Inconvenient History is now in its fifth year of publication.  We have published over 128 articles of hard-hitting historical truth.  Clearly IH is here to stay, but we can really use your help.

Thousands of people read IH but very few contribute.  Years ago the only way we could publish would be through hardcopy subscriptions.  Subscriptions cost money, and for small publications such as ours we likely need to charge between $50 and $60 for an annual subscription.  But we have chosen Internet publishing instead.  The advantage is that we can reach the largest number of people.  And we do so without charging a dime.

For IH to continue to grow and provide the type of historical research you can’t find elsewhere, we need your assistance.

Your donation now can help pay for our various expenses associated with running our Website.  Today IH thrives based on the hard work and efforts of a small but dedicated band of volunteers.

Consider what IH is worth to you, and make a donation today.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/donate/index.php

By Wilfried Heink

There are several issues re. The Third Reich – “The Holocaust” in particular – historians, and I am being kind, continually struggle with. One is the phenomena, at least we are to believe that it was that, of why the majority of ordinary Germans continued to support Hitler right to the bitter end. Ian Kershaw tried to explain it in his latest work The End: Hitler’s Germany, 1944-45. I found two reviews, the first by Roger Moorhouse, here’s an excerpt:

“Kershaw adopts a largely narrative approach, which – with various digressions – spans the period between the failed attempt on Hitler’s life of 20 July 1944 and the German capitulation 10 months later. In this period, horrors at the front – such as the first Red Army incursion into German territory at Nemmersdorf in East Prussia – would increasingly be matched by horrors at home, as the murderous SS condemned to death all those who dared to resist or showed insufficient martial spirit.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-end-hitlers-germany-194445-by-ian-kershaw-2341116.html

(Read more…)

By Paul Grubach.

To: dlipsta@emory.edu
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 9:43 PM

Re: The Hypocritical Double Standard that Surrounds Questioning and Debunking the “Holocaust”

Ms. Lipstadt:

I have a legitimate reason to contact you. Since you are generally considered a renowned scholar of the Jewish Holocaust, I would very much like to hear your commentary on the following matter. After all, this information will pertain to my forthcoming critiques of your writings for Inconvenient History (www.inconvenienthistory.com) I really do not expect you to respond, but in the interest of fairness and truth, I want to give you a preview of my arguments. Please consider the following email an amended version of my email of October 15, 2012.

(Read more…)

Conclusion

By Wilfried Heink

As mentioned, Heydrich was send to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia as a replacement of Baron von Neurath, the first governor (Reichsprotektor), because of the latters failure to curb the unrest:

“The Reichsprotector of Bohemia and Moravia, Baron von Neurath, had resigned from his post ostensibly because of illness. It was a convenient excuse. He was a failure. Czechoslovakia, far from being the model dependency Hitler expected of a founder member of his empire, was sullen and uncooperative. Production had fallen; students had the impudence to demonstrate in the streets; it appeared that the puppet government could do nothing with these irascible Czechs.

Upon the 27th September, 1941, S.S. General Reinhard Heydrich arrived in Prague in the post of Acting Reichsprotector of Bohemia and Moravia to remedy this state of affairs…

Within a matter of days, intelligently appraising the situation, Heydrich had also wooed the workers. Of what use were these Generals and intellectuals to the Czechs, he asked? He appealed on an effective materialistic level. For just a little extra work, extra fat coupons, meat coupons and bread coupons could be won. It was a belly bribery almost impossible to resist. And if a worker really cared to exert himself, there were holidays at the best Spa hotels—once the preserve of the aristocratic and the wealthy—for him and his family, higher wages, and food. Always the promise of more food, Within a month, production, especially war production, was rising…

There was no curfew in Prague in those days (month later. Wilf). It was a very secure corner of Hitlers empire and the Czechs were a people that Heydrich was quite certain he had tamed.” (Alan Burgess, Seven Men At Daybreak, The Companion Book Club, London 1960, pp.39/40; 89) (Read more…)

Part IV

By Wilfried Heink

When the state of Czechoslovakia was created following WWI – from parts of the broken up Austro-Hungarian Empire, part of the plan to render powerless German dominated middle Europe – the large minorities were to be given autonomy. Here is what von Neurath, German foreign minister up to 1938, stated at the IMT:

“The Germans living in the Sudetenland as a compact group had been given the assurance, at the peace negotiations in 1919 when they were attached to the Czechoslovak State, that they would be given autonomy on the model of the Swiss Confederation, as expressly stated by Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons in 1940. The Sudeten-German delegation at that time, as well as Austria, had demanded an Anschluss with the Reich.

The promise of autonomy was not kept by the Czech Government. Instead of autonomy, there was a vehement policy of “Czechification.” The Germans were forbidden to use their own German language in the courts, as well as in their dealings with administrative authorities, et cetera, under threat of punishment.”

(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/06-24-46.asp, p.637) (Read more…)

Part III

by Wilfried Heink

In 1940, Heydrich – aside from servings as chief of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA, which included the Gestapo, and Kripo), and also an active pilot in the air force –  in August of that year was appointed and served as President of the International Criminal Police Commission (later Interpol, the international law enforcement agency). Representatives of thirty-three member states, among them Great Britain, France and the USA, in 1938 met at Bucharest to decide if the HQ of that organization should be moved from Vienna, since Germany had annexed Austria. Heydrich protested, his protest not seriously challenged by anyone, and when the then President, Vienna’s police chief Otto Steinhäusel, died, Heydrich took over as President on August 28, 1940. Only England, France as well as a few small countries had by then quit the organization. At the same time when Heydrich’s Einsatzgruppen (EG – rapid response force) were pacifying Poland, he became president of the international police force without the slightest concern raised by the representatives of the remaining 30 member states, most of them cheering him on.

Comment: This has me wondering. “Historians” tell us that as soon as the fighting was over, and Poland defeated, the EG committed atrocities upon atrocities with the whole world informed about it. And here we have the representatives of 30 states cheering when Heydrich, the commander of those alleged killing squads, took over as chief of the international police. Is it possible that the “historians” have it wrong, that the EG were units employed to establish order behind the lines and not indiscriminate killers? No doubt in my mind. But to be acknowledged as an expert on the history of the Third Reich, one first must believe that all “Nazis” were criminals and proceed from there. Quacks! (Read more…)

Part II

By Wilfried Heink

After his dismissal from the Navy, in April 1931, Heydrich was unemployed, at a time when unemployment was widespread. He did receive offers, but as his widow later told, the dismissal from the Navy hit him hard, the career as a navy officer was his lifelong ambition. He was eventually introduced to Baron Karl von Eberstein, the Baron having joined the National Socialist party (NSdAP) early on and was now an SA officer. Eberstein also knew Heinrich Himmler, a virtual unknown at that time. Heydrich did not intend to join the SA: his (at the time still) fiancée Lina, an enthusiastic NSdAP member agreeing, saying that the SA at times looked like a bunch of rabble-rousers (Lumpenpack). The small SS units on the other hand were the elite, in her opinion. She eventually encouraged Heydrich to accept the von Eberstein offer, but to insist on a position in the SS. On June 1, 1931, he joined the NSdAP, “just to be inside”, receiving membership number 544,916. He then sent an application for a ‘leading position’ to the party leadership in Munich, which was eventually forwarded to Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler. When Himmler was appointed to this post as Reichsführer SS (Head of the SS) in January 1929 by Hitler, he commanded a troop of 280 men. But in 1931 the ‘black elite’ had grown into a considerable force, consisting of workers, academicians, intellectuals and aristocrats, staunch National Socialists all, very well disciplined. (Read more…)

Part I

By Wilfried Heink

Even though Heydrich was a high ranking official in the Third Reich (1933-1945) and “one of the main architects of the Holocaust” (Wikipedia), relatively little is known about him. He was chief of the security police, the security service (SD), the secret state police (Gestapo), and president of Interpol, the international police force. He is mentioned as the founder of Dachau – the first concentration camp – of the EG (Einsatzgruppen – rapid deployment force) and as the chair of the Wannsee Conference. One would think libraries would be filled with books about him, not so. Sure, information about Heydrich as a cold blooded mass murderer void of any conscience is available, but very few made an effort to look closer. This is confirmed in the September 2011 edition of Der Spiegel (German news magazine), were we read in an article by Georg Bönisch titled “The First In-depth Look at a Nazi ‘God of Death’ “: “Still, until now, almost 70 years after Heydrich’s death, there has never been a serious biography of this cold-blooded architect of mass murder that met high scholarly standards. German historian Robert Gerwarth has stepped in to meet this need.” (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/reinhard-heydrich-biography-the-first-in-depth-look-at-a-nazi-god-of-death-a-787747.html). The title of the book simply “Reinhard Heydrich: Biographie”(available now in English: “Hitler’s Hangman”), and of course the cold-blooded architect of mass murder part has to be included. (Read more…)

By Wilfried Heink

A while back I was made aware of a book by Rolf Vogel: “Ein Stempel hat gefehlt” (One rubber stamp was missing). The book, published in 1977, highlights the efforts made by various German officials to help Jews escape from what has become known as “Nazi Germany”. Vogel, the son of a German Father and a Jewish Mother, starts his narrative by writing that just a few days following his Fathers death, sometime at the beginning of September 1939 (no date given), two Gestapo (secret state police) officers knocked at the door, producing a search warrant. His Father had, however, close connections to Hjalmar Schacht, the former president of the state Bank and had given the senior Vogel a letter, stating that if there are threats by the Gestapo to contact him, telephone number provided. Schacht promised that he would do all in his power to help him. Vogel junior showed this letter to the officers, they excused themselves, saying that all must be a mistake, and left.

(Read more…)

By Wilfried Heink

The last two chapters of Verbrechen der Sieger are titled “Polen” (Poland) and “Tschechoslowakei” (Czechoslovakia).

Poland was defeated and therefore did not have any legitimate armed forces and as a consequence not able to capture “Prisoners of War”. About 800,000 German POWs were concentrated in the area of East/Germany-Poland, among them 7,500 POWs discharged by Americans and delivered to the Poles (p.342). Nobody knows how many Germans were given to the Poles by the Russians, for one because both the Russians as well as the Poles refuse to allow access to the archives. And two, because the Poles did not label their camps ‘POW camps’ but ‘work camps’, and with this managing to get around the bothersome legalities concerning Prisoners of War. These camps also housed civilians, impossible therefore to come up with precise POW numbers. The closes estimate is 70,000; employed in a variety of slave labor positions, from mines to farm work (pp.228/39).

(Read more…)