It depends on your definition of fastest. If you measure the time it takes for one page to completely render, then, yes, static HTML with embedded resources would be the fastest when fully optimized:
- Deliver with compression (Gzip/Deflate).
- Minimize code, avoid white-space, use the minimum tags and properties needed.
- Spread resources across cookie-less domains.
If you measure the time to the page starting to render, then you would deliver the minimal HTML and resources, possibly inlining CSS, and then use AJAX to obtain anything that is not visible to the user at the start.
On the server-side anything that is not HTML needs to processed into HTML, so inherently all those technologies such as PHP/Django/etc can never be faster than static HTML. Of course, with proper caching, they can be equally fast when the cache is hit, since it basically would deliver static HTML.
Reality is that there are far too many variables to have one thing being the fastest in all cases. You have to consider network and browsers too. Most allow up to 4 connections to a single host, so you can parallelize by having resources spread across hosts up to however many hosts can be accessed simultaneously and as long as your page is not constructed to force the serialization of requests.