Revisionism to me is about discounting the entire thing as a fraud and a lie. Saying 5,999,999 G-d's Chosen died instead of 6 million doesn't make somebody a revisionist.
Exactly. But that is what "revisionism" is about these days.
It's the kind of "revisionism" that is being pushed by the frauds at Inconvenient History and protected by the censors at CODOH.
As an example, there are at least three pukes at Inconvenient History (Kues, Dalton and Widmann) who espouse that "many thousands" (at least 100,000) of jews died en route to and while at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka and are currently buried in “huge mass graves” at said sites. But when they are challenged (just like our cowardly friend Greg Johnson was challenged,) to defend their claims by answering some simple questions, they cravenly and steadfastly refuse and, at CODOH, the questioners are harassed, censored and banned from CODOH.
Here is an example. (I do not have a screenshot to prove this, so you will have to take my word and my memory as being true.)
In the last post of this thread:
Richard Widmann makes the following statement about his fellow milquetoast "revisionist" Thomas Dalton:
Here he says "many thousands" and does not identify an exact number. He similarly notes that many of those "in-transit" to the camp would have arrived dead - which is in agreement with my own thesis.
Now I can't remember who made the post or what the EXACT question was, but someone asked Widmann something like this:
What is your thesis as to what happened to those "many thousands" of alleged dead jews at Treblinka?
The question was very simple, direct, to the point, relevant, non offensive and very much on topic - BUT - it was deleted by the CODOH censors
That is but one example of what happens at CODOH a lot. These bone throwers make claims about tens and even hundreds of thousands of jew deaths in the holohoax and yet they not only refuse to defend their positions, their thesis' and claims are protected by the CODOH censors.
So the term "revisionist" is not only a derogatory term in the first place, but it has lost any real meaning that it once may have had. But of course, no self-respecting historian would call themselves a “revisionist” in the first place. (Why would anyone in their right mind use a derogatory word to describe themselves that is also used by the jews - effectively - to demonize and discredit?)