The Victories
of Revisionism
By:
Professor Robert  FAURISSON
11 décembre 2006

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.

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, 566 p., 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.

***

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 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 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.

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, 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 2^nd and 3^rd, 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. […] In all likelihood, the orders were given verbally. […] 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” 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 […]. 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 […] 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° 2), 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 as well 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.

We are granted the privilege of witnessing, in this beginning of the 21^st 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.