The Holocaust Historiography Project

A Note From The Editor

The issue you now hold in your hands marks the beginning of our third year of continuous on-time publication of The Journal of Historical Review — an accomplishment of no small magnitude considering the incessant and sundry counter-efforts of the forcefully disagreeable.

You may notice that many of the pages herein have been set in a slightly smaller type and have a bit more depth. These improvements were incorporated with the distinct aim of bringing our readers an increased amount of reading without having to sacrifice to the higher costs associated with printing and mailing a heavier book.

But the sheer amount of quality Revisionist material available has been growing steadily of late, motivating us to make even further expansion plans for The Journal.

So, beginning with the next issue (Summer 1982), subscribers will be receiving a new 128-page quarterly rather than the usual 96-pages.

Additionally, we'll be setting the type sufficiently large to be comfortably read, but somewhat smaller than earlier issues.

Together, these changes will amount to about twice the material per issue, but with an accompanying subscription rate increase to only $30 per year. As we expand The Journal format, incorporating more articles, costs necessarily increase typesetting, printing, mailing, fees, etc. But this is the price that must be paid to facilitate the publication of much more of the important Revisionist material and, at the same time, cover our costs, thereby ensuring the continued financial viability of both The Journal and the IHR.

Of course, the IHR Newsletter — as a more topical update and supplement to The Journal — will still be mailed regularly to our subscribers at no additional charge. So, you won’t be paying more for less, but a little more for proportionately much more.

Now, to this issue. We have a self-published Barnes piece that has not appeared in any previous IHR publications; a revealing and analogous look at conscription by Dr. Jim Martin; a, concise survey of the uses of history by the IHR’s founder, Willis Carto; and two articles — one by Mark Weber — that make for an essential understanding of one of the more ominous aspects of the $17 million lawsuit against the IHR.

We also have plenty of appropriate correspondence and numerous book reviews.

And, as always, your comments and suggestions are encouraged.