World Famous French Professor
Says From All His Research
Nazi Homicidal Gas Chambers
Did Not Exist

Dr. Robert Faurisson
Robert Faurisson is Europe's leading Holocaust revisionist scholar. He was educated at the Paris Sorbonne, and served as associate professor at the University of Lyon in France from 1974 until 1990. He is a recognized specialist of text and document analysis. After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in articles published in 1978 in the French daily Le Monde. His writings on the Holocaust issue have appeared in two books and numerous scholarly articles, many of which have been published in the IHR's Journal of Historical Review.
From Dust Jacket Piece (May 2004)
Dr. Robert Faurisson has concluded from his research that the alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic political-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.
He has demonstrated that, for physical and chemical reasons, the alleged Hitlerite gas chambers could not have existed. He has emphasised that the Germans had wanted not to exterminate the Jews but to expel them from Europe towards a Jewish national home elsewhere than in Palestine; that was what they called "the final solution to the Jewish question" (die territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage).
Many European Jews, civilians or soldiers, died as a result of wartime actions and notably in the typhus epidemics, but many Jews survived and, in their millions, dispersed throughout the world, going so far as to create and people a new State, that of Israel.
Recently R. Faurisson has written that Adolf Hitler's weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers and gas vans) existed no more at that time than do those of Saddam Hussein today. The first lie received official endorsement in November 1944 from an agency called the War Refugee Board, created by president Roosevelt at the instigation of Henry Morgenthau, Junior. The second lie was launched by another Washington agency, the Office of Special Plans, which president Bush Junior created in 2002 at the instigation of Paul Wolfowitz. The world is witness, at nearly sixty years' distance, to the same type of lie and the same type of liars.
Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson holds the agrégation des lettres (highest competitive examination) and a doctorate in "literature and the social sciences". He was professor at the University of Lyon-II where, in particular, he taught the "criticism of texts and documents (literature, history, media)". Divested of his chair by an unexplained ministerial ruling, he has suffered numerous physical assaults and incurred many convictions in the French courts for disputing the myth of the "Holocaust". He has published seven works: three of literary revisionism and four of historical revisionism. His four volumes of Écrits révisionnistes (1974-1998) bring together in more than two thousand pages articles, studies and critical revisions of texts in which the upholders of an official history, increasingly religious and repressive in character, are seen to yield step by step, on the plane of reason, before the arguments and discoveries of historical revisionism initiated, in France, by Paul Rassinier, author of Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (1950).
**** Foreword (May 2004)
The first edition of the present work dates from March 1999. I was indebted for its production to Serge Thion and his lady friend, who had been willing to compile, with a view to publication, articles and studies which, in addition to some books or other revisionist writings, I had drafted between 1974 and 1998. The present edition reproduces the contents of the first but not without abundant corrections of detail. I owe this revised and corrected edition to Jean Plantin and, especially, to Yvonne Schleiter. The index of names has been reworked. In the absence of an index of subjects, there is a "reader's guide" which I owe to Jean-Marie Boisdefeu. This second edition was supposed to appear in 2001 but we have until now been constantly forced to postpone it. I had promised in addition to these four volumes a volume of illustrations; I regret not being able to keep that promise all the more as my work, essentially concrete, would have benefited from the accompaniment of documents and photographs of which, moreover, I possess a great number.
On 2 February of this year, I devoted an article to my "Sombre Appraisal of Historical Revisionism". Since that date, the situation has worsened. The conference that was to have assembled more than two hundred sympathisers of the revisionist cause on the 24th and 25th of April in Sacramento, the capital of California, was cancelled and, in Toronto, the worst is to be feared for Ernst Zündel, who has been kept languishing for fifteen months in solitary confinement without charge. His cruel detention has recently been endorsed by a superior court in its refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
Today, those active in revisionist research or diffusion are very few. We may cite mainly Walter Mueller, Ingrid Rimland, Germar Rudolf (helped by his friend Jürgen Graf in Russia), Michael Santomauro and Bradley Smith in the United States, Heinz Koppe in Canada, Fredrick Toben in Australia, Carlo Mattogno in Italy, Jean Plantin in France, Vincent Reynouard in Belgium, Ahmed Rami and Serge Thion on the Internet.
On the scientific plane, revisionism has achieved total victory. It no longer has a single adversary. The Hilbergs, the Vidal-Naquets, the Klarsfelds, the Berenbaums, the Deborah Lipstadts and one van Pelt, happy with repeating as his own the flimsy arguments of one Jean-Claude Pressac, have been reduced to nothing. The revisionists find themselves opposed only by Spielberg-style films, Yad Vashem ceremonies, Disneyland-inspired museums, pilgrimages to Auschwitz, continuous media ballyhoo, brainwashing at school and at university and, finally, a State propaganda buttressed by legislative repression. Our foes have bowed to our strength in the field but practically no one knows it, for the losers, what with their power in the mass media and their virtuoso bluffing, go on blowing their trumpets or shofars as if they had won the battle.
Their historians claimed that Hitler had carried out a policy of extermination against the Jews, notably using weapons of mass destruction called execution gas chambers or gas vans. Besides, they assured us that, on the Eastern front, the Einsatzgruppen had indulged in gigantic massacres of Jews. In sum, they would have us believe that nearly the entire community of Jews in Europe had thus been exterminated.
Such a vast crime would have presupposed an order from on high, a project, a plan, overall directives, comprehensive instructions, financing, checks of operations and expenditures, a multitude of specific or general assessments, research into and development of weapons the like of which humanity had never known, along with the involvement of large numbers of military men, scientists, engineers, labourers and employees. An undertaking of the sort, especially if conducted in tightest secrecy, would also have called for an array of draconian measures. The whole project would have left numerous pieces of irrefutable evidence, both material and documentary.
At first, the official historians had the nerve to assert that such evidence indeed existed, and "in abundance". But to the challenge to produce "one bit of proof, just one" of their choosing, they beat a retreat and since then, following the example of J.-C. Pressac, have invoked only the existence of "criminal traces" or "beginnings of proof". Pursuing their withdrawal still further, they have invented an account telling that the great massacre happened without an order, without a directive, spontaneously (like "spontaneous generation", in a way). The most prestigious of them, Raul Hilberg, falling back from his original affirmation that there had been two orders from the Führer to kill the Jews, has been reduced to maintaining that in fact it all came about without an order, without a plan, and only thanks to "an incredible meeting of minds" within the vast German bureaucracy, and by "a consensus mind-reading" amongst Nazi bureaucrats!
No one has been able to find any premises that might have been a genuine execution gas chamber. Nor a single execution gas van. In respect to the greatest crime in the world the accusation cannot provide any forensic study of the crime weapon. Amongst the post-mortems there is not one that establishes gassing as the cause of death. Those alleged witnesses to "gassings" who have been put under precise cross-examination in public court proceedings have been unmasked. The "execution gas chambers" shown to tourists have revealed themselves to be Potemkin village contrivances. The massacres imputed to the Einsatzgruppen have left behind no common burial sites approaching the mass graves of the Katyn forest slaughter (4,255 corpses counted), an acknowledged crime whose perpetrators were our very own Soviet allies.
On the other hand, there is no lack of facts to prove that the 3rd Reich never had a policy of physical extermination of the Jews. Even on the Eastern front, the killing of an innocent Jewish civilian was punishable by heavy sanctions, including the death penalty. Those soldiers who engaged in any form of excess with regard to Jews were liable to sentence by a German court martial. There are countless examples of measures taken, even in the camps, for the protection of the Jews against the excesses inherent to all forms of detention, as well as against the ravages caused by the epidemics.
The Germans had an obsessive fear of disorder, of contagion, of the loss of manpower; even at Auschwitz there were training centres for young Jews to learn various manual trades.
Millions of Jews survived the war, in spite of the great carnage throughout Europe at the time, and in spite of the apocalypse of a Germany pulverised by the Allied bombardments. Calling themselves "survivors" or "miraculous escapees", many still today make up the membership of organisations craving financial reparations. Now, fifty-nine years after the war, the number of these "survivors" has recently been estimated at 687,900 (the figure given by New York based demographer Jacob Ukeles, cited in the article by Amiran Barkat "US Court to discuss question of who is a Holocaust survivor", Haaretz, 18 April 2004).
During the war, Jewish leaders uttered alarming words about an extermination of the Jews, but their conduct showed that they did not really believe in it. The Allied governments saw that they were dealing with "Jews trying to stoke us up". And then, the "brown Jews" of the "international Jewish collaboration" were not wanting. Zionists and National-Socialists shared, to a certain degree, a particular worldview; hence, in 1941, the Stern Group's offer of military collaboration with Germany against the British. As late as 21 April 1945 a member of the World Jewish Congress, Norbert Masur, was received by Himmler to discuss the matter of Jews to be delivered to the Allies.
The Germans sought to expel the Jews from Europe, if possible with the accord of the rest of the world. They had in mind a "territorial final solution of the Jewish question" ("eine territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage", as written in a foreign ministry memorandum of 21 August 1942 bearing the signature of an official called Martin Luther).
In France on 6 March 2004, during Thierry Ardisson's television discussion programme "Tout le monde en parle" ("Everyone's talking about it"), admiral Philippe de Gaulle was heard to state, regarding the Jews: "The Germans wanted, if not to exterminate them, at least to get them out [of Europe]". That reflection, hardly lacking in soundness, met only with silence in the media. Also h idden from the general public is the fact that neither Churchill, nor Eden, nor Roosevelt, nor Truman, nor Eisenhower, nor de Gaulle, nor Stalin ever cared to mention the "gas chambers" or the "gas vans".
Those amongst them who, years after the conflict had ended, wrote their wartime memoirs also persisted in keeping quiet on the subject, as did Pius XII, although he was yet more hostile to Hitler than to Stalin (see Robert Faurisson, Le Révisionnisme de Pie XII, 2003, 120 p.). Adolf Hitler's "weapons of mass destruction", his alleged execution gas chambers and gas vans, existed no more than the "weapons of mass destruction" of Saddam Hussein. In the two instances the lie and the liars have been of identical origin: in 1944, under the aegis of Franklin Roosevelt, the War Refugee Board spawned by Henry Morgenthau Jr and, in 2002, under the aegis of George Bush Jr, the Office of Special Plans spawned by Paul Wolfowitz.
Unhappily, today, intoxicated by holocaustic propaganda, people are not of a mind to call their beliefs into question. The "Shoah" has become a religious superstition inspiring reverence or fear. Conscious both of its own fragility and of the precarious standing of the State of Israel, of which it is the sword and the shield, this religion has erected daunting walls of defence, and harshly suppresses any who seek to stand up to it. In the past, it took courage and sacrifices to be a truly active revisionist; to remain one in future will require the heroism of Antigone and an uncommon self-abnegation.
Professor F. Littell has said: "You can't discuss the truth of the holocaust. That is a distortion of the concept of free speech. The United States should emulate West Germany, which outlaws such exercises."
-- Mind-boggling! Don't you think?



This Site Served by TheHostPros