Letters to the Editor
About R. Countess, "Why the USA Wages War in the Gulf Region," TR 1(1) (2003), pp. 109-111.
To the Editor:
Dr. Countess is to be congratulated for writing a fine review of this book, and for bringing to your readership’s attention the role played by ‘Oil Concerns’ in bringing the US into the Gulf War of 1991. And of course, The Revisionist is to be commended for their willingness to explore all sides of this issue.
However, we must always remain aware of the demonstrable role that Jewish-Zionist interests played in driving America into this war. It is common knowledge that the ardently pro-Israeli, Jewish Congressman Stephen Solarz helped form a pro-war pressure group, the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. That Jewish-Zionist interests—and not ‘Oil interests’—were the driving force behind his pro-war behavior, was revealed by a comment that he made on January 17, 1991, at Georgetown University, one day after US air strikes against Iraqi targets began:
"Enough Jews have been gassed in our century. For that reason alone our [military] strike last night was justified."
At the 85th Annual Dinner of the American Jewish Committee, he again admitted that the "overwhelming thought of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust" was the ideological driving force behind his pro-war activism. Clearly, he cared little for ‘Oil interests.’
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—an organization whose primary purpose is to work for Zionist and Israeli interests—is one of the most powerful of all political lobbying organizations in the United States. In a rare but quite candid Wall Street Journal article (p. A-12, 1/28/91), it was pointed out that AIPAC’s efforts were crucial in gaining Congressional approval for President George H. W. Bush’s war plans. But even more importantly, the article revealed this immensely powerful Zionist organization worked ‘behind-the-scenes’ and consciously disguised its efforts to garner Congressional approval for the war. Once again, one cannot say that ‘Oil interests’ were their main concern.
Sometime after the end of the Persian Gulf war of 1991, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, admitted his country’s reason for joining the war effort was to protect the state of Israel:
"The ultimate ambition of Saddam Hussein was to launch an attack on Israel, which is why Canada took a stand to avoid this eventuality."
See The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 1993, p. 57. Here, this official was admitting that Israeli-Zionist interests were of paramount importance.
For the interested reader, I refer them to my article (with appropriate documentation) "The Zionist Campaign for War with Iraq in Revisionist Perspective," online available at http://vho.org/GB/c/PG/230103.html. In a future issue of The Revisionist, I will provide enough evidence that will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jewish-Zionist interests were one of the main driving forces behind the US entry into both wars with Iraq.
The Revisionist is an outstanding publication!
Paul Grubach, USA
About R. Faurisson, G. Rudolf, C. Mattogno, "Auschwitz: The Dwindling Death Toll," TR 1(1) (2003), p. 18-37.
On page 634 of his article (Osteuropa, 5/2002) Meyer has given 1942 as the year of his "key document," the Prüfer letter of September 8 (and so does van Pelt, The Case, p. 350), but at the same time Meyer says that this letter was written "nine weeks before Bischoff’s letter" (the one about the 4,756 corpses), but Bischoff’s letter is dated June 28, 1943 (van Pelt, op. cit., p. 343, illustration).
On the other hand, I copied Meyer’s article from the internet from Irving’s website, and there Meyer’s article reads "8. September 1943."
What is the correct year? Apparently nobody has seen this letter of the Topf company, Meyer quoted van Pelt, but why did Irving change it to 1943? Was it an error during the OCR process?
Both Meyer and Irving are wrong: Meyer quoted the correct date, but his calculations and interpretations are wrong, and Irving edited an error into the text so that Meyer’s statements make sense. In his contribution, C. Mattogno has emphasized Meyer’s mistake, which results in the collapse of Meyer’s way of arguing.
Send the Holocaust into the Desert
Summarized, this is the astonishing thesis of Fritjof Meyer: The holy of holies has now moved from Leichenkeller I to the Bauernhäuser just outside Birkenau. This is great news! If only someone would write a well-documented article (or still better, a book) that the gas chambers were actually situated in a suburb of Berlin or Switzerland, or maybe on the Channel Islands. If that is too much to ask, at least Meyer’s is a move in the right direction, for obvious reasons. Gloom and doom go away!
In the future I suspect that the focus of ‘exterminationism’ will move to territories of the former USSR, concentrating almost exclusively on the shootings there. Questions related to numbers, security motives and participation by local militia will become core revisionist issues.
As the ‘Holocaust’ moves eastward, from its vivid beginnings in Dachau and Belsen to Buchenwald, to Auschwitz, to Treblinka, to Russia, one thing is certain: When it reaches Outer-Mongolia we can rest.
Dr. Costas Zaverdinos, South Africa
About H. Pedersen, "The Hole in the Door", TR 1(1) (2003) pp. 52-56.
Dear Mr. Rudolf!
Attached please find the pages 352f. of the book Erinnerungen, Gedanken und Meinungen (memories, thoughts, and opinions) by Dr. Bernard Naunyn, which appeared in 1925 in Munich. The memories of Dr. Naunyns, a physician, are very interesting, but in this context not so much from a medical perspective, but because it gives a good insight into the situation during the second half of the 19th century in Eastern Europe. To the "hysterical sufferings" mentioned in this excerpt fits a story told by Tjudar Rudolph, who grew up in Lodz, Poland. At one point, he said, some Polish boys had put several black pigeons into a synagogue. As a result of this, the local Jews went nuts, believing that these black pigeons were evil ghosts. They carried all the equipment out of the synagogue in order to thoroughly clean it. It seems to be the oriental mentality which tends to exaggerate. This may be the background of those concentration camp stories which are even believed by those who tell them. And this is also a way to explain the Jewish nonsense argument going like this: "It was impossible, because it happened."
Let me now quote the interesting passage from said book:
"A type of disease which triggered my curiosity were severe hysterical sufferings and the conditions bordering at hysteria found with children, which I called childish imagination neurosis. I reported about one such case earlier. The Jewish population in Russia offered an incredibly rich material for both symptoms. I did not get myself as deeply involved as a thorough clinical study would have required, […] but the confrontation with these sick individuals gave me ample opportunity to treat these people with great success with the help of a psycho-therapy of my understanding, that is, the treatment of the affected person by turning off the sickening imaginations. […] Generally, the most important thing [during the treatment] is to keep detrimental influences away from the patient, so that he can come to rest, to rest from their alleged sickness, to rest in their ‘hunt for health’!"
With best regards
Source: The Revisionist 1(2) (2003), pp. 239f.
Back to the Table of Contents