Letters

Not “Multicultural,” But Accurate History

In “The Challenge of Multiculturalism” (Summer 1992), Samuel [Jared] Taylor makes some interesting points, but he seems to be arguing for a history not necessarily in accord with the facts. Would it serve US history to overlook Franklin Roosevelt's provocations leading to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Or the US role in the civilian bombings of Germany and Japan during the Second World War? How about our involvement in Vietnam?

Taken to its logical conclusion, this type of “history” must lead to a “my country, right or wrong” mindset. When this occurs, what use is the study of history in avoiding war? If history taught us that we have always been right and will always be right, then everyone who disagrees with us must be wrong, and therefore possibly liable to attack.

Furthermore, the more such distortion there is in the upper strata of society (that is, on the part of our leaders, historians and other supposedly learned people), the more dishonesty there is likely to be in the society at large. People may not be very smart, but they often know when they are being lied to. If, by sanctioning a biased view of history for political or social reasons, we give the impression that it is okay to lie to get what you want, then where is the line to be drawn?

This is not to say that are not national or cultural biases the way history is taught, or that there should not be any. Obviously, US history textbooks should treat Chinese history differently than Chinese history books do. The determining factor should be whether a person (white, black or yellow) or event (here or abroad) has had a significant impact on American life or thought. If so, that person or event should be recorded in US history books. By extension, then, history should be rewritten every once in a while, not only to keep it “current,” but to make sure that the importance of the people and events covered is accurately reflected in the amount of coverage given. The goal is accuracy, not the furtherance of a socio-political agenda.

I do not deny that there should be a cultural element in the upbringing of our children, but I do not believe that it belongs in our history. I would like to see a separate branch of thought and study devoted to culture (including racial aspects), although this would be a mess to implement in today's multicultural society. The first goal, as I see it, should be to strengthen our own society.

Only then will we be able to focus on increasing nationwide cultural awareness.

Neil Martin
Los Angeles, California

Reading Both Sides

Two years ago I was a big buff of First World War history, and came to the conclusion that Germany got a “bum rap” in that conflict. I had no special interest in the Second World War, and was convinced that the Germans got the licking they deserved. Now I'm not so sure about anything.

Having bought books from the IHR on several occasions, I am familiar with the “revisionist” side of the Holocaust debate. Until recently, though, I had not really read any “conventional” Holocaust literature, when I bought and read Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust by Yaffa Eliach, Auschwitz and the Allies by Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz: True Tales from a Grotesque Land by Sara Nomberg-Przytyk, and Elie Wiesel: Messenger to All Humanity by Robert McAfee Brown.

Two of these -the books by Nomberg-Przytyk and Brown -actually swayed me to the Revisionist view. The kicker in Nomberg-Przytyk's book is a quotation from Wiesel: “Some events do take place but are not true; others are, although they never occurred.” (p. 166). [Nomberg-Przytyk's book was reviewed by Ted O'Keefe in the Fall 1986 Journal.]

Never in my life have I read a more ass-licking, self-pitying book as Brown's book about Wiesel. I had to force myself to finish reading it. Particularly striking are Brown's efforts early on in the book to promote the “Holocaust” as a sacred event that can properly be approached only with awe and humility through “survivor” testimony. Brown portrays Jews as entirely innocent martyrs throughout history, and concludes his book with an attack against Christianity. [Brown's book was reviewed by L. A. Rollins in the Fall 1985 Journal.]

G.H.
Kalamazoo, Michigan

Fear of Complacency

Sincere congratulations on the latest [November] IHR Newsletter, and on your eminently successful Conference. My only caution against celebrating hard-won revisionist successes is fear of overconfidence and complacency. We must be ever mindful that the opponents of truth and free speech do not play by the same rules as we do. Also, they are in control of most means of information and entertainment and (as Bradley Smith can attest) higher education. They wield the power of plutocrats.

C.H.
Troy, Michigan

More About the “Wilhelm Gustloff”

Concerning John Ries' article, “History's Greatest Naval Disaster” (Journal, Fall 1992 ): The photograph on page 373 does not show the Wilhelm Gustloff “before the war as a luxury liner.” The dark line painted along the ship's side, as well as the less visible red cross on the smokestack, show it as a hospital ship. These markings are in accord with Geneva convention regulations. (The Gustloff served as a hospital ship between September 22, 1939, and November 20, 1940.)

This same photograph is reproduced on glossy paper in Heinz Schön's superbly documented and illustrated book Die Gustloff Katastrophe (Stuttgart: Motorbuch Verlag, 1984), where the red cross on the smokestack is much more visible. Heinz Schön, who was the Gustloff's purser and survived the sinking, has authored several books on the life-saving mass evacuation of civilians across the Baltic Sea.

According to Schön, 1,252 people were rescued from the Gustloff sinking, whom he lists by name, and there were 5,348 victims. However, he allows for some more victims: people who had been smuggled aboard without being registered. Schön is said to own the most comprehensive private archive on the Wilhelm Gustloff and other “Kraft durch Freude” (KdF) ships.

Z. B.
Lerum, Sweden

Revisionism and Anti-Semitism

What astonishes me most is the way that antiRevisionists like to equate Holocaust Revisionism with anti-Semitism.

When a person who really hates Jews is confronted with the widely propagated figure of six million Holocaust victims, he cynically responds with something like “Six million? So what? Too bad they didn't get more of them.”

By contrast, if Holocaust Revisionists are sincere and careful in their search for historical truth, and conclude that the number of Jewish

victims of persecution is much smaller than what the public has been told, than this can hardly be regarded, in itself, as an expression of anti-Semitism. Although Revisionists take a stand against the official propaganda of the Establishment, this is not in itself anti-Jewish.

Every real friend of the Jews should appreciate the work of the Revisionists, while genuine antiSemites ought to be disappointed because those who hate Jews would like the number of Jewish Holocaust victims to be a large as possible.

This is a very obvious observation, I would think. But it shows just how absurd I regard the spectacle that was set off by Faurisson's visit to Sweden in March [1992]. There must be a fanatic desire to hold on to the justification for the hatred that the anti-Revisionists have built up.

The way that the anti-Revisionists behave and express themselves shows very clearly that they foresee the imminent collapse of their ideology. It is most remarkable that this outlook, which cannot stand up to rational argument and is based only on hatred, has held up for as long as it has.

W.H.
Silver Spring, Maryland

Planting Seeds, Sticking to Facts

Revisionists who appear as guests on radio and television talk shows sometimes do not come across as well as they should because they allow our adversaries to dictate the pace of debate. This often consists of hysterics, such as loud shouting, threats, personal attacks against character, and so forth, with the host sometimes joining the fray.

Unfortunately, the Revisionist guest sometimes responds in kind. This is a mistake. The Revisionist view is one that must be conveyed in a calm and scholarly manner. We must always stand firmly on the facts as we know and uncover them.

We need never deviate from the plain truth. The burden of proof should be shifted to our Exterminationist adversaries. If they wish to scream the Holohoax line to the high heavens, let them. Then once they come back down off their emotional diatribe to a level suitable to calm discussion, hit them again with the facts.

We lose when we fight on their terms. I would prefer to see the Revisionist calmly conclude by thanking the host for the opportunity to appear as a guest, than to see him join in name calling and back biting.

We win when they refuse to answer the hard questions that can and should be asked, such as: Why have the Polish and Israeli governments drastically cut the figures of Auschwitz victims?, or, Why point to the “reconstructed” gas chambers in the Auschwitz main camp when the supposedly

“real” ones are only a few kilometers away in Birkenau?

Mere emotionalism will never effectively refute undeniable fact. Let's stand on our scholarship, our facts.

Let's remember that it's not the host we're trying to win, but the television viewers at home. They are the final referees. The seeds of doubt, adequately planted and nurtured, will grow in the hearts and minds of those who regard themselves as members of the “silent majority.”

H.F.
Louisville, Kentucky

New Threat to Free Speech Proposed in Australia

In my capacity as Secretary of the Australian Civil Liberties Union, I wish to let your readers know that Zionist-Jewish interests are attempting to introduce in this country a federal “Racial Vilification Law” under which those found guilty of disseminating “racist” words or literature would be liable to up to two years' imprisonment. This proposed legislation would criminalize “racist” remarks about the Holocaust.

The immediate target of this legislation is historian David Irving, who is planning to visit Australia in March 1993. He could likely be excluded from Australia on the basis of this law. The larger target is historical revisionism and people and organizations who are critical of Zionism.

To protest this proposed legislation, your readers should write to: Mr. Thani Nqayi, Principal Counsel, Human Rights Branch, Attorney General's Dept., Robert Garran Offices, Barton, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia.

Geoff Muirden, Secretary
Australian Civil Liberties Union 283 Lygon Street
Carlton, Vic. 3053
Australia

The Editor welcomes letters from readers. Ideally, letters should be no more than about 500 words in length. We reserve the right to edit for style and space.

Wichita Area Readers

Readers in the Wichita area who are interested in meeting with other Revisionists, or who want to help get out the word, should write to:

P.O. Box 47111, Wichita, Kansas 67201