You are a Holocaust Denier because you think 6 million people died because of the Nazis instead of Y number [Clarity Edit]because Holocaust deniers say 6 million [End Clarity Edit].
What kind of fallacy would this be? to think you are X if you hold something that has been held by X, even though you are Y and against X.

  • I don't understand "instead of my number" in the first sentence. May 10, 2018 at 18:34
  • "that has been held by X" I would argue against that Holocaust denier essentially holds that 6 million people died because of the Nazis.
    – rus9384
    May 10, 2018 at 21:37
  • Some general information.
    – Obie 2.0
    May 13, 2018 at 0:16

5 Answers 5


It can be constructed as the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent:

If P then Q


Therefore P

In this case:

If you are an X, then you hold belief B

You hold belief B

Therefore, you are an X


Being a Holocaust denier involves denying that the Nazis carried out any large-scale systematic destruction of the Jews. If someone maintains that the Nazis killed 5 million rather than 6 million, whoever put forward the 5 million figure is hardly denying that the Nazis carried out any large-scale systematic destruction of the Jews.

It's a non-sequitur at the very least. Crudely, the Holocaust was a deliberate mass killing. You are not denying that it was a deliberate mass killing if you reduce the numbers from 6 million to 5 million.

If we regard the Holocaust as involving more than 'mere' numbers and see it (for what it was) as a deliberate attempt to remove the whole Jewish population, it can still have been precisely such a deiberate attempt even if the Nazis actually managed to kill 5 million and not 6 million.


Cultural sensitivities.

If one takes a position for the sake of opposing a view, and one could suspect it is intentional, then for sensitive folk this could be exaggerated into an accusation of full blown opposition.

So a person does not get a job because of racism, ageism, bias etc. But in these situations it helps to say one is innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand if you do hold an opinion that defines a group who are hold this very position, you are part of that group because that is how this group is defined.

I thought flat earthers did not exist, until I met one. Or idiologues, or slogan hunters, even though they may deny the label. Racists often say "I am not a racist but ......" followed by a very racist comment. What they mean is the prejudice they hold is valid, while racists hold invalid views.

Until you go through the analysis you may discover the label fits or the other party are being too sensitive. The process of analysis will show the truth or fallacy of the conclusions.

  • Interesting. I am commenting on labels, and how they are made. I am not saying a label is good or bad, but they exist. And there are real conspiracies and it is wise to understand them. What this is regarding is the value of correctly identifying what belongs to what label.....
    – PeterJens
    May 10, 2018 at 23:49
  • @PeterGens - Hmmm, why could David be upset about what you're saying about racists and conspiracy theorists?
    – Obie 2.0
    May 13, 2018 at 0:19
  • @DavidBlomstrom - As long as people know who they’re dealing with here, I’ve done my part. How they want to react to you is entirely up to them, and not something you should be afraid of. :)
    – Obie 2.0
    May 13, 2018 at 4:05
  • @DavidBlomstrom - It will be fun when you step over the line with your Holocaust denialism and get yourself banned. Or maybe just get bored and go to run another dismal election campaign instead. But until then, I’ll continue to make sure people are aware of you, so that no one makes the mistake of thinking of you as a serious thinker. If you want to try to do the same to me, feel free - but unlike you, I’m not silly enough to post a link to every weird thing I’ve done in my profile....
    – Obie 2.0
    May 13, 2018 at 4:10
  • I would like to suggest you write your own answer to this question, though. I’m sure you have a few things to say that could be valuable…after a fashion.
    – Obie 2.0
    May 13, 2018 at 4:13

Your example is confusing, but I'm interpreting it this way:

I say 6M people died
You say 7M people died
You are therefore classifying me as an HD because there are 1M people that both I and a HD do not believe were killed by the Nazis.

Technically, this is really more a questions of definitions than a fallacy. Is a HD someone who believes 0 people were killed by the Nazis? Or someone who doesn't believe 7M were killed?

More informally, however, it's a hasty generalization about my beliefs --that because I am in very narrow agreement with a HD about one thing, that my general sympathies and beliefs are in any other way congruent with a HD.


If you know the context of the Holocaust Deniers this fallacy becomes "Argumentum ad dictionarium".

When Holocaust deniers can't deny the holocaust they can try to reduce the number of victims. As movements or ideas Holocaust Reducers or Holocaust Number Changers don't exist. These Revisionists are all placed under the same name.


Note: Ignoring the real meaning, affirming what is false from this argument because of the flaws in the logic is called a fallacy fallacy.

  • I made an edit to try to fix the grammar to clarify your answer. I don't think I distorted your intention. As you are probably aware you may roll this back or continue to edit further. Jun 21, 2018 at 20:27
  • Thanks @Frank Hubeny im not native speaker Jun 22, 2018 at 14:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .