Professor Robert Faurisson's Challenge still stands
19 July 2005
Faurisson's challenge: still waiting for someone to prove the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz
Preamble: Ardeshir Mehta has been reflecting on the Faurisson challenge for a while, and as I am legally not permitted to discuss this matter publicly, I sent-on one particular response to Professor Faurisson.
Below is Robert Faurisson's response, then follows Ardeshir Mehta's deliberations as he mentally wrestles to understand the Faurisson challenge.
Faurisson's challenge still stands!
the following from Dr Robert Faurisson sheds further light on the matter:
From: ROBERT FAURISSON
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:27 PM
Is this a joke? Do you imagine someone responding that way to the question: "Have you any scientific items to show me?"
I did not say: "Give me a geometrical drawing of the outside of an abstract object" but "Draw me a Nazi gas chamber", which means: give me a drawing of such or such gas chamber located in such or such German concentration camp (especially Auschwitz), of such or such design as seen from outside and inside, comprising such or such machines and devices, all this exactly as if you had to describe one of the gas chambers used in the American penitentiaries and as if an expert had to describe such or such "crime weapon" in a court of justice.
Of course whoever wanted to reply would also have to draw whatever gear permitted men to enter that gas chamber with plenty of HCN in it, sticking to all the surfaces and, especially, remaining between the bodies and INSIDE the bodies, under the skin, in all the natural apertures of each body in such a way that one could never go into the place, handle or even touch the bodies, and make the necessary physical effort to take them out of there, without being poisoned oneself. And of course whoever wanted to reply would have to produce valid evidence with which back up each and every one of his statements
See what we have said repeatedly about the technology and the procedural check list either for the German disinfestation gas chambers or for the American execution gas chambers, both using HCN.
On May 9, 1995, Pressac was asked that question in court. He was totally unable to answer. See his subsequent capitulation, on June 15 of the same year (interview with Valérie Igounet).
Now, Fredrick, isn't it plain to see that you shouldn't even have taken into consideration the idea that such a silly childish sketch might possibly be an answer to my request?
See enclosure - following:
Robert FAURISSON 15 June 2005
Ten Years Ago, Jean-Claude Pressac’s Capitulation
Ten years ago to the day, on June 15th, 1995, Jean-Claude Pressac capitulated, but the text of that capitulation was made public — discreetly — only in small print at the very end of a book by Valerie Igounet published in Paris in April 2000 under the title Histoire du négationnisme en France (éditions du Seuil). It may be feared that a good number of that work’s readers have paid but scant attention to these two half-pages (651-652) in a great mass of text, where the author lets J.C. Pressac have his turn at talking. Nonetheless they are of capital importance for the history of the “Nazi gas chambers” controversy.
On them J.C. Pressac states quite simply that, when all is said and done, the official dossier on the Nazi concentration camps is “rotten”. He even adds that the dossier is irremediably “rotten” and that, consequently, it is “bound for the rubbish bins of history”! He draws up a veritable indictment against “memory” which has “taken precedence over history”, against the distortions inspired by “resentment and vengeance”, against the communists and their associations, which have set themselves up as the guardians of a false truth (he does not dare, however, to implicate the Jews and Jewish associations). He says: “Approximation, exaggeration, omission and lying characterise the majority of the accounts of that period”. He asks: “Can things be put back on an even keel?” and answers: “It is too late. An overall rectification is humanly and materially impossible”.
He had taken the term “rotten” from professor Michel de Boüard. A former internee at Mauthausen (he had been convicted of acts of resistance), that historian, at once a Roman Catholic and close to the communists, became after the war dean of the literature and social sciences faculty at the university of Caen (Normandy) and a member of the Institut de France. He headed the commission for the history of the deportation within the Comité de l’histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale, directly responsible to the Prime Minister’s office. A holder of the decorations Croix de guerre and Médaille de la Résistance, he was a commandeur of the Légion d’honneur. For further information about the late Michel de Boüard’s sudden declarations of 1986-1987, which were amply revisionist in nature, one may consult the pages listed under his name in the index of my Ecrits révisionnistes (1974-1998).
There is an explanation for J.C. Pressac’s sudden change of mind. On June 15th, 1995, the moment when he signed his act of surrender, the man was still feeling the effect of the humiliating blows that he had taken the previous month, on the 9th of May to be precise, in the 17th chamber of the Paris criminal court, presided over by Madame Martine Ract-Madoux. A deafening media clamour had, in September 1993, accompanied the appearance of our man’s volume on The Auschwitz Crematories. The Machinery of Mass Murder. I had replied with a little book entitled Réponse à Jean-Claude Pressac sur le problème des chambers à gaz. That reply led to my prosecution under the Fabius-Gayssot Act prohibiting the disputing of crimes against humanity as defined and punished by the judges at Nuremberg. My barrister, Maître Eric Delcroix, and I had requested the summoning, under pain of arrest, of J.C. Pressac as a witness. Two articles in my aforementioned Ecrits (p. 1674-1682 and 1683-1693) give an account of that session in court relating the witness’s increasingly plain discomposure, his evasiveness and inability to answer Maître Delcroix’s questions, as well as the consternation of the presiding judge at the sight of one who, arms raised on high, declared that too much was being asked of him, that he had but one life, that he was alone in his struggle.
The legal proceedings brought against us for the offence of revisionism, in France and abroad, have been particularly trying, not to say exhausting. We have at times known discouragement and been tempted to consider pointless any system of defence worthy of the name. But it must be acknowledged that those court cases have greatly strengthened our cause. Our opponents refused all our offers of debate, all public confrontation. They trumpeted that their dossier, that of the “Holocaust” or “Shoah”, was as solid as could be. The only times where we have been able to force them to confront us in any arena before an audience have been those proceedings that they had the temerity to undertake against us.
Sometimes they have been able to give the impression of winning at the level of the historical or scientific controversy. Such has been the case more recently with the trial they won in London against David Irving. However, David Irving is at the very most a semi-revisionist, and he does not know the revisionist argumentation well at all. During his lawsuit he did not know how to shut up a certain species of sub-Pressac, a sort of rabbinical visionary, the Jew Robert Jan van Pelt.*
He had not accepted the offer to come to his aid made by an expert like Germar Rudolf. In all the cases where the revisionists have really known how to stand up for themselves, the opponent’s rout has been patent. On this score, Ernst Zündel’s two long trials in Toronto in 1985 and 1988 were exemplary. Obviously I am not speaking here of the judicial conclusions but only of the results obtained at the historical or scientific level with, on the one hand, the rout of the opposing party’s experts and witnesses and, on the other hand, the significant contributions, on the occasion of those trials, made by revisionist researchers to the advancement of historical science (particularly with the Leuchter report on Auschwitz and Majdanek).
J.C. Pressac died on July 23rd, 2003, at the age of 59. The man whom the media of the Western world had saluted as a sort of genius who had, alledgedly, floored revisionism in general and Robert Faurisson in particular, departed this life in the most complete obscurity: not a single organ of the mainstream press that had so extolled him even announced his death.**
Thus June 15th, 1995, with that act of surrender by J.C. Pressac, constitutes one of the most noteworthy dates in the history of revisionism.
* “Robert Jan van Pelt, a scholar who is clearly inferior to Pressac both intellectually as well as regarding his critical attitude” (Carlo Mattogno, “My Memories of Jean-Claude Pressac”, The Revisionist, November 2003, p. 434).
** In spite of a persistent rumour, I must, yet once more, make it clear here that J.C. Pressac was never my “collaborator” or my “disciple”.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ardeshir Mehta
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:27 AM
What do you think of the following reply of mine?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ardeshir Mehta
Date: July 17, 2005 3:14:45 AM EDT (CA)
To: A-Z-C@yahoogroups.com, Andy Robinson
Subject: Re: [Anti-Zionist Coalition] Re: Germar Rudolf Deserves our Solidarity!
On 13-Jul-05, at 12:15 PM, Andy Robinson wrote:
Since your interest is whether a gas chamber COULD have been used as a murder weapon, and since you don't seem to understand Pressac's careful explanation of the equipment which was listed as present in the gas chambers, I've sketched what Pressac seems to be describing.
The picture should appear in this email, but if not, I've also archived it online:
http://images5.theimagehosting.com/gas%20chamber%20blueprint.JPG (copy and paste entire address instead of clicking).
The basic design is that the room is a sealed airtight chamber with only two entrances - a main door through which people enter and corpses are removed, and a wire-mesh entryway in the roof through which crystals releasing poison-gas would be introduced.? Once this was done, both doors would be closed firmly, forcing victims to inhale poison gas.? Victims would in any case die eventually of suffocation.
Now, please explain why you think a device of this kind COULD NOT have been used in mass murder?
Yes, they could have been used to commit mass murder.
However, I understand that such chambers are certainly not to be found at *Auschwitz*, not even in reconstructed form - and maybe at no alleged "death camp" at all; but admittedly that doesn't prove that they could *not*?have existed.?
However, I am not yet convinced that even if the the gas chambers *could*?have been constructed, they could have been used to murder?*millions*?of people.
Consider that there is no provision in the drawing for ventilation of the poisonous gases. This means that it would have taken quite a while for the gases to clear the chamber before the next batch of victims could have been induced to enter it.
As Faurisson says (at http://tinyurl.com/cy4et):
If you want to execute somebody with gas it's extremely difficult. Because you want to kill that person and you don't want to kill yourself. You don't wish to run any risk: risk of explosion, risk of the gas's escaping from the room and getting into your quarters and killing you or making you sick.
So you have something simple to do. You only need to see what is and what was already in the '20s or in the '30s an American gas chamber, in an American penitentiary to execute a prisoner with hydrocyanic acid.
And Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid.
So, please go to the United States as I did to visit a gas chamber, or try to find documentation on it. And you will see how horribly difficult it is to execute one man, only one man with hydrocyanic acid.
The most terrible problem is the problem of airtightness. Because hydrocyanic acid is a substance which sticks to everything. Which attacks everything. And you have to be very careful to keep a place, as much as possible, airtight, hermetic, so that there is no danger for yourself.
And the second problem is, after the execution, to get rid of the gas, this gas which sticks everywhere. You need special fans. You need a very strong exhauster to exhaust the gas. You need a mixer to neutralise this gas. And this gas, supposed to have been neutralised, is ejected through a very high smokestack.
And the day of an execution, the guards in the prison have no right to be on the roof, because it's too dangerous. And once the execution is finished, the doctor and the two assistants have to wait a long time. When they think that most of the gas is neutralised or expelled and neutralised, they put on a gas mask with a special filter, rubber gloves, boots and so on. They get into the place. And they have to wash the body of the man very carefully. Because hydrocyanic acid sticks to every part of the body. In your skin and in natural orifices. So this body, the body itself is very dangerous.
Faurisson also describes the precautions the Germans took when doing simple delousing with Zyklon B. He writes, at http://tinyurl.com/8upsy:
In order to fumigate a barracks, the Germans were constrained by numerous precautionary measures: specially trained teams which were licensed only after an internship at a Zyklon B manufacturing plant; special materials including especially the "J" filters which when used in gas masks were capable of protecting an individual under the most rigorous toxic conditions; evacuations of all surrounding barracks; warnings posted in several languages and bearing a skull and cross-bones; a meticulous examination of the site to be fumigated in order to locate and seal any fissures or openings; the sealing of any chimneys or airshafts and the removal of keys from doors.
The cans of Zyklon B were opened at the site itself. After the gas had apparently killed all the vermin, the most critical operation would begin: this was the ventilation of the site. Sentries were to be stationed at a certain distance from all doors and windows, their backs to the wind, in order to prevent the approach of all persons.
The specially trained crew equipped with gas masks would then enter the building and unclog the chimneys and cracks, and open the windows.
This operation completed, they had to go outside again, remove their masks and breathe freely for ten minutes. They had to put their masks on again to re-enter the building and perform the next step.
Once all of this work was completed, it was still necessary to wait TWENTY hours. Actually, because Zyklon B was "difficult to ventilate, since it adheres strongly to surfaces," the dispersion of the gas required a long natural ventilation. This was especially important when great volumes of the gas were employed as in the case of a barrack containing more than one floor. (When Zyklon B was used in an autoclave with a total volume of only 10 cubic meters, ventilation (forced or artificially) was still necessary.)
After twenty hours had elapsed, the crew would return with their masks on. They would then verify by means of a paper test (the paper would turn blue in the presence of hydrocyanic acid) as to whether or not the site was indeed again fit for human habitation. And so we see that a site which had been gassed was not safely accessible until a minimum of 21 hours had elapsed. As far as French legislation is concerned, the minimum is set at 24 hours.
It becomes, therefore, apparent that in the absence of a magical fan capable of instantly expelling a gas that is "difficult to ventilate, since it adheres strongly to surfaces," the "human slaughterhouse" called a "gas chamber" would have been inaccessible for nearly a full day. its walls, floors, ceiling would have retained portions of a gas which was highly poisonous to man.
And what about the bodies? These cadavers could have been nothing less than saturated with the gas, just as the cushions, mattresses and blankets discussed in the same technical document on the use of Zyklon B would have been saturated also.?
So it would take at least a whole?*day*?to murder one batch of people, before the next batch could be induced to enter the same chamber.
So: how many people could be murdered in one chamber in one day?
Assuming: a maximum of 100 people in each chamber at a time (and that's?*really*?squeezing them in, don't you think?), and assuming a turn-around time of one day for the gas to clear so well that the next batch of victims to be induced to enter the chamber, well then in the space of 1,000 days (that's a little less than three years - and that's also about the right amount of time during which the gassings are alleged to have taken place) each such chamber could murder at most 100,000 people with poison gas.
And it seems doubtful that there could be more than 10 such chambers constructed in total, for if many more of them had been constructed, at least one of them would surely have survived the war, even if only in ruins - enabling traces of the poison gas to be found in its walls. But none such have been found.
As Faurisson says, again at: http://tinyurl.com/cy4et:
[...] hydrocyanic acid sticks to surfaces, as I've said, and can stay there for centuries. You can't get rid of it. This is why in the disinfection gas chambers in Auschwitz you can still see, very easily, blue patches outside.
Even outside with the rain and the snow you have still those blue patches showing that there was hydrocyanic acid or prussic acid or, as we say, "blue acid". So he took back those scrapings and had them analysed by an American laboratory. And the result was extraordinary.
Fred Leuchter had the idea of taking one sample from a disinfection gas chamber and many samples from places in Auschwitz 1 and in Birkenau which are supposed to have been homicidal gas chambers. The result was that in the disinfection gas chamber you had an enormous quantity of cyanide.
And in the places where people and not lice are supposed to have been killed, you had no traces, or else very very small traces, probably due to the fact that those places had been disinfected with Zyklon B.?
This is not conducive to the conclusion that millions of people were killed in such gas chambers.
But even if all such chambers were in fact destroyed, the fact that no?*walls*?have been found of such chambers with high residues of hydrocyanic acid in it, puts the possible victims of gassing at only a few hundred thousand, or at most about one million.?
Note that this includes Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Gays, the disabled and many others who are alleged to have been gassed by the Nazis. So it cuts down possible Jewish deaths from gassing to?*much*?less than a million total.
And even that would be pushing it ... as well as assuming, *without* proof, that such chambers actually existed, since of such chambers no remains - with cyanide in the walls - have ever been found.
Besides, as Faurisson says, at the same URL indicated above:
Sometimes people rather naively say: "But we know that the Germans destroyed the gas chambers and killed all the witnesses." I am sorry. It makes your position worse, because my question would be: "Please describe to me what the Germans are supposed to have destroyed. What do you know about that?"?
Still, I do think that Faurisson's own challenge stands answered. He writes, at http://tinyurl.com/95xff:
Please spare me words and theories. Give me a material description of what is supposed to be a material reality. You know the story of the young African boy in the Sahara Desert who has never seen a rose. Someone explains to him what a rose is and the young boy says: "spare me words, draw me a rose on the sand!"
The same for me and this is my challenge: "you have no photo, draw me a nazi gas chamber!" Otherwise I will think that, when you use the words "chambers", you don't even know what you are talking about, so that the sentence "chambers existed" would in fact mean: "Bla-bla existed."
Although we are living in a "age" and belong to a "of the image", we have never been shown this fantastic object. As for the gas chambers, people seem to be satisfied with words and seem not to care for an image or a picture.
Well, the picture above should suffice, I think, to answer the challenge enunciated by Faurisson.
c-free 2005 Adelaide Institute