“How can you say that this is true, and this is not?”

[From a video with Prof. Faurisson, Stockholm, December 5, 1992]

My name is Robert Faurisson. I am 63. I come from France. And I’m ready to answer your questions. But first somebody has 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 accused, somebody is convicted, is guilty. And you think that you need a revision of the trial. And the result might be that this man is no longer guilty. This is, you see, fundamental, guilty or not guilty.

Another example of revisionism before the word existed. The word already existed at some time like 1850 in France or other places. But you could take the example of Galileo. At the time of Galileo, if we make things simple, people believed that Earth was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. And people like Copernicus and Galileo said: “No, this is wrong.” And remember, at that time people would say the Earth was flat and the Earth did not move. And that to see this, you needed only your eyes. “See, you can see that the Earth is flat. And you need only a little bit of reason. That if the Earth were turning people could not stand. Trees could not stand because of the draft.” And at that time Galileo Galilei said: “I am sorry but the fact is that it is not flat and that it turns.” Okay. And remember the trouble he got into when people said: “Oh Galileo, you are saying this, you are revising everything because you are against the Church. You are against the Bible. You are against Christianity.” And this was not the truth. Galileo 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 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 résistant. He was deported. He suffered very much at Buchenwald. When he came back to France he said: “Now what’s that? I have been suffering very much but I think that the people who are recounting all these stories, they are exaggerating. And especially about those gas chambers. Is it true or not?” And he went through many troubles because of these questions. But remember, it was someone coming from the left. And even the first man to ask a question about the gas chambers was George Orwell, in May 1945. This is not very well known. He was the first. He said: “Is it true about the 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 The Lie of Ulysses. You know the story of Ulysses? He had many, many sufferings. When he came back home he exaggerated terribly his suffering. And Rassiner wants us to understand that any one of us is prone to exaggerate. For instance, yesterday I was more or less attacked. I could today say that I was punched, that I was wounded, that I was this and that. This would be a “Ulysses complex”. So I try to fight against this because it’s normal. When you have been suffering something you want people to cheer you for your sufferings. And to make people cheer, you exaggerate. And you exaggerate figures. And you exaggerate facts. You invent facts.

So, until 1960 I myself believed in the gas chambers. And one day I read, and it was extraordinary for me, I read that it was finished for Dachau. No more gassings. I and thought to myself: No gassings at Dachau. But I remember the film at the Nuremberg trial. They showed us the Dachau gas chamber. And they explained how you had 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, at Dachau no more gassings? And the man who said that said there had still been gassings at Auschwitz. So the question for me was: If the proofs, the testimonies, the confessions for Dachau are no longer any good, what is the difference with the proofs, the testimonies and the confessions about Auschwitz? I want to know the difference. I need a criterion. How can you say that this is true, and this is not? And it began 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 the Centre of Jewish documentation. And please remember this anecdote. I went to the place. I saw the man of the archives. And directly, like the Americans, 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 materialistic, 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 showed a bathroom, not a shower room, a bathroom. The second was a very well known photo of an American soldier looking at a so-called gas chamber. But if you go to Dachau now they say disinfestation gas chamber. Okay. And the third one, 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 a gas chamber to kill someone could be, I would say it’s finished. Let me explain to 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 used to kill lice. And it sticks to surfaces, floor, ceiling, everywhere. It sticks. And you cannot get rid of it. It is very difficult. You need a very long time to ventilate a place.

And this place here could never be a gas chamber. This place. Because if you put people here to kill them with gas, first, you have too many windows. They would be broken. Okay. But suppose they cannot be broken, just suppose. You need a fantastic air-tightness. Because when you want – this is the difference between suicide, accidental death 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 great air-tightness. But with hydrocyanic acid that air-tightness is 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 Zyklon-B is when you use it for disinfestation, when you use hydrocyanic acid. And when they use it in the United States to execute one man. If you want to disinfest a place with hydrocyanic acid it’s extremely complicated. You need people who have 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 sheet of paper. Because you must take them back afterwards. If ever one pellet stays, after you think that it’s ventilated, it still continues to emit gas, you see. And you need something like from 6 to 35 hours to disinfest the place. 6 hours 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 go into, open the place, open the windows and ventilate, you need something like 21 hours, 24 hours to ventilate this place. Then two men with special training, they go into the place with their gas masks on and they open the windows. Okay. And if ever a window is difficult to open, they must leave it closed. No physical effort. And they open the other windows. And of course they put signs for the people around saying this is a dangerous place. You need to have a guard, two guards during the whole day, the whole night. And the guards must not be downwind. It’s very dangerous, you see.

A man asks: First you said it’s extremely dangerous to kill by this gas because of air-tightness which is hard to achieve. But on the other hand it’s very dangerous anyway to come close to. How do you make it go together?

Because the people who go into the place first, they have the gas mask. And they put the pellets onto that paper. And it’s not too dangerous at that time. You understand that? Do you understand that? They open the can and they put the pellets of Zyklon-B onto a sheet of 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, there is plenty of gas, of course. Very dangerous. So they have to move very, very slowly and with caution, as I’ve told you. Okay. And it’s very long. And they have test paper also, to see afterwards whether they can really take off their masks and tell the people that they can go back to their rooms. And many things like that.

Now, if you want to use this gas to kill one man. Remember this, in 1917 you had some Americans, humanitarians. They thought: electric chair, this is too cruel; shooting people, it’s too cruel. We’re going to use gas. The prisoner will go to sleep and he will not awaken the next morning. So that’s easy. But when they wanted to realise a gas chamber, then began the problems. And nowadays I can show you photos. I mean already in the ’30s 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 do you say it in English, ah not iron, not steel, very thick glass. One door only of course. Because if you have 2 doors you multiply the difficulties of air-tightness. Okay. You have a central pillar. Why? To make it stronger. Because if you don’t want the gas to get out of the place you must create a kind of little vacuum. If you make a vacuum there is a danger of implosion. So it must be extremely strong. You bring the prisoner. You put him on the chair. From the outside it’s an automatic system to throw the pellets into the hydrocyanic acid. Then it begins. And the man needs something like 30 to 40 seconds to fall asleep and he will not reawaken. And death will ensue something like 8, 9 minutes, 12 minutes afterwards. Okay. And now the problems begin.

So the door is with a big wall. Okay. And the big problem is for the doctor, and for the two officers helping the doctor, to get into the place. First they must wait to see if the phenolphthalein in the cups gets pink or red. Which means there is still too 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. The gas is sent into a big mixer and it must be neutralised: the acid is put into what we call a base, with ammonia and so on. The rest of it, which is supposed to be not dangerous, in fact is still very dangerous and it gets out by the high chimney. And on this precise day of an execution by gas the guards are not allowed onto the roof of the prison. Because it is too dangerous. All this to kill one man. And the doctor and the two other people have to wait. And then they go 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 to everything that is moist. 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 with one man.

And let me tell you something. When I visited this American gas chamber, I didn’t attend an execution. Okay. It was in Baltimore in 1978. And I remember the lieutenant. He was explaining to 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 this?” And I said: “I am interested in the German gas chambers.” I didn’t say I didn’t believe in them. And this same man, who had explained to me how difficult it was, how dangerous it was to execute one man said, and I swear to you this is the truth: “Terrible. Have you seen ‘Holocaust’?” Which means that, you see, you can be a scientist and a believer at the same time. And this man never wondered. He saw, in that stupid “Holocaust” film, a little place with planks, you see. And a man outside trying to make a motor run. And the Jews coming in like that. It’s so silly. But this man believed it. Okay.

So, I don’t want to be too long. But you have so many difficulties. Which are – often I say that the arguments are physical, chemical, topographical. When you know the places at Auschwitz and elsewhere, they are architectural. When you know the architecture of the crematoria, supposed to have had gas chambers and so on. But when I say “physics”, they say I’m a Nazi. When I say “chemistry”, they say that I’m an 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: Ernst Zündel. This man is 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 correspondance you’ve had with the American wardens of those penitentiaries with gas chambers?” I sent it to him, because in it I had asked 17 questions of 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 chambers. Because for years and years I had said, even to revisionists who could not understand, 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 toxicologist. I want a specialist of the American gas chamber.” And we found one. And his name was Fred Leuchter. And Zündel asked me: “Would you agree to go to Boston and see Mr Fred Leuchter?” And I said yes. And I suppose you know about the Leuchter report. Okay.

One day I was in Boston and I 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 you, 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 is a little slow. And I need one night to ask some more questions, you see.” And I’d gone to Boston. I remember the snow in Boston. And I saw a little man coming to me. And I was in my hotel room. And on the bed I had laid out documents of Auschwitz and all that. And I began to ask questions of this man about gas chambers and all that. And I immediately noticed that this man believed in the German gas chambers. But never, ever had he had 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 conclusion is: There were no gas chambers, execution gas chambers in those camps. And there could never have been any. Myself, I had found the crematoria building plans in the Auschwitz museum archives. And of course I am able to say what those facilities were in fact. And after the Leuchter report came a report by the Poles themselves. They tried to answer Leuchter. Terrible, because they did chemistry research. And it was a confirmation of what Leuchter had said. Then a third report came, and a fourth, and a fifth is coming. And all these expertises have proved that we are right. Because you must know something that is scandalous.

When in a trial, it’s about a murder, if someone has been murdered with a knife, no judge ever says: “Oh, we have so many witnesses about this murder. We don’t need an expertise of the knife.” Okay. But in the case where millions people are supposed to have been killed, no expertise whatsoever of the crime weapon. Except once, I discovered this. But it was hidden from people, because the result was “No gas chamber”. It was about Struthof-Natzweiler near Strasbourg in France. No expertise. And then we discovered that there was no order coming from anyone, from Hitler, from anyone, to kill the Jews. There was no plan. Not even at Wannsee. There was no budget. You need money when you decide to do something special, specially in time of war. No instructions.

So, no expertise of the crime weapon. No report, autopsy report, stating that even one man had been killed by poison gas. Although the Americans found plenty of bodies of people who’d died from typhus, typhoid and so on, in those 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 comes and says: “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-examined. Unless somebody is cross-examined he is not a witness. It’s someone who tells a story. Perhaps true, perhaps false. And do you know that since 1945 not one alleged witness – Nuremberg trial, Eichmann trial, Frankfurt trial, hundreds of trials – not one had been cross-examined on the facts? I mean they should have done what I did in 1985 at the first Zündel trial. I had little pieces of paper, yellow paper. And I gave them to the defence lawyer of Zündel. And we cross-examined the best possible witness of the gassings. A man called Dr 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-examined, Dr Vrba. “This is a plan of Auschwitz. This is an air photo, taken by the Americans during the war. Where were you? Where was the gas chamber? What did you see? Describe.” And what the poor silly man had described already 1944 was so stupid. It was very easy to show that he was lying. And do you know what? The man who was supposed to have said only the truth, only the truth, and to be totally exact, said: “Yes, but you see, there is licentia poetarum.” Which in Latin means poetic licence. Because when you write something you have the right to invent. He had invented the whole story. So the first witness, and the best one, when cross-examined, was a catastrophe.

And I say: “Please bring me any survivor.” And I can tell you that they know me now. In Paris or anywhere else, when I say: “You mean that you witnessed 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 means, first, you tried to have me believe that you were a witness. And now even you say there cannot be any witnesses. 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 insistant to find the truth in these questions?

You mean myself?

Yes.

It’s a very difficult question to answer. Because, Sir, if you know what a researcher is. A researcher, most of the time, doesn’t know why he is researching. He always gives good reasons to look intelligent or generous. You don’t know. You don’t know why people do research on anything. Myself, I can say that I was so surprised in 1960. I would say it’s intellectual curiosity. Now “intellectual” is too much. It’s curiosity. Like Sherlock Holmes. I am part Scottish, you see. Sherlock Holmes. But you must think that it is very interesting for us, too, 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 hadn’t seen so much resistance against our ideas, I would have stopped very quickly. But then I discovered all the political and financial background of all this. But be careful. I’ve never said that it was a Jewish conspiracy. I’ve never said that the Jews lied in order to make money or things like that, no. This I’ve never said. Okay. But I see that for the State of Israel, if they no longer have 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 terrible for them. That’s why in my short statement, as you remember, Sir, yesterday I said in the press conference, I said “the Nazi gas chambers and the extermination of the Jews are one and the same historical lie.” I shall explain what an historical lie is. The fact that those gas chambers never existed, the fact that this genocide never took place, is good news for all the human race. 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, Dr Rossel. Rossel, I wrote to this man. What did he say about it? I tried to find the report. I went to the Red Cross library here in Stockholm.

– Can you tell us what it says?

Yes, it was a visit of Auschwitz in September of 1944. And about those stories of gas chambers. Okay. At the end of the report he said that when he was in Terezin, which is something like, I think, 30 km south of Auschwitz. He saw, I remember the French words 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 had been taken to Terezin. Okay. So you have what we call a representative of the British prisoners working. And he said to Dr Rossel that he had heard about a modern shower room where, instead of water, there was gas. Then the report continues and Dr Rossel says: “We went to Auschwitz. The inmates themselves didn’t say anything at all about that.” It is very, very short. And it means clearly that Dr Rossel had heard something from a British man. And I even think the British man said: “Try to find the truth about it.” So, and Dr Rossel ended up saying nothing. You can see that he does not believe it at all. And that no, certainly no special investigation was made. Because you have some revisionists 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. They themselves [of the Red Cross] didn’t say anything about it.

Did he make a statement or was he interviewed later?

Only myself, I wrote a letter to this man. But I saw that he didn’t want to go into any detail about it. And you see, this is a little bit technical. Excuse me, but at the Nuremberg trial, not the first one but the other trial, in Dachau in fact, the Americans took this book and they took a part from this book. And do you know what? They omitted the sentence “The inmates didn’t say anything”. They omitted that.

Now you must know that the first revisionists in fact were during the war itself. And specially people of the Foreign 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 were ready to publish a common declaration on German crimes. And we have the draft of it. And in the draft it is said the Germans are putting people into gas chambers and gassing 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 out the part of this declaration about the gas chambers, because the British have told us that we haven’t enough evidence.”

So, even during the war they tried to push this invention of the war propaganda to make it public. But it was impossible. They had it sometimes in the New York Times, on page 23. Then they got it on 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 till the end of the war when the British discovered Bergen-Belsen, which was 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. In a photo with piles of bodies, the man on the bulldozer has the top of his head cut like this. So you cannot see that he is British and not German. Because a big lie needs many little lies.

Mr Faurisson, I have two questions. The first is: where were you living during the second war, in 1939; were you living with your family?

Yes, in Marseille and Paris.

In Marseille and Paris. Did any member of your family get deported during 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 at that time. I was terribly angry with the Germans, 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 Pétain. The day before he had said: “I hope the Germans 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 for 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, were retreating from Tobruk, Bengazi and so on. And he said: “I want this desk to return 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 do not remember what my father said.

During World War One the Germans, the Austrians and the Bulgarians were accused of gassing the Serbs, in churches or in other buildings where the Serbs were brought to be gassed. Gassed already in 1916. The myth of the gas chambers was born in London in the Daily Telegraph on the 22nd of March 1916. Then in the 1920s people understood it had been a myth of the war and they abandoned it. But this myth was taken up once more during World War Two and reset. 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 people want me to believe and to eat, excuse me, to eat a product that was invented in 1916, that 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.

What condition were the Nazi archives in after the war? Is it possible that everything about this question is available for research? Or is it impossible, because it was damaged by bombing or something?

I would say that there are so many German 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 true, 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, proof that this document existed? Or the content of it. It is extremely difficult to suppress something.

Now let me tell you something: in 1986. I went to the Bundesarchiv. I saw the specialist, Dr Enke. And I said: “Now let’s be serious, please. Am I wrong if I say”, I asked the question of this man, “am I wrong if I say that you have billions, not millions, billions of pages only for the two 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 sending people to the camps. “And the organisation of Oswald Pohl, supposed to kill 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 an argument against him. He said yes. And I said: “Now, Dr Enke, among those billions, do you have one page proving that the gas chamber existed?” And he said: “No.”

Is there any danger of this document being destroyed?

But, as I told you, if the gas chamber had existed it would have necessitated millions of pages. Because you have to prepare this extraordinary weapon. You need doctors. You need chemists. You need money. There are many, many things to prepare. And then you need many, many documents to build this. Do you know that at Auschwitz, for even a screw, do you know that we have it on a piece of paper? If I were patient enough I could tell you how many screws were used at Auschwitz.

Even that?

Even that, for in German the word is Schraube dokument. Fantastic. Schraube dokument. And you have gas chambers, of course. Gaskammer. But you can see that it is für Entläusung, for delousing.

Mr Jackson talks about tons of papers from the Auschwitz central administration now available in Moscow. Do you expect something specially from those documents? And why have they been kept secret for 50 years, by the Soviets?

The last question I cannot answer. I don’t know exactly why they kept them 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 new for us. I mean that you will never find suddenly in one place, which is Moscow, something proving that in Auschwitz you had gas chambers. Because for topographical reasons, material reasons, those gas chambers could not have existed. That’s all. It’s like a square which cannot be a circle, a circle which cannot 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 functioned, the industries and the daily life? Could the Moscow documents bring new light onto the daily life?

Yes, certainly, you would have many, many things about life at Auschwitz. For instance, we know – excuse me, this is not a joke, we mustn’t make jokes about subjects like this – but we know that at Auschwitz, supposed to be an extermination camp, you had six orchestras. And we have very good details about at least two of them. But for the four others I have no real details. Now if I say six, be careful, you can find it in the recent Encyclopædia of the Holocaust. At the article, “music”, “music in camps”. Something like that. We have many, many things about that. And there was a hospital. In Birkenau, the extermination camp, quite close to the place where people are supposed to have been gassed, they had a soccer field, to play football. And sometimes, we know, the ball would go into the yard of crematorium no. 3. And quite close to this you had 18 barracks of the hospital.

Do you know the story of Elie Wiesel? Elie Wiesel says: “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 at Auschwitz with his father, his mother and 3 sisters. We know that his mother died. I don’t know how or when. I don’t know. We know that one of his sisters died. But I don’t remember if it was at Auschwitz or in another camp. He himself survived, and two of his sisters. Do you know that they 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 at Auschwitz. Extermination camp. And he was, I understand, at that time a young boy who was very afraid of the operation. And he tells the story. But people do not know how to read. He says that the doctor, who was a Jew, said: “Now, don’t be afraid, I will be there for your operation.” He was operated on, I think, by a Jew also. He was put, he says, in white sheets. He was operated on. 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 say to Elie Wiesel and his father: “Either you stay here as ill people”, because many stayed at Auschwitz, “or you go with us inside Germany. You have the choice.” And Elie Wiesel says 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 Night. And he says it is an autobiography.

How is it that there are so many survivors? What is a survivor? It’s extraordinary, excuse me, when a survivor comes and says: “I am living proof that Auschwitz was an extermination camp.” Excuse me. If he is living proof of anything it’s of the contrary. He is living proof that it was not an 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 every day on television people would say: “One more miracle in Lourdes.” Monday, okay. Tuesday, that’s very much. Two miracles in two days. Then Wednesday, Thursday. Too many miracles.

When people ask me: “What is the origin of the myth of the gas chambers?” I say, as I’ve told you: 22 March 1916, London, the Daily Telegraph.

But between you and me: I wonder if the myth of gas chambers is not as old as human beings. I mean that. Before the word “gas”. Gas comes from the word “chaos”. Before the invention of this word, I think that people already believed in gas. In what was going to be gas. Because people already believed in witches. Those witches are so strong that they can kill you, but you cannot 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 Satan, witchcraft, without trace. Things like that. I think it’s as old as human beings.

So the gas chambers are as old as I don’t know how many thousands of years. Because people, you see, even chemists, they think that there is no difference, 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 be seen by people?

One more good question. What can I answer? Sometimes 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.”

December 5, 1992