|
Pros
and cons ABCDABCD In 1993 Jewish theologian Deborah Lipstadt
called British historian David Irving
a 'HOLOCAUST denier'. Irving sued her for libel in return. Subsequently a court case unfolded in England in 2000.
ABCD
The sharpest weapon in Lipstadt’s defense arsenal was Jewish art historian Robert van
Pelt (below left) , who presented an expert report claiming to refute revisionist assertions about Auschwitz. Irving
lost the case, and van Pelt was therefore praised as the 'defeater of
revisionism'. Van Pelt published his revised expert report in his book 'The Case for Auschwitz' in
2002 .
ABCD
In
November 2010, Carlo Mattogno (below right) ,
Italian expert on the HOLOCAUST, published a two volume analysis of van Pelt's
study: 'Auschwitz - the Case for Sanity'  ,
as the response to van Pelt. Its first revelation is that van Pelt has committed
plagiarism: he utilized the research results published in 1989 and 1993 by French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac
without naming his source. Pressac himself had ended up in 1995 admitting that the dossier on the German concentration camps was
rotten and bound for the rubbish bins of history. ABCD
Mattogno's
analysis also reveals - according to its author - that van Pelt’s study of Auschwitz ignores crucial
counter-arguments, fails to approach pivotal technical issues with technical
means, is highly inconsistent, uses deceptive methods, presents conflicting sources without due source
criticism, deforms all sources to serve the author’s perspective, and reveals a threadbare knowledge of the history of Auschwitz.
|
