In order to determine the seriousness and commitment of a person who claims to have the interests of Euro/Aryans at heart only ONE question needs to be asked, i.e., do you wish Adolf Hitler had won WW II? No other issue -- historical, political, economic, or whatever -- more clearly divides racially aware Whites from the lemmings and traitors.

The "Ten Truths" Examined: Part II

by Rich Brooks


16 June 2004

This is the second installment in a ten-part series discussing the "10 Self-Evident (but Semitically Incorrect Truths" on White Alert's front page.

The "Ten Truths" Examined: Part II

2. The world would be a far saner and more secure place today if Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany had won World War I or, alternatively, if Adolf Hitler's Germany had won World War II.

I am admittedly entering the realm of historical speculation when I make such a broad assertion, and of course any such speculation can never be conclusively proved or disproved. There are also the inevitable "unintended consequences" and random happenstances which make any reliable prediction of future events a shaky proposition and these same natural laws would seem to apply at least equally to any ex post facto "predictions." Nevertheless, wars and revolutions do have far-reaching consequences and certain historic events do in fact mold our present.

All of us, I believe, can look back on our personal lives and pinpoint at least one or two times when we reached a "fork in the road," where following a different route would have drastically changed our entire future. I'm thinking not only of the major decisions we make about marriage, career, and education, but also about how even seemingly insignificant decisions often have had far-reaching consequences for the rest of our lives. And most of us can speculate with confidence how making other decisions at certain crucial times might have drastically affected our lives. (e.g., "If I'd invested that $100 in Microsoft when I had the chance . . . " or "If I hadn't married that bitch . . . ")

At the macro level, the effect of world-changing events on future societies, we now commonly have "courts of historical review," where matters such as my point-2 assertions are debated under legal rules of evidence and decided by a "jury." Whether the results of such exercises are any more trustworthy than are the decisions of a real jury under our present legal system, however, is highly questionable. I will, nevertheless, present my case before what I hope will be a panel of sympathetic readers.

I used the adverb "alternatively" under the clearly obvious assumption that World War II would never have occurred if Germany had won World War I. This is an assumption now shared by perhaps the majority of mainstream historians, who usually phrase it in terms like "we wouldn't have had the horrible conditions in Germany that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power." Shorn of such prejudicial language, however, their ideas are essentially correct. A Europe under a victorious Kaiser would have been far more stable politically and WWII would most likely not have occurred, at least not on the scale of more than 75,000,000 total deaths (which makes the jewish claim of six million look like a drop in the bucket by comparison).

Would this have been a good thing? We have seen in the 20th Century how disastrous "making the world safe for Democracy" proved to be. We got Hitler, but we also got Communism as a result of the allied victory in WWI. No need to remind anyone of all of the death and enslavement that particular jewish movement has caused for our race. And, yes, the State of Israel was also one of the fruits of that war. It is now clear that the Balfour Declaration which laid the groundwork for that "shitty little country" was the price the Brits paid the jews for using their financial muscle to "persuade" Wilson to enter the war. There have recently been many good articles documenting this sad episode in American history, so I won't elaborate on this further.

Let's review the scenarios that could logically have occurred using our assumptions: a) Germany wins WWI, no WWII; b) Allies win WWI, the Axis wins WWII; c) Allies win WWI and WWII. Obviously most of the historians who favor scenario a) would be horrified with scenario b). Hitler, they have been led to believe by jewish propaganda, embodied the ultimate evil. Diehard National Socialists, on the other hand, might take issue with my statement on opposite grounds. The Third Reich was a positive good for the world and scenario b) came very close being fulfilled. While theirs is to my mind the only plausible argument in favor of an Allied victory in WWI, I don't think even an ultimate National Socialist victory would have been worth the price in blood in treasure.

But of course the Kaiser's Germany did in fact lose WWI and Adolf Hitler's NSDAP assumed power in 1933, creating the conditions for the inevitable conflict with jewish Bolsheviks that became WWII. Had Hitler prevailed, the world would look a lot different today on that I don't think I'll get much argument. Whether this would be a good thing or not, however, is perhaps the one issue that clearly separates White Nationalists from mainstream liberals and conservatives of all stripes. The jew-indoctrinated lemming AmeriKwan public has been brainwashed to believe that World War II was a "good war" in spite of the 75 million mostly White deaths it caused. (The average American couldn't even tell you how many Americans died in WWII, but by gawd, he knows that six million jews were gassed by Hitler.) But we WNs see WWII as a tragic war, a fratricidal conflict whose outcome benefited only the jews and their anti-White agenda.

It is indeed fun, if fruitless, to speculate on what the world would look like today if Hitler had won. I'm surprised more movies haven't been made based on this premise, even though most of them would surely be done by Hymiewood jews depicting a world of pure evil. Although it is another jewish big lie that Hitler wanted to conquer the world, I am positive a Nazi victory would have had profound consequences for American society. No, we wouldn't all be speaking German (although that to me would be preferable to the slangy "English" one commonly hears today), but German culture would have had the same global influence that American pop (jewsmedia) culture currently enjoys. Mozart and Wagner rather than Michael Jackson anyone? Leni Riefenstahl movies rather than Hymiewood sleaze?

On just about any political issue I can think of crime, "civil rights," welfare, feminism, homosexuality, immigration, you name it Hitler's policies would have been far preferable to Roosevelt's and his successors'. But there is one very overriding public policy consideration even more important than these. This is the subject of eugenics, a science which was "discredited" during WWII because National Socialist Germany "infamously" tried to apply its principles. Ironically, the eugenics movement had its start in America, not Germany, and feminist icon Margaret Sanger was one of its earliest proponents. This fact is rarely mentioned, except by "conservatives" of the Sean Hannity stripe who use it to stick out their tongues and say, "look at how you liberals are really Nazis."

Nazi Germany did indeed attempt to apply the same genetic principles to human reproduction as scientists since Mendel had been successfully using with plants and livestock. Why, a rational man might ask, do we so selectively breed cattle, thoroughbred horses and even miniature poodles while we allow human beings to randomly produce mongrels in all sizes, shapes and colors? We have, in fact, seen a serious dysgenic trend in world population that has been particularly noticeable in the 60 years since the Allied landing at Normandy. It is not only that Whites are failing to reproduce themselves, but that those Whites having the most children are themselves from our poorest racial stock while the best and brightest often fail to have any offspring. Hitler would not have allowed this situation to happen, and I am sure that our knowledge in this area would be far more advanced if German scientists had been allowed to continue their research.

As it is, the world's population continues to get darker and dumber except for the one race which has, in fact, been practicing a form of eugenics and selective breeding of its own for centuries. That race, as we all know, is the jews, who have never been known for practicing what they preach. "Do as we say, not as we do," should be the Israeli national motto.

There are many White Nationalists, most of them well meaning, who would have us eliminate all Nazi symbolism from our movement. They say the American public has been so conditioned to despise Hitler and everything he stood for that they will never listen to anyone who waves the swastika. Perhaps they are right, but at the same time Nazi symbolism scares the hell out of the jews just as the work of a tiny handful of revisionist historians scares the hell out of them. Why the draconian speech laws applied only to this one tiny piece of history? If the truth about Hitler and WWII were ever to be widely disseminated, the whole jewish house of cards could come tumbling down very quickly. And I do, at my very heart, maintain a faith that in the end, the truth will out.

If you want to know if someone is really pro-White, just ask him if he wished Hitler had won WWII. Perhaps no other issue -- historical, political, economic, or whatever -- more clearly divides racially aware Whites from the lemmings or more clearly alienates me from mainstream political discourse. But, to me, no other "truth" of the ten I listed could be more "self-evident."

RICH BROOKS

--------------------------------

Visit White Alert.http://www.vnnforum.com/main/2004b/61604brookstruths2.htm

No swearing in the high brow section, Cerberus.

I don't think so. I mean, first of all, how would Germany would have won? I mean, the things, a lot of them having to do with Hitler, that allowed Germany to go so far so quickly, led to Germany's downfall during the war.

Plus, if they had won, how long would support for the various ideals have lasted? If there was no longer a war to focus support, or groups to provide a clear enemy, what would happen?

Even if I was a racialist/WN/racist/whatever, I don't know if I would feel that Germany winning WWII would have led to any meaningful change.

If Germany had won, the various imperial powers would have lost control over colonies much faster. European control over Africa, Asia, etc would have been reduced much faster than it did historically. If Germany had tried to move in to take over the former English, French, etc colonies, they would have faced heavy resistance.

Also, Germany would have headed for a confrontation with Japan, as is the way of global rivalries.

Now, I can say that the world might be a better place had Germany won WWI within the first couple of months.

If Germany had won, the various imperial powers would have lost control over colonies much faster. European control over Africa, Asia, etc would have been reduced much faster than it did historically. If Germany had tried to move in to take over the former English, French, etc colonies, they would have faced heavy resistance.I don't see how this is true, Sinclair. Hitler did not want a war with the West at all. Keep in mind here that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. If anything, Hitler was himself an Anglophile and hoped to procure an alliance with the British. It was the attitude of the British that made such an alliance impossible -- not the other way around. And how, pray tell, was Germany a threat to the British Empire? If anything, Germany was the one country that was not a threat to the Empire. Germany's interests (as Hitler articulated himself numerous times) were in the East and were land-based. A war between Germany and Russia would have only strengthened the position of the British by deflecting Russia's attention away from India and the Middle East. The real threat to the British Empire, of course, was coming from the United States and its powerful navy. And just as Hitler predicted, it was the United States that gave the British the shaft in the aftermath of the war (e.g., the Suez Crisis), not Germany. Hitler thus made a fatal mistake. He assumed the British were rational (like himself) and that he could reason with them. That was not the case, of course, because Britain did not go to war to protect British interests. The ego of parliamentarians and the vengence of the Jews caused WW2.

Let's review the scenarios that could logically have occurred using our assumptions: a) Germany wins WWI, no WWII;

This (a) is silly. Germany winning WWI in no way rules out WWII. Austria-Hungary was still headed toward oblivion whether or not the war was won by the Central Powers. I can see NO way they'd have been able to hang onto their territory save by becoming a German puppet, and I also can't see the territory being given independence voluntarily. And I'd wager German troops in Hungary, Slovakia, etc. would've made the national feelings even more intense.

The Treaty of Brest-Livotsk deprived Russia of huge amounts of territory, population and industrial potential. Had its provisions been enforced I can't but think it would have started a countdown to war every bit as much as the Versailles Treaty did. Whether Russia went Red OR White.

Even if WWI had been something like the Franco-Prussian War, I can't even see THAT ruling out another war, especially if Germany demanded damages and more French territory, as in 1870. Plus, they'd have had to knock out both French and Russian forces immediately (before Britain could mobilize)...which they almost did, granted, but that still would have caused resentment both in Paris and Moscow. And doubtless preparations for another war.


As it is, the world's population continues to get darker and dumber except for the one race which has, in fact, been practicing a form of eugenics and selective breeding of its own for centuries. That race, as we all know, is the jews, who have never been known for practicing what they preach. "Do as we say, not as we do," should be the Israeli national motto.


Let's see...The author ignores the fact that Jews in the West are marrying outside their group in record numbers, that the children of such unions often feel no sense of jewishness, that Jews are among the oldest of identifiable groups, and that they have the fewest children of about anyone. Yeah, some "conspiracy." May all WNs adopt their practices. :rolleyes:

The author ignores the fact that Jews in the West are marrying outside their group in record numbers, that the children of such unions often feel no sense of jewishness, that Jews are among the oldest of identifiable groups, and that they have the fewest children of about anyone. Yeah, some "conspiracy." May all WNs adopt their practices.

Yes, I don't get too worked up over Jews anymore because I see Jewish power as declining. The internet is slowly undermining corporate media power and it's no suprise that a demographic with a disproportionate share of radical feminists and limo liberals has a low birth rate. They are also in hot water with their little Israeli project. They can't keep an occupation going forever and the Palestinians will eventually demand one State with "democracy" for both peoples. As it is, the Palestinian resident of Israel is breeding at such a rate that Israelis will soon feel the squeeze.

Jewish power is also strongest in the US, which is likely declining in global power in favor of countries they have little or no power in. Contrary to the writer's assertion, "the world" is not becoming darker and dumber. The world I'm living in is full of Asians, who are certainly neither dark nor dumb.

In Europe, all those liberal policies they advocated are biting them in the hindquarters as they get a batch of radical new Muslim neighbors who will not hesitate to use speech laws to crush opposition to Islam or define Zionism as "anti-Palestinian Hate". When Jews still support speech laws when presented with evidence on how those laws will be used in a country with a Muslim minority that greatly outnumbers Jews, I get the feeling that Jewish wisdom and long term planning is just a tad bit overrated.

I don't see how this is true, Sinclair. Hitler did not want a war with the West at all. Keep in mind here that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. If anything, Hitler was himself an Anglophile and hoped to procure an alliance with the British. It was the attitude of the British that made such an alliance impossible -- not the other way around. And how, pray tell, was Germany a threat to the British Empire? If anything, Germany was the one country that was not a threat to the Empire. Germany's interests (as Hitler articulated himself numerous times) were in the East and were land-based. A war between Germany and Russia would have only strengthened the position of the British by deflecting Russia's attention away from India and the Middle East. The real threat to the British Empire, of course, was coming from the United States and its powerful navy. And just as Hitler predicted, it was the United States that gave the British the shaft in the aftermath of the war (e.g., the Suez Crisis), not Germany. Hitler thus made a fatal mistake. He assumed the British were rational (like himself) and that he could reason with them. That was not the case, of course, because Britain did not go to war to protect British interests. The ego of parliamentarians and the vengence of the Jews caused WW2.

Don't give me this Britain caused WWII, the Jews caused WWII, the moon men caused WWII crap.

Britain and France had given a promise of support to Poland. Hitler had promised not to go for any more territory.

Hitler then attacks Poland, knowing full fucking well what he's doing. He wasn't cruelly tricked into it, he thought that the British and French would stay on the same path and let him do what he wanted. He misjudged.

I hardly see how this isn't his fault. Somebody tells you not to do something, and you do it, whose fault is it when they get pissed off? Not theirs.

It is also interesting to note that Germany soon moved against Norway, Holland, and Belgium, countries that posed no direct threat to Germany whatsoever. If Hitler didn't want war with the west, why the fuck did he invade France? The French didn't make the first move in 1940.

Germany wins WW2.
Out come of WW2 was a " Catch-22" either way a dictator of great potential and actual evil comes out on top.
As events would have it Hitler ( R.I.P. and I am sure he des not !) and Stalin wins , advancing Russian influence into central Europe.
Stalin and Hitler shared a common heritage both had no regard for human rights and life menat nothing to them , their collective track records speak for themselves. Not especially good , lets be honest and agree on this.
Hitler wins , a man who gave us the "Einsatzgruppen" , "The Blood and Honour Laws" , State domination of the legal and medical professions , T4 State led killings of the handicaped , mentally ill and those with learning difficulties.
( " Taking care of Idiots " as it has been termed) .
He disolved all political parties in germany save one and he instuted a system of concentration camps and later had his underlings embark on much worse.

I think its an extreme stretch of the imagination to say that it would have been of some benefit to the human race that Hitler should have won WW2.
Stalin and the Communist party fell , had he won he too would have fallen , and I think at the hands of the German people who would sooner or later have found out what he had done in their name.
TTR would not have made it into this present century. I can see no benefits that it could have given and would deny that any which came from it justified the cost in human life and misery that was extracted in payment.

Don't give me this Britain caused WWII, the Jews caused WWII, the moon men caused WWII crap.Britain did directly cause WW2 by declaring war on Germany. It was that conflict between the great powers that turned a local dispute over Germany's border with Poland into a world war. Ultimately, however, it was the Jews who caused WW2 by pressuring the British government. Germany did not declare war on Britain. It was just the other way around.

Britain and France had given a promise of support to Poland.It was entirely the decision of Britain and France to support Poland, which was merely a pretext for attacking Germany anyway. Neither of these countries declared war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland. It was Britain and France who made that decision to start a world war -- not Germany.

Hitler had promised not to go for any more territory. Hitler then attacks Poland, knowing full fucking well what he's doing. Who annointed Britain and France decider of what does or does not constitute Germany's borders? Should Germany declare war on Britain for occupying Northern Ireland? The war between Germany and Poland never had to involve Britain and France. Britain and France made the decision to start the world war.

He wasn't cruelly tricked into it, he thought that the British and French would stay on the same path and let him do what he wanted. He misjudged.Once again, irrespective of the invasion of Poland by Hitler, it was Britain and France that turned a local border dispute into a world war. Hitler did not want to start a world war. He merely hoped to resolve the border dispute with Poland.

I hardly see how this isn't his fault.Its very simple. The German-Polish war did not start the Second World War. Had Britain and France stayed out of the dispute (and they were entirely free to do so), then it never would have developed into a world war between the great Western powers. It was Britain and France who started the world war by declaring war on Germany. Lets put it another way. If France, Germany, and Russia had declared war on the United States for invading Iraq, then it would be France, Germany, and Russia who would be responsible for starting a world war by transforming a petty conflict into a world war.

Somebody tells you not to do something, and you do it, whose fault is it when they get pissed off? Not theirs.Britain and France did not have the slightest authority to dictate to Germany what were and were not Germany's borders. It was entirely the fault of Britain and France that the world war broke out. It was Britain and France who made the decision to start the world war by declaring war on Germany.

It is also interesting to note that Germany soon moved against Norway, Holland, and Belgium, countries that posed no direct threat to Germany whatsoever.It was not Germany's original intention to invade any of these countries. Germany was interested in resolving its eastern border dispute in its own favour. It was the declaration of war by Britain and France upon Germany that made such a situation possible.

If Hitler didn't want war with the west, why the fuck did he invade France? Lets see. Could it be because France declared war on Germany? After all, it was not Germany who declared war on France.

The French didn't make the first move in 1940.The French declared war on Germany. Germany did not declare war on France.

Hitler had hoped to get away with invading Poland , he knew that Russia would move on her as well.
It could be equally argued who made Stalin and Hitler the judges of what would befall the Poles ?
Hitler thought no , they won't do anything other than rattle sabres and make noises.
He was shocked and stunned when Chamberlain declared war , this was his first major misjudgement , he read it all wrong based upon what he wanted to see.
Within the terms of the treaty they had no mandate to declare war on Russia.
Mind you they did not like what Stalin had done , but it probably did not come as much of a surprise.

If Britain and France had wanted to attack Germany so bad, why not do it back before Germany had started rebuilding its military? Why did they appease Hitler for so long?

Britain and France had an OBLIGATION to declare war on Germany. When a country that you have pledged to support is attacked, you declare war on the aggressor. This is hardly something new.

Hitler had hoped to get away with invading Poland , he knew that Russia would move on her as well.
Poor defenceless Poland! Poland didn't seem to have a problem with attacking the Soviet Union in the Polish-Soviet War. Pilsudski was obsessed at the time himself with creating what can legitimately be called a 'Greater Polish Reich' in East by asserting Polish suzerainty over Lithuania and Western Ukraine in the hope of reconstituting glorious Jagiellon Era of the Middle Ages. We won't hear Cerberus whine about that, however, because he is motivated by his bias against Germany and its government. Lets not forgot how Poland invaded Czechoslovakia for that matter when it was disintegrating in order to grab territory yet again away from weak nations. Poland also threatened to attack Germany numerous times in the depths of the depression after Hitler first took power. And finally, Poland was tyrannizing the German and Ukranian minorities under its yoke which is precisely why those minorities welcomed its dissolution. Germany and the Soviet Union had entirely legitimate grievences against Poland, territorial and ethical.

It could be equally argued who made Stalin and Hitler the judges of what would befall the Poles ?
This is a false analogy. Poland had incorporated large German, Russian, and Ukrainian minorities and was abusing those minorities. Poland prior to WW2 was not the relatively homogeneous Poland it is today. It was also an expansionist state in league with the imperialist enemies of both Germany and the Soviet Union. It had incorporated substantial territories from both of these nations as well. That is not the case with Britain and France (although Alsace and Lorraine may be an exception). There was absolutely nothing sacred about the international order established by the Allies after the Great War.

Hitler thought no , they won't do anything other than rattle sabres and make noises.
That was a rational conclusion. 1.) There was absolutely nothing Britain or France could have done to alleviate Poland's situtation. Poland's own stubborn refusal to reason with its neighbours was the source of Poland's problems. 2.) So why would Britain and France risk a world war over such a petty border dispute? They had nothing to gain by it and everything to lose (their empires). If Britain and France were rational international actors, they would have sought to maximize their own power and concede to letting Germany readjust its borders. So now we have a paradox. What stake did Britain and France have in this fight? Answer: they didn't, but the Jewish minority in both Britain and France most certainly did, as more Jews resided in Poland than in any other nation.

He was shocked and stunned when Chamberlain declared war , this was his first major misjudgement , he read it all wrong based upon what he wanted to see.
Its interesting you should mention Chamberlain. It was, after all, Chamberlain himself who later on blamed the international Jews for starting the war.

Within the terms of the treaty they had no mandate to declare war on Russia.
Treaties are made and unmade by sovereign powers.

Mind you they did not like what Stalin had done , but it probably did not come as much of a surprise.
Stalin was in league with Roosevelt.

If Britain and France had wanted to attack Germany so bad, why not do it back before Germany had started rebuilding its military?
You are misunderstanding me. Britain and France did not want to attack Germany at all. The public (and a substantial portion of the political leadership) was not at all enthusiastic about the war (especially in France). There was, however, a small minority within these nations, specifically, a Jewish minority that was bent on pushing these countries into war and had been ever since Hitler came to power. This minority was able to capture control of the foreign policy of these nations and precipitate the Second World War. So why did not Britain and France not attack Germany earlier? As I said, the people of these countries really didn't want to. Chamberlain himself did not want to start the war but he was pressured into doing so. He later on himself blamed the world Jews for starting the war. To understand why the Second World War happened, we must focus on the internal political dynamic within Britain and France, not Germany.

Why did they appease Hitler for so long?
Its very simple. It was only towards the very end that the Jewish minority and its allies within these nations were able to triumph. They were able to put enormous pressure upon Chamberlain before this however, as he was concerned his coalition might dissolve.

Britain and France had an OBLIGATION to declare war on Germany.
They had an obligation to declare war on Germany over Czechoslovakia as well but that didn't happen. The invasion of Czechoslovakia after its disintegration did not cause WW2. Likewise, the invasion of Poland did not cause WW2 either. It was Britain and France that made the decision to declare war on Germany. This started the Second World War. And why did Britain and France declare war on Germany? Answer: because a strong and vocal Jewish minority within these countries ultimately triumphed.

When a country that you have pledged to support is attacked, you declare war on the aggressor. This is hardly something new.
Once again, WW2 did not begin because Czechoslovakia dissolved. Neither Britain or France had to honour their commitments to Poland (which was using these nations anyway, for its own expansionist interests).

Poor little Germany. All they'd been given was, um, several chunks of Europe in exchange for nothing. How dare France and Britain declare war on them merely for breaking an agreement and attacking a country France and Britain had declared support for!

Um.... Wait.....

Germany was the aggressor. Being in support of Hitler's goals is one thing, as is thinking the world would be better off if the Nazis had won. Both are matters of opinion. But claiming that Germany was the victim, tricked into war, is just silly.

I'm rather glad Germany lost the war.

A saner world if Germany had won? Hardly. It's even saner to imagine Germany could've won.

Had France and GB. wanted a war with Germany it would seem that they missed the boat completely when the Rhineland was reoccupied back in 1936.
If Chamberlain said it " Jews started the war" that does not make it correct , I myself don't hold with "the Jews starting it".
After Munich the cat was out of the bag. Hitler may have been able to justify his desires by looking at the germn minority in Czech lands but there was no German minority in Prague , he just helped himself to what remained.
He encouraged the Poles to look for gains as well and would have been trying to bring Poland closer to germany , when these moves failed he wanted to use force.
Mosty was engineered to provide grounds for aggression.
The end of WW1 treaty was a mess as far as national borders went , but did it really justify WW2 ?
The real aims of expanding the reich went far beyond taking back that which had been lost in 14-18 .
Living Space in the East was needed , that would mean war with Russia.
Had France and GB. really been spoiling for a fight they could have had with grounds done so in 1936.

The joint decision to carve up Poland naked aggression.

How dare Germany occupy the Rhineland! Gasps! The horror of Bohemia being a part of the Greater German Reich! :p

*Germany lost the last war. It is well-known that if you lose a war, you get reamed. The amazing thing was that France and Germany didn't actually enforce the Treaty of Versailles when Hitler started getting aggressive.*

Lets critically think about this for a second, shall we?

1.) Does anyone dispute that the Rhineland was part of Germany?
2.) The vast majority of Austrians wanted unification with Germany. Who disputes that?
3.) Bohemia was part of the German Reich for centuries. Who disputes that?
4.) Poland and Lithuania were occupying former German territories filled with German populations? Who disputes that?

*1) It was part of Germany before Germany lost WWI, which Germany had a large part in starting (carte blanche to Austria on the subject of Serbia, invading Belgium bringing the British in, etc etc). If you don't want to lose territories, don't lose wars, either by winning them, or by not starting them.
2) If the majority of Austrians wanted unification so much, why did Germany have to spend time and money making sure that Austrian National Socialists gained power? Surely if they had that much support they would have gotten into office without German meddling.
3) See 1)
4) Ditto.

This *agreement* was, and I emphasize, a DICTATE imposed upon a defeated nation. A DICTATE is not a TREATY. There is nothing whatsoever sacred about a DICTATE. Its funny that you of all people should bark on about international law, Sinclair. I am quite familar with international law. The Allies made a mockery of centuries of precedent in international in the aftermath of both world wars. They completely turned existing international law on its head the first time by repudiating the order that had existed since the Treaty of Westphalia and the second time by reviving the medieval doctrine of just war.

*Yeah, Germany got fucked over unfairly. But these things happen. And when did I say anything about law? I said that England and France had full right to go to war with Germany, as they had made an agreement with Poland. Hitler wasn't, in my opinion, breaking a law when he invaded Poland, but he knew that France and England had pledged support. He was gambling on them not coming in. He lost that bet.*


Lets see. Poland was an openly hostile country in league with a military pact, the sole purpose of which was to weaken and surround Germany.

*The Poles knew that Hitler would be interested in taking Poland back. As such, they tried to keep this from happening. I really don't see anything wrong with that. Is looking out for number one WRONG?*

This is not true. The Allies were the aggressors. It was the allies who imposed the dictate upon Germany. Aggressors are not necessarily those who first use force, but those who render force necessary.That is a very old concept in international law. Furthermore, it was the Allies, not Germany, that started the Second World War. There would never have been a world war had the Allies not attacked Germany, which was interested in resolving its Eastern border in its own favour.

*But the Allies had clearly stated with their pledge of support to Poland that they would not tolerate Germany taking Poland! It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with the fact that Hitler damn well knew about this pledge of support. If someone draws a line and says "cross this line and I shoot you", if you cross it you accept the results. If you think he won't have the guts to shoot you, by all means cross it, but if he does shoot you, don't piss and moan. Germany started WWII. They were the ones to first cross another country's borders. Poland was a country. It had borders. Germany attacked Poland. You see what I'm getting at?*

The Allies defeated Germany in the Great War. The Allies then imposed a DICTATE upon Germany and called it a TREATY. They created a system of hostile international alliances in order to surround Germany, an aggressive act. This system of alliances was purposely designed to weaker Germany and assure French ascendency over the Continent. That is not a treaty at all.

*So the English and French set up alliance systems to surround Germany after WWI? So what? The Germans did the same thing after the Franco-Prussian war, so as to weaken France and assure German ascendancy over the Continent.

It was the well-known, time-honoured practice of the winner fucking the loser up the ass after a war that tore Germany a new one after WWI. If they had won, I doubt they'd have been incredibly nice to the French and English.

Fade, why is it that you seem to preach beliefs involving no right and wrong, but then get all shirty about the way that the victors screwed over the losers after WWI? I mean, there are no rules in international affairs. International law is a joke. Hitler didn't start WWII when he broke some kind of international law, he did it when he crossed the proverbial "line in the sand" that England and France had drawn out. He knew the risks, didn't he?*

Had France and GB. wanted a war with Germany it would seem that they missed the boat completely when the Rhineland was reoccupied back in 1936.
The French and British people did not want a war with Germany. The same is true of the American people. The German people did not want a war with the West and neither did Hitler. A substantial portion of the political leadership of all these nations (e.g., the Western Allies) did not want a war and resisted it to the bitter end -- much less a world war (especially one over Poland) -- either.

So why did these nations go to war with Germany? Its very simple. For years, there was a very small minority of politically well-connected agitators in the Allied nations that were bent on starting a world war (much as was the case in the lead up to the Iraq War). This minority was also overwhelmingly Jewish. This is the part of the story that is so often glossed over. You see, most people today are used to thinking in states as opposed to non-state actors. But this ignores an important part of the story as non-state actors are often more powerful than most states in the international system. It does not take into account the reaction of international Jewry, itself a world power, to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Do you think international Jewry just sat back and twiddled its thumbs after Adolf Hitler himself came to power? No. They immediantely started pressuring the Western governments to attack Germany. Ultimately, they were able to start WW2.

If Chamberlain said it " Jews started the war" that does not make it correct , I myself don't hold with "the Jews starting it".
Chamberlain guaranteed Poland because he was under enormous political pressure at home, to preserve his coalition and maintain his government. And where was this pressure in parliament coming from? It was coming from Winston Churchill and his Jewish allies in the press and in business who had been fomenting hate against Germany for years. Churchill himself even said that anti-Nazism and Jewish resentment were the same thing. He was also deeply financially indebted to wealthy Jews after his debacle in the stock market. Later on, Chamberlain told the American Ambassador, Joseph Kennedy (President Kennedy's father) that the world Jews around Churchill and Roosevelt started the war because they disliked how Hitler's government was treating German Jewry.

That makes perfect sense. International Jewry had everything to lose because of the rise of Adolf Hitler. More Jews lived in Poland than any other nation. This is why Hitler's invasion of Poland was so significant that it was worth starting a world war over. Britain and France, however, had absolutely no rational stake in starting a world war with Germany. The only possible outcome of such a war would be to diminish the strength of both of these nations viz America and Japan. If these states were rational actors, they would never have chosen a cure that was worse than the disease.

After Munich the cat was out of the bag.
Once again, lets think about this. How, pray tell, did the German occupation of Bohemia (which had been a part of the Reich for centuries) pose a mortal threat to Britain and France? Lets not pretend here for a second either that Czechoslovakia was anything but a ridiculous joke created by the Allies (a nation they created out of thin air) with the sole purpose of weakening Hungary and Germany. It was never a nation and disintegrated for precisely that reason (as it did so yet again after the Cold War). Neither Britain or France had any real stake in Czechoslovakia.

Hitler may have been able to justify his desires by looking at the germn minority in Czech lands
1.) Czechoslovakia was created by the Allies for the sole purpose of weakening Germany and Hungary. The goal was to increase the power of Britain and France viz Germany.
2.) Czechoslovakia had never existed before in all of world history.
3.) Czechoslovakia was dominated by Czech thugs who brutalized minorities. The German minority was only one minority amongst many in this regard.
4.) The German minority had a legitimate grievence against the Czech government.
5.) The German minority wanted to reunite itself with the German Reich. Who disputes that? Thus the German Reich had a legitimate grievence against Czechoslovakia.

. . .but there was no German minority in Prague , he just helped himself to what remained.
This is a very long story that goes back centuries. Bohemia had been a part of the German Reich for centuries. In fact, at one point, Prague was the capital of the German Reich itself. Germans and Czechs had lived together as Bohemians for centuries. Czech nationalism, at least in modernity, was a very recent phenomenon. The Czechs were able to take over large parts of Bohemia much in the same way as the Mexicans are colonising the Southwest in the U.S. today. A similar situation would be that of the Albanians in Kosovo which used to be the heartland of Serbia.

He encouraged the Poles to look for gains as well and would have been trying to bring Poland closer to germany , when these moves failed he wanted to use force.
Poland? What is Poland? Hey, Cerberus. Tell me this. Where did Poland go for about two centuries? Furthermore, why was Poland revived? Who revived Poland? What was the ethnic composition of Poland at the time of the outbreak of WW2? What was the ethnic composition of Danzig? And yes, Poland did attack Czechoslovakia. Poland attacked the Soviet Union as well during the 1920s in hopes of gaining lebensraum in the East. Poland threatened to attack Germany throughout the 1930s.

Mosty was engineered to provide grounds for aggression.
I would not go so far as to say WW1 ever really ended. The outcome of WW1 was merely a punative dictate against Germany and Hungary. The Western Allies annointed three 'good guy' peoples in Eastern Europe -- the Serbs, the Czechs, and the Poles. They then rewarded these peoples by carving up the defeated powers and creating states around these 'good guy' peoples. There was absolutely nothing sacred about the outcome of WW1. The aggression never ended. Many historians now see the world wars as a second 'Thirty Years' War'.

The end of WW1 treaty was a mess as far as national borders went , but did it really justify WW2 ?
WW1 ended in a DICTATE against the defeated powers that violated centuries of precedent in international law. The international system that was created in the aftermath of the Great War was designed with the sole purpose in mind of strengthening some nations, France in particular, over others, Germany and Hungary especially.

The real aims of expanding the reich went far beyond taking back that which had been lost in 14-18 .
Have you ever heard of the Morgenthau Plan?

Living Space in the East was needed , that would mean war with Russia.
How would a war between Germany and Poland or Germany and Russia have turned into a world war?

Had France and GB. really been spoiling for a fight they could have had with grounds done so in 1936.
France and Great Britain did not want to attack Germany. It was only a small minority within these nations that wanted a world war. They ultimately got their wish.

The joint decision to carve up Poland naked aggression.
Poland was an aggressive nation long before Germany invaded it.

Tell the Czechs. that they were never a nation.
If you are going to go back centuries to give reason for Hitler going to prague , well everything that has happened since 1066 gives England every reason to go to war with France or the Netherlands , Spain etc.
How far do you want to go back , year AD perhaps ?
Should we all declare war on Italy because Rome invaded us ?
This Jewish conspircay keeps coming up again and again .
Is there anything the Jews did not do ?
Had Hitler not oppressed the Jews , would WW2 not have taken place ?
I recall that Hilter said he had no more claims to make after Munich , seems he set this aside when he went to Prague and when he wanted Danzig.
These two would seem to be over and above Munich , after all Prague was occupied when and the demands for danzig to be returned came when ?
Seems Hitler made the demands up as he went along and you will if necessary go back centuries to justify them .
As far as end of WW1 went , do you think Germany would have been saying to france "no hard feelings".
Seems no one liked Poland Russia or Germany , apart from the Poles.
So your bottom lie is Hitler was being perfectly reasonable when he took czech nation , Austria was German anyway , Poland had no right to exist and GB and France had nothing to fear and everything to gain from being a German Ally.
What about an invasion of Russia , you see this as a preemptive strike which would be justified on the grounds that Stalin would have attacked Germany sooner or later and it was best to get in first ?
Yugoslavia , another nation which did not have any rights ?
Greece another nation without rights ?
belgium another nation without rights ?
Netherlands another nation without rights ?
Norway another nation without rights ?
Denmark another nation without rights ?
Baltic states , did you say thesewere once German , Hilter was prepared to see them under Soviet influence , more nations without rights ?
Stalin and Hilter pretty much carved up eastern europe between them ?
Under all of this you appear to be under the illusion that Hitler could be trusted ?
How many of the nations without rights would have opted for german occupation as per the Hitler goverment as opposed to running their own affairs ?