gas chambers quote / more 'holocaust' logic

[Hannover]

Ah yes, nothing like the infallible logic of the True Believers.
All endeavors in history are based upon debate, scrutiny, and questioning ... except the superstition of the 'holocaust'.

- Hannover

"…It is not necessary to ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible since it took place. Such is the point of departure required of any historical enquiry on the subject. This truth obliges us to state quite simply: there is not, there cannot be, any debate on the existence of the gas chambers."

- from a declaration, published in Le Monde, Feb. 21, 1979. Written by Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Léon Poliakov. And signed by 34 so called 'historians'

[Rutger]

Gentlemen, does anyone know where I can find a full text of this declaration in English? A search in Le Mond archives would be pointless as I dont speak French. Thank you!

[Hannover]

Simply search out the French text & post it if you think it's in error. I'm sure there are those here which can confirm the English translation.


- H.

[Hebden]

Gentlemen, does anyone know where I can find a full text of this declaration in English? A search in Le Mond archives would be pointless as I dont speak French. Thank you!

There is a translation in The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein by Mr. Henri Roques, published by the IHR. It's not interesting enough for us to reproduce, however.

[Rutger]

Simply search out the French text & post it if you think it's in error

Interesting... I did not say anything whatsoever about it being "in error", I just want to read it. Methinks you doth protest too much, old chap...

Hebden, thank you for the pointer. I take it the full text is not available online then?

[Hannover]

So now Rutger wants the text 'online'.

Me protest too much? No chance, I call 'em like I see 'em.

- H.

[Hebden]

Hebden, thank you for the pointer. I take it the full text is not available online then?

Not to our knowledge. The text is rather long, over 4 pages in the Roques book.

The infamous last paragraph is, upon reflection, worth reproducing, representing as it does, the height of Gallic impertinence:

5. One last word to finish. Everyone is free to interpret a phenomenon such as the Hitlerian genocide according to his own philosophy. Everyone is free either to compare it or not with other murder enterprises, previous, contemporary, subsequent. Everyone is free to refer to such and such sort of explanation; everyone is free, to the limit, to imagine or to dream that these monstrous deeds did not take place. Unfortunately, they did take place and no one can deny their existence without comitting an outrage against the truth. It is not necessary to ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically because it took place. Such is the obligatory point of departure for all historic enquiry on the subject. It concerns us simply to recall this truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.

[Hebden]

5. One last word to finish. Everyone is free to interpret a phenomenon such as the Hitlerian genocide according to his own philosophy. Everyone is free either to compare it or not with other murder enterprises, previous, contemporary, subsequent. Everyone is free to refer to such and such sort of explanation; everyone is free, to the limit, to imagine or to dream that these monstrous deeds did not take place. Unfortunately, they did take place and no one can deny their existence without comitting an outrage against the truth. It is not necessary to ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically because it took place. Such is the obligatory point of departure for all historic enquiry on the subject. It concerns us simply to recall this truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.

Compare the above with the following formulation as enunciated by Professor Chomsky:

Alexandria, Va.: Some years ago during the Faurisson matter you were quoted in the New York Times as saying that personally you believed that the Holocaust had occurred.

Are you comfortable stating that the Holocaust occurred without qualifying it with an "I belive"?

Do you believe that the question of whether or not the Holocaust occurred is one over which reasonable minds can differ?

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall anything that idiotic in the New York Times, and if there was such a statement, it's slanderous, because it suggests that there is some possibility to the contrary. Anyone who's looked at what I've written, since my first published political writings almost 40 years ago, knows that any such suggestion is about on a par with my saying that I read a statement in the NY Times that you are personally opposed to torture of children.

I'm comfortable with saying exactly what I wrote almost 40 years ago, and have often repeated: the Holocaust was the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we even agree to enter into debate with those who try to deny Nazi crimes. Of course, every factual statement -- e.g., that the moon is not made out of green cheese -- has an implicit "I believe" before it. That's what it means for a statement to be empirical -- and if we are serious about it, the conclusions extend even to a large part of mathematics. But that's utterly irrelevant here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Nov21.html

The implication being that Holocaust deniers have lost either their humanity or their marbles. Such statements, to our mind, are an ominous portend of a coming holocaust. From mink farms to abortion clinics to detention centres.