Faurisson's stunning summary - importance of Revisionism

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10338
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Faurisson's stunning summary - importance of Revisionism

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:19 pm)


From Professor Dr. Robert Faurisson, a must read.

- Hannover

4 February 2006

For Hossein Amiri

I have not yet met Hossein Amiri, who works at the Iranian
press agency Mehr News, and have not read the manuscript of the book
on the "Holocaust" and on revisionism that, as he tells me, he plans
to have published soon by the Center for Palestine and Middle East
Records and Strategic Studies (Tehran). Nonetheless, I have been able
to carry on a correspondence with him that gives me the impression of
an effective activist for historical revisionism, and I consider that
in this quality he deserves the support of revisionists in the entire
world. In the fight that we are waging against the myth of the
alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews, researchers and activists from Iran
or the Arab countries remain still so few that the advent amongst the
revisionists of a man like Hossein Amiri is to be warmly welcomed

The myth of the "Holocaust" or "Shoah" is at the basis of the
creation, in 1947-1948, of the State of Israel and has, with time,
become that State's sword and shield. To combat this myth and its
harmful effects, historical revisionism presents itself as the only
possible recourse. As such, revisionism is the atomic weapon of the
poor and weak against the Great Lie of the rich and mighty of this
world. Without killing anyone, revisionism could undo, down to its
foundations, one of the most dangerous historical lies of all time,
that of the alleged genocide of the Jews of Europe (with its millions
of "survivors"!) and that of the alleged Hitlerite gas chambers
(which, in reality, never existed either at Auschwitz or anywhere

From 1945 onwards, with the Second World War just ended, the
Western European powers saw their colonies swiftly vanish. However it
was precisely during this period that, paradoxically, two deviant
phenomena, both born in 1948, in the very midst of that general
decolonization, were seen to arise and gain strength: in South
Africa, the institution of apartheid and, in the Middle East, the
creation, through violence, of a racialist and colonialist
territorial entity that styled itself a "Jewish State" and endowed
itself with a "Jewish Army".

South African apartheid provoked such a negative reaction on
the part of what one may call the international community that it
wound up disappearing. But the State of Israel, at its end, has
maintained itself in the land of Palestine and is, today more than
ever, financed and armed by the big Western powers, first and
foremost Germany and the United States. It has even become a nuclear

The anomaly comprised by that brutal colonization of
Palestine in the middle of a worldwide process of decolonization is
easy to explain. In 1945, tricked by the Jewish and Zionist
propaganda machine, the peoples of the Western world let themselves
be convinced that, during the Second World War, Adolf Hitler had
attempted to exterminate the Jews, and in a particularly atrocious,
systematic manner. Hitler, apparently, had succeeded in having six
million innocent Jews killed, notably in chemical slaughterhouses
called "gas chambers". Thus, in 1947, the reasoning of the members of
the United Nations Organization, created in 1945, was somewhat as
follows: 1) in the recent war, the Germans inflicted hardships upon
the European Jews amounting to an unprecedented martyrdom; 2) it is
therefore imperative to come to the aid of the survivors of that
community; 3) it is fitting to compensate these people by all
possible means; 4) for exceptional sufferings, an exceptional remedy:
it is of course not normal to grant, albeit only in part, to one
people a land belonging to another people but, for the Jews, who have
suffered so much, an exception will be made, to the detriment Š of
the Palestinians. ("Why not to the detriment of the European
criminals?" wondered aloud the late British historian Arnold Toynbee,
himself a believer in the "Holocaust").

It is usually forbidden to grab hold of another's belongings,
to chase a people out of its land through violence, to seek to
enslave that people, to deny it the right to a State of its own, an
army, a currency, to dictate its law and lock it up in Bantustans,
keeping it in a prison whose barriers are a good deal higher and more
forbidding than the "Berlin wall". Nonetheless, that is what the Jews
of the Diaspora, in defiance of the most basic rules and rights, have
since 1948 managed to accomplish in Palestine. They have ignored all
their promises to the UN to respect, in part, the Palestinians'
rights and, afterwards, they have considered all the UN's calls to
order null and void. Today, the Jews and the Zionists term whoever
resists them with weapons a "terrorist". Whoever speaks out against
their colonialism is declared an "anti-Semite". Finally, whoever
proves that their "Holocaust" or "Shoah" is, in fact, but a myth is
denounced as a "denier" or a "negationist", prompted by the
diabolical spirit of doubt.

"Terrorist", "anti-Semite", "denier" or
"negationist": these
words stamp the mark of Cain on your forehead. But the duty of the
historian or researcher is to go and see, up close, the reality
hiding behind those insults. And the reality in question is that Jews
and Zionists have been lying and continue to lie. Their alleged
"Holocaust" is a historical lie, which is extraordinarily profitable
for them and, from their point of view, must be safeguarded at all
costs. In the light of this exorbitant lie and this swindle of
near-planetary dimensions, the actions of both the Zionists, who have
gone on robbing and killing the Palestinians, and the Diaspora Jews,
who approve of Zionism and fund it, are all the graver.

Hitler did effectively try to expel the Jews from Europe. A
good number of other countries before Germany, through the millennia
and up to modern times, had wished to proceed with an expulsion of
the Jews from their respective territories. On the motives for this
quasi-universal rejection, the first page of Jewish writer Bernard
Lazare's 1894 book Anti-Semitism: its history and causes is
worthwhile reading. In a summing-up, he wrote that it was by their
very own conduct, in every place and at every time, that the Jews, at
first welcomed, in the long run brought on the natives' impatience
and revolt.

Before and during the war, on numerous occasions and even as
late as in April 1945, Hitler and the National Socialist leaders
publicly proposed that the Allies take the Jews of Europe into their
own countries. "Have them, these Jews you find so wonderful; we'll
make a present of them to you. Why do you hesitate?": the National
Socialists put it in words clearly to that effect. Apart from a few
rare cases, the Allies replied either with silence or refusal, for
they knew perfectly well that Hitler was not at all going about
exterminating the Jews. We have, for example, documentary proof that
the senior Allied officials did not believe the madcap stories of gas
chambers, a fact that explains why, either during or after the war,
Churchill, De Gaulle, Eisenhower, Stalin, Benes and others of their
station never spoke of those vaudeville-hall monstrosities. Hitler
sought merely to achieve a "final territorial solution to the Jewish
question". The court historians systematically erase the cumbersome
adjective "territorial", preferring to speak only of a "final
solution" and, thanks to this wrongful shortening of a phrase, let
people understand that it was a matter of solving the Jewish question
through a methodical extermination! Hitler, in reality, wanted to see
a territory reserved for the Jews somewhere outside of Europe, but
not in Palestine.

Still, in the face of the practical impossibility of ridding
himself of a few million Jews or of finding them a territory during
the war, he decided to pen a certain number of them (not all!) in
concentration camps or labor camps, hopeful of resolving "the Jewish
question" after the end of the conflict. Despite the efforts made by
the camp administrators and physicians in the field of health and
hygiene, dreadful epidemics, particularly of typhus, wreaked havoc
there. It must be said that, for some generations, typhus had been
endemically rife among the Jews of the East. In the last months of
the war, especially under the effects of Anglo-American bombing raids
and the steady incursion of Soviet troops, Germany lived through an
apocalypse and, what with the paralysis of her industries and
transport, everyone's lot worsened considerably. When the Allies
liberated the camps, they insistently photographed the dead and the
dying and diffused the images throughout the world, whilst keeping to
themselves their photographs showing crowds of internees who, in
spite of all, had remained in good health. They filmed the crematory
ovens as though the Germans had used them to kill people whereas
those ovens had served to incinerate corpses, cremation being a more
healthful and modern method than burial, especially in places where
the risks of epidemics and contamination reigned. The Allies also
showed disinfection gas chambers as if they had served to kill
detainees whereas in reality they were used to disinfect clothing
and, thus, to protect the health of all. They exhibited cans of an
insecticide (Zyklon B) as if that product had been employed to
asphyxiate humans whereas it served to kill lice, carriers of typhus.
They showed piles of hair, shoes, eyeglasses or clothes as if those
objects had belonged to the "gassed" whereas it is well known that,
in all of blockaded Europe at war, with the ensuing scarcity and
shortages of nearly everything, the recovery for recycling of all
possible substances was carried out, including that of human hair,
which was used in the textile industry of the time; therefore it was
normal that, both inside and outside of the camps, numerous
storehouses or workshops should be found in which the authorities had
been trying to recycle all those objects and materials. In other
words, to sum up, what Germany, a modern nation, had undertaken in
order to save people's lives and ensure her survival in a context of
both war and a war economy, the Allies managed, by a clever
propaganda, to present as an enterprise of the physical extermination
of human beings. That propaganda knew how to exploit the old
superstitions according to which the doctor, chemist and scholar are
more or less hand in glove with the Devil.

As for Germany, completely flattened as she was, there was
no course open but to submit to the conquerors' will. At the
Nuremberg trial and in a hundred other such courtroom spectacles, she
was prevented from freely making a case in her defense and, without
any veritable evidence, without any veritable technical or scientific
investigation, her conquerors pronounced her guilty of incredible
outrages. She bowed before them, accused herself as well and, for
sixty years, her leaders and her elites have never ceased practicing
the self flagellation imposed on the great vanquished nation. Germany
has no other choice. Today, if ever a senior German official were to
come out and denounce the lie of the "Holocaust", the resulting
clamor of the Jews and the world media's indignation would take on
such proportions that a boycott of Germany would be decreed, German
equities would collapse in value and the country would head straight
towards massive unemployment and ruin.

The revisionists have amply demonstrated that there never
existed, nor could exist, a single order by Hitler to kill the Jews.
We have proof that, even during the war, German soldiers or officers
guilty of killing even just one Jewish man or woman could be brought
to court martial, sentenced to death and shot, a fact which of course
does not mean that, for example, caught in the heat of battle,
notably in the face of snipers and partisans, German troops, like all
other troops in the world, were not capable of committing excesses or
outrages towards civilians. There did not exist in National Socialist
Germany any order, directive, or instruction telling anyone to murder
Jews. Nor did there exist any measures for the monitoring of the
purported extermination project: no budget, no agency nor any
official in charge of carrying out such a policy. On January 20,
1942, at the gathering called "Wannsee Conference", fifteen German
officials vaguely discussed for a few hours a program of expulsion of
the Jews from the European domain and, provisionally, whilst awaiting
the war's end, of putting to forced labor those among them, men and
women, who were able to work. During the same meeting, there was
envisaged a Jewish "renewal" somewhere outside of Europe after the
war, with a "germinal cell" made up of the best elements, i.e. those
Jews who would have survived the deportation and forced labor. Before
the war, and still in the early stages thereof, the Germans had
seriously considered as a solution the settling of European Jews on
the island of Madagascar. In doing so they were taking up an idea
that had been studied in 1937 by the Polish, French and British
authorities, and even by the American Jewish Joint Distribution
Committee, but, with the intensification of the conflict, they had to
abandon that idea. As for the settling of European Jews in Palestine,
they had ended up firmly opposing it. As late as in January 1944,
during talks with the British, the German foreign office stated that,
if the British would in fact agree to take in a convoy of 5,000 Jews
comprised of children (85%) and accompanying adults (15%), it could
only be on condition of accepting them definitively and of
prohibiting their subsequent emigration to Palestine:

The Government of the Reich cannot take part in a maneuver aimed at
allowing the Jews to chase the noble and valiant Palestinian people
from their mother country, Palestine. These talks can continue only
on condition that the British Government declare its readiness to
accommodate the Jews in Great Britain and not in Palestine, and that
it guarantee them the possibility to settle there definitively
(reminder from von Thadden, of the German foreign office's Gruppe
Inland II, Berlin, 29 April, 1944; document catalogued by the Allies
under the number NG-1794 and reproduced in French by Henri Monneray,
former assistant in the French delegation's office of prosecution at
the Nuremberg trial, in his work La Persécution des juifs dans les
Pays de l'Est, assemblage of documents, Paris, Editions du Centre
[i.e., the Centre de documentation juive contemporaine], 1949, p.

On January 18, 1945 Heinrich Himmler wrote in a personal note
made after a meeting with Swiss president Jean-Marie Lusy, who served
as intermediary with the Americans:

Once again I more precisely stated to him my view [on the Jews]. We
put our Jews to work, including, of course, in heavy labor, such as
road and canal construction, in mining operations, and as a result
there has been a high death rate. Since negotiations began about
improving the lot of the Jews, they have been assigned to normal
work, although naturally they have to work, just like Germans, in the
armaments industry. Our point of view on the Jewish question is this:
we are not at all interested in the position taken by America and
England regarding the Jews. One thing is clear: based on our decades
of experience with them since the [first] world war, we do not want
them in Germany or in the German living space, and in this matter we
will not allow any discussion. If America wants them, we welcome
that. It is not to be permitted - and for this a guarantee must be
given - that the Jews whom we let out by way of Switzerland ever be
transferred to Palestine. We know that the Arabs reject the Jews just
as much as we Germans do and we will not permit the indecency
[Unanständigkeit] of sending still more Jews to that poor nation
already tormented by the Jews (original document, with Himmler's
hand-written annotations, as reproduced by Werner Maser, Nürnberg,
Tribunal der Sieger, Droemer Knaur, Munich-Zurich, 1979, p. 262-263).

In their common war against, on the one hand, the British
and, on the other hand, Soviet communism, Adolf Hitler and the Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin Al Husseini, were allies. SS
formations, such as the "Handschar" (scimitar) and "Skanderbeg" (the
Albanian national hero) divisions, were either largely or wholly made
up of Moslems and in various spots in Europe, beginning with France,
Arabs had rallied to the German cause. In Iraq, Rashid Ali and, in
India, Subhas Chandra Bose, founder of the Indian National Army, had
also taken sides with Germany and against Britain.

Today, the Jewish and Zionist propaganda seeks to sully the
names of those men as it sullies the rest of the world. It accuses
the Allies of having remained indifferent to the calamitous fate of
the Jews. It rebukes the neutrals for not having participated in the
crusade against Germany. It accuses the Vatican. It accuses the
International Committee of the Red Cross. It accuses the Jews who,
during the war, belonged to the "Jewish Councils" maintaining
relations with the Germans. It accuses the Zionists of the Stern
Group who, in 1941, offered Germany a military alliance against
Britain. It rebukes all those Zionists who had settled in Palestine,
along with their press, for having, during the war, received with
skepticism the rumors circulating about the massacres of Jews at Babi
Yar or elsewhere and about the gas chambers. It accuses the entire
world, or just about.

It is high time that an end were put to this flood of
accusations, which stems from the myth of the "Holocaust". Since the
1980s, important historians or other authors, some of whom of Jewish
origin, have ended up realizing the solidness of the revisionist
argumentation and, consequently, relinquishing entire sections of
their belief in the "Holocaust" doctrine with its fake "gas
and its alleged "six million victims". In parallel manner, senior
representatives of Zionism have little by little found themselves
compelled to relinquish entire sections of their belief in the
"Greater Israel" utopia. These two beliefs, these two myths, which
amount to one and the same, will finish in the rubbish bins of

Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have put
themselves at the forefront in the struggle against that double myth.
It is not only Palestine and the Arabo-Moslem community that should
be grateful to them but, as may be seen, the entire world, or just
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:25 am
Location: Finland

Postby Vilho » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:59 am)

Pretty good text. That quote from Heinrich Himmler was very interesting, I had never heard of that earlier. Is there a picture of that letter?

Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests