| Accueil général | Homepage English | Faurisson Archive | Archive Faurisson |


Response to Jeremy Jones

Robert Faurisson


[January 1998]

Professor Robert Faurisson responds to Jeremy Jones' statement of 25 November 1997

"Jeremy Jones makes two accusations against the short, 3 November 1997, witness statement that I wrote on behalf of Dr Fredrick Toben. The first accusation is that I misrepresented the Arno Mayer quote:

The second is that I presented material which is in no way relevant to the case.

A. Mayer's quote
I did not misrepresent A. Mayer's quote. I never hide the fact that, in spite of this remarkable 14-word sentence, the author claims that the Nazi gas chambers did exist; All the authors that I mentioned, without exception, claim that the genocide of the Jews and/or the Nazi gas chambers existed. And, if I mentioned them, it was precisely for that reason. In a way I said: "Look! Even those people bring water to the revisionist mill." I did not quote one revisionist author. I mentioned or quoted Raul Hilberg, a declaration signed by 34 French academics, Jean-Claude Pressac, Arno Mayer, Eric Conan and Jacques Baynac.
I specified that the title of A. Mayer's book was The `Final Solution' in History, which obviously means that A. Mayer belongs to the group of historians who believe that "Final Solution" was an euphemism for "Extermination", whereas, in fact, the Germans used to talk about a "territoriale Endlösung", which is a "territorial final solution" of the Jewish problem ( resettlement of Jews in a territory of their own).
What I quoted was the first and significant sentence of a long paragraph. To date (1988), no Jewish historian of the establishment ( A. Mayer is a Princeton professor of European history) had ever written that sources for the study of the Nazi gas chambers were at once rare and unreliable. Before that those sources were at once countless and reliable. In 1988, it came as a surprise that such a prestigious academic could say that he was believing in something for the study of which sources were, according in his own words, at once rare and unreliable.

Other quotes of A. Mayer
If I had more space I could have quoted many other parts of A. Mayer's book. Let's contend with only three quotes:

I could quote many of A. Mayer's nearly revisionist views about the Einsatzgruppen; about the alleged genocidal purpose of the Wannsee Conference; about Hitler himself, and I could underscore the fact that this historian avoided mentioning the alleged `confessions' of Rudolf Höss; the so-called "confessions" of Kurt Gerstein; and the preposterous `Report' of Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler (The Auschwitz Protocols published in November 1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt).

One quote of J. Jones
But let's simply have a look at J. Jones' quote of A Mayer's book. Let's look at what he accuses me of having forgotten. In that quote, we can see that, according to the Princeton professor, there are no traceS of the
alleged murderous activities and instruments of a gigantic murder of the Jews. He dares to say that the reason for the absence of traces is that the SS operatives dutifully eliminated those traces but we see that he offers no proof whatsoever thereof. He adds that we have no written orders and, once more, offers no proof thereof. In passing, notice that "no written order" is here a substitute for "no orders at all" since, if we had other orders than written ones, the professor would have told us. He then writes that we have no bones and no ashes of the victims and, likewise, he contends that care was taken to dispose of those bones and ashes. In fact, let's recall that bones and ashes of cremated bodies were found but none of those mountains of bones and ashes that should have been there if really an industrial extermination of Jews had taken place.
Then, after conceding that we have no hard evidence consisting of orders to kill the Jews, no physical traces of huge numbers of murdered victims, A. Mayer goes on saying that we have only words! Those are the words of people testifying after the war: either Germans or Jews. Moreover, this testimony, he warns us, must be screened carefully. As for diaries, they are rare, and authentic documentS also are said to be rare.
Of course, A. Mayer adds, that, some time in the future, we may get something like additional evidence, private journals and official papers, archives from the Soviets and new information possibly brought by excavations. But the words he uses are revealing; words such as "may", "are likely", "may well". "may also", tend to show that A. Mayer counts on a problematic future to compensate such a disappointing present.
His book was published in 1988. The irony is that what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the - relative - opening of the archives, brought exactly the contrary of what A. Mayer expected. In 1990, with the agreement of at least some Jewish representatives, the Auschwitz National Museum had to remove the inscription of the Auschwitz-Birkenau monument which purported in 19 different languages that 4,000,000 people had died at the camp. After a very long discussion it was decided , five years later, that the new figure would be 1,500,000 which is much more than, for instance, Jean-Claude Pressac believes ( from 600,000 to 800,000) and even far more than, hopefully, it will be revealed one day if the International Tracing Service archives held in Arolsen-Waldeck (Germany) are opened to every searcher.
As for the Sterbebücher (death books) found in Moscow and Auschwitz, they confirm that the revisionists were right when they were saying that the deaths were carefully registered by the Germans, even the deaths of young children; of the elderly; and of "Mosaic" origin who, according to the legend, should have been immediately gassed on their arrival, without being registered.

Jones' misrepresentations
J. Jones does not hesitate to tamper with a text of A. Mayer which is embarrassing for him.
A. Mayer writes:

J. Jones was obviously embarrassed by the facts 1. that the sources were at once rare and unreliable, and 2 that there were, in those existing sources, many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors. He also was upset by the fact that A. Mayer insisted in saying that these cannot be ignored and that he called them "defects". So, J. Jones decided to rewrite the text; he found a way not to mention the many contradictions, ambiguities and errors; he found also a way to ignore what could not be ignored, and he simply erased the "defects". The result is that, according to rewriter J. Jones, A. Mayer is supposed to have written:

One has to admire especially here the way J. Jones stopped his quote after "strongly", replaced "such defects' by "this situation" and continued his quote.

for the second quote about the absurd performances that A. Mayer attributes to the Auschwitz crematories: "provided they operated at full capacity and around the clock", J. Jones forgets to tell us that, in the next paragraph, A Mayer corrects himself. This paragraph begins with: "But many questions remain open" and finishes with : "We have simply no answers to these questions at this time" ( p.366, as already quoted by me).

My material is relevant
My material is relevant to the case since, in my `witness statement', my material came exclusively from authors who, like J. Jones, claim -- without bringing any proof - that the genocide of the Jews and the Nazi gas chambers did exist.

Adelaide Institude Newsletter nummer 67, january 1998, on-line.

First displayed on aaargh: 17 April 2001.

This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <[email protected]. Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:

ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.

[email protected]

| Accueil général | Homepage English | Faurisson Archive | Archive Faurisson |

You downloaded this document from <>