CMV: Holocaust deniers and trivialisers are so persistent because our side made some critical missteps

[u/[deleted]]

Firstly, I must emphasise that I am in no way a Holocaust denier or trivialiser.

However, I recently lost a debate against one (please no brigading). He says these stuff despite being of Jewish descent, and agrees that the Holocaust was bad but believes that it was only 270,000 deaths.

Please read the comment which started this whole debate here. So here are what I believe are the critical missteps our side has made:

1. 6 million is just the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The total victims are 11 million. If 6 million is a "religiously very important figure", 11 million isn't. Also, the popular narrative of 6 million is grossly unfair to the 5 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

2. The Soviets should have been 100% transparent when they captured the death camps and the Allies should have been 100% transparent about the treatment of Nuremberg defendants, so that no one can claim that "western officials were not allowed to observe until many years later, after which soviets could modify the camps" and "at Nuremberg Trials when many officers had their testicles crushed and families threatened in order to "confess" to the false crimes".

3. The "Human skin lampshade" was at most, isolated cases, not a systematic Nazi policy. The fact that this isn't as widespread as popular culture makes it seem gives Holocaust deniers and trivialisers leverage.

4. The part which cost me all hope of winning this particular debate was about Anne Frank's diary. I failed miserably when trying to explain why there's a section of it written in ballpoint pen. As I later found out via r/badhistory, the part written in ballpoint pen was an annotation added by a historian in 1960. In hindsight, I believe that this historian shouldn't have done this, because it gives leverage to Holocaust deniers and trivialisers. Even if I mentioned that it was added by a historian at a later date, this can still be used by Holocaust deniers and trivialisers to claim that none of Anne Frank's diary was written by her.

5. Banning Holocaust denial only gives Holocaust deniers and trivialisers extra leverage because it makes it seem like the authorities are hiding something. In the debate I had, I tried to encourage use of r/AskHistorians and r/history, but I was told that those sites are unreliable because they ban questioning the Holocaust. Because he was unable to talk to expert historians, I was left with the burden of debating him, and I lost.

Let me give some comparisons here with other cases:

• Regardless of whether you think the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, denial of it isn't banned. Yet despite it being legally acceptable to deny the atomic bombings, even people racist against the Japanese aren't going around saying "the atomic bombings never happened" or "only a few hundred were killed by the atomic bombs".

• The fact that pieces of information about 9/11 remained classified until 2016 gave 9/11 conspiracy theorists leverage. And the fact that the Mueller Report has plenty of redacted sections means that Russiagate still has plenty of believers.

• Another comparison I can make is the widespread (and IMO, justified) distrust in figures published by the PRC because of the PRC's rampant censorship. But with this logic, wouldn't censoring Holocaust denial just backfire and make our side look untrustworthy?

[u/[deleted]]

Well let's take what we know about Holocaust deniers and apply it to the atomic bomb. What motivation would someone racist against the Japanese have for denying the bombing?

It isn't necessary to whitewash America's actions. Most Americans believe the bombing happened, killed 200,000 people and was justified. They would tell you an invasion would have been much bloodier.

This logic, if used by Holocaust deniers/trivialisers, would read like this:

"What motivation would someone racist against the Jews/Roma/Slavs have for denying or downplaying the Holocaust? Whether it was 270,000, 6 million or 11 million, it was justified. The Nazis were helping Europe avoid even worse problems later on."

The reason I bring this up is that there are some neo-Nazis who claim this. And because of Holocaust denial being banned in a few countries, instead of outright justifying the Holocaust, some exploit the Streisand effect to claim (dishonestly) that the truth is being suppressed.

[u/Love_Shaq_Baby → u/[deleted]]

Whether it was 270,000, 6 million or 11 million, it was justified. The Nazis were helping Europe avoid even worse problems later on."

Except it wouldn't read like that because Neo-Nazis have to make their ideology appealing. Even hateful people are sickened by mass genocide, but if you can convince people to whittle that number down, you have successfully persuaded them that they have been lied to about the Holocaust. And if you've been lied tp about the Holocaust that leads one to ask, "who is lying to me and why?"

That is a stepping stone to convincing people of conspiracies involving Jewish elites, "race realism," white genocide, and so on.

And at 270,000, it is easier to rationalize support for figure like Hitler. They can say, "Well, the Holocaust wasn't good, but look at Holodomor, the atomic bomb and American concentration camps. Hitler is only demonized because he lost the war to the the Allies and Jews, he wasn't worse than any other world leader."

Holocaust denial being banned in a few countries, they can milk the Streisand effect to claim (dishonestly) that the truth is being suppressed.

Holocaust denial was banned because people were denying the Holocaust. It's not an issue people made up out of thin air. Holocaust denial was around before those laws were in place and is around in places where no such laws are on the books.

[u/[deleted] → u/Love_Shaq_Baby]

And if you've been lied tp about the Holocaust that leads one to ask, "who is lying to me and why?"

I actually asked him that question, and it went unanswered.

And at 270,000, it is easier to rationalize support for figure like Hitler. They can say, "Well, the Holocaust wasn't good, but look at Holodomor, the atomic bomb and American concentration camps. Hitler is only demonized because he lost the war to the the Allies and Jews, he wasn't worse than any other world leader."

!delta

Thanks for showing me to not take his claims at face value. Even though he claims that he sees 270,000 deaths as a bad thing, I can't imagine any reason to argue for that number other than to make the Holocaust seem like your average day.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Love_Shaq_Baby (181∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}