Faurisson film fooling the French

A French historian by the name of Paul-Érik Blanrue has just produced a video about the "man" Faurisson; it is in French and available here. Blanrue has an old  interest in counterfactual history - so Faurisson is just the right man for him  to focus on.

Faurisson presents all his well-known inveterate opinions about gas chambers etc., but, unfortunately, Blanrue fails to ask some of the critical questions one expects from a good historian. From an announcement  just received, it is clear that Faurisson is not only pleased with himself but also with Blanrue and this video.

Here, therefore, are some of the questions the French public should ask in order not to be fooled by Faurisson´s Chutzpah.

The main point is, as always,  the Nazi gas chambers.

1. Robert Faurisson (RF) shows us the famous drawing of Krema II in Birkenau, priding himself of being the first to discovery this blueprint  in 1976. Here, one can see Leichenkeller I and Leichenkeller 2. RF fails to inform us that Leichenkeller 1 in early 1943 was referred to by the Germans responsible for its construction as Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller - two different terms for a gas chamber. So, these Germans were not merely speaking of normal morgues, but also of gas chambers! None of these men or their colleagues later denied that these gas chambers were for killing Jews. It is only RF , who was not there, who denies this. So, a man who was not there knows better than the men who were there! RF also forgets to mention that there were many gas chambers and gas vans used to exterminate Jews inside and outside the Reich. RF thus ignores vital evidence that invalidates his unscientific  views about Nazi gas chambers.

2. RF refers to a French historian, Conan,  who some years ago pointed out that with regard to Krematorium 1 in Auschwitz, "all is false". RF should have told the public that the fact that "all is false" NOW, by no means allows us to infer that there was no gassings in that building THEN. RF seems to have learned some of his tricks from the Allies - who were full of them!

3. Likewise, RF compares the Nazi gas chambers of Birkenau to American gas chambers. He should, of course have compared German gas chambers to GERMAN gas chambers - NOT  American gas chambers. Making false comparisons is a cheap trick.

4. RF also fools his French viewers when he claims a victory over Hilberg and Vrba. It is true that Hilberg, in the first edition of his standard work on the extermination of the European Jews, , had a note about Hitler orders to kill the Jews, and that Hilberg deleted that note after the first Zündel trial in Toronto. But it is WRONG thereby to suggest that Hilberg admitted that Hitler had given no such order. RF should have mentioned that Hilberg never abandoned his view that there must have been a Hitler order to that effect. That we have no such order in Hitler´s own hand, is only what was to be expected. When it comes to Vrba, it is true that his testimony proved unreliable.

But it is WRONG to claim that Vrba was the main witness for gas chambers in Auschwitz. Again and again, RF jumps to conclusions. Many unreliable witnesses to a given event, does NOT mean that that event did not take place. It merely shows confusionn or dishonesty, or the like. Had he been an honest seeker after  historical  truth, RF would have called the attention of his French viewers to the most recent and exhaustive discussion about Hitler´s order to kill the Jews. It is to be found in the standard work of Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 86-123. Having reviewed all the numerous available German sources, Curilla concludes that there was, for sure, a Hitler order to kill ALL Jews, including women and children, and that that order, almost certainly, was given before June 22, 1941.

Only a pilpulist  keeps on demanding that one shows him a piece of paper signed by the Führer: Kill all the Jews!

5. RF also refers to Höss.It is quite true that Höss was beaten up  and that his testimony  sometimes is unreliable. But this fact does NOT permit us to conclude that ALL that Höss said or wrote has to be discarded. When Höss says or writes things that can be independently confirmed from other sources, there is no reason to discard his testimony. It is, surely,  the same with RF: The fact that RF says or writes many things that are unreliable, does NOT mean that ALL that he says or writes is totally unreliable. We do not want to be unfair to Höss, and we do not want to be unfair to Faurisson.

6. Finally, the 6 million figure. This figure was often mentioned by Zionists even long before the Second World War. Who could, in those days, have any accurate notion of the precise number! There were even those who claimed, in May 1945, that 6 million Jews had survived and were safe! Eichmann called the 6 million figure "Unsinn" or "Wahnsinn". The important thing is that Hitler intended to have his police exterminate all Jews, and that Himmler also admitted that his men had done what they could to implement the order of Hitler.

The fact that PRECISELY 6 million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis , does NOT allow us to infer that "they were all there" in 1945. These are but some of the facts the public in France have to keep in mind not to be completely fooled by Professor Faurisson´s "counterfactual history"..

Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 1, 2011