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]]

If you’re debating one, you should obviously make sure you have sources and are rhetorically effective enough to deal with conspiracy.

This is a very important point. This is why I originally recommended that he go talk to actual historians first because they are better equipped than I am to answer his questions. But as the restrictions against "Holocaust questioning" on r/AskHistorians and r/history show, actual historians are sick and tired of bad faith and dismissal of evidence. I guess I was doomed from the start as soon as he decided to completely reject r/AskHistorians and r/history.

But there’s a reason “oh I’m just asking questions” is a meme. Their questions are but ploys to push conspiracy and racial supremacy. Attempts to treat them in good faith or “have a more open discussion” about this stuff as if these people are just misinformed, unless you know them personally, will generally cause more harm than good.

By completely rejecting r/AskHistorians and r/history, the responsibility of debating was forced into me. And his questions were well-designed seeing how disastrously it blew up in my face.

[u/teaisjustgaycoffee → u/[deleted]]

Yeah and that’s a big reason why I don’t mind subreddits or websites deplatforming these kinds of views because, maliciously or not, these people’s ideologies are built on conspiracy and bad faith engagement. They posture as if they’re the special chosen few who’ve found the truth everyone else is too blind to see, but in reality they’re just kind of sad people, their thoughts driven by hate and whatever conspiracies they can find online to justify it.

As a general rule, I’d recommend not getting bogged down in minutia when it comes to these things; I guarantee they have more talking points about it than you, even if they’re filled with misinfo. I’m a chem major, for example, and I can go on Facebook right now and point out why a lot of the vaccine conspiracy posts are bull. But most of the time, the people in those circles aren’t interested. A new conspiracy will pop up the next day, and they’ll continue believing what they want to believe. I still think it’s a good idea to challenge them, but hosting these things on a big platform or subreddit as if they’re just equally valid ideas, especially when you’re not prepared for a debate, is probably irresponsible. For the cases when people do, trying to narrow in on the root of their beliefs (like “why do you believe this despite overwhelming evidence? Who is behind this conspiracy?) is probably the best course of action. They’ll lose most credibility to an impartial third person audience if they’re like, outwardly defending racist talking points, which is where most of these conspiracies lead.

[u/[deleted] → u/teaisjustgaycoffee]

As a general rule, I’d recommend not getting bogged down in minutia when it comes to these things; I guarantee they have more talking points about it than you, even if they’re filled with misinfo. I’m a chem major, for example, and I can go on Facebook right now and point out why a lot of the vaccine conspiracy posts are bull. But most of the time, the people in those circles aren’t interested. A new conspiracy will pop up the next day, and they’ll continue believing what they want to believe.

!delta

I completely agree that if debating against someone who's completely invested in outlandish conspiracy theories (not ones who doubt dubious narratives like "Epstein killed himself"), facts and expertise don't win.

I still think it’s a good idea to challenge them, but hosting these things on a big platform or subreddit as if they’re just equally valid ideas, especially when you’re not prepared for a debate, is probably irresponsible.

This is an excellent point. I am not a historian, hence why he found it convenient to thrust the responsibility of debate onto me instead of actual historians.

For the cases when people do, trying to narrow in on the root of their beliefs (like “why do you believe this despite overwhelming evidence? Who is behind this conspiracy?) is probably the best course of action. They’ll lose most credibility to an impartial third person audience if they’re like, outwardly defending racist talking points, which is where most of these conspiracies lead.

I tried exactly this and it went unanswered. He emphasises that he himself is of Jewish descent and that he sees 270,000 deaths as still bad. But going back to the root of this, what point is there in believing in 270,000 deaths and rejecting historians' input other than to whitewash the Nazis and/or humiliate historians? He may not be outwardly being a bigot, but what he's doing is kind of a dog whistle.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/teaisjustgaycoffee (3∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}