Impossible Conference
in Stockholm
Recording
in Stockholm
May
22, 1993
Robert
Faurisson
My name is Robert Faurisson. I am 64 years old. We are today the
22 of May 1993. I am in Stockholm at the end of a difficult day. This
afternoon I was supposed to give a conference in Stockholm in a
private place to some people interested by Revisionism. But it wasn't
possible. When, with my friend Ahmed Rami, I got near the place we
were attacked by some hooligans who had theirs face hidden and I was
told that those people had stones and knifes. We received on our car
one stone, on the window. It did not break. We had to leave. It was
impossible for me to give this conference.
As I got back home I got a phone-call from France and I learn that
yesterday, on the 21, something had been published in France saying
that a Jewish organisation, a fighting Jewish organisation called Betar
had decided to stop me from entering in your country. And they
decided to stop me. They said even by force, by physical violence.
They didn't do it at Arlanda airport, because I arrived two days ago.
But they stopped me from talking on the 22 of May.
When, on the 20 of May, I arrived at Arlanda airport I was for the
first time received in this country as a normal human being. This had
not been the case on the 17 of Mars 1992, where I was stopped by the
police. It was not the case in December 1992 where the police stopped
me once more. This time I had no trouble with the police, no trouble
with the custom. And I saw my friend Ahmed Rami. Some journalists
were there. And especially a lady from Expressen. They asked me: "Why
are you coming to Sweden?" And I said: "For two reasons. First, to
visit my friend Ahmed Rami who invited my. Second, because I want an
answer to my challenge to the Swedish media." And I was asked: "What
was your challenge?" I said: On the 17 of March, I said to the Swedish
media: I have a challenge for you: Please, show me or draw me a Nazi
gas chamber. Because, since 1960, since the time I became interested
in the problem of the Nazi gas chambers I have never seen a gas
chamber, even at Auchwitz. I have never seen a plan. I have never
seen a model, a convincing model with technical explanations of those
extraordinarily chemical slaughter houses. I am ready to say, the
Nazi gas chamber existed. But please describe what it could look
like. I have never seen this. When you knew that it was supposedly
gas chambers functioning with Zyklon B. When you knew what was Zyklon
B. It was a insects acid, invented in 1922 by the Germans and still
used today. When you knew how difficult it's to handle this gas. When
you knew that you can not get into a place to take out bodies who
infected with this gas. And it's extraordinary processes that you can
see in a American gas chamber when only one man has been executed,
you can not help but being very sceptical about those Nazi
slaughter-houses, were 100's or 1000's of people were supposed to be
killed and then dragged off this gas chamber. I said on the 17 of
March 1992: Be careful don't show me a wall. Don't show me a door.
Don't show me hair, shoes. I want a total picture of a Nazi gas
chamber. And I said: Be careful, you have 24 hours to answer my
challenge. But I am going to comment tomorrow night your answers to
my challenge.
This challenge was not answered. And not even mentioned by the
Swedish media. I repeated this challenge in December 1992. And I had
another one. And I said: I am ready to meet on the TV, not a
journalist, not a politician, but an historian or several historians
about what is call the Holocaust. And this challenge was not mentioned.
But you see this time it was rather pleasant for me, I say, to see
that I was not insulted on my arrival. And I thought that maybe I
could make one or several conference. This was not the case.
We are, I think, pacific people. Asking questions or showing the
result of our researches. And I don't see how the fact of answering
by insults or by beating up people could be a good answer. Myself
since 1968, I have been attacked, oh I use to say 8 times, I am
obliged to say today 9 times, because of my ideas. And not even my
ideas, but the result of my researches. Because I am not a Nazi. I
think that if I were a Nazi I would say it. I am not a criminal. I am
not a racist. And I have personal reasons to say that I am not a
racist. I am not going to go into this. I wont only to have the
right to be curious about things which are strange.
There is an American historian. He is a Jew. His name is Arno
Mayer. He is a professor in Princeton. In 1988 he published a book.
"Why did the heaven not..." I don't remember the exact title. The
real title been: "The final solution in history". On page 362 this
Jewish historian, who says that he believes in the Holocaust, has all
the same this sentence. And I would like you to think about this
sentence. Very short one: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers
are at once rare and unreliable." How is it that those sources could
be said today, "rare and unreliable". We have been told for years and
years that those sources were as numerous as possible. As strong, as
reliable as possible. And this man comes and say: No, they are rare
and unreliable. And he gives his reasons to say that. He says that we
have to be very careful with so called testimonies. Very careful with
confessions. And he even says, certainly at Auschwitz, and perhaps in
every other camp, more people, more Jews died from natural causes,
than by unnatural causes. By natural causes he means starvation ,
hard work, epidemics, specially of typhus. And this is why the
Germans in there camps had ovens for burning the dead people. We never
said that there were no persecutions of the Jews. We never said that
there was no deportations, no concentrations camps. All this existed.
But we say that there were no gas chambers to kill people. We have
arguments. And if you are interested you should try to see those
arguments and to think of them.
Now, you must now that Revisionism is nothing of an ideology. It's
a method. It's a way of working, of checking, and double-checking
things. And I think that we should have the right to express our
views. Because I think that most of the Swedes do not knew at all
what we are talking about. Because what they hear is only the
accusation against the revisionists. If the people who are accusing
us are so sure, they should be ready to bring us on the TV and to
show how ridiculous we are, with our chemical arguments, physical,
topographic, I mean the topography of the camp, architecture
arguments, architecture of the crematories, supposed to have had gas
chambers, documentary arguments and any historical arguments. You can
not judge if you have not heard the accusations and the defence.
Now you could say: But we have heard many witnesses. Do you mean
Mr Faurisson that those witnesses are liars? My answer would be: No,
I certainly do not say that they are liars. I would say that they are
victims of an historical lie. When in your newspaper you read a news
which happen to be a false news, and if you repeat it, it doesn't
mean that you are a liar. It means that you are a victim of a lie, or
of a error, or of a mistake. So I don't say that those people are
liars.
Now, do you think that we can find any witness of the gassings? I
thought that myself until 1960 when I had my first doubt that there
were many witnesses. As you perhaps knew I have many many trials in
France. And always I asked for a witness to come and to testify and
to be examined and cross examined about what he thinks he knows about
the gassings. And I can not have even one witness.
Sometimes people come to me and they say: How dear you Mr
Faurisson say that the gas chambers did not excist? See my tattoo
number. I was in Auschwitz. I was a witness. And I say: Sir or my
lady please look at me in the eyes. Do you mean that you have seen a
gas chamber? That you have seen a gassing? If this is the case
because you have said this, please describe. Every time the answer
is: You knew perfectly well that if I have seen a gassing I wouldn't
be here to talk to you. They mean, I would have been killed. Now,
this is a strange answer. Because first those people presented
themselves as witnesses of gassings. And then according to what they
say, there can not been a witness. They are wrong. If in Auschwitz
you have had those fantastic chemical slaughter houses, functioning
day and night for years and years killing 100 000 or millions of
people, you would have had many, many witnesses. You must knew that
Auschwitz was a camp were you had many civilians coming from outside
and working into the camp. We have many many documents about
Auschwitz. I say millions of documents about those camps. And we have
not the slightest proof, material proof that there were any gas
chamber. Now you could say something else. You could say: But I have
visited Dachau or I have visited Auschwitz and I have seen a gas
chamber. I am sorry. If you have visited Dachau, please go back and
you will see that the room wish is presented as a gas chamber has a
sign saying: "Gas chamber, never used". And if you asked the people:
But why do you say that it was a gas chamber, never used. They said
because the Germans had no time to finish this gas chambers. They
began the constructions in 1942 and in -45 it was not finished. But
my question is: "Please tell me what is missing so that we have a gas
chamber?" There, anyway, you say that there were no gassings. You say
this now. But at the big Nuremberg-trial a film was projected on
the 26 of November 1945. And this film showed and described the so
call gassing in Dachau. And now we are told that it is false. So
what about all the witnesses? The same question for Auschwitz. When
you visit Auschwitz you see a room called a gas chamber. But did you
have the idea of looking carefully to this place? You could see a
tiny little door with a glass. If you had put people to this place.
They would have broken the door, broken the glass. And the gas, the
dreadful gas, used to kill lice and not people, would have gone to
SS-hospital which was 20 meters from there. And this door opens inside
in to the place were the bodies supposed to be.
So for those reasons and many others it cannot be a gas chamber.
And I have myself found the plans. And I can tell you what it was in
fact. In fact it had been first a place were you store bodies of
people who died from typhus or anything and waiting for burning. And
then it was transformed in air raid shelter.
So please when you see a place call homicidal gas chamber, not
delousing gas chamber, ask why do you call this a homicidal gas
chamber? What kind of proof do you have?
Let me tell you which is quiet reasons. A few weeks ago I was in
Washington, on the 22 of April, for the dedication of the Holocaust
Memorial Museum. And I was waiting for the opening of this Holocaust
Memorial Museum. I was very curious to see what kind of gas chamber
they would show. Because my challenge to the Swedish media was in
fact an international challenge. And do you knew what? In this
Holocaust Memorial Museum, which cost millions of dollars, the gas chambers that
you see is a delousing gas chamber, presented as a homicidal gas chamber. It is
a gas chamber that you can visit in Majdanek, Poland. And it's not only me who
says that, not only me who says that it's a delousing gas chamber. But even the
advisers of the revisionists. And especially Klarsfeld, Mr and Mrs Klarsfeld. Klarsfeld is call the Nazi hunter. He published a book writiten by a man
called Jean-Claude Pressac. On Auschwitz at the end of this book,
presented so by a Jewish institutions, The Klarsfeld Foundation in
New York, you have the photo of this Majdanek delousing gas chamber.
And it is said that this was a delousing gas chamber.
So it means that in Washington they are showing you - and this is a
lie - a disinfecting or delousing gas chamber, as a homicidal gas
chamber. In other words, what the Germans had built and used to
protect there one health and the health of the prisoners. Because the
clothes of the prisoners were disinfected in this place. They show
this as something that the Germans would have built and used to kill
there prisoners. Now this is really too much.
I think that we should have the right to finished. To give my
conclusions. We should have the right to ask questions. And not to
be insulted. And also I would say something else. I know that your
country received very well Salman Rushdie. Now listen, maybe
Salman Rushdie tomorrow will be killed. This is possible. He is
condemned to death. But myself I am condemned to death by some Jewish
organisations, like Betar. A Jewish professor recently said in
France: "I would personally kill Faurisson if I could". But he can
very easily. Because there is a difference between Salman Rushdie and
myself. Salman Rushdie is afraid and he hides himself. I am not
afraid. I have even my address and my phone number in the directory
of the city of which I live in France. I do not hide myself. I really
do not mind. I mind for truth and I don't like very much the truth,
because everyone says that he is working for truth and saying truth.
No, I am interested in historical exactness. I want to be exact. The
name of this man who said that he would be ready to kill Faurisson,
he said it on the 14 of December 1992, is Pierre Vidal-Naquet. This man
wrote a book called Assassin of memoir. I am describe as an assassin.
Which is a way of saying to the people: You could kill this man. He
is nothing more than an assassin.
Now, You must know something. I responsibly very correctly to this
man in 1982, by a book called Response to Pierre Vidal-Naquet. And I
see that this man today has his book published in United States in
English, that he is unable to answer to our arguments and that now he
wants to kill us. I don't think that this is fair. So in this country
Salman Rushdie was very well received. Myself I was very badly
received. I thought that I would say on two occasions among these
visits. I am sorry to say, very badly received on three occasions.
Because I came in March -92, December -92. I thought that this time
perhaps it would change. It has not changed. This is a pity.
But believe me, people are wondering why I'm doing all this. Let
me try to answer. I'm doing all this because I'm not interested in
money. I'm not interested in honour. I'm not interested in
publicity. I'm not pleased to show my face. I don't like this. I am
not interested in politics. I'm not interested in religion. So I
don't do this against the Jews or for the Nazis. Absolutely not. I'm
a very curious man. I have what we call intellectual curiosity. I
want to go and see things which are supposed to be mysterious, and
wish are mysterious. I don't want anyone to stop me. And I want only
one thing. And perhaps I should not say this. I would like, not the
people of my time to say that I'm right or I'm courageous. Because I
know that they will not say that. My children will not say that. But
perhaps my grandchildren will say that. And this is important for me.
I want them to say, using the past tense: He was courageous. But you
see there are different forms of courage. When you have a kind of
courage everybody says: Oh splendid, bravo. And they say this is a
marbles courage, military courage, courage of resistance, of what so
ever. But there is another kind of courage, extremely rare. It's a
courage of a man or a woman who fights, keeps on fighting, when
everybody spits on him or spits on her. And he wants to fight, and to
fight until the end. This is what I'm going to do.
Thank You. This cassette I'm told could be broadcast by any radio
station. And I am responsible of what I say. Not of what I'm
supposed to say.
Thank you very much.
