France - Prof. Faurisson On Trial For Thought Crimes

Post Freedom Fighters Penal Addresses, their stories and travails contact information. As long as our Feddies are acting like criminals and jailing good people, this board will EXIST
pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

France - Prof. Faurisson On Trial For Thought Crimes

Post#1 » Mon May 29, 2006 11:54 pm

France - Prof. Faurisson On Trial For Thought Crimes
By Dr. Robert Faurisson
5-20-6
http://www.rense.com/general71/intrail.htm

My own trial is to take place on Tuesday July 11 in the XVIIth chamber of the Paris criminal court (2, 4 Boulevard du Palais; nearest underground station: "Cité") at 1.30 p.m. I am accused of having granted, last year, an interview of revisionist nature to the Iranian radio and television station Sahar, in the context of a telephone conversation with a Teheran journalist who had called me. Since the satellite channel Sahar's broadcasts can be picked up in France, our Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA), headed by Dominique Baudis, filed charges against me with the public prosecutor's office in Paris.

START:

In France as well, heightening repression of revisionism

Already on March 3, 2006 Georges Theil, 65, a retired telecommunications engineer, had seen his conviction for "Holocaust denial" upheld by the court of appeal of Limoges. He was guilty of sending, in a period running from April to June 2004, a booklet of his own revisionist writings to just a small number of persons in that region, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment without remission and a fine of ¤30,000, ordered to pay ¤9,300 in damages, and hit with still other sanctions as well.

Yesterday, May 17, in Lyon the same Georges Theil was convicted on appeal for having made a brief revisionist statement on October 14, 2004 in front of a local television journalist's camera, and sentenced to a new six-month prison term without remission, fined another ¤10,000, and ordered to pay ¤40,500 in damages as well as to cover the costs of having the judgment published in two newspapers (probably as much as ¤8,000).

The offender has lodged a petition concerning the first case with the superior court of appeal in Paris, and is going to do the same for the second. If he fails there, he will, in principle, have to go to prison. In the first case, he has already paid out ¤39,300, and even a bit more. In the second case, he is going to have to pay out ¤50,500, not counting the legal publication fees. Some organisations have reacted with lightning speed: this very morning, by faxes sent to Georges Theil's solicitor, they were demanding their pound of flesh.

In addition to these financial penalties it is appropriate to note, for the six proceedings involved (trials, first appeals, final appeals), the lawyer's fees and other costs amounting to substantial sums.

As for the French media, they either pass these convictions over in silence or say they are glad of them.

On January 15 of this year, Georges Theil had sent out a plea for support to the 45 French intellectuals who were ostentatiously demanding, in the name of freedom of historical research and freedom of expression, repeal of the laws hindering those freedoms. Only two intellectuals answered him: one, Edgar Morin, who is Jewish, told him he could not help in any way because he had himself been found guilty of "racial defamation" (he had, to the mind of the Paris court of appeal, too strongly criticised Israeli policy!); the other, professor René Rémond, a Catholic and a shabbos goy, wrote back curtly expressing his refusal to come to Theil's aid.

Addendum of 20 May 2006: In a note bearing today's date, G. Theil, recalling another, earlier conviction, estimates the sum total of his financial penalties and costs at ¤130,000.

G. Theil's postal address: BP 50-38, F-38037 GRENOBLE CEDEX 2 (France)

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Professor Faurisson's paper for Tehran Holocaust Conference

Post#2 » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:47 pm

http://www.australiafreepress.org/artic ... erence.htm

AustraliaFreePress.org

Professor Faurisson's paper for Tehran Holocaust Conference 2006
(English version)


Robert FAURISSON
December 11, 2006

To President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
To our prisoners of conscience Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Horst
Mahler

To Arthur Butz, Fred Leuchter, Barbara Kulaszka, Ahmed Rami, Gerd
Honsik, Heinz Koppe



The Victories of Revisionism



Abstract

At the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), a tribunal of the victors accused
a defeated Germany notably

1) of having ordered and planned the physical extermination of
the Jews of Europe;

2) of having, to that end, designed and used certain weapons of
mass destruction, in particular those that it called "gas chambers";

3) of having, essentially with those weapons but also through
other means, caused the death of six million Jews.

In support of that threefold accusation, regularly taken up over the
past sixty years by all the main communications media in the West, no
proof capable of standing up to examination has been produced.
Professor Robert Faurisson concluded in 1980:

"The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the
Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a
gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are
the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims
are the German people - but not their leaders - and the Palestinian
people in their entirety."

In 2006 he maintains that conclusion in full. In nearly sixty years,
the revisionists, beginning with the Frenchmen Maurice Bardèche and
Paul Rassinier, have accumulated, from the historical and scientific
point of view, an impressive series of victories over their
opponents. Twenty examples of such victories, running from 1951 to
today, are given here.

Revisionism is not an ideology but a method inspired by the search
for exactitude in matters of history. Circumstances have seen to it
that revisionism is also the great intellectual adventure of the
present time.



Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson
taught classical letters (French, Latin, Greek) before specialising
first in the analysis of modern and contemporary French literary
texts and, finally, in the appraisal of texts and documents
(literature, history, media). He was professor at the Sorbonne and
the University of Lyon. Because of his historical revisionist stands,
he was effectively forbidden from teaching. He has incurred many
convictions in the law courts and has suffered ten physical assaults.
In France, access to the press, radio and television is barred to
him, as it is to all revisionists. Amongst his works: Écrits
révisionnistes (1974-1998), in four volumes (2nd edition, LV-2027 p.).



Foreword



The present summary has as its title "The Victories of
Revisionism" and not "History of Revisionism" or "Arguments of the
Revisionist Case". It deals only with victories that our opponents
have had to concede to us either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore
one must not expect to find here a systematic mention of revisionist
authors, works or arguments. If still I had to recommend a short
sample of revisionist readings, I should suggest the prime work of
reference that is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century / The Case
Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, published by
Arthur Robert Butz in 1976. The book is masterful. In the thirty
years of its existence no one has attempted the least refutation, so
solidly is it built; I especially recommend the 2003 edition,
enhanced by five remarkable supplements. It would also be appropriate
to read Fred Leuchter's famous study, An Engineering Report on the
Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek,
Poland, particularly in the gilt cover edition issued by Samisdat
Publishers in Toronto in 1988, containing, on page 42, the text of a
letter of capital importance, dated May 14, 1988, on the utter
absence of openings in the roofs of the alleged gas chambers of
crematoria II and III at Auschwitz-Birkenau. F. Leuchter has also
produced three other reports on the gas chamber question. Not to be
missed is German research chemist Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the
Holocaust / Controversial Issues Cross Examined, Theses &
Dissertations Press (PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, USA), 2005,
along with the same author's impressive periodical series (more than
thirty issues to date) that he has brought out under the title
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, not to mention his
English language magazine The Revisionist and a fair number of other
publications. All told, the work done thus far by G. Rudolf (now aged
42 and imprisoned in Germany) amounts to a formidable scientific
landmark. Finally, let us cite Canadian barrister Barbara Kulaszka's
opus magnum Did Six Million Really Die ? / Report of the Evidence in
the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel, 1988, published in
1992; with its compact print it is equivalent to a volume of about a
thousand pages in regular book format. The text shows how, during
Ernst Zündel's two long trials in Toronto in 1985 and 1988, the other
side, when confronted with the revisionist argumentation, simply
collapsed: a real Stalingrad for the orthodox historians, beginning
with the biggest of them all, Raul Hilberg. Essential studies have
been written by the Germans Wilhelm Stäglich and Udo Walendy, the
Italian Carlo Mattogno, the Spaniard Enrique Aynat Eknes, the Swiss
Jürgen Graf and ten or so other authors. The 97 issues of The Journal
of Historical Review (1980-2002), in good part due to the American
Mark Weber, constitute a mine of information on all aspects of
revisionist research. In France, Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion, Henri
Roques, Pierre Marais, Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin have picked up
where Maurice Bardèche and Paul Rassinier left off. There are now
countless revisionist-oriented publications and websites throughout
the world, and this despite the prevailing censorship and repression.

Nonetheless the "Holocaust" remains the lone official
religion of the entire West, a murderous religion if ever there was
one. And one that continues to fool millions of good souls in the
crudest ways: the display of heaps of eyeglasses, hair, shoes or
valises presented as "relics" of the "gassed", faked or deceptively
exploited photographs, texts of innocuous papers altered or purposely
misinterpreted, endless proliferation of monuments, ceremonies,
shows, the drumming of the Shoah into our heads as early as primary
school, organised excursions to the holy sites of alleged Jewish
martyrdom and great show trials with their calls for lynch-law.

***



President Ahmadinejad has used the right word: the
alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews is a "myth", that is, a belief
maintained by credulity or ignorance. In France it is perfectly
lawful to proclaim unbelief in God but it is forbidden to say that
one does not believe in the "Holocaust", or simply that one has
doubts about it. This prohibition of any kind of disputing became
formal and official with the law of July 13, 1990. The said law was
published in the Journal officiel de la République française on the
next day, that is, the 14th of July, day of commemoration of the
Republic and of Freedom. It states that the punishment may run to as
much as a year's imprisonment and a fine of up to ¤45,000, but there
may also be orders to pay damages and the considerable costs of
judicial publication. Relevant case law specifies that all this
applies "even if [such disputing] is presented in veiled or
dubitative form or by way of insinuation" (Code pénal, Paris, Dalloz,
2006, p. 2059). Thus France has but one official myth, that of the
"Holocaust", and knows but one form of blasphemy, that which offends
the "Holocaust".

On July 11, 2006 I personally was once more summoned to
appear before a Paris court on the grounds of that special law. The
presiding judge, Nicolas Bonnal, had recently attended a training
course on the means of cracking down on revisionism over the
Internet, a course organised by the European office of the Simon
Wiesenthal Centre, in Paris, under the auspices of the Conseil
représentatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF)
(Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France)! In a
release triumphantly headed "The CRIF plays an active part in the
training of European judges" this Jewish body, whose political force
is exorbitant, was not afraid of announcing urbi et orbi that it
listed Nicolas Bonnal amongst its pupils or trainees
(http://www.crif.org/?page=articles_disp ... 7.376.1467).
And that is not all. At my trial, for good measure, the State
prosecutrix happened to be a Jewess by the name of Anne de Fontette;
in the closing words of her talk requesting conviction and
sentencing, she, although supposedly speaking in the name of a
secular State, called for the vengeance of "Yahweh, protector of his
chosen people" against "the lying lips" of Faurisson, guilty of
having granted a telephone interview of revisionist character to an
Iranian radio and television station, Sahar 1.



The findings of revisionist research



The Germans of the Third Reich wanted to extirpate the
Jews from Europe but not to exterminate them. They sought "a
definitive - or final - territorial solution of the Jewish question"
and not a "final solution" in the sense of any physical suppression
(to want a "final solution of unemployment" is not to desire the
death of the unemployed). The Germans had concentration camps but not
"extermination camps" (an expression forged by Allied propaganda).
They used disinfection gas chambers operating notably with an
insecticide called Zyklon-B (the active ingredient of which was
hydrogen cyanide) but never had any homicidal gas chambers or
homicidal gas vans. They used crematory ovens to incinerate corpses
and not to throw living beings into them. After the war, the
photographs purportedly exposing "Nazi atrocities" showed us camp
inmates who were either sick, dying or dead, but not killed. What
with the Allies' blockade and their "area" bombing of Germany, and
the apocalypse experienced by the latter towards the end of a nearly
six-year long conflict, famine and epidemics, notably of typhus, had
ravaged the country and, in particular, the camps in the western
regions, overwhelmed by the arrivals en masse of detainees evacuated
from the camps in the East, and thus severely lacking in food,
medicine and the Zyklon-B needed for protection against typhus.

In the butchery that is a war, people suffer. In a modern
war, the belligerent nations' civilians at times suffer as much if
not more than their soldiers. During the conflict that, from 1933 to
1945, pitted them against the Germans, the European Jews thus had
occasion to suffer but infinitely less so than they dare to assert
with such a nerve. Certainly the Germans treated them as a hostile or
dangerous minority (there were reasons for that), and against these
people the Third Reich authorities were led to take, due to the war,
more and more coercive police or military security measures. In
certain cases those measures amounted to placement in internment
camps or indeed to deportation to concentration or forced labour
camps. Sometimes Jews were even executed for sabotage, spying,
terrorism and, especially, for guerrilla activities in favour of the
Allies, mainly on the Russian front, but not for the simple reason
that they were Jewish. Never did Hitler order or permit the killing
of a person because of his or her race or religion. As for the figure
of six million Jewish deaths, it is a pure invention that has never
been substantiated despite the efforts in that regard by the Yad
Vashem Institute of Jerusalem.

In the face of the formidable accusations thrown at a
defeated Germany the revisionists have said to the accusers:

1) Show us one single document that, in your view, proves that
Hitler or any other National-Socialist ordered and planned the
physical extermination of the Jews;

2) Show us that weapon of mass destruction which, as alleged,
was a gas chamber; show us a single one of them, at Auschwitz or
elsewhere; and if, by chance, you claim that you cannot show us any
because, according to you, the Germans destroyed the "murder weapon",
provide us at least with a technical drawing representing one of
those slaughterhouses which, as you say, the Germans destroyed and
explain to us how that weapon with such a fabulous killing
performance had been able to work without bringing on the death of
either those who ran it or their helpers;

3) Explain to us how you have arrived at your figure of six
million victims.

However, in over sixty years, the Jewish or non-Jewish
accusing historians have shown themselves to be incapable of offering
a response to these requests. Thus they have been accusing without
any evidence. That is what is called slander.

But there is something yet more serious: the revisionists
have set forth a series of established facts proving that the
physical extermination, gas chambers and six million in question
cannot have existed. 1) The first of these facts is that, for the
entire duration of the war, millions of European Jews lived, plain
for all to see, amidst the rest of the population, a good part of
them being employed in factories by the Germans who were cruelly
short of manpower, and those millions of Jews were therefore not
killed. Better still: the Germans stubbornly offered to hand over to
the Allies, up to the last months of the conflict, as many Jews as
they might want on the express condition that they must not
subsequently send them to Palestine; this proviso was made out of
respect for "the noble and valiant Arab people" of that region,
already violently beset by Jewish colonists. 2) The second fact,
which is carefully hidden from us, is that excesses which might be
committed against Jews could well bring on the severest sanctions:
the killing of a single Jew or Jewess could get the perpetrator,
although he be a German soldier, sentenced to death by court martial
and shot. In other words, the Jews under German rule continued to
enjoy, if they observed the regulations in place, the protection of
penal law, even in the face of the armed forces. 3) The third of
these facts is that the alleged Nazi gas chambers of Auschwitz or
elsewhere are quite simply inconceivable for obvious physical and
chemical reasons; never after the purported hydrogen cyanide gassing
of hundreds or thousands of persons in a closed space could others
have soon entered in a veritable bath of that poison and proceeded to
handle and remove so many corpses which, steeped with cyanide gas on
both outside and inside, would have become untouchable. Hydrogen
cyanide adheres firmly to surfaces; it penetrates even cement and
bricks and is very difficult to remove from a room by ventilation; it
penetrates the skin, it settles within the body, mixing with its
fluids. In the United States it is precisely this poison that is used
still today in an execution chamber to kill a condemned prisoner, but
that precise chamber is of steel and glass and is equipped with
machinery which is, of necessity, quite complex, calling for
extraordinary precautions in its use; it is enough to see an American
gas chamber designed for putting to death a lone individual to
realise that the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers, which supposedly
served to kill crowds of individuals, day after day, can neither have
existed norfunctioned.

But then, as people will ask, what became of all those
Jews concerning whom we revisionists have concluded from our research
that they were never killed? The answer is already there, right
before our eyes and within everyone's grasp: a part of the Jewish
population of Europe died, like tens of millions of non-Jews, due to
the war and to hunger and disease, and another part plainly and
simply survived the war in their millions. These latter fraudulently
had themselves dubbed "miraculous" survivors. In 1945 the "survivors"
and "miraculous escapees" were there to be counted by the million and
they spread throughout the world to fifty or so countries, beginning
with Palestine. How could an alleged decision of total physical
extermination of the Jews have so engendered millions of "miraculous"
Jewish survivors? With millions of "miraculous survivors" there is no
longer any miracle: it is a false miracle, a lie, a fraud.

For my part, in 1980 I summed up, in a sentence of sixty
French words, the findings produced by revisionist research:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the
Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a
gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are
the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims
are the German people - but not their leaders - and the Palestinian
people in their entirety.

Today, in 2006, that is, twenty-six years later, I
maintain that sentence in full. It had not been inspired by any
political or religious sympathy or antipathy whatsoever. It had its
ground in certified facts that had begun to be brought to light, on
the one hand, by Maurice Bardèche in 1948 and 1950 in his two books
on the Nuremberg trial and, on the other hand, by Paul Rassinier who,
also in 1950, published his Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (Ulysses's Lie) (See
The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, Costa Mesa, California,
Institute for Historical Review, 1990, XVIII-447 p.). From 1951
onwards, year after year, our adversaries, so rich, so mighty, so
bent on practising all possible forms of repression against
historical revisionism, have found themselves progressively forced to
admit that we are right on the technical, scientific and historical
levels. The victories achieved by Second World War revisionism are
many and significant, but, as must sadly be recognised, they still
remain, in our day, almost wholly unknown to the greater public. The
mighty have done everything to conceal these victories from the
world. That is understandable: their domination and sharing of the
world between them are in a way grounded in the religion of the
alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews. Calling the "Holocaust" into
question, publicly disclosing the extraordinary imposture of it all,
pulling the masks off the politicians, journalists, historians,
academics and people of the churches, clans and coteries who, for
more than sixty years, have been preaching falsehoods whilst all the
time casting anathema on the unbelievers, amounts to a perilous
adventure. But, as will be seen here, despite the repression, time
seems in the end to be on the revisionists' side.



Examples of revisionist victories



I shall recall here just twenty of these victories:



1) In 1951 the Jew Léon Poliakov, who had been part of
the French delegation at the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), stated his
conclusion that we had at our disposal an overabundance of documents
for all points of the history of the Third Reich, with the exception
of one point alone: the "campaign to exterminate the Jews". For this,
he wrote, "No document remains, perhaps none has ever existed"
(Bréviaire de la haine, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1974 [1951], p. 171;
English version: Harvest of Hate, New York, Holocaust Library, 1979,
revised and expanded edition).

Remark: There is here an extraordinary concession to the revisionist
case. In effect, such a formidable criminal undertaking supposedly
conceived, ordered, organised and perpetrated by the Germans would
have necessitated an order, a plan, instructions, a budget, Š Such an
undertaking, carried out over several years on a whole continent and
generating the death of millions of victims, would have left a flood
of documentary evidence. Consequently, if we are told that there
perhaps has never existed any such documentary evidence, it is
because the crime in question was not perpetrated. In the complete
absence of documents, the historian has no longer anything to do but
keep quiet. L. Poliakov made this concession in 1951, that is,
fifty-five years ago. However, it must be noted that, from 1951 to
2006, his successors have equally failed to find the least
documentary evidence. Occasionally, here and there, we have witnessed
attempts at making us believe in such or such discovery but each
time, as will be seen below, the "discoverers" and their publicists
have had to drop their claim.



2) In 1960 Martin Broszat, a member of the Institute of
Contemporary History in Munich, wrote: "Neither at Dachau, nor at
Bergen-Belsen, nor at Buchenwald were any Jews or other detainees
gassed" ("Keine Vergasung in Dachau", Die Zeit, August 19, 1960, p.
16).

Remark: This sudden and unexplained concession is significant. At the
Nuremberg trial the only homicidal gas chamber that the accusation
ventured to show in a film had been that of Dachau, and the
testimonies telling of alleged homicidal gassings in the three
above-mentioned camps had been numerous. M. Broszat thus implicitly
acknowledged that those testimonies were false. He did not tell us in
what respect they were false. Nor did he tell us in what respect
other such testimonies relating, for example, to Auschwitz, Majdanek,
Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec should, for their part, go on being
deemed reliable. In the 1980s, at Dachau, a sign indicated in five
languages that the "gas chamber disguised as showers", visited by the
tourists, was "never used" as such. The revisionists had then asked
in what respect the room could be termed a homicidal "gas chamber",
whereupon the Dachau Museum authorities took down the sign and
replaced it with another on which, in German and English, can now be
read: "Gas chamber. This was the center of potential mass murder. The
room was disguised as 'showers' and equipped with fake shower spouts
to mislead the victims and prevent them from refusing to enter the
room. During a period of 20 minutes up to 150 people at a time could
be suffocated to death through prussic acid poison gas (Zyklon B)."
One will note the words "potential" and "could", the choice of which
attests to a fine bit of trickery: the information spawns in
visitors' minds the idea that the said "gas chamber" was effectively
used for killing but, at the same time, it enables the museum to
retort to revisionists: "We haven't expressly said that this gas
chamber was used for killing; we've merely said that it could be or
could have been, at the time, used to kill a certain number of
people". To conclude, in 1960 M. Broszat, without any explanation,
decreed in a simple letter that no one had been gassed at Dachau;
thenceforth, the Dachau Museum authorities, quite embarrassed, have
tried, by means of assorted deceitful ploys varying over time, to
fool their visitors into believing that, in this room that looks like
showers (and for good reason, since that is what it was), people had
well and truly been gassed.



3) In 1968 the Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot, in
her thesis on Le Système concentrationnaire nazi, 1933-1945, (Paris,
Presses universitaires de France), gave an ample exposition of what
she called "the problem of the gas chambers" (p. 541-544). She voiced
her scepticism as to the worth of some well-known witnesses' accounts
attesting to the existence of gas chambers in camps such as
Mauthausen or Ravensbrück. On Auschwitz-I she was categorical: that
camp where, still today, tourists visit an alleged gas chamber was,
in reality, "without any gas chamber" (p. 157).

Remark: To bring their horrible charges of homicidal gassings against
the defeated, the accusers have relied solely on testimonies and
those testimonies have not been verified. Let us take note of the
particular case of Auschwitz-I: it was thus 38 years ago that a
Jewish historian had the courage to write that this camp was "without
any gas chamber"; however, still today, in 2006, crowds of tourists
there visit an enclosed space that the authorities dare to present,
fallaciously, as a "gas chamber". Here we see a practice of outright
deceit.



4) In 1979 thirty-four French historians signed a lengthy
joint declaration in reply to my technical arguments aiming to
demonstrate that the allegation of the existence and functioning of
the Nazi gas chambers ran up against certain radical material
impossibilities. According to the official version, Rudolf Höss, one
of the three successive Auschwitz commandants, had confessed (!) and
described how Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz and Birkenau.
According to that very vague confession, when the victims appeared to
have breathed their last gasp, a ventilation apparatus was switched
on and a squad of Jewish prisoners immediately entered the vast room
to remove the corpses and carry them as far as the crematory ovens.
R. Höss said that those Jews went about this work nonchalantly,
whilst smoking and eating. I had pointed out that this could not be:
one cannot go into premises saturated with hydrogen cyanide gas (a
poisonous, penetrating and explosive compound) whilst smoking and
eating and then touch, handle and take out, using all one's strength,
thousands of bodies suffused with that poison and therefore
untouchable. In their declaration the thirty-four historians answered
me thus: "It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass-murder
was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened" (Le
Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23).

Remark: That answer amounts to a dodging of the enquiry put forth. If
someone shirks a question in this manner, it is because he is
incapable of answering. And if thirty-four historians find themselves
to such a degree unable to explain how a crime of these dimensions
was perpetrated, it is because that crime defies the laws of nature;
it is therefore imaginary.



5) Also in 1979, the American authorities finally decided
to make public certain aerial photographs of Auschwitz which, up to
then, they had kept hidden. With either cynicism or naivety, the two
authors of the publication, former CIA men Dino A. Brugioni and
Robert G. Poirier, gave their little set of photos the title The
Holocaust Revisited and tacked on here and there labels bearing the
words "gas chamber(s)", but, in their commentaries, there was nothing
whatever to justify those designations. (Central Intelligence Agency,
Washington, February 1979, ST-79-10001).

Remark: Today, in 2006, this trickery makes our thoughts turn to the
miserable demonstration by the former American government minister
Colin Powell when trying to prove, by the same device of having
labels stuck onto aerial photos, the existence of works for the
manufacture of "weapons of mass destruction" in Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. In reality, those photos of Auschwitz slap discredit on the
case for Nazi gas chambers. What can be distinctly made out on them
are serene crematoria structures, with no crowds huddled outside
waiting to enter the alleged changing rooms and the alleged death
chambers. The surrounding grounds are free of obstruction and visible
from all directions. The flowerbeds in the patches of garden round
the crematories are neatly laid-out and bear no trace of being
stamped upon, every day, by thousands of people. Crematorium n°3, for
instance, abuts on what we know to have been, thanks to sound
documents from the Auschwitz State Museum, a football field and is
close to a volleyball court (Hefte von Auschwitz, 15, 1975, plate on
page 56 and page 64). It is also close to eighteen hospital barracks
of the men's camp. There were thirty-two Allied air missions above
this zone which also comprised the large industrial installations of
Monowitz. It is understandable that the Allied aviation should have
attacked the industrial sector several times whilst sparing as much
as possible what was obviously a concentration, labour and transit
camp and not an "extermination camp", on which there fell, in the
end, only a few stray bombs.



6) On April 21, 1982 an association (the "ASSAG"), was
created in Paris for "the study of murders by gassing under the
National-Socialist regime", "with a view to seeking and verifying
elements bearing proof of the use of poison gasses in Europe by the
officials of the National-Socialist regime to kill persons of various
nationalities, to contributing to the publication of this evidence,
to making, to that purpose, all useful contacts on the national and
international level". Article 2 of the association's charter
stipulates: "The Association shall last as long as shall be necessary
to attain the objectives set forth in Article 1." However, this
association, founded by fourteen persons, amongst whom Germaine
Tillion, Georges Wellers, Geneviève Anthonioz née de Gaulle,
barrister Bernard Jouanneau and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, has, in nearly a
quarter of a century, never published anything and, to this day in
2006, remains in existence. In the event that it be maintained,
wrongly, that the group has produced a book entitled Chambres à gaz,
secret d'État (Gas chambers, State secret), it will be fitting to
recall that the book in question is in fact the French translation of
a work first published in German by Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein and
Adalbert Rückerl and in which there featured a few contributions by a
few members of the "ASSAG" (Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1984; English
translation published as Nazi Mass Murder: a documentary history of
the use of poison gas, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1994).

Remark: By itself the book's French title gives a fair idea of the
contents: instead of proof, supported by photographs of gas chambers,
drawings, sketches, forensic reports on the crime weapon, the reader
finds only speculations based on what is called "evidence" (éléments
de preuve, "elements of proof", not proof), and this because, we are
told, those gas chambers had constituted the greatest possible
secret, a "State secret". If ever there were a "weapon of mass
destruction" that deserved a well-done forensic examination, it was
indeed this one. In effect, it constitutes an anomaly in the history
of science for at least two reasons: it had no precedent and has had
no continuation; it arose out of nothing only to return to
nothingness. However, the history of science knows of no such
phenomenon. In any case, by the very fact of its existence yet today
in 2006, one may say that the ASSAG association has still not
attained the objective for which it was founded nearly twenty-five
years ago. It has still found neither proof nor even any evidence of
the "Nazi gas chambers'" existence.



7) In 1982, from June 29 to July 2, an international
symposium was held in Paris, at the Sorbonne, under the chairmanship
of two Jewish historians, François Furet and Raymond Aron. According
to the organisers, it was to reply authoritatively and publicly to
Robert Faurisson and "a handful of anarcho-communists" who had given
him their support (an allusion to Pierre Guillaume, Jean-Gabriel
Cohn-Bendit, Serge Thion and a few other free-thinking persons, some
of them Jewish). On the last day, at a much-awaited press conference,
the two chairmen had to admit publicly that, "despite the most
scholarly research", no order given by Hitler to kill the Jews had
been found. As for the gas chambers, they did not even make an
allusion to them.

Remark: This symposium constituted the first out-in-the-open attempt
to show the general public that the revisionists were lying. As at
other gatherings of the same kind (notably one held in 1987, again at
the Sorbonne), revisionists were barred entry and, like all other
such gatherings without exception, it ended in utter failure for the
organisers.



8) On April 26, 1983, the long-running lawsuit against me
for "personal injury through falsification of history" (sic), begun,
notably by Jewish organisations, in 1979, came to an end. On that day
the first chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal, civil division
section A, presided by judge Grégoire, whilst upholding a judgment
finding me liable for "personal injury", paid solid tribute to the
quality of my work. It ruled, in effect, that there could be detected
in my writings on the gas chambers no trace of rashness, no trace of
negligence, no trace of having deliberately overlooked anything, nor
any trace of a lie and that, as a consequence, "the appraisal of the
value of the findings [on the gas chambers] defended by Mr Faurisson
is a matter, therefore, solely for experts, historians and the
public."

Remark: If there cannot be found in the work of an author proposing
to refute the case for the gas chambers either any rashness,
negligence, deliberate oversight, lies or "falsification", that is
proof that the work in question is the product of a serious, careful,
conscientious, upright and genuine researcher, proof good enough to
ensure the legal right to maintain publicly, as he himself does, that
the said gas chambers are but a myth.



9) In 1983, on May 7, Simone Veil, who is Jewish and
herself a "survivor of the genocide", declared on the subject of the
gas chambers: "In the course of a case brought against Faurisson for
having denied the existence of the gas chambers, those who bring the
case are compelled to provide formal proof of the gas chambers'
reality. However, everyone knows that the Nazis destroyed those gas
chambers and systematically did away with all the witnesses"
(France-Soir Magazine, May 7, 1983, p. 47).

Remark: If there are neither any murder weapons nor testimonies, then
what is left? What is one to think of the places presented to
millions of deceived visitors as gas chambers? What must be thought
of the individuals who introduce themselves as witnesses or
miraculous survivors of the gas chambers? For her part, S. Veil is
the first holocaustic authority to have thus given to understand that
any alleged witness to gassings can only be a false witness. Already
on March 6, 1979, in the course of a televised discussion presented
by the French programme "Dossiers de l'écran" (Screen Files) about
the airing of the American series "Holocaust", she had displayed her
contempt for one Maurice Benroubi, introduced as a "witness of the
gas chambers". The latter, as a result, adopted an attitude of
extreme discretion compared with that shown in his "testimony", which
had appeared shortly before in the weekly L'Express (March 3-9, 1979,
p. 107-110).



10) In 1961 the Jew Raul Hilberg, orthodox historian
Number One, published the first edition of his major work, The
Destruction of the European Jews, and it was in 1985 that he brought
out the second edition, a profoundly revised and corrected version.
The distance between the two is considerable and can only be
explained by the succession of victories achieved in the meantime by
the revisionists. In the first edition the author had brazenly
affirmed that "the destruction of the Jews of Europe" had been set
off following two consecutive orders given by Hitler. He neither
specified the date nor reproduced the wording thereof. Then he
professed to explain in detail the political, administrative and
bureaucratic process of that destruction; for example he went so far
as to write that at Auschwitz the extermination of the Jews was
organised by an office that was in charge of both the disinfection of
clothing and the extermination of human beings (The Destruction of
the European Jews, 1961, republished in 1979 by Quadrangle Books,
Chicago, p. 177, 570). However, in 1983, going back completely on
that explanation, Hilberg suddenly proceeded to state that the
business of "the destruction of the European Jews" had, after all,
gone on without a plan, without any organisation, centralisation,
project or budget, but altogether thanks to "an incredible meeting of
minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy" (Newsday,
New York, February 23, 1983, p. II/3). He would confirm this
explanation under oath at the first Zündel trial in Toronto on
January 16, 1985 (verbatim transcript, p. 848); he would soon
afterwards confirm it anew but with other words in the greatly
revised version of his above-mentioned work (New York, Holmes &
Meier, 1985, p. 53, 55, 62). He has just recently, in October 2006,
confirmed it yet again in an interview given to Le Monde: "There was
no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision,
it is in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been
found, doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am
persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent
structure: each decision brings on another, then another, and so
forth, even if it isn't possible to foresee exactly the next step"
(Le Monde des livres, October 20, 2006, p. 12).

Remark: The Number One historian of the Jewish genocide, at a certain
point, thus found himself so helpless that he suddenly proceeded to
disown his first version and to explain a gigantic undertaking of
collective murder as if it had all been carried out through something
like the workings of the Holy Spirit. In effect, since then he has
evoked a "meeting of minds" within a bureaucracy, terming this
meeting "incredible". If it is "incredible" or unbelievable, why then
should it be believed? Must one believe the unbelievable? He also
brings up "mind reading" and states it was performed by "consensus",
but this is a matter of pure intellectual speculation grounded in a
belief in the supernatural. How can one believe in such a phenomenon,
particularly within a vast bureaucratic structure and, still more
particularly, within the bureaucracy of the Third Reich? It is worth
noting that on R. Hilberg's example the other official historians set
about, in the 1980s and 1990s, abandoning history and lapsed into
metaphysics and jargon. They questioned themselves on the point of
whether one should be "intentionalist" or "functionalist": must it be
supposed that the extermination of the Jews occurred subsequent to an
"intent" (not yet proved) and in line with a concerted plan (not yet
found), or instead had that extermination happened all by itself,
spontaneously and through improvisation, without there being any
formal intent and with no plan? This type of woolly controversy
attests to the disarray of historians who, unable to provide evidence
and real documents to back their case, are thus reduced to theorising
in the void. At bottom, those on one side, the "intentionalists",
tell us: "There were necessarily an intent and a plan, which we
haven't yet found but which we shall perhaps indeed discover one
day", whereas the others affirm: "There is no need to go looking for
evidence of an intent and a plan, for everything was able to occur
without intent, without plan and without leaving any traces; such
traces are not to be found because they have never existed."



11) In May 1986 in France, certain Jews, alarmed upon
realising that they could not manage to answer the revisionists on
the simple plane of reason, decided to take action with a view to
obtaining a legal prohibition of revisionism. Chief amongst them were
Georges Wellers and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, grouped, with their friends,
round the country's head rabbi René-Samuel Sirat (Bulletin quotidien
de l'Agence télégraphique juive, June 1986, p. 1, 3). After four
years, on July 13, 1990, they would get, thanks notably to Jewish
former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, then president of the National
Assembly, a special law passed allowing for the punishment of any
person who publicly made revisionist statements on the subject of the
"extermination of the Jews": up to a year's imprisonment, a fine of
¤45,000 and still other sanctions. This recourse to force is a
flagrant admission of weakness.

Remark: G. Wellers and P. Vidal-Naquet were especially alarmed by the
court decision of April 26, 1983 (see paragraph 8 above). The former
wrote: "The court admitted that [Faurisson] was well documented,
which is false. It is astonishing that the court should fall for
that" (Le Droit de vivre, June-July 1987, p. 13). The latter wrote
that the Paris Court of Appeal "recognised the seriousness of
Faurisson's work - which is quite outrageous - -and finally found him
guilty only of having acted malevolently by summarising his theses as
slogans" (Les Assassins de la mémoire, Paris, La Découverte, 1987, p.
182; here quoted the English translation: Assassins of Memory, New
York, Columbia University Press, 1992).



12) In August 1986 Michel de Boüard, himself deported
during the war as a résistant, professor of history and Dean of
letters at the University of Caen (Normandy), member of the Institut
de France and former head of the Commission d'histoire de la
déportation within the official Comité d'histoire de la deuxième
guerre mondiale, declared that, all told, "the dossier is rotten". He
specified that the dossier in question, that of the history of the
German concentration camp system, was "rotten" due to, in his own
words, "a huge amount of made-up stories, inaccuracies stubbornly
repeated - particularly where numbers are concerned - amalgamations
and generalisations". Alluding to the revisionists' studies, he added
that there were "on the other side, very carefully done critical
studies demonstrating the inanity of those exaggerations"
(Ouest-France of August 2nd and 3rd, 1986, p. 6).

Remark: Michel de Boüard was a professional historian, indeed the
ablest French historian on the subject of the wartime deportations.
Up to 1985 he defended the strictly orthodox and official position.
Upon reading the revisionist Henri Roques's doctoral thesis on the
alleged testimony of SS man Kurt Gerstein, he saw his error. He
honestly acknowledged it, going so far as to say that, if he hitherto
personally upheld the existence of a gas chamber in the Mauthausen
camp, he had done so wrongly, on the faith of what was said around
him. (His untimely death in 1989 deprived the revisionist camp of an
eminent personality who had resolved to publish a new work aiming to
put historians on their guard against the official lies of Second
World War history).



13) In 1988 Arno Mayer, an American professor of Jewish origin
teaching contemporary European history at Princeton University, wrote
on the subject of the Nazi gas chambers: "Sources for the study of
the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable" (The "Final
Solution" in History, New York, Pantheon Books, p. 362).

Remark: Still today in, 2006, the greater public persist in believing
that, as the media tirelessly suggest, the sources for the study of
the gas chambers are innumerable and unquestionable. At the Sorbonne
symposium of 1982, A. Mayer, like his friend Pierre Vidal-Naquet,
could not find words harsh enough for the revisionists; however, six
years later, here was an ultra-orthodox historian who had drawn
considerably closer to the revisionists' findings.



14) In 1989 Swiss historian Philippe Burrin, laying down as a
premise, without demonstration, the reality of Nazi gas chambers and
Jewish genocide, attempted to determine at what date and by whom the
decision to exterminate physically the Jews of Europe had been taken.
He did not succeed any more than all his "intentionalist" or
"functionalist" colleagues (Hitler et les juifs / Genèse d'un
génocide, Paris, Seuil; English version: Hitler and the Jews: the
Genesis of the Holocaust, London, Edward Arnold, 1994). He had to
remark the absence of traces of the crime and note what he decided to
call "the stubborn erasure of the trace of anyone's passing through"
(p. 9). He bemoaned "the large gaps in the documentation" and added:
"There subsists no document bearing an extermination order signed by
Hitler. [Š] In all likelihood, the orders were given verbally. [Š]
here the traces are not only few and far between, but difficult to
interpret" (p. 13).

Remark: Here again is a professional historian who acknowledges that
he can produce no documents in support of the official case. The
greater public imagine that the traces of Hitler's crime are many and
unambiguous but the historian who has examined the relevant
documentation has, for his part, found nothing but sparse semblances
and "traces", and wonders what interpretation to give to them.



15) In 1992 Yehuda Bauer, professor at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, stated at an international conference on the genocide of
the Jews held in London: "The public still repeats, time after time,
the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was
arrived at" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency release published as
"Wannsee's importance rejected", Canadian Jewish News, January 30,
1992, p. 8).

Remark: Apart from the fact that a careful reading of the "minutes"
of the Berlin-Wannsee meeting of January 20, 1942 proves that the
Germans envisaged a "territorial final solution [eine territoriale
Endlösung] of the Jewish question" leading in the end to a "Jewish
renewal" in a geographical space to be determined, Yehuda Bauer's
quite belated declaration confirms that this major point of the case
alleging the extermination of the Jews is in fact worthless. Let us
add, in our turn, that the extermination of the Jews was decided on
neither at Wannsee nor anywhere else; the expression "extermination
camps" is but an invention of American war propaganda and there are
examples proving that, during that war, the killing of a single
Jewish man or woman exposed the perpetrator, whether soldier or
civilian, member of the SS or not, to German military justice
proceedings and the possibility of being shot by firing squad (in
sixty years, never has a sole orthodox historian provided an
explanation for such facts, revealed by the defence before the
Nuremberg tribunal itself).



16) In January 1995 French historian Eric Conan, co-author with Henry
Rousso of Vichy, un passé qui ne passe pas (Paris, Gallimard, 2001
[1994, 1996]; English edition: Vichy: an ever-present past, Hanover,
New Hampshire and London, University Press of New England, 1998),
wrote that I had been right after all to certify, in the late 1970s,
that the gas chamber thus far visited by millions of tourists at
Auschwitz was completely fake. According to E. Conan, expressing
himself in a leading French weekly: "Everything in it is false [Š].
In the late 1970s, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications
all the better as the [Auschwitz] museum administration balked at
acknowledging them". Conan went on: "[Some people], like Théo Klein
[former president of the CRIF, the 'Representative Council of Jewish
Institutions of France'], prefer to leave it in its present state,
whilst explaining the misrepresentation to the public: 'History is
what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is not simple,
rather than to add artifice to artifice'". Conan then related a
staggering remark by Krystyna Oleksy, deputy director of the
Auschwitz National Museum, who, for her part, could not find the
resolve to explain the misrepresentation to the public. He wrote:
"Krystyna Oleksy [Š] can't bring herself to do so: 'For the time
being [the room designated as a gas chamber] is to be left "as is",
with nothing specified to the visitor. It's too complicated. We'll
see to it later on'" ("Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal" [Auschwitz: the
remembrance of evil], L'Express, January 19-25, 1995, p. 68).

Remark: This statement by a Polish official means, in plain language:
we have lied, we are lying and, until further notice, we shall
continue to lie. In 2005 I asked E. Conan whether the Auschwitz
Museum authorities had issued a denial or raised any protest against
the statement that he, in 1995, had ascribed to K. Oleksy. His answer
was that there had been neither denial nor protest. In 1996, this
imposture and others as well concerning the Auschwitz-I camp were
denounced by two Jewish authors, Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah
Dwork, in a work they produced together: Auschwitz, 1270 to the
Present, Yale University Press, 443 p. Here is a sampling of their
words in that regard: "postwar obfuscation", "additions",
"deletions", "suppression","reconstruction", "largely a postwar
reconstruction" (p. 363), "reconstructed", "usurpation",
"re-created", "four hatched openings in the roof, as if for pouring
Zyklon B into the gas chamber below, were installed [after the war]"
(p. 364), " falsified", "inexact", "misinformation", "inappropriate"
(p. 367), "falsifying" (p. 369). In 2001 the fallacious character of
this Potemkin village gas chamber was also acknowledged in a French
booklet accompanying two CD-Roms entitled Le Négationnisme; written
by Jean-Marc Turine and Valérie Igounet, it was prefaced by Simone
Veil (Radio France-INA, Vincennes, Frémeaux & Associés).



17) In 1996 the leftwing French historian Jacques Baynac, a staunch
antirevisionist since 1978, ended up admitting, after due
consideration, that there was no evidence of the Nazi gas chambers'
existence. One could not fail to note, wrote Baynac, "the absence of
documents, traces or other material evidence" (Le Nouveau Quotidien
de Lausanne [Switzerland], September 2, 1996, p. 16, and September 3,
1996, p. 14). But he said that he carried on believing in the
existence of those magical gas chambers.

Remark: All in all, J. Baynac says: "There is no evidence but I
believe", whereas a revisionist thinks: "There is no evidence,
therefore I refuse to believe and it is my duty to dispute".



18) In 2000, at the end of her book Histoire du négationnisme en
France (Paris, Gallimard), Valérie Igounet published a long text by
Jean-Claude Pressac at the end of which the latter, who had been one
of the revisionists' most determined opponents, signed a veritable
act of surrender. In effect, taking up the words of professor Michel
de Boüard, he stated that the dossier on the concentration camp
system was "rotten", and irremediably so. He wrote asking: "Can
things be put back on an even keel?" and answered: "It is too late".
He added: "The current form, albeit triumphant, of the presentation
of the camp universe is doomed". He finished by surmising that
everything that had been invented around sufferings all too real was
bound "for the rubbish bins of history" (p. 651-652). In 1993-1994,
that protégé of the French Jew Serge Klarsfeld and the American rabbi
Michael Berenbaum, "Project Director" at the Holocaust Memorial
Museum in Washington, had been acclaimed worldwide as an
extraordinary researcher who, in his book on Les Crématoires
d'Auschwitz, la machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris, CNRS éditions,
1993; English title: The Auschwitz Crematories. The Machinery of Mass
Murder), had, it appeared, felled the hydra of revisionism. Here, in
V. Igounet's book, he was seen signing his act of surrender.

Remark: The greater public are kept in ignorance of a major fact: the
man who had supposedly saved the day for History, who once was
presented by the world press as an extraordinary researcher who had
at last discovered the scientific proof of the Nazi gas chambers'
existence, ended up acknowledging his error. A few years later, not a
single newspaper or magazine announced his death.



19) In 2002, R. J. van Pelt, already mentioned, published The Case
for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial, Indiana University
Press, XVIII-571 p. As is widely known, David Irving, who at the very
most is a semi-revisionist ill-acquainted with the revisionist
argumentation, lost the libel suit he had recklessly brought against
the Jewish-American academic Deborah Lipstadt. He tried clumsily to
make the case - a perfectly right one, for that matter - that there
had existed no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. But he
nonetheless scored an essential point and, if Justice Charles Gray
and other judges after him had had more courage, that point would
have enabled him to succeed in his claim. The argument was summed up
in a four-word phrase that I first put forth in 1994: "No holes, no
Holocaust". My reasoning behind it was as follows: 1. Auschwitz is at
the centre of the "Holocaust"; 2. The great crematoria of
Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Auschwitz-II, are at the centre of the vast
Auschwitz complex; 3. At the heart of these crematoria there were,
supposedly, one or several homicidal gas chambers; 4. At a single one
of these crematoria (crematorium n° 3), although it is in ruins, is
it today possible to go and examine the room said to have been a gas
chamber; it is the presumed scene of the crime, itself presumed as
well; 5. We are told that, in order to kill the Jewish detainees
locked inside, an SS man, moving about on the concrete roof of the
said gas chamber, poured Zyklon-B pellets through four regular
openings situated in the roof; 6. However, one need only have eyes to
realise that no such openings have ever existed there; 7. Therefore
the crime cannot have been committed. For R. J. van Pelt, testifying
against Irving, it was near torture trying to find a reply to this
argument. Justice Gray aswell had to acknowledge "the apparent
absence of evidence of holes" (p. 490 of the verbatim transcript)
and, in a more general way, he conceded that "contemporaneous
documents yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas
chambers designed to kill humans" (p. 489; for more details one may
consult pages 458-460, 466-467, 475-478 and 490-506). In the text of
his judgment, Charles Gray admitted surprise: "I have to confess
that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that
the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at
Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this
preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in
these proceedings" (13.71). Here the failure of the accusing
historians is flagrant and Irving ought to have won his case thanks
to that observation by a judge who was hostile towards him: the
documents of the era furnish us with but decidedly little clear
evidence of the Nazi gas chambers' existence and thus of a German
policy to exterminate the Jews. Is this not, after all - as we have
seen above -, what several Jewish historians had already concluded,
beginning with Léon Poliakov in 1951?



20) In 2004 French historian Florent Brayard published a work
entitled La « solution finale de la question juive ». La technique,
le temps et les catégories de la décision, Paris, Fayard, 640 p. In
2005, in a review of this book, the following three sentences could
be read: "It is known that the Führer neither drafted nor signed any
order to eliminate the Jews, that the decisions - for there were
several - were taken in the secrecy of talks with Himmler, perhaps
Heydrich and/or Göring. It is supposed that, rather than an explicit
order, Hitler gave his consent to his interlocutors' requests or
projects. Perhaps he did not even put it into words, but made himself
understood by a silence or an acquiescence" (Yves Ternon, Revue
d'histoire de la Shoah, July-December 2005, p. 537).

Remark: At nearly every word, these sentences show that their author
is reduced to adventurous speculations. When he dares to express,
without the benefit of the least clue, the notion that Hitler perhaps
made himself understood "by a silence or an acquiescence", he is
merely taking up the theory of the "nod" (the Führer's mere nod!)
first voiced by American professor Christopher Browning at the Zündel
trial in Toronto in 1988. No academic of antirevisionist persuasion
has shown himself to be more pitiful and foolish than that
shabbos-goy. So true is it that, destroyed by the revisionist
victories, the official case has ended up being emptied of all
scientific content.



An assessment of these revisionist victories



Let us briefly recapitulate these revisionist victories.



Their backs set to the wall by the revisionists, the
official historians of the alleged physical extermination of the Jews
have ended up acknowledging that, from the historical and scientific
viewpoint, they are left without a single argument to support their
ghastly accusation. They admit, in effect: 1) that they cannot invoke
a single document proving the crime; 2) that they are unable to
provide the least representation of the crime weapon; 3) that they do
not possess any proof nor even any evidence; 4) that they cannot name
a single truthful witness (see above, S. Veil's opinion on the
matter); 5) that their dossier is rotten (twice repeated),
irremediably rotten and that it is bound for the rubbish bins of
history; 6) that the sources formerly invoked have revealed
themselves to be not only rarer than was claimed but also unreliable;
7) that the alleged traces of the crime are few and far between, and
difficult to interpret; 8) that at their end there have been
falsifications, misrepresentation, artifice; 9) that in support of
their case there has too often been invoked a "silly [sic] story",
that of a decision to exterminate the Jews supposedly taken on
January 20, 1942 at Berlin-Wannsee; 10) that the foremost of their
number, Raul Hilberg, is today reduced to explaining it all, in a
nonsensical way, by supposed initiatives that the German bureaucracy
had, according to him, boldly taken without any order, plan,
instruction or supervision and thanks simply, it seems, to an
incredible meeting of minds and a consensus-mind reading. These
official historians have not known how to answer any of the
revisionists' requests or observations in the style of: 1) "Show me
or draw me a Nazi gas chamber"; 2) "Bring me one proof, one single
piece of evidence of your own choosing, on the grounds of which to
assert that there was a genocide"; 3) "Bring me one testimony, one
single testimony, the best one in your opinion" or again: 4) "No
holes, no Holocaust ". Finding themselves on the ropes, the court
historians have called on the law-courts to find against the
revisionists, but, contrary to all expectation, it has sometimes
happened that the judges have gone so far as to pay tribute to the
revisionists' uprightness or to show their surprise before the
sparseness or absence of the accusers' documentary evidence. Then,
first in France and later in a number of other countries in Europe,
these accusers have called for the passing of special laws to silence
the revisionists. Here they have sealed their doom. To resort to
special laws, to the police and prisons is to admit one's utter
inability to use the arguments of reason, history and science.



A hundred other arguments again could be recalled here to
prove that, on the plane of history and science, the immense edifice
of lies put up by the "Holocaust" or "Shoah" sect has been thrown
down, with not one stone left upon another. In contrast to this
expanse of ruins, we have seen the construction of a whole
revisionist literature. In it can be discovered a profusion of
documents, photographs, expert studies, trial transcripts, technical
and scientific reports, testimonies, statistical studies, all of
which bearing on a hundred aspects of the history of the Second World
War that show what the lot of the European Jews was in reality, and
demonstrate in striking manner that the Jewish version of that war is
largely of the order of myth. From the myth, the Jews have gone on to
mythology and from mythology on to religion or, rather, to a
semblance of religion. Today the servants of that false religion
appear more and more like priests who carry on officiating and
turning over the hallowed phrases but, manifestly, no longer have the
faith. They seem no longer really to believe in their "credo". So it
is, for instance, that for about the last ten years they have been
seen advising their flocks to observe the greatest possible
discretion on the subject of the gas chambers. In his memoirs,
published in French in 1994 and in English in 1995, the big false
witness Elie Wiesel wrote: "Let the gas chambers remain closed to
prying eyes, and to imagination" (All Rivers Run to the Sea, New
York, Knopf [Random House], p. 74). Claude Lanzmann (maker of the
film Shoah), Daniel Goldhagen (author of Hitler's Willing
Executioners), Simone Veil (former president of the European
Parliament, quoted above), François Léotard (a former French
government minister) have in the last few years become surprisingly
reserved, cautious or silent on the matter. Some months ago, Jacques
Attali (a Jewish businessman and historian) decreed: "The immense
majority of Jews murdered were killed by German soldiers' and
military policemen's individual weapons, between 1940 and 1942, and
not by the death-works, which were put into place afterwards"
("Groupes de criminels?", L'Express, June 1, 2006, p. 60). This
implicit way of writing off the alleged Nazi gas chambers is becoming
regular practice. Attempts are made to replace the Auschwitz lie with
the lie of Babi Yar or those of other fantastical slaughters in the
Ukraine or the Baltic countries but not once are we provided with
scientific evidence concerning them, such as reports of exhumation
and post-mortems as has been the case with the real massacres
perpetrated by the Soviets at Katyn, Vinnitsa or elsewhere. As for
the number of dead at Auschwitz, we are hardly told any longer that
it was 9,000,000 (as in the film Nuit et Brouillard [Night and Fog]),
8,000,000, 6,000,000 or 4,000,000 (as at the Nuremberg trial or on
the commemorative stones at Auschwitz-Birkenau until 1990). The new
religion's clerics are settling for 1,500,000 (as marked on those
same stones since 1995), or for 1,100,000, or for 700,000, (as J.-C.
Pressac wrote), or still for 510,000 (as Fritjof Meyer concluded in
2002: "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz", Osteuropa, May 2003, p.
631-641), all these latter figures being no better founded than the
previous ones.



General Conclusion

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

continued

Post#3 » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:48 pm

General Conclusion

We are granted the privilege of witnessing, in this
beginning of the 21st century, a serious calling into question of one
of the greatest lies in history. The myth of the "Holocaust" may well
be aglow with a thousand lights: in reality it is burning itself out.
It has served to justify the creation in the land of Palestine of a
warlike colony that has taken the name of "Jewish State" and endowed
itself with a "Jewish Army". It imposes on the Western world the yoke
of a Jewish or Zionist tyranny bringing itself to bear in all fields
of intellectual, academic and media activity. It poisons the very
soul of a great country, Germany. It has allowed the extortion from
the latter, as well as from a good number of other Western countries,
of exorbitant sums in marks, in dollars or in euros. It overwhelms us
with films, with museums, with books that keep the flame of a
Talmudic-style hatred burning. It makes it possible to call for an
armed crusade against "the axis of evil" and, for this, to fabricate,
on demand, the most shameless lies precisely in the pattern of the
Great Lie of the "Holocaust", for there is no difference between
Adolf Hitler's "weapons of mass destruction" and those of Saddam
Hussein. It makes it possible to accuse nearly the whole world and to
demand "repentance" and "reparations" everywhere, either for alleged
actions directed against "Yahweh's chosen people", an alleged
complicity in the crime, or an alleged general indifference to the
fate of the Jews during the Second World War. Under its belt it has a
glut of rigged trials, beginning with the loathsome Nuremberg trial.
It has sanctioned thousands of hangings of defeated soldiers, an
atrocious post-war Purge, the deportation of millions of civilians
chased from their ancestral homelands, indescribable pillaging, tens
of thousands of scandalous legal proceedings, including those carried
out today against octogenarians or nonagenarians, attacked by
"miraculous" Jewish survivors giving their false testimony. These
abominations, this outrage of lies and hatred, this hubris that one
day or another destiny always comes to punish, in short, all these
excesses must end. No nation has shown more patience with this Jewish
or Zionist hubris than the Arab nation; however we see that this
nation itself has now run out of patience. It is going to throw off
the Israeli yoke and have the West understand that the time has come
to seek real peace instead of supporting and arming an artificial
State that maintains itself only by force. Even in the West, even in
the United States, the scales are falling off some people's eyes and
there is now a certain awareness of the hazards imposed on the
international community by such prolonged submission to the false
religion of the "Holocaust", no. 1 weapon, sword and shield of the
State of Israel.



Practical Conclusion



There exist some practical means to launch a real action
against this false religion with its sanctuary located at Auschwitz.



As is known, in the heart of Auschwitz there is an
emblematic gas chamber. Up to now thirty million tourists have
visited it. It is an imposture; all the historians are aware of this,
as the authorities of the Auschwitz State Museum know better than
anyone. Yet UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization), on October 26, 1979, at the request of the
Polish government, put this camp on its list of World Heritage and
Cultural Property Sites, thus assuming the duty of preserving its
authenticity. For my part, I suggest therefore that the matter of
this fraud be formally referred to UNESCO, as it constitutes an
offence against education, science and culture. In a more general
manner, we could take up the words of Jean-Gabriel Cohn Bendit in
1979: "Let us fight for the destruction of those gas chambers they
show tourists in the camps where there were none, as we now know"
(Libération, March 5, 1979, p. 4).



There exist other practical means to fight the tyranny of
the "Holocaust" myth, first amongst which is to announce to the whole
world these "revisionist victories" which have thus far been kept
hidden from it. I trust the revisionists present at this gathering
will suggest other means and discuss them with us.



Practising mendacity on a grand scale, the "Holocaust" religionists
have made themselves, little by little, the enemies of the human
race. For more than sixty years they have progressively been putting
the whole world, or just about, under indictment. Their main target
has, of course, been Germany and all those who, alongside that
country, had thought it their duty to fight against Stalin in the
same way that others, in the opposing camp, believed they must fight
against Hitler. But, in their accusatory frenzy, Jewish organisations
have gone so far as to rebuke the wartime Allies for an alleged
criminal "indifference" to the lot of the European Jews. They have
attacked Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle, Pope Pius XII, the
International Committee of the Red Cross and numerous other
personalities, official bodies or countries for not having denounced
the existence of the "gas chambers". But how could what was so
obviously just a grotesque war rumour have been considered verified?
It is enough to read the book by the Jew Walter Laqueur, The Terrible
Secret (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1980, 262 p.), to gather
thirty or so references to the widespread and thoroughly justified
scepticism in the Allied camp before the flood of rumours originating
from Jewish sources. Inquiries were carried out enabling officials to
conclude that the rumours were unfounded. It was thus
clear-sightedness and not indifference that the Allies and others
charged showed. It was that same clear-sightedness which, after the
war, in their speeches or in their memoirs, Churchill, De Gaulle and
Eisenhower showed as they avoided mentioning, even so much as once,
the said "gas chambers".



War and war propaganda need lies just as crusades and the
crusader spirit are fuelled by hatred. On the other side, peace and
friendship between peoples can only gain from care being taken to
achieve exactitude in historical research, research that all must be
able to carry out in complete freedom.



Two appendices concerning the alleged gas chamber of Auschwitz-I



1) Eric Conan's 1995 statement in its entirety



Another delicate subject: what to do about the falsifications
bequeathed by the Communist administration? In the fifties and
sixties, several buildings which had either disappeared or been put
to other use were reconstructed, with serious errors, and presented
as genuine. Some, too "new", were closed to the public. To say
nothing of the delousing chambers that were at times presented as
execution gas chambers. These aberrations have been of great service
to the negationists, who have drawn on them for the main substance of
their fabrications. The example of crematorium I, the lone one at
Auschwitz I, is significant. In its morgue was installed the first
gas chamber. It functioned for a short time, in early 1942: the
isolation of the zone, called for by the gassings, disrupted the
camp's activity. It was therefore decided, towards the end of April
1942, to transfer these lethal gassings to Birkenau, where they were
carried out, on essentially Jewish victims, on an industrial scale.
Crematorium I was subsequently turned into an air-raid shelter, with
an operating room. In 1948, during the museum's creation, crematorium
I was reconstituted in its supposed original state. Everything in it
is false: the gas chamber's dimensions, the location of the doors,
the openings for the pouring in of the Zyklon B, the ovens, rebuilt
according to what the survivors remembered, the height of the
chimney. In the late 1970's, Robert Faurisson exploited these
falsifications all the better as the museum administration balked at
acknowledging them. An American negationist has recently shot a video
inside the gas chamber (still presented as authentic): in it he can
be seen addressing his "revelations" to the visitors. Jean-Claude
Pressac, one of the first to establish exactly the history of this
gas chamber and its modifications during and after the war, proposes
that it be restored to its 1942 state, basing his suggestion on the
German blueprints that he has recently found in the Soviet archives.
Others, like Théo Klein, prefer to leave it in its present state,
whilst explaining the misrepresentation to the public: 'History is
what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is not simple,
rather than to add artifice to artifice.' Krystyna Oleksy, whose
director's office, which occupies the old SS hospital, looks straight
out on to crematorium I, has not resigned herself to do so: 'For the
time being, it is to be left "as is", with nothing specified to the
visitor. It's too complicated. We'll see to it later on.' " (Eric
Conan, "Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal", L'Express, January 19-25,
1995, pages 54-69; p. 68)



In his lengthy study, E. Conan wanted to show the great distance
between "remembrance" and history. He did so without calling into
question the dogma of the "Holocaust"; he even went so far as to
state his belief in the existence of the weapon of mass destruction
called "gas chamber", and he posited certain assertions devoid of the
least scientific foundation as being exact and demonstrated.
Nonetheless he had the courage to denounce some serious lies, amongst
which that of the emblematic "gas chamber" presented today to
visitors at Auschwitz. And he dares to admit that, in the late 1970s,
I was right about the matter. In 2005 I asked him whether his study
had given rise to any rectifications or protests, particularly on the
part of the Auschwitz State Museum authorities and Krystyna Oleksy.
His answer was: "None".



2) The full relevant passage in a CD-Rom booklet prefaced by Simone
Veil



[Robert Faurisson] has the motivation: exclusive love of the truth;
this would seem to be an obsession of his. An academic, Robert
Faurisson was never to cease using this scientific surety, a presumed
pledge of respectability. He read Maurice Bardèche. He discovered
Paul Rassinier. He "dissected" Rimbaud, Lautréamont and Apollinaire.
A brilliant and cultured man, he is nonetheless one bent on causing
trouble. Through the seventies, Robert Faurisson worked. He outlined
his historico-literary method. He went to the Auschwitz archives. His
denial was to build itself there. It rests on a real fact: the gas
chamber at the Auschwitz I camp is a "reconstitution", for it served
as a storehouse for SS medical supplies and as an air-raid shelter
after the gas chambers at Auschwitz II Birkenau were put into
service; what he was able to see (and what can still be seen) is a
supposed gas chamber. This is undeniable. Be that as it may, for
Robert Faurisson it is a put-up job done by the Jews (Le
Négationnisme (1948-2000). Interviews broadcast on the radio network
France-Culture, produced by Jean-Marc Turine. Booklet by Valérie
Igounet and Jean-Marc Turine with a preface by Simone Veil,
Vincennes, Frémeaux et associés, 2001, 48 pages; p. 27-28).



[See drawings on p. 21-22]









Myth of the Gas Chambers





"Who knocked it down?" "Faurisson."



November 1, 2006: this drawing by "Chard" (the Frenchwoman Françoise
Pichard, of Paris) received second prize in the international cartoon
contest on the "Holocaust" organised by Iran.

























"And yet it doesn't gasŠ"

[colloquial French for "it's no good" or "it doesn't work"]



Professor Bruno Gollnisch had merely stated that, on the subject of
the gas chambers, historians ought to be able to express themselves
freely. He was first suspended from teaching for five years by the
University of Lyon-III. Then, on November 7th and 8th, 2006, he had
to appear before a court in Lyon made up of presiding judge Fernand
Schir and two associates. Pressures and blackmail led him to break
down and acknowledge before his judges the existence of the genocide
of the Jews and the Nazi gas chambers. The court's decision will be
pronounced on January 18, 2007. It must be realised that French law
prohibits any disputing of the reality of Nazi crimes against the
Jews "even if [such disputing] is presented in veiled or dubitative
form or by way of insinuation"(Code pénal, 2006, p. 2059).
Consequently, with regard to this matter one must neither dispute nor
even appear to dispute.



E N D






www.australiafreepress.org

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

A somewhat poorly translated article from Iran News, Decembe

Post#4 » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:51 pm

A somewhat poorly translated article from Iran News, December 12, 2006

[START]

Dec 12, 2006

Iran's arab-parast President hopes that governments will respect
freedom and not bother participants of Holocaust Conference on their
return. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said on Tuesday that
thanks God the curve of Zionist regime's life is on the decline
adding that this is a divine promise and will of world nations.

Addressing the International Conference on 'World Vision on
Holocaust' or 'how to hate Jews' in Tehran, the president said that
today nations are seeking justice and worship God Almighty.

"Those having supported the Zionist regime during their lifetime,
should be aware that its lifetime will be over and their interests as
well as reputation will be endangered.

"Just as the ground was prepared to assign such a regime, the Zionist
regime will be overthrown by its supporters," he added.

Underlining that such a measure by the West will be to the benefit of
world peace, he hoped that proponents of the Zionist regime will
respond positively to this human call.

The president said that the world problems can be solved friendly and
rationally in a calm atmosphere.

Addressing the bullying powers, the chief executive called on them to
cooperate and present real peace to the humanity.

Talking to the Jew-haters attending the conference, he noted, "Iran
is your house and the house of world free-thinkers, where everyone
can fully express themselves in a brotherly, peaceful, free and calm
atmosphere and exchange views with others."

Ahmadinejad hoped that once the participants of this conference
return to their homelands, their governments will not bother them,
but rather show that they respect freedom.

[END]

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Ziopedia Editorial on the Iranian Intnl Holocaust Conference

Post#5 » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:53 pm

Ziopedia Editorial on the Iranian International Holocaust Conference:
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:09:20 -0500
To: irimland@zundelsite.org
From: Ingrid Rimland <irimland@bellsouth.net>





Title: Ziopedia Editorial on the Iranian International Holocaust Conference:

In the last couple of days, there have been a lot of articles on the Tehran Holocaust conference. As always with Western reporting on events in Iran in general and statements of the Iranian president in particular, it is essential to verify them against parallel reporting in Iranian media, for example IRNA, especially if translations are involved, which are usually performed - for free - by Mossod disinformation joint MEMRI, which specialises in translations from Middle-Eastern languages to English as 'Sprachregelung' for the Jewish controlled Western media.

One article today is particulary noteworthy. Its author, Chris Voidis, discusses the rarely asked question what on earth could motivate an intelligent man like the Iranian president to question the 'self-evident' veracity of the Holocaust and even organise a conference providing a platform for Holocaust deniers. The Iranian government - regardless of the nonsense you can read in the media - is obviously not interested in persecuting Jews. The 30,000 Iranian Jews have always been treated well and even have a democratically elected member of parliament.

Chris Voidis tries to explain Ahmadinejad's 'Holocaust myth' remarks and the organisation of the Holocaust conference with retaliation for the Mohammed cartoons affair and suggests that both sides should start respecting each other's sensitivities.

That's complete nonsense. For starters, the Mohammed cartoons were published many months after the first announcement of the Holocaust conference. If anything, they were retaliation for 'insulting' the beliefs in the Holocaust, not the other way round. Secondly, the Holocaust is not a religion but a historic event, even though its dogmas - in particular the belief in a plan to kill all European Jews, 6 million Jewish victims and the use of gas chambers - are protected by more poweful laws and taboos than any religion in modern society. To demand that the Holcaust's factuality must not be questioned out of respect for those people believing in it is as ridiculous as it was in the Middle-Ages to threaten scientists with torture and death if they claimed that the earth was not flat.

President Ahmadinejad questions the Holocaust because of its impact on the creation and the continued existence of what he calls the 'Zionist entity'. As a Muslim, uneffected by decades of Zionist brainwashing and taboos, he realises that the Holocaust - in spite of its doubtful factual base - is the foundation stone, the pillar of strength and the goose that lays golden eggs of the Jews-only state. [Emphasis added]

Ahmadinejad knows instinctively that the Holocaust is not only Apartheid Israel's most powerful weapon, but also her Archilles heel. He knows that the key to the dismantling of Apartheid Israel and her replacement with a free, united [Israel] and Palestine, where it doesn't matter whether you are Christian, Muslim or Jew, is - as hard a nut to crack it might seem - the destruction of the Holocult.

Andrew Winkler
Editor/Publisher
ZioPedia - A Rebel Media Group Project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest