Of Ahmadinejad and Holocaust Denial (updated)

Just a quick note about Holocaust denial in reference to the NYC appearance of one of the world's most famous Holocaust deniers, Mahmoud Gonadigonad. (Did I spell that right?)

I've seen some comments, here and elsewhere, that it's wrong to call Ahmadinejad a Holocaust denier; after all, he hasn't ever said "The Holocaust didn't happen," just that it may not have happened, or may have happened far differently than the way we think it did.

That's a good, reasonable-sounding two-second answer, which is why he uses it.

Thing is, though, that's also the two-second answer you'll get from every leading Holocaust denier in the world. You'll get it from David Irving, you'll get it from David Duke. It is their standard line of patter, and it's no coincidence that Ahmadinejad uses it as well.

The thing is, Holocaust denial isn't just about denying the Holocaust, it's also about being in denial about the Holocaust.

Holocaust deniers -- at least, the ones who are trying to appear at least partially rational rather than egg-suckingly nutbarian -- don't say, "The Holocaust never happened," because they know no one would buy such a straight-out lie.

Instead they use language games to try to spin the Holocaust out of its place in history, to minimize it, to strip it of context, to fence it in with equivocations, to push as much blame as possible away from the Nazis and onto the Jews. They say, "Sure, I believe the Holocaust happened; I just don't believe (a) Hitler ordered (b) a state-controlled genocidal program that killed (c) six million Jews and millions of others in (d) industrial-scale death camps using, among other methods, (e) homicidal gas chambers. Other than that, sure, I believe the Holocaust happened." To them, the Holocaust was nothing more than broken windows, Jews beaten in the streets, and the occasional regretable (but not too regretable) death.

It's part of a long tradition, feeding all the way back through movement leaders like Irving, Zündel, and Steady Freddy Leuchter back to the founders of the movement, people like Butz and Rassinier. They've had plenty of time to polish their patter.

Every one of those points a-e above has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt many times over. But there are those who remain -- willingly -- in denial, who look for some excuse not to believe it. This is the crowd Ahmadinejad is aiming his words at when he says, in a Der Speigel interview, "If the Holocaust happened..." as if there really were any "if," any real controversy about it. To wilfully ignore such overwhelming evidence is an act of denial. To respond by saying, "Hey, he never actually denied the Holocaust" is to be a useful idiot, hanging yourself with the rope he's given you.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.

SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.

In what bizarro world has the Holocaust not been studied enough to conclusively determine, not its every detail, but even its mere existence? Ahmadinejad's in denial.

Ahmadinejad's -- and Irving's, and Faurisson's, and every other person in that jackbooted mob's -- rejoinder is that the Holocaust should not be treated differently than other historical event when historians study it. That's another one of those well-polished two-second answers. The fact is, what they're really demanding is for the Holocaust to be treated far differently than other historical events, by suggesting that its extraordinarily well-documented, well-proven core should be treated as potentially illusory, or the product of some nefarious conspiracy of You Know Whos. It's like saying that historians of science documenting the Apollo project should start with the assumption that it's entirely possible that the moon landing didn't actually happen at all, and that Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins may all have flown to Pittsburgh, and -- pivotally -- that the Pittsburgh interpretation of the evidence deserves to be treated with the same respect as the Tranquility Bay interpretation.

The hell it does. It belongs in the same toilet as Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial.

But there's another facet of this that truly bothers me.

What's particularly unfortunate from the DKos point of view is that there are progressives out there who are so enraged by Bush's hatred of Ahmadinejad, and so appalled by the possibility that the Bush administration is trying to do with Iran what it previously did with Iraq -- drum up a war on false pretenses -- that they willingly defend this indefensible character, not only for what Bush lies about, but for everything. His genocidal rants get {edit:] airbrushed away. So does stuff like this in reaction to a rock concert. No, all that matters is that Bush hates him, and that alone is enough to make some progressives -- even, sadly, here -- reflexively give him the benefit of the doubt.

Update: So Ahmadinejad came and gave his little talk, and what do you know, still couldn't quite bring himself to say that the Holocaust happened. Same weaselry, different day:

And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not.

Same dude, same dodge, same woolly-minded defenders with the same wool pulled over their eyes.