Fredrick Töben and I have recently exchanged comments via e-mail, which I reproduce here in their entirety.
July 10, RF to FT
Thank you, Fredrick, for defending me. Very best wishes.
July 11, FT to RF
Robert, I just don’t understand why Fritz continues in this mode – without Faurisson there is no Revisionism; without Berg, there is relief for Revisionists.
Your presence and your work is vital – as it was for me those many years ago when we first met! – Cordially.
July 11, RF to FT
I see you are wondering why Fritz Berg behaves towards me as he does.
My answer is that I myself would like to know his reasons with certainty.
Gene Brugger used to say that Fritz Berg got angry with me when he realized that, although he was an engineer, he had never grasped as well as I that, in order to demolish the Big Red Lie of the Holocaust, one of the best ways to proceed was with a “nuts and bolts revisionism”. I for one was working like a member of what in France we call “the technical police” and “the scientific police”, or like a forensic examiner. I wanted the accusers of NS Germany not to show me any more testimonies or any other blabla until they’d shown me “the scene of the crime” and “the crime weapon”.
Remember: “Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber”. And I was lucky enough to find, on March 19, 1976, the plans – which had been kept hidden by our Eastern liars – of the five crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau. As Germar Rudolf would say years and years afterwards, that’s the way “Faurisson pul[led] the trigger”.
Faurisson, the specialist of Greek and Latin and modern French literature, along with “Appraisal of Texts and Documents (Literature, History, Media)”. Not Berg, the engineer.
And something else. I think it was in 1993. I was observing the inauguration of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. I was outside admiring the splendid horses of the police when a journalist asked me whether I was Faurisson, and if he could ask me some questions. I agreed. There I was answering his questions when I felt someone approaching from behind. Suddenly I received a rather violent push and nearly fell down to my left. Fritz Berg was the pusher! And – mind you – I heard him saying to the journalist something like: “This guy has had his time with you. I am the one you have to ask your questions”.
I was so shocked and I felt so ashamed all at the same time of Fritz Berg, the journalist and myself that I slowly withdrew and went back to look at the horses.
I suppose I have never mentioned that incident in writing.
I must say that, if the man is so angry with me it might also be, at least partly, because, right at the beginning when I first met him, I also met his mother. I guarantee you that she looked a perfect “Yiddische Momme”. He himself looks like a Jew. When I’d told him I was of Scottish descent by my mother I could not help asking him whether his mother and himself were not of Jewish descent. Perhaps I even asked what her maiden name was. You must understand that in France in those days there were quite a few Jews on the revisionist side.
I do not remember his reaction exactly but he did not appreciate the question(s) that probably a good many people had already put to him.
Anyway, Fredrick, I have to congratulate you for your moderation in your answers to a man who keeps insulting you. And I have also to thank you for the way you take up my defence and the defence of revisionism.
With my very best wishes.
July 12, FT to RF
Robert, thank you for this personal comment, which explains so much, and now causes me to reflect some more on the issue.
This is, of course, how I approached the subject and during the obvious ebb and flow of my own research, where doubt sometimes became overwhelming – as occurred when I personally met Prof Deborah Lipstadt after her talk in Melbourne in 1994, your: ‘Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!’, together with Ernst Zündel’s, ‘The story keeps on changing’, helped me to re-focus and steady my enquiring mind’s meanderings into doubt about the official fundamentals of the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.
Then there was Fred Leuchter’s 1988 fundamental physical research, as refined by Germar Rudolf, then in 1992 Dr Franciszek Piper admitting to David Cole that Krema I is a reconstruction, which then Robert Jan van Pelt/Deborah Dwork confirmed in their 1996 book, “Auschwitz: From 1270 to the present”, at 363-64, and admitting that Krema I was made to look like the homicidal gas chambers at Krema II. Since then in 2002 Fritjof Meyer claimed no gassings occurred within the Auschwitz camp complex but rather in two non-existent farm houses outside of the camp complex.
I must recall that during my first court appearance after my arrest at Mannheim in April 1999 the arraignment judge, who unlike in Common Law countries, himself wrote up what transpired before him, asked me whether I would like to add anything to what he had written. I asked that it be noted: If at any time the evidence of the murder weapon – the homicidal gas chambers – is found, then we would be the first to publish it to the world. And I still recall how public prosecutor Klein jumped out of his chair and sprinted over to the judge’s bench and loudly proclaimed. No-no, that’s not necessary! Of course, I countered by insisting my words be written down, which the judge did, because by this time I knew I would not be let go on bail and that I would for the first time in my life spend time in a prison.
Now of interest is that the “official” Holocaust-Shoah narrative, as formulated in a live presentation on 7 November 2015 by Yale historian Professor Timothy Snyder – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfgQWc4q2Bo – has even done away with the “systematic extermination” thesis, which had been achieved in large measure in 1985 at the Toronto Zündel trial where Prof Raul Hilberg admitted the two written Hitler orders that allegedly began the Holocaust never existed, but that all Germans knew what to do with the Jews. The joke then coursed through Revisionists ranks that a “wink and a nudge” began the extermination process.
A further elaboration of Snyder’s narrative, published on 3 April 2016, is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI6sOfQfYf0
Of interest is my current matter before the court – it was heard on 4-5 February 2015 and the judge took until 30 November 2015 to reach a decision on the matter before her, which we are appealing on Friday, 15 July 2016.
Please advise if I can publish your below response with my above comment – it’s for the record, Robert, and if you wish to add anything to it, please do.
My best wishes to you, and thank you for being there.
July 22, RF to FT
I’m sorry, Fredrick, that I haven’t been able to reply till now to your email of July 12 but both my wife and I are having serious health troubles. She was supposed to be hospitalised on July 26 for an operation the following day but they’ve recently discovered an infection to treat and cure her of urgently. I hope this will be possible but I have my doubts. A new appointment with the surgeon could only be rather far-off because our hospitals are overburdened. For my part, I suffer from very painful after-effects of a physical assault of long ago and shall probably have to be hospitalised in turn.
I’d have liked to comment on all the replies you’ve made to me. I’m going to have to limit myself to a few remarks. You wrote at some point: “Without Faurisson there is no revisionism”. This phrase can only have exceeded what you were thinking. The revisionism of the Second World War has thus far been a considerable undertaking that has mobilised the efforts, talents and sacrifices of an impressive number of people from nearly every corner of the globe and every background. But, as in any undertaking of such dimensions, there have happened to be a few rare individuals of regrettable behaviour. There is no need to lend much importance to this since, all told, revisionism, whose political, financial and media resources are laughable, has won an impressive number of victories on the historic and scientific level. Good luck, dear Fredrick, in your legal case! For my part, I still have five trials to come. Let’s think of all our friends who, for their part, are in prison – where we may end up joining them.
NB: A moment of relaxation, if you will. Like a certain number of revisionists, you seem not to realise that David Cole had actually obtained nothing from F. Piper in 1992. Many years before then I had personally obtained from Jan Machalek, an official of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the same answer (“rekonstruiert”) on the subject of Krema-I by showing him there was no soot on the opening of the ovens. It was in 1975, during my first inspection of the camp. And I’d had the idea of saying: “So, sie haben Pläne”. He pitifully replied: “Ja”. I added: “Wo sind diese Pläne?” And he told me that the plans were in the Archives department. On March 19, 1976, on my second inspection, Tadeusz Iwaszko, head of the Archives, had, reluctantly, granted me access to the precious plans of all the Krema, five in all, at Auschwitz and Birkenau, until then kept hidden by the Polish communists: a real treasure-trove which a few years later I let the participants at the first revisionist conference in Los Angeles – notably Arthur Butz and Ernst Zündel – appreciate. It’s on those plans that could be seen for the first time such words as “Leichenhalle” or “Leichenkeller” (for mortuaries). David Cole in 1992 had broken through an open door, one that I’d opened seventeen years previously!
See, for a reminder from 1993, http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/1993/01/letter-to-bradley-smith-and-david-cole.html.
The very height of absurdity would have been for German chemists, engineers and physicians to go and install “weapons of mass destruction” operated with Zyklon-B or hydrogen cyanide (HCN) in buildings housing… crematory ovens! Indeed, this gas is described by the scientific and technical documents as highly inflammable, highly explosive and highly dangerous both for personnel and the environment.
Another remark: the Germans used, for the disinfection of locomotives and trains, hangars that they filled with Zyklon-B or HCN. This does not at all mean that they could easily have used such spaces for gassing human beings, then evacuated the bodies. Indeed, it is easy, after gassing a locomotive or goods carriage (metallic mass) to get rid of the HCN by ventilation, whereas it becomes impossible to get rid of gas that has settled in the body tissues of hundreds or thousands of dead and continues to emanate from them.
Such a labour would have been all the more superhuman as it would have been necessary to carry on with it the next day, day after day, and indefinitely over several years.
You may find the following five articles useful with respect to the points we’ve discussed.
Gas chamber of the Maryland State Penitentiary, Baltimore (USA) (February 11, 1980)
The Victories of Revisionism (December 11, 2006)
The Victories of Revisionism (continued) (September 11, 2011)
The revisionists’ total victory on the historical and scientific level (December 31, 2015)
Another scientific document that by itself explodes the myth of Hitler’s gas chambers (July 7, 2016)