Letter to Horst Mahler

Professor Robert Faurisson, born in 1929, lectured in modern and contemporary French literature at the Sorbonne and the University of Lyon, specialising at the latter in the “Appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media)”.

In the 1970s he demonstrated the radical impossibility, on physical and chemical grounds, of the existence and operation of the alleged Nazi gas chambers. He was the first in the world to publish the plans of the buildings at Auschwitz abusively presented still today as having served for putting inmates to death by gassing.

In 1988, thanks to an investigation commissioned by the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, the professor’s findings were confirmed by the American Fred Leuchter, designer of the gas chambers used in several United States prisons and author of a report on the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek. In the early 1990s, the conclusions of the famous Leuchter Report were, in turn, confirmed by the German chemist Germar Rudolf, a graduate of the Max Planck Institute, as well as by the Austrian chemists Walter Lüftl, president of the board of engineers of Austria, and Wolfgang Fröhlich, a specialist in disinfection gas chambers.

As a consequence of their findings, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, Fred Leuchter, Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl and Wolfgang Fröhlich have all paid a substantial toll to the prevailing judicial and extra-judicial repression. Like a number of other “revisionists” they have, according to circumstances, had the experience of seeing their careers ruined, of being physically assaulted and injured, convicted in the law courts, fined, imprisoned, exiled. At present, Wolfgang Fröhlich is in jail in Vienna and Ernst Zündel is being held in Toronto in a high-security cell, in judicial and physical conditions worthy of “Guantanamo Bay”.




As soon as I learned of the existence of your “League for the Rehabilitation of Persons Persecuted for Disputing the Holocaust” (Verein für Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des Holocaust Verfolgten) I applied for membership and sent you a financial contribution.

Your initiative is ingenious, and I wish it every success. I urge all revisionists to support this undertaking.

You have invited me to your first meeting, which will take place on November 9. The date is well chosen, for it marks the anniversary of the fall of a tyranny that one might have thought would last forever. The place, Vlotho on the river Weser, is equally well chosen, for it is associated with the name of our friend Udo Walendy, who has fought so hard and so long for the reestablishment of historical truth and, at the same time, for the cause of his German fatherland.

I would love to attend this meeting, but I think that the German police might immediately arrest me there. Anyway, I have too much work to do, and cannot go on vacation, even if it were to be spent in a German prison.

With regard to freedom of historical research, I have no confidence in the French police or the French administration of justice. I have even less confidence in the German police and administration of justice. Frankly speaking, nowadays there is no country in the world that offers a safe haven for revisionists. Even China, Japan and Russia serve Mammon or else fear him, and so serve him. The United States of America, in spite of its First Amendment, as well as Canada, have just recently shown, in the cruel treatment of Ernst Zündel, to what depths of iniquity they can descend to please Mammon. Ernst Zündel is a heroic figure of the German nation, an exceptional man whom one cannot fail to admire when one really knows him.

In 1999 I published in French a four-volume work of more than two thousand pages, consisting of some of my writings of 1974-1998. It commences with an “In Memoriam” note in which I mention, among the dead, Franz Scheidl, Helmut Diwald and Reinhold Elstner. With regard to the last named, I recall that on April 15, 1995, he committed suicide in Munich by burning himself to protest the “Niagara of lies” against his people. The final words in that “In Memoriam” note are these:

May [my book] also be read as a homage for the true suffering of all victims of the 1939-1945 war, regardless of whether the victims belonged to the camp of the victors, who are praised to the skies, or to that of the defeated, who have been humiliated and insulted ceaselessly for nearly half a century.

Remember that these words are from 1998. During the past five years the situation has only worsened. The Niagara of lies has broadened and strengthened. We do not have the right to fold our arms and quietly contemplate the extent of the damage caused. We must act and react.

That is what you are trying to do.

Along with everyone else, I do not know how successful this effort might be, but I want to join with you in it, regardless of whatever differences of opinion or outlook there may be among those of us who fight for a common cause.

In December 1980, I summarised the result of my historical research in one sentence of 60 French words. Before pronouncing that sentence on Europe 1 radio, I gave this warning: “Caution! None of these words has been inspired by political sympathy or antipathy.” Here is the sentence:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic financial-political swindle, the principal beneficiaries of which are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and whose principal victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the entire Palestinian people.

In my view, that sentence, now 23 years old, requires no changes.

I have been accused of being anti-Jewish. In reality I wish the Jews no harm. What I demand is the right to speak of the Jews just as freely as I speak, for example, of the Germans. And I ask that the Jews be deprived of the right to harm me, whether physically (between 1978 and 1993, I was attacked ten times by Jews), or by means of a special law that they finally got enacted on July 13, 1990, and which in France is known as the “Fabius-Gayssot Law”, the “Faurisson Law” or the “Anti-revisionist Law”.

It is outrageous that out of the billions of events that constitute the history of mankind, one single event, called by Jews the “Holocaust” or the “Shoah”, must not be questioned – on pain of imprisonment, fines, orders to pay damages and the costs of publications of judgments, exclusion from one’s profession, and so forth. This is an enormous special privilege, and we demand the abolition of that privilege.

This is a goal that is plain, clear and of narrow scope.

Revisionism, in my view, is not, and must not be, a matter of ideology, but instead one of method by which to attain the greatest degree of exactitude.

What I seek is historical exactitude and, thus, the abolition of anything that obstructs the free striving towards that exactitude.

My best wishes are with you.

October 20, 2003