Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, recently described Holocaust denial as people who have just gotten things wrong but not intentionally wrong.
After all, he asserted, “I [also] get things wrong.” But he won’t remove their posts from Facebook, “if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”
In the same interview, he points out that he himself is Jewish and he won’t ban Holocaust deniers, just as he has not banned the conspiracy site InfoWars.
While Zuckerberg later explained that he personally finds denial genuinely bad, about deniers, he has gotten some things about history’s best-documented genocide wrong, very wrong but what Zuckerberg fails to recognise, even though he insists this was not his intention, stating deniers aren’t intentionally getting stuff wrong, he leaves open the likelihood that they could be right.
For someone with Zuckerberg’s huge profile and stage, this is breathtakingly reckless. Holocaust denial relies on such a sturdy assortment of preposterous distortions that it is only possible to be a denier on purpose, as opposed to what Zuckerberg states, intentionally.
For deniers to be correct, who would have to be wrong? Survivors would have to be wrong, as well as spectators, those non-Jews who lived in the municipalities and communities in eastern and western Europe and watched their Jewish neighbours being marched away to be killed and shot in freshly excavated trenches in the woods.
The scores of historians who have scrutinised the Holocaust since 1945 would either have to be part of a huge collusion or have been totally deceived.
But, above all, the perpetrators, some of who have confessed their crime, would have to be wrong. How can deniers demonstrate that in not one war-crimes prosecution since the close of World War II has a perpetrator of any nationality denied that these incidents happened? They may have stated, “I was forced to kill,” But no one said that the killing did not occur.
Ultimately, why has Germany shouldered the immense moral and fiscal accountability for the atrocities perpetrated in the Holocaust, if it did not happen? According to deniers, there is a simple explanation to this enigma: German leaders were forced into a so-called confession of liability by the Jews, who threatened to block Germany’s re-entry into the family of nations.
But this, too, makes little sense. German officers knew that admitting to genocide would force upon the nation a horrific legacy that would become an integral component of its national identity. Why would a country take on such a historical responsibility if it was innocent, under any circumstances?
Besides, it’s now been 70 years since the close of the war and Germany is now a global political and economic leader. It could simply say now that it’s not true and that the Jews made us say this back in 1945. Instead, the German government built a huge monument in Berlin to the butchered Jews of Europe that opened in 2005.
Deniers rely on yet another piece of illogic. Often they demand to be shown Hitler’s signed order sanctioning the death of all of Europe’s Jews. In all probability, there is none. Hitler understood the stupidity of appending his name to such an order, which, had it become public, might have caused him numerous difficulties.
More important, historians are untroubled by the lack of such a document. They never rest their conclusions on one document, especially in this case, when there is a huge stockpile of data attesting to a government-directed program of mass annihilation.
Deniers, of course, insist that the Jews have forged these documents. But if that were the case, why didn’t they also forge the Hitler order?
The list of absurd debates goes on. Deniers contend that had the Third Reich, a regime they describe as the embodiment of power, wished to kill all the Jews, it would have guaranteed that no witnesses remained alive to testify about the death camps.
Therefore, the fact that there were survivors alive at the war’s end establishes evidence that there was no genocide and that the survivors’ statements are hogwash. The fraudulent nature of this reasoning is self-evident.
The Third Reich was further intent on winning the war, which it did not do. Therefore, the theory that the Third Reich succeeded at all it set out to do is misleading and anything based on that assumption is equally misleading.
Deniers are a new kind of neo-Nazi. Unlike earlier generations of neo-Nazis, people who observed Hitler’s birthday wore SS-like uniforms and draped swastikas at gatherings where they would give the Sieg Heil salutation, this following shuns all that.
Wolves in sheep’s clothing, they don’t bother with the physical trappings of Nazism, salutations, songs, and flags, but declare themselves revisionists, serious students who really wanted to correct mistakes in the historical record.
This is extremism acting as rational discourse. And his comments imply that Zuckerberg has been deceived by them into believing that they’re any different than someone who contemptuously bears a swastika.
People usually differentiate between facts and opinions as the saying goes, you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. But in the case of deniers, there are facts, views, and falsifications, but Holocaust denial is not about history, it’s a kind of antisemitism, it’s about attacking, undermining, and demonizing Jews.
The deniers’ allegations, that the Jews planted evidence, and got German prisoners of war to dishonestly confess to crimes, and forced post-war Germany to shoulder a huge financial and moral responsibility are asserted on the idea of the mythological control of the Jews, which was widespread enough to achieve this immense collusion.
These contentions rely on typical antisemitic analogies, some of which are over 2,000 years old.
Deniers, who today apparently feel braver than ever before, are not the equivalents of flat-earth theorists, nor are they simply everyday crazies. As a person who built and implements a stage for the propagation of information on a grand scale, Zuckerberg must understand that theirs is not a cognitive mistake or an unfortunate error or omission in judgment that can be corrected by showing them documentation or proof.
They’re white supremacists and antisemites. Their plan is to strengthen and expand the real abomination that spawned the Holocaust.
Zuckerberg is like a spoilt teenager and Facebook has suffered critique over the way the stage can elaborate fake news and has been involved in an advertising attack both on and offline, and bogus news is not your friend.
Zuckerberg should be ashamed of himself, the Holocaust was quite real but there will always be some antisemitic spawn that will say otherwise, and there will always be distortions and misinformation.
Holocaust denial is profoundly offensive and a real Jew would never support it.
Sadly, sometimes what you’re told is fiction and sometimes what you think is fiction is really the truth, but seemingly Mark Zuckerberg is under the impression there’s some good faith debate going on over whether the Holocaust occurred.
And reading a diversity of sources with varying points of view and with various political leaning will eventually give you the ability to see what is correct and what is propaganda and because of his financial powers, he simply does a bit of fiddling without understanding how this stuff could spark insane people to firebomb synagogues, mosques and churches.
No one wakes up one morning and starts denying genocide and Holocaust deniers themselves know they’re involved in a longer-term propaganda battle. They don’t have to sell the whopping lie up front, they set the tiniest seed of doubt and then water it later.
Facebook should be removing misinformation that could later lead to people being physically hurt and this trickle of denial is the nucleus to a strategy of restoring and legitimising Nazism as a philosophy towards their aim of swaying people over to their agenda of anti-semitism, prejudice and hate.
To be able to spread that hatred and to brainwash people, they use and abuse platforms like Facebook and Twitter that give them that opportunity and in Myanmar, also known as Burma, Facebook has been cited by UN investigators of promoting brutality against Rohingya Muslims by allowing anti-Muslim hate speech and false news.
And Mark Zuckerberg is playing directly into deniers’ hands and giving them a voice is playing a game where they make the rules.
It is no accident that deniers have been embraced with open arms in the post-truth alt-right community. Deniers depend on the deformity of historical evidence and downright inaccuracies. They cry out Free speech and Open discussion when it’s caught.
There are no if or buts, holocaust denial is a wicked campaign to stoke hate and destruction and internet communities must stop this at the first word, the last word or any word that hints at denial.
We’re always hearing about death rates in Auschwitz, it’s always about numbers, the 17 million murdered by Nazi oppression. What about Mengele’s experiments and that modern medicine profited from those experiments. Deniers always want us thinking about numbers and not the methodical extermination of people.
And then there’s the scattered approach that blasts an audience with an infinite deluge of propaganda and deniers only need people to believe both sides have enough merit to be at the table.
As for the deniers, even with the evidence against them, deniers keep bootlegging their false agenda. They misunderstand counter debates, disregard what they can’t debate and twirl out inaccuracies and they drag on the conversation so that as many people as possible will read it.
They don’t need to make a single historically valid point, they simply need people to believe they could and to stop deniers we must remove their posts and prevent them from posting at all because the only way to fight a denier is to deny their voice at all.
We must not give deniers a voice because Holocaust denial is bad history, founded on hate and aimed at the brutality, and to give it a voice is to jeopardise the future.