FOUNDATIONS OF
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

SUMMARY: An eye-witness testimony must always be verified. There aretwo essential means of substantiating such testimony in criminal cases:confronting the account with the material elements (in particular, with expertiseas to the crime weapon), and the detailed cross-examination of the witnesson what he purports to have seen. Thus, in the proceedings where it had beena question of the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz, no judge nor any attorneywas able to claim any kind of expertise regarding the weapon of the crime;moreover, no lawyer ever cross-examined the witnesses by asking them to describewith precision even one of these chemical slaughter-houses. That is, up until1985. When witnesses that year were finally cross-examined on these subjectsduring the first Zündel trial in Toronto, their rout was total. Becauseof this resounding set-back and by reason of other calamities previous toor following 1985, the defenders of the thesis of Jewish extermination havebegun to abandon a history of Auschwitz primarily founded on testimoniesand are obliging themselves, at the present time, to replace it with a scientificbasis, or, at least, one which appears scientific, founded on factual researchand proofs. The "testimonial history" of Auschwitz in the manner of ElieWiesel and Claude Lanzmann is discredited. Its time has passed. It remainsfor the exterminationists to attempt to work like the revisionists on thefacts and the evidence.

In the present study, "gas chambers" is intended to mean "homicidal gaschambers," or "Nazi gas chambers." By "Auschwitz," it is necessary to understandthis as Auschwitz I or Auschwitz Stammlager, as well as Auschwitz II or Birkenau.Finally, by "gas chamber witnesses," I am indiscriminately designating thosewho claim to have participated in a homicidal gassing operation at theselocations and those who are content to say they either saw or perceived ahomicidal gas chamber there. In sum, by "witnesses," I mean those whom oneusually designates as such, whether it is a matter of judicial witnessesor media witnesses; the first have expressed themselves under oath in thedocket of a legal proceeding, while the second have given testimony in books,magazine articles, films, on television or the radio. It so happens certainwitnesses have alternately been of both the judicial and media types.

This study is devoid of any psychological or sociological consideration forthe Auschwitz gas chamber testimonies, as well as any consideration alongthe lines of what is physical, chemical, topographical, architectural,documentary, and historical by which these testimonies are unacceptable.It aims above all to make evident a point which the revisionists have sofar not mentioned but which is nonetheless of prime importance: up until1985, no judicial witness of these gas chambers had been cross-examined onthe material nature of the facts reported; when, in Toronto, at the firstZündel trial in 1985, I was able to cause such witnesses to becross-examined, they collapsed; since this date, there are no longer anygas chamber witnesses presented in court except perhaps at the trial of Demjanjukin Israel where, there again, the witnesses revealed themselves as false.

To begin, I will digress upon the grievous causes by which, since 1983, SimonVeil1 was led to recognize that there existed no witnesses of the gas chambers.

1. The Thesis of Simone Veil

After the end of the war, the illusion that there were innumerable witnessesto the Auschwitz gas chambers was gradually accepted. By the end of the 1970s,with the arrival of historical revisionism into the media arena, particularlyin France, it began to occur to certain individuals that these witnesseswere perhaps not as numerous as one had believed. It is thus that, duringthe preparations for a major trial which Jewish organizations had intendedagainst me during the early 1980s, their lawyers and in particular, RobertBadinter, the future Minister of Justice, experienced severe difficultiesuncovering evidence and witnesses. With staff in hand in the manner of thepilgrim, they were obliged to go to Poland and to Israel so as to bring back,if possible, that which they could not find in France. All for naught. Myfirst trial took place in 1981, followed by the appeal in 1983. Not one singlewitness took the risk of appearing in court. On April 26, 1983 the ParisCourt of Appeal rendered its verdict. Naturally, I was found guilty, as onemight have expected, for "harm to others," which is in fact to say for harmcaused to Jews for the exposition of my theses in the mainstream press. Yetthe court coupled this verdict with remarks sufficient to cause my adversariesa fair degree of consternation. My work was judged to be substantial andyet dangerous. It was dangerous because, in the opinion of the judges, itappeared I allowed other persons the possibility of exploiting my discoveriesfor reprehensible ends! All the while, this same work was substantial inthe sense that, in the opinion of the court, one could uncover neithernegligence, frivolousness, willful ignorance, nor lies - and this contraryto what had been affirmed by the adversarial party which had accused me of"causing harm to others by falsification of history." (sic)

On the subject of testimonies, the court went so far as to pronounce:

"The researches of Mr. Faurisson have dealt with the existence of the gas chambers which, to believe multiple testimonies, would have been used during the Second World War to systematically put to death a portion of those persons deported by the German authorities." [my italics]

The court perfectly summarized what it called my "logical thread" and my"reasoning" by specifying that, for me, the existence of the gas chambers,such as usually described since 1945, conflict with an absolute impossibility,which suffices by itself to invalidate all the existing testimonies or, atthe least, to stamp them with suspicion [my italics].

Finally, the court, drawing a practical conclusion from these considerations,decreed the right of every Frenchman not to believe in the evidence and witnessesof the gas chambers. It stated:

"The value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson [as to the problem of the gas chambers] rests therefore upon the sole appreciation of the experts, the historians and the public."

Two weeks later, Simon Veil publicly reacted to this judicial decision -upsetting for her and her co-religionists - with a declaration of extremeimportance. She admitted the absence of proofs, of traces and even witnessesof the gas chambers, but added this absence was easily explained because:

"Everyone knows [she asserts] that the Nazis destroyed these gas chambers and systematically eradicated all the witnesses."

To begin with, "everyone knows" is not an argument worthy of a jurist.Furthermore, S. Veil, believing perhaps to be getting out from behind theeight-ball, made her case only worse; in effect, in order to uphold whatshe was claiming, it would have been necessary for her to prove not onlythat the gas chambers had existed but that the Nazis had destroyed them andthat they liquidated all the witnesses: a vast criminal undertaking aboutwhich one wonders on what order, when, with whom and by what means the Germanswould have carried it out in greatest secrecy.

But what does it matter? We shall take note of this concession by S. Veil:there is neither proof, nor traces, nor witnesses to the gas chambers. Itso happens that, in trying to reassure her circle, S. Veil clothed thissurprising concession with conventional parlance. Here is, therefore, inher own words, what she confided in an "interview-event" for France-SoirMagazine (May 7, 1983, p. 47), of which the title was: "Simone Veil'swarning in regard to Hitler's diaries: `We risk banalizing genocide'":

What strikes me nowadays is the paradox of the situation: someone publishes a diary attributed to Hitler by sheer dint of publicity and a great deal of money without, it seems, taking very great precautions to assure himself of its authenticity, yet, at the same time, in the course of a trial brought against Faurisson for having denied the existence of the gas chambers, those lodging the complaint are obliged to apply a formal proof about the reality of the gas chambers. Yet everyone knows that the Nazis destroyed these gas chambers and systematically eradicated all the witnesses.

A choice so full of consequences as that of S. Veil is not to be explainedsolely by the disaster of April 26, 1983 but by an entire series of eventswhich, for her, made 1982 a dark year in terms of the history of the gaschambers and the credibility of witnesses. I will recall here but three ofthese events:

1) On April 21, 1982, historians, politicians and former deportees foundedan association in Paris having as its objective the research of evidencefor the existence and operation of the gas chambers (ASSAG: Association pourl'étude des assassinats par gaz sous le régime national-socialiste;Association for the study of killings by gas under the national-socialistregime); one year later, this association had still not discovered any proof[this is still the case today in 1993, since, envisioned according to itsown statutes for a "duration limited to the realization of its objective,"this association has not disbanded];

2) In May, 1982, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched a noteworthy"Deportation Exposition, 1933-1945" in Paris; this exposition was supposedto continue by touring throughout France; I immediately sent out a text inwhich I demonstrated the fallacious character of this exposition: no evidence- except fraudulent evidence - nor any precise testimony for the existenceof Nazi gas chambers was able to be shown to visitors; additionally, Ms.Jacobs, the person responsible for this initiative by the Ministry, tookit upon herself to immediately cancel this would-be vagabond exposition;

3) From June 29 to July 2, 1982 an international symposium was held at theSorbonne on "Nazi Germany and the extermination of the Jews"; this colloquiumhad been announced as a decisive reply to the revisionist offensive in France;it was supposed to have concluded with a resounding press conference; inreality, it was totally different: the first day of the proceedings, wedistributed in the Sorbonne's entrance hall recent copies of my Responseto Pierre Vidal- Naquet (not without risk to ourselves); the colloquiumwas carried out behind closed doors and in a turbulent atmosphere; finally,during the press conference, the two colloquium organizers, historiansFrançois Furet and Raymond Aron, weren't even mentioning the words"gas chamber(s)."

I often say it's on this date of July 2, 1982 that the myth of the Nazi gaschambers and their associated witnesses died or entered their final deaththrows, at least on the level of historical research. At the very heart ofthe Sorbonne, one had thus disconcertingly discovered the absence of anysolid proof and any witness worthy of trust. Notwithstanding, one had previouslytrumpeted that this colloquium would put an end to "the ineptitude of Faurisson"by bringing forth a mass of evidence and testimonies. Such a silence afterall that fanfare was truly eloquent.

2. The Written Testimony of Fajnzylberg-Janowski

I said earlier that at my trial not a single witness took the risk of appearingbefore the court. At the last minute, my accusers had nonetheless providedthe written testimony of a Jew who was living in Paris but whom one intentionallykept from appearing in the dock. This Jew was the famous Alter Szmul Fajnzylberg,born in Stockek, Poland, October 23, 1911. This former Polish waiter, anatheistic Jew and Communist political delegate for the international brigadesserving in Spain, had been imprisoned during a period of three years atAuschwitz-Birkenau.

In his brief written testimony, he essentially stated that, working in theAuschwitz crematory (the Altes Krematorium, or Krematorium I), he had spenta good deal of his time locked up with his comrades in the coke-room, for,on each occasion that the SS gassed Jews in the adjoining room, they tookthe precaution of sequestering the Sonderkommando in the coke-room so thatno Jew might visibly confirm the gassing operation! Once the gassing operationwas completed, the Germans freed the Sonderkommando members and made themcollect and incinerate the victims. Thus, the Germans would have dissimulatedthe crime and yet revealed its results!

This unseeing witness is equally known by the names Alter Feinsilber, StanislawJankowski or Kaskowiak. One can read his testimony in another form in theAuschwitz Diaries.2

3. The Unravelling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)

The important victory won by Revisionism in France on April 26, 1983 wouldgo on to confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in Toronto.I would like to dwell a moment on this trial in order to underscore the impacton everyone's point of view, and especially as far as the testimonies onthe Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the first time since the war,Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular cross-examination. Moreover,without wanting to minimize the importance of the second Zündel trial(that of 1988), I should like it to be understood that the 1985 trial alreadycontained the seeds for all that was attained in the 1988 trial, includingthe report by Leuchter and all the scientific reports which, in the aftermath,would proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter Report.

In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst Zündeland his lawyer, Douglas Christie. In 1985, I accepted this heavy responsibilityonly under condition that all the Jewish witnesses would, for the first time,be cross-examined on the material nature of the reported facts, bluntly andwithout discretion. I had noted, in effect, that from 1945 to 1985, Jewishwitnesses had been granted virtual immunity. Never had any defense lawyerthought or dared to ask them for material explanations about the gas chambers(exact location, physical appearance, dimensions, internal and externalstructure), or about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure frombeginning to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the executionersbefore, during and after execution). On rare occasions, as at the trial ofTesch, Drosihn and Weinbacher3, lawyers formulated some unusual questionsof a material nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these alwaysfound themselves on the fringes of the more fundamental questions which shouldhave been asked. No lawyer ever demanded clarifications on a weapon which,indeed, he had never seen and that no one had ever shown him. At the majorNuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had manifested total discretionon this point. At the proceedings against Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961,the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not wanted to raise the question; ina letter on this subject dated June 21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hatselbst keine Gaskammer gesehen; die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hatsich aber auch nicht gegen deren Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself hadnot seen any gas chamber; the question was not discussed; but neither didhe raise the issue of their existence]. At the Frankfurt Trial of 1963-65,the lawyers showed themselves to be particularly timid; I should mentionthat the atmosphere was rather inhospitable for the defense and the accused.This show trial will remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as onthe person of Hans Hofmeyer, initially Landgerichtsdirektor, thenSenatspräsident. During more than 180 sessions, the judges and juries,the public prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their attorneys,as well as the journalists who had come from around the world, accepted asa complete physical representation of the "crime weapon" a mere map of thecamp of Auschwitz and a map of the camp of Birkenau, whereupon five minusculegeometric figures were inscribed for the location of each of the allegedhomicidal gas chambers, with the words, for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium,"and for Birkenau: "Krematorium II," "Krematorium III," "Krematorium IV,"and "Krematorium V"! These maps4 were displayed in the courtroom. TheRevisionists have often compared the Frankfort trial with the 1450-1650 trialsagainst witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during those trials, someone sometimesbothered to describe or depict the witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial,even among the lawyers who made difficulties for a witness like FilipMüller, not one asked of a Jewish witness or a repentant German defendantto describe for him in greater detail what he purported to have seen. Despitetwo judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied bysome German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any technicalexplanations or criminological expertise regarding the murder weapon. Tothe contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacencyto the point of having himself photographed by the press while raising thechute cover by which the SS supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into thealleged Auschwitz gas chamber.

And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these anomalies,to break the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have Douglas Christiepose, questions to the experts and Jewish witnesses as one normally posesin every trial where one is supposed to establish whether a crime has beencommitted and, if so, by whom, how and when. Fortunately for me, ErnstZündel accepted my conditions and Douglas Chritie consented to adoptthis course of action and to pose to the experts and witnesses the questionsthat I would prepare for him. I was convinced that, in this manner, all mightchange, and the veil woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away.While I was not counting on Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were allresigned to paying the price for our audacity, I nevertheless had hope thatwith the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks to his intrepidlawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into legend.

From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic began tocreep its way amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every evening and throughoutmost of the night, I would prepare the questions to ask. In the morning,I would turn over these questions, accompanied by the necessary documents,to lawyer Doug Christie who, for his part and with the aid of his femalecollaborator, conducted the essentially legal aspects of the effort. Duringthe cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's podiumand unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary andimprovisational questions according to the experts' and witnesses' responses.

The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of TheDestruction of European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to suchhumiliation that, when solicited in 1988 by a new prosecutor for a new trialagainst Ernst Zündel, he refused to return to give witness; he explainedthe motive for his refusal in a confidential letter wherein he acknowledgedhis fear of having to once again confront the questions of Douglas Christie.From the cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively broughtout that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order,a plan, an instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical exterminationof the Jews; furthermore, no one possessed either an expertise of the murderweapon (whether gas chamber or gas van), or an autopsy report establishingthe murder of a detainee by poison gas. However, in the absence of evidenceregarding the weapon and victim, did there exist witnesses of the crime?

A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of proceedingto this verification is to confront the assertions of the witness with theresults of investigations or expert opinion regarding the material natureof the crime. In the case at hand, there were neither investigations, norexpertise relative to the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what madeany cross-examination difficult. Yet, this difficulty should not serve asan excuse, and one might even say that a cross-examination becomes ever moreindispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of knowingwhether the witness is telling the truth or not.

4. Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-examined:
A. Friedman and Dr. R. Vrba

For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by whichwe were nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the two principalJewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I can do no betterthan to recommend a reading of the trial transcript: Queen versusZündel, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, January 7, 1985. Pages 304-371cover the questioning and cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latterbreaks down on pages 445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in factsaw nothing, that he had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, hehad met persons who were convincing; perhaps, he added, he would have adoptedthe position of Mr. Christie rather than that of these other persons if onlyMr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was telling himnow!

Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say aboutthis trial in Toronto that the prosecution had found the means of recruiting"Holocaust" expert number one in the person of Dr. Raul Hilberg, and witnessnumber one in the person of Dr. Rudolf Vrba. The testimony of this lattergentleman had been one of the principal sources of the famous War RefugeeBoard Report on the German Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and Birkenau,published in November 1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt.Dr. R. Vrba was also the author of I Cannot Forgive (BantamBooks, New York, 1964), written in collaboration with Alan Bestic who, inhis preface declares with regard to him: "Indeed I would like to pay tributeto him for the immense trouble he took over every detail; for the meticulous,almost fanatical respect he revealed for accuracy" (p.2).

Never perhaps had a court of justice seen a witness express himself withmore assurance on the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of thecross-examination, the situation had reversed itself to the point where Dr.R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his errors and his lies: inhis book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic license" or, as he waswont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!

In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who hadhimself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet now apparentlyexasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following question:

You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you used poetic license in your testimony? (p. 1636).

The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit himwith a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning the numberof gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness responded with garrulousnonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask him a third and final questionwhen suddenly, the matter was cut short and one heard the prosecutor sayto the judge: "I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).

Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial questioning,cross-examination and final questioning filled 400 pages of transcripts (pp.1244-1643). These pages could readily be used in an encyclopedia of law undera chapter on the detection of false witnesses.

5. The Prosecution Gives Up On Calling Witnesses

Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst Zündel,the public prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any recourse to witnesses.Canadian justice had apparently understood the lesson of the first trial:there were no credible witnesses to the existence and operation of the Nazigas chambers.

Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this samelesson. At the trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there was talk aboutthe gas chambers of Auschwitz but no one produced any witnesses who couldproperly speak about them. The attorney Jacques Vergès, courageousyet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the subject. This was a stroke of luckfor the Jewish lawyers who feared nothing so much as to see me appearingat the side of Mr. Vergès. If this gentleman had accepted my offerto counsel him, we in France might have been able to strike a tremendousblow against the myth of the gas chambers.

All the while in France, during several Revisionist trials, Jewish witnessessometimes came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them testified beforethe court as to having seen one or having participated in a homicidal gassing.

Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce and theDemjanjuk trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how much false testimonyis involved in the matter, has contributed to the suppression. Several yearsago, it happened that I was aggressively questioned at the rear of a lawcourt by elderly Jews who presented themselves as "living witnesses to thegas chambers of Auschwitz," showing me their tatoos. It was necessary forme only to ask them to look me in the eyes and to describe for me a gas chamberthat inevitably they retorted: "How could I do this? If I had seen a gaschamber with my own eyes I would not be here today to speak with you; I myselfwould have been gassed also." This brings us back, as one can see, to SimoneVeil and her declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know whatwe should think.

6. The Media Witnesses

Aside from the judicial witnesses, there are media witnesses to the gas chambers,or homicidal gassing, at Auschwitz or Birkenau. Here one thinks of the namesof Olga Lengyel, Gisela Perl, Fania Fénelon, Ota Kraus, Erich Kulka,Hermann Langbein, André Lettich, Samuel Pisar, Maurice Benroubi,André Rogerie, Robert Clary,... My library is full of these accountswhich duplicate themselves over and over. Paul Rassinier was the first toshow us in what manner the falsehood of these testimonies might be demonstrated;he did this notably for Auschwitz in Le Véritable ProcèsEichmann ou les Vainqueurs incorrigibles (The True Eichmann Trialor, the Incorrigible Victors, Les Sept Couleurs, 1962), where Appendix Vis devoted to Médecin à Auschwitz (Doctor atAuschwitz) regarding Miklos Nyiszli.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, the Revisionists found merit in undertakingstudies critical of testimonies. Nowadays, it seems to me this exercise hasbecome superfluous. Let us abstain from chasing after ambulances and insteadleave the care of criticizing this sub-literature to the Exterminationiststhemselves, and in particular Jean-Claude Pressac, because - so far as onecan determine at present - the most virulent anti-Revisionists end by puttingthemselves into the school of the Revisionists. The result is sometimes rifewith pungency. In October 1991, the periodical Le Déportépour la liberté (Deportee for Liberty), an organ of l'Unionnationale des associations de déportés, internés etfamilles de disparus (UNADIF; National Union of Associations of Deportees,Prisoners and Families of the Missing), announced on its cover-page: "Inthe inner pages of this issue, part one of the testimony of Henry Bily, oneof the rare escapees from a Sonderkommando." In his follow-up of November1991, Mr. Bily continued the account of his Auschwitz experience under thetitle of "Mon histoire extraordinaire" (My Amazing Story).

However, in the following instalment of Déporté pourla liberté, that of December 1991-January 1992, there appeareda "Clarification regarding insertion of the text of Henry Bily in our columns."The review's director and editor uncovered the falsehood: in the major portionof his testimony, Mr. Bily had proceeded to:

copy word for word without any citation of references, from passages (notably chapters 7 and 28) of the book by Dr. Myklos Nyiszli: Médecin à Auschwitz, written in 1946 and translated and published in 1961 by René Julliard publishing house. Unfortunately, the original errors committed by Dr. Nyiszli have also been repeated; finally, the most extensive borrowing has to do with the description of the Sonderkommando functions at Auschwitz-Birkenau, in which Henry Bily declares [deceivingly] to have worked... The result of this analysis is that it is in no way possible to consider Henry Bily's text as an original and personal testimony.

To an attentive reader of this declaration, the sentence "Unfortunately,the original errors committed by Dr. Nyiszli have also been resumed" mightallow one to perceive that, worst of all, Mr. Bily, a petty Jewish tradesman,had recopied a testimony which itself had already been false. As I have recentlymentioned, Paul Rassinier had long ago proved that Médecin àAuschwitz, a work dear to Jean-Paul Sartre who in 1951 published partsof it in Les Temps modernes, could only be one of the greatestimpostures. Many Revisionists, and in particular Carlo Mattogno, have sinceconfirmed this assessment. As for me, in my report regarding Jean-ClaudePressac's book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers(Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989), I have inserted a sectionentitled: "Pressac's (involuntary) buffoonery in regard to M. Nyiszli." Irecommend the reading of this section to people interested in false testimonieson Auschwitz, false testimonies which pharmacist J.C. Pressac tries to defendat any price by way of convolutions, laborious inventions and flightyspeculations, thus unintentionally discrediting them once and for all (R.Faurisson, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989)or, Pottering and Sputtering at Auschwitz and Birkenau According to J.C.Pressac," Revue d'histoire révisionniste, November 1990, pp. 126-130).

7. False Witnesses Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi

A few words force themselves to our attention in regard to Elie Wiesel andPrimo Levi.

Regarding the former, I come back to my article "Un grand faux témoin:Elie Wiesel" [A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel] (Annales d'histoirerévisionniste, Spring 1988, pp. 163-168; see also "Un grand fauxtémoin: Elie Wiesel (suite)" [A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel(Continued)], Nouvelle Vision, September 1993, pp. 19-24). InNight (preface by François Mauriac, Les Editions de Minuit,1958), a biographical account particularly regarding his internment at Auschwitzand Buchenwald, Mr. Wiesel does not even mention the gas chambers but itappears, by way of a sort of universal media convention, that he is consideredas a witness par excellence on the "Holocaust" and the gas chambers. Accordingto him, if the Germans exterminated large numbers of Jews, it was by forcingthem either into raging fires or ovens! The conclusion of his testimony includesan extremely curious episode (pp. 129-133) over which I have been waitingyears for Elie Wiesel to furnish us an explanation: in January 1945 he tellsus, the Germans gave him and his father the choice between staying behindin the camp to await the arrival of the Soviets, or leaving with the Germans;after agreeing between them, the father and son decided to depart for Germanywith their executioners instead of staying in place to await their Sovietliberators...5

Curiously, for several years now, Primo Levi has been posthumously elevatedby the media to the rank of first importance among witnesses of the Auschwitzgas chambers. He is the author of Se questo è un uomo ("If This BeA Man," Julliard Press, pocket edition, 1993). The first part of the bookis the longest and the most important; it comprises 180 pages (pp. 7-186)and was edited in 1947; the author says, starting on page 19, that it wasafter the war he learned about the gassing of the Jews at Birkenau; he himselfwas working at Buna-Monowitz and had never set foot in Birkenau; also, heonly spoke in extremely vague terms and but six times about "the" gas chamber(pp. 19, 48, 51, 96, 135 and 138) and on one occasion about the gas chambers(page 159); he is satisfied to nearly always mention it in the singular andas a rumor about which "everyone is talking" (page 51). Suddenly, in his"Appendix" written in 1976, being some 30 years later, the gas chambers makea forceful entry: in the space of 26 pages (pp. 189-214), which, in viewof their more compact typography, can be considered as 30, the author mentionson 11 occasions (page 193, two times; page 198, three times; page 199, once;page 201, two times; pages 202, 209 and 210, once each); on two occasions,he speaks of "gas" and on nine occasions of "gas chambers" (always in theplural); he writes as if he had seen them: "The gas chambers were in effectcamouflaged as shower rooms with plumbing, faucets, dressing rooms, clotheshooks, benches, etc." (page 198). He does not fear to write additionally:"The gas chambers and the crematory ovens had been deliberately conceivedto destroy lives and human bodies by the millions; the horrible record forthis is credited to Auschwitz, with 24,000 deaths in a single day duringthe month of August 1944" (pp. 201-202).

Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi are not the only ones to have thus "enriched"their recollections.

Primo Levi was a chemical engineer. Regarding his crack-up or delirium froma scientific point of view in If This Be A Man, one should consult PierreMarais' En lisant de près les écrivains chantres de la Shoah- Primo Levi, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude Pressac ("A Close Reading of theSiren Writers of the Shoah - Primo Levi, Georges Wellers, Jean-Claude Pressac),La Vieille Taupe, 1991, 127 pages; see in particular "Le chimiste, la batteriede camion et... les chambres à gaz" ("The Chemist, the Truck Batteryand... the Gas Chambers"), the chapter which involves Primo Levi (pp. 7-21).The latter committed suicide on April 11, 1987. It was to his very natureof being a Jew that he owes not having been shot by the Fascist militia onDecember 13, 1943 at the age of 24. "The Fascists had captured him in therole of a partisan (he was still carrying a pistol), and he declared himselfa Jew in order not to be immediately shot. And it is in the role of a Jewthat he was delivered over to the Germans. The Germans sent him to Auschwitz..."(Ferdinando Camon, "Chimie/Levi, la mort" ("Chemistry/Levi, death"),Libération, April 13, 1987, page 29).

CONCLUSION

From 1945 to 1985, the presumed judicial witnesses of the Auschwitz gas chambershave benefitted from an extraordinary privilege: they have always been sparedthe ordeal of cross-examination regarding the material nature of the purportedfacts they related. In 1985, at the first of two Zündel trials in Toronto,attorney Douglas Christie was fully agreeable, based on my suggestion andoffer of assistance, to conduct the cross-examination according to standardprocedure for these type of witnesses. The result was the unmasking of witnessesArnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba. This reversal was so serious that todayone can no longer find witnesses willing to take the risk of swearing beforethe dock of a court of law that they saw a homicidal gassing, whether atAuschwitz or any other concentration camp within the Third Reich.

The would-be media witnesses continue to proliferate in the world of radio,television and books, where they hardly run the risk of being put into difficultyby embarrassing questions. Yet even these witnesses are becoming more andmore vague, making themselves liable to denunciation by representatives ofthe exterminationist thesis. These latter are in effect aligning themselvesmore and more with the Revisionist school because they realize that up untilnow they have stood by the lies of too many false witnesses, lies which endby costing their own cause too dearly.

As there are notoriously more and more risks now in presenting oneself asa witness of the gas chambers - as again did the Jew Filip Müller in1979 - the solution which nowadays tends to prevail is the one which, sinceMay 7, 1983, Simone Veil has had to adopt in the aftermath of the April 26decision by the Paris Court of Appeal, a decision which recognized that mywork on the problem of the gas chambers was serious insofar as I demonstratedthat the accepted testimonies flew in the face of strong physical-chemicalimpossibilities. The solution, or moreover, the evasion, advocated by Ms.Veil consisted in saying that, if there were in effect no proofs, no traces,and no witnesses of the crime, it was because the Germans had destroyed allthe evidence, all the traces, and all the witnesses. Such a statement, besidesbeing absurd, would in turn necessitate evidence which Ms. Veil has not provided.But this matters little. Let us take note of this statement and, like Ms.Veil and those who in practice seem to rally to her thesis, let us also putto good use the evidence long brought to light by the Revisionists: not onlydo there exist no proofs and no traces of Nazi gas chambers, but there areno witnesses for them either.

Today, at the close of 1993, the testimonies regarding the Auschwitz gaschambers are discredited, even among the Exterminationists. History as foundedupon these testimonies is beginning to give way to history founded eitheron facts or arguments of a scientific nature. It is this which I had advocatedin my article of December 29, 1978 in the Monde and in my letter to the Mondeof January 16, 1979. It was necessary to wait more than ten years to seeour adversaries venture into the arena where I had invited them to join usin being evaluated: the field of science. Jean-Claude Pressac had been appointed,notably by Mr. and Mrs. Klarsfeld, to denounce "testimonial history" andto replace it with a scientific basis or, at least, one with a scientificappearance.

Claude Lanzmann and the supporters of "testimonial history" are upset,6 tothe satisfaction, by the way, of the Revisionists. A half-century ofunsubstantiated testimonies must now be definitively succeeded by an inquiryfor facts and proofs along a judicial, scientific and historical basis.

Annex

THE TRANSLATION INTO GERMAN OF ELIE WIESEL'S MOST FAMOUS BOOK
(thanks to a discovery by Jürgen Graf and the help of Ms. A.W.)

CONCLUSION: The English translation (1960) of the French original(1958) is correct, whereas the German translation (1962) reads "gas" in 15instances where, in fact, there was no mention of "gas" in the French original.

* Ullstein, Thomas-Wimmer-Ring 11, D-80539 München; phone: (089) 23500 80; fax: (089) 235 00 844.

** "Vernichtungslager" means "camp with homicidal gas chambers."

1. S. Veil, former Minister of Justice, former President of the EuropeanParliament.

2. Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft (I), Handschriften von Mitgleidern desSonderkommandos, Verlag Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum, 1972, pp. 32-71.

3. On the cross-examination of the witness Dr. Charles Sigismund Bendel byattorney Dr. Zippel, see "Excerpt from transcript of proceedings of a MilitaryCourt for the Trial of War Criminals held at the War Crimes Court, Curiohaus,Hamburg, on Saturday 2nd March, 1946, upon the trial of Bruno Tesch, JoachimDrosihn and Karl Weinbacher," transcript, pp. 30-31 (doc. NI-11953). Regardingthis abominable trial, it is indispensable to read: Dr. William Lindsay,"Zyklon B, Auschwitz, and the Trial of Bruno Tesch," The Journal ofHistorical Review, Fall 1983, pp.261-303. This study has been reproducedin part by Udo Walendy in Historische Tatsachen, Nr. 25 (1985),pp. 10-23.

4. For a representation of these two maps, see Hermann Langbein, DerAuschwitz-Prozess, Eine Dokumentation, 2. Bänder, Frankfurt,Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1965, 1027 p., pp. 930-933. For an authoritativestudy of the trial, see Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Der Auschwitz-Prozess,Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme,Tübingen, Grabert Verlag, 1979, XII-492 S.

5. One point which cannot fail to be interesting is that in the Germantranslation of this book (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elisha, withGerman translation by Curt Meyer-Clason, Ullstein, 1962, pp. 17-153), thecrematory ovens of the original French version are done away with to be replacedby gas chambers (which also applies to Buchenwald). I owe this discoveryto the Swiss Revisionist Jürgen Graf and I am indebted to A.W., a GermanRevisionist living in France, for a list of 15 instances where the Germantranslator thought it good to use the word "gas" where it was not used inthe original text (see Annex). In December 1986, I made my way to Oslo toattend the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Elie Wiesel. Assisted byfriends, I distributed a tract previously titled "Elie Wiesel, A ProminentFalse Witness." Some months later, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, one of mymost implacable adversaries, denounced Mr. Wiesel as a man "who talks anyrubbish that comes into his head... It suffices to read certain of hisdescriptions in Night to know that certain of his accounts are not exactand that he ends by transforming himself into a Shoah peddler. He commitsan injustice, an immense injustice to historical truth" (Interview by MichelFolco, Zéro, April 1987, page 57).

6. See notably the article by Robert Redeker which he published in his reviewLes Temps Modernes, under the title: "La Catastrophe durévisionnisme" ("The Revisionist Catastrophe," November 1993, pp.1-6); here, Revisionism is presented as a catastrophic sign of a changingtime: "Auschwitz" was - and for the author, still is - a "mystique," whichis to say a belief enveloped by religious reverence; yet, he says in a deploringtone that "Auschwitz" is becoming the subject of historical and technologicalconsiderations. This article was in printing when there appeared inL'Express a substantial write-up on the new book by Jean-ClaudePressac (September 23, 1993, pp. 76-80, 82-87). Claude Lanzmann virulentlyprotested against this turn of events taken by "Holocaust" history. He wrote:"Even if it is in order to refute them, we thus legitimize the argumentsof the Revisionists, which become the only criterion by which every text and every author is now judged. The Revisionists occupy the entire playing field" (Le Nouvel Observateur, September 30, 1993, page 97).

This work was translated from the original French by Daniel D. Desjardins