Sunday, June 23, 2002

Punishment of Germans, by Third Reich authorities, for mistreatment of Jews (1939-1945)

(Notes for Institute of Historical Review conference talk)

This talk will not make mention of excesses committed against nationalities other than the Jews, nor will it deal with excesses committed against groups that merely included some Jews. Instead, my talk will contain information concerning only excesses committed by Germans solely against Jews.  In addition, I shall also limit my subject to those excesses committed during the Second World War. I do this because when Germany is accused of having had a programme of physical extermination directed towards the Jews, her accusers state that this program reached its climax during the war.
Therefore, I shall bring up example after example of Germans being punished – and some even put to death – for harming Jews during the war. In principle, were I to put forth proof that the German authorities issued death sentences against Germans who killed Jews, this should amount to proof that there could not have been an official order to kill the Jews.
In fact, however, this does not necessarily constitute proof by itself.  Why?  I shall give the answer in my conclusion.  At that point I shall also address the critical question of why this area of study has not been approached seriously by any revisionists to date.  Indeed, the silence with which the subject has been met up to now, by official Holocaust historians and revisionists alike, is astonishing. 
Finally, as the topic I am addressing is rather new, my speech today is not intended to offer conclusive answers to the questions I have just raised, but rather to encourage the launch of research on something that has been ignored for far too long.

 Paget, Zayas, Faurisson
1951 –
R. T. Paget:  Manstein, His Campaigns, and His Trial, London, Collins, 1951
p. 129… “stringent orders for the court martial and punishment of German soldiers and SS men who had committed offences against the civilian population or against prisoners.”
p. 130… “even Reichenau, the only leading soldier in Poland who can be described as a Nazi, was proved to have taken strong disciplinary action against men who had committed offences against Jews.”
p. 140… “Manstein exercised his discretion by taking the severest action against any soldier who committed an offence against a civilian, and … several soldiers were executed for rape and looting.”

1989 [1979] –
Alfred M. de Zayas: The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Rockport, Maine (US), Picton Press, 2000
p. 19… “when [in 1944] two German soldiers, together with French criminals, intimidated French Jews in Nice and forced them to hand over money and jewels, the German court martial sentenced one of them to death and the other to twelve years imprisonment.  The judgment, dated 11 April 1944, declared: ‘the fact that the violence in question was directed against Jews in no way excuses the perpetrators … the German reputation has thereby suffered.” A footnote indicates that “the author has photocopies of some 150 such judgments.”
p. 24… In Russia, a military judge refused to prosecute a German civilian administrator, Inspector Weisheit, who [for reasons I do not know – R. F.] had murdered 75 Jews.  “His attitude was highly disapproved of by his superiors, and he was removed from the case.  In the criminal proceedings that followed, however, the indictment was changed from murder to manslaughter and the new judge sentenced Inspector Weisheit only to a demotion and two years imprisonment.  Shortly thereafter, Weisheit was sent to the front as a private and fell in combat.”

1981 [1980] –
Robert Faurisson: “Interview with Storia Illustrata” (Italy), published in English translation in The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1981
p. 369, footnote 45… “texts and facts abound which prove that the German authorities forbade and punished … excesses, even when Jews were the victims.  I will quote only one text and two facts.  This text is of general von Roques dated 29 July 1944, on the Russian front (document NOKW- 1620).  As to facts, they are reported in document NOKW-501.  Here is the first fact: in the spring of 1944 at Budapest, a lieutenant killed a Jewess who wished to denounce him for having [ordered the confiscation of] some of her property, along with some of his men.  A German military tribunal condemned the officer to death and he was executed, while several of his men and NCOs were condemned to long terms in prison.  Here is the second fact: near … Rostov, USSR two soldiers were condemned to death by a German military tribunal (and executed?) for having killed the only Jewish inhabitant of a village.  One finds these examples and many other facts of the same genre in the 42nd and final volume of the IMT Nuremberg transcripts.”

1995 –
In 1995, on page 32 of the January-February issue of the Journal of Historical Review, I reminded readers of the fact that German soldiers were punished for excesses against Jews, harking back to my published statement of 1980.

List of Crimes, Sentences:

1939 –

Poland: 14-15 September 1939

Two German soldiers, one an SS private and the other a sergeant in the military police, were tried for the murder of about 50 Jews, whom they had driven into a synagogue and shot.  Although the prosecution asked for death sentences for both, less severe punishment was meted out to them. The court martial sentenced the sergeant to 9 years in prison for manslaughter, later, upon review, commuted to 3 years.  The SS private received a sentence of 3 years.
The tribunal took into consideration the fact that these killings were not premeditated, but were rather crimes of passion stemming from feelings of rage prompted by the discovery of the bodies of murdered ethnic Germans in a Polish town, combined with the hostile attitude of the Jews.
In order to understand this, we must remember September 3rd, the bloody Sunday of Bromberg and other towns in Poland, when Poles killed hundreds, if not thousands of German civilians.
And since to judge is to compare, we should compare this atrocious act with the massacre in 1995 by Dr Baruch Goldstein of 29 Muslims praying in their mosque in Palestine. We should acknowledge that today his grave is regarded as a shrine by many in Israel. The Nazis who committed the 1939 crime, needless to say, are not remembered in such a laudatory manner.
(Source: Nuremberg Document D-421 in IMT Vol. XXXV, p. 91-93; discussion of this document is found in IMT Vol. XX, p. 449-451)

1939-1940 –
Two German soldiers were sentenced to death for the rape of two Jewesses.
(Source: Interrogation of Field Marshal List, Centre de documentation juive contemporaine de Paris, fiche CCC VII / 41-44, p. 2599)

1941 –
In Schitomir, a Polish town then under the jurisdiction of a Reichskommissariat, a Jewish couple went to the German authorities, to whom the wife spoke to accuse two German soldiers of having raped her. The battalion commander, Beck, ordered his men into three ranks for the woman to inspect.  She was able to identify one of the rapists, who then informed on the other.  Both were sentenced to death and executed.
In the same city, a German soldier who cut off part of a Jew’s beard was arrested and held for three days.
(Reference: K. Rückelein, from the city of Wachenroth, National Zeitung, 3 December 1999)

1941 –
A Reichskommisar in the Ukraine was accused of committing blackmail in a Jewish community as well as of sending furs and other items back to Germany. He was convicted and sentenced to death. At the Nuremberg trial, Alfred Rosenberg mentioned this incident in his own defence, whereupon the American prosecution attorney, Dodd, said that although this was very interesting it was not pertinent to the case, and the matter was dropped.
(Source: IMT XI, p. 562)

1941 –
On the 30th of October 1941, CARL, the District commissar of Sluzk wrote to his superior KUBE, the general commissar in Minsk, on the subject of excesses committed in an action carried out against Jews. On the 1st of November, KUBE transmitted this message, along with his commentary (he described the German behaviour as “such an unjustifiable, horrid mess [bodenlose Schweinerei]”), to his superior, LOHSE, the Reichskommissar for the East.  LOHSE, in turn, sent this to ROSENBERG, the Reichsminister for the Occupied East.  We may see from this that the mistreatment of Jews was a matter of great concern for the German top brass.
(Source: Document PS-1104 in IMT Vol. XXVII, p. 18)

1941-1942? –

“Not only serious crimes, but also minor offences were severely punished.  Thus an SS man who struck a Pole in Radom served significant time in jail.”
(Source: Nuremberg Document SS (A) – 70, in IMT Vol. XLII, p. 607, 620, together with many other similar examples)

1941-1943? –

At Nuremberg, German defence barrister Dr Laternser, pleading the cause of the SS prosecuted as an organisation, mentioned the telling story of the mayor of Marinka.
“I refer now to Affidavit 712-a by General von Knobelsdorff. This general ordered the arrest of an SD Führer who wanted to have 50 to 60 persons shot because according to statements of confidential agents they were anti-German and intended to carry out acts of sabotage against the German troops. In this connection one piece of evidence seems of special importance, namely, Affidavit 1637, by General Kittel. According to this affidavit, the mayor of Marinka, a racial German, was condemned to death by a court-martial and shot for crimes committed against a Jewess.  How could the sentence on this man be explained if on the other hand the military leaders had ordered or tolerated the murder of many thousands of Jews?”
(Kittel is not to be confused with Keitel. Marinka lies between Kharkov and Rostov.)
(Source: IMT Vol. XXI, p. 390)

1941-1943? –
The same defence lawyer, Laternser, also mentioned other facts of the same nature.  For instance, the massacre in Lvov, which was attributed to the Germans, was only discovered by German troops when they marched into the area and found rows of corpses.  Also, Laternser makes note of German soldiers in the 49th Mountain Corps who on July 2nd attempted to prevent Ukrainian locals from mistreating Jews.
Another accusation alleged that the Wehrmacht possessed homicidal gas vans and used them to kill some 195,000 persons in Kiev. Laternser points to affidavits 1116-a, 1116-b, and 1116-c, to refute the notion that the Wehrmacht ever possessed any such vans.
He also refers to an affidavit, 1629, filed by Field Marshal von Küchler, which describes the Wehrmacht’s refusal to take part in any mistreatment of Jews.  Laternser then makes mention of two affidavits, 1630 and 1632, which show that medical help was provided, despite the protests of some officials, to Jews suffering from a typhus epidemic. 
Finally, he refers to ten different affidavits showing that no orders for the killing of Jews or others in occupied territories existed, and that no troops took part in such actions.
(Source: IMT Vol. XXI, p. 401-403)

August 18, 1942 –
On 23 February, 1942, in the Ukraine, two members of the Wehrmacht, Erich Nees and Michael Lenne, committed a robbery.  In their defense, the soldiers argued that they had robbed from Jews.  The military tribunal replied that this was not relevant.  One was sentenced to death, the other to eight years in prison.
(Reference: Vincent Reynouard, Une Autre Image d’Hitler et du National-Socialisme, Diffusion V.H.O., Berchem, Belgium, 2000, p. 18-19)

1942 –
The following statement can be found in an official German document entitled Guidelines for the Handling of the Jewish Question, a document targeted at Germans in the conquered Soviet territories, and which contains multiple instances of the phrase “Endlösung der Judenfrage.”
“… the retaliatory [administrative?] measures taken [by the local inhabitants] against the Jews that have occurred over the last two years in the areas that have been taken from the Red Army should be tolerated.  However, the activities of the mob and other low elements who enrich themselves off of the plundering of Jewish shops and the Jewish community must be sternly confronted (scharf).”
(Source: Document in PS-212, IMT Vol. XXV, p. 302-306)

1943 –
SS lieutenant Max Täubner is sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by an SS tribunal in Munich for excesses committed against Jews in the Ukraine.
(Reference: “Urteile im NS-Prozess von Stuttgart,” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 16 February, 1982) 

1942-1943? –
The German army severely punished its own soldiers for crimes committed against the civilian population, including Jews.
Examples are given, such as a case in the spring of 1944 occurring when a German anti-aircraft battery on its way to Budapest was held over and the soldiers stayed in a house belonging to Jews. Permission was granted to the men by the commander of the battery, a young sub-lieutenant, to confiscate various items from the house, including jewellery and radio sets. A Jewish woman who wanted to report this crime was killed. The sub-lieutenant was sentenced to death and executed for this crime, and several NCOs and service personnel received long prison terms.
Another example is offered by a case that occurred in the beginning of 1943 in which two soldiers of the Luftwaffe, in a village to the north of Rostov, killed the only Jewish inhabitant thereof. The two soldiers were convicted for their crime.
(Sources: Affidavit by former Major General Otto Dessloch in IMT Vol. XLII, p. 238-240)

1945 –
1,593 affidavits filed by Germans for the IMT “point out that SS members were forbidden to undertake individual acts against Jews. As evidence, numerous members refer to the fact that many death or other severe sentences were passed because of crimes against Jewish persons or Jewish property.”
(Source: Defence barrister Pelckmann in IMT Vol. XXI, p. 369)

1945 –
“Affidavit 706, in addition, shows that Field Marshal Von Kleist, as commander of an army group, on a mere rumour that Jews were being murdered, immediately intervened, summoned the Higher SS and Police Leader and told him that he would not permit excesses against the Jews. This SS Führer assured him that no excesses against the Jews were taking place, and that he had no orders to that effect.”
(Source: Defence barrister Laternser in IMT Vol. XXI, p. 390)


p. 110… “It is hard to imagine that those whose daily work entailed investigation of crimes and atrocities did not at least hear rumours about the most unspeakable atrocity of the century, but there are no documents, personal notes, or diaries indicating any such knowledge, official or otherwise. Had they known, the question immediately arises, what would they – or what could they – have done to oppose it?”
– Franz W. Seidler, Die Militärgerichtsbarkeit der deutschen Wehrmacht, 1939-1945, Munich, Herbig, 1993 [1991]

Surprisingly, F.W. Seidler does not mention anything concerning our subject.
I shall now present my answers to the two questions I posed at the beginning of my talk.
1) The official historians have kept silent about this aspect of German policy because it is incompatible with their theoretical view of “the Holocaust”.
I am willing to admit that the idea of Germans punishing their own soldiers for harming Jews is not totally incompatible with the conventional view of “the Holocaust” as an extermination process. After all, the Germans would not want their ranks to suffer the disorder which would result from allowing troops to attack Jews on their own initiative. Nevertheless, the fact that Germans were KILLED for KILLING Jews should remain troubling.
On the other hand, if we do not assume that there was a policy to exterminate the Jews, these German disciplinary measures must be seen as yet more evidence that a policy of extermination did not exist.
Anyway, if today, after this talk of mine, the official historians declare that the phenomenon I have discussed here is compatible with the “Holocaust” extermination story as a whole, my question would be, why did they keep totally silent up until now, not even bothering to put a spin on the evidence that was more to their own liking?
2) I believe the revisionists have kept silent simply because they are mesmerised by the power of “the Holocaust”. Because we believe that “the Holocaust” is a lie of such momentous proportions, we feel we need evidence of similar proportions to defeat it. Instead, we must attack the lie with the most effective means at our disposal; precisely, we must destroy the big lie brick by brick, (pinprick by pinprick,) until the massive monument is shown to be nothing but a simple façade. 


Memo from the plant head at Günthergrube, Lendzin, to the leader of the Jewish work detail in Fürstengrube (Auschwitz-III), 25 May 1943

This document addresses the rising number of complaints by Jewish personnel who had begun to develop an obstinate attitude towards work, protesting that they had a right not to be beaten, and reminding their German superiors that they had Jewish stewards to whom they could forward their complaints.
The German plant head reminds the chief Jewish steward that the beating of Jews is forbidden, but points out two cases in which the beating of Jews was understandable, as the Jews were expected to increase their output, just as the Germans had been doing.
In the first case, a Jew refused to work as vigorously as the others at unloading a cable from a railway carriage, ignoring repeated orders from his foreman. When the Jew’s attitude became aggressive, the foreman slapped him in the face. In the second case, a Jew refused to operate a pump for compressing chemicals, which prompted his overseer to push him. The Jew lodged a complaint with his steward claiming that he had been thoroughly beaten.
The document concludes with a request that the Jews put forth a better effort, and asks that the chief steward of the Jews take the measures he deems necessary to punish obstinate Jewish workers, so that their performance might continue to be of the same standard as it had been in the past.
(Source: Document NI-10847)

Two Hungarian officials requested asylum in Germany in 1944 after conducting a massacre of Serbs and Jews in Hungary. Their court case regarding the massacre had been pending since 1942.
The Germans were apprehensive about admitting these men, due to the large number of Jewish deaths.
(Reference: Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Inland IIg. Berichte und Meldungen zur Lage in Ungarn Bd. 7., as partially published by Peter Longerich, Die Ermörderung der europäischen Juden, München, Piper, 1989, p. 292-293)
June 23, 2002

Saturday, June 22, 2002

Interview with Phil Sanchez

Robert Faurisson, retired professor — the University of Lyon — is considered the leading Holocaust revisionist scholar in Europe today. His early revisionist writings include "The «Problem of the Gas Chambers»" (published in France's leading daily Le Monde, which stirred up a storm) and an investigation into the diary of Anne Frank. Later he was to prove to be of invaluable assistance at the Ernst Zündel "Holocaust" trials in Toronto, and was the key player in convincing Fred Leuchter to initiate a forensic investigation of "gas chambers" at Auschwitz.

As with his most recent paper, "Punishment of Germans, by German Authorities, for Mistreatment of Jews During World War II", Dr. Faurisson has repeatedly removed the toupee from the bald-face lies of the establishment's Holocaust desirers. He has played perhaps the primary role in France in convincing the cultural establishment, and the State, that it is to their best interest to outlaw any attempt to question the judgment of the Nuremberg court (usually without citing said judgment within the anti revisionist laws), first in France, and now throughout much of Western Europe.

One interesting irony in Dr. Faurisson's life at this time is that this autumn when his two grandsons return to school they will take their first instruction on what is proper, and improper, to think about the "Holocaust" and what penalties are in place to punish those who ask the wrong questions, or the right questions from the wrong perspective. Their grandfather will no doubt be mentioned by name as one who has been prosecuted by the State for such thought crimes again and again. It might be said that in their classroom, Dr. Faurisson's grandchildren will likely become associated with — perhaps the victims of — "hate crimes" themselves.

We took advantage of Dr. Faurisson's attendance at the Institute of Historical Review's 14th Conference to record this audio interview with him.


Phil Sanchez: Dr. Faurisson, you have had conversations of one sort or another with numerous Holocaust desirers, such as Michael Berenbaum, Debbie Lipstadt, Otto Frank, Raul Hilberg, etc. Do you have opinions about any of them being honest about their believing the Holocaust tales?

Dr. Faurisson: First of all, I had a conversation with Michael Berenbaum in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I remember exactly when: it was on the 30th of August 1994. In 1989, Deborah Lipstadt visited me in Vichy. In 1977, I visited Otto Frank in Basel, Switzerland, and I had a conversation with him, on the first day, for five hours and, on the second day, for four hours.

As for Raul Hilberg, I had no conversation with him but I met him at the Ernst Zündel trial in 1985 in Toronto, Canada, when questions were put to him while he was a witness for the prosecution. Those questions were put to him by Douglas Christie, the defense lawyer of Ernst Zündel, but most of them had been written by myself. It was an opportunity for me to ask questions of Raul Hilberg and for Raul Hilberg to answer, or to try to answer. Now to go to your own question: you ask me if I had an opinion about any of them being honest or about them really believing the Holocaust tales. Is that right?

Q: Correct.

A: I am unable to answer your question because I do not know whether the people, either on my side or against me, are sincere or not. It is difficult for me to judge if someone is sincere. To judge the sincerity of someone you need perhaps weeks, months, years. It is difficult to judge. And that's why, in fact, I am not very interested in the question of sincerity. What I am interested in is: what this man, or this woman, is saying. Is it exact, or not? I don't say true; as you know, I say exact. And take the story — I don't say the history, but the story — of the Holocaust. Of course, for me, it's totally inexact. I say totally. And I can prove it. At least I think that I can prove it.

Now for Berenbaum, Deborah Lipstadt, Otto Frank, Raul Hilberg — with Otto Frank it wasn't about the Holocaust, it was about the Anne Frank Diary, okay? — you could divide those people into two camps. In the first camp we have people who are lying, perhaps because they think that it's necessary, sometimes it is to lie for a good cause. That's possible. It's possible that they are in a way sincere. That will be the first camp.

Then you have the mass of those people who really believe, because they heard about it. If you take Berenbaum, Deborah Lipstadt, Raul Hilberg, you can say that they have a responsibility when they say, for instance, that there was an order to kill the Jews or that there was a plan to kill the Jews; they have a responsibility to demonstrate that. But other people, the mass of people who believe in the Holocaust, they have no responsibility. They are only repeating what they have heard.

I am sorry because of my poor English that I can not say in English what I say in French, which is that you have, on the one hand, les menteurs, and, on the other hand, les bonimenteurs. It is a play on words. Those who lie and those who repeat lies that they have heard from others. Boniment means gossip. They are gossiping. Do you say that in English? To gossip? I don't know.

Q: That's a funny way of putting it, the take on it.

A: Okay. So I would say that there are the liars and that there are the gossipers, something like that.

Q: I think that is so with some of them. I think that with Debbie Lipstadt, or the guy in Switzerland who recently wrote a book (Fragments) about being raised in the concentration camps and then he was proved totally false.

A: Yes. Yes.

Q: I can't remember his name.

A: I remember, but whatever, okay.

Q: Lipstadt said that, even though the book is not factual, it's still good as Holocaust literature. And that's what I'm wondering. Perhaps she did not believe it but she thought the literature is still important? I'm wondering how you felt, maybe you didn't speak with her long enough to have an opinion.

A: At the time Deborah Lipstadt visited me, it was before Benjamin Wilkomirski. His pen name was Benjamin Wilkomirski, his real name being either Bruno Grosjean or Bruno Doessekker. Anyway, he was lying. And he wasn't a Jew. So, as you know, he is being put on trial by the Jewish organizations.

Q: Oh, he was put on trial?

A: He is currently on trial, I think. Or it's coming, I don't know. So, of course, I understand very well that people, even like Hilberg or Deborah Lipstadt, could think: "Anyway, true or not, sincere or not, it serves the cause, our good cause". But this you have everywhere; not only Jews are like that. You have that in the Catholic religion; you have what we call le pieux mensonge, the pious lie. So everybody may be like that, you see.

Q: Do you know about Raul Hilberg having some sort of relationship with Norman Finkelstein? I don't know if he is giving him information but do you think Raul Hilberg will come around to seeing the Holocaust in the same way revisionists do, or is that just too far- fetched?

A: I think it's too far-fetched. What I know is that the situation of Raul Hilberg is perfectly tragic. This man is, I think, something like seventy-five today. This man in 1948 began to work on what today we call the Holocaust. In 1961 he published the first edition of his book (The Destruction of the European Jews). In that book he dared to say, at that time, that there were two orders coming from Hitler to kill the Jews. He said that there was a plan to kill the Jews, that there were instructions given to kill the Jews, and so on.

And, in 1985, came the tragedy of Raul Hilberg when he was on the witness stand. Because at that time, he had really changed his story and he was ready to publish the second edition of his book. A really different one, which appeared in the middle of 1985. To give you an example of how much he changed his story, this very man who had said that there were two orders from Hitler to kill the Jews and who was asked to show those orders was, of course, unable to show them. And he came up with a strange theory which is this one: he said that we don't need to suppose that there was an order, or orders, we don't need to think that there was a plan, no.

What happened was, according to the new Hilberg, "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mindreading by a far-flung bureaucracy", meaning the German bureaucracy! Which means that it is an explanation by telepathy! This man, supposed to be a scholar, first said that he had proofs, and then he had to confess that there were no proofs, but "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy". This is a total defeat.

At one point, I remember, all those who attended the trial remember very well, Hilberg said, "I am at a loss."

Q: I remember reading that actually, in Michael Hoffinan's book.

A: That is about Raul Hilberg. That's the only thing that I can say. Recently he published a book, a tiny book, the title being something like

Sources of Holocaust Research: An Analysis. You should read it. Nothing. It's like a void, totally void. You have nothing. Nothing is left. All this formidable building, hammered. It is like the towers in New York. The tower of Raul Hilberg does not exist anymore.

Q: Regarding your run-ins with Jean-Claude Pressac. He seems to be seeking something from you. What is it that Pressac wants?

A: Now, Pressac also is finished. You should know that even Berenbaum and all those people, they do not want to have anything to do anymore with Jean-Claude Pressac. Jean-Claude Pressac is a poor guy. He was a man of the extreme Right. I learned this a few months after meeting him for the first time. He was engaged by Klarsfeld to write an enormous book. A really silly one. The title was: Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, published in 1989. In fact you had nothing in it at all on the gas chambers; you had many things on the crematories and so on, the ovens, but only speculations about the gas chambers.

Q: The ventilation.

A: The ventilation, yes! [laughter] He ventilates very much. You see, it's wind. It's only wind. It's air. A-I-R. Okay? Excuse my pronunciation. I noticed that sometimes he would say that he had been first on my side. And that then he left me because he had discovered that I was wrong. Now, wait a minute. First of all, never did Pressac visit me where I live in Vichy [in the center of France]. Second: I saw him only at Pierre Guillaume's house, in Paris. And he was coming back and coming back, asking me for documents and so on. I saw very quickly that this man was unbalanced, not strong at all, and that I was wasting my time.

I told him: "You see, Pressac, I am tired. I am overworked. Please, leave me. I have nothing to tell you!'.

But he came to see me again and he said: "I would like to have a conversation with you". I said: "Pressac, once more. I have no time. Now, if really you want to have a conversation, I want you to tape it because you keep constantly saying that you have not said what you have said. So I want to catch you at your words".

And he said, "Oh no. I don't want that".

"So, then," I said. "You must get out!" And it was finished.

Q: What about in court?

A: Oh, in court. The poor guy. In 1995 he came to court. I must say that, in 1993, he had published another book. The title in French was Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz: la machinerie du meurtre de masse (The Crematories of Auschwitz: The Machinery of Mass Murder). At that time I was being sued, once more, I was on trial. I had decided with my defense lawyer to summon Pressac. I thought he would not come. But to my surprise, he came. The poor guy came. I had no right, myself, to ask him any question. Only my defense lawyer had the right to put some questions to him. I decided that the essential question would be very short and very clear.

So I said to my defense lawyer: "You have only one question to ask him." The question was: "Mr. Pressac, in your book, we have sixty photos, documents, illustrations. Could you show us only one photo, document or drawing showing us a Nazi gas chamber?" Of course, there were none. There was not one photo. You cannot have a photo of something, which is technically impossible. So he went on, speaking about aeration and ventilation once more [laughter].

And suddenly, as he was not answering the question, the lady — we had three judges, the presiding judge being a lady — said: "Mr. Pressac, you say ventilator, ventilator, but a ventilator, it's to ventilate" [laughter]. She was a little bit naive perhaps. I don't know. She made Pressac understand that he was not at all addressing the question.

And Pressac suddenly said: "You see, you must understand, my life is very difficult, I cannot be here and there. You must understand, I cannot". So Pressac also was "at a loss." And Pressac also is really finished.

Something else. A book appeared in 2000 written by a young lady, who came and visited me in Vichy. The book was totally against us: Histoire du négationnisme en France (History of Holocaust Denial in France). Her name is Valérie Igounet. In it she published a long interview with Pressac. And mind you, at the end of his interview, Pressac has taken a nearly total revisionist position. He now says that the dossier (meaning the dossier of the people against the revisionists) is rotten to the core.

Pressac said: "We cannot save it anymore. It is finished".

Q: You once said that in France during World War II there were two Resistance movements; one against the Nazi occupation and a second one against the Communist terror. Could you, please, elaborate on the difference between the two but also go into some detail about the second?

A: In France they constantly say la résistance (the Resistance). They constantly talk about la résistance. Even, with time going on, they now don't talk anymore exactly about résistants, but about grands résistants. It's always a grande résistance. All those people are supposed to have been grands résistants.

And this is partly a joke of mine. I ask: "Oh, you say Resistance! What do you mean by Resistance?" And the people answer: "Of course, resistance against Germany" And I say: "Okay, I see, but you know, there was another resistance. The people on the other side from yours were convinced that they were also resistants. But resistants against Communism, against Communist terror in France."

It began in June 1941 and went until at least the Bloody Summer of 1944. You cannot imagine, today, the power at that time of the French Communist party, and how many people it killed because those "collaborators" were, or were supposedly, on the side of the Germans. You had very sincere French people on the side of the Germans. They were not in love with Adolf Hitler or even with the German people. They thought that the big danger for Europe and for France were Communists coming with the Red Army. They wondered where the Red Army would stop. That was their question.

In June 1942, Pierre Laval, who was a kind of prime minister, with Marshall Pétain, said: "I hope that Germany will win". I guarantee you that Pierre Laval was not at all in love with the Germans. He added: "because, otherwise, we will have Communism all over Europe."

So, I warn you to be careful with this word of Resistance since, you see, most of the time people think of themselves as courageous, which is not really the case. Most people are cowards. But they think that they are courageous. They are courageous because they resist something. During the war, you had those people resisting the German occupation, but you also had people resisting the Communists who were assassinating so many French people at that time.

Q: Were there trials for these murders?

A: Of course not. As usual, if you were on the good side, you got medals, respect, money. If you were on the other side, it was exactly the opposite. That's life. You must not be vanquished, that's all.

Q: So, after France was no longer under German Occupation, there were no murder trials for murders that were committed by the Communists during the Occupation?

A: We had very few of them. And once those people were sentenced very, very few of them — they were, how do you say, "pardoned"? Yes. There was an automatic amnesty, according to a decision of the government of De Gaulle. They decided that everything, — listen to this, it's fantastic — everything which had been done "in order to liberate France" until the First of January 1946 should be pardoned — do you understand? Nineteen forty-six The war, remember, had ended on the 8th of May 1945, and the last town in France was liberated in December 1944. The simple fact that we had an amnesty for everything which had been done [laughter] during, let's say, the whole of 1945, means that they kept on killing people.

Q: Reprisals?

A: Reprisals. Yes.

Q: I don't know if this is a question that you can answer, but it was a particularly French Communist group or were they just a Soviet puppet group?

A: No, a real and sincere Communism.

Q: They did not want to be a puppet of the Soviet Union? They were French Communists?

A: Absolute puppets, but I would say sincere puppets.

Q: Now, about the way laws are written and made in France. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that there are a number of anti-revisionist laws made specifically to deal with you. Are you ever consulted for the name given to each of these laws?

A: Consulted? Do you mean, was I consulted?

Q: Yes.

A: No, of course not. And, in fact, we have only one specific law.

Q: What is the name of it?

A: We call it sometimes, Loi Gayssol, which is the name of a Communist, but sometimes also we call it Loi Fabius-Gayssot. Fabius is a very rich Jew, a Socialist but extremely rich. So, the anti-revisionist law of 1990 is a Jewish-Socialist-Communist law. Sometimes, only among the people in the Paris courtrooms, they call it Lex Faurissonia, which, in rather poor Latin means "The Faurisson law". It is a law of the 13th of July 1990. What is interesting is that it was published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française on the 14th of July 1990, which is Bastille Day, and you know that Bastille Day is supposedly the day of Liberty. So, that's it.

Let me tell you that I have been sued myself in the name of other laws. I have been sued so many times that I cannot give you even an idea about how many times. I have been sued before 1990. Before this specific law. For instance, under a law saying that racism is forbidden. They decided that, by denying the existence of the genocide of the Jews and the existence of the so-called Nazi gas chambers, I was committing a racist crime. Denying is their word. In fact, I am not denying anything. I am affirming, after research, that there is absolutely no proof of this crime. Okay. Or they would claim that I was defaming the Jews.

Q: Defaming the dead?

A: The dead. That's it.

Q: Is there anyone trying to remove these undemocratic laws in your country?

A: It's impossible.

Q: It's impossible?

A: It's impossible. Let me tell you something rather sad, but I expected it. You have some extremists in France of the Right. Their names, one name is very well known, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and the other one is Bruno Maigret. Okay. Both of those people, a few years ago, in their program had one point which was "we want the suppression of those laws against free expression." A law of 1972 and this one of 1990. They do not mention that anymore. They are afraid to say "We want those laws to disappear." They don't dare say it anymore. It's still in the printed program, the old one, but for the elections, they didn't mention that because they know that if they say that again they are going to be accused by Jewish organizations of being on the side of the "deniers." So they are shy. They are shy.

Q: Okay, here's maybe an odd question, I'm not sure: It has been said that in France Holocaust revisionism is a field embraced mostly by Leftists and former Leftists? How is this?

A: My answer is that at the beginning, yes, because Paul Rassinier himself had been a Communist and then a Socialist. People like Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion, Gabor Tamas Rittersporn, who is a Jew, and other people were coming from the Left, or a Left that you could call sometimes Left and sometimes only Libertarian. Some of those people were even Jews, like Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, the brother of the famous Danny the Red. He was a revisionist in '79, '80, but all those people except Pierre Guillaume and Serge Thion, abandoned revisionism. Sometimes they recanted even. It's a taboo, you see. It's very, very difficult. To fight for revisionism, it's possible for a limited time, but to fight for years and years, that is very difficult. It's a kind of slow suicide.

Q: Are you at liberty to discuss relationship with former situationists and their followers?

A: I will say so now you see. Situationists are like those animals, how do you call those animals that disappeared from the surface?

Q: Dinosaurs?

A: Dinosaurs. Situationists are something like dinosaurs, so I don't know anymore any situationists. There are still some. I have a name, I don't know if I can mention him so I am not going to mention him. He is rather important and we could say that he was something of a situationist. Mind you, some people, even very important people, very important, confidentially, and accidentally, told me that they were on my side but of course they asked me not to mention their name. I must say that there are very few. But there are some.

Q: Do you have a last word?

A: People very often ask me "why do you do what you do? Why do you keep on battling? Why do you want other people to join you and get in this battle?"

And I say that, in fact, I do not know [laughter]. I do not know why.

I know someone who in 1979, when he received me at the Kennedy airport in New York — he was of German extraction and this gentleman told me, "Oh, it is wonderful what you are doing for Germany." And I said, "Oh sir, I am not doing it for Germany." And he said, "So, why are you doing it?" And I say," I do it the same way the bird sings."

You see — [laughter] — I am now 73 [laughter]. The bird has lost his plumage. Part of its plumage, at least. And he keeps singing. He doesn't know why. And the minute before he dies he is still singing. That's the only thing I could say.

I would say also that during the war I was very much against the German people. It was inhuman the way I was. I thought that the German people — although they did behave very correctly, I saw thousands of those soldiers, and they behaved very correctly — I thought that they had to be killed. When I heard that Hamburg was so heavily bombed I thought to myself, three thousand tons of bombs, why not six million ... ? I mean [laughter]. No, not six million [laughter]. You see, why...

Q: Twice as much.

A: Why not twice as much? Yes. And suddenly after the war I realized that in fact they were human beings. You can be a Nazi, a Communist, a Jew, a non-Jew, and you are still a human being.

So at the age of, let's say, 17, I was profoundly disgusted by the Nuremberg Trial. Profoundly. Now I am 73 and I am just as overwhelmed and as indignant as a young man of 17. I should not be like that [laughter]. At 73 it should have stopped. But it has not stopped, and I don't think that it will stop until I die. No, I don't think so.

Irvine, California, June 22, 2002

This interview is available on CD and cassette at>

Smith's report on the Holocaust controversy, number 95, December 2002, p. 4-8 (Post Office Box 439016, San Ysidro, CA 92143, USA).