From the Editor (Volume 12, Number 4)
by Mark Weber
In 1988, when Fred Leuchter carried out the first forensic examination of the alleged wartime extermination gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and then testified on his findings in a Toronto court, the American execution hardware specialist did not realize that by doing so he was condemning himself to years of insults, threats and severe financial hardship.
For the crime of daring to question the Holocaust idol, the powerful international Holocaust lobby resolved to punish this dangerous heretic. Charging that he is a pretentious and incompetent fraud, and that his 1988 forensic report is a mendacious affront to truth, his hateful adversaries have sought to discredit Leuchter and destroy his livelihood.
Sadly, this malicious campaign has been effective. For the time being, anyway, they have destroyed Fred Leuchter's ability to make a living at his chosen career.
In this Leuchter "theme" issue of the Journal, we respond to this campaign with a detailed defense of Leuchter's character, and of his history-making forensic report.
We begin this special issue with the publication -- for the first time in English -- of a report by a leading Austrian engineer that authoritatively discredits a central pillar of the Holocaust extermination story. Citing critical technical and organizational data, and the inviolable laws of nature, Vienna engineer Walter Lüftl persuasively establishes that the familiar stories of mass killings of Jews in gas chambers cannot have taken place as described. The 'Lüftl Report' also provides expert confirmation of the essential validity of Leuchter's findings.
Next, in an essay entitled Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth we provide a summary overview of the entire case, including the little-known but impressive record of Leuchter's expertise.
Then, in an essay presented at the recent Eleventh IHR Conference, Leuchter himself reports on developments during the last two years in the still-continuing campaign against him.
Since it was first published in 1988, many tens of thousands of copies of the Leuchter Reporthave been distributed in numerous countries and all major languages. Predictably, several efforts to refute the Report's specific points and arguments have also been published. Probably the most serious has been the critique of French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac, which appeared in Truth Prevails, a book published in 1990 jointly by the Paris-based Klarsfeld Foundation and the US-based "Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice."
In our next article, Paul Grubach carefully marshals fact after well-established fact in a devastating point-by-point refutation of Pressac's critique of Leuchter and his findings.
Next we present, for the first time in English, an official statement on "The So-Called Leuchter Report" issued by Germany's prestigious Institute of Contemporary History, the Munich archive and research center that is a main bastion of the official German version of twentieth-century history. In an introductory commentary, we report on the impact of the Leuchter Report in Germany, where the Holocaust story plays a particularly important role in cultural and political life. Following the text, we point out specific errors of fact and lapses in logic in the Munich Institute's statement.
Next, we take a close and critical look at Truth Prevails, the book-length attack against Leuchter mentioned above. Then, concluding this issue's review section, Russ Granata and IHR editor Ted O'Keefe examine Umerziehung ("Reeducation") the latest work of IHR editorial advisor Dr. Georg Franz-Willing.
We round out this issue with readers' letters, including several critical responses to recent Journal contributions.
This Winter 1992-93 issue of The Journal of Historical Review is the final one to appear in the familiar book-size "academic" quarterly format. Beginning with the January-February 1993 issue, the Journal will appear six times yearly (every other month) in a larger, magazine-size format (8 1/2 by 11 inches). Incorporating the IHR Newsletter - which has provided up-to-date reports and commentary on the latest in the world of Revisionism - the new Journal will be more topical, and will make more generous use of photographs.
This issue concludes the twelfth annual volume of the quarterly Journal. Since it began publication in 1980 (with a one-year suspension of publication in 1987), no less than 5,800 pages have been published. In this familiar format, we have been proud to provide a forum for the writings of the world's leading Revisionist historians and researchers, including first-ever publication of many articles of major historical importance.
In the new Journal, we will, of course, continue to feature scholarly historical articles and reviews. Even as our scholars and researchers carryon the essential work of shoveling under historical corpses, including the Holocaust story, we will seek to embrace more fully traditional Revisionist historical themes, as well as contemporary political and intellectual currents important for Revisionism.
We hope and trust that our many faithful readers and supporters will share our excitement about the prospect of even more effectively educating, inspiring and motivating more new readers, both here in the United States and abroad With some sadness at the passing of the familiar quarterly, and fully aware of the great challenges still ahead, we make this transition with a real sense of confidence about the ultimate victory of historical revisionism.
From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992 (Vol. 12, No. 4), pages 388-390.