In an old thread from 2009, forum member PLAYWRIGHT had graciously translated the interview into English and uploaded the pdf. The link no longer works, but after some digging I was able to find a copy from the Wayback Machine. There was also a thread that had linked to a file with a French version.
The interview has some overlap with the postface of his 1989 book.
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0537.shtml
Both discuss some of his early visits to Auschwitz, his collaboration with Faurisson in 1980 and their subsequent split. He also gets into his interactions with Faurisson's aversaries in France, Georges Wellers and Pierre Vidal-Naquet and how he got involved with the Klarsfelds. There are some parts in the interview that are certainly not orthodox, though he is critical of both sides, as he was in his published writings. In the postface of this book, he starts out saying, "I am not a Jew and I was at one time a 'revisionist'. After reading this book, some will no doubt think that I still am one." This is because he is so critical of the establishment scholarship and many of the testimonies. For example (from the interview),
One is dismayed by the imbecilic explanations advanced in this business which, while spectacular, are minor points in the history of the camps. And when one studies the homicidal gassings which were practiced, in camp after camp there emerges an accumulation of silly things, each more stupid and dim-witted than the ones before it, which proves the pitiful level of science in concentration camp studies, based exclusively these days on the "sacrosanct" testimonies.
On the revisionist side, while he was very critical of Faurisson whom he regarded as overly dogmatic, he has some seeming admiration for other revisionists such as Butz and especially Mattogno.
At the beginning of 1970, an American electrical engineer, Arthur R. Butz, was revolted by Hilberg’s argument which he saw as a gross fraud, so much so that he considered what is known as the “genocide of six million Jews” to be “The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century”, which became the title of his book of refutation, published in 1976. No more than Reitlinger, an artist and collector, or Hilberg, a political scientist, is Butz a historian. But he brought a scientific knowledge and spirit which the traditional historians do not have, their background being literary.
Of Mattogno, he says he is "incontestably the best researcher on the revisionist side." He even had Mattogno over to visit on multiple occasions and was friendly with him for a time, although they stopped corresponding.
Mattogno gives some personal thoughts on Pressac in an obituary. He also discusses him some in interview with Zundel where he says that in his opinion Pressac's 1989 book was "crypto" revisionist.
https://codoh.com/library/document/my-memories-of-jean-claude-pressac/en/
https://archive.org/details/CarloMattognoInterview1994FULLWithErnstZundel
In one of the more striking parts of the interview, Pressac offers some shockingly low death tallies for some of the camps (at least for a supposed "believer").
Compared to Hilberg’s figures, borrowed from the Poles, here are the figures I obtained. Chelmno: 80 to 85,000 instead of 150,000; Belzec: From 100 to 150,000 instead of 550,000; Sobibor: 30 to 35,000 instead of 200,000; Treblinka: 200 to 250,000 instead of 750,000; Majdanek: less than 100,000 instead of 360,000. In fact, [Marcel] Ruby, while taking pride in Hilberg’s authority, does not take into account the minor corrections of the Polish figures and produces them with their original exaggeration. The emotional coefficient to multiply by varies from 2 to 7 and is on average 4 or 5. This average applies perfectly to Auschwitz.
The figure of 4,000,000 victims, fixed after the war after negotiations between the Soviet Communist and Polish authorities, is propaganda
without historical foundation. Even Ruby thinks it is advisable to advance the figure of 1,200,000. The most serious figure before my estimate is that of a Polish historian, Franciszek Piper, who advanced the figure of 1,100,000 in 1990. Regarding my quote, I had proposed 800,000, then after a more detailed study of the deportation of the Hungarian Jews, 700,000.
200K for Treblinka? I am very surprised he was willing to say this. It is also no wonder they didn't use him as much and the Holocaust establishment basically sidelined him and laundered the parts of his work they found useful through the more reliable Van Pelt. Pressac also makes some interesting technical comments, for example, explaining why the chimney at Auschwitz probably did not smoke and how this seems to be confirmed by air photos. The closing comments are also interesting although I agree with PLAYWRIGHT who says that Faurisson's characterization of this as a "recantation" is not really accurate.
Germar Rudolf goes so far as to suggest that Pressac was a "double agent," an undercover revisionist.
I suggest that he communicate with me in writing. To this he replied that, for reasons of security, he preferred to not communicate with me in writing, because it would be dangerous for him to do so. Then he warned me that I too should be on guard. Concerning the 'Holocaust' in particular, he advised me to avoid challenging every aspect of it at one time. He said that in dealing with 'Holocaust' the only hope for success without risking personal danger was to attack it piecemeal, one aspect at a time.
Since that telephone conversation, I have been convinced that Jean- Claude Pressac believed that we revisionists are correct in principle. In view of the overwhelming might of the exterminationists, however, he arrived early at the conclusion that the 'system' had to be fought from within. His apparent defection to the ranks of 'the enemy' and service to the cause of exterminationism was his version of salami tactics. His plan was to use the 'system' in order to extract one concession after another.
https://codoh.com/library/document/my-memories-of-jean-claude-pressac/en/
This is certainly interesting and I trust that Rudolf has accurately related the conversation. However, I don't see this as being necessarily incompatible with Pressac's other statements. It suggests he was holding back somewhat and was being a bit tactical in his approach, but I would not assume he was pretending to be a believer. I think Mattogno's take is more likely (and Mattogno spent much more time with him).
During our lengthy discussion, my astonishment about his attitude grew steadily: it was apparently not important to him to convince me, and once he even recommended that I should remain a revisionist. His sincerity cannot be doubted, and it seemed to me that he was more interested in free spirits, who are capable of objective criticism, than in uncritical followers. He was, of course, himself very much a free spirit, perhaps a little bit to much - in contrast to those official historians, who still cling to the outdated Auschwitz image of 1945. He told me that the Jewish translator who translated his book from French to English interrupted his work several times threatening to reject this project because some of Pressac's "revisionist" views tasted bitter to him.
My guess is that Pressac was 'hiding his power level" a little bit and was a "revisionist" in a sort of broad sense. His approach and interest in documentary and material evidence is certainly more revisionist than traditional. He could be called "a revisionist who believes in gas chambers" as Ernst Zundel used to refer to Charles Provan.
