As a biographer of H. L. Mencken, I should know better than to perpetrate a hoax in a newspaper, but last Monday, in my column in the lower left-hand corner of the page opposite this one, I so perped, provoking confusion, suspicion, disbelief, outrage at the Smithsonian Institution, outrage at me and an appeal for a correction, which this is.
In 1917 Mencken wrote a made-up "history" of the bathtub which asserted that Millard Fillmore installed the first one in the White House in 1851. This and other "facts" in the article were accepted as truth, not only in newspapers but in textbooks and encyclopedias, for years after his death.
My column stated as fact that for the 50th anniversary of the World War II Battle of the Bulge, the Smithsonian Institution had produced an exhibit which belittled the American soldiers there and glorified the Germans -- and even Hitler. I meant it to belittle the Smithsonian, which earlier this year proposed to note the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan with an exhibit that seemed to demean America's war effort but respect Japan's.
Well. A column that produces a couple of calls and letters on a good day, provoked over a dozen to me so far, several others to the editor of the editorial page, several others to The Sun's reader's representative and several to the Smithsonian.
Some callers, like Kathryn Broussard of Pasadena, weren't sure about what they'd read. "I'd like to know if your column was a satire or some weird kind of joke," she said.
Same with Ernestine Schmidt of Towson: "Is this written tongue-in-cheek? And will that be addressed later?" Tom Hathaway of Columbia also had doubts. "I'm interested in knowing whether this article is written tongue-in-cheek," he said. "If not, I'd certainly recommend that The Sun do an in-depth review of the Smithsonian exhibit."
But most callers took it literally. Typical was Larry Clifford of Catonsville, who asked my voice mail "where and when I can go to protest violently." I called back to say it was a satire. He called back to say, "It sure doesn't read like a satire." "Would you believe some weird kind of joke?" I thought.
The desire to protest was widespread. John of Baltimore, who preferred not to give his last name, was mobilizing his American Legion post to take on the Smithsonian. I told him it was a joke. "That never occurred to me," he said.
Harry Barrick of Queenstown left a message on voice mail: "I don't consider myself an extremist, but I am incensed. If the exhibit is correctly described, I want to do something." I called back to say it wasn't correctly described. He laughed a laugh of relief and promised to keep reading me, but suggested that in the future I stick to my signature political trivia rather than satire.
Not everybody was so understanding. Richard Reeve of Lutherville, a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, expressed a sense of insult that several callers also felt. "It made asses of us," he said, referring to a line that accused the Smithsonian of accusing the American troops of refusing to accept a German surrender offer so they could slaughter German troops. Informed it was a hoax, he transferred his contempt for the Smithsonian to even greater contempt for me.
I understand his perspective, and apologize. My intent was just the opposite of demeaning American soldiers. Another view by a veteran of the battle came from Harry Levely of Elkridge. He said I was "gullible" to accept the Smithsonian's interpretation of the battle.
This, of course, was the whole point of the column (however poorly executed): mockery of the Smithsonian's politically correct re-interpretation of history in some of its recent exhibits (like the atomic bombing and a study of the American West).
I'm glad that Robert Williams of Hampstead, who is a member of the Smithsonian, called Washington to protest the exhibit. That is, I'm glad there are some Americans who resent what some young historians, at the Smithsonian and on numerous campuses, are doing to our history and heritage, and are willing to try to do something about it.
I hope there are a lot of people like Frank Littleton's friend. Mr. Littleton of Baltimore called to say that a friend of his told him after reading the Monday column that she intended to visit the Smithsonian and complain if the exhibit was as bad as I said. Mr. Littleton, a veteran of World War II, said, "I told her I was sure it was a joke. It had some chuckles in it."
But he wasn't 100 percent sure. He chided me for not doing what I usually do when I write with tongue in cheek: Put in an indicator, such as "Just Kidding!"
Linda St. Thomas, acting director of the public-affairs department at the Smithsonian, said her staff expected protests when they saw the column Monday morning. "We knew it was a joke, but we all knew that after the criticism we got of the Enola Gay plans [the atomic bombing exhibit] that there would be reaction. That's why we want a correction or clarification." She called back to say that with veterans groups now "lining up to protest" she hoped we would not wait till Thursday, my next scheduled column day, to correct the situation.
(She didn't know the half of it. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, still angry at the Smithsonian over the Enola Gay flap, was preparing to take official action over the Battle of the Bulge exhibit, until a skeptical member of her staff double-checked and confirmed that the column was only make-believe.)
Don Cohen of Randallstown saw the joke clear, as I hope most readers did. He called to say, "I realized it was a put-on, especially when I got to the thing about Hitler being a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." Interestingly, one reader, an expert on modern European history, said that given the variety of Nazi fanaticism, that part of the column was believable.
The most interesting reaction to me was from a Briton who asked not to be identified. She said she found the column believable, except the assertion that Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, when asked to surrender, replied "Nuts!" For more about that, I hope you all will read my editorial-page column tomorrow, which will be 100 percent factual.
Now, one last time, for the record: The Monday column was a total fabrication; there is no Battle of the Bulge exhibit at the Smithsonian.
Theo Lippman Jr. is an editorial writer, columnist and former satirist for The Sun.