Answers to Andrea Colombo (of the Italian daily Libero)

1. I was born on January 25, 1929, in England to a French father and a Scottish mother. I possess British citizenship together with French. Married, with three children, I have lived in Vichy since 1957. I used to teach French, Latin and Greek in Lycées. Then, as assistant professor, I taught Modern French Literature at the University of Paris (Sorbonne). From 1974, at a University in Lyon, I taught Modern French Literature along with “Analysis of Texts and Documents (Literature, History, Media)”. Because of my revisionist views, which I had expressed only outside the University, I was forbidden from lecturing as of May 1979. My tenure was taken away in 1990 by a sleight of hand on the part of Lionel Jospin who at the time was Minister of Education and who is now Prime Minister. Jewish organisations had led numerous campaigns and exerted pressure so as to get me fired, and they eventually succeeded.

2. I am apolitical and an atheist.

3. I have been assaulted more than ten times. On September 19, 1989 I was nearly killed by Jews. A young man saved me but, the next day, learning my name in the local newspaper, he told the police that he regretted his intervention. The police ended up concluding that my three assailants probably belonged to a group of “young Jewish activists in Paris”. They then dropped their inquiries. I knew that the three Jews in question had been guided by another Jew in Vichy, who himself had already assaulted me on July 12, 1987. But I had no time and no money to pursue the case, and experience had taught me that it would have been to no avail since in France Jews have the right to do whatever they want against those believed to be “anti-semites”. In such cases the courts usually decide that the Jews have acted “in good faith” regardless of whether such acts are forbidden by law.

4. In July 1990, Jews like Chief Rabbi René-Samuel Sirat and Professor Pierre Vidal-Naquet, acting in concert with the country’s principal Jewish organisations, obtained the passage of a special law against historical revisionism. It is commonly called the “Fabius-Gayssot law” or sometimes “Lex Faurissonia”. Fabius is a Jew and a Socialist while Gayssot is a Communist. That law forbids one to express even a doubt about the so-called “Holocaust”. If found guilty one may be sent to jail for a year, fined up to FFr 300,000 and sanctioned still otherwise.

5. There is no debate between revisionists and exterminationists. For years and years we have been asking for such a debate. The answer has been, in P. Vidal-Naquet’s words: “One may debate on the revisionists but not with the revisionists”.

6. Our adversaries claim that we are “deniers”. In fact, I have not denied anything. Galileo Galilei did not “deny” at all. He affirmed several things, as conclusions of his research. As a conclusion of my own research undertakings, which were essentially of a physical or historical nature, I affirmed in 1980 that the alleged genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged Six Million victims constituted one and the same historical lie. Whereas, for his part, Ernst Nolte is definitely not a revisionist; he is only a retouchiste as I would say in French, an alterations tailor. He still claims that he is a true believer in official history and in the kosher version of World War II history.

7. During the war, many Jews died and many survived. It should be possible to determine what “many” means in either case but the archives, especially those of the International Tracing Service in Arolsen-Waldeck (Germany), are closed to the revisionists.

8. I happened to find that there were in fact no execution gas chambers in Auschwitz and that the room which visitors there were shown had been first a simple mortuary and, later on, an air-raid shelter but French Justice and legislation decided that I could no longer say so. So I do not say so anymore because I haven’t enough money for the heavy fines I would have to pay if I dared. Which is rather strange since, in 1995, an anti-revisionist French historian finally admitted, without being sued thereafter, that the “gas chamber” visited by millions of tourists in Auschwitz-I was nothing but a fake “as demonstrated by Faurisson already at the end of the 70s”. This historian went so far as to add that a certain lady in charge of the Auschwitz Museum, whose name he gave, admitted that it was a fake; she added that telling the truth to the visitors would be “too complicated” (See Eric Conan, Auschwitz : la mémoire du mal, L’Express, January 19-25, 1995, p. 68).

9. “Extermination camp” is an expression invented by the Allies.

10. Rudolf Höss, one of the three successive commandants of Auschwitz camp (not to be confused with Rudolf Hess who landed in May 1941 in Britain) made quite a few nonsensical confessions, especially to the British. We knew that it was because he had been tortured. In 1983, a Jew belonging to the British Field Security Police described how he had himself tortured Höss in 1946 and obtained those confessions (see Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, Arrow Books, London 1983, page of Acknowledgments and p. 234-238). The Jew was proud of having tortured an “SS”.

11. In concentration camps during the war many Jews as well as non-Jews died from starvation, disease, sickness and overwork. Even outside the camps typhus, for example, raged; such was the case in 1943 in Southern Italy. The same thing happened after the war to millions of Germans deported by the Allies.

12. In order to try and protect life and health, Germans used different products as ways and means for disinfecting, delousing and disinfestation. One of the products was known by the “Zyklon B” trademark. It was invented in 1922. It is still used today although the name has had to be changed. Basically it is hydrogen cyanide acid (HCN). It is powerful and dangerous to handle. Only trained personnel can use it and only whilst taking drastic precautions. The “exterminator” (this is the right word in English even today for “vermin destroyer”) may kill himself if he is not extremely careful.

13. Of course HCN can kill human beings. It is used in American penitentiaries’ gas chambers to execute persons sentenced to death. But there is a terrible danger for the executioners (that is, the doctor and his two attendants) who have to enter the gas chamber after the execution. You cannot enter a place with HCN except with a special gas mask and only after a long and thorough mechanical ventilation. You may also be poisoned simply by touching the corpse’s skin. You must not make any physical effort in a room with full of HCN, even wearing a gas mask. This is why since 1924 the Americans have had a necessarily complicated, sophisticated and expensive “gas chamber” with which to execute only one person. I have never understood, and nobody has explained to me, how it could have been possible for anyone to enter one of those fantastic Nazi gas chambers and to work in it, handling and transporting hundreds or thousands of dead bodies.

14. Ovens were used, as is today the case, to incinerate dead bodies. In every place where there has been grave danger of epidemics such crematoria have been needed. They were essential in Auschwitz where it was impossible to bury bodies because of the high groundwater level.

15. Schindler’s List is a fictional account based on a novel that was formally conceived as such. The true story was very different. In his cinematic fiction Spielberg failed to show us a Nazi gas chamber.

16. Many people think they have been shown a Nazi gas chamber either while visiting a camp, or in a film, or in a photo, or in a book. In fact, they have never been shown such a chemical slaughterhouse as a complete building with its machinery, its procedure, etc. There are sometimes models to be found in certain museums. They are purely fictitious. Such “gas chambers” would never have functioned. This is why in the museums they prefer showing you hair or shoes officially supposed, though for no apparent reason, to be the hair or shoes of the gassed. For years I had been asking: “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!” I have received no answer except insults, assaults, legal claims and so on.

17. The Germans had a “territorial final solution of the Jewish question” (territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage), which was to give the Jews a territory of their own in the future. National-Socialists and Zionists agreed on that. Many Zionists collaborated with Adolf Eichmann who was a Zionist and a friend of those Jews. That solution had to be postponed to some time after the war. Meanwhile, many Jews were transported or deported to the Eastern part of Europe. Those able to work had to work. The others had to stay behind, to wait and often to suffer, mostly from the dreadfully bad conditions of war and blockade. Many Jewish children died and many survived. In the German cities many German children were killed and sometimes so were Jewish children in those same cities. Please note that the adjective territorial is generally omitted by Germany’s accusers.

18. In every war you have massacres of innocent civilians. This happened to Jewish people but I have found no trace of any policy of killing the Jews. No order, no plan, no instruction, no budget for such a policy. On the contrary, I have found that German military tribunals convicted, sometimes sentencing to death, German soldiers, officers or civil servants for having killed only one Jew or one Jewess (in Poland, USSR, Hungary).

19. In December 1980 I summarised the result of my research on a radio station in a sixty-word French sentence which was:  “The alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews are one and the same historical lie, which has opened the way to a gigantic political-financial swindle, whose principal beneficiaries are the State of Israel and world Zionism and whose principal victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the entire Palestinian people”.

20. Ten years later, in 1990, with the Lex Faurissonia, I was officially told that my conclusions were wrong. I suppose that sometimes professors need to learn from the judges what history is all about. Without law courts historians might not be able to see where exactly historical accuracy lay. Nowadays, thanks to our French politicians and judges we, revisionists, realise that no longer is any discussion, dispute or research permissible which would endanger the general belief that the Genocide (with a capital “G”) of the Jews and, at a much lower level, the genocide (with a small “g”) of the Armenians really took place in the way the interested parties, that is, the Jews and the Armenians, say it took place. We are left with no choice: we have to obey like children and to repeat verbatim our masters’ lessons. Thus we are like the little dog listening to his master’s voice. If we want to eat we have to bark in tune. This is now the case nearly all over the world, perhaps even including the Internet in the near future. We are living in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s 1984 (written in 1948).

Good luck and best wishes to the historians!

 

N.B.: Italian readers who wish to know more about my own revisionism may consult:

Robert Faurisson: “Le camere a gas non sono mai esistite!”, Storia illustrata, agosto 1979, p. 15-35 (intervista e traduzione di Antonio Pitamitz);

Robert Faurisson, È autentico il diario di Anna Frank?, Graphos, Genova 2000, 116 p. (a cura di Cesare Saletta).

January 19, 2001