Faurisson’s Exposure Of The Holocaust Hoax

Originally Published At Darkmoom.me HERE

Based on a 4500-word comment by political analyst Luca K

This article consists mostly of important Faurisson quotations debunking the state-enforced conspiracy theory that 6 million Jews died in gas chambers on the orders of Hitler.

Pictures, captions and commentary by Lasha Darkmoon

[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)\.

Faurisson says: 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 for the Holocaust.

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]

[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)\.

Faurisson says: 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, Jews had well and truly been gassed.

THE FAKE GAS CHAMBER AT DACHAU

“The Dachau Museum authorities [still try] to fool their visitors
into believing that, in this room, Jews had well and truly been gassed.”
—  Robert Faurisson

[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)\.

Faurisson says: 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 1961 Raul Hilberg, Jewish 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).

Faurisson says: 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.”

[5]

– 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\.

Faurisson says:  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).

[6]

– 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)\.

Faurisson says: 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).

[7]

– 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)\.

Faurisson says: 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.

[8]

– 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)\.

Faurisson says: 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.

[9]

– 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).

Faurisson says: 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).

[10]

– 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)\.

Faurisson says:  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).

LASHA DARKMOON comments:

It is sobering to reflect that British historian David Irving was fined 30,000 marks ($21,000) for publicly stating what is now openly and authoritatively conceded: that the extermination gas chamber shown to tourists in Auschwitz was a mock-up or “dummy”. It had never gassed a single Jew. It had been built by the Russians after the war.

For decades, the authorities had deliberately lied to the public by pretending that this fake gas chamber was an authentic one.

FAKE GAS CHAMBER AT AUSCHWITZ

For over 50 years, the staff at Auschwitz told visitors that the Auschwitz gas chamber (above) was original. Now it is officially admitted that the gas chamber is a reconstruction, i.e., a mock-up or fake. Yet the authorities at Auschwitz still cannot bear to tell the public this. The brazen lie that Jews actually died in this fake “gas chamber” is still being repeated to tourists today, especially to school children being shepherded round the premises by their Jewish tour guides. [LD]

[11]

– In 1996 the leftwing French historian Jacques Baynac, a staunch anti-revisionist 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\.

Faurisson says:  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.”

[12]

– 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.

Faurisson says: 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.

[13]

– In 2002, R. J. van Pelt, already mentioned, published The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial, Indiana University Press, XVIII-571 p.

Faurisson says:  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:

“NO HOLES, NO HOLOCAUST” ARGUMENT

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?

[14]

– 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/orGöring. 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)\.

Faurisson says:  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.

Lasha Darkmoon concludes:

Organized Jewry, having taken control of most of the Western world’s media and legislative institutes, has now succeeded in making it a crime to question the Holocaust in 16 countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

Other countries are slowly being added to this ever growing list of sovereign states where free speech on the Holocaust is strictly forbidden. The narrative is in such tatters that the only way it can now be maintained is through intimidation and coercion.

In the Soviet Union in the 1920s, after the Jew-controlled Communist regime of Lenin and Stalin had established itself, it was a capital crime to own a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The day will probably come, in the foreseeable future, when revisionist historians like Faurisson will be put to death for questioning the Holocaust. 

WHAT THE  JEWS DID TO FAURISSON
FOR  EXPOSING THE GAS CHAMBER LIE

 

Faurisson’s Exposure Of The Holocaust Hoax