Published: 1999-10-20

This document is part of the Journal of Historical Review periodical.
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.


I am deeply impressed with the IHR website. What a quality job you've done. The breadth and scope of it is daunting. The writing at the site is of such great quality, and the credentials are formidable. I've spent many hours here, and I'll spend many more. Thank you for your efforts.

To carry on for so many years, especially after the 1984 arson attack, takes perseverance, guts and tenacity of will. Great work!

E. G.
[by Internet]

Dedication and Honesty

Recently and quite by accident, while "surfing" on the Internet for some totally unrelated research, I came upon the Leuchter Report on the IHR web site.

Although I had heard of those who did not believe the Holocaust actually took place, I had never heard of Leuchter's Report or of his subsequent ordeal. Forgive my ignorance. I usually stay up on politics, both domestic and to some extent international, as well as important issues generally.

I had believed the history of the Holocaust as presented when I was a child. However, Leuchter's Report dispels much of what I was taught and have read. What I can't understand is why the Jewish community does not support every effort to find the truth, no matter what it is. I don't see what the problem is. Maybe I'm naive or something! Then again, how about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge victims in Cambodia. If three million is an accurate figure of his victims, I think we should call that a Holocaust.

It is very frightening to read about what Mr. Leuchter went through. I am Jewish by birth, although I became a Christian as an adult. The Jewish response to Leuchter's information, including the vilification of him, makes me ashamed that I was born Jewish. Leuchter's picture is even posted on a "watch list" of an anti-hate group. That's absolutely absurd.

It is quite clear that Leuchter carried out his investigation with no preconceived ideas, except those he had been taught regarding the Holocaust. If anything, that should have prejudiced him the other way. However, true to scientific form, he went where his research took him. That represents dedicated scientific honesty.

A. M. B., MD
[by Internet]

Find the Truth

I am a fellow student of history. I am not an anti-Semite. I just think that the victors wrote history in their way. Keep up the good work. (On some of the revisionist sites there is sometimes a sarcastic tone that I don't think is at all helpful.) I think the honest study of history will bring the truth to light. Drive on, and don't let them get you down. Let's just find the truth.

R. W.
[by Internet]

What MacDonald Misses

After reading the review of Kevin MacDonald's book, Separation and its Discontents, in the May-June 1998 Journal, I immediately ordered the book and read it very carefully. I readily agree with him that Jews routinely use deception and self-deception in competition with non-Jews, that there is "fundamental and non-resolvable friction" between Jews and non-Jews, and that Jews work to fundamentally alter Western culture to suit their interests. Unfortunately, though, MacDonald fails to layout the full implications of all this. He is particularly off the mark about Jewish motivation.

He suggests that greater understanding of the true relationship between Jews and non-Jews will help to resolve this long-standing conflict. But this is silly, rather like asserting that the rabbit and the fox could get along if only they understood one another better.

MacDonald contends that Jews, as a group, outdo non-Jews in economic, cultural and, intellectual and political competition. He argues that anti-Semitism is caused mainly by envy and rancor over Jewish success in resource competition, and resentment over Jewish unwillingness to assimilate.

This explanation is inaccurate, or at least insufficient. Jewish success in competition with non-Jews is not, in and of itself, a major cause of anti-Semitism. Most non-Jews have a healthy sense of fair play, and are ready enough to accept being outdone, if it's achieved honestly and equitably. What non-Jews throughout history have found intolerable is Jewish domination achieved through deceit and subversion.

MacDonald writes that Jews, understandably, seek to transform society by pushing for "multi-culturalism." This is true as far as it goes, but Jews want not merely to survive, but to prevail in a society that is miscegenated, culture-less and race-less. They seek to undermine and ultimately destroy the racial and cultural cohesion of the host nation.

J. A.
Niles, Illinois

Forgiveness for Sale

It seems that the World Jewish Congress, and its allies, continue to find ever new and creative ways to extort more and more "restitution" money from Germans. A recent news item reported: "'They [the German companies] want to buy moral forgiveness, but you don't buy moral forgiveness at bargain-basement prices,' added Edward Fagan, another of the [Jewish restitution] lawyers." Apparently "moral forgiveness" is for sale, after all.

P. G.
Nashville, Tenn. [by Internet]

'Slow Judaizing'

A front cover feature article in the April 1998 issue of New York magazine asks "Is Israel Still Good for the Jews?" (One might better ask if Israel was ever good for Americans.) In this revealing article, author Craig Horowitz boasts: "Not only do Jews now think and act like Americans; Americans now think and act like Jews. There has been a slow Judaizing of America in which it's becoming increasingly difficult to see where one begins and the other ends."

When an alien racial-ethnic minority group achieves decisive power in a country, as happened in Russia after 1917, profound changes are sure to take place. Is something similar happening today in the United States? One need look no further than the White House and Capitol Hill to see the tremendous power and influence of the Jewish minority.

Charles E. Weber
Tulsa, Okla.

Upstadt Book Not Persuasive

At a local library I recently found a copy of Denying the Holocaust [reviewed in the Nov.-Dec. 1993 and Sept.-Oct. 1995 Journal issues], a book by Deborah Lipstadt that is very critical of the IHR and its publications on the Holocaust issue. The book is not written objectively, and is even deliberately misleading. Not only is the book not persuasive, reading it actually had the effect of making me more sure of the revisionist view of this issue.

For instance, to prove her case Lipstadt writes that the German government has admitted that Germans committed all the World War II crimes of which they were accused. What she doesn't tell her readers is that the German authorities could have disputed the charges only if they had been willing to submit to further Allied punishment, and even let many more Germans perish.

A precedent for this was set at the end of World War I, when the British and French maintained the blockade of Germany to force the German government to sign the punitive Treaty of Versailles. As educated Germans know, the Allied blockade was kept in place for nine months after the end of hostilities. During that period (November 1918 to July 1919), nearly a million German civilians, mostly women and children, died of starvation. [See The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919, by C. Paul Vincent, reviewed in the Summer 1986 Journal.]

By starving the Germans into submission, the Allied powers were able to extort enormous reparations from Germany, as well as force acceptance, through the imposed Versailles Treaty, of German "guilt" for World War I.

In the aftermath of Germany's defeat in World War II, American authorities similarly imposed the infamous Morgenthau Plan. As Canadian historian James Bacque has shown [in Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies], millions of Germans starved to death under Allied occupation after the German surrender in May 1945.

Any "admissions" of "guilt" under such circumstances are, of course, worthless.

Lipstadt's book is written in the spirit that offense is better than defense. She accuses revisionists of behavior that she, and those like her, routinely display. Denying the Holocaust also clearly reflects the author's lifelong indoctrination, and was obviously written with considerable input from others.

Lipstadt viciously derides those who provide scientific evidence to show that there were no wartime homicidal gas chambers. However, she attacks only their competency and credentials, not their evidence. By her reasoning, the work of Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers should be rejected out of hand because they lacked proper credentials. Anyway, what are her qualifications as a chemist or engineer?

Lipstadt insists on calling those who reject the Holocaust extermination claims "deniers." She won't call them revisionists because, as she acknowledges, historical revisionism has a long and honorable tradition.

If this book is typical of "pro-Holocaust" literature, I can understand why Lipstadt and those like her categorically refuse to debate Holocaust skeptics. Every "denier" should read Denying the Holocaust. It will remove the last doubts about the validity of the revisionist view.

U. V.
Oklahoma City, Oklha.

High Priests?

It seems that Jews have become high priests of "information" in America, and that anyone who challenges the "received wisdom" risks being dismissed as anti-Semitic. For example, E. Fuller Torrey, author of Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud's Theory on American Thought and Culture, a 1992 book that debunks Freud's research and highlights his baleful influence on American culture, finds it necessary to reassure his readers that he is not anti-Semitic.

J. G.
[by Internet]

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

Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Charles E. Weber , et al.
Title: Letters
Sources: The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 18, no. 3 (May/June 1999), pp. 47f.
Published: 1999-10-20
First posted on CODOH: Feb. 13, 2013, 6 p.m.
Last revision:
Appears In: