2. Archives
3. IHR
4. JHR Volume 1

Letters to the Editor

25 April 1980

To Whom It May Concern:

I am returning this journal. I strongly object to the general thesis of the various articles.

I want to express my protest about these articles, and I ask that I be removed from your mailing list.

Sincerely Yours,

Dr. Sara Alpern
Assistant Professor
Texas A&M University
College of Liberal Arts
College Station, Texas 77843

5 May 1980

Dear Sirs:

I am returning this piece of scurrilous, polemical, anti-semitic material to you. I do not wish to have it grace my shelves.

Sincerely,

Betty M. Unterberger
Professor of History
Texas A&M University
College of Liberal Arts
College Station, Texas 77843

26 April 1980

Dear Sir:

I support the principle of Revisionist history, presented in a scholarly fashion-indeed, all historical writing is in some way Revisionist.

However, I find the form and content of your publication intellectually and morally repugnant. Please remove my name from your mailing list.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Stuart
121 West Seminary Avenue
Lutherville, Maryland 21093

23 April 1980

Dear Mr. Brandon:

I have received the first number of The Journal of Historical Review. Because you wrote in your accompanying letter that you “look[ed] forward to hearing from” me, I am taking this opportunity to convey my impression of your journal.

I have read the articles by Messrs. Butz and App. Mr. Butz believes that the myriad historians, memoirists, journalists, and others who have for the past thirty-five years belonged to the “exterminationist” school of Holocaust interpretation have been parties to a hoax, either because they have had something to gain, personally or ideologically, from the fraud or because “societal and political conditions” have frightened them away from the truth. Imagine the conspiratorial expertise required to perpetrate such a hoax on so many people, in so many places, over so long a time! The Elders of Zion have refined their techniques since the days of Henry Ford.

Lest you or Mr. Butz miss the sarcasm-as, from the nature of his article, I am afraid he might-let me assure you that as a historian Mr. Butz is beneath contempt. And Mr. App is beneath that. Neither will ever be taken seriously by respectable members of the profession. This being the United States of America and not nazi Germany, there is every reason to hope that even among the general public they and their confreres will not rise above crackpot status.

Sincerely,

David M. Gold
2252½ Summit Street
Columbus, Ohio 43202

25 April 1980

Dear Mr. Brandon:

I thank you for your letter of 17 April 1980, although I must ask you once again not to send me any of your literature. As well, I am troubled by your apparent lack of perceptivity.

You suggested that only historians were included among the contributors to the first number of your journal. They must then, one supposes, truly be amateurs for according to your own biographical information (pp88-90) you have published articles from a professor of electrical engineering, a professor of French literature, a professor of letters, an executive with a commercial company, a Ph.D. in English literature, and two publishing company executives. I am not so elitist as to suggest that such individuals cannot write good history, but these are hardly the credentials one expects to find among serious, professional historians in a journal purporting to be dedicated to “historical review,” or of the sort that together can stand the test of credibility with an informed public.

As you noted, historians must be “objective and open to new ideas.” This does not, of course, mean that one has to accept the validity of these ideas. Rather, the true task of an historian is to study the factual evidence and make reasoned, analytical judgments based on the data. I am hardly “suppressing your analysis” by challenging your data and your conclusions, merely doing whatever I can to make sure that people unfortunate enough to receive the garbage you call history understand the distortions and perversities of your misguided attempts at historical analysis.

Finally, your suggestion that I resign my position due to my “betrayal” of historical objectivity is of the sort of ludicrousness and lack of sophistication which appears to be the standard of your operation. I certainly would not expect you to cease your efforts (although one can hope) simply because of my perception that what you do bears no resemblance whatsoever to serious historical research or writing. Resign, indeed. Despite the fact that my training as a professional historian is as yet incomplete and certainly imperfect I feel confident in stating that the history profession needs people like me to help protect it from people like you.

Sincerely,

Eric J. Vernon
Dept. of History
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210

28 April 1980

Sir:

I am what your journal would call an “Exterminationist,” teaching courses on the literature of the Holocaust and from time to time giving talks at various places.

I am pleased that your group is now publishing a journal. From time to time students ask me why it is worthwhile to teach about an event which took place 35 years ago. Now, with the journal you have published, I can point out to them that it is taught or spoken about because there are those who still insist that it never took place. Forgive but don’t Forget.

Fred Lapides
University of Bridgeport
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06602

9 May 1980

Dear Mr. Brandon:

Congratulations on the first issue of The Journal of Historical Review, which we received on our Charter Subscription.

The articles were scholarly, balanced and extremely informative and we look forward to your promised articles on the origins of the Second World War, the effects of which are still with us today. No doubt you will also be expanding your book review section and perhaps you will have a “Letters” section.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform your readers that not all Jews are political Zionists. Thirty years have passed since the Zionist state was established. Is it a coincidence that there has not been one single day of peace, nor is there much outlook for peace? The great Rabbis of past generations declared political Zionism would lead to the gravest catastrophe ever wrought upon the Jewish people. Eighty years ago Rabbi Shulem DovBer Schneerson wrote that Jews must oppose the concept of a state, for the Talmud foreswears the use of force or power to bring about the establishment of a state. Rabbi Schneerson’s predictions have come true.

No less a crime is the abrogation by the Zionist state of the right to speak in the name of the Jewish people. The political Zionists cannot represent or speak in the name of the Jewish people.

With regard to peace, the authoritative Jewish position was declared by the late chief Rabbi of the Holy land, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld as follows: “The Jews do not want to encroach upon the rest of the inhabitants of the Holy Land. The Jews do not want in any way, to take that which isn’t theirs. And they certainly do not want to contest the rights of the other inhabitants to the places held by them. His successor Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Duschinsky stated before the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 16 July 1947, to avoid further bloodshed and strife the United Nations should not help establish a state under the dominion of the Zionists.

Dr. Alfred Lilienthal and the late William Zukerman and also Martin Buber have fought a courageous, but seemingly hopeless battle against political Zionism. The Zionist propaganda machine is strongly entrenched and almost impossible to dislodge.

As a long-time libertarian and Revisionist I was shocked to learn that several so-called libertarian publications have refused to publish advertisements of the Institute of Historical Review. This is incomprehensible to me. The Holocaust debate is a key element in the uncritical support for Israel by the West, which has alienated 800 million Moslems, has contributed to a sixfold increase in oil prices and could lead to a world war. Don’t these “libertarian” publications believe the works of Rassinier being brought to the attention of libertarians and discussed?

One thing that has not been much-discussed by Revisionists in the current 'world crisis' is the role of the international money ring in behind-the-scenes manipulations. It seems to us this is worth further study in your Journal.

Sincerely,

Bezalel Chaim
Associate Editor
Revisionist Press
P.O. Box 2009
Brooklyn, New York 11202