I run ads in college newspapers encouraging students
and professors alike to take seriously the great ideal of
Western culture, intellectual freedom--even with regard
to the Holocaust controversy. Because I argue for an open
debate on the Holocaust you are told that I’m anti-Semitic;
yet I invite Jews everywhere to join with me, in a context
of good will, to discuss the growing controversy over the
orthodox Holocaust story.
You are told that because I encourage open debate on
the Holocaust that I’m a racist, yet my family is Mexican.
You are told I’m a liar, though my promise is to correct
any error of fact discovered in my ads.
Bradley R. Smith
You are told that my ads mislead students. I urge students
(and professors as well) to read the text of my ads carefully
and to refuse to be misled by me--or anyone else.
You are told it’s wrong to be a “denier.” I answer that
when we debate historical issues it is wrong to be a “denier”
or a “true believer” either one.
You are told I say that the Holocaust is a “hoax.” What
I say is that some of it happened, some of it didn’t, and
that the time is come to separate the wheat from the chaff.
You are told that my motives for questioning the gas
chamber stories are bad. I find myself unable to judge the
motives of those who judge mine. I can only do what they
do—-speculate.
You are told it is ludicrous that I involve myself in
an historical controversy when I have no academic degrees.
I answer that the ideal of a free press is not a matter
of credentialism.
You are told I “hate” because I try to convince professors
that they should encourage intellectual freedom rather than
suppress it, even with regard to the Holocaust story. I
answer that it is precisely those questions that are taboo
that should be asked first.
Forty years ago I was arrested, tried, and convicted
for selling a book then banned by the US Government—Henry
Miller’s Tropic of Cancer. In 1961 I argued
that college students have the right to read radical literary
works. Today I argue that college students have the right
to read whatever radical historical papers they choose to
read, on the Holocaust or any other matter.
You are told I am wrong to doubt that Germans killed
millions of Jews and others in homicidal gassing chambers.
I answer that I am willing to be convinced that I’m wrong.
I ask (for example) that one professor inform me of one
exhibit at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum that proves
Germans used gas chambers to kill Jews.
You are told college newspapers have no obligation under
the First Amendment to print my advertisements. I encourage
student editors to ignore this “legalism.” The First Amendment
is a mere by-product of that great tradition of intellectual
freedom in Western culture. When Plato was writing about
Socrates there was no First Amendment, yet this great ideal
was already centuries old.
You’re told that the Holocaust is about Jews. I answer
that it’s about Jews and Germans together—forever. I ask
if Germans are not human like the rest of us? I ask if false
accusations about Germans should not be exposed, just as
we expose false accusations about Jews?
You’re told it is good that students believe what is
taught in college about the Holocaust and wrong to doubt
any of it. I answer that with regard to historical controversy,
belief is out of place while skepticism is good.
You’re told the evidence proving the orthodox Holocaust
story is “overwhelming.” I ask, if that’s so, what is there
to fear from open debate?
You’re told that the great crime of the National Socialist
German Worker’s Party (Nazis) is that they intentionally
killed civilians. I agree—though I no longer believe they
used gassing chambers as a weapon. Moreover, during World
War II Republicans and Democrats created a State policy
for the intentional mass killing of civilians. Their weapons
were the great fleets of bombers used to pulverize all the
great cities of Germany and Japan and kill their civilian
inhabitants. Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese
civilians were burned alive, culminating in the nuclear
destruction of the civilian populations of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima.
You are told it was wrong for Nazis to intentionally
kill civilians because their motives were bad. You are told
it was right for Democrats and Republicans to intentionally
kill civilians because their motives were good. I say to
you that it is shameful to hold Germans to a higher moral
standard than we hold ourselves.
You are told there is not, there can not be, another
side to the Holocaust story and that it is “hate” to say
there is. I answer that I am reminded of those in Nazi Germany
who said there was not, there could not be, another side
to the “Jewish question.”
There is always another side to every historical controversy.
Those who have something to lose from a free exchange of
ideas will always condemn free speech. Those in authority
will always fear intellectual freedom. A free press is always
under attack.
I’m willing to be convinced I’m wrong about any of this.
Try me.
Bradley R. Smith, Publisher 