Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Techniques of Neutralization: Acknowledging Shootings but Denying Blame

Author: Jonathan Harrison
The term Techniques of Neutralization was devised by Sykes and Matza in 1957 (see here) to analyze how people suppress guilt by rationalizing their actions in ways that deny or transfer blame. This posting applies their five categories to the excuses used by the Nazis and their denier apologists to evade any guilt for the shootings of Jews they carried out in the USSR.

1) The Denial of Responsibility occurs when the Nazis or their excusers claim that their actions were driven by forces beyond their control. For example, Mattogno and Graf claimed in Treblinka that "According to Mayer, the massacres of the eastern Jews was [sic] not part of a comprehensive plan of extermination, but occurred as the result of the inexorable radicalization of the war in the east and because the eastern Jews were classified by the SS as carriers of Bolshevism." In The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”, Mattogno argues that shootings were a rational and understandable response to the threat posed by partisans (see p.211 and p.226). The Germans are portrayed as being carried along by the tide of history, and the radicalization of their actions is viewed as the natural outcome of any war in this terrain.

2) The Denial of Injury takes place when the perpetrator claims that no deaths or injuries occurred. Deniers rarely claim that no Jews died from shootings but they minimize "injury" by claiming that most Jews had already fled before the Germans arrived, most of those left over were resettled farther east, and that killing numbers were greatly exaggerated. The main study that claimed the Jews had fled was that of Sanning, whereas resettlement has been argued in the Aktion Reinhard books of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. 

3) The Denial of a Victim is the main technique used by Mattogno and Graf, and is essentially antisemitic. It occurs when a denier claims that the action was not a crime because the supposed victim was actually a perpetrator whose death was deserved. Goebbels set this trend with such articles as "The Jews are Guilty!" Mattogno and Graf give an example of the denier version in Treblinka by claiming that "eastern Jews were killed...on account of sabotage, anti-German activities, as carriers of diseases, and above all as retaliatory measures for partisan attacks." The reasons given in Operational Situation Reports for killing Jews are taken at face value by deniers, even though they then claim (hypocritically) that the killing numbers in the reports are exaggerated.

4) The Condemnation of the Condemners is the claim that the Nazis' accusers were either just as bad or worse. This is often done in openly antisemitic terms. For example, Graf accuses Jews of being the prime instigators of the abortion movement:
It has symbolic value that the Jewess Simone Veil, former inmate in Auschwitz, a so called “Holocaust-survivor”, had abortion legalized during her tenure as France’s “minister of health”, and upon the founding of the European Parliament was elected its “honorary president”. By this choice “Europe” (that is the criminal clique that rules over the old continent) initiated a culture of death which would necessarily lead to its downfall – unless this barbarism is halted in time.
The question of the driving force behind the industrial-scale child murdering is easily answered. From the Jew Lawrence Laden, co-founder of the American “National Abortions Right Action League”, who has “concentrated on supporting the right to abortion with such good results, and whom the feminist author, Betty Friedan called “the father of the movement” to the Jew Dr. Etienne Beaulieu (original family name: Blum), inventor of the abortion pill RU-486 – always we see the same deadly pattern. In the USA, where the percentage of Jews in the population is officially 2 percent and their percentage among doctors is 14 percent, every other abortion doctor is a Jew...
5) The Appeal to Higher Loyalties is the claim that the Nazis had no responsibility to obey international law because their loyalty was to the German race. This technique is least applicable to deniers but it can be found in their musings. For example, Bradley Smith published this passage from Heine:
"The greatest virtue of the Germans is a certain loyalty, a certain, thick-headed, but movingly generous loyalty. The German fights for the worst causes, once he has taken the King‘s shilling, or whenever he has promised his support in a moment of enthusiasm; he fights with a breaking heart, but he fights; no matter how much his better conviction may demur, he cannot simply desert the banner, and he is least likely of all to do so when his party is in danger or perhaps surrounded by superior numbers of enemy…" 
 Nazis relied on higher loyalties to ensure that their underlings co-operated in crimes against Jews. Holocaust denial is itself a form of loyalty to the regime that requires the excusing of any crime that cannot be feasibly denied, in addition to the denial of everything that can possibly be contested.

1 comment:

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Mattogno, Graf et al in a nutshell. Great article!