Heresy – in Twenty-First Century France


A schoolboy born during the war is considered highly gifted both in the sciences 

and in letters, and sees a very promising future opening up before him. 

Fate is to decide otherwise. 

He enters adolescence learning that his father was shot to death in obscure 

circumstances one day in April 1944. 

And the First World War had already 

killed his father’s father. 

Then other deaths in the family weigh 

on the boy. 

The time comes for painful, piercing 

questions. What is the meaning of these 

deaths, these wars and, in particular, 

these Franco-German carnages? 

Why in 1870, 1914, 1939, were so 

many Frenchmen sent to their deaths 

in order to kill Germans? 

Why had there been that trial at Nuremberg? By what right had the butchers 

of the winning side sat in judgement of the defeated and condemned them 

to death? 

Are we in the presence of a curse? Of a taboo? And does there no longer 

exist the right to ask questions about certain things? To re-examine history? 

Why have we needed a law for the repression of sceptics? Who wanted this 

to happen? 

Questions. Answers. Encounters. A mind that searches. A heart that is stirred. 

A life turned upside down. 

A man unsubdued and pure of heart wants to believe that, at the dawn of 

the third millennium, a free and open debate on the most tragic page of the 

twentieth century will at last be joined.

Heresy  – in Twenty-First Century France 

Original Title: Un Cas d’insoumission: Comment on devient révisionniste 

(Samizdat Publications, 2002) 

Translated from the French by Nuovo Ordine Europeo, Trieste, Italy 

Historical Review Press 

Sussex, England 






















Georges M. Theil 




A case of insubmission 

to the “Holocaust” dogma 

Georges M. Theil    

With a preface by Robert Faurisson




















This book tells a lot about contemporary France. And Europe. This is the 

confession of a simple man, in the difficult and sometimes painful process of 

learning about the world’s realities. 


He has been severly condemned by French Justice. Jail, not suspended, and 

fines, very heavy. 


Readers could help in buying this book, either in French or English, or both. 


The best is to write directly to the author and buy the books from him. As we 

put it online, we strongly urge the readers to support someone who is fighting 

for the freedom of all. 


Write to 


Georges M. THEIL 

BP 50-38 

F- 38037 Grenoble Cedex 2 



Tél.: 06 60 48 59 59 


e-mail :  


Heresy 1 



Twenty-First Century France 

A case of insubmission 

to the “Holocaust” dogma 

 Georges M. Theil 

Preface by Robert Faurisson 

Original Title: Un Cas d’insoumission: Comment on devient révisionniste 

(Samizdat Publications, 2002) 

Translated from the French by Nuovo Ordine Europeo, Trieste, Italy 

Historical Review Press 

Sussex, England 


2 Heresy 

ISBN: 0-906879-34-5

Heresy 3 

Editor’s foreword 

On October 7, 2005, the author was convicted by a court in Limoges, where 

he had sent his book to two prominent wartime résistants and an orthodox 

historian, of “Holocaust denial” or, as the relevant law puts it, for “disputing… 

the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined by the 

charter of the International Military Tribunal” at Nuremberg in 1945. His 

sentence is the heaviest yet handed down under that law, dating from 1990: 

six months’ imprisonment without remission, five years’ political ineligibility 

(he is a former Front National regional councillor), permanent confiscation of 

everything the police had seized at his house (computer, books, documents) 

and a fine of €30,000. Also, he was ordered to pay damages amounting to 

nearly €40,000, and will have to bear the costs of publication of the decision 

in the national and regional press. 

Another, similar judgement befell him on January 3, 2006 in Lyon, where he 

had given an informal television interview: again, six months’ imprisonment, 

a heavy fine, damages. His appeals in the two cases have been rejected, the 

penalties upheld. He remains free pending appeal to the highest court, the 

Cour de Cassation. 

Historical revisionists readily admit that all their efforts at denouncing the 

myth of the Jewish “Holocaust” have thus far met with a crushing indifference 

on the part of the general public. Yet, in a Europe where numerous countries 

have anti-revisionist laws, more or less modelled on the French “Fabius- 

Gayssot Act”, in force – and very much so, as is borne out all too plainly by 

cases like that of Georges Theil’s little book, which was never even released 

for public distribution in France – one fact ought to be obvious enough for 

everyone: the “System” in place, its Thought Police, the European Soviet 

Union’s political commissars assigned with the task of brutally stifling any 

attempts to expose the horrid lie, of nipping dissidence in the bud, are anything 

but indifferent to the question. Could it be they have something to fear?

4 Heresy 

In memory of the 9,000 innocent German civilians 

(amongst whom 4,000 children) 

murdered in the Soviet torpedoing of the ocean liner 

Wilhelm Gustloff in the Baltic Sea on 30 January 1945, 

solely because they were German.

Heresy 5 


Preface by Robert Faurisson 7 


An attempt at Murder, with Premeditation, against Germany? 11 

Ace, and small slam 11 

Death at 27 12 

Horrifying saturnalia… 14 

Heaven, unter den Linden 16 

The enigma of death 18 

Did you say “In the name of civilisation”? 19 

The single way of thinking 28 


Let’s stamp out the vile thing! 37 

A big silence, before the storm 37 

The Roques affair 44 

Robert Faurisson. A journey to Poland 46 

Urszula 52 

The deathblow: the forensic studies 57 

The Nuremberg “trial”: judicial imposture  62 

The “Auschwitz trial” (Frankfurt, December 1963-August 1965) 68 

Special-purpose laws against the revisionists 70 

The scandal of Arolsen-Waldeck 71 

Yad Vashem 75 

The search for the truth about 1939-1945:  

 a struggle for the past or the future? 77 

For the future 79 

Notes  81

6 Heresy

Heresy 7 


Historical revisionism, the great intellectual adventure of the late twentieth 

century, continues at the dawn of the twenty-first, as perilous as ever. 

But what is known of the revisionists? What stuff are they made of, these 

unsubdued people who, in France or abroad, persist in braving the written and 

unwritten laws? They are hunted, caught and pilloried, and sometimes their 

books are burned. The media heap insults upon them without letting them put 

forth any arguments or defence. 

Little by little, these rebels, these recalcitrants, these refuzniks find 

themselves driven underground; recently they have even been tracked down 

on the Internet. 

In such a state of things, how could the general public get to know them? 

The case of Georges Theil offers something of a reply to that question. 

Born in 1940, Georges Theil had a rich and solid schooling in provincial 

France. He even earned himself a reputation as a highly gifted pupil in science 

and literature. He saw a promising future opening up before him. 

However, between the ages of 13 and 22, tragic events came to leave their 

sombre mark on the existence of the adolescent and youth. At a date well 

removed, it was revealed to him that in April 1944 his father had been killed 

in obscure circumstances either by Georgian soldiers in German uniform or 

by members of the French milice fighting on the side of the Germans; the 

father, an engineer by profession, had been found in possession of a firearm. 

Already, during the First World War, his father’s father had met a tragic death 

in the Tonkin where, in 1916, he was training local riflemen so that they 

could be sent to France to “kill the Boche” in the cause of Revenge. Other 

bereavements struck a family that seemed marked by fate. The young man’s 

reaction was to be an unexpected one. Instead of acting as prompted by a 

certain conventional imagery and blaming the “Huns” or the “Nazis” for their 

alleged unleashing of the two world wars, he would question himself about 

the historical mystery that had made it come to pass that from 1870 to 1945, 

in the space of three generations, Germans and Frenchmen should kill each 

other as they had done. 

As a Frenchman, it is to the French that he puts his questions on the subject. 

Having lost a father who himself had been a war orphan, he asks: “Who, in 

France, could really want that?”, or again: “Why were so many Frenchmen 

sent to their death in an effort to kill Germans?”(Conversely, a young German 

might ask questions of his compatriots that would be identical but for the fact 

that, in the case of the Second World War, no German — neither Adolf Hitler 

8 Heresy 

nor any other — had wanted a war with France: it was France who believed 

she must go to war against Hitler.) 

For the young Georges other questions followed, particularly this one: 

“Why, after the 1945 armistice, was it necessary to dishonour the Germans?” 

One may well, in effect, wonder what right the butchers of the victorious camp 

had to judge and convict the defeated in a country that they had reduced to 

ashes and of which millions of inhabitants in the East were being subjected to 

an appalling deportation in circumstances quite worse than those which had 

been experienced by the Jews under German rule. 

In the categories of cynicism and phariseeism the Nuremberg trial of 1945- 

1946 is unbeatable. There, the victor judged the vanquished. The victor’s law 

was retrospective. He instituted the doctrine of collective responsibility. He 

was not “bound by technical rules of evidence”. He did not “require proof of 

facts of common knowledge” (sic). Sight unseen, he accorded the status of 

genuine evidence to thousands of reports drafted by French, British, American, 

Soviet, Yugoslav, Polish, Czechoslovak “war crimes commissions”,… , and 

so it was, to cite just one example, that the reports of the Soviet political police 

acquired the status of genuine evidence admitting of no challenge. For that 

matter, practically nothing in the accusation’s case could be challenged once 

the accused was presented as having belonged to a “criminal” organisation; at 

the most, the individual associated with such an organisation would be allowed 

to plead that, personally, he had played no part in the crime in question. This is 

what explains why, from 1945 to the present, we have seen so many Germans 

or so many “collaborators” accept — or appear to accept — the reality of the 

crime and at the same time deny any personal participation in it. There was 

— and there is — no hypocrisy nor any cowardice on the part of the accused 

but rather the simple forced submission to Article 10 of the IMT charter. There 

was — and there is — no right to challenge the reality and the operation of 

homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz but there was — and there is — the right 

to say “Personally, I did not see or take part in any gassings”. All counsel for 

the accused had to follow this calamitous line of defence. Like the defence in 

the witchcraft trials, who also had no choice but to acknowledge the existence 

of the Evil One, the holding of the black sabbaths and the veracity of all sorts 

of Satanic horror stories, they still sought to have the court believe that their 

clients, who had, however, either been at the scene of the crimes or at least 

been informed of them, had personally taken no part!  

Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the charter, which permitted these ignominies, 

deserve to be printed one day in letters of infamy in the Almanac of rigged 

trials, judicial stagings and parodies of justice.

Heresy 9 

But Article 13 may have surpassed Articles 10, 19 and 21 in the category. 

It is as clear as the blade of the guillotine. Let’s quote it: 

The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not 

be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter. 

In plain English: the presiding judges are to write their own code of 

criminal procedure! And they will be able to do so in a practically arbitrary 

manner since the charter’s provisions amount to 30 articles conferring to the 

accusation the greatest latitude and to the defence a minimum of rights. 

The Nuremberg trial proved nothing. It made statements. 

The general public are not aware of it but the specialists are: all of the 

proceedings demanded and obtained by Jewish organisations, over a span of 

more than half a century, and launched either against Germans or against non- 

Germans accused of collaboration in persecuting the Jews, have been closely 

modelled on the Nuremberg trial. At the trial of Maurice Papon in France, 

Article 10 was brought into play yet again: everyone supposed, without the 

least semblance of evidence being presented, that the Third Reich had pursued 

a policy of physical extermination of the Jews; no one challenged, protested 

or demanded any evidence. The accused’s barristers, just like their client, 

bowed and scraped. Everyone knew that if evidence, one bit of evidence, were 

demanded, that would trigger a worldwide storm. 

In France today the kosher version of Second World War history is officially 

imposed on all by a legislative provision dating from 13 July 1990 and 

improperly called the “loi Gayssot”, whereas the act in question was prepared 

and obtained by former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius. As early as the spring 

of 1986, chief rabbi René-Samuel Sirat, flanked by Pierre Vidal-Naquet and 

other Jewish personalities, had asked for the institution of a special law in 

order to bar challenges to the Nuremberg trial’s holdings on the subject of 

“crimes against humanity”, that is, to put it clearly, “crimes against the Jews”. 

Laurent Fabius, himself a Jew, was the spokesman and the transmission shaft 

for this Jewish demand. 

A number of intellectuals call for a fight against the institutionalised lie 

and the unjust power of the law but few, in effect, take the risk themselves. 

Georges Theil, for his part, has chosen the risk. He has done so in deciding to 

reveal here how and why he embarked on the revisionist adventure. 

Robert Faurisson 

April 10, 2002

10 Heresy 

My thoughts turn to [Catholic author Georges] Bernanos, to how at 

ease he is in his monologue with God. When responsibilities weigh 

upon him, he takes some and leaves the rest. He has a conscience 

equipped with all the perfections of modern technology, a thermostat- 

regulated conscience […]. He rejects Nagasaki with horror, he wails 

over Hamburg and sets with care the degree of massacre allowed 

for the defence of the Human Person. It makes me think of a certain 

propaganda film about the RAF. Shortly before the squadron’s 

takeoff, a priest in his stole advances towards it: he’s come to bless 

the machines that in a quarter of an hour’s time will go and crush a 

few thousand “Hitlerite” women and children. Your defenders of the 

Human Person are just like that thoughtless priest. They may wear 

fine stoles, but we don’t forget that they have blessed the face of Death. 

There are no armies of Right. 

Maurice Bardèche, Lettre à François Mauriac

La Pensée Libre, Paris 1947, p. 131 

Are you trembling, carcass? You would tremble still more if you 

knew where I was taking you. 

 Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, viscount of Turenne 


Heresy 11 


An attempt at Murder, with Premeditation, 

against Germany? 

It was in 1967, in the Latin Quarter: I found myself face to face with Jacques 

Joubert, like me a former maths prep student at the lycée Saint Louis, whom 

I hadn’t seen for six years. He was now an aeronautical engineer. Our paths 

had diverged; I kept a recollection of him as an assiduous hard worker who, 

however, was different from the rest of us: he went out into the world a bit, 

knew about other things besides maths and physics and, what’s more, chased 

girls as no student at Mathématiques spéciales ever did, so to speak. 

Our encounter lasted only half an hour. When we shook hands to say 

goodbye, I had the presentiment that we should probably never meet again. 

He was keen to tell me: “I’ve got a book to recommend to you. It’s the latest 

Rassinier: The Drama of the European Jews. It won’t leave you cold.” 

On the subject in question I had as yet gone no further than Maurice 

Bardèche’s two iconoclastic writings of which I had learnt from a radical- 

socialist cousin who’d died long before his time: Nuremberg ou la Terre 

promise and Nuremberg II ou les Faux monnayeurs, published in 1948 and 

1950, respectively. I headed to the Gibert bookshop right nearby and came out 

with The Drama of the European Jews, Paul Rassinier’s last published work. 

— Ace, and small slam — 

Ten years earlier, the year of the big elementary maths exam, I was what 

they called an ace, a highly gifted schoolboy, and as soon as I’d passed was 

propelled to Saint Louis prépa, generally known as “la taupe” (“the mole”). 

After a beginning in fanfare, failure in the entry exam for the prestigious 

Ecole Polytechnique two years afterwards left me devastated. How could 

I have failed, I who four years previously had been so brilliant at my first 

exam, already in the 2nd A form (Latin, Greek, maths), then at elementary 

maths with the mention “well done”! I who read the Greek philosophers in 

translation at the age of twelve, never earning a grade lower than 17/20 in 

maths and physics! The truth was that my “highly gifted” side had indeed 

disappeared at ages 17-18, and that I refused to admit it. I was, in a way, living 

on remnants of success that could at times give an illusion, both to myself and 

those around me. I was perhaps still able to make sparks, but nothing more. 

12 Heresy 

“Somewhat highly gifted”, as my old mathematics teacher of the time was to 

put it with humour when we met again long afterwards, keen to sum up my 

case without any fawning. 

Those ten years from 1957 to 1967 had made another man of me, in whom 

there subsisted a will to catch up again, precisely with those remnants. A chance 

meeting had left a mark on me, shortly after my move to Paris: acquaintance 

with my landlady in the 17th district opened unsuspected horizons with her 

account of what she and her husband had lived through there in the period of 

the occupation. She lent me Lucien Rebatet’s Les Décombres, which made a 

strong impression on me. Subsequently I did my 16 months of national service 

in a NATO unit that saw me work side by side every day with Americans, 

Germans, Englishmen and Belgians in the indescribable “post-nuclear” 

context of my battalion.1    

Once back from the army I was involved in a motorbike accident in Paris 

that nearly cost me my life and left long lasting after effects. In the same 

year, whilst still convalescent, I met the beautiful Beatrix; I married her the 

year after. I had accomplished my professional comeback. Now a junior 

manager in the civil service, I wanted, as soon as I’d served the required time, 

to sit my ministry’s special internal exam; passing it would enable me, after a 

programme including the full 17-month degree course at the Ecole Nationale 

d’Administration, to enter the corps of the Administrateurs civils. And all that 

came about as planned. 

In late December 1971, when I, a joyful Rabelaisian*, came out through the 

doors of the ENA, at that time situated in the Rue des Saints-Pères, I dedicated 

the achievement (my little slam!) to my father, fallen 27 years earlier, because 

he had had his conception of freedom, the conception the man of 27 that he 

was then could have had in April 1944.      

 — Death at 27 — 

That 10th of April 1944 my father was at the wheel of a van of the Celtia 

factory, not far from Neuvic, in the Corrèze region. That plant, manufacturing 

wooden spools for the textile mills and the yarn trade, had been bought by his 

uncle, and he was director of technical operations. He had been able that day 

to undertake his project of going to the town of Brive with a factory foreman 


in order to buy a particular machine and had suggested to his wife’s sister, 

my aunt Christine, that she accompany them: a great treat for her in those 

times when automotive traffic was tightly restricted. For the journey she took 

along her small boy of four, my first cousin. Whilst approaching the town of 

Heresy 13 

Egletons, after driving about 20 miles, they came to a little bridge at a bend in 

the road: a German patrol that had set up a roadblock ordered them to halt. It 

was made up of the Georgian back-up troops (of the Vlassov army) who at the 

period represented the Wehrmacht in Haute-Corrèze. 

Inspection of papers, expert search of the vehicle. “Whose revolver?” asks 

the sergeant in feldgrau, brandishing the weapon that he’s just found under the 

front passenger’s seat. The three passengers blench and look at one another. 

My father, a smile on his lips, steps forward. The Georgian takes hold of him: 

“You, arrested!” and orders the others to turn around and go back to their point 

of departure, without further ado. 

That very evening my father is detained a mile and a half from there in the 

lycée Albert-Thomas of Egletons, a part of which serves for the quartering 

of the same Georgians. They keep him in a barricaded room, after installing 

an army cot. His guards, as he confides to his young wife, are not too bad a 

lot. He doesn’t even complain about the food, with the notable exception of 

the bread. He’s informed of his imminent transfer to Limoges about 70 miles 

away, to appear before the German military court for the zone. On April 14th 

he tells my mother that he already knows the harsh sentence: forced labour 

somewhere in the Reich, surely under a severe regime, in an armaments 

factory, considering his status of engineer. 

On that mid-April day, he knows that he’s going to be fetched for the 

transfer under armed guard. In any case, he’s said as much to his wife. He 

already sees himself seated between two Feldgraus en route for the court. 

And, just now, here they are! Strangely, it isn’t a military vehicle but a Citroen 

traction-avant, with French civilians inside! They present themselves to the 

Georgian sergeant, papers in hand. They take my father, to whom the guards 

have returned his belongings, not forgetting the money that he’d brought along 

for the transaction in Brive. 

The poor devil is soon riding between two henchmen on the back seat; he 

can tell by their looks that they’re criminals, and understands that it’s neither 

a military court nor a German factory that awaits him, but death. 

In the afternoon of that same April 15th, it is announced at Egletons town 

hall that three miles away a young man lies dead in a pathway twenty yards 

off the old Egletons-Limoges road that runs further on through the village 

of Sarran. It’s my father. Killed by a single bullet in the back of the neck, as 

the doctor would specify later, but shot from a certain distance by a revolver: 

without exiting, the bullet had just penetrated the base of the cerebellum. Apart 

from that, no sign of struggle, a tranquil face, a slight smile, the nape of the 

neck a bit swollen by a blood clot.

14 Heresy 

My mother is only 27 years old, and finds herself a widow with two small 

children: my sister (aged 2) and me (3 and a half). 

The next day, she rushes off to the bureau of the German officer who, she’s 

told, is in charge of the sector. He leers down at her from his height of six feet 

four inches when she dares to ask why someone has killed her husband, why 

someone has stolen his money. Making no effort at courtesy he retorts: “We 

don’t owe you anything, Madam; and I don’t even owe you any explanation! 

We have nothing to do with your settling of scores between terrorists!” 

— Horrifying saturnalia… 

A thunderous, explosive youngster 

A not so ritual slaughter — 

It was difficult, and at school more than elsewhere, being a highly gifted child 

amongst the “normal” ones. 

I sensed it very early on. Already in the classroom, the highly gifted one 

raises his hand before all the others, on every subject. The teacher grasps this 

quickly but must pretend somehow not to notice it so as to let the others have 

their chance and not humiliate them all. I found myself without competition. 

At recreation time it often happened that the jealousy of the ordinary and 

the less clever pupils showed itself openly. Understanding everything before 

all the others isolated me. However, on some rare occasions I could, in return, 

enjoy direct conversations with my teachers. 

From the upper second form I was at a good Catholic boarding school, a 

kind of nursery for prospective priestly vocations. Full of fervour for Latin 

literature, I was able, as early as the third and fourth forms, to read the texts 

aperto libro. I had come by some Latin works that were not on the syllabus 

and therefore prohibited, since they didn’t appear on the restricted list of 

authorised writings. In the course of a routine search, my copy of Petronius’s 

Satyricon, the bilingual edition of Guillaume Budé, was found. I was straight 

away called before the Superior and copiously reprimanded for being 

discovered in possession of such a “pernicious” book. Horresco referens

they caught me a bit later, at evening study session, reading the Saturnalia of 

Macrobius in the bilingual Garnier edition. This time the Superior was choked 

with indignation. “But really, you couldn’t be unaware of what is meant by 

the term Saturnalia! It designates a period at the end of the year where the 

Roman people, the populace, openly and unrestrainedly gave themselves over 

to the worst debauchery! How can you have been attracted by a book with a 

title like that?”

Heresy 15 

Quite obviously, the Superior had not read the book, a remark that I ventured 

to make. I summed up the contents for him. “Macrobius, a man of letters of 

the late fourth century, had taken advantage of those days of the yearly festival 

to meet with some learned friends and discuss literature, poetry, science or 

history, at that fascinating period which would soon see the collapse of Rome. 

It’s a precious work for anyone interested in those Roman literary figures who 

still remained attached to the old religion several decades after Constantine’s 

edict of Milan, and nostalgic for the imperial, radiant Rome”. 

The priggish pedant in a cassock cut me off there and informed me that he 

was going to send a letter to my mother. 

I learned a little later that the holy man had in fact had a talk with my mother, 

ingratiatingly explaining to her that I ought to have been expelled. I was “not 

pious” (I had disclosed in private to the religion teacher, a good chap at that, 

that I did not accept certain dogmas of the Catholic faith) and, especially, I 

had brought into his respectable establishment at least two “unseemly” books. 

But, considering my remarkable scholastic results, the school wanted to keep 

me nonetheless. 

My passion for classical letters was also, of course, directed at ancient 

Greek, which attracted me with its immediate graphical beauty, its delicacy, 

precision, richness; Bailly’s dictionary was my scholarly pastime, by virtue 

of its wealth of linguistic and philological information, revealing to me the 

correspondences with the other European languages. Thus did I begin to 

draw up tables based on original roots that were most likely closest to both 

Sanskrit and reconstituted Indo-European. I listed the Latin, Greek, Romance, 

Germanic and Slavic words that could be linked to the primæval “skeleton”. 

Whilst doing this, I had the feeling of advancing along steep paths leading to 

mountaintops from which I should discover undreamt of vistas. Later on, of 

course, I was to acquire Julius Pokorny’s big, fundamental Indogermanisches 

etymologisches Wörterbuch 2, and would be impassioned of philological works 

on the subject of languages arising from primæval Indo-European.3 

With my good head for maths I was always first in the class in that subject 

as well as in physics and chemistry, with a predilection for trigonometry, 

analytical calculus and inorganic chemistry. Whilst in the fourth and fifth forms 

I had come by some big chemistry books and lab equipment. With my loads 

of retorts and Welsbach burners, I carried out chemical experiments with true 

delight. This went on, in holiday periods, in a shed beside the fine old house 

where my paternal grandmother lived. Nearly five acres of park adorned that 

abode, which was heaven to me. 

One day in July 1956 the postman, a disquieted look on his face, came 

16 Heresy 

to tell me that two heavy parcels, addressed to me, had been received at the 

post office but that he refused to deliver them on his round, for they bore 

bright-coloured labels reading “toxic substance”, “explosive”, “corrosive”. 

My first order with Prolabo had arrived, containing some basic ingredients. 

In particular, there were concentrates of sulphuric and nitric acid in smoked- 

glass bottles isolated in silica powder. I would use these substances in the 

building of rockets that I wanted to put together at small expense. 

I soon became known in the area for my thunderous and explosive 

experiments that alerted the countryside each summer. My intent was to 

perfect, even in a rather rudimentary way, the most propulsive chemical 

mixture possible, whether solid, putty-like or powdery, and whose combustion 

would be neither too quick nor too slow. One of my first rockets, loaded with 

at least ten pounds of a powder of my own making, failed to take off and blew 

up on its wooden “launching pad”. An adjacent oak tree was half defoliated 

by the blast. A new rocket, which took off but like all the rest was rather badly 

guided, after a high parabolic trajectory fell right in the middle of a flock of 

sheep belonging to a nearby farmer called Camille. It hadn’t directly touched 

any of the animals but one ewe, frightened by the fall of the burning missile 

that had crashed into the ground beside it, growling and smoking, ran straight 

into the barbed-wire fence where it slit its throat. The farmer, having observed 

the scene from a distance, rushed into the field with his servant. The two 

countrymen, after seizing the big metallic cylinder, dented and still burning 

hot, railed at me. “You can go and fetch your torpedo… at the police station.” 

At police court, the magistrate, holding back his laughter, fined me twenty 

francs for “petty violence” whilst I voiced regrets for my act of negligent 


— Heaven, unter den Linden — 

The school holidays were the occasion to read and to make notes. My mother had 

just given me a motor scooter, which became the ideal device for methodically 

exploring the region. A relative made me a gift of a glass-panelled bookcase 

(whose contents were to be stolen years later) and I enthusiastically installed 

it in my new 450-square foot room on the ground floor of the lovely house, 

which was to remain my solitary retreat until I reached 30. 

In those fine days of July 1958 I was not yet 18, with my two baccalaureates 

and an entry ticket to science prep classes beginning in late September. With 

the two wide-open windows, the comforting buzz of the bees in the ancient 

linden tree facing my new bookcase, I was overjoyed. I stocked the shelves 

Heresy 17 

in line with my favourite subjects. Now before my eyes was the scientific 

row, with the fat red Troost of general chemistry (outdated in its contents), 

Figuier’s La Terre et les mers, treatises of algebra, maths and physics exams 

with explanations of correct answers, specialist works published by Duno 

and five popularisations by the American physicist G. Ganow, who filled me 

with enthusiasm. These books introduced me to the theory of relativity and 

quantum mechanics. I savoured the subtle mystery of mathematics; a pure 

product of the human brain, the mathematical sciences can just as well live a 

life of their own as enlist themselves in the service of the material sciences. 

I had a passion for the calculation of probabilities, the laws of great numbers 

and their prodigious conclusions ending up in the paradox of certainties 

being obtainable from chance phenomena. On the subject of gambling and 

expectations of winnings, one particular demonstration, embellished with 

integrals and equations “of partial derivatives”, opportunely taught me that of 

all possible gambling strategies, the best is not to gamble at all

Above these volumes, the authors of classical antiquity, shelved between 

Bailly and Bornecque: the bilingual Budé classics, ochre for the fifteen Greek 

and brick-red for the forty Latin, the grammars (Petitmangin for Latin, Ragon 

for Greek, Carpentier-Fialip for English), the studies of place names by 

Meillet and Dauzat along with the costlier and more academic philological 

works published by Klincksieck. For the old books section, I had received as 

a present Tome II (only!) of Montesquieu’s Esprit des lois in a period leather- 

bound edition. I already possessed a Géographie by Crozat dating from 1794 

and Mme de Genlis’s Contes moraux. There was also an Albert moderne in a 

general edition of the 17th century, a sort of manual of folk medicine whose 

recipes, made up of witches’ ingredients, I enjoyed reciting to the occasional 


Under the science shelf I arranged writings of novelists and short story 

authors: a score of books by Jules Verne, of course, three or four of Balzac’s 

novels, the Mémorial by Las Cases, Don Quixote in French translation, 

Chateaubriand with his Itinéraire, Poe, Dickens, Stendhal, S. Lagerlöf, Arthur 

Conan Doyle, H. G. Wells, H. H. Ewers, some Daudet, a Goncourt, Edmond 

About’s Le Roi des montagnes, Madame de Staël with her Allemagne, tales 

by Maupassant, two books by Octave Mirabeau, a few by Francis Carco, 

Paul Morand, Montherlant; no compendium of poetry except Baudelaire’s 

Fleurs du mal and an anthology in which I found the hermetic character of 

Mallarmé intriguing. I’d eliminated a book by Paul Valéry, received as a gift, 

for it was mind-numbing. I didn’t like Victor Hugo and wanted none of him 

on my shelves. I recall Voltaire’s Candide and Dictionnaire Philosophique

18 Heresy 

works by Saint-Simon, Michelet, the Mémoires du beau Lauzun. Two books 

of Nietzsche’s in French translation: Ecce Homo and The Birth of Tragedy

Two of Céline’s: Journey to the End of Night and Death on the Instalment 

Plan. Amongst the less orthodox books, bequeathed by the radical socialist 

cousin, La Fin des religions by Auguste Dide, Renan’s Life of Jesus and the 

two “Nurembergs” by Maurice Bardèche. I thought I could sense a kinship of 

spirit between Renan’s work and Bardèche’s. “Are you aware that The Life 

of Jesus is on the Index?” asked my grandmother one day, facetiously. That 

reflection roused my curiosity. From then on I was “indexed”. 

In the two lower rows: travels, geographical studies, books on auto and 

motorcycle mechanics, a medical dictionary of 1911 that prescribed, with 

insistence, the use of “bismuthous magnesium”; collections of the magazine 

Science et Vie, science fiction books (Jimmy Guieu!), both old and recent 

issues of Paris Match and a few of Le Crapouillot, some copies of Signal, the 

French-language weekly published by the Germans during the occupation, 

with its impressively realistic photos. I was soon to add The Morning of the 

Magicians and the review Planète. 

At the very bottom, a dozen or so old books that my grandmother had 

chosen for me from her own collection and that I’d ended up accepting: 

writings of Gyp, Marcel Prévost, Félicien Champsaur, Paul Bourget and the 

like, a biography of Madame Steinheil. Not to mention a Bible, a protestant 

one, in which I’d marked off the particularly shocking passages. 

Such was, essentially, the inventory of my treasures at the age of 18. 

— The enigma of death — 

Being confronted by death and trying to take stock of it constitute a decisive 

moment for the child and adolescent. Already, when I was nine, my maternal 

grandmother had passed on. Many an evening had I marvelled at the tales of 

Perrault that she could tell to perfection. Next to leave us, much too young, the 

radical socialist cousin, who had become my legal guardian after my father’s 

death. His last job was that of technical advisor to the staff of Edgar Faure, 

minister of Justice. I admired him for his knowledge and his experience in 

life. It was with him that I’d only recently made my first big journey by car, 

reaching Paris — over 250 miles distant — in a traction avant. Also gone was 

my great uncle Ernest, owner of the Celtia factories, who had nicknamed me 

“Mr Why”; he knew how to answer all my many queries. I declined to kiss 

him on his deathbed as I was bidden to do. I was eleven years old.  

One day in June 1958 the body of a thirteen year old boy, who’d gone 

Heresy 19 

down like a stone, was pulled up onto the bank of our pond. First our gym 

instructor, then the firemen with their oxygen bottles, had tried to bring him 

round. There we stood, silent, contemplating the bluish face, when his parents 

arrived. His mother fainted and collapsed before our eyes. I perceived death 

as an enigma. 

A few weeks later I heard of the death of my cousin Jean, aged 18. A real 

athlete, a top swimmer, he had sought to go to the aid of some companions 

caught in rough waters but he drowned. Only after 18 days was his body 

recovered. His parents were never to get over this tragic loss. 

One August evening in 1962, a young relative, the pretty Agnès, 27 years 

old, left the Madrid hotel where she used to spend a month each summer. Soon 

afterwards she was found drowned in the shallow waters of the Manzaneres. 

How could these three deaths in the family — my father at age 27, Jean at 

18, Agnès at 27 — be explained? 

Agnès’s sudden death was shrouded in mystery. Was it suicide? Murder? 

An accident? I managed to get hold of the Spanish dailies and weeklies, all 

of which mentioned this lovely, elegantly dressed young Frenchwoman who 

spoke a perfect Spanish and who had just been discovered drowned. She had 

not suffered any violence. 

— Did you say “In the name of civilisation”? — 

All in all, concerning Agnès and my father, neither my mother nor my aunt 

wanted to know any more than they already did. 

For my mother, her husband had simply fallen as a martyr of the occupation, 

a silent hero, a fighter in the shadows. 

As for me, I was caught between all the conjectures that assailed me as 

soon as I inquired of anybody: once arrested, had my father not probably been 

denounced to the Germans or the Vichy police as a dangerous résistant (which 

he was not in the least but which could only have made his case worse)? 

And had a staging of sorts not been organised to have him picked up at his 

improvised jail in Egletons by some hired assassins, French Gestapaches? I 

was told that the Germans regularly preferred to see “dirty work” done by 

mercenaries from the occupied lands themselves. Someone offered me another 

version: my father hadn’t wanted to be questioned by the special services who 

were waiting to see him before his date at the military court and so had tried 

to flee by breaking out of the traction avant. Or still another: the large sum of 

money that he had on him aroused the envy of the car’s occupants, who thus 

preferred to liquidate him on the pretext that he’d tried to escape. And other 

20 Heresy 

explanations were possible as well.4     

For my father’s mother, her son had let himself be drawn into a quite unwise 

adventure. Always with a smile on his face, for such was his nature, my father, 

according to her, had wanted to help those maquisards, one of whose chiefs 

entrusted him with a revolver “just in case”, a gesture sure to send him to his 

death should he ever be caught carrying the thing. My grandmother despised 

those people, holding them responsible for her son’s death. Besides, had the 

actions of those FFI and FTP moved ahead by a single day the advent of the 

Normandy landings? Had the blows they’d struck not usually resulted only 

in reprisals against the innocent? But she often came to the conclusion that 

her son had acted as a man who was sure of himself and convinced of the 

soundness of his choice. At such moments she bore the look of a fine, gentle 

old lady from whom war had claimed the two men who’d had all her love: her 

husband and her son.    

Her husband had been killed in the Tonkin in June 1916. A young officer, 

he commanded the border post of Lao-Kay, facing the successors of the 

Chinese river pirates, the Pavillons noirs (“black flags”). Before that he had 

had a “glorious war” facing the Germans at the Aube front, where he led a 

company of Tonkinese riflemen who nearly all lost their lives either crushed 

under the German 77 millimetre shells or else overcome by the cold of their 

first winter in the icy mud of the trenches. Seriously wounded, he had received 

a promotion and an assignment to Indochina. Then he and his fiancée got 

married and had a three-week honeymoon in Vichy, after which he left for the 

Far East, never to return but in a leaden coffin draped in the tricolour. He of 

course never saw his infant son, my father, who at the age of just three months 

became a war orphan. And that was to be precisely my lot in 1945.   

Could they be called heroic, those two men? 

One day my grandmother put a question that made me stop and think. 

Your grandfather the officer had the official job of training those 

Tonkinese and of making the most efficient, the cruellest possible 

“Boche-killers” of them. “There are twenty million Germans too 

many!” Clemenceau said, didn’t he? 

Yes. And just how many “Boches” was your grandfather thus able 

to get killed? A few, or hundreds? Thousands, maybe? France, our 

country, sent officers like him 6,000 miles away to train Asiatics to 

kill Germans, our neighbours, our close kin, as we were well aware; it 

makes me dizzy. And after all, wasn’t your father perhaps the victim of a 

kind of immanent justice? I often think that an immanent justice struck 

Heresy 21 

him down; without knowing it and of course without understanding it, 

in 1944 he ended up paying with his own life for the criminal error of 

our rulers whom I saw plunge France into two wars against Germany 

in less than 25 years. Let’s not forget the sorry emperor Badinguet** 

either, the one who took himself for Napoleon in 1870 and didn’t hesitate 

to declare war on Germany on a frivolous pretext, with the catastrophic 

outcome that we know, for the chassepots hadn’t, all things considered, 

really worked wonders.***         

The notion of “immanent justice” left me, and still leaves me, perplexed. 

And that reflection is still present in my mind whenever I ponder the tragic 

history of the 20th century. 

I had occasion to read some violently anti-German works from before 

1914 in what remained of my grandmother’s little library. I’ve kept one of 

them: La Menace allemande, by a certain André Barre. This book, written 

circa 1908, is a veritable incitement to murder, a declaration of war on the 

Germany of Wilhelm II, a fervent augury of European war. As if maddened 

by that Germany’s technical and economic progress, the author calls for the 

mobilisation of the Latins and Slavs against the German empire: 

Within a short span of years the world is to see the following: the German 

flag will fly over 86 million Germans, and these will govern a territory 

inhabited by 130 million Europeans. In that vast territory, the Germans 

alone will exercise political rights […]. They will then be, as in the 

Middle Ages, a people of masters, merely condescending to let menial 

tasks be carried out by the peoples submitted to their domination.5 


At the beginning of the 20th century a French engineer with a degree from 

Arts et Métiers, Victor Cambon 6, wrote several books on what he had seen 

across the Rhine. After an impartial portrayal of the German people’s qualities 

(love of knowledge, solid work, self confidence, hardy initiative, spirit of 

organisation, discipline), he sought to understand and explain the astounding 

development of German industry and research. He attributed it to the country’s 

unique system of training: “Germany’s prodigious industrial expansion 

would remain inexplicable were its description not preceded by a visit to her 

establishments of vocational instruction.” He noted, moreover, that the fertile 

ground from which those schools had sprung was a veritable cult of instruction 

at all levels; the farmers themselves, living as semi-townsfolk (which, he 

pointed out, “tangibly raises their intellectual level”), had access to it:

22 Heresy 

Their dress shows it; in Germany it is difficult to tell a farmer from a 

well-dressed workman and, above all, one does not come across, as 

in certain out-of-the-way districts in France, those savage-looking 

beings in indescribable garb, living by themselves in secluded thatched 

cottages in the manner of prehistoric man. 

The result of this legislation and of these mores: not one in a thousand 

Germans is illiterate. But this remark seems to me insufficient: it matters 

little that a man has learned to read if, his whole life long, he never 

reads. However, newspapers and books are to be found in the hands and 

in the homes of Germans of every station in life.         

Perusing this book the reader plainly senses that it does not take long for 

the initial admiration, although set forth objectively, to give way to a muffled 


After some meticulous descriptions of industrial plants, their organisation 

of production and labour, he reaches this conclusion: 

Certainly, today’s Germany fears no manufacturing country as a 

competitor. […] One must only ask: does it follow that she will be able 

to impose her merchandise on the entire world? Shall we not see, pretty 

well everywhere, the customs officers come onto the scene? The other 

nations will protect their ageing or burgeoning industries against the 

mighty Germany. England is already showing an example of this with 

her law on foreign patents. This reaction, once followed and surpassed 

everywhere, would become a worldwide embargo. Would it have to 

be breached by cannon fire? A harsh, but by no means implausible, 


These are the difficulties that darken the German empire’s horizon; 

we see them clearly and must, without exaggeration, call them 


Here one may already see, as in a premonition, that in our author’s eyes it was 

no great distance from the customs houses to the artillery stations. That century 

over, we may note with today’s hindsight, staying on the economic plane alone, 

the following actions: in 1923, dismantling and pillage of German factories; in 

1943 and 1944, systematic destruction of German cities and industrial sites; in 

1945, massive theft of German patents and capture of engineers and scientists 

involved in nuclear and rocket research, all for the benefit of the victors; from 

Heresy 23 

1945 to 1948 the deportation of about 20 million Germans and the theft of 

everything they owned; from 1945 to 1990, the enslavement of the 18 million 

Germans of the Soviet zone (the late German Democratic Republic). 

In 1913 the journalist Georges Bourdon, correspondent for Le Figaro

made a lengthy stay in Germany, of which he wrote in a series of articles. The 

complete report that he assembled in a book published that year, The German 

Enigma, showed that what he himself saw beyond the Rhine did not square 

with the negative image of Germany given by the French press. He recounted, 

for instance, a talk he had had with the East-Prussian born man of letters 

Hermann Sudermann, who, in his capacity as a playwright, was in regular 

contact with the German public. The subject was the two countries’ feelings 

towards each other. 

“Ah!” he exclaimed at my first words, “all you French are the same. 

When I go to Paris and see to what a degree the sentiments of Germany 

are misunderstood there, I scarcely know what to say. I should like 

to shout in their ears, ‘You are mistaken. You believe lies. You lie to 

yourselves.’ […] Yes, yes. Everything that you suppose, everything that 

you believe, is pure delusion. In the whole of Germany there is nothing 

but sympathy for France and for all that comes from France, and I have 

never met a single person who would not regard the mere prospect of a 

renewed conflict as a profound calamity. I give you my word for it. It is 

the strictest and most absolute truth. Beyond that, everything is fancy 

and a figment of the imagination. 


[…] “Germany ill disposed indeed! I ask you to compare our conduct 

with yours. What role does the German play in your caricatures, your 

books, your theatres, your cafés chantant? He is repellent, a clown, a 

surly brute with no manners, he eats like a glutton, and behaves badly; 

shady affairs, equivocal transactions, dirty tricks are the stage stock-in- 

trade of the German Jew; in fact, the infamous villain whom everyone 

scouts, disdains, and abhors is always a German! Now look on the 

other side of the picture, go from one end of Germany to the other, 

look into our theatres, our cafés, concert halls, open our comic papers, 

whether in Berlin, Frankfurt, Breslau, or Munich, and you will find the 

Frenchman always depicted in an amiable and sympathetic light. Not 

long ago one of our best novelists, Walther Blöm, published a book, 

L’Année de fer, of which the action takes place during the ‘great war’ 

(that of 1870), and among his leading characters is a French officer 

24 Heresy 

endowed with every noble quality. I should not have a very pleasant task 

if I tried to put before you all that French literature has written about 

us since Maupassant. Indeed, I would rather leave it alone. Well, you 

may believe me that our literature and our theatre register, whether they 

know it or not, the feeling and ideas of the great mass of the people. All 

my generation has been brought up to regard France with sentiments of 

respect and sympathy, and what I am saying to you is what the whole of 

enlightened Germany thinks.” 7 

Already in 1876 a French book by one Victor de Saint-Genis, L’Ennemi 

héréditaire, after trying to demonstrate that France had been threatened 

by Germanic invasions since 1000 AD (whilst at the same time naively 

demonstrating that the French realm’s territorial progress had been made to 

the nearly exclusive detriment of the German empire), violently took to task 

those Frenchmen who had had the courage to recognise the good qualities 

of the German people, along with the fact that we ought to show a positive 

interest in our neighbours.  

Who then have propagated in France so many dangerous errors, so 

many illusions on the character, the genius, the spirit, the appetites of 

the Germans? Two writers whose talent served mainly their grudges 

and who flattered Germany only to avenge themselves on the French: 

Voltaire, who did so much harm to our country with his elegant 

hypocrisies and the eloquent charm of his slanders; Mme de Staël, 

ignorant and gullible. We are getting over the effects of these grievous 

errors a bit late. 8 

Voltaire, a “bad Frenchman”! What a crime to have admired the great 

Frederick and his military and political organisation! 

I became aware, upon reading all these works, of the great wave of 

Germanophobia that many French were active in maintaining well before 

1914. All of these writings ascribed the very darkest designs to the German 

empire: a far cry from the admiration that Taine and Renan, a few decades 

previously, had felt for the depth of the German genius. They seemed to voice 

an ever-growing anxiety before that country’s progress in all areas. People 

came to wish ardently for war with Germany, a war presented at first as one 

of necessary revenge for the defeat of 1870 and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine. 

Then, from 1905 onwards, the order of the day was plain and simple racial 

hatred. The German had to be physically destroyed for the simple reason that 

Heresy 25 

he was German. There appeared manifold incitements to kill the Germans, 

which could not fail to permeate a good many minds and to lead finally to the 

evil joy of August 1914, when the soldiers went off to war. 9 

Soon afterwards some remarks by Auguste, another member of the family, 

were to leave me still more baffled. This particularly knowledgeable man was 

esteemed by all. In 1917, whilst working towards his bac, he had been called 

up to serve in an artillery unit at the front. He came back marked for life. 

Later on he was in the French occupation forces in the Rhineland. More than 

forty years after the events the assessment that he drew from his two military 

experiences could be summed up in these terms: 

France in no way deserved to be counted amongst the victors of 1918. 

That war, which she had ardently desired, had brought her more human 

hurt and psychological disasters than benefits. In 1919, at the signing 

of the treaty of Versailles, a monument of iniquity, France doubtless 

thought she had, with her allies, won the war against Germany. 

But that Germany had been outnumbered 6 to 1, and France couldn’t 

boast of being superior to her. The opposite was true. In 1923, day after 

day, I saw with my own eyes the reality of that defeated Germany. I was 


I can say that in the occupation of the Rhineland I took part in 

a looting expedition. We came to that highly civilised country as 

dismantlers of factories and pilferers. I saw many German homes from 

the inside, including those of the most modest employees and workers. 

The pianos that I sometimes found in workers’ houses were not there for 

show. The love of the fine arts, of music, of reading was omnipresent. 

Our rulers had dared to hurl us against the Germans allegedly in the 

name of Civilisation, whereas those people were well ahead of us on a 

good many levels. That war of 1914-1918 was brought on by a group of 

nations that were jealous and worried at seeing the Germans develop 

rather too fast for their liking. Those people outclassed us in almost every 

field. We Frenchmen were in the forefront of the barbaric nations. 

This kind of talk, as I’ve said, disturbed me deeply; I sensed something 

of the great mystery of the 20th century that I have yet to unravel today, for 

I wonder still about the reasons for the hatred that pushed the West to turn 

against its true centre of gravity, against its own heart, against itself.    

Too often, when Germany is concerned, French historians become hazy. 

For example, here is how, as late as 1958, two of them, writing a textbook for 

26 Heresy 

the upper sixth form, explained the Germans’ responsibility in the sparking off 

of the First World War. 10 

The deftness of the [German] travelling salesmen, who abided by the 

taste of the local clientele rather than imposing their available models, 

won ever widening markets for the Reich, to the particular detriment 

of England. If Germany had continued in that way for ten years or 

so, she would, rather than going to war, have achieved the economic 

domination of the world. But like the sorcerer’s apprentice of Germanic 

legend, Germany was overcome by the forces that she had let loose.  

These alleged explanations (a bit repetitive, if truth be told) didn’t satisfy me. 

In effect, they all proceeded from a supposition according to which Germany’s 

existence, given the dynamism of her people, constituted a hindrance for 

the other countries of Europe. The good qualities of this nation — method, 

technology, the importance attached to well done work and to after-sales service 

on products, scientific rigour in all fields — would somehow be sources of 

worry for the others. The flaw naturally accompanying these qualities, namely 

the self-assurance of the Germans, then brings on accusations of arrogance. 

Whatever they do, they disturb the rest of the world. In fact, the one at the top 

of the class is seldom liked: I myself knew something about that. Guilty of 

being what they are, the Germans are decreed to be “too German” and, by that 

token, their leaders find themselves in the position of the accused before a sort 

of permanent international tribunal. 

Let’s stop here for a moment and imagine, in this trial of Germany, what 

case she might make against such an indictment. Is Germany a country “gone 

astray” amidst the other states of Europe? It could be argued in principle that 

a people living within the community of European nations does not go astray 

for centuries without there being some fault in the matter on the part of others. 

It must be agreed to begin with that all equilibrium had been broken by the 

Thirty Years War, during which the armies of the whole of Europe chased the 

German populations from pillar to post and left an appalling chaos in their 

wake. After two centuries of eclipse, during which the victors of 1648 took 

care to keep Germany in a state of division and weakness, the German people 

borrowed the modern idea of nationhood from French rationalism and the 

revolution of 1789. It could be asserted that Germany was then only adopting 

foreign principles; that, having come late to the realisation of her national 

existence, she acquired perhaps a more forceful awareness of it and went on 

to impress the fact of that existence on a Europe which, in part, was quite 

Heresy 27 

reluctant to recognise it. One can quite easily imagine how this argument 

might continue, what with all its elements having appeared in the German 

schoolbooks of the National Socialist period. A rather lucid analysis of the 

question is provided by Albert Béguin, author of a 1946 work that was as anti- 

German as it was customary to be then: 

The fact remains that we did almost nothing to keep Germany within 

the union of the European states. The fact especially remains that if 

we other peoples of Europe had gone about presenting to Germany a 

more convincing portrayal of our community and better way of life, she 

would perhaps not have exaggerated our errors to the point of making 

their very worst aspects apparent. Let us at least be mindful that a more 

just and more beautiful Europe would have offered to the Germans’ 

spiritual appetite other examples than those which she followed, and 

other satisfactions than those towards which she eagerly cast herself.   

A. Béguin continued with considerations on National Socialism and the 

“re-education” of the Germans that was starting at the time: 

National Socialism roused in its followers a heroism, and at times a 

kind of saintliness, which were of course tainted in the principle that 

they put Man in the service of humanity, but which despite everything 

inspired genuine sacrifices. Those young men conquered Europe by 

means of their blind courage; for twelve years they lived an amazing 

existence, free, without bourgeois caution, with nothing of the reserved, 

the safeguarded: the soldier’s existence. Then they experienced the 

immense defeat, they saw that their personal sacrifice had been in vain, 

that what they sincerely believed to be a revolution and the dawning of 

a new human world had failed. And now they are expected to listen to 

professors, to sermonisers in whom they have always seen — and often 

rightly — people more preoccupied with conserving their social standing, 

their bourgeois self-respect, their prejudices and their spiritual comfort 

than with defending sacred values! We may go still further: many of 

these young men, tricked by a propaganda that abused certain words, 

pushed sacrifice to the point of sacrilege, that of divesting themselves 

of their soul […]. And they would be offered a good little well-behaved 

life, organised on the model of the peaceful Swiss or Scandinavian 

democracies! One can be certain beforehand that they will not even 

understand what their instructors are talking about.11

28 Heresy 

In her biography of Lenin the historian Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, who is 

not known for being especially pro-German, writes:  

He [Lenin] was fascinated by the German intellectual model (German 

philosophy was particularly attractive to the Russian elites at the turn 

of the century), by German science and technology, and by the German 

talent for state and military organization. Compared with Germany, 

Russia represented for him “Asiatic barbarism”. He further thought 

that it was no accident that Marxism had been invented and developed 

by Germans. When he thought about Russia, he considered revolution 

the only certain way of lifting it out of its backwardness, its “Asiatic 

barbarism” and one day, after great effort, making it into a copy of 

Germany. 12 

We may also quote Robert N. Proctor, the quite politically correct American 

professor of the history of science at Pennsylvania State University who, in 

1999, wondered, with regard to a particular aspect of medicine under the 

3rd Reich (cancer research), about Germany’s remarkable advance “decades 

ahead of other countries in promoting health reforms that we today regard as 

progressive and socially responsible”: 

[…] Nazism took root in the world’s most powerful scientific culture, 

boasting half of the world’s Nobel Prizes and a sizable fraction of the 

world’s patents. German science and medicine were the envy of the 

world, and it was to Germany — the “land of scholars and poets” — 

that many academic hopefuls flocked to cut their scientific teeth. 13 

— The single way of thinking — 

“You ought to quit following this catastrophic bent of yours… If you 

persist in thinking and talking that way, you’ll bring some serious 

trouble upon yourself. It’s not the done thing to speak up for Germany, 

and that’s how it is. Whether you like it or not, the Nuremberg trial 

after the Second World War settled the matter. Hitler’s Germany, 

Germany full stop even, according to Jaspers, has been found guilty of 

so many crimes that your research and comments on the 1919 Treaty of 

Versailles, as valid and relatively objective as they may be, will always 

seem suspect. The discovery in the spring of 1945 of the Nazi camps, of 

their living dead and their thousands of corpses, of their gas chambers, 

Heresy 29 

demonstrated the enterprise of extermination that underlay Nazism: 

there’ll be no going over it again. Try to understand that.” 

That, in substance, was what I might hear when, in the 70s, I risked setting 

forth my analysis of what I held to be the suicide of the West in the first half 

of the 20th century. 

The wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 appeared more and more to have 

been a two-stage attempt by a powerful coalition of interests at killing the 

German people. Moreover, my frequent travels to western Germany from 

1967 onwards, and also, despite all sorts of difficulties, to the “GDR”, as 

well as to Austria, Poland and Scandinavia, and my readings of what was 

being published on Germany strengthened my opinion that that country was 

innocent of just about everything that had been imputed to her by an incessant 

hammering of lies. 

Even before reading Paul Rassinier, I had got the feeling that with regard to 

Germany and the two great conflicts of the 20th century, an official history had 

established itself. Then in the 70s there were, on the one hand, the accounts 

I heard from the mouths of various Germans little over 25 years after the 

last war and, on the other hand, the ex-Allies’ and Israel’s permanent charges 

against Germany for unprecedented crimes; the latter seemed to me to have 

become the indispensable consideration needed to veil both the apocalypse 

of the massive bombing raids on the German population by the Allies and the 

abominable deportation of some 15 to 20 million Germans from their ancestral 

homes in Prussia, Silesia, the Sudetenland and Hungary. 

All things considered, had Germany not suffered more than any other 

belligerent? Hadn’t the Anglo-Americans tried, with success, to burn alive 

great numbers of the German civilian population by dropping tens of thousands 

of phosphorous bombs on residential districts, for example at Hamburg in 

July 1943? In that instance there were nearly 80,000 dead! Oradour-sur-Glane 

more than 100 times over! In the space of two consecutive nights and days 

in February 1945, the Allied aviation perpetrated at Dresden well over 200 

Oradours! Shouldn’t the instigator of the Dresden attacks, Winston Churchill, 

assume his place in the ranks of the biggest war criminals ever? 14 How can it 

be explained that the greatest deportation of all history, desired and planned by 

Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, was that of 18 million Germans chased from 

their homelands in the period of 1945 to 1948, a deportation carried out in 

conditions so horrible as to cause the death of probably two million amongst 

them, if not more? 15 

At this point one observation was and remains essential: on these quite real 

30 Heresy 

crimes committed against the Germans, the official propaganda put in place 

since 1945 — and especially after the Nuremberg “trial” verdict — has nothing 

to say. It goes on ad nauseam about the Germans’ having premeditated and put 

into operation a policy of physical extermination of the Jews of Europe and 

having, for that purpose, perfected and used chemical slaughterhouses called 

“gas chambers”. But where is the material evidence, where are the forensic 

analyses, the authenticated testimonies of direct witnesses? Raul Hilberg, 

author of The Destruction of the European Jews, answers that there simply 

aren’t any and, in his sole explanation of this absence, asserts that the Germans 

made the material evidence vanish and murdered the true witnesses.16 

I was struck by one special aspect of the Germanic character that I 

discovered in the course of my many visits, journeys, discussions and attempts 

at crosschecking: the German, the Germanic man, advances through life by his 

patient labour, his technical skill, his care to see through to the end whatever 

undertaking he starts, his honesty; there is in him something of the poet, the 

engineer, the researcher, that abhors lying or the resort to ruse in order to trick 

people, that instinctively rejects duplicity and cheating in business. It is no 

accident that Voltaire’s Candide is German: there lies his disadvantage in an 

environment of greed and jealousy. So it is that others will seek to fool him 

in order to defraud him if possible and exploit him always, from within or 

without. When he realises this, our German’s wrath can prove formidable. 

After the 11th of November 1918, having obtained the armistice, Germany 

was forced by her opponents to accept anything and everything, including the 

most monstrous injustices and lies: her guilt, decreed by the Allies, in starting 

the war, the obligation to pay enormous reparations (the equivalent of 3 ½ 

times the entire world’s gold reserves!)17, the prohibition of political union 

with Austria who, for her part, demanded that union, the loss, through cession 

to Poland, of immense territories that had been German for seven centuries, the 

aberration of the incorporation of 3 ½ million Germans in a new Slavic state 

arbitrarily pieced together (the late “Czechoslovakia”), the maintaining after 

the armistice, and thus in defiance of international law, of a pitiless blockade, 

the loss of all her colonies to the victors, who were keen to take advantage of 

the modern infrastructure installed in those lands by Germany, the outright 

theft of her ships and submarines, soon followed by the dismantlement and 

pillaging of her factories and, worse still, the vilest war propaganda lies against 

her, complacently put about by the same victors. According to their rumours, 

between 1914 and 1918 the Germans had cut off the hands of small children 

in Belgium, had raped nuns in their convents and cut off their breasts; they 

had reduced to soap the fat of their enemies’ corpses, or of their own fallen 

Heresy 31 

soldiers, crucified Canadian airmen who had come into their hands alive; and 

at least 700,000 Serbs had been gassed by the Austro-Boches. 

One grows dizzy at the listing of all these lies which, afterwards, were 

demolished one after the other. 

I had been unsettled by Paul Rassinier’s two books, Le drame des juifs 

européens (1964) and Les Responsables de la Seconde guerre mondiale (1967), 

which brought me a singular enlightenment. The desire to know more about 

it all, to untangle the true from the false, above all to learn the reasons for the 

concealment of the historical truth about the first half of the 20th century in 

regard to everything touching on Germany, and thus on our own destiny as 

Europeans, seemed to me morally and psychologically essential, and a good 

deal more than just a nonconformist intellectual adventure.  

A confirmation of my observations came to me one day in July of 1969. 

We had rented a house in Brittany for our summer holidays. That day we were 

invited to lunch by a Parisian couple, friends of ours who had made their 

summer residence of a refurbished cottage nearby. The man was an ethno- 

sociologist, already known in that somewhat restricted milieu, and openly 

conscious of his presumed scholarly merit. His wife, aware of my subjects of 

interest, had warned us of his sensitivity and of the extreme reactions (leftist 

ones, of course) that could be expected of him. In our conversations, at his end 

always ideologically marked, I practically never tried to contradict him. That 

day he got onto the subject of what he termed the general and underhanded 

post-colonial exploitation of the peoples of the so-called third world by the so- 

called developed countries. I decided to take the plunge. With only our wives 

present, I put it to him brusquely: 

Perhaps you’re right when you speak for Africa, about exploitation 

of those peoples by other peoples. But there exists in the present-day 

world an exploitation that you don’t breathe a word about, a two-fold 

exploitation striking a certain people before our very eyes, in 1969 

and in Europe itself: — on one side a piece sliced off from Germany, 

and curiously called “GDR”, whose 18 million inhabitants are locked 

forever behind the most formidable border in the world; these 18 

million Germans, as you must be well aware, are guarded by 700,000 

heavily armed Soviet soldiers (in other words one red soldier for every 

25 Germans!), and bound to forced labour in the service of the Soviet 

occupiers; their country has undergone a methodical looting, with many 

entire factories dismantled and carried off to the USSR; 

— on the other side, and this concerns at least all the Germans, an 

32 Heresy 

incessantly hammered propaganda accusing the late German Reich 

of the premeditated putting to death of 6 million Jews between 1941 

and 1945. However, apart from the “premeditation” slander, this figure 

is monstrously bloated, and Rassinier, for instance, proposes, with 

arguments to back it up, a maximum number of a million Jews dead, 

having perished during that time of a whole range of causes, classic 

ones, alas inherent to war itself. 

Isn’t that an additional and most cruel form of exploitation, political or 

otherwise, of a whole people: wrongly charging them with responsibility 

for millions of deaths? 

The man blew his top: “If what you’ve just said ever spread about, then 

Germany would have to be divided not in two or four, but made to disappear 

in thousands of pieces. Who are you, yourself and Rassinier, not to take the 

Nuremberg judgement into account?” He got up and left. We could see him 

walking on the field outside, clenching his fists and lowering his head as if he’d 

taken something of a blow. “I’d warned you and still you went and provoked 

him”, said his wife with a smile, adding: “He’ll be back in fifteen minutes or 


It should hardly be surprising that such a person was able to lead a brilliant 

university career, well planned from the start and topped off, I believe, with an 

appointment to the post of director of studies at the graduate school of social 

sciences in Paris.      

Some time afterwards and in quick succession, three further encounters 

were to strike me anew. 

The first: one day in the course of a family journey, a relative of my wife’s 

introduced us to a German friend, Gerd. A sprightly 50-year-old, speaking 

a refined French, he seemed to me a man of culture and consideration. This 

German was a native of the “lost territories”, the Posen region, now under 

Poland. I let him understand that I’d like to know more about it all. A few days 

later he was to give me a staggering account of the conditions in which the 

expulsion, the Vertreibung, had been carried out, and how it had affected him 

and his family in the autumn of 1945. Subsequently refugees in Brandenburg, 

they had fled from there shortly after the new communist regime was 

installed by force under the Soviet occupation in the regions that he called 

Mitteldeutschland (central Germany) rather than “GDR”. At the time of our 

acquaintance — 1975 — he was living in Rhineland-Westphalia. 

I listened to him with interest that day as he developed his analysis of 

Heresy 33 

the reality of the GDR regime (East Germany for us French). He explained 

that it was one of oppression and organised pillage for the benefit of the 

Soviets. The number of Jews holding the reins of this “GDR” government 

was considerable, out of proportion with the presence of their kind in the 

population. These were Jews who had previously left the Reich because of 

the Hitlerite laws and who had returned in strength after 1945 “to take hold 

of the German people in order to exploit them ferociously, whilst at the same 

time satisfying their Bolshevik fantasies, as was second nature to them. Some 

had even come back as soon as the late 40s from the wealthy USA to find 

themselves installed in the ruling positions of that GDR, the better to keep the 

Germans in servitude.” He listed the names of these “rulers”, specifying their 

functions. He drew me a diagram of the communist government’s makeup and 

its structures, rounding it off with the names of Jews at key posts. I beheld this 

diagram of the “East German” government’s decision-making organisation 

that he set about finishing with the names of those holding high office. 

Amongst others I saw those of Hermann Axen, Ernst Bloch, Horst Brasch, 

Otto Braun, André and Horst Brie, Kurt Cohn, Peter Edel, the Eisler couple, 

Hans Fruck, Ralph Giordano, Bruno Goldhammer, Herbert Grünstein, the 

Gysis, Wieland Herzfelde, Stefan Hermlin, Erwin Jacobi, Max Leon Kahane, 

Heinz Lippmann, Erich Markowitsch. The diagram of the ruling structure was 

practically filled up with these names! He asked me to keep the sheet of paper 

for my own files. 

I pointed out to him, surely in a clumsy manner, that the Jews had their 

reasons for seeking revenge for their forced exile, the deportation of family 

members and, I added, the massacres in the gas chambers. He looked at me 

with a hard stare: “Massacres in the gas chambers? Where did you get that lie 

from?” I replied, by way of mitigating my remark, that I had read Rassinier, 

former French deportee and member of parliament, already well known in 

West Germany, who called the homicidal gas chambers “highly unlikely.” 

A bit later Gerd was keen to talk to me about Austria. “The residual Austria 

of 1919 (your own Clemenceau called it German Austria — the German section 

of that old Austria-Hungary that he’d dreamed of killing) was undeniably a part 

of the ethnic German body and, for that matter, still is. For it, reuniting with 

the Reich was a human, economic and political necessity. Is Brittany not a part 

of your French nation? The Anschluss, so often decried in the schoolbooks, 

was consolidated by a referendum held in the presence of foreign dignitaries 

summoned to Austria as observers. Have you ever noticed that this fact is 

generally passed over in silence? Are you aware that the outcome of the poll, 

which went on in conditions of perfect regularity, was an overwhelming ‘yes’, 

34 Heresy 

in the order of 98.5%? Do you know what the other 1.5%, the ‘no’ vote, was, 

typologically speaking? It was very nearly the equivalent of the country’s 

Jewish population. A striking example of an ‘ethnic vote’, and I’ll let you 

draw the right lesson from it yourself”. 

The second encounter: in Paris we knew a young German woman who 

worked at the West German embassy, specifically, in the office dealing with 

claims concerning matters of reparations linked to the wartime deportations 

and internments. One day she told us — it must have been in 1977 — how 

surprised she’d been by a number of cases, and went on to describe in detail 

the most recent one. A man in his forties, a Jew born in Poland, had come to 

the embassy several times to complain of “Germany’s responsibility” for the 

ruin of his mental health. He stated that his whole family had been rounded up 

and deported, then exterminated in a concentration camp located in Poland. 

He alone, twelve years old at the time (1944), had been able to escape from 

the convoy. No witness had remained alive for, the man said, “We lived in a 

shtetl not far from Lublin that was razed to the ground by the Nazis, with all 

the inhabitants deported and exterminated. I am the sole survivor. The Nazis 

pushed their sadism to the point of burning all the public records. For the last 

30 years almost I have practically never slept; if I manage to fall asleep, I’m 

assailed by nightmares: I see my beloved parents in the gas chamber, then 

burning in bonfires. My nerves are shattered. You Germans, who have left me 

handicapped for life, you have to give me financial compensation and pay me 

a pension.” 

Our German friend continued: “In cases like this one, we do statistical 

research at the International Tracing Service in Arolsen, which centralises 

information gathered from various sources, notably the camps’ registries of 

arrivals and departures and the lists of people in the convoys. For this person, 

Arolsen informed us that there was no sure information in its possession, 

and even that the indicated date of deportation seemed mistaken in regard 

to the Lublin region. We notified the claimant of this, and he came to see us 

again, ranting and raving. Shortly afterwards he produced no fewer than five 

certificates, all signed by doctors with clearly Jewish-sounding names, and 

all concurring that their patient presented indisputable signs of grave mental 

trauma, obviously due to the deportation and death of members of his family. 

What do you think the final decision of the ‘reparations’ service was? We ended 

up granting him practically everything he’d asked for. From sheer exhaustion. 

And we still don’t know whether he really lost his family as he claims.” 

Third encounter: in Paris again, a friend of my wife’s introduced us one 

day to her new boyfriend, a physician called Max Rosen. A Jew of Romanian 

Heresy 35 

origin, born around 1915, he talked to us about the Mauthausen camp where 

he’d been deported in 1944 “not as a Jew”, he liked to repeat, “but as a member 

of the resistance.” His medical degree earned him a posting at the Revier 

(hospital or infirmary), along with the duty of performing various medical or 

sanitary checks amongst the healthy inmates. “At that job”, he added, “I got to 

know a number of detainees. Still now, more than thirty years on, I remember 

the names of a lot of Mauthausen inmates.” One day he confided to my wife, 

rather imprudently, that he soon had to go to Düsseldorf to testify before the 

West German authorities. “I’m going there to certify that I indeed knew the 

people whose names appear on a list that’s been drawn up to enable their heirs 

and successors to obtain indemnities; I’ve got to admit to you that these lists 

are made up of the names of imaginary persons. I’m going to certify that I in 

fact saw them, knew them personally or even gave them medical attention 

at Mauthausen ‘before they were exterminated in that very camp’ without 

ever having been registered. The Germans caused us so much suffering that I 

reckon we may well pull this scam on them. I know, though, that it’s a risky 


36 Heresy

Heresy 37 



I dream of a brotherhood of men who will have no concern 

 for anything, will know no consideration and will want 

to be called “destroyers”; they will subject everything to 

 their fine critical analysis, and sacrifice themselves to the truth. 

To exposing what is bad and false! 

There are lazy pessimists, resigned ones; 

we will not be of their number. 

Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1875 

(Kröner edition, X, p. 420, § 293) 

— A big silence, before the storm — 

My professional career and family life, along with the new facilities of 

air transport enabling us to travel the world over at such low cost, had all 

somewhat cut me off from concerns of a historical order. I was now content 

with being someone who, blasé, thought he knew practically all there was to 

know about a forbidden subject. Also, I believed that one day soon, albeit in a 

manner still hard to foresee, the truth would indeed end up breaking out, for it 

isn’t possible, so they say, to fool all the people all the time. 

Today I rebuke myself for having taken that attitude. To let a lie go on 

thriving when one is fully aware of how harmful it is amounts to cowardice and, 

at the same time — and above all — an enormous injustice to its victims. 

Up to 1986 my position concerning the Second World War was this: Adolf 

Hitler, a German patriot, had set out to take power in his country, determined to 

pulverise the Treaty of Versailles, which he perceived as a humiliation coupled 

with a systematic bleeding white of the German people by their neighbours, 

and particularly France. Then he ended up acceding to that power in January 

1933, through normal elections. But the power in question was for him but a 

means of putting into operation, in line with his vision of the world as a whole, 

the liberation of his people and, indeed, the fulfilment of their very destiny, 

through a programme roughly outlined in Mein Kampf. 

At home, Hitler, for his part convinced of the German man’s positive 

qualities, set about reordering the human capital of German society, seeking 

38 Heresy 

to preserve its racial unity through the implementation of measures to secure 

the departure from the land of those who were foreign to the race, the non- 

Germans, and mainly the Jews. Both in their totality and in each one of them, 

Hitler saw the Jews as a degenerating factor. He denounced their major 

participation, in the USSR and elsewhere, in Bolshevik communism, which 

according to his analysis was a sort of Judaic and messianic ideology devised 

to exploit the non-Jew, and particularly the German who, moreover, was 

hostile to this “religion.”  

Like all Germans he had witnessed the surge throughout his country by 

members of the Jewish community during what has been called the revolution 

of November 1918. A big majority of the instigators of that phenomenon, 

Jews had thereby seized political power in Germany. As is well known, 

their attempts to found Bolshevik republics here and there throughout the 

Reich (in fact, ephemeral dictatorships in which they themselves were the 

masters) were all to end in failure, without exception, after being the theatre of 

bloody clashes and numerous murders of their real and alleged opponents. A 

Frenchman, Ambroise Got, holder of a doctorate in philosophy, was military 

attaché in Berlin in 1919 and, soon after his mission, published an impressive 

record of events of the time in a work describing, in great detail, this takeover 

in Germany by the Jewish Bolsheviks: 

The former ambassador to Berlin of the Russian Soviet Republic, Joffe, 

is Jewish. It was his assignment to prepare the German revolution by 

distributing millions [of marks] for propaganda. The Rostra, so-called 

news agency, in reality an active propaganda centre, was created, and 

the Jew Sobelsohn, known as Radok, was placed at its head. It was the 

Rostra that issued the millions of leaflets that were spread throughout 

the country. Levien and Axelrod belonged to the Rostra. 

The main stooges of the Russian revolutionaries were the two 

[Jewish] Reichstag members Oscar Cohn — of the Nordhausen 

constituency — and Huga Haase […]. All together, Cohn and Haase 

received about 1 ½ million marks with the help of which the German 

revolution was carried out […]. 

Whether in Berlin, Munich or the provincial towns, the movement’s 

leaders are Jews. In the Ruhr basin, [they are] the Jew Karski and 

the Jewish judge Ruben, in Essen Leo Dannenberg, who had fled to 

Holland just after the declaration of war, Dr Levy, Leviné whom we find 

again in Munich, the famous Rosa Wolfstein, […] former cashier at the 

Jewish-owned Tietz department stores in Düsseldorf. […] 

Heresy 39 

In the directorate established in Berlin after the revolution sit two 

Jews, both lawyers: Landsberg and Haase. The aforementioned Oscar 

Cohn has become under-secretary of state for Justice with the Social- 

Democrat Bernstein, a Danzig Jew, as his deputy. The Jewish professor 

Preuss, who is to prepare the reform of the constitution, has been made 

minister of the Interior. He has chosen his co-religionist professor 

Freund as under-secretary. Another Jew, Emmanuel Wurm, has been 

appointed deputy minister for Commerce and Agriculture. The Czech 

Jew Kautsky has been put in charge of sifting through the Foreign 

Ministry’s archives. 

Meanwhile, minister Schiffer has resigned his post and been 

replaced by two Jews, Dernburg and Gothein. At the Foreign Ministry 

a special department for Jewish matters has been set up, headed by Dr 

Soberheim [also a Jew]. 

In the Prussian government the President of the council of ministers, 

Hirsch, who is also Interior minister, is Jewish; beside him, the Justice 

minister, barrister Kurt Rosenfeld, and the Finance minister, Simon, are 

also Jewish. 

Hundreds of thousands of Semites are invading all the offices […]. 

In the States of the Confederation, the same picture is to be seen: 

the Jews rush feverishly into political life, from which they were barred 

for so long. In Bavaria, it is Kurt Eisner, alias Solomon Kuchiwsky, 

with his acolytes and friends, all Jews: Rothschild, Arnold, Landauer, 

Konigsberger, Kaiser, Kranold, Sreit Muhsam, Fechenbach, Bonn etc.… 

The Munich communists Levien, Leviné, Soheimer, Toller, the Finance 

minister Jaffé are all members of the Hebraic religion. The chief of 

police in Munich, Steiner, is Jewish. 

Dr Haas is Interior minister in Baden, Dr Heinemann minister for 

religious affairs in Wurttemberg whilst Thalheimer is Finance minister. In 

Saxony, the President of the council of ministers is the Jew Gradnauer.1 

In parallel with politics, what deserves to be called the Jewish takeover of 

the German economy after the First World War was just as impressive. Jewish 

interests, favoured by the country’s economic and military weakness following 

1918, now enjoyed a dominant position in very large parts of the economy, 

particularly through acquisition of a majority of shares in firms in key sectors. 

The private banks and their boards of directors became “Jewish fiefdoms”. 2  

At the bourses, a realm of major influence, the proportions of Jews in the 

various directorates, in the early 1930s, were as follows: stock exchange, 25 of 

40 Heresy 

36; products exchange, 12 of 16; metals exchange, 10 of 12; forward market 

commission, 15 of 18; commission of authorisation for the official shares list, 

18 of 23. The statistician Alfred Marcus, himself of Jewish origin, established 

at the period that the median Jewish income for 1930 in Germany was 3.2 

times that of the general population. 

In the late 20s the two main press groups, Ullstein and Mosse, were 

Jewish owned. It was within Rudolf Mosse’s company, before 1933, that the 

daily Berliner Tageblatt, widely considered representative of German public 

opinion, was published; its editor in chief, Theodor Wolff, was Jewish, as 

were a full seventeen of his editorial colleagues. 3  

Whether one likes it or not, there can be no denying that after the defeat 

of November 1918, the members of Germany’s Jewish community had won 

a place for themselves that might well be seen as out of proportion with their 

numerical weight (0.8% of the population). Everything went on then as if the 

German defeat had, in terms of power, benefited that community. Already 

very prosperous up to then — it had occupied an enviable place in imperial 

German society — the Jewish community was now going from strength to 


This new state of things reflected more than a mere coincidence. The 

average German in the 20s and early 30s was able to notice that his country’s 

misfortunes, at home and abroad, were accompanied by a veritable surge of 

Jews into the highest positions in the land, as well as by an insolent vaunting 

of their wealth and privileges. From this, rightly or wrongly, many people 

deduced that the Jews could not prosper otherwise than at the expense of 

Germans now doomed to misery and unemployment. 

Hitler believed in a Jewish conspiracy, as two sentences of Mein Kampf 

(vol. 2, chapter XIII) bear witness: “And so the Jew today is the great agitator 

for the complete destruction of Germany. […] If Germany frees herself from 

this embrace, this greatest of dangers to nations may be regarded as broken for 

the whole world” *. The idea was not new, and its arrival on the scene was not 

fortuitous. 4 Rather, at the dawn of the 20th century, it was perfectly in keeping 

with the perception over the past few decades in Germany of a need to mount 

resistance in the face of a progressive judaisation of the country, which was 

being carried out to the detriment of Germanic values.5 

Hitler was born an Austrian subject in 1889. The Austria-Hungary of the 

late 19th century had more than one million inhabitants of the Jewish religion 

(4.8% of the population). “They accounted for 62.9% of those convicted of 

usury,” reported François Trocase, a French citizen living in Vienna, in 1899. 

He noted in particular that:

Heresy 41 

The most appalling form as yet assumed by the Jews’ cruelty is that involving 

the exploitation of the human body, what they call “the human beast”. […] 

The way in which the Jews treat the peasants in Galicia absolutely surpasses 

all imagination. It would seem unbelievable were it not attested by trustworthy 

witnesses. Cases have been cited where Polish farmers had to hand over their 

children to Jewish creditors, as payment of interest on small debts: the Jews 

were entitled to keep them as servants, giving them no wages, until repayment 

of the debt. 

It is solely, exclusively by exploitation that the Austrian Jew has got 

rich. He has not worked; he has not shown any special merit. He has 

never lifted either a needle, or an awl, or an axe. He has never pushed a 

plough, nor sowed the fields, nor mowed the meadows. What productive 

task has he accomplished? All for himself and himself alone. He has 

grown rich, infinitely richer than the Christians. He has stripped them 

of everything that they had amassed through their labour, increased by 

their thrift, and secured with meticulous care. 6   

In the field of foreign policy, Hitler wanted the reincorporation within the Reich 

of the German populations which, in his view, had been unjustly separated from 

their homeland: the Austrians and Sudetenlanders, for example. He wished to 

establish new ties with peoples of the same roots or who were traditionally 

close to Germany — the Scandinavians, Balts, Dutch, Swiss, Belgians and 

even the English — as well as with the French, Hungarians, Slovenes and 


The project of a great Germanic empire in the centre of Europe could not 

fail to worry those neighbours who were not keen to join it. However, it was 

not an unnatural idea, for one might legitimately hope to see a reconstitution, in 

some form, of Charlemagne’s ancient empire, whose disintegration in the year 

843 had unquestionably been a misfortune for Europe. Was it not permissible, 

after all, to dream of the establishment of a new Holy Roman Empire that 

would have included France and, one day, England? Doubtless with another 

governmental structure, another denomination too. Indeed, was that not the 

only manner, and both a heroic and a romantic one, for the peoples of Europe 

finally to organise themselves, accepting a new synergy under Germany’s 

guidance, with that “most cultured people in the world”, in the words of 

Renan, who didn’t make such statements lightly? But whoever thought along 

such lines failed to take into account the baseness, the cowardice of the 

politicians who were running the other countries. Amongst us French there 

was, in addition, the insidious ideology of revenge, depraved to the point of 

42 Heresy 

downright racial hatred of the Germans, which pervaded all of French politics 

from 1885 until the conflagration of 1914 and which would continue with 

the policy of pillaging Germany ordained by the Versailles treaty of 1919. 

Germany will pay! was the brazen slogan of the Clemenceaus and Poincarés. 

For the same reasons as in 1914, the old Allies, with the notable exception 

of Italy, considered themselves in a state of potential war with the Reich as 

soon as Hitler’s project became manifest. They knew German dynamics. 

Their policy had aimed in the past at dismembering and otherwise weakening 

Germany; henceforth it sufficed for them to reactivate that age-old policy. 

Germany’s formidable economic recovery from 1933 onwards, minimised 

by historians whom certain truths disturb, is for any honest man a source 

of wonderment. “Six years of autarchy had made of Germany, in 1939, the 

world’s greatest industrial country”. 7 

I discovered with surprise (and only in the 1980s) another historical fact 

generally kept hidden: numerous Jewish bodies the world over had already 

declared war on Germany as early as March 1933. 8 Since the Jews did not 

constitute a state, it was in reality a declaration of economic war, a resolution 

to impose a boycott of Germany, soon to be accompanied by her psychological 

quarantining through the good offices of the media. Sure of their power in the 

western economic structures and of their omnipotence in the Hollywood-based 

media, they would prove capable of putting out copious films conveying hatred 

of Germany and, especially, of the Germans themselves. It may be said that, 

in the face of Der Jud Süss, which was possibly the only openly anti-Jewish 

production of the National Socialist cinema, a tide of Judeo-Anglo-Saxon 

films inspired by hatred for the new Germany proceeded to flood the whole 

western world. The British naval officer and historian Russell Grenfell, in his 

book Unconditional Hatred (p. 186), well summed up this state of primitive, 

visceral enmity: “Germany was declared to be a nation possessed of the devil, 

demoniacally responsible for the ills of all mankind”. Here we see in plain 

outline the notion of “collective guilt”, which is nothing other than a racial 


Some American Jews — an ethnic group that accounted for the bulk of 

president Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust” — went so far as to call for the murder 

of the German people. Theodore N. Kaufman, an influential Jew, published 

in March 1941 (that is, at a time when the United States was still officially 

non-belligerent) his terrible Germany Must Perish! Widely distributed and 

translated, it clearly expounded the organisation and the putting into operation 

of a genocide of the Germans: all men and women of reproductive age (males 

under sixty, females under forty-five) were to be sterilised, quickly and 

Heresy 43 

methodically. 9 It would take a few months for 20,000 surgeons (and more if 

necessary) carrying out 25 sterilisations per day to neuter 48 million German 

males and females; within the space of two generations the German people 

would disappear and their geographical territory would be shared amongst 

the neighbouring states. American newspapers and magazines (generally 

under Jewish management, it must be noted) went so far as to welcome this 

abominable idea with praise: “Sensational” (Time), “A provocative theory 

interestingly presented” (Washington Post), and “A plan for permanent peace 

among civilised nations” (New York Times). 

A variation, just as monstrous, on the theme of programmed German 

genocide is the “Morgenthau Plan”, dating from 1944. 

Henry Morgenthau, another influential Jew in Roosevelt’s entourage 

(1933-1945), had devised a plan for putting the Germans to death by organised 

famine. The Oppenheimer plan, named after another advisor of German-Jewish 

origin, could achieve the total destruction of the Germans (and the Japanese) 

by means of atomic explosions and their subsequent radioactive fallout. In 

August 1945, with the Germans out of the running, it was the Japanese who 

got a taste of what Jewish-American scientists had so heartily prepared for 


On the eastern European front there was no lagging behind. Stalin’s own 

darling “poet”, Ilya Ehrenburg, also a Jew, in his odious incantations addressed 

to the hordes of louts in soldier’s uniform, let loose with urgings that exuded 

the worst racial hatred: “Kill all the Germans! Kill the German children in 

their mother’s womb!” or “The Germans are not human beings… the only 

good Germans are corpses!” 

As late as the end of 1985 it was with a sort of detachment, a historian’s 

(?) detachment, that I became aware of all these facts. The figure of six 

million Jewish victims appeared to me an obvious exaggeration, if only in 

the light of simple demographic inquiry, at the best sources, into population 

movements. 10 I saw quite well that the numbers had been faked. Now I held it 

for certain that the alleged “execution gas chambers” visited by the tourists at 

Struthof (Alsace), Dachau or Mauthausen were impostures and that those of 

Auschwitz-I and Auschwitz-II (Birkenau) were “highly suspect”, to put it like 

Rassinier. The Jews had suffered a lot and, in their accounts, had exaggerated 

their sufferings; the media, where they reigned and ruled, had reproduced their 

inventions. I thought that sooner or later the truth would out. 

Then, in the spring of 1986, the Roques affair exploded in France. 

44 Heresy 

— The Roques affair — 

At the university of Nantes in June 1985, Henri Roques, a recently retired 

agronomical engineer, had presented a doctoral thesis entitled Les Confessions 

de Kurt Gerstein, étude comparative des différentes versions, obtaining “very 

honourable” mention. The disclosure of the thesis’s contents and conclusions 

in the following year ignited a scandal. Several Jewish organisations demanded 

that the minister of Education, Alain Devaquet, prohibit or rather annul the 

thesis. At that time, newspaper and television commentators decried the 

“revisionist scandal”. 

What was it all about, at bottom? 

It had been affirmed hitherto that SS officer Kurt Gerstein’s Confessions

obtained in Paris in May and June of 1945 whilst he was a prisoner of the 

French, constituted the keystone, the irrefutable (albeit isolated) proof coming 

from a direct witness, of the existence of the Nazi “gas chambers”. On the 

face of it the testimony seemed indeed irrefutable, since it was that of an 

SS officer in charge, under the authority of Glücks (inspector general of the 

concentration camps), of supplying the camps with the disinfectant Zyklon B, 

that is, pellets containing hydrogen cyanide gas and sealed in steel cans; that 

substance had been used for the delousing of rooms and of clothing since the 

early 1920s. 

This almost miraculous deposition of Gerstein’s stood amidst some bizarre 

facts: first, it was written in French, a language in which he was far from fluent; 

then, the SS officer’s body, having been found after an alleged suicide in his 

cell at the Cherche-Midi prison, was thrown into the common grave outside 

the town of Thiais by the French military security service. And, although his 

widow’s address, unchanged for years, was known to the authorities, she 

was to be informed of her husband’s death only in 1948, three years later. 

Manifestly it had been a matter of (knowingly) rendering any eventual post- 

mortem pointless. 

In his thesis Henri Roques unveiled the existence of several versions of the 

famous “deposition”, in French and German. His fundamental, meticulous work 

consisted in dissecting the variants of the Gerstein text so as to bring to light 

their implausibilities. After two attentive readings of the thesis, it appeared to 

me that a shattering conclusion was in order: those alleged Confessions, which 

up to now had been, in the absence of any other reliable direct testimony, 

the very basis for belief in the existence of the “gas chambers”, were but a 

fabrication. Roques’s thesis had the effect of a revelation on me. No doubt his 

detractors, at their end, would attempt to demonstrate its falsehood.

Heresy 45 

One remarkable fact definitively convinced me, if there was still any need 

to do that: Michel de Boüard, a former deportee and inmate at Mauthausen, 

from 1945 to 1981 president of the Commission d’histoire de la déportation 

(part of the Comité d’histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale) and member of 

the Institut de France, suddenly came out in support of Roques’s conclusions! 

After acknowledging that in 1954 he himself had affirmed the existence of a 

gas chamber where none could have existed (at Mauthausen), he pushed further 

ahead and, without hiding his disquiet, expressed the gist of his thoughts: the 

history of the deportation needed rewriting, in the light of the revisionists’ 

work. In the daily Ouest France of 2nd and 3rd August 1986 (p. 6) he stated: 


I am haunted by the thought that in a hundred years’ time, or even 

fifty, the historians will wonder about this aspect of the Second World 

War that was the concentration camp system, and about what they 

discover. The dossier [as it stands] is worthless. There are, on one side, 

a huge amount of made-up stories, inexactitudes stubbornly repeated, 

particularly on the numerical score, amalgamations and generalisations 

and, on the other side, very carefully done critical studies demonstrating 

the inanity of those exaggerations. I fear lest those [future] historians 

say to themselves that the deportation, in the end, must be a myth. There 

is the danger. The idea of it haunts me. 

Another historian, Germaine Tillion, had already noted, soon after the war’s 

end, the worrisome phenomenon of inventions of all sorts regarding the German 

concentration camps. In a 1954 article on “Le Système concentrationnaire 

allemand (1940-1944)” she wrote concerning these false witnesses: 11 

These persons are, to tell the truth, far more numerous than is generally 

supposed, and a field like that of the concentration camp system – well 

structured, alas, to allow sado-masochistic imaginations to find stimulation 

– has offered them an exceptional scope of activity. We have come across 

a number of mental cases, half swindlers, half madmen, exploiting an im- 

aginary deportation, along with others – genuine deportees – whose de- 

ranged minds have striven to surpass the horrors that they saw or of which 

they were told, and who have succeeded in doing so. There have even been 

publishers willing to print some of these wild imaginings, and editors of 

more or less official compilations willing to carry them, but these pub- 

lishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, for the most elementary 

inquiry would have sufficed for them to lay open the deceptions. 

46 Heresy 

I had a talk about the matter with Pierre Guillaume, owner of the small “Vieille 

Taupe” publishing house in Paris, whose acquaintance I had made upon the 

occasion of the scandal (he was distributing the Roques thesis). He laughed 

when I told him I was expecting to see a rebuttal, perhaps by Georges Wellers 

or Pierre Vidal-Naquet. “Are you naïve? There can never be a scientific 

rebuttal. There’ll be only insults, and lamentations”. He lent me the book 

Vérité historique ou vérité politique? by the academic Serge Thion. Pierre 

Guillaume, likeable enough at first meeting, though in my view a bit biased 

and quite markedly left-wing, advised me to meet “the biggest specialist on 

the subject today”, Robert Faurisson, professor at the University of Lyon-II, 

and gave me his address and telephone number.  

— Robert Faurisson. A journey to Poland — 

I knew, paradoxically, but little of professor Faurisson. His 1961 analysis 

showing the “erotic” nature of Rimbaud’s “sonnet of the vowels” had been 

termed “quite dazzling” by André Pieyre de Mandiargues and “stirring in the 

utmost” by André Breton. This brilliant scholar had subsequently dealt with 

subjects relating to the Second World War, in the wake of Paul Rassinier. He 

had caused some noise to be made by demonstrating that the “Diary of Anne 

Frank” was not genuine (he’d established that it was a fabrication, a literary 

hoax) and I knew that, regarding the question of mortality in the concentration 

camps, he confirmed the precisions of Rassinier, the French wartime deportee 

who died in 1967. I knew only that he had, in so doing, applied his rigorous 

methods in an analysis of testimonies presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere. 

He’d pointed out that they were hoaxes, varying repetitions of an “archetype” 

that itself was unreliable or made up. He had thus been able to show that the 

“confessions” of certain German defendants had been extorted through either 

torture, fear of execution, or the threat of a handing over to the Bolsheviks, 

which meant certain death.   

Phoning him at his Vichy home, I introduced myself and set forth my 

interest in historical research on the matter. He asked me what I in fact knew 

about it and what relevant books I had read. He added that, since I was keen to 

meet him and had read Rassinier, Serge Thion and the Roques thesis, he would 

grant me an interview at his house, but on condition that, in the meantime, I 

read, on the one hand, his Mémoire en défense and Réponse à Pierre Vidal- 

Naquet, along with Wilhelm Stäglich’s The Auschwitz Myth in its recent 

French edition carrying an explanatory supplement, prepared by himself, with 

diagrams and photos and, on the other hand, some of the “official” historians’ 

Heresy 47 

writings (Léon Poliakov, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Georges Wellers). That said, 

I could skip the pitiful fabrications of such scribblers as Charles Bernadac, 

Jean-François Steiner, Martin Grey or Marek Halter. 

I made the necessary acquisitions and set to work. 

Meeting Robert Faurisson can change your existence. Whilst listening to 

him in person a few weeks later, I sensed that I was in the presence of a man 

who held a formidable weapon. 

He knew his subject: he mastered the sources and was acquainted with an 

abundance of details, references, and basic elements regarding the organisation 

of the wartime German camps, their struggle against epidemics, life and death 

within them, the circulation of data about detainees, the directives of senior 

Nazi officials and their subordinates, the consequences of those same directives. 

Above all he was past master in the detection of forgery and in the analysis 

of survivors’ testimony: his rule was, and remains, cross-examination. I can 

still hear him asking me: “Are you aware that there exists not a single direct 

witness of a single ‘gas chamber’ in a single German concentration camp?” 

He had in his head the layouts of the camps, their organisation, their 

particular or successive operational purposes; and he was acquainted with the 

relevant orders or memoranda and the later states of some of them, subsequent 

to post-war fakings and montages. 

Fascinated as I was that day by his discourse, the neatness of his replies 

to all my questions and his discreet humour, surprised at his ability to pass 

in review the opponent’s arguments and to come up with the right retort, I 

found it a bit hard to climb out of the basement office where he’d received me 

amongst his books, dossiers and documents. 

At the end, one question tormented me: Robert Faurisson, not one to be 

caught out in his reasoning, has taken apart the greatest imposture of all time, 

and his opponents are incapable of answering him; why, then, does he not 

immediately get every researcher and historian, the educated public, indeed 

every honest man to join him? 

He himself supplied me with the answer then and there: “Because today 

(1986) the ‘gas chambers’ are nothing other than the product par excellence 

of a war propaganda continuing in peacetime, and as such are subject to 

the laws of wartime: disputing their existence is forbidden, and punished 

severely; offenders are prosecuted in a hundred ways. The repression is going 

to intensify: specific laws will be enacted.” (In July 1990, the Fabius-Gayssot 

Act in France was to give a glaring confirmation of this forecast.) 

“Of course”, I said, “I can understand that powerful lobbies have an interest 

in propagating, in the media that they control, a lie-ridden version of history for 

48 Heresy 

political and financial reasons. But why do the public authorities, the judiciary 

— independent by definition — repress people who only ask for the opening 

of a debate on these questions?” Faurisson replied that there was hardly any 

difference between the financial, media, political and judicial authorities. 

After a few months spent reading up on the subject, I phoned the professor 

to tell him of my strong desire to go and visit one of those “gas chambers” on 

the spot, at Auschwitz-Birkenau, naturally, since that camp had fallen intact 

into the hands of the Red army in January 1945. He was quick to bring up 

again the original maps of the camp that he had somehow managed to get 

out of the Auschwitz archives as of 1976: they would be indispensable for 

following the transformations effected there since the war by the Polish and 

Russian communists. 

Shortly before taking the plane for Poland, I paid him another brief call 

in Vichy, where he gave me a copy of the original plans from the Bauleitung 

(“building authority”), saying “You will not find the ‘gas chambers’ in this 

great big camp, even though it was taken intact by the Soviets: neither at 

Auschwitz nor at Birkenau. You’ll see, at Auschwitz-I, an air-raid shelter 

with a built-in surgical operating room that will be presented by the guides 

as a gas chamber in its original state, but you’ll note that these premises, 

allegedly meant for mass asphyxiations, are fitted… with a little window-door 

opening… towards the inside! As for the other door, it gives on to a room 

containing reconstructed crematoria: so it was that the Polish communists did 

not shrink at imagining and ‘rebuilding’ a room full of coke-burning ovens 

connecting with an enclosure that was supposed to have been filled repeatedly 

with hydrogen cyanide gas, which is explosive in the presence of the oxygen 

in the air. Therefore the only ones who believe that this was a gas chamber are 

those who really want to believe it. 

“In truth, no-one with any common sense believes it any more, not even 

Pierre Vidal-Naquet, but the Poles maintain their fiction for the visiting 

schoolchildren along with all those who so need to believe in the ‘gas 

chambers’, even though they’re impossible!” 12 

He entrusted me with two tasks, basically simple: on the one hand, 

to ask an official of the museum-camp whether there existed any period 

photographs of these “gas chambers”; the Soviets, to mention them alone, 

must certainly have photographed them as soon as they took over in January 

1945. On the other hand, to try to obtain a photocopy of one or more pages 

of the Sterbebücher (death registries) that the German authorities had kept, 

apparently, so meticulously, documents which they also left intact on the spot 

in that January of 1945. He told me not to forget to bring along an electric 

Heresy 49 

torch to examine the so-called “gas chambers” (kept in semi-darkness by the 

Poles) and a compass in order to draw a precise map of the place. 

Two days later, at the wheel of a rusted Lada that I’d found waiting for 

me at the Warsaw airport (the hiring had been arranged in Paris and paid 

for in advance), I took to the road, southwards for Oswiecim-Auschwitz. 

Upon arriving next day in the early morning, I made a three-hour tour of the 

main camp and of the neighbouring one of Birkenau, so as to situate in their 

environment the points of interest for a second visit, planned for the next day. 

That afternoon a camp official was willing to receive me once I’d introduced 

myself as an independent French researcher, whose father had been killed in 

1944 for acts of resistance. I was determined to move ahead quickly. 

My question was simple and meant to be incisive straight away: “Since 

not the least trace can be seen today of a ‘gas chamber’, nor of any other 

facility for mass asphyxiations, either at Auschwitz or Birkenau, and since 

the broken concrete of the Birkenau crematoria, known as Kremas I and II, 

cannot by any means have contained such an installation (given, notably, the 

absence of openings for the pouring in of the Zyklon B pellets), it is essential 

for any researcher to have to hand some photos of these gas chambers, which 

the Soviets cannot have failed to take soon after peacefully entering, on 27 

January 1945, the camp evacuated by the Germans a few days before. These 

homicidal ‘gas chambers’ were assuredly concrete structures weighing several 

dozen tonnes, and cannot have been taken away by the retreating Germans 

who, besides, had left behind the camp records and general documentation.” 

There was a piercing look in his eye: “Why of course I can show you some! 

We have aerial photos of this camp’s gas chambers.” 

He went to a big metal cabinet and presented me with some photocopied 

enlargements of aerial photos with which I was already acquainted through 

Faurisson. There they were before me now, bearing captions, in English and 

Polish, in the form of cartoon balloons with arrows pointing to this or that 

structure. I didn’t breathe a word. 

“These are military reconnaissance photos taken in 1943 and 1944”, he 

saw fit to point out. On some of the enlargements could be read, in a balloon: 

“Gas chamber”, with one or another building designated by the arrow. 

I could not help smiling: the subterfuge was so obvious. Serge Thion 

had already had a bit of derisive fun somewhere by putting the caption “gas 

chamber” on the images of some simple French army bunkers near Colomb- 

Béchar, in Algeria. 

I pointed out to this museum-camp official that he was showing me aerial 

photos taken for the most part by the South African and American air corps 

50 Heresy 

and known to all the researchers. Two Americans of the CIA (Brugioni and 

Poirier) had, by way of a shameless montage, designated as “gas chambers” 

buildings or installations which, as he himself must be well aware, could be 

nothing of the kind. Thanks to the original Bauleitung drawings we knew the 

exact purposes and functions of these buildings and installations. Naturally 

I was careful not to show the man the copies of the original maps in my 

possession. His only response was to tell me that, under such conditions, our 

interview was over and he was, regretfully, unable to provide me with any 

other copies of documents that I had requested.   

Thus there existed neither photos nor physical traces of what had been, 

according to the official history, gigantic slaughterhouses for humans. And 

it hadn’t even been possible to find any documentary trace, any sure allusion 

in any official paper, that is, any German reference to such installations, 

for example an indication in a budget of what would have to have been an 

enormous allocation of money and building materials. 

I spent the rest of the afternoon and the morning of the next day repeating 

my tour of the different Blocks of the main Auschwitz camp, compass and 

original plans in hand. I didn’t neglect the naïve scale model exhibited by the 

Poles in Block 4 — that of “extermination” — illustrating the alleged process 

of killing and incineration. 

I then headed to the Birkenau camp, a mile and a half from the main 

Auschwitz one. I was shown the clothing delousing units, which had worked 

with Zyklon B. These have been conserved and are accessible to the visitor on 

request. Of small dimensions, fitted with equipment for hanging the garments, 

they obviously cannot have served to asphyxiate human beings and, for that 

matter, no one has as yet claimed that they ever were. The traces of Prussic 

blue, characteristic of the reaction of hydrogen cyanide with iron-bearing salts 

contained in the concrete, are plainly visible on the walls. 

At Birkenau, the rows of wooden barracks for inmates (reconstructed since 

the war with financing… from Germany) impressed me. I tried to imagine 

what an ordinary day or evening, or early morning, could have been at the 

time when this vast camp was operating. I began to sense something of the 

harshness, the cruelty too, of the conditions in which the women and men 

prisoners did forced labour there, living largely from hand to mouth, trying to 

nick a bit of food where they might, to organise, as they said in camp jargon. 

But, I thought, as internment and labour camps are inherent to any large-scale 

conflict, the camps of one of the belligerents can rightly be compared only 

with those of the other side. And I couldn’t help comparing in my mind this 

German camp with what the typical Soviet gulag must have been: certainly, 

Heresy 51 

an iron discipline as well, extremely hard work, brutal behaviour of the guards 

and barracks chiefs, doubtless all much in the same manner. Then I recalled 

that there were numerous testimonies of “deportees of the two systems” (such 

as that of Mrs Buber-Neumann) on the German camps’ far better internal 

organisation and their far preferable rations, on the Reds’ amazement when, 

upon entering Auschwitz, they discovered some quite modern facilities — 

an infirmary equipped for surgical operations, a theatre, a swimming pool, 

a playing field, cookhouses — all of which were for the detainees. Indeed 

the Russians were so amazed that they immediately suspected the few able- 

bodied inmates who had stayed put to wait for them of being accomplices 

rather than victims of the Nazi enemy.       

But I had come for a good deal more than that. Was I now going to find, 

at Birkenau, the place where it was claimed that they existed and operated, 

genuine installations that had been capable of functioning for mass murder 

by means of collective asphyxiations? On the day before, the room presented 

as “gas chamber” of the main camp had seemed quite a pathetic mock-up. 

No serious researcher, no historian believed in it any longer. Not knowing 

what to do about the business, the museum-camp authorities had chosen… to 

do nothing, leaving things as they were. Therefore if they had ever existed, 

the “gas chambers” could be located only at Birkenau, the place designated 

by the name Auschwitz-II, an appellation covering the Kremas (morgue/ 

Leichenkeller and crematoria blocks that, according to the original plans, 

faced one another). I got to this part of the camp. The Kremas’ location indeed 

corresponded to what appeared in the drawings. I saw only sunken but not 

disintegrated concrete segments, the blocks looking as if they’d been hit by 

an explosion of rather insufficient strength to destroy them. Not one part of 

the whole — the two big crematoria, Krema II and Krema III — seemed to 

be missing. The concrete roof was still there. If the two morgues (slightly 

interred) had been places for collective gassings, then, first of all, there ought 

still to be seen one or more of the holes drilled through the roof slab to allow 

the pouring inside of Zyklon B pellets or tablets. It was not the case. No blue 

or bluish traces, either, on the inner walls that one might examine after sliding 

in under the collapsed roof of Krema II. 

Supposing nonetheless that some 2,000 persons — the number purported 

to have been crammed into it, and repetitively — had in fact been gassed 

to death there in a few minutes, how had it been possible to incinerate the 

corpses, what with the cremation capacity 13 of this installation being limited 

to 80 bodies per day? What would have been done in the evening, once 

those 80 cremations had carried out, with the 1,920 unincinerated bodies, the 

52 Heresy 

remainder of the morning’s 2,000 “gassed”? Most certainly, there could have 

been no “next batch”. Moreover, it would have been impossible to dispose 

of the bodies in ditches, since at Auschwitz the water table came up to about 

a foot beneath the surface of a previously marshy terrain; this latter fact had 

made it necessary for the Bauleitung to carry out large-scale drainage work, 

signs of which are still visible today. 

It had already dawned on me, by default so to speak, how grotesque the 

allegation of a homicidal gassing process was after a simple examination of 

the layout of another Nazi camp, that of Oranienburg. There the Leichenkeller 

(morgues) were comparable to the ones at Auschwitz II. However, it had 

never been asserted that the Oranienburg Leichenkeller had served as “gas 

chambers”. Apart from the physical impossibility, with regard to numbers, this 

was indeed irrefutable evidence that the facilities at Birkenau had not been 

meant for any criminal purpose. 

A document from the Degesch firm (manufacturers and packagers of the 

Zyklon B insecticide) entitled “Directions for the use of hydrogen cyanide 

bearing Zyklon B for delousing”, 14 proves by itself the absurdity of the legend 

of mass killings of human beings with this product. 

According to these instructions, the airing out of a room fumigated with 

Zyklon takes a minimum of 20 hours: those entering and working in such a 

place after that 20-hour wait must wear gas masks fitted with a special filter, 

and be formally trained for the job. All alone, this manufacturer’s instruction 

manual topples the alleged eyewitness testimony signed by Auschwitz 

commandant Rudolf Höss. The latter spoke of a squad going into the “gas 

chamber” without masks, sometimes snacking and drinking, half an hour after 

the use of the poisonous substance. But it’s true that Höss, a prisoner of the 

British in 1946, had been handed over to the Polish “specialists” (all of Jewish 

origin, according to him) who tortured him physically and psychologically. His 

torturers dictated to him other inanities of the same sort and inserted them in 

the so-called Confessions; then Höss was sentenced to death by a communist 

court and hanged.15 The hanging took place in 1947 at the site of the alleged 

gas chamber of Auschwitz I. 

— Urszula — 

Finally, on the evening of the second day, I left the Auschwitz museum- 

camp, having purchased a few issues of the Hefte von Auschwitz (“Auschwitz 

notebooks”), published by the administrators. At present there were some 

problems concerning the supply of petrol and oil (the Lada burned a lot of oil). 

Heresy 53 

Besides, it was impossible to find a hotel room nearby. A cyclist, to whom I 

promised some coffee if he could manage to find me a place to sleep and some 

motor oil, had me follow him for five or six miles along the winding roads. We 

came to a village. I was to be put up in an unfinished building, a future hotel 

apparently, of which only the ground floor was inhabitable. 

A young woman of about thirty, who seemed to be a guest at this surrealistic 

“hotel”, noticed my difficulty in getting through to a landlady who spoke 

neither English nor German nor French. She came towards me and said “I 

learned French during a year’s stay as a student in your country. I can help you 

make yourself understood for the room”. 

That same evening I found her again in the lobby, looking spruce. This being 

not my first trip in the communist countries of Eastern Europe, I suspected she 

must belong to some official service and therefore be of a firm ideological 

orthodoxy. In effect she belonged, she told me, to a bureau for the monitoring 

of the progress of state building projects (sic), and the progress of this hotel- 

to-be fell within the scope of her professional activity. She started asking 

me questions, intrigued at seeing that a foreigner could travel in communist 

Poland in a commonplace vehicle like my Lada with its Polish number plates. 

She was unaware that this was possible for Western tourists; in fact, only since 

a recent date had it been enough for anyone who booked a flight at the Polish 

airline office in Paris to pay in hard currency for a car hire there as well. She 

asked whether I’d had the time to visit the great shrine that was the camp at 


“Tell me, what was your impression of Auschwitz? Didn’t you just feel 

death stalking the landscape as you walked about? Didn’t you find it striking, 

overwhelming, that great enterprise of death, organised to such a degree?” I 

ventured to answer that there was nothing really “striking” about the buildings 

of the main camp, since they were tobacco works subsequently transformed 

into quarters for the Austro-Hungarian cavalry. Moreover, after the 1939- 

45 war, those of them that abutted on the residential area next to the camp 

had been plainly and simply absorbed by that neighbourhood. “Thus Poles 

in the outskirts of Oswiecim are able to live today in former buildings of 

the Auschwitz camp”, I had her note, “simply because those despicable 

Germans, between 1940 and 1944, installed the plumbing needed to make the 

buildings inhabitable.” 16 As for Birkenau, I agreed that it gave one a feeling 

of oppressive monotony. But, supposing that the remains of the Siberian 

gulags, for example, were still to be seen, would a visitor get a very different 

impression from them? 

Having noted a certain finesse in her manner, I ventured to add: “You’re 

54 Heresy 

talking, of course, about the camp as it’s shown to us today. But when you 

can consult the original plans and examine them attentively, you’re surprised 

to note the incredible modifications, additions or eliminations that have been 

carried out, changing what really existed then. Take, for example, the playing 

field (for football matches), the swimming pool for the use of detainees, 

complete with diving board; the theatre (which offered a regular schedule of 

events); the building nicknamed ‘Canada’ where the inmates’ clothing and 

personal effects were stored. I looked in vain for the inmates’ dental unit and 

the surgical block, very modern for the time: did you know that in the latter, 

Elie Wiesel,17 for example, was operated on in December 1944? He tells the 

story in his autobiographical essay Night, published in France in 1958 with a 

preface by François Mauriac. Like all visitors to the main camp, I was shown 

a “gas chamber in its original state”; however, all the researchers know that 

the structure in question was successively a morgue, then a small hospital of 

a few rooms; the traces of the partitions between the various rooms are still 

plain to see. After the war, your fellow citizens, my dear Urszula, did not 

hesitate to ‘reconstruct’ a room full of ovens giving on to the room where, we 

are told, the detainees were gassed! But that’s a radical impossibility! For me, 

what was striking was not my horror at anything but rather my indignation 

at the imposture, after I’d been taught that millions of human beings were 

exterminated at the place.” 

With a sarcastic tone of voice she asked me: “Do you mean that it wasn’t 

an extermination camp at all? Rather, a camp of prisoners who were coddled 

by the Nazis? It seems in France there are people, professors, who claim, who 

publish writings stating that the Nazi concentrations camps never existed! 

Well! You’ve just been to Auschwitz today. We didn’t fabricate the place, after 

all! The piles of hair, eyeglasses and shoes are not made up!” 

I retorted that I had never heard a French professor claim that the Nazi 

camps hadn’t existed, but, on the other hand, a school of researchers had 

demonstrated that the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz could never have 

existed. Any assertion to the contrary was a slander. The Auschwitz camp 

had been a prison camp with a severe regime, where the inmates had been 

bound to forced labour, at times exhausting, in what was a vast industrial and 

agricultural complex. The epidemics to which any concentration of human 

beings was susceptible, especially in past conditions (when antibiotics were 

rare or non-existent), had caused ravages there, having been propagated by 

parasites such as lice. Those epidemics would have been still more devastating 

had it not been for a system of disinfection of the inmates themselves, along 

with their clothes and the buildings that housed them. As for the piles of 

Heresy 55 

eyeglasses, hair or shoes, did our Urszula know that the Germans salvaged 

absolutely everything, both in the occupied countries and in Germany itself? 

There arrived regularly, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, trainloads of junk that 

would normally have been thrown away but which, in a war economy, was 

recycled by prisoners — precisely them — in their workshops. For instance, 

hair, in large enough quantities, could be used in the production of textiles, 

whereas eyeglass lenses and frames, seemingly no longer useable, were 

recycled to make new eyeglasses etc. 

The young woman, now a bit nervous, demanded to know more and to 

have an idea of just what these revisionists’ case might be on the precise point 

of the non-existence of “gas chambers” for the mass killing of humans. 

I answered saying that they explained it by showing the physical and 

chemical impossibility of the alleged asphyxiation process, above all with 

regard to hydrogen cyanide gas — the active ingredient in Zyklon — which 

was but a powerful disinfectant and insecticide for the delousing of prisoner’s 

effects and quarters. The prime figure amongst these revisionists, professor 

Robert Faurisson, had demonstrated this on the basis of irrefutable and 

unrefuted documentary evidence. I added that it was sufficient, moreover, for 

her or anyone else to read the instructions for the use of Zyklon B provided 

by the manufacturer at the time (Dagesch) in order to grasp that it would have 

been radically impossible to kill people with that substance in those places 

— the alleged gas chambers — without killing oneself as well. 

Listening to me she seemed aghast; her bearing changed. I wanted to leave 

it at that for the moment. Still, I added that if the extermination gas chambers 

could never have worked, nor even have existed, ever, either at Auschwitz or 

at Birkenau, then that was, at bottom, good news. Upon those words, and after 

some silence, Urszula, who’d been looking fixedly at me, suddenly burst into 

laughter, a laugh tinged with self-derision. In communist Poland people knew 

where they stood with regard to the state’s propaganda and the lies that came 

with it. If the Auschwitz fix-up was just one more of many, then there was, in 

the end, nothing for her to be surprised at. 

The next day I continued my journey in the direction of Majdanek. There, 

ad nauseam, blatant fakes and post-war reconstructions are ascribed to the 

Nazis, so blatant that the historians prefer, in general, no longer to speak of 

extermination in that camp. The fakery of the “extermination facilities” that are 

shown there, all built after the war by non-Germans, is patently obvious, even to 

the layman, except perhaps to the Jewish — and indeed, more and more Jewish 

— writer Bertrand Poirot-Delpech. I then headed north-eastwards, to the sites 

of Belzec and Sobibor (of which there remains strictly nothing). I returned to 

56 Heresy 

Warsaw via Treblinka where no original structure has been conserved either; it 

has in the past, however, been claimed that this camp was equipped with death 

chambers in which inmates were killed with… steam, and that after 1943, 

the Germans had unearthed the largely decomposed bodies of their victims 

in order to burn them on the spot. But, as will be seen further on, it has been 

demonstrated that no gigantic ditch for corpses was ever dug there. 

I came back from Poland both satisfied and dismayed. Satisfied, for the 

journey had let me take a decisive step in my inquiry. The reading of Rassinier 

had rendered the gas chambers suspect in my eyes; then the Roques affair had 

made them appear unlikely; finally, at the end of this trip to the sites, I had the 

proof that they were a fiction. 

On the other hand, I was dismayed at the lie’s enormity or, which doubtless 

amounts to the same thing, at the extent of belief in it. Only Urszula’s laughter 

resounded in my mind as a signal of hope. 

I confided in an engineer friend of mine with whom I had been in touch for a 

good many years. Intrigued from the start by what I had to say, he told me that 

he wanted, in his turn, to be clear in his mind about it all and, therefore, to visit 

the places I’d described. I showed him my copies of the original Auschwitz 

Bauleitung drawings and lent him W. Stäglich’s Der Auschwitz Mythos in 

French translation. At first I thought he would drop the travel idea, but he 

reminded me of it several times and, consequently, we set off together in his 

car a few months later, in April 1989, for Poland by way of Czechoslovakia. 

I served as his mentor along the way. I gave him my commentary on the 

sites we visited, drawing his attention to the stagings effected by the “victors”, 

who’d been firmly bent on having the world believe in the existence of 

prodigious chemical slaughterhouses of reinforced concrete of which not the 

least vestige remained. On that subject, we became acquainted with the lately 

released Leuchter Report. I beheld my friend fallen prey to true consternation. 

I was a direct witness to his disarray. After these revelations, and with time 

being short, we wound up the journey with a quick visit of the now Polish 

territories that were torn from Germany between 1945 and 1947. For us, it was 

essentially Silesia and Eastern Pomerania (we hadn’t time enough to see old 

Danzig, much less East Prussia). 

I have a poignant recollection of the end of our tour, something that appeared 

as a complement to the horrid lie. My heart sank at the sight of some houses 

so typically German out in the countryside between Breslau and Hirschberg, 

which before 1945 must have been the centres of prosperous farms. The Poles 

had seen fit to cover the walls over with an ugly roughcast to efface the houses’ 

original character, exemplified by the distinctive German building craft of half 

Heresy 57 

timbering (Fachwerk), and so camouflage their theft. Now, more than forty 

years on, one could clearly make out, reappearing through the roughcast, the 

black and white blend of the wooden beams crossing one another. Immanent 

justice, here as well? 

The Polish occupant of one of these farmhouses, of whom we asked 

accommodation for the night, allotted us two broken beds in the vast corn loft, 

and demanded payment in advance, flatly refusing his own country’s currency 

but taking West German marks instead, ten from each of us. 

— The deathblow: the forensic studies  

The radical impossibility of a process 

of mass killings 

in the structures and places where they are alleged 

to have happened 

Here we were at the end of the year 1989. The Berlin Wall, symbol of an 

oppression, an exploitation and a lie, had collapsed. In a couple of years the 

USSR itself would definitively break down. 

From the moment of the events in early November I suggested to my wife, 

brother and sister-in-law that we all go by car to Berlin to be spectators on the 

spot to the now certain destruction of the wall, and to take part in smashing 

up that disgraceful symbol, still in its “original state”. In the end the ladies 

preferred to let us men go off on our own and bring them back some souvenir 

bits of The Wall. Taking along my young son, my brother and I set out, picks, 

hammers and chisels in the boot. Upon arriving at the Brandenburg Gate, we 

could see that many other people had had the same idea, and were already 

going to work resolutely. 

Some few weeks before, on September 16, Robert Faurisson had been 

savagely attacked in a park near his house by three young Jews who used 

his head as a football: they tried to kick him to death. Grievously injured in 

the face, he was now slowly recovering. A “natural and normal” occurrence, 

commented Serge Klarsfeld. 

Faurisson was quickly able to identify the person behind the assault, one 

Nicolas Ulmann, the son of a local shop owner. A female examining magistrate 

then set about finding nothing. 

In the previous year, shortly before he was due to testify at the Toronto 

trial of Ernst Zündel, the German-born publisher and active challenger of the 

official and imposed history of the Second World War, the same Faurisson had 

instigated a groundbreaking endeavour in the fight for historical truth. He had 

58 Heresy 

asked Fred Leuchter, an American engineer and specialist in the building and 

operation of gas chambers for the execution of condemned criminals in the 

United States, to go to Poland with a small team and inspect the sites where, 

according to Jewish organisations, facilities for mass killing by asphyxiation 

had functioned during the war. The idea was for Leuchter to get the samples of 

structural materials needed for an examination that would determine whether 

gas had indeed been used there as claimed. In effect, Faurisson’s observations 

in the 1970s concerning the use of execution gas chambers in American prisons 

(the one in Baltimore, for example), where infinite precautions are taken in 

order to put a lone prisoner to death without exposing the personnel to risk, 

had persuaded him of the necessity of a scientific and technical inspection of 

the structures said to have been used for killing concentration camp inmates at 

Auschwitz and elsewhere. 

On site, Leuchter proceeded to make a scientific comparison between the 

Bauleitung drawings and the camp’s present-day layout, and methodically 

to extract sample fragments of walls which would later be analysed by an 

independent American laboratory “in the blind”, that is, wholly unaware both 

of the object of the research and of the samples’ origin. In effect, it is known 

that trace components in materials such as cement and bricks, when exposed 

to hydrogen cyanide (the substance given off by Zyklon B pellets or disks), 

become the object of a certain chemical reaction. These materials contain 

iron in the state of oxides, sulphates and silicates; iron reacts with hydrogen 

cyanide to form complex compounds of a characteristic bluish tint (Prussic 

blue). These present the remarkable traits of extreme stability over time 

(periods of several centuries) and are practically insoluble, thus unaffected by 

weather. So it is that intense blue traces are plain to see in the walls of those 

Auschwitz buildings that served as clothing disinfection units, for they were 

frequently exposed to Zyklon B, thus to hydrogen cyanide. 

Having ascertained the relative presence of these compounds of iron and 

cyanide in the brick and concrete samples taken from various places in the 

camp, the researcher would be able to determine precisely where there had 

been contact with hydrogen cyanide gas. It was a matter of verifying whether 

the places where lethal gassings were said to have happened were the same 

as those that presented significant traces of the compounds. However, in the 

fragments taken by Leuchter and his team from about thirty points in the five 

crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau, no detectable traces were to be found. On 

the other hand, very strong traces were detected in those taken from the clothing 

disinfection units! Apart from the results of this chemical analysis, Leuchter’s 

physical and topological analysis was also unequivocal. His conclusions (the 

Heresy 59 

first “Leuchter Report”) were plain: the incriminated rooms in buildings or 

other installations at Auschwitz and Birkenau (designated on the original map 

as K-I, K-II, K-III, K-IV and K-V), which some people claim were the site of 

mass gassings of human beings, could not by any means have been places at 

which killings by Zyklon B asphyxiation had occurred: absence of traces of 

hydrogen cyanide salts, inadequate space, danger of death for the personnel, 

material impossibility of the process of “killing followed by incineration”. 18 

Unable to come up with a rebuttal to this report, throughout the world 

— and most particularly in the United States — the adherents to the doctrine 

of the “gas chambers” flew into a rage against the man who had written it, 

and Leuchter saw his career ruined overnight. Base slanders were put about 

against him, without the least counter-study being undertaken. 

Nonetheless, there was one such attempt in France. A pharmacist from the 

Paris suburbs, Jean-Claude Pressac, had personally taken an interest in the gas 

chamber problem, going to Auschwitz several times. Contrary to rumours, 

he had never been a “disciple of Faurisson”. He’d made the professor’s 

acquaintance at the home of Pierre Guillaume, the first publisher of Faurisson’s 

revisionist work; one day, fed up with Pressac’s importunate manner, Faurisson 

had to oust him from the flat manu militari. Thereafter Pressac went and offered 

his services to Serge Klarsfeld, who proposed the idea of lighting a backfire 

against the “Leuchter Report”, and financed the enterprise. The result was 

the confidential publication, in 1989, of a very big, indigestible book entitled 

Auschwitz, Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers19. In reality, it 

featured not the least drawing, sketch, scale model or coherent description 

of those famous “gas chambers”. The poor pharmacist, all told, demonstrated 

just one thing: at Auschwitz-Birkenau there had indeed been… crematoria 

for incinerating the dead. While he was at it, Pressac drastically reduced the 

estimated number of dead supposedly cremated in the camps, thus incurring 

the suspicion and hatred of those who, like Claude Lanzmann, upheld the 

argument of mass murders in “gas chambers”. Moreover, Lanzmann, a film 

director, has since been reduced to making works of fiction in which, without 

any evidence, without any material remains or documentary traces, the gas 

chambers’ existence is presented as a given: such is the case in his latest film, 

on Sobibor (October 2001).  

Faurisson was to pulverise Pressac’s book, first in his Réponse à Jean- 

Claude Pressac 20, then in the presence of Pressac himself in the courtroom, 

specifically the section of the Paris criminal court that hears cases involving 

the press: the pitiful man, on the verge of tears, was at a loss to answer the 

successive questions of barrister Eric Delcroix and presiding judge Martine 

60 Heresy 

Ract-Madoux. Exit Pressac. 

Another try at a counter-study was made by the Crakow (Poland) “Institute 

of Criminology”. The results of its chemical analysis tended to confirm 

Leuchter’s own conclusions. Therefore, publishers refrained from printing 

this report. 

The “Lüftl Report” 21, named for its author Walter Lüftl, president of 

the Austrian association of chemical engineers, was published some time 

afterwards. It examined the alleged killing process as presented by the 

upholders of the extermination thesis and proved its radical impossibility. It 

showed how ridiculously the exterminationists made their case for the use of 

Zyklon disinfectant to kill human beings en masse, for it would have been 

infinitely less dangerous and, all told, more efficient to do so using simple 

carbon dioxide (CO2). The problems related to mass incineration would, in 

any case, have arisen from the very beginning of such an undertaking, and 

could not have been solved. 

The conclusion, in the form of a word to the wise, warned against the 

propensity of judges in revisionism trials to receive only “historians” as 

witnesses: scientists and technicians were indispensable if one wished to get 

at the truth of the matter.  

No counter study could be put forth to answer the “Lüftl Report”, and 

none has ever been offered. Lüftl was forced to resign the presidency of his 

association, but the authorities did not go so far as to prosecute him 22. 

In 1991 there appeared the first edition of a study by the young German 

scientist Germar Rudolf. 

Rudolf, who worked at the prestigious Max Planck Institute, drafted 

a meticulous report in which, with the erudition of a research chemist, he 

confirmed, in an irrefutable manner, the conclusions of Faurisson and Leuchter. 

This “Rudolf Report”23, when sent soon after publication to a number of 

authoritative figures in the fields of physics and chemistry, in order to get 

their possible remarks on and criticism of its method and findings, elicited 

no negative observations! By virtue both of its considerations of a chemical 

nature, which pulled the rug from under well-known witnesses’ allegations, 

and of its faultless line of reasoning, it reached devastating conclusions. 

We may cite two of them here, respecting the presentation given towards 

the end of Rudolf’s book.    

1 On physical-chemical grounds, the mass gassings with hydrogen 

cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed ‘gas chambers’ of Auschwitz 

claimed by witnesses did not take place.

Heresy 61 

2  The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses during 

their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial 

rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in any 

building of Auschwitz whatever, are inconsistent with documentary 

evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific law. 

Rudolf didn’t fail to foresee that the opponents, incapable of offering 

any rebuttal, might resort to the subterfuge of abandoning the argument of 

massacres in “gas chambers” in favour of some replacement arguments. 

Thus his closing statement, in the form of a warning, read: “The invention of 

new scenarios and techniques of mass murder which contradict the witness 

testimony is characteristic of Hollywood’s horror factory, but has nothing to 

do with the writing of history.” 

As its sole reply to the appearance of this report, the German State brought 

legal proceedings against its author, ordered the destruction of all copies, had  

Rudolf dismissed from his post and forced him to seek refuge abroad in semi- 

secrecy. 24 

Finally, in 2000, scientific readings of the utmost interest were taken on 

the terrain, that is, at the sites of the wartime camps, by the young Australian 

engineer Richard Krege. He’d had the idea of using a device for analysing 

the subsoil, Ground Penetrating Radar, allowing to tell unambiguously, at a 

given spot, whether the earth has been turned over, even at a quite remote 

date (the diffusion of radar waves underground varies greatly between zones 

where there has been deep digging and zones where there has not). In the 

company of Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graff, Krege went to the Polish sites of 

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Auschwitz. At the first three, he was able to 

note the absence of any common graves. Likewise at Auschwitz, save at some 

precise spots where it was already known that common graves existed: that 

said, there was no question of any huge ditch there. These forensic analyses by 

Krege merely confirmed what the Canadian researcher John C. Ball had been 

able to establish eight years previously, when he’d examined all the aerial 

photos taken during the war from Allied (and also German) reconnaissance 

planes above the camps in territory that is now under Poland. In these photos, 

obviously taken without warning, there are not to be noted any installations that 

might be meant for carrying out mass murder, nor any suspect concentration of 

inmates beside a particular building, nor any smoke coming out of cremation 

structures. These photographs are unchallengeable evidence that the places in 

question were nothing other than labour camps or transfer camps.

62 Heresy 

— The Nuremberg “trial”: Judicial imposture — 

It is impossible to understand the twentieth century without having a look into 

what one may hold to be the biggest witchcraft trial of all time: the Nuremberg 

trial of 1945-1946 (followed by others of the same name). We refer here to 

what is conventionally called the IMT — International Military Tribunal, 

whose founding document was the text of the London Agreement of August 

8, 1945 — and limit ourselves to quoting a few of the articles of this special- 

purpose tribunal’s “Charter”: 

Article 19: “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. 

It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and 

nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of 

probative value.” Accordingly, any item deemed by this tribunal to have the 

value of evidence was admitted as such. The tribunal could accept elements 

of prosecution evidence without verifying their reliability, and reject those 

of the defence without giving any explanation. Thus “prosecution evidence” 

could be forged, and defence evidence ignored. And that was done, on a large 


Article 21: “The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common 

knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It was the tribunal itself that 

decided just what a “fact of common knowledge” was. 

Article 13: “The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules 

shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.” A veritable legal 

monstrosity, this: the judges were authorised to fashion their own code of 

criminal procedure! 

Carlos W. Porter, 25 a professional translator born in California in 1947, 

has had the merit of delving into the English and German editions of the 

Nuremberg trial records, both in 42 volumes. 

What he has to say about them is disquieting: the presiding judge, Sir 

Geoffrey Lawrence, didn’t understand German. Nor did the head American 

prosecution barrister, Joseph Jackson. One of his “assistants”, Robert M. W. 

Kempner, a key member of the tribunal, was a German Jewish émigré animated 

by an open, incandescent hatred for the Germans. He was the promoter of the 

“Wannsee Protocol”, a document presented only belatedly (1947), at one of 

the “American” Nuremberg trials, as the account of a January 1942 conference 

of German dignitaries held in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee on the question of 

organising the Jews’ annihilation. However, it is in fact not a “protocol” but a 

text on paper bearing neither stamp, nor date, nor signature, with no indication 

of the office in charge of its preparation, no file number under which to register 

Heresy 63 

it, all typewritten on an ordinary machine; in any event, it deals only with an 

evacuation of European Jews to the East and not with an extermination of 

those Jews.26 

At the big trial itself, that is, in 1945-1946, the defence produced 102 

witnesses and 312,022 affidavits on the subject of so-called “criminal 

organisations”; of these only a few dozen were translated into English (IMT 

vol. XXI, p. 287; Porter, p. 7): the tribunal was thus unable to read the vast 

bulk of them! Moreover, “a single affidavit from the prosecution (Document 

D-973) was deemed to have ‘rebutted’ 136,000 affidavits from the defence” 

(XXI, pp. 588, 437, 366; Porter, ibid.). And again, “six affidavits from the 

prosecution were deemed to have ‘rebutted’ the testimony of the 102 [defence] 

witnesses” (XXI, 153 and XXII, 221; Porter, ibid.). 

An examination, even a quick one, of the sources of the “proof” presented 

at the Nuremberg trial will be edifying. The “documents” received in evidence 

were often photocopies of copies. Many such papers presented as “original 

documents” were written entirely on sheets with no letterhead by persons 

unknown who, moreover, had put no distinctive handwritten mark on them. 

“Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less 

unknown person certifying the document as a ‘true copy’. Sometimes there 

are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been ‘found’ by the Russians, 

or ‘certified authentic’ by Soviet War Crimes Commissions” (Porter, p. 10). 

Carlos Porter writes: 

The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000 

documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and 

that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at 

The Hague. This is rather inexact. 


The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hague has many 

original post-war ‘affidavits’, or sworn statements, the Tribunal 

Commission transcripts, and much valuable defence material. They 

have the “human soap”, which has never been tested, and the “original 

human soap recipe” (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but 

apparently no original wartime German documents. The Hague has 

negative photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper 

which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are 

removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these 

documents have not been photocopied very often, and officials at The 

64 Heresy 

Hague say it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them. The National 

Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor’s Use of Captured German 

and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the 

original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims the original 

documents are in the National Archives. The Stadtarchiv Nürnberg and 

the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both 

say the original documents are in Washington. Since the originals are, 

in most cases, “copies”, there is often no proof that the documents in 

question ever existed. 

A number of falsified or otherwise worthless documents were presented by 

the prosecution at the start, such as the “SS report” 1721-PS and the “Hitler 

Speech” 1014-PS, written by a nameless individual on plain paper bearing 

neither signature nor stamp; then there was document L-3 which, although 

not admitted as evidence, was nonetheless released to the press as authentic 

(250 photocopies distributed); also, 81-PS, “a ‘certified true copy’ on plain 

paper prepared by an unknown person. If authentic, it is the first draft of a 

letter never sent. This is invariably spoken of as a letter written by [Alfred] 

Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (IMT XI, pp. 510-511). The document 

lacks signature, initials, blank journal number (a bureaucratic marking) and 

was not found among the papers of the person to whom it was addressed (IMT 

XVII, p. 612). 81-PS is a ‘photocopy’ with a Soviet exhibit number (USSR- 

353, IMT XXV, pp. 156-161)” (Porter, p. 11). 

All this doubtless seemed perfectly normal to the people in charge at 

Nuremberg. Exhibit 386-PS, called the “Hossbach Protocol”, the text of an 

alleged talk given by Hitler on November 5, 1938, is, Porter states, “a certified 

photocopy of a microfilm copy of a retyped ‘certified true copy’ prepared 

by an American, of a retyped ‘certified true copy’ prepared by a German, of 

unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written 

from memory 5 days later.” The author then notes with humour: “This is not 

the worst document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of 

the copies”. 

He rightly concludes that the use of such items in a criminal trial “is 

contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries”. He adds: “Nor are 

the documents identified by witnesses” (Porter, pp. 11-12). 

A sinister illustration of “Nuremberg’s” villainy is the case of Wilhelm 

Keitel, head of the OKW (“Army high command”). The main “evidence” 

against him consisted in “reports” by “Soviet war crimes commissions” (IMT 

vol. XVII, pp. 611-612) presented in the form of “summaries” with judgements, 

Heresy 65 

conclusions and generalisations, but without a single appendix of evidence 

or basic documents. They often made reference to incorrectly designated 

German military bodies. These Soviet “documents” were influential in leading 

the court to pronounce Keitel’s death sentence. We may cite amongst them 

USSR-4, a “report” accusing the Germans of having intentionally spawned 

a typhus epidemic to exterminate the Soviet population! Also, “USSR-470, a 

‘true copy’ (meaning the document has been retyped to make the copy) of an 

‘original document’ written entirely in Serbo-Croat, and supposedly located 

in Yugoslavia, with a typewritten signature by Keitel. It was not alleged that 

Keitel understood Serbo-Croat, rather that this was a ‘translation’ of a document 

written in German which the Yugoslavians did not find (IMT vol. XV, pp. 530- 

536)” (Porter, p. 39). Keitel was condemned to death and hanged. 

Certain wartime measures, perfectly legal, were considered “crimes” when 

resorted to by the Germans, whereas unquestionably criminal actions, when 

taken by the Allies, “were treated as the minor inconveniences of a great 

crusade to eradicate evil” (Porter, p. 51). For example, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, 

Reichskommissar for Holland, was sentenced to death for having ordered 

reprisals following acts of sabotage or armed resistance. However, it had been 

expressly conceded by the prosecution that members of the violent resistance 

— irregular fighters, snipers and the like — could rightly be shot (IMT vol. 

V, p. 405). 

Anyone who has not become acquainted with the Nuremberg documents 

will be unable to conceive of the preposterous character of the charges 

brought by the victors against the vanquished. Enormities were pronounced 

all throughout the trial. 

Holding forth on the Belzec camp, Smirnov, the Soviet “counsellor”, told the 

court of the “electrified floors” of buildings made to look like bathhouses (VII, 

pp. 575-576), and Walsh, the American “assistant trial counsel”, read out a Polish 

report (Document 3311-PS, Exhibit USA-293) detailing the extermination of 

the Jews in the “steam chambers” of Treblinka (III, pp. 566-567). 

French prosecution witness Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier stated under 

oath that she had seen the wooden (!) gas chamber of the Ravensbrook camp 

(VI, p. 224). It is true that this famous communist militant and callous false 

witness at Nuremberg would, a bit later on, even dare to deny quite coldly the 

very existence of the Soviet gulags. 27 

Although the Allied intelligence services (notably the British) had known 

from the start that it was the Soviets who had put thousands of captive Polish 

officers to death in Katyn forest in 1940, they subsequently let the rumour 

spread that the Germans were the authors of that massacre. Afterwards, the 

66 Heresy 

Soviets were to hang seven German officers and men for the crime: Ernst 

Böhm, Ernst Geherer, Herbard Janicke, Heinrich Remmlinger, Erwin Skotki, 

Eduard Sonnenfeld and Karl Strüffling. They sentenced another three innocent 

Germans to twenty years’ hard labour: Arno Diere, Erich Paul Vogel and Franz 

Weiss. 28   

American prosecutor Jackson asked Albert Speer whether, in a purpose- 

built village near Auschwitz, 20,000 Jews had not been “eradicated almost 

instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them”, in the 

experimental use of an atomic bomb (XVI, pp. 528-529). 

There was also talk, for instance, of vehicles specially fitted to gas their 

occupants, “gas vans”, in which tens of thousands of people were said to have 

been slain. Not a single photograph of any such vehicle could be produced at 

the trial! Germany’s territory was totally occupied at this time — early 1946 

— by the victorious Allies, who therefore had all necessary latitude to search 

for and come up with a “gas van”. The closest things to this imaginary device 

that the German army had possessed were innocuous disinfection vans used 

for the delousing of clothing.  

The aforementioned Smirnov stated that the Germans had used “movable 

crematoria” to dispose of the bodies of 840,000 Russian prisoners, all killed 

“at one time” in Sachsenhausen (VII, p. 585). He also read from a “Report 

of the Extraordinary State Commission concerning the crimes of the German 

fascist invaders in the Lvov region” (USSR-6), one of several that described 

the Germans’ alleged exhumation and incineration of great numbers of those 

whom they had slaughtered and buried in mass graves: corpses were dug up, 

stacked in piles of many hundreds, and burned with the aid of petrol or oil; 

the terrain was then carefully smoothed over to hide all traces of the “job”. 

Towards the end of this “document” one may read: 

Thus the Hitlerite murderers adopted in the territory of the Lvov region the 

same methods for concealing their crimes which they employed earlier in 

connection with the murder of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. 

The expert commission ascertained full similarity of method in 

camouflaging the graves in Lissenitzach Forest with those used to 

camouflage the graves of the Polish officers killed by the Germans at 

Katyn (VII, p. 592). 


In the course of his opening statement on February 8, 1946, Soviet chief 

prosecutor Rudenko read from an “appeal to the public opinion of the world 

Heresy 67 

from the representatives of several thousand former internees at Auschwitz” 

denouncing the mass gassing and cremation of deportees. The court thus learned 

that the German exterminators economised on fuel by deriving a portion of 

“the fats and oils necessary for cremations” from the bodies of the gassed 

themselves. “Fats and oils for technical purposes and for the manufacture of 

soap were also obtained from the corpses” (VII, p. 173-174). 

Thirty-seven years afterwards, in 1983, the late Georges Wellers, scientific 

director of the Centre de documentation juive contemporaine (CDJC) in Paris, 

would officially announce that “the manufacture of soap from human fat 

belongs in the category of ‘propaganda lies’ that had already been circulating 

in the camps”. 

One of the trial’s principal witnesses, or in any case the man whose 

deposition contributed in a decisive way to the launching of the figure of 6 

million Jewish victims, was Wilhelm Höttl. This German officer, arrested and 

interned by the Americans at the end of the war, was grilled by numerous 

“advisors” who garnered testimony from amongst prisoners: he agreed to go 

over into the service of the victors and work from then on for the Counter 

Intelligence Corps of the OSS. 29 He was lodged in reserved quarters at 

Nuremberg as a special witness, and thus did not mix with the defendants. After 

stating that he had known Adolf Eichmann, organiser of the transportation of 

Jewish deportees to the East, he consented to sign an affidavit mentioning that 

the same Eichmann (who was not to be found at the time) had one day shared 

with him the secret that the number of Jews exterminated as of August 1944 

could well amount to six million. The figure was unleashed. Counsel for the 

accused asked for this strange witness to be produced, but in vain. Such was 

“Nuremberg”: an enterprise of counterfeiters, where the counterfeit currency 

— fanciful, lie-ridden or slanderous declarations, an isolated affidavit, indeed 

“confessions” made under physical or moral duress — was transformed into 

legal tender: the official history. The Nuremberg “trial” was where the Allies’ 

mendacious wartime accusations were issued in their official form, much as 

gangsters’ dirty money is laundered outside of the “business”. 

Here the parallel with the witchcraft trials of the 16th and 17th centuries stares 

us in the face. The object of those religious courts, before sending the presumed 

witch to be burned at the stake, was to obtain her public confession and, if 

at all possible, testimony from others “proving” that the hapless defendant 

had indeed fornicated with the devil. A rationalistic defence grounded in the 

non-existence of the devil would have been unthinkable on the part of the 

accused and, if ever it were dared, would have led the heretic, the denier, to the 

stake forthwith. In the absence of a confession, the providential appearance 

68 Heresy 

of a “witness” brought about conviction de facto. This witness might be a 

former servant of the devil, who, having since repented, would swear that he 

had heard the devil himself or, failing that, one of his retinue, state that the 

fornication was a fact. Such was the case with the “witness” Höttl. 

Was the Nuremberg trial justifiable nevertheless? And was the victor in 

a position to judge the vanquished equitably after all? We may say, along 

with Carlos Porter, in the light of the few outrages seen above, that a simple 

consultation of the proceedings’ stenotyped notes will allow one to settle the 

matter. The trial of the “major war criminals” before the International Military 

Tribunal was nothing but a judicial lynching, and gigantic farce. Therefore, 

good sense demands that people should not believe what is said to have been 

“established” at Nuremberg without verifying it beforehand. The logical 

consequences of such a realisation are enormous. 

Accordingly, the entire history of Germany in the span of 1933-1945 must 

be reviewed, revisited, rewritten.  

— The “Auschwitz trial” — 

(Frankfurt, December 1963-August 1965) 


There we were in the 1960s. What was the state of mind of the Germans, more 

than fifteen years on from the war? 

On this point we may listen to Wilhelm Stäglich 30 : 

Most Germans really did not believe in them, anyhow. At the very least, 

they were sceptical about the purported extent of the “extermination of 

the Jews”. Revelations of the cruelties perpetrated against Germans 

interned in Allied camps, the barbaric “punishments” imposed for 

“crimes” that had never been proved, and, last but not least, the 

“denazification” tribunals over which “Germans” presided and which 

reached into almost every German home — all these things produced a 

high degree of bitterness among the population at large, even awakened 

sympathy for the victims of the rancorous “justice” of the Allies. As time 

went on, “anti-Nazi” witch-hunting became more and more unpopular. 

People had seen and heard enough. They were simply fed up with the 

whole business. By the end of the 1950’s, when it turned out that the 

“gas chambers” the Allies exhibited after the war never existed in 

Germany during the Third Reich, at Dachau or any other camp, people 

began to voice their opposition to Chancellor Adenauer’s programme 

Heresy 69 

of financial “reparations” to Israel. 

It must have [been] this latter circumstance, above all, which 

alarmed those who were profiting, and wanted to continue profiting, 

from our national prostration and the myth of the six million. It looked 

as though the German people could not be politically and financially 

blackmailed much longer. New methods had to be devised to keep the 

racket going. No doubt enemies of Germany, above all international 

Jewry, knew they had to take prompt action. 

Given the almost proverbial German respect for authority, an 

obvious solution was to use the German judicial system in a massive 

effort to revive our national guilt complex. 

As Stäglich appositely recalls, after the end of the war crimes trials 

organised by the occupying powers, the alleged Nazi atrocities had quickly 

fallen into oblivion among the German people; besides, no forensic study of 

the crime weapon (installations specially prepared for lethal gassings) had 

taken place — nor was ever to take place. 

The tragic aspect in such trials as the one in Frankfurt, that of the 

“Auschwitz guards”, was that the defence counsel generally had no interest in 

establishing the historical truth. They kept to putting forward what would, in 

their eyes, be specifically favourable for the clients, or at least would do them 

no harm. As for the prosecution, one mustn’t forget that its representatives 

were civil servants, answerable to the political power in place. Those people 

were steadily fed, so to speak, by the condemnation of the previous regime as 

pronounced by a government that had installed itself solely by the grace of the 

occupation forces after the Third Reich’s demise. The judges, for their part, 

accepted, without the least reluctance, the “historical” background such as it 

had been determined by the men who, in the shadows, had pushed for these 

trials with a purely political aim in mind. This places us before a characteristic 

peculiar to the German judiciary and showing itself only in trials of  “Nazis”. 

Another disturbing point: the suspicious death of Richard Baer, the last 

commandant of Auschwitz, just before he was due to testify, when it was 

known that he would not speak of the “gas chambers”. 

Stäglich sums up bitterly the way in which justice was administered then, 

and has been administered ever since, in Germany 31: 

Its manner of adjudication bears a distressing resemblance to the 

methods of the medieval witch trials. In those days, the occurrence of the 

“crime” had only to be presumed, since basically it could not be proved. 

70 Heresy 

Even the most distinguished jurists of the time — for example, Benedikt 

Carpzow — were of the opinion that in the case of “crimes difficult to 

prove” one could dispense with inquiring into the objective basis of the 

deed if “presumption” spoke for its occurrence. The medieval judges 

found themselves in the same position vis-à-vis the demonstrability of 

fornication with the Devil at the Witches’ Sabbath as the “enlightened” 

judges of the 20th century in regard to the murder of the Jews in “gas 

chambers”. They had to believe in such fictions, or else they would have 

been burned at the stake themselves. In a figurative sense, this also held 

true for the judges in the Auschwitz Trial. 

— Special-purpose laws against the revisionists — 

The extermination of the Jews of Europe by the Germans between 1939 and 1945, 

alleged then by organised Jewry and since accepted as fact by the countries of 

the West, whose peoples have nearly all ended up having it imposed on them as 

a State Truth (one might say State religion), cannot materially have happened. 

This is a conclusion grounded scientifically in a body of concurrent evidence: 

particularly striking is the fact that in the hundreds of thousands of accessible 

archive documents there is a total absence of German directives or records 

concerning the implementation of any “extermination” measures. The absence 

of any papers bearing reference to possible orders to such effect, the analysis 

of testimonies and depositions at the various trials, the many documents at our 

disposal, the findings on the subject by impartial researchers (that is, people 

honest enough not to seek advantage in propagating unfounded assertions), 

the examination of population movements to and fro at the period in question 

and, finally, forensic studies into the places and procedures invoked by the 

official history, all of which conclude that the carrying out of such procedures 

is physically impossible: these facts can only strengthen our unbelief. 

And yet, the high point of the swindle is still to be seen. Here it is. 

Not only must one believe, without seeing any proof — indeed, even in the 

face of proof to the contrary — that six million Jews died at the hands of the 

Nazis (a large part of them having been killed in slaughterhouses for humans 

functioning with an insecticide), but also the parliaments of almost all Western 

countries have proceeded to bring in special laws to punish those who publicly 

voice doubts on the matter with imprisonment, fines and exclusion from their 


It is thus indeed a question of a belief of religious nature. Who, in a land 

of Islam, would ever have the idea of publicly questioning Allah’s existence, 

Heresy 71 

the Koran’s authenticity or the holy character of Mecca? Who would think 

of sniggering before the Wailing Wall? In such hypothetical cases the 

“unanimous” legal decision would be easy to predict. 

To speak of religious belief is also to speak of religious hierarchy, 

with its privileges, its rites and its shrines, its high priests, its Inquisition, 

excommunications, fulminations. 

— The scandal of Arolsen-Waldeck — 

Arolsen, a small town in the old province of Waldeck in northern Germany, is 

the site of a large building that houses a research centre containing information 

of the greatest importance. 

It is, in effect, at Arolsen that the International Tracing Service is located: 

its data concern those persons who were interned in camps during the last war, 

essentially the camps of the National Socialist regime. 

Apart from its natural function of methodical research, this centre has 

the job of handling any requests for information or compensation made by 

relatives of those who are alleged to have died in deportation. It works with 

the data in its large stock of public records and other groupings of names: 

there are lists of those who were in the deportation convoys (both departure 

and arrival lists), internal lists from various German camps, lists of transferred 

detainees, camp infirmary registries and death registries etc. A primary feature 

of the centre’s activity is the comparing of the claims or queries regarding 

such or such a person against the data at its disposal. 

One may be astonished to learn that this Service, although situated in German 

territory and run with the formal supervision of the International Committee 

of the Red Cross in Geneva, is under “Allied” and… Israeli sovereignty. Its 

management team features a high proportion of Jews. Similarly, the head of the 

very official “Institute of Contemporary Historical Research” in Munich is of 

Jewish origin, as is the curator of the Dachau camp-museum, as is the present 

curator of the Auschwitz camp-museum and as were his predecessors. 

The information and statistics of which Arolsen disposes in abundance are, 

of course, of capital significance. For they are the ultimate key: here it will be 

obvious whether a holocaust happened or did not happen. In effect, since the 

pension rights of heirs and successors are logically linked to a fine-toothed 

comb inspection by Arolsen, it must be possible there, with the information 

and statistics concerning names to hand, to determine the true overall number 

of camp dead. Therefore I planned to pay a visit to Arolsen. But professor 

Faurisson called me back to reality.  

72 Heresy 

He chuckled at my naivety in this business. Arolsen’s data, more than 55 

years after the end of the war, are still kept rigorously secret. They are still 

forbidden to the researcher, whoever he may be, lest devastating information 

leak out to the world at large. Those in charge have grasped that, in effect, 

Arolsen holds the truest figures, the truth, in short, on the scale of Jewish 

victimhood to “Nazi barbarism”, especially in its verified lists of names. The 

professor convinced me that it wouldn’t be possible, except perhaps by way of 

some ruse or other, to gain access to the data at Arolsen. Charles Biedermann, 

the centre’s director, when summoned to testify by the defence at the Zündel 

trial in Toronto in April 1988, had not consented to disclose the number of 

duly recorded deaths, although he possessed it. “It would be premature to 

give those figures” was his brazen reply then to the express question put by 

professor Faurisson, who was assisting Ernst Zündel in court. You’ve read 

correctly: premature. Even though it was 1988 and the war had been over for 

43 years! 

Nonetheless, the revisionists are a stubborn, patient and, when need be, 

cunning lot; above all they are, in general, equipped with some well-honed 


To authenticate a concentration camp inmate’s decease one must have 

reliable and concordant information to hand: proof of deportation (the 

name’s featuring on the list of persons in a given convoy) and chronological 

mention on a list of camp deaths (according to the Sterbebücher, which were 

meticulously maintained by the camp administrations: virtually all of those 

kept at Auschwitz are known). These lists, when they can be consulted, are of 

great value in that they assemble, apart from the name and date of death, the 

deceased’s personal data: country of origin, ethnicity and religion. But what 

becomes of a request for research on a person whose name features neither 

on any list of camp entries, nor of deaths, nor on any “intermediate” list (i.e. 

one bearing the names of detainees transferred from one camp to another, or 

of the members of an internal work detail…)? Here, an isolated testimony, 

for example, cannot be received as proof. And those who died in a camp 

whose records have been lost haven’t been able to be “claimed” by any living 

relative. They will escape Arolsen’s fine-toothed combing. It is indeed because 

of this that the centre’s figures are, in a certain way, figures by default, and so 

Arolsen could not rightly claim to provide the total number of concentration 

camp fatalities, contrary to what some people believe at times. Arolsen has, 

however, established a figure representing those deaths which it has itself 

authenticated with certainty in dealing with all the requests for information on 

missing persons. After an inspection of the Soviet-held records, which had in 

Heresy 73 

part remained hidden until the USSR’s collapse (and the opening up of those 

records did not cause Arolsen’s previously made reckoning of the number 

of victims to vary significantly), the overall number — all national origins 

and ethnic groups taken together — of “claimed” victims, that is, persons 

with regard to whom those having requested information, including heirs and 

successors, allegedly have had reason to believe that they may have perished 

in the Hitlerite camps is, according to our most recently adjusted data, 396,081 

(which we may round up to 400,000). That is the total number of alleged 

victims’ names “filed” at Arolsen. Amongst them, the centre has been able to 

authenticate 291,594 wartime deaths (we may round up the figure to 300,000), 

all national origins combined. 

What mainly makes Arolsen’s figures worthy of interest is the fact that 

they are established through a procedure that one may term revisionist in the 

sense that it consists in examining and comparing the information of various 

original documents. One observation of prime importance regarding Arolsen’s 

numbers and results: in the course of time they have stabilised and henceforth 

show only minor variations. As noted above, the unveiling of the Soviet 

archives since 1991 has not brought on any significant modification of the 

number of authenticated deaths, either. It’s therefore understandable that a 

wide-scale publication of these figures would have devastating effect. One may 

well imagine the fright of those in charge of maintaining the official version 

with its six million Jewish victims at the idea of the logical and implacable 

conclusions that revisionist research could draw from Arolsen’s data. Without 

any doubt, there lies the reason for the Arolsen authorities’ doing away with 

the centre’s Historische Abteilung (department of history) in 1978. 

In effect, starting from the figures certified by Arolsen, the number of 

authenticated deaths in all the Hitlerite camps of detainees of Jewish origin, 

through all the 1933-1945 period and of all causes, can most certainly be 

estimated at under 200,000, for a figure of 200,000 Jewish dead would suppose 

a rather too high proportion of Jews — two thirds — in the overall number of 

camp inmates. 

A theoretical maximum of 200,000 authenticated deaths of Jews in all the 

German camps for the whole National Socialist era. There we have the total 

that the Arolsen tracing centre has most certainly established, even though the 

same body stubbornly refuses to let its exact figure be known. Obviously a 

number of persons of Jewish origin died, between 1941 and 1945, elsewhere 

than in the concentration camps: those who were killed from above in the 

unrelentingly bombed German cities, those who perished due to all kinds of 

wartime privation. But the death of those Jews was no different from the fate 

74 Heresy 

of a good many other victims of the war in Europe.     

This figure, we may repeat, although not exhaustive as seen above, 

nevertheless denotes a scientifically sound maximum total that is dramatically 

inferior to the figures borne by the unfounded allegations of Jewish groups 

during and after the war, figures that have been adopted by the official history. 

A devastating parallel: it is of the order of the number of German victims of the 

Allies’ two-day aerial bombardment of Dresden alone (February 1945…). 

For an official institution, operating under the auspices of several national 

governments, to refuse to make its findings public is a veritable act of 

treachery towards historical research. We have a right to know the truth, be it 

whole or not. The authenticated figure of concentration camp deaths cannot 

remain concealed otherwise than through a wilful blocking of the truth on the 

part of the official authorities. This point leads us to observe that those very 

governments, in what I may well venture to call a perverse consensus, have 

deemed it in their interest to keep the figure under a bushel, and behave like 

dealers in stolen goods. One day soon, we can bet, Arolsen will have to bring 

out these figures. With the accompanying documentary evidence. Evidence, 

and names. 

After the war, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower and Charles 

De Gaulle32 wrote their memoirs. At no place in these voluminous works 

is any allusion made to any massacre by collective gassing in the German 

concentration camps. To put it another way, those three key figures of the 

conflict, leaders of governments and of armies, and, by that very fact, informed 

from the best sources, could have offered a capital testimony: but they didn’t 

breathe a word of a crime that is alleged to have been of unprecedented extent 

and enormity. The same goes for the Red Cross’s regular reports: the ICRC 

was allowed to visit the concentration camps and, all throughout the war, did 

not abstain from doing so: in its accounts there was never any mention of 

“gas chambers”, except in regard to rumours thereof. So it was that a Red 

Cross delegation went to the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in September 1944 

and related afterwards that it had not been able to find any evidence supporting 

the stories it had heard.33 And the same goes as well for the Vatican, despite its 

being remarkably well informed during the war. 

The upholders of the extermination tale, as if in desperation, will still object 

that the German army units called Einsatzgruppen (“intervention groups”) 

carried out summary executions of many irregular fighters and partisans (many 

of whom were Jews: their leaders and organisers as well were often Jewish 

“people’s commissars”). It is certain that these Einsatzgruppen were indeed 

assigned the mission of protecting the rear of the Wehrmacht in the USSR, 

Heresy 75 

notably through a “cleaning out” of partisans, that a good number of the latter 

were in effect Jews, that the German commanders of the Einsatzgruppen 

might well consider themselves not to be bound by certain rules of war since 

the Soviet Union had not adhered to the Geneva convention on the treatment 

of prisoners, and that, in any event, the recourse to reprisals is acknowledged 

as legitimate in principle with respect to irregular fighters or partisans. 

But here too, serious studies have been made into the action of these same 

Einsatzgruppen, of which, in particular, some daily agendas are consultable. 

The “confessions” of some of their commanders, especially Oswald Pohl’s and 

Otto Ohlendorf’s, are of scant value, for they were obtained through torture. 34 

And even if the figures that their tormenters extorted from them were accepted 

as valid (Ohlendorf “gave” the figure of 90,000 executions), they would not in 

themselves modify the conclusion that there was by no means a holocaust or 

genocide, nor even an attempt at genocide, of the European Jews. 

If what befell the Jews during the war was a “holocaust”, how then would 

one have to term the unnatural deaths, between 1939 and 1948, of fourteen 

million civilians and soldiers of German nationality? 35 

— Yad Vashem — 

One evening in January 2001, at the invitation of relatives living in Amman, 

Jordan, two friends of mine, husband and wife, took off to visit Petra, the 

Dead Sea, Aqaba and various Greek and Roman sites of the Decapolis. They 

were greeted as planned at the Amman airport at 2 am. They rode the 25 miles 

into the city where their host informed them that, due to a sudden mishap, 

he would be too occupied in the immediate future to devote himself to their 

common projects, which he suggested should be postponed for four days. He 

recommended that, in the meantime, they visit Israel by themselves. The next 

day, taking them to the Allenby bridge, the nearest border crossing, he advised 

them to stay three or four nights in the Old City of Jerusalem, in a Christian 

convent, for example; afterwards they need only take a taxi back to the same 

crossing, where he would send another taxi to fetch them. That evening they 

found themselves in Jerusalem, and, for a first night, they “entered the convent” 

close by the Via Dolorosa.  

They spent the next day going round the old quarters of the city. They 

visited the Christian quarter. They went to the Wailing Wall, via the Arab 

section, then had a look round the working class Palestinian neighbourhoods 

where the people on the streets are effectively corralled, without knowing 

76 Heresy 

it, by armed young Jews in Moslem dress (the Mistavrazim) and equipped 

with discreet walkie-talkies, whilst the omnipresent high-hanging closed 

circuit television cameras leave no dead angle for the Israeli police watching 

somewhere in their observation centre. 

The French guidebook Routard states that the Yad Vashem memorial 

centre, a few miles to the west, is a must-see. I too had advised my friends 

to visit it. So, two days after their arrival in Jerusalem, they took the bus 

to Yad Vashem. After a ten-minute walk from the bus stop they reached the 

memorial. They saw all the various parts of it: the Garden of the Righteous 

amongst the Nations, the crypt with the eternal flame, the stirring exhibit with 

the thousands of little stars that surround you in semi-darkness, the thematic 

rooms, the buildings undergoing work. They returned to the main structure, 

to the entrance hall. Books presented as important reading were displayed for 

sale on a long counter. Conspicuous was a just released work available in three 

languages entitled Desecrators of Memory: its author, one Ephraim Kaye, was 

worried about the case put forth by revisionists (“Holocaust denial” in the 

jargon), which he deemed liable to confuse people who, in principle, were not 

necessarily anti-semitic. My friends took a copy in French. 36   

Then, in the end, the man decided to put a particular question to the 

entrance hall attendant. Being of a curious bent, he wanted “for his personal 

collection of documents, to get hold of some original photos of gas chambers 

that had operated in the Nazi concentration camps.” In support of his request, 

and lest his perhaps too direct question be perceived as an impertinence, he 

took the liberty of pointing out that the Soviets, when they took over the 

Auschwitz-Birkenau complex in late January 1945 without firing a shot, 

would necessarily have found such installations in their original state, since 

the camp had been evacuated by the Germans just a few days before. By their 

very nature, those concrete structures could not have been removed in the 

evacuation. The Soviets, then, must have taken numerous photographs of all 

the installations and, amongst them, surely some photos of those gas chambers 

or, barring that, of their vestiges, abandoned some days previously by the 

retreating Germans. 

The question seemed to baffle the young man at the counter. “Photos of the 

gas chambers, you say? Wait while I go see my supervisor.” The couple were 

afraid there might be an incident. A bearded gentleman of reddish complexion 

arrived, telling them “We have a photo of the inside of a gas chamber: it’s in 

the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust, right here.” He pointed to a big book in 

English, on the top shelf in the display case. 

My friend the tourist took it out and, opening to the letter G, under the entry 

Heresy 77 

Gas Chamber, discovered a short article — about fifteen lines — evoking the 

Nazis’ methodical use of execution gas chambers; an accompanying photo 

showed… a vast shower room of the camp at Majdanek! The showers with 

their duckboards could be clearly made out, along with two windows that 

left the room bathed in sunlight. A caption explained that it was in fact a 

dummy shower room, set up so that the hoodwinked detainees, after disrobing 

quite unwarily, would be asphyxiated by the gas coming out of the shower 


Amazing! Hitherto it had been explained that the camp inmates, after being 

forcibly crammed, in large numbers, into a cement room with no openings, 

were then poisoned therein by the gas emanating from the Zyklon tablets or 

pellets dropped in through special holes in the roof; now, all of a sudden, Yad 

Vashem was explaining that the victims were killed by gas sprayed at them via 

shower plumbing. Where had the tablets and pellets gone, then? And which 

new gas was it for these showers? 

How can anyone believe such twaddle? Wasn’t life in the concentration 

camps trying enough without the addition, on top of it all, of stories that fly in 

the face of common sense? 

— The search for the truth about 1939-1945: 

A struggle for the past or the future? — 

I consider this prohibition, imposed by law, of a fundamental discussion of the 

German concentration camps of the last war to be a crime against the mind 

and an insult to the dignity of all. 

The French citizen enjoys, in principle, the right to freedom of inquiry 

and of expression. It seems disgraceful to me that we must uphold, without 

seeing any valid evidence, the accusation made against Germany of having 

put millions of human beings to death in “gas chambers” of which there 

subsists not a trace, either material or documentary; all the more disgraceful 

as undeniably serious scientific studies, tallying with one another and thus far 

not contradicted by any adversary, have converged to demonstrate the radical 

impossibility of the presence and functioning of such chemical slaughterhouses 

at the places where the “affirmationists” claim to situate them. 

Some say that the existence of a well-nigh universal consensus condemning 

the Hitler regime renders any in-depth discussion of the camps meaningless 

from the start. This argument is fallacious. 

No country, no human, ethnic, philosophical, political or religious group has 

the right, by means of an organised lie-ridden propaganda and of accusations 

78 Heresy 

unsupported by material evidence or documents, to charge the German people 

with having committed millions of murders in impossible to find installations 

whose hypothetical use to such purpose, moreover, has been shown to be an 

impossibility. None of these countries or groups is entitled to persecute those 

who make inquiries and offer explanations regarding the matter. Finally, this 

accusation and this persecution are all the more unconscionable as they are 

accompanied by an economic exploitation of the people in question which, in 

the process, has effectively become an outcast from the concert of nations.   

Enlightened and “well meaning” persons will tell me: 

But in the end, why insist so strongly? It’s obvious, at present, and 

we are convinced by the formidable array of revisionist research and 

findings, that there was of course never any “Holocaust” of the Jews. 

Any honest man can only agree with the specialists in the matter. The 

“gas chambers” are an “oriental” phantasmagoria, a fable-like tale of 

a Thousand and One Horrors, a Talmudic response to the oppression 

inherent in a system of concentration camps organised by Germans 

who, keen on technique though they were, ended up mired in a dreadful 

penury of foodstuffs and all other supplies nearly everywhere, including 

those camps which became, consequently, places where death really did 

stalk the landscape! 

To which I shall reply: 

“Holocaust”, you say? Will you ever understand that such a lie, such 

a swindle, has been able to exist only because Germany lost the war? 

The loser is always wrong. Even — especially — if he was fighting as 

one against ten. In that lost war, there was also, on the opposing side, 

the absence of any spirit of chivalry, a fact which, on the part of victors 

who behaved like arrant war criminals at Katyn, Dresden, Gumbinnen, 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ought hardly to surprise. There resulted, 

as if inexorably, that horrible accusation made without evidence and 

imposed at Nuremberg by a sham trial organised by the same victors (to 

enable themselves to kill the defeated leaders “legally” and, in so doing, 

terrorise the German population), in any case with no other “evidence” 

than their own hateful and grotesque affirmations, fabrications imposed 

by a ceaselessly reinforced media terror. On and on until the eventual 

implosion, which will not fail to come about.

Heresy 79 

And the enlightened ones may well continue: 

But why follow close on the heels of the revisionists, who risk being 

seen as people who are after revenge? With a triumphant revisionism, 

won’t there be the danger of a flare-up of anti-semitism? Is there no 

better idea than to be actually just as anti-semitic as the other side are 

anti-German and anti-European? Why not simply be wise and leave it 

to the historians alone, in serious works devoid of any hurtful polemics, 

to tell the truth about this awful chapter? That way the embers and still 

smouldering ashes of that period will be able to cool. 

But my closing remark can only be as follows: 

To conceal the truth knowingly for fear of being labelled “anti-semitic” 

is only to dodge the issue. It amounts to giving the thought terrorists 

more than their due. The revisionist conclusions are honest, scientific 

and well reasoned. Are the others sincere in claiming that the revisionists 

are inspired by anti-semitism, and seek vengeance? Rather, are those 

others not disturbed by the light that revisionism, forthrightly and all at 

one stroke, throws onto the gloomy picture? Are they afraid? It’s been 

said of revisionism that it constituted the biggest intellectual adventure 

of the late twentieth century. May it not be, besides, the sole possible 

catalyst of a new renaissance of the West, its only chance of survival? 

— For the future — 

So then, my father had died for his ideas, as they say. He fell victim to two 

contemporaneous and mutually fuelling hatreds: the first spawned incitements 

to murder against the forces of occupation, and the second drove those forces 

to act as they did towards irregulars like him. I refuse to believe that he gave 

his life so that the winners of the last European civil war might spread their 

cruel calumny against the loser, to a most sordid political and financial effect. 

By our present struggle for historical truth, by tireless research and, above all, 

its findings that prove so disturbing, we can set history right. The West, our 

own country included of course, has fallen so low that the respective justice 

systems find themselves constrained to protect the historical lie and to punish 

those who ask questions about certain alleged crimes, or who challenge the 

allegations with scientific arguments. This is an unconscionable judicial 


80 Heresy 

The revisionists produce evidence and they are answered only with threats, 

incantations or moaning and groaning. They are thrown into prison and 

overwhelmed with fines. Their lives are wrecked. 

At the dawn of the third millennium, an international debate, bringing 

together historians, researchers and scientists, is urgently needed, especially 

to obtain a worthy response to the aforementioned forensic studies. All of 

these studies have concluded that the existence and functioning of the “Nazi 

gas chambers” are a complete impossibility. Up to now the upholders of the 

official truth have evaded or refused such a debate, finding refuge in the unjust 

force of laws made just for the circumstances. 

It is high time that they quit using subterfuge, took off their masks, 

renounced the use of force and faced the risks of a real debate held in the light 

of day. 

For the sake of simple human justice.

Heresy 81 



1  Our inter-allied NATO unit, the Joint Mobile Communication Center (JMCC), 

was supposed to be the “residue” of the General Staff’s transmitting service, that 

is, a sector of it that would still remain operational in the disastrous aftermath of 

a nuclear war in Europe. Stationed in a forest, in vehicles equipped with powerful 

transmitters and receivers, we were assigned the job of “re-establishing contact” 

between the scattered elements of the commands of whatever units in Western 

Europe might be spared by the catastrophe.  

*  Each graduating class at the ENA bears the name of a cultural, political or historical 

personality; the author was in the promotion François Rabelais, hence the term 

employed here — translator’s note. 

2  J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, two volumes, A. 

Francke, Berne, 1959-1969. 

3  Jean Haudry, L’Indo-européen, Paris, PUF (collection “Que sais-je ?”), 1992, and 

Les Indo-européens, Paris, PUF (collection “Que sais-je ?”), 1994.  

4  The most recent version, drawn from the voluminous Maquis de Corrèze 

(compendium of diverse testimonies published by the association “Maquis de 

Corrèze”, 2 quai Edmond-Perrier, 19000 Tulle, 798 pages, 1995) and presented as 

genuine, evokes a liquidation by the Miliciens.  

**  Nickname of Napoleon III — translator’s note. 

***The chassepot was a quickly reloading rifle named after its designer and used by 

the French volunteers sent to defend papal Rome against Garibaldi’s army in 1867. 

The Empress Eugénie expressed her appreciation of the Frenchmen’s success with 

the remark “Les chassepots ont fait merveille” (“the chassepots have worked 

wonders”) — translator’s note. 

5  André Barre, La Menace allemande, Paris, Louis-Michaud, 1908, p. 270. 

6  Victor Cambon, L’Allemagne au travail, Paris, Pierre Roger & Cie., 1910, pp. 9, 


7  Georges Bourdon, The German Enigma, London, J. M. Dent & Sons, 1914, pp. 120- 

121. Hermann Sudermann was, at the time, an author known even in France; his 

play Die Heimat (“The Homeland”), known in English and French translations as 

Magda, had made quite an impression in Paris, with Sarah Bernhardt in the lead 


L’Ennemi héréditaire, Paris, E. Dentu, 1876, p. 264; V. de Saint-Genis was a 

Correspondant du Ministère pour les Travaux historiques besides having received 

an award from the Institut de France. 

9  One aspect of this impregnation of anti-German hatred recently appeared to me as 

I was reading the screenplay of a documentary film in preparation entitled Docteur 

82 Heresy 

Charles Mérieux (production by La Cuisine aux Images, 2001, Lyon). In this film 

Marcel Mérieux, son of Ch. Mérieux and his successor as head of the laboratory 

of microbiology bearing their name, tells of how one day, at the age of seven, he 

announed to some relatives: “My dad will give the Germans tetanus: they’ll all die 

in four days”. The French, it may be seen, were well imbued with hatred of “les 

Boches” (author’s personal documentation). 

10  Eugène Jarry and Paul Mazin, L’Europe et le Monde de 1848 à 1914, Paris, 

Editions de l’Ecole, 1958. 

11  Albert Béguin, Faiblesse de l’Allemagne, Paris, Librairie Joseph Corti, 1946. 

12  Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Lenin, New York, Holmes & Meyer, 2001, p. 326. 

13  Robert N. Proctor, The Nazi War on Cancer, Princeton University Press, 1999, 

p. 15. 

14  “It was Churchill who imposed […] the first terror bombings on civilian objectives 

(like the city of Duisburg, the attack on which in June 1940 incited Hitler to bomb 

English cities, including London); furthermore Churchill recommended to his air 

force to attack, especially with incendiary bombs, the heavily populated centres 

of old German towns, for the old houses burned better, better represented the 

culture to be destroyed and were inhabited very largely by the common people 

and workers in general. He later organised personally the onslaughts of terror and 

annihilation on German cities packed with civilians, like Hamburg and Dresden, 

the latter being [in February 1945] but a hospital town.” (Claude Soas, Vers un 

matérialisme biologique, ou la faillite du matérialisme historique, private edition 

1982, revised in 1993, cited by Dietrich Schuler in L’Antigermanisme, son histoire 

et ses causes, Paris, L’Æncre, 1999. 

15  Heinz Nawratil, Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, Munich, Universitas, 


16  Interview by Annette Lévy-Willard, “Hilberg avec un grand H”, Libération, 15-16 

September 2001, p. VI. 

17  Friedrich Grimm, Le Testament politique de Richelieu, Paris, Flamarrion, 1941. 


1  A. Got, L’Allemagne après la débâcle, Strasbourg, Imprimerie Strasbourgeoise, 

1919, p. 112. 

2  F. K. Wiebe, L’Allemagne et la question juive (published by the “Institute for the 

study of the Jewish question” in Berlin, without indication of date, probably in 

1934); one may also refer to the account published in the French Foreign Ministry’s 

Bulletin périodique de la presse allemande (no. 434, p. 17) of the speech made by 

the German Interior minister, W. Frick, on 15 February 1934. Frick recalled that 

in pre-1933 Berlin, for instance, 54% of physicians, 48% of lawyers and 80% of 

theatre directors were Jewish.

Heresy 83 

3  See Vincent Reynouard’s Julius Streicher à Nuremberg, 2001, pp. 29-38. 

Mein Kampf, London, Pimlico, 1992 — translator’s note. 

4  Nonetheless here one must not neglect the influence, especially intellectual, of the 

French diplomat Arthur de Gobineau and, above all, of the Englishman Houston S. 

Chamberlain. The former had in 1854 published his Essai sur l’inégalité des races 

humaines, and the latter, a son-in-law of Richard Wagner, had written his famous 

Grundlagen des 19 Jahrhunderts (Munich, F. Bruckmann, Jubiläums-Ausgabe, 

1915), developing the theory of “the self-improving Aryan race”: “the race 

becomes noble little by little, like fruit-bearing trees.” He held that the Germans 

“have the duty to become an outstanding race;” to do so they must notably 

eliminate all the semitic features of Christianity “in order to render it acceptable 

to Germanic souls.” Once that job were done, Germany would have “a divine 

mission to accomplish.”  

5  “There has been formed, little by little [between Jews and Germans], a duality 

which must necessarily end in the destruction of one nation by the other. However, 

it is ours that Judaism holds in a yoke. Let us have the courage to shake off that 

yoke; let us undertake not a modern-day crusade but a struggle to the death 

between the German nation and the Jewish nation.” Egon Waldegg, Judenhetze 

oder Notwehr?, Dresden and Berlin, Otto Hentze, 1880. [See François Bournand, 

Jean de Ligneau. Juifs et Antisémites en Europe, Paris, Tolra, 1891, p. 176.] 

6  F. Trocase was no crude anti-semite. He even attempted to take up the defence of 

the Jews, and did so in a particular manner: 

“‘The Jews’”, we are notably told, ‘are, after all, human beings: whatever other 

people may be, one must try to live with them.’ No one is thinking of instituting 

any cannibal-like customs with regard to the Jews; they are simply being asked 

not to ill-treat others so severely, not to exploit them with such ferocity. It might 

perhaps be added, in support of this argument, that the Jews perform in our modern 

society a role determined by the secret designs of Providence. Some fish-farmers, 

for example, put a certain proportion of pike, about 8%, in their ponds, so that the 

pike will hunt the other fish, trout and carp, keeping them in a permanent state of 

agitation and so of movement, which is indispensable for all wellbeing. In effect, 

experience shows that in ponds not stocked with pike, the carp and trout lose all 

vivacity, ending up in such a state of torpor that they even forget the principle of 

reproduction. Their flesh is uneatable. Who knows? Perhaps the Jews fulfil in our 

world the task of the pike in the ponds. In any case, they act the part.” 

But the author quickly returns to reality: “Who, then, buys up the homes 

and belongings of people after ruining them? Who chases the peasant out of 

his forefathers’ cottage? Who incites the young to debauchery? Who declares 

bankruptcy fraudulently? Who takes the fruits of the worker’s labour away from 

him? Who possesses the talent of leaning on political passions to attain the object 

of his personal desires and satisfy his own interests? Who makes killings on the 

84 Heresy 

stock exchange? […] The fundamental idea, innate in all the Jews and strongly 

rooted amongst them, that they belong to God’s chosen people, this conviction 

of theirs that they are somehow more than human, gives them an audacity with 

the aid of which they astonish the short-sighted. But it is also what has ended up 

causing so much hatred. The Austrians have not been able, in the long term, to 

stand for the contempt shown them whilst being treated like inferior beings.”   

7  See Lucien Genet, Précis d’histoire contemporaine, 1919-1939, Paris, Hatier, 

1946, p. 209. 

8  See the Daily Express (London) of March 24, 1933, with the eloquent front-page 

headline: “Judea Declares War on Germany”, and the book by Hartmut Stern: 

Jüdische Kriegserklärungen an Deutschland, Munich, FZ-Verlag, 2000. 

9  Theodore N. Kaufman, Germany Must Perish!, Newark (New Jersey), Argyle 

Press, 1941. 

10 Walter N. Sanning, The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, Torrance, 

California, Institute for Historical Review, 1983. 

11  Revue d’Histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale, July 1954, p. 18. 

12  For confirmation, see the article, published nearly 20 years after Faurisson’s 

discovery, by Eric Conan, “Auschwitz, la mémoire du mal”, L’Express, 19-25 

January 1995 and, particularly, the astonishing page 68. 

13  Following the typhus epidemic that ravaged Auschwitz-Birkenau in the summer 

of 1942, an extension was built at Birkenau (Auschwitz II) with five incinerators, 

each with three muffles. It went into service in the spring of 1943; hence the 

capacity of this particular cremation site was a maximum of fifteen bodies at once; 

thus, what with the 1½ hour needed for burning with coke, between 80 and 90 


14 Document NI-9912 (Nuremberg trial records, registered 21 August 1947) : 

Richtlinien für die Anwendung von Blausaüre (Zyklon) zur Ungeziefervertilgung 


15 This is demonstrated in Wilhelm Stäglich’s aforementioned Der Auschwitz Mythos 

(Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, 

p. 213). Moreover, Robert Faurisson deserves the credit for having “exhumed” the 

genuine Degesch brochure (see note 14) with instructions for the use of the Zyklon 


16 Cf. French edition of W. Stäglich’s book, Le Mythe d’Auschwitz, Paris, La Vieille 

Taupe, 1986, p. 488. 

17 Elie Wiesel relates a little known and altogether surprising episode: in mid-January 

1945, whilst lodged in an Auschwitz infirmary (probably at Auschwitz III) after 

his wholly successful foot operation — something that seems astonishing in the 

context of an “extermination” camp —, Elie and his father (who had obtained 

permission to stay with him at the Revier) were offered a choice by the SS, who 

Heresy 85 

were preparing the camp’s imminent evacuation in the face of the Red Army’s 

advance: they could either leave with the Germans towards the interior of the 

Reich, on foot in the snow, or stay there and wait for the Soviet “liberators”. What 

did E. Wiesel and his father choose to do? They left on foot, in the snow, with the 

Nazi “exterminators”. Such an admission amounts to a refutation of the Auschwitz 


18  Fred Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the Alleged Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, 

Birkenau and Majdanek (Poland), Samisdat Publishers Ltd, 1988, 193 p. 

19  New York, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989, 564 p., 45 x 30 cm. 

20  éditions R.H.R., 1994. 

21 Walter Lüftl, Holocaust (Glaube und Fakten), Vienna, October 1991; published in 

English (condensed form) in Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-1993. 

22  Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14 March 1992, p. 8. 

23 Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in 

den Gaskammern von Auschwitz, 3rd edition, 1994, 114 p. English translation 

available from Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (, and also consultable 

on-line at 

24  See his voluminous work Dissecting the Holocaust, published under the pseudonym 

Ernst Gauß. 

25  Not Guilty at Nuremberg, Historical Review Press, Brighton, 1996, 22 p. (consultable 


26  In 1992, Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer spoke of a “silly story” with regard to the 

assertion that the policy of a physical extermination of the Jews had been launched 

at Wannsee on January 20, 1942 (The Canadian Jewish News, January 30, 1992). 

Eight years before, in May 1984, the “official” German historians Eberhard Jäckel 

and Jürgen Rohwer had themselves, discreetly, abandoned that assertion (Der 

Mord an den Juden im zweiten Weltkrieg, DVA, 1985, p. 67). It may be said in 

passing that this is an example of a revisionist discovery confirmed by orthodox 


27 “Histoire parallèle”, programme presented by Marc Ferro on the Franco-German 

Arte television channel, 18 May, 1996. 

28  See especially Rivarol n° 2248, 2 June 1995, p. 12. 

29  The OSS was the forerunner of the CIA. According to some researchers, Höttl had 

worked as a spy for the Anglo-Americans well before the time in question. 

30 Auschwitz: a Judge Looks at the Evidence, Op cit., pp. 231-232. 

31 Ibid., p. 282. 

32 W. Churchill, The Second World War, 1948-1954; D. Eisenhower, Crusade in 

Europe, 1948; Ch. De Gaulle, Mémoires de guerre, 1954-1959. 

33 Documents sur l’activité de la Croix-Rouge en faveur des civils détenus dans 

86 Heresy 

les camps de concentration en Allemagne — 1939 / 1945, 2nd edition, Geneva, 

International Committee of the Red Cross, June 1946, pp. 91-92. 

34 O. Pohl was treated with great cruelty for over a year, from May 1946 until his 

“trial” on November 3, 1947 before an American military tribunal: in order to 

get “confessions”, his torturers (American “advisors” of Jewish origin) cut deep 

gashes in his flesh, onto which they poured salt. See Prominente ohne Maske, FZ- 

Verlag, Munich 1998. This information was revealed to the US press on May 20, 

1949 by senator Joseph McCarthy. 

35 The number of Third Reich nationals (Germans, Austrians, Volksdeutche) who 

died in the Second World War is a delicate subject which, in Germany itself, it is 

not considered at all appropriate to recall or reveal. For it shows that Germany, 

of all the European belligerents, is the country that suffered the greatest — and 

by far — proportional loss of life. The estimates (see especially: Erich Kern, 

Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich, FZ-Verlag, 1988; Heinz Nawratil, Schwarzbuch 

der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, Munich, Universitas, 1999; Claus Nordbruch, Der 

deutsche Aderlaß, Tübingen, Grabert, 2001, and the well documented work by 

Wolfgang Popp, Wehe den Besiegten! Tübingen, Grabert, 2001) exceed the figure 

of fourteen million German victims (civilian and military): 

 1) victims (essentially civilians) of the Allied terror bombings of German 

cities: at least 650,000; 

 2) military victims (those killed either in combat or by partisans; those who 

went “missing” and never returned): 4,800,000; 

 3) victims of the Vertreibung (expulsion) from 1945 to 1948 : a) Germans of 

the eastern lands: 2,230,000; b) Germans of the Volga and elsewhere in the USSR: 

350,000; c) Germans not of the east: 220,000; in all, 2,800,000; 

 4) “deaths from various causes” (among which organised famine, from 1945 

to 1949): soldiers held in the Western Allies’ prison camps and civilians inhabiting 

the three “Western” occupation zones: 5,700,000 (see James Bacque, Other Losses

Toronto, Stoddart, 1988); 

 5) others (deaths in Russian concentration camps — up to 1955 — and in the 

Soviet occupied “GDR”, and in Polish, Czechoslovak and Yugoslav camps from 

May 1945: 1,430,000. 

36 Desecrators of Memory: Holocaust Denial, a marginal phenomenon or a real 

danger?, Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, 1997. This book, quite destitute of argument, 

dares to pass over in silence the forensic studies and reports made by Fred Leuchter, 

Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl, John Ball and others. 

37 This constant practice of taking people for simpletons is also to be noted, for 

example, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, which doesn’t shrink from 

displaying a cast reproduction of the “door of a gas chamber” whereas the object 

in question is, quite simply, the door… of a disinfection room at Majdanek!

Heresy 87

88 Heresy

Published on March 13, 2009 at 11:42 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: