Robert Faurisson:
Bonjour.
Interviewer:
Today is Sunday on March 18, 2007. We thank
you for agreeing to answer our questions. Can you introduce yourself?
Faurisson:
Yes! So, my name is Robert Faurisson. I am
78 years old. I used to be a professor. I taught in Sorbonne and at
Lyon university. In the beginning my speciality was French
literature and thereafter it was what is called: criticism of texts and
documents of literature, history and the medias. I.e. how to read a
document. How to
look at an image, etc. Because these things, we believe that we can
practise them, but it is not true. It is necessary to learn.
(01:00)
Interviewer:
You have been known in the whole world for
about 30 years as what one calls today a denier of the gas chambers.
Can you explain us how you arrived at this status? What this approach
cost you professionally and what it required you intellectually.
Faurisson:
Yes! So, one indeed calls me of denier or
negationnist. These are words that I do not like because I do not deny
anything. From my research I concluded that what is called: NAZI gas
chambers never existed. I add that they never could have existed for
reasons of physical and chemical nature. Allow me to explain you my
work method. We agree?
Interviewer:
Yes! I would like that you explain us your
work method and the link that this method has with your former activity
of criticism of literary texts... (inaudible).
(02:13)
Faurisson:
Well in the beginning indeed, I realized
that the majority do not know how to read with attentiveness. We let
ourselves to be mislead by images. We are not attentive enough to
written texts or matters involved. When we hear people who call
themselves witnesses, we do not distinguish truth and forgery. Here,
and thus, it is after a practise of texts which were primarily literary
that I went to history issues and
in particular to what is called the Holocaust. And here is my method.
It is that I have in front of me a very vast subject, for example the
holocaust. I will seek the center of it. Once I will have the center, I
will seek the center's center. So if I take the holocaust, if I want to
know if really there were on behalf of NAZI Germany, the intention to
physically exterminate
the European Jews, I will go to what I call the center which is in
Auschwitz, the camp of Auschwitz. And in it, in that camp where there
were crematoriums which has nothing of criminal, were there gas
chambers to execute people? I give you, if you allow,
I give you my conclusion and I will say to you later how I arrived at
this conclusion.
(04:03)
Interviewer:
Good idea.
Faurisson:
Voilà! So my conclusion is as
follows: There never existed any physical extermination policy of Jews.
The Jews suffered a lot. The Jews were, for some of them, the European
Jews, put in concentration camps. It is true that a great number may
have died, but a great number also survived. And, was there, in these
camps, this extraordinary weapon of mass destruction which would have
been gas
chambers? Then here is how I proceeded. I did not really proceed like
a
professor.
I rather proceeded like a gendarme or a police officer in a criminal
investigation. (05:00) Indeed, if you say: "Germans used gas
chambers", you carry a terrible charge. And my question is: "Where is
the evidence? And I do not want a false evidence, I want solid evidence
as in a technical police investigation, or scientific police ". Then I
go to the site.
You agree? You follow me well? extraordinary
Interviewer:
I follow you, absolutely.
Faurisson:
Voilà, so I go to the site. I go to
Auschwitz,
or Maidanek, or Dachau, or Struthof, or in other camps. And there,
I quite simply say: "Show me what you call a gas chamber". And I
discover, I discovered during this investigation
that one was absolutely unable to present this weapon to me. Then
sometimes we say to me: "Oh but it is not astonishing because Germans,
you see, destroyed everything". So I answer at that moment: "Let's
assume that. That is a second charge that they suppressed the crime's
weapon. Let's assume that. You will please produce me a technical
drawing to explain me what it a gas chamber was ".
I continue or? Voilà.
Interviewer:
I would like that you make a thing clear.
You made this
investigation in what year?
Faurisson:
I started to get interested in that in the
years 1960s. And I can say that I almost devoted my life to what is
called the holocaust since 1974. And that has worth me, of course,
considerable troubles. (06:54)
Interviewer:
You mean that until the Sixties, no police
investigation, of scientific police, had been made around this horrible
crime whose NAZIs had been not only accused, but for which they
had been condemned.
Faurisson:
Yes.
Interviewer:
The destruction of the European Jewish
world and the physical destruction of 6 million Jews, these
appellations were carried and confirmed without the least police
investigation being carried out?
Faurisson:
My answer will surprise you. There was,
until the years 1960s or 74, no true expertise except in a camp:
Struthof in
Alsace, where it was concluded that what we called "gas chamber" was
not a gas chamber.
Interviewer:
Yes.
(07:53)
Faurisson:
Good. But since, since 1960-74, not more,
today we are in 2007. Germany is incriminated of an enormous crime. And
if I, I come and I say: "I really want to believe you, but bring me a
criminal expertise. When you say to me: "Here, in Auschwitz, what you
visit it is a gas chamber". I say: "Wait! I see an harmless room. I
even see impossibilities for this to be a gas chamber, but it does not
matter.
Bring to me what any police officer would bring "".
Interviewer:
Can you please describe us the way in which
you proceeded?
Faurisson:
Yes.
Interviewer:
I suppose that you started from the tale
which was made of these exterminations in the gas chambers. So, explain
to us what you did while arriving at Auschwitz. For example in
Auschwitz.
Faurisson:
That was one of my starting points. When I
would say: "Show me a gas chamber", one was not able to. When I would
say: "Show me an expertise", one was not able to. When I would say:
"Bring me evidence", one brought to me primarily; a confession made by
one of the 3 consecutive commanders of the Auschwitz camp. The one who
we call Rudolf Höss, not to be confused with Rudolf Hess. And
indeed, we have a confession. So à
priori a confession, first it is not a proof, it is a
kind of testimony and od bad category since it is a vanquished who
confesses a crime to a victorious. So, here is his story. I will
summarize it to you. Höss says to us that there was for example,
at such place in the camp, a large gas chamber where we could put, 1
000, 2 000, 3 000 Jews. We could have put 4000 of them. And then by the
roof, we poured by 4 openings what we called granulated of Zyklon B. It
is hydrocyanic acid. And then people inside started to shout. When
there was no more screams, it was understood that these people had
died. At this moment, what one called: special team, made up of Jews,
Sonderkommando, started a
ventilation device and entered immediately. It made it flipplantly,
while smoking, while eating, took the corpses, drew them from there and
then brought them towards the crematoriums so that these corpses would
be incinerated.
Part 2
Faurisson:
It is impossible! It is an absurd
story.
Interviewer:
Can you explain us in what this story is
absurd?
Faurisson:
It is absurd because Zyklon B which is a
product which was
invented at the beginning of 1920s, it was made, and it still
exists today but under another name, it is made to kill vermin. It is
at the base an extremely violent product which we call hydrocyanic
gas.
Interviewer:
Hydrocyanic acid, yes.
Faurisson:
Hydrocyanic acid. And it has a particular
quality, it is that it strongly adheres to surfaces and it penetrates
them. It is extremely difficult to get rid of it. It penetrates even
paint, wood, brick and obviously human bodies.
(00:58)
Interviewer:
All porous surfaces.
Faurisson:
And then especially if the surface is
alive, the mixture will be done and it will remain in that place.
Consequently, when one
comes to say to me that people could enter while smoking, while eating,
then that means initially that they did not even carry gas masks. And
if it is while smoking, the hydrocyanic acid is explosive. And finally,
it is impossible to touch the corpses of
people who have just been thus killed by hydrocyanic acid.
Interviewer:
What you say is therefore: people die
under the effect
of the hydrocyanic acid, but the hydrocyanic acid, it, is not dead when
people died.
Faurisson:
Voilà! People died but the gas is
not dead//
Interviewer (simultaneously):
It continues to make victims// and for how
long does it continue to make victims?
Faurisson:
Well, the lenght to, for example when we
want to gas a room,
in general the lenght is several hours to 24 hours. Following the
indication it is 21 hours, but it is an indication. Good, but that it
is for dead matter, but if we talk about corpses, i.e. if we speak of
living
matter, then it is extremely difficult. And how do we know? Well know
it quite simply thanks to what is called:
American gas chambers. In the United-States, in some penitentiaries,
one execute condemned people with hydrocyanic acid. And there, we
realize that what is called: gas chamber, is of a horrible
complication.
Interviewer:
Did you visit an American gas chamber?
(02:50)
Faurisson:
Yes, I went to meet requirements for my
investigation to visit a gas chamber in Baltimore, Maryland. And it
happens, here, that I have here
photographs of it.
Interviewer:
Can you show them to us?
Faurisson:
I could show them yes to you. The
photographs are not very very good, but here for example what it is an
entry door of a gas chamber.
Interviewer:
Can you describe us please?
Faurisson (dogs barking since a while):
Yes! So, there are other photographs. We
take a small break perharps?
(03:31)
(after the break)
Interviewer:
Can you describe us what you saw in the
American gas chambers?
Faurisson:
Yes! So, a gas chamber to kill only one
prisoner in the United-States, already in the years 1920s, 1930s,
1940s, it is a thick steel cockpit with thick panes. And it is not very
difficult to kill condemned, but what is very difficult it is after the
execution. To enter the gas chamber and to withdraw the corpse. So we
are obliged to have for example this type of door to be sure that it is
absolutely hermetic. Because if ever the hydrocyanic acid would come
out, all people around would be likely to be killed. So we make a
depression inside the room, and like this the gas will stay in there.
When the man is killed, at that moment one starts directional
ventilators. The hydrocyanic acid is driven out upwards. I could
perhaps show it to you? Yes. You see? Here, you have a system of
suction then all that is sent towards what is called a rompers or a
mixer, there it is neutralized. And the result is sent by a very high
chimney. And that day guards are not allowed to walk in the heights. It
shows how much dangerous it is. And after a long waiting, the doctor
and his 2 assistants, with gas mask, rubber apron, rubber glovees,
boot, etc, penetrate in the room and they will wash the body with great
care. In every natural openings of the body and the body yet remains
dangerous. Consequently, you see what it is to kill somebody with
hydrocyanic acid. On the other hand, you will
see the contrast, I will present to you what one dares to call in
Auschwitz a gas chamber. And you will notice that the photograph
is quite bad, but you will notice that you have a completely ordinary
door. There is another door which is a simple wooden door, with a
window. And this door if you open it, it opens towards the ground where
the corpses would have
been. In short, we are in front of an enormous difficulty.
(06:52)
Interviewer:
What you have for us there is not a
difficulty but an impossibility.
Faurisson:
Voilà! It is exactly the word. I
declare that it is an impossibility.
Interviewer:
Can you explain us how you declared
publicly that it was a
technical impossibility and what followed for you?
Faurisson:
Voilà! Indeed, when I concluded that
this extraordinary weapon, one could not prove its existence, one could
not explain how it worked, and even when I discovered that it was
radically impossible in a very known newspaper of France which is
called: Le Monde in 1978, I
succeeded in publishing an article where I said: "Look, it is
impossible. Or then, if it is possible, explain me how it is possible
". And I waited I believe 6 weeks. And at the end of 6 weeks, I saw in
the newspaper the following title: A declaration of historians (Une
déclaration d'historiens).
Interviewer:
Historians? You made a police investigation
and you had historians answering you?
Faurisson:
Exactly. I got an answer from 34
historians. And here what the historians answered me. Listen well
because it is extraordinary. It is an extraordinary example of
professorial stupidity. Here what they said to me: "It should not be
wondered how technically such a mass murder was possible. It was
possible since it took place ". In French that means: "Mr Faurisson, we
are not able to answer your question. STOP TALKING! ". And that, that
was on February 21, 1979. We are today I believe, March 18, 2007 and I
still do not have an answer. In stead...
Interviewer:
Instead, what happened?
Faurisson:
Well, instead, I first got my career
broken. Then I underwent repeated physical aggressions. And then
finally, I had an extraordinary abundance of lawsuits against me.
Interviewer:
Lawsuits on what basis?
Faurisson:
So on the following basis, I was told:
"Oh! If you say that, it is that you are an anti-semite. It is that you
are a racist ". And I answered: "Excuse me, if
I tell you: "You see this glass there? It cannot contain 1 liter of
water. And if you have 1 000 witnesses who say: "Si si! We saw1 liter
of water in it ". I say that makes 1 000 false witnesses "". Good, so,
initially they sued me by saying that I was a malicious racist, a
malicious anti-Jew, et cetera. And then happened a quite
astonishing judicial event. Well in 1983, all of a sudden, a Court of
Appeal decided that my work on this subject was so serious that
everyone should be able to say that gas chambers did not exist. I
give you the date of this judgment...
Part 3
Faurisson:
... of a Paris court. It was on April 26,
1983. I must say that I was condemned nevertheless. Of course!
Because it is a taboo. One
can not discharge a person who says a similar thing. So we said to me:
"Oh you are very serious in your work but you are dangerous. And you do
not have any respect for the sufferings of people ". Good. So, this
decision of the Court of Appeal
had a consequence.
Interviewer:
From 1983.
Faurisson:
And this consequence arrived in 1990. The
Jewish organizations, they should be called as they are, said: "We
cannot trust with the French magistrate any more. It is likely one day
to completely discharge Faurisson. They have just said that people have
the right to say that gas chambers did not exist ". Therefore,
these organizations said: "we need a special law". They fought much.
And then they ended up obtaining it.
(01:17)
Interviewer:
And what does this law say?
Faurisson:
This law which goes back to 1990 says that:
"Whoever disputes the crimes against humanity as defined and punished
by the Nuremberg court, in 1945-46, is liable to a sentence from 1
month to 1 year of prison, a fine of 45 000 euros and many other
sentences". And since, I've been condemned many times on behalf of
this law called: the Gayssot law.
Interviewer:
Why is it called Gayssot?
Faurisson:
Because it is the name of a communist
congressman who asked that this law exist, but behind him in fact,
there was a very important congressman, Socialist and Jewish called
Laurent Fabius.
Interviewer:
And this man became Prime Minister.
Faurisson:
Who became Prime Minister. And it should be
said that many places in Europe, now, we have laws which say: "It is
strictly prohibited". One European country remained free is the one
where I am right now and from where I speak to you, it is still
Italy.
(02:53)
Interviewer:
After 30 years of public activities in this
field. More than 15 years of existence of this Gayssot law. The
multiple judgments that you spoke of. Can you tell us to finish, where
you are at in your thought on the Second World war?
Faurisson:
Here, indeed, I only mentioned you one
aspect. This aspect is essential. It is the extraordinary weapon of
mass destruction, as for Saddam Hussein. Isn't it? Apparently
there was plenty of evidence. We were shown drawings,
photographs. And we were being deceived.
Interviewer:
You thus claim that Saddam Hussein's weapon
of mass destruction is as real as Adolf Hitler's weapon of mass
destruction? Or conversely.
Faurisson:
Yes! Of Adolf Hitler or conversely. In the
same way. But there's many more aspects to the Holocaust. So for
example, does that mean that never Hitler ordered that we
kill Jews? Well, I studied this thing
in the same way and my conclusion is
that Hitler wanted
Jews to get out of Europe. And he sought what Germans called: "a final
' territorial' solution of the
Jewish
issue". But this adjective ' territorial'
I never hear it.
(04:26)
Interviewer:
What do you hear?
Faurisson:
What I understand by there. And what
Germans understood by there...
Interviewer:
No, I mean: what do you hear? You never
hear the word ' territorial'?
Faurisson:
The word of ' territorial'.
Interviewer:
What do you hear instead?
Faurisson:
Well I simply hear: "the final solution of the Jewish issue". This
formulation gives to think that it
meant the physical extermination of Jews. It is at least what one tries
to convince us of. But if you put back the word of ' territorial', you see very well that
the intention of Germans was to find after the war, because Germans had
a war to carry out, it was to find a territory so that Jews could
settle there. But Germans were formal, they did not want it to be
Palestine. So much that Germans, before the war and during the war,
ceased to tell the Allies: "You find the Jews marvellous? Take
them! But with a condition. The Jews that we will deliver to you...
"and Germans did deliver some,"... will have to remain in England.
Prohibition for them
to go to Palestine because of the noble and valiant Arab nation who
sufficiently suffered already ". And I quickly conclude, on other
aspects, and I say
this: the criminal intention did not exist. What Hitler wanted was to
neutralize Jews. Then to try to find a territory for them which could
be either Madagascar, or Uganda, or a territory in Russia, etc. And
Hitler
did not even authorize that a Jew would be executed because he was Jew.
However, we have to be clear on this, Jews suffered considerably, like
the Communists suffered a lot since they fought...
Part 4
(00:10)
Faurisson:
... against the third Reich, but so did
Germans. I have
a formula which is worth what it is worth in connection with any war.
Here is what I say. One should meditate a little about it: " Every war
is a butchery. The winner is a good butcher. The vanquished is a bad
butcher. At the end of a war, a victor can give butchery lessons to the
defeated. He would not know
to give him lessons of right, justice or virtue ". And yet, what
do we do since 1945? We do not cease giving lessons of right, justice
and virtue to the vanquished, but I add this: I am not taking the
defense of Germany. During the war being a child I was very
anti-German. It is necessary that you realize that when we say:
"Hitler wanted to kill Jews and he had a special weapon built for that.
The result that was 6 million dead Jews ". This figure is completely
insane! It is the equivalent of the population of Switzerland. It is
necessary that you realize that by saying that without evidence, you
accuse Germans, Adolf Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Göring. Ok, but you also
accuse, and that's what the Jewish organizations do: the nations that
were on Germany's side, the neutral countries like Switzerland, you
accuse Pope Pius XII to whom you say: "Oh the Pope, but he did not do
anything against that! ".He felt sorry for the Jews, he tried to help
them but never Pope Pius XII said: "You know they are systematically
massacring them out there! ". So the Pope appears as an accomplice.
Even better ! Visit the Jewish museums and you will see that the
accused are also: Roosevelt to who we say: "Shame on you, you did not
bombard Auschwitz". You accuse Churchill. You accuse De Gaulle. You
accuse Stalin. You accuse the Red Cross. You accuse the whole world.
Realize this.
(02:40)
Interviewer:
Do they also accuse the Palestinian nation?
Faurisson:
I beg you pardon?
Interviewer:
Do they also accuse the Palestinian
nation?
Faurisson:
Well, they can't strictly speaking accuse
the Palestinian people, but they can say in Palestine: "We suffered so
much. We have known such extraordinary sufferings that we
have special rights. We want this ground and you can not refuse it to
us because we suffered so much ".
Interviewer:
Does the Palestinian nation have to suffer
in redemption from the sins from the Jewish people?
Faurisson:
In that case no! It is not the sins of the
Jewish people,
no! That would be the sufferings...
Interviewer:
Sufferings? Absolutely.
(03:29)
Faurisson:
... Yes! That's it! Sufferings of the
Jewish people. And apparently because of the sins made by Europeans,
the Americans, etc. However, that did not exist. So I would like to
make myself clear. I'm not into politics. I am very apolitical. I do
not take the defense of the vanquished, no. I simply say: "When we
accuse, we must always provide evidence. And when one almost accuse the
whole world, one must have many and solid evidence. However they are
neither many, nor solid "And it is what we precisly call: a calumny.
So you understand that with the remarks I hold and that I illustrate in
many books like all the revisionists, because the revisionist
literature is
considerable and it is necessary to go to consult it in particular on
the Internet, well, we are nevertheless in front of a general
movement of protest against an immense calumny, against an injustice.
Do not come to ask me to stay silent, it is not possible.
Interviewer:
Thank you professor Faurisson to have
devoted this half an
hour to us.
Faurisson:
My pleasure.
End
|
