Are ‘Revisionists’ Holocaust-deniers? (1/3)
Posted By admin on May 12, 2015
Part 1 of 3
Let's get straight what we're saying. It's true that "revisionists" don't like to be called "Holocaust-deniers."
The question for this web page: is the term accurate?
Some might ask why we need the term "denier" at all. Why not call them what they want to be called? (Frank Miele, among others, argues for this position.)
The answer is that the term "revisionist" is misleading. Historical revisionism is an honest process that occurs all the time. Any work that examines a well-understood facet of history and comes to a radically new conclusion may be said to be revisionist history. Some works are more strongly revisionist than others.
However, so-called "Holocaust revisionism" is not history at all; it is dishonest. Calling their efforts "revisionist history" is like calling the Piltdown man hoax "revisionist science."
It's not history. It's fraud.
To be a Holocaust-denier, one would have to deny the facts implied in the term "Holocaust" as it is generally used. Let's examine the definition of the word as given first by Greg Raven of the IHR.
Mr. Raven wrote in 1994 that:
So, someone who denied these things would be a Holocaust-denier, right?
View original post here:
Are 'Revisionists' Holocaust-deniers? (1/3)
Comments