friedrich braun
08-16-2004, 05:02 PM
Dr Robert Faurisson, one of the world's most fearless Revisionists has consistently claimed that the homicidal gassing claim is a lie. Any Revisionist who cannot follow him into making such a statement is challenged to provide the evidence: "Show me or draw me the gas chamber!"
Frienships have fractured on this vital issue, and any individual who has claimed that a limited number of gassings may have occurred, has to date not delivered the goods to Faurisson.
David Irving claims there were limited gassings in the two farm houses outside of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp perimeter, of which Fritjof Meyer speaks in his controversial article.For Faurisson such a belief is tantamount to believing in the Devil!
Horst Mahler in his current Berlin court case fearlessly points out that the gassing claims are a lie.
Any Revisionist who is soft on the homicidal gassing libel is thereby also soft on asking for evidence from those who claim gassings occurred. There is no escaping Faurisson's challenge, to show or to draw the alleged murder weapon - the homicidal gass chambers.
Fredrick Töben's comment:
I agree with Professor Faurisson's stance and share his conviction, but am prevented from openly repeating his statement, and even in discussing such matters on account of a Federal Court of Australia Order that prohibits me from repeating Faurisson's statement in my own words. Were I to assert that the gassing story is a lie, then I would be in contempt of court and a prison sentence would await me. Hence I am relegated to quoting other individuals on this matter.
I do, however, state this: "Why must I believe in the things that I believe did not happen?
A while ago the Australian Jewish News, in a front-page headline stated "Is Toben at it again!", where this 13-word sentence is to be considered actionable or not, i.e. is it in breach of the gag order or is it actionable only through new court proceedings.
======
Exactitude: Festschrift For Robert Faurisson - Germar Rudolf edited the first-ever Festschrift for a Revisionist, obtainable from
Germar Rudolf
Castle Hill Publishers
PO Box 257768
Chicago, IL 60625
http://www.vho.org
=========================and now over to Dr Robert Faurisson ================
Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), 1st ed. in 1999, 2d ed. in December 2004
================
In 1999 I published in France, with my own means, a four-volume collection
of essays entitled Écrits révisionnistes (1974-1998). That semi-clandestine
publication caused me some serious trouble at the time. I have decided
nonetheless to publish soon a second edition, revised and corrected.
To that purpose I have drafted both a new piece for the dust jacket and a
foreword. Attached you will find these two texts in their English version.
Should you see fit to distribute them, please take care to indicate in their
headings the date of composition, that is, May 2004.
The possibility of there appearing, in 2005, two supplementary volumes
entitled Écrits révisionnistes (1999-2004) is not altogether ruled out.
Robert Faurisson
****
Dust Jacket Piece (May 2004)
Robert Faurisson has concluded from his research that the alleged Hitlerite
gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same
historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic political-financial
swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international
Zionism and whose main victims are the German people - but not their leaders
- and the Palestinian people in their entirety.
He has demonstrated that, for physical and chemical reasons, the alleged
Hitlerite gas chambers could not have existed. He has emphasised that the
Germans had wanted not to exterminate the Jews but to expel them from Europe
towards a Jewish national home elsewhere than in Palestine; that was what
they called "a territorial final solution to the Jewish question" (die
territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage).
Many European Jews, civilians or soldiers, died as a result of wartime
actions and notably in the typhus epidemics, but many Jews survived and, in
their millions, dispersed throughout the world, going so far as to create
and people a new State, that of Israel.
Recently R. Faurisson has written that Adolf Hitler's weapons of mass
destruction (gas chambers and gas vans) existed no more at that time than do
those of Saddam Hussein today. The first lie received official endorsement
in November 1944 from an agency called the War Refugee Board, created by
president Roosevelt at the instigation of Henry Morgenthau, Junior. The
second lie was launched by another Washington agency, the Office of Special
Plans, which president Bush Junior created in 2002 at the instigation of
Paul Wolfowitz. The world is witness, at nearly sixty years' distance, to
the same type of lie and the same type of liars.
Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson holds
the agrégation des lettres (highest competitive examination) and a doctorate
in "literature and the social sciences". He was professor at the University
of Lyon-II where, in particular, he taught the "criticism of texts and
documents (literature, history, media)". Divested of his chair by an
unexplained ministerial ruling, he has suffered numerous physical assaults
and incurred many convictions in the French courts for disputing the myth of
the "Holocaust". He has published seven works: three of literary revisionism
and four of historical revisionism. His four volumes of Écrits
révisionnistes (1974-1998) bring together in more than two thousand pages
articles, studies and critical revisions of texts in which the upholders of
an official history, increasingly religious and repressive in character, are
seen to yield step by step, on the plane of reason, before the arguments and
discoveries of historical revisionism initiated, in France, by Paul
Rassinier, author of Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (1950).
****
Foreword (May 2004)
The first edition of the present work dates from March 1999. I was indebted
for its production to Serge Thion and his lady friend, who had been willing
to compile, with a view to publication, articles and studies which, in
addition to some books or other revisionist writings, I had drafted between
1974 and 1998. The present edition reproduces the contents of the first but
not without abundant corrections of detail. I owe this revised and corrected
edition to Jean Plantin and, especially, to Yvonne Schleiter. The index of
names has been reworked. In the absence of an index of subjects, there is a
"reader's guide" which I owe to Jean-Marie Boisdefeu. This second edition
was supposed to appear in 2001 but we have until now been constantly forced
to postpone it. I had promised in addition to these four volumes a volume of
illustrations; I regret not being able to keep that promise all the more as
my work, essentially concrete, would have benefited from the accompaniment
of documents and photographs of which, moreover, I possess a great number.
On 2 February of this year, I devoted an article to my "Sombre Appraisal of
Historical Revisionism". Since that date, the situation has worsened. The
conference that was to have assembled more than two hundred sympathisers of
the revisionist cause on the 24th and 25th of April in Sacramento, the
capital of California, was cancelled and, in Toronto, the worst is to be
feared for Ernst Zündel, who has been kept languishing for fifteen months in
solitary confinement without charge. His cruel detention has recently been
endorsed by a superior court in its refusal to issue a writ of habeas
corpus.
Today those active in revisionist research or diffusion are very few. We may
cite mainly Walter Mueller, Ingrid Rimland, Germar Rudolf (helped by his
friend Jürgen Graf in Russia), Michael Santomauro and Bradley Smith in the
United States, Heinz Koppe in Canada, Fredrick Toben in Australia, Carlo
Mattogno in Italy, Jean Plantin in France, Vincent Reynouard in Belgium,
Ahmed Rami and Serge Thion on the Internet.
On the scientific plane, revisionism has achieved total victory. It no
longer has a single adversary. The Hilbergs, the Vidal-Naquets, the
Klarsfelds, the Berenbaums, the Deborah Lipstadts and one van Pelt, happy
with repeating as his own the flimsy arguments of one Jean-Claude Pressac,
have been reduced to nothing. The revisionists find themselves opposed only
by Spielberg-style films, Yad Vashem ceremonies, Disneyland-inspired
museums, pilgrimages to Auschwitz, continuous media ballyhoo, brainwashing
at school and at university and, finally, a State propaganda buttressed by
legislative repression. Our foes have bowed to our strength in the field but
practically no one knows it, for the losers, what with their power in the
mass media and their virtuoso bluffing, go on blowing their trumpets or
shofars as if they had won the battle.
Their historians claimed that Hitler had carried out a policy of
extermination against the Jews, notably using weapons of mass destruction
called execution gas chambers or gas vans. Besides, they assured us that, on
the Eastern front, the Einsatzgruppen had indulged in gigantic massacres of
Jews. In sum, they would have us believe that nearly the entire community of
Jews in Europe had thus been exterminated.
Such a vast crime would have presupposed an order from on high, a project, a
plan, overall directives, comprehensive instructions, financing, checks of
operations and expenditures, a multitude of specific or general assessments,
research into and development of weapons the like of which humanity had
never known, along with the involvement of large numbers of military men,
scientists, engineers, labourers and employees. An undertaking of the sort,
especially if conducted in tightest secrecy, would also have called for an
array of draconian measures. The whole project would have left numerous
pieces of irrefutable evidence, both material and documentary. At first, the
official historians had the nerve to assert that such evidence indeed
existed, and "in abundance". But to the challenge to produce "one bit of
proof, just one" of their choosing, they beat a retreat and since then,
following the example of J.-C. Pressac, have invoked only the existence of
"criminal traces" or "beginnings of proof". Pursuing their withdrawal still
further, they have invented an account telling that the great massacre
happened without an order, without a directive, spontaneously (like
"spontaneous generation", in a way). The most prestigious of them, Raul
Hilberg, falling back from his original affirmation that there had been two
orders from the Führer to kill the Jews, has been reduced to maintaining
that in fact it all came about without an order, without a plan, and only
thanks to "an incredible meeting of minds" within the vast German
bureaucracy, and by "a consensus mind-reading" amongst Nazi bureaucrats!
No one has been able to find any premises that might have been a genuine
execution gas chamber. Nor a single execution gas van. In respect to the
greatest crime in the world the accusation cannot provide any forensic study
of the crime weapon. Amongst the post-mortems there is not one that
establishes gassing as the cause of death. Those alleged witnesses to
"gassings" who have been put under precise cross-examination in public court
proceedings have been unmasked. The "execution gas chambers" shown to
tourists have revealed themselves to be Potemkin village contrivances. The
massacres imputed to the Einsatzgruppen have left behind no common burial
sites approaching the mass graves of the Katyn forest slaughter (4,255
corpses counted), an acknowledged crime whose perpetrators were our very own
Soviet allies.
On the other hand, there is no lack of facts to prove that the 3rd Reich
never had a policy of physical extermination of the Jews. Even on the
Eastern front, the killing of an innocent Jewish civilian was punishable by
heavy sanctions, including the death penalty. Those soldiers who engaged in
any form of excess with regard to Jews were liable to sentence by a German
court martial. There are countless examples of measures taken, even in the
camps, for the protection of the Jews against the excesses inherent to all
forms of detention, as well as against the ravages caused by the epidemics.
The Germans had an obsessive fear of disorder, of contagion, of the loss of
manpower; even at Auschwitz there were training centres for young Jews to
learn various manual trades. Millions of Jews survived the war, in spite of
the great carnage throughout Europe at the time, and in spite of the
apocalypse of a Germany pulverised by the Allied bombardments. Calling
themselves "survivors" or "miraculous escapees", many still today make up
the membership of organisations craving financial reparations. Now,
fifty-nine years after the war, the number of these "survivors" has recently
been estimated at 687,900 (the figure given by New York based demographer
Jacob Ukeles, cited in the article by Amiran Barkat "US Court to discuss
question of who is a Holocaust survivor", Haaretz, 18 April 2004). During
the war, Jewish leaders uttered alarming words about an extermination of the
Jews, but their conduct showed that they did not really believe in it. The
Allied governments saw that they were dealing with "Jews trying to stoke us
up". And then, the "brown Jews" of the "international Jewish collaboration"
were not wanting. Zionists and National-Socialists shared, to a certain
degree, a particular worldview; hence, in 1941, the Stern Group's offer of
military collaboration with Germany against the British. As late as 21 April
1945 a member of the World Jewish Congress, Norbert Masur, was received by
Himmler to discuss the matter of Jews to be delivered to the Allies.
The Germans sought to expel the Jews from Europe, if possible with the
accord of the rest of the world. They had in mind "a territorial final
solution of the Jewish question" ("eine territoriale Endlösung der
Judenfrage", as written in a foreign ministry memorandum of 21 August 1942
bearing the signature of an official called Martin Luther).
In France on 6 March 2004, during Thierry Ardisson's television discussion
programme "Tout le monde en parle" ("Everyone's talking about it"), admiral
Philippe de Gaulle was heard to state, regarding the Jews: "The Germans
wanted, if not to exterminate them, at least to get them out [of Europe]".
That reflection, hardly lacking in soundness, met only with silence in the
media. Also hidden from the general public is the fact that neither
Churchill, nor Eden, nor Roosevelt, nor Truman, nor Eisenhower, nor de
Gaulle, nor Stalin ever cared to mention the "gas chambers" or the "gas
vans". Those amongst them who, years after the conflict had ended, wrote
their wartime memoirs also persisted in keeping quiet on the subject, as did
Pius XII, although he was yet more hostile to Hitler than to Stalin (see
Robert Faurisson, Le Révisionnisme de Pie XII, 2003, 120 p.). Adolf Hitler's
"weapons of mass destruction", his alleged execution gas chambers and gas
vans, existed no more than the "weapons of mass destruction" of Saddam
Hussein. In the two instances the lie and the liars have been of identical
origin: in 1944, under the aegis of Franklin Roosevelt, the War Refugee
Board spawned by Henry Morgenthau Jr and, in 2002, under the aegis of George
Bush Jr, the Office of Special Plans spawned by Paul Wolfowitz.
Unhappily, today, intoxicated by holocaustic propaganda, people are not of a
mind to call their beliefs into question. The "Shoah" has become a religious
superstition inspiring reverence or fear. Conscious both of its own
fragility and of the precarious standing of the State of Israel, of which it
is the sword and the shield, this religion has erected daunting walls of
defence, and harshly suppresses any who seek to stand up to it. In the past,
it took courage and sacrifices to be a truly active revisionist; to remain
one in future will require the heroism of Antigone and an uncommon
self-abnegation.
Frienships have fractured on this vital issue, and any individual who has claimed that a limited number of gassings may have occurred, has to date not delivered the goods to Faurisson.
David Irving claims there were limited gassings in the two farm houses outside of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp perimeter, of which Fritjof Meyer speaks in his controversial article.For Faurisson such a belief is tantamount to believing in the Devil!
Horst Mahler in his current Berlin court case fearlessly points out that the gassing claims are a lie.
Any Revisionist who is soft on the homicidal gassing libel is thereby also soft on asking for evidence from those who claim gassings occurred. There is no escaping Faurisson's challenge, to show or to draw the alleged murder weapon - the homicidal gass chambers.
Fredrick Töben's comment:
I agree with Professor Faurisson's stance and share his conviction, but am prevented from openly repeating his statement, and even in discussing such matters on account of a Federal Court of Australia Order that prohibits me from repeating Faurisson's statement in my own words. Were I to assert that the gassing story is a lie, then I would be in contempt of court and a prison sentence would await me. Hence I am relegated to quoting other individuals on this matter.
I do, however, state this: "Why must I believe in the things that I believe did not happen?
A while ago the Australian Jewish News, in a front-page headline stated "Is Toben at it again!", where this 13-word sentence is to be considered actionable or not, i.e. is it in breach of the gag order or is it actionable only through new court proceedings.
======
Exactitude: Festschrift For Robert Faurisson - Germar Rudolf edited the first-ever Festschrift for a Revisionist, obtainable from
Germar Rudolf
Castle Hill Publishers
PO Box 257768
Chicago, IL 60625
http://www.vho.org
=========================and now over to Dr Robert Faurisson ================
Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), 1st ed. in 1999, 2d ed. in December 2004
================
In 1999 I published in France, with my own means, a four-volume collection
of essays entitled Écrits révisionnistes (1974-1998). That semi-clandestine
publication caused me some serious trouble at the time. I have decided
nonetheless to publish soon a second edition, revised and corrected.
To that purpose I have drafted both a new piece for the dust jacket and a
foreword. Attached you will find these two texts in their English version.
Should you see fit to distribute them, please take care to indicate in their
headings the date of composition, that is, May 2004.
The possibility of there appearing, in 2005, two supplementary volumes
entitled Écrits révisionnistes (1999-2004) is not altogether ruled out.
Robert Faurisson
****
Dust Jacket Piece (May 2004)
Robert Faurisson has concluded from his research that the alleged Hitlerite
gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same
historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic political-financial
swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international
Zionism and whose main victims are the German people - but not their leaders
- and the Palestinian people in their entirety.
He has demonstrated that, for physical and chemical reasons, the alleged
Hitlerite gas chambers could not have existed. He has emphasised that the
Germans had wanted not to exterminate the Jews but to expel them from Europe
towards a Jewish national home elsewhere than in Palestine; that was what
they called "a territorial final solution to the Jewish question" (die
territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage).
Many European Jews, civilians or soldiers, died as a result of wartime
actions and notably in the typhus epidemics, but many Jews survived and, in
their millions, dispersed throughout the world, going so far as to create
and people a new State, that of Israel.
Recently R. Faurisson has written that Adolf Hitler's weapons of mass
destruction (gas chambers and gas vans) existed no more at that time than do
those of Saddam Hussein today. The first lie received official endorsement
in November 1944 from an agency called the War Refugee Board, created by
president Roosevelt at the instigation of Henry Morgenthau, Junior. The
second lie was launched by another Washington agency, the Office of Special
Plans, which president Bush Junior created in 2002 at the instigation of
Paul Wolfowitz. The world is witness, at nearly sixty years' distance, to
the same type of lie and the same type of liars.
Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson holds
the agrégation des lettres (highest competitive examination) and a doctorate
in "literature and the social sciences". He was professor at the University
of Lyon-II where, in particular, he taught the "criticism of texts and
documents (literature, history, media)". Divested of his chair by an
unexplained ministerial ruling, he has suffered numerous physical assaults
and incurred many convictions in the French courts for disputing the myth of
the "Holocaust". He has published seven works: three of literary revisionism
and four of historical revisionism. His four volumes of Écrits
révisionnistes (1974-1998) bring together in more than two thousand pages
articles, studies and critical revisions of texts in which the upholders of
an official history, increasingly religious and repressive in character, are
seen to yield step by step, on the plane of reason, before the arguments and
discoveries of historical revisionism initiated, in France, by Paul
Rassinier, author of Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (1950).
****
Foreword (May 2004)
The first edition of the present work dates from March 1999. I was indebted
for its production to Serge Thion and his lady friend, who had been willing
to compile, with a view to publication, articles and studies which, in
addition to some books or other revisionist writings, I had drafted between
1974 and 1998. The present edition reproduces the contents of the first but
not without abundant corrections of detail. I owe this revised and corrected
edition to Jean Plantin and, especially, to Yvonne Schleiter. The index of
names has been reworked. In the absence of an index of subjects, there is a
"reader's guide" which I owe to Jean-Marie Boisdefeu. This second edition
was supposed to appear in 2001 but we have until now been constantly forced
to postpone it. I had promised in addition to these four volumes a volume of
illustrations; I regret not being able to keep that promise all the more as
my work, essentially concrete, would have benefited from the accompaniment
of documents and photographs of which, moreover, I possess a great number.
On 2 February of this year, I devoted an article to my "Sombre Appraisal of
Historical Revisionism". Since that date, the situation has worsened. The
conference that was to have assembled more than two hundred sympathisers of
the revisionist cause on the 24th and 25th of April in Sacramento, the
capital of California, was cancelled and, in Toronto, the worst is to be
feared for Ernst Zündel, who has been kept languishing for fifteen months in
solitary confinement without charge. His cruel detention has recently been
endorsed by a superior court in its refusal to issue a writ of habeas
corpus.
Today those active in revisionist research or diffusion are very few. We may
cite mainly Walter Mueller, Ingrid Rimland, Germar Rudolf (helped by his
friend Jürgen Graf in Russia), Michael Santomauro and Bradley Smith in the
United States, Heinz Koppe in Canada, Fredrick Toben in Australia, Carlo
Mattogno in Italy, Jean Plantin in France, Vincent Reynouard in Belgium,
Ahmed Rami and Serge Thion on the Internet.
On the scientific plane, revisionism has achieved total victory. It no
longer has a single adversary. The Hilbergs, the Vidal-Naquets, the
Klarsfelds, the Berenbaums, the Deborah Lipstadts and one van Pelt, happy
with repeating as his own the flimsy arguments of one Jean-Claude Pressac,
have been reduced to nothing. The revisionists find themselves opposed only
by Spielberg-style films, Yad Vashem ceremonies, Disneyland-inspired
museums, pilgrimages to Auschwitz, continuous media ballyhoo, brainwashing
at school and at university and, finally, a State propaganda buttressed by
legislative repression. Our foes have bowed to our strength in the field but
practically no one knows it, for the losers, what with their power in the
mass media and their virtuoso bluffing, go on blowing their trumpets or
shofars as if they had won the battle.
Their historians claimed that Hitler had carried out a policy of
extermination against the Jews, notably using weapons of mass destruction
called execution gas chambers or gas vans. Besides, they assured us that, on
the Eastern front, the Einsatzgruppen had indulged in gigantic massacres of
Jews. In sum, they would have us believe that nearly the entire community of
Jews in Europe had thus been exterminated.
Such a vast crime would have presupposed an order from on high, a project, a
plan, overall directives, comprehensive instructions, financing, checks of
operations and expenditures, a multitude of specific or general assessments,
research into and development of weapons the like of which humanity had
never known, along with the involvement of large numbers of military men,
scientists, engineers, labourers and employees. An undertaking of the sort,
especially if conducted in tightest secrecy, would also have called for an
array of draconian measures. The whole project would have left numerous
pieces of irrefutable evidence, both material and documentary. At first, the
official historians had the nerve to assert that such evidence indeed
existed, and "in abundance". But to the challenge to produce "one bit of
proof, just one" of their choosing, they beat a retreat and since then,
following the example of J.-C. Pressac, have invoked only the existence of
"criminal traces" or "beginnings of proof". Pursuing their withdrawal still
further, they have invented an account telling that the great massacre
happened without an order, without a directive, spontaneously (like
"spontaneous generation", in a way). The most prestigious of them, Raul
Hilberg, falling back from his original affirmation that there had been two
orders from the Führer to kill the Jews, has been reduced to maintaining
that in fact it all came about without an order, without a plan, and only
thanks to "an incredible meeting of minds" within the vast German
bureaucracy, and by "a consensus mind-reading" amongst Nazi bureaucrats!
No one has been able to find any premises that might have been a genuine
execution gas chamber. Nor a single execution gas van. In respect to the
greatest crime in the world the accusation cannot provide any forensic study
of the crime weapon. Amongst the post-mortems there is not one that
establishes gassing as the cause of death. Those alleged witnesses to
"gassings" who have been put under precise cross-examination in public court
proceedings have been unmasked. The "execution gas chambers" shown to
tourists have revealed themselves to be Potemkin village contrivances. The
massacres imputed to the Einsatzgruppen have left behind no common burial
sites approaching the mass graves of the Katyn forest slaughter (4,255
corpses counted), an acknowledged crime whose perpetrators were our very own
Soviet allies.
On the other hand, there is no lack of facts to prove that the 3rd Reich
never had a policy of physical extermination of the Jews. Even on the
Eastern front, the killing of an innocent Jewish civilian was punishable by
heavy sanctions, including the death penalty. Those soldiers who engaged in
any form of excess with regard to Jews were liable to sentence by a German
court martial. There are countless examples of measures taken, even in the
camps, for the protection of the Jews against the excesses inherent to all
forms of detention, as well as against the ravages caused by the epidemics.
The Germans had an obsessive fear of disorder, of contagion, of the loss of
manpower; even at Auschwitz there were training centres for young Jews to
learn various manual trades. Millions of Jews survived the war, in spite of
the great carnage throughout Europe at the time, and in spite of the
apocalypse of a Germany pulverised by the Allied bombardments. Calling
themselves "survivors" or "miraculous escapees", many still today make up
the membership of organisations craving financial reparations. Now,
fifty-nine years after the war, the number of these "survivors" has recently
been estimated at 687,900 (the figure given by New York based demographer
Jacob Ukeles, cited in the article by Amiran Barkat "US Court to discuss
question of who is a Holocaust survivor", Haaretz, 18 April 2004). During
the war, Jewish leaders uttered alarming words about an extermination of the
Jews, but their conduct showed that they did not really believe in it. The
Allied governments saw that they were dealing with "Jews trying to stoke us
up". And then, the "brown Jews" of the "international Jewish collaboration"
were not wanting. Zionists and National-Socialists shared, to a certain
degree, a particular worldview; hence, in 1941, the Stern Group's offer of
military collaboration with Germany against the British. As late as 21 April
1945 a member of the World Jewish Congress, Norbert Masur, was received by
Himmler to discuss the matter of Jews to be delivered to the Allies.
The Germans sought to expel the Jews from Europe, if possible with the
accord of the rest of the world. They had in mind "a territorial final
solution of the Jewish question" ("eine territoriale Endlösung der
Judenfrage", as written in a foreign ministry memorandum of 21 August 1942
bearing the signature of an official called Martin Luther).
In France on 6 March 2004, during Thierry Ardisson's television discussion
programme "Tout le monde en parle" ("Everyone's talking about it"), admiral
Philippe de Gaulle was heard to state, regarding the Jews: "The Germans
wanted, if not to exterminate them, at least to get them out [of Europe]".
That reflection, hardly lacking in soundness, met only with silence in the
media. Also hidden from the general public is the fact that neither
Churchill, nor Eden, nor Roosevelt, nor Truman, nor Eisenhower, nor de
Gaulle, nor Stalin ever cared to mention the "gas chambers" or the "gas
vans". Those amongst them who, years after the conflict had ended, wrote
their wartime memoirs also persisted in keeping quiet on the subject, as did
Pius XII, although he was yet more hostile to Hitler than to Stalin (see
Robert Faurisson, Le Révisionnisme de Pie XII, 2003, 120 p.). Adolf Hitler's
"weapons of mass destruction", his alleged execution gas chambers and gas
vans, existed no more than the "weapons of mass destruction" of Saddam
Hussein. In the two instances the lie and the liars have been of identical
origin: in 1944, under the aegis of Franklin Roosevelt, the War Refugee
Board spawned by Henry Morgenthau Jr and, in 2002, under the aegis of George
Bush Jr, the Office of Special Plans spawned by Paul Wolfowitz.
Unhappily, today, intoxicated by holocaustic propaganda, people are not of a
mind to call their beliefs into question. The "Shoah" has become a religious
superstition inspiring reverence or fear. Conscious both of its own
fragility and of the precarious standing of the State of Israel, of which it
is the sword and the shield, this religion has erected daunting walls of
defence, and harshly suppresses any who seek to stand up to it. In the past,
it took courage and sacrifices to be a truly active revisionist; to remain
one in future will require the heroism of Antigone and an uncommon
self-abnegation.