UNSUBDUED, AND PURE OF HEART
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
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
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
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.
Georges M. THEIL
F- 38037 Grenoble Cedex 2
Tél.: 06 60 48 59 59
e-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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?
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
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
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
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.
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.
April 10, 2002
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
An attempt at Murder, with Premeditation,
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.
“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
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.
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?”
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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’,
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
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
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
LET’S STAMP OUT THE VILE THING!
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
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. […]
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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.
— 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
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
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-
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.
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.
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’
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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-
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.
— 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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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,
— 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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
For the sake of simple human justice.
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
8 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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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 (www.vho.org), and also consultable
on-line at http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/9.html.
24 See his voluminous work Dissecting the Holocaust, published under the pseudonym
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
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!