Did deniers actually manage to cause "revisions" ?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Did deniers actually manage to cause "revisions" ?

Postby Balsamo » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:30 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:I'd say yes.
"Good", detail-oriented research into Auschwitz began with Pressac, a former denier. So here we have a denier trying to debunk Auschwitz, getting converted and influencing accepted history (e.g. his Krema conversion thesis).

I would also give partial credit to Cole, Mattogno and Graf for certain Majdanek revisions. The death toll revision from 235k to 78k is to Kranz's credit, and if I'm not mistaken the abandoning of some GCs too; but a) Kranz has read M&G's book and actually has it in several footnotes. Pretty sure he was influenced by it. b) Cole relays his talks with Kranz about those gas chambers later finally abandoned.

Credit goes to Kranz for being open-minded, and these revisions were a long time coming, but yeah, I think the prodding was from the denier side.

Otherwise? By poking holes at the edges of history deniers sometimes find true mistakes, in answering them we correct the mistakes and revise history (cf. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... useum.html )



LOL,
It seems we are saying the same thing, but our basic answer to the OP question still differs.
I said "of course, not", but...
You said "I'd say yes", because.

Don't you think that things would have been revised, with or without denial, in due time just by the evolution of academic historical research? New generations, more detached from the subject (historical events), always kind of correct the former ones who were to close to it. While new techniques and perspectives are added to the method.
I saw it regarding the French Revolution (through the historiography of let's say the XIX century and the XXth..)

Actually, one of the reason i prefer the "No, but" instead of the "yes, because", is that denial can also have a reverse effect. That is by trying to fight it instead of making the research evolves, some might be tempted to go back to more ideological stance, with the side-effect of rejecting new perspectives only because of the threats those perspectives might represent in the context of fighting denial. This new tendency of trying to broaden the guilt - which feels like a reverse to some form intentionalism - can be seen in some of the recent works, for example, or the unease to define the Holocaust in a proper time frame, etc.

What do you think?

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Did deniers actually manage to cause "revisions" ?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:31 pm

> Don't you think that things would have been revised, with or without denial, in due time just by the evolution of academic historical research

Yes, but the question of credit is the question of sufficiency, not necessity. As an illustration, the theory of relativity would have undoubtedly appeared without Einstein, pretty soon at that. Einstein wasn't necessary for it. He still gets the credit.
Last edited by Sergey_Romanov on Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Did deniers actually manage to cause "revisions" ?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:44 pm

I can take credit for the HDOT change - it happened after my emails.

Some otherwise capable scholars - like Berger - still cling to some diesels tho, so the switch is not complete.

Basically we at HC made a quasiscientific prediction: that all motor testimonies from the persons-in-the-know would say gasoline. Back then we didn't have any Treblinka gasoline testimonies and only a mix for the gas vans.

The Shalayev statement put a big fat cross on the Treblinka diesel, and so did Hans' gas vans research, especially Pradl's testimony.

Quite a successful prediction.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Did deniers actually manage to cause "revisions" ?

Postby Balsamo » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:01 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:I can take credit for the HDOT change - it happened after my emails.

Some otherwise capable scholars - like Berger - still cling to some diesels tho, so the switch is not complete.

Basically we at HC made a quasiscientific prediction: that all motor testimonies from the persons-in-the-know would say gasoline. Back then we didn't have any Treblinka gasoline testimonies and only a mix for the gas vans.

The Shalayev statement put a big fat cross on the Treblinka diesel, and so did Hans' gas vans research, especially Pradl's testimony.

Quite a successful prediction.


Yes but then...you are not known for being a Denier... :lol:

But understood. ;) ;)

Sergey_Romanov
Poster
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Did deniers actually manage to cause "revisions" ?

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:11 am

Yeah, but it was asked about in one of the posts.


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Denying-History and 2 guests