{"id":120829,"date":"2015-08-29T14:00:11","date_gmt":"2015-08-29T14:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=120829"},"modified":"2015-09-04T07:30:50","modified_gmt":"2015-09-04T07:30:50","slug":"faurissons-exposure-of-the-holocaust-hoax","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=120829","title":{"rendered":"Faurisson’s Exposure of the Holocaust Hoax"},"content":{"rendered":"

Darkmoon.me — August 29, 2015<\/h1>\n

Based on a 4500-word comment by political analyst Luca K<\/em><\/h3>\n

This article consists mostly of important Faurisson quotations debunking the state-enforced conspiracy theory that 6 million Jews died in gas chambers on the orders of Hitler.<\/h3>\n

Pictures, captions and commentary by Lasha Darkmoon<\/em><\/h4>\n

\"faurissonwiesel\"<\/p>\n

[1]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2014 \u00a0In 1951 the Jew L\u00e9on Poliakov<\/strong>, who had been part of the French delegation at the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), stated his conclusion that we had at our disposal an overabundance of documents for all points of the history of the Third Reich, with the exception of one point alone: the \u201ccampaign to exterminate the Jews\u201d. For this, he wrote, \u201cNo document remains,perhaps none has ever existed\u201d (Br\u00e9viaire de la haine, Paris, Calmann-L\u00e9vy, 1974 [1951], p. 171; English version: Harvest of Hate, New York, Holocaust Library, 1979, revised and expanded edition)\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says<\/strong>: There is here an extraordinary concession to the revisionist case. In effect, such a formidable criminal undertaking supposedly conceived, ordered, organised and perpetrated by the Germans would have necessitated an order, a plan, instructions, a budget, \u2026 Such an undertaking, carried out over several years on a whole continent and generating the death of millions of victims, would have left a flood of documentary evidence. Consequently, if we are told that there perhaps has never existed any such documentary evidence, it is because the crime in question was not perpetrated.<\/h5>\n
In the complete absence of documents, the historian has no longer anything to do but keep quiet. L. Poliakov made this concession in 1951, that is, fifty-five years ago. However, it must be noted that, from 1951 to 2006, his successors have equally failed to find the least documentary evidence for the Holocaust.<\/h5>\n
Occasionally, here and there, we have witnessed attempts at making us believe in such or such discovery but each time, as will be seen below, the \u201cdiscoverers\u201d and their publicists have had to drop their claim.<\/h5>\n
[2]<\/b><\/h5>\n
[2] \u00a0\u2014 In 1960 Martin Broszat<\/strong>, a member of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, wrote: \u201cNeither at Dachau, nor at Bergen-Belsen, nor at Buchenwald were any Jews or other detainees gassed\u201d (\u201cKeine Vergasung in Dachau\u201d, Die Zeit, August 19, 1960, p. 16)\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> This sudden and unexplained concession is significant. At the Nuremberg trial the only homicidal gas chamber that the accusation ventured to show in a film had been that of Dachau, and the testimonies telling of alleged homicidal gassings in the three above-mentioned camps had been numerous. M. Broszat thus implicitly acknowledged that those testimonies were false. He did not tell us in what respect they were false. Nor did he tell us in what respect other such testimonies relating, for example, to Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec should, for their part, go on being deemed reliable.<\/h5>\n
In the 1980s, at Dachau, a sign indicated in five languages that the \u201cgas chamber disguised as showers\u201d, visited by the tourists, was \u201cnever used\u201d as such. The revisionists had then asked in what respect the room could be termed a homicidal \u201cgas chamber\u201d, whereupon the Dachau Museum authorities took down the sign and replaced it with another on which, in German and English, can now be read:<\/h5>\n
\u201cGas chamber. This was the center of potential mass murder. The room was disguised as \u2018showers\u2019 and equipped with fake shower spouts to mislead the victims and prevent them from refusing to enter the room. During a period of 20 minutes up to 150 people at a time could be suffocated to death through prussic acid poison gas (Zyklon B).\u201d <\/strong><\/h5>\n
One will note the words \u201cpotential\u201d and \u201ccould\u201d, the choice of which attests to a fine bit of trickery: the information spawns in visitors\u2019 minds the idea that the said \u201cgas chamber\u201d was effectively used for killing but, at the same time, it enables the museum to retort to revisionists: \u201cWe haven\u2019t expressly said that this gas chamber was used for killing; we\u2019ve merely said that it could be or could have been, at the time, used to kill a certain number of people\u201d.<\/h5>\n
\n
To conclude, in 1960 M. Broszat, without any explanation, decreed in a simple letter that no one had been gassed at Dachau; thenceforth, the Dachau Museum authorities, quite embarrassed, have tried, by means of assorted deceitful ploys varying over time, to fool their visitors into believing that, in this room, Jews had well and truly been gassed<\/em>.<\/strong><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n

THE FAKE GAS CHAMBER AT DACHAU<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\"136528841007c0b8_l\"<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Dachau Museum authorities [still try] to fool their visitors <\/strong>into believing that, in this room, Jews had well and truly been gassed.\u201d \u2014 \u00a0Robert Faurisson<\/strong><\/h3>\n
[3]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 1968 the Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot<\/strong>, in her thesis on Le Syst\u00e8me concentrationnaire nazi<\/em>, 1933-1945, (Paris, Presses universitaires de France), gave an ample exposition of what she called \u201cthe problem of the gas chambers\u201d (p. 541-544). She voiced her scepticism as to the worth of some well-known witnesses\u2019 accounts attesting to the existence of gas chambers in camps such as Mauthausen or Ravensbr\u00fcck. On Auschwitz-I she was categorical: that camp where, still today, tourists visit an alleged gas chamber was, in reality, \u201cwithout any gas chamber\u201d (p. 157)\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says<\/strong>: To bring their horrible charges of homicidal gassings against the defeated, the accusers have relied solely on testimonies and those testimonies have not been verified. Let us take note of the particular case of Auschwitz-I: it was thus 38 years ago that a Jewish historian had the courage to write that this camp was \u201cwithout any gas chamber\u201d; however, still today, in 2006, crowds of tourists there visit an enclosed space that the authorities dare to present, fallaciously, as a \u201cgas chamber\u201d. Here we see a practice of outright deceit.<\/h5>\n
[4]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 1961\u00a0Raul Hilberg<\/strong>, Jewish orthodox historian Number One, published the first edition of his major work, The Destruction of the European Jews<\/em>, and it was in 1985 that he brought out the second edition, a profoundly revised and corrected version. The distance between the two is considerable and can only be explained by the succession of victories achieved in the meantime by the revisionists.<\/h5>\n
In the first edition the author had brazenly affirmed that \u201cthe destruction of the Jews of Europe\u201d had been set off following two consecutive orders given by Hitler. He neither specified the date nor reproduced the wording thereof. Then he professed to explain in detail the political, administrative and bureaucratic process of that destruction; for example he went so far as to write that at Auschwitz the extermination of the Jews was organised by an office that was in charge of both the disinfection of clothing and the extermination of human beings (The Destruction of the European Jews, 1961, republished in 1979 by Quadrangle Books, Chicago, p. 177, 570).<\/h5>\n
However, in 1983, going back completely on that explanation, Hilberg suddenly proceeded to state that the business of \u201cthe destruction of the European Jews\u201d had, after all, gone on without a plan, without any organisation, centralisation, project or budget, but altogether thanks to \u201can incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy\u201d (Newsday, New York, February 23, 1983, p. II\/3). He would confirm this explanation under oath at the first Z\u00fcndel trial in Toronto on January 16, 1985 (verbatim transcript, p. 848); he would soon afterwards confirm it anew but with other words in the greatly revised version of his above-mentioned work (New York, Holmes & Meier, 1985, p. 53, 55, 62). He has just recently, in October 2006, confirmed it yet again in an interview given to Le Monde:<\/h5>\n
\u201cThere was no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, it is in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found, doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure: each decision brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn\u2019t possible to foresee exactly the next step\u201d (Le Monde des livres, October 20, 2006, p. 12).<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> The Number One historian of the Jewish genocide, at a certain point, thus found himself so helpless that he suddenly proceeded to disown his first version and to explain a gigantic undertaking of collective murder as if it had all been carried out through something like the workings of the Holy Spirit.<\/h5>\n
In effect, since then he has evoked a \u201cmeeting of minds\u201d within a bureaucracy, terming this meeting \u201cincredible\u201d. If it is \u201cincredible\u201d or unbelievable, why then should it be believed? Must one believe the unbelievable? <\/strong><\/h5>\n
He also brings up \u201cmind reading\u201d and states it was performed by \u201cconsensus\u201d, but this is a matter of pure intellectual speculation grounded in a belief in the supernatural. How can one believe in such a phenomenon, particularly within a vast bureaucratic structure and, still more particularly, within the bureaucracy of the Third Reich? It is worth noting that on R. Hilberg\u2019s example the other official historians set about, in the 1980s and 1990s, abandoning history and lapsed into metaphysics and jargon.<\/h5>\n
They questioned themselves on the point of whether one should be \u201cintentionalist\u201d or \u201cfunctionalist\u201d: must it be supposed that the extermination of the Jews occurred subsequent to an \u201cintent\u201d (not yet proved) and in line with a concerted plan (not yet found), or instead had that extermination happened all by itself, spontaneously and through improvisation, without there being any formal intent and with no plan? This type of woolly controversy attests to the disarray of historians who, unable to provide evidence and real documents to back their case, are thus reduced to theorising in the void. At bottom, those on one side, the \u201cintentionalists\u201d, tell us: \u201cThere were necessarily an intent and a plan, which we haven\u2019t yet found but which we shall perhaps indeed discover one day\u201d, whereas the others affirm: \u201cThere is no need to go looking for evidence of an intent and a plan, for everything was able to occur without intent, without plan and without leaving any traces; such traces are not to be found because they have never existed.\u201d<\/h5>\n
[5]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In May 1986 in France, certain Jews<\/strong>, alarmed upon realising that they could not manage to answer the revisionists on the simple plane of reason, decided to take action with a view to obtaining a legal prohibition of revisionism. Chief amongst them were Georges Wellers and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, grouped, with their friends, round the country\u2019s head rabbi Ren\u00e9-Samuel Sirat (Bulletin quotidien de l\u2019Agence t\u00e9l\u00e9graphique juive, June 1986, p. 1, 3). After four years, on July 13, 1990, they would get, thanks notably to Jewish former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, then president of the National Assembly, a special law passed allowing for the punishment of any person who publicly made revisionist statements on the subject of the \u201cextermination of the Jews\u201d: up to a year\u2019s imprisonment, a fine of \u20ac45,000 and still other sanctions. This recourse to force is a flagrant admission of weakness\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> \u00a0G. Wellers and P. Vidal-Naquet were especially alarmed by the court decision of April 26, 1983 (see paragraph 8 above). The former wrote: \u201cThe court admitted that [Faurisson] was well documented, which is false. It is astonishing that the court should fall for that\u201d (Le Droit de vivre, June-July 1987, p. 13). The latter wrote that the Paris Court of Appeal \u201crecognised the seriousness of Faurisson\u2019s work \u2014 which is quite outrageous \u2014 \u00acand finally found him guilty only of having acted malevolently by summarising his theses as slogans\u201d (Les Assassins de la m\u00e9moire, Paris, La D\u00e9couverte, 1987, p. 182; here quoted the English translation: Assassins of Memory, New York, Columbia University Press, 1992).<\/h5>\n
[6]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In August 1986 Michel de Bo\u00fcard,<\/strong> himself deported during the war as a r\u00e9sistant, professor of history and Dean of letters at the University of Caen (Normandy), member of the Institut de France and former head of the Commission d\u2019histoire de la d\u00e9portation within the official Comit\u00e9 d\u2019histoire de la deuxi\u00e8me guerre mondiale, declared that, all told, \u201cthe dossier is rotten\u201d.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
He specified that the dossier in question, that of the history of the German concentration camp system, was \u201crotten\u201d due to, in his own words, \u201ca huge amount of made-up stories, inaccuracies stubbornly repeated \u2014 particularly where numbers are concerned \u2014 amalgamations and generalisations\u201d.<\/strong> Alluding to the revisionists\u2019 studies, he added that there were \u201con the other side, very carefully done critical studies demonstrating the inanity of those exaggerations\u201d (Ouest-France of August 2nd and 3rd, 1986, p. 6)\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> Michel de Bo\u00fcard was a professional historian, indeed the ablest French historian on the subject of the wartime deportations. Up to 1985 he defended the strictly orthodox and official position. Upon reading the revisionist Henri Roques\u2019s doctoral thesis on the alleged testimony of SS man Kurt Gerstein, he saw his error. He honestly acknowledged it, going so far as to say that, if he hitherto personally upheld the existence of a gas chamber in the Mauthausen camp, he had done so wrongly, on the faith of what was said around him. (His untimely death in 1989 deprived the revisionist camp of an eminent personality who had resolved to publish a new work aiming to put historians on their guard against the official lies of Second World War history).<\/h5>\n
[7]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 1988 Arno Mayer<\/strong>, an American professor of Jewish origin teaching contemporary European history at Princeton University, wrote on the subject of the Nazi gas chambers: \u201cSources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable\u201d (The \u201cFinal Solution\u201d in History, New York, Pantheon Books, p. 362)\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> Still today in, 2006, the greater public persist in believing that, as the media tirelessly suggest, the sources for the study of the gas chambers are innumerable and unquestionable. At the Sorbonne symposium of 1982, A. Mayer, like his friend Pierre Vidal-Naquet, could not find words harsh enough for the revisionists; however, six years later, here was an ultra-orthodox historian who had drawn considerably closer to the revisionists\u2019 findings.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
[8]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 1989 Swiss historian Philippe Burrin<\/strong>, laying down as a premise, without demonstration, the reality of Nazi gas chambers and Jewish genocide, attempted to determine at what date and by whom the decision to exterminate physically the Jews of Europe had been taken. He did not succeed any more than all his \u201cintentionalist\u201d or \u201cfunctionalist\u201d colleagues (Hitler et les juifs \/ Gen\u00e8se d\u2019un g\u00e9nocide, Paris, Seuil; English version: Hitler and the Jews: the Genesis of the Holocaust, London, Edward Arnold, 1994). He had to remark the absence of traces of the crime and note what he decided to call \u201cthe stubborn erasure of the trace of anyone\u2019s passing through\u201d (p. 9). He bemoaned \u201cthe large gaps in the documentation\u201d and added: \u201cThere subsists no document bearing an extermination order signed by Hitler. [\u2026] In all likelihood, the orders were given verbally. [\u2026] here the traces are not only few and far between, but difficult to interpret\u201d (p. 13)\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> Here again is a professional historian who acknowledges that he can produce no documents in support of the official case.<\/strong> The greater public imagine that the traces of Hitler\u2019s crime are many and unambiguous but the historian who has examined the relevant documentation has, for his part, found nothing but sparse semblances and \u201ctraces\u201d, and wonders what interpretation to give to them.<\/h5>\n
[9]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 1992 Yehuda Bauer<\/strong>, professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stated at an international conference on the genocide of the Jews held in London: \u201cThe public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at\u201d (Jewish Telegraphic Agency release published as \u201cWannsee\u2019s importance rejected\u201d, Canadian Jewish News, January 30, 1992, p. 8).<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> Apart from the fact that a careful reading of the \u201cminutes\u201d of the Berlin-Wannsee meeting of January 20, 1942 proves that the Germans envisaged a \u201cterritorial final solution [eine territoriale Endl\u00f6sung] of the Jewish question\u201d in a geographical space to be determined, Yehuda Bauer\u2019s quite belated declaration confirms that this major point of the case alleging the extermination of the Jews is in fact worthless.<\/h5>\n
Let us add, in our turn, that the extermination of the Jews was decided on neither at Wannsee nor anywhere else; the expression \u201cextermination camps\u201d is but an invention of American war propaganda and there are examples proving that, during that war, the killing of a single Jewish man or woman exposed the perpetrator, whether soldier or civilian, member of the SS or not, to German military justice proceedings and the possibility of being shot by firing squad (in sixty years, never has a sole orthodox historian provided an explanation for such facts, revealed by the defence before the Nuremberg tribunal itself).<\/strong><\/h5>\n
[10]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In January 1995 French historian Eric Conan<\/strong>, co-author with Henry Rousso of Vichy, un pass\u00e9 qui ne passe pas<\/em> (Paris, Gallimard, 2001 [1994, 1996]; English edition: Vichy: an ever-present past, Hanover, New Hampshire and London, University Press of New England, 1998), wrote that I had been right after all to certify, in the late 1970s, that the gas chamber thus far visited by millions of tourists at Auschwitz was completely fake.<\/strong> According to E. Conan, expressing himself in a leading French weekly:<\/h5>\n
\u201cEverything in it is false<\/strong> [\u2026]. In the late 1970s, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications all the better as the [Auschwitz] museum administration balked at acknowledging them\u201d. Conan went on: \u201c[Some people], like Th\u00e9o Klein [former president of the CRIF, the \u2018Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France\u2019], prefer to leave it in its present state, whilst explaining the misrepresentation to the public: \u2018History is what it is; it suffices to tell it, even when it is not simple, rather than to add artifice to artifice\u2019\u201d.<\/h5>\n
Conan then related a staggering remark by Krystyna Oleksy, deputy director of the Auschwitz National Museum, who, for her part, could not find the resolve to explain the misrepresentation to the public. He wrote: \u201cKrystyna Oleksy [\u2026] can\u2019t bring herself to do so: \u2018For the time being [the room designated as a gas chamber] is to be left \u201cas is\u201d, with nothing specified to the visitor. It\u2019s too complicated. We\u2019ll see to it later on\u2019\u201d(\u201cAuschwitz: la m\u00e9moire du mal\u201d [Auschwitz: the remembrance of evil], L\u2019Express, January 19-25, 1995, p. 68)\\.<\/h5>\n
\n
Faurisson says: \u00a0This statement by a Polish official means, in plain language: we have lied, we are lying and, until further notice, we shall continue to lie.<\/h5>\n
In 2005 I asked E. Conan whether the Auschwitz Museum authorities had issued a denial or raised any protest against the statement that he, in 1995, had ascribed to K. Oleksy. His answer was that there had been neither denial nor protest. In 1996, this imposture and others as well concerning the Auschwitz-I camp were denounced by two Jewish authors, Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, in a work they produced together: Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present, Yale University Press, 443 p. Here is a sampling of their words in that regard: \u201cpostwar obfuscation\u201d, \u201cadditions\u201d, \u201cdeletions\u201d, \u201csuppression\u201d, \u201creconstruction\u201d, \u201clargely a postwar reconstruction\u201d (p. 363), \u201creconstructed\u201d, \u201cusurpation\u201d, \u201cre-created\u201d, \u201cfour hatched openings in the roof, as if for pouring Zyklon B into the gas chamber below, were installed [after the war]\u201d (p. 364), \u201c falsified\u201d, \u201cinexact\u201d, \u201cmisinformation\u201d, \u201cinappropriate\u201d (p. 367), \u201cfalsifying\u201d (p. 369).<\/h5>\n
In 2001 the fallacious character of this Potemkin village gas chamber was also acknowledged in a French booklet accompanying two CD-Roms entitled Le N\u00e9gationnisme; written by Jean-Marc Turine and Val\u00e9rie Igounet, it was prefaced by Simone Veil (Radio France-INA, Vincennes, Fr\u00e9meaux & Associ\u00e9s).<\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n

LASHA DARKMOON comments:<\/em><\/h3>\n
It is sobering to reflect that British historian David Irving was fined 30,000 marks ($21,000) for publicly stating what is now openly and authoritatively conceded: that the extermination gas chamber shown to tourists in Auschwitz was a mock-up or \u201cdummy\u201d. It had never gassed a single Jew. It had been built by the Russians after the war.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
For decades, the authorities had deliberately lied to the public by pretending that this fake gas chamber was an authentic one.<\/strong><\/h5>\n

\"auchwitz1gaschamber\"<\/p>\n

FAKE GAS CHAMBER AT AUSCHWITZ<\/strong><\/h3>\n
For over 50 years, the staff at Auschwitz told visitors that the Auschwitz gas chamber (above) was original. Now it is officially admitted that the gas chamber is a reconstruction, i.e., a mock-up or fake. Yet the authorities at Auschwitz still cannot bear to tell the public this. The brazen lie that Jews actually died in this fake \u201cgas chamber\u201d is still being repeated to tourists today, especially to school children being shepherded round the premises by their Jewish tour guides. [LD]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
[11]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 1996 the leftwing French historian Jacques Baynac<\/strong>, a staunch anti-revisionist since 1978, ended up admitting, after due consideration, that there was no evidence of the Nazi gas chambers\u2019 existence. One could not fail to note, wrote Baynac, \u201cthe absence of documents, traces or other material evidence\u201d (Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne [Switzerland], September 2, 1996, p. 16, and September 3, 1996, p. 14). But he said that he carried on believing in the existence of those magical gas chambers\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> \u00a0All in all, J. Baynac says: \u201cThere is no evidence but I believe\u201d, whereas a revisionist thinks: \u201cThere is no evidence, therefore I refuse to believe and it is my duty to dispute.\u201d<\/h5>\n
[12]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 2000, at the end of her book Histoire du n\u00e9gationnisme en France<\/em> (Paris, Gallimard), Val\u00e9rie Igounet<\/strong> published a long text by Jean-Claude Pressac<\/strong> at the end of which the latter, who had been one of the revisionists\u2019 most determined opponents, signed a veritable act of surrender. In effect, taking up the words of professor Michel de Bo\u00fcard, he stated that the dossier on the concentration camp system was \u201crotten\u201d, and irremediably so. He wrote asking: \u201cCan things be put back on an even keel?\u201d and answered: \u201cIt is too late\u201d.<\/h5>\n
He added: \u201cThe current form, albeit triumphant, of the presentation of the camp universe is doomed\u201d. He finished by surmising that everything that had been invented around sufferings all too real was bound \u201cfor the rubbish bins of history\u201d (p. 651-652). <\/strong><\/h5>\n
In 1993-1994, that prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of the French Jew Serge Klarsfeld and the American rabbi Michael Berenbaum, \u201cProject Director\u201d at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, had been acclaimed worldwide as an extraordinary researcher who, in his book on Les Cr\u00e9matoires d\u2019Auschwitz, la machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris, CNRS \u00e9ditions, 1993; English title: The Auschwitz Crematories. The Machinery of Mass Murder ), had, it appeared, felled the hydra of revisionism. Here, in V. Igounet\u2019s book, he was seen signing his act of surrender.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says: The greater public are kept in ignorance of a major fact: the man who had supposedly saved the day for History, who once was presented by the world press as an extraordinary researcher who had at last discovered the scientific proof of the Nazi gas chambers\u2019 existence, ended up acknowledging his error. A few years later, not a single newspaper or magazine announced his death.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
[13]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 2002, R. J. van Pelt<\/strong>, already mentioned, published The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial<\/em>, Indiana University Press, XVIII-571 p.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> \u00a0As is widely known, David Irving, who at the very most is a semi-revisionist ill-acquainted with the revisionist argumentation, lost the libel suit he had recklessly brought against the Jewish-American academic Deborah Lipstadt. He tried clumsily to make the case \u2014 a perfectly right one, for that matter \u2014 that there had existed no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. But he nonetheless scored an essential point and, if Justice Charles Gray and other judges after him had had more courage, that point would have enabled him to succeed in his claim. The argument was summed up in a four-word phrase that I first put forth in 1994: \u201cNo holes, no Holocaust\u201d.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
My reasoning behind it was as follows:<\/h5>\n

\u201cNO HOLES, NO HOLOCAUST\u201d ARGUMENT<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
1. Auschwitz is at the centre of the \u201cHolocaust\u201d; 2. The great crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Auschwitz-II, are at the centre of the vast Auschwitz complex; 3. At the heart of these crematoria there were, supposedly, one or several homicidal gas chambers; 4. At a single one of these crematoria (crematorium n\u00b0 2), although it is in ruins, is it today possible to go and examine the room said to have been a gas chamber; it is the presumed scene of the crime, itself presumed as well; 5. We are told that, in order to kill the Jewish detainees locked inside, an SS man, moving about on the concrete roof of the said gas chamber, poured Zyklon-B pellets through four regular openings situated in the roof; 6. However, one need only have eyes to realise that no such openings have ever existed there; 7. Therefore the crime cannot have been committed. <\/strong><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
For R. J. van Pelt, testifying against Irving, it was near torture trying to find a reply to this argument. Justice Gray as well had to acknowledge \u201cthe apparent absence of evidence of holes\u201d (p. 490 of the verbatim transcript) and, in a more general way, he conceded that \u201ccontemporaneous documents yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans\u201d (p. 489; for more details one may consult pages 458-460, 466-467, 475-478 and 490-506).<\/h5>\n
In the text of his judgment, Charles Gray admitted surprise: \u201cI have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings\u201d (13.71).<\/h5>\n
Here the failure of the accusing historians is flagrant and Irving ought to have won his case thanks to that observation by a judge who was hostile towards him:<\/strong> the documents of the era furnish us with but decidedly little clear evidence of the Nazi gas chambers\u2019 existence and thus of a German policy to exterminate the Jews. Is this not, after all \u2014 as we have seen above \u2014 what several Jewish historians had already concluded, beginning with L\u00e9on Poliakov in 1951?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
[14]<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2013 In 2004 French historian Florent Brayard<\/strong> published a work entitled La \u00ab solution finale de la question juive \u00bb. La technique, le temps et les cat\u00e9gories de la d\u00e9cision, Paris, Fayard, 640 p. In 2005, in a review of this book, the following three sentences could be read: \u201cIt is known that the F\u00fchrer neither drafted nor signed any order to eliminate the Jews, that the decisions \u2014 for there were several \u2014 were taken in the secrecy of talks with Himmler, perhaps Heydrich and\/orG\u00f6ring. It is supposed that, rather than an explicit order, Hitler gave his consent to his interlocutors\u2019 requests or projects. Perhaps he did not even put it into words, but made himself understood by a silence or an acquiescence\u201d (Yves Ternon, Revue d\u2019histoire de la Shoah, July-December 2005, p. 537)\\.<\/h5>\n
Faurisson says:<\/strong> \u00a0At nearly every word, these sentences show that their author is reduced to adventurous speculations. When he dares to express, without the benefit of the least clue, the notion that Hitler \u201cperhaps\u201d made himself understood \u201cby a silence or an acquiescence\u201d, he is merely taking up the theory of the \u201cnod\u201d (the F\u00fchrer\u2019s mere nod!) first voiced by American professor Christopher Browning at the Z\u00fcndel trial in Toronto in 1988. No academic of antirevisionist persuasion has shown himself to be more pitiful and foolish than that shabbos-goy. So true is it that, destroyed by the revisionist victories, the official case has ended up being emptied of all scientific content.<\/h5>\n

\"faurissonhell\"<\/p>\n

Lasha Darkmoon concludes:<\/h2>\n
\n
Organized Jewry, having taken control of most of the Western world\u2019s media and legislative institutes, has now succeeded in making it a crime to question the Holocaust in\u00a016 countries<\/a><\/span>: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland. <\/strong><\/h5>\n
Other countries are slowly being added to this ever growing list of sovereign states where free speech on the Holocaust is strictly forbidden. The narrative is in such tatters that the only way it can now be maintained is through intimidation and coercion.<\/strong><\/h5>\n
In the Soviet Union in the 1920s, after the Jew-controlled Communist regime of Lenin and Stalin had established itself, it was a capital crime to own a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. <\/em>The day will probably come, in the foreseeable future, when revisionist historians like Faurisson will be put to death for questioning the Holocaust.\u00a0<\/strong><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n

WHAT THE \u00a0JEWS DID TO FAURISSON
\nFOR \u00a0EXPOSING THE GAS CHAMBER LIE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"faurisson\"<\/a>
\nSource<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And the price he paid. With pictures, captions and commentary from Lasha Darkmoon<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":133,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[61,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-Commentary","category-Hidden_and_Revisionist_History"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/133"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=120829"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120829\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":120836,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120829\/revisions\/120836"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=120829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=120829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=120829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}