Similar Posts

  • Correspondence

    Dr. Howard Stein's letter of the 13th April (The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1981) honors him and (pace Signor Maiolini) adds to the intellectual caliber of the great debate. To Stein's “tu quoque” in regard to sociobiology and in defense of psychohistory, I must ruefully concede (to change the language employed) “touché.” I am…

  • Letters

    A Great Man David Irving seems convinced that his appeal of the judgement in the London Irving-Lipstadt libel case will succeed. [See the March-April 2000 Journal.] And while it would in any “pure” legal arena, I think the decision will go against him. The widely accepted view that British courts are somehow fairer or more…

  • Unanswered Correspondence

    Christopher HitchensNew Statesman10 Great TurnstileLondon WCIV 7HJ England Dear Christopher Hitchens: 26 August 1980 If the New Statesman is not “part of Israel's media chorus” (NS 20 June 1980) then why is it that your paper refused to print letters from three distinguished Revisionist academics, after they were slandered in your tractate last November? Your…

  • Letters

    Corrective Power Richard Phillip's letter [in the May-June Journal, pp. 46-47] is an excellent illustration of the corrective power of historical revisionism. However, a few of his points require correction. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck tried to appease France over the issue of Alsace-Lorraine, and nearly succeeded in reaching a reconciliation. It is not true…

  • A Holocaust Debate

    Only rarely do those who detest Doug Collins' audacious skepticism about the Holocaust story ever bother to respond to the substance ofhis arguments. Normally his detractors react with blind invective. In a rare exception, two University of British Columbia historians replied to Collins' August 18 column – reprinted in the Nov.-Dec. 1993 Journal (pp. 10-11)…