Pressac's interview with Valerie Igounet

[Balsamo]

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?

To go back to the topic, Pressac is not capitulating to revisionists. He sends both camps in their respective corner so to speak. In this sense, he is a revisionist that does not deny the murder of Jews.

The translation given by Kladderadatch ( PS : you make it difficult to name poster by their pseudo !!!) is a bit misleading.

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.

So here is my bad translation:
"

It is too late. A Global rectification is humanly and physically impossible. Every historical change leads to a devaluation to this rigid Memory presented as definitive. And yet, new documents will inevitably surface and will shatter more and more the 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, idealizing the concentration camp system is like squaring the circle, to turn black into white. National conscience does not like sad stories. . The life of a zombie is not inspiring, all the more so as the pain suffered has then been exploited and converted into jingling coins: Medals, pensions, public office, political influence. One cannot be victim and privileged or in turn become executioner ( not sure about that one).
From all those facts, terrible because they caused the death of women, children and old people, only the ones who are established will survive. The others will end up in the bins of History

PS: Kingfisher, feel free to correct me...



To understand the quote, one need to go back to the question asked.
Pressac considered - quoting Michel de Bouard, a former Mathausen inmates- the "Whole "concentration camp case" as rotten from the start", because it was first based only on "survivor's memories", considered as sacred - due to their suffering, and unfortubatly written in stone by the far from perfect IMT, that "memorial considerations" prevailed on history, as well as the fact that Communists ruled most of those camps ( among the Inmates) and that most of this history comes from Communists sources, basically sowed the seeds of revisionism.
So he called for a complete review of the case, which would not lead inavitably to pure "denierism".
But his quote applies for both parties...
If i had to translate his thouht : his message is that without suhstance, the "transit camp theory" for the Reinhard camps is doomed to the bin along with the 6.000.000 figures and other memorial shits...
And Yes i quite share his views!

[Kladderadatsch]

The translation given by Kladderadatch ( PS : you make it difficult to name poster by their pseudo !!!) is a bit misleading.

Well I usually go by K. Z. Kladderadatsch von Bummler, so count yourself lucky! (You can call me Datsch if you want to.)

But you're right, Balsamo: the translation I posted earlier is not perfect. As I said, it's more like "passable"--which is to say I wouldn't flunk it, but it could use some work.

In particular, your correction of "magnifier" to "idealizing" is helpful. The problem is that while literally more correct, the translation doesn't seem to make sense in the larger context. First, Pressac is talking about how "little will remain" of the current view of the camps, and then suddenly he is talking about how idealizing them is like "squaring the circle," and so it sounds like the the latter comment is an expansion on the first. In other words, it sounds like Pressac is saying that the current (orthodox) view of the camps is in fact what idealizes them. But of course that makes no sense, since the orthodox view is hardly an "idealization"--quite the opposite. That's probably what led to the mistranslation in the Metapedia version: "idealize" seemed to make no sense as a description for the orthodox view, and so the translator tried to wriggle out of the problem by saying "exaggeration of the extent . . . " which is wrong, but at least doesn't seem incoherent.

Anyway, the key to the solution is to make the connections between the sentences clearer. That means adding in a few "connector words" and being a little freer in the translation, but the improvement in clarity should justify that here:

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. Of course, to idealize the concentration camp system would be to try to square the circle, to turn black into white. But the consciences of peoples do not like sad stories. . . .

That would make the logical sequence clearer:

-- the orthodox view of the camps is doomed
-- of course, to idealize the camps would be silly too
-- but still, people do not like sad stories (implied: people will eventually move away from the "zombie stories" of the orthodox version anyway)

The other tricky word is "porteuese." I'm not sure that "inspiring" is quite right, though I'm not sure what the best replacement would be either. ("Edifying" maybe? EDIT: better "uplifting"?) At any rate, I think that Pressac's point is not so much that the stories fail to "inspire" us, but that they actively turn us off; we just don't want to hear about it. In other words, Pressac is being ironic, and its always hard to get irony across. Adding "very" before the adjective and maybe something like "after all" might help signal the right tone:

The life of a zombie is not very uplifting, after all, so much the less when the pain suffered has been exploited and converted into jingling coins: medals, pensions, public office, political influence.

Anyway, there's no such thing as a perfect translation, but I think that something along those lines would get closer to what Pressac was really trying to say.

Putting it all together more "freely" but hopefully more accurately:

It is too late. A global rectification is humanly and physically impossible. Each new change in the historical record leads to a further undermining of this fixed memory once presented as definitive. New documents will inevitably surface and will shatter more and more the official certainties. Thus, today's depiction of the concentration camp system, while still triumphant, is doomed to collapse. What can be salvaged from it? Very little. Of course, to idealize the concentration camp system would be to try to square the circle, to turn black into white. But the consciences of peoples do not like sad stories. The life of a zombie is not very uplifting, after all, so much the less when the pain suffered has been exploited and converted into jingling coins: medals, pensions, public office, political influence. You cannot be at once victim and master, let alone executioner in your turn.

From all these "facts," so terrible for having caused the deaths of women, children and old people, only those which are established as true will survive. The others will end up on the dust heap of History.

You could say that it's cheating to put scare quotes around "facts," but the context really does seem to require it. Pressac clearly does not believe that all of the allegations are true; he does not believe that all of the "facts" are indeed facts. In an interview, of course, he could have indicated that sense by tone of voice or facial expression, etc.; in a written text, the next best thing is to use quotation marks.


Edit: Fixed a mistake. And on reflection, I think "uplifting" might be better than "edifying." So I'll write that in too.

[Kingfisher]

Balsamo:
Where did Pressac mention a transit camp theory?

[Balsamo]

Balsamo:
Where did Pressac mention a transit camp theory?

Hum ???...Nowhere...my addition... To illustrate Pressac message in this interview which contradict friedrichjansson interpretation of the quote.
I also think that the sentence "idealizing" target Faurisson approach - in one if his video he instisted on the pool, football field, etc - as he says turning black into white (and not white into black), which could be easy as the victims, or their descendants holds the silver plate (finklestein).
Still he insists that those facts are terrible because they caused the death of woman and children...

Recently on the new rodoh forum, Blogbuster posted a interview by Chris Webb from the HEART website. he uses concept like "Holocaust memorial scholars " for whatever that means. And concludes

The Holocaust happened and there is nothing to debate or dispute

Which is precisly Faurisson counterpart that Pressac targets as well.
Again mister Webb

ARC members felt that the best answer to combat Holocaust Denial was to memorialize the victims and teach people about the perpetrators and the events that lead to the mass murder of millions.

This strategy being for Pressac the roots of all problems.

He is the link
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... kers2.html

[friedrichjansson]

Balsamo:
Where did Pressac mention a transit camp theory?

Actually, I think Pressac did mention this. In his obituary for Pressac, Jurgen Graf states the following:

In 1995, an article by Pressac dealing with the “pure extermination camps” Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec appeared in the French magazine Historama. [“Enquête sur les camps de la mort,” in: Historama, No. 34, 1995.] In contrast to official historiography, according to which these camps were supposed to have been designed exclusively for exterminating Jews, Pressac believed they were originally established as transit and delousing camps. He pointed out that, according to eyewitnesses, three adjacent barracks had originally been built in Belzec. The first barracks had served as a waiting room, the second as a bathhouse, and the third as homicidal gas chamber. The gas chamber was said to have contained three ovens. Pressac logically argued that it would have been pointless to build bathhouses in a facility designed for mass murder: why bathe your victims before killing them? Furthermore, he pointed out, ovens would not function in a chamber designed for carbon monoxide. eyewitnesses had stated that Treblinka contained a furnace room with water boiler to produce steam in addition to the ‘suffocating chambers.’ Pressac pointed out that the only explanation for this was that “between the end of 1941 until middle of 1942 in Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, three steam delousing facilities were constructed.” He went on to explain: “The Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942, established a program for the deportation of Jews to the East, which necessarily included processing the deportees in these three sanitary facilities.” Subsequently, as Pressac wrote in the article, the delousing facilities were converted to extermination facilities, that is to say homicidal gas chambers. It is unclear whether he actually believed this or simply made a tactical concession in order to have his article published. At any rate, his revelation that the “eastern extermination camps” had been constructed as transit and delousing facilities shook official ‘Holocaust’ lore to the core.

[Balsamo]

Balsamo:
Where did Pressac mention a transit camp theory?

Actually, I think Pressac did mention this. In his obituary for Pressac, Jurgen Graf states the following:

In 1995, an article by Pressac dealing with the “pure extermination camps” Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec appeared in the French magazine Historama. [“Enquête sur les camps de la mort,” in: Historama, No. 34, 1995.] In contrast to official historiography, according to which these camps were supposed to have been designed exclusively for exterminating Jews, Pressac believed they were originally established as transit and delousing camps. He pointed out that, according to eyewitnesses, three adjacent barracks had originally been built in Belzec. The first barracks had served as a waiting room, the second as a bathhouse, and the third as homicidal gas chamber. The gas chamber was said to have contained three ovens. Pressac logically argued that it would have been pointless to build bathhouses in a facility designed for mass murder: why bathe your victims before killing them? Furthermore, he pointed out, ovens would not function in a chamber designed for carbon monoxide. eyewitnesses had stated that Treblinka contained a furnace room with water boiler to produce steam in addition to the ‘suffocating chambers.’ Pressac pointed out that the only explanation for this was that “between the end of 1941 until middle of 1942 in Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, three steam delousing facilities were constructed.” He went on to explain: “The Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942, established a program for the deportation of Jews to the East, which necessarily included processing the deportees in these three sanitary facilities.” Subsequently, as Pressac wrote in the article, the delousing facilities were converted to extermination facilities, that is to say homicidal gas chambers. It is unclear whether he actually believed this or simply made a tactical concession in order to have his article published. At any rate, his revelation that the “eastern extermination camps” had been constructed as transit and delousing facilities shook official ‘Holocaust’ lore to the core.

Thanks for this

I think Kingfisher meant "mention of Treblinka" in this specific interview.

[Kingfisher]

I think Kingfisher meant "mention of Treblinka" in this specific interview.

I did, but this was still interesting info.

[borjastick]

So Blogbuster said the holocaust happened and there is nothing to debate or dispute. This is a classic holocaustian defence tactic. What he means by the word 'holocaust' could of course be a number of things. He probably means persecution of jews and the inevitable deaths of a good number. What we mean by holocaust is the gassing and shooting and deliberate murder of six million jews. Of course if blogbuster were to be asked for proof he would struggle to provide any for the latter definition of the word but plenty for the former...