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



Robert Faurisson

Second part of two. See preceding part.


the americans and the soviets go one up on the british

At least, in 1951, a Jewess such as Hannah Arendt had the honesty to write: "It is of some importance to realise that all pictures of concentration camps are misleading insofar as they show the camps in their last stages, at the moment the Allied troops marched in. [] The condition of the camps was a result of the war events during the final months: Himmler had ordered the evacuation of all extermination camps in the East, the German camps were consequently vastly overcrowded, and he was no longer in a position to assure the food supply in Germany" (48). Let us once more recall that the expression "extermination camps" is a creation of Allied war propaganda.

Eisenhower thus followed Churchill's lead and set about building, on an American scale, such a propaganda edifice, based on atrocity stories, that soon everything and anything came to be allowed, as much in regard to the vanquished as to the simple, factual truth. In alleged reportages on the German camps there were added to the true horrors, as I have said, horrors truer than life. Eliminated were the photographs or film segments showing inmates with beaming faces like that of Marcel Paul(49), or those in relatively good health despite the severe shortages or epidemics, or, as at Dachau, the healthy Hungarian Jewish mothers, their babes-in-arms sucking at feeding bottles. There remain only the sickly, the wasted, the human rags who were actually just as much the victims of the Allies as of the Germans, for the former, with their carpet-bombing of the whole of Germany and their systematic aerial gunning of civilians -- even of farm workers in the fields -- had brought about an apocalypse in the heart of Europe.

Respect for the truth will oblige one to remark that neither Churchill, nor Eisenhower, nor Truman, nor de Gaulle was impudent enough to lend credence to the tales of chemical slaughterhouses; they left that job to their propaganda bureaux and to the judges of their military tribunals. Appalling tortures were inflicted on the Germans who, in the eyes of the Allies, were guilty of all of those "crimes"; reprisals were carried out against German prisoners and civilians. As late as 1951 German men and women were being hanged (still in the eighties, the Soviets were to shoot German or German-affiliated "war criminals"). British and American soldiers, at first quite taken aback at the sight both of the German cities reduced to ashes and of their inhabitants turned into cave-dwellers, could go home with peace of mind. Churchill and Eisenhower were there to vouch for the Truth: the Allied forces had brought down Evil; they embodied Good; there was to be a programme of "re-education" for the defeated people, including the burning of their bad books by the millions. All told, the Great Slaughter had come to a happy ending, and had been carried on for the right purpose. Such was the fraud made holy by the Nuremberg show-trial.

a fraud at last denounced in 1995

It took no less than fifty years for a historian, Annette Wieviorka, and a filmmaker, William Karel, to reveal to general audiences, in a documentary entitled Contre l'oubli ("Against Forgetting"), the 1945 American and Soviet stagings and fabrications effected in the context of the liberation of the camps in East and West.

A. Wieviorka, a French Jewess, and W. Karel, an Israeli who has lived in France since 1985, have manifestly been influenced by the French revisionist school. Although quite hostile towards the latter, they have nonetheless admitted that the time has at last come to denounce some of the exterminationist propaganda's most glaring fictions. On this subject one may refer either to an article by the journalist Philippe Cusin(50) or, especially, to another article which Béatrice Bocard prepared for the repeat broadcast of Contre l'Oubli on Antenne 2, a piece whose title alone says a great deal: "The Shoah, from reality to the shows. The indecent stagings by the liberators in the face of the deportees' accounts(51)." In it she wrote:

With only slight exaggeration, it might be said that the liberation of the concentration camps introduced the reality shows []. The first signs of the society of the spectacle which television channels like CNN were to make commonplace fifty years later were already there, with attempts to outdo [one another] at indecency, at voyeurism, and with recourse to staging []. The least infirm of the survivors were made to repeat their script before the cameras: "I was deported because I was Jewish", says one of them. Once, twice []. Not to be left behind by the American "show", the Soviets, who had done nothing at the time of the Auschwitz camp's liberation, shot a "fake liberation" a few weeks afterwards, with Polish extras enthusiastically greeting the soldiers "William Karel is the first to have dissected these false images which we had always been told, until quite recently, were genuine", says Annette Wieviorka. How had it been possible to accept them? "People are not in the habit of questioning images as they question texts", the historian explains. "The example of the mass graves at Timisoara is not too distant."

It goes without saying that, in this article by B.Bocard, the manipulations were presented as being offensive for the deportees. As for the Germans, German soldiers and civilians had denounced this sort of fakery as early as 1945 but, instead of being believed, they were accused of Nazism or antisemitism.

the jewish organisations' patent responsibility for this propaganda

From its origins in 1941 up to today, the propaganda which has evolved around the "genocide" and the "gas chambers" has essentially been the product of Jewish organisations. Consequently the general public have, little by little, acquired the conviction that there existed during the war a programme of physical extermination carried out by the Germans, targeting, above all, the Jews and that the "gas chambers" were in some way reserved for them (including those of the "Sonderkommando" whose supposed job was to lead their fellow Jews to the slaughter). Nowadays, the countless "Holocaust museums" constitute a Jewish monopoly and a Hebrew word, "Shoah" (catastrophe), has more and more frequently come to designate this purported genocide. Whatever their part in the making of the myth and in its success, the Allies have played but a supporting role, and always under various Jewish organisations' pressure. Nonetheless, the Soviet case may have been different: Moscow's fabrication of an "Auschwitz" in which the fate of the Jews was not particularly emphasised may have been born of the need for a propaganda to be directed less towards the populations behind the Iron Curtain than towards Western "progressives".

And the mere fact that today there are Jewish voices being raised to ask that there be less talk of the "gas chambers" has not induced Jewish community leaders to tone down the "Holocaust" or Shoah propaganda. Put simply, from the standpoint of Jewish historians these incredible "gas chambers" have become somewhat burdensome for them in their propagation of the faith in the Shoah.

A French political personality has said that the Nazi gas chambers are a detail of second world war history. Yet, in their respective writings on that war, Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle apparently deemed those chemical slaughterhouses to be even less than a detail, since they did not breathe a word of them. A similar discretion can be noted on the part of the historian René Rémond, who was a prominent member first of the French Comité d'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale (Committee on the History of the Second World War), then of the Institut d'histoire du temps présent (Institute of the History of Present Times): in two of his works where one might expect to read the words "gas chambers", one can in fact find no such thing. The American historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen speaks of those chambers as an "epiphenomenon". In the 84,000-word French version of the Nuremberg judgement, only 520 extremely vague words are devoted to them, a portion amounting to 0.62% of the text.

For a revisionist, the gas chambers are less than a detail because they quite simply never existed, but the gas chamber myth is much more than a detail: it is the cornerstone of a huge structure of beliefs of all sorts which the law forbids us to question.

"Gas chambers or not, what does it matter?" This question may at times be heard, tinged with scepticism. It bothers Pierre Vidal-Naquet, for whom the abandonment of the gas chambers would be a "surrender in open country" (52). One can only agree with him. In effect, on the matter of the gas chambers' existence or non-existence hinges the question of whether the Germans are to be presented as arrant criminals, or instead, the Jews as arrant liars (or confidence men). In the former case, the Germans will have, in the space of three or four years, killed industrial proportions of poor unarmed victims by industrial means whereas, in the latter, the Jews, for more than half a century, will have peddled a lie of historic dimensions.

In 1976 the American Arthur Robert Butz, published his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century; I for my part published in Le Monde of 29 December 1978 and 16 January 1979 two texts on "the rumour of Auschwitz" and, at the very start of that same year of 1979, Wilhelm Stäglich published Der Auschwitz Mythos. Voicing the grave Jewish worries in the face of the emergence of revisionist writings, the Zionist W. D. Rubinstein, professor at Deakin University in Melbourne, wrote at the time:

[...] were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel's propaganda armoury disappears [sic](53).

Repeating himself some time later, he declared:

[...] the fact that if the Holocaust can be shown to be a "Zionist myth", the strongest of all weapons in Israel's propaganda armoury collapses(54).

Eight years afterwards, as if to echo those statements, a barrister for the LICRA (Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme) wrote:

If [it is true that] the gas chambers existed, then Nazi barbarity has no equal. If not, the Jews will have lied and antisemitism will thus be justified. Those are the stakes in the debate (55).

In E. Zündel's phrase, "the `Holocaust' is Israel's sword and shield."

The stakes are thus not merely historical but also political. And the political stakes present a paradox: the "Holocaust" myth serves, in the first place, to condemn German National Socialism, and then all forms of nationalism or of national idea except the Israeli and Zionist variety which the myth, on the contrary, reinforces.

The stakes are just as much financial, as one may realize when considering that, at least since the "reparations" agreement signed at Luxembourg in 1952, German taxpayers have paid "astronomical" sums (as Nahum Goldmann put it) to the whole Jewish population of the state of Israel and to the Diaspora, and that they are to continue to pay for the crimes of the Shoah imputed to them until at least the year 2030. The "Shoah Business", denounced even by a Pierre Vidal-Naquet, is indissociable from the Shoah.

Today, the bluff of the Shoah legitimises a world-wide racket. In the first place, a growing number of either rich or poor countries, including France, find themselves facing claims made by billionaire Edgar Bronfmann's World Jewish Congress and by vastly wealthy American Jewish organisations for new "reimbursements" or new "reparations" in the form of mountains of gold and money. The countries of Europe, starting with Switzerland, are not the only ones targeted. For the moment a well-established mafia is operating in four main directions (there are sure to be others in future): "the Nazi gold", the Jewish assets, the Jewish art collections, and the insurance policies taken out by Jews. The chief targets are states themselves, banks, museums, auction houses, and insurance firms. The legislature of the American state of New Jersey, under pressure from Jewish organisations, has already taken measures to impose a boycott of Swiss banking institutions. This is but the beginning. The only real argument brought to bear by the blackmailers can be put in one word: Shoah. Not one government, not one bank, not one insurance company dare retort that the matter at hand is one of myth and that there is no question of its paying for a crime which was not committed. The Swiss, also under pressure from Jewish organisations, were at first so naive as to think that it would be enough to pass a law forbidding any questioning of the Shoah; but no sooner had they enacted their new legislation than E. Bronfmann showed them his bill. They then offered considerable amounts: a wasted effort. E. Bronfmann, "angry", let it be known that it would take infinitely more to satisfy him. "My experience with the Swiss", he remarked, "is that unless you hold their feet very close to the fire, they don't take you seriously (56)."

As for the moral wrong done to Germany in particular and to non-Jews in general by the propagation of the "Holocaust" faith, it is incalculable. The Jewish organisations incessantly repeat their accusations against a Germany supposedly guilty of a "genocide" of the Jews, and against Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Stalin, Pope PiusXII, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the neutral countries, and still other countries, all guilty, apparently, of having let Germany commit that "genocide" and, consequently, themselves also liable for financial "reparations".

jewish organisations impose an apostles' creed of the "holocaust"

My book, as will be seen, deals little with the "Jewish question".

If, over so long a period, I doggedly pursued this historical inquiry without giving much thought to the "Jewish question" as such, it was because, to my mind, the latter was of only secondary importance. Were I to dwell on it I might risk being thrown off the essential course: for I was seeking, first and foremost, to determine, respectively, the real and the mythical components in the story of the so-called "Holocaust" or Shoah; it was therefore far more important for me to establish the actual facts than to try to uncover the responsibilities.

And yet, in spite of myself, two things made me forgo this reticence: the attitude of numerous Jews towards my work and the aggressive manner in which they served notice on me to state my position regarding the subject which grips so many of them: the "Jewish question".

When, in the early 1960s, I approached what Olga Wormser-Migot was to call in her 1968 doctoral thesis "the problem of the gas chambers", I knew beforehand what sort of consequences such an undertaking might bring about. Paul Rassinier's example was there to warn me that I could expect grave repercussions. I nonetheless decided to go ahead with it, to keep within the framework of research of a wholly scientific nature, and to publish my results. I also chose to leave to the potential adversary any responsibility for recourse to coercion or perhaps even physical violence should the matter ever escape from the confines of academic controversy.

And that was precisely what was to happen. Using a metaphor, I could say that the frail door behind which I drafted my revisionist writings abruptly gave way, one day, to the pushing and shoving of a loud mob of protesters. I was bound then to remark that, in their entirety or quasi-entirety, these troublemakers were sons and daughters of Israel. "The Jews" had barged into my life. I suddenly found them to be not as I had known them hitherto, that is, as individuals to be distinguished one from the other, but as mutually inseparable elements of a group particularly united in hatred and, to use their own word, in "anger". Frenzied and frothy-mouthed, in a tone at once moaning and threatening, they came to trumpet in my ears that my work outraged them, that my conclusions were false, and that I must imperatively show allegiance to their own version of the history of the second world war. This kosher version places "the Jews" at the centre of that war as its victims "second to none", while in fact the conflict caused probably close to forty million deaths. For them, their slaughter is unique in world history. I was warned that unless I complied I should see my career ruined. Soon afterwards I was to be brought to court. Then, by way of the media, the Grand Sanhedrin made up of the priests, doctors, and other worthies of Jewish Law enforcement launched a virulent campaign against me, advocating hatred and violence. I shall not dwell on the insults, physical assaults, and court cases which have been its interminable aftermath.

The heads of these organisations readily call me a "Nazi", which I am not. As comparisons go, "Palestinian" seems more befitting in view of my standing with them, for they have treated me like one, and I have come to believe that the Jews in their Diaspora behave towards those who displease them much as their brethren may be seen to behave in Palestine. My writings are, in a sense, the stones of my Intifada. Frankly speaking, I find no essential difference between the behaviour of Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem Zionist leaders and that of Jewish leaders in Paris or New York: the same harshness, the same spirit of conquest and domination, the same insistence on privileges, all against a constant background of blackmail, of pressure accompanied by complaints and moaning. Such is the case in today's world. Has it been different in that of other times? Were the Jewish people as unhappy in past centuries as they tend to claim? Have they suffered as much from wars, foreign and civil, as have other human communities? Have they experienced as much hardship and misery? Have they really had no responsibility for the hostile reactions of which they so willingly complain? On this point, Bernard Lazare wrote:

If this hostility, even repugnance, had been brought to bear on the Jews only at one time and in one country, it would be easy to explain the limited causes of such anger; but this race has been, on the contrary, faced with the hatred of all the peoples amongst whom it has settled. Therefore, since the Jews' foes have belonged to the most diverse races, races inhabiting lands quite distant from one another, living under different laws and governed by opposing principles, having neither the same ways nor customs, and, animated by various ways of thinking, being unable to judge all things in the same manner, the general causes of antisemitism must always have lain in Israel itself and not amongst those who have fought against it.

This is not to assert that the Jews' persecutors have always had right on their side, nor that they have not resorted to all the excesses which keen hatred may carry with it, but merely to postulate that -- at least some of the time -- the Jews have brought their ills upon themselves (57).

B. Lazare, who was not in the least hostile to his co-religionists -- quite the opposite, in fact -- had the frankness to recall, in several passages in his book, how skilful the Jews had been, all throughout their history (and thus as far back as Greco-Roman antiquity), in obtaining privileges. He noted that, among those of the poor who converted to Judaism, many "were attracted by the privileges granted to the Jews (58)."

I trust that here I shall be allowed a remark in confidence.

In my capacity as an erstwhile Latinist, a defendant prosecuted in court by Jewish organisations, a university professor prevented from giving his lectures by Jewish demonstrations, and, finally, as an author forbidden to publish because of certain Chief Rabbinate decisions which have been ratified by the French Republic, it has occurred to me that I may compare my experiences with those of some illustrious predecessors. It is thus that my thoughts turn to the Roman aristocrat Lucius Flaccus. In 59 BC, Cicero had occasion to defend him, notably against his Jewish accusers; the description of the influence, power, and methods of the Jews in Rome which the brilliant orator then gave in the praetorium leads me to think that, if he were to come back to this world, in the late twentieth century, to defend a revisionist, he would not, as it were, have to change one word on that subject in the text of his pleadings known as Pro Flacco.

Having taught at the Sorbonne, my thoughts also turn to my predecessor Henri Labroue, author of a work entitled Voltaire antijuif. Late in 1942, in the middle of the German occupation, a time when we are expected to believe that the Jews and their supporters remained as discreet as possible, he had to abandon his lectures on the history of Judaism. Let us quote present day Sorbonne luminary André Kaspi: "A chair of the history of Judaism was created at the Sorbonne as from the autumn term of 1942 and bestowed on Henri Labroue. The first courses gave rise to displays of hostility and to incidents which led to the programme's cancellation." (59)

But today, dozens of great authors of world literature, including Shakespeare, Voltaire, Hugo, and Zola (the partisan of Captain Dreyfus also wrote "L'Argent") would find themselves in court, sued and prosecuted by Jewish organisations. Among the great names in French politics, even the Socialist and pacifist Jean Jaurès would be in the dock of disgrace.

Such considerations might earn me the label "antisemitic" or "antijewish". I reject those epithets which I see as trite insults. I wish no harm on any Jew. On the other hand, I find the behaviour of most of the associations, organisations, and pressure groups which claim to represent Jewish interests or "Jewish remembrance" to be loathsome.

The heads of those various associations, organisations, or groups obviously have the greatest difficulty in understanding that one may act out of simple intellectual curiosity. If I myself have devoted a good part of my life to revisionism, first in the field of literary studies, then in that of historical research, I have done so not in the least as a result of some invidious calculation, or in the service of an antijewish plot, but in heeding an impulse as natural as that which makes the birds sing and the leaves grow, and makes men in the darkness strive after light.

historical science's natural resistance to this creed

I could have followed the example set by some other revisionists and proffered my surrender, shown repentance, retracted certain statements; another means of escape: I might have sought contentment in discreetly devising clever and convoluted manoeuvres. Not only did I decide, in the late 1970s, to resist openly and in the public forum but I also pledged to myself not to play the adversary's game. I resolved to change nothing in my own behaviour and to let the hotheads get hotter by the day, if they so chose. Among the Jews, I would listen only to those who, especially brave, dared to take up my defence, if only for the space of a season (60).

Jewish organisations as a whole call those who do not adopt their own conception of second world war history "antisemites". This is understandable, for the act of going so far as to say, as I do here and now, that they are among those most to blame for the peddling of a gigantic myth may well have the air of being inspired by antisemitism. But, in reality, I only draw the obvious conclusions of a historical inquiry which seems to have been quite a serious one since, despite plaintiffs' and prosecutors' feverish research, no court has ever found in it a trace of shallowness, negligence, deliberate ignorance, or falsehood.

Moreover, I fail to see why I, for my part, ought to show respect towards groups of persons who have never shown the least respect for my research work, my publications, or my personal, family, or professional life. I do not attack these bodies for their religious convictions or for their attachment to the state of Israel. All human groups revel in phantasmagoria. Consequently, each of them is free to offer itself a more or less real, more or less imaginary picture of its history. But that conception is not to be forced on others. Yet, the Jewish organisations force theirs on us, a practice in itself unacceptable, all the more so when the portrayal is manifestly wrong. And I know of no other group in France which has succeeded in making, of an article of its own religious faith (that of the Shoah), an article of the law of the Republic; which, with the assent of the interior ministry, enjoys the exorbitant privilege of operating its own armed militias; and, finally, which can decree that university teachers who displease it shall no longer have the right to work, either in France or abroad (see especially the case of Bernard Notin).

for a revisionism with gusto

The revisionists in fact know neither master nor disciple. They make up a heterogeneous troop. They are loath to unite with one another, a trait which carries as many benefits as disadvantages. Their individualism makes them unsuited to concerted action; on the other hand, the police show themselves to be unable to infiltrate such a disparate whole and to keep it under surveillance; they cannot work their way up the channels of the revisionist structure since there simply is no such thing. These individuals feel free to improvise, each according to his aptitudes or tastes, revisionist activities which may take the most diverse forms. The quality of the work undertaken reflects this disparity and it must be acknowledged that the results are irregular. From this point of view, one can say that much still remains to be done. The mere amateur is shoulder to shoulder with the scholar, as is the man of action with the researcher in his archives. I shall not mention any names here, for fear of cataloguing anyone (61).

As concerns the manner in which the revisionist struggle is to be led, it goes without saying that the revisionists are divided between supporters and opponents of a sort of political realism. Most of them consider that, given the strength of the taboo, they had better proceed by oblique paths and thus avoid direct clashes with the guardians of orthodoxy. For these revisionists, it is clumsy and ill-advised to state, for example, that the "Holocaust" is a myth; it is, they hold, more worthwhile to imply that the "Holocaust" did indeed take place but not in the generally acknowledged proportions. Keen on strategy or tactics, they seek to leave Jewish sensibilities unruffled and will suggest, wrongly, that the legendary portion of the "Holocaust" story is above all the work of the Communists or the western Allies, but not of the Jews, or if so, only very little. Have not apprentice revisionists been seen to engage in the deceptive fudge which consists in presenting the Jews as victims, like all the rest, of a kind of universal false credence? According to this view, the Jews have been made, as by some immanent force, to believe in the genocide and the gas chambers while still being driven, doubtless by the same force, to demand yet more and more money in reparations for fictitious hardships (62). A wandering Jew who has just gone over to the revisionist camp will be fêted by these revisionists as though he were the true genius and saviour of the cause. If he claims as his own, and clumsily, his non-Jewish predecessors' finds pertaining to Auschwitz, the newcomer will be hailed as the guiding light of scientific thought.

I accept certain forms of this political realism but on condition that it not be attended by arrogance. There is no superiority, either intellectual or moral, in deeming that the end justifies the means and that it is sometimes simply necessary to borrow the adversary's weapons of dissembling and lying. My personal preference is for a revisionism with gusto and without too many compromises; that shows its colours; that marches straight towards its goal; alone, if need be; that does not let the enemy off lightly. Besides, a good long experience of revisionist struggle has led me to think that the best strategy, the best tactic may consist in a series of frontal attacks; the adversary has not expected them: he imagined that no-one would ever dare defy him in such a way; he discovers that he no longer inspires fear; he is discountenanced.

a conflict without end

The revisionists have on more than one occasion proposed to their adversaries the holding of a public debate on the questions of the genocide, the six million, and the gas chambers. The Jewish organisations have always shied away. It is thus proved that they will not accept it. Even the Catholic Church today allows a form of dialogue with the atheists but the Synagogue, for its part, will never forget the offence which it has suffered (63) and thus resolve itself to running the risk of such a dialogue with the revisionists. Moreover, too many political, financial, and moral interests are at stake for the heads of either the state of Israel or the Diaspora to agree to launch a fair debate on the kosher version of second world war history.

Therefore, the test of strength will go on. I see no end to it. The conflict which we are observing between "exterminationism" and "revisionism", that is, between, on the one hand, a fixed, official history and, on the other hand, a critical, scientific, secular history, is but one in the list which relates the endless struggle that faith and reason, or belief and science, have been carrying on in human societies for thousands of years. The faith in the "Holocaust" or Shoah is an integral part of a religion, the Hebraic religion, of which, upon a close look, the phantasmagoria of the "Holocaust" plainly appear to be a mere emanation. A religion has never been seen to cave in under the blows of reason, and we are not on the eve of seeing the Jewish religion vanish along with one of its most lively components. According to present-day interpretations, that religion is either fifteen hundred or three thousand years old, if not four thousand. It is not clear why those living in the year 2000 should enjoy the privilege of looking on at the demise of a religion so deeply rooted in the ages.

It can sometimes be heard that the "Holocaust" or Shoah myth might some day fade away, as Stalinist Communism foundered not long ago, or as the Zionist myth and the state of Israel will founder one day soon. But those who say so are likening unlike things. Communism and Zionism stand on unsteady ground; both presuppose largely illusory high aspirations in Man: general absence of selfishness, equal sharing among all, the sense of sacrifice, labour for the common good; their emblems have been the hammer, the sickle, and the kolkhoz for the former, and the sword, the plough, and the kibbutz for the latter. The Jewish religion, for its part, beneath the complex outward appearance provided by the masora and the pilpul, does not indulge in such flights of fancy; it aims low to aim straight; it relies on the real; underneath the cover of talmudic extravagance and intellectual or verbal wizardry, one may see that it is above all hand-in-glove with money, King Dollar, the Golden Calf, and the allurements of consumerism. Who can believe that those "values" will soon be losing their power? And besides, why should the winding up of the state of Israel bring in its wake evil consequences for the myth of the "Holocaust"? On the contrary, the millions of Jews thus forced to settle or resettle in the rich countries of the West would not miss the chance to bewail a "Second Holocaust" and, once again and still more forcefully, would blame the whole world for the new ordeal visited upon the Jewish people, who would then have to be "compensated".

In the end, the Jewish religion -- and one sees this only too well in the tales of the "Holocaust" -- is anchored in that perhaps deepest zone of Man: fear. There lies its strength. There lies its chance for survival, despite all the hazards and despite the battering that its myths have taken at the hands of historical revisionism. By exploiting fear, the practitioners of Judaism win at every try.

I subscribe to the statement made by the French sociologist and historian Serge Thion (64) for whom "historical revisionism, which over the past twenty-five years has won all the intellectual battles, loses the ideological war every day. Revisionism runs up against the irrational, against a quasi-religious way of thinking, against the refusal to take into account anything which originates from a non-Jewish sphere; we are in the presence of a sort of lay theology whose world-wide high priest is Elie Wiesel, ordained by the award of a Nobel prize".

the future between repression and the internet

Newcomers to revisionism must take care not to harbour illusions. Their task will be hard. Will it be less so than it was for Paul Rassinier and his immediate successors? Will the repression be less fierce?

Personally, I rather doubt it. Yet, in the wider world, changes in the political balance and in communication techniques will perhaps give minorities a chance to be more widely heard than they have been in the recent past. Thanks to the Internet, it will perhaps be easier for revisionists to foil censorship, and the sources of historical material will doubtless become more accessible.

The fact remains that at this century's and millennium's close, Man is bidden to undergo the strange experience of a world where books, newspapers, radio, and television are ever more tightly controlled by the masters of finance or by the thought police whereas, in parallel and at increasing speed, new means of communication are being developed which, at least in part, elude those forces' dominion. One might see it as a world of two distinct profiles, one stiffening and ageing, the other, in the insolence of youth, looking keenly to the future. The same contrast can be noted in historical research, at least in the sector which is under thought police surveillance: on one side, the official historians, who bring out countless works on the "Holocaust" or Shoah, isolating themselves within the realm of religious belief or of hair-splitting argument while, on the other side, independent minds strive to follow only the precepts of reason and science; thanks to the latter, free historical research is today displaying an impressive vitality, notably on the Internet.

The upholders of an official history, protected and guaranteed by the law, will be forever doomed to find before them the questioners of their ordained truth. The former, long established, have the wealth and the power; the latter, a veritable future.

a worsening repression

If there is one point on which the present work can convey as much information to revisionists as to anti-revisionists, it is that of the repression endured by the former at the hands of the latter.

Each revisionist has a good account of what it has cost him to speak out on a taboo subject, but he is not always aware of what his fellows in other countries have been enduring at the same time. The anti-revisionists, at their end, systematically minimise the extent of their repressive actions; they have in mind solely their own torments, comparable to those of Torquemada and the Grand Inquisitors: they are obliged to flog, ever to flog; their arms grow weary, they feel cramps coming on, they suffer, they groan; they find that, if there are any who deserve pity, it is the executioners; they cover their eyes and plug up their ears to avoid seeing and hearing any of their victims. At times they are even surprised, perhaps in good faith, when shown the list of names of revisionists whose personal, family, or professional lives they have succeeded in dashing, or of those whom they have ruined, or caused to be heavily sanctioned by fines or imprisonment, or to be gravely injured, or to have acid sprayed in their faces, or killed, or driven to suicide, while, conversely, not one instance of a revisionist's having touched even a hair on the head of one of his adversaries can be shown.

It must be said that the press takes it upon itself to conceal, as much as possible, various effects of this widespread repression. On this score the French daily Le Monde has made a speciality, as will be seen, of keeping silent on certain abominations which, if their victims had been Jewish anti-revisionists à la Vidal-Naquet, would have prompted protest marches and demonstrations all throughout the world.

The very best that can be expected from the apostles of the Shoah is, most likely, a warning against some excesses of anti-revisionism which might damage the good reputation of the Jews and the sacred cause of their creed.

In the latest batch of repressive measures taken against revisionists may be noted (beginning with France) the dismissal by the education ministry of Michel Adam from his post as history teacher in a middle school in Brittany; at fifty-seven, with five dependent children, he now finds himself utterly without resources, receiving, for the moment, not even public assistance ("RMI"). As for Vincent Reynouard, also dismissed from his state sector teaching job, he was on 10 November sentenced by a court in Saint-Nazaire to three months' imprisonment and a fine of ten thousand francs for having distributed the Rudolf Report. Aged twenty-nine, V.Reynouard is married with three small children, and he and his wife are destitute. Pastor Roger Parmentier has been expelled from the Socialist Party for having come to the aid of Roger Garaudy in the latter's recent court case, while Jean-Marie Le Pen, for his part, has been indicted, in both France and Germany, for an innocuous statement on "the detail" of the gas chambers.

In Barcelona on 16 November 1998 the bookseller Pedro Varela was convicted of "denial of the Holocaust" and "incitement to racial hatred" in his writings, at the behest of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, SOS-Racismo España, the city's two Jewish communities, and the Spanish Liberal Jewish Movement; he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of 720,000 pesetas (about $5,000 US) as well as heavy court costs. The stock of his bookshop (20,972 volumes and hundreds of audio and video cassettes) is to be destroyed by fire. His shop had previously been the target of violent aggression, including arson attacks; on several occasions he and his female employee had been assaulted. The Simon Wiesenthal Center is today apparently trying to have his doctorate in history, awarded over ten years ago, revoked (65).

In Germany, more and more revisionist writings are being seized and burned. Gary Lauck (an American citizen extradited to Germany by Denmark), Günter Deckert, and Udo Walendy still languish in prison and can consider themselves lucky if their terms are not prolonged on the least pretext. After serving a one-year sentence, Erhard Kemper, of Münster, finding himself under threat of new, harsher sentences which would probably have kept him locked up for the rest of his life, has had to go underground. Other Germans and Austrians live in exile.

In Canada, the plight of Ernst Zündel and his friends continues before one of the ad hoc tribunals, called "tribunals of the human rights commissions", which blithely flout the defendant's basic rights; it is, for example, forbidden to argue that what one has written concurs with the verifiable facts; these "tribunals" do not care about the truth; they are interested only in knowing whether what has been written upsets certain persons! Other special commissions, attached to the Canadian Intelligence Service, try cases of revisionists in closed session, on the basis of a file which is not shown to the defendant. In 1999, Ottawa is to pass an anti-revisionist law authorizing the police to make house searches in order to seize books and other materials which might, according to them, serve to spread revisionism; the bill stipulates that the regular courts are to bring their procedures into line with those of the ad hoc commissions, and thus shall no longer allow the accused to base his defence on the fact that what he has written is the truth (66).

Jewish groups around the world are bringing forth numerous initiatives for the adoption of specific anti-revisionist laws. At a recent conference in Salonica, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers called for the introduction of such a law in Greece and let it be known that it would be holding conferences of the same sort in more than twenty other countries (67).

the duty of resistance

Whatever storms and vicissitudes may arise now or in future, the revisionist historian must hold firm. To the cult of tribal remembrance built on fear, vengeance, and greed, he will prefer the stubborn search for exactitude. In this manner he will, albeit perhaps unwittingly, do justice to the true sufferings of all victims of the second world war. And, from this viewpoint, it is he who will refuse to make any distinction between them on the basis of race, religion, or community. Above all else, he will reject the supreme imposture which gave the crowning touch to that conflict: that of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, and of the thousand other proceedings since the war in which, still today, the victor, without in the least having to answer for his own crimes, has assumed the right to prosecute and condemn the vanquished.

Contrary to the romantic vision of the aristocratic author François René de Chateaubriand (1768-1848), the historian is hardly "commissioned to avenge peoples", and still less so to avenge one which claims to be God's own.

On whatever subject, the historian in general and the revisionist historian in particular have no other job than to determine the accuracy of what is said. That job is basic and obvious, but also -- as experience teaches -- perilous.

3 December 1998


(1) The words of Karl Schlögel, writing in defence of Gabor Tamas Rittersporn, accused by Maxime Leo ("Holocaust-Leugner im Berliner Centre Marc Bloch", Berliner Zeitung, 12 February 1998) of having lent his support to Robert Faurisson's freedom of speech in 1980 ("Eine Jagdpartie. Wie man einen Wissenschaftler ruiniert", ibid., 18 February 1998, p.42).

(2) "In July 1981, the Knesset passed a law that prohibited the denial of the Holocaust: `The publication, in writing or orally, of work that denies the acts committed during the period of the Nazi rule, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, or that downplays their dimensions with the intention of defending those who committed these crimes or of expressing support for or identification with them is liable to five years' imprisonment.' A proposal to impose ten years' imprisonment was not accepted. Thus the extermination of the Jews was no longer a subject for the historians; it was almost as if it had been uprooted from history itself and had become a national doctrine of truth, protected by law, somewhat similar in legal status to religious faith. Indeed, in one way the Holocaust has even a higher status than religion: The maximum punishment for `crass injury' to religious sensibilities or tradition -- including, presumably, any denial of God's existence -- is one year in prison" (Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York, Hill and Wang, 1993, p.464).

(3) Bulletin quotidien d'informations de l'Agence télégraphique juive, 2 June 1986, p.1, 3.

(4) See Robert Maxwell, "J'accuse", Sunday Mirror (of which he was the proprietor), 17 July 1988, p.2.

(5) The "Jewish babies [were] thrown -- alive -- into the crematoria" (Pierre Weil, director of the French public opinion poll institute SOFRES, in his article "L'anniversaire impossible", Le Nouvel Observateur, 9 February 1995, p.53).

(6) "Moreover, it is worthwhile [] to stress that the ghetto is historically a Jewish invention" (Nahum Goldmann, Le Paradoxe juif, Paris, Stock, 1976, p.83-84); see also Pierre-André Taguieff, "L'identité juive et ses fantasmes", L'Express, 20-26 January 1989, p.65.

(7) Eric Conan, "Auschwitz: la mémoire du mal", L'Express, 19-25 January 1995, p.68.

(8) Ibid. In 1992, that is, long after "the late 1970s", David Cole, a young Californian revisionist of Jewish origin, presented himself as the discoverer of the "gas chamber" falsifications at Auschwitz-I. In a mediocre video, he showed, on the one hand, the museum guides' version (according to which the gas chamber is genuine) and, on the other hand, that of Franciszek Piper, a member of the museum administration (for whom this gas chamber is "very similar" to the original). There was nothing new in that. The trouble was that D. Cole and his friends exaggerated greatly -- to put it mildly -- in afterwards proceeding to claim that F. Piper had acknowledged that there had been a "fraud". In effect, there had been a fraud but unhappily D. Cole had not been able to unmask it, because he was too ill acquainted with the body of revisionist work. He could have definitively confounded F. Piper by showing him, on film, the original blueprints which I had discovered in 1975-1976 and published "in the late 1970s". Therein it is plain to see that today's alleged "gas chamber" is the result of a certain number of makeovers of the premises carried out after the war. For instance, the ceiling's four alleged "holes for the pouring in of the Zyklon B" were effected -- quite crudely and clumsily -- after the war: the steel reinforcement cables in the concrete were broken by the Polish Communists and remain today as they were left then.

(9) R. J. van Pelt and D. Dwork, Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present, London, Yale University Press, 1996, p.363-364, 367, 369.

(10) J.-C. Pressac, "Enquête sur les chambres à gaz", in Auschwitz, la Solution finale, Paris, Collections de L'Histoire no.3, October 1998, p.41.

(11) Jacques Baynac in Le Nouveau Quotidien (Lausanne), 2 September 1996, p.16 and 3 September 1996, p.14; see, beforehand, Jacques Baynac and Nadine Fresco, "Comment s'en débarrasser ?" (How to get rid of them? -- i.e. the revisionists), Le Monde, 18 June 1987, p.2.

(12) It has sometimes been held that the six million figure originated in a newspaper article published in 1919, under the signature of Martin H. Glynn, former governor of New York: "The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!" (The American Hebrew, 31 October 1919). The said M. H. Glynn therein launched an appeal for contributions to help six million European Jews who, he wrote, were being subjected to starvation and persecution and were thus experiencing a "holocaust", a "crucifixion". The word "holocaust" with the meaning of "disaster" is attested in English as early as the 17th century; here, in 1919, it designated the consequences of a famine described as an impending disaster. In 1894, Bernard Lazare applied the word to the massacres of Jews: "from time to time, kings, noblemen, or the urban rich offered their slaves a holocaust of Jews [] the Jews were offered in holocaust" (L'Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes, Paris, L. Chailley, 1894, re-edited Paris, La Vieille Taupe, 1985, p.67, 71).

(13) Lucy S. Davidowicz, in the compilation entitled A Holocaust Reader, New York, Behrman House, 1976, p.327; the book consists of letters translated from the Hebrew and published in New York in 1960 under the title Min hametzar.

(14) For this discovery I am indebted to the German Joachim Hoffmann; in Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945 (Stalin's War of Destruction), Munich, Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, 2nd edition,1995, p.161 and n.42 on p.169, he points out that Ilya Ehrenburg gave that figure in an article in the Soviet War News of 4 January 1945 headlined: "Once again-Remember!" While trying to verify this point at London's Imperial War Museum, I found nothing under that date; on the other hand, I did find the text mentioned by J.Hoffmann under another heading and another date: "Remember, Remember, Remember", in the 22 December 1944 issue, p.4-5. Ought one to conclude that Soviet War News was published in various forms?

(15) See "Holocaust Survivors", Adina Mishkoff, Administrative Assistant, AMCHA, Jerusalem, 13 August 1997 (figures supplied by the bureau of the Israeli prime minister). [See here the document on aaargh/fran/revu/TI97/TI971122.html]

(16) The miserable and fallacious mock-up (with its purported openings in the roof for the Zyklon, which, as may easily be remarked today, never existed, and with its allegedly perforated pillars which, as can also be seen today, were solid) is reproduced in another guidebook published in 1995; see Jeshajahu Weinburg and Rina Elieli, New York, Rizzoli, p.126-127. On the other hand, this second guidebook does not show what in M.Berenbaum's document was presented as the exhibit par excellence to prove the reality of the gassings: an alleged gas chamber door at Majdanek.

(17) Le Nouvel Observateur, 30 September 1993, p.96.

(18) All Rivers Run to the Sea: Memoirs, volumeI, New York, Knopf, 1995, p.74.

(19) The Holocaust and History, The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed and the Reexamined, ed. by Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J.Peck, published in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Washington, D.C.) in Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1998, XV-836p.; 55 contributions.

(20) Ibid., p.15.

(21) See above, p. 6-7.

(22) On the subject of Timisoara, see, in the present work, vol.III, p.1141-1150, my study of the book by Michel Castex, Un Mensonge gros comme le siècle. Roumanie, histoire d'une manipulation (A Lie as Big as the Century), Paris, Albin Michel, 1990.

(23) The purported model of a crematorium with its "gas chamber" on display at the National Museum of Auschwitz, and that at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, are so cursory in design as precisely regards the "gas chamber", and at such variance with the remains which may be examined on site at Auschwitz-Birkenau, that it is laughably simple to prove that these two models are purely fanciful; see above, note 16.

(24) New York, Schocken, 1996 [translator's note].

(25) See Weltwoche (Zurich), 27 August and 3 September 1998; Nicolas Weil, "La mémoire suspectée de Binjamin Wilkomirski", Le Monde, 23 October 1998, p.V.

(26) Donald Watt, Stoker: the story of an Australian soldier who survived Auschwitz-Birkenau, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1995.

(27) I.e., crematoria; Fred Sedel, Habiter les ténèbres (Living in the Gloom), Paris-Geneva, La Palatine, 1963 and Paris, A.-M. Métaillié, 1990.

(28) Vivre, c'est vaincre (To Live is to Win), Maulévrier, Maine-et-Loire (France), 1988, is presented as having been written in 1945 and printed in the third quarter of 1946. In 1988, it was republished with fanfare by Héraut-Editions, with, on the cover, a blurb strip reading "J'ai été témoin de l'Holocauste" (I was witness to the Holocaust). It was in the Figaro of 15 May 1996 (p.2) that General Rogerie was to declare that he had "beheld the Shoah at Birkenau". The extremely succinct description of the "gas chambers" and of the ovens with which he was supplied conflicts with today's accepted version: his "witness" had told him of gas entering the chambers from shower heads, and of electric ovens (p.75).

(29) A. Rogerie, Vivre, c'est vaincre , p.70, 85.

(30) "Caïds", ibid., p.82.

(31) "Planque royale", "je garde de bons souvenirs", ibid., p.83.

(32) Ibid., p.84.

(33) Ibid.

(34) "A l'encontre de bien d'autres, j'y ai été moins malheureux que partout ailleurs", ibid., p.87.

(35) Samuel Gringauz, "Some Methodological Problems in the Study of the Ghetto", in Jewish Social Studies/ A Quarterly Journal Devoted to Contemporary and Historical Aspects of Jewish Life, VolumeXII, edited for The Conference on Jewish Relations, New York, 1950, p.65-72; p.65.

(36) London, T. Butterworth Ltd.,1939 [translator's note].

(37) Op. cit., p.148-149.

(38) They Have Their Exits, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1953, p.172.

(39) The two words in inverted commas appear as "boys" and "job" in the original [translator's note].

(40) From a text of about two hundred and fifty words one may especially retain the following: "More than twelve million dead! As many individuals thus to go unborn! Still more maimed, wounded, widowed and orphaned! Countless billions in assorted destructions. Scandalous fortunes made from human misery. The innocent before firing squads. The guilty honoured. A horrid life for the disinherited. The frightful price to pay". Further on it reads: "The spirit of Nations must be improved by improving that of individuals with an enriched and widely expanded instruction. The people must know how to read. And above all to grasp the importance of what they read". The text ends: "Cursed be war. And its perpetrators!"

(41) See Christiane Gallus, "Une pandémie qui a fait trois fois plus de victimes que la guerre de 1914-1918" (A Pandemic which claimed three times as many victims as the war of 1914-1918), Le Monde, 31 December 1997, p.17.

(42) Pierre Kaufmann, "Le danger allemand" (The German Danger), Le Monde, 8 February 1947.

(43) See Mark Weber, "Bergen-Belsen Camp: The Suppressed Story", The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1995, p.23-30.

(44) Such was the case, for instance, of Bartley C. Crum in his book Behind the Silken Curtain, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1947, p.114.

(45) Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond, Six Million Did Die. The Truth Shall Prevail, Johannesburg, South African Board of Jewish Deputies, 1978, 2nd edition, p.18.

(46) A. Hitchcock, born in 1899, was already known in 1945. For his macabre or morbid tastes, his art of "manipulating the public", and the strange fascination brought to bear on his mind by gas, one may read Bruno Villien, Hitchcock, Paris, Colonna, 1982, p.9-10.

(47) Le Figaro, 24 October 1997, p.10.

(48) The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1951, p.446, n.138.

(49) A famous French Communist résistant, M. Paul, much like General Rogerie, had a rather "good war" in the camps [translator's note].

(50) Le Figaro, 16 January 1995, p.29.

(51) "La Shoah, de la réalité aux shows. Face aux récits des déportés, l'indécente mise en scène de leurs libérateurs", Libération, 18 December 1995, p.41.

(52) "Capituler en rase campagne": Pierre Vidal-Naquet, "Le secret partagé", Le Nouvel Observateur, 21 September 1984, p.80.

(53) Letter appearing in Nation Review, (Australia), 21 June 1979, p.639.

(54) "The Left, the Right, and the Jews", Quadrant, (Australia), September 1979, p.27.

(55) Bernard Jouanneau, La Croix, 23 September 1987, p.2.

(56) Globe and Mail (Toronto), 2 June 1998, p.A1, 15. Edgar Bronfmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, is the North American emperor of alcohol and pornography. He is head of the Seagram's group and owner of Universal Studios in Hollywood. A group of American politicians have recently voted him the first ever "Silver Sewer" award, notably for his reality shows featuring "pregnant strippers, teenage prostitutes fighting with pimps, or undertakers having sex with corpses" (Financial Times, 21-22 March 1998, p.2).

(57) B. Lazare, L'Antisémitisme, op. cit., opening page of first chapter.

(58) Ibid., p. 27.

(59) A. Kaspi, Les Juifs pendant l'Occupation (The Jews during the Occupation), revised edition, Paris, Le Seuil, 1997 [1991], p.109, n.27.

(60) I sometimes hear it said that there is greater risk for a Jew than for a non-Jew in professing revisionist views. The facts disprove this assertion. Not one Jew has been convicted or held liable in court for revisionism, not even Roger-Guy Dommergue (Polacco de Menasce) who, for years, has generated the most vehement writings against the lies of those whom he calls his "fellow creatures" (congénères). No-one as yet has ventured to have either the Pleven (1972) or the Fabius-Gayssot Act (1990) applied against him. Nonetheless the case of the young American revisionist David Cole deserves to be recalled, for it shows to what degree of violence certain Jewish organisations can resort in order to silence Jews who have sided with the revisionist cause.

(61) An independent researcher, who nonetheless does not publicly identify himself as a partisan, can contribute indirectly to revisionism by the mere quality of his work. I shall mention one name here, that of Jean Plantin, director of a biannual publication whose title alone indicates its erudite character: Akribeia is Greek for "exactitude", "painstaking care", and has given French the learned word "acribie" (quality of the scholar who works with extreme care). AKRIBEIA, 45/3, Route de Vourles, 69230 Saint-Genis-Laval, France.

(62) See the pertinent analysis by Guillermo Coletti, "The Taming of Holocaust Revisionism", distributed on the Internet (13 November 1998) by the Anti-Censorship News Agency; electronic address: [email protected].

(63) "Forgetting is not our main virtue" (the words of the president of the "board of deputies" [consistoire] of the Toulouse Jewish community, as cited in Le Figaro, 9 October 1997, p.10).

(64) S. Thion is, in particular, the author of a revisionist work bearing the eloquent title Une Allumette sur la banquise ("A Match to the Ice Floe"). A revisionist book, even if its contents seem like dynamite, perhaps gives off, all told, no more light and heat than a match "in the polar night, put to the ice floe of frozen ideas" (p.90).

(65) See "Un libraire espagnol condamné pour `apologie de génocide'" (A Spanish Bookseller Convicted for "Justification of Genocide'"), Le Monde, 19 November 1998, p.3; also, an article by Emmanuel Ratier in his periodical Faits & Documents (Facts & Documents), Paris, issue of 1 December 1998, p.12.

(66) See "Crackdown on hate materials planned", National Post, (Canada), 25 November 1998.

(67) See Athens News, 28 June 1998, p. 1.


Second part of two. See the first part.

This is the introduction to the [privately published] collected papers [in French] by Prof. R. Faurisson, Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998), Pithiviers, Feb. 1998, 4 vol., 1996 p., translated from the French by S.Mundi. This is the first edition in English.

Those who wish to deposit a set of these 4 volumes in a sizable public library should contact us at our address below (aaargh).

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 <>