In the famous novel by pseudo-science fiction Slaughterhouse 5 , Kurt Vonnegut, at some point is mentioned, among the scholars who wrote of the bombing of Dresden, none other than David Irving, the British historian best known today for his theories of Holocaust denial. For this reason, and the fact that in the novel accepts the estimate made by Irving on the number of victims of the bombing (135,000 people instead of the other charged 30-40000 scholars), I recently discovered that Vonnegut has been criticized by Deborah Lipstadt, a Jewish American scholar, in a post on his blog dating back to 2007.
Deborah Lipstadt, author of the essay Denying the Holocaust, but is most famous for the legal battle that saw the object, in an English court, just to David Irving, who had sued for defamation after pages dedicated to him in the book of Lipstadt (where it was described as one of the most dangerous Holocaust deniers). The process made a fuss of the fact that the historical truth about the Holocaust, for once, was not simply discharged from academics but enshrined in a courtroom. To win the libel Irving fact would prove that his "negatives" rather than more or less voluntary distortion of reality correspond to legitimate opinions supported by facts, something for which, however, should have had the support of some other authoritative historian, or very solid arguments. His defeat was so predictable.
However, and despite the triumphalism that followed the sentence, one might wonder whether the 'deliberately distort reality to fit his own ideological vision "is not a criticism that can be moved, in addition to Irving, thousands of academics otherwise considered more respectable but dealing with less controversial issues, or are lucky enough to have made the most correct opinion, and if not particularly well suited to the approach of the Holocaust against Lipstadt and talk to anyone, as I opinion is evidenced by his criticism of Vonnegut.
In some countries (eg Austria, France, Germany and Belgium), as noted, were adopted laws that define a crime publicly to deny the reality of the extermination of Jews. David Irving (still him) was arrested in Austria in 2005 and sentenced to three years in prison for his beliefs. Of course they are laws that are discussed, and the expediency of which is disputed by many (in honor of Lipstadt, For example, it must be said that it opposed the keeping of Irving, although for reasons of expediency and not so much in defense of freedom of expression). Also because the judge appear to leave too much room for interpretation, as to what should be considered "denial or Holocaust minimization" that fall under the censure of the law.
What exactly does it mean to be negative? The craft of the historian, by definition, a certain critical distance from the traditional story of the events. The historian is always a "revisionist." Of course, there is a limit, given by common sense, beyond which the legitimate suspicion and criticism of the "official" or the more commonly accepted become evident bad faith and ideological blindness. But the question is whether the law is to place some obstacles, and how it could do so without transforming the historical truths in dogmas and pollute the work and the serenity of the town.
A Holocaust denier is usually one of three things, often but not necessarily all at once: 1) scales the number of victims (they were not six million but only four, or two, or one hundred thousand), 2) deny voluntariness of the extermination and its realization through the medium of the gas chambers, or the millions of deaths, if there were (see 1) were just a side effect of war and the harsh conditions in the camps prison, 3) deny that Hitler was aware of the extermination, which was planned without his knowledge by his evil persons, to make him a sort of spite.
is clear that although all these things, especially when taken together, outline an approach indeed disturbing, but there are margins of ambiguity such that any serious historian is likely to be singled out as a Holocaust denier, if targeted, for example, with regard to point 1, the count of victims is a delicate and difficult matter, constantly subject to revision. To what, exactly, you can get before being considered negative (remember that Eric Hobsbawm, who is perhaps the most authoritative living history, in his repute The Short Century accepts the count of four million)? Regarding the second point, it is difficult to deny the reality of the gas chambers and the systematic extermination, but I think it still legitimate to ask what percentage of victims of the gas in relation to the total (in fact, when it turned out that the number of victims of Auschwitz had been overestimated, the total number was later revised upward again to include the victims of the raids of the Einsatzgruppen). Regarding point 3, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that Hitler did not know anything, but in the absence of clear documentation is a matter of debate what were the precise arrangements by which plans of extermination were communicated: there was an explicit order, delivered by the Fuhrer, or was more of a imply, or even let it happen, delegate to subordinates?
But there is another problem highlighted by the question I mentioned at the beginning Vonnegut: "resize the Holocaust" could also mean making statements that have nothing to do directly with the extermination of the Jews. Resize the Holocaust can also mean simply deny its uniqueness, in relative importance compared to other tragedies. It may even mean the mere mention or remember other tragedies. It really would be the end for any serious claim historical research on any topic, from the Persian Wars to September 11.
Deborah Lipstadt Vonnegut says, even if unintentionally, helped to propagate the "lies". The chosen term is indicative: it is not simply want to correct what was considered an error in Vonnegut's book (taken from what was then perhaps the most important source about the bombing of Dresden, and that is precisely the monograph by Irving), but it is denounced as a falsification with intent to minimize the Holocaust. This obviously has an attitude of blackmail that it is certainly fair to say that the figures provided by Irving has been challenged by other scholars, but because myself at least should not be granted to stay proceedings on who's right? Why should not I also believe Vonnegut quite reliable in a court case, considering that he was there, while Dresden burned? And above all, why should I think that the answer to these questions depends on my opinion towards the extermination? So what?
The ideological approach of Lipstadt is confirmed by the fact that Vonnegut's book is another mistake, another lack of historical accuracy but the Lipstadt does not feel the duty to correct, they speak in Slaughterhouse 5, soaps made with the fat of Jews, according to what is un mito assai diffuso riguardo alla atrocità naziste ma la cui veridicità viene oggi contestata da quasi tutti gli storici (casi isolati di sadismo vi furono senz'altro, ma non esiste alcuna prova o documentazione riguardo un uso industriale siffatto, che non è nemmeno plausibile da un punto di vista economico). Tra i due errori, la Lipstadt sente di dover denunciare solo il primo (e nemmeno in quanto errore, ma in quanto infame bugia), il che la dice lunga sulla sua obiettività.
Molti altri esempi di parzialità del genere si possono trovare sul web, la maggior parte dei quali, ahimè, provenienti da siti discutibili e dalle finalità a loro volta assai sospette. Dovessi essere costretto a fare una scelta di campo, I certainly deploy more willingly by the Jewish scholar from that of neo-Nazis, but the point is that I would not be forced to make such choices, as they would force me to do certain bills freedom. You even think that the "Holocaust industry " (the notorious pamphlet Finkelstein) and the denial two phenomena are in fact complementary and interdependent, that instead of denying mutually support each other (there asked such as how much emphasis would be given to some colorful characters were it not for the attention that is paid by their professional indignation).
I do not want the Holocaust to become, rather than a clearly established historical truth, but always subject to examination, an unquestionable dogma, and a pawn of political and ideological agenda. As a potential history teacher (qualified to waiting time and more favorable policies) I would one day be able to say that the Nazis systematically killed six million (or five, or four) of Jews, some of which in the gas chambers of death camps, only because it is true, and not as compelled by law to do so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment