They're called Denial Historians not Revisionists, most of the time.

Example.
If they're denying the holocaust happened then they are not revisionists.
If they're saying that less died in the holocause then they're revisionists.

They just refer to themselves as revisionists because denial looks bad.

>>>They're called Denial Historians not Revisionists, most of the time.

I am not grasping the distinction here.

>>>Example. If they're denying the holocaust happened then they are not revisionists.

I don't see how this follows, as such an argument would be a revision of the mainstream interpretation of the past, a reconstruction.

>>>If they're saying that less died in the holocause then they're revisionists.

This presupposes that for one to be a revisionist, one must accept that the Holocaust happened. I don't see the basis for this argument, as what is being revised here is history, not any particular aspect of it.

>>>They just refer to themselves as revisionists because denial looks bad.

The Holocaust is not an event that happened in the past. It is a metanarrative, or interpretation of the past, that was constructed and objectified in the late 60s/early 70s.

That must be the most stupid remark ever done. Why not call them "Nazi historians" straight away and skip this whole negative upgrading since Revisionism?

We have let them pass off their own values and interpretations as neutral, objective, and transparent representations of history for far too long.

That is totally acurate Fade..We let them dictate their befouled terms and names upon us. This, as you have pointed out many times, sets us at a disvantage in any discourse from the get go. Half of our energy in a given debate goes first only to try to disasociate from the negativity given to the term they nailed on our door without our permision.

This says it all actually:

They just refer to themselves as revisionists because denial looks bad

Who is calling us deniers to begin with? Why should we have the burden upon us to have to disasociate ourselves from term they give us at their whim?

Quite a rigged game IMHO

They have been able to structure the course of the debate by having their constructs accepted as legitimate from the get-go (as if they were arrived at independently of their own values and perspectives). 'The Holocaust' never happened as it is a mere interpretation of the past that has been objectified over the past several decades. None of the major war leaders referred to 'The Holocaust' in their memoirs. Examine any Holocaustian text (thnx to Edana for this idea). They are framed in narrative terms, like the stories about the past in the Bible, as a struggle of good guys vs. bad guys, or good vs. evil, that follows the plot of 'The Final Solution' (a term grossly abstracted out of its context) and its eventual climax in 'The Holocaust'. This is a highly constructed literary product thats uses all sorts of tropes (such as the Antichrist) which appeal to certain socially and historically situated prejudices within Christian cultures.

Ebusitanus , I was perplexed by your use of "us" / "them".
I don't link you or your generation with the "war years" / "holocaust" , to me there is no direct link.
From a political / social view you may admire NS system and its national value system , but if you view history as "us and them" , it is bound to lose any neutrality and objectivity.
For my part if there was proof that the holocaust never happened , or that it was drastically different from what it was I would accept that proof .
To date the revisionist view has not been proved and what they would proport to have ben "how things" has not stood up to critical examination.
In history there is no "us" and "them" , to me any way.

These terms do not only gravitate around the Holocaust but are general for WN (us) vs Jews & their pawns(them).
Not many even amongst us do see themselves as 1933-45 NS in that sense of the word.

Ebusitanus,
See perhaps more clearly what you mean when you say that you are not the NS of 33-45.
The WN v Jew is easy to identify with 33-45 and the "us" / "them" does tend to lend towards you being identified with them.

I have nothing for or against Jews and have no WN related interests , I don't see myself as being manipulated or influenced by anthing "Pro-Jewish".

As far as Fade's idea of the Holocaust not being real , without wishing to go over ground on which we will have no closure its fact which count not a debate on words , its what the events , which that the words , new or otherwise describe which are important not the language or terms.
On basic terms its still murder , and in saying this I am not looking for a war of words.

It's the old " is the cup half full or half empty view ", two views , but the level of the fluid in the cup does not change .
The terms of description mean little , it can't change what is in the glass.
Not a great example , which Fade can probably fill full of holes but at this time of the night its the best I can do :o

>>>As far as Fade's idea of the Holocaust not being real , without wishing to go over ground on which we will have no closure its fact which count not a debate on words , its what the events , which that the words , new or otherwise describe which are important not the language or terms.

The Holocaust never happened. It was only towards the end of the late 60s and the early 70s that we began to hear of The Holocaust. As I pointed out on the old board, there is no mention of The Holocaust even in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which was released in the early 60s, if I recall. Explain to me how an anti-Nazi like Shirer could have totally missed out on that. None of the major war leaders on the Allied side referred to it in their memoirs. It is a totally manafactured event with no basis whatsoever in history that has since been projected backwards into the past. And what's more, there is no mention in any German document of any Holocaust much less any genocide. All these things never happened literally. They are interpretations of past events, or representations, that are structured by the attitudes and the prejudices of those who created them. We can see this in virtually all the texts of the Holocaustians. They are narratives. They are moral polemics structured in terms of good guys vs. bad guys. There is no difference between this sort of work and mythology. The Holocaust is a myth, precisely because it serves a much larger purpose than simply being a historical event. It has been woven into the Jewish sense of identity, like the other historical myths of the Torah.

>>>On basic terms its still murder , and in saying this I am not looking for a war of words.

This is an old debate that you lost, cerberus. It was not illegal under international law at the outbreak of WW2 to wage aggressive war, much less was it prosecutable under international law by the Allies. Likewise, genocide did not even exist at the outbreak of WW2. It was incorporated into international law after the fact. Furthermore, the notion that Hitler had a conspiracy to take over the entire world, which was argued at Nuremberg, is generally laughed at today, even by anti-Nazi historians. As time has gone by, there has been a gradual erosion of the portrait of the Third Reich that was presented immediantly after the war.

>>>The terms of description mean little , it can't change what is in the glass.

You seem to be confusing mythology with history here. There is an important difference between the two. History does not have any moral significance or any teleological purpose. On the other hand, myths play a large role in the identities of peoples. Myths tell moral stories because they are value judgements. That is precisely what the Holocaust is. It is an anti-Germam myth created by Jews about their past, just like the other myths of the Torah which testify to past events, such as how the horrible pharoahs persecuted the poor Jews. Yeah right. The Jews always say that.

Fade ,
I would not say lost , just that you have your view and I have mine and I don't see there being any way I can win you over nor you me , we will just have to agree to differ.
The myth , no .
Its a case of is " the glass half full or half empty" , e.g. "you see it your way I see it mine."
Bottom line is , the level of the fluid in the glass is the same , e.g. bottom line is we are still talking about dead people who left alone by the Hitler goverment would not have died.
Now I have not used the words murder and holocaust here , but the people represented by the water in the glass ended up dead before their time.
You can call it what you like , the end result was the same , dead people.

As far as an aggressive war goes were do you draw the line ?
Was the take over of what remained of the Czech state legal in 1939 ?
There was no German minority there and the " returning Germans to the Reich arguement " could not be applied , it was naked agression and expansionism nothing more.
You might say that some states were once German , but on the same pretext this arguement wopuld not give England the right to invade France tomorrow morning on the grounds that she once had goverment over areas of France.
I still don't accept your play on words to deny what historians say ocurred and I don't accept that Germany had any right to take over either the Czech State or divide Poland betwen herslf and the Soviet Union.
To that end I hold Adolf Hitler responsible for the deaths of people who would have been alive had he not " resettled them in the east " and I hold him responsible for kicking of a major war in Europe which lasted for almost five years.
You will have your view Fade , which you are entitled to hold and which I am prepared to respect as you believe it to be true.
I have my own , different but deserving equal respect on the subject I can say no more , its all been said before and no conclusion satisfactory to both of us will come out of this.

>>>The myth , no .

The Holocaust is a moral story, like the other myths of the Torah. History does not give moral lessons.

>>>Its a case of is " the glass half full or half empty" , e.g. "you see it your way I see it mine."

I see things somewhat differently. In my view, The Holocaust is a story that was created in the 1970s. It is nothing more than a discourse we have projected backwards upon the past. But yeah, I suppose we have debated this issue into the dirt, so there is no point in revisiting it here.

>>>Bottom line is , the level of the fluid in the glass is the same , e.g. bottom line is we are still talking about dead people who left alone by the Hitler goverment would not have died.

The point I made to Sulla on the last board is that no one simply knows who these dead people are. Who were they? Where is the evidence they ever existed in the first place? There is nothing but speculation about how many people might have died in this Holocaust. The death toll has shifted erratically from time to time. I don't put much faith in this account of the past at all. I am usually quite sceptical of atrocity propaganda.

>>>You can call it what you like , the end result was the same , dead people.

Once again, who were these people? What were their names?

>>>As far as an aggressive war goes were do you draw the line ?

I don't see anything wrong with aggressive war, to be honest. For me, warfare is existential conflict. It has no moral content.

>>>Now I have not used the words murder and holocaust here , but the people represented by the water in the glass ended up dead before their time. You can call it what you like , the end result was the same , dead people.

I would again like to know who these people were.

>>>Was the take over of what remained of the Czech state legal in 1939?

That is a good question. I would argue that yes, it was legal. Would you like me to elaborate on that point?

>>>There was no German minority there and the " returning Germans to the Reich arguement " could not be applied , it was naked agression and expansionism nothing more.

The remainder of the Czech state was not annexed directly to the German Reich. Germany simply sent troops into the area to stabilise the implosion of Czechoslovakia which disintegrated because of internal reasons (as it was later to do again after the Cold War ended). I would argue that Germany had ever right to do this under international law, as Germany was a neighbouring state. There are numerous precedents for such intervention under international law, such as the Platt Amendment which established a U.S. protectorate over Cuba. The U.S. also sent troops into Mexico in the chaos of the Mexican Revolution. To call this 'naked aggression' is misleading, as it was a police action.

>>>You might say that some states were once German , but on the same pretext this arguement wopuld not give England the right to invade France tomorrow morning on the grounds that she once had goverment over areas of France.

The remainder of Czechoslovakia had been part of the German Reich for centuries, yes. Yet it should be made clear here that Germany did not annex the remainder of Czechoslovakia. It merely established a protectorate over it and imposed order upon a chaotic state that had imploded along its border. It had every right, under international law, to do just that. To compare the implosion of Czechoslovakia to the Angevin Empire is also a false analogy on the grounds of temporality.

>>>I still don't accept your play on words to deny what historians say ocurred and I don't accept that Germany had any right to take over either the Czech State or divide Poland betwen herslf and the Soviet Union.

Czechoslovakia disintegrated because it was an artificial nation. The Ukrainian and Slovak minorities had long before ambivilant about the Czechs as well. And that was the case long before Hitler ever came to power. Germany did not 'take over' the remainder of Czechoslovakia. It simply established a protectorate or an order upon a failed state along its border. Once again, the Americans have intervened throughout Latin America on dozens of occasions for the very same reason. America also attacked Mexico and annexed half that country.

>>>To that end I hold Adolf Hitler responsible for the deaths of people who would have been alive had he not " resettled them in the east " and I hold him responsible for kicking of a major war in Europe which lasted for almost five years.

This is interesting. WW2 was started by Britain and France who declared war on Germany, not the other way around. There was absolutely no reason why a border dispute between Germany and Poland should have developed into a World War. It never would have, had it not been for the British and French governments. Furthermore, Germany have just grounds to intervene in Poland given its mistreatment of the German minority there.

>>>You will have your view Fade , which you are entitled to hold and which I am prepared to respect as you believe it to be true.

How many Indians died during WW2, cerberus? Speaking of India, why were the British there in the first place?

Who really cares what label those who have an agenda try to assign to them? I guess the implication behind your post is that these guys are not legitimate and therefore the labels that have been placed on them are accurate. :rolleyes:

Because of their efforts in uncovering facts, the estimated death toll for Aucshwitz has been greatly reduced.

Personally I very proudly DENY the Holocaust. :D The only reason there is any kind of negative connotation with that is because of the "Holocaust Industry" as Norman Finkelstein so accurately calls it.

Think about it. Why aren't people who doubt the standard accounts of the Alamo history demonized? Gimme a break.

Even if you insist that the halocaust happened, it's just stupid to believe that 6,000,000 jews were killed in gas chambers; especially when there is no evidence that these gas chambers existed.

You can call it what you like , the end result was the same , dead people.

People die. Get over it. If you want to call it a "holocaust" whenever someone dies, go for it. Seems an excellent way to cheapen the term to me.

Fade,
How many Czechs wanted germany to move in an protect them ?
Why was the " protection not left to the League of Nations ?
When Hacha was made come to berl;in the day bfore german troops moved in Hitler kept him waiting until after 1.00a.m. ( as Hitler had movies to watch , as was his usual , "State buisness" aka the situation in Czech lands was so important it had to take "2nd billing").
Sorry fade when Hitler said at Munich that he had no further demands to make , he had no reason to go to Prague , there was no threat to germany and no invitation or request was made for assistance.
Again the Poles , the British and the French made the mutual assistance aggreement in the knowledge that they would probably need to support each other against possible moves from Hitler.
The bluff backfired on Hitler when Poland fought and the co-signatures acted in support. I would point you incidents like "Mosty" which under Heydrich's direction were attempts to justify invasion.

I see the occupation of what remainded of Czechoslavika as being aggression rather than any desire to act in the interrests of the Czech people.
heydrich himself said only three years later that " Czech workers must get their swill" and that "the Czech. must learn that germany intersts come first".
Not exactly my idea of a benovelant protector.

As far as Holocaust goes I agree its been pretty much done to death and will no doubt be done so again (sorry no pun intended ) .

If warfare has no moral content the bombing of dresden , a much talked about point as well should not deserve any special attention , no moral attachments should be made and as edana says " people die get over it".
Now to look at Dresden in such terms causes me problems , I just can't do it.
Not wanting to embark on yet another " bombing debate" but you see my point.
Britain was in India to make money , the old European Empire building syndrome , Germany , Portugal , Spain , Britain , the Dutch , the French all in on it .
Money making and not a Jew in sight !
I don't defend Empire and can't do so. It was on borrowed time since before 14-18.
Indian troops died yes , the japanese would have been worse than the british could ever have been and post 45 it would have morally wrong to have been an ocupying or " protecting" power , granted civil war followed but Britain could not stay.
Last words on the Holocaust. You ask for names , the people who were transported and who died on arrival , no camp numbers issued , no names taken , straight to death.
The transport lists still exist and the numbers ( transported) are known.
I must admit I see te Holocaust as being a good v evil situation.
The ideation which drove it was totally flawed and the outcome remains unchanged.
A more accurate figure of the dead has been reached but the dead remain dead. It was more than just gas chambers , although they remain as an enduring image , simply beacuse it was so immoral and so cold efficent.
My last word ( Promise).
On the subject of names , the records of the T4 program exist , the names are there along with bogus death certificates and the smoke screen to cover it.
Its still murder even though the head of state scantioned it , its still immoral and although " people die" murder by way of State policy is neither clean nor moral.

There were no gas chambers. They are a large part of the myth and have no base in reality. People were detained in camps but there were no "death camps". There was no genocide. More recent (and accurate) estimations have the number of jews who died DURING (not from) the holocaust to less than 700,000. Also, many of the deaths were a result of Americans bombing supply lines and leaving them with no food to give those who were in the camps. Yes they were put into ghettos, yes the living conditions were far from perfect, but as a result of jewish propaganda being forced to live in a ghetto has turned into 6 million murders.

Yes , Finality I completely agree with you.
Can you remind me of a few facts which have slipped my mind.
Just when did the starvation start , what supply routes in specific were destroyed , what steps were taken to repair or by pass the destruction and on what dates did these acts of destruction take place ? :rolleyes:

I had intended to post information such as that but could not think of it or find it. If I do find something I'll gladly share it with everyone.

No problem , would be glad to see it.

http://www.codoh.com/
Found a revisionist site on it. Not positive that this was the one I got my information from.

>>>Fade, How many Czechs wanted germany to move in an protect them ?

Who asked Germany to send in troops to prevent a Polish annexation, Cerberus?

>>>Why was the " protection not left to the League of Nations ?

That's probably because the League of Nations was a joke, just like the United Nations is today. The U.S. did not ask the permission of the League of Nations when it intervened in several Latin American countries during the 1920s on dozens of occasions. I seem to recall Germany withdrawing from the League of Nations as well.

>>>When Hacha was made come to berl;in the day bfore german troops moved in Hitler kept him waiting until after 1.00a.m. ( as Hitler had movies to watch , as was his usual , "State buisness" aka the situation in Czech lands was so important it had to take "2nd billing").

Heads of state have done such things since time immemorial, cerberus. Powerful nations almost always treat inferior nations in such a manner.

>>>Sorry fade when Hitler said at Munich that he had no further demands to make

I am still trying to understand here at what point France and Britain became arbiters of Germany's eastern border.

>>>he had no reason to go to Prague , there was no threat to germany and no invitation or request was made for assistance.

LMAO once again, there were DOZENS of precedents in international law for the action taken by Germany. Did the United States ask the permission of Grenada or the U.N. when it invaded that nation in the 1980s? What about all the interventions of the U.S. in Latin America during the '20s? The Czech state imploded. Germany imposed an order in a failed state along its border. And yes, there was a threat to Germany, specifically, the fear that Poland might annex the remnants of the Czech state (and it actually did annex part of it).

>>>Again the Poles

Speaking of the Poles, I have yet to hear cerberus whine about the Poles sending troops into Czechoslovakia and annexing part of it.

>>>the British and the French made the mutual assistance aggreement in the knowledge that they would probably need to support each other against possible moves from Hitler.

There was absolutely nothing compelling the British and French to attack Germany as a result of the war with Poland. If that was the case, then I could argue that WW2 started when Germany sent troops into the Rhineland.

>>>The bluff backfired on Hitler when Poland fought and the co-signatures acted in support.

That was their choice. It was their choice to make a border dispute between Germany and Poland their business. They started WW2 by declaring war on Germany, not the other way around.

>>>I would point you incidents like "Mosty" which under Heydrich's direction were attempts to justify invasion.

There was nothing whatsoever sacred about the international order imposed by France and Germany upon Central Europe in the aftermath of the Great War.

>>>I see the occupation of what remainded of Czechoslavika as being aggression rather than any desire to act in the interrests of the Czech people.

Germany sent troops into Czechoslovakia to protect GERMAN interests, cerberus. Likewise, the U.S. has sent troops into failed Latin American nations on dozens of occasions on the basis of the very same rationale.

>>>heydrich himself said only three years later that " Czech workers must get their swill" and that "the Czech. must learn that germany intersts come first".

Once again, what does this have to do with anything? The U.S. throughout the first part of the 20th century regarded Latin Americans as little more than mongrelized failed states to be treated as children, as was the case with Cuba and the Platt Amendment.

>>>Not exactly my idea of a benovelant protector.

The U.S. occupied the Dominican Republic during the 1920s out of fear that European nations might invade that nation to collect their debts.

>>>As far as Holocaust goes I agree its been pretty much done to death and will no doubt be done so again (sorry no pun intended ) .

Do you deny the Ragnarok and the Catastrophe? :p

>>>If warfare has no moral content the bombing of dresden , a much talked about point as well should not deserve any special attention

Warfare has no moral content. This is not to say we value all populations equally. Clearly, that is not the case.

>>>no moral attachments should be made and as edana says " people die get over it".

I don't believe the bombing of Dresden was inately morally outrageous.

>>>Now to look at Dresden in such terms causes me problems , I just can't do it. Not wanting to embark on yet another " bombing debate" but you see my point.

I have yet to see you whine about the Poles attacking Czechoslovakia. You simply whine about the Germans because you hate National Socialism.

>>>Britain was in India to make money , the old European Empire building syndrome , Germany , Portugal , Spain , Britain , the Dutch , the French all in on it .

Sorry. I must simply laugh whenever I hear about the British and French complaining of imperialism.

>>>Money making and not a Jew in sight !

Who was Benjamin Disraeli?

>>>I don't defend Empire and can't do so.

LOL I also laugh whenever I hear Brits claim Hitler wanted to rule the world. That's something that would only occur to an Anglo-Saxon. :p

>>>It was on borrowed time since before 14-18.

Winston Churchill didn't seem to give a damn about what the Indian people thought in 1939.

>>>Indian troops died yes

How many Indians died during the British occupation during the war?

>>>the japanese would have been worse than the british could ever have been and post 45

How many millions of Indians died under the British occupation, in toto?

>>>it would have morally wrong to have been an ocupying or " protecting" power , granted civil war followed but Britain could not stay.

Were the British protecting the Boers from themselves in the Boer War?

>>>Last words on the Holocaust. You ask for names , the people who were transported and who died on arrival , no camp numbers issued , no names taken , straight to death.

Once again. You continue to claim these people died yet you cannot even tell us who they were. How do we know they ever existed in the first place?

>>>The transport lists still exist and the numbers ( transported) are known.

How many names are on these lists?

>>>I must admit I see te Holocaust as being a good v evil situation.

What role did the Devil play in all of this? :p

>>>The ideation which drove it was totally flawed and the outcome remains unchanged.

I challenge you to explain how such ideas were totally flawed.

>>>A more accurate figure of the dead has been reached

Whose estimate is this?

>>>but the dead remain dead.

Whatever. Tony Blair also recently claimed there were 500,000 dead Iraqis in mass graves too.

>>>It was more than just gas chambers , although they remain as an enduring image , simply beacuse it was so immoral and so cold efficent.

I don't recall Goebbels ever referring to gas chambers.

>>>My last word ( Promise). On the subject of names , the records of the T4 program exist , the names are there along with bogus death certificates and the smoke screen to cover it.

What does the T4 program have to do with this? Where are the names of the millions of Jews who died in the Holocaust?

>>>Its still murder even though the head of state scantioned it

Murder is unlawful killing. This is self-refuting.

>>>its still immoral and although " people die" murder by way of State policy is neither clean nor moral.

What role did the Devil play in all of this?

Fade , Poland was encouraged by Germany to do so .
Inferior States , if the matter was so urgent and the desire to protect so strong , why watch movies until 1.00am. ?
germany was serving her interests in occupying , Czech population was of little or no cocnern.
The Czechs did not ask for nor did they seek German troops to enter their country.
Poland was the nation seeking to protect her borders , she appealed to Western Nations to honour their promise . Poland was the arbiter , not France or GB. Hitler was well aware of the " Final note" and what it would bring about , when german troops moved over the Polish frontier the dice were in the air and only Hitler could call them back , he did not do so.
Poland , fade not France nor GB.
There was no reason for German troops to move on Prague , any reference to US is irrelevant.
Its German troops moving on Prague which is at issue , I see no reason forthem being there. If Czech people wanted them in why did so many go into exhile and join Free Czech. forces in GB ?
No doubt you will cast these soldiers as traitors to the will of the Czech nation .
Czechs would probably have felt safer with the Poles than the Germans.
If you had a nation governed by Hitler next door you would deny him anything you could as well , especially if you knew you were next on the menu and your neighbour was already on the dinner plate.
Had France and GB had any wit they would have stopped him then , he had ordered German troops to withdraw if France moved. had any intervention taken place you would now be saying " it was German ground anyway and they were only taking back that which was theirs".
Prague was not Germany's to take , they had no right there.
You say that Germany had the right to do what she wanted , whatever the cost ?
There was no German interest in Prague apart from the desire to take that which was Czech.
Heydrich's words have everything to do with the " protection" offered by Hitler.
I believe that the murder of millions at the hands of Hilter was equally an outrage.
I could play you at your own game and say how do I know that anyone died in Dresden , Hamburg or any German City , can you name them ?
If you can't name them them prove they died at all , now this is equally disgusting but its what you have asked of Hitlers victims on a regular basis.
I did not complain about Imperalism or Empire and I knew you would mention B.D. , you just could not resist :D .
Boer war was about gold and national interest. I don't defend GB on this , do you expect me to do so ?
Hitler would not have said no to being a world ruler , he certainly wanted to dominate Europe and asia minor.
The idea of a master race is a flawed concept , it was then and it is now.
Pseudo science and hogwash.
T4 was murder , the holocaust was murder , the dead remain dead.
Murder is unlawful killing.
Would it be reasonable if say the death sentence was brought in your state for minor traffic offences , say it was made legal that every dark haired person who went over 60 mph would face the electric chair , if it were legal would it make it right ?
Hitler was a murderer when he made T4 legal , when he said he would be the supreme judge in the Reich and that tyhe interests of the State would in all cases take priority over the rights of the individual , he made thinhs like T4 possible.
The dead remain dead Fade and the children murdered via T4 are victims every bit as much as those who died via the shooting and gasing squads.
We appear to be going down that "H" word path again. Its rather a waste of time don't you think , you will try to distance responsibility and morality from action and consequence , you will continue to say nothing happened and say a negative can't be proved, anything in the history books will be judged to be anti -German / Anti -Hilter and we will continue to differ , all been there done that etc.
When I ask you to prove you will say its not up to you to prove , I say the holocaust happened , and it goes round etc .
Little point.

I "like" how these selfrightous moralizing biggots twist Hitlers statements around and not even bothering to name an authentic source.

Hitler said, that after the sudetenland is returned, he has no further disputes with the Czechs as long as they solve their other problems and the tensions and chaos in their country are finaly solved. Nothing was solved. The slovaks, Hungarians, Ukranians and other minoretys wanted to get the hell out of that fake "Nation".
I recall that the "democratic" Czech state had the members of the Hlinka-Party and the Slovak Ministerpresident arrested, and only because of german intervention he was released.
Even Czech Newspapers came to the conclusion, that there is no use in aggevating the Germans and that they should find a settlement with them, because they saw how the West sold them out.
Even the Foreign Office knew through it's
Ambassador, that Hacha wanted to see Hitler and he came to berlin out of his own free will.
Now lets see - Dr. Hacha was ellected to president thorugh the czech national assembly and he apointed his own ministers (which he kept during the protectorate) BEFORE he even came to Berlin.
Now which sicko is going claim, that we installed a puppet regime there?


Look at the jewish hypocrite whine! Bwaahhhh bwahhhh teh eevil Nazis! At the same time his democratic crusaders were machinegunning Palestinian freedomfighters on behalf of the jewish Interloper. Beating the **** out of peacefull indian protestors. Where are these people hiding, when the RAF Bombed the Kurds with Gasbombs= Where are they crying, when one metions the ONE MILLION German expelees that were "cleansed" untill 1930 from "Poland"?
Where were they when the Czech fired into demonstrating german crowds in 1919? Where were they when the Czechs sent tanks into the Sudetenland, blasting into the Homes of Sudetengermans? Where the hell are they? Probably to buisy crying over forged documents and fake photos of the Holoco$t !

Dr. Brandt , please write yourself a small PRN pescription of some kind. I fear you may have a TiA.
First if the Czechs had tensions in their own nation , why would Hitler have to solve them .
Secondly he was made come to Berlin, he did not want to go.
He went there to be told his country was to be taken over .
As far as things under Heydrich , yu and I will never agree with what rights the czechs had in running their own affairs.
Sold down the river yes , Munich was a national shame , they knew it only too late , that was why Poland was not let go.
Had they gone to war over Czech. nation you would have said how wrong it was and how they should have accomadated poor Germany.
If I am to quote Heydrich to you its evident that they had none at all.
" They must understand that Germen interests come first. The German is the master in this house".
BTW I am not Jewish , this may be the worst insult that you can imagine but believe me its meaningless to me.
When you mention sources , I am quite happy to quote you the sources used in Kershaws nemesis etc , but as yet you have not named the sources i asked for regarding Stalin " Summer Storm".
You have been very silent on that one .