36 IHR/JHR Editorial Advisory Staff & Writers (Holocaust: IHR)
Description
This article is from the Holocaust FAQ, by Ken McVay kmcvay@nizkor.org with numerous contributions by others.
36 IHR/JHR Editorial Advisory Staff & Writers (Holocaust: IHR)
3.51 Andrew Arnold
No information available as of this date. "Andrew Arnold" was the
author of a recent (April 1993) Spotlight article attacking the Museum
of the Holocaust, in Washington, D.C. No biographical information was
provided with the article. (get pub/orgs/american/ihr/spotlight.0493
to see the entire article, as posted to UseNet by Dan Gannon.)
3.52 Dr. Robert Faurisson
Faurisson, a former French academic, contends that the Holocaust was
a hoax which benefits Israel in the form of reparation payments,
(Barrett, 162) a view commonly aired by those espousing Holocaust
denial. Seidel provides excellent background material:
In November 1978 Robert Faurisson wrote a letter on the
'problem' of the gas chambers. Its timing was important. Its
publication in Le Monde followed close on the heels of a
scandalous interview with Darquier de Pellepoix in the weekly
magazine, L'Express. Darquier was the Vichy Commissioner
General for Jewish Affairs. Darquier has been described as
the 'French Eichmann'--though even Eichmann, the architect of
the 'Final Solution', did not seek to deny its reality. ...
The Holocaust denial in France has become synonymous with the
Faurisson affair. What is more, it has become embroiled with
Noam Chomsky, the distinguished American linguist and staunch
opponent of the Vietnam war. (get pub/orgs/american/ihr/seidel.001
for Seidel's discussion of Chomsky's role - it is beyond the scope
of this FAQ. knm)
Faurisson's book is entitled Memoire en Defense--contre ceux qui
m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire. La question des chambres a
gaz (Testimony in Defence: Against those who Accuse me of
Falsifying History. The Question of the Gas Chambers). It is
Faurisson's answer to the accusation of falsifying history.
Testimony in Defence was published in Paris by Pierre Guillaume
for the left anarchist publishing house, La Vieille Taupe (The
Old Mole), in 1980. ...
Faurisson's denial of the Holocaust first appeared in the
satirical Canard Enchaine ["Le Canard Enchaine".knm] on 17 July
1974. It subsequently gained public attention in December 1978
when the influential Paris daily, Le Monde, published a letter from
Faurisson headed 'The problem of the "gas chambers" or "The rumour
of Auschwitz"'. He wrote with calculated cynicism: 'The
non-existence of the "gas chambers" is good news for poor humanity.
Good news like this should not be suppressed any longer.'
Robert Faurisson is not a historian. He belongs to a long line
of antisemitic academics and literary critics. Until recently,
he was a lecturer in twentieth-century French literature at the
University of Lyons II. He specialises in revealing 'the real
meaning' of texts. In Faurisson's view, texts have one
particular meaning, or none at all, an approach to stylistics he
calls 'the Ajax method'--because 'it scours as it cleans as it
shines'. (Seidel, 98-111. Seidel provides extensive information
regarding Faurisson's background, writing, and trial. Get
pub/orgs/american/ihr/seidel.001 to review his material.)
Faurisson has also pronounced the Diary of Anne Frank and the
Gerstein Report to be "fabrications and falsifications," and asserts
that the Holocaust "lie" is essentially "Zionist" in origin, and that
it has led to a "huge financial swindle of which the state of Israel
is the principal beneficiary." It was the widespread publication of
this sort of material that led the Dean of Lyons University to
suspend Faurisson's lectures.
Faurisson was one of the four members of the IHR advisory board who
testified at the trial of Ernst Zundel in Canada.
3.53 Ditlieb Felderer
Felderer, testifying at the trial of Ernst Zundel (Canada), explained
his conviction on a charge of "threatening or expressing contempt for
a group" for publishing a "Jewish Information" tract entitled "Please
accept this hair of gas victim," which he described as satire, by
stating that he was being "persecuted by Zionists." (Bilodeau)
According to the Toronto Star, "Felderer called his native Sweden a
'totalitarian state' and compared his trial to a 'Soviet show trial,'
and "...said Nazi concentration camps were more humane than modern
prisons." (Bilodeau)
3.54 William Lindsay
Lindsay was one of the four members of the IHR advisory board who
testified at the trial of Ernst Zundel in Canada. (Barrett, 162) Any
additional documented information which we can utilize to augment
this section will be appreciated.
3.55 Theodore O'Keefe
In an article published to coincide with the official opening of the
Washington, D.C. Holocaust Museum, one editor is briefly
described as follows:
"Theodore J. O'Keefe is an editor with the Institute for
Historical Review. Educated at Harvard University, he has studied
history and literature on three continents, and has published
numerous articles on historical and political subjects."
According to the 1990 Harvard Alumni Directory, Mr. O'Keefe failed
to graduate, so the reader will have to make his own decision about
whether or not he obtained his education there. Additional material would
be appreciated.
The above "bio" of Mr. O'Keefe would seem to be simply one
more example of how the IHR can be relied upon to mislead its
readers. (We have written to the IHR [April, 1993] and asked for more
informative information regarding Mr. O'Keefe's educational background
and areas of expertise, but no additional information has been provided.)
As of mid-1995, Mr. O'Keefe may have left the IHR.
3.56 Greg Raven
Mr. Raven, now the President and CEO of the Legion for the
Survival of Freedom, and therefor the IHR itself, offers insight into
his personal political beliefs in this message which he posted during
a GEnie debate into Holocaust denial:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Category 15, Topic 4
Message 33 Fri Mar 13, 1992
G.RAVEN at 03:02 EST
My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am
not interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying
breath. I will say, however, that he was a great man ...
certainly greater than Churchill and FDR put together, and
possibly the greatest leader of our century, if not longer.
This is not to say that he was perfect, but he about the
best thing that could have happened to Germany.
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Other examples of Mr. Raven's historical beliefs may be found
within the IHR archives here - his writing may be found in the
directory pub/people/r/raven.greg at ftp.nizkor.org.)
3.57 Henri Roques
Roques...wrote a thesis titled 'Confessions of Kurt Gerstein: A
Comparative Study of Different Versions - A Critique.'..[he] claims
in his thesis to have 'scientifically' disproved that the gas
chambers at Auschwitz were used for mass murder. After submitting his
'revisionist' thesis to the University of Paris, where it was
rejected, he received his doctorate with distinction from the faculty
of letters of the University of Nantes.
A government investigation into the granting of his degree revealed a
number of irregularities:
First, Roques transferred from the University of Paris
to Nantes...three months after the deadline for
student enrollment had passed and without
authorization from the University rector. Second, he
did not have the necessary qualifications or title for
presenting a thesis in literature or history. Third,
the mandatory oral examination did not take place.
Fourth, he wrote the thesis in two months rather than
the two years required minimum registration period.
Finally, the signature of one of the examiners said to
have been present at the presentation of the thesis
was forged.
In 1986, the French Minister of Higher Education... invalidated
Roque's thesis citing the above irregularities....
...
Since 1986, Roques has established close ties to the IHR. He was a
guest speaker at their Eighth Annual Conference in 1987, and joined
their Editorial Advisory Committee in 1990. IHR now offers Roque's
discredited thesis for sale on its mail-order booklists." (Caplan,
43-44)
3.60 Udo Walendy
Udo Walendy was described in the Simon Wiesenthal Center infiltration
report as follows:
Udo Walendy is a notorious Holocaust denier who, for years,
has served on the advisory board of the Journal of Historical
Review, the official publication of the Institute for Historical
Review of Costa Mesa, California. (see entries for Mark Weber and
Willis Carto) ...Walendy expressed interest in ... offering his
assistance in the creation of a Nazi center in Germany.
3.65 Mark Weber
In response to my query, the IHR provided the following background
information concerning Mr. Weber:
Mark Weber was born in October 1951 in Portland, Oregon, where he was
also raised. He graduated from Jesuit High School there in 1969.
He studied at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of
Munich (Germany), and Portland State University, from where he
received a Batchelor's degree in history (with high honors). He then
did graduate work in history at Indiana University (Bloomington),
where he served as a history instructor and received a Master of Arts
degree in European history in 1977.
He has travelled widely in Europe and northwestern Africa. He lived
and worked for two and a half years in Germany (Bonn and Munich), and
for a time in Ghana (West Africa), where he taught English, history
and geography at an all-Black secondary school.
During the five years he lived in Washington, D.C. (1978-1983) he
carried out extensive research on the Holocaust issue at the National
Archives and the Library of Congress. Weber is the author of numerous
articles, reviews and essays dealing with the Holocaust story, and
his writings on other historical, political and social issues have
appeared in a variety of periodicals.
In March 1988 Weber testified for five days in Toronto District Court
as a recognized expert witness on the "Final Solution" and the
Holocaust issue.
He moved to Southern California at the beginning of 1991 to work for
the Institute for Historical Review. He is now editor of the 'Journal
of Historical Review,' published six times years <sic> by the IHR.
Mark Weber serves as Carto's pipeline to the German paleo-nazis, as was
conclusively demonstrated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center's recent
penetration of the German right. Here's what the infiltration report has
to say about Mr. Weber's Nazi connections:
Mark Weber works for the Institute for Historical Review (Costa
Mesa, California), one of several antisemitic organizations
founded by Willis A. Carto. The I.H.R. devotes most of its time
to spreading the bizarre notion that the Holocaust is wildly
exaggerated and that the gas chambers of Hitler's death camps are
a myth. In 1978, Weber was identified as the news editor of the
National Vanguard, the publication of William Pierce's neo-Nazi
group, the National Alliance.
Weber's name came up in several conversations with German
neo-Nazis, including Wolfgang Kempkens and Roy Godenau. As part
of Ron Furey's cover, a "cold" phone line at the Simon Wiesenthal
Center was attached to an answering machine informing the caller
that he/she had reached The Right Way. That phone number was
known only to the Center's senior research staff, Ron Furey, and
the neo-Nazis to whom it was given.
At 2:55pm on Friday, February 12, 1993, a man identifying himself
as Mark Weber called the number, requested a copy of The Right
Way, and left his P.O.B. address for mailing. The Center's
graphics department sent him a colorful subscription application
for the non-existent periodical, instead. This was apparently
enough to satisfy Mr. Weber's curiosity because he soon acceded
to Ron's request for a meeting.
That meeting took place on February 27, 1993 at the Cafe
Westminster in Westminster, California. It was filmed by a CBS
camera crew stationed in a van outside. Mr. Furey spoke to Mark
Weber at length about the "state of the movement" in Germany. To
help establish his credibility, he showed Weber several photos
picturing him and several German neo-Nazis together. Weber
correctly identified them all.
Weber soon felt comfortable enough to discuss the miserliness of
his current employer and to ask about the possibility of finding
work with The Right Way. He was also recommended by Reinhard
Kopps (see entry) to Richard Eaton for a separate project.
Kineahora@cup.portal.com (Chana Braun) provided us with an
interesting glance into Mark Weber's intregity when she wrote
<59136@cup.portal.com> that "...I have excellent evidence that Mark Weber
colors the truth (to put it mildly) in regards to debates," and then
went on to detail a series of exchanges between a Holocaust denier
and others on another computer network.
Her article outlined the exchange dealing with Mark Weber's being
invited to join in the debate, and Mr. Weber's demand that she
(Chana Braun) not "bring in any outside help" in her debate with him.
(Mr. Weber, quite clearly, was not the least bit interested in an
open and comprehensive debate on a public computer network.)
(get pub/people/w/weber.mark/webers.feet for the full text of Chana's
article.)
As Chana explains:
There was absolutely no response to that reply
and nothing more was heard concerning the possibility of an open
discussion on that network until the February 1992 issue of the
IHR Newsletter. Here, then is the way that it was reported (and
keep in mind that Mark Weber is the editor of the Newsletter).
"In the January Newsletter I told about an IHR activist who had
received a challenge to publicly debate the Holocaust on [the
network] open forum bulletin board computer service - the largest
interactive computer network.
...After we promptly offered Mark Weber to represent that
Revisionist [sic] side, XXX suddenly flip-flopped. Deciding that
she is not a 'scholar' after all, but merely an 'amateur,' she
complained that it would be 'unfair' for her to have to face a
professional historian."
-----------
The plot in this story thickens. The one opposing the Holocaust
Deniers on that network wrote a letter to the editor of the
Newsletter (i.e. Mark Weber). Since the IHR is such a staunch
champion of Freedom of Speech, it seems strange that 3 months
later, that letter has still not received a reply much less been
printed in the IHR Newsletter.
Here, then, is the letter that the IHR Newsletter refuses to
print or even acknowledge:
February 27, 1992
Mark Weber, Editor
IHR Newsletter
Institute of Historical Review
1822 1/2 Newport Blvd.
Suite 191
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Dear Mr.Weber:
I read with interest the article in your IHR Newsletter #85
February 1992 concerning [the network] and me. This is truly a
work of revisionism (e.g. distorting the facts to fit into your
personal view of the world) and, since those connected with the
IHR claim that they are eager to be taken seriously, it is
surprising that I was not contacted for comment before you went
to press.
Let's get the facts straight. Your "IHR activist" was posting
messages denying the Holocaust. I responded. He claimed that
no one was willing to debate the Holocaust. This, of course, is
absurd. I told him that he could name his sources and begin.
He posted a message about The Leuchter Report. I rebutted his
erroneous statements. (By the way, I don't believe he has read
the report. You might want to check on that before you
encourage his "activism" too much.) He then suddenly claimed on
the public board that he didn't have time to debate and he was
trying to get someone online from the IHR. I responded by
telling him that everyone was welcome. That is when he
contacted you and you agreed to come online.
What your "IHR activist" presented to me were a set of
ridiculous conditions. They included that the debate take place
only between you and me and that it be advertized on [the
network]. I was told to contact the "Arts Club Leader" to urge
her to agree. First, [the Arts Club Leader] doesn't have the
authority to grant such requests. Even if she did, as I told
your "activist," there are no precedents to such a closed debate
on Prodigy and that involving the Arts Club Leader might even be
counter-productive. My reasoning was this: "In fact, involving
the Arts Club leader might be counter-productive in that it
calls attention to this single debate and, if it ever begins,
our messages might undergo closer scrutiny by the censors. I
don't think either of us wants that." In fact, since you are
such a champion for "open debate," I was very surprised that you
wished for this one to be closed to others.
One of the amusing requirements for your participation in the
debate was an agreement by me that I would have no outside help
(whatever that means). This amusement I expressed to your
"activist" in the following quote: "I am an amateur (i.e. I
don't get paid by anyone to research the Holocaust, I am not
employed by anyone or any organization that has an interest in
the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have
presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you
would agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against
him joining the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask
that I not ask for any outside help when you are bringing in a
professional."
If you notice, I claim amateur status because I don't get paid -
not because I am not a "scholar" or because it would be "unfair"
for me to have to debate a professional. Yet, you are
apparently so frightened of debating in a situation where you
cannot control all the factors that I heard nothing else from
you or your "activist." Please notice, I did not say I wouldn't
agree to your terms regarding outside help. I only said that I
found it "odd" that a professional would insist on such a term
before debating an amateur.
However, the greatest part of your article had to be the
sub-headline of "Another Anti-Revisionist Gets Cold Feet." I
assure you, Mr. Weber, that my feet are toasty warm. In fact,
I closed my message to your "activist" with the following: "I
guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have
an open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on
your own or one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in
which all other discussions are initiated on [the network] and I
don't see any need to make an exception for this one."
I am still waiting for an answer to that question. What
temperature are your feet, Mr. Weber?
Sincerely,
<signature>
Mr. Weber, to our knowledge, has still not either printed the above
letter in the "open" IHR Newsletter or responded privately to Ms.
Braun. Given that more than a year has passed, it would seem that Mr.
Weber's feet are rather chilly indeed.
In an article published in the Express, a San Francisco Bay Area
weekly newspaper, Paul Rauber included the following comments about
Mark Weber:
The question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to
turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust.
According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's _Journal of
Historical Review_, "If by the `Holocaust' you mean the political
persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel
thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the
`Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight
millions Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's
not evidence for." That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust
happened; they just deny that the word "Holocaust" means what
people customarily use it for. (Rauber, 'Sticks')
Weber's claim for the "independence" of the IHR is marked by the
same disingenuousness that characterizes that institutes
scholarship. In 1980 the business license for "The Noontide
Press/Institute for Historical Review" was filed by Elisabeth
Carto, wife of Liberty Lobby founder and treasurer Willis Carto.
Carto himself is listed on IHR's letterhead as "founder." IHR's
activities are regularly promoted in the Spotlight, as are the
racist and anti-Semitic books by Noontide Press, which are
advertised as part of the Lobby's "Liberty Library." (Rauber,
'Response')
According to the July, 1995, "IHR Update," Mr. Weber is now
the IHR Director. He is also listed in a July 1995 legal
document as the Secretary of the Legion for the Survival of
Freedom.
Continue to:
My Books
