The third week in March History News Network (HNN) published Dagmar Barnouw's review of Joerg Friedrich's The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , 1940-1945 . Ms. Barnouw is Professor of German and Comparative Literature, University of Southern California , and author of Visible Spaces: Hannah Arendt and the German Jewish Experience , John Hopkins (1990). She lives in Del Mar, California . Her latest book is The War in the Empty Air: Victims, Perpetrators, And Postwar Germans. She publishes regularly on HNN, and is regularly pilloried for having views that are not sufficiently Germano-phobic.

The final paragraph of her review reads: "The attack erased whole streets of buildings admired for their restrained neo-classical beauty because the material of which they were built, stone, had been shaped to teach beauty, form, proportion and purpose. The bomb, too, Friedrich writes, "was an educator passing judgment on power and impotence. The impotent vanquished are defenseless, without the possibility of an appeal. . . The victor cannot be indicted in the name of religion, human rights or morals because he is the religion, the rights and morals." It was in the interest of the victor that the vanquished not look back, not dwell on their country's devastation, but move on. More than sixty years later, it confirms the victor's enduring power that Friedrich's looking back at and mourning that devastation still seems dangerous to many readers."

Peter K. Clarke has published upwards of 8,000 posts on HNN, a Web site "for historians by historians." I have severely edited this exchange as it reached some 12,000 words. Professor Clarke opened the exchange with a brief, commonplace criticism of Professor Barnouw's review of Friedrich. He makes several everyday observations in these few words, but my eye, and my heart as it were, were caught by his second sentence.

PETER K. CLARKE :  There cannot be any justification whatever for firebombing 'the Paris of the Elbe .' It served no military purpose, it did not bring the war closer to an end, and it did not assist in the post-war reconstruction of Europe . However, World War II did not begin with the bombing of historic German cities. It is hypocritical to complain about a belittling of British and US atrocities in World War II, while sidelining all other atrocities, and neglecting the causes of the war."

BRADLEY R. SMITH :  Are we looking around here for ways to morally justify the intentional burning alive of tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed German civilians? Not complicated, and not necessary. They were intentionally killed for a "greater good"--from the point of view of the American administration responsible for the killing. I understand that a primary role of the professorial class is to invest in complicated narratives to morally justify the intentional killing (murder?) of innocent, unarmed civilians by the various State administrations under which they earn their livelihoods. When has it ever been any different?

CLARKE :  Nobody here is "investing in complicated narratives to morally justify intentional killings", Mr. Smith. The topic which I am addressing is NOT "Who decides what a "greater good" is?" My interest is to note the inconsistency of discussing atrocities in a war without discussing how the war began.

The millions of grade school teachers who have broken up millions of fights between grade school students over past decades and centuries, have not been mired in deep philosophical shell games about "greater good," while jumping in to take one side in those fights. Their vastly more typical approach is to break up the fight, and then, BEFORE scolding, reprimanding, counseling, and/or punishing both parties to the fight, they try to find out WHAT HAPPENED before they arrived to restore order. The usual question posed is: WHO STARTED IT?

The USA did not start World War II in September of 1930 by bombing Germany .

SMITH:   Who started it? To be brief, the children of Dresden did not start WWII .  This is really too simple. Why do you see it as a philosophical shell game? I think I understand why most people support the ideal of burning children alive for what they-sincerely-believe is a greater good. But why do you?

I believe you are suggesting here that it was all right to murder the children of Dresden because the German government started a war.

You write:  "There cannot be any justification whatever for firebombing 'the Paris of the Elbe .' It served no military purpose, it did not bring the war closer to an end, and it did not assist in the post-war reconstruction of Europe ." The implication here (the sub-text if you will) is that if it had served a "military purpose," burning the children of Dresden would have been (morally) justified. Or if the bombing had brought the war "closer to an end" it would have been morally justified to burn the children. Or if the bombing had assisted in the "post-war reconstruction" of Europe , burning the children would have been morally justified. I do not see how you can protest that such implications cannot be taken from the words you wrote.

Again: who started WWII? The historians can look into if for the next thousand years but I do not believe they will find that the children of Dresden started it. This is so simple that you appear to consider it "philosophical." It isn't.

It is claimed, but cannot be demonstrated, that the Germans burned folk alive at Auschwitz and we have heard for sixty years that they were wrong to do that. I agree-if they did do it, it was morally unjustifiable. At the same t we know for a fact that Americans intentionally burned alive hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German civilians, including tens of thousands of German and Japanese children. No one even tries to claim that Americans are innocent of the charge. Yet we judge Germans by one moral standard and ourselves by another. As I think you do. It runs all through your "sub-text."

Continued on page 10

April 2006, #126

FAURISSON UNHAPPY WITH HOW SMITH WRITES ABOUT JEWS
THE CAMPAIGN TO FORCE NORTHWESTERN TO FIRE ARTHUR BUTZ
SMITH ENOUNTERS A PROBLEM WITH THE "OBVIOUS"

Robert Faurisson reacts forcefully to the column I printed in SR 125 . I try to explain my position, unsuccessfully. At Northwestern, Hillel, students, and faculty, including the Department of Religion, denounce Butz. No one supports him. How the "obvious" came to capture my imagination. The issue of "world views." A new column for the student and off-campus press. Brief updates on Zundel, Verbeke, and Toben.

I'm going to get into a difficult matter here, it may ruffle a few feathers, but it's a matter that I find interesting and important. I believe most of you will be interested in the subject, though you might disagree with me. Holocaust revisionists and Jews have a special relationship with one another. There is a lot of frustration, anger, denial (no pun intended), and mistrust on both sides. And that is the crux of the matter-for me, there is no "side." That's what is difficult to make clear.

The last week in February I heard from Robert Faurisson, who had read the column as it was printed in "The Daily Hornet." He was very direct in his criticism of how I had written about Jews. The core of his concern was:

" You are careful to totally exonerate the Jews. You go on repeating: "It's NOT the Jews, NOT the Jews, NOT the Jews. "

It's true, I did use that phrase, though in specific contexts. Briefly, I wrote that revisionism is where it is, and revisionists are where we are, not because of how Jews behave, but because of the synchronicity of how Jews and those of us who are not Jews behave together.

Several readers expressed their support for that point of view. One reader called me from England to tell me he thought it "beautifully written" (thank you, Tom)-if I understood him correctly. He called very early in the morning and my head was still full of night slush.

Faurisson was very direct in his criticism of what I wrote. He doesn't beat around the bush. During the 25 years we have been friends he has been just as direct in his encouragement of my work, and sometimes with his praise of it. The directness of language you will find here is what I expect from him.

Following then are excerpts from Faurisson's comments on my column, followed in turn by my observations on the issue he raises. Then I will turn to the story about Arthur Butz at Northwestern, a consideration of the "obvious" in what I write, and then an enigmatic comment on the affair by Ted O'Keefe.

FAURISSON : " Ordinary stupid people would think that . Jews are responsible [for the persecution of revisionists]. But, thanks to Bradley Smith, we can see that in fact, Bush is responsible. Not the Jews. The same, of course, for our prisoners. The American, Canadian, Dutch, German and Austrian governments are responsible. Not the Jews. French Police, Justice, Universities, Media made Faurisson's life impossible. Not the Jews ."

[.] the letter you got published in The State Hornet on February 13 [is a] shameful or gaga letter in which you went on repeating that, if revisionists are prosecuted and persecuted in USA, Canada, Germany, France and elsewhere, it is because of the Bush administration, the CSIS, the European states, etc, but NOT THE JEWS, NOT THE JEWS, NOT THE JEWS.

[ . ] I consider that, when a Bradley Smith comes and . says what you have been writing in that newspaper, it boils down to claiming: 'The criminals are NOT our masters, our tyrants, i.-e the Jews, but all those who are obeying those tyrants and masters. And look precisely at your words.'

[ . ] You are careful to totally exonerate the Jews. You go on repeating: "It's NOT the Jews, NOT the Jews, NOT the Jews ".

There was considerable back and forth not included here. I thought my responses made it so perfectly clear as to what I was getting at that I didn't even bother to go back to the column to read what I had written there. Maybe I had, after all, written something and had forgotten that I had written it. I've been known to do that. Considering the time-honored concept that late is better than never, at least sometimes, I decided to re-read the column.

It didn't make any difference. What I found is that I did write, three times, that it was "not the Jews," that it was "not the Jews," that it was "not the Jews." Each time I wrote that phrase it appeared in a specific context, each context being different.

I wrote: "[It] is not the Jews (sic) who are imprisoning people who question the official history of the Holocaust in the West. The truth is, those responsible for the laws that make Holocaust revisionism a crime are those officials who hold office in Western Governments, a tiny minority of whom are Jews."

This is simply the fact of the matter. I do not argue that Jews do not want to see revisionists censored and jailed. I do not argue that Jews do not push for the censorship of revisionism. I do not argue that Jews do not push for the criminalization of revisionism, and I do not argue that Jews do not push for the imprisonment of revisionist writers and publishers. Jews are up to their necks in this business from the get-go

Nevertheless, it is obvious that those who write the criminal codes, those who ratify them, those who pass judgment on revisionists, and those who enforce those judgments-are all employees of the State, here and abroad. Among that number are what, I suppose, is a tiny minority of Jews. Tiny. I'm willing to be convinced that I am wrong about this. But I believe it is obvious. That is the fact of the matter.

I wrote: "In 2005 alone, the laws against holocaust denial in France were used by the government, not the Jews (sic), to prosecute political opponents on both the left and the right."

This statement is either true or it is not true. The percentages of those who hold office in the French Government, from top to bottom, are overwhelmingly not Jews. This is true, or it is false. I don't know the numbers. I'm speculating. But it appears to be an obvious fact.

I wrote: " When Iranian President Ahmedinejad blames the Jews for laws against Holocaust skepticism, none of those government officials who actually wrote and enacted, who actually enforced those Laws, not one, steps forward to say, 'No it was not the Jews (sic). It was me and my government colleagues.' "

This statement is either true or it's false. How many State factotums in France or Germany have in stood up to make the matter clear? One? Who is she? I'd very much like to meet her.

In short then, it is not the Jews who imprison revisionists, not the Jews who pass the laws criminalizing revisionism, not the Jews in France who prosecuted opponents of the State under "denial" laws. Jews do push for all those things. Those of us are not Jews, that is the overwhelming majority, comply with what is requested of us.

It is only human for revisionists to be angry with Jews, Faurisson in particular, but Zundel, Rudolf, Verbeke, Porter and how many others? All punished under laws created and enforced by those of us who are not Jews, at the behest of the tiny minority of Jews who live among us. Is this not so?

Jews have behaved very badly in all this. Nothing is clearer. Nevertheless, those of us who are not Jews have gone along with Jews when we could have chosen to act with honor, stood on principle, and insisted on the truth. However, we are who we are.

In short then, my view is that what Jews want is a Jewish problem. How those of us who are not Jews respond to what Jews want is our problem. If Jews are responsible for what they do, and Jews are responsible for what those of us who are not Jews do, what are we responsible for? Nothing! Are we to behave as children before a stern and grasping parent? It's as if we have no shame.

That's the point of view that I was trying to get across to Robert. It's not always "them." Sometimes, oftentimes, it's "us." And that it is more appropriate and more honorable to take responsibility for our own failures and correct them, than it is to complain about the successes of the others.

It is clear in my mind that I did not "totally exonerate the Jews." I didn't totally exonerate them in my column, and I will not totally exonerate them here. Just as I will not totally exonerate those of us who are not Jews. What's right for the gander, is right for the goose

June 2005, #117

This afternoon I'm at a Starbucks in Chula Vista where I drink four or five or maybe six double shots of espresso to wake myself up and I get so high that in a fit of raging enthusiasm and self-confidence I decide I will write a book about Adolf Hitler. For the first time in my life I have swallowed enough espresso to get the real affect. Seventy-five years old and I'm flying. Thought is all over the place. The book won't be entirely about Adolf Hitler, but about me too. Wonderful! I will read Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf , and along the way I will write about what comes up in the brain while I read what he says came up in his. I will write autobiography about Hitler's autobiography. I will focus on his text as he wrote it, not on what he did later, or on what he is accused of having done later.

This is what the lit-crits do. When a professor judges a literary work, she judges the work itself, the text, not the personal life of the writer. Judging the personal life of the author is saved for a different project. Poetry, novels, autobiography are literary works. They need to be judged on their own merits. Hemingway's work is judged on its own merits. The critical reception to his novels and stories was not based on what a boor and liar he was, but on the texts themselves. Hemingway was a mixed bag. His texts are dazzling.