LETTERS
Ameri can soc ie ty of the writings
of Arthur Butz of Northwes tern
Uni ve rsit y, no ting tha t there is
no "Butz a ffa ir ."
The re are o the r simila r
questions . Why, fo r exampl e,
have ma ny US journ a ls rece ntl y
devo ted a rti cles to expos ing
Fau risso n's fa ll ac ies a nd de plo r–
ing the a ll eged suppo rt fo r hi s
theses, whil e ignoring Arthu r
Butz , who, one mi ght think ,
woul d be mo re impo rta nt here
th an a n obscure a nd rev iled
former pro fesso r o f Fre nch liter–
ature a t Lyons? Why the con–
sta nt prete nse, noted above, tha t
oppone n ts o f the Zhda nov doc–
trine defe nd Fa uri sson's views?
Or to ta ke a na rrower po in t,
why does Ap fe lbaum refe r with–
out comme nt to "the book's
preface by Noam C homsky" (the
book being Fa uri sson's
M i moire
en difense,
written in prepa ra ti on
for the fa lsificati on of hi sto ry
tri al), when she ce rta inl y know
tha t my sta teme nt to which she
alludes, written in res ponse to
lies in Fra nce conce rning the
civil liberta ri a n petItI on she
cites, was a ppe nded to a book
that
I
did no t know ex isted , a nd
that my le tte r reques ting tha t it
be sepa ra ted from thi s book
arri ved too la te to a ffec t publi–
ca ti on a few weeks a fter my
sta tement was written? Or, why
was there no compa ra ble cho ru s
of outrage when
I
a rgued , a t the
height of the Vietnam wa r , th a t
477
it would be wrong to bar coun–
terinsurge ncy research in the
uni ve rsities on grounds of aca–
demic freedom , or whe n
I
con–
siste ntl y held tha t people
I
rega rd as wa r criminals should
no t be de ni ed the ri ght to teach
because o f their views a nd
ac ti ons? T he re could hardl y be a
clea rer proof o f the hypoc ri sy of
the curre nt uproa r over my de–
fe nse of Fauri s on's ri ght o f free
express ion , surel y a fa r less con–
trove rsia l sta nd . Or , one fin a l
ques tion , why the silence - or ,
as in Apfel baum's case, a pproba–
ti on - conce rnin g the judgment
of the Fre nch court th at the sta te
can legitima tely puni sh a hi sto–
ria n for hi s writings, denying
him , in Apfelba um's approv ing
phrase, the ri ght "to invoke the
pri vilege of free speech fo r li es
tha t he uttered"- lies about hi s–
tori cal fac t, as determined by the
sta te tribuna l? One migh t pla us–
ibl y conte nd tha t these ques–
ti ons, a nd a se ri es of others like
them , me rit a tte nti on no less
tha n the efforts by a tiny group
of "rev isioni st hi stori a ns," who
a re regarded with nea r universal
outrage a nd contempt ,
to
deny
the ex iste nce of the Naz i massa–
cres.
Noam C homsky
Cambrid ge, M assachu se tts
