Chris -- I said:
This section of the forum needs plagiarism, whether the theft is from reputable scholars or "Revisionists," about as much as it needs a dead rat.
Judging by this statement, Is there some reason a revisionist can't be " a reputable scholar"? Or are accepted facts of WWII of the 40's and 50's considered the ultimate TRUTH?
My remark was primarily directed against plagiarism, but your point is well taken.
There is a difference, to my mind, between "Revisionists" and revisionist historians. The revisionist historians use historical methods to collect, examine and assess evidence in order to resolve historical problems. They may be interested in WWII, or any other interesting period of history. The persons I term "Revisionists" are Nazi apologists and anti-semitic cranks who distort or conceal evidence in order to inflame regional, religious or racial prejudice. They rarely take an interest in subjects which do not involve Jews in some way or another. "Revisionists" are people pretending to be revisionist historians. They have the same relationship to history as advertising has to journalism.
This can be readily seen on the site which gave rise to this thread. In addition to the list which was posted, the site offered essays on the following subjects:
Mel, Christ and the Jews ... more
Seven Jewish-Americans Control Most US Major Media ... more
This is no hate, it is Jewish tolerance! ... more
Jewish logic: According to Jews, Christianity is a lie, a hoax! ... more
No Hijackers For 911 ... more
Declaration of the Founding of the Committee "Freedom for Horst Mahler, Reinhold Oberlercher and Uwe Meenen" and appeal! ... more
Once more, the much maligned "racists" are proven right
"Multiculturalism tends to lead to weaker communities." ... more
The purpose of the forum is to provide an area where information and viewpoints on historical information can be exchanged in an atmosphere of civil discourse. The forum was not intended to function as a bullhorn for the foam-flecked rants of racist bigots and sectarian fanatics.
You also said:
All I need mention is the judical error in Nuremburg about "Katlyn" being a Nazi war crime , to support the idea that there is a definite need for reputable revisionists, and that revsionism can be more accurate than more commonly accepted "facts?" in some cases.
The IMT judges did not convict any person or organization for the Katyn forest massacre, nor was there any judicial finding that the Germans perpetrated the crime. Consequently, I think it is inaccurate to term the Katyn forest allegations of the Soviet prosecutor a "judicial error in Nuremburg."