Available in English or French.
For decades the late Professor Robert Faurisson was relentlessly pursued in the French courts for his “criminal writings”, particularly after July 1990 when a special law was enacted to ban outright the disputing of claims that, during the Second World War, Germany had perpetrated a “Holocaust” of the Jews of Europe, notably by means of mass execution gas chambers. The decision of his latest trial was awaited in the week following his death on October 21, 2018.
This interview is a unique publication: along with the exchanges that followed in the months afterwards on the pages of Storia Illustrata, it is the one and only exposure in the mainstream press – that popular magazine belonged to the leading Italian publisher Mondadori – that Faurisson ever managed to obtain after a wall of silence was imposed in France following his two brief articles on “the problem of the gas chambers”, carried by the daily Le Monde in December 1978 and January 1979.
The limitations of the interview format account for the large volume of information contained in the footnotes, written after the interview’s appearance in August 1979, where Faurisson seeks to develop a number of points not within the scope of the questions posed. The whole perhaps amounts to what he, already a pariah in his own country at the time, would have put in an article for a widely distributed review to make the general revisionist case as it stood then – an era before the two Ernst Zündel trials in Toronto and the Leuchter and Rudolf reports.
Introduction by Peter Rushton, Assistant Editor of Heritage and Destiny, January 2022
Robert Faurisson died on 21st October 2018, moments after returning to his home in Vichy from his final conference organised by Heritage and Destiny in his birthplace of Shepperton, England (which he hadn’t seen since infancy).
After having made his name in an academic career as a specialist in the close analysis of literary texts, Professor Faurisson became the world’s leading revisionist scholar of what is generally termed “the Holocaust”. In 1980 he summarised his findings in a sixty-word French sentence, which translates into English as:
The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.
“That sentence,” he declared 38 years on, “needs no changes.”
Robert Faurisson was not a man for vague rhetorical gestures: he was dedicated to historical exactitude, a term he preferred to the less precise and perhaps unattainable concept expressed by “truth”, and the statement above (which he first made in a radio interview more than a year after the interview presented here) was rooted in two decades of detailed research, both documentary and physical, in archives around the world and on-site at the alleged “Nazi death camps” themselves.
For decades Professor Faurisson was relentlessly pursued in the French courts, and particularly after a special law was enacted in July 1990 to criminalize his work: even at the hour of his death a decision was pending in a court near Vichy. The search for historical exactitude continues, and in 2022 those engaged in that search stand on Robert Faurisson’s shoulders, in the manner variously attributed to Sir Isaac Newton and to the 12th-century scholar Bernard of Chartres, who was said “to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature.”
We are fortunate that Professor Faurisson’s closest colleagues have maintained an online archive (at robert-faurisson.com) containing most of his writings, a site that they occasionally update with new translations and transcriptions. One such recent English translation is this important and comprehensive interview.
The limitations of the interview format account for the large volume of information contained in the footnotes, written after the interview’s appearance in August 1979, where Faurisson seeks to develop a good number of points not within the scope of the questions posed. Thus the whole perhaps amounts to what he, already a pariah in France at the time, would have put in an article for a widely distributed publication to make the general revisionist case as it stood then – an era before the two Ernst Zündel trials in Toronto and the Leuchter and Rudolf reports.