John P Fox:
the postings for 26 March Neil
wrote about the London-based The Journal of Holocaust
Education being "a relatively young journal which
some colleagues may not yet have come into contact with".
This calls for some comment.
is the result of a "re-launch" under that title in
late 1995 of what, from 1992/93 to 1995, had been known
as The British Journal of Holocaust Education,
likewise published by Frank Cass, London, on behalf
of two Jewish organisations in London. I was the sole
founding editor, sole review editor, sole copy editor,
and sole correspondence secretary of the BJHE, using only
my own facilities in my home for the production of the
journal before it went to the publishing house.
as such came to an end as of March 1995 when I resigned
my unpaid position(s) as editor etc. I did so because in
February 1995 a nasty little plot had been hatched behind
my back by a group of Jews to ensure that Jewish hands
"guided" so-called "Holocaust education" in the UK --
helped by such a journal as the BJHE -- and not the
non-Jewish hands of mine.
specially convened meeting new proposals for the
editorial management of the journal were discussed, some
of which I agreed with. On the other hand, and as "the
penny dropped", it became clear that what was really
intended was that one person in particular should have a
"special relationship" with the publisher which, together
with other developments, would have meant placing a zero
above any editorial control I might then have been able
to exercise -- in effect reducing my position to that of
general office dogsbody.
more serious concerns about what happened to me in
February 1995 which relate even now to such matters as
Robert Wistrich's strident and neo-Orwellian
review of Albert Lindemann's book, " Esau's Tears"
in the March edition of Commentary, and of reports
one reads of Daniel Goldhagen's threats
to all and sundry not to criticise him or his book,
Hitler's Willing Executioners, if they wish to avoid
legal action being taken against them.
concerns relate to the issue of free speech and whether
the subject of "the Holocaust", and indeed that of modern
Jewish history, should apparently only be a domain
monopolised by Jews and in which non-Jews "may" only be
"welcomed" if they pursue lines of thought which are
"acceptable" to certain Jews.
letter I circulated in March 1995 to twenty-four people
whom I had previously thought of as colleagues and
friends -- but never more -- I put it plainly that the
reason for the underhand moves against me over the BJHE
was because on 3 and 10 February 1995 I published letters
in The Times, The Guardian, and the Jewish
Chronicle which defended, on the basis of archival
documents as against recent hysterical emotional
outbursts in the press, Britain's wartime position on the
issue of Nazi Germany and the Jews.
are significant. First, one of those who acted behind my
back in February 1995 and whose "new" position with the
journal was to be specially "special", had previously
been continuously vociferous in the press about how
"wicked" Britain had been over its alleged negative
policies towards the Jews of Europe during the Second
World War. Second, not one single correspondent of those
twenty-four recipients of my letter argued against my
time I had been editor of the BJHE, I made it clear that
I would not permit anything to be published which did not
meet the highest standards which I felt were basic for
such a journal. Previously, that policy of mine had
greatly upset one of the friends of the nasty little
cabal which acted against me in February 1995, my
rejection of his article resulting one summer in an
attempt by the others to "gang bang" me into "submission"
-- but I resisted and rejected such untoward pressures.
Significantly, the first issue of the "new" JHE
emphasised how thereafter, that journal was to be less
scholarly oriented than I had made the BJHE.
we are on the subject of how certain people wish to
control, absolutely, what is published, how and when, on
any aspect of the Nazi Third Reich and the Jews, let me
relate this other appalling incident.
At the end
of 1991 at a meeting
of the United Kingdom Yad Vashem Educational and Academic
Sub-Committee (held in the premises of the
of Deputies of British Jews),
and where as usual I was the only non-Jew present,
concern was expressed at reports that Macmillan
were due to publish David Irving's
of Joseph Goebbels. The chairman, a survivor of
Nazi policies in Poland -- again, someone I had always
thought of as a friend but after February 1995 never
again -- asked me to "intervene" with Macmillan to get
them to cancel their reported publication of the book.
point-blank. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, David
Irving had and has the rights common to all other
citizens to publish what he wants. If people don't like
what he writes, that's one thing. But it is another
altogether to try to stop the publication of anything by
him or anyone else, simply because certain people "think"
they won't like the publication.
this is what makes the final paragraph of Robert
Wistrich's indubitably nasty review of the Lindemann book
- a publication which I find eminently sensible
throughout - so sinister because it is by no means an
John P Fox.
in Jewish History, and Holocaust and Genocide Studies.
Jews' College London, and University College