Balsamo wrote:... For French revisionists like Faurrisson, they call themselves "negationiste", their purpose is to prove a negation, which clearly doe not help to have a better picture of the past. They used to choose easy target, like russian propaganda, lunatic witness, to make a negative point. Yes they can make some point, but are not dealing with History but with propaganda.
Still they failed to give another explanation on what happened to the Jews. As far as history is concerned, they will lose because of their very logic in dealing with Historical research.
That is. they have to be very selective regarding the source. A witness telling all his fanily died is a liar, a witness saying the contrary tell the truth, a nazi document is a forgery as long as it cannot be used to make a revisionist point! etc. It's double standard at every step of their research. the best they can achieve is to put their own propaganda in place.
- Then you'll find the pure Nazi, the ones who deeply regrets germany did not won the war. ...
So my conclusion is as long as ideology is so important in the debate, that is as long as we find pure antisemitism in any argument, as long as Isreal is quoted at every lines (even though Israel did not even exit at that time), and more important, as long as the double standard is in place, there is no chance of any victory whatever that means.
I'm glad to see some critical voices here again, keep it up! I think there is some substance in your double standards claim, but equally, both sides are making an argument. For example, the standard line selects testimony that supports gas chambers as a means of execution, but ignores that which supports steam chambers or electricity. As far as I know, it was revisionist scholarship that brought this to light. Plus, what you say is true of popular forums, but less so of scholarship like that of Mattogno, for example.
On your other points, I have never heard Robert Faurrison call himself a 'negationniste' but rather a 'revisionniste' - I think negationniste has a negative connotation in French much like 'denier' in English. At any rate, the term is used by his opponent Valerie Igounet. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
There are some 'Nazi' sympathisers who comment on revisionist forums, but of course without the holocaust, national socialism doesn't function as the symbol of evil that it has become over the last few decades. I suppose you are suggesting that whitewashing national socialism is part of the motive of revisionist research. I have to say, I've seen no evidence of that, except recently in the case of Vincent Reynouard in France, who is an interesting figure in his own right (see part 6 of his 'Holocauste' video). The dominant motives I have come across amongst revisionists are a dislike of atrocity propaganda being passed off as history and some way behind that a concern for the reputation of the German people on the part of those of a German background in North America.
, the Pilgrim Fathers and the Taming of the West, Britain has Drake and the Armada, Nelson and Trafalgar, Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain. There is usually a gaping gap between the myth and reality.
