Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No, the White House Did Not Deny the Holocaust
At some point, the overwrought and ridiculous accusations against President Trump have to peak. I have a visceral dislike of him and yet those attacking him have gone so far round the bend that I am forced, over and over again, to defend him. No, the White House did not deny the Holocaust in the press release for Holocaust Remembrance Day. To think otherwise is crazy with a side of ridiculous and covered in stupid gravy. Harsh words? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely.
I would have never imagined such claim would exist had I not seen it with my own eyes. I would not have cared if such asinine claims were made by anyone other than Ricochet contributors I respect. Our very own @claireberlinski has bought into this, as has John Podhoretz. Here is the tweet that got me started on this rant today:
Yes, the White House really did engage in Holocaust denial. This is part of an irrational pattern of thought that's dangerous for everyone. https://t.co/uvILxCIRJv
— Claire Berlinski (@ClaireBerlinski) January 30, 2017
When I first saw it I thought “no way that’s true,” so I followed the links. Mark Hoofnagle published a blog post on ScienceBlogs that starts with this:
The White House in its statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day engaged in Holocaust denial. Then they doubled down on the action and via Reince Priebus on Meet the Press expressed no regret about the wording which had no mention of the Jews in their supposed “remembrance”.
It’s possible that Trump and company wrote a poorly-worded press release worthy of this accusation. Performing all due diligence, I went to the source and read the press release. Here is the offending press release in full:
It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.
Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.
In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.
No, the president didn’t specifically say “Jews,” but exactly who the [expletive] else could he be referencing by “the victims…of the Holocaust”? If you read that and think of anyone other than the Jews, or read it to exclude the Jews, then it is an error of reading, not writing.
I understand Trump-Hate because I do a lot of it. I understand wanting to warn of his dangers because I fear them as well. This, however, is reaching way beyond honest criticism and into the realm of histrionics. There is plenty about which to criticize the new president, so there is zero need to invent or imagine things like Holocaust denial.
Stop making me defend the orange ass.
Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
I have not gotten into these discussions because I can’t imagine that Trump did this himself. He’s been an avid supporter of Israel and Jews. To not even have included Jews on that list was strange and goes against everything I know about Trump.
Nor have I followed the Holocaust remembrance, how it developed as an event. It seems to me that looking for the world’s atonement for all of the genocide that occurred during World War II is what the remembrance it has morphed into over time, like our own Memorial and Veterans’ Days. Perhaps we will eventually have a genocide day that includes Rwanda, China, and the USSR. Then the Jews can have a remembrance of their own losses at the hands of Nazis and anyone who wants to join in can.
My comments were addressed to people who want to stop talking the Holocaust generally because other people have suffered as much or more. Unlike Ryan, I’m sorry to say I have often heard it said and seen it written that the Jews should just get over the Holocaust.
Although – I don’t know if you’re intending this to be a rhetorical question.
How do you answer it?
He didn’t list any group. Some people took that as a slight. That was the whole point of the post. It seemed a lot like grievance shopping to me.
Yeah, I don’t know how I would react if I heard a statement like that.
If you’re talking about Jews who experienced the holocaust, or even ones who were displaced by it, had relatives who were killed, etc… I think the statement is inexcusable. I might respect a person somewhat less based on how that person chooses to take a particular experience into the rest of his life (referencing back to that point made by Adam Smith), but I’m not in a position to tell anyone to get over anything.
If, on the other hand, we’re saying to people who were not effected by something (and that’s a pretty big assumption, though I think it is far more appropriate with slavery, as far removed as we are from that event) that they can remember all they like, but to make it integral to their identity is something we’re not going to accommodate… well, I think that is actually perfectly fair. As I said, I’m not German, my grandfather fought against the germans, and theoretically, my grandfather could have been one who rushed into a concentration camp in order to save JPod’s grandfather (this did not happen, I’m saying hypothetically). (cont…)
(…cont) So, for someone who is technically as far removed as I am from the event to say “this is only for me” doesn’t really seem to serve much purpose. It doesn’t aid in the lesson; so what exactly does it accomplish? I’ve asked that question dozens of times in a number of different ways, with not a single attempt made to answer it.
That was my point too. I was being Socratic.
What’s bizarre about this story to me is that I’m almost certain the first release I saw contained a copious list of genocide victims of World War II and it did quite obviously omit the Jews. But in the last couple of days the version I’ve been looking at now is much shorter and doesn’t list anyone specifically.
The joys of following the news on the Internet where things come and go faster than I can keep track of them.
There used to be a website out there called “wayback machine” that allowed access to cached web pages. This is one time I’d love to use it–I wish I knew what I saw earlier. I know it wasn’t GW’s or Obama’s speeches. It was definitely a White House release this year.
Who knows. Maybe I dreamt it. :)
I can fully understand how offensive such a statement would be to people who have so much of their identity defined by the group and having had the group deliberately and almost successfully wiped off the face of the earth.
Also – I am fairly confident that if John Podhoretz was willing to sit down and talk with me (he would not), and I asked him the question: “Is the holocaust important specifically because it happened to the Jews?” He would likely get angry and indignant, but he would have no response to the question except to tell me that it is off limits. I think that is very important if you’re making an argument that the recognition of a specific group of people is integral to its historic importance. What we would likely find is that he takes personal offense, which only furthers the point that some have made that this smacks of (to borrow Prawn’s phrase) grievance shopping. If I had the exact same discussion with him regarding slavery in the United States, I am inclined to think that he would be on the other side of that issue, and would argue it cogently.
@RyanM for one of the few times I disagree with you. The Holocaust and Shoah is strictly about the Jews, but also includes others that Hitler targeted in the carnage of deliberately trying to destroy the Jews in this world. Think about this.
In 1939 there were approximately 17M Jews in the entire world. In 1948 there were approximately 11M Jews left in the entire world. So approximate 1/3 of all the Jews in the world, 1/3 of one ethic group were destroyed. Most of them by Hitler. The lesson we need to learn is not to allow it to happen to another group but we sure haven’t done anything to stop the Christians in the Muslim worlds from being slaughtered. A good place to learn about the Holocaust:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/holocaustfacts.htm
I can mostly understand it. But let us say that the question was posed differently. There are a whole lot of groups who have been targeted, who have had people deliberately (and even almost successfully) wipe them off the face of the earth (although, the holocaust was Jews in Germany. To be fair, it did not almost wipe anyone off the face of the earth, though it was a horrible mass murder). Let us say that you asked them: “why is this different in your case?” They might be offended, but only because – as you said – they’ve had so much of their identity defined by that notion… where others have not. Will that change in 100 years when we’re further removed? I guess that’s an interesting question. Do I blame them for having so much of their identity defined by it? Not necessarily, though maybe a little bit more with each passing generation.
Yes, but that does not disagree with what I’m saying. It is a historical fact. What I asked is whether it is important because it happened to the Jews, or if it is important because 1/3 of an ethnic group was destroyed?
Although, on that note – doesn’t this actually support the opposing view? There were 17 million Jews in the world. That’s not the important question. How many Jews were in Germany? Likely, the proportion is even higher. Probably a lot more than 1/3 killed. But how many gypsies were in Germany? How many mentally handicapped? What were the proportions (in germany) of any other targeted group?
I don’t know if this is absolutely correct, but my answer would be yes. Maybe it’s because of the OT reading I’ve done, but it seem to me that humanity as a whole (and likely because of its sinful nature) really does have it out for the Jews. Of course, one must take seriously the chosen people designation to come to this conclusion. The Holocaust, even including all the others swept up in it, was mankind’s worst moment and the closest it’s ever come to acting out its hatred for the Jews and their choosing by God. That’s getting a bit into the theological side of it, but that’s where some of my understanding comes from on the matter.
If you saw it on facebook, it was probably fake.
So you’re saying that it is important to Christians for that reason. So why are non-religious Jews upset about this? Why are atheists upset about this?
But also, my reading of the Bible is different. I don’t think the world has it out for the Jews, specifically. There were lots of “God’s wrath” type judgments in the OT, but in the NT, that transfers to believers. At this point in history, Christians are equally hated. In the Middle East, Christians and Jews could very well be one people… A better reading is that much of the world rejects God.
And specifically attacking the Jews (and now Christians as well) has historically been a favorite method of declaring the rejection.
Ok – but that doesn’t really answer the questions related to this post. How many people do you think, who are upset about Trump’s tweet, would agree that the lesson of the Holocaust is for the world to repent and turn to God? Anyone who admitted as much, would also have to agree that the killing of Christians by ISIS is an almost equally important lesson. I’m not hearing that at all.
This is simply my understanding which is colored by a belief that the material and temporal cannot be fully disconnected from the spiritual and eternal. This only explains my understanding of why the Holocaust is so important to the Jews and because of the Jews.
Those flaming out over the press release seem to be doing it for, as I said, grievance shopping. It looks to me like finding yet another reason to go hammer and tongs on Trump. Even JPod’s insistence that he gave Trump the benefit of the doubt seems disingenuous simply because I’ve read and heard too much from him on Trump. I don’t know that creating a time machine and preventing the Holocaust would be enough for them if Trump did it.
I agree with the first part, but not necessarily the second part. I’d have to ask a Jewish person if the holocaust is important for that reason – although, as I said in the previous comment, that would render this whole argument somewhat inconsistent… unless their belief that Christians are not God’s people means that they don’t think the mass murder of Christians in the middle east (and elsewhere) is particularly important.
Not sure they’re real hip on sharing the chosen bit any more than they like to share the Holocaust. But that’s really a theological divide. The two are intertwined yet somehow remain distinct. And my thoughts on the matter are not well developed because I’ve never had to put much thought into it before Monday.
How bad was it, what Hitler did to the Jews specifically? Was it worse than what other evil people have done to people? Was it extraordinary in some way in terms of modern history?
General Eisenhower had seen the ravages of World War II throughout the world, had even seen how the Japanese were treating their prisoners, yet he was especially horrified, and his one concern those initial days in those camps was that the world would cease to believe how bad it really was:
This is film taken by Patton and Eisenhower of the camps:
Totally agree. But again, nobody is denying the horrors of the holocaust. In fact, that’s partly my whole problem with this discussion (as framed by the aforementioned tweeters); to equate the position I’m taking with holocaust denial is disingenuous.
That’s the gist of the post. The administration could have done a better job, but the job they did was not so inadequate as to be classified as Holocaust denial. That’s just silly talk — or worse.
What really gets to me about people who want to stop studying the Holocaust is that Mao and Stalin continued the unfathomable horrors in their own countries.
The summer before last, I spent six months editing a translation of a book on education reform in post-World War II China, which meant I had to spend a lot of time delving into the Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. To say what I read was sickening would not come close to describing how horrifying it was to me. From what I can tell, while it was going on, the World War II-weary world just ignored it.
I don’t have an answer, but Elie Wiesel’s words come back to me all the time. I think we need to keep talking about these crimes against humanity:
Claire and John could very well be right, but that requires connecting a lot of dots that do not have obvious connections for me, and it would require assuming the worst motives rather than good or even neutral ones for the administration.
Wow.
So our pity for people murdered in death camps is to be scaled depending on the size of the ethnic or other group they’re associated with?
“The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” Joseph Stalin
So the calculations of a mass murderer are now guiding people’s morality and compassion?
Also, take a gander at Claire’s twitter feed. You’ll understand why I asked the question I did the other day in the PIT. Her fear of and hatred for Trump has pushed her over the edge. Or she’s Noah.
That’s kind of a reach.
Ryan was responding to the proposition that because 1/3rd of the worlds Jews were killed that made the Holocaust specifically about the Jews.
But what if 40% of the worlds Gypsy’s were killed (even if the total number killed was less than the 6 million Jews? [note – I’m just throwing the 40% number out for purposes of illustration.] Would the Gypsy’s then get to take offense at the Jews claiming the Holocaust as “theirs”, sicne they suffered proportionately more?
Exactly. It’s called the Reductio ad Absurdem.