Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
The issue centers on the use of the label Revisionism.
The use of Revisionism in the context of this forum (and related writings) seems to be different than the use of Revisionism by Lenni Brenner (and others) when writing about Zionist Revisionism.
My impression is that while the basic meaning of the noun is the same, there is no intended linkage between these two subjects.
Did I get that right?
Brenner wrote a whole lot more than I have read but his "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" is particularly interesting.
It provides an detaild examination of Zionist leaders, organizations, communications and activities before, during and after the events refered to as the 'holocaust'.
It gives the 'holocaust' and the subsequent holocaust industry a context that is useful when trying to resolve some of the apparent contradictions surrounding the treatment of Jews in that period.
Brenner's frequent reference to "Revisionists" never quite defines itself.
The Revisionists were Zionists and as such shared their movement's fundamental agreement with the Nazis that the Jews could never be real Germans. Nazism was inevitable and understandable. This view was well expressed by Ben Frommer, an American Revisionist in 1935. ...
My query is certainly in the context of the 'holocaust', but perhaps not being addressed to the right forum.
What you seem to want is a political debate on Zionism, prior to and during WWII, and it's various manifestations with the so called 'holocaust' running in the background as an assumed fact. I also sense a desire to discuss attitudes towards/behaviour by Jews during the same period without regard to the guidelines.
On this forum I believe the term is used as described in:
"Welcome to our Introduction to Historical Revisionism!"
"What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?
First of all, because of false representations by the media, it is necessary that we first clarify what Holocaust Revisionism does not maintain:
o it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;
o it does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;
o it does not deny that Jews were deported;
o it does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;
o it does not deny the existence of concentration camps;
o it does not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;
o it does not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons;
o it does not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters;
o and finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust.
None of these crimes of the National Socialist regime are doubted by Holocaust revisionists. In the view of the Revisionists, however, all these injustices have nothing to do with the Holocaust, which is defined as planned and organized mass murder, carried out specifically in homicidal gas chambers.
Holocaust revisionists believes the following to be correct:
1. There was no National Socialist order for the physical extermination of Jews
2. Likewise, there was no National-Socialist plan for physical extermination of Jews;
3. There was no German organization and no budget for carrying out the alleged extermination plan. Consider the statement by the world-renowned Holocaust researcher
4. In detailed investigations of former German concentration camps, expert researchers have established: The internment camps had no homicidal gas chambers or sophisticated methods for mass murder Furthermore, the reports of mass shootings were greatly exaggerated and taken out of context
5. There were neither adequate industrial facilities nor sufficient fuel to cremate such a huge number of corpses. In fact, the capacity of the crematories was barely sufficient to cremate the bodies of those who died from starvation and epidemics
6. There is no documentation for the existence of homicidal gas chambers and no material traces of alleged mass murders All the "proofs" rely on eyewitness accounts only, whose unreliability is widely acknowledged
7. Despite massive observation by spies and resistance groups in areas in the near vicinity of the German concentration camps, all of Germany's wartime enemies conducted themselves as if no exterminations of Jews were taking place. The charges of genocide were not raised until after Germany's defeat, when there was no German government to dispute them
8. Statistical investigations of living Jews worldwide show clearly that the losses of this ethnic group during the Second World War were nowhere near six million. The exact number is probably well under half a million."
With respect to the Holocaust, however, Holocaust Revisionists (note the large R) challenge the ways, methodologies and viewpoints of past Holocaust histories. The word Holocaust itself (large R) has only been popularized since about 1978 with the airing of the NBC miniseries by the name Holocaust. Prior to that, the word meant a catastrophic fire, and the word was seldom applied to the collective experience of the Jews in WWII. So this is a form of revisionism, but in this case one that reinforces the mythology of the traditionalists.
The Holocaust buzzword itself tends to wrap the entire genre into one tortilla that must either be affirmed or denied, so it is a major milestone in Holo-historiography.
The use of the term Revisionist is both an advantage and a disadvantage for H-Revisionists because the implication is that there is a canon of Revisionist doctrine somewhere with "papal infallibility" or something like that among leading Revisionists. I prefer the term skeptic, myself.
You are probably getting the impression that the revisionists who post here are a bit "tetchy" about the topic! I think your question is appropriate and very significant in view of today's events. The idea of "Holocaust" revisionism has been made clear I think in the context of braoder historic revisionism. It always seemed to me that every honest historian is a revisionist in that sense. But what about Zionist "revisionism"? It has a long history and it isn't dead and has a very different meaning.
I offer a few items:
"The main division within Zionism was between the Labor and Revisionist movements. Revisionism, which advocated the 'revision' of the [British] Mandate to include Transjordan as well as Palestine, was established by Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1925. The movement has always been known for its maximalist, uncompromising positions, in contrast to the pragmatic, gradualist and flexible approach of the dominant Labor Zionism. With regard to ultimate solutions relating to the 'Arab problem' however, there was little difference between them." [sound familiar?]. From "Expulsion of the Palestinians - The Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948", by Nur Masalha, Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington, DC (1992).
Interestingly, the Zionist Revisionists, who always considered themselves more honest than their Labor opponents in their open advocacy of the need to ethnic cleanse greater Israel (and they meant greater!) of its Arab inhabitants, had Iraq in mind as an appropriate destination for the expellees and at first they assumed responsibility for those to be expelled. Since they intended to take over Trans-Jordan they saw that as an unsuitable destination as it would only create a future refugee problem. They worked at a deal with Iraq for a while. It was only after 1948 that Israel washed their hands of responsibility for the "refugee" problem, turning that over to the UN and relieving Israel of the burden. It would seem that the Zionist Revisionists are firmly ascendant today. The term however has gone out of use as far as I can tell.
Do you think this is how the term is used in the book you referenced?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests