Archive/File: orgs/australian/adelaide-institute/statement-of-faurisson
Last-Modified: 1998/04/18

                                                                   [Page 1]
                                                                           
Jeremy Jones and members of the Committee of Management of the Executive
Council of Australian Jewry on Behalf of those members of the Jewish
community of Australia who are members of organisations affiliated to the
Executive Council of Australian Jewry

                                                                Complainant
                                                                           
                                    and
                                     
Fredrick Toben on Behalf of the Adelaide Institute

                                                                 Respondent
                                                                           
Witness Statement: Professor Robert Faurisson, 10, rue de Normandie, 
F 03200 Vichy,  France

3 November 1997

Dear Dr Toben,

I have been informed that an Australian government agency may take legal
action against your Web site. If this is true, then I consider this action
to be a breach of your personal freedom of speech and of everybody's
freedom of research.

I say "freedom of research" because even researchers who have concluded
that the 'genocide of the Jews" during World War 11 and the so-called "Nazi
gas chambers" did exist, had, in the first place, to suppose that such
things did NOT exist; without doing so, no scientific work can take place.

Professor Raul Hilberg, the alleged Number One among establishment
historians of the "Holocaust", published in 1961 The Destruction of the
European Jews. In 1982 he stated in an interview:
I would say that in a certain way Faurisson and others, without having
wanted to do so in the first place, have rendered us a good service. They
have come up with questions which had the effect of engaging the historians
in fresh research work. The historians were obliged to come forward with
more information to scrutinise the documents once again and to go further
in the understanding of what had really happened.

The reference is: Guy Sitbon,  "Les archives de I'horreur/Un entretien avec
Raul Hilberg", `Le Nouvel Observateur,' 3-9 July 1982, p. 70-73, 75-77; p.
71. In January 1985, at the first Zuendel Trial in Toronto, Canada, R.
Hilberg agreed under cross-examination that such had-been his words
(Transcript, p. 868-869).

According to R. Hilberg, "Faurisson and others have rendered the historians
of the Holocaust a good service" in many different ways. Unless he has now
changed his mind (in that

                                                                   [Page 2]
                                                                           
case, why?), I suppose Professor R. Hilberg should be glad to have
Faurisson and Toben possibly rendering him and other historians some good
service in some various ways.

Everyone - even your opponent - has therefore the right to listen to your
arguments when
you say, Dr. Toben, as I do, that there was in fact no "genocide of the
Jews" and no "Nazi gas chambers". It is only after this that individuals
will draw their own Hilbergconclusion from the material presented to them
for their considered thought.

                        A. THE "NAZI GAS CHAMBERS"

Nineteen years ago, in `Le Monde,' 29 December 1978, p. 8, and 16 January
1979, p. 13, 1
expressed the opinion that the "Nazi gas chambers" were a chemical and
technical impossibility. More than one month passed before I received an
answer from thirty-four French scholars,
including Fernand Braudel, the most prestigious French historian, who
stated:

     The question of how technically such a mass murder was possible
     should not be raised. It was technically possible since it
     occurred ... This is the necessary starting point for all
     historical investigation of the subject It has fallen to us to
     recall that point with due simplicity: there is not nor can there
     be a debate over the existence of the gas chambers (Le Monde, 21
     February 1979, p. 23).

For me, that answer meant in 1979, and still means today, that those
historians could not
describe "the weapon of the crime". As a matter of fact, to date, no
tribunal has yet ordered any expert's report on those extraordinary
chemical slaughterhouses (except for the alleged "gas chamber" of
Struthof-Natzweiler in Alsace -France-, the result, in an expert report
dated 1st December 1945, being that it could not have been a "gas
chamber").

Never were we shown the total shape, the technique and the operation of a
"Nazi gas
chamber'. Never have I received an answer to my question: "Show me or draw
me a Nazi gas chamber". The option 'or draw me" is for the people who
believe that the so-called 'gas chambers" shown today in some camps are not
genuine and that the Germans destroyed all their "gas chambers". Never have
I received any answer to my question: 'Could you bring me forward one
proof, one single proof?" Of course, the word "proof means what you, not
me, would call a "proof."

In his famous book, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,
New York,
Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989, 564 p., 45 x 30 cm, Jean-Claude Pressac -
who, contrary to what some journalists have said, never was a revisionist -
could not answer any of my questions. As naive as the thirty-four French
scholars were ten years earlier, Pressac. headed his most important
chapter: "One proof.. one single proofThirty-nine criminal traces" (p.
429). And it is true that, in that chapter or anywhere else in his enormous
book, he did not bring forward anything that could be called a proof.

Nobody answered my two questions about the two rooms shown in Auschwitz I
and
Auschwitz II (Birkenau) respectively as a "partly reconstructed gas
chamber" (R. Hilberg, Zuendel Trial, 1985, Transcript p. 824) and as a "gas
chamber in ruins".

     - As to the first question, I said that the "victims" could not even
     enter that room of Krematorium I since the door by which they were
     supposed to enter in 1941 and 1942 did not exist at that time. Plans
     that I published and premises show this very clearly. This is
     therefore my first argument: "No door, no 'Destruction".
     
     - As to my second question, I said that the Zyklon B pellets, the
     poison, could not even be poured into the alleged "gas chamber" of
     Krematorium II since you need only your eyes to see that the alleged
     'four regular openings in the roof, through which they were supposed
     to be poured in, never existed, neither in 1943-1944 nor today. My
     second argument therefore states: "No holes, no 'Holocaust'".

Among the people who never answered my questions, I have to mention here
Rabbi Marvin
Hier, whom I visited in September 1983 at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in
Los Angeles, and Rabbi Michael Berenbaum, whom I visited in August 1994 at
the Holocaust Memorial Museum

                                                                   [Page 3]
                                                                           
in Washington,

In 1988, Arno J. Mayer, professor of European History at Princeton
University, wrote:

     Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and
     unreliable (`Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?/The 'Final Solution' in
     History" New York, Pantheon, 1988, p. 362).

In 1995, antirevisionist historian and journalist Eric Conan wrote about
Krematorium I and its "gas chamber" visited in Auschwitz by millions of
people: "Everything in it is false" (LExpress, 19-25 January 1995, p. 68).

On 13 June 1995, Jean-Claude Pressac, summoned in court for a trial of
mine, was unable to show in his book Les Crematoires d'Auschwitz/La
Machinerie du meutre de masse (CNRS Editions, 1993) even one photo or one
drawing of a "gas chamber" in Auschwitz.

Staunch antirevisionist historian Jacques Baynac admitted that finally
there is no evidence that any "Nazi gas chamber" ever existed (Le Nouveau
Quotidien -de Lausanne, Switzerland, 2 September 1996, p. 16, and 3
September 1996, p. 14).

                       B. THE "GENOCIDE OF THE JEWS"

As for the "genocide of the Jews", R. Hilberg had, in 1985, to revise
totally his first views as expressed in the first 1961 edition of his book
`The Destruction of the European Jews.' He had finally to admit that there
had been no order, no plan - even in Wannsee -, no instruction, no budget,
no control of such a gigantic enterprise that nobody could imagine without
orders, plans, instructions, a budget and a control. Let's see what could
be the solution of such a mystery. Let's look at what he began to say in
1983. Here are his words as expressed in a conference and as confirmed two
years later at the Zuendel Trial in Toronto, in January 1985, under oath:

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

The reference is: R. Hilberg in a conference, according to George DeWan,
"The Holocaust in Perspective", Newsday (Long Island, NY), 23 February
1983, p. 11. 3. In Toronto, under crossexamination, R. Hilberg confirmed he
had exactly used those words (Transcript, p. 846-848).

Let me briefly comment on "an incredible meeting of minds" and "a
consensus-mind reading". My questions would be:

I - What is a meeting of minds?
2. What is an incredible meeting of minds?
3. What is mind reading?
4. What is a consensus-mind reading?

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
1992, third edition:

- "Incredible" is defined as:

1 So implausible as to elicit disbelief. `gave an incredible explanation of
the cause of the accident'

2. Astonishing: `dressed with incredible speed.'

- "Meeting of the minds" is defined as: "Agreement, concord".

- "Consensus" in that context is defined as a possible simple redundancy -
see "Usage Note" of

                                                                   [Page 4]
that word in the same dictionary.

- And "mind reading" is defined as: "the faculty of discerning another's
thoughts through extrasensory means of communication; telepathy".

Therefore, everyone should have the right to say:

1. 1 am sceptical about such a 'meeting of minds";

2. Since that 'meeting of minds" is described as "incredible", which means
"so implausible as to elicit disbelief' or "astonishing", everyone should
be entitled to express his disbelief or his astonishment;

3. 1 do not believe in 'mind-reading" or "telepathy";

4. This is the first time I see an historian explaining a supposedly
gigantic historical event through "consensus-mind reading" or telepathy; I
do not believe in such an explanation, especially when one has to believe
that this is the way German bureaucrats functioned for years.

                            C. THE "SURVIVORS"

'Survivors" or associations of former Jewish inmates tend to present
themselves or to be presented in the media as 'living proofs" that there
was in Europe during World War 11 a German policy of physically
exterminating the Jews; but, in fact, they should normally be considered as
'living proofs" that there was, in reality, no such policy. Many European
Jews died and many survived. Although it would be possible, no serious
research has yet been done and published on how many approximately died
(for instance, R. Hilberg does not give any source for his estimate of a
total of 5, 100,000 deaths).

As for the survivors, they probably were 3 million at the end of the war,
in 1945, since recently an Israeli Prime Minister's office calculated that,
in mid-1997, 834,000 to 960,000 survivors of the "Holocaust" were still
alive (Adina Mishkoff, AMCHA Office, 13 August 1997, ).

                                CONCLUSION

Freedom of speech may not be an absolute freedom but freedom of research
cannot be limited. This applies especially to the above case which
obviously needs to be much more researched than it has been to date,
particularly by the alleged Number One among establishment historians of
the 'Holocaust' (or of "the Destruction of the European Jews"), R. Hilberg.

Sincerely yours
R. Faurisson

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor