the Soviets denied access to outside investigators and freely modified structures post-war (like the Auschwitz "gas chamber.")
If the Western camps were originally accused of perpetuating the greatest conspiracy in human history, and those claims turned out to be completely false, why wouldn't that lower your confidence in the authenticity of identical claims in the Eastern camps where all of the evidence and investigation was managed in the Soviet sphere? The "current" map is now oudated as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum finally revised their website to revise Majdanek from "extermination camp" to "concentration camp", so that's another "death camp" that is in the dustbin of history due to Revisionist research. And that one was in the East and was in fact liberated before Auschwitz.
You can see this article form August 1944, before the liberation of Auschwitz declaring a mass murder of "1,500,000 in Huge Death Factory of Gas Chambers and Crematories" at Majdanek. Then the Soviets liberated Auschwitz in January 1945 and made the exact same claim. The problem is that in 2003 the death toll at Majdanek was revised to something like 50,000. The entire gas chamber narrative began at Majdanek, and just recently historians are finally admitting it was not an extermination camp.
Given your obvious bent and contempt for academic history, again I don't know if you're being deceitful, ignorant, or just plain dumb. The "functionalist" camp is the pre-eminent one in Holocaust studies; scarce few contemporary historians hold that the Holocaust was masterminded by Hitler from the beginning. The Holocaust began roughly simultaneously within three separate Nazi bureaucracies, each with specific problems, methods, and goals. Again, like almost all deniers do, you steadfastly ignore the Holocaust by bullets. By the time the Holocaust moved onto a more deliberate stage and the combined resources of the Nazi state begin to dedicate itself to the task, yes then we have plenty of documentation of that effort (which again you just ignore). Surely you know you're not convincing anyone who has ever opened a history book on the subject?
Well, Himmler would've disagreed with you. And Heydrich and Eichmann, and Goebbels. C'mon dude, these are your heroes! Why are you denying them their greatest works? Think of the shame they would have if 80-odd years on people who claim to follow in their footsteps would disavow the immense effort and sacrifice in attempting rid Europe of Jewry!
You know, stuff like this really doesn't help convince people. Obvious consensus enforcement works in most places, but a lot of people here are instinctively suspicious of it to the point that it becomes counterproductive to even try.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also the opposite if anyone knows of one. It's almost impossible to research this because you'll just get banned in most places. I would be interested in an account of how scholars came to the modern consensus on how the holocaust happened with lots of original documents.
Are you looking for a discussion of historiography, or specifically a focus on primary sources?
A focus on primary sources, ideally something that goes through what would typically be taught in a class about the Holocaust but that meticulously shows how each claim is supported by primary sources.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Despite some answers below written with excessive charity, the best answer is "they don't exist". At most you can find books that use neutral language but present misleading information.
It's like homeopathy. Homeopathy is not a subject which leads to people being banned as witches, but even so, if you ask "give me books with reasonable arguments for homeopathy", there won't be any. Homeopathy is so out of touch with the real world that you can't have books with reasonable arguments for it, because there aren't any reasonable arguments for it. It's the same here.
Every once in a while, I'll take a look through the transcripts from the tribunals/interrogations to fact check an anecdote about the war and they're not quite the best at clearly establishing what happened either. Lots of inference, jumping back and forth between various incidents or to previous statements abruptly trying to catch out inconsistencies, try to get an admission then (at least in transcript form) quickly moving on to the next thing. And for many things testimony is the only thing that survived the chaos and destruction of war. For the ones I remember off-hand the textbook summary was generally in line with what was established in the transcripts but that establishment wasn't necessarily clear, reasonable or detail rich even if ultimately convincing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why would you get banned? The idea is not verboten, no matter how distasteful. If you're going to get links to decent scholarship...here is probably the place.
Bear in mind the usual disclaimers about epistemic learned helplessness. Given enough time--and a powerful enough selection effect--specialists in any field will develop some elaborate fortifications.
I think the case for the Holocaust is much, much stronger than Kamloops. The most defensible objections, in my opinion, are of scale or of details. But I will defer to some of our other regulars for actual citations.
More options
Context Copy link
The best resource is the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, they do consistently excellent work and have a rich archive of high-quality articles on many topics. They have an overview pamphlet of their claims but if you are willing to give their case a hearing I would suggest reading Debating the Holocaust (which is published by CODOH, you can get the full book or ebook here). This book is useful because it presents what is claimed in the official historiography alongside the Revisionist case, making it easier to see where mainstream historiography disagrees with Revisionism and where it does not.
More options
Context Copy link
"Hello. I very much doubt your murdered family actually were murdered as you claim, may I have permission to conduct an autopsy to prove that you are a lying liar?"
Guess my answer. Is it:
(1) Fuck you
(2) Fuck you very much
(3) Fuck you very much and also if you don't clear off within the next ten seconds, someone will be conducting an autopsy on you
I have very hair-trigger reactions when it comes to revisionism about the Famine (to the extent that I hate how Americans refer to it as "the Irish Potato Famine" and before any snoot-nose comes back with "well ackshully it was only potatoes that failed, other foodstuffs were fine", I hope you enjoy your broken nose), and that was way smaller numbers of deaths and not in reality any kind of planned extermination (even though some English sure were happy the Paddies were getting what was coming to them). So imagine if I were Jewish and some snoot-nose was "well ackshully how do we know the Nazis murdered your granny and her young kids? maybe they just got the flu and got badly sick and died of that!".
You are using the exact same pearl-clutching that progressives are using to assert that it's racist for skeptics of the Kamloops Mass Graves to ask for excavations to investigate if what is claimed actually happened. "How dare you demand that they disturb the spirits of the children to satisfy your perverted, white, racist, genocide denial!" It is emotionally powerful reasoning, I get it.
In most murder cases it is extremely typical for excavations and autopsies, and identification of bodies if possible. You would expect it in the murder case of a single person, but somehow for the case of the alleged murder of a million people in a precisely known location, it transcends any expectation for physical evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wasn't August Hirt's work all produced from gas chambers at a camp? Not mass grave of course given the nature of his work but corpses and there is some first-hand testimony of how they got there.
The alleged Natzweiler gas chamber in France is not considered to be related to the alleged extermination camps in Poland. There was an autopsy of some of the corpses from August Hirt's collection, which tested negative for cyanide poisoning, although if they were killed with gas it was probably not cyanide gas like the alleged gas chambers in Poland. The testimony is based on the confession of Josef Kramer, who was the commandant of the (alleged) extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau and later Bergen-Belsen. The Natzweiler gas chamber was not included in the charges against Kramer or in the charges of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal.
Incidentally, Josef Kramer was commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau from May 1944 - November 1944 and was one of the earliest Holocaust deniers, who described the accusation of gas chambers at Auschwitz as "untrue from beginning to end."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And what Holocaust-denialist claim about for example Jewish population in Poland? It never existed? Coincidentally they almost entirely died during WW II but it was unrelated to German Jew-obsessed terror? German-ordered ghettos also have not existed? They ascended to higher plane of existence?
More options
Context Copy link
Hold up. I'm lost. While I'm sure that there are still mass graves, the bodies were generally burnt in the crematoriums. Am I mistaken on that front.
That isn't to say that there aren't mass graves or anything. However, is it not well known that the bodies were put into crematoriums?
Shouldn't you be challenging the claim that there were in fact crematoriums?
And I'm not undercutting you here. I want to get on the same page. Are you claiming that there was no explicit documentation related to death camps (save "coded" documents)?
Do you meant that Hitler himself never signed such explicit documents himself?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are they challenging any other figures? Do they say the Nazis didn't kill the number of Roma that was claimed? or that the military and/or civilian casualties were much lower than commonly estimated?
Or do they only question the Holocaust narrative? Because if they're happy that yeah, so many Germans died, so many Brits died, so many Japanese died - but hold on a minute there, you're wrong about the Jews! - then yeah, that looks motivated by more than impartial historical accuracy.
More options
Context Copy link
How many millions?
2 (lowest estimate for 'millions') or 10, 50, 400?
5% of what? What's a ballpark?
5% of 500 millions is still a million, while 5% of 1 million is a mere 50,000, which is still a considerable number, but only a quarter of the victims exterminated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with technology developed by Oppenheimer and others.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There is more incentive to exaggerate the extent and significance of the holocaust than any other event in history. At the same time, it is one of the most ideologically influential events of the 21st century. These two reasons are why it should be morally acceptable, and in fact encouraged, to poke holes and relitigate the events of the holocaust. Holocaust denialism is not evidence of any bias whatsoever, because autistic men online will spend thousands of hours examining innumerable less important matters like the best tanks and rifles, who killed JFK, UFO sightings, the battle of agincourt and the policies of FDR.
In theory, it might be that some people just become obsessed with the nitty-gritty details of the Holocaust and exactly how many people actually died and what methods were used and the literal accuracy of all historical claims, etc.
In practice, I've never encountered a Holocaust denier who didn't, purely coincidentally, have a great deal of animosity towards Jews.
Some will use more evasions than others ("I don't hate every single Jewish person!" "I only feel animosity towards the organized Jewish media that pushes false narratives and ideologies on me, not Jews as a people," etc.) Even if I were to believe these disclaimers (I don't), Holocaust denial is clearly not like trainspotting, an odd hobby that certain people become obsessed with for no ideological motivation. It's something that attracts people who don't like Jews, not niche historians.
How about David Cole, who is Jewish?
I've heard of him before. White supremacists can always find that one Jew or that one black guy who agrees with them.
I'm not going to do a deep-dive into every Holocaust denier and where they are on the scale from "No Jews died" to "Actually it was only 2 million", but I'm sure there are a few deniers who have idiosyncratic non-Jew-hating reasons. I doubt very much anyone just stumbles upon the subject and doing non-motivated research has a sudden epiphany that the Holocaust is a hoax.
Do you dispute that the vast majority come from a starting position of disliking Jews, and that Holocaust denial is generally part of a larger framework of Jew conspiracy theories?
I’m going to let your uncalled-for use of the slur/exonym “white supremacist” roll off my back, but I do want to take extreme issue with your accusation that I went out of my way to “find that one Jew that agrees” with me. First off, I became familiar with David Cole’s work as a social/political commentator - specifically, his writing for Taki’s - long before I knew anything about his work as a revisionist. He’s far more well-known, by most on the online Right, for his more recent work. He hasn’t done any important new work on the topic of revisionism in nearly thirty years, and in the intervening years he made a name for himself first as a respected Hollywood screenwriter/producer and then as one of the most important figures behind Friends Of Abe, a secret society of sorts for Hollywood conservatives. He’s not some fringe figure or “token Jew” that I nut-picked as a fig leaf.
I think that Cole’s writing is actually extremely clarifying about the topic. Although he hasn’t done any new revisionist work in decades, he does still comment on the state of revisionism/denial as a phenomenon from time to time. Two examples would be this article from 2018, which is itself a re-evaluation of one of his earlier articles. His thesis, which I find very persuasive, is that there is a symbiotic relationship between so-called “denialists” (a field which has degenerated significantly due to the more intelligent and level-headed figures either aging out, dying, or realizing that their battle for public sympathy had been irrecoverably lost and bailing out) and the “anti-denial” lobby who build public careers as snarky “owned by facts and logic” debunkers.
When the average rational person with no strong opinions about the Holocaust over and above the standard narrative we’ve all grown up with wades into this dispute, they find it occupied on both sides by screaming lunatics and they wisely decide, as I have, that it’s probably not worth even trying to sift through the ocean of arguments. The only non-Jews who stick around to fight in that war at this point are people who love the fight. (Jews’ participation in the fight is a matter of direct ethnic self-defense and self-interest, which is healthy and normal and which I do not begrudge them, provided that they don’t stoop to transparently cynical concern-trolling like a couple of the comments below hand-wringing about this sub becoming too friendly to dissenting views on this, and only this, specific issue.)
I didn't say you personally went out of your way to find him. My point is that there are black people who like the Confederacy, Jews who sympathize with the Nazis, probably there are some Chinese historians who side with Japanese nationalists in disputing the Rape of Nanking. Yes, I do think those figures are little more than convenient fig leafs that the pro-denial side likes to trot out as a defense against accusations of ideological bias.
Also, what's your beef with "white supremacist"? Do you just find it less palatable than "white nationalist"? This sounds like the TERFs who claim TERF is a slur even when it's literally accurate (as opposed to being used haphazardly to describe anyone on the other side of a debate).
…Because I don’t think white people are “supreme”, nor do I have any desire for white people to be “supreme” over other people, to rule them, to dominate them, etc.? Like, the term you’re using has a specific meaning, which does apply to certain living people as well as to a great number of historical people. The logic of something like colonial empire is, explicitly, “white supremacist”. However, I’m not an advocate for empire - racial nor otherwise - but rather for peaceful, non-coercive racial separation. It’s the opposite of “white supremacy”, or at worst totally orthogonal to “white supremacy”.
This is less like a TERF objecting to being called “trans-exclusionary” and more like a TERF objecting to being called “misogynist”. (Because, see, trans women are women, and you hate trans women, therefore you hate women.”) It’s a blatant abuse of terms. Weaponized linguistic legerdemain.
Rudyard Kipling was a white supremacist. My beliefs are not like his beliefs, when it comes to the very centrally important questions of whether or not different racial groups should live together under the same political/geographic unit, and, conditional on one’s answer to that first question, the related question of how to best distribute relative power among those different groups. Since my answer to the first question is “no”, I don’t have to commit to any answer to the second question, let alone the “supremacist” answer that whites should hold the undisputed whip hand.
I am not convinced your distinction is meaningful. White supremacists believe white people are superior to non-white people, at least in most meaningful ways (i.e., anything to do with intellect and behavior; some will waffle about Asian IQ scores). I know not all of them literally want a white empire ruling the untermenschen. If you don't like the label, fair enough, but I wasn't directing it at you personally as a slur.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure if it's simply because of the political climate in the place i live, but the Holocaust is definitely treated with a far sterner hand than other forms of genocide denial in the western world, and by a large margin. In all likelihood it probably transpired very similarly to how historians think it did and the numbers will probably never be completely accurate given the chaos of the time period, but I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt with such a large scale event. But I've found myself having to defend Holocaust deniers in Canada because of how draconian the laws have become up here. It has to be said, what is so special about holocaust denial as opposed to other forms of denialism regarding events of the 20th century?
Before you accuse me of hyperbole, in Canada there is currently active laws that were recently passed that specifically outlaw holocaust denial in particular, in public.Thats right, you will be put in jail for up to 2 years for any type of spoken "Antisemitism," including holocaust denial. This is absurd when you take into account the complete ambiguity that these laws were put in place with.
Now this would be all well and good, except this type of hate speech law is exclusively targeting this specific genocide. There are not real consequences for denying any other genocide. In fact, three years ago an assistant professor at the university I attended publicly denied the Holodomor as "Nazi propaganda."
I'm ethnically Ukrainian. Not only did he not get arrested, not only did he not get fired, he is still employed at the university. Call me whatever you wish, but that is extremely unjust. These laws are not developed with some sort of altruistic end in mind, and they are not enacted with the same amount of utility that laws against holocaust denial are. You should never be put in jail for simply thinking something. It is extremely frustrating, and it does not mean i hate Jews when i point out these clear inconsistencies and injustices with how these hate laws are currently installed. I find myself having to defend Holocaust deniers even though i do not have any real sympathy towards their arguments, simply because the laws against them are increasingly unfair, and have essentially made it illegal to think the wrong thoughts. It's not, and should not ever be illegal to think dumb shit. Holocaust denial is on the same level of believing in a flat earth or 5G cell tower conspiracies. But one should not be thrown in jail for believing in them. Much like your comment is suggesting, any criticism of this is now tantamount to holocaust denial, which therefore inherently means that I am anti-semetic. What now should we do in this situation?
Well, in the U.S. we don't have laws against Holocaust denial, and I would strongly oppose any such laws.
Every time this issue comes up, I see the same series of talking points. Yes, I think Holocaust denial is bad (and factually wrong). Yes, I think Holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic. No, I do not think they should go to jail. Yes, I think a lot of other atrocities get overshadowed by the Holocaust and shouldn't be. Yes, I think there probably is some legitimate historical research that gets quashed by the stigma of delving too deeply into the details of the Holocaust. Yes, there's probably a catch-22 here where you can't find legitimate historians who will touch it so the only ones who will are anti-Semites, so the research is regarded as illegitimate.
All of those talking points miss the point I'm making to begin with. You say you would strongly oppose these laws, and yet opposing these laws are now implied to be inherently Anti-Semitic. That is the real catch-22. I am not making talking points, i am saying that it is now illegal to point out certain legal injustices. There is not a proper way to handle that.
Yes, well, that's why I'm liberal, not woke.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are simply in the classic conundrum of "my rules applied evenly > their rules applied evenly > their rules applied unevenly." I don't think poking at the intellectual scab that is the Holocaust is worth it, though, because you will never take down anyone by exposing them as hypocrites and you'll probably only tarnish your reputation for no gain.
I guess the one silver lining for you is that, while the Holodomor was historically only recognized by some nations, that needle will probably have moved thanks to the Russian invasion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it should be any surprise that the vast majority of Holocaust deniers are people who have disreputable beliefs about Jews. Given how it's considered rank antisemitism and just about the worst thing one can be caught believing, wouldn't we expect that the vast majority of people who have gone that rabbit hole (much less admit to it) are antisemites?
I just don't see how that has any bearing on the truth value of the claim.
It's always going to be the case that the most taboo ideas in a society are only ever seriously contemplated by people who have some strong ideological or moral conviction related to those taboo ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of people espousing atheism in Europe hundreds of years ago were rapacious sinners, edgelords, and reprobates of various other sorts. So what?
In theory, it doesn't, but when the evidence strongly suggests a completely made-up set of facts constructed to support a pre-existing narrative (that everything is a Jew conspiracy to benefit Jews), it's not like a historical debate over exactly how soon Washington really got wind of the imminent Pearl Harbor attack. It's a bunch of people who really hate Jews who have this really handy theory that would make Jews the villains and their victimizers the victims, which you are suggesting we should examine impartially as if it emerged organically from independent historical research. It's like demanding I take seriously each and every new very slightly different claim made by a fundamentalist Christian that the Earth is flat and 6000 years old, and ignore the fact that all this "research" is coming from the Young Earth School of Scientists Are Dirty Satanic Liars.
I do think we should examine it impartially, but have a strong prior that their claims are highly likely to false on account of their near-universal antisemitic motivations. I think the reason it's different from creationism is that it's at least conceivable that the mainstream opinion on the Holocaust is what it is only because of institutional and social pressures against dissenters, much like I believe it is in the case of Covid policy, medical interventions for trans-identifying youth, racial differences in intelligence (observed - not even HBD), innate gender differences, etc.
With creationism, by contrast, I don't think anyone who believes in evolution is particularly ideologically and morally committed to evolution being true. It's just sort of like gravity and heliocentrism - it's just what we happen find reality to be, so we go with it. Now, I actually do understand why creationists suspect that scientists are ideologically biased and cunning purgers of threatening dissenters. They believe that secularists want a godless world to freely sin in, and that promoting evolution is one piece of a grander scheme to try and write God out of society. I just think that's 100% mistaken, so I don't doubt the mainstream view of evolution.
If institutions can purge dissent and manufacture orthodoxy and the appearance of unanimity and certainty with regard to all the hot CW topics this forum is very familiar with, why couldn't they do so with the Holocaust? I honestly don't know, but without extremely persuasive evidence I'm going to default to the mainstream opinion. Given how virtually the only people on the dissenting side are antisemites and I lack the expertise to evaluate their claims, I'm doubtful I'll ever be convinced. But why is it seemingly so inconceivable to you?
It's not inconceivable to me. I just see no reason to adjust my priors on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How would your opinion change if Revisionists are right? Let's say there was no order or plan to exterminate the Jews, and there were no gas chambers at all, and the 6 million number was pure symbology that Jews forced into the historical record and refuse to let go because of its symbolic importance. Would that even affect your opinion of Revisionists or would you still dismiss them as just people who don't like Jews?
Just forced labour camps? Just movement to be resettled in the East? Just smash up their property and declare them non-citizens? Just requiring everyone to prove they weren't descendants of filthy Jews?
Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien:
Just all the above? The Revisionists still aren't coming out of this looking too good.
Oh it's bad stuff, I agree, but there is a historical context to it.
Besides, this kind of stuff is going on right now in Ukraine against the Russophone minorities, and I don't see much reaction besides enthusiasm coming from the people that want us to care about the Holocaust.
If anyone is doing it to any minority, it's wrong. Be it Germans and Jews, the British and Boer civilians, or Ukrainians and Russian-speakers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, all of those things. Although the assignment of class of citizenship along with financial and legal privileges based on racial laws regarding Jewish descent has made a comeback with the state of Israel.
Agree to disagree. Revisionists acknowledge all those bad things happened. If they acknowledge the bad things that happened actually happened, and the things that did not happen did not happen, that "they still aren't coming out of this looking too good" is only going to be the case for a certain type of fanatic.
I'll give you another example. There are some rabble-rousers publishing articles openly declaring skepticism of the alleged Kamloops mass graves and demanding an excavation. Someone like you might say: "The history of Residential schools and the Canadian treatment of the indigenous people was completely horrible. Even if it turns out that not a single person was buried among the hundreds of alleged graves, you still come out looking bad." A lot of people will take that position, like you, but I don't. I think it would be brave for people to trust their interpretation of the evidence rather than expert consensus and popular narratives. And if they turned out to be right I would have respect for that, but clearly you would not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose that's kind of like asking me "What if you found out the creationists are right and the Earth is 6000 years old?" I'd be surprised that they got that one right and wonder what else they were right about, but it wouldn't convince me that everything else they believe is true.
Well you are kind of making it sound like you would just be surprised that somebody got a particularly hard trivia question right. It wouldn't change your perception of the world in any way? When I realized that Revisionists are in fact correct, it did not make me wonder what else they were right about, it changed the way I interpret popular culture and a lot of the cultural signals which were previously influential in my perception of history, morality, and politics.
It's interesting that you compare it to young-earth Creationism being truthful, so that leads me to think you would agree that it would have a significant impact of your perception on the world. Obviously, if young-earth Creationism were true it would significantly overhaul my perception of the world.
Well, obviously. Learning that the Earth is 6000 years old would change everything we know about science. Considering what would have to be true for the Holocaust to be a hoax, yes, I'd consider it nearly as dramatic.
I guess what you're getting at is, would I be convinced to join the resistance against the ZOG? And just like learning creationism is true wouldn't prove to me that Christianity is true, learning that the Holocaust didn't happen would not convince me that ZOG exists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've lived most of my life comfortably without a doubt that the big-ticket items of the Holocaust narrative: the extermination plan, the 6 million, the gas chambers, were true. If it turned out that I was wrong to now doubt them, it would make me lose confidence in my ability to discern a truthful picture from a large set of complex of information. It would also make me more hesitant to contradict expert consensus particularly when there is practically unanimous consensus.
It's not something I want to be wrong about. If it's true, I want to be sure, and if it's false I want to be as sure as I can be. That's really the motivating force. If you want to increase your certainty, how else are you supposed to other than doing a lot of legwork to learn the minutiae, review primary sources, etc.? If you don't trust either side you have to do that. Revisionists didn't convince me to trust them. They convinced me that I couldn't trust mainstream historiography. So many lies and deceptions. So you are left in this gaslit middle ground until you are satisfied with a conclusion based on your own interpretation of the evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The infamous David Stein isn't an antisemite. He's walking Jewish stereotype, but although he gets called a denier, his position essentially boils down to mainstream history is mostly correct, but "Auschwitz wasn't an extermination camp*" and total Holocaust death toll was somewhere above 3.5 million but not much more.
He is iirc mostly anti holocaust industry, thinks it unseemly that so many people keep using the historical event for political purposes today.
He's also the only 'holocaust denier' (according to ADL) who has been declared by a panel of US judges to not be a denier. (came up in some disciplinary process against a judge who ranted on Facebook too much, against a lot of people, one of whom was Cole. They looked at what Cole writes and said he's not a denier).
I follow him because he writes very good essays on the absolute state of California.
He's also about the only Holocaust 'denier' on record who also made a living making (non-controversial) documentaries about the Holocaust. Under another name. Apparently he has very solid historical knowledge of the events.
*I've never particularly cared to find out the specifics, as Holocaust revisionism is a fairly boring topic, but it's pretty fucking weird as e.g. the Budapest transports involved lots of people of no economic value, and Germans at that stage of the war weren't in the least squeamish, so .. what would they have done at Auschwitz with all the little kids and old people ? I really hope it's not some semantic dodge; e.g. Auschwitz wasn't an extermination camp because they only straight-up murdered those they couldn't put to work.
The usual dodge with "Auschwitz wasn't an extermination camp" is that there were multiple camps at Auschwitz, and only one of them (Auschwitz-Birkenau) was an extermination camp.
I've followed it some more and it looks like Stein is being stereotypically Jewish and engaging in some weird form of hairsplitting.
He says it's most likely the Hungarian Jews who weren't in work-shape were murdered, though the evidence for that isn't the best.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, try this guy, lifelong socialist and antiwar activist, and also one of the first holocaust revisionists (yes, I know re is not representative of the movement at all)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rassinier
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
... he writes, after implying that the total death toll was fewer than a million.
I'm going to echo @2rafa's thoughts here: of course this amounts to Holocaust denial. But I'd like to point out something else in this kind of argumentation. You say that claiming only a few hundred thousand Jews dying would not amount to "denying Hitler's genocidal ambitions", but if this claim was actually accepted, or merely allowed to exist as a hypothetical, am I to believe that this would not then change? After all, if it was only half a million Jews who died, well then that would be roughly similar to the number of German civilians who died via the Allied strategic bombing campaign, or the number of ethnic Germans who died in the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Eastern Europe in 1944-46. That would be particularly rhetorically useful to a prospective Holocaust denier: to equivocate between the slaughter of Jews and the killings of Germans, or even to suggest that while the Jews did suffer, Germans were disproportionately and unequally punished for this (which was generally speaking the prevailing public opinion in immediate post-war West Germany). Hell, given the rough-and-tumble nature of total war it would be natural then to suggest the Holocaust wasn't deliberate, but an unfortunate, regrettable, violent episode in a war full of them.
I'm much too well-versed in the rhetorical style and strategies of Holocaust deniers not to get a lot of red flags popping in my brain as I read this post. There's been a lot of this kind of bullshit this past few weeks, and I hope it's not a sign themotte.org is turning into the internet's #1 haven for witches.
What?? I don't understand where you're getting that, but I don't want to argue with it because it feels like a distraction.
It would not be similar to the civilian casualties of war. War is morally complicated in a way that straight genocide isn't. As for your second example, I wasn't aware that there was a genocide that took place against ethnic Germans, but if such a thing did happen and was deliberately orchestrated by the government of whatever European country this took place in, then I do think it is morally equivalent to the Holocaust. That doesn't, however, mean it warrants as much attention as the Holocaust. The Holocaust is exceptionally well-documented by the very people who perpetrated it, and there are also thousands of hours of recorded interviews with survivors. The ethnic cleansing you speak of here is presumably less well-documented because I haven't even heard of it.
To my knowledge, their only punishment is living in a country where "hate speech" is illegal, and every Western country except America has unfortunately been given this punishment.
They were put in camps, for Pete's sake! The camps are still standing! How can people be accidentally put in camps? I know you're trying to play devil's advocate, but I can't even follow the devil's advocacy you're doing.
If I have to accept the label of Holocaust denier to have this discussion, then fine. I don't care. My point is that I don't understand why getting details wrong about a historical event is a moral failing and that people who do it should be "damned to hell." I also don't understand how someone could feel that way about the Holocaust, then turn around and express other taboo ideas without any cognitive dissonance. Dennis Prager is viewed by many leftists in prominent positions in the same way that he views people who underestimate the death toll of the Holocaust.
Again, I apologize if I'm making less sense now. This is one of the few subjects that makes me really emotional, and when I'm emotional, I don't make as much sense as I otherwise would. But that's why I need to talk about this, and there aren't any other places for me to talk about it.
I understand what you're saying, and I think we're at a point where my issue is no longer that I don't understand, but that I disagree. I don't mean that I disagree with what you're saying, but rather, that I disagree that this is acceptable behavior for public intellectuals. If Prager doesn't care to understand why people might question aspects of the Holocaust or how his behavior may do more to encourage Holocaust denial than discourage it, then he shouldn't write a column above the subject for both ethical and pragmatic reasons.
Also, the reasoning you've given for why people hate Nazis and the Nazi-adjacent certainly applies Prager, but I don't think it actually applies to most people, because if it did, they would hate communists as much as Nazis and respond to any attempt to rehabilitate Marx's image with the same anger they have towards anyone who they believe is trying to rehabilitate Hitler's image. Instead, Chapo Trap House has a best-selling book that was prominently displayed at my local library for over a year, with a favorable blurb by Tim Heidecker, the same person who thought Sam Hyde was too chummy with Nazis.
You make a very good point, and I hate this because it should be a cause for people to recognize their own hypocrisy.
That sounds like prejudice on your part. Using pure logic, there is no reason for me to trust a communist other than Nazi, other than that because communism is more acceptable (even though it shouldn't be), it attracts people who are less psychologically deviant than white supremacy/fascism/National Socialism/etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have to say, the line from Hitler to Holocaust is much shorter than from Marx to the Holodomor. On that alone I think it’s more reasonable for people to want to rehabilitate Marx in broader society.
I think most Westerners would look askance about rehabilitating Stalin, though, and tankies who try are generally seen as lunatics.
I don't think the line from Marx to the Holodomor is pretty short. Seizing the means of production and having the government (euphemistically referred to as "the people") make all economic decisions inevitably leads to mass deaths. In my view, the only different between a socialist (in the original Marxist sense of the term) and a tankie is that a socialist believes if Snowball wasn't exiled, then Animal Farm would've worked, while a tankie believes Napoleon did nothing wrong. I think that Napoleon just accelerated an inevitable decay.
Even granting that Marxist rhetoric is violent in this way (which I’m hesitant to grant without significant qualifiers) surely you can see there is a difference between:
A likely explicit order to exterminate a group of people when in paramount power, and
A discussion of mass murder visited upon one’s political opponents, written not in any sort of office, which then was reinterpreted by various organisations decades after the death of the author, and in one case was perpetuated against a separate ethnic population, which was really not quite the point of the original texts (even if it was justified on those terms at the time).
In any case, it’s undeniable that Marx advocated for violent revolution, but I think there’s a qualitative difference between that and the sort of industrial murder machine created by the Nazis and the Japanese during WW2, as well as between advocacy and, well, actually doing the thing.
Okay, I'll agree with you that Marx isn't equivalent to Hitler, because he didn't actually do anything and only wrote about wanting other people to do things. But he's at least equivalent to.. oh, Richard Spencer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are wrong. Extermination of undesirables was one of Marx's explicit prescriptions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on kind of detail. Bunch of Germans tried to murder/enslave my gradfathers and grandmothers and my entire ethic group. My parents lived in area "liberated" by Red Army fighting with their former ally. Nowadays Russia is invading neighbour country and accusing them of rampant Nazism. (It degenerated into ukro-jewish-nazi-satanism-sim3cardinism since that time).
See also a related "mistake"
It is kind of thing where historical inaccuracy has a real chance to end with me being dead/oppressed/enslaved. Got significantly lower as Russia fails in Ukraine and Germany fails to spend this promised 100 000 000 000 euro for military. But still, that is likely one of easiest ways to get a lot of people irritated and scared.
Though I would reserve "damned to hell" for denialists of communist/nazi mass murder.
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that historical inaccuracy will get people killed because people will misidentify who Nazis are and use that as an excuse to invade nearby territory?
Not necessarily "will get" but it helps to enable this.
It also increases risk of this happening again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm actually going to back off and apologize here. In general I take a very dim view of anybody who comes out with the "what do we really know about the Holocaust" shtick because 9 times out of 10 they're deniers in disguise. With your response I think I overreacted and you're not actually a denier (though it did bring some out of the weeds). Something like acknowledging that the Germans were quite fastidious in documenting the murder of Jews is something deniers typically never cop to. So I'm sorry I was overly dismissive of your concerns.
I think @Nantafiria gets to the heart of it. I would also add that in the contemporary context Holocaust deniers almost uniformly fall into one of two camps: white nationalists and Muslims. Both deny the Holocaust for obvious ideologically-motivated reasons, and people find it both crass and dangerous in this respect, because the ultimate aim of the denial is to again build support for violent ethnic cleansing.
That Holocaust denial gets more attention than any other historical genocide I think is mostly a product of the number of Jews in America, their relative influence/prominence, and of course the cultural soft power of the USA. But it is also history's largest genocide (in so far as the word can be rigorously defined) and perhaps also its most unique with respect to the extent and sophistication to which it was pursued.
I understand that Holocaust denial can be motivated by anti-Semitism, and obviously the desire to murder Jews is motivated by anti-Semitism (in conjunction with other pathological traits), but I don't know that one necessarily leads to the other. If someone is motivated to deny the Holocaust, that implies a recognition that the Holocaust was a bad, right? If somebody thinks it was a good thing, wouldn't they prefer to claim that it happened? But I'm speaking of psychological territory I'm unfamiliar with. I only empathize with Holocaust revisionism and denial when they are motivated by contrarianism and a disdain for ideological taboos, because that's the kind of person I am. I don't know if you've read this Richard Hanania post, but it sums up my feelings well if you replace "pronouns" with "morally castigating anyone who asks questions about a specific historical event, especially if you don't do the same with different historical events" and add the caveat that I think the p̶r̶o̶n̶o̶u̶n̶s̶ castigation will increase the chances of a genocide.
This is kind of a tangent, but my reaction to the alt-right over the years has continually been "well, they have legitimate grievances and are being treated unfairly," and I didn't feel a twinge of genuine fear about the possibility of another holocaust (or widespread pogroms) until I saw Nick Fuentes and Kanye West team-up for an interview tour and possible presidential campaign. I still think the odds of it happening are low, but they get higher every time "the Jewish media" takes action against Kanye. Look at this video, and look at the comments. Jonathan's behavior isn't just wrong, but it's creating the enemy he claims to be afraid of. And sometimes I think that he knows this, and is doing it deliberately so that he has something to fight. It's like an exterminator who breeds rats and strategically places them in local businesses so that he can be hired later to kill them. But what happens when the rats (anti-Semites in this analogy) start reproducing too fast for the exterminator to keep up? Has Greenblatt considered that a possibility?
Okay, tangent over. Thank you for explaining why you think the Holocaust is treated with more reverence than other genocides. I think that what you're describing is actually similar to the point that Kanye was trying to make before Nick Fuentes started whispering in his ear: that Jews aren't morally inferior to gentiles, but their overrepresentation in the media leads to a degree of unintentional bias, such as overlooking the death toll of communism. As I've said before on this sub, it's similar to the (valid!) complaint feminists make that when men are in positions of power, they tend not to think about the needs of women. I advocate meritocracy, so to me, the solution isn't removing Jews from power, as Fuentes has taught Kanye. The solution is asking people to be aware of their biases and listen to people outside of their group. Kanye is past that now, and so are the people listening to him, and so I fear for the future. Not too much, but enough that I feel compelled to voice this fear. (Or maybe I'm just afraid to admit the extent to which I fear a resurgence of pogroms because it would make my priorities seem ridiculous.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Germans were genocided out of eastern Europe after the war:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-time-of-retribution-paying-with-life-and-limb-for-the-crimes-of-nazi-germany-a-759737.html
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's the movie Double Jeopardy. Spoilers ahead for a shitty movie: the protagonist's husband fakes his own death and pins the murder on her, she goes to prison. When she gets out, she tracks him down and kills him, with her lawyer stating that she can't be charged for it because of the doctrine of "Double Jeopardy", if she's already been convicted of killing him and released she can't be charged for killing him again (this is, of course, nonsense). But an underlying assumption of the film, too obvious to even spell out explicitly in the film, is that for a man to fake his own death and pin it on another is such a terrible crime that it unquestionably deserves death as punishment. For a man to force another to suffer punishments under false pretenses is among the most terrible crimes imaginable, such a man must be psychopathic and dangerous to have both the willingness and the ability to execute such a crime, he must be killed because he has shown too much skill at manipulating the system to his own ends to trust that system with his punishment.
Ditto the Jews and the Holocaust. For the Jews to fake a crime of this magnitude, pin it on the Germans and White People more broadly, and use it to force punishments upon Germans and White People for close-on a century, well the logical conclusion at that point is anti-Semitism. If you conclude that the Jews have the ability and the unity and the desire to fake the Holocaust, then they are dangerous, and the only Solution to the existence of a conspiracy that vast is sure to be Final.
The idea that someone concludes that the Holocaust is vastly exaggerated, and doesn't go on to conclude that we are ruled by a Zionist conspiracy, is a catch-22, you can't get the first without concluding the last. If the Jews faked the Holocaust, they are dangerous, and ought to be killed. The old joke about how anti-semites say "I wish the Holocaust really happened."
Why can't you? Humans are notorious for exaggeration of stories over time (eg, the fish keeps getting bigger), and don't have the best memory to begin with, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe significant exaggeration could have occurred over the last 80 years without any shady conspiracies. This kind of bland compounding exaggeration over time seems a far more likely presumptive explanation to me than a "Zionist conspiracy".
Levi published in 47, Frankl in 46, Wiesel in 56, Arendt in 53. Not gonna wash, the story is told almost immediately by survivors.
My comment doesn't address whether it is actually exaggerated or not, merely your assertion that it being exaggerated necessarily implies a Zionist conspiracy. I'm simply arguing that IF the Holocaust were exaggerated, it doesn't imply a Zionist conspiracy as there are more likely explanations in my mind. Trauma is just as capable of causing people to remember things differently than they actually happened as time, so the fact that survivors told their story "almost immediately" doesn't affect my argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There is a lot of money involved in the Holocaust conspiracy.
Imagine if the proponents of the Great Replacement conspiracy had several blockbuster movies covered with awards, hundreds of news articles published every year, hundreds of books ranging from children fiction to erotic novels etc.
I disagree with the idea that the existence of the Holocaust conspiracy should necessarily lead to a violent backlash, like the one that is sometimes portrayed in blockbuster Hollywood movies like Inglorious Bastards against Nazis.
Soon enough, the only remaining members of the European breed should be Christians, and Christians ought to forgive their enemies, per their doctrine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can't tell whether you're making a moral argument or a taxonomical one in this post.
The leftists in this example are not arguing that molesting 20 girls is less evil than molesting 1400. They are arguing that because the problem is so small, dedicating resources to fixing it isn't worth it. I didn't pay much attention to the Rotherham stuff, but my inference is that people were paying attention because they were worried the gang rapists would strike again. Is that correct? If so, it's not comparable to the holocaust, because the holocaust is over and the perpetrators are almost all dead. However, this is only a rebuttal to your argument if you're making a moral one, and not a taxonomical one.
Taxonomically speaking, I consider holocaust denial to be "denying the specific thing that makes the holocaust bad and worthy of remembrance."
If it is, then I don't know why denial would be seen as morally wrong. I also don't know how much of the story you'd have to change in order to be committing denial.
See, you're replacing rape with poking. That's replacing an act of horrific violence with a minor annoyance. Murder is murder no matter how many people are murdered, but when you change rape to poking, you are changing the nature of the crime.
I fear I'm letting my emotions cloud my mind as I'm writing this, but I am genuinely frustrated by this common sentiment that the more murders you carry out, the more monstrous you are. Maybe that's true if we're talking about murdering one person versus murdering their whole family, but when we're working with a scale that is beyond emotional comprehension for most (all?) people, I don't think the distinction is important.
What do you think the cutoff is for emotional comprehension? I think it is higher than you suspect, if for no other reason than how that filters out to survivors.
For instance, on a raw level I don't think I can really process 300,000 deaths versus 6 million deaths. But using a hypothetical of something awful happening to my state, that's the difference between probably having a passing acquaintance die versus almost certainly losing multiple people close to me. Just because the quantities are more than I could reasonably handle on a direct basis doesn't mean there can't be a qualitative difference. The macro very much informs the micro.
I appreciate your response. When I hear you put it like that, I do think this might be a problem unique to me. If two million people in my state were murdered, but they were all people I don't know, then it would be just as bad to me as one million people who are scattered across the country being murdered.
That's fair! I will add another thought, once again trying to put in perspective why these differences between two large numbers matter due to how the macro impacts the micro.
There's a John Calvin quote about relics:
So, if X churches claim to have Y amount of the True Cross, and X times Y is far greater than the possible dimensions of the True Cross, then obviously some of those churches are lying or have been taken in.
Similarly, at some point when the numbers go low enough (even with those numbers still being more than enough to be well into the realm of the truly monstrous/genocidal!) one is implicitly accusing living Jews of lying (or, at best, having been lied to by other relatives) about their relatives who died in the Holocaust. Does it make sense why that would be seen as at least in the same ballpark as denial?
There was a Catholic guy who was obstinate and autistic enough to dig into these kinds of claims about how many such relics were out there (and Calvin and the other Reformers had good incentives on their side to ridicule relics and make outsized claims to mock the whole enterprises, so while indeed there were fakes, mistakes and outright frauds - read Chaucer and the Palmer's Tale - they weren't being anything but rhetorical in their claims) and he came up with figures that were not "a big ship-load":
That's interesting! I wonder if there's even less today given the damage done to European towns and cities in WW2? It seems the far easier criticism would have been things like Saint's bones (I thought there was a similar quote from a protestant or atheist about all the Saints that walked around with many extra fingers but couldn't find it), though in both cases it isn't like the Church is saying that no one has ever made a forgery.
That being said, my purpose was more that despite that quote not directly saying "these churches are wrong/lying", Calvin's (apparently wholly incorrect) estimates of mass would necessitate that, independent of Calvin's estimates being accurate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not unique to you, maybe it's an autistic thing. When @2rafa said " It is denial the same way saying “yeah, the Kurds got carried away and a few Armenians got caught in the crossfire, but it was like 50,000 and it wasn’t deliberate” is a denial of the Armenian genocide" I was blown away, I can't imagine not losing my shit if we had this conversation in real life. 50,000 is a few? Not genocide? Is my judgement of the value of human life jacked way too high?
And yeah it's true that the difference is the difference between losing loved ones and maybe losing an acquaintance, but it is still beyond the pale to me. To me the deaths are only the second most terrible thing about these kinds of events - it's the killing, the fact that someone could set thousands of deaths in motion and the fact that people will carry it out, that bothers me the most.
It would say that it would be a denial of genocide that happened, while murdering 50 000 Armenians for being Armenians would be still a genocide.
In the same way that claiming that WW II had happened worldwide but had death count 100 000 would be still denial of WW II but such war, if would happen instead, would be likely still named WW II.
So it is a denial of the genocide that happened by claiming a smaller genocide happened.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't get this insistence on labeling the holocaust as undeniably evil when in this same forum you have guys celebrating the fact that their ancestors 'destroyed the Indian nations' and getting a bunch of upvotes for it. If you think that a group being a threat, competitor, or burden to your group is justification to exterminate them, then why would that principle not apply to what happened to the jews in europe.
The land acknowledgements are as if the Nazi party survived the war, became just another political party like the rest of them, got into power, and then before every state occasion had a little ceremony about "We acknowledge that [the paintings in this museum/the property here/this land] were/was stolen from the Jewish people".
Are they going to give it back? Hell, no. Are they paying rent for use of the land to the
IndiansJews? Also hell, no. So what is the purpose of this little song-and-dance act? Why, to feel virtuous about yourself.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, obviously they did. I don't want to argue about that. The question is whether having doubts about that specific claim as you phrased it makes one a denier and/or whether that is a moral failing. Prager's insistence upon both is what bothers me. It feels hypocritical given his vaccine hesitancy, willingness to ask hard questions about gender and sex, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Murdering 2 000 vs murdering 2 000 000 000 is beyond my emotional comprehension (if all of them lived far away and were not known to me and my friends and had no strong connection to them).
Nevertheless someone murdering 2 000 000 000 is far more monstrous than someone murdering 2 000 000 or 2 000.
Are you able to articulate why?
Because murdering 2 000 000 000 is far worse than murdering 2 000 (being 100% pure consequentialist is a pure ethics system, but consequences also matter and murder is bad)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems to me that all your similes are set up to have a significantly larger gap between the scale of the deed in the accepted narrative and the suggested lower one: revising the Holocaust down to hundreds of thousands instead of millions would be dividing by 10, whereas your Rotherham example involves a factor of 100 and a noise floor that is much higher relative to the signal than the noise floor for ethnically targeted killings, and in the Kurds and Ukraine cases you postulate non-deliberateness which no remotely sane form of Holocaust revisionism could defend. For the rape example, you are actually invoking a qualitative difference that in the minds of most would make a much larger impact to moral implications than any of the quantitative ones above.
If the comparison actually has legs, why do you need to exaggerate like that?
And they refuse to elaborate why Jews ended in camps, I guess?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've been thinking for a while that the issue with society's response to Holocaust revisionism/denial is that we are seeing a very well-crafted piece of societal engineering (one of the instances that I actually think of as good evidence in favour of @DaseindustriesLtd's "political von Neumanns", whose influence I'm otherwise skeptical of, existing), whose effectivity in part depends on a lack of widespread understanding of its purpose among everyone including most Jews, doing its job against intended targets, as well as a handful of people (chiefly "sees a fishy orthodoxy and pathologically can't resist" autistic contrarians, but also excessive pattern-matchers with a beef against elites, in the Kanye class) getting caught as collateral damage.
WWII was, by all accounts, pretty catastrophic for humanity across all strata, destroyed untold amounts of value and industrial potential, and uncharacteristically created pain even for those social strata that normally are very good at keeping themselves shielded from any calamities short of disease and death, and for whom the social contract so far had been "we don't interfere with you living your life where and how you want close to the optimum the current tech level has to offer, in return you take token care of the plebs and advance our common intellectual and spiritual life when you feel like it". If you had to prevent "something like it" - where "it" is basically a modern, industrious, intelligent nation suddenly conquestmaxing with only a handful of years' warning - from happening again, what would you do? Simple global disarmament won't fly, because Moloch, likewise for wars of aggression, and even restricting nationalism in general won't fly, because Moloch and without nationalism you will lose against any defector that is willing to use that social tech to make its soldiers fight harder. So what's a specific, necessary and sufficient, prerequisite for any country to pull what Germany did then?
The answer on which the current architecture is based is "topple the Jews", as the Jews are a natural tripwire population for exactly that sort of thing. By virtue of aptitude and connections they float to top positions in every mostly-free country earlier or later, and by virtue of the strong ethnic identity they always have solidarity/altruism for their fellow Jews everywhere. If you want to unleash a rain of steel and fire over Europe, but you haven't removed the Jews from the top rungs of your society, then you'll find that your plans will fail, because they will be represented in every organisation that is involved in your country functioning and at least a good subset of them will be more incentivised to save their fellow Jews in the countries you seek to trample from your plans than by whatever you could offer them for cooperating with you. Now, of course, you might naively be tempted to just make this argument explicit; but then I would reckon that absent extra memes, for any leadership that has already convinced its population of the necessity of conquest-maxing, completing the inference chain by "and therefore we need to make the Jews stand aside, so we can go forward with what we must do" would be a formality. It is only by maintaining the perception that going against the Jews qua Jews is an ethical singularity that this last step becomes hard. This maintenance, however, has always seemed like a fragile affair (with threats constantly emerging left and right, from displeasure with Israel to displeasure with capitalism to most recently displeasure with white people), with the Holocaust narrative in its current form being the most reliable support of the edifice. Challenge the sacredness of it, and you might just find that you lost the last thing that pinned the singularity to minus infinity in human moral space; and if people can start bargaining about an exact finite price to put on removing the Jews, then it's only a matter of time until the next conquest-maxer successfully makes the argument to their population that it is a price worth paying for their cause. Therefore, we get the system in which Holocaust revisionism seeking a specific adjustment and even general attempts to profane the topic by dispassionate historical review are quashed, but everyone has to act coy about why this is, further triggering the pattern-matchers and /r/atheists to dig themselves into a social hole.
(How many people, either on the mainstream side or on the Holocaust revisionist side, actually think of it primarily in these terms? I should clarify that I'm actually in the pro-mainstream camp because I think the tripwire system has done great things for us, but I can imagine that many nationalists would in fact be motivated by at least a diffuse understanding that Holocaust figures in a roundabout way underpin the enduring emasculation of their country as an absolute ceiling on how far it could go in pursuing its own interest on the world stage.)
(A funny consequence, I think, is the disconnect that we're now seeing over the Ukraine narrative. The Soviet Union never was brought into this tripwire architecture, and though to some extent "one in our midst might go military FOOM" was never even a concern they shared, to the extent to which they've set up Nazi-detection heuristics at all, it's just "wants to threaten Russia". Therefore to Westerners Zelenskiy's Jewishness makes the "Ukronazis" narrative look comically incoherent, whereas to Russians it's just a curiosum that has little bearing on the perceived plausibility of it)
The consensus narrative about the Holocaust might genuinely be the last support pillar holding up America's triumphalist narrative built from the end of WWII. Everything else about the rah-rah story that America used to justify its superpower status has been picked apart by a combination of history nerds and leftists with axes to grind, turning the idea of American Exceptionalism into a sham.
If even the Holocaust is turned into "boring reality," devoid of those more powerful and special qualities of narratives, reduced to another part of the "outdated" and "misinformed" story that conservative, religious boomers tell themselves about how America was great, and becoming a "race card" that Israel plays whenever it's criticized for whatever it did in Palestine on any given week, I suspect that not only will the Nazis be turned into "just another war-monging power" from an age few remember as anything but the boring, deadly past (and thus losing their uniqueness as an antagonistic force, no more or less immoral than America, Britain, or Russia), it will indeed be "fair game" all around WRT conquestmaxing and general politics-by-other-means.
Japan in WWII is also another example that doesn't fit your "tripwire" architecture, to my knowledge, as they'd already been a colonial power that had been snatching up other parts of Asia for decades beforehand (Korea, Manchuria, Qingdao, etc.).
If?
When.
The horrors of history always end up being mundane, and so it will end up too with the XXth century. It's only a question of time.
On the other hand, the past can be scoured indefinitely long ago and reinterpreted to fit the current narrative. See how Columbus went from being a point of pride of Italo-Americans and that celebrations were held to commerorate the 500th anniversary of his discovery, to him now being vilified.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm more pessimistic, I think ideology can buttress whatever gap the passage of time leaves. Anti-semites still hate Jews for things that happened in Biblical times (or Quranic(?) times), Irish nationalists were more militant against the British in the 1920s than they were in the 1840s.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it? My impression was that winning the Cold War was actually played up more these days. After all, the "Soviets only won because of lend-lease" narrative never really caught on, giving the Soviets at least a roughly equal share at the table of WWII winners in the public mind, thus not on its own really painting America as exceptional.
Well, yeah, the architecture doesn't work for those countries; it's not clear to me if the problem of the emergence of a potential WWII-Japan-like power in that area was in fact solved for that region, but maybe the victorious powers didn't consider it that concerning for some reason or another (perhaps they thought that the conditions for Japan's rise were more unique, or they were happy that the semi-permanent US occupation force plus denuclearisation were enough, or they figured that ultimately China is inevitably going to dominate the region and they can't do anything about it even if they wanted).
I actually just had to explain to my boomer dad the other day that the USSR was on our side in WW2. I'm honestly not sure how much credit they get in the view of the general public.
I've heard similar sentiments from the US before, so maybe it's different there compared to Europe (where, in the recent years, the "US did more" narrative has been winning out, but it's still not "Russia did little compared to it" outside of boo-lights discussions inspired by more recent events). In what country do you consider the maintenance of America's "triumphalist narrative" to be important? I find it hard to imagine that Americans would stop thinking of America as exceptional just because WWII receded into boring ancient history, whereas I do still think that in Europe its reputation never was exclusively dependent on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is easy to imagine that WW2 in general and holocaust in particular will be put on backburner and quietly forgotten, it is easy to imagine that foundation myth of new rules based international order in Cold War Two era will be Cold War One and brilliant American victory over Red Russkies.
Bored of holocaust movies? Get ready for deluge of gulag movies with Russian beasts behaving maximally sadistically brutally. Tired of compulsory holocaust classes? Get ready for gulag education at every school.
Exxageration? Germany, always the bellwether, is ready to classify Ukrainian famine as genocide (scholarly consensus? who needs scholarly consensus). Russian Z is already treated as hate symbol equal to nazi ones, other russkie/commie symbols will easily follow.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think of myself as a decoupler, but rather, as someone who is all but incapable of coupling. I would never be able to form the link between "removing the Jews" and "imperialist empire." However, if your hypothesis that people have subconsciously formed this link in response to social pressures, then that is quite interesting and I will have to consider it.
Sorry if that wasn't clear, but my argument wasn't resting on people having to form some sort of mental association between the two; rather, I posited that without doing the former, doing the latter (while targeting your fellow developed countries) would be practically impossible. In a hypothetical world where people were actually biologically incapable of associating the two, the result I would expect would just be that those who tried the latter without coincidentally also doing the former would just fail without understanding what went wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"de-facto Jewish conspiracy exists and is a good thing as prevents world-wars" is a take that I have not seen before, so points for originality at least.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Putting it at less than 1/6th of the actual total does seem like, pretty much, denying the totality of the event. In the same way that, well, the whole initial portion of the essay talks about.
So before watching this conversation unfold any further, I want to see you define your terms. What to you would constitute denying the Holocaust? If the next Fuentes popped up and said that Jews not only weren't the subject of targeted killings, but actually survived the war at a higher rate than Gentiles! Would that constitute denying the Holocaust?
Or do you state that the historicity of the Holocaust is unimportant?
Moreover, if you're looking for Conservatives, you aren't going to find one who denies the Holocaust for all the reasons Prager cites.
Looking for an American conservative who will disavow Eisenhower and Patton is like looking for a Christian who will disavow Jesus. It's a contradiction in terms. Conservatism is about honoring traditions, tradition in the US at this point in history includes the Holocaust. Moving past that means moving past Conservatism into radicalism or reaction.
Well at least for his military service. Politically there are plenty who would disavow him on policies.
We can all debate particular policies and contexts into the night {liberals will claim that tax rates were so so so nice and high under Eisenhower and peaceniks (I am here) will debate his decisions that laid the groundwork for later imperialism and his positions on race could probably get criticized by extremists on either side} but denying that Eisenhower was an honest man? To say that Patton lied about what he saw in Europe? That takes one directly out of conservatism.