In Elie Wiesel’s book Night, he even says that some of the boys in his block went to the city of Weimar the very next day to steal potatoes and rape girls.
But we are also to accept that on April 16 Wiesel was in block 56, even though he didn’t report any such move in his book Night.
Robert Faurisson is Europe’s leading Holocaust revisionist scholar. He was educated at the Paris Sorbonne and served as a professor at the University of Lyon in France from 1974 until 1990. He was a specialist of text and document analysis. After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in articles published in 1978 and 1979 in the French daily 1£ Monde. His writings on the Holocaust issue have appeared in two books and numerous scholarly articles, many of which have been published in this Journal.
This essay was originally written in early 1995 for El Mundo, a leading Spanish newspaper. However, after the text had been authorized, translated into Spanish, and set in type, the newspaper suddenly decided not to publish it.
Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. (note 2) He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but … by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that!
Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.
The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. (note 3) The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles. (note 4) The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets.n (note 5)
The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: (note 6)
Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load — little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it — saw it with my own eyes … Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.)
A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered “slow agony in the flames.” Wiesel’s column was led by the Germans to within “three steps” of the ditch, then to “two steps.” “Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks.”
An exceptional witness himself, Wiesel assures us of his having met other exceptional witnesses. Regarding Babi Yar, a place in Ukraine where the Germans executed Soviet citizens, among them Jews, Wiesel wrote: (note 7)
Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.
These words did not slip from their author in a moment of frenzy: first, he wrote them, then some unspecified number of times (but at least once) he had to reread them in the proofs; finally, his words were translated into various languages, as is everything this author writes.
That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a miracle. He says that: (note 8)
In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?
In 1954 French scholar Germaine Tillion analyzed the “gratuitous lie” with regard to the German concentration camps. She wrote: (note 9)
Those persons [who gratuitously lie] are, to tell the truth, much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world — well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginings — offered them an exceptional field of action. We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation; we have known others of them — authentic deportees — whose sick minds strove to go even beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said had happened to them. There have been publishers to print some of their imaginings, and more or less official compilations to use them, but publishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, since the most elementary inquiry would have been enough to reveal the imposture.
Tillion lacked the courage to give examples and names. But that is usually the case. People agree that there are false gas chambers that tourists and pilgrims are encouraged to visit, but they do not tell us where. They agree that there are false “eyewitnesses,” but in general they name only Martin Gray, the well-known swindler, at whose request Max Gallo, with full knowledge of what he was doing, fabricated the bestseller For Those I Loved.
Jean-François Steiner is sometimes named as well. His bestselling novel Treblinka (1966) was presented as a work of which the accuracy of every detail was guaranteed by oral or written testimony. In reality, it was a fabrication attributable, at least in part, to the novelist Gilles Perrault. (note 10) Marek Halter, for his part, published his La Mémoire d’Abraham in 1983; as he often does on radio, he talked there about his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto. However, if we are to believe an article by Nicolas Beau that is quite favorable to Halter, (note 11) little Marek, about three years old, and his mother left Warsaw not in 1941 but in October of 1939, before the establishment of the ghetto there by the Germans. Halter’s book is supposed to have been actually written by a ghostwriter, Jean-Noël Gurgan.
Filip Müller is the author of Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers, (note 12) which won the 1980 prize of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). This nauseous best-seller is actually the work of a German ghostwriter, Helmut Freitag, who did not hesitate to engage in plagiarism. (note 13) The source of the plagiarism is Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account, another best-seller made up out of whole cloth and attributed to Miklos Nyiszli. (note 14)
Thus a whole series of works presented as authentic documents turns out to be merely compilations attributable to various ghost writers: Max Gallo, Gilles Perrault, Jean-Noël Gurgan (?), and Helmut Freitag, among others.
We would like to know what Germaine Tillion thinks about Elie Wiesel today. With him, the lie is certainly not gratuitous. Wiesel claims to be full of love for humanity. However, he does not refrain from an appeal to hatred. In his opinion: (note 15)
Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate — healthy, virile hate — for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.
At the beginning of 1986, 83 deputies of the German Bundestag took the initiative of proposing Wiesel for the Nobel Peace Prize. This would be, they said, “a great encouragement to all who are active in the process of reconciliation.” (note 16) That is what might be called “going from National Socialism to national masochism.”
Jimmy Carter needed a historian to preside over the President’s Commission on the Holocaust. As Dr. Arthur Butz said so well, he chose not a historian but a “histrion”: Elie Wiesel. Even the newspaper Le Monde, in the article mentioned above, was obliged to refer to the histrionic trait that certain persons deplore in Wiesel:
Naturally, even among those who approve of the struggle of this American Jewish writer, who was discovered by the Catholic François Mauriac, some reproach him for having too much of a tendency to change the Jewish sadness into “morbidity” or to become the high priest of a “planned management of the Holocaust.”
As Jewish writer Leon A. Jick has written: “The devastating barb, ‘There is no business like SHOAH-business’ is, sad to say, a recognizable truth.” (note 17)
Elie Wiesel issues alarmed and inflammatory appeals against Revisionist authors. He senses that things are getting out of hand. It is going to become more and more difficult for him to maintain the mad belief that the Jews were exterminated or were subjected to a policy of extermination, especially in so-called gas chambers. Serge Klarsfeld has admitted that real proofs of the existence of the gas chambers have still not yet been published. He promises proofs. (note 18)
On the scholarly plane, the gas chamber myth is finished. To tell the truth, that myth breathed its last breath several years ago at the Sorbonne colloquium in Paris (June 29-July 2, 1982), at which Raymond Aron and François Furet presided. What remains is to make this news known to the general public. However, for Elie Wiesel it is of the highest importance to conceal that news. Thus all the fuss in the media, which is going to increase: the more the journalists talk, the more the historians keep quiet.
But there are historians who dare to raise their voices against the lies and the hatred. That is the case with Michel de Boüard, wartime member of the Resistance, deportee to Mauthausen, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War from 1945 to 1981, and a member of the Institut de France. In a poignant interview in 1986, he courageously acknowledged that in 1954 he had vouched for the existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen where it finally turns out, there never was one. (note 19)
The respect owed to the sufferings of all the victims of the Second World War, and, in particular, to the sufferings of the deportees, demands on the part of historians a return to the proven and time-honored methods of historical criticism.
In 1968, French-Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot acknowledged in her thesis that there was a “problem with the gas chambers.” She also wrote that the Auschwitz I main camp was “without a gas chamber” (notwithstanding the “gas chamber” there visited by millions of tourists).
In 1983, a British author, even though he was a defender of the extermination legend, revealed how Rudolf Höss, prior to his testimony before the Nuremberg Tribunal, had been tortured by Jewish members of British Military Security, and had confessed only after being kicked and punched, exposed to cold and deprived of sleep.
In 1985, at the first trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto, both the number one prosecution witness, Rudolf Vrba, and the number one historian of the exterminationist thesis, Raul Hilberg, completely broke down under cross-examination by defense attorney Douglas Christie, with my assistance.
In 1988, the American Jewish historian Arno Mayer, albeit while asserting his belief in the genocide and in the gas chambers, wrote: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable … Besides, from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural’ causes [starvation, disease, sickness, and overwork] than by ‘unnatural’ ones.”
In 1992, Yehuda Bauer, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a prominent Holocaust historian, authoritatively reassessed the role of the well known “Wannsee Conference” of January 20, 1942. The often-repeated claim that the decision to exterminate the Jews was made at that meeting is “silly,” he said.
In 1993, Pressac estimated the number of deaths at Auschwitz (Jews and non-Jews) at a total of 775,000, and, then, in 1994, at a figure somewhere between 630,000 and 710,000.
In that same year, Professor Christopher Browning, contributor to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, stated: “Höss was always a very weak and confused witness.” He then had the gall to add: “The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try to discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole.””
Until the beginning of 1990, any visitor to Auschwitz could see, inscribed in 19 different languages on 19 metal plaques on the large monument of Birkenau, words proclaiming that four million people had died in the camp. But around April of 1990, those plaques were removed by the Auschwitz Museum authorities, who still today do not know what figure to put in place of the numerical lie before which the world’s most prominent figures, including Pope John Paul II, have come to bow their heads.
In support of their thesis, the revisionists have at their disposal the reports of three different experts (Fred Leuchter, Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl) and even the beginnings of a Polish expert’s report, whereas the exterminationists still do not dare to seek an expert report on the alleged weapon of the crime.
The Jewish survivors of Auschwitz and, in particular, the “children of Auschwitz,” that is, those who were born in the camp or who spent their early years there, are living proof that Auschwitz never could have been an “extermination camp.”
Not only was there never any order, plan, or trace of any directive or budget for an undertaking as enormous as the systematic extermination of the Jews would have been, not only is there no autopsy report in existence establishing the death of even a single prisoner by poison gas, or an official expert’s report on the weapon used in the crime, but (and despite what some authors of best sellers would have us believe) there is not even a single witness of the gas chambers.
Elie Wiesel, in his autobiographical testimony Night, published in 1958, does not mention the gas chambers of Auschwitz even once. He says that the Jews were exterminated in huge fires or in crematory furnaces! In January of 1945, the Germans gave him and his father as well the choice of leaving for the heart of Germany with them or of waiting on the spot for the Soviets. After due consideration, the father and son decided to flee with their German “exterminators” rather than wait for their Soviet liberators. All this is clearly spelled out in Night and needs only to be read with attention.
The Auschwitz Lie
In 1980, I announced: “Now, please pay heed! Not one of the 60 [in French] words of the sentence I am going to pronounce is motivated by a political opinion: The alleged genocide of the Jews and the alleged Hitler gas chambers form one and the same historical lie that has permitted a gigantic political-financial swindle in which the principal beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and the principal victims the German people but not their rulers – and the entire Palestinian people.”
I do not see a single word in that declaration that I would withdraw today, in spite of the many physical aggressions, in spite of the lawsuits, in spite the fines I have suffered since 1978, and in spite of the imprisonment, exile, or persecution of so many revisionists. Historical revisionism is the great intellectual adventure of the end of this century. I have but one regret: not being able, within the limits of this article, to find the needed space to render homage to the hundred other revisionist authors who, from the Frenchman Paul Rassinier on through the American Arthur Butz, the German Wilhelm Stäglich, the Italian Carlo Mattogno, and the Spaniard Enrique Aynat, have added so many works of striking merit to the historical reality of the Second World War.