Skip to main content

Holocaust Denying Asshats I

Image result for holocaust museum

The history section of Yahoo!Answers has been overrun by holocaust deniers. Once in awhile I rise to their bait, but I've tried to limit those occasions. 

A recent example: some genius asked, "Was Hitler really that bad?" Below this, his graf of explanation for the question starts thus: "Sure he supposedly killed 6 million jews (the number keeps going up) but...." you get the idea so I'll stop there!

I'll also reproduce my answer here, because it's easier than writing something new for today, and because these holocaust-denying asshats often say crap like the bit in that parenthesis.

Yes. That monosyllable answers your headline question adequately. As to the other stuff, I'll comment on the number 6 million and your statement that the number "keeps going up." It doesn't. Scholarly consensus had formed at 6 million by about the mid seventies and has stayed there. 

You are discussing a large and complicated historical event taking place over a lot of terrain, so it isn't surprising that the consensus number took as long as it did to gel.  What is important is that it hasn't "gone" anywhere since the mid 1970s. It has stayed at 6 million. Why? Well, perhaps for the same reason that the consensus number for the average distance between earth and moon stays at 384 million meters. Although it took the human race awhile to figure that out, once it was figured out, the number has stayed the same because the reality has.

----

I alluded to the mid 1970s there because I had in mind Lucy Dawidowicz' book on the subject, THE WAR AGAINST THE JEWS (1975). She offers the precise figure of 5,933,900. The rounding-up was natural. The figure of 6 million had remained canonical among non-asshats ever since.

Yes, there is also some talk of an "11 million" in some circles. That is employed by scholars who include the mass murder of certain non-Jews under the broad heading "Holocaust." The death of 6 million Jews is then included in that broader figure -- it isn't evidence that "the number keeps going up." Saying so is just a wilful confusion of two different numbers.

And yes, before Dawidowicz' publication date there was some uncertainty over how many millions were involved.  For example, in THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN JEWS (1961) Raul Hilberg gives the figure was 5.1 million. Arendt repeats that number in her book on the Eichmann trial. But this simply confirms the earth-to-moon analogy in my Yahoo answer.

Thanks for listening!  I expect to say something more about this sort of asshattery tomorrow.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

Philippa Gregory

My recent reading includes large helpings of Philippa Gregory's latest, THREE SISTERS, THREE QUEENS (2016), another of her fictionalized takes on love and betrayal among the royals of Renaissance Europe.

In this book, the focus is on the early Tudor dynasty, and especially on Margaret Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VII, founder thereof, and the older sister of the future Henry VIII. Margaret became Queen of Scotland with an arranged marriage to James IV. She reigned and ruled under the title of Dowager Queen after James' death at the Battle of Flodden in 1513.

So who, you ask, were the other two sisters of the novel's title? One is Margaret's blood sister, Mary Tudor, who was known as one of the great beauties of the age. Mary was the inspiration for the name her brother Henry gave to his older daughter. More important for Gregory's story, she wed the King of France (Louis XII) in 1514, and Anne Boleyn served as her maid of honor at that ceremony.

The third &…