ABSTRACT
To draw attention to the abundance of Holocaust explanations is evidently not to imply their mutual exclusivity. Indeed, for a phenomenon as complex as the Holocaust the likely potency of any one type of explanation looks to be quite limited. Inconsistency is a cost in moral argument because it invites the charge of irrationality against those embracing it and thereby seriously disarms them in the face of their opponents. Jews, according to Nazi doctrine, are persons of lesser value. Even a cursory glance at the relevant literature reveals that the warrant for this assessment varied considerably amongst the numerous intellectual progenitors of that doctrine. One rather uncompelling rejoinder to these arguments is that an Aryan supremacist is singularly ill placed to invoke the rights of the rest of humanity in defence of the Final Solution. Asserting the genetic inferiority of all other racial groups and rectitude of their subordination to Aryan rule, he thereby disqualifies himself from any such appeal.
