|

Editorial

By Bradley R. Smith ∙ May 1, 1995

Last updated on

Friend:

I know! I killed Smith’s Report two months ago! So what’s this? After I killed SR, I said I was going to keep you informed monthly of what’s going on here. If I’m going to write you monthly, what am I going to call the letter I write? I’ve got to call it something. How are people going to identify it? That-thing-Smith-writes-once-a-month? Why not call it, well—Smith’s Report?

I needed to make fundamental changes here, because fundamental changes have occurred in my life and with how I can handle this work, which I feel obligated to do.

I didn’t have to kill Smith’s Report. I had to make the changes. They say consistency is a primary requirement of a newsletter. On the surface, consistency doesn’t appear to be my strong point. At the same time, here I am, after an eleven-year revisionist escapade, eager to get on with the work.

  • Bradley R. Smith

    Bradley R. Smith was born in Los Angeles on February 18, 1930. At 18 he joined the army and in 1951 served with the infantry in Korea where he was twice wounded. After three decades of a variety of professional activities, it suddenly hit him: In 1979 he read a leaflet by Professor Robert Faurisson, "The Problem of the Gas Chambers." Then, Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century did it for him. He understood from the beginning that he would address the censorship, the suppression of independent thought, the taboo against publishing and debating revisionist arguments—not the arguments themselves. That has remained his position. In 1989, Smith founded Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) dedicated to defending free speech and free inquiry into the Holocaust question. He handed over CODOH's helm in late 2014. He passed away on his 86th birthday, February 18, 2016. Read a series of obituaries here.

Bibliographic information about this document: Smith's Report, no. 23, May 1995, p. 1
Other contributors to this document: n/a
Editor’s comments: n/a

Similar Posts

  • A Calm Political Atmosphere

    Harry Elmer Barnes famously defined “historical revisionism” when he wrote:[1] “Actually, revisionism means nothing more or less than the effort to revise the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude.” Barnes’s definition may help to explain the failure (thus…

  • From the Editor

    Recently the New York Times made it official: Revisionism has come of age in America. American historian Deborah Lipstadt has been hired by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem to study the Revisionists, of whom she fears “some of their positions could enter the mainstream.” We at the Institute for Historical Review are proud of the…

  • A Note From The Editor

    In 1979 a group of 34 French historians, reacting to the first discom­fitures caused by Professor Robert Faurisson’s investigations of the World War II “gas chambers” allegation, published a declaration in Le Monde which contained these sentences: …. It is not necessary to ask how technically such mass murder was possible. It was possible, seeing…

  • The Challenge to Revisionism

    With the launch of a new historical journal, one devoted specifically to inconvenient history, history that challenges and at times may make us uncomfortable, we must look back at that first generation of self-named revisionist historians and their intellectual victories and challenges. Although the case has been made that revisionist history is as old as…

  • The War that Never Stops

    This issue of Inconvenient History contains several papers by John Wear addressing a wide variety of topics concerning World War II, meaning the war itself, the one that never seems to stop. Only the last two papers concern minorities persecuted by Third-Reich authorities: one paper by John Wear on the incarceration of clergymen in German…