- 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.
- 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
- 3) of having, essentially with those weapons but also through
other means, caused the death of 6 million Jews.
- 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 (http://www.crif.org/?page=articles_display/detail&aid=7
- 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
- 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 6 million victims. However,in 60+ years, Jewish or
non-Jewish accusing historians have shown themselves to be incapable of
offering 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 corpseswhich, steeped with cyanide gas on
both outside and inside, would have become untouchable.
- Hydrogen cyanide adheres firmly to surfaces; it penetrates
even cement and bricks and is very difficult to remove from a room by ventilation;
it penetrates the skin, it settles within the body, mixing with its fluids.
In the United States it is precisely this poison that is used still today
in an execution chamber to kill a condemned prisoner, but that precise
chamber is of steel and glass and is equipped with machinery which is,
of necessity, quite complex, calling for extraordinary precautions in its
use; it is enough to see an American gas chamber designed for putting to
death a lone individual to realise that the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers,
which supposedly served to kill crowds of individuals, day after day, can
neither have existed nor functioned.
- But then, as people will ask, what became of all those
Jews concerning whom we revisionists have concluded from our research that
they were never killed? The answer is already there, right before our eyes
and within everyone's grasp:
- A part of the Jewish population of Europe died,
like tens of millions of non-Jews, due to the war and to hunger and disease,
and another part plainly and simply survived the war in their millions.
These latter fraudulently had themselves dubbed "miraculous"
survivors. In 1945 the "survivors" and "miraculous escapees"
were there to be counted by the million and they spread throughout
the world to fifty or so countries, beginning with Palestine.
- How could an alleged decision of total physical extermination
of the Jews have so engendered millions of "miraculous" Jewish
survivors? With millions of "miraculous survivors" there is no
longer any miracle: it is a false miracle, a lie, a fraud.
- For my part, in 1980, I summed up, in a sentence of 60
French words, the findings produced by revisionist research:
- The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide
of the Jews form one & the same historical lie, which has permitted
a gigantic political & financial swindle whose beneficiaries are
the state of Israel & 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, 26 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 2 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
- 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
- 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 60 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 20 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 over-abundance 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 , p. 171; English version: Harvest of Hate, New York, Holocaust
Library, 1979, revised and expanded edition).
- There is here an extraordinary concession to the revisionist
case. In effect, such a formidable criminal undertaking supposedly conceived,
ordered, organised and perpetrated by the Germans would have necessitated
an order, a plan, instructions, a budget, Such an undertaking, carried
out over several years on a whole continent and generating the death of
millions of victims, would have left a flood of documentary evidence.
- Consequently, if we are told that there perhaps has never
existed any such documentary evidence, it is because the crime in question
was not perpetrated. In the complete absence of documents, the historian
has no longer anything to do but keep quiet. L. Poliakov made this concession
in 1951, that is, 55 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).
- This sudden & unexplained concession is significant.At
Nuremberg trial the only homicidal gas chamber that the accusationventured
to show in a film had been that of Dachau, and the testimonies telling
of alleged homicidal gassings in the 3 above-mentioned camps had been
numerous. M. Broszat thus implicitly acknowledged that those testimonies
- 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 to believe that,in this room that looks like showers
(and for good reason, since that is what it was), people had well and truly
- 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).
- 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 3 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
- 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 question in this manner,is because he is incapable of
answering. And if 34 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 2
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).
- 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 32 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, 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 14 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 factthe 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 forat 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 2
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 2 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."
- 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,
- 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,
- 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).
- 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 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.
- 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).
- 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 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 gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable" (The "Final
Solution" in History, New York, Pantheon Books, p. 362).
- 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, 6 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"
- He bemoaned "the large gaps in the documentation"
and added: "There subsists no document bearing an extermination order
signed by Hitler.  In all likelihood, the orders were given verbally.
 here the traces are not only few and far between, but difficult to interpret"
- 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.