Letters

Revelation and Activism

Nice job with the [Nov.-Dec. 1995] Journal. In particular, Jürgen Graf's article really drove home what I've always suspected, helping me to fully understand the consequences of the outcome of World War II. I plan to become a European history teacher, to promote the truth and help reinvigorate an educational system that is riddled with lies. I want to make sure that young people, and especially university students, know who is responsible for all this.

Our Western Civilization class recently covered Hitler, World War II and the Holocaust, with the professor performing the usual verbal rituals, stressing the “unique historical nature” of the wartime treatment of Europe's Jews. I wanted to shout out, “Students, you are being spoon-fed a huge lie. Think! Question what he is saying!,” but I kept quiet, not wishing to jeopardize my plans for the future with a futile gesture. All the same, I am distributing copies of several Journal articles to fellow students.

The Journal has set me free. I cannot thank you enough. You are creating legions of revisionists.

P. D.
Cincinnati, Ohio

New 'Lessons' of War

Ask an American veteran of World War II about the “lessons” of that conflict, and he's likely to tell you that we fought to protect our country from aggression by Japan and Nazi Germany. But ask a young American about World War II's “lessons,” and he is likely to mention “the Holocaust” and something about fighting “racism” or “fascism.” The Holocaust campaign is drastically changing our perception of the century's most important conflict. Young Americans are now taught that the war was a struggle against “racism” and white nationalism.

The Holocaust campaign is part of a well-organized effort to convince Americans that nationalism is all right for everyone except white people. It is a major weapon in the effort to impose “multiculturalism” on America – something that Americans of the World War II generation overwhelmingly opposed. Today anyone who voices support for the policies and views that were entirely taken for granted prior to the cultural revolution of the 1960s is damned as a fascist or neo-Nazi. Let's be honest: Hitler had more respect for the cultural and national integrity of even his enemies than do todays multiculturalists for the cultural and national character of the United States or any European country.

Thanks to your fine work, things will change and American-Americans will once again be free. Your work is very important. Enclosed is a contribution [$68] to help your cause.

K. J.
Colorado Springs, Col.

Sincere Collaboration: A Russian Responds to Zündel

I've just finished reading Ernst Zündel's essay, “My Impressions of the New Russia,” in the Sept.-Oct. 1995 Journal . While it is extremely interesting reading, there are also mistakes and misunderstandings that non-Russian readers may not recognize.

Mr. Zhirinovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party staff understandably did their best to present themselves and their party to Mr. Zündel in the best possible light during his visit to Russia. They did a good job, but what he saw was well-done propaganda facade. It's not important if Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a Jew or a half-Jew. It's a personal matter, and nothing more. But his clearly un-Russian appearance is, to put it politely, not in keeping with his self-appointed role as a Russian nationalist leader. Imagine, for example, a Black American leader who looked Chinese. Regardless of the sincerity of his views, it would look rather odd.

More important are Zhirinovsky's activities in Russian political life since 1991, when, as an all but unknown politician, he finished third in the presidential elections. During the five years since then, he has given countless speeches, hosted numerous news conferences, and provoked one scandal after another – but without a single substantive activity as a responsible leader of the nationalist opposition. As he has shown time and time again (and as he confirmed to Zündel) Zhirinovsky will do anything for publicity. As the last presidential elections show, the Russians don't trust him . Zhirinovsky is not a genuine nationalist leader or Russian patriot, much less a “neo-fascist.” He plays the role of an agent provocateur, and one must be careful in dealing with him.

In speaking about the Communist Party and former Communist Party apparatchiks, Zündel confuses two quite different things. The present-day Communist Party of Russia (CPR), lead by Gennady Zyuganov, has nothing in common with the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) of Gorbachev and Co. Zyuganov's CPR promotes Russian and Eurasian nationalism in a rather mild form, to be sure, but realistic and sincere, unlike Zhirinovsky s fairy tale ravings along with some ideas of social democracy and nationally-oriented socialism. Zyuganov's Party publishes or supports such leading dissident newspapers as Sovietskaya Rossia (“Soviet Russia”) and Zavtra (“Tomorrow”). This Party has the largest faction in the Russian parliament (Duma), and its leader was the major challenger to Yeltsin in last year's presidential elections. They are very unusual “Communists.”

President Yeltsin, Prime Minister Chernomyridin, and many other ranking politicians and officials are former high-ranking CPSU Communists. The government bureaucrats, officials, financial dealers, and so forth, who are prospering in today's Russia are actually former CPSU apparatchiks who have transformed themselves into pro-Western “democrats.”

Contrary to the impression given in the western media, the 1996 presidential election was not a contest between Communists and Democrats, but a struggle between forces loyal to Russia, and the forces of internationalism beholden to the New World Order. It is perhaps a great, ironic joke of history that the Communist Party of Russia is today the most important political force opposing the pro-Western course of President Yeltsin, unrestrained westernization (Americanization), and the “New World Order.” (There are also some small Communist groups of doctrinaire Marxists, but they have no significant political clout or popular support.)

Zündel spoke admiringly of former KGB Major General Alexander Sterligov. In spite of his efforts to portray himself as a sincere patriot, Sterligov has never had any real political importance or popularity among Russian nationalists.

It's a pity that Zündel was not able to meet with the leaders of Russia's authentic patriotic opposition. These include Yuri Vlasov, a prominent essayist and writer, Serguei Baburin of the Russian All-Peoples Union (and Duma vice chief), Victor Alksnis, a retired Colonel, political analyst and writer, Nicolai Lyssenko of the National Republican Party, writer and essayist Alexander Dugin, and Victor Beszverkhy of the Union of Veneds, a neo-paganist spiritual and political organization. While none of these men is a Communist, many support (sometimes covertly) Zyuganov's CPR.

Zündel is mistaken about Vladimir Rezun (Suvorov) and his book, Icebreaker. Nearly every informed and honest Russian dislikes this book and its author because Rezun is not a sincere searcher for historical truth. His book is actually a masterfully done piece of hate propaganda. During the Soviet era, we learned to recognize such propaganda, including historiographic propaganda. Now several Russian revisionist historians, including some friends of mine, are preparing a well-researched refutation of Rezun to be entitled “Icebreaker's Lie: Rezun Revisited.” Parenthetically, Rezun was never a “senior” Soviet military intelligence officer. He was only a rank and file officer, with no special access to privileged information not directly connected with his work.

It is true, as Zündel mentions, that Russians ardently hate traitors and defectors. This is only natural and right, I think, especially those who betray military or intelligence service. We may be able to excuse a defector who acted to save his life, and who did not pass on any secret information to foreign governments. (This was the case of Alexander Orlov, whose story is given in Deadly Illusions by John Costello and Oleg Tsarev [Crown, 1993].) But the Rezun case is quite different, and inexcusable.

Every intelligent Russian nationalist understands the importance of good relations between Russia and Germany. Such friendship and alliance is not only possible but necessary and mutually beneficial. Russian patriots really want to “build bridges” for such an alliance, which would be the most powerful blow to the New World Order.

Right now only one side is working toward this goal: the Russian one.

While I respect Mr. Zündel's nationalist feelings, he should respect or at least try to understand ours. Granted, Soviet atrocities in eastern and central Europe at the end of, and just after, the Second World War were terrible. Nobody can be proud of those misdeeds, and nobody denies them. But it should be recalled that these came only after terrible German cruelties in Russia, during three years of harsh occupation. As Zündel writes, “that wasn't the work of nice people.” While not forgetting what happened, let us at least try to pardon or set aside all that to work together for common goals.

Zündel also writes: “I believe that if we revisionists quickly get our act together, we can help free the Russians from some terrific misconceptions … ” Since the time of Peter the Great, so often in our history “enlightened” Europeans have been trying the help “backward” Russia to “understand.” No thanks! We don't need “enlightenment,” but rather cooperation on the basis of mutual respect. We don't presume to explain your history to you. We desire sincere collaboration on an open, honest and equal basis.

In the spirit of historical revisionism, I want to stress: we have our own heritage, and we don't need others to explain to us how to appreciate it. Of course, we are interested in what people outside our country think, and we are open to discussion. But we also have our own views about European, American and world history and affairs.

We want to translate and publish in Russia as many of the revisionist classics as possible. At the same time, we have many solid works of history that deserve translating and publishing abroad. (I don't include such court historians as Dimitri Volkogonov or such mediocre amateurs as the playwright Edvard Radzinsky, each of whose books have received praise in the United States.)

We have survived decades of terrible distortion, propaganda and brainwashing. But a similar propagandistic distortion, even if less overt, now plays a role in the so-called “free world.” It is true that we lack “printing and duplicating equipment.” Today we are poor, but only materially, not in knowledge or ideas. Right now we Russians enjoy a remarkable, although perhaps temporary, freedom of speech. Let's make use of this opportunity for our common goals.

Nikodim M. Ipatiev
Moscow, Russia

Sheftel Unfair to Brentar

Yoram Sheftel's book about the John Demjanjuk case [reviewed in the Nov.-Dec. 1995 Journal] is valuable and enlightening. While it deals mainly with the author's work as defense attorney for the Ukrainian-born auto worker, it sheds light on the more basic issue as to how and why the Holocaust story has achieved its sacred status in Western society. Still, the book is not without flaws.

“The one and only purpose” of extraditing Demjanjuk to Israel, writes Sheftel (p. 7) “was to conduct a special 'Israeli-style' show-trial, to teach Israeli children the story of the Holocaust and heighten 'Holocaust awareness' among the public.” Actually, another purpose of this campaign was to offset the growing influence of Holocaust revisionism. “At a time when there are those who even deny the Holocaust ever took place,” said Israel's Attorney General, Yitzhak Zamir (not be confused with Yitzhak Shamir), “it is important to remind the world of what a fascist regime is capable of … and in this respect the Demjanjuk trial will fulfill an important function.” (Cleveland Jewish News, March 21, 1986, p. 16).

A much more serious defect is Sheftel's shabby treatment of Jerome Brentar, the travel agent who did so much to help win freedom for John Demjanjuk. In a totally unjustified slap at the Cleveland businessman (inaccurately identified as “Berntar”), Sheftel castigates him as a “foul anti-Semite” (p. 122). This smear actually tells us more about Sheftel's peculiar mind-set than about Brentar.

Sheftel makes no mention of Brentar's years-long sacrifice on behalf of Demjanjuk – at great financial cost and considerable damage to his reputation. At a time when few outside his family circle believed in his innocence, Brentar worked tirelessly to secure justice for this hounded man. It was he, for example, who enlisted the support of Ohio Congressman James Traficant, the only public official who had the courage to openly call for justice for Demjanjuk. [See Brentar's essay, “My Campaign for Justice for John Demjanjuk,” in the Nov.-Dec. 1993 Journal.] Without Jerry Brentar's generous assistance, Demjanjuk likely would have been put to death in Israel.

Paul Grubach
Lyndhurst, Ohio

Jews and Bolshevism: A Revised View

In my letter in the Sept.-Oct. 1995 Journal, “Jews in the Bolshevik Takeover of Russia: A Dissenting View,” I undertook to defend the record of the Jewish leaders of Bolshevism. I now believe that I was attempting to defend the indefensible, because I have since learned that the Communist seizure and consolidation of power was much crueler then I had imagined.

The only defense I can offer is that the Bolsheviks never intended that things would work out the way they did. What I think happened was this: for years prior to 1917, the Bolsheviks drew up plans for their ideal society in European cafes and meeting halls. After coming to power in Russia they proceeded to impose their utopian plans on a nation they did not understand, and on people who had no interest in sacrificing for an ideal society. Russians do not take easily to discipline, ask little more from life than minimal personal comforts, and have a centuries-old tradition of passive resistance.

While the catastrophe that ensued was not at all what the Bolsheviks had anticipated, it was what any astute person should have expected. As for the severe repressions that followed, we might paraphrase Byron: Hell hath no fury like a refuted intellectual.

Richard Phillips
Cranston, Rhode Island

Fascinating Book

Just this afternoon I finished reading The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. I found Dr. Butz's Book absolutely fascinating. Until now I was firmly but uncomfortably convinced of the Holocaust and Six Million myths.

I am neither anti-Jewish nor an Aryan separatist. I am not a fan or follower of Hitler. I am pro-truth, and I want to further investigate this subject. Thank you, Arthur Butz, for removing my blindness.

JoAnn M.
Riverside, Calif

More Distorted

Thanks for telling the other side of World War II. As part of an international campaign to demonize the West and vilify the German people, the official version of history is becoming ever more distorted.

Those who invent and propagandize their horrible stories can do anything they want, because anyone who courageously points out the lies is instantly damned and earns the condemnation of the ignorant masses.

Keep up the good work.

J. R. E.
San Francisco, Calif

We welcome letters from readers. We reserve the right to edit for style and space. Write: [… since defunct, don't write; ed.].