Robert Jan van Pelt - Revision history

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: Text replacement - "Holocaust" to "Holohoax"

2024-02-25T10:16:35Z

Text replacement - "Holocaust" to "Holohoax"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:16, 25 February 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:
	'''Robert Jan van Pelt''' (born 1955) is a jewish art historian. He was a participant in the [[Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt]] trial.		'''Robert Jan van Pelt''' (born 1955) is a jewish art historian. He was a participant in the [[Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt]] trial.

	The revisionist book ''The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed'' by [[Carlo Mattogno]] has the following publisher description: "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 which attracted the attention of the world’s mass media in 2000. The sharpest weapon in Lipstadt’s defense arsenal was jewish art historian Robert van Pelt, who presented an expert report claiming to refute revisionist assertions about Auschwitz. Because Irving had neither the support by any expert witnesses nor was he himself an expert on the ~~Holocaust~~, he inevitable lost the case. Robert van Pelt was therefore praised as the defeater of revisionism. When he published his revised expert report in his book ''The Case for Auschwitz'' in 2002, he even advanced to the foremost expert on Auschwitz in the public’s eyes.		The revisionist book ''The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed'' by [[Carlo Mattogno]] has the following publisher description: "In 1993 jewish theologian Deborah Lipstadt called British historian David Irving a “Holohoax denier.” Irving sued her for libel in return. Subsequently a court case unfolded in England which attracted the attention of the world’s mass media in 2000. The sharpest weapon in Lipstadt’s defense arsenal was jewish art historian Robert van Pelt, who presented an expert report claiming to refute revisionist assertions about Auschwitz. Because Irving had neither the support by any expert witnesses nor was he himself an expert on the Holohoax, he inevitable lost the case. Robert van Pelt was therefore praised as the defeater of revisionism. When he published his revised expert report in his book ''The Case for Auschwitz'' in 2002, he even advanced to the foremost expert on Auschwitz in the public’s eyes.

	Mattogno’s ''The Real Case for Auschwitz'' is the revisionist response to Robert van Pelt. On 750 pages, Mattogno thoroughly scrutinizes van Pelt’s assertions by juxtaposing them to material and documentary facts. The author's first revelation is that van Pelt has committed plagiarism: he plundered and basically regurgitated the research results published in 1989 and 1993 by French researcher [[Jean-Claude Pressac]] – yet without naming his source even once. Mattogno’s analysis is devastating for both Pressac and van Pelt, as it reveals that their studies of Auschwitz ignore crucial counter-arguments, fail to approach pivotal technical issues with technical means, are highly inconsistent, use deceptive methods, present conflicting sources without due source criticism, deform all sources to serve the author’s perspective, and reveal a shockingly threadbare knowledge of the history of the Auschwitz camps. Mattogno therefore concludes “''The Case for Auschwitz'' is neither a scholarly nor a historical work; it is only a biased journalistic assemblage of poorly understood and poorly interpreted historical sources.""<ref>Carlo Mattogno: The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=22</ref>		Mattogno’s ''The Real Case for Auschwitz'' is the revisionist response to Robert van Pelt. On 750 pages, Mattogno thoroughly scrutinizes van Pelt’s assertions by juxtaposing them to material and documentary facts. The author's first revelation is that van Pelt has committed plagiarism: he plundered and basically regurgitated the research results published in 1989 and 1993 by French researcher [[Jean-Claude Pressac]] – yet without naming his source even once. Mattogno’s analysis is devastating for both Pressac and van Pelt, as it reveals that their studies of Auschwitz ignore crucial counter-arguments, fail to approach pivotal technical issues with technical means, are highly inconsistent, use deceptive methods, present conflicting sources without due source criticism, deform all sources to serve the author’s perspective, and reveal a shockingly threadbare knowledge of the history of the Auschwitz camps. Mattogno therefore concludes “''The Case for Auschwitz'' is neither a scholarly nor a historical work; it is only a biased journalistic assemblage of poorly understood and poorly interpreted historical sources.""<ref>Carlo Mattogno: The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=22</ref>
Line 15:		Line 15:


	[[Category:Exterminationist ~~Holocaust~~ historians]]		[[Category:Exterminationist Holohoax historians]]

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: Text replacement - "Jew" to "jew"

2024-02-25T10:04:09Z

Text replacement - "Jew" to "jew"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:04, 25 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	'''Robert Jan van Pelt''' (born 1955) is a ~~Jewish~~ art historian. He was a participant in the [[Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt]] trial.		'''Robert Jan van Pelt''' (born 1955) is a jewish art historian. He was a participant in the [[Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt]] trial.

	The revisionist book ''The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed'' by [[Carlo Mattogno]] has the following publisher description: "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 which attracted the attention of the world’s mass media in 2000. The sharpest weapon in Lipstadt’s defense arsenal was ~~Jewish~~ art historian Robert van Pelt, who presented an expert report claiming to refute revisionist assertions about Auschwitz. Because Irving had neither the support by any expert witnesses nor was he himself an expert on the Holocaust, he inevitable lost the case. Robert van Pelt was therefore praised as the defeater of revisionism. When he published his revised expert report in his book ''The Case for Auschwitz'' in 2002, he even advanced to the foremost expert on Auschwitz in the public’s eyes.		The revisionist book ''The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed'' by [[Carlo Mattogno]] has the following publisher description: "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 which attracted the attention of the world’s mass media in 2000. The sharpest weapon in Lipstadt’s defense arsenal was jewish art historian Robert van Pelt, who presented an expert report claiming to refute revisionist assertions about Auschwitz. Because Irving had neither the support by any expert witnesses nor was he himself an expert on the Holocaust, he inevitable lost the case. Robert van Pelt was therefore praised as the defeater of revisionism. When he published his revised expert report in his book ''The Case for Auschwitz'' in 2002, he even advanced to the foremost expert on Auschwitz in the public’s eyes.

	Mattogno’s ''The Real Case for Auschwitz'' is the revisionist response to Robert van Pelt. On 750 pages, Mattogno thoroughly scrutinizes van Pelt’s assertions by juxtaposing them to material and documentary facts. The author's first revelation is that van Pelt has committed plagiarism: he plundered and basically regurgitated the research results published in 1989 and 1993 by French researcher [[Jean-Claude Pressac]] – yet without naming his source even once. Mattogno’s analysis is devastating for both Pressac and van Pelt, as it reveals that their studies of Auschwitz ignore crucial counter-arguments, fail to approach pivotal technical issues with technical means, are highly inconsistent, use deceptive methods, present conflicting sources without due source criticism, deform all sources to serve the author’s perspective, and reveal a shockingly threadbare knowledge of the history of the Auschwitz camps. Mattogno therefore concludes “''The Case for Auschwitz'' is neither a scholarly nor a historical work; it is only a biased journalistic assemblage of poorly understood and poorly interpreted historical sources.""<ref>Carlo Mattogno: The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=22</ref>		Mattogno’s ''The Real Case for Auschwitz'' is the revisionist response to Robert van Pelt. On 750 pages, Mattogno thoroughly scrutinizes van Pelt’s assertions by juxtaposing them to material and documentary facts. The author's first revelation is that van Pelt has committed plagiarism: he plundered and basically regurgitated the research results published in 1989 and 1993 by French researcher [[Jean-Claude Pressac]] – yet without naming his source even once. Mattogno’s analysis is devastating for both Pressac and van Pelt, as it reveals that their studies of Auschwitz ignore crucial counter-arguments, fail to approach pivotal technical issues with technical means, are highly inconsistent, use deceptive methods, present conflicting sources without due source criticism, deform all sources to serve the author’s perspective, and reveal a shockingly threadbare knowledge of the history of the Auschwitz camps. Mattogno therefore concludes “''The Case for Auschwitz'' is neither a scholarly nor a historical work; it is only a biased journalistic assemblage of poorly understood and poorly interpreted historical sources.""<ref>Carlo Mattogno: The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=22</ref>

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: Text replacement - "Categoryxxx" to ""

2024-02-08T03:38:05Z

Text replacement - "Categoryxxx" to ""

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 7 February 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:
	{{references}}		{{references}}

	~~[[Categoryxxx]]~~
	[[Category:Exterminationist Holocaust historians]]		[[Category:Exterminationist Holocaust historians]]

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: Text replacement - "Category:([0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]) births" to "Categoryxxx"

2024-02-07T12:19:08Z

Text replacement - "Category:([0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]) births" to "Categoryxxx"

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:19, 7 February 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:
	{{references}}		{{references}}

	[[~~Category:1955 births~~]]		[[Categoryxxx]]
	[[Category:Exterminationist Holocaust historians]]		[[Category:Exterminationist Holocaust historians]]

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: 1 revision imported

2024-02-04T03:43:43Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:43, 3 February 2024
(No difference)

en>Upplysning at 17:38, 3 February 2016

2016-02-03T17:38:38Z

New page

__NOTOC__
'''Robert Jan van Pelt''' (born 1955) is a Jewish art historian. He was a participant in the [[Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt]] trial.

The revisionist book ''The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed'' by [[Carlo Mattogno]] has the following publisher description: "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 which attracted the attention of the world’s mass media in 2000. The sharpest weapon in Lipstadt’s defense arsenal was Jewish art historian Robert van Pelt, who presented an expert report claiming to refute revisionist assertions about Auschwitz. Because Irving had neither the support by any expert witnesses nor was he himself an expert on the Holocaust, he inevitable lost the case. Robert van Pelt was therefore praised as the defeater of revisionism. When he published his revised expert report in his book ''The Case for Auschwitz'' in 2002, he even advanced to the foremost expert on Auschwitz in the public’s eyes.

Mattogno’s ''The Real Case for Auschwitz'' is the revisionist response to Robert van Pelt. On 750 pages, Mattogno thoroughly scrutinizes van Pelt’s assertions by juxtaposing them to material and documentary facts. The author's first revelation is that van Pelt has committed plagiarism: he plundered and basically regurgitated the research results published in 1989 and 1993 by French researcher [[Jean-Claude Pressac]] – yet without naming his source even once. Mattogno’s analysis is devastating for both Pressac and van Pelt, as it reveals that their studies of Auschwitz ignore crucial counter-arguments, fail to approach pivotal technical issues with technical means, are highly inconsistent, use deceptive methods, present conflicting sources without due source criticism, deform all sources to serve the author’s perspective, and reveal a shockingly threadbare knowledge of the history of the Auschwitz camps. Mattogno therefore concludes “''The Case for Auschwitz'' is neither a scholarly nor a historical work; it is only a biased journalistic assemblage of poorly understood and poorly interpreted historical sources.""<ref>Carlo Mattogno: The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=22</ref>

==External links==
*[http://codoh.com/library/document/1204/ The Real Case for Auschwitz, Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed]

=== Article archives ===
*[http://codoh.com/library/categories/954/ Codoh: van Pelt, Robert J. ]

{{references}}

[[Category:1955 births]]
[[Category:Exterminationist Holocaust historians]]