Some examples of the insanity generated in holocaust historians, propagandists and believers as they attempt to “uphold the harebrained” and “defend the indefensible.”
Claude Lanzmann said of his film “Shoah” in Le Monde, March 3, 1994:
“In Shoah there is no time spent on archival material because this is not the way I think and work, and besides, there isn’t any such material. If I had found a film – a secret film, because filming was forbidden – shot by the SS, in which it is shown how 3000 Jews – men, women, and children – die together, suffocated in the gas chamber of crematory 2 in Auschwitz, then not only would I not have shown it, I would have even destroyed it. I cannot say why. That happens on its own.”
Professor Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of the European Jews, who by his own admission had spent 35 years studying the Holocaust, appeared as an expert witness for the prosecution at the 1985 Canadian trial of Revisionist Ernst Zundel, during which Hilberg was asked by Douglas Christie, Zundel’s defense attorney: “Can you give me one scientific report that shows the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory?”
“I am at a loss.”
“You are (at a loss) because you can’t,” Christie said.
Hilberg also stated in an interview shortly before his death in 2007:
“[T]here was a Holocaust, which is, by the way, more easily said than demonstrated.”
The following quotes are by holocaust “historian” and Auschwitz “expert” Prof. Robert Jan van Pelt in an interview for a TV documentary in 1999, “Dr. Death – The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter” by Errol Morris.
“Auschwitz is like the holy of holies. I prepared [for] years to go there and to have a fool [Leuchter] come in, come in completely unprepared, it’s sacrilege. Somebody who walks into the holy of holies and doesn’t give a damn.” @40min 59sec
“Crematorium II is the most lethal building of Auschwitz. In the 2,500 square feet of this one room, more people lost their lives than any other place on this planet. 500,000 people were killed. If you would draw a map of human suffering, if you created a geography of atrocity, this would be the absolute center.” @55min 44sec
If the holocaust revisionists would be shown to be right, we would lose our sense about the Second World War, we would lose our sense about what democracy was. The Second World War was a moral war; it was a war between good and evil. And so if we take the core of this war, which is in fact Auschwitz, out of the picture, then everything else becomes unintelligible to us. We collectively end up in a madhouse. @1hr 23min
On the question of the lack of material evidence for the “gas chambers,” Professor Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt said to the Toronto newspaper The Star of Dec. 27, 2009:
“To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.”
“Ninety-nine percent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove… it has become part of our inherited knowledge.”
Actually it is 100% of what they claim they know, they have no physical evidence for. In other words, nothing has even been presented for revisionists to refute!
In 1979, P. Vidal-Naquet, Léon Poliakov, and 32 other academics signed a lengthy joint declaration in reply to Robert Faurisson‘s technical arguments demonstrating that the allegations about the Auschwitz gas chambers ran into certain material impossibilities. Their answer, published in Le Monde, Feb. 21, 1979, p. 23 was:
“One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened. Such is the obligatory starting point required for any historical enquiry into this subject. This truth we simply want to bring back into memory: there is not and there may not be, any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.”
That answer amounts to a dodging of the enquiry put forth. If someone shirks a question in this manner, it is because he is incapable of answering. And if thirty-four historians find themselves to such a degree unable to explain how a crime of these dimensions was perpetrated, it is because that crime defies the laws of nature; it is therefore imaginary. -Robert Faurisson
Lucy Dawidowicz, one of the leading Jewish Holocaust historians, actually approves of the French historians’ dogmatic declaration, which shows the same degree of open-mindness as was displayed by the astronomers who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope but nevertheless “knew” that he could not possibly have discovered any new heavenly bodies with it.
“[That] could well serve as a guide to American historians.”
Rudolf Höss, commandant of Auschwitz, upon whose testimony (which the British admitted was extracted via torture) the Auschwitz “gassings” are largely based:
“We knew when people were dead because their screaming stopped.”
Gassed persons lose consciousness long before they are dead.
The United Nations calls on world to fight holocaust denial:
“We must continue to examine why the world failed to prevent the Holocaust and other atrocities since. That way, we will be better armed to defeat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance,” said Ban K Moon in a message marking the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust.
Does this make any sense? It seems their whole purpose is to defeat anti-Semitism, but do they also want to stop wars? It is believed the work of the UN is to prevent war, not to prevent anti-Semitism. Nothing has ever shown that anti-Semitism has caused a single war; instead war is more the result of philo-Semitism.