Robert Jan van Pelt: “The Case for Auschwitz”

Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002, 592 pages, 7”×10”, 132 b&w illustrations, index, bibliography, ISBN: 9780253340160 (hc) 9780253022981 (pb).

British historian David Irving was viciously smeared by the media after his testimony at the 1988 Ernst Zündel false-news trial in Toronto. Irving’s books disappeared from many bookshops, he sustained major financial losses, and he was ultimately labeled as a “Holocaust denier.”[1]

As part of the smear campaign against Irving, Deborah Lipstadt writes in her book Denying the Holocaust that “on some level Irving seems to conceive himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy.” Lipstadt describes Irving as a “Hitler partisan wearing blinkers” who “distort[ed] evidence […] manipulate[ed] documents, [and] skew[ed…] and misrepresent[ed] data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions.”[2] David Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books Ltd. in British courts to attempt to end these and other similar statements.

Canadian-Jewish architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt was hired by Lipstadt’s defense team to act as an expert witness for Lipstadt’s defense. Van Pelt wrote for this trial, and defended in cross-examination, a 700-page report addressing the historical and forensic evidence for the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He subsequently wrote the book The Case for Auschwitz, which presents the bulk of the evidence he submitted in his expert report for this trial.[3]

This review discusses some weaknesses in van Pelt’s research which was designed to discredit David Irving’s views of the “Holocaust.”

Dr. James Roth

Robert Jan van Pelt quotes David Irving as challenging anyone to explain to him “why there is no significant trace of any cyanide compound in the building which they have always identified as the former gas chambers. Forensic chemistry is, I repeat, an exact science.” Van Pelt uses statements made by Dr. James Roth in a documentary movie titled Mr. Death to answer Irving’s challenge.[4]

Dr. James Roth originally testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that he received samples from Fred Leuchter in his capacity as an analytical chemist at Alpha Analytical Laboratories. The purpose of the tests was to determine the total iron and cyanide content in the samples Leuchter had taken at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Dr. Roth testified that the Prussian Blue produced by a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide could penetrate deeply in porous materials such as brick and iron.[5]

Dr. Roth later changed his testimony in the movie Mr. Death produced by Errol Morris. Dr. Roth states in this movie:[6]

“Cyanide is a surface reaction. It’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you’re going to go looking for it, you’re going to look on the surface only. There’s no reason to go deep, because it’s not going to be there.”

British science historian Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes that Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death are wrong:[7]

“The 1999 film about Leuchter features an interview with the chemist [Dr. James Roth] who had done the analysis of his wall-samples back in 1988. He had done this ‘blind,’ i.e., with no knowledge of where they had come from, which was correct scientific procedure. During the second Zündel trial in Toronto in 1988 he testified under oath concerning the method used and what Leuchter had sent him. He said back then that hydrogen cyanide can easily penetrate into brick and mortar. But then, when he was interviewed again by Morris for his documentary, he suddenly stated that the results were quite meaningless, because the cyanide could only have soaked a few microns into the brickwork. Wow, that was quite a whopper. Mortar and brickwork are highly porous to hydrogen cyanide, obviously so because the delousing chambers were more or less equally blue inside and out, it had soaked right through. But you can watch him on video explaining this, as if he were confusing brick and mortar with rock. The latter will only absorb cyanide to a few microns of its surface.”

Germar Rudolf, a certified chemist, writes in regard to Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death:[8]

“It can be shown that Prof. Dr. James Roth is wrong for the following reasons:

1. It is a fact that the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof, and Majdanek are saturated with cyanide compounds, and this not only superficially, but into the depth of the masonry, as I have demonstrated by taking samples from different depths of the wall. Compare in this regard my mortar and plaster Sample Pairs 9 & 11, 12 & 13, 19a & b […], which were each taken at the same spot but at different depths, as well as Sample 17, taken from below the overlying lime plaster (which is thus similar to 19b).

These values prove that hydrogen cyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of plaster and mortar. But even the other samples taken from the surface prove that Prof. Roth’s allegation is wrong: Provided that most of the cyanide detectable today is present in the form of iron cyanide (Iron Blue and other cyanoferrates), as Prof. Roth assumes himself, his thesis would mean that 10% to 75% of the iron content of these samples are located in the upper 10 micrometers thin layer of the samples (0.010 mm), i.e., they are located in less than 1% of the entire sample mass. The rest of the samples, however, would have been massively deprived of iron. How this migration of a major portion of iron to a thin surface layer would have happened is inexplicable to me. Fact is that this simply could not happen.

2. Furthermore, expert literature is detailed about the following:

a. Hydrogen cyanide is an extremely mobile chemical compound with physical properties comparable to water […]
b. Water vapor can easily penetrate masonry material, and thus also hydrogen cyanide […]
c. Hydrogen cyanide can quite easily penetrate thick, porous layers like walls […]

3. In addition, it is generally known that cement and lime mortar are highly porous materials, comparable for instance to sponges. In such materials, there does not exist anything like a defined layer of 0.01 mm beyond which hydrogen cyanide could not diffuse, as there can also be no reason why water could not penetrate a sponge deeper than a millimeter. Steam, for example, which behaves physically comparable to hydrogen cyanide, can very easily penetrate walls.

4. Finally, the massive discolorations of the outside of the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Birkenau and Stutthof, as shown in this expert report, are clearly visible and conclusive evidence for the fact of how easily hydrogen cyanide and its soluble derivatives can and do penetrate such walls.

As a professor of analytical chemistry, Prof. Roth must know this, so one can only wonder why he spreads such outrageous nonsense. That Prof. Roth is indeed a competent chemist can be seen from what he said during his testimony under oath as an expert witness during the above mentioned Zündel trial:

‘In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.’

[…] It is also revealing that Prof. Roth mentioned during this interview that, had he known where Leuchter’s samples originated from, his analytical results would have been different. Does that mean that Prof. Roth manipulates his result according to whether or not he likes the origin of certain samples? Such an attitude is exactly the reason why one should never tell an ‘independent’ laboratory about the origin of the samples to be analyzed, simply because ‘independence’ is a very flexible term when it comes to controversial topics. What Prof. Dr. Roth has demonstrated here is only his lack of professional honesty.”

Van Pelt acknowledges that Erroll Morris had to redo Mr. Death because his movie originally made Fred Leuchter look good. Van Pelt writes:[9]

“At a trial screening at Harvard, one half of the audience thought that Morris agreed with Leuchter’s conclusions about Auschwitz and the other half came to agree with Leuchter’s conclusions about Auschwitz. Not surprisingly, both views horrified Morris.”

After consulting with van Pelt and Deborah Lipstadt, Morris redid his movie to make Leuchter look bad. The movie’s redo included Dr. Roth’s statements which contradict Roth’s earlier testimony at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial.[10]

Kraków Institute of Forensic Research

Van Pelt does more than merely state that Fred Leuchter’s conclusions about the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau should not be taken seriously. He also states that tests conducted by the Kraków Institute of Forensic Research “positively demonstrate that the alleged gas chambers were used to kill people.”[11]

The Kraków Institute of Forensic Research published results in 1994 that attempted to refute the Leuchter Report. The team from this forensic institute, which was led by Dr. Jan Markiewicz, claims not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian Blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas. The researchers therefore excluded Prussian Blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses, resulting in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers. Their analysis made it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero. The Kraków researchers concluded from their analysis that since the gas chambers and delousing facilities all had the same amount of cyanide residues, humans were gassed in the gas chambers.

Germar Rudolf gave the Kraków researchers irrefutable proof that Prussian Blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, citing a case document in expert literature.[12] The authors of the Kraków report refused to change their report and admit they made a mistake. Rudolf writes:[13]

“The only ‘scientific’ attempt to refute Frederick A. Leuchter’s most intriguing thesis turns out to be one of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th century. How desperate must they be – those who try to defend the established version of the Holocaust, i.e., the alleged systematic extermination of Jews in homicidal ‘gas chambers,’ that they resort to such obviously fraudulent methods?”

Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom also refutes the Kraków Institute of Forensic Research report, as summarized by the retired professor of the philosophy of science, Dr. James H. Fetzer:[14]

“When the Auschwitz museum was confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at Auschwitz have blue walls – due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide compounds – but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them. They justified this measure with the claim that they did not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately ignored an obvious explanation – that Zyklon B was only used for delousing – which would have remedied their lack of comprehension. As a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.”

Dr. Arthur Butz writes in regard to the Kraków Institute of Forensic Research report:[15]

“The argument, to the extent that it was intelligible enough to be summarized at all, was that they did not understand how the iron-cyanide compounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don’t understand how the moon got there, so I will ignore all effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don’t drown.”

Dr. Richard Green

Van Pelt uses a report written by Dr. Richard Green to discredit Germar Rudolf’s chemical research. Van Pelt writes:[16]

“Green produced an excellent 65-page report in which he demolished point-for-point Rudolf’s attempt to use chemistry to trump knowledge based on a convergence of both eyewitness and documentary evidence.”

Dr. Richard Green, who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Stanford University, agrees with Germar Rudolf that the Prussian Blue found in the delousing chambers is the result of gassings with hydrogen cyanide. However, Dr. Green offers a possible alternative explanation for why the outside walls of the delousing chambers having blue staining. Green writes:[17]

“[…] the discoloration on the outside of walls, ought to make one consider what possible processes could have taken place outside of the delousing chambers. For example, is it possible that materials that had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN were leaned against the outside of the buildings? Not enough is known, but it is premature to conclude that the staining on the outside of buildings owes its origins to processes that took place within those buildings.”

Dr. Green’s speculation is absurd. Why would the Germans lean materials that had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN against the outside walls of the delousing chambers? Dr. Green is desperate to find an alternative reason for the heavy blue staining on the outside walls of the delousing chambers.[18]

Germar Rudolf writes in regard to Dr. Green’s speculation:[19]

“One major rule of science is that it is impermissible to immunize a theory against refutation, here in particular by inventing untenable auxiliary hypotheses to shore up an otherwise shaky thesis. […] This is exactly what Dr. Green is doing: coming up with a ludicrous attempt at explaining a fact which does not fit into his theory. Yet instead of fixing his theory, he tries to bend reality.”

Dr. Green also challenges the possibility of formation of any noticeable quantities of Prussian Blue in the alleged homicidal gas chambers. Dr. Green writes:[20]

“The difference in total cyanides (Prussian blue + non-Prussian blue) owes to the fact that Prussian blue formed efficiently in the case of the delousing chambers but not in the homicidal gas chambers, and Prussian blue once formed is likely to remain.”

Dr. Green is not able to provide any convincing evidence why Prussian Blue would not form efficiently in the homicidal gas chambers. For example, Dr. Green states that masonry in the alleged homicidal gas chambers has a neutral pH value which does not allow for the formation of cyanide salts. Germar Rudolf writes:[21]

“But if that were true, how come huge amounts of cyanides did accumulate in the walls of the disinfestation chambers?”

Rudolf has documented with expert literature on the chemistry of building materials that the cement mortars and concretes used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers are noticeably alkaline for many weeks, months or even years. These walls would have been very much inclined to accumulate cyanide salts and to form Prussian Blue, even more so than the lime plaster of the disinfestation chambers.[22]

Dr. Richard Green and other chemists adhering to the orthodox Holocaust narrative have failed to explain why the walls of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau are permeated with Prussian Blue, while nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers. The only reasonable explanation is that Zyklon B was never used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes:[23]

“[…] for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German World War II labour camp let us merely measure cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”

Dr. Georges Wellers

Van Pelt writes that “while high levels of cyanide are required for delousing purposes, lower concentrations suffice for the purpose of killing human beings.”[24] Van Pelt’s conclusion is based in part on French biochemist and Auschwitz survivor Dr. Georges Wellers, who states that humans are considerably more sensitive to hydrogen cyanide than insects. The homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau were thus conducted with smaller amounts of hydrogen cyanide in shorter times. Wellers says the victims would have inhaled almost all of the hydrogen cyanide, so there presumably was nothing left to react with the masonry.[25]

Cyrus Cox writes that Wellers’s explanation overlooks several factors:[26]

“1) Experience with executions by means of instantly released hydrogen cyanide in the execution gas chambers of the U.S. shows that in these cases of applying hydrogen-cyanide concentrations similar to those used against insects, it took on average around nine minutes before the gassing victims were dead, and in extreme cases up to 18 minutes;

2) The Zyklon B used in Auschwitz-Birkenau would have slowly discharged its toxin over a period of one to two hours;

3) None of the alleged homicidal gas chambers used in Auschwitz-Birkenau had devices such as warm-air blowers to aid evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide. Such devices were part of the standard equipment of the disinfestation chambers used in that period (the alleged homicidal gas chambers are said to have used precisely the same form of Zyklon B as did the disinfestation chambers);

4) The concentration of toxic gas in the chambers would have steadily increased for one or two hours; therefore, ventilation of the chamber before the complete evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide would have been of no avail; and

5) The victims before dying could have inhaled only an insignificant part of the hydrogen-cyanide gas that was in the homicidal gas chambers.”

Cox lists several additional factors indicating that the alleged homicidal gas chambers had a significantly higher tendency of forming long-term-stable cyanide residue than the disinfestation buildings. He concludes:[27]

“In the masonry samples of the underground morgue, we should find approximately similar residues as in the disinfestation chambers, if not even more, provided that the stories told by the witnesses are true.”

Gas-Chamber Operation

Van Pelt, to his credit, quotes Dr. Robert Faurisson concerning the American gas chambers:[28]

“The real gas chambers, such as those created in 1924 and developed by the Americans around 1936-1938, offer some idea of the inherent complexity of such a method of execution.”

However, van Pelt fails to show how the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau could have been used in the mass extermination process claimed by Holocaust historians.

The alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau could not have been used to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people as described in pro-Holocaust literature for numerous reasons:[29]

1. they did not have escape-proof doors and windows;
2. they did not have panic-proof equipment;
3. they did not have technically gastight doors and shutters;
4. they had no provision to quickly release and distribute the poison gas; and
5. they had no effective device to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the execution.

By contrast, Germany built highly sophisticated and expensive disinfestation facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau to kill lice and save inmate lives. These disinfestation facilities

1. had walls and ceilings covered with gastight coatings;
2. were equipped with massive steel doors and had no windows;
3. had technically gastight doors;
4. had devices to quickly release and distribute the poison gas; and
5. had effective devices to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the gas procedure.

By one estimate, the SS at Auschwitz-Birkenau spent almost $1 billion in today’s values to bring the typhus epidemics raging there under control.[30] An enormous amount of information exists concerning the German delousing facilities,[31] but no similar information exists regarding the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[32]

The roof of the semi-underground Morgue #1 of Crematorium II at Birkenau, which is said to have been the building’s homicidal gas chamber, remains intact to some degree today. Contrary to eyewitness testimony, that roof today has no Zyklon-B-introduction holes. This has been acknowledged by van Pelt.[33] Since it is impossible to close holes measuring 70 x 70 cm from a concrete roof without leaving clearly visible traces, it is certain that no Zyklon-B-introduction holes ever existed at Crematorium II. Consequently, Zyklon B could not have been introduced through the roof at this morgue as alleged by pro-Holocaust historians.[34]

As a result of his on-site examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek, Fred Leuchter writes that[35]

“no attempt was ever made to prevent gas from entering the crematories. […] No attempt was made to protect operating personnel from exposure to the gas or to protect other non-participating persons from exposure. […] The chambers were too small to accommodate more than a simple fraction of the alleged numbers. Plain and simple, these facilities could not have operated as execution gas chambers.”

Another factor making impossible the mass murder of a million Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau is the fact that thousands of corpses could not have been cremated every day at Auschwitz-Birkenau as claimed by Holocaust historians. Ivan Lagacé, manager of a large crematory in Calgary, Canada, testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that based on his experience, it would have only been possible to cremate a maximum of 184 bodies a day at Birkenau. Lagacé stated that the claim that the 46 retorts at Birkenau could cremate over 4,400 bodies in a day was “ludicrous,” “preposterous” and “beyond the realm of reality.”[36]

Jürgen Graf writes:[37]

“The only possible scientific conclusion is that the supposed many hundred-thousand-fold murder of Jews in spring and fall 1944 could not have happened, because cremations of this quantity were technically impossible. Bodies do not generally disappear all on their own, even in the Third Reich.”

The book The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz is recommended for anyone wanting more detailed information on this subject.[38]

The dead bodies that had been killed with hydrocyanic acid (HCN) also could not have been safely removed from the gas chambers. Dr. Robert Faurisson wrote in regard to HCN poisoning:[39]

“Hydrocyanic acid penetrates into the skin, the mucous membranes, and the bodily fluids. The corpse of a man who has just been killed by this powerful poison is itself a dangerous source of poisoning, and cannot be touched with bare hands. In order to enter the HCN-saturated chamber to remove the corpse, special gear is needed, as well as a gas mask with a special filter.”

The danger of touching someone killed with Zyklon B gas is confirmed in the scientific literature.[40]

Convergence of Evidence

Similar to other Holocaust historians, van Pelt speaks of the convergence of evidence that supports the official Holocaust story.[41] However, van Pelt omits or dismisses much evidence which indicates that Auschwitz-Birkenau was not an extermination camp.

For example, in 1979 the U.S. government released wartime aerial photographs of the Auschwitz and Birkenau camps taken on several random days in 1944 during the height of the alleged extermination period. These photographs are so remarkable in their clarity that vehicles and even people can be distinguished in them. Many of these photographs were taken at mid-morning on typical workdays. None of these photos shows huge pits or piles of bodies, smoking crematory chimneys, masses of Jews awaiting death outside of the alleged gas chambers, or mountains of coke used to fuel the crematoria. All of these would have been visible if Auschwitz and Birkenau had been the extermination centers they are said to have been.

In his book Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, Carlo Mattogno writes in regard to Allied aerial photographs taken at Birkenau on May 31, 1944:[42]

“It is pointed out also that the aerial photographs taken by the Allied military on 31 May 1944, at the crucial time of presumed extermination, on the day of the arrival at Birkenau of about 15,000 deportees, and after 14 days of intense arrivals (184,000 deportees, averaging 13,000 per day) and with an extermination toll (according to Pressac’s hypothesis) of at least 110,000 homicidally gassed, which would have had to average 7,800 per day, every single day for 14 consecutive days; after all of that, the photographs do not show the slightest evidence of this alleged enormous extermination: No trace of smoke, no trace of pits, crematory or otherwise, burning or not, no sign of dirt extracted from pits, no trace of wood set aside for use in pits, no sign of vehicles or any other type of activity in the crucial zones of the courtyard of Crematory V nor in the earth of Bunker 2, nor in Crematories II and III. These photographs constitute irrefutable proof that the story of extermination of the Hungarian Jews is historically unfounded.”

Startling evidence was also revealed in 1989 when the Soviets released some of the Auschwitz death registry volumes that fell into Soviet hands in January 1945 when the Red Army captured Auschwitz. The death certificates contained in these volumes were official German documents issued by Auschwitz camp doctors upon the death of an inmate. Each death certificate includes the deceased person’s full name, profession and religion, date and place of birth, pre-Auschwitz residence, parents’ names, time of death, cause of death, and a camp physician’s signature. The death registry volumes recorded the deaths of approximately 69,000 Auschwitz inmates, of which approximately 30,000 were Jewish. Most of the deaths were caused by disease, although some death certificates recorded executions by shooting or hanging. None of the death certificates recorded death by homicidal gassings.[43]

The Auschwitz death registry volumes call into question the existence of homicidal gas chambers. Why would the German authorities record executions by shooting or hanging, and not record any by gassing? Also, why did the Soviets suppress the release of these volumes for 44 years? The Auschwitz death registry volumes are totally inconsistent with Auschwitz being a center of mass extermination using homicidal gas chambers.[44]

Another important piece of evidence arguing against the existence of homicidal gas chambers is that the British broke the ultra-secret Enigma code used by the Germans to transmit secret communications. During 1942 and 1943, British intelligence intercepted daily coded messages from Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau and seven other camps. Every day the Germans recorded the numbers of dead and the method of death at each camp. The transmissions from Auschwitz mentioned illness as the primary cause of death, but also reported deaths attributable to shootings and hangings. There was no reference to homicidal gassings as a cause of death in any of the decoded messages.[45]

The numbers of dead in the decoded messages from Auschwitz roughly correlate with the numbers of dead recorded in the Auschwitz death registry volumes. Since the Germans made their reports in top-secret transmissions using a supposedly indecipherable code, why would they report deaths from shootings and hangings, but not from homicidal gassings? The Germans would have no reason to hide deaths by homicidal gassings in their secret messages if such deaths had actually taken place.

Van Pelt uses testimonies from Sonderkommando members such as Henryk Tauber to shore up his convergence of evidence thesis that mass exterminations of Jews took place at Auschwitz-Birkenau. In regard to Tauber’s testimony, Van Pelt writes that “we do well to attach the highest evidentiary value to it, and not only because of its internal consistency.”[46] However, as I have written in a previous article, the testimonies from Sonderkommando members such as Henryk Tauber have proved to be very unreliable.[47]

Carlo Mattogno writes that the alleged Sonderkommando witnesses such as Tauber talked things over among themselves and agreed on an acceptable version of events at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Their testimonies drew from the same propagandistic source, and thus are in agreement on many false points. Mattogno says that the “convergence of independent accounts” used by Holocaust historians is an illusion which has no value in terms of epistemological knowledge.[48] Mattogno has written a new book titled Sonderkommando Auschwitz 1: Nine Eyewitness Testimonies Analyzed for anyone wanting more detailed information concerning the unreliability of Sonderkommando testimony.[49]

Conclusion

On December 27, 2009, in an article in the Toronto Star, Robert Jan van Pelt was quoted as saying that it makes little sense to spend money to conserve Birkenau. It would be better to let nature take Birkenau back. Van Pelt said:[50]

“Ninety-nine percent of what we know [about the Holocaust] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove. […] it has become part of our inherited knowledge. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will […] know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. […] 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.”

Van Pelt thus acknowledges that 99% of what we know about the “Holocaust” comes not from physical evidence, but from literature and eyewitness testimony. The eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust story have proven to be extremely unreliable in proving its validity,[51] while the traditional Holocaust literature is extremely unconvincing. If nature is allowed to take Birkenau back as van Pelt recommends, much of what little physical evidence remains of the “Holocaust” will no longer exist. Dr. Robert Faurisson wrote that van Pelt’s desire to eliminate the physical evidence at Birkenau is understandable, since this would make many of the obvious fabrications of the Holocaust story disappear.[52]

Endnotes