Talk:Holocaust profit controversy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this article missing a point?[edit]

I agree that the alleged profiteering in a purely monetary sense is yet another of the ludicrous stocks in trade of Holocaust denialists, but since this article references Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky and others who, while not being denialists, are critical of the use (they'd probably call it misuse) of the Holocaust, I think that using the word "profit" might be focussing only on the denialists' idiocy, rather than the criticism of non-denialists.

As far as I understand the criticism of "waving the Holocaust banner" it is that the Holocaust is used as a shield to deflect criticism of Israel through a sort of Not as bad as retroactive justification ("Whatever Israel does is okay, because it's not as bad as the Holocaust many of its founders suffered through and if there's no Israel then there might be another Holocaust" seems to be the gist of it). One criticism by Robert FiskWikipedia in his book, The Great War for CivilisationWikipedia, was the use by Israeli officials of an argument similar to Chomsky's that because the Armenian Genocide was not as bad as the Holocaust, it shouldn't be called a genocide at all.

What I'm trying to get at is that the objection to the use by some pro-Israeli groups of the Holocaust as a "get out of jail free"-card when faced with criticism of Israel does not concern "profit" in the sense of these groups getting money, but that they benefit from using the Holocaust to counter criticism of Israel in cases where Holocaust-references are essentially a red herring. Note that Finkelstein didn't call his book Holocaust Profiteering, but chose the title Holocaust Industry to denote something reminiscent of the military-industrial complex, rather than some simple mercenary monetary motive. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This article gives entirely too much credit to this crankery - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Move it back to "Holocaust industry?" FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It reads like "this is a totally reasonable claim and that it's something neo-Nazis say all the fucking time is just an unfortunate coincidence", rather than the more accurate "it's a standard anti-Semitic slur and if you squint you can find someone who agrees vaguely with some version of it." Even Wikipedia The Holocaust IndustryWikipedia doesn't bend over backwards as far as this article does.
At minimum, stuff about the book needs to be separated out from the neo-Nazi trope - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
My point was that this article tries to fit two radically different topics under one headline and currently ends up conflating them: One is the Neo-Nazi "The Jews are profitting from the Holocaust, the greedy hypocrites!"-nonsense, while the other is "Don't wrap yourself in the Holocaust to justify injustice"-criticism levelled at certain pro-Israeli groups. The lead emphasises the latter, while the article itself tackles the former with far too much tact. One possible solution is a two-part article with one part dedicated to the "Greedy Jews!"-Neo-Nazi crap and the other to the "Holocaust references aren't a get out of jail free card"-style criticism. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Are Nukes part of the claimed profit or...?[edit]

As topic. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 03:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What? --Ymir (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Israel is rumored/expected to have some sort of nuclear weapon capability. Was that part of the...? K61824Looking for potion recipes 03:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Trump on Holocaust Memorial Day[edit]

Is this an example of the HPC phenomenon? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


This bit about separating military and economic aid is artificial - clearly money not spent on war can be spent on other things. Still, letting that ride, only deleted the actually false statement, check wiki on US Aid or Basically, I agree with the gist of the article. The argument is strong enough that it doesn't need to support itself by lying.

Apologies if my use of the site is rusty, it's been a while. MatsFan (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)