Talk:Jean-Claude Pressac

Untitled

Reference #(3) "The Crematorium of Auschwitz". Few get to see this book but is the original symbol of the Topf company surrounded by the Star of David or is it just happenstance(artwork of the early 1900s)? IE was the Topf company Jewish - never heard that mentioned, probably isn't so.159.105.80.141 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading about Faurisson. He claims that under cross examination in court that Pressac collapsed ( his book and evidence.) Supposedly Presaac more or less denounced his own research and has fallen on hard times with his old pals. Anyone else heard about this? It may be that a denier > believer has returned to denier.159.105.80.141 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be, yes. But what is sure is that Faurisson has always been a liar and never changed on that point. So it might be problematic to give any credit to what Faurisson writes about any given topic or person. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an interview of about 40 pages length with Pressac in Valerie Igounet's Histoire du négationnisme en France where he has a lot of negative things to say about the mainstream case, without actually reverting to his previous position. He expresses admiration for revisionists Carlo Mattogno and Arthur Butz, so yes, there is definitely some backtracking. Germar Rudolf has claimed that he phoned him and offered advice at the time of his (Rudolf's) trial.

There is no published version of this book in English. An unofficial (and therefore possibly copyright-breaching) translation of the interview with Pressac can be found on the Web. These are the final words of the interview.

Michel de Bouard, former “Nacht und Nebel” prisoner at Mauthausen, is of the opinion that the record (on the concentration camp system) is “rotten”. First of all, there is a premium on appeasing resentment and revenge. So memory is placed above history. Second, the seizure by the Communists of the principal administrative units in the camps, the formation after the liberation of associations under their establishment and control during fifty years of the “democratic proletarian” history of the camps have introduced the virus of a formalized antifascist language. Approximation, exaggeration, omissions and lies characterize the majority of writings of this period. The unanimous, unappealable discredit which the communist writings are struck with can only rub off on a concentration camp history tainted by their ideas and destroy it.

Can one correct the record? No, it is too late. A general correction is humanly and materially impossible. Any historical change involves the devaluing of this fixed memory already presented as being definitive. However, new documents will inevitably emerge and more and more upset the official certainty. The current form of the presentation of the universe of the camps, however triumphant, is doomed. What will one save? Few things. Indeed, glorifying the universe of the camps comes at a price, one has to solve the squaring of the circle, has to change black to white. The conscience of the people doesn’t like sad histories. The life of a zombie is not promising, all the more so as much of the pain experienced was then exploited into various currency: decorations, pensions, posts, political influence. One cannot be a victim and privileged at the same time, even taking a turn at being the executioner. Of all these facts, terrible for having caused the deaths of women, children and the elderly, only the facts that are firmly established will survive. The others are destined for the dustbin of history.

Channelwatcher (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A proposal: Pressac is NOT an Holocaust denier

Presac WAS an holocaust denier, but in the last years of his life he was in France the greatest and the most efficient ennemy of the Holocaust denial. So I propose to remove Pressac out the category of Holocaust deniers. The fact he was really a denier is in the page. We must be fair toward an honest man. José Fontaine (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I've removed that category tag from the article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But what about the last interview of Jean-Claude Pressac to Valérie Igounet? What must we think about sentences like "The current form of the presentation of the universe of the camps, however triumphant, is doomed. What will one save? Few things. Indeed"... or "only the facts that are firmly established will survive. The others are destined for the dustbin of history."? Aren't they typical revisionist affirmations? What is "doomed"?. Which facts are not "firmly established" nowadays repecting the nazi camps that could be challenged in the future? Such words are troubling and I am not certain at all that Pressac had not changed his mind on the last days of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.146.140.2 (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Pressac is talking about the out and out absurd lies that manage to get established as history within the mainstream narrative of the holocaust. The mainstream narrative is correct on the number of victims, and it is correct about the manner in which they were killed. But that's just about it. PRESSAC SHOWED THAT NEARLY ALL THE DETAILS ARE WRONG! It is the wrong details that leads the deniers to gain strength, and Pressac has established the correct details in meticulous detail, something which requires honest back and forth, and openness to all ideas, so it is good that he went through a denier phase. He was pretty much the only historian with the patience and stomach to review all the documents and testimonies, so he was able to see through the propaganda, and find the honest mechanisms.

1. Pressac showed that Crematoria I and II at Auschwitz were constructed for corpse disposal before they were intended for murder by gas, and later retrofitted for murder by gas. This was denied by all the other researchers, but he is likely right.

2. Pressac showed that there were also delousing chambers using Zyklon B at Auschwitz, in addition to steam-delousing facilities, so that the requisition of gas was for two purposes, murdering people and killing lice, and he was able to sort out and separate the two sets of documents. Also denied by other historians, but here he is certainly right.

3. He showed that the mainstream historians MISINTERPRET all the documents involving delousing, considering it (absurdly) as a "code" for extermination. He finds and shows the legitimate execution documents, and attacks historians for inventing code where none exists. The execution orders were not that deeply coded, they were pretty plain. The coded "typhus epidemic" at Auschwitz was not code, it was an actual epidemic. The absurdity of the historians here is so profound, that it would be shocking. But the only people who call them out on this stuff are deniers, and these people have too little credibility to be listened to. But that's not the only people, thankfully, there was Pressac.

4. He showed that the chambers were operated by wooden flaps covering a wire mesh, were kept hot to allow the cyanide gas to escape. He authenticated Olere's pictorial testimony, he established the location of the handful of photos of the execution process, he was able to detect the forgeries in the Auschwitz museum, he generally played a crucial role in being the ONLY person vetting the testimony for accuracy, with honest peer review.

He is an honest person, pretty much the only truly honest historian writing about this subject, because he is doing academic rigorous peer review on all claims, of the mainstream historians, and the deniers. The criticism he has for the mainstream is deserved--- if they didn't botch up their job, there would be no deniers. He's a scientist, and scientists are trained to avoid propaganda, not so historians.74.73.15.66 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for listing his discoveries. Zezen (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

not a chemist

He was not a chemist, but just a pharmacist. --41.151.57.129 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust Promoter

No, Pressac was never a holocaust denier. He was a great man; a holocaust promoter. One of the all-time greats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.244.152 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Pressac was an active denier in 1979, he changed his mind when he reviewed the museum documents. Read his book.

Number of victims

Pressac claims that 1.2 million people were killed in Auschwitz, about 1million of them jews. His estimate is independent, but it agreed with that of others. It's in his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.15.66 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jean-Claude Pressac/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I find the following passage to be confusing: "These convinced him that his former views were in error, an event he describes in the postface of Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, saying that he "nearly did away with myself one evening in October 1979 in the main camp, the Stammlager, overwhelmed by the evidence and by despair". [1]" What is this supposed to mean; it is ambiguous? Next he speaks of changing his opinion or view; again it is ambiguous. Is it his views on the efficiency of the designs? Dieter Schmied dieter@one.net

Last edited at 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Central office for Building"

The article mentions a Zentral Bauleitung der Waffen-SS. Is this the same as the de:Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz (English: "Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz"), for which the German-language Wikipedia has an article? -- The Anome (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)