She has certainly been accused of being a revisionist. She angered many Polish people by telling them that the Polish were partially responsible for the war. She said they were responsible because they mobilized their army before Germany did. Thousands of Poles died as a result of WWII and Germany was definitely the aggressive force.
In response to first reports about scientific fraud, institutes and universities all over the world have given themselves rules of "Good Scientific Conduct". Deviations from these rules are regarded to be scientific misconduct.
One of the basic rules of good scientific conduct is, quote: "The rule of systematic skepticism: openness to doubt, even about one's own results and about the results of one's own group". End of quote The openness to doubt is the driving force creating progress in science, without doubt science becomes static, scientific theory becomes dogma. This process leads to complete replacement of existing theories, famous case the heliocentric model of our solar system, promoted by Galileo Galilee and Johannes Kepler against resistance of the holder of the contemporary "truth", the Catholic Church and her view of the Earth being the center, the sun and planets orbiting around it. Another benefit of scientific doubt is the continuous adaptation of scientific theories to growing pool of knowledge, eradicating minor errors or misconceptions, this way "fine tuning" an accepted theory. All processes can be summarized under "revision". "Revision" literally means "to have one more look", scientifically it is the process of "re thinking", "re calculating" and "re writing". "History" is an academic discipline. Accurately recording history depends from the availability of information, the validation of its accuracy and from political influences, existing governments sometimes not being "amused" to have embarrassing episodes recorded in their books.
Because the amount of available information grows with time, perceptions of information's validity rapidly changes with conflicting information becoming available and governments change from time to time, "history" cannot claim exception from the academic rule above. Nevertheless historians, in particular those being occupied with history between 1933 and 1945, have instigated a witch hunt against own "revisionists". Revisionist versions of history are not accepted by academic journals, leading to those having to found their own journal. Especially for Holocaust, it must be assumed that it has developed into dogma. Deborah Lipstadt writes: "..Rather, these historians attempt and succeed in convincing ignorant individuals of their racist and anti-Semitic ideologies. These self-proclaimed revisionists have recently encountered legal difficulties in their ability to spout their version of the truth". That in principle says all. Even revisionism being entirely factual is branded of aiming to spread hate and its consumers to be ignorant. The most important part is that this version of "truth" is running into legal difficulties. The question is: if natural sciences cannot claim to be owner of an eternal "truth", how can history claim the same, and if not, which justification exists in a society calling itself "free" and "tolerant" to defend one particular version of "truth" by criminal law. The impact of that campaign is hidden in the question above. The term "revisionist" silently assumes "revisionism" to be unethical, immoral and objectionable. If Erika Steinbach does not adhere meticulously to what is called the "master narrative" of history, she might be "revisionist", but that makes her a true scientist. Much more than academic historians.
To suggest that Erika Steinbach is a revisionist is about the polar opposite of her actions. Her work with refugees and displaced, relocated, or interned people may lend itself to a communist type of suggestion, but hardly supports the notion that she supports a communist form of government. She has worked within the confines of a democratically elected parliament to accomplish things in the name of human rights. I would think that most Germans applaud her efforts that thwart the negative stigma left behind after the National Socialist party fell in Germany.
No, she is not a World War II revisionist, she is a leading political figure for Germany today, and her work is aimed to help the lives of the German people. She is active in pushing forward the Christian religion in Germany, and is a great leader that is looked up to.
There's a difference between revisionism and actual historical questioning, and she isn't necessarily racist or Nazi-ist in her beliefs. She has made several arguments about the German settlements in Poland, and people have said that she have led to deterioration of German Polish relations, but she ultimately is not a bad person.
Erika Steinbach is a conservative German politician who had water balloons thrown at her by liberal youths for allegedly having revisionist views about World War II. Those allegations have not yet been proven. If true, she should be reprimanded by her constituents for having such faulty judgment. It's not Steinbach's fault the Holocaust happened.