Paul Rassinier – katana17

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:28:36 +0000

[Alain Soral, a leading French dissident, talks about his association with Robert Faurisson and the impact that his Revisionist work had on him, awakening him to the power of organized jewry and their persecution of anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship their “Shoah”.

NOTE: The English voice-over in the video is provided by the talented musician Alison Chabloz, another admirer of the late Faurisson, and who expresses her disbelief of those historical lies through stinging satirical songs!

— KATANA.]

_______________________

Alain Soral

My Homage to

Robert Faurisson

Oct 2018

Click the link below to view the video:

https://alisonchabloz.com/2018/10/29/alain-soral-my-homage-to-robert-faurisson/

Alison Chabloz’s Description

Published on October 29, 2018

Of the many moving tributes following the recent death of Robert Faurisson, the video below is one of the most pertinent I have seen so far. Using today’s technology — featuring a mise en scène and dresscode worthy of note and which would certainly have met with Robert Faurisson’s approval — Alain Soral regales viewers with his in-a-nutshell analysis of the crucial importance of historical revisionism and the inestimable contribution made by Robert Faurisson.

Alain Soral is the founder of Égalité et Réconciliation, the leading dissident publication in France with seven million monthly clicks. He is also head of the publishing house Kontre Kulture. Mr Soral kindly granted me permission to translate his incisive impromptu text and redistribute the video below with voiceover in English. You can find the original here.

Many thanks to all who continue to support the revisionist cause.

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(19:24)

[00:31]

Well, it brings great sadness, as well as the end of an era. I could talk about this in different ways, but I’d like to use the occasion to try and make others understand how one might come to the Revisionist’s school of thought. Because this sensibility, which eventually leads to asking questions and to looking into the professor’s work, needs to be explained. I wish to emphasis that I’m sad that he’s gone. At the same time I’ve been in his company fairly often recently.

And just to note that Égalité et Réconciliation supported him by way of my barrister, as well as ensuring his security. And he was surrounded by friendship and affection. Friends presented him with the “Quenelle d’or”, the “Golden Quenelle” awarded to him by Dieudonne. And he sent me a very kind voice mail.

Now that he’s gone, aside from the Revisionist’s combat, we can say we accompanied him, I think, with warm and tender affection right to the end. And that is really important. He was someone, how to put it, we simply can’t imagine what he had to suffer! Ten times worst than what I was subjected to. And admittedly I sometimes have trouble keeping my calm.

There’s a price to pay for the organism, physically and psychologically. And he was someone who needed to be surrounded by love and affection in order to bring some kind of balance. I insist that not withstanding his combat, which is non-debatable, because we do not have the right to debate it, let’s say it as it is.

Apart from his non-debatable combat, there was the whole human aspect that was extremely important. And here I must mention Dieudonne. Dieudonne did a lot, a lot for Robert Faurisson.

Perhaps I also did a lot in order that Dieudonne found out about Faurisson, which some people reproached me for. But how could I be ashamed of that? He’s someone we accompanied during his final years, which was very important because he succeeded in transferring his combat to another generation. Meaning there were people who were interested in him, from the 1970s onwards, and in the generations that followed, 20 or 20 years down the line. People do burn out, but thanks to Dieudonne the younger generation became interested in Professor Faurisson.

If we look at his trials which took place toward is the end of his life, he was surrounded by people in their 20s and 30s. And it was a fountain of youth which he found both very useful and agreeable. That is the first aspect.

[03:10]

Now, let’s talk about Revisionism in a more fundamental way. How does one arrive at the point of becoming interested in his work? From my part, it so happened that I came to Paris with no knowledge of any of these issues. And I believed that reality corresponded to what I saw on TV and at the cinema in war films broadcast in continuity on TV channels, since I was a child.

The Second World War, the Germans, the Allies, the Resistance, the Americans. What we were shown in the cinema, a world with goodies and baddies. Aged twenty I firmly believed in all that!

And then I arrived in the capital, Paris, where I immediately became part of society, that might be referred to as the “superstructure”. First of all fashion, then journalism, publishing, and cinema.

And there I met members of a powerful community, which, by way of its own psychological interactions, bore no resemblance to those people of that particular community as depicted in Hollywood films. And therefore at one point I told myself, either there are two different categories when it comes to this kind of people, or else I’ve been sold something which doesn’t really correspond to reality.

And at that moment, one of those times when things seem to happen for a reason, by chance, I think, in 1983 I discovered a certain professor, whose work was based on alternative theories relating to critical studies of historical events.

And who was trying to show that the history of the “good and evil”, this caricature of “goodies and baddies” wasn’t quite as clear cut as that. And I became interested.

Just as I was interested in lots of other things. For example, the question of the workers struggle according to Marx. Questions of nationalism, by way of nationalist thinkers. I’ve always looked at things from all sides.

And I became fascinated at that time with Revisionism. And back then it wasn’t on the internet! It was physical. I went foraging at Laveletor [sp]. And there, I discovered a place which needed iron bars on its shop front, because of attacks by militants. And it’s there I learned that there weren’t only jews who were victims.

There were cultural jews and artistic jews. But there were also aggressive and violent leagues, thuggish and vitriolic with no concern for the debate of ideas.

We are here, present. Proud, noble and cruel jews. We’re well trained, We’re well-equipped. We are utterly fearless. Our enemies are more afraid of us than we are of them.

So I discovered the other side of the story. I discovered other kinds of jews, than the ones portrayed by the American film industry. Ultra-violent zionist jews shunning all debate! And I also discovered people who studied history dispassionately, with far fewer ideological overtones. And that things were far more complicated than they appeared.

Professor Faurisson never spoke about “the truth”. And he was vigorous in his conviction that only God knows the truth. And that it always boiled down to a question of opinion.

Faurisson: I am not looking exactly for what people call “truth”. Because I think that “truth” is too vague and pretentious. What I am looking for is “exactitude”. And for me history is to try to be exact! To deliver, to try to find some little truths that I can verify.

On the other hand, he stood firmly by what he called “exactitude”. The violence that he was subjected to is proportional to the thoroughness of his work. If his work had been more approximative and ideological, rather than exemplifying exactitude, it would have been easier to counter him on the grounds of exactitude, meaning serious historiography.

But he was exact to such a point that it was necessary to quietly usher in a vote, in summer, when there was no Deputies around, and naturally under the usual pressure from special interest groups, which led to the adoption of the totally iniquitous law prohibiting the study of a certain period in history, covering the years 1933 to 1945 and establishing, once and for all “history and truth revealed”!

Conclusions of the Nuremberg tribunals, which was the victors tribunal in the context of the immediate after war with high stakes, tensions, sufferings and overwhelming emotion, which might well be understandable at that particular moment in time.

[08:00]

But it would have been more logical, from a historical point of view, that the longer we had waited after these events, then the stakes might not have been quite so high, and we could have moved from ideology towards historiography and allowed historians to work with more hindsight.

However we went from the ideology of the victors to the ideology of “remembrance”. From the political to the religious.

“The Shoah, the extermination of the jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, … Sacred.”

And therefore I became interested in the work of Professor Faurisson, and in Revisionism in general. And from then on, I would say that my life changed definitively! I realized that the world of good and evil was a bit more complicated than that. And that those who dominate us weren’t necessarily synonymous with good. I mean the we hadn’t been victorious simply because we were the kindest, or more honest. I realized that evil was everywhere and that relative good was everywhere too.

I also realized that talking about it was eminently dangerous. And that if you did talk about it, you were immediately doomed to integral marginalization. And my marginalization, whether in film, or in journalism, before I had even spoken a word in public, sprang from the fact that my Revisionist readings and my conversations at the dining table about Revisionism became common knowledge. I practiced the same naivety as many other people who are naive by way of their own innate honesty.

I talked about the work of Robert Faurisson at dinner with people from the fashion, media, and film industries, telling them they ought to interested. I remember once saying the same to Eric Zemmour.

“You should take a look and read what he says! It’s interesting. It’s much more interesting than people like to believe, and what people say.”

I was totally naive! That’s how I came to be interested in the work of the Professor. And at first I was interested in Revisionism itself, without any concern for the actual person. Once I discovered the extraordinary persecution he had been subjected to, which shocked me further still, because when we talk about political prisoners in distant lands, the torture, and the conviction of political dissidents, we are always ready to lend a hand with reporters without borders, to mobilize in the name of far-away suffering.

And yet no French intellectual, no French journalist have ever publicly condemned the unbelievable persecution!

Right up to attempted murder! Of which Professor Faurisson was victim, along with Revisionists in general, imprisoned whether in Germany, Canada, or the US, simply for having produced research results, including scientific research results! Right, we’ll change the subject because it’s prohibited by law to talk about these issues!

[10:43]

For all the free speech hypocrites I mentioned earlier, have the guts to talk about the persecution suffered by Robert Faurisson during his life! For having had the audacity to work according to the principles of exactitude, concerning a sequence in history, which we are no longer allowed to study. That has been mythologized, sacrialized, in order to create a religion. Because, let me remind you, that Revisionists are reproached for blasphemy! For daring to discuss “revealed truths”. And this proves that the “Shoah” has become a religion.

(November 2013 — Proces Faurisson/Arianne Chemin)

“F*ck you! You’re Nazis! You spit on the memory of millions of dead!”

Anti-revisionism has become the State religion. And we see the same violence and the same debate denial on the part of anti-revisionists, as we see from religious extremists, and notably from those fingered by Zemmour, radical Islamists. The same levels of violence, the same refusal and denial of others. And I think we should criticise anti-revisionism as much as we criticise Daesh’s Islam, which never happens! That would show intellectual steadfastness, moral standing, and coherence. Few people are brave enough to be coherent. Coherence means paying the highest price.

Eventually I did meet the Professor with Dieudonne. And there, I met a man who was completely devoid of violence, or hatred, despite everything that had happened to him. Which is quite extraordinary as we are talking about religion here. He was full of good companionship and humour. English humour, let’s say because he was of Scottish origin. Not shy of laughing out loud! And of such kindness and devoid of any hatred. That is what I found.

And I also sensed that he was stricken with excruciating pain, and that what he had suffered was absolutely horrid! And I say, that I will never forget the Professor’s work, his personality, the persecution he suffered, those who persecuted him — who still persecute him, even on the moment of his death.

And who will continue to persecute him, despite his death. And I believe this is the true task of remembrance.

Furthermore, I think that France as a nation, and as a people, will only be free once the unique and iniquitous Gayssot Law falls. As Vincent Reynouard puts it very well:

“There is no chance of a nationalist revival, or feeling of nationalist pride, as long as historical Revisionism is forbidden.”

All the rest is lies, smoke and mirrors! And if day France becomes France again, not only will the Gayssot Law will have fallen, but at that moment in France, there will be no streets named aft Eric Zemmour. But there will be streets, or boulevards, even avenues named after Robert Faurisson. And I hope there will be schools named after him too! Because Robert Faurisson was a master, a school master, a master of exactitude, a master of moral rectitude!

And most of all, he was master of what I would call “authentic virility”. He’s the bravest man I have ever met during my lifetime. And he was a slight man, far braver than any of the beefy, loud-mouthed, far-Right joke characters that I have met over the years.

Including, I might add, the man of the “mere detail”, who didn’t have the courage that day to say that this thing is everything but a “mere detail”, because in fact it’s their Golgotha!

It’s the atomic nucleus around which turns the entire system of Western domination, as Maurice Bardèche already understand and discussed in his “Nuremberg”. A book for which I, and I alone, and the editor and republisher.

[14:24]

What else can I say? Perhaps to note that Revisionism is not a topic the relates to the far-Right, contrary the Revisionism’s reduced status according to all the professional liars, whom I shall not describe here. Historical Revisionism began on the Left by Rassinier and his two books, “Crossing the Line” and “The Lies of Ulysses”.

He was a member of the socialist Resistance, who, after the War, simply described his own experiences in the camps, which was different from the stories being related by these same professionals, who were already deploying “Remembrance” ideology with precise political objectives. Basically, to render impossible any criticism of the State of Israel, and to render untouchable a certain population group that have become increasingly dominant.

Historical Revisionism is not a far-Right concept, it’s an ideology which comes from the Left! Revisionism was perpetuated by a certain hard Left. And at the end of the 1950s, by the Italian Communist Party.

It popped up by way of Cohn-Bendit’s own brother, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, I think.

(Noam Chomsky)

“Coming to the rescue of freedom of expression. Because the French justice system is now attempting to ban historical Revisionism. Left leaning libertarians such as the American Noam Chomsky offer unexpected support for Faurisson. Among them is also Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Elder brother of the famous leader of May ‘68. Libertarian and close associate of publishing house La Vielle Taupe.

(Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit)

‘Pierre Guillame told me there’s a story concerning Faurisson, etc. They want to ban him. I had a look and I said: OK, I’m going to write something. I am against censorship. If I am not convinced of something then I have the right to harbour doubts. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced, and that I’m shaken by it. Arguments exist. Voila’.”

In fact, Revisionism was gaining ground everywhere, on the Left, even the hard-Left. I remember Revisionism being satirized during the time of Charlie Hebdo, at the time of Professor Sharhon’s [sp], “Hitler = SS”.

If in fact the Fabius Gayssot Law came into being quietly, it was because Revisionism was growing thanks to its exactitude. It was making a bee-line towards all the moralists, and truth seekers, both on the Left and on the Right.

“Roger Garaudy, 84, former university professor, former communist Deputy and Senator, a convert to Islam, author of 53 books including the one that give grounds for his appearance today in the criminal court in Paris. He is accused of contesting crimes against humanity for speaking of the myth of the extermination of 6 million jews.”

“L’Abbe Pierre persists and insists in an interview with Liberation this morning he launched a controversy long thought to be dead and declared that he’s satisfied with the support for Roger Garaudy: ‘I’m sure that the French people are breathing a sigh of relief that the taboo is finally lifted’ — L’Abbe Pierre speaking about Revisionist theories.”

So I say again, that whilst we might use Faurisson’s death to relay certain important truths, Revisionism is not a far-Right ideology. It’s an ideology of people who are curious about the truth and exactitude. An ideology born on the Left and which then rebounded to the far-Left, and which has also been seen on the far-Right. And all those today who walk behind Zemmour are shameless closet Revisionists! And all those that read and validated Faurisson, and who validate him still.

I won’t even mention my former good friend Terrie Aldison, [sp] who prided himself in former times as a Revisionist, and on whose bookshelf, on the second floor of his home, reserved uniquely for his friends and not just for his collaborators, stood the complete library of Revisionists works.

And the way we see how all these persons have bowed down to those who dominate us, whereas at the beginning they were readers and admirers of the Professor.

We are able to measure the courage and the uphill battle of the Professor’s life. We can characterize his life as Christ-like. Professor Faurisson, you are a role model for us! Our teacher and your posterity is assured, and will be further amplified. And one day you will be recognized as one of the greats in French history!

Who deserves to be in the Pantheon, if we first manage to rid that place of all the votarians who fatally, in the end, only ever brought votarian lies and arrogance! Simone Vay [sp] and tomorrow maybe it will be the Klarfeld’s.

And why not Bennot Levi [sp], finishing off with Anoona [sp] and then Zemmour for good measure, before everything come crashing down in a grand finale!

Adieu, Professor! Thank you, and infinite respect.

Translation/Subtitles/Voiceover by Alison Chabloz.

[19:24]

END

===============================================

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = xxx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages =

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 3: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 2: Jan 23, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 1: Nov 6, 2018 — Published post.

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:05:15 +0000

[Jim Rizoli, in Oct 2015, interviewed the now late Professor Robert Faurisson. Prof Faurisson, one of the “fathers” of “Holocaust” Revisionism passed away on Oct 22, 2018, aged 89.

— KATANA.]

_______________________

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Prof Robert Faurisson

Oct, 2015

Click the link below to view the video on YouTube (may not be available in some locations):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqRLnpJ_8ek&t=1838s

Also here on Bitchute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FbVcINOtox9k/

YouTube Description

Extraordinary Revisionists

Certain features have been disabled for this video
In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

Jim Rizoli, Robert Professor Faurisson interview.

Published on Nov 9, 2015

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(114:46)

[00:00]

[Intro song] No one knows what it’s like to be a bad man, feel the sadness, behind the light, …

[00:33]

Jim: It’s a pleasure to meet you! I’ve seen a lot of your videos. I read your information, and I’m just amazed to see what you’ve been through. And I have a lot of questions for you. And I would like to ask you all these questions I have laid out for me. And the first question I’d like to ask you is, I would think anyway that you are the “patriarch” of the revisionist movement! Wouldn’t you say that?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, with brothers, my friends.

Jim: Okay. [chuckling] All right. First of all, where were you born?

Prof Faurisson: So, I was born in England, near London, in a place called Shepperton.

Jim: OK. All right.

Prof Faurisson: I was born to a Scottish mother and a need a French father.

Jim: All right.

Prof Faurisson: My father was working in a shipping company, in Fenchurch street, London. Excuse me?

Jim: What year? The year you were born?

Prof Faurisson: Oh, 1929. After Jesus Christ!

Jim: [laughing] OK! So you didn’t know Jesus?

Prof Faurisson: I’m nearly 87.

Jim: 87! Oh, okay, very good! All right. Well, you are getting up there. That’s good! Where did you go to school?

Prof Faurisson: At the beginning it was in Singapore, in an English school. A beautiful English school! I think it was 1934, ’35.

Jim: OK.

Prof Faurisson: Then in Japan, in Kobe in an American school. And then I came back to France. And my mates would mock me because of my English accent! Our shores. So I decided not to speak English any more!

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And that’s why I have to ask you to pardon me my poor and broken English.

Jim: I think you speak just fine! You speak better than half the people in my country. [laughing]

Prof Faurisson: Oh really!

Jim: Yeah! We have are some problems with people speaking English in my country!

Prof Faurisson: I understand.

Jim: Let me ask you this, about your education. Can you tell us about your education?

Prof Faurisson: So my education was really in France and only in Catholic schools.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And I have to say something which is perhaps sad for you. I don’t know. It happens that I am in [word unclear] but I’ve always been in Catholic schools.

Jim: OK.

Prof Faurisson: And especially in a Jesuit school in [word unclear].

Jim: Okay, all right.

Prof Faurisson: And then I was also in a Catholic school, a very famous one in Paris, called College [word unclear].

Jim: Okay. Very good.

The big question here is, how did the “Holocaust” issue come into play with you? When did you start, or how did you start getting interested in that issue?

[04:15]

Prof Faurisson: I’m going to be perhaps a little bit long. Excuse me.

Jim: That’s fine! You can talk as long as you want. My cameras are working, everything’s fine, so I might just move this down just a little bit, but that’s fine. All right. So you can tell us exactly, all about your “Holocaust” issue days. How’s that?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So during the war itself I was totally anti-German. And I had a little trouble, because of that. In 1939 I was ten. In 1945, end of the war, I was sixteen. Now I’m going to tell you something which happened in 1942. In 1942 Pierre Laval*, he was the Prime Minister of Marshall Petain.

[* Pierre Jean-Marie Laval (28 June 1883 – 15 October 1945) was a French politician. During the time of the Third Republic, he served as Prime Minister of France from 27 January 1931 to 20 February 1932, and a second time from 7 June 1935 to 24 January 1936.

Laval began his career as a socialist, but over time drifted far to the right. Following France’s defeat and armistice with Germany in 1940, he served in prominent roles in Philippe Pétain’s Vichy Regime, first as the vice-president of the Council of Ministers from 11 July 1940 to 13 December 1940, and later as the head of government from 18 April 1942 to 20 August 1944.

After the liberation of France in 1944, Laval was arrested by the French government under General Charles de Gaulle. In what was widely regarded as a flawed trial, Laval was found guilty of high treason, and after a thwarted suicide attempt, he was executed by firing squad. His manifold political activities left a complicated and controversial legacy, resulting in more than a dozen conflicting biographies of him. SOURCE: Wikpedia]

And he said in a speech. He said:

“I hope that Germany will win this war!”

And he added:

“Because otherwise it would be the victory of communism in Europe!”

And I was incensed, because he had said that he wished the victory of Germany. Because, myself, I was hoping the victory of the French, the Gaulists, the English, Churchill. Of the Americans, of course, and I have to add, it’s very important, I wished the victory of Stalin!

It happens that by being on the side of the Americans, I was also on the side of the Soviets! And remember, it was in a Jesuit college that the priest came into place where I had written on my pulpit, “Mo a Laval” [sp] which means “Death to Laval”. And he mocked me and he said, in front of my mates. He said, … I’m going to say it in French first. Okay?

“Oh fo Faurrisson [word unclear]”.

“Oh you Faurrisson! With your English people who are running like rabbits in the desert!”

It was because the English in Tobruk, Benghazi and places like that were having a difficult time with the German troops of Rommel. Okay, so I was on the side of those people.

And one day, exactly on the 8th of May 1945 which was the capitulation of Germany, if you remember.

My father entered my room, my bedroom, that I shared with my brother Phillipe, and he said in French. He said:

“Robert, es-tu heureux?”

“Robert, are you happy?”

And I remember that I was a little bit embarrassed by that question. And I said:

“Yes.”

But, suddenly, I don’t know why, I thought for the German people, for the German soldiers. And I thought to myself.

“Now that they are vanquished. They have been fighting so hard, I have to respect the vanquished. I am on the side of the victor. I have to respect those people. And I’m going to protect them! And I want to understand what really happened.”

Do you understand that?

Jim: Yeah! Yeah, no, I understand.

Prof Faurisson: And I decided in a way to be like a referee, trying to see what really happened. And I didn’t want to be any more, anti-German, or pro-Stalin, and so on.

And I can say that this very day, I was 16, I decided to revise history! Which means to have a second look, a third one, and so on. And to check and to double check and to be “fair”!

Do, you know, that “fair”, we cannot translate it into French. It’s so typically British, “fair”. Try to be fair with the vanquished!

So, I remember that in college [word unclear] where I was, many of my mates didn’t understand my opinion about all this. And some of them thought that I was a “Nazi”! I was absolutely not a “Nazi”! [laughing] I wanted to understand, that is all!

And it happens that I read a book by a man called Paul Rassinier. And Paul Rassinier wrote a book called, the title is extraordinary, “The Lies of Ulysses”. Ulysses, of course, Homer. A story told by Homer. Ulysses, you see, was among the victors. When he came back home, a long time after, he told plenty of stories about his experience of war.

And, especially about his sufferings He had, really, let’s say hundreds of sufferings, that he told the people a [word unclear] of stories about his sufferings. It’s normal in a way, it’s human.

So, Paul Rassinier himself, had been a Resistance [a member of the French Resistance] and he had been in two German concentration camps.

And when he heard the stories about gas chambers, and so on, he said:

“Oh! This is strange! Because in the camp where I was, there was no question of gas chambers. I am going to see, how is it that so many people are talking about gas chambers in Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora.”

And then, he checked, he tried to check for Auschwitz and other camps. And he was very surprised to see that we had only “testimonies”! No proof. No real proof was brought, like in a criminal case.

Let’s suppose that there is next to the place you are yourself, a crime. Automatically the judge, a magistrate will decide that there will be a forensic report. He will never say:

“Oh, I have so many witnesses that I don’t need such a report.”

No! He needs a report. And sir, I can tell you sound thing extraordinary.

Since 70 years, we had only one! One forensic report. We needed that. Thanks to a forensic report, you can see what was a “gas chamber”, how it functions, what was the place of the crime. What was the weapon of the crime, an extraordinary one!

And we don’t have that! We and only one report, it was a French one about a camp in France called Struthof*, near Strasbourg.

[* Natzweiler-Struthof was a German-run concentration camp located in the Vosges Mountains close to the Alsatian village of Natzwiller (German Natzweiler) in France, and the town of Schirmeck, about 50 km (31 m) south west of the city of Strasbourg.]

And the forensic report was done but Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy, in Paris. And we know the result. The report disappeared!

That we know, thanks to three other doctors, we know what were the conclusions of Struthof. The conclusion was:

“No hydrocyanic acid.”

Because Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid. None in the so-called “gas chambers”. None in the chimney! And none in the bodies of 86 jews, supposed to have been gassed!

Jim: Now where is that report today? Who has that report?

Prof Faurisson: The report should have been, should be today, but I’ve been and I’ve checked, and there is no report in a place called Meaux, a place for the [word unclear] You see? Where they have all those documents. And considering the results of Professor Rene Farbe, nobody else decided in 70 years to have a forensic report! Because they knew that it would be too dangerous.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And I think that very few people know that, because they think that we have witnesses, so we don’t need anything else!

Jim: Right!

Prof Faurisson: No! We need first a forensic report.

Jim: Now, let me let me get into your situation with the Zundel Trial. How did you get involved with Zundel Trial and all that? What happened there?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. I met Ernst Zundel, who is an extraordinary man! An exceptional man! I think in 1979, in Los Angeles. Because in Los Angeles, for the first conference of historical revisionist organization. I mean, myself a conference.

See: The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

And I remember a lady saying:

“Oh, this is dynamite!”

I am going to tell you why dynamite. I go back to Zundel. I will certainly not forget him!

I had been in Auschwitz in 1975. I am going to give you an idea of the way I made my investigations.

I saw, what is called “Crematoria I” with the supposed gas chamber to kill people. Immediately I saw that it was not, certainly not a gas chamber! Because you had a tiny little door with partly a glass. And the door would open on this side, so that the corpses, cadavers would have been there blocking the door.

Jim: So it opened inwards, it opened inwards, right?

Prof Faurisson: Yeah. And you see with the glass [the glass window in the door] you do this with your elbow. And hydrocyanic acid, you know what? It goes at twenty metres from there to the SS [word unclear]

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: So, it’s a totally impossible! But investigate, follow me there. I went to the Museum of Auschwitz, and I said to the people. There I am.

“I am a professor in Sorbonne, I am interested in Auschwitz, and I want someone of you people to help me in my investigation. But I want the top of the top of you people!”

And they said “okay”, and a man came. His name Marshar Wick [sp].

And we had a conversation in German. I said.

“Are you ready to help me?”

And he said:

“Jawohl!”

And he would always say “Jawohl!” [chuckling], except once where he said “Ja!”. So watch for this, which is coming.

And I said:

“Ich habe ein Problem!”

“I have a problem! Come with me!”

And I brought him to a place right in front of the Krema I (Crematoria I), which had on one side a supposed gas chamber. On the other side the place of the furnaces, for the cremation.

And the door, another door, not the little one before. The door was open and everyone could see an oven, a furnace. So, from where we were, I told them only, I asked him a question only, with one German word.

I said:

“Echt?”

Which means, “authentic?”

And he said:

“Jawohl!”

I said:

“Come with me.”

He came with me. I put my finger on the opening, and I showed him that there was no, I think you say “soot”?

Jim: Yeah. Soot.

Prof Faurisson: And then the man suddenly, his face changed. And he said:

“Rekonstruiert.”

Which means, “reconstructed”.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Now wait a minute. A reconstruction doesn’t mean that with have a lie there. Because it could be fair, it could be honest. But it could also be not fair and not honest. And I had an idea. You need to have ideas! And to express them right, you see.

I said suddenly, looking at his face, I said:

“Also hast du Pläne?”

Which means, “Therefore, you have plans?” And he said:

“Ja.”

Jim: Yeah [chuckling].

Prof Faurisson: And I said:

“Wo sind die Pläne?”

“Where are the plans?”

And he said:

“You would have to go and see Mr Iwaszko. The [person] responsible for the archives.”

But the next day I had to go back to France. So I came back in March, 1976.

And this is what I have been on the 19th of March, 1976. I went to see Mr Iwaszko. I brought in a bottle of alcohol. He didn’t say anything. He [word unclear] me, nothing. I said:

“I’ve seen Mr Marshar Wick, and I want to see the plans.”

Of those supposed gas chambers. Because not only in Crematoria I, Crematoria II, III, IV and V. I want to see them. He showed me a big table. Okay, I sat down and I wait. And the man brought me documents and documents of the trial of the poor Rudolf Hoess, who had been one of the three successive commandants of Auschwitz. And, it was about the trial, and it was all in Polish! I said:

“Oh! Bad luck for me. I don’t understand Polish at all.”

And so by looking, and looking over, I saw little, tiny little photos, with captions in German. And I understood the plans, of all those places! And I paid in zloty [Polish currency]. I paid for 116 photos. I came back to France. I was very pleased! But I had to wait and wait, and wait, to have the photos.

Anyway, to make it short, I didn’t know where I could publish! The internet did not exist. It was impossible! I knew that it was dynamite! What could I do? And finally, a friend of mine told me:

“I know a Spanish journalist. He could come and perhaps publish your stuff.”

The journalist came with someone helping him, okay.

And I said:

“You see, you can take photos, but I don’t want any photo of me. I don’t want my face in your magazine!”

He said:

“Yes.”

And so on, and went away. And a few months after, I discovered the magazine with a title, with of course, my face! And the title:

“Defense Lawyer of Hitler!”

I was the “defense lawyer of Hitler”! And the troubles began at that time. And I worked very, very [word unclear] very, very long time in a place called “Centre de documentation Juive Contemporaine”, “Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center”* Okay, it’s in Paris.

[The Centre de documentation Juive Contemporaine (CDJC, Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center) was clandestinely created in France to document the persecution of the country’s Jews during the Second World War. It is a key component of the Shoah Memorial.

The CDJC — Centre de documentation juive contemporaine, or Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center — was the seed from which the Shoah Memorial eventually grew. Its founders’ determination to document the genocide of Europe’s Jews during the war is still one of the main missions of the Shoah Memorial, a museum, documentation center and memorial at the same time.

The foundation of the CDJC dates back to April 28, 1943, when industrialist Isaac Schneersohn clandestinely brought together around 40 Jewish activists and community leaders in his Grenoble apartment to discuss the idea of creating an archive.

The goal was to set up an organization that would collect evidence on the persecution of the Jews in order to bear witness and demand justice after the war. A few years later, they achieved their aim when Nuremberg trial prosecutors relied on documents from the CDJC archives. Source: Http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/en/archives-and-documentation/the-documentation-center/the-history-of-the-cdjc.html]

And this is, I want to tell you, that I said when I entered the place for the first time, I said to the man:

“I want a photo of a gas chamber.”

And the answer of the man, was:

“We have many testimonies! We have many books.”

I said:

“A photo!”

And he said something else, like that. And I said:

“A photo!”

And he said:

“Sit down!”

And for 60 minutes I waited for a lady who was going everywhere trying to, find a plan, not a plan, excuse me, a photo of a gas chamber. And there were no photo, at all. Because he felt that I knew something about the topic, and [chuckling] it was dangerous for them.

Jim: Right.

[28:29]

Prof Faurisson: And, you see, I worked very much and I decided to the United States for our conference, where I met Zundel. And so I am coming back to Zundel.

My English being so bad, I decided to find someone to read the paper of my conference. And this man was Ernst Zundel! And, it was in Los Angeles in 1979. And I came back very often to the United States, because what I wanted to see was an American gas chamber.

You see, an American gas chamber — I visited one in Baltimore [word unclear] An American gas chamber, is, was, because they are no more, was functioning with hydrocyanic acid.

And what I saw was something extraordinary! To kill only one man, it was in iron [the construction of the chamber]. It was thick like that. The windows were something called “aircrete”, which means “very strong”.

And there was a pier in the center. Why a pier? And I’m going to give you immediately the answer. It’s rather easy to kill someone with hydrocyanic acid. But the question is, how can I kill someone without killing myself?

Jim: Right!

Prof Faurisson: How can I enter a place, where I have the corpse of someone which has so much hydrocyanic acid, because hydrocyanic acid penetrates everywhere!

You see, it’s fantastic how it penetrates! And stays there. And you cannot touch it. So how could medical doctor and two people helping him, how could they get into the place? So, I have know time to explain will try to explain that. It’s [word unclear].

Jim: So the so whole point was, that you saw that the gas chamber, they say was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, the crematory I, the gas chamber combination. You saw that there was no way they could gas anybody in a building like that. And when you came here to the United States, you saw a real gas chamber and now you can see, well this is the way you do it. The way they had it, you could not do it.

Prof Faurisson: Exactly.

Jim: Right, okay.

Prof Faurisson: And you see it was a terrible thing, because as soon as did this, I got into real problems. And my wife, and my children, and now some of my grandchildren. You have to be ready for that, okay?

Jim: Well tell tell us what, …

Prof Faurisson: I have to say something about American gas chambers.

Jim: Okay, go ahead.

Prof Faurisson: How is it. In this gas chamber you had [word unclear] which move, you see.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: To get after the killing of the man, to get all the gas you have something on the top for aspiration [extraction] of the poison. And the poison gets into, in French what we call [word unclear], which is a place where you neutralize hydrocyanic acid. Okay? And the stuff which is supposed to be neutralized is sent into pipe and then into a chimney. The chimney must be higher than all the penitentiary.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And the day of an execution, the guards have no right to be on the top [guard towers]. It’s so dangerous, you see.

And when you see that I would say it’s finished! You understand that it’s finished! Now what about the pillar, the central pillar. This is the explanation. The people are so afraid that the hydrocyanic acid could get outside, could [word unclear] everything for the installation, you see, that they try to make a depression [a lower pressure that outside the chamber]. A depression, you understand? Okay. If you make a depression all this could crumble [collapse] so you had to put a pillar to make it strong.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: Something else. Very important. Hydrocyanic acid is explosive! The Germans, … I have found documents and documents about all that. They talk about “Explosionsgefahr”, “danger of explosion”.

And, do you know why the man that you are going to kill is, how do you say “ligoté”, which is “strapped”, …

Jim: Strapped, yeah.

Prof Faurisson: Very strongly! Why? It’s because if this man gets loose, he might create static electricity.

Jim: Sparks. Right.

Prof Faurisson: And you would have an explosion.

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: But I remember when I visited [chuckling] this gas chamber in Baltimore, I had an explanation, not only from the director, but even from inmates helping the gassing procedure, and so on. And they said that the day you have an execution, or an exercise also, everybody is afraid. Everyone could be poisoned, or gassed, or killed, and so on.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And we have this silly story of the confession of Hoess. And how did they get this confession? So, I made a discovery about that. Do, you know, that I could make you confess to whatever I wanted?

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: And you could get me confessing whatever you want, without touching. Nothing! There is a way, a fantastic way! You forbid the man to sleep. One day is possible, two days, …

Jim: Oh, I see what you are saying. You are saying you have it so he doesn’t sleep, he stays up all the time?

Prof Faurisson: He cannot sleep.

Jim: Oh okay. Yeah. Deprive him of sleep.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. You don’t even need to touch the man, you need to make noise, and so on. Because those dirty people, they confessed in a book how they did manage to get those confessions. And said that with a stick when he was like that, they would waken the poor man.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And the stupidity of the story. Hoess confessed that when the people inside the gas chamber stopped screaming, they understood that they were dead. So, they put a ventilation, they push a button for a, how do you say, “ventilation”, …

Jim: A fan, a ventilation fan.

Prof Faurisson: A fan. And immediately they would get into the place. And “immediately” is the German word, “sofort”. It’s a terrible word. Immediately they would enter the place, eating and smoking! Which means without even a gas mask!

Jim: Right! Makes no sense.

Prof Faurisson: And smoking, you could have an explosion.

Jim: Yeah, right.

Prof Faurisson: You see, so those confessions are nothing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: They are lies only!

Jim: Now he said 2 1/2 million people were killed that way, didn’t he? Didn’t he say, 2 1/2 million?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, different figures. They got different figures from him. As, you know, about the figures it’s a fantastic story. So if you are very careful and if you want to see the figures given only for Auschwitz and Birkenau, it begins at 9 million!

Jim: Oh! Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Yes. Then you have 8, 7, I don’t remember if you have 6.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: But what we got for a very long time, was four million.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And suddenly in 1990 they decided to destroy this monument [plaque] with four million killed.

And then they put one million and a half! Suddenly. And then the historians got down one million, then you had someone like Pressac, a friend of the Klarsfelds, who said 700,000, and then you had a man giving 510,000. Nothing you see. There’s no sense.

Jim: How many do you think died, in the camps. Can you explain that to us? What do you think are the real figures?

Prof Faurisson: I cannot answer your questions, Sir.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And I’m going to tell you why. It’s because I would need to go into a place called [word unclear] where you have many many documents. And I cannot go to this place. It’s impossible. It would be forbidden.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: Now do you want me to tell you the reactions in France first, and then in the world, about my discoveries?

Jim: Sure! Yeah. Go ahead.

Prof Faurisson: Yeah, okay. So all this I put in a long paper. The title is “The Victories of Revisionism”.

And it was published on the internet on December 11, 2006. And I gave all sorts of reactions of the people who were against us. And it’s extraordinary the admission. Yes, extraordinary! I must say that in 78 [1978] I was attacked, physically attacked!

Jim: Where did that happen when you were attacked?

Prof Faurisson: Oh, I was attacked ten times! So the first part is important. Two in Lyon where I was a professor at the University of Lyon. Two in Vichy where I live. Four in Paris.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And two in Stockholm. In Stockholm I ran away so quickly that they were not even able to catch me!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Surprisingly, we have this on camera. You could check it.

Jim: Okay. Wow!

Prof Faurisson: So, I was attacked, especially one day in Vichy. They nearly killed me!

Jim: Yeah, wow!

Prof Faurisson: I was saved by a young man. I didn’t know this man. He was a fisherman. He was a student I was told. And he was nearly one meter ninety [190 cm/6’ 3” tall]. And the day after the attack, he saw my name in the newspaper and he said to the police, that he regretted to have saved my life! [chuckling]

Jim: Oh! Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And so, the newspaper, the most important in France, is Le Monde. And they had to publish something, they had to say a professor has been attacked! They tried to not say why.

Jim: Wow.

Prof Faurisson: So, we have in France what we call, the “right to reply”. But it is a very difficult one to angle. In answer I said:

“Why don’t you say to people why I was attacked?”

And I said:

“For years and years I’ve been sending you papers about the problem of the gas chambers. How is it that you don’t publish it. You should do it”.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And so, they were obliged to publish it, and it was a terrible hullaballoo!

Jim: Wow! What year was that? What year did you publish that?

Prof Faurisson: I published that, … Oh! Good question. I published that in Lavetour [sp].

[45:00]

People of the extreme Left. They published my stuff. So the question was, I said very simple:

“Show me, or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!”

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Why did I say, “or draw me”? Because some people might say:

“We cannot show you something that the Germans have destroyed.”

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: So I say okay, okay, so show me what the Germans have destroyed! I want to see.

And can you imagine the number of articles, of things like that, which appeared at that time. It was seventy eight, seventy nine.

Jim: Okay. Now let me ask your question. When you published this information, did that affect your job as a professor!

Prof Faurisson: Oh! It was finished for me!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: It was a disaster!

Jim: Did they fire you?

Prof Faurisson: My specialty I must say, the university, one of my two specialties was appraisal of texts and documents, literature, history major. You see it was my specialty.

I would train my students to look at a documentary. Very short. Three times. Once with the sound. They without the sound. And then again, with the sound.

And they were so surprised, to see for example, they show you in those films, they show you cadavers, corpses. And they talk about people being killed! So you think you are seeing people who have been killed! But they are in the same shape, all of them. You could see that they died from typhus.

Jim: Right. Sure. Natural causes, or diseases. Yeah, I get you.

Prof Faurisson: And you have to story, very interesting of Bergen-Belsen. Bergen-Belsen was a camp on the west, and the British were coming next to Bergen-Belsen. Where it was a disaster. Because of the bombings. Because no more Zyklon B as pesticide. Nothing to eat and even no more water. It was a disaster!

So the Germans decided something very strange. Not well known. They decided to go with a White flag to the troops of Montgomery, and say:

“Now be careful. You are approaching a place where you have typhus and so on. Don’t liberate the prisoners! It could be a disaster even for your troops.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: For us, for the civilians, and so on. And the British decided to collaborate with the Germans!

And they went to this camp, and this camp, it was a very sandy place. Sand, Sand. So they could put the bodies in the sand. Do you understand?

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And they wanted to know how many people had been buried like that. And they decided to make six big places to put back the bodies once they have a figure, a number. OK? So they took out the bodies, they counted them and a bulldozer pushed to the place where German woman of the Army were obliged with naked hands to throw the bodies into the new place.

And the bulldozer, you see it so quickly, that most of the people think it’s a German bulldozer, with a German driver. That it was a kind of industry to kill the people every day!

And to make it more possible to believe in that, you had even pictures with the driver, you cannot see his head! You cannot see it is a Tommy [British soldier]. That it is a British driver. People think it was a German industry!

Jim: Right.

[50:52]

Prof Faurisson: Because you must know something. All this topic about, how do you say that, those things and so on, had already been used during WWI! French and English propaganda would say that the Germans were an English [word unclear] of terrorists, or [word unclear] like that. Fabricating terrors and so on.

So the same story was taken for WWII, but they added “gas”.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Gas, when it was, be careful, when it was American, or Western propaganda. But for the Russians, nobody knows that. I described that. Let me tell you this. The Soviets liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945. So I had the idea to get someone to go and see the Pravda. “Pravda” means “truth”. The newspaper, the communist newspaper. And I said:

“You begin please on the 28th of January and see when they are going to talk about Auschwitz. On the 28th nothing! 29, nothing! 30, nothing. 31, nothing. First of February, a little thing. And then suddenly on the second of February the biggest discovery of the Soviets! Did, you know how, according to the Soviets, the people were killed in Auschwitz?

Jim: No.

Prof Faurisson: You cannot imagine. They were killed by electricity!

Jim: Oh, okay. I got it. Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And the bodies were full on something, which would bring them to a big furnace and so on.

Jim: So that was the first lie. The big lie.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So you had gas, then electricity!

Jim: [chuckling]

Prof Faurisson: Wait a minute. You had steam! Which is the case for Treblinka. Treblinka, you had a document called “PS3311”. And this document is about Polish testimony about what happened in Treblinka. In Treblinka, in this document. And this document, be careful, had automatically the value of a proof, according to the charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 21. Every Article of that kind had not to be proofed. It was the “truth”. Fantastic!

It’s thanks to that, that the Nuremberg Tribunal said that Katyn [Katyn Forest mass murder of Polish officers, etc., ] was made by the Germans! Everybody know that it was done by the Russians, of course.

And about Treblinka they said in detail that those poor Jews were killed in steam chambers. There was a well, there was a pipe, there was a boiler, and there was a chamber, very slippery! The Jews would fall down you see! [laughing] A silly story!

Jim: Right, right.

Prof Faurisson: You have only silly stories.

[55:28]

Jim: Now have you been to Treblinka?

Prof Faurisson: Yes! I’ve been to Treblinka. Good question! You are going to see why. Did you know the there is a film by Claude Lanzmann, called “Shoah”? Do you know that?

Jim: The “Shoah”?

Prof Faurisson: “Shoah”, means the “Holocaust”.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: “Shoah”. Nine hours and 25 minutes.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: I’ve taken notes during all that time. And there is especially Treblinka. And in Treblinka he would explain you this. That the Jews of Warsaw were brought to Treblinka. Treblinka, a place where they were immediately gassed! All of them!

And Lazmann filmed a man supposed to have been a witness. He was a locomotive driver. He was the man who would every day bring, like that, the Jews to their death in Treblinka! With gas. No more “steam”. And you could see this man, he was a very important witness of “Shoah”. Other witnesses also, but this on the locomotive driver.

Sir! I went to Treblinka and near Treblinka I found the locomotive driver. And we made a film about all this. A part of what he told us. And he was speaking about this. And suddenly I asked him a question. I said:

“So, everyday you were yourself were bringing Jews like that to their death!”

And he said:

“No!”

“How can you say no?”

“No!”

“But when did you know that they were killed?”

“Oh”, he said. “After the war.”

This is the big witness.

Jim: Yeah. Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And I found in Treblinka a very interesting man, a peasant. And I wrote many things about this, and I took dimensions of the place and so on. And you could see that it was an impossible story!

Jim: Sure. Oh yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And I wrote about that.

Jim: Well they say, what 800 – 950, 000 people were killed there, right?

Prof Faurisson: There are always different figures.

Jim: I know, I know it.

Prof Faurisson: Which is normal in a way. Okay.

Jim: And there is nothing at Treblinka now. There is nothing there! I mean, …

Prof Faurisson: There is nothing there! [chuckling] You see, did you hear anything about a priest called Patrick Desbois? He wrote a book called, “Shoah by Shooting”* or something. [“The Holocaust by Bullets“] I’m not able to put it into English. “La Shoah par balles”. Okay. And this man was a priest, decided one day to make an investigation like that, about those poor Jews killed in Ukraine, especially. And he told us:

“I have found many, many pits.”

And he said:

“Eight hundred of them, and the total of the dead was one million and a half.”

Oh! Sir. This is a joke! A total joke! A shameful one! This priest tells us that first he visited a rabbi in England. And the rabbi said:

“You must not trouble the dead! Don’t open whatever. Because they are saints!”

The Hebrew word was “sekiden” [sp]. They are sacred, don’t touch them. So [chuckling] this Patrick Desbois goes from one village to another and he asks all people to come and he shows you a field or a forest, or whatever. And people are like that you see. [motioning to indicate tears coming down his face] They are crying. And they say:

“Yes, in this place so many people, so many Jews were killed!”

And that is it. You cannot see even one corpse!

Jim: I know! I know!

[* See: Patrick Desbois and the “Mass Graves” of Jews in Ukraine by Carlo Mattogno.]

[61:55]

Jim: Let me ask you about your situation now the Zundel Trial, and how you came and in contact, and all that with Fred Leuchter? How did that come about?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So I came to help Zundel in 1985, 1988, 1992. Okay. He is really a friend. And I decided to help him. So, I came to Toronto even in 1984, 84, 85, and so on. And I came with 5 big trunks of documents.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Imagine that at the airport! [chuckling] Yes. And I was at Zundel’s house working day and night. And I attended, of course, those two trials. And I was admitted as an expert. You know that you have to ask to be an expert. And it was extraordinary! Because, to make it short I would say that in 85, we “killed” historian number one of the “Holocaust”, Raul Hilberg!

Jim: Yeah, Raul Hilberg.

Prof Faurisson: We “killed” also, I can’t remember his name, the witness number one. It’s not as interesting as that. And in 88, remember Fred Leuchter testified. So I’m going to talk about the first one, 85.

Jim: Okay. That is fine.

Prof Faurisson: We had this man. He came like this, very sure of himself, and it was a disaster! Raul Hilberg. Raul Hilberg had published a book in 1961, called “The Destruction of the European jews”. On page 177 he said there had been two orders from Hitler to kill the Jews! Oh! Two orders? Really?

And the first order was:

“Go and kill them where they are!”

Russia and so on. And the second one:

“Collect all those people and put them in places to kill them.”

And surprisingly there was no footnote! No text! Nothing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Coming out of the blue like that! Two affirmations. Usually Hilberg would always put footnotes. Be very precise. And there is nothing! Okay? And I was helping an extraordinary defense lawyer, Doug Christie.

Jim: Right. Doug Christie.

Prof Faurisson: And I used to work in the evening, during the night until 3, or for in the morning. And when he woke up he would find the question he had to put, and the documents. And he was there, a magnificent man, and I was on his side, on my chair. And I had little stickers, like that, yellow stickers. And every time I thought a question should be put — because it was long, you see. I would put a sticker on his desk. And you should have seen the face of Hilberg, with the yellow stickers! [making a face of shock and dread]

Jim: [chuckling].

Prof Faurisson: And I had the idea to ask Doug Christie to ask him a very simple question. Because I knew that this man was what I call, a “man of paper”! He was a professor of paper, and paper, and papers! And I said to Doug Christie:

“You are going to ask him which camps he visited. But don’t put the question like that. Give him a list of camps. Take Buchenwald. Did you visit this camp? How many times? And how much time every time?”

We started with Buchenwald, and he said:

“No.”

And the second one, he said:

“No.”

And the third one, he stopped us. And he said the had visited none!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Except! Except for a visit, a no official visit for his speech, or ceremony. So he was a man who had not even taken care to go and see where were this gas chambers! Even destroyed, because even destroyed it’s very important to see the dimensions, and so on.

And it was a total disaster, because we found something that he had said in 2000, wait a minute, yes the first one I said was in 1985. So in 1983, he had said somewhere, that finally there was no document, nothing. It was the German bureaucracy who had decided, suddenly, without any order whatsoever to kill the Jews! That to not write anything down, but to work by these, remember those words:

“By an incredible meeting of their minds! A consensus by mind reading!”

Jim: [chuckling] I know!

Prof Faurisson: I remember the day he said that. Once we were back at Zundel’s house there was the big table. And we were numerous. And I said:

“My friends! Do you know that today we are going to enter a new era! Because when I need a pot of coffee, or water, whatsoever, I will not even have to say, ‘I want coffee, or water’, because we are, all of us, to work by an incredible meeting of minds, consensus, mind reading!”

Jim: [laughing] Right! Right, telepathy!

Prof Faurisson: Now if it was incredible, sir, why should I believe? You say yourself that it was “incredible”! Okay? Now, how could we explain this change in Raul Hilberg?

I have an explanation. It’s because — we are going back to France — when there was this fantastic story everywhere, the Jews decided, some Jews decided to make a big international conference in Paris. In the Sorbonne, where I had been a professor. And to show the destruction of the European Jews, the “Holocaust”, the “Shoah“, and so on. And it lasted I think, four days, which is very much.

So I went to see the organizers of this conference. There were two of them. And I said:

“It’s against me. It’s against Faurisson! So I would like to attend this conference.”

And the first man said:

“No! No question!”

And I said:

“Even if I say that I will not talk? Say anything.”

“No! You cannot negotiate that!”

And to when I saw the second one, he told me exactly the same thing. So you see, you had a big international conference against me, and I had no right to go and attend this. And the only reaction of the professors was on the 21st of February 1979, when a journal, once more, they published something called “Une déclaration d’historiens”, “A Declaration of Historians”. There were 34 of them, French professors of history, and so on.

Let me find what they decided. It was in 79. If I can find it. Okay. Yes, there we are. Thirty four French historians, signed a lengthy joint declaration in reply to my technical arguments, and so on. [chuckling] And, blah, blah blah! French are good at “blah, blah”!

Jim: [laughing].

Prof Faurisson: Yes! You see!

Jim: [chuckling] I don’t know, I’ve only talked to one Frenchman, and it’s been you! [laughing].

Prof Faurisson: [chuckling] Okay! And the conclusion of those people. Because you see that my arguments were technical! Physical! You call that? What’s the name? Sorry, I cannot remember, you see. An American expression. Oh, okay. But you see? It’s technical.

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: And the conclusion, listen sir! Don’t fall down from your chair!

Jim: I won’t!

Prof Faurisson:

“One must not ask oneself how technically such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened.”

Jim: [loud laughing]

Prof Faurisson: Are you pleased?

Jim: [laughter] Yeah, that is their big explanation! Right?

Prof Faurisson: The big explanation! And see, we are today, 2015. No explanation, whatsoever.

Jim: Let me ask you something. I want to ask you about, getting back to Raul Hilberg. The fact that you blew him out of the courtroom, is it true that he didn’t show up for the next trial, right?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, that is right. That’s right.

Jim: Because you embarrassed him so much, tight?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. I congratulate you for that. Because when there was the second trial in 88, he was asked by the Jewish organization to come back. And Doug Christie had a brilliant idea. And it could only happen in a kind of British court. In France it would be impossible. He said:

“So you had an exchange of letters. Can we see the letters?”

And the judge decided that yes, he had to show the letters.

And in the letters you could have seen a little boy, saying:

“Oh! I have been worst in this place in 85. It was awful! I don’t want to, …! No! No Mama I don’t want to go back!”

Jim: Yeah. You really ashamed him. He was shamed. He couldn’t show his face again. Right?

Prof Faurisson: Yea. You see he was, … because I don’t want to attack too much those people. They are what I call, “believers”! They believe! They might be sincere. Sincere, even when they change the things to test, [word unclear] and so on. Because I had so many examples. I am going to give you a few of those examples.

You had a German doctor, Johann Paul Kramer, who was [word unclear] in Auschwitz for some time. And he had a diary. And when he saw the Americans, he said:

“See my diary. I didn’t do anything bad.”

And in this diary, you had this.

“For the first time I’ve been present to a ‘special action’.”

“Besondere Aktion” in German. And he said:

“I was present. It was outside.”

Meaning, not in a room whatsoever. It was outside. Probably to receive the convoys of people who are arriving in Auschwitz. Something like that. And you had the word “draussen” [word unclear] And I was lucky enough to read it because it was in Gothic characters. I learned German in Gothic characters, d-r-a-u-s-s-e-n.

And when Mr Klarsfeld — you know to man? I suppose? Mr Klarsfeld published his big book called “Memorial” about the Jews deported from France. He put this thing of Dr Kramer, and he put the translation on the left, and he said:

“I have been present at a ‘special action’, …”.

And he titled it:

“… In a gas chamber.”

See, instead of “outside” he put this.

Jim: Hmm!

Prof Faurisson: And they are constantly doing the same thing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: For instance, everybody knows that the Germans had a “Final Solution” of the Jewish question. Okay?

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And we are told the it means “killing of Jews”. So, I’m sorry sir, the Germans sometimes would write this like that. But they had shortened it. The real phrase, which was, … “We want a, ….” How do you say that?

Jim: It’s “removal”. They wanted to remove them.

Prof Faurisson: Wait a minute. I’ll find it. Excuse me, … I’m going to try to find it.

Jim: Well, I know they wanted to deport them, and get rid of them. I know that. They didn’t want to kill them, they just wanted to get them out of there.

Prof Faurisson: No. They wanted a “territorial final solution”! Territorial! Ty want a territory for the Jews. It could be Madagascar, it could be Uganda, it could be Russia.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And they thought even at a time that it could be Palestine. But they decided “Oh! No! No Palestine.” because of the valiant, the noble and valiant Arabic people.

Jim: Right. They didn’t want to have a conflict with the Arabs. I understand.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. But you see it was a “territorial solution”.

Jim: Yep. Deportation. My next question. Let’s get back to the Zundel Trial and your relationship with Fred Leuchter. How was that?

[82:52]

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. So I said to Ernst Zundel. [word unclear] The trial came. I said:

“We need a specialist of American gas chambers.”

And finally we sent Fred Leuchter and so on. And we had this answer. The best one is a man called, Fred Leuchter. So Ernst asked me:

“Will you go and visit him in Boston?”

And I said:

“Yes.”

And I went to Boston, and I was in a hotel, and I saw the man in the snow [?] and I said to this man. I tried to see if this man knew something about the German, supposed gas chamber. And I asked him some questions. I said:

“So what about the gas chambers?”

And he said:

“Oh yes.”

He believed in the gas chambers. He believed in the German gas chambers. Never he had a doubt about that.

And I said:

“You have seen one?”

“No.”

“But how would you figure this out? How would you see a German gas chamber?”

I remember he told me:

“So if I see a big building with bricks and so on, and guards.”

He began with the guards.

“And have you long distance.”

I don’t remember exactly. At a very long distance. And I said:

“Why do you say the guards would be at a very long distance?”

He said:

“Oh, because the problem you see, is when the gas gets out of the chimney, because of the wind, you know, where to put the guards on the side, …”

And so on. And I showed him my documents. Where you could see that the in the furnace in Crematoria one, you could see that it was “Leichenhalle”, which means a place to put the bodies, a mortuary. And in the others, Crematoria II and III, you had “Leichenkellar”, cellars for cadavers. So you had it. And I remember that I had showed that to a man in France building crematories. And he was with someone, and I remember, he said:

“Oh! That is seven, eight metres thing.”

And I told him:

“What do you mean by that?”

Because this one is seven metres, and the other one is eight metres. He said:

“It was typical of a crematory. You need to metres for a cadaver in the mortuary. And two metres also, and in between three, or four for the, …”

How do you say, for the “chariot”? To bring the bodies, .. I don’t remember the English, …

Jim: You mean, how you bring them in there?

Prof. Faurisson: To bring the, …

Jim: You are talking about a trolley, the trolley thing?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. Something like that. So it was typical!

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: It was typical. Not only you had to [word unclear], but it was typical.

Jim: So you didn’t go to Auschwitz with Fred, he went there himself. And he came up with all the information.

Prof. Faurisson: That is right. That is right. And I showed him the plans and so on. And he felt that, he said something that he “smells a rat”.

Jim: Oh! Yeah. Smells like a rat!

Prof. Faurisson: Yeah. And he thought that it was interesting. And he went to see, he was invited by Ernst. And they decided that he would go to Auschwitz, Majdaneck, and all the places. He did a perfect work. And his conclusion was that not only was there no gas chamber, but it was impossible.

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Totally impossible.

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: And I want to say something about his statement in court. He was very impressive! I’m going to tell you why he was impressive. Because he was asked, by the judge, or someone. He was asked a question and he would always wait a few seconds before giving an answer. And I asked him:

“How is it that you do that?”

And he said:

“Because I’ve been taught to do that. To count to ten before giving an answer.”

So at the beginning it’s a little bit funny, to say is it a simpleton? And finally it was very impressive to see how much he was careful in choosing his words, and so on. And, I think it was in the 20th of April, 1988, it was devastating!

I was in court, of course, and the jews coming go to us like that you see [with head down, hunched over]. They were in a bad state.

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: Really. Yes. It was their “Stalingrad” you see!

Jim: Well that was an important document. The Leuchter Report was very important, because that helped to get Ernst off, Ernst Zundel off, would you say? Or what?

Prof. Faurisson: Oh, I think so. Yes. There’s no doubt about that.

Jim: Yeah. Well let me just finish up with this point here. Do you think that Revisionist is making headway today in the world. What do you think about that?

Prof. Faurisson: I think we are making many progress. You see an example of plenty [word unclear] victories there. And another one, which is very important, I want to talk about it. But it is necessary tiny little pieces aft tiny little pieces.

Jim: Yeah, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: It cannot be spectacular. No! Don’t wait for what we call, “the big event”. No. It is not coming go. Certainly not. It’s going to be very slow, and it is very slow. But there is no sigh of retreat! It’s be coming go more and more difficult for those people.

And you see, back to the internet. You can do something very simple. You take a monthly, jewish monthly and more, every three months and you can’t the number of times you have “gas chamber”. Gas chambers are disappearing. [I’ve noticed this —K]

Jim: Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: They say any word but, they don’t won’t too much “gas” you see. “Gas” is becoming rare!

Jim: Sure, yeah. Well, you know, you are one of my favourites now. You are in my “League of Extraordinary Revisionists”. I’ve already interviewed Fred Leuchter, and now I’ve interviewed you. And I’m going to try and see if I can interview all the other people that have been instrumental in exposing the “Holocaust”. I consider it a hoax. That is what I call it, anyway.

See: Jim Rizoli Interviews Fred Leuchter: His Story, His Way — TRANSCRIPT

And I think it is important that people especially now, in our day and age now they have to see the people who preceded us Revisionists now the younger ones, who are trying to get the message out now. Because we are getting stopped every which way, when we bring this up. I mean, in my town they stopped me completely from bringing my message out on cable shows on TV.

But in the internet we are trying, we are trying to do it through the internet. The internet is the means to doing it, so hopefully we can get more people to understand it, and see what’s going on. It’s tough! It’s really hard! The jews really don’t want this to be known. And your interview with me today, I’m sure they are not going to be happy about that either [chuckling]. They just don’t want the message out.

Do you have anything you want to conclude with saying?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes.

Jim: Sure. Let me hear you.

[94:06]

Prof. Faurisson: You see plenty of proofs, for instance you have a jewish professor who said, … listen to this:

“Sources for the study of the gas chambers are rare and unreliable!”

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Fantastic! I thought that they were never said so strong. I know that is what he had to say. You have another one who said about Krema I, that so many people are visiting. He said:

“Everything in it is false! Faurisson exploited those fabrications all the more easily since they didn’t want to answer him!”

It was in 1995. See, I had to wait a long time to see this. “everything in it is false!”

Now, you have a jew, I should give you the name of the man who said, let me see, … the man who in 1988 said:

“Source for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable!” is Arno Mayer.

Jim: Okay, I’ve heard of him.

Prof. Faurisson: But the man that I quote sometimes, “The Last Mohican”. The last one trying to defend the story is Van Pelt.

Jim: Oh, Van Pelt. Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: The jew. And he said that in Auschwitz they were spending a lot of money to get it “alive” in a way. But he suggested that no money should be spent for that. And that nature should sum back. And the journalist told him, the journalist of the [words unclear] said:

“If you want to prove the deniers, what you have to prove, if you do that you have nothing.”

And his reply was:

“99% of what we know doesn’t find it’s physical evidence in Auschwitz!”

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: It’s fantastic!

Jim: Yeah. They even admit it. Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Yeah. And you see if the myth of the gas chambers crumbles, everything crumbles! It’s finished!

Jim: Right. Well hopefully that day will happen in sum point in time. We should keep trying. What are you doing now, yourself? You are retired obviously, what do you do with your time now?

Prof. Faurisson: Working day and night! Because [chuckling] the lie is still alive!

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: And I have to defend myself. You see I am constantly treated in France as a “liar”, a “falsifier” and even a professional “falsifier”!

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Which is strange! I am going to tell you why. Because I’ve had so many, so many trials, and I have so many still today. You imagine my life!

Jim: Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Not once has a tribunal said that I was a liar. That I was a falsifier! Let me give you an example. In 1983 on the 26th of April I was in Paris in a courtroom and even in the very courtroom where Marshal Petain had been sentenced to death, it was impressive. And I had against me, I remember, twelve defence lawyers in black! You see, I don’t need to tell you what those people were! They were against me!

And I had myself two lawyers. One of the Right and one of the Left. The lawyer of the Left had been found by Jean Gabriel Conbendict, the brother of the famous Conbendict, a jew! He was on my side!

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Yes! Many jews had been on my side. And finally said:

“Oh don’t talk about that. Let us forget, …”.

And so on. And we were in court and something very strange happened. They wanted to condemn me for being a “liar”, and so on. About the twelve, only one tried to prove that the gas chambers had existed. He had been in been in Warsaw, he had been in Auschwitz, he had been in Israel, trying to find a proof. He didn’t find anything!

And I had all those documents of this man. I remember that he begun with one, and he said at the end, which was so surprising. He said:

“Yes! You are going to tell me it’s not very good.”

Or something like that. I was surprised. And the second one, the third one, and he want away. And I learned that he had been on a bench crying. And he had his wife to come to be with him, and so on. And it was a disaster for him. But anyway, I can tell you what was the results of this. And I need my paper for that.

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: So it was in 83. On April 26, 1983. And the court decided that in the writings of Faurisson on the gas chambers there were, I quote:

“No trace of rashness. No trace of negligence. No trace of having deliberately over looked anything, nor any trace of a lie. And as a consequence the appraisal of the value of the findings of the gas chambers defended by Mr Faurisson is a matter, therefore, solely for experts, historians, and the public.”

You could have said, “Oh! Victory!” now be careful. We are in France! [smiling] And as soon, in every of those trials, as soon as they say Faurisson is very serious in his words, they add;

“But the people against him are of good faith!”

Jim: Yeah, right.

Prof. Faurisson: Or they say:

“But we feel Faurisson is malevolent!”

Do you understand that?

Jim: Well, bad, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Every time! We had a very important man in France called Badenbare [sp] a jew, who dared to say one day, recently he said:

“When I was a lawyer, I got Faurisson sentenced for falsification.”

So I lodged a complaint against him and I proved that it was totally false. That even the tribunal said that I was very serious in my work, and so on. But anyway, the tribunal decided that Badenbare [sp] had failed in trying to bring proof of what he had said, but he was of “good faith”!

Jim: Hmm, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: They are always of “good faith” and I am merely always “malevolent”.

Jim: Well, that is how it always going to be.

Prof. Faurisson: It’s so easy.

Jim: Let me ask you a question. Do you have a favourite book, or book that deals with the “Holocaust” that you recommend people to read? What is your favourite book?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. The most famous, the brilliant, but a little bit difficult read, is the book of Arthur Butz. B-U-T-Z.

Jim: Okay, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: And this book, I have I think [looking on his shelves]. Do I have this book? Yes. “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”.

Jim: Right. Okay.

Prof. Faurisson: And not only this book has been printed for the first time in 1976. And at that time I met Butz. He was very impressive, this man. I call him, don’t say it, but I call “Dr Genius”! He’s very impressive! And he published an edition recently, I think in 2003, and later on, perhaps. And with three, or four additions. And it’s marvelous! [chuckling] And I remember the story of the elephant. I’m going to tell you the story of the elephant.

Butz said how strange, something extraordinary happened between, during the War that nobody noticed it at the time. They noticed it only aft the War. You see it’s like saying that at my home, in my cellar, I had an elephant. It was there but I didn’t know that it was there! The elephant went up — the staircase was strong enough — and it went into the room where I reading. I didn’t notice him. And he went through the window — he didn’t break it — and he went into the street. It was noon, there were plenty of people. Nobody noticed the elephant. But if you want to see him go and see him, you will see him in the zoo! [chuckling]

Because, you see, people, very important never during the war mentioned that! Churchill, never!

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Eisenhower, never! DeGaulle, never! And so on! The Pope. I wrote a book about the Pope. The title was “The Revisionism of Pious XII”. He had the experience of the First World War. He knew what was war propaganda. He found all this once more with those gas chambers, crematories, and so on.

Jim: Yeah. How many books have you written?

Prof. Faurisson: Oh! I’ve published nine, nine, or ten.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Now it’s first something called, “Memory in Defence” against those accusing me of falsifying history. And I have little books, answer to Pressac, answer to Vincent Niquent [sp] a book on the [words unclear] a booklet. And then I have something called “[word unclear] Revisionist”, “Revisionist Writings”. And it’s now seven volumes.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Three others should come.

Jim: Okay. So there’s your book, “Just Who is Robert Faurisson?” and can you get that on Amazon?

Prof. Faurisson: I don’t know at all if you can get it. Try to get it anyway! [chuckling] I wanted to show you this. [pointing at the cover illustration] See how cautious, slow, and prudent is the one hvg this, because the balloon is ballooning.

Jim: Oh yes. I see what you are saying. You are popping it. Yes, I get it. [laughing]

Prof. Faurisson: It’s dangerous!

Jim: Yes I understand. Well you have really influenced a lot of people. I’ve read a lot of books, I’ve seen your videos and you have been a big inspiration for me! I’m going to try to use all this information just to get more people interested in the subject.

Prof. Faurisson: Good.

Jim: It just takes time. A lot of people don’t know about the topic. And I think it’s important. Well, listen I think we have really covered a lot of topics today. You have done very well. You have given us a lot of information.

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. But I am very, very tired and my English is a disaster!

Jim: Oh! I think you have done great! I mean, I have understand everything you have said!

Prof. Faurisson: I don’t think so. I would have so many other things to say.

Jim: Okay.

Prof. Faurisson: For instance, let me tell you something about the six million.

Jim: Okay let’s talk about that. That is fine.

Prof. Faurisson: This is not a discovery of mine, absolutely not! But, it’s very simple. The story of the six million, that comes from something which began in, probably 1880.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Something like that. It was first in New York City in the New York Times. And in other places also. It was a way to get money. It would say something awful is happening in Russia, in Poland, in Hungary, in these sort of places. “Six million of our brothers are dying!”, “There is a “Holocaust”!” you have even the word. “Bring the money!”

Jim: Sure! Yeah. It’s all about money!

Prof. Faurisson: And I could tell you something about Nuremberg Trial. I would like to talk about the Nuremberg Trial, which was so disgusting!

Jim: Well, do you want to do the another time? Would you like to do that another time?

Prof. Faurisson: Perhaps another time, but I’m not sure, because I have more and more tired. And, you know, sir, when this will be made public, I will sued once more!

Jim: You think so?

Prof. Faurisson: Sure!

Jim: Wow! Anyway, I think we talked a lot, enough today. If there is another time you want to talk about anything in particular we can do this. I’m getting a little better at this. And we can go from there. How does that sound?

Prof. Faurisson: Okay. Goodbye.

Jim: Okay. You take care now. God bless you! All right we will see you. Bye!

[Produced by Jim Rizoli, September 2015]

[114:46]

END

===============================================

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = 11,813
* Total images = 26
* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 9: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 8: Jan 3, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 7: Nov 3, 2018 — Added last 20 minutes of transcript. Added 2 images. Corrections to text and formatting. Transcript now complete.

Version 6: Nov 2, 2018 — Added 11 more minutes of transcript. Added 5 images. Total transcript complete = 94 minutes.

Version 5: Oct 30, 2018 — Added 21 more minutes of transcript. Added 3 images. Total transcript complete = 83 minutes.

Version 4: Oct 29, 2018 — Added 7 more minutes of transcript. Added 4 images. Total transcript complete = 62 minutes.

Version 3: Oct 28, 2018 — Added 5 more minutes of transcript. Added 4 images. Total transcript complete = 55 minutes.

Version 2: Oct 27, 2018 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Added images.

Version 1: Oct 25, 2018 — Published post. 45 minutes of transcript complete.

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

admin — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:51:00 +0000

Holocaust Eyewitnesses:

Is the Testimony Reliable?

UNCENSORED HOLOCAUST HISTORY

THE BARNES REVIEW • JULY/AUGUST 2013

By John Wear

INEVITABLY, WHEN ANYONE QUESTIONS THE GENOCIDE of European Jewry, the eyewitness testimony is raised as proof that the genocide happened. However, most of the eyewitness accounts of the holocaust story have proved to be extremely unreliable and at times even laughable. See for yourself.

[Image] June 3, 1992, John Demjanjuk laughs in Israel’s Supreme Court in Jerusalem.

John Demjanjuk, a naturalized American citizen, was accused by eyewitnesses of being a murderous guard at Treblinka named Ivan the Terrible.

Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, and an Israeli court tried and convicted him primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of five Jewish survivors of Treblinka. Demjanjuk’s defense attorney eventually uncovered new evidence proving that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk, and that documents supposedly showing him to be a guard at Treblinka were Soviet forgeries. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the eyewitness accounts were not credible and that Demjanjuk was innocent. [1]

[Image] Frank Walus (right) next to Ernst Zundel.

Another example of false witness testimony of the holocaust story occurred in the case of Frank Walus, who was a retired Chicago factory worker charged with killing Jews in his native Poland during the war. An accusation by Simon Wiesenthal that Walus had worked for the Gestapo prompted the U.S. government’s legal action.

During Walus’ trial 11 Jews testified under oath that Walus had murdered Jews during the war. After a costly four-year legal battle, Walus was finally able to prove that he had spent the war years as a teenager working on German farms. An American Bar Association article published in 1981 concluded in regard to Walus’ trial that:

“… in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.” [2]

It would be impossible for me to discuss every eyewitness account of the Holocaust story. To illustrate the unreliability of eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust story, I will analyze the eyewitness accounts of probably its three most famous survivors: Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal, and Viktor Frankl.

ELIE WIESEL

Elie Wiesel, whose autobiography Night written in 1956 helped him win the Nobel Peace Prize, never mentions homicidal gas chambers in his book. Instead, Wiesel writes that Jews were killed en masse by being thrown alive in burning pits. [3] If there had actually been homicidal gas chambers at Birkenau [Auschwitz II], one would think that Wiesel would have mentioned the gas chambers in his autobiography. Also, if there had been burning pits at Birkenau, these would have shown in some of the Allied aerial photographs taken of Birkenau in 1944.

[Image] Elie Wiesel’s autobiography Night — earlier and later editions.

Wiesel also mentions in Night that he had surgery on an infected foot in January 1945. The German authorities at Birkenau gave Wiesel and other hospital patients unfit to travel the option to remain in the camp. Wiesel and his father decided to evacuate Birkenau and travel to Buchenwald with the Germans rather than be liberated by the Russian army. [4]

[Image] Map of the Auschwitz camp complex (click to enlarge).

If Birkenau had been a place of mass exterminations, why would Wiesel choose to travel with his supposed killers? Also, why would the German authorities at Birkenau leave behind thousands of witnesses to their genocide if a policy of genocide had actually taken place at Birkenau?

[Image] All three of these men are considered “best witnesses” to the “holocaust.”

Left, perhaps the planet’s biggest liar, Elie Wiesel, used photo fakery to “prove” he was an inmate in Buchenwald. Evidently he was never even in Buchenwald at all, yet he has made millions on books and speaking engagements telling people about the “horrors” he saw there.

Middle, famous Austrian Jewish “Nazi-hunter” Simon Wiesenthal claimed he had a concentration camp tattoo but would not show it to anyone. Photos of his arm didn’t show any tattoo at all. Was he even in a camp? He stands accused of making millions of dollars by flagrant lying.

Right, Viktor Frankl, another shady fellow, had a best-selling book in which he described his extensive experiences in Auschwitz — yet he was ultimately forced to admit he spent four days or less there.

That Wiesel survived his internment at Buchenwald is, of course, the result of a miracle. Wiesel states:

“In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?” [5]

[Image] See: Tales of the Holocaust — A Historian’s Assessment.

Image Text: Pope Elie’s Miraculous Escape

The Pope of the Holy Hoax is his Pontificance, Elie Wiesel. By a miracle, Pope Elie survived the Nazi killing machine at Auschwitz only to be imprisoned in Buchenwald where according to Elie, “They sent ten thousand to their death every day!”

But despite the methodical nature of the Nazi killing machine, Pope Elie miraculously escaped being killed. “I was always in the last hundred (to be killed) near the gate.”

… Yet the Nazis never got him … IT WAS A MIRACLE!

Loudspeaker: … We repeat! … Number 100 … Pope Elie … Report to the gas chamber at once!

Pope Elie: … I keep tellin’ ya … I’m busy … Re-schedule me, already!

Today no credible historian believes that 10,000 Jews per day were executed at Buchenwald.

A remarkable witness himself, Wiesel assures us that he has met other remarkable witnesses. Wiesel states in one of his books that after Jews were executed at Babi Yar in Ukraine:

“Eyewitnesses say that for months after the killings the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood. One was always treading on corpses.” [6]

Wiesel repeats this claim later with some embellishment:

“Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.” [7]

This story lacks all credibility.

Wiesel does not seem to know that photos taken at Babi Yar shortly after the alleged mass executions of Jews show no indication of any mass grave site or any disturbance of the foliage or ground cover. [8]

SIMON WIESENTHAL

Famed Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal also reports a trip to a National Socialist camp hospital in his book The Murderers Among Us. Wiesenthal wrote that he tried to commit suicide by cutting his wrists while incarcerated by the National Socialists. Instead of letting him die, the National Socialists sent him to the hospital, where they nursed him back to health. [9] If the National Socialists were intent on committing genocide against European Jewry, why would they make the effort to send both Wiesel and Wiesenthal to the hospital to restore their health?

[Image] Simon Wiesenthal’s book The Murderers Among Us was also made into a movie in 1989.

VIKTOR FRANKL

Viktor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning has been ranked by the Library of Congress as one of the 20th century’s 10 most influential books in the United States.

Frankl describes his experiences at Auschwitz in this book as if he had spent many months there. In reality, Frankl was in Auschwitz only for a few days in October 1944 while in transit from Theresienstadt to a sub camp of Dachau. Frankl has admitted this to the American evangelist Robert Schuller:

“I was in Auschwitz only three or four days …. I was sent to a barrack, and we were all transported to a camp in Bavaria.” [10]

[Image] Two covers of Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning.

Frankl’s short time in Auschwitz is substantiated by the prisoner log from the sub camp of Dachau, Kaufering III, which listed Frankl’s arrival on October 25, 1944, six days after his departure from Theresienstadt. [11] Thus, Frankl’s descriptions of his long stay at Auschwitz in Man’s Search for Meaning are pure fiction.

PREPOSTEROUS VERBOSITY

The unreliability of eyewitness testimony of the holocaust story has also been commented on by some historians. Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz criticized what he called the “hyperhistorical” nature of most Jewish survivor testimony. Gringauz wrote that;

“Most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors bias, partisan attacks and apologies.” [12]

Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, confirmed in 1986 that more than half the testimonies of Jewish survivors on file there are unreliable. Krakowski said many survivors, wanting to be a part of history, may have let their imaginations run away from them. He stated that many of the testimonies on file at Yad Vashem were later proved to be inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an expert historian’s appraisal. Krakowski commented on the Jewish survivor testimony:

“Many were never in the places where they claimed to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers.” [13]

Although seldom mentioned in the press, numerous eyewitnesses have reported that they did not see any evidence of genocide in the National Socialist concentration camps. One of the first to dispute reports of National Socialist genocide was Paul Rassinier.

Rassinier was a French professor of history who was arrested during the war for passive resistance activities, which included helping to smuggle Jews into neutral Switzerland. Rassinier stated that although he suffered greatly during the war in the Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps, he never saw any evidence of homicidal gas chambers nor any program to exterminate the Jews. After reading sensationalized accounts he knew were false, Rassinier felt it was his ethical duty to tell the truth about the camps and refute the false claims being made in the world’s press.

[Image] Paul Rassinier and his book The Drama of the European Jews (Das Drama der Juden Europas). He came to the following conclusion:

“During the last 15 years, outside of Soviet-occupied territories, when someone named a witness who claimed to have himself attended the gassings, I went there immediately to record his testimony. And each time the same thing happened: with my file in hand, I asked so many precise questions to the witness, that he finally declared that a good friend, unfortunately deceased, whose testimony could not be questioned, told him about the matter. In this way, I have laid back thousands of kilometers across Europe.”

Rassinier wrote extensively about his own experiences and observations in the German camps. He also began to research the entire issue of National Socialist genocide against the Jews during the war. Rassinier concluded that the death toll in the camps was far lower than alleged. He also concluded that the deaths in the camps were not caused by a German program of genocide, [14] but rather primarily by the poor conditions of the camps attributable to the economic collapse of Germany during a devastating war. Rassinier had nothing to gain personally from taking his unpopular position, and after suffering greatly in the German concentration camps, he then suffered intense persecution in postwar France for his courageous writings after the war.

[Image] Thies Christophersen being interviews by Ernst Zundel, 1992. Ernst Zundel Interview mit Thies Christophersen ueber die Auschwitz Luege 1992 GER [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSa43yWqnpk]

Thies Christophersen was another witness who said the alleged genocide of Jews during the war never happened. Christophersen supervised about 300 workers, many of them Jewish, at Auschwitz from January to December 1944. On a number of occasions during this period he visited Birkenau, where allegedly hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed to death. In a memoir first published in Germany in 1973, The Auschwitz Lie, Christophersen wrote that during the time he was at Auschwitz he did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassings.

In March 1988 at the Ernst Zundel trial in Toronto, he also successfully answered numerous pointed questions by the prosecuting attorney about his experiences at Auschwitz.

[Image] AUSCHWITZ — A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen. First English edition 1974 under the title, The Auschwitz Lie

(Note: This booklet can be viewed and downloaded in English and German versions at https://katana17.com/wp/2013/05/05/auschwitz-a-personal-account-by-thies-christophersen/)

After The Auschwitz Lie was published, Christophersen received thousands of letters and calls. He wrote in regard to these letters and calls:

Many of those who contacted me can confirm my statements, but are afraid to do so publicly. Some of those are SS men who were brutally mistreated and even tortured in Allied captivity. I also immediately contacted those who claimed to know more about mass gassings. My experiences were precisely the same as those of French professor Paul Rassinier. I have not found any eyewitnesses. Instead, people would tell me that they knew someone who knew someone else, who talked about it.

In most cases the alleged eyewitnesses had died.

Other supposed eyewitnesses would quickly begin to stammer and stutter when I asked a few precise questions. Even Simon Wiesenthal had to finally admit before a Frankfurt district court that he was actually never in Auschwitz. All of the reports I have heard about are contradictory. Everyone seemed to tell a different story about the gas chambers. They couldn’t even agree about where they were supposed to have been located. This is also true of the so-called scholarly literature, which is full of contradictions …. [15]

[Image] Dr. Wilhelm Staglich and his book Auschwitz: A Judge looks at the Evidence. (Note: This book, along with many other related books, is available as a free download at: http://holocausthandbooks.com/)

Another eyewitness who did not see any evidence of genocide of the Jews is Dr. Wilhelm Staglich. Dr. Staglich, a German judge, visited Auschwitz several times during the Second World War as a German orderly officer of an Anti-aircraft Detachment. Dr. Staglich published the following account of his visits to Auschwitz:

On none of these visits did I see gassing installations, crematoria, instruments of torture, or similar horrors. The camp gave one the impression of being well-kept and very well-organized ….

The camp reminded me of the German Labor Front camp in which I served out my six-month stretch in the Labor Service, except that Auschwitz was, of course, considerably larger ….

None of the inmates behaved as though they were in fear of mistreatment, let alone death.

On the later point, one encounter with inmates especially sticks in my memory. As some comrades and I were standing near the camp one evening, we caught sight of a big gang of inmates returning to camp from work in the industrial plants. They were escorted by a relatively small contingent of SS-men — mostly older people — and seemed to be thoroughly undisciplined.

They talked loudly among themselves, laughing all the while. Two or three inmates dropped out of line when they spotted us, opened their flies, and made water. Although this gesture could have been interpreted as a sign of contempt for German men in uniform, the SS guards ignored it completely. Later, whenever I heard that mortal terror prevailed in the concentration camps, I had to recall this incident. That is hardly the way people who are in constant fear of death behave. [16]

Another credible eyewitness is the Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden, who was interned at Birkenau starting in 1942. Van Herwaarden testified at the 1988 Ernst Zundel trial that she saw nothing at Birkenau that resembled mass murder. She did testify, however, that many of the inmates at Birkenau died of typhus and some inmates committed suicide. [17] No prosecution witnesses were called during this trial because the prosecution knew of no survivors who could withstand cross-examination by Zundel’s defense attorney.

While I know that National Socialist Germany did not have a program of genocide against European Jewry, I am equally certain that the inmates in the camps suffered tremendous hardships. This point was driven home to me in 1999, when I met a Jewish lady who had spent her early childhood years in four different German camps during the war. She barely survived Bergen-Belsen, where she contracted typhoid and was very close to death when the British army took control of the camp. Her experiences in the camps had been so traumatic that she still had major psychological damage from her internment 54 years after the war was over.

However, if National Socialist Germany had conducted a program of genocide against European Jewry, she would have been executed, since as a little Jewish girl she was too young to contribute to the German work effort. She was living proof that Germany did not have a program of genocide against European Jewry.

________________________

ENDNOTES:

[1] An excellent account of John Demjanjuk’s trial is provided in Sheftel, Oram, Defending “Ivan the Terrible,” Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.

[2] “The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, 3 Wiesel, Elie, Night Trilogy, New York: Hill and Wang, 2008, pp. 51-52.

[4] Ibid., pp. 98-100.

[5] “Author, Teacher, Witness,” Time Magazine, March 18, 1985, p. 79.

[6] Wiesel, Elie, The Jews of Silence, London: Vallentine, Mitchell, 1968, p. 37.

[7] Wiesel, Elie, Paroles d’etranger, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1982, p. 86.

[8] Ball, John C., Air Photo Evidence, Delta, B.C., Canada: Ball Resources Services Limited, 1992, p. 108.

[9] Wiesenthal, Simon, The Murderers Among Us, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967, pp. 37-38.

[10] Frankl, Viktor, “Dr. Robert Schuller Interviews Viktor Frankl: How to Find Meaning In Life,” Possibilities: The Magazine of Hope, March/April 1991, p. 10.

[11] Pytell, Timothy, “Extreme Experience, Psychological Insight, and Holocaust Perception; Reflections of Bettelheim and Frankl,” Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, Oct. 2007, p. 646.

[12] Jewish Social Studies, New York: Conference on Jewish Relations, Jan, 1950, Vol. 12, pp. 65-66.

[13] Amouyal, Barbara, “Doubts over Evidence of Camp Survivors,” Jerusalem Post, Israel, Aug. 17, 1986, p. 1.

[14] Rassinier, Paul, The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, Costa Mesa, California: The Institute for Historical Review, 1978.

[15] Christophersen, Thies, “Reflections on Auschwitz and West German Justice,” The Journal of Historical Review, Volume Six, No. One, Spring 1985, p. 118.

[16] Staglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p. 293.

[17] Kulaszka, Barbara, ed., Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zundel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 253-255.

JOHN WEAR was born July 11, 1953 in Houston, Texas. Mr. Wear graduated with a degree in accounting from Southern Methodist University in May 1974 and passed the CPA exam later that year. He graduated from University of Texas Law School in December 1977 and passed the Texas bar exam in February 1978.

He has worked most of his career as a CPA. His longest and most recent employment was from 1994 to 2008 working for Lacerte Software, which is a tax software division of Intuit Corporation.

======================================

PDF Notes

* Total words = 3,275
* Total images = 13
* Total A4 pages = 23

PDF of this post. Click to view or download (3.0 MB). >>

Holocaust Eyewitnesses- Is the Testimony Reliable – Ver 3

===============================================

Version History

Version 7: Nov 30, 2021 — Improved formatting.

Version 6: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 5: Oct 22, 2019 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 4: Jul 24, 2018 — Improved formatting.

Version 3: Sep 26, 2017 — Improved formatting. Fixed typos. Added “Pope Elie” cartoon. Updated cover. Updated PDF (Ver 3) for download.

Version 2: May 26, 2015 — Updated cover page, added map of Auschwitz complex.

Version 1: Published Mar 18, 2015

Paul Rassinier – katana17

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Alain Soral

My Homage to

Robert Faurisson

Oct 2018

https://alisonchabloz.com/2018/10/29/alain-soral-my-homage-to-robert-faurisson/

Alison Chabloz’s Description

TRANSCRIPT

END

See Also:

PDF Notes

Version History

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Prof Robert Faurisson

Oct, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqRLnpJ_8ek&t=1838s

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FbVcINOtox9k/

YouTube Description

TRANSCRIPT

END

See Also:

PDF Notes

Version History

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Holocaust Eyewitnesses:

Is the Testimony Reliable?

UNCENSORED HOLOCAUST HISTORY

THE BARNES REVIEW • JULY/AUGUST 2013

By John Wear

“… in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.” [2]

ELIE WIESEL

“In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?” [5]

“Eyewitnesses say that for months after the killings the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood. One was always treading on corpses.” [6]

“Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.” [7]

SIMON WIESENTHAL

VIKTOR FRANKL

“I was in Auschwitz only three or four days …. I was sent to a barrack, and we were all transported to a camp in Bavaria.” [10]

PREPOSTEROUS VERBOSITY

“Most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors bias, partisan attacks and apologies.” [12]

“Many were never in the places where they claimed to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers.” [13]

ENDNOTES:

See Also:

Version History