How reliable are sources documenting the Holocaust? (And other reasons free speech is important)

I cant legally deny the holocaust in my country, not that I am much interested in denying holocaust anyway. But once free speech dies, you pretty much get a dumber society. Dumb people prefer safety over freedom, and long term they lose both. Safety is for the weak, and safety is illusion. Society full of debates and free speech will always rise far above society where the only thing you can do is agree with government. I can logically deduce why free speech is a logical right. Opponents of free speech cant even make framework about who gets to decide what speech is too harmful to be allowed.

Trump is suing free speech in news media. But there is little control over his public demented ramblings.

Hmmmm.

How many dead people does it take to make holocaust?

Well a holocaust is and "The Holocaust" is nominally a mid 20th century social and political sub-event of WW2, generally centred around Jewish peoples living within the rapidly expanding German sphere of control of the European continent...There were other WW2 sub-events that could also be rightly referred to as holocaustic...The nuclear holocaust in Japan is an obvious example...Though when is a World War not a holocaust, in fact when is any war not a holocaust....Hmmmmm, thinking about it, when isn't human inspired annihilations of other humans not a holocaust...So how many dead people does it take to make a holocaust?...And why is one particular holocaust so much more special than all others, so much so that it becomes "The Holocaust"...In fact, there were approximately 25 million Soviet deaths during WW2, perhaps that is more deserving of the title "The Holocaust"...Beats the other one by approximately 20 million.

How many dead people does it take to make holocaust?

The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945

. Driven by racist ideology, the Nazis targeted Jews for total annihilation, alongside millions of others including Roma, people with disabilities, Poles, Soviet POWs, and political dissidents.

While the term "holocaust" has sometimes been used to describe other genocide events, in historical context, "The Holocaust" specifically denotes the genocide of European Jews during World War II.

A. Holocaust

B. The Holocaust

One refers to the above and the other is a general term for mass slaughter.

B. is a specific derivative of A. and gives one holocaust special status...Even though A was only a sub-holocaust of a greater holocaust that claimed approximately 80 million lives.

Are we therefore being told that that of the greater 80 million holocaust victims only 6 million were of any significance.

A 2025 survey found that 49% of American adults and 44% of French and German adults reported Holocaust denial as being common in their countries.

https://www.claimscon.org/country-survey/

Given that the average German community is far more likely than its average American counterpart (especially given that the Holocaust happened disproportionately in Eastern Europe, with most of the major camps being liberated by the Soviets rather than the Americans) to have Holocaust survivors or witnesses living among them, or at least people who had the chance to interact with said survivors/witnesses while such were still alive, 5% is an astonishingly narrow gap.

This could be a case of heightened sensitivity to Holocaust denial among Europeans, as people who perceive that something is a problem are likely to perceive it as a pervasive one, but if we take these results at face value then it suggests criminalizing Holocaust denial doesn't actually correlate to less widespread disbelief in the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is one of the most well documented and widely testified events in history, no rational person without an agenda of antisemitic prejudice could reasonably deny, or even question, the veracity of the evidence.  Much like the situation with flat earther’s, there is no logical reason to discuss the referenced facts, it’s an exercise in gullible stupidity to debate whether or not the Eart is flat, when the question comes up, the inquiry necessarily turns to the psychology and associated motivations of the individual.  There simply isn’t a sincere questioning of the facts of the holocaust at work, there is only an agenda. 

There is nothing to be learned from a discussion about the “reliability of the evidence”, the discussion unavoidably becomes “why” do you question the reliability of the evidence, in the end, the only relevant question is “what is your agenda”?  

“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Documenting History: Eisenhower and the Holocaust (U.S. National Park Service)

Dwight D. Eisenhower Took Extra Measures to Ensure the Holocaust Was Never Forgotten | War History Online

Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust - Wikipedia

What a good excuse to destroy free speech, by saying that your opinion cannot be challenged because you say so.

What a good excuse to destroy free speech, by saying that your opinion cannot be challenged because you say so.

I have a right to express my opinion; you should stop trying to destroy free speech.

The Holocaust is one of the most well documented and widely testified events in history

Believing this depends on trusting the sources saying it's true. Most people aren't going to go around interviewing all Holocaust survivors. The issue isn't the primary sources and evidence, it's the secondary sources claiming the evidence exists and is so abundant. I trust those sources, but only because people are allowed to challenge them and they can withstand scrutiny.

There is nothing to be learned from a discussion about the “reliability of the evidence”, the discussion unavoidably becomes “why” do you question the reliability of the evidence, in the end, the only relevant question is “what is your agenda”?

The fact that no discussion is being had makes the evidence less reliable. Claims of evidence and documentation can be fabricated. An organization could pay a dozen people to claim they are experts who thoroughly studied the issue and then lie about it. For experts to be reliable, I have to believe there is a cost to lying (i.e. that people would be able to call them out).

“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

There are plenty of fake quotes on the internet. This one is real, but the point is that your argument here isn't using primary evidence, it's using secondary and tertiary sources talking about the evidence. I have to trust those before I can consider the evidence, and free speech is important for that.

I have a right to express my opinion; you should stop trying to destroy free speech.

I don't think Lucy was saying you don't have a right to your opinion, just saying they disagreed with it.

I have a right to express my opinion; you should stop trying to destroy free speech.

I don't think Lucy was saying you don't have a right to your opinion, just saying they disagreed with it.

Of course he was, typically attacking an opposing opinion with the accusation of "destroying free speech", that's his MO. What he said in response to my post was "What a good excuse to destroy free speech, by saying that your opinion cannot be challenged because you say so".

I said nothing even close to that deliberate misrepresentation, I gave my opinion and I expect it to be challenged, and Lucy’s lame ass tactic of claiming I am “destroying free speech” by having an opinion that disagrees with him, is both dishonest and illogical.

Please show me where I said, or even vaguely implied, that “my opinion cannot be challenged because I say so”, you can’t, because it is a stupid lie, a stereotypical and childish attempt to discredit an opposing point of view.

The Holocaust is one of the most well documented and widely testified events in history

Believing this depends on trusting the sources saying it's true. Most people aren't going to go around interviewing all Holocaust survivors. The issue isn't the primary sources and evidence, it's the secondary sources claiming the evidence exists and is so abundant. I trust those sources, but only because people are allowed to challenge them and they can withstand scrutiny.

Yeah yeah, and believing the Earth is not flat depends on trusting the sources saying it isn’t. Most people aren’t going to go around interviewing astronauts, The issue isn’t the primary sources and evidence, it’s the secondary sources claiming the evidence exists and is so abundant. Blah blah blah.

We have all seen this argument hundreds of times, it’s an argument that fits any agenda, and it’s always presented as something new and to the point, if you think “conspiracy” is new, or in any way constitutes a valid argument, you are totally out of touch with the real world.

Free speech is not an absolute right, there are contextual limitations, and a responsibility for consequences. There are moral and legal restrictions regarding obscenity, threats, fraud and misrepresentation, defamation, and incitement to violence. If Germany legally restricts holocaust denial, it’s because in context, they have seen the violence that the antisemitic agenda can produce, ISIS recruitment is illegal in many countries, there is good reason for that too, RemyJones’ advocating rape and violence against women has consequences, SatanLucy advocating pedophilia has consequences, they need to be held accountable, and “freedom of speech” is not an absolute right, it’s not a justification, and it’s not a tactic for silencing disapproval or opposition.

There is nothing to be learned from a discussion about the “reliability of the evidence”, the discussion unavoidably becomes “why” do you question the reliability of the evidence, in the end, the only relevant question is “what is your agenda”?

The fact that no discussion is being had makes the evidence less reliable. Claims of evidence and documentation can be fabricated. An organization could pay a dozen people to claim they are experts who thoroughly studied the issue and then lie about it. For experts to be reliable, I have to believe there is a cost to lying (i.e. that people would be able to call them out).

The fact that you mix “conspiracy” with the huge lie that “no discussion is being had” about one of the internet’s most virally discussed topics is absurd, I really don’t think there is anyone here dumb enough to actually buy that slop, sure, it works with those who share the agenda, but so what. That isn’t an argument, it’s just a tired old tactic.

“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

There are plenty of fake quotes on the internet.

There is plenty of holocaust denial on the internet too, and a mountain of discussion about the evidence, and of course antisemitism is invested in denying that reality, but again, that is a matter of agenda, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts.

This one is real, but the point is that your argument here isn't using primary evidence, it's using secondary and tertiary sources talking about the evidence. I have to trust those before I can consider the evidence, and free speech is important for that.

Yes, free speech is important to antisemitism, along with fascism, pedophilia, racism, misogyny, ISIS recruitment, etc. Many in these groups see free speech as a tool that can be used to suppress dissent.   I have a right to express my disapproval of these things, and despite the incessant accusations that disapproval amounts to suppression of free speech, no it doesn’t. that is simply a tactic of those with an agenda. I don’t disapprove of free speech, I disapprove of antisemitism, and I will continue to exercise my right to free speech no matter how many times people try to use “free speech” as a weapon to silence that opposition.

We revel in holocausts and mass slaughter and the sexual frisson of other people's pain, anguish and destruction...Yet we pretend not to.

We whoop in awe as the missile strikes, like kiddies at a fireworks display and we wail like banshees when it's our own...And then we move on.

We glorify it in blockbusters, entertained not by peace and tranquillity, but by the exaggerated violence of our own righteousness...It's how we educate our kiddies.

If we didn't enjoy it, then why do we continue to do it, year upon year?

And in the mid 20th century 80 million plus perished...This was what?...Just twenty years after the holocaust to end all holocausts that claimed 20 million plus...Obviously not enough.

And the Jews soon forgot, and the Americans soon forgot, and the Russians soon forgot, and the British soon forgot...We're addicted, we need our fix...Just blame it on the others and redesign the killing equipment...Needs to bigger, better and more effective.

Hey...There's 8.3 billion of us...Gotta do something to ease the boredom of existence...Perhaps it's time to go for the biggy...Let's see if we can top a billion...Just think of all the benefits to the post holocaust media and film industry...Not to mention all the reconstruction work to occupy idle minds...And monuments all those monuments, lest we forget all the fun that we had.

Perhaps this is a more accurate version of things.

Jean Beaudrillard, is that you?

We revel in holocausts and mass slaughter and the sexual frisson of other people's pain, anguish and destruction...Yet we pretend not to.

Yes, people have strong urge to hurt and harm others. We see this during wars, where once "normal and peaceful people" begin justifying war crimes or not even caring for them, defending war criminals, even committing crimes themselves.

there is a reason why people like fighting sports, violence, violent porn, humiliation of others during talking, trying to make others feel worse, throwing insults everywhere....

Its not because people like peace. No, people hate peace, and they hate each other. Peace is only temporary pause before fighting starts again.

the reality is, people cant wait for another excuse to start a war. thats why they jump into war with even the weakest excuses.

Its that secret desire to watch the world burn, which exists in hearts of people.

No one really cares for anyone's suffering. those are just masks, which drop any time war or fight starts, and the true faces are revealed.

A man is not what he is, during peace. He is what he is when more difficult conditions appear, or conditions where he has more power. true nature of man is shown during war, during suffering, when having power to do harm doesnt carry consequences like it used to.

Of course he was, typically attacking an opposing opinion with the accusation of "destroying free speech"

Please show me where I said, or even vaguely implied, that “my opinion cannot be challenged because I say so”

SatanLucy wasn't saying you personally were destroying free speech, he was saying you were providing an excuse to destroy free speech.

Yeah yeah, and believing the Earth is not flat depends on trusting the sources saying it isn’t. Most people aren’t going to go around interviewing astronauts, The issue isn’t the primary sources and evidence, it’s the secondary sources claiming the evidence exists and is so abundant. Blah blah blah.

This is true mostly. With the Earth it's a little different from the Holocaust, because you can run experiments yourself, and it's easier than verifying a historical event. But for most people, it does matter how much they can trust secondary and tertiary sources.

If Germany legally restricts holocaust denial, it’s because in context, they have seen the violence that the antisemitic agenda can produce, ISIS recruitment is illegal in many countries, there is good reason for that too

Inciting violence is different because it's a coordination problem. Restricting speech fails to make people smarter or more knowledgeable, however it could effectively prevent them from coordinating on specific violent actions. Also I'm not buying your assumption that if a state restricts speech, they must have a justified reason for it. See: every totalitarian state in existence.

The fact that you mix “conspiracy” with the huge lie that “no discussion is being had” about one of the internet’s most virally discussed topics is absurd

I was talking about a discussion on the "reliability of the evidence" which you were saying shouldn't be had/isn't being had when Holocaust denial is banned. If there's no cross-examination, authoritative sources become less authoritative.

There is plenty of holocaust denial on the internet too, and a mountain of discussion about the evidence, and of course antisemitism is invested in denying that reality, but again, that is a matter of agenda, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts.

So we agree that secondary and tertiary sources can lie. That's the point. There needs to be a high cost for prominent sources to lie, and that is best accomplished through free speech.

Many in these groups see free speech as a tool that can be used to suppress dissent

If they're suppressing your speech, they're not supporting free speech, they're just lying.

despite the incessant accusations that disapproval amounts to suppression of free speech, no it doesn’t

Where did I make these "incessant accusations"?

I don’t disapprove of free speech, I disapprove of antisemitism

So we agree. I'm not sure you understand what my position is if you are challenging me yet still support free speech.

I don't particularly think it is useful to lump holocaust skeptics in with outright holocaust deniers.

What's the driving issue silencing those who seem to think the evidence points to 5 or maybe 7 million killed rather than the generally accepted number 6 million?

I was talking about a discussion on the "reliability of the evidence" which you were saying shouldn't be had/isn't being had when Holocaust denial is banned.

Usually, when discussion is banned, it's for a reason from those whose interests align with banning discussion. See "Climate Deniers."

SatanLucy wasn't saying you personally were destroying free speech, he was saying you were providing an excuse to destroy free speech.

the big advantage of anti-free speech people is that as long as there is free speech, they can freely argue against it, and once there is no free speech, they can make it banned to argue for free speech.

"the great power of a totalitarian state is that it forces those who oppose it to be like it" - Hitler

That quote comes from Hannah Arendt, a major thinker on totalitarianism and political power.

What she’s getting at is a deep and unsettling idea:

A totalitarian system doesn’t just suppress opposition—it reshapes it. When a regime uses constant surveillance, fear, propaganda, and coercion, people who resist it often get pushed into adopting similar methods just to survive or fight back.

For example:

1. If the state uses violence, opposition groups may feel forced to use violence too.
2. If the state relies on secrecy and deception, resistance movements may also become secretive and manipulative.
3. Over time, the moral line between oppressor and opponent can blur.

Arendt’s warning is that totalitarianism can corrupt the very values of those who oppose it, making it incredibly hard to resist without becoming a reflection of the system itself.

It’s not just about politics—it’s about human behavior under pressure:

extreme systems tend to pull everyone inside them toward the same logic, even enemies.

If you want, I can break this down with real historical examples (like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union) where this actually happened.

Some examples of Totalitarianism.

1. Nazi Germany (Hitler): Characterized by racial ideology and mass genocide.
2. Soviet Union (Stalin): Characterized by state control of the economy and violent purges.
3. Fascist Italy (Mussolini): Where the term was first adopted to describe a system where everything is "within the state".
4. North Korea (Kim Dynasty): A modern example of intense personality cult and ideological isolation. 

Peace is only temporary pause.

Undeniably.

When has the human race ever been wholly peaceful.

When has the human race ever been wholly peaceful.

The extinct parts of the human race are at peace, resting of course. Since when has entropy ever been described as peaceful? Existing in an entropic world requires struggle and tension.

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Believing this depends on trusting the sources saying it's true. Most people aren't going to go around interviewing all Holocaust survivors. The issue isn't the primary sources and evidence, it's the secondary sources claiming the evidence exists and is so abundant. I trust those sources, but only because people are allowed to challenge them and they can withstand scrutiny.

This is an enormous problem that I've wrestled a lot with, and I think it will become a major issue of our era. Richard Feynman wrote a lot on this when he was alive, how science is such a delicate thing, how it requires intense self-criticism and rigorous intellectual honesty, and how easily it can lapse into what he called 'cargo cult science.'

The idea was that during the war on the Pacific and the island-hopping campaign, we often built temporary airstrips on remote islands whose inhabitants had incredibly limited exposure to advanced technology at this point. The soldiers would give them gifts and generally awe them with modern technology. Once they left, the natives desperately wanted them to come back, and this was where the 'cargo cult' was born. Remembering the landing strips and control towers on which the planes would land, the natives aped these facilities in an incredibly superficial way, building fake control towers, headsets out of dried plant material, built a fake runway. But the planes never came, because they didn't understand and were missing the vital things that were actually bringing the planes.

Feynman compared this to several fields of 'science' - psychology, reflexology - which had kept all the trappings of science but had lost the experimental rigor, discipline, and honesty which are the core of science that actually produced reliable results. He pointed out an exceptionally well-done psychology study on running rats in mazes which explored all the ways in which rats could 'cheat' in the maze through echoes from the floor, smells, lighting, etc. and also devised ways to control all those variables. He then talked about how subsequent maze-running experiments completely ignored these critical elements of experimental design because the study wasn't splashy enough to catch attention and continued to run the experiments in the same, flawed way that they always had, leading to unreliable results.

There's a certain type of person, very common in modern America, who 'trusts the experts' without even trying to slightly understand for themselves what the experts are saying, what claims they are making, and how they arrived at their conclusions with any sort of critical angle. The proliferation of this mindset has basically allowed a lot of sciences and other intellectual disciplines to rot from the inside out. The people who aren't in the 'trust the experts' camp notice this decline and lose faith in the experts, as their faith was based on the process and not the position occupied by the person carrying it out. This is the point at which a lot of censorship arises I think - it's an attempt to stop this bleed, shore up faith in institutions, and punish people who point out that the headsets are suddenly all made out of coconut shells and rattan. It only further destroys faith in institutions, until you get to that dismal, Soviet-level disillusionment which Solzhenitsyn so aptly summed up in his famous passage:

“We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.”

David Irving was so popular because he dug into archives and found new sources while mainstream historians often sat on their haunches and just lazily repeated the prevailing narratives about the war. If he was so wrong, the proper response to his claims was to roll up their sleeves as well and start digging to counter his narrative of that period in history. I feel like the attempt to shut him up just poured gas on that particular fire, both hardening Irving's own ideological bent while making the doctrinaire historians appear weak and incompetent in the eyes of critically-minded members of the public.

Looking over some of the facts of his libel case, do you really think sleeves were not rolled up at the trial to prove what evidence was credible?

The Lipstadt trial? That was a defamation trial instigated by Irving himself which he lost. We're talking about the criminal conviction in Austria if we're talking about censorship of holocaust denial, a case that Lipstadt herself vehemently disagreed with. I think it was foolish of Irving to bring a defamation case on the grounds that he did, and that the trial itself was illuminating as it forced both sides to get down to brass tacks on the issue at hand. But before that trial Irving was mostly attacked through sneers and underhanded smears and by people who were lazy and complacent.

It's an excellent example of the fact that griping about 'platforming' and 'exposure' of 'cranks' is often just poorly disguised fear of having one's ideas contested - a fear primarily felt by incompetents in high places. Far from bringing light to the issue in question, it often allows the person who is being suppressed to take on the mantle of the underdog and bloody the noses of people who aren't on their level enough and to therefore seem more credible over time. If someone's ideas are wrong, exposing and contesting them in the public square is always the best answer.

I think what is really lost from real education is that science is all about probabilities. There are no clear absolute right or absolute wrong things in science. You can repeat an experiment 1000 times, but it is no guarantee that the 1001st time you will get the identical result. What we accept as truth is always based on overwhelming evidence so strong that we treat it as an absolute truth, but underneath, that acceptance is still grounded in probability, which is why science constantly does error-checking. And why verification is always necessary. I know that's going deep into the epistemology rabbit hole, but it's worth noting that there will always be a chance that whatever you think is absolute, actually is not. To me, the real beauty of science is the refining of probabilities, and not the elimination of probabilities. For most people, the box either has a check in it, or it does not. There is no questioning the box or the checkmark.

We're talking about the criminal conviction in Austria if we're talking about censorship of holocaust denial, a case that Lipstadt herself vehemently disagreed with. 

I'll go look that up, thanks.

The Holocaust is no longer litigated. It happened and was a shameful time in human history.