Holocaust revisionism or denial?

Much is made by both those accused of denying the Holocaust and those who accuse them of denying it about the name of the activity in which they engage. Those accused of denying the Holocaust call themselves "Holocaust revisionists", and the activity in which they engage "Holocaust revisionism"; however, the trend now seems to be towards using the terms "historical revisionists" and "historical revisionism". Their accusers, on the other hand, choose the terms "Holocaust deniers" and "Holocaust denial" to describe them and their endeavours.

Which is the more suitable nomenclature?

Revisionism is an activity in which all historians engage. In other words, it is a perfectly normal aspect of historiography. As new facts emerge, adding to the pool of knowledge about events, it may become necessary to revise the accepted version of the historical record. Historical events may be reinterpreted in the light of such new evidence, or by using a different theoretical framework. One popular political and historical theory becomes unpopular, and is replaced by another. A new analysis may help explain historical events better than previous explanations.

So aren't all historians revisionists?

Yes. However, the individuals and groups that are the focus of this resource are not Holocaust revisionists. They are Holocaust deniers. There are several reasons for this distinction.

1. Holocaust deniers do not reinterpret historical events or seek to gain new insights into historical events. They attempt to distort the historical record. Overwhelming historical evidence is not enough for them. When the evidence they face does not agree with their preconceived ideas, rather than modify their ideas, they instead seek to modify the evidence - whether by distortion, exclusion or fabrication.

How can any historian by totally objective?

Nobody can be totally objective, especially when writing about historical events that have not been well documented or are open to interpretation. However, no legitimate historian deliberately ignores evidence that directly contradicts his/her personal views, or distorts the evidence to make it 'show' something it clearly does not.

2. There do exist actual Holocaust revisionists, whose work is substantially different in nature to that produced by Holocaust deniers. Historians such as Daniel Goldhagen, author of Hitler's Willing Executioners and Arno Mayer, author of Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, are two examples of legitimate Holocaust revisionist historians. Whilst not everybody may agree with their central theses, few would argue that they distort the historical record in the way Holocaust deniers so do. Indeed, these two authors have attracted much attention from Holocaust deniers: Goldhagen is vehemently hated by deniers, whereas Mayer's work is frequently distorted and quoted out of context by those denying the Holocaust.

3. Legitimate historians use sources that can be not only independently verified, but also are supported by other sources of evidence. Individual documents are not sufficient, but instead a 'chain of evidence' is required to produce proper historical research. Holocaust denial, on the other hand, often relies on single documents, often quoted out of context, frequent quoting of other deniers' work, and has even occasionally included the fabrication of 'original' documents: the most notable of these being the so-called 'Lachout Document'.

4. Holocaust deniers often refer to the frequent debates between Holocaust historians about certain aspects of Holocaust historiography. Examples include the intentionalist-functionalist debate, which concentrated upon how the Holocaust happened - whether Hitler had planned on exterminating Jewry since at least the 1920s (intentionalism), or whether the extermination happened through a long series of small decisions taken by Hitler and other leading Nazi officials that were not following a pre-determined path of action (functionalism); another example is the significance of the Wannsee conference in January 1942.

Holocaust deniers claim that their perspective are merely additional historical debates,such as that being of whether approximately six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust or whether the true figure is far lower, and whether the gas chambers existed or not. However, this is not the case, as no legitimate historians debate about such issues, as there does not exist any credible evidence to support such denial claims.

Such strategies are aimed primarily at attempting to give credibility to Holocaust deniers and their claims where no such credibility exists.