Having knowledge of historical events is important indeed because it can also mean a matter of life and death. This refers to particular historic events that have taken place and are tarnished by revisionists; they aim at tainting the facts in order to suit their own ends and clear their positions. However, if they succeed on doing so, there is a chance that people would forget about actual events and may face similar occurrences in time to come. For example, those who experienced the Holocaust would know the value of recording and maintaining the historical event as it happened. In this way they may prevent another similar occurrence from taking place through the patterns that the Third Reich took. However, if people generally are unaware of the facts and the patterns, they can so easily give in to sneak attempts by groups such as the neo-Nazis.

Considering the manner in which propaganda has immense power to create impressions in the minds of people, it must be asserted that there is a great need to protect the truth from being tarnished with lies. The hopes of covering original facts need to be overturned, as there is immense risk if lies take control.

Already, one lives in a world that is laden with images that mask reality through the media, but if revisionists succeed in portraying the wrong image of the Holocaust then there is great risk that genocide of that scale can occur again.
Revisionists such as Mark Weber holding master’s degrees even denied that he had any contacts with the Neo Nazis. However, it was later found that he was the publisher of the National Vanguard. This is the medium of Pierce William’s neo Nazi organization (Shermer & Grobman, 2000, 10-14). David Irving was another revisionist, who even asserted that “the Nazis never had a program in effect to kill any Jews… the Jews were just political prisoners”. This somehow does not make any sense at all because how come children were rounded up as well and considered to be political prisoners, and would children be a risk to the Nazis? It simply does not make any sense(Shermer & Grobman, 2000, 10-14).

Aside from these two bare-faced liars that have been exposed, there are other Holocaust Revisionists, some of whom have even revealed themselves. One in particular is Bradley Smith, who has even written a book called ‘Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist’. In his own words, he asserted: “If the people who now support Holocaust Revisionism come to power, however, I have little doubt that the new bullies of the age would be among them, or that I would be thrown out of their ranks, or that my new associates would then become those who despise me now” (Smith, 1987). Evidently, these words indicate that Smith believes that he as a revisionist has done a grand job, and to say the least, he does not believe that his work would disturb humanity in the way that some historians believe it would. This is a natural fear because it is worth considering that such an event can happen again if people are unaware.

With revisionists making such earnest efforts to mislead the masses, there are fears of varying volumes emerging. Smith was influenced considerably by Robert Faurisson (1978), as he rejected what was conventionally offered to people. They both agree with the manner in which one particular view is offered to people. However, they are not the only revisionists to agree on the falsified reports of the Holocaust (Faurisson, 1978, 2). To mention one revisionist in particular (Ernst Zundell, 1994) is enough to frighten historians who know for sure what happened at the time of Nazi rule. Ernst Zundel is one persistent revisionist who has the style for publishing his views in way that would leave political campaigners envious of him. He asserts, “The Holocaust has become an enterprise based on falsehoods and lies and they are promoting it criminally” (Rimland, 1996). Though the government has been after him for publishing false matter, he is still relentless in his efforts, which is in fact something to be feared. It also must be noted that this is all done with the support of donations.

Aside from the revisionists above who may have had in depth knowledge and researched the Holocaust, there was Fred Leuchter, revisionist. It is asserted that he of course did not know much, and this is said because at the Zundel trial he could barely support his assertions. This means that what historians are facing here is a mixture of highly determined/considerably educated individuals and those who are purely determined to spread lies that would turn into truth with the passage of time. This is in fact the greatest fear of historians; if people cry out lies all the time, it will soon turn into the truth. This is simply because of the persistence involved in the process, which is similar to the truth telling process of historians (Young, 1990 22-31).

Usually people believe what they are told, and since, historians have always been emphasizing on particular facts they have been able to impound within the minds of individuals particular views. However, it must be realized that when researchers conduct their work, there is almost always some form of similarity that emerges, and hence there is little or no contradiction involved when newer facts are discovered. It must also be remembered that when an untruth is propagated, there is severe contradiction, which results in people generally either accepting the newer views or rejecting them. However, considering the widespread ignorance and vulnerability of human beings, one can understand why a significant number of people fall for revisionist claims. With further evidence for the denial of the Holocaust, one is increasingly inclined to believe that it did not take place. This is because of the evidence provided at the ‘Zundel trial’.

In this trial, Fred A. Leuchter had presented his views after traveling to Auschwitz to examine wall samples of gas chambers. He tested them and found nothing that could have killed people (Fred A. Leuchter, 2004). Apparently, his testimony was a lap in the face of historians and truth because other historians have also checked out the gas chambers and found poisonous residue there.

In contrast to the cruelty that revisionists deny, there are popular films made that have won over the hearts of most people. This is because of the fact that these films are in sync with historic evidence and depict the willingness of a single person to save as many individuals as he can. Indeed, it must be asserted that a movie such as Schindler’s List is one that stands as a brick wall before liars (revisionists). Instead of trying to compete with the underground propagandists, it is worth using what is in one’s might. By creating more films like Schindler’s list, historians will be able to achieve two very important objectives. The first objective is to delineate the revisionists, and the second is to educate the people in general so that they will be more aware of this immensely important event in history.

The important thing to remember is to keep in mind the cruelty that went on against the Jews during the Second World War; there have been attempts to reconcile the reality of evil with belief in the sacred. If such reconciliation was not carried out, then there would probably be a distinct line dawn between those that are good and those that are bad, and in this process there would be many races in the world that would even be termed good or bad. However, with revisionists around today with their propaganda, there are several people who are being confused by what is presented to them. However, this has to be overcome with authentic historian perspectives.

The movie ‘Schindler’s list,’ is one that shows what difference the forgiveness of one can make to many human beings, and if there were more people like Schindler at the time of the Holocaust there probably would have been many more Jewish lives saved. This is a point that revisionists would not agree with, as they would assert that there were hardly any Jews killed in the first place.

Quite naturally, after the Second World War, people around the world generally always felt that the Germans were bad, and generally in Europe the feeling was that Germans were coldhearted and cruel and never to be trusted. Religion has tried to wash away this stereotyping through the assertion that all human beings are not the same. Revisionists on the other brainwash people in another way; they simply deny that the atrocities took place. Religions say that even if there has been a large part of a particular race that has wreaked havoc in the world, in spite of that, the whole race cannot be termed as evil, as there are always some good people in every race. In Schindler’s list, Schindler is a character that represents the real good among the Germans. The producer, who evidently has sound knowledge of the events during the Second World War, has tried to show that the act of killing so many Jews is not justified, and is actually explained by the hatred that one type of people developed for another over a period of time because of jealousy.

Approaching peace in society and lessening the tension of contemporary Germans through this process is acceptable. However, when it comes to lying about the whole affair in order to clear one’s position, it is unfair.

The Jews had always been successful business people, and so, they had managed to amass wealth through their business skills, while the Germans suffered. On the basis of this, Hitler and his men wanted to kill them all, and there was a plan for this, which Hitler expressed in his own words (Zimmerman, 2004). The hatred that the German’s felt for this success is manifested in the way that ‘Goeth’, the cruel German officer treats the Jews. He says, “All they have done in the past will soon be forgotten.” By these words he means that all the success that the Jews have had and the poverty they have caused the Germans, will all be wiped out for good.

Similarly, revisionists attempt to do the same by denying what went on in camps. It must be realized at this point that when it comes to spreading propaganda before historians, the process cannot be successful. This is because of the fact that they are already aware of exactly what might have happened at particular points in history. This is precisely where the problem is as far as facing revisionist claims; most of the people are unaware of exact details, and so, a significant number may give in to revisionist claims (Zimmerman, 2004). It is evident that if historians and other agencies do not begin to work against revisionists, very soon there will be large numbers of people refuting the actual occurrence of the Holocaust. In order to prevent this, a counter move needs to be launched, through which people can be educated. If not, it will be difficult to explain to them the reality of the situation or even to remove the consensus.