You are mistaken.

<Bronstein never claimed to be pure as the driven snow>

This is Soltis' take on Smyslov's response.

<When he does acknowledge Bronstein's charges, Smyslov responds mainly in general terms -- and hardly mentions Reshevsky. He dismisses Bronstein's account of the tournament as "scandalous material" designed to enhance his own reputation and "blacken the time and generation of our brilliant grandmasters!"
At another point, Smyslov writes: "It is improper to write that way about colleagues."
This is a rebuke, of course. But it isn't a denial.>

www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles173.pdf

It may be "scandalous," and even "improper" to tell the truth at times, and it may also "blacken" reputations. Finally, Bronstein can have selfish motives to speak of such things before his passing. Certainly does not prove he's lying...

...Nor telling the truth, either. What is clear is that Smyslov's response left plenty of room for interpretation. What we have here is no clear way to determine the truth, precisely.

More on Soltis:

<We note that on pages 24-25 of Chess Lists (Jefferson, 2002) A. Soltis wrote regarding the position after 55 Qxf6+:

‘The spectators, who followed the moves on a demonstration board, burst into laughter. But Black instantly responded 55...Kxf6 and after 56 fxg4 the game went on as if nothing had happened.’

No source is given. There is only Soltis’ say-so, which amounts to very little more than not very much.> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... #5833.

<There were similar words from Sourceless Soltis on page 81 of the 1984 edition of his book.> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/..., #3567.

<We note that it was mentioned, sourcelessly, by A. Soltis on page 30 of the April 1980 Chess Life.> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... #4449.

<Beyond Soltis’ panoply of imprecision (he also put ‘Hook’ instead of Hooke), it is notable that he lifted all the research material, without a word of credit, from the BCM’s Quotes and Queries column> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... #5217.

<‘But Bardeleben didn’t resign. He stared at 25 Rxh7+, shot a glance at Steinitz, and without a word got up from his chair and left the room. He didn’t come back. Tournament officials searched and found Bardeleben pacing angrily. No, he wouldn’t return to the board so that outrageous Austrian could mate him.>

<So Steinitz had to wait for Bardeleben’s time to run out before he could claim the win. Not only claim it – he demonstrated the final ten-move mate and the crowd cheered.’>

<The author of that apparent exercise in imagination, simultaneously fertile and sterile, is A. Soltis (The Great Chess Tournaments and Their Stories, pages 67-68).> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/....

<Such dense inaccuracy is quite common in Soltis’ output> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... #6379

<Sources are considered to be frills; the writings of Andrew Soltis, for instance, optimistically expect the reader to take almost everything on trust.> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

This one:

Bronstein vs Smyslov, 1953

From Soltis' column:

<[Smyslov] recalls how Bronstein came to his hotel room two hours before their game in Round 26.

"I was unpleasantly surprised," he wrote. (Bronstein had said Smyslov was waiting for him.) But the biggest difference in their accounts is that Smyslov claims it was Bronstein who wanted a draw.

"I understood he was tired and didn't want to take risks," Smyslov wrote. "What could I answer at that moment?">

... Though this is beside the point, as Soltis is merely casting an opinion after reading both GMs accounts. Everyone here knows the source material.

And without any solid evidence, there's not really much to it.