Holocaust ads renew revisionism debates

Much of history is taught as simple fact, especially about something as horrific as the Holocaust. But some groups contest even the most widely accepted notions about the fate of Jews during World War II. Any time such ideas surface, controversy follows close behind.

The California-based Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust recently brought its ideas to Wake Forest University by publishing a pamphlet in the school's student newspaper, The Old Gold and Black. The 24-page pamphlet questioned the facts of the Holocaust through essays that doubted the existence of gas chambers and challenged the extent to which Jews were murdered.

The pamphlet has created an uproar at Wake Forest reminiscent of events at Duke in 1991, after The Chronicle published a one-page advertisement from the CODOH. These ads, which have appeared in numerous college papers across the country, have generated debates about the validity of Holocaust revisionism as a scholarly field, the extent of open debate in an academic community and the newspaper's role.

What is Holocaust revisionism?

Holocaust revisionist theory denies what most historians consider to be established facts about the Holocaust. On the CODOH web site, co-founder and director Bradley Smith writes, "I no longer believe the German State pursued a plan to kill all Jews or used homicidal 'gassing chambers' for mass murder.... I believe the gas chamber story to be a grotesque hoax." The CODOH, a volunteer organization without members, is primarily funded through private donations, Smith wrote in an e-mail.

Despite widespread opposition from academic historians, Smith uses America's obsession with free speech to persuade editors that his group's ideas should be spread and discussed, although they offend or scare many people. His traditional advertisements have run in 75 college papers this academic year.

"I address this fear, encouraging professors to encourage intellectual freedom rather than encouraging its suppression," Smith said, explaining that his main strategy for publicizing his group's ideas has been trying to convince student newspapers to disseminate them. "It was my naive idea that in America, the university campus would be one place where an open debate on an historical controversy could take place."

Although in the past, the CODOH's ads were only one page, they have recently evolved into a pamphlet called The Revisionist. The new pamphlet, which Smith said is harder to place than the ad, has successfully run in five newspapers, including Wake Forest, Hofstra University and Boise State University. The Chronicle has rejected the pamphlet.

But Holocaust revisionism's rhetoric of open debate and free exchange of ideas makes some historians skittish about shutting down that branch of study. Several years ago, the American Historical Association considered but rejected a resolution condemning Holocaust revisionism. William Leuchtenburg, AHA president at the time, said that although every member of the AHA board was appalled by Holocaust revisionism, they did not feel they could censure ideas. Instead, the AHA banned Holocaust revisionists from having a display table, said Leuchtenburg, the William Rand Kenan professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Smith, however, argues that those who condemn Holocaust revisionism are trying to avoid discussing the topic. "Some academics, together with special interest organizations, spin the tale that there is real revisionism, then there is Holocaust revisionism," Smith said.

Chafe explained that revisionism in the typical sense reexamines attitudes and ideas, not facts. History department chair John Thompson added, "You can argue about the nature of the Holocaust, but there is no debate that it happened."

In response, Smith challenges historians to produce hard evidence of the mass killings, without using what he considers "doctored photographs" and exaggerated eyewitness accounts.

Most historians scoff at this proposition. "I guess the only question is are these people vicious anti-Semites or are they crazy or are they a combination of the two?" Leuchtenburg asked.

What is the role of the student media?

The debate raging across the Wake Forest campus has centered around the student newspaper, with many community members outraged that The Old Gold and Black would publish something they consider so offensive.

Alex Jones, a media expert and Eugene Patterson professor of the practice of public policy at Duke, said publications should be wary of such controversial material. "When people see an advertisement in a publication that has their confidence, they tend to believe that the publication has put that confidence behind the advertisement," he said. He added that perhaps a more effective way to expose potentially offensive ideas is to assign a story on the topic. "Free speech allows them to say what they want but it doesn't compel me to put it in my newspaper," Jones said.

Smith has attempted to insert The Revisionist into The Chronicle, but editor Katherine Stroup said the newspaper rejected this offer. "Having an entire separate publication inserted in our paper would seem to be giving The Chronicle's endorsement to the publication," said the Trinity senior. "This would allow Bradley Smith to speak in a vacuum."

At The Chronicle, Stroup makes the final decision on any potentially controversial ad, but at Wake Forest, business manager Laura O'Connor made the decision by herself. "The business office and editorial office are separate but equal entities," she wrote in an e-mail. "There has never been a precedent to consult with the editorial board, since that could pose a conflict of interest with our advertisers."

Most newspapers purposely create this separation between advertising and editorial-commonly termed "The Wall." But the CODOH advertisement experience has caused The Old Gold and Black to reevaluate its structure, and the newspaper is developing a new advertising policy.

Although The Chronicle rejected the pamphlet, Stroup said she would still consider running a CODOH advertisement inside the paper. "I would still decide on a case-by-case basis. I would still confer with my staff..." she said. "I might run it, but I would be sure to run it with information that puts Bradley Smith, revisionism and the advertisement into the appropriate context."

Stroup said she could understand the reasons behind running a CODOH advertisement. "My overreaching philosophy is that harmful, hateful ideas have to be aired so people can be aware, respond and act against them," she said.

Nevertheless, Thompson and Chafe both said that they thought The Chronicle should refrain from running such an advertisement. "I think The Chronicle should have the good sense not to publish it," Thompson said.