Nizkor's Initial Email to Bradley R. Smith

24 September 1995

Hello again, Mr. Smith. I'm writing you now as the co-Webmaster of the Nizkor web site, which I hope you've had a chance to browse: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/.

I've just looked through your web site, and I wanted to make a few comments and ask a few questions:

(1) Since your statement of purpose is "to encourage intellectual freedom" regarding the Holocaust, I think I can assume that, when you establish your Links page, you would include links to Nizkor and other sites which present what you would call the "traditional" view of the Holocaust.

I've had to ask other "revisionist" web sites (Raven's, Zuendel's) to add links to Nizkor, but I think your statement of purpose makes it clear that you would not discriminate against sites such as Nizkor in your "Links" page, once you get that page operational. So I won't insult you by asking.

For example, it is possible that Nizkor may soon put together an article refuting the thesis of the "Human Soap" article you have put up on the Web. "Intellectual freedom" means hearing different viewpoints and coming to one's own conclusions. So I assume you will have no problem with linking Weber's article on your site to Nizkor's rebuttal thereof. (It goes without saying that Nizkor will do the same for you, when the occasion arises.)

(2) In your "Case for Open Debate" article, you write (and I'll reformat your words a bit, to make my point clear):

Revisionists also maintain that

the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration,

and that

no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe which was under German control.

(2a) What do you make of possibly the world's most famous "revisionist," David Irving, stating in a radio interview that four million Jews were killed in what is commonly known as the Holocaust?

If putting people into a concentration camps where [Jews] die of barbarity and typhus and epidemics is killing then I would say the four million figure because, undoubtedly, huge numbers did die in the camps in the conditions that were very evident at the end of the war.

If you include everybody who died by whatever means, then you could probably go as high as four million....

ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca/pub/people/i/irving.david/australia/2gb-transcript.0795

You say that the figure six million is "an irresponsible exaggeration." What do you say about the figure four million?

(2b) What do you make of your former partner, David Cole, stating in your own Smith's Report newsletter (March 1995) saying about the Natzweiler-Struthof gas chamber:

...this gas chamber might very well have been used homicidally. It might turn out that Struthof is the only Nazi camp to ever have had a homicidal gas chamber...

ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca/pub/people/c/cole.david/priority-mail-envelope

What do you make of his writing in his 16-page open letter:

...I think there is a very high probability, based on my own strict standard of documentary evidence, that the Struthof gas chamber was indeed used to kill Jews...

ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca/pub/people/c/cole.david/cole-vs-faurisson-struthof

(3) Your "Case for Open Debate" page is a revision of an article you originally published in various student newspapers. In the version you published in the Daily Northwestern in April 1991, you included the following text, right after the first paragraph in the section titled "Eyewitness Testimony":

Shmuel Krakowski is archives director for Yad Veshem, which is the international center for Holocaust documentation in Jerusalem. Krakowski states that more than 10,000 "eyewitness" testimonies about German atrocities against Jews have been shown to be false at Yad Veshem alone!

You've removed this text from the current version. May I ask why?

(4) In your piece "The Human Soap Myth," you scribe your name below this statement:

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," or "false in one thing, false in everything," was a Roman legal principle. If a witness may not be believed in one thing, he should not be believed in anything. This principle is as valid today as it was two thousand years ago.

I find it interesting that you believe this principle to be valid. Keeping it in mind, what do you make of the work of the famous "revisionist," Robert Faurisson?

In your own Smith's Report newsletter, and elsewhere, your former partner David Cole has shown that Faurisson has deliberately obscured the truth on a number of occasions. One of the milder things Cole says is that "Faurisson isn't above altering his own texts if the situation requires." And Cole backs up his claims with facts. Again, see ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca/pub/people/c/cole.david/cole-vs-faurisson-struthof.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Smith. I have more questions for you, but I won't be tiresome by presenting you with a barrage of them. I'm glad to see that you are on the world-wide web, now, because it means (I hope) that we can sort some of these matters out.

[ Index ]

The original email text is available for reference.