Exterminationism

Revisionists argue that the mainstream Holocaust narrative, referred to here as "exterminationism," relies on a tapestry of half-truths, exaggerations, and outright fabrications. This article delves into the tactics and strategies that are employed by supporters of the orthodox Holocaust narrative, offering a detailed examination of their arguments.

Understanding Exterminationist Tactics

Downplaying Scientific Evidence

Exterminationists often downplay or dismiss scientific evidence that contradicts their narrative. For instance, studies like those conducted by Germar Rudolf on the presence of Prussian Blue (also known as iron-cyanide or FeCN) in Auschwitz contradict the gas chamber narrative. They demonstrate:

Absence of Prussian Blue: The lack of significant FeCN levels or Prussian Blue staining in alleged gas chambers, as opposed to high levels in areas used for delousing, suggests that these rooms were not used for homicidal gassing. Revisionists argue this scientific evidence is often dismissed or rationalized away with explanations that appear contrived or devoid of empirical support.

Selective Expertise: There's an accusation that only expert opinions that align with the exterminationist view are given credence, while contributions from experts like Rudolf are marginalized or altogether ignored.

The Role of Eyewitness Testimony

Revisionists point out several issues with the reliance on eyewitness accounts:

Inconsistencies and Falsifications: Eyewitness testimonies are criticized for being rife with inconsistencies, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods (e.g., tales of Jews surviving multiple gassings, or elevators leading to ovens). Revisionists argue that these inaccuracies should call into question the reliability of such accounts.

Coercion and Motive: It's suggested that testimonies might have been given under coercion or for motives like receiving benefits, gaining immigration or asylum, or as part of a broader narrative to demonize the Germans.

Circular Reasoning and Logical Fallacies

A common tactic, according to revisionists, is the use of circular reasoning where the Holocaust's occurrence is accepted a priori, and any evidence is then fitted to this predetermined conclusion:

Assuming the Conclusion: For example, the claim that mass gassings happened, therefore, any evidence or interpretation must conform to this view, even if it contradicts scientific findings.

Ignoring Counter-Evidence: Revisionists often encounter the argument that their data or interpretations are less credible than established (exterminationist) history, which they see as a logical fallacy since it assumes the established narrative's accuracy without critically examining the evidence.

Documentary and Historical Misinterpretation

Documentary evidence is another battleground:

Documentary Misuse: Documents like the Wannsee Protocol and Luther's memo are interpreted by exterminationists as evidence of a systematic extermination plan, while revisionists argue these documents discuss resettlement and should not be interpreted as euphemisms for extermination without credible evidence for this claim.

Source Criticism: Revisionists highlight the absence of any direct orders or detailed plans outlining a systematic extermination program from German archives, arguing that alleged euphemisms or indirect references are unsupported and do not constitute credible evidence of genocide.

Lack of Direct Orders or Plans: Revisionists highlight the absence of any direct orders or detailed plans outlining a systematic extermination program from German archives, arguing that alleged euphemisms or indirect references are unsupported and do not constitute credible evidence of genocide.

Source Criticism

Primary vs. Secondary Sources: Revisionists critique the heavy reliance on secondary sources that often echo earlier unverified claims, advocating instead for a focus on primary documents. They argue:

Misrepresentation: Secondary sources have sometimes been found to misrepresent or selectively quote from primary documents, creating a narrative that leans towards the exterminationist view.

Authenticity and Context: The authenticity, context, and provenance of documents are crucial. Revisionists often question documents presented post-war, suggesting they might have been manipulated or misinterpreted for political reasons.

Consistency and Verification: There's an emphasis on verifying documents against multiple sources, timelines, and physical evidence rather than accepting them at face value.

Legal and Propaganda Use: It's pointed out that many documents were produced in the context of war crimes trials where defendants had little capacity to dispute evidence presented against them, possibly leading to coerced or exaggerated testimonies.

The Population Conundrum

A key point of contention revolves around the post-war Jewish population:

Missing Jews: While the exterminationist narrative posits millions of Jews were killed, revisionists highlight the significant number of Jews who reappeared post-war, challenging the narrative of mass extermination through gas chambers or other collective means of murder. They argue this population discrepancy must be accounted for, suggesting:

Resettlement: Many Jews were deported to the Soviet Union or other eastern territories, with significant numbers surviving the war.

Double Counting and Migration: There's an assertion that many Jews might have been double-counted or migrated, contributing to the perception of a population drop in occupied territories.

Loss and Dispersion: Many Jews indeed "lost" family members due to various causes of death both during and after the war, with others scattering into several dozen countries post-war, permanently losing contact and frequently assuming mutual 'extermination'.

Reprisals, Anti-Terrorism, or Genocide?

The narrative of systematic extermination is contrasted with:

Reprisals and Resistance: Revisionists argue that deaths occurred, but often in the context of partisan resistance, anti-terrorist operations, or local reprisals rather than a widespread and state-sponsored extermination program.

Civilians and Partisans: Distinctions are made between combatant and non-combatant deaths, suggesting that the extermination narrative overstates military actions as genocidal acts.

Concluding Thoughts

The revisionist perspective posits that the orthodox Holocaust narrative uses a combination of flawed scientific interpretations, unreliable or coerced testimonies, and logical fallacies to construct an unassailable narrative. They argue for a re-examination of the evidence with an open mind, advocating for:

Forensic Reassessment: More attention to physical and chemical evidence from camps, promoting independent scientific verification.

Holistic Historical Context: Understanding events within the broader context of WWII, including the chaotic war on the Eastern Front, Soviet actions, and post-war politics.

Transparency in Historiography: Encouraging a dialogue that includes all voices and evidence, even those that challenge deeply held beliefs or narratives.

For revisionists, the debate isn't about denying the suffering of WWII but about challenging what they believe to be an overly simplified, politicized version of historical events. They seek to replace "exterminationist tactics" with a search for truth, unvarnished by ideology or political expediency.