We often hear the charge that the removal of the warning gas from Zyklon B was evidence of the homicidal intentions of the Nazis. Inconveniently, the issue of the inclusion or removal of the warning gas predates the Nazi regime.

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)

(Read more…)

In stark opposition to George Santayana’s now clichéd quote about learning from history, revisionist pioneer Harry Barnes in his  History and Social Intelligence  boldly noted that he did “not accept the view that history can in many cases be directly useful to the present generation through the discovery of alleged specific analogies between the remote past and the present day.”  He continued, “Perhaps the greatest lesson of history is that it has no such lessons for our generation.”

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. 

(Read more…)

News this morning tells of hackers who broke into David Irving’s Website(s) and internet accounts. They apparently stole private information including ID’s and passwords and even bank account information. They took mailing lists and destroyed content on his Website. This same group, or an associated group also sought to have events on his speaking tour cancelled.

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.

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 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. 

(Read more…)

Slightly over 30 years ago, James J. Martin, one of the deans of revisionist history of the twentieth century coined the term “Inconvenient History” with his collection of essays, The Saga of Hog Island. Long before Al Gore would speculate on the “Inconvenient Truth” of global warming, James Martin was already a veteran. Martin wrote:

“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.

(Read more…)

Following World War I, Germany’s army was demoralized, reduced to groups of free lance mercenaries. Discipline, the core of any army, especially in the German/Prussian army, was no longer. This breakdown had already started in the last month of WWI, when German troops who had been exposed to the Bolshevik virus while on the eastern front, were transferred west after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Soldier counsels (Soviets) were formed and Officers orders questioned or ignored (“The Kings Depart…”, by Richard M. Watt, pp.142ff). Strikes broke out in Germany which affected the war effort, the Kaiser, the Commander in Chief, forced to abdicate, in short, the Officers felt that they were stabbed in the back (Dolchstoss). Under the Versailles Diktat, Germany’s armed forces were reduced to 100 000 lightly armed forces. The Officer core, a proud clan, was devastated. (Read more…)

On Thursday, June 4, 2009 an article appeared in “The Washington Post”, titled “Russian military historian blames Poland for WWII”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060402281.html

The Poles protested, of course, but it appears that here too history is being re-written, as is the case with “Barbarossa”. Following WWII, authors like Annelies von Ribbentrop and Heinrich Härtle have tried to set the record straight, showing clearly that Poland was to blame. The books written by them were inconvenient history, not fitting into the distorted version that was emerging, according to which only Hitler and the Germans were to blame. Recently, however, this issue has surfaced again, thanks to Dr. Walter Post (Unternehmen Barbarossa) and Gerd-Schultze-Rhonhof (Der Krieg der viele Väter hatte), to just name two. Those book were not well received, and the authors placed in the “extreme right” corner, accused of being Hitler apologists. But now it looks as if they are getting help from, who would have guessed, Russia.
(Read more…)

Why did we choose “Inconvenient History” as the title for our Blog? Allow us to try and explain.

First, we will concentrate mainly on the history of World War II and the Third Reich, but ideally we should actually go back to 1871, when Germany was united under Bismarck. At that time, and Bismarck realized this, Germany came to be viewed as a threat, and this foremost by Britain. It is not our intention to go into detail about this period of history, but the fact is that this is when the concept of “Convenient History” was introduced. This convenient history consisted of blaming the Germans for everything bad that happened from then on, right up to 1945. German statesmen were the only actors, all others reacted. Lord Vansittart, a high ranking official in the British government who in 1938 became Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the British Government, stated in his Black Record: Germans past and present (1941) that Germany had started five wars, including, of course, World War II. It is within this context that the Holocaust charge came about. While the larger focus will be on the two world wars, it is important to remember that each era is born out of the one before. Thus when searching for the causes of World War II, one should not fail to consider World War I, while looking into the origins of World War I one gains much from studying the period following the unification of Germany. We also hope to present inquiries into problematic issues of the Pacific War and the events preceding it, including Pearl Harbor, the atomic bombings, and alleged Japanese war crimes. (Read more…)