By Wilfried Heink-

There is no solid evidence showing if and when Hitler decided on the “final solution.”

To this day we have no solid evidence showing if and when Hitler decided on this so-called “Endlösung”, i.e., “The Holocaust”. Many theories have been advanced, one by Gerlach for instance who claims Hitler made his wish known to kill all Jews during a meeting of December 12,1941. Just speculations, of course. Then the ‘meeting of minds’ by Hilberg, all desperate attempts to substantiate something unsustainable.

Just recently I came across an article by Martin Broszat: “Soziale Motivation und Führer-Bindung des Nationalsozialismus (Social motivation and Führer bond/commitment of the NS), published in VfZ, 1970, pp.394-409. Broszat, as is well known, was a ‘functionalist’, thus leaning towards Hilberg.

(Read more…)

By Jett Rucker-

Letter distributed to Jews in Donetsk, Ukraine, April 2014

Abe Foxman, venerable head of the Anti-Defamation League, hasn’t exposed many false-flag attacks during his long career, but a peculiar echo of the Holocaust in eastern Ukraine has drawn just such a reaction from him.

It’s Byzantine. As this article details, Jews exiting a synagogue in Donetsk this Pesach just past were handed an ominous letter apparently from the local Russia-favoring militia instructing them to register with the local government as Jews (no report of anyone attempting to do so has surfaced as yet).

(Read more…)

By Wilfried Heink-

Recently I came across an article by Dr. Caroline Sturdy Colls, titled: Holocaust Archaeology: Archaeological Approaches to Landscapes of Nazi Genocide and Persecution (Journal of Conflict Archaeology Vol. 7, No. 2, 2012, 70-104)

http://tinyurl.com/l8sv5lm

Dr. Sturdy Colls latest archaeological undertaking was centered on Treblinka, the “Nazi” camp in Poland where some 800,000 Jews had allegedly been murdered by the Germans. As the title suggests, this is not about Treblinka per se, although she refers to the transit camp on the 20th page of her article (it starts on p.70 in the journal, Treblinka is on p.90), but promises that details will follow when she writes:

“It is not the intention to discuss at length the individual features recorded, as these will be presented elsewhere (Sturdy Colls, in prep; 2011), but to provide an overview of the results gained in order to demonstrate their implications for studies of this period.”(Ibid)

So we wait with baited breath for that presentation, in the meantime, a few observation on her article. Dr. Sturdy Colls starts out with: (Read more…)

By Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, Jürgen Graf-

Our answer to the paper “Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard,” which was authored by the above-mentioned five gentlemen, is now ready. It is much longer than originally planned (about 800 pages). As one of Mattogno’s chapters still has to be translated into English, we will not be able to publish our text before January.

12 December 2012

By Paul Grubach-

Preface: Professor Jeffrey Herf is a widely acclaimed Holocaust historian and academic authority on National Socialist Germany and its relationship with the Arab/Muslim world.  Unfortunately, his books suffer from the same fallacies and spurious arguments that plague much of the pro-Zionist literature that is put out by mainstream, establishment sources on this issue.  With that being said, we would like to share with our readers a letter that Inconvenient History researcher Paul Grubach sent to Mr. Herf.

October 28, 2012

Re: Nazis and Arab Nationalists Can Speak the Truth: Jeffrey Herf Can Distort Reality.

Mr. Herf;

As always, I have a legitimate reason to contact you.  I am writing an analysis of your widely acclaimed book, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, for the online Revisionist journal, Inconvenient History (www.inconvenienthistory.com).  In the interests of fairness and truth, you are being given an opportunity to view my arguments and evidence prior to publication, even though I do not expect you to respond.  With that being said, consider the following important issues. (Read more…)

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: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012, 12:13 AM

Re: Does the World’s Most Prominent Opponent of “Holocaust Denial” Harbor a Hypocritical Double Standard on “Racist Nationalism?”

Ms. Lipstadt:

As you may know, I am planning to write another critique of your writings for Inconvenient History (www.inconvenienthistory.com).  In the interests of fairness and truth I am giving you an opportunity to view my arguments and evidence prior to publication on the revisionist web site.

Since you are the world’s most prominent academic opponent of “Holocaust denial,” I would like to bring to your attention a hypocritical double standard that appears to plague your thinking and that of the Holocaust Lobby in general.  It pertains to the issue of “racist nationalism.”

(Read more…)

By Paul Grubach-

To: [email protected]
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…)

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…)

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…)