[From a video with R. Faurisson, Stockholm, December 1992]
My name is Robert Faurisson. I am 63. I'm coming from France. And I'm ready to answer your questions. But first somebody asked me: What is revisionism? Revisionism is the fact of people who think that you have to revise, fundamentally accepted views on something like: When you ask for the revision of a trial. For example somebody is accuse, somebody is condemn, is guilty. And you think that you need a revision of the trial. And the result might be that this man is no more guilty. This is, you see, fundamentally, guilty not guilty.
Another example of revisionism before the word excited. The word excited something like already 1850 in France or other things. But you could take the example of Galilieo. At the time of Galilieo, if we make the things simples, people believed that earth was flat and that the sun was going around earth. And people like Copernicus and Galilieo said: No, this is wrong. And remember at that time people would say the earth is flat and the earth does not move. And to see that you need only your eyes. See, you can see that the earth is flat. And you need only a little bite of reason. That if the earth was turning people could not stand. Trees could not stand because of the draft. And at that time Galilieo Galilei said: I am sorry but the fact is that it is not flat and that it turns. Okay. And remember the trouble he went in when people said: Oh Galilieo, you are saying this, you are revising everything because you are against the church. You are against the bible. You are against christianise. And this was not truth. Galilie Galileio said this because he thought that it was exact. And I think that it is the same thing for us, at least for me, when people say: Oh Faurisson, you say this because that you are against the Jews. But I am not against the Jews. I want to be exact. Okay. So, we need specially to revise the history of any war. Because during a war you have necessarily war-propaganda. Which means lies. So after a war you need to revise and to say: We must check.
And the first man who really checked what we accepted about World War Two was a Frenchman, Paul Rassiner. He was a man of the left, extreme-left. He was a resistant. He was deported. He suffered very much in Buchenwald. When he came back in France he said: Now what's that? I have been suffering very much but I think that the people who are recounting all those stories, they are exaggerating. And especially about those gas chambers. Is it true or not? And he went into many troubles because of this questions. But remember it is something coming from the left. And even the first man to ask question about the gas chamber was George Orwell, in May 1945. This is not very well known. He was the first. He said: Is it true about gas ovens, he said, in Poland? He was the first.
So, what I would say is that Rassinier wrote in 1950 a book. The title is very important. It means in English "Ulysses lie". You know the story of Ulysses? He had many many sufferings. When he came back he exaggerated terribly his suffering. And Rassiner want us to understand that anyone of us is prom to exaggerate. For instance, yesterday I was more or less attacked. I could today say that I was pushed, that I was wounded, that I was this and that. This would be Ulysses-complex. So I try to fight against this because it's normal. When you have been suffering something you want the people to cheer your sufferings. And to make the people to cheer you exaggerate. And you exaggerate figures. And you exaggerates facts. You invent facts.
So until 1960 myself I believed in the gas chambers. And one day I read, and it was extraordinary for me, I read that finish for Dachau. No more gassings. I and thought to my self: No gassings in Dachau. But I remember the film in the Nürnberg-trial. They showed us the Dachau gas chambers. And they explain you have gassings and so on. And there were so many, I thought, so many witnesses, so many proofs and confessions. So what is that? How is it, Dachau no more gassings? And the man who said that said still there were gassings in Auschwitz. So the questions for me was: If the proofs, the testimonies, the confessions for Dachau no more good, what is the different with the proofs, the testimonies and the confessions about Auschwitz? I want to know the different. I need a criterion. How can you say that this is true, this is not? And it become to work in my poor brain. And I wrote to Rassiner and so on. But Rassiner died in 1967.
But what I remember is that, I think in 1963 I went to Paris for the first time to a Centre of Jewish documentation. And please remember this anecdote. I went to the place. I saw the man of the archives. And directly like American do I said: Sir, I am looking for a photo of a gas chamber. And the man said: We have many testimonies. I said: I am sorry, I want a photo. And he said: We have many documents. I said: I am sorry, I want a photo. Because I am very materialists, you see. And he said: Mrs Imbert, I remember the name, this gentleman wants a photo of a gas chamber. And I assure you that the lady said: We have many testimonies. And the archive man said: No, this gentleman wants a photo. Okay, sit down. And I sat down and I waited for 60 minutes. And the poor lady came back with 3 photos. One was showing a bathroom, not a shower room, a bathroom. The second on was a very well known photo of a American soldier looking at a so call gas chamber. But if you go to Dachau now they say disinfecting gas chamber. Okay. And the third on I don't remember. So in 1963, if it was -63, for the first time I was very surprised. Because the Germans were supposed to have used a fantastic weapon.
So I can tell you that I worked in this Centre for Jewish documentation for years and years looking for all the possible documents. And they kicked me out in January -77. Okay. But, so going back to this, I was very surprised because the Germans were supposed to have invented and used a fantastic weapon. And I could not even have an idea of this weapon. What kind was it? But I think at that time, I thought more or less like many people that, any place could be a gas chamber. And this is the big mistake. And if you realise what could be a gas chamber to kill someone, so I would say it is finished. Let me explain you, especially a gas chamber with Zyklon B. Zyklon B was invented in 1922 and it's still used today. It is hydrocyanic acid. Very strong. And it's to kill loess. And it sticks to surfaces, ground, siling, anywhere. It sticks. And you can not get rid of it. It is very difficult. You need a very long time to ventilate a place.
And this place could never be a gas chamber. This place. Because if you put people to kill them with gas, first, you have to many windows. They would be broken. Okay. But suppose they can not be broken, suppose. You need a fantastic air tightness. Because when you want, that is the different between suicide, accident by gas and killing by gas, execution by gas, if you execute you want to kill but you don't want to be killed. And you need a big air tightness. But with an acid that tightness extremely difficult to get. And if this gas goes somewhere outside, and you see by the chimney, you see, and so on. It's extremely dangerous for the people around.
So I am going to tell you quickly what is Zyklon B when you use it for disinfecting, when you use hydrocyanic acid. And when you us it in United States to execute one man. If you want to disinfect this place with hydrocyanic acid it's extremely complicated. You need people who have a special training. You need a special gas mask with a special filter. You have those pellets of Zyklon B. You must put them on a paper. Because you must take them back after. If ever one pellets stay, after when you think that it's ventilated, it's still continues to eliminate gas you see. And you need something like 6 to 35 hours to disinfect the place. 6 hour only if it's hot, warm. 35 if it's very cold. But that's not interesting. The interesting part is, when you want to get into, open the place, open the windows and to ventilate, you need something like 21 hours, 24 hours to ventilate this place. Then 2 man with special training, they get into the place with there gas mask and they open the windows. Okay. And if ever a window is difficult to open, they must leave it. No physical effort. And they open other windows. And of curse to put signs for the people around. This is a dangerous place. You need to have a guard, 2 guards during all the day, all the night. And the guards must not be on the side of the wind. It's is very dangerous, you see.
A man ask: First you said it's extremely dangerous to kill by this gas because air tightness which is hard to received. But on the other hand it's very dangerous anyway to come close with. How do you make it go together?
Because the people who get into the place first, they have the gas mask. And they put the pellets on those papers. And it's not to dangerous at that time. You understand that? Do you understand that? They open the box and they put the pellets of Zyklon B on a paper. They have a gas mask. It's not full. You understand?
Full of what?
Full of gas. It's going to be full of gas. And then after, when they want to ventilate the place is plenty of gas, of curse. Very dangerous. So they have to cross it very, very slowly and with prudent, as I told you. Okay. And it's very long. And they have test paper also, to see after if they can really take of there masks and say to the people that you can go back to your room. And many things like that.
Now, if you want to use this gas to kill one man. Remember this, in 1917 you have some Americans, humanitarians. They thought, electric char, this is to cruel, shoot people, it's to cruel. We are going to use gas. The prisoner will go asleep and he will not waken the next morning. So that's easy. But when they wanted to realise a gas chamber, then began the problems. And now days I can show you photos. I mean already in the -30's the gas chamber I am going to describe to you, the gas chamber to kill one man. It's a place with very thick, how to you say it in English, ah not iron, ah steel, very thick glass. One door only of course. Because if you have 2 doors you multiple the difficulties of air tightness. Okay. You have a central pillow. Why? To make it stronger. Because if you don't want the gas to get out of the place you must make a kind of little vacuum. If you make a vacuum there is a dangers of implosions. So it must be extremely strong. You bring the prisoner. You put him on the chair. From the outside it's a automatic system to throw the pellets into hydrocyanic acid. Then it begins. And the man need something like 30 to 40 seconds and he will not go back to life. And the dead will accrued something like 8, 9 minutes, 12 minutes after. Okay. And now the problems beginning. So the door is with a big wall. Okay. And the big problem is to get for the medical doctor, and for the 2 officers, helping the doctor, to get into the place. First they must wait to see in the cups fenolstalin is getting pink or red. Which means there is to much hydrocyanic acid. Because at the beginning, excuse me I forgot to tell you, you have a special ventilating system like this, you have a special exhaust ventilator. This gas is send to a big mixer and it must be neutralise to put acid into what we call basis, with ammoniac and so on. The rest of it, which is supposed to be not dangerous, in fact is still very dangerous and it is getting out by the highest chimney. And this very idea of a execution, gas have no right to go nto of the prison. Because it is to dangerous. This is to kill one man. And the doctor and the 2 people have to wait. And then they get into the place. And the new problem is: How can we touch this body? Because the body is very dangerous. Because hydrocyanic acid sticks specially in everything which is humid. They have to wash the body. All the openings of the body. They have to wash very carefully, this and that, Because the body is dangerous. This for one man.
And let me tell you something. When I visited this American gas chamber, I didn't attended an execution. Okay. It was in Baltimore in 1978. And I remember the lieutenant. He was explaining me this and that and we took photos and so on. And at the end of it he said: Now, doctor, how is it that you are interested in that? And I said: I am interested in the Germans gas chambers. I didn't say I didn't believe in it. And this very man, who had explain me how difficult it was, how dangerous it was to execute one man said, and I swear you this is the true: Terrible, have you seen Holocaust? Which mean that, you see you can be a scientific and a believer at the same time. And this man never wondering. He saw in this stupid holocaust-film. A little place with planks, you see. And a man outside tried to make a motor run. And the Jewish coming like that. It's so silly. But this man believed it. Okay.
So, I don't want to be to long. But you have so many difficulties. Which are, often I said that arguments are physical, chemical, topographical. When you know the place in Auschwitz and else where, they are architectonic. When you know the architecture of the crematories, suppose to have had gas chambers and so on. But when I say physics, they say I am a Nazi. When I say chemistry, they say that I am a anti-Semite and so on. You see. it is very difficult to discuss this matter. Because you bring science and they bring names.
So, in 1988. a man you must remember his name, Zündel. This man is a German. Lives in Toronto. And they had a mammoth trial against him. And he asked me to help him. And I already helped him in 1985. And in 1988 he said: Mr Faurisson, could you send me a copy of the corresponds you had with the American wardens, of those pertain cheery with gas chambers? I sent him, because I had asked in this 17 questions to those people, about executions. And he looked at this and he asked someone to try to get in touch with a specialist of American gas chamber. Because for years and years I have said, even to revisionists who could not understand that, I said: We need an expertise of the places supposed to have been gas chambers. Even ruins. Ruins are very important. I don't want as an expert a medical doctor. I don't want a chemist. I don't want a tocsieolgist. I want a specialist of the American gas chamber. And we found one. And his name was Fred Leuchter. And Zündel told me: Would you agree to go and see in Boston Mr Fred Leuchter? And I said yes. And I supposed you knew the Leuchter-report? Okay. One day I was in Boston and received a phone-call. And a man said: My name is Fred Leuchter. And I asked this man, I said to Leuchter: I want to see, but you see, I need to see you for historical-research. I need to see you twice. One afternoon and one morning. Because my brain are a little bit slow. And I need one night to asked some more questions, you see. And I went to Boston. I remember the snow in Boston. And I saw a little man coming to me. And I was in a hotel room. And on my bed I had put documents of Auschwitz and all that. And I began to ask questions to this man about gas chambers and all that. And I immediately notice that this man believed in the German gas chambers. But never ever he had have the idea of wondering how it could look. But anyway. He accepted to go to Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek. And as you know he wrote a report, 192 pages, with very much of my documentation in it. And the conclusions is: There were no gas chambers, executions gas chambers in those camps. And there could never have been any. Myself I had found plans in the Auschwitz museum. And of course I am able to say what those facilities where in fact. And after the Leuchter-report came a report by the poles themselves. They try to answer Leuchter. Terrible, because they made chemistry researched. And it was a confirmations of what Leuchter have said. Then a third report came, and a fourth and a fifth is coming. And all those expertise proved that we are right. Because you must know something which is scandals. When in a trial, it's about a murder, if someone has been murdered with a knife., no judge says: Oh we have so many witnesses about this murderer. We don't need an expertise of the knife. Okay. But in the case of that millions people supposed to have been killed, no expertise what so ever of weapon of the crime. Except once I discover this. But it was hidden to the people because the results was no gas chamber. It was about Strothof-Natsvailer near Strasbourg in France. No expertise. And then we discovered that there was no order coming from anyone, form Hitler, from anyone to kill the Jews. There were no plan. Not even in Wannsee. There was no budget. You need money when you decide to do something specials, specially in time of war. No instructions.
So, no expertise of the weapon of the crime. No report, autopsy report, satiating that even one man have been killed by poise and gas. Although the Americans found plenty of bodies of people who died from typhus, typhoid and so on, in this territories. No expert report. No autopsy report. And now what I am gong to say is very serious: I say that there is no witness. Because, it is not because someone come and say: Mr Faurisson, see I was in Auschwitz. I can tell you that there were homicidal gas chambers. I don't call this man a witness. I want this man to be cross-examine. If somebody is not cross-examine his is not a witness. It's someone who says a story. Perhaps true, perhaps false. And do you know that since 1945 not one allege witness, Nürnberg-trial, Eichmann-trial, Frankfurt-trial, hundreds of trials, not one had been cross-examine on the facts. I mean they should have to done what I did in 1985 at the first Zündel-trial. I had a little piece of paper, yellow paper. And I gave them to the defend lower of Zündel. And we cross-examine the best possible witness of the gassings. A man call doctor Rudolf Vrba.
With your questions on?
With my questions on the paper. Rudolf Vrba. It was a disaster for the man. Because for the first time he was cross-examine, doctor Vrba. This is a plan of Auschwitz. This is a air photo, taken by the Americans during the war. Were where you? Where was the gas chamber? What did you see? Describe. And the poor silly man had described already 1944. It was so stupid. It was very easy to show that he was lying. And do you know what? The man who was suppose to say only the truth, only the truth, to be totally exact said: Yes but you see. There is license separopn. Which mean in Latin poetic licence. Because when you write something you have the right to invent. He had invented all the story. So the first one, and the best one, when cross-examine, a catastrophe.
And I say: Please bring me any survivor. And I can tell you that now they knew me. In Paris or somewhere else when I say: You mean that you have intended a gassing? Okay, you are going to tell me the story exactly. And very quickly they say: Now if I had seen a gassing I wouldn't be here to talk to you. Which is very interesting. Which mean first you tried to make me believe that you where a witness. And now you even say that it can not be any witness. Okay and so on, and so on.
I want to stop now for your questions. Okay. You see it's always first very materialistic. Excuse me.
Why is this so important for the big question of survival of man on this planet? Why are you so encases to find the truth in this questions?
You mean myself?
Yes. It's is a very difficult question to answer. Because sir, if you knew what is a researcher. A researcher most of the time does don't know why he is research. He gives always good reasons to look intelligent or generous. You don't know. You don't know why people make researchers on anything. Myself I can say that I was so surprised 1960. I would say, it's intellectual curiosity. Now intellectual is to much. It's curiosity. Like Sherlock Holmes. I am partly Scottish you see. Sherlock Holmes. But you must think that it is very interesting for us to, to find out the truth anyway, in this question?
Now I see, yes. I understand that it's very important for many people. But I would say that if I haven't seen so much resistance against our ideas, I would have stopped very quickly. But then I discovers all the political and financial background of all this. But be careful. I never said that it was a Jewish conspires. I never said that the Jews lied in order to make money or things like that, no. This I never said. Okay. But I see that for the state of Israel if they have no more the gas chamber, singular, the magical gas chamber, it's the central pillar of the religion of the Holocaust, if they don't have it, it's terribly for them. That's why in my short statement, as you remember sir, yesterday I said in this press conference, I said the Nazi gas chambers and the examinations of the Jews are one and the same historical lie. I shall explain what is an historical lie. The fact that those gas chambers never excited, the fact that this genocide never took place, is good news for all the humanness. Especially for the Germans and for the Jews. But of course it is not good news for those who exploit this historical lie. Especially the state of Israel.
The Red cross delegations, doctor Rossel. Rossel, I wrote to this man. What did he say about it? I tried to find the report. I went to Red cross liberty here in Stockholm. Can you tell what it says?
Yes, it was a visit of Auschwitz in September in 1944. And about those story of gas chambers. Okay. At the end of the report he said that when he was in Tesrezin, which is something like I think 30 km south of Auschwitz. He saw, I remember the French word of the report because it was in French, you see in a camp. Do you know that there were in Auschwitz, do you know that there were British prisoners, working in the coal-mines. They have been taking in Terezin. Okay. So you have what we call a representative of the British prisoners working. And he said to doctor Rossel that he had heard about a modern shower room. And instead of water it was gas. Then the reports continues and doctor Rossel says: We went to Auschwitz. Themselves they didn't say anything about that at all. It is very very short. And it means clearly that doctor Rossel had heard something from a British. And I even think the British said: Try to find the truth about it. So, and doctor Rossel finish saying nothing. You can see that he does not believe it at all. And that no, certainly no specially investigation was made. Because you have some revisionist who lie also. They exaggerate. They say there was really an investigation by the Red cross. No, you have no right to say that. The reaction of Rossel when he heard the story was: Oh, this is one more invention.
He didn't find anything?
He didn't find anything. Themselves [Red cross] didn't say anything about this.
Did he made any statement or been interview later?
Only myself I wrote a letter to this man. But I saw that he didn't want to get to any detail about that. And you see, this is a little bit technical. Excuse me, but at the Nürnberg Trial, not the first one but other trial in Dachau in fact, the Americans took this book and they took part from this book. And do you know what? They omitted the sentence, they inmates they didn't say anything. They omitted that.
Now you must know that the first revisionist in fact were during the war itself. And specially people of the foreigner office in London. They didn't believe this for one minute. And you must know that even in 1943 the British, the Americans and the Russians where ready to publish a common declarations on German crimes. And we have the draft of it. And in the draft it is said the German even take people into gas chamber and gas them. This is in the draft. But we have also a telegram from Washington saying to Moscow, the ambassador in Moscow: Be careful we have to cut the part of this declarations about the gas chambers. Because the British told us that we have not enough evidence.
So even during the war they tried to put this invention of the war propaganda to make it public. But it was impossible. They had it sometimes in the New York Times, page 23. Then they got it page 10. Then page 7 and so on. But to have the big title, "the gas chamber", "the Germans are using gas chambers", you have to wait to the end of the war when British discovered Bergen-Belsen, which were something awful. Bergen-Belsen. With all those people dying of typhus, epidemics and so on, or already dead. And you must know that the British did something quite normal. The man on the caterpillar has his head cut like this. So you can not see that he is British and not a German. Because a big lie needs many little lies.
Mr Faurisson, I have two question., The first is were have you living during the second war, in 1939, were have you being with your family?
In Marseilles and Paris.
In Marseilles and Paris. Did any member of your family deported by the Nazi occupation of France?
I would say no people of my family but that I did not even know. The resistance. One was killed. But in fact no. My father and my mother, no. Let me tell you something about our opinion on that time. I was terrible angry of German of course. And I remember that one day in my school, in June 1942, I wrote on my desk with a knife: "Mort à Laval", death to Laval. Laval was the prime minister of Petain. The day before he had said: "I hope the German will win". And most of the time the sentence is cut there, but he added: "Because if the Germans are vanquished we'll have Bolshevism, communism in Europe". So he was half wrong, half right. But myself I was 13, mort à Laval. And I had some trouble with this because what we call the prefect of the school came, and he said: You Faurisson, with your British running in the desert like rabbits. Because at that time the British you see, where retreating from Tobruk, Bengazi and so on. And he said: I want this desk to come back as it was. And you are going to show it to your father. So I took it out. I brought it to my father. I did not remember what my father said.
During world war I the Germans, the Austrians and the Bulgarians were accused of gassing the Serbs, in churches or in buildings where they where brought for being gassed. But in fact they were gassed already in 1916. The myth of the gas chambers was born in London in the Daily Telegraph on the 22 of Mars 1916. Then in 1920's the people understood it had been a myth of the war and they abandoned it. But this myth was taken once more during world war two resettled. Instead of the Germans, the Austrians and the Bulgarians. It was the Germans and the Austrians. Instead of the Serbs being victims it was the Jews. So today the people want me to believe and to eat, excuse me, to eat a product which was invented in 1916, who was a totally rotten product. They want me to eat it. I don't want to eat this. This is a disgusting product of hatred. Because revisionism is health. You see, I am for health. I don't want to eat those things. To swallow those things.
In what conditions was the Nazi archives after the war? Is it possible that everything about this questions is available for research? Is it possible, because it was damming by bombing or something?
I would say that there are so many Germans documents, so many of them that even if some of them are missing, or some of them are kept in Jerusalem and so on, for instance the diary of Himmler which would be most important, things like that, even if this is truth, we have so many documents that you couldn't hide anything. Believe my experience when you try to suppress a document. Do you know that most of the time there is elsewhere the proof that this document excised. Or the content of it. It is extremely difficult to suppress something.
Now let me tell you something: in 1986. I went to Bundesarchiv. I saw the specialist doctor Enke. And I said: Now let us be serious, please. Am I wrong if I say, I asked the question to this man, am I wrong if I say that you have billions, not millions, billions of pages only for the 2 German organisations supposed to have been committing this crime. Which is, I am not going to give you the German words, the organisation by which Eichmann was bringing the people to the camps. And the organisation Oswald Pohl, supposed to kill the people, may I say there are billions of pages? And he said: Yes. And he was right to say yes because if ever he had said no, or Mr Faurisson, you are exaggerating, I had a argument against him. He said yes. And I said: Now doctor Enke, among those billions, do you have one page proving that the gas chamber existed? And he said: No.
Is there any danger this documents being destroyed?
But as I told you, if the gas chamber had existed, you have needed millions of pages. Because you have to prepare this extraordinary weapon. You need doctors. You need chemists. You need money. You need many, many things to prepare. And then you need many, many documents to build this. Do you know that in Auschwitz for even a screw, do you know that we have it on a piece of paper? If I was patent enough I would tell you how many screws who where used in Auschwitz.
Even that, or in German the word is `Schraube document'. Fantastic. `Schraube document'. And you have gas chambers, of course. `Gaskammer'. But you can see that it is 'für Entläusung', for disinfections.
Mr Jackson talks about tons of papers from the Auschwitz centre administration now available in Moscow. Do you expect something specially from those documents? And why have they been kept for secrets for 50 years, by the Soviets?
Last question I can not answer. I don't know exactly why they kept it secret. Maybe it's a mania of the communists to be secret about anything. So I don't know. Now I would be interested to see those documents, of course. But I am pretty sure that it would not bring anything knew for us. I mean that you will never find suddenly in one place, which is Moscow, something proofing that in Auschwitz you had gas chambers. Because for topographical reasons, material reasons, those gas chambers could not have been have excited. That's all. It's like a square which can not be a circle, circle which can not be a square. It's something chemical. It's something physical.
The knowledge of the historians about Auschwitz, is it 100 percent or 90 percent? How it functions, the industries and the daily life? Could the Moscow documents bring news light into the daily life?
Yes, certainly you would have many many things about the life in Auschwitz. For instance we know, excuse me this is not a joke, we mustn't make joke about subject like that, but we knew that in Auschwitz supposed to being a extermination camp, you had 6 orchestras. And we have very good details about at least two of them. But for the four or others I have no really details. Now if I said 6, be careful, you can find it in the resent Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust. At the article, "music", "music in camps". Something like that. We have many many things about that. And there was an hospital. In Birkenau, the extermination camp, quite close to the place people suppose to be gassed they had a soccer-filed to play football. And sometimes we know that the ball will go inside the yard of crematory-number 3. And quite close to this you had 18 barracks of the hospital.
Do you know the story of Elie Wiesel? Elie Wiesel say: I am a survivor. Okay. Now read his book. His book was published in 1956. It had been written first in Yiddish I think. And in this book you will see that there is nothing about gassings in Auschwitz. He says that in Auschwitz people were burned. Okay. This is the myth of the fire. You have water, electricity, fire, gas and so on. And, he was in Auschwitz with his father, his mother and 3 sisters. We know that his mother died. I don't know how and when. I don't know. We know that one of his sisters died. But I don't remember if it was in Auschwitz or in other camp. He survived himself and 2 of his sisters. Do you know, there are in the United States. They survived also. But he was something like 15, 16 years old. And one day he had an accident and he had to undergo a surgical operation in Auschwitz. Exterminations camp. And he was, I understand at that time a young boy who was very afraid of the surgical operation. And he says the story. But people do not know how to read. He said that the doctor, who was a Jew said: Now, don't be afraid, I will be there for your surgical operation. He was operated, I think, by a Jew also. He was put in, he says it, in white sheet. He was operated. His own doctor, if I may say so, was there. Everything went well. He was convalescent. And then suddenly big news. The Russians are approaching. The Germans want to evacuate Auschwitz. And do you know what? The Germans says to Elie Wiesel and his father: Either you stay as ill people, because many stayed in Auschwitz, or you go with us inside Germany. You have the choice. And Elie Wiesel say, they had a talk, his father and himself. And what did they decide? To go with the killers. Not to wait for the saviours. What do you think of that? He wrote it in his book called "The Night". And he says it is an biography.
How is it that there are so many survivors? What is a survivor? It's extraordinary, excuse me, when a survivor come and he say: I am a living proof that Auschwitz was a exterminations camp. Excuse me. If he is a living proof of something it's the contrary. He is a living proof that it was not a extermination camp. Okay.
And see the physical phenomena. You know Lourdes? The miracles in Lourdes in France? You know that? You know this name? If everyday on the television people would say: One more miracle in Lourdes. Monday okay. Tuesday that's very much. Two miracles on two days. Then Wednesday, Thursday. Too many miracles.
When people asked me: What is the origin of the myth of the gas chamber? I say as I told you: 22 Mars 1916, London The Daily Telegraph. But between you and me: I wonder if the myth of gas chambers is not as old as human being. I mean that. Before the word gas. Gas comes from chaos. Before the inventions of this word, I think that people already believed in gas. What was going to be gas. Because people already believed in witches. This witches are so strong that they can kill you but you can not see them. And there is a kind of thinking. Because everyone thinks: Oh if I could kill somebody without any trace and so on. Magic you see. The real magic is when you can kill somebody without being seen. And the Satan, the witches craft, without trace. Things like that. I think it's as old as human being.
So the gas chamber are as old as, I don't know how many 1000's of years. Because people you see, even chemists, they think that there is no different, as I told you at the beginning, between gas in an accident or a suicide and gas to kill someone. They think that gas is something you could have everywhere.
Who will have the power to make revisionism being seen by people?
One more good question. What can I answer? Sometime I say: Sir, you want to help me? You really want to help me in killing this lie? This lie is a religion, religion of the Holocaust. There is no example that a religion can be killed by reason. No example. You kill a religion by another one. So please, bring me a new religion that I can kill this one with.
From the soundtrack of a video with R. Faurisson made in Stockholm, December 1992, and displayed on "Radio-Islam" website. Remember it is an oral presentation.
| Index historia | |Svenska huvudsidan | | Andra språk |
We have edited some minor mistakes.
First displayed on aaargh: 12 April 2001.
This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <[email protected]. Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.