Witch Trials | Holocaust Encyclopedia

Modern-day trials staged against alleged perpetrators or deniers of claimed Holocaust crimes have many characteristics which put them into the same category as medieval witch trials. Here is a list of some of the pertinent characteristics of witch trials, and how they compare with trials against claimed National-Socialist perpetrators and against those contesting the reality of these crimes or their dimension.

(For more details, see Rudolf 2019, pp. 120f.)

Comparison of Various Types of Modern-Day Trials with Medieval Witch Trials
Witch-Trial Characteristic	NS Trial	Denier Trial	Normal Trial
Crimes sometimes from the realm of the supernatural.	Rarely	Nothing supernatural	Nothing supernatural
Torture and abuse was initially used to extract confessions, but rarely needed anymore in later decades and centuries, although always threatened.	Torture was common in immediate post-war years, but absent in later years.	No torture	No torture
The sentence was either death by excruciating methods or acquittal.	Death sentences were the rule in immediate post-war years, but sentences were differentiated later.	Differentiated, but often harsh sentences for peaceful thoughtcrimes.	Differentiated sentences.
The defense on occasion challenged witness testimony and demanded material evidence, although rarely with success.	The defense very rarely challenged witness testimony and almost never demanded material evidence.	The defense regularly tries to challenge witness testimony and to offer material evidence.	The defense regularly challenges witness testimony and demands material evidence.
The crime committed is considered particularly heinous, atrocious and unique.	The crime committed is considered particularly heinous, atrocious and unique (for “deniers” on an intellectual level).		No extraordinary assessment for crimes.
The prosecution and its witnesses have fool’s freedom, can claim whatever they please, and will rarely get in trouble even if caught lying.	The prosecution and its witnesses have fool’s freedom, can claim whatever they please, and won’t get in trouble even if caught lying. In trials against dissidents, prosecutors often don’t have to prove anything, as all claims are self-evident.		Prosecution witnesses risk prosecution for perjury.
The defense is almost completely paralyzed , exonerating evidence is often rejected.	The defense is almost completely paralyzed; offering exonerating evidence is either always rejected, or in some countries even illegal and a new criminal offense.		The defense is not impeded.
The underlying facts (devil and witchcraft exist) are considered self-evident, no longer in need of proof, and cannot be challenged.	The underlying facts (Holocaust, 6 million, gas chambers, a plan) are considered self-evident, no longer in need of proof, and cannot be challenged.		All aspects can be challenged.
Denial of the existence of the devil and of witchcraft is considered the greatest heresy of the time.	Contesting the Holocaust or any of its essential aspects is considered the greatest heresy of the time.		Contesting the claimed crime is perfectly legitimate.
Many similar testimonies were seen as a “convergence of evidence”; contradictions and impossibilities in decisive details were ignored.	Many similar testimonies are seen as a “convergence of evidence”; contradictions and impossibilities in decisive details are ignored.		There are rarely many testimonies, and they are usually contested where needed.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply