Quantcast
Channel: Holocaust Controversies
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 610

There’s no history in "Revisionism"

$
0
0
A reader of Friedrich Jansson’s "Holocaust History Channel" blog site, George McCluskey, has commented on two of Jansson’s articles, Pearls before swine: explaining the obvious to an idiot (discussed in the blog Just when I thought I had seen all of Jansson’s fits … and in the 2nd update of the blog Friedrich Jansson proudly presents…) and Red Cross can’t find extermination installations at Auschwitz.




One of McCluskey’s comments ("This so called Holocaust History Channel should be reported under the Trades Description Act. I see no history on here, [...]") caught my attention because it highlights an essential problem faced by apostles of the "Revisionist" faith, namely that there is no history in "Revisionism".

"Revisionists" can ramble endlessly about what they claim did not happen, but try as they might, they don’t manage to produce a consistent, evidence-backed account of what they claim did happen to Europe’s Jews under Nazi domination, where they venture to make such claims at all. There’s no "Revisionist" account of the historical events in question to match the generally accepted historical record that "Revisionists" reject.

Case in point, the names of the victims. Yad Vashem’s Central Database of Shoah Victims' Names contains the names of over four million Jews that Yad Vashem considers to have been killed by Nazi Germany. "Revisionists" may argue against the evidentiary basis of some of the names or relish about the occasional survivor wrongly recorded as a victim. But to this day they have not been able to provide the name of even one of, say, the Jews that are supposed to have been "transited" via the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps (Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka) and the Chełmno/Kulmhof extermination camp to the areas then known as the Reichskommissariat Ostland and the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, or to the Soviet territories under German military administration, in the years 1942 or 1943. And that although one should expect the names of such "transited" Jews to be all over the place, if such "transit" had actually happened.

Another case in point, "Revisionists" cannot provide a consistent, evidence-backed explanation to how what they call a "hoax" (or was it just a "fish tale"?) is supposed to have a) come into being and b) managed to hold its ground and be accepted as fact, by most governments, by all criminal justice authorities that investigated parts of the process, and by the overwhelming majority of historians, over a period of 70 years since the end of World War II.

Nothing shows the intellectual bankruptcy of "Revisionism" more clearly, in my opinion, than the absence of a substantiated account that is a) backed by evidence and b) provides a plausible and evidence-backed explanation for the body of evidence that supports the generally accepted historical record.

If you can’t tell a story, then why should anyone listen to you?

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 610

Trending Articles