|
Robert FAURISSON
December 11, 2006
To President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad
To our prisoners of conscience Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Horst Mahler
To Arthur Butz,
Fred Leuchter, Barbara Kulaszka, Ahmed Rami, Gerd Honsik, Heinz Koppe
The Victories of Revisionism
Abstract
At the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), a
tribunal of the victors accused a defeated Germany notably
1)
of having ordered and planned the physical
extermination of the Jews of Europe;
2)
of having, to that end, designed and used
certain weapons of mass destruction, in particular those that it called
“gas chambers”;
3)
of having, essentially with those weapons
but also through other means, caused the death of six million
Jews.
In support of that threefold
accusation, regularly taken up over the past sixty years by all the main
communications media in the West, no proof capable of standing up to
examination has been produced. Professor Robert Faurisson concluded in
1980:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers
and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical
lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle
whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international
Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their
leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”
In 2006 he maintains that conclusion
in full. In nearly sixty years, the revisionists, beginning with the
Frenchmen Maurice Bardèche and Paul Rassinier, have accumulated, from
the historical and scientific point of view, an impressive series of
victories over their opponents. Twenty examples of such victories,
running from 1951 to today, are given here.
Revisionism is not an ideology but a
method inspired by the search for exactitude in matters of history.
Circumstances have seen to it that revisionism is also the great
intellectual adventure of the present time.
Born in 1929 of
a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson taught classical
letters (French, Latin, Greek) before specialising first in the analysis
of modern and contemporary French literary texts and, finally, in the
appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media).
He was professor at the Sorbonne and the
University of Lyon. Because of his historical revisionist stands, he was
effectively forbidden from teaching. He has incurred many convictions in
the law courts and has suffered ten physical assaults. In France, access
to the press, radio and television is barred to him, as it is to all
revisionists. Amongst his works: Écrits révisionnistes
(1974-1998), in four volumes (2nd edition, LV-2027 p.).
Foreword
The present
summary has as its title “The Victories of Revisionism” and not “History
of Revisionism” or “Arguments of the Revisionist Case”. It deals only
with victories that our opponents have had to concede to us either
explicitly or implicitly. Therefore one must not expect to find here a
systematic mention of revisionist authors, works or arguments. If still
I had to recommend a short sample of revisionist readings, I should
suggest the prime work of reference that is
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century / The Case Against the Presumed
Extermination of European Jewry, published by Arthur Robert Butz in
1976. The book is masterful. In the thirty years of its existence no one
has attempted the least refutation, so solidly is it built; I especially
recommend the 2003 edition, enhanced by five remarkable supplements. It
would also be appropriate to read Fred Leuchter’s famous study, An
Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, particularly in the gilt cover
edition issued by Samisdat Publishers in Toronto in 1988, containing, on
page 42, the text of a letter of capital importance, dated May 14, 1988,
on the utter absence of openings in the roofs of the alleged gas
chambers of crematoria II and III at Auschwitz-Birkenau. F. Leuchter has
also produced three other reports on the gas chamber question. Not to be
missed is German research chemist Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the
Holocaust / Controversial Issues Cross Examined, Theses &
Dissertations Press (PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, USA), 2005, along
with the same author’s impressive periodical series (more than thirty
issues to date) that he has brought out under the title
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, not to mention
his English language magazine The Revisionist and a fair number
of other publications. All told, the work done thus far by G. Rudolf
(now aged 42 and imprisoned in Germany) amounts to a formidable
scientific landmark. Finally, let us cite Canadian barrister Barbara
Kulaszka’s opus magnum Did Six Million Really Die ? / Report of the
Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, 1988,
published in 1992; with its compact print it is equivalent to a volume
of about a thousand pages in regular book format. The text shows how,
during Ernst Zündel’s two long trials in Toronto in 1985 and 1988, the
other side, when confronted with the revisionist argumentation, simply
collapsed: a real Stalingrad for the orthodox historians, beginning with
the biggest of them all, Raul Hilberg. Essential studies have been
written by the Germans Wilhelm Stäglich and Udo Walendy, the Italian
Carlo Mattogno, the Spaniard Enrique Aynat Eknes, the Swiss Jürgen Graf
and ten or so other authors. The 97 issues of The Journal of
Historical Review (1980-2002), in good part due to the American
Mark Weber, constitute a mine of information on all aspects of
revisionist research. In France, Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion, Henri
Roques, Pierre Marais, Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin have picked up
where Maurice Bardèche and Paul Rassinier left off. There are now
countless revisionist-oriented publications and websites throughout the
world, and this despite the prevailing censorship and repression.
Nonetheless the
“Holocaust” remains the lone official religion of the entire West, a
murderous religion if ever there was one. And one that continues to fool
millions of good souls in the crudest ways: the display of heaps of
eyeglasses, hair, shoes or valises presented as “relics” of the
“gassed”, faked or deceptively exploited photographs, texts of innocuous
papers altered or purposely misinterpreted, endless proliferation of
monuments, ceremonies, shows, the drumming of the Shoah into our heads
as early as primary school, organised excursions to the holy sites of
alleged Jewish martyrdom and great show trials with their calls for
lynch-law.
***
President Ahmadinejad has used the right word: the alleged “Holocaust”
of the Jews is a “myth”,
that is, a belief maintained
by credulity or
ignorance. In France it is
perfectly
lawful to proclaim unbelief in God but it is forbidden to say that one
does not believe in the “Holocaust”,
or simply that one has doubts about it. This prohibition of any kind of
disputing became formal and official with the law of July 13, 1990. The
said law was published in the Journal
officiel de la République française on the next day, that is, the
14th of July, day of commemoration of the Republic and of
Freedom. It states that the punishment may run to as much as a year’s
imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, but there may also be orders
to pay damages and the considerable costs of judicial publication.
Relevant case law specifies that all this applies “even if [such
disputing] is presented in veiled or dubitative form or by way of
insinuation” (Code pénal, Paris, Dalloz, 2006, p. 2059). Thus
France has but one official myth, that of the “Holocaust”,
and knows but one form of blasphemy, that which offends the
“Holocaust”.
On July
11, 2006 I personally was once more summoned to appear before a Paris
court on the grounds of that special law. The presiding judge, Nicolas
Bonnal, had recently attended a training course on the means of cracking
down on revisionism over the Internet, a course organised by
the European
office of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in Paris, under the auspices of
the
Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF)
(Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France)! In a release
triumphantly headed “The CRIF plays an active part in the training of
European judges” this Jewish body, whose political force is exorbitant,
was not afraid of announcing urbi et orbi that it listed
Nicolas Bonnal amongst its pupils or trainees (www.crif.org/?page=articles_display/detail&aid=7222&artyd=2&stinfo=297.376.1467).
And that is not all. At my trial, for good measure, the State
prosecutrix happened to be a Jewess by the name of Anne de Fontette; in
the closing words of her talk requesting conviction and sentencing, she,
although supposedly speaking in the name of a secular State, called for
the vengeance of “Yahweh, protector of his chosen people” against “the
lying lips” of Faurisson, guilty of having granted a telephone interview
of revisionist character to an Iranian radio and television station,
Sahar 1.
The findings of revisionist research
The
Germans of the Third Reich wanted to
extirpate the Jews from Europe but not to exterminate them.
They sought “a
definitive — or final —
territorial solution of the
Jewish question” and not a “final solution” in the sense of any physical
suppression (to want a “final solution of unemployment” is not to desire
the death of the unemployed). The Germans had
concentration camps but not
“extermination camps” (an expression forged by Allied propaganda). They
used disinfection gas chambers
operating notably with an insecticide called Zyklon-B (the active
ingredient of which was hydrogen cyanide) but never had any homicidal
gas chambers or homicidal gas vans. They used
crematory ovens to incinerate corpses
and not to throw living beings into them. After the war, the
photographs purportedly exposing “Nazi
atrocities” showed us camp inmates who were either sick, dying or dead,
but not killed. What with the Allies’ blockade and their “area” bombing
of Germany, and the apocalypse experienced by the latter towards the end
of a nearly six-year long conflict,
famine and epidemics, notably of typhus, had ravaged the
country and, in particular, the camps in the western regions,
overwhelmed by the arrivals en masse of detainees evacuated from the
camps in the East, and thus severely lacking in food, medicine and the
Zyklon-B needed for protection against
typhus.
In the
butchery that is a war, people suffer. In a modern war,
the belligerent
nations’ civilians at times suffer
as much if not more than their soldiers. During the conflict that, from
1933 to 1945, pitted them against the Germans, the European Jews thus
had occasion to suffer but infinitely less so than they dare to assert
with such a nerve. Certainly the Germans treated them as a hostile or
dangerous minority (there were reasons for that), and against these
people the Third Reich authorities were led to take, due to the war,
more and more coercive police or military security measures. In certain
cases those measures amounted to placement in internment camps or indeed
to deportation to concentration or forced labour camps. Sometimes Jews
were even executed for sabotage, spying, terrorism and, especially, for
guerrilla activities in favour of the Allies, mainly on the Russian
front, but not for the simple reason that they were Jewish. Never did
Hitler order or permit the
killing
of a person because of his or her race or religion. As for the figure of
six million Jewish deaths, it is a pure invention that has never been
substantiated despite the efforts in that regard by the Yad Vashem
Institute of Jerusalem.
In the
face of the formidable accusations thrown at a defeated Germany the
revisionists have said to the accusers:
1)
Show us
one
single document that, in your view,
proves that Hitler or any other
National-Socialist ordered and
planned the physical extermination of the Jews;
2)
Show us that
weapon of mass destruction which, as alleged, was a gas chamber; show us
a single one of them, at Auschwitz or elsewhere; and if, by chance, you
claim that you cannot show us any because, according to you, the Germans
destroyed the “murder weapon”, provide us at least with a technical
drawing representing one of those slaughterhouses which,
as you say,
the Germans destroyed and explain to us how that weapon with such a
fabulous killing performance had been able to work without bringing on
the death of either those who ran it or their helpers;
3)
Explain to us
how you have arrived at your figure of six million victims.
However,
in over sixty years, the Jewish or non-Jewish accusing historians have
shown themselves to be incapable of offering a response to these
requests. Thus they have been accusing without any evidence. That is
what is called slander.
But there
is something yet more serious: the revisionists have set forth a series
of established facts proving that the physical extermination, gas
chambers and six million in question cannot have existed. 1) The first
of these facts is that, for the entire duration of the war, millions of
European Jews lived, plain for all to see, amidst the rest of the
population, a good part of them being employed in factories by the
Germans who were cruelly short of manpower, and those millions of Jews
were therefore not killed. Better still: the Germans stubbornly offered
to hand over to the Allies, up to the last months of the conflict, as
many Jews as they might want on the express condition that they must not
subsequently send them to Palestine; this proviso was made out of
respect for “the noble and valiant Arab people” of that region, already
violently beset by Jewish colonists. 2) The second fact, which is
carefully hidden from us, is that excesses which might be committed
against Jews could well bring on the severest sanctions: the killing of
a single Jew or Jewess could get the perpetrator, although he be a
German soldier, sentenced to death by court martial and shot. In other
words, the Jews under German rule continued to enjoy, if they observed
the regulations in place, the protection of penal law, even in the face
of the armed forces. 3) The third of these facts is that the alleged
Nazi gas chambers of Auschwitz or elsewhere are quite simply
inconceivable for obvious physical and chemical reasons; never after the
purported hydrogen cyanide gassing of hundreds or thousands of persons
in a closed space could others have soon entered in a veritable bath of
that poison and proceeded to handle and remove so many corpses which,
steeped with cyanide gas on both outside and inside, would have become
untouchable. Hydrogen cyanide
adheres firmly to surfaces; it penetrates even cement and bricks and is
very difficult to remove from a room by ventilation; it penetrates the
skin, it settles within the body, mixing with its fluids. In the United
States it is precisely this
poison that is
used still today in an execution chamber to kill a condemned prisoner,
but that precise chamber is of steel and glass and is equipped with
machinery which is, of necessity, quite complex, calling for
extraordinary precautions in its use; it is enough to see an American
gas chamber designed for putting to death a lone individual to realise
that the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers, which supposedly served to kill
crowds of individuals, day after day, can neither have existed nor
functioned.
But then,
as people will ask, what became of all those Jews concerning whom we
revisionists have concluded from our research that they were never
killed? The answer is already there, right before our eyes and within
everyone’s grasp: a part of the Jewish population of Europe died, like
tens of millions of non-Jews, due to the war and to hunger and disease,
and another part plainly and simply survived the war in their millions.
These latter fraudulently had themselves dubbed “miraculous” survivors.
In 1945 the “survivors” and “miraculous escapees” were there to be
counted by the million and they spread throughout the world to fifty or
so countries, beginning with Palestine. How could an alleged decision of
total physical extermination of the Jews have so engendered millions of
“miraculous” Jewish survivors? With millions of “miraculous survivors”
there is no longer any miracle: it is a false miracle,
a lie, a fraud.
For my
part, in 1980 I summed up, in a sentence of sixty French words, the
findings produced by revisionist research:
The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers
and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical
lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle
whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international
Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their
leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.
Today, in 2006, that is, twenty-six years later, I maintain that
sentence in full. It had not been inspired by any political or religious
sympathy or antipathy whatsoever. It had its ground in certified facts
that had begun to be brought to light, on the one hand, by Maurice
Bardèche in 1948 and 1950 in his two books on the Nuremberg trial and,
on the other hand, by Paul Rassinier who, also in 1950, published his
Le Mensonge d’Ulysse (Ulysses’s Lie) (See The Holocaust
Story and the Lies of Ulysses, Costa Mesa, California, Institute
for Historical Review, 1990, XVIII-447 p.).
From 1951 onwards, year after year, our
adversaries, so rich, so mighty, so bent on practising all possible
forms of repression against historical revisionism, have found
themselves progressively forced to admit that we are
right on the technical, scientific and
historical levels. The victories achieved by Second World War
revisionism are many and significant, but, as must sadly be recognised,
they still remain, in our day, almost wholly unknown to the greater
public. The mighty have done everything to conceal these victories from
the world. That is understandable: their domination and sharing of the
world between them are in a way grounded in the religion of the alleged
“Holocaust” of the Jews. Calling the “Holocaust” into question, publicly
disclosing the extraordinary imposture of it all, pulling the masks off
the politicians, journalists, historians, academics and people of the
churches, clans and coteries who, for more than sixty years, have been
preaching falsehoods whilst all the time casting anathema on the
unbelievers, amounts to a perilous adventure. But, as will be seen here,
despite the repression, time seems in the end to be on the revisionists’
side.
Examples of revisionist victories
I shall recall here just twenty of
these victories:
1)
In 1951 the Jew Léon Poliakov,
who had been part of the French delegation at the Nuremberg trial
(1945-1946), stated his conclusion that we had at our disposal an
overabundance of documents for all points of the history of the Third
Reich, with the exception of one point alone: the “campaign to
exterminate the Jews”. For this, he wrote, “No
document remains,
perhaps none has ever existed”
(Bréviaire de la haine,
Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1974
[1951], p. 171; English version: Harvest of Hate, New York,
Holocaust Library, 1979, revised and expanded edition).
Remark: There is here
an extraordinary concession to the revisionist case. In effect, such a
formidable criminal undertaking supposedly conceived, ordered, organised
and perpetrated by the Germans would have necessitated an order, a plan,
instructions, a budget, … Such an undertaking, carried out over several
years on a whole continent and generating the death of millions of
victims, would have left a flood of documentary evidence. Consequently,
if we are told that there perhaps has
never existed any such documentary evidence, it is because the crime in
question was not perpetrated. In the complete absence of
documents, the historian has no longer anything to do but keep quiet. L.
Poliakov made this concession in 1951, that is, fifty-five years ago.
However, it must be noted that, from 1951 to 2006, his successors have
equally failed to find the least documentary evidence. Occasionally,
here and there, we have witnessed attempts at making us believe in such
or such discovery but each time, as will be seen below, the
“discoverers” and their publicists have had to drop their claim.
2)
In 1960 Martin Broszat, a
member of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, wrote:
“Neither at Dachau, nor at Bergen-Belsen, nor at Buchenwald were any
Jews or other detainees gassed” (“Keine Vergasung in Dachau”, Die
Zeit, August 19, 1960, p. 16).
Remark:
This sudden and unexplained concession is significant. At the Nuremberg
trial the only homicidal gas chamber that the accusation ventured to
show in a film had been that of Dachau, and the testimonies telling of
alleged homicidal gassings in the three above-mentioned camps had been
numerous. M. Broszat thus implicitly acknowledged that those testimonies
were false. He did not tell us in what respect they were false. Nor did
he tell us in what respect other such testimonies relating, for example,
to Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec should, for their
part, go on being deemed reliable. In the 1980s, at Dachau, a sign
indicated in five languages that the “gas chamber disguised as showers”,
visited by the tourists, was “never used” as such. The revisionists had
then asked in what respect the room could be termed a homicidal “gas
chamber”, whereupon the Dachau Museum authorities took down the sign and
replaced it with another on which, in German and English, can now be
read: “Gas chamber. This was the
center of potential mass murder. The room was disguised as ‘showers’ and
equipped with fake shower spouts to mislead the victims and prevent them
from refusing to enter the room. During a period of 20 minutes up to 150
people at a time could be suffocated to death through prussic acid
poison gas (Zyklon B).” One will note the words “potential” and “could”,
the choice of which attests to a fine bit of trickery: the information
spawns in visitors’ minds the idea that the said “gas chamber” was
effectively used for killing but, at the same time, it enables the
museum to retort to revisionists: “We haven’t expressly said that this
gas chamber was used for killing; we’ve merely said that it could be
or could have been, at the time, used to kill a certain number
of people”. To conclude, in 1960 M. Broszat,
without any explanation, decreed in a simple letter that no one had been
gassed at Dachau; thenceforth, the Dachau Museum authorities, quite
embarrassed, have tried, by means of assorted deceitful ploys varying
over time, to fool their visitors into believing that, in this room that
looks like showers (and for good reason, since that is what it was),
people had well and truly been gassed.
3)
In 1968 the Jewish historian
Olga Wormser-Migot, in her thesis on Le Système concentrationnaire
nazi, 1933-1945, (Paris, Presses universitaires de France), gave an
ample exposition of what she called “the problem of the gas chambers”
(p. 541-544). She voiced her scepticism as to the worth of some
well-known witnesses’ accounts attesting to the existence of gas
chambers in camps such as Mauthausen or Ravensbrück. On Auschwitz-I she
was categorical: that camp where, still today, tourists visit an alleged
gas chamber was, in reality, “without any gas chamber” (p. 157).
Remark: To bring
their horrible charges of homicidal gassings against the defeated, the
accusers have relied solely on testimonies and those testimonies
have not been verified. Let us
take note of the particular case of Auschwitz-I: it was thus 38 years
ago that a Jewish historian had the courage to write that this camp was
“without any gas chamber”; however, still today, in 2006, crowds of
tourists there visit an enclosed space that the authorities dare to
present, fallaciously, as a “gas chamber”. Here we see a practice of
outright deceit.
4)
In 1979 thirty-four French
historians signed a lengthy joint declaration in reply to my technical
arguments aiming to demonstrate that the allegation of the
existence and functioning of the Nazi gas
chambers ran up against certain radical material impossibilities.
According to the official version, Rudolf Höss, one of the three
successive Auschwitz commandants, had
confessed (!) and described how Jews had been gassed at
Auschwitz and Birkenau. According to that very vague confession, when
the victims appeared to have breathed their last gasp, a ventilation
apparatus was switched on and a squad of Jewish prisoners immediately
entered the vast room to remove the corpses and carry them as far as the
crematory ovens. R. Höss said that those Jews went about this work
nonchalantly, whilst smoking and eating. I had pointed out that this
could not be: one cannot go into premises saturated with hydrogen
cyanide gas (a poisonous, penetrating and explosive compound) whilst
smoking and eating and then touch, handle and take out, using all one’s
strength, thousands of bodies suffused with that poison and therefore
untouchable. In their declaration the thirty-four historians answered me
thus: “It
must not be asked how, technically, such a
mass-murder was possible. It was
technically possible, since it happened”
(Le Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23).
Remark: That answer
amounts to a dodging of the enquiry put forth. If someone shirks a
question in this manner, it is because he is incapable of answering. And
if thirty-four historians find themselves to such a degree unable to
explain how a crime of these dimensions was perpetrated, it is because
that crime defies the laws of nature; it is therefore imaginary.
5)
Also in 1979, the American
authorities finally decided to make public certain aerial photographs of
Auschwitz which, up to then, they had kept hidden. With either cynicism
or naivety, the two authors of the publication, former CIA men Dino A.
Brugioni and Robert G. Poirier, gave their little set of photos the
title The Holocaust Revisited and tacked on here and there
labels bearing the words “gas chamber(s)”, but, in their commentaries,
there was nothing whatever to justify those designations. (Central
Intelligence Agency, Washington, February 1979, ST-79-10001).
Remark:
Today, in 2006, this trickery makes our thoughts turn to the miserable
demonstration by the former American government minister Colin Powell
when trying to prove, by the same device of having labels stuck onto
aerial photos, the existence of works for the manufacture of “weapons of
mass destruction” in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In reality, those photos of
Auschwitz slap discredit on the case for Nazi gas chambers. What can be
distinctly made out on them are serene crematoria structures, with no
crowds huddled outside waiting to enter the alleged changing rooms and
the alleged death chambers. The surrounding grounds are free of
obstruction and visible from all directions. The flowerbeds in the
patches of garden round the crematories are neatly laid-out and bear no
trace of being stamped upon, every day, by thousands of people.
Crematorium n°3, for instance, abuts on what we know to have been,
thanks to sound documents from the Auschwitz State Museum, a football
field and is close to a volleyball court (Hefte von Auschwitz,
15, 1975, plate on page 56 and page 64). It is also close to eighteen
hospital barracks of the men’s camp. There were thirty-two Allied air
missions above this zone which also comprised the large industrial
installations of Monowitz. It is understandable that the Allied aviation
should have attacked the industrial sector several times whilst sparing
as much as possible what was obviously a concentration, labour and
transit camp and not an “extermination camp”, on which there fell, in
the end, only a few stray bombs.
6)
On April 21, 1982 an
association (the “ASSAG”), was created in Paris for “the study of
murders by gassing under the National-Socialist regime”, “with a view to
seeking and verifying elements bearing
proof of the use of poison gasses in Europe by the officials of
the National-Socialist regime
to kill persons of various nationalities, to contributing to the
publication of this evidence,
to making, to that purpose, all useful contacts on the national and
international level”. Article 2 of the association’s charter stipulates:
“The Association shall last as long as
shall be necessary to attain the objectives set forth in
Article 1.” However, this association, founded by fourteen persons,
amongst whom Germaine Tillion, Georges Wellers, Geneviève Anthonioz née
de Gaulle, barrister Bernard Jouanneau and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, has, in
nearly a quarter of a century, never published anything and, to this day
in 2006, remains in existence. In the event that it be maintained,
wrongly, that the group has produced a book entitled Chambres à gaz,
secret d’État (Gas chambers, State secret), it will be fitting to
recall that the book in question is in fact the French translation of a
work first published in German by Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein and
Adalbert Rückerl and in which there featured a few contributions by a
few members of the “ASSAG” (Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1984; English
translation published as Nazi Mass Murder: a documentary history of
the use of poison gas, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1994).
Remark: By itself the
book’s French title gives a fair idea of the contents: instead of proof,
supported by photographs of gas chambers, drawings, sketches, forensic
reports on the crime weapon, the reader finds only speculations based on
what is called “evidence” (éléments de preuve, “elements of
proof”, not proof), and this because, we are told, those gas chambers
had constituted the greatest possible secret, a “State secret”. If ever
there were a “weapon of mass destruction” that deserved a well-done
forensic examination, it was indeed this one. In effect, it constitutes
an anomaly in the history of science for at least two reasons: it had no
precedent and has had no continuation; it arose out of nothing only to
return to nothingness. However, the history of science knows of no such
phenomenon. In any case, by the very fact of its existence yet today in
2006, one may say that the ASSAG association has still not attained the
objective for which it was founded nearly twenty-five years ago. It has
still found neither proof nor even any evidence of the “Nazi gas
chambers’” existence.
7)
In 1982, from June 29 to July
2, an international symposium was held in Paris, at the Sorbonne, under
the chairmanship of two Jewish historians, François Furet and Raymond
Aron. According to the organisers, it was to reply authoritatively and
publicly to Robert Faurisson and “a handful of anarcho-communists” who
had given him their support (an allusion to Pierre Guillaume,
Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Serge Thion and a few other free-thinking
persons, some of them Jewish). On the last day, at a much-awaited press
conference, the two chairmen had to admit publicly that, “despite the
most scholarly research”, no order given by Hitler to kill the Jews had
been found. As for the gas chambers, they did not even make an allusion
to them.
Remark: This
symposium constituted the first out-in-the-open attempt to show the
general public that the revisionists were lying. As at other gatherings
of the same kind (notably one held in 1987, again at the Sorbonne),
revisionists were barred entry and, like all other such gatherings
without exception, it ended in utter failure for the organisers.
8)
On April 26, 1983, the
long-running lawsuit against me for “personal injury through
falsification of history” (sic), begun, notably by Jewish
organisations, in 1979, came to an end. On that day the first chamber of
the Paris Court of Appeal, civil division section A, presided by judge
Grégoire, whilst upholding a judgment finding me liable for “personal
injury”, paid solid tribute to the quality of my work. It ruled, in
effect, that there could be detected in my writings on the gas chambers
no trace
of rashness, no trace of negligence, no trace of having deliberately
overlooked anything, nor any trace of a lie and that, as a consequence,
“the appraisal of the value of the
findings [on the gas chambers]
defended by Mr Faurisson is a matter, therefore, solely for
experts, historians and the public.”
Remark: If there
cannot be found in the work of an author proposing to refute the case
for the gas chambers either any rashness, negligence, deliberate
oversight, lies or “falsification”, that is proof that the work in
question is the product of a serious, careful, conscientious, upright
and genuine researcher, proof good enough to ensure the legal right to
maintain publicly, as he himself does, that the said gas chambers are
but a myth.
9)
In 1983, on May 7, Simone
Veil, who is Jewish and herself a “survivor of the genocide”, declared
on the subject of the gas chambers: “In the course of a case brought
against Faurisson for having denied the existence of the gas chambers,
those who bring the case are compelled to provide formal proof of the
gas chambers’ reality. However, everyone knows that the Nazis
destroyed those gas chambers and
systematically did away with all the witnesses” (France-Soir
Magazine, May 7, 1983, p. 47).
Remark:
If there are neither any murder weapons nor testimonies, then what is
left? What is one to think of the places presented to millions of
deceived visitors as gas chambers? What must be thought of the
individuals who introduce themselves as witnesses or miraculous
survivors of the gas chambers?
For her part,
S. Veil is the first holocaustic
authority to have thus given to understand that any alleged witness to
gassings can only be a false witness. Already on March 6, 1979,
in the course of a televised discussion presented by the French
programme “Dossiers de l’écran” (Screen Files) about the airing of the
American series “Holocaust”, she had displayed her contempt for one
Maurice Benroubi, introduced as a “witness of the gas chambers”. The
latter, as a result, adopted an attitude of extreme discretion compared
with that shown in his “testimony”, which had appeared shortly before in
the weekly L’Express (March 3-9, 1979, p. 107-110).
10) In 1961 the Jew Raul
Hilberg, orthodox historian Number One, published the first edition of
his major work, The Destruction of the European Jews, and it
was in 1985 that he brought
out the second edition, a profoundly revised and corrected version. The
distance between the two is considerable and can only be explained by
the succession of victories achieved in the meantime by the
revisionists. In the first edition the author had brazenly affirmed that
“the destruction of the Jews of Europe” had been set off following two
consecutive orders given by Hitler. He neither specified the date nor
reproduced the wording thereof. Then he professed to explain in detail
the political, administrative and bureaucratic process of that
destruction; for example he went so far as to write that at Auschwitz
the extermination of the Jews was organised by an office that was in
charge of both the disinfection of clothing and the extermination of
human beings (The Destruction of the European Jews,
1961, republished in 1979 by
Quadrangle Books, Chicago, p. 177, 570). However, in
1983, going back completely on
that explanation, Hilberg suddenly proceeded to state that the business
of “the destruction of the European Jews” had, after all, gone on
without a plan, without any organisation, centralisation, project or
budget, but altogether thanks to “an
incredible meeting of minds, a
consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy” (Newsday,
New York, February 23, 1983, p. II/3). He would confirm this explanation
under oath at the first Zündel trial in Toronto on
January 16, 1985 (verbatim
transcript, p. 848); he would soon afterwards confirm it anew but with
other words in the greatly revised version of his above-mentioned work
(New York, Holmes & Meier, 1985, p. 53, 55, 62). He has just recently,
in October 2006, confirmed it
yet again in an interview given to Le Monde: “There was no
pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, it is
in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found,
doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am persuaded that the
bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure: each decision
brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn’t possible
to foresee exactly the next step” (Le Monde des livres, October
20, 2006, p. 12).
Remark: The Number
One historian of the Jewish genocide, at a certain point, thus found
himself so helpless that he suddenly proceeded to disown his first
version and to explain a gigantic undertaking of collective murder as if
it had all been carried out through something like the workings of the
Holy Spirit. In effect, since then he has evoked a “meeting of minds”
within a bureaucracy, terming this meeting “incredible”. If it is
“incredible” or unbelievable, why then should it be believed? Must one
believe the unbelievable? He also brings up “mind reading” and states it
was performed by “consensus”, but this is a matter of pure intellectual
speculation grounded in a belief in the supernatural. How can one
believe in such a phenomenon, particularly within a vast bureaucratic
structure and, still more particularly, within the bureaucracy of the
Third Reich? It is worth noting that on R. Hilberg’s example the other
official historians set about, in the 1980s and 1990s, abandoning
history and lapsed into metaphysics and jargon. They questioned
themselves on the point of whether one should be “intentionalist” or
“functionalist”: must it be supposed that the extermination of the Jews
occurred subsequent to an “intent” (not yet proved) and in line with a
concerted plan (not yet found), or instead had that extermination
happened all by itself, spontaneously and through improvisation, without
there being any formal intent and with no plan? This type of woolly
controversy attests to the disarray of historians who, unable to provide
evidence and real documents to back their case, are thus reduced to
theorising in the void. At bottom, those on one side, the “intentionalists”,
tell us: “There were necessarily an intent and a plan, which we haven’t
yet found but which we shall perhaps indeed discover one day”, whereas
the others affirm: “There is no need to go looking for evidence of an
intent and a plan, for everything was able to occur without intent,
without plan and without leaving any traces; such traces are not to be
found because they have never existed.”
11)
In May 1986 in France, certain
Jews, alarmed upon realising that they could not manage to answer the
revisionists on the simple plane of reason, decided to take action with
a view to obtaining a legal prohibition of revisionism. Chief amongst
them were Georges Wellers and Pierre
Vidal-Naquet, grouped, with their friends, round the country’s head
rabbi René-Samuel Sirat (Bulletin
quotidien de l’Agence télégraphique juive, June 1986, p. 1, 3).
After four years, on July 13, 1990, they would get, thanks notably to
Jewish former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, then president of the
National Assembly,
a special law passed allowing for the
punishment of any person who publicly made revisionist statements on the
subject of the “extermination of the Jews”: up to a year’s imprisonment,
a fine of €45,000 and still other sanctions. This recourse to force is a
flagrant admission of weakness.
Remark:
G. Wellers and P. Vidal-Naquet were
especially alarmed by the court decision of April 26, 1983 (see
paragraph 8 above). The former wrote: “The
court admitted that [Faurisson] was well documented, which is false. It
is astonishing that the court should fall for that” (Le Droit de
vivre, June-July 1987, p. 13). The latter wrote that the Paris
Court of Appeal “recognised the
seriousness of Faurisson's work — which is quite outrageous —
and finally
found him guilty only of having acted malevolently by summarising his
theses as slogans”
(Les Assassins de la mémoire, Paris, La Découverte, 1987, p.
182; here quoted the English translation:
Assassins of Memory,
New York, Columbia University Press, 1992).
12)
In August 1986 Michel de
Boüard, himself deported during the war as a résistant,
professor of history and Dean of letters at the University of Caen
(Normandy), member of the Institut de France and former head of the
Commission d’histoire de la déportation within the official
Comité d’histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale, declared that,
all told, “the dossier is rotten”.
He specified that the dossier in question, that of the history of the
German concentration camp system, was “rotten” due to, in his own words,
“a huge amount of made-up stories, inaccuracies stubbornly repeated —
particularly where numbers are concerned — amalgamations and
generalisations”. Alluding to the revisionists’ studies, he added that
there were “on the other side, very carefully done critical studies
demonstrating the inanity of those exaggerations” (Ouest-France
of August 2nd and 3rd, 1986, p. 6).
Remark: Michel de
Boüard was a professional historian, indeed the ablest French historian
on the subject of the wartime deportations. Up to 1985 he defended the
strictly orthodox and official position. Upon reading the revisionist
Henri Roques’s doctoral thesis on the alleged testimony of SS man Kurt
Gerstein, he saw his error. He honestly acknowledged it, going so far as
to say that, if he hitherto personally upheld the existence of a gas
chamber in the Mauthausen camp, he had done so wrongly, on the faith of
what was said around him. (His untimely death in 1989 deprived the
revisionist camp of an eminent personality who had resolved to publish a
new work aiming to put historians on their guard against the official
lies of Second World War history).
13)
In 1988 Arno Mayer, an American professor of Jewish origin
teaching contemporary European history at Princeton University, wrote on
the subject of the Nazi gas chambers: “Sources for the study of the gas
chambers are at once rare and
unreliable” (The “Final Solution” in History, New
York, Pantheon Books, p. 362).
Remark:
Still today in, 2006, the greater public persist in believing that, as
the media tirelessly suggest, the sources for the study of the gas
chambers are innumerable and unquestionable. At the Sorbonne symposium
of 1982, A. Mayer, like his friend
Pierre Vidal-Naquet, could not find words
harsh enough for the revisionists; however, six years later, here was an
ultra-orthodox historian who had drawn considerably closer to the
revisionists’ findings.
14)
In 1989 Swiss
historian Philippe
Burrin, laying down as a premise, without demonstration, the reality of
Nazi gas chambers and Jewish genocide, attempted to determine at what
date and by whom the decision to exterminate physically the Jews of
Europe had been taken. He did not succeed any more than all his
“intentionalist” or “functionalist” colleagues (Hitler
et les juifs / Genèse d’un génocide,
Paris, Seuil; English version: Hitler and the Jews: the Genesis of
the Holocaust, London, Edward Arnold, 1994). He had to remark the
absence of traces of the crime and note what he decided to call “the
stubborn erasure of the trace of anyone’s passing through” (p. 9). He
bemoaned “the large gaps in the
documentation” and added: “There subsists
no document bearing an extermination
order signed by Hitler. […] In all likelihood, the orders were
given verbally. […] here the traces are
not only few and far between, but difficult to interpret” (p.
13).
Remark: Here again is
a professional historian who acknowledges that he can produce no
documents in support of the official case. The greater public imagine
that the traces of Hitler’s crime are many and unambiguous but the
historian who has examined the relevant documentation has, for his part,
found nothing but sparse semblances and “traces”, and wonders what
interpretation to give to them.
15)
In 1992 Yehuda Bauer, professor at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, stated at an international conference on the genocide of the
Jews held in London: “The public still repeats, time after time,
the silly story that at
Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at” (Jewish
Telegraphic Agency release published as “Wannsee’s importance rejected”,
Canadian Jewish News, January 30, 1992, p. 8).
Remark: Apart from
the fact that a careful reading of the “minutes” of the Berlin-Wannsee
meeting of January 20, 1942 proves that the Germans envisaged a “territorial
final solution [eine
territoriale Endlösung]
of the Jewish question” leading in the end to a “Jewish renewal” in a
geographical space to be determined, Yehuda Bauer’s quite belated
declaration confirms that this major point of the case alleging the
extermination of the Jews is in fact worthless. Let us add, in our turn,
that the extermination of the Jews was decided on neither at Wannsee nor
anywhere else; the expression “extermination camps” is but an invention
of American war propaganda and there are examples proving that, during
that war, the killing of a single Jewish man or woman exposed the
perpetrator, whether soldier or civilian, member of the SS or not, to
German military justice proceedings and the possibility of being shot by
firing squad (in sixty years, never has a sole orthodox historian
provided an explanation for such facts, revealed by the defence before
the Nuremberg tribunal itself).
16)
In January 1995 French historian Eric Conan, co-author with
Henry Rousso of Vichy, un passé qui ne passe pas (Paris,
Gallimard, 2001 [1994, 1996];
English edition: Vichy: an ever-present
past, Hanover, New Hampshire
and London, University Press of New England, 1998),
wrote that I had been right after all to certify, in the late 1970s,
that the gas chamber thus far visited by millions of tourists at
Auschwitz was completely fake. According to E. Conan, expressing himself
in a leading French weekly: “Everything
in it is false […]. In the late 1970s, Robert Faurisson
exploited these falsifications
all the better as the [Auschwitz] museum administration balked at
acknowledging them”. Conan went on: “[Some people], like
Théo Klein [former president of the CRIF,
the ‘Representative Council of Jewish
Institutions of France’], prefer to
leave it in its present state, whilst explaining the
misrepresentation to the
public: ‘History is what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is
not simple, rather than to add artifice
to artifice’”. Conan
then related a staggering remark by Krystyna Oleksy, deputy director of
the Auschwitz National Museum, who, for her
part, could not find the resolve to
explain the misrepresentation to the public. He wrote: “Krystyna Oleksy
[…] can’t bring herself to do so: ‘For
the time being [the room designated as a gas chamber] is to be left “as
is”, with nothing specified to the visitor. It’s too complicated. We’ll
see to it later on’” (“Auschwitz:
la mémoire du mal” [Auschwitz: the remembrance of evil], L’Express,
January 19-25, 1995, p. 68).
Remark: This
statement by a Polish official means, in plain language: we have lied,
we are lying and, until further notice, we shall continue to lie. In
2005 I asked E. Conan whether the Auschwitz Museum authorities had
issued a denial or raised any protest against the statement that he, in
1995, had ascribed to K. Oleksy. His answer was that there had been
neither denial nor protest. In 1996, this imposture and others as well
concerning the Auschwitz-I camp were denounced by two Jewish authors,
Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, in a work they produced together:
Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present, Yale University Press, 443 p.
Here is a sampling of their words in that regard: “postwar
obfuscation”, “additions”,
“deletions”, “suppression”,
“reconstruction”, “largely
a postwar reconstruction” (p. 363), “reconstructed”,
“usurpation”, “re-created”,
“four hatched openings in the roof, as
if for pouring Zyklon B into the gas chamber below, were installed
[after the war]” (p. 364), “ falsified”,
“inexact”, “misinformation”,
“inappropriate” (p. 367), “falsifying”
(p. 369). In 2001 the fallacious character of this Potemkin village gas
chamber was also acknowledged in a French booklet accompanying two CD-Roms
entitled Le Négationnisme; written by Jean-Marc Turine and
Valérie Igounet, it was prefaced by Simone Veil (Radio France-INA,
Vincennes, Frémeaux & Associés).
17)
In 1996 the leftwing French historian Jacques Baynac, a staunch
antirevisionist since 1978, ended up admitting, after due consideration,
that there was no evidence of the Nazi gas chambers’ existence. One
could not fail to note, wrote Baynac, “the
absence of documents, traces or other material evidence” (Le
Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne [Switzerland], September 2, 1996, p.
16, and September 3, 1996, p. 14). But he said that he carried on
believing in the existence of those magical gas chambers.
Remark: All in all,
J. Baynac says: “There is no evidence but I believe”, whereas a
revisionist thinks: “There is no evidence, therefore I refuse to believe
and it is my duty to dispute”.
18)
In 2000, at the end of her book Histoire du négationnisme
en France (Paris, Gallimard), Valérie Igounet published a long text
by Jean-Claude Pressac at the end of which the latter, who had been one
of the revisionists’ most determined opponents, signed a veritable act
of surrender. In effect, taking up the words of professor Michel de
Boüard, he stated that the dossier on the concentration camp system was
“rotten”, and irremediably so.
He wrote asking: “Can things be put back on an even keel?” and answered:
“It is too late”. He added:
“The current form, albeit triumphant,
of the presentation of the camp universe is
doomed”. He finished by
surmising that everything that had been invented around sufferings all
too real was bound “for the rubbish
bins of history” (p. 651-652). In 1993-1994, that protégé of
the French Jew Serge Klarsfeld and the American rabbi Michael Berenbaum,
“Project Director” at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, had
been acclaimed worldwide as an extraordinary researcher who, in his book
on Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz, la machinerie du meurtre de masse
(Paris, CNRS éditions, 1993; English title:
The Auschwitz Crematories. The Machinery of Mass Murder),
had, it appeared, felled the hydra of revisionism. Here, in V. Igounet’s
book, he was seen signing his act of surrender.
Remark: The greater
public are kept in ignorance of a major fact: the man who had supposedly
saved the day for History, who once was presented by the world press as
an extraordinary researcher who had at last discovered the scientific
proof of the Nazi gas chambers’ existence, ended up acknowledging his
error. A few years later, not a single newspaper or magazine announced
his death.
19)
In 2002, R. J. van Pelt,
already mentioned, published The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from
the Irving Trial, Indiana University Press, XVIII-571 p. As is
widely known, David Irving, who at the very most is a semi-revisionist
ill-acquainted with the revisionist argumentation, lost the libel suit
he had recklessly brought against the Jewish-American academic Deborah
Lipstadt.
He tried clumsily to make the case — a perfectly
right one, for that matter — that there had existed no homicidal gas
chambers at Auschwitz. But he nonetheless scored an essential point and,
if Justice Charles Gray and other judges after him had had more courage,
that point would have enabled him to succeed in his claim. The argument
was summed up in a four-word phrase that I first put forth in 1994:
“No holes, no Holocaust”. My
reasoning behind it was as follows: 1. Auschwitz is at the centre of the
“Holocaust”; 2. The great crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, or
Auschwitz-II, are at the centre of the vast Auschwitz complex; 3. At the
heart of these crematoria there were, supposedly, one or several
homicidal gas chambers; 4. At a single one of these crematoria
(crematorium n° 3), although it is in ruins, is it today possible to go
and examine the room said to have been a gas chamber; it is the presumed
scene of the crime, itself presumed as well; 5. We are told that, in
order to kill the Jewish detainees locked inside, an SS man, moving
about on the concrete roof of the said gas chamber, poured Zyklon-B
pellets through four regular openings situated in the roof; 6. However,
one need only have eyes to realise that no such openings have ever
existed there; 7. Therefore the crime cannot have been committed. For R.
J. van Pelt, testifying against Irving, it was near torture trying to
find a reply to this argument. Justice Gray as well had to acknowledge “the
apparent absence of evidence of holes” (p. 490 of the verbatim
transcript) and, in a more general way, he conceded that “contemporaneous
documents yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers
designed to kill humans” (p. 489; for more details one may
consult pages 458-460, 466-467, 475-478 and 490-506). In the text of his
judgment, Charles Gray admitted surprise: “I have to confess that, in
common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the
evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz
was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when
assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in
these
proceedings” (13.71). Here the failure
of the accusing historians is flagrant and
Irving ought to have won his case thanks to that observation by a judge
who was hostile towards him: the documents of the era furnish us with
but decidedly little clear evidence of the Nazi gas chambers’ existence
and thus of a German policy to exterminate the Jews. Is this not, after
all — as we have seen above —, what several Jewish historians had
already concluded, beginning with Léon Poliakov in 1951?
20)
In 2004 French historian Florent Brayard published a work
entitled La « solution finale de la question juive ». La technique,
le temps et les catégories de la décision, Paris, Fayard, 640 p. In
2005, in a review of this book, the following three sentences could be
read: “It is known that the Führer neither drafted nor signed any order
to eliminate the Jews, that the decisions — for there were several —
were taken in the secrecy of
talks with Himmler, perhaps
Heydrich and/or Göring. It is
supposed that, rather than an
explicit order, Hitler gave his consent to his interlocutors’ requests
or projects. Perhaps he did
not even put it into words, but made himself understood
by a silence or an acquiescence”
(Yves Ternon, Revue d’histoire de la Shoah, July-December 2005,
p. 537).
Remark: At nearly
every word, these sentences show that their author is reduced to
adventurous speculations. When he dares to express, without the benefit
of the least clue, the notion that Hitler perhaps made himself
understood “by a silence or an acquiescence”, he is merely taking up the
theory of the “nod” (the Führer’s mere nod!) first voiced by American
professor Christopher Browning at the Zündel trial in Toronto in 1988.
No academic of antirevisionist persuasion has shown himself to be more
pitiful and foolish than that shabbos-goy. So true is it that, destroyed
by the revisionist victories, the official case has ended up being
emptied of all scientific content.
An assessment of these
revisionist victories
Let us
briefly recapitulate these revisionist victories.
Their backs set to the wall by the revisionists, the official historians
of the alleged physical extermination of the Jews have ended up
acknowledging that, from the historical and scientific viewpoint, they
are left without a single argument to support their ghastly accusation.
They admit, in effect: 1) that they cannot invoke a single document
proving the crime; 2) that they are unable to provide the least
representation of the crime weapon; 3) that they do not possess any
proof nor even any evidence; 4) that they cannot name a single truthful
witness (see
above, S. Veil’s opinion on the matter); 5) that their dossier is
rotten (twice repeated), irremediably rotten and that it
is bound for the rubbish bins of history; 6) that the sources
formerly invoked have revealed themselves to be not only rarer than was
claimed but also unreliable; 7) that the alleged traces of the crime are
few and far between, and difficult to interpret; 8) that at their end
there have been falsifications,
misrepresentation, artifice; 9) that in
support of their case there has too often been invoked a “silly [sic]
story”, that of a decision to exterminate the Jews supposedly taken on
January 20, 1942 at Berlin-Wannsee; 10) that the foremost of their
number, Raul Hilberg, is today reduced to explaining it all, in a
nonsensical way, by supposed initiatives that the German bureaucracy
had, according to him, boldly taken without any order, plan, instruction
or supervision and thanks simply, it seems, to an incredible meeting
of minds and a consensus-mind reading. These official
historians have not known how to answer any of the revisionists’
requests or observations in the style of: 1) “Show me or draw me a Nazi
gas chamber”; 2) “Bring me one proof, one single piece of evidence of
your own choosing, on the grounds of which to assert that there was a
genocide”; 3) “Bring me one testimony, one single testimony, the best
one in your opinion” or again: 4) “No holes, no Holocaust ”. Finding
themselves on the ropes, the court historians have called on the
law-courts to find against the revisionists, but, contrary to all
expectation, it has sometimes happened that the judges have gone so far
as to pay tribute to the revisionists’ uprightness or to show their
surprise before the sparseness or absence of the accusers’ documentary
evidence. Then, first in France and later in a number of other countries
in Europe, these accusers have called for the passing of special laws to
silence the revisionists. Here they have sealed their doom. To resort to
special laws, to the police and prisons is to admit one’s utter
inability to use the arguments of reason, history and science.
A
hundred other arguments again could be recalled here to prove that, on
the plane of history and science, the
immense edifice of lies put up by the “Holocaust” or “Shoah” sect has
been thrown down, with not one stone left upon another. In
contrast to this expanse of ruins, we have seen the construction of a
whole revisionist literature. In it can be discovered a profusion of
documents, photographs, expert studies, trial transcripts, technical and
scientific reports, testimonies, statistical studies, all of which
bearing on a hundred aspects of the history of the Second World War that
show what the lot of the European Jews was in reality, and demonstrate
in striking manner that the Jewish version of that war is largely of the
order of myth. From the myth, the Jews
have gone on to mythology and from mythology on to religion or, rather,
to a semblance of religion. Today the servants of that false
religion appear more and more like priests who carry on officiating and
turning over the hallowed phrases but, manifestly, no longer have the
faith. They seem no longer really to believe in their “credo”. So it is,
for instance, that for about the last ten years they have been seen
advising their flocks to observe the greatest possible discretion on the
subject of the gas chambers. In his memoirs, published in French in 1994
and in English in 1995, the big false witness Elie Wiesel wrote:
"Let the gas chambers remain closed to
prying eyes, and to imagination" (All Rivers Run to the Sea,
New York, Knopf [Random House], p. 74).
Claude Lanzmann (maker of the film Shoah), Daniel Goldhagen
(author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners), Simone Veil (former
president of the European Parliament, quoted above), François Léotard (a
former French government minister) have in the last few years become
surprisingly reserved, cautious or silent on the matter. Some months
ago, Jacques Attali (a Jewish businessman and historian) decreed: “The
immense majority of Jews murdered were killed by German soldiers’ and
military policemen’s individual weapons, between 1940 and 1942, and not
by the death-works, which were put into place afterwards” (“Groupes de
criminels?”, L’Express, June 1, 2006, p. 60). This implicit way
of writing off the alleged Nazi gas chambers is becoming regular
practice. Attempts are made to replace the Auschwitz lie with the lie of
Babi Yar or those of other fantastical slaughters in the Ukraine or the
Baltic countries but not once are we provided with scientific evidence
concerning them, such as reports of exhumation and post-mortems as has
been the case with the real massacres perpetrated by the Soviets at
Katyn, Vinnitsa or elsewhere. As for the number of dead at Auschwitz, we
are hardly told any longer that it was 9,000,000 (as in the film
Nuit et Brouillard
[Night and Fog]), 8,000,000, 6,000,000
or 4,000,000 (as at the Nuremberg trial or on the commemorative stones
at Auschwitz-Birkenau until 1990). The new religion’s clerics are
settling for 1,500,000 (as marked on those same stones since 1995), or
for 1,100,000, or for 700,000, (as J.-C. Pressac wrote), or still for
510,000 (as Fritjof Meyer concluded in 2002: “Die Zahl der Opfer von
Auschwitz”, Osteuropa, May 2003, p. 631-641), all these latter
figures being no better founded than the previous ones.
General Conclusion
We are granted the
privilege of witnessing, in this beginning of the 21st
century, a serious calling into question of one of the greatest lies in
history. The myth of the “Holocaust”
may well be aglow with a thousand lights: in reality it is burning
itself out. It has served to justify the creation in the land
of Palestine of a warlike colony that has taken the name of “Jewish
State” and endowed itself with a “Jewish Army”. It imposes on the
Western world the yoke of a Jewish or Zionist tyranny bringing itself to
bear in all fields of intellectual, academic and media activity. It
poisons the very soul of a great country, Germany. It has allowed the
extortion from the latter, as well as from a good number of other
Western countries, of exorbitant sums in marks, in dollars or in euros.
It overwhelms us with films, with museums, with books that keep the
flame of a Talmudic-style hatred burning. It makes it possible to call
for an armed crusade against “the axis of evil” and, for this, to
fabricate, on demand, the most shameless lies precisely in the pattern
of the Great Lie of the “Holocaust”, for there is no difference between
Adolf Hitler’s “weapons of mass destruction” and those of Saddam
Hussein. It makes it possible to accuse nearly the whole world and to
demand “repentance” and “reparations” everywhere, either for alleged
actions directed against “Yahweh’s chosen people”, an alleged complicity
in the crime, or an alleged general indifference to the fate of the Jews
during the Second World War. Under its belt it has a glut of rigged
trials, beginning with the loathsome Nuremberg trial. It has sanctioned
thousands of hangings of defeated soldiers, an atrocious post-war Purge,
the deportation of millions of civilians chased from their ancestral
homelands, indescribable pillaging, tens of thousands of scandalous
legal proceedings, including those carried out today against
octogenarians or nonagenarians, attacked by “miraculous” Jewish
survivors giving their false testimony. These abominations, this outrage
of lies and hatred, this hubris that one day or another destiny always
comes to punish, in short, all these excesses must end. No nation has
shown more patience with this Jewish or Zionist hubris than the Arab
nation; however we see that this nation itself has now run out of
patience. It is going to throw off the Israeli yoke and have the West
understand that the time has come to seek real peace instead of
supporting and arming an artificial State that maintains itself only by
force. Even in the West, even in the United States, the scales are
falling off some people’s eyes and there is now a certain awareness of
the hazards imposed on the international community by such prolonged
submission to the false religion of the “Holocaust”, no. 1 weapon, sword
and shield of the State of Israel.
Practical Conclusion
There exist some
practical means to launch a real action against this false religion with
its sanctuary located at Auschwitz.
As
is known, in the heart of Auschwitz there is an emblematic gas chamber.
Up to now thirty million tourists have visited it. It is an imposture;
all the historians are aware of this, as the authorities of the
Auschwitz State Museum know better than anyone. Yet UNESCO (the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), on October
26, 1979, at the request of the Polish government, put this camp on its
list of World Heritage and Cultural Property Sites,
thus assuming the duty of preserving
its authenticity. For my part, I suggest therefore that the matter of
this fraud be formally referred to UNESCO, as it constitutes an offence
against education, science and culture. In a more general manner,
we could
take up the words of Jean-Gabriel
Cohn Bendit in 1979: "Let us fight for the destruction of those gas
chambers they show tourists in the camps where there were none, as we
now know” (Libération, March 5,
1979, p. 4).
There
exist other practical means to fight the tyranny of the “Holocaust”
myth, first amongst which is to announce to the whole world these
“revisionist victories” which have thus far been kept hidden from it. I
trust the revisionists present at this gathering will suggest other
means and discuss them with us.
Practising
mendacity on a grand scale, the “Holocaust” religionists have made
themselves, little by little, the enemies of the human race. For more
than sixty years they have progressively been putting the whole world,
or just about, under indictment. Their main target has, of course, been
Germany and all those who, alongside that country, had thought it their
duty to fight against Stalin in the same way that others, in the
opposing camp, believed they must fight against Hitler. But, in their
accusatory frenzy, Jewish organisations have gone so far as to rebuke
the wartime Allies for an alleged criminal “indifference” to the lot of
the European Jews. They have attacked Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle,
Pope Pius XII, the International Committee of the Red Cross and numerous
other personalities, official bodies or countries for not having
denounced the existence of the “gas chambers”. But how could what was so
obviously just a grotesque war rumour have been considered verified? It
is enough to read the book by the Jew Walter Laqueur, The Terrible
Secret (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1980, 262 p.), to gather
thirty or so references to the widespread and thoroughly justified
scepticism in the Allied camp before the flood of rumours originating
from Jewish sources. Inquiries were carried out enabling officials to
conclude that the rumours were unfounded.
It was thus clear-sightedness and not
indifference that the Allies and others charged showed.
It was that same
clear-sightedness which, after the war,
in their speeches or in their memoirs, Churchill, De Gaulle and
Eisenhower showed as they avoided mentioning, even so much as once, the
said “gas chambers”.
War and war
propaganda need lies just as
crusades and the crusader spirit are fuelled by
hatred. On the other side,
peace and friendship between peoples can only gain from care being taken
to achieve exactitude in
historical research, research that all must be able to carry out in
complete freedom.
Two appendices
concerning the alleged gas chamber of Auschwitz-I
1) Eric Conan’s 1995
statement in its entirety
Another delicate
subject: what to do about the falsifications bequeathed by the
Communist administration? In the fifties and sixties, several buildings
which had either disappeared or been put to other use were
reconstructed, with serious errors, and presented as genuine. Some,
too “new”, were closed to the public. To say nothing of
the delousing
chambers that were at times presented as execution gas chambers. These
aberrations have been of great service to the negationists, who have
drawn on them for the main substance of their fabrications. The example
of crematorium I, the lone one at Auschwitz I, is significant. In its
morgue was installed the first gas chamber. It functioned for a short
time, in early 1942: the isolation of the zone, called for by the
gassings, disrupted the camp’s activity. It was therefore decided,
towards the end of April 1942, to transfer these lethal gassings to
Birkenau, where they were carried out, on essentially Jewish victims, on
an industrial scale.
Crematorium I was subsequently turned into an air-raid shelter, with
an operating room. In 1948, during the museum’s creation, crematorium I
was reconstituted in its supposed original state. Everything in it is
false: the gas chamber’s dimensions, the location of the doors, the
openings for the pouring in of the Zyklon B, the ovens, rebuilt
according to what the survivors remembered, the height of the chimney.
In the late 1970’s, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications
all the better as the museum administration balked at acknowledging them.
An American negationist has recently shot a video inside the gas chamber
(still presented as authentic): in it he can be seen addressing
his “revelations” to the visitors. Jean-Claude Pressac, one of the first
to establish exactly the history of this gas chamber and its
modifications during and after the war, proposes that it be restored to
its 1942 state, basing his suggestion on the German blueprints that he
has recently found in the Soviet archives. Others, like Théo
Klein, prefer to leave it in its present state, whilst explaining the
misrepresentation to the public: ‘History is what it is; it suffices
to tell it, even when it is not simple, rather than to add artifice
to artifice.’ Krystyna Oleksy, whose director’s office, which
occupies the old SS hospital, looks straight out on to crematorium I,
has not resigned herself to do so: ‘For the time being, it is to be
left “as is”, with nothing specified to the visitor. It’s too
complicated. We’ll see to it later on.’
” (Eric Conan, “Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal”, L’Express,
January 19-25, 1995, pages 54-69; p. 68)
In his lengthy study, E. Conan wanted
to show the great distance between “remembrance” and history. He did so
without calling into question the dogma of the “Holocaust”; he even went
so far as to state his belief in the existence of the weapon of mass
destruction called “gas chamber”, and he posited certain assertions
devoid of the least scientific foundation as being exact and
demonstrated. Nonetheless he had the courage to denounce some serious
lies, amongst which that of the
emblematic “gas chamber” presented today to visitors at
Auschwitz. And he dares to admit that, in the late 1970s, I was right
about the matter. In 2005 I asked him whether his study had given rise
to any rectifications or protests, particularly on the part of the
Auschwitz State Museum authorities and Krystyna Oleksy. His answer was:
“None”.
2) The full relevant
passage in a CD-Rom booklet prefaced by Simone Veil
[Robert Faurisson] has the
motivation: exclusive love of the truth; this would seem to be an
obsession of his. An academic, Robert Faurisson was never to cease using
this scientific surety, a presumed pledge of respectability. He read
Maurice Bardèche. He discovered Paul Rassinier. He “dissected” Rimbaud,
Lautréamont and Apollinaire. A brilliant and cultured man, he is
nonetheless one bent on causing trouble. Through the seventies, Robert
Faurisson worked. He outlined his historico-literary method. He went to
the Auschwitz archives. His denial was to build itself there. It
rests on a real fact: the gas chamber at the Auschwitz I camp
is a “reconstitution”, for it served as a storehouse for SS
medical supplies and as an air-raid shelter after the gas chambers at
Auschwitz II Birkenau were put into service; what he was able to see
(and what can still be seen) is a supposed gas chamber. This
is undeniable. Be that as it may, for Robert Faurisson it is a
put-up job done by the Jews (Le
Négationnisme (1948-2000). Interviews broadcast on the radio network
France-Culture, produced by Jean-Marc Turine. Booklet by Valérie Igounet
and Jean-Marc Turine with a preface by Simone Veil, Vincennes, Frémeaux
et associés, 2001, 48 pages; p. 27-28).
[See
drawings on p. 21-22]
Myth of the Gas Chambers
“Who knocked it down?” “Faurisson.”
November 1, 2006: this drawing by “Chard”
(the Frenchwoman Françoise Pichard, of Paris) received second prize in
the international cartoon contest on the “Holocaust” organised by Iran.
“And yet it doesn’t gas…”
[colloquial French for “it’s no good”
or “it doesn’t work”]
Professor Bruno
Gollnisch had merely stated that, on the subject of the gas chambers,
historians ought to be able to express themselves freely. He was first
suspended from teaching for five years by the University of Lyon-III.
Then, on November 7th and 8th, 2006, he had to appear before a court in
Lyon made up of presiding judge Fernand Schir and two associates.
Pressures and blackmail led him to break down and acknowledge before his
judges the existence of the genocide of the Jews and the Nazi gas
chambers. The court’s decision will be pronounced on January 18, 2007.
It must be realised that French law prohibits any disputing of the
reality of Nazi crimes against the Jews “even if [such disputing] is
presented in veiled or dubitative form or by way of insinuation”(Code
pénal, 2006, p. 2059). Consequently, with regard to this matter one
must neither dispute nor even appear to
dispute. |