Doug, you speak of "holocaust denial" in the breathless shocked tones that the proprietors of the Holocaust Industry(tm) like to employ -- as if it were some fearful crime.
Silly, yes. It's like being a Flat-Earther. But Ahmadinejad is probably not very au-fait with the European history of the last century. In fact it probably seems a little remote and academic to him. He does, after all, have other and more immediate fish to fry.
His experience of hearing about the Shoah (a better term than Holocaust, if you ask me) is hearing it nattered about by his country's enemies. If he tends to discount his enemies' narrative, isn't this understandable?
It makes me think of W J Bryan and his defense of Genesis against Darwin. Hollywood has made Bryan a figure of fun, and CNN is doing its best to make Ahmadi a figure of fun too.
Clarence Darrow was a more sophisticated person than Bryan, which is of course why Hollywood likes him better. Moussavi and Rafsanjani are probably more sophisticated people than Ahmadi too.
But if you were writing history -- who would be the more consequential and interesting figure: Bryan or Darrow?
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org