I grew up with a close relative who I deeply respect in many ways, and who is almost definitely responsible for my love of history, but who routinely denied the Holocaust in ways that at the time as a young impressionable teen I thought were innocuous ("Well, he doesn't think it didn't totally happen, he just has some issues with the numbers being inflated!" "Okay, I guess he's being a little unreasonable, but he just doesn't like Israel, it's not a Jew thing!"). I eventually knew enough to not take his word for granted, but still didn't really know how to discuss the topic with him without looking like an idiot, as he was (and is) a fantastic debater with a very deep knowledge of history. Over time however, as I grew older, got into serious history study, and learned more about the Holocaust, I then tried to 'take him on' and talk it over with him. The first few times, he made the same arguments, but they clearly didn't hold water anymore. The next few times, he was far more reluctant to even begin the conversation. But, eventually, one night the truth came out. What used to be an issue of numbers and historical evidence became an issue of 'rootless Jews' furthering their agenda. Discussions about the Holocaust inevitably ended up in discussions about an all-encompassing 'Zionism'. Any attempts at civil discussion would end in terms such as 'Jew sympathizer' being thrown about (honestly wish I was making that up).

Because of that experience, every time I hear someone deny the Holocaust - which unfortunately happens quite a bit once I mention that it's my field of study - I press them on why. Civilly, but strongly. I've found that the results are consistent across almost every individual: What begins as some 'innocent questions' gradually become the same antisemitic rhetoric that's been used for centuries. The exceptions are those who had just taken on the belief of an antisemitic parent without thinking critically.

Please, to those of you who do not consider yourselves antisemites but forgive those who deny the Holocaust and the number of Jews who perished because they are close to you personally, or because you feel they may have genuine issues with historical methods, or because you feel that their political anti-Zionism is just "partially clouding" their judgement, I implore you to actually discuss the facts with those who talk this trash. Almost inevitably, after a bit of pressing, the antisemitism comes out. Even if you can't change their mind - which, more often than not, is unfortunately the case - by exposing their motives, those around them will be far less likely to defend them or their arguments.

EDIT: Additionally (as someone rightfully pointed out in a private message), there is a difference between denial and genuine lack of knowledge. If someone literally doesn't know the facts surrounding the Holocaust or is unaware of the history of the period, it is not their fault for not having been educated - that's where we, as historians, need to do our job so that their ignorance of the subject isn't exploited.

Fantastic write up. Bravo.

In my own part of the world holocaust denial tends to be more blatantly anti-Semitic and even pro-genocide of Jews. Something along the lines of "we don't think the Nazis killed the Jews, but they should have." Sickening. Anyways, a topic for another time.

I'm curious if you've seen the film Denial. Thoughts on it from a technical perspective in relation these issues?

/u/commiespaceinvader you never disappoint in your knowledge and eloquence around WWII/Holocaust issues. Thank you for this Monday Method.

I think it's also important to know that Holocaust deniers can rely on "experts" who have no special credentials. For example, one "expert" used is Fred A. Leuchter Jr., a man who helped revolutionize capital punishment in the United States. Because he has this knowledge about "humanely" executing others, he was asked to provide his opinion on the "legitimacy" of Auschwitz as an extermination site. He damaged the site "in the name of research" (research which actual experts have said was flawed for various reasons). Even though this man was not a historian, a scientist with experience testing for chemicals, or even a medical doctor, he became embraced by deniers as an "expert" for no reason other than he knew how to "humanely" gas an individual prisoner.

For more on this watch the documentary Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr.

I've always very much struggled with this. Not with how to challenge denial, as that's always been fairly straightforward in the ways you described, but because the Holocaust is such a difficult topic.

It's hard for me to delve into the numbers and to understand the enormity of what happened. It's hard, as a human being, to ever start to understand the magnitude of wars and genocides, and it makes my head spin imagining it.

That may be one of the biggest boons to deniers. They are arguing something that appeals to most normal people; that there's no way others could do something so evil and grotesque as commit a genocide like the Holocaust. In my experience at least, it's painful to even think it, and to grasp the fact that human beings are capable of such acts. Even just thinking in detail about the logistics of a gas chamber can make one's heart beat fast and strain to reject the truth.

I think that's the biggest argument for education, and for awareness of the denier phenomenon. The point isn't just to remember anti-Semitism, it's to understand what types of evil can exist and commit acts of horror. Holocaust deniers prey on those who are unaware, who don't want to believe, and who are taught not to believe. But to avoid someday seeing them relegate the Holocaust to the status of myth requires tackling the injustice of denial wherever it exists, hard as it is. Even though it can bring any normal person to tears to really see the testimonies of the survivors, it has to be done.

That's part of why this sub is so important to me. I may say less than ever, and lurk more, but it's more than just a discussion sub, or something to frequent for fun (though it often is fun). The sub is a precious commodity in a world some are calling post-truth, where everyone is spinning their version of history. So for that, thank you everyone for writing this up, and thank you mods for the countless hours you put into keeping this diamond on Reddit precious and shining.

Hi friends, I'd like to post something I read not too long ago that I thought was relevant.

Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew.

Link to Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew

There's PDFs available on the internet but I won't link directly as I'm not sure the legality of them.

This is a great read, where Sartre's dissects the motivations of the Anti-Semite, as applicable to all ideologies of hate. It does a great job of trying to understand their "discourse", as well.

A selection that I find especially enlightening and revealing in the modern era:

The anti-Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has pleased himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some remarks by anti-Semites, all of them absurd: "I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc." Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

If then, as we have been able to observe, the anti-Semite is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious.

He has chosen to find his being entirely outside himself, never to look within, to be nothing save the fear he inspires in others. What he flees even more than Reason is his intimate awareness of himself. But some will object: What if he is like that only with regard to the Jews? What if he otherwise conducts himself with good sense? I reply that that is impossible... A man who finds it entirely natural to denounce other men cannot have our conception of humanity; he does not see even those whom he aids in the same light as we do. His generosity, his kindness are not like our kindness, our generosity. You cannot confine passion to one sphere.

The anti-Semite has no illusions about what he is. He considers himself an average man, modestly average, basically mediocre. There is no example of an anti-Semite's claiming individual superiority over the Jews. But you must not think that he is ashamed of his mediocrity; he takes pleasure in it; I will even assert that he has chosen it. This man fears every kind of solitariness, that of the genius as much as that of the murderer; he is the man of the crowd. However small his stature, he takes every precaution to make it smaller, lest he stand out from the herd and find himself face to face with himself. He has made himself an anti-Semite because that is something one cannot be alone…

Good post. Since this is a post about methods, I think it's worth mentioning something important:

Always remember before trying to engage one of these knuckleheads in debate (live or online)- it takes an order of magnitude more effort to combat lies, than it takes to distort. Engaging with Deniers without a strong background in history and its methods is not a good idea, since it's possible through the use of skillful rhetoric a very experienced debater could trip you up. I see it happen when people debate creationism.

Masterful post, as always! I do have one, ever so small addition to make. Although you excerpted briefly from it, I wanted to quote a longer selection from Lipstadt, as it is a passage that did a great deal in helping shape my own approach to how to confront and combat Holocaust denial, so hopefully it can provide some insight to others as well:

I once was an ardent advocate of ignoring them. In fact, when I first began this book I was beset by the fear that I would inadvertently enhance their credibility by responding to their fantasies. But having immersed myself in their activities for too long a time, I am now convinced that ignoring them is no longer an option. The time to hope that of their own accord they will blow away like the dust is gone. Too many of my students have come to me and asked, "How do we know there really were gas chambers?" "Was the Diary of Anne Frank a hoax?" "Are there actual documents attesting to a Nazi plan to annihilate the Jews?" Some of these students are aware that their questions have been informed by deniers. Others are not; they just know that they have heard these charges and are troubled by them.

Not ignoring the deniers does not mean engaging them in discussion or debate. In fact, it means not doing that. We cannot debate them for two reasons, one strategic and the other tactical. As we have repeatedly seen, the deniers long to be considered the "other" side. Engaging them in discussion makes them exactly that. Second, they are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to the wall.

Though we cannot directly engage them, there is something we can do. Those who care not just about Jewish history or the history of the Holocaust but about truth in all its forms, must function as canaries in the mine once did, to guard against the spread of noxious fumes. We must vigilantly stand watch against an increasingly nimble enemy. But unlike the canary, we must not sit silently by waiting to expire so that others will be warned of the danger. When we witness assaults on truth, our response must be strong, though neither polemical nor emotional. We must educate the broader public and academe about this threat and its historical and ideological roots. We must expose these people for what they are.

The thread where you engage with the holocaust denier is certainly fascinating reading, and I think it rather eloquently reveals the misuse of statistics to support politically motivated historical claims.

On the subject of your post I would just like to seek clarification on a few points:

the ideology of Nazism and the broader historical phenomenon of Fascism in which Nazism is often placed, have become – rightfully so – politically tainted. As and ideology that is at its core racist, anti-Semitic, and genocidal, Nazism and Fascism have become politically discredited throughout most of the world.

1. You imply that fascism is inherently anti-Semitic. While national socialism is obviously anti-Semitic and I could see how fascism may be tainted by association, I don't see how it is inherently anti-Semitic in itself. An argument could certainly be made that the exhalation of the nation prominent in fascism necessitates racism or at least xenophobia but I don't see how this focuses in any way, specifically on Jewish people.

2. When you state fascism has been largely discredited what specifically do you mean. Are you referring to the fact that main stream politics avoids the 'fascist' label for fear of association to nazis and Hitler? Is it about the way in which fascism has become a shorthand for totalitarianism?

It's important to remember that even though these events are known as The Holocaust, the definition of holocaust is not exclusive to these events. The term was frequently used prior to these events to described other atrocities. In my research, it is frequently applied to the Turkish massacres of the Armenians and the later genocide. Regarding denials, one of the books I'm reading right now is "The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response" by Peter Balakian. In its preface, he references several genocide scholars on the topic of denial. Professor Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University, described by Balakian as "the most notable scholar of genocide denial" had this to say "Denial of genocide - whether that of the Turks against the Armenians or the Nazis against the Jews - is not an act of historical reinterpretation. Rather, it sows confusion by appearing to be engaged in a genuine scholarly effort". She calls denial the "final stage of genocide" because it "strives to reshape history in order to demonized the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators."
Balakian also references Elie Wiesel, author of "Night", who referred to genocide denial as a "double killing" because it murders the memory of the event. While he does reference the similarities between the Armenian genocide and what would happen in Germany during WWII, Balakian focuses on the Armenian massacres and genocide. This is relevant because from the very beginning of the massacres of the late 19th century under Sultan Abdul Hamid II all the way through the genocide of 1915 under the Young Turks, the Ottoman/Turkish government maintained, and does to this day, that no such events occurred. According to them, the various massacres were attempts to quell revolutions attempted by the Armenians, and that the various death marches of WWI were merely attempts to relocate the Armenians that simply went horribly awry. Even now, over a century later, both the governments of Turkey and the United States refuse to refer to it as a genocide, even though between 1.2 million and 1.5 million Armenians were systematically exterminated in state sponsored massacres under the guise of WWI. The U.S. has taken this stance because Turkey is the primary US ally in the region. It is a member of NATO and is our staging ground in the region for military operations, especially those into Iraq, with which Turkey shares a border. They have not so subtly hinted that our acknowledgment of these events, or even calling them genocide, would jeopardize that alliance. It's fascinating and frustrating that modern politics can effect historic analysis of an event that occurred a century ago.

I saw a comment on Reddit to the effect of "The Germans only really started being really genocidal late in the war because the tide had turned against them." I recall a statement along the lines of "But they didn't start using gas chambers until 1942 or 43." The impression I got was that this person saw the Holocaust as a sort of "panicked reaction" rather than genocide being an intentional plan, which would somewhat reduce the ethical responsibility on the Germans. This strikes me as a form of denial, though I could certainly be wrong about that.

I am not qualified to discuss this aspect of history, so I have two questions about potentially countering the "panic late in the war" idea.

First, is it correct that genocide against Jewish people was discussed within the Nazi party in the late 1930s? If so, does that counter the idea that the Holocaust wasn't specifically planned?

Second, while early in the war, the Einsatzgruppen did not exclusively or even primarily target Jewish people in the eastern occupied territory, is it correct that they did shift to making a significant effort to kill Jewish people in large numbers by 1941, much earlier in the war and at a time that could not be seen as the war going badly for the Germans. Do these mobile, pre-death-camp actions stand as good evidence that the Holocaust was intended by the Nazis from either the outset of the war, or at least very early on?

I think your point about not allowing certain arguments to get framed as having two sides is important and can not be said enough especially when pertaining to other types of assertions that are no more well grounded than other conspiracy theories, such as evolution denial, anthrogenic global warming denial, and anti-vaccination movements. It's really important that we not engage ludicrous claims on equal footing as it lends creadibulity to the argument for an outside observer. It's also important not to be condescending or smug during these conversations as well.

One particular individual in the era that I study has been a major Holocaust denier for years. I study left-wing German terrorism from the late 60s onward. The most prominent group was the Red Army Faction; most commonly known as "the Baader-Meinhof Gang".

People commonly (and mostly correctly) assume that it was "founded" by Andreas Baader, his girlfriend Gudrun Ensslin, the journalist Ulrike Meinhof, and others. But often forgotten is the true founder--the man who first proposed the idea of an urban guerrilla org attempting to kickstart the revolution in German--was Horst Mahler.

Mahler was a lawyer and architect, and a very committed radical leftist. He also was a bit of a bumbler, and not well liked among the group. Very early in their history he was captured, and the rest of the group began to distance themselves from him. Later, in the 1980s, he fully turned against his leftist origins and become fairly fanatically right wing.

In 2000 he joined the far-right NDP party (though he later left). In the early 2000s, he helped found the "Society for the Rehabilitation for those Persecuted for Refutation of the Holocaust," a group designed to bring public attention to the poor, unfortunate people </sarcasm> that have been persecuted for their belief that the Holocaust didn't exist.

He was charged with holocaust denial because of his work with the group, and his passport was revoked, preventing him from visiting the notorious Holocaust Denial conference in Tehran in 2006.

The next year he was interviewed by Vanity Fair by a conservative Jewish German politician, and Mahler greeted him with a "Heil Hitler" and explained in the interview that the killing of Jews at Auschwitz was a lie.

He was sentenced to nine months in prison for giving the Hitler salute in that incident, and when he reported to prison he gave another Hitler salute (BOOM! another six months in prison).

About seven years ago he was given another sentence for Holocaust denial; this time for six years without possibility of parole, amd ;ater an additional 5 years were added. Assuming he is alive, he will get out of prison around 2020, when he will be 84.

Of course in the United States Holocaust Denial is not illegal, and our method of dealing with it is challenging it with strong facts. But in Germany they absolutely do not fuck around with it.

By the way; it's often assumed that this is a right-wing phenomenon. But at least in terms of general anti-Semitism in Germany, during the 1970s, the left-wing Terrorist were among the biggest proponents. Typically they would claim that they weren't at all anti-Semetic but rather anti-zionist. But honestly it was typically a non-existent distinction. A famous story involves Wilfred Boese, a German Revolutionary Cells terrorist who participated in the hijacking of an Isreali passenger jet in 1976 (the hostage taking was ended by the famous "raid on entebbe").

The story goes (And it it not completely accurate as I've learned in my research), but the story was that when the terrorists were marching the passengers off the plane they separated the Jews from the non-Jews. An older Jew marched up to Boese and showed him his Auschwitz tattoo and called him a Nazi. "But I'm not a Nazi," said Boese, "I'm an idealist!"

(the actual story is much more complicated and many of these commonly accepted "Facts" didn't happen, in fact some of the hostages credited Boese with being reasonable, in comparison to the psychopathic Brigitte Kuhlman).

But the theme behind the story rings true to me; many of these radicals on the left were as engaged in anti-Antisemitism as those on the far right; but because their actions were the product of a carefully thought out revolutionary Marxist ideology, they felt immune from charges of Antisemitism. But if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

I have a question. Do these Holocaust deniers genuinely believe what they are peddling or do they know they are twisting the truth in order to try and minimize this atrocity?

Are we including the Armenian holocaust in this discussion?

Do you have anything on people who downplay the Wehrmacht's role in the holocaust?

I've seen David Irving mentioned in here a few times, would anyone be able to clear something up for me?

I keep seeing conflicting things about whether Irving is or isn't a holocaust denier. I remember watching a documentary not too long ago about how Irving is not a holocaust denier, and is misunderstood (It was phrased better than that and actually made quite a bit of sense in the video)

Could anyone provide a proper explanation for me?

Edit: I feel the need to clarify I am not in any way, shape, or form a holocaust denier.

Why the use of the word combat? I've found that words like 'war on...', 'combating the...', 'defeating....' has an inherent effect of upping the stakes and hostility in a discourse. Thus creating an antagonistic atmosphere where the other participant immediately feels alienated and feels the only recourse is to retaliate and otherwise close up any desire to listen. Or even participate! All we get is slinging stuff at each other.

This is anecdotal, of course, so I'd be interested in hearing thoughts and opinions on this.

Very insightful post, thank you. I look forward to more of this type in the future. Just out of curiosity, under the civility rule you are strongly against revisionism (as am I) but how does this sub tackle the issue of the comfort women?

This is fantastic. Could we get the same for "the civil war wasn't about slavery"?

Could you expand further on what it means to "minimize" the Holocaust as a Holocaust denier? I remember seeing a political cartoon comparing the Holocaust to modern state oppression classified as being a Holocaust denier. To me, that seems to go a step too far, to making the Holocaust as some sort of Holy icon that stands above all other moments in history. If you cannot compare the Holocaust to other events, historic or current, then it loses its importance.

So could you expand on ways to compare the Holocaust to other events without minimizing it?

Edit: (adding context) The cartoon was from an Iranian contest about a decade ago, the contest was in response to a Dutch contest to draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Iran held its own contest for cartoons of Holocaust denial. So the label of denier was applied by the artists themselves.

The winning cartoon depicted the Israeli army using the Holocaust to justify modern oppression. I tried to find other entries to the contest, but could not. Maybe they were too offensive for Western media, or maybe the Iranians never posted them online.

The enormity of WWII and the Holocaust is impossible to fully comprehend. Take the Yankee stadium, fill it up, multiply it by 220, and you have the amount of civilians Nazi Germany murdered. Not as collateral, but as a policy. And thats only roughly a sixth of the total amount of deaths in the war. How people can defend the Nazis is beyond me. Even if the holocaust wasn't real, even if the million myths about Hitler being not that bad, or "The Trains Running on Time" were true, even if they were "Defending Europe Against Communism", Nazi Germany is directly responsible for the deaths of roughly 60 million people. It's so easy to forget, especially as the generation who actually fought WWII is dying, that every single person, who to us is just a statistic, or a corpse in a picture, or a marker at a memorial, was a human being, whose life was ripped away from them due to a war they often times had little say in. It just goes to show how quickly we forget that there are already those who justify or minimize the crimes of the Nazi Regime. Normally when studying history I have few problems separating myself from a situation and seeing it as subjectively as possible, but Nazism is one I cannot get past the horror and rage at.

Holocaust scholars discuss and argue over any number of points as research continues.

I've never really thought about this. What exactly do Holocaust-scholars tend to argue about?

First off, thanks for this excellent write up. One of the scariest things about Holocaust denial (as well as other forms of pseudo-history) is that way it is often presented such that it is difficult for the layperson (such as myself) to immediately see the difference. Write-ups like this one do a great service in that regard.

I did have a brief question. You say

As and ideology that is at its core racist, anti-Semitic, and genocidal, Nazism and Fascism have become politically discredited throughout most of the world.

The way this is phrased seems to imply that Fascism is, necessarily, racist and genocidal. Now, historically speaking most (and perhaps all) examples of Fascist regimes that I am aware of have, indeed, been racist. But I wonder if there couldn't be a clearly fascist regime (supreme strongman, primacy of national pride, propaganda, brutally expansionist, intolerant of dissent) that did not happen to make use of racist ideology.

I suppose I am thinking here of a regime where something like religious identification plays the role that race did in Nazism, but is otherwise wholly similar to Nazism. It seems clear that such a regime would be fascist, but it would seem to lack the racial component.

I heard one Holocaust "Questioner" say that if 6 million Jews were killed that would have to be such and such number per hour, such and such hours in a day, and it led to an unreasonable amount of hours necessary to kill that many Jews in the time frame given. Obviously the equation he gave surmised mostly killing by individual or small numbers, but I imagine that a great number of people died to exposure, starvation, overwork, sickness, mass execution, etc which would throw off the assumptions of this equation. Has anyone heard this particular claim and has a refutation handy?

Could someone spell out for me exactly why Holocaust denial is a thing? I understand anti-semitism exists, but how, specifically, is denying an event that clearly happened supposed to further that cause?

Now if it is really about Naziism, I understand that. But I was exposed to this ideally as something that Iranian leaders were saying.

Fantastic, well-organized post. Thanks for taking the time to write it up! One question I have: are any deniers academic professionals who use their professor status and cloak of academia to prop up their argument? I ask, because I know there are some (VERY few, but still) Nanjing massacre deniers who use such professional credentials to advance their bankrupt assertions (Higashinakano Shudo at Asia University).

Is this even something that can be "combatted" from a historian's vantage?

Holocaust denial isn't about factual mistakes of history. It's a political narrative, albeit a noxious one. No amount of proof will suffice. No persuasive arguments.

...I need a thread like this for Japanese war crimes.
That also address the absolute crap sources, examinations, etc used by the Chinese. It's so damned political I don't even know which side is butchering sources more.

Thank you so much for posting this. I am an 11th grade U.S. History teacher and one of my students just this morning asked about holocaust denial. He ask if, when we get to WWII, will holocaust denial be on the table for discussion, saying that he had been reading some interesting materials. This student is one known to like to stir the pot. I said that no, it would not be up for discussion because I didn't want to give the time of day to something as ludicrous as holocaust denial. I am curious after reading this post though, would using my class as a platform to inform students about the tactics and lies of holocaust deniers be a good idea? This is an advanced placement class so it is possible to have a semi-intelligent discussion with them. What do all of you think?

Really appreciate the tone you've used, you've pitched it right at the laity without even seeming patronizing at all. The language is excellent given people the mental tools to use and look out for with particular phrases from within the discipline. Top work.

I don't think I'll go down in historiography with this, but I'm surprised you didn't mention the possibility of what I thought to be the obvious interpretation of Himmler's phone transcript.

Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius (Arrest of Dr. Jekelius)

Angebl. Sohn Molotov; (Supposed son of Molotov)

Judentransport aus Berlin. (Jew-transport from Berlin.)

keine Liquidierung (no liquidation)

Doesn't this just mean they arrested Jekelius, who they think might be a son of Molotov, i.e. the Soviet Foreign Minister, and since they knew he was on the transport and thus didn't want to liquidate the transport to keep him as a hostage?

I'm not sure it's allowed, but I just wanted to say thanks to the mod team of this sub.

It has to be a shit ton of thankless work, but you guys drive a sub that I like to see on my front page. It's always fascinating reading the in depth well thought out answers I see here, and I know that I can trust them to be based on real sources and not some political agenda.

So thanks.

At the risk of "nailing a pudding on the wall", my history professor once told us that the quickest and simplest argument against Holocaust denial is that no Nazis denied that it had taken place, even when on trial for their lives.

Is there any truth to this? Did some Nazis in 1945 or later try to say any of the deniers' points you have brought up?

Thank you for a very useful and well written post.

I would like somebody knowledgeable about the subject to debunk this as I never got a clear answer:

https://imgur.com/a/SvkB6

The claim is that one of the most famous holocaust photos is a manipulated image

NYtimes website has a link to the original article (although terrible quality) with the image without the man in the foreground.

https://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/archival/19450506notforget.pdf

Seen this come up before with holocaust revisionist talk. Claim being this shows that motivation existed for the government to fabricate holocaust evidence for various agendas.

What is "JAQing"?

Holocaust Deniers seek to remove this taint from the ideology of Nazism by distorting, ignoring, and misrepresenting historical fact and thereby make Nazism and Fascism socially acceptable again. In other words, Holocaust Denial is a form of political agitation in the service of bigotry, racism, and anti-Semitism.

and

So, what can we do?

Educate ourselves, educate others, and expose Holocaust Deniers as the racist, bigots and anti-Semites they are.

That seems like a pretty big generalization. While I think that many people (especially the "leaders") of the movement are definitely deserving of that description, I'm not sure if all of the adherents are. I think there's probably two types of Holocaust Deniers. First, you have the anti-Semitics who hate Jews and try to promote Nazi ideology. Then, I think you just have some people who like to believe in conspiracies. They're attracted to big events like the JFK assassination, the moon landing, and, of course, the Holocaust. Though one could argue that they are nonetheless inadvertently promoting the Nazi ideology, I don't think it's right to label them as racists just because they're misinformed and deny that the Holocaust happened.

I think the goal should be to inform these ignorant deniers by educating them about the facts. However, starting the conversation off by calling them racist and bigoted seems like a terrible way to go about it (if they really aren't racist or bigoted).

I have a very ignorant question....

I'm Chinese. Anyone not Chinese is just a "westerner" basically. The Holocaust was about white guys killing other white guys.

What is the origin of antisemitism? Why were they singled out? Why do denier people still want them dead? What's special about the Jewish people that attracts so much hate?

Sorry for asking such a shallow question here. I tried googling etc but this seems to be such a delicate subject that I routinely end up in denier sites or perspectives that take for granted the audience knows the attitude existed for centuries.

As far as red flags for Holocaust denial, you should consider adding the "documentary" series/website called Hitler: the Greatest Story Never Told. As you could imagine from the superlative in the title, it's a looong, multi-part video series with related social media presences presenting a Nazi re-writing of WWII.

I live in Europe, and have had someone recommend this to me during a conversation in which they revealed themselves as a Nazi, and I've also seen it shared in a couple other places, by people who claimed to find its conclusions compelling. It's clearly quite popular agit-prop in these circles, so it's a useful tell for identifying Nazi propaganda.

While we are on the subject... Could anyone tell me why the term holocaust doesn't include the murder of homosexuals, the disabled, slavics and various other groups?

Good evening/morning to all. I'd like to add my many thanks to /u/commiespaceinvader for this post.

I'd also like to ask a question, about David Irving. If I'm not mistaken Irvin's denialism was not as strong in the earliest of his career, but rather something that over time progressed and became more and more prominent to the point where, in the end, it (denialism) became what defined him and his work the most. The trial, of course, played an integral part to his reputation, by publicizing what was until then known only to professionals, but this reputation was founded on his work and the claims he made therein. This is an impression I got from reading Evans's work about the trial and I have not and do not intend to read any of Irvin's works on the matter (the holocaust). So, my question is, was there ever a point in time where David Irving was considered a good historian? Would you, any of you, recommend to me this or that book written by Irving as a good book? I'm asking because a friend of mine made the claim that Irving was, before the trial, considered a good historian and that his work is not to be disregarded. It is hard for me to believe that both statements can be true: i.e. that he can be a denialist and a good historian on subjects other than the holocaust.

Edit: changed Irvin to Irving and added a phrase.

/u/commiespaceinvader, am I remembering correctly that you're German? Could you comment on how the Holocaust is studied in Germany and the German laws on Holocaust denial? I'm curious if you've ever seen or felt a lack of academic freedom, for any reason; I remember a thread in which the op apologized for their question, in case it was taboo.

I hope you don't mind, but I submitted this to /r/bestof Very well-researched and eloquently written, thank you for this post.

You mention winner's justice as a red flag. I looked it up and it doesn't look like it's only a thing in the context of the Holocaust.

Is it always a red flag, or is it just used in some shady ways in this argument? Can you give an example?

Hello everyone. Just a few brief reminders about this thread:

• The Civility Rule is always in effect! Please keep that in mind and don't start throwing around insults and such, even as part of your characterization of Holocaust deniers. Please keep your private opinions of people with opposing views to yourself, as it doesn't add to the discussion.

• As made clear in the above post, this is a space where you can ask questions, even uncomfortable ones, in good faith, but we aren't giving a platform to hate-speech here, or anywhere else in the sub. So please also keep in mind that we will ban you for outright Holocaust denial, antisemitism, and/or Nazi apologia.

• Be mindful of the rules concerning modern politics. We will be removing comments/chains which veer away from the discussion of history and historiography and into current political issues.

Thanks, the Mods

Very well written post! Would it be possible to have a sticky post on American Slavery? Believe it or not, there's an erosion of understanding of the slave trade among the young people today. They're of the notion that "it wasn't as bad as the books say"- most troubling, as some mentioning this were African American. It would be nice to have a concise set of sources on the matter.

I think that even as a historian on the subject of the Second World War, that it is important to be critical and to want to understand the war better but to never fall into the trap of reducing the mental image of those crimes committed. It's very easy to fall into the trap of disensitizing yourself to the violence and horrors of the Nazi regime. Sometimes you cannot rationalize the irrational.

When I wrote my undergraduate thesis on the Nazi regime, I came to the conclusion that the regime was chaotic but had some controlling elements and figures. One in particular on the eve of war was Herr Ribbentrop whose "negotiating" efforts may have led directly to the conflict. Of course it is absolutely arguable that a war was eventually to come to pass but the direct events leading up to the beginning of combat operations was very sketchy. From allegations by a man named Groscurth or perhaps weizäcker that Ribbentrop threw away the negotiations over his own personal hatred of the British. That being said, there's a fine line between criticism and exploration of Nazi history and degrading simplification. Such as denying the evils of Hitler's in favor of a "he didn't do it" argument which is bullsh*t because while he was half crazy at the time, even he tried to rationalize German foreign policy decisions as being for the German people. Himmler wrote an interesting story about Hitler around the time when the Fuhrer was describing his methodology which was that he would wake up at random times of the night having suddlenly seen everything so clearly. The whole paper was far longer and far more complex in scale and analysis. However, one of its points that relates to the holocaust is that there was not just a locust of control within Hitler. He may have called many of the shots but the evil can be found in many people. To blame the dead guy for it all may reduce the crimes of all those who served him and even may have come up with some of the messed up stuff themselves. Also see Richard Breitman's work on the subject. I cannot recommend "architects of genocide" or a similarly titled book enough. The spelling may be slightly off on the title is all. Just google it.

It took place at the same time as other atrocities and crimes such as the Nazis targeting other groups on grounds of their perceived "inferiority", like the disabled and Slavs, and on grounds of their religion, ideology or behavior among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals.

Totally a terminology thing here, but is this saying that this systematic killing of non-jews is not considered part of "the Holocaust" but is under some other banner? Is the Holocaust referring strictly to the targeting of Jews?

Is saying that although 6 million jews died, there were more people who died who weren't jewish?

Can I get the approximate stats for each dead group?

EDIT: I'm not a Holocaust denier. I was just curious. Enough with the downvotes.

u/commiespaceinvader

I have a question for Historians about the people do not deny the holocaust, but simply challenge some of the methods used at certain camps at times. Let me start by saying I'm a leftist, and I have spent awhile studying history. Some people would not deny the holocaust, it's numbers, or the use of gas, however would argue the scale of say gassing or the original goal of moving them out of germany. Is this debatable? Does this have merit, and does this make you a holocaust denier? Because you're not denying the existence of the holocaust, or the horrible suffering of the Jewish population. They just believe that some things don't exactly add up for certain events I guess you call it? I'm starting to consider these ideas, and we often debate this. So, my question - Would this make them holocaust deniers, I'd believe not... and secondly, are some areas up for this debate? The consesus amongst peers is that the holocaust did happen, there was a lot of deaths and suffering, and it was just absolutely horrible. Thanks for the discussion!

I would argue that disallowing holocaust deniers a voice here furthers holocaust denial in general.

This is one of the very few places in the world that has the power to combat holocaust denial - a place where actual historians could debunk the main arguments. Instead, you have chosen to ban them because they are annoying.

The result is that when I hear one of their arguments, it can sound reasonable and plausible - I've never heard it debunked and due to policies like yours, I'm not likely to.

I understand that you don't want your sub to turn into a cesspool of ignorance, but there is no one else. You are the ones with the power to do this. You are like a recluse Superman - refusing to fight supervillains because you don't want that to be what your life is about.

When I hear young people express doubt about the holocaust and repeat a denial argument - it is because people like you haven't stood up. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

The power of history is behind you - not behind the deniers. They cannot possibly win this fight. I am not a historian, but even I can easily and conclusively debunk holocaust denial arguments. But I don't have the authority or the platform to affect change on any meaningful scale.

It is not true that you can't debate them. I have seen their faces when they are confronted with before and after census numbers... with personal testimony... with common sense arguments... it is very possible to educate deniers. But that's not my main point here. By engaging in debate with them, you will be equipping us with the knowledge needed to combat it in our lives and in society as a whole.

You have the power to put the easy answers out there. You have the ability to equip the average person with the knowledge needed. But this can only be done if you choose to fight. And you can only fight if you allow your opponents to enter your battlefield.

The choice is yours, Superman.

While I do support the rules relating to Holocaust denial and think this post is well written and provides a lot of good information. I do question the appropriateness of a moderator using a weekly post to attack a position that is not allowed to be discussed here and using inflammatory blanket statements about people who hold a differing view to his, regardless of the truth or untruth of those statements.

Also, I myself do not doubt the historical evidence that seems to overwhelmingly confirm our current consensus on the Holocaust.