Robert Faurisson: The Revisionist ADL Affair


18 November 2003



People might not grasp to whom that letter was
addressed and whom, at the end of it, Butz was quoting
on historical "exactitude". For instance, Walter
Mueller did not see that it was a quote and took it to
be Butz's own remark. In fact, Butz was answering me
and he was approvingly quoting the end of my own
October 20 letter to Mahler.

This is to show that the quote was that of someone
who, unlike Butz, was IN FAVOUR OF A PUBLIC SUPPORT of
that "League" (Verein) for the defence of the
revisionists. It does not imply that I agree with
Mahler's political statements, of which, in fact, I am
not really aware. My closing statement about
historical "exactitude" concerned exactly that and
nothing else.

In 1979, at our first revisionist conference, held at
Northrup University in Los Angeles, Butz advised me
against public collaboration with Zündel. His reasons
were the same as today with regard to Mahler.
Nevertheless, I decided to collaborate openly with
Zündel, whatever his political views might be. What I
had in mind was only the big battle for what I call
historical "exactitude" about WW 2. Today, I really
cannot regret my decision since, without our active
and continuous collaboration, especially for the 1985
and 1988 "Holocaust Trials", never, ever would the
revisionist arguments have been shown "coram populo et
historia" (in front of the public and for history) to
be outstanding and powerful. We vanquished and even
humiliated Raul Hilberg, who was the best possible
"expert" for our opponents, and we brought down their
best possible "witness", Rudolf Vrba; we also got the
Leuchter Report to be known all over the world.
Believe me, among the thirty or forty "direct
collaborators" of Zündel, only perhaps half a dozen
shared his political views which, by the way, are
often profound because the man himself is profound.

Remember that, in more than fifty years of the battle
between "Holocaustorians" and revisionists, this was
the first and last opportunity for a real
confrontation of the two opposing theses. It was a
public confrontation that the "Holocaustorians" had up
till then constantly refused. It was a confrontation
that, in future, historians will be able to study by
examining court transcripts of statements made under
oath by either side.

On the contrary, the lamentable Irving trial in London
shows how wrong it can be to distance yourself from
certain people only because you think they might
compromise you. Irving refused the collaboration of
such a remarkable expert as Germar Rudolf. It was the
major blunder of a man who was too afraid of the Jews.

Ponder this: "The Zündel trial was a didactic
failure... the law should avoid trials of Holocaust
deniers because a proceeding of this nature runs the
risk of obfuscating historical truth and instead
furthering deniers' lies" (Hilary Earl, Wilfrid
Laurier University, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies,
September 2003, p. 193-196, a review of Lawrence
Douglas' book, The Memory of Judgment). This was
written a long time after the Zündel trial (or trials)
and shortly after the Irving trial.

I have no idea what will come of that League
initiative. I do not care if it is called "Nazi". I am
used to being called "worse than a Nazi", with the
Nazis considered as having killed living people
whereas I am considered a coward killing those already

Simply put, when I have a decision to make in such
matters, I ignore the Jews and their usual theatrics.

As for Butz, he thinks that this legal initiative is
"very clever" and should be supported financially but
without a formal association as a member or founder of
that league, and I guess he considers Mahler as a
nuisance for the revisionist cause. Butz is prudent.
We need prudent people. As for myself, I prefer an
open, public, direct and perhaps even offensive stand.
It is not a question of being for Mahler. It's a
question of giving some of my money and some of my
time to what seems to be a "very clever" initiative in
favour of a revisionism which, generally speaking, I
find nowadays shy, bloodless and without real

Best wishes. RF

See Michael A Hoffman II respond to this


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute