Why has a tiny ad on The Badger Herald site linking to a Holocaust denial website generated such fervor? This barely noticeable ad drew a flurry of seething comments, editorials, panel discussions, a letter from the Chancellor and a fumbling half-apology from the Herald’s Board of Directors.
Many evaluated the ad as a threat and a blow to the Jewish community and claimed that running the ad sanctioned evil. Was it their Jewish-ness or lack thereof that determined people’s response, as some suggested? Or was it their “sensitivity to the long-term intergeneration effects of trauma,” as the Chancellor suggested?
To understand this issue we need to examine not people’s nationality or their ancestors’ trauma, but the ideas informing their evaluations and reactions.
Certainly this issue is not about the historical facts of the Holocaust. If Holocaust denial actually involved destructive ideas, such as communism or Christianity, a rational evaluation would demand taking seriously the threatening ideas and working to demolish them through argumentation and debate. Holocaust deniers would be invited to debate the issue, and analysis of conflicting views would be presented in newspaper columns and editorials. Evaluated this way, there would be calls for more exposure of the offending ideas, not less.
If, on the other hand, Holocaust denial is non-intellectual in nature — if it’s the inane spewing of hatred by a small cadre of psychologically disturbed individuals — then there are no ideas to refute and no possibility of rational discussion. Accordingly, the proper response would be to ignore them.
Neither of these evaluations would lead to the kinds of responses witnessed in the past weeks. Many denounced the Holocaust deniers as raving idiots motivated by hate and bigotry, and then proceeded to detail facts and figures from the Nazi atrocities. The Chancellor provided an extensive list of reading materials and called on students to learn about the Holocaust.
But such appeals were really just gratuitous attempts to treat the issue as an intellectual one and assuage those who were upset by the ad. By their own admission, the facts of history are not in dispute; there are no competing arguments, and Holocaust deniers are just a bunch of crazies.
So it was not the idea of Holocaust denial, which is clearly vacuous in nature, which prompted denunciations of the Herald’s publication of the ad; people were responding to the mindless ranting of emotionally disturbed individuals. Why was this hatred and psychological depravity not regarded as impotent nonsense and ignored? Why did so many regard it as a threat?
In large part it depends on one’s view of the relationship between ideas and emotions in moving the world, of which the Holocaust is a prime example.
Fundamentally, it was not the evil leaders of the Nazi party, nor hatred, fear or prejudice against the Jews that lead to the Holocaust; it was basic ideas — ideas taught in German universities and widely accepted throughout the culture.
Adolf Hitler was explicit in advocating his platform and got elected by promoting ideas that resonated with the German people. In the years preceding the rise of Nazism, the culture had accepted the idea that sacrifice is noble and that individuals existed to serve the nation, race or common good. They had accepted the idea that individuals are impotent to run their own lives and must surrender their judgments to authority.
The Nazi monsters responsible for the mass slaughter of millions could not have risen to power without the moral and intellectual sanction of the universities and wider culture. Nazism would have been impossible in America, for example, where an individual’s right to pursue his own life and happiness was valued and protected from the whims of any collective or cause.
Unfortunately, our culture is slowly losing many of its founding ideals and adopting those closer to pre-Nazi Germany. We are inundated with calls for sacrifice and are increasingly willing to surrender our own judgment to authority, be it deciding to buy insurance, save for retirement or eat a trans-fat French fry. Instead of engaging over the merits and consequences of basic principles, emotions of hate and fear are elevated in importance while the basic ideas underlying those emotions get brushed aside.
Our culture will not succumb to the likes of Holocaust deniers because of hate mongering, emotional rants or the denial of obvious historic facts. If it happens, it will be because of our failure to understand the fundamental ideas openly promoted and accepted in our culture.
What should engage and inspire us to action are not the dark emotions of a few psychologically deranged Holocaust deniers, but the basic ideas animating a culture like pre-Nazi Germany or America. The similarity should give one pause.
Jim Allard ([email protected]) is a graduate student in biological sciences.






IP hash: f3c36783
Although this was the best article on the issue so far the real answers are
A) People who were offended solely because the ad existed
which no one really claimed to be
B) People who thought the ad was awesome, pretty much just anti-semites
C) People who didn’t think the ad mattered until they thought UW students were anti-semites even though all the anti0semite comments were probably already from Holocaust deniers since its an open website
most of the comments
D) People who realized the offensive comments were from holocaust denier anti-semites assholes
The sensible people
IP hash: b170cda7
Yes Jim, Jefferson did not talk about sacrifice. Lincoln did not talk about sacrifice. Kennedy did not talk about sacrifice. Bush did not talk about sacrifice…
IP hash: f151ec33
Jefferson: God no!
Lincoln: I doubt it.
Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” Straight-up nationalism.
One must “weight his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good.”
Bush: “American’s know how to sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.” “We must seek a common good beyond our comfort.”
Obama: We must heed the “call to sacrifice” and “be unified in service to a greater good.”
We must “reaffirm that fundamental belief - I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper - that makes us one people, and one nation.”
Hitler: “Subordinate the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community.” It’s “only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men” that counts.
Mussolini: “Society is the end, individuals the means and [government’s] whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.”
John Dewey: We should be “saturating [students] with the spirit of service.”
IP hash: b170cda7
Wow, Jim, to deny that our founders did not believe in sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, for the greater good, is just to deny history:
Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots…”
George Washington: “It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to it”
Abraham Lincoln: “To ease another’s heartarche is to forget one’s own.”
Albert Pike: “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Lincoln: Let us at all times remember that all American citizens are brothers of a common country, and should dwell together in the bonds of fraternal feeling”
Lincoln: ” appeal to you again to constantly bear in mind that with you, and not with politicians, not with Presidents, not with office-seekers, but with you, is the question, “Shall the Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generation?”
Lincoln: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in”
And Lincoln’s most well known call that Americans have a DUTY to the collective:
“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced”
IP hash: f151ec33
The Founders were not fighting for “the greater good,” they were fighting for their own liberty.
It is not a sacrifice to risk one’s life defending one’s ability to live it. Patrick Henry said it best: “Give me liberty or give me death.”
IP hash: 10af21e9
As a holocaust survivor, I think there is much that needs to be discussed when it comes to the holocaust.
The idea that those who question the holocaust are hate mongers is hollow. The man who was most feared in the 1930’s and 1940’s was Stalin.
During the war, the greatest universal fear people had was to be captured by the Russians. Not one solider feared capture by Germany as it meant safe surroundings and fair treatment.
I see most of today’s education as little more than ideology dressed up as scholarship.
IP hash: 6ee7f1f4
slow clap
IP hash: 5f9ab0db
This article - while close to meaningless in its trite and plodding narrative - is also fun to read because of its insistence on examining the substance and merits of arguments, a mindset that will certainly keep Libertarianism from being anything but an amusing hobby-ideology of the neurotic and privileged.
IP hash: 67588e1c
Holocaust denial is only one manifestation of the paranoic style. 9/11 denialism (aka, Truther conspiracism) is also seriously entertained in wacademia. It is this undercurrent of legitimating the illegitimate that responsible academics must guard against. Instead, Leftists in academia entertain (even advocate for) such absurd nonsense as worthy of consideration.
There is also great danger that these lunatic ideas gain substantive footholds in the international popular psyche. The anti-Americanism such ideas engender is not unrelated to the anti-Semitism rampant in the Third World and much of Europe— with similarly deadly consequences.
BH must be condemned for cloaking hate-mongering lunacy in the guise of legitimate academic inquiry.
See also Penn & Teller “9/11 Conspiracy Theories” VIDEO @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
IP hash: 86828e84
If the world was not so full of false flag operations gone awry, there would not be so much chatter of conspiracy plans. The attempted bombing of American and British diplomatic offices in Cairo in 1954 was designed to place blame on arabs. It was a Mossad operation, that left behind lots of evidence pointing to arabs as the bombers. ( same MO as 911) The fact is, the plotters were caught as their bombs went off premature. We can say the same for the USS Liberty incident in 1967. The fact remains there was Nano Thermite found in the dust particles of 9/11, so the question an American patriot needs to ask is how did it get there and who planted it in the buildings. The 911 questions will not end as there are too many unanswered questions. Will it soon be against the law to ask questions of the 911 events as it is illegal, in many nations, to doubt the holocaust, despite the fact there is no evidence to support the killing of 6,000,000 Jews. Saying there is a mountain of evidence is shameful when there is none, and none is ever offered.
People who have something to hide will always act to silence debate.
Credible people are not going to be kept silence. This scholar is just one of many who is going public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXCa6S09Ycs
IP hash: 7e8aa11b
From the article: “Fundamentally, it was not the evil leaders of the Nazi party, nor hatred, fear or prejudice against the Jews that lead to the Holocaust; it was basic ideas � ideas taught in German universities and widely accepted throughout the culture.”
To equate the stirring of nationalist and xenophobic sentiment into a fascist invasion of an entire continent and genocide with whatever demons you think lurk within American liberalism is just too much, Jim. I really doubt college kids will be burning copies of The Fountainhead while chanting “heil Obama” followed by a purge of the college republicans.
IP hash: 40756cde
Seems that Madison has missed current research that backs Revisionists like Mr. Smith.
For example, the Auschwitz State Museum is calling for “Changes in the history textbooks?” relative to the huge drop in the number of Majdanek victims.
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=8
At Nuremberg, it was alleged 1.4 million people were killed at Majdanek. The figure has drifted down over the years but was usually quoted at 360,000. The new official figure is 78,000. Still a horrible number but a fraction of the Nuremberg figure. The “Denier” figure given in the 1990’s by Jurgen Graf and Carlo Mattagno was 40,800 deaths without counting executions and based on partial records. Seems like the Deniers were right!