Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998) BY ROBERT FAURISSON Chapter 18: THE JEWISH ORGANISATIONS PATENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS PROPAGANDA

From its origins in 1941 up to today, the propaganda which has evolved around the genocide and the gas chambers has essentially been the product of Jewish organisations. Consequently the general public have, little by little, acquired the conviction that there existed during the war a programme of physical extermination carried out by the Germans, targeting, above all, the Jews and that the gas chambers were in some way reserved for them (including those of the Sonderkommando whose supposed job was to lead their fellow Jews to the slaughter). Nowadays, the countless Holocaust museums constitute a Jewish monopoly and a Hebrew word, Shoah (catastrophe), has more and more frequently come to designate this purported genocide. Whatever their part in the making of the myth and in its success, the Allies have played but a supporting role, and always under various Jewish organisations pressure. Nonetheless, the Soviet case may have been different: Moscows fabrication of an Auschwitz in which the fate of the Jews was not particularly emphasised may have been born of the need for a propaganda to be directed less towards the populations behind the Iron Curtain than towards Western progressives.

And the mere fact that today there are Jewish voices being raised to ask that there be less talk of the gas chambers has not induced Jewish community leaders to tone down the Holocaust or Shoah propaganda. Put simply, from the standpoint of Jewish historians these incredible gas chambers have become somewhat burdensome for them in their propagation of the faith in the Shoah.

A French political personality has said that the Nazi gas chambers are a detail of second world war history. Yet, in their respective writings on that war, Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle apparently deemed those chemical slaughterhouses to be even less than a detail, since they did not breathe a word of them. A similar discretion can be noted on the part of the historian René Rémond, who was a prominent member first of the French Comité d'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale (Committee on the History of the Second World War), then of the Institut d'histoire du temps présent (Institute of the History of Present Times): in two of his works where one might expect to read the words gas chambers, one can in fact find no such thing. The American historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen speaks of those chambers as an epiphenomenon. In the 84,000-word French version of the Nuremberg judgement, only 520 extremely vague words are devoted to them, a portion amounting to 0.62% of the text.

For a revisionist, the gas chambers are less than a detail because they quite simply never existed, but the gas chamber myth is much more than a detail: it is the cornerstone of a huge structure of beliefs of all sorts which the law forbids us to question.

Gas chambers or not, what does it matter? This question may at times be heard, tinged with scepticism. It bothers Pierre Vidal-Naquet, for whom the abandonment of the gas chambers would be a surrender in open country(52). One can only agree with him. In effect, on the matter of the gas chambers existence or non-existence hinges the question of whether the Germans are to be presented as arrant criminals, or instead, the Jews as arrant liars (or confidence men). In the former case, the Germans will have, in the space of three or four years, killed industrial proportions of poor unarmed victims by industrial means whereas, in the latter, the Jews, for more than half a century, will have peddled a lie of historic dimensions.

In 1976 the American Arthur Robert Butz, published his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century; I for my part published in Le Monde of 29 December 1978 and 16 January 1979 two texts on the rumour of Auschwitz and, at the very start of that same year of 1979, Wilhelm Stäglich published Der Auschwitz Mythos. Voicing the grave Jewish worries in the face of the emergence of revisionist writings, the Zionist W.D.Rubinstein, professor at Deakin University in Melbourne, wrote at the time:

[] were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israels propaganda armoury disappears [sic](53).

Repeating himself some time later, he declared:

[] the fact that if the Holocaust can be shown to be a Zionist myth, the strongest of all weapons in Israels propaganda armoury collapses(54).

Eight years afterwards, as if to echo those statements, a barrister for the LICRA (Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme) wrote:

If [it is true that] the gas chambers existed, then Nazi barbarity has no equal. If not, the Jews will have lied and antisemitism will thus be justified. Those are the stakes in the debate(55).

In E. Zündels phrase, the Holocaust is Israels sword and shield.

The stakes are thus not merely historical but also political. And the political stakes present a paradox: the Holocaust myth serves, in the first place, to condemn German National Socialism, and then all forms of nationalism or of national idea except the Israeli and Zionist variety which the myth, on the contrary, reinforces.

The stakes are just as much financial, as one may realize when considering that, at least since the reparations agreement signed at Luxembourg in 1952, German taxpayers have paid astronomical sums (as Nahum Goldmann put it) to the whole Jewish population of the state of Israel and to the Diaspora, and that they are to continue to pay for the crimes of the Shoah imputed to them until at least the year 2030. The Shoah Business, denounced even by a Pierre Vidal-Naquet, is indissociable from the Shoah.

Today, the bluff of the Shoah legitimises a world-wide racket. In the first place, a growing number of either rich or poor countries, including France, find themselves facing claims made by billionaire Edgar Bronfmanns World Jewish Congress and by vastly wealthy American Jewish organisations for new reimbursements or new reparations in the form of mountains of gold and money. The countries of Europe, starting with Switzerland, are not the only ones targeted. For the moment a well-established mafia is operating in four main directions (there are sure to be others in future): the Nazi gold, the Jewish assets, the Jewish art collections, and the insurance policies taken out by Jews. The chief targets are states themselves, banks, museums, auction houses, and insurance firms. The legislature of the American state of New Jersey, under pressure from Jewish organisations, has already taken measures to impose a boycott of Swiss banking institutions. This is but the beginning. The only real argument brought to bear by the blackmailers can be put in one word: Shoah . Not one government, not one bank, not one insurance company dare retort that the matter at hand is one of myth and that there is no question of its paying for a crime which was not committed. The Swiss, also under pressure from Jewish organisations, were at first so naive as to think that it would be enough to pass a law forbidding any questioning of the Shoah; but no sooner had they enacted their new legislation than E.Bronfmann showed them his bill. They then offered considerable amounts: a wasted effort. E.Bronfmann, angry, let it be known that it would take infinitely more to satisfy him. My experience with the Swiss, he remarked, is that unless you hold their feet very close to the fire, they dont take you seriously(56).

As for the moral wrong done to Germany in particular and to non-Jews in general by the propagation of the Holocaust faith, it is incalculable. The Jewish organisations incessantly repeat their accusations against a Germany supposedly guilty of a genocide of the Jews, and against Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Stalin, Pope PiusXII, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the neutral countries, and still other countries, all guilty, apparently, of having let Germany commit that genocide and, consequently, themselves also liable for financial reparations.