|
|
|
|
A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac
With Contribution by Prof. Dr. Robert Faurisson,
Manfred Köhler, Carlo Mattogno, Serge Thion
and a preface by Ernst Gauss
Foundation VRIJ HISTORISCH ONDERZOEK v.z.w.
Table of Contents
Ernst Gauss, Preface
Manfred Köhler, Pressac and the German Public
Serge Thion, On Pressac: History by Night or in Fog?
Robert Faurisson, Answer to Jean-Claude Pressac. On the Problem of the Gas chambers
Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The End of a Legend
Robert Faurisson, Two Further Comments on my Answer to Jean-Claude Pressac
© The copyright to each contribution is held by the authors.
The contribution by C. Mattogno (Italian) was translated by
Anne Sharp, the contribution by R. Faurisson (French), Ernst Gauss and Manfred Köhler (German) by Michael Humphrey, the Contribution by Serge Thion by (???).Set in Times New Roman.
|
»"Feedom of Science" also means that in principle every research goal can be chosen. Any "index of prohibited knowledge", a "catalogue of research goals put under taboo", or a research moratorium, are incompatible with the self-understanding and dignity of science, because we have to instist tenaciously that under any circumstances, cognition is better than ignorance.« Prof. Dr. Hans Mohr, Natur und Moral |
|
"The Natural sciences [like other scholary
disciplines] are extremely conservative and dogmatic. Any corroboration of a
paradigm is welcome, whereas any innovation or revision will long meet with
resistance; the instinct for preservation (including self-preservation!) is
stronger than the search for truth. Therefore, new findings usually gain
acceptance only when sufficient numbers of researchers vouch for them: then the
dogmatic status quo topples, a ‘scientific revolution’ occurs, The bottom line is that no student, no researcher and no layman should believe any facts to be ‘conclusively proven’, even if the textbooks present them as such […]"
|
|
»The Basic Law [German Constitutional Law] protects scientific research and basically wants the impartiality of this research. This is especially true for history, which is, after all, not about defining a central thread and making it binding, but about making offers for the discussion. In a pluralistic society, this must be manifold and controversial.« Prof. Dr. Peter Steinbach, ARD-Tagesthemen, 10. June 1994, 22:30 |
|
»But otherwise one can in my view say that what we historians work out in accordance with the rules is not dangerous. I do not think that truth, if it is the truth, is dangerous.« Prof. Dr. Christian Meier, in: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
(ed.), Verantwortung und Ethik, |
