The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby borjastick » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:33 am)

I lifted this text from a post by wtfhappenedtohess, who I think is not here much these days but raised an interesting topic, and one which I feel needs more discussion. His original theme was about the Pope and his comments about holocaust denial but the real issue for me is what the great wider public perceive the holocaust to be.


I don't think the term "Holocaust Denial" does any favors to revisionist.

People are still confused on what it means. Ie. Do they deny the corpses? Do they deny Hitler's racist regime? It's automatically dismissed as an insane movement and compared to the 'flat-earth society' and other idiotic movements.


I think revisionism needs to utilize more specific terminology that clearly identifies "Gas-Chambers" as the source of dubiety.

Center for Open Debate on the Gas-Chambers. CODOG.

The term 'holocaust' is way too ambiguous and multi-meaning to the majority. Keep it specific and focus on the gas-chambers.

Forget about what it means TO YOU. Think about what it means TO THE MASSES.

Even if you watch Phil Donahue's talk show with Bradley and Cole -> the audience still doesn't have the slightest clue what they are arguing, they perceive it as a racist upsetting attack on Holocaust survivors.

"Holocaust Denial" plays into the media's hands 100%.

Even "Holocaust Revisionism" is too ambiguous. Specification of gas-chambers is required to cut through the smog of confusion.

I don't think it's the lack of evidence that is inhibiting holocaust revisionist's message, it's the confusion and complete lack of understanding.


As it stands, I'd say the majority believe:

Holocaust Denial = denial of hitlers racist regime, denial of persecution of jews, denial of concentration and extermination camps, denial of everything to do with hitler and the jews.

... this follows through with implications of Neo-Nazism, racism etc etc.



He makes a good point. The holocaust for me may include the jews who died in Buchenwald etc from typhus and malnutrition due to the privations of warfare but it really concerns the claims that six million jews were systematically murdered in gas chambers etc.

Here's what the USHMM web site says it was.
The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community.


So really the debate should be focused on gas chambers and mass shootings, neither of which can be proven. As someone once said the holocaust is about the murder of six million jews who didn't exist in gas chambers that cannot be shown, or words to that effect.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Dresden » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:10 am)

ASMarques' reply to wtfhappenedtohess:

Postby ASMarques » Wed May 27, 2009 3:06 pm

wtfhappenedtohess wrote:

NO NO NO.

"HOLOCAUST DENIAL" plays into the media's hands 100%! It was the media who created this for specific reasons.

It's a black hole, if you submit to their terminology you will forever be trapped in a dark confusion.

On the contrary. The instant you introduce your argument with the words "I don't deny the Holocaust, but..." those same media & ill-informed people won't even notice your "but". You will in fact have conceded them an enormous advantage, and you will be fighting on the ground of their choice. They will simply proceed from there to claim that their precious "Holocaust" is such a huge whale of an event that even its critics find themselves unable to deny it...

The "Holocaust" thing is a monstrous propaganda concept, but by no means made of abstract allegations, unless you yourself cooperate with the mystification! It can only be defeated in judo-like fashion: use the concept against its own proponents, by pinning them down under the sheer weight of their creation. You'll never defeat them if you help them hide the truth. It's a stark naked emperor we've got here, not an "ill-dressed" or a "scarcely clothed" one.




wtfhappenedtohess wrote:

"Holocaust Denial" = TRAP avoid it.

It's the other way around: the trap consists in falling into the "no denial" stance. This is a recurrent theme. To avoid repeating my views let me point you to my own posts on these threads:
http://codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4134
http://codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4597

Also please do read the German defenses at Nuremberg and the trials of folks like Höss, Eichmann or Stangl, as well as pay attention to what will presently happen to Demjanjuk. The victims couldn't, didn't and won't "deny", for the obvious reasons. And that's why we now carry this "Holocaust" albatros around our collective neck. It's high time to get rid of it.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Hektor » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:14 am)

The term "Holocaust" is definitely designed to put Revisionists in a bad light.
* Denial being disputing against better knowledge - certainly untrue and dishonest language manipulation by the believers
* Denial being a term from psychoanalysis describing a "defensive mechanism". Coined to slander, but also highlydishonest.

However the frequent use of it by believers may actually backfire. It sounds like a religious row by them and if someone really analysis it like above he may recognize the dishonesty it is used with.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby ginger » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:43 am)

Holocaust Denial is an unfair label. Narrowing the discussion to the gas chambers and the technical absurdity of the assertions might make a reasonable discussion possible. However those in power do not want a reasonable discussion.

User avatar
diaz52
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby diaz52 » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:44 am)

borjastick wrote:I lifted this text from a post by wtfhappenedtohess, who I think is not here much these days but raised an interesting topic, and one which I feel needs more discussion. His original theme was about the Pope and his comments about holocaust denial but the real issue for me is what the great wider public perceive the holocaust to be.


I don't think the term "Holocaust Denial" does any favors to revisionist.

People are still confused on what it means. Ie. Do they deny the corpses? Do they deny Hitler's racist regime? It's automatically dismissed as an insane movement and compared to the 'flat-earth society' and other idiotic movements.


I think revisionism needs to utilize more specific terminology that clearly identifies "Gas-Chambers" as the source of dubiety.

Center for Open Debate on the Gas-Chambers. CODOG.

The term 'holocaust' is way too ambiguous and multi-meaning to the majority. Keep it specific and focus on the gas-chambers.

Forget about what it means TO YOU. Think about what it means TO THE MASSES.

Even if you watch Phil Donahue's talk show with Bradley and Cole -> the audience still doesn't have the slightest clue what they are arguing, they perceive it as a racist upsetting attack on Holocaust survivors.

"Holocaust Denial" plays into the media's hands 100%.

Even "Holocaust Revisionism" is too ambiguous. Specification of gas-chambers is required to cut through the smog of confusion.

I don't think it's the lack of evidence that is inhibiting holocaust revisionist's message, it's the confusion and complete lack of understanding.


As it stands, I'd say the majority believe:

Holocaust Denial = denial of hitlers racist regime, denial of persecution of jews, denial of concentration and extermination camps, denial of everything to do with hitler and the jews.

... this follows through with implications of Neo-Nazism, racism etc etc.




I think wtfhappenedtohess makes a great point. He's right on the mark. People conflate the different aspects of the story together into a confused mass. David Cole makes a similar point on a recent interview about people talking about 'Gas Ovens'. LOL.. What the heck are gas ovens?? And I've heard this term myself on more than one occasion, and from educated people. And there's been such a huge volume of nonsense and propaganda over one's lifetime that this confused mass looms large in people's minds. In most peoples' minds this giant confusing intertwined rubbish heap is an immovable object. So being precise in what we are denying or arguing to be revised is crucial.
-You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-The establishment can't control the web, and the control of information through all means but one, is no control at all.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Kingfisher » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:19 pm)

Some Revisionists, such as DenierBud and Eric Hunt, embrace the term 'Denier' much as homosexuals and Blacks embraced 'queer' and 'nigger' (though odd that they can use them but I can't). I don't agree. In the cases I cite, the terms were only accepted by those they targeted once the majority of the population had stopped regarding them as acceptable insults and the people in question as acceptable butts (no pun intended) for discriminatory attitudes.

Revisionists are a hundred miles from such acceptance and "Holocaust Denier" is a useful trigger term to shut down all rational thought or openness to discussion. As other posters have commented, it presupposes that you 'deny' a whole range of things none of us would deny. Before I made it my business to find out about Revisionism I assumed that 'Deniers' denied everything: the deportations, the camps, the Yellow Star and discrimination in general. It came a a huge shock (and a wake-up call) to find the pictures of Belsen being used to support the Deniers' case!

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby hermod » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:48 pm)

borjastick wrote:Here's what the USHMM web site says it was.
The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community.


The US Holo-indoctrination Mourning Machine seemingly took some liberties with the academic definition of "the Holocaust" (probably in order to turn it into "the most documented event in history" as alleged by Zio-propagandists)...

"The Holocaust" is the name commonly applied since the mid-1970s to the systematic extermination of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II. The term is also used more broadly to include the Nazis' systematic murder of millions of people in other groups, including ethnic Poles, the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, gay men, and political and religious opponents,[1] which would bring the total number of Holocaust victims to between 11 million and 17 million people.[2] In Judaism, Shoah (שואה), meaning "calamity" in Hebrew, became the standard term for the 20th century Holocaust[2] (see Yom HaShoah).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust


The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators.[3] Some historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to approximately eleven million.[4]

[3] ^ Snyder 2010, p. 45.
Further examples of this usage can be found in: Bauer 2002, Cesarani 2004, Dawidowicz 1981, Evans 2002, Gilbert 1986, Hilberg 1996, Longerich 2012, Phayer 2000, Zuccotti 1999

Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. London: The Bodley Head.
Bauer, Yehuda (2002). Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cesarani, David (2004). Holocaust: From the Persecution of the Jews to Mass Murder. London: Routledge.
Dawidowicz, Lucy (1981). The Holocaust and the Historians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Evans, Richard J. (2002). Lying About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial. London: Verso.
Gilbert, Martin (1986). The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy. London: Collins.
Hilberg, Raul (1996). The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee.
Longerich, Peter (2012). Heinrich Himmler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phayer, Michael (2000). The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Zuccotti, Susan (1999). The Holocaust, the French, and the Jews. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust


(the Holocaust) The mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941-5. More than 6 million European Jews, as well as members of other persecuted groups, were murdered at concentration camps such as Auschwitz.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... /holocaust


the Holocaust : the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust


Image
http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Micro ... 206419.pdf
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaus ... le=Lexicon H
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Review
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Review » 4 years 3 months ago (Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:14 am)

"Denial" is a religious expression in my ears, so the use of it shows the real nature of the Holocaustianity religion.

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 3 months ago (Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:46 pm)

Review wrote:"Denial" is a religious expression in my ears, so the use of it shows the real nature of the Holocaustianity religion.


Exactly!

Calling someone a "Holocaust denier" is the medieval equivalent of calling someone a "heretic", except for the fact that the medieval period recognized that what the Church taught as the truth often required the supernatural gift of faith in order to be assented to, whereas the Holocaust pseudo-religion demands that its most absurd claims be accepted as virtually self-evident despite their even more counter-intuitive nature. For example: the Church always taught that the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Christ (inter alia) were not "self-evident" realities, but that the believer required the gift of supernatural faith to believe in them, given their own miraculous nature.

The proper term for those falsely called "holocaust denier" is "historical revisionist".

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby hermod » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:49 am)

"The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?"

Can be answered with another question:

Would Deborah Lipstadt, who invented the term "Holocaust denial", want to do the revisionists any favours? (And if so, for what reason(s) would she want to do such a thing?)
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Marcy Fleming
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Marcy Fleming » 4 years 3 months ago (Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:08 pm)

No. It was invented by Debra Lipstadt in her Denying The Holocaust in 1993. It was always revisionist before that. After that denialist became the standard media term.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Kingfisher » 4 years 2 months ago (Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:06 pm)

Anyone who has any doubt of the damage the term "Holocaust Denier"does to revisionism need only Google "Corbyn Eisen" to find out what's been going on in the UK over the last week or so, or start with this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ealed.html

Luckily Corbyn has managed to dodge the mud by distancing himself from Paul but Paul himself has been dragged through it. There is no defending yourself against the HD slur.

VauntedConsensus
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby VauntedConsensus » 4 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:02 pm)

The term "Holocaust denier" connotes a definition of "Holocaust" which turns out to be problematic when one attempts to pin it down. So absolute faith in something vague and impossible to properly define is demanded, and anyone not paying it lip service is cast out. Extremely religious, to the point of being cult-like.

I'll be having more to say in that direction soon.
Infinite Nazi evil = infinite German guilt = infinite pardons for Allies + infinite reparations for Jews + infinite sanctification for Israel.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby Hektor » 4 years 2 months ago (Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:19 am)

hermod wrote:"The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?"
Can be answered with another question:
Would Deborah Lipstadt, who invented the term "Holocaust denial", want to do the revisionists any favours? (And if so, for what reason(s) would she want to do such a thing?)

I noticed something else. And this is using the term 'revisionist' in a maligning way. In articles and radio talk it has been used as if it means "falsifying" or misrepresenting something. I noticed this in several especially American publications.

This hasn't gone unnoticed:
This summer the Bush administration thought it had discovered a surefire tactic to discredit critics of its Iraq adventure. President Bush followed the lead of his national security adviser Condoleeza Rice to accuse such critics of practicing "revisionist history." Neither Bush nor Rice offered a definition of this phrase, but their body language and tone of voice appeared to suggest that they wanted listeners to understand "revisionist history" to be a consciously falsified or distorted interpretation of the past to serve partisan or ideological purposes in the present. Or did George Bush and Condoleeza Rice mean to suggest only that those who now criticize the administration's Iraq policy have revised their earlier opinions? But few if any have done so. Almost all the historians I know of who maintain that the evidence for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or support for Al Qaeda is ambiguous or false were saying the same things six months or a year ago. All who then insisted that Iraq posed little threat to the United States or its allies and that a war with Iraq would endanger American lives, security, and national interest far more than a continuation of the policy of containment and UN inspections, have not changed their position.
Whatever Bush and Rice meant by "revisionist historians," it is safe to say that they did not mean it favorably. The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution. Would President Bush and Condoleeza Rice wish to associate themselves with Southern political leaders of the 1950s who condemned Chief Justice Earl Warren and his colleagues as revisionist historians because their decision (which, incidentally, was based in part on the research of historian John Hope Franklin and others) in Brown v. Board of Education struck down the accepted version of history and law laid down by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson?
The administration's pejorative usage of "revisionist history" to denigrate critics by imputing to them a falsification of history is scarcely surprising. But it is especially ironic, considering that the president and his principal advisers have themselves been practitioners par excellence of this kind of revisionism. Iraq offers many examples. To justify an unprovoked invasion of that country, the president repeatedly exaggerated or distorted ambiguous intelligence reports to portray Iraqi possession of or programs to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear "weapons of mass destruction" that posed an imminent threat to the United States. In his State of the Union message on January 28, President Bush made clear his acceptance of a British intelligence report that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" to develop nuclear weapons. This assertion was "revisionist history" with a vengeance; the U. S. government knew at the time it was received that the intelligence was unreliable and learned soon afterwards that it was based on forged documents. Yet not until July did the administration concede its gaffe—and then tried to blame the CIA. That agency took the fall, but with respect to another administration justification for the war—Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaeda—the CIA refused to provide any aid and comfort. An official in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research offered (in the New York Times of July 12, 2003) a pointed description of the kind of revisionist history practiced by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al: "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"
In its foreign policy, too, the Bush administration has a strong commitment to this kind of revisionism. During his campaign for the presidency, Bush dismissed the previous administration's efforts at "nation building" with contempt. The government is now engaged in the most expensive experiment in nation-building in more than a half century—and so far the least successful. The Pentagon has constantly revised upward the cost of rebuilding Iraq—which at this writing stands at $180 billion and counting. Coming into office with a surplus in the federal budget and a commitment to a balanced budget, the administration is running the largest deficits in history, which will probably continue into the indefinite and seemingly infinite future. In his campaign for the presidency, Bush also insisted that as a superpower, the United States had an obligation to be "humble" in its dealings with other nations. Vive la revision!
For many of us, the term "revisionist historians" recalls distasteful memories from the 1970s of Holocaust deniers who called themselves "revisionists." One hopes that in resorting to this phrase now, the president's associates are not seeking to falsely and maliciously link present-day critics of the administration to those who misrepresented the past for nefarious ends. But even if they are not guilty of such an insinuation, by misusing the term "revisionist historians" to derisively deflect criticism, Condoleeza Rice and her cohorts are denigrating a legitimate and essential activity of historians.

https://www.historians.org/publications ... historians

Note the author is following the orthodox Holocaust narrative and seems to think that "Holocaust Denier" is a fair and meaningful phrase.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: The term 'Holocaust Denial' does it do revisionists any favours?

Postby hermod » 4 years 2 months ago (Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:29 am)

Hektor wrote:I noticed something else. And this is using the term 'revisionist' in a maligning way. In articles and radio talk it has been used as if it means "falsifying" or misrepresenting something. I noticed this in several especially American publications.

This hasn't gone unnoticed:
This summer the Bush administration thought it had discovered a surefire tactic to discredit critics of its Iraq adventure. President Bush followed the lead of his national security adviser Condoleeza Rice to accuse such critics of practicing "revisionist history." Neither Bush nor Rice offered a definition of this phrase, but their body language and tone of voice appeared to suggest that they wanted listeners to understand "revisionist history" to be a consciously falsified or distorted interpretation of the past to serve partisan or ideological purposes in the present. Or did George Bush and Condoleeza Rice mean to suggest only that those who now criticize the administration's Iraq policy have revised their earlier opinions? But few if any have done so. Almost all the historians I know of who maintain that the evidence for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or support for Al Qaeda is ambiguous or false were saying the same things six months or a year ago. All who then insisted that Iraq posed little threat to the United States or its allies and that a war with Iraq would endanger American lives, security, and national interest far more than a continuation of the policy of containment and UN inspections, have not changed their position.
Whatever Bush and Rice meant by "revisionist historians," it is safe to say that they did not mean it favorably. The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution. Would President Bush and Condoleeza Rice wish to associate themselves with Southern political leaders of the 1950s who condemned Chief Justice Earl Warren and his colleagues as revisionist historians because their decision (which, incidentally, was based in part on the research of historian John Hope Franklin and others) in Brown v. Board of Education struck down the accepted version of history and law laid down by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson?
The administration's pejorative usage of "revisionist history" to denigrate critics by imputing to them a falsification of history is scarcely surprising. But it is especially ironic, considering that the president and his principal advisers have themselves been practitioners par excellence of this kind of revisionism. Iraq offers many examples. To justify an unprovoked invasion of that country, the president repeatedly exaggerated or distorted ambiguous intelligence reports to portray Iraqi possession of or programs to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear "weapons of mass destruction" that posed an imminent threat to the United States. In his State of the Union message on January 28, President Bush made clear his acceptance of a British intelligence report that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" to develop nuclear weapons. This assertion was "revisionist history" with a vengeance; the U. S. government knew at the time it was received that the intelligence was unreliable and learned soon afterwards that it was based on forged documents. Yet not until July did the administration concede its gaffe—and then tried to blame the CIA. That agency took the fall, but with respect to another administration justification for the war—Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaeda—the CIA refused to provide any aid and comfort. An official in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research offered (in the New York Times of July 12, 2003) a pointed description of the kind of revisionist history practiced by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al: "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.'"
In its foreign policy, too, the Bush administration has a strong commitment to this kind of revisionism. During his campaign for the presidency, Bush dismissed the previous administration's efforts at "nation building" with contempt. The government is now engaged in the most expensive experiment in nation-building in more than a half century—and so far the least successful. The Pentagon has constantly revised upward the cost of rebuilding Iraq—which at this writing stands at $180 billion and counting. Coming into office with a surplus in the federal budget and a commitment to a balanced budget, the administration is running the largest deficits in history, which will probably continue into the indefinite and seemingly infinite future. In his campaign for the presidency, Bush also insisted that as a superpower, the United States had an obligation to be "humble" in its dealings with other nations. Vive la revision!
For many of us, the term "revisionist historians" recalls distasteful memories from the 1970s of Holocaust deniers who called themselves "revisionists." One hopes that in resorting to this phrase now, the president's associates are not seeking to falsely and maliciously link present-day critics of the administration to those who misrepresented the past for nefarious ends. But even if they are not guilty of such an insinuation, by misusing the term "revisionist historians" to derisively deflect criticism, Condoleeza Rice and her cohorts are denigrating a legitimate and essential activity of historians.

https://www.historians.org/publications ... historians

Note the author is following the orthodox Holocaust narrative and seems to think that "Holocaust Denier" is a fair and meaningful phrase.


Fortunately for them, almost nobody still remembers that the historians called 'revisionists' for the first time appeared after WW1 and were proven to be right...until the anti-German propaganda of WW2 pushed their works towards oblivion for a very long time.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t889755/
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests