Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist
HOW CAN I EXPLAIN what happened to me in my apartment that night? I read a newspaper article written by a professor I had never heard of which had been translated from French by who knows who, given to me on a hotel mezzanine by a stranger who was probably a crank, maintaining a thesis that was outrageous and dangerous because – of what? I didn’t know, but a sense of tension and danger enveloped the thing. I sensed immediately into the reading that if I didn’t reject everything Faurisson was saying that I would be in danger of suffering great losses, though that night I would not have been able to identify what they would be.
Why was I willing to read the Faurisson piece with an open mind? I’ll never know, but the source of its original publication was given, along with the date, so the accuracy of the translation could be checked. Key statements in the text were referenced; anyone willing to spend an hour or so in a good library could discover for himself if Faurisson was being honest in those instances. I was impressed by the simplicity of his claims and the objectivity of his tone, treating as he did a matter of tremendous significance from such a radical perspective.
Another probably reason was ignorance. Until that time I had not read a history of the Holocaust and hadn’t paid much attention to the stories of Holocaust “survivors.” I don’t know why. There were no heroes in the Holocaust stories I had heard – maybe that was it. Masses of sheep-like people being herded to the slaughter. Helplessness, passivity, pathos, no heroes to create tragedy from catastrophe. Maybe that was it. Ignorance then, a disinterest in suffering unredeemed by heroic action and finally, I suppose, a kind of primary boredom with a wretched story told and retold far too often.
That being so, how is it that I was so stunned at reading Faurisson’s thesis about the poison gas chamber stories? If the stories had not interested me in the first place, why should I have been affected by the discovery that they might not be true? Wouldn’t my fundamental lack of interest in the Holocaust forfeit my right—to a certain extent—to be shocked by the possibility that Faurisson had his finger on something?
But the real surprise might have been my discovery that despite my ignorance and the boredom I professed about the Holocaust, I had believed everything I had ever heard about it. Not the shadow of a doubt had ever crossed my mind. I had believed all the eyewitness testimony related by Holocaust survivors. I had believed what I understood to be the thesis in all the books written by Holocaust historians. Maybe that is why something broke in me that night. Maybe I had believed too rigidly for too long. There was nothing in me that could give a little. No room to bend. Intellectually, psychologically, something had to break. I think it was belief itself that finally cracked that night. My mind welcomed it—but in my heart I felt the awful anxiety that only great insecurity can create.
The “Problem of the Gas Chambers”1
“The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence[…]”
Article 19 of the Statutes of the International Military Tribunal (in reality: the Inter-allied Military Tribunal) at Nuremberg
“The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof[…]”
Article 21 of the Statutes
No one, not even those individuals who regard the Third Reich with nostalgia, denies the existence of concentration camps under Hitler. Everyone also recognizes that certain camps were equipped with crematory ovens: instead of being buried, the corpses were reduced to ashes. The repeated occurrence of epidemics made cremation necessary, especially for those who had died of typhus (see the photos of mass graves at Belsen et cetera). What is disputed by numerous French, British, American, and German authors is the existence of “extermination camps.” This expression is used by historiographers to refer to those camps that were supposed to have been equipped with “gas chambers.” Allegedly, these “gas chambers” were different from American gas chambers in that they were used to kill hundreds of men, women, and children at a time. Because the victims were chosen because of their race or religion, this is referred to as “genocide.” The poison employed in this “genocide” is said to have been Zyklon B (a pesticide based upon prussic or hydrocyanic acid).
Those who contest the “genocide” claim and the existence of the “gas chambers” are called Revisionists. Their argument runs approximately as follows:
It suffices for both of these problems (“genocide” and “gas chambers”) to apply the customary methods of historical criticism, to see that one is confronted here by two myths that are inseparable. The criminal intentions that are attributed to Hitler have never been proven. As far as the weapon for this crime is concerned, no one has actually seen it. Here one is confronted by an extraordinarily successful war and hate propaganda campaign. History is full of frauds of this kind, beginning with their religious fables of sorcery and witchcraft. What distinguishes our times from earlier epochs is the frightening power of the media and the propaganda ad nauseam which is made for what must be called “the hoax of the twentieth century.” Let him beware who, after 30 years, gets the idea to expose this hoax. He will learn depending upon the situation through imprisonment, fines, assaults and insults. His career can be shattered or endangered. He will be denounced as a Nazi. Either his thesis will be ignored, or else it will be distorted. No country will be more unrelentingly ruthless toward him than Germany. 1
Today however, the silence is about to be broken about those men who have dared to write responsibly that Hitler’s “gas chambers” (including those of Auschwitz and Majdanek) are only a historical lie. That is a great advance.
But what insults and distortions an Exterminationist historian such as Georges Wellers allowed himself when, more than ten years after Paul Rassinier’s death, he decided to expose the minutest part of the arguments of this ex-inmate of a concentration camp who had had the courage to reveal the lie of the “gas chambers” in his writings!
The best way in which a historian may inform himself regarding the actual claims of the disciples of Paul Rassinier is to refer to the work of American professor Dr. Arthur R. Butz entitled The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. 2
For my part, I take the liberty of making only a few observations specifically for serious research-oriented historians.
I call their attention to a paradox. Although the “gas chambers” are, in the view of the official historians, absolutely central to a picture of the Nazi concentration camp system (and furthermore, as proof for the totally perverse and devilish character of the German concentration camps in comparison to all previous and more recent concentration camps it ought to be meticulously shown how the Nazis proceeded to invent, construct, and operate these fearsome human slaughterhouses), one must be thoroughly astonished that in the impressive bibliography of the concentration camp literature there is not a single book, not a single brochure, not a single article, on the “gas chambers” themselves. One must not be misled by some very promising titles; rather one must ascertain the contents of these writings for oneself. I regard as “official historical writing” those publications which are written about the concentration camps by institutions or foundations that are partly or wholly financed from public funds, such as, for example, in France, the Comité d’Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale (Committee for the History of the Second World War) and the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaire (Jewish Contemporary Documentation Center), and in Germany (Munich), the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History).
One must wait until page 541 of the thesis by Olga Wormser-Migot on the system of Nazi concentration camps, before one finds a passage about the “gas chambers.” However, for the reader there are still three other surprises:
1. The passage in question covers only three pages.
2. It carries the title: “The Problem of the Gas Chambers.”
3. The “problem” consists of trying to determine whether the “gas chambers” at Ravensbrück (Germany) and Mauthausen (Austria) really existed; the author comes to the conclusion that they did not exist; however she does not examine here the “problem” of the “gas chambers” of Auschwitz or any of the other camps, probably because in her mind they do not present a “problem.” [on page 157 of her book she says that Auschwitz I had no gas chamber.]
At this point, the reader probably wants to know why an analysis that concludes that “gas chambers” did not exist in certain camps is suddenly discontinued as soon as, for example, Auschwitz is discussed. Why, on one hand, is the critical spirit awakened, and then, on the other hand, is it allowed to collapse into lethargy? After all, as far as the “gas chamber” of Ravensbrück is concerned, we have many points of “evidence” and “undeniable eyewitness accounts,” beginning with repeated and extensive eyewitness accounts by Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier or Germaine Tillion. It gets even better. Several years after the war, before both British and French tribunals, the camp officials of Ravensbrück (Suhren, Schwarzhuber and Treite) repeatedly confessed to the existence of a “gas chamber” in their camp. They even vaguely described its operation. Eventually, those who did not commit suicide were executed because of this alleged “gas chamber.” The same “confessions” were given prior to their deaths by Ziereis for Mauthausen (Austria) and by Kramer for Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace).
Today, one can see the alleged “gas chamber” of Struthof-Natzweiler and in the same place one can also read the unbelievable “confession” of Kramer. This “gas chamber,” which is designated as an “historical monument,” is a complete fraud. The slightest amount of critical spirit will be sufficient to convince oneself that a gassing in this small room, without any sealing whatsoever, would have been a catastrophe for the executioner as well as for the people in the vicinity. In order to make this “gas chamber” (which is guaranteed to be “in its original condition”) believable, someone has gone so for as to clumsily knock a hole into the thin wall with a chisel, and thereby break four tiles. The hole was so arranged that Josef Kramer would have dumped through it the mysterious “salts” (about which he could give no further details and which, when mixed with a little water, killed within one minute!). How could salts and water make such a gas? How could Kramer have prevented the gas from coming back out the hole? How could he see his victims from a hole which would have let him see no more than half the room? How did he ventilate the room before opening the rudimentary door, made from rough-cut lumber? Perhaps one must ask the civil engineering firm in Saint-Michel sur-Meurthe (Vosges), which after the war altered the place which today is presented to visitors “in its original condition”?
Even long after the war, prelates, university professors, and some ordinary citizens gave eyewitness descriptions regarding the terrible reality of the “gas chambers” of Buchenwald and Dachau. With regard to Buchenwald, the “gas chamber” gradually disappeared from the minds of the people who had previously maintained that there was one in this camp.
With regard to Dachau, the situation is different. After it had been firmly established for example by His Eminence Bishop Piguet, the bishop of Clermont-Ferrand that the “gas chamber” had been especially useful in gassing Polish priests,3 eventually the following official explanation came to pass:
This gas chamber, whose construction had been started in 1942, was still not completed in 1945 when the camp was liberated. No one could have been gassed in it.
The little room, which visitors are told is a “gas chamber,” is in reality completely harmless and, while all sorts of construction plans are available for “Baracke X” (the crematorium and vicinity), one cannot determine upon what basis or technical explanation one can claim that this structure is an “unfinished gas chamber.”
No official historical institute has done more than the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich to make the myth of the “gas chambers” believable. Since 1972 its director has been Dr. Martin Broszat. As a member of this Institute since 1955, Dr. Broszat became famous as a result of his (partial!) publication in 1958 of the confessions that Rudolf Höss (former Commandant of Auschwitz) is supposed to have written in a communist prison before he was hanged. However, on 19 August 1960, this historian had to tell his amazed countrymen that there had never been mass gassings in the entire Old Reich (Germany’s 1937 frontiers), but rather, only in a small number of selected places, especially in occupied Poland, including Auschwitz and Birkenau but not Majdanek. This startling news was given in a simple letter to the editor which was published in the weekly magazine Die Zeit (19 August 1960, page 16). The title was quite misleading and restrictive: Keine Vergasung in Dachau (No Gassing at Dachau) instead of Keine Massenvergasung im Altreich (No Mass Gassing in the Old Reich).4 In order to support this contention, Dr. Broszat provided not the slightest piece of evidence. Today , eighteen years after his letter, neither he nor any of his colleagues has provided the slightest explanation for this affirmation. It would be highly interesting to learn:
1. How does Dr. Broszat know that “gas chambers” in the Old Reich were frauds?
2. How does he know that the “gas chambers” in Poland are genuine?
3. Why do the “proofs,” the “certainties,” and the “eyewitness accounts” concerning the concentration camps in the west suddenly have no value, while the “proofs,” “certainties,” and “eyewitness accounts” concerning the camps in Poland Communist territory still remain true?
As if by some tacit agreement, not a single recognized historian has raised these questions. How often in the “history of history” has one relied upon the claims of a single historian? 5
Let us now examine the “gas chambers” in Poland.
For proof that the “gas chambers” in Belzec or Treblinka really existed, one is asked to rely essentially upon the statement of Kurt Gerstein. This document from a member of the SS, who allegedly committed suicide in 1945 in the prison of Cherche-Midi in Paris, abounds with so many absurdities that in the eyes of historians it has for a long time already been thoroughly discredited.6 Furthermore, this statement has never been made public, not even in the documents of the Nuremberg tribunal, except in an unusable form (with truncations, falsifications, and rewritings). The actual document has never been available with its absurd appendices (French “draft” or the “supplements” in German).
Regarding Majdanek, a visit to the actual site is absolutely necessary. It is even more convincing than a visit to Struthof-Natzweiler, if that is possible. Over this question I will publish additional information.
With regard to Auschwitz and Birkenau, one must rely essentially on the “Memoirs” 7 of Rudolf Höss, which were prepared under the supervision of his Polish captors. At the actual site, one can only find a “reconstructed” room (Auschwitz I) and ruins (Auschwitz II or Birkenau).
An execution with gas has nothing to do with a suicidal or accidental suffocation. In the case of an execution, the executioner and his team must not be exposed to the slightest danger. For their executions, the Americans employ hydrocyanic acid in a sophisticated way, and that only in a small, hermetically-sealed chamber. Afterwards, the gas is exhausted from the chamber and neutralized.
For this reason, one must ask how, for example in the case of Auschwitz II or Birkenau, one could bring 2,000 people into a room measuring 210 square meters in area, and then in this highly crowded situation throw in the very strong pesticide Zyklon B, and then immediately after the deaths of the victims let a work crew without any gas masks enter the room in order to take out the bodies which had been thoroughly saturated with cyanide.
Two documents8 from the German industrial archives which were registered by the Americans at Nuremberg tell us that the Zyklon B had a strong tendency to adhere to surfaces and could not be removed from an ordinary room with a strong ventilator, but only by natural aeration for almost 24 hours. Additional documents may be found only at the site in the Auschwitz Museum archives, which were never described elsewhere, but which show that this room of 210 square meters, which is today in a dilapidated condition, was only a very simple mortuary, which (in order to protect it against heat) had been located underground, and which was provided with only a single door which served as both an entrance and an exit. 9 Concerning the crematoria of Auschwitz, there is just as there is generally for the entire camp an overabundance of documents and invoices down to the last penny. However, concerning the “gas chambers” there is nothing: no contract for construction, not even a study, nor an order for materials, nor a plan, nor an invoice, nor even a photograph. In a hundred war crimes trials, nothing of the sort was ever produced.
“I was in Auschwitz and I can assure you that there was no ‘gas chamber’ there.” Only seldom does one hear defense witnesses with enough courage to pronounce this statement. They are persecuted in the courts. 10 Still today, everyone in Germany takes the risk that, if they give an eyewitness account in favor of Thies Christophersen (who wrote The Auschwitz Lie), they will be punished for ‘”defaming the memory of the deceased.” 11
Immediately after the war, the Germans, the International Red Cross and the Vatican (which was otherwise so expert as to whatever happened in Poland), as well as many others, declared in an embarrassed tone: “The ‘gas chambers’ we knew nothing about them!” Yes but I would put the question this way: “Can one know about things which did not even happen?”
There was not a single “gas chamber” in even one of the German concentration camps; that is the truth. The nonexistence of “gas chambers” should be regarded as welcome news; to hide this news in the future would be an injustice. Just as there is no attack upon a religion if one portrays “Fatima” as a fraud, the announcement that the “gas chambers” are an historical lie is no attack upon concentration camp survivors. One is merely doing one’s duty being truthful.
1. The expression is that of Olga Wormer-Migot, quote from Le Systeme Concentrationnaire Nazi (1933-1945) (The Nazi Concentration Camp System 1933-1945),Thesis, Paris, PUF, 1968, p541.
2. Associate Professor of the University of Lyib-2; specialty: Critic of Texts and Documents
3. Regarding the great number of vicious and insulting articles, there is a study by Hermann Langbein which appeared in Le Monde Juif (The Jewish World), April/June 1975. The title is “Coup d’oeil sur la littérature néo-nazie,” (“A Glimpse at Neo-Nazi Literature”), pages 820. Hermann Langbein was an inmate in Auschwitz. He testified at countless trials. He holds an important position in the circles of former concentration camp inmates. One of his most recent works is entitled: Hommes et Femmes à Auschwitz (Men and Women of Auschwitz), Paris, Fayard, 1975, VIII-529 pages (Translated from Menschen in Auschwitz, Vienna, 1974.) Not one of the 30 chapters, not one of the 268 sections of this book is devoted to the “gas chambers”! Rather, one constantly sees expressions such as “selection for the gas chambers” etc. There is also a study by Georges Wellers which appeared in Le Monde Juif (op. cit.) April/June 1977. The title is “La ‘Solution finale’, de la question juive et la mythomanie néo-nazie” (“The “Final Solution” and Neo-Nazi Mythomania,”), pages 4184. There is also a study by Ino Arndt and Wolfgang Scheffler in Viertelsjahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte (Quarterly Review for Contemporary History), which is a publication of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. The Institute’s director is currently Dr. Martin Broszat. This study was published in the issue of April 1976. The title is: “Organisierter Massenmord an Juden in NS-Vernichtungslagern” (Organized Mass-Murder of Jews in Nazi Extermination Camps), pages 105135.
4. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1979.
5. Prison et Déportation (Prison and Deportation). Paris: Spes; 1947; page 77.
6. See the opinion expressed by the forensic pathologist as it is reported by the Exterminationist Pierre Joffroy in his book about Kurt Gerstein: L’Espion de Dieu/La Passion de Kurt Gerstein (The Spy of God/The Passion of Kurt Gerstein), Paris, Grasset, 1969, page 262.
7. Kommandant in Auschwitz/Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen (Commandant of Auschwitz/Autobiographical Memoirs) by Rudolf Höss, Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt,1958,184p; introduction and commentary by Dr. Martin Broszat. Concerning “gassing,” see pages 126 and 166. The entry of the work crew into the “gas chamber” is supposed to happen “sofort” (“immediately”) as it is written on page 166.
8. These two extensive documents which are of great importance were apparently not used at the trials of Gerhard Peters, former director of Degesch. They were registered as documents NI-9098 and NI-9912. They irrevocably reduce to nothing the “eyewitness testimony” of Höss regarding the “gas chambers.”
9. Photographs Neg. 6228 and following.
10. Case of Wilhelm Stäglich, for example. See Stäglich in the Index Nominum of Butz’s book (op. cit.).
11. Die Auschwitz-Lüge (The Auschwitz Lie), #23 of Kritik (2341 Kälberhagen, Post Mohrkirch, West Germany), 1974. This booklet was followed by Der Auschwitz-Betrug/Das Echo auf die Auschwitz-Lüge (The Auschwitz Fraud/The Echo of the Auschwitz Lie.).
“If we are to believe certain morally deranged and spiritually perverted pseudo-historians,” writes Elie Wiesel, “the Holocaust never took place. The killers did not kill, the victims did not perish. Auschwitz? A fraud. Treblinka? A lie. Bergen-Belsen? A name?”
Professor Faurisson then—Wiesel names him specifically a few paragraphs further on—is morally deranged and spiritually perverted. Wiesel doesn’t demonstrate where Faurisson’s observations go wrong. Faurisson’s sin is in questioning what Wiesel demands should remain unquestioned. In any event, if Wiesel is right about Faurisson, I have a serious problem. At a certain moment in my life Faurisson was a turning point for me, a milestone, a sudden opening. Now I have grown to esteem him personally, to feel an affection for him. Am I a deranged pervert myself? This could be serious!
On the other hand, if it happens that Faurisson is sound in his observations about Auschwitz and Wiesel is mistaken—or worse—then Wiesel has the problem. In a certain sense it no longer matters to me if the gas chamber theory is finally proved or disproved. One way or the other, it’s only history. I believed the theory for 35 years and have doubted it for six. I was content to believe it, now I am content to doubt it. What the hell?
Wiesel, however, his days consumed with belief, has written himself into a corner. His life is structured around and dedicated to his belief in the sacred truth of all survivor testimony. “I believe everything that survivors have to say.” As he can’t bring himself to question survivor testimony about the alleged gas chambers, or anything else, he questions the morality of those who have no such reservations. Those of us who are not ready to accept at face value the survivor claims that Jewish corpses can pump geysers of blood into the air from their graves, which by implication opens all survivor testimony to questioning in the light of reason, Wiesel accuses of being spiritual perverts. But then, what else can he do? Defend the claim?
Is it possible that Wiesel believes that we will forever be willing to take all survivor testimony on faith, that we will forever be willing to evade addressing survivor testimony in order not to embarrass the Jewish community, that the press will forever be willing to repeat survivor testimony without questioning it and forever reject revisionist criticism of survivor testimony without considering it? It is possible, and if it is true, his belief can only measure his desperation, as well as the contempt he feels for Americans of every rank and file.
In any event, I have not read anything in Faurisson these six years that approaches the craziness of Wiesel’s belief in the geysers-of-blood story. In fact, it was Faurisson who first brought this tale to my attention. He laughed when he told it. He was enjoying himself. That’s one of the traits that distinguishes we morally deranged ones from Holocaust fundamentalists.
We laugh at that stuff.