story in Time.
In some ways, i'm about to defend Holocaust deniers. First of all, Holocaust deniers do not deny that the Holocaust actually occurred, but rather that the amount of Jews that were killed by the Nazi were in reality much lower than the 6 million figure tossed about, and that the Jews were not specifically targeted because they were Jews.
Now, as a matter of sheer historical record, they are very likely incorrect. Although there are exceptions,
the vast majority of professional historians agree with the 6 million figure and the deliberate targeting of Jews.
But the more pressing and intersting question is what is sooooooooooo wrong with denying the Holocaust? It does little to justify the Third Riech, which could easily be condemned on pure warmongering alone. Also, challenging historical othrodoxy is an act many people have made a career out of. This has been supported by the rise of postmodernism and skepticism, which has demonstrated that there are no hard and fast historical facts, and that everything has room for interpretation.
Denying the Holocaust seems to me to be no more immoral or intellectually irresponsible than denying the following: the massacre of Amerindians, the slaughter of all those peoples under colonial rule, the fabrication of the justification of the Spanish-American war, or the overthrow of democratically elected Presidents in Latin America, by the United States, and the subsequent installation of brutal military dictators.
After all, don't we all wish the Holocaust deniers were right? Or am I missing something?