IHR: From Flagship to Millstone
How the IHR Became a "Black Hole" for Revisionist Dollars
Published: 2015-07-05

In his 1993 PhD thesis, the New Zealand historian Joel S. Hayward described the California Institute for Historical Review as revisionism's "mover and shaker." And in fact the Institute and its erstwhile flagship periodical The Journal of Historical Review, have had a leading, and often decisive, role in international revisionism since they were established in 1979 and 1980, respectively. However, at almost the same time as Hayward published his doctoral dissertation, the IHR began its decline, ironically initiated by a huge bequest that became a bone of contention between IHR's staff and its founder Willis Carto over whether IHR or Carto would control the money. The legal battle over this money lasted roughly a decade, at the end of which neither side could declare victory. They settled out of court by agreeing to not mention each other anymore and to drop all claims. In the meantime, the IHR's effectiveness has suffered greatly, and in consequence, that of international revisionism scarcely less. More and more critical voices are pointing out IHR's lacks and calling for measures to correct them. The following contribution gives a short summary of the history and background of the current IHR crisis, as well as of critiques by others.

The Institute for Historical Review

Since the 1960s, Willis A. Carto has been quite successful doing business as a right-wing political publisher. In the 1960s and 1970s, he published the American Mercury, a successful political magazine with a right-wing conservative slant. It was in the Mercury that, in 1966, Carto published the first Holocaust revisionist articles to appear in America.[1] Two years later Carto received an anonymous manuscript entitled The Myth of the Six Million, which analyzed inconsistencies in the Holocaust tale. In 1969, Carto published this booklet in his small publishing house The Noontide Press. It turned out later that the author of this first Holocaust revisionist work in the English language was David L. Hoggan. Hoggan’s booklet later served as a model for Richard Verall's Did Six Million Really Die?[2]

After Holocaust revisionism had gained considerable momentum due to the publications of Paul Rassinier,[3] Franz Scheidl,[4] Thies Christophersen,[5] Arthur Butz,[6] Wilhelm Stäglich[7] and finally the controversy stirred up in France by Prof. Robert Faurisson,[8] Willis Carto seized the opportunity and, together with various other revisionists, in 1979 established the Institute for Historical Review, followed by its chief publication, the Journal of Historical Review, in the following year. This periodical replaced Carto's American Mercury, which he suspended at that time to make room for the new publication. Thereafter the subscriber list of the former periodical became available to the Institute and its new journal.

Even though the IHR was formally an independent entity, it depended heavily on Carto's organizational skills and massive financial support. He viewed the IHR both as his offspring and as his scholarly prestige project. As with other organizations he had founded, such as the Liberty Lobby, Carto was always the gray eminence in the background of the IHR. Formally he exercised no direct influence on the organization, but in fact controlled all lines of authority, choosing, for example, only such corporate directors as would safeguard his interests. Critics might call such board members mere Carto's puppets. But it has to be understood that most of the organizations established by Carto would hardly have been able to survive without his financial input and his organizational skills.

It is, of course, very risky to build a publishing empire in this way, for if the actual power is not in the hands of those who, legally seen, should have it—the board members—any kind of "palace revolt" can lead to serious conflicts between those with the actual power, such as Carto, and those who exercise authority formally—and legally.

That is exactly what happened in 1993, after Mrs. Farrel-Edison, reputedly a descendant of the famous inventor Thomas Edison and a longtime supporter of the Institute for Historical Review, died and left a multi-million dollars fortune to the IHR.

Battle over Money

Greed is the death of all friendships. The millions inherited by the IHR must have tempted both IHR's behind-the-scenes management and its staff. As the founder and gray eminence of the IHR, who decided all its major financial matters and was used to dealing with large sums of money, Carto felt entitled to control the inheritance. After all, it was Carto who founded the IHR and had established the relationship with the late Mrs. Farrel-Edison. Hence, he simply took control of the millions, which he probably did not intend to spend entirely on Holocaust revisionism.

The IHR's employees, however, insisted that the money had been inherited by the IHR and not by Carto. This fight eventually escalated to an incident in which Carto, his wife and three others sought to regain power at the IHR by taking physical control of its offices, whereupon one of the IHR's employees, Greg Raven, drew a gun, effectively ending the Cartos' attempt. Subsequently, the IHR's board of directors was changed from a puppet show staged by Carto into one put on by the IHR's employees, through a process not to be described here in more detail.

The hatred aroused on both sides by this greed and by the ensuing violent confrontation led to lawsuits in which the two sides tried to bankrupt each other, and for many years both sides did everything possible in order to malign the other side with a series of at-times-vicious articles published in their respective media. All attempts to mediate failed due to the stubbornness of both sides. The only winners of this decade-long struggle were the lawyers—and revisionism's opponents. Millions of dollars were wasted, and years of creative research as well as countless publications were lost to the bickering. The fight ended only some ten years later, when both sides signed an out-of-court agreement to stay out of each other’s business and not to mention the other side anymore at all in any way, shape or form.

The Excuse

Of course, no enterprise can function properly if it is permanently distracted by legal fights. It is therefore not surprising that in those years of legal entanglement the IHR's productivity was less than adequate. It is therefore understandable that many revisionists excused the IHR's lack of productivity during those years. Prof. R. Faurisson, for instance, expressed this view in an email to the IHR's director Mark Weber in 2002 as follows:[9]

"I, for one, have witnessed the sheer extent of the work which was yours in the days you had to fight against Carto the Thief and Liar. I remember how, first with Tom Marcellus and then without him, you and Greg, you had to deal with mountains of papers and legal matters. At the time I thought it was an impossible task. I admired you nearly as much as I admired Ernst Zündel in his own uphill climb. This should be remembered forever."

The reader will have noticed that Faurisson took sides here, and that he insulted Carto by calling him a criminal, which is in itself legally actionable.[10] His language indicates how irreconcilable the gulf had become which separated the two sides during those years.

However, things aren't as simple as they seem at first glance. The decade-long legal fight against Carto was of course a tremendous burden for the IHR, but since neither side was willing to give for such a long time, both must share responsibility for the long-lasting impasse.

Furthermore, I would like to offer a provocative notion in order to make the reader think: the IHR prevailed in every one of the court cases surrounding the Farrel estate case. All of Carto's own recoverable assets were confiscated by the court and transferred to the IHR, and Carto's Liberty Lobby was forced into bankruptcy. Hence Carto should have been the one completely paralyzed and unable to function any longer. But in fact throughout those years he continued to successfully publish the revisionist periodical The Barnes Review[11] and the weekly tabloid American Free Press. Despite all its victories, it is the IHR which functions very ineffectively. There may be a variety of reasons for this fact, and I would like to analyze them below, after first proving my thesis that the IHR is miserably unproductive.

The IHR's (Non-)Productivity

A comparison between the productivity of Carto's companies and the IHR is probably unfair: one can argue that Carto has access to a larger circle of supporters and subscribers, and thus greater financial resources, than the IHR, just as it can be argued (but, to date, not proved) that Carto successfully hid a large part of the funds stemming from the inheritance and was using it to finance his enterprises, as well as his legal attacks on the IHR.

I therefore venture to make a completely different, and much more enlightening, comparison: between my productivity as one individual, and that of the IHR as an organization, covering the time since 1993, which is both the time when I got involved in revisionism and also when Mark Weber took charge of the IHR. This comparison between me and the IHR is unfair, to be sure, but very much in favor of the IHR for the following reasons:

  • During the first time segment considered here (until 2005), my own publishing activities, which started in 1993, was essentially a one-man operation (starting in 1998 with my outlets Castle Hill Publishers, and in 2000 with Theses & Dissertations Press). Since 1996, my persecution due to my revisionist research and publishing activities resulted in my continuous flight for almost a decade: from Germany, via Spain (1996), England (1996-1999), Ohio (1999/2000), and Mexico (2000), to Alabama (2001-2002) and finally Chicago (2002-2005). Because I frequently had to change my residence, was forced to publish using aliases, and am a native German initially publishing only in that language—with only a hundred million readers worldwide, as opposed to some three billion who can read English—it wasn't possible for me to build up a worldwide circle of supporters. Between 1999 and 2004, I lived in small rooms or apartments, with office equipment being my only furniture, sleeping on a plain mattress on the floor: living "like a monk," as Ernst Zündel observed during a brief visit in Alabama back in 2001. In addition, my financial resources were heavily drained by my long-lasting battle first against the German judiciary (1994-1996), and then, after my escape from Europe, against the U.S. authorities who moved to, and in late 2005 finally succeeded in, having me deported back to Germany.
  • During the second segment considered here (2005-2009), I was imprisoned in Germany—indisposed.
  • During the third time segment considered (2009-2011), I had to reside for brief periods in England and in Germany while waiting for a “green card” for my permanent immigration into the U.S. It goes without saying that I could not unfold any well-organized activities during those years while living in temporary abodes under the very noses of my German persecutors, or at least within their easy reach.
  • Only during the fourth and last segment under consideration (2011-2015), after my permanent legal immigration to the U.S., was I able to slowly regain my footing and get again more involved in any serious revisionist activities.
  • During most of the years under consideration, the IHR has had employees in addition to its director Mark Weber. It has had access to worldwide support from many people (with a potential readership of three billion). It has been anchored in a well-defined organization with commodious offices, a board of directors, and a sizeable advisory board. And it has had access to many generous donors and supporters. Although the financial means of the IHR were temporarily strained by the legal struggle with Carto, the Institute has also received several hundred thousand dollars as a result of court decisions and settlements with Carto.[12] In addition, publicly accessible documents show that during the tax year 2013 the IHR received a million dollars from an unknown source.
IHR Revenue

Development of the IHR's yearly revenue from 2001 to 2013 (blue line), with a baseline of ZERO productivity (no books and after 2002 also no periodical issues), and in comparison the yearly revenue of Germar Rudolf/Castle Hill Publishers (CHP, red line), the world's leading output of Holocaust revisionist books (56 in this time span) and documentaries (2 DVDs). Note the slow demise, then the sudden spike of the IHR's revenue due to a million-dollar donation in 2013. (IHR data taken from [12]; CHP data: 2001-2005: estimates following my own crude records; 2006-2009: estimates, and 2010 to 2014: real tax data submitted by the company's current proprietor.)

Let us now turn to the raw production figures.

BOOKS 1993-2015 (as of July)

(Reprints not listed; later revised/expanded editions listed together with original edition, if those had appeared in or after 1993)


I list all the books that were either authored, edited or published by me, whatever publishing company eventually published them. Except for the two books that appeared in 1993/94 at Grabert Verlag (nos. 1 and 3 in list below), I did all the editing and layout work to get these various book projects finished, handing over the print-ready PDF files to the publishers/printers. Although Castle Hill Publishers became a part of CODOH in late 2015, I'm still in charge of CHP's book production, so things really didn't change much.

  1. Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte. Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör, Grabert, Tübingen, 1993, 352 pp., also online (www.vho.org/D/vuez/v1.html) (more recent editions as Germar Rudolf, Vorlesungen über den Holocaust, Castle Hill Publishers: 1st ed. 2005/2nd ed. 2012/3rd ed. 2015).
  2. Germar Rudolf, Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den ‘Gaskammern’ von Auschwitz, Remer-Heipke Verlag, Bad Kissingen, 1993, 120 pp., also online (www.vho.org/D/rga1/rga.html) (more recent editions as Das Rudolf Gutachten, 1st ed., Cromwell Press, London 1993/2nd ed. Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, UK, 2001).
  3. Ernst Gauss, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen, November 1994, 418 pp., also online (www.vho.org/D/gzz).
  4. Herbert Verbeke, Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem, December 1995, 176 pp., also online. (www.vho.org/D/anf).
  5. Germar Rudolf, Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem, December 1996, 120 pp., also online (www.vho.org/D/Kardinal) (more recent editions as Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands Politiker, Castle Hill Publishers, 2nd ed. 2005/3rd ed. 2012).
  6. Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, July 1998, 320 pp., also online (www.vho.org/D/Majdanek) (2nd ed 2004).
  7. Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, August 1999, 144 pp., also online (www.vho.org/D/Stutthof).
  8. Jürgen Graf, Riese auf tönernen Füßen, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, October 1999, 160 pp. (2nd ed. 2015), also online (www.vho.org/D/Riese).
  9. Ernst Gauss, Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, August 2000, 608 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth) (more recent editions under Germar Rudolf: 2nd ed. 2003).
  10. Jürgen Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, March 2001, 128 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/Giant) (2nd ed. Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2015).
  11. Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin's War of Extermination, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001, 416 pp., not online.
  12. Gregory Douglas, Regicide, Monte Sano Media, Huntsville, A, 2002, 224 pp. not online.
  13. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka: Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, UK, 2002, 432 pp.
  14. Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, 453 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr)
  15. Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, 316 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/ccm) (2nd ed. 2004/3rd ed. Castle Hill Publishers, 2012).
  16. Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Concentration Camp Stutthof, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, 122 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/ccs); (2nd ed. 2004/3rd ed. Castle Hill Publishers, 2015).
  17. Don Heddesheimer, The First Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, 140 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfh) (2nd ed. 2005)
  18. Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 3rd, revised edition, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, 506 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc) (4th ed. Castle Hill Publishers, 2015)
  19. Carlo Mattogno, Sonderbehandlung in Auschwitz, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, UK, 2003, 160 pp.
  20. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, 370 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/t)
  21. R.H. Countess, Ch. Lindtner, G. Rudolf (eds.), Exactitude: Festschrift for Robert Faurisson to his 75th Birthday, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2004, 140 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/e)
  22. Carlo Mattogno, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2004, 138 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/b)
  23. Don Heddesheimer, Der Erste Holocaust, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, UK, 2004, 174 pp.
  24. Ingrid Weckert, Auswanderung der Juden aus dem 3. Reich, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, UK, 2004, 61 pp. (2nd ed. 2015)
  25. Carlo Mattogno, Special Treatment at Auschwitz, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2004, 151 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/st)
  26. Ingrid Weckert, Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2004, 72 pp., also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/st)
  27. Carlo Mattogno, Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda versus History, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2004, 266 pp. also online (www.vho.org/GB/Books/tboa)
  28. Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2005, 227 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tlr) (2nd ed. 2005/3rd ed. The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2012).
  29. Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts. A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2005, 197 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/apf).
  30. Germar Rudolf, Auschwitz-Lügen: Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile von Medien, Politikern und Wissenschaftlern über den Holocaust, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, 2005, 384 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/D/al) (2nd ed. 2012).
  31. Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lies: Legends, Lies, Prejudices of Media and Scholars on the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2005, 400 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/al) (2nd ed. The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011).
  32. Carlo Mattogno, Belzec: Propaganda, Zeugenaussagen, Archäologie, historische Fakten, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, UK, 2005, 170 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/b).
  33. Carlo Mattogno, The Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz: Organization, Responsibilities, Activities, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2005, 177 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/cco).
  34. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Open Air Incinerations, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2005, 136 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/aoai).
  35. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The First Gassing, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2005, 136 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/atfg) (2nd ed. The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011).
  36. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Crematorium I and the Alleged Homicidal Gassings, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2005, 138 pp., also online (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/aci).
  37. R. Lenski, Der Holocaust vor Gericht, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2010, 539 pp., also online (http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/Lenski-de.pdf).
  38. Wilhelm Stäglich, Der Auschwitz-Mythos: Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2010, 515 pp. (2nd ed. 2010/3rd ed. 2015), 1st ed. also online (http://vho.org/D/dam/)
  39. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, Sobibór—Holocaust Propaganda and Reality, The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2010, 434 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=19).
  40. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, Sobibór— Holocaust Propaganda und Wirklichkeit, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2010, 526 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=19).
  41. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, 750 pp. (2nd ed. as The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2015), 1st ed. also online (http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/22-atcfs.pdf).
  42. Santiago Alvarez, The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation, The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, 390 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=24).
  43. Carlo Mattogno, Chelmno: A German Camp in History and Propaganda, The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, 187 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=23).
  44. Carlo Mattogno, Schiffbruch: Vom Untergang der Holocaust-Orthodoxie, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2011, 313 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=26).
  45. Germar Rudolf, Widerstand ist Pflicht: Einlassung im Strafverfahren im Jahr 2006/2007, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2012, 422 pp., also online (http://germarrudolf.com/?p=1395).
  46. Germar Rudolf, Resistance is Obligatory: Address to the Mannheim District Court, 15 November 2006 to 29 January 2007, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2012, 376 pp., also online (http://germarrudolf.com/?p=1504).
  47. Alexander Calder, Der Holocaust: Die Argumente, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2012, 123 pp.; older verison online (http://vho.org/D/argumente/)
  48. Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues; The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”—An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers, The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2013, 1396 pp. (2nd ed. Castle Hill Publishers 2015), 1st ed. also online (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28).
  49. Carlo Mattogno, Chelmno: Ein deutsches Lager in Geschichte und Propaganda, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2014, 206 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=23).
  50. Udo Walendy, Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 500 pp.
  51. Arthur R. Butz, Der Jahrhundertbetrug, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 622 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=7).
  52. Fred A. Leuchter, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson, Die Leuchter-Gutachten: Kritische Ausgabe, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 302 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=16).
  53. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Die erste Vergasung, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 198 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=20).
  54. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: Krematorium I, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 164 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=21).
  55. Carlo Mattogno, Freiluftverbrennungen in Auschwitz, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 174 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=17).
  56. Carlo Mattogno, Die Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 181 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=13).
  57. Carlo Mattogno, Inside the Gas Chambers: The Extermination of Mainstream Holocaust Historiography, The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2014, 267 pp., also online (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=26).
  58. Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2014, 258 pp. (2nd ed. 2015)
  59. Franz J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands, 7 volumes, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2014, 1786 pp., vols 2-7 of 1st ed. also online (http://vho.org/D/gdvd_2/index.html).
  60. John C. Ball, Air Photo Evidence: World War Two Photos of Alleged Mass Murder Sites Analyzed, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2015, 130 pp. (3rd ed. 2015); also online (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=27).
  61. Wilhelm Stäglich, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers. Uckfield, UK, 2015, 422 pp. (1st ed. by IHR has been out of print for decades)
  62. Walter N. Sanning, The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015, 224 pp., also online (1st ed. by IHR has been out of print for decades) (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=29).
  63. Warren B. Routledge, Holocaust High Priest: Elie Wiesel, "Night," the Memory Cult, and the Rise of Revisionism, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015, 474 pp. (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=30)
  64. Carlo Mattogno, The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz: A Technical and Historical Study, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015, 1198 pp. (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=25)
  65. Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015, 332 pp. (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=32)
  66. Eric Hunt, The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax, DVD, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015, 1 hr. 21 min. (https://shop.codoh.com/book/402/405)
  67. Eric Hunt, The Majdanek Gas Chamber Myth, DVD, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2016, 1 hr. 22 min. (https://shop.codoh.com/book/409/414)
  68. Carlo Mattogno, Gesundheitsfürsorge in Auschwitz: Die medizinische Versorgung und Sonderbehandlung registrierter Häftlinge, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2016, 470 pp. (to come)
  69. Carlo Mattogno, Curated Lies: The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2016, ca. 240 pp. (http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=38)

B. Institute for Historical Review

  1. Joseph Halow, Innocent at Dachau, 1993, 337 pp., not online.
  2. Roger Garaudy, The Founding Myths of Israel, 2000, 224 pp., not online.

And that’s it. I had to remove the 2014 publication of Leon Degrelle’s The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer, 1941-1945, because this is the second edition of Degrelle’s Campaign in Russia: the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front, which the IHR had published in 1985. So, within the 23 years of Weber being at the helm of the IHR, spanning from 1993 to 2015, the IHR has added two (2!) titles to its roster of published, printed works.

C. Performance Ratio Rudolf/IHR:

32:1 by book titles, 22,763:561 = 40:1 by title pages

JOURNALS 1997-2015


My German journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (VffG) was established in 1997, while the English-language journal The Revisionist was a fruit of a close cooperation between me (Castle Hill Publishers) and Bradley Smith (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, CODOH). This cooperation began in 2000 and resulted, among other things, in my taking over CODOH’s campus periodical The Revisionist in 2003 and turning it into an English-language periodical closely related in style and content to my German-language periodical. The Revisionist ceased to exist with my arrest in 2005, while VffG lingered on for a number of issues, edited and published by former volunteers of mine using the resources and connections I had built over the years. To fill the void ripped by my arrest and the cessation of the JHR (see below), CODOH decided to revive its journal efforts in my absence. Hence in 2009 the former editor of the CODOH edition of The Revisionist, Richard Widmann, launched a new quarterly named Inconvenient History, which appears online during the year and at the end of each year also as a collective bound hard copy.

Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung [Quarterly journal for free historical research], ISSN 1370-7507, (last issue 3/2006: 4030 pp. DIN A4 with 7000 characters per page =) 28.2 million characters, completely online until no. 4/2004 (www.vho.org/VffG).

The Revisionist, CODOH series (1999-2002; altogether some 300 pages, 8.5"×11", with 3000 characters per page =) 0.9 million characters, and
The Revisionist, ISSN 1542-376X, (last issue: 1/2005: 962 pp. 8.5"×11" with 6500 characters per page =) 6.25 million characters, completely online (http://codoh.com/library/categories/1178/).

Inconvenient History, (2009-2015: ca. 3250 pp. 6"×9" with 2500 characters per page =) 8.1 million characters, completely online (inconvenienthistory.com and http://codoh.com/library/categories/1322/).

B. Institute for Historical Review

The Journal of Historical Review, ISSN 0195-6752, (from 1997 through end of 2003: 1410 pages letter-size with 5000 characters per page =) 7.0 million characters, this journal was put completely online by Germar Rudolf, with very little help from the IHR (http://codoh.com/library/categories/1206/). The JHR hardly ever featured articles published in any other foreign-language revisionist periodical. Its publication was “suspended” in 2003, but it has basically vanished without a trace.

C. Performance Ratio Rudolf+CODOH/IHR:

6:1 by pages, 6.2:1 by content



  1. http://www.vho.org
  2. http://www.codoh.com
  3. http://www.holocausthandbooks.com
  4. http://www.holocausthandbuecher.com
  5. http://www.ihr.org - the entire text of all issues of the volumes 1 through 12 of the Journal of Historical Review was scanned, OCR-processed, corrected and formatted by Germar Rudolf himself and a friend of G. Rudolf, who got paid for this by G. Rudolf. Had it not been for my initiative, hardly any JHR paper would be online on the IHR’s website. (The complete set of all papers of all JHR issues, both as PDF and as html, was posted by me on codoh.com, see there.)

B. Institute of Historical Review

  1. www.ihr.org—see my previous remark about this site.



Since 1997, Rudolf has spent almost $50,000 to finance the purchase of documents from eastern European archives, and to pay researchers analyzing them. In addition, Germar Rudolf has paid so far some $15,000 to filmmakers for their efforts to produce cutting-edge revisionist documentaries for posting on YouTube and for sales as DVDs.

B. Institute of Historical Review

Zero spent on research expenses, as far as I know. But then again, who knows what they are spending their money on? Since nothing comes out at the other end—meaning no products worth mentioning—I suppose that nothing is invested into any productive project either.

C. Performance Ratio Rudolf/IHR:

$65.000:0 by funds.



As a fleeing and hiding "criminal", Germar Rudolf could not organize conferences in the years leading up to his arrest in 2005. CODOH itself has never had any organizational structure, as it has always been a one-man-show run by Bradley Smith with a number of usually unpaid volunteers chipping in.

B. Institute of Historical Review

  1. September 3-5, 1994
  2. May 27-29, 2000
  3. End of June, 2002
  4. April 23-25, 2004: picking up the pieces of the busted Sacramento Conference.

As far as I know, there have not been any IHR conferences since, ignoring minor one-evening gatherings on occasion of the presence of some more or less prominent speaker.

C. Performance Ratio Rudolf/IHR:



The result of this purely quantitative comparison is obvious and so embarrassing for the IHR that I forego any further comment.

Considering these facts, it is not really surprising to make the following conclusion when analyzing the publicly accessible financial records of the IHR:[12]

  1. The IHR's list of expenses does not include a position proving that there was any noticeable production like printing costs for books or journals. The IHR's main expenses are attorney fees, salaries and rents.
  2. When the IHR received several hundred thousand dollars from Carto in 2000, this money was not only spent on paying lawyer fees, but also to roughly double the salaries of the IHR employees. There was, however, still no noticeable expense for production.

Thus, the results of this analysis require a different explanation than that a higher productivity and efficiency was impeded by the long-lasting conflict with W. Carto. As a matter of fact, as Mrs. Carto told me in early 2015, that conflict did come to a conclusion some ten years ago, when both parties settled out of court by pledging that they would not litigate any further and that they would never again malign, slander, defame, disparage, denigrate, or vilify the other party in any way in any of their publications.

Although the fratricidal war between the IHR and the Cartos has been over for so many years now, nothing has changed regarding the IHR’s productivity. Weber’s excuses for the IHR’s low productivity throughout the “war years” do not hold water. Especially since the tax papers filed by the IHR for 2013, which are a matter of public record, indicate that the IHR received a million dollars from an unknown source, there can no longer be any excuse for not producing anything. And yet, the IHR is still not moving.

It looks like that institution has degenerated to being a mere sinecure for Mark Weber. But let me dig a little deeper into it still.

My Initial Experiences with the IHR

While working on the revisionist anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (later translated into English and published as Dissecting the Holocaust),[13] I learned from Friedrich Paul Berg about the terrible fight which had erupted between the IHR’s staff and its founder Willis Carto. Due to the persecution I suffered as a result of the publication of my expert report on Auschwitz and the above-mentioned anthology, I subsequently worried little about what was evolving in California. That changed only in early 1996, after I had fled from Germany and lived briefly in southern Spain. While there, I contacted Mark Weber, the IHR’s director, and told him that I would like to publish a German-language journal and that the Journal of Historical Review would not only be the ideal role model for me, but that its umbrella organization could also be an umbrella for me in order to give me some legal protection in Europe. Mark Weber opined, though, that this would not be a good idea and that I should establish my own publishing company for that purpose. He even suggested a title for the journal which came very close to the one I eventually chose: Vierteljahreshefte für frei Geschichtsforschung (VffG)= Quarterly for Free Historical Research.[14] Mr. Weber did not tell me, though, that at that time the Journal of Historical Review did not even appear on a regular basis, allegedly due to the ongoing litigation against Willis Carto.

After I had started publishing my own journal in 1997, the IHR had the courtesy to give me a free subscription to their journal Journal of Historical Review in exchange for them receiving a free subscription to mine. However, while my journal quickly increased in volume, quality and print run, The Journal of Historical Review obviously and dramatically lost ground on all these fronts. Finally, in 1999 I was not only disappointed about the delayed appearance of each issue of The Journal of Historical Review, but also about its low quality and the poor diversity of its contributions. The question also arose why none of the papers published in VffG ever attracted the attention of the IHR’s editorial staff and was found worthy to be printed in translation in The Journal of Historical Review. Several other revisionists such as Andrew Gray, Friedrich P. Berg and Dr. Otward Müller, called me that year in England, discussed the situation with me and suggested that I might consider challenging Mark Weber as the editor of The Journal of Historical Review, since in their eyes I was obviously the more capable editor.

In reaction to several invitations I visited a number of revisionists while touring the U.S in 1999. On that occasion I also met Mark Weber and discussed the matter with him in order to reveal the real reasons for the fact that issues of The Journal of Historical Review were appearing so late, had such few authors and papers of poor diversity and a generally low quality.

First Criticism

During that discussion I raised the following points of critique:

  • the lack of technical and forensic papers;
  • the low diversity of authors;
  • the lack of popular and introductory papers piquing the interest of readers not familiar with special topics treated;
  • lack of dealing with current political issues and issues of civil rights with regards to historical revisionism.

Mark Weber replied to these points roughly as follows:

  • He is opposed to publishing technical or scientific papers, especially if they are long, since the readership of The Journal of Historical Review could not comprehend them and would object to such papers.
  • There are unfortunately not many authors of revisionism who can write papers of such a quality that they meet the requirements of both the editors of The Journal of Historical Review and its readership; to open the pages of The Journal of Historical Review to less-than-professional writers would lower the journal’s quality and would destroy its reputation.
  • He is opposed to papers not based on thorough research and well backed up. That would be detrimental to the journal’s reputation, which is why popular articles would not gain his approval.
  • He agrees with me that one could create a news section. However, none of the subsequent issues edited by Weber ever carried such a section.

Confronted with such nonsensical answers obviously tailored to choke the Journal to death in no time, I told Mark Weber that he is obviously not fit for the job, and I asked him point-blank to resign as the Journal’s editor and let me take over. He merely laughed at that, but he assured me that he would read the issues of VffG which had appeared so far in order to determine whether they contained any papers which meet his requirements and deserve to be published in English translation in his periodical.

Two examples may illustrate the different editorial approaches used by Mark Weber and me. We discussed briefly why Weber wouldn’t consider publishing a paper authored by Jack Wikoff on the alleged extermination of homosexuals during the Third Reich.[15] Mark Weber explained that this paper was researched superficially and did not have the quality expected for publication in The Journal of Historical Review. I asked why he wouldn’t try to improve the paper in coordination with the author, if he thinks that this is necessary. I myself had spent considerable time to complete Wikoff‘s incomplete sources, so that the German version of his paper was certainly an improvement compared to his English original. After all, it’s better to publish a paper about an important topic, even if one considers it imperfect, rather than to publish nothing about it at all. And that is exactly what Weber had done during the past three years: nothing. The same is true for two other exemplary papers dealing with important issues. Rather than spiffing up these papers as he saw necessary and then publish them, Weber merely ignored them, possibly because the author of these papers is an "amateur historian".[16]

The second example concerns a number of technical and architectural papers written by a group of engineers and architects. These papers are based on the evaluation of thousands of original German Auschwitz documents.[17] After he had been entreated by a number of individuals to publish at least the most important of these papers in The Journal of Historical Review, Mark Weber decided that the most important aspects of some of these papers, dealing with the development and deployment of microwave disinfestation devices at Auschwitz, deserved to be made known to the English readership. However, he assumed that printing long technical papers in their entire length would displease his readers. He therefore took the most important statements of the original German papers and put them into the general historical context of the struggle against epidemics at Auschwitz, thus writing his own article. In so doing, he basically stole the research results of others and published them under his own name, instead of honoring the original authors by allowing them to see their long-lasting research crowned with an English language paper bearing their own names. Of course Weber cited the German papers to which his paper referred, but he categorically refused to publish these German authors’ trail-blazing research results as such.[18] Although I agreed to this intellectual rape, since I thought it preferable to have at least something published in the English language rather than to be ignored completely, the group of German engineers and other revisionists were rather disgusted and disappointed by Weber’s actions.
Now, if English were a language spoken only by a negligible minority on this planet, I'd agree that merely publishing summaries of import revisionist research papers is quite acceptable. However, English is the lingua franca of our times. Publishing papers in German is nice, but who reads them? Getting them out in English in their entirety is the task and duty of a serious revisionist journal. It also serves as a very important incentive to anyone venturing out to do dissenting historical research. For if a researcher cannot be sure that his research results will be published for the world's audience to read, why should he bother?

Loss of subscribers of the JHR

Delayed appearance of the JHR during Weber's reign at the IHR.[19]

Third-Party Criticism

Toward the end of 1999 I had to leave England and come to the United States. As a consequence my relationship with other revisionists residing in the U.S. deepened who had had their own experiences with The Journal of Historical Review and its editor Mark Weber. This was especially true for Bradley Smith, head of CODOH, at whose place in Baja California I stayed several times.[20] This contact got me in touch with the individuals who at that time were putting out CODOH’s campus magazine The Revisionist.[21] It soon dawned on me that the publication activities of the people involved in CODOH—be it online or in print—was much livelier, more diverse and more oriented at the public interest and altogether more productive than what was going on at the IHR. I also learned that almost all authors contributing texts to codoh.com and to The Revisionist had similar experiences with Mark Weber‘s dictatorial editing style along the lines of "it’s my way or no way." Most of them had given up submitting anything to The Journal of Historical Review, since Weber would reject their papers anyway for reasons of quality, style or topic, or because he would completely and unrecognizably rewrite them, or write the papers completely anew and publish them under his own name. Below I give two statements by individuals who have confirmed these facts around the turn of the century. One of them is a historian who has submitted numerous contributions to codoh.com under various pseudonyms, some of them by using the well-known pen name Samuel Crowell:[22]

Samuel Crowell

“After having discussed the matter with you yesterday, I would like to take the opportunity to express to you my impressions about the current situation with regard to the Institute of Historical Review (IHR) and its organ, the Journal of Historical Review (JHR.)

As you know, most of my revisionist work was done in 1997, and was web-published by the Committee for Open Discussion of the Holocaust (CODOH.) However, I have been apprised of the situation at the IHR in the following manner.

In early 1998, through you, I got to know Ted O'Keefe, who at that time was interested in getting once more involved in more serious revisionist editorial work. In the late summer of 1999 he returned to Southern California with such a goal in mind. I remember the timeline distinctly, because he had done some invaluable research copying and providing for me (as you yourself have done) and I remember thinking at the time that I would no longer be able to exploit his 'legs.'

I do not believe it is an accident that it was only after he had returned to Southern California that my essay, 'Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters' was finally published in the Journal, since I knew that Ted was interested in seeing my work published in hard copy and moreover the directors of the Journal had had a copy of the article for over two and a half years by the time it was finally printed. I mention this as an index of timeliness and expeditiousness of Journal production in the period before Ted assumed the editorship.

In the fall of 2000, Ted, who was now completely involved in the production of the Journal, asked me to submit a review of Peter Novick's and Norman Finkelstein's then-new books on the use and abuse of the Holocaust. I agreed, on this occasion, and have agreed to write other things since, because of my friendship with Ted. I quickly submitted a review. About a month later, I received an abrupt phone call from one of the directors of the Institute that berated me for the deficiencies of my review, covering all kinds of important details such as my omission of the secondary and tertiary sites of publication for Peter Novick's book. I remember that I was also counseled to make all kinds of changes, many of an extremely trifling kind. I remember hanging up the phone resignedly, since I regarded the actual publication of my review with equanimity, the only important thing was my trying to help. I mention the above incident as an index of a general alienating and picayune pedanticism that prevailed at the time, which no doubt also contributed to the problems of timeliness and expeditiousness.

I never changed the review, and it never ran. But I must be honest also and say that the nature of the suggested changes were so niggling that I was certain that if I were to make all the necessary changes I would then receive an entirely new laundry list of proposed changes. I also was not much interested in the persistent demand that I insert paragraphs about this or that issue when these other issues were not interesting to me, or even natural for me to discuss. In this respect I felt that editorial control was beginning to compromise my integrity as a writer. In short, I had no incentive to revise, let alone submit anything else.”

Ted O'Keefe

The problems described above by S. Crowell have actually been known for years. In a letter of June 17, 1999, Greg Raven, president of the "Legion for the Survival of Freedom", which is the IHR’s umbrella organization, approached its board of directors and complained bitterly about Mark Weber’s sloppiness in handling the JHR:[23]

“For years now I have tried begging, cajoling, threatening, and ignoring Mark in hopes that something I could say or do would get him to get the Journal out on time. [...] Of course, Mark immediately broke his promise [to speed up JHR publications], as he has broken other similar promises before and since that time.”

Greg Raven suggested sacking Mark Weber as the JHR’s editor and replacing him with Theodor O'Keefe. Ted O'Keefe had been involved with the IHR before, among other things also as on of the earlier editors of the JHR, and he had been without any doubt way more successful than Mark Weber was at the time of Raven’s letter. In his own report O'Keefe described the JHR ‘s situation as follows (retranslation from German):[24]

Loss of subscribers of the JHR

Loss of subscribers to "The Journal of Historical Review" under Mark Weber's editorship.[25]

“Serious problems with the JHR’s publishing schedule from 1995 to 2001 [Exhibit 6], as well as a catastrophic drop in subscriptions [Exhibit 7], resulted in repeated efforts during those years by President Raven to prod Editor Weber to speed publication [Exhibit 1]. From mid-1999 to 2000 President Raven attempted to persuade the Board to act to pressure or to replace the Editor, without success [Exhibits 1, 8 and 9]. Recognizing that the JHR was also troubled by grave deficiencies in editing and content, President Raven directed me to research these shortcomings in depth and to recommend potential remedies. In the resultant report I analyzed and described specific. and chronic, lapses in the JHR, documenting what IHR advisers, subscribers, and friends had been hinting for years: a marked decrease in original research articles, most damagingly on the "Holocaust"; the virtual disappearance of reviews; neglect of up-to-date, inhouse, original reporting and comment on news of interest to JHR subscribers, in favor of reprinted commentary, often months or years old; failure to organize and make maximally comprehensible each issue; failure to utilize IHR conference lectures for JHR content (two published in the nine months following IHR’s May 2000 conference and before his resignation); the alienation of contributors and the jading of subscribers through heavy-handed editing into a uniform and monotonous style. In the same report I suggested concrete improvements to repair these deficiencies, and gave a clear presentation of my goals for content and schedule and of my understanding of IHR policy regarding JHR content [Exhibit 10]. This report, along with President Raven’s letter recapitulating several years of failed attempts to discipline or replace the Editor [Exhibit 11], was presented to the Board. Thereupon Weber resigned, and I assumed editorship of the JHR at the end of February last year. [Exhibit 11].”

At the end of his letter of Feb. 23, 2001, referred to by O’Keefe as Exhibit 11, Raven brought up a topic which is most painful for all outsiders (retranslated from German):

“But he [O'Keefe] realizes how detrimental it is to have the Journal as late as it is, as he realizes that in the process of putting out the Journal his way, Mark‘s [Weber] high-handedness seems to have insulted a fair number of potential authors to the point that they refuse to write for the IHR.

This crisis is now in its fifth year, with no resolution in sight, and disaster is looming.”

As a consequence of this letter, Weber resigned as the JHR’s editor and handed the job over to Ted O'Keefe. What follows was described by S. Crowell:[26]

“At the beginning of 2001, however, Ted took over the editorship and published my original review. It is worthwhile to keep in mind how he handled his editorial tasks. The original review was e-mailed back to me, with half a dozen suggestions (nearly all grammatical or syntactical), I accepted or rejected these suggestions, and further e-mail ensured. Within a week, the text had been edited and was ready for publication. Proposals were suggested back and forth rapidly, with no friction. There was never any insistence about content.

The above pattern has held true for all of the half dozen or so articles and/or reviews I have written for the JHR in the past year, and under Ted's editorship. The above, I believe, serve as indices of timeliness and professionalism.

Therefore, my overall take on the editorial situation is as follows. I believe Ted did an excellent job with the journal in the year or so he ran it. There were six issues, and they came out on time. I cannot speak to the quality of the content, I suppose, because my contributions are there, but I can say that the journal was regular, containing new articles by new authors with new perspectives on the Holocaust and World War Two revisionism in general. That alone made these issues valuable.”

The End of the Line...

Almost until the day when it ceased to exist, The Journal of Historical Review was produced with the technique of the 1980s, cutting and gluing artwork into paste-ups of their projects, which then had to be photographed to turn them into negatives ready for offset reproduction. The IHR did not even have a scanner to digitize any artwork so they could be placed into electronic files rather than having to handle scissors and glue. It took a donation from me and Dr. Robert H. Countess to get them into the modern age, urging them to use it for nothing else but to buy a simple flatbed scanner!

The esthetically unattractive layout also deserved an overhaul, but nothing changed in this regard even after Ted O'Keefe was back on board. Even though more articles from a broader variety of authors appeared in the Journal during his brief stint than when Weber was at the helm, the style did not really change.

The only way to subject the JHR to an urgently needed rejuvenation would have been to give Ted O'Keefe free rein. However, M. Weber remained the IHR’s director, and G. Raven the umbrella organization’s president, and as O’Keefe’s superiors, they both kept meddling in editorial affairs by reserving the right to make changes and to urge him to include certain papers while rejecting others.[27]

Already in his earlier criticism of Mark Weber, G. Raven had suggested to replace Mark Weber with Ted O'Keefe, which, considering the IHR’s limited financial possibilities, could only have meant to dismiss Mark Weber. As an argument against this Raven stated, among other things:[Exhibit 1 of 23]

“I cannot imagine what Mark would do to support his wife and children [...]”

Hence Ted O'Keefe was not employed as a replacement for Mark Weber, but rather in addition to him, which led to calamitous conflicts of competence. Considering Mark Weber‘s blatant incompetence, I can imagine only one reason why he was not fired: Even though, financially speaking, the IHR is chronically weak, it considers itself as the welfare agency for unemployable, hopelessly incompetent individuals.

According to his own statements, Ted O'Keefe was not only harassed by M. Weber and G. Raven—M. Weber of all people threatened him with consequences in case any issue of the Journal gets delayed—but also by a subordinate employee, the shipping clerk. This stressful situation led to health problems—Ted O'Keefe suffers from bipolar disease—which finally, after a year of editing the JHR, brought him to the point of being unable to work any longer. Hence he was eventually fired for absence without leave. After this episode he declared that he had lost all hope to set the JHR afloat again, as this would be impossible with Weber and Raven at the helm (retranslated from German):[28]

“Let me be clear regarding the IHR. If I am to come back, Greg and (eventually) Mark have to leave (and of course Greg‘s thug Gary has to leave, too).

I will not work under Mark, under no circumstances. Neither will I work under anyone who is inferior to me regarding the main aspects necessary to get a revisionist mail-order business or an institute to function.

[...] I have no longer any desire to be the pal for second class people.

It is very unlikely anyway that I will return at all. Those in power at the IHR do not understand the IHR; they don’t understand anything about mail-order businesses; they understand nothing about publishing; they understand nothing about management; they understand nothing about responsibilities; and they don’t understand me.

I respect their attempts to rescue the IHR, but I am not sanguine that they will prevail, unless the other members of the Board pass away suddenly. [...]

Best regards, Ted”

According to what I was told, Mark Weber announced during the last conference the IHR has ever held (in 2002) that the JHR would henceforth appear only once or twice a year, which, if true, would have been an unprecedented declaration of bankruptcy.

The reaction from outside to Ted O’Keefe’s being bullied into dismissal was prompt. Samuel Crowell summarized the situation as follows:[22]

“On the other hand, with Ted removed, I have now grave doubts about timeliness, content, value, and currency of the Journal. […29]

I say however with regret, that with Ted's removal, I see the IHR inclining even more strongly in the direction of political advocacy, which may not only threaten its tax exempt status but will do little to increase circulation or contributions.

Now I am going to give you my fully open impression. I do not believe that either of the current directors of the IHR are interested either in promoting classical revisionism or in serious revisionism of any kind. I think they are interested in maintaining a way of life that they have become accustomed to, with its pedanticism, dilatoriness, and general incompetence; I think they are interested in pursuing their pet political interests—either racialist or anti-Zionist—with insufficient regard to historical detachment; and I think they are interested in making a living.

Finally, apropos of nothing, I am rather stunned that the chairman of the board of the Legion[30], let alone Ted, could be removed at the instigation of these co-directors with such ease..[31]

These assessments, based on personal observations, may be too harsh, and may be wrong, but how else is one to explain the status of the Journal prior to Ted's editorship, in which the issues were late in being published, because they were late in being compiled, and, in the end, most often consisted of reprints of decades old articles or syndicated columns? And even if we were to explain these things by an appeal to poor organizational skills, how would that explain other evident sources of delay, including a clear excess of interest in ongoing litigation, and including the notorious episode of the proposed sale of subscribers lists?[32]

With Ted's removal, I think we can be certain that the JHR will regain the invisibility for which it was notorious in the early 1990's. This is sad, and it means further that a generation of serious revisionists will not develop because they will have no incentive to develop. This means that circulation will continue to shrink, relevance will continue to diminish, and soon, the only organ providing an outlet for revisionist energies will be in German (i.e., Germar's journal.)

I make these points to you, Fritz, not in the spirit of acrimony, but because I am dismayed by what appears to be Ted's imminent disinvestiture. I have no real interest in this, because I have no pressing research interests to pursue at this time, and even if I did, there's always CODOH (which however, has no print aspect, but which historically has uploaded my writings within hours.)

However, if I were concerned about the healthy and continued development of revisionism in the US I would stress Ted O'Keefe's value as an editor of the JHR and suggest a closer monitoring of the (non) activities of the current leadership.


‘Samuel Crowell’”

In July 2002 Crowell went even farther:[33]

“I will not work for a JHR without Ted, and want nothing to do with the IHR as it is currently composed.”

Another avid observer, long-time reader of the JHR as well an occasional contributor to various revisionist web sites writing under the pen name “Hannover”—who later became the backbone of the CODOH discussion forum—was no less clear when writing:[34]

“Perhaps the long haul has robbed some of the spirit and energy from the IHR. All I see is a lot of yesterday's news from them, which would be understandable if there weren't salaries going around. If one is paid to produce, they should produce. Conferences are great, truly; but on a day-to-day basis the IHR is lethargic, inefficient, and behind the curve. The Journal is example A. What? once, twice a year now? Also, go to their website and click 'New Files'... LOL. What you get, if anything, is someone else’s work... once again perfectly fine, except that the IHR is paid to produce. Where's Weber's book we've been hearing about... for how many years?

Does Weber know his stuff? Undoubtedly, so do many others, so what? Is he a gentleman? No doubt. But, he should take pen/keyboard in hand & produce some hard hitting product a la Rudolf, Graf, Mattogno, Renk, Grubach, etc. These men see very little, if any financial reward for their efforts... the IHR draws salaries, probably not a lot, but enough to reasonably expect production. Look at CODOH, on a shoestring they continually add material. I know, I help them behind the scenes with much of it. [...]


Friedrich Paul Berg, since the inception of the IHR one of its most devoted supporters and without any doubt among the most notable revisionists, wrote with disappointment and acrimony:[35]

“The IHR is a disaster of its own making—and I do not see any hope of it getting better.

Mark Weber is a competent, world-class revisionist author and an eloquent public speaker who should be supported and encouraged—but, as an editor, or as an IHR director or as a conference organizer he is a basket case and should not be supported at all. But worse than that, Weber seems ruthlessly determined to actually suppress important revisionist works that either don't conform to his own personal views about the Holocaust hoax or are the least bit technical and therefore far beyond his limited comprehension. Weber had clearly been trying to minimize any impact that my IHR speech could possibly have had. Many other invaluable revisionists would probably be incompetent and obnoxious in similar ways—so it is no great insult to write what I did about Weber. Faurisson would have been a disaster as an editor or conference organizer also. People are sometimes promoted into positions for which they are just not competent—it happens but it should be corrected.

Unfortunately, the IHR directors seem fanatically determined to be nothing more than dummy directors for Raven and Weber. They are all incapable of pulling anything meaningful together. The alternative is Germar who has performed miracles with his superb journal and with his own astonishing research and essays. Unfortunately, nearly all of that work appears only in German—except for Dissecting—and is therefore unknown to the vast majority of readers who only read English. A marriage between Germar's loose organization and the IHR seems impossible because of the incompatibility of the personalities. But who really needs the personalities at the IHR anyway if Germar and J. Graf and others can be helped to make something truly multilingual in the near future? Let's hope Germar gets himself settled in the USA.


Fritz Berg”

After Harvey Taylor from the Board of Directors of the Legion protested against this massive critique by Berg and had defended Weber‘s and Raven‘s lack of productivity by regurgitating Weber‘s claim about the scarcity of revisionist authors and contributions, and by pointing to financial shortages[36], Berg wrote even more pronouncedly:


“Fortunately there are more than ‘just a few active researchers/authors against the big H[olocaust]’ (your words, Harvey). But since you still rely on the IHR Journal regarding what’s going on in revisionism land, you cannot possibly know that. Even the brief but very valuable review by Bob Countess appeared only in German in the Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, but not in the IHR Journal.

How did Germar Rudolf manage to do that? He has tremendous personal, legal and financial problems—and yet he has achieved what Weber and Raven couldn’t have achieved even if they had obtained the entire Farrel-Edison estate without any legal battle. Just take a look for yourself into any of the issues of VffG on the Internet, in case you have no printed version at hand. They are as different as day and night, even if you cannot read a single German word. [...]

Even if most will say this only on the QT, Mark‘s inability as an editor is known to most authors who have ever submitted material for publication in the Journal. Mark is a diligent ‘regurgitator,‘ not an editor. He is either unable or unwilling to understand that an editor deserving that name keeps the substance and scope of texts entrusted to him intact and is content with merely improving them in the author’s spirit, and makes—mostly small—changes which do not touch the core of the statement, unless in case of discernable errors of facts.

Since according to his own admission Mark is unable to understand even the most basic technical arguments and evidence, he would have been wise to remain silent when technical questions are being considered. But no: In the course of the years he repeatedly got involved in such issues or unceremoniously banned technical subjects from the Journal. Fact is and remains, however, that the most substantial arguments against the hoax are technical in nature. For this reason alone, Mark should abstain from seeking the position of an editor of the Journal or as the IHR’s director. For directors merely playing the role of figureheads do not contribute to carrying out the important work which has yet to be done. The last word regarding the composition of an article should in any case be left to the author.

Although the points raised by me here are based on some very personal experiences, they concern the performance of the IHR in general. You and Jack Riner still have the power to overrule Mark Weber and to do so without his future cooperation. This purging measure has long been overdue and will contribute to turn the IHR once more into a powerful organization in the field of ‘Holocaust Revisionism.’ Ted should regain his position as fast as possible, because for almost a decade he has obviously been the IHR’s most diligent coworker.

The increasing number of authors and researchers dealing with the Great Hoax urgently need an organ where they can present their results. They need such an opportunity for their moral support and as proof that their struggle is worth the high price which they often have to pay. Our work is way too important for all of our future to be endlessly impeded by people like Weber. Germar Rudolf simply cannot do it all by himself. Since the IHR once was a forum of quality, it seems only logical that it should attempt to regain its former qualities, especially now that the struggle with Carto is almost over. But if you and Jack Riner are content to dutifully keep playing the role of puppet directors for Weber and Raven in the future (and let’s be clear: you two have been puppets par excellence), the IHR will inevitably sink into grey anonymity. It is expected from members of a Board of Directors that they make decisions, that they direct, because the word ‘Director’ comes from this verb. Subordinates and employees have to comply with the decisions of the Board, or else, if they cannot back them, they have to hand in their resignation. It all depends on you!

I hope that you finally wake up from your long slumber!

Friedrich Paul Berg”

The last point of criticism comes again from Ted O'Keefe, who cannot understand why the IHR does not try to promote and sell its large stock of books in order to make some money:[37]

“I am still surprised how difficult it was to convey the ruin of the Institute to revisionists, many of whom seem to be unable or reluctant to apply to the revisionist equivalent of Potemkin villages the same kind of skepticism and the same method which they demand for investigating the gas chambers. You [G. Rudolf] focus on research and publishing, which is correct and alright—I hope that the readers will be convinced by your approach rather than by Raven’s and Weber’s versatile arguments for their idleness. (In contrast to the natives of New Guinea during World War II, who worshipped the large silver birds which were throwing food and other amenities from the sky, which is why the natives adorned trees with glitter in their hope for more, hence a kind of ‘Cargo Cult,’ Weber and Raven have their own ‘Carto Cult’ enabling them to justify any kind of laziness with the hunt for the ‘missing million.’)

I am more surprised how basic business activities have been neglected and how the IHR has grossly neglected the promotion and sale of goods worth hundreds of thousands of dollars which are in its possession which are stored in its building. Instead they prefer to seek and grub for the money of supporters (large donations to finance ongoing operations), and they were even prepared to sell an address list of patriots and revisionists to the ADL in order to make a few bucks...”[32]

After all this commotion and later that year, Weber published the next issue of the Journal all by himself, which was a combined in order to catch up: Nos. 3 and 4 of 2002. It was so slender, so devoid of any quality content and so poor in production that the entire revisionist community spoke out in protest. As a result, Weber suspended the appearance of the Journal indefinitely—which was Weber’s underhanded way of saying that he had run the journal into the wall and that he was now burying it for good.

Thirteen years after this, in early 2015, I talked to two of the former members of the IHR’s Board of Directors who had backed Weber through this crisis: Harvey Taylor and Jack Riner. Both were rather dismayed with the IHR's development, but Harvey Taylor was the most outspoken. Now that the smoke has cleared, he agrees that he was wrong in backing Mark Weber all these years, that Weber had no excuse for his apparent laziness. But now that Taylor is no longer a member of the Board, what can be done?

Every single one of Weber's former allies among the revisionists has since abandonned him.

...and Sabotage on Top of It

Enough said, basically, one should think, but this is unfortunately not the end of this sad affair. Because when I started publishing revisionist books in the English language under the imprint of Theses & Dissertations Press with the help of my erstwhile partner, the late Dr. Robert H. Countess, an entirely different set of problems with the IHR emerged. No one else could have encountered these problems before us, because at that time and outside of the IHR, no other publishing company existed in the Anglo-Saxon world which was publishing Holocaust revisionist books.

The first case I’d like to discuss is the already mentioned English translation of the German revisionist anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. It in August 2000 with the title Dissecting the Holocaust at Theses & Dissertations Press.[38] During all the years since the publication of the German edition in 1994, the idea apparently never crossed Weber’s mind to ask the German publishing company Grabert for translation rights, although the IHR used to have a very close and cooperative relationship with Grabert (Sanning’s Dissolution and Stäglich’s Auschwitz Myth were all original German Grabert productions). Only while I was working intensely on knocking the typescript into shape for a pending publication in 1999, did the thought cross Weber’s mind to have the IHR publish the book—after all the main work of updating, translating, editing and proofing had already been done and paid for by others.

The same game was repeated a year 2000, when Dr. Countess and I were in the process of publishing the English edition of the German book Stalins Vernichtungskrieg by Joachim Hoffmann (in English: Stalin's War of Extermination).[39] This book had first appeared in Germany in 1995, and attracted quite some attention there. Of course Mark Weber must have known about the book, but only after Dr. Countess had acquired the copyright for an English translation in 2000, did Mark Weber show an interest in the project. So where was Weber‘s interest during the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999?

I could bring on an endless string of similar cases. I could easily list some 30 high-quality, important and promising German, French and Italian books which have been awaiting an English translation for years and which would really deserve to be published in English. I have published some of them, while I managed to secure the English copyrights for others due to my excellent relationship to various European publishing companies. As far as I know, Mark Weber hasn’t even tried to get in touch with any of the publishers or authored concerned.

As soon as I had published revisionist books in the English language, a new, unpleasant behavior of the leading IHR people emerged. During the 13th IHR Conference in June 2000 I talked to Greg Raven, who at that time was in charge of buying books for resale. I wanted the IHR to carry my new book Dissecting the Holocaust, which was about to appear two months later. Instead of the expected enthusiasm, Raven initially displayed some reluctance and even demanded that I give the IHR an unheard-of 80% bulk discount off the list price. Mark Weber intervened, however, and we eventually agreed upon the usual trade discount.

Two more books that followed in 2001—the revisionist works Giant with Feet of Clay and Stalin's War of Extermination—the IHR initially refused to carry at all. Raven explained that the IHR could not carry books from other publishers, since that would jeopardize the IHR’s non-profit status. Considering, however, that both the IHR’s website as well as its for-profit publishing subsidiary Noontide Press (http://noontidepress.com) have always offered plenty of third-party books, it is clear that this was not Raven’s real reason for rejecting these two books. When I approached Mark Weber about this a short while later, he insisted that the IHR wouldn’t have the money to buy these books. But even when I offered him the books on commission, to be paid only after the IHR had sold them, the answer was initially still negative.

The real reason for refusing to carry my books was revealed when Mark Weber asked Dr. Robert Countess in late 2000 to resign from the IHR’s Board of Directors (or rather the Board of its umbrella organization, the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, LSF). As a reason Weber claimed that Dr. Countess had a conflict of interest by being both a member of the LSF’s board and of the board which at that time controlled his and my publishing outlet Theses & Dissertations Press.[40] Dr. Countess unfortunately complied with Weber’s demand without dissent.

This highlights that Weber saw my fledgling publishing activities under the imprint Theses & Dissertations Press not as that of a friendly organization. One would expect that any revisionist with any concern for the cause would be glad that important revisionist material finally gets published. This all the more so since the IHR was obviously not able to fill the demand by the revisionist book market for new material. The IHR staff acted instead as if Theses & Dissertations Press was an annoying competitor challenging the IHR’s dominance in this field, which therefore had to be fought. Weber and Raven reacted as if it was better to publish no revisionist books at all rather than to have a competitor publish them.

The situation relaxed a little during the following summer when Weber, put under pressure by fellow revisionists and his Board of Directors, agreed to publish free ads for my books in the JHR. At that point in time, however, the JHR’s readership had shrunk so dramatically that the feedback from these ads was almost negligible.

In early 2003, I finally switched over from offset printing to print-on-demand publishing, which allowed me to publish many more books within a shorter period of time while using only a fraction of the funds needed previously. My output of new titles increased therefore dramatically between 2003 and 2005. When I published Dissecting in 2000, it was the first volume of a new series, which I had christened “Holocaust Handbooks” (www.HolocaustHandbuecher.com). By the summer of 2005, this series encompassed 20 published titles:

(Vol. 19, Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, Sobibór, appeared in 2010)

During those years, the IHR offered only a few of them to their customers—mostly the early volumes 1 through 7. When I realized this, I called Mark Weber and asked him whether he would be interested in taking on the entire series. He replied that the IHR would not have the money to buy that many books. When I told him that he could buy them on commission, paying only what he had sold, he stated that the IHR would not have sufficient shelf space to accommodate that many books. When I then indicated that he could order only very few copies of each item, he insisted that he would still not be interested in most of the books, since they are special studies for which there would be little market anyway. In a last-ditch effort I mentioned that we could even come to an agreement that he advertise the books on the IHR’s website, and that they would forward any incoming order to me for fulfillment while he keeps a cut of, say, 20% of the sticker price. But he declined even that offer. At that point, I was stunned by his stubborn refusal, and I simply gave up.

Today the Holocaust Handbooks comprise 31 published titles, with six more volumes already in the making and several others on the drawing board (not listed here):

This series of academic-style books, without exception edited and laid out by me, is the world’s most complete, up-to-date and prestigious collection of Holocaust research results. Many of the titles exist in a German language edition, too, which were all edited and laid out by me as well (see www.HolocaustHandbuecher.com). Yet for years, the IHR has not offered even one of them for sale to their customers. After their stock of what they had purchased from me in the early 2000s had run out, they simply struck the few titles they ever did offer from their list. Visitors to the IHR website would therefore not even know that the series exists, if they relied merely on what Weber puts out on that site.

A Threat and a Challenge

In early 2015, in the course of extending Castle Hill Publishers’ publishing list of titles, we also determined which revisionist classics that had gone out of print are worth putting back in print. Two titles immediately sprang to mind, all the more so since Castle Hill Publishers were already offering reprints and new editions of their original German-language editions: Wilhelm Stäglich’s Auschwitz Myth and Walter Sanning’s Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry. Both books were published by the IHR in the 1980s but have been unavailable for many years, and there was no sign of the IHR people ever getting their act together and publishing new editions, so it was decided to put them both back in print in new, revised and expanded editions. After all, Castle Hill Publishers have a gentleman’s agreement with Grabert Verlag, the copyright holder of the original German editions of both books, to keep Grabert books in print which have been ordered confiscated and destroyed in Germany.

Trouble showed on the horizon, however, when staff members of The Barnes Review, who are an important U.S. partner of Castle Hill Publishers, indicated that they could not offer these books, if the IHR owns the copyright and did not officially agree to Castle Hill Publishers’ doing new editions. So Castle Hill Publishers approached Mark Weber in this affair and asked whether it would be possible for Castle Hill Publishers to publish new editions of these books. Mark Weber’s reply was basically that the IHR had recently become affluent (apparently the million dollars mentioned earlier) and consider therefore putting old books back into print all by themselves. Anyone infringing on the IHR’s copyrights would therefore face litigation.

Great. Weber is therefore not only stifling the most-important revisionist research results of the past 25 years as published in the Holocaust Handbooks, but it looks like he is also trying to suppress important revisionist books from an even older past. He tried to pull that already with Arthur Butz’s classic The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. The book had gone out of print in the early 2000s, but any attempt to get a new edition published was stifled by Weber and Raven, who claimed that the IHR did not have the resources to print the book. They sat on an almost print-ready PDF file of that book but would do nothing with it. A friendly employee at the IHR sent me this encrypted PDF file in 2002, and another computer-savvy friend broke the code and decrypted the file for me. Less than a year later, and with close cooperation of my friend Arthur Butz, we had a new, revised edition out (Vol. 7 of the Holocaust Handbooks). So here we are, doing it again, this time with Stäglich's and Sanning's classic works. The IHR will not succeed in suppressing revisionist classics! If Weber wants to litigate against Castle Hill Publishers, let him go right ahead. Because as soon as he does, he will be fired and replaced by somebody more capable.


When I wrote the first version of this paper back in 2002, I was still upset about the IHR’s mismanagement. When I brought up this topic in discussion with Arthur Butz, he told me time and again to “stop kicking a dead horse.” When I contacted Greg Raven some time after my release from prison in 2010 or so, he, too, acknowledged that he had been wrong about Mark Weber, whom Raven now also considers a complete failure. Having become completely disillusioned about Weber’s management style, he quit while I was in prison and has never looked back. Robert Faurisson, too, has changed tack in the meantime and has became quite hostile toward Mark Weber's betrayal of revisionism, not only due to Weber's mismanagement of the IHR, but also because Weber seems to have abandoned Holocaust Revisionism as such. Over the years, a string of employees who obtained an insight as to what is going on at the IHR have blown the whistle on Weber, but to no avail. Weber seems to always manage to place the most gullible puppets onto “his” Board of Directors, ensuring that he will be able to retire with a generous pension once that time has come. Now that some misguided individual has given the IHR a million dollar, there can be no doubt that Weber has the means to hang in there and get carried out feet first only. After all, as the board members have always emphasized: there is no alternative to Weber anyway. Who would want to manage a dead horse?

Just do me—and revisionism—one favor, dear reader:

Don’t throw any more of your precious revisionist donations down the Black Hole. It’s counterproductive.


[1] Austin J. App, That Elusive Six Million, The American Mercury, Summer 1966, p. 112; Teressa Hendry, Was Anne Frank's Diary a Hoax?, ibid., Summer 1967, p. 109; Leo Heiman, The Jews That Aren't, ibid., Fall 1967, p. 107; Herbert C. Roseman, Paul Rassinier: Historical Revisionist, ibid., Fall 1968, p. 116; Harry Elmer Barnes, Zionist Fraud, ibid., Fall 1968, p. 117.
[2] Anonymous (David L. Hoggan), The Myth of the Six Million, Noontide Press, Los Angeles 1969; online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/tmotsm; Richard Hardwood (Richard Verrall), Did Six Million Really Die?, Historical Review Press, Richmond, UK, 1975; online: http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd01.html
[3] Passage de la Ligne, La Librairie française, Paris 1948; Le Mensonge d’Ulysse, ibid. 1950; Ulysse trahi par les siens, ibid. 1961; Le Véritable Procés Eichmann ou les Vainquers incorrigibles, Les Sept Couleurs, Paris 1962; Le Drame des Juifs Européns, ibid. 1964; L’opération Vicaire, La Table ronde, Paris 1965; The Real Eichmann Trial or The Incorrigible Victors, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance 1976; Debunking the Genocide Myth, The Noontide Press, Torrance, CA, 1978; The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, 2nd ed., Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach 1990; see the VHO database for some of his writings online.
[4] Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands, 7 vols., published by author, Vienna 1968 (vols. 2-7 online: www.vho.org/D/gdvd_2)
[5] Die Auschwitz-Lüge, Kritik No. 23, Mohrkirch 1973; Der Auschwitz-Betrug, Kritik No. 27, ibid.
[6] The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Historical Review Press, Brighton 1976
[7] Der Auschwitz-Mythos, Grabert, Tübingen 1979 (online: vho.org/D/dam); The Auschwitz Myth: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA, 1986
[8] "'Le problème des chambres à gaz' ou 'la rumeur d'Auschwitz,'" Le Monde, Dec. 29, 1978, p. 8; vgl. “The "problem of the gas chambers"”, JHR, 1(2) (1980), p. 103 (online: http://codoh.com/library/document/1935/); cf. article and letters to the editor in R. Faurisson, Mémoire en défense, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1980, pp. 71-101.
[9] Email to Mark Weber, July 3, 2002:
"I, for one, have witnessed the sheer extent of the work which was yours in the days you had to fight against Carto the Thief and Liar. I remember how, first with Tom Marcellus and then without him, you and Greg, you had to deal with mountains of papers and legal matters. At the time I thought it was an impossible task. I admired you nearly as much as I admired Ernst Zündel in his own uphill climb. This should be remembered forever."
[10] Carto lost a civil suit, not a criminal case, hence he cannot be called a criminal ("thief").
[11] http://www.barnesreview.org/
[12] See the publicly available income tax declaration by the LSF online at http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/741538110/popup/1.
[13] Under the pen name Ernst Gauss, Grabert, Tübingen 1994. Dissecting appeared under the same pseudonym in 2000, and then under my own name in a second edition in 2003 (Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, later Chicago).
[14] The German journal’s title derived actually from the name of the umbrella organization which I used as a legal shield during the first two years of my activities, the now-defunct Belgian foundation Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (Free Historical Research).
[15] First published in J. Wikoff's self-published pamphlet Remarks, PO Box 234, Aurora (NY), No. 22, April 20, 1997; German in VffG, 2(2) (1998), pp. 135-139. (www.vho.org/VffG/1998/2/Wikoff2.html).
[16] Both by Dr. Otward Müller; they were eventually published by me in The Revisionist; cf. "Sinti and Roma – Yarns, Legends, and Facts" and "Polish Population Losses during World War Two"
[17] Search the database at http://vho.org/search/d/ for the authors: Gartner, Michael; Gerner, Manfred; Lamker, Hans; Nowak, Hans Jurgen; Rademacher, Werner;
[18] Mark Weber, “High Frequency Delousing Facilities at Auschwitz”, JHR, 18(3) (May/June 1999), p. 4. (http://codoh.com/library/document/2820/)
[19] Letter by G. Raven to the Board of Directors of the LSF, Feb. 23, 2001, Exhibit 11 of T. O'Keefe's report, cf. note 23.
[20] In order to renew my visa waiver, I had to leave the U.S. for an extended period of time. Bradley Smith was so generous as to give me shelter in is home during that time.
[21] See www.codoh.com
[22] Email from [email protected] (Samuel Crowell) to [email protected] (Friedrich Paul Berg); May 28, 2002, 15:20; subject: “Copy of Remarks—Distribute as you see fit among revisionists”. Cf. foremost S. Crowell's book: The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, Nine-Banded Book, Charleston, WV, 2010; see also his various English online contributions listed at http://codoh.com/library/authors/1516.
[23] Exhibit 1 of Ted O'Keefe's circular letter of June 19, 2002, headlined “Exit the Whistleblower: My Fall from Grace at IHR”. Published completely online at http://codoh.com/library/document/3366
[24] Letter Ted O'Keefe, ibid., p. 4.
[25] Exhibit 7 of Ted O'Keefe's letter, note 23. The actual number of subscribers was communicated to me by Ted O'Keefe personally.
[26] As note 22; cf. also the similar statements of other revisionists as reproduced in Ted O'Keefe's letter, note 23, exhibit 44.
[27] See on this Ted O'Keefe's letter, note 23, pp. 8f.
[28] Email from T. O'Keefe ([email protected]) to R.H. Countess ([email protected]), forwarded to me by Dr. Countess on July 8, 2002, 13:32.
[29] The text omitted here discusses a quarrel resulting from the disinvitation of a prominent Palestinian from the IHR Conference of that year.
[30] Legion for the Survival of Freedom, The IHR's umbrella organization.
[31] Robert Berger Lynch, at that time chairman of the Board, resign from this position due to pressure from M. Weber and G. Raven. Since his appointment, Lynch had demanded more organizational and financial transparency, but had met only deaf ears. The quarrel about the disinvitation of the Palestinian mentioned in Note 29 was merely a pretext in order to bully him out. Cf. T. O'Keefe's description in his report, note 23, pp. 6, 14.
[32] According to statements by two former IHR employees, Eric Owens and Ted O'Keefe, Mark Weber and Greg Raven are said to have briefly considered in early 2001 to sell the address list of Liberty Lobby, which the IHR had obtained due to Liberty Lobby's bankruptcy, to the Anti-Defamation League. See on that the email exchange between E. Owens, T. O'Keefe, M. Weber and G. Raven as well as T. O'Keefe's statement in his report, note 23, pp. 5f. In a later email Ted O'Keefe wrote (email from T. O'Keefe ([email protected]) to Eric Owens ([email protected]) and Germar Rudolf ([email protected]), June 15, 2002, 13:46; subject: “Re: IHR”; retranslated from German):
“Of course the emails sent by you reveal the truth, and Weber and Raven have never tried to deny this. They still retreat to the fib that there was nothing to this ADL deal because 'we didn't even have an offer' (even if that were true, this suggest the analogy of an allegedly virtuous woman accused of prostitution – what would one think if she answered to this accusation: 'But darling, I never had an offer!'?)
What I regret about the ADL affair is my face-saving press release: you might remember the elaborate spin I gave this release (because back then I thought that this was in our movement's interest), in which I minimized Greg's and Mark's guilt and massively exaggerated yours, if you ever had been to blame! I assume that I now received my reward for this! Otherwise I am doing fine: having gotten rid of these two really is a relief.”
[33] Email from: Samuel Crowell (email addresse removed on Crowell's request); to: Robert H. Countess ([email protected]); forwarded to me by R. Countess on 7/9/2002, 7:17am.
[34] Email from: Karl v. Hannover ([email protected]); to: Dr. Robert H. Countess ([email protected]); subject: Re: holiest of the holies; date: June 16, 2002, 13:38:26 -0500.
[35] Email from: Friedrich Paul Berg ([email protected]), to: Dr. Robert H. Countess ([email protected]); subject: Fw: "ALL" gassing claims and Mark Weber's incompetence; date: July 4, 2002, 13:51; similar, although less polemic criticism was voiced by Dr. R. Countess and Prof. Dr. A. Butz who insisted on the confidentiality of their emails.
On July 9, 2002, after Ted O'Keefe had been sacked, A. Butz wrote a paper “Quo Vadis,” were he stated that he now feared for the IHR “a downward loop and further losses of supporters who can no longer see a reason to support a suicidal association.”
Shortly afterward Dr. Countess even insisted to be removed from the Advisory Board of the JHR, because his suggestion for a reform had been rejected; email from Dr. Robert H. Countess ([email protected]) to Dr. A.R. Butz (email address removed on Dr. Butz's request) and other revisionists; date: July 28, 2002, 6:24; subject: "Resignation notice from JHR Ed Adv Committee".
[36] Email from Harvey A. Taylor ([email protected]) to: F.P. Berg ([email protected]); date: 5. Juli 2002, 16:47; subject: Re: Fw: "ALL" gassing claims and Mark Weber's incompetence:
“There are only a few active investigator/writers contra the big H. Complaints should be presented in a fashion which encourages further contact. [...] No doubt we could do a lot more if we were not one step ahead of the bill collector.”
[37] Email from Ted O'Keefe ([email protected]) to: Germar Rudolf ([email protected]); date: July 16, 2002, 13:32; subject: “Re: brief remarks on IHRCrisis facts, etc...”
[38] German: Grabert, Tübingen 1994; English: Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2000; 2nd ed., ibid., Chicago, IL, 2003.
[39] German: Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, Munich 1995/1996; 3rd to 7th ed. Herbig, Munich; English: Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001.
[40] Until 2002, Theses & Dissertations Press was the publishing imprint of Loewe Belford Projects, Inc., a non-profit organization established by Dr. Countess with the aim to publish revisionist books which the IHR was either unwilling or unable to publish. In 2002 I bought the name and integrated it as the English language book imprint of my company Castle Hill Publishers. After my arrest in late 2005, Michael Santomauro took over the helm at Theses & Dissertations Press, relocated it to his home in New York, but managed to publish only one book during my time of incarceration: Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust, 2009.


Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Germar Rudolf
Title: IHR: From Flagship to Millstone, How the IHR Became a "Black Hole" for Revisionist Dollars
Published: 2015-07-05
First posted on CODOH: July 5, 2015, 6:32 p.m.
Last revision:
Appears In: