Line Line

A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry

Print This Post Print This Post

By Richard A. Widmann-

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.

 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?

Written by Widmann in: Free Speech,Historical Revisionism | Tags: