Red herrings in Holocaust denial

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an appendix to the Holocaust denial article.

A red herring is essentially an argument without relevance. Holocaust deniers or revisionists frequently use these kinds of arguments to divert attention from evidence for the Holocaust. These are so diverse that they are difficult to sort out.

Contents

[edit] Other atrocities used as red herrings

The Holocaust is neither the largest mass murder in history, nor even of the twentieth century, nor the only crime against humanity during World War II. But this fact is a tu quoque argument, not, in any way, relevant to the reality of the Holocaust.

[edit] Dresden, Hiroshima and other atrocities by Western Allies

The United States and Britain killed many non-combatants in World War II. No Allies were tried for war crimes, and the Allied government have paid no reparations for these atrocities. Holocaust deniers might compare atrocities of these Western Allies to Nazi atrocities because:

  • Allied war crimes would make the Holocaust less extraordinary.
    • However, the millions of Holocaust victims are still an order of magnitude greater than the number of civilians killed by the Western allies (while the Soviets were more destructive, see below). The total number of German civilian casualties is very uncertain, and ranges from 1 to 2.5 million (excluding Austria and other annexed territories); up to 3.5% of the total population. Most of these came after the D-Day in June 1944, when the outcome of the war was apparent, and several Nazi commanders wanted to surrender. Yet Hitler fought on, applying a self-destructive strategy. Therefore, many German deaths could be attributed to Hitler.
  • The fire-bombing of Dresden killed many civilians, and might be compared to Nazi atrocities.
    • However, as Dresden was bombed by the Western Allies but became part of East Germany, the communist regime exaggerated the death toll to numbers around 250,000, a claim still used by Holocaust deniers. However, current scholarship (including an investigation by the City of Dresden) estimates 20,000-40,000 deaths. Still a human tragedy, it has no relevance to the Holocaust.
  • The fire-bombing of Tokyo, and smaller cities in Japan.
    • Often used in discussions as something of a red herring, usually pointed to as being an atrocity due to the numbers of dead. War time estimates putting total Japanese Civilians dead at 50,000 though some more modern estimates put the total death toll of the fire-bombing campaign at over 250,000 due to the number of small Japanese villages wiped off the earth.
  • It implies that the Allied atrocities were denied or censored after the Second World War, and that somehow this would make Holocaust denial more legitimate.
    • However, the Allies never denied or censored the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the firebombing of Dresden in the first place. These are well known in the Western world, and frequently cited as case studies.
  • Since Allied politicians, officials, commanders and combatants were never tried or sentenced for war crimes, as German leaders were in the Nuremberg trials, and Japanese leaders in the Tokyo trials, Holocaust deniers might imply that the Nuremberg trials were unfair.
    • However, most of the 24 defendants of the main Nuremberg trial were tried for four different crimes (conspiracy for crime against peace, crime against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity). The 12 defendants who were sentenced to death had all been found guilty of crimes against humanity. None was tried or sentenced only for war crimes, as Western Allied commanders would have been if they had faced a similar trial. The Allies considered charging the defendants at Nuremberg with crimes relating to the fire-bombing of Coventry and other UK cities, as well as the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, but decided against this due to the fact that the Allies had carried out similar policies. Lastly, it is worth remembering that Nuremberg was entirely without precedent - the Allies were not obliged in any way to carry out a trial of Nazi war criminals at all, and many Allied leaders thought that suspects should simply be shot once their identities had been confirmed. Holding a trial at all was a step in the right direction.

[edit] Japanese-American detention camps

The Allies imprisoned many civilians in their home territories - most notably 110,000 Japanese living in the United States. Though shameful, this is a completely different case from the Holocaust, because:

  • Japanese American prisoners did not suffer from mass starvation, epidemics or slave labor. Even Holocaust deniers admit that this was the case for European Jews, as well as Chinese and other Allied prisoners in Japanese-occupied territories. Also, Japanese Americans were not executed.

[edit] Atrocities by the Soviet Union

Just as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union invaded neutral countries, used forced labor, and deported and murdered myriads of civilians, before, during and after the war. The death toll of just one of these Soviet campaigns, the Holodomor, was much higher than that of the Holocaust. Neither Stalin nor any other Soviet leaders who ordered crimes against peace or against humanity, were ever brought to justice. "Stalin murdered more people than Hitler" is a common red herring, which doubly serves their purpose as the USSR under Stalin was one of the Allied nations - but again, how does this disprove the Holocaust?

The Holocaust might be compared to the Soviet Gulag system of prison camps. With a total of 14 million prisoners and 1.6 million deaths (exact numbers uncertain), Gulag was indeed an atrocity, but at a death rate at 10-15%, it was no extermination campaign. For comparison, death rates among some Jewish national populations, and in some Polish camps, were more than 90%.

Many Nazi sympathizers and Neo-Nazis make exaggerated claims about the Red Army's acts of revenge in eastern Germany, as a way of trying to claim that the Allies were just as bad. While there were many murders committed by Red Army soldiers in eastern Germany, there was no extermination policy or encouragement by the officers; such actions were carried out by individual soldiers. The worst atrocities were only committed in the easternmost regions, where the Red Army first made contact.

Red Army soldiers only killed some tens of thousands of Germans, far less than Nazi atrocities. Deniers often also point to the mass rapes committed by the Red Army, frequently describing them to give the impression that all women were raped, without actually mentioning numbers. The actual number is "only" around 1.5 million. In every case, Holocaust deniers fail to mention any contributing factors for the actions by the Red Army, which is considered profoundly ahistorical for any discussions of atrocities. One day American soldiers showed up and shot several Germans sounds like a much more pro Nazi version of the Dachau Massacre.

[edit] Israeli atrocities

Another red herring used by Holocaust deniers and Holocaust relativists, is the policies and violent acts by the modern state of Israel, especially against Palestinians. Indeed these should be subject to debate, but Israel's acts since its establishment in 1948 does not make the Holocaust (which, obviously, ended numerous years earlier) more legitimate or less true.

Israel's armed forces have killed some tens of thousands of people - including combatants and civilians in all wars and confrontations involving Israel from 1948 to present day. Although still large, this number is dwarfed by the Holocaust's death toll. It is even an order of magnitude fewer than the 300,000 Holocaust victims claimed by hard-line Holocaust deniers such as the IHR.

The IHR also compares the Nuremberg Laws to present-day laws of Israel. First - most of these claims are lies. Holocaust deniers tend to point out the lack of interfaith marriage in Israel. Normally, only religious institutions can issue marriage in Israel, and civil marriage is very limited. This could be an issue for debate, but it does not get close to the Nuremberg laws, where Jews had no civil rights at all. Israel does not restrict marriage by race (allowing black Jews to marry white Jews and Muslims of any race to marry each other) and recognizes all marriages performed abroad (as long as they're recognized by the country in which they were performed) regardless of criteria such as race, religion or gender.

[edit] Segregation laws in the southern United States

The IHR says that the Nuremberg Laws made in 1935 were not worse than the "Jim Crow laws" or other segregation laws that were enforced in some southern states of the USA at the same time. First, this has no relevance; the American segregation of the first half of the 20th century is well-known and universally condemned. Second, the Nazis were much worse. Jews were bereaved of their citizenship, and those who violated the Nuremberg laws were in practice sentenced to death.

[edit] Western colonialism

Before and during the war, Nazi propaganda brought up British colonialism as a tu quoque argument. Germany had colonies too, until the 1919 Versailles Treaty transferred them to other countries.

Holocaust deniers have brought up colonial atrocities that were contemporary with the Holocaust, such as the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. Just like other atrocities, colonial oppression is nearly universally condemned today, and does not affect the truth of the Holocaust.

[edit] Does the Holocaust get too much attention?

Based on the aftermath of these and other atrocities (Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide etc) Holocaust deniers might claim that the Holocaust gets more attention than it deserves, with media coverage, school curricula, etc. Commemoration of other atrocities is not forbidden. If Holocaust deniers are to be taken seriously, they are welcome to bring attention to all these other atrocities, too. And decide how to handle people who deny them.

The argument also seems to ignore that the number of victims is not the most horrifying part of the holocaust - it is rather the cold-blooded, organized manner of execution which was never surpassed in the history of genocide.

[edit] Nuremberg trials

As mentioned above, Holocaust deniers might have objections against the Nuremberg Trials, including subsequent trials going on into 1948. These claims do not disprove the Holocaust. The purpose of a trial is to evaluate the defendants' guilt in a crime - not to decide whether the crime has happened.

A main complaint is that the judges were recruited from Allied countries, enemies of Nazi Germany - and that the defendants could not expect a fair trial from their erstwhile enemies and should be tried by peers from their own countries. This request is absurd - if a defendant could refuse a judge belonging to an enemy country, no one who committed a crime abroad or on international territory, or espionage or terrorism against a government, could ever be brought to justice. There is another good reason why the judges were not German - the German Reich had ceased to exist in May, 1945, and could therefore not provide any certified judges. West and East Germany were not founded until 1949. And if Allied judges were biased against the defendants, would not German judges be biased for them?

The Nuremberg trials were followed up by several trials in West German courts. The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials took place from 1963 to 1965. Judges and defending lawyers were German. Some defendants were imprisoned for life, some were sent to time-limited sentences, and others were acquitted. The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials were largely open to the public.

Holocaust deniers might claim that the Nuremberg trials coerced the defendants to make false testimonies about what happened to the Jews. This is contradicted by the fact that most defendants who were found guilty for detention and extermination (Göring, Jodl, etc) were hanged, while the defendants not involved with the Jews (Dönitz, von Papen, Hess etc) got away with prison, or acquittal.

[edit] Claimed media, government and academic bias against Holocaust denial

Holocaust deniers might claim that national governments all over the world and (Jewish) mass media use the Holocaust as propaganda, and oppress "revisionist" views. First, this is irrelevant to the reality of the Holocaust.

Second, the Holocaust deniers also have their endorsements. Several governments in the Middle East have supported Holocaust denial (as of 2010, current situation is uncertain), and Iran even held an international conference dedicated to Holocaust denial. Holocaust deniers have managed to spread their word in many countries through books, radio and the Internet.

[edit] The claim that the Jews were not literally "exterminated"

Fortunately, the Germans lost the war before they killed all the Jews in Europe. Some Holocaust deniers use this fact in the reasoning "the Jews were not exterminated, therefore it was not a real genocide". This of course overlooks the legal definition of genocide, which does not require the successful implementation of a plan. It also ignores the fact that very few (if any) recorded genocides have ever succeeded in killing all members of the targeted group. To apply so strict criteria is to essentially argue that no genocide has ever happened — which would make the concept useless.

A similar narrative is to feign suspicion at the fact that only Holocaust "survivors" have spoken about their experiences under the Holocaust. This "What a surprise, another Holocaust survivor" narrative is intended to engender suspicion that these narratives are fabricated, and to suggest indirectly that Holocaust survivors are evidence that the event never occurred. This falls apart quickly when examined: Obviously those who were killed in the Holocaust are by definition unable to talk about their experiences now. Furthermore, a great number of Holocaust survivors is in fact evidence for the event.

[edit] A claimed agenda

Holocaust deniers might claim that the Holocaust was set up as a global Jewish plan to gain money, land and financial and political support from the Western nations.

[edit] Jewish "war" against Germany

Revisionists might claim that the global Jewish community "declared war" on Germany in 1933. Their main support to this argument is a headline in the London Daily Express on March 24, 1933, saying "Judea Declares War on Germany". This was a sensationalistic headline for an article that described a proposed Jewish boycott of German goods in response to Adolf Hitler's election- thus, a purely rhetorical war, like War on Drugs or War on Christmas.

[edit] Claimed profit from the Holocaust

Holocaust deniers might claim that the Holocaust was made up to "blackmail" Western governments and German corporations for economic aid and reparations. There is legitimate debate about whether these compensations are legitimate, but they are irrelevant to the reality of the Holocaust.

There are also some objections:

First, Israel does not receive extraordinary economic aid from other countries. The United States have handed more money to other countries (notably Egypt - a country with which Israel has a somewhat problematic relationship) than Israel.

Second, no reparations have ever been paid by anyone to anyone for people killed in the Holocaust. Reparations have been paid to survivors. Exaggerating the death toll would not give any Jew more money.

Deniers also have to explain what side the United States government takes. They are claimed to be part of the conspiracy, and still among the losers who give money to Israel.

Deniers might also complain about survivors' profiteering on books and lectures, which in some cases are sponsored by public schools or other government institutions. This is irrelevant as well, and their earnings are unnoticeable on a government financial scale. One should also remember that many Nazis, including war criminals such as Dönitz and Speer, also earnt royalties from books after the war. (Although, this last statement is in itself a 'red herring', as it is irrelevant to the point of survivors profiting from books and lectures)

[edit] Israeli sovereignty as compensation for the Holocaust

In 1947, the United Nations adopted Resolution 181, to support the foundation of Israel. Holocaust deniers such as the IHR claim that the Holocaust was staged to create sympathy for the foundation of Israel.

This claim has no relevance for the truth of the Holocaust.

The UN decision to found Israel shall, as any other political decision, be subject to debate. However, there had been international support for the modern Israeli state at least since the Balfour Declaration was written in 1917. Also, most Jews who lived in Israel when it was founded, arrived before World War II.

[edit] General conspiracy theory/pseudo-history components

[edit] False confessions in witchcraft trials etc

Holocaust deniers might point out that many other people in history have falsely confessed crimes after torture or other pressure, for instance those accused for witchcraft or Satanic Ritual Abuse.

However, the Holocaust is backed by several testimonies and plenty of technical evidence. Also, not a single one of the thousands of guards and officers has withdrawn their confessions, or provided a dissenting testimony.

[edit] "Victors write history"

Holocaust deniers frequently repeat the cliché that victors write history. On a literal plane, this is completely false. Karl Dönitz, Albert Speer, and several other high-ranked Nazis, wrote and published their memoirs. Re-telling the events of the war is a strong tradition in Germany. The only relevant Nazi work that has been out of print ever since the war is Hitler's Mein Kampf. The book is not formally banned anywhere, though; the German state of Bavaria claims the copyright, and refuses to allow reproduction within Germany until its copyright expires. This is, at best, a de facto ban on reproduction (and not reading or ownership).

[edit] "It is not in my history book"

The history of the world is an enormous topic. World War II was extremely eventful, and a world history textbook, an encyclopedia or any other general reference book must omit many important facts. Some of these books might only tell that Jews were deported to concentration camps, without mentioning the gas chambers or the death toll. Some do not use the term "Holocaust".

However, a book is nothing more than the words of its author. So, if a textbook omits the Holocaust, we should go ask the author, who is probably a graduate historian, and ask them why they did not mention the Holocaust. The most probable answer would be "lack of space". If any of them answers "I don't believe it happened", the deniers would have gained a powerful ally. Apparently this has never been the case.

An analogy: Some history books might describe the space race, but not the details of each moon landing. Does that prove that they did not happen?

[edit] See also

[edit] References

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support