My friend Fredrick Toben (with a letter to Toben's lawyer in Germany) | L’Archive Faurisson / The Faurisson Archive

If my Australian friend Fredrick Toben is in jail in Germany it is for three reasons – factors for which I share responsibility.

First, he became a convinced revisionist essentially by reading my own historical material, of which he has published several articles and essays in translation in his country.

Second, after visiting me for the first time in Vichy (France), he decided to investigate the alleged Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz (Poland) in exactly the way in which I had advised him to do so: essentially, to examine the remains of the so-called Nazi gas chamber or Krematorium-II in Birkenau and thus see with his own eyes that there were no holes in the roof for the alleged pouring in of Zyklon-B pellets, and to remark, consequently, that no gassing operation could ever even have begun in that place, the center of the entire “Holocaust” story. In other words, to state: No holes, no “Holocaust.”

Third, it is because, after his second visit, that he decided to go and put some questions to a public prosecutor in Mannheim named Heiko Klein, although Dr. Toben and I both knew that he might well be arrested and thrown in jail.

A man deeply attached to his native land and sincerely distressed by the Niagara of lies told about Germany, F. Toben wanted to achieve something that no revisionist had yet done. I am the one who supplied him with the tools for the job in the form of the following ideas:

On the one hand, we have “exterminationists” asserting that Germany committed an unprecedented crime, especially with an unprecedented weapon.
On the other hand, we have “revisionists” asserting that this is a lie, a defamation, a calumny.
The question is, “Who is right?”
Where should such a question be put? Should it not be in Germany first, the people being, in principle, the most concerned?
More precisely, the question should be put to “Bonn” (in April 1999, when F. Toben last visited me, Berlin was not yet the capital of Germany), or to “Ludwigsburg,” or to “Arolsen-Waldeck.”
The trouble is that “Bonn” is interested in “political truths,” not historical truths. The job of “Ludwigsburg” is essentially to define official truths about this or that camp. “Arolsen-Waldeck” closed its “Historische Abteilung” in 1978 precisely because the place was being visited by people asking questions.

And I said to my friend F. Toben that he should go and visit not an institution in Germany but an individual German, and as a matter of fact, the right man in the right place was the public prosecutor, Heiko Klein, the individual who seemed most certain of his right to jail people who did not respect the official truth about Auschwitz.

I remarked to him that he would thus be the first to go and ask an individual in authority: “Why exactly do you throw revisionists into jail?” He would in this way get the answer straight form the proverbial horse’s mouth.

This had never yet been done by any revisionist “in camera clausa,” eye to eye. It would be as if, in 1610, someone visited the presiding judge who had found Galileo Gailei guilty of heresy. Should we not be keen to have the account of that man? From a historical point of view, it would be very valuable today to get an individual answer from Pontius Pilate (assuming that the story of Jesus and Pilate is not mere fiction).

Of course, Heiko Klein is not a judge, only a prosecutor. Still, his power in the matter is considerable. His name will go down in history as that of a major figure in a major historical problem. Why not go and visit this man, even at the risk of being jailed? History deserves that such risks be undertaken and sacrifices made, for its sake.

When on the walk back toward his car at the conclusion of our meeting, I remarked to him: “Fredrick, you know, don’t you, that you may go to jail?,” he replied, “Yes.”

I said “Good luck!,” and I, for one, thought that we revisionists were fortunate to have such people on our side.

There you have essentially what I would say if ever I were allowed to testify in court on behalf of my friend Fredrick Toben.

November 14, 1999

THE HOFFMAN WIRE Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor,
<http://www.hoffman-info.com>. Published by Independent History and Research, P.O. Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

To this, let’s add the following fax sent by R. Faurisson to Toben’s lawyer after he had been arrested in Germany:

October 18, 1999

FAX to Ludwig BOCK

Dear Mr Bock,

This is to confirm what I told you on the telephone when you rang me.

If my Australian friend Fredrick Töben is in jail in Germany it is for three reasons, factors for which I share responsibility.

First, he became a convinced revisionist essentially by reading my own historical material, of which he has published several articles or essays in translation in his country.

Second, after visiting me for the first time in Vichy (France), he decided to investigate the alleged Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz (Poland) in exactly the way in which I had advised him to do so: essentially, to examine the remains of the so-called Nazi gas chamber of Krematorium-II in Birkenau and thus see with his own eyes that there were no holes in the roof for the alleged pouring in of Zyklon-B pellets, and to remark, consequently, that no gassing operation could ever even have begun in that place, the centre of the entire “Holocaust” story. In other words, to state: No holes, no “Holocaust”.

Third, it is because, after his second visit, he decided to go and put some questions to a public prosecutor in Mannheim called Heiko Klein, although he and I both knew that he might well be arrested and thrown in jail. A man deeply attached to his native land and sincerely distressed by the Niagara of lies told about Germany, F. Töben wanted to achieve something that no revisionist had yet done. I am the one who supplied him with the tools for the job in the form of the following idea:

On the one hand, we have “exterminationists” asserting that Germany committed an unprecedented crime, especially with an unprecedented weapon.

On the other hand, we have “revisionists” asserting that this is a lie, a defamation, a calumny.

The question is “Who are right?”

Where should such a question be put? Should it not be put in Germany first, the German people being, in principle, the most concerned?

More precisely, the question should be put to “Bonn” (in April 1999, when F. Töben last visited me, Berlin was not yet the capital of Germany), or to “Ludwigsburg”, or to “Arolsen-Waldeck”.

The trouble is that “Bonn” is interested in “political truths”, not in “historical truths”. “Ludwigsburg”‘s job is essentially to define official truths about such or such camp. “Arolsen-Waldeck” closed down its “Historische Abteilung” in 1978 precisely because the place was being visited by people asking questions.

And I said to my friend F. Töben that he should go and visit not an institution in Germany but an individual German and, as a matter of fact, the right man in the right place was the public prosecutor Heiko Klein, the individual who seemed surest of his right to throw into jail people who did not respect the official truth about Auschwitz.

I remarked to him that he would thus be the first to go and ask an individual: “Why exactly do you throw revisionists in jail?” He would, in this way, get the answer straight from the horse’s mouth. This had never yet been done by any revisionist in camera clausa, eye to eye. It would be as if, in 1610, someone visited the presiding judge who had found Galileo Galilei guilty of heresy. Should we not be keen to have the account of that man? From a historical point of view, it would today be very valuable to get an individual answer from Pontius Pilate (supposing that the story of Jesus and Pilate is not mere fiction).

Of course, Heiko Klein is not a judge, only a prosecutor. Still, his power in the matter is considerable. His name will go down in history as that of a major figure in a major historical problem. Why not go and see this man, even if at risk of being put in jail? History deserves that such risks be taken, and sacrifices made, for its sake.

When, on the walk back towards his car at the end of his visit, I remarked to him: “Fredrick, you know, don’t you, that you may go to jail?”, he replied “Yes”. And I said “Good luck!”, and I, for one, thought that we revisionists were lucky to have such people on our side.

There you have essentially what I would say if ever I were allowed to testify in court on behalf of my friend Fredrick Töben.