Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

 

 

http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/fran/actu/actu01/doc2001/zinzin.html

AAARGH

| Accueil g�n�ral | Accueil fran�ais | Actualit� juin 2001|

horizontal rule

 

IMAGES DE L'INT�GRISME EXTERMINATIONNISTE

ou le zinzin qui vrombit

 

 

 

horizontal rule



Tout a commenc� avec cet article de Christopher Hitchens:
1/

The Strange Case of David Irving


THE HOLOCAUST ON TRIAL By D.D. Guttenplan; W.W. Norton: 328 pp., $24.95

By Christopher Hitchens

 



WHEN the first news of the Nazi camps was published in 1945, there were those who thought the facts might be exaggerated either by Allied war propaganda or by the human tendency to relish "atrocity stories." In his column in the London magazine Tribune, George Orwell wrote that though this might be so, the speculation was not exactly occurring in a vacuum. If you remember what the Nazis did to the Jews before the war, he said, it isn't that difficult to imagine what they might do to them during one. In one sense, the argument over "Holocaust denial" ends right there. The National Socialist Party seized power in 1933, proclaiming as its theoretical and organizing principle the proposition that the Jews were responsible for all the world's ills, from capitalist profiteering to subversive Bolshevism. By means of oppressive legislation, they began to make all of Germany Judenrein, or "Jew-free." Jewish businesses were first boycotted and then confiscated. Jewish places of worship were first vandalized and then closed. Wherever Nazi power could be extended -- to the Rhineland, to Austria and to Sudeten Czechoslovakia -- this pattern of cruelty and bigotry was repeated. (And, noticed by few, the state killing of the mentally and physically "unfit," whether Jewish or "Aryan," was tentatively inaugurated.) After the war broke out, Hitler was able to install puppet governments or occupation regimes in numerous countries, each of which was compelled to pass its own version of the anti-Semitic "Nuremberg Laws." Most ominous of all -- and this in plain sight and on camera, and in full view of the neighbors -- Jewish populations as distant as Salonika were rounded up and put on trains, to be deported to the eastern provinces of conquered Poland. None of this is, even in the remotest sense of the word, "deniable." Nor is the fact that, once the war was over, surviving Jews found that they had very few family members left. The argument only begins here, and it takes two forms. First, what exactly happened to the missing ones? Second, why did it occur? The first argument is chiefly forensic and concerns numbers and methods: the physical engineering of shooting, gassing, burial and cremation. The second argument is a debate among historians and is known as the "intentionalist versus functionalist" dispute. The "intentionalists" say that Hitler and his gang were determined from the start to extirpate all Jews and that everything from 1933 to 1945 is a vindication of certain passages in "Mein Kampf." The "functionalists" point out (correctly) that the Nazis actually killed almost no Jews until after 1941 and that the Endlosung, or "Final Solution," was a semi-secret plan evolved after Germany began to lose the war on the Eastern front. On this continuum, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, with his view that Germans had a cultural gene of anti-Semitism, is an extreme "intentionalist"; Yehudah Bauer, of the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem, is a moderate "functionalist." Differences of opinion between these two schools, and discrepancies in the evidence, have recently permitted the emergence of something that is more of a phenomenon than a "school," by which I mean the movement of "Holocaust denial" or (because it consists of two contrasting tendencies) "Holocaust revisionism." This movement contains some Nazi revivalists in Germany and elsewhere, some crackpots and conspiracy theorists and one practicing historian, an Englishman named David Irving. Among revisionist forces there is even more confusion; they either argue that nothing much happened at all and that the whole thing is a fabrication or they maintain that the unforgettable piles of corpses were the result of epidemics, to be blamed on the disruption of food and medical supplies by Allied bombing. (It will be seen at once that this latter faction has no good explanation for why the Jews of Europe were packed into remote camps in the first place.) The toxicity of the argument is increased by four other factors. First, there are those who maintain that the German people have been blamed enough and that endless suggestions of collective guilt -- accompanied by incessant demands for compensation -- are an insult and possibly a provocation. Second, there are those who resent the exploitation of the Holocaust, or Shoah, by extreme Israeli nationalists. Third, there is a collective awareness that neither the international community nor organized Jewry did much to help the victims when it could have made a difference. Finally, in many countries, including Germany and France, it is actually a crime to dispute the established version of events, which means that the "revisionist" movement now has its free-speech martyrs. While in the United States, protected as it is by the First Amendment, the Holocaust has become a secular religion, with state support in the form of a national museum. Accusations of ill will or bad faith are often made against anyone with reservations about the elevation of this project into something combining a cult, an entertainment resource and an industry, each claiming to represent the unvoiced dead. Indeed, I myself feel constrained to state here that my mother's family is of German and Polish Jewish provenance and that on my wife's side we have not just an Auschwitz "survivor" in our lineage but a man -- David Szmulewski -- who was one of the leaders of the communist resistance in the camps as well as one of those who smuggled evidence out of it and later testified against the war criminals in court. I look forward to a time when I won't feel any need to mention this. I was raised in two other traditions as well, however. The first was to believe, with the late Karl Popper, that a case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest. The second was to take it for granted that historians have prejudices. To manifest the first point, then, let us summarize the best case that the revisionists can make. Would it surprise you to know that: 1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald; 2) there were no Jews made into soap; 3) the "confession" of Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his claim to have killed more Jews than was "humanly" possible? These are, however, the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject. [We underline -- aaargh] And if they are sound, then it means that much "eyewitness" testimony is wrong. It necessarily changes our attitude toward the everyday complicity of average Germans. It also means that much of the evidence presented and accepted at Nuremburg (left) was spurious. Of course, we knew some of this already -- the Nazis were charged by Soviet and Allied judges with the massacres at Katyn in Poland, which had obviously been ordered by Stalin and are now admitted to have been. And every now and then, a bogus Holocaust merchant makes an appearance. The most recent was the fantasist "Binjamin Wilkomirski" whose book, "Fragments," was a whole-cloth fabrication by someone who had spent the entire war in Switzerland. This did not prevent him from receiving several awards and the warm endorsement of Goldhagen. Earlier, a high Israeli court found the evidence of witnesses useless, ruling that John Demjanjuk had not been at Treblinka in the mythical shape of "Ivan the Terrible."

THE confrontation between Irving and the consensus was therefore long overdue. He forced the confrontation himself, by putting his own work on trial in attempting to sue the work of another. But it was high time to have this out in public, in the relatively objective context of an English courtroom. And so to my second observation, about bias and historians. History, especially as written by historians in the English tradition, is a literary and idiosyncratic form. Men such as Gibbon and Macaulay and Marx were essayists and polemicists in the grand manner, and when I was at school, one was simply not supposed to be prissy about the fact. We knew that Macaulay wrote to vindicate the Whig school, just as we knew of the prejudices of Carlyle (though there were limits: Nobody ever let us read his "Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question," a robustly obscene defense of slavery). Handing me a copy of "What Is History?" by E.H. Carr, my Tory headmaster loftily told me that it was required reading in spite of its "rather obvious Marxist bias." The master of my Oxford college was Christopher Hill, the great chronicler of Cromwell and Milton and Winstanley and the Puritan Revolution. Preeminent in his field, Hill had been a member of the Communist Party and could still be slightly embarrassed by mention of his early book, "Lenin and the Russian Revolution," in which the name of Leon Trotsky was conspicuous by its absence. Moving closer to our own time, we had Sir Arthur Bryant, whose concept of history as a pageant culminated in extreme royalism and a strong sympathy for Franco and Mussolini and Hitler. Then there was A.J.P. Taylor, one of the most invigorating lecturers of all time, who believed that the Nazis had more or less been tricked into the war. And how can one forget Hugh Trevor-Roper, author of the definitive narrative of Hitler's final days, who had close connections to British intelligence, who might be overheard making faintly anti-Jewish remarks and later pronounced the forged Hitler diaries genuine? These were men who had been witnesses and participants as well as archivists and chroniclers. Their accounts were essential reading; the allowance for prejudice and inflection was part of the fun of one's bookkeeping. This of course doesn't license absolute promiscuity. Eric Hobsbawm, a member of the Communist Party (much later than Hill), may have advertised his allegiances but retained the respect of most critics because he had a strong sense of objectivity in his historical work. In other words, no dirty tricks were to be allowed. However, what I mean to say for now is that when I first became aware of Irving, I did not feel it necessary to react like a virgin who is suddenly confronted by a man in a filthy raincoat. That he had a sneaking sympathy for fascism was obvious enough. But his work on the bombing of Dresden, on the inner functioning of the Churchill government and on the mentality of the Nazi generals was invaluable. He changed sides on the issue of the Hitler diaries, but his intervention was crucial to their exposure as a pro-Nazi fabrication. His knowledge of the German language was the envy of his rivals. His notorious flaunting of bad taste and his gallows humor were not likely to induce cardiac arrest in anyone like myself, who had seen many Oxford and Cambridge history dons when they were fighting drunk. While helping to edit the New Statesman in 1981, I encouraged the American historian Kai Bird, now a distinguished student of the Cold War, to analyze Irving's work. Bird turned in a meticulous essay, which exposed Irving's obvious prejudice and incidentally trashed his least-known and worst book -- a history of the 1956 Hungarian uprising that characterized the revolt as a rebellion of sturdy Magyar patriots against shifty Jewish Communists. Irving briefly threatened to sue and then thought better of it. In the early 1990s, he took part in a public debate with the extreme denier Robert Faurisson, at which he maintained that there was definite evidence of mass extermination at least by shooting (and gratuitously added that he thought the original Nazi plan to isolate all Jews in Madagascar was probably a good scheme). I noted this with interest -- there's nothing like a good faction fight between extremists -- but had no contact with him, direct or indirect, until he self-published in England his biography of Josef Goebbels in 1996. This book is still on my shelf. I read it initially because St. Martin's Press in New York decided not to publish it, or rather, decided to breach its contract to do so. This action on its part was decisive, in that it convinced Irving that his enemies were succeeding in denying him a livelihood, and it determined him to sue someone as soon as he could. It was also important in that St. Martin's gave no reason of historical accuracy for its about-face. For the publisher, it was a simple question of avoiding unpleasantness ("Profiles in Prudence," as its senior editor Thomas Dunne put it to me ruefully). Well, as I say, I'm a big boy and can bear the thought of being offended. The biography, based largely on extracts from Goebbels' diaries, told me a great deal I hadn't known. I'll instance a small but suggestive example. Irving had in the past been associated with the British fascist movement led by Sir Oswald Mosley. In my hot youth, I'd protested at some of the meetings of this outfit and had circulated the charge that, before the war, it had been directly financed by the Nazis. This charge was always hotly disputed by the Mosleyites themselves, but here was Goebbels, in cold print, discussing the transfer of funds from Berlin to the British Black Shirts. On the old principle famously adumbrated by Bertrand Russell -- of "evidence against interest" -- it seemed that Irving was capable of publishing information that undermined his own position. He also, in his editorial notes, gave direct testimony about the mass killing of Jews in the East (by shooting) and of the use of an "experimental" gas chamber in the Polish town of Chelmno. The "deniers" don't like this book; on the strength of it you could prove that the Nazis tried to do away with the Jews. There was some odd stuff about Hitler's lack of responsibility for Kristallnacht but, as I say, I allowed for Irving's obsessions. I wrote a column criticizing St. Martin's for its cowardice and described Irving himself as not just a fascist historian but a great historian of fascism. One should be allowed to read "Mein Kampf" as well as Heidegger. Allowed? One should be able to do so without permission from anybody. As a result of this, Irving contacted me when he was next in Washington, and I invited him to my home for a cocktail. He got off to a shaky start by refusing any alcohol or tobacco and by presenting me with two large blue-and-white stickers. Exactly the size of a German street sign, they were designed to be pasted over the originals at dead of night. "Rudolf Hess Platz," they said; a practical-joke accessory for German extremists with that especial sense of humor. Because they were intended to shock, I tried to look as unshocked as I could. Irving then revealed, rather fascinatingly, that some new documents from the Eichmann family might force him to reconsider his view that there had been no direct order for the annihilation of the Jews. It was a rather vertiginous atmosphere all around. When it came time for him to leave, my wife and daughter went down in the elevator with him on their own way out. Later, my wife rather gravely asked me if I would mind never inviting him again. This was highly unlike her; we have all sorts at our place. However, it transpired that, while in the elevator, Irving had looked with approval at my fair-haired, blue-eyed daughter, then 5 years old, and declaimed the following doggerel about his own little girl, Jessica, who was the same age:

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian;
I have no plans to marry
an Ape or Rastafarian.

The thought of Carol and Antonia in a small space with this large beetle-browed man as he spouted that was, well, distinctly creepy. (He has since posted the lines on his Web site, and they came back to haunt him at the trial.) The next time Irving got in touch with me was after his utter humiliation in court, and I thought I'd give him one last chance -- though I arranged to meet him in a neutral restaurant this time. I wanted to know if it was true, as I had read in the press, that he had abruptly addressed the judge in the case as "Mein Fuhrer." With some plausibility, he explained to me that this was a misunderstanding; he had been quoting from the slogans shouted at a rally he was addressing in Germany and had glanced up at the bench at the wrong moment. The transcript of the trial seemed to make this interpretation possible. So when telephoned by my friend Ian Buruma, who was writing on the case for The New Yorker, I suggested that he might check it out. He called me back with the information that, when he had asked Irving directly about the incident, Irving had taken him into confidence and said, "Actually, I did say it." At this point I finally decided that anyone joining a Fair Play for Irving Committee was up against a man with some kind of death wish.


"THE Holocaust on Trial" and "Lying About Hitler" make that very point in widely differing ways. Like me, D.D. Guttenplan is full of contempt for the censorship of Irving and quite prepared to consider the idea that the Holocaust has been exploited and even distorted. However, Guttenplan became disgusted by Irving's alternately bullying and ingratiating style and by his repeated failure to make good on his historical claims. His account of the courtroom confrontation, most vividly the confrontation between Irving and the Dutch expert on the mechanics of Auschwitz, Robert Jan van Pelt, could hardly be bettered. He also provides a masterly guide to the byways of English law, especially the grossly biased and oppressive law of libel that Irving hoped to enlist on his side. This in itself has led to an intriguing subplot, with Richard J. Evans' London publishers abandoning his book, "Lying About Hitler," because of their own pusillanimous fear of a libel suit and with Evans giving Guttenplan a rather dismissive review in a London newspaper. The issue before the court, says Evans (left), was not whether the Holocaust occurred but whether Irving is a fabricator. Of course that is formally true, but to my mind, Guttenplan rather beautifully shows it to be a distinction without a difference. Justice Gray, presiding, expressed the repeated hope that the case would not involve revisiting Auschwitz, but he had to "go there" all the same before the case was fully heard. It could not have been otherwise. As Raul Hilberg once phrased it, at Auschwitz history was destroyed at the same time that history was made. The question cannot be approached from the standpoint of truth without accepting this contradiction. As an expert witness at the trial, however, Evans was quite devastating. "Lying About Hitler" is essentially an expanded version of his affidavit, and it redraws the whole terrain of the argument. No longer are we faced merely with the question of Irving's elementary right to speak or be published. We are invited to see if he deserves the title of historian at all. Evans' method is quite a simple one. He shows, first, that there are a number of errors, omissions and unsupported assertions in Irving's work. Now, this might be true of any historian, and there were indeed some distinguished academic practitioners in the witness box who maintained that no narrative is or can be free from error. However, what if, as Evans said under cross-examination:

"There is a difference between, as it were, negligence, which is random in its effects, i.e. if you are a sloppy or bad historian, the mistakes you make will be all over the place. They will not actually support any particular point of view .... On the other hand, if all the mistakes are in the same direction in the support of a particular thesis, then I do not think that is mere negligence. I think that is a deliberate manipulation and deception."

Evans' knowledge, both of the period and of the German language, are of an order to rival Irving's. He has little difficulty in showing that there are suspicious mistranslations, suggestive ellipses and, worst of all, some tampering with figures: in other words, that Irving knowingly inflates the death toll in the Allied bombing of Dresden while deflating it in the camps and pits to the East. And, yes, all the "mistakes" have the same tendency. In a crucial moment, Irving "forgot" what he had said about Nazi Gen. Walter Bruns, who had confessed to witnessing mass killing of Jews and had been taped by British intelligence while doing so. When it suited Irving to claim that Bruns didn't know he was being recorded, he claimed as much. When it didn't, he suggested that Bruns was trying to please his hearers. Having listened myself to Irving discuss this fascinating episode, I mentally closed the book when I reached this stage in it. It was a QED. Irving has long been notorious for his view that Hitler never gave any order for the Final Solution and that there is no irrefutable document authorizing it. In court, he was unpardonably flippant on this point, saying airily that perhaps, like some of Richard Nixon's subordinates, a few of the rougher types imagined they knew what would please the boss. This argument has always struck me as absurd on its face in both cases, but Evans simply reduces it to powder. It's not too much to say that by the end of the trial, the core evidence for the Holocaust had been tested and found to be solid. The matter of Irving's reputation as scholar and researcher -- which was the ostensible subject of the hearing -- was so much "collateral damage." It would be tempting to summarize this as a near morality tale, in which the truth emerges as the stainless winner over bigotry and falsification. However, the conflict is not conducted in quite such hygienic conditions. Irving did not publish a series of books on the Nazi era that were exposed as propaganda by a magisterial review from Evans. That's the way things are supposed to happen but rarely do. Instead, the efforts of a few obsessive outsiders have sharpened the orthodox debate between intentionalists and functionalists and also provoked a grand crisis in the "Holocaust denial" milieu, which now subdivides yet again between those who see Irving as a martyr and those who see him as a conscious, dedicated agent of Zionism who let down the team. I myself learned a good deal, about both the subject and the author, by becoming involved on the periphery of this debate. I still regard it as ridiculous that Irving's books are almost impossible to obtain in the homeland of the First Amendment. This culture has assumed several great responsibilities. It sponsored the Nuremberg trials, with all their peaks and troughs of evidence. It has elevated the Holocaust into a universal moral example. It is the chief international guarantor of the state of Israel, at whatever proper size of territory or jurisdiction over others that that state turns out to possess. And it is the home -- on the basis of equality -- of the most flourishing Jewish community in history. Given this quadrilateral of historical commitments, there can be no prohibition of any voice whatever. One asks only, as one must ask with all morally serious arguments, that those entering the arena be transparent as regards motive and scrupulous as regards evidence. Irving's contribution to this very outcome is an amazing instance of the workings of unintended consequence.

Christopher Hitchens is a Columnist for Vanity Fair and the Nation and the Author most recently ofThe Trial of Henry Kissinger .

Los Angeles Times, Sunday, May 20, 2001.
<http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Print-X!ArticleDetail-33710,00.html>

Aussit�t, Zinzin, l'allum� de la BNF, saute en piste
2/
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 09:59:21 -0500
Sender: H-NET List for History of the Holocaust
<H-HOLOCAUST@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: LA Times book review (Karmasyn)
From: Gilles Karmasyn <gilkarm@worldnet.fr>

Hello,
Stephen Esrati <steve@esrati.com> wrote
>There is a very fine review by Christopher Hitchins in the Los
>Angeles Times of _The Holocaust on Trial_ by D.D. Guttenplan. The
>book is about the Irving libel trial.
>It is available on line at http://www.all-links.com/cgi-bin/newscentral/frameit/FrameIt.pl?url=http://w>ww.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__States/California/Cities/Los_Angeles/News_and_Media/Newspapers/Los_Angeles_Times/
>You must use the entire URL.
I could access it more easily there:
http://www.latimes.com/print/books/20010520/t000042177.html

Christopher Hitchens' review has several serious defects. The main one is that he buys and sells deniers' lies and manipulations. A bad start when dealing with holocaust denier David Irving.
Hitchens writes:
Would it surprise you to know that:
1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald;
2) there were no Jews made into soap;
3) the "confession" of Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his claim to have killed more Jews than was "humanly" possible?

Point 1 is very well known as a falsification of Martin Broszat's
1960 article, where he said that the Dachau gas chamber was not used,
and that there were no gas chambers in Bergen Belsen or in
Buchenwald. Holocaust deniers pretend that that meant that Broszat
said there had been no gas chambers on the "*old* Reich soil"
(Hitchens seems to have forgot the "old reich" flavour of the lie.
Maybe he doesn't know that Auschwitz belonged to the Great Reich).
This is a lie. Broszat never said such a thing. You'll find a study
(in french) of the Broszat article and the way deniers falsify it
there: http://www.phdn.org/negation/broszat.html and in german,
there: http://www.h-ref.de/ar/amay/broszat.shtml

Why does Christopher Hitchens repeat that lie?

Has he not heard of Ravensbruck, Neuengamme,
Orianenbourg-Sachsenhausen? Maybe he heard about Mauthausen (but
then, Mauthausen was in Austria...)

Point 2 has been treated by John Drobniki on Nizkor at this adress:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html
(It has also been adressed in french, there:
http://www.phdn.org/negation/savon.html). Most important: no
*historian* (with one minor exception) has pretended that Jews were
made into soap. The fact that Jews corpses were not systematically
used to manufacture soap is *no news* for historians.

Why does Christopher Hitchens implies, like the holocaust deniers do,
that "Soap made with jews" is widely accepted,?

Point 3 is a common denier lie: pretending that Hoess has been
tortured into admitting the mass murder of the Jews in Auschwitz. See
for example:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/hoess.rudolf.ferdinand/on-torture
Why does Christopher Hitchens repeat that lie?

Why does Hitchens implies that, somehow, Irving (or Holocaust
deniers?) helped in undescovering these "facts", when in fact those
points are either lies or fraudulent presentations?

The anwser seems pretty obvious to me: Hitchens was exposed to those
deniers' manipulations and he didn't do his homework. This kind of
neglect is generally of no importance. But in the case of holocaut
denial, it always bring the lazy people to buy the deniers' lies.

Hitchens complains that he can't find Irving's books but gives the
very proof that he is unable to judge them critically, or any
denier's claim, with his repeating of 3 classical examples of
Holocaust deniers' manipulations.

Hitchens article does not seem "fine" to me. But it *is* remarquable.

Charles Taylor's review on salon.com
(http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/05/23/irving/index.html),
appears to be much more lucid about the whole thing.

Gilles Karmasyn

On voit que Zinzin veut absolument croire � TOUTES les salades, et s'il accepte d'en rejeter quelques-unes, il affirme que les historiens n'y ont jamais pr�t� de cr�dit. Il nage en pleine confusion.


3/ Niall
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:44:26 -0500
<H-HOLOCAUST@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: LA Times book review (McNamara)
From: Niall McNamara <niallmcnamara@eircom.net>

As a newcomer and non-expert on the Holocaust, I feel that Gilles Karmasyn has been somewhat unfair to Christopher Hitchen for his widely reproduced review of the book, "The Holocaust on Trial" by D.D. Guttenplan, which has appeared in the LA Times and many other newspapers. In detailing three relatively minor issues upon which some confusion does exist, much of the flavour of Hitchen's review has been needlessly lost. On the three points Karmasyn centre's his attention on I think many people feel the following sentiments:
1. Many people today do still assume that soap was made from the fat of the victims of Nazi exterminations. This had been unchallenged for some time and genuine confusion thus arose.
2. On concentration camps, the use of Auschwitz as a death-camp in the east allowed the Nazi's policy on racial hygiene to be implemented away from attention of the world; or that is what the Nazi's and their collaborators incorrectly thought. Whether Jews and others were murdered within the "old" or the so-called "Greater Reich" with its extended borders, got by force, should not be let blur the reality of what happened. It is not a surprise that mass-shootings of Jews took place in Russia.
3. Hoess and other Nazis were tortured and inaccuracies in their statements, where they exist, cannot be overlooked. Rather, such anomalies should be answered in a scholarly fashion.
Hitchen's is not intellectually lazy nor is he someone who refuses to believe in the Holocaust. I thought it was a very good informative review written in an attentive way.
Regards,
Niall McNamara

4/ Esrati vieux dur � cuire zolo
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:41:36 -0500
Reply-To: H-NET List for History of the Holocaust
Subject: re; Hitchens' "denials" (Esrati)
From: Stephen Esrati <steve@esrati.com>

I read the Hitchens piece and found it a fair and precise review of
the Guttenplan book, which is about David Irving's beliefs. It is a
very long review. I do not agree with Karmasyn's view that would make Hitchens appear as a Holocaust denier because I took it to mean that Hitchens was trying to show what deniers think and how they think. I did not take these three points to mean that Hitchens believed that these three points were new or that they were necessarily true.
I, myself, have found the level of ignorance about the Holocaust to
be tremendous. I usually ask people while trying to sell my novel,
COMRADES, AVENGE US, if they knew that there were American prisoners of war in extermination camps, whether they knew that the SS killed Canadian POWs on Juno beach, whether they knew about the Counter-Intelligence Corps' "rat line," which smuggled war criminals into the United States. Most people don't know and think my book made it all up.
Thus, I do not find it surprising that Hitchens' used these examples
as the lede for his article. I would have done something similar.

5/ Retour du zinzineur
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:56:20 -0500
From: Gilles Karmasyn <gilkarm@worldnet.fr>

Hello,
I will adress here the answers of Stephen Esrati and Niall McNamara
about my critics to Christopher Hitchens' article.
I must state that I *am* concentrating on Hitchens' 3 points
statement, because, as I said before, it seems to me *remarquable*.
Maybe Hitchens' article provides some good points, but we cannot
ignore this *major* flaw: Hitchens is buying and selling three
classical examples of Holocaust deniers' lies and manipulations.
Hitchens' article, and Hitchens' approach is disqualified by this
scandalous presentation.
Let me remind what Hitchens wrote (a little bit more complete than
what I cited before):
To manifest the first point, then, let us summarize the
best case that the revisionists can make.
Would it surprise you to know that:
1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on
German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or
Buchenwald;
2) there were no Jews made into soap;
3) the "confession" of Rudolf Hoess, commandant of
Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his
claim to have killed more Jews than was "humanly"
possible?
(To read a short analysis of these lies and manipulations with
references to longer rebuttals, see my previous article. It can be
accessed via the following URL:
http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010528)
Stephen Esrati writes:
I do not agree with Karmasyn's view that would make
Hitchens appear as a Holocaust denier because I took it
to mean that Hitchens was trying to show what deniers
think and now they think. I did not take these three
points to mean that Hitchens believed that these three
points were new or that they were necessarily true.
First, I must strongly oppose any view that would imply that I
suggested that Hitchens could appear as a holocaust denier. On the
contrary: what I stated was that he has been the victim of holocaust
deniers. What I suggested and still suggest is that he was their
victim out of lazyness and neglect. I do hold Hitchens as beeing
responsable for his blindness.
Second, it is utterly *false* to believe that Hitchens was ONLY
trying to provide three examples of deniers's thoughts. Sure Hitchens
writes that those points are the "best case that the revisionists can
make". But after the above cited three points, he states very clearly
that he agrees with those points. he writes (emphasis mine):
These are, however, the NOW-UNDISPUTED findings of all
HISTORIANS and experts on the subject. And if they are
sound, then it means that much "eyewitness" testimony
is wrong.
The first point is NOT a "now-undisputed finding". It is a
lie, a gross distorsion of what a real historian said. As
is the third point. As for the second point, historians
*never* bought the soap story. It is a gross
misrepresentation of the historiography and of the history
of the historian knowledge of the Holocaust to pretend that
the fact that jewish bodies were not used to manufacture
soap is, NOW, an undisputed finding of all historians. It
was never considered as a fact by historians. I gave all
the relevant URLs in my previous article
(http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010528). None of the three
points are either recent, or "findings", or even true for some of them.
Hitchens does believe that the 3 points making this "best
case that the revisionists can make" are true. Hitchens
falsely states that historians NOW agree with those three
points. His very words contradict Stephen Esrati's these. I
think I had every reason to write that Hitchens buys and
sells Holocaust denier's manipulations.
The more so when he goes straight into abjection and writes:
And if they are sound, then it means that MUCH
"eyewitness" testimony is wrong.
This is a scandalous and vicious attack on witnesses. Using deniers
lies, Hitchens implies that MUCH "eyewitness" testimony is wrong.
Just like the Holocaust deniers. And just like Holocaust deniers,
Hitchens uses quotation marks. Does Hitchens substantiate such an
attack? No. I must insist on the fact that the lie of point number 1
is meant to do just that: disqualifies eyewitness accounts. Hitchens
is really a puppet in the hands of the deniers!

Niall McNamara calls those "three relatively minor issues". I must
disagree with him. Those issues themselves might be minor, not the
fact that they constitute lies and manipulations that Hitchens
presents as truths.
Mr. McNamara answers each of my discussion of the 3 points. Let's
see. he writes:
2. On concentration camps, the use of Auschwitz as a
death-camp in the east allowed the Nazi's policy on
racial hygiene to be implemented away from attention of
the world; or that is what the Nazi's and their
collaborators incorrectly thought. Whether Jews and
others were murdered within the "old" or the so-called
"Greater Reich" with its extended borders, got by
force, should not be let blur the reality of what
happened. It is not a surprise that mass-shootings of
Jews took place in Russia.
Mr McNamara completely misses the point of the lie advanced by
Hitchens as a "now undisputed find by historians": that there had not
been any gas chamber on the german soil. This is the classical lie I
denounced. This is the important point that Mr McNamara did not
adress.
Mr McNamara writes, about the soap story:
1. Many people today do still assume that soap was made
from the fat of the victims of Nazi exterminations.
This had been unchallenged for some time and genuine
confusion thus arose.
I do agree with the first sentence. "People" do assume false things
such as the soap story. But, "people" is not who Hitchens talks
about. His target, concerning this "now undisputed finding" are not
people but, according Hitchens' own words: "historians and experts on
the subject". Historians did not believe or propagate the soap story.
For anyone familiar with holocaust denial "litterature" -- which I
have been reading as exhaustively as possible for many years -- those
are very common claims by deniers. Deniers always pretend that they
influenced the "official" historiography with their "findings". That
is untrue. I find it remarquable to find the deniers' vocabulary and
rhetoric (however implicit) under Hitchens' pen.
As for the second sentence, it is simply false. Mr McNamara will find
the illustration that he is wrong when he reads the texts he will
find at the URLs I provided in my previous article (to which I add
the appendices to be found there:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/).

Mr McNamara writes about Hoess:
3. Hoess and other Nazis were tortured and inaccuracies
in their statements, where they exist, cannot be
overlooked. Rather, such anomalies should be answered
in a scholarly fashion.
I am sorry to state that this is not true. Hoess was beaten during
his arrest. Because he refused to admit he was Hoess, not to extract
from him "confessions" as Christopher Hitchens writes, in a way that
could confuse whatever "confessions" he is writing about with the
autobiography written by Hoess while in custody, and which was in no
way extracted from him by any form of pressure. Hoess testified in
Nuremberg as a witness for the defense (called by Kaltenbrunner's
lawyer!). Hoess was *not* tortured into confessing the mass murder of Jews in Auschwitz, as stated by Hitchens, as Holocaust deniers claim.
I would be very interrested in knowing which Nazis, was ever tortured
in a case relating to the Holocaust. References should be provided in
case of such claims, of course...
As for inaccuracies in statements made by Hoess, some other Nazis, or
anybody, historians have been evaluating them for more than 50 years
for a very simple reason: that is their job. And on the whole, as for
the mass murder of Jews in Auschwitz, Hoess statements have often
been quite accurate (see:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/)

Mr McNamara concludes:
Hitchen's is not intellectually lazy nor is he someone
who refuses to believe in the Holocaust. I thought it
was a very good informative review written in an
attentive way.
If Hitchens is not intellectually lazy, then it is even worse that he
supported Holocaust deniers' lies and manipulations as he did. And it
is because I am convinced that Hitchens is NOT "someone who refuses
to believe in the Holocaust" (something I never suggested) that I do
think that he was lazy and did not do his homework.
Let me state that I was not (and am still not) familiar with
Hitchens' work, or political orientation (if he has any). This
article was the first I ever read from him.
[On voit bien pointer l'inculture typique de ces obs���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������¿½d�s du Zolo. Ils ne lisent rien que du Zolo. -- aaargh] I really, as a french, do not have any bias for or against Hitchens (why should I?).
I strongly think that one should not, one cannot deny that he has
been *very* wrong in the way he presented as "now undisputed findings by historians" what were in reality deniers' lies and manipulations.
He has been even more wrong with his vicious account against
(much...) eyewitness testimony... What would be more interresting, is
understanding why he has been lazy, why he let himself bne lazy about
that subject, why somebody, who seems intellectually equiped, has
been caught in the deniers' web of lies, why somebody who should know
better has even been brought to promote those lies. That would tell
us about the perversity of Holocaust denial and its rhetoric. That
should help us to think about how really bad it is that Irving's
books are hardly found anymore... to think about what the complaints
of Hitchens are worth.
Regards,
Gilles Karmasyn

6/ Jacobs nous fait savoir qu'il a des photographies
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:00:29 -0500
From: Alan Jacobs <ajacobs@bravenewweb.com>
IDEA, http://www.ideajournal.com
-------------------
Karmasyn makes some very good points about Hitchens review. Hitchens and has made a career out of railing and roiling, not so much when when it is appropriate, but rather for the sake of splenetic regurgitation and senasationalism. In his case the attraction of his aggression, so compelling in fast food, politically mean, shoot-em-up America, stands out far more than his ideas.
Gas chambers a myth? Where has the man been all these years?
As a friend of mine wrote privately, the Hitchens review says more about the reviewer than Guttenplan.

Oh yes I am quite surprised to know that the gas chambers I photographed in Dachau, Mauthausen Auschwitz, and Birkenau are not there. As a matter of fact, I went back to my slides, and your are, as always, right! They were meatpacking houses, and kindergarten cloakrooms. Somehow I got it all mixed up. I guess I misunderstood when interviewing Milton Buki and Filip Mueller, two Sonderkommando from Auschwitz and Birkenau.
Shame on me huh?
Alan Jacobs

7/ Zinzin compl�te
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:28:41 -0500
From: Gilles Karmasyn <gilkarm@worldnet.fr>
Hello,
I must come back to the issue of what Christopher Hitchens wrote in
his review (see my first article on that subject:
http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010528) about there beeing no gas chambers on the "german soil". There might be some too strong
opinions against Hitchens because of what I previously wrote. So I
must set some record straight.
What Hitchens wrote was:
1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on
German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or
Buchenwald;

Writing that there was no gas chambers on the german soil *is*
completely false (see below).
But I must be strong on the fact that Hitchens in no way denied that
there were gas chambers in Auschwitz, nor denied the Holocaust. Yes
he bought and sold other holocaust deniers's lies and manipulations,
and must be hold responsible for it, but not to the point of even
approaching holocaust denial.
What is the catch? In 1960 Martin Broszat wrote a short piece for Die
Zeit, in which he stated that the mass murder of Jews in gas chambers
did not take place in the *Old Reich* (Germany within its 1933
borders). He also wrote that the gas chamber of Dachau was not used
(in which he may have been wrong), and that there were no gas
chambers in Belsen and Buchewald, in which he was right, but that was no news to historians.
There *were* gas chambers in the *Old Reich*, for example in
Ravensbr�ck, Neuengamme and Orianenbourg-Sachsenhausen. I am not even citing the "Operation T.4" centers where thousands of handicapped and disabled human beeings were murdered. The gas chambers in "Old Reich" concentration camps did not have the same purpose as gas chambers in killing centers (Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and "mix" camps Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek). The gas chambers in "Old Reich" concentration camps were used to get rid of sick, unproductive or "burdensome" (for whatever reasons) inmates. The murder using those gas chambers was commited in the thousands, whose majority were not jewish, not in the millions.
From the 1960 Broszat piece, holocaust deniers (the french impostor
Rassinier beeing the first) falsely "deduced" that there had not been
any gas chambers *at all* in the "Old Reich". Of course that was a
lie. But they often made reference (in footnotes) to Martin Broszat's
article to purport this lie, often adding also that there had been no
gas chamber in Dachau, another lie, and something Broszat did not
write.
Why did they use this lie? Well, Faurisson made it clear: if there
has been no gas chambers in the Old Reich, that meant that there had
been no gas chambers in Ravensbr�ck, Neuengamme and other such camps
for which we have testimonies from both Nazis and inmates. So those
witnesses had lied. So why believe the witnesses for Auschwitz or the
Operation Reinhard killing centers? What is at stakes is a vicious
attack against *all* witnesses.
The "Old Reich" precision is always compulsory because Broszat used
it for a very simple reason: as I wrote before, Auschwitz was
situated within (if near) the limits of the "Great Reich".
Paradoxicaly, Holocaust deniers choose to be precise in their lie:
the falsified what Broszat had really written, but not about his "Old
Reich" precision.
Now, obviously Christopher Hitchens has been subjected to these lies.
Obviously he believesd them and he believes what he wrote (see my
second article on that subject:
http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010530). But he also got it wrong
(which might also just be what Holocaust deniers want!). He made a
more general statement then the usual deniers' form: "no gas chamber
in the Old Reich". Hitchens went further. He wrote "on the German
soil". Of course he didn't do it on purpose. He must not have even
thought about it. "Old Reich", "German Soil", all those must have
appeared the same to him. He is no historian and no geographer. And
he wouldn't do his homework.
Hitchens must not have realised that, within a second world war
context, within a Third Reich context, "German soil" might mean
"Great Reich" and include Auschwitz. Or Mauthausen. I am convinced
that he did not want to deny the Auschwitz gas chambers or the fact
that Auschwitz was (also) an extermination camp. Maybe Alan Jacob was a little bit too harsh on him. Hitchens is not a Holocaus denier.
It remains that stating, a he did, that there was no gas chamber on
the German soil is completely false and *does* come from Holocaust
denier's propaganda and lies. Even stating that there was no gas
chamber in Dachau is wrong. It remains that Christopher Hitchens has made his well known Holocaust deniers' lies.
It remains that Hitchens has made his the abject Faurissonian "logic"
when he writes that, because of the points (which are false) he made,
"much 'eyewitness' testimony is wrong".
As I wrote before, the relevant questions are: why? And: what does
that teach us about Holcoaus denial, the way to treat it, the way
some journalists treat it?
Regards,
Gilles Karmasyn

P.S: The original Broszat article can be found here (german page):
http://www.h-ref.de/ar/amay/broszat.shtml
The following pages are in french and belong to a (french) web site
against Holocaust denial for which I am responsible.
An analysis of Broszat's article and examples of deniers's lies about
it can be found here (in french):
http://www.phdn.org/negation/broszat.html
An analysis of Rassinier's lies about Broszat's article can be found
here: http://www.phdn.org/negation/rassinier/rass-broszat.html
An analysis of Faurisson repeating 19 times the lie about the Broszat
article can be found here (in french):
http://www.phdn.org/negation/faurisson/faur-broszat.html
Faurisson's "logic" about witnesses (deduced from his lie about
Broszat's article) can be found here (in french):
http://www.phdn.org/negation/faurisson/chambrescamps.html

8/ Keren, dit le docteur approuve. Zinzin se veut une sorte de clone de Keren qui harc�le tous les forums am�ricains.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:51:44 -0500
From: Daniel Keren <dkeren@world.std.com>

I wish to say that I totally agree with Mr. Karmasyn's critique
of Hitchens' article. While the three points addressed by Mr.
Karmasyn may appear minor, they are not; they are, as he correctly
pointed out, three very common lies disseminated by Holocaust-deniers.
That Hitchens didn't even bother to check before writing such
nonsense is indeed scandalous, and it reflects rather poorly on
his research skills and reliability.
Best regards,
Dr. Daniel Keren.

9/ Niall se rebiffe
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:40:36 -0500
From: Niall McNamara <niallmcnamara@eircom.net>

Hitchens writes:
<<Would it surprise you to know that:
1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on
German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or
Buchenwald;
Mr. Jacob's makes the quote appear to deny Auschwitz by the observation:
"Oh yes I am quite surprised to know that the gas chambers I photographed in
> Dachau, Mauthausen Auschwitz, and Birkenau are not there."

I think Mr. Jacobs is a little hard on Hitchen's. I don't see how the
reality of Auschwitz is denied by the quote above. The confusion about
concentration camps in what was pre-1938 Germany and the post-1938 "Greater Germany" does not deny the construction and use of the Auschwitz death-camp.
If Mr. Jacob's dislikes Mr. Hitchen's views on US foreign policy and by
extension the Palestine question, Vietnam etc. then that his private view.
It does not bear directly on Hitchen's LA review of Guttenplan's book.
Regards,
Niall McNamara

10/ Mazal, vieux m�daill� des campagnes anti-r�visionnistes, vend son bif:

>Oh yes I am quite surprised to know that the gas chambers I photographed in
>Dachau, Mauthausen Auschwitz, and Birkenau are not there.
[deleted for brevity]
I call the attention of this list to the article entitled "The Dachau Gas
Chambers"
on our web site:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
wherein we distinguish between the four small delousing chambers
and the larger homicidal chamber attached to the new crematorium.
I particularly call attention to Rascher's letter to Himmler [FN28]
and Captain S. Payne Best's comments in his book _The Venlo
Incident._ [FN29] Both are included in my article. There are
simply too many coincidences to ignore.
Harry W. Mazal OBE

11/ Niall se r�veille
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:57:23 -0500
From: Niall McNamara <niallmcnamara@eircom.net>

Dear Mr. Karmasyn,
I wish to post a brief and incomplete reply to Mr. Gilles Karmasyn's recent posting. A fuller reply is forthcoming. I appreciate the seriousness with which Mr. Karmasyn's views Mr. Hictchens' review and therefore it deserves structured and referenced reply.

1. To the general public and non-experts of the Holocaust - and I am a
member of both classes - the terms "gas chambers" and "extermination camps" are invariably and, somewhat erroneously, associated together. Furthermore, they are linked geographically to areas in Eastern Europe and Poland: additionally, they are inextricably identified as extermination camps where Jews where murdered on a mass scale by Nazis and their collabators, with the intent that their deeds would not biome known. In regard to the mass shootings of Jews, such acts of barbarity were committed in Russia and less
so in Poland, as these were very easterly districts. This may be due to our schooling rather than any laziness or neglect conscious or otherwise.
2. It is not an attempt to distance Germany from being a land where
concentration camps were located and murder committed. My opinion is that that Mr. Christopher Hitchen, whom I do not know nor have I met, though I do read his books and watch him on TV, may be of a similar mind.
3. It is not intentional. The significant revision downward of the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz from 4 million to ca. 1 million persons was surprising for we had always been taught the former figure at school. As a non-expert I am seeking to improve my knowledge about the Holocaust. I have read Irving's books, I am a librarian and I can get them easily; also, I believe in free speech and I would not support the banning of his books, no more than I would allow Karl Marx's manifesto to be banned or the reports of Amnesty International, or books critical of Chinese domestic policy, or
books condemned by Pope John Paul II.
4. I have written to Mr Irving in 1999 on the Holocaust explaining to him why I think that at least 3-4 million Jews were murdered under the Nazi genocidal policy. The famous Professor Dr. Raul Hilberg conceded that there is no extant order signed by Hitler ordering the murder of the Jews. But I do believe Hitler may well have allowed it (is that irrational?) and is fully and morally responsibility for the ill-fate of European Jewry under Nazi controlled Europe. Hitchen's I believe would accept the same thesis. So, I am glad you accept he is not a Holocaust denier. You must remember, we are all not experts but we are trying to master a very complex topical subject or perhaps, in Hitchen's case, probably meeting a deadline (this latter point is purely speculation on my part).
4. The other points of my email on the Hitchen's article which you helpfully gave me links to I will read in order to do justice to a reply to you; namely,
3) the "confession" of camp commandant Rudolf Hoess, of Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his claim to have killed more Jews than was "humanly" possible?
(Recall how years later the 4 million reduced to ca 1 million).
4) That Hitchen's is not a Holocaust denier.
5). That Hitchens is not intellectually lazy inter alia.
I will try to document my sources as you wish: namely, the use of physical and psychological torture or even the threat of it, if any evidence exists, against Nazi's to force them to admit to historical facts that are now problematic. What is not now in doubt is the homicidal policy folowed against European Jews. On that we all agree though location and extent may divide us. But we are here to share views and learn. Perhaps semantics may bloack us but we can work and overcome them.
Regards,
Niall

12/ Le censeur intervient.
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:27:40 -0500
From: Gabriel Schoenfeld <GabrielSchoenfeld@commentarymagazine.com>

The LA Times review by Christopher Hitchens that Stephen Esrati calls "very fine" is indeed shocking, but not entirely surprising. Back in 1999, the generally reliable investigative reporter Edward Jay Epstein reported that Hitchens had flirted with Holocaust denial in his presence. Epstein's account was not widely accepted in the face of Hitchens' denial at the time that he was or had ever been a denier. But in light of Hitchens' latest writing, Epstein's account, which appeared in several newspapers, is worth remembering.
What follows is a brief excerpt from the the February 22, 1999 Guardian (London).
<In 1995, the writer Edward J Epstein told a number of media organisations last week, he and Hitchens had dinner after the New Yorker's 70th anniversary party. At the dinner, according to Epstein, Hitchens told him that there was no evidence of the existence of Holocaust death camps and that he was sceptical about claims that the Nazis killed six million Jews. Epstein said that Hitchens's remarks were so disturbing that he noted them in his diary that night.>
Gabriel Schoenfeld
Senior Editor, Commentary, 165 E. 56th Street, New York, NY 10022, tel: 212 751 4000 x232, fax: 212 751-1174

13/ Zinzin estoque et veut les oreilles et la quueue
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:05:55 -0500
From: Gilles Karmasyn <gilkarm@worldnet.fr>

I must apologize in advance for what will be a long answer about a
point that I consider as having been already made: Hitchens served
Holocaust deniers' lies. But the way Mr. McNamara treats my articles
(which he never cites from) leads me to do so.
A proper understanding would need a reading of my three previous
articles on that subject. They can be accessed using the followin
URLs (subsequently refered to as "my first article", "my second
article" and "my third article"):
http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010528
http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010530
http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010530b
I must insist on the fact that the reader won't learn anything new
about Hitchens or the lies he served, however "unwillingly", in the
following exercise. What will be at stakes is what *I* wrote and the
Way Mr. McNamara does not adress it. Maybe not that much
interresting. But *necessary* for future reference and example...

Niall McNamara <niallmcnamara@eircom.net> wrote:
> [...]
About the fact that Hitchens stated that there was no gas chamber on
the German Soil, which is a lie....
> 1. To the general public and non-experts of the Holocaust - and I
> am a member of both classes - the terms "gas chambers" and
> "extermination camps" are invariably and, somewhat erroneously,
> associated together. Furthermore, they are linked geographically
> to areas in Eastern Europe and Poland: additionally, they are
> inextricably identified as extermination camps where Jews where
> murdered on a mass scale by Nazis and their collabators, with the
> intent that their deeds would not biome known.
That may be so. *But*:
1) Christopher Hicthens, as I wrote previously is not talking about
"general public" knowledge, but about knowledge by "historians and
experts on that subject" (his own words). Arguing that "general
public" knowledge is confused does not excuse Hitchens as stating
false facts taken from Holocaust deniers' lies.
You have not aknowledged that what Hitchens wrote *is* false and *is*
taken from Holocaust deniers lies. You have not aknowledged that
Hitchens states falsely that these lies are endorsed by "historians
and experts".
I would appreciate to get answers to what I really wrote. Or no
answer at all, which might be more appropriate in some case.
2) Christopher Hitchens makes it clear that what he is talking about
is also gas chambers in *concentration camps*, since he does cite
Belsen and Buchenwald as not beeing equiped with gas chambers (for
which he is right) and also Dachau where he wrongly states that there
was no gas chambers. Very clearly, Hitchens' subject is *also*, at
least, concentration camps on the "German soil". Very clearly,
Hitchens is wrong about that subject (see my secon article). Very
clearly he got that lie from Holocaust deniers' rhetoric.
> In regard to the
> mass shootings of Jews, such acts of barbarity were committed in
> Russia and less so in Poland, as these were very easterly
> districts. This may be due to our schooling rather than any
> laziness or neglect conscious or otherwise.
The subject of mobile killing operations was not even alluded at.
What about answering *me*?
> 2. It is not an attempt to distance Germany from being a land
> where concentration camps were located and murder committed.
I don't think I ever wrote anything like that. I was never looking
for Mr Hitchens' motivations. I stated *facts* that you have been
unable to adress.
> My
> opinion is that that Mr. Christopher Hitchen, whom I do not know
> nor have I met, though I do read his books and watch him on TV,
> may be of a similar mind.
What mind? A "general public" mind not beeing able to dsitinguish
concentration camps' gas chambers from extermination camps gas
chambers?
Not so.
On the contrary, everything shows that Mr Hitchens does not place
himself on a "general public" state of mind, but is posing as
revealing "expert" knowledge *to* the ("surprised") general public.
Everything shows that he does adress the question of concentration
camps.
I must remind the reader that the context is not a general discussion
about some knowledge of the Holocaust. No. We are discussing one
point that Hitchens presented, very unduly, as beeing true, and
incidentally more truthfully, as beeing "the best case that the
revisionists can make" -- unwillingly, Hitchens may have stated that
"the best case that the revisionists can make" are still lies! We are
discussing that in the context of the Irving-Lipstadt trial where
Irving was proved to be what he is: a Holocaust denier and a
falsifier of sources and history. The context in which we are
discussing is the very question of historical rigour, the matter of
elaborating an honest, truthful, and as precise as possible,
historical knowledge.
In *that* context, there was no room for approximation. The more so
that Hitchens pretended to reveal things to its readers, things that
might surprise them... No, Hitchens does not have the excuse of
beeing on the side of the "general public", beacuse he was not,
because he posed to be on the side of the "historians and expert".
Hitchens was no candid. Hitchens was writing for a wide audience. He
has responsability. He has the responsability of beeing accurate, the
more so when the subject is a man -- Irving -- who is willingly
misleading its readers, who was willingly inaccurate.
Incidentally we are also at the heart of the viciousness of Holocaust
denial: it poses as beeing serious, when it is treachery. It pretends
to reveal things to a general public, when it *uses* the "general
public" misconceptions to promote lies.
One more thing: having read Hitchens' books and having watched him on
TV should prevent you from writing that "you don't know him". You
sure have a stronger opinion about him than I could have, since *I*
never read anything from him or about him prior to the article
discussed.
> 3. It is not intentional.
Well, before stating that "it is not intentional", It would be better
to state *what* is not intentional. So far you did not aknowledge
that what Hitchens wrote were lies and manipulations, usualy found
within Holocaust deniers' litterature.
> The significant revision downward of
> the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz from 4 million to ca. 1
> million persons was surprising for we had always been taught the
> former figure at school.
Well, well, well!
Surprise!
How is it that *you* now serve a watered down form of a lie promoted by Holocaust deniers?
There was *no* such thing as a "significant revision downward of the
number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz from 4 million to ca. 1
million". What I mean is that Holocaust deniers pretend that there
was one but they try to confuse the fact that the Auschwitz polish
adiministration aknowledged, in 1991, the western historiographical
estimations.
Western (non-communist) historians have been evaluating the Auschwitz
death toll between 1 and 2 millions for many years (some a little bit
higher, but the least specialized the historian, the higher his
number), from whom 90% were jewish. Let me cite 3 major works:
Poliakov placed in 1951 hte number at 2 millions. Reitlinger in 1953
at between 800 000 and 900 000, and Hilberg since 1961 at 1 million.
The communists have been repeating since 1945 that 4 millions
"persons" died at Auschwitz, willingly concelling the jewish aspect
of the mass murder commited at Auschwitz. Western historians who
wrote about Auschwitz almost never bought that number. Incidentally I was able o determine that in the communist litterature about
Auschwitz, the majority of the "4 millions" was *not* jewish.
Suggesting the contrary and confusing real historical knowledge with
communist propaganda has been a Holocaust denier lie for such a long time, that it is known as the "Auschwitz Gambit". Nizkor has a web page about it:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-01.html
This subject was one of the *first* pages on PHDN (the web site in
frehcn, against Holocaust denial, for which I am responsible), in
1997: http://www.phdn.org/negation/plaques4m.html
The Auschwitz death toll is discussed (in french) there:
http://www.phdn.org/histgen/auschwitz/bilan-auschwitz.html
(Read those pages if you want to understand why Holocaust deniers
confuse communist propaganda with serious historiography)
So stating that there was a "significant revision downward of the
number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz from 4 million to ca. 1 million"
is a form a an very common Holocaust lie.
A *very* bad point in order to defend Hitchens from having served
Holocaust deniers' lies and manipulations.
You seem to have been subjected to Holocaust denial propaganda and
been unabel to detect it.
> As a non-expert I am seeking to improve
> my knowledge about the Holocaust. I have read Irving's books, I
> am a librarian and I can get them easily;
Trying to improve ones knowledge about the Holocaust reading Irving's
books would be close to trying to improve ones knowledge about
Evolution Theory reading creationist litterature.
> also, I believe in free
> speech and I would not support the banning of his books, no more
> than I would allow Karl Marx's manifesto to be banned or the
> reports of Amnesty International, or books critical of Chinese
> domestic policy, or books condemned by Pope John Paul II.
So what?
So far we have the demonstration that the free circulation of
Holocaust deniers litterature made Hitchens and you buy their lies.
Not a strong point.
> 4. I have written to Mr Irving in 1999 on the Holocaust
> explaining to him why I think that at least 3-4 million Jews were
> murdered under the Nazi genocidal policy.
Oh? Really? "at least 3-4 million Jews". Well, you see, the
overwelming majority of all the historians of genocide do place the
total death toll 2 millions higher than you do: between 5 and 6
millions.
How is it that you diminish the average usual estimates by 2 millions?
> The famous Professor
> Dr. Raul Hilberg conceded that there is no extant order signed by
> Hitler ordering the murder of the Jews.
"Professor Dr"?
Did you know that Holocaust deniers keep coming again and again to
the fact that no written order was ever found? Funnny, no?
Well, there is no written order for the "Night of the long knives"
either. So what? All Hitler's biographers have shown that he had an
oral way of ruling. And Henry Friedlander has convincingly showed
that the "bad" precedent of the written order for "Operation T.4"
might very well have prevented Hitler from writing anything about the murder of the Jews. And Hitler was kept informed with the
Einsatzgruppen "performances". And many documents, speeches, ans also testimonies allude more or less directly to a "Fuhrer order". So
what? And Goebbels wrote in his journal that Hitler told him that
"modern peoples have no other solution than to exterminate the Jews"
(may 13th, 1943)
So what?
What is the link with Hitchens' scandalous three points?
As for Raul Hilberg "concede" anything (which is just, by pure
conincidence, the vocabulary used by Holocaust deniers), I would
prefer to state that Raul Hilberg has refined his knowledge...
> But I do believe Hitler may well have allowed it
"allowed it"? Hitler didn't "allow it". He made it an option,
ideologically and politically, and made it a more or less spoken wish
towards which any lucid Nazi, in position to to so, would have to
work (See Ian Kershaw's works).
> (is that irrational?)
What would be irrational would be to think that Hitler was not a
force behind the Holocaust. That does not mean the only force, but a
determining force.
> and is fully and
> morally responsibility for the ill-fate of European Jewry under
> Nazi controlled Europe.
A question that is out of the scope of Hitchens serving Holocaust
deniers' lies and manipulations, which you sill did not aknowledge.
> Hitchen's I believe would accept the same
> thesis.
That is not the subject.
> So, I am glad you accept he is not a Holocaust denier.
To my knowledge.
> You must remember, we are all not experts but we are trying to
> master a very complex topical subject or perhaps, in Hitchen's
> case, probably meeting a deadline (this latter point is purely
> speculation on my part).
Oh my! Hitchens was under pressure to get his paper out so he served
three Holocaust deniers lies and manipulations and resorted to
Faurisson's abject rhetoric against eyewitnesses (see my second and
third article)?
That *is* really bad luck!
Anything to get Hitchens out this mess?
> 4. The other points of my email on the Hitchen's article which
> you helpfully gave me links to I will read in order to do justice
> to a reply to you; namely,
Where is the lie about the "soap story"? Won't you aknowledge the
fact that suggesting that "historians and experts" had ever bought
the "soap story" was very wrong?
> 3) the "confession" of camp commandant Rudolf Hoess, of
> Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his claim to have
> killed more Jews than was "humanly" possible?
I already answered that. I will cite what I already wrote:
I am sorry to state that this is not true. Hoess was
beaten during his arrest. Because he refused to admit
he was Hoess, not to extract from him "confessions" as
Christopher Hitchens writes, in a way that could
confuse whatever "confessions" he is writing about with
the autobiography written by Hoess while in custody,
and which was in no way extracted from him by any form
of pressure. Hoess testified in Nuremberg as a witness
for the defense (called by Kaltenbrunner's lawyer!).
Hoess was *not* tortured into confessing the mass
murder of Jews in Auschwitz, as stated by Hitchens, as
Holocaust deniers claim.
> (Recall how years later the 4 million reduced to ca 1 million).
Recall how this is a Holocaust deniers' mispresentation!
> 4) That Hitchen's is not a Holocaust denier.
To my knowledge.
> 5). That Hitchens is not intellectually lazy inter alia.
Yes he *is*.
> I will try to document my sources as you wish: namely, the use of
> physical and psychological torture or even the threat of it, if
> any evidence exists, against Nazi's to force them to admit to
> historical facts that are now problematic.
But that is *not* what I asked! What I wrote (my second article) was:
I would be very interrested in knowing which Nazis, was
ever tortured in a case relating to the Holocaust.
References should be provided in case of such claims,
of course...
I wrote: "in a case relating to the Holocaust". Not "historical facts
that are now problematic".
You see, the Holocaust is not a "historical fact that is now problematic".
Once again, you don't answer (or don't intend to answer) to what I wrote.
> What is not now in doubt is the homicidal policy folowed
> against European Jews.
The homicidal policy *pursued" against European Jews was *never* in doubt...
> On that we all agree though location and extent may divide us.
No. The location of it does not divide anybody that I know of. As for
the extent, it is not a matter of "division", but a matter of
precision. The order of the estimates do not differ.
What "we" agree about concerning these subjects is not what counts.
What counts is the work and results obtained by historians and
scholars.
> But
> we are here to share views and learn. Perhaps semantics may
> bloack us but we can work and overcome them.
The first step should be to read correctly what your interlocutor
writes and cite what you answer to in order to avoid going astray.
Hitchens served 3 Holocaust deniers' lies and manipulations. He made
a vicious and unjustified attack against eyewitnesses. You did not
aknowledge any of these and you served a watered down form of a
Holocaust deniers falsification.
I do not find our exchange very fruitful.
Regards,
Gilles Karmasyn

14/ R�ponse de Niall.
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:27:35 -0500
From: Niall McNamara <niallmcnamara@eircom.net>

> Dear Mr. Gilles Karmasyn,
> I accept your points that I digressed on some, or perhaps all, the issues you raised. I will attempt to address your requests as best I can.
> I will deal with a set number of points in my 2 replies in order to articulate myself as clearly as I can. I need to read up on things as I am unfamiliar with many aspects of the questions. But I am willing to learn.
> On any issue one cannot expect 100% agreement on complex issues and the historiography of the Holocaust illustrates such complexity. This would be true of the orthodox school which understands the Holocaust as the > deliberate and premeditated murder of the Jewish people and other victims of Nazi evil.
>
> To be fair, to say one does not know somebody whom one has never meet, is a common statement that means one has no personal knowledge of the person other than that mediated through their intellectual work. I read a lot of Noam Chomsky but I do not know the man albeit I know his views on economics, politics, certain social issues etc. So it would be fair to say I don't know him. Or I should write I do not personally know him and have no personal motive or motivation to defend them.
> The same is true of other authors I read like Norman Finkelstein, Marc Bloch, Heinrich Boll and others. I respect Hitchen's socialist views as I am a socialist myself. Recently I came across several books by Primo Levi and I liked what I read. I would rather that there is no personalization in our exchanges as I find your intellectual observations interesting and thought provoking. I am not patronizing to you and would welcome if you treated me without adopting patronizing and ironic(?) or sarcastic(?) asides.
> I will post this email in my initial reply on H-HOLOCAUST@H-NET.MSU.EDU to show that I accept your view that I digressed from directly answering your questions. There was nothing personal or insensitive about this, I did not know you required such definitive categorical replies. Your methodology is very good in that one must reply directly to the issues at hand (if this was put harshly at times).
To answer your question:
> Well, well, well!
> Surprise!
> How is it that *you* now serve a watered down form of a lie promoted > by Holocaust deniers?
>
I don't think I qualify as a Holocaust denier as I think I have made clear that the Nazi's implemented a policy to systematically eliminate the Jewish people by the use of poisin gas in gas chambers. There is no doubt that extermination camps existed.
In relation to Auschwitz and the 4 million who died there I admit to not knowing what it is you are asking of me. But my non-expert understanding is:
The number of people murdered at Auschwitz is "...[A]ccording to the Polish historian Francizek Piper, at least 1.1 million people had been murdered in Auschwitz, of whom 90 percent were Jews." This source is available online at:
http://www.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/chronology/1942-1945/1945/chronolog
_1945_5.html. In "Nazi mass murder : a documentary history of the use of poison gas" edited by Eugen Kogan ...[et al], (Yale : 1993) -originally published in German 1983 - the (then) most recent figure cited for the least number of victims is given at 1.33 million and Georges Wellers is credited with the scholarship for studies leading to that conclusion (Kogon : 1993:173).
You wrote:
> There was *no* such thing as a "significant revision downward of the
> number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz from 4 million to ca. 1
> million". What I mean is that Holocaust deniers pretend that there
> was one but they try to confuse the fact that the Auschwitz polish
> administration acknowledged, in 1991, the western historiographical estimations.
In relation to the figure of 4 million victims this would revise the number downward by 2.67 million. Therefore, 1.33 would be 0.33% of the figure first given. In any person's language this is a significant reduction based as you said on Western scholarship methodology. The Holocaust debate has become somewhat "Americanized" whereas you prefer the communist approach.
That is a question of methodology. And thus source material. You have your preferences for citations.
Richard R. Evans has written: "And of course it is not Holocaust denial to point out, as has been known at least since the post-war publication of the memoirs of Rudolf Hss, the Commandant of Auschwitz, that the best estimate for the number of victims of gassing there was slightly in excess of one million, not the four million that has sometimes been claimed." source:
http://ihr.sas.ac.uk/ihr/reviews/moevans.html
On Auschwitz's place within "Greater Germany" the original name was in Polish as it was part of Poland. Its annexation to "Greater Germany" was illegal. It was always Polish. Neither of Mr. Jacob or us would argue about the violation if international law by such an annexation. There was no referendum for the Poles to vote to give the region to Hitler.
You wrote:
About the fact that Hitchen's stated that there was no gas chamber on
> the German Soil, which is a lie....
If this refers to Auschwitz see above; but if it's Dachau on German soil, see below.
Dachau's place in the history of concentration camps.
"Dachau was not planned as an extermination camp; its prisoners were shot trying to escape or died of hunger, disease, and exhaustion, under torture or as victims of pseudoscientific experiments. Source: Encyclopedia of the Third Reich (New York: Macmillan).
Eugon Kogon states (Cambridge : 1993), it is stated that: "It has not yet
been conclusively proved that killing by poison gas took place at Dachau."
However, it then states some accounts to indicate how gas may have been used. But visitors are alerted to the fact that it "has not been proved that the gas chamber on site was ever used". (Kogon : 1993:204). Does that answer your question on gas chambers within Germany?
I will address the other points very shortly.
Regards,
Niall McNamara

15/ Zinzin l�che pas le bout.
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:36:32 -0500
From: Gilles Karmasyn <gilkarm@worldnet.fr>

Hello,
Mr. McNamara wrote:
> As I am the non-expert and the general public referred to, may I
> perhaps explain my argument?
>
> In "Nazi mass murder : a documentary use of poison gas" edited by
> Eugen Kogon et al, (Yale : 1993) under the heading in appendix 8
> entitled, "Map showing "Euthanasia" facilities, concentration
> camps, and extermination camps" , there are no extermination
> camps identified within the Germany which pre-dated the "Greater
> Germany". In a posting to Mr. Gilles Karmasyn I explain a little
> further about this.
In that article you confused collective representation and
historiography. You defense of Hitchens lie did not conform to where
Hitchens explicitly placed himself: on the side of "historians and
experts". See my answer: http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010602

Stating that there was no extermination camp (no killing center) in
the Old Reich is true. Stating that there was no gas chambers in
Germany is a lie that Hitchens has burrowed from Holocaust deniers.
See http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010530b
> On the issue of the 4 million and western
> historiography I cited what Professor Evans (who defended
> Professor Lipstadt) said about the 4 million.
No serious historian ever bought the communist figure of 4 millions.
This has been already explained. See other articles in the same
thread.
> Discussions on the
> site illustrate how hard it still is to get exact figures for the
> number of people who entered Palestine before immigration to that
> area was stopped after war broke out. One can image the
> difficulty in establishing other data especially where it was
> intentionally concealed.
But concerning Auschwitz, the scale and nature of the murder in
Auschwitz (between 1 and 2 millions, from whom 90% were jewish, *not*
4 millions with a non jewish majority) has been known for decades!
> But I would not get too bogged down with
> the "Germany" and "Greater Germany" issue: don't retrospectively
> legitimise Hitler's annexation of parts of Poland to his Germany.
About that beeing outside the scope of Hitchens having burrowed from
Holocaust deniers propaganda, see
http://www.phdn.org/hnet.php?gk20010530b
> If only I Jew had died under Nazi Germany than that is still one
> soul too many.
That makes about 6 millions souls too many.
> On euthanasia and its evil fall-out yes the very
> ill and mentally ill population of Germany were murdered within
> the old Germany without any question.
In gas chambers that were located in Germany. Hitchens has burrowed a
lie commonly made by Holocaust deniers.
> One should examine the evidence as impartially as possible.
What evidence are you talking about?
Gilles Karmasyn

16/ Zinzin fait la manche:
Finalement...
Comment aider PHDN ?
Et lutter ainsi contre le n�gationnisme...
La premi�re fa�on de lutter contre le n�gationnisme est de conna�tre l'histoire. Lisez les ouvrages des historiens tant sur le nazisme que
sur le g�nocide. Lisez �galement des ouvrages sur le n�gationnisme pour en comprendre les m�canismes. De cette fa�on, vous saurez
vous prot�ger, ainsi que vos proches, des falsifications n�gationnistes
Vous pouvez �galement aider PHDN.
Dans le cadre de ce projet nous nous sommes fix�s comme moyen de lutte la connaissance, aussi pouss�e que possible, tant de l'histoire
du g�nocide que du fonctionnement du discours n�gationniste et des origines et buts id�ologiques de ses sectataires. Nous nous
effor�ons d'extraire de cette connaissance, tir�e de la pratique de l'histoire et des travaux des historiens, les �l�ments qui permettent de
pr�senter l'histoire du g�nocide et de d�monter les falsifications n�gationnistes de fa�on pertinente et efficace. Le site PHDN est le
r�sultat de cette d�marche.
Notre principal outil de travail, ce sont les livres. Ces livres, nous les achetons, depuis de nombreuses ann�es, sur nos fonds
personnels, et nous les lisons. Nous disposons aujourd'hui d'une biblioth�que de plusieurs centaines d'ouvrages sur la Shoah,
l'antis�mitisme et le n�gationnisme. Ce sont les ouvrages en anglais et en allemand qui nous font le plus d�faut. Aussi avons nous
constitu� deux listes d'ouvrages (une en anglais, et une en allemand) sur ces sujets, sur le site web du libraire on line Amazon. Tout un
chacun peut choisir des ouvrages dans ces listes et nous les faire parvenir en les r�glant sur le site web d'Amazon. Pr�cisons que nous ne
tirons aucun avantage ni b�n�fice financier des achats effectu�s sur Amazon. Nous en sommes simplement nous-m�me clients depuis
plus de quatre ans.
Bref, pour nous aider � lutter contre le n�gationnisme,
ENVOYEZ NOUS DES LIVRES (en anglais)
ENVOYEZ NOUS DES LIVRES (en allemand)
Merci.
Gilles Karmasyn
Responsable de PHDN

Il oublie de dire qu'il est cens� travailler � la BN, o� l'on trouve quelques livres...

annexe

17/ Niall a aussi quelques activit�s marginales:

Documents on the Fight to Preserve the Right to Free Speech
Niall McNamara Lodges a Formal Complaint with the Charities
Commission about the Wiener Library Ltd
Charitable Institutes and their obligations to the public
Sun, 19 Mar 2000
From: Niall Mcnamara
Re.: Rights of Researchers to Consult Historical Archives At Wiener Library

The Charity Commission for England and Wales,
8-16 Great New Street
New Street Square
London EC4A 3EU.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you in relation to the charitable status of bodies that are incorporated
as non-profit making organizations within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and their obligations as by law established.
In the recent high court action taken by Mr. Irving against Professor Lipstadt and Penguin Books for
alleged defamation, it appears some archival source material held by the Wiener Library of the Institute of
Contemporary History, which was required by Mr. Irving (whom I do not know nor have I ever meet),
was denied to him. Apparently, this material was required for a lawsuit. The Wiener Library denied
access to Mr. Irving because of some remarks they say Mr. Irving made against some academic members
of the Institute. In essence, the Institute, a charitable body, funded by tax-free gifts and public monies,
proceeded to deny Mr. Irving access to the diary of a Doctor Kremer, which was a document
contemporaneous to a period of time (c.1943?) required by Mr. Irving for his law case. It has been
identified that this diary was made readily available to lawyers for Dr Lipstadt and Penguin Books.
I think a charitable public body, enriched by its public charitable status and public monies has an
obligation, in fact a duty, to make important historical material available to everyone, regardless of how
any individual may have inappropriately expressed themselves in relation to personnel of the Institute.
This is more so the case when an individual requires such material for a legal case. This right should
apply to everyone in such a predicament; it is not an issue that relates solely to the episode concerning Mr.
Irving. Should a precedent be set about whom may, and whom may not access material, one could have a
form of censorship or the deliberate withholding of information to anyone who needs to consult material
in the large and valuable collection held by your Institute's library. This would be most undemocratic and
authoritarian. It would also pose serious legal implications.
I would welcome your observations about this matter. A public archive has duties to perform, and the
issue is not whether an institute likes the researches who use such archival material or not, it is about
meeting the rights of researchers who need to consult the material held by a (quasi)-public body. As the
Charitable Commission are responsible for the evaluation of what bodies qualify for charitable
tax-exceptions and public subsidies, I feel it is your duty is to ensure that all bona fide researchers have
access to the archives at the Wiener library, regardless of the personal feelings some members of the IHR
and Wiener Library hold about the individual/s concerned.
It is about openness, accountability and fairness to all academics and researchers who need access to
material held in trust for the people. I believe the International Federation of Library Associations also
requires that all peoples, no matter what their political opinions are, alleged or otherwise, have access to
all libraries, public and specialist. Given the Wiener's Library's high esteem in the eyes of many, it would
be a great pity if it were to appear that it fails to uphold the standards of the International Federation of
Library Associations (IFLA).
I look forward to a reply from you to my letter in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
Niall McNamara M.A. (Dubl., NUI), D.L.I.S. (NUI).
(� Focal Point David Irving 2001)

18/ Zinzin n'a pas le temps de livre les livres de la Bn parce qu'il doit intervenir touzazimut.

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:54:57 +0200
Reply-To: medito3@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medito3] pas de d�bats avec les interlocuteurs de mauvaise foi ou les illumin�s ?
L'historien Gilles Karmasyn nous fait l'honneur d'�crire plusieurs pages dans le prochain num�ro de medito dans le contexte du n�gationnisme /r�visionnisme :
Ces sujets touchent aussi la libert� d'expression.
Faisant suite au plaidoyer pour la loi Gayssot "Peut-on lire les �crits
contestant les crimes contre l'humanit� ?", Gilles Karmasyn nous donne sonopinion sur les limites du d�bat.

(voir aussi : Pour la loi Gayssot par G Karmasyn)
http://www.medito.com/hi0706k2.htm (provisoire)
(voir aussi : des avis contre la loi Gayssot de Jorge Semprun, Madeleine
Reb�rioux (ligue de droit de l'homme), Jacques Toubon, Alain Griotteray, Pierre Vidal-Naquet) http://www.medito.com/hi0706k.htm (provisoire)
-------------
GK: Vous me permettrez une petite digression sur cette notion de " d�bat " :
Un d�bat ne peut avoir lieu qu'entre personnes honn�tes qui utilisent *la
m�me* m�thodologie pour �tablir la v�rit�. On ne saurait avoir le moindre
�change avec des individus qui cultivent syst�matiquement la mauvaise foi,
comme les n�gationnistes. N'importe qui de sens� a pleinement conscience
qu'aucun d�bat n'est possible avec un interlocuteur de mauvaise foi.
De plus, l'histoire ne se fait pas dans des " d�bats publics " (qui est la
forme de discussion toujours revendiqu�e par les n�gationnistes)
Qu'il me suffise ici de citer le pal�ontologue Stephen Jay Gould qui a
entrepris, lui de contrer les "cr�ationnistes", ces illumin�s qui pr�tendent
que la terre a �t� cr��e il y a 7000 ans.
" Le d�bat est une forme d'art. Il s'agit de sortir victorieux de la
confrontation. Il ne s'agit pas de d�couvrir la v�rit�. Le d�bat rel�ve d'un
certain nombre de r�gles et de proc�d�s qui n'ont absolument rien � voir
avec l'�tablissement des faits [...] Ils [les cr�ationnistes] sont tr�s bons
� ce jeu l�. Je ne pense pas que je pourrais avoir le dessus dans un d�bat
contre les cr�ationnistes "
(Conf�rence donn�e � Caltech en 1985, cit� par Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1997, p. 153)
La r�clamation par les n�gationnistes et leurs sympathisants d'un " d�bat
public " montre une seule chose: seule une tribune pour leur propagande les
int�resse.
Je rappellerai en outre que les Protocoles des Sages de Sion furent en leur temps amplement " d�battus " et leur caract�re antis�mite et faux
parfaitement d�montr�. Pourtant ils ne cess�rent pas d'�tre �dit�s et de faire des d�gats consid�rables. Il aurait fallu les interdire tout
simplement.
La r�alit� de l'extermination des Juifs n'est *pas* la conclusion des
travaux des historiens, mais l'�v�nement sur lequel ils travaillent, le
point de d�part de ce travail, leur mat�riau. Les historiens �tablissent
comment, pourquoi, dans quel contexte cet �v�nement a eu lieu et permettent de mieux le conna�tre et le comprendre. Ils ne d�cident *pas* s'il a eu lieu ou non. La r�alit� des faits existe en dehors du travail des historiens. Le discours n�gationniste ne constitue pas l'expression d'une " opinion " mais rel�ve d'une propagande antis�mite.
Le fait de parler d'" opinion " � propos du n�gationnisme semble sugg�rer (plus ou moins consciemment) que nous serions en pr�sence d'une " th�se " comme un autre, d'une " autre version " de l'histoire. Ce n'est absolument pas le cas pour les deux raisons d�j� �voqu�es: 1) le g�nocide est un fait. 2) Par sa *m�thodologie*, le discours n�gationniste ne rel�ve absolument pas d'un discours historien et ne peut pr�tendre � se pr�senter comme " interlocuteur " de bonne foi. Il trahit toutes les r�gles de production de la connaissance historique. Il pratique l'hypercritique, le mensonge, la falsification, la citation hors contexte.
Hors il faut bien reconna�tre: un mensonge n�gationniste, s'il s'�nonce en une phrase, en n�cessite 40 pour la d�monstration du mensonge. Vous en trouverez un exemple paradigmatique ici:
http://www.phdn.org/negation/plaques4m.html
Je prendrai un exemple auquel je crois vous serez sensible. Imaginez qu'une secte d'allum�s d�cide de promouvoir la double " th�se " suivante: le sida n'est pas du � un virus et le pr�servatif n'est pas une protection efficace contre le sida, qui en fin de compte n'est pas une maladie sexuellement transmissible. Autrement dit: le pr�servatif est inutile. Imaginez que le tout soit servi par un rh�torique pseudo-scientifique qui apparaisse cr�dible aux yeux du profane.
Tant que ces imb�ciles ne r�pandent pas leur discours, pas de probl�me
n'est-ce pas? Mais le jour o� Le Monde fait sa premi�re page sur le sujet, ainsi que le Parisien, qu'une revue pr�tendument m�dicale est distribu�e par les NMPP, que des tracts sont distribu�s dans les lyc�es, la situation est-elle toujours la m�me? Pensez-vous *vraiment* qu'il ne soit pas temps de l�gif�rer?
Gilles Karmasyn Responsable de PHDN:

Richard Wild
* Webzine de r�flexion m�dicale : http://www.medito.com

18/ La potion est am�re.
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:57:26 +0100 (BST)
http://www.medito.com/hi0706k2.htm

medito : j'ai du mal � vous suivre dans votre d�fense
de la loi Gayssot
http://www.phdn.org/negation/gayssot.html (je
comprends le bon sentiment qui semble l'animer...)

Gilles Karmasyn : L'objet de cette page est moins
d'exprimer mon sentiment � l'�gard de cette loi que
d'en fournir la lettre et des exemples
d'interpr�tation par des politologues et des juristes
et de couper court aux mensonges que les
n�gationnistes prof�rent � son sujet.
Il reste que je suis, �videmment, favorable �
l'existence d'une telle l�gislation.
medito : je comprends le bon sentiment qui semble
l'animer, mais suis plut�t r�ticent en raison du
risque d'avoir une "histoire" officielle dict�e par la
loi - r�ticent comme Semprun, Weill et bien d'autres.

Gilles Karmasyn : Je suis tout � fait d'accord sur le
fait que la loi Gayssot puisse faire question.
Plusieurs ann�es de confrontation avec des personnes
hostiles (pour de bonnes ou de mauvaises raisons) � la
loi Gayssot, m'ont cependant amen� � constater que la
plupart des reproches faits � la loi Gayssot ne
r�sistaient pas � un examen minutieux.
Vous me permettrez de vous faire part ici de ces
r�flexions, dont la plupart ne figurent pas (ou pas
par ma voix) sur la page que vous citez.
La loi Gayssot induit-elle le risque de l'existence
d'une " histoire officielle "? Cette question rel�ve
de la premi�re grande cat�gorie de critiques contre la
loi Gayssot: elle risquerait d'�tre une sorte
d'entrave au travail de l'historien.
Combien de fois ais-je vu poser cette question? Je ne
compte plus. Jamais en tous cas je n'ai vu d'argument
accompagnant la question et sa r�ponse plus ou moins
implicite. Pourtant la question a-t-elle un sens? Je
pr�tends que non. Il n'y a pas un domaine de
l'histoire qui fasse aujourd'hui l'objet d'une version
" officielle ", c'est-�-dire d�fendue par
l'institution (mettons par l'�tat) de telle fa�on
qu'elle �toufferait des " th�ses non-officielles ".
La loi Gayssot interdit l'expression publique du
n�gationnisme, � savoir de la n�gation de la r�alit�
et de l'ampleur du g�nocide des Juifs pendant la
Seconde Guerre mondiale. Est-ce l� participer d'une "
histoire officielle "?
Le n�gationnisme n'est pas une autre " version de
l'histoire ". Il n'y *pas* plusieurs " versions " de
la r�alit�, en ce qui concerne le g�nocide et son
ampleur. Il peut y avoir plusieurs " interpr�tations "
de la r�alit�. Mais il n'y a *pas* plusieurs r�alit�s
diff�rentes qui constitueraient autant de " th�ses ".
La loi ne contraint pas plus les historiens �
"conclure" � l'existence du g�nocide que les
astronomes ne sont contraints � celle de la lune. La
lune existe. Point.
La loi ne fixe pas la r�alit�. Elle *prend acte* de la
r�alit�. Les anglo-saxons ont une notion proche de
cette approche: ils appellent cela " to take judicial
notice ". Cette notion juridique permet d'�viter de
discuter du fait que le Soleil se l�ve l'Est et se
couche � l'Ouest.
La loi Gayssot n'interdit nullement de revenir sur les
explications et les interpr�tations de la destruction
des Juifs d'Europe par les Nazis et leurs complices.
D'ailleurs la vigueur de l'historiographie des
politiques d'extermination nazies le prouve de fa�on
claire.
Le *fait* du g�nocide rel�ve de la *r�alit�*, une
r�alit� qui existe en dehors de toute interpr�tation
historienne. Le *fait* de l'extermination des Juifs
par les Nazis, son ampleur, ses modalit�s, sont
connues et �tablies de telle sorte que leur n�gation
ne rel�ve pas d'un discours historien, mais d'un
discours a-historique, un discours qualifi� par
Bernard Comte d'" anti-historique ", un discours tout
simplement antis�mite (j'y reviendrai)
Le *fait* est advenu quelle qu'en soit *l'analyse*
historienne.
Surtout: il n'y a *pas* d'historien (c'est � dire
d'historien travaillant sur le g�nocide) qui soit g�n�
dans son travail par l'existence de la loi Gayssot,
dans la mesure o� la loi Gayssot et l'historien
suivent un m�me chemin: celui de la r�alit�
historique. Le g�nocide est un fait. N'importe quel
historien travaille avec ce mat�riau factuel et donc
ne peut �tre g�n� par la loi Gayssot. Les dizaines
d'ouvrages r�cents de dizaines d'historiens, de toutes
nationalit�s, que je poss�de sur le sujet, en sont la
parfaite illustration.
Un historien, qui par d�finition ne peut que prendre
acte de la r�alit� du g�nocide et de son ampleur, ne
peut pas �tre g�n� par la loi Gayssot. En
l'occurrence, aucun historien travaillant sur le
g�nocide des Juifs n'a �t� g�n�, ni ne peut �tre g�n�
par la loi Gayssot,
La loi Gayssot n'interdit pas de revenir sur la
connaissance du g�nocide, de l'affiner, de la
r�interpr�ter, de la r�viser, m�me si le fait et
l'ampleur (du g�nocide) sont patents, �vidents,
ultra-document�s. La loi Gayssot ne signifie
aucunement que cette connaissance soit fig�e ou
absolue. D'ailleurs, une telle connaissance, absolue,
d'un �v�nement est impossible quel que soit
l'�v�nement.
Mais le sens commun accord� � un �v�nement permet de
d�terminer � quoi ce que le vocable de g�nocide des
Juifs recouvre: une politique d'assassinat
syst�matique, l'ampleur globale du crime, les
principales modalit�s de ce crime.
La connaissance de la bataille de Verdun, la
reconnaissance de sa r�alit�, n'implique pas que l'on
connaisse sa dur�e � la seconde (la milliseconde?)
pr�s, ni que l'on dï������������������������������������������½termine au centimï¿��tre carrï��½ pr�s
la surface du champs de bataille, ni que l'on
connaisse � la dizaine de milliers pr�s le nombre de
morts.
Cela ne m'emp��chera pas d'affirmer haut et fort que la
bataille de Verdun est un ���������������������������½vï¿��nement patent, �vident,
ultra-document�. De la m�me fa��on, le fait du g�nocide
est patent, �vident, ultra-document�.
On objectera alors qu'aucune loi ne prend acte de la
r�alit� de la bataille de Verdun. Nous touchons l� �
la n�cessit� de la loi Gayssot: l'expression publique
du n�gationnisme est interdite tout simplement parce
que le n�gationnisme est un discours antis�mite.
Il s'agit ici de la seconde grande cat�gorie de
critique envers la loi Gayssot: la l�gislation
existante serait suffisante...
De quelle l�gislation parlons-nous? De la l�gislation
qui interdit l'expression publique des discours qui
incitent � la haine. Je pars d'un premier postulat que
la n�cessit� de l'interdiction de tels discours ne
saurait �tre remise en cause.
Le second postulat, qui n'en est pas un mais d�coule,
en ce qui me concerne de la lecture syst�matique que
j'effectue de la litt�rature n�gationniste, est le
caract�re antis�mite du n�gationnisme. Un
antis�mitisme extr�mement virulent et pervers. Je ne
discuterai pas ici des arguments �tayant cette
constatation, mais ils sont disponibles sur PHDN,
ainsi que dans l'abondante litt�rature, souvent des
�tudes fouill�es, qui traite du n�gationnisme. On peut
cependant rappeler que les n�gationnistes se sont
exprim�s librement de 1948 � 1990. Cela a suffit pour
comprendre que leurs propos ne relevaient que de
l'incitation � la haine. Laquelle est justement
interdite.
Le n�gationnisme est donc, sans la moindre ambigu�t�
possible, un discours antis�mite. Il l'est
implicitement, dans l'objectif m�me de r�habiliter un
antis�mitisme explicite et de promouvoir les
conditions de survenue de l'�v�nement m�me qu'il nie.
Mais le n�gationnisme peut parfaitement prendre la
forme d'un discours raisonnable et
pseudo-scientifique.
Dans le cas des discours n�gationnistes, les proc�s
qui eurent lieu avant 1990 ont montr� que les
n�gationnistes avaient beau jeu de jouer sur la
*lettre* de la loi pour pr�tendre que leurs discours
n'�taient ni diffamatoires ni incitatifs � la haine.
Des juges les ont parfois entendu, � fort mauvais
escient. Certains se sont m�me permis un jugement
appr�ciatif du "travail" de Faurisson, une v�ritable
aberration lorsqu'on conna�t un peu le caract�re
proprement frauduleux de son discours (voir notamment
http://www.phdn.org/negation/faurisson/). C'est bien
l'illustration qu'un jugement sur la qualit� d'un
travail qui se pr�sente frauduleusement, mais
habilement, comme un travail historique, ne saurait
�tre laiss� � l'appr�ciation des juges, dont ce n'est
*pas* le m�tier. Lorsque les n�gationnistes furent
condamn�s, ce fut souvent sur la forme plus que sur le
fond. Ils apprirent � �dulcorer la forme, sans
remettre en cause le fond: la n�gation radicale de la
r�alit� du g�nocide. La situation devenait p�rilleuse
pour le juge qui devait de plus en plus recourir � une
interpr�tation des intentions de l'auteur
n�gationniste, voire � une analyse historienne. Le
d�lit de "tromperie d�lib�r�e" n'existe pas en droit
fran�ais, et ce n'est pas sur cet aspect l� que
pouvait se fonder une interdiction du n�gationnisme.
C'est en tant que discours antis�mite, qu'il est
normal -- je dirais naturel, dans notre soci�t� -- que
le n�gationnisme soit interdit.
La soci�t� se fonde sur une prise de responsabilit� du
l�gislateur sur des probl�mes qui doivent �tre trait�s
parce qu'un seuil a �t� franchi. Si le n�gationnisme
n'avait pas d�pass� le stade de la "th�se" discut�e
dans leur coin par trois hurluberlus, il n'y aurait
eut aucun besoin de l�gif�rer. Mais il faut constater
qu'� la fin des ann��¿½es 1980, un seuil dangereux avait
�t� atteint. Le l�gislateur en a pris acte et d�cid�
que la soci�t� devait prot�ger ses membres. Il a
d�cid� de d�charger le juge de prises de positions par
rapport � la lettre de la loi (interdisant
l'incitation � la haine et la diffamation), �
l'histoire, et pris, enfin, acte du caract�re
antis�mite du n�gationnisme.
La loi Gayssot interdit donc le discours n�gationnisme
en tant que discours d'incitation � la haine. La
r�alit� n'intervient que comme �l�ment de *diagnostic*
du discours n�gationniste. Il faut bien fixer un
crit�re aussi objectif que possible d'identification
de ce discours par la loi, afin d'�viter les abus. Ce
crit�re, c'est la n�gation de la r�alit� du g�nocide
telle que fix�e par l'article 24bis de la loi sur la
libert� de la presse de 1881. Mais la loi ne fixe
aucunement la r�alit�. En fait, la loi permet d'�viter
au juge de se prononcer sur des points d'histoire
(Voir � ce sujet:
http://www.phdn.org/negation/troper.html)
Si on avait interdit la propagation des Protocoles des
Sages de Sion, ce faux antis�mite fabriqu� par la
police tsariste au d�but du si�cle, peut-�tre
aurait-on pu �viter bien des massacres. (A ce sujet,
voir:
http://www.phdn.org/antisem/origines-protocoles.html)
Sur le motif d'interdiction de l'expression publique
du n�gationnisme, il convient de rajouter ceci: dans
la mesure o� il est largement admis, reconnu, �tabli
que le n�gationnisme *est* un discours antis�mite, il
serait aberrant, sous pr�texte que le n�gationnisme
*pr�tend* �tre un discours historique (ce qui est
faux), de ne pas l'interdire! Un discours d'incitation
� la haine b�nficierait en quelque sorte d'un
passe-droit parce qu'il s'incarnerait (en tous cas, il
le pr�tend) sous une forme "intouchable"? Il y aurait
*l�*, un v�ritable scandale.
Ayant �tabli, je crois, la n�cessit� de la loi
Gayssot, on peut revenir sur la premi�re cat�gorie de
critique: la loi et l'histoire. Une autre fa�on
d'exprimer cette critique et de pr�tendre que par la
loi Gayssot, c'est le juge qui dit l'histoire. Cette
affirmation serait encore plus fausse que celle (que
j'ai d'abord discut�e) comme quoi ce serait la loi qui
dirait l'histoire. En effet, la loi Gayssot permet
*justement* au juge de ne pas dire l'histoire, de ne
pas avoir � se prononcer sur la qualit� historienne
des discours qu'il a � juger.
Ainsi que je l'ai �crit plus haut, avant l'existence
de la loi Gayssot, � plusieurs occasions, des juges
eurent � se prononcer sur des points d'histoire.
C'�tait une aberration. Le juge n'a pas � se m�ler
d'histoire. Et de fait, c'est ce que la loi Gayssot
permet d'�viter (Voir
http://www.phdn.org/negation/troper.html). Le juge n'a
plus � se prononcer que sur le respect ou le
non-respect de cette loi.
Un contre-exemple paradigmatique a �t� donn� l'ann�e
derni�re en Grande-Bretagne, � l'occasion du proc�s de
l'�crivain britannique David Irving, pass� au
n�gationnisme en 1988. Celui-ci avait port� plainte
contre une historienne am�ricaine, Deborah Lipstadt,
qui avait produit un ouvrage sur le n�gationnisme et
les n�gationnistes, tr�s critique (et pour cause) �
l'encontre d'Irving. (Sur Irving, voir:
http://www.phdn.org/negation/irving/). L'enjeux du
proc�s �tait de prouver que Deborah Lipstadt avait dit
vrai en �crivant qu'Irving falsifiait la r�alit�.
La Grande-Bretagne n'est pas dot�e d'une loi semblable
� la loi Gayssot. Le proc�s vit Irving �taler ses
th�ses n�gationnistes et, pour le contrer, il a fallu
recourir � des d�monstrations historiennes. Le juge a
quasiment eu � se prononcer sur des questions
d'histoire. Cela a dur� des semaines. Les journaux ont
rendu compte du d�roulement du proc�s d'une fa�on
scandaleuse, faisant la publicit� du pseudo
argumentaire d'Irving et oubliant d'en d�monter la
m�canique mensong�re. Irving a bien �videmment perdu
son proc�s. La grande lucidit� du juge ne lui a
cependant pas permis d'�viter de se prononcer sur le
terrain de l'histoire. Sa grande comp�tence, la dur�e
tr�s longue du proc�s, ont permis que des impairs
soient �vit�. Mais le juge ne peut remplacer
l'historien. Cela aurait pu se passer beaucoup plus
mal.
Ce sont de telles situations que la loi Gayssot permet
d'�viter en France.
Elle est un outil indispensable et salutaire. Dans son
principe, je pense qu'il est heureux qu'elle existe.
Je peux vous assurer que si tel n'�tait pas le cas,
les lyc�es seraient satur�s de tracts, et la presse
extr�miste (de droite ou de gauche) serait constamment
�maill�e de propos n�gationnistes.
Il demeure que la r�daction de la loi peut �tre
discut�e. C'est une autre question.
medito : Les textes r�visionnistes sont terribles mais
on devrait pouvoir se forger son opinion en comparant
les textes originaux et les r�actions anti)

Gilles Karmasyn : Je me permets de bondir devant votre
formulation: " on devrait pourvoir se *forger une
opinion* ".
Je ne peux absolument pas vous suivre sur ce terrain.
La r�alit� et l'ampleur du g�nocide ne sont pas
l'objet d'une " opinion ".
Ce sont des faits historiques qui existent en dehors
de la connaissance et de la conscience que l'on peut
en avoir.
M�me la jurisprudence am�ricaine (pourtant plac�e sous
l'�gide du tout puissant premier amendement) reconna�t
que la pr�sentation frauduleuse des faits ne rel�ve
pas de l'"opinion".
Les n�gationnistes ne pr�sentent pas une " autre th�se
". Ils falsifient la r�alit� dans un but antis�mite.
Le g�nocide fut. Il ne peut y avoir de " d�bat " sur
ce point.
&nbsp
Vifs remerciements � Gilles Karmasyn de PHDN.
A noter le site Pratique de l'histoire et d�voiements
n�gationnistes

19/ Signalons une �ni�me resuc�e de Zinzin dans Information juive, Paris, num�ro 206, mars 2001, p. 12. On retiendra la conclusion du type qui tend sa s�bille aux ponte de la communaut�: "Nous sommes dans une phase critique parce que l'Internetr explose et que les n�gationnistes tiennent le haut du pav�, pour ce qui est des textes en fran�ais. On peut �tre confiant pour le long terme [ce n'est pas notre avis] mais pessimiste sur le court terme. Combien d'�mules les n�gationnistes auront-ils le temps de fabriquer gr�ce aux �normes lacunes actuelles?".

Ce type voudrait bien que la "communaut�" lui file des caisses de roupies. Il a envie de rouler carrosse. A notre avis, il seront trop radins. Ce sera Niet. Zinzin va v�g�ter, avant de sombrer dans l'oubli. Il nous aura fait rire un peu. C'est d�j� �a.
(30 juin 2001)
+++++++++++++++++++

 

 

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party