About the limitations of legislating historical truth.

Have you known that not everything that looks, moves and smells like genocide is genocide? A 1948 convention criminalized such actions. According to its definition, the extermination of ethnic groups, religious communities and nationalities constitute genocide. At first glance, this appears to be in order. However, the approval lasts only until the second glimpse. As a concession to the Soviets, the persecution of social classes and economically defined groupings are excluded by the phrasing. For instance, liquidating Kulaks –as done in the Ukrainian Holodomor- does not qualify. Admiral Farragut said, “Damn the torpedoes” and this escape clause applied to the Ukraine says, “Damn the seven million that starved”. Perhaps the helpful critique in the “why do they not eat cake”-style would be “why did they diet and not eat?” 

The diplomatic definition tells us that, not all dead bodies are equal. Furthermore, not everything that seems to be genocide is, in the company of understanding friends, quite that. There are ramifications. The Jews, whose earlier case led to the agreement in ’48, can also be defined as a social class and as an economic category. Indeed, one could argue that, in some localities not race or religion, but social class had motivated persecution. Those who hold that anti-Semitism is the Socialism of idiots are close to agreeing.                

Not long ago, both houses of France’s parliament made the denial of the Armenian genocide (1915-16) a crime. Through the tantrum of its leaders, the modern Turkish state has reacted furiously to the charge against the Sultans. Even the discussion amounts to an insult of all Turks. Now diplomatic and economic boycott is threatened. 

The break of relations bring unexpected dividends. Turkey aspires to join the European Union. This is, in itself surprising. We know that the rats leave sinking ships. Few of us have heard of critters swimming out to sea to climb on submerging vessels. A few weeks ago, the voting minority of Croatians have opted for membership. Balkan entities in need of succor are also eager to join. Are they the victims of bad news that overcame a characteristic that is attributed to them? They are supposed to travel fast but in this case, they seem to have been moving slowly. 

This explanation does not fit Switzerland’s case. Her political class, undaunted by earlier referendums, continues to be devoted to their project to drag the successful country into the failing EU. They claim that as members they can influence the EU’s workings. Indeed, the possibilities of less than ten million influencing a 400 million behemoth are staggering. Here the case of Hungary can be cited. Running its show against the taste of the left-collectivists in Brussels, Budapest “influenced” the EU to work for regime change and to squeeze the country. Regarding Ireland, one hears that they might hold a referendum that would indirectly terminate the Green Island’s membership. 

Now, back to Turkey. Not a few of the EU's members do not want her in their club. The timid ones opt for a “rather not, if possible”. Therefore, “Europe” would be relieved if the bonus of calling a spade a spade would be that the not-quite-fitting Turks seek their destiny in their cultural-historical neighborhood. This makes a benefit out of a retaliation.

This leaves us with the issue raised by France’s action. Paris acted knowing that by scaling the barricade it takes a moral stand against a “safe” enemy. Looking good costs little while we all know that there are contemporary cases whose consequences make it wise to resist outrage. Reminding the West that it likes to indulge in the luxury of a double standard is not the purpose of this writing. Unwisely, in the light of the anticipated outrage, the fashion behind Paris’ decision is the issue to be addressed. 

Politicized history is bad history. Accordingly, political sanctions against “bad history” might be a placebo against the frustration caused by what is, at best, idiocy. Nevertheless, making the assertion of historical errors into a crime instead of a subject for contempt is futile, a misuse of justice, and the wrong weapon against an irritating provocation. 

Truth is not dependent of its acceptance by consent nor is it a subject for legislation. Two x 2 is four, no matter who approves or questions that. Even majority votes cannot change the real result of the calculation. No matter how many or who insists that it is three or five, the imposed answer remains bad math. Outside of the nut house, the wrong answer is best combated by better teaching and not by proscription. Even Stalin could not make genes disappear; all he could do was to kill the scientist Vavilov. 

Accordingly, it is a mistake to make the denial of the Holocaust a crime. Bad history is not more a crime than is alchemy. On the other hand, that view is a sign of ignorance and of an inability to evaluate data. Therefore, Holocaust deniers should be put into a moral-political isolation. After all, those who deny the historical Holocaust –and other deeds that we like to blot out- also represent contemporary causes that advocate desirable future scenarios. The subject of such advocacies reveals that in the future their champions are ready to repeat what they deny regarding the past. Bad history is not a crime. However, the disseminators of bad history might be criminally motivated.

It is a feature of chauvinism that it makes it difficult to denounce the crimes of those that claim to have killed in its name. This is so even if the slaughtered turn out to be their own kind. Add to the insanity of such endorsements that the rule of the killers meant poverty, missed development and that the misrule of yesteryear burdens the present. The respect that many Russians manifest for Stalin is one of the cases that make the point. The private approval of Hitler –but for some of his vaguely admitted “mistakes”- belong into the same category. Not long ago, a politician in Belgrade was given the title of “Great European”. This person is associated with Milosevic, a genocidical extremist, who massacred for “Serbia” as had the iconized Tito for Yugoslavia. 

The foregoing has not been a plea to tolerate political criminals that begin their planned crimes by denying the transgressions of their predecessors. The plea here had a limited purpose. We should not prosecute bad history with political means. At the same time, the advocacy of old crimes in a modern form needs to be combated. The implied complaint is also directed against those that conveniently ignore current violations by ritualistically pillorying past cases of persecution. In doing so, criminalizing errors of interpretation assumes the efficacy of an unsuited tool to combat crimes against humanity. French and Turkish laws that forbid the denial, respectively the assertion, of the massacre of the Armenians make these decrees ridiculous. 

The best instrument to deal with such offenses would be principled condemnation by the informed descendants of the perpetrators. Often, misconceived national pride stands in the way of this. If the alleged beneficiaries of crimes against humanity can be induced to reject the unalterable past, then a number of national monuments erected to honor “heroes” and tales woven around “heroic deeds” will be discarded. Even in Europe and even today.