2 February 1981
Having read Dr. Stein’s article in the last (winter) issue of The JHR, I felt compelled to inform you, that, although the article was informative, I do hope that The Journal’s trend will not be in that direction. One apology is quite sufficient, for to continue in that direction will mean to apologize the entire period of World War II into history.
I don’t want the events of World War II apologized or psychoanalyzed into history! In your supplement to the journal, you state that future issues will cover the work of “psycho-historians and anti-statist libertarians.” Does this mean that I will be reading more about fantasy’s relationship to reality, penis envy ("Germany’s virility,” a “feminized” France), and all of the rest of that good Freudian stuff? Does this mean that I get to read how communism, capitalism, fascism, naziism, and all other ism’s are the same? Please, if I want to read Commentary or The American Spectator, I'll buy one!
The Journal of Historical Review has found its niche in the publishing world; that is, to reconstruct past events (principally of World War II), so that the reader can arm himself with the greatest of literary weapons-truth!
Dr. Stein doesn’t give the reader the whole truth. He passes over events without explaining why they occurred. Example: the Jewish expulsion from Spain during the Christian reconquista from the Moors was presaged by the known collaboration between Jews and Moors; the uprising of the Ukrainian peasants in 1648, led by Bogdan Chmielnicki, was induced by their exploiters-the ruling class Poles and the Jews. Chmielnicki’s famous outcry was: “Remember the insults of the Poles and the Jews, their favorite stewards and agents!” Under Hitler, national socialism’s ascribed enemy was communism; and since most Jews were partial towards communism, and therefore opponents of the Nazis, most of them, as well as the communists, were interned in concentration camps.
Ezio M. Maiolini
11 February 1981
Dear Mr. Brandon:
Dr. Howard F. Stein’s courageous article “The Holocaust, and the Myth of the Past as History” (winter 1981) is by far the most significant exposition of this subject ever written by a Jewish social scientist and should be must reading for every American; Jew or Gentile. If read in conjuction with Dr. Stein’s “American Judaism, Israel and the New Ethnicity” and “The Binding of the Son: Psychoanalytic Reflections on the Symbiosis of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Gentifism” the whole tragic history of Jewish-Gentile relations is devastatingly illuminated.
Over two decades ago, in a remarkable series of historical novels (1943-1960) Vardis Fisher, using the methods of psychohistory, delineated the damaging effects inherent in the Judaeo-Christian mythology. Dr. Stein’s work is a further elucidation of Fisher’s 12-volume Testament of Man series.
Most Revisionist historians and publicists would reject the strictly “psychohistorical” approach because in their general theory the psychohistorians maintain that it is not the external facts-called economics, politics, and the like-and the social mores in general, which must be treated and perhaps revolutionized, but it is man himself and his familial relationships which must be treated. But these psychoneurotic drives are merely effects and symptoms of a disordered society, as most Revisionists steeped in the tradition of Lawrence Dennis, C.H. Douglas and Laurance Labadie realize. The chief exceptions to this would be the so-called exponents of Austrian “free market” economics which, in reality is only partially free. It is interesting that Harry Elmer Barnes was most sympathetic to the ideas of C.H. Douglas.
Notwithstanding the above reservations on the psychohistorical approach (several volumes could be written on the subject) Professor Stein has completely demolished the Holocaust mythology. It remains for us to dot the “i"s and cross the “t"s.
GPO Box 2009
Brooklyn, NY 11202
13 April 1981
I am pleased to respond to the letters by Sandra Ross and Wayland D. Smith published in Vol. 2, Nol 2 of The JHR. They illustrate, it seems to me, two distinct attitudes and genres in the current “re-vision” of the Holocaust and Jewish history. The first, exemplified by Smith, is that of 11 expos6.” Ross succinctly summarizes contributions by Gonen and Hazleton, then proposes an intriguing schematic-one whose universal human developmental and psychodynamic themes every tribe, nation, and group must deal with in its political-historical activities and evolution. Smith seems to be starting out with a premise for which he seeks substantiation. Monolithic theory-building and ideological thinking that underlies it ought not be construed as peculiarly Jewish (although, lamentable, given the unbridled latitude of the imagination, one can construe anything as he desires it). Rather, such reified systems of thought that impose themselves projectively upon the world, only then to be “confirmed” spuriously by perception, takes us to the heart of culture itself, primitive and “modern.” Smith misplaces the ancestry of psychohistory; in its excesses, psychohistory, like all forms of intellectualism, is profoundly human, not reductionistically Jewish. “Seek what ye wish to find” is the unacknowledged “first commandment” of the human search far security. One might respond to Smith’s observation about the faddishness of psychohistory with a simplistic tu quoque about sociobiology. But that would miss altogether the important point that how we use our theories, and to what out-of-awareness ends, determines whether that activity is science or ideology. Precisely because we are often committed to a particular model by which we organize our thinking, we are given to criticize another’s epistemology as faddish while giving obeisance to our own which we mistake for absolute truth (a statement which I stringently apply to myself!). I frankly worry about the zeal with which much current re-vision of Judaism and the Holocaust is undertaken. It is though the party-fine taboo on re-examining Jewish history and the Holocaust is now being broken with a desire to discredit, even condemn, previous scholarship and Jews who are the subject of this scholarship. I would urge all my colleagues to examine their motives for the research they choose as stringently as they analyze their datafor we are, everywhere and always, part of our data. We need to ask ourselves: “Why do I need to disprove this particular myth (and not some other)?” Perhaps not so oddly, a hypertrophied fascination with Jews-or with any group-reveals much about the investigator, and thereby distorts the findings. What I find lacking in much current behavioral science (not Revisionism alone) is an identification with, an empathy for, the group being interpreted: explanation is not the same as blame. And it is the former which I have attempted in my JHR paper. I heartily commend to the reader three additional works: two papers on Judaism and psychohistory, by Jay Gonen, in the Fall 1978 and Winter 1970 issues of The Journal of Psychohistory; and a recent book by Jacob Neusner, Stranger at Home; 'The Holocaust,' Zionism, and American Judaism (University of Chicago Press).
I offer these comments in the spirit of continuing dialogue, and thank Sandra Ross and Wayland D. Smith for their comments.
Howard F. Stein, Ph.D.
University of Oklahoma
4 September 1980
All I can say is “What is this?” is regards to your book review of Oradour: Village of the Dead by Philip Beck (Fall 1980 issue, page 276). Ach, you of all people should swallow such a thing? I thought you were the driving force behind the “Historical Revisionism” movement in North America!
I have done considerable reading from all angles on “Oradour” and Philip Beck’s book sounds like the standard French diatribe on the subject. Many of the events he mentioned could not and did not happen as outlined.
Working from mostly German eye-witness accounts and reports (totally ignored by the other side), and from Kameraden bis zum Ende (the Regimental history of “Der Führer” by Otto Weidinger) I compiled a correct account of “Oradour” which appeared in the September 1980 issue of Siegrunen ($7.50/year; Box 70, Mt. Reuben Road, Glendale, OR 97442).
Weidinger assumed command of “Der Führer” soon after Oradour, and also happens to be a vigorous supporter of Siegrunen.
The rest of the Fall 1980 issue was great; the letters section happily confirming my own hostility against modern “academics.” Let me say that I whole-heartedly concur with the sentiment in your last sentence of your “Oradour” review, but you sure as heck won’t realize it through Beck’s book!
19 February 1981
Dear Mr. Brandon:
Having read Herr Landwehr’s article on Oradour in Siegrunen I think I am justified in commenting on it as well as on his letter.
The article contains a number of fantastic falsehoods which must surely throw considerable doubt on the whole SS version of the massacre. For example, it is obvious that, unlike me, the writer has never visited the ruins, otherwise he would have seen the bullet-pocked ruins of the garages and barns in which the men were shot and would not repeat the lie that they were “taken into a nearby farm field and shot.”
His story of the exploding houses and above all the events in the church must be regarded as purely and wickedly imaginative. He writes in the article: “… a tremendous blast literally tore off the top of the church and engulfed the building in a wall of flame. The church attic had also been used for (munitions) storage …”
I suggest he reads my book and then goes to Oradour to get the record straight. I have examined the interior and exterior of the church and could find no evidence of a big explosion. There is however evidence of the grenades and bullets used by the SS to finish off the women and children. The “attic” must be the one containing the bells in the tower. If there had been an explosion there they would have come down intact. In fact, the tower became a chimney for the pyre created by the SS to burn the dead and dying women and children and the bells came down in a mass of molten metal which can still be seen at the base of the tower inside the church. The church burned easily because of the large area of woodwork in the roof.
Herr Landwehr implies that the women and children were sitting on a mass of explosives — a likely addition to the decorations which had been put up for the First Communion to be celebrated the next day! And if he really believes that these innocent people died solely because the folly of storing munitions in the church, he must dismiss the story of the sole survivor who jumped from a window after her daughter had been shot beside her. Perhaps he would say the Marguerite Rouffanche fired five bullets into her own back as she ran towards the presbytery garden?
In the same vein, he would refute the stories of the five men who escaped from the executions in the Laudy barn and should claim that Dr. Jens Kruuse, a Dane who meticulously interviewed the survivors of the massacre in and around the village for his book Madness at Oradour had written one long falsehood.
If he goes to Oradour, Herr Landwehr will see that the ruins are of buildings gutted by fire and weathered by the passing of nearly 40 years. But even if one allows that there may have been munitions for the Resistance in one or two houses (which I don’t) would that justify the murdering of 642 people?
I believe (as I say in my book) that the massacre was sparked off by the capture of Helmut Kampfe, the close friend of Dickmann (Diekmann?) who was responsible for the massacre. Dickmann was, I believe, told by someone-perhaps a French collaborator- that Kampfe was being held captive in Oradour and the massacre was his mad act of vengeance. There is no doubt that he was mentally unbalanced and, as Landwehr points out in his article, was accused by his CO of “sullying the Regimental name forever with his war crime.” Small wonder that he is said to have subsequently committed suicide by going into battle without a helmet!
May 5, 1981
Your supplement to The Journal of Historical Review Volume 2 Number 2 was a pleasant surprise in contrast to your previous newsletter.
I am very glad to hear that the Institute finally seems to be making headway through the jungle of disinformation and persistent lies. Similar events are taking place in France and England, but to my knowledge the jungle is still almost impenetrable in this country.
The supporters of the holocaust myth are still misusing legal institutions to smother the historical truth. The sentences that are being passed all over the country are simply scandalous.
It is amusing to hear that a mass murderer like Begin has been cheeky enough to accuse Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in public of being an unconverted Nazi. He said Schmidt was “arrogant” and “greedy.” And this was said about a representative of the Establishment in this country who has not only done his best to keep the holocaust myth alive, but who has been co-responsible for giving enormous sums away to Israel for “reparations.” However, I feel it serves these Bonn puppets just right to be kicked in the pants like this by a man who continues to keep his hands open for more and more money.
May I remind you in this connection of the fact that our fellow-countrymen on the other side of the Iron Curtain have not yet paid a darned nickel to the Israelis for “reparation” and they are very unlikely to do so in the future.
The enclosed article was rounded up on my request by Fritz Berg of Fort Lee N.J. Although it was published as early as July, 1943, it certainly has not lost its historical or even actual value. Rudolf Hess has now turned 87 years of age, and on 10 May 1981 he “celebrated” his 40th anniversary of lonesome captivity.
What is most interesting about this article is the background of the Hess flight to Scotland on 10 May 1941.
If the writer of the story is right-and I have no doubt he is-then it becomes quite obvious why this personal messenger of Hitler’s is very unlikely to be released before closing his eyes forever.
it would perhaps be worth while to look a little bit deeper into this matter, especially as mention was made in the article about further “secrets” that could not be revealed at the time.
It has now been revealed that the photostat copies of the files on the Hess flight are available in the National Archives in Washington. The British government has, however, ruled that these files continue to be kept under lock and key until 2017, i.e. not 30, as usual, but 60 years after the Nuremberg trials when this matter was dealt with.
I happened to be in British captivity myself in 1947, when the defendants in Nuremberg were given a chance to speak up for their own defense. I heard Hess speak on the radio and part of what he said is still very vivid in my mind. I remember the radio spokesman saying that, in all, Hess spoke as long as twenty-one hours! However, back in Germany later on and speaking to a great many people, nobody seems to remember having heard the same broadcast report in those days. All my countrymen can remember are fragments of sentences of that speech.
It is quite obvious therefore that this 21-hour defense speech is also being kept under look and key until nobody of the present generation is alive anymore.
This shows how bad the conscience of a man like Churchill must have been. It also shows how desperately Hitler attempted to put an end to this “phoney war” of Churchill's.
Maybe the writer of the said article is still alive today and perhaps he is now ready to reveal the sources of his information. At any rate, I do feel that this article is worth while to be re-printed as a historical document by the IHR, what do you think about this idea?
I have learned of a man by the name of Tyler Kent who played a role as a go-between between Churchill and Roosevelt during the early years of the war. It is quite possible that he can also divulge a few more details about the Hess mission.
The short article enclosed herewith tells the story about one of the dirty tricks the war monger Churchill had up his sleeve: the use of Poisonous gas on German cities on a large scale! 500,000 of these lethal bombs were already ordered by Churchill.
With very best wishes,
Hans v.d. Heide
Letters to the Editor
California State University,
Long Beach, CA.
15 May 1981
I would like to respond to your 14 May 1981 article, “JDL Leader Assails Holocaust Denouncer.”
Irv Rubin, the JDL’s leader, can’t understand why the University is “allowing this character (Professor Buchner) to teach at Cal State Long Beach.”
One who recognizes the nature and purpose of such qualifications as Dr. Buchner has, as well as his proven ability to teach university level science courses, might respond in reference to Mr. Rubin himself by asking “why is the university allowing this character (Rubin) to speak at Cal State Long Beach"?
Are such freedoms of thought and speech retained only by those who do not hold such trained-for posts as Dr. Buchner?
If the University acknowledges Dr. Buchner’s right to his personal views, who would twist this to presume rather arrogantly that the university is endorsing those views?
What business does Mr. Rubin have on campus anyway? Is he a teacher, a student? My tax dollars support that school on the basis that it trains students. What are Mr. Rubin’s credentials?
Mr. Rubin says that the Institute for Historical Review is “dedicated to the physical extermination of the Jewish people.” Rubin is a heldfaced liar and an extremely dangerous one at that. Or perhaps he has a will-to-believe such delusions of self-importance.
No amount of his really looking into what we are actually doing would affect his viewpoint one iota. He thrives on anti-Semitism. He eats it for breakfast. He tries with every ounce of his waking strength to produce it where it does not otherwise exist.
Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, Jewish author of The Zionist Connection, who has himself been attacked by the JDL writes; “… the JDL, despite an occasional rap on the knuckles, has been permitted to break the laws, shoot at the innocent, deface property, and attack with impunity.”
And to justify this, Mr. Rubin and his ilk manufacture a “cause” to eradicate what they themselves are, in fact, creating.
Dr. Buchner, the IHR, and those who agree with our right to investigate, discover and disseminate are not the ones making the threats. It is Rubin who is making the threats.
He claims that the dissemination of our views is “like going into a theater and yelling, ‘Fire.’” Now just who is yelling ‘Fire’?
Mr. Rubin says we’re all Nazis. That’s an unfounded and pernicious smear, and again, Mr. Rubin is a liar.
When we say that millions of Jews were not killed or exterminated by the Nazis, our intent is not to lend any credibility to the Nazi regime. We publish our views because we find them to be true and we're in the business of righting the historical record. That’s all.
Look at Mr. Rubin’s police record if you will, and that of his associate Mordecai Levy. Listen to the antagonism and hatred in his voice and the voice of his “contingent.” He is not mad because the Holocaust is being subjected to some sincere Revisionist inspection. He is simply mad.
Institute for Historical Review
10 July 1981
As Chief of Security and Field Co-ordination for Displaced Persons, in West Germany, I interviewed many of all races, especially the Jews who came out of the Warsaw and Vienna Ghettos, and without exception, they all expressed a fear, if not a terror, of the “Jewish Committee” within the respective ghettos. There was no expression of fear of the German military or authorities outside the respective ghettos.
When I was more or less in charge of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, I had as an advisor Ruther Eisler, who was going under the name of Ruth Fisher. She was head of the Communist party in Germany, and led the Communist members of the Reichstag. Prior to the Reichstag fire, she had defected to the Trotsky camp and was tried during the Stalin purge trials of 1936-38, and convicted in absentia of crimes against the state (treason) and was sentenced to be executed. The person assigned this murder was none other than her brother, Gerhardt Eisler, who was the top NKVD agent in the United States during and after the war (WWII), using the names of Hanbergers and Mr. Brown. As Brown he attended a meeting of the Daily Worker, and discharged Hathaway, the editor, for alcoholism. He replaced Hathaway with Budenz. The person attending that paper’s board meeting, had never seen Brown before that day, and as far as I know never put two and two together. When Budenz eventually defected, he was in my custody (minimal) for several weeks, and he was able to identify Eisler as Brown.
Recently, the major news services carried a release stating that a German court had found the Communist charged with setting the Reichstag Fire, innocent. Whereupon, I contacted both services and gave my story. Both services refused to carry my release.
When I uncovered Ruth Fisher (Eisler), she became my unofficial advisor, and one day I asked her: “Who set the fire?” She turned on me, actually calling me stupid, etc., and then said in substance: “We planned the fire, executed its planning, it back-fired, and, as a result, Hitler was given good reason to eliminate the eighty-one Communists in the Reichstag, thereby gaining full control of that body, which in turn gave him the powers he needed to gain absolute control of Germany.”