I知 Willing To Be Convinced I知 Wrong

by Bradley R. Smith

   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知 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知 a racist, yet my family is Mexican.

You are told I知 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痴 wrong to be a 電enier. I answer that when we debate historical issues it is wrong to be a 電enier or a 鍍rue believer either one.

You are told I say that the Holocaust is a 塗oax. What I say is that some of it happened, some of it didn稚, 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 塗ate 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幽enry Miller痴 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知 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 斗egalism. 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池e told that the Holocaust is about Jews. I answer that it痴 about Jews and Germans together庸orever. 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池e 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池e told the evidence proving the orthodox Holocaust story is 登verwhelming. I ask, if that痴 so, what is there to fear from open debate?

You池e told that the great crime of the National Socialist German Worker痴 Party (Nazis) is that they intentionally killed civilians. I agree葉hough 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 塗ate 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 笛ewish 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知 willing to be convinced I知 wrong about any of this. Try me.

Installed: 07/27/98, 1: 00 AM, PST

Source: The Revisionist, Codoh Series, No. 3, 2001, pp. .
Back to Table of Contents