Faurisson's paper at Tehran; Pressac on how he turned against Faurisson

Peter Myers, February 9, 2009; update February 25, 2011.

My comments within quoted text are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/holocaust-debate10.html.

Please report broken links. Write to me at contact.html.

Back to the previous bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate09.html.

{start of bulletin 10}

Faurisson's paper at Tehran; Pressac on how he turned against Faurisson

(1) Faurisson's paper at the Tehran Conference (2) Jean-Claude Pressac on how he turned against Faurisson

(1) Faurisson's paper at the Tehran Conference


Posted Sunday, December 31, 2006

Alphabetical index (text) Index to the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech

A paper read by Professor Robert Faurisson to the Tehran holocaust conference, December 11, 2006 [click for Italian text: VITTORIE REVISIONISTE]

Professor Faurisson interviewed by Iran Television, 11-12-2006

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

The Victories of Revisionism

By: Le professeur Robert Faurisson

11 décembre 2006

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


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

1. of having ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews of Europe; 2. of having, to that end, designed and used certain weapons of mass destruction, in particular those that it called "gas chambers"; 3. of having, essentially with those weapons but also through other means, caused the death of six million Jews.

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

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

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

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


THE PRESENT summary has as its title "The Victories of Revisionism" and not "History of Revisionism" or "Arguments of the Revisionist Case". It deals only with victories that our opponents have had to concede to us either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore one must not expect to find here a systematic mention of revisionist authors, works or arguments.

If still I had to recommend a short sample of revisionist readings, I should suggest the prime work of reference that is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century / The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, published by Arthur Robert Butz in 1976. The book is masterful. In the thirty years of its existence no one has attempted the least refutation, so solidly is it built; I especially recommend the 2003 edition, enhanced by five remarkable supplements.

It would also be appropriate to read Fred Leuchter's [right, Leuchter far right with Faurisson] famous study, An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, particularly in the gilt cover edition issued by Samisdat Publishers in Toronto in 1988, containing, on page 42, the text of a letter of capital importance, dated May 14, 1988, on the utter absence of openings in the roofs of the alleged gas chambers of crematoria II and III at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

F. Leuchter has also produced three other reports on the gas chamber question. Not to be missed is German research chemist Germar Rudolf's Dissecting the Holocaust / The Growing Critique of "Truth" and "Memory", a work of over 600 pages published in 2000 under the name Ernst Gauss, along with the same author's impressive periodical series (more than thirty issues to date) that he has brought out under the title Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, not to mention his English language magazine The Revisionist and a fair number of other publications.

All told, the work done thus far by G. Rudolf (now aged 42 and imprisoned in Germany) amounts to a formidable scientific landmark. Finally, let us cite Canadian barrister Barbara Kulaszka's opus magnum Did Six Million Really Die? / Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel, 1988, published in 1992; with its compact print it is equivalent to a volume of about a thousand pages in regular book format. The text shows how, during Ernst Zündel's two long trials in Toronto in 1985 and 1988, the other side, when confronted with the revisionist argumentation, simply collapsed: a real Stalingrad for the orthodox historians, beginning with the biggest of them all, Raul Hilberg.

Essential studies have been written by the Germans Wilhelm Stäglich and Udo Walendy, the Italian Carlo Mattogno, the Spaniard Enrique Aynat Eknes, the Swiss Jürgen Graf and ten or so other authors.

The 97 issues of The Journal of Historical Review (1980-2002), in good part due to the American Mark Weber, constitute a mine of information on all aspects of revisionist research. In France, Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion, Henri Roques, Pierre Marais, Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin have picked up where Maurice Bardèche and Paul Rassinier left off. There are now countless revisionist-oriented publications and websites throughout the world, and this despite the prevailing censorship and repression.

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

President Ahmadinejad has used the right word: the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews is a "myth", that is, a belief maintained by credulity or ignorance. In France it is perfectly lawful to proclaim unbelief in God but it is forbidden to say that one does not believe in the "Holocaust", or simply that one has doubts about it. This prohibition of any kind of disputing became formal and official with the law of July 13, 1990. The said law [Fabius-Gayssot] was published in the Journal officiel de la République française on the next day, that is, the 14th of July, day of commemoration of the Republic and of Freedom.

It states that the punishment may run to as much as a year's imprisonment and a fine of up to NF45,000, but there may also be orders to pay damages and the considerable costs of judicial publication. Relevant case law specifies that all this applies "even if [such disputing] is presented in veiled or dubitative form or by way of insinuation" (Code pénal, Paris, Dalloz, 2006, p. 2059). Thus France has but one official myth, that of the "Holocaust", and knows but one form of blasphemy, that which offends the "Holocaust".

On July 11, 2006 I personally was once more summoned to appear before a Paris court on the grounds of that special law. The presiding judge, Nicolas Bonnal, had recently attended a training course on the means of cracking down on revisionism over the Internet, a course organised by the European office of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in Paris, under the auspices of the Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF) (Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France)!

In a release triumphantly headed "The CRIF plays an active part in the training of European judges" this Jewish body, whose political force is exorbitant, was not afraid of announcing urbi et orbi that it listed Nicolas Bonnal amongst its pupils or trainees . And that is not all. At my trial, for good measure, the State prosecutrix happened to be a Jewess by the name of Anne de Fontette; in the closing words of her talk requesting conviction and sentencing, she, although supposedly speaking in the name of a secular State, called for the vengeance of "Yahweh, protector of his chosen people" against "the lying lips" of Faurisson, guilty of having granted a telephone interview of revisionist character to an Iranian radio and television station, Sahar 1.

The findings of revisionist research

The Germans of the Third Reich wanted to extirpate the Jews from Europe but not to exterminate them. They sought "a definitive -- or final -- territorial solution of the Jewish question" and not a "final solution" in the sense of any physical suppression (to want a "final solution of unemployment" is not to desire the death of the unemployed). The Germans had concentration camps but not "extermination camps" (an expression forged by Allied propaganda).

They used disinfection gas chambers operating notably with an insecticide called Zyklon-B (the active ingredient of which was hydrogen cyanide) but never had any homicidal gas chambers or homicidal gas vans.

They used crematory ovens to incinerate corpses and not to throw living beings into them. After the war, the photographs purportedly exposing "Nazi atrocities" showed us camp inmates who were either sick, dying or dead, but not killed.

What with the Allies' blockade and their "area" bombing of Germany, and the apocalypse experienced by the latter towards the end of a nearly six-year long conflict, famine and epidemics, notably of typhus, had ravaged the country and, in particular, the camps in the western regions, overwhelmed by the arrivals en masse of detainees evacuated from the camps in the East, and thus severely lacking in food, medicine and the Zyklon-B needed for protection against typhus.

In the butchery that is a war, people suffer. In a modern war, the belligerent nations' civilians at times suffer as much if not more than their soldiers. During the conflict that, from 1933 to 1945, pitted them against the Germans, the European Jews thus had occasion to suffer but infinitely less so than they dare to assert with such a nerve. Certainly the Germans treated them as a hostile or dangerous minority (there were reasons for that), and against these people the Third Reich authorities were led to take, due to the war, more and more coercive police or military security measures. In certain cases those measures amounted to placement in internment camps or indeed to deportation to concentration or forced labour camps.

Sometimes Jews were even executed for sabotage, spying, terrorism and, especially, for guerrilla activities in favour of the Allies, mainly on the Russian front, but not for the simple reason that they were Jewish. Never did Adolf Hitler order or permit the killing of a person because of his or her race or religion. As for the figure of six million Jewish deaths, it is a pure invention that has never been substantiated despite the efforts in that regard by the Yad Vashem Institute of Jerusalem.

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

1. Show us one single document that, in your view, proves that Hitler or any other National-Socialist ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews; 2. Show us that weapon of mass destruction which, as alleged, was a gas chamber; show us a single one of them, at Auschwitz or elsewhere; and if, by chance, you claim that you cannot show us any because, according to you, the Germans destroyed the "murder weapon", provide us at least with a technical drawing representing one of those slaughterhouses which, as you say, the Germans destroyed and explain to us how that weapon with such a fabulous killing performance had been able to work without bringing on the death of either those who ran it or their helpers; 3. Explain to us how you have arrived at your figure of six million victims.

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

But there is something yet more serious: the revisionists have set forth a series of established facts proving that the physical extermination, gas chambers and six million in question cannot have existed.

1. The first of these facts is that, for the entire duration of the war, millions of European Jews lived, plain for all to see, amidst the rest of the population, a good part of them being employed in factories by the Germans who were cruelly short of manpower, and those millions of Jews were therefore not killed. Better still: the Germans stubbornly offered to hand over to the Allies, up to the last months of the conflict, as many Jews as they might want on the express condition that they must not subsequently send them to Palestine; this proviso was made out of respect for "the noble and valiant Arab people" of that region, already violently beset by Jewish colonists. 2. The second fact, which is carefully hidden from us, is that excesses which might be committed against Jews could well bring on the severest sanctions: the killing of a single Jew or Jewess could get the perpetrator, although he be a German soldier, sentenced to death by court martial and shot. In other words, the Jews under German rule continued to enjoy, if they observed the regulations in place, the protection of penal law, even in the face of the armed forces. 3. The third of these facts is that the alleged Nazi gas chambers of Auschwitz or elsewhere are quite simply inconceivable for obvious physical and chemical reasons; never after the purported hydrogen cyanide gassing of hundreds or thousands of persons in a closed space could others have soon entered in a veritable bath of that poison and proceeded to handle and remove so many corpses which, steeped with cyanide gas on both outside and inside, would have become untouchable. Hydrogen cyanide adheres firmly to surfaces; it penetrates even cement and bricks and is very difficult to remove from a room by ventilation; it penetrates the skin, it settles within the body, mixing with its fluids. In the United States it is precisely this poison that is used still today in an execution chamber to kill a condemned prisoner, but that precise chamber is of steel and glass and is equipped with machinery which is, of necessity, quite complex, calling for extraordinary precautions in its use; it is enough to see an American gas chamber designed for putting to death a lone individual to realise that the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers, which supposedly served to kill crowds of individuals, day after day, can neither have existed nor functioned.

But then, as people will ask, what became of all those Jews concerning whom we revisionists have concluded from our research that they were never killed? The answer is already there, right before our eyes and within everyone's grasp: a part of the Jewish population of Europe died, like tens of millions of non-Jews, due to the war and to hunger and disease, and another part plainly and simply survived the war in their millions.

These latter fraudulently had themselves dubbed "miraculous" survivors. In 1945 the "survivors" and "miraculous escapees" were there to be counted by the million and they spread throughout the world to fifty or so countries, beginning with Palestine. How could an alleged decision of total physical extermination of the Jews have so engendered millions of "miraculous" Jewish survivors? With millions of "miraculous survivors" there is no longer any miracle: it is a false miracle, a lie, a fraud.

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

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

Today, in 2006, that is, twenty-six years later, I maintain that sentence in full. It had not been inspired by any political or religious sympathy or antipathy whatsoever. It had its ground in certified facts that had begun to be brought to light, on the one hand, by Maurice Bardèche in 1948 and 1950 in his two books on the Nuremberg trial and, on the other hand, by Paul Rassinier who, also in 1950, published his Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (Ulysses's Lie) (See The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, Costa Mesa, California, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, XVIII-447 p.).

From 1951 onwards, year after year, our adversaries, so rich, so mighty, so bent on practising all possible forms of repression against historical revisionism, have found themselves progressively forced to admit that we are right on the technical, scientific and historical levels. The victories achieved by Second World War revisionism are many and significant, but, as must sadly be recognised, they still remain, in our day, almost wholly unknown to the greater public.

The mighty have done everything to conceal these victories from the world. That is understandable: their domination and sharing of the world between them are in a way grounded in the religion of the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews. Calling the "Holocaust" into question, publicly disclosing the extraordinary imposture of it all, pulling the masks off the politicians, journalists, historians, academics and people of the churches, clans and coteries who, for more than sixty years, have been preaching falsehoods whilst all the time casting anathema on the unbelievers, amounts to a perilous adventure. But, as will be seen here, despite the repression, time seems in the end to be on the revisionists' side.

Examples of revisionist victories

I shall recall here just twenty of these victories:

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

Remark: There is here an extraordinary concession to the revisionist case. In effect, such a formidable criminal undertaking supposedly conceived, ordered, organised and perpetrated by the Germans would have necessitated an order, a plan, instructions, a budget, É Such an undertaking, carried out over several years on a whole continent and generating the death of millions of victims, would have left a flood of documentary evidence.

Consequently, if we are told that there perhaps has never existed any such documentary evidence, it is because the crime in question was not perpetrated. In the complete absence of documents, the historian has no longer anything to do but keep quiet. L. Poliakov made this concession in 1951, that is, fifty-five years ago. However, it must be noted that, from 1951 to 2006, his successors have equally failed to find the least documentary evidence. Occasionally, here and there, we have witnessed attempts at making us believe in such or such discovery but each time, as will be seen below, the "discoverers" and their publicists have had to drop their claim.

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

Remark: This sudden and unexplained concession is significant. At the Nuremberg trial the only homicidal gas chamber that the accusation ventured to show in a film had been that of Dachau, and the testimonies telling of alleged homicidal gassings in the three above-mentioned camps had been numerous. M. Broszat thus implicitly acknowledged that those testimonies were false.

He did not tell us in what respect they were false. Nor did he tell us in what respect other such testimonies relating, for example, to Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec should, for their part, go on being deemed reliable. In the 1980s, at Dachau, a sign indicated in five languages that the "gas chamber disguised as showers", visited by the tourists, was "never used" as such.

The revisionists had then asked in what respect the room could be termed a homicidal "gas chamber", whereupon the Dachau Museum authorities took down the sign and replaced it with another on which, in German and English, can now be read: "Gas chamber. This was the center of potential mass murder. The room was disguised as 'showers' and equipped with fake shower spouts to mislead the victims and prevent them from refusing to enter the room. During a period of 20 minutes up to 150 people at a time could be suffocated to death through prussic acid poison gas (Zyklon B)."

One will note the words "potential" and "could", the choice of which attests to a fine bit of trickery: the information spawns in visitors' minds the idea that the said "gas chamber" was effectively used for killing but, at the same time, it enables the museum to retort to revisionists: "We haven't expressly said that this gas chamber was used for killing; we've merely said that it could be or could have been, at the time, used to kill a certain number of people".

To conclude, in 1960 M. Broszat, without any explanation, decreed in a simple letter that no one had been gassed at Dachau; thenceforth, the Dachau Museum authorities, quite embarrassed, have tried, by means of assorted deceitful ploys varying over time, to fool their visitors into believing that, in this room that looks like showers (and for good reason, since that is what it was), people had well and truly been gassed.

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

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

4) In 1979 thirty-four French historians signed a lengthy joint declaration in reply to my technical arguments aiming to demonstrate that the allegation of the existence and functioning of the Nazi gas chambers ran up against certain radical material impossibilities. According to the official version, Rudolf Höss, right, one of the three successive Auschwitz commandants, had confessed (!) and described how Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz and Birkenau.

According to that very vague confession, when the victims appeared to have breathed their last gasp, a ventilation apparatus was switched on and a squad of Jewish prisoners immediately entered the vast room to remove the corpses and carry them as far as the crematory ovens. R. Höss said that those Jews went about this work nonchalantly, whilst smoking and eating. I had pointed out that this could not be: one cannot go into premises saturated with hydrogen cyanide gas (a poisonous, penetrating and explosive compound) whilst smoking and eating and then touch, handle and take out, using all one's strength, thousands of bodies suffused with that poison and therefore untouchable.

In their declaration the thirty-four historians answered me thus: "It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass-murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened" (Le Monde, February 21, 1979, p. 23).

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

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

Remark: Today, in 2006, this trickery makes our thoughts turn to the miserable demonstration by the former American government minister Colin Powell when trying to prove, by the same device of having labels stuck onto aerial photos, the existence of works for the manufacture of "weapons of mass destruction" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

In reality, those photos of Auschwitz slap discredit on the case for Nazi gas chambers. What can be distinctly made out on them are serene crematoria structures, with no crowds huddled outside waiting to enter the alleged changing rooms and the alleged death chambers. The surrounding grounds are free of obstruction and visible from all directions. The flowerbeds in the patches of garden round the crematories are neatly laid-out and bear no trace of being stamped upon, every day, by thousands of people. Crematorium No.3, for instance, abuts on what we know to have been, thanks to sound documents from the Auschwitz State Museum, a football field and is close to a volleyball court (Hefte von Auschwitz, 15, 1975, plate on page 56 and page 64). It is also close to eighteen hospital barracks of the men's camp.

There were thirty-two Allied air missions above this zone which also comprised the large industrial installations of Monowitz. It is understandable that the Allied aviation should have attacked the industrial sector several times whilst sparing as much as possible what was obviously a concentration, labour and transit camp and not an "extermination camp", on which there fell, in the end, only a few stray bombs.

6) On April 21, 1982 an association (the "ASSAG"), was created in Paris for "the study of murders by gassing under the National-Socialist regime", "with a view to seeking and verifying elements bearing proof of the use of poison gasses in Europe by the officials of the National-Socialist regime to kill persons of various nationalities, to contributing to the publication of this evidence, to making, to that purpose, all useful contacts on the national and international level". Article 2 of the association's charter stipulates: "The Association shall last as long as shall be necessary to attain the objectives set forth in Article 1."

However, this association, founded by fourteen persons, amongst whom Germaine Tillion, Georges Wellers, Geneviève Anthonioz née de Gaulle, barrister Bernard Jouanneau and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, has, in nearly a quarter of a century, never published anything and, to this day in 2006, remains in existence. In the event that it be maintained, wrongly, that the group has produced a book entitled Chambres à gaz, secret d'État (Gas chambers, State secret), it will be fitting to recall that the book in question is in fact the French translation of a work first published in German by Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein and Adalbert Rückerl and in which there featured a few contributions by a few members of the "ASSAG" (Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1984; English translation published as Nazi Mass Murder: a documentary history of the use of poison gas, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1994).

Remark: By itself the book's French title gives a fair idea of the contents: instead of proof, supported by photographs of gas chambers, drawings, sketches, forensic reports on the crime weapon, the reader finds only speculations based on what is called "evidence" (éléments de preuve, "elements of proof", not proof), and this because, we are told, those gas chambers had constituted the greatest possible secret, a "State secret".

If ever there were a "weapon of mass destruction" that deserved a well-done forensic examination, it was indeed this one. In effect, it constitutes an anomaly in the history of science for at least two reasons: it had no precedent and has had no continuation; it arose out of nothing only to return to nothingness. However, the history of science knows of no such phenomenon. In any case, by the very fact of its existence yet today in 2006, one may say that the ASSAG association has still not attained the objective for which it was founded nearly twenty-five years ago. It has still found neither proof nor even any evidence of the "Nazi gas chambers'" existence.

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

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

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

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

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

Remark: If there are neither any murder weapons nor testimonies, then what is left? What is one to think of the places presented to millions of deceived visitors as gas chambers? What must be thought of the individuals who introduce themselves as witnesses or miraculous survivors of the gas chambers? For her part, S. Veil is the first holocaustic authority to have thus given to understand that any alleged witness to gassings can only be a false witness.

Already on March 6, 1979, in the course of a televised discussion presented by the French programme "Dossiers de l'écran" (Screen Files) about the airing of the American series "Holocaust", she had displayed her contempt for one Maurice Benroubi, introduced as a "witness of the gas chambers". The latter, as a result, adopted an attitude of extreme discretion compared with that shown in his "testimony", which had appeared shortly before in the weekly L'Express (March 3-9, 1979, p. 107-110).

10) In 1961 the Jew Raul Hilberg, orthodox historian Number One, published the first edition of his major work, The Destruction of the European Jews, and it was in 1985 that he brought out the second edition, a profoundly revised and corrected version.

The distance between the two is considerable and can only be explained by the succession of victories achieved in the meantime by the revisionists. In the first edition the author had brazenly affirmed that "the destruction of the Jews of Europe" had been set off following two consecutive orders given by Hitler. He neither specified the date nor reproduced the wording thereof.

Then he professed to explain in detail the political, administrative and bureaucratic process of that destruction; for example he went so far as to write that at Auschwitz the extermination of the Jews was organised by an office that was in charge of both the disinfection of clothing and the extermination of human beings (The Destruction of the European Jews, 1961, republished in 1979 by Quadrangle Books, Chicago, p. 177, 570).

However, in 1983, going back completely on that explanation, Hilberg suddenly proceeded to state that the business of "the destruction of the European Jews" had, after all, gone on without a plan, without any organisation, centralisation, project or budget, but altogether thanks to "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy" (Newsday, New York, February 23, 1983, p. II/3).

He would confirm this explanation under oath at the first Zündel trial in Toronto on January 16, 1985 (verbatim transcript, p. 848); he would soon afterwards confirm it anew but with other words in the greatly revised version of his above-mentioned work (New York, Holmes & Meier, 1985, p. 53, 55, 62). He has just recently, in October 2006, confirmed it yet again in an interview given to Le Monde: "There was no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, it is in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found, doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure: each decision brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn't possible to foresee exactly the next step" (Le Monde des livres, October 20, 2006, p. 12).

Remark: The Number One historian of the Jewish genocide, at a certain point, thus found himself so helpless that he suddenly proceeded to disown his first version and to explain a gigantic undertaking of collective murder as if it had all been carried out through something like the workings of the Holy Spirit. In effect, since then he has evoked a "meeting of minds" within a bureaucracy, terming this meeting "incredible". If it is "incredible" or unbelievable, why then should it be believed?

Must one believe the unbelievable? He also brings up "mind reading" and states it was performed by "consensus", but this is a matter of pure intellectual speculation grounded in a belief in the supernatural. How can one believe in such a phenomenon, particularly within a vast bureaucratic structure and, still more particularly, within the bureaucracy of the Third Reich? It is worth noting that on R. Hilberg's example the other official historians set about, in the 1980s and 1990s, abandoning history and lapsed into metaphysics and jargon.

They questioned themselves on the point of whether one should be "intentionalist" or "functionalist": must it be supposed that the extermination of the Jews occurred subsequent to an "intent" (not yet proved) and in line with a concerted plan (not yet found), or instead had that extermination happened all by itself, spontaneously and through improvisation, without there being any formal intent and with no plan?

This type of woolly controversy attests to the disarray of historians who, unable to provide evidence and real documents to back their case, are thus reduced to theorising in the void. At bottom, those on one side, the "intentionalists", tell us: "There were necessarily an intent and a plan, which we haven't yet found but which we shall perhaps indeed discover one day", whereas the others affirm: "There is no need to go looking for evidence of an intent and a plan, for everything was able to occur without intent, without plan and without leaving any traces; such traces are not to be found because they have never existed."

11) In May 1986 in France, certain Jews, alarmed upon realising that they could not manage to answer the revisionists on the simple plane of reason, decided to take action with a view to obtaining a legal prohibition of revisionism. Chief amongst them were Georges Wellers and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, grouped, with their friends, round the country's head rabbi René-Samuel Sirat (Bulletin quotidien de l'Agence télégraphique juive, June 1986, p. 1, 3).

After four years, on July 13, 1990, they would get, thanks notably to Jewish former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, then president of the National Assembly, a special law passed allowing for the punishment of any person who publicly made revisionist statements on the subject of the "extermination of the Jews": up to a year's imprisonment, a fine of NF45,000 and still other sanctions. This recourse to force is a flagrant admission of weakness.

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

12) In August 1986 Michel de Boüard, himself deported during the war as a résistant, professor of history and Dean of letters at the University of Caen (Normandy), member of the Institut de France and former head of the Commission d'histoire de la déportation within the official Comité d'histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale, declared that, all told, "the dossier is rotten".

He specified that the dossier in question, that of the history of the German concentration camp system, was "rotten" due to, in his own words, "a huge amount of made-up stories, inaccuracies stubbornly repeated -- particularly where numbers are concerned -- amalgamations and generalisations". Alluding to the revisionists' studies, he added that there were "on the other side, very carefully done critical studies demonstrating the inanity of those exaggerations" (Ouest-France of August 2nd and 3rd, 1986, p. 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remark: Apart from the fact that a careful reading of the "minutes" of the Berlin-Wannsee meeting of January 20, 1942 proves that the Germans envisaged a "territorial final solution [eine territoriale Endlösung] of the Jewish question" leading in the end to a "Jewish renewal" in a geographical space to be determined, Yehuda Bauer's quite belated declaration confirms that this major point of the case alleging the extermination of the Jews is in fact worthless.

Let us add, in our turn, that the extermination of the Jews was decided on neither at Wannsee nor anywhere else; the expression "extermination camps" is but an invention of American war propaganda and there are examples proving that, during that war, the killing of a single Jewish man or woman exposed the perpetrator, whether soldier or civilian, member of the SS or not, to German military justice proceedings and the possibility of being shot by firing squad (in sixty years, never has a sole orthodox historian provided an explanation for such facts, revealed by the defence before the Nuremberg tribunal itself).

16) In January 1995 French historian Eric Conan, co-author with Henry Rousso of Vichy, un passé qui ne passe pas (Paris, Gallimard, 2001 [1994, 1996]; English edition: Vichy: an ever-present past, Hanover, New Hampshire and London, University Press of New England, 1998), wrote that I had been right after all to certify, in the late 1970s, that the gas chamber thus far visited by millions of tourists at Auschwitz was completely fake.

According to E. Conan, expressing himself in a leading French weekly:

"Everything in it is false [É]. In the late 1970s, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications all the better as the [Auschwitz] museum administration balked at acknowledging them".

Conan went on: "[Some people], like Théo Klein [former president of the CRIF, the 'Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France'], prefer to leave it in its present state, whilst explaining the misrepresentation to the public: 'History is what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is not simple, rather than to add artifice to artifice'".

Conan then related a staggering remark by Krystyna Oleksy, deputy director of the Auschwitz National Museum, who, for her part, could not find the resolve to explain the misrepresentation to the public. He wrote: "Krystyna Oleksy [É] can't bring herself to do so: 'For the time being [the room designated as a gas chamber] is to be left "as is", with nothing specified to the visitor. It's too complicated. We'll see to it later on'" ("Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal" [Auschwitz: the remembrance of evil], L'Express, January 19-25, 1995, p. 68).

Remark: This statement by a Polish official means, in plain language: we have lied, we are lying and, until further notice, we shall continue to lie.

In 2005 I asked E. Conan whether the Auschwitz Museum authorities had issued a denial or raised any protest against the statement that he, in 1995, had ascribed to K. Oleksy. His answer was that there had been neither denial nor protest.

In 1996, this imposture and others as well concerning the Auschwitz-I camp were denounced by two Jewish authors, Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, in a work they produced together: Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present, Yale University Press, 443 p.

Here is a sampling of their words in that regard: "postwar obfuscation", "additions", "deletions", "suppression", "reconstruction", "largely a postwar reconstruction" (p. 363), "reconstructed", "usurpation", "re-created", "four hatched openings in the roof, as if for pouring Zyklon B into the gas chamber below, were installed [after the war]" (p. 364), " falsified", "inexact", "misinformation", "inappropriate" (p. 367), "falsifying" (p. 369).

In 2001 the fallacious character of this Potemkin village gas chamber was also acknowledged in a French booklet accompanying two CD-Roms entitled Le Négationnisme; written by Jean-Marc Turine and Valérie Igounet, it was prefaced by Simone Veil (Radio France-INA, Vincennes, Frémeaux & Associés).

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

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

18) In 2000, at the end of her book Histoire du négationnisme en France (Paris, Gallimard), Valérie Igounet published a long text by Jean-Claude Pressac at the end of which the latter, who had been one of the revisionists' most determined opponents, signed a veritable act of surrender. In effect, taking up the words of professor Michel de Boüard, he stated that the dossier on the concentration camp system was "rotten", and irremediably so. He wrote asking: "Can things be put back on an even keel?" and answered: "It is too late". He added: "The current form, albeit triumphant, of the presentation of the camp universe is doomed".

He finished by surmising that everything that had been invented around sufferings all too real was bound "for the rubbish bins of history" (p. 651-652). In 1993-1994, that protégé of the French Jew Serge Klarsfeld and the American rabbi Michael Berenbaum, "Project Director" at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, had been acclaimed worldwide as an extraordinary researcher who, in his book on Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz, la machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris, CNRS éditions, 1993; English title: The Auschwitz Crematories. The Machinery of Mass Murder), had, it appeared, felled the hydra of revisionism. Here, in V. Igounet's book, he was seen signing his act of surrender.

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

19) In 2002, R. J. van Pelt, already mentioned, published The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial, Indiana University Press, XVIII-571 p. As is widely known, David Irving, right, who at the very most is a semi-revisionist ill-acquainted with the revisionist argumentation, lost the libel suit he had recklessly brought against the Jewish-American academic Deborah Lipstadt. He tried clumsily to make the case -- a perfectly right one, for that matter -- that there had existed no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.

But he nonetheless scored an essential point and, if Justice Charles Gray and other judges after him had had more courage, that point would have enabled him to succeed in his claim.

The argument was summed up in a four-word phrase that I first put forth in 1994: "No holes, no Holocaust". My reasoning behind it was as follows:

1. Auschwitz is at the centre of the "Holocaust"; 2. The great crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Auschwitz-II, are at the centre of the vast Auschwitz complex; 3. At the heart of these crematoria there were, supposedly, one or several homicidal gas chambers; 4. At a single one of these crematoria (crematorium No. 3), although it is in ruins, is it today possible to go and examine the room said to have been a gas chamber; it is the presumed scene of the crime, itself presumed as well; 5. We are told that, in order to kill the Jewish detainees locked inside, an SS man, moving about on the concrete roof of the said gas chamber, poured Zyklon-B pellets through four regular openings situated in the roof; 6. However, one need only have eyes to realise that no such openings have ever existed there; 7. Therefore the crime cannot have been committed. For R. J. van Pelt, testifying against Irving, it was near torture trying to find a reply to this argument. Justice Gray as well had to acknowledge "the apparent absence of evidence of holes" (p. 490 of the verbatim transcript) and, in a more general way, he conceded that "contemporaneous documents yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans" (p. 489; for more details one may consult pages 458-460, 466-467, 475-478 and 490-506).

In the text of his judgment, Charles Gray admitted surprise: "I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings" (13.71).

Here the failure of the accusing historians is flagrant and Irving ought to have won his case thanks to that observation by a judge who was hostile towards him: the documents of the era furnish us with but decidedly little clear evidence of the Nazi gas chambers' existence and thus of a German policy to exterminate the Jews. Is this not, after all -- as we have seen above --, what several Jewish historians had already concluded, beginning with Léon Poliakov in 1951?

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

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

An assessment of these revisionist victories

Let us briefly recapitulate these revisionist victories.

Their backs set to the wall by the revisionists, the official historians of the alleged physical extermination of the Jews have ended up acknowledging that, from the historical and scientific viewpoint, they are left without a single argument to support their ghastly accusation. They admit, in effect:

1. that they cannot invoke a single document proving the crime; 2. that they are unable to provide the least representation of the crime weapon; 3. that they do not possess any proof nor even any evidence; 4. that they cannot name a single truthful witness (see above, S. Veil's opinion on the matter); 5. that their dossier is rotten (twice repeated), irremediably rotten and that it is bound for the rubbish bins of history; 6. that the sources formerly invoked have revealed themselves to be not only rarer than was claimed but also unreliable; 7. that the alleged traces of the crime are few and far between, and difficult to interpret; 8. that at their end there have been falsifications, misrepresentation, artifice; 9. that in support of their case there has too often been invoked a "silly [sic] story", that of a decision to exterminate the Jews supposedly taken on January 20, 1942 at Berlin-Wannsee; 10. that the foremost of their number, Raul Hilberg, is today reduced to explaining it all, in a nonsensical way, by supposed initiatives that the German bureaucracy had, according to him, boldly taken without any order, plan, instruction or supervision and thanks simply, it seems, to an incredible meeting of minds and a consensus-mind reading.

These official historians have not known how to answer any of the revisionists' requests or observations in the style of:

1. "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber"; 2. "Bring me one proof, one single piece of evidence of your own choosing, on the grounds of which to assert that there was a genocide"; 3. "Bring me one testimony, one single testimony, the best one in your opinion" or again: 4. "No holes, no Holocaust ".

Finding themselves on the ropes, the court historians have called on the law-courts to find against the revisionists, but, contrary to all expectation, it has sometimes happened that the judges have gone so far as to pay tribute to the revisionists' uprightness or to show their surprise before the sparseness or absence of the accusers' documentary evidence. Then, first in France and later in a number of other countries in Europe, these accusers have called for the passing of special laws to silence the revisionists. Here they have sealed their doom. To resort to special laws, to the police and prisons is to admit one's utter inability to use the arguments of reason, history and science.

A hundred other arguments again could be recalled here to prove that, on the plane of history and science, the immense edifice of lies put up by the "Holocaust" or "Shoah" sect has been thrown down, with not one stone left upon another. In contrast to this expanse of ruins, we have seen the construction of a whole revisionist literature.

In it can be discovered a profusion of documents, photographs, expert studies, trial transcripts, technical and scientific reports, testimonies, statistical studies, all of which bearing on a hundred aspects of the history of the Second World War that show what the lot of the European Jews was in reality, and demonstrate in striking manner that the Jewish version of that war is largely of the order of myth.

From the myth, the Jews have gone on to mythology and from mythology on to religion or, rather, to a semblance of religion. Today the servants of that false religion appear more and more like priests who carry on officiating and turning over the hallowed phrases but, manifestly, no longer have the faith. They seem no longer really to believe in their "credo".

So it is, for instance, that for about the last ten years they have been seen advising their flocks to observe the greatest possible discretion on the subject of the gas chambers. In his memoirs, published in French in 1994 and in English in 1995, the big false witness Elie Wiesel (right) wrote: "Let the gas chambers remain closed to prying eyes, and to imagination" (All Rivers Run to the Sea, New York, Knopf [Random House], p. 74). Claude Lanzmann (maker of the film Shoah), Daniel Goldhagen (author of Hitler's Willing Executioners), Simone Veil (former president of the European Parliament, quoted above), François Léotard (a former French government minister) have in the last few years become surprisingly reserved, cautious or silent on the matter.

Some months ago, Jacques Attali (a Jewish businessman and historian) decreed: "The vast majority of Jews murdered were killed by German soldiers' and military policemen's individual weapons, between 1940 and 1942, and not by the death-works, which were put into place afterwards" ("Groupes de criminels?", L'Express, June 1, 2006, p. 60).

This implicit way of writing off the alleged Nazi gas chambers is becoming regular practice. Attempts are made to replace the Auschwitz lie with the lie of Babi Yar or those of other fantastical slaughters in the Ukraine or the Baltic countries but not once are we provided with scientific evidence concerning them, such as reports of exhumation and post-mortems as has been the case with the real massacres perpetrated by the Soviets at Katyn, Vinnitsa or elsewhere.

As for the number of dead at Auschwitz, we are hardly told any longer that it was 9,000,000 (as in the film Nuit et Brouillard [Night and Fog]), 8,000,000, 6,000,000 or 4,000,000 (as at the Nuremberg trial or on the commemorative stones at Auschwitz-Birkenau until 1990). The new religion's clerics are settling for 1,500,000 (as marked on those same stones since 1995), or for 1,100,000, or for 700,000, (as J.-C. Pressac wrote), or still for 510,000 (as Fritjof Meyer concluded in 2002: "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz", Osteuropa, May 2003, p. 631-641), all these latter figures being no better founded than the previous ones.

General Conclusion

We are granted the privilege of witnessing, in this beginning of the 21st century, a serious calling into question of one of the greatest lies in history. The myth of the "Holocaust" may well be aglow with a thousand lights: in reality it is burning itself out. It has served to justify the creation in the land of Palestine of a warlike colony that has taken the name of "Jewish State" and endowed itself with a "Jewish Army". It imposes on the Western world the yoke of a Jewish or Zionist tyranny bringing itself to bear in all fields of intellectual, academic and media activity. It poisons the very soul of a great country, Germany.

It has allowed the extortion from the latter, as well as from a good number of other Western countries, of exorbitant sums in marks, in dollars or in euros. It overwhelms us with films, with museums, with books that keep the flame of a Talmudic-style hatred burning. It makes it possible to call for an armed crusade against "the axis of evil" and, for this, to fabricate, on demand, the most shameless lies precisely in the pattern of the Great Lie of the "Holocaust", for there is no difference between Adolf Hitler's "weapons of mass destruction" and those of Saddam Hussein.

It makes it possible to accuse nearly the whole world and to demand "repentance" and "reparations" everywhere, either for alleged actions directed against "Yahweh's chosen people", an alleged complicity in the crime, or an alleged general indifference to the fate of the Jews during the Second World War. Under its belt it has a glut of rigged trials, beginning with the loathsome Nuremberg trial. It has sanctioned thousands of hangings of defeated soldiers, an atrocious post-war Purge, the deportation of millions of civilians chased from their ancestral homelands, indescribable pillaging, tens of thousands of scandalous legal proceedings, including those carried out today against octogenarians or nonagenarians, attacked by "miraculous" Jewish survivors giving their false testimony.

These abominations, this outrage of lies and hatred, this hubris that one day or another destiny always comes to punish, in short, all these excesses must end. No nation has shown more patience with this Jewish or Zionist hubris than the Arab nation; however we see that this nation itself has now run out of patience. It is going to throw off the Israeli yoke and have the West understand that the time has come to seek real peace instead of supporting and arming an artificial State that maintains itself only by force.

Even in the West, even in the United States, the scales are falling off some people's eyes and there is now a certain awareness of the hazards imposed on the international community by such prolonged submission to the false religion of the "Holocaust", No.1 weapon, sword and shield of the State of Israel.

Practical Conclusion

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

As is known, in the heart of Auschwitz there is an emblematic gas chamber. Up to now thirty million tourists have visited it. It is an imposture; all the historians are aware of this, as the authorities of the Auschwitz State Museum know better than anyone. Yet UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), on October 26, 1979, at the request of the Polish government, put this camp on its list of World Heritage and Cultural Property Sites, thus assuming the duty of preserving its authenticity.

For my part, I suggest therefore that the matter of this fraud be formally referred to UNESCO, as it constitutes an offence against education, science and culture. In a more general manner, we could take up the words of Jean-Gabriel Cohn Bendit in 1979:

"Let us fight for the destruction of those gas chambers they show tourists in the camps where there were none, as we now know" (Libération, March 5, 1979, p. 4).

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

Practising mendacity on a grand scale, the "Holocaust" religionists have made themselves, little by little, the enemies of the human race. For more than sixty years they have progressively been putting the whole world, or just about, under indictment. Their main target has, of course, been Germany and all those who, alongside that country, had thought it their duty to fight against Stalin in the same way that others, in the opposing camp, believed they must fight against Hitler.

But, in their accusatory frenzy, Jewish organisations have gone so far as to rebuke the wartime Allies for an alleged criminal "indifference" to the lot of the European Jews. They have attacked Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle, Pope Pius XII, the International Committee of the Red Cross and numerous other personalities, official bodies or countries for not having denounced the existence of the "gas chambers". But how could what was so obviously just a grotesque war rumour have been considered verified?

It is enough to read the book by the Jew Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1980, 262 p.), to gather thirty or so references to the widespread and thoroughly justified scepticism in the Allied camp before the flood of rumours originating from Jewish sources. Inquiries were carried out enabling officials to conclude that the rumours were unfounded. It was thus clear-sightedness and not indifference that the Allies and others charged showed. It was that same clear-sightedness which, after the war, in their speeches or in their memoirs, Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower showed as they avoided mentioning, even so much as once, the said "gas chambers".

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

Two appendices concerning the alleged gas chamber of Auschwitz-I

1) Eric Conan's 1995 statement in its entirety

ANOTHER delicate subject: what to do about the falsifications bequeathed by the Communist administration? In the fifties and sixties, several buildings which had either disappeared or been put to other use were reconstructed, with serious errors, and presented as genuine. Some, too "new", were closed to the public.

To say nothing of the delousing chambers that were at times presented as execution gas chambers. These aberrations have been of great service to the negationists, who have drawn on them for the main substance of their fabrications.

The example of crematorium I, the lone one at Auschwitz I, is significant. In its morgue was installed the first gas chamber. It functioned for a short time, in early 1942: the isolation of the zone, called for by the gassings, disrupted the camp's activity.

It was therefore decided, towards the end of April 1942, to transfer these lethal gassings to Birkenau, where they were carried out, on essentially Jewish victims, on an industrial scale. Crematorium I was subsequently turned into an air-raid shelter, with an operating room. In 1948, during the museum's creation, crematorium I was reconstituted in its supposed original state.

Everything in it is false: the gas chamber's dimensions, the location of the doors, the openings for the pouring in of the Zyklon B, the ovens, rebuilt according to what the survivors remembered, the height of the chimney.

In the late 1970's, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications all the better as the museum administration balked at acknowledging them.

An American denier has recently shot a video inside the gas chamber (still presented as authentic): in it he can be seen addressing his "revelations" to the visitors. Jean-Claude Pressac, one of the first to establish exactly the history of this gas chamber and its modifications during and after the war, proposes that it be restored to its 1942 state, basing his suggestion on the German blueprints that he has recently found in the Soviet archives.

Others, like Théo Klein, prefer to leave it in its present state, whilst explaining the misrepresentation to the public: 'History is what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is not simple, rather than to add artifice to artifice.' Krystyna Oleksy, whose director's office, which occupies the old SS hospital, looks straight out on to crematorium I, has not resigned herself to do so: 'For the time being, it is to be left "as is", with nothing specified to the visitor. It's too complicated. We'll see to it later on.' " (Eric Conan, "Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal", L'Express, January 19-25, 1995, pages 54-69; p. 68)

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

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

[Robert Faurisson] has the motivation: exclusive love of the truth; this would seem to be an obsession of his. An academic, Robert Faurisson was never to cease using this scientific surety, a presumed pledge of respectability. He read Maurice Bardèche. He discovered Paul Rassinier. He "dissected" Rimbaud, Lautréamont and Apollinaire.

A brilliant and cultured man, he is nonetheless one bent on causing trouble. Through the seventies, Robert Faurisson worked. He outlined his historico-literary method. He went to the Auschwitz archives. His denial was to build itself there.

It rests on a real fact: the gas chamber at the Auschwitz I camp is a "reconstitution", for it served as a storehouse for SS medical supplies and as an air-raid shelter after the gas chambers at Auschwitz II Birkenau were put into service; what he was able to see (and what can still be seen) is a supposed gas chamber.

Myth of the Gas Chambers "Who knocked it down?" "Faurisson."

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

This is undeniable. Be that as it may, for Robert Faurisson it is a put-up job done by the Jews (Le Négationnisme (1948-2000). Interviews broadcast on the radio network France-Culture, produced by Jean-Marc Turine. Booklet by Valérie Igounet and Jean-Marc Turine with a preface by Simone Veil, Vincennes, Frémeaux et associés, 2001, 48 pages; p. 27-28).

Professor Bruno Gollnisch had merely stated that, on the subject of the gas chambers, historians ought to be able to express themselves freely. He was first suspended from teaching for five years by the University of Lyon-III.

Then, on November 7th and 8th, 2006, he had to appear before a court in Lyon made up of presiding judge Fernand Schir and two associates. Pressures and blackmail led him to break down and acknowledge before his judges the existence of the genocide of the Jews and the Nazi gas chambers.

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

The court's decision will be pronounced on January 18, 2007. It must be realised that French law prohibits any disputing of the reality of Nazi crimes against the Jews "even if [such disputing] is presented in veiled or dubitative form or by way of insinuation" (Code pénal, 2006, p. 2059). Consequently, with regard to this matter one must neither dispute nor even appear to dispute.

Robert Faurisson

Related items on this website:

Our Auschwitz index | previous index Yahoo! Actualités: Le révisionniste Faurisson de nouveau dans le Quid (Robert Faurisson is back in the Quid, France's most popular annual encyclopaedia). But then the traditional enemies counter-attack: Demande de retrait de la vente du Quid 2003: jugement le 3 novembre Left-wing liberal historian Fritjof Meyer recalculates the death roll at Revisionismus, Faurisson, Robert Faurisson, in Osteuropa, May 2002: German | English 1991: Le "Quid" attaqué pour avoir cité la thèse négationniste de M. Faurisson 1991: Against Faurisson in the "Quid" Encyclopedia Most frequently asked question (FAQ) of French Jewish students: What to do if I am caught cheating?

The above news item is reproduced without editing other than typographical Register your name and address to go on the Mailing List to receive

© Focal Point 2007 write to David Irving

(2) Jean-Claude Pressac on how he turned against Faurisson

Pressac started as a "revisionist, a colleague of Faurisson's, but became an exterminationist".

He produced a report on how the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz operated.

That report is available in French and German print editions, but the English edition is no longer available - new or second hand - except online: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/

AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers © Jean-Claude Pressac

Published by the BEATE KLARSFELD FOUNDATION 515 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 1989

Translation of: Auschwitz: Technique et Fonctionnement des Chambres à Gaz (Manuscript)

Translated from the French by Peter Moss

{Pressac on Faurisson. How he started as a a "revisionist" but joined the "exterminationists"} http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0537.shtml

{p. 537} POSTFACE by the author His position with respect to the extermination of the Jews at Birkenau and the personal experiences that led him to undertake this study I am not a Jew and I was at one time a "revisionist". After reading this book, some will no doubt think that I still am one. This is quite possible and I bear them no grudge. The distinction between these two fiercely opposed schools, the "exterminationists" and the "revisionists", becomes meaningless once a certain threshold of knowledge about the former Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp has been reached. I have passed this point of no return.

Any normal human being, visiting the Auschwitz camp for the first time, feels a deep emotional shock. The weight of history allows of no other response. An ordinary but motivated tourist, I nearly did away with myself one evening in October 1979 in the main camp, the Stammlager, overwhelmed by the evidence and by despair. I have often wondered how I would have been able to perform this act of self-destruction. Since that lugubrious evening, I have spent a total of almost three months, spread over ten visits between 1979 and 1984, studying the German archives in the Auschwitz State Museum, examining the ruins of Birkenau, trying to understand and put into place the pieces of this gigantic and incredible puzzle. After the first few visits, I no longer saw the barbed wire fences surrounding the camp, directly visible from the windows of the first floor of Block 24 which houses the Archives. They had become invisible to me, as I was myself, melted into the town of Oswiecim, where it was impossible to identify in my Polish silhouette, hidden among so many others, the Frenchman in his tie and three piece suit who had disembarked from the "LOT" twin engined aircraft at Balice the day before.

As the years passed, I experienced the fever that overcame the country, sweeping aside all in its path, saw the birth of Hope, the first inscriptions under the mantle of "Solidarnosc", patriotic songs sung by the family, almost open listening to western radio broadcasts, the explosion of red and white arm bands, strikes and sit-ins where production continued 24 hours a day, the waiting, in anguish but holding firm, for the armoured divisions massed to the east, but which never came. I experienced the curfew, totally deserted shops, meatless days, coffee rationed to 100 grammes for two months and whose coupons enabled one only to obtain a bottle of vodka. I experienced the return to normal. In other words, I shared in the ordinary and difficult everyday life of a town in the south of Poland called Oswiecim, once known as Auschwitz.

I have brought back some bad habits, such as drinking tea, knocking myself out with hard liquor when things are going badly and all looks grey, skipping meals, fiddling on the gasoline, knowing the value of the dollar, understanding the meaning of the verb "to organize". I have also fallen under the spell of the "Lady in Ermine", by Leonardo da Vinci, jewel of the Czartoryski collection; learned to be satisfied with little and to be patient, and finally, I came away with a great love for Poland and its people. I emerged proud, not of being a Frenchman from France, but of having a French mind and living in France. And I am now innoculated for life against any form of totalitarian system.

I became a historian of the Auschwitz Krematorien purely by accident for I am a pharmacist by profession. Looking for the origins of my interest in a past that does not appear to have much to do with my own, and in such an uninviting subject, means delving right back to my early childhood. ...

{p. 540} ... After our self-indulgent idleness on the shores of the lakes, spoilt only by atrocious food, we headed south towards the second camp. Treblinka, the one that had inspired our trip to Poland. It was difficult to find, the rare signposts being silent as to its location. At Stutthof I had bought a guide to the "Places of struggle and martyrdom". Reckoning that we must be very close, I saw an isolated house and, armed with my guide book and a photograph, went to ask where the former extermination camp was located. I was told they did not know. Disappointed, I continued along the road and a few hundred meters further on, beyond a screen of trees, saw the mushroom-like Treblinka II monument-mausoleum [Photo 8], surrounded by a symbolic cemetery of, apparently, 17000 standing stones. The three Polish artists who collaborated on the monument must have been inspired by unconscious cynical humour. Their bedtime reading apparently did not include the book of the "Stürmer", (Julius Stretcher's anti-semitic journal), addressed "to young and old" entitled "Der Giftpilz", in which the Jews are assimilated to poisonous toadstools. At the entrance to the camp the former railway was represented by cement sleepers that suddenly stopped. Not a soul to be seen. Completely deserted. If I had become aware of Polish nationalism at Malbrock, I began to see at Treblinka an attitude towards the Jews that I had not previously suspected.

There was NOTHING left of the former camp. There were absolutely no facilities whatever tell visitors: no entrance, no guard, no guide. not even a kiosk selling postcards, books or pamphlets in memory of the 800,000 (official figure) Jewish victims who had gone up in smoke. ...

{p. 544} I had no idea what the Auschwitz State Museum (PANSTWOWE MUZEUM OSWIECIM or PMO) might contain. I wanted to have a clear understanding of the layout of buildings and the fittings in the premises where the extermination was carried out. Having the impression, from what I had read, that the Polish resistance had succeeded in providing a great deal of information, I asked to see the photographs. They were pointed out to me on a table. THREE PHOTOGRAPHS. Just three! 1 had expected at very least ten times as many. But no, three of undoubted authenticity, two of them taken through a door showing men dragging corpses before a pall of smoke, and the third showing naked women apparently running in a forest [at the end of 1983, the archivist lent me the originals, a great concession, so that I could find the position of the clandestine photographer in the ruins of Krematorium V. The first two were taken from the north gas chamber of Kr V on a southeast/northwest line, looking towards a cremation pit dug between the northern barbed wire fence and the Krematorium. The third was taken outdoors, with the photographer about twenty meters from the east wall of the Krematorium, holding the camera in his hand with his arm by his side, shooting blind on a northeast/southwest line in the direction of the naked women moving from west to east along the south wall of the crematorium, paradoxically with their backs to it. This was a considerable embarrassment to mc. Going all that way to study three photographs was absolute madness.

They reassured me and brought some other photographs, of German origin this time [subsequently published in the "Album d'Auschwitz"]. At least some certain facts began to emerge. The Krematorien were clearly visible. I went back thirty-five years and immersed myself in the atmosphere of the time. ...

{p. 545} The number of victims destroyed by the "mills" of Auschwitz, originally stated to be 4 million, is now considered to be between 1 and 1.5 million. [Raul Hilberg, Professor in the Political Science Department of the University of Vermont, calculated the number of Jews sent to Auschwitz from the number of trains heading there, crosschecking with the count of the number of wagons arriving as recorded by the resistance organizations. The number of Jews arriving amounted to between 1.05 and 1.1 million. Georges Welters, in his study published in "Le Monde Juif" No. 112 (1983) entitled "Essai de détermination du nombre de morts du camp d'Auschwitz" arrives at a total of 1,471,595 dead, of whom 1,334,000 gassed. For my part, I obtained a result close to Hilberg's using a subjective method based on a comparison between the claimed and actual throughputs of the Krematorium furnaces and the statements of witnesses again compared with factual evidence.]

Since I was getting on good terms with Tadeuszko Iwaszko, I suggested that excavations in the area of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorien II and III should solve some of the problems. He replied that now they would be of no value because, whateverthe result, the Poles would be accused of having had 35 years to "arrange" the site. I went on to ask: "Why not publish all the drawings of the Krematorien without superfluous comment?" Sceptical and evasive answer. [In November 1979, this idea did not appeal to Iwaszko. But later on, he and Smolen encouraged me to do so: "Do it yourself and in a neutral spirit" . It was in last exactly the same idea that was put forward at the same time by Faurisson, but for a different reason, that of gathering a maximum of information to support his nihilist thesis]

The exchange of confidences continued. Iwaszko told me about one of my compatriots who had preceded me by a few years [early March 1976].

{p. 546} This particular Frenchman had left an impression. A most unpleasant individual. This awful man had like me come to the Archives and also discovered the plans of the Krematorien, [Drawings 932 and 934 (Krematorium II), 2136 (Kr III), one or two of Kr 1 and an overall plan of the Birkenau camp, drawing 2503 of 18/6/43. Early in 1977 he received copies of the drawings of Krematorien II and III he had consulted and at the end of 1977 the Museum sent him reproductions of the Kr I drawing of 25/9/ 41 and Krematorien IV and V drawing 2036 of 11/1/43.]

But after two days he packed up and went home because he had caught a cold. Once back home, this hypocrite to whom everything had been generously shown wrote articles ["Le Matin" of 16/11/78. "Le Monde" of 29/12/78 and 16/1/79] claiming that hydrocyanic acid homicidal gas chambers would never have been able to function physically and hence that the extermination of the Jews was a legend. Trying to maintain that the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau never existed amounted to historical trickery and downright lying. It appeared that a certain Professor "Laurisson" was the author of these absurdities. [Iwaszko had teamed about the "Faurisson affair" thanks to a visit to the PMO Archives by Maître Bernard Jouanneau, as lawyer for the LICRA, on 12th June 1979, five months before my own visit]. ...

Nonetheless, I had come to find answers to my questions, and I had them, even if I still had no absolute certainty. Just as I was setting off, I came upon a group of French former prisoners, come specially for All Saints Day. They congratulated me, complementing my fine historical curiosity, calling me a "relay" or "transmitter" of the good word. A radiant woman former prisoner, a blond lady doctor, tried to find out if I could bear witness in some way or other in the media [It was only later on that understood the motives of this woman. There are so few real specialists of the problem in the west that she considered it highly desirable to "co-opt" me]. But I politely declined and did not reveal my identity, declaring myself to be an insignificant nobody. At that time I could not understand this former prisoner's request, not knowing that some people did not believe or no longer believed in this horror. People like Andrzej Brycht, a Polish writer born in 1935 who left his country in 1970 to settle in Canada, who writes in his "Excursion Auschwitz Birkenau" (1966 and January 1980, NRF, Editors Gallimard, for the French version): "I observed these ruins [those of Krematorium II] incapable of believing that so many people could have been burned in such a miserable building", and says, "Who could know what really happened here [in Birkenau] and even whether all that existed".

During the conversation with the former prisoners, the name of Laurisson had come up again. This thoroughly aroused my curiosity and I decided to contact him and find out what his views were. Five months passed. After two preliminary telephone conversations I met the gentleman concerned, Professor Faurisson (to give his correct spelling). He appeared to look normal. About fifty, very much the academic. Apart from a somewhat acid voice on the phone he seemed quite correct.

The first meeting lasted four or five hours. I emerged with my head bursting. A splitting headache. We had both approached the problem in the same way. Through drawings. Something tangible, concrete. Not on the basis of vague testimonies, always true in the eyes of their authors, but without great historical value because frequently deformed by different factors. The floodgates of out mutual stores of information very quickly opened. I knew a fair bit, but he seemed to know a hundred times more, and in depth, supported by serious and unimpeachable references. [End of the text extracted from the notes] I worked with Robert Faurisson from the end of March 1980 to December 1980. Then, as all serious historical research began impossible, his dogma being paramount, our meetings became less frequent, though we remained in touch, then the final break came in April 1981. Before being able to realize that the force of his argument rested purely and simply on the lead he held in the knowledge of the facts, I had to catch up with him, Only then was I able to judge impartially the value of his arguments. What first made me think deeply, helped me and, I admit, disturbed me, was Pierre Vidal Naquet's article of September 1980, "La mémoire d'Auschwitz". The second factor was my own research at the PMO Archives and the documents I found there in three stays (25th - 30th August, 4th - 17th October and 11th 21st November 1980). Third was the pleading of Maitre Bernard Jouanneau at the hearing of 1st June 1981 at the High Court of Paris during the "Faurisson trial" . But as early as the end of August 1980, Faurisson, who was not at that time aware of it, could no longer count me among his unconditional supporters. His theory stood up for only TWO DAYS to a direct historical confrontation with the Museum documents and the Birkenau ruins, the just result of over hasty research that, irony of fate, had also lasted two days.

I met a twosome. Robert Faurisson and Pierre Guillaume. The first called himself a historian and an "anarchist of the right". The second supported the first, published him, and considered himself to be an "anarchist of the left". They formed a most disparate couple, The meetings took place at the home of Pierre Guillaume. who put Faurisson up during his visits to Paris. I never understood why Guillaume supported Faurisson. Guillaume already publishing Paul Rassiniers's works, it seemed logical that he should be interested in the works of another revisionist, Faurisson. textual and documentary critic, Professor in the Classical and Modem Letters and Civilization Faculty at the University of Lyon 2.

Why did I work with them? Because they brought precise answers in response to my doubts. People born after the Second World War no longer believe in anything very much. The hypocrisy of human behavior, the systematic falsification of information and deliberate deformation of the facts have made them more than suspicious of any official sources, "authorized beliefs" and "expert opinions". This attitude implies that before accepting anything, one has to cheek for oneself its truth and significance. The necessary openness to all that stems from this causes "permeability", which in turns leads to a certain "fragility". In the case of Auschwitz, this means listening to both parties (there are only two), judging the validity of their arguments and where necessary going further into their theses, while maintaining one's own liberty. Thus one gentleman, a university professor, told me: "You have doubts about the functioning of the Birkenau crematoriums? Of course you have, because they never served to exterminate people and they did not contain gas chambers". On the other side, shortly afterwards, a member of a Jewish organization inopportunely advised me "to stop tormenting myself with the study of this problem", clearly indicating that I should abandon any work on this subject, which should remain "private property".

When I first made contact with Faurisson, the position of his studies was summed up in his interview in "Storia Illustrata" number 261 of August 1979, by Antonio Pitamitz, [published after having been revised, corrected and commented by Faurisson in "Vérité Historique ou Vérité Politique" by Serge Thion, La Vieille Taupe. April 1980]. The gas chambers al Auschwitz, Maidenek and Struthof were his current targets. Those of Maidenek looked so ridiculous to him that he had not developed his refutation very far. According to him, the confession by the former commandant of Struthof, Josef Kramer, established the irreality of the homicidal gassings, because of sheer chemical impossibility. As for Auschwitz, the comparison of two plans of Krematorium I (Topf & Sons drawing D.59042 of 25/9/41 and Bauleitung drawing 4287 of 21/9/44) supplied by the Museum enabled him to conjure away the gas chamber by demonstrating a "rearrangement" of the premises that corresponded to no original drawing. Fired by this success, he extended his argument to Birkenau Krematorien II, III, IV and V, mainly using "internal criticism" of the autobiography of the first commandant of the camp, Rudolf Höss [who was actually relating an episode that took place at Bunkers 1 and 2!]. He went on to attack even more fiercely the gas chambers at Buchenwald [where there really were none], Dachau, Mauthausen [the work by Pierre Serge Choumoff proves their existence], Orienburg [one seems to have worked, using liquid hydrocyanic acid, but its mode of employment seems to me imprecise and to require more explanation] and Ravensbruck [where small scale gassings using Zyklon B in a roughly converted barracks were carried out at the end of the war]. Using a method dear to him, Faurisson sheltered behind the writings of traditional authors to confirm his negations. Doctor Martin Broszat's famous letter (published in "Die Zeit" of 19th August 1960) entitled "No gassing at Dachau", which established the non-existence of gas chambers at Dachau, Bergen Belsen and Buchenwald, generalizing this to the whole territory of the former Reich facilitated his "liquidation" of Dachau and Buchenwald. Olga Wormser Migot with "Le Systême concentrationaire nazi, 1933 45" (PUF 1968) helped him to declare the gas chambers of Mauthausen and Hartheim to be mythical. He adopted the principle of taking the enemy's arms and turning them against him. What is more, the publication of "Vérité historique É" by Serge Thion provided him with a "moral guarantee" against the "persecution" to which he was subject and, above all, a spectacular tactical victory in revealing that the "DIARY OF ANNE FRANK is nothing but a literary hoax". Those who read his demonstration considered it to be valid [even Pierre Vidal Naquet, who was to become the first man to stop Faurisson in his tracks]. It was not until 1986 that doubts arose. Harry Paape (Director of the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation [RIOD] and Secretary General of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War) and his team published in Amsterdam "De dagboeken van Anne Frank", a book demonstrating the authenticity of the different versions of the "Diary" by means of a strictly material study. It will be possible for us here in France to make our final decision once this is available in French. However, it proves already that the scouring of texts as recommended by Faurisson has its limits and becomes worthless in the face of a materialistic approach using original documents.

For those not thoroughly versed in the finer technical points of gas chambers, and this means 99.999% of the population, Faurisson's claims were a revelation. A fine masterpiece, finely polished and unassailable. Nobody sitting down opposite Faurisson and listening to him for one or two hours could fail to emerge from the conversation shaken or completely converted to his cause. He was steeped in his subject, backed up by 200 kg of documents, 200 photographs, 10 years of reading and 4 years of intensive work What could one say when he started off: "What I say is that the famous gas chambers were just another fabrication of the war. This propaganda invention is to be compared with the legends spread during the First World War about "Teutonic barbarity". At that time already the Germans were being accused of perfectly imaginary crimes: Belgian children with their hands cut off. Canadians crucified, corpses transformed into soap, etc."

One could but nod one's head and listen in wonder. This extract shows one of the tricks used to get the message across: putting forward a lie (the gas chambers are only war propaganda) then covering it immediately with a well known truth (the German crimes invented by the British in 1914-18 [Photo 16]), brought out to protect the false initial postulate. This process was pushed to the absolute limits of is possibilities in an 80 page pamphlet published by Guillaume in 1982, "L'incroyable Affaire Faurisson" [The incredible Faurisson Affair], containing the conclusions lodged by the LICRA and Faurisson's responses to them in the Court of Appeal. This mixture of truths, lies and unjustifiable interpretations reached such a level of subterfuge that it is virtually impossible to unravel. Even a "specialist" such as I had myself become quite by accident, had difficulty in separating the grain from the chaff. This is one of the finest examples of the Faurisson style. The Appeal Court judges allowed themselves to be influenced by this insidious rhetoric and their judgment of 26th April 1983 "confirmed" that: "at present nobody can convict him [Faurisson] of lying ..." a ridiculous conclusion when one knows the man. But alas, how can one suppress an ironic smile when he speaks of the "gassings" in Dachau:

{p. 548} Dachau, with before it an American soldier in uniform deciphering ... the gassing timetable!" It is quite obvious that, in 1945, American war correspondents could easily be misled because of their lack of information. But Faurisson, who does not lack information (200 kg), he who was so quick to denounce the errors of others, was also led astray. What he took to be autoclaves, were in fact simple disinfestation gas chambers Ñ they had neither temperature nor pressure gauges, essential instruments for the proper operation of an autoclave, And when he did come across real autoclaves, he though they were disinfestation gas chambers (for example, the three autoclaves in the Birkenau Zentral Sauna). Faurisson is a literary man, not a scientist. What is so sad about this story is the correspondence exchanged between him and the authorities of the Dachau Museum and the Dachau International Committee in Bruxelles, in which he forces them to admit that they have failed in their historical duty by not being able to counter his arguments. Without a true technical analysis, going as far as partial demolition of the walls, no version is acceptable at present.

Faurisson's method of working is based on textual analysts and involves the detailed criticism of documents concerned with the question studied. He is the proponent of a rather special approach. In his view, it is necessary to intervene rapidly and hit hard. A kind of "commando" technique. As regards Auschwitz, where he had made only one or two brief visits, he "understood" everything very rapidly. To support this "new understanding" he had brought back from Poland an abundant documentation to support his thesis, and in the eyes of the uninitiated this appears true and convincing. My own method of working is different. I worm my way into the subject tenaciously, so my results to terms of "picking up" documents were slow and not very fruitful in the short term. In the medium term my tenacity began to pay off. And in the long term it has led to unhoped for results. Taking photographs alone, Faurisson probably has about 200, most of which I am acquainted with. As regards Auschwitz, 7 photographs and 3 drawings. (from the PMO) were published in "Vérité HistoriqueÉ" by Serge Thion. Of the 16 published in "Le mythe d'Auschwitz" by Wilhelm Staglich (La Vieille Taupe 1986) under the title : "Illustrations [comments by Faurisson]. Le mythe d'Auschwitz en images. Une exterminationÉ improbableÉ invrasiemblableÉ impossibleÉfictive", FIVE had already appeared in "Thion". For my part, considering only the contemporary photographs concerning the camp and the life of the prisoners and SS, Serge Klarsfeld [and the PMO] provided me with 189 for the publication of "L'Album d'Auschwitz" (Seuil 1983), and this does not include 63 unpublished photographs from the original Album that did not concern the extermination of the Hungarian Jews. The PMO gave me copies of the 52 photographs taken clandestinely and buried by the former prisoner Lawin Ludwik and found after the Liberation. Then the Museum sent me the 397 photographs of the "Bauleitung Album" (unpublished: the original is held by the Yad Vashem) some of which are identical with those "organized" by Ludwik, Then there are the 4 Polish resistance photographs, only 3 of which are usable, 3 from the SS garrison and 30 concerning Himmler's visit to Buna Monowitz on 17th July 1942. Regarding the state of the camp at the Liberation, several hundred stills have been taken from the Soviet film "Chronicles ... 1945". Of Polish source in the period 1945-46, an unknown number (several dozen?) were takes by Stanislaw Lucwko. The Warsaw Central Commission for the investigation of Hitlerite crimes in Poland sent me 5 of the Lucwko series and 5 others from about thirty of unknown origin. On these last there appears a Polish military cameraman filming the ruins of Krematorium V in the process of being cleared, which implies that a film (newsreel?) other than the 1945 Soviet film was shot at Birkenau just after the Liberation. And there is no need to mention the innumerable "modern" photographs of Auschwitz.

The difference between the results of Faurisson's commando raids and my own slow and patient research in Poland speak for themselves. Let there be no misunderstanding about one of us wanting to possess more than the other Ñ this is no schoolboy game of marbles. These photographs are important historical material and some of them are vital for our understanding. Sometimes a testimony can be confirmed or rejected thanks to one or more photographs [the War Refugee Board report of November 1944 was authenticated in this way, despite some bizarre features in it]. It may be thought that there must be many other photographs taken at Auschwitz between 1940 and 1946. This is no doubt true, but those listed are the only ones we know about. I know ALL of them [about 700 contemporary pictures, or a thousand or more including the Liberation] and I am able to situate most of them on the ground and date many of them more or less accurately, One day at the PMO in the service responsible for the "reserve stocks" [various objects found in the camp], I came upon a photograph of an SS man, in regulation uniform and wearing a gas mask, pouring a can of Zyklon-B into a kind of chimney about 40 cm high. He appeared to be on the roof of a Krematorium II or III gas chamber, but the arrangement of the panes of one of the windows of the crematorium visible behind him did not correspond to any of the drawings or photographs. I kept on questioning the person in charge of this service until he told me the truth: it was a still taken from the film "La Passagère" by Andrzej Munk, a work that remained unfinished because of the death of its maker in a car accident on 20th September 1961. I had seen it in France when I was very young and did not remember all the sequences, but the study of this photograph in comparison with others had proved to me that it was not authentic, despite its appearance and the fact that it was presented as such.

Faurisson was, and still is, incapable of carrying out this kind of study. Furthermore he is totally incapable of reading a drawing. It was fortunate for him that he came across an amateur like me. After our first contact in February 1980, there followed a long series of joint working sessions where I learned all the bases of the revisionist argument beginning, of course, with the compulsory reading of Paul Rassinier's books. This author had doubts, but they were relatively slight because he lacked the documentation now available. His timid remarks were those of student compared with the "ex cathedra" demonstrations of Professor Doctor Robert Faurisson. The latter DENIES ONLY THE HOMICIDAL GAS CHAMBERS, not the rest: the deportation, concentration camps, suffering, malnutrition, slave labor, ill treatment. sickness, epidemics, crematoriums. NO, THE GAS CHAMBERS ONLY. The stratagem is that if the gas chambers are demolished, all the rest will follow and be denounced. He very quickly saw that I had a gift for reading end explaining drawings. To obtain "positive" results, those to help his cause, he was obliged to open his flies to me and have me work on them. And that is what I did. My collaboration with Faurisson involved only the documents he had collected. His surprising hypothesis had literally seduced me. But stimulating as the idea was, it turned out to be negative. I tested it on out on my entourage. Those who were not Jews saw it as just one more bluff in the daily flood of them, Those who were Jews did not even react violently, They were disarming and made me understand that there were limits that could not be transgressed. My arguments were taken into account, my good faith recognized, but that did not restore their father, mother, brother and sisters, the entire families annihilated. Faurisson has in fact never given a real answer on this point, never explained what happened to a million people, whom, according to him, it was technically impossible to have exterminated. Guillaume declared, acting as his master's voice, that "they were transferred at Kosel station, 120 km from Auschwitz".

[This indication of the distance is typical of the "Faurisson method", a mixture of truth and lies, in order to be always right. Saying that Kosel or Kozle is 120 km from Auschwitz is true and false AT THE SAME TIME. Kosel is 82 km from Auschwitz as. the crow flies, 97 km by the northern route passing through Gliwice, Mikolow and Tychy. and 120 km by the southern route via Raciborz, Rybnik, Zory, Pszczyna and Brzeszcze. Faurisson omits to say that this miraculous station lies to the west of Auschwitz. Any reasonable motorist wishing to go from Kozle to Oswiecim would take the northern route, but he would be wrong. The shortest route is not the best one, and the only true route in the southern one, indicated by the master. ALL Faurisson's references, remarks, explanations and arguments are "loaded" to this way. His truth is the plausible interpretation of facts that have never existed.]

In the gospel according to Saint Faurisson, 950,000 people vanished into the countryside from Kozle station and spread to the four corners of the earth. Nobody has since been able to find them.

I did not know that on 15th February 1979 Faurisson had received a summons to appear before the court to answer charges brought by the LICRA (Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme]. Other organizations had joined the plaintiff, such as ANFROMF, UNADIF, FNDIR, CAR, l'Amicale des deportes d'Auschwitz et des camps en Haute Silésie, MRAP, les Fils et Filles des Déportés Juifs de France, and the UNDIVG was also to appear. I only gradually discovered the legal shackles that hampered him. His immediate concern was to defend himself. As regards his trial, the immediate problem was that of the Struthof gas chamber. I was given a crash course, and accompanied him to consult the archives of the Struthof trial at the Palais de Justice in Paris. This led to an episode that made me see the "honest and meticulous" professor in a more worrying light. 86 Jewish victims met their death in the Struthof gas chamber (of 30 women and 57 men sent from Auschwitz, one was shot and the rest were gassed). They had left administrative traces. The weekly report on the numbers of prisoners indicate the presence on on 14th August 1943 of 90 Jews, of whom 30 "left" deceased, and on 21st August 1943, among the 60 remaining, there were 57 further deaths, The cause of death (even if uncertain) was normally entered on the reverse side of the reports. But the backs of the reports on these 87 Jews were blank. What is more, each death in the camp was reported to and noted in the Natzweiler town hall. No mention of these dead Jews. These two documents are damning evidence. Faurisson, after checking all the weekly reports still conserved, put forward the explanation that those of the 14th and 21st August 1943 were printed in gothic script while previous ones had been in roman script. Confused by this change in the forms, the SS made a mistake with the line and instead of inscribing the 87 on the line marked "Entlassung / liberation", mistakenly entered them on the line marked "Todesfalle / deaths". His poor argument rang in my ears like a warning bell. The first warning sound had come when I read the following passage in "Vérité historiqueÉ" by Thion, page 314: "I made one of the Auschwitz Museum officials. Mr Jan Machkel, come to the place [in Krematorium I]. I showed him the furnaces. I asked him: "Are they authentic?" He replied "Of course!" I then passed my finger across the mouth of one of the furnaces. I showed him that there was no soot [underlined by J-C Pressac. Fancy expecting in find soot 35 years afterwards!]. With an embarrassed air [why?), he told me that these furnaces were a "reconstitution" [the Museum's own photographs prove it]. A professor's reputation fades after such a remark.

Faurisson becoming more and more preoccupied by his trial, it fell to me to continue the study of the "so called" gas chambers at Auschwitz. I accepted on condition that I would be able to remain anonymous. And indeed I was, right to the end. When I am able to refute a historical inaccuracy, with certainty and the support of solid proof, then I do not hesitate to do so if this correction does not harm individual persons. If it does, then I seek advice first or I abstain. In order to be able to work properly, I needed peace and quiet, which was impossible in the atmosphere of the trials.

During April and May, I thoroughly studied my photographic evidence. In the following months, working from the fragments provided, I produced seventeen bound drawings, most of them in color [3 of Krematorium I at Auschwitz, 4 of Krematorium IV at Birkenau (and the Natzweiler crematorium). 2 of Krematorium III and 8 of Krematorium II] in order to make it easier for him to read the drawings and understand the architecture and arrangement of these crematoriums, At the revisionist congress in Washington on 11th August he wrote to me: "The few people to whom I have been able to show your material were most impressed, They find it outstanding". Without false modesty, I had worked like a Trojan. As a "reward" I was able to take with me to Ireland. where I was spending my holidays, a photocopy of his manuscript "Vous avez dit Kremer?" [Did you say Kremer?], which was later to become "Mémoire en defense" [Statement for the defense], which enabled to me follow the genesis and development of the "Faurisson Affair" as well as his own explanations. I carefully went through it all with a fine tooth comb. It very quickly became apparent to me that his interpretation of "Vergasungskeller / gassing cellar" as "gas-generating cellar", though perfect in its literary form, was technically worthless [I later found that he had taken it from the work by Arthur R Butz, "The hoax of the twentieth century". Butz, though a product of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is as hopeless as Faurisson on technical matters]. As regards the criticism of the diary of Johann Paul Kremer [reserve SS doctor posted to KL Auschwitz from 30th August to 18th November 1942] I had my doubts (again!) about the explanation of the word "Zonderaktion / special action" and the expression "last Bunker", Faurisson's arguments not being very convincing. Despite these few clouds I was finding in the clear sky of the revisionists, I began to sincerely believe that this "crazy hypotheses" had a very good chance of turning out to be correct. As

{p. 549} material. I was free to do as I thought fit, but specific tasks were to check in situ the "reconstitution" of Krematorium I and carefully check the references in the Polish book by Judge Jan Sehn, "Les crimes allemands en Pologne" [German crimes in Poland], published in Warsaw in 1948. Then came the final instructions from Washington: "enter the ruins of Krematorien II and III" and visit the "disinfection" barracks in "Bauabschnitt / construction stage" I of Birkenau. In July, Faurisson had warned me against the tendency to see "falsehoods" everywhere like the Swedish revisionist Felderer. "There really are no falsehoods, but simply false interpretations of things that really existed". I was by now well-prepared to "revise" the "official" history of Auschwitz-Birkenau. [Part of the preceding section and what follows is a short summary of my visit of 25th to 30th August 1980, entitled "AUSCHWITZ QUINTET".] First day: 26th August 1980 At eight o'clock sharp I presented myself at the Auschwitz Archives. I gave Thion's book to Tadeusz Iwaszko, telling him that the situation was serious. Auschwitz, "Hoax of the twentieth Century", etc. Iwaszko didn't turn a hair, simply asking the purpose of my visit. I said that Faurisson, supported by certain elements of the French extreme left, was becoming a threat. He had to be fought. and on his own ground. It was necessary to study the technology and rationally explain the Zyklon B gassings and back this up with irrefutable historical material. Iwaszko understood my point of view, but would never subscribe to it, being convinced that no discussion with the revisionists was possible, whatever the documents produced [and he is right]. He considered Thion's work to be simply a pamphlet. And then he had doubts about my sincerity. Either I was telling the truth, or I was an emissary sent by Faurisson. But whatever his personal opinion, he could not officially accuse me and had to provide me with the documents I requested.

This conversation took place in a somewhat tense atmosphere. My approach work is tricky because I was not fully acquainted with what I knew to exist. The Museum had sent me only 59 negatives of the 150 I had ordered and I had returned them because they were not up to standard. He brought out the same drawings as in November 1979, ones I knew by heart through having recopied them. Finally I went back to first principles and requested the volumes of the Hoess trial, At last I was able to make some progress, finding there the references I required. At 1 p.m. the Archives closed and I had to pack up. Not very fruitful, this first contact, but I had found the right road.

In the afternoon, investigations at Birkenau. The cloudy weather of the morning had giver way to sunshine. Destination: the disinfestation barracks, Bauwerken/ worksites BW 5a and 5b. 5b (women) was open, but 5a (men) was closed. Rapid visit of 5b, taking many photographs. Inside, three rooms with thick doors fitted with felt sealing stripe. Gas chambers? [No, I was mistaken. These were hot air disinfestation chambers. I had passed through the "real" gas chamber that used Zyklon B as disinfestation agent, without even realizing it]. Then I went on to the BA.I sewage treatment station next to Krematorium II. More photographs. I came to Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II, one of the "supposed" homicidal gas chambers. I wandered round these 210 m? surrounded by such mystery. The sky was clear and the sun pleasantly warm. The weeds growing over the ruins were healthy Their shade of green proclaiming summer. A stark contrast with this Leichenkeller 1, its roof broken into huge slabs. Two of the slabs formed a kind of roof [on the extreme left on Photo 15]. Stupefaction: it was possible to slip inside through the ridge of this "roof" and there was enough light to take photographs. An archeological dream. I could not believe my eyes, spellbound by what I discovered. And certain confirmations were already evident. I had been right in June, when I was studying poor photographs of the construction drawings. The upper ventilation duct of "corpse cellar 1" was a very primitive arrangement made of wood. There remained only a few bits of battens stapled to the concrete ceiling, but that sufficed. In the center of the accessible section there was a pillar, almost intact, which was what still supported part of the ceiling. At the foot of this pillar, under 50 cm of water. I was able to see one of the waste water drains as on drawing 932 of the Krematorium basement. I was jubilant because the presence of this drain connected directly with Krematorium II corroborated what I had observed on the drawing: it was not possible to gas people in Leichenkeller 1 because the hydrocyanic acid gas could escape through the drains into the building and poison the air in parts of it. In the ceiling, a piece of planking recalled the Bauleitung letter of 29th January 1943, stating that because of the frost the removal of the formwork had been delayed [mistaken interpretation. It was the emplacement of one of the 24 dummy showers fitted in the gas chamber]. Scarcely had I emerged from this rather special place, when I encountered further surprises. Manholes hidden in the vegetation led me to discover shafts leading to the very foundations of Leichenkeller 1. I descended into one of them, using the metal rungs set into the brick wall. This "gas chamber" had more holes in it than a sieve. Gassing would obviously be impossible, for the building above and its surroundings would have been subjected to the toxic and deadly effects of prussic acid. I ran to Krematorium III. Identical findings, except that I could not descend into the manholes because they were of different design, concrete pipes with no ladder built in. I disappeared into the forest because a group of tourists was approaching. I went through "Kläranlage / sewage treatment station" II and arrived at the Zentral Sauna. It was closed as usual and I went behind the building to look for an open window, I was soon able to jump inside. I took some photographs of the clothing disinfestation autoclaves, the only authentic "gas chambers" according to Faurisson. Lastly, I went to Krematorium V, completely choked by vegetation. Not much use taking photographs. The ground floor was as shown on the Bauleitung drawing. And on the way back I finally found the ruins of Krematorium IV. There remained nothing but the concrete floor and the outline of the different rooms. I began to feel I'd had enough. "Morgen ist auch ein Tag / Tomorrow is another day" Second day: 27th August Nine o'clock. Archives. I asked Iwaszko to help me find the document(s) containing the term "Badanstalten fur Sonderaktionen / Baths for special actions", a term designating the gas chambers of Krematorien IV and V [wrong. In the note of 21st August 1942, this expression refers to Bunkers 1 and 2, not to the Krematorien, which were not yet built]. He is not familiar with the expression, even though it is one of the favorite themes of many authors. Where does it come from? Not very pleased. I didn't insist. My discoveries of the previous day kept coming into my mind. To such an extent that I was unable to stop myself telling him about the "holes" around the "komora gazowa". Not at all disconcerted, he asked what I thought about them. On the spur of the moment I replied: "Because of the constantly wet ground, water infiltrated the lower ventilation ducts. This system would have served to evacuate this water." He disappeared, leaving me to study volume 11 of the Höss Trial. Then he came back and unfolded yet another plan, Bauleitung drawing 1300 of 18/6142, "Krematorium-Entwassering / Krematorium drainage". A real slap in the face. Demolition of my hypothesis that gassing was impossible because of the arrangement of the drainage system. What is more, the shafts discovered in the ruins were not connected with the ventilation system, but with the drainage. Drawing 1300 corresponds exactly with the ruins. Unlike on drawing 932, the drainage system of Leichenkeller 1 is now AUTONOMOUS, quite separate from that of the rest of the building. It no longer joins the rest, but goes off at right angles to drain into the main external sewer coming from the Krematorium. This separate drainage would make it possible to carry out any number of gassings with no danger of dangerous contamination, There had clearly been a MODIFICATION of the Leichenkeller 1 drainage. In volume 11 I found a trace of the phantom Krematorium VI, based on incineration in open air pits; plans of the red and white "farmhouses", Bunkers 1 and 2; extracts from the correspondence and orders concerning the construction of the Krematorien, divided into four groups: the Schlosserei / metalworking shop file; the correspondence between the firm responsible for the cremation furnaces, Topf & Sons, and the Auschwitz 'Zentralbauleitung / central construction management"; the Huta file, this being the firm that built the shells of the four Krematorien; and the Tageslohnliste / daily timesheets (a and b). Being unable to translate all this materiel immediately, I asked Iwaszko for photocopies [I was dreaming!] to be made in time for me to be able to take them home with me. He promised to let me have an answer the next day, although he thought my request would be difficult to meet because of the deteriorating situation in Poland at that time. The north was affected by a strike that was spreading to the whole country.

In the afternoon I returned to Birkenau and mobilized an attendant. Another examination of Krematorium IV: in line with the drawings, as was the drainage system. The attendant gave me to understand that there was something else worth seeing, behind Krematorium V. After a few minutes' walk in the woods, we came to a small hollow. He bent and started to knead the soil. In a flash I understood: pieces of human bone. Buckets full, He took me into the Birkenwald, And again, half filled trenches whose content spoke volumes. Crushed bones. It affected me greatly, turned me over in spite of myself. We turned back and he headed for "Kanada" [huts where the goods and chattels of new arrivals were kept]. He took a path flanked by tall grass that led to a square meter of ground where there was a mass of knifes, forks, spoons, scissors and clippers inextricably entangled, charred, rusted: an unbearable, shapeless mass, I wanted to see the Zentral Sauna again. He had no key, so we got in through a window at the back, now a tradition. Before the three autoclaves, I asked him: "Komora gazowa?" "Niet Nie! Para!" Steam. Faurisson was mistaken. The clothing disinfestation autoclaves that he presented as authentic "gas chambers", turned out to use steam, not gas. Beyond them were four brick disinfestation chambers [known as "Topf disinfestation ovens"]. I wanted to know what disinfestation agent was used, and went down into the "Heizerruben / stoking pits" flanking them. Everything was flooded, but despite this the hearths were still visible. These were hot air chambers. No gas, be it T, Zyklon B, Tritox or Ventox. Bad news for Faurisson! That was the end of work for the 27th. . Third day: 28th August Gloomy weather. Bewölkt / overcast. Nine o'clock, Archives. Iwaszko had prepared the drawings requested the previous day. That of the "Luftschutzbunker für SS Revier mit einem Operationsraum / Air raid shelter for the SS hospital with operating theatre", resulting from the conversion of Kr I, the "old" Krematorium was unfolded on a table. I note the details that I had not been able to decipher in June on the photo in Faurisson's files. But I have the impression that it is not exactly the same drawing and give way to a moment of panic. If the Museum keeps bringing out different drawings of a given building, this seems a poor basis for my putting forward any theory whatever. This drawing, 4287, is dated 2/9/44. Faurisson believed it to date from July 1943. Since the references were illegible on the photograph, he had worked out the date from a letter from the Museum. Worrying. And yet everything fitted. It was certainty the drawing of which he had published a photograph in "Thion" (page 317, photo 8) [during my next trip I realized that there were two identical drawings with different inscriptions. Printed from a tracing of the first drawing, the second (Faurisson's) was concerned with the water pipes and fittings. The additional information was added to the original drawing in Indian ink]. Worried by this unsuspected problem, I confronted Iwaszko: "Is it really in its original state, this Krematorium I, with its rebuilt chimney. two badly rebuilt furnaces, the door between the furnace room and the morgue reinstalled a meter from its original position, the gas tight door imitated, an external door convened into a window, the windows remade, the partition walls in the morgue / gas chamber demolished, the Zyklon B introduction orifices installed after the war?" He confirmed the reconstruction and explained his view. What mattered was not the internal and external aspect of the building itself, but the "image" they wanted to recreate of a homicidal gas chamber, a place where many people had actually asphyxiated with Zyklon B. I accepted this, rejoicing at his confirmation regarding Krematorium I, and went on to study the disinfestation barrack, BW 5a, drawing 801 of 8/11/41. I was astonished to read "Wasch und Brauseraum / Wash and shower room" and, just above this, "GASKAMMER". The association of showers and gas chambers could have became showers are gas chambers, in the minds of prisoners. Possible. The drawing did not correspond to what now remained. There followed a series of drawings of BW 5a and 5b showing the gradual evolution of the premises, with the creation of new rooms, with a sauna [a real one!], a technical installation connected to a disinfestation chamber. The term "Gaskammer" still appeared, but on the final drawing. 2540 of 5/7/43, the gas chamber had been replaced by a chamber connected to a hot air generator.

[BW 5a was in fact fitted with a delousing chamber using Zyklon B, then the equipment required for gas operation was removed and two hot air disinfestation chambers were installed IN that room. In BW 5b another Zyklon B delousing chamber was installed. This was not subsequently converted, but remains at it was, with two extractor fans visible in its east wall. That these two gas chambers, installed in a most primitive fashion, actually functioned with Zyklon B, is attested by the fact that their wails have turned blue (both outside and inside). This utilization led to two conclusions. First. that Faurisson's thesis that using gas chambers was a complex business was wrong: after studying the ultra sophisticated American execution gas chambers, he had come to the conclusion that because of their very simplicity, the Auschwitz "homicidal installations" were technically incapable of functioning. Second. the use of Zyklon B as a disinfestation agent at Auschwitz was clearly established, so that it was no longer possible to maintain, as did

{p. 550} the traditional historians that ALL the Zyklon B was used for extermination, There were in fact about 25 Zyklon B delousing chambers of different sizes operating in the camp].

I then began to study the "Zentral Sauna" file. This sanitary complex was a sauna only in name. It contained 4 "Entwesungtkammer / disinfestation chambers" installed by Messrs Topf & Sons and using hot air produced by hearths located to pits alongside them. The 3 autoclaves were shown on the drawings, but without any details [the discovery of the Bauleitung album made it possible to identify them positively as autoclaves in the strict sense because of the presence of pressure gauges]. At the end of this session, with the threat of the strike very much in the air, Iwaszko told me that the next day he would do his best to get to work, but that with no bus service he was unlikely to be present. My work in the Archives virtually came to an end there. Fourth day: 29th August At nine o'clock the next morning I appeared before the locked door of the PMO Archives. I rang. An official I knew vaguely by sight opened the door. "Pan Iwaszko?" I asked. "Nie! Strajk!/ No! Strike!" I suspected as much. The man's tone sounded somewhat surly. I stopped the flow of words with a gesture, smiled at him, and wished him a good strike. That changed everything. His surliness disappeared and we parted on friendly terms ...

... I still had to fill the afternoon, The sun was slowing emerging. I decided to go to Birkenau, but as a tourist, not as a researcher. When I arrived at speed at the road leading to the KGL watchtower, I had a shock! A smoking locomotive was pushing four wagons along. It stopped before the camp. Silhouettes in all too familiar verdigris uniforms were restraining aggressive Alsatians. Police of the Feldgendarmerie. Some SS in their distinctive caps were gallivanting about. In the wagons, a consignment of people dressed in dark clothes, with while armbands bearing the bluish star of David were waiting ... I had arrived at the beginning of she shooting of a film about Birkenau, "Mur", a Polish American coproduction. The Feldgendarmes were Polish militia, the SS young soldiers. The uniforms and equipment were impeccable and guaranteed authentic. A grey Kübelwagen was parked in front of the entrance building, a dashing SS Hauptsturmführer / captain and his driver standing beside it. I struck up an acquaintance. The actor, from Katowice, spoke good German. He immediately recognized my line of business: "Artz? / doctor?" "Nein. Apotheker." While I was enthusing over the car engine, the original, a tall civilian, a well fleshed forty year old with blondish thinning hair, arrived on the scene and started to bug me. He gave mc to understand that, Frenchman or no Frenchman, I was not allowed to take photographs. What the hell... For eight years, at the military school, I had been forbidden to read certain books, see certain films, to do this, to do that... Once the "actions" began, I started my illicit photographing, often under difficult conditions, but nothing escaped me and nothing stopped me. A succession of pictures. The doors of the wagons were thrown open and the Jews jumped down to the ballast with their suitcases. they were despoiled and harassed unmercifully by the raging SS, all this accompanied by the wild barking of the dogs that the Feldgendarmes had more and more difficulty in controlling as the takes succeeded one another, being repeated until the scene reached the required degree of ferocity. The result was achieved with difficulty. For the first "Aktion", preceded by an incident where a sliding door, stuck in the rust, refused to open, provoking the rage of the director and the hilarity of everybody else, proceeded much too calmly. The Jews descended quietly from the train and moved off towards the camp gates in silence, ignoring the row of SS backed up by a second line of six Feldgendarmes with their dogs lying at their feet, indifferent and silent. A historically authentic reaction at the opposite pole from what is generally believed. It took a whole afternoon of repeats, of takes, for the SS to learn how to "unload" a convoy in one or two minutes. Which shows that ferocity, even in Polish militia and soldiers is not a gift of nature, but has to be learned, By the evening, they had perfected the technique. I saw incredible scenes of pure violence on the part of young soldiers who really got into the part and thumped away at the Jewish extras, Poles like themselves. As for the dogs, excited beyond endurance by the ambiance, they twice rolled their masters, no longer able to control them, in the dust. Lunacy... but the conditioning had been successful.

As time went on, I became intoxicated by this induced brutality. Then the shooting of more intimate scenes, involving selected actors and actresses, began. At the beginning I had noticed four young "Jewesses" dressed all in black, leaning against a truck. But they were by no means commonplace or ordinary, Very luxurious models. Got up like queens dressed in tramps' clothing designed to emphasize the high quality chassis. Alas this game Ñ Americans for sure Ñ seemed to be reserved and was jealously "protected" f rom nasty but enterprising poachers. These charming decorations entered the scene under floodlights in the early evening. There were tear-jerking contrasts between their candid, suffering little faces and the wild SS raining blows on them.

I eventually headed for the Krematorien to watch the sunset over the ruins. Coming back towards the gate down the central path, I saw a whisp of smoke on my left, then suddenly a tall chimney belched a thick, dark cloud of smoke. The Jews, They were being burned É fictionally. As the chimneyless Krematorien were behind me, I was intrigued by this chimney from beyond the tomb. Built for the purposes of the film, it rose in the center of the only remaining row of intact stable-type huts in Birkenau [B IIa, the quarantine sector]. I had not noticed that the "Schwerpunkt", (center of gravity) of "Mur" had shifted and that they were now shooting before and inside the huts of B.IIa. After dinner, I returned to Birkenau and made a rendezvous for 7 o'clock the next morning with the civilian guard to photograph the chimney and the vehicles that been left on the site. Fifth day: 30th March 1980 7.30 a.m. in the persistent dawn mist of Birkenau. The guard was waiting with no sign of impatience. Since I had met him, I had always heard him speak correct French, but I had the impression that sometimes he was unable to understand it any more. But no matter, at least in his presence I could speak my native language. I started taking pictures. One entire film was devoted to the vehicles. Then I went on to the chimney that had been smoking. A few approach shots to integrate it in the context of the huts [Photo 18], then rounding one of them I was able to see its construction. At the base the supporting frame of four heavy beams was visible [Photo 19]. It was a fair replica of the chimney of Krematorium I: a square section extended rhomboid covered with plastic molded and colored to represent brickwork, the top being soot blackened to complete the illusion. Inside there was a ladder going up to near he lop where the smoke producing device had been placed. It was lucky that I hadn't wasted any time, for by ten o'clock everything had been dismantled and removed. [It is worth noting that shooting took place without any problems IN THE MIDDLE OF A GENERAL STRIKE. What power the dollar had!]

Then back to the Stammlager and the Archives. There was no time left to undertake any new research. I confirmed to Iwaszko the references of the drawings and texts for which I wanted "photocopies" and filled in my official request to the Museum under his watchful eye. The documents included some drawings of the Krematorien, virtually all those of BW 5a and 5b and of the Zentral Sauna and several other documents (legal exhibits) from volume 11 of the Hoess trial. Even as I was writing. I was thinking I would never see a single one of these documents, since I had been disappointed with my previous experience. [Which turned out to be wrong. The Museum perfectly and scrupulously fulfilled my order, BUT I had to take delivery personally, on my next visit.] Iwaszko had spoken to me of a fine book that I was to take back take back to a former prisoner in France, but he had not brought it. Some trouble due to the strike? [On my return from my next trip, I delivered the book to Mr Jacques Zylbermine, deported to Auschwitz then sent to Buna-Monowitz at the age of 14. This man was to play a discreet but considerable role in my subsequent work].

It goes without saying that as a result of this trip my revisionist "belief" had been severely shaken. The "damage" turned out to be serious. Faurisson's theories had been swept away like wisps of straw. I was not yet entirely convinced of the reality of the gassings, because some of my questions had still received no answer [I would find them for myself], but I had doubts about denying their existence. Oswiecim and Poland had neutralized me. [End of the summary of "OSWIECIM QUINTET" or "NEUTRALIZATION"] In September 1980, Faurisson and Guillaume came to my place to assess the value of what t had been able to pick up in the Auschwitz Museum. I had admittedly been able to take many photographs, which I thought would help Faurisson form a more concrete picture of the site, but I had not been able to bring back any documents. In fact it was they who brought documents, sent to them by the opposing party, [Maître Jouanneau, acting for the LICRA]. The material thus transmitted in September represented a somewhat daunting mass of documents (in terms of volume). As if by coincidence, as we sifted these documents, the same pieces of evidence that I had found in the PMO kept appearing. Faurisson did not see the funny side of this similarity. Maitre Jouanneau and myself had totally separately, but on the indications of Iwaszko, selected the same type of "exhibits", these being the kind of document that Faurisson detested because he was scarcely capable of countering them. An involuntary kindness on the part of our adversary was that they had translated the documents, whereas when I had them they were in German or Polish and still had to be translated. These legal translations, despite their imperfections, were a great help to me. When a translation appeared strange to me, I took it to the Museum and, with Iwaszko's help, compared it with the original text [especially where the original was in Polish]. I was always right to check them, because that way the meaning became clear. But this verification meant trips to Poland and therefore extended over a period of months, so that Faurisson was not able to "benefit" from it. Moreover, when an obscure passage became comprehensible, it frequently provided further evidence AGAINST Faurisson. The September meeting at least showed us the extent of the evidence, a complete surprise to Faurisson himself. The vast majority of the charges were based on testimony and these were systematically rejected as dubious. But the most dangerous archive documents, and I could confirm this, came from the Auschwitz Museum. It was therefore decided to devote all efforts to demolishing the Auschwitz gas chambers. If we succeeded in removing this cornerstone of the Birkenau edifice, the rest would collapse with it. It was a desperate solution, but the only logical one compatible with our resources. Faurisson was forced to stake everything on it. I was to redouble my efforts studying the documents concerning the construction of the Krematorien in the hope of finding evidence that homicidal gas chambers had never been installed in these buildings. In addition, the study of disinfestation in the camp, which looked promising, was to be continued. I made two visits to Auschwitz that were as long as I could make them in view of my professional activities. Fourteen days from 4th to 17th October and eleven days from 11th to 21st November 1980. Just before the first of these trips, I read the article by Pierre Vidal Naquet "Un Eichmann de papier" [A paper Eichmann] and the preface by Paul Thibaud, "La mémoire d'Auschwitz" in the journal "Esprit" [9th issue. September 1980]. The article troubled me, but no more than that. The few PMO documents I had studied and my good knowledge of the revisionist case enabled me to reply to and criticize this article in all honesty, sure of my ground. I retained two phrases by P Thibaud: "let us recreate a memory", and "how could that have come about?" (technically, I added], And the following statement by Pierre Vidal-Naquet: That the war should have ended, that the tragedy should, in a sense, have become secularized, this has to be accepted, even if that means for us, I mean for us Jews, the loss of the kind of privileged right of speech that we used to have to a large extent, now that Europe has discovered the great massacre. opened the door to non Jewish researchers who wished to establish a second "memory of Auschwitz". I was later to seize this outstretched hand, to Vidal Naquet's great surprise.

In the Archives. I started studying the drawings of Krematorien II and III, of IV and V and of the documents concerning their construction. There are 26 drawings of the four Krematorien, stored in files BW 30/1 to 30/24 [plus 30/19a. 30/20 contains two drawings]. The documents are in files BW 30/25 to 30/31. They are so designated because the Krematorium worksites (Bauwerk) were numbered by the Bauleitung as follows: BW 30 [Kr II], BW 30a [Kr III]. BW 30b [Kr IV], BW 30c [Kr V]. This classification is easy enough to use when one knows the numbers attributed by the Bauleitung to worksites on completed buildings [for example: Krematorium I is designated BW II, then BW 14 when it was convened to an air raid shelter; all the sewage treatment stations are referered to as BW 18; the Zentral Sauna is BW 32], but is somewhat confusing for the uninitiated. In 1980, the BW 30 files only went as far as 30/31, but in 1986 the last file recorded in the Archives was BW 30/46. In other words, historical research is not static, but progresses as more documents are found. File BW 30/43 was created as a result of my own study visits to Warsaw and 30/

{p. 551} 45 and 46 my visit to paid Berlin. It may appear foolish, but I am proud of this.

All these trips were made at my own expense. I owed nothing to Faurisson, not being a robot for his exclusive use. I had undertaken the work in order to complete documentation I required for my novel and there was no question of my giving this up in this up in favor of a "crazy hypothesis" that was turning out to look increasingly unlikely and indefensible as I delved further into the drawings and files. His battle was not mine. I first continued my own research concerning the founder and former commandant of the Auschwitz Birkenau concentration camp, SS Lieutenant Colonel Rudolf Hoess. The manuscript of his "Autobiography" was long declared to be "mythical" by the French extreme right. Faurisson claimed it had emerged directly from the headquarters of falsifying Soviet Polish Stalinist communists. When I asked Iwaszko for this manuscript, he brought it to me [Photo 20] without any hesitation and I was able to consult it at my leisure. The thing that struck me the most was that Hoess had written several hundred pages without any crossings out. At first I thought that this could not be his first version, but the resultant of previous draughts. I was no doubt wrong, for many people, very self-controlled, write in this fashion [which is far from being my own!]. I discovered, but I was not the first to do so, that only the autobiographical part [about half the pages] had been published at that time, and that virtually all the notes Hoess had written about the officials with whom he had been in contact and about various institutions of the Third Reich that he knew, remained unknown. I would add that Hoess' manuscript was written in pencil [a normal constraint in the case of prisoners, but of capital importance in the eyes of the revisionists because it the facilitated falsification by the Polish Stalinist employees of the Auschwitz Museum]. I was also able also able to see that the French translation by Constantin de Grunwald, published by René Juillard in 1959, was of mediocre quality. The only valid and usable French version is that by Jerzy Brablec in "Auschwitz vu par les SS" Auschwitz State Museum. 1974. Unfortunately, this edition presents only that part of the memoirs concerned with Auschwitz. What is more, the preface of this book written by Jerzy Rawicz is somewhat excessive. It is difficult to follow him in his presentation of a Hoess [commandant of the camp] who slipped [and the guards?] at night [like a robber] into the basement [what comfort] of Block 11 [known as the "Death Block"] to join a prisoner, Eleonora Hodys, and succeeded in making her pregnant [whereas Dr Guilbert, American psychoanalyst at Nuremberg maintained that Hoess was not much inclined to philandering]. Rawicz also claims that Judge Jan Sehn, who led the interrogation of Hoess for his trial [Photos 21 to 25], who won his confidence and succeeded in making him talk completely frankly, despite the few illusions that Hoess could have had about the fate awaiting him, was mistaken in his assessment of the truth of what his "client" had to say. Who knew Hoess better, Jerzy Rawicz or Jan Sehn [Photo 26], who had countless interviews with Hoess?

{p. 553} We can no longer consider Hoess to be a common criminal or assassin. He had admittedly participated in the night of 31st May it, on the orders of Martin Bormann and with five companions from the from the "Freikorps Rossbach" [Bernard Jurisch, Georg Pfeiffer, Emil Weimeyer, Karl Zabel, and Robert Zenz], in administering a thrashing to a former schoolteacher, Walter Kadow, suspected [without proof] of having delivered Albert Leo Schlageter, one of Hoess' old comrades, to the French, who shot him. The punishment degenerated into an execution. Jurisch denounced the collective murder and Hoess, who had nevertheless returned to the scene of the crime with Zabel to give the body a summary burial, was condemned to ten years' imprisonment. This crime "frais et joyeux"* ["Les crimes politiques en Allemagne" E J Gumbel, NRF, Paris, 1931 page 149] found its raison d'être in the exacerbated patriotism of the time. HoessÔ function at Auschwitz was that of executioner in the legal sense of the term, performing the most sordid job in a racist totalitarian regime. He did the dirty work for high ups incapable of contemplating the actual materialization the actual of their mad orders. In "Commandant of Auschwitz", pages 173 4, Hoess writes: "The Reichsführer SS sent various high ranking Party leaders and SS officers to Auschwitz so that they might see for themselves the process of extermination of the Jews, They were all deeply impressed by what they saw. Some who had previously spoken most loudly about the necessity for this extermination fell silent once they had actually seen the "final solution of the Jewish problem". I was repeatedly asked how I and my men could go on watching these operations, and how we were able to stand it... This was one job that nobody envied me."

Hoess was fully responsible for what he did. In 1945, the majority of people thought that a man who had committed such acts was a monster. But since 1974 it has been scientifically proved that over half of the human race is capable of doing the same. The American social psychologist Stanley Milgram has demonstrated by experiment, as related in his book "Submission to Authority" that 60% of normal individuals are potential Hoesses or Eichmanns and the percentage increases when they live in an "authoritarian" environment. The only significant exception to this was a young woman of 31 who refused to continue the experiment as soon as she felt that the guinea-pig was endangered by her acts, this despite the by organizer's emphatic orders to her to continue the experiment. Her refusal was explained by the fact that she was of German origin, and had spent her youth under the Hitler regime and considered that she had seen "too many atrocities" She was in fact "vaccinated" and very sensitive to the limits of what constituted a reasonable order.

The Nazi regime was a totalitarian regime based on racism. The victim, the Jew, was so reviled as from 1933, that his extermination, the logical consequence of this denigration, was only natural, and could be actually carried our in a country made propitious for this action. The other Europeans were vaguely aware of the fate awaiting the Jews, but for their own intellectual comfort they refrained from asking themselves the simple question of what was the real fate implied by the complete "rejection" of the Jews. This book should enable them, forty years after the event, to visualize the environment and way the in which the extermination process worked, hitherto known only to a few "initiated" officials of the Third Reich.

Hoess was hanged because he organized and actively participated in countless gassings that had killed between 1 million and 1.5 million people. He claimed that he wanted by using this method to avoid unnecessary suffering of people that he considered, because of the conditions brought about by the war, were doomed in advance. He stated as much in "Commandant of Auschwitz", page 178: "Tens of thousands of Jews were moved from Auschwitz... but this was only a question of out of the frying pan and into the fire... there was the heavy work to which the prisoners were unaccustomed and the ever diminishing scale of rations. The prisoners would have been spared a great deal of misery if they had been taken straight into the gas chambers at Auschwitz." In Hoess' mind, gassing was a gentle and humane death. [Photographs 21 to 25 show Rudolf Hoess during the last year of his life. They meet our need to know what the "technician of gentle death by gassing" looked like. Apart from the people directly concerned, former deportees, Jews or otherwise, their families and certain historians, few people know his face. Just before his execution [Photo 25] Hoess seems to have reached a state of total inner peace. He appeared calm. This surprising result is to be attributed, in my opinion, to Hoess' religious inclination and the intelligent attitude if the Polish Judge Jan Sehn.] __________ Translator's note: * "frais et joyeux" Ñ fresh and joyous, crime committed with a good conscience by several people in a joyous atmosphere.

{p. 554} While I was studying the BW 30/31 file, known as the DAW (Deutsche Ausrüstungs Werke / German equipment works) "Schlosserei / metalworking shop" file containing the "Bestellscheine / orders" issued in 1943 by the "Zentral Bauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei, Auschwitz OS/Waffen SS and Police Central Construction Management, Auschwitz, Upper Silesia", for "Bauwerken / work sites" 5a, 5b, 30, 30a, 30b, 30c and 32 [respectively the B.I delousing installations, the four Birkenau Krematorien and the Zentral Sauna], I discovered an order of 13/2/43 to make for KGL Krematorien IV and V "12 Stück gasdichten Türen ca 30/40 cm/ 12 gas tight doors approx 30x40 cm", signed by the site overseer Teichmann and countersigned by the head of the Bauleitung, SS Major Bischoff. While the three known drawings of Krematorien IV and V did not mention any gas tight openings, I had proof that shutters, rather than doors in view of their size, of this type had been ordered on 13th February 1943, made on 24th and 25th, and completed on 26th, this being inscribed on the back of the order. Then, in file BW 30/28, concerning work in Krematorien IV and V carried out by the civilian firm Riedel & Son of Bielitz, I found in their "Tagesleistungen / Daily timesheets", two reports, one of 28th February 1943 mentioning "Gassdichtenfenster versetzen / Fit gas tight shutters" [Photo 27] and the other of 2nd March 1943, containing the entry: "Fußboden betonieren im Gasskammer / Concrete floor in gas chamber" [Photo 28]. Thus, on 2nd March 1943, civilian workers formally designated a room [in the western part of] "Einäscherungsanlage 4 / Cremation installation 4" [ Krematorium IV] by the term "gas chamber", BECAUSE two days earlier they had installed "gas-tight shutters" in it [three of these are now kept in the former coke store of the "Old Krematorium"].

I did not immediately make the connection between the two files, and even less did I realize the value of my "find". Faurisson had just published his "Mémoire en défense. Contre ceux qui m'accuse de falsifier l'Histoire. La question des chambres à gaz" [Statement for the defense. Against those who accuse me of falsifying history. The question of the gas chambers] (La Vieille Taupe, 1980). All the discussion was concerned with the famous preface by Noam Chomsky. That Faurisson should have scored a victory in having his book prefaced, in the name of sacrosanct freedom of expression, by a most celebrated American Jew, who in fact knew nothing about the demolition work the professor, was involved in, was the least of my worries. Only Auschwitz mattered, and in particular the documents that I had found but of which I did not have copies. I resumed to France on 21st November and met Faurisson at Guillaume's home on 27th. I confronted him in the midst of members of La Vieille Taupe who were coming and going and occasionally gathered round us. I told him that then were far too many traces of "Gas" in the Museum Archives for me to be able to go on believing in the validity of his hypothesis.

He asked me to change my mind, but since I had myself found unpublished "criminal traces", I could not possibly turn back. He asked me to remain "neutral" until the trial. I promised that, and he then inscribed a copy of "Mémoire en defense" with the following text: "To Jean Claude PRESSAC whom we call SCHLIEMANN because he is one of that rare breed of seekers who actually find, I dedicate this copy of my Mémoire, begging him to maintain the attitude he has adopted hitherto, which consists of not taking sides between exterminationists and revisionists in order to determine coolly and impartially, what was the material and materialist reality of Auschwitz. With all my esteem R Faurisson 27th November 1980, at the home of Pierre Guillaume" His dedication left me free to continue my research provided I did nothing to prejudice his legal defense. Confronted with the new evidence, Faurisson and Guillaume had a moment of indecision, seeing the possibility of throwing in the sponge and officially declaring that it did appear that some homicidal gassings had taken place at Birkenau. But they were too committed to negation pure and simple to backtrack now, and the opposing party was hard on their heels. Being given a free reign by Faurisson meant I was now on my own, somewhat perplexed and only half-way through my quest. The documents proved to me that gas chambers had been installed in the Krematorien, but this conviction in no way solved the problem of how these installations actually worked. My meetings with the others became less frequent and contact was virtually broken off. I had to reconstitute for myself the documentation that Faurisson had and that I had been working on. The Museum filled the gaps easily, for in fact Faurisson possessed relatively little valuable material on Auschwitz. In order to make some use of the work I had done on the delousing installations, which totally negated Faurisson's affirmations that using hydrocyanic acid was a complex business requiring sophisticated gas chambers, I decided to write a paper on these Auschwitz-Birkenau disinfestation installations. And Faurisson lent a hand during our last few meetings, partly to keep my attention away from the "supposedly homicidal" gas chambers and also in the hope that he would be able to confuse the issue in the unlikely event that an unexpected "negativist" result should be discovered by a "neutral" third party. The same procedure was to be found in the work of Henri Roques "Les confessions de Kurt Gerstein. Etudes comparatives des differentes versions", June 1985. Faced with a fire coming head on, one method of combatting it is to light independent lateral fires. Faurisson was and still is behind Roques. I systematically studied the sanitary installations of Birkenau, comprising sewage treatment stations I and II, and the projected III, the numerous provisional decantation basins, the Zentral Sauna, Blocks BW 5a and 5b, and all the disinfestation gas chambers that had existed in the camp. Some of the results obtained are presented at the beginning of this book, in particular everything relating to the gas chambers. On the other hand, the material collected on the sewage treatment stations has been little exploited

My regular visits to Oswiecim led to Iwaszko's gradually coming to have confidence in me, even though he was aware of my reticence regarding the "official" genesis of the Krematorien. In return, I offered to act as postman between France and Poland for anything concerning the PMO Archives. That was how I came to meet Jacques Zylbermine, one of the youngest surviving French deportees to Auschwitz. Of his family of six people, the only survivors in 1945 were himself and his elder brother. His father, mother and two sisters had perished at Auschwitz. He received me very courteously when I announced that I was sent by Iwaszko, whom he knew. But he soon saw that the young man sitting opposite him held not very orthodox opinions and seemed to him disorientated. He could have thrown me out, considering what I had to say and in view of his own past, but he did not do so, believing it to be better psychology to leave me free to act as I wished, and going so far as to offer his aid. As he told me later, he wanted to know to whom he and his comrades could entrust the "key" of their memory when they died. He taught me the bare essentials required for understanding the Jewish community. Then we became friends. It was impossible for me to be his friend and at the same time to maintain contact, even sporadic, with Faurisson, for whom Zylbermine's family had merely been "scattered". I broke completely with Faurisson in March or April 1981. During the period during which he honored me with his friendship while knowing that I had worked for Faurisson, Mr. Zylbermine did not mention me to any of his entourage, which he might well have done. I also learned that he knew Georges Wellers and a former member of the Sonderkommando, Alter Fajnzylberg, whom I was unfortunately never able to meet. In June, he went with me to various sessions of the Faurisson trial.

Among these sessions, I must mention the afternoon of 1st Jun 1981, for it was exceptional. Maitre Bernard Jouanneau was speaking At that time I was unaware that he had personally been to Poland to find documents on the gas chambers, as counsel for the LICRA, honestly asking himself whether the "...genocide took place as it has bee described and on the scale that has been claimed". I listened to a great advocate pleading admirably for three or four hours, bringing to life before the Court the demential picture of one of the most somber periods in man's history. Absolutely rigorous, the content of his pleading prefigured the book "Les chambres a gaz, secret d'Etat" published by Editions de Minuit in 1984. The implacable enumeration of testimonies and known documents proving the existence of homicidal gas chambers, literally floored me. Faurisson was not present, of course. Listening to Maitre Jouanneau, he would perhaps have realized that one cannot trample with impunity on the memory of millions of victims. Despite the rigid framework of the court, Maitre Jouanneau made me live an afternoon of poignant reflection, because for the first time he presented an overall picture of the question. I reacted so strongly to his words because, as I realized afterwards, I was still very much impregnated with Faurisson's ideas. But the emotion that I felt did not prevent me from noticing certain inexactitudes in Maitre Jouanneau's implacable indictment of Faurisson's fallacious arguments.

His case was based mainly upon testimonies, but also presented some important "material traces". Practically ALL known witnesses were cited, except for Henryk Tauber, who is now the best one after comparing his deposition with the available historical material. Admittedly the testimonies cited were and remain authentic, but the precision of the accounts and the date when the authors wrote them c had them recorded considerably influence their degree of veracity. What are we to say of Filip Muller, who in "Trois ans dans une chambr a gaz a Auschwitz" (Pygmalion, Gerard Watelet, 1980) [Published in the United States in 1979 under the title "Eyewitness Auschwitz" ] on page 15 of his account describes the "round red-brick chimney" of Krematorium I, which he can never have seen in this state because he arrived in the camp in May 1942, whereas this chimney was already of square section as shown by a drawing of Krematorium I dated September 1941. What can we say other than that the book should have been annotated by a competent historian [this error was pointed out to me by the Auschwitz Museum. I had myself noticed others, but not this]. What can we say of the declaration by Pery Broad, with its tone of outrageous Polish nationalism and in which he places side by side Bunkers 1 and 2 which were actually several hundred meters apart other than that his testimony will not be really exploitable until we know under what conditions and in whose company it was written. What can we say of the book by Dr Miklos Nyiszli, "Auschwitz: a doctors' eyewitness account", in which he multiplies on average by a factor a four all the figures concerning Krematorium II. where he lived for six months, except that I shall not rest until I find the original manuscript and can understand what made the author exaggerate so much. What can we say about Dr Bendel's allegations about Birkenau, in which the only acceptable truth is his own, except that he was a poor witness. What can we say of the multiple versions of the Belzec gassings by Kurt Gerstein except that he was a polyglot, what to say of the figures he puts forward, except that they reflect the excessive emotionalism of an unstable man who had witnessed unbearable scenes. What can we say about the deposition by Alter Fajnzylberg of 13th April 1945, in which he states that twelve corpses at a time were charged in a single cremation muffle in Krematorium I, except that it was physically impossible. What can we say of his declarations of 29th September 1980 before Maitre Pierre Attal, a Paris notary, other than that, because of his age and what he had suffered there remained only vague pictures in his mind, difficult to describe. What can we say of David Szmulewski who was attributed the merit of having clandestinely photographed in August 1944, gassings and incinerations in Krematorium V, and who, having claimed that he had climbed on the roof of the Krematorium to operate, was deprived during the 60s of the paternity of these photographs taken on the ground, except that he was the sole survivor of this exploit. What can we say about former Krematorium III Sonderkommando member David Olère coolly telling me in 1981 that the SS made sausages of human flesh [" Kremawurst"], except that he was still living in the nightmare that had been imposed on him and recounted anything that came into his head, whereas I held in my hands his own drawings of 1945-47 which are masterpieces of authenticity. What can we say about so many singular or fanciful testimonies, other that we must not act like Henri Roques [read Faurisson] with the "confessions" of Kurt Gerstein and conclude that the witness is not a true witness. Instead we must try, as Georges Wellers did in his refutation of Roques' "thesis", to assess the value of the testimony in the light of known documents and try to explain any oddities, errors and even lies it might contain as a function of the individual's nature, what he has suffered, what he has seen or not been able to see, the exact place where he was, the date of his deportation and of his deposition or his account. All this is important and should be given due consideration in validating, confirming or rejecting a testimony that can rightly be criticized. A good Auschwitz historian should now be able, when confronted with a former prisoner or SS man, or when reading the memoirs of one or the other, to detect immediately whether he is an authentic witness and what are the strong and weak points of his testimony [A few years ago "Paris-Match" almost published the "Memoirs of Dr Mengele" I read only one paragraph of the last page, not even concerned with Auschwitz, and could see it was an obvious fake.] Maitre Jouanneau, without necessarily adopting the reserved attitude of the historian, was right to mention these essential witnesses, even though their testimony should be qualified.

It was obvious to Maitre Jouanneau that since the extermination had taken place in Poland it was necessary to go there to find the "material proofs" that were lacking in France. He formed his "intimate conviction" on the basis of a physical trace in the Maidanek camp [Photo 29]: There is one sign that for me personally appeared particularly revealing. Here, and I wish to make no use of trickery, here is a photograph of the gas chamber at Maidanek [Photo 30], where I went. Look at this closed door, with its metal bars, with its peep-hole. Do you think this peep-hole was used to inspect hair as it was being disinfected? Look at the bricks at the base of this wall, these red bricks have become bluish because they breathed hydrocyanic acid.

{p. 555} Hydrocyanic acid does not leave such deep, indelible traces unless it has been used for months and months so that it penetrates deep into the walls.

The red ochre bricks stained with dark blue were for him material and visible proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers. The problem, for there is one, is that the gas chamber presented has all the characteristics of a DELOUSING installation. I am not saying that it was never used to kill people, for that is still possible, but the traces of Prussian blue are an absolutely certain indication of use for delousing purposes. At Birkenau the west wing of BW 5a is a typical example: the bricks of the walls are stained with Prussian blue, especially in the area of stoves inside that were used to bring the room up to the evaporation temperature of hydrocyanic acid. On the outside there are two holes where the extractor fans were fitted. There are two protective air locks for access. On two Auschwitz Bauleitung plans, 801 of 8th November 1941 and 1715 of 25th September 1942, this wing is labeled "GASKAMMER". It is a gas chamber, but for delousing [Entlausung]. What is more, the gas-tight door of a Kanada I delousing gas chamber had an inspection peep-hole Ñ a photograph in the "Album d'Auschwitz" taken in May or June 1944 proves it. But how can we be certain that the indications on the drawings corresponded to the real use made of it? According to the technical manuals and the accounts of former prisoners, the contact time with hydrocyanic acid for effects to be deloused varied from several hours to a whole day, depending on the quantity of the product used, and this explains the impregnation of the walls. By contrast, in homicide gassings, the quantity of Zyklon B used was smaller, man being more sensitive than lice or bugs to hydrocyanic acid. A little of the poison injected was inhaled by the victims and the rest was removed by the extractor fans, so that the contact time was brief and the walls did not have the time to become impregnated. In fact, in the ruins of the Krematorium II gas chamber, it is not possible to see any blue-stained bricks in its walls. It was the role of the officials of the Maidenek Museum to explain all this to Maître Jouanneau. Furthermore, this Museum gave him part of a plan [the left side of that presented as Photocopy 31] showing "Gaskammern für Zyklon Blausäure" as evidence of the existence of homicidal gas chambers, which is a false interpretation of this plan. This exhibit [No 80] appears in the file of evidence against Faurisson. It is simply a project, never implemented, for a mixed delousing installation using Ventox [acrylonitrile] and Zyklon B. Any Degesch technician would confirm this. At the CDJC in Paris I became acquainted with the documents and photographs given to Maître Douaneau by this Museum. I am sorry to say, and I am not the only one in the West, that the Maidenek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers are still waiting for a true historian, which is mildly upsetting in view of the fact that the camp fell into the hands of the Russians intact since 1944.

Faurisson called the mass of documents that Maître Jouanneau had brought back from Poland a "shameful hotchpotch". In this he himself showed shameful duplicity, for the "revisionist cell" had been delighted to receive such good historical material on Auschwitz, and translated into the bargain. These involuntary "gifts" enabled us to advance more rapidly than our adversaries. It is not enough to possess a piece of evidence, it is also necessary to be able to exploit it fully. Maître Jouanneau's exploitation of the BW 30/31 file, known as the "Metalworking shop" file, was disastrous. He sited Order No 71 of 8h March 1943 requesting the:

{p. 556} Production for Krematorium [IV], BW 30b.c of 2 fork type anchors and 8 Schaurohre / inspection tubes, shortening of 4 anchors and the modification of 12 pulleys according to the instructions, of foreman Koch, employed by Topf & Sons of Erfurt.

and he presented these 8 inspection tubes as being peep holes for 5 [!] gas tight doors, whereas in fact they were for the 8 guillotine doors of the big eight muffle furnace of Kr IV. From another file, known as "Metalworking shop WL", of which annex 15 of volume 11 of the Hoess trial contains certain passages and the original of which is lost, he extracted Order No 459 of 28th May 1943 for the fabrication of "fittings for 1 door with frame, air tight, with peep hole for gas Chamber", actually for a disinfestation installation in the Auschwitz main camp, and stated that the peep hole was watching Jews die, not lice. This order is in fact the only one with no criminal connection and was for a real delousing gas chamber, probably that of "Stammlager" Block 1. Maître Jouanneau did not have the time to do the work of a true historian. Responsibility for his errors lies with the traditional historians, who did not appreciate the value of the documents found. These historians caused Maître Jouanneau and his translator, to go astray many times due to the famous "coding" and "camouflage". I have to admit that them was a certain coding involved with the word "Sonderbehandlung / special treatments", but the term is unambiguously "decoded" in several documents conserved in the CDJC. However, the stubborn desire to interpret exclusively in terms of coding, to replace one word by another, has led to aberrations. To say that "Leichenkeller 1" is the codeword for the Krematorium II gas chamber is absurd. To affirm, like the translator, that:

"Leichenkeller" is a term unknown to the German language, [that] had a fleeting existence between 1941 and 1944 in the very closed circle of the SS, smacks of dangerous bias. Declaring the movement authorization issued on 22nd July 1942 for a 5 ton track to go from Auschwitz to Dessau:

"... to pick up gas [Zyklon B] for gassing in the camp, to combat the epidemic that has broken out."

to be coded is quite wrong. A typhus epidemic was in fact raging in the camp, as confirmed by Dr Johann Paul Kremer, an SS reservist, in his "Diary" on his arrival in Auschwitz on 30th August 1942. The authorization of 29th July 1942 is even more urgent, still for disinfestation purposes. By contrast, that of 26th August 1942 requesting "material for the special treatments" and that of 2nd October 1942 [Photo 32] for "material for the resettlement of the Jews", where is the "coding" when the Zyklon B brought back will be used to supply Birkenau Bunkers 1 and 2? There is no coding: a spade is called a spade. No doubt some of the disinfestation gas was used as homicide gas, and vice versa. If the SS had wanted to use code, ALL the movement authorizations, without exception, would have mentioned gas for disinfestation purposes. In all the files and on all the drawings that I have consulted at the PMO archives, I have never encountered a "coded" document or word [except on one occasion, on a drawing of June 1944], otherwise, how would I has, been able to find "criminal traces"? The myth of "camouflage" is based on a letter of 6th November 1943 [Annex 7 of Volume 11 of the Hoess trial, or file BW 30/34, page 14], in which Bischoff, head of the Bauleitung, after a conversation with Hoess, ordered from SS Major Caesar, head of Agricultural Service, a number of shrubs and young trees in order to form a ring of greenery around Krematorien II and III. At the time of the Liberation, the trunks of the trees actually planted were as thick as my thumb. What camouflage [Tarnung]! The traditional historians, thanks to this letter which does not even contain the word "Tarntung", introduced the idea of camouflage of the Krematorien, then extended it to documents because it fitted with the fable of "coding". "Camouflage" makes it possible to claim that any quite ordinary document is highly "criminal". It is thus possible to produce incriminating evidence and build fictions starting with nothing. Krematorien II and III were never hidden by any sort of fence. Why would the cremation installations have been transformed into instruments suitable for the "special actions" if it were not so that the action could take place inside these buildings, whose walls totally hid the operations. Krematorien IV and V were "camouflaged" by hedges 3 meters high as from July 1944 because the big furnace of Krematorium V was out of service and open air cremation pits were dug near the building. The SS wanted to avoid the uncontrollable panic that would ensue if the arriving victims should see such pyres. A certain amount of discretion was in fact used. The SS certainly did not broadcast the fact that they were gassing Jews at Birkenau. But the whole of Upper Silesia knew, more or less precisely, what was going on in KL Auschwitz. Walter Kempowski gives an example in his book "Allemands, le saviez vous?" ["Germans, did you know?"] translated from the German and published by Encre in 1980. A SINGLE German (a writer, born in 1910) among those questioned BECAUSE he was stationed in the region, states:

"I knew exactly what was happening. I was guarding the frontier in Poland. It was in August 1941. I had a place at Zakopane [a good hundred kilometers from Auschwitz] and we were courting two pretty Jewesses; nothing very wrong... And then the shootings started. It had to be keep secret at all costs. On my return from a patrol, some soldiers came to say: "You know, they've shot quite a few. The two pretty girls were in the group." Later on [1943], I saw trains at Cracow, and it was whispered that there were Krematorium furnaces that worked with gas. I said: "There are children there." They were crying in the wagons and calling for water. A woman next to me said: "They asked for it". Her daughter retorted: "But it's terrible!" But the mother repeated: "They asked for it." A little later, I left for Berlin, and there nobody would believe me! "Hans. you're starting to imagine things!" They were all antifascists. They just could not understand the business of the gas furnaces." I should like to explain the incident in the hearing concerned with the photograph album of Struthof. The album retained as an exhibit in the Struthof trial had three pages ripped out. That held by Maître Kormann was complete. On both copies [which I have studied] the photograph of the plan of the gas chamber, drawn by the French Military Justice in 1945, has something scratched out on the original tracing, namely the protective casing on the outside, around the funnel where the water was poured in, no doubt to protect it. Since the original tracing had disappeared from the files of the trial, Faurisson, furious at not being able to find the proof of this "falsification" [faced with the evidence, he tried to turn everything he possibly could to his account] had this pointed out by his counsel, Maître Delacroix. Nobody accused Maître Jouanneau of having "fiddled with the documents". The amusing thing about this incident is that Maître Delcroix thought that only ONE copy had been tampered with, whereas in fact BOTH were identical.

It may appear that I praise Maître Jouanneau to the skies while at the same time criticizing his pleading. The fact is that the case dates from 1981 and it is thanks to advances in research into the history of Auschwitz since then that it is now possible to criticize what he had to say. Be that as it may, nobody can attack his masterly synthesis of the history of the genesis of the gassings. Nobody can deny that he found irrefutable proof of how the victims were crushed together in the gas chambers, and this from a German source. In the gassing trucks, the SS crammed 9 or 10 units [Jews] per square meter. He demonstrated in masterly fashion to the "professor" that it was possible to get at least 2000 people into the 210 m? of the Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorien II and III. This seems to be very much the limiting case, but Maître Jouanneau's demonstration was superb.

I have emphasized Maitre Jouanneau's pleading so much because in my estimation it constitutes the turning point between the earlier "traditional" history and the "precisionist" history now being developed. This comprises two methods of working, the one based on testimonies, and the other based on documents that make it possible to assess the value of the witnesses' testimony. 1980-81, I disapproved of the actions brought against Faurisson by the LICRA and other associations, considering [as Raymond Aron said at the Sorbonne Colloquium in July 1982] that they smacked of witchhunting. Now, I believe that there was no other defensive option open to the people who felt they were being "attacked" by Faurisson's thesis. The main positive spin off from the trial was the strong boost it gave to historical research into all the gas chambers. There was a real need for such research, for since the end of the Hoess trial, for which the investigation was led by Judge Jan Sehn, a Doctor of Law, the question of how the homicidal gas chambers actually worked had gradually fallen into oblivion. Jan Sehn had first published the findings of his investigations in Bulletin I of the Central Commission for the Investigation of Hitlerite Crimes in Poland in Warsaw in 1946, then in 1955 in a special publication of the "Wydawnietwo Prawnicze" (Legal Press) and lastly in 1957, in a new edition, revised and completed, the English version being entitled simply "Auschwitz Birkenau". The Poles did not pursue Jan Sehn's work any further after his death, because nobody in Poland Ñ except for rare exceptions and for political reasons Ñ doubted the obvious facts. The staff of the Auschwitz. State Museum had other more urgent tasks, such as preparing documents for the numerous trials and studying in detail the many subcamp camps round Auschwitz. They were more than a little surprised that in the West a debate should arise over the very existence of the gas chambers. This seemed utterly futile to them, since the facts were patently obvious and at Oswiecim, for example, grandparent witnesses told the story to their children and grandchildren. Who can doubt the word of his grandparents and parents? In defense of those who brought the actions against Faurisson, it must be said that the question was of a complexity that they had not foreseen, and nor indeed had Faurisson. And neither was it suspected that the real confrontation between the "exterminationists" and the "revisionists" did not take place in the Palais de Justice in Paris, during interminable hearings, marked by boredom and suppressed tensions, but rather 1700 kilometers away, on the first floor of Block 24 of the former KL Auschwitz, between the Polish keeper of the PMO Archives and a French pharmacist passionately interested in history. Faurisson had already lost in August 1980. but in the Museum, the match between the two sides [who were never real enemies] was only just beginning...

After the judgment condemning Faurisson, pronounced by the First Section of the First Chamber of the High Court of Paris on 8th July 1981 [announced on 3rd], I continued with my research, for the trial documentation had still not answered all my questions, Since I was alone, Mr. Zylbermine introduced me to Georges Wellers, the man he thought most likely to be able to help me. Wellers asked me to provide him with some proof of my "knowledge". I wrote short paper of about 20 pages, backed up by about 30 photographs, entitled "Realization and study of Birkenau Krematorien IV and V". I had chosen IV and V because the volume of documentation concerning them was less than for II and III, hence easier to handle [this is at the same time both true and untrue]. I gave him this study at the end of July 1981, and then waited.

In the meantime, I learned from a television program that I watched quite by chance that a former Auschwitz deportee had painted canvases on which I was able to recognize features that I had already seen on photographs of the Krematorien. The picture that impressed me the most was of a face watching a gassing [Photo 34]. I noted the name of the artist, David Olère. and rushed to telephone Mr. Zylbermine. After some inquiries, we presented ourselves at the home of Mr. Olère [Photo 33], former member of the Sonderkommando of Krematorium III, prisoner 106144. It was a revelation. In a reaction typical of all those who had been direct participants in the extermination [both Jews and SS], he immediately thrust before us the most horrible things he had painted. His accompanying account was in the same vein. We were adrift in the midst of a kind of Krematorium delirium. But the canvases, and the preliminary sketches he gaily shoved under our noses for the pleasure of seeing us grimace in disgust, spoke quite a different language. That of truth and almost photographic precision. He was a crotchety old man, ceaselessly complaining Ñ as well he might after all he had seen and experienced. But his pictorial testimony on the Krematorien and the extermination of the Jews in Birkenau is the best we know. Following his return from deportation he began to draw what he had seen and experienced, and between 1945 and 1947 he produced about one hundred sketches and [drawings] that form the basis of his work. From these, he painted about thirty canvases of the Birkenau universe. As his sight deteriorated with advancing age, so the size of his canvases grew. In 1945, he had recreated from memory the plan of Krematorium III (BW 30a, not B 360 H) [Photo 35] and drawn a cross section. He presented scenes of the living death of this Krematorium. David Olère's drawings are not perfect, but bear witness to accurate observation and contain details otherwise unknown. To appreciate the veracity of his work, it suffices to compare the sketch [Photo 36] of the construction of Krematorium III as he saw it on his arrival at Birkenau on 4th March 1943 [49th RSHA convoy of 993 Jews from Drancy] and a Bauleitung photograph [Photo 37] taken in March 1943 during the pouring of the concrete roof of the furnace room, where David Olère often worked as from June 1943. At present it is not possible to show the whole collection of his initial sketches, the most valuable part of his work from the historical standpoint. because fifty of them were lent in January 1976 to Myriam Novitch for an exhibition in the "Ghetto fighters' house" in Israel and were never returned to Mr Olère, who was understandably most upset. He used to say that he had been deprived of half his memory.

{p. 558} My own relations with David Olère were somewhat difficult, but as time went on, he began to realize that I had a very good knowledge of "his" universe. We were able to talk about it, and I took every opportunity to do so. But it was not without difficulty. Whenever I pointed out that what he was telling me was inexact, he would get angry and accuse me of calling him a "liar". He had a cynical and acid humor, which was part of his defense against the memories that obsessed him. Through his works, he unwittingly helped me to understand the arrangement of the Krematorium and of Bunker 2/V.

Having no news from Georges Wellers, I expanded my paper, which grew to 80 pages and received a different title: "Auschwitz;, peaceful architectureÉ" and became the first volume of a complete study of the Auschwitz Krematorien. On 13th March 1982, out of bravado and because I had cited him in my dedications, I telephoned Faurisson to announce the completion of my work on Krematorien IV and V. I was shocked and disgusted to find he had reached rock bottom, dragging his family down with him. A human wreck, hysterical, short of breath, panting, gasping out his reproaches, describing his "martyrdom". But it has to be said that he had asked for it and well deserved it. Having sown the wind he had reaped a real whirlwind. What disgusted me was that he used his suffering to try and justify himself to me: "You can see that I was right, for the Jews are persecuting me!". Trying to pass off his false coin wrapped in pity was the last trick of Herr Professor Doktor Robert Faurisson. Heavens, how the mighty are fallen! His last attempt to stop me from continuing my research was in vain. I gave the manuscript to Georges Wellers, and again waited. No reaction. He was sitting on my work, and it remained unexploited. While the traditional historians had no documents on Krematorien IV and V, I had brought him bucket loads. It was too novel. While they spoke of camouflage, I said there had been none, and had photographs to prove it. My work was too heretical. While they had only two documents indicating the probability of gas chambers in Krematorien II and III, I was giving them two documents from a civilian source proving their existence in Krematorium IV. It was all too revolutionary. While official history had established that the Krematorien had been specially designed as extermination instruments, I stated that they had been converted to this end. It was too revisionist. As time passed, the criticisms rained down. I lost patience. I contacted Professor Pierre Vidal-Naquet and said to him: "You wanted a second memory of Auschwitz. Well, I've written the first part". At first he thought I was mad, then when I gave him the manuscript he saw that my proposal was serious. When he had read it, he considered that my demonstrations were valid and soundly-based, but that the text was poorly organized and not publishable in its present form. Which was quite true. But the documents that I presented were too important to remain unknown. He found a solution by arranging for me to take part in a Colloquium organized by the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales on the topic "Nazi Germany and the extermination of the Jews", held at the Sorbonne from 29th June to 2nd July 1982 and chaired by Raymond Aron and Francois Furet. I was accepted as an "intervenant" rather than as a "participant" because of my very late candidature. Only a week earlier, I had known absolutely nothing about the venue or the people I was to speak before. Vidal-Naquet succeeded in launching me. I went to the Sorbonne early in the afternoon of 30th June. The speakers were respectively: Raul Hilberg on "The bureaucracy of annihilation", Prof Dr Wolfgang Scheffler of Berlin on "Die Gaskammern" and Georges Wellers on the number of Jewish victims of the "Final Solution". W Scheffler's communication, from which the Colloquium expected much, was not greatly appreciated by specialists on the topic, and they even regretted having brought him from Berlin because of the small amount of information he provided. He had not succeeded in properly exploiting the documents he had obtained in Moscow. Appearing just after Scheffler, I commented the projection of 36 slides showing the genesis and evolution of Krematorium IV and V at Birkenau, speaking for exactly eighteen minutes. I was the only speaker at the Colloquium to present good contemporary photographs. They came from the photograph album of the Auschwitz Bauleitung [Construction Management] that I had consulted at the PMO in April 1982. A copy of this album had just arrived at the Museum, sent by the Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, who had bought it from a German from Berlin, who in turn had obtained it shortly after the war from a Russian officer who had spent some time in Auschwitz. I had had the great pleasure, the album in my hands, of dictating to Tadeusz Iwaszko the captions of the photographs for the part concerned with the Birkenau Krematorien [Photo 38 is one example]. These unpublished photographs ensured the success of my intervention. Pierre Vidal-Naquet was delighted and called my exposé "clear and remarkable".

After the Colloquium, Georges Wellers considered that what had remained unused for a year now absolutely must be published after the summer holidays in the review of the CDJC "Le Monde Juif". But since he was not in agreement with my theories as I challenged some of his, it was not easy to find common ground.

At the end of August 1982, I went to the Struthof camp whose gas chamber had caused much ink to flow. I was not an ordinary tourist, having already studied the crematorium and the gas chamber thanks to the documents in the French legal archives. After visiting the crematorium and listening to the guide's commentary, I emerged furious, resolved to stop all my research and stop my publication for "Le Monde Juif". There I was, preening myself about putting some order into Poland's "crematorium" affairs, but before going to make a clean sweep over there, it was necessary to put our own little house in order. I was beside myself with rage when I got to the gas chamber. We were hardly inside the building. When I attacked the guide, telling him a few facts about the gas chamber. Then he took the group round, keeping his eyes on me. Once his long-winded patter was over and the visitors had gone out, he closed the door and we remained alone. I then told him the whole history of the complex. The poor man, whose parents had been indirect witnesses of the gassings, did not know what to say, and concluded as I left that "Nobody has ever explained all that to me the way you have".

{p. 559} presented in publications as a homicidal gas chamber, which did not prevent the guide from declaring that they were real showers, reserved for the SS who washed SS who washed themselves with water heated by the incineration by the prisoners. That the urns had been transported to the room occupied by the prisoners [internees] responsible for the running of the crematorium. The urn room had become that where human that were shut up waiting for "vivisection" in the dissecting room [!] The door of their "prison" had been fitted with two heavy bolts and the window in the upper part had been replaced by a wooden panel after the war. The prisoners' room had a wash basin, which is normal. The urn room did not. It is now the other way round, and one wonders why the urns need a wash basin, and why the room where thee prisoners lived did not have one. Proof of this "switch" is to be found on the plan of the premises drawn on 29th May 1945 by the French commandant of the camp for the French Military Justice. [The camp, which was intact at the time of the Liberation, was repopulated with imprisoned or condemned collaborators.]

As for the gas chamber, the 86 unfortunate Jews and Jewesses gassed there to satisfy The impulse of a collector of skeletons, Professor Hirt, had multiplied to the point of reaching 10,000 to 20,000 victims.

These errors have still not been rectified. I suggest the following modifications to the management of the Struthof Museum:

A - in the crematorium:

1) Return to the configuration of May 1945, i.e. return the urns to their initial room and return the bunks in the "guinea pigs" room to the prisoners' room, removing the inscription "vivisection";
2) Open to the public the morgue of the crematorium, where executions took place [bullets were found in the filter trap under drain grid];
3) Open to the public the shower/disinfection section, indicating the circuit followed and explaining the operation of the disinfection chamber (which has never been studied) to differentiate it completely from the homicidal gas chamber.

B in the gas chamber:

1) Retrieve from the Musée de la Résistance et de la Déportation at the Besançon Citadelle the funnel with its tap that enabled the camp commandant, Josef Kramer, to carry out homicidal gassings [this item belongs to the Struthof camp];
2) Reconstitute the original installation used for gassing, protecting it by a glass or plastic case and formally indicating the reconstituted parts [these would be the metal tube for pouring the liquid into the gas chamber, three white tiles and 1/2 kg cement for fixing the tube];
3) Have the complete chronology and history of the gas chamber established by competent historians: a) Origin of the building and state of building and slate of premises before the war; b) Use of a cold room as a gas chamber for training SS recruits in the use of gasmasks in chemical warfare; c) Installation of the device for pouring of the in a liquid, completed on 3rd August 1943; d) The gassing "for the purposes of medical science" by hydrocyanic acid of 86 Jews and Jewesses between 7th and 21st August 1943: e) The first eleven experiments concerning the use of utropine as a protection against phosgene, carried out without any deaths in the autumn of 1943 under the direction of Father Bickenbach; f) The four, terminal experiments of 15th June 1944 carried our by Hirt, assisted by Bickenbach for the for the technical aspects, which caused four deaths due to acute oedema of the lung.

The commentary should condemn Hirt, a Nazi doctor who abused his position of power, and exculpate Bickenbach, who experimented on his own person in the early stages of the phosgene experiment.

The photographs exhibited should be related to these events and not refer simply to any camp where gassings were carried out.

4) Abandon the designation "formalin tanks" for the three white tiled baths with wooden covers. This designation is not based on any document and is a legend by assimilation with the synthetic alcohol tanks in the Institute of Anatomy at Strasbourg University in which the 86 corpses of the unrealized "Hirt collection" were preserved;

C. Produce of a detailed photographic brochure on the camp, with archive documents and photographs from the French front the French Military Justice, bearing in mind that visitors want to have precise, verifiable and irrefutable information.

{p. 560} chambers" in the journal of the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine, "Le Monde Juif". No 107. The differences in interpretation between Georges Wellers and myself were clearly stated in his preface. He did not agree with my theory, i.e. that "the decision to build Krematorien IV and V (as well as II and III) was taken by the SS free of any criminal context, the latter having appeared later", but was incapable of disproving it, due to a lack of documents. His refutation was based only on counter hypotheses. However, it was I who was mistaken about the genesis of Krematorien IV and V, which were directly planned for criminal purposes. This is because when I wrote that paper in 1982 I had not taken into account certain unexplained "details" (but my theory remains valid for Krematorien I, II and III]. At the time, Georges Weller was no more able than I was to coordinate these "details" with the whole. The documents proving the existence of a gas chamber in Krematorium IV were what counted above all for him. Since the CDJC journal does not reach a large public, he presented the "Gasskammer" it in a chapter on Auschwitz in the book "Les chambres à gaz, secret d'Etat" [Editions de Minuit 1984, and 1983 for the original German edition].

After this article, I continued with my research. I had to go all the way. One day in the PMO, white the Museum librarian was finding some newspaper articles on the "Krematorium architects", Dejaco and Ertl, for me, she brought me "The Auschwitz Album" published by Serge Klarsfeld to help me while away the time. I noticed two photographs, that I had probably seen before, but to which I had not paid particular attention, The first showed women and children, with, in the background, the underground undressing room of Krematorium III, quietly waiting, as can be deduced, before the wire meshed entrance gate to the yard of Krematorium II. The second, a group of three men and a woman, with behind them Krematorium IV, walking towards the photographer, ready to enter, as can be deduced, Krematorium V. Serge Klarsfeld had found the "human element" that was lacking from my own "architectural" explanations. Back in France, I contacted him, and he gave me a copy of his Album. Once I had looked through it, my mania for putting things in order took over, and I sensed that there were "series" of photographs, for example, that the shots of the "selection" process showed several different ones. I wanted to find the different sequences recorded by the SS photographer and determine his exact position for each shot. I studied the photographs in the Album, and since the quality of reproductions was less than perfect I again turned to Serge Klarsfeld and asked him if I could consult the originals. He allowed me to do so, and in February 1983, with Seuil about to publish a French version of the American edition of the Album, Serge Klarsfeld had the publication held up while I put all the photographs in order and took responsibility for the French edition, with the help of Anne Freyer who was in charge of the project for Seuil. The manuscript was completed in June and the book came out in November 1983.

At the end of 1981, while visiting the stacks of the PMO archives, I discovered files BW 30/32 to 30/42, whose existence I had not been aware of. They contained in particular the "diary" of Messing, a Topf & Sons employee who fitted the ventilation systems in the furnace rooms, undressing rooms and gas chambers of Krematorien II and III between January and June 1943; a notebook with entries written in green ink, relating in similar terms the work of Riedel & Son on Krematorien IV and V; and a file of documents concerning the Krematorien obtained from a Soviet source. These hitherto unknown documents provided another barrowload of "slips or criminal traces".

For me, the whole question of the Krematorien and gas chambers of all sorts in the former Auschwitz Birkenau concentration camp was resolved beyond all shadow of a doubt by April 1984. Files BW 30/32 to 30/42 confirmed virtually all my theories. A further piece of evidence found at the Central Commission for the Investigation of Hitlerite Crimes in Poland, in Warsaw, proved "by a + b" that Faurisson's thesis was simply nonsense, to use the politest term possible. The "works" of the revisionists were no longer worth anything more than an ironic smile. I had at last reached the end of the tunnel and established a truth, my own, not taken from any other people, and as close as humanly possible to the absolute truth that can never be grasped. Serge Klarsfeld then quite simply [!] asked me to put in black and white all that I had learned. So I went back to work.

In April 1984, the Belgian memorial at Auschwitz was completed [Photo 41]. It was designed by the Belgian artist, Serge Creuz, of the Maison de la Bellone in Bruxelles. His work is strictly apolitical and antitotalitarian. I was extremely moved by it, as I have always worked in the same spirit. The visitor arrives to find a traditional dining room of comfortable city-dwellers, furnished in the pre-way style. On the wall is a 1942 calendar. The room oozes quiet and peaceful family life, despite the war. There is then a dark entrance, the arrest, the journey in cattle trucks, and then the memorial proper [Photo 41]. The family from the empty dining room was made up of five people: father, mother, a son and two younger daughters. They are on the left, dressed like you and me, left, and are looking at the at the visitor. They are ordinary decent people. Their shoes have left footprints on the yellow paving leading into the room, then they become the prints of bare feet disappearing towards the eyes at the end of the room. What remains of this fine family? The result is on the right; the man, his head shaved [a preventative measure against lice!], in the zebra prison uniform, and the empty silhouettes with carbonized edges of the woman and the three children. This is the tragic condensation of the awful truth, the brutal reality of the expression "Auschwitz Birkenau". A negation of humanity.

Right at the beginning of my "training course" in Oswiecim, the Poles had told me that the former prisoner 16660, a Pole wearing the red triangle of the "politicals," Father O. Maksymilian Kolbe, had died Kolbe, had died in the odor of sanctity because he had given his life to save that of a fellow prisoner. I listened with only half an ear to this story, which left me indifferent. If Kolbe had the qualities required to be canonized, then so did the MAJORITY of prisoners, if only because of the suffering they endured in this "accursed land" [as Hermann Chaim, member of the Sonderkommando of Krematorien II or III, wrote of Birkenau in a letter of 6th November 1944, found after the Liberation]. When Kolbe was officially declared "Saint" I was pleased about it for the sake of the Poles, but saw this story as just one banal episode among many others in the Hell of Auschwitz. Then, at the end of 1985, came the installation of a of a Carmelite cloister in the former "Theatergebäude", to provide a place of prayer close to Block 11 [the "Death Block"] where Kolbe had died. Part of the camp enclosure was to be removed to provide a direct path between the cloister and Block 11. With that, the affair become quite shocking: the sorrow of Auschwitz was being recuperated for the exclusive benefit of the Catholic Church, The matter should have

{p. 561} rights over the former camp.

I shall give but one example among so many others, this one found by chance in a book published in 1898 that was distributed widely among our "dear little blond children" sitting well behavedly on the school benches. This is the work by Charles Hermeline, "A travers l'Europe". I have taken a passage (pages 301 to 303) concerning his visit to Cracow [Photos 42, 43 and 44]. Read it carefully, bearing in mind that Hermeline was a French priest, and a schoolteacher to boot. You will say that it is very old, and that mentalities have changed since then. I don't deny it, but out of curiosity I calculated the age an adolescent of 15, open and receptive in 1898, hence born in 1883, would have had in 1940. He would have been 57, a man at the summit of his life, in all the power of his maturity. I looked [it must be admitted with an idea at the back of my mind] in the encyclopedia... "Laval (Pierre), French politician, born at Châteldon, Puy de Dôme, in 1833". No comment.

The Catholic Church has no business to be in Auschwitz, a place of international and atheistic sorrow par excellence. Dozens of different nationalities were represented there. A little over one million people of the Jewish faith, the great majority of them women and children, were exterminated there(1). And this because of texts such as that written by the "good priest" Hermeline. The Jewish predominance in Auschwitz Birkenau should therefore be absolute, though without neglecting the others, simply because of the weight of their number of dead. Canonizing Kolbe is almost an insult to the million Jewish victims, even if it has a beneficial effect on the Polish people. What would practicing Christians say if the title of "Saint" were to be accorded to all the direct participants in the extermination, they who reached the absolute limits of horror? The extra temporal planet of Auschwitz Birkenau can but be a place for profound reflection on the essence of man, untrammeled by absurd religious beliefs.

In 1979 I had gone to Auschwitz to try to find the executioners' motivations, their attitudes, their thoughts when confronted with the machinery of death that they had organized "on orders from above" [I was continuing the experiment begun by Robert Merle in his "Death is my trade"]. Trained as an officer, I was supposed to know the limits of "orders". Technically, I wanted to know exactly how the "mills" of Auschwitz were organized and the details of their inner workings. I must admit that I scarcely gave a thought to the victims, not even knowing that the majority of them were women and children. Jews, apparently. What did it matter, I knew none and a good deal of the literature available up to 1945 stated in all manner of ways that they should be thrown out because they, the "cosmopolitans", were destroying our "old France" that belonged to us, Chauvinist French patriots.

As I was working on Birkenau, I was obliged to meet these famous Jews. In the end, it was not the Hoess autobiography or the archive documents, the drawings, the original photographs or the ruins of the Krematorium that turned my initial ideas inside out, but the modest and simple testimony of Mr. Zylbermine, as he told me his story in detail during a whole afternoon. For him, it was very painful. As for me, I could never be the same again. He succeeded in injecting his memories, which I now carry in myself. I had the impression of lifting the lid of the cauldron of Hell, a thing I am in no hurry to do again. Everything was recorded on tape at the wish of Tadeusz Iwaszko, but unfortunately this tape, with its so moving contents, went astray in Poland during a baggage transfer between airports. I shall never write about Mr Zylbermine's concentration camp experience. Although I accepted the truth of his account from the outset and with no discussion except to ask him for more detail on certain points, I nevertheless found confirmation of an episode where his life hung by a thread in the Gleiwitz camp thanks to the account by Father Robert Waitz on the evacuations of January 1945 in "De l'université aux Camps de Concentration". Just as I was completely open to the memories of Mr. Zylbermine, so I doubted the verbal declarations of David Olère, though I totally accepted his pictorial testimony. The monstrosity of Olère's life in Krematorium III was simply not transmissible. It was neither his fault nor mine. A profound and confident communication such as I enjoyed with Mr. Zylbermine, was impossible with David Olère, because although I could precisely materialize the physical environment of his life, I was incapable, through fear, of intellectually concretizing the demential life itself.

{p. 564} Principal studies establishing that the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau were used for homicidal purposes: 1946: BIULETYN GLOWNEJ KOMISJI BADANIA ZBRODNI NEIMIECKICH W POLSCE - Wydawnietwo Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Neimieckich w Polsce. - OBOZY KONCENTRACYJNE I ZAGLADY OSWIECIM [66 pages]. 1955: CAMP DE CONCENTRATION OSWIECIM (Auschwitz Birkenau) by Janusz GUMKOWSKI - Wydawnietwo Prawnicze - Warszawa. 1957: LE CAMP DE CONCENTRATION D'OSWIECIM-BRZEZINKA (Auschwitz Birkenau) by Jan SEHN - Wydawniclwo Prawnicze - Warszawa. 1961: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN JEWS by Raul HILBERG. (p. 563 to 571, 624 to 635) - Quadrangle Book 1964: AUSCHWITZ présenté par Léon POLIAKOV - Julliard. 1972: HANDSCHRIFTEN VON MITGLIEDERN DES SONDERKOMMANDOS - Musée d'Etat d'Auschwitz. 1977: LES CHAMBRES A GAZ A AUSCHWITZ par Georges WELLERS in "Le Monde Juif", no 86. 1978: AUSCHWITZ Camp hitlérien d'extermination - Interpress Varsovie THE EXISTENCE OF THE GAS CHAMBERS by Georges WELLERS in - THE HOLOCAUST AND THE NEO NAZI MYTHOMANIA (p. 107 to 119) The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation. 1980: KL AUSCHWITZ. Documentary photographs - Krajowa Agencja Wydawatcea Warszawa. 1981: LES CHAMBRES A GAZ ONT EXISTE, Dos documents, des témoignages, des chiffres par Georges WELLERS - Gallimard. 1981 LES "KREMATORIEN" IV ET V DE BIRKENAU ET LEURS CHAMBRES A GAZ, Construction et fonctionnement [Article, 39 pages] par Jean-Claude PRESSAC in "Le Monde Juif,", No 107. 1983 NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHE MASSENTÖTUNGEN DURCH GIFTGAS, Herausgegeben vor Eugen KOGON, Hermann LANGBEIN. Adalbert RUCKERL u.a. - S. Fischer Verlag. 1983 L'ALBUM D'AUSCHWITZ par Peter HELLMAN, Jean-Claude PRESSAC - Le Seuil. 1985: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN JEWS by Raul HILBERG (p. 880 to 916,976 to 984] - Holmes & Meier. Dans L'ALLEMAGNE NAZIE ET LE GENOCIDE JUIF. Colloque de l'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (juin 982) - Gallimard et Le Seuil: - LES CHAMBRES A GAZ [Article, 26 pages] by Uwe Dietrich ADAM - ÉTUDE ET RÉALISATION DES KREMATORIEN IV ET V D'AUSCHWITZ BIRKENAU [Article, 46 pages] by Jean-Claude PRESSAC. 1988: LES CARENCES ET INCOHÉRENCES DU "RAPPORT LEUCHTER" [Article, 11 pages par Jean-Claude PRESSAC in "Jour J" (December 12)

Principal studies claiming that the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau were not used for homicidal purposes

1962: LE VÉRITABLE PROCÈS EICHMANN by Paul RASSINIER Les Sept Couleurs. 1964: LE DRAME DES JUIFS EUROPÉENS by Paul RASSINIER Les Sept Couleurs 1973: DIE AUSCHWITZ-LÜGE by Thies CHRISTOPHERSEN Kritik Verlag, Möhrkirch. 1977: THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY by AR. BUTZ Noontide Press. Los Angeles. : 1979 DER AUSCHWITZ MYTHOS by Wilhelm STÄGLICH Grabert Verlag, Verlag, Tübingen. 1980: VÉRITÉ HISTORIQUE OU VÉRITÉ POLITIQUE?, Le dossier de l'affaire Faurisson - La question des chambres à gaz by Serge THION La Vieille Taupe. MÉMOIRE EN DÉFENSE Contra ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'Histoire - La question des chambres à gaz by Robert FAURISSON Deuxième édition augmentée. La Vieille Taupe. 1982: RÉPONSE À PIERRE VIDAL NAQUET by Robert FAURISSON Deuxième édition augmentee, La Vieille Taupe, 1985: IL MITO DELLO STERMINIO EBRAICO by Carlo MATTOGNO Sentinella d'Italia, Montefalcone. 1986: AUSCHWITZ: DUE FALSE TESTIMONIANZE. AUSCHWITZ: UN CASO DI PLAGIO. COME SI FALSIFICA LA STORIA: GEORGES WELLERS EI "GASATI" DI AUSCHWITZ. 1987: AUSCHWITZ: LE FALSE CONFESSION DI RUDOLF HÖSS by Carlo MATTOGNO La Sfinge, Parme 1988: AN ENGINEERING REPORT ON THE ALLEGED EXECUTION GAS CHAMBERS AT AUSCHWITZ, BIRKENAU AND MAJDANEK POLAND by Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. - Fred A. Leuchter, Associates, Boston.

{end of bulletin 10}

On to the next bulletin in the debate: holocaust-debate11.html.

Back to the Holocaust Denial Debate menu: holocaust-debate.html.

Write to me at contact.html.