And Liberty for All

NO MORE TERRIBLE WORD exists than Auschwitz. In those nine letters one finds the emblem of the hatred of man for man. The most infamous of the Nazi concentration camps. Auschwitz was the site of the deliberate murder of over one million Jews and other "undesirables" from 1940-44. The name alone indicts and condemns the Party that attempted genocide and raises doubts about humanity's claim to dignity. But more than 35 years later in 1979, when Dr. Wilhelm Staeglich wrote his book. The Auschwitz Myth, he did not attempt to restore man's faith in his own humanity--a faith badly shaken by the Nazi's cold, calculated brutality. The West German neo-Nazi tried to revive anti-Semitic "Jewish conspiracy" theories and to wash the bloodstains off Hitler and a Germany gone mad.

Staeglich's book maintains that the Nazi murder of six million European Jews is nothing more than "Zionist atrocity propaganda." Because this thesis is so obscene, so repugnant to any sentient 20th century human. Staeglich and his book--and the recent reaction to both in West Germany--raise the kinds of question about intellectual freedom one hopes never to encounter outside an ethics class.

A West German court last week ordered the destruction of the printing plates and all available copies of The Auschwitz Myth. The court's reaction is understandable. Staeglich is, after all, a liar whose work could make the outlawed Nazi party's existence more palatable, or at least stir up the belligerence of its present members. Few West Germans who remember the horrors of Nazi rule would welcome either prospect. One can also see the rationale behind the University of Goettingen's recent decision to revoke the doctoral degree Staeglich earned in 1951 for his law studies. The president of the University has stated that Staeglich no longer deserves his degree, as he is using it to lend credence to mere Nazi propaganda. Moreover, the University of Goettingen's stance is most likely an attempt to disassociate itself from Staeglich and the Nazi ideology he represents.

But the actions of the court and the University neglect two considerations which would favor another course. First, on a practical level, banning the book and stripping Staeglich of his degree could provoke and unintended response. The neo-Nazis may try to make Staeglich a martyr, calling him the victim of a conspiracy. A silenced Staeglich may win more Nazi sympathizers than a vocal one. Perhaps a more pragmatic way to combat the propaganda would be pointedly to refute its premise and its "evidence."

NO ONE COULD HOPE, of course to win over the Nazis: Paranoids who see Jewish conspiracies behind every personal misfortune are notoriously impervious to facts. Most of the Nazis who bought Staeglich's book have ignored the incontrovertible fact that Hitler tried to commit genocide and came dangerously close to succeeding. In The Auschwitz Myth they seek new excuses to justify their long-held beliefs. But for the rational people whose curiosity might be piqued by a book banning, better to criticize the book than forbid it.

Second, and more important, the court and the University are stifling free speech. Obviously West Germany is not the United States, the Germans have much to fear from Nazi propaganda. But book burning has no place in a democracy. Moreover, for a university to revoke its degrees because of the beliefs of the holder strikes a heavy blow at intellectual freedom. Yet few could mourn the disappearance of Dr. Staeglich's book from the face of the earth--that is why the case is so difficult. But that is also why it is so important. Making distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable ideas is a dangerous task. The Nazis themselves taught the world that freedoms can erode quickly. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. defined free thought as "not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." Though we might hate his thought, our concept of liberty demands that we not act until Staeglich's words become what Holmes termed "a clear and present danger." Until then, Staeglich should be free to speak his twisted mind.