Those interested in the subject are guided to the U.S. Public Health Reports circa 1931. One finds extensive discussion of Zyklon B as a ship fumigant in the United States and especially in the ports of San Francisco.

In regard specifically to the warning gas we find:

“Both of the warning gases which have been used with liquid cyanide produce a tear effect. The effect of the 20 per cent cyanogen-chloride gas is greater than that of 5 per cent chloropicrin, i.e., lachrimation is much more marked; and it is believed that, on account of the tear effect, a person unfamiliar with fumigation could escape from a small room containing hydrocyanic-acid gas with 20 per cent cyanogen chloride before inhaling a dangerous amount of cyanide.” (July 3, 1931 p. 1575)

In that same issue we find this discussion of Zyklon B:

“Zyklon-B is liquid hydrocyanic acid absorbed by an earthy substance called ‘diatomite’ and packed in strong tin containers. Cans are provided containing 15 grams, 120 grams, 480 grams, and 1200 grams of hydrocyanic acid with 5 per cent chloropicrin as a warning gas.” (p.1576)

Although there is much additional information in this and other reports we move to the July 17, 1931 issue for this discussion of “warning gas.”

“For the purpose of giving warning of its presence, it is customary to mix a lachrimatory gas with HCN. The gas generally used in the United States is chloropicrin, in the amount of 5 per cent or 10 per cent (by weight) of the HCN present.

There was reason to suspect that the presence of this warning gas might interfere with the lethal action of HCN on insects. Insects breathe through spiracles in the thorax and abdomen, which probably are contractile and capable of closure. It is known that insects apparently dead from asphyxiation may recover after considerable intervals of time. On these premises the theory has been advanced that the irritant warning gas may cause the spiracles to close, however, its poisoning by the HCN, so that upon the return of fresh air it recovers.”

It should be noted for sake of completion that the U.S. did conduct studies on the removal of chloropicrin and determined that it had no influence on the death or recovery of cockroaches.

The importance of this information is twofold:
1) Zyklon B was widely in use in the United States as a fumigant in the 1930′s.
2) There was wide debate about the influence that chloropicrin (warning gas) had on the effectiveness of Zyklon B in the United States.

There is no reason to doubt that the Germans were similarly using Zyklon B and debating and analyzing the influence of the warning gas on its effectiveness. In and of itself the removal of the warning gas from Zyklon B is not evidence of a murderous plot on the part of sinister Nazi conspirators.

Whether the current generation did not heed Santayana’s warning or whether the vast differences of historical periods preclude us from applying lessons from the past, there is little doubt that we seem to repeat the worst mistakes of the generations that preceded us.

One historical period that has been embraced by popular culture is the “Red Scare” of the early 1950’s.  The nearly mythologized account seemingly replacing the earlier tales of young Washington and his cherry tree describe a vicious anti-Communist crusade led by Senator McCarthy.  McCarthy, or so the story goes, unfairly and undemocratically destroyed lives because of suspected Communist sympathies.  Regardless of the accused connections to Communism the message today is surely that all are free to believe what they choose – politically and otherwise.  The United States is the land of the free, and if we resort to totalitarian methods, to blacklisting, to name-calling, and attacks on character, then we have in fact lost what is best in America and in fact what so many lost their lives to protect during the Second World War. 

Today however it appears that the message has been transformed.  The very methods which are decried when used by McCarthy or his associates are fair game as long as they are used against the “right.”  The ad hominem attacks, which Gore Vidal once ascribed as a frequent method of the right are equally or more often launched by the former champions of tolerance, the left.  No longer does one lose employment for being a “commie” but one may find themselves on the unemployment rolls should they be identified as a “nazi.”  “Racist,” “anti-Semite,” “nazi” are all part of the new vocabulary of the once-liberal left.  These terms are used against even seemingly Teflon targets like former president Jimmy Carter and current president Barack Obama.  Blacklisting, attempting to prevent one from making a living are all seen as viable weapons in a war against their enemies.    Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind used his power to coerce American Express to dropping British historian David Irving as a merchant.  Why?  Because Hikind did not like his politics, or his history.

The incarceration of people for their ideas, their words, their publications is common throughout the world.  Irving, Germar Rudolf, and Fredrick Toben have all recently served jail time – for holding unpopular views.   Ernst Zundel is still incarcerated in the once democratic Germany.    Book burnings, imprisonment and blacklisting are all acceptable forms of intolerance throughout the West as long as they are practiced against the latest hated minority.  Revisionists and others who attempt to take a fair and sober look at the past and even the present are branded outlaws in our new era of dogmatism.

We learn nothing from the past.  We simply find new targets, new minorities, and new victims.  All else remains the same.

Those involved apparently think they are doing a good thing — fighting “Holocaust denial,” “neo-Nazism,” “racism,” add the slur, you get the idea. The value of free speech and a free press is completely lost on this crowd. They miss the point that their methods are in fact “fascist” or “Stalinist” in nature. The desire to prevent someone from sharing ideas which oppose your own is the type of dogmatic thinking that led to the burning of heretics, the witch trials, and the extremes of National Socialism and Communism.

For these hackers and “anti-Fascists,” none of this matters. They are sure that they are right. In being so right, it is fair to stop the speech of those they oppose.

They miss the point that if the only speech we defend is that which we support, then freedom is lost. It is only offensive speech or speech we disagree with that NEEDS the protection of the law.

Many years ago Huey P. Long said, Fascism will come to America,but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism.” Today it is clear that Fascism is live and well in the United States — brought to you by those with little understanding of what they have done.

Still, Barnes and his peers managed to create a set of solid historical research based on the facts. Once lost down the Orwellian ‘memory hole,’ many of these titles have resurfaced in the bibliographies and notes of best-selling books by Ron Paul and Patrick J. Buchanan. Once again, the names of John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Charles Callan Tansill, William Henry Chamberlin, Captain Russell Grenfell, Walter Millis, Francis Neilson, F.J.P. Veale, and Luigi Villari can be found influencing contemporary thought. These authors and long-forgotten volumes are being sought out by a new generation who cannot be properly classified as “right” or “left” by contemporary standards.

Our new quarterly journal, Inconvenient History seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement; a movement that was established primarily to foster peace through an objective understanding of the causes of modern warfare. 

In this effort, we are seeking authors, editors, translators, and advisors. If you are interested in the truth, regardless of how inconvenient it may be to this or that regime or political party or ideology, you’re perfect for us.

If you’re interested in revealing how the “west was lost” and the impact that modern myths of the “great war” and the “greatest generation” has had on international relations, you’ll want to consider Inconvenient History. If you are courageous and want to take aim at the propaganda, exaggerations, and myths used by and for the Holocaust lobby, then Inconvenient History will undoubtedly become the journal of record.

Revisionism was established as a progressive, some would say “liberal” methodology that originally set out to revise the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles following the First World War. That same methodology, although rather successful in the 1920’s and 30’s met tremendous resistance following the Second World War.

By the 1970’s and 80’s the term “revisionism” was often thought synonymous with far-right politics and fascist sympathies. Inconvenient History attempts to return to the roots of revisionism without any political agenda or desire to white wash totalitarian regimes. We are free-thinkers who seek to support the concept of intellectual freedom as a means to peace and understanding between nations. We are not interested in conspiracy theories; we are interested in revealing real history and supporting the freedom of historians to explore any topic they choose without fear of reprisal.

We anticipate continuing the efforts begun by Barnes, Martin and others to reveal how the Second World War got started, the taboo around the Holocaust story, the conduct of the war by both sides, and the consequences for the West and the world of the propaganda campaign that was constructed around this period.

Convenient history is like an ocean’s waves, safely bringing the author’s thesis to shore. Establishment historians are happy when the water table is high and courses are well-charted. Inconvenient history is the just the opposite. It is the jagged rocks protruding from uncharted waters.

If you would like to write or otherwise support Inconvenient History please contact us.

“What the late Harry Elmer Barnes described in detail over the years as the ‘historical blackout’ with respect to World War Two revisionism has been the fate of other historical diversions from accepted convention in other areas. A venerable ploy of the attackers of inconvenient history has been to ridicule the limited or often make-shift nature of its production, to decry its lack of pretentious supporters, or to launch sly, malicious innuendo against its producers, but avoiding if at all possible coming to terms with substance.”

Today certain historical studies are strongly discouraged and in certain once-free democracies even outlawed. But a recent interest in discovering the facts about the twentieth century’s two world wars and their aftermath as well as the consequences of those events inspires us with new courage and optimism. Harry Barnes said that correction of the historical record could only occur in light of a calmer political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude. He was surprised to find that even 25 years after the Second World War, such an atmosphere had not yet developed.

Still, Barnes, Martin and their peers managed to create a set of solid historical research based on the facts. Once lost down the Orwellian ‘memory hole,’ many of these titles have resurfaced with some prominence in books by Ron Paul and Patrick J. Buchanan. Once again, the names of John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Charles Callan Tansill, William Henry Chamberlin, Captain Russell Grenfell, Walter Millis, Francis Neilson, F.J.P. Veale, and Luigi Villari can be found influencing contemporary thought and being sought out by a new generation who cannot be properly classified as “right” or “left” by contemporary standards.
Our new quarterly journal, Inconvenient History seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement; a movement that was established primarily to foster peace through an objective understanding of the causes of modern warfare.
In this effort, we are seeking authors, editors, translators, and advisors. If you are interested in the truth, regardless of how inconvenient it may be to this or that regime or political party or ideology, you’re perfect for us.
If you’re interested in revealing how the “west was lost” and the impact that modern myths of the “great war” and the “greatest generation” has had on international relations, you’ll want to consider Inconvenient History.
Revisionism was established as a progressive, some would say “liberal” methodology that originally set out to revise the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles following the First World War. That same methodology, although rather successful in the 1920’s and 30’s met tremendous resistance following the Second World War.
By the 1970’s and 80’s the term “revisionism” was often thought synonymous with far-right politics and fascist sympathies. Inconvenient History attempts to return to the roots of revisionism without any political agenda or desire to white wash totalitarian regimes. We are free-thinkers who seek to support the concept of intellectual freedom as a means to peace and understanding between nations. We are not interested in conspiracy theories; we are interested in revealing real history and supporting the freedom of historians to explore any topic they choose without fear of reprisal.
We anticipate continuing the efforts begun by Barnes, Martin and others to reveal how the Second World War got started, the taboo around the Holocaust story, the conduct of the war by both sides, and the consequences for the West and the world of the propaganda campaign that was constructed around this period.
Convenient history is like an ocean’s waves, safely bringing the author’s thesis to shore. Establishment historians are happy when the water table is high and courses are well-charted. Inconvenient history is the just the opposite. It is the jagged rocks protruding from the uncharted waters.
Are you with us?