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

Robert Faurisson


with Radio Islam



My name is Robert Faurisson. I am 62 years old. I am university professor in France and revisionist. First, my best regards to the listeners of Radio Islam and especially to Ahmed Rami. Ahmed Rami asked me seven questions about the Holocaust Revisionism.

First question: What is revisionism?

2. What about the gas-chambers?

3. What about the genocide?

4. What about the six million figure?

5. What about the witnesses?

6. What about two revisionists? One in Canada - Ernst Zündel (Z ü n d e l) and one in USA - Fred Leuchter (L e u c h t e r)?

- Now the last question - what about my recent trial in Paris - 21- 22 of mars? The judgement will be on the 18 of april.

I am going to try to answer those seven questions.

First question - what is revisionism?

Revisionism means to revise a generally accepted fact. E. g. a generally accepted fact was, in the past, that earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. Now, people who had the idea of revising this accepted truth, found that the earth is round. And that the earth goes round the sun. Other examples: Nero set fire on Rome. This is false. Napoleon set fire on Moscow. This is false. Another example: during world-war one germans were supposed to cut the arms of belgian babies or bulgarians, allied to Germany, were supposed to gas the sibs in gas-chambers. This is false. During world-war two gasing was supposed to be a german crime. This is what decided the international military tribunal in Nürnberg in -45 -46. In fact it was a Soviet crime. Another example: gasings were supposed to have happened in Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen. But, in 1960 historians decided - we don't know exactly why, that in fact there were no gasings in Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen, but still they maintain that there were gas-chambers or gasings in Auschwitz and other places. And now quite a recent example of revisionism. To show our revisionism is necessary, see what was told by the journalists about Roumania or Timisoara or the Gulf war.

The first real revisionst was a french called Rassinier (R a s s i n i e r). He was a socialist, a resistant and he was deported to Buchenwald. But when he came back he discovered that so many strange stories were told about this camp and other camps and he thought that he had to check and doubblecheck. And he said, "we have no right to exaggerate and to lie even aganist people that we hate.Truth must prevail." And he discovered that - yes, deportation existed for the jews for example, concentration camps, yes - existed. Gas-chambers for desinfection - yes; gas-chambers for killing people - no. He saw that the figure of six million jewish people killed was a nonsens. And he said that we have to find the real figure of dead and of killed - jew and non-jews. He said also that Zyklon B was used for desinfection and crematories to incinerate the bodies. Today there are revisionists all over the world.

Second question - the gas-chambers:

People usually think that any room could be a homicidal gas-chamber. This is a complete mistake. Especially if the gas used is Zyklon B or hydro-cyanic acid. People mix up suicide by gas or accident by gas with execution by gas. If you wish to gas yourself, it can be rather easy but you might provoke a terrible accident. Among all the weapons gas is the most difficult to handle. If you wish to kill someone with gas, you do not want to kill yourself. Go and visit an american gas-chamber in a penitentiary, they execute only one man. In order to execute only one person you need extraordinary precautions. Air-tightness is a real problem. The most difficult problem arises with HCN Zyklon B because it sticks strongly to surfaces and especially to the body. You need a very strong door for your gas-chamber. Special tools are needed to neutralise the gas after the execution. The doctor and two men enter the gas-chamber with a special gas-mask and have to clean the body carefully because the body itself is poisonned.

In Auschwitz, the execution of 2000 people at one time by Zyklon B is a ridiculous story especially with the members of the Sonderkommando supposed to enter smoking and eating, which means without gas-masks. Now, Zyklon is also explosive.There are many reasons to say that the gas-chamber, to kill someone, was impossible for physical reasons, chemical reasons, topographical reasons, architectural reasons and so on.

3. What about the genocide?

This is the third question. My answer is. There was absolutely no policy for a physical destruction of the european jews. No order, no plan, no budget, no instructions and no weapons. The so called "final solution" was a territorial solution. The so called "Wannsee-protokoll" says expressly, that after the war, the surviving jews will be released and that there will be a jewish revival. At a time the Germans contemplated Madagascar as a place for the "final solution". But with the war it became impossible, so they decided to isolate the jews as much as possible, as enemies of Germany, in concentration camps, transit camps and so on but no extermination camps.

4th question - the six million figure:

At Nuerenberg trial we were told that six million jews had been killed. This figure is preposterous. In 1979 it was accepted by historians that this figure was symbolic, which means false. In fact, many jews died during the war and many survived. See all those organisations of survivers! The question is, what does it mean, many? This question should be answered by people accusing Germany. I think it is possible to answer it. Provided that we could work in Germany in a place called Arolsen, at the international tracing service. But, we are not allowed to go there and make research. Let me give you an example. Until april 1990 we were told that four million people, 90 % being jews, had been killed in Auschwitz. This was even inscribed in 19 languages on a big monument in Birkenau. But in april 1990 the Auschwitz museum authorities decided to take off those inscriptions because this figure, the official figure, at Nuerenberg trial was an exaggeration. They now say - "perhaps one million". This is a revision. This is revisionism. But it is not enough. In fact, I think, I have good reasons to think, that in Auschwitz perhaps 150 000 people died, I say died - not were killed - some were killed of course. And they died especially from typhus.

5th question - the witnesses:

Many people say, "but what about the witnesses?" My first observation would be to say that we are witnesses of everything - even of flying saucers. Every jew, surviving Auschwitz, is a living proof that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp. Many survivors believe this story of the gas-chambers of course. Some jews, some, said that they had seen gasings, but they never underwent a crossexamination on the very fact of those alleged gasings. The first time, some of them were crossexamined on the very fact, it was in Toronto in 1985 at the Zündel-trial. And believe me, it was a disaster for those self-proclaiming witnesses. The famous Rudolf Wrba said that his testimony about Auschwitz, his written testimony, was a poetic rendering and even said, in latin, licentia poetarum. There is not one witness of those gasings.

6th question - what about Ernst Zündel and Fred Leuchter?

Ernst Zündel is a german. He lives in Toronto. He did more than anyone else for revisionism. He was sued in court as so many revisionists all over the world. He was convicted. But, his two long trials, in 1985 and in 1988, were a revelation. They revealed that the jewish professor, Raol Hilberg, the number one of the holocaust historians, was totally incompetent. He had never visited a camp, he knew nothing about the so called gas-chambers. He had mentioned orders from Hitler to kill the jews but, asked to show these orders, he had to confess that they did not exist etc, etc.

In 1988, Ernst Zündel sent Fred Leuchter, a specialist in Boston of execution gas-chambers in american penitentiaries, to Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. Fred Leuchter wrote a 193 page report, including chemical analysis of samples taken in those camps and analysed by an american lab. The result is that there are ample proofs of the existence of desinfection gas-chambers in those camps, but no proof whatsoever that the rooms, supposed to have been a homicidal gas-chamber, were actually such homicidal gas-chambers.

Recently, now this is a scope that I revealed in Brussels last month, we learned that the Auschwitz museum authorities had ordered a counterexpertise of the Leuchterreport to a forein expert in Krakow, Poland. And the result was a confirmation of what Leuchter had said.

7th question - my recent trial:

I had already many trials during those twelwe years. But I don't care. I care only for truth. Recently a law was established in France deciding one month - one year of jail, 2000F - 300 000F for fine to anyone who contests crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuerenberg Tribunal. And this is why I was sued. So I did something very simple. I brought into the courtroom the 42 volumes of the Nuerenberg trial. And I said, "there you have 25 000 pages. Please, find one proof, only one proof, of the existence of one gas-chamber, only one gas-chamber. And now find one proof, only one proof, of the existence of a genocide, which means a plan to exterminate, physically, the jews." And I knew that they could not find even one example, one proof, because the Nuerenberg trial didn't try even to prove this. It was taken as proved. So I do not care. I shall continue. I shall say that this big lie of the gas-chambers, it's a very old lie of 75 years. Because already in 1916, 1917 the bulgarians were supposed to bring the sibs into gas-chambers to gas those people. In 1920 it was recognised that it was a lie. But in the 40-ties some people took this old lie and made a kind of recycling of this lie and said the germans gassed the jews. I do not want to propagate this lie, and I don't care if people call me bad names like antisemite, nazi and so on. I am absolutely not antisemite, nazi and so on.

My conclusion would be: I am optimist for revisionism, but I am pessimist for revisionists because life is going to be more and more hard for us revisionist people. But I consider that revisionism is the big intellectual adventure of the end of this century. And I congratulate Ahmed Rami and anyone in Sweden or elsewhere for their action against a big lie and for truth, freedom and justice.

Taken from Radio-Islam website.

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 <>