The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New Survey Showing Public Ignorance About the Holocaust Among Young Americans
The Economist/YouGov survey indicates 1 in 5 young Americans believe the Holocaust is a "myth." The result is troubling, but less bad than it looks. It is also just one part of a broader problem of widespread ignorance about history and political issues.

A new Economist/YouGov survey has gotten a lot of media attention because of its finding that 1 in 5 Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 believe the Holocaust is a "myth." This is indeed a troubling result. But it's somewhat less bad than it looks. Ambiguities in the survey question make it seem worse than might actually be the case. In addition, much of the ignorance here may be just one facet of widespread general public ignorance about politics and history, rather than an indicator of neo-Nazism or anti-Semitism. That latter point is simultaneously comforting and troubling.
The question in the survey asks responds whether they "strongly agree," "tend to agree," "tend to disagree," "strongly disagree," or "neither agree nor disagree" with the statement that "the Holocaust is a myth." In the sample as a whole, only 7% picked "strongly agree" (2%) or "tend to agree" (5%). But among young people (age 18-29), the figure was 20% (8% "strongly agree" and 12% "tend to agree"). This is the figure that has understandably caused consternation.
Some of that outrage is justified. The Holocaust is one of the worst events in all of human history and one of the best documented. There is no even remotely plausible reason to consider it a myth. Such claims are in the same boat as those of people who think the Earth is flat, or that the Moon landings were faked.
At the same time, the survey is result is somewhat less awful than it might seem. There are two ambiguities in the question wording that likely have the effect of making things seem worse than the underlying reality. First, a majority of those who endorse the statement picked "tend to agree" rather than "strongly agree." The phrase "tend to agree" is ambiguous enough to include everything from having a slight tendency towards agreement to having a very strong one. Even the former is problematic, when it comes to a statement like this one. But it's much less bad than the latter.
A second relevant ambiguity is that the question doesn't distinguish between people who know what the term "Holocaust" refers to and those who don't. The latter may seem implausible. Who doesn't know what "Holocaust" means? But much evidence shows widespread public ignorance of basic facts of history, science, politics, and even the basic structure of government. A majority of Americans can't name the three branches of government, don't know when the Civil War happened, and support mandatory labeling of food containing DNA (the latter probably because they don't understand what DNA is). And most surveys of political and historical knowledge find that it is inversely correlated with age; that is, younger people tend to know less than older ones. The latter phenomenon isn't confined to the present generation of young people. Survey researchers found the same thing with previous generations when they were young.
A person who doesn't know what the term "Holocaust" refers to might say they "tend to a agree" it's a myth precisely because of that ignorance. If it was a real thing, they might reason, I would know about it!
In one sense, being ignorant about the meaning of "Holocaust" is even worse than knowing what it refers to, but still thinking it a myth. The person who believes the former may be even more ignorant than one who believes the latter. But someone who simply doesn't know the meaning of the word is far less likely to be an anti-Semite, a neo-Nazi or some other type of committed Holocaust denier. She is likely just unfamiliar with history and politics, generally.
Some people who believe the Holocaust is a myth really are anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, or adherents of other horrible ideologies. But many are probably just ignorant without being malicious.
It is also important to emphasize that ignorance about the Holocaust is a facet of more general widespread public ignorance of history, politics, and economics. What I said about a previous survey finding widespread ignorance about the Holocaust is relevant here, as well:
Ignorance about the Holocaust is not a unique phenomenon driven by anti-Semitism or by some desire on the part of educators to cover up the truth about this specific event. It is one of many manifestations of a more general problem of public ignorance. Indeed, I suspect that more systematic analysis would find that public ignorance about the Holocaust is actually less severe than that about many other historical events. For example, it is likely that many more Americans know what the Holocaust was than have heard of Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, the largest mass murder in the entire history of the world….
The point here is not to suggest that ignorance about the Holocaust is unimportant, or that the Great Leap Forward and other similar communist atrocities were necessarily worse than the Holocaust…. I lost several relatives in the Holocaust myself, and have no desire to somehow downgrade its importance.
Rather, the point is that ignorance about the Holocaust is part of a broader pattern. Any solution to the problem probably cannot focus on the Holocaust alone, but must consider the broader issue of historical and political ignorance, as well. For reasons elaborated in my book, Democracy and Political Ignorance, increasing public knowledge of politics and history is likely to prove a much tougher challenge than some imagine it to be. In the meantime, public ignorance about the Holocaust, communist mass murders, and other historical events makes it more likely that we will fail to learn the lessons of these tragic events, and thus be at greater risk of repeating them.
In some respects, therefore, surveys showing that large numbers of people are ignorant about the Holocaust are less troubling than they might seem to be. They aren't necessarily an indication of either widespread anti-Semitism or unusually severe ignorance about the Holocaust relative to other major historical events.
In another way, the fact that such ignorance is not unique to the Holocaust actually makes the situation even more concerning. Political and historical ignorance can and does cause harm across a wide range of issues, not just those related to the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and related questions.
And if the problem is a general one, that makes it harder to solve than if it were limited to knowledge of the Holocaust. I go over the strengths and weaknesses of various possible strategies to mitigate political ignorance in this recent article.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think more attention needs to be paid, too, to the phenomenon where people might “agree” or “disagree” with statements less because the respondent actually believes or disbelieves them, but rather because the statements are affiliated with a political identity the respondent shares.
I think a lot of the polling about Trump’s legal issues and the 2020 election, for instance, picks up this phenomenon. Trump supporters say that they believe the 2020 election was stolen, that the January 6 riot on the Capitol was just a rowdy bunch of tourists, that Trump’s various criminal prosecutions are politically motivated and relate to actions that aren’t that serious.
But I think those claimed beliefs are not fully genuine; they are things they know they need to say, because to say otherwise is to undermine the legitimacy (in their own view) of their support for Trump. They are motivated conclusions. This means that, if it were somehow possible to unwind their thought processes and walk through the facts and inferences step by step, they would actually agree with each of the individual facts and inferences. Where they disagree would be at the summation.
In a similar vein – while I don’t doubt that there may be some genuine ignorance about the Holocaust, I’m sure there’s also a fair number of people who might believe things like, “the historical significance of the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated” and “the Holocaust has been over-politicized and over-emphasized relative to the number of deaths caused by the USSR both during the same conflict and in the years after” and “the Holocaust was bad, sure, but we need to move on already.” People might believe these things, and choose to express it by saying something like, “I tend to agree that the Holocaust is a myth.”
If that seems a bit too incredible, consider what a typical modern conservative might say about American chattel slavery or the slaughter of Native Americans by American settlers and governments. If you were to take each individual event from those periods of time and ask them, “Did this happen, or not?”, they might tend to agree that each actually did happen. But if you were to ask them if there is any merit to the 1619 Project, or if slavery was really as bad as some make it out to have been, or if the genocide of Native Americans is a permanent mark on the soul of the country, etc. – I think we all know what any informed modern conservative would say.
Then find an "informed modern conservative" to quote.
As far as slavery, the difference between Right and Left is about who, today, inherits the blame for slavery.
A left-winger might say that the sinister forces of whiteness, the same forces which caused American slavery, are still abroad in the land – and this assertion is followed up by linking this sinister force to all sorts of modern ideas and institutions like conservatives, the right to bear arms, the traditional work ethic, etc., etc.
There may be some right-wingers who say slavery wasn’t so bad, but the talking point I tend to hear from the right is that Democrats have always been the party of racism starting when they supported slavery and Jim Crow. I’m not saying that’s fair, but under the retarded rules of modern political debate it’s a zinger. Or in the case of some right-wingers, they say it illustrates the importance of freedom. A neoconservative would get all misty-eyed over the Legacy of Lincoln and how Lincoln’s legacy means more wars abroad, and if you disagree you're a racist.
Of course, one could argue that linking the bogey-of-the-moment with slavery, as I’ve seen on left and right, is a cheapening of the horror of slavery.
But with these caveats, right and left start from a premise of slavery being bad, they just go different places from that premise.
the difference between Right and Left is about who, today, inherits the blame for slavery.
I disagree. There a lot of people on the right who want to minimize slavery. We've all heard that the descendants of the slaves are better off today than they would have been; that many slaveholder treated their slaves well; that it gave them an opportunity to learn a trade (cotton picking is a trade?!); that the Confederates were great heroes and ought to be honored for their valiant fight to preserve the institution, etc.
Plenty of neo-Confederates around.
Or to put it another way, "There may be some right-wingers who say slavery wasn’t so bad." Which I said.
Doesn't change the fact that other right-wingers are trying to pin slavery on the Democrats. Of course that's TOTALLY UNFAIR, but it's not the same as minimizing slavery.
Doesn't change the fact that many prolifers compare abortion to slavery - not a compliment to slavery. Of course that's TOTALLY UNFAIR, but it's not the same as minimizing slavery.
'but it’s not the same as minimizing slavery.'
If you think slavery is something to 'pin on' somebody, it absolutely is.
Like I said just above,
“Of course, one could argue that linking the bogey-of-the-moment with slavery, as I’ve seen on left and right, is a cheapening of the horror of slavery.”
Yes, *left* and right.
Meanwhile, I’m responding to a comment that right-wingers doubt “if slavery was really as bad as some make it out to have been.”
A left-winger might say that the sinister forces of whiteness, the same forces which caused American slavery, are still abroad in the land – and this assertion is followed up by linking this sinister force to all sorts of modern ideas and institutions like conservatives, the right to bear arms, the traditional work ethic, etc., etc.
Now do anti-semitism, left-winger, as you struggle to maintain it is about Israeli actions and not Jews, even as the cries rise up from people standing all around you, some of which call for mass extermination not of Jews, but of people who happen to be Jewish.
If this satisfies your clear conscience, in the words of young Obi-Wan, you need to go home and rethink your life.
even as the cries rise up from people standing all around you, some of which call for mass extermination not of Jews, but of people who happen to be Jewish.
Speaking of which, another evolution in thought has brought us the idea that when seeing the outcome, continued disparities, we may presume the racism even if direct cause and effect is hard to trace.
Now do worldwide reaction, left winger. What does the outcome presume exists, when actual documentation is on the news every night, and you struggle to clamp down on it and maintain the idea it is about Israeli actions and not Jews?
If we’re gonna assume built in societal rot, let’s do it.
'it is about Israeli actions and not Jews'
That makes it complicated, not the same. And not even all that complicated.
No, Simon, I actually believe the election was stolen.
I actually believe that Jan 6th was rowdy tourists (and woefully incompetent crowd control) -- there'd have been WAY more damage to the building if it had been anything else.
And Trump's legal troubles is Banana Republic 101.
Mr. Ed, my point is perhaps too subtle for you to grasp. But if your only purpose in responding to me is to say, "No, I am in fact an ignoramus!" then I don't feel any need to contradict you.
Are you really that stupid?
Take a look at history and actual attacks on the Capitol.
There were Congressmen shot (and a cop killed protecting the President). There were bombs detonated.
Any of that happen on January 6th? Anything get lit on fire?
Building get flooded? (sprinkler set off or toilet ripped off wall?)
Did Biden have to sneak into the city the way that Lincoln did?
There is plenty of evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. But you won't see it on the major media or Facebook because they are all leftist controlled and dishonest. If this seems incredible to you, do some looking around on BitChute.com, Rumble.com, and Locals.com.
"A majority of Americans can't name the three branches of government, don't know when the Civil War happened, and support mandatory labeling of food containing DNA "
Given that we are a democracy, that's pretty depressing.
Given that unfortunately we're a "Democracy" (More accurately a Democratic Republic) it's to be expected.
Our last President didn’t know those things either. Not when he entered the job and to a large extent not when he left.
This is the man who, you might remember, promised he would “order a judge” to “sign a bill”.
Hmmm, vote for a president whose big thing is implementing a left wing thing, banning immigrant workers because they undercut wages, but with a racist flavoring to attract more voters that way.
Or people who caused everyone to lose 20% of their life savings.
This is apparently the best choice the best nation on Earth can give us.
"younger people tend to know less than older ones. The latter phenomenon isn't confined to the present generation of young people. Survey researchers found the same thing with previous generations when they were young."
Counterintuitive! /sarc
.
That explains
(1) the everyday spectacle of pre-teens attempting to explain cell phone operation to their parents and grandparents;
(2) older Americans' greater preference for superstition over reason and dogma over science; and
(3) the older audience's emphatic rejection of the ignorance peddled by Fox News, Newsmax, One America, NewsNation, and National Desk.
It's true about young people being ignorant about very many things.
But I think it is also scandalous that those who do know about the Holocaust , believe that it was only Jews who were killed. Even the Wikipedia article about the Holocaust only grudgingly admits that up to 11 million non-Jews were also killed.
It is part of controlling the narrative that people are led to believe that only Jews were killed in the Holocaust. So we can't attribute 100% on ignorance.
I went and looked at the wiki article. It is just defining the Holocaust as the extermination of Jews, with the other Nazi mass murders not getting a special name.
I have always used your definition, i.e. that the term encompasses the totality of Nazi mass murders. From googling around, it seems that I'm in a minority: the wiki definition is used by the Eisenhower Library, the Imperial War Museum, Britannica, et al.
The National WW2 Museum uses the more inclusive definition; that was the only one that did in the first couple of pages of search results.
I prefer the more inclusive definition, but language is about communication.
And I don't see any denial about, say, the Roma. The Holocaust Museum has a page that isn't pulling any punches, for example.
I’ve never seen the word Holocaust used except insofar as it refers to what happened to Jews.
I first heard it used in that sense in the 1970’s. Before that the word “holocaust” meant an explosion, like fireworks, or perhaps “nuclear holocaust”.
The etymology is from the Greek, for burning something up, and was a Biblical term involving burnt offerings. "Nuclear holocaust" would follow this meaning.
It was used to describe a mass murder of Jews (by burning at the stake) as far back as the 12th century, and applied to other mass murders of Jews occasionally during the following centuries.
I've heard "6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, and another million non-Jews".
Which is fine and accurate, but can be used in a context of "another million non-Jews, so you ain't so special, Jew!"
I think 'one million non-Jews' is a substantial underestimate.
Mostly it's used in the context of 'why do you pretend to forget that we were victims of the Holocaust too?' Especially relevant for trans people these days.
Less bad than it looks?!?
What fractional dimension of reality do you inhabit?
Right. In Somin's worldview it is better that this level of ignorance is widespread across topics rather than being more limited to just Nazi Germany.
Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler.
Stalin and the Soviets in general did not single out Jews, and in any case did not have a large enough population of Jews to rival the number killed by Hitler, even with the evacuees from German occupied territory.
.
Didn't they?
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews#Soviet_Union
Stalin killed a diverse range of people, but not only Jews and nothing to compete with Hitler.
Remember, Dr. Ed doesn't make things up.
Except when he posts.
Any of you Homo’s who haven’t read Anne Frank’s Diary (More accurately “The Diary of a Young Girl, by Anne Frank (Contact Publishing 1947)” need to shut the fuck up. Go hide for almost 3 years, get taken prisoner (really, didn’t German Soldiers have more pressing ish-yews in 1944?) and be “lucky” enough to die of Typhus before the Nazi Fucks could gas you. I keep a copy in my Fag-bag, whenever I think I’m getting screwed, look back to what Anne was doing on the same day (OK, she was a Teen Girl so it wasn’t all moping around, Hey Now!) And so far I don’t have to worry about Nazi’s wanting to gas me (and to any who do, I ain’t no teenage girl)
Frank
These right-wing bigots are your fans and target audience, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your employers (those that are strong, mainstream, liberal-libertarian, reasoning schools) wish you would leave campus.
"Such claims are in the same boat as those of people who think the Earth is flat, or that the Moon landings were faked."
Or that men can become women?
Or that women can become men?
Will it ever be possible for Somin to write an article with fewer than 10,000 words?
Ignorance about the history of Communism is more troubling than ignorance about the Holocaust. Perhaps why so many young people are attracted to it.
"I hate capitalism!" he thumbed into his iPhone, then took a bite of a pristine organic banana in the middle of winter.
(Remember when organic stuff first came out and had blemishes, and its pushers said that's just the price you had to pay? Yay capitalism beats ass again!)
Capitalism can't fail it can only be failed.
Communism has always had better marketing.
Although never forget that the Nazis were socalists -- that's what the "zi" stood for (in German they were the National Socialists).
And Hitler did a lot of socialist things -- the public works, youth sports, etc...
The Nazis were not socialists.
Here's a hint; who did Martin Niemöller say they came for first?
Once upon a time, Holocaust denialism was a freedom of speech issue amnogst the respectable right and the dirtbag centrists. Here we are, I guess.
So, it was not-prosecuting Holocaust-deniers that caused this, not K-12 failure to teach the Holocaust? Sure, Nige, whatever you say.
Yes, in many countries it is illegal to say that the Holocaust is a myth. It is even illegal to tell the truth about the Holocaust, if the truth conflicts with stories that Jews like to tell. Maybe some poll respondents said that the Holocaust was not a myth, because they did not want to break the law.