Vincent Renouard, Former Political Prisoner & Political Exile, Now Jailed in Edinburgh & Faces Extradition to France

Most revisionists know “the heroic Vincent Reynouard », as Dr Robert Faurisson would call him. Having fled to England and then Scotland to avoid imprisonment in France, Vincent was finally spotted in a small Scottish village, and France is demanding his extradition. The trial will take place on June 8. Charges against him are his research into the gas chambers, which confirms that of Professor Faurisson, and his study of the Oradour massacre. Here is the letter he sent to French President Emmanuel Macron on April 24. Please take the trouble to read it, Vincent deserves it. Our thanks to the translator.


Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to you from Edinburgh prison, in Great Britain, where I have been detained since the 10th of November 2022. On the 8th of June 2023, the Scottish justice system will decide on my extradition, which France is requesting in order for me to serve the prison sentence I was sentenced to in June 2015.What crime have I committed to still be hunted down after more than seven years? Did I rob a bank, commit massive tax evasion, rape or murder? No, I posted a revisionist video on YouTube – you would say: “negationist” – in which I denounced the political recruitment of young people in the name of the “duty to remember”. More specifically, I exposed the untruths that were taught to them about Auschwitz. For this presentation of less than an hour, the French justice system sentenced me to one year in prison.

I then fled to England.Revisionism is not an offence in the UK, so in order to obtain my extradition, the French authorities did not hesitate to lie: they issued a European arrest warrant claiming that I had been convicted of “racism/xenophobia”, an offence which makes extradition automatic. The Scottish judiciary sniffed out the manoeuvre and Paris had to issue a second arrest warrant, based on three complaints against me, one of which was for ‘public provocation of hatred’.In a video broadcast in 2020, I allegedly preached anti-Judaism. To allege this, the judicial authorities extracted 31 seconds from a 45-minute presentation! I was responding to a viewer who said that the extermination of the Jews was a “necessary evil”. After stressing that a “necessary evil” was a moral contradiction, I explained why exterminating the Jews would serve no purpose, as they only revealed the dysfunctions from which our societies suffered and for which we were the first responsible. The 31 seconds extracted summarise this opinion: they could not constitute a call to hate the Jews.The viewing of the whole video confirms this. I also note that in thirty years of activism, I had never been prosecuted under the so-called “anti-racist” law. For a very simple reason: I am not a “racist” in the sense given to this word today (a “racist” would advocate racial hatred).

Moreover, I declare myself Judeo-indifferent. In other words: I have neither sympathy nor antipathy for this people composed – like all peoples – of very different people.These abusive proceedings for “public provocation to hatred” are a new manoeuvre attempted by France, which is struggling to obtain my extradition. The final objective is to throw me into prison and to keep me there as long as possible in order to reduce me to silence.What a confession, Mr President! I could not have hoped for a more glowing recognition of the value and importance of my work from your authorities. Indeed, let us compare the forces at work:* On the one hand, France has many memorial museums: the Shoah Memorial in Paris, the Deportation Museum in Lyon, the Caen Memorial, the Oradour Memorial Centre in Oradour-sur-Glane, not to mention the dozens of “memory books” throughout the country, to which are added the school programmes (the Shoah in primary, secondary and high school), In addition, there are “educational trips” to Struthof, Oradour or Auschwitz camps, “memory facilitators”, films, broadcasts, books, and witnesses in schools, because the “duty of remembrance” benefits from thousands of voices – all of them in line with the official history – and funding that reaches millions of euros.*

Faced with this, a man almost alone, who has no subsidy, only donations from his limited audience (two or three thousand people at the most); who, to live, gives private lessons; who distributes his work on a self-publishing basis and sells his books drop by drop, because no publisher agrees to publish his research; who, chased away from all the major sharing platforms, publishes his videos in the catacombs of the Internet – namely, a Gab channel and a blog in the United States of America.These are the elements involved, which could be described as follows: faced with a huge choir singing at the top of its voice accompanied by a deafening orchestra, a single man with a derisory paper cone as a megaphone. However, for the French authorities, this is still too much: this lone man must be made to shut up by arresting him at all costs and throwing him into prison! A first arrest warrant was not enough, so they issued a second one after filing three more complaints.

Yes, truly, I could not have hoped for a more glowing recognition of the value and importance of my work.You will no doubt argue, Mr. President, that the repression against me has a completely different cause: my theses, you will say, offend the victims and may lead certain fragile elements of the population to perpetrate “racist” acts. I would reply that this is false, for two reasons.* I have never denied the appalling tragedy experienced by the people present at Oradour-sur-Glane on Saturday the 10th of June 1944. I have never denied the tragedy of the hasty deportation, in the middle of the war, of millions of people, including women, children, the elderly, the weak and the disabled. Although the excavations carried out over the past twenty-five years in the camps of Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Chelmno have not made it possible to discover gas chambers, they have contributed to the discovery of numerous improvised mass graves. I have never disputed the existence of these pits. They contain the bodies of tens of thousands of Jews who died in the trains or were euthanised on arrival because they were wounded, ill or too weak to go any further east.

Many accounts corroborate these physical findings. In several videos, I have quoted some of them, without disputing or rejecting them. In addition, there are the living conditions in the overcrowded and sometimes poorly supplied ghettos in Poland or in the East: they claimed many victims that I have also mentioned. Finally, there are all the deportees who died in the last months of the war, when the situation inside the camps deteriorated (overcrowding, lack of medicine, insufficient supplies) in a Germany that had been devastated by bombing. I have shown the appalling photos taken at the liberation of Buchenwald, Dachau, Vaihingen or Bergen-Belsen on many occasions, without ever calling them montages. No one, therefore, can honestly claim that I would offend the memory of the victims by denying their death or the terrible circumstances of their death.* As for leading some people to commit “racist” acts, my answer will be simple: in the thirty years that I have been disseminating my work, there has not been a single aggression in which I would have proven to be the inspiration.However, let us go further. Yes, let’s admit that my presentations could lead a handful of fragile people to perpetrate ‘racist’ violence. Should the entire population be deprived of certain historical truths by sanctioning their public dissemination? Certainly not!

However, I can already hear your reply, Mr. President: “France is a country of freedom of research and will never prohibit the dissemination of scientifically established truths. With the negationists, however, it is not a question of truths, but of lies refuted by reliable witnesses and a cohort of accredited historians. You are quite presumptuous, Mr Reynouard, to claim to be right against these people.In reality, I am no more presumptuous than an investigator who is convinced that he has solved a case despite the denials of the accused and their lawyers. And why is that? Because from Oradour to Auschwitz, I adopted the traditional methods used in criminal investigations.* I went to the scene to examine the alleged crime scene; * I made physical observations to understand what might have happened;* I verified the accounts collected (testimonies and confessions) by comparing them with the material findings and analysing their intrinsic consistency;* I completed my research by studying useful documents. In short, I have established the materiality of the facts.Am I wrong in my conclusions?

Let’s debate it fairly, each party being free to express itself and to place its documents on the table. I am ready for this confrontation on equal terms. I even demand it.You will object that one does not debate history with a person who has no training as a historian. Should I deduce from this, Mr. President, that a non-historian cannot intervene in a question of history? Thirty years ago, however, in 1993, the CNRS published a book entitled: « The Crematoria of Auschwitz. The machinery of mass murder ».The press praised it, claiming that it definitively refuted the revisionist theses. Yet its author, Jean-Claude Pressac, was a pharmacist by profession. Even more revealing: the man considered until his death as the number one expert on the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg, was not a trained historian either. I could also mention Robert Jan Von Pelt, Jean-Jacques Fouché or Guy Pauchou (for Oradour).

Proof that non-historians can intervene in questions of history.Some of my opponents – Gilles Karmasyn for example – claim to refute me, but without ever accepting the debate. They are comparable to boxers who, alone in the ring, would punch the air before raising their arms and shouting: “I won! He’s out.” To anyone who is surprised that their opponent is not there, they reply: “Come on! You don’t box with a non-boxer”. To claim that one does not debate history with a non-historian is a pitiful evasion.Admittedly, I have no training in the subject, but at Auschwitz and Oradour, the SS are accused of having massacred innocent people. These are therefore criminal cases. The fact that the alleged murders were committed in the past does not change the nature of the issue, so it does not change the methods of investigation. And, as I said, I apply these methods scrupulously.

Do you want proof? Here it is: in Birkenau, the SS allegedly set up homicidal gas chambers in four large crematoria. The most deadly – 400,000 alleged victims – was in Krema II. The SS allegedly poured Zykon B through four square holes in the roof. The lethal pellets were said to have fallen along four wire mesh columns firmly attached to the floor and ceiling. Although the crematorium was dynamited, the roof, partially collapsed, remains. Having inspected it from above and below, I saw no trace of any introduction hole or of a grill column attachment. Nothing.In 2004, three independent researchers (Keren, McCarthy and Mazal) claimed to have located three of the four holes, but the Auschwitz Museum authorities never dared to refer to their study.

Seven years later, moreover, the director of the Museum prefaced a Historical Guide to Auschwitz in which the two authors warned that it was futile to search for the exact location of these ghostly holes. Nothing has changed since then.In the event of a debate with a historian, I would first bring the discussion to this subject. I would propose that we go together to the site, to look for the alleged holes and the traces of the grilled columns. I would take advantage of our presence on the site to ask my adversary if he could show me blue traces on the wall or ceiling of the “gas chamber”.In the spring of 1943 (the date of the beginning of mass gassings in the crematoria according to the official chronology), the structure had just been built. Therefore, the masonry was alkaline. The hydrocyanic acid allegedly used by the SS for mass gassing would have partially penetrated the wet materials (bricks, plaster, concrete). There it dissociated to form a ferrocyanide-based pigment: Prussian Blue.Very stable, resistant to light and bad weather, the walls and ceiling of the room presented as having served as a gas chamber should still contain it today. Therefore, one should be able to see more or less large blue traces. However, the historian would be unable to show me any of them. Would he claim that this pigment cannot form in an unheated room? I would show him the opposite.

On the original blueprints of the crematorium, this room is designated as a morgue. Everything shows that it was used for this purpose, without ever having been converted into a homicidal gas chamber.”No Hole No Holocaust”, Professor Faurisson has been repeating since 1994. He was right, because without these holes, the 400,000 alleged victims of this gas chamber are imaginary. All the testimonies and confessions will not change anything.The anti-revisionists ask us: “If the millions of Jews were not exterminated, then where were they in 1945? Excuse me, but this is reversing the charge of proof. It is up to the anti-revisionists to demonstrate that the Jews were systematically exterminated, three million of whom perished in the gas chambers.According to the official history, Auschwitz-Birkenau was the centre of this extermination by gas (almost one million victims). The Krema II gas chamber was the most deadly (40% of those asphyxiated). It is therefore the first chamber to be examined. Where are the holes for the introduction of Zyklon B?

Historians, please show them to us so we can discuss them. And where are the blue traces? It is true that a training in chemistry is necessary to understand the importance of their absence. I have a degree in organic chemistry, so I am better suited than a historian to conclude.The same applies to Oradour. The Waffen SS are accused of having slaughtered several hundred women and children in the village church. They allegedly tried to suffocate them before machine-gunning them and then setting the building on fire. The widespread fire is said to have turned the holy place into a crematorium, and a large number of bodies were burnt to ashes. In this matter, notions of heat diffusion, radiation and material resistance are necessary.My studies led me to study these subjects and I used my knowledge to assess the church. This assessment is the subject of an entire chapter in my book published in December 2022: Oradour, the victims’ cry. I conclude that the official story is false: the women and children died in explosions that shook the whole building. How did I come to this conclusion? Here is how:* The fact that the wooden furniture (the confessional in the chapel of the Virgin and the altar in the chapel of St Joseph) has been preserved refutes the theory of a general fire;* The partial melting of the bells (some parts completely melted, others intact to the point of still showing the patterns engraved on them) shows that the destructive event was very rapid and very brief, in a word, an explosion;* The observation of the blows to the thin brass sphere under the apex cross confirms that the destructive phenomenon was accompanied by a powerful blast.The state of the bodies found in or near the church is also a factor: they are not charred, but shredded, with their clothes intact, as after a bombardment

.Finally, there are the stories told by the woman presented as the sole survivor of the church, Marguerite Rouffanche. A few weeks after the tragedy, twice in November 1944, then once in January 1953 (at the Waffen SS trial) and once again in 1969 (for television), she testified. A comparative study of the different versions reveals insurmountable contradictions and obvious material impossibilities.1. At the end of June 1944, Madame Rouffanche stated that the slaughter of the church had begun with a “crate” brought by two Waffen SS. The device had not exploded, it had only given off thick black smoke.2. A few months later, however, the vaults of the church nave collapsed, indicating that the building had been severely shaken. To explain this, it was necessary to invoke an explosion: on 16 November 1944, Mrs Rouffanche therefore made a 180-degree turn and claimed that the “box” had been the site of a “small detonation”.3. However, this was insufficient to explain the shaking of the fortified building. Two weeks later, the ‘sole survivor’ changed her story again: she claimed that the device had exploded strongly. This testimony became the official account, published everywhere, while the account of the 16th of November remained hidden from view, in the military archives closed to the public.In addition to the contradictions, there are obvious impossibilities. In particular, Mrs Rouffanche’s escape from the church, by climbing up to a stained glass window and then jumping from four metres high on a sloping surface without causing herself the slightest injury, an impossible task for a 46 year old woman.In the Oradour story, everything betrays a clumsily improvised lie. On the basis of material evidence, documents and ignored testimonies, I affirm that a clandestine ammunition depot was located under the roof of the church, above the vaults.Under what circumstances was it set on fire? As long as the military archives are closed to independent researchers, no definite answer can be given. However, assuming that the Waffen SS had discovered it and blown it up to kill the women and children, by 1944 the fact would have been revealed: Oradour-sur-Glane would have been presented as a heroic village in its resistance to the Occupier, a victim of abominable revenge by the “Nazis”. That is why I remain convinced that the Waffen SS bear no direct responsibility for the outbreak of the church tragedy.Having discovered that the building was used by the local Resistance (which hid Allied pilots who had fallen in France and were taken in by the “Comet Escape Line” escape network), my thesis is the following.On the 10th of June 1944, some resistance fighters had taken refuge in the church, with their ammunitions.

The Waffen SS had surrounded the village and it was impossible to escape. Reported by two collaborators living in the village (see Mathieu Borie’s testimony, finally published in full), they blew up the ammunition depot in order to cover their escape through a side door leading out of the town. They had not foreseen that the explosions would spread to the bell tower, causing the destruction of the vault weakened by the presence of the oculus. The overheated gases spread throughout the nave, causing debris to mutilate the people present.In Oradour, as in Auschwitz, my material observations are undeniable, my analyses meticulous, and my arguments rational. Far from any ideological consideration, I remain on the ground of facts. Hence this desire and determination to silence me, the other reasons given being fictitious pretexts.Will France manage to have me extradited? Perhaps, but it is too late: I have published my work on the Internet and I was only just able to finish my book on Oradour before my arrest on the 10th of November 2022. It has been on sale since last January.About thirty years ago, as a young revisionist, I was invited to the Faurissons’ home. One morning, I was discussing in the workroom; I pointed out that our adversaries had financial and repressive means at their disposal. Professor Faurisson was washing in the adjoining bathroom. On hearing this, he half-opened the door and, putting his head through, said: “Yes, but we sleep in peace ».It was true then, it remains true now: in my cell in Edinburgh I sleep peacefully, for having sown the seeds of historical truths, I have done my duty.

From now on, my personal fate is of no importance. France, which you represent, can insist on having me extradited in order to imprison me. When you consider the forces at work, this determination appears to be an acknowledgement: an acknowledgement that I am right and that my work is important. Yes, really, I am sleeping peacefully, and the more your henchmen persist, the more peacefully I shall be sleeping.Please accept, Mr President, the assurances of my highest consideration.Vincent Reynouard