Genocide denial

Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of a genocide. A genocide is the deliberate destruction of a specific group of people. Denial is not just a single act of lying. Experts consider it an integral part of the genocidal process itself. This process includes secret planning and the use of propaganda during the violence. It also involves the destruction of evidence regarding mass killings. Many scholars view denial as the final stage of genocide. It can also serve as a catalyst or indicator for future atrocities.

There is a specific distinction between historical revisionism and historical negationism. Revisionists are historians who update the past based on new evidence. Negationists, however, use negationism to rewrite history for political or ideological goals. They use falsification and rhetorical fallacies to achieve these results. This is different from standard academic work. Denialism often exists in a nebulous territory between facts and truth. It uses half-truths to change what actually happened into something else entirely. This makes it harder for people to recognize the truth.

People use many specific strategies to carry out denial. One common method is questioning the statistics of the victims. They may also deny that there was a central intent to destroy a group. Some use "mirroring," which is a way of blaming the victims for the violence. Others claim the actions were taken in self-defense. Perpetrators might also deny the existence of the protected group itself. They may use media disinformation campaigns to confuse the public. Some even claim there was no central direction by using militias or death squads to avoid direct blame.

Scholar Israel Charny outlines several psychological characteristics of these denials. One phrase used is "hardly anybody died," which is easier to claim when events are in the past. Another is "it wasn't intentional," which blames disease or famine for deaths. Some claim "there weren't that many people to begin with" to minimize casualties. Others argue that the violence was a preemptive attack for self-defense. Some deny the term "genocide" applies because of legalistic or rhetorical arguments. Finally, perpetrators may claim "we are the real victims" to deflect attention from their own actions.

There are several motivations behind these actions. The primary reason is to evade moral or criminal responsibility. Deniers often want to protect the reputation of the perpetrators. They may also try to justify the violent actions taken. For some individuals, denial may even be driven by careerism. Historian Richard Hovannisian noted that destroying a people requires the "suffocation of remembrance." By erasing the memory, the perpetrators attempt to complete their goal. This makes the act of denial a tool for further harm.

History provides many prominent examples of these denial efforts. The Holocaust is one of the most well-known examples of denial. Other examples include the Armenian, Bosnian, Cambodian, and Rwandan genocides. Denial has also been directed at genocides against colonized indigenous peoples. In the 20th century, the magazine Living Marxism publicized accounts that denied atrocities in Rwanda and Srebrenica. In Austria, David Irving was imprisoned for his role in Holocaust denial. Various governments have also been criticized for their stances. For example, the Australian government has faced criticism regarding its treatment of Indigenous peoples.

National identities are often tied to these debates. In Azerbaijan and Turkey, denial of the Armenian Genocide is linked to national identity. In Japan, the Nanjing Massacre is a subject of intense debate. Some see acknowledging the massacre as a matter of national honor. Others view it as "self-flagellation" or "Japan bashing." In Pakistan, the government has denied the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. In Russia, the Circassian genocide is often described simply as a mass migration. These disagreements show how denial is connected to modern politics and national pride.