Summary: A "leading revisionist scholar" in action; Faurisson's extreme dishonesty and deceitfulness
Robert Faurisson is considered by Holocaust-deniers as, perhaps, the "leading revisionist" worldwide (he used to share this title with David Irving, but now that Irving stated that 4 million Jews died in the Holocaust, his status in the "revisionist" community is not that clear).
A truly astounding examples of Faurisson's tactic of lies and deceit is demonstrated in his piece titled "The 'Problem of the Gas Chambers'", posted here by the tireless Marc Lemire.
In this piece, Faurisson "surveys" the gas chambers in the various camps, and tries to "prove" there is not sufficient evidence that they existed.
On two of the worst death camps, Treblinka and Belzec, Faurisson writes: # For proof that the "gas chambers" in Belzec or Treblinka really # existed, one is asked to rely essentially upon the statement of # Kurt Gerstein.
That's about it; Faurisson goes on to state that Gerstein's testimony cannot be trusted. But that's not the point. Who was Kurt Gerstein? He was an SS-officer, who saw Belzec and Treblinka just one time. He wasn't stationed in them. He visited them once, and saw a gassing operation. His testimony is accurate on the whole, although it is definitely emotional; also, he overestimated the number of people who were pushed into a single gas chamber.
So what does "leading revisionist" Faurisson do? Very simple. He "forgets" all other evidence to what happened in these camps: documents, physical remains, and numerous other testimonies, for instance those given by SS-men who served in these camps for a long time and, of course, provided a far more accurate and detailed picture than Gerstein. SS-men like Stangl, who commanded Treblinka; Franz, his deputy; and others (Mentz, Matthes, Lambert, Oberhauser, Suchomel, Horn, etc).
By not mentioning all these witnesses, and focusing on Gerstein, Faurisson is being extremely dishonest. First, he is lying when he states that "one is asked to rely essentially upon the statement of Kurt Gerstein"; there is a far greater body of evidence. Second, not only does Faurisson mention only one witness among many, he also - intentionally, obviously - chooses one that saw the camps only once and, as a result, gave a testimony which is less accurate than the testimony of those who spent a lot of time in the camps.
Faurisson's work is not "historical research". It is a miserable collection of outright lies, omissions, and misinterpretations, of which the above is a spectacular, but in no way unique, example.
-Danny Keren. --
Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
Faurisson has relied on all these scummy techniques in order to deny the Holocaust.
These are the same scummy techniques which others have used to falsely tarnish Pope Pius XII's sterling reputation.