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.
The other reason behind our choice of name is that we are all aware, or should be aware, of the fact that the victor writes history, thus giving rise to “convenient history”. Mainstream historiography on the Second World War, and in particular that on the Third Reich and its policies against Jewry, must be viewed with this old adage in mind. This is especially the case since mainstream historiography is still used today to advance certain aims, such as starting wars by pointing to Hitler’s perceived aggression, etc. The Holocaust is becoming more and more ‘the’ focal point of international relations and global political rhetoric. Atrocities committed today can be excused through use of the slogan “Never Again,” meaning that no new Holocaust will be allowed to befall the Jewish people. This situation has resulted in the launching of aggressive perpetual wars fought under the banner that they will prevent new Hitlers from gaining too much power and subsequently to prevent a new Holocaust from occurring, as well as granting to the Israeli state a carte blanche to brutally oppress the Palestinian people and ethnically cleanse them from their homeland . Such thinking limits diplomacy and grants a free license to fight new crusades wherever and whenever we please. Even if we were to accept the full veracity of the orthodox version of the Holocaust, the killing of innocent non-Jews to prevent a future Jewish Holocaust remains criminal, and wrong.
Meanwhile hundreds, if not thousands of books have been written and published dealing with the Holocaust. Mainstream historians without exceptions accept the orthodox version of the Holocaust as an indisputable fact. This acceptance is, however, not based on solid evidence. No investigation by experts trained in the field of criminal forensics has ever taken place. The essential part of what is generally held to be the most well-documented event in history, namely the alleged gas chamber mass murders of the Holocaust, rests exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, most of it post-war witness accounts. This is confirmed by Judge Gray’s conclusion at the 2000 David Irving libel trial: “What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence (…).”
When all of their attempts to make a case for this alleged mass murder fail, defenders of the Holocaust will always resort to the question: “Well, where are they then if they have not been murdered”? This is not how we should proceed, however. Indeed, for several reasons that question has been rendered obsolete. Solid evidence must be presented to make a solid case for mass murder, as in every other criminal and historical court, but so far that has not happened. Furthermore, leading Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg recently admitted that, “We know perhaps 20 per cent about the Holocaust.” With so much ground and information left to cover, there is no reason for revisionists to have a full alternative history ready to replace the extermination thesis. It simply is not practical at this point.
What we can do, however, is present the case for a re-examination of the Holocaust. We will attempt to show that alternate explanations are not just possible, but indeed plausible. We do not claim to have all the answers – we leave that claim to the mainstream historians – but our aim is to present as good a case as is possible, using the breadcrumbs dropped by the victors who not only carefully sorted all the material, but in some cases still keep portions of it under lock and key.
In discussing the controversial issues brought forth by historical revisionism, we will always strive to take the moral high ground. This means that we will abstain from ad hominem attacks and other forms of unfair argumentation. Rather than involving ourselves in polemics, we will calmly present our arguments and then let the facts speak for themselves.
While sharing with the revisionist journal “Inconvenient History” its name and focus, as well as some of its contributors, this blog will not be moderated by the editorial board of the journal, but is to be regarded as in effect a separate and independent entity.
Finally, it saddens us that in many countries, open thought is prohibited from reaching the subject of the Holocaust. As we speak, numerous revisionists sit in prison, having their historical doubts answered only by criminal charges. Even in countries which do not criminalize historical skepticism, powerful political forces have brought enough pressure to bear that the mere fear of possible consequences has prevented many skeptics from speaking out. Even in the “land of the free”, any doubt of the Holocaust could easily equate to career and professional suicide. Let each of our posts stand as symbols for free expression and free thought, something we hold to be a universal right for all mankind.
– The Inconvenient History Blog Group