The Victories of Revisionism
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
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.
Dr. Robert
Faurisson
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.
Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the
Holocaust
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).
Zyklon-B
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.
Paul Rassinier
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).
Léon Poliakov
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.
Rudolf Höss
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.
Nazi Mass
Murder: a documentary history of the use of poison gas
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.
Simone Veil
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).
Hilberg's The Destruction of the European
Jews
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).
Henri Roques
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).
Yehuda Bauer
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.
Jean-Claude Pressac
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.
The Case for
Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial
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 no 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".
Elie Wiesel
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.
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.
"And yet it doesn't gas." [colloquial French for
"it's no good" or "it doesn't work"]
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.