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

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …