Hufschmid's main page
Holocaust page

 
Robert Faurisson

March 18, 2007

The audio is in French, but a "rough" translation is below

1) fr.youtube.com/watch?v=TilbQLSHZdw
2) fr.youtube.com/watch?v=_kjwpZzov24
3) fr.youtube.com/watch?v=rBO1E9y66mY
4) fr.youtube.com/watch?v=7XnBXihhya8

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