Sobibor - Holocaust Propaganda And Reality - Unity of Nobility ...

166 J. GRAF, T. KUES, C. MATTOGNO, SOBIBÓR
Being acquainted with the terrain of Sobibór and other extermination
centres, and also being familiar with writings of revisionists,
we take a more reserved position regarding the role of historical
archaeology in substantiating the extermination in general and gas
chambers in particular. Knowing that the evidence of the extermination
centres was obliterated by the perpetrators, we assume that remains
of gas chambers, even if preserved in situ, are in an extremely
bad state of preservation. If the standing gas chambers of Majdanek
and Auschwitz-Birkenau are currently denied as such, there is a minimal
chance, if at all, that future exposure of poorly preserved remains
of gas chambers will assert any truth in the face of a revisionist’s
lie. The archaeology of extermination centres is not and cannot
be an instrument to show deniers how wrong they are. We think that
documentation of detail is intrinsically important even without the
need to refute lies, but we believe that, paraphrasing Evans
(2002:237), professors of geography and archaeologists as well
should not waste time debating with people who think that the earth
is flat.”
To recapitulate: The extermination of Jews at Sobibór is a “historically
established truth” based on eye witness testimony, Polish-Soviet
reports, and a handful of documents relating to Jewish deportations,
none of which mentions killings in any form. Since the extermination at
Sobibór and other camps is an undisputed historical fact, there is no
need to prove it with the methods of forensic archeology. Moreover, the
remains of the alleged gas chambers are assumed to be in a state which
makes impossible the verification of the gas chamber allegations, and
therefore the results of the excavations and geophysical surveys carried
out should not be, and cannot be, an attempt to verify the existence of
the gas chambers. In turn, persons not satisfied with mere belief in eye
witness claims and fanciful interpretations of documents are to be
equated with flat-earthers and simply not debated with. The above is of
course nothing but a pre-emptive clause, a guarantee to be able to pass
off any uncomfortable data as irrelevant, and a carte blanche to ignore
all negative critique of their conclusions, however well-founded it may
be. The type of argumentation employed by Gilead et al. is typical of
pseudoscience, as it is an impermissible attempt at immunizing one’s
thesis against any and all critique.