It`s either a true,or an untrue statement that you previously made,or it is not.
Actually, it is true plain and simple. But mostly in the context of various internet debates through email which I've had with other people at different times over the years who have often shown themselves to be quite careless in mixing things together. But of course I don't keep records of all my old emails and so there really isn't any point of trying to cite them in the way you'd refer to a book and page number. It's kind of like with the 4 million number itself. I know that it was in circulation at one point because I can remember believing it in the 1990s. But when I tried to go looking through books to find one author who was viewed in academia as some kind of authority and who gave me a definitive statement of 4 million Jews, people, or whatever, killed in Auschwitz, I couldn't find it. But I know it was out there circulating in public discussion. And I know that everything which I've mentioned and which you've mentioned in turn above was also all out there in a variety of email debates that I had over the years. But if you choose not to accept that then there's no point in me fussing about it.
That's also why it is better for people who wish to make a central point about Auschwitz 4 million claims to spend their time to clarify that academic authors have generally not held to this number and, if someone is really energetic and has access to old archives of The Times or what not, to actually compile a listing of media citations or something along those lines relating to the 4 million number. Although I know that I had believed in it at one time, I'm still not actually clear on what was the overall record of the major media towards this 4 million number. It would be interesting to see a compiled list of media references where the 4 million number was mentioned.
But while this isn't as bad as some exchanges which I've had through email over the years, this is still worth mentioning as a concrete example of overdrawn assertions by someone who really should (and does wwhen he applies himself) know better:
http://www.historiography-project.com/m ... eaths.html
The first example Faurisson gives is just plain a false example and that's all. The film 'Night and Fog' shows a picture of Auschwitz in the background while flashing a claim of 9 million victims across the screen. If someone pauses to think for a moment, it's easy to surmise that the number 9 million is meant to be interpreted as spread across eastern Europe while the picture of Auschwitz is simply being used as an emblem of a larger event. That's not unusual in filmmakng. If someone was making a film about the First World War it would be not be out of line to create a scene where the line "More than 10 million soldiers died" flashes across the screen while a picture of Verdun is in the background. No one would misinterpret that as meaning that more than 10 million died in Verdun. It's clear that 'Night and Fog' is not saying that 9 million died at Auschwitz. Even if you wish to argue that on a subject as politically charged as this the filmmaker should be extra careful to seek clarity, that is a criticism of filmmaking and has nothing to do with implying that Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot actually claimed that 9 million had been killed in Auschwitz.
This is an example of a kind of frivolous attitude which Faurisson sometimes shows which runs diametrically against the idea of "exactitude" that he often claims for himself. Being "exact" with relation to critiques of 'Night and Fog' should entail noting that the clear intent of the scene in question was simply to use a picture of auschwitz as an emblem for a bigger event, which is a common technique in filmmaking and perfectly justifiable.
With regards to the rest of that list, although each of the examples is interesting in itself, there really isn't much "exactitude" in the way that Faurisson has done things on this page. He places Lech Walesa on a common footing with Raul Hilberg. That isn't being very exact at all. It should be noted that errors by Hilberg, where they really occur, have much greater significance than a false statement by Walesa. Walesa is simply a politician and rational people expect that breed to make false statements. But a scholar, a leading academic at a univeristy, regarded as a pioneer in making possible our modern understanding of the Holocaust, a fundamental error by Hilberg is of much greater import than Walesa saying something. Faurisson may think that by trivializing this point and treating Hilberg on the same level as Walesa and others who are not regarded as academic authorities of any kind that he is somehow undermining the godly image of the Holocaust priests. But it's more accurate to say that he comes off as having a frivolous attitude towards something which is serious.
But Faurisson isn't as confused as others whom I've interacted on the net with over the years. Still, there's no point in making claims over stuff which I've deleted long since. That piece by Faurisson is still a worthwhile example of how he sometimes has a tendency to overdraw a point and really only undercuts his argument in the eyes of most of the public. A shame, but there's not much one can do about it.