In a message dated 12/30/99 11:25:06 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< In 1987, the neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel was put on trial in Canada for denying
the
Holocaust, a crime there. He commissioned Leuchter to travel to Auschwitz
to evaluate the ruins of the crematoria there. The result was “The Leuchter
Report,” which concluded that no one could have been gassed at Auschwitz.
The report was thrown out of court, but has had a galvanizing effect on the
Holocaust-denial movement.
“Mr. Death” makes it crystal clear that Leuchter’s analysis is hopelessly
faulty, and that Holocaust denial is utter nonsense. And yet, Leuchter,
consumed by vanity and pride, still believes he is correct.
Morris, who is Jewish, doesn’t believe Leuchter is a Jew-hater. Leuchter
sees himself as a Galileo figure, a courageous martyr for free speech and
scientific inquiry. >>
Certainly an intriguing case, Platt. I'm unclear about a few things, though.
If Leuchter was sent to Auschwitz to evaluate only the ruins, then his
conclusions may be entirely plausible.
I'm not expert on Auschwitz, and I don't know what shape the ruins are in. Is
the place just an empty shell now? If so, his conclusion that no one could
have been gassed there seems reasonable. No one told him to take eyewitness
reports into account, or to examine various historical documents. At least
according to that article, he was only supposed to investigate the actual
ruins. He was to base his report exclusively from evaluating the ruins
(right?).
If this is the case, then the court threw out his report for one reason: it
was unbiased. So Leucher's decision to stand behind his findings doesn't seem
like the act of an evil man; he was doing the job he was commissioned to do.
He evaluated the evidence he was told to evaluate, nothing else.
Another thing I'm unclear about is why the article says he regarded himself
as a hero. He stood behind his findings. At what point did he start calling
himself a hero? Perhaps the court is at fault here; they assigned Leucher to
evaluate the ruins and never told him to take anything else into account.
For this reason, the question as to whether he's good or evil seems a moot
point. How well did he evaluate the ruins is the important question. The
ruins, and nothing else.
Jon
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
