No to relativism! by Jay Knott (12/23/12) ⇌ (Holocaust revisionism)
There are many kinds of "Holocaust revisionism".
This is about "double genocide relativism".
See if you can work your way through this logical minefield. It describes as 'perverse' the habit of privileging the victims of communism over the victims of Nazism - but is that what actually happens? Isn't it, rather, the other way round? "The" Holocaust means the Nazi holocaust - of all the crimes of world war II one is given a status greater than all the others put together.
Some Eastern European countries are adopting laws penalizing denying Soviet crimes in addition to laws against denying Nazi crimes. This 'equates' the crimes of the two great powers on the Eastern front.
I tend to agree with the anti-fascists that Stalin's crimes did not include genocide, whereas Hitler's did. For example, I don't believe the Soviet government's murder of millions of Ukrainians was driven by racial animus. But, like all complex and controversial historical facts, I think this is debatable. Hope not Hate wants to make sure it isn't - that's why they categorize the various forms of revisionism in Eastern Europe in language that suggests they are beyond the pale, rather than merely wrong.
Seeing the word 'both', I naively thought at first this sentence, on page 35, was going to lead to something like "terrible atrocities were committed on both sides". But no - Hope not Hate thinks atrocities against members of one ethnic group are intrinsically worse than others - 'both' just means "both Germans and local people murdered Jews in occupied countries".
This is true enough. But try saying "both Russians and Jews murdered local people in occupied countries".
That's true too. But if you go round saying it, you will incur the wrath of the lobby. You will be "called out" or worse. You could lose your job. Even in the land of the free, you can incur penalties for revisionism, relativism, negationism (softcore and hardcore), minimization, banalization and trivializing.
Notice how circular their argument is. Above, I poke fun at the numerous categories of revisionism. This, I admit, is with the intention of trivializing the anti-fascists' arguments (1). I'm trivializing trivialization. This in itself is covered by one of the categories, and therefore, they want you to think, it must be dismissed out of hand. Not only is anti-fascism unfalsifiable, it even tries to immunize itself against sarcasm.