This is a topic I have been looking into a little. The very term denial would indicate that you are saying something didn't happen, that you refute something existed, but most revisionists openly accept that the holocaust existed. It is just that they dispute certain aspects of the traditional claims and in some respects have been proven correct. Initial claims of 4 million Jews killed at Aushwitz were revised down to 1.1 million. Not a small number and it makes you wonder.

I have also been following the story of David Cole, an intelligent young man who raised some interesting questions about traditional historical claims about the holocaust. Money was offered by the Jewish Defense League for information about where Cole lived and seemingly Cole went into hiding. A few years later he retracted all of his former views apparently of his own volition.

Clearly in some nations it is a crime to deny the holocaust. Well, actually it is a crime to even question the extent of the holocaust. Nobody is denying the holocaust, but merely questioning the lack of evidence concerning numbers and documents supporting key elements. This should not be a crime and to classify it as such is Orwellian in nature.

It seems that a holocaust denier is anyone who questions official accounts of the holcaust. Obviously revisionist is a far more apt term. Just as you critizise the terrorism of Israel and become an anti-semite, you criticize the lack of evidence on the holocaust and become a denier.

It just sounds more extreme than the so called deniers themselves. Thoughts?