Archive/File: holocaust/usa/codoh anarchy.001
Last-Modified: 1994/07/22

The following letter appears in the current issue of the magazine
_Anarchy._  It's a response from Bradley Smith to a letter from
journalist Bill Weinberg in a previous issue.  In Weinberg's letter,
he scolded the editors of _Anarchy_ for not being critical enough
of "holocaust revisionism" in a review of Smith's book _Confessions of
a Holocaust Revisionist._  (For those of you not familiar with the
magazine, they have made it clear that they think the "revisionists"
are nazis and hardly worth wasting time or ink on.  _Anarchy_ is
generally an excellent magazine.)

      Editor,

      Re: Bill Weinberg's question to _Anarchy_ whether anarchists
      "think that holocaust revisionism is worthy of expending ink and
      paper on for purpose other than exposing and debunking?"

      Weinberg thinks it isn't, I think it is.  How do we come to some
      agreement on whether it is or not?  One way is to understand
      what kinds of quesitons revisionist theory asks orthodox
      historians to answer--for all of us.

      Example: we were told for half a century that Auschwitz claimed
      four million murdered victims (mostly Jews).  In 1990 the
      Auschwitz State Museum lowered the figure to 1.1 million.

      Revisionists believe there are a few questions that need to be
      asked about this development.  The short list include these:
      where are the documents that "proved" the original 4-million
      figure?  Where are the documents that in 1990 "disprove" the
      4-million figure?  Where is the scholarly paper that addresses
      the judicial proces through which the Nuremberg Court accepted
      the 4-million figure as historically accurate?  How did the
      court go wrong?  How many Germans were the victims of judicial
      murder because of the Court's lack of professionalism, or its
      political bias?  Where is the paper that reveals to us the
      scholarly, half-century long road our valiant historians
      traveled to come to the conclusion that the 4-million figure was
      wrong?  How were revisionist investigators able to figure it out
      40 years earlier (see the writings of Paul Rassinier and others
      in the 1950s)?

      The short answers?  1) None of these papers or documents exist
      or ever did exist.  2) Revisionists were able to figure out the
      scam in the 1950s because they took a run at it.

      Bill Weinberg calls on anarchists to "expose" and "debunk"
      revisionism.  I encourage anarchists to follow Bill's advice.  I
      encourage Bill to follow Bill's advice.  I encourage the members
      of the Walter Benjamin Committee on Fascism & Anti-Semitism to
      follow Bill's advice.  I'm willing to be convinced that I'm
      wrong and that revisionist theory is misguided and evil.

      Furthermpore, I will consider publishing, in _Smith's Report,_
      any paper (under 7,500 words) critiquing any aspect of published
      revisionist theory on the alleged mass murder of the European
      Jews in gassing chambers or gas vans.  Other subjects that
      interest me are the human-soap story, the human-skin lamp shade
      story (a favorite of Deborah Lipstadt), and corroborated
      eyewitness testimony about any of these subjects.

      Bill, the ball's in your court.

      Bradley R. Smith, Visalia, CA

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor