Talk:Red herrings in Holocaust denial

I don't like "Holocaust compared to other atrocities"

You can completely accept the reality of the Holocaust, and yet also be repulsed by these other atrocities. I don't like how this article seems to downplay those other atrocities — that is unnecessary, and even borders on a kind of denialism—Holocaust deniers say "The Holocaust wasn't as bad as they make it sound!", yet here you are saying essentially the same thing about these other atrocities. Comparing evil to evil is not the best game to play. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You entirely skipped the main argument of holocaust denial/revisionism; the question of the gas chambers. Also, the entire article is written with a hostile tone, which really makes one question your objectivity on the subject. ^{— Unsigned, by: 207.47.254.63 / talk / contribs}

No, the objective response is to be hostile to Holocaust denial because it makes no objective sense. See Balance fallacy Omar (gibber) 13:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Gas chambers are brought up in the original Holocaust denial article. /Strom (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To say "The Holocaust wasn't as bad as they make it sound!" is Holocaust relativism, not denial. And it is also a crime in Germany, just like denial. --Jojobaplant (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

1919 and the 1970s

The sentence, about the use of the word of the Holocaust in 1919: "This early use of the phrase holocaust complicates the deniers' argument that the term Holocaust was not widely used for the Nazi mass murders until the 1970s." That sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. The real problem with the claim "the term Holocaust was not widely used for the Nazi mass murders until the 1970s", is not that it is false, but rather that it is true but irrelevant. The fact that our presently favoured terminology for a historical event is newer than the event itself doesn't in any way call into question the historicity of the event - "World War I" was not known by that name until was not known by that name until more than 20 years later, but no one doubts it really happened. Historical events often do not receive their current names until many years, sometimes even centuries or millennia, after they occur. So how the word was used in 1919 is irrelevant to the problem with their claim - since their claim is literally true, but does not have the consequences they think it does. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

About the Jewish "war" against Germany

The line "described a proposed Jewish boycott of German goods in response to Adolf Hitler's election. That is not a war. A war is, by definition, an armed, mutual conflict." is poorly written, downplaying or undermining the jewish boycott at the time. It's not a war by definition, but it hints a very serious economical factor that might have contributed to the whole mess. There should be more information about it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 189.120.103.79 / talk / contribs 2012-12-05T19:59:39}

Teh pesky jooze provoked the führer by protesting gross discrimination? Funny how this egregious shite comes from BoNs Scherben (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fun fact: the "Jews declare war on Germany!" headline only appeared in one newspaper. The Daily Mail, back then already known for its sound journalism, bursting with integrity. --Jojobaplant (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Video about Jewish Nazis

This video tries to claim that the existence of Jewish Nazi was evidence that the Holocaust didn't happen.

–Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 14:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge this stub

This appendix is short enough, and will use some of the same sources as the main Holocaust denial article, that it really ought to be merged into it. The main article already has a subsection titled "red herrings in holocaust denial" into which we should put it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)