Institute for Historical Review

Institute for Historical Review

IHR Update Newsletter


Zündel Wins In Canada's Supreme Court

Victory for Free Speech and Revisionism

Now Free, Zündel Counters New Attacks

Vindication After Nine Years of Legal Struggle

Canada's Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional the law under which German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel was convicted for publishing a Revisionist booklet about the Holocaust.

In a four-three decision, the judges ruled on August 27 that the "false news" law under which Zündel was convicted (Criminal Code Section 181) violates the freedom-ofspeech provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights (similar to the US Bill of Rights), and is thus unconstitutional.

After a bitter and costly nine-year struggle, the 53-year-old German-born publisher and political activist, who resides in Toronto, is once again a free man. Zündel does not have to serve the nine-month prison sentence pronounced in his 1988 trial, nor can he be deported.

Free Speech for Revisionists Affirmed

The Court's defense of the principle of freedom of speech was sweeping and unequivocal. Canada's archaic and rarely invoked "false news" law, the Court ruled, "infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression" laid out in the country's Charter of Rights.

Except for overtly aggressive forms of "communication," such as acts of physical violence, the Charter protects "all communications," the Court declared. "The content of the communication is irrelevant."

This vague law was all the less legitimate, the Court found, "given that false statements can sometimes have value and given the difficulty of conclusively determining total falsity."

In its ruling, the majority of judges specifically affirmed:

... The purpose of the [Charter's] guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfillment. That purpose extends to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regards as wrong or false. Section 181, which may subject a person to criminal conviction and potential imprisonment because of words he published, has undeniably the effect of restricting freedom of expression and, therefore, imposes a limit on Section 2(b) [of the Charter].

... It is also significant that the Crown [prosecution] could point to no other free and democratic country with criminal legislation of this type.

... The greatest danger of Section 181 lies in the undefined phrase "injury or mischief to a public interest," which is capable of almost infinite extension.

... Section 181 may have a chilling effect on minority groups or individuals, restraining them from saying what they would like for fear that they might be prosecuted.

Writing for the majority, Justice Beverley McLachlin stated:

To permit the imprisonment of people, or even the threat of imprisonment, on the ground that they have made a statement which 12 of their co-citizens deem to be false and mischievous to some undefined public interest, is to stifle a whole range of speech, some of which has long been regarded as legitimate and even beneficial to our society.

The Court thus categorically endorsed key arguments made by attorney Douglas Christie during his presentations on Zündel's behalf in the 1985 and 1988 trials. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (similar to the American Civil Liberties Union) had similarly maintained that the "false news" law should be struck down as an unconstitutional threat to legitimate forms of free speech.

The Court did not pronounce on the accuracy of Zündel's Revisionist views on the Holocaust.

Nine Years of Struggle

Zündel was first charged in 1983 for reprinting Did Six Million Really Die?, an international underground "best-seller" that succinctly argues that the generally accepted Holocaust extermination story is a fraud. (A revised edition of this 28-page booklet, entitled Six Million Lost and Found, is available from the IHR for $5.25, postpaid.)

Zündel was repeatedly attacked by mobs of Jewish hoodlums as he entered a Toronto courthouse to attend preliminary hearings in 1984. His house was fire-bombed in September 1984.

After an emotion-charged seven-week trial in early 1985 that received intense and often sensational coverage in the Canadian media, Zündel was found guilty and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. In early 1987, though, the Ontario provincial Court of Appeals set aside his conviction, ruling that the judge in the 1985 case had acted improperly in a way that was biased against the defendant.

Authorities decided to try Zündel again on the same charge. After a four month trial, he was once again convicted in May 1988 and given a nine-month prison sentence.

During the history-making trial, the Zündel defense team presented stunning new evidence on the Holocaust extermination story, including the results of American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter's forensic investigation of the alleged extermination gas chamber facilities at Auschwitz. (For more on the 1988 trial, see: R. Faurisson, "The Zündel Trials," IHR Journal, Winter 1988-89; M. Weber, "My Role in the Zündel Trial," IHR Journal, Winter 1989-90; R. Lenski, The Holocaust on Trial.)

Zündel was released on $10,000 bail while appealing the verdict, but with a highly unusual gag order that forbade him from expressing opinions about virtually all aspects of Second World War history.

The Toronto Globe and Mail, "Canada's national newspaper," editorially supported the Court's decision (August 28). Echoing the arguments of Christie and Zündel, the paper pointed out that "under Section 181, no one need be demonstrably harmed by the 'false' speech, nor must it be shown that anyone has suffered a measurable injury."

At no time in either trial did the prosecuting attorney ever show that anyone had ever been harmed or injured by Zündel's publication of Did Six Million Really Die?.

And because of the unfair instructions given to the jury by the judge in the 1988 trial, the paper went on to note, "in sum, there was no practical defence" that Zündel could possibly have made in his own interest.

"Multiculturalism" and "True Democracy"

The three dissenting judges who defended the "false news" law argued that it encourages "racial and social tolerance" and protects the "values" of "multiculturalism and equality." The law is still needed, they maintained, to combat the "cancerous growth" of racism in Canada.

Suggesting that Canadian society is not strong enough to withstand the efforts of even a single Ernst Zündel, the three dissenting judges contended that

The publication of such lies [by Zündel] makes the concept of multiculturalism in a true democracy impossible to attain.

...Holocaust denial has pernicious effects upon Canadians who suffered, fought and died as a result of the Nazis' campaign of racial bigotry and upon Canadian society as a whole...It deprives others of the opportunity to learn from the lessons of history.

An Obvious Ruling, Says Zündel

That this case ever reached Canada's Supreme Court is actually a sorry commentary on the country's legal system, Zündel told the IHR. Any judge should have been able to realize that the "false news" law, and the entire case against him, was a blatant violation of justice and legal principle.

"Every prosecutor, every judge worth his law degree should have come to the same simple and clear conclusion that Madame Justice McLachlin did," Zündel told the IHR. "The law was clearly unconstitutional." Instead, judges and prosecutors "choose political correctness over legal principle and the Canadian tradition of justice."

That the judges in the 1985 and 1988 trials joined the powerful "politically correct" groups in their campaign to slander and silence Zündel points up a serious defect in the Canadian legal system, he says.

Rarely have so few defenders of freedom been so abused and harassed by so many, Zündel adds. He is contemptuous of the conduct of many in the media, who failed to appreciate that his free speech struggle was very much also in their interest. "Perversely, I secured for my enemies their right to lie about me."

The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to comment on the conduct of the judges in the two trials, Zündel also told the IHR, "should give people pause to ponder."

New Charges Against Zündel?

As expected, Jewish organizations lost no time in resuming their campaign against Zündel. Just days after the Court's ruling, Jewish leaders demanded that he be charged again, this time under Canada's "hate law" (Section 319) that bans willful incitement to hatred.

Officials of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Canada's B'nai B'rith organization formally called on police authorities to charge Zündel with "promoting hatred against Jews." They asserted that his defiant vow to journalists, in the aftermath of the Court's ruling, to continue presenting the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story constitutes "promoting hatred against Jews."

"As far as we are concerned, Holocaust denial is antiSemitism," a Canadian Jewish Congress official declared. (Canadian Jewish News, Toronto, Sept. 3.)

This outrageous declaration is not only inaccurate, it is an insult against each and every Jewish person who has supported the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story. (Joseph Burg, for example, himself a Jewish Holocaust survivor, testified on Zündel's behalf in the 1988 trial.)

Experience should have taught these arrogant organizations that their efforts to silence Zündel are more than likely to result only in further embarrassment for themselves.

In their long-standing war against the German-Canadian, Zionist Jewish groups have repeatedly found themselves looking like the legendary B'rer Fox after his bouts with the Tar Baby. The more they flail away at Zündel, the stucker they seem to get.

Even the Toronto Globe and Mail, certainly no friend of Zündel, wisely warned against bringing new charges against him. A new trial, the paper predicted, would merely provide Zündel with another forum and more publicity for his views. "To put him on trial for another offence (using the hate law has been suggested) would only give him and his views a few more years in front of the bright lights." (Editorial, August 28.)

Zündel Responds

Saying "two can play this game," Zündel quickly responded to the Canadian Jewish groups' move by filing a complaint of his own on September 3 with the Ontario provincial police. In his formal protest, he cited a hatemongering statement by Elie Wiesel that appears in the Holocaust personality's book, Legends of Our Time: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German."

"I know of no other clearer invitation to hate in any book or publication I have seen," Zündel commented in his letter to the "Project Hate" section of the provincial police.

"We want to test now whether the laws of Canada are only applied against people like myself or also against Jews," Zündel said. "I have never before gone after anybody through the courts, but now I will. If the Canadian Jewish Congress... with all their lawyers, wants to hound me, well then by God the German community and the Austrian community, we are now going to fight back."

Zündel said that his request that immigration authorities ban future visits of Wiesel to Canada is directly related to an effort by the Simon Wiesenthal Center to keep British historian David Irving out of Canada. (Irving, who testified on Zündel's behalf in his 1988 trial, is scheduled to address a meeting in Ontario in November.) As we go to press, it is not clear how the Ontario Attorney General will decide to proceed on the formal complaints by Zündel and the Jewish organizations.

A Victory for Free Speech and Revisionism

In spite of its inherent newsworthiness, the Canadian Supreme Court's momentous decision received only very limited coverage in American newspapers and other US media.

This "silent treatment" is entirely consistent with the deliberate quashing of full media coverage of the 1988 Zündel trial. (This systematic suppression was at the insistence of powerful Jewish organizations, which complained bitterly about the extensive and occasionally balanced coverage of the 1985 trial. For more on this, see Doug Collins' essay in the Fall 1991 IHR Journal.)

Zündel's attendance at the very first IHR Revisionist conference in 1979 was a pivotal experience in his life, he says, and profoundly influenced his thinking and approach. He has steadfastly supported the IHR ever since.

The IHR is pleased to congratulate Ernst Zündel and his courageous attorney, Doug Christie -- along with the many others who have stood with them throughout this costly and nightmarish nine-year ordeal.

This is not merely vindication for a man who has fought tirelessly for civil rights and equal justice for his people, it is a major victory for the cause of free speech and free historical inquiry. As Zündel puts it: "My victory is everybody's victory."

At a time when dissident views of Second World War history are banned in Israel and several European states, the Canadian Court's wise ruling should be a sober warning to all the would-be censors who desperately seek to silence the growing Revisionist movement.

Above all, the Canadian Court's resounding defense of free historical inquiry and, more specifically, of freedom for Holocaust Revisionism, is an encouraging victory for Revisionist historians and activists everywhere.

Holocaust Revisionism to Air on Seattle Cable Television

Seattle-area cable television subscribers now have an opportunity to view Revisionist presentations on local "public access" cable television.

Starting October 7, TCI/Viacom cable television channel 29 will present a series of 13 IHR video tapes each Wednesday afternoon from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. The hourlong broadcasts will air weekly throughout the Seattle (King County) area through December.

On January 6, 1993, a second series of 13 IHR tapes will be broadcast on TCI/Viacom cable channel 29 each Wednesday, but from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. This series will air weekly in the Seattle area through March 1993.

These broadcasts are made possible through the initiative of local Revisionists. Other activists elsewhere around the country have already arranged for similar broadcasts in their local communities.

If you have ever been impressed by the power of television to shape the thinking of viewers, public access cable television presents a great opportunity to use this powerful medium to further historical awareness and truth.

As a condition for holding a cable television franchise, each cable company must set aside a channel for unrestricted local community broadcasting, free of charge. Operating under liberal guidelines set by the federal government, the "public access" channel is essentially uncensored. (One condition is that advertising is not permitted.) As anyone who has watched much local public access television knows, viewers are likely to see just about anything on this channel.

Nearly anyone can arrange for broadcasting on his or her local public access cable television channel. Local qualification requirements are simple, but they vary from place to place. In some places, only locally produced productions are permitted. Generally, requirements range from reading and signing a few papers to spending a couple of hours learning the basics of video production. But once you sign up, meet the rather simple conditions to qualify as a "producer" or "series originator" and notify the local cable company that you have a tape to be aired, the cable company must give you opportunity to receive a time slot.

If you are interested in arranging for Revisionist broadcasts in your local viewing area, please contact the IHR. We can supply video tapes for you to duplicate for broadcast purposes, and provide helpful tips on how to get started.

Re-run of 'Revisionist' Montel Williams Show Broadcast Canceled

As Newsletter readers will recall, IHR editor Mark Weber and Revisionist activist David Cole recently made a successful appearance on the Montel Williams Show. The hour-long presentation was aired April 30 on more than 60 television stations around the country. (IHR Newsletter, May, pp. 3, 7, and, July-August, p. 9.)

More recently, TV Guide magazine and local newspapers announced that the program featuring "Holocaust revisionists" would be broadcast again as a re-run on Wednesday, September 9. But when the day arrived, a session with an entirely different subject was aired instead.

This was not entirely unexpected. During a conversation on May 19 with David Cole, an assistant producer of the Montel Williams Show named Karen said that because of its content, this particular session would never be broadcast again. She also vowed that no one would be allowed to obtain a videotape of it. "Jesus Christ himself would not be able to get a copy of this show... There's no way this program is leaving this building," Cole recalls Karen saying.

As it happens, viewers in southern California never got to see even the original broadcast. Because of the Los Angeles riots, local television station KCOP pre-empted regularly scheduled programming (including the Montel Williams Show) that day to keep viewers informed on the riot and its aftermath.

A KCOP spokesperson told the IHR that the program was not re-broadcast September 9 because the tape was "simply not available." He could not say why it was "not available," or when (or even if) it would be broadcast later.

IHR supporters who would like a videotape of the broadcast should write to us for details.


A group of Jewish students from the United States visiting the sites of former German concentration camps in Poland (as part of a tour organized by the Zionist B'nai B'rith Youth Organization) were told by their guide that most Poles do not accept the Holocaust extermination story. "Our Polish guide told us that 70 percent of Poles today do not believe that the Holocaust occurred," reports tour participant Adina Batnitzy (in an essay published in the Kansas City Star, August 5, 1992).


Dr. Robert Countess, a member of the IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee, presented a paper at the 15th annual convention of the International Psychohistorical Association, which met at John Jay College (City University of New York). In his June 10 presentation, he focused on the way that figures such as Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz weave together myth and fact to produce a Holocaust tapestry that promotes hatemongering. Wiesel and Dershowitz refuse to accept responsibility for the harmful consequences of their mythmaking, Countess added. He also praised the work of the courageous Jewish writer Marc Ellis, author of Beyond Innocence and Redemption. (This book is reviewed by Countess in the Summer 1992 Journal.) During the question- and-answer period that followed, no one offered any criticism of Countess' presentation, or tried to defend Wiesel. The IPA's membership is made up largely of psychiatrists and psychologists.

At Athens State College (Alabama), Dr. Countess spoke on May 19 about historical hoaxes and frauds at a class on "Skeptical Thought" sponsored by the school's psychology department. He discussed the "Jewish soap" and human lampshade Holocaust hoaxes, the spurious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and the mythical Talmudic accounts of "millions" of Jewish martyrs supposedly put to death by the Romans. Countess also told the class of junior and senior students about American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter and his investigation of the alleged extermination gas chambers at Auschwitz. Finally, Countess spoke about the issue of free speech and Holocaust Revisionism, which has set off intense controversy at several American colleges and universities.


Major London Paper Attacked For Hiring Revisionist Historian To Transcribe Diary

Mobs Protest Outside Irving Residence

Making headlines around the world, Revisionist historian David Irving recently played a key role in bringing to light the long-suppressed diary of Third Reich propaganda chief Dr. Joseph Goebbels. The London Sunday Times, one of the world's most influential papers, recently published extensive excerpts from the diary, which Irving found and transcribed.

Major Jewish organizations lost no time in attacking the prestigious weekly for employing a historian who rejects the Holocaust extermination story as essentially a product of wartime propaganda.

A report in the London Jewish Chronicle headlined "Sunday Times comes under pressure" described the extent of the campaign to punish the paper for its collaboration with Irving. Officials of the American Jewish Committee added their voices to the worldwide pressure campaign, expressing particular anger because the British historian has addressed several IHR conferences. (As we go to press, Irving is scheduled to speak at the October 1992 conference.)

In an editorial, the Sunday Times explained that it had little choice but to use Irving because he had brought the material to the paper's attention, and because it could not find anyone with his knowledge of the subject and ability to decipher the handwriting.

About 300 Jewish demonstrators gathered outside Irving's London residence on July 3 to denounce the historian. The next day, a larger crowd of several hundred -- including Marxists, Jews and Rastafarians organized by "The Campaign Against Fascism in Europe" -- met at the same place to shout more insults at the historian. Among the banners carried by protesters were placards reading "Return to the Road of Lenin and Trotsky! -- Spartacist-ICL" and "Build a Bolshevik Party, Tribune of All the Oppressed! For Socialist Revolution! -- Spartacist."

That same day, about 250 persons gathered to hear and cheer Irving and other speakers at a Revisionist meeting in London. Besides Irving, the audience heard addresses by Kirk Lyons, Leuchter's US attorney, and Georgia attorney Sam Dickson (who addressed the 1986 IHR conference). The meeting took place in spite of threats by "anti-fascist" hoodlums to physically break it up.

The complete original of Goebbels' diary -- which covers the entire Third Reich period -- is preserved on some 1,600 primitive glass microfiche plates in Moscow, where it has been kept since it was seized in Berlin by the Soviets in 1945. Portions of the diary have already been published over the years.

Predictably, the voluminous record contains nothing new to substantiate the view that Hitler ordered or even knew of a wartime program or policy to exterminate Europe's Jews.

Indeed, the diary generally strengthens Revisionist interpretations of twentieth century history. As Norman Stone, a leading British historian (of Jewish ancestry) acknowledges, the diary shows that Hitler did not want war with Britain or France in 1939, and actually sought to prevent such a devastating conflict. Writing in the Sunday Times (July 12), the Oxford University historian commented: "I should say -- due allowance being made for the circumstances of this diary -- that A. J. P. Taylor was quite right in his view of the origins of the Second World War." (Taylor's classic Revisionist study, The Origins of the Second World War, is available from the IHR.)

In an effort to "cover itself" and offset some of the furious criticism for hiring Irving, the Sunday Times published a vicious, and inaccurate two-page attack against Holocaust Revisionism and "Holocaust deniers" (July 26).

It inaccurately portrays the growing international Holocaust Revisionist movement as merely a manifestation of neo-Nazism or neo-fascism. Faurisson and Leuchter are smeared as two of the "unacceptable faces of contemporary Nazism."

The Sunday Times article ignorantly asserted that the "most vicious" of the three "bibles of the revisionists" is a book by Dr. Faurisson entitled "The Rumour of Auschwitz." As anyone even superficially familiar with this subject should know, there is no such book.

Fred Leuchter, author of a widely circulated forensic report on the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, is simply dismissed as "a strange little man." No mention whatsoever is made of his acknowledged expertise as the foremost US specialist on gas chambers used to execute convicted criminals.

It is gratifying that it is a Revisionist historian who is (once again) at the forefront of historical discovery. In spite of a well-organized international campaign to boycott and silence him, David Irving remains at the vanguard of his profession -- and solely on the basis of his indisputable knowledge, skill and ability.

It is also gratifying to realize that, as a result of this new controversy, hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of newspaper and magazine readers around the world are now aware that a historian of recognized international stature rejects the Holocaust extermination story.


Interested Professors

As part of my pursuit of a Master's degree in international relations, my studies have recently focused much more on history, and especially World War II history.

Even though my professors deride the IHR, if I happen to bring a copy of The Journal of Historical Review to class, the response is always the same: "May I borrow this for a week or so?" And when they return it, their comments are always the same: "Totally off base. No one would believe this." And so forth in this vein. All the same, though, they always ask the one question that proves that at least their interest has been piqued: "May I borrow the next issue you get in and, by the way, do you have any back issues I could look through?"

My professors also grudgingly admit that David Irving's research is first rate, but they take great pains to try to convince me that he has recanted his Revisionist view of the Holocaust issue.

Enclosed you will find my check extending my subscription for another two years. Keep up your good work.

H. F. -- Louisville, Ky.


Fantastic news tonight [July 10] in France! In connection with news about the Goebbels' diary, David Irving was shown several times on television saying that there were no gas chambers, and that the people in the camps died of epidemics. He spoke in French.

I don't know if an American can realize how inconceivable this is in our country. Not only has no one been able to talk like this in public for 14 years, but we have the Fabius-Gayssot law [of July 1990] that forbids anyone from saying such a thing. According to the law, therefore, Irving and the two television channels that broadcast his remarks could be charged with a crime!

Furthermore, this was not a live broadcast, which means that it is quite likely that some people in charge made a decision to broadcast Irving's remarks.

Y. A. -- Lyon


Your letters of rebuttal, reprinted in the July-August Newsletter, were very fine: crisp, clean and dignified. In fact, the entire issue was especially meaty and promising.

My husband asks me to send you the enclosed copy of an article from the August 4 Village Voice, which reports on the "dirty tricks" of AIPAC -- the Israel lobby group. It mentions that the group uses the fictitious name of "Paul Hunt" to infiltrate groups it doesn't like.

I enclose a check to help with the legal costs for Reynouard and Pontier, two courageous men [who were punished for distributing Revisionist materials in France], as well as another donation check to help pay for your additional security. Wish it were more.

My husband (a retired professor of philosophy) and I are really looking forward to the October conference.

R. M. -- New Rochelle, N.Y.

Yes, AIPAC's "Paul Hunt" subscribes to the IHR Newsletter and Journal, and has purchased items from us over the years. We don't mind a bit. -- The Editor


I hope that attendees at the 1992 IHR Conference will discuss the need for articles to answer allegations made in the [London] Sunday Times [July 26] about Revisionists, and allegations made in recent TV shows...

Revisionism has made significant gains in recent years, especially in 1992, due largely to Bradley Smith, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel and the IHR. Best wishes for 1993.

John Bennett -- Carlton, Australia

(Bennett is president of the Australian Civil Liberties Union and a member of the IHR's editorial advisory committee.)


I am active on my local BBS [computer network bulletin board service], promoting many BBS discussions about Revisionism. I have established two areas on local BBSs that are now dedicated to promoting Revisionist articles and information. I have entered the texts of a couple of your pamphlets, including your address.

I really appreciate your efforts. Thanks again for standing for truth, and keep up the good fight.

W. T. -- Denver, Col.


In May I wrote a letter to the editor of the local TimesWest Virginian newspaper stating non-emotionally that I think that the Holocaust needs to be debated in public.

A few days after it was published, I received a most hostile letter of rebuttal from Henry B. Stern, a representative of the ADL/B'nai B'rith. (His letter also appeared in the paper's editorial column.) After all but calling me an idiot, he suggested that I contact him -- a survivor, of course -- about arranging for a "debate."

Well, I am far from being an expert on the Holocaust. I'm 32 years old, so I did not experience World II myself, but I have read The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Did Six Million Really Die?, and The Holocaust: 120 Questions and Answers.

Anyway, I couldn't back down from this challenge, so I telephoned Stern and, after some conditions were set down, he finally agreed to meet with me. One of the conditions he set was that no media of any kind was to be at the meeting. Also, Stern insisted on having the local sheriff present at our meeting, as a "disinterested third party."

Knowing well that I was about a grab a tiger by the tail, I spent the next several days boning up for this debate. A friend loaned me a copy of The Leuchter Report.

Still, I asked myself: How could I possibly match wits on the Holocaust with an ADL Holocaust survivor? And as the meeting day drew nearer, I became extremely nervous and did not sleep well.

On the day of our meeting, as I nervously stood waiting for Stern to show up, I was beginning to wonder if it was all worth it: sleepless nights, anxiety, and neglecting my evening chores to study.

Mr. Stern finally arrived at the sheriff's office, where I was waiting. After a brief introduction, we were at last set to begin our "debate."

At this point, Stern laid down yet another condition: He did not want any mention of the details of our meeting to reach the media. I reminded him that although we had agreed that there would be no media present at the meeting itself, we had not made any agreement about contacting the media afterwards. Nevertheless, he made it clear that unless I agreed to this new condition, he would walk out. Because I had spent so much time and effort on all of this, and was now looking forward to the debate, I agreed to this new condition.

So, although I cannot let you know the details of our "debate," I can tell you that I overwhelmingly defeated the ADL representative. Now I would like to debate him in public.

Cliff Swiger -- Fairmont, W. V.


When I first heard that Arthur Butz would be speaking at the upcoming IHR conference, I was immediately concerned because I know just how much some anti-Revisionists hate him.

At the 1991 Yom haShoah [Holocaust] observance in Pittsburgh, which I sat in on, the keynote speaker got off his scheduled topic at one point and began talking about Butz. "Oh!," he said, "And there is this guy named Butz!" Then, a pause of several seconds as he glared scornfully into the air, letting everyone contemplate the name. "He wrote a book, called Fabrication of a Hoax!" Then the speaker's eyes turned into furious slits and his lips curled into an expression of utter contempt. He stuck out his right hand in a clawing gesture as he snarled: "How darrre he slaughter the Six MMMillllion all over again!!"

As shown by his ignorance of the correct title of Butz' book, the keynote did not even have his facts straight. But for people like this, it's not necessary to know what you are talking about. You just have to hate.

In spite of the passage of time, these people have not forgiven Butz one bit.

M. C. -- Pittsburgh, Penn.


Hearty congratulations to Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith, Fred Leuchter, David Irving, Mark Weber, David Cole, Ted O'Keefe and all the other inspired lunatics attending the Eleventh IHR Conference. You are doing some of the most amazing, mind-boggling work in the world. I'd share a foxhole with any of your guys.

Ace Backwords -- Berkeley, Calif.

(Ace Backwords is the pen name of an "underground" professional cartoonist.)


David Cole and Mark Weber handled themselves well on the Montel Williams Show, but I fear that their appearance was more harmful than helpful for the Revisionist cause.

Trying to counter the impact of the horrible photographs shown at the beginning of the broadcast with words and logic just doesn't work. To counter the impact of such familiar images, you must use similarly gruesome photos that show conditions in Germany's cities at that time, such as scenes of devastated Hamburg, Dresden, and so forth.

By graphically showing just how impossible it had become to deliver food and medicine to the camps, you would have a much better chance of convincing viewers. Such images would help them to understand that the familiar scenes of horror in the camps at the end of the war were consequences of the war, and not of German plan or policy.

As for survivors, they are rarely asked the right questions.

I am from Hungary, where I grew up during the war years. My stepmother was a convert to Catholicism, but her ten relatives remained Jewish and were deported during the war years to the Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen camps.

During the war my stepmother received a letter from Poland from an inmate who was from her same town, telling her that her brother-in-law and his son had died of typhus.

After the war, two female members of her family did not return home to Hungary, but moved to Sweden, from where they wrote to us. The remaining members of my stepmother's family returned home, but they were broken in body and spirit. At that time none of them talked about gas chambers, but instead they told about the terrible conditions in the camps and the behavior of the capos [prisoner trusties].

I recall when, years later, a 15-year-old girl put this question to one of the survivors: "Aunt Elly, how could you carry on with your daily life in the camp, knowing that they were killing people by the hundreds of thousands in the gas chambers?" "But Judy," she replied, "we did not know that. Nobody did."

As ever, I continue to support you and your work.

E. A. -- Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.