Talk:Holocaust denial

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon denialism.svg

This denialism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Documentary and physical evidence for gas chambers
  • Denier arguments concerning gas chambers - Prussian blue, ash disposal etc, and response
  • Deniers' disapproval of some survivor testimonies, and response
  • Deniers' illicit comparisons of Nazi Germany and Israel, and response Strom 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Addition regarding the Nuremberg trials[edit]

A valid complaint would be how the war crime trials were deliberately set up so that only war crimes commited by the Axis powers but were not commited by the Allied powers were considered worthy of trial and conviction.[1] Freda Utley states:

Few Americans at home may be aware of it, but their representatives at Nuremberg have expressly stated that the victors are not bound by the same laws as the vanquished. When the German defense counsel argued that if it was a crime against international law for the Germans in occupied Poland and Russia to confiscate private property, use civilians and prisoners of war as forced laborers, and starve the people in the occupied territories, then why is it not also a crime for American, British, French or Russian Military Government to do the same thing, they were told: “The Allied Powers are not subject to the limitations of the Hague Convention and rules of land warfare.”[2]

Some examples of this include Karl Dönitz, who was found not guilty as the Allied force commited the same war crimes as he did:

"In view of all the facts proved and in particular of an order of the British Admiralty announced on the 8th May, 1940, according to which all vessels should be sunk at sight in the Skagerrak, and the answers to interrogatories by Admiral Nimitz stating that unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day that nation entered the war, the sentence of Doenitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare."[3]

This inevitably means that it isn't that German war criminals were somehow not war criminals, but rather that many of them such were found not guilty. Thus, the unfairness of the trial does not serve to defend war criminals of Nazi Germany, but rather to show how many of them were not deemed guilty by the Tribunal despite them having commited atrocities, simply because the Allied force did the same. This also of course means many Allied war criminals were not convicted, however that is a different discussion than the one at hand.

I added this and twice it has been reverted. The first reverter claims that citing Chomsky is not valid, despite Chomsky's works regarding history and politics to be tremendously important and there is little to criticize about the claims put forth here. The second claims that Freda Utley is not valid as a citation simply because Holocaust deniers cite her apparently, which is nowhere near a valid criticism of the source. Neither addressed the example put forth regarding Karl Donitz as a prime example of "war crimes" really being "Axis War Crimes" and Allied war crimes being ignored.

I will post this again in a day or two if there are no responses. Codefuser (talk) 30 Sept 2018 (UTC)


This Article is not about Holocaust Denial[edit]

As I read this article, it becomes evident, it does not center on holocaust denialisms, or present any cases or fair examples of it. It's only focuses on denial of Holocaust denial. You should change the headline. It is misleading. — Unsigned, by: 2a02:810b:c100:57:6173:4cab:f507:ecba / talk / contribs

The article title is fine. — Dysk (contribs) 23:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Blaming the Poles and Muslims[edit]

The article briefly mentions laws against blaming Poles for the Holocaust, but the topic of Polish complicity is controversial; blaming Poles isn't necessarily denialism.[1] (Just as some Jews, e.g. Hannah Arendt, have discussed Jewish complicity.[2])

What about claims that Muslims were the real instigators, not the Nazis/Germans. e.g.[3][4][5] (I'm sure I've seen claims that British or Americans suggested genocide to Hitler but can't find a reference - it maybe ties into the "Darwin made Hitler do it" creationist argument.)

Another controversial topic is that the German people had little or no knowledge of what was happening; this isn't necessarily denialism but can cross over into it. --Annanoon (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

it is denialism though isnt it. its not outright saying it didnt happen, or wasnt as bad as believed, its giving claims of complicity too much weight, as if hitler was some unknowing dupe led astray by those dastardly muslims. its either to negate the blame by nazis or to villify by association. whatever the motive, it ends with 'maybe the nazis werent that bad after all'. its utter shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to add a section on this to the article. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust was a state secret in the Third Reich. The stage of mass killings did not happen inside Germany itself but instead in ghettos (starvation and disease), concentration camps (working people to exhaustion on starvation rations if not to outright execution as in gas chambers), and sites of mass shootings (typically in Ukraine and Belarus). People deputed to operate the telephone exchange or deliver written communications were told to not mention words such as Vernichtung (annihilation or extermination) or bureaucratic terms of the Holocaust. The Allies knew, but did not believe that relating the reality of the Holocaust would serve any purpose because such would not be believable. After all, the Germans thought themselves a civilized and enlightened people even if their leaders were barbaric in the extreme.

Bad things (from economic ruin to extermination) happened to Jews outside the view of civilians of Germany itself, let alone France, the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, or Norway. Jews would be murdered out of sight and out of mind of most Germans. Jews obviously had no means of communicating their plight to people of conscience, and those had no idea of what a word like "resettlement in the East" really meant. It is safe to say that no Germans were taking pleasure trips to Poland or the occupied portions of the USSR.

Soldiers of the Wehrmacht often did know even if not complicit. If complicit? They knew.Pbrower2a (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)—

use of terms[edit]


assertion that the Holocaust ..
never happened (denial),
happened vastly differently from the "official" story (revision)

Although that sounds how logical people might use the terms denial/revision, for critics of those who question the narrative, it isn't actually how they are used.

"vastly" for example, is not a requirement. Even slightly disagreeing with something will get some criticized as a "revisionist". For example, if instead of 6,000,000 Jews, someone says only 5,999,999 Jews died, they would be condemned as a "revisionist" even though this is not a VAST difference. A term like that also allows too much interpretation. If you proposed 5,999,000 for example, would a difference of 1000 be fast? What about 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 ? There is no established amount of what "vast" means.

For that reason, I am removing that adjective, it's worthless.

Secondly, "revisionists" tend to just get called "deniers" because even if the revision keeps the number high it's still "Denying". Ty (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


The attempted distinction in labels between "truther", "denier", and "revisionist" is bizarre. They are all deniers, just of different sorts or degrees. The use of the term "revisionist" is especially insidious because this can also be used for mainstream, non-denialist historians' work (whether Holocaust related or not) that legitimately challenges previously-existing works, often using new evidence. The term one is looking for in place of "revisionist" would be "negationist", though this is itself just a synonym for historical denialism. I suppose another possible term for these "revisionists" (i.e. "soft deniers") would be Holocaust distortionists. Chillpilled (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the way things are labeled myself, now, without too radically restructuring the article. One thing I should note is that the "blaming the victim" category given in the lead section is actually itself a form of "Holocaust distortionism". However, I guess distinguishing it as its own sort is not really doing harm. Chillpilled (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Straight Dope - Denying?[edit]

I took a quick look at the Straight Dope article linked at the bottom as a Holocaust-denying source. The article seems to affirm that the Holocaust happened and that denier arguments don't hold up, so I'm confused about why it's considered a Holocaust-denying source. Was this a mistake? Or perhaps done by a troll? Or maybe there's some full context that I'm missing. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
Thank you for pointing that out. I will change that label right now. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 21:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)