Today I would like to focus on two paragraphs from the Holocaust Encyclopedias’ (HE) entry on Holocaust denial. Get comfy because there’s a lot to unpack here.
First off, Holocaust revisionists have proven that the gas chambers couldn’t have worked the way orthodox Holocaust historians claim. This, in fact, does discredit the entire Holocaust narrative. Why wouldn’t it? The Holocaust is murdering Jews in gas chambers, if that isn’t true why should we believe any of it?
HE states that, “Holocaust deniers often mimic the forms and practices of scholars…” Orthodox Holocaust historians hold all the institutional power. Holocaust revisionists will get their credentials revoked and, depending on the country they’re in, face fines and prison. Holocaust revisionism certainly won’t bolster your career. Accomplished Holocaust revisionists don’t mimic scholars, they are scholars. They just have been denied credentials by the system that is trying to silence them.
“They generally footnote their writings by citing the publications of other Holocaust deniers and hold pseudo-scholarly conventions.” I’m glad Holocaust Encyclopedia brings up the issue of citation. This is a topic I wrote about in my dramatization of the book A Year in Treblinka, by Yankel Wiernik. If one were to read this supposed true story about Wiernik’s time in Treblinka they would be met by many impossibilities and absurdities. Because of this Wiernik can hardly be considered a credible witness. Despite this orthodox Holocaust historians have no qualms with liberally citing this book.
Raul Hilberg’s, The destruction of the European Jews, has been described as a ‘landmark synthesis, based on a masterful reading of German documents‘. In volume three of the series Hilberg cites Wiernik’s book five times.
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka : the Operation Reinhard Death Camps, by Yitzhak Arad cites a A Year in Treblinka 29 times. Raul Hilberg had this to say about Arad’s book, ” . . . some of the most gripping chapters I have ever read. . . . the authentic, exhaustive, definitive account of the least known death camps of the Nazi era.”
In turn other Holocaust books cite Hilberg and Arad and we have a case of the Holocaust affirmers doing what they accuse others of. So, HE, is it pseudo-scholarly when you cite other Holocaust affirmers, or is this something that is only bad when revisionists do it?
As far as pseudo-scholarly conventions go, what exactly would that entail? A meeting of people that you refuse to give or have taken away credentials because they dared to question the official narrative? It must be nice to be on the side of the authority so you can level such accusations and keep any dissenters from having a large platform to challenge your claims.