*** A stunning summary of the importance of Revisionism by Dr. Robert Faurisson ***

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

Robert FAURISSON 
4 February 2006


For Hossein Amiri

	I have not yet met Hossein Amiri, who works at the Iranian 
press agency Mehr News, and have not read the manuscript of the book 
on the "Holocaust" and on revisionism that, as he tells me, he plans 
to have published soon by the Center for Palestine and Middle East 
Records and Strategic Studies (Tehran). Nonetheless, I have been able 
to carry on a correspondence with him that gives me the impression of 
an effective activist for historical revisionism, and I consider that 
in this quality he deserves the support of revisionists in the entire 
world. In the fight that we are waging against the myth of the 
alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews, researchers and activists from Iran 
or the Arab countries remain still so few that the advent amongst the 
revisionists of a man like Hossein Amiri is to be warmly welcomed 
indeed.

	The myth of the "Holocaust" or "Shoah" is at the basis of the 
creation, in 1947-1948, of the State of Israel and has, with time, 
become that State's sword and shield. To combat this myth and its 
harmful effects, historical revisionism presents itself as the only 
possible recourse. As such, revisionism is the atomic weapon of the 
poor and weak against the Great Lie of the rich and mighty of this 
world. Without killing anyone, revisionism could undo, down to its 
foundations, one of the most dangerous historical lies of all time, 
that of the alleged genocide of the Jews of Europe (with its millions 
of "survivors"!) and that of the alleged Hitlerite gas chambers 
(which, in reality, never existed either at Auschwitz or anywhere 
else!).  

	From 1945 onwards, with the Second World War just ended, the 
Western European powers saw their colonies swiftly vanish. However it 
was precisely during this period that, paradoxically, two deviant 
phenomena, both born in 1948, in the very midst of that general 
decolonization, were seen to arise and gain strength: in South 
Africa, the institution of apartheid and, in the Middle East, the 
creation, through violence, of a racialist and colonialist 
territorial entity that styled itself a "Jewish State" and endowed 
itself with a "Jewish Army".

	South African apartheid provoked such a negative reaction on 
the part of what one may call the international community that it 
wound up disappearing. But the State of Israel, at its end, has 
maintained itself in the land of Palestine and is, today more than 
ever, financed and armed by the big Western powers, first and 
foremost Germany and the United States. It has even become a nuclear 
power.

	The anomaly comprised by that brutal colonization of 
Palestine in the middle of a worldwide process of decolonization is 
easy to explain. In 1945, tricked by the Jewish and Zionist 
propaganda machine, the peoples of the Western world let themselves 
be convinced that, during the Second World War, Adolf Hitler had 
attempted to exterminate the Jews, and in a particularly atrocious, 
systematic manner. Hitler, apparently, had succeeded in having six 
million innocent Jews killed, notably in chemical slaughterhouses 
called "gas chambers". Thus, in 1947, the reasoning of the members of 
the United Nations Organization, created in 1945, was somewhat as 
follows: 1) in the recent war, the Germans inflicted hardships upon 
the European Jews amounting to an unprecedented martyrdom; 2) it is 
therefore imperative to come to the aid of the survivors of that 
community; 3) it is fitting to compensate these people by all 
possible means; 4) for exceptional sufferings, an exceptional remedy: 
it is of course not normal to grant, albeit only in part, to one 
people a land belonging to another people but, for the Jews, who have 
suffered so much, an exception will be made, to the detriment Š of 
the Palestinians. ("Why not to the detriment of the European 
criminals?" wondered aloud the late British historian Arnold Toynbee, 
himself a believer in the "Holocaust").

	It is usually forbidden to grab hold of another's belongings, 
to chase a people out of its land through violence, to seek to 
enslave that people, to deny it the right to a State of its own, an 
army, a currency, to dictate its law and lock it up in Bantustans, 
keeping it in a prison whose barriers are a good deal higher and more 
forbidding than the "Berlin wall". Nonetheless, that is what the Jews 
of the Diaspora, in defiance of the most basic rules and rights, have 
since 1948 managed to accomplish in Palestine. They have ignored all 
their promises to the UN to respect, in part, the Palestinians' 
rights and, afterwards, they have considered all the UN's calls to 
order null and void. Today, the Jews and the Zionists term whoever 
resists them with weapons a "terrorist". Whoever speaks out against 
their colonialism is declared an "anti-Semite". Finally, whoever 
proves that their "Holocaust" or "Shoah" is, in fact, but a myth is 
denounced as a "denier" or a "negationist", prompted by the 
diabolical spirit of doubt.

	"Terrorist", "anti-Semite", "denier" or "negationist": these 
words stamp the mark of Cain on your forehead. But the duty of the 
historian or researcher is to go and see, up close, the reality 
hiding behind those insults. And the reality in question is that Jews 
and Zionists have been lying and continue to lie. Their alleged 
"Holocaust" is a historical lie, which is extraordinarily profitable 
for them and, from their point of view, must be safeguarded at all 
costs. In the light of this exorbitant lie and this swindle of 
near-planetary dimensions, the actions of both the Zionists, who have 
gone on robbing and killing the Palestinians, and the Diaspora Jews, 
who approve of Zionism and fund it, are all the graver.

	Hitler did effectively try to expel the Jews from Europe. A 
good number of other countries before Germany, through the millennia 
and up to modern times, had wished to proceed with an expulsion of 
the Jews from their respective territories. On the motives for this 
quasi-universal rejection, the first page of Jewish writer Bernard 
Lazare's 1894 book Anti-Semitism: its history and causes is 
worthwhile reading. In a summing-up, he wrote that it was by their 
very own conduct, in every place and at every time, that the Jews, at 
first welcomed, in the long run brought on the natives' impatience 
and revolt.

	Before and during the war, on numerous occasions and even as 
late as in April 1945, Hitler and the National Socialist leaders 
publicly proposed that the Allies take the Jews of Europe into their 
own countries. "Have them, these Jews you find so wonderful; we'll 
make a present of them to you. Why do you hesitate?": the National 
Socialists put it in words clearly to that effect. Apart from a few 
rare cases, the Allies replied either with silence or refusal, for 
they knew perfectly well that Hitler was not at all going about 
exterminating the Jews. We have, for example, documentary proof that 
the senior Allied officials did not believe the madcap stories of gas 
chambers, a fact that explains why, either during or after the war, 
Churchill, De Gaulle, Eisenhower, Stalin, Benes and others of their 
station never spoke of those vaudeville-hall monstrosities. Hitler 
sought merely to achieve a "final territorial solution to the Jewish 
question". The court historians systematically erase the cumbersome 
adjective "territorial", preferring to speak only of a "final 
solution" and, thanks to this wrongful shortening of a phrase, let 
people understand that it was a matter of solving the Jewish question 
through a methodical extermination! Hitler, in reality, wanted to see 
a territory reserved for the Jews somewhere outside of Europe, but 
not in Palestine.

	Still, in the face of the practical impossibility of ridding 
himself of a few million Jews or of finding them a territory during 
the war, he decided to pen a certain number of them (not all!) in 
concentration camps or labor camps, hopeful of resolving "the Jewish 
question" after the end of the conflict. Despite the efforts made by 
the camp administrators and physicians in the field of health and 
hygiene, dreadful epidemics, particularly of typhus, wreaked havoc 
there. It must be said that, for some generations, typhus had been 
endemically rife among the Jews of the East. In the last months of 
the war, especially under the effects of Anglo-American bombing raids 
and the steady incursion of Soviet troops, Germany lived through an 
apocalypse and, what with the paralysis of her industries and 
transport, everyone's lot worsened considerably. When the Allies 
liberated the camps, they insistently photographed the dead and the 
dying and diffused the images throughout the world, whilst keeping to 
themselves their photographs showing crowds of internees who, in 
spite of all, had remained in good health. They filmed the crematory 
ovens as though the Germans had used them to kill people whereas 
those ovens had served to incinerate corpses, cremation being a more 
healthful and modern method than burial, especially in places where 
the risks of epidemics and contamination reigned. The Allies also 
showed disinfection gas chambers as if they had served to kill 
detainees whereas in reality they were used to disinfect clothing 
and, thus, to protect the health of all. They exhibited cans of an 
insecticide (Zyklon B) as if that product had been employed to 
asphyxiate humans whereas it served to kill lice, carriers of typhus. 
They showed piles of hair, shoes, eyeglasses or clothes as if those 
objects had belonged to the "gassed" whereas it is well known that, 
in all of blockaded Europe at war, with the ensuing scarcity and 
shortages of nearly everything, the recovery for recycling of all 
possible substances was carried out, including that of human hair, 
which was used in the textile industry of the time; therefore it was 
normal that, both inside and outside of the camps, numerous 
storehouses or workshops should be found in which the authorities had 
been trying to recycle all those objects and materials. In other 
words, to sum up, what Germany, a modern nation, had undertaken in 
order to save people's lives and ensure her survival in a context of 
both war and a war economy, the Allies managed, by a clever 
propaganda, to present as an enterprise of the physical extermination 
of human beings. That propaganda knew how to exploit the old 
superstitions according to which the doctor, chemist and scholar are 
more or less hand in glove with the Devil.

	  As for Germany, completely flattened as she was, there was 
no course open but to submit to the conquerors' will. At the 
Nuremberg trial and in a hundred other such courtroom spectacles, she 
was prevented from freely making a case in her defense and, without 
any veritable evidence, without any veritable technical or scientific 
investigation, her conquerors pronounced her guilty of incredible 
outrages. She bowed before them, accused herself as well and, for 
sixty years, her leaders and her elites have never ceased practicing 
the self flagellation imposed on the great vanquished nation. Germany 
has no other choice. Today, if ever a senior German official were to 
come out and denounce the lie of the "Holocaust", the resulting 
clamor of the Jews and the world media's indignation would take on 
such proportions that a boycott of Germany would be decreed, German 
equities would collapse in value and the country would head straight 
towards massive unemployment and ruin.

	The revisionists have amply demonstrated that there never 
existed, nor could exist, a single order by Hitler to kill the Jews. 
We have proof that, even during the war, German soldiers or officers 
guilty of killing even just one Jewish man or woman could be brought 
to court martial, sentenced to death and shot, a fact which of course 
does not mean that, for example, caught in the heat of battle, 
notably in the face of snipers and partisans, German troops, like all 
other troops in the world, were not capable of committing excesses or 
outrages towards civilians. There did not exist in National Socialist 
Germany any order, directive, or instruction telling anyone to murder 
Jews. Nor did there exist any measures for the monitoring of the 
purported extermination project: no budget, no agency nor any 
official in charge of carrying out such a policy. On January 20, 
1942, at the gathering called "Wannsee Conference", fifteen German 
officials vaguely discussed for a few hours a program of expulsion of 
the Jews from the European domain and, provisionally, whilst awaiting 
the war's end, of putting to forced labor those among them, men and 
women, who were able to work. During the same meeting, there was 
envisaged a Jewish "renewal" somewhere outside of Europe after the 
war, with a "germinal cell" made up of the best elements, i.e. those 
Jews who would have survived the deportation and forced labor. Before 
the war, and still in the early stages thereof, the Germans had 
seriously considered as a solution the settling of European Jews on 
the island of Madagascar. In doing so they were taking up an idea 
that had been studied in 1937 by the Polish, French and British 
authorities, and even by the American Jewish Joint Distribution 
Committee, but, with the intensification of the conflict, they had to 
abandon that idea. As for the settling of European Jews in Palestine, 
they had ended up firmly opposing it. As late as in January 1944, 
during talks with the British, the German foreign office stated that, 
if the British would in fact agree to take in a convoy of 5,000 Jews 
comprised of children (85%) and accompanying adults (15%), it could 
only be on condition of accepting them definitively and of 
prohibiting their subsequent emigration to Palestine:  

The Government of the Reich cannot take part in a maneuver aimed at 
allowing the Jews to chase the noble and valiant Palestinian people 
from their mother country, Palestine. These talks can continue only 
on condition that the British Government declare its readiness to 
accommodate the Jews in Great Britain and not in Palestine, and that 
it guarantee them the possibility to settle there definitively 
(reminder from von Thadden, of the German foreign office's Gruppe 
Inland II, Berlin, 29 April, 1944; document catalogued by the Allies 
under the number NG-1794 and reproduced in French by Henri Monneray, 
former assistant in the French delegation's office of prosecution at 
the Nuremberg trial, in his work La Persécution des juifs dans les 
Pays de l'Est, assemblage of documents, Paris, Editions du Centre 
[i.e., the Centre de documentation juive contemporaine], 1949, p. 
169-170).

	On January 18, 1945 Heinrich Himmler wrote in a personal note 
made after a meeting with Swiss president Jean-Marie Lusy, who served 
as intermediary with the Americans:  

Once again I more precisely stated to him my view [on the Jews]. We 
put our Jews to work, including, of course, in heavy labor, such as 
road and canal construction, in mining operations, and as a result 
there has been a high death rate. Since negotiations began about 
improving the lot of the Jews, they have been assigned to normal 
work, although naturally they have to work, just like Germans, in the 
armaments industry. Our point of view on the Jewish question is this: 
we are not at all interested in the position taken by America and 
England regarding the Jews. One thing is clear: based on our decades 
of experience with them since the [first] world war, we do not want 
them in Germany or in the German living space, and in this matter we 
will not allow any discussion. If America wants them, we welcome 
that. It is not to be permitted - and for this a guarantee must be 
given - that the Jews whom we let out by way of Switzerland ever be 
transferred to Palestine. We know that the Arabs reject the Jews just 
as much as we Germans do and we will not permit the indecency 
[Unanständigkeit] of sending still more Jews to that poor nation 
already tormented by the Jews (original document, with Himmler's 
hand-written annotations, as reproduced by Werner Maser, Nürnberg, 
Tribunal der Sieger, Droemer Knaur, Munich-Zurich, 1979, p. 262-263).

	In their common war against, on the one hand, the British 
and, on the other hand, Soviet communism, Adolf Hitler and the Grand 
Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin Al Husseini, were allies. SS 
formations, such as the "Handschar" (scimitar) and "Skanderbeg" (the 
Albanian national hero) divisions, were either largely or wholly made 
up of Moslems and in various spots in Europe, beginning with France, 
Arabs had rallied to the German cause. In Iraq, Rashid Ali and, in 
India, Subhas Chandra Bose, founder of the Indian National Army, had 
also taken sides with Germany and against Britain.

	Today, the Jewish and Zionist propaganda seeks to sully the 
names of those men as it sullies the rest of the world. It accuses 
the Allies of having remained indifferent to the calamitous fate of 
the Jews. It rebukes the neutrals for not having participated in the 
crusade against Germany. It accuses the Vatican. It accuses the 
International Committee of the Red Cross. It accuses the Jews who, 
during the war, belonged to the "Jewish Councils" maintaining 
relations with the Germans. It accuses the Zionists of the Stern 
Group who, in 1941, offered Germany a military alliance against 
Britain. It rebukes all those Zionists who had settled in Palestine, 
along with their press, for having, during the war, received with 
skepticism the rumors circulating about the massacres of Jews at Babi 
Yar or elsewhere and about the gas chambers. It accuses the entire 
world, or just about.

	It is high time that an end were put to this flood of 
accusations, which stems from the myth of the "Holocaust". Since the 
1980s, important historians or other authors, some of whom of Jewish 
origin, have ended up realizing the solidness of the revisionist 
argumentation and, consequently, relinquishing entire sections of 
their belief in the "Holocaust" doctrine with its fake "gas chambers" 
and its alleged "six million victims". In parallel manner, senior 
representatives of Zionism have little by little found themselves 
compelled to relinquish entire sections of their belief in the 
"Greater Israel" utopia. These two beliefs, these two myths, which 
amount to one and the same, will finish in the rubbish bins of 
history.

	Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have put 
themselves at the forefront in the struggle against that double myth. 
It is not only Palestine and the Arabo-Moslem community that should 
be grateful to them but, as may be seen, the entire world, or just 
about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20060219/491a5e16/attachment.htm