IN THE TWENTY YEARS OR SO that the Gas Chamber Controversy has
received a definite shape, largely due to the path breaking work
of Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson, there have been many attempts
to suppress and control discussion of its themes, which are central
to our understanding of the Holocaust and Modern European history.
In recent years, however, this suppression has taken an alarming
turn, as nation after nation has passed laws to criminalize the
public expression of doubt about any aspect of Holocaust Revisionism.
Thus, according to German Law, books that broach revisionist themes
are routinely banned and burned, and their authors are threatened
with imprisonment: Carlos Porter is the most recent victim. The
situation in France is worse in its own way: there, according to
the Fabius-Gayssot law of 1990, no one can challenge any portion
of the International Military Tribunal's record at Nuremberg. This
means not only that one cannot doubt the gas chambers, but also,
as David Irving has pointed out, one cannot question such obvious
canards as the Russian attempt to pin their own Katyn Forest massacre
on the Germans, or the spurious "human soap" evidence. Just last
month, Robert Faurisson again fell victim to this bizarre suppressive
law.
The response to all of this by the historical and intellectual
community has been a deafening silence. Perhaps people feel that
acceptance of the gas chamber tales is a small price to pay for
peace and quiet and tenure. But think again. Because now we are
witnessing an extension of the orthodox interpretation of the Holocaust
so that in a few years any free expression on German History will
be, in effect, against the law.
The proof lies in a defamation suit that Daniel Goldhagen is
pursuing against Ruth Bettina Birn. Ms. Birn, a Holocaust authority
in Canada, has published a highly critical review of Goldhagen's
Hitler's Willing Executioners in _Historical
Journal_ 40, 1 (1997). Ms. Birn, who introduced Goldhagen to some
of his primary sources, took Mr. Goldhagen to task not merely for
the contents of his book but for his use and abuse of sources.
Apparently, Mr. Goldhagen cannot tolerate such substantive abuse
of his work, whose central thesis appears to be that Hitler was
merely carrying out the wishes of 80 million Germans when he allegedly
ordered atrocities against the Jewish people. As a result, Goldhagen
is pursuing legal remedies for defamation in England, where _Historical
Journal_ is published, and where such charges are almost always
brought to court, at the expense of thousands of dollars in legal
costs to the defendant. All too many observers can see in this stratagem
a naked and cynical attempt to intimidate scholars into silence,
and render unassailable the orthodox interpretation of sole and
unique German guilt and "war crimes" behavior in the 20th Century.
There are some interesting historical parallels to this ongoing
systematic suppression of free speech about the Holocaust. In early
19th Century Germany, the fight concerned whether or not philosophers
should be allowed to teach philosophical systems that contradicted
Christianity. As one establishment professor put it, in 1840, "If
a philosophy contradicts the fundamental ideas of Christianity,
then either it is false, or, _even if true, it is of no use_." The
idea was that since Christianity formed the underpinning of the
established order, it could not be questioned. After enumerating
several cases of academic firings and harassment, Arthur Schopenhauer
would wryly observe "hence the solution is: 'lap up thy pudding,
slave, and give out as philosophy Jewish mythology!'" by which he
meant the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition. And he would go
on to say, with grim irony, "the State must protect its own people
and should, therefore, pass a law forbidding anyone to make fun
of professors of philosophy."
What Schopenhauer wrote about, almost as a bitter jest, would
seem to be on the verge of coming true. And here we are reminded
of the famous remarks of Pastor Niemoller, in the spirit of which
we now conclude:
When they went after the gas chamber skeptics, many didn't mind,
because it wasn't their affair. And when they went after those
who denied the soap, the skin, and the lampshade stories, most
kept silent because they didn't want to start a fuss. And, after
that, when they went after those who questioned the legacy of
the Nuremberg Trials, most preferred to look the other way.
And now we see a case where objections to the thesis of unique
and exclusive German guilt and criminality are being attacked
through legal means.
How long will it be before any questioning of any aspect of the
established order will be made immune to criticism, either by censorship
or legal proceedings? And when that happens, will there be anyone
left to stand up?