The Victories
of Revisionism
By:
Professor Robert FAURISSON
11 décembre 2006
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.
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, 566 p., 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.
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” 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°
2), 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).
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.
E N D
|
