|

What I Believe, What I Don't, and Why

By Bradley R. Smith ∙ March 1, 1995

Last updated on

I understand perfectly well that the Hitlerian regime was antisemitic and persecuted Jews and others. I understand that many peoples, European Jews among them, experienced unfathomable tragedies at the hands of the Allied and Axis powers during World War II.

Nevertheless, I no longer believe the German State pursued a plan to kill all Jews or used homicidal “gassing chambers” for the mass murder of civilians.

The reasons I no longer believe either story is that no physical remains of authentic homicidal gassing chambers exist today, and there are no war-time generated documents which prove they ever did. I believe the gas chamber story to be a grotesque hoax.

Much “eyewitness” testimony about German atrocities against Jews and others is demonstrably false. It's wrong to bear false witness against others—most of us were taught to understand this when we were children. False testimony against Germans, together with those who promote it, should be exposed to the light of public scrutiny.

The attempt to identify every call for open debate about the gas chamber controversy with anti-Jewish sentiment is juvenile. Those who protest that it is more important to be “sensitive” to “survivors” than truthful about the historical record represent a world view that is foreign to a free society.

I’m willing to be convinced I'm wrong about any or all of this. I'm willing to be convinced it is “hateful” to weigh the evidence for and against “gas chambers.” I'm willing to consider the possibility that the press and our intellectual elites are correct in their efforts to suppress open debate on gas chambers. I'm even willing to discuss the idea that intellectual freedom is evil when it involves the gas chamber controversy.

I'm not willing to go away, however. I don't know why, but I'm not willing.

– Bradley R. Smith
Editor and Publisher

  • 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. 21, March 1995, p. 2
Other contributors to this document: n/a
Editor’s comments: n/a

Similar Posts

  • What Remains to be Researched?

    As has already been stated by leading revisionist Germar Rudolf, there are still many “Holocaust” issues left unstudied, many revisionist works waiting to be written. We have come a long way, for sure, especially in the late 90’s and early 00’s with the publication of the eminent series Holocaust Handbooks, but the scholarly revisionist work…

  • Semi-Revisionism is Dead

    In 2016, I wrote for CODOH critical expositions of the views of two men formerly prominent in Holocaust Revisionism, David Irving (“Talking Frankly about David Irving,” “David Irving is not the Embodiment of Holocaust Revisionism”) and Mark Weber (“Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker” – Part One and Part Two), who now espouse what Robert Faurisson…

  • The Ideal of Intellectual Freedom

    The recent passing of my friend Bradley Smith this past February stirred many memories of the work that we did together.[1] While we met face-to-face only once, we shared many hundreds (thousands?) of emails and countless phone calls. One project that we enthusiastically worked on together led ultimately to the creation of Inconvenient History in…

  • 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…