This was to have been published in
the September 1999 issue of Vierteljaheshefte für freie
Geschichtsforschung along with the "offener Brief"
[open letter] by co-author Jürgen Graf responding to the
Robert Faurisson critique of our book, [1] but when it was not possible to include
my response at that time due to space limitations, my response
was postponed. For a while I decided to forego my response so
as not to add further fuel to the polemics, and I held back until
I saw the Faurisson reply to the Graf letter. [2] That is what convinced me that I too must present
my point of view on this, and felt this was especially necessary
since the critique by Robert Faurisson refers so much to parts
of our book which I wrote; therefore it would not be proper that
Jürgen Graf assume all the responsibility.
An Emotional
Critique
The June 1999 VffG article by R.
Faurisson titled Eine Rivionistische Monographie über
Majdanek (pp. 209-212) was supposed to be a critical review
of KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie
(Castle Hill Publisher, Hastings 1998), a book I wrote in collaboration
with Jürgen Graf, but that Faurisson critique is imbued with
emotional factors in what is perceived as unsound scientific methodology
whereby the author mixes up the argumentative plain with that
of the personal, resulting in a belittling malevolent review of
our work which is clearly aimed at a superficial readership.
The Only
Revisionist Work Without Merit
For Robert Faurisson our book has
practically no historical merit.
In the 319 pages of our work,
Faurisson found only "ein paar sehr interessanten Seiten"
[a few interesting pages] in the chapter dedicated to the Erntefest,
but he then hastens to declare his dissatisfaction because the
conclusion of that chapter is introduced by an unsatisfactory
"sehr wahrscheinlich" [most probably], obviously due
to lack of documents. This reproach is amazing: what does Faurisson
expect - that I make up some documents in order to render conclusions
more "satisfactory"? As to the rest - well, for example
if someone who was radically critiquing the Faurisson thesis regarding
the impossibility of homicidal gas chambers were to question just
where those unregistered Jews ended up who were deported to Auschwitz,
would not Faurisson also be constrained to respond that "sehr
wahrscheinlich" they were transferred elsewhere? And if that
conclusion doesn't make Faurisson's conclusion regarding the Auschwitz
gas chambers unsatisfactory, then why on earth would he make mine
unsatisfactory regarding the Erntefest?
A False
Problem
Faurisson puts forth five arguments
(which we shall examine) to show that no official historian has
regarded KL Majdanek as a "Vernichtungslager" [extermination
camp] as though we had asserted that all official historians had
considered it as such! In reality we stated the following:
"Der offiziellen westlichen Geschichtsschreibung
zufolge diente Majdanek zugleich als Arbeits- und Vernichtungslager"
(p.14).
[According to official Western historiography, Majdanek was used
as a work - as well as an extermination camp].
Because Faurisson creates a false problem,
his rebukes are unfounded right from the start; he misconstrues
our intentions since the purpose of our book, as explicitly stated
on page 18, is to fill a historiographic gap; a valid endeavor
since at that time no scientific study of Majdanek had as yet
existed. In order to explain the situation, we concisely set out
in our introduction, positions of both Western and Polish holocaust
historiography - according to which, Majdanek was both a concentration
and an extermination camp, or only an extermination camp - as
well as that of a revisionist position.
Although we took into consideration the most authoritative works,
whether in book form or articles, it was not our intention, nor
was there any reason whatsoever, to draw up a boring list of every
author who had ever written a few lines about Majdanek. Regarding
this, Faurisson rebukes us for not indicating to the reader the
"völlige Verwirrung" [total confusion] which also
reigns among official historians who attribute to KL Majdanek,
the function of a "Vernichtungslager" - a confusion
which manifests itself concretely in the "Schwankungen in
der vorgegebenen Zahlen der Opfer" (p. 209) [Variations in
the claimed number of victims]. Actually, we devoted ("Die
Zahlen der westlichen Historiker") [the Western historians'
figures] on pages 88-89, to this question.
The True
Problem
The essential problem discussed
in our book is not whether Majdanek was a "Vernichtungslager",
but whether the still existing gas chambers were or were not used
for homicidal purposes. Faurisson on the other hand, not only
creates a false "Vernichtungslager" problem, but attempts
to sustain his thesis by turning to inconsistent arguments. It
is true that at the Nuremberg trial (argument 1, page 209) KL
Majdanek received practically no emphasis, but in documents URSS-29
and URSS-93, it was presented by the Soviets as an 'extermination
camp' equipped with homicidal gas chambers. L. Poliakov (argument
2, page 209) wrote that, yes, Majdanek ´n'était pas
un camp d'extermination immédiateª [was not an immediate
extermination camp], but then added that ´c'était
un camp de travail, c'est-à-dire un camp d'extermination
différéeª [it was a labor camp, which is to
say a camp of deferred extermination | citation
1] and, following the Polish Commission of Inquiry, Poliakov attributed
200,000 victims to Madjanek for the years 1941 and 1944.[3] In 1983, Poliakov published an account
of the Eichmann trial at Jerusalem in which he reported on the
sentence [against Eichmann] in entire passages, and in point 126,
referring to KL Majdanek, we read:
´Le camp de Majdanek, un grand camp
près de Lublin, servait également de lieu d'extermination
de Juifs. Ils y étaient tués par fusillades et
par les gaz. [...]. Des chambres à gaz furent egalement
installées à Majdanekª
[Camp Majdanek, a large camp near Lublin, served also as a Jew
extermination center. They were killed there by firing squads
and by gas. [...]. Gas chambers were also installed at Majdanek | 4 | citation 2].
As far as I am aware, Poliakov never contested this part of the verdict. G. Reitlinger (argument 3, page 209) emphasized that at Majdanek "crystals of Zyklon B were used although on a reduced scale" [5] and he is certainly not referring to disinfection chambers. M. Broszat [argument 4, page 209] in his famous letter to Die Zeit of 19 August 1960 simply omitted the Majdanek camp from the list of camps in which, in his own words, there was "die Massenvernichtung durch Vergasung" [mass extermination by gassing]. [6] Nonetheless, in 1976 Broszat added the Majdanek camp also to the list (mentioned above in the "Preliminary Note") in the article "Organisierter Massenmord an Juden in nazionalsozialistischen Vernichtungslagern" [organized mass murder of Jews in National Socialist extermination camps] by Ino Arndt and Wolfgang Scheffler. [7]
The citation (three words!) dealing with the 08 May 1950 sentence
by a Berlin Tribunal (argument 5, page 209) refers to the Sobibor
trial. So for Faurisson, three words written by some Berlin judges
giving their verdict on Sobibor, and who had no expertise regarding
Majdanek, have the same weight as conclusions drawn by Jerusalem
judges who dedicated part of Session Number 63 of 02 June 1961
to this camp with the support of witness Yisrael Gutman, and apparently
were as weighty as those more important conclusions of the Dusseldorf
judges of whose judgement concerned exclusively Majdanek! With
the same logic, Faurisson then places authors who have written
a few lines or who have simply mentioned Madjanek , on the same
level as those who have devoted books and articles to it. In this
regard he passes over in silence our citation on page 14 of the
authoritative Enzyklopädie des Holocaust, which attributes
to Majdanek either a homicidal gas chamber or the character of
a Vernichtungslager (p. 14).
An Insignificant
Concentration Camp?
Faurisson asserts that in (Western)
literature on the Holocaust, Majdanek has a totally secondary
value or even an insignificant one, and that "die beiden
Verfasser dieses Buches hätten den Leser darauf aufmerksam
machen müssen (p. 209) [the authors of this book should have
made the reader aware of this]. This rebuke reveals a divulging
perspective antithetical to the scientific character of our work.
If Faurisson is in the habit of writing to those who are not familiar
with what is significant about concentration camps, then that's
one of his personal choices which I respect, however he cannot
claim to impose this upon us; our book is directed to the specialist
essentially, and not to revisionists only.
Faurisson takes as a personal rebuke our simple contention (which
we made without the least intention of being polemic) that there
had been no revisionist scientific work on Majdanek, and he feels
the need to justify himself by adducing "Bedeutungslosigkeit"
[insignificance] for this camp in the holocaust literature. The
Faurisson take on this is the following: Official historians attribute
hardly any importance to Majdanek, ergo neither
should revisionists busy themselves with it! This implies a rather
narrow historiographic viewpoint. It is as if the task revisionism
were to exclusively and uniquely negate that which official historians
have affirmed! In this way, adversaries are shown to be right
when they define revisionism as negationism. The bottom
line of the Faurisson rebuke is that our book is absolutely useless
after all because the essential conclusions concerning Majdanek
have already been announced by himself, so that "jetzt haben
J. Graf und C. Mattogno sie lediglich bestätigt" (p.
209) [Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno merely confirm this
now]. Faurisson then lists his declarations on Majdanek, starting
with 1975 when he discovered "dass es in Majdanek keine Gaskammern
zur Menschentötung gab oder gegeben haben kann" [that
in Majdanek there were not and could not have been gas chambers
for killing people], and then Faurisson rebukes us for not writing
of his declarations as well as those of D. Felderer ( p. 210).
And the pretense of that argument of his about the "Bedeutungslosigkeit"
[insignificance] of KL Majdanek is transparent, because if Majdanek
really had no significant historiographic weight, then why was
Fred Leuchter sent by Ernst Zündel - in fact, upon the
very suggestion of Robert Faurisson himself !
Unjustified
Claims
Faurisson maintains that revisionist
historians had already resolved the Majdanek gas chamber problem
before Jürgen Graf and I wrote this book. That passage deserves
to be quoted in full:
"Wenn nämlich
ein Thema als nur zweitrangig oder als zu vernachlässigen
angesehen wird, dann vernachlässigt man schon mal, sich
ernsthaft damit zu befassen; und so ist es geschehen. Die Exterminationisten
haben nicht auf Majdanek beharrt. Wenn sich die beiden Verfasser
des Buches zudem nur die Mühe gemacht hätten, gewissenhaft
alles anzuführen, was Revisionisten, angefangen mit D. Felderer,
R. Faurisson und F. Leuchter, hier und da über diese Thema
geschrieben haben, dann hätten sie darüber hinaus schon
den Beweis dafür in Händen gehabt, dass diese Historiker
der revisionistischen Schule mit ihren schlagkräftigen Beweisen
und ihrer rein sachlichen Forschungsarbeit das 'Problem der Gaskammern
von Majdanek' ziemlich schnell gelöst hatten" (p. 212).
[If a topic is judged to be merely of secondary importance or
insignificant, then one fails to deal with it earnestly and this
is what has happened. The exterminationists did not insist on
Majdanek. If the authors of this book had carefully read everything
that the revisionists, starting with D. Felderer, R. Faurisson,
and Fred Leuchter had occasionally written on this topic, they
would have had proof that the revisionist historians, with their
conclusive evidence from purposeful research, already explained
the problems of the gas chambers at Majdanek].
Let us recapitulate: Faurisson first asserts
that Majdanek was not significant - neither for official, nor
for revisionist historians; that nobody from either side occupied
himself "seriously" with it; and then, in contradiction,
he claims that certain above- mentioned revisionists have not
only busied themselves with it "seriously", but even
scientifically! But actually, Majdanek has had quite a central
position ever since Faurisson's first important public debate.
It was in response to the Faurisson article "Le problème
des chambres à gaz"où "La rumeur d'Auschwitz"
[The Problem of the Gas Chambers, or The Rumor of Auschwitz] which
appeared in Le Monde, 29 December 1978, that G.Wellers,
on the same page, stated:
"Il faut savoir que
les chambres à gaz dans les camps où étaient
exterminés les Juifs et les Tziganes (Auschwitz, Belzec,
Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka) ont été détruites
par les Allemands avant la fin de la guerre, à la seule
exception de Majdanek." [8 | citation 3].
[It must be noted that the gas chambers in the camps where the
Jews and Gypsies were exterminated (Auschwitz, Belzec, Majdanek,
Sobibor, Treblinka) were all destroyed by the Germans before
the end of the war, with the sole exception of Majdanek].
Now how can one believe that Robert Faurisson,
after launching a challenge for public debate on the problem of
the gas chambers, would consider insignificant the one camp where
there were still homicidal gas chambers in existence? As a matter
of fact within a few months later, Faurisson confirmed the importance
of the Majdanek camp when he stated in his interview with Storia
illustrata published in August 1979 that: "A Majdanek,
en revanche, ils [les Allemands] ont laissé intactes des
installations qu'après la guerre on a baptisées
du nom de 'chambres à gaz' " [9 | citation 4].
[At Majdanek, however, they (the Germans) left intact installations
which after the war were given the name 'gas chambers'].
Therefore, since Robert Faurisson launched the problem of the
gas chambers which he considered to be radically impossible [10] and opposed the contention that uniquely homicidal
gas chambers were to be found still in existence at Majdanek::
the logic of the matter required that the key to the problem of
the gas chambers was precisely at Majdanek, and in order to ascertain
whether the installations which were still in existence were or
were not gas chambers; were or were not homicidal gas chambers;
whether their function for homicidal purposes was or was not radically
impossible, the discussion could not but start from this camp
- could not but be centered on this camp.
If then Faurisson eluded this discussion by diverting it to Auschwitz,
that was certainly not because of the "Bedeutungslosigkeit"
of Majdanek!
This pointing out of the problem of the gas chambers (which goes
back to the 1970's) - was lacking, inasmuch as Faurisson neglected
the gas chamber of Stutthof which would have merited an equally
prominent position in the discussion of the possibility of homicidal
gassings; and if the discussion had begun with this camp, it would
have floundered irremediably, since the disinfestation chamber
at Stutthof which used hydrocyanic acid - [that particular disinfestation
chamber] is the unique alleged homicidal gas chamber of the German
concentration camps which would have been able in a technically
unexceptional way to also have worked for homicidal purposes.
[11]
Let us now turn to Faurisson's "schlagkräftige Beweise"
[striking evidence] concerning Majdanek.
The fact that in our work there is no hint of Felderer nor of
Faurisson is a consequence of a well thought-out determination.
Contrary to what Faurisson thinks, we have in fact examined very
"gewissenhaft" [conscientiously] what he himself and
Felderer have written "hier und da" on the subject,
and it is just because of this - precisely because of the vacuity
of their statements - that we decided not to mention them at all
in our book, but on the other hand, in the general economy of
our book, there was no need to place Felderer and Faurisson in
a bad light by showing- up publicly the vacuity of their claim,
as Faurisson now compels me to do. If we have done that now -
yes, we have given proof of true "Böswilligkeit"
[malevolence] by his comparisons. But actually, just where are
the "schlagkräftige Beweise", where is the "rein
sachlichen Forschungsarbeit"[purely material research work]
of which Faurisson speaks? We weighed up the weak deposition concerning
Majdanek which Felderer made at the 1988 Zündel trial.[12] There the witness spoke of the "gas chamber"
- always in the singular, from which one can deduce just to what
degree his inspection of the installations was accurate. The one
and only argument appearing there which was in opposition to the
allegation of homicidal gassings, is the following: "The
gas was allegedly discharged through openings into the gas chamber
by an SS man from an attic above the chamber. Felderer examined
the attic in which he found it extremely difficult to maneuver
because of the proximity of the roof and the number of nails".
In fact, the present roof of that installation, which makes it
effectively difficult to move in the "attic" which is
formed from the roof and the attic of the gas chambers, was constructed
after the war by the Poles. The original Flugdach which covered
the installation had a height of 5.5 m, so it was elevated 3.05
m above the level of the attic of the gas chambers, and upon which
a man could therefore walk comfortably in an upright position.
Hence Felderer's argument doesn't have any demonstrative value.
Regarding Faurisson, we certainly know that he has affirmed already
for decades that the gas chambers of Majdanek were a disinfestation
installation without any homicidal function - but in his writings
we found no proof: not documental, architectural, chemical,
or of any other kind except simple affirmations, which therefore
revisionists have had to accept entirely by virtue of the authority
principle ipse dixit.
In "Vérité historic où vérité
politique" [Historical Truth, or Political Truth] which
appeared in 1980, Faurisson wrote:
"Pour ce qui est
de Majdanek, la visite des lieux des lieux s'impose. Elle est,
s'il se peut, encore plus concluante que celle du Stutthof. Je
publierai un dossier sur la question"
(p. 871). [citation 5]
[As for Majdanek, that place must be visited. A visit there,
if it can be made, is even more conclusive than one at Stutthof.
I shall publish a dossier on that.]
Well, we've been waiting since 1980 for
the appearance of this dossier; but in any case, the Faurisson
affirmations according to which the gas chambers of Majdanek were
disinfestation chambers, are misleading - above all because he
has never touched upon the essential problem of the alleged homicidal
system using carbon monoxide which is said to have worked with
two stainless-steel cylinders filled with this gas. Before my
discovery that they bear the inscription CO2 (carbon dioxide),
these cylinders were alleged to be carbon monoxide cylinders:
Now how might Faurisson reconcile a gassing using carbon monoxide
(which is neither an insecticide nor a germicide) with a disinfestation
gassing? And consequently, how could Faurisson affirm that the
two localities equipped with such a system were simply disinfestation
chambers? Secondly, he has never explained why the disinfestation
chamber - which has been restored to its original condition -
could never have been used for homicidal purposes using hydrogen
cyanide.
Therefore the Faurisson claims to priority in argument or even
to proof regarding the gas chambers of Majdanek are completely
unjustified; concerning Majdanek, Faurisson has not demonstrated
anything.
The Leuchter
Report
In my chapter on the "gas
chambers" of Majdanek, the Leuchter Report could not be passed
over in silence. The balance sheet of my critical analysis of
the Leuchter Report is negative. Again muddling the personal level
with that of the argumental, Faurisson accuses me of having displayed
"leichtfertige persönliche Angriffe auf einen Gegner
[...], der sich nicht einmal wehren kann" (p. 212). [careless
personal attacks on an opponent who is not able to defend himself].
Well, just to what degree Mattogno is Leuchter's "enemy"
can be judged from the fact that every time the opportunity has
arisen, I have defended Leuchter against unfounded criticism by
true adversaries. For example, in my Olocausto: Dilettanti
allo sbaraglio [Holocaust: Dilettanti into the Fray], (Edizioni
di Ar, 1996), I dedicated an entire chapter in the defense of
Leuchter (Rapporto Leuchter: La parola agli "esperti")
[The Leuchter Report: What the "experts" say], against,
inter alia, the unfounded accusations of Pressac!
Now, however difficult it might be to understand the distinction,
I have not made "persönliche Angriffe" on Leuchter
but have presented a documented critique of his unfounded argumentations,
and as to what degree my critique is "leichtfertige"
can be measured by the fact that Faurisson does not discuss even
one of them. In this case as well, the reader has to be satisfied
with an ipse dixit. As to the reproach that I have critiqued
someone who cannot defend himself, even if that were true, that
is ingenious, since according to that logic, nobody in whatever
field, could critique authors of the past, who, being deceased,
can no longer defend themselves!! To cite an example more in tune
with our theme, no revisionist could critique the writings of
Georges Wellers who died in 1991 and cannot defend himself any
longer, and no "exterminationist" would be allowed to
critique the works of Rassinier! It is obvious that in most cases
someone who cannot defend himself - for whatever reason - could
have supporting defenders.
Now since Faurisson had a conspicuous part in the planning, and
presumably the editing of The Leuchter Report - who should
be more capable than he to refute eventual "leichtfertige"
criticisms which are raised? What better opportunities therefore
to demonstrate the "Böswilligkeit" [malevolence]
of Mattogno? But instead, Faurisson dodges this correct exercise
with the excuse that my criticism "bezieht sich auf ganz
geringfügige Punkte" (p. 210) [is about totally insignificant
issues], betraying his inability to respond to my critique on
a debate level - hence the strictly personal and emotional character
of his accusation.
Now let us examine one of these "ganz geringfügige Punkte"
in its context. Leuchter writes:
Recapitulating, Leuchter observed in Chamber
III stains of ferric-ferro cyanide similar to those in BW 5a and
5b of Birkenau, which are therefore due to the use of hydrocyanic
acid, but maintains that this chamber not only was not designed
for hydrocyanic acid, and not only was it non-operational for
hydrocyanic acid, but it could not even have been a disinfestation
chamber! Well then - if you please: how could the stains of ferric-ferro
cyanide have formed on its walls? How can one define the conclusion
of Leuchter except as a deliberate deception? Does not this deception
alone justify the hard tone of my criticism?
In this objective criticism of Leuchter, Faurisson sees only the
presumed fact that "in der Geschichtsschreibung der Revision
des 'Holocaust' Revisionisten mit einer Böswilligkeit sondergleichen
in aller Öffentlichkeit andere Revisionisten bekämpfen"
(p. 212). [that in the historical writings of the 'holocaust',
revisionists are attacking other revisionists with utmost malevolence].
Evidently here two antithetical conceptions of revisionism confront
each other: That of Faurissonism as a sectarian ideology, and
ours, as a critical methodology. Only a dogmatic and sectarian
historiography can consider scientific criticism as gratuitous
"Böswilligkeit". [malevolence].
In addition, Faurisson accuses me of methodological unfairness;
that is, from the fact "dass C. Mattogno nicht einmal F.
Leuchters Beweisführung darlegt " [that Mattogno does
not even present Leuchter's proof], to have referred to the arguments
of Leuchter through his declared enemy, Pressac; in short, for
having cited "nur winzige Bruchstücke seines Gutachtens"
(p. 210) [only tiny pieces of his report].
In a "NB" ("Note Well") he states that "nur
wenige Revisionisten kennen den Leuchter-Bericht über Auschwitz,
Birkenau und Majdanek in seinem ganzen Umfang" (p. 212) [only
a few revisionists know the Leuchter Report in its entire volume
or know the whole Leuchter Report].
This is a reproach aimed at me, since the citations of the Leuchter
Report which appear in our book are drawn from the abbreviated
translation by U.Walendy. Rest assured, Faurisson: I am one of
the few who possesses the integral American edition of the Leuchter
Report. The analysis of Leuchter's arguments on Majdanek used
the original text, but for obvious reasons the Editor preferred
to refer to the German translation already in existence as the
"official" version, so to speak.
The fact that I had cited the "enemy" Pressac's judgement
of the part of the Leuchter Report which refers to Majdanek, and
that I agreed with this judgement, can scandalize only those who
attribute to Pressac the demonic character of the absolute lie,
the ontological incapacity to grasp the truth, which up to now
his most virulent adversaries have attributed to Faurisson himself!
In any case, it is false that I made reference to Leuchter's arguments
through Pressac, as well as that I had exhibited "nicht einmal"
the "Beweisführung" [not even the proof] of Leuchter;
in reality, my critique is based upon the integral reading of
Leuchter in the original American edition from which I cited the
salient passages, i.e. those indicated in notes 426 and 430-439
(pp. 154-156) of our book. The accusation that these citations
are "nur winzige Brüchstücke" [only tiny pieces]
of the Leuchter Report - which openly contradicts the accusation
that "C. Mattogno nicht einmal F. Leuchters Beweisführung
darlegt [C.Mattogno does not even demonstrate Leuchter's proof]
- certainly does not depend upon my malevolent lack of goodwill,
but rather on the fact - which everyone who has an original copy
of the Leuchter Report knows - that Leuchter has written only
a little regarding the gas chambers of Majdanek - to wit - a little
less than three pages (points 12.001-12.006 and 17.00-17.008),
of which one and a half pages: i.e. points 17.000-17.004 contain
no arguments, but only a description of the installations. The
arguments are displayed in a little over one page covering points
12.002-12.006 and 17.005; those worth discussing do not cover
more than eight points! But the Leuchter Report in translation
is accessible to everyone in various languages, each of which
carries the full text of the expert report - first of all - the
French translation which was made by Faurisson himself [18] so anyone may verify my citations in their context.
Jean-Claude
Pressac
Then Faurisson reprimands me for
having presented in Chapter VI "ein unvollständiges
Portrait von J.C. Pressac" [an incomplete portrayal of J.C.
Pressac] - as if I were his biographer! - and for having quoted
"lobrednerisch" [praisingly] from his article "Les
carences et incohérences du rapport Leuchter"
[the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the Leuchter Report].
Faurisson adds:
"Leider sagt er uns
nichts über die Schwächen dieser Studie, und vor allem
macht er nicht auf die ganze Reichweite von J.C. Pressacs Kritik
an den aufmerksam, was man die Lügen der Behörden des
Majdanek-Museums nennen muss".
[Unfortunately he tells us nothing about the shortcomings of
this study and most of all he does not make us aware of the significance
of the J.C. Pressac critique which exposes what one must call
the lies of the Majdanek museum officials].
However, I should have pointed out to the
reader the 1989 article where Faurisson had already arrived at
the firm belief "dass Pressac nicht an das Verhandensein
von Gaskammern zur Menschentötung in diesem Lager glaubt"
(p. 211).
[that Pressac didn't believe the gas chambers in this camp were
for killing people].
It is clear that either Faurisson has not understood or has not
wanted to understand the analytical structure of Chapter VI of
our book. There I used the at times perceptive thoughts of Pressac
on the gas chambers of Majdanek solely as a point of departure
for a further, deeper study transcending these thoughts, and often
correcting and refuting them based upon new documentation, and
on a more careful inspection of the locations: that is all. Since
from this perspective, I was only interested in the arguments
pertaining to the gas chambers, there was no reason for discussing
the "Schwächen" [weaknesses] of the article in
question. But on the other hand - to which "Schwächen"
does Faurisson refer?
The 1989 article entitled "Pressac devant le rapport Leuchter"
[19
| Pressac
faced with the Leuchter Report] is Faurisson's only response [20] to Pressac's study "Les carences et incohérences
du rapport Leuchter"; so that should have contained a
proof of the "Schwächen". In reality it proves
nothing - being as vague as it is superficial: It suffices to
say that it claims to demolish the Pressac Auschwitz arguments
in five lines! As for Majdanek, Faurisson cites the passages in
which Pressac expresses serious reservations regarding the use
of hydrocyanic acid for homicidal purposes in the gas chambers,
but he passes over in silence the fact that, for Pressac, "il
ne peut exister le moindre doute sur la criminalite"
[citation 6 | there cannot exist
the slightest doubt as to the criminal nature] of the alleged
system using carbon monoxide, and that Pressac thinks that the
Majdanek gas chambers originally constructed as disinfestation
chambers, were transformed into gas chambers operating with carbon
monoxide.[21] And it
is only due to this omission that Faurisson can write:
"Sur
Majdanek, je ne crois pas exagéré de dire que Pressac
ne croit pas à l'existence de chambres à gaz homicides
dans ce camp". [22
| citation
7]
[Concerning Majdanek, I think it is not an exaggeration to say
that Pressac does not believe in the existence of homicidal gas
chambers in that camp].
Well, in fact, it's not an exaggeration
[to say that] - it's false [to say that].
Regarding Pressac's criticism of the "Lügen der Behörden
des Majdanek-Museums" [the lies of the Majdanek Museum staff],
it concerns a few brief hints of the first stories concerning
homicidal gas chambers, a subject to which we have devoted an
entire chapter! [23] For my
part, the impression I have of the present authorities of the
Majdanek Museum - beginning with the Director - is that they are
deserving of respect.
Faurisson attributes to Pressac an evolution in a revisionist
direction regarding his ideas on the Majdanek gas chambers, and
consequently rebukes me for not mentioning the publications in
which this evolution is supposed to have appeared.
These are: The article , "Les camps de la mort" [Death
Camps] (Historia, n.34/1995) where according to Faurisson,
Pressac presented a "vernichtend" [exterminating] treatment
of the Majdanek gas chambers and, Auschwitz: Technique and
Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989), where Pressac "anerkannte,
dass die sinnbildliche Gaskammer von Majdanek, die immer wieder
als zur Menschentötung bestimmt präsentiert wird, in
Wirklichkeit eine Entwesungskammer war". Naturally, "C.
Mattogno übergeht das mit Stillschweigen"
[acknowledged that the symbolic gas chamber, constantly presented
as one where humans where killed, was indeed used as delousing
chamber]. [Naturally, C. Mattogno passes over this in silence].
Well, even if this were true, I don't see why I had to mention
this presumed evolution: the object of Chapter VI of our book
is the gas chambers of Majdanek, not the history of Pressac's
thoughts on the gas chambers of Majdanek. Actually, in both cases,
Pressac reaffirmed what he had written in the 1988 article, "Les
carences et incohérences du rapport Leuchter".
As to Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,
Faurisson refers to page 557 where in the caption to a photograph,
Pressac does in fact write of "disinfestation gas chambers",
but Faurisson passes over in silence what Pressac writes on page
555: "I am not saying that it was never used to kill people,
for that is still possible", and also his reference to "the
Majdanek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers".
In the article which appeared six years later in Historia,
which should have shown even more clearly the presumed evolution
of Pressac, the latter wrote:
"Puis, le bloc d'épouillage
subit une dernière modification, ne visant plus à
améliorer la destruction des poux mais à asphyxier
les Juifs inaptes au travail. Le toxique retenu fut le monoxyde
de carbone en bouteille métallique, estimé moins
dangereux à manipuler que le Zyklon-B. Une des pièces
fut divisée en deux. Ne furent équipées
de tuyaux de diffusion du gaz carbonique qu'une grande pièce
de 34 mètres carrés et une des deux petites de
17 mères carrés, ce qui permettait de tuer respectivement
170 et 85 personnes à la fois".[24 | citation 8].
[Then, the delousing barracks underwent one last change, which
did not aim at improving the elimination of lice but at asphyxiating
the Jews unfit to work. The poison chosen was carbon monoxide
[contained] in metal cylinders, considered less dangerous to
handle than Zyklon B. One of the rooms was partitioned in two.
Only the one big room (34 sq. meters) and one of the two smaller
rooms (17 sq. meters) were fitted with pipes to diffuse the gas;
thus it was possible to kill 170 and 85 persons respectively
at a time.]
And this is supposed to be a "vernichtend"
[destroying] treatment of the homicidal gas chambers of Majdanek?
So Pressac has never changed his ideas on the homicidal gas chambers
of Majdanek, and Faurisson is also in error about this.
Erudition
and Crematoria
In addition, Faurisson accuses
me of excessive erudition! Well, since he himself has always cited
every possible source imaginable, and has displayed excellent
erudition, this rebuke is indeed quite surprising - however his
observations concerning the capacity of the crematory ovens in
the concentration camps are of a naïve superficiality. Faurisson
asserts (as an example of my poor mastery of this subject) that
if one wishes to demonstrate that the cremation capacity cited
by the official historians is exaggerated, "dann braucht
man keine hochtechnischen Betrachtungen über die Bauweise
der Verbrennungsöfen und deren Betriebsweise; man wird sich
statt dessen im wesentlichen damit begnügen, uns zu sagen,
was heute, nach einem halben Jahrhundert, die Verbrennungsleistung
irgendeines Krematoriums unserer Städte ist. Die Zahlen sprechen
für sich selbst".
[one doesn't need a highly technical elaboration about the construction
methods of the crematory and the way they functioned; instead,
it would suffice to tell us today, half a century later, what
the capability of any one of the crematoriums of our cities would
be; the figures would speak for themselves].
Well, Faurisson shows that he has no idea of the problems associated
with cremations. Evidently he doesn't know that the construction
of a crematory oven and its conduction system are fundamental
factors regarding cremation capacity. As to crematory capacities
of ovens which were built in the 1940s, simple comparison to the
output of present-day crematory ovens is fallacious criteria for
judgement, which inevitably leads to false conclusions - to give
one example: From the cremation registration list at Terezin which
I possess [25] - it emerges
that the average duration of a cremation was 36 minutes, with
daily through-puts of even less than this. For example: On 11
October 1943 in oven number IV, between the hours of 06:00 and
19:30, twenty-five cremations were carried out giving an average
of approximately 32 minutes per cremation. Now what present-day
crematory can boast of such a similar performance? For an authoritative
source, Faurisson then appeals to the statements made at the Zündel
trial by Ivan Lagacé , the director of the Calgary crematorium,
on the basis of which Leuchter made his calculations on the cremation
capacities of the Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek crematory ovens.
Barbara Kulaszka summarizes what Lagacé stated regarding
the cremation capacity of his crematory ovens: "Factory recommendation
for normal operation was a maximum of three cases per day in a
normal eight hour work day". [26] A crematory oven of the crematorium at Terezin
cremated within eight hours normally 13 to 15 corpses - that is
four or five times as many! And this shows even more clearly how
fallacious are the comparative methods invoked by Faurisson. Naturally
it would be just as fallacious to abstractly attribute the cremation
capacity of the Terezin crematory ovens to those of Auschwitz
because the building construction, and above all the conduction
system of the respective facilities were totally different. In
other words, in order to form a judgement based upon cremation
capacities, "hochtechnischen Betrachtungen über die
Bauweise der Verbrennugsöfen und deren Betriebsweise"
[highly technical considerations concerning the construction of
the crematory ovens and their operating systems] are literally
quite necessary.
Some Hardly
Veiled Advice To Our Contributors
With regard to our travels and
our supporters, Faurisson writes:
"Haben die beiden
Verfasser wirklich geglaubt, sie könnten sich mit der Herausgabe
dieses Buches bei denen ins rechte Licht setzen, die ihre Expedition
in Ostpolen, in den baltischen Staaten und Russland finanziert
haben - ein Unternehmen, das übrigens keineswegs ihren grossen
Hoffnungen und unseren Erwartugen entsprach? Dies fragte ich
mich" (p. 212).
[Did the authors really believe that by publishing this book,
they could make themselves look good in the eyes of those who
financed their trip to Eastern Poland, the Baltic states and
Russia - an endeavor which never fulfilled our hopes and expectations?
This is what I ask myself.]
Now this is a clear exhortation to our
contributors to not help in the financing of our continuing research
- and regarding this, Faurisson has no right so to speak. He has
neither the right nor the competence to judge the results of our
travels; he does not have the right since he does not figure among
our contributors, and he does not have the competence because
he does not know the full import of the results of our research
of which Majdanek is only one example - another example is my
study La Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz
which was published by Edizioni di Ar - another example is the
study by Jürgen Graf and myself, entitled Das Konzentrationslager
Stutthof und seine Funktion in der nationalsozialistischen Judenpolitik,
published by Castle Hill Publishers; included within the ambit
of results are also to some degree my current work: the two-volume
research concerning the crematory ovens of Auschwitz which I have
finally finished. This work is being published and there are forthcoming
works being projected. If the realization of certain projects
require more time than is foreseen, that has been due to the fact
that in the interim I have been diverted from certain work and
have felt the obligation to write two books comprising some 500
pages; to defend among others, Faurisson himself and Leuchter
against unjust attacks from adversaries: (Olocausto: Dilettanti
allo sbaraglio, and L'"irritante questione" delle camere
a gas ovvero da Cappuccetto Rosso ad Auschwitz. Risposta a Valentina
Pisanty) [Holocaust: Dilettanti into the Fray. The Irritating
Question of the Gas Chamber, to Wit: of the Little Red Riding
Hood at Auschwitz. Reply to Valentina Pisanty].
A Lesson
in Style
In conclusion, that critique by
Robert Faurisson does not have the characteristics of rational
argumentation, but is purely emotional.
What is true is that Faurisson has been completely silent about
our "attack" on the theses of Germar Rudolf, displayed
in the same paragraph as our "attack" on the Leuchter
theses. This shows that Faurisson is not interested in the "attacks"
of revisionists versus revisionists, but rather he is interested
in the "attacks" of revisionists versus Faurisson-Leuchter.
And if being "attacked", refers to other revisionists
such as Germar Rudolf - well, that doesn't deserve even one word
of mention! But, Germar Rudolf has rightly given everyone a good
lesson in style: having endured severe criticism on a par with
Leuchter, not only has Rudolf willingly accepted it, but he has
even published the book in which it is set out! Now that is healthy
revisionism.
Conclusion
None with good sense can deny the
merits of Robert Faurisson in the development of revisionism from
its limited form under Rassinier to its present scientific form,
and I myself have been one of Faurisson's earliest supporters
since 1979; but this does not mean that Faurisson is the sole
custodian of a revisionist truth which would be merely dogmatic
- nor that he is the only historiographic measure of all things
by which every new contribution to revisionism must be judged.
This attitude, which may be called Faurissonism, is extremely
damaging for the future development of scientific revisionism
because it tends to minimize, to disqualify, to denigrate at will;
and so to discourage any new contribution which does not assume
Faurissonism as its central core. As opposed to a total
view, it can only appear as futile repetition of what has already
been said, or worse - as worthless confirmations of others' observations.
One purpose of this article is to put on guard those who are open
to criticism against the dangers of this personalized distortion
of scientific revisionism which threatens to hold back its vital
impulse, turning it into a dogmatic and dispirited fossil.
Carlo
Mattogno
This text is posted courtesy of Russ Granata
Edited and Copyrighted © MM by Russ Granata. All rights reserved.
http://www.codoh.com/granata/
granata@codoh.com
POB 2145 PVP CA 90274 USA
Afficher un texte sur le Web équivaut à mettre un document sur le rayonnage d'une bibliothèque publique. Cela nous coûte un peu d'argent et de travail. Nous pensons que c'est le lecteur volontaire qui en profite et nous le supposons capable de penser par lui-même. Un lecteur qui va chercher un document sur le Web le fait toujours à ses risques et périls. Quant à l'auteur, il n'y a pas lieu de supposer qu'il partage la responsabilité des autres textes consultables sur ce site. En raison des lois qui instituent une censure spécifique dans certains pays (Allemagne, France, Israël, Suisse, Canada, et d'autres), nous ne demandons pas l'agrément des auteurs qui y vivent car ils ne sont pas libres de consentir.
Nous nous plaçons sous
la protection de l'article 19 de la Déclaration des Droits
de l'homme, qui stipule:
ARTICLE 19
<Tout individu a droit à la liberté d'opinion
et d'expression, ce qui implique le droit de ne pas être
inquiété pour ses opinions et celui de chercher,
de recevoir et de répandre, sans considération de
frontière, les informations et les idées par quelque
moyen d'expression que ce soit>
Déclaration internationale des droits de l'homme,
adoptée par l'Assemblée générale de
l'ONU à Paris, le 10 décembre 1948.