Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Was the late Oriana Fallaci a closet Holocaust revisionist?

Eric Blair

July 1, 2009

On June 30 the on-line journal posted Lauriane Crochemore's interview with Ivan Segre, the author of La reaction philosemite (The Philo-Semitic Reaction). One observation in his new book, Segre tells the interviewer, is how the West's response to 9/11 had been to move the line of permissible discourse to such an extent that moderate forms of Islamophobia became the new norm, even as primitive expressions of Islamophobia soon fell just outside the parameters of acceptable discourse.

By way of example he cited the warm reception some French Jews gave the late Oriana Fallaci's post-9/11 works - despite their overarching, virulently anti-Muslim tenor.

As an Israeli Jew, Ivan Segre was moved to more closely examine what at first blush seemed like the flowering of post-9/11 Philo-Semitism in the shade of such rank and frank Islamophobia, only to discover that, in fact, this was more apparent than real, although the promise of of a new Philo-Semitism evidently enthused such prominent Jewish intellectuals in France like Alain Finkielkraut, who embraced The Rage and the Pride and The Force of Reason, two of a trilogy of latter-day, hard-core, anti-Muslim Fallaci books. What was startling to Segre was how some of their troubling passages, bending toward revisionism, had simply been ignored by the Finkielkraut coterie.

Segre: "[W]e discover in The Force of Reason, the second volume of her trilogy, an explicit tribute from the Italian journalist to the French
historian Robert Faurisson, whom she introduces as
a persecuted intellectual for having taken, I quote: 'The freedom to challenge the official version of History.' In other words, denying there had been extermination camps as distinct from concentration camps, such being Faurisson's Holocaust] denier's thesis, was, according to Fallaci, 'to challenge the official version of History.'"

It begs the question: Was the late Oriana Fallaci a closet Holocaust revisionist?


The Lauriane Crochemore interview with Ivan Segre in
French may be viewed on-line here.


Anonymous said...

No she wasn't. OK she might have been.
Including the j word lowers the status of the article. They are a distasteful lot and the less they are mentioned the better.

LaFa said...

No she wasn't.
I looked up the original version of what Segre repeated: 'The freedom to challenge the official version of History.'
Fallaci's works are not open for interpretation, they are as clear as water. There's no room for "in other words".
I'm copying here the original text in italian that you can have translated if you please, but i am also writing my translation.
Before mentioning Robert Faurisson, Fallaci writes about the leftist party in Italy wanting to take her to trial but unable to do so because of the Italian Constitution that gives her freedom of speech, so an extreme group within the party decided to have her face trial in Switzerland, as Fallaci writes: "Because Switzerland has the vice of prosecuting without the defendant knowing", and begins mentioning people prosecuted for their beliefs.
"Uno per esempio è l'animalista svizzero Erwin Kessler che come Brigitte Bardot non sopporta la macellazione halal, e che per averla criticata s'è beccato due
mesi di prigione senza condizionale. Un altro è l'ottantenne storico svizzero Gaston Armand Amaudruz che stampava un piccolo mensile revisionista(riveder la Storia cioè raccontarla in modo diverso dalla versione ufficiale oggi è proibito, viva la libertà) e che a causa di ciò il 10 aprile 2000
venne condannato dal Tribunale di Losanna a un anno di carcere più una violenta pena pecuniaria.
Un altro è lo storico francese Robert Faurisson, ugualmente revisionista, che il 15 giugno 2001
venne processato a sua insaputa dal Tribunale di Friburgo e condannato a un mese di prigione. Anche per lui, e nonostante la tarda età, senza condizionale.
Motivo, un suo articolo che pubblicato in Francia era stato ripreso da una rivista elvetica."

One for example is the swiss animal rights activist Erwin Kessler, like Brigitte Bardot he can't stand halal slaughter, and for critizing it he got two months in prison without suspention.
Another one is Gaston Armand, an 80 year old swiss historian that published a small monthly revisionist magazine (revise History, tell it differently from the official version today is prohibited, viva la libertà*) and because of that on April 10th, 2000 was sentenced by a court in Lausanne to a year in prison and was ordered to pay a fine.
Another was the French historian Robert Faurisson, also a revisionist, that on June 15th, 2001 was judged without his knowledge by a court in Freiburg and sentenced to a month in prison. Despite his old age, also without suspention.
The reason, an article that he wrote published in France that was reprinted by a Helvetic magazine."
* There is no translation for "viva" and Fallaci uses the phrase "viva la libertà" in sarcasm.

Where is she denying the Holocaust? She is not defending Faurisson, she's defending her right to say and write and do what she pleases.
Calling her a closeted Holocaust revisionist is and insult to Fallaci who at 14 was recognized by General Alexander, Commander in Chief of the Allied Forces in Italy during WWII, he sent her a letter to thank her for the contribution she made to the struggle against nazi-fascists.

Anonymous said...

I don't know that she was a Holocaust revisionist, but she certainly believed Jews wielded inordinate influence in the United States. If memory serves, she made statements along those lines in a Playboy interview shortly after the election of President Ronald Reagan, in late 1981 or 1982.

Anonymous said...

As to the question about Fallaci, Who knows? I do know that Halocaust deniers come in all shapes/sizes and nationalities. People should really learn how to think for themselves. Why would anyone make up a story saying that their relatives were killed in that way or any other? While it is true that facts can be distorted,It is undeniably true that massive gassing by the Nazis took place. There are several authenticated documents and survivors of the death camps supporting the existence of gas chambers.Any one who is capable of thinking "outside the box" will not only arrive at the most valid conclusions but, ignore the dispute over how many were gassed and accept the fact that it happened.Just because one cannot travel to Aushwitz and examine the "evidence" does not disprove anything. As has been documented, several buildings were destroyed after the war. What a travesty and a tragedy that the descendants of those killed there and other death camps have to read of or hear of insensitive fools claiming that the gas chambers were/are a hoax.