However, I think I may have found a mistake in the book that would be worth correcting in a later edition.
When Hoffman is describing Raul Hilberg's testimony, he states that the infamous Kurt Gerstein affidavit was the main source for Hilberg's Auschwitz gassing narrative in The Destruction of the European Jews.
I researched this in 3 different versions of Hilberg's book (1961, 1985, and 2003). Gerstein is cited regarding Auschwitz, but there are several citations to other sources, and Gerstein isn't even the main one. Revisionist Thomas Dalton (Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides) actually praises Hilberg for avoiding Gerstein where others relied on him:
– Gerstein’s estimate of total deaths at Belzec and Treblinka is ridiculous: “At Belcek [sic] and Treblinka nobody bothered to take anything approaching an exact count of the persons killed. … Actually, about 25,000,000 persons were killed…” (in Butz 2015: 328; this claim deleted by Arad). Compare to my assumed total for the two camps of 1.4 million.
Arad (pp. 102f.) makes passing reference to Gerstein’s “exaggerations,” but still deems him “reliable”—until he ignores him altogether three years later. Mainstream historian Michael Tregenza, an expert on Belzec, has likewise abandoned him:
"Based on the current state of our research, we must also designate Gerstein’s material on Belzec as questionable, even belonging to the realm of fantasy in some places. … [his account, along with Reder’s], regarding the Belzec camp must be considered to be unreliable." (2000; cited in Rudolf 2011: 372)
To his credit, Hilberg has essentially ignored Gerstein’s statement from the start. From the 1961 first edition of his book through 2003, he allots only one brief paragraph to it.
This is important because Hilberg was forced to admit on the stand that Gerstein's affidavit was unreliable. Someone reading Hoffman's book without access to Hilberg's work may come away with a mistaken impression that the entire gas chamber narrative at Auschwitz was refuted by cross-examining a single witness. The truth is a bit more nuanced. Hilberg's testimony certainly damaged the narrative, but the real bombshells came when all of the eyewitnesses for the prosecution were picked apart by Zündel's team, and countered by defense eyewitnesses who told a very different story about what took place during their captivity.
I know Hoffman is a member of this forum but I can't seem to get the PM system to send him a message, so I would like to hear his thoughts on this.
I still highly recommend his outstanding book. It really opened my eyes to the importance of what took place in those trials.