2. Archives
3. IHR
4. JHR Volume 3

Correspondence

Comments on the Last Issue

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 very willing also to concede his charge that the re-examination of the holocaust myth is by no means without ulterior motives.

It seems to me that there are two problems involved. The first is the historical piety of seeking, as far as is ever possible when dealing with the intangible past, objective truth. The second is an attempt to deal with the enormously destructive effect of this particular myth upon our culture, civilization, society and politics. There can be, I think, little doubt that the uncritical acceptance of the holocaust myth as a kind of “holy writ” has been of immense financial and political profit to Israel. But that is the least important of its effects. It has inhibited and distorted all studies of race; it has inhibited any rational discussion of the increasingly urgent question of eugenics; it has paralyzed the implementation of a rational foreign policy by the United States and its client kingdoms; and it has perpetuated an unjust and unhealthy teutonophobia in the general public. In sum, it has distorted and, indeed, poisoned, the corporate mind of Western Civilization.

Professor Stein advocates empathy. I entirely agree. As any competent actor knows, there can be no valid understanding of a character (and, by extension, of a people) without that imaginative leap “inside” that character. But empathy is not synonymous with sympathy or advocacy. But again I must honor Dr. Stein. Neither scientists nor historians can be detached automata without ties and loyalties. History “wie es eigentlich gewesen” is a noble but impossible aim. Nevertheless we must seek the truth as far as is humanly possible. It must be acutely painful and require great integrity and courage for Dr. Stein to question in any degree the holocaust myth.

History is inevitably replete with myths. No historical statement beyond the crude basic level of dates and names is, or ever can be, the whole and absolute truth. But some myths are far more dangerous than others. And that is my answer to Dr. Stein’s question: “Why do I need to disprove this particular myth and not some other?”

On a different matter, I must say that I found Dr. Wesserle’s article, “Bombs on Britain” somewhat irritating. Churchill was a megalomaniacal monster. His involvement in the dirty business of the Lusitania, his deliberate and skillfull promotion of a war psychosis in Britain in the 1930s (in the service of his own insatiable ambition), his commitment (for the same reason) to “unconditional surrender,” which resulted in the destruction of that British empire of whose perpetuation he so often claimed to be the dedicated champion; the plans to use gas and, even more horrible, anthrax bombs on Germany-all these things are indictment enough. But for Dr. Wesserle to complain that the AngloAmerican air forces dropped more bombs on Germany than the Germans did on Britain is to divert from the essential point; Germany simply lacked the capacity to do things on the same scale. I have nothing but sympathy for Germany. I think she was treated in 1919 with appalling injustice and cruelty; that Hitler’s aims of reversing the Carthaginian verdict of Versailles were wholly reasonable and just; that the Second World War was suicidal insanity and that the declaration of war on Germany by Britain and France in 1939 was monstrously criminal. But after all that has been admitted, it is still ridiculous to suggest that war, onceit,is in progress, should be restricted to a sporting balance of forces between the belligerents.

REVISIONISM À LA FREUD?

I've just completed reading the new issue of The Journal for Historical Review (Winter 1981). You've put together a really great issue. Devastating. Faurisson, Wesserle, Lutton — all great!

I was interested to read Ezio M. Maiolini’s rather anxious letter on Dr. Stein. I know any “Freudian” connotations drives some of your readers up the wall! But we can learn from the neo-Freudians as well as the libertarians. I'm not a Freudian myself but there’s some important stuff being written by the psychohistorians that we can’t ignore. By the way, if Ezio would read some of Dr. Stein’s other material he'd discover that Howard does make mention of the situation in 17th Century Ukraine! On the other hand, I agree that some of the psychohistorian’s ruminations about a “feminized France,” etc. turn me off!

DITTO?

We thank you for printing the letter by Ezio M. Maiolini in your Winter 1981 issue. We, “don’t want the events, of World War II apologized or psychoanalyzed into history,” either!

We will add to his comments about Commentary or The American Spectator that, speaking for ourselves, we do not subscribe to these because they are the itype of publications that they are. We do subscribe to The Journal because of its historical value!

Mr. Maiolini’s letter makes some good points!

MORE ON 'ORADOUR'

Thank you for your letter of 23 November. I should learn my lesson by now and wait at least a few days before responding to something that irritates me. I won’t be so intemperate this time and will try and give an overview of the German side of the “Oradour” story as well as respond to Mr. Beck (see The JHR, Winter 1981).

Actually, I was very happy to read Mr. Lutton’s “The Miracle of Dunkirk Reconsidered” book review, as it helped fill in the pieces for some research that I have been working on for years. Unfortunately I didn’t encounter this piece until after having already written you!

I am enclosing a clipping that you may have already seen from a Sunday newspaper magazine supplement titled Parade, which is rather notorious for its propaganda pieces. I assume this little piece is probably based on Mr. Beck’s work. The line about the SS departing the town singing and playing accordions is so ludicrous that it defies all credibility!

At any rate, I have more than enough information on hand to I hope effectively refute some of Mr. Beck’s contentions. I am enclosing also for your benefit a photocopy of my article on “Oradour” that appeared in Siegrunen #21. Mr. Beck did not really address himself to the most important points made therein. It is also fairly apparent that Mr. Beck is probably totally ignorant of the German point-of-view. I would have assumed that in writing his book he would have at least consulted the writings left behind by German “survivors” of the “Oradour” incident. The fact that he probably didn’t makes it a little difficult for me to take his work seriously!

Here then are the most important points of the “Oradour” story from the German side:

1. 9 June 1944: Obersturmführer Gerlach, ordnance officer of the 2nd SS Assault Gun detachment/"Das Reich” Division is ambushed by Frenc h partisans and taken into a town for interrogation. The signpost to the town reads: Oradour-sur-Glane. The town is filled with-, signs of partisan activity. Gerlach is sentenced to death and escapes exdcution only after his driver obstructs the executioner giving Gerlach the chance to flee. His testimony is given later in the day to both the commander of the “Der Führer” Regiment and its “Oradour” Battalion (Sturmbannführer Dieckmann). Thus prior to the massacre there is strong evidence of partisan-terrorist activity and collusion in Oradour itself. This was recorded in the divisional Tagebuch for 9 June 1944.
2. During the night of 9/10 June, Sturmbannführer Kaempfe was captured and then murdered by French partisans. He commanded the 3rd Battalion/"Der Führer.” Even though he had already been killed partisan representitives sent a ransom demand to the “Der Führer” command post on the morning of 10 June. Two local Frenchmen also brought information that an important German officer was being held by the partisans in the town of Oradour. Sturmbannführer Adolf Kiekmann, a close friend of Kaempfe decided to follow up on this information with two platoons from 3rd Company/1st Battalion/Regiment “Der Führer.”
3. Diekmann and his task force reached the outskirts of Oradour-sur-Glane by the early afternoon of 10 June. A rear area German medical dressing station was encountered en route. It had been severly fire damaged. Inside were found the shackled and chained bodies of German wounded and medics who had been burned alive inside of the building by the partisans. At this point Diekmann’s duty became clear: according to the “Sperrle Decree,” any act of terror committed against German forces behind the frontlines had to be met with an immediate punitive response. The town of Oradour, which had already been implicated twice, by Ostuf. Gerlach and the French informers, was now going to feel a reprisal action no matter what.
4. Diekmann’s command entered Oradour and rounded up the citizenry. The Mayor was questioned as to the extent of partisan activities in the area and the whereabouts of Stubaf. Kaempfe. He professed ignorance. At this point one platoon was told to search the houses. Nearly every building which they entered yielded up a supply of illicit weapons! On this question the survivors of the platoon are adamant.
5. By now there was no longer any question about the links between the villagers and the partisans. The Mayor was sent out of the north end of the town with instructions to bring back Stubaf. Kaempfe alive within 30 minutes. If he failed to do so the men in the village would be shot. Naturally he failed to return. According to the soldiers the village men were marched out into a nearby field after a half-hour had passed and shot. Stubaf. Diekmann then ordered the destruction of the village. The women and children were to be held in the church, which was the only building ordered to be spared!
6. The SS troops-a majority of whom were French citizens due to their Alsatian birth-began igniting the houses. There was no thought that the fire would get out of control. The church was specifically not to be set afire; the women and children were there both for their safety and so as not to interfere with the operations. No one had any idea that hidden partisan ammunition caches would quickly take the fire out of control, yet this was what happened.
7. The soldiers had to protect themselves from the hail of zig-zagging bullets that came out of the burning buildings. There were also numerous explosions caused by grenades or high explosives that had also been secreted. All surviving soldiers are clear on one point; the church attic or belfry burst into flames from possibly a stray mortar round (not of German manufacture!). This in turn touched off a munitions cache hidden in the top of the church which spelled the end of the 500 women and children inside of the building. All of the defendants at the post-war “Oradour” trial testified to this point independently. Nothing could be done to provide assistance, the inferno killed everyone in a matter of a few minutes at best.
8. Had the church been intended for use as a place of execution it is inconceivable that the men of the village would not have been placed in there as well. But such was not the case! The atrocity writers have never been able to explain this oversight on the part of the superefficient Germans.
9. All personnel involved in this incident were filled with horror and disbelief. Accounts of the SS departing from Oradour singing and playing accordions are ludicrous. Stubaf. Diekmann, somewhat in a state of shock reported all of the details to the “Der Führer” commander, who was also horrified by the loss of the women and children. He referred the matter on to the Divisional commander who chose to postpone any investigation until after “Das Reich's” critical combat mission in Normandy was fulfilled. Stubaf. Diekmann accepted full personal responsibility for the tragedy and vowed to die on the battlefield to restore the honor of the regiment. To this end he refused any further to wear a steel helmet in combat and he died a short time later from a shell splinter in the head.
10. In December 1953 the Vice-chairman of the French communist party openly admitted that Oradour-sur-Glane was used as a regional headquarters and armory for a communist partisan band during the war.
11. While Oradour’s fate was a tragic incident of war, the blame for what happened must be shared by all sides-it was by no means an exclusive German “war crime,” there is enough evidence to demonstrate that by now!

As for Mr. Beck’s specific points in his letter to the Winter 1981 Journal.

1. Mr. Beck found evidence of the use of bullets and grenades inside of the church, which is interesting because bullets and grenades composed the better part of the stored partisan armaments!
2. As for Madame Rouffanche, she most certainly would have been shot if she had tried to make a run for it so there is no contesting this point!
3. As for shooting the men in barns and other buildings this is possible, but the surviving soldiers do not remember doing this. Incidentally, the village of Oradour was back in partisan hands for the two days following the incidents and a number of “embellishments” were thought to have been made during this period. The most interesting being that some of the bodies were relocated to the oven of the town bakery. An effort was made to indict the SS men for having stuffed some people alive in the ovens- but this was later proved to have happened after the fact and after the SS were out of the area! It is therefore within the realms of possibility that the partisans may have relocated some of the bodies of the executed men.
4. For the record, Stubaf. Diekmann’s two platoons at Oradour did not have any explosives, flame-throwers or heavy weapons with them, although post-war atrocity writers have since bestowed these items upon them. That the damage to the town came from more than just “fire” seems self-evident from the photographs and indeed from Mr. Beck’s personal testimony, The probability that much of the extensive damage was caused by stored partisan munitions is quite likely given all of the evidence and testimony.
5. I cannot even imagine how Mr. Beck could write an entire book on Oradour and not even seem to know how to spell the name of the gentleman who took upon himself the full blame for the incident, Stubaf. Adolf Diekmann. To call him mentally unbalanced is somewhat of a slander.

Diekmann’s decision to sacrifice himself was an act of personal honor and not madness!

I happen to personally believe that the German side of the “Oradour” story is, by and large, the correct one. The SS men may have been many things, but they were not liars or criminals. and they had a “code of honor” to live up to. In contrast the partisans in France and elsewhere, were often recruited from the criminal underworld or the indigenous communist movement and carried out a campaign of unscrupulous terrorism that defies any moral standards whatsoever!

What is probably most irritating about Mr. Beck’s book and the massive “Nazi-atrocity” publishing industry, is that they are able to promote one side of a story as “holy writ” while totally ignoring the other side of the picture. Of course this is perhaps the reason for the existence of the Journal of Historical Review.

Thank you for letting me make the above points. At least it will give some people a different perspective on the situation.

COMMENTS ON THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

I thank you very much for the winter issue of The Journal of Historical Review. As usual, I found the book captivating to the point of being able to complete the entire work in a matter of hours.

The two articles by Dr. Faurisson on the “Gas chambers” rated right up there with Dr. Buchner’s thesis on “The Problem of Cremator Hours” (The JHR, Fall 1981). I am amazed beyond description at Mr. Faurisson’s forensic abilities in destroying with seeming ease the entire holocaust edifice of the past 36 years. I sincerely hope the good doctor will win his appeal against the French courts who seem to be caught in the same time warp as their German counterparts!

I am absolutely sickened at the turn of events in your case with Mr. Mermelstein and Cox. What a lame “defense” to fall back on! Judicial notice of what? Survivor testimony? The question should be raised “gassed with what substance?” “Gassed in what facilities?”

I am confident, however, of Mark Weber’s abilities in preparing a devastating thesis for the IHR in this case. However concerned as I am about the future of IHR and intellectual freedom I must ask if you have considered presenting before the “court” (kangaroo) the four revealing documents concerning the use of Zyklon B as cited by Dr. Faurisson in his thesis “The Gas Chambers; Truth or Lie?” They are Nuremberg Documents;

1. NI-9098- Degesch’s field of operations; eight lectures on aspects of.
2. NI-9912- Directives for the use of prussic acid (Zyklon) For the Destruction of Vermin!

Two technical studies by Gerhard Peters: (contained in the Library of Congress.)

1. “Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung"(QD1, S2, N.F. HFT. 20 1933) 75pp
2. “Die Hochwirksamen Gase und Dämpfe in der Schädlingsbekämpfung” (QD1, S2, N.F., HFT. 47A, 1942) 143pp

These works in themselves should be sufficient to destroy Mr. Cox and Mermelstein’s vile attempts at stifling genuine inquiry into an area of “managed history.” As I see it Mr. Mermelstein is attempting to continue (1) The falsification of history, (2) Attempting to circumvent the Constitutions’s Bill of Rights under the provision of a person’s right to dissent, (3) Defamation of character in accusing the Germans of murder while offering no evidence as to the alleged murder weapon i.e. ("gas chambers"). It would be proper in this circumstance for the Steuben Society to prepare legal action against Mr. Mermelstein for defamation of character.

Please keep me informed of progress regarding legal action and of Mr. Faurisson’s success with the French inquisitors. Please find enclosed two years subscription remittal.

MONUMENT-BUILDING FOR FUN and PROFIT

Just a few remarks about “Remembering the 'Holocaust'” on page 5 of newsletter of Sept. How about:

1. An Armenian Memorial Park of 1915 to commemorate the butchery of more than two million Armenians by the Turks.
2. A Famine Memorial Park to commemorate the mass starvation deaths of millions of Irish by their British masters in the 1850s.
3. A Russian Patriot Memorial Park to commemorate the 70 million plus Russian Christians who have been slaughtered by the Mongols who styled themselves “Russian” bolsheviks, since 1917.
4. A Wounded Knee Memorial Park for all the Sioux.
5. A Mee Lai Memorial Park.
6. A Japanese-American Internment Memorial Park.

Surely Americans of Armenian, Irish, Russian, Sioux, Vietnamese and Japanese ancestry have a right to have their history memorialized by a 27 acre section of some Denver park by the city since there are certainly Americans of such descent living in and paying taxes to the Denver government.

The reason that these “survivors” in the U.S. always get their largesse is simply because they scream and shout so much and all the rest of us simply stay silent and apathetic.

ZIONISM’s VESTED INTEREST

Enclosed are two letters to the editor of the Los Angeles Times which are almost identical. Also, the local talkshow hostess was delighted to tell the audience about Johnson’s ruling. She reluctantly let me make a few points before she cut me off.

The article “Holocaust Given Legal Recognition” (Los Angeles Times 10 Oct) raises several important questions:

Is it now illegal — punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both — to doubt the reality of the “Holocaust"?

Given the fact that there has been considerable evolution, mutation, and contradiciton in the “Holocaust” story, what is the “legal” version?

In recent years we've witnessed the judiciary extending their purview beyond mere interpretation of law. It has played a major role in determining public- especially social-policy. Is the precedent now set for judicial involvement in all questions of history? Are we moving toward total thought control?

I should like to recall for the benefit of the academic and legal folks that judge Johnson based his decision on: “Any number of sources. Many books. Sources of reasonably undisputed accuracy.” When requested to name these or produce them he impatiently refused to do so. Traditionally, judges rule on the admissibility of evidence; judge Johnson seems to have developed a disdain for it.

I'm sure you've thought about this, but what would happen if Johnson ruled the other way? Could we trashcan the Nuremberg Trials? Would the billions in German “reparations” have to be paid back? Would the wrongfully accused and convicted immigrant American citizens be exonerated, repatriated and recompensed? How about all the perjury convictions (for Rabbis, too)? Rascals and thugs like Wiesenthal, Mermelstein, etc., etc., would be exposed for what they are. I believe if the judge had even refused to rule (if he couldn’t give a fair ruling-it would take real character), it would have been the end of Zionism. I sure hope there will be an appeal.

Paul G. Smith

MAKING IT ALL SIMPLER

I read your Fall, 1981 issue of The Journal of Historical Review.

The article on “Cremator Hours and Incineration Time” was quite fascinating, as was the one by Stäglich on West German Justice.

However, and I submit this in all kindness, is it not probable that such arguments could be presented with less words?

I suggest that many readers would simply give up because of many statements, all arriving at the same conclusion, repeated over and over.

Other patriots have pointed out the inability of our younger generation to read because of the deliberately created chaos called “our educational system.” I think they are right. It also follows that writing for purposes of informing the public should be directed at the intelligent American who has less ability to understand words than his grandfather had instead of being directed to the IQ genius in the top 1/10th of 1 % of the population.

I realize you feel your arguments should be presented in a “scholarly” fashion. However, “scholarly” arguments reach a microscopic proportion of the population today.

Pastor Sheldon Emry

MORAL SUPPORT

I have read your publications on the Holocaust debate and agree to the fullest extent with the experts' findings of facts on this subject.

It pains me as a German-American to see the effect today of this monumental falsification of history on relations between the U.S. and Germany and also in our own relations as naturalized citizens with the Jewish portion of the U.S. population. I believe that never in the history of all mankind has such an infamous and calculated monstrosity of whole-sale falsification of history been perpetrated on such a scale. It is equally sad for me to see that there seems no end to this.

I should like to compliment the authors of your articles for their efforts and at the same time commend them all for their courage in the face of an overwhelmingly hostile press, public and academic community. It takes true courage to stand up and be counted in the light of such odds.

Hermann A. Gerke

WE'RE BLUSHING

Since “The Donation of Constantine” has a force ever been so badly outnumbered, or faced so ruthless a foe, or fought for such lofty goals? Much more is at stake here than mere academic truth. The consequences of stifling the truth are nothing less than the world’s economy in tatters, nuclear disaster hovering on all sides, and the rudderless West turning in circles.

Yours is surely the bravest, loneliest, most perilous fight imaginable in these times … and the most important. Have no illusions: the wider you pry open the shutters, the greater your personal peril. The loss of your livelihoods and even of your lives may serve as tragic proof that the Institute is beginning to make a difference. I salute you for braving death itself so that the truth may live.

My enclosed book order is a poor token of my heartfelt respect and encouragement for your work. As circumstances permit, I will follow this with more tangible help and support. In the meanwhile, please accept token orders and mere words for the debt of thanks that the West owes you.

Dr. R. H. Fischer

National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
NBC Morning Show Editor
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020 16

December 1981

Yesterday morning a Phil Donahue segment was broadcast with his guests Mel Mermelstein and William Cox.

We take serious issue with what both Messrs. Mermelstein and Cox asserted as true.

Erroneous statements were made that we're sure gave the majority of your viewers a drastically distorted and even false picture of the work of our institute, any affiliations it may or may not have, and the nature of the controversy surrounding the lawsuit (Mermelstein vs. IHR et al) and the Holocaust in general.

We would like an opportunity to respond to the claims made by these two gentlemen.

Mr. Donahue had a copy of Dr. A.R. Butz' book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century which he presented and on which he based some of his questions to his guests. The Institute for Historical Review is the publisher of that book in the U.S.A. and we insist that your viewers were given a false impression as to the nature, purpose and scope of the book by the answers to Mr. Donahue’s questions.

Therefore, Dr. Butz and I would like the opportunity to present our positions with respect to the statements made by Messrs. Mermelstein. and Cox on an equal-time basis, on the same program with Mr. Donahue.

I trust you will consider this request in pursuit of a balanced presentation of all significant views on an issue at controversy.

J. Marcellus,
Director
Institute for Historical Review

Errata

Due to an unexpected hospitalization a number of errors, mainly in the indexing of references, appeared in “The Problem of Cremator Hours and Incineration Time” (The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 2, #3, Fall 1981). I wish to apologize to the reader and submit herewith a fist of corrections. Text and calculations remain unaffected by these corrections. (Online version has been corrected.)

Corrections

p219, ref. 3 (page 103) should read (page 23); p229, ref. 13 (page 60) should read (page 152); p230, ref. (D. Felderer 11, W. Stäglich 16) should read (D. Felderer 16, W. Stäglich 11); p237, ref. 11 ( … incineration times today.) add (page 75); p238, ref. 19 (page 181) should read (page 214); p240, ref. 19 (page 177) should read (page 210); p241, ref. 19 (page 177) should read (page 210); p242, ref. 22 (page 27) should read (page 236); p248, 20) Emil Aretz … 1979 should read 1970; p228, The quote taken from Reitlinger 8 “The camp was open for business on 14 January 1940” (page 110) should read “… on 14 June 1940” (page 110).

Belated but grateful acknowledgement is hereby extended to League Review, 9/11 Kensington High St., London W8 5NP, for the following articles:

“Fire in the Reichstag,” by Peter Wainwright (The JHR, Summer 1981). “The Enigma of Lawrence,” by Desmond Hansen (The JHR, Fall 1981).