|
|
December 13, 2006
http://www.australiafreepress.org/articles/Faurisson_Iran_Conference.htm
AustraliaFreePress.org
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 norfunctioned.
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, Š 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. [Š]
In all likelihood, the orders were given verbally. [Š] 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 [Š]. 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 [Š]
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 aswell had to acknowledge "the apparent
absence of evidence of holes" (p. 490 of the verbatim transcript) and,
in a more general way, he conceded that "contemporaneous documents
yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to
kill humans" (p. 489; for more details one may consult pages 458-460,
466-467, 475-478 and 490-506). In the text of his judgment, Charles Gray
admitted surprise: "I have to confess that, in common I suspect with
most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of
Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set
aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties
in these proceedings" (13.71). Here the failure of the accusing
historians is flagrant and Irving ought to have won his case thanks to that
observation by a judge who was hostile towards him: the documents of the era
furnish us with but decidedly little clear evidence of the Nazi gas
chambers' existence and thus of a German policy to exterminate the Jews. Is
this not, after all - as we have seen above -, what several Jewish
historians had already concluded, beginning with Léon Poliakov in 1951?
20) In 2004 French historian Florent Brayard published a
work entitled La « solution finale de la question juive ». La technique,
le temps et les catégories de la décision, Paris, Fayard, 640 p. In 2005,
in a review of this book, the following three sentences could be read:
"It is known that the Führer neither drafted nor signed any order to
eliminate the Jews, that the decisions - for there were several - were taken
in the secrecy of talks with Himmler, perhaps Heydrich and/or Göring. It is
supposed that, rather than an explicit order, Hitler gave his consent to his
interlocutors' requests or projects. Perhaps he did not even put it into
words, but made himself understood by a silence or an acquiescence"
(Yves Ternon, Revue d'histoire de la Shoah, July-December 2005, p. 537).
Remark: At nearly every word, these sentences show that
their author is reduced to adventurous speculations. When he dares to
express, without the benefit of the least clue, the notion that Hitler
perhaps made himself understood "by a silence or an acquiescence",
he is merely taking up the theory of the "nod" (the Führer's mere
nod!) first voiced by American professor Christopher Browning at the Zündel
trial in Toronto in 1988. No academic of antirevisionist persuasion has
shown himself to be more pitiful and foolish than that shabbos-goy. So true
is it that, destroyed by the revisionist victories, the official case has
ended up being emptied of all scientific content.
An assessment of these revisionist victories
Let us briefly recapitulate these revisionist victories.
Their backs set to the wall by the revisionists, the
official historians of the alleged physical extermination of the Jews have
ended up acknowledging that, from the historical and scientific viewpoint,
they are left without a single argument to support their ghastly accusation.
They admit, in effect: 1) that they cannot invoke a single document proving
the crime; 2) that they are unable to provide the least representation of
the crime weapon; 3) that they do not possess any proof nor even any
evidence; 4) that they cannot name a single truthful witness (see above, S.
Veil's opinion on the matter); 5) that their dossier is rotten (twice
repeated), irremediably rotten and that it is bound for the rubbish bins of
history; 6) that the sources formerly invoked have revealed themselves to be
not only rarer than was claimed but also unreliable; 7) that the alleged
traces of the crime are few and far between, and difficult to interpret; 8)
that at their end there have been falsifications, misrepresentation,
artifice; 9) that in support of their case there has too often been invoked
a "silly [sic] story", that of a decision to exterminate the Jews
supposedly taken on January 20, 1942 at Berlin-Wannsee; 10) that the
foremost of their number, Raul Hilberg, is today reduced to explaining it
all, in a nonsensical way, by supposed initiatives that the German
bureaucracy had, according to him, boldly taken without any order, plan,
instruction or supervision and thanks simply, it seems, to an incredible
meeting of minds and a consensus-mind reading. These official historians
have not known how to answer any of the revisionists' requests or
observations in the style of: 1) "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas
chamber"; 2) "Bring me one proof, one single piece of evidence of
your own choosing, on the grounds of which to assert that there was a
genocide"; 3) "Bring me one testimony, one single testimony, the
best one in your opinion" or again: 4) "No holes, no Holocaust
". Finding themselves on the ropes, the court historians have called on
the law-courts to find against the revisionists, but, contrary to all
expectation, it has sometimes happened that the judges have gone so far as
to pay tribute to the revisionists' uprightness or to show their surprise
before the sparseness or absence of the accusers' documentary evidence.
Then, first in France and later in a number of other countries in Europe,
these accusers have called for the passing of special laws to silence the
revisionists. Here they have sealed their doom. To resort to special laws,
to the police and prisons is to admit one's utter inability to use the
arguments of reason, history and science.
A hundred other arguments again could be recalled here to
prove that, on the plane of history and science, the immense edifice of lies
put up by the "Holocaust" or "Shoah" sect has been
thrown down, with not one stone left upon another. In contrast to this
expanse of ruins, we have seen the construction of a whole revisionist
literature. In it can be discovered a profusion of documents, photographs,
expert studies, trial transcripts, technical and scientific reports,
testimonies, statistical studies, all of which bearing on a hundred aspects
of the history of the Second World War that show what the lot of the
European Jews was in reality, and demonstrate in striking manner that the
Jewish version of that war is largely of the order of myth. From the myth,
the Jews have gone on to mythology and from mythology on to religion or,
rather, to a semblance of religion. Today the servants of that false
religion appear more and more like priests who carry on officiating and
turning over the hallowed phrases but, manifestly, no longer have the faith.
They seem no longer really to believe in their "credo". So it is,
for instance, that for about the last ten years they have been seen advising
their flocks to observe the greatest possible discretion on the subject of
the gas chambers. In his memoirs, published in French in 1994 and in English
in 1995, the big false witness Elie Wiesel wrote: "Let the gas chambers
remain closed to prying eyes, and to imagination" (All Rivers Run to
the Sea, New York, Knopf [Random House], p. 74). Claude Lanzmann (maker of
the film Shoah), Daniel Goldhagen (author of Hitler's Willing Executioners),
Simone Veil (former president of the European Parliament, quoted above),
François Léotard (a former French government minister) have in the last
few years become surprisingly reserved, cautious or silent on the matter.
Some months ago, Jacques Attali (a Jewish businessman and historian)
decreed: "The immense majority of Jews murdered were killed by German
soldiers' and military policemen's individual weapons, between 1940 and
1942, and not by the death-works, which were put into place afterwards"
("Groupes de criminels?", L'Express, June 1, 2006, p. 60). This
implicit way of writing off the alleged Nazi gas chambers is becoming
regular practice. Attempts are made to replace the Auschwitz lie with the
lie of Babi Yar or those of other fantastical slaughters in the Ukraine or
the Baltic countries but not once are we provided with scientific evidence
concerning them, such as reports of exhumation and post-mortems as has been
the case with the real massacres perpetrated by the Soviets at Katyn,
Vinnitsa or elsewhere. As for the number of dead at Auschwitz, we are hardly
told any longer that it was 9,000,000 (as in the film Nuit et Brouillard
[Night and Fog]), 8,000,000, 6,000,000 or 4,000,000 (as at the Nuremberg
trial or on the commemorative stones at Auschwitz-Birkenau until 1990). The
new religion's clerics are settling for 1,500,000 (as marked on those same
stones since 1995), or for 1,100,000, or for 700,000, (as J.-C. Pressac
wrote), or still for 510,000 (as Fritjof Meyer concluded in 2002: "Die
Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz", Osteuropa, May 2003, p. 631-641), all
these latter figures being no better founded than the previous ones.
General Conclusion
We are granted the privilege of witnessing, in this
beginning of the 21st century, a serious calling into question of one of the
greatest lies in history. The myth of the "Holocaust" may well be
aglow with a thousand lights: in reality it is burning itself out. It has
served to justify the creation in the land of Palestine of a warlike colony
that has taken the name of "Jewish State" and endowed itself with
a "Jewish Army". It imposes on the Western world the yoke of a
Jewish or Zionist tyranny bringing itself to bear in all fields of
intellectual, academic and media activity. It poisons the very soul of a
great country, Germany. It has allowed the extortion from the latter, as
well as from a good number of other Western countries, of exorbitant sums in
marks, in dollars or in euros. It overwhelms us with films, with museums,
with books that keep the flame of a Talmudic-style hatred burning. It makes
it possible to call for an armed crusade against "the axis of
evil" and, for this, to fabricate, on demand, the most shameless lies
precisely in the pattern of the Great Lie of the "Holocaust", for
there is no difference between Adolf Hitler's "weapons of mass
destruction" and those of Saddam Hussein. It makes it possible to
accuse nearly the whole world and to demand "repentance" and
"reparations" everywhere, either for alleged actions directed
against "Yahweh's chosen people", an alleged complicity in the
crime, or an alleged general indifference to the fate of the Jews during the
Second World War. Under its belt it has a glut of rigged trials, beginning
with the loathsome Nuremberg trial. It has sanctioned thousands of hangings
of defeated soldiers, an atrocious post-war Purge, the deportation of
millions of civilians chased from their ancestral homelands, indescribable
pillaging, tens of thousands of scandalous legal proceedings, including
those carried out today against octogenarians or nonagenarians, attacked by
"miraculous" Jewish survivors giving their false testimony. These
abominations, this outrage of lies and hatred, this hubris that one day or
another destiny always comes to punish, in short, all these excesses must
end. No nation has shown more patience with this Jewish or Zionist hubris
than the Arab nation; however we see that this nation itself has now run out
of patience. It is going to throw off the Israeli yoke and have the West
understand that the time has come to seek real peace instead of supporting
and arming an artificial State that maintains itself only by force. Even in
the West, even in the United States, the scales are falling off some
people's eyes and there is now a certain awareness of the hazards imposed on
the international community by such prolonged submission to the false
religion of the "Holocaust", no. 1 weapon, sword and shield of the
State of Israel.
Practical Conclusion
There exist some practical means to launch a real action
against this false religion with its sanctuary located at Auschwitz.
As is known, in the heart of Auschwitz there is an
emblematic gas chamber. Up to now thirty million tourists have visited it.
It is an imposture; all the historians are aware of this, as the authorities
of the Auschwitz State Museum know better than anyone. Yet UNESCO (the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), on
October 26, 1979, at the request of the Polish government, put this camp on
its list of World Heritage and Cultural Property Sites, thus assuming the
duty of preserving its authenticity. For my part, I suggest therefore that
the matter of this fraud be formally referred to UNESCO, as it constitutes
an offence against education, science and culture. In a more general manner,
we could take up the words of Jean-Gabriel Cohn Bendit in 1979: "Let us
fight for the destruction of those gas chambers they show tourists in the
camps where there were none, as we now know" (Libération, March 5,
1979, p. 4).
There exist other practical means to fight the tyranny of
the "Holocaust" myth, first amongst which is to announce to the
whole world these "revisionist victories" which have thus far been
kept hidden from it. I trust the revisionists present at this gathering will
suggest other means and discuss them with us.
Practising mendacity on a grand scale, the
"Holocaust" religionists have made themselves, little by little,
the enemies of the human race. For more than sixty years they have
progressively been putting the whole world, or just about, under indictment.
Their main target has, of course, been Germany and all those who, alongside
that country, had thought it their duty to fight against Stalin in the same
way that others, in the opposing camp, believed they must fight against
Hitler. But, in their accusatory frenzy, Jewish organisations have gone so
far as to rebuke the wartime Allies for an alleged criminal
"indifference" to the lot of the European Jews. They have attacked
Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle, Pope Pius XII, the International Committee
of the Red Cross and numerous other personalities, official bodies or
countries for not having denounced the existence of the "gas
chambers". But how could what was so obviously just a grotesque war
rumour have been considered verified? It is enough to read the book by the
Jew Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson,
1980, 262 p.), to gather thirty or so references to the widespread and
thoroughly justified scepticism in the Allied camp before the flood of
rumours originating from Jewish sources. Inquiries were carried out enabling
officials to conclude that the rumours were unfounded. It was thus
clear-sightedness and not indifference that the Allies and others charged
showed. It was that same clear-sightedness which, after the war, in their
speeches or in their memoirs, Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower showed as
they avoided mentioning, even so much as once, the said "gas
chambers".
War and war propaganda need lies just as crusades and the
crusader spirit are fuelled by hatred. On the other side, peace and
friendship between peoples can only gain from care being taken to achieve
exactitude in historical research, research that all must be able to carry
out in complete freedom.
Two appendices concerning the alleged gas chamber of
Auschwitz-I
1) Eric Conan's 1995 statement in its entirety
Another delicate subject: what to do about the
falsifications bequeathed by the Communist administration? In the fifties
and sixties, several buildings which had either disappeared or been put to
other use were reconstructed, with serious errors, and presented as genuine.
Some, too "new", were closed to the public. To say nothing of the
delousing chambers that were at times presented as execution gas chambers.
These aberrations have been of great service to the negationists, who have
drawn on them for the main substance of their fabrications. The example of
crematorium I, the lone one at Auschwitz I, is significant. In its morgue
was installed the first gas chamber. It functioned for a short time, in
early 1942: the isolation of the zone, called for by the gassings, disrupted
the camp's activity. It was therefore decided, towards the end of April
1942, to transfer these lethal gassings to Birkenau, where they were carried
out, on essentially Jewish victims, on an industrial scale. Crematorium I
was subsequently turned into an air-raid shelter, with an operating room. In
1948, during the museum's creation, crematorium I was reconstituted in its
supposed original state. Everything in it is false: the gas chamber's
dimensions, the location of the doors, the openings for the pouring in of
the Zyklon B, the ovens, rebuilt according to what the survivors remembered,
the height of the chimney. In the late 1970's, Robert Faurisson exploited
these falsifications all the better as the museum administration balked at
acknowledging them. An American negationist has recently shot a video inside
the gas chamber (still presented as authentic): in it he can be seen
addressing his "revelations" to the visitors. Jean-Claude Pressac,
one of the first to establish exactly the history of this gas chamber and
its modifications during and after the war, proposes that it be restored to
its 1942 state, basing his suggestion on the German blueprints that he has
recently found in the Soviet archives. Others, like Théo Klein, prefer to
leave it in its present state, whilst explaining the misrepresentation to
the public: 'History is what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is
not simple, rather than to add artifice to artifice.' Krystyna Oleksy, whose
director's office, which occupies the old SS hospital, looks straight out on
to crematorium I, has not resigned herself to do so: 'For the time being, it
is to be left "as is", with nothing specified to the visitor. It's
too complicated. We'll see to it later on.' " (Eric Conan,
"Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal", L'Express, January 19-25, 1995,
pages 54-69; p. 68)
In his lengthy study, E. Conan wanted to show the great
distance between "remembrance" and history. He did so without
calling into question the dogma of the "Holocaust"; he even went
so far as to state his belief in the existence of the weapon of mass
destruction called "gas chamber", and he posited certain
assertions devoid of the least scientific foundation as being exact and
demonstrated. Nonetheless he had the courage to denounce some serious lies,
amongst which that of the emblematic "gas chamber" presented today
to visitors at Auschwitz. And he dares to admit that, in the late 1970s, I
was right about the matter. In 2005 I asked him whether his study had given
rise to any rectifications or protests, particularly on the part of the
Auschwitz State Museum authorities and Krystyna Oleksy. His answer was:
"None".
2) The full relevant passage in a CD-Rom booklet prefaced by
Simone Veil
[Robert Faurisson] has the motivation: exclusive love of the
truth; this would seem to be an obsession of his. An academic, Robert
Faurisson was never to cease using this scientific surety, a presumed pledge
of respectability. He read Maurice Bardèche. He discovered Paul Rassinier.
He "dissected" Rimbaud, Lautréamont and Apollinaire. A brilliant
and cultured man, he is nonetheless one bent on causing trouble. Through the
seventies, Robert Faurisson worked. He outlined his historico-literary
method. He went to the Auschwitz archives. His denial was to build itself
there. It rests on a real fact: the gas chamber at the Auschwitz I camp is a
"reconstitution", for it served as a storehouse for SS medical
supplies and as an air-raid shelter after the gas chambers at Auschwitz II
Birkenau were put into service; what he was able to see (and what can still
be seen) is a supposed gas chamber. This is undeniable. Be that as it may,
for Robert Faurisson it is a put-up job done by the Jews (Le Négationnisme
(1948-2000). Interviews broadcast on the radio network France-Culture,
produced by Jean-Marc Turine. Booklet by Valérie Igounet and Jean-Marc
Turine with a preface by Simone Veil, Vincennes, Frémeaux et associés,
2001, 48 pages; p. 27-28).
[See drawings on p. 21-22]
Myth of the Gas Chambers
"Who knocked it down?" "Faurisson."
November 1, 2006: this drawing by "Chard" (the
Frenchwoman Françoise Pichard, of Paris) received second prize in the
international cartoon contest on the "Holocaust" organised by
Iran.
"And yet it doesn't gasŠ"
[colloquial French for "it's no good" or "it
doesn't work"]
Professor Bruno Gollnisch had merely stated that, on the
subject of the gas chambers, historians ought to be able to express
themselves freely. He was first suspended from teaching for five years by
the University of Lyon-III. Then, on November 7th and 8th, 2006, he had to
appear before a court in Lyon made up of presiding judge Fernand Schir and
two associates. Pressures and blackmail led him to break down and
acknowledge before his judges the existence of the genocide of the Jews and
the Nazi gas chambers. The court's decision will be pronounced on January
18, 2007. It must be realised that French law prohibits any disputing of the
reality of Nazi crimes against the Jews "even if [such disputing] is
presented in veiled or dubitative form or by way of insinuation"(Code pénal,
2006, p. 2059). Consequently, with regard to this matter one must neither
dispute nor even appear to dispute.
E N D
www.australiafreepress.org
|
|
Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell # 7
$10 - 180 Pages
Find out who this "premier thought criminal" really is -
how he thinks, how he writes, what he's really saying! You will
be astonished to learn why this man is so feared by the world's
manipulators of your thoughts!
Order form: HTML
format | PDF
Format |
Reminder:
Help free Ernst Zundel, Prisoner of Conscience. His
prison sketches - now on-line and highly popular - help pay for his defence.
Take a look - and tell a friend.
http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html
|
Please write to Ernst Zündel, let him know that he is not
alone:
Ernst Zundel
JVA Mannheim
Justiz-Vollzugsanstalt
Herzogenried Strasse 111
D 68169 Mannheim
Germany
|
|
|
