Pressac's interview with Valerie Igounet

[friedrichjansson]

I've often seen quotes from Jean-Claude Pressac's 1995 interview with Valerie Igounet, in which he essentially capitulated to revisionists, saying that "today’s depiction of the system of concentration camps, while still triumphant, is doomed to collapse. What can be salvaged from it? Very little." However, I've never seen the complete text of the interview, which was published in the book "Histoire du négationnisme en France." I'm reluctant to shell out $45 on amazon just to get Pressac's interview, so I'm hoping someone here can help me. Does anyone have a copy of the interview, either a scan from the original French or an English translation?

[Kladderadatsch]

Friedrich, if you can read French, the full text of the interview, as "revised" by Pressac himself (see the introductory note on p. 31), is available from VHO:

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/JCPtxt.pdf

The interview starts on p. 31. The famous "recantation," which you quote, comes at the very end, p. 60:

Peut-on redresser la barre?

Il est trop tard. Une rectification générale est humainement et matériellement impossible. Tout changement historique entraîne une dévalorisation de cette mémoire fixe et présentée comme définitive. Or, de nouveaux documents surgiront inévitablement et bouleverseront de plus en plus les certitudes officielles. La forme actuelle, pourtant triomphante, de la présentation de l'univers des camps est condamnée. Qu'en sauvera-t-on? Peu de choses. En effet, magnifier l'univers concentrationnaire revient à résoudre la quadrature du cercle, à transmuter le noir en blanc. La conscience des peuples n'aime pas les histoires tristes. La vie d'un zombi n'est pas «porteuse», d'autant que la douleur subie a été ensuite exploitée et monnayée: décorations, pensions, postes, influence politique. On ne peut à la fois être victime et privilégié, voire bourreau à son tour.

De tous ces faits, terribles parce qu'ayant provoqué la mort de femmes, d'enfants et de vieillards, ne survivront que ceux établis. Les autres sont destinés aux poubelles de l'Histoire.

Metapedia has a passable translation of the central portion of the text:

Concerning the massacres of Jews, several basic conceptions must be thoroughly revised. The expression 'genocide' is no longer appropriate. Every epochal change leads to a new evaluation of rigid canons of memory which we have heretofore been taught to regard as eternal. However, new documents inevitably surface which increasingly upset official certainties. Thus, today's depiction of the system of concentration camps, while still triumphant, is doomed to collapse. What can be salvaged from it? Very little. The truth is that exaggeration of the extent of the concentration camp system is like squaring the circle - it means declaring that black is white. The truth is that national conscience does not care for sad stories. The life of a zombie is not inspiring, since pain suffered is exploited and converted into jingling coins: Medals, pensions, public office, political influence. Thus it becomes possible to be simultaneously victim and privileged individual, even executioner.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Pressac

The Metapedia quote is not exact, however, since it cuts off the first part of the paragraph, and adds in lines from earlier in the interview instead ("Concerning the massacres of Jews . . . "), without showing where the cuts are. It's not a big deal, they're still Pressac's words:

Quant au massacre des juifs, plusieurs notions fondamentales doivent être entièrement reprises. Les chiffres avancés sont à revoir de fond en comble. Le terme «génocide» ne convient plus. p.52

I'm not sure why the quotes got squeezed together that way; it's probably just a matter of someone neglecting to include the dot-dot-dot marks when recopying a previously edited text from somewhere else. Like I say, not a big deal, but it's probably good that people know that what they're quoting from. Otherwise you'll have folks on the other side screaming that the quotation has been doctored somehow.

[friedrichjansson]

Great, thank you. My French is not very good but I should be able to read it with a little help from a dictionary.

[Kingfisher]

Great, thank you. My French is not very good but I should be able to read it with a little help from a dictionary.

http://translate.google.com is your friend.

[Zulu]

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/JCPtxt.pdf

Quant au massacre des juifs, plusieurs notions fondamentales doivent être entièrement reprises. Les chiffres avancés sont à revoir de fond en comble. Le terme «génocide» ne convient plus. p.52

The entire quote mentionned here is:

Quant au massacre des juifs, plusieurs notions fondamentales doivent être entièrement reprises. Les chiffres avancés sont à revoir de fond en comble. Le terme «génocide» ne convient plus. Des 1961, HILBERG employait le mot «destruction» dans le titre de son livre. Il faut abandonner le concept d'une extermination systématique programmée dès l'origine. Il eut plutôt une radicalisation progressive, imposée par la guerre qui elle-même exacerbait l'antisémitisme violent de Hitler et de son entourage direct. Des mesures de plus en plus coercitives, de plus en plus drastiques, furent élaborées et
appliquées pour aboutir en avril 1942 au «massacre de masse».

As for the killing of Jews, several basic concepts must be fully reconsidered. The figures advanced are to be reviewed from top to bottom. The term 'genocide' is no longer appropriate. Of 1961, HILBERG used the word "destruction" in the title of his book. We must abandon the concept of a systematic extermination planned from the outset. It was rather a gradual radicalization imposed by the war which itself exacerbated the violent anti-Semitism of Hitler and his entourage. Measures more coercive, more drastic, were developed and applied to arrive in April 1942 to 'mass murder'.

Metapedia seems to have biased the sense by the cuts. The complete quote shows that Pressac didn't abandoned his idea of 'mass murder' applied to Jews since 1942 even if he incomprehensibly told before that the term 'genocide' wasn't no longer appropriate...

[Balsamo]

Indeed,
It is a sad thing that this interview is not available in english. As it show that one can be revisionist without being a denier.

[Hannover]

Indeed,
It is a sad thing that this interview is not available in english. As it show that one can be revisionist without being a denier.

Your to language is inflammatory. And of course, you forgot to mention that the pharmacist, Pressac, was paid by the Klarsfeld Foundation, an active lobbyist for Zionist interests.

- Hannover

[Balsamo]

Indeed,
It is a sad thing that this interview is not available in english. As it show that one can be revisionist without being a denier.

Your to language is inflammatory. And of course, you forgot to mention that the pharmacist, Pressac, was paid by the Klarsfeld Foundation, an active lobbyist for Zionist interests.

- Hannover

Is it ?
Well, the topic is about the interview, and i only draw a conclusion about what i have read in this interview...in which he said to have been sent to Birkenau by Faurisson and friends...Now maybe the Klarsfeld foudation did pay for further researches, but the same way Zundel (in a mist of his trial) paid Leuchter to do his report...

[Hannover]

Balsamo:

Is it ?
Well, the topic is about the interview, and i only draw a conclusion about what i have read in this interview...in which he said to have been sent to Birkenau by Faurisson and friends...Now maybe the Klarsfeld foudation did pay for further researches, but the same way Zundel (in a mist of his trial) paid Leuchter to do his report...

Yes it is.

Leuchter was paid a minimum amount for travel and board. Pressac was paid by a racist Zionist organization with beaucoup cash at their disposal. This Foundation had a special, self serving interest in getting Pressac to say what they wanted. The Klarsfeld Foundation enaged in what's called a conflict of interest. But then this forum has debunked Pressac endlessly. Then master chemist Germar Rudolf's research administered the coup de grace, and did it on his own dime. Oops.

And speaking of Revisionist research into the mythical 'gas chambers', you are hereby challenged to produce proof of these alleged tools of 'industrial extermination' which you faithfully believe in. It all comes down to 'gas chambers'. What are you afraid of, Balsamo?

We're waiting.

- Hannover

[Kingfisher]

And speaking of Revisionist research into the mythical 'gas chambers', you are hereby challenged to produce proof of these alleged tools of 'industrial extermination' which you faithfully believe in. It all comes down to 'gas chambers'. What are you afraid of, Balsamo?

We're waiting.

- Hannover

OT

[Moderator]

Kingfisher says:

OT

Not so. Pressac's work is centered on trying to prove the existence of the 'gas chambers'.
M1

[Kingfisher]

Challenging Balsamo to produce proof has nothing to do with Pressac and the Igounet interview. Therefore OT. Trolling even.

[Hannover]

Challenging Balsamo to produce proof has nothing to do with Pressac and the Igounet interview. Therefore OT. Trolling even.

Oh please. Pressac's main opus is on the fictitious 'gas chambers' and this thread is about Pressac. Simple as that. And yes, I will continue to ask for proof of the 'gas chambers' from those who believe in the 'gas chambers'.

- Hannover

[The Warden]

Challenging Balsamo to produce proof has nothing to do with Pressac and the Igounet interview. Therefore OT. Trolling even.

Especially considering the OP was requesting a transcript of the interview.
Every thread can't be about gas chambers, much to the dislike of others.

[Balsamo]

Challenging Balsamo to produce proof has nothing to do with Pressac and the Igounet interview. Therefore OT. Trolling even.

Oh please. Pressac's main opus is on the fictitious 'gas chambers' and this thread is about Pressac. Simple as that. And yes, I will continue to ask for proof of the 'gas chambers' from those who believe in the 'gas chambers'.

- Hannover

You are right of course, but this topic is not about Pressac "Main opus"...it is a written interview in which he explains why he became revisionist, his meeting and 6 months collaboration with Faurisson, the flaws in the historical version by the Poles. He denouces the wrong interpretations of the gassings at Stuthof, the incoherence of the Dachau "story line"...etc
You would like it as it is quite revisionist in essence, and maybe the reason why he was forgotten by the ones who praised his "Main Opus" in the end.

he explains

le dossier de Faurisson relatif au K. L. Auschwitz était assez maigre et un complément de documentation lui était nécessaire. Ce qui signifiait de nouvelles études au musée d'Oswiecim. Faurisson ne pouvait s'y rendre, craignant un refus de consultation. De plus, ses seules ressources provenaient de son salaire versé par l'Éducation nationale. N'étant pas «indésirable» à Oswiecim et étant le seul à pouvoir payer mes déplacements, c'est moi qui repartis en Pologne en août 1980.

My not so good translation being

Faurisson's file regarding K.L. Auschwitz was quite thin and he needed additional documentation. That meant new studies at the Auschwitz museum. Faurisson could not go as he feared a refusal of consultation. In addition, his sole financial ressources was his salary from the Ministry of Education. As I (pressac) was not on the black list, and being able to cover the costs of the trip, it is me that went to Poland in August 1980.

Where he had good working relations with Tadeusz Iwaszko, the Archive's curator. During their conversations, Pressac confronted Iwaszko with all his revisionist arguments until the later came with new plans that answered most of his arguments. The plans were from 1942 and brought a lot of changes to the Plans presented to him by Faurisson (which he thought were the only ones.)

Accoring to this statement, the karlsfeld foundation did indeed published his book, but most of his researches were already made.
So hannover, if you have more informations about the Karlsfeld foundation financing Pressac enterprise, i would be interrested.

Anyway, i cannot resume 32 pages in one post.

What is important is that he (Pressac) indentifies the roots of the "Holocaust issue" : "Irrational attitude on both side"...wether it is Faurisson or Wellers...Both are only concerned by what makes their cases...
This text is really a good reading...and i could keep on sumerizing it if anyone is interrested...
So yes, i repeat my conclusion : "too bad this is not translated in english"...
Anyway, i have to leave it here as electricity went down again.