Three faxes to Bradley Smith

FOR PUBLICATION
February 12, 1995
FAX to Bradley SMITH

Dear Bradley,

In Smith’s Report (Winter 1995, p. 6-7), you reported on the visit of the Struthof “gas chamber” by David Cole and five other people. May I remind your readers that this “gas chamber” is the only one that enjoyed a real and complete expertise ordered by the accusers of Germany? On December 1, 1945, Professeur René Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacology Faculty of Paris, concluded that the room had no traces of hydrocyanic acid and that the bodies of alleged gassed inmates in August 1943, kept in the morgue of an hospital in Strasbourg, had no traces of hydrocyanic acid. The expert’s report classified in the files of the “Gendarmerie Militaire” disappeared but, thanks to another piece of evidence in those files, we know that such were the conclusions. I discovered this in 1981 and mentioned it repeatedly in my books, articles, videos and in trials; see, for example, “The Gas Chamber at Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace)” in “Revisionism on Trial: Developments in France, 1979-1983“. I had visited and examined that “gas chamber” for the first time in 1974 and then twice more. I published my photos and comments in 1980. The “gas chamber” then became closed to visitors except, of course, for the happy few with real or seemingly real guarantees.

Since 1981 there has no longer been any problem with the alleged Struthof “gas chamber”.

[For information, we reproduce here a fax sent by Henri ROQUES to Bradley Smith]

February 12, 1995
FAX to Bradley SMITH

Dear Mr Smith,

I’ve read “Another David Cole Adventure in Europe” and also noticed your advertisement: “NEW. David Cole tells it all to you about his eventful October 1994 trip to Europe in search of the physical evidence for the notorious gassing chambers, including his entrapment and robbery by the bad guys”(Smith’s Report, Winter 1995, p. 6-8). My wife and I disagree with the version given by D. Cole of his “adventure” at Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace, France). Being a revisionist, I would like to put the record straight and tell how things actually happened. I have contacted Pierre Guillaume and Trystan Mordrel in order to confront their recollections with our recollections. This is what I have to say:

• 1. On October 26, 1994, we visited the alleged execution gas chamber in that camp together with D. Cole, an American camera-woman, Pierre Guillaume and Trystan Mordrel;
• 2. The six of us we were never locked from outside in the gas chamber in order to be entrapped in it! Simply the guard locked the door from inside and he had to open it once because tourists were knocking at the door, and he told them that the visit was possible only for people with special permission (which was the case for our party);
• 3. The guard cannot in any way be implicated in the theft from inside Cole’s car;
• 4. My wife and I remember only one guard; the same for T. Mordrel; P. Guillaume thinks that two guards came to the “gas chamber” but that only one stayed;
• 5. According to the guard and, later on, to the gendarmes in Schirmeck (near Struthof), this kind of theft is unfortunately common, especially in a car with a foreign licence plate;
• 6. My wife left no purse in our car;
• 7. The fact that the camera equipment with a tripod was not stolen but only bags is understandable since it is easier to get away with bags than with a tripod (Cole had taken his camera with him);
• 8. Initially, I thought that it could have been a theft directed against revisionists but I do not see anything which could substantiate this and, furthermore, the conversations I had with P. Guillaume and T. Mordrel tend to eliminate that possibility;
• 9. Cole’s version could make the readers believe in an antirevisionist operation carried out with the complicity of the guards but I don’t think it is fair to accuse the guards of having “entrapped” us or even perhaps participated in a theft.

P.S. (Not for publication) The visit of that “gas chamber” is in fact forbidden, except, of course, for select people offering guarantees. This was the case for D. Cole who had been described in a phone call to the Strasbourg Prefecture as appointed by the World Jewish Congress!

____________

February 16, 1995
FAX from R. FAURISSON to Bradley SMITH

Dear Bradley,

Thank you for your February 15 fax sent at 3.54 a.m. I am upset to see that my dear friend Bradley is upset. Let me explain to you the whole “entrapment” story as I see it. But, first, trust me when I say that, most probably, I feel more upset than you do, since, in my country, I encounter every day great difficulties that you do not have in your own rather free, up to now, country. Moreover, I am overworked. People consult me from many countries in different languages and, now, for several days, I’ve had to devote my time to this Strufhof lie which discredits not our enemies but ourselves.

I knew what you meant by “back-room politics”. I wrote: “What ‘back-room politics’ are you talking about?”, meaning that, for Roques and myself, it is not a question of “back-room politics” but a clear and public reaction to a lie published in a journal. You took the responsibility of publishing something you thought was true but which happened to be a lie. You did not see that this “entrapment” of six people in the Struthof “gas chamber” in order to facilitate a theft was a figment of David Cole’s imagination.

I leave it to psychoanalysts to study such an invention coming from a Jew who was supposedly “entrapped” by “guards” (“bad guys”) in a “gas chamber” and whose belongings, left in his car, were stolen.

In his manner and in his way, D. Cole seems to reproduce the stereotype of “Nazi” guards entrapping Jews in gas chambers and seizing all their belongings that had been left, on the Birkenau Rampe, in railway cars or in lorries. He gets out of the Struthof “gas chamber” as a survivor and then makes publicity and money out of his extraordinary adventure by selling a video in which he “tells it all” on “the notorious gas chambers including his entrapment and robbery by the bad guys” at Struthof. This is the way he puts it in his advertisement. It looks like the usual phantasmagoria and the usual Shoah-business. Sorry, but I do not wish to see anyone judaizing revisionism by putting Jewish stories into it .

About D. Cole being allegedly “appointed” by the WJC to visit the gas chamber normally closed to tourists, Roques, first, told me the story in a long letter and then, when I phoned Mordrel to check it, Mordrel told me that this was “perfectly right”. But, please, no confusion here! Roques made a clear distinction between the essential (the alleged entrapment in order to rob D. Cole) and the unessential (the alleged appointment of D. Cole by the WJC). He specified that the first was “for publication” and the second “not for publication”.