Besides often being false, syllogisms can sometimes be offensive. To suggest, as – collectively – the above counterfactual quotations do, that Adolf Hitler should be hailed as the creator of the State of Israel is clearly both. Highlighting this fact, however, helps to explain why counterfactual speculation has long been viewed with suspicion. For generations, historians have dismissed the use of counterfactual reasoning in the writing of history. From E. H. Carr’s and E. P. Thompson’s classic put-downs to more recent critiques by Richard Evans, counterfactual thinking has long been viewed as an amusing diversion at best and, at worst, a complete waste of time. It would seem inappropriate, therefore, to apply such reasoning to a subject as serious as the Holocaust.

Nevertheless, in recent decades, counterfactual reasoning has become an important feature of Holocaust historiography. Beginning in the early 1960s and increasing up to the present day, historians and other scholars have discussed many “what if?” scenarios in writing about the origins, course, and legacy of the Nazi genocide. Some have examined the origins of the Final Solution, inquiring whether it would have happened at all, or in the same way, without the figure of Adolf Hitler. Others have explored the conduct of the victims and bystanders, speculating about how greater Jewish efforts at resistance and Gentile attempts at rescue might have helped avert the Holocaust or mitigate its effects. Still others have examined questions pertaining to the Nazi genocide’s legacy, most notably: how its uniqueness would have been affected by a Nazi victory in World War II; how the Final Solution might have been averted if the Western Allies had remained neutral in the conflict; and whether the State of Israel would have been created had the Holocaust never occurred.