View the h-holocaust Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-holocaust's May 2001 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-holocaust's May 2001 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-holocaust home page.
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 Ravensbrück, 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 Ravensbrück, 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