Following part --- Preceding Part

The Outbreak of the Affair

It was the interview in L'Express of Darquier, former commissioner in the Jewish Questions division of the Vichy regime, that brought things to a head. For Faurisson, "the moment has come; the time is ripe." The first of November, 1978, firmly grounded in his research, he dispatched to several newspapers a rather provocative letter:

I hope that the remarks which the journalist Philippe Ganier-Raymond has just attributed to Louis Darquier de Pellepoix will finally lead the general public to discover that the alleged massacres in "gas chambers" and the alleged "genocide" are one and the same lie, unfortunately sanctioned so far by official history (that of the victors) and by the colossal power of the mass media. Like the French Paul Rassinier (former deportee member of the Resistance), like the German Wilhelm Staeglich, like the English Richard Harwood, like the American Arthur Butz (author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, a work so remarkable that so far nobody has been able to respond to it), like many other authors passed over in silence or invariably slandered, I proclaim here, just as I did at the Lyon national colloquium on "Churches and Christians of France during the Second World War" (January 27-30, 1978): "The massacres in alleged ''gas chambers'' are a historic lie." Hitler never ordered nor accepted that anybody be killed because of his race or his religion. I am not trying to offend or rehabilitate anybody. Until proven otherwise, I believe that I have conducted my research according to the customary methods of historical critique. I am ready for any debate on the question of ''gas chambers'' and of the ''genocide,'' for any confrontation, for any duly registered interview. I have already stated this in writing to several authorities, to several publications (Tribune juive-hebdo, for example), to several information organs for the past four years, and I repeat it here today. The light will come from neither the ''docudrama'' Holocaust, nor from the L.I.C.A., nor from the nth outcry; it can only come from an examination, on equal terms, of the existing theses. As for me, I like the light."

At le Monde, nobody blinks. They know the man and they are terrified at seeing him turn up trying to corner an editor in order to lecture him. Nobody at Matin de Paris knows anything about the affair and the editors in Paris put Claude Regent, their reporter in Lyon, in charge of contacting Faurisson. They met, armed with cassette recorders, at the Sofitel Hotel on November 8. According to the recording, the interview went as follows:

R.F. I am granting you this interview on the understanding that the conditions agreed upon over the phone will be honored. The first is that, after all, it is a written interview. We are going to chat a little bit today, and then you ask me questions. I will write down these questions. And then, I will try to bring you answers tomorrow [...]. However, for le Matin, I have some conditions to lay down. My conditions are the following: It is a publication in extenso or no publication. It is for you to decide. In your opinion, how many pages should this interview be?

C.R. Very short. I haven't really decided yet.

R.F. We must be very precise on this point. It must be complete or it won't be. This means that, for example, if I give you sixty typed lines, they are these sixty typed lines with title and subtitle.

C.R. That I cannot promise.

R.F. Well. You can promise to run the whole piece, no matter how short or how long it is, or you run nothing.

C.R. I absolutely cannot make this commitment, for it is not possible.

R.F. I do not want an interview which will be cut. I refuse this absolutely.

C.R. I was asked to come and see you because you have written to le Matin. Le Matin wants to know what you have to say. That is all. It is as simple as this. I have come to see you in order to ask you what you have to tell us.

R.F. I already told you that whatever I want to say to you, I will do it in writing. And you know why: the subject is very delicate. I even told you that I want to behave like Mitterrand, who will give interviews only in writing. It is obvious that what I am afraid of is not to have to talk freely about the subject, and if I want it in writing, it is because I am afraid of distortions. The first distortion I am afraid of is a cut, a shortening. Well, I don't want that! I want nothing that might distort my idea. The subject is very serious. I understand very well, you are very kind, you came to see me, you say that you cannot assume this responsibility. Well, I think that had I been living in Paris, I would have gone to see your editor and maybe we could come to an agreement. Maybe you could yourself -- this is only a suggestion -- contact him and inform him of the situation. The subject is extremely serious, you know, it is not a matter of a dog having been run over.

C.R. I can't say "fine, granted" before I know what you are going to say.

R.F. That is not it. If you understand me, this is not what I am saying. I am saying that you do not have to decide in advance.

C.R. I can tell you, for example, that you are going to write about two precise questions, say a typed page, 25 typed lines. I absolutely cannot tell you that this will run in its entirety.

R.F. Listen. What I can do is provide the text. You understand. I provide the text and I say: "But this text is to be published only in full." At that moment, you decide. You decide according to the content, you do not decide a priori. When you have in hand these three typewritten pages, well, at that moment, you make your decision, and it will be either all or nothing!

C.R. This means that you provide the text first and then it will be decided whether or not it will run.

R.F. Exactly, this text is, of course, your questions and my answers. And the title is extremely important. You will know why. I will explain to you. I want to be responsible for the title.

C.R. Then you are defying the customs.

R.F. Well, too bad for me, and I'm sorry for you. I often defy many customs like this. The title is a crucial thing, it could, for example, be insulting. In the polemical climate shaping up around this interview with Darquier, anything is possible. Any slander, any malicious gossip, any defamation are possible, starting with the title. I could give you examples of titles that would be purely scandalous.

C.R. The title is not up to the interviewed person to make a decision about the title.

Believing that some sort of agreement was established, Faurisson thought it proper to introduce himself:

[...]My name is Robert Faurisson, I am half British. As a child, during the war, I was called the "Angliche" and on my desk, I did not carve the word "liberty" as Eluard requested us to do. I carved "Death to Laval" and I wrote like this any time I could, for I was brave, "Hitler Dreck." I did a little German, with a lot of "resistance," to my German professors, but I wrote "Hitler Dreck." That means "shit." Then, one of my classmates named Barbot or Barberot, that I would like to find today, and who was pro-German, was very happy the day I had to dismantle my desk and went kicking that desk where "Death to Laval" was marked. He was happy that day in front of all my little classmates. I was made ashamed of "Your Englishmen who run in the desert like rabbits." You know, the phrase, I still have it. And this Barbot or Barberot, a few days after the landing of the Anglo-Americans in North Africa, when people began to feel that things are turning around, came towards me, extended his hand to me, and said (excuse me; these are his words, I think that I remember these words), "This time they are in trouble." I said to him (but I refused to shake his hand, I am tough!): "But who are you talking about?" "Well, the Boches." "What? You, Barberot, about the Boches?" And the little chap answered, for we were learning Latin, and I think that he had heard it the night before from his father: "Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum." Do you know that that means "To err is human, to persist in the error is diabolical." I am convinced that Mr. Barberot, the father, had joined the Resistance later, a true or false resistance member. And I can say that until the end, I was molded by this hate that was infused in me by my family, by the radio. Not only did I hate Laval, but also Darlan, I don't know why, pet peeve, and it was like this until the end. And I can tell you another thing that is not honorable. I was on vacation in August, 1944 in a small village of Charente called Laperuse. I was leaning on my elbows in the window, and next to me was my brother, a little younger than me, and my brother and I were looking at a topless fellow in the village street behind an F.F.I. with a bayonet. I turned toward my brother and said: "What are we waiting for to bump this bastard?" There was no need for an argument, a gesture. Since he was behind an F.F.I. bayonet, he was a collaborator. A collaborator was a bastard, he is to be struck down. That's how I was. And I think that one has to be very hard in life, during the struggle, but when it's over, it's over (and Nazism is dead, it died April 30, 1945 and it is finished). I would almost take the side of the serf. That's how I behave in sentimental and political matters. And I will tell you what I did during the Algerian war. You can check that. I contributed to Maurice Audin Committee, but I later defended a comrade who was suspected of being O.A.S. This is how the true British behave. I know that this is a little difficult to understand sometimes. And I am horrified by spitting on a corpse, and I always wonder about the reasons why people spit on a corpse. I find this unanimity about the Darquier de Pellepoix affair very troublesome. Darquier de Pellepoix is the kind of man I would have been happy to see killed during the war. I was happy to learn that Phillipe Henriot was killed during the war. When I would hear the English radio whose words I lapped up: "4000 tons of bombs on Hamburg," I would say: "Wonderful, why not 8000?" When women, the elderly and children were roasted in phosphorus, I found that very good. Oradour (625 dead) I found outrageous. Dresden, where there were probably 135,000 dead, a hospital city, a museum city, the Florence of the Elbe, I found that normal, I found that very good.

There was obviously no words of this self-portrait in the article of the journalist. Faurisson then set about to explain the reasons for his research as well as for his conclusions. The journalist is shocked (which is understandable) and he starts to sneer (which is less understandable):

C.R. Then the people who were at Vel-d'Hiv, went for a walk and they all came back.

R.F. You have to ask me the question in a different tone.

C.R. Who do you want to convince? What do you want to prove? That there were no Jews who were deported, who were....

R.F. Then I have to continue. But first you have to talk to me nicely, otherwise I will not be able to answer you. Let that be clear! Otherwise we will stop right now. Then I say this: I think of the deportees, what thought of them, for example.... I do not want to name names because this will point right away in a bad direction. Here is what I think. Look at what is true among all kinds of suffering. There is the fact that people were persecuted because of their racial or religious origin. For some, it may have been an awful drama: the loss of a job. For others, internment. For others, separation from family. For others, deportation. For others, deportation, then internment very far from their countries and work under conditions often very hard and often malnourished and stricken by all sorts of epidemics. There were tremendous ravages due to typhus at Bergen-Belsen, these famous piles of corpses that are shown to us. There were all these things. However, one must not forget also all these facts of war which may be that a man takes risks through his action, he joins the resistance. He becomes a fighter. As for me, you know, I would've had to be two years older.

C.R. How old were you then?

R.F. I was 15 in 1944. All these things are true, and are sufficiently terrible. So what am I going to say in order to answer your question (that I would have liked it to be in a less aggressive manner)? What I want is this humble thing which is called the search for the truth, and which is called exactness, because I think that it is not good, it's not good to lie, it's not good to manufacture this sort of sex-shop Nazism that you see at this moment and for a long time. The curiosity about Adolf is an absolutely unhealthy curiosity. He no longer interests me. I'm no more interested in Adolf's person or ideas than those of Napoleon Bonaparte. Stalin was not a god, Hitler was not a devil, just like that, all of a sudden. No! What interests me is this, and I think that I am doing healthy work.

C.R. Then is it true or not that Hitler killed Jews?

R.F. Hitler never gave an order to kill. And listen to me, the words that I am going to say are important. Hitler never gave an order to kill people because of their race or their religion. He said ten times: "The Jews want our death, it's us that we will have theirs...."

C.R. That's already not bad.

R.F. Oh well...

C.R. But the "final solution"?

R.F. The "final solution" since you ask me the question....

C.R. Yes, that doesn't exist?

R.F. The "final solution" exists absolutely.

C.R. What is the "final solution"?

R.F. The "final solution" (Endloesung, Gesamtloesung), the overall solution is that Jews be deported. First to Madagascar. You know, this is what was called the Madagascar Projekt. I have its text. Then, since the war was in Europe, this project was abandoned. For the moment, it was to put the Jews the farthest possible from Europe, in some corner there; in the meantime, put to work those of them who can work. But you have Hitler's comments, if Hitler's comments are taken into consideration. (You can always say to me that Hitler tells stories. Oh well, if he tells stories in one direction, would he tell in another?) He said, "I will force them to found a national State" and this date, if I recall, was September, 1942.

C.R. Then what were they doing in these camps, where they were dying, where....?

R.F. They did not all die in the camps, because there are numerous associations of former deportees. Concerning this, I would like to tell you something that I missed and which is very important, it deals with the number. Well, you know the Second War War History Committee. You know it is a service attached directly to the prime minister. It is managed by Mr. Henri Michel and Mr. Claude Levy. An investigation was opened on the deportation a long time ago, more than twenty years, I believe. Well, it is scientific work, department by department. This investigation was completed at the end of 1973. The results were never made public, and now I'll tell you why. This committee publishes in duplicate and puts out a bulletin with a confidential circulation. This bulletin should not be confused with the Revue de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Here is what Mr. Henri Michel said in this bulletin (number 209 and 212, dated January and April 1974): "The overall results of the investigation" (which lasted several years and employed several people) "will not be published," the reason being "the fear of incidents with some associations of deportees." In other words, "to avoid discourteous reflections for the deportees."

C.R. So how many disappeared?

R.F. You come back to this question and I tell you that personally, I am not in a position to answer, but I tell you that there are people you should ask and that they should publish the results of their investigation in France.

In the course of the conversation, the journalist casts the Darquier hook (it is useful, he must wonder about such a title as "A Darquier model," it is good for sales). Answers R.F.: "Monsieur Darquier de Pellepoix does not interest me, he is even the type of man that I would fight all my life."

That doesn't bite. Another title must be found. The interview ends quite badly.

[...] My students are going to read le Matin. Unfortunately, they will not read it, because I only want a written (as it was clearly stated) interview. Do you agree?

C.R. Not at all!

R.F. What?

C.R. Not at all. You talked to me. I told you nothing to start. I'll use it, you told me so.

R.F. No, no, you told me that you agree on the following point -- or else it will be very serious, sir -- that you were granting me a written interview. I don't accept this.... Yes, this was a conversation between us.

C.R. I did not say that, you can check.

R.F. Well, listen Monsieur, you are cheating me and what you are doing is very bad, very serious and you don't have the right to do that.

C.R. I will not speak ... for me.

R.F. I talked to you in confidence, like that, between us. What you are doing....

C.R. Do you think that I am going to waste an hour talking with you and not do an article, no this is ... not ... possible....

The Le Matin article justified Faurisson's fears (19). The abstract began thus: "Darquier is not alone. Some describe his comments about the Nazi extermination camps as 'insane.' Robert Faurisson, a teacher in Lyon, supports him." The same abstract ends with an allusion to a meeting with Claude Regent during which "a two hour interview was recorded. Later, Faurisson demanded that it not be published. Undoubtedly, he was afraid of the enormity of its comments." The journalist is not frightened by the futility of his comments. Not pleased enough with his deformations, he adds pure and simple lies: he says that Faurisson "occupies the position of historic advisor of Baucens publishers in Brussels. The titles of some of their published works are explicit: le Mensonge d'Auschwitz, le Protocole des Sages de Sion, la Verite sur l'affaire Joachim Peiper." Claude Regent was careful not to ask Faurisson about it. Other newspapers picked up this slander, and others, such as Bernard Schalscha of Liberation, who hastily copies the previous day's article of le Matin, made Faurisson the author of the above mentioned works (20). To cap it all, le Matin said that before 1969, when he was teaching at Clermont-Ferrand, "Robert Faurisson received an official warning following antisemitic remarks."

To pull in the reader, the phrase "the Journal of Anne Frank, is it authentic?" (which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion) is used four times (title, abstract and twice in the body of the article) and brought in the fifth time, in different form, under Anne Frank's photo, without a single comment to clarify the meaning of this question. What is poor Anne Frank doing in le Matin de Paris? To make Margot cry, to distract attention from what is being said. I had been told that this was a socialist newspaper; this must be a mistake.

The rest of the article consists of considerations by the president of Lyon 2, Mr. Maurice Bernadet, of partially falsified extracts from the program of Faurisson's courses (21), and in a disjointed menu of texts by Faurisson under the headline, "the problem of gas chambers." In all this, there is no single word of what Faurisson said in the course of the interview.

This article and all its little fantasies was taken up as is in the rest of the mass media. Faurisson dispatched immediately a reply. But a socialist newspaper such as Le Matin de Paris does not bother with the right to reply. Then Faurisson appealed to the justice of his country. The court's grounds are partially based on the text of this reply (22):

I only give written interviews. Your journalist was duly warned about that, he cut and pasted fragments of my writings which, moreover, were presented as those of an antisemite.

I am neither interested in national socialism, which has been dead since April 30, 1945, nor in nostalgic neo-Nazism, nor especially in the pervasive sex-shop Nazism peddled by the media and even by official historians.

Four years of reflection about the thesis of Paul Rassinier (an authentic and courageous resistance fighter and deportee) and four years of personal research, including in Struthof, Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, convinced me that the Hitlerian "gas chambers" did not exist. Should that be hushed up, or should the good news finally be announced?

And the court drew the following conclusion:

Whereas the editor of le Matin had the right to refuse the publication of a reply in which the author accused of having cut and pasted fragments of Faurisson's writings was insulted; and whereas the latter abused this right by trying to impose on the newspaper the publication of a text in which he stresses the "pervasive sex-shop Nazism peddled by the media and even by official historians," all these considerations have no direct link with his being implicated by the journalist.

Thus, a journalist is insulted by the exact description of what he has done: cut and pasted texts. It's a good thing to know. Nonetheless, le Matin was sentenced for defamation, the official warning for antisemitic remarks being "very probably," as they pretend "without any justification." But the amazing thing is that the publication of the verdict, which is routinely done upon request, was prohibited by the court "because of the particular circumstances of the case." Here is a newspaper that slanders an individual, the fact is recognized by the court, but the individual is denied the right to public acknowledgment for what the verdict qualifies as an infringement "on honor and consideration." What are these "particular circumstances" other than the common desire of the newspaper and the court that Faurisson's public image remain attached to this accusation?

With unintended humor, le Matin published at the bottom of the page an article headlined, "Comment avoue un innocent" (Confessions of an Innocent). To anybody who dives into this nightmarish affair, the question of past confessions by Nazi leaders is of crucial importance. Any reflection, in this regard, about the value that can be attributed to past confessions under conditions of extreme coercion, must be taken into consideration. This article reports that a team led by R.P.R. deputy Pierre Bas studied the problem posed by capital punishment, decided to conduct a hearing of some "important witnesses" including Gilles Perrault, Mgr. Fauchet, bishop of Troyes and abbe P. Toulat. Gilles Perrault gave a report on the fragility of evidence, "How can an innocent confess?," with reference to Arthur London. I quote from the text: "A testimony is not worth more than a confession. The conclusions duly supported by precise experiments conducted by a group of researchers from Columbia University are appalling on this subject. Until then, it was believed that the human eye functioned like a camera, the memory restoring the film more or less completely, but faithfully. In fact, not only the memory, but the sight would be selective. The eye would see what it expected to see, what it likes to see, what is logical to see." There is no need for a university researcher to know all this. But try to transpose these considerations from the penal level to that of historical events... What does Mr. Badinter think about that?

It would be fastidious to search the media for reactions to this affair. We would only find that beyond the condemnations and the indignations, there is no information, no spontaneous discussion (23). Faurisson's letter to Le Monde serve to keep the ball rolling.

First letter, December 16, 1978.

Never deny! For having denied the existence of Hitlerian "gas chambers," Paul Rassinier and many other revisionist authors have been called "Nazis," "crazy," "Savonarole," "Jesuit," and "harmful" persons by the highest university authorities. But before 1974, I was officially considered to be a "very brilliant professor," "very original researcher," a man endowed with an "exceptional personality," a "teacher with remarkable intellectual and pedagogical qualities"; my publications had "made a lot of noise" and my thesis defense at the Sorbonne was considered "brilliant."

On November 16, 1978, a newspaper that was granted an interview by Mr. Bernadet (president of my university) published abominable slanders about me as a preface to a collection of "declarations" I had made about the lie of "gas chambers." Mr. Bernadet immediately posted the article accompanied by a notice inviting my dear colleagues to sign a register of protest against my "declarations." He told another newspaper that my "intellectual equilibrium" may be "affected" and he could no longer assure my security. First in a statement and then in a press release, he denounced the "scandalous character" of my "affirmations," which, in addition, "rested on no serious foundation and deserved only contempt."

In agreement with the superintendent, Mr. Bernadet issued a suspension order against me. Neither one of them informed in time and I fell into a veritable trap. Elements from outside our university entered my office. Mr. Bernadet did nothing despite the fact that he was close by and knew about the comings and goings of these frenzied people, and about my presence on the premises. A small group from them insulted me and chased me down the university hallways. They caught me at the exit. They thrashed me on the sidewalk. Then they chased me and beat me up again along with one of my students. For the past three years, thanks to Mr. Bernadet, I am an associate professor for whom there is no possibility for promotion because -- official reason -- other than that I reside two hours from Lyon, it seems I have never published anything in my life, and this by "my own admission"! As grounds for his accusation, Mr. Bernadet took out of context a sentence from a letter where I express my surprise at my being called a "Nazi" while I have published nothing that might lead one to believing that I was one (letter of December 12, 1975 that he refers to). This frightening accusation would subsequently be confirmed by my minister, then more recently by the Council of State, in whose eyes, the invoked motives against me are not "materially inaccurate" (though the list of my publications was part of my file)! I will not enter into a discussion here with Mr. Bernadet and I will not point out in his letter other serious inaccuracies, maneuvers or omissions. I am waiting for a public debate on a subject that is manifestly avoided: that of "gas chambers." For four years, I have been soliciting Le Monde in this direction. I demand to finally publish my two pages on "The Rumors of Auschwitz." The moment has come. The time is ripe.

Finally, with all the mental restrictions of some kind or another, the time is getting ripe for some discussion, or a semblance of such, to be opened:(24)

Nobody contests the use of crematory furnaces in some German camps. The frequency of epidemics, in all of Europe in wartime, required the cremation of corpses of typhus victims.

It is the existence of "gas chambers," real human slaughterhouses, which is contested. This dispute has been increasing since 1945. The mass media are no longer ignoring it.

In 1945, official history maintained that "gas chambers" had functioned in the old Reich as well as in Austria, in Alsace as well as in Poland. Fifteen years later, in 1960, it revised its judgment: "At first" (?) "gas chambers" functioned only in Poland(b). This heart-rending revision of 1960 reduced to nothing a thousand "testimonies," a thousand "proofs" of alleged gassings in Oranienbourg, in Buchenwald, in Bergen-Belsen, in Dachau, in Ravensbrueck, in Mauthausen. Before French or English judicial authorities, those in charge of Ravensbrueck (Suhren, Schwarzhuber, Dr. Treite) had admitted the existence of a "gas chamber" whose functioning they even described, somewhat vaguely. Comparable scenario for Ziereis in Mauthausen or for Kramer in Struthof. After the death of the guilty, it was discovered that these gassings had never existed. Fragility of testimonies and confessions!

The "gas chambers" in Poland -- as was finally admitted -- too, have never existed. Information about them was given by Polish and Soviet judicial authorities (see, for example, the incredible confession of R. Hoess: Commandant a Auschwitz).

The actual visitor to Auschwitz or Majdanek discovers, instead of "gas chambers," places where any gassing would have ended up in a catastrophe for the gassers and their surroundings. A collective execution by gas, assuming it was practicable, could not be identified with an accidental or suicidal gassing. To gas one single prisoner, with wrists and feet tied, the Americans use a sophisticated gas in a small space where, after its use, the gas is sucked up to be neutralized later. Also, for example, in Auschwitz, how could two thousand (and even three thousand) men be put in a space of 210 square meters (!), then have poured on them pellets of the common and violent insecticide called Zyklon B; and finally, right after the death of the victims, send, without gas masks into a place saturated with cyanide acid, a team with the mission of removing corpses contaminated with cyanide? Little known documents(c) show that: 1) This place that the Germans blew up before they left was only a typical morgue (Leichenkeller), buried (to protect it from heat) and provided with only one small door for both entry and exit; 2) That Zyklon B cannot be evacuated by accelerated ventilation and that its evaporation required at least twenty-one hours. While there are thousands of documents dealing with the Auschwitz crematoria, including invoices up to the Pfennig, concerning the "gas chambers," which, it seems, flanked these crematoria, there is no construction order, no study, no plan, no invoice, no picture. In a hundred trials (Jerusalem, Frankfurt, etc.), nothing could be brought forward.

"I was in Auswitz. It does not have a "gas chamber"." Witnesses who dare pronounce this phrase are barely listened to. They are hounded by the courts. In 1978, anybody in Germany who testified in favor of T. Christophersen, the author of The Auschwitz Lie risked condemnation for "insult to the memory of the dead."

After the war, the International Red Cross (which conducted an inquiry about "the rumor of Auschwitz")(d), the Vatican (which was very well informed about Poland), the Nazis, the collaborators, all stated with many others: '"The "gas chambers"? We knew nothing about them." But how can things that never existed be known?

Nazism is dead, dead and buried, with its Fuehrer. Today, truth remains. Let's dare proclaim it. The nonexistence of "gas chambers" is good news for poor humanity. It is too good to keep hidden any longer(e).

The same page contains a refutation by a specialist, Mr. Georges Wellers:

Abundance of Proofs

Mr. Faurisson issued a challenge: "I challenge anyone to show me the beginning of a proof of the existence of a gas chamber" in Nazi concentration camps.

It must be known that the gas chambers in the camps where Jews and Gypsies (Auschwitz, Belzec, Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka) were destroyed by the Germans before the end of the war, with the only exception of Majdanek.

Having said this, the question is not at all "the slightest beginning of a proof," but rather the abundance of proofs which are of three kinds: a) German archives; b) testimonies of former S.S.; c) testimonies of former prisoners.

For example, in the case of Auschwitz, in the correspondence among industrial builders of four gas chambers at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) designed to replace those small-scale chambers put up in the spring of 1942 ("bunker" in the camp jargon), there is a question of "the installation of a gas chamber (Bestellung einer Begasungskammern), etc. So, it is grotesque to pretend that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz as the "witness" Christophersen does and as it is obviously done by Mr. Faurisson, who went to look for them, in 1944, in Auschwitz I, in Raisko, and in Bielitz, where they did not exist. As for Birkenau (Auschwitz II), where they existed behind fences prohibited to any stranger, he went once to take charge of a hundred prisoners allocated to Raisko, and he saw nothing. This is the basis of his "testimony" of 1973!

The question is to find out whether these chambers were used for humans, or for "lice", as Darquier says, and as Mr. Faurisson seems to think, when he states that Zyklon B is a violent insecticide (his emphasis).

As far as lice are concerned, there is no positive proof. On the contrary, as far as humans are concerned, proofs abound.

Here is, for example, what can be read in the journal of S.S. physician professor Kramer, discovered August 12, 1945, at his house, going back to the period when the latter was at Auschwitz and where he participated in the selection for the gas chambers (Sonderaktion): "2-9-1942: This morning at 3 o'clock, I witnessed a Sonderaktion for the first time. Compared to this, Dante's inferno looks like a comedy. It isn't for nothing that Auschwitz is called an extermination camp." "10-12-1942: I witnessed a Sonderaktion during the night (one thousand six hundred people from Holland). Terrifying scenes in front of the last bunker." "10-18-1942: I was present at the eleventh Sonderaktion on the Dutch in cold humid weather. Terrible scenes with three women pleading to be left alive." Was it a matter of lice or humans?

By comparison, the same Kramer notes: "9-1-1942: I witnessed this afternoon the disinfection of a block by Zyklon B so as to eliminate lice." Here there is no question of either "Sonderaktion," or Dante's inferno, or terrifying or atrocious scenes, or extermination...

January 29, 1943, in a letter sent by the Auschwitz construction chief to the head of the S.S. central administration in Berlin on the construction progress (Bauzustand) of Krematorium II in Birkenau, there is a question of a cremation furnace, of a place for corpses (Leichenkeller) and a place for gassing (Vergasunskeller). All this for lice?

In July 1945 and in March or April 1946, two important Auschwitz S.S. (Pery Broad, in charge of Politische Abteilung and Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess) gave detailed descriptions of gas chambers and of their functioning at Birkenau. These were independent descriptions given by the first, to British authorities and by the second, to the International Tribunal and before that to the "Polish and Soviet judicial authorities." Later, during several Auschwitz S.S. trials in German courts, eight S.S. members interrogated as witnesses, admitted having seen, with their own eyes, functioning gas chambers in Birkenau. None among some dozen accused denied their existence, but only his personal participation in their use.

Five Auschwitz escapees in 1943 and in 1944, among them a non-Jewish Polish officer, gave a description of the Birkenau gas chambers and their report was published under the auspices of the Executive Office of War Refugee Board of the President of the United States in November, 1944, during the war, stating that "the office has every reason to believe that these reports offer an exact picture of the horrible facts that are taking place in these camps."

On the other hand, four manuscripts were found during searches conducted on Birkenau grounds, where, before they died, their authors, all members of the Sonderkommandos charged with the clearing of gas chambers and the evacuation of corpses toward the crematoria, had buried them at different times. All these missives from beyond the grave point to gas chambers and their functioning. After the end of the war, fourteen rare survivors, among the Sonderkommandos of Birkenau, gave identical descriptions of these chambers. It remains to add that the threat to end one's life in a gas chamber in Birkenau was part of the discipline arsenal of the camp and of its Kommandos, and was instilled in every prisoner.

All these descriptions are perfectly corroborating as far as the topographic location of these gas chambers in Birkenau, their number, the time when they were put "in service," their functioning with "Zyklon B" gas, and of course, their use to kill people, were concerned.

Nonetheless, Mr. Faurisson, the seasoned specialist on the assassination of millions of human beings in gas chambers, says that their use "would have led to a catastrophe for the gassers and their surroundings" where they were sent "without gas masks" immediately (his emphasis) after the death of the victims... in a place saturated with cyanide acid..." Because, he says, "... Zyklon B could not be evacuated by accelerated ventilation..."

All this is nothing but pretentious gossip of a specialist in the critique of literary texts, who takes himself for an expert in mass murders. Other specialists, infinitely better placed, are of a different opinion. For example, the letter of January 29, 1943 cited above, says: "The firm Topf und Soehne could not deliver the ventilation and exhaust device in time (die Be- und Entlueftungsanlage) ordered by the central construction administration, because of the unavailability of cars. After the delivery of the ventilation and exhaust device, its installation will start right away so that it will be operational by February 20, 1943." On the other hand, Pery Broad, Hoess and others say that the evacuation of corpses was done "after the gassing with the help of fans" (Broad); half an hour after [the gassing] (G.W.) the electric fan was turned on and the corpses were hoisted to the furnace with an elevator." (Hoess before the British), etc.

I don't know if Mr. Faurisson is antisemitic or a partisan of Nazism. He says he is not. But, what I say is that if he were, he could do neither more nor better than what he is doing to slander and hurt the Jews by treating them as impostors and to clear Nazism of its most horrible and revolting aspect.

My remarks are not addressed to fanatics, for there is no hope of persuading them of anything. They are addressed to men and women of good faith, ignorant of the facts and who, for this reason, risk lending an ear to the fallacies of the apologists of Nazism.

A long article with the heading, "The Final Solution," by Olga Wormser-Migot, appeared also in Le Monde the next day. It outlined the main points of the traditional argument. There was also a reply by the president of Lyon 2 University, Mr. Bernadet, together with testimony by Dr. Chretien on the Struthof camp:

A Testimony

Dr. Hirt, anatomy professor and director of the Anatomy Institute of Strasbourg from 1941 to 1944, wanted to assemble a collection of Jewish skulls. In order to obtain skeletons in good condition, this scientist contacted Himmler about getting live Jews (the correspondence was found). The S.S. delivered to him, at the Natzweiler concentration camp, fifty-seven men and thirty women, who were put in block 13, separated by barbed wire from the rest of the camp. The French deportees of July, 1943 (numbers 4300 to 4500) saw them (all these French deportees are not yet dead, I was among them). One night in August, 1943, block 13 was emptied. The French deportees were then transferred to it. The camp nurses told us the secret that its occupants were sent to the Struthof gas chamber.

In fact, Mr. Henry Pierre, an Alsacian employee of the Anatomy Institute of Strasbourg, took delivery of eighty-seven corpses (and noted the Auschwitz numbers tattooed on their forearms) in August 1943. The scientist professor Hirt advised him to remain silent: "Pierre, if you don't keep your mouth shut, you'll be sent there too."

Times were tough, and the precious work of going through the flesh to expose the skeleton could not be done in time, and at the approach of the allies, the criminals panicked. Written documents show their concern about erasing the traces of this monstrous crime.

The French troops arrived. The corpses that had not yet been cut up were found. They were examined and photographed by professor Simonin.

Arrested at Bergen-Belsen, Joseph Kramer, commander of Natzweiler camp in 1943, described at length, before commander Jadin of the 10th region of the Military Tribunal, how, in August 1943, he himself, following instructions of eminent professor Hirt, assassinated by gas these eighty-seven wretched people in the specially equipped chamber in Struthof farm.

Other victims perished in this gas chamber: proofs of its use exist (writings, witnesses), among others, for experiments on Yperite...

But liars and falsifiers (instead of the questionable "right to reply," let them take me to court for insult and defamation: I'm waiting for them), have to be reminded that what the Nazis did on an (artisanal) small scale on French territory (Natzweiler-Struthof is in Alsace) they did on an industrial scale in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, etc.

The concentration camp survivors, the relatives of millions of victims who moaned in gas chambers, are slowly disappearing. Professor Hirt's disciples should not be bedecked with French academic titles.

Dr. H. Chretien, prisoner number 4468, widower of Rachel Zacharewics, gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau with the September 2, 1943 convoy.

R. Faurisson's reply came on January 16:

In my eighteen years of research, I read more than once the arguments sparked off by my brief article on "The Auschwitz Rumor." I do not question their authors' sincerity, but I say that these arguments are full of errors, pointed out to long ago by Rassinier, Scheidl, and Butz.

For example, in the letter of January 29, 1943 that was quoted (a letter that does not even have the usual mention of "secret"), Vergasung does not mean "gassing," but "carburation." Vergasungskeller designates a room underground where the gas mixture that feeds the cremation furnace is made. These furnaces, with their ventilation devices, came from the firm Topf & Son of Erfurt (No. 4473).

Begasung means the gassing of clothes in autoclaves. If the gas used was Zyklon B -- preparation of "B[lausaeure'], which means prussic or cyanide acid -- it was called the "blue gas chambers." Nothing to do with the alleged "gas chambers - slaughterhouses"!

The Diary of the physician Johann Paul Kremer must be quoted correctly. Then it will be seen that when he talks about the horrors of Auschwitz, he is referring to the horrors of the typhus epidemic of September-October 1942. On October 3, he wrote, "In Auschwitz, entire streets are devastated by typhus." He himself contracted what he calls the "Auschwitz disease." Germans died from it. The sorting of the sick and the healthy was the "selection" or one of the forms of "special action" of the physician. This sorting was done either inside the buildings or outside. Kremer never wrote that Auschwitz was a Vernichtungslager, which means, according to terminology invented by the allies after the war, "extermination camp" (meaning a camp equipped with a "gas chamber"). In reality, he wrote: "It is not for nothing that Auschwitz is a camp of devastation (das Lager der Vernichtung)." In the etymological sense of the word, typhus devastates those it strikes. Another serious quotation error: at the date of September 2, 1942, Kremer's manuscript contains: "This morning at 3 o'clock, I witnessed outside, for the first time, a special action." Historians and judges remove traditionally the word "outside" (draussen) to make Kremer say that this action took place in a "gas chamber." Finally, the atrocious scenes in front of the "last bunker" (meaning, the courtyard of bunker no. 11) are executions of those condemned to death, the physician had to witness these executions. Among those condemned to death were three women who arrived in the convoy from Holland. They were shot (a).

The "Kremas" buildings of Birkenau were perfectly visible (b) to all. Many maps and pictures prove it, and they also prove the radical material impossibility for these "Kremas" to have had "gas chambers."

If, concerning Auschwitz, I am given confessions, memoires or manuscripts -- miraculously -- found (all documents that I already know), I want to be shown how their inaccurate precision differs from the inaccurate precision of all the documents that made the Allied Military Tribunals say that there were "gas chambers" where, in the end, they recognized that there were none: for example, in all of the old Reich!

I cited industrial documents NI -9098 and 9912. They must be read before confronting me with the "testimonies" of Pery Broad and R. Hoess, and why not, the "confessions," after the war, of J. P. Kremer. These documents establish that Zyklon B is not among the exhaustible gases, its manufacturers had to indicate that it is "difficult to ventilate, since it adheres to surfaces." One cannot enter a place treated with Z.B., even using a mask with" J" filter -- the finest of all filters -- until twenty hours had passed in order to conduct chemical tests on the presence of the gas (c). Mattresses and blankets had to be beaten and left in fresh air for an hour or two. But Hoess wrote (d): "Half an hour after the gas was hurled, the door was opened and the ventilation device turned on. Corpses started to be extracted immediately." Immediately (sofort)! In addition, the team in charge of manipulating two thousand cyanide contaminated corpses entered the place (still full of gas) and pulled out the corpses, while "eating and smoking." This means, if I understand it, without even a gas mask. It is impossible. All testimonies, no matter how vague or conflicting with the rest (e), agree at least on this point: The team opened the place either immediately or "a little" after the death of the victims. I say that this point alone is the touchstone of false witness.

In Alsace, the "gas chamber" of Struthof is interesting to visit. There, one can read the confession of Josef Kramer. It's a "hole" (sic) through which Kramer poured "a certain amount of cyanide salt," then "a certain amount of water": then a gas came out that killed in about one minute. The "hole" that we see today is crudely made with the strike of a chisel that cracked four squares of pottery. Kramer used a "faucet funnel." I don't see how he could prevent the gas from flowing back through this crude hole, or how he could accept that this gas, coming out of the chimney, would spread to the windows of his villa. Then go to the next room and there, explain to me this affair of corpses kept for professor Hirt in "formalin tanks" which are, in fact, tanks of sauerkraut and potatoes with simple wood flaps that are not airtight.

The most trivial weapon suspected to have killed or wounded, is the object of a judicial appraisal. We find out with surprise that these miraculous crime weapons that are the "gas chambers" have not been the object of an official appraisal (judicial, scientific or archaeological) whose report we can examine (f).

Had the Germans unfortunately won the war, I suppose that their concentration camps would have been presented to us as reeducation camps. Contesting this presentation of the facts would undoubtedly have led me to be accused of objectively playing the game of "Judeomarxism". Neither objectively nor subjectively, I am neither Judeomarxist nor neonazi. I admire the French who struggled courageously against Nazism. They defended a good cause. Today, if I state that the "gas chambers" did not exist, it is because the difficult duty to speak the truth forces me to do it.

[We publish Mr. Faurisson's text in accordance with the law of July 29, 1881. Any reply implicating him would entitle him to a new right to reply.

Nonetheless, we do not consider closed the file opened by the declarations of Darquier de Pellepoix.]

G. Wellers replied without mentioning Faurisson.

Finally, in response to an advertisement of Le Droit de Vivre (The Right to Live), "Professor Faurisson is summoned by L.I.C.A. to appear before the courts (25)." He sent the following text, only excerpts of which were published, maybe in order not to allocate to him more space than the incriminated ad (March 23, 1979):

Mr. Wellers, who calls me a "novelist," has evaded my arguments, and in particular, those having to do with the material impossibility of gassing. Had Zyklon B been used in this alleged 210 square meter "gas chamber" (in reality: a simple morgue), it would have adhered to the ceiling, the floor, and the four walls. It would have penetrated the victims' bodies and their mucous membranes (in fact, it penetrated the mattresses and the blankets that had to be disinfected and beaten outdoors in order to rid them of the gas). The team in charge of removing 2000 corpses out of the "gas chamber" would have been itself asphyxiated. It would have had to rush, with gas masks, into a bath of cyanide acid vapors to handle bodies saturated with this mortal gas. I am told that Hoess did not care about the health of his team. Fine! But how would these men have done their job? I don't see who would have evacuated this "gas chamber" to make room for new batches. As for the "ventilation and exhaust device," I repeat, it is for furnaces, as vouched for by document No. 4473. Moreover, Zyklon B is "difficult to ventilate" even in a vast space, and furthermore, it is explosive: cyanide acid is not used near a furnace!

When Kremer and his judges talk about three women shot at Auschwitz, they are saying nothing that is unlikely. But when the same Kremer tells his judges that he witnessed a gassing, from a distance, sitting in his car, I no longer believe him. In fact, he specifies that the reopening of the "gas chamber" took place "a moment" after the death of the victims (a). There is here a flagrant material impossibility that I will not comment on. And then, I notice that, in order to try to explain to us a "confession," that of Kremer, they have recourse to another "confession," and, it happens to be that of Hoess. The disturbing point is that these two confessions deny more than they confirm each other. Look closely at the description of the victims, the staff, the executioners and the mode of execution.

My request for an assessment of these "crime weapons" that would have been the "gas chambers" is found to be amazing. I am told that a gas chamber can be improvised in a minute in an apartment. This is a mistake. A bedroom cannot become a gas chamber. A coincidental or suicidal asphyxiation has no connection with a gas chamber. When one wants to kill a crowd of victims with any gas and especially with cyanide acid, without risking to be himself killed, or to provoke an explosion, etc., an extraordinarily complicated machinery would have to be put in place. It becomes more and more difficult to believe in the existence of these human slaughterhouses that these "gas chambers" would have been. Most recently, the aerial photos of Auschwitz and of Birkenau (documents of the Americans Dino A. Brugioni and Robert G. Poirier in 19 pages and 14 photographs) could very well have put to rest the extermination legend. There already existed several "ground" photos of the "Kremas" of Auschwitz and of Birkenau, without counting the maps. The nature of the buildings and their location seems to exclude the possibility of any criminal use. The aerial photos confirm this impression. In 1946, the highest of what was called "the extermination period," the Americans admitted their surprise at not seeing the smoke and the flames that were said to have "gushed out of the chimneys of crematoria and been seen from a distance of several miles". They make this remark about the photo of August 25, 1944 -- the day following the arrival of five convoys "to be exterminated" (b) -- but it seems to also apply to other photos: those of April 4, June 26, July 26 and September 13, 1944. In 1976, the revisionist historian Arthur R. Butz had a premonition (c). He said that the Allies must certainly have in their archives aerial photos of the Auschwitz complex, since the Germans were conducting advanced industrial research there. He quickly added that, if the existence of these photos is not disclosed, it is probably because they do not furnish any proof in support of the accusations against the Germans.

Some French historians have just issued a condemnation of those who allow themselves to doubt the existence of homicidal "gas chambers". I have been prevented from lecturing at my university for four months. L.I.C.A. has summoned me to appear before the courts for "falsification of history" and has asked the authorities to "suspend my lectures (...) until justice is served (d)". But, as I can see, nobody dares confront, on an equal footing, the debate that I propose. Yet, my proposition is simple. Since any accusation must be proved, I ask that the accusation against Germany about the "gas chamber" topic be submitted to a routine historical analysis that would provide one single precise proof. For example, among all the "gas chambers" that pilgrims and tourists are directed to visit, let the accusers show me one, which, in their view, really served to kill people at any time.

In the meantime, I thank the increasing number of those who support me, especially among the youth. Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit wrote: "Let's fight to destroy these gas chambers that are shown to tourists in the camps and where we now know that they never existed(e)". He is right. Let's put an end to war propaganda. Real horrors are enough. It's useless to add to them.

The open struggle went underground after Faurisson's January 19th warning to le Monde that "any reply implicating him would, in turn, give him the right to reply." The attacks and controversies would henceforth target an anonymous, unnameable, but known enemy. Time will tell whether the process was fair. The same goes for the rest of the press.

This was confirmed by his conflict with a Lyon newspaper that he reports as follows (July 1979):

November 17, then again November 18, 1978, Robert Faurisson, associate professor at Lyon 2 University is taken to task by the newspaper Le Progres de Lyon. As "right to reply," he sends a letter to the newspaper. The newspaper refuses to publish his letter. R. Faurisson files a suit. The verdict is given on June 27, 1979 by the police court of Lyon. The (only) judge, Mme. Baluze-Frachet, dismissed the suit. In its June 30, 1979 issue, the paper summarized the affair as follows: 'The court dismissed Mr. Faurisson's suit on the basis that his letter to Progres ''contained affirmations in conflict with good customs and the moral order.'' This summary is exact. The professor is accused of undermining the good customs, meaning "the set of moral rules that society does not permit him to infringe on." He undermines the moral order, which is not to be confused with "the public order." One has to go back to the time of the Second Empire and the legislation enacted around 1850 in France to find mention of this "moral order." The proceedings against Baudelaire and Flaubert were taken more or less in the name of this order. At the beginning of the Third Republic, those who were still nostalgic for the monarchy gave the name "moral order" to the conservative politics defined by the duke de Broglie on May 26, 1873 that were supposed to prepare for the restoration of the monarchy. Supported by the Church, it led to anti republican measures (destitution of republican civil servants, etc.) This was the politics of Marshall de Mac - Mahon. In brief, "moral order" for a long time, has come to only designate a totally reactionary and retrograde politics. One no longer takes pride in being the defender of the "order" and still less of the "moral order." Mme. Baluze-Frachet blames Professor Faurisson for the following two sentences:

1) " ... Fourteen years of reflection and four years of meticulous inquiry ... led me to declare on January 29, 1978 to the participants in the colloquium of historians that was held in Lyon that the massacres in alleged "gas chambers" are a historical lie."

2) " ... The question is to know whether it is true or not that the Hitlerian "gas chambers" really existed."

Mme. judge declares: "These statements are in conflict with good customs." She adds, "... It is acknowledged that millions of people, particularly Jews, died in Nazi concentration camps, victims of different 'killing machines,' among which were the gas chambers." Mme. judge goes on to say: "The gas chambers existed and ... the simple fact of wanting to insert in a daily newspaper an article whose author poses the question of their existence infringes on good customs."

Mme. judge goes much further. She reproaches the professor for having damaged "the honor of members of the cabinet, and mainly its head." This head is Mr. Raymond Barre, whose electoral fiefdom is situated in Lyon.

What did Robert Faurisson do to damage the honor of such worthy persons?

The answer is given by Mme. judge. R. Faurisson, whose colleagues felt free to lecture him, reminded them of two things:

a) By their own admission, they pressured the local press and, in particular, Progres de Lyon, to give the silence treatment to R. Faurisson's declarations at the January 1979 colloquium in Lyon.

b) They all knew very well that the History Committee of the Second World War (of Mssrs. Henri Michel and Claude Levy), directly linked to the Prime Minister, head of the government, has been hiding for the past five years the real number of the real deportees of France.

So R. Faurisson wrote to the pack of his detractors and those who lecture him: "I consider as cowards those who pretend to ignore this pure and simple withholding of documents." To the newspaper that joined its voice to those of the detractors (and which for 35 years entertained its readers with a mythical history of the last war), he addresses the following criticism: "I disapprove of your silence and your collusion with all sorts of official and unofficial powers for the past 35 years."

Faurisson also noted that the committee was financed by the taxpayers and that if this committee kept hidden the results of its inquiry for 20 years, it was, by Mr. Henri Michel's admission, in order to "avoid possible conflicts with certain associations of deportees" (Bulletin -- confidential -- No. 209) and because the publication of these results "would risk provoking discourteous reflections about the deportees" (Bulletin No. 212, April 1974). At no time did R. Faurisson talk about "the members of the government" (in plural). He only wrote: "This official committee is directly linked to the Prime Minister." This is written in big print on this committee's publications.

Finally, Mme. judge stigmatizes, in a general fashion, what she calls in the letter "the passages in conflict with the moral order" -- the passages that were cited above and commented on.

Notes

19. November 16, 1978.

20. Liberation, November 17, 1978. He ends his article with typical hypocrisy: "Were there other than the usual students of the twentieth century French literature course to listen to Mr. Faurisson in Faculte du quai Claude-Bernard, room 12 on Monday at 2 P.M.?" Bravo, Libe. Identical remark for Le Quotidien du peuple, 18-20, November 1978.

21. In talking about A.R. Butz book, The Hoax of the 20th Century, C. Regent says that it was translated into French by Francois Duprat, a recently assassinated extreme right leader. Pure invention. The book is not translated.

22. Judgment of the supreme court (1st chamber, 1st section), May 2, 1979.

23. As noted by Mr. Rene Frank, president of the Committee of Teachers, Friends of Israel: "One can't improvise when talking to neo-Nazi scientists about Nazism," (Le Figaro, May 18, 1979).

24. Le Monde, December 29, 1978.

(a) The expression is by Olga Wormser-Migot (Le Systeme Concentrationnaire Nazi, thesis , P.U.F., 1968.)

(b) "Keine Vergasung in Dachau", by Dr. Martin Broszat, director of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich (Die Zeit, August 19, 1960, p. 16).

(c) Photographs of the Auschwitz museum (neg. 519 and 6228); Nuremberg documents (NI - 9098 and NI - 9912).

(d) C.I.C.-R., Documents sur l'activite du Comite international de la Croix-Rouge en faveur des civils detenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne (1939-1945), second edition, Geneva, June 1946, series II, no. partial reproduction (I copied the whole confidential text) of document no. 9925: Visite au commandant du camp d'Auschwitz d'un delegue du C.I.R.-R (September 1944), pp. 91 and 92. An important sentence of this document has been skillfully amputated of three words by Marc Hillel in Les Archives de l'espoir, Fayard 1977, p. 257, and the most important sentence ("the prisoners themselves said nothing about it") has disappeared.

(e) Among some twenty authors who deny the existence of "gas chambers," we mention Paul Rassinier, former deportee (Le Veritable proces Eichmann, Les Sept. couleurs, 1962, distributed by M. Bardeche, 5, rue Rataud, Paris 5e) and especially, the American A. R. Butz for his remarkable book on The Hoax of the 20th Century, distributed by Historical Review Press, 23 Ellerker Gardens, Richmond, Surrey, TWIO 6AA (G-B).

(a) Auschwitz vu par les S.S. ed. du musee d'Oswiecim, 1974, p. 238, no. 85.

(b) A football field "was next to the Birkenau crematoria" (Thadeus Borowski, from H. Langbein, Hommes et femmes a Auschwitz, Fayard, 1975, p. 129).

(c) French regulations concerning the use of cyanide acid are as draconian as the German: see decret 50-1290 of October 18, 1950, Ministry of Public Health.

(d) Kommandant in Auschwitz, Deutsche Vertagsanstalt, Stuttgart, 1958, pp. 126 and 166.

(e) Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, University Press, Amsterdam, t. XIII (1975), pp. 134 and 135.

(f) General credibility doesn't require much: show us a door with a deadbolt (continental window catch) and here we are before ... "a gas chamber"!

25. Cf. Le Monde, March 29, 1979.

(a) Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, University Press of Amsterdam, t. XIII (1975), p. 20.

(b) Hefte von Auschwitz, no. 8 (1964), pp. 60-61.

(c) The Hoax of the 20th Century, p. 150.

(d) Le Droit de Vivre, March 1979, p. 9.

(e) Liberation, March 5, 1979, p. 4.

26. See, for example, the advertisement in Le Progres de Lyon (November 17, 1978) titled "Un nom?" We obviously know the name of the person implicated by the group of deputies gathered at the National Assembly. So far, we have not revealed his identity to our readers because we refuse to offer, under the cover of information, a free ad to the latecomers of racism and antisemitism. I find the "under cover" particularly delightful.

This text is the third chapter of the second part of the unpublished English translation of Verite historique ou verite politique / Le dossier de l'affaire Faurisson / La question des chambres à gaz, published in Paris in April 1980 by the publishing house La Vieille Taupe (= the Old Mole). ISBN 2-903279-02-0. Copyright © 1978 by La Vieille Taupe. The book is still on sale and may be ordered from the publisher, BP 98-05, 75224 Paris cedex 05, France. We believe it costs 150 F (around 30-35 US$)

The original French text is available at <http://www.aaargh-international.org/fran/histo/SF/SF4.html>

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.