Robert Faurisson at the second Zündel trial in Toronto (1988) – Part 4/4

Extract from the transcripts as edited by Barbara Kulaszka, ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’ Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel – 1988, p. 693-723

April 18, 1988 (continued)

Are you denying, asked Pearson, that Rassinier said that the Communists were to blame for a lot of the deaths in the concentration camps?

Replied Faurisson: “For a lot of sufferings in Buchenwald and other concentration camps. And you see now it’s totally… accepted since a judgment of a court of Paris in December 1986… extraordinary judgment of great historical value… saying that now, yes, it was absolutely accepted that Marcel Paul and his kind of gang inside Buchenwald, were the real masters inside.” (31-8639, 8640)

Pearson moved on next to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in the trial of the German major war criminals. Faurisson agreed that it was a lengthy judgment, some 187 pages in the French version, and that the judges were very interested in the issue of responsibility for the war and whether or not it had been an aggressive war. (31-8640, 8641)

Pearson read from the judgment:

The persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Nazi government has been proved in the greatest detail before the Tribunal. It is a record of consistent and systematic inhumanity on the greatest scale.

Pearson suggested to Faurisson that he had testified that it was a recent development that attention had been turned to the Einsatzgruppen. Faurisson disagreed with this statement: “No, not at all what I mean. I mean that at the beginning – at the end of the forties, in the fifties, in the sixties, they focussed on the gas chambers and now they focussed on other things which were mentioned, of course… Focus is the word.” (31-8642)

Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the activities of the Einsatzgruppen were considered by the International Military Tribunal to be a fundamental part of the persecution of the Jews, and further, that in his second edition Hilberg stated at page 393:

The mobile killing operations in the occupied USSR were a prelude to a greater undertaking in the remainder of Axis Europe. A “final solution” was going to be launched in every region under German control.

Faurisson replied that Hilberg has used the word ‘prelude’: “The International Military Tribunal, of course, mention the Einsatzgruppen. The historian[s] always mention the Einsatzgruppen. But it’s a prelude… because the Einsatzgruppen, you must understand, are supposed to have done something horrible but classical in any war – that is to shoot the people with rifles, machine guns and all that. What was new, what was without precedent, was a system of extermination and it was the gas chamber.” Faurisson agreed that the International Military Tribunal commenced its discussion of the Jewish persecution by describing the activities of the Einsatzgruppen: “Of course, because it’s a question of chronology.” (31-8642 to 8644)

Pearson continued reading from the Nuremberg judgment:

But the Defendant Frank spoke the final words of this chapter of Nazi history when he testified in this Court: “We have fought against Jewry: we have fought against it for years: and we have allowed ourselves to make utterances and my own diary has become a witness against me in this connection – utterances which are terrible… A thousand years will pass and this guilt of Germany will still not be erased.”

Faurisson testified that the deposition of Hoess was essential in understanding Frank’s testimony at Nuremberg: “… this man was overwhelmed by what he discovered after the war and he thought that it was a proof of an extermination and he thought that Hitler, many people in the Nuremberg trials, said, ‘But Hitler fooled us’… the words that we pronounce when we are in a war against our enemy, we do not mean them, in fact, and after, we say ‘But that’s horrible, what have I said, I have said extermination’.” (31-8644, 8645)

Faurisson agreed that Frank testified that his own diary had become a witness against him: “Yes, and that’s a proof of the complete sincerity of this man. He said I have brought my own diary to the Americans. [He] was so proud of this diary, of 11,500 pages.” (31-8645)

Faurisson testified that during a war one said that one was going to exterminate the enemy. But what did the word ‘exterminate’ mean? Said Faurisson: “See the words of La Marseillaise. They are absolutely awful when they say… ‘the soil of our campaign must be drenched with the impure blood of our enemy.’ You could have done a Nuremberg trial in the nineteenth century, saying, ‘Oh, in the Marseillaise, you said that you were going to exterminate, and you were a racist when you said the impure blood.'”^[19] (31-8645, 8646)

Are you saying, asked Pearson, that it was a valid comparison to compare a man’s daily military diary with a national anthem? Said Faurisson: “I say that what he expressed, perhaps ten times during the war, is, for example, what we expressed in our national anthem. An enemy is something that you must exterminate. You don’t say when the people are going to risk their life… now, be nice with your enemy and offer him coffee. [No], you must exterminate him. That’s your only job. Germans are what? They are beasts. They are hounds…” (31-8646)

Are you saying, asked Pearson, that when Frank said he wanted to clear the Government-General of Jews, he was simply saying he didn’t like Jews? Faurisson replied: “… if he said I want to clear up, it meant to clear up. It meant I want… emigration if possible, evacuation or deportation if necessary. I want to get rid of the Jews. That’s what Frank said.” (31-8647)

Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and its analysis of the historical development of the Nazi Jewish policy. Faurisson agreed that the fourth point of the Nazi party programme stated:

Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.

Faurisson commented that, in his opinion, there were many countries who would like that but stated: “I don’t want to name anybody today.” (31-8648)

Faurisson agreed that the International Military Tribunal judgment reviewed the escalation of measures against the Jews and that generally accepted historians viewed such measures as an important component leading towards the extermination of the Jews. (31-8648)

Pearson suggested that Dr. Barton had told the court that the laws that were passed to exclude Jews from German life were all part of the process leading to the extermination. Said Faurisson: “If Dr. Barton believes that, that’s his opinion. I respect his opinion. Now, if he wants to impose [on] me his opinion, I do not agree, of course.” (31-8649)

Pearson turned to the subject of the Madagascar plan. Faurisson testified that he did not know exactly why the Madagascar plan was stopped. There were negotiations with France about it. One reason was that the British navy controlled the sea lanes, but Faurisson did not know if this was the decisive reason. He pointed out that “when you have a political decision, you might have many reasons.” (31-8650 to 8653)

Pearson read from Did Six Million Really Die? on page 7 concerning the Madagascar plan:

· A memorandum of August, 1942 from Luther, Secretary-of-State in the German Foreign Office, reveals that he had conducted these negotiations between July and December 1940, when they were terminated by the French.

Faurisson testified that he was familiar with the Luther memorandum and did not remember it stating that the negotiations were terminated by the French. But he refused to categorize it as a false statement without checking. (31-8652)

Pearson continued reading the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:

The Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany before the war, severe and repressive as it was, cannot compare, however, with the policy pursued during the war in the occupied territories. Originally the policy was similar to that which had been in force inside Germany. Jews were required to register, were forced to live in ghettos, to wear the yellow star, and were used as slave laborers. In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the “final solution” of the Jewish question in Europe. This “final solution” meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy.

Pearson suggested that Raul Hilberg, in his book The Destruction of the European Jews, second edition, page 401, took essentially the same position as the International Military Tribunal when he wrote:

Heydrich now took the next step. He instructed his expert in Jewish affairs, Adolf Eichmann, to draft an authorization that would allow him to proceed against Jewry on a European-wide basis. In carefully chosen bureaucratic language the draft, not more than three sentences long, was submitted to Göring, ready for his signature (unterschriftsfertig). The text, which was signed by Göring on July 31, 1941, is as follows:

Complementing the task already assigned to you in the directive of January 24, 1939, to undertake, by emigration or evacuation, a solution of the Jewish question as advantageous as possible under the conditions at the time, I hereby charge you with making all necessary organizational, functional, and material preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe…

I charge you furthermore with submitting to me in the near future an overall plan of the organizational, functional, and material measures to be taken in preparing for the implementation of the aspired final solution of the Jewish question.

With the receipt of this letter, Heydrich held the reins of the destruction process in his hands. Soon he would be able to use his mandate

Pearson put to Faurisson that it was clear this letter from Goering meant that in addition to the task already given of emigration and evacuation, there was to be a complete solution of the Jewish question. Faurisson disagreed: “No. Never this letter of Goering could be interpreted as something meaning extermination. Never. You wouldn’t have a dispute today between functionalists and intentionalists. You would bring this letter to any functionalist and you would ask him how is it that you are [a] functionalist?” (31-8657)

Pearson suggested to Faurisson that at least Hilberg believed this letter to be an important part of the decision-making process. Faurisson testified that he didn’t think so, but that it was not clear what Hilberg thought: “It’s not clear. He is giving one element, this letter of Goering and he thinks that it is an element to demonstrate that further on, there will be something which he calls extermination… we know that Professor Hilberg believes in the extermination of the Jews, of course.” (31-8656 to 8660)

Pearson put to Faurisson that Hilberg said that the letter constituted a mandate. Faurisson replied: “I agree that he says that, without demonstrating it for one minute. I agree that, of course, Mr. Hilberg is going to bring some element, one after the other, to try to demonstrate that there was an extermination of the Jews. But when he says, ‘With the receipt of this letter Heydrich held the reins of the destruction process in his hands’, I don’t have the slightest demonstration of that.” He continued: “We had already emigration and evacuation in Germany itself. And now, it’s for Europe and quite normally, you would have the Wannsee Conference after, saying it will be final solution not only for those people, who are there, for instance, in Germany, but generally for Europe. Nothing to do with an extermination.” Faurisson pointed out that Hilberg had testified in the first Zündel trial in Toronto [in 1985] that he was not able to show a plan. (31-8660, 8661)

Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:

In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the “final solution” of the Jewish question in Europe. This “final solution” meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war…

He next read from page 401 of Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews:

For years, the administrative machine had taken its initiatives and engaged in its forays one step at a time. In the course of that evolution, a direction had been charted and a pattern had been established. By the middle of 1941, the dividing line had been reached, and beyond it lay a field of unprecedented actions unhindered by the limits of the past.

Isn’t Hilberg saying, as the International Military Tribunal said in 1946, that the plans were being made in the summer of 1941?, asked Pearson. Faurisson asked: “Would you say plans?” Pearson replied that he had to admit that the word ‘plan’ was not used, but suggested that it was obvious Hilberg was saying that. Said Faurisson: “Yes, but the simple fact that it is not used is interesting. It’s no more the affirmative Hilberg. It’s the man who talks of things vague like that. He is transforming… What does it mean? A direction that be charted and a pattern, what does it mean? Is it a plan? Where is this plan?” (31-8662, 8663)

Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:

The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD, formed for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the population of the areas lying behind the German armies in the East, were given the duty of exterminating the Jews in those areas.

Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the International Military Tribunal drew a clear connection between the activities of the Einsatzgruppen and the plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe and that this was totally consistent with the position taken by historians today. Faurisson replied by referring back to Hilberg’s comments at a conference in New York: “But without a plan… We had in Nuremberg something which was quite clear. There was a plan. Everybody could understand what is a plan. And then, what do we have? We have exactly… what Hilberg said when he said… himself, no plan, no budget, but an incredible meeting of minds and in –” (31-8664)

Pearson cut Faurisson off and told him to deal with Hilberg’s book. Faurisson replied: “Please, I’m dealing with Mr. Hilberg. To understand what Mr. Hilberg is saying [in] this so obscure way, I am referring to Mr. Hilberg, not to myself, I repeat.” (31-8664, 8665)

Pearson suggested to Faurisson that, as an academic, he knew that in an interview one expressed views as shortly as one could in response to a question, but that if you wanted to find out what a man really thought about an area as complicated as this, you must look at his three volume work. Faurisson replied that Hilberg did not make the statement in an interview but at a conference. Faurisson himself was not at the conference, but Dr. Robert John had confirmed to Faurisson that Hilberg had indeed made the statement. It had been reported in a New York newspaper and Hilberg himself had confirmed the statement in his testimony in Toronto in 1985.^[20] In this statement, Hilberg said that what happened was “an incredible meeting of minds” and “mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.” What did that mean?, asked Faurisson. (31-8666 to 8668)

Pearson accused Faurisson of grabbing a hold of those two sentences of Hilberg’s and ignoring his three volume book. Faurisson disagreed: “No, because in his three volume work, as I told you, he was very vague and I am pleased to see that for once, he has been rather precise. I don’t understand what is a mind reading by bureaucrats. I have never seen bureaucrats in their [offices] without telephone and doing mind reading… That’s why we asked Mr. Hilberg to be clear. Mr. Hilberg has been totally clear in 1985. No plan, no budget, but, at that time, he maintained that there was an order. But he was quite clear, no plan, no budget.” Faurisson pointed out that the International Military Tribunal spoke constantly of a “plan”, and that not one historian among the exterminationists could uphold this today. (31-8668, 8669)

Pearson put to Faurisson that Hilberg had written that the Einsatzgruppen were a prelude to the “final solution,” while the International Military Tribunal held in its judgment that the plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. Faurisson agreed that these were basically the same positions and that the Tribunal went on to quote at length from the Stroop Report. (31-8670)

Pearson suggested that any reasonable person who read the Stroop Report would realize that it illustrated there was a plan and a system, which was what Hilberg said. Faurisson disagreed and noted that while the Nuremberg Tribunal alleged that Stroop recorded that his action at Warsaw eliminated “a proved total of 56,065 people,” Hilberg had written in his book that these people surrendered. Pearson interjected that they were then transported to Treblinka where they were all exterminated. Faurisson disagreed: “No, he didn’t say that. To Treblinka, to Majdanek and to other work camps.” (31-8671, 8672)

Faurisson agreed that the International Military Tribunal said that the planned and systematic character of the Jewish persecutions was best demonstrated by the Stroop Report, but he disagreed with Pearson’s suggestion that this was a position generally accepted by historians: “Not demonstrated… Of course, you have the Einsatzgruppen, the Kristallnacht before, some speeches of Hitler before and then you have the Einsatzgruppen, then you have the Stroop Report, but sir, you are a lawyer. That’s the system of the proof you know. Like in the witchcraft trial exactly. A quarter of a proof plus a quarter of a proof plus half a proof is a proof. I find only quarter of proof and half of [a] proof. I don’t see any when I ask those people, ‘Show me one proof’. I don’t want two proof[s] – one.” (31-8672, 8673)

Pearson returned to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and read to the court an excerpt from the Stroop Report which the Tribunal had relied upon in their judgment:

“The resistance put up by the Jews and bandits could only be suppressed by energetic actions of our troops day and night. The Reichsführer SS ordered therefore on 23 April 1943 the cleaning out of the ghetto with utter ruthlessness and merciless tenacity. I therefore decided to destroy and burn down the entire ghetto, without regard to the armament factories. These factories were systematically dismantled and then burnt. Jews usually left their hideouts, but frequently remained in the burning buildings, and jumped out of the windows only when the heat became unbearable. They then tried to crawl with broken bones across the street into buildings which were not afire… Life in the sewers was not pleasant after the first week. Many times we could hear loud voices in the sewers… Tear gas bombs were thrown into the manholes, and the Jews driven out of the sewers and captured. Countless numbers of Jews were liquidated in sewers and bunkers through blasting. The longer the resistance continued, the tougher became the members of the Waffen SS, Police and Wehrmacht, who always discharged their duties in an exemplary manner.”

Stroop recorded that his action at Warsaw eliminated “a proved total of 56,065 people. To that we have to add the number of those killed through blasting, fire, etc., which cannot be counted.” Grim evidence of mass murders of Jews was also presented to the Tribunal in cinematograph films depicting the communal graves of hundreds of victims which were subsequently discovered by the Allies.

These atrocities were all part and parcel of the policy inaugurated in 1941, and it is not surprising that there should be evidence that one or two German officials entered vain protests against the brutal manner in which the killings were carried out. But the methods employed never conformed to a single pattern. The massacres of Rowno and Dubno, of which the German engineer Graebe spoke, were examples of one method; the systematic extermination of Jews in concentration camps, was another. Part of the “final solution” was the gathering of Jews from all German-occupied Europe in concentration camps. Their physical condition was the test of life or death. All who were fit to work were used as slave laborers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose. With regard to Auschwitz, the Tribunal heard the evidence of Hoess, the commandant of the camp from 1 May 1940 to 1 December 1943. He estimated that in the camp of Auschwitz alone in that time 2,500,000 persons were exterminated, and that a further 500,000 died from disease and starvation. Hoess described the screening for extermination by stating in evidence:

“We had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavoured to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under their clothes, but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated.”

He described the actual killing by stating:

“It took from three to fifteen minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually waited about one half-hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses.”

Beating, starvation, torture, and killing were general. The inmates were subjected to cruel experiments at Dachau in August 1942, victims were immersed in cold water until their body temperature was reduced to 28 o Centigrade, when they died immediately. Other experiments included high altitude experiments in pressure chambers, experiments to determine how long human beings could survive in freezing water, experiments with poison bullets, experiments with contagious diseases, and experiments dealing with sterilization of men and women by X-rays and other methods.

Evidence was given of the treatment of the inmates before and after their extermination. There was testimony that the hair of women victims was cut off before they were killed, and shipped to Germany, there to be used in the manufacture of mattresses. The clothes, money, and valuables of the inmates were also salvaged and sent to the appropriate agencies for disposition. After the extermination the gold teeth and fillings were taken from the heads of the corpses and sent to the Reichsbank.

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap. Special groups travelled through Europe to find Jews and subject them to the “final solution.” German missions were sent to such satellite countries as Hungary and Bulgaria, to arrange for the shipment of Jews to extermination camps and it is known that by the end of 1944, 400,000 Jews from Hungary had been murdered at Auschwitz. Evidence has also been given of the evacuation of 110,000 Jews from part of Rumania for “liquidation.” Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6 million Jews, of which 4 million were killed in the extermination institutions.

Faurisson agreed that Hoess testified at Nuremberg as a defence witness and that he agreed, when cross-examined on his affidavit, that he had said the things that the Nuremberg Tribunal relied upon in their judgment. Said Faurisson: “Eleven times he said jawohl which means yes.” (31-8683)

In 1958, an autobiography of Hoess was released and published by the historian Martin Broszat. Faurisson testified that he “certainly” questioned the authenticity of this alleged autobiography: “We had to wait eleven years to have this text and… Mr. Broszat cut the parts which were insane, so exaggerated that it was really preposterous, and we know that because the Poles, in 1972, in… The Auschwitz Books, published those parts suppressed by Mr. Broszat.”^[21] (31-8684)

The Hoess autobiography, said Faurisson, had been written under the control of his Polish Communist captors: “What I have is a book called Commandant [of] Auschwitz, which is presented to me as an autobiography and I say that this autobiography is, on the chapter of the gas chamber[s], for example, totally preposterous. That’s what I say. I don’t… formulate any judgment on the authenticity of the papers supposed to have been written by Hoess and then transformed in[to] a book.” (31-8687, 8688)

Faurisson was interested in the fact that the autobiography, written under the control of the Poles, alleged that Hoess had been tortured by the British. But Faurisson emphasized that he did not know whether Hoess even wrote the autobiography: “I say this is supposed to be the truth, the official truth about Hoess.” Faurisson was therefore interested in what was in this book of official truth. (31-8688)

Hoess never claimed at Nuremberg that he was mistreated. Said Faurisson: “He said that, in Nuremberg, [it] was marvellous. It was like a… sanitarium. He was so well treated in Nuremberg itself for a few days, but before…” Pearson put to Faurisson that the first suggestion that Hoess had been mistreated by the British occurred in his autobiography. Replied Faurisson: “Chronologically, perhaps.” (31-8689, 8690)

Pearson alleged that Faurisson accepted the part of the autobiography that alleged torture by the British, but rejected the parts he didn’t like about the gas chambers. Faurisson replied: “Sir, I am quite ready to examine what he said about his treatment by the British and what he says about the gas chamber… I have done a study of what he said about his tortures and torturers and I have studied what he has said about the gas chambers…” (31-8689, 8690)

Faurisson agreed that he believed Hoess’s testimony at Nuremberg contained obvious errors and was absurd, although not absolutely. “For instance,” said Faurisson, “when he says ‘I was commandant of Auschwitz,’ it’s not absurd, of course.” However, when Hoess said that a place called Wolzek was an extermination camp, that was absurd. Faurisson rejected Pearson’s suggestion that Hoess might have made a mistake by mistaking Majdanek for Wolzek. (31-8690, 8691)

Pearson pointed out to Faurisson that he had testified that Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, believed everything Hoess said and was so overwhelmed by his testimony that he admitted guilt for something he hadn’t done. What I want to know, asked Pearson, why weren’t errors you found obvious not obvious to Hans Frank? Replied Faurisson: “That’s a good question… How is it that the German[s] were not sensible to those things? How is it? Or, perhaps, they were sensible because… Mr. Gilbert, who was the psychologist of the prison, told us that, for instance, Goering didn’t believe it… Streicher, I remembered the words of Streicher, technisch unmöglich, which means ‘technically impossible’. So, what about Hans Frank listening to Hoess?… We know that Frank, for himself, went to Belzec and he didn’t find anything of that kind. Now, I understand very well you are asking me to try to explain you what Frank could have thought… Frank was a man totally overwhelmed by the defeat, by the fact [that] he had been tortured, also by what Hoess was saying and it’s so emotional that I understand that. Myself… I was nearly ready to say that the gas chamber[s] existed. I can tell you in September 1979, I nearly wrote… a letter to say ‘Okay, they existed,’ because you see, you want to get out of the hot water and you are ready – a confession, sir, is the result of a confrontation with your victor. You must see in questioning who holds the whip. That’s the question. In confession, it is that, and [a] confession is not inspired by fear, [but] by hope… I’m sure that he was able to say anything at that time, Hans Frank… he was not the only German who reacted like that. Becoming totally Catholic, [praying], believing in God and so on. He didn’t believe before. What does it mean when a man is desperate like that?” (31-8693, 8694)

Pearson suggested it meant that he knew the jig was up when Hoess revealed in his testimony what had happened at Auschwitz. Faurisson disagreed: “That’s your interpretation… When for the first time those people… Frank, Goering and the others, when they heard about gassings and this man coming and saying three minutes and then half an hour and all that. Who is the man who could have been technically able to see that it was a total chemical impossibility? Those people were like many of the people. They thought that the courtroom of Nuremberg could have been a gas chamber. They didn’t know that. To refute an argument, you need some technical cognizance. They didn’t have it.” (31-8695)

What technical education do you have?, asked Pearson. “I tried my best,” said Faurisson. “I interrogated so many people about the gas chamber[s]. I have been to see toxicologists. I have been to see American specialist of the gas chamber[s]. I have visited a gas chamber. I have… documentation…” (31-8695)

Pearson pointed out that Faurisson himself had spoken to a gas chamber expert and when he raised the topic of the gassing of millions of Jews, the expert said he believed it. Replied Faurisson: “What I would like is all those specialist[s] of American gas chambers, I would like them to wake up and to realize, my dear, I am believing something which is impossible… Maybe forty years day and night when you are told the ‘gas chamber[s] existed,’ ‘people were killed by million[s],’ – they are like you and I; they are… listening to the media and he believes that.” (31-8696)

So you’re saying the experts don’t know either?, asked Pearson.

“I don’t say that. I say that what you should do… is prove I am wrong,… ask a specialist [of] American gas chambers to come and testify and say that… Faurisson is wrong.” (31-8696, 8697)

Pearson returned to the subject of Raul Hilberg and asked Faurisson that if he wanted to understand Hilberg’s position, it would be better to read his three volume work than to rely on one or two sentences. Faurisson testified that the best would be to read the three volumes and everything Hilberg had written or said publicly. Faurisson reiterated that he found Hilberg’s book to be “vague.” (31-8723)

Pearson turned to page 401 of The Destruction of the European Jews, and asked Faurisson if he had any trouble understanding the following passage:

For years, the administrative machine had taken its initiatives and engaged in its forays one step at a time. In the course of that evolution, a direction had been charted and a pattern had been established. By the middle of 1941, the dividing line had been reached, and beyond it lay a field of unprecedented actions unhindered by the limits of the past.

Said Faurisson: “Many troubles. First, ‘For years the administrative machine’: what does that mean? ‘… had taken its initiative…’ Which initiative? ‘… and engaged in its forays one step at a time’. How many steps? What are those steps?” (31-8724)

Pearson suggested they were the steps referred to by the International Military Tribunal, the process commencing with the fourth point of the National Socialist party [programme] and the steps of removing the legal rights of the Jews, such as removing them from professions. Replied Faurisson: “One step at a time, and you gave me something like three steps, things that you call yourself ‘steps’… how many steps? Twelve? Ten? Twenty? But you see already three difficulties. But I continue: ‘In the course of that evolution a direction had been charted…’ Which direction?” (31-8724)

Pearson suggested it was clear it meant more and more repressive conduct towards the Jews. Faurisson disagreed: “That’s not clear. ‘… a direction had been charted’. Every time, you could interrupt me and suggest [to] me that it would be this or that, you may be right, you may be wrong. I continue: ‘… and a pattern had been established’. Which pattern? ‘By the middle of 1941…’ Extraordinary for a historian. What does it mean ‘the middle of 1941’?… The ‘dividing line’, what is the ‘dividing line’? Between what and what? ‘… had been reached and beyond it laid a field of unprecedented action unhindered by the limits of the past’. If it was a book about Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Winston Churchill, I would [not] understand any more.” (31-8724, 8725)

Pearson continued to read from Hilberg:

More and more of the participants were on the verge of realizing the nature of what could happen now. Salient in this crystallization was the role of Adolf Hitler himself, his stance before the world and, more specifically, his wishes or expectations voiced in an inner circle.

Said Faurisson: “That’s typical of the book. ‘More and more of the participants…’ I would like names. ‘…  were on the verge of realizing the nature of what could happen now’. What does it mean to realize what could happen now?… ‘Salient in this crystallization…’ That’s typically the kind of [word] that Hilberg didn’t use in the past… He had to invent things like ‘crystallization’. I don’t understand what is ‘crystallization’ like that. ‘… was the role of Adolf Hitler himself. He stands before the world and more specifically his voice or expectations voiced in an inner circle.’ What does it mean? What are those ‘wishes’? How are they distinguished from ‘expectations’? ‘Voiced’ in what ‘circle’?… It’s extremely vague…” (31-8726)

Pearson continued reading from Hilberg’s book:

Already, Frank had cited Hitler’s promise to him with respect to the Generalgouvernement, Lammers had quoted Hitler’s intentions for the Reich, and Himmler had invoked Hitler’s authority for the Einsatzgruppen operations in the invaded Soviet territories.

Wasn’t Hilberg saying who the ‘inner circle’ was there?, asked Pearson. Replied Faurisson: “I don’t know if it is the ‘inner circle’ because… ‘inner circle’ could be the people who attended his table talks…. ‘Frank had cited Hitler’s promise to him with respect to the General Government’. Where? What is this ‘promise’ in respect to the General Government?… Lammers… was the head of the Reich Chancellery. He is the man who said at the Nuremberg trial, ‘Extermination, I never heard about it’…” (31-8727)

Faurisson pointed out that David Irving had found a document which had disappeared from the files, from about March 1943, from Lammers, which indicated that Hitler intended to postpone the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question until after the war. In the interim, said Faurisson, the Jews were put in ghettos, transit camps, in factories and so on. They were in transit camps to be sent to the east, to Riga and Minsk, for example, where there were many labor camps. Many other Jews, however, were sent west to work in Germany in the factories. An example of this were the Hungarian Jews. They were supposed to go to Auschwitz, but many of them were sent to Austria and Germany. The Germans wanted to rid Europe of the Jews as far as they could. (31-8727 to 8730)

Pearson continued reading from Hilberg:

Then, one day toward the end of the summer, Eichmann was called into Heydrich’s office, where the RSHA chief told him: “I have just come from the Reichsführer; the Führer has now ordered the physical annihilation of the Jews.”

Wasn’t that a pretty specific order?, asked Pearson. Wouldn’t Faurisson agree that Hilberg stated in that passage that there was an oral order from Hitler, and he relied on the testimony of Eichmann himself? Replied Faurisson: “… it’s Eichmann who was supposed to have been called and to have received such a fantastic order without a piece of paper… that’s the place where Mr. Browning was quite right when he said that Hilberg systematically erased in his new edition every mention of an order, publishing only one mention… of an order in a footnote. It’s footnote 30, page 402… As Browning said … [Hilberg] changes totally his explanation of the extermination of the Jews except that in a little place he puts an ‘order’… If we had time we could read this so interesting footnote 30, and you would see… that even Hilberg doesn’t believe very much in it.” (31-8732 to 8734) Faurisson quoted Hilberg’s footnote 30:

During his interrogation by Israel police in Jerusalem, he suggested more plausibly that Hitler’s order had come two or three months after the June 22 German assault on the USSR.

Said Faurisson: “That’s extraordinary. He puts an order and he said, ‘The reference is Eichmann, now, Eichmann changes his mind. I think… the second version was better’. You see, for such an order, the fantastic order, not a piece of paper, nothing at all, and this man, 1,500 pages, obliged to put a little shy mention of that… in footnote 30 of page 402. If you read the first edition, if you compare with that, you will see that there is a world between Hilberg number one and Hilberg number two.” (31-8735, 8736)

Did the International Military Tribunal suggest there was a written order?, asked Pearson. Faurisson replied that he wouldn’t be surprised if there was a mention of that in the lengthy judgment. Faurisson pointed out that the judgment dealt with the persecution of the Jews in many of its parts, not just the five page section which Pearson had read. (31-8735)

Pearson returned once again to Hilberg’s book and continued reading:

Eichmann could not measure the content of the words, and he believed that not even Heydrich had expected this “consequence” (Konsequenz). When Eichmann reported to Müller shortly thereafter, he realized from the Gestapo chief’s silent nod that Müller already knew. He always knows, thought Eichmann, though he never moves from his desk.

The footnote reference for this portion of text stated:

Eichmann, Ich, pp. 178-79, 229-30. In his memoirs, Eichmann dates the meeting to around the end of the year (zur Jahreswende 1941/42). During his interrogation by Israel police in Jerusalem, he suggested more plausibly that Hitler’s order had come two or three months after the June 22 German assault on the USSR… Auschwitz commander Höss recalls having been summoned to Himmler in the matter of killing the Jews during the summer. Höss also states that Eichmann visited Auschwitz shortly thereafter. Rudolf Höss, Kommandant in Auschwitz… Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.

Pearson put to Faurisson that Eichmann testified that Müller, as chief of Gestapo, had already received this information. Faurisson asked: “… with what kind of words?… ‘Eichmann could not measure the content of the words’. What’s that?… Heydrich calls Eichmann, he tells him I don’t know what, about a so-called extermination of the Jews. Eichmann gets out of the office, and Mr. Hilberg says, ‘Eichmann could not measure the content of the words.’ What does it mean? It was an order like that?… he believed that not even Heydrich, ‘he believed’. Believed what?… That not even Heydrich had expected this consequence, which is vague. When Eichmann reported to Müller shortly thereafter, he realized, so ‘he realized’… he has a proof to say that Eichmann ‘realized’? ‘From the Gestapo chief’s silent nod’, there we are with the nod theory. What is this nod theory, I understand, that Müller did? And the interpretation, of course, ‘We are going to exterminate the Jews’. The nod theory… It’s a joke.” (31-8736 to 8738)

Isn’t Hilberg saying there was a decision made by Hitler?, asked Pearson. Faurisson replied by pointing out that Hilberg now used the word “decision” where he had once used “order.” When required to be precise, Hilberg did not set out exactly what the circumstances were which pointed to a Hitler decision before the summer ended; he referred only to “chronology and circumstances.” Asked Faurisson: “What does it mean really for such an important order? And you have many historian who say that it was a long time before, a long time after. That’s not a demonstration… I don’t see why I should believe such things about such [an] important topic with so feeble arguments…” (31-8739)

Pearson asked who else Faurisson would rely on other than Eichmann and Hoess, the two people who had first-hand knowledge of the operation? “I am ready to rely on anything,” said Faurisson. “Show me an order. I rely on it. Show me a proof. Don’t tell me, Mr. Eichmann or Mr. So-and-so said that, etc. No. And all that would have been transformed in a fantastic machinery to exterminate the Jews. You’d have needed a real budget in a country which is [at] war… You have to make decision. You have to say the trains will be like this, the coal that we need will be like that, etc., etc. Nod theory: what does it mean? From Berlin, he’s doing a nod, and the other one is doing a nod, and they are all doing nods? Those bureaucrats?” (31-8738, 8740)

So, asked Pearson, you don’t understand what Professor Hilberg has written in his book? Replied Faurisson: “No, I understand very well that he is very embarrassed… I understand very well why Mr. Hilberg didn’t come back in Toronto. That I understand very well.” (31-8740)

Pearson turned back to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and put to Faurisson that the Tribunal never suggested that there were mass gassings going on in Germany. Faurisson testified that the Tribunal mentioned two camps as examples. Those were Treblinka and Auschwitz, both of which were in Poland. But, continued Faurisson, this did not mean that the Tribunal found there were no gassings in other camps. (31-8741)

Pearson suggested it was clear the Tribunal found there were no gassings in Dachau because the judgment made reference to Dachau as being a place where inmates were subjected to cruel experiments. Faurisson replied: “Maybe, sir. That already, the 1st of October, 1946, they were hesitating to say that in Dachau there were gassings. That’s possible already at that time.” (31-8741)

Faurisson agreed that the American tribunal in the Dachau case never convicted anybody of participating in mass gassings: “Already at that time they had silently rectified the story of Dachau, of course.” Faurisson pointed out, however, that there were many testimonies and even an official report on the gassings in Dachau. What was the difference, he asked, between those assertions and the reports and assertions about Auschwitz? (31-8742, 8743)

Pearson next produced the book Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas by Rückerl and others. Faurisson agreed that the authors referred to Barrack X at Dachau (although, he said, they had mistakenly designated it as Barrack 10). He stated he would have to check if the book said that during the trial held at Dachau by the Americans, there was only one witness, a Dr. Blaha, who testified that test gassings were carried out in the gas chamber at Dachau.

Pearson read a translation of page 280 of the Rückerl book concerning Dachau:

Apart from these indications, no documentary records had been found up to now on what may have happened in the gas chamber of Dachau. This has led to some confusion in many reports which were then purposefully exploited by those with an interest in such confusion.

Visitors to the memorial in 1964-65, on the site of the former prison camp, are always informed that it has not been proven that the gas chamber in the crematoria was put into operation.

Faurisson agreed that the second sentence of the reading was an allusion to himself. He did not agree, however, with Pearson’s suggestion that the authors had accurately presented the picture with respect to Dachau. Said Faurisson: “No, if they really said about Dr. Blaha what you told me, it’s not true, because Dr. Blaha didn’t say that there were… experiments. He said that there were gassings, that he was ordered by Dr. Rascher to take care of that. Now, there is something else… this book has been published in 1983 in Germany, and they were not going to say that in Dachau there were gassings. They were already retreating. Any German reading this book could go to Dachau and see a placard saying this was the gas chamber, this gas chamber was never used. So, of course, they were not going to do that, but what I see is that they dare to say – they have the nerve to say that there was a gas chamber in Dachau. What proof?…” (31-8746)

Faurisson pointed out that the Rückerl book also contained confessions by Germans about gassings in Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen although no gas chambers existed in those camps. (31-8746, 8747)

Pearson produced Nuremberg document NO-1611 which purported to be an internal memo of the Reichsführer SS, signed by Himmler, dealing with the clearing out of Jews from parts of Poland and labour camps. (31-8748 to 8757; document NO-1611 filed as Exhibit 132). Was this a document that any competent historian of the period would look at?, asked Pearson. In reply, Faurisson indicated that it was difficult for him to say which of thousands and thousands of documents a competent historian should look at. To Faurisson, the document was of no interest to anybody believing in the extermination. The document, dated 9 October, 1942, was from the Reichsführer SS and was marked “Secret,” like every German document. He agreed that the first paragraph indicated that the Jews were to be taken out of places where they were working, such as in tailoring, fur and shoe-making shops. The document continued:

However, I have given directions to proceed unrelentingly against all those who believe that they have to oppose the step with so-called armament interests, but who in reality only wish to support the Jews and their business.

Faurisson testified that “all those” referred to Germans who claimed they needed to keep their Jewish workers for so-called armament interests. The key to keeping Jewish workers was to claim that they were needed for work having a relation to armaments. Himmler was “fed up with those papers coming from Poland, saying, ‘I want to keep my Jews’.” (31-8759)

Faurisson agreed that what Himmler was saying was that regardless of where they were working, Jews were going to be cleared out and placed in concentration camp factories in the Government-General. Pearson continued reading from the document at Faurisson’s request:

2. The Jews who are in actual armament firms, that is, in weapon production shops, motor-car work shops, etc., are gradually to be taken out. As the first step, they are all to be in one workshop in each plant. As the second step in this procedure, the workers of these separate workshops are to be put together, as far as possible, in separate factories through an exchange, so that eventually we would have only a few separate concentration camp factories in the General Government.

3. We will then strive to substitute Poles for these Jewish workers, and to reduce most of these Jewish concentration camp factories, to a few large Jewish concentration camp factories if possible, in the East of the General Government. Of course, there too, the Jews shall someday disappear, in accordance with the Führer’s wishes.

Pearson put to Faurisson that when Hilberg talked about the ‘Führer’s wishes’, this was an example of a document that Hilberg could rely on. Faurisson replied: “That’s an example, because it was a formula you had, everything with the wish of the Führer. He was always wishing, the Führer.” Faurisson continued: “This document, you see, is quite clear. It means: We have too many Jews in too many of our industry, and especially in the armament. It was dangerous because of sabotage and things like that, and we have document about that and we want to concentrate them in places where they are going to work and to work as hard as the German workers. We have extraordinary documents about that, extraordinary, saying the Jews must work as much as the German workers, but we want to concentrate them and one day when it will be possible, the total separation will be possible and they will go east. That’s what the Führer wishes. He wants them [anywhere] else than in Europe.” (31-8761, 8762)

Pearson suggested that what Himmler was saying was that the Poles were going to take the place of the Jews in the work camps and that the Jews were going to disappear in accordance with the Führer’s wishes. “To disappear from this place. It doesn’t mean that they are going to die or to be killed… The German[s] say as long as it is possible, we are going to keep those people in our factories, and then when it will be possible, we’ll sent them east, and with the war, the success of the Russian army, it was no longer possible,” said Faurisson. (31-8762 to 8765)

Pearson produced the speech of Himmler given at Posen on October 4, 1943, and read an extract to the court:

I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30th, 1934 to do the duty we were bidden, and stand comrades who had lapsed, up against the wall and shoot them, so we have never spoken about it and will never speak of it. It was that tact which is a matter of course and which I am glad to say, is inherent in us, that made us never discuss it among ourselves, never speak of it. It appalled everyone, and yet everyone was certain that he would do it the next time if such orders are issued and if it is necessary.

I mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It’s one of those things it is easy to talk about – “The Jewish race is being exterminated”, says one party member, “that’s quite clear, it’s in our program – elimination of the Jews, and we’re doing it, exterminating them.” And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew.

Pearson suggested to Faurisson that when Himmler said that ‘one day they are going to disappear in accordance with the Führer’s wishes’, he was talking about extermination. Faurisson disagreed: “No… It’s quite true that Himmler talked about the extermination of the Jews, but that’s typically the warrior phraseology that you find everywhere: ‘We’re going to exterminate the enemy’… the proof that it is not a physical extermination is that you have 80 million German saying: ‘Oh, no, this one is a good Jew. You mustn’t exterminate him’… In fact, we have in many other speech of Himmler where he says ‘And we’re… going to exterminate the Jews. This is the decision that I have taken. 200,000 Jews are deported from Hungary to our armaments firm’. That’s what he called ‘extermination’. Big words… if you studied all the speeches of the political men in war, Churchill said things like that about the German: ‘We’re going to devastate entire Germany, to burn all their towns, all their forests’…” The reference to the actions of 1934, said Faurisson, meant that they had to be as hard and as fanatical as they had been in 1934: “No question of saying, ‘Oh, this Jew is too nice’, or ‘I want to keep him’ and so on…” (31-8768 to 8771)

Faurisson testified that, to his knowledge, there was no Hitler order directing the transportation of Jews to transit camps. There was a Himmler text saying ‘transit camps’ and Jews were to be sent to it. There was a budget where monies were set aside for transporting Jews to transit camps. This could be found in Raul Hilberg’s book. Said Faurisson: “We have [every] detail. We know exactly how [much] it cost.” Faurisson pointed out there was financial evidence that there was money to send the Jews to Auschwitz, but it was Hilberg who added the statement that they were sent to their death. (31-8773, 8774)

Pearson suggested there was no blueprint or plan that set out this process of deportation. Said Faurisson: “… there are many blueprints… We have the Korherr report… the Jews in Poland were in one thousand places: towns, ghettos, etc., and the German decided to put them in fifty-five places. And we have a quantity of document[s] about that… The order was to send them to the east. You have the Wannsee Conference. You have the hierarchy. You have Hitler, you have Goering, you have Heydrich. Heydrich says, ‘I am in charge of solving the Jewish problem’. (31-8774, 8775)

Exactly what Hilberg says, isn’t it?, asked Pearson. Faurisson disagreed, pointing out that documents existed proving the deportation, unlike the situation where Hilberg alleged Eichmann made certain statements but had no documents to back it up. Said Faurisson: “We have everything for the deportation of the Jews. Everything. And for the extermination, nothing…” (31-8775)

For Hilberg and the other exterminationist historians, the Reich Security Main Office and the Economical Head Office were the two Nazi offices which were supposed to have had the responsibility for the deportation and extermination of the Jews. The documents from the Reich Security Main Office alone amounted to billions of pieces of paper. Yet, said Faurisson, when he spoke in 1986 with Dr. Henke, the specialist of this question, Henke had to admit that none pertained to gassings. (31-8775, 8776)

Pearson turned to the subject of the Wannsee protocol. Had Faurisson suggested that the Wannsee Conference showed that the goal of Nazi policy was to create a Jewish super race? “No, not a super-race,” replied Faurisson, ‘Not at all, no… It will be the elite… You cannot imagine how Nazism and Zionism are close, one to the other, and what they wanted is this. I perhaps [have] not been clear about the Wannsee protocol. First, I will say that I don’t say anything about the authenticity. You must know my specialty is not authenticity of the document; it is veracity, which is something else. And I say that if you read [the protocol] carefully, you will see that it means this old idea [that] those people are parasites, which means they are too many and they do not work really. ‘We’re going to put them to work. They are going to work in hard condition[s], especially in the east. Men and women will be separated. There will be a natural diminution and those ones who will have suffered and worked, those ones will be an elite’. And the protocol says ‘See the lesson of history’, which means that the event is not going to be new. It’s a kind of event that you can find through history… Those people will be few instead of a multitude, and they will be people trained to hard work and they will be able to have kibbutz. Do you know that near Berlin, in 1942, you have the kibbutz?…” (31-8777, 8778)

Pearson suggested that a much more reasonable interpretation of the paragraph was that if the hardiest were allowed to survive, if they were not exterminated, they would come back and work their way back into society: that was the lesson of history. Faurisson disagreed again: “No, excuse me. Maybe it’s reasonable, but the text does not say that. The text quite clearly says that they will be liberated. Then, there will be a renaissance, a revival. See the lesson of history.” (31-8778)

Faurisson did not agree with Pearson’s suggestion that the Nazis thought they were doing the Jews a favour: “They were saying to the Jews: ‘You are going to suffer, and to begin with, you are going to work [hard] in Auschwitz’… We have thousand[s] and thousands of paper[s] of Auschwitz. Do you know that in Auschwitz we have reports about Jews refusing to work? Or Jews complaining because they had been smacked by the man surveying their work?… and the man obliged to justify that[?] Do you know that we have report about German soldiers who in 1944 were, [in] front of a military court, condemned to death, executed, because this officer had killed one Jew in a Russian village?…” (31-8779, 8780)

In the National Socialist optic, said Faurisson, the Jews who survived and were released “would be normal. They will not be people living in every country. They will have… final solution. They will have a country like everybody, and it will be possible to treat… those people as normal people.” (31-8780)

To the Nazis, the Jews always presented a problem and they thought they had found the solution, but they did not want to send them to Palestine, said Faurisson, “because, and I quote ‘of the noble and valiant Arab people’. You’ll find that [on] page 76 of the book of [Henri] Monneray on the persecution of the Jews in the eastern territories.”^[22] (31-8781)

Faurisson agreed that he took issue with Hilberg’s view that Himmler issued an order to stop the extermination on 25 November, 1944. Hilberg had supported this statement by reference to the affidavit of Kurt Becher. In this affidavit Becher claimed that Himmler issued an order which said:

By this order, which becomes immediately effective, I forbid any extermination of Jews and order that, on the contrary, care should be given to weak and sick persons.

Hilberg, said Faurisson, had used this affidavit to say, not that Himmler ordered the stopping of the extermination, but the stopping of gassings. The alleged order had used the word ‘extermination’ but what was the meaning of that word? (31-8786)

Pearson read from volume 11, page 335 of the IMT “Blue Series”, and the evidence of Kaltenbrunner concerning Kurt Becher:

KALTENBRUNNER: … I am glad that this witness, Becher, was found and that this statement is available, because it proves, first that in September or October 1944 Himmler was forced to issue this order – that same Himmler about whom it has been definitely established that since 1939 or 1940 he had become guilty of the crime of killing Jews on the largest scale.

And now we must find out why in September or October Himmler had given such an order. Before I had seen this document I stated yesterday and today that this order was issued by Hitler on my representations, and obviously this order from Himmler is based on another order which he received from Hitler.

Faurisson testified that what Kaltenbrunner had said was “pure hypothesis. We don’t have anything there.” (31-8788)

Pearson turned to page 336 of the Nuremberg trial transcript and read a portion of Kaltenbrunner’s testimony:

COL. AMEN: Defendant, you have heard evidence at this Trial with respect to the meaning of the phrase “special treatment,” have you not? Have you heard that in this courtroom?

KALTENBRUNNER: The expression “special treatment” has been used by my interrogators several times every day, yes.

COL. AMEN: You know what it means?

KALTENBRUNNER: It can only be assumed, although I cannot give an accurate explanation, that this was a death sentence, not imposed by a public court but by an order of Himmler’s.

COL. AMEN: Well, the Defendant Keitel testified that, I think, it was a matter of common knowledge. Have you not at all times known what was meant by “special treatment”? “Yes” or “no,” please.

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes. I have told you; an order from Himmler – I am referring to Hitler’s order of 1941, therefore also an order from Hitler – that executions should be carried out without legal procedure.

So Kaltenbrunner testified that “special treatment” meant killing, didn’t he?, asked Pearson. Faurisson answered that it could mean that and it could mean exactly the opposite. Faurisson pointed out that Kaltenbrunner had suffered two [brain] hemorrhages before testifying, but that later in his testimony, as seen on pages 338 and 339, he recovered his spirit and indicated that in a document produced to him by the prosecutor, “special treatment” for certain internees meant a daily bottle of champagne, three times the normal ration for diplomats (which was nine times the normal ration of the ordinary German during the war), and the right to receive parcels and visits. Faurisson emphasized that the meaning of Sonderbehandlung (“special treatment”) depended entirely on context. (31-8789, 8790)

Pearson turned next to the book Six Million Did Die, and the photographs on page 19. Faurisson reiterated that he believed the photograph of the British soldier bulldozing bodies was misleading because the head of the soldier had been cropped. Said Faurisson: “… the head has been cut, and the reader cannot see that it is a British soldier. Now, my comment about that… is that the reader seeing that in that specific context in the book… I think his only understanding of this picture… is that the Germans were cynical enough and organized enough to systematically push with a Caterpillar all those bodies.” (31-8793)

Faurisson testified that the same type of interpretation would be given to the photograph on the same page showing German women throwing bodies into a pit: “… historians… people… who have a training, wouldn’t [make] this mistake, but an ordinary reader could see that and think that those German women were systematically doing that everyday, pushing bodies in a pit.” (31-8794) Faurisson agreed that the caption between the photographs said:

Belsen – From the film exhibited at the Eichmann Trial.

He agreed that on page 18 of the book, it was written:

At the Eichmann Trial, films taken both by the Germans themselves and by the Allied armies soon after liberation were exhibited to the Court.

Faurisson agreed there was a reference to the book Justice in Jerusalem by Mr. Gideon Hausner, the prosecutor at the Eichmann trial, in which Hausner wrote:

“The liberation scenes followed. Germans, who were ordered to carry the decomposed corpses into huge graves, were shown in the performance of the task and, finally, the most sickening sight of all: bulldozers pushing heaps of dead bodies like refuse into a sort of dumping pit…”

Doesn’t it make it crystal clear that they are talking about after liberation?, asked Pearson. Replied Faurisson: “Yes. If you make the relation between this written text and pictures, of course, I think that it is quite a good explanation, but… it is, as you say, crystal clear… for the one who takes care of looking through the text, as everybody should do, but as everybody [does] not do…” Faurisson pointed out that, especially today, it was too much for many people to read the text. A caption with the photographs, however, was only a few words and not difficult to read. The fact that the head of the British soldier had been cropped: “… it’s not for me an innocent fact.” He believed it had been done deliberately. There were many books on the Holocaust, said Faurisson, that did this type of thing. (31-8795, 8796)

Pearson turned to Did Six Million Really Die?, and quoted from page 30:

· Nothing better illustrates the declining plausibility of the Six Million legend than the fact that the prosecution at the Eichmann trial deliberately avoided mentioning the figure.

Pearson then quoted from page 49 of Six Million Did Die, where Suzman and Diamond stated:

That no mention of the Six Million was made in the course of the proceedings is simply untrue, as appears from the very first words of the opening address of Mr. Hausner:

“As I stand here before you, Judges of Israel, to lead the prosecution of Adolph Eichmann, I do not stand alone. With me in this place and at this hour, stand six million accusers.”

Faurisson testified that if this quotation was correct, then Harwood was wrong. The transcript of the Eichmann trial would have to be checked. Faurisson himself believed that Harwood’s statement was wrong. He did not believe it was “false,” as suggested by Pearson. Said Faurisson: “I would say ‘wrong’. Meaning [it] could be a mistake. We do so many mistakes. We mustn’t forget that.” (31-8798 to 8799a)

Pearson returned to Did Six Million Really Die? and quoted from page 4:

A great deal of careful research into this question, however, has now convinced me beyond any doubt that the allegation is not merely an exaggeration but an invention of post-war propaganda.

Faurisson testified that the accusations and exaggerations began even during the war. However, the people who spread these rumours did not meet with much success during the war. Success came in March, April and May of 1945, when Dachau, Buchenwald and Belsen were liberated. Faurisson agreed with Harwood that it was something which arose more in the post-war era than the war period itself. (31-8799b)

Pearson raised the Joint Allied Declaration of 17 December, 1942, and quoted from the second paragraph:

In Poland which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again.

Faurisson indicated that Pearson should not stop reading at that point and Faurisson continued reading:

The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.

It was normal, said Faurisson, that the Allies should issue a declaration in 1942 using those kinds of words to show that Germany was an awful country. At that time, there were thousands of articles in the New York Times talking about extermination, but what did people really know for sure? The declaration spoke of extermination, but what did they mean exactly? In Faurisson’s opinion, it did not mean gas chambers or anything specific. If the Allies had known something like a physical extermination in gas chambers was occurring, they would not have behaved as they did. (31-8799d, 8799e)

Pearson turned to the subject of the New York Times article by Lawrence, introduced by Professor Browning. Was it Faurisson’s position that Lawrence had never gone to Majdanek? Faurisson replied that Lawrence did go to Majdanek, but pointed out that the camp was occupied (or liberated) by the Soviets, who had waited for one month before allowing the visit by journalists purely for propagandistic purposes. The Soviets prepared everything for the visit; after one day interviewing people provided by the Soviets the journalists left saying they were ready to believe anything. (31-8799f)

Faurisson agreed that he had testified that there were thousands of pairs of shoes at Majdanek because there was a shoe factory there. Do you think that Mr. Lawrence wasn’t smart enough to see the difference between new shoes and old shoes?, asked Pearson. Replied Faurisson: “You had new shoes and you had, as in every camp, you had workshop for the shoes. You had transformation of old shoes, material of old shoes into new shoes. Through[out] Europe it was like that. Everything was recuperated. Even pieces of string. The hair [was] recuperated. Every week in France, the hairdresser[s] had to give the hair. It was taken. It was recuperation. Everything which was in copper, in leather, in wood, whatsoever, was recuperated, and in those camps you had heaps of things…  recuperated, but not only in the camps. Everywhere.” (31-8799g)

And that’s where Dr. Hilberg says the budget came for running the gas chambers, right?, asked Pearson. “Bring a proof between the shoes and the sending the Jews in the gas chamber[s],” said Faurisson. “Please show me the link.” (31-8799g)

And the gold taken out of the teeth?, asked Pearson. “Show me the link,” replied Faurisson. (31-8799g)

 

April 19, 1988

Pearson produced Faurisson’s testimony in chief concerning Dachau which he read to the court. Faurisson had stated that of the 206,206 people who were in Dachau from 1934 to 1945, “something like 15 percent died, 85 percent survived, and if we have to believe the Jewish Encyclopaedia… 80 to 90 percent of those people were Jews.” (32-8807) Pearson produced volume 5 of the Encyclopaedia Judaica and read from the “Dachau” entry:

It was at Dachau that German doctors and scientists first experimented on prisoners. Many died as a result of these pseudo-scientific experiments, and those who survived were often maimed for life. Dachau claimed many victims of want and starvation. From time to time there was also a “selection” in which the weak and crippled were sent to the gas chambers in other camps. Gas chambers were built in Dachau but were never used. The exact number of people killed in Dachau is not known; at the least there were more than 40,000, of whom probably 80-90 % were Jewish.

Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the 80 to 90 percent of the people who were killed at Dachau were Jews, not 80 to 90 percent of the survivors. Faurisson testified that he did not say that 80 to 90 percent of the survivors were Jewish, and that was not what he meant. His only mistake, in his opinion, was saying “died” instead of “killed.” What was interesting for Faurisson was that there were so many Jews in the western camps where there were no gas chambers. Faurisson himself believed the high number of Jews allegedly in Dachau was an exaggeration, but it was something he had not checked. (32-8809 to 8811)

Pearson returned to Six Million Did Die, page 49, where the authors had written:

Eichmann, at his trial admitted that on 20th January 1942, 15 high ranking Nazis (including Eichmann himself) assembled at Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, where ways and means of implementing the so-called “Final Solution” (“Endloesung“) were decided upon, after different methods of extermination had been debated. This fateful Wannsee Conference was the central event in the history of the “Final Solution”.

Pearson read from the transcript of Faurisson’s testimony in chief concerning this passage. Faurisson had testified it was totally false to say that the fateful Wannsee Conference was a central event in the story of the “final solution.”; that there was nothing in the Wannsee protocol about methods of extermination being debated. If there had been such a debate, he had noted, there would be no debate today between the functionalists and the intentionalists. (32-8812 to 8814)

Pearson read from the transcript of the Eichmann trial as reproduced in Raul Hilberg’s book Documents of Destruction:

PRESIDING JUDGE: … Now, in connection with the Wannsee Conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about the means of extermination, systems of killing.

A: Yes.

Q: Who discussed this subject?

A: I do not remember it in detail, Your Honour. I do not remember the circumstances of this conversation. But I do know that these gentlemen were standing together, or sitting together, and were discussing the subject quite bluntly, quite differently from the language which I had to use later in the record. During the conversation they minced no words about it at all. I might say furthermore, Your Honour, that I would not have remembered this unless I had later remembered that I told myself – Look here, I told myself, even this guy Stuckart, who was known as one of these uncles who was a great stickler for legalities, he too uses language which is not at all in accordance with paragraphs of the law. This incident remained engraved in my memory and recalled the entire subject to my mind.

Q: What did he say about this subject?

A: In detail I do not –

Q: Not details in general, what did he say about this theme?

A: I cannot remember it in detail Your Honour, but they spoke about methods for killing, about liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records.

So you will agree, asked Pearson, that Eichmann, at his trial, did testify that at Wannsee there was discussion about methods of killing not reflected on the record and that Suzman and Diamond were referring to this trial testimony? Faurisson replied that he did not agree with this conclusion. He agreed Eichmann had said this in his testimony but was referring to a chat which occurred after the conference was over. In the Wannsee protocol itself, there was not the slightest proof of such a conversation. (32-8820)

Pearson returned to Did Six Million Really Die? and read from page 4:

To date, the staggering figure of six thousand million pounds has been paid out in compensation by the Federal Government of West Germany, mostly to the State of Israel (which did not even exist during the Second World War), as well as to individual Jewish claimants.

Pearson produced Exhibit 131, Focus On, previously introduced by Faurisson, which showed that a total of 85 billion Deutsche marks had been paid out by West Germany, of which 3 billion were paid to the state of Israel. Pearson suggested to Faurisson that the Harwood statement that most of the money had been paid to the state of Israel was therefore false, and had been proved so by his own evidence. Faurisson agreed that most of the compensation had been paid to individual claimants and not to the state of Israel. Faurisson noted, however, that there were many people inside Israel who received compensation. He could not be sure whether Harwood meant Israel and its inhabitants or just the state of Israel. (32-8820 to 8824)

Pearson returned to Did Six Million Really Die?, page 30:

As for Israel, Rassinier sees the myth of the Six Million as inspired by a purely material problem. In Le Drame des Juifs européen (P. 31, 39), he writes: “… Perhaps I may be allowed to recall here that the State of Israel was only founded in May 1948 and that the Jews were nationals of all states with the exception of Israel, in order to underline the dimensions of a fraud which defies description in any language; on the one hand Germany pays to Israel sums which are calculated on six million dead…”

Would you agree, asked Pearson, that no where in any of the agreements is money payable calculated on 6 million dead? Replied Faurisson: “It’s not paid on 6 million multiplied by something. It’s paid on the fact that it is said that the Jews suffered a Holocaust of 6 million people. A gigantic Holocaust.” (32-8825)

Pearson put to Faurisson that the reality was that the government of Germany agreed to assist Israel in settling people who had moved there after the Second World War. Faurisson replied: “This was the…  foundation of the debate. The Jewish organization[s] and Nahum Goldmann and Ben-Gurion said we have to accommodate 500,000 Jews coming from Europe. This was one of the base[s] of the debate, but it was not the only argument.” (32-8825)

What was being suggested in Did Six Million Really Die?, said Pearson, was that the 6 million figure was used to determine the amounts that were paid in reparations and Faurisson knew that was false, didn’t he? “If it meant that, it would be inexact, but it means it’s a Holocaust of 6 million and we need money,” said Faurisson. (32-8825, 8826)

Pearson returned to Focus On and read from page 3:

Indemnification for Persecution of Persons

The BEG laws compensate those persecuted for political, racial, religious, or ideological reasons – people who suffered physical injury or loss of freedom, property, income, professional and financial advancement as a result of that persecution. In addition to racial and political victims of the Third Reich, the law includes compensation for artists and scholars whose works disagreed with Nazi tenets. It also provides compensation for people who were persecuted merely because they were related to or friendly with victims of the Nazis. Finally, it guarantees assistance to the survivors of the deceased victims.

The BEG legislation extends far beyond the responsibilities assumed by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Transitional Treaty and in the Luxembourg Agreement. Of 4,393,365 claims submitted under this legislation, between October 1, 1953 and December 31, 1983, 4,390,049 or 99.9 percent had been settled by January 1, 1984. Up to this date, payments equaling DM 56.2 billion had been made. Approximately 40 percent of those receiving compensation live in Israel, 20 percent reside in the Federal Republic of Germany and 40 percent live in other countries.

Pearson suggested that even using Faurisson’s definition of the state of Israel, it was clear that most of the money was not paid to Israel or the people living in Israel. Faurisson replied that a calculation would have to be made. It would also be interesting, said Faurisson, to know how many Jews were included in the 40 percent of compensation recipients living in countries other than Israel. (32-8827)

Pearson returned to Focus On and read from page 1 and 2:

… Dr. Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, made the following historic statement before the Bundestag (Parliament) on September 27, 1951: “The Federal Government and the great majority of the German people are deeply aware of the immeasurable suffering endured by the Jews of Germany and by the Jews of the occupied territories during the period of National Socialism. The great majority of the German people did not participate in the crimes committed against the Jews, and wish constantly to express their abhorrence of these crimes. While the Nazis were in power, there were many among the German people who attempted to aid their Jewish fellow-citizens in spite of the personal danger involved. They were motivated by religious conviction, the urgings of conscience and shame at the base acts perpetrated in the name of the whole German people. In our name, unspeakable crimes have been committed and they demand restitution, both moral and material, for the persons and properties of the Jews who have been so seriously harmed…”

Faurisson testified that after reading Nahum Goldmann’s book, The Jewish Paradox, he believed this money had been extorted from West Germany: “I know very well Mr. Adenauer never said there was an extortion, of course. Of course, he wouldn’t say that.” Faurisson agreed that Adenauer had made this speech in the Bundestag and continued: “The German are saying that since 1945. They are always saying [mea culpa]. Of course, nothing new in that….” (32-8828, 8829)

Pearson turned to Exhibit 121, the letter which Faurisson had received from Richard Harwood, dated May 30, 1975. Faurisson testified that the letter was one of a series of letters between himself and Harwood, but he did not have the copies of the others. There were many letters that he did not keep copies of. He could not say what was in the other letters. It had happened thirteen years before. He had not even remembered he had this letter and was surprised to find it two days before he came to Toronto. Faurisson testified that he had found the booklet of Harwood’s very interesting at the time but had been anxious about one possible mistake, that of the statistics attributed to Raul Hilberg. He had probably asked Harwood what he was doing at the University of London and whether he was a teacher. (32-8831 to 8834)

Faurisson mentioned that pages 163 to 165 of the German historian Helmut Diwald’s book were suppressed and totally changed because Diwald had written that in spite of all that had been written about Auschwitz, essential points were still not clear. In the next edition, the total opposite was put in and even the illustrations were changed. Faurisson emphasized he was interested in anyone who held revisionist views, not just professors. He was keen to know what was happening and kept in contact by writing letters such as the one to Harwood. (32-8834, 8835)

Well, you know now that the fellow who wrote the letter to you lied about his name, don’t you?, asked Pearson. He isn’t Richard Harwood, is he? Faurisson replied: “That’s not a lie. That’s a nom de plume… There are so many people using nom de plume. What’s wrong with that?” (32-8835)

You know, asked Pearson, that the Historical Review Press was a publishing house essentially for the National Front?

“Sir, I don’t know anything about that. If that’s politics, I don’t care. I am not interested… I told you because it is the truth. I am not interested in that at all. I don’t mind the political ideas of the people. Even if somebody is a National Socialist, I don’t say, ‘Oh, you are a Nazi, I don’t listen to you’. I listen to everybody. You are Nazi, you are Jew, you are Communist, I am interested. Please. Tell me what you have to tell me. If I can get information, it is interesting. I shall certainly not say, ‘Oh, you are a Jew so you are a liar’ or ‘You are a Nazi so you are a liar’. I don’t practice like that.” (32-8836)

Faurisson agreed with Pearson that he attended the first convention of the Institute for Historical Review in 1979 and that Udo Walendy attended as well. Faurisson could not remember if Ditlieb Felderer or Mark Weber were present. Faurisson could not remember what the first resolution passed at the convention was. Pearson suggested that it was decided at the 1979 convention to launch a campaign against the Holocaust. Faurisson agreed. Pearson further suggested that Did Six Million Really Die? was a part of this campaign. Replied Faurisson: “What does it mean that this is a part of a campaign. What does it mean?” Pearson answered by suggesting that the purpose of the campaign was to cover up the crime. Asked Faurisson: “To cover up what?” Pearson replied, To cover up the crime… Hitler’s crime. The Nazi crime. The Holocaust. Said Faurisson: “Answer, no. I am not interested in covering crimes.” (32-8836 to 8839)

X X X X X X X X X 

This ended the cross-examination of Faurisson by Crown Attorney Pearson. The re-examination of Faurisson by defence attorney Doug Christie began.

Faurisson testified that he had been involved in seven lawsuits in France. Of these, he had won four and lost three. All of the lawsuits related to what he had found concerning the extermination theory. (32-8842, 8843)

Christie asked Faurisson if all of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal had been read to him. Faurisson replied that it had not and indicated that there were parts in the judgment that demonstrated the difference between the judgment and current historical opinion. One of these was the finding by the Tribunal that soap was made from the fat of Jews. This was something which was not accepted by Raul Hilberg, which Faurisson could prove by looking at Hilberg’s book, if allowed to do so. Judge Ron Thomas stated there was no dispute about this point. (32-8844, 8845)

The figures of dead at Auschwitz had also changed from 3 million dead during the period Hoess was in charge from May, 1940 to December of 1943 to the current figures of 1 million Jews (Raul Hilberg) and 1.4 million Jews and non-Jews (Georges Wellers). (32-8846)

It was put to you, said Christie, that nowhere in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal was there a reference to gassings at Dachau. Was there any reference to gassings at Dachau in the evidence before the Tribunal? Faurisson replied: “Yes, many times they talk about gassings in Dachau. For example, in the film which was projected, a place was shown as a homicidal gas chamber. That’s why in the judgment, when they mentioned Auschwitz and Treblinka and [no] other camp, it’s only because they gave two example[s]. But for the accused, for everybody attending the Nuremberg trial, there had been a gas chamber and gassings actually in Dachau.” (32-8847)

Christie asked Faurisson to describe Kaltenbrunner’s condition when he testified at Nuremberg. Faurisson indicated that Kaltenbrunner had suffered two brain hemorrhages. (32-8848)

Christie asked Faurisson to read from Dr. Christopher Browning’s article “The Revised Hilberg” at page 294:

In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the “Final Solution” have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: “Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.” In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.

Faurisson turned next to the second edition of Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews, published in 1985, and read from page 53, 55 and 62:

The process of destruction unfolded in a definite pattern. It did not, however, proceed from a basic plan… Who shared in this undertaking? What kind of machinery was used for these tasks? The machine of destruction was an aggregate – no one agency was charged with the whole operation. Even though a particular office might have exercised a supervisory… function in the implementation of a particular measure, no single organization directed or coordinated the entire process… The destruction of the Jews was thus the work of a far-flung administrative machine. This apparatus took each step in turn. The initiation as well as the implementation of decisions was largely in its hands. No special agency was created and no special budget was devised to destroy the Jews of Europe. Each organization was to play a specific role in the process, and each was to find the means to carry out its task.

Christie indicated to Faurisson that during cross-examination the Crown had shown him a letter from Goering to Heydrich dated July 31, 1941 with the suggestion that it was proof of a plan of extermination. Had Browning given any other indication concerning this letter? Faurisson testified that he remembered that Browning, either in a book or in an article, said that the letter from Goering did not have the meaning usually given to it by many historians. (32-8852) Christie produced Browning’s Fateful Months, page 21, where Browning had written:

On July 31, 1941, Heydrich received Göring’s authorization to prepare a “total solution” (Gesamtlösung) of the Jewish question in those territories of Europe under German influence and to coordinate the participation of those organizations whose jurisdictions were touched. The significance of this document is open to debate. Most historians have assumed that it refers to an extermination program. In contrast Broszat and Adam have interpreted it in terms of a “comprehensive program for the deportation of the Jews” to Russia and an attempt by Heydrich to strengthen his jurisdictional position to carry out this task, though Adam at least admits that no evidence of concrete planning in this regard has been found.

Faurisson returned to the subject of Eichmann and whether methods of extermination had been debated at the Wannsee Conference. Faurisson read again the portion of Six Million Did Die were Suzman and Diamond had written at page 49:

Eichmann, at his trial admitted that on 20th January 1942, 15 high ranking Nazis (including Eichmann himself) assembled at Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, where ways and means of implementing the so-called “Final Solution” (“Endloesung“) were decided upon, after different methods of extermination had been debated.

Faurisson read next from Hilberg’s Documents of Destruction, page 102, where an excerpt of Eichmann’s trial testimony was reproduced:

Q: How long did this conference go on and what happened after the conference was over?

A: The conference itself took only a very short period of time. I can’t recall exactly how long it lasted, but it seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it didn’t take longer than an hour or an hour and a half. Of course, the gentlemen who participated in it would later on be standing in small groups to discuss the ins and outs of the agenda and also of certain work to be undertaken afterwards…

PRESIDING JUDGE: … Now in connection with the Wannsee conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about the means of extermination, systems of killing.

A: Yes.

Faurisson pointed out that this showed that it was after the meeting was over that methods of extermination were allegedly discussed, not during the meeting itself. Said Faurisson: “It’s very, very grave because any reader… would think, reading this, that it meant that those nasty Germans were in Wannsee near Berlin, they held a conference, first part would have been what are going to be the different methods of extermination, second part, the means and ways… to implement that, which is totally false.” (32-8859) Faurisson continued reading on pages 103 and 105:

Q: Who discussed this subject?

A: I do not remember it in detail, Your Honour. I do not remember the circumstances of this conversation. But I do know that these gentlemen were standing together, or sitting together, and were discussing the subject quite bluntly, quite differently from the language which I had to use later in the record. During the conversation they minced no words about it at all. I might say furthermore, Your Honour, that I would not have remembered this unless I had later remembered that I told myself – Look here, I told myself, even this guy Stuckart, who was known as one of these uncles who was a great stickler for legalities, he too uses language which is not at all in accordance with paragraphs of the law. This incident remained engraved in my memory and recalled the entire subject to my mind.

Q: What did he say about this subject?

A: In detail I do not –

Q: Not details in general, what did he say about this theme?

A: I cannot remember it in detail Your Honour, but they spoke about methods for killing, about liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records. I had to make the preparations for taking down the minutes. I could not perk up my ears and listen to everything that was said. But it filtered through the small room and I caught fragments of this conversation. It was a small room so from time to time I heard a word or two.

Q: I believed that this was the official part of the meeting, of the conference.

A: The official part did not take too long.

Q: Was this in the official part of the conference, or not? It was my belief that this was in the official conference because this should have been included in the protocol of the meeting, although nothing is mentioned.

A: Well of course, it was in the official part, Your Honour. But again this official part had two subdivisions. The first part where everyone was quiet and listened to the various lectures, and then in the second part, everyone spoke out of turn and people would go around, butlers, adjutants, and would give out liquor. Well, I don’t want to say that there was an atmosphere of drunkenness there. It was an official atmosphere, but nevertheless it was not one of these stiff, formal, official affairs where everyone spoke in turn. But people just talked at cross vertices.

Q: And were these also recorded by the short-hand typists?

ACCUSED: Yes, yes – they were taken down.

PRESIDING JUDGE: And you were ordered by someone not to include it in the memorandum of the meeting – in the official Protocol of this meeting, weren’t you?

ACCUSED: Yes, that’s how it was. The stenographer was sitting next to me and I was to see to it that everything would be taken down; then she deciphered this and then Heydrich gave me his instructions as to what should be included in the record and what should be excluded. Then I showed it to Heydrich and he polished it up and proof-read it and that’s how it was kept.

Q: And that which was said about this very important theme, you cannot remember at all – is this what you say?

A: Well, the most important thing here was…

Q: I did not say, the most important – I said it was an important theme, and important enough to be excluded from the record.

A: Well, no. The significant part from Heydrich’s point-of-view, was to nail-down the Secretaries of State, to commit them most bindingly, to catch them by their words; and therefore, it was quite the contrary – the important part did go into the record and the less significant ones were excluded. It was, I would say, that Heydrich wanted to cover himself, wanted to be sure that each and every one of these Secretaries of State would be nailed-down – and these matters, therefore, were put down.

Q: That means to say that the methods of killing – the systems of extermination – was not an important theme?

A: Ah! the means of killing…

Q: That is what we are speaking about – the means of killing.

A: No, no – this of course was not put into the record – no, no!

Q: Did they discuss killing by poison gas?

A: No, with gas – no.

Q: But, how then?

A: It was… this business with the engine, they spoke about this; they spoke about shooting, but not about gas.

 

Faurisson testified that in another portion of Eichmann’s testimony, he had been asked about the killing installations in Auschwitz and whether he had seen them. Said Faurisson: “… his answer is ‘Oh, yes’, and suddenly he says, ‘I am not sure I have seen them because I cannot remember the surroundings. Maybe I have been told about that’. Then he says, ‘Oh, maybe I have read about that,’ and you could see the drama of Eichmann in that place. He didn’t remember what he had seen, what he had read, etc. And we understand that because in his jail, he had the right to read people like Poliakov, and exterminationist people and as many, many German, he believed. He said, ‘My dear, in Auschwitz, they might have [done] those things after all – … That’s to give an idea of Eichmann having to answer to those questions. Because you might be surprised to… see how hesitant he is in his answers. And it could be that he is lying. It could be that he is sincere.” Faurisson had read in a British newspaper that Eichmann had lived in very, very difficult conditions during his incarceration. (32-8866, 8867) This ended Dr. Robert Faurisson’s testimony.

[End of Part 4/4]

______________

Notes

[19] Faurisson’s testimony was prophetic. Time (March 16, 1992) reported the eruption of a national debate in France over the alleged “words of hate” in the French national anthem.
[20] George DeWan. “The Holocaust in Perspective.” Newsday [Long Island, New York], Feb. 23, 1983. See testimony of Hilberg, supra, for portions of article and Hilberg’s confirmation that he was quoted accurately.
[21] KL Auschwitz in den Augen der SS (Państwowe Muzeum w Oświęcimiu, 1973).
[22] Henri Monneray, La Persécution des juifs dans des pays de l’Est présentée à Nuremberg.