Future historian

I own the Holocaust Handbooks series on DVDs: the Holocaust deniers’ point of view.

On the other hand it is true what I said in previous posts: I also own a seminal treatise of almost fifteen hundred pages that represents, among others, the orthodox view in academia that the Holocaust was historical.

True, I have skimmed both versions, but obviously I won’t read all the material on either side!

To do so I would have to be fifty years younger and, moreover, an institution would have to pay for such research, whereas a fair hearing of the ‘deniers’ and ‘affirmers’ would take many years.

To give just one example. Some affirmers rely on German documents and testimonies of the alleged victims while some deniers physically analyse, say, the rooms where Zyklon-B was allegedly spread in Auschwitz’s gas chambers. A denier may rationalise away the evidence of documents and testimonies. At the same time, an affirmer may not answer the scientific analysis that a denier did in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Parallel universes are thus created in which there is no communication between the two groups.

Trying to break that from a neutral point of view requires not only youth, but also funds for research. It is not enough, one denier would say, that Mark Weber and David Irving—who starred in the denialist movement some decades ago—, have in their later years come closer to the position of the affirmers (because of German documents at the time of the Final Solution). The affirmers, it is said, have to refute point by point the deniers’ scientific and statistical analyses (the enormous volume of bodies that are claimed to have been incinerated in the extermination camps).

That can only be done by a neutral team without thoughtcrime laws, and research would take years. Even if I magically took half a century off my shoulders, and an academic institution gave me a grant to study the so-called Holocaust neutrally, I wouldn’t be able to produce convincing results. The claims of some deniers have to be honestly addressed and researched in labs by specialists in chemistry and the logistics of mass corpse cremation.

If the European system’s demand that I must believe the Holocaust as an article of faith or be thrown in jail is irrational, it is also irrational that I have to doubt it simply because there is the collection of denier books pictured above.

As I said, it would take not only decades but also a great deal of dedication from several historians and scientists to undertake teamwork and delve into this topic at an expert level.

I hope that, after the coming dollar collapse (and thus of the euro and all fiat currencies), the West will be liberated to such a degree that future generations of historians will be able to study the so-called Holocaust rationally.