Holocaust Denier

I have not been checking out the mailing list that i am subscribing. Last night when i checked it again, i stumbled upon one posting which infuriated me. It was about holocaust. This guy has a doubt that the figure of 6 millions Jews killed is exaggerated but admitted if holocaust did happen. Once i perused his writing, i began to sense his anti-Semitic tone. To support his argument, he quoted some revisionist historians such as Bradley R. Smith and a German-born who is now living in Adelaide, Fredrick Toben.

It is absolutely fine if one calls into question the approximate number of victims killed in Auschwitz. However, the doubt shall not be followed by an analysis which suggests that exaggeration was intentionally made in order to favour Jews interest in the entire world. As far as i know, identifying victims is one of the most difficult task even though it is carried out soon after the conflict ceased. As in Jews case, who can give an accurate data about all the victims. No one can have a definite answer to that question. Although Nazi used census data to register all Jews before deporting them to the camp, killings of unregistered Jews during that process is highly likely to happen. It could also be possible to imagine that not all Jews' identities were successfully recorded.

The estimations of victims range from 1.5 millions to 6 millions. Using different sources is the reason why the numbers differ vastly.

Discussion on the list not only focused on the number but went on to other topics such as whether Hitler has planned the killings or not, gas chamber, anti-defamation law and so on. In this mailing list people are likely to stick their necks up and try to make stupid remarks even though they know little about what they are saying.

But what really gets up my nose is the obsession with the number of victims. What matters to you or anyone else if one research suggests that the actual number is 50.000? Does it mean what happened then was not a big deal in human history? Or sympathy is worth more than 50.000 innocent people?

At the end of 2006, a conference was set up in Iran which aimed at challenging the fact about holocaust. The Iranian president's remark on the truth of holocaust sparked outrages around the globe. Holocaust was a fabricated tale which is used by Jews to build the Israel state. His remark showed how his historical understanding is very poor. Many evidence revealed that the Shoah indeed took place.

Early this year, German proposed EU to draft law which proscribe defamation against Jews. In this case, holocaust deniers would get stiff sentences. Some said that this idea will make the civil rights to speak freely at peril. Freedom of speech is kind of shield that is often used by holocaust deniers. David Irving once used the right to express opinion without fear which is guaranteed by any countries that promotes civil liberties. But it is hard to draw a clear line between expressing opinion which is protected by law and defamation towards a certain group. If one questions as to whether genocide is an appropriate term to describe what happened in Rwanda or Bosnia, should we drag this person to gaol for vilification even though the question is raised purely based on inquisitive feeling?

Interestingly, Deborah Lipstadt, a historian who won her case against David Irving opposed to the idea of proscribing holocaust denial. She is the heroine in history wars regarding the holocaust. Her book was a fierce attack against holocaust deniers but she disagree with the idea of giving harsh punishment to deniers. She has three reasons why she rejects this kind of law. First, the free speech is supposed to be protected by law. Secondly the law will boost up the popularity of holocaust deniers and turn them into martyr. Last thing, "such laws suggest that we don’t have the history, the documentation, the evidence to make the case for the Holocaust having happened. They suggest we don’t trust the truth. But we do have the evidence, and we should keep on developing it and deepening it, and we should trust it".

I agree with Lipstadt assessment. I believe in free speech and throughout human history, many lives have gone to fight over this basic right. Yet i am also aware that some people would try relentlessly to 'rectify' historical events with their ideological baggage. They may not have noble dreams of enriching our knowledge of historical understanding.

Disagreement in the historical debates is not something bad since history is a never ending dialog. But such dialog should acknowledge its rule, especially the rule of honesty.