At Teheran Conf 2005

Real History vs the Court-Approved Version

Posted Sunday, December 31, 2006

A paper read by Professor Robert Faurisson to the Tehran holocaust conference, December 11, 2006 [ click for Italian text: VITTORIE REVISIONISTE ] Professor Faurisson interviewed by Iran Television, 11-12-2006 Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, Robert 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.)

The Victories of Revisionism By: Le professeur Robert Faurisson 11 décembre 2006 To President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad To our prisoners of conscience Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Horst Mahler Abstract At the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), a tribunal of the victors accused a defeated Germany notably of having ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews of Europe; of having, to that end, designed and used certain weapons of mass destruction, in particular those that it called “gas

chambers”; 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. 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 [ right, Leuchter far right with Faurisson ] 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 Dissecting the Holocaust / The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory”, a work of over 600 pages published in 2000 under the name Ernst Gauss, 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 [ Fabius-Gayssot ] 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 NF45,000, 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 . 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 Adolf 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: 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; 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; 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.

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.

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.

The third of these facts is that the alleged Nazi gas chambers of Auschwitz or elsewhere are quite simply inconceivable for obvious physical and chemical reasons; never after the purported hydrogen cyanide gassing of hundreds or thousands of persons in a closed space could others have soon entered in a veritable bath of that poison and proceeded to handle and remove so many corpses which, steeped with cyanide gas on both outside and inside, would have become untouchable.

Hydrogen cyanide adheres firmly to surfaces; it penetrates even cement and bricks and is very difficult to remove from a room by ventilation; it penetrates the skin, it settles within the body, mixing with its fluids.

In the United States it is precisely this poison that is used still today in an execution chamber to kill a condemned prisoner, but that precise chamber is of steel and glass and is equipped with machinery which is, of necessity, quite complex, calling for extraordinary precautions in its use; it is enough to see an American gas chamber designed for putting to death a lone individual to realise that the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers, which supposedly served to kill crowds of individuals, day

after day, can neither have existed nor functioned. But then, as people will ask, what became of all those Jews concerning whom we revisionists have concluded from our research that they were never killed?

The answer is already there, right before our eyes and within everyone’s grasp: a part of the Jewish population of Europe died, like tens of millions of non-Jews, due to the war and to hunger and disease, and another part plainly and simply survived the war in their millions. These latter fraudulently had themselves dubbed “miraculous” survivors.

In 1945 the “survivors” and “miraculous escapees” were there to be counted by the million and they spread throughout the world to fifty or so countries, beginning with Palestine. How could an alleged decision of total physical extermination of the Jews have so engendered millions of “miraculous” Jewish survivors?

With millions of “miraculous survivors” there is no longer any miracle: it is a false miracle, a lie, a fraud.

For my part, in 1980 I summed up, in a sentence of sixty French words, the findings produced by revisionist research: The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

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, “¦ 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 , right, 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. [ Click image to enlarge ].

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 No.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