[Dr. Robert Faurisson testified for six days on April 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 1988. He was the eighteenth witness called by the defence.]
Dr. Robert Faurisson had testified previously at the first Zündel trial in 1985 as an expert witness, on the same basis that Dr. Hilberg was allowed to testify, namely, whether the German government from 1933 to 1945 deliberately embarked on a scheme to exterminate Jews in Europe. (29-7963, 7973) Faurisson was qualified to testify in the same manner in the second trial by Judge Ron Thomas. (29-8001)
Dr. Robert Faurisson was born in 1929 near London, England. His father was French and his mother Scottish. Part of his youth was spent in Singapore and Japan and he attended Catholic schools in France from 1937 to 1946. From 1946 to 1955, Faurisson attended the University of Sorbonne, achieving in 1956 the Agregation des Lettres in Greek, Latin and French, the highest level in France. In 1972, Faurisson obtained the highest of three doctorate awards available in France, the Doctorat d'Etat of Lettres and Sciences Humaines (State Doctorate). (29-7965, 7966)
From 1956 to 1968, Faurisson taught high school and from 1969 to 1974 he taught Modern French literature at the Sorbonne. From 1974 to 1979, he taught Modern Literature and Text and Document Criticism at the University of Lyon where he obtained status as a tenured professor. Since 1979, however, Faurisson had been unable to teach because of his writings. (29-7966, 7967)
With regard to literature, Faurisson had published four books and articles totalling about 1,000 pages; with respect to Text and Document Criticism, he had written books and articles totalling 750 pages in French and 300 in English. (29-7974)
Faurisson’s preliminary research into the Holocaust began around 1960 or 1961 and continued until about 1973. Said Faurisson: “It involved books like those of Raul Hilberg, of Gerald Reitlinger, on one side, and on other side, Paul Rassinier …” Faurisson termed as “exterminationists” those who believed, like Poliakov and Wolfe as well as Hilberg and Reitlinger, that there was an extermination of the Jews or an attempted extermination. On the other side were such people as Paul Rassinier and other revisionists who believed that they were able to demonstrate there was no such extermination or attempted extermination. (29-7967, 7968)
From 1974 to 1988, Faurisson’s research became centred on a systematic appraisal of documents located at the Jewish archive centre, Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine in Paris, France. He had also conducted research at the National Archives in the United States, the State Museum in Auschwitz, Poland, and the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz, West Germany, and made attempts to gain access to the documents at [the International Tracing Service] in Arolsen, West Germany. (29 7968, 7969, 7970) He had accessed the personal files of Holocaust revisionist Paul Rassinier, who died in 1967. (29-7970)
When researching out of France, Faurisson usually stayed only a few days, but used a contact person at the location to obtain copies of the documents for him. He also wrote to the State Museum at Auschwitz to ask for documents. (29-7969)
Faurisson conducted on-site examinations of Auschwitz-Birkenau for one day in 1975 and for 10 days in 1976. He also examined other German concentration camps, including Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, Hartheim Castle, and Struthof Natzweiler. (29-7970, 7971)
In the course of his research, Faurisson had investigated the authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank. For this purpose, Faurisson had travelled to Basel, Switzerland to speak to the father of Anne Frank and also to Amsterdam to visit the Anne Frank Foundation and to interview people who had known Frank. He had spoken to Anne Frank’s father for five hours one day and four hours the next. The purpose of the investigations was to determine whether Anne Frank had written the diary. (29-7971, 7972)
Faurisson was, to his knowledge, the first person to publish the plans of Krema I and Kremas II and III. These crematories, located at Auschwitz-Birkenau, were the buildings which allegedly contained the homicidal gas chambers. For the purpose of studying gas chambers, Faurisson had gone to Baltimore, Maryland in the United States to investigate and photograph American gas chamber facilities. His objective was to see how convicts condemned to death were killed in the facilities through use of hydrocyanic acid. This was relevant to the study of the German gas chambers since the agent allegedly used to kill the Jews, Zyklon B, contained hydrocyanic acid. (29-7972, 7973)
Since 1980, Faurisson had been a member of the Editorial Advisory Committee of The Journal of Historical Review published by the Institute for Historical Review in Los Angeles, California. (29-7973)
Publications by or about Faurisson included Vérité historique ou vérité politique?: Le dossier de l'affaire Faurisson: la question des chambres à gaz (Historical Truth or Political Truth?), a book about the question of the gas chambers; in 1980, Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'Histoire. La question des chambres à gaz (Memorandum in Defence Against Those Who Accuse Me of Falsifying History/The Question of the Gas Chambers) with a foreword by Noam Chomsky; in 1982, Response to Pierre Vidal-Naquet; and, under the pen name “J. Aitken” ("Aitken” being the maiden name of his mother) the book Epilogue judiciaire de l'affaire Faurisson (Judicial Epilogue of the Faurisson Case). He had also published a number of pamphlets, on such subjects as Elie Wiesel, the film Shoah, and the Müller document revealed by Emil Lachout. A book which examined his work was The Incredible Faurisson Case, which reproduced on 44 pages the plea which Faurisson had made to the Court of Appeal in Paris. (29-7974, 7975, 7976)
In 1986, Faurisson worked with Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, the author of The Auschwitz Myth, in translating the book from German to French. Faurisson wrote a postscript for the French version of the book of some 25 pages, with documents. (29-7976)
Faurisson had interviewed Emil Lachout in December of 1987 for nine hours, and published an article concerning him in the monthly French review, Annales d'Histoire Révisionniste. (29-7976)
He had been referred to by Raul Hilberg in 1982 in a published interview as someone who had raised questions that had the effect of engaging historians in fresh research. (29-7977)
This ended the examination of Faurisson by defence attorney Doug Christie for the purpose of qualifying him as an expert witness in the subject of whether or not the German government, from 1933 to 1945, deliberately embarked on a scheme to exterminate Jews in Europe. Crown Attorney Pearson rose to cross-examine Faurisson on his qualifications. (29-7963, 7978)
Faurisson indicated that although his formal education was in Greek, Latin, French and text and document criticism, the study of the Holocaust amounted to the same thing: “the meaning of texts …,” whether those texts were Greek or Latin or French, or, in Holocaust revisionism, the meaning of testimony and documents. (29-7979) With respect to French literature, Faurisson had worked especially with works which had the reputation of being difficult to understand; those of the 19th or 20th century, particularly poets such as Rimbaud. (29-7985)
He did not speak German but could read the language. He liked to double check with someone else when working in German-language documents. (29-7983, 7984)
Faurisson agreed that he had taken no courses dealing with the Holocaust in the formal education leading up to his doctorate. Nor did his thesis deal with the subject; it dealt with an author of the 19th century. However, said Faurisson, the way he checked the text of this French author to understand his meaning, was the same way he tried to understand the text of the Wannsee protocol. He freely admitted that he needed and sought help in translating the Wannsee protocol, which was in German, and the diary of Anne Frank, which was in Dutch. While he had taken no courses in history proper, he had been obliged in his work to determine and understand texts “and history is text.” (29-7990 to 7992)
Pearson put to Faurisson that his views were considered unreasonable in the historical community. Faurisson replied that he had been asked this question earlier in the trial [during a voir dire] and supposed that he had agreed that his views were perhaps considered unreasonable by some but not all; his views were not considered unreasonable by Raul Hilberg, Robert Wolfe of the National Archives [of the United States] or by Michel de Boüard. (29-7992 to 7995)
Faurisson testified that he had no formal education in chemistry, architecture or gas chambers, “but that’s why I go and ask specialists. I consult specialists, plural, never one. At least two.” (29-7996)
Much of his work which was published in English was published by the Institute for Historical Review. (29-7996)
Pearson asked Faurisson why he had published under the name “J.Aitken"? Faurisson replied: “For a stupid material reason. I was asked to … write something about a judgment of the Court of Paris, 26th of April, 1983, and … I decided to write it [in] the third person. For instance, instead of saying 'I', I wrote 'Robert Faurisson', to make it as impartial as possible, and when I ended my work, I said, oh, that’s too late, it would be stupid to put the book 'Robert Faurisson' with Robert Faurisson saying 'Robert Faurisson', and that’s all, and I felt that I could do that for my mother.” (29-7997, 7998)
Don’t you think it would be rather misleading for the reader?, asked Pearson. “I don’t care for the nom de plume,” replied Faurisson, “… I prefer to put my own name, but … you know very well, Mr. Pearson, that I'm not afraid of the consequences of what I say. I signed so many books and papers before this one, and after this one … I am not the kind of man who, when he … says something, does not stick by his gun. I came in Toronto in , and I'm coming back.” Faurisson indicated the use of the pen name was as misleading as the use of the names Shakespeare and Moliere, both of which were pseudonyms. (29-7998, 7999)
Faurisson was qualified by Judge Ron Thomas before the jury to give expert opinion evidence “as to whether the German government deliberately embarked on a scheme, during World War II, to exterminate the Jews of Europe, much in the same fashion as Dr. Hilberg was permitted to testify. His expertise comes not from formal training, per se, but from practical experience involving his study of the subject, and in subsequent writings.” (29-8001)
Christie commenced Faurisson’s examination-in-chief by asking him for an explanation of the term “Holocaust.” Faurisson replied: “What in Canada or in USA is called 'Holocaust', we call that 'genocide' in France, and it is that extermination of the Jews during the World War II, but it’s difficult to give a definition because some people do not agree with that. Some say that the 'Holocaust' begins in 1932. Others say that there was an attempted extermination, others say, of six million …” Faurisson’s own definition was “the extermination of the Jews.” (29-8002)
“Exterminationism” was the term used by revisionists to describe the belief or the doctrine of those people who believed that there actually was an extermination of the Jews. “Revisionism” was the doctrine or belief of those people who believed that generally-accepted opinion regarding the Holocaust must be checked to see if it was true or not: “And those people,” said Faurisson, “concluded that it’s false. There was not an extermination of the Jews…it is a fundamental revision. It is not a little revision on some points.” (29-8003)
Faurisson had read Did Six Million Really Die? and believed that “The thesis of Richard Harwood is true. For me. It is exact.” He had also read the book Six Million Did Die, which he believed was “rubbish.” (29-8003)
Faurisson had summarized his opinion on the “Holocaust” in sixty words [in French] which had become a cause célèbre in France:
The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews are one and the same historical lie which opened the way to a gigantic political-financial fraud, whose principal beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and the principal victims the German people — but not its leaders — and the entire Palestinian people.
Faurisson emphasized that although “not one of those sixty words are inspired by any political opinion,” he found that most of the time they were summarized as: “'Faurisson says that the Jews lied to make money,' which is absolutely not what I said.” (29-8005)
As a young person in France during the war, Faurisson had been “totally anti German and with no distinction between Nazi or not Nazi. In our family, we were seven children, French father, Scottish mother. We were completely anti-German — violently, I should say. I was too young to do anything concrete, but this is what I believed.” (29-8006)
When the war ended on May 8, 1945, however, Faurisson’s hatred for Germany left him suddenly as he listened to the bells of the churches ringing in celebration: “… when I heard … the bells of the churches; it was finished, the war was finished, and suddenly I thought, it’s magnificent for me, but what about the German people? It might be terrible for those ones.” (29- 8006)
Faurisson believed, in the years following the war, that what was said about the extermination of the Jews and the gas chambers was perhaps true, but he was, right from the beginning, opposed to the Nuremberg trial: “I thought that it was not fair at all. Personally, never I would accept, as a vanquished, to be judged by … my victor.” (29-8006)
His interest in the Holocaust was triggered in 1960 or 1961, when he read about a letter by Martin Broszat [published in Die Zeit] on 19 August, 1960. In the letter, Broszat stated that there were no gassings in Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen or anywhere within the 1937 frontiers of Germany. This would have included Ravensbrück, Oranienburg, Sachsenhausen and so on. For Faurisson, this was “a shock … because I believed in it, because I was sure that there were so many proof[s] and even confessions … about the existence of gassings” in those camps. At the Nuremberg trial, the Germans had been accused of having gas chambers in Dachau, in Buchenwald, in Oranienburg, etc. To Faurisson it was “a surprise” and he felt there was something to find. (29-8007, 8008)
At the beginning, he wrote to specialists of both sides of the question: Paul Rassinier, who had serious doubts about the gas chambers, on one side, and people like Leon Poliakov on the other: “… I waited for the answers, and I noticed that Rassinier was always answering quickly and exactly to my questions, and I saw that the other[s] were very late to answer and their answers were very vague.” (29-8008)
By 1974, Faurisson was absolutely sure that no gas chambers had ever existed. That year he published a very short article and in 1978 published a further article in a rightist and “nearly fascist magazine … That’s the only place that I could find to publish … something about that, and then in the journal Le Monde.” Although he was not a rightist or a fascist, the publication of his opinions led to trouble and controversy from the beginning. (29-8008, 8009)
When his article was published in Le Monde (29 December, 1978), Faurisson was teaching French literature of the 20th century and Text and Document Criticism at the University of Lyon. As part of the latter course, Faurisson invited his students to write theses on the subject of Anne Frank’s diary and he himself published material on the diary. (29-8010) After the publication of his article in 1978, there were many demonstrations against him at the university by people coming from the outside, never by his students: “I was punched many times, and it was difficult.” (29-8010)
He was also accused of falsifying history: “I had many, many lawsuits against me, many trials…” In the ten years from 1978 to 1988, however, Faurisson believed that the situation had “totally changed. It was very unpopular in…France….Very unpopular…and dangerous. Now, the progress of revisionism in France is so important that, now, it’s absolutely not the same thing. I won’t say that it is popular, certainly not…but in the intellectual circles, I would say that the myth of the extermination of the Jews is a finishing myth, which means that, for me as a revisionist, I am at the same time very happy and very anxious. Very happy because I see that progress, and very anxious because I know perfectly well that the situation is more and more dangerous for me, and I know that very precisely."1 (29-8011)
In the most recent court decision in France, that of the Court of Appeal in Paris rendered on 16 December, 1987 it had been held that there was now a public debate among historians about the existence of the genocide of the Jews. (29-8012) The case had arisen when various Jewish organizations in France were successful in seizing and prohibiting the publication by Mr. Pierre Guillaume (publisher of Faurisson’s books), of the first issue of Annales d'Histoire Révisionniste [Annals of Revisionist History] which was to appear on 9 May, 1987, two days before the opening of Klaus Barbie’s trial in Lyon. On December 16, 1987, this summary order was overturned, with the appeal court giving the following reasons:
To take this conservatory step, which by its very nature implied that it involves effects which are limited in time, the judge for provisional judgments held that M. Guillaume, editor, had deliberately disseminated the first issue of the periodical Annales d'Histoire Révisionniste, which is consecrated to the denial of the existence of the genocide of the Jews, precisely at the time when the trial against Klaus Barbie was opened, in the course of which certain deeds related to this particularly painful period of contemporary history were to be judged: it was for this reason, considered by him as decisive, that the judge felt that the exposition and distribution of the work in places accessible to the public, carried out under particular circumstances which could not be “considered as the only expression of a will to see a historical debate establish itself under normal conditions” were resented “as a provocation to a discrimination based on the origin of a group of persons, susceptible to bring about at present disturbances and violent reactions.”
The circumstances which had thus come together and which had justified the prohibition promulgated on a provisional basis by the judge for provisional judgments no longer exist.
The very statement of the theses developed in Mr. Guillaume’s periodical and the controversy which is liable to come about because of it, are, in absence of all third party lawsuits for liability, subject to the free expressions of ideas and opinions and to a public debate among historians. Things being as they are, the court does not have to exercise a control over a discussion of this nature.
Defence attorney Christie placed a transparency on an overhead projector, which stated:
Alleged Extermination of the Jews
No Weapon (No expert report stating: 'This was a homicidal gas chamber')
No Body (No autopsy report stating: 'This is or was the body of a person killed by poison gas.')
Faurisson explained that the chart meant as follows: “It means that we don’t find any order for an extermination of the Jews. We don’t find any plan, we don’t find any trace of a budget. There is no weapon, a specific weapon for a specific crime. If we have a systematic extermination, we need a system of extermination…So, it’s quite normal that the people who believe in the extermination, believe in the gas chambers because such an enterprise would have necessitated a specific weapon. Gas chamber and extermination are one [and] the same thing … and there is no expert report stating 'this was a homicidal gas chamber'. You can visit in Auschwitz and in some other places … rooms [that] are supposed to be gas chamber[s] and even sometime in a genuine state, and when you ask — when you say, 'But I don’t understand what is a gas chamber, I need a proof, bring me an expert report showing that it was a homicidal gas chamber', and I say 'homicidal' because it means gas chamber to kill people, not for disinfection.” (29-8022)
There were bodies of people alleged to have been exterminated, said Faurisson, but there was no autopsy report stating 'this is a body of a person killed by poison gas,' notwithstanding that at the end of the war many, many autopsies were performed by the Americans, the British, the French and the Russians. (29-8023)
Only in one case had an autopsy report been done regarding gas chambers: “It was for the alleged gas chamber of Struthof-Natzweiler — in Alsace, part of France. Everybody can visit today a little room called 'gas chamber' and the French [inscription] says: 'In original state.' So, in December 1945…Professor René Fabre — toxicologist, Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy of Paris, was asked to do a report about (1) the gas chamber itself; (2) about the bodies — in the hospital of Strasbourg in the morgue and supposed to have been bodies of people killed in Struthof, and his answer was (1) about the description of the so-called gas chamber, no trace of [the] poison hydrocyanic acid and about the bod[ies], same conclusion. This report, very important, has disappeared.” (29-8023) Faurisson knew about the Fabre autopsy report “because in the files of…military justice in Paris we have — another report of three doctors … in this report, the three doctors say that Professor René Fabre said that.” (29-8024)
To Faurisson’s knowledge, there was no expert report in existence stating that a place was a homicidal gas chamber or that a body, subjected to an autopsy, was shown to have died by poison gas. (29-8024)
A second transparency was placed on the overhead projector for the jury to see which read:
|Concentration Camps||Extermination Camps|
|Disinfection Gas Chambers||Homicidal Gas Chambers|
|Ordinary Gas Vans||Homicidal Gas Vans|
|Zyklon B to Protect||Zyklon B to Kill|
|Territorial Final Solution||Homicidal Final Solution|
|Crematories for Dead Bodies||Crematories for Living Persons|
Faurisson explained that in this chart, he was attempting to define the position of the revisionists and the exterminationists: “— the revisionist[s] say — there were concentration camps. There were no extermination camps…There were disinfection gas chambers. There were no homicidal gas chambers. There were ordinary gas vans. There were no homicidal gas vans. Zyklon B existed, of course. It is a disinfectant. It is to protect life by killing lice, for example. Zyklon B to kill, we have not the slightest proof of it and it is even a technical impossibility — You can very well kill somebody with Zyklon but you cannot use it in a gas chamber. I'll explain why after.” (29-8025)
Faurisson testified that the term “final solution” for the Germans meant a territorial final solution of the Jewish problem: “— for any problem you are trying to find a solution. It’s the final solution — for the German, of the Jewish problem. If you say final solution of — I don’t know — the Palestinian problem, it doesn’t mean that you are trying to kill the Palestinians, or the final solution of the unemployment doesn’t mean that you are going to kill the unemployed. So, it was a territorial [solution]. They wanted a solution, a finding of a territory for those people because for 2,000 years, at least, there are no territory there, so a territory was to be found. And 'final solution' [had] absolutely not the meaning of homicidal.” (29-8025, 8026) To the Germans, said Faurisson, “final solution” meant that “they wanted to solve what they called the Jewish problem by emigration, if possible; by evacuation or deportation, if necessary.” (29-8035)
“Crematories,” he continued, “of course, the crematories existed. We never said the crematories did not exist. It was for dead bodies. They were really necessary in places where you had so many diseases, especially typhus and typhoid fever. There were no crematories for living — persons because this has been said — that people were put alive in crematories. It has even been said in the International Military Tribunal.” (29-8026)
Defence attorney Christie placed a third transparency on the overhead:
How Many Jews Died? — Six Million is a Symbolic Figure — In 1988, the Approximate Figure is Still Unknown — Many Jews died and Many survived — The Historians Must Freely Determine the Approximate Figure Through: a) The International Tracing Service Files in Arolsen, West Germany; b) Documents in Possession of the Polish Government (Auschwitz Museum —), the Soviet Union; c) Names of Millions Who Received Reparation Payments including Survivors in Israel and in Every One of the 70 Countries Represented by the World Jewish Congress
Faurisson testified: “What we say is…that this figure of six million is a symbolic figure, meaning by that that there is nothing material to support this figure, but it’s a figure that we hear very often. It is repeated and repeated and we sometimes think that if it is so much repeated it’s certainly solid. No, it’s not solid and 'symbolic' figure is not even a wording of mine. It’s Martin Broszat…who used it in 1979. So, in 1988, the approximate figure is still unknown. What I can only say today is that many Jews died and many survived. I am not satisfied with this answer because what does it mean many Jews died and many Jews survived? We should have an answer to this question and I think that it is possible to find an answer, and I gave three examples. I say the historians must freely determine the approximate figure through, one, the International Tracing Service files in Arolsen, West Germany. I am convinced that the problem of the genocide of the — Jews has its solution in this place. They have fantastic files and we could, if we had the right to work in Arolsen, we could find the solution to this question. Documents in possession of the Polish government, the Auschwitz Museum, the Soviet Union — it is strange that we are supposed to have in Auschwitz and in Arolsen, two volumes of the register of the death[s] in Auschwitz and in Moscow, 36 or 37 volumes. This register [was] kept by the German[s] and we do not have the right, one, to look at them, two, even to know how many names there are in the two first volumes. We could, with the number of names of those two first volume, have an idea of what is in the other volumes, and the answer is 'Oh, the Soviet do not want to show us that'. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure that everybody would be very pleased if the Soviet Union suddenly decided to publish. They could publish and say, 'Oh, that’s Nazi propaganda. The Nazi only put some part of those people who died but not all of them'. Okay. But show us this document, so important. There is no good reason to hide such a document. Three, names of millions who received reparation payments including survivors in Israel [and] in every one of the seventy countries represented by the World Jewish Congress. The World Jewish Congress is something like the Parliament of the [Diaspora] — and they have every possibility to check for everybody who is supposed to be Jew, where he comes from. We have the modern possibility with all those technical means that we have today to calculate anything, we should do this work and they have enough money to do it.” (29-8027 to 8029)
What had really happened to the Jews? Said Faurisson: “They suffered specific measures against them that you …may call persecutions. They suffered from the war; some of them…suffered of internment; some of them of deportation; some of them were deported in transit camps; some other in concentration camps; some other in labour camps; some were in ghettos…many of them suffered of diseases, different diseases; they suffered executions of hostages, reprisals, even massacres, because I have never seen a war without massacres — If the question was what happened to the Germans — during the war and after the war, my answer would be exactly the same except for ghettos, which is something specific to the Jews —” (29 8029)
Christie asked Faurisson whether he had any comment on the photographs from Bergen- Belsen, Dachau, Buchenwald and Auschwitz, examples of which were on page 26 of Did Six Million Really Die?, showing emaciated bodies. Faurisson replied: “I would say that none of those photographs that we know so well are the proof of an extermination. At least I think that everybody should ask himself the question, do I see there something which could be the proof of an extermination, considering the state of the bodies, same state, etc.” (29-8030)
Faurisson cautioned that although people were very moved by the photographs, one had to be very careful and prudent in looking at the captions. He gave as an example that of Dachau: “…Dachau was liberated on the 29th of April, 1945, so many Americans were there from the 1st of May to the 17th of May, 1945 [during which time] something like 1,500 inmates died, which is more than the total of the inmates who died in Dachau for the whole of 1943…They died from the state where we found Dachau with all those disease[s], with all those persons suffering from typhus, typhoid fever, etc., and many reports were done at that time about that. It was the general collapse in Germany…” (29-8030, 8031)
Faurisson had studied the transcript of the Nuremberg trial. Nowhere did he find any witness who had been cross-examined on the procedure of gassing. The lawyers did not ask questions about that: “And what I call myself 'witness',” said Faurisson, “is not somebody who comes and say[s] 'I am a witness,' it’s somebody who has been cross-examined about what he claims.” (29-8032)
Faurisson compared the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg to the position of two fighters at the conclusion of a boxing match: “At the end of the match, there is a victor and a vanquished on the floor and the victor says to the vanquished, 'Don’t think that it is finished. It is not finished. Let me have enough time, to change my suit, to put [on] the gown of a judge and I am going to judge you. I have already prepared all the necessary things for that.'” (29-8034)
The International Military Tribunal, pointed out Faurisson, was not international but was made up of representatives of the Allied forces (British, French, American and Soviet); not military, except for the Soviet judge, who had also been the judge in the famous Moscow trial of 1936; and, in his view, was not a tribunal, having regard to Articles 19 and 21 of its charter. (29- 8034)
Germans were not the first to use concentration camps, said Faurisson. They were a place “where you concentrate people, and that’s a typical euphemism, of course. It does not look bad to concentrate people, but when you concentrate people, you might have [a] real catastrophe.” (29- 8035)
With respect to the alleged use of euphemisms by the Germans to hide the extermination, Faurisson testified that he did “not know one euphemism in the German document[s] that you can interpret as meaning extermination. For instance, Sonderbehandlung, special treatment. Of course, sometimes you could see that by the context. Sometimes it means execution, but sometimes it means exactly the contrary — favourable treatment and good food — so you have to see the context.” (29 8035, 8036)
Faurisson did not know whether the Wannsee Conference protocol was a genuine document or not. However, he continued, “…I say that if this document is genuine, it doesn’t mean at all extermination, if you read it carefully.” (29-8036)
Christie asked whether Faurisson read any sinister meaning into the words Arbeit Macht Frei ["Work Will Make You Free,” which appeared on the entrance gate to Auschwitz]. Faurisson replied: “You had that on some German camps, a kind of formula meaning work makes you free. It [is not] cynical. It meant this is a camp, you are going to work if you want one day to be free. That’s the original meaning, of course, of that. Good intention[s] always. The German had many like that…even in Auschwitz in the barracks, they had some inscriptions. You could think that they were kind of idealistic inscriptions…[an] even boy scout inscription, I would say.” (29-8037)
What about the words 'night and fog'? Faurisson indicated that “Night and fog…is very special. In fact, at the beginning it was NN, two Latin word that you can find in any good German dictionary meaning Nomen Nescio and there was a decision called NN…not Nacht und Nebel, NN decision, it was the fact that a category of people who were suspected of terrorism, if they were not judged within one week, for instance, in France, they had to be sent to Germany as NN, meaning they will not receive…anything from France and they will … disappear for their family, which is a kind of sanction and you had a category which was called NN and then night and fog, but sometimes those people were liberated. Very, very rarely, but they were liberated and they could come back to France if they were judged not guilty…that was possible. But it was a very terrible category because they didn’t receive parcels in the camp…So they suffered more than the others.” With respect to this subject, Faurisson had studied the work of a priest called Martiniere. (29-8037, 8038)
With respect to the allegation of medical experiments conducted by the Germans, Faurisson testified that he had no knowledge of medicine himself, and therefore could not judge whether a medical experiment was scandalous or not. He noted that in one trial in Metz, France, of Germans who were in Struthof-Natzweiler concentration camp, the French doctors who had been at the beginning totally against the two German doctors who were accused of criminal medical experiments, “were day after day coming on the side of those German doctors…But I think that there are certainly possibility of criminal medical experiments, but it’s difficult for me to judge.” (29-8038, 8039)
Christie asked Faurisson if there was an operation called 'Reinhard'. “There was an 'Operation Reinhard',” replied Faurisson, “which is most of the time spelled R-E-I-N H-A-R-D. But this is a complicated problem. Since 1985, an exterminationist historian…Uwe Dietrich Adam…in a footnote of a communication he gave at the colloquia of the Sorbonne in 1982, said that maybe it shouldn’t be Reinhard spelled like that, but at the end “dt” and you would think that it’s nit-picking, no, it’s important because usually we are told Operation Reinhard is a criminal operation, it’s an operation to exterminate the people in the name of Reinhard Heydrich….And Uwe Dietrich Adam said probably not. First of all, it would be strange to call an operation by the first name of a man, any man, as an 'Operation Adolf' or 'Operation Joseph' for Joseph Goebbels. No, it seems it is the name of the minister of finances and that it is essentially an operation of recuperation of goods of people expelled, of course, from Poland, for instance, but I think that we have no right to put like in this book called National Socialist Mass Murder by Poison Gas…a chapter called Operation Reinhard with a 'd', meaning…extermination. No.” (29-8039, 8040)
Faurisson testified that in his work he did not judge Nazis and Jews differently: “…I think that we should understand that a Nazi is not less than a man. He is a man. And that a Jew is not more than a man. He is a man, entitled to the same right[s]. When you have to examine cases, because in historical debate is more or less a case and we have to give the same right to one and the other. You cannot say 'Oh, here’s a Nazi, so [he] is a liar', or 'Here is a Jew, so [he]…is a liar'. You have no right to say that.” (29-8040)
Christie turned to Did Six Million Really Die? and read from page 5, asking Faurisson to comment on the passage:
Rightly or wrongly, the Germany of Adolf Hitler considered the Jews to be a disloyal and avaricious element within the national community, as well as a force of decadence in Germany’s cultural life.
Faurisson stated that the conflict between the Jews and the Nazis was complicated: “It’s like a kind of war. If you ask me to say who is…responsible [for] a war, I am not able to tell you.” (29-8042)
Christie indicated that he wished to briefly go through the things which Faurisson had published relating to Did Six Million Really Die?. One of these was an article entitled “The Mechanics of Gassing,"2 published in 1980: “In this article,” said Faurisson, “I said that when you have the words 'gas chamber', you must try to understand what it means … And sometimes to people who believe in the gas chamber, I say, 'Please draw me what you call a gas chamber. Show me how you bring the gas and how you get into the place to take out the bodies, considering that…this place is [full], for example, of hydrocyanic acid'. Most of the people believe that the gas chamber is more or less like a room. You are in your bed and the next day you don’t wake up, you are dead. It’s as easy as that. That’s what many people think…in fact, when you want to kill somebody with the gas, and not to kill yourself, of course, it is necessarily very complicated. This place, for instance, could never be a gas chamber for many material reasons, very easy to understand. For example, this kind of door.” Faurisson motioned to the large double doors at the back of the courtroom. (29-8042, 8043)
Faurisson had first met Ernst Zündel in September of 1979 in Los Angeles, and had kept in touch with him concerning his views and findings by telephone and visits. At the conference in Los Angeles that year, Faurisson had asked someone to read his paper “The Mechanics of Gassing” because his English pronunciation wasn’t good; the person who did so was Ernst Zündel. (29-8043)
The paper dealt with the mechanics of gassing: “When you know the mechanics of gassing, when you know how complicated is the fact of handling any gas, you see that there are such difficulties in the places where this gas is supposed to have been used that it is impossible. And when I say impossible, as I am not a chemist, of course, my answer is the answer of a man who consulted a specialist of gas, of toxicology, etc., and not only in France. So, I would say, very briefly, a chemical impossibility.” (29-8045)
In the summer of 1980, Faurisson published the article “The Problem of the Gas Chambers” in the Journal of Historical Review. The use of the word “problem” in relation to gas chambers, was not Faurisson’s concept, but came from the work of a Jewish historian, Olga Wormser-Migot, who wrote a thesis in 1968 on the concentration camp system. In one chapter of the thesis, titled “The Problem of the Gas Chambers,” the author noted that although there were testimonies swearing to gas chambers for such camps as Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen, it was impossible to believe there were gassings in those places; hence, there was a problem. Faurisson knew that Wormser-Migot had suffered “terrible trouble for having published that.” (29-8045, 8046)
In 1974, Faurisson wrote to Martin Broszat at the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, asking him why he no longer had to believe in the testimonies of gassings in Dachau and Buchenwald, etc., but still had to believe in the testimonies of gassings in Auschwitz: “What is the difference?,” asked Faurisson, “And I gave him also a list, I said please tell me if there were gassings in such camps. He answered me by a very rude letter saying that I was under the influence of right extremism. So I wrote once more and I said 'No question of that, please answer me' and he said, 'I have the letter, I cannot answer the trap questions about the complicated problem of the gas chambers.' This was in 1974 and it means, one, that there was a problem of a gas chamber and that this problem was complicated, and so complicated that he could not even answer to very simple questions.” This was included in his 1980 article. (29-8046, 8047)
In 1981, Faurisson published an article about the diary of a German doctor who was in Auschwitz, Dr. Johann Paul Kremer. In the diary, Kremer had said that Auschwitz was an awful place, more awful than the inferno of Dante, and people had used this as proof that he was referring to gassings. “If you read it carefully,” said Faurisson, “you could see that it is nothing of that kind and if you follow the entire story of the life of Dr. Kremer, you can have confirmation of that. It had nothing to do with that. It was an inferno, a horrible place because of typhus and typhoid fever in summer 1942…” (29-8047)
In the winter 1981 issue of the Journal of Historical Review, Faurisson published “The Gas Chambers: Truth or Lie?,” the translation of a long interview which he had given to the Italian historical magazine Storia Illustrata. The interview concerned not only gas chambers, but the problem of the Holocaust itself. (29-8048)
In 1982, Faurisson published an article concerning The Diary of Anne Frank. Faurisson had never examined the diary in its original form. In the article, he reproduced two examples of handwriting attributed to Frank, allegedly written four months apart. The first document was the facsimile of the epigraph of the diary translated from the Dutch in 1950; the second was the facsimile of a text written by Anne Frank on the back of one of her photographs. In Faurisson’s opinion, a comparison of the text and signatures indicated “adult” writing in the first document, while the second document, allegedly written four months later, was “childish.” (29-8049 to 8051)
Faurisson met twice with Frank’s father, Otto Frank, in Basel, Switzerland; five hours the first day and four hours the second day. Faurisson had immediately informed Frank that he didn’t believe in the authenticity of the diary and he asked Frank many questions during the interviews. Faurisson’s ultimate conclusion was that the diary was not Anne Frank's, but was written after the war by Otto Frank himself. (29 8051) Faurisson explained his reasons: “He is the man who brought…this diary…He took the responsibility of bringing this diary, saying it was from his daughter and telling a genuine story. But when you examine carefully the story itself, not like a child reading the story of a child, but carefully, you discover so many impossibilities, physical impossibilit[ies]. I am going to give you only one. For instance, there were supposed to be in Amsterdam all this family in a place where the walls were so thin, that everybody could listen to them so they…ought to be very careful not to make any noise. Even when they cough, they had to take codeine and the story goes on and you discover that every day they were using the vacuum cleaner; every day the bell rang, there were noises, dispute[s] and so on. Many things like that. So when I asked all those questions to Mr. Frank, when I showed him all those impossibilit[ies], asking him [for] an explanation, first of all his wife, his second wife who was there, was saying, 'Oh, but that’s impossible. That’s impossible what you are saying. Now, that’s not possible, but the police would have known, the neighbours would have known, the architect, etc.', and he told her in German to shut up. And finally he told me, 'Mr. Faurisson, I agree with you hundred percent. All those things are theoretically, scientifically impossible, but so it was.' So I told him, 'Mr. Frank, you get me into trouble because if you admit with me that the door theoretically and scientifically cannot be at the same time open and closed but that you have seen such a door, I am in trouble'. And I tried, I tried to get a specimen of the handwriting of Mr. Frank himself and it was absolutely impossible. Even when I would ask him only a name, he would go [to] his typewriter. But I know where I can find most probably the specimen of his handwriting. And I must say that I sent this kind of report to a German tribunal because a man called Römer…had trouble with the German justice about that. And what I know is that the tribunal decided to submit the manuscript of the Anne Frank diary to chemists in Germany and the conclusion was that there were additions with ball-point pen and as a [previous] report had said that everything in this manuscript was from the same hand, addition[s] and text itself, what was the meaning of those additions with…ball-point pen which existed only, they said, from…1950, 1951.” Even Faurisson’s worst enemies in France admitted that concerning the Anne Frank diary, he was generally correct. (29-8052 to 8054)
In 1984, Faurisson wrote the article “A Challenge to David Irving” (Journal of Historical Review, vol. 5, 1984, page 289). Faurisson described Irving as “a very brilliant historian, certainly. He is the man who said I am ready to give 1,000 pounds…in Great Britain, or 1,000 dollars…when he is in U.S.A., to anybody who could show me an order from Hitler to say 'exterminate the Jews', and he is very well known for that and when, in 1977, he expressed those kind of views, it was a real scandal. Today, everybody among the historians say there were no orders from Hitler…but David Irving does not say that the gas chambers [did] not exist. He doesn’t say that the extermination did not exist.” (29-8054)
In one of his books, Irving wrote that in October or November, 1944, Himmler gave the order to stop the extermination of the Jews. Faurisson’s challenge to Irving was: 'I am ready to give you 1,000 francs if you show me this order of Himmler' which had never existed. Raul Hilberg also alleged that this order existed and was given on 25 November 1944, but the footnote citation given in support of this assertion was to a document which had nothing to do with a Himmler order. (29-8055)
In the spring of 1986, Faurisson published “Response to a Paper Historian” [Journal of Historical Review, vol. 7, 1986, page 21], which was a reply to Pierre Vidal Naquet.3 Vidal-Naquet had attacked Faurisson very strongly in 1980: “…he called me…a paper Eichmann: meaning I was a criminal and a scandalous criminal because a normal criminal kills people who are alive, but I am supposed to be [a] coward and I kill the people who are already dead.” In the paper, Faurisson attempted to answer all of Vidal-Naquet’s arguments. (29-8056) Faurisson explained the meaning of the title: “There are historians who are, I would say, totally immaterial. They don’t care for what is material. And I call them 'paper' historian[s] … the example that I give is this one. We are told that in Rome, you…had a democracy…because the people would be [in] the forum together to decide anything of the political life in Rome. You can believe in the democracy in Rome but if you go [to] Rome and if you see what is the forum, how tiny it is, you understand that this democracy could only have been a kind of aristocracy. So, you must go and see the places. If you say 'gas chamber in Auschwitz', go and see. If you say 'gas vans', please, bring me a photo of a 'gas van', something technical. He didn’t do that himself and I tried to answer to his questions.” (29-8056, 8057)
In the winter of 1986-87, Faurisson published the article, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss” (Journal of Historical Review, vol. 7, 1986, page 389). Faurisson testified that while it had already been known that Höss was tortured, confirmation had been received with the recent publication in England of a book entitled Legions of Death. This book gave the names of the people who tortured Höss: “When Höss, after the war, was arrested by the British military police, he was tortured for something like forty-eight hours or three days with whip cord, he was beaten very strongly and suddenly he collapsed and said whatever the interrogator wanted him to say and it is an absurd statement. He invented even concentration camps in places which never existed in Poland…For example, he talked about an extermination camp in Wolzek…a place which never existed in Poland, and it’s not in confusion with Belzec. He says, 'Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek'.” (29-8057)
In addition, Höss’s alleged confession was written in English. Faurisson did not know whether Höss spoke English or not, but stated: “…I think that for something so grave, I would never make a confession myself in English. I find that very strange. And there are two different 'states' of his confessions…I mean there are two document and they're the same numeral notation in the Nuremberg trials because the British did first a kind of confession, then they corrected and corrected and corrected it, handwritten correction, and then they said this is the translation of what Höss has confessed. It was not a translation. It was a clean copy of the first confession.” (29- 8058)
Faurisson found the Höss confessions to be “very interesting, because you…have always possibility of finding things which are true. It’s a mixture of truth and lies, of course. So you can have some interesting things about Auschwitz, and you have also some lies, some impossibilities of all sorts of dates, of place[s], etc.” (29-8059)
Faurisson cited an article from the newspaper Wrexham Leader, October 17, 1986, by a man called Mike Mason entitled “In a Cell with a Nazi War Criminal,” which indicated that they kept Höss awake until he confessed. The article dealt with a British documentary called Secret Hunters which investigated the torture of Höss. (29-8060)
Faurisson also wrote an article on the Müller document, which had been submitted to the court by witness Emil Lachout. Faurisson interviewed Lachout on the 7th and 8th of December, 1987 in Vienna, for a total of nine hours. (29-8061) His conclusions about the importance of the Müller document were summarized on page 121 of his article “The Müller Document” [Journal of Historical Review, vol. 8, 1988], which he read to the court:
If this document is genuine and if Emil Lachout is telling the truth, then one is entitled to raise a number of serious questions:
1) Does this document not constitute a verification of a revelation made by one Stephen Pinter in 1959? After the war, this American lawyer had worked for 17 months in Germany for the U.S. War Department. In 1959, he confirmed to a national Catholic weekly that, in the position in which he had found himself, he could state that there had never been any homicidal gas chambers in Germany and in Austria and that, as regards Auschwitz, the Americans had not been able to carry out any investigation there, because the Soviets did not allow it (Our Sunday Visitor, 14 June 1959, p. 15);
2) In 1960, Martin Broszat, a member of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, stated in a simple letter to the editor of Die Zeit (19 August 1960, p. 16) that there had not been any homicidal gassings either in Dachau or, more generally, in any of the camps in the Old Reich (Germany within her frontiers of 1937), which means to say that there had not been any gassings in such camps as Neuengamme, Ravensbrück, Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen as well. He did not present any evidence to substantiate this statement. Would his proofs not have been those reports of the above-mentioned Allied Commissions of Inquiry?
Faurisson confirmed that the Pinter quotation on page 23 of Did Six Million Really Die? was a correct quote and that, in his opinion, the Müller document confirmed what Pinter had said. With respect to the Martin Broszat letter, Faurisson said: “Because I am very surprised that a man like Martin Broszat in 1960, to reveal such a news, sent only a letter to Die Zeit. He should have given a quantity of proof[s] of what [he] was saying, no gassings in those places…I think he had some ammunitions with him. I wonder if it was that.” (29-8065)
Previously, Faurisson testified, there had been many claims that gassings took place in those camps: “…you have even confessions of people of those camps, commandants of those camps, confessing that there were gas chambers…” when in fact there were none. For Faurisson, the significance of this was as follows: “It’s finished. We cannot use it anymore or very carefully, testimon[ies], so-called proof[s] and confessions…if I see the confessions of the commandant, of the doctor in Ravensbrück saying that there were gassings in Ravensbrück, when I see that, their description of the procedure of gassing, when I take that on my left side and on my right side I have a description of the process of gassing in Auschwitz, I don’t see any difference. …[F]rom 1945 to 1960, I had to believe that all that was true, and from 1960 they said no, no, no. What is on your left-hand side, don’t believe it anymore. But you must believe what is on your right-hand side. Still, I am ready, but give me a reason to believe.” (29-8066)
Faurisson testified that he had read the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? in detail and had formed an opinion on what was wrong and what was right about it. What was wrong about the pamphlet were details: “Details, some details are wrong. For instance, the story of the sister of Gerstein. [It] was not the sister, it was the sister in-law. For instance, still about Gerstein, when Harwood said that Dr. Dibelius found him untrustworthy, it was exactly the contrary, it was trustworthy.” (29-8068)
Faurisson believed Harwood might have made the mistake by a “kind of pathology of the text. When you see how a text is reproduced, for instance, in the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth century, when one copied the other, how is it that they did so many mistakes and why? You have to study what we call pathology of the text and to see how the people could commit such mistakes and it’s one of the way you do a mistake, it’s to take one word and reproduce the…word exactly on the other way. It seems extraordinary to read untrustworthy and to transform it into trustworthy. I am proceeding there the possibility of good faith. I mean that if Harwood had wanted to play us a trick, he would have used another sentence, another way. He wouldn’t have taken the word itself to put it into…quotation marks…” Faurisson noted, however, that what Gerstein had said in any event was “really mad and even Dr. Hilberg admitted it -” (29-8070)
Judge Ron Thomas intervened at this point in the testimony: “Well, I think this is speculation…And I don’t want to cut you off, but I think you would know, as a document examiner, that there’s a science to what you've studied and become an expert at and I don’t think you're doing your doctorate any credit by speculating on this aspect. Especially with the word 'denounce' sitting in there. So we'll just move on, please.” (29-8070, 8071)
Faurisson proceeded to page 30 of Did Six Million Really Die?:
As has been noted earlier, the Jewish statistician Raul Hilberg estimates an even lower figure of 896,892…In 1955, another neutral Swiss source, Die Tat of Zurich (January 19th, 1955), in a survey of all Second World War casualties based on figures of the International Red Cross, put the “Loss of victims of persecution because of politics, race or religion who died in prisons and concentration camps between 1939 and 1945” at 300,000, not all of whom were Jews, and this figure seems the most accurate assessment.
Faurisson testified that the Die Tat article in fact gave the 300,000 figure for all people, not just Jews, who had died in concentration camps in Germany. (29-8073)
With respect to the sentence regarding Hilberg, Faurisson indicated that Harwood had obtained this from Paul Rassinier’s writings: “And what Paul Rassinier said is, 'The statistics of Raul Hilberg are really foggy. If I take his own data, his own figures, I conclude that he should have this figure'” of 896,892 and not the figure of 5.1 million which Hilberg had in his book. The figure of 896,892 was actually the figure which Rassinier had arrived at after an analysis of Hilberg’s data. It was evident, said Faurisson, that Harwood had studied Rassinier carefully by his numerous references to his work, The Drama of the European Jews. (29-8073)
Faurisson produced and read to the court a copy of a letter dated 30 May 1975 which he had received from Richard Harwood, the author of Did Six Million Really Die?. Faurisson had written to Harwood after reading a French version of the pamphlet. (29-8077, 8078; Harwood letter filed as Exhibit 121 at 8081)
The letter read:
Dear M. Faurisson,
Thank you for your recent letter. I apologise for the delay in replying. I was pleased to hear that my letters had not gone astray, and that you received your copies of my booklet.
In answer to your questions — 1) It is true that I was unintentionally ambiguous in Did Six Million Really Die? about Raul Hilberg’s statistics. The figure of 896,892 is Prof. Rassinier’s figure after correcting Hilberg’s statistics. I did not make this very clear perhaps. Hilberg’s own figure is, of course, 5,100,000, but Prof. Rassinier shows that Hilberg’s own statistics cannot support it. 2) I am not a professor at London University, but hold a B.A. Honours Degree in History. 3) Unfortunately, I have very little time for reading at present, and have not yet read David Irving’s Hitler und seine Feldherren. I would welcome your opinions on it, however, and hope to read it shortly.
I was very interested to hear of your visit to Auschwitz and Majdanek and your opinions on the “gas chambers” there. I would be very grateful if you would write me a detailed description of what you saw there, with your comments and perhaps even one or two drawings. Would you do this for me?
With many thanks, and very best wishes to you, Yours sincerely, Richard Harwood
Faurisson testified that Harwood made a mistake once in quoting from the Reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross, out of a total of nineteen quotes from the reports: “I can tell you,” he said, “as a professor I am surprised to see that he was able to quote a book nineteen times and only once incorrectly.” (29-8082)
Faurisson returned to Did Six Million Really Die? where the pamphlet stated at page 29:
Finally, Professor Rassinier draws attention to an important admission by Dr. Kubovy, director of the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation at Tel-Aviv, made in La Terre Retrouvée, December 15th, 1960. Dr. Kubovy recognised that not a single order for extermination exists from Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich or Göring (Le Drame des Juifs européen, p. 31, 39)
In his testimony, Dr. Browning indicated that he had never heard of Kubovy or the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation. Faurisson testified that, to the jury, this must mean that it was an invention of Harwood. But it was not; Faurisson said: “Dr. Kubovy existed and his centre also and…I have found in my files a Jewish newspaper, the title is Yedioth Aharonoth…26th of May, 1974, and in this newspaper, written in Hebrew, you have a photocopy of a letter that I sent from the Sorbonne on the 23rd of March, 1974. It is sent from Robert Faurisson, my title, to Dr. Kubovy, director of the…Centre of Jewish Documentation of Tel Aviv. And it arrived in this place and Dr. Kubovy was dead at that time. I didn’t know. But it arrived, it was not an invention.” (29-8083)
Faurisson had sent the letter to Kubovy and about twenty other places in the world and in it, had asked whether the gas chambers existed or not. The Jewish newspaper, Yedioth Aharonoth, had “said that it was quite a scandal to ask such a question, of course, in 1974.” The only thing Harwood might have gotten wrong was the wording of Kubovy’s centre. (29-8083, 8084) To Faurisson, this summarized what was wrong with Did Six Million Really Die?. (29-8085)
Christie next asked Faurisson to summarize the thesis of the pamphlet and to indicate what was right about it. Replied Faurisson: “The thesis of the book is that it’s not true that six million Jews died, and it is not true that there was an extermination plan, and it is not true that there were gas chambers. What I find right is first, the title. The title is good — Did Six Million Really Die?. That’s really the problem. I am trying to find because I see that this booklet is criticized, but what is good in it, what is positive? This man, Richard Harwood, brought plenty of information for the layman in 1974. He said in 1974 that there were no order[s] from Hitler to exterminate the Jews. Three years after when David Irving said it, it was an uproar, so it was really new and true. We know it now in 1988.” (29-8086)
Faurisson believed that on the issue of the Wannsee Conference protocol, Harwood was prophetic: “He said…'Why we should not accept labour in the east to mean labour assignment in the east is not explained,' and he explained that the Wannsee Conference takes place into a policy of sending the people to the east and nothing else and now, since at least 1984, I think that the historical community as Mr. Pearson said this morning, I mean among the exterminationists, they do not believe anymore that the Wannsee Conference decided an extermination, because if the Wannsee Conference had really decided an extermination, you would not have a dispute between the historians- on one side, the intentionalists, on the other side, the functionalists. There would be no dispute.” (29-8086, 8087)
In Faurisson’s opinion, the exterminationists now recognized that the Wannsee Conference was not an order for extermination. The turning point was the Stuttgart conference of historians in May of 1984 where intentionalist and functionalist historians discussed the issue and admitted that the Wannsee Conference was not a conference to send people to their extermination. Faurisson continued: “So, Richard Harwood said in…1974, something which I consider has been confirmed — and something very important — ten years after in Stuttgart. I think that this is really positive. We must look at what the people are bringing also instead of always criticizing.” (29-8087)
Other points which Harwood raised which were positive were the Nuremberg trials, the confessions of Nazis, Auschwitz and the eyewitness accounts, the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the Höss testimony, the chaos in Germany at the end of the war, the fake photos, Paul Rassinier, and the imposture of the gas chambers. (29-8088)
What Harwood wrote about the gas chambers was not a common belief in 1974, said Faurisson, and now the gas chambers were becoming an embarrassment: “…now in France,” he said, “we have people of Jewish origin saying…the gas chamber, we should perhaps get rid of it or we should not insist too much.” In an article published in the French magazine, Article Thirty- One, authors Marc Ascione and Ida Zajdel claimed that the gas chambers were “an invention of the SS in their confession[s] as a time bomb against the Jews.” (29-8088)
Faurisson testified that the pamphlet was so important in what it was bringing to the public that when it was published in France, the man who distributed it, Francois Duprat, was murdered: “We don’t know exactly who did that, but the interesting point is first, that it has been done by people very clever in those kind of bomb handling, and what was published in the journal Le Monde after was interesting. This murder was revindicated by a so-called 'Memory of Auschwitz' organization. It was justified by a man called Patrice Chairoff — saying that Francois Duprat, in distributing this kind of pamphlet, had taken a responsibility which kills.” (29-8089)
It was evident, said Faurisson, that people knew how important the pamphlet was at that time. It was discussed twice in lengthy articles in Le Monde. They were totally against the pamphlet and wanted a lawsuit launched against it. No legal action was ever taken, however, and the pamphlet could be read freely in France even today. (29-8089)
Nevertheless, Faurisson said, there were “always legal dangers” in saying that the gas chambers did not exist. The judgment of December 16, 1987 was under appeal by Jewish organizations: “…what a judgment builds,” said Faurisson, “another judgment can destroy…I don’t know what [will] happen. Perhaps it will be forbidden tomorrow in France, but for the present time, it’s not legally forbidden. It’s even legally permitted.” (29-8090)
Defence attorney Christie asked Faurisson to compare various findings of courts on the subject of the Holocaust since 1945 to the present. Faurisson began by quoting portions of Judge Thomas’s ruling taking judicial notice of the Holocaust:
It is my respectful view that the Court should take judicial notice of the Holocaust having regard to all of the circumstances. The mass murder and extermination of Jews of Europe by the Nazi regime during the Second World War is so notorious as not to be the subject of dispute among reasonable persons. Furthermore, it is my view that the Holocaust is capable of immediate accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracies….In my view, no reasonable person disputes that mass atrocities took place. The Holocaust is simply indisputable…I have not had my attention drawn to any case of any significance in the history of the world since the Second World War in which any reasonable person has ever suggested that the Holocaust did not take place.
Faurisson turned to Judge Thomas and indicated that it was both his and Christie’s fault that they had not brought to his attention the judgment of the Court of Paris of December 16, 1987, holding that there was a public debate among historians about the extermination. (29-8092, 8093)4
April 13, 1988
Faurisson testified that in 1945 and 1946, the International Military Tribunal did not use the word “Holocaust"; they used the word “genocide.” Said Faurisson: “And they said that it was the policy of a physical extermination or the actual physical extermination of six million Jews, especially with homicidal gas chambers.” The gas chambers, continued Faurisson were an “essential” part of the allegation, “because it was the specific weapon of a specific crime, and, of course, myself, it’s my opinion, I say the alleged specific weapon of an alleged specific crime. The weapon is the gas chamber, and the crime is 'genocide' or 'Holocaust', or 'extermination', or even 'Shoah'…That’s the most recent term.” (30-8120)
If there was no systematic weapon, said Faurisson, it would be difficult to understand how this could be a systematic crime without precedent. Most historians, although not Browning apparently, said that the “Holocaust” was a new crime such as history had never known, and that the Germans had invented a new weapon for this systematic crime, the gas chamber. (30-8121)
In the beginning, the gas chambers were “supposed to be everywhere in Europe,” said Faurisson, “…a few years ago, it was in six points of Poland. Now, it seems that in Majdanek they are not very sure. In Auschwitz I, for some French historians it’s finished. This famous gas chamber that every tourist goes and visits in Auschwitz I. It seems that is finished…quite recently, Pierre Vidal-Naquet said, in a tortuous way, that he did no more believe in the gas chamber of Auschwitz I.” (30-8121, 8122)
Right after the war, Faurisson had believed there was an extermination of the Jews, although he was surprised by the great number of survivors. Later on, it was said that there had not really been an extermination, but an attempted extermination. Faurisson could not be precise about when this change in the Holocaust story occurred: “because it’s a very slow change through the years…sometimes, a historian like Mrs. Olga Wormser-Migot said something in the revisionist sense, and [a] few years after she recanted. There are so many people who recanted in all this story. So it is very difficult to [be] precise.” (30-8122, 8123)
Another change in the Holocaust story over the years was the simple fact that there was now a historical debate between the intentionalists and the functionalists. This debate began, said Faurisson, “…you could say 1984. It would be, I think, more reasonable to say already at the beginning of the 1980[s], because this kind of dispute, this kind of new idea, does not emerge suddenly like that, like in a theatre. It begins very slowly.” Among the intentionalists was Raul Hilberg, who said in his first edition that there were orders from Hitler. Among the functionalists was Martin Broszat. (30-8123, 8124)
Christie pointed out that Browning had testified that no legitimate historian could question the Holocaust. What did Faurisson say?
“I say that there is a legitimate debate, for myself, about any point of history, and we really need to know, first, if something really happened, instead of saying it happened and we're now trying to see how it happened. We must establish first the fact. The first duty of a historian is to tell us what happened.” (30-8124)
Faurisson testified that another change in the Holocaust story concerned the numbers of people who allegedly died in Auschwitz. These numbers, claimed by various media, historians, or tribunals, ranged from 800,000 to 8 million. The figure of 8 million, for example, was given by Jacques Billiet, director of the Information Service of War Crimes in France, on page 7 of the book Concentration Camps, published in November of 1945. The same book also gave figures of 4 million and 7 million. The figure of 5 million was given by the historian Max Gallo in L'Express, June 16, 1975, page 70. The claim of “more than 4.5 million” was made by Dr. Charles Bendel on March 2, 1946 at the trial of the German, Dr. Bruno Tesch, in Hamburg. Dr. Tesch was responsible for the firm which manufactured Zyklon B. He was condemned to death and executed. A different figure was given by the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höss, in Nuremberg document PS-3868, in which Höss declared under oath on April 5, 1946:
I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000.
Another figure was given by Georges Wellers in Le Monde Juif, October 7, 1983, page 158, where he claimed that 1,472,000 had died, ninety percent of which he claimed were Jews. The figure of 4 million was that officially accepted by the International Military Tribunal. It appeared in the official report of the Soviets which was accepted as authentic by virtue of Article 21 of the Tribunal’s charter. This had the value of judicial notice. This report, dated May 6, 1945, could be found in the IMT “Blue Series” vol. 39, pages 241 to 261. Dr. Raul Hilberg claimed 1 million Jews [and 250,000 non-Jews] perished in Auschwitz, while Reitlinger claimed in his book The Final Solution, 1953, re-edition in 1971, on page 500, that 800,000 to 900,000 persons perished in the Auschwitz gas chambers and its camps. Of those who believed in the extermination, said Faurisson, the figure of 800,000 was the lowest figure given for deaths at Auschwitz. (30-8125 to 8128)
“None of those figures,” said Faurisson, “even the figure of Reitlinger, are justified, like the total itself of 6 million. Recently, Mr. Leon Poliakov said in the newspaper Le Figaro, he said, 'There is no shame to have to change your opinion. For instance, I said at the time 2.5 million died in Auschwitz. Now, I say 1.5 million'. But what would be interesting is, now, Mr. Poliakov, what is your total? Didn’t you change also your total…of 6 million?” (30-8129, 8130)
Christie returned to Did Six Million Really Die? and the segment of the pamphlet on page 21 dealing with the Anne Frank diary. Harwood alleged that the diary was not genuine:
The truth about the Anne Frank Diary was first revealed in 1959 by the Swedish journal Fria Ord. It established that the Jewish novelist Meyer Levin had written the dialogue of the “diary” and was demanding payment for his work in a court action against Otto Frank.
Faurisson testified that Harwood had been confused, believing that Frank paid Levin to write the diary, when in fact he had hired Levin to write a play based on the diary. It was a “bad argument,” said Faurisson, “but on the essential, his opinion about the journal of Anne Frank, [he] is quite right.” (30-8130, 8131)
Faurisson had written the book Is The Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?. On the back cover was the photocopy of an article published on 9 October, 1980 in the New York Post dealing with the results of an official expert opinion on the authenticity of the diary. Faurisson read the article to the jury:
Anne Frank may not have inked that famous diary
By Al Fredricks
A REPORT by the German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) indicates that portions of The Diary of Anne Frank had been altered or added after 1951, casting doubt over the authenticity of the entire work, the West German news weekly Der Spiegel has disclosed.
The diary, a day-to-day account of the anguish of a young Jewish girl and her family hiding in in (sic) their Amsterdam home during the Nazi invasion, has touched the hearts of millions.
The manuscript was examined on orders of a West German court as part of a libel action brought by Otto Frank, Anne’s father and the only family member to survive the concentration camps, against Ernst Roemer for spreading the allegation the book was a fraud.
This was the second suit against Roemer, a long-time critic of the book, by Frank. In the first case, the court decided in Frank’s favor when the testimony of historians and graphologists sufficed to authenticate the diary.
In April, however, only a short time before Otto Frank’s death on Aug. 19, the manuscript was turned over to technicians of the BKA for examination.
The manuscript, in the form of three hardbound notebooks and 324 loose pages bound in a fourth notebook, was examined with special equipment.
The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work, specifically of the fourth volume, were written with a ball point pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded, those sections must have been added subsequently.
The examination of the manuscript did not, however, unearth any conclusive evidence to lay to rest the speculations about the authenticity of the first three notebooks.
Faurisson produced the actual Official Expert Opinion dated 28 May 1980, upon which the newspaper article was based and which set out the results of the technical analysis of the original diary manuscript by the State Criminal Office. (30-8131 to 8142; filed as Exhibit 122 at 30- 8142)
The expert opinion stated as follows [English translation]:
28th May 1980
STATE CRIMINAL OFFICE
Case KT 41 — 2404/79
To District Court of Justice Hamburg Minor Penal Court 7 P.O. Box 30 01 21 2000 Hamburg 36
Ref Penal case against Edgar Geiss and Ernst Römer viz. criminal and technical test of the “Diary of Anne Frank” Re: Decisions of the District Court of Justice in Hamburg, Minor Penal Court 7, dated 13th July 1979, 7th Jan 80 and 26th March 80 with ref numbers (49) 30/77 Ns — 141 Js 298/76 and 145 Cs 129/76 —
OFFICIAL EXPERT OPINION (based on Par. 256 of Civil Penal Code)
According to the decision of the District Court of Justice in Hamburg dated 13th July 1979 (Vol. IV ref to (49) 30/77, page 478) it has to be found out whether the manuscripts ascribed to provene from Anne Frank, should possibly be denied as having been written within the years 1941-1944, by testing the paper and the handwriting utensils used.
The following items were submitted for examination:
Diary I starting with the first date of 12th June 1942 in a checkered cover Diary II dated from 22nd Dec 1943 until 17th Apr 1944 in a brown paper cover Diary III starting with the 17th Apr 1944, ending with 1st Aug 1944 in a brown paper cover
A further item submitted for examination consisted of 324 loose manuscript pages starting with the date of 20th June 1942 until 29th March 1944, which are also ascribed to be written by Anne Frank. Another item was a note book of Anne Frank with narratives and remarks concerning events which happened in the “backyard house", allegedly written in the years 1942 to 1944. Each of these submitted items were originals.
The examinations were carried through in the town hall of Birsfelden/Switzerland. The police of the Basle County (Rural Dept.) distributed for this purpose 1 Stereo microscope and 1 ultra-violet lamp. Some samples of the diary papers, handwritings and samples of the loose manuscripts pages have been taken from the Swiss originals and tested at Wiesbaden document-testing-laboratories of the German State Criminal Office, to carry on the necessary chemical and physical examinations. The examinations in the laboratories have also been extended to a letter written by Anne Frank, addressed to her grandmother, dated 22nd March 1941, and to a postcard addressed to a “Mrs. Leni…” dated 7th July 1942 — all these items were necessary to compare the inks used.
All pages of the 3 diaries have a compact binding, showing a brown-yellowish tint. The fluorescent test did prove that in none of them a whitening ingredient has been traced; these so-called “whiteners” are commonly used in the production of modern papers since approximately 1950.
The strings of the bindings, too, do not exhibit any fluorescent properties.
The papers do not show any water-marks.
The diary manuscripts have been done by hand whereby blue-black ink — partly also red ink and pencil have been used; on some of the loose manuscripts corrections by pencil have been made.
A thorough-going examination and technical fluorescence testing of those 324 loose pages did show that, without exceptions, non-fluorescent papers of yellow, pink and blue colour have been used, with the only difference that paper of lighter weight have been used. Those loose papers do not show any water- marks.
The writing on the loose papers have also been done by hand with blue-black ink; post-entry corrections on those loose pages have been performed, too, with blue black and red ink, sometimes also with pencil — and partly even with black, green and blue ball-point-pen paste.
Ball-point-pen paste of the quality shown on the tested pages did not be available on the market but only since 1951.
The chemical test of the ink used on the pages of all diaries and loose manuscripts did show that, without exceptions, ferrigenous blue-black gallic acid ink with a high content of iron has been used — which was the common ink during WWII and the first years thereafter.
After 1949 gallic acid inks with a much lower content of iron but with a higher amount of dyestuffs available on the market, because the chemical industry was able to develop production on pre-war standards.
The same kind of ink has been used in making the handwriting of letters and postcards dating from 1941 until 1942, in making the notice-book containing the narrative dealing with the “backyard-house", and in making the loose letter manuscripts, and the diaries. Also the same non-fluorescent quality of paper is the same in all those writings.
So we have to state that the same ink was used in performing the diaries I-III, the loose manuscripts and the other comparative scripts, which ink was obtainable on the market during WWII and the first years thereafter.
There is also no difference in the quality of papers, all were obtainable on the market during WWII.
But it is surely impossible, that those individual corrections, made by ball-point pen paste on the loose paper pages had been written before the year 1951.
The report on the quality of paper used in the loose-pages manuscripts states, that this thin paper has been highly milled and did consist of relatively coarse cellulose pulp, not whitened.
As there is no water-mark on those paper sheets, it is impossible to determine the time when these papers have been manufactured, because no method exists to find out the age of paper by any scientific- criminal technique.
Anyway it is sure that those papers differ distinctly from those on the market nowadays. Papers of that minor quality is nowhere on sale today. It is also impossible to say clearly when the paper of better quality began to penetrate into the market. Generally speaking the reconversion from lower to better quality could have taken place in 1950 approximately. Its also impossible to fix the proper age of any ink inscription by chemical methods, even in adapting the “Mezger-Rall-Heess” method one can only have a chance to find out the age of any ink inscription with an accuracy of maximal 6 years — but in our case the time under consideration is much earlier.
Taking into account the quality of paper and the ferrigenous gallic acid ink it cannot be said that the 3 diaries and the manuscripts consisting of 324 loose paper pages have been performed on the stated dates, or have been written a few years later.
By order (-) signed Dr. Werner Chief Director Scientific Dept.
Faurisson testified that a handwriting report done in 1960 or 1961 had determined that the handwriting of the entire diary was done by the same person. This included the corrections written, as was later discovered, in ball-point pen ink. (30-8140)
Faurisson turned next to the subject of Raul Hilberg and the alleged Hitler orders. In 1961, Hilberg published the first edition of his book The Destruction of the European Jews, which contained the following passage on page 177:
How was the killing phase brought about? Basically, we are dealing with two of Hitler’s decisions. One order was given in the spring of 1941, during the planning of the invasion of the USSR; it provided that small units of the SS and Police be dispatched to Soviet territory, where they were to move from town to town to kill all Jewish inhabitants on the spot. This method may be called the “mobile killing operations.” Shortly after the mobile operations had begun in the occupied Soviet territories, Hitler handed down his second order. That decision doomed the rest of European Jewry. Unlike the Russian Jews, who were overtaken by mobile units, the Jewish population of central, western, and southeastern Europe was transported to killing centres. In short (outside Russia), the mobile operations were reversed. Instead of moving the killers to the victims, the victims were brought to the killers. This second method, the central killing operations, will be discussed in the subsequent two chapters, which deal with the deportations and the killing centre operations, respectively.
Faurisson pointed out that Hilberg spoke clearly of two “orders.” But in his subsequent publications, “There is no more order. In his second edition, he totally changed, which is the centre of his thesis…Raul Hilberg built a kind of monument, I could say that it is a monument, and this monument was about the extermination of the Jews. He calls that 'the destruction of the European Jews.' And to try to understand that and to explain that, he said: And there you have Hitler. If you don’t have Hitler, you cannot understand. Hitler dispatching orders, one order, two orders, and then you have, as a result, the destruction of the European Jewry. This is what Raul Hilberg explained up till, I should say, 1985.” (30-8146, 8147)
Faurisson stated that “in a certain way I admire his work, because it’s the work of somebody who worked very hard, but we have [books like that]…extraordinary books written in the past, and they are false…There is in…Dr. Hilberg, something of [the] immaterial — [he's] absolutely not interested in what is material. He’s a little bit metaphysical. For instance, in this big book, you don’t have one photo. You have not the slightest idea of what could be a gas chamber. There is absolutely no description.” (30-8147, 8148)
As an example of the way Hilberg’s mental processes worked, Faurisson read from the first edition of his book, page 570, where Hilberg talked about the supply of Zyklon B:
The amounts required by Auschwitz were not large, but they were noticeable. Almost the whole Auschwitz supply was needed for the gassing of people; very little was used for fumigation. The camp administration itself did not buy the gas. The purchaser was Obersturmführer Gerstein, Chief Disinfection Officer in the Office of the Hygienic Chief of the Waffen-SS (Mrugowski). As a rule, all orders passed through the hands of TESTA, DEGESCH, and Dessau. From the Dessau Works, which produced the gas, shipments were sent directly to Auschwitz Extermination and Fumigation Division (Abteilung Entwesung und Entseuchung).
To any reader, said Faurisson, this passage would mean that Zyklon B was sent to a division in Auschwitz which took care of exterminating people as well as fumigation. But that was totally wrong. The word Entwesung meant “dis insectization,” thus it referred to delousing or disinfestation or disinfection. Said Faurisson: “It has nothing to do with extermination of human beings, and it’s really…the thesis of Raul Hilberg. It’s really [a] very important part. Every naive reader would think Hitler gave those orders, and, for instance, you had in Berlin a man called Gerstein, and he would send the Zyklon to a special office to kill the people. This is what his book says, and he maintained that in his new edition.” (30 8150)
Faurisson testified that Hilberg had used Kurt Gerstein as a reference twenty-three times in the first edition of his book. Faurisson’s opinion of Gerstein was that his various statements were “Completely foolish, and it has been demonstrated not only in France but by… an international [researcher]…Carlo Mattogno.” In France, said Faurisson, a Mr. Henri Roques had been stripped of his doctorate in 1986 because of what he had written about Gerstein. This was the first time this had occurred in the history of France. (30-8150, 8151)
Faurisson did not think Hilberg’s work could be called impartial. He noted that Yehuda Bauer, the Jewish historian, had written in Midstream, April, 1987, page 50, as a compliment and not a criticism, that Hilberg’s whole work was filled with a burning hatred of Nazism and a deep, thorough identification with the victims.5 Faurisson said: “I don’t criticize him for that, but I think that it is right. It is exact, accurate.” (30-8151, 8152)
In the 23 February 1983 edition of Newsday [Long Island, NY], in an article entitled “The Holocaust in Perspective,” author George DeWan had quoted comments made by Hilberg at a conference:
“But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds — a consensus, mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”
Faurisson had been so surprised when he read this quote that he had checked with Dr. Robert John, a member of the Institute for Historical Review who attended the conference, to make sure Hilberg had actually said it. John had also been extremely surprised by Hilberg’s statement. (30-8159)
“I don’t call that history,” said Faurisson, “I call that metaphysics…I don’t know any bureaucrat practising his job like that. What does it mean, 'an incredible meeting of minds'? People…know of no plan. Nothing is organized. Do you imagine a bureaucracy, especially in a country like Germany? In the army? And everywhere? People would act by what?…by mind- reading…I don’t believe that, of course, but I see in which situation is Hilberg, in which situation are all those exterminationists. They don’t find anything. So, they do like historian[s] did in the last centuries, they replace that by metaphysics. There is no proof. If you would ask Mr. Hilberg, 'But what proof did you have of a meeting of minds?, of mind-reading?', he would say, 'You know that [there] couldn’t be any proof.'” (30-8159, 8160)
Christie turned to the subject of the Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) of 1948. Faurisson was familiar with the report and its contents. In the entire files of the Red Cross published before the war was finished, said Faurisson, there was no mention made of gas chambers. After the war, there was one mention made of a gas chamber at Ravensbrück on page 96 of the book entitled The Work of the ICRC for Civilian Detainees in German Concentration Camps from 1939 to 1945, Geneva, 1975, where the Red Cross delegate wrote:
As I left the camp, I almost asked Suhrens [commandant of the camp] to show me the gas chamber and crematorium, but did not. Some time later, in May, I met a woman clad in rags in a Berlin street. On her back she bore the concentration camp sign, a large X. She told me she had come on foot from Ravensbrück (about 100 km) and that the camp had been liberated by the Russians. She was an Austrian who had been put in the camp, she said, merely because she had a Jewish husband. As she stormed about “those SS swine", I asked her to tell me where the crematorium and the gas chamber had been. “Under the big square", she answered.
A historian specializing in Ravensbrück, Germaine Tillion, claimed in her 1973 book, Ravensbrück, that there was a gas chamber in the camp. Faurisson pointed out that there was no indication on the plan of Ravensbrück of a 'gas chamber' and today no one claimed that Ravensbrück had a gas chamber. (30-8163)
To Faurisson’s knowledge, the Red Cross never published any reports about the atrocities suffered by the Germans at the end of the war or about the deportations of the Germans from the east or about the treatment of German prisoners of war during the war. Faurisson found the last omission surprising “because I know one case of eighty German soldiers shot by the French Resistance on the 1st of September, 1944, near the town of Annecy…and I know that the Red Cross endeavoured to try to avoid this execution, so I suppose that there is a report about that, but not a published report.” (30-8164)
Faurisson had been able to obtain the actual report of the Red Cross delegate who visited Auschwitz in September of 1944. The delegate was Dr. Rossel. Faurisson attempted to ask him questions by way of questionnaire, but Rossel did not want to talk. The report was edited before publication in the ICRC reports. (30-8165 to 8167)
The Red Cross made no distinction between inmates of the concentration camps who were political detainees and those who were common criminals; to the Red Cross, they were all “persecutees.” (30-8167)
Faurisson had also investigated the International Tracing Service (ITS) at Arolsen, West Germany. The ITS, said Faurisson, was under the surveillance of ten governments, among them France, Great Britain, the United States and Israel. It was now very difficult to get into Arolsen to do any research. Since about 1978 Arolsen had been basically closed to the historical researcher. (30-8168)
Prior to that, in 1977, the then Director of the ITS, Albert de Cocatrix, published a paper entitled “The Number of Victims of the National Socialist Persecutions” at a conference in Vienna. This paper stated quite clearly Cocatrix’s belief in the gas chambers and the genocide, but indicated that it dealt only with the number of people who died and were registered. The people who were gassed were allegedly not registered. The number of deaths for Auschwitz was given at 50,000. In Faurisson’s opinion, the paper was valuable in giving an idea of how many people actually died in the camp. (30-8168 to 8171)
After this conference, said Faurisson, the ITS decided to close itself to the researcher. He could no longer obtain its annual report which was very valuable not only for its statistics but for its description of German documents. Up until 1978, there was a historical section at the ITS where one could go and work. That too had been closed. Today, to work in Arolsen, Faurisson would have to obtain the permission of his government. Some historians had gained access and credited Arolsen with information they had obtained. (30-8171)
Christie turned to the subject of the Hans Frank diary and asked Faurisson to explain the diary’s significance. “Hans Frank was governor of Poland,” said Faurisson, “He was arrested by the American, and he gave to the American his own diary. In fact, personal diary and official diary, something like 11,500 pages, I think, and he was very proud of it. He was tortured by two American soldiers, tried to commit suicide.” Faurisson had obtained this information from Rupert Butler’s Legions of Death. (30-8172)
Faurisson continued: “And then, in the Nuremberg trial, he was asked if he considered himself as guilty or not, and he said not guilty, and then they brought in[to] the International Military Tribunal, Rudolf Höss, who testified, and Hans Frank was absolutely overwhelmed. He believed what Höss said about Auschwitz, about those millions of people killed…It was a shock for himself, and he believed it, and he said Germany is guilty for one thousand years. But this man said 'I never heard about any extermination, extermination camp', and Auschwitz was very close to the Government-General of Poland…It was in Upper Silesia…something like 50 km…” (30- 8172, 8173)
The significance of the Hans Frank diary, said Faurisson, was that, in Frank’s opinion, “there was nothing in these 11,500 pages which could be against him, but when he heard the testimony of Höss…he said that he was overwhelmed and that he was ashamed of the words that he has used against the Jews, some strong words, because he didn’t mean it. It’s like every military people or in the propaganda. You use very strong words against your enemy, and that’s the case of Hans Frank, who was condemned to death and hanged. And I don’t think that we can say for one minute that there is something in those 11,500 pages which are a proof, any proof, of an extermination programme. Even we know that Hans Frank heard about Belzec, rumours about Belzec, and he says, 'I went on the spot to try to see what was true or not', and he says that on the spot he found Jews working there…but nothing like an extermination…if there had been anything about an extermination, we would have the proof of an extermination. We wouldn’t have a dispute between intentionalists and functionalists.” (30-8173, 8174)
What was Faurisson’s opinion of the Wannsee Conference protocol?, asked Christie. Faurisson replied that since his expertise was text and document criticism and not forensic analysis of paper and ink, etc., he proceeded on the assumption that the document was genuine. His opinion was that it might be genuine, but in any event, he did not find anything in the protocol which proved extermination. (30-8175)
Faurisson quoted the paragraph of the protocol which set out what was supposedly decided at Wannsee on January 20, 1942:
Under proper direction, the Jews shall now, in the course of the final solution, be taken to the East and put to work in a suitable way. In big labour columns, with separation of the sexes, the Jews capable of work will be conducted to these areas, building roads whereby undoubtedly a large part will be lost through natural decrease. The total remnant that finally in any case will remain, since this is undoubtedly the part with the strongest resistance, will have to be treated accordingly, since the latter, representing a natural selection, is to be regarded, upon release, as the nucleus of a new Jewish revival. (See the experience of history.)
This meant, said Faurisson, that the Jews would be taken to eastern Poland or Russia where they would be exploited for German industry and armaments. As in any prison, the sexes would be separated. The work would be terrible; there would be losses through natural decrease, and only the strong would survive. (30-8176, 8177)
It was the last sentence which was said to have the “terrible significance,” said Faurisson. In his opinion, it signified that there would be a release, a liberation, of the remnant of the Jews who were to be regarded and treated as the best. It was an idea, said Faurisson, “which is at the same time National Socialist, Zionist, and in a certain way, it’s stoic and Christian; the idea that if the people suffer very much, they will be better. And that’s why the word used there is 'Jewish revival', which is, in German, Aufbau…It’s the title of a famous Jewish newspaper today in New York, 'Revival'.” (30-8178)
In Faurisson’s opinion, since the Stuttgart Conference these words no longer constituted a plan of extermination in the minds of functionalists. The Wannsee protocol was now seen as a decision to send the Jews to the east, an idea found constantly among the Germans. Hitler, in his confidential table talks, said things like: “'Those filthy Jews, after the war, I want them to get away and to go…to Madagascar…or any other place.'” (30-8178)
Many historians had not translated the words “upon release” or the words “see the experience of history.” The translation of the document done for the International Military Tribunal by the Americans (IMT vol. 5) did not include the words “upon release,” nor did it use three dots to indicate that part of the original was not translated. The words had been completely suppressed. (30-8179)
What, asked Christie, did Faurisson think of the theory regarding the 'nod of Adolf Hitler'? Faurisson replied that this theory meant that “Hitler didn’t sign anything, didn’t even express an order orally…but [gave] a nod…” (30-8179)
How effective would a nod be in moving trains and ordering people’s executions?, asked Christie. “Or anything,” agreed Faurisson, “If even I wanted to give any order — Please bring me some water — if I [did it with] simply a nod, I [don’t] see [how] other people will understand. Society is not like that. The army is not like that. But I find normal that those historian who first didn’t find any written order decided to say, 'Oh, but Hitler gave an oral order'. Then they saw that it was difficult to say that also, so the third stage is, and the last one, I think, is the nod of Hitler, and we have even worse than that. We have in Browning, in Dr. Browning’s book, the idea that Frank anticipated the nod of Hitler. He received signals. I don’t understand what it means.” (30-8180)
Christie asked Faurisson for his opinion on the use of euphemisms. Faurisson testified that a word like Sonderbehandlung which meant “special treatment” meant different things according to context. It might mean execution, but it could also mean exactly the opposite: “For instance,” said Faurisson, “the young Jew who, in November 1938 murdered a German diplomat in Paris, his name was Grynzpan…when the German came in France, they caught Grynzpan. He was the man who had killed this German, and the consequence had been after the famous 'Crystal Night', when the German[s], exasperated, did this kind of pogrom against the Jews. So, Grynzpan was somebody important. He survived all the war. He was in the concentration camp, and he had the right to a Sonderbehandlung which means…special treatment and ample food.” (30- 8181,8182)
Euphemisms meant, in fact, much more terrible things than they seemed to say, said Faurisson, but to go as far as to say that a word meant “extermination” or “gassing,” which was such a grave accusation, then the historian must have proof. There was nothing which gave historians the right to make such accusations. (30-8182, 8183)
Faurisson found it extraordinary that Dr. Browning, who had written a book about the extermination of the Jews, had never visited a concentration camp or gone to see the alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz, or Majdanek, or Stutthof, or Hartheim. Raul Hilberg had also never been to the camps, except once for a ceremony. Every time Faurisson asked a historian 'Have you seen the place? Please describe it for me?', he received the answer, 'Oh, no, we have testimonies.' (30- 8183, 8184)
“Of course,” said Faurisson, “we have testimony of everything, even of this gas chamber in Ravensbrück, and three people have been condemned to death for this gas chamber of Ravensbrück, which never existed. And Bruno Tesch and [Karl] Weinbacher, they were condemned to death because they were the people [who] fabricated Zyklon…The British said, you could not ignore that Zyklon was used to kill people.” (30-8183, 8184)
In books such as Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas (National Socialist Mass Killings with Poison Gas), the proof given of gassings was a photograph of a box of Zyklon B. Imagine, said Faurisson, if the Germans had won the war and if they had done the same things as the International Military Tribunal did at Nuremberg. They would have said to the Americans, 'You were asphyxiating people using gas chambers. The proof? See those cans of DDT.' It was exactly the same thing. (30-8184)
This reliance on testimonies was brought home to Faurisson from the beginning of his research in 1964. The first day he went to the Centre of Jewish Documentation in Paris that year, he asked to see a photograph of a gas chamber. He was told the archive had many books about the gas chambers (which was false, said Faurisson) and many testimonies and confessions. Continued Faurisson, “I said, yes, but I'm looking for a photo, not two, one. He said, 'But we have testimonies.' I said, 'No, I want a photo', and then he asked to a lady…Mrs. Imbert. He said, 'This gentleman wants a photo of a gas chamber', and the lady automatically said, 'We have testimonies', and he said, 'No, no, not testimony. He want[s] a photo'. 'Okay, sit down', and I waited for sixty minutes, and what they brought to me was, for example, the false gas chamber of Dachau, things like that.” (30-8184, 8185)
In Faurisson’s opinion, on the subject of gas chambers, “We must be material, especially about something so obscure, so difficult to understand…” (30-8185)
Faurisson had also researched the subject of gas vans, although not to the extent that he had researched gas chambers. In all of his work, he had never found one photo of an alleged homicidal gas van, nor any technical plans or documents. When he was sued in France for falsifying history, the Jewish organizations arrayed against him attempted to prove the gas van with “two poor little drawings. I remember the name of the inmate supposed to have make this drawing. His name was Falborsky, and it was absolutely the drawing of a little boy, with a pipe going like this. I asked for something serious…” Faurisson found it typical that Browning published in his book Fateful Months the photograph of an alleged gas van but had no proof that it was such. We should have had, said Faurisson, photographs of the underneath, the inside of and the outside of the van with technical reports. But there was nothing. (30-8186, 8187)
Faurisson believed that it was the vans used for disinfection by the German army that had given birth to the myth of homicidal gas vans. In support of this, Faurisson produced a document from the Federal Military Archives in Freiburg, West Germany. The first page of this German-language document said:
Secret Command Matter. Folder of Pictures. Introduced weapons and equipment. Motor Vehicle Equipment, Communication Equipment, Optical Equipment, Gas Protection Equipment.
The second page of the document contained a photograph of a motor vehicle, and the following words:
Secret Command Matter. Sheet no. G31. Personnel Detoxication Truck. (Motor Vehicle 92) Application: Detoxication of personnel and of the heavy gas clothing of the fog units. Technical Data: Chassis — for 3-ton truck Hot water preparation using a water turbulence brake, powered by vehicle engine, having a capacity of 44,000 kcal/hr. for heating the detoxication tub for heavy gas clothes and for shower water for two shower baths. Water stock carried along: 800 litres. Filling of the water bin by electric floater pump. Gross weight: 9,300 kg.
The second page also contained the photograph of a heavy motorized truck, and the following caption:
Secret Command Matter. Sheet Number G32. Clothes Detoxication Truck 93 (Motor Vehicle 93/1) Application: Allocated to the troop detoxication companies (Tek) for the detoxication of uniforms, leather gear and gas masks using hot air and water steam. Technical Data: Chassis for 3-ton truck Steam of 0.2 atmosphere UE — 50 kg./hr. Air of 120 degrees centigrade — 3,600 cubic metres/hr. Two chambers for 30 uniforms each with 2 cubic metre content. Duration of detoxication: 1-1/2 hours for uniforms (combined steam, hot air process); 12 hours for leather gear (Hot air process) Gross Weight: 9,700 kg.
The third page of the document contained a photograph of another heavy mechanized truck and the following description:
Secret Command Matter. Sheet No. G33. Clothes Detoxication Truck (Motor Vehicle 93/2) Application: Allocated to the troop detoxication companies (Tek) for the detoxication of uniforms, leather gear and gas masks using hot air. Technical Data: Chassis — 4-1/2 ton truck — Bussing Air of 100 degrees Centigrade, 4,000 cubic metres/hr. 1 chamber for 40 uniforms Duration of detoxication: 4 hours for uniforms using hot, fresh and environment air in alternate operation.
(30-8208, 8209; Bundesarchiv gas van documents filed as Exhibit 129 at 31-8523)
Faurisson testified that it was very difficult to detect the origin of any myth, but he believed that the modern German army detoxication vans could make people think that perhaps they were sometimes used to kill Jews or others. He noted that the photograph of the alleged gas van published by Browning in his book Fateful Months had only the simple caption:
Gas Van (2 pictures), taken by Polish photographer after the liberation. -Yad Vashem Archives.
He pointed out further that the documents concerning the detoxication trucks were all marked 'secret'. (30-8209, 8210; Photograph of Gas Van from book Fateful Months filed as Exhibit 130 at 31- 8524, 8525)
Faurisson turned to the subject of Auschwitz and Majdanek and began by quoting Browning’s testimony to the court concerning the camps. Browning admitted that he had never been to Auschwitz, which Faurisson termed the “capital” of the extermination. He was wrong, said Faurisson, when he said that the gas chambers in Auschwitz had been destroyed. The physical evidence was in Auschwitz for the millions of tourists visiting the camp who were shown Krema I and who were told this was a genuine gas chamber in which some 800 people were gassed at a time in about 65 square metres. In fact, said Faurisson, it was never a gas chamber. According to plans which Faurisson found in the Auschwitz Museum, it was a morgue. In June of 1943, the morgue was changed into an air shelter used for surgical operations. The SS hospital was twenty metres away and the room was required in case of bombing. The Germans partitioned it into four or five small rooms with the doors placed in a typical air raid shelter zigzag pattern to block the draft caused by bomb explosions. What visitors to Auschwitz saw today was something else again, said Faurisson. The Poles had removed the inside walls to make it one room again and tourists were told that it had been a gas chamber. Faurisson pointed out that one of the doors of this alleged “gas chamber” had a glass pane which could have been broken quite simply; that would have ended any gassing attempt. ((30-8213, 8214, 8215)
Browning had also testified that Majdanek was the only place where there were original gas chambers. This contradicted his other testimony in which he maintained that the Germans had destroyed the evidence. Faurisson had inspected Majdanek and what was put forward as the gas chambers were in fact disinfection chambers. Immediately after the war, it was the shower room at Majdanek that was represented to be the gas chamber: “I suppose,” said Faurisson, “that they realized that this shower room could not have been a gas chamber for a simple reason. You have windows beginning at this high, I mean the half of my body, so now the disinfection gas chamber[s] are described as gas chamber[s] for killing the people.” The first accusation of the exterminationists made without proof, said Faurisson, was that the Germans gassed people in those places. The second accusation without proof was that the Germans destroyed those places. (30-8215 to 8217)
In Birkenau today the ruins of Kremas II and III were still there but nearly nothing remained of Kremas IV and V. Faurisson did not know who destroyed them. The Auschwitz Museum claimed that the Germans destroyed them just before the Russians arrived. Said Faurisson: “I can only tell you that if I had to destroy proofs of a crime, I wouldn’t proceed as they are supposed to have proceeded because you see very well that dynamite has been put into a kind of sealer and the blocks of cement went like this and went like that. So underneath, you could find any proof if there were any of a gassing facility.” (30-8218)
The Poles at the Auschwitz Museum, said Faurisson, had very naively tried to figure out how the gassings took place and had prepared models of the process which were on public display. These models, in Faurisson’s opinion, showed very easily that it was totally impossible that there were gas chambers in Birkenau. (30 8217)
People were supposed to have arrived in groups of 2,000 and been taken into an underground place called Leichenkeller 2, where they undressed. Then they were supposed to have been gassed in the adjoining Leichenkeller 1 using Zyklon B. After the gassing, the 2,000 bodies had to be taken up to the crematories on the ground floor. There were fifteen ovens to cremate the 2,000 gassed people, and it was impossible, said Faurisson, to cremate more than fifteen people in an hour and a half: “…it means that one hour and a half after, you have still 1,985 people to burn.” One would need another place to put the bodies as there were more people waiting to be gassed: “How could you do it…when you know what is Zyklon B, without being a chemist at all, when you know that it is a gas, an acid which sticks everywhere and especially in the bodies. You cannot get rid of it like that.” (30-8218 to 8221)
Faurisson was the first person to publish the plans for Kremas II and III at Birkenau. He had found small photos of the plans in a binder at the Auschwitz Museum in 1975. Faurisson related the story of how he obtained the plans: he had visited the camp that year and noticed that the crematory retorts in the alleged gas chamber had no soot in them. Faurisson asked a high official at the museum whether the crematories were genuine and was told that they were. When Faurisson pointed out there was no soot in them, the official admitted they were reconstructed. Faurisson said that they must necessarily have used a plan for the reconstruction and demanded to see it. As a result, he was allowed to look at the archives and found the plans, which he asked for. Since he was a professor at the Sorbonne at the time, the museum provided him with copies. (30-8219, 8220)
Faurisson referred to Browning’s testimony where Browning indicated that he had visited no camps in Poland; had visited several camps in Austria, Germany and France simply to see what kind of memorial they had; and had neither conducted nor looked at scientific tests of a gas chamber. Said Faurisson: “…a historian, a specialist of the extermination shouldn’t go like that as if it was a holy place. He must go with a scientific spirit. He must try to see what it is. I cannot understand that this man, who has been on-the-spot, who saw those gas chambers there, didn’t say, 'I should try to investigate at least a little bit'.” In Faurisson’s opinion, Browning should also have been interested in the aerial photographs of Auschwitz released by the CIA. (30-8222, 8223, 8244)
For a long time, said Faurisson, it was claimed that there were gas chambers in Germany and Austria in such places as Dachau, Mauthausen, Hartheim and Struthof-Natzweiler. In the 1983 book National Socialist Mass Killings with Poison Gas, this was still maintained. (30-8224, 8225)
Browning also testified that he had not seen any affidavits to the effect that there were gas chambers in Dachau. But there were such affidavits, said Faurisson. For instance: “…at the International Military Tribunal in 1945 — 1946, Dr. Blaha, director of a Czechoslovakian hospital, swore on the 9th of January, 1946, that there was a gas chamber in Dachau, that it was achieved in 1944, that he examined himself the victims, he made descriptions, talked about golden teeth, said that the insane were gassed and said that he, himself, for this, received his order from an SS called Dr. Rascher…” This affidavit was number PS-3249, found in the IMT “Blue Series", volume 32, pages 56-64. (30-8226)
Browning had mentioned Filip Müller as a witness of the gassings. Müller had testified at the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt which went from 1963 to 1965. Faurisson testified that he had never succeeded in getting the trial transcript, but had studied a book written about the trial by Hermann Langbein who was a survivor of Auschwitz. Langbein wrote that Müller had accused a man named Stark of involvement in the gassings at Auschwitz I but it was proved later that Stark had never been there at the time. As a result of this false accusation, the defence lawyer said that the testimony of Müller could be false from A to Z . (30-8227 to 8229)
Filip Müller in fact never wrote his book, Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers, said Faurisson. It was written by a man named Helmut Freitag: “It’s a kind of novel with a quantity of what I called stupid story and sex orgies. It’s what I call Nazism of sex shop,” he said. This was the book which contained the story of the bucket jumping around with muscles in it and the story of the naked young girls who wanted to kick him out of the gas chamber. It also had the story of the singing in the gas chamber of the Czechoslovakian hymn and the Jewish Hatikvah, which Faurisson indicated was a fraud, in that it was plagiarized from the book Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account, by Miklos Nyiszli. This had been demonstrated clearly by Carlo Mattogno in his book, Plagiarism of Filip Müller. (30-8229, 8232)
Browning testified that the statements of Gerstein were corroborated by a Professor Pfannenstiel. Faurisson testified that Pfannenstiel was in the disinfection business and had trouble after the war. He was put in jail, but in a trial made “a kind of confession” saying that he did not collaborate with Gerstein although he still used the word gas chamber. However, in the files of Paul Rassinier, Faurisson found a letter dated August 3, 1963 from Pfannenstiel in which he told Rassinier that what Gerstein had said was gossip. (30-8233 to 8235)
What Gerstein said, testified Faurisson, was also totally impossible: “For example, when he says in Belzec, you had 700 to 800 people in 25 square metre, 45 cubic metres, and he says that twice. Make the calculation. It means twenty-eight to thirty two people in one square metre with one metre 80 high…And it’s so embarrassing that it’s quite common that the historian, not the case of Dr. Browning, historian like Leon Poliakov — French, Martin Gilbert — English, changed totally the numbers. Instead of putting 25, they put 93, and they suppress the 45 cubic metres because if…they had kept 45 cubic metres, the 93…square metres would have given a room of half a metre so it was impossible, so they suppressed that. They suppressed many, many things. Poliakov did that. And they are…historians.” (30-8235, 8236)
With respect to Browning’s testimony generally, Faurisson said: “I would say that Dr. Browning doesn’t take into account what I call the other side of the story. The other side is what the revisionist[s] have written. He said that he had read Butz and of course this pamphlet. And I maintain that this pamphlet is quite a gook book. Quite a good publication and prophetic, I said, for 1974. [Browning] should have tried to consult the defence counsels of the accused. He is always talking about the Germans. Why didn’t he at least once try to ask his advice to any counsel? For instance, he could have written, as I did, to Dr. Servatius who was the defence lawyer of Eichmann and in the Nuremberg trial, he had been also a defence lawyer. Very interesting…I ask him how is it that you didn’t ask any question about the gas chamber and he said because we decided not to get into that but to say that Eichmann had nothing to do with it. And it’s classical in all those trials, the defence lawyer cannot defend something which looks impossible. It looks impossible to say that the gas chamber did not exist so the tactic of those people, and I can bring proof of that, was not to get into that. Exactly as in the witchcraft trial, when the people were accused of having [met] the devil, they wouldn’t say, 'Your Honour, the best proof that I have not met the devil is that the devil does not exist'; it would have been the end. No. The tactic was to say, 'Oh, yes, the devil was there on the top of the hill. Myself, I was down [at the bottom]…and in Auschwitz it’s exactly the same thing.” The accused would admit the existence of the gas chambers, but deny their involvement with them. (30-8236 to 8238)
Faurisson testified that he was familiar with the work of Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, who published the book The Auschwitz Myth in 1979. Stäglich had been stationed in Auschwitz in an anti-aircraft battalion for three months, and in 1974 wrote that he did not believe the story of Auschwitz. For writing his book, Stäglich, who was a judge, had his doctorate stripped from him under a law enacted by Hitler which was still in force in West Germany. (30-8238)
In his book Stäglich had dealt with the subject of Richard Baer, the third and last commandant of Auschwitz, the first being Höss and the second being Liebehenschel. No confessions were obtained from the last two commandants. Baer died in prison shortly before the beginning of the Auschwitz trial in obscure circumstances. The medical report did not exclude suspicious circumstances. Stäglich wrote that Baer had refused to say that gas chambers existed. The Auschwitz trial began only after Baer’s death. (30-8239, 8243, 8244)
Faurisson had also studied the subject of the financial reparations made by West Germany with respect to the Holocaust. In 1952, the Federal Republic of Germany under Dr. Konrad Adenauer signed a treaty with the state of Israel providing for reparation payments. It was known as the Luxembourg Treaty because the Jews did not want to sign it on German soil, so it was signed in Luxembourg. Under this treaty, reparations were paid to Israel and to the Jews in the Diaspora. According to Raul Hilberg, these payments would be made beyond the year 2,000. This meant, said Faurisson, that “a young man in Germany today pays for that.” 6
Faurisson produced a document published by the German Information Center, 410 Park Ave., New York, New York, in May, 1985, entitled Focus On dealing with “Restitution in Germany” and quoted from a portion headed “Indemnification for Persecution of Persons":
The BEG laws compensate those persecuted for political, racial, religious, or ideological reasons — people who suffered physical injury or loss of freedom, property, income, professional and financial advancement as a result of that persecution. In addition to racial and political victims of the Third Reich, the law includes compensation for artists and scholars whose works disagreed with Nazi tenets. It also provides compensation for people who were persecuted merely because they were related to or friendly with victims of the Nazis. Finally, it guarantees assistance to the survivors of the deceased victims.
The BEG legislation extends far beyond the responsibilities assumed by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Transitional Treaty and in the Luxembourg Agreement. Of 4,393,365 claims submitted under this legislation, between October 1, 1953 and December 31, 1983, 4,390,049 or 99.9 percent had been settled by January 1, 1984. Up to this date, payments equaling DM 56.2 billion had been made. Approximately 40 percent of those receiving compensation live in Israel, 20 percent reside in the Federal Republic of Germany and 40 percent live in other countries. (Focus On filed as Exhibit 131 at 31- 8525, 8526)
Faurisson turned to the subject of the New York Times article on Majdanek, of August 30, 1944, introduced by Browning, said Faurisson, “to show that Richard Harwood was a liar…” Faurisson pointed out that the article claimed that 1.5 million people were killed in Majdanek in three years. Hilberg, however, in both editions of The Destruction of the European Jews, gave the figure of 50,000 Jews killed at the camp. Hilberg didn’t mention others being killed. Said Faurisson: “And I say that this is a kind of rectification done by a historian, Raul Hilberg. We must be careful with what a journalist says, because all this is [is] a report by a journalist of what he was told on the spot…He talks about the shoes in Majdanek. I have been in Majdanek myself…We can see in Majdanek a quantity of shoes, but we do not have any conclusion to take from that because in Majdanek, there was a firm making shoes and also in many camps, all the things [which] had been used were recuperated everywhere in Europe and especially in the camps. So we don’t have any conclusion to draw from the fact that we have heaps of shoes or hair, glasses or anything.” (30-8255, 8257, 8258)
The journalist had stated:
After inspection of Majdanek, I am now prepared to believe any story of German atrocities, no matter how savage, cruel and depraved.
This was a perfect example, said Faurisson, of what people are ready to believe. It was a naive admittance by this journalist. Browning had admitted that there were some things wrong in the story, such as the fact that Zyklon B operates better in dry conditions [than wet, as claimed by the journalist.] (30-8258, 8259) With respect to crematories, Lawrence had written:
Each furnace held five bodies at a time.
We were told it took fifteen minutes to fill each furnace and about ten to twelve minutes for the bodies to burn.
This, said Faurisson, “is preposterous, totally impossible…this article… is pure propaganda from the beginning to the end. My comment of what Dr. Browning did is that I am surprised that a historian would use such a story. It’s pure propaganda and even Soviet propaganda. This is admitted, I think, by Mr. Browning at the end.” Faurisson was surprised that Browning finished his testimony with “an article of the New York Times, by somebody who is a member of one of the country fighting against Germany making this report, which is pure propaganda, normal propaganda in time of wars, but after the war the propaganda should stop and we should check. We should work.” (30-8259, 8260)
Faurisson next began an analysis and criticism of the book Six Million Did Die, which had been written specifically to refute the allegations in Did Six Million Really Die?. The title, said Faurisson, said 6 million died, but Raul Hilberg said 5.1 million died, and Reitlinger said it was something like 4.4 million. If the two latter persons were right, it meant that the title Six Million Did Die was wrong. (30-8261)
Throughout the book, said Faurisson, it was claimed that there was an order from Hitler and a plan to exterminate the Jews. On page 27, the book called “astounding” David Irving’s contention in Hitler’s War that Hitler did not order the liquidation of the European Jews and repeatedly forbade it. Faurisson pointed out that what Crown Attorney Pearson called “the historical community” now accepted that Hitler did not give an order for the extermination of the Jews. The book mentioned the alleged Himmler order to stop the killing of the Jews in 1944. This order, said Faurisson, never existed. On pages 23, 35, 37, 38, 58, 59, 81, 85, 87, 93 of the book, as examples, were mentions of a plan to exterminate the Jews. The words used were: “deliberate matter, a purpose, objective to eliminate the Jewish race, plans were made, deliberation, programme, policy, carried out, deliberately, intentionally and methodically, policy to exterminate, plan of extermination, planned by logical destruction, deliberate extermination, etc.” This alleged plan, said Faurisson, never existed; he pointed out that the evidence the book used was “automatic. Testimony. It’s always testimony.” (30-8261 to 8263)
Faurisson turned to Six Million Did Die’s treatment of the Dachau gas chamber. On page xii of the book, the authors Suzman and Diamond had written:
In particular, the reports of two of the investigating groups provide a detailed description of the Dachau gas chamber — the very existence of which Harwood denies.
On pages 116 and 117 of the book, Suzman and Diamond summarized the findings of a South African Parliamentary report entitled Report on Conditions in Concentration Camps in Germany; Illustrated by Photographs (published by Authority); printed by Cape Times Limited, Cape Town, 1945. Faurisson read from page 117:
The investigators next visited the crematorium. During 1944 the number of deaths had been 4,884 whereas the total for the first four months of 1945 was shown to be 13,000. The daily death roll still stood at about 125.
The Report then describes, in the following terms, the gas chamber, which bore the inscription Brausebad (Shower bath) above the entrance:
“The gas chamber, about 20 feet by 20 feet, bears all the characteristics of an ordinary communal shower room with about fifty shower sprays in the roof, cement ceiling and cement floor. But there is not the usual ventilation, and the sprays squirted poison gas. One noticed that the doors, as well as the small window, were rubber lined and that there was a conveniently situated glass-covered peephole to enable the controller to see when the gas could be turned off. From the lethal chamber a door leads to the crematorium. We inspected the elaborate controls and gas pipes leading into the chamber.
Behind the crematorium there was an execution place for those who had to die by rifle fire; and there were ample signs that this place had been in frequent use.”
On page 122 of Six Million Did Die, the authors included a photograph of a pile of bodies in a room with the caption:
Victims of the Dachau gas chamber lie piled to the ceiling in the crematorium.
On page 127 of the book, Suzman and Diamond quoted the findings concerning Dachau found in the Report of the Joint Committee Representing the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America (reproduced in IMT volume 37 as document 159-L, at pages 605-626), an extract of which Faurisson read to the court:
The Joint Committee then proceeded to the “infamous concentration camp at Dachau", a distinguishing feature of which was the gas chamber, which is described in the following terms:
“The gas chamber was located in the centre of a large room in the crematory building. It was built of concrete. Its dimensions were about 20 by 20 feet and the ceiling was some 10 feet in height. In two opposite walls of the chamber were airtight doors through which condemned prisoners could be taken into the chamber for execution and removed after execution. The supply of gas into the chamber was controlled by means of two valves on one of the outer walls, and beneath the valves was a small glass- covered peep-hole through which the operator could watch the victims die. The gas was let into the chamber through pipes terminating in perforated brass fixtures set into the ceiling. The chamber was of size sufficient to execute probably a hundred men at one time.
The room in which the gas chamber stood was flanked on both ends by ware-rooms in which the bodies were placed after execution to await cremation. The size of each room was approximately 30 by 50 feet. At the time we visited the camp these ware rooms were piled high with dead bodies. In one of the rooms the bodies were thrown in an irregular heap. In the other room they were neatly stacked like cordwood. The irregular pile of bodies was perhaps 10 feet high, covering most of the floor space. All of them were naked.
It was quite evident that the daily death rate at Dachau, by execution and otherwise, far exceeded the daily capacity of the crematory to dispose of the bodies. The stench indicated that some of them had been there for several days…”
Faurisson testified that he had been to Dachau and visited the alleged 'gas chamber' and crematory. While there, he took a photograph of a sign situated on a moveable stand inside the so-called 'gas chamber'. The sign said: “Gas Chamber Disguised As A Shower Room — Never Used.” He had been told that today the sign said: “[Gas Chamber] Disguised As A Shower Room — Never Used As A Gas Chamber.” (30 8268)
Faurisson entered into a correspondence with the authorities at the Dachau Museum, Mrs. Ruth Jakusch and Mrs. Barbara Distel, and also with the International Committee of the Former Inmates of Dachau in Brussels, asking them this question: “I said, why do you call this place a 'gas chamber' and what is the story of this 'gas chamber'? And the story that we have to accept is this: The German began the construction of this place, called 'gas chamber', in 1942, but in 1945, they had not finished this little room because the inmates forbid them to finish their construction, so it is a gas chamber which is not finished and that’s why it has not been used…And my question was, 'How could you say that this is a gas chamber…which is supposed not to be finished? What is lacking? Tell me what we need to have a gas chamber finished and could you show me an expert report because myself I do not understand.' But the tourists they do not do that and the photographers, because we have many films in which we see the false gas chambers … but they take off the mobile board and they made their photo of this place.”
Faurisson believed there was never any gas chamber in Dachau and the room now represented as such had simply been a shower room as the inscription above the door indicated. (30-8269 to 8272) Suzman and Diamond’s caption under the photograph of the pile of bodies — “Victims of the Dachau gas chamber lie piled to the ceiling in the crematorium” — was therefore false since no one was gassed at Dachau. In Faurisson’s opinion, this was a seriously misleading statement. (30-8269, 8270)
Faurisson pointed out that some 1,500 Dachau inmates died while in the hands of the American liberators in 1945, while the total number of deaths in the camp in 1943 was 1,100. (30- 8270)
Faurisson turned next to pages xiii and xiv of Six Million Did Die, in which the authors expressed appreciation to various people for their help in writing the book. Among the names were Professor Raul Hilberg, Dr. Nahum Goldmann (President of the World Jewish Congress) and Dr. A. Rückerl (of the Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen at Ludwigsburg) who was in charge of the investigation of Nazi war crimes in Germany.
Said Faurisson, “…I remember that when I brought this book to Ernst Zündel, in 1985, he was very surprised. He said how is it that there are so many, I think, big shots, big names against a booklet which is supposed to be so poor and he wanted to make a photocopy of this book. I said no, don’t do it. It’s trash. You don’t need it but he did it. What I mean is that we have so many big names who took the responsibility of publishing this book, saying 6 million, saying an order, saying a plan, saying Anne Frank diary is authentic, saying there was a gas chamber and gassings in Dachau…” (30-8274)
April 14, 1988
Faurisson produced and filed with the court a true copy of a plan of a crematorium in Birkenau, which according to a letter of 29 November 1977, sent to him by the Auschwitz Museum, was Plan Number 934 of 27 January 1942, negative 6228. Faurisson had received the plan in 1976 or perhaps even in 1975. (30-8283 to 8285; Plan of Crematorium in Birkenau filed as Exhibit 123 at 30-8285)
He also produced and filed with the court a true copy of a plan of Krema II in Birkenau, which Faurisson had been the first person to publish. Showing this plan to the jury, Faurisson explained how the alleged gassing procedure took place. The victims, said Faurisson, allegedly entered a room designated as Leichenkeller II on the plan (meaning in English 'a cellar for cadavers') for the purpose of undressing. They were then supposed to go through a small corridor into Leichenkeller I where they were gassed. Then the people of the Sonderkommando would take the bodies out and put them on an elevator to bring them up to a room which contained five crematory ovens, each of which had three retorts (openings in which to place the body). (30-8286 to 8288; Plan of Krema II in Birkenau filed as Exhibit 124 at 30-8296)
Faurisson discussed the plans with Zündel in 1979 in Los Angeles at the first convention of the Institute for Historical Review. Faurisson told him that prior to the discovery of this plan, it was not known that the real name of the two underground rooms was Leichenkeller. (30-8287, 8289)
Faurisson pointed out that there were many material impossibilities with this alleged gassing theory. According to the building plan, the Leichenkeller was 7 metres wide and 30 metres long, yet 2,000 people were supposed to have entered it at one time to be gassed. How often they were supposed to have entered was never set out precisely: “…when they say, for instance, that there were 10,000 people killed by day or gassed by day, you must divide that, perhaps, with the other crematoriums. It’s very difficult to say.” Neither Raul Hilberg nor other historians were precise about this point. However, the Auschwitz Museum claimed the number of 2,000 in its publications. Said Faurisson: “And Höss, in his confessions, said without locating really the place where it was supposed to happen, said that the gas chamber could accommodate 3,000 people but never had more than 2,000.” (30-8290 to 8292)
There were fifteen retorts in Krema II and if 2,000 people were gassed, said Faurisson, and it took one hour and a half to burn one body, then it meant that after an hour and a half a maximum of fifteen bodies had been cremated, leaving 1,985 bodies to be burned. Faurisson had calculated that it would have taken about eight days and eight nights to burn all 2,000 bodies. During this time, he asked, where would they have put the bodies so that the next batch of victims could be gassed? (30-8292)
Höss had said that the crew of the Sonder-kommando went into the gas chamber immediately after the gassing and the switching off of the ventilation to take the bodies out. He described them as performing this job negligently, even smoking and eating as they did it. Faurisson had studied the technicalities of Zyklon B, however, and found that it was very difficult to ventilate since, according to its manufacturer, it adhered strongly to surfaces. This could be found in Nuremberg document NI-9098. Said Faurisson: “It’s a very dangerous gas, so I don’t see how some people could enter this place without gas mask because they were eating or smoking and how they could have dragged out all those bodies.” (30-8293, 8294)
Faurisson told Zündel that he believed Leichenkeller I and II were classical morgues. They were there because of the typhus in Auschwitz, especially in the summer of 1942. Krema II and the other crematories at Birkenau were built in early 1943. Faurisson had found proof that the Auschwitz authorities asked for the construction of the crematories. The contracting firm answered in twelve days indicating that they were ready to build them. The plans were not hidden by the Germans; in Auschwitz, they were in fact very proud of the buildings.
Faurisson had also found at the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz plans of a Leichenkeller in the camp of Sachsenhausen which could hold 200 bodies. He believed this was “rather common because a crematorium must have as much places as possible in case of epidemics or catastrophe.” (30-8295, 8296)
Faurisson produced a second plan showing Krema III at Birkenau which he had obtained at the Auschwitz Museum in either 1975 or 1976. The plan was more detailed in its depiction of the ovens than the first plan. Krema III was the mirror image of Krema II, and had one chimney 7 metres high above the roof. (30-8297, 8298; Plan of Krema III filed as Exhibit 125 at 30-8300)
These plans had been published by other people since Faurisson first published them in August of 1979. One of the plans was on display in Pavilion No. 4 at Auschwitz but was difficult to see. Prior to that time, however, Faurisson testified he had never seen the plans published anywhere, and that, indeed, he had had some difficulty obtaining them: “…the difficult thing [at] the Auschwitz Museum is that there is no real classification of the archives and you must ask some things specific and it’s very difficult sometimes to open a document because they say they have to ask permission or they are going to answer a letter or etc.” (30-8298 to 8300)
Zündel had an interest in the plans and he and Faurisson decided they would try to get more information specifically about the crematories. (30-8301)
Faurisson next produced two plans of the camp at Birkenau. The first plan came from the book KL Auschwitz, Photographic Documents, published in Warsaw in 1980 by the Krajawa Agencja Wydawnicza; the second plan came from the book The Auschwitz Album, by Serge Klarsfeld and Jean-Claude Pressac, published in France in 1983 and two American editions in the early eighties. (30-8302; Two plans of Birkenau filed as Exhibit 126 at 30-8306)
Faurisson testified that the photographs contained in The Auschwitz Album gave a “good idea” of what happened to people as they arrived by train at Birkenau. Using the plan of the camp to point out the locations to the jury, Faurisson explained that he believed the prisoners were separated upon arrival into two groups: men in one group and women and children in the other. After separation, the group of women and children moved off to the left onto a road which passed between Kremas II and III which led to the large sauna building at the top of the camp for delousing. The men took a road to the right which also led to the sauna and which passed between Kremas IV and V. Faurisson could not answer why the two groups would take different routes, but he speculated that it was because there were different entrances into the sauna and it would maintain separation of the groups from the beginning. There had never been any allegation that the sauna building was used for gassing. (30-8303, 8304)
There were no photographs of any people going into Kremas II or III in The Auschwitz Album. What photographs there were showed the women and children proceeding on their way past the crematories. To make the reader believe that the people were in fact stopped at the crematories to be gassed and burned, the authors had played a “trick” on the reader, said Faurisson, by eliminating from the plan of Birkenau in two places the road that led from the crematories to the sauna building. All the plans of Birkenau which the Poles published showed the road, such as the plan of Birkenau published in the KL Auschwitz book. Faurisson had compared this plan with other plans of Birkenau shown to him by Mr. Tadeusz Iwaszko, the director of the archives at Auschwitz Museum. All of them were the same. In his opinion, the plan in KL Auschwitz reflected what had been the real layout of the roads at Birkenau. (30-8304 to 8309)
Faurisson testified that the authors had played other tricks with the plan. Said Faurisson: “For example, this place on some, at least, Polish original plans…is designated as a sport place, a place where the inmates would play soccer and there you had the hospital with something like seventeen barracks. To hide this fact, they put in the French edition…Secteur Hospital. They write it down there on the left of the plan. In fact they should have said that it was a soccer field and it’s strange that in those places, Krematorium II and Krematorium III, people were supposed to be gassed by thousands and thousands quite close to a soccer field and quite close to a hospital.” (30- 8307)
Faurisson returned to an analysis of the book Six Million Did Die. Faurisson pointed out that the Foreword to a book with this title was written by Dr. Nahum Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, yet Goldmann did not say “6 million” Jews died. Instead, he referred to “millions of Jews.” (30-8310)
On page 5 of the book, the authors listed the “spurious attack” on the authenticity of the Anne Frank diary as one of the falsehoods contained in Did Six Million Really Die?. Faurisson indicated that Six Million Did Die was written in 1978 and that since 1980, with the forensic results of the Wiesbaden examination, “…we may have serious reason to doubt about the authenticity [of] the diary of Anne Frank. So those attack[s] were perhaps not spurious…I think that the people who doubted…the authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank were right.” Faurisson pointed to the sample of Frank’s handwriting on page 15 of the book and testified that he believed the adult-like writing to be that of her father. (30-8310, 8311)
On page 16 of Six Million Did Die, the authors quoted from the book Under Two Dictators by Margarete Buber where she said at page 208:
In the winter of 1941-2 the extermination of prisoners by gas began in Ravensbrueck.
Faurisson testified that no reputable historian today maintained that there were gas chambers at Ravensbrück. Raul Hilberg did not mention any gas chambers at that camp. But Suzman and Diamond had quoted Buber’s statement as if it was the truth, said Faurisson, to give “…a kind of notion there were [gas] chambers in Ravensbrück. The reader of Six Million Did Die can only conclude that there were gas chambers in Ravensbrück, which is wrong.” (30-8313, 8314)
Faurisson had examined Buber’s book and found a clear indication that she herself knew that there were no gas chambers at the camp. This passage was never referred to in Six Million Did Die. On page 304 of her book she had written:
I don’t know to this day whether there was a gas chamber in Ravensbrueck or whether the women had been despatched in the mobile gas chambers which were available for such purposes.
Suzman and Diamond had also criticised Richard Harwood for his “usual technique of selective quotation” by allegedly distorting a quote of Colin Cross to support his contention that it was unlikely that the Germans would have conveyed millions of Jews around Europe at the height of the war. Faurisson did not agree with this criticism: “Harwood was quite right to quote Colin Cross as he did. It was not a selective quotation. Of course when…I quote an exterminationist, I take sometimes one sentence, two sentence[s] and I don’t say every time, 'But you must know that this man believed in the extermination of the Jews'…If I quote, for instance, Raul Hilberg, I am not going to say, 'But remember, Raul Hilberg himself believed in the extermination of the Jews'. I'm not going to do that every time.” (30-8318, 8319)
On pages 18 and 19 of Six Million Did Die, the authors referred to the film, “Nazi Concentration Camps,” shown at the Nuremberg trial and films of German atrocities shown at the Eichmann trial. Two photographs from Belsen concentration camp, one of them showing a bulldozer pushing a pile of bodies, and the other showing Germans throwing bodies into a mass grave, were reproduced. Faurisson testified that at Nuremberg, the film “had a terrible impact on the accused. We know that by the psychologist of the prison. His name was Gilbert and this film was projected on the 29th of November 1945. My remark is only this one: in fact, we know that this film had something like 80,000 feet and they took for the Nuremberg trial only 6,000…We know that by the document PS-2430, Exhibit U.S.A. 79.” (30-8319, 8320)
Faurisson also commented on the two Belsen photographs reproduced in the book: “This photo and the other one underneath are horrible photos showing Jews of Bergen-Belsen at the liberation. We see a Caterpillar pushing bodies and we see SS women throwing bodies into a grave…What is wrong is that the reader, I mean the layman is going…to think that the German[s]…were every day throwing bodies like that, pushing them with Caterpillar cynically, but if the photo had not been cut on the top, we would see that the driver of the Caterpillar is a British soldier…[At] the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, the British took out of the graves many bodies to count them and then they were re-put into graves. And there were also many bodies like that not in graves…so, they had to put them together into graves.” The photograph of the SS women with the bodies was taken after the liberation of the camp, said Faurisson, when the British forced the women to handle the bodies. There was no indication in the book, however, that these were the circumstances under which the photographs were taken. (30-8320 to 8322)
Faurisson had read Dr. Russell Barton’s report on his experiences at the liberation of Belsen, and believed it to be true. The photographs of Belsen in Six Million Did Die might be proof to a layman reader, said Faurisson, that the extermination plan constantly alleged by the book was actually true. “I know,” he said, “that …at the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, when the people saw all those horrible photos, it’s a fact that they thought, 'Oh, there we are, we have a proof that Hitler exterminated the people.'” (30-8321, 8322)
On page 21 of Six Million Did Die, the authors wrote the following about Raul Rassinier under the heading “Use of Spurious Authorities":
The principal authority relied upon by Harwood is Paul Rassinier.
Rassinier, though originally a member of the French Resistance and a one-time inmate of a concentration camp, subsequently published various booklets in which he contended, inter alia, that the Nazi “Final Solution” did not mean the extermination of European Jewry and cynically suggested that the use of gas chambers and the systematic extermination of prisoners was only the work of “one or two foolish Nazi zealots and concentration camp administrators anxious to please them".
In 1964 M. Bernard Lecache, the Director of Le Droit de Vivre, the organ of the International League Against Racialism and Anti-Semitism, published an article alleging that Rassinier had made common cause with the neo-Nazis.
Rassinier instituted an action for defamation. The Court held that the defendant had proved that Rassinier had in fact “made common cause with his now neo-Nazis friends", dismissed the claim and ordered Rassinier to bear the costs.
Said Faurisson: “My comment about that is that Paul Rassinier, yes, sued those people. He…had been a deportee, a real resister in France. He had been arrested by the Gestapo, had been tortured, had been deported to Buchenwald and to Dora, and he came back in an awful state of health, and he decided to write a book about his experience…[I]n his book, he talks, I think very eloquently, about the horror of those concentration camps, but at the same time, he says even if you suffer so much, you have no right to lie and we must make a distinction between truth and lie in what happened in those camps. He said that we should not do as Ulysses, the hero of Homer, who suffered very much..[W]hen he came back home, instead of telling what he had suffered…he multiplied them and he said extraordinary stories. Paul Rassinier said we must try to be accurate…[R]ight at the beginning, he had a doubt about the gas chambers. Only doubts at the beginning. And more and more he discovered that there were testimonies about the gas chamber in Buchenwald where he had been. He gave the name, he gave the text and he said this is not true and he had doubt for the other camps and for the other testimonies. So that’s why at the beginning he said that maybe one or two foolish Nazi zealot concentration camp administrators anxious to please them used gas chamber. That was a hypothesis at the beginning. It is quite true that he sued those who treated him as Nazi and it is true that he lost his suit and he had to pay,…but what does it mean? What does it prove? He was accused of doing the job of the Nazi, of being for the Nazi, but myself, thirty years after, I have been accused of being for the Nazis and the best proof for the people was I did not believe in the gas chamber and there was even one judgment where it was said that although I could be right about the gas chamber, I…could appear as somebody who had sympathy for the Nazi, which is absolutely not my case. But it is systematic. Everyone who has doubts about the gas chambers or the extermination is considered as a Nazi and the fact that he lost a lawsuit doesn’t mean anything for me.” (30-8323 to 8325)
On page 21 of Six Million Did Die, the authors had written:
Apart from a host of obscure pamphleteers who find no place in any recognised bibliography on the subject, Harwood quotes as authoritative, the thoroughly discredited Senator Joseph McCarthy, one Harry Elmer Barnes, the translator of Rassinier, and such like.
Faurisson testified that he did not understand why Suzman and Diamond referred to Barnes as “one Harry Elmer Barnes.” Barnes, said Faurisson, was a very well known American historian who had an international reputation. The sentence indicated that the authors despised Barnes: “…I think that nobody would like to find his name after 'the thoroughly discredited Senator Joseph McCarthy'…(30-8326 to 8328)
To verify that Barnes was a prestigious historian, Faurisson read an article which appeared on his death, in the August 28, 1968 edition of the New York Times. In Faurisson’s opinion, Barnes was “a very courageous man and…the end of his life was very difficult because he made a scene. He became revisionist which is very grave.” ((30-8330 to 8336)
In “The Public Stake in Revisionism,” an article published in Rampart Journal (summer of 1967), page 36, Barnes had written:
An attempt to make a competent, objective and truthful investigation of the extermination question is now regarded as far more objectionable and deplorable than Professor Bemis viewed charging Roosevelt with war responsibility. It is surely the most precarious venture that an historian or demographer could undertake today.
Faurisson testified that he had recently heard that revisionism could be considered the big intellectual adventure of the end of the twentieth century and he was pleased that Barnes had used the word 'venture' to describe it. (30-8336)
Page 22 of Six Million Did Die dealt with the book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Dr. Arthur Butz:
Butz offers the following peculiar comment on Harwood’s booklet: “It is quite good in convincing power, although it has some weak points", a comment which reflects as much on Butz himself as it does on Harwood.
Faurisson agreed with Butz’s opinion of the booklet: “It’s quite good in convincing power because it brings so many good arguments, so many things which…were new at that time and that’s why I say that this book, I mean this Did Six Million Really Die? was really prophetic in 1974…” Faurisson noted that Suzman and Diamond were “very prudent” in their attempt to criticize Butz. He continued: “The man and his book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, are so remarkable that it is extremely difficult to attack Butz. Even in France, Pierre Vidal-Naquet said about my work that it was really nothing, but that Butz was very dangerous…What is important is the fact that those two people [Suzman and Diamond] tried to criticize Butz, but what they say is [materially] inconsistent. There is nothing in it. Words but no arguments, no reason and I would like to give an idea of what is Butz, in fact. Is it possible?"7
Faurisson testified that he knew Butz personally and had seen him in the company of Zündel in 1979 in Los Angeles, where both Butz and Faurisson had given lectures. Faurisson remembered that Zündel attended every lecture at the conference. Faurisson and Zündel had discussed Butz’s book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which had been published in 1975 and which Faurisson knew Zündel had read and understood. (30-8337 to 8340)
Faurisson testified that on page 29 of Six Million Did Die, the Nuremberg trials were presented as being fair. To Faurisson, another opinion was “quite possible, especially when we [look at] Article 19 and 21 of this International Military Tribunal. Article 19: 'The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence'. Article 21: 'The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof.' I would say about that that…the International Military Tribunal didn’t even try to prove the existence of any gas chamber. There was a kind of implicit judicial notice of the existence of the gas chamber. And it says, 'The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge', which is really difficult to define — what is 'common knowledge'. And there was no appeal and the documents were chosen by the prosecution. I wouldn’t have liked to be judged by such [a] tribunal.” (30- 8348, 8349)
On page 31 of Six Million Did Die, Faurisson read a portion of a chapter dealing with torture in the Nuremberg trials:
Harwood further alleges that the spurious testimony in support of the myth of the Six Million was invariably given by former German officers who had been subjected to torture or assured of leniency. (p. 13, col. 1)
These scurrilous allegations are repudiated by two Counsel of great eminence, intimately involved in the Nuremberg Trial, namely Lord Shawcross, then Attorney-General for Great Britain and Chief Counsel for the Prosecution for the United Kingdom, and The Lord Elwyn-Jones, the present Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and one of the Counsel for the Prosecution for the United Kingdom.
Said Faurisson: “My comment is [that] I am not surprised that prosecutors would repudiate that there were tortures. They were, as it is said naively, there intimately involved in the Nuremberg trial…in my opinion, it is clear that there were tortures and I would like to give the name of the people that I think were tortured. Those people are Franz Ziereis…commandant of Mauthausen, and we know by [the] official report of Hans Marsalek…that he was interrogated during something like six hours having in his body three bullets and he died…[This] is what is called the confession of Franz Ziereis. This is not the torture in the general meaning of the word, but this is a kind of torture and even in the Mauthausen Museum today we have a photo showing Franz Ziereis, on a kind of bed, people are around him and there was an American general, I think his name was Seibel…who was present and other people…I would give Rudolf Höss, Hans Fritzsche, Josef Kramer…”
With respect to Josef Kramer, Faurisson testified that a French doctor, Dr. Fréjafon, in a book on Bergen-Belsen, stated that Kramer was beaten by the British and put into a refrigeration room for a night. Faurisson was not surprised that Kramer said there was no gas chamber in his first affidavit but said there was in his second affidavit. Faurisson testified this statement related to Auschwitz and to Struthof Natzweiler. For the latter camp, Kramer gave two totally different 'confessions' regarding the alleged gassings. Faurisson had found these documents in the archives of the French military police in Paris. (30-8351, 8352)
Fritz Sauckel (the German labour minister) was threatened with his family of about ten children being turned over to the Soviets, said Faurisson.8 Julius Streicher had complained before the International Military Tribunal about the way he had been treated, and the tortures, but this was later stricken from the record of the Tribunal by its own decision. His complaints were only known today because they were reported in an article which appeared at the time in The Times, a British newspaper.9 (30-8352, 8353)
Faurisson pointed out various places in Six Million Did Die where it alleged a “Nazi policy of extermination” (p. 31); “Mass murder — millions put to death in cold blood as a deliberate matter of State policy” (p. 35); “The evidence presented at the Nuremberg trial relating to the planned extermination of European Jewry” (p. 35): all of which allegations were made without proof. Today, said Faurisson, there was a dispute about whether there was a plan and more and more historians now believed that there was no plan. (30-8353, 8354)
On page 36 of Six Million Did Die, the authors reproduced parts of United States prosecutor Robert Jackson’s opening address in the Nuremberg trial, in which he alleged:
“The conspiracy or common plan to exterminate the Jews was so methodically and thoroughly pursued, that despite the German defeat and Nazi prostration this Nazi aim largely has succeeded…As the German frontiers were expanded by war, so the campaign against the Jews expanded. The Nazi plan never was limited to extermination in Germany; always it contemplated extinguishing the Jew in Europe and often in the world…”
Again, testified Faurisson, there was no proof for the allegation of a plan. Nowhere in the book did the authors, Suzman and Diamond, indicate that the views expressed by Jackson and others at that time were no longer universally held by historians. (30-8355, 8356, 8360)
On page 38 of the book, the authors quoted the judgment of the International Military Tribunal given on October 1, 1946, where the Tribunal found:
“…In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the 'final solution' of the Jewish question in all of Europe. This 'final solution' meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy.”
Faurisson testified that this statement was “totally wrong. There is absolutely no proof of that and I don’t think that I have ever seen a historian even to say exactly this kind of accusation that the German said we are going to ask Eichmann to exterminate the Jews and for that, we are going to create a special section…” (30-8361)
On page 39, the authors again quoted the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Stroop Report:
“The planned and systematic character of the Jewish persecutions is best illustrated by the original report of SS Brigadier-General Stroop, who was in charge of the destruction of the Ghetto in Warsaw, which took place in 1943…”
In his report entitled “The Jewish Ghetto in Warsaw no longer exists", Stroop recorded that his action had eliminated “a proved total of 56,065 people. To that we have to add the number of those killed through blasting, fire, etc., which cannot be counted.”
Stroop never said this, said Faurisson, and even Raul Hilberg, on page 326 of The Destruction of the European Jews, said that 56,065 Jews surrendered. He did not say “eliminated” which in the context given in the Nuremberg judgment meant killed or executed. (30-8362)
On page 39, the authors of the book referred to the German engineer Hermann Graebe. Faurisson indicated that Graebe was quoted often; he had testified on about 147 occasions. “…[We] have every reason to think that Hermann Graebe was a false witness,” said Faurisson, “and, discovered by the German justice as a false witness, [was] sued for false testimony. He left Germany and went to San Francisco and never accepted to go back to Germany to answer to the accusations of the German justice.” Faurisson was sorry that he had not brought his files on Graebe, but indicated that he had not expected he would have to deal with the book Six Million Did Die. (30-8362, 8363)
Faurisson returned to Six Million Did Die and read from page 39 where the authors reproduced a portion of Auschwitz Commandant Höss’s testimony:
“We had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit to work were sent into the camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work…”
Said Faurisson: “I would like to make a remark about children of tender years were invariably exterminated. This is…simply false. We have many proof that children even were born in Auschwitz…” (30-8364) As proof, Faurisson produced the book Anthology, published by the International Committee of Auschwitz in Poland in 1969 and read his translation of an extract from a report by a midwife in Auschwitz [Vol. II, Pt. 2, p. 159 to 169 of the French edition]:
I worked under these conditions for two years day and night without somebody to replace me…The women gave childbirth on the heating pipes. I delivered in this manner more than 3,000 babies. In spite of the dreadful dirtiness, the vermin and the rats, in spite of the infectious diseases and other horrors beyond description, extraordinary things occurred there which are unbelievable but true. One day, the camp doctor asked me to submit a report to him concerning the infections attracted by the pregnant women, the mortality against mothers and infants, sucklings. I reported to him that I had not one single case of death either with the mothers or newborn babies. The camp doctor looked at me with incredulous eyes and informed me that even in the best maternal wards in Germany, they could not boast of such results. His eyes were full of rage and hatred. Why indeed had there been no mortality at all? Perhaps because the organisms were destroyed to such an extent that they constituted a sterilized, a barren substance for the microbes.
The Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau [Calendar of Auschwitz] published by the Auschwitz Museum10, indicated that children born in the camp were listed and given numbers. These children were Jews and gypsies. There was an association in the United States called the Candles Association for the twins of Auschwitz. In 1982, there were about 108 members. There were also medical studies on what the Auschwitz Museum called the children of Auschwitz, meaning both children born in the camp and people who were children when they came to the camp. (30-8366, 8367)
On page 31 of Anthology there were results of psychiatric examinations of persons born or interned as children in Nazi concentration camps. On page 48 the book stated:
The most advanced symptoms were observed with the children who had spent more than two or even three years at Auschwitz.
Faurisson pointed out that on the end pages of Six Million Did Die was a photograph of children at Auschwitz who had not been killed: “…it’s a rather well known photograph because it’s from a film taken by the Soviet[s] and the Poles at…the liberation of Auschwitz on the 27th of January, 1945. And we see those children getting out of the camp and there we are. It’s [a contradiction] with[in] the content of the book itself. Of course, it’s terrible to keep children in a concentration camp. Why would you put children in a concentration camp?…In my opinion, it’s because the German did, as so many people on earth, when they decided to put, for instance, the Jews in…concentration camps, they put the parents and also the children and we have children which are very well known today who were in those camps and especially in Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau. We know, for instance, that at the end of the war in Buchenwald, there is a book about those children, something like 1,000 Jewish children were in Buchenwald coming from Auschwitz.” (30-8367, 8368)
Suzman and Diamond nowhere qualified the statement in their book that children of tender years were invariably exterminated. At the time they published the book, the Soviet film of the children in Auschwitz was shown to tourists visiting the Auschwitz Museum. Faurisson himself had seen it. (30-8369)
Faurisson indicated that shortly before the liberation of Auschwitz by the Soviets, the Germans moved most of the prisoners to the west on the 18th of January, 1945. They left behind about 8,500 people: those who were too sick or feeble and who were not able to go by foot to the west. The photograph of the children in Auschwitz, taken upon liberation on January 27, 1945, showed some of those left behind. Suzman and Diamond did not identify the photograph of the children as being children liberated from Auschwitz; the caption simply said “Liberation.” This was important, said Faurisson, because the reader, having been previously informed by the authors that in Auschwitz all children were exterminated, would think that this must be a photograph of some other camp, like Buchenwald. (30-8371 to 8373)
On page 41, Suzman and Diamond listed various trials by Allied military tribunals which involved, they alleged, the systematic mass killing of Jews. Faurisson noted that one of these trials was the “Zyklon B Case” (held before the British Military Court at Nuremberg March 1 — 8, 1946). Suzman and Diamond wrote concerning this case:
The whole gassing procedure at Auschwitz was described in detail by German eye witnesses.
Two of the three accused were sentenced to death and hanged.
Faurisson testified that the two accused who were hanged were Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher; both of these men had denied that they knew anything about the use of Zyklon B to kill people. The court nevertheless held that they could not ignore that Zyklon B was used to kill people and the two men were hanged. In Faurisson’s opinion, the gassing procedure was not described in detail by the German eyewitnesses as alleged by Suzman and Diamond. He continued: “I think that in any of those trial, we found at any time witnesses, German or not German, to say that there were gassings, and even in Buchenwald and in Dachau…” (30-8374 to 8376)
A second trial listed was that of Rudolf Höss, commandant of Auschwitz, held before the Supreme National Military Tribunal of Poland, March 11 — 29, 1947 (vol. VII, case no. 38, pp. 11-26), in which, Suzman and Diamond alleged at page 42:
The charges included responsibility for the death, inter alia, of about 300,000 registered camp inmates and about 4 million people, mainly Jews, brought to the camp from different European countries to be killed upon their arrival and therefore not included in the register of the camp inmates.
Faurisson testified that Höss was hanged in April of 1947 but the text of his “confessions” was not published for eleven years thereafter, in the book Commandant of Auschwitz. It was strange, said Faurisson, that the Germans would wait eleven years to publish this document after receiving it from the Poles. Furthermore, the figures of 4 million and 300,000 given by Suzman and Diamond as the number of deaths at Auschwitz were, in Faurisson’s opinion, “fantastic exaggerations” which no historian would support today. (30-8377)
The authors mentioned Raul Hilberg many times in the book, said Faurisson. Hilberg published in the 1961 edition of his book that 1 million Jews died in Auschwitz. Nowhere in Six Million Did Die did the authors inform the reader that the Nuremberg figures of 4 million and 300,000 had subsequently been corrected by persons such as Hilberg. (30-8378 to 8382)
On page 44 of Six Million Did Die, the authors dealt with the British libel case of Dering v. Uris. Faurisson read an excerpt to the jury:
Striking confirmation of the inhumane medical experiments carried out upon Jewish inmates of Auschwitz was afforded by a Civil Case, Dering vs. Uris and Others, which came before the Queen’s Bench Division in England in April 1964 before Mr. Justice Lawton and a jury. The Plaintiff alleged that he had been libelled in the book Exodus by Leon Uris by a statement relating to certain medical experiments alleged to have been performed by the Plaintiff upon inmates of Auschwitz.
The jury awarded the Plaintiff a ha'penny damages.
In the course of the case, evidence was given by numerous witnesses, male and female, of ghastly sterilisation operations which had been performed upon them. These experiments had been recorded in detail in a theatre register of surgical operations which was put in evidence at the trial — a mute witness of the atrocities.
Mr. Justice Lawton commenced his summing up to the Jury with the following remarks:
“You and I have sat in this court now for three and a half weeks and we have had to listen to evidence revealing one, and it is only one, facet of what future generations will probably come to describe as the greatest crime that has ever been committed. I have been a student of history all my life, and I cannot think of any crime that begins to compare with the crime of Auschwitz.”
In a Foreword to Auschwitz in England, Lord Denning writes:
“While the trial was in progress, many thought: 'All this is too horrible. Let us turn over this page of history and forget it.' Yet the truth should be made known, if only to show how at one time a civilised country reverted to barbarism, and thus remind us of the perils that are not far away.”
Said Faurisson: “My comment would be this one. I have read in the 1960s the book Auschwitz in England. If my memory is good, Dering…was a surgeon in Auschwitz. He was actually not a German but a Pole, and he was accused by Uris of having operated without anaesthesia, 17,000 women. This was the precise accusation which is not reported there. It should be. And Dering lodged a complaint against Uris, and if I remember, the trial was on the Queen’s Bench 7…” (30-8384)
Faurisson testified that they managed to obtain from the Auschwitz Museum the register of the surgical operations. The Germans had put everything in writing, and the surgical operations were marked in Latin; for example, many operations had the notation casus explorativus, meaning that it was an operation to try to find what was wrong. The register contained the name of the inmate, his number, the date, and the signature of the surgeon. We had to realize, said Faurisson, that when there was one natural death in Auschwitz, twenty-one signatures were required on various documents. When there was an unnatural death, such as a suicide, more than thirty signatures were required. This information could be found in the Anthology of Auschwitz published by the International Committee of Auschwitz. Without the Auschwitz register, said Faurisson, Dering would never have been able to defend himself against the charges. (30-8384, 8385, 8389)
The accusation dropped from 17,000 improper procedures to 130, then to perhaps five people who had been operated on in an improper way. “They discovered,” said Faurisson, “that those operations had not been done without anaesthesia, but with a kind of anaesthesia [which] was recent at that time…Rachi anaesthesia…It is a partial anaesthesia.” Faurisson obtained this information from the book written about the trial, Auschwitz in England, by two British lawyers. (30-8386)
In the end, it was found that Dering had been perhaps wrong for one or two people, and he won the suit. The jury awarded Dering a halfpenny in damages but the judge ordered that Dering pay the costs of the entire trial. Dering said at the end, 'My honour is saved, but financially I am ruined'. He died about two years later of cancer. (30-8387)
Leon Uris subsequently wrote his book QB 7 (Queen’s Bench 7), a “kind of theatre play about the trial itself,” said Faurisson. Uris invented the story of the son of Dering (but not using Dering’s name) attending the trial of his father and being ashamed to discover what kind of father he had. (30-8387)
The case was interesting, said Faurisson, because it was clear that, at the beginning, everyone was ready to believe that it was possible to do such things to 17,000 people in Auschwitz. Faurisson noted that nowhere in Six Million Did Die was information given about the specific accusation against Dering or the evidence at the trial. (30 8388)
On page 44 of Six Million Did Die the authors wrote the following about the trial of Franz Stangl:
On 22nd December 1970, Franz Stangl, the notorious Kommandant of Sobibor (March 1942 — September 1942) and of Treblinka (September 1942 — August 1943) was sentenced by a German Court at Dusseldorf to life imprisonment for co responsibility in the murder of some 900,000 men, women and children (mainly Jews), inmates of Treblinka, one of the largest of the Nazi extermination camps established in occupied Poland.
After the war, Stangl escaped by way of Rome to Syria and then to Brazil. Largely as a result of the efforts of Simon Wiesenthal, he was captured in Brazil in 1967 and extradited to Germany. (See Gitta Sereny, Into that Darkness, 1974).
Faurisson testified that he had been in contact with Gitta Sereny, author of the book Into that Darkness, an “extremely vague” account of Treblinka. Faurisson asked her why she had never asked Stangl any questions about the gas chambers in Treblinka, such as their location and who operated them. She replied to Faurisson that she 'didn’t think of it'. (30-8389, 8390)
Suzman and Diamond also mentioned the Majdanek trial, which lasted five years and determined that instead of 1.5 million people dying there, some 50,000 had. (30 8390)
On page 47 of Six Million Did Die, the authors dealt with the Eichmann trial:
It is significant that the facts of the extermination were at no time disputed by Eichmann’s Counsel who chose not to cross-examine the witnesses on this aspect of the case.
Indeed, on the Holocaust witnesses, Dr. Servatius said he had not put any questions to them for “in general lines there was no reason to doubt the description put forward by them. Their suffering was too sacred for me to attack them.”
Said Faurisson: “And that’s what…I keep repeating, that those people are not really cross- examined on, for example, the procedures of gassing, because the lawyers…do not want to seem to attack the witnesses.” (30-8391) 11
On page 49 of Six Million Did Die, the authors wrote:
Eichmann, at his trial admitted that on 20th January 1942, 15 high ranking Nazis (including Eichmann himself) assembled at Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, where ways and means of implementing the so-called “Final Solution” ("Endloesung") were decided upon, after different methods of extermination had been debated. This fateful Wannsee Conference was the central event in the history of the “Final Solution.”
Faurisson testified that there was nothing in the Wannsee Conference protocol which indicated that different methods of extermination were debated. If there had been, said Faurisson, there would not be the debate which existed today between the intentionalists and the functionalists. (30-8393, 8394)
On page 57 of Six Million Did Die, under the heading 'Authoritative Modern Historians,' Suzman and Diamond quoted historian John Toland:
…Konrad Morgen, an assistant SS Judge and among the few knowledgeable and reliable living German witnesses of the tragedy who extensively investigated most of the killing camps at the height of the operation, estimates that six million Jews were executed.
Faurisson expressed his skepticism about 'authoritative modern historians'. In his opinion, there were no such historians and the idea of authority seemed to him to be dangerous. In his research, he did not want to be obedient to any authority. (30-8395)
With respect to Konrad Morgen, Faurisson testified that before the International Military Tribunal in 1946, Morgen testified that the gassings took place in Monowitz, the third camp in the Auschwitz camp complex. The first two camps were Auschwitz I and Birkenau (sometimes called Auschwitz II). Morgen did not say this once, but six or nine times. This was a total impossibility, said Faurisson. But by the early 1960s at the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, Morgen came back as a witness and testified that the gassings took place in Birkenau. As a result, Faurisson did not regard Morgen as an authoritative, knowledgeable or reliable witness. (30 8395, 8396)
On page 58 of Six Million Did Die Suzman and Diamond quoted a number of allegedly authoritative historians:
William Carr…in his book A History of Germany 1815-1945 (London, 1969), writes: “…With cold- blooded deliberation several million Jews, men, women and children, from all parts of occupied Europe, were murdered in the short space of three years to gratify the crude racialist delusions of a handful of ignorant fanatics.” (p. 385)
Marshall Dill, Jnr., the American historian, in his book, Germany: A Modern History (University of Michigan Press, 1961) writes: “…The most tragic and virulent part of Himmler’s work was the almost incredible drive to exterminate the entire Jewish people, a programme lightly described as 'the final settlement of the Jewish question."…
A.J.P. Taylor…in his book From Sarajevo to Potsdam (London, 1965) writes: “…Now the Germans had some millions of Jews in their power, and they could not simply be turned out. They could only be exterminated. This policy was now adopted with every refinement of civilised skill.”
What these authors stated then, said Faurisson, would now be contested by many historians. (30-8397, 8398)
On page 60 of Six Million Did Die, Suzman and Diamond listed German historian Ernst Nolte as being among “other recognised modern historians and reputable writers” who dealt with the history of the Third Reich. In the past year and a half, said Faurisson, Nolte had moved towards the revisionist position to what Faurisson termed “ersatz revisionism.” Nolte still believed in the gas chambers but took the position that the extermination was comparable to atrocities practised by the Communists. Nolte also did not believe in a plan of extermination. He was totally a functionalist. As a result, he was now in trouble and his car had been recently bombed in Berlin. Many historians in Germany protested the bombing, saying that what Nolte had said was no reason to bomb his car. In a book published in France in 1987 by René Schwark, it was alleged that Nolte was under Faurisson’s “malevolent influence.” (30-8399, 8400)
Faurisson testified that Raul Hilberg, with his belief in an 'incredible meeting of minds', was also now in the camp of the functionalists. It was possible, said Faurisson, that the only intentionalist left was the historian Eberhard Jäckel. (30 8401)
On page 63 of Six Million Did Die, the authors quoted Albert Speer, the Minister of Armaments in the Third Reich. Faurisson testified that Speer had been in a good position during the war to know if millions were murdered because he was the top person responsible for the concentration camps, higher even than Oswald Pohl. In a letter he wrote in 1977 Speer said:
Therefore, I for my person, have in the Nuremberg Trial, confessed to the collective responsibility and I am also maintaining this today still. I still see my main guilt in my having approved of the persecution of the Jews and of the murder of millions of them.
But Faurisson discovered that two years after writing this letter, Speer published a book entitled Technik und Macht in which he explained what he meant by this passage:
My approbation through looking the other way, not through knowledge of an order or its execution. The first is as grave as the second.
Said Faurisson: “…what he is telling us there is that, in fact, he didn’t know. He didn’t know…any order of an execution of the Jews and any order of the execution of this order. Nothing. And I remind you that in Nuremberg, Speer pleaded not guilty and every German pleaded not guilty.” (30-8403)
In Faurisson’s opinion, it was “totally impossible” that Speer would not have known about the execution of 6 million people if it had been going on. Said Faurisson: “In the execution of millions of people, in the middle of Europe, during two or three years, when you see this scope, all that is fantastic. How could this…not have been noticed, and especially by Albert Speer who knew what were the trains, the necessity of coal, of wood, of any economical necessity, and he was interested [in] the work of the inmates…I've seen myself extraordinary documents about the economical interests of concentration camps. Do you know that even if we had not the slightest trace of a concentration camp, we should be able, by the economical document[s], to reconstitute what was this camp? I take only one example, the necessity to have some coal, to have coal to heat the place. You need…to sign papers, to ask for coal, ask permission during the war. The economy was like that. So you had to describe your place and to say not only the three dimensions but the part that had to be heated. This, for example, should be subtracted. So we have many, many documents of that kind, and this is the Germany of Albert Speer. Extraordinary organized.” (30-8404)
On page 26 of Six Million Did Die, Suzman and Diamond reproduced the Joint Allied Declaration of December 17, 1942:
The attention of the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxemberg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia, and of the French National Committee has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler’s oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe.
In Poland which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.
The above mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this beastial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny. They re- affirm their solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end.
Faurisson noted that the declaration used vague and classical terms such as “mass execution,” “bloody cruelties,” “assignment in labour camps,” etc., as well as “extermination.” But the real extermination, said Faurisson, would have been systematic with a system, with gas chambers, and the Allies were looking for information on the gas chambers. (30-8405, 8406)
In Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1943, vol. 1, page 416, was an exchange of telegrams between the Secretary of State of the United States and the Ambassador in the Soviet Union in August of 1943 regarding the text of the “Declaration on German Crimes in Poland” which was to be released simultaneously by the Allied governments. Part of the proposed text read:
….Some children are killed on the spot, others are separated from their parents and either sent to Germany to be brought up as Germans or sold to German settlers or despatched with the women and old men to concentration camps, where they are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers.
The declaration was to be published in those words, when, suddenly, said Faurisson, the Secretary of State sent another telegram, saying:
At the suggestion of the British Government which says there is insufficient evidence to justify the statement regarding execution in gas chambers, it has been agreed to eliminate the last phrase in paragraph 2 of the “Declaration on German Crimes in Poland” beginning “where” and ending “chambers” thus making the second paragraph end with “concentration camps". Please inform the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the change in text.
Said Faurisson: “A very interesting problem for the historian is this problem: what did the Allies, what did the Jewish organization[s], [know] of this alleged extermination during the war? It’s very interesting, but a very vast topic. And I know three books which are essential for this topic. The first one is [by] Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret; the second one is [by] Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the Allies, and the third one, David Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews…” (30 8407)
Germany during the war, said Faurisson, was an “almost transparent country. Because all…secret code, codes of the SS, codes of the railway, code of the army, were very quickly deciphered, and even when they changed, it was once more deciphered, and we know, by the information received through those code, we know that there were massacres of Jews in Poland, and in Russia, but there is nothing in the German communications about gas chambers. Nothing.” Nor was there anything in the communications about sending Jews to Auschwitz for extermination. (30-8408)
On page 79 of Six Million Did Die, Suzman and Diamond dealt with the address to the Nuremberg Tribunal by prosecutor Major Walsh:
Turning to the concentration camps, Major Walsh referred to the millions of Jews murdered in these camps by mass shooting, gas, poison, starvation and other means. In this connection he referred to an official Polish report on the Auschwitz Concentration Camp dated 31st May, 1945 (Document L-161) according to which during July 1944 Jews were killed at the rate of 12,000 daily. He further offered in evidence an official Polish Government Commission report dealing with Treblinka (Document 3311-PS) which reports that the erection of Camp Treblinka B was “aimed at the complete destruction of the Jewish population in Poland". The report describes graphically the procedure for the extermination in the following terms:
“All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all of them, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers. Those too slow or too weak to move quickly were driven in by rifle butts, by whipping and kicking, often by Sauer himself. Many slipped and fell; the next victims pressed forward and stumbled over them. Small children were simply thrown inside. After being filled up to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over. The Jewish menial workers had to remove the bodies from the platform and to bury them in mass graves. By and by, as new transports arrived, the cemetery grew, extending in the Eastern direction.”
Major Walsh then offered in evidence an official United States Government Report dated 1944 issued by the Executive Office of the President of the United States War Refugee Board on the German camps at Auschwitz and Birkenau. In this report the number of Jews gassed in Birkenau alone in the two year period between April 1942 and April 1944 is 1,765,000.
Document 3311-PS, said Faurisson, was signed by Tadeusz Cyprian, Poland’s representative on the Allied Commission of War Crimes, and gave a description of what allegedly happened in Treblinka. This document, by virtue of Article 21 of the Nuremberg charter, had the value of judicial notice. The “official truth” in 1946 in Nuremberg, therefore was that the Jews were not gassed in Treblinka but were killed in steam chambers. Other documents said that the people in Treblinka were killed by electricity. This later changed; electricity and steam were abandoned and the new official story said that the Jews had been killed by gas. No historian today, said Faurisson, would claim that people were killed by steam in Treblinka. This same type of thing happened for Auschwitz and Belzec. It was “… quite characteristic of rumours about a place which [is] closed; more or less secret. The people from the outside say awful stories. This one invent electricity; this one steam; this one gas, and other things. So the official truth, even on details, if I may say so, is really changing. Very much.” But there was nothing in Six Million Did Die, said Faurisson, which indicated that what Major Walsh had claimed was false. (30-8411 to 8413)
Faurisson testified that the figure of 1,765,000, as the number of Jews gassed in Birkenau in a two year period, came from Nuremberg document L-90, a document of the War Refugee Board published in November of 1944. It was the first official report of the Allies on Auschwitz and Birkenau. The principal author of the report was a man named Rudolf Vrba, who was today a Canadian citizen and a professor in British Columbia. Faurisson had heard Vrba explain how he got the figure of 1,765,000 in a trial in Toronto.12 Vrba stated that he arrived at the figure using a special system of memorizing. Said Faurisson: “He had a kind of technique of memory to register all the convoys of the people arriving in Birkenau day and night and being gassed and so on …"(30-8413 to 8416)
Vrba claimed that in a 24-month period, 150,000 Jews from France were gassed in Birkenau. However, said Faurisson, it was now known that a total of exactly 75,781 Jews were deported from France, not just to Birkenau but all other camps as well. This information came from the book Le mémorial de la déportation des Juifs de France (Memorial of the Deportation of the Jews from France) by Serge Klarsfeld, published in 1978. Klarsfeld obtained his information from the Auschwitz Museum in Poland and from the Centre of Jewish Contemporary Documentation in Paris, France. “So, how was it possible,” asked Faurisson, “if you send away 75,000 people for the entire war, that you get at the end something like exactly 150,000 gassed for only 24 month … in Birkenau ..” (30-8417, 8418)
It was thanks to Klarsfeld that it was discovered that many Jews who were supposed to have been gassed were alive. One such example was Simone Veil, the president of the European Parliament, who was deported to Auschwitz on a convey of people which The Kalendarium of Auschwitz listed as being gassed. Klarsfeld discovered that others of these allegedly gassed convoys had not even existed. (30-8418, 8419)
On page 81 of Six Million Did Die, the authors dealt further with the address of Nuremberg prosecutor Major Walsh:
Major Walsh further referred to the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Höttl (Document 2738 PS) which contained the following statement:
“Approximately 4,000,000 Jews had been killed in the various concentration camps, while an additional 2,000,000 met death in other ways, the major part of whom were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia.”
Said Faurisson: “It is false that Dr. Wilhelm Höttl said that. I'm sorry, I don’t have the document there, but it’s easy to check it. Wilhelm Höttl was a higher-ranking officer of the Main Security Office, and he said in this affidavit that one day he met Eichmann in Budapest and that Eichmann told him that 4 million had been killed, plus 2 million.” (30-8421)
Judge Ron Thomas interjected: “It says, 'which contained the following statement'. It referred to the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Höttl 'which contained the following statement'…All right, what’s false about that?” (30-8421)
Faurisson replied: “I think that any reader would interpret, as I did it. I mean that it was Höttl who stated that…but there is something much more grave about that…It’s the fact that on the 14th December, 1945, at the International Military Tribunal, in the morning…Major Walsh read this affidavit, and the defence lawyer of the German accused did not react, although it was this extraordinary figure of 6 million.” Faurisson did not think that the figure of 6 million had been mentioned before in the trial: “I don’t think it had been said before the 14th of December, 1945. I think that the beginning of the 6 million…is 14 of December, 1945, in the morning. And in the afternoon, at the beginning of the afternoon, one of the defence lawyer, Dr. Kauffmann, defence lawyer of Kaltenbrunner, said: 'Your Honour, I've heard that story of the 6 million. It is so grave that I want this man Höttl to come here to testify, and it’s easy to do because Höttl is there in jail in Nuremberg'. And the American prosecutor stood up and said, 'No, Your Honour, I didn’t mean it', but you must understand that those words are not exactly, of course, those of the prosecutor. I'm saying by memory. I only wanted to give you an idea of the idea of Höttl about the 6 million, and Höttl was not called, but the 6 million figure stayed, and in the judgment it is said that Eichmann himself said that it was 6 million. That’s the beginning of the 6 million myth.” Eichmann was not called at Nuremberg because at that time no one knew where he was. (30-8421 to 8423)
Throughout Six Million Did Die, said Faurisson, was the constant repetition of words such as “deliberate", “intentional", “methodical", to describe the “destruction” of the Jews. Faurisson reiterated that this was no longer accepted by historians today. By repeating the words, however, the book attempted to brainwash the reader. Said Faurisson: “This book is a kind of brainwashing book.” (30-8424)
On page 83 of Six Million Did Die, the authors dealt with the evidence of Otto Ohlendorf, the commander of Einsatzgruppe D which operated in the Southern Ukraine. Ohlendorf gave evidence for the prosecution, testifying that Einsatzgruppe D liquidated 90,000 people in a one year period. (30-8424, 8428)
Faurisson testified that today the activities of the Einsatzgruppen were more well known than they were ten years, or twenty years or thirty years ago. In his opinion, the historians were now trying to replace the gas chambers with the Einsatzgruppen and the gas vans. (30-8424, 8425)
Faurisson quoted from an article published in 1987 in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, an international journal published in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and Yad Vashem, entitled “Rollbahn Mord: The Early Activities of Einsatzgruppe C,” by Yaacov Lozowick, which stated:
Those Einsatzgruppe commanders tried after the war, Otto Ohlendorf of EG-D foremost among them, testified that an order to shoot all Jews was delivered by Streckenbach, chief of Amt 1 of the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office), prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union. In 1955, Streckenbach, who had been presumed dead, returned from Soviet captivity, denied this allegation and succeeded in casting doubt on the EG commanders' version of events.
A footnote in the article, said Faurisson, indicated that contradictory testimonies about the order could not be accepted at face value: “…the general tone of that long article is that we need really to revise many things that until now were accepted about the Einsatzgruppen…” (30- 8431)
On page 87 of Six Million Did Die, Suzman and Diamond dealt with the evidence of Dieter Wisliceny:
The third period was the so-called “final solution” of the Jewish question, i.e., the planned extermination and destruction of the Jewish race.
The witness stated that in his official connection with Section IV-A-4 he learned of the order which directed the annihilation of the Jews at a meeting with Eichmann which took place in Berlin in the Summer of 1942, when he was shown a letter from Himmler to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. The gist of this letter was that the Führer had ordered the “final solution” of the Jewish question…
Eichmann had explained that the planned biological destruction of the Jewish race in the Eastern territories was disguised by the concept and wording “final solution” and that he personally had been entrusted with the execution of this order.
The witness stated that it was perfectly clear to him that this order spelled death to millions of people. This order, he stated, was in force until counter-ordered by Himmler in October 1944.
Once more the book repeated the words “planned extermination,” said Faurisson, and he again pointed out that this was no longer accepted by historians. There was no suggestion in the book that this was not historical fact. No one in the historical community alleged today that there was a planned biological destruction of the Jewish race. Nor, said Faurisson, did the alleged Himmler order ever exist. Raul Hilberg stated in both his first and second editions that such a Himmler order existed, relying for this allegation on the affidavit of Kurt Becher dated 8 March, 1946, PS-3762, but the Becher affidavit did not say that.13 In Faurisson’s opinion, if someone was to consult Six Million Did Die for the purpose of seeking the truth, he would not find it. (30- 8435 to 8439)
On page 89 of Six Million Did Die the authors dealt with Wisliceny’s testimony concerning a conversation he allegedly had with Eichmann:
Dealing with the total number of Jews killed in the implementation of the “final solution” [Wisliceny's] evidence reads…
“Q — Did he say anything at that time as to the number of Jews that had been killed?
A — Yes, he expressed this in a particularly cynical manner. He said 'he would leap laughing into the grave because the feeling that he had 5,000,000 people on his conscience would be, for him, a source of extraordinary satisfaction'.”
The witness was thereafter cross-examined by Dr. Servatius (Counsel for the accused Sauckel). His evidence relating to the “final solution” was not questioned in any way either by Dr. Servatius or by any of the other Counsel for the accused.
Faurisson pointed out that Wisliceny had testified about this extraordinary number of 5 million, yet “not one defence lawyer cross-examined him on that, and that’s what I've been saying for years and years: the defence lawyer[s] don’t dare go on this very topic because of, perhaps, they believe it, perhaps because they are afraid — and I understand the people who are afraid, I can assure you — perhaps by tactic, but I see that those counsel in the International Military Tribunal, [there] were…perhaps 15, [and] not one cross-examined…” (30-8439, 8440)
Christie noted that the suggestion in Six Million Did Die was that the allegations must be true because the witnesses were never cross-examined concerning it. Did Faurisson agree with that proposition? Faurisson replied that he did not: “I think that if there is no cross-examination, there is no witness.” (30-8441)14
On page 93 of Six Million Did Die Suzman and Diamond reproduced an extract of Auschwitz Commandant Höss’s affidavit of 5 April 1946 (Nuremberg Document 3868-PS):
“I commanded Auschwitz until 1st December, 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000…The 'final solution' of the Jewish question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there were already three other extermination camps in the Government General: Belzek, Treblinka and Wolzek…”
Faurisson pointed out that Reitlinger stated in his 1951 book that the number of dead at Auschwitz was 800,000 to 900,000; Suzman and Diamond should have included a reminder of this in their book. They did not. Furthermore, said Faurisson, Höss included in his statement the camp of Wolzek. This camp never existed and no historian claimed that such a camp existed. Höss also stated that Belzec and Treblinka existed in 1941, but those camps existed only in 1942. In Faurisson’s opinion, Höss’s statement “has absolutely no value…” (30-8444, 8445)
Faurisson testified that in fact two documents were classified under document 3868 PS (the Höss affidavit). The first was a “kind of draft made by the British,” said Faurisson. The handwriting was typically British and not the Gothic handwriting of Höss as seen in his signature. The confession was written in English. (30-8446)
Six Million Did Die stated on page 95, regarding Höss:
No suggestion was made that his prior affidavit was not given freely and voluntarily and again the substance of his evidence relating to the mass exterminations was in no way questioned.
Again, said Faurisson, Suzman and Diamond offered the failure of the lawyers to question as proof of the truth of the witness' statement. Historians today did not accept what Höss said as being true and admitted that what he said about Wolzek, a non-existent camp, was a mistake. But nowhere did Six Million Did Die suggest that the Höss confession had been questioned. For the reader, the Höss confession was presented as genuine and authentic. (30- 8446 to 8448)
Faurisson believed that the Höss confession was not genuine or authentic and based his opinion partly on a copy of a letter which he obtained in September of 1983 from someone very close to Höss’s wife.15 The letter was addressed to Mrs. Höss and was from a German who, while a prisoner of the Allies, had ridden in the same vehicle as Höss. Höss had told the man that the Allies had used such methods on him that he said 2.5 million died but that he could just as well have said 5 million. Höss told the man he could not help it, given the methods the Allies used on him. The German sent the letter to Mrs. Höss after his own release from prison. (30- 8449, 8450)
April 15, 1988
On page 96 of Six Million Did Die was a photograph of a group of naked people with the caption:
“Without screaming or weeping these people undressed…”
Faurisson pointed out that there was no indication of where the photograph came from or when this event was supposed to have happened. This was the case for most of the photographs in the book. In Faurisson’s opinion, the book was not a historical book. A historical book would provide the information which would allow the reader to check what was presented. The caption appeared to be a quotation but no citation was given for it. Further reading on the next page showed it was a quote from the witness Hermann Graebe, the man Faurisson had already testified was publicly discredited as a false witness in Germany, who had gone to the United States, and who was a fugitive from the law in his own country of Germany. This had been published in a long article in Der Spiegel in 1965. (31-8453 to 8456)
Six Million Did Die made no mention of this although it was already known at the time of its publication in 1978 that Graebe had been found to be a false witness in the other matter; therefore, he could be a false witness in this matter also. (31-8456)
Faurisson pointed out further photographs in the book which had no citations and in some cases no captions. He could not know the significance of these photographs without knowing what they were. (31-8457, 8458)
On page 104 of Six Million Did Die was a photograph, again without a caption, of a man in uniform standing in the midst of a mass of emaciated bodies. Faurisson believed the man was Dr. Fritz Klein, the doctor at Bergen-Belsen, who was later executed. Said Faurisson: “The British obliged him to go in the middle, right in the middle, of all those cadavers for the photo…It seems, for me, that any reader would think that this man might be a German, and…when you see the behaviour of the man, he seems to be like proud of the fact that he is in the middle of all those corpses. In fact, he was the doctor of the camp. He tried to fight against this typhus, all those epidemics, and we know that in the last day[s] of Bergen-Belsen, there was not even water because the canal bringing the water had been bombed. So, in a place where you had so many people packed, the epidemics were terrible. And there was no medicine. I think that Richard Harwood explained that very well in his booklet, Did Six Million Really Die?.” (31-8458, 8459)
On page 105 of Six Million Did Die, the authors quoted witness Elias Rosenberg. Faurisson testified that Rosenberg was a Jew who testified in the Demjanjuk war crimes trial in Jerusalem, where Demjanjuk was accused of being “Ivan the Terrible.” In 1946, Rosenberg had testified that he had seen “Ivan the Terrible” killed with a shovel in Treblinka in 1943. When Demjanjuk’s lawyer attempted to use this evidence to exonerate his client, Rosenberg said that his 1946 testimony had no value. (31-8460)16
On page 106 of Six Million Did Die were three photographs of groups of women and children with the caption:
Neither women nor children were spared.
Faurisson testified that he recognized the second and third photographs, but not the first. The second photograph was one which Faurisson had seen in the Auschwitz Museum and was a “rather well-known” photograph: “We see this photograph in many books about the Holocaust, and those children are those who have been filmed on the 27th of January, 1945, at the liberation of Auschwitz. So those children are being liberated, and we cannot say that those children are not going to be spared.” (31-8462, 8463)
On page 114 of Six Million Did Die was a photograph of men looking out from stacked bunks, with the caption indicating that the photograph was taken in Belsen. Faurisson testified that he had seen this photograph with captions saying it was taken in Belsen (as in this case) as well as Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Said Faurisson: “…I do not deny that this might be…an authentic photo, but this book pretend[s] to be historical, and for a historian, it is a bit upsetting to see that once it is Belsen, another time it’s Auschwitz, at another time it is Buchenwald.” (31- 8465)
On overhead transparencies, two examples of this were shown to the jury. In the first instance, the photograph was allegedly taken in Buchenwald and the circled man was supposed to be Elie Wiesel. In the second instance, the photograph was represented to be Auschwitz and one of the men was identified as Mel Mermelstein [a “survivor” who sued the Institute for Historical Review.] (31-8466)
On page 122 of Six Million Did Die was a photograph of a pile of bodies in a room with the caption:
Victims of the Dachau gas chamber lie piled to the ceiling in the crematorium.
This caption was false, said Faurisson, “because we know that nobody was gassed in Dachau.” Faurisson did not deny, however, that the photograph might be of bodies in Dachau: “Because in Dachau and the sub-camps of Dachau, 32,000 people died from 1934 to 1945, and the number of people who were in this camp for all those years was 206,206, which means that…something like 15 percent died; 85 percent survived, and if we have to believe the Jewish Encyclopedia…80 to 90 percent of those people were Jews.” (31-8467)
It was generally accepted, said Faurisson, that before the war, there were 350,000 Jews in France, of which 75,721 were deported. This latter figure had been proved by Serge Klarsfeld in the book Memorial to the Deportation of the Jews of France. Thus, it was generally admitted, said Faurisson, that from one-fourth to one-fifth of the Jews were deported. (31-8468, 8469)
Said Faurisson: “…the children who were deported from France, sometimes the parents wanted to have their children with them, sometimes they did not want, so the government faced a real problem there, and at least in one case, in a camp in south of France, the parent[s] made a vote to decide if the children would be deported with them or not, and this is said in the book La Grande Rafle du Vél' d'Hiv.” (31-8469)
Faurisson testified that he met Zündel for the first time at the first convention of the Institute for Historical Review in Los Angeles in 1979 where Faurisson was to present his paper, “The Mechanics of Gassing.” As his English was “rather bad,” he asked that someone read his paper. The person that did so was Zündel. Faurisson was present when Zündel read it to an audience of about seventy people and he later discussed the paper with him, as well as the photos and plans which he had shown at the time. The paper was later published in the first issue of the Journal of Historical Review in the spring of 1980. (31-8469 to 8472)
The paper, “The Mechanics of Gassing,” was read by defence attorney Christie to the court:
Among all those who make statements, speeches or use sentences in which the expression “gas chamber” appears, how many of those people actually know what they are talking about? It has not taken me very long to realize that many people commit one of the most glaring errors. These people imagine a “gas chamber” as being similar to a mere bedroom under the door of which a household gas is released. These people forget that an execution by gas is by definition profoundly different from a simple suicidal or accidental asphyxiation. In the case of an execution, one must carefully avoid all risk of illness, poisoning or death for the executioner and his crew. Such a risk is to be avoided before, during and after the execution. The technical difficulties implied herein are considerable. I was most anxious to know how domestic minks were gassed, how foxes were gassed in foxholes, and how in the U.S. a person who was sentenced to death was executed by gassing. I have found that, in the vast majority of cases, hydrocyanic acid was used for such purposes. This was precisely the same gas which the Germans used to fumigate their barracks. It was also with this gas that they allegedly killed groups of individuals as well as great masses of people. I have therefore studied this gas. I wanted to know its use in Germany and in France. I have reviewed ministerial documents governing the use of this highly toxic product. I had the good fortune of discovering some documents on Zyklon B and hydrocyanic acid which had been gathered by the Allies in the German industrial archives at Nuremberg.
Then, with greater scrutiny I re-examined certain statements and confessions which had been made in German and Allied courts concerning the use of Zyklon B for putting prisoners to death, and I was shocked. And now, you in turn will also be shocked. I will first read to you the statement or confession of Rudolf Höss. Then, I will tell you the results of my research, purely physical, on hydrocyanic acid and Zyklon B. (Please bear in mind R. Höss was one of the three successive commanding officers at Auschwitz; all three of whom were detained and interrogated by the Allies. Only Höss left a confession, for which we are indebted to his Polish jailers.)
In this confession, the description of the actual gassing is remarkably short and vague. However, it is essential to realize that all those others who claim to have been present at this sort of an operation are also vague and brief and that their statements are full of contradictions on certain points. Rudolf Höss writes, “Half an hour after having released the gas, we would open the door and turn on the fan. We would immediately begin to remove the bodies.” I call your attention to the word “immediately"; in German the word is “sofort.” Höss then adds that the crew in charge of handling and removing 2,000 bodies from the “gas chamber” and transporting them to the crematory ovens did so while “eating or smoking"; therefore, if I understand correctly, these duties were all performed without gas masks. Such a description runs counter to all common sense. It implies that it is possible to enter an area saturated with hydrocyanic acid without taking any precautionary measures in the barehanded handling of 2,000 cyanided cadavers which were probably still contaminated with the fatal gas. The hair (which was supposedly clipped after the operation) was undoubtedly impregnated with the gas. The mucous membranes would have been impregnated also. Air pockets between the bodies which were supposedly heaped one of on top of the other would have been filled with the gas. What kind of superpowerful fan is able to instantly disperse so much gas drifting through the air and hidden in air pockets? Even if such a fan had existed, it would have been necessary to perform a test for the detection of any remaining hydrocyanic acid and to develop a procedure for informing the crew that the fan had actually fulfilled its function and that the room was safe. Now, it is abundantly clear from Höss’s description that the fan in question must have been endowed with magical powers in order to be able to disperse all of the gas with such flawless performance so that there was no cause for concern or need for verification of the absence of the gas!
What mere common sense suggested is now confirmed by the technical documents concerning Zyklon B and its usage. In order to fumigate a barrack, the Germans were constrained by numerous precautionary measures: specially trained teams which were licensed only after an internship at a Zyklon B manufacturing plant; special materials including especially the “J” filters which when used in gas masks were capable of protecting an individual under the most rigorous toxic conditions; evacuations of all surrounding barracks; warnings posted in several languages and bearing a skull and cross-bones; a meticulous examination of the site to be fumigated in order to locate and seal any fissures or openings; the sealing of any chimneys or airshafts and the removal of keys from doors. The cans of Zyklon B were opened at the site itself. After the gas had apparently killed all the vermin, the most critical operation would begin: this was the ventilation of the site. Sentries were to be stationed at a certain distance from all doors and windows, their backs to the wind, in order to prevent the approach of all persons. The specially trained crew equipped with gas masks would then enter the building and unclog the chimneys and cracks, and open the windows. This operation completed, they had to go outside again, remove their masks and breathe freely for ten minutes. They had to put their masks on again to re-enter the building and perform the next step. Once all of this work was completed, it was still necessary to wait TWENTY hours. Actually, because Zyklon B was “difficult to ventilate, since it adheres strongly to surfaces,” the dispersion of the gas required a long natural ventilation. This was especially important when great volumes of the gas were employed as in the case of a barrack containing more than one floor. (When Zyklon B was used in an autoclave with a total volume of only 10 cubic meters, ventilation (forced or artificially) was still necessary.) After twenty hours had elapsed, the crew would return with their masks on. They would then verify by means of a paper test (the paper would turn blue in the presence of hydrocyanic acid) as to whether or not the site was indeed again fit for human habitation. And so we see that a site which had been gassed was not safely accessible until a minimum of 21 hours had elapsed. As far as French legislation is concerned, the minimum is set at 24 hours.
It becomes, therefore, apparent that in the absence of a magical fan capable of instantly expelling a gas that is “difficult to ventilate, since it adheres strongly to surfaces,” the “human slaughterhouse” called a “gas chamber” would have been inaccessible for nearly a full day. Its walls, floors, ceiling would have retained portions of a gas which was highly poisonous to man. And what about the bodies? These cadavers could have been nothing less than saturated with the gas, just as the cushions, mattresses and blankets discussed in the same technical document on the use of Zyklon B would have been saturated also. These mattresses, etc., had to be taken out of doors to be aired and beaten for an hour under dry atmospheric conditions and for two hours when the weather was humid. When this was accomplished, these items were then heaped together and beaten again if the paper test revealed any further presence of hydrocyanic acid.
Hydrocyanic acid is both inflammable and explosive. How could it then have been used in close proximity to the entrance of crematory ovens? How could one have entered the “gas chamber” while smoking?
I have not yet even touched upon the subject of the superabundance of technical and physical impossibilities which become apparent upon an actual examination of the site and the dimensions of the supposed “gas chambers” at Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau. Moreover, just as an inquisitive fact-finder of the Polish museum may discover, these chambers were in reality nothing more than “cold storage rooms” (mortuaries) and were typical of such rooms both in lay-out as well as size. The supposed “gas chamber” of Krema II at Birkenau, of which there remains only a ruin, was in fact a morgue, located below ground in order to protect it from heat and measuring 30 meters in length and 7 meters in width (two meters on either side for cadavers and 3 meters down the centre to allow for the movement of wagons). The door, the passageways, the freight lift (which measured only 2.10 meters by 1.35 meters) which led to the crematory chamber were all of Lilliputian dimensions in comparison to the insinuations of Höss’s account. According to Höss, the gas chamber could easily accommodate 2,000 standing victims, but had a capacity of 3,000. Can you imagine that? Three thousand people crammed into a space of 210 square meters. In other words, to make a comparison, 286 people standing in a room measuring 5 meters by 4 meters! Do not be deceived into believing that before their retreat the Germans blew up the “gas chambers” and crematory ovens to conceal any trace of their alleged crimes. If one wishes to obliterate all trace of an installation which would be intrinsically quite sophisticated, it must be scrupulously dismantled from top to bottom so that there remains not one shred of incriminating evidence. Destruction by means of demolition would have been ingenuous [meaning “naive", testified Faurisson]. If explosives had been employed, mere removal of the concrete blocks would still have left this or that telltale sign. As a matter of fact, Poles of the present day Auschwitz museum have reconstructed the remains of some “Kremas” (meaning, in reality, reconstructions of crematoria and supposed “gas chamber"). However, all of the artifacts shown to tourists attest to the existence of crematory ovens rather than to anything else.
The real gas chambers, such as those created in 1924 and developed by the Americans around 1936- 1938 offer some idea of the inherent complexity of such a method of execution. The Americans, for one thing, only gas one prisoner at a time normally (some gas chambers exist, however, which are equipped with two seats for the execution of two brothers, for example). The prisoner is totally immobilized. He is poisoned by the hydrocyanic acid (actually by the dropping of sodium cyanide pellets into a container of sulfuric acid and distilled water which results in release of hydrocyanic acid gas). Within approximately 40 seconds, the prisoner dozes off, and in a few minutes he dies. Apparently, the gas causes no discomfort. As in the case of Zyklon B, it is the dispersion of the gas which causes problems. Natural ventilation for 24 hours is not possible in this case. Obviously, the location of the site of execution precludes such ventilation without seriously endangering the guards as well as other prison inmates. What, then, is the best course of action with a gas which poses such difficult problems of ventilation? The solution is to transform the acidic vapors into a solid salt which can then be flushed out with water. For this purpose, ammonia vapors which are basic are used to react with the acid vapors to form the salt by chemical reaction. When the hydrocyanic acid has all but vanished, a warning signal would alert the attending physician and his aides who are located on the opposite side of a glass barrier. The warning signal is phenolphtalein. It is arranged in containers located at various places in the chamber and turns from pink to purple in the absence of hydrocyanic acid. Once the absence of the poison is indicated and once an arrangement of fans draws the ammonia fumes out through an exhaust vent, the physician and his assistants enter the chamber wearing gas masks. Rubber gloves are used to protect the hands. The doctor ruffles through the convict’s hair so as to brush out any residual hydrocyanic acid. Only after a full hour has elapsed may a guard enter the chamber. The convict’s body is then washed very carefully and the room is hosed down. The ammonia gas has by this time been expelled via a high chimney stack above the prison. Because of the danger to guards who are normally stationed in the prison watch towers, in some prisons the guards are required to leave their post during such an execution. I will just mention the other requirements for a completely air-tight gas chamber such as the need for locks, “Herculite” glass barriers of considerable thickness (because of the risk of implosion since a vacuum has to be made), a vacuum system, mercury valves, etc.
A gassing is not an improvisation. If the Germans had decided to gas millions of people, a complete overhaul of some very formidable machinery would have been absolutely essential. A general order, instructions, studies, commands and plans would surely have been necessary also. Such items have never been found. Meetings of experts would have been necessary: of architects, chemists, doctors, and experts in a wide range of technical fields. Disbursements and allocations of funds would have been necessary. Had this occurred in a state such as the Third Reich, a wealth of evidence would surely have survived. We know, for example, down to the pfennig, the cost of the kennel at Auschwitz and of the bay trees which were ordered for the nurseries. Orders for projects would have been issued. Civilian workers and engineers would not have been permitted to mingle with the inmates. Passes would not have been granted to Germans in the camp, and their family members would not have had visiting rights. Above all, the prisoners who had served their sentences would not have been released and permitted to return to their respective countries: that well guarded secret among historians was revealed to us several years ago in an article by Louis De Jong, Director of the Institute of World War II History of Amsterdam. Moreover, in the United States the recent publication of aerial photographs of Auschwitz deals a death blow to the extermination fable: even in the summer of 1944 at the height of the influx of Hungarian Jews, there is no indication of any human pyre or throng of prisoners near the crematorium (but an open gate and a landscaped area are clearly visible) and there is no suspicious smoke (although the smoke stacks of the crematoria reportedly spewed forth and flames continuously that were visible from a distance of several kilometers both day and night).
I will conclude with a comment on what I regard as the criterion of false evidence regarding the gas chambers. I have noticed that all of these statements, vague and inconsistent as they are, concur on at least one point: the crew responsible for removing the bodies from the “Gas chamber” entered the site either “immediately” or a “few moments” after the deaths of the victims. I contend that this point alone constitutes the cornerstone of the false evidence, because this is a physical impossibility. If you encounter a person who believes in the existence of the “gas chambers,” ask him how, in his opinion, the thousands of cadavers were removed to make room for the next batch.
Note: Due to the pressure of time, we regret that Dr. Faurisson’s article is published here without footnotes or references. This was because Dr. Faurisson wishes both the references and their translation to be scrupulously accurate. The references and notes will be published at a later date. Readers who wish to study the U.S. prison “Gas Chamber Procedure Check Sheet” should refer to The Spotlight newspaper (300 Independence Avenue., South-East, Washington, D.C. 20003) of 24 December 1979.
After the article was read at the conference, there was general discussion about it. Faurisson remembered exactly what Zündel said: “He said the cornerstone of all that is the American gas chamber. He said only an expert of American gas chamber could tell us something about the so-called gas chamber of Auschwitz or other places, and he told me, 'You must pursue this inquiry about the American gas chamber', … and he was very enthusiastic, Ernst Zündel, and that’s why few days after, when I was in Washington, I decided to try to visit the gas chamber and I succeeded in visiting the gas chamber of Baltimore, Maryland, and I immediately reported to Ernst Zündel what I had discovered.” Faurisson indicated that Zündel read French, German and English. Faurisson sent him copies of his correspondence with American penitentiaries in 1977 or 1978. Faurisson had written to ten or twelve penitentiaries through an American lawyer and received replies from six of them. (31-8490 to 8494)
On his visit to the Maryland gas chamber, Faurisson got eight photographs taken in his presence by a prisoner and a lieutenant, copies of which he later sent to Zündel. The photographs were published in 1980 in a book by Serge Thion entitled Vérité historique ou vérité politique? (Historical Truth or Political Truth?). These photographs were shown to the jury on an overhead projector. (31-8490 to 8493)
As the photographs were shown, Faurisson explained that it took some 48 hours of work to prepare for an execution by gassing. A “No Smoking” sign was shown in one photograph “because even today, 1988, in the American prison, they have really problem even today with leakage. Because with the hydrocyanic acid, it’s a real problem, leakage….dangerous.” To avoid the leakage and also to ensure the gas reached the prisoner quickly, a vacuum was created in the gas chamber. This created the risk of an implosion and required that the gas chamber be of an extremely strong construction. (31-8494, 8495)
In another photograph, Faurisson pointed out the chair in which the prisoner sat and the tray under the chair which contained a mixture of water and sulfuric acid. Pellets (of cyanide) were put in this tray from the outside by a guard and the gas rose up in the chamber. Six to twelve minutes, in some cases fourteen minutes, were needed to actually kill the prisoner. A stethoscope ran from the prisoner’s heart through the steel door to the outside where an attending doctor listened. (31-8495, 8496)
Another photograph showed the fans used to expel and extract the gas from the chamber after the execution. The gas was sent up to a scrubber where ammonia was used to neutralize the acid for two reasons: firstly, so that it was not too dangerous for the guards or the prison itself, and secondly, because the acid might attack the sewer pipes or other pipes in the prison. It was then expelled in a very high chimney. Because it was still dangerous at that point, the prison guards were not allowed to walk the perimeter of the prison on the day of an execution or when tests were run of the system. (31-8497, 8498)
The prison lieutenant at Maryland who had shown the gas chamber to Faurisson explained to him that “they were afraid of any execution or test of the gas chamber and insisted especially on the fact that to get the body…you had to have a gas mask, rubber glove, rubber apron, and you had to wash very carefully the body and especially in the mouth and in all the openings of the body because it’s very dangerous to handle a body of somebody who has been killed by hydrocyanic acid. Now, he explained me that, and when we got out of the place he told me, 'Why are you interested in that?', and I said, 'It’s because I'm studying the German gas chambers', and this very man, who had been totally scientific up till [then], said, 'Oh', — I remember his words exactly, he said, 'Oh, terrible. Have you seen Holocaust, the film?'. Which means that the same man who knew how difficult it was and dangerous with all this sophisticated gas chamber to kill one, was ready to believe that to kill 2,000 or 200,000, it was absolutely easy, like in the film Holocaust.” (31-8498, 8499)
Said Faurisson: “…in every one of us, there is like a Pavlovian dog. We have reaction automatic, and I noticed that with all the toxicologists that I have consulted, the specialists of gas, the specialists of criminal things, they are very scientific, and then, suddenly, when it is about the 'Holocaust', they have some kind of automatic reaction. They believe anything. There is no more physics, no more chemistry, no more natural law. It’s totally magic… I visited specialists of crematorium, they explain me how long it was to burn a body, etc., but when I told them 'And do you believe in those people who were cremated in Auschwitz?' 'Of course, of course'. But how many bodies? And when suddenly I gave the figures, they say, 'Oh, what’s that? There is something wrong.' And my job is…you do not need to be clever, to be smart. I asked the people only — wake up. That’s all.” (31-8500, 8501)
Faurisson had told Zündel of his investigations, and since that time, said Faurisson, Zündel “had the kind of, we say in French, idee fixe…An idea, always the same idea coming back. A fixed idea. He told me this is the centre of all the story: 'please pursue', 'do something', but I had some trouble after that that I could not really work on this question.” (31-8498)
Faurisson had visited the alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz and discussed with Zündel the contrast between the American gas chambers and the alleged German gas chambers. Said Faurisson: “Mr. Zündel had, I remember — because he is a very practical man — he had this idea. He told me, you should show one door of gas chamber in Auschwitz, one door of a disinfection gas chamber, already very strong, and then the door of your Baltimore gas chamber. And the door of Auschwitz is so ridiculous that that’s the reason why I say to visit Auschwitz and to solve this problem, you need one minute…” Faurisson noted that the Baltimore gas chamber was typical of gas chambers of 1936, 1938; he had found some clippings about the first gassing, in Carson City, Nevada, in 1924, and discovered that it was nearly a catastrophe. (31-8501, 8502)
Christie turned Faurisson’s attention next to the subject of German restitution for the Holocaust, a subject which Faurisson had investigated. On page 4 of Did Six Million Really Die?, Harwood had written:
To date, the staggering figure of six thousand million pounds has been paid out in compensation by the Federal Government of West Germany, mostly to the State of Israel (which did not even exist during the Second World War), as well as to individual Jewish claimants.
In Faurisson’s opinion, the Holocaust was being exploited for political purposes, and he pointed out that this was the opinion also of many Jews, including Pierre Vidal-Naquet. (31-8503)
The central figure in the obtaining of reparations was Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress. In his book, The Jewish Paradox, Goldmann related how he obtained money from Germany and revealed that the idea emanated from two Jews, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. (31-8503, 8504)
Faurisson produced an article he had published in the French magazine Le Nouvel- Observateur about “the best pages” of The Jewish Paradox. Faurisson read from footnote 62 of his article:
62. Pages 120-122, 125, 128, 136, 141, 149, 157, under the title of “Nahum Goldmann: au nom d'Israël” ("Nahum Goldmann: in the name of Israel"). Nahum Goldmann says that those colossal reparations “constituted an extraordinary innovation in the matter of international rights.” They were not in accordance with the German constitution. He dictated his conditions to Adenauer in 1950. He obtained DM 80 billion; that is 10 to 14 times more than the sum he first expected. He says, “Without the German reparations (…) the state of Israel would not have the half of its present infrastructure (1978); every train in Israel is German, the ships are German, as well as electricity, a big part of industry…without mentioning the individual pensions paid to the survivors (…). In certain years, the amount of the money that Israel received from Germany would exceed the total amount of money collected from international Jewry — multiplying it by two or three times.”
The young German taxpayer of 1979, who has no responsibility in the war of 1939 1945, pays of course his share.
Faurisson testified that this was his opinion as he expressed it in 1979. He had used the word “colossal” to describe the reparations; in 1981, Nahum Goldmann himself had used the word “astronomical” when he said in regard to the compensation paid to Israel: “Those are astronomical sums.” The Israel of today, said Faurisson, would have been impossible without the German reparations. (31-8506)
With respect to the way the money was obtained from Germany, Faurisson testified: “When you read The Jewish Paradox and when you read a book of Balabkins, [West] German Reparations to Israel, when you see the way this money was obtained, I say myself that I judge it — I'm going to be moderate — dishonest. It was really what we call blackmailing. The same way Nahum Goldmann used with the Chancellor of Austria at that time, his name was Raab. He tells the story in The Jewish Paradox. He went to see the Chancellor of Austria, and he said, 'You must pay something to the Jews', and Raab said, 'But we're victims of Germany'. Nahum Goldmann said, 'In that case, I am going to take the biggest place, the biggest theatre in Vienna, and day after day, I am going to put the film showing the entrance of the German troops and of Hitler in March 1938 in Vienna'. So Raab said, 'Okay, you will have your money'. And I think that it was 30 million…dollars, something like that, because Nahum Goldmann expressed it in American currency. And then Nahum Goldmann came back, I don’t know how many time after, and he said, 'I need 30 million more'. Raab said, 'But we had [agreed] that it was only 30 million'. He said, 'No, you have to give me more'; and he gave more; and Nahum Goldmann came the third time for the same sum…It was really blackmail.” (31-8507, 8508)
Christie asked Faurisson about the French historian Michel de Boüard. Faurisson testified that Michel de Boüard, a former inmate of Mauthausen in the 'NN' category, was a professor of history [at the University of Caen (Normandy)], a member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War, a member of the Institute of France and former head of the Association of Deportees. In 1986, Michel de Boüard expressed in the French magazine Ouest-France, [August 2- 3, 1986, p.6] what Faurisson believed to be a correct assessment of historical developments in regard to the Holocaust. He wrote:
“In the monograph on Mauthausen that I published in La Revue d'histoire de la (Deuxieme) Guerre mondiale in 1954, I mentioned a gas chamber on two occasions. When the time of reflection had arrived, I said to myself: where did you arrive at the conviction that there was a gas chamber in Mauthausen? This cannot have been during my stay in this camp, for neither myself nor anybody else ever suspected that there was one there. This must therefore be a piece of 'baggage' that I picked up after the war; this was an admitted fact but I noticed that in my text — although I have the habit of supporting most of my statements by references — there was none referring to the gas chamber…”
In response to the journalist asking him: 'You were President of the Calvados (Normandy) Association of Deportees, and you resigned in May, 1985. Why?', he answered:
“I found myself torn between my conscience as a historian and the duties it implies, and on the other hand, my membership in a group of comrades whom I deeply love, but who refuse to recognize the necessity of dealing with the deportation as a historical fact in accordance with sound historical methods. I am haunted by the thought that in 100 years or even 50 years the historians will question themselves on this particular aspect of the Second World War which is the concentration camp system and what they will find out. The record is rotten to the core. On one hand a considerable amount of fantasies, inaccuracies, obstinately repeated (in particular concerning numbers), heterogeneous mixtures, generalizations and, on the other hand, very dry critical studies that demonstrate the inanity of those exaggerations. I fear that those future historians might then say that the deportation, when all is said and done, must have been a myth. There lies the danger. That haunts me.”
Faurisson testified that he met Michel de Boüard in 1986. The historian realized that he had made a mistake about the gas chambers in Mauthausen and called it “baggage,” which Faurisson thought was a good word: “Everyone of us, we have received this 'baggage' of the Holocaust and believed in many things like that, and the problem is to realize that it is a baggage. He realized that in 1986, because of the situation of revisionism in France. People are opening their eyes in France, and Michel de Boüard is a very sensible man, and he was overwhelmed by this discovery of himself. In the second paragraph, he says that he find[s] himself torn between his conscience as a historian and the duties it implies, and the other, there is his membership in a group of comrades whom he deeply loved, and he explained [to] me that that was a kind of dilemma for him because his comrades of this association, in his discovery of revisionism, didn’t want to follow him and said 'You mustn’t do that. Think of our interest. Think of all our dead. You have no right to do that.' But this man, Michel de Boüard, I know his scholar formation, is exactly a critic of text and document. He is what we call a chartist. Those people are used to study texts which are Greek, Latin or medieval, and they have a kind of spirit which oblige them to be accurate, but even you see the most accurate man does mistake like that, of course.” (31-8515, 8516)
In Faurisson’s opinion, the important part of Michel de Boüard’s statement was the acknowledgment that the record, “meaning the record of the history of the Second World War and especially the history of the concentration camp, 'is rotten to the core', on one hand…it’s the exterminationist, and on the other hand you will have the revisionist.” (31-8517)
Christie asked Faurisson to give his historical opinion of the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? compared with Six Million Did Die, published by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, Johannesburg. Faurisson indicated that, in his opinion, the Harwood booklet was “obviously a booklet for laymen. It is not the book of a historian with plenty of footnotes, but as it is, and with its little [shortcomings], I think that it is a very good book…a booklet which is prophetic. This booklet entered in history and is making history. The reply of those people of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies is a bad book, what I call rubbish, absolutely no value. From time to time, of course, we have, for example, a photo which is referenced, and there are some possibility of checking, but very often it is not possible…the thesis of this book, at almost every three or four page, every time, is that there was an order, there was a plan, etc., and I [say] very simply that Raul Hilberg never could have signed this book. He could not have signed this book in 1978 because there are so many things which are not in accord with Raul Hilberg. He knew that it was not correct, and to begin with, the title Six Million Did Die, because the case of Raul Hilberg is not 6 million, it’s 5.1 million and I say that in …1985, when he published his other edition of The Destruction of the European Jews, it was even more evidence that this book was wrong. If this book is wrong on at least one topic, the question of the plan, of an extermination, so this one of Richard Harwood is right on that topic, I suppose, on that topic at least, which is all the same a central topic, because who among the laymen, who knows that there is no order from Hitler, that there is no plan? It is not the TV, it is not the newspaper, who are telling us that. The laymen do not know that, but if they have this booklet of Richard Harwood, they have this essential information.” (31-8520b to 8520d)
Faurisson could not remember any discussion of the Harwood booklet in 1979 at the Los Angeles conference, unless [Butz] mentioned it in a kind of historical survey. But Faurisson could not remember any individual discussions about it. (31-8520d, 8520e) Nor was the book Six Million Did Die a topic of discussion at all to his knowledge in Los Angeles in 1979. In Faurisson’s opinion, Did Six Million Really Die? was “very important,” not for historians to quote, but as a vehicle to let the general public know about revisionism.
Faurisson believed that Ernst Zündel was a major figure among revisionist publishers by the simple fact that he had published Did Six Million Really Die?. Over the years since 1979, Faurisson had communicated with Zündel by letters, phone calls and conversations. Zündel, said Faurisson, had “never” indicated any doubt to him about his belief in revisionism. (31-8520e, 8520f)
In 1979 in Lugano, Switzerland, Faurisson debated a team of four people including the German historian Dr. Wolfgang Scheffler, an Italian historian who was a specialist in National Socialism, a woman from Auschwitz and a woman from Ravensbrück. They were on one side, as believers in the extermination and the gas chambers, while Faurisson was on the other side, alone.
He later had two articles published in Le Monde, an important newspaper in France having a circulation of perhaps 500,000 to 600,000. The expression of his views resulted in difficulties for himself, his wife and his children. He was “condemned” three times in both criminal and civil legal proceedings in France in 1981, 1982 and 1983. (31-8520f to 8520h)
In 1981, he was found liable for defaming Leon Poliakov after accusing Poliakov of manipulating the texts of Kurt Gerstein and Dr. Johann Paul Kremer in his book Harvest of Hate, by totally changing such things as the dimensions of the gas chambers. Poliakov had increased them from 25 square metres to 93 square metres. Faurisson’s analysis of Poliakov’s manipulations took six pages, but a more recent analysis of Poliakov done by Carlo Mattogno showed that Poliakov had made something like 400 mistakes or manipulations of texts. (31-8520h, 8520i)
In the Poliakov verdict, the judges found that:
It is not explained how Mr. Poliakov can fix the area of the gas chamber at 93 square metres. There is an error there that could indeed be at fault…Other errors could have been made…Mr. Poliakov could, on some points of detail, have infringed upon scholarly exactitude.
For the judges, said Faurisson, this was annoying but not serious and the court held that Faurisson did not have the right to treat Poliakov as he had done. What counted in the eyes of the court was that Poliakov had been:
…motivated by a passionate and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and some particularly tragic facts of contemporary history.
The case went on to appeal without any change in the result. Faurisson had been unable to attend court for health reasons. As a result of the case, Faurisson was ordered to publish the text of the judgment at his own cost if it was requested by Poliakov. However, Poliakov never asked for the judgment to be published. Faurisson pointed out that Poliakov, who had no degree and was supposed to be a historian, might have found it upsetting to publish something “where it was said by the judges that on some point of detail he had infringed upon…” 17(31-8520j, 8520k)
The second case in France against Faurisson arose after he said on radio his famous sixty words:
The alleged Hitlerite gas chamber and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which opened the way to a gigantic political, financial fraud, whose principal beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and whose principal victims are the people of Germany — but not their rulers — and the entire Palestinian people.
This was taken to mean, said Faurisson, that he had said “the Jews lied to make money.” But that was a caricature of what he said: “…when I say it is a historical lie, it means that it is not a common lie. It means that I don’t treat the people as liars, I treat them as victim of a lie…The people who believed that Nero set fire to Rome are not liars. I was victim of this lie up till 1960…” (31-8520l)
As a result of saying these sixty words, Faurisson was accused of group defamation and ordered to pay a “gigantic sum,” of about 3.6 million francs. On appeal, this fine was reduced to a very small amount. The judgment in his case was supposed to be read on French TV at prime time and on radio stations and newspapers. (31-8520k, 8520m)
The third legal proceeding arose after Faurisson had an article published in Le Monde entitled “The Problem of the Gas Chamber or the Rumour of Auschwitz.” After the first article was published on December 29, 1978, Faurisson was severely attacked in Le Monde by persons who published articles several times longer than his. Faurisson exercised his right of reply (which exists in France) and published the second article on January 16, 1979. Once more he was attacked but in those attacks he was not mentioned by name. He obtained a short further right of reply on March 29, 1979. (31-8520m,n, 8520o)
As a result of these publications, a civil suit was brought against Faurisson by nine Jewish organizations and former detainees. Said Faurisson, “I was condemned for damage and it means that I had inflicted to some people, which were not defined, a kind of mental anguish by the fact that I had said that the gas chamber, the genocide, had not existed, but if I may, my condemnation on the first instance was grave, and on appeal it changed totally. I mean that on the first instance, the court said first that she didn’t want to have anything to do with falsification of history because I was accused of damage by falsification of history, and the court said: We don’t want to care about that falsification of history, but Faurisson was not serious in his work. So we condemn him, and he treated too early a problem which is too…recent…and in appeal, the court said that I was a serious [researcher] on the question of the gas chamber but that all the same I was dangerous, and I could appear to certain people as a sympathizer of the Nazis…On appeal, on the 26th of April, 1983, the court said: Mr. Faurisson’s research has delved with the existence of the gas chambers which, if one were to believe the many testimonies, were supposedly used during the Second World War to systematically put to death some of the persons deported by German authorities. And then … the court said that there was in my work on the gassings … there was no proof of frivolity, no proof of negligence, no proof that I had deliberately chosen to ignore something, and no lie, and that there was a method, that I had arguments, but the court very prudently said that I used a line of arguments that I thought was of scholarly nature, and…I must say that the…typewritten text, said that 'Faurisson used a line of argument of scholarly nature', and in the margin, with a pen was written, 'that he thinks is of scholarly nature'. And the conclusion on that point was: the value of the conclusions defended by Faurisson rests, therefore, solely with the appraisal of experts, historians and the public.” It was the first time that a court had guaranteed French citizens the right to say that the gas chambers did not exist or may not have existed or did exist. (31 8520q to 8520s)
A further case involved Faurisson’s publisher, Pierre Guillaume, and the publication Annales d'histoire révisionniste, which took the position that the Holocaust did not exist. This litigation concluded on December 16, 1987, when the court held that there was now, in France, a debate among historians about this question. The decision, however, had been appealed by the Jewish organizations which brought the suit. The thesis of Annales d'histoire révisionniste was exactly the same as that of Did Six Million Really Die?. Faurisson believed that the attitude of the historical community was becoming more favourable towards revisionism. (31 8520t, 8520u)
Christie asked Faurisson whether he was part of an international Nazi conspiracy to rehabilitate Adolf Hitler and take over the world. Said Faurisson, “No, I'm not interested in Adolf Hitler. I don’t appreciate him more than Napoleon Bonaparte. There are people who admire Napoleon. That’s not my case. People who admire Hitler. That’s not my case. And if I was like that, I won’t have on my side Jews of sometimes very high reputation, or Jews who are not of very high reputation, and who intervened actively in my favour.” These Jews were, on the issue of freedom of speech, Noam Chomsky, and on the thesis itself, Claude Karnoouh, Jacob Assous, Tamas Rittersporn. Faurisson denied that he was anti-Jewish and stated that he was not even anti-Zionist: “I think that if I was a Jew, perhaps I would be a Zionist.” (31 8520u,v)
Faurisson testified that he came to Canada voluntarily to testify in 1985. He was not paid for doing so and did not enjoy the experience. He was under no obligation to return for this trial and was not being paid to do so. He did not enjoy testifying but did so, he explained, “Because I think that in a way I am judged through Ernst Zündel. I share his views on this topic and I think that it’s my duty to do what I do.” (31-8520v, 8520w)
At the end of Faurisson’s examination in chief by defence attorney Christie, he identified a plan of the Leichenkeller at Sachsenhausen concentration camp which he had obtained from the Federal Archives in Koblenz, Germany. Said Faurisson, “Leichenkeller…means underground morgue. And we see there, as I said yesterday, that there are three parts. One part for 100 bodies put into coffin, another place [for] 80 bodies not in coffin and separate from that, twenty place for twenty infected bodies.” Faurisson noted that Sachsenhausen was not an extermination camp and had never been alleged to be an extermination camp by any historian. (31-8521 to 8523; Plan of Leichenkeller at Sachsenhausen filed as Exhibit 128 at 31-8523)
The cross-examination of Faurisson was conducted by Crown Attorney John Pearson. Pearson commenced his questioning by suggesting to Faurisson that he in fact enjoyed testifying very much and enjoyed expounding on his theories. Faurisson replied: “Not at all…And I can explain…why. My opinion is that we cannot debate about history in a court and I have the experience of that. I think that I have the right to say it. Then, I have so much work, so much to do that to come from France to Toronto and to work on the spot without my files, without my books or only with very few of them, it’s very difficult. I don’t enjoy it at all. And especially when suddenly, after having prepared such a work, I discover that our defence lawyer asked me suddenly to prepare quite a work about this book that I call rubbish which is Six Million Did Die. I had to improvise.” (31-8526, 8527)
Pearson produced the book The Hitler We Loved and Why and placed it in front of Faurisson. You wouldn’t write a book like that, would you?, asked Pearson. Faurisson replied: “…I do not know the content of this book. You mean that I would never write a book with this title.” Pearson told Faurisson he could look at the contents of the book. Faurisson refused: “Sir, I am sorry, I cannot just look at the content of a book. I never look at the content of a book like that and I can tell you that I have never seen in my life this book.” He agreed, however, that he would not write a book with that title: “I do not love him, so I couldn’t…put such a title.” (31 8527, 8528)
But would you agree, asked Pearson, that your theories would be very useful to someone who did admire Hitler and who loved him? Faurisson disagreed: “Certainly not. When I have something to say that I think is accurate, I think I must say it and I must never mind if it pleases, as we say in French…Peter or…Paul. My duty is to say it and I don’t call it 'the truth' myself. I try to be accurate. That’s the only thing I try to do.” (31-8529)
Did Faurisson disagree that his theories would assist in rehabilitating Hitler? Replied Faurisson: “I cannot do anything against that. If somebody makes…a car, a toy, or whatsoever, if this car or this toy is used by you or by your enemy, that’s not my business. I do what I have to do and then happens what might happen…Since twenty-eight years, I am working on this and I can tell you that I have seen people, of course, most of them against me, but some of them coming to me and saying, shaking hands, 'Oh, thank you Mr. Faurisson, you did that for God' and another one, 'Oh, thank you, Mr. Faurisson, you are an [atheist] because you are fighting against a religion, the religion of the Holocaust'. The next one could say also 'thank you' because it’s against the British or is for Germany or for the right or for the left. You must know that in France, I am supposed to be, for some people, a rightist, and for other people, a leftist…It depends [on] the hour of the day.” As to his work being useful to rehabilitate Hitler, Faurisson said: “Not more. Not less than for anyone who would rehabilitate or attack anyone.” (31-8529, 8530)
In 1979, after the Institute for Historical Review convention in Los Angeles, didn’t you give a lecture in Washington at the headquarters of the National Alliance?, asked Pearson. Said Faurisson: “Sir, I was asked by somebody to go and deliver a speech somewhere and I am ready to deliver a speech, in this case, anywhere. I don’t ask the people, 'What is your political idea', 'Show me your card, your identity'. I had the possibility of talking to those people. I must say that I felt very uncomfortable when arriving on the place being like that I saw something like perhaps twenty-five people and at the first rank on two chairs, two young boys with a swastika. Really, I said am I going to deliver my speech or am I going to leave? It was a question…I felt uncomfortable…I enjoyed it all the same more than coming to Toronto to testify.” (31-8530, 8531, 8534)
Faurisson had been invited to speak by Mark Weber whom he knew, admired and collaborated with. Faurisson did not know the name of the organization he was to speak before in Washington: “I don’t know the name of this organization. Perhaps at that time in September 1979, I was told…I don’t think even that he told me that it was an organization. Maybe, I don’t know. Maybe he told me there is a gentleman, he wants to have you deliver a speech and that’s all.” (31- 8532, 8533)
Faurisson testified in response to Pearson’s inquiries that he did not know what the National Vanguard was and did not remember the name William Pierce from the 1979 Washington meeting. (31-8532, 8533)
Pearson turned next to the subject of the lawsuits in France against Faurisson. He suggested to Faurisson that the court found that he based his accusations against Poliakov on minor errors which did not justify Faurisson calling Poliakov a manipulator and fabricator of documents. Faurisson disagreed: “…I quoted this judgment this morning and I said why they considered that I was libelling this man and why I didn’t have the right to do so. But they didn’t say minor errors.” Faurisson re-read the excerpt from his article “Revisionism on Trial, Developments in France, 1979-1983” (Journal of Historical Review, vol. 6, 1985, page 133) that he had read previously. Faurisson was fined an amount he could not remember and was also ordered to pay symbolic damages of one franc to Poliakov. (31-8534 to 8537, 8540)
Said Faurisson: “…If you want to show that I have been condemned, I agree totally. I have been condemned and condemned and condemned but I am going to stick by my guns. Even — even — if I have to go to jail and this I have said it, Mr. Pearson. [In] September, 1987, in France, they are preparing what they call a Lex Faurissonia. That’s Latin. It means a law special against Faurisson18 and I said when the Minister of Interior went on the radio station to talk about that, I made a journalist ask this question, 'Must Mr. Faurisson go into jail?', and he said, 'Certainly, if it depended upon me'. And I said if ever a court condemns me with a suspended sentence, I will immediately repeat that gas chamber and genocide are a historical lie and the tribunal will have to take its responsibility and to send me to jail because of what I think is right. I am ready to go to jail and those condemnations for me are exactly like insults, not more, not less. I am very upset to be condemned. Very upset. My wife is even more upset and my children, but I shall continue because at the same time, I am a happy man. I have called that homage…It means that the way they treat me, the fact that they are not able, all those brilliant people, to bring one proof of the existence of one gas chamber…is for me a homage.” (31-8538, 8539)
Pearson next brought up the legal proceeding which resulted from Faurisson’s sixty words. Faurisson testified that he had spoken on Radio Europe-1 “because one week before or two days before, I don’t remember, I was so strongly attacked by Mr. Jean Pierre-Bloch — saying that I was a man paid by the Arabs, that my books were translated in Chinese and in every language of the earth, etc., etc. I was shown as a criminal, a man paid, doing all lying for money and all that. I asked for a right to answer and my publisher went and see a journalist called Ivan Levai, [saying], 'After what Mr. Jean Pierre-Bloch has said, you cannot refuse Faurisson to come and to try to answer.' And this journalist was honest enough to ask me to come…” (31 8542, 8543)
Faurisson testified that Pierre-Bloch had made a caricature out of his views on the gas chamber. Pierre-Bloch “kept saying that I was denying the concentration camps, the crematories, etc., so I had to make the point quite clear and I said what I considered as a historical lie and as the question is always asked to me but, okay, it’s a historical lie but why, for whom? Against whom? I am obliged to give an explanation…” (31-8543, 8544)
By virtue of saying the sixty words, Faurisson was found guilty of defamation of a group, namely, the Jews. He was fined 5,000 francs and sentenced to a three month suspended sentence of imprisonment. In addition, he was ordered to pay 4,000 francs in damages and 2,000 francs in costs, and many other costs which he had not yet finished paying. Said Faurisson: “I can tell you that when I was here in January, the bailiff…came to my house and ordered my wife to pay. She didn’t pay. He was to seize our furniture. My wife had to ask money to her mother to pay…in 1981, I had to live for something like one year with one bed, one chair, the kitchen, we had taken out all our furniture in case of seizure. That’s how my wife and myself we have lived. And I have the proof of that because a British journalist of the Manchester Guardian came to my house and wrote an article about that and said that he had seen an old man, a bed, and a red sofa.” (31-8544 to 8549)
Pearson next produced the two judgments relating to the articles which Faurisson had published in Le Monde, and suggested that he had been sued for failing his obligation as an academic. Faurisson disagreed: “I was sued for damage by falsification of history.” In France, explained Faurisson, damages were normally payable if someone had performed a job badly, but in his case, he had been hired by no one and paid by no one to write the articles. Nevertheless, the court held that what he had written made people “suffer.” (31-8550, 8551)
The judgment of April 26, 1983 in this case held that Faurisson’s work was serious and not negligent and upheld the right of a French citizen to say that the gas chambers did not exist. (31-8551)
Pearson produced the judgment at the trial level where it said:
Mr. Faurisson, a French academic, fails in his obligations of caution, objective circumspection and intellectual neutrality that binds the researcher he wants to be.
Faurisson agreed the trial judgment held this, but indicated that this finding had been corrected by the Court of Appeal. Pearson produced the transcript of the judgment of the French Court of Appeal of April 26, 1983 and read the following excerpt:
Limiting ourselves for the time being to the historical problem that Mr. Faurisson wanted to raise on this precise point, it is proper to state that the accusations of frivolity made against him are lacking in pertinence and are not sufficiently proven; in fact, Faurisson’s logical approach is indeed to try to demonstrate, by using a line of argument that he thinks is of a scientific nature, that the existence of the gas chambers, as they have usually been described since 1945, runs into an absolute impossibility which would be sufficient by itself to invalidate all of the existing testimonies or, at least, make them suspect.
…It is not the job of the court to speak up on the legitimacy of such a method or on the full significance of the arguments set forth by Mr. Faurisson, nor is it any more permissible for the court, considering the research to which he has devoted himself, to state that Mr. Faurisson has frivolously or negligently set the testimonies aside, or that he has deliberately chosen to ignore them. Furthermore, this being the case, nobody can convict him of lying when he enumerates the many documents that he claims to have studied and the organizations at which he supposedly did research for more than fourteen years. Therefore, the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians, and the public.
Pearson suggested that what the Court of Appeal had said was that the charges of frivolity were not pertinent to the court’s finding, because it was not the job of the court to decide history. Faurisson disagreed and testified that the word “pertinence” in French had a different meaning: it meant “not founded, accusations which are not founded.” (31-8554)
Pearson suggested that at the previous trial of Zündel in 1985, it was said to him that the French Court of Appeal said the following:
Mr. Faurisson, who is shocked about what he refers to as the religion of the Holocaust, has never found a word to express his respect for the victims by reminding his readers of the reality of racial persecutions of the mass deportation which caused the death of several millions of people, Jewish or not. So that, in spite of the partial character of his work, history “revisionism", which he opposes against the “cause of the exterminationists", could play a role in an attempt of an overall rehabilitation of the Nazi war criminals.
Faurisson testified that there was a mistake in this translation: the words “could play a role in” should be “could look like an attempt.” Pearson suggested that the Court of Appeal for Paris found exactly what he had previously suggested, that Faurisson’s work was helpful to someone who wanted an overall rehabilitation of Nazi war criminals. Faurisson disagreed: “I wouldn’t say that. You must look [at] the text very closely and it says that it could look as if, but it could look for who? That’s the question. And, of course, I know very well that some people may say Faurisson says that because he wants to rehabilitate the war Nazi criminal. Of course I know that. I think that the court is quite right in saying that…” Faurisson pointed out that the French court was wrong in holding that he had never found a word to express his respect for the victims. Faurisson had used the very word “respect” to express his concern for all the victims of the last war, not just the Jews. (31-8574, 8575)
Pearson continued reading from the 1985 transcript, and the French judgment which was put to Faurisson at that time:
The positions adopted by Mr. Faurisson are just as offensive for the survivors of persecutions and deportations as they are insulting for the victims, since the general public is induced to misappreciate the suffering, if not even cast doubt on it. They are, in addition to this, of a nature as has been justly pointed out by the inferior court as to provoke passionate reactions of aggressivity against those who thereby find themselves implicitly accused of lie and of possible power. Mr. Faurisson’s offenses have caused the detriment invoked by the associates which are the defendants on appeal. The sentences promulgated with the previous judgment will ensure a rightful compensation for it.
Faurisson agreed with the translation except for the phrase “positions adopted by Mr. Faurisson.” Faurisson indicated that in French, the meaning was “Not the position adopted by Faurisson, but the position..[as] described by the court.” Any specialist of French text could see that the court was quite clear when it stated that Faurisson’s work was serious. However, said Faurisson, “…then the court was trying to find the way to catch me and it is a style horribly complicated, obscure, they don’t dare say that I am for the Nazi, absolutely not. That I could look like a Nazi, not even. But if we supposed that…Faurisson could look like a Nazi. I am sorry, it's…very bad French. Not clear at all.” (31-8576 to 8579)
Faurisson sued Jean Pierre-Bloch because he had called him a falsifier. “The result of the suit,” said Faurisson, “is that I lost this suit but I want to say why. It is because, like in the case of Mr. Poliakov, the court said that Mr. Pierre-Bloch was wrong in treating me [as] a falsifier, but he did that with good faith. And in the newspaper of Mr. Jean Pierre-Bloch called Le Droit de Vivre — the right to live — there was a big title saying 'To treat Faurisson as a falsifier, it’s to defame him but with good faith.' And after that, I saw everywhere that I was once more a falsifier. And constantly there are two weapons against me. One is the ever 'good faith' of my adversaries. When they say anything against me, they have 'good faith.' They are wrong, but they did it with 'good faith.' And the other one is the 'public order.' Faurisson has the right to say this and that but he troubles the 'public order,' so, we have to punish him. So, two pistols, one the public order of the state, and the other pistol, the 'good faith' of my adversaries.” (31-8580, 8581)
April 18, 1988
Crown Attorney Pearson reviewed the legal proceedings between Faurisson and Jean Pierre-Bloch in France. Faurisson confirmed that he had brought an action against Pierre-Bloch alleging defamation which suit had been dismissed. Faurisson’s claim for damages against Pierre- Bloch had also been dismissed. (31 8592, 8593)
Pearson read the words of Pierre-Bloch which constituted the basis of Faurisson’s action for defamation. In his published memoirs, Pierre-Bloch had written the following passage dealing with his activities as the president of the International League Against Anti-Semitism and Anti- Racism:
…We are going to turn against forgers. I have decided with my lawyer friends to lead the battle against those “historians” who are controlled from a distance and whose role consists in clearing the Nazi criminals and denying the Jewish genocide … But something more serious, we will be dealing with a R. Faurisson, professor of French literature at the Lyon II University, who has several times tried to give substance to the idea that the Jewish genocide would never have been intentional and that the “homicidal gas chambers” would not have existed. I will be seeking legal redress for the moral injury inflicted on the LICRA because of Faurisson’s writings which, by making Nazism commonplace, constitute an encouragement to racism and anti-Semitism.
Faurisson testified that the word “forger” was the basis of his action against Pierre Bloch: “I didn’t mind too much about racism and anti-Semitism. I was bothered by forger.” (31-8595)
The French court held that Pierre-Bloch did not set out precise facts proving that Faurisson was a forger within a strict legal meaning. However, the court went on to hold that the word “forger” need not be given a strict legal meaning:
Considering that giving the word “forger” a strict meaning lends itself to the criticisms put forward [by] the defence that it was in no way necessary considering the context of the text at issue. Considering that when reading the text as a whole, one has to give the term a different meaning that explains and reinforces the examination of the documents produced as evidence as well as being a proof of good faith.
The French court then listed Pierre-Bloch’s allegations against Faurisson:
3. For having tried to give substance to the idea that the Jewish genocide would never have been intentional and that the homicidal gas chambers would not have existed; for having, by his writings “making Nazism commonplace", encouraged racism and anti-semitism; …for having, during Ivan Levai’s radio program on the station Europe 1 on December 17, 1980, claimed that “the lie of the gas chambers and the alleged Jewish genocide represents a giant political and financial swindle benefitting the State of Israel and international Zionism, the victims being the German people and the Palestinian people.”
Faurisson pointed out that Pierre-Bloch did not quote his sixty words correctly. Faurisson always made clear in the sixty words that he was referring to a historical lie, not an ordinary lie. If he did not say “historical lie” when expressing his views, the context made clear that he was referring to a historical lie. (31-8597, 8598)
The French court concluded by saying that Pierre-Bloch had accused Faurisson of trying to distort history and in doing so had not misrepresented or distorted Faurisson’s theories. It then went on to say:
Considering that these allegations concern the figurative meaning of the word “forger” but undoubtedly affect the honour and reputation of the applicant…
Faurisson testified that this passage indicated that the court held he was not a “forger” in the ordinary sense, and not even in the figurative sense which the court had adopted. (31-8600, 8601)
The French court went on to make it clear that the court did not have to judge the value of Faurisson’s work; nevertheless, it made reference in its judgment to Faurisson’s “personal but completely unwarranted explanation of the 'special actions' mentioned fifteen times and with horror in Dr. Kremer’s diary.” Faurisson pointed out that this was the opinion of the court, and that he had suppressed nothing in this research because he had included a photocopy of the actual document in Polish so that readers could see it. (31-8603, 8604)
The French court held further:
Considering that the positions thus adopted by R. Faurisson are as insulting for the survivors of racial persecution and mass imprisonment in concentration camps as offensive for the memory of the victims, the general public being led to ignore their sufferings, if not to doubt them, that besides they are obviously liable to provoke, as justly put by the Court, emotional aggressive reactions against all those who are implicitly accused of lying and deceiving.
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that what the court was saying was that his work created social and racial intolerance because it gave rise to negative reactions against the Jews whom Faurisson portrayed as being liars and cheats. Faurisson disagreed: “…May I try to make it simple. The court didn’t say that. The court, in this famous 26th of [April], 1983 judgment said, to make it simple, Faurisson is serious but dangerous, and I agree. I am dangerous because I am serious….what the court said is that Faurisson is not a Nazi but maybe behind Faurisson there is the shadow of a shadow of a Nazi.” (31-8605, 8606)
The French court dismissed Faurisson’s suit against the defendant Pierre-Bloch, holding that Pierre-Bloch had done his work:
…without exaggerating or distorting the truth, with objectivity and sincerity…The purpose of informing the public seems to the court to be sufficiently serious and legitimate as to warrant the means used…Considering that if [Pierre-Bloch] has not been able under the meaning of the Section 35 of the 29th of July, 1881 Act, to show completely and perfectly the accuracies of the defamatory charges, he has, however, evidenced enough supporting facts to prove its good faith.
Said Faurisson: “And that’s exactly what I told you the other day. They say…to treat Faurisson as a forger is a defamation. That’s quite clear. But with good faith, and they were so pleased that in the monthly [publication] of Mr. Pierre-Bloch, the title was to treat Faurisson as a forger…is defamation but with good faith. And after, everybody treated me [as] a forger, falsifier: 'Go on, you will say that you said it with good faith'. That’s one of the pistol I told you. I have two pistol against me, the good faith of those people, and the public order, which means 'No disturbance, please', and I am obliged to admit that revisionism is something which brings disturbance. It disturbs even myself.” (31-8609)
Pearson moved on to the decision of December 16, 1987 of the High Court of Paris which concerned a May 25, 1987 order prohibiting the distribution of a revisionist publication just prior to the commencement of the Klaus Barbie war crimes trial in France. The order was obtained by various Jewish organizations. No appeal was taken from the order by the publisher, Mr. Guillaume. Following the trial, on October 22, 1987, Guillaume applied to have the prohibition lifted and was successful.
Pearson suggested that the reason the prohibition was lifted was because the Barbie trial was over and there was no longer any reason to have the order enforced. Faurisson disagreed and indicated that the court could have decided otherwise. As it was, there was an uproar in France against the lifting of the order and newspapers had called it a “criminal verdict.” (31-8610 to 8612)
Guillaume had published his reasons for not appealing the order in the first instance:
Under these conditions, I gave up appealing this May 25, 1987 order. Enough is enough. I am tired. I do not have to make people think that I put my trust in the justice system of this country.
Said Faurisson: “He said that and we could have good reason, sir, the more I see the difference between the French justice and the Anglo-Saxon justice…I must say I don’t criticize my country, but you have the luck to have a jury and transcript. We do not have that and our judges are not independent [like] yours.” (31-8613, 8614)
Guillaume had also asked for damages of 50,000 francs against the Jewish organizations who originally obtained the order. Pearson suggested that he did not obtain one franc in damages. Said Faurisson: “That’s always what you ask when you consider that you have been wrongly convicted, punished. You ask for a reparation but revisionist[s], they always obtain one franc. When they are punished, it’s always thousands of francs, ten thousand of francs, and when they win, it’s one franc. It will change.” Faurisson did not know what Guillaume obtained in damages but testified that he had gotten back the seized publication, Annales D'Histoire Révisionniste: “It was an extraordinary victory. I didn’t think that we could get that. And especially when the tribunal said there is now in France an open debate among historians. That’s the first time that I am treated as a historian.” (31-8614)
Pearson read from the judgment of the court:
Whereas to take this protective action that had, by its very nature, limited effects in time, the summary proceedings judge took into account the fact that Mr. Guillaume, publisher, had deliberately…circulated in his first issue of the journal Annales D'Histoire Révisionniste, devoted to the denial of the existence of the Jewish genocide, at the exact time the trial of Klaus Barbie started, during which would be judged facts concerning this particularly painful period in modern history. It is for this reason, considered by him as crucial, that he deemed the exhibit and distribution of the work in places open to the public, taking place under special circumstances, that could not be considered to be a mere expression of “a desire to see a historical debate initiated under normal conditions,” and were felt “as a provocation to a discrimination founded on the origin of a group of people liable to entail, at the present time, violent disturbances and reactions.”
Whereas the circumstances that existed at the time and had justified the ban issued provisionally by the summary proceeding judge are no longer present; whereas the statement of the arguments put forward in Mr. Guillaume’s journal and the controversy liable to result and arise in them in the absence of any case in negligence come under the free expression of ideas and opinions and constitute a matter for a public debate among historians, the Court does not have to exercise a control over such a discussion.
Said Faurisson: “That’s what those reasonable and courageous judge[s] said. They could have said something quite different. They could have said we consider that it continues; that it is a touchy problem and that the revisionist have no right to publish anything. They could have said that. They said exactly the contrary…We must put all that, Mr. Pearson, into context and see how the French court reacted in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 up till 1987. At the beginning, in 1979, do you know that the court decided that I had not even the right to put gas chamber into quotation mark[s]? To put…gas chamber into quotation mark[s] was to show disrespect and to trouble public order and moral order…in France. Could you imagine that? And then in 1983, they said, '… Okay, he has the right to say that the gas chamber did not exist, but he mustn’t say more.' And now, 1987, we have the right to say no gas chamber, no genocide and, of course, we must choose our words to say that. As we say in France, we must walk on the eggs very carefully. If you say that in a way which could be considered as insulting, you are going to be punished. But now you have the right to say the gas chamber[s] did not exist, the genocide did not exist and I put that into context…I insist on the fact that they say there that why there was an uproar in France against this judgment, they said now it’s a matter for a public debate among who? Among historians. And what conclusion? The court does not have to exercise a control over such a [discussion]. I wish the French court would have discovered that in 1979 and not in 1987, but that’s our struggle, you see. We need time.” (31-8619, 8620)
Pearson next moved to the judgment of 28 January, 1988 of the Court of Appeal of Versailles against the leader of the National Front party of France, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Pearson asked Faurisson if he would agree the National Front was an extreme right-wing racist party. Faurisson replied: “I think that…in the United States, they call those people [populists], you know. I don’t know if it’s extreme. I know the people who do not like them call them extremists.” Faurisson said that he did not like the party “very much…They say they are not racist. I find them, myself, racist, but this is an opinion.” (31-8620 to 8623)
The case arose when Le Pen appeared on the French television programme Grand Jury RTL Le Monde. Le Pen was suddenly asked if he had read the work of Faurisson and Roques. He replied that he had not, but that he thought everything should be debated as there was not an official historical truth. He was asked a question about the gas chambers, said Faurisson, and “..he said that the gas chamber[s] were a detail and meaning — the text is quite clear about that — meaning the way the Jews were killed is a detail and that’s an argument that very often I, myself, I hear when the people say 'Gas chamber or not, what’s the importance of it'. And for me, it’s really not a detail. I do not agree at all with Mr. Le Pen when he said a detail. He was wrong.” (31- 8624, 8625)
The French court stated in its judgment against Le Pen that saying something was a question of detail had a common usage in the French language which referred to something being unimportant. Faurisson agreed with this statement. (31-8625)
Pearson continued reading from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Versailles:
Given that the deliberate use of this expression, even when restricted to the circumstances and the methods of Nazi extermination, gives the impression of an acceptance of something horrible because it is equivalent to trivializing, if not ignoring, the suffering and persecution inflicted on the deportees and more specifically, on the Jews and the gypsies during the Second World War and in so doing, reduces to a simple reality of war — independently of Mr. Le Pen’s opinion on the existence of gas chambers — acts that have been found to be crimes against humanity; it follows from the above that the survivors of racial persecution and their families, the defence of whose collective interests is the respondent’s responsibility, have seen their right to faithful remembrance, respect, compassion and homage seriously impinged upon.
Given that this disturbance is obviously unlawful, starting from the moment that the contentious comment — which attacks values as fundamental as the remembrance of the victims of genocide, worship of the dead, and the profound and respectable convictions of a virtually unanimous public opinion — was uttered in the course of a radio broadcast with a large audience, and that it could not be immediately and effectively refuted, and that it is beyond the scope of strict historical debate…In this regard, [Le Pen] argues that the meaning and the scope of his comments were deformed by the media; that the debate, which concerns the existence of the gas chambers, is not a matter for the Court, but for experts, historians or the public; that freedom of expression must not be hindered, especially when, as in this case, it is based on historical research… Given that the said comment constitutes an error in this regard, and at the same time a wrongful exercise of freedom of speech, which, far from being absolute, independently of the restrictions decreed by certain repressive texts, is limited except in the case of legitimate circumstances or the observance of specific precautions, not present in this case, by respect for essential assimilable values, such as, in this case, the notion of legitimate interest legally protected…The trial Court, when it imposed the symbolic one franc damage, was making a judicial statement of guilt…
The court dismissed Le Pen’s appeal and ordered him to pay damages. (31-8630)
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that all of these court decisions could be summed up in one statement: that in France, Faurisson and anybody else was free to express opinions about history without any legal restrictions, but when someone publicly made statements which could harm a public interest, such as social and racial tolerance, that person broke the law. Faurisson disagreed: “I would say that sometimes a court says that we have absolutely the right to say that the gas chamber[s], the genocide did not exist. This is, for instance, in 1987. 1988, a few days after, another court said the way Mr. Le Pen expressed this idea is a bad one as an important political man and he created disturbance. Do you know that in this short judgment, you have eight times the word disturbance? And that’s normal, you see, when you have a new idea which is coming. At the beginning, everything is forbidden. Then a part of it is permitted. Then the total and then suddenly, 'Oh no, you must be careful not to express this in this way', 'You should have said it on another way'. But, what is important is the general movement. The revisionism is more and more accepted. Now we are only nit-picking on the way a political man said 'detail'. He shouldn’t have said 'detail.' It was shocking; shocking for this court. But you see, few years ago, everything was shocking. The simple fact to say the gas chamber[s] did not exist, which is a dry way of saying the things, was not permitted. I have no right to teach since 1979. Why? Because I said the gas chamber did not exist. Nothing else.” (31-8630 to 8632)
Are you suggesting, asked Pearson, that you were suspended because of your statement with respect to gas chambers? Said Faurisson: “Certainly, yes. I can tell you on the 13th of March, I have seen the president of my university. I have said I would like to go back and to teach. Would it be possible in October, and this gentleman said, 'No, no question, because I have no mean[s] to guarantee your security'. Because the guards of the university had a meeting in 1979. They came, in the presence of the administration, they told me, Mr. Faurisson, we must tell you that we had a meeting of different unions and our conclusion is that we are there to protect the premises, not to protect the persons…So, I have no possibility to go back … I have been punched three times those months on the 12th of July, 21 of November, the 12 of December; another professor has been punched exactly where I was punched. And you see, the last time it was in the Sorbonne and Mr. Vidal Naquet was there. He said I was an 'excrement.' Mr. Browning was there and he applauded. Now, I don’t criticize him. It’s his opinion. It’s really because I said that the gas chamber did not exist that I got into this trouble. Of course, it’s totally evident. But now the president of my university is very embarrassed because he see[s] very well as everywhere in the French intellectual circles that those gas chamber do not stand anymore. He sees that very well, but you see you have public order, necessity of guaranteeing my life.” (31-8632, 8633)
Pearson put to Faurisson that the Court of Appeal for Versailles said that his views ran contrary to a virtually unanimous public opinion. Replied Faurisson: “…I do not agree and we have no real Gallup [poll] to know what the French people think about that…” In Faurisson’s opinion, his position vis-a-vis French law was “now nearly splendid.” (31-8633, 8634)
Pearson suggested that he only ran afoul of French law when he accused the Jewish community of a gigantic swindle. “Not the Jewish community,” said Faurisson. “You must read with attention my sixty words. When I say Zionism, you must understand that for a historian, in every country, sir, you have historical lie. Do you know that the nations are founded necessarily on [legends], on myth[s], on historical lie[s]? And it’s not because I criticize the Zionism on this very historical lie, that I don’t know that the French have all sorts of [legends], the French imperialists and [colonialists], they were convinced that they were more intelligent, that they were bringing a light and so on. That’s a kind of myth. The American [did] the same thing with the Indians.” (31-8634)
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that his sixty words expressed the same sentiment as Harwood expressed on page 30 of Did Six Million Really Die? when Harwood wrote:
It is a resounding confirmation of the fact that Jewish casualties during the Second World War can only be estimated at a figure in thousands. Surely this is enough grief for the Jewish people? Who has the right to compound it with vast imaginary slaughter, marking with eternal shame a great European nation, as well as wringing fraudulent monetary compensation from them?
Faurisson answered: “I wouldn’t express it this way.” He testified that he would express it in his sixty words: “Sixty words and excuse me, and with the explanation before and after. For instance, when I said the principal beneficiaries and when I said the principal victims, I gave example of non-principal beneficiaries and of non principal victims. Among those non-principal victims, I said the young Jewish generations, which are brought up in this awful Holocaust religion. I find awful…to bring up a kid and saying to this kid, 'Do you know that kids like you were systematically killed in Himmler’s slaughterhouses by one of the most so-called civilized nation[s], Germany?' Now, what kind of kid are you preparing? How is he looking to the other people if he thinks that one of the most civilized nation has done that. So what about those who are supposed not to be as civilized? What does it mean? I wouldn’t bring up my kid like that. I find that’s very bad. I think that those people are victims also of this historical lie and that’s why I have Jews on my side. And you see, you said Jean-Marie Le Pen. Jean-Marie Le Pen is a man of [the] right and some say of [the] extreme right, but…in France, revisionism is a leftist movement. It began on the left. Paul Rassinier was a Communist, non-Stalinist. Then he was a socialist deputy. And my publisher is a very well known leftist and I can assure you that in fact…not in words, those people are not at all racist…In France, it is at the beginning, a leftist movement for them. Revisionism mean revolution. A slow revolution…And a man like Le Pen…I said he jumped on the band wagon…You see he did it like an amateur, really. He did it, I said, with left- handness…He hurt himself and five days after, he recanted more or less. Every time that I see some high, responsible [person] taking position in favour of revisionist, I watch my watch and I am waiting — how much time to recant, and he recanted. But you see, I don’t know why it’s a fashion now, more or less in France, to be revisionist. You must know that. We are strongly criticized. It’s always 'all revisionists are awful people' and the minute after, 'interesting' people. So, Jean-Marie Le Pen, quite recently, condemned as he was, did something much more grave. I was extremely surprised. He said this war must finish; we cannot say anymore that Germany had the only responsibility and that Germany was worse than the others during the war and he said something else…that future Europe shall not be the Europe of Simone Veil and Julien Benda. [To] people who know a little bit of history, Julien Benda is the man who wrote in 1938 that if he had to press a button to kill all the Germans, he would do it.” (31-8636 to 8638)
Didn’t Rassinier say that the people to blame for the deaths that occurred in the concentration camps were the Communists?, asked Pearson. Faurisson replied: “The Germans first and then the others. He said the myth is to say that the SS were always there killing the people and all that. We…had nearly no contact with the SS. We had the contact in Buchenwald especially with the Communists and the organization of the Communist in Buchenwald was extremely strong.” (31-8638, 8639)
Rassinier didn’t even deny there were gas chambers, did he?, said Pearson. Faurisson replied: “At the beginning. At the beginning he said there is something wrong with this story of gas chamber and then he [did] not deny. Rassinier is like me. We do not deny…We are affirming, after research, and what I affirm is that the gas chamber never existed…Supposing that the gas chamber did not exist, must we say it or must we hide it?” (31-8639)
Are you denying, asked Pearson, that Rassinier said that the Communists were to blame for a lot of the deaths in the concentration camps?
Replied Faurisson: “For a lot of sufferings in Buchenwald and other concentration camps. And you see now it’s totally…accepted since a judgment of a court of Paris in December 1986…extraordinary judgment of great historical value…saying that now, yes, it was absolutely accepted that Marcel Paul and his kind of gang inside Buchenwald, were the real masters inside.” (31-8639, 8640)
Pearson moved next to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in the trial of the German major war criminals. Faurisson agreed that it was a lengthy judgment, some 187 pages in the French version, and that the judges were very interested in the issue of responsibility for the war and whether or not it had been an aggressive war. (31-8640, 8641)
Pearson read from the judgment:
The persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Nazi government has been proved in the greatest detail before the Tribunal. It is a record of consistent and systematic inhumanity on the greatest scale.
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that he had testified that it was a recent development that attention had been turned to the Einsatzgruppen. Faurisson disagreed with this statement: “No, not at all what I mean. I mean that at the beginning — at the end of the forties, in the fifties, in the sixties, they focussed on the gas chambers and now they focussed on other things which were mentioned, of course…Focus is the word.” (31-8642)
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the activities of the Einsatzgruppen were considered by the International Military Tribunal to be a fundamental part of the persecution of the Jews, and further, that in his second edition Hilberg stated at page 393:
The mobile killing operations in the occupied USSR were a prelude to a greater undertaking in the remainder of Axis Europe. A “final solution” was going to be launched in every region under German control.
Faurisson replied that Hilberg has used the word 'prelude': “The International Military Tribunal, of course, mention the Einsatzgruppen. The historian[s] always mention the Einsatzgruppen. But it’s a prelude… because the Einsatzgruppen, you must understand, are supposed to have done something horrible but classical in any war — that is to shoot the people with rifles, machine guns and all that. What was new, what was without precedent, was a system of extermination and it was the gas chamber.” Faurisson agreed that the International Military Tribunal commenced its discussion of the Jewish persecution by describing the activities of the Einsatzgruppen: “Of course, because it’s a question of chronology.” (31-8642 to 8644)
Pearson continued reading from the Nuremberg judgment:
But the Defendant Frank spoke the final words of this chapter of Nazi history when he testified in this Court: “We have fought against Jewry: we have fought against it for years: and we have allowed ourselves to make utterances and my own diary has become a witness against me in this connection — utterances which are terrible … A thousand years will pass and this guilt of Germany will still not be erased.”
Faurisson testified that the deposition of Höss was essential in understanding Frank’s testimony at Nuremberg: “…this man was overwhelmed by what he discovered after the war and he thought that it was a proof of an extermination and he thought that Hitler, many people in the Nuremberg trials, said, 'But Hitler fooled us'…the words that we pronounce when we are in a war against our enemy, we do not mean them, in fact, and after, we say 'But that’s horrible, what have I said, I have said extermination'.” (31-8644, 8645)
Faurisson agreed that Frank testified that his own diary had become a witness against him: “Yes, and that’s a proof of the complete sincerity of this man. He said I have brought my own diary to the Americans. [He] was so proud of this diary, of 11,500 pages.” (31-8645)
Faurisson testified that during a war one said that one was going to exterminate the enemy. But what did the word 'exterminate' mean? Said Faurisson: “See the words of La Marseillaise. They are absolutely awful when they say … 'the soil of our campaign must be drenched with the impure blood of our enemy.' You could have done a Nuremberg trial in the nineteenth century, saying, 'Oh, in the Marseillaise, you said that you were going to exterminate, and you were a racist when you said the impure blood.'"19 (31-8645, 8646)
Are you saying, asked Pearson, that it was a valid comparison to compare a man’s daily military diary with a national anthem? Said Faurisson: “I say that what he expressed, perhaps ten times during the war, is, for example, what we expressed in our national anthem. An enemy is something that you must exterminate. You don’t say when the people are going to risk their life…now, be nice with your enemy and offer him coffee. [No], you must exterminate him. That’s your only job. Germans are what? They are beasts. They are hounds…” (31-8646)
Are you saying, asked Pearson, that when Frank said he wanted to clear the Government-General of Jews, he was simply saying he didn’t like Jews? Faurisson replied: “…if he said I want to clear up, it meant to clear up. It meant I want … emigration if possible, evacuation or deportation if necessary. I want to get rid of the Jews. That’s what Frank said.” (31-8647)
Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and its analysis of the historical development of the Nazi Jewish policy. Faurisson agreed that the fourth point of the Nazi party programme stated:
Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.
Faurisson commented that, in his opinion, there were many countries who would like that but stated: “I don’t want to name anybody today.” (31-8648)
Faurisson agreed that the International Military Tribunal judgment reviewed the escalation of measures against the Jews and that generally accepted historians viewed such measures as an important component leading towards the extermination of the Jews. (31-8648)
Pearson suggested that Dr. Barton had told the court that the laws that were passed to exclude Jews from German life were all part of the process leading to the extermination. Said Faurisson: “If Dr. Barton believes that, that’s his opinion. I respect his opinion. Now, if he wants to impose [on] me his opinion, I do not agree, of course.” (31-8649)
Pearson turned to the subject of the Madagascar plan. Faurisson testified that he did not know exactly why the Madagascar plan was stopped. There were negotiations with France about it. One reason was that the British navy controlled the sea lanes, but Faurisson did not know if this was the decisive reason. He pointed out that “when you have a political decision, you might have many reasons.” (31-8650 to 8653)
Pearson read from Did Six Million Really Die? on page 7 concerning the Madagascar plan:
A memorandum of August, 1942 from Luther, Secretary-of-State in the German Foreign Office, reveals that he had conducted these negotiations between July and December 1940, when they were terminated by the French.
Faurisson testified that he was familiar with the Luther memorandum and did not remember it stating that the negotiations were terminated by the French. But he refused to categorize it as a false statement without checking. (31-8652)
Pearson continued reading the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:
The Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany before the war, severe and repressive as it was, cannot compare, however, with the policy pursued during the war in the occupied territories. Originally the policy was similar to that which had been in force inside Germany. Jews were required to register, were forced to live in ghettos, to wear the yellow star, and were used as slave laborers. In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the “final solution” of the Jewish question in Europe. This “final solution” meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy.
Pearson suggested that Raul Hilberg, in his book The Destruction of the European Jews, second edition, page 401, took essentially the same position as the International Military Tribunal when he wrote:
Heydrich now took the next step. He instructed his expert in Jewish affairs, Adolf Eichmann, to draft an authorization that would allow him to proceed against Jewry on a European-wide basis. In carefully chosen bureaucratic language the draft, not more than three sentences long, was submitted to Göring, ready for his signature (unterschriftsfertig). The text, which was signed by Göring on July 31, 1941, is as follows:
Complementing the task already assigned to you in the directive of January 24, 1939, to undertake, by emigration or evacuation, a solution of the Jewish question as advantageous as possible under the conditions at the time, I hereby charge you with making all necessary organizational, functional, and material preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe…
I charge you furthermore with submitting to me in the near future an overall plan of the organizational, functional, and material measures to be taken in preparing for the implementation of the aspired final solution of the Jewish question.
With the receipt of this letter, Heydrich held the reins of the destruction process in his hands. Soon he would be able to use his mandate.
Pearson put to Faurisson that it was clear this letter from Göring meant that in addition to the task already given of emigration and evacuation, there was to be a complete solution of the Jewish question. Faurisson disagreed: “No. Never this letter of Göring could be interpreted as something meaning extermination. Never. You wouldn’t have a dispute today between functionalists and intentionalists. You would bring this letter to any functionalist and you would ask him how is it that you are [a] functionalist?” (31-8657)
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that at least Hilberg believed this letter to be an important part of the decision-making process. Faurisson testified that he didn’t think so, but that it was not clear what Hilberg thought: “It’s not clear. He is giving one element, this letter of Göring and he thinks that it is an element to demonstrate that further on, there will be something which he calls extermination…we know that Professor Hilberg believes in the extermination of the Jews, of course.” (31-8656 to 8660)
Pearson put to Faurisson that Hilberg said that the letter constituted a mandate. Faurisson replied: “I agree that he says that, without demonstrating it for one minute. I agree that, of course, Mr. Hilberg is going to bring some element, one after the other, to try to demonstrate that there was an extermination of the Jews. But when he says, 'With the receipt of this letter Heydrich held the reins of the destruction process in his hands', I don’t have the slightest demonstration of that.” He continued: “We had already emigration and evacuation in Germany itself. And now, it’s for Europe and quite normally, you would have the Wannsee Conference after, saying it will be final solution not only for those people, who are there, for instance, in Germany, but generally for Europe. Nothing to do with an extermination.” Faurisson pointed out that Hilberg had testified in the first Zündel trial in Toronto [in 1985] that he was not able to show a plan. (31-8660, 8661)
Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:
In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the “final solution” of the Jewish question in Europe. This “final solution” meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war…
He next read from page 401 of Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews:
For years, the administrative machine had taken its initiatives and engaged in its forays one step at a time. In the course of that evolution, a direction had been charted and a pattern had been established. By the middle of 1941, the dividing line had been reached, and beyond it lay a field of unprecedented actions unhindered by the limits of the past.
Isn’t Hilberg saying, as the International Military Tribunal said in 1946, that the plans were being made in the summer of 1941?, asked Pearson. Faurisson asked: “Would you say plans?” Pearson replied that he had to admit that the word 'plan' was not used, but suggested that it was obvious Hilberg was saying that. Said Faurisson: “Yes, but the simple fact that it is not used is interesting. It’s no more the affirmative Hilberg. It’s the man who talks of things vague like that. He is transforming…What does it mean? A direction that be charted and a pattern, what does it mean? Is it a plan? Where is this plan?” (31-8662, 8663)
Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:
The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD, formed for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the population of the areas lying behind the German armies in the East, were given the duty of exterminating the Jews in those areas.
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the International Military Tribunal drew a clear connection between the activities of the Einsatzgruppen and the plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe and that this was totally consistent with the position taken by historians today. Faurisson replied by referring back to Hilberg’s comments at a conference in New York: “But without a plan…We had in Nuremberg something which was quite clear. There was a plan. Everybody could understand what is a plan. And then, what do we have? We have exactly…what Hilberg said when he said…himself, no plan, no budget, but an incredible meeting of minds and in -” (31- 8664)
Pearson cut Faurisson off and told him to deal with Hilberg’s book. Faurisson replied: “Please, I'm dealing with Mr. Hilberg. To understand what Mr. Hilberg is saying [in] this so obscure way, I am referring to Mr. Hilberg, not to myself, I repeat.” (31-8664, 8665)
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that, as an academic, he knew that in an interview one expressed views as shortly as one could in response to a question, but that if you wanted to find out what a man really thought about an area as complicated as this, you must look at his three volume work. Faurisson replied that Hilberg did not make the statement in an interview but at a conference. Faurisson himself was not at the conference, but Dr. Robert John had confirmed to Faurisson that Hilberg had indeed made the statement. It had been reported in a New York newspaper and Hilberg himself had confirmed the statement in his testimony in Toronto in 1985.20 In this statement, Hilberg said that what happened was “an incredible meeting of minds” and “mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.” What did that mean?, asked Faurisson. (31-8666 to 8668)
Pearson accused Faurisson of grabbing a hold of those two sentences of Hilberg’s and ignoring his three volume book. Faurisson disagreed: “No, because in his three volume work, as I told you, he was very vague and I am pleased to see that for once, he has been rather precise. I don’t understand what is a mind reading by bureaucrats. I have never seen bureaucrats in their [offices] without telephone and doing mind reading…That’s why we asked Mr. Hilberg to be clear. Mr. Hilberg has been totally clear in 1985. No plan, no budget, but, at that time, he maintained that there was an order. But he was quite clear, no plan, no budget.” Faurisson pointed out that the International Military Tribunal spoke constantly of a “plan", and that not one historian among the exterminationists could uphold this today. (31-8668, 8669)
Pearson put to Faurisson that Hilberg had written that the Einsatzgruppen were a prelude to the “final solution,” while the International Military Tribunal held in its judgment that the plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. Faurisson agreed that these were basically the same positions and that the Tribunal went on to quote at length from the Stroop Report. (31-8670)
Pearson suggested that any reasonable person who read the Stroop Report would realize that it illustrated there was a plan and a system, which was what Hilberg said. Faurisson disagreed and noted that while the Nuremberg Tribunal alleged that Stroop recorded that his action at Warsaw eliminated “a proved total of 56,065 people,” Hilberg had written in his book that these people surrendered. Pearson interjected that they were then transported to Treblinka where they were all exterminated. Faurisson disagreed: “No, he didn’t say that. To Treblinka, to Majdanek and to other work camps.” (31-8671, 8672)
Faurisson agreed that the International Military Tribunal said that the planned and systematic character of the Jewish persecutions was best demonstrated by the Stroop Report, but he disagreed with Pearson’s suggestion that this was a position generally accepted by historians: “Not demonstrated…Of course, you have the Einsatzgruppen, the Kristallnacht before, some speeches of Hitler before and then you have the Einsatzgruppen, then you have the Stroop Report, but sir, you are a lawyer. That’s the system of the proof you know. Like in the witchcraft trial exactly. A quarter of a proof plus a quarter of a proof plus half a proof is a proof. I find only quarter of proof and half of [a] proof. I don’t see any when I ask those people, 'Show me one proof'. I don’t want two proof[s] — one.” (31-8672, 8673)
Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and read to the court an excerpt from the Stroop Report which the Tribunal had relied upon in their judgment:
“The resistance put up by the Jews and bandits could only be suppressed by energetic actions of our troops day and night. The Reichsführer SS ordered therefore on 23 April 1943 the cleaning out of the ghetto with utter ruthlessness and merciless tenacity. I therefore decided to destroy and burn down the entire ghetto, without regard to the armament factories. These factories were systematically dismantled and then burnt. Jews usually left their hideouts, but frequently remained in the burning buildings, and jumped out of the windows only when the heat became unbearable. They then tried to crawl with broken bones across the street into buildings which were not afire … Life in the sewers was not pleasant after the first week. Many times we could hear loud voices in the sewers … Tear gas bombs were thrown into the manholes, and the Jews driven out of the sewers and captured. Countless numbers of Jews were liquidated in sewers and bunkers through blasting. The longer the resistance continued, the tougher became the members of the Waffen SS, Police and Wehrmacht, who always discharged their duties in an exemplary manner.” Stroop recorded that his action at Warsaw eliminated “a proved total of 56,065 people. To that we have to add the number of those killed through blasting, fire, etc., which cannot be counted.” Grim evidence of mass murders of Jews was also presented to the Tribunal in cinematograph films depicting the communal graves of hundreds of victims which were subsequently discovered by the Allies.
These atrocities were all part and parcel of the policy inaugurated in 1941, and it is not surprising that there should be evidence that one or two German officials entered vain protests against the brutal manner in which the killings were carried out. But the methods employed never conformed to a single pattern. The massacres of Rowno and Dubno, of which the German engineer Graebe spoke, were examples of one method; the systematic extermination of Jews in concentration camps, was another. Part of the “final solution” was the gathering of Jews from all German occupied Europe in concentration camps. Their physical condition was the test of life or death. All who were fit to work were used as slave laborers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose. With regard to Auschwitz, the Tribunal heard the evidence of Höss, the commandant of the camp from 1 May 1940 to 1 December 1943. He estimated that in the camp of Auschwitz alone in that time 2,500,000 persons were exterminated, and that a further 500,000 died from disease and starvation. Höss described the screening for extermination by stating in evidence:
“We had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavoured to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under their clothes, but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated.” He described the actual killing by stating:
“It took from three to fifteen minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually waited about one half-hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses.” Beating, starvation, torture, and killing were general. The inmates were subjected to cruel experiments at Dachau in August 1942, victims were immersed in cold water until their body temperature was reduced to 28 o Centigrade, when they died immediately. Other experiments included high altitude experiments in pressure chambers, experiments to determine how long human beings could survive in freezing water, experiments with poison bullets, experiments with contagious diseases, and experiments dealing with sterilization of men and women by X-rays and other methods.
Evidence was given of the treatment of the inmates before and after their extermination. There was testimony that the hair of women victims was cut off before they were killed, and shipped to Germany, there to be used in the manufacture of mattresses. The clothes, money, and valuables of the inmates were also salvaged and sent to the appropriate agencies for disposition. After the extermination the gold teeth and fillings were taken from the heads of the corpses and sent to the Reichsbank.
After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap. Special groups travelled through Europe to find Jews and subject them to the “final solution.” German missions were sent to such satellite countries as Hungary and Bulgaria, to arrange for the shipment of Jews to extermination camps and it is known that by the end of 1944, 400,000 Jews from Hungary had been murdered at Auschwitz. Evidence has also been given of the evacuation of 110,000 Jews from part of Rumania for “liquidation.” Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6 million Jews, of which 4 million were killed in the extermination institutions.
Faurisson agreed that Höss testified at Nuremberg as a defence witness and that he agreed, when cross-examined on his affidavit, that he had said the things that the Nuremberg Tribunal relied upon in their judgment. Said Faurisson: “Eleven times he said jawohl which means yes.” (31-8683)
In 1958, an autobiography of Höss was released and published by the historian Martin Broszat. Faurisson testified that he “certainly” questioned the authenticity of this alleged autobiography: “We had to wait eleven years to have this text and…Mr. Broszat cut the parts which were insane, so exaggerated that it was really preposterous, and we know that because the Poles, in 1972, in…The Auschwitz Books, published those parts suppressed by Mr. Broszat."21 (31- 8684)
The Höss autobiography, said Faurisson, had been written under the control of his Polish Communist captors: “What I have is a book called Commandant [of] Auschwitz, which is presented to me as an autobiography and I say that this autobiography is, on the chapter of the gas chamber[s], for example, totally preposterous. That’s what I say. I don’t…formulate any judgment on the authenticity of the papers supposed to have been written by Höss and then transformed in[to] a book.” (31-8687, 8688)
Faurisson was interested in the fact that the autobiography, written under the control of the Poles, alleged that Höss had been tortured by the British. But Faurisson emphasized that he did not know whether Höss even wrote the autobiography: “I say this is supposed to be the truth, the official truth about Höss.” Faurisson was therefore interested in what was in this book of official truth. (31-8688)
Höss never claimed at Nuremberg that he was mistreated. Said Faurisson: “He said that, in Nuremberg, [it] was marvelous. It was like a…sanitarium. He was so well treated in Nuremberg itself for a few days, but before…” Pearson put to Faurisson that the first suggestion that Höss had been mistreated by the British occurred in his autobiography. Replied Faurisson: “Chronologically, perhaps.” (31-8689, 8690)
Pearson alleged that Faurisson accepted the part of the autobiography that alleged torture by the British, but rejected the parts he didn’t like about the gas chambers. Faurisson replied: “Sir, I am quite ready to examine what he said about his treatment by the British and what he says about the gas chamber … I have done a study of what he said about his tortures and torturers and I have studied what he has said about the gas chambers …” (31-8689, 8690)
Faurisson agreed that he believed Höss’s testimony at Nuremberg contained obvious errors and was absurd, although not absolutely. “For instance,” said Faurisson, “when he says 'I was commandant of Auschwitz,' it’s not absurd, of course.” However, when Höss said that a place called Wolzek was an extermination camp, that was absurd. Faurisson rejected Pearson’s suggestion that Höss might have made a mistake by mistaking Majdanek for Wolzek. (31-8690, 8691)
Pearson pointed out to Faurisson that he had testified that Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, believed everything Höss said and was so overwhelmed by his testimony that he admitted guilt for something he hadn’t done. What I want to know, asked Pearson, why weren’t errors you found obvious not obvious to Hans Frank? Replied Faurisson: “That’s a good question…How is it that the German[s] were not sensible to those things? How is it? Or, perhaps, they were sensible because…Mr. Gilbert, who was the psychologist of the prison, told us that, for instance, Göring didn’t believe it…Streicher, I remembered the words of Streicher, technisch unmöglich, which means 'technically impossible'. So, what about Hans Frank listening to Höss?…We know that Frank, for himself, went to Belzec and he didn’t find anything of that kind. Now, I understand very well you are asking me to try to explain you what Frank could have thought…Frank was a man totally overwhelmed by the defeat, by the fact [that] he had been tortured, also by what Höss was saying and it’s so emotional that I understand that. Myself…I was nearly ready to say that the gas chamber[s] existed. I can tell you in September 1979, I nearly wrote…a letter to say 'Okay, they existed,' because you see, you want to get out of the hot water and you are ready — a confession, sir, is the result of a confrontation with your victor. You must see in questioning who holds the whip. That’s the question. In confession, it is that, and [a] confession is not inspired by fear, [but] by hope…I'm sure that he was able to say anything at that time, Hans Frank…he was not the only German who reacted like that. Becoming totally Catholic, [praying], believing in God and so on. He didn’t believe before. What does it mean when a man is desperate like that?” (31-8693, 8694)
Pearson suggested it meant that he knew the jig was up when Höss revealed in his testimony what had happened at Auschwitz. Faurisson disagreed: “That’s your interpretation…When for the first time those people…Frank, Göring and the others, when they heard about gassings and this man coming and saying three minutes and then half an hour and all that. Who is the man who could have been technically able to see that it was a total chemical impossibility? Those people were like many of the people. They thought that the courtroom of Nuremberg could have been a gas chamber. They didn’t know that. To refute an argument, you need some technical cognizance. They didn’t have it.” (31-8695)
What technical education do you have?, asked Pearson. “I tried my best,” said Faurisson. “I interrogated so many people about the gas chamber[s]. I have been to see toxicologists. I have been to see American specialist of the gas chamber[s]. I have visited a gas chamber. I have…documentation…” (31-8695)
Pearson pointed out that Faurisson himself had spoken to a gas chamber expert and when he raised the topic of the gassing of millions of Jews, the expert said he believed it. Replied Faurisson: “What I would like is all those specialist[s] of American gas chamber, I would like them to wake up and to realize, my dear, I am believing something which is impossible…Maybe forty years day and night when you are told the 'gas chamber[s] existed,' 'people were killed by million[s],' — they are like you and I; they are … listening to the media and he believes that.” (31- 8696)
So you're saying the experts don’t know either?, asked Pearson.
“I don’t say that. I say that what you should do…is prove I am wrong, …ask of a specialist [of] American gas chamber to come and testify and say that…Faurisson is wrong.” (31-8696, 8697)
Pearson returned to the subject of Raul Hilberg and asked Faurisson that if he wanted to understand Hilberg’s position, it would be better to read his three volume work than to rely on one or two sentences. Faurisson testified that the best would be to read the three volumes and everything Hilberg had written or said publicly. Faurisson reiterated that he found Hilberg’s book to be “vague.” (31-8723)
Pearson turned to page 401 of The Destruction of the European Jews, and asked Faurisson if he had any trouble understanding the following passage:
For years, the administrative machine had taken its initiatives and engaged in its forays one step at a time. In the course of that evolution, a direction had been charted and a pattern had been established. By the middle of 1941, the dividing line had been reached, and beyond it lay a field of unprecedented actions unhindered by the limits of the past.
Said Faurisson: “Many troubles. First, 'For years the administrative machine': what does that mean? '…had taken its initiative…' Which initiative? '…and engaged in its forays one step at a time'. How many steps? What are those steps?” (31-8724)
Pearson suggested they were the steps referred to by the International Military Tribunal, the process commencing with the fourth point of the National Socialist party [programme] and the steps of removing the legal rights of the Jews, such as removing them from professions. Replied Faurisson: “One step at a time, and you gave me something like three steps, things that you call yourself 'steps'…how many steps? Twelve? Ten? Twenty? But you see already three difficulties. But I continue: 'In the course of that evolution a direction had been charted…' Which direction?” (31-8724)
Pearson suggested it was clear it meant more and more repressive conduct towards the Jews. Faurisson disagreed: “That’s not clear. '…a direction had been charted'. Every time, you could interrupt me and suggest [to] me that it would be this or that, you may be right, you may be wrong. I continue: '…and a pattern had been established'. Which pattern? 'By the middle of 1941…' Extraordinary for a historian. What does it mean 'the middle of 1941'?…The 'dividing line', what is the 'dividing line'? Between what and what? '…had been reached and beyond it laid a field of unprecedented action unhindered by the limits of the past'. If it was a book about Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Winston Churchill, I would [not] understand any more.” (31-8724, 8725)
Pearson continued to read from Hilberg:
More and more of the participants were on the verge of realizing the nature of what could happen now. Salient in this crystallization was the role of Adolf Hitler himself, his stance before the world and, more specifically, his wishes or expectations voiced in an inner circle.
Said Faurisson: “That’s typical of the book. 'More and more of the participants…' I would like names. '…were on the verge of realizing the nature of what could happen now'. What does it mean to realize what could happen now?…'Salient in this crystallization…' That’s typically the kind of [word] that Hilberg didn’t use in the past…He had to invent things like 'crystallization'. I don’t understand what is 'crystallization' like that. '…was the role of Adolf Hitler himself. He stands before the world and more specifically his voice or expectations voiced in an inner circle.' What does it mean? What are those 'wishes'? How are they distinguished from 'expectations'? 'Voiced' in what 'circle'?…It’s extremely vague…” (31-8726)
Pearson continued reading from Hilberg’s book:
Already, Frank had cited Hitler’s promise to him with respect to the Generalgouvernement, Lammers had quoted Hitler’s intentions for the Reich, and Himmler had invoked Hitler’s authority for the Einsatzgruppen operations in the invaded Soviet territories.
Wasn’t Hilberg saying who the 'inner circle' was there?, asked Pearson. Replied Faurisson: “I don’t know if it is the 'inner circle' because…'inner circle' could be the people who attended his table talks….'Frank had cited Hitler’s promise to him with respect to the General Government'. Where? What is this 'promise' in respect to the General Government?…Lammers…was the head of the Reich Chancellery. He is the man who said at the Nuremberg trial, 'Extermination, I never heard about it'…” (31 8727)
Faurisson pointed out that David Irving had found a document which had disappeared from the files, from about March 1943, from Lammers, which indicated that Hitler intended to postpone the 'final solution' of the Jewish question until after the war. In the interim, said Faurisson, the Jews were put in ghettos, transit camps, in factories and so on. They were in transit camps to be sent to the east, to Riga and Minsk, for example, where there were many labour camps. Many other Jews, however, were sent west to work in Germany in the factories. An example of this were the Hungarian Jews. They were supposed to go to Auschwitz, but many of them were sent to Austria and Germany. The Germans wanted to rid Europe of the Jews as far as they could. (31-8727 to 8730)
Pearson continued reading from Hilberg:
Then, one day toward the end of the summer, Eichmann was called into Heydrich’s office, where the RSHA chief told him: “I have just come from the Reichsführer; the Führer has now ordered the physical annihilation of the Jews.”
Wasn’t that a pretty specific order?, asked Pearson. Wouldn’t Faurisson agree that Hilberg stated in that passage that there was an oral order from Hitler, and he relied on the testimony of Eichmann himself? Replied Faurisson: “…it’s Eichmann who was supposed to have been called and to have received such a fantastic order without a piece of paper … that’s the place where Mr. Browning was quite right when he said that Hilberg systematically erased in his new edition every mention of an order, publishing only one mention…of an order in a footnote. It’s footnote 30, page 402…As Browning said … [Hilberg] changes totally his explanation of the extermination of the Jews except that in a little place he puts an 'order'…If we had time we could read this so interesting footnote 30, and you would see…that even Hilberg doesn’t believe very much in it.” (31-8732 to 8734) Faurisson quoted Hilberg’s footnote 30:
During his interrogation by Israel police in Jerusalem, he suggested more plausibly that Hitler’s order had come two or three months after the June 22 German assault on the USSR.
Said Faurisson: “That’s extraordinary. He puts an order and he said, 'The reference is Eichmann, now, Eichmann changes his mind. I think…the second version was better'. You see, for such an order, the fantastic order, not a piece of paper, nothing at all, and this man, 1,500 pages, obliged to put a little shy mention of that…in footnote 30 of page 402. If you read the first edition, if you compare with that, you will see that there is a world between Hilberg number one and Hilberg number two.” (31-8735, 8736)
Did the International Military Tribunal suggest there was a written order?, asked Pearson. Faurisson replied that he wouldn’t be surprised if there was a mention of that in the lengthy judgment. Faurisson pointed out that the judgment dealt with the persecution of the Jews in many of its parts, not just the five page section which Pearson had read. (31-8735)
Pearson returned once again to Hilberg’s book and continued reading:
Eichmann could not measure the content of the words, and he believed that not even Heydrich had expected this “consequence” (Konsequenz). When Eichmann reported to Müller shortly thereafter, he realized from the Gestapo chief’s silent nod that Müller already knew. He always knows, thought Eichmann, though he never moves from his desk.
The footnote reference for this portion of text stated:
Eichmann, Ich, pp. 178-79, 229-30. In his memoirs, Eichmann dates the meeting to around the end of the year (zur Jahreswende 1941/42). During his interrogation by Israel police in Jerusalem, he suggested more plausibly that Hitler’s order had come two or three months after the June 22 German assault on the USSR…Auschwitz commander Höss recalls having been summoned to Himmler in the matter of killing the Jews during the summer. Höss also states that Eichmann visited Auschwitz shortly thereafter. Rudolf Höss, Kommandant in Auschwitz… Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.
Pearson put to Faurisson that Eichmann testified that Müller, as chief of Gestapo, had already received this information. Faurisson asked: “…with what kind of words?…'Eichmann could not measure the content of the words'. What’s that?…Heydrich calls Eichmann, he tells him I don’t know what, about a so-called extermination of the Jews. Eichmann gets out of the office, and Mr. Hilberg says, 'Eichmann could not measure the content of the words.' What does it mean? It was an order like that?…he believed that not even Heydrich, 'he believed'. Believed what?…That not even Heydrich had expected this consequence, which is vague. When Eichmann reported to Müller shortly thereafter, he realized, so 'he realized'…he has a proof to say that Eichmann 'realized'? 'From the Gestapo chief’s silent nod', there we are with the nod theory. What is this nod theory, I understand, that Müller did? And the interpretation, of course, 'We are going to exterminate the Jews'. The nod theory…It’s a joke.” (31-8736 to 8738)
Isn’t Hilberg saying there was a decision made by Hitler?, asked Pearson. Faurisson replied by pointing out that Hilberg now used the word “decision” where he had once used “order.” When required to be precise, Hilberg did not set out exactly what the circumstances were which pointed to a Hitler decision before the summer ended; he referred only to “chronology and circumstances.” Asked Faurisson: “What does it mean really for such an important order? And you have many historian who say that it was a long time before, a long time after. That’s not a demonstration…I don’t see why I should believe such things about such [an] important topic with so feeble arguments…” (31-8739)
Pearson asked who else Faurisson would rely on other than Eichmann and Höss, the two people who had first-hand knowledge of the operation? “I am ready to rely on anything,” said Faurisson. “Show me an order. I rely on it. Show me a proof. Don’t tell me, Mr. Eichmann or Mr. So-and-so said that, etc. No. And all that would have been transformed in a fantastic machinery to exterminate the Jews. You'd have needed a real budget in a country which is [at] war…You have to make decision. You have to say the trains will be like this, the coal that we need will be like that, etc., etc. Nod theory: what does it mean? From Berlin, he’s doing a nod, and the other one is doing a nod, and they are all doing nods? Those bureaucrats?” (31-8738, 8740)
So, asked Pearson, you don’t understand what Professor Hilberg has written in his book? Replied Faurisson: “No, I understand very well that he is very embarrassed…I understand very well why Mr. Hilberg didn’t come back in Toronto. That I understand very well.” (31-8740)
Pearson turned back to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and put to Faurisson that the Tribunal never suggested that there were mass gassings going on in Germany. Faurisson testified that the Tribunal mentioned two camps as examples. Those were Treblinka and Auschwitz, both of which were in Poland. But, continued Faurisson, this did not mean that the Tribunal found there were no gassings in other camps. (31-8741)
Pearson suggested it was clear the Tribunal found there were no gassings in Dachau because the judgment made reference to Dachau as being a place where inmates were subjected to cruel experiments. Faurisson replied: “Maybe, sir. That already, the 1st of October, 1946, they were hesitating to say that in Dachau there were gassings. That’s possible already at that time.” (31-8741)
Faurisson agreed that the American tribunal in the Dachau case never convicted anybody of participating in mass gassings: “Already at that time they had silently rectified the story of Dachau, of course.” Faurisson pointed out, however, that there were many testimonies and even an official report on the gassings in Dachau. What was the difference, he asked, between those assertions and the reports and assertions about Auschwitz? (31-8742, 8743)
Pearson next produced the book Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas by Rückerl and others. Faurisson agreed that the authors referred to Barrack X at Dachau (although, he said, they had mistakenly designated it as Barrack 10). He stated he would have to check if the book said that during the trial held at Dachau by the Americans, there was only one witness, a Dr. Blaha, who testified that test gassings were carried out in the gas chamber at Dachau.
Pearson read a translation of page 280 of the Rückerl book concerning Dachau:
Apart from these indications, no documentary records had been found up to now on what may have happened in the gas chamber of Dachau. This has led to some confusion in many reports which were then purposefully exploited by those with an interest in such confusion.
Visitors to the memorial in 1964-65, on the site of the former prison camp, are always informed that it has not been proven that the gas chamber in the crematoria was put into operation.
Faurisson agreed that the second sentence of the reading was an allusion to himself. He did not agree, however, with Pearson’s suggestion that the authors had accurately presented the picture with respect to Dachau. Said Faurisson: “No, if they really said about Dr. Blaha what you told me, it’s not true, because Dr. Blaha didn’t say that there were…experiments. He said that there were gassings, that he was ordered by Dr. Rascher to take care of that. Now, there is something else…this book has been published in 1983 in Germany, and they were not going to say that in Dachau there were gassings. They were already retreating. Any German reading this book could go to Dachau and see a placard saying this was the gas chamber, this gas chamber was never used. So, of course, they were not going to do that, but what I see is that they dare to say — they have the nerve to say that there was a gas chamber in Dachau. What proof?…” (31-8746)
Faurisson pointed out that the Rückerl book also contained confessions by Germans about gassings in Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen although no gas chambers existed in those camps. (31-8746, 8747)
Pearson produced Nuremberg document NO-1611 which purported to be an internal memo of the Reichsführer SS, signed by Himmler, dealing with the clearing out of Jews from parts of Poland and labour camps. (31-8748 to 8757; document NO 1611 filed as Exhibit 132). Was this a document that any competent historian of the period would look at?, asked Pearson. In reply, Faurisson indicated that it was difficult for him to say which of thousands and thousands of documents a competent historian should look at. To Faurisson, the document was of no interest to anybody believing in the extermination. The document, dated 9 October, 1942, was from the Reichsführer SS and was marked “Secret,” like every German document. He agreed that the first paragraph indicated that the Jews were to be taken out of places where they were working, such as in tailoring, fur and shoe making shops. The document continued:
However, I have given directions to proceed unrelentingly against all those who believe that they have to oppose the step with so-called armament interests, but who in reality only wish to support the Jews and their business.
Faurisson testified that “all those” referred to Germans who claimed they needed to keep their Jewish workers for so-called armament interests. The key to keeping Jewish workers was to claim that they were needed for work having a relation to armaments. Himmler was “fed up with those papers coming from Poland, saying, 'I want to keep my Jews'.” (31-8759)
Faurisson agreed that what Himmler was saying was that regardless of where they were working, Jews were going to be cleared out and placed in concentration camp factories in the Government-General. Pearson continued reading from the document at Faurisson’s request:
2. The Jews who are in actual armament firms, that is, in weapon production shops, motor-car work shops, etc., are gradually to be taken out. As the first step, they are all to be in one workshop in each plant. As the second step in this procedure, the workers of these separate workshops are to be put together, as far as possible, in separate factories through an exchange, so that eventually we would have only a few separate concentration camp factories in the General Government.
3. We will then strive to substitute Poles for these Jewish workers, and to reduce most of these Jewish concentration camp factories, to a few large Jewish concentration camp factories if possible, in the East of the General Government. Of course, there too, the Jews shall someday disappear, in accordance with the Führer’s wishes.
Pearson put to Faurisson that when Hilberg talked about the 'Führer’s wishes', this was an example of a document that Hilberg could rely on. Faurisson replied: “That’s an example, because it was a formula you had, everything with the wish of the Führer. He was always wishing, the Führer.” Faurisson continued: “This document, you see, is quite clear. It means: We have too many Jews in too many of our industry, and especially in the armament. It was dangerous because of sabotage and things like that, and we have document about that and we want to concentrate them in places where they are going to work and to work as hard as the German workers. We have extraordinary documents about that, extraordinary, saying the Jews must work as much as the German workers, but we want to concentrate them and one day when it will be possible, the total separation will be possible and they will go east. That’s what the Führer wishes. He wants them [anywhere] else than in Europe.” (31-8761, 8762)
Pearson suggested that what Himmler was saying was that the Poles were going to take the place of the Jews in the work camps and that the Jews were going to disappear in accordance with the Führer’s wishes. “To disappear from this place. It doesn’t mean that they are going to die or to be killed…The German[s] say as long as it is possible, we are going to keep those people in our factories, and then when it will be possible, we'll sent them east, and with the war, the success of the Russian army, it was no more possible,” said Faurisson. (31-8762 to 8765)
Pearson produced the speech of Himmler given at Posen on October 4, 1943, and read an extract to the court:
I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30th, 1934 to do the duty we were bidden, and stand comrades who had lapsed, up against the wall and shoot them, so we have never spoken about it and will never speak of it. It was that tact which is a matter of course and which I am glad to say, is inherent in us, that made us never discuss it among ourselves, never speak of it. It appalled everyone, and yet everyone was certain that he would do it the next time if such orders are issued and if it is necessary.
I mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It’s one of those things it is easy to talk about — “The Jewish race is being exterminated", says one party member, “that’s quite clear, it’s in our program — elimination of the Jews, and we're doing it, exterminating them.” And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew.
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that when Himmler said that 'one day they are going to disappear in accordance with the Führer’s wishes', he was talking about extermination. Faurisson disagreed: “No…It’s quite true that Himmler talked about the extermination of the Jews, but that’s typically the warrior phraseology that you find everywhere: 'We're going to exterminate the enemy'…the proof that it is not a physical extermination is that you have 80 million German saying: 'Oh, no, this one is a good Jew. You mustn’t exterminate him'…In fact, we have in many other speech of Himmler where he says 'And we're…going to exterminate the Jews. This is the decision that I have taken. 200,000 Jews are deported from Hungary to our armaments firm'. That’s what he called 'extermination'. Big words…if you studied all the speeches of the political men in war, Churchill said things like that about the German: 'We're going to devastate entire Germany, to burn all their towns, all their forests'…” The reference to the actions of 1934, said Faurisson, meant that they had to be as hard and as fanatical as they had been in 1934: “No question of saying, 'Oh, this Jew is too nice', or 'I want to keep him' and so on…” (31-8768 to 8771)
Faurisson testified that, to his knowledge, there was no Hitler order directing the transportation of Jews to transit camps. There was a Himmler text saying 'transit camps' and Jews were to be sent to it. There was a budget where monies were set aside for transporting Jews to transit camps. This could be found in Raul Hilberg’s book. Said Faurisson: “We have [every] detail. We know exactly how [much] it cost.” Faurisson pointed out there was financial evidence that there was money to send the Jews to Auschwitz, but it was Hilberg who added the statement that they were sent to their death. (31-8773, 8774)
Pearson suggested there was no blueprint or plan that set out this process of deportation. Said Faurisson: “…there are many blueprints…We have the Korherr report…the Jews in Poland were in one thousand places: towns, ghettos, etc., and the German decided to put them in fifty- five places. And we have a quantity of document[s] about that…The order was to send them to the east. You have the Wannsee Conference. You have the hierarchy. You have Hitler, you have Göring, you have Heydrich. Heydrich says, 'I am in charge of solving the Jewish problem'. (31- 8774, 8775)
Exactly what Hilberg says, isn’t it?, asked Pearson. Faurisson disagreed, pointing out that documents existed proving the deportation, unlike the situation where Hilberg alleged Eichmann made certain statements but had no documents to back it up. Said Faurisson: “We have everything for the deportation of the Jews. Everything. And for the extermination, nothing…” (31- 8775)
For Hilberg and the other exterminationist historians, the Reich Security Main Office and the Economical Head Office were the two Nazi offices which were supposed to have had the responsibility for the deportation and extermination of the Jews. The documents from the Reich Security Main Office alone amounted to billions of pieces of paper. Yet, said Faurisson, when he spoke in 1986 with Dr. Henke, the specialist of this question, Henke had to admit that none pertained to gassings. (31 8775, 8776)
Pearson turned to the subject of the Wannsee protocol. Had Faurisson suggested that the Wannsee Conference showed that the goal of Nazi policy was to create a Jewish super race? “No, not a super-race,” replied Faurisson, 'Not at all, no…It will be the elite…You cannot imagine how Nazism and Zionism are close, one to the other, and what they wanted is this. I perhaps [have] not been clear about the Wannsee protocol. First, I will say that I don’t say anything about the authenticity. You must know my specialty is not authenticity of the document; it is veracity, which is something else. And I say that if you read [the protocol] carefully, you will see that it means this old idea [that] those people are parasites, which means they are too many and they do not work really. 'We're going to put them to work. They are going to work in hard condition[s], especially in the east. Men and women will be separated. There will be a natural diminution and those ones who will have suffered and worked, those ones will be an elite'. And the protocol says 'See the lesson of history', which means that the event is not going to be new. It’s a kind of event that you can find through history…Those people will be few instead of a multitude, and they will be people trained to hard work and they will be able to have kibbutz. Do you know that near Berlin, in 1942, you have the kibbutz?…” (31 8777, 8778)
Pearson suggested that a much more reasonable interpretation of the paragraph was that if the hardiest were allowed to survive, if they were not exterminated, they would come back and work their way back into society: that was the lesson of history. Faurisson disagreed again: “No, excuse me. Maybe it’s reasonable, but the text does not say that. The text quite clearly says that they will be liberated. Then, there will be a renaissance, a revival. See the lesson of history.” (31- 8778)
Faurisson did not agree with Pearson’s suggestion that the Nazis thought they were doing the Jews a favour: “They were saying to the Jews: 'You are going to suffer, and to begin with, you are going to work [hard] in Auschwitz'… We have thousand[s] and thousands of paper[s] of Auschwitz. Do you know that in Auschwitz we have reports about Jews refusing to work? Or Jews complaining because they had been smacked by the man surveying their work?…and the man obliged to justify that[?] Do you know that we have report about German soldiers who in 1944 were, [in] front of a military court, condemned to death, executed, because this officer had killed one Jew in a Russian village?…” (31-8779, 8780)
In the National Socialist optic, said Faurisson, the Jews who survived and were released “would be normal. They will not be people living in every country. They will have…final solution. They will have a country like everybody, and it will be possible to treat…those people as normal people.” (31-8780)
To the Nazis, the Jews always presented a problem and they thought they had found the solution, but they did not want to send them to Palestine, said Faurisson, “because, and I quote 'of the noble and valiant Arab people'. You'll find that [on] page 76 of the book of [Henri] Monneray on the persecution of the Jews in the eastern territories."22 (31-8781)
Faurisson agreed that he took issue with Hilberg’s view that Himmler issued an order to stop the extermination on 25 November, 1944. Hilberg had supported this statement by reference to the affidavit of Kurt Becher. In this affidavit Becher claimed that Himmler issued an order which said:
By this order, which becomes immediately effective, I forbid any extermination of Jews and order that, on the contrary, care should be given to weak and sick persons.
Hilberg, said Faurisson, had used this affidavit to say, not that Himmler ordered the stopping of the extermination, but the stopping of gassings. The alleged order had used the word 'extermination' but what was the meaning of that word? (31-8786)
Pearson read from volume 11, page 335 of the IMT “Blue Series", and the evidence of Kaltenbrunner concerning Kurt Becher:
KALTENBRUNNER: …I am glad that this witness, Becher, was found and that this statement is available, because it proves, first that in September or October 1944 Himmler was forced to issue this order — that same Himmler about whom it has been definitely established that since 1939 or 1940 he had become guilty of the crime of killing Jews on the largest scale.
And now we must find out why in September or October Himmler had given such an order. Before I had seen this document I stated yesterday and today that this order was issued by Hitler on my representations, and obviously this order from Himmler is based on another order which he received from Hitler.
Faurisson testified that what Kaltenbrunner had said was “pure hypothesis. We don’t have anything there.” (31-8788)
Pearson turned to page 336 of the Nuremberg trial transcript and read a portion of Kaltenbrunner’s testimony:
COL. AMEN: Defendant, you have heard evidence at this Trial with respect to the meaning of the phrase “special treatment,” have you not? Have you heard that in this courtroom?
KALTENBRUNNER: The expression “special treatment” has been used by my interrogators several times every day, yes.
COL. AMEN: You know what it means?
KALTENBRUNNER: It can only be assumed, although I cannot give an accurate explanation, that this was a death sentence, not imposed by a public court but by an order of Himmler's.
COL. AMEN: Well, the Defendant Keitel testified that, I think, it was a matter of common knowledge. Have you not at all times known what was meant by “special treatment"? “Yes” or “no,” please.
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes. I have told you; an order from Himmler — I am referring to Hitler’s order of 1941, therefore also an order from Hitler — that executions should be carried out without legal procedure.
So Kaltenbrunner testified that “special treatment” meant killing, didn’t he?, asked Pearson. Faurisson answered that it could mean that and it could mean exactly the opposite. Faurisson pointed out that Kaltenbrunner had suffered two [brain] hemorrhages before testifying, but that later in his testimony, as seen on pages 338 and 339, he recovered his spirit and indicated that in a document produced to him by the prosecutor, “special treatment” for certain internees meant a daily bottle of champagne, three times the normal ration for diplomats (which was nine times the normal ration of the ordinary German during the war), and the right to receive parcels and visits. Faurisson emphasized that the meaning of Sonderbehandlung ("special treatment") depended entirely on context. (31-8789, 8790)
Pearson turned next to the book Six Million Did Die, and the photographs on page 19. Faurisson reiterated that he believed the photograph of the British soldier bulldozing bodies was misleading because the head of the soldier had been cropped. Said Faurisson: “…the head has been cut, and the reader cannot see that it is a British soldier. Now, my comment about that…is that the reader seeing that in that specific context in the book…I think his only understanding of this picture…is that the German were cynical enough and organized enough to systematically push with a Caterpillar all those bodies.” (31-8793)
Faurisson testified that the same type of interpretation would be given to the photograph on the same page showing German women throwing bodies into a pit: “… historians …people … who have a training, wouldn’t [make] this mistake, but an ordinary reader could see that and think that those German women were systematically doing that everyday, pushing bodies in a pit.” (31-8794) Faurisson agreed that the caption between the photographs said:
Belsen — From the film exhibited at the Eichmann Trial.
He agreed that on page 18 of the book, it was written:
At the Eichmann Trial, films taken both by the Germans themselves and by the Allied armies soon after liberation were exhibited to the Court.
Faurisson agreed there was a reference to the book Justice in Jerusalem by Mr. Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor at the Eichmann trial, in which Hausner wrote:
“The liberation scenes followed. Germans, who were ordered to carry the decomposed corpses into huge graves, were shown in the performance of the task and, finally, the most sickening sight of all: bulldozers pushing heaps of dead bodies like refuse into a sort of dumping pit…”
Doesn’t it make it crystal clear that they are talking about after liberation?, asked Pearson. Replied Faurisson: “Yes. If you make the relation between this written text and pictures, of course, I think that it is quite a good explanation, but …it is, as you say, crystal clear … for the one who takes care of looking through the text, as everybody should do, but as everybody [does] not do…” Faurisson pointed out that, especially today, it was too much for many people to read the text. A caption with the photographs, however, was only a few words and not difficult to read. The fact that the head of the British soldier had been cropped: “…it’s not for me an innocent fact.” He believed it had been done deliberately. There were many books on the Holocaust, said Faurisson, that did this type of thing. (31-8795, 8796)
Pearson turned to Did Six Million Really Die?, and quoted from page 30:
Nothing better illustrates the declining plausibility of the Six Million legend than the fact that the prosecution at the Eichmann trial deliberately avoided mentioning the figure.
Pearson then quoted from page 49 of Six Million Did Die, where Suzman and Diamond stated:
That no mention of the Six Million was made in the course of the proceedings is simply untrue, as appears from the very first words of the opening address of Mr. Hausner:
“As I stand here before you, Judges of Israel, to lead the prosecution of Adolph Eichmann, I do not stand alone. With me in this place and at this hour, stand six million accusers.”
Faurisson testified that if this quotation was correct, then Harwood was wrong. The transcript of the Eichmann trial would have to be checked. Faurisson himself believed that Harwood’s statement was wrong. He did not believe it was “false,” as suggested by Pearson. Said Faurisson: “I would say 'wrong'. Meaning [it] could be a mistake. We do so many mistakes. We mustn’t forget that.” (31-8798 to 8799a)
Pearson returned to Did Six Million Really Die? and quoted from page 4:
A great deal of careful research into this question, however, has now convinced me beyond any doubt that the allegation is not merely an exaggeration but an invention of post-war propaganda.
Faurisson testified that the accusations and exaggerations began even during the war. However, the people who spread these rumours did not meet with much success during the war. Success came in March, April and May of 1945, when Dachau, Buchenwald and Belsen were liberated. Faurisson agreed with Harwood that it was something which arose more in the post- war era than the war period itself. (31-8799b)
Pearson raised the Joint Allied Declaration of 17 December, 1942, and quoted from the second paragraph:
In Poland which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again.
Faurisson indicated that Pearson should not stop reading at that point and Faurisson continued reading:
The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.
It was normal, said Faurisson, that the Allies should issue a declaration in 1942 using those kinds of words to show that Germany was an awful country. At that time, there were thousands of articles in the New York Times talking about extermination, but what did people really know for sure? The declaration spoke of extermination, but what did they mean exactly? In Faurisson’s opinion, it did not mean gas chambers or anything specific. If the Allies had known something like a physical extermination in gas chambers was occurring, they would not have behaved as they did. (31-8799d, 8799e)
Pearson turned to the subject of the New York Times article by Lawrence, introduced by Professor Browning. Was it Faurisson’s position that Lawrence had never gone to Majdanek? Faurisson replied that Lawrence did go to Majdanek, but pointed out that the camp was occupied (or liberated) by the Soviets, who had waited for one month before allowing the visit by journalists purely for propagandistic purposes. The Soviets prepared everything for the visit; after one day interviewing people provided by the Soviets the journalists left saying they were ready to believe anything. (31-8799f)
Faurisson agreed that he had testified that there were thousands of pairs of shoes at Majdanek because there was a shoe factory there. Do you think that Mr. Lawrence wasn’t smart enough to see the difference between new shoes and old shoes?, asked Pearson. Replied Faurisson: “You had new shoes and you had, as in every camp, you had workshop for the shoes. You had transformation of old shoes, material of old shoes into new shoes. Through[out] Europe it was like that. Everything was recuperated. Even pieces of string. The hair [was] recuperated. Every week in France, the hairdresser[s] had to give the hair. It was taken. It was recuperation. Everything which was in copper, in leather, in wood, whatsoever, was recuperated, and in those camps you had heaps of things… recuperated, but not only in the camps. Everywhere.” (31-8799g)
And that’s where Dr. Hilberg says the budget came for running the gas chambers, right?, asked Pearson. “Bring a proof between the shoes and the sending the Jews in the gas chamber[s],” said Faurisson. “Please show me the link.” (31-8799g)
And the gold taken out of the teeth?, asked Pearson. “Show me the link,” replied Faurisson. (31-8799g)
April 19, 1988
Pearson produced Faurisson’s testimony in chief concerning Dachau which he read to the court. Faurisson had stated that of the 206,206 people who were in Dachau from 1934 to 1945, “something like 15 percent died, 85 percent survived, and if we have to believe the Jewish Encyclopaedia…80 to 90 percent of those people were Jews.” (32-8807) Pearson produced volume 5 of the Encyclopaedia Judaica and read from the “Dachau” entry:
It was at Dachau that German doctors and scientists first experimented on prisoners. Many died as a result of these pseudo-scientific experiments, and those who survived were often maimed for life. Dachau claimed many victims of want and starvation. From time to time there was also a “selection” in which the weak and crippled were sent to the gas chambers in other camps. Gas chambers were built in Dachau but were never used. The exact number of people killed in Dachau is not known; at the least there were more than 40,000, of whom probably 80-90 % were Jewish.
Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the 80 to 90 percent of the people who were killed at Dachau were Jews, not 80 to 90 percent of the survivors. Faurisson testified that he did not say that 80 to 90 percent of the survivors were Jewish, and that was not what he meant. His only mistake, in his opinion, was saying “died” instead of “killed.” What was interesting for Faurisson was that there were so many Jews in the western camps where there were no gas chambers. Faurisson himself believed the high number of Jews allegedly in Dachau was an exaggeration, but it was something he had not checked. (32-8809 to 8811)
Pearson returned to Six Million Did Die, page 49, where the authors had written:
Eichmann, at his trial admitted that on 20th January 1942, 15 high ranking Nazis (including Eichmann himself) assembled at Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, where ways and means of implementing the so-called “Final Solution” ("Endloesung") were decided upon, after different methods of extermination had been debated. This fateful Wannsee Conference was the central event in the history of the “Final Solution".
Pearson read from the transcript of Faurisson’s testimony in chief concerning this passage. Faurisson had testified it was totally false to say that the fateful Wannsee Conference was a central event in the story of the “final solution."; that there was nothing in the Wannsee protocol about methods of extermination being debated. If there had been such a debate, he had noted, there would be no debate today between the functionalists and the intentionalists. (32-8812 to 8814)
Pearson read from the transcript of the Eichmann trial as reproduced in Raul Hilberg’s book Documents of Destruction:
PRESIDING JUDGE: …Now, in connection with the Wannsee Conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about the means of extermination, systems of killing.
Q: Who discussed this subject?
A: I do not remember it in detail, Your Honour. I do not remember the circumstances of this conversation. But I do know that these gentlemen were standing together, or sitting together, and were discussing the subject quite bluntly, quite differently from the language which I had to use later in the record. During the conversation they minced no words about it at all. I might say furthermore, Your Honour, that I would not have remembered this unless I had later remembered that I told myself — Look here, I told myself, even this guy Stuckart, who was known as one of these uncles who was a great stickler for legalities, he too uses language which is not at all in accordance with paragraphs of the law. This incident remained engraved in my memory and recalled the entire subject to my mind.
Q: What did he say about this subject?
A: In detail I do not —
Q: Not details in general, what did he say about this theme?
A: I cannot remember it in detail Your Honour, but they spoke about methods for killing, about liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records.
So you will agree, asked Pearson, that Eichmann, at his trial, did testify that at Wannsee there was discussion about methods of killing not reflected on the record and that Suzman and Diamond were referring to this trial testimony? Faurisson replied that he did not agree with this conclusion. He agreed Eichmann had said this in his testimony but was referring to a chat which occurred after the conference was over. In the Wannsee protocol itself, there was not the slightest proof of such a conversation. (32-8820)
Pearson returned to Did Six Million Really Die? and read from page 4:
To date, the staggering figure of six thousand million pounds has been paid out in compensation by the Federal Government of West Germany, mostly to the State of Israel (which did not even exist during the Second World War), as well as to individual Jewish claimants.
Pearson produced Exhibit 131, Focus On, previously introduced by Faurisson, which showed that a total of 85 billion Deutsche marks had been paid out by West Germany, of which 3 billion were paid to the state of Israel. Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the Harwood statement that most of the money had been paid to the state of Israel was therefore false, and had been proved so by his own evidence. Faurisson agreed that most of the compensation had been paid to individual claimants and not to the state of Israel. Faurisson noted, however, that there were many people inside Israel who received compensation. He could not be sure whether Harwood meant Israel and its inhabitants or just the state of Israel. (32-8820 to 8824)
Pearson returned to Did Six Million Really Die?, page 30:
As for Israel, Rassinier sees the myth of the Six Million as inspired by a purely material problem. In Le Drame des Juifs européen (P. 31, 39), he writes: “… Perhaps I may be allowed to recall here that the State of Israel was only founded in May 1948 and that the Jews were nationals of all states with the exception of Israel, in order to underline the dimensions of a fraud which defies description in any language; on the one hand Germany pays to Israel sums which are calculated on six million dead…”
Would you agree, asked Pearson, that no where in any of the agreements is money payable calculated on 6 million dead? Replied Faurisson: “It’s not paid on 6 million multiplied by something. It’s paid on the fact that it is said that the Jews suffered a Holocaust of 6 million people. A gigantic Holocaust.” (32-8825)
Pearson put to Faurisson that the reality was that the government of Germany agreed to assist Israel in settling people who had moved there after the Second World War. Faurisson replied: “This was the… foundation of the debate. The Jewish organization[s] and Nahum Goldmann and Ben-Gurion said we have to accommodate 500,000 Jews coming from Europe. This was one of the base[s] of the debate, but it was not the only argument.” (32-8825)
What was being suggested in Did Six Million Really Die?, said Pearson, was that the 6 million figure was used to determine the amounts that were paid in reparations and Faurisson knew that was false, didn’t he? “If it meant that, it would be inexact, but it means it’s a Holocaust of 6 million and we need money,” said Faurisson. (32 8825, 8826)
Pearson returned to Focus On and read from page 3:
Indemnification for Persecution of Persons
The BEG laws compensate those persecuted for political, racial, religious, or ideological reasons — people who suffered physical injury or loss of freedom, property, income, professional and financial advancement as a result of that persecution. In addition to racial and political victims of the Third Reich, the law includes compensation for artists and scholars whose works disagreed with Nazi tenets. It also provides compensation for people who were persecuted merely because they were related to or friendly with victims of the Nazis. Finally, it guarantees assistance to the survivors of the deceased victims.
The BEG legislation extends far beyond the responsibilities assumed by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Transitional Treaty and in the Luxembourg Agreement. Of 4,393,365 claims submitted under this legislation, between October 1, 1953 and December 31, 1983, 4,390,049 or 99.9 percent had been settled by January 1, 1984. Up to this date, payments equaling DM 56.2 billion had been made. Approximately 40 percent of those receiving compensation live in Israel, 20 percent reside in the Federal Republic of Germany and 40 percent live in other countries.
Pearson suggested that even using Faurisson’s definition of the state of Israel, it was clear that most of the money was not paid to Israel or the people living in Israel. Faurisson replied that a calculation would have to be made. It would also be interesting, said Faurisson, to know how many Jews were included in the 40 percent of compensation recipients living in countries other than Israel. (32-8827)
Pearson returned to Focus On and read from page 1 and 2:
…Dr. Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, made the following historic statement before the Bundestag (Parliament) on September 27, 1951: “The Federal Government and the great majority of the German people are deeply aware of the immeasurable suffering endured by the Jews of Germany and by the Jews of the occupied territories during the period of National Socialism. The great majority of the German people did not participate in the crimes committed against the Jews, and wish constantly to express their abhorrence of these crimes. While the Nazis were in power, there were many among the German people who attempted to aid their Jewish fellow-citizens in spite of the personal danger involved. They were motivated by religious conviction, the urgings of conscience and shame at the base acts perpetrated in the name of the whole German people. In our name, unspeakable crimes have been committed and they demand restitution, both moral and material, for the persons and properties of the Jews who have been so seriously harmed…”
Faurisson testified that after reading Nahum Goldmann’s book, The Jewish Paradox, he believed this money had been extorted from West Germany: “I know very well Mr. Adenauer never said there was an extortion, of course. Of course, he wouldn’t say that.” Faurisson agreed that Adenauer had made this speech in the Bundestag and continued: “The German are saying that since 1945. They are always saying [mea culpa]. Of course, nothing new in that….” (32-8828, 8829)
Pearson turned to Exhibit 121, the letter which Faurisson had received from Richard Harwood, dated May 30, 1975. Faurisson testified that the letter was one of a series of letters between himself and Harwood, but he did not have the copies of the others. There were many letters that he did not keep copies of. He could not say what was in the other letters. It had happened thirteen years before. He had not even remembered he had this letter and was surprised to find it two days before he came to Toronto. Faurisson testified that he had found the booklet of Harwood’s very interesting at the time but had been anxious about one possible mistake, that of the statistics attributed to Raul Hilberg. He had probably asked Harwood what he was doing at the University of London and whether he was a teacher. (32-8831 to 8834)
Faurisson mentioned that pages 163 to 165 of the German historian Helmut Diwald’s book were suppressed and totally changed because Diwald had written that in spite of all that had been written about Auschwitz, essential points were still not clear. In the next edition, the total opposite was put in and even the illustrations were changed. Faurisson emphasized he was interested in anyone who held revisionist views, not just professors. He was keen to know what was happening and kept in contact by writing letters such as the one to Harwood. (32-8834, 8835)
Well, you know now that the fellow who wrote the letter to you lied about his name, don’t you?, asked Pearson. He isn’t Richard Harwood, is he? Faurisson replied: “That’s not a lie. That’s a nom de plume…There are so many people using nom de plume. What’s wrong with that?” (32-8835)
You know, asked Pearson, that the Historical Review Press was a publishing house essentially for the National Front?
“Sir, I don’t know anything about that. If that’s politics, I don’t care. I am not interested…I told you because it is the truth. I am not interested in that at all. I don’t mind the political ideas of the people. Even if somebody is a National Socialist, I don’t say, 'Oh, you are a Nazi, I don’t listen to you'. I listen to everybody. You are Nazi, you are Jew, you are Communist, I am interested. Please. Tell me what you have to tell me. If I can get information, it is interesting. I shall certainly not say, 'Oh, you are a Jew so you are a liar' or 'You are a Nazi so you are a liar'. I don’t practice like that.” (32-8836)
Faurisson agreed with Pearson that he attended the first convention of the Institute for Historical Review in 1979 and that Udo Walendy attended as well. Faurisson could not remember if Ditlieb Felderer or Mark Weber were present. Faurisson could not remember what the first resolution passed at the convention was. Pearson suggested that it was decided at the 1979 convention to launch a campaign against the Holocaust. Faurisson agreed. Pearson further suggested that Did Six Million Really Die? was a part of this campaign. Replied Faurisson: “What does it mean that this is a part of a campaign. What does it mean?” Pearson answered by suggesting that the purpose of the campaign was to cover up the crime. Asked Faurisson: “To cover up what?” Pearson replied, To cover up the crime… Hitler’s crime. The Nazi crime. The Holocaust. Said Faurisson: “Answer, no. I am not interested in covering crimes.” (32-8836 to 8839)
This ended the cross-examination of Faurisson by Crown Attorney Pearson. The re- examination of Faurisson by defence attorney Doug Christie began.
Faurisson testified that he had been involved in seven lawsuits in France. Of these, he had won four and lost three. All of the lawsuits related to what he had found concerning the extermination theory. (32-8842, 8843)
Christie asked Faurisson if all of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal had been read to him. Faurisson replied that it had not and indicated that there were parts in the judgment that demonstrated the difference between the judgment and current historical opinion. One of these was the finding by the Tribunal that soap was made from the fat of Jews. This was something which was not accepted by Raul Hilberg, which Faurisson could prove by looking at Hilberg’s book, if allowed to do so. Judge Ron Thomas stated there was no dispute about this point. (32-8844, 8845)
The figures of dead at Auschwitz had also changed from 3 million dead during the period Höss was in charge from May, 1940 to December of 1943 to the current figures of 1 million Jews (Raul Hilberg) and 1.4 million Jews and non-Jews (Georges Wellers). (32-8846)
It was put to you, said Christie, that nowhere in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal was there a reference to gassings at Dachau. Was there any reference to gassings at Dachau in the evidence before the Tribunal? Faurisson replied: “Yes, many times they talk about gassings in Dachau. For example, in the film which was projected, a place was shown as a homicidal gas chamber. That’s why in the judgment, when they mentioned Auschwitz and Treblinka and [no] other camp, it’s only because they gave two example[s]. But for the accused, for everybody attending the Nuremberg trial, there had been a gas chamber and gassings actually in Dachau.” (32-8847)
Christie asked Faurisson to describe Kaltenbrunner’s condition when he testified at Nuremberg. Faurisson indicated that Kaltenbrunner had suffered two brain hemorrhages. (32- 8848)
Christie asked Faurisson to read from Dr. Christopher Browning’s article “The Revised Hilberg” at page 294:
In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the “Final Solution” have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: “Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.” In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.
Faurisson turned next to the second edition of Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews, published in 1985, and read from page 53, 55 and 62:
The process of destruction unfolded in a definite pattern. It did not, however, proceed from a basic plan…Who shared in this undertaking? What kind of machinery was used for these tasks? The machine of destruction was an aggregate — no one agency was charged with the whole operation. Even though a particular office might have exercised a supervisory… function in the implementation of a particular measure, no single organization directed or coordinated the entire process…The destruction of the Jews was thus the work of a far-flung administrative machine. This apparatus took each step in turn. The initiation as well as the implementation of decisions was largely in its hands. No special agency was created and no special budget was devised to destroy the Jews of Europe. Each organization was to play a specific role in the process, and each was to find the means to carry out its task.
Christie indicated to Faurisson that during cross-examination the Crown had shown him a letter from Göring to Heydrich dated July 31, 1941 with the suggestion that it was proof of a plan of extermination. Had Browning given any other indication concerning this letter? Faurisson testified that he remembered that Browning, either in a book or in an article, said that the letter from Göring did not have the meaning usually given to it by many historians. (32-8852) Christie produced Browning’s Fateful Months, page 21, where Browning had written:
On July 31, 1941, Heydrich received Göring’s authorization to prepare a “total solution” (Gesamtlösung) of the Jewish question in those territories of Europe under German influence and to coordinate the participation of those organizations whose jurisdictions were touched. The significance of this document is open to debate. Most historians have assumed that it refers to an extermination program. In contrast Broszat and Adam have interpreted it in terms of a “comprehensive program for the deportation of the Jews” to Russia and an attempt by Heydrich to strengthen his jurisdictional position to carry out this task, though Adam at least admits that no evidence of concrete planning in this regard has been found.
Faurisson returned to the subject of Eichmann and whether methods of extermination had been debated at the Wannsee Conference. Faurisson read again the portion of Six Million Did Die were Suzman and Diamond had written at page 49:
Eichmann, at his trial admitted that on 20th January 1942, 15 high ranking Nazis (including Eichmann himself) assembled at Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, where ways and means of implementing the so-called “Final Solution” ("Endloesung") were decided upon, after different methods of extermination had been debated.
Faurisson read next from Hilberg’s Documents of Destruction, page 102, where an excerpt of Eichmann’s trial testimony was reproduced:
Q: How long did this conference go on and what happened after the conference was over?
A: The conference itself took only a very short period of time. I can’t recall exactly how long it lasted, but it seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it didn’t take longer than an hour or an hour and a half. Of course, the gentlemen who participated in it would later on be standing in small groups to discuss the ins and outs of the agenda and also of certain work to be undertaken afterwards…
PRESIDING JUDGE: …Now in connection with the Wannsee conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about the means of extermination, systems of killing.
Faurisson pointed out that this showed that it was after the meeting was over that methods of extermination were allegedly discussed, not during the meeting itself. Said Faurisson: “It’s very, very grave because any reader…would think, reading this, that it meant that those nasty Germans were in Wannsee near Berlin, they held a conference, first part would have been what are going to be the different methods of extermination, second part, the means and ways…to implement that, which is totally false.” (32-8859) Faurisson continued reading on pages 103 and 105:
Q: Who discussed this subject?
A: I do not remember it in detail, Your Honour. I do not remember the circumstances of this conversation. But I do know that these gentlemen were standing together, or sitting together, and were discussing the subject quite bluntly, quite differently from the language which I had to use later in the record. During the conversation they minced no words about it at all. I might say furthermore, Your Honour, that I would not have remembered this unless I had later remembered that I told myself — Look here, I told myself, even this guy Stuckart, who was known as one of these uncles who was a great stickler for legalities, he too uses language which is not at all in accordance with paragraphs of the law. This incident remained engraved in my memory and recalled the entire subject to my mind.
Q: What did he say about this subject?
A: In detail I do not —
Q: Not details in general, what did he say about this theme?
A: I cannot remember it in detail Your Honour, but they spoke about methods for killing, about liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records. I had to make the preparations for taking down the minutes. I could not perk up my ears and listen to everything that was said. But it filtered through the small room and I caught fragments of this conversation. It was a small room so from time to time I heard a word or two.
Q: I believed that this was the official part of the meeting, of the conference.
A: The official part did not take too long.
Q: Was this in the official part of the conference, or not? It was my belief that this was in the official conference because this should have been included in the protocol of the meeting, although nothing is mentioned.
A: Well of course, it was in the official part, Your Honour. But again this official part had two subdivisions. The first part where everyone was quiet and listened to the various lectures, and then in the second part, everyone spoke out of turn and people would go around, butlers, adjutants, and would give out liquor. Well, I don’t want to say that there was an atmosphere of drunkardness there. It was an official atmosphere, but nevertheless it was not one of these stiff, formal, official affairs where everyone spoke in turn. But people just talked at cross vertices.
Q: And were these also recorded by the short-hand typists?
ACCUSED: Yes, yes — they were taken down.
PRESIDING JUDGE: And you were ordered by someone not to include it in the memorandum of the meeting — in the official Protocol of this meeting, weren’t you?
ACCUSED: Yes, that’s how it was. The stenographer was sitting next to me and I was to see to it that everything would be taken down; then she deciphered this and then Heydrich gave me his instructions as to what should be included in the record and what should be excluded. Then I showed it to Heydrich and he polished it up and proof-read it and that’s how it was kept.
Q: And that which was said about this very important theme, you cannot remember at all — is this what you say?
A: Well, the most important thing here was…
Q: I did not say, the most important — I said it was an important theme, and important enough to be excluded from the record.
A: Well, no. The significant part from Heydrich’s point-of-view, was to nail-down the Secretaries of State, to commit them most bindingly, to catch them by their words; and therefore, it was quite the contrary — the important part did go into the record and the less significant ones were excluded. It was, I would say, that Heydrich wanted to cover himself, wanted to be sure that each and every one of these Secretaries of State would be nailed-down — and these matters, therefore, were put down.
Q: That means to say that the methods of killing — the systems of extermination — was not an important theme?
A: Ah! the means of killing…
Q: That is what we are speaking about — the means of killing.
A: No, no — this of course was not put into the record — no, no!
Q: Did they discuss killing by poison gas?
A: No, with gas — no.
Q: But, how then?
A: It was…this business with the engine, they spoke about this; they spoke about shooting, but not about gas.
Faurisson testified that in another portion of Eichmann’s testimony, he had been asked about the killing installations in Auschwitz and whether he had seen them. Said Faurisson: “…his answer is 'Oh, yes', and suddenly he says, 'I am not sure I have seen them because I cannot remember the surroundings. Maybe I have been told about that'. Then he says, 'Oh, maybe I have read about that,' and you could see the drama of Eichmann in that place. He didn’t remember what he had seen, what he had read, etc. And we understand that because in his jail, he had the right to read people like Poliakov, and exterminationist people and as many, many German, he believed. He said, 'My dear, in Auschwitz, they might have [done] those things after all — …That’s to give an idea of Eichmann having to answer to those questions. Because you might be surprised to…see how hesitant he is in his answers. And it could be that he is lying. It could be that he is sincere.” Faurisson had read in a British newspaper that Eichmann had lived in very, very difficult conditions during his incarceration. (32-8866, 8867) This ended Dr. Robert Faurisson’s testimony.
1. Robert Faurisson was viciously attacked and beaten by three young Jewish men on 16 September, 1989 while walking his dog in the early morning through a park in Vichy. Only the intervention of several men fishing on a nearby river saved his life. He remained in critical condition for several days with severe head injuries. A group called “The Sons of the Memory of the Jews” took responsibility for the attack. Serge Klarsfeld was quoted in the Globe and Mail (Sept. 18, 1989) as saying: “Someone who has provoked the Jewish community for years should expect this sort of thing.”
2. This article is reproduced in full infra.
3. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, a professor at the School of Higher Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris, was the author of the following declaration published in Le Monde (Feb. 21, 1979) which 34 historians endorsed by their signatures:
“It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: There is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.”
4. The above quotes read by Dr. Faurisson came from Judge Thomas' ruling on judicial notice given in the absence of the jury. The ruling was repeated before the jury in almost identical terms later. Nevertheless, the reading of this ruling by Dr. Faurisson led to an attack by Judge Thomas on defence attorney Doug Christie. Thomas accused Christie of “orchestrating” the testimony for the purpose of challenging his ruling on judicial notice and to show “disrespect” for the court. Christie replied that the purpose of the testimony was to show that what Judge Thomas had ruled no man could reasonably dispute was very different from what the International Military Tribunal in 1945 held to be the truth. Thomas ruled, after hearing Dr. Faurisson’s proposed evidence in the absence of the jury, that Faurisson would not be allowed to comment on his judicial ruling or to give any “analyzation” (sic) of it. (30-8101 to 8119)]
5. Yehuda Bauer. “Hilberg’s Silence: Replies to Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson.” Midstream (April, 1987) at p.50, where Bauer wrote: “Hilberg’s whole work is filled with burning hatred of Nazism and a deep, thorough identification with the victims.”
6. Legislation passed subsequently to fulfill the treaty obligations was called the “Federal Law for the Compensation of the Victims of National Socialist Persecution “(Bundesentschädigungsgesetz, or BEG).
7. The trial judge ruled in the absence of the jury, that Faurisson would not be allowed to give evidence on the thesis presented by Butz in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. (30-8347)
8. Testimony of Fritz Sauckel, IMT “Blue Series", 30 May, 1946, p. 64. See Hilberg’s testimony, supra, for quoted portions.
9. “Streicher Opens His Case,” Times (London), 27 April 1946. See Hilberg’s testimony, supra, for quoted portions.
10. Danuta Czech, ed. “Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau", Hefte von Auschwitz (Auschwitz Museum, 1959).
11. Faurisson was not allowed to give testimony that the first time he had seen witnesses of Auschwitz cross-examined about the alleged gas chambers was in the first Zündel trial in 1985. “He won’t do it", ruled Judge Ron Thomas. No reasons were given for the ruling. (30-8391 to 8393)
12. Rudolf Vrba testified for the prosecution in the first Zündel trial in Toronto in 1985.
13. Raul Hilberg. The Destruction of the European Jews, 1st ed. at p. 631; 2nd ed. at p. 980. The affidavit of Kurt Becher is reproduced in the testimony of Hilberg, supra.
14. Judge Ron Thomas refused to allow Faurisson to answer a question on his opinion, as a historian, of the value of evidence that was not cross-examined upon. Thomas stated he would not permit Faurisson to “speculate” on this. (30-8441 to 8443)
15. Judge Ron Thomas upheld an objection to this evidence. Thomas termed the evidence “remote” and stated: “The witness who is being relied upon is not a witness to any event. The witness is a witness to a conversation he is supposed to have had. It is not the same thing.” (30-8450, 8451)
16. Faurisson was not allowed to give his opinion, as a historian, on the validity of Rosenberg’s testimony as a result of his testimony in the Demjanjuk trial. Judge Ron Thomas gave no reasons, simply ruling: “I won’t allow the question."(31-8462)
17. Faurisson’s answer was cut off by Crown Attorney Pearson who objected that Faurisson should not be allowed to speculate about why Poliakov did not pursue what he was legally entitled to do.
18. On 13 July 1990 France passed a law against revisionism. Anyone contesting the existence of one or several crimes against humanity, as defined by Art. 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August, 1945 and as committed by someone found guilty of such crimes by a French or an international court of law is liable to 1 month to 1 year in jail and/or a fine of 2 000 to 300 000 francs and/or other various sanctions.
19. Faurisson’s testimony was prophetic. Time (March 16, 1992) reported the eruption of a national debate in France over the alleged “words of hate” in the French national anthem.
20. George DeWan. “The Holocaust in Perspective.” Newsday, Feb. 23, 1983. See testimony of Hilberg, supra, for portions of article and Hilberg’s confirmation that he was quoted accurately.
21. KL Auschwitz in den Augen der SS (Panstwowe Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, 1973)
22. Henri Monneray. La Persécution des juifs dans des pays de l'Est présentée à Nuremberg.