It has to be now admitted that finally there is no proof, no evidence whatsoever that the Nazi gas chambers ever existed, claims French “historian and novelist” Jacques Baynac.
Extremely hostile to the revisionists and especially to Robert Faurisson (with whom he had a dispute in October 1980) and a friend of exterminationist historian Nadine Fresco, with whom he published a few years ago an article in Le Monde against R. Faurisson, J. Baynac seems now desperate. In a long article published in two issues of a Swiss newspaper (Le Nouveau Quotidien, September 2, p. 16, and September 3, p. 14), he draws the conclusion that obviously no-one can bring any proof that the Nazi gas chambers ever existed. The strange solution he advocates is to try instead to find the proof that the non-existence of the so-called gas chambers is impossible!
The article is bursting with hard criticisms against the historians, the lawyers, the journalists who, in his opinion, have been, for so many years, accumulating so many methodological and tactical errors that today, as a result, the revisionists appear, on the scientific plan, as the winners. A major blunder, he thinks, was to trust and to use the services of Jean-Claude Pressac.
In France, according to the Fabius-Gayssot Act (July 13, 1990), inspired by Chief Rabbi René-Samuel Sirat, it is a criminal offence to dispute the existence of “crimes against humanity” as defined and sentenced by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946, or by any French or international court. As a matter of fact, this means that, in the country of Voltaire, anyone who questions the Holy Jewish Trinity of the alleged genocide, the alleged Nazi gas chamber and the alleged 6 million is liable to a prison sentence (one month to one year), to a fine (2,000 Ffr to 300,000 Ffr) and other possible penalties.
But, as we see now, the trouble is that none of those judges cared about any evidence of the Nazi gas chambers. Therefore, how should anyone in France be sentenced for not believing something which obviously was not proven by those judges?
September 3, 1996