Revisionism on Trial: Developments in France, 1979-1983 (paper presented at the Fifth International Revisionist Conference)

(from the publication at the site The Holocaust Historiography Project)


To Ditlieb Felderer

For a period of four years my publisher, Pierre Guillaume, his friends and I faced considerable difficulties because of our common opinion about the myth of the gas chambers and the genocide of the Jews. Among those difficulties was first and foremost judicial repression. That repression has not yet ended. During those four years of struggle we were, so to speak, like swimmers struggling against the current. At times we were so weak compared with our adversaries that we ought to have abandoned the struggle. We were drowning. We could not go on any longer. We felt that our situation was as desperate as that of a swimmer, as Céline said, trying to swim up Niagara Falls. We were attacked in the courts by some impressive opponents. Perhaps we should have adopted a purely defensive attitude. Instead, thinking that the best defense was a good offense, we counterattacked. We counter-sued those who were suing us. Sometimes we worsened our situation by saying or doing things that caused us new problems.

I am going to talk today only about the three principal actions that were lodged against us: one civil suit and two criminal actions. The civil suit was brought against me for “personal injury” which I supposedly caused by an alleged “falsification of history.” The first of the two criminal actions, for libel, was lodged against my publisher and me by Léon Poliakov. The other was brought against me on grounds of racial defamation and incitement of racial hatred as the result of a sixty-word sentence that I pronounced during a broadcast on Radio Europe-1 on 17 December 1980. The most important of these actions was the civil suit: it raised the basic question, the taboo question about the reality of the gas chambers and the genocide against the Jews. The corollary question was: this Faurisson who maintains that the gas chambers and the genocide are both parts of one and the same historical lie, is he himself a liar, a forger and a falsifier?

The answer is quite clear and no misunderstanding is possible. Never – I repeat, never – has any court found against me for falsifying history or for any similar act, and eventually, in its decision of 26 April 1983, the Court of Appeal in Paris emphasized the seriousness of my research about the problem of the gas chambers. The Court, because of the seriousness of my research, ruled:

The value of the conclusions defended by Faurisson rests therefore (emphasis mine) solely with the appraisal of experts, historians, and the public.

Gitta Sereny Honeyman, who attended my trials, dared to write and has continued to insist that I was “convicted for falsifying history”.* That is a deliberate lie.

I will talk at length about the civil suit which lasted for four years, finally ending on 26 April 1983, before the first chamber of the Court of Appeal in Paris. In effect it ruled against me for having caused “personal injury,” but not at all in the sense hoped for by my opponents. Far from considering me a falsifier or a liar, the Paris Court of Appeal wrote this about me: “This being so, no one can rule that he is lying (. . .).” I will soon put those words back into their context. Meanwhile, I think that Gitta Sereny, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Georges Wellers, Léon Poliakov and several other French and foreign exterminationists would be happy if a French court could say as much about them. I’m not the one who had the idea of asking a court to render a judgment about history; those people and their powerful friends had that idea. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” as it is said. For four years they did their utmost to get a ruling against me for lying and, at the end of four years, the judges in a sense said: “You complain about this professor. You say that he’s done you harm. Agreed! He has done you harm, and that is why we are ruling against him. He has done you harm in every way that you could imagine, but certainly not by lying. He is everything that you could imagine, but on the question of the gas chambers he is certainly neither a liar nor a falsifier. He is a serious researcher. Our conclusion is: ‘the value of the conclusions defended by Faurisson therefore rests solely with the appraisal of the experts, the historians, and the public.'”

Those three trials all had a paradoxical outcome: the courts ruled against me and my opponents obtained the right to have published, at my expense, as is usual in such cases, the texts of the judgments; however, they have never had those texts published, except for one lower court ruling and one appeal court decision that they have published at their own expense, seriously falsifying the content on points which did not meet their expectations. Each time their victories have been only Pyrrhic victories.


* New Statesman, 17 July 1981, p. 16-19, “The Judgment of History”: “Long standing notions about academic freedom have been challenged by this month’s conviction of a French writer for ‘falsifying history’,” Gitta Sereny Honeyman reports. “Two Paris Courts found Robert Faurisson (. . .) guilty of libel, provocation to hate, incitement to murder, and falsification of history. (. . .) falsification of history” (p. 16). “The 17-page iudgment which finds that he ‘falsified history'” (p. 19). See also Searchlight, vol. X, 1981, “Revisionism – The Myths and the Lies”: “As an MRAP spokesman put it, ‘It is a simple fact that the Holocaust happened and that Faurisson is a falsifier of history.’ The court agreed (…)” (p. 12).


I. The civil case (“Falsification of history”? No.)

1. What my accusers said

My accusers consisted of nine organizations. The first was the LICRA (the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism), presided over by Jean Pierre-Bloch. The second was the MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Nations), presided over by Pierre Paraf. Notable among the seven other organizations were the Association of Deportees of Auschwitz and the Camps of Upper Silesia, presided over by Mrs. Marie-Elisa Cohen, and the Association of the Sons and Daughters of Jews Deported from France, presided over by Serge Klarsfeld. The suit was filed and coordinated by the LICRA. Jean Pierre-Bloch was personally in charge of it and, according to a statement by Pierre-Bloch, the LICRA is supposed to have invested considerable sums of money in that marathon trial. To take just one example: the LICRA, no doubt finding that its friends in France and in other countries were unable to provide it with proof of the existence of gas chambers for use at the trial, sent its three best lawyers, Bernard Jouanneau, Robert Badinter and Marc Lévy, to visit Poland and Jerusalem. However, these three pilgrims came back from their pilgrimage without the hoped-for proof. Robert Badinter pleaded the case against me in the original trial, in the lower court, but then he became the Minister of Justice in Francois Mitterand’s new Socialist government. From that time on we were able to hear his voice only through various representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s office at our various trials. Robert Badinter showed an intense hostility toward us.

According to my accusers I was a forger, a falsifier, and a liar; I had used a clever method of falsification; I had falsified translations; I had distorted historical facts; I had avoided documents that would contradict my thesis; I had used fallacious technical arguments. However, all those accusations remained as vague as they were unanswerable. On only two points were my accusers relatively precise. According to them, I had:

  • purposely distorted certain testimonies, including that of Johann Paul Kremer (the professor who had been temporarily mobilized as a doctor at the Auschwitz camp);
  • brushed aside without serious justification a number of proofs previously accepted at national and international trials.

2. The lower court ruling

On 8 July 1981 the lower court in Paris rendered its decision. It found me liable for “personal injury.” The issue was whether I had caused harm as the result of a falsification of history. The term “falsification of history” does not exist in French law, but the court could have adopted that verbal invention from the LICRA. However, it did not do that. Thus on the essential point of their accusation my opponents did not obtain satisfaction. Nevertheless, the rest of the judgment must have satisfied them. The judges said that, as part of a sort of intellectual game, I had amused myself by denying everything. That game of systematic negation had shown me to be an academic whose superficiality ought to be punished. In other respects, the court thought that I had been lacking in prudence, in circumspection and in intellectual neutrality since I had, in an irresponsible manner, dealt too soon with a historical problem that was too recent, too sorrowful, too sensitive. I should have waited for time to do its work of calming peoples’ minds. Finally, the court rebuked me in a still more curious way. It did not go so far as to say that I had been culpable of defending war crimes or of inciting racial hatred, but it did say that I had let other persons – unnamed – use my revisionist thesis to defend war crimes or to incite racial hatred. The court even specified that I had done this “with a remarkable lack of concern but with a clear conscience.” I must admit that I don’t quite understand how one can reconcile “a remarkable lack of concern” with “a clear conscience,” especially when it is a case not of committing a sin yourself but of helping some unnamed persons commit a sin of which you yourself are innocent. It seems to me that if the judges had been able to find in me not just a slightly diabolical soul but some tangible proof of some lie or of some falsification then they would have hastened to present that proof, to emphasize it and to condemn it in terms understandable to all.

3. The unfolding in the Court of Appeal

I decided to appeal against the 8 July 1981 judgment. Eighteen months later the case was argued before the First Chamber of the Court of Appeal in Paris. Since the subject that I’m dealing with here is rather dry, I would like for a moment to report some anecdotes relating to those three sessions of 13 and 14 December 1982 and 15 February 1983. To begin with, the courtroom in which our trial was to take place was the same place where Marshal Pétain had been tried for the first and last time, without any possibility of appeal. Just after the war, at the time when I was a student at the Sorbonne, I had come to attend several of the trials of the so-called “collaborators.” Although I felt no sympathy for the collaborators and had been raised to hate Germany, I was astonished at the kind of justice they pretended to apply to them. That recollection made me wonder what kind of justice I would receive in that chamber.

I do not have time to detail what took place in that impressive hall on 13 and 14 December 1982. There was a striking contrast between our lawyers and those of our opponents. I had two lawyers: Eric Delcroix, a man of the political right, and Yvon Chotard, a man of the left and personal friend of Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. A third lawyer, Francois Berthout, represented the seven persons who had courageously stood by my side as “voluntary third-party appearers”; among those persons, all of the left, were two Jews; two of the seven belonged to the CNRS (the National Center for Scientific Research). That point always disturbed Gitta Sereny, who wrote:

What is unusual about Faurisson is that he has managed to obtain serious assistance from the Left. (op. cit., p. 16)

Another point, which was really secondary, also disturbed her:

At the Paris courthouse, Faurisson and Co. were surrounded by young, eager, and even attractive acolytes. (ibid., p. 17)

The lawyers for the opposing side (a coalition of nine organizations) looked like a crowd of black robes surmounted by obviously anxious faces. They had put into the record some briefs that were quite poor, and they must have sensed that. Our side had put into the record a well-drafted brief that was four times longer than the usual. We likewise provided the court with my Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire (Memorandum in defense against those accusing me of falsifying history) and a video-cassette on “The Problem of the Gas Chambers.” While civil procedure in France is essentially written and the principals do not as a rule have the right to speak, I had asked to be heard and questioned. Unfortunately, the court decided not to look at the video-cassette, nor to question me. For four years, we had had the time to take the measure of the extreme historical and scientific weakness of the opposing side. In order to show that weakness, our tactic was to say over and over again that what we wanted from the other side was really very little:

  1. that it present to the judges one, just one proof of the existence of one single homicidal gas chamber;
  2. that it furnish one, only one example of falsification on my part.

We especially did not want a massive number of proofs or examples. We were waiting for just one proof and one example. That demand came back again and again as a leitmotiv: “One single proof, one single example.” The lawyers for the opposing side were paralyzed by it. They knew that the judges were also waiting for that single proof, that single example. All of the rest was going to appear to be empty words and wasted breath. With their necks craned, the three judges of the court awaited the single proof, the single example. Our lawyers waited. We waited. The chamber waited. That kind of wait for two afternoons had a devastating effect. Simone Veil’s son was overwhelmed and spent most of his time in his oral argument quoting extracts from my writings; you would have thought that he was pleading on my behalf. A succession of other lawyers came to deliver proposals without much conviction. A single one brought a well-constructed argument: Mr. Immerglik. His argumentation was as follows: “In Germany, there is no pity for people like Faurisson; eliminate him.” Then came the turn of Bernard Jouanneau, who was the LICRA’s star in the absence of Robert Badinter. In the Poliakov trial, Jouanneau had turned toward me and cried out: “M. Faurisson, you haunt my nights!” Before the Court of Appeals he began his oral argument in these terms:

Faurisson! Ah! Faurisson again! At home my children ask: “But when are you going to quit talking about Faurisson?”

Mr. Jouanneau went on to talk for two hours. People were waiting for the single proof and the single example. He did not even try to produce an example of falsification. As regards the proof of the existence of one single gas chamber, he presented several, but each time he said, in a plaintive tone of voice: “Yes, I know. You will tell me that this is not really proof.” He ended his argument that day on a melodramatic note. Overwhelmed, Jouanneau lowered his voice more and more; he gave the impression that he was going to break into tears; that is in fact what took place; his last sentence was:

In any case, this is the end of the Faurisson affair for me.

Leaving the courtroom, he broke into tears on a colleague’s shoulder. They had to have his wife come. At that moment, I recalled what we had said in our 44-page brief: we had described in advance the drama of the LICRA lawyers. In the beginning they had believed that they were going off on a crusade against the infidels. They were sure of the goodness of their cause. They were convinced that the proofs and the eyewitnesses accounts would come to them en masse. Little by little, they found themselves all alone, exposed for all to see, with a pile of useless paper: translations that their own friends had falsified, photographs that proved nothing, inconsistent written testimonies, and not one single witness ready to testify about the gas chambers, not even Filip Müller, the “author” of a ghost-written book entitled, in the French edition, “Three years in a gas chamber at Auschwitz” (in the English edition: Eyewitness Auschwitz, Stein and Day, New York 1979, xiv-180 pages).

The Prosecutor, Mrs Flipo, asked for two months to prepare her case. She was representing the head of her Ministry, Robert Badinter. She made her case on 15 February 1983. Foregoing any attempt at argumentation, Mrs. Flipo allowed herself to wax lyrical. She evoked the canonisation of Father Kolbe, Willy Brandt’s falling to his knees in Warsaw and, in closing, she quoted Elie Wiesel. Here is her peroration:

Elie Wiesel, who, with Samuel Pisar, was the youngest escapee from the camps, has written: “After night and dawn, the day breaks: the dead look for open hearts, which will welcome them and be their messengers.”

And Mrs. Flipo, turning toward the court, added in closing:

Let us be those messengers.

The court also asked for two months to render its decision.

4. The decision of the Court of Appeal (26 April 1983)

On 26 April 1983 the First Chamber of the Court of Appeal in Paris handed down its decision. It upheld the lower court’s ruling, but in so doing it amended the grounds for ruling against me to such an extent that I would be happy to be found liable ten times that way at the request of the LICRA. I will not go into detail about that decision. My publisher, Pierre Guillaume, has just published a brochure entitled Épilogue judiciaire de l’affaire Faurisson (Judicial epilogue to the Faurisson Ccase). There you can find the complete text of the decision as well as an annotated analysis of the ten essential paragraphs of that decision: five paragraphs are for, and five paragraphs are against, the revisionist argument, as the judges understood and interpreted it.

a. Five paragraphs in favor of the revisionist argument

The lower court had granted the existence of the gas chambers as a kind of implicit reality and it did not question for a single moment the value of the testimonies of those who claimed that the gas chambers did exist. The Court of Appeal proceeded quite differently. As a matter of fact, not only did it pose the question about whether the gas chambers existed but it also asked itself what value ought to be given to the many testimonies about their existence. It began with a sacrilegious sentence. Using a formulation suggesting doubt and using the conditional tense, the court wrote:

Mr Faurisson’s research dealt with the existence of the gas chambers which, if one were to believe the many testimonies, were supposedly used during the Second World War systematically to put to death some of the persons deported by the German authorities. (emphasis mine)

The LICRA had accused me of dealing with the question of the gas chambers with, at the least, some nonchalance, a culpable lack of seriousness that it had tried to demonstrate. The court answered:

Limiting ourselves for the time being to the historical problem that Mr Faurisson wanted to raise on this point [can we believe in the gas chambers and in the many testimonies about their existence?], it is proper to state that the accusations of nonchalance made against him are lacking in pertinence and are not sufficiently proven. (emphasis mine)

Let me remind you here that the LICRA and the eight other organizations had had four years to try to prove their accusations, including that of culpable lack of seriousness. They had also reproached me for having neither a logical approach nor any argumentation. The court answered that I had a logical approach and that I had an argumentation. Its first impulse had led it to go so far as to write that I had a “scholarly” argumentation; then, thinking the better of it and perhaps thinking that it did not have the competence to describe my argumentation in that way, it made a handwritten correction on the typed page, which prudently said that Mr. Faurisson had “an argumentation [that he thinks is] of a scholarly nature”; but further on, as we will see, the word “scholarly” will in a sense be restored to me by implication. For the time being, the court said:

In fact, Faurisson’s logical approach consists in trying to demonstrate, by argumentation [that he thinks is] of a scholarly nature, that the existence of the gas chambers, as they have usually been described since 1945, runs into an absolute impossibility…

The court specifies – and that specification is important – that this is an absolute impossibility

which would be sufficient by itself to invalidate all of the existing testimonies or, at least, to make them suspect. (emphasis mine)

I suppose that the court was thinking there about the impossibility of a physical/chemical kind that I have often pointed out in my writings, but it should be noted that my thesis about the non-existence of the gas chambers is also based on all kinds of arguments, and not just on an argument based on physics and/or chemistry.

The LICRA had asked the court to condemn my methods and my arguments. There again, the court refused to do so, declaring:

It is not the job of the court to make a pronouncement on the legitimacy of such a method or about the full significance of the arguments set forth by Mr Faurisson.

As to the very important question of the testimonies, the LICRA had stated that I had nonchalantly or negligently brushed those testimonies aside or that I had deliberately chosen to ignore them. To that the court responded:

Nor is it any more permissible for the court, considering the research to which he has devoted himself, to state that Mr Faurisson has dismissed the testimonies nonchalantly or negligently, or that he has deliberately chosen to ignore them.

In clear English, that means that I had studied the testimonies and that if I dismissed them, it was for good reasons which appeared to be the result of the research to which I had devoted myself.

Now we come to the main point: that of lying. The LICRA treated me as a liar at every turn, particularly when I said that I had studied the documents for more than fourteen years and that I had consulted research organisations like the CDJC (Centre for Contemporary Jewish Documentation) in Paris and many other organizations or persons during the time. The LICRA was right to have made its accusation of lying on that point. As a matter of fact, although French law does not allow judges to make themselves judges of historical truth, it nevertheless does authorize them to decide whether the researcher has or has not really shown, in his research, a concern for making genuine scholarly inquiries. If, according to the judges, Faurisson had not shown concern to make such inquiries as he claimed to have made, by that very fact he could have been declared to be a false researcher and a liar, that is to say, finally, an impostor. The other side had had four years to prove that I was a liar on this essential point. At the end of those four years, the Court of Appeal added up the balance sheet. Talking about the present state of the situation and about the attempts to prove that Faurisson was a liar, the court stated:

Furthermore, this being so, no one can rule that he is lying when he enumerates the many documents that he claims to have studied and the organizations at which he supposedly did research for more than fourteen years.

Then the court came to the logical conclusion of all that it had just said, writing a sentence that fell like a guillotine blade for the LICRA, for the eight other organizations and for all those who dared to say that the problem of the gas chambers was settled and who thought that my writings were the business only of the courts. Here is that sentence in the form of a conclusion:

The value of the conclusions defended by Mr Faurisson therefore rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians, and the public.

That is exactly what exterminationists everywhere want to avoid at all costs. Under no circumstances do they want to see the problem of the gas chambers and especially that of the eyewitness accounts become a subject to be debated by experts and historians. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the general public not be brought up to date about that problem and that it not freely debate it.

I don’t think it is necessary to insist any further on the historic importance of that sentence of the Court of Appeal’s decision. All the rest of the decision can only be anti-climactic after that. I will, however, pause here for a few moments.

b. Five paragraphs against Robert Faurisson

The three French judges could hardly have gone further. They would have caused a scandal if, following the logical path, they had dismissed the all-powerful LICRA organization (which includes among its members Francois Mitterrand, President of the Republic, and Robert Badinter as well as so many different personalities from all the influential circles in French society). The question for them therefore became: how to uphold the lower court’s judgment against Faurisson? It is obvious to anyone who habitually makes grammatical and logical analyses of French texts that the three judges sweated blood in drafting the rest of their decision.

The judges reproached me for not having confined myself to what they called my “critical work” on the gas chambers and the eyewitness accounts; that work had, according to them, a “scholarly character”: at least, that is what one can deduce from a sentence in which they criticize me for “assertions that no longer exhibit any scholarly character and that are dependent upon pure polemic.” However, they do not give any examples of such assertions. They reprimand me for having written: “the alleged massacres in gas chambers and the alleged genocide are one and the same lie.” They do not say that that statement is false. They never say to me: “You are perhaps right about the gas chambers and the eyewitness accounts, but you are wrong about the genocide.” They know that the genocide and the gas chambers are as closely related as a specific crime can be with the specific weapon that allowed that crime to take place; they no doubt see very well that it is hard to continue to claim that a specific crime (genocide) took place if it is shown that the specific weapon needed to commit it (the gas chambers) did not exist. What those worthy judges reproach me for is having summarised my thoughts in the form of what they call a “slogan”; a slogan is out of place here. The most annoying thing about this is that this slogan had been concocted both by a journalist from the Matin de Paris and also by our three judges. As a matter of fact, the brevity of that nineteen word “slogan” is explained as follows: in 1978 I wrote the Matin de Paris a letter, for publication, the first sentence of which was argumentative and long: 65 words. The newspaperman printed that sentence only after cutting off the entire end of it. Then came the judges who, finding the sentence with its end removed, in their turn cut off its entire beginning. So it was that 65 words became 19 words and a long, argumentative sentence took on the brief and slightly vulgar character of a slogan. In reality, I tend to sum up my thoughts in a longer form and to try to give them historical weight thanks to certain words that make reference to history; so it was that I wrote:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie.

A historical lie is not to be confused with a vulgar lie. It is a lie in which there are necessarily a ridiculously small number of liars or impostors in relation to the masses of dupes or victims who are necessary for it to have a long life.

The court said that I sought on every occasion to diminish the criminal character of the deportation and that, in that spirit, I split hairs. But, as you can read in the “Judicial Epilogue” (see Appendix III), the examples it gives prove most of all that the court has never studied very carefully, and has rather vague knowledge about, certain historical subjects.

Finally, the court went on to a whole series of sentimental reproaches. It said that I had not been able to find one word to show my respect for the victims of the persecutions and deportations. The court is wrong; on several occasions I have shown my respect for such victims of the Germans and, on occasions, I happen to have used precisely the word “respect.” I must say that, in contrast to the judges, I think that I ought to show my respect for all types of victims, including even the victims of the persecutions and deportations carried out by the Allies, including even the victims of the historical big lie and great imposture. The court said that my “revisionism can . . . appear. . . as an attempt at a more or less wholesale rehabilitation of Nazism”. All I see there are speculations. If I understand correctly, the Court thinks that I am not a Nazi, but it could be that behind me there is silhouetted the shadow-of-the-shadow of a Nazi.

Having described me in that way, in a way likely to frighten small children, the court drew a whole series of conclusions that are as arbitrary as their point of departure; it painted an ever darker portrait of me; I became an almost diabolical creature; that is what the lower court had already insinuated. The Court of Appeal stated that “thus,” that is to say, as it presented me, I was as offensive to the survivors as I was insulting to the dead; because of me (a shadow Nazi and a kind of devil), the general public finds itself incited to misunderstand or even to doubt those sufferings (the court continues to think only about the sufferings of one single portion of those who suffered, by the tens of millions, during the war).

In its last sentence the court appealed so much to the emotions that, without desiring it, it produced a moment of humor. It wrote:

(the positions thus adopted by Faurisson] are obviously, as the [lower] court has correctly pointed out, of such kind as to provoke passionately aggressive actions against all those who find themselves thus implicitly accused of lying and deception.

I will explain that sentence of the court. In the first part of its decision, the court had indeed seen that it was as a result of serious work that I had concluded that the gas chambers were a lie and a deception. But, in the second part of its decision, what saddened the court was that it realized that a lie implies the existence of liars and that a deception implies the existence of deceivers. And that, the court thinks, is serious. There are going to be people who feel that this is directed against them. Faurisson is definitely a trouble maker. Let’s punish him!

My voluntary appearers and I accepted the punishment, i.e. the finding of “personal injury,” and we decided not to appeal. However, I do deplore the fact that the lower court and the Court of Appeal never had the courage to examine what we, for our part, called the frauds of the LICRA (frauds relating to texts, photographs and translations). It would also have been instructive for the court to answer the following question: “If it is true that Mr Faurisson is not a falsifier and if, in order to demonstrate that the gas chambers never existed, he has for four years (from 1979 to 1983) used arguments and documents without rendering himself guilty of nonchalance, negligence, deliberate ignorance, bad faith or lying, can the judges of the court tell us their opinion about those who have maintained for nearly forty years (1945-1983) that the gas chambers did exist? How do those people, who are lecturing others, rate as regards nonchalance, negligence, deliberate ignorance, bad faith, lying and, as they say, the falsification of history?” The court did not answer that question.

5. The civil case: the opposing side’s file was enormous and empty

The judges must have been aware of the way in which our opponents composed their case file. The latter had inordinately extended the time allowed for the filing of documents. They first filed completely worthless documents, and then ill-assorted documents with most often falsified translations.

a. Falsified translations, suspicious stories

We had pointed out those falsifications to Judge Pierre Drai, in charge of supervising the preparations for the trial. Pierre Drai, in spite of his hostility toward us, had been obliged to ask the LICRA for some translations by recognised experts. I would like to make clear that the recognized experts chosen by the LICRA did hardly better. One of their experts in particular, Victor Borten, would be held up to ridicule before the judges by one of my lawyers for the rare stupidity of his expert appraisals. It was he, in particular, who at great length explained that the word Leichenkeller could not have existed in the German language and that it was a word from the famous secret language of the SS, a word used, he added, only from 1942 until the beginning of 1945, to designate a homicidal gas chamber. It was necessary for us to explain to that expert that the word already existed in the great Grimm and Grimm dictionary in 1886 and that even in our own time, in West Berlin, the crematory in Ruheleben has some Leichenkeller, that is to say morgues located below ground and designed to preserve 500 bodies. The other expert, Mrs. Magaly Heesch, translated, for example, Absetzgrube, which means “disposal pit,” by using the phrase “pit for bodies.” The following sentence appears in a letter from Himmler to the statistician Richard Korherr in regard to the Jews: “Es wurden durchgeschleust durch die Lager im General gouvernment.” (“They were passing through the camps of the General Government.”) Instead of translating “durchgeschleust” by using the words “passing through” or “transiting through,” she translated that word, thought to belong to a coded language, with the words “secretly proceeding” (in a homicidal sense, of course). The LICRA had circulated in bulk a confession by Gerstein, Filip Müller’s book, and even Martin Gray’s For Those I Loved. I would like to point out here, in passing, that the ghostwriter for that swindler, Martin Gray, is named Max Gallo. It was Max Gallo who completely made up the episode in Gray’s book about the gas chamber at Treblinka. He is now Francois Mitterrand’s official spokesman.

b. The secret language of the SS: “Sonderaktion,” “Final Solution”

The LICRA never stopped referring to the secret character of the language of the SS: a language with a key; a key that the LICRA was in possession of. The LICRA did not trouble itself about contradictions: according to it, and depending on the needs of the moment, at one time the secret language of the SS was said to have fooled no one and was an open secret; at another time that language was said to be so secret as to challenge the most cunning persons, except for the LICRA; and at yet another time (nobody knows why) the language of the SS no longer bothered with any code or “double code,” and, it seems, it became clear, transparent and cynical. The LICRA navigated as the situation demanded: according to it, at one time everyone knew, at another time no one could have known, and at yet another time all concerned gave themselves the cue to pretend to know nothing but to indicate at the same time by a wink of the eye that they knew very well.

The LICRA depended very much on the word Sonderaktion. (“Special action or special operation”). For the LICRA, that word was an SS word of the “Top Secret” category. It is certainly true that the meaning of that word, as is the case with most words, is variable; nevertheless, the meaning varies not in the absolute but in a context. For example, Sonderaktion could designate any military or police operation outside of the military or police routine. It was applied then to a special operation of a determinate time which could have resulted in, for example, arrests, whether or not followed by internment, execution, or simple questioning. It is false to say that the word or the action that Sonderaktion designated was necessarily secret. On 25 June 1942, 64 Jews were arrested by the Germans in the Orléans area (France). It was called Sonderaktion, says Serge Klarsfeld (French edition of his “Memorial to the Jews deported from France”, 1978, p. 62). Then those Jews were deported, but the Germans most of the time avoided the word “deportation,” as well as the expression “shipment to the East.” We have documents saying that deportation must be avoided because it called to mind “deportation to Siberia at the time of the tsars” (Doc. RF-1215) and “shipment to the East” had to be avoided because French workers were shipped to Germany (Doc. RF-1219). But sometimes in spite of those recommendations those words or expressions were still used in some documents. In his personal diary Dr Johann-Paul Kremer did use the official expression “Sonderaktion aus Holland,” meaning deportation from Holland (and not “special assignment” as I said in my article “Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz“. Therefore it is true that Sonderaktion could be used as a euphemism but not to the extent of standing for “extermination” or “gassings”! The same thing for Sonderbehandlung; for example, in the famous “Korherr reports” this word meant “Aussiedlung”, which in this case is forced transplantation (letter from Dr. Richard Korherr to Der Spiegel no. 31/1977, p.12).

The LICRA also used against us the worn-out argument about the “final solution,” a euphemism, it said, for extermination. I will not linger on this nonsense. The final solution of the Jewish problem does not imply the extermination of the Jews any more than the final solution of the problem of the Palestinians or of the problem of unemployment implies the extermination of the Palestinians or of the unemployed. A final solution can be favorable, in spite of all the trials to be undergone in order eventually to reach it. In this regard I owe a precious piece of information to a Belgian friend, Pierre Moreau, whom some of us know for his revisionist scholarship. Emile Vandervelde, the President of the Belgian Workers Party, was very much in favor of the Zionist Socialists. In 1929, he published a book entitled Le Pays d’Israel (Un marxiste en Palestine), Editions Rieder, Paris 262 p.). On page 184 of that book, he wrote that he believed with all the fervor of his Socialist convictions “in some favorable final solutions” for the Jews of Palestine. In the following year, in 1930, a translation of that book was published under the title of Schaffendes Palaestina (Der Juedische Auftbau heute und morgen, von emem Sozialisten), Dresden, Carl Reisner Verlag, 240 p.). On page 174 of that translation, the plural of “favorable final solutions” in German became a singular and thus we read: “eine günstige Endloesung” (“a favorable final solution”). Let’s make it clear here that the final solution (“Endloesung”) of which the Belgian author was dreaming was an understanding between the sons of Israel and the sons of Ishmael. He added that the final solution ought not to be the act of “subjecting the Arab population to new forces of domination and exploitation.”

c. The testimony of Johann Paul Kremer (he retracted his confession)

The LICRA attacked me for having “voluntarily distorted certain testimonies such as that of Johann Paul Kremer.” I will not go back on that subject. I have already dealt with it in my above-mentioned article. I demonstrated that it was, to the contrary, Poliakov, Wellers, and Klarsfeld who had seriously distorted the original text of Johann Paul Kremer’s private notebooks in order to make him say that Auschwitz was an extermination camp with gas chambers. I likewise showed the absurdity of the alleged confessions obtained from him by the Polish Stalinist military court.

I said that Professor Kremer, appearing before the tribunal in Münster (Westphalia) in 1960, had confirmed the confession that Communist examining magistrate Jan Sehn (of Jewish origin?) had obtained from him in 1947 and that at the Frankfurt Trial (1963-1965) he had been called as a prosecution witness against his compatriots. What I did not yet know in 1980 and what I’ve learnt since is the reason why the poor man, after ten years of prison in Poland (1947-1957) and after returning to his city of Münster, had gone before a German court. I discovered the reason while reading, in its French version, the Anthologie d’Auschwitz (blue), Volume 1, Part 1, Warsaw 1969, p. 239 to 261. The reason is that after his return to Münster in 1957, Kremer began to protest against the treatment that he had undergone at the hands of the Polish courts and (using here the words used by the Polish Communists themselves in the Anthologie)

[by his protests and by his request to regain his chair as professor, Kremer attracted the attention] of certain circles and of certain persons who made him appear once more before the Courts (p. 239).

Kremer, as a matter of fact, had complained that in Poland “only hatred was entitled to give its opinion” (p. 240). Better than that, we learn, thanks to that Communist publication, that after his return to Münster Kremer retracted his confessions. In the pious Communist jargon:

[Kremer] disputed the explanations that he had furnished during the investigation in Cracow and which had been read to him [at the Münster tribunal] (p. 242).

The most degrading fact for the judges in Münster was the indulgence with which they had heard the explanations furnished by Jan Sehn, who had come from Cracow. You must read the Communist account of that session. It ought to be quoted in its entirety. In Cracow in 1947, Kremer had not had any choice. It had been necessary for him to confess. The most astonishing thing is what Jan Sehn himself ended up saying before the German judges. As far as he was concerned, from the start Kremer did not have the right to plead not guilty. Jan Sehn said, with a marvellous lack of awareness of what he was saying:

A declaration of innocence would have been incompatible with what the accused had written [in his private diary] (p. 246).

In other words, the Communist Jan Sehn had decided that Kremer’s private diary was written in a sort of coded language to which he, Jan Sehn, possessed the key. Prisoner Kremer could only bow before the authority and the ukase of examining magistrate Jan Sehn. In my talk in 1980 I said, in conclusion, regarding the drama of Johann Paul Kremer: “I think often of that old man. I think sometimes also of his tormentors” (p. 127). I think of him even more often now that I have the confirmation of the drama lived through by Professor Johann Paul Kremer. His Polish and German tormentors took advantage of him to the very end. Kremer was used like a puppet. He came to the Frankfurt Trial to make a forced appearance there. In his own words, he had experienced ‘a dilemma that is not simple for human understanding.’ Listen to his final declaration at the Münster trial in 1960 and tell me whether that declaration is that of an abominable criminal who supposedly participated in horrible homicidal gassings or rather that of an unfortunate academic, a sort of inoffensive old fellow who found himself caught – like so many Germans in the past and even today – in a tragic situation where it was necessary to confess (or to make a pretence of confessing) to vile crimes which, in reality, were never committed. Listen to Kremer and, through his voice, listen to the voice of so many Germans who have been humiliated, offended and tortured:

If according to human criteria I have done something evil, I can only ask you to take into consideration my age and my tragic fate. I have no knowledge of any offense in the juridical and penal sense. I entrust to the Supreme Judge of everyone the task of resolving a dilemma that is not simple for human understanding (p. 258).

Professor Kremer, in the final account, was less skillful and prudent than his fellow professor, Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, in the Gerstein case. Pfannenstiel, the father of five children, was able to save a good career for himself thanks to his extremely vague confessions.

d. The gas chamber of Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace)

The LICRA accused me of having “without serious justification brushed aside a certain number of proofs previously accepted at national and international trials.” To try to prove this it asked that the dossier assembled by the French military court for the trial of the guards of the Struthof-Natzweiler concentration camp in Alsace be put into evidence.

However, that file provided proof that there had been no homicidal gas chamber at Struthof, but only one small room which originally had been a refrigeration chamber later transformed into a gas chamber for training young recruits in how to wear their gas masks. Professor Bickenbach had taken advantage of the existence of that gas chamber to make some tests there of the antidote to phosgene gas. As a matter of fact, the Germans had learned that the Allies, by the end of 1942, were stockpiling large quantities of phosgene gas in North Africa and they feared a bombing of German cities with it. The professor had tested an antidote (urotropine) first on himself and then on some detainees from the camp who, we are told, came forward voluntarily in exchange for rewards in the form of food or cigarettes. As a result there were two or three accidental deaths of persons after they had been hospitalized (and not four deaths as we erroneously wrote in our brief in court). In that room Josef Kramer is supposed to have gassed prisoners with mysterious salts which, when mixed with water, would kill in one minute. The nonsense of the two contradictory confessions of Josef Kramer about gassings at Struthof can itself be explained by the cruelties to which he had been subjected by his British guards in Germany. They had, for example, shut him up for an entire night in a refrigeration chamber (perhaps because he had specifically said that the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Struthof had first been a refrigeration chamber). Those cruelties were reported with a certain degree of delight by a member of the French Resistance who was present at the scene, Dr. J.L. Fréjafon, in his book entitled Bergen-Belsen (preface by Louis-Martin Chauffier, Librairie Valois, 1945, xv-103 pages), page 22.

In the same file from the French military court there was an expert report by Dr. René Fabre, Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacology in Paris. That file has disappeared but, thanks to another document, we know that Dr. Fabre had been charged with determining whether the bodies found at the Anatomy Institute in Strasbourg and thought to be the bodies of persons “gassed” at Struthof bore any traces of poison. That expert report’s conclusion had been negative. There was no trace of hydrocyanic acid either in the bodies, in the scrapings from the alleged homicidal gas chamber or in the bits of plaster (jars W and X).

I recall that, in a more general way, they had to make hundreds of investigations of the German concentration camps. We can say with certainty that none of those investigations contained

– either a complete expert report proving that such or such a room called a gas chamber was in fact a homicidal gas chamber;

– or an autopsy report showing that such or such a body was that of a person killed by a toxic substance, gas or other.

Today the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Struthof is no longer open to visitors. A small sign leads the tourist to believe that a visit can be made on request. That is false. The French are now ashamed of their national gas chamber, still classified as a “historical monument.”

e. The miraculous manuscripts discovered at Auschwitz (the “Internationale” in the gas chamber)

Another argument from the LICRA was, of course, made up of eyewitness accounts. The LICRA in particular invoked the famous accounts discovered at Auschwitz-Birkenau thanks to some miraculous excavations. Yes: miraculous excavations. Some people perhaps are familiar with the photo of the hole where the Poles say they found the container holding the manuscript of one Salmen Lewenthal. Around the hole there is no trace of excavations! The excavators had stumbled exactly on the place where there was something to discover! Let us here salute a miracle of exterminationist psychic powers (see Hefte von Auschwitz, Special Issue (I), Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos, Verlag Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum, 1972, 220 p., p. 135, first photo). The best known of those testimonies is called the “manuscript of the unknown author.” The original text is in Yiddish with Hebrew characters. It was published in German by the Poles (p. 118-128 of the above-mentioned publication). The LICRA certainly took care not to use that edition. It produced excerpts in Polish with a translation into French. The translator especially chose one passage where the action unfolds in “the” (!) gas chamber at Birkenau. We do not know where the witness was found to describe the following scene. The victims were packed into the gas chamber. Suddenly, a young Polish girl, naked like all those who were there, addressed the assembled victims as well as the Jews of the special commando charged with putting those victims to death. That inflamed and patriotic speech ended with the words:

Down with the barbarism of Hitler’s Germany! Long live Poland!

The Polish girl then turned towards the Jews of the special commando. She did not abuse them; on the contrary, she urged them to survive in order to bear witness later to the courage of the victims and to avenge those crimes. Then an interesting scene took place. The Poles knelt down on the floor. The text says that they recited “a prayer with an attitude that made a great impression.” The LICRA’s text does not say upon whom that impression was made. The original Yiddish text said: “on everyone.” Then, the Poles all stood up together in the gas chamber, where apparently there was no lack of space since they had been able to kneel down and stand up again. All together they sang in chorus the Polish national anthem and the Jews, at the same time, sang the Hativkah.* (Here I’d like to make a suggestion to the authorities at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles or to those at the future Memorial to the Holocaust in Washington: could they reconstruct that scene, complete with sound accompaniment, to let everyone see the beauty and truth of it?) Here the LICRA cut into its text with an ellipsis placed in square brackets. And, according to the LICRA, the text goes on as follows:

While they were singing, the Red Cross car arrived; the gas was thrown into the chamber and they all gave up the ghost amidst songs and ecstasy, dreaming of the brotherhood of a better world.

The narrator does not reveal to us how he was able to read the minds of the victims. As for the LICRA, if it cut the text, it was because it contained an embarrassing detail. Here is that detail as the Auschwitz Museum edition gives it to us (p. 121): the two anthems were sung at the same time; the “lyrical tones” of the two anthems had blended into one whole; then, the Poles and the Jews, all together, began to sing the “Internationale“! I think that this is what Soviet esthetics calls “Socialist Realism.” We owe the discovery and the deciphering of the “manuscript of an unknown author” to Professor Bernard Mark, Director of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw. In 1962, his co-religionist Michel Borwicz, who became a French citizen after the war, wrote in the Revue d’histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale that Professor Mark was more or less a forger of texts (January, 1962, p. 93). Bernard Mark’s forgeries continue to be published and sold. In 1982, his widow published in France a book entitled Des Voix dans la nuit (Voices in the Night) (Editions Plon, Paris 1982, 362 p.). The famous “unknown author” then lost his anonymity and is now named Leib Langfus. That book is full of lies. The French press nevertheless greeted the production as a collection of eyewitness accounts that are compellingly truthful (Cilles Lambert’s article in Le Figaro, 13-14 November 1982, p. 25; Pierre Pachet’s article in La Quinzaine littéraire, 16 December 1982, p. 25; Eric Roussel’s article in Le Monde, 26 November 1982, p. 23). The preface is signed by Elie Wiesel.


* compare with the Czechoslovaks described by Filip Müller: “[In the gas chamber] they sang first the Czechoslovak anthem and then the Hebrew song ‘Hatikva’ “(Eyewitness Auschwitz, Stein and Day, New York 1979, xiv-180 p.; p. 110),


f. The Testimony of an actual survivor of the Sonderkommandos (at the moment of the gassings, the people shut up in the coke bins were unable to see anything)

The LICRA searched for a survivor of the famous Sonderkommandos. There was already Filip Müller who was living in Mannheim (West Germany), at 31 Hochuferstrasse. The LICRA had, by a unanimous vote, awarded to him the Bernard Lecache prize for his book “Three Years in a Gas Chamber at Auschwitz” (French title). Inexplicably, Filip Müller did not make a deposition, either written or oral, for the LICRA. Just at the last moment, as the fateful date was drawing near for the deadline for submitting documents for the trial, the LICRA delivered a meager text of about two pages: the deposition, made before a notary public on 29 September 1980 by one Alter Szmul Fajnzylberg, a retiree living at 37 Avenue Jean Jaurès, in Paris.

For me, this was a case of meeting once more an old acquaintance. In 1972, in the special issue of the Hefte von Auschwitz that I mentioned above, the Poles had published (p. 32-71) in German the deposition made by Fajnzylberg, a militant Communist, in a Polish court on 13 April 1945. At that time his name was Stanislas Jankowski. That former waiter, a Jew, an atheist, and a Communist, had been a member of the International Brigades in Spain. At the end of the Spanish Civil War, he was interned by the French in the camps at Gurs and Saint-Cyprien. He then worked for the Germans in the occupied zone of France. He was arrested by the French police and interned at Drancy and Compiègne. He was deported to Auschwitz, where he arrived on 27 March 1942. He left Auschwitz with the majority of the inmates, under the supervision of the Germans, on 18 January 1945. He then took flight. That, at least, is his story.

Jankowski, alias Fajnzylberg, therefore remained at Auschwitz for nearly three years. Up until October of 1942 he was employed as a carpenter, which had been his original profession. He also spent five weeks in the camp hospital. From November of 1942 until June of 1943 he was employed in the crematory building of Auschwitz-I, called Krema I. From July of 1942 until January 17 of 1945, he was employed in the building at Birkenau called Krema V. Therefore we have here a rare bird: one of those famous members of the Sonderkommandos.* His experience was extensive, since he had lasted more than two years in that terrible job. We know that, according to one legend, it was the Jews themselves who were obliged by the SS to welcome the victims, to make them disrobe, to make them enter the gas chamber, and to shut them up inside. Then the SS introduced the gas by a process about which the narrators of the gas chamber saga have never been able to agree. Finally, members of the Sonderkommando came to re-open the door or doors, and the rest is well known. Another legend has it that the SS regularly – every three months, it seems – liquidated the members of the Sonderkommando. As a matter of fact, as Fajnzylberg tells us, each time the Germans wanted to gas some people, they took care to shut up the members of the Sonderkommando in the coke bin, before the arrival of the future victims. In Krema I of Auschwitz, the members of the Sonderkommando were shut up in the small coke bin and in Krema V at Birkenau in the large coke bin of the large Krema. In other words, for more than two years our rare bird (the best witness that the LICRA was able to find anywhere) spent a large part of his time in a coke bin near a pile of coke. Then, he tells us, the SS, who had done this in order to conceal the crime, re-opened the door of the coke bin so that Fajnzylberg and his companions could take care of the bodies in the gas chamber.

The Germans were never idle. If we are to believe our man, the Germans in this way gassed two million persons in two years in the crematoria and “bunkers” at Birkenau. In July of 1944 they supposedly killed an average of 18,000 Hungarian Jews each day. I suppose that in order to burn about 18,000 bodies they would have needed, at the rate of 40 kilograms of coke per body, about 720,000 kilograms of coke per day, which ought not to have allowed much room in the coke bins for shutting up Fajnzylberg and his companions. In fact, how many can there have been to deal with 18,000 bodies a day?

In 1980, Jankowski-Fajnzylberg repeated that story about being shut up in the coke bins. But between 1945 and 1980 his memory must have improved. In fact, in 1980 he added a detail that we are surprised he did not give in 1945. One day, one time, in Krema V, he was able to see, he stated,

the release of a gas by an SS-man who poured the contents of a round, black metal can, about 12 to 15 centimetres in diameter and about 25 centimetres high, into a kind of small chimney or tube which extended a few dozen centimetres out of the roof of the gas chamber. The SS-man was wearing a gas mask, he immediately closed up again the opening through which he had poured the contents of the can.

There is only one unfortunate thing about this witness: according to the legend, there was no gas chamber at Krema V, but two small rooms and one corridor, which might make for three small gas chambers. As regards the gas, the version believed today is that for Kremas IV and V it was poured through some transom-windows located just below a roof which an SS-man reached each time from the outside by ladder.


* As Mark Weber has told me, the proper English translation should probably be “Special Detail,” i.e. “Garbage Collectors.” Krema-II and -III in Birkenau had a Müllverbrennungsofen (furnace to burn refuse). The people of the Sonderkommandos were in charge of collecting and burning, at the same time, the garbage and the cadavers. Filip Müller was nothing more than a kind of garbage collector.


II. The criminal action brought by Poliakov (the Gerstein and Baron von Otter case)

On page 119 of my Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire I mentioned Léon Poliakov among those who had manipulated the original text of the notebooks of Professor Johann Paul Kremer. Recalling also the extraordinary manipulations and fabrications of texts to which the same Poliakov had applied himself, beginning with the confessions of Kurt Gerstein (of which Paul Rassinier had given us only a few examples), I wrote this sentence:

Conscious of the seriousness of my accusation, I state that I am in a position to prove that Léon Poliakov is a manipulator of texts and even a forger of texts.

As I wrote those words I thought I risked being sued for defamation.  In fact, defamation must be carefully distinguished from lying or calumny. To defame is to cast a slur upon someone’s reputation. In France, one may rightfully defame someone by accusing him of a verifiable fact. I thought that Poliakov would not lodge a claim. He was, of course, the first to know that he had fabricated and manipulated the Gerstein texts. However, Léon Poliakov did lodge a claim. The result of the subsequent events leads me to think that he did it under heavy pressure from friends who guaranteed him that they would find a way to get him out of the fix.

French law provides the possibility, rarely availed of, for the person accused of defamation to present an “offer of proof” in the ten days following the claim. In under ten days I presented an offer of proof: it was a simple table showing, on the one hand, the texts that Gerstein was thought to have written and, on the other hand, the incredible manipulations and fabrications that Léon Poliakov derived from those texts in the course of the years from 1951 to 1979. That was tangible proof; no reply was possible. French law stipulates that the accuser has five days to respond to the offer of proof. I must state that, not surprisingly, Poliakov did not offer any response to my offer of proof within the time allowed. It was then that Poliakov and his friends perfected a stratagem which, still today, leaves me in admiration. They knew that in the 17th Correctional Chamber in Paris, especially before Judge Cabié, it is always good to plead that one is the victim of anti-Semitism. It seems that, up until these last few years, that court handed down convictions for anti-Semitism the way other courts handed down convictions for driving under the influence. Poliakov was going to play that card with the help of his pal Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who came to the court to denounce me as a life-long anti-Semite. Poliakov had fabricated, for his part, an almost unreadable photocopy of a Gerstein text to prove that it had been very difficult for him to decipher the text, hence his conjectures and possible errors, he said.

But now I’ll come to the strategem itself. The lawyers asserted that the one whom I had wanted to attack was not Léon Poliakov but, through Poliakov, Gerstein himself! But Gerstein was a saint! Witnesses from the Netherlands, Switzerland or Sweden would testify to the fact. Poliakov’s lawyers had decided to organize their entire defence around this point: Kurt Gerstein had really existed; he had been a spy for God; his testimony embarrasses Mr Faurisson; Mr Faurisson defames Gerstein through the person of a great and honorable man: Léon Poliakov, former Director of Studies at the CNRS, the National Centre for Scientific Research.

So it was that during that strange trial our own disputes on the texts would take on the appearance of trifles in comparison to the parade of witnesses, such as Baron von Otter, who came in to say how they had known Gerstein during the war and that he had told them frightful stories about the German concentration camps. My lawyer made one serious mistake. He believed that he would be able to deal with that tactic with a shrug of the shoulders. To him, the judges could not be dupes of such a manoeuvre. Baron von Otter and the other witnesses were not specialists in Poliakov’s texts and, consequently, my lawyer did not want to ask the simplest question of the witnesses, not even this one: “Do you have any idea of what is at issue here? Do you know for what precise reasons Mr Faurisson is criticising Mr Poliakov? Do you realise that the person of Gerstein is not at issue and does not interest us here? Do you think that you have any competence regarding the various versions that Mr Poliakov has given of the various confessions of Gerstein?” I insisted in vain; my lawyer did not wish to break his silence. It must be said in his defense that he knew very well the specific subject of the trial – the texts of Gerstein and Poliakov – but that he was almost completely ignorant about Gerstein, Pfannenstiel, the camp at Belzec and Baron von Otter. If I had had the right to speak, here is how I would have proceeded to beat the opposing side at its own game. I would first have said to each of the witnesses that I believed in his sincerity. Yes, each of them could have met Gerstein during the war. Yes, Gerstein had told some terrible stories. But had those people taken those stories seriously? I didn’t think they had. If those people had taken seriously these absolutely sensational revelations, they would have reported them, either, in the case of Baron von Otter, to his hierarchical superiors in Stockholm, or, in the case of the other witnesses, to their resistance movements. But it seems clear today that no one is capable of showing a report of that kind, either, as I tend to think, because those reports were never written, or else because they were written but were not presentable at the trial since Gerstein was described in them as the author of unbelievable stories. Besides, we do not have any document or any writing by Kurt Gerstein about Belzec that was supposedly delivered to anyone in the neutral countries or in the resistance movements. However, Gerstein traveled a great deal during the war in Germany and in other countries, and nothing prevented him from dictating a report or mailing a letter, even anonymously. I have a hypothesis to suggest regarding von Otter and the others: during the war, no one could have believed the awful things recounted by Gerstein for one simple reason – those awful things were unbelievable. They were and they still are totally grotesque for anyone who reads them with a minimum of attention. But, after the war, von Otter and the others probably began to believe what Gerstein told them. I imagine that in the hysterical atmosphere that accompanied what is called the discovery of the alleged extermination camps, Baron von Otter was seized by a moment of retrospective fear. He recalled SS-man Gerstein and his raving stories. Von Otter must have said to himself that he had behaved unpardonably with regard to Gerstein. It was for that reason that he set out in quest of Kurt Gerstein after the war and, caught up in this game since 1945, set himself up, whether he liked it or not, as the defender of Saint Gerstein. Göran von Otter must suffer from what I call the Sean McBride complex. During the war, Sean McBride, the founder of Amnesty International, did not want to believe the tales of horror, but after the war he began to believe them all the more strongly as he had at first been skeptical. In Le Monde of 13 February 1982, on page 2, under the title “Avertissement” (“Warning”), Sean McBride wrote the following:

In the midst of the Second World War, I maintained very friendly relations with the American Ambassador to Ireland, David Gray, a close friend of Roosevelt. One day I saw him looking perplexed. “I have received from the State Department,” he told me, “some troubling documents which report a policy of extermination carried out by the Nazis in camps specially fitted out for that purpose.” I looked at the papers that he was in possession of and, what is obviously the most atrocious thing, I must admit, is that they did not appear very convincing to me. My attempts to obtain more detail, then to alert public opinion, ran up against indifference and skepticism. That has remained fundamental for me: the most monstrous genocide in the history of the human race was able to go on for five years in the most total ignorance.

Let me say in passing that Sean McBride’s last sentence testifies to blindness: how can McBride believe that, if the most monstrous genocide in the history of the human race had continued for five years on a continental scale, it could have gone completely unnoticed? McBride ought to read the story about the elephant that Dr. Butz told us in his talk last year (“Context and Perspective in the Holocaust Controversy“). McBride imagines that he was lacking in clear-sightedness during the war and that his eyes were opened after the war, when it was just the opposite that took place: during the war he had been free and therefore clear-sighted in his judgment, while after the war his judgment could no longer resist the pressure of the most fantastic propaganda that humanity has ever known. This is somewhat the same way it was after the war when some Nazi generals or dignitaries struck their foreheads – and beat their breasts – and thought: “Now I see clearly, my eyes are open, my ears are unstopped. Now that it has been explained to me, I understand what Himmler said in Posen and what Hitler said in Berlin.”

For my part, I do not doubt the sincerity of Hans Frank, Baldur von Schirach, SS General Karl Wolff, nor that of Baron von Otter or of Sean McBride. As regards Albert Speer, let me be a little more skeptical. One detail about him: a South African Jewish organization got his collaboration in having the brochure Did Six Million Really Die? banned in South Africa. In the book written in reply, entitled Six Million Did Die; The Truth Shall Prevail (by Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond, second edition, Johannesburg 1978, XII-138 p.), we find the facsimile of the original affidavit in German Speer (p. 109-112) wherein he declares at the end:

Meine Hauptschuld sehe ich immer noch in der Billigung des Judenverfolgungen und der Morde an Millionen von ihnen.” (“I still see my main guilt in my having approved of the persecution of the Jews and of the murder of millions of them.”)

That is what Albert Speer wrote on 15 June 1977. But in a book that appeared two years later, (Technik und Mocht, Bechtle Verlag, Munich 1979, reprinted in a paperback edition by Ullstein Verlag in 1981, 184 p.), he reproduced that affidavit (p. 73-75) with a footnote after the word “Billigung” (“Approval”) which reads:

Billigung durch Wegsehen, nicht durch Kenntois eines Befehls oder der Durchfuehrung. Das erstere ist so schwerwiegend wie das zweite.” (“Approval by looking away, not by knowledge of an order or its carrying out. The first is as serious as the second.)

Speer spoke in his Spandau Diary about his tendency to self-accusation (“meine Selbstbezichtigungen,” Spandauer Tagebücher, Ullstein Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1975, p. 432). One could say that that tendency is very widespread in what Heinrich Härtle has called the Germany of “national-masochism” (Klütter Blätter, December 1982, p. 28, “‘Holocaust’ und kein Ende”).

In the Poliakov trial, the judges themselves were led to believe, in their own words, that “the testimony of Gerstein about the functioning of the Nazi camps is essential.” That is a sentence which would be hard to understand for anyone who knows anything about the Gerstein case. Starting there, and faced with the parade of other witnesses, what weight could be given to our technical demonstration about Poliakov’s manipulations and fabrications? However, we had on our side an excellent witness who is at present preparing a thesis on the various confessions of Gerstein and who was able to prove, texts in hand, that Poliakov was a forger and a manipulator. A waste of effort. I was found liable for defamation; the judgment had to be published, at my expense; it has not been, and I think that Poliakov will never ask for its publication. That judgment in fact contains some passages that would be embarrassing for a former Director of Research at the CNRS. We know that Poliakov, finding that, according to Gerstein, the gas chamber at Belzec had an area of 25 square metres for 700 to 800 people (which means 28 to 32 persons standing in each square meter), had calmly removed the reference to 25 square metres and replaced it with that of 93 square metres; in their ruling the judges said that it “is not explained how Mr. Poliakov can fix the area of the gas chamber at 93 square meters.” The court went so far as to say: “There is an error here that could indeed be culpable.” And it added: “Other errors may have been committed” and, finally, it said that Mr Poliakov could, on some details, have breached the standards of scholarly exactitude.” But, for the court, all that was annoying without being serious and I did not have the right to speak of Mr Poliakov as I had done. In fact, what counted in the eyes of the court was that Mr Poliakov

had been moved by a passionate and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and some particularly tragic facts of contemporary history.

The Poliakov case went up to appeal at the highest level with no different result. For reasons of health I was not able to attend those hearings. The texts of the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation are extremely short and prove that those judicial bodies did not take up the examination of the case again at all in the sense in which it ought to have been presented, that is in a purely technical sense and in the following form: “Here, on the one hand, is what we read in the texts of Gerstein, and here, on the other hand, is what Poliakov claims to have read; how are these differences explained? And how, furthermore, can one explain that Poliakov himself for nearly thirty years has dared to present, in such different forms, texts that are supposed to be identical?”

I am awaiting with curiosity the reaction of Mr. Poliakov and his friends when the thesis about which I spoke earlier is defended and then published. The researcher in question has made some very interesting discoveries about Gerstein’s writings. I advise amateurs not to write anything about Gerstein before the publication of that thesis, which will be very technical. The Gerstein case appears more and more like the tale of a fool. The story of the Gerstein confessions is hard enough to untangle without having to deal with dishonest reproductions of those confessions.

III. The criminal action for my sixty-word summary (the historical lie: beneficiaries and victims)

As the civil case that I have just discussed was unfolding, some serious events occurred for Pierre Guillaume, his friends and me. For four years our opponents conducted a whole series of operations (physical and other) against us that were so trying for our health and our nerves that we were barely able to respond to them. The press especially overflowed with an unbelievable flood of hatred. It was hysteria by repetition. Noam Chomsky had stepped into the case, albeit in a very mild way. Jean Pierre-Bloch, president of the LICRA, on 16 December 1980 spoke about the case over the air on Radio Europe 1. He was welcomed by his friend Ivan Levaï, the host of a broadcast called “Explain Yourself…” From the very start Jean Pierre-Bloch set about attacking us violently. He declared that the case was costing the LICRA considerable sums of money. On the other hand, he claimed that I was being paid by Colonel Qaddafi and that my writings were being translated into every language in the world: he claimed he had on his desk some Chinese translations! Of course, he called me a forger. Ivan Levaï, for his part, said that the help Noam Chomsky had brought me was “a kiss for a leper”; “Noam Chomsky,” he explained, “the grandson of a rabbi and himself Jewish, wanted to ’embrace his own death’.” Thanks to the skillful manoeuvering of my publisher, Pierre Guillaume, I was able to appear the next day on the same program on the same station. Ivan Levaï, extremely excited, constantly cut off my remarks. It was then that I made an important decision: since for once I had the right to speak for several minutes, I decided to use that time to utter a long sentence of sixty words that I had for a long time had in my mind and that summed up the substance of my thought on the whole question of the gas chambers and the genocide.

If I had formerly studied the question of the gas chambers so much, it was obviously not because of a morbid curiosity about the subject. The gas chamber – the magical gas chamber – is the keystone of an immense structure: the lie of the Holocaust. I became interested in that keystone because it was the best point at which to attack that immense structure. I think that I can say that now, in French scholarly circles, people hardly believe in the gas chambers anymore. To borrow a turn of phrase of Céline in 1950, after reading Paul Rassinier’s Lie of Ulysses, “The gas chamber was everything! It allowed EVERYTHING!” (Le Bulletin Célinien, a quarterly publication available through Post Box 70, 1000 Brussels 22, Issue no. 4, fourth quarter 1982, “Céline devant le mensonge du siècle (suite)“, by Robert Faurisson, p. 5-6).

Today, the keystone of the Holocaust is crumbling and, as a result, the immense structure is in danger. The gas chamber is the weapon used in the crime. The genocide is the crime. The two form one and the same historical lie. If there is a lie, it is necessary to say who the beneficiaries and who the victims are. In our century, everything is rapidly becoming a question of money and of politics; it is therefore necessary to say whether that lie has opened the way to a political-financial swindle and what kind of swindle it is.

It doesn’t take very long to realize that the case of the Holocaust is principally used by the State of Israel. It is the founding myth of that country and the number one weapon in its propaganda arsenal. I do not blame Israel for that; I am making a statement. I am not naive enough to forget that all countries are founded in part on crimes, blood, expropriation, injustice, force, myth and lies. Here I am pointing out the founding myth of the State of Israel; that does not mean to say that I am hostile to that country and to its citizens. To the contrary, I am establishing the evil that that big lie does to the German people and that it has allowed to be done to the Palestinian people, and I am very much obliged to state that Germany, shorn of a third of its territory, cut into two parts, occupied by four armies, has leaders who are apparently obliged to practice Realpolitik: so it is that the voices of the leaders of West Germany echo the voice of their “liberators” from the West and the voices of the leaders of East Germany echo the voice of their “liberators” from the East. That is what I wanted to sum up in my sixty word sentence that, on the radio, I prefaced with the following warning:

Attention! None of these words is inspired in me by any political sympathy or antipathy!

Here is the sentence that I have since then so often heard read before courts, in extreme silence and attention:

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

I knew in advance that that sentence would be the object of all sorts of misunderstandings, sincere or feigned. In any case, I know which part of it is the most sacrilegious and the most terrible to hear: it is the part in which I distinguish between the mass of the German people and its leaders. It seems that I have opened a Pandora’s box. Many newspapers censored the four words “but not its leaders.” Gitta Sereny did it by breaking into my sentence at that point and replacing the four words with an ellipsis. I suppose that, having reached that place in my sentence, had she been a Christian, she would have crossed herself (see the above-mentioned article from the New Statesman, p. 17). In the above-mentioned article in Searchlight, the four words were completely deleted (p. 12).

Economic motives were never at the origin of the big lie. That lie might not have resulted in any such financial swindle, but it so happens that it did. Here I particularly single out the Zionist Nahum Goldmann and the Israeli David Ben Gurion. I challenge any decent man to retain his composure while reading the interview in which Nahum Goldmann told, in the Nouvel-Observateur (no. 624, 25-29 October 1976, p. 120 and following), of how he had succeeded in extorting from a paralyzed Adenauer the massive reparations in the so-called Luxembourg Agreement. This is a racket in the grand style; it is the height of poker bluffing, all on the basis of prefabricated sentimentality.*

The secondary beneficiaries of that entire affair are all of the winners of the Second World War; as a matter of fact, if the homicidal gas chambers of the Germans had not existed, the “war crime” par excellence would have been the gigantic crematoria for the living in Dresden, or Hiroshima, or the Katyn massacre.

The secondary victims are the Vatican and the International Committee of the Red Cross, both accused by the exterminationists of not having seen and spoken out against the gas chambers and the genocide. As regards the secondary victims, it is proper to underscore the fact that young Jews are also, in a way, victims of the gloomy and aberrational religion of the Holocaust.

After hearing of the sixty-word sentence, the LICRA, the MRAP, and the Association of Former Deportees of Auschwitz lodged a claim for racial defamation (which is not very serious) and a claim for incitement to racial hatred (which is serious). I was not able to attend the lower court trial before the same 17th Correctional Chamber (presiding judge: Mr. Cabié). It took place in a detestable atmosphere. Here I must give special thanks to Claude Karnoouh and Jacob Assous, both treated as renegades by their fellow Jews. They went considerably further than Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit in their support for the revisionist argument. Claude Karnoouh, a member of the CNRS, spoke before the tribunal about the “revolution” in historical research caused by revisionist discoveries, and Jacob Assous declared, for his part, that he no longer believed either in the gas chambers or the genocide. Some painful scenes took place. The court rendered a decision that will remain in the annals of French law. I was found guilty for two reasons: racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred, and this twice on each count because the trial was a dual one (on one side the LICRA and on the other the MRAP and the Auschwitz Association). They sentenced me to three months’ imprisonment, suspended (which was not serious) and a fine (which is common), ordered me to pay for publication of the decision in the press (which is a ritual), but also – a fact unprecedented in France – to pay for a reading of it on radio and television during prime time. At that time, when the US dollar was worth around six francs, the cost would have come to the astronomical (for me) sum of 3,600,000 francs ($600,000). To its credit, one French newspaper reacted very strongly to this avalanche of trials, convictions and fines: the leftist newspaper Libération. Most newspapers, no doubt embarrassed at having to report such news, hid the fact that the court had established a new penalty: those costly readings of a judgment on radio and television.

During the appeal, I was able to attend the trial and to explain myself. My two lawyers were Mr Éric Delcroix and Mr Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour. An unexpected thing happened: the Court of Appeal upheld the suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment but it eliminated the charge of incitement to racial hatred. Above all, it eliminated any question of publication, even in the press (I think it had noted that the newspapers, radio and television had already made enough fuss about my convictions). For the first time in those years of struggle, I believed I had found a little breathing room. So, by that judgment in one case on 23 June 1982, I learned that I would not have to pay 3,600,000 francs. It was ten months later, on 26 April 1983, that I learned another piece of good news: the ruling in the civil case, which declared: “This being so, no one can rule that he is lying (. . .).” There is no doubt that in the two cases, as in the Poliakov case, the rulings were against me, but by the time the entire complex of cases reached its end, through the appellate process, the judgment of the courts as a whole, in the broad context of the issues, had softened and been watered down considerably.


* On 18 August 1981, the same Nahum Goldmann declared in regard to the “compensations” paid to Israel:

Those are astronomical sums from the point of view of Jewish history and were very important for the development of Israel. The Israel of today would have been impossible without the German reparations. (“Profil: Nahum Goldmann,” an interview of Nahum Goldmann by J.F. Chauvel, telecast by French television network 1 from 10:00 to 10:52 PM on 18 August 1981)



IV. Some events surrounding the three trials

In the course of the years 1981, 1982 and 1983, the court rulings against me continued to be mitigated to a considerable extent, to the point of causing confusion in the LICRA and among the exterminationists. The first chamber of the Court of Appeal had almost ended up saying: “The revisionists are right to deny the existence of the gas chambers and to refuse to believe testimonies to their existence.” Confining myself strictly to what the Court of Appeal decided on 26 April 1983, I think I can say that the ruling, considered authoritative, has allowed two things to be said:

  • It seems no longer permissible in France to call us, as has been done on all sides for more than four years, liars, forgers, falsifiers, or even to accuse us of bad faith, lack of seriousness, negligence and deliberate ignorance;
  • It seems permissible henceforth, on the basis of revisionist works, to state that the Germans’ homicidal gas chambers ha no existence in reality, and to be suspicious of all the testimonies contrary to such a statement given over a forty-year period; however, these opinions contrary to the official truth can he expressed on condition of showing, even better than I have done, respect for the victims of the persecutions and deportations, and on condition of taking care, greater care than I have exercised, not to appear insulting or offensive to anyone.

I do not know to what to attribute this favorable evolution on the part of the French courts. I would gladly believe that we are partly indebted for it to the political actions of Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon, as they have been perceived in France and the rest of the world. There are also the crises of collective delirium that the press and the public authorities have unleashed or have allowed to be unleashed in France in connection with the showing of the docudrama Holocaust, the attack on the synagogue in the rue Copernic, the attack on a Jewish restaurant in the rue des Rosiers, the Maurice Papon case, the Barbie case or the case of the Hitler diaries. As suggested by Dominique Jamet, an editorial writer with the newspaper Le Quotidien de Paris (a publication that nevertheless tends to see anti-Semites nearly everywhere), the French may have ended up after all this with the impression that the Zionists were trying to “cash blank cheques on the Holocaust.”

But on the very subject of the gas chambers and the genocide there is in France an obvious doubt in peoples’ minds about the official doctrine. That doubt has expressed itself in the following ways:

1. Pierre Vidal-Naquet publishes “Un Eichmann de papier“; I publish my Réponse à Pierre Vidal-Naquet

In 1980, Pierre Vidal-Naquet made the mistake of attacking me in an amateurish essay entitled “Un Eichmann de papier” (in the review Esprit, September 1980, p. 8-52, with an addendum by Pitch Bloch, p. 53-56; all reprinted with some changes and additions in a book by Pierre Vidal-Naquet: Les Juifs, la mémoire et le présent, Petite Collection Maspero, Paris 1981, 302 p., p. 193-289). I replied in my Réponse à Pierre Vidal-Naquet (second edition, expanded, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1982, 96 p.). Putting aside all questions of polemics, it is interesting to note the extent to which Vidal-Naquet had to make concessions to historical revisionism: on the diary of Anne Frank, the authenticity of which he no longer accepts; on the confessions wrung out of the Nazis; on Pery Broad; on the Nuremberg trial; on the false testimonies and deceptions concerning the gas chambers, etc.

2. Georges Wellers publishes Les Chambres à gaz ont existé

In 1981 Georges Wellers published a book entitled Les Chambres à gaz ont existé / Des documents, des témoignages, des chiffres, Gallimard, Paris 1981, 229 p. That book was very helpful to our cause, first by its very title and then by its content. It was devoted to Auschwitz. The author did not dare to include a single photo of the gas chamber that can be visited at Auschwitz-I, nor any photo of the ruins of gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau or of the various reconstructions and models at the State Museum of Auschwitz. On the other hand, he did supply photos of crematorium building plans. He did not dare to produce a single one of the numerous photos that we have of the buildings themselves. He mutilated some texts and fabricated some translations. I always recommend his book to those who believe that the gas chambers existed. I did not make an answer to this book.

3. Even in Le Monde Juif exterminationism is beating a retreat

Georges Wellers worsened his case in the following year. Faced with the progress made by the revisionists he seems to have panicked. He began to beat a retreat in a sudden and disconcerting way. In the review he edits he wrote the preface to a long, dull study, the whose argument, surprisingly, was as follows: after looking at the plans for Krema-IV and Krema-V at Auschwitz-Birkenau and after looking at the physical reconstructions that can be made on the basis of the ruins, it is indeed necessary to bow to the facts: those buildings were conceived and constructed as common crematoria not containing homicidal gas chambers. However, since there are testimonies that say those buildings were used for gassing and then cremating thousands of people, it must be that the Germans afterwards went on to make alterations; however, said the author, it must be admitted that all this indicates hasty improvisation and tinkering on the part of the Germans (Le Monde Juif, no. 107, July-September 1982, “Les ‘Krematorien’ IV et V de Birkenau et leurs chambres à gaz, construction et fonctionnement,” by Jean-Claude Pressac, p. 91-131). It was in that study that it appeared that the only references to or the only physical traces of gas chambers found at Auschwitz relate to disinfection gas chambers.

4. 21 April 1982: the exterminationists establish an “Association for the search for evidence of gassings”

Nothing shows the evolution of the situation better than the fact that I’m going to relate now. You will remember the famous declaration by 34 historians in Le Monde of 21 February 1979. Vidal-Naquet and Poliakov had organized it. In that declaration it was said that the genocide was a self-evident truth and that one must not ask oneself how such a mass murder had been technically possible.

One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible since it took place. Such is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our job simply to recall that truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.

It was in regard to this memorable declaration, coming from 34 historians (of whom only one, Léon Poliakov, was a specialist in the period concerned), that Lucy S. Davidowicz thought it “could well serve as a guide to American historians” (Keith Stimely, “A Note From the Editor, The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1984, p. 6).

Vidal-Naquet has personally contradicted that statement three times by his own actions. First, by inviting the signatories to set to work on the question of the gas chambers. Unintentionally and ingenuously he had to recognize the fact in the aforementioned book Les Juifs, la mémoire et le présent, which came off the press in January of 1981. In it we read, on page 196:

A good number of historians signed the declaration published in Le Monde on 21 February 1979, but very few set to work, one of the rare exceptions being F. Delpech.

Then he contradicted himself by publishing “Un Eichmann de papier.” But, most of all, he reached the summit of contradiction on 21 April 1982. On that day a strange organization deposited its by-laws at the Prefecture of Police in Paris: the ASSAG (Association for the study of killings by gas under the National-Socialist regime). That association assigned itself the task, in its own words, of:

searching for and verifying data offering proof of the use of poison gasses by the authorities of the National Socialist regime in Europe in order to kill persons of various nationalities; to contribute to the publication of those pieces of proof; to make all useful contacts for that purpose on national and international levels (in particular with the international working group inspired by Hermann Langbein).

Among the members of that association are Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Georges Wellers, Bernard Jouanneau, Geneviève de Gaulle-Anthonioz, Germaine Tillion; the head of office at the Veterans Ministry, a member of the Ministry of Culture, a former member of the Ministry of the Interior, the director of Documentation Française and several other important figures. The association’s director is a Mrs. Postel-Vinay, who lives at 7 Place Pinel in Paris 75013. The ASSAG will be dissolved when it has finished its work. According to the latest news, it has become a sort of secret organization; it is trying to hide; if someone asks about its work, Mrs Postel-Vinay answers that the ASSAG is “in a period of reflection.”

5. A big official anti-revisionist exhibition; a revisionist leaflet denounces the fakes it contains; the exhibition’s continuation is cancelled

At the same time the Veterans Ministry undertook an operation and announced with great fanfare its intention to respond to the “trivialization of Nazism.” That expression, which seems to have been coined by Simone Veil, seems first to have the following meaning: people today tend to make of Nazism a commonplace, banal phenomenon by minimizing its horrors which supposedly were without precedent in the history of mankind. But the expression is also used to avoid the word “negation” (negation of the Holocaust). Alain Finkielkraut published an attack on revisionism entitled L’Avenir d une négation (I am unable to talk about the book; I do not understand Mr Finkielkraut’s philosophical language). The vast and costly operation undertaken by the Veterans Ministry and, in particular, by one Miss Jacobs, was an exhibition on the wartime deportation. Set up on the Place du Trocadéro in Paris opposite the Eiffel Tower, it was scheduled later to tour all the big cities in France. It was with great interest that I visited the exhibition, which had very sophisticated techniques at its disposal. I discovered some fine fakes in it. With Pierre Guillaume I wrote a leaflet that described those fakes. Only a few leaflets could be distributed (secretly, due to the police presence). The result was not long in coming. When it closed the exhibition was transferred to a city in the west of the country (the Ministry did not have the time to cancel the plans that had been made), but afterwards the costly exhibition disappeared completely from the circuit. It has probably been put back in the Veterans Ministry’s furniture storerooms. Miss Jacobs officially answers that the exhibition is undergoing sIight alterations; the date for the completion of those alterations is not foreseeable, she adds.

6. An international symposium at the Sorbonne with an anti-revisionist orientation ends with a recognition of failure

The anti-revisionist offensive was to reach its high point with the international symposium on “Nazi Germany and the Extermination of the Jews” held at the Sorbonne, under the aegis of the University of Paris, the School of Higher Research in Sciences and the Judaism Foundation, from 29 June to 2 July 1982. Vidal-Naquet, Professor of the History of Antiquity at the School of Social Sciences, was the animating force of the gathering. It was presided over by Raymond Aron and Francois Furet, both of Jewish origin as were Vidal-Naquet himself and a good part of the participants. I asked to participate in the symposium or to attend on condition, if necessary, of not saying anything. Francois Furet refused me even that silent presence since he had read some of our works, knew that I denied the existence of the crematoria (sic), and since I was considered an impostor by the scholarly community. I wasted my time reminding him that the best way of unmasking an impostor was to let him come and explain himself in public. Furet maintained his refusal. Raymond Aron, a very shrewd man, told me: “You understand, there are some truths that are established forever.” The symposium was held amidst astonishing police measures, and individual searches were conducted by youths from the Judaism Foundation. In spite of all this, Pierre Guillaume and I succeeded in making a brief raid into the hall, staying long enough to distribute some copies of my Réponse à Pierre Vidal-Naquet (a booklet that had just appeared), including one for the interested party himself, who believed that I had died. The security guards on this “vigil,” like their masters, had lived for several days, we discovered, obsessed by the possible appearance of those whom they called the “Faurissonians.” The event, as we learned by various means, turned into a fiasco and split into factions. First there developed the colorful split between the “intentionalists” and the “functionalists” on the final solution. This phenomenon of historians turning into metaphysicians proved the dissolute state of the exterminationist case. Vidal-Naquet was insulted and called a “Faurissonian” – the supreme insult –, since he had written “Un Eichmann de Papier.” Raymond Aron and Francois Furet, who basically knew nothing about the history of the alleged genocide, progressively discovered that the exterminationist case rested in large part on speculations and calculations rather than on historically established facts. It was arranged that, in order to give the symposium more publicity, it would be followed by a press conference. Vidal-Naquet did not appear. Professors Furet and Aron were alone in holding the conference, which we were able to have tape recorded with their agreement thanks to an Australian friend. It turned out that the two professors had just discovered that “in spite of the most learned research” no one had ever been able to find an order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews. Better yet, “no one has found any personal activity on the part of Hitler in carrying out the extermination.” Asked about the court cases against Faurisson, the two professors answered that in their own personal opinion they were absurd, Raymond Aron beginning the following sentence:

I find it absurd that Jewish organizations should make some, some… [inaudible]

The context leads one to believe that the missing word was “lawsuits” or some similar term. The two professors went so far as to say that it seemed to them that Vidal-Naquet himself had perhaps been hostile to those actions. But Vidal-Naquet had, in fact, from 1979 to 1982, played the role of prosecutor or political commissar in all my trials.

“Generous ministerial subsidies” had been handed out for the holding of the symposium and for the publication, by Gallimard, of a heavy scholarly book (see Bulletin du Centre de Recherches et d’études historiques de la seconde guerre mondiale, Bruxelles, no. 12, December 1982, p. 8-9 – article by José Gotovich). But the book has not yet been published.

7. Two declarations by Raul Hilberg show his disarray

Before that symposium French journalist Guy Sitbon, of Jewish origin, the Nouvel-Observateur‘s permanent correspondent in the United States, had an interview with Raul Hilberg. I would like to have that interview published in English. Guy Sitbon works for the weekly publication that, in 1979, attacked me the most strongly, but the experience had been the occasion for me to make contact with certain journalists from Nouvel-Observateur and, in particular, with its editor, Jean Daniel. I had an exchange of letters with Jean Daniel which I think aroused his indignation, upset him, and taught him a few things. In his interview with Hilberg, Sitbon did not spare Hilberg and, on the question of the gas chambers, one could say that Sitbon drove him into a corner. It is since reading that interview that the French have been able to realize that Hilberg has no argument in favor of the existence of the gas chambers. At least, he was obviously not in a position, in my opinion, to provide Sitbon with a single one (Le Nouvel-Observateur, Le Document de la semaine, “Les Archives de l’horreur,” interview with Raul Hilberg, 3-9 July 1982, p. 70-73, 75-76). In passing, Hilberg declared with regard to the revisionists:

I would say that, in a way, Faurisson and others, without having wanted to, have rendered us a service. They have raised some questions which have had the effect of involving historians in new research. They have obliged historians to gather further information, to re-examine documents and to go further in understanding what took place (page 71).

Another statement by Hilberg is interesting, but to a lesser degree since the journalist was not as familiar with his subject as Guy Sitbon was. Look at it all the same: Newsday (Long Island, New York), 23 February 1983, page II/3, “The Holocaust in Perspective,” by George DeWan, where we read this regarding the genocide:

But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus there came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus – mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.

Of course, we’d like it if Raul Hilberg would now rewrite his book on the destruction of the European Jews in light of the new vision that he gives us there. The “step by step” would be interesting to examine, especially the “step” that saw certain German bureaucrats decide on the construction of the gas chambers, which, being physical realities, had to be planned, built and put into operation, with innovating technical studies, large-scale and detailed plans, purely technical planning among engineers, architects, doctors specialised in toxicology, and military men – not to mention the deliveries of material in wartime, the work or inspection missions, an enormous budget, an agreement with the German railroads, with the factories producing coke, with the company of Topf und Söhne, with DEGESCH, DEGUSSA and many other chemical enterprises, and all that, of course, with Draconian measures to assure the secrecy of preparations (which is, perhaps, not at all impossible), the secrecy of its functioning (which is terribly difficult), and the disappearance, in case of military defeat followed by an opening of all the archives by the enemy, of the slightest trace of the most tremendous crime of all time (which is humanly impossible). Hilberg has his work cut out for him, even if only on the “step” of the gas chambers; he ought to suspend any other research in favor of that research.

8. Signs of progress for historical revisionism In France

Edgar Morin, a sociologist with a wide reputation, Jewish by background, wrote the following sentence in his book Pour Sortir du XXe siècle (Fernand Nathan, Paris 1981, p. 192):

It is important, in my opinion, to re-verify the gas chamber in the Nazi camps.

The use of the singular for “the gas chamber” has some importance. Edgar Morin has done specialized studies on the phenomenon of rumors. If he is talking about “the gas chamber” it is because, for him, it is a case of the gas chamber as a (possible) figment of the imagination.

August von Kageneck is a correspondent in Paris for Die Welt. In his appearances on French television he is not soft on the Nazis. But in January of 1983 he published in Le Quotidien de Paris (22 January 1983, p. 4), an article entitled “The Revisionist Danger” in which he wrote:

“Revisionists” are making their appearance and are putting into doubt the criminal character of the Nazi regime [. .]. According to them, there was no plan for exterminating the Jews; their tragedy (if tragedy there was, since the death camps are an invention of the Jews) was the result of the war imposed upon Germany. Such arguments are dangerous since they contain a bit of truth […] It would therefore be wise to seriously examine certain of those arguments and to separate the wheat from the chaff.

On 27 April 1983, for the first time, I suppose, a publication in the Arabic language, well edited, published a very carefully done interview with me, accompanied by photos of a real American gas chamber, of a fumigation chamber in Auschwitz and of the spurious gas chamber at Auschwitz-I, under the title: “Professor Faurisson: ‘The Nazi Gas Chambers and the Genocide of the Jews: historical lie.'” (the magazine Kol Al Arab [All the Arabs], no. 35 (27 April 1983), p. 47-53; offices at 129 Avenue Charles de Gaulle, 92200 Neuilly-sur-Seine, France).

On 15 June 1983, Le Monde, on page 10, reported that on the occasion of the Barbie affair, Monsignor Albert Decourtray, Archbishop of Lyon, denounced

the powerful and disquieting contemporary trend towards “trivializing” Nazism, to which Christians cannot consent.

Revisionism was included in a recent history manual for students preparing for the baccalauréat exam. It is, of course, denounced as a danger. Here are the terms used:

Impossible to forget. – Nearly forty years after the liberation of the camps by the Allies, the “revisionists” continue to deny the genocide and seek to rehabilitate the Nazis, in spite of the numerous testimonies, documents and historical works attest to its truth. It is therefore fitting to recall forcefully that the Nazi leaders did indeed order, organize and carry out the Holocaust beginning in 1941. From 1942 on, the entire world had available to it information on the extermination that was underway. The Germans knew: “You must not believe those who claim that they did not know,” declared Dr. Frank at the Nuremberg Trial. The neutral countries, the Red Cross, the Churches, the Vatican, the Allies knew, but the “terrible secret” was suppressed up until the Liberation (Histoire, for final year secondary school classes, ABC Editions, 1983, p. 36).

Sometimes journalists seem to feel some embarrassment about using the expression “gas chambers.” The journalist André Wurmser in the Communist newspaper L’Humanité (“Grandes manoeuvres,” 3 May 1983, p. 1), mentions “the crematoria and the torture chambers.”

A significant phenomenon, on the part of what is called the extreme right, which makes up about 2% of the French electorate, is that it is emerging from the caution and fear in which it has remained. A quality weekly like Rivarol has ended up talking about the revisionists, even making some interesting revelations. In an article entitled “La vérité au compte-gouttes” (“The truth drop by drop”), the eminent critic Robert Poulet wrote:

I know historians of the first rank, specialists of the period 1933-1945, who declare that for them “it is impossible at present to talk about the basis of [their] thinking, since it would not be acceptable to the public, even the most cultivated.” They have taken as their task “progressively to prepare” the public for an evolution whose culmination they do not expect – beyond the lies and the prejudices that fill the newspapers and the libraries – until many years hence. (Rivarol, 25 February 1983, p. 11)

Jacques Benoist-Méchin, who died recently, wrote a monumental Histoire de l’armée allemande. In 1966 he published the sixth volume, which stopped on the date of 3 September 1939. Rivarol, just after the historian’s death, published a text by lawyer Charles Filippi, who revealed why Benoist-Méchin had interrupted his work at that date. Here is the answer he’d given in writing to his friend Filippi:

It is because, for the first time in history, we have arrived at a point where one CANNOT ANY LONGER write history without making oneself an accomplice of an enormous lie [… .] Maurice Bardèche was imprisoned for having denounced the mascarade at Nuremberg. Thirty-five years later it was Professor Faurisson who was not only the object of public loathing, but was even deprived of his teaching position [here Benoist-Méchin is in error] for not accepting the only authorized version of the camps and the gas chambers. Such is the explanation for my silence. (Rivarol, “Les Raisons d’un silence,” 11 February 1983, p. 9).

Was Benoist-Méchin too pessimistic?

A French historian, a very cautious person, has just published in Le Figaro (8 July 1983, p. 2) a deft review of Serge Klarsfeld’s recent book on Vichy et les Juifs (Fayard, Paris 1983, 544 p.). He subtly unmasks Klarsfeld as a seeker after justice who tries to pass himself off as a historian and whose publisher does not recoil at photographic manipulation, “bookshop subterfuge.” That historian, who, it so happens, has committed some serious errors of an exterminationist kind, is Henri Amouroux, author of a series, as yet incomplete, entitled La Grande histoire des Français sous l’occupation [The Great History of the French under German Occupation] (published by Robert Laffont). But Klarsfeld himself at times follows the revisionist example and begins tentatively to try to verify what he publishes. In Vichy et les Juifs, he brings himself to admit that the photos that people claim show the Jews penned up in the Vélodrome d’hiver in 1942 (photos seen throughout the world and featured in many books and museums) in reality show some collaborators of the Germans penned up in the Vélodrome d’hiver in 1944! It remains for Klarsfeld to stop cropping the photographs from Drancy to make them appear pitiful. It especially remains for him to eventually bring back to life all the Jews that he has presented as dead in his Mémorial de la déportation des juifs de France without seriously trying to verify whether they did die.

Even the duo of Michael R. Marrus of the University of Toronto and Robert O. Paxton of Columbia University are moving in a revisionist direction. Their recent study on “The Nazis and the Jews in occupied Western Europe, 1940-1944” (Journal of Modern History, University of Chicago, no. 54 (December 1982), p. 687-714) leaves the impression that the alleged desire to exterminate the Jews had been a relative failure. They recognize that in France, a country so long occupied by the Germans, only about a fifth of the Jews (French, foreign, stateless, undetermined) were deported, which implies that around four-fifths were not: a strange result for an alleged policy of systematic extermination. That said, their study still is brimming over with fabrications of war propaganda. For example, when, on page 714, they write that on 24 October 1944

the death factory in Poland had only days left to function

this can only be an allusion to the order from Himmler to put an end to the extermination of the Jews by gas: a purely mythical order dated precisely 22 November (or 25 November) 1944. A long time ago historians knew that that order could never have been given (see the well-known thesis of Olga Wormser-Migot, Le Système concentrationnaire nazi, 1933-1945, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1968, p. 13).

A certain courage is beginning to show itself in France. The most spectacular fact in this regard is certainly not lacking in “picturesqueness.” The magazine Lui, the French equivalent of Playboy, which, amidst light articles and nude photos, has the habit of printing interviews with political personalities on serious subjects, has just published a remarkable interview with Léon Degrelle, who, as those familiar with his words will surmise, found some suggestive ways to express his skepticism, if not his total disbelief, regarding the gas chambers (Lui, no. 233, June 1983, p. 73-78).

This courage is contagious. In a quite different field, Klaus Barbie’s lawyer, Jacques Vergès, instead of playing the usual game of lawyers since the Liberation, which consists of not rocking the boat and challenging the proceedings or their very bases, has just pointed out that his client is in prison by virtue of a law that does not exist in France. As a matter of fact, it seems that the French Parliament has never voted any law on the so-called crimes “against humanity”; therefore, there exists no scale of penalties and Barbie is in prison only by virtue of crimes that he is supposed to have committed “against humanity.” It seems that one of the circles that have been most touched by the still modest influence in France of historical revisionism is that of the lawyers and judges in Paris and Lyon.

9. Increasing concern on the part of Simone Veil after the 26 April 1983 decision; for her, there are neither proofs nor witnesses of the gas chambers, since the Nazis supposedly made them all disappear

Simone Veil displays an increasing anxiety about what she calls the “trivialization of Nazism.” Two weeks after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Paris on 26 April 1983, France-Soir Magazine published (7 May 1983, p. 47) an interview with her; the title was “Simone Veil’s warning about the Hitler Diaries: ‘We are taking the risk of trivializing genocide’.” Here is how she connected my civil case to the affair of the Hitler diaries. The connection of the ideas is not very clear but you still see her anxiety:

What strikes me today is the paradox of the situation: they are publishing a diary attributed to Hitler with a great deal of publicity and money but without taking very great precautions to assure themselves of its authenticity. At the same time, in the course of proceedings against Faurisson for having denied the existence of the gas chambers, those who have brought the action are required to produce formal proof of the reality of the gas chambers. But everyone knows that the Nazis destroyed those gas chambers and systematically did away with the witnesses.

I would like to make a few remarks about that reaction to the civil trial:

      1. “Everyone knows” is not a serious argument;
      2. It is paradoxical that Simone Veil, with her legal training, should be surprised that an accuser is asked by French law to try to supply the proof for his accusation;
      3. The lawyers for the other side, among whom was one of S. Veil’s sons, had maintained for four years that there was a mass of proof and an abundance of testimonies about the existence of the gas chambers; we have demonstrated the fallacious character of those alleged proofs and testimonies. Would Simone Veil implicitly admit that we were right? Is she becoming a revisionist?
      4. Simone Veil’s way out of the problem posed by this absence of proof and witnesses is illusory; it consists, actually, in substituting one unproven accusation for another unproven accusation. So my question becomes: where is the proof that the Germans destroyed those gas chambers and systematically did away with the witnesses?
      5. I would be curious to know what Simone Veil thinks now about those premises today presented as gas chambers (“in their original condition” or even in ruins), and what credence she gives to the innumerable testimonies, written or oral, beginning with Filip Müller’s “Three Years in a Gas Chamber at Auschwitz” ?
      6. Finally, and above all, if there is neither proof, nor testimonies, what do we have before us?

V. Conclusion: the foreseeable future. It is dark for the exterminationists and especially for Elie Wiesel. The historical debate may now proceed in the open light of day

Insofar as one may foresee the future of a phenomenon that is in the midst of transformation, I would say that the future of the revisionist phenomenon will depend in great part on the international political situation and, in particular, on the situation in the Near East. The State of Israel is now obliged to find a way of dealing with the accelerated crumbling of the myth on which it was founded. We do not yet know whether parts of the Arab-Islamic world are going to take up the discoveries of historical revisionism. It is certain that in the western countries the noise made about the Holocaust will continue to grow louder. Still more billions of dollars are going to be devoted to an attempt to drown out the revisionist voices. Burned by the failure of judicial repression in France, the Holocaust lobby will hesitate to use that weapon again in a direct way. We must rather expect an uninterrupted series of Hollywood epics of all kinds. I personally am awaiting with curiosity the construction of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. How are those people going to try to make us believe in the gas chambers? For them, France has been a testing ground and they have suffered some serious reversals on all fronts. To take only one example: if the museum authorities decide to present visitors with some kind of document or photo pretending to establish the existence of a single homicidal gas chamber, it will be easy to expose the fake by means of a single leaflet. They will be bound to beat a retreat at this point as did those in Paris who, with a great deal of money and a hundred official supporters, were forced to give up their exhibition.

We in France have undergone a trial by fire and the revisionist arguments have proved their solidity, but we must not hide the negative side of the ledger: the wear and tear on nerves, on health, the losses of money and the considerable loss of time for continuing our research. For two years at least the gas chambers, as Professor Butz has said, have been “overkilled.” For two years I have been forced to waste my time and I no longer feel any intellectual curiosity on the subject.

I want to turn to the following question: “How many Jews died during the last war at the hands of the Germans?” I would undertake that investigation on bases other than those that have up until now generally been used, in particular by Paul Rassinier and Walter N. Sanning.

Finally, we will try to find the means for publishing three books in France: Dr. Butz’s Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which disturbs Vidal-Naquet very much; Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich’s The Auschwitz Myth; and finally, the thesis by our Gerstein specialist. The difficulties that we encounter are illustrated by the fact that Dr. Butz’s book was already supposed to be published five years ago and Dr. Stäglich’s book three years ago.

In France the year 1984 will not be dull: an important meeting will take place between Elie Wiesel and François Mitterrand, who together, and probably with Max Gallo, will probably organize a vast operation of exterminationist propaganda. Wiesel comes to talk nearly every Sunday to French television viewers. You would think that his thoughts never left the revisionists. In 1982 he published in French the book Paroles d’étranger (Editions du Seuil, Paris 1982, 192 p.). On pages 23, 91-94, and 103, he uses the following terms to talk about the revisionists:

indecent pamphleteers with morally deranged minds; [authors of] pamphlets; pseudo-historians; those hateful and vicious persons; it is enough to make one take leave of one’s senses; this entire affair arises from lunacy; vulgarity; disgusting ugliness; indecent accusers.

Wiesel has settled into a role that he will not give up very soon: that of the professional witness. Applied to him, the word witness is to be taken in a particular sense. The witnesses he claims to have met are also of a special kind. In the same book, he writes about Babi-Yar, the place where the Germans shot Soviets, Jews or non-Jews. For him, Babi-Yar is above all a high point of Jewish martyrdom. There the earth itself, he assures us, found a way to protest against the Jewish blood that had been shed. Thus he writes:

Later, I learned from a witness that [after a mass execution of Jews], for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted out (p. 86).

Those words did not slip out of Wiesel in a moment of hallucination. They were first written out in longhand, then verified in printed galley and page proofs and finally published. That’s the kind of person who is Chairman of the Presidential Commission on the Holocaust chosen by Jimmy Carter.

Elie Wiesel, if I may be allowed to use a familiar expression, is suffering from a terrible thorn in his foot: the thorn of revisionism. He has tried by every means to rid himself of it. He has not succeeded. He seems less and less hopeful of ridding himself of it. In this respect he is like the revisionists, who see no more than Wiesel does how he will get rid of the thorn of revisionism.

In conclusion, the important and lasting point of the events of the last four years in France is not that of the legal vagaries of the cases, the points of law and procedure involved. Not the law, but history – what is to be written, how it is to be written, by whom, and on the basis of what evidence – this was the point at issue, a fact realized just as well by our opponents as by ourselves. They chose the ground on which this point was to be contested. From the very beginnings of the challenges to their position, they consistently refused to debate this point of history in the open forums usually associated with such a challenge. They refused one-on-one confrontations. They refused even merely to discuss privately and politely the matters with the challengers. They would not defend their position in front of the challengers who would force them to answer questions and take unashamed responsibility for their answers – or lack of answers.

So it was that the issue was brought before the courts.

The exterminationists brought it there, not we.

They sought this situation where the deck was certainly stacked against us.

We had no choice but to fight on those grounds, in the first place because we were literally compelled to do so by legal fiat; in the second place because they simply would not meet us on any other ground. The situation was forced upon us, and we naturally would have wished it otherwise.

But fight we had to, and fight we did. The result: on our opponents’ own ground and with weapons of their choosing, we won. It is a victory to the benefit not so much of the legal precedent but of the historical record – and the record of how historical conclusions are debated and reached.

If the exterminationists could not win, could not dispose of the problem of the revisionists in a situation in which all the odds were in their favor, how then will they fare in the debate that will now progressively open in full daylight?


I. My Lawyers’ Tactics

In the civil action, which was brought against me for “personal injury” as the result of an alleged “falsification of history,” I was defended by two lawyers of differing opinions: Eric Delcroix, a man of the right, and Yvon Chotard, a man of the left and friend of Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. I owe them a great deal. Both of them had to face serious problems in their personal and professional lives after they dared to take up my defense.

In the lower court case, I left it to them to decide how best to defend me. They could use my book Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’Histoire as well as a certain number of technical and scientific studies that I had written in response to the arguments of our adversaries. Eric Delcroix’s tactics consisted of using all of that documentation, with which he had become completely familiar, in order to defend the following idea: a court is not competent to rule on a historical question. Yvon Chotard did not want to get into the technical debate but just to develop the following argument: even if Professor Faurisson is wrong, the court must protect his right to free expression.

When the cases came up for appeal, I asked my two lawyers to adopt a more aggressive stance and to take as their approach the following sentence: “Professor Faurisson says that gas chambers and genocide did not exist for the good and simple reason that gas chambers and genocide did not exist.”

Eric Delcroix was in agreement, but Yvon Chotard refused. I think that Yvon Chotard was not sure of my honesty and that as a result of hearing my adversaries call me a falsifier he asked himself whether I actually was one. Yvon Chotard went so far as to send me a study, which he himself had written, of the diary of Professor Johann-Paul Kremer, the man who for several weeks had served as a doctor at Auschwitz. In that study, Yvon Chotard concluded that Kremer had witnessed gassings! I sent his study back to him after correcting it. After long discussions and, in part, thanks to the arguments found by Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit in favor of my interpretation, Yvon Chotard was converted. The result of this about-turn was very important. As a matter of fact, Yvon Chotard went on to develop the revisionist thesis with so much conviction before the Court of Appeal that a lawyer for the opposing party, Mr. Rappaport, could not avoid showing his surprise as he began his oral argument with the words:

You have changed a great deal, Mr. Chotard, since the last time; you have really changed a lot!

The appeal judges thus understood that in the lower court trial, Yvon Chotard had shown his skepticism with regard to the revisionist argument but that with time he had become convinced of the correctness of that argument.

I likewise owe a great deal of thanks to my third lawyer, Francois Berthout, who was himself totally convinced of the correctness of the revisionist argument and knew how to plead the case, at times with humor.

II. The voluntary third-party appearance of Pierre Guillaume and his friends (“La Vieille Taupe”) and the support that I’ve found outside France

In France I had to confront such a powerful coalition of diverse interests that without Pierre Guillaume and his friends I would have been overwhelmed. Among his friends I owe a special debt of gratitude to Serge Thion and his wife, to Jacob Assous, Denis Authier, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Maurice Di Scuillo, Jean-Luc Redlinski, Gabor Tamas Rittersporn, Claude Karnoouh, Jean-Louis Tristani, José Benhamou, Marc R.; to my former students Cécile D., Dominique M., Jean-Pierre C., and to many other French citizens whose names I cannot mention here. Abroad, I owe a particular debt of gratitude to my Dutch, Belgian, German and Austrian friends. In Australia, I have benefitted from two valuable sources of support, John Bennett and William S. In the United States, I owe a great deal to Dr. Arthur Butz and Mark Weber, not to mention, of course, other members of the Institute for Historical Review. It was Mark Weber who took the initiative of drawing up the following petition which, during a short period of time in 1979, collected 600 signatures:





Dr. Noam Chomsky signed that petition and has unfailingly defended me although he is not in agreement with the revisionist argument.

III. Key Excerpt* from the 26 April 1983 decision of the Paris Court of Appeal: French citizens henceforth have the right to deny the existence of the alleged gas chambers

“. . . Mr. Faurisson’s research has dealt with the existence of the gas chambers which, if one were to believe the many testimonies, were supposedly used during the Second World War to systematically put to death some of the persons deported by the German authorities;

Limiting ourselves for the time being to the historical problem that Faurisson has wished to raise on this precise point, it is proper to state that the accusations of nonchalance made against him are lacking in pertinence and are not sufficiently proven; in fact, Faurisson’s logical approach consists in trying to demonstrate, by using a line of argument [that he thinks is]** of a scholarly nature, that the existence of the gas chambers, as they have usually been described since 1945, runs into an absolute impossibility, which would be sufficient by itself to invalidate all of the existing testimonies or, at least, to render them suspect;

… it is not the job of the court to make pronouncements about the legitimacy of such a method or about the full significance of the arguments set forth by Faurisson, nor is it any more permissible for the court, considering the research to which he has devoted himself, to state that Faurisson has dismissed the testimonies nonchalantly or negligently, or that he has deliberately chosen to ignore them;

. . . furthermore, this being so, no one can rule that he is lying when he enumerates the many documents that he claims to have studied and the organizations at which he supposedly did research for more than fourteen years;

. . . the value of the conclusions defended by Faurisson rests therefore solely with the appraisal of experts, historians, and the public;…”


* The full text may be found in J. Aitken, Epilogue judiciaire de l’affaire Faurisson [Judicial Epilogue to the Faurisson Affair], La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1983, pages 12-13.

** The words in brackets were a handwritten addition to the original printed text.

Source: The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 133-181.