The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein Read Free Book Online

After the June war, however, the Nazi Final Solution was radically reframed.
    "The first and most important claim that emerged from the 1967 war and became emblematic of
    The Holocaust Industry: HOAXERS, HUCKSTERS AND HISTORY
    http://www.geocities.com/holocaustindustry/chapter_2.html (1 of 20) [23/11/2000 15:47:20]
    American Judaism," Jacob Neusner recalls, was that "the Holocaust . . . was unique, without parallel
    in human history." 3 In an illuminating essay, historian David Stannard ridicules the "small industry of
    Holocaust hagiographers arguing for the uniqueness of the Jewish experience with all the energy and
    ingenuity of theological zealots." 4 The uniqueness dogma, after all, makes no sense.
    At the most basic level, every historical event is unique, if merely by virtue of time and location, and
    every historical event bears distinctive features as well as features in common with other historical
    events. The anomaly of The Holocaust is that its uniqueness is held to be absolutely decisive. What
    other historical event, one might ask, is framed largely for its categorical uniqueness? Typically,
    distinctive features of The Holocaust are isolated in order to place the event in a category altogether
    apart. It is never clear, however, why the many common features should be reckoned trivial by
    comparison.
    All Holocaust writers agree that The Holocaust is unique, but few, if any, agree why. Each time an
    argument for Holocaust uniqueness is empirically refuted, a new argument is adduced in its stead. The
    results, according to Jean-Michel Chaumont, are multiple, conflicting arguments that annul each other:
    "Knowledge does not accumulate. Rather, to improve on the former argument, each new one starts
    from zero." 5 Put otherwise: uniqueness is a given in the Holocaust framework; proving it is the
    appointed task, and disproving it is equivalent to Holocaust denial. Perhaps the problem lies with the
    premise, not the proof. Even if The Holocaust were unique, what difference would it make? How
    would it change our understanding if the Nazi holocaust were not the first but the fourth or fifth in a
    line of comparable catastrophes?
    The most recent entry into the Holocaust uniqueness sweepstakes is Steven Katz's The Holocaust in
    Historical Context. Citing nearly 5,000 titles in the first of a projected three-volume study, Katz
    surveys the full sweep of human history in order to prove that "the Holocaust is phenomenologically
    unique by virtue of the fact that never before has a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and
    actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman and child belonging to a specific
    people." Clarifying his thesis, Katz explains: "f is uniquely C. f may share A, B. D, . . . X with s but
    not C. And again f may share A, B. D, . . . X with all s but not C. Everything essential turns, as it
    were, on i; being uniquely C . . . pi lacking C is not J.... By definition, no exceptions to this rule are
    allowed. s sharing A, B. D, . . . X with ~ may be like ~ in these and other respects . . . but as regards
    our definition of uniqueness any or all s lacking C are not f.... Of course, in its totality f is more than
    C, but it is never ~ without C." Translation: A historical event containing a distinct feature is a distinct
    historical event. To avoid any confusion, Katz further elucidates that he uses the term
    phenomenologically "in a non-Husserlian, non-Shutzean, non-Schelerian, non-Heideggerian,
    non-Merleau-Pontyan sense." Translation: The Katz enterprise is phenomenal non-sense. 6 Even if the
    evidence sustained Katz's central thesis, which it does not, it would only prove that The Holocaust
    contained a distinct feature. The wonder would be were it otherwise. Chaumont infers that Katz's
    study is actually «ideology» masquerading as "science," more on which presently. 7
    Only a flea's hop separates the claim of Holocaust uniqueness from the claim that The Holocaust
    cannot be