476
"deny .. . the idea of the ge no–
cide itself'? The la tte r is a se ri ous
cha rge. Cohn -Be ndit addresses
this ques tion in a le tte r on the
Fa uri sson a Ha ir refu sed publi–
cati on in
L e Mande,
whi ch
a ppeared in
L iberation
In
1979.
H e a rgues tha t one mu st defend
freedom of express ion for "the
mos t ignoble tex ts," a nd tha t the
prope r way to res pec t the
memory of "the millions of
J ewish dead" cau sed by Naz i
"mass murde r" (whi ch "did ta ke
place") is "to de fend without
res pite the ri ght to freedom ."
These comme nts ha rdl y seem
compa tible with Apfelba um's
allegati ons. Perha ps she has
some ev ide nce fo r wha t she
cla ims, but it ha rdl y seems re–
sponsibl e to put forth such
cha rges without supporting doc–
umenta tion - pa rticularl y, on the
pa rt of someone who quo tes with
a pproval the doctrine o f the
current Ministe r of Justice tha t
freedom of speech "is close ly
rela ted to res ponsibility, " a nd
who believes tha t it is "norma l"
a nd "correc t" for the sta te to
enforce such "responsibility ."
In
the same connec ti on ,
Apfelbaum writes tha t "the libe r–
ta ria ns' support fo r Fa urisson's
sta tements . . . a t first gla nce
seems puzzlin g a nd unexpec ted .
Thi on , like Chomsky, takes a
strong sta nd against the way the
Wes te rn world di ssemina tes di s–
torted informa tion for propa-
PARTISAN REVIEW
ganda pu rposes. . . ." Apfel–
ba um a ppears to be impl ying
tha t I am one of the libe rta ri ans
who "supports Fa uri sson's sta te–
me nts." She ce rta inl y knows that
thi s is fa lse, a nd in the li ght of
the Hood o f lies on thi s ma tte r in
Fra nce with whi ch she is cer–
ta inl y famili a r , it mi ght have
bee n res ponsibl e fo r he r to ay so
in stead of leaving (he re a nd else–
whe re)" a n insinu a ti on tha t she
knows to be fa lse. She mi ght , for
example , have no ted tha t in the
Fre nch pre s a nd elsewhere I
have reite ra ted , in thi s connec–
ti on , my ofte n expressed view
tha t "the massac re of the J ews"
was "the mos t fa ntas ti c outburst
of coll ec ti ve insanity in human
hi story" a nd tha t one degrades
onese lf by even ente ring into a
deba te ove r the de ta il s, a posi–
ti on tha t Apfelba um res ta tes in
milde r te rms in he r sole objec–
ti on to the tri als.
As fo r "the growing strength
of revi sioni sm" to whi ch Apfel–
baum refe rs , it is a question of
fac t whe the r thi s assessment is
accura te, a nd wha t the scale of
the phenomenon may be. We
mi ght a k , for example, how
impo rta nt a fi gure Fa uri sson
would be in French intellectual
life if he had not bee n suspended
from teaching unde r threat of
violence or brou gh t to tri al for
hi s writings; as a poss ibly rel–
eva nt compa rison , we might
a ttempt to assess the impac t on
