Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Brotherhood of the Cross
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 03:45
Location: Au

Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?

Post by Brotherhood of the Cross » 22 Jul 2004 07:58

[Split from "Nazi leaders and holocaust denial"]


My question may seem stupid but... Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 22 Jul 2004 08:50

Brotherhood of the Cross wrote:My question may seem stupid but... Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?
Simply the historical truth.

Best Regards

LFS

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 22 Jul 2004 09:40

Brotherhood of the Cross wrote:
My question may seem stupid but... Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?

LFS replied:
Simply the historical truth.
You can tell how concerned the revisionists are with the truth by the number of people they accuse of lying about the holocaust.

Here are 24 previous threads discussing the topic:

Why does people afraid of Revisionist?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=42833
Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier" Part II
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=37198
The "myths" about the Holocaust
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=37190
Is Holocaust denial equal to "moral bankruptsy"
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=36792
Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier."
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=36004
Revisionism
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27372
Definition of “Holocaust Denier”
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27365
What kind of argument is this?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25869
Apologia for Genocide
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25141
What purpose does Holocaust denial serve ?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=23143
Revisionist history as a positive approarch
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=23087
holosaust denial
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=18315
Roberto, Witness & Maple01 Critique Scott Smith's Reason
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=18209
Hitchens, Kissinger, and the smear of Holocaust Denial
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=13989
Debate the Holocaust
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=11085
Question to Roberto
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=8997
Question to the revisionists
Why Give the Deniers Ammunition - the Jewish Lies
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6226
Revisisionists focus...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6109
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=5949
Why does "Holocaust Revisionism" sounds hollow
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=4982
I got a suggestion!
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3218
Revisionists vs. Belivers
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1786
Revisionism In a Nutshell
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=478
Skeptism vs. Holocaust denial
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=456

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 22 Jul 2004 11:32

> My question may seem stupid but... Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?

To deny the Jewish genocide. Some are moved by antisemitic feelings, others are just duped.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 22 Jul 2004 11:50

> My question may seem stupid but... Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?

There are many "Revisionists" and many "Revisionist" theory's. They are not one entity and don't have a "single goal" as it were.

I tend to ignore the naysayers on both sides and read everything and form my own opinion based on the information available from all sources.

For instance, I am reading the second volume of "Churchill's war" by Irving and so far, like Vol I, its a great read.

Tony

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002 20:29
Location: MA, USA

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 22 Jul 2004 11:51

> My question may seem stupid but... Which is the ultimate (or actual) aim of the Revisionists?

1) To spread racist hatred and specifically antisemitism

2) To rehabilitate the reputation of Hitler, the Third Reich, Naziism and fascism in general

3) To justify their own irrational, conspiracist and racist world views

4) To influence other people to believe, or at least tacitly accept, these irrational, conspiracist and racist world views

However, its not like Revisionism/Holocaust denial is a coherent or well-organized movement. It's basically a racist gobbledegook of pro-Naziism, antisemitism combined with huge doses of paranoid conspiracy theory. It's best to research the aims of individual practicioners like David Irving or Errnst Zündel.

Brotherhood of the Cross
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 03:45
Location: Au

Post by Brotherhood of the Cross » 22 Jul 2004 12:16

Thank you. I will definetely check those previous threads.
There are a number of questions for which I will try to find the answers by reading those posts.

*To which extent the revisionists believe what they say (and/or how many of them are duped?)
*How homogenous is this category? (which are the main thought patterns)
*What makes One question the evidences available? (assuming that they come across the problem at some point with little or no prejudices)
*Is there a thing such a 'typical pre-revisionist' individual prone to addhering to such group/community?

Like any theory that seems absurd to the majority, an interesting method of investigation is to try and see it from the minority's (believer's) point of view and maybe even push it a bit further.
Let's imagine for a moment what happened in a 'revisionist world' where at some stage, some extraordinary-unquestionable evidence would come out and demolish the Holocaust and everything known about it. What would a revisionist say? What would be their attitude? Would they cheer, would they say "I told you so, the Jews are all liars, let's chop them?" or "Let's build a statue of Adolf in the middle of Berlin?" How would they react? :roll:

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 10:45
Location: Australia

Post by alf » 22 Jul 2004 12:30

Like any theory that seems absurd to the majority, an interesting method of investigation is to try and see it from the minority's (believer's) point of view and maybe even push it a bit further


Its been done in great detail, just think instead on the wrold they want to live in. Rob summed it up perfectly

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... ml#Preface
To illustrate the way Holocaust deniers try to argue away the convergence of historical evidence that allows us to come to the conclusion that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, and that there was a Holocaust, I quoted in my expert report a long passage written by Michael Shermer, a historian of science who became interested in pseudo-science, and who studied Holocaust Denial as an example of pseudo-science (pp. 377f). I followed Shermer's description of the mechanics of negationist argumentation with an observation that Holocaust deniers had not been able transcend their nihilist agenda, and that they had not yet begun to undertake the task of "revising history" by providing an alternative, plausible narrative that one can engage with. I observed that Holocaust deniers had spent much energy on inventing many alternative explanations for various selected pieces of evidence that point to a deliberate program of genocide, but that they had not spent any time to reconcile these alternative explanations in one plausible narrative that forces to choose between the many options they imagine, to seriously engage with issues of relevancy and causation, and to apply judgement (pp. 378ff).
http://www.2think.org/wpbwt.shtml
Perhaps the most interesting observation Shermer makes is with regard to the similarity in the flawed methodology that all the proponents of weird things use. His two main examples are creationists and Holocaust deniers. From my own experience, I know that Mormon apologetics also rely on this same methodology. The methodology includes these elements:

1. They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position.
2. They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opponents' conclusions must be wrong.
3. They use quotations, usually taken out of context to buttress their own position.
4. They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field.
5. They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 22 Jul 2004 13:06

Perhaps the most interesting observation Shermer makes is with regard to the similarity in the flawed methodology that all the proponents of weird things use. His two main examples are creationists and Holocaust deniers. From my own experience, I know that Mormon apologetics also rely on this same methodology. The methodology includes these elements:
From my study of the three mentioned groups I can confirm that they are very much alike.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 22 Jul 2004 13:40

Boy, that's profound. Linking creationists with holocaust deniers. Uh, let's see.. The people who are doing everything they can to restore a Greater Israel, the people who are behind the US government's unconditional support of Israel, the people who forced the USSR to let more Jew immigrate to the US et.... are idelogical bedfellows of antiSemites.

Why don't we just lump Zulus and Japanese together because they both have brown eyes?

Hi Rob

Do you still lump Hilberg with those conspiricy nuts?

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 22 Jul 2004 13:48

I don't see your point, Dan. I'm not saying that all deniers are antisemites. I'm only saying that their "methodologies" are identical. Deniers don't agree, of course:

http://www.codoh.com/org/revisionist/tr12creation.html

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 22 Jul 2004 14:18

Up until 150 years ago the best minds that the West has produced have believed in creationism, from Newton to Pasteur to Mendel to Linaeus and and you would be hard pressed to find "fathers" of many scientific disciplines who weren't creationists. How can you accuse them of sloppy methodology? It's not a good comparison anyway, as you can define a creationist but not a revisionist or holocaust denier. It's an example of spurious correlation.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 22 Jul 2004 14:34

> How can you accuse them of sloppy methodology?

Oh boy, comparing the scientists of old times, when the relevant sciences were still in their infancy, with _modern_ creationists must surely be profound!

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Post by Karl » 22 Jul 2004 14:45

Yes for example Newton was not as correct as he thought he was(he had no clue about sub-atomics, light, black holes…and these work completely different to classic physics) and even Einstein (was he a creationist) would not concede what we know today about electrons…but I am not sure where this thread is going. :roll:

User avatar
HaEn
In memoriam
Posts: 1911
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 00:58
Location: Portland OR U.S.A.

revisionists

Post by HaEn » 22 Jul 2004 14:59

Interesting thread. Now to the point ,
Q. what is a revisionist ?
A. which kind ?

There are sincere researchers, lumped in with the term revisionist, by those who do not want their particular established applecart upset.
There are "idiolological"(sic) revisionists who want to bend history to fit THEIR own beliefs.
There are revisionists who want to deny the bad part any of their particular groups they adore, have played in history.
And many more reasons.

Example: were the Crusaders, all good noble men, who wanted to defend christianity, and did they do good along the way to jerusalem ?
OR were they a bunch of plundering, marauding, scaundrels on their way to jerusalem to save it, but disregarding what hey did on their way over there. ?

As before: Remember: there are THREE sides to every story; Mine, Yours and the FACTS.

Been there, done that, :(
HN

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”