For Adelaide Institute (South Australia),
a 25 minute video
Sunday, 19 July 1998
* Bridge on the river Allier. Traffic. Roadsign: `VICHY'.
* Faurisson at home. His opening words were "Dear Dr Töben, dear Mr Brockschmidt," but the young cameraman, a novice, missed the very beginning so that, as the video starts, one hears only "Dear Mr Brockschmidt".
* The Professor tells of how he recently explained the revisionist view of a part of the Second World War to a young Russian as he was showing him around the city, pointing out three particular sites within 300 metres of one another:
1. the First World War Memorial, with its two long lists of French servicemen killed between 1914 and 1918;
2. the Casino, in whose theatre the French parliament met on the 10th of July 1940 and voted plenary powers to Marshal Pétain;
3. the Hôtel du Parc, the Marshal's wartime residence until his arrest and evacuation by the Germans on 17 August 1944.
* Faurisson announces that, as a safety precaution (and particularly for the sake of the cameraman), he will deliver his commentary not at these spots, where it normally should be given, but back at the house.
* After that presentation the two men go out to the three spots, which are all shown, the last one rather quickly because of the impossibility of getting a shot of the Klarsfeld plaque inside.
* Then, suddenly, Faurisson is seen in a park close by his house, at a fourth, unannounced spot: it is the place where, on the 16th of September 1989, he was attacked and seriously injured by three Jewish thugs who had come for that purpose from Paris. No-one has ever even been brought in for questioning about this crime, which was indeed attempted murder.
* Next he is seen back at home, standing on his balcony rather than seated. He explains how, just as Voltaire in his fight against what he called "superstition", the revisionists will neither win nor lose their battle with a very powerful "superstition": the religion of the Shoah backed up by all the might of Shoah business.
The viewer is asked to be so good as to bear in mind that:
1. this was the young cameraman's first experience with video production;
2. Faurisson had agreed, upon request, to keep the running time under 30 minutes;
3. there was neither a "first draft" nor any interruption, and neither cutting nor editing.
Had he had more time Faurisson would have included a summary of the end of his conversation with the young Russian (enrolled in a political science programme at a University 0n the outskirts of Paris), and thus spoken of the following:
1. his thoughts on Marshal Pétain, on Pierre Laval (a sort of Prime Minister of the Vichy government), and on the Germans before and after 8 May 1945;
2. the fact that, for many people, the principal reason why it was right to collaborate with Germany was not at all antisemitism but rather anti-communism;
3. the reason why the revisionists challenge the official (in fact the Jewish) version of World War II.
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.