Following the recent relaunch of shoa.de I got a complaint via e-mail; it stated that, since the site does not feature any articles that “doubt the holocaust” we fail to provide “the other side of the argument” and thus are a biased (and therefore, it was implied, an unreliable) source.
There are indeed multiple sides to many issues regarding the holocaust. For example there is a debate between the “intentionalists”, who say that the Nazis planned to exterminate the jews from the beginning (especially since the Nazis used words like “extermination” from the very start) and “functionalists” who say that the annihilation of the european jews was the culmination of process that evolved as the “Third Reich” plodded along. What makes these interpretations legitimate sides of a debates is that they are brought forth by reputable scholars who draw different conclusions from all of the available evidence.
People who right out deny the holocaust do not. They ignore evidence that does not suit their purpose, distort it, or make up their own ‘evidence’. In this case the argument has still two sides, but one is the truth and the other is lies; to suggest that holocaust denial should be entitled to equal air time means to suggest that it is just as important to spread lies as it is to tell the truth.
To which I say, bollocks. I cannot stop anyone from lying, but as far as I have a say in this holocaust deniers will have to lie at their own expense. No law about free spech and no rule of fairness compels us to devote what little ressources we have to publish the lies we’ve set out to refute in the first place.
Comments are closed.