|
Professor Faurisson's paper for Tehran Holocaust Conference 2006
(English version)
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 |