Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 0:42:11 GMT -8
But this type of question about exact figures not only constitutes a form of denialism veiled in the framework of doubt but is the rock on which an alternative history is subsequently built. And in the construction of that alternative history it is the family members who have suffered losses who are held responsible for lying and deceiving. Once again we see how denialism reverses the roles and transforms the victims into those responsible for a deception . when stating that to argue with denialist theses it is necessary to leave the sphere of expert debate.
According to his perspective the fact that historians participate in the Russia Mobile Number List conversation challenging denialist theses will not only not change these theses but could even contribute as he states in his book to legitimizing them. Why does this happen Indeed as he points out many historians and especially those who are specialists in the Shoah have tended to consider that while denialist and revisionist positions call into question data and situations that concern history its need and obligation was to respond to them from historical knowledge.
This process of response to denialist and revisionist theses by the historiographic community has been very visible in countries such as Italy and France. However and despite the wishes of the historians themselves their answers have not served to dispel any doubts. Quite the contrary these expert responses have produced a legitimization of the revisionist and denialist theses because they have given validity to those doubts considering that they were limited to the scope of history. The problem is that before responding to a certain question we must ask ourselves philosophically about its character. And this is what historians have not done.