8-10-04

Jewin' About World War II

Every week some Jewish writer - or leftist journalist - claims that Those Super-Duper-Evil Nazis [tm, the Jewish community] started WWII and that anyone who says otherwise just might be a closet Holocaust denier [tm].

For the record, Soviet-pal Neville Chamberlain and his various pro-Soviet buddies started WWII by....declaring war. Germany was a great power and they feared that Germany would become a giant race-state that stretched across all of Europe - not good if'n you are pushing the New World/Jew World Order of equality, feminism, faggotry and other things that sprang mostly from the twisted brains of Jews like Adam Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Franz Boas, Ashley Montagu and so many others:

http://wsi.matriots.com/WWIIcauses.html




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

Here we go again!

How did Britain start WWII? Britain and France had given a guarantee of support to Poland, and when Germany attacked Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler was counting on Britain and France not having the balls to come to war to aid Poland, and he miscalculated.

One would think that the first to attack is usually the one that started the war.

Here we go again!

How did Britain start WWII? Britain and France had given a guarantee of support to Poland, and when Germany attacked Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler was counting on Britain and France not having the balls to come to war to aid Poland, and he miscalculated.

One would think that the first to attack is usually the one that started the war.

So why did they ignore the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Poland? If you guarantee the independence of a country, you guarantee it against all threats, not just one.

Who says that a War between Germany and Polakia is a "World War"? It was a purely european conflict untill the Anglos decided to draw everyone into it.

there wouldn*t have been an invasion of Norway if the British hadn't decided to land there. Same goes for the low countries and Greece.

The British landed in the Low Countries? When would this be? When German paratroopers took important sites in Holland?When the Germans crossed throught the Ardennes?

Yeah, it wasn't a world war until England and France entered, but *hello*, they were coming to the aid of a country they had promised aid to! I mean, is that so hard to figure out?

Germany was the first to attack. I'm not talking about whether or not Germany had reasons to attack, I'm not talking about whether or not the Allies should have declared war on the USSR, I'm talking about the simple fact that it was German troops that crossed the Polish border first. This was followed by the British and French declaring war on Germany, for the simple reason that they had guaranteed Poland support.

Attempting something and not having it work is one thing, playing the victim afterwards is another. I really doubt that Hitler was somehow in the dark about Britain and France lining up with the Poles in the event of an attack, and yet he attacked anyway, hoping the British and French would wuss out.

Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933. The Second World War was in any case an inevitable consequence of the First World War, which also was started by the Jews. :mad:

Oh, for crying out loud. WWI was a nearly-inevitable result of global and local pressures and ambitions. The great powers wanted more than was available, it was hardly strange that they eventually went to war.

If the Jews are capable of, over the term of centuries, setting the stage for that kind of thing, without slipping up, then they're obviously superior.

And I supose Dr. Brandt that the troop movemenst and the deployment of U-Boats and surace fleet of the Kreigsmarine just took place over night.
Such things have to be planned , it takes time it just does not happen.
As far as GB starting WW2 , ist a bit daft to take it seriously.
When did it become a world war , 22nd June 41 when Hitler moved east on Russia.
GB starting it , as Sinclair says it was the " they won't act in defense of Poland " view that caused the war to involve France and GB.
This idea that the Jews started the war and started WW1 is plain silly and the stuff of MK and Ah day dreams.

War was going on all over the world prior to any German military action. Japan and Italy were both breaking the League Of Nations rules and invading other nations to create an empire. Germany was late in the game, even when the aunschlaus was taking place Italy and Japan had already been carrying out military operations. That is the world war: Germany was just the most serious obstacle in complete federalo-capitalist domination of the world market.

So how again did Germany start WWII?

The Soviet Union gobbled up nations in Eastern Europe. The point about Poland, Sinclair, is that both Germany and USSR invaded Poland at the same time from either side. Why isn't the Soviet Union to blame for starting WWII, then? Why did the Soviet Union gain exception from the treaty between France+England with protecting Poland?

The treaty was directed towards the moveemnt of German troops on Poland .
Germany moved a week before Russia did .( as far as I can recall , certainly it as after war had been declared by West powers ).

The Russians as well when the treaty was signed up to to try and contain Germany's moves alone.
WOuld be a bit like Hitler declaring on US in 41 , a move which made matters worse for Western Powers .
Had F & GB defeated Germany , Russia would hardly be able to give any reason for remaining in Poland.
A dirty act to carve up eastern europe between them , Stalin and Hitler had much in common with each other.

Sinclair, the point is that it's not appropriate to say that Germany started the war. Britain didn't have to guarantee support to Poland. If we want to name one country as the instigator, it has to be Britain.

What do you mean they "didn't have to"? Nobody HAD to do anything. Hitler didn't HAVE to invade Poland. But yet England gave support to Poland, after handing over quite a lot of land to Germany beforehand, and Hitler gave the order to invade nonetheless.

War was going on all over the world prior to any German military action. Japan and Italy were both breaking the League Of Nations rules and invading other nations to create an empire. Germany was late in the game, even when the aunschlaus was taking place Italy and Japan had already been carrying out military operations. That is the world war: Germany was just the most serious obstacle in complete federalo-capitalist domination of the world market.

So how again did Germany start WWII?

The Soviet Union gobbled up nations in Eastern Europe. The point about Poland, Sinclair, is that both Germany and USSR invaded Poland at the same time from either side. Why isn't the Soviet Union to blame for starting WWII, then? Why did the Soviet Union gain exception from the treaty between France+England with protecting Poland?

Did England or France promise support to any of the nations Italy and Japan were fighting against?

The Germans moved against Poland before Russia did. I don't know why Britain and France didn't declare war against the USSR. But that doesn't change the fact that Germany attacked Poland before anybody else did.

Yes. SouthEast/South Asia was still under the control of F+GB.

Germany had a legitimate claim to land that was given to Poland after WWI. Hitler said he wanted Germanic lands back; and he got some of them. He made his intentions clear. The Danzig corridor was a ridiculous idea and had no right to be defended by anybody. Germany had territory that was split into 2 pieces, not even a geographically unified nation-state anymore. Regardless the invasion of Poland was necessary for the unification of Germany under German lands.

But what is "right" and what is the actual reality in politics, these are different things.

Traditionally, starting a war involves being the first to move. Right and wrong don't factor into it. Besides, if Poland is part of Germany, why are the Poles ethnically separate from the Germans? Some parts of modern-day Poland might belong to Germany, but hardly the whole shebang.

The Danzig Corridor was German before WWI and before WWII, as well as after both, just not in name.

And Germany did not make the first moves toward world war, Italy and Japan had. So France had no obligation to protect her colonies in Indochina/Southeast Asia, and the Brits to parts of that region?

Polish jews in the Danzig corridor murdered 58,000 Germans in 1939. They killed 5500 on " Bloody Broomberg " on one day


http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/r/professor2222/versaille56.jpg


Say a pray for Kerri Dunn (http://judicial-inc.biz/)

Traditionally, starting a war involves being the first to move. Right and wrong don't factor into it. Besides, if Poland is part of Germany, why are the Poles ethnically separate from the Germans? Some parts of modern-day Poland might belong to Germany, but hardly the whole shebang.

Does forcing the opponent's hand count as "being the first to move"?

Click for music (http://home.att.net/~musicpatf2/engelvomlagomaggiore_Flippers.mid)

Hitler had to protect German nationals in Poland

http://home.att.net/~whitesox/israel/Hopscie.4.jpg


Skunk's summary


Churchill - under British Jewry - guarantee Poland protection from Hitler. Polish jews were now free to kill Polish Germans and steal their property. The idea was to start a war – the beneficary was Russian Jewish communism.

In 1939 the Polish jews began a mass slaughter.





The slaughter ordered by international Jewry

http://home.att.net/~kimmel_a/jack_barbara/bromberg4.jpg





The book - " Polish atrocities "



"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)


The historical record on Bromberg "Bloody Sunday" and related incidents -- 58,000 dead or missing by Feb 1940. The German invasion was Sep 1939, but it's important to understand that many of the outrages had preceded the German invasion. This was proved by the amount of decomposition of the bodies. Thus, these atrocities cannot be excused simply as reprisals for the German invasion (which would be wrong anyway). They included 19 year-old girls with their faces smashed, amputations, disembowelments, shot thru' the eye, death-trauma births, you name it.

Poles had been merrily slaughtering anything or anybody German since at least as early as April 1939, with smaller incidents stretching back to the close of WW I -- you haven't been told that by the Mass Media, or the fact that these atrocities were one of the main causes for the German invasion of Poland, something that was meant by the Germans to be a local solution to a local problem.

Germany had already done the "right thing" by protesting in writing to the League of Nations literally dozens of times. The League of Nations did nothing, yet the problem had to be solved.





Rydz Smigly - Polish General who threatened war

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to."

http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/r/professor2222/polish_general.jpg


As soon as his army started to lose, this bragging Polish "warrior" ran away to Romania, leaving his troops in a lurch! Yet to this day, no opprobrium is cast his way by the establishment media. Why not?]



Subsequent to the German invasion, Britain declared war on Germany, yet after the Soviet Union invaded the eastern Polish territory only a few weeks later, Britain neglected to declare war on the Soviet Union. </font></span></font> Why not, if the integrity of Poland's borders was so important? Inquiring minds want to know. After using these incidents as obvious pretext (the real purpose being to take down Germany as an economic rival and arch anti-NWO force), Britain then began bombing the Ruhr Valley the day after Churchill took office (May 10, 1940), specifically targeting civilian areas in addition to industrial and military targets. The rest is history -- a shameful and gut-wrenching one.


On Bromberg Bloody Sunday, thousands of ethnic Germans were slaughtered like pigs in an alley because the majority "poles" (the "slavic", non-Teutonic types, really Turco-Ugaric, Hunnic, Tartar and Mongoloid residue from the old "Dark Age" invasions) knew they could do so with total impunity.

Marshal Pilsudski had died, and Britain's leaders had made unconditional guarantees to Poland as a pretense to ensure maximum political tensions in Eastern Europe to serve the interests of Soviet Russia.





A bloated 1/2 Jew Churchill

He would guarantee Poland protection

http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/r/professor2222/45re.jpg


Poles in official capacity were openly laying claim to ancient German territory, were engaging in the crudest pea-brained saber-rattling, had engaged in border violations and boasted of marching thru' the gates of Berlin in 3 weeks (or days, depending on which buzzing brain was indulging in the fantasy). Poland had even stolen a chunk of "Czechoslovak" territory in early '39.
* * * * *

The [NATO] bombing war also violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent 'Polish atrocities' [his quotation marks] against Germans", says Walter J. Rockler, former prosecutor to the Nuremberg war crimes trials,</font></span></font>"



The 1/2 jew Stalin

Would use White Russian blood to kill off Germany. International Jewry had to eliminate Germany for their Communist movement to succeed

http://home.att.net/~whitesox/israel/stal.jpg


http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm

Well, a book published by, as far as I can tell, "Volk und Reich Verlag Berlin" in 1940 has GOT to be the number one source for unbiased, objective facts!

Uh, wait, no. Why is it that while pictures of concentration camp inmates, dead and emaciated, stacked like cordwood, are denounced as frauds, but pictures of dead bodies, supposedly Germans, supposedly killed by Poles, are supposed to be accepted as gospel truth? I mean, I can think of sources I would rather go to for accurate information than some German WWII propaganda-mill.

And what reason would Poles have to NOT be hostile towards Germans? Poland is a nation that has been screwed from both east and west for quite some time. The Nazis were hardly hiding their desires to take back Poland.

But what actual proof is there for these assertations? I would like something that resembles "proof", instead of a link to a site selling books about how the Evil Jews are planning to take over the World and blah blah blah WAKE UP WHITE MAN.

Sinclair

Prove that WWII happened.

FYI -- that webpage about who started WWII has been updated...

http://wsi.matriots.com/WWIIcauses.html



---------

FYI -- that webpage about who started WWII has been updated...

http://wsi.matriots.com/WWIIcauses.html



---------

Good page

What a load of propagandistic nonsense you are peddling, "the skunk".


You begin with a preposterous statement:

"Polish jews were now free to kill Polish Germans and steal their property. The idea was to start a war – the beneficary was Russian Jewish communism.

In 1939 the Polish jews began a mass slaughter. "

I can assure you that it was Polish gentiles who attacked German civilians.

And can you back up this assertion, that Polish Jews really wanted Germany to go into war with Poland - putting them straight into the harm's way - with any sort of documentary evidence?


- “On Bromberg Bloody Sunday, thousands of ethnic Germans were slaughtered like pigs in an alley because the majority "poles" (the "slavic", non-Teutonic types, really Turco-Ugaric, Hunnic, Tartar and Mongoloid residue from the old "Dark Age" invasions) knew they could do so with total impunity.”

Pseudo-scientific bullshit. Polish Gentiles are at least as "Aryan" as Germans, if not even more. Your source only discredits itself by spouting such nonsense.


- "Poles had been merrily slaughtering anything or anybody German since at least as early as April 1939, ..."

DOCUMENTATION, PLEASE.


And yet more BS piled upon BS: Churchill and Stalin were not "half-Jews."

//////////////////////////

To begin with, the "Bromberg massacre" happened only after Germany had attacked Poland, and Poles were somewhat understandably pissed (not to mention in the state of panic).

"Bromberger Blutsonntag or Bromberg Bloody Sunday is an event that is said to have taken place on September 3, 1939 during the German invasion, ..."


Second, German civilians at Bromberg did not probably behave in the most loyal manner possible towards the Polish army:

"Polish witnesses testified that early that day Polish army withdrawing via Bydgoszcz was attacked by diversants; someone was shooting at soldiers and civilians from roofs and church towers."

I see a correlation between Poles jumping on German civilians in the aftermath of German invasion in 1939 and Balts and Ukrainians jumping on Jewish civilians in the aftermath of mass executions performed by the retreating NKVD in 1941.


Third, we can always dispute numbers:

"The scale of the event is controversial. De Zayas estimates it for 2000. Hugo Rasmus compared Bydgoszcz address books and data for population for 1939 with Nazi lists of supposed victims and found 358 persons known from name who died that day in Bydgoszcz. Most of them are female and children."

...

"Initially, Nazis claimed that 5000 Germans died in Poland in September 1939. Later, they inflated that number in 1940 to 58,000, and Hitler personally raised that number to over 60,000. De Zayas now estimates "conservatively" that number to be 5,000. Although many of those killed were victims of the war conditions (many Germans were drafted to Polish army for example, cities were bombed by Luftwaffe and artillery, civilians on the roads were strafed), it's without doubt that some Germans were victims of local acts of violence, of which Bydgoszcz was the most known example."


And finally, a sobering reminder:

"As the act of revenge, imidiately 3000 of Poles were victims of street executions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromberg_Bloody_Sunday


Petr

Its matters little that the site has been updated.
You can't change the running order, Hitler started WW2, a plain simple fact, ( ?Blame who you like anybody by "A.H." week perhaps ?).

Skunk is a humorist Petr( and possibly jewish himself) not a serious poster.

I just wish he would stick to skits.

Well, a book published by, as far as I can tell, "Volk und Reich Verlag Berlin" in 1940 has GOT to be the number one source for unbiased, objective facts!

Uh, wait, no. Why is it that while pictures of concentration camp inmates, dead and emaciated, stacked like cordwood, are denounced as frauds, but pictures of dead bodies, supposedly Germans, supposedly killed by Poles, are supposed to be accepted as gospel truth? I mean, I can think of sources I would rather go to for accurate information than some German WWII propaganda-mill.

Sorry but I don't think anybody denies such pictures but I can say with certainty that people question the absurd allegations which are claimed. Nobody to my knowledge denies that Jews perished from typhus.

And I also see absolutely no reason to question the slaugther of ethnic Germans by the Poles since it does not defy the laws of physics or laws of science which the silly 'holocaust' allegations almost always does.

-k0nsl

detoxification!
k0nsl How much have you had to drink that you need detox. at every turn and corner ? :D
I would lay of the Librium if I were you.

"WhiteRevolution" now that is a really good source of " information". :rolleyes:

You do recall post Munich that Hitler said he had "no more demands" to make , you do recall that there were no german minorities in Prague , he was not returning German Lands there and as far as Danzig goes he is on record as saying that Danzig was not the issue , living space was the aim.

AS Sinclair points out the Soviet ?German pact was a menas to an end , a freee hand to both dictaors to do what they liked and a card which Hitler thought would deter any intervention from the west.

Churchill , as far as I am aware it was Chamberlain who made the speech from Number 10 , not Churchill , he had just returned as First Sea Lord.

Pictures , reinhold might even suggest that they just show people on the ground, who is to say they are dead , let alone German ?
This is what has been said of those who died in concentration camps , if that same logic is followed your photos don't mean anything do they ?

The sequence as has been pointed out to you is out of order.

Don't you know? Piles of what are said to be dead Germans are the gospel truth, piles of what are said to be dead Jews are ZOG lies. ;)

It is the art of playing poacher and game keeper.
From having had contact with Reinhold and k0nsl sooner or later they end up playing this game ,victims of their own warped logic, only thing is they shift and change the angle of the playing field as and when they like it , ignoring what are obviously immoral criminal acts , re defining law and ethics , having none (as and when it pleases them ) and the holy of holies don't ever admit that anything done or ordered by Hitler or his Goverment might have been wrong.
That is the big "no no".
Hell they even define what are the laws of physics , do I hear " Scotty" from "Star Trek" in the back ground. :rolleyes:

I can assure you that it was Polish gentiles who attacked German civilians.


Polish Bolshevik Jews started WW 2 (http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm)

the_skunk. can you at least try and get some things right ?
if this is proof and history , its history in the absense of fact and with fiction used to fill in the gaps.
poor effort old son.
BTW Would it really matter who killed these poor people ?
Who took Germany out of the League of nations and when ?

- "Polish Bolshevik Jews started WW 2"


- skunk:

Do you think that that non-documented, non-footnoted crap actually means anything?

It also contains elementary errors - Stalin was not Jewish and if "International Jewry represented 80% of those attending the Versailles treaty," then I'd like to see some evidence for this.

Are you surely not an infiltrator agent provocateur out to make Nazis look like uneducated boneheads?


Petr

But who makes up those sites which the links lead to and who takes note of what they say ?

Adolf Hitler, of course. :p

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/law/witt/L6213/images/lect25/fx08_fdr.churchill.casablanca.jpg

no definate answer, you are all dumbasses trying to turn a complex multi-body emergence problem into some sort of simple linear cause-effect diagram.

But it is hard to dispute, without going into BS propaganda and ridiculous apologism, that the Germans had the largest aggressive role.

Cause = Adolf Hitler
Effect = WW2.
Its about as simple as it gets, he failed to see the effect that would befall if his judgement failed.
AH. Who else indeed Fade , perhaps the Nazi who was in hiding on "Craggy Island" or was that R******d. :)

- "Polish Bolshevik Jews started WW 2"

Are you surely not an infiltrator agent provocateur out to make Nazis look like uneducated boneheads?


Petr

The Nazis have never needed help on that score.

Who else indeed Fade , perhaps the Nazi who was in hiding on "Craggy Island" or was that R******d. :)It was the Poles who attacked the radio station. Operation Canned Goods? :p

Here's a collection of posts from another forum where I had a 'holocau$t' discussion and this question was asked:


I wonder, if Hitler was such a peace lover, why did he attack us Dutchies and the Belgians, Danes, French, Czechoslovakians, Norwegians etc.?

I'm all for the truth.

-------

First, you are mistaken about the so-called Czechoslovakians. He never attacked them. Secondly there are no Czechoslovakians, only Czechs and Slovaks. The Slovaks seceded from a country they never asked to join, run by a people they hated; it was a dictatorship, just like pre-Anschluss Austria and 1939 Poland. Perhaps you recall that they did the same thing in 1989, at the first possible opportunity. The Czechs and Slovaks both asked for German protection, chiefly against the Poles, but also against the Hungarians, Roumanians. Every neighbouring country hated the Czechs because they were the only pro-Communists in Eastern Europe, and hogged huge pieces of land stolen from other countries at the so-called 1919 Peace Conference. Benesch was hated by everyone who ever dealt with him; he was not a sainted martyr as the Americans like to pretend.

The Germans derived nearly all their iron ore from Sweden, shipped through the Baltic. The British intended to invade Norway to interdict these shipments, i.e., Sweden would have been next. The British made one invasion attempt, which failed, they also sank a German ship in Norwegian territorial waters, the Altmark, and machine gunned German shipwreck survivors as they attempted to escape over the ice, which of course is in violation of international law. It is a basic principle of warfare that if you know your enemy is going to occupy a strategic position from which he can inflict damage on you, you must occupy the position first. Incidentally the violation of neutral territory was never much of an issue until the British made it a big propaganda issue in 1914. The Russo-Japanese war was fought almost entirely in China, which was neutral, and nobody cared. The British invaded the Boer Republics and killed 10-20% of the country by putting them in concentration camps, in 1900-1902, then in 1914, presto! Britain becomes the champion of the independence and neutrality of small countries, i.e., Belgium, and, in 1939, Poland. Belgium was never a neutral country anyway and the degree of British hypocrisy may be judged by what happened to Poland in 1945. More or less the same story for Denmark, it was to prevent British violation of Danish territory; same with Luxembourg, where there were already French tanks.

Belgium was invaded in 1940 because the Belgians permitted the British to fly over Belgian air space for 6 months to bomb the Ruhr. Hitler protested in writing 120 times. Same for Holland, more or less. It's not like checkers, where you can just leave a square and hope the other player won't occupy the square. There wouldn't have been any war if Britain and France hadn't declared war; people forget that. In 1914, Germany declared war on France first, but the sitution was different. Once the Russians and French mobilized, the Germans had no choice but to go on the offensive and knock the French out of the war before the Russians could mobilize completely; otherwise the whole war would have taken place in Germany; Germany would have been invaded by combined armies of over 5 million men. That's 1914, but 1939 was very similar, except that Hitler delayed for 6 months making peace offers that were ignored, just as he made dozens of disarmament proposals that were ignored before he decided to rearm. Then the British claimed they had to arm (even more than before) in self-defense to keep Germany from "conquering the world", and all their other lies.

Yugoslavia was invaded because Hitler had to protect his supply lines to Greece; the country had just had an anti-German coup d'etat. Russia was invaded because the Russians had 300 divisions and 24,000 modern tanks on the Polish border; they were moving millions of men to the front, demolishing protective fortifications for 50 miles inside Russia. It was obviously a preemptive strike, which in fact saved Europe from Communism. Except for Poland, etc...

I am not sure of the strategic importance of a country like Denmark but in the case of Holland and Belgium it is obvious that if the British were going to continue to bomb Germany then the Germans had to shorten the distance involved in order to bomb back at better advantage, i.e., they could take off from air fields in Holland or Belgium. I assume they occupied Denmark to protect the Baltic, after all they had major submarine bases at Kiel and places not far away. In any case it did the Danes very little harm; one person was killed, that's all.
People forget that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler made 20 peace proposals in the first year of the war; all he ever got was insults. The British have rightfully been called "a country so peace-loving that for 1000 years they never let a generation go by without engaging in warfare someplace else in the world."

Incidentally the British would have gone to war in 1914 even without a violation of Belgium neutrality because they had secret agreements with the French; Prime Minister Grey lied to Parliament about this. The French had plans to violate Belgianeutrality and openly admitted this.

Have I forgotten anything?

------

Another thing, there are no natural barriers between Belgium and northern Germany so if the French had been allowed to violate Belgian neutrality and invade Germany the whole war would have taken place in Germany and Germany would have been wrecked. Belgium was never a neutral country: they had agreements with the British and French against the Germans, but no agreements with the Germans against the British and French. Their manner of resistance (guerrilla warfare) proves they were never neutral. Anyway, the Germans were accused of violating two treaties relating to Belgian neutrality: one dated 1838 and one dated 1870 (I believe). The latter expired in 12 months. The 1838 treaty no longer applied partly because of the incorporation of the Belgian Congo into Belgium proper. Under international law, a colony was considered part of the mother country. Hence the Germans and all other parties to the 1839 treaty were supposed to respect the neutrality of the Belgian Congo as well! But they were never asked. A French general said that if anybody on the French General Staff had suggested respecting Belgian neutrality he would have sacked, if not accused of treason. The French moved their entire navy into the Mediterreanean on the basis of a secret agreement with the British in 1907, I believe, that the British would protect the French Atlantic sea coast. So Belgium was just an excuse.

--------

The most astonishing really is that Hitler waited six months to do anything. The British declared war fully believing that London would be bombed with gas bombs immediately. Instead they had to bomb Germany for six months to get any reaction. Even then Hitler refused to occupy all of France or any part of French North Africa (which would probably have permitted him to win the war); he refused to destroy or even capture the British expeditionary forces at Dunkirk, he warned the Belgians 120 times, as I said, he made repeated offers to the Poles, repeatedly putting off his "surprise attack"; he even offered to stop the invasion of Poland on the spot, if the Poles would negotiate. This was a terrible risk, because if the Poles had stalled, the whole German army would have gotten stuck in the mud a few weeks or a month or two later. He was told by his generals that if the attack didn't begin by September 1, that the whole country would be a morass of mud just a few weeks later; almost none of the roads in Poland were paved. Hitler turned the other cheek more times than any other statesman in history. This is true whether people believe it or not. He could have destroyed France much more easily if he had done so immediately after the Polish campaign, instead he waited, making peace proposals. He even refused to ask for any monetary settlement. He treated all his enemies with respect. In Belgrade the Germans put up a monument "To the Great Serbian Enemy" and made many similar comments about the bravery of the French, etc, hopes of friendship with the British, Poles, Czechs, everyone. He hated Benes, but thatwas because of Benes's actions in politics. During the war there were fewer acts of sabotage in Bohemia-Moravia (Prague, etc.) than in Germany itself. He admired the Poles and wanted nothing but a peace settlement with them, which would have been in the interests of both countries. They were natural trading partners, and could have formed a powerful bulwark against Bolshevism in Europe.

---
http://warbucket.com/ibforums/index.php?showtopic=19647

-k0nsl

k0nsl,
That is quite a bit of spin and like all webs its full of holes.
Hitler got Czechoslavika by threat.
The first part at Munich when it was signed away , the threat was war if Hitler did not get his way.
He won out and got his way.
The second part of the country , in much the same way , in spite of Hitler saying he had no further claims to make.
He had the Czech. prime minster come to Berlin at short notice , he kept him waiting ( while he , Hitler watched movies until after 1.30a.m.).
he then put him through a show of inspecting a token guard from the Liebstandarte , before taking him into his study along with Goring to let him know that he could surrender the rest of his country by asking for protection or at 4.00am they would be invaded .
The choice was as simple as that , the poor man collapsed and Hitlers doctor was called to ensure he had not had a heart attack.
Under pressure and threats of being bombed he was forced to make a telephone call to Prague , to say the army should stand down and no resistance to the coming german Army was to be made.
That is how it was , threat of invasion and of loss of life , bombing of Prague and of invasion with no hope of assiatnace from any one.
I will answer your other points later.

That is quite a bit of spin and like all webs its full of holes.I agree. Should I go through this point by point?

Lets start with Czechoslovakia.

First, you are mistaken about the so-called Czechoslovakians.What did the Führer think about the so-called Czechoslovakians.

"In his unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler hand written that the National Socialist movement "knows no Germanizing or Teutonizing . . . but only the spread of its own people. It will never see in the subjugated Czechs or Poles a national, let alone folkish, strengthening, but only the weakening of our people." Hermann Rauschning reports that Hitler said in 1932 that he intended to colonize the Bohemian-Moravian basin with German peasants; the Czechs would be transplanted to Siberia or the Volhynian regions. "The Czechs must get out of Central Europe." This was still his view a decade later. "The Czechs are a foreign body in the midst of the German community," he told his associates in January 1942. "There is no room both for them and us. One of us must give way."

Norman Rich, Hitler's War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974), p.29He never attacked them.He only threatened to obliterate Prague unless the Czechs submitted to his demands. The Czechs raised the white flag. The Poles did not.Secondly there are no Czechoslovakians, only Czechs and Slovaks.Interesting. I was under the impression that Czechoslovakia was a member of the League of Nations and recognized as a sovereign state under international law as well as by almost every nation in the world before Adolf Hitler engineered its destruction.The Slovaks seceded from a country they never asked to join, run by a people they hated; it was a dictatorship, just like pre-Anschluss Austria and 1939 Poland.This is false. Czechoslovakia was a democratic republic throughout the interwar period. It was not a dictatorship. The government of Czechoslovakia went out of its way to appease the Slovaks. Some background info here on the destruction of Czechoslovakia by Hitler.

"Since the formation of the state of Czechoslovakia in 1918, there had always been a substantial number of Slovaks who had resented their incorporation in the Czechoslovak union. In fact, the popularity of the biggest political organisation in Slovakia, the Slovak People's Party, was based in large measure on its opposition to Czech dominion.

The Slovak People's party, which drew its support largely from the rural, Roman Catholic population, had been founded in 1905 by a Roman Catholic priest, Andrej Hlinka, to fight for Slovakia's independence from Hungary when it was still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Dissatisfied with the role conceded the Slovaks in the Czechoslovak union formed after the First World War, Hlinka and his party continued to struggle for Slovakia's independence, but now against the Czechs instead of the Hungarians. With the exception of a brief period from 1927 to 1929, when it entered the national government in return from promises of greater regional autonomy for Slovakia, the Hlinka party consistently opposed the Prague regime. Upon his death on August 16, 1938, Hlinka was succeeded as acting head of the party by Monsignor Jozef Tiso, another Roman Catholic priest, who had served as minister of health in the national government in 1927. After the Munich agreement of September 29, 1938, with the national government demoralised and the Czechoslovak union apparently on the verge of dissolution, Tiso conducted negotiations with Prague which led to an agreement of October 7, 1938, granting Slovakia far-reaching autonomy over its internal affairs and Tiso's appointment as Slovakia's prime minister.

In February 1939, after Hitler had evidently made up his mind to destroy the Czecho-Slovak state, the Nazis began to exert pressure on Slovak nationalists to sever all connections with Prague. The Czechs for their part, alarmed by the growing intrasigeance of the Slovaks, sought assurances from the Slovak government that it would not secede from the Czecho-Slovak union. When these assurances were not forthcoming, the Prague government on March 12 dismissed Tiso and jailed leading advocates of the Slovakian independence movement. It was this crisis over Slovakia that gave Hitler the opportunity to arrange the final breakup of Czechoslovakia and the excuse to occupy the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia.

On March 14, under German pressure, the Slovak parliament declared Slovakia's independence and Tiso again became prime minister. On the following day, as his first official act, Tiso asked Hitler to take Slovakia under Germany's protection, a request the Nazi leader at once granted.

The new state was in dire need of protection, Slovakia had already been shorn of much of its territory. Immediantly after the Munich agreement Poland, as a reward for its tacit support of Germany during the Sudeten crisis, had been encouraged by Hitler to take the Teschen region at the juncture of the Czech and Slovak provinces. One month later, on November 1, 1939, a German-Italian court of arbitration had compelled Slovakia to turn over a broad strip of territory along its southern border to Hungary. What was left of the country now maintained a precarious existence as the sufference of Germany, always subject to the threat that any refusal to yield to German demands might result in Slovakia's complete subjection to Hungary, a fate which had already befallen the Carpatho-Ukraine, which the Germans had delivered up to Hungary on March 15, the day after the Carpatho-Ukraine had proclaimed its own indepedence.

Too late, Tiso tried to make a compromise of sorts with the Czechs by appointing Karol Sidor, prime minister of Slovakia under Czech auspices from March 12 to 14, to the critical post of minister of the interior in his new government, but Sidor remained in office for only one day. Tiso now evidently saw no alternative but to staff his cabinet exclusively with Slovak nationalists who were known to favour cooperation with the Germans. To take the place of Sidor as minister of the interior he apointed Dr. Vojtech Tuka, whom he had previously named deputy prime minister, as minister for foreign affairs he selected Ferdinand Durcansky. Both men had played leading roles in severing Slovakia's connections with Prague, and it was Tuka who in February 1939 had been entrusted by Hitler with a message to Slovak leaders advising them to demand complete independence. With the exception of the minister of war, Ferdinand Catlos, a political independent, all members of Tiso's cabinet belonged to the Slovak People's party.

This cabinet was to remain in office until October 29, 1939, when, in a reorganisation of the Slovak government, Tiso was elected president of the Slovak Republic and a new cabinet was formed with Tuka as prime minister.

Hitler's promise to Tiso of March 15, 1939, to take Slovakia under his protection was followed by a formal treaty of protection between Germany and Slovakia, signed on March 18 and 23. By the terms of this treaty the German Reich guaranteed the political independence of the Slovakian state and the integrity of its territory. To do so effectively the German Werhmacht was to have the right to set up military installations along Slovakia's western frontier, generally delineated by the eastern edge of the Little Carpathians, the White Carpathians, and the Javornik Mountains, and to man them with such forces as it considered necessary. Slovakia was to organise its own military forces and to conduct its foreign policy in close consultation with the German government.

In a supplementary protocol on economic and financial cooperation between Germany and Slovakia, particular emphasis was placed on agricultural production, the development of mines and industry, communication and transport. Slovakia was to have its own currency, with a Slovak National Bank to supervise the country's financial policies. This bank was to have the benefit of an advisor from the German Reichsbank, who was to be consulted by the Slovak government in drawing up the national budget and whose consent had to be obtained for all government loans. Future trade agreements between Germany and Slovakia were to be concluded on the principle that Germany would purchase Slovakia's agricultural products and raw materials and would supply finished goods or semifinished goods and capital equipment in return. Slovakia was not to conduct economic negotiations with other states before the conclusion of such agreements with Germany. A customs union between Germany and Slovakia was not envisaged, but for the time being there was to be no customs barrier between Slovakia, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and the Sudeten German territories.

Even after the conclusion of the treaty of protection, Hitler was undecided about what to do with Slovakia. Two days after his government signed the treaty, he briefed the commander in chief of the army on the international situation. The staff officer recording Hitler's views noted:
How long the Führer will adhere to the treaty concluded with Slovakia is doubtful. The High Command of the Army has the impression that when the time comes the Führer will rid himself of this, and will use Slovakia as a political bargaining counter between himself, Poland, and Hungary. For the time being, however, Hungary is to be kept in check. The Führer agrees with the proposed frontier delimitation (line of the Waag) [the river Vah, presumably the military frontier between Slovakia and the Protectorate]. Should Slovakia be partitioned, the eastern frontier (Nitra line) is to become the frontier and Pressburg [Brataslava, the capital of Slovakia] is to be included.

While the fate of Slovakia was still under discussion, the German army proceeded to occupy an area along the Czech border considerably larger than that provided for by the treaty of protection. In this so-called zone of protection, it demanded control over all economic establishments involved in war production, the power to take all measures considered necessary for the defence of the area, and the exclusion of all Slovak forces. Elsewhere in Slovakia, German occupation forces were to remain until all "Czech" arms and material had been removed.

Hitler was annoyed by Slovak government protests against these demands as well as by its reluctance to sign a treaty acknowledging the German army's sovereign rights in the zone of protection. "The Führer said he wished the negotiations to be conducted energetically and resolutely which, together with our concrete efforts, must lead to early success," an aide recorded on June 20. "The prerequisite for the proposed support of Slovakia is the complete acceptance of our demands, the more so as Slovakia is dependent on our military, economic, and financial aid." Despite Hitler's pressure, it was not until August 12, 1939, that a treaty on the zone of protection was finally signed defining the extent of the German occupation zone and Germany's rights there. The Slovaks were conceded token representation of their troops in the zone; but apart from that they had been forced to concede all along the line.

Hitler's decision to attack Poland ended all possibility that he might use Slovakia in bargaining with that country. This decision, in fact, led to a reversal of the previous situation, for the Germans now proposed to use Poland as bait to secure greater cooperation from Slovakia. On August 24, 1939, the German Foreign Office informed the Slovak government that "according to the information available here, Polish operations against the Slovak frontier can be expected at any time." To guard against surprises, Germany asked that Slovakia allow the commander in chief of the German army to assume immediate control of the Slovak army in order to safeguard Slovakia's northern frontier, and that the German Luftwaffe be allowed to occupy the airfield at Zisper-Neudorf. If the Slovak government provided the cooperation Germany expected, the German government was prepared to guarantee Slovakia's frontier with Hungary, and, in the event of war between Germany and Poland, to work for the return of the regions Slovakia had lost to Poland in 1938. The Germans promised further that if it should come to war, Slovak forces would not be employed outside Slovakia.

Ibid., pp.55-59Perhaps you recall that they did the same thing in 1989, at the first possible opportunity.I suppose you are referring to the Velvet Divorce here. That took place in 1993, not 1989. The Czechs and Slovaks both asked for German protection, chiefly against the Poles, but also against the Hungarians, Roumanians.1.) Hitler threatened to annihilate Prague. That is the only reason that the Czechs submitted to his so-called 'protection'.
2.) The Slovaks were likewise pressured to submit to his 'protection' in much the same manner, because of German intrigue with hostile neighboring states. They were forced to cede territory to the Hungarians and the Poles as well.Every neighbouring country hated the Czechs because they were the only pro-Communists in Eastern Europe, and hogged huge pieces of land stolen from other countries at the so-called 1919 Peace Conference.This is an exaggeration. Romania and Yugoslavia were allied with Czechoslovakia in the Little Entente. Furthermore, Czechslovakia had an alliance with France and had been guaranteed by the Soviet Union.Benesch was hated by everyone who ever dealt with him; he was not a sainted martyr as the Americans like to pretend.Then lets see your proof of this.

I can immediately see one amateurish error in this article:

- "He treated all his enemies with respect. In Belgrade the Germans put up a monument "To the Great Serbian Enemy" ..."

Not so. The man why actually did this was Field Marshal August von Mackensen, and that happened when Germany was fighting Serbs during the WW I. The writer falsely attributes this deed to Adolf Hitler, who actually suffered from a "damaging and emotional hatred of the Serbs," according to David Irving:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p389_Irving.html


Hitler totally unnecessary dragged Yugoslavia into the WW II, where it suffered horrendously. Like an average citizen taking a hit in a gang shootout, only in a massive scale.


Petr

k0nsl,
Can you post up dates , aircraft types, numbers despatched and targets hit during your six months of bombing the Rhur.
I will check each and get back to you on a one by one basis.

I think Fade gave you agood complete answer on the points you raised.
Your points about the denmark and Norway.
from what i understand the Altmark was boarded and the boarding was witnessed by a Norwegian vessel which was unable to intervene.
Can you give a source for the shooting of German sailors on the ice as they fled , this is news to me.
Not so bad for the danes , occupation by an invading power , you are a master of the understatement.
Are you really serious ?
British intervention do you think they might have known what was on the cards, seems very like it .
Invading Belgium , it might have more to do with where French defense works ended , it outflanked a very famous , very expensive and very in depth set of works on which France staked everything .
Why do you think Belgium had a mutal aid treaty with France and Gt. Britain and not Germany ?
If you don't stop spinning I think you may faint.

I think cerberus and Petr will find this interesting. Listen to this.

"In his first official decree of Bohemia and Moravia following their occupation by German troops, Hitler stated baldly that these provinces had belonged to the Lebensraum of the German people for a thousand years."

Ibid., p.29

cerberus,

The Western Allies were preparing to intervene on the side of the Finns in their war with the Soviets. This actually precipitated the downfall of the French Government.

"Shortly after the Polish carve-up and the Soviet seizure of Lativa, Lithuania, and Estonia, Russia demanded from Finland cessions of the Karelian Peninsula adequate to take Leningrad, the country's historic Romanov capital and second city, out of range of possible artillery fire from Finland. Finland, wary of resisting a German-allied Russia, especially after the fiery demise of Poland, agreed to these terms but not to the additional demand of the lease for thirty years to the Soviet Navy of the port of Hango, at hte mouth of the Gulf of Finland. Stalin then raised a mighty propaganda campaign against Finland, a contemptible imitation of Hitler's tactics against the Czechs and the Poles. The Finns held their ground, and the effect was to propel American opinion further toward support of Roosevelt's position of assisting the democracies.

Discussions between Finland and the Soviet Union broke down November 13, 1939, when the Finns refused to withdraw forces from their border areas unless the Russians did also. Stalin, grossly overconfident and assuming that there would be extensive Finnish defections to a puppet Communist Finnish "government" he had set up on the border, attacked Finland on November 28. He was unpleasantly surprised, as the Finns fought with great courage and ingenuity. It was immediately obvious that the Russian forces were not well trained and were committed to no serious military plan. The Finns, who were well adapted to winter conditions, appeared suddenly out of the northern mists on skis and descended with great effect on the lumbering Russian invaders.

The British and the French, who had responded so sluggishly to comparable outrages perpetrated by the Germans and Italians (though in the case of the Germans, better-executed outrages), became extremely self-righteous and militant. The League of Nations expelled the Soviet Union as "unworthy" of membership on December 14. (Of the Great Powers, only Britain and France now remained, since Germany, Italy, and Japan had all resigned from the League, which the United States had never joined.) The British cabinet lengthily debated a proposal of Churchill's to seize the Norwegian port of Narvik, interdicting the supply of Scandinavian iron ore and steel to Germany, and advance across Norway and Sweden to assist the Finns against the Russians. Daladier ws violently determined to send French forces, which had not fired a shot against their neighboring German opponents, to engage the Russians in Finland. His failure to get approval of this scheme caused the collapse of his government and his replacement by the much more determined and courageous Paul Reynaud, on March 1, 1940.

It was providentially fortunate that Churchill's and Daladier's plans were not implemented. Invading the territory of two neutral states would have muddled the waters of the otherwise clear-cut moral advantage the Allies enjoyed over Germany. By the time any Allied forces could have got to Finland, Stalin had reinforced his units and put them under the command of his most talented generals, Semyon K. Timoshenko and Georgi K. Zhukov (the latter one of the four or five greatest commanders of World War II, of any nationality).

If the Russians hadn't promptly and decisively defeated the Allied expeditionary units that Churchill and Daladier wanted to dispatch, the Germans would have been more than happy to do so, and would almost certainly have intervened against the procession inland from Narvik. Such an action would probably have led to the Soviet Union's joining Germany in war against Britain and France, with incalculably disastrous results."

Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom (New York: Public Affairs, 2004), pp.539-540

Fade intersting material.
Not something I know a great deal about. ( The almost involvment of Allied forces in Finland).
Churchill did have some not so good ideas , this and Greece being two examples.
Had Britain been left alone for much longer and had Axis attentions been Focused on Gb. Churchill would probably have been forced to stand down in the face of continue reverses to GB forces.
How such an enterprise would be supported would be hard to imagine, GB and France not declaring war on Russia took them out of this situation .
When Hitler was presented with a similar choice , "do I declare war on America ? " , he made completely the wrong decision.
From my part , worth a further look.
Of all the Allies in the Axis camp Finland was one which was not a lame duck in military terms and to some extent managed to keep their own interests to the fore and domination from Berlin at arms length.
They certainly gave Stalin a bloody nose and no mistake.
Molotov said something when he visited Berlin about the Fins being " very dangerous people" , he was not best pleased that Germany showed interest there.

I think I am wasting my time with you Fade. I could tell you about so-called Czechoslovakia, the creation of which was regretted by nearly everyone involved; but what can one expect from someone who believes Hermann Rauschning? Rauschning was Mayor of Danzig, a city Hitler rarely visited, met Hitler only 4 times and was never alone with him. His book is a fabrication, a forgery. What are your other sources?

In support of my statements about Czechoslovakia I could quote Lloyd George and nearly everyone else involved. Czechoslovakia was like Israel -- the comparison is deliberate, and, I believe, quite exact.

-k0nsl

I think I am wasting my time with you Fade. I could tell you about so-called Czechoslovakia, the creation of which was regretted by nearly everyone involved

That was Polackistan, Czechslovakia and Finland were the two countries created by the Versailles treaty which turned out okay.

FadeTheButcher, What are you saying? Just another way of saying Slovakia declared its independence. The whole story is absolutely incredible. Every neighbouring country hated Benes and hated Czechoslovakia, because the whole country consisted of land stolen from its neighbours. It was a dictatorship, like it or not. 3 million Germans, five hundred thousand Hungarians, hundreds of thousands of Carpatho-Russians, Rumanians and Poles. Once the Germans seceded of course the country fell apart. It was the most heavily armed country in Europe. The crazy thing is, the Czechs fought for Austria Hungary during WWI, then at the end they acted like they were entitled to something! Pirty the poor victims. All the so-called Czechs at Versailles were American citizens, and the whole country was created on paper in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. They faked all kinds of maps and reports which the delegates at Versailles were too lazy to verify. The real victims of all this were the Hungarians and the Germans. AND the Slovaks.

Another reason everybody hated the Czechs is that they were the only pro-Soviet ethnic group in Eastern Europe. The whole country was set up so that Germany could be bombed in the event of another war. It was like Israel. Enough dynamite to start 5 wars, so when the problem is solved peacefully, Hitler gets the blame. If the Slovaks love the Czechs so much why did they secede again in 1989?

Benes was a liar, a worse liar than Beck of Poland. Teschen WAS POLISH, there were 200,000 Poles in Teschen, so of course the Poles cooperated with the Germans. Why do the Germans get the blame? What makes the Czechs so holy? One lousy pic of one guy crying on a street and the Americans think it's a big deal. Why don't they look at some pics of Japanese children with their faces burnt off, or Irakis, or Vietnamese, or anbody else? What's one guy crying in the 20th century?

Apart from Rauschning, you're too well prepared, though with all this typed out. The Hungarians lost about 2/3 of their territory after WWI, to all sorts of neighbouring countries, there was enough hatred to start 10 more wars. Just like Israel.

Of course it was a member of the League of Nations, because the Leage of Nations was set up to perpetuate a situation of obvious injustice. That is why Germany withdrew, which any country was entitled to do with two years' notice. America never even joined. So what makes the League of Nations so holy? Remember government with the consent of the governed, self-determination of peoples? Then they set up a monstrosity like Czechoslovakia; Poland was almost as bad.

I see no point in going on with this any further. You got 'Rauschning', that's enough.

-k0nsl

You ought to get THE FORCED WAR by Hoggan (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/hoggan.html) , there are some similar books but that's the best I know of, there are so many good ones

I don't see how ANYBODY could defend the Czechs, they were the most fantastic fakers in history... Well, maybe the Poles were worse, I don't know. The Poles have some admirable qualities, in a crazy sort of way, but not the Czechs.

Rauschning is a forgery, A Swiss historian named Wolfgang Haenel proved that about Rauschning years ago. Rauschning was never alone with Hitler, not even once.

Who started WWII is a rhetorical question; people don't realize. Country A says it has no quarrel with countries C through Z, but has a quarrel with country B. After much provocation it invades country B. Countries C through Z then declare war on country A. Who started the war between countries A and C through Z? It might amaze you, but there is nothing in international law that settles this question. If Brazil declared war on America because of their invasion of Panama, everybody would say Brazil started the war with America.

see:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p378_Weber.html

-k0nsl

FadeTheButcher, What are you saying?I am saying, amongst other things, that Hitler intended to destroy the Czech people and resettle them in Siberia. The circumstances of the war forced him to reconsider this notion and there was later a Germanization program.Just another way of saying Slovakia declared its independence. The whole story is absolutely incredible.Slovakia was pressured into declaring its independence by Germany. It was also pressured into submitting to the wolves that tore away parts of its territory. Afterwards, Slovakia was nothing but a pathetic little warrior satellite for Germany. Every neighbouring country hated Benes and hated Czechoslovakia, because the whole country consisted of land stolen from its neighbours.This is false. I pointed out this above. Czechoslovakia was for years allied with Romania and Yugoslavia in the Little Entente. It was also supported by France and the Soviet Union.It was a dictatorship, like it or not.This is false. Czechoslovakia was a democratic republic. I see you have yet to address the point, however.3 million Germans, five hundred thousand Hungarians, hundreds of thousands of Carpatho-Russians, Rumanians and Poles.Czechoslovakia was not an ethnically pure nation state. That's no secret. Then again, in light of the situation that existed in Central and Southeastern Europe, it was virtually impossible for anyone to carve out ethnically pure nation states. Why don't we see you shedding any tears for the non-Germans that fell under Nazi tyranny?Once the Germans seceded of course the country fell apart. The destruction of Czechoslovakia was engineered by Adolf Hitler. It was the most heavily armed country in Europe.In light of the ultimate fate of Czechoslovakia, such a course of action can hardly be described as unreasonable.The crazy thing is, the Czechs fought for Austria Hungary during WWI, then at the end they acted like they were entitled to something! There was also a Czechoslovak legion that fought for the Russians that later went on to play an important role in the Russian Civil War. They were ultimately slaughtered by the Bolsheviks. There were also Poles that fought for the Russians.Pirty the poor victims.My sympathies lie with the innocent people murdered by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.All the so-called Czechs at Versailles were American citizens, and the whole country was created on paper in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania.Czech nationalism was not an American invention. The Czechs had long had nationalist aspirations. The Poles are another case. A union of the South Slavs had long been mulled over as well.They faked all kinds of maps and reports which the delegates at Versailles were too lazy to verify.The Allies were interested in stopping German aggression above all else at Versailles. This was especially true of the French, whose country had been devastated during the war. The real victims of all this were the Hungarians and the Germans. Poor innocent Germany. It only invaded France for the second time within fifty years.AND the Slovaks.You have a very interesting take on all of this. I am trying to decipher what is motivating you here. After all, no organized Slovak state had existed before the Great War either. I have a feeling that you are just attempting to apologize from the crimes of National Socialism, however.Another reason everybody hated the Czechs is that they were the only pro-Soviet ethnic group in Eastern Europe.Once again, Czechoslovakia was not hated by everyone at all. Czechoslovakia had allies throughout the interwar period. I could just as easily point out that there was significant hatred of Germany in the interwar period. But what would this prove?The whole country was set up so that Germany could be bombed in the event of another war. The fundamental goal of the Paris Conference was to STOP German aggression, to constrain Germany from inflicting harm upon its neighbors. In light of subsequent events, that was hardly an irrational idea either.Benes was a liar, a worse liar than Beck of Poland. Adolf Hitler was a notorious liar.Enough dynamite to start 5 wars, so when the problem is solved peacefully, Hitler gets the blame. Hitler is to blame for the Second World War. That is the verdict of the vast majority of historians who have studied the issue.If the Slovaks love the Czechs so much why did they secede again in 1989?The Slovaks did not secede from Czechoslovakia in 1989. Did you bother to read my response?Teschen WAS POLISH, there were 200,000 Poles in Teschen, so of course the Poles cooperated with the Germans.I am not sure if I am grasping your point here. You seem to be making an argument on the grounds of self-determination. This is quite interesting, in light of your subsequent apologia for the German denial of self-determination to countless other nations.Why do the Germans get the blame?The Germans threatened to obliterate Prague unless the Czechs surrendered to their so-called 'protection'. What makes the Czechs so holy? Czech troops were not walking around the streets of Berlin in 1939. Most reasonable people can see that.One lousy pic of one guy crying on a street and the Americans think it's a big deal. Why don't they look at some pics of Japanese children with their faces burnt off, or Irakis, or Vietnamese, or anbody else? What's one guy crying in the 20th century? The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The Nazis declared war on the United States. Both the Japanese and the Nazis paid dearly for that error as well.Apart from Rauschning, you're too well prepared, though with all this typed out.Would you like to talk about the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia. How about Poland? We can discuss some of the real nice things the Nazis did to the inhabitants of those countries.The Hungarians lost about 2/3 of their territory after WWI, to all sorts of neighbouring countries, there was enough hatred to start 10 more wars. Just like Israel.And what lesson should one take from that? Don't start wars against your neighbors.Of course it was a member of the League of Nations, because the Leage of Nations was set up to perpetuate a situation of obvious injustice. That simply isn't true. The League of Nations was set up for the express purpose of stopping some maniac like Hitler from launching a war even worse than the Great War.That is why Germany withdrew, which any country was entitled to do with two years' notice.Germany withdrew because Adolf Hitler despised everything the League of Nations stood for. He later locked arms with his fellow gangster Mussolini and went about attacking other European nations.America never even joined.Because of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. Senate.So what makes the League of Nations so holy?At least the League of Nations was set up with good intentions: to prevent the needless slaughter of millions of people in unnecessary wars. I can't say the same about Nazi Germany.Remember government with the consent of the governed, self-determination of peoples?Hitler didn't give a damn about the principle of self-determination. He simply invoked it to advance German interests. When that principle no longer suited him, he discarded it.Then they set up a monstrosity like Czechoslovakia; Poland was almost as bad.LMAO. A 'monstrosity' like Czechoslovakia? The Czechs never treated the Slovaks like the Germans treated the Poles and the Czechs.I think I am wasting my time with you Fade. Please tell us what ethical principles you stand for in this debate. Don't make arguments on the basis of self-determination if you repudiate that principle yourself.I see no point in going on with this any further. You got 'Rauschning', that's enough. I could tell you about so-called Czechoslovakia, the creation of which was regretted by nearly everyone involved; but what can one expect from someone who believes Hermann Rauschning? Rauschning was Mayor of Danzig, a city Hitler rarely visited, met Hitler only 4 times and was never alone with him. His book is a fabrication, a forgery. What are your other sources?That is precisely what you people always do. If there is some extremely damaging document or statement that contradicts your ideological worldview, then you simply call it a forgery and dismiss it out of hand.You ought to get THE FORCED WAR by Hoggan (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/hoggan.html) , there are some similar books but that's the best I know of, there are so many good onesI've got that piece of tosh right here at my side. Should I post some of the critical reviews that have been made of that book?

- "I see no point in going on with this any further. You got 'Rauschning', that's enough."


- Fade: Rauschning was a fraud. You better give up on him.

"More recently, West Germany's most influential weekly periodicals, Die Zeit, and Der Spiegel (7 September 1985), have run lengthy articles about historical hoax. Der Spiegel concluded that Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler "are a falsification, an historical distortion from the first to the last page ... Haenel not only proves the falsification, he also shows how the impressive surrogate was quickly compiled and which ingredients were mixed together.""

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p499_Weber.html


- K0nsl: surely you're not using this one Rauschning gaffe as an excuse to run away from this debate, where you may already guess that you are going to get pulverized?


Petr

- "I see no point in going on with this any further. You got 'Rauschning', that's enough."


- Fade: Rauschning was a fraud. You better give up on him.

"More recently, West Germany's most influential weekly periodicals, Die Zeit, and Der Spiegel (7 September 1985), have run lengthy articles about historical hoax. Der Spiegel concluded that Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler "are a falsification, an historical distortion from the first to the last page ... Haenel not only proves the falsification, he also shows how the impressive surrogate was quickly compiled and which ingredients were mixed together.""

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p499_Weber.html


- K0nsl: surely you're not using this one Rauschning gaffe as an excuse to run away from this debate, where you may already guess that you are going to get pulverized?


Petr

I would gladly debate 'FadeTheButher' but as it is I don't have time. No, honestly, I don't. I've had quite enough of historically ignorant Americans lately.

I rather concentrate my efforts on 'holocau$t' discussions and after that maybe I can get some spare time to debate issues like these.

-k0nsl

k0nsl No reasonable historian is going to agree that Hitler did not start the war or that he had reasonable grounds for taking over the Czech. State.
Your "wasting your time here" is a fair assessment of your chance of obtaining any points.
A photo graph of one person crying when the Wehrmacht entered Prague ?
Did you see any flowers being thrown or any happy people ?
Do you think that the people who filed past Heydrich's coffin did so out of loyality or fear ?

From March 39 on it was only a matter of time until war broke out , this war was started by Germany with the rejection of the "final note" the declaration of war by Britain was only a formality.
Are you going to post up information on the 6 months of bombing and over flights ?
I haveseen nothing yet to confirm the shooting of men on the ice when Altmark was boarded .

Are you going to post up information on the 6 months of bombing and over flights ?
I haveseen nothing yet to confirm the shooting of men on the ice when Altmark was boarded .

1. On the Ruhr:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n4p15_Crowell.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p247_Lutton.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501b_Weber.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p381_Wesserle.html
http://www.ihr.org/books/connors/dealinginhate.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p431_Lutton.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p-53_Barnes.html
http://www.hco.hagen.de/ruhr/uk/uk-1.htm

Just search Google if you want more information. I really don't have time.

2. On the Altmark incident:

"...the Altmark incident, in which the Royal Navy had coolly violated Norwegian neutral waters under circumstances to be explained below. Hitler could talk of little else and expounded loudly on the inherent properness of such actions—whatever the international lawyers might subsequently proclaim. History, he explained, judged only between success and failure ; that was all that really counted—nobody asked the victor whether he was in the right or wrong.

Characteristically, nobody interrupted or contradicted Hitler. A general who was present later wrote : “Among his listeners sat Manstein, his face absolutely motionless. Some time before I had heard him make comments on the Nazi creed that were of an acerbity rare in army circles. Another general sat nodding sagely at each and every remark that Hitler made, like a mandarin toy with its head on a spring. The very astute General Schmidt listened with his head cocked attentively to one side.” Rommel—who had been given an armored division a few days before—left the Chancellery clutching the copy of Mein Kampf Hitler had just given him. It was inscribed : “To General Rommel with fond memories, Adolf Hitler, February 3, 1940.” Rommel wrote that afternoon : “I am enormously pleased with it.”

The Altmark incident had revealed the frailty of the neutrality of a small country which falls foul of the interests of two great powers. The Altmark was the 15,000-ton German supply ship which had ministered to the needs of Graf Spee in the South Atlantic ; since the action off the Uruguayan coast, she had lain low, her holds packed with three hundred British seamen captured from Graf Spee’s victims. Until mid-February 1940, the worried German admiralty had heard no sound from her, but on the fourteenth she signaled that she was about to enter northern Norwegian waters. In those waters she should be immune to enemy attack ; under The Hague Rules she was entitled to passage through them, for she was not a man-of-war but a naval auxiliary flying the flag of the German merchant marine. Such defensive armament as she had boasted in the Atlantic was properly stowed away below. The Norwegian picket boats interrogated her ; her captain denied the presence of any prisoners—the position in law would not have altered if he had admitted them—and the Altmark was allowed to proceed.

The Norwegians undertook to escort her, but in Berlin late on the sixteenth the admiralty began intercepting British naval signals which left no doubt but that an attempt was afoot to capture the Altmark even if it meant violating Norwegian neutral waters. By 6 A.M. next morning these fears were confirmed. A radio signal of the British commander to the admiralty in London had been decoded in Berlin : the British destroyer Cossack had been alongside the Altmark and he and his group were returning to Rosyth. By midday a full report of this incident was in Hitler’s hands, telephoned through by the legation in Oslo. Seeing the British force—a cruiser and six destroyers—closing in, the Altmark’s captain had sought refuge in Jossing Fjord. Two Norwegian vessels had held the British ships at bay until dusk, when the Cossack, her searchlights blazing, had forced her way past them into the fjord and ordered the German ship to heave to. The Altmark’s report described how a boarding party had seized the ship’s bridge “and began firing like blind maniacs into the German crew, who of course did not have a gun among them.” Six men died, many more were injured. A handful of the crew fled across the ice which hemmed the vessel in, or they sprang into the water ; the British boarders opened fire on these as well—an outrage to which the Norwegians also later testified. The three hundred prisoners were liberated, the ship and its crew were looted, and the Cossack withdrew. The Germans had not fired one shot."

From David Irving (http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/), Hitler's War.

-k0nsl

k0nsl I don't have to use "Google", I have the books you mention beside me.
Your links provide nothing to back up this six months of overflying and bombing of the rhur.
If you have specifics post them , what your provided are but links to general information , none of which provides a pretext for the invasion of the low countries and much of which post dates the fall of France.
Altmark.
The prisoners should have been released in the hands of the neutral powre. This is probably why the German skipper denied their presence.
It would also probably have led to his ship being held until such times as this could be achieved.
Passge through neutral waters just how long was he going to take passage in neutral waters with a hold full of undeclared POW's ?

The boarding of the ship to free POW's which had not beeen declared to the neutral power , wonder what the norwegians thought when they saw several hundred british sailors being liberated from the hold of the ship , possibly that they had been lied to.
You provided no evidence to support that anyone was shot whilst on the ice.
Death's of six crew members , they might not have had the chance to fire any shots , you have provided nothing to say that they were not armed.
BTW The captain of Graf Spee was an officer who conducteda fair war , the skipper of Altmark by comparison was something of a very different nature.
Given the lies told by Altmarks skipper I see the boarding as being fair game.
BTW Mr. irvings record as a " naval historian" not so very good is it I recall his being sued regarding PQ17 or am I mistaken ?

Can I give you something from a propper Naval Historian on the Altmark.

"The Atlantic Campaign- the Great Struggle at Sea 1939-45" By Dan van der Vat.
"She carried two concealed 4.1 inch guns and a pair of light repeating cannon under cover on her bridge". Page 97.

This makes her much more than a " merhant ship."
her guns were not as you claim stowed below.
These weapons , (if you know anything) were ready for use a short notice.
Pages 97-98 Van der vat gives a somewhat different picture of events to that told by irving.
The Altmark was heading for germany and made her progres along the cpoast of Norway abusing neutral waters , travelling with a hold full of POW's , in an armed vessel.
the British knew nothing of the POWs on board. She was stopped and not search on two occasions by Norwegian patro vessels.
Twice the German cptain lied to the Norwegians. ( Decclaring everything to be in order, she was unarmed and none disclosure of the POW's.)
Attempts to board her were frustrayted by the Norwegians who believed her on the stateemnts and none disclosure of the german captain to be an unarmed merchant vessel.
They accorded her protection accordingly. ( having been lied to).
The Norwegians allowed her to enter Jossingfjord oweing to Cossack being nearby.
Captain Vian of HMS Cossack entered Jossingfjord and was prevented form boarding andwas told that all was in order.
he withdrew to International waters and asked for advice from London.
He was told to offer to accompany her back to Bergen and if this was refused to board her.
The admiralty was of the opinion that she had something to hide, they were correct.
Vian returned and boarder her fire was exchanged with the german crew who were armed and did defend themsleves.
The heavy gun mountings were empty but her remaining guns , the bridge cannons and hand helkd weapons / machine guns were atken to Cossack along with the POWs which ahd not been declared to the Norwegians.

Your description from Irving is both misleading and totally inaccurate.

Your assertions regarding bombing prior to may 1940 , give specifc dates time
and targets.

I could argue with all of you all day long about WWII. I am a huge supporter of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis but anybody who knows anything about Adolf Hitler himself knows that he planned on a second showdown with France and Britian after Germany resigned from the fight in WWI. Everybody makes it seem so complicated. Hitler may have planned on England and France to sit back and watch him tear into Poland but even if they did he would have set them up with some phony Allied attack just like the supposed Polish attack on the radio station. But, after all this is said, who cares. Countries have started wars for years! Just so happens this was the biggest war in history and was a war between superior races and not some superior race vs some mud race (Im referring to the Allies and not the Russians.). When you have this of course it is going to be bloody because both sides have a little something called research and development and they will use technology to the limit.

I am saying, amongst other things, that Hitler intended to destroy the Czech people and resettle them in Siberia. The circumstances of the war forced him to reconsider this notion and there was later a Germanization program.Slovakia was pressured into declaring its independence by Germany. It was also pressured into submitting to the wolves that tore away parts of its territory. Afterwards, Slovakia was nothing but a pathetic little warrior satellite for Germany.This is false. I pointed out this above. Czechoslovakia was for years allied with Romania and Yugoslavia in the Little Entente. It was also supported by France and the Soviet Union.This is false. Czechoslovakia was a democratic republic. I see you have yet to address the point, however.Czechoslovakia was not an ethnically pure nation state. That's no secret. Then again, in light of the situation that existed in Central and Southeastern Europe, it was virtually impossible for anyone to carve out ethnically pure nation states. Why don't we see you shedding any tears for the non-Germans that fell under Nazi tyranny?The destruction of Czechoslovakia was engineered by Adolf Hitler. In light of the ultimate fate of Czechoslovakia, such a course of action can hardly be described as unreasonable.There was also a Czechoslovak legion that fought for the Russians that later went on to play an important role in the Russian Civil War. They were ultimately slaughtered by the Bolsheviks. There were also Poles that fought for the Russians.My sympathies lie with the innocent people murdered by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.Czech nationalism was not an American invention. The Czechs had long had nationalist aspirations. The Poles are another case. A union of the South Slavs had long been mulled over as well.The Allies were interested in stopping German aggression above all else at Versailles. This was especially true of the French, whose country had been devastated during the war.Poor innocent Germany. It only invaded France for the second time within fifty years.You have a very interesting take on all of this. I am trying to decipher what is motivating you here. After all, no organized Slovak state had existed before the Great War either. I have a feeling that you are just attempting to apologize from the crimes of National Socialism, however.Once again, Czechoslovakia was not hated by everyone at all. Czechoslovakia had allies throughout the interwar period. I could just as easily point out that there was significant hatred of Germany in the interwar period. But what would this prove?The fundamental goal of the Paris Conference was to STOP German aggression, to constrain Germany from inflicting harm upon its neighbors. In light of subsequent events, that was hardly an irrational idea either.Adolf Hitler was a notorious liar.Hitler is to blame for the Second World War. That is the verdict of the vast majority of historians who have studied the issue.The Slovaks did not secede from Czechoslovakia in 1989. Did you bother to read my response?I am not sure if I am grasping your point here. You seem to be making an argument on the grounds of self-determination. This is quite interesting, in light of your subsequent apologia for the German denial of self-determination to countless other nations.The Germans threatened to obliterate Prague unless the Czechs surrendered to their so-called 'protection'. Czech troops were not walking around the streets of Berlin in 1939. Most reasonable people can see that.The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The Nazis declared war on the United States. Both the Japanese and the Nazis paid dearly for that error as well.Would you like to talk about the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia. How about Poland? We can discuss some of the real nice things the Nazis did to the inhabitants of those countries.And what lesson should one take from that? Don't start wars against your neighbors.That simply isn't true. The League of Nations was set up for the express purpose of stopping some maniac like Hitler from launching a war even worse than the Great War.Germany withdrew because Adolf Hitler despised everything the League of Nations stood for. He later locked arms with his fellow gangster Mussolini and went about attacking other European nations.Because of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. Senate.At least the League of Nations was set up with good intentions: to prevent the needless slaughter of millions of people in unnecessary wars. I can't say the same about Nazi Germany.Hitler didn't give a damn about the principle of self-determination. He simply invoked it to advance German interests. When that principle no longer suited him, he discarded it.LMAO. A 'monstrosity' like Czechoslovakia? The Czechs never treated the Slovaks like the Germans treated the Poles and the Czechs.Please tell us what ethical principles you stand for in this debate. Don't make arguments on the basis of self-determination if you repudiate that principle yourself.That is precisely what you people always do. If there is some extremely damaging document or statement that contradicts your ideological worldview, then you simply call it a forgery and dismiss it out of hand.I've got that piece of tosh right here at my side. Should I post some of the critical reviews that have been made of that book?

Only 60% of the population of 1919-1939 Poland was Polish, and only 60% of so-called Czechoslovakia was Czech. Millions of people hated the Poles and Czechs, because they considered themselves citizens of other countries. The situation was exactly comparable to Palestine.

That simply isn't true. The League of Nations was set up for the express purpose of stopping some maniac like Hitler from launching a war even worse than the Great War.

Do you want me to quote Lloyd George? (THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PEACE TREATIES, vol II, pp 937-38). Vicount Rothermere of England (WARNINGS AND PREDICTIONS chapter 8)? Anybody could see the whole situation was an injustice rendering another war almost inevitable.

Slovakia was pressured into declaring its independence by Germany. It was also pressured into submitting to the wolves that tore away parts of its territory. Afterwards, Slovakia was nothing but a pathetic little warrior satellite for Germany.

Millions of people were handed about from one country to another, like cattle, without any respect for history, economic interests, markets, nothing...like the colonial borders of an African colony and this is democracy? There were more Germans in Czechoslovakia than there were Irish in Southern Ireland, a nation to which Britain granted independence. How long would any other nation tolerate such a situation? The borders ran through the middle of towns, farmhouses, cut cities off from markets, cut families in half... even Harold Laski, a notorious Communist sympathizer, said, "I doubt whether any European statesman entirely trusts Dr. Benes. No one knows better than he how to be most things to all men."

Then give you the ABC business... If 50 Arab states declared war on America because of their invasion of Iraq, you would say they "started" the war with America. It's not a fact that Hitler "started" WWII, it is a political value judgement masquerading as fact. If Mexico declared war on America because of their invasion of Panama, you we say we "started" the war with Mexico? No. You'd say they started it by declaring war on us.

It's time for Americans to admit that they are doing everything they ever accused the Germans (or Hitler, if you prefer) of doing, but you are always right and the Germans are always wrong. It's wonderful, it's a system.

It should also be pointed out that Hitler waived all claim to extensive territories which had been claimed by every German political party except the Communists, since 1919: Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy, the South Tirol, all of East and West Prussia, including areas of enormous economic value which were 65-80% German. The Sudentenland was German, like it or not. Hitler never made any territorial l demands on Poland: Danzig was never a part of Poland, and was not part of Poland in 1939. It was a "free City" administered by the League of Nations, a city 98% German. He was told by the British that the only way he could avoid war was to give up all claim to Danzig.
It's like Saddam Hussain giving up all his weapons, same thing.

Adolf Hitler was a notorious liar.

What speeches? Hitler made 5,000 speeches. Produce one lie, just one. I challenge you. Have you read all 5,000 speeches? Which lie are you thinking of?

"We don't want any Czechs"? "It is my last territorial demand"? "We are barbarians and proud of it"? "Hearts closed to pity. Be brutal?" "Our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich"? "The Big Lie"? "The thousand year Reich"? "The Master Race"? Just one.

Hitler was the most popular head of state in history, with the largest majority in the history of the Reichstag. That's more than you can say for Benes.

One person asked me, who was Hitler? Was he German? I said, well, actually he was Austrian, but here, I've got something about him right here, you can read it. He said, no, I already know alll about him. I'm surprised some of these people know the Earth travels around the Sun.

There are white Americans born in the Southern states who think the Civil War took place in the 1950s. A lot of people have never heard of Hitler (or don't really know he was) and have no idea who they fought against in either World War.

Poor innocent Germany. It only invaded France for the second time within fifty years.

Did the Germans invade France just for the fun of it? How do you think WWII was started?

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The Nazis declared war on the United States.

Are you going to blame the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and defend the Versailles Treaty, Well, I'm prepared for that. If you are accussing Germany of "starting" EITHER world war, Well, then I'm prepared for that one, too.

The Americans attacked Iraq when nobody was refusing to sell them oil at all. What would you do if America couldn't get any oil at all, anywhere, in the middle of a war? What would America do if there was only one way they could get it. Everybody knows Roosevelt provoked the war.

... On December 7, 1928, a group of distinguished Senators gathered in the Capital Building at Washington D.C. to discuss ratification of the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact, an instrument whose purpose was to “abolish aggressive war”.

Among those present was the author of the Pact, Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg.

During the course of the recorded discussions, the following exchange took place:

“Q: Suppose a country is not attacked - suppose there is an economic blockade...?

A: There is no such thing as a blockade you are in war.

Q: It is an act of war?

A: An act of war absolutely... as I have stated before, nobody on earth, probably, could write an article defining “self defense” or “aggressor” that some country could not get around; and I made up my mind that the only safe thing for any country to do was to judge for itself within its sovereign rights whether it was unjustly attacked and had a right to defend itself and it must answer to the opinion of the world.”

Japan’s War of the Pacific was a war of self-defense for the following reasons:

- blockade is an act of war; (p. 43,051);

- every nation is the judge of what constitutes self- defense (ibid);

- no submission to any tribunal is required by the Pact (pp. 42,162; 42,240);

- self-defense is not limited to defense of the national territory (p. 42,239);

- the Pact does not contain any sanctions, express or implied (pp. 42,163);

- breach of treaties does not constitute aggression (p. 42, 191);

- American aid to the Chinese made America a belligerent in that war (see Note, below);

- declarations of war are not required in self-defense (pp. 42,431-5);

- no treaty requires any warning prior to attack (pp. 42,447-8);

- declaration of war prior to attack was intended, but was delayed due to clerical errors on the part of Embassy staff in Washington (pp. 43,704-18; see also p. 42, 448- 51).

It was argued further that:

- the attack on Pearl Harbor was not illegal under international law (pp. 42,403-513; 43,493-738);

- Japan was provoked into a war of self-defense (pp. 43,050-175);

- Japan was not prepared militarily for war (pp. 43,177- 222);

- Japanese military preparedness was not aggressive (pp. 43,224-263).

Japan is an island nation devoid of natural resources, overpopulated, dependant on imports of nearly all commodities for manufacture. Most of Japan is mountainous or infertile; most cities are on the coast.

Japan must be a naval nation; every major city in Japan can be destroyed by coastal shelling from battleships, to say nothing of airplanes.

Japan was not prepared for war in the Pacific.

Japan never prepared for combat in tropical regions; military supplies and equipment were designed for combat in cold climates (pp. 26,949; 43,244).

Most Japanese ships were small, for the coastal trade; many were built of wood (pp. 24,915; 43,076; see also p. 24,929).

2 destroyers were added to the Japanese fleet in 10 years, 1931-1941, reaching a total of 112 in 1941 (ibid).

Japan had no long-range aircraft carriers. Japanese carriers could not refuel at sea (pp. 26,719-20; 43,221); Japanese ships were built for patrolling shallow Japanese coastal waters (pp. 11,272; 43,202).

Japan did not stockpile any commodity except oil for any purpose in 1941.

Japan planned to store 36,000 kiloliters of oil by 1943 (pp. 24,855; 43,241).

Japan did not store ammunition or oil in Formosa or southern parts of Japanese territory overseas (pp. 26,951; 43,246).

Japan did not develop a merchant marine (pp. 24,965; 43,076).

Japan had few civilian aircraft or ships capable of conversion (pp. 26,671; 43,201).

Japan suffered from an acute food shortage in 1939-40 (pp. 25,050-2; 43,101).

The American embargo applied to foodstuffs, including rice, tea, soy beans, wheat flour, fertilizer, fodder, edible fats and seeds (pp. 36,966-8; 43,131; 25,255-9; 43,162-175).

Synthetic oil could not be produced due to a lack of high pressure steel pipes, coal and cobalt (pp. 24,870; 43,134).

Japan possessed 11,654 military aircraft (pp. 8,030-1; 43,070) and 65 submarines in 1941 (pp. 11,261; 43,194).

Japan built 1,380 army planes in 1941 (pp. 18,293; 43,240).

Japan’s initial conquests after Pearl Harbor were achieved using 1,175 land planes; 475 carrier planes; 13 divisions of army; and a “handful” of marines (pp. 39,391; 43,262).

Japan negotiated for 9 months prior to the attack. In the course of these negotiations, the Americans demanded a guarantee of freedom from attack by Japan regardless of any action taken against Germany (pp. 43,517-21).

Japan agreed, repudiating the Tri-Pacific Pact (pp. 43,522- 39).

Japan gave the Americans permission to publish the text of the repudiation (p. 43,642).

Japan offered to withdraw all troops from China (pp. 25,856; 43,588) or at least 90% (p. 43,604).

Japan received no response to either concession (43,602).

Japanese cables (decoded by the Americans in violation of international law) were so badly mis-translated by American Nisei that they probably helped cause the war (pp. 43,607-21).

(As far as one can tell, no Nisei translators of Japanese were used in war crimes trials of Japanese military personnel. Affidavits in English were supposed to have been translated orally and accurately on sight to Japanese affiants prior to signature by translators who were British or American, frequently with Jewish names).

The Americans froze Japanese assets (in violation of a treaty) and began to embargo oil. It was demanded, as a condition to restoring normal relations, that Japan sign an agreement with various other nations who had never before been party to the negotiations, including Thailand and Soviet Russia (pp. 43,678-98).

To obtain agreement with the other nations in accordance with this demand could have taken months or years; and might never have been possible. Japan had enough oil for a few months only. A conference was held at which it was decided that if there was to be war, it must come now; by spring Japan would be too weak to fight. In any case, the attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of utter desperation. The oil embargo meant the destruction of Japan’s independence and perhaps survival as a nation.

Japan faced immediate military defeat in China; total industrial collapse at home; and destruction through coastal shelling of all the major cities by any one of five traditional enemies (America, Britain, China, the Netherlands, and particularly the Soviets).

Oil had been supplied to Japan for two years in the teeth of hostile public opinion. It was believed essential to keep war out of the Far East;

Roosevelt wished to import rubber, tin, etc from the South Pacific, supplying the British in the Near East with meat, wheat, corn, troops, and military supplies (pp. 25,316-7; 43,121).

When this did not work, Japan was forced into war, crushed with atomic bombs, and her leaders hanged for “aggression”.

War with Japan had been avoided - as long as it was believed that Germany could be provoked into a declaration of war through bombing and ramming attacks on German and Italian ships and submarines, and many other violations of international law (pp. 42,436; 43,639).

Japan attempted to negotiate a surrender for 11 months prior to the atomic bombings (pp. 23,582-610).

That America, Britain and Holland conspired “aggressive war” against Japan is proven by the report of the conversations at the Most Secret American-Dutch-British Conversations held in Singapore in April 1941:

“It was important to organize air operations against Japanese occupied territory and against Japan itself. It is probable that her collapse will occur as a result of economic blockade, naval pressure, and air bombardment”.

Space does not permit further discussion of the crimes of this nation of monsters (actually three nations of monsters...).

(Note: almost no use was made of the argument that America was a belligerent in the China Incident. The Incident was a “conflict” rather than a “war” in the sense that belligerent and neutral rights were not invoked: diplomatic relations were undisturbed; enemy aliens in Japan were not interned, etc. Rather, it was maintained that if it was a war, then American aid to China made America a belligerent subject to attack without formality. The Americans claimed it was a war in which they could participate without becoming a belligerent.)

(Source: INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR THE FAR EAST, published by the London School of Economics.)

My sympathies lie with the innocent people murdered by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

What 'murders' are you talking about? I demand a specific answer. Name one person murdered by Hitler, just one. Do you have an autopsy report?

Look in any book on the Holocaust and read the footnotes. It's all Communist propaganda. Reitlinger even takes the Kharkhov show trial seriously.

The British invented concentration camps and began the mass bombing of civilians, the Poles built the first concentration camps in Europe, and those "gas chambers" everybody keeps talking about never even existed. Hitler made dozens of disarmament proposals which were ignored, and 20 peace proposals during the first year of the war, which were ignored. He even ignored the British-French declarations of war for 6 months. [u]What "murders"? What people?

The Slovaks did not secede from Czechoslovakia in 1989. Did you bother to read my response?

You never refuted my statement that the Slovaks seceded in 1989. The Slovaks would have preferred to be ruled by any nationality in the world, rather than the Czechs.


In light of the ultimate fate of Czechoslovakia, such a course of action can hardly be described as unreasonable.

One reason why Czechoslovakia was the most heavily armed country in Eastern Europe was because it was set up that way to be used against the Germans in another war. First there was the Skoda Arms Works, built by the Austrians, one of the biggest armaments factories in the world, then there was an army of 750,000 men, most of them Slovak, Hungarian, Polish and German conscripts, and finally, since the Czechs were pro-Soviet, the Russians built 25 military airports in Czechoslovakia for the express purpose, as admitted by French generals, who also had an agreement with the Russians, of bombing Germany to bits in another war. Until the mid-30s, Germany was almost totally disarmed. This was in violation of the Versailles Treaty (Preamble to Section V), which advocated general disarmament as soon as Germany disarmed. Hitler offered to limit the German army to 200,000 men, then 300,000 men, to abolish all tanks, heavy artillery, military aircraft, even machine guns, but on a basis of equalilty. He offered to guarantee the 1919 borders of Belgium, Holland, France, Italy and Poland. All he ever got was insults and threats. So of course he rearmed. What would you do? He made repeated offers of German troops to defend the British Empire. All he got was insults. He refused to capture or destroy the British army at Dunkirk. He refused to occupy all of France, or any part of French North Africa.

Should I post some of the critical reviews that have been made of that book?

Hoggan wrote quite a few books, if you can read German get them in German, they are cheaper, also he never got most of them published in English. But sure post your 'critical' reviews.

-k0nsl

Are you going to post up information on the 6 months of bombing and over flights ?
I haveseen nothing yet to confirm the shooting of men on the ice when Altmark was boarded .

Do you really want to know or is the question just rhetorical? If so, I have no time for you. Somebody recently led me a song and dance with something similar and it was just rhetoric, he really didn't want to know anything.

-k0nsl

k0nsl thank you for your most detailed answer.

You can find the info on Norway and the Altmark in anything written about Admiral Raeder, and the info about the Ruhr in anything written about the first six months of the war. The British didn't do nothing for 6 months, they bombed Germany. How the hell could they do that without flying over Belgium and Holland. It is logical that the Germans would protest every single incident. My own info is from the Raeder and Ribbentrop defense cases at Nuremberg, volumes 14-16, mostly, but anything about the period ought to cover it, it's very well known. Churchill began the bombing of civilians but the bombing of industry in the Ruhr began in very early September 1939.

Everybody protested Raeder's imprisonment because everybody knew this. There's also a book called RAEDER AT NUREMBERG, full of protests from military men all over the world.

Another point is that the Germans were never prepared for a lengthy war, only a war of 2 or 3 months duration. They invaded Poland with a two-week ammunition supply, and when it came time to invade Western Europe, they found they had no war plans for Western Europe whatsoever, everything had to be improvised last moment. German armaments production in 1939 was 8% what it was in 1944. One source on this is John Kenneth Galbraith, who was an official expert on strategic bombing, he drew up an official report on it for the US government after the war,and one of his conclusions was not only that, but that the mass bombings of population centres actually helped the German war effort because everything bombed was of no importance,when the British bombed all the restaurants and hotels the workers all went to work in the armaments industries. Many writers have remarked on this, strategic bombing was a failure. Another source is C.P. Snow, SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT. Hitler always thought he could reach a political settlement. This is in complete contradiction even with his own (occasionally) expressed philosophy of peace through strength and preparedness. Of course, this was interpreted as planning to conquer the world. Not only did he not intend to destroy Poland, he WANTED a strong, independent Poland as a buffer state against Russia. The Poles destroyed themselves and so did the Czechs. RIP and good riddance.

Hitler wanted a Europe of independent nations working together in peace and to obtain peace he gave up all claim to Alsace-Lorraine, for example. It was the 1919 Allies who created a dozen Alsace-Lorraines in the form of so-called Czechoslovakia.

-k0nsl

Only 60% of the population of 1919-1939 Poland was Polish, and only 60% of so-called Czechoslovakia was Czech. So what? Are you trying to make an argument on the basis of self-determination? That's interesting. What percentage of the population of Poland, Bohemia, and Moravia was German after Hitler sent his troops into these areas?
Millions of people hated the Poles and Czechs, because they considered themselves citizens of other countries. Restated: Millions of people hated the Germans, because they considered themselves citizens of nations destroyed by the Germans. The vast majority of Germans hate Nazis today. So do the vast majority of Americans.
The situation was exactly comparable to Palestine.Logical Fallacy: Red Herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring)

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.
You never refuted my statement that the Slovaks seceded in 1989. Are you somehow unable to read? Czechoslovakia was dissolved in 1993, not 1989. You made a false statement.Did the Germans invade France just for the fun of it? The Germans invaded France because France declared war on Nazi Germany after it attacked Poland.How do you think WWII was started?I was referring to the Great War.The Slovaks would have preferred to be ruled by any nationality in the world, rather than the Czechs.Then let us see your evidence. Don't post arbitrary quotes either. Prove to us that the Slovak people would rather be ruled by, lets say, Libyans, than the Czechs.Do you want me to quote Lloyd George? (THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PEACE TREATIES, vol II, pp 937-38). Vicount Rothermere of England (WARNINGS AND PREDICTIONS chapter 8)?I have Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World right here. Want me to quote that. But even better, lets take a look at the actual Covenant of the League. Perhaps you can tell us where the secret clause is that Germany shall be destroyed.


THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another,
Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/leagueofnations.htmAnybody could see the whole situation was an injustice rendering another war almost inevitable.This is a non sequitur. 'Anybody' could not see that the League of Nations was an injustice that would have inevitably led to another war at all, much less the millions of British citizens who supported the League.Millions of people were handed about from one country to another, like cattle, without any respect for history, economic interests, markets, nothing...like the colonial borders of an African colony and this is democracy? More crocodile tears from k0nsl. From the Goebbels Diaries: 25 October 1939 (Wednesday)

"The Party cannot properly intervene while it has the military constantly holding it back. But that will soon be a thing of the past. The Poles are being slowly pushed off into what is left of their truncated state. Very little is left of the intelligentsia.There were more Germans in Czechoslovakia than there were Irish in Southern Ireland, a nation to which Britain granted independence.Logical Fallacy: Red Herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring)

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.How long would any other nation tolerate such a situation? The Sudetenland was annexed by Germany. Yet that did not stop Hitler from sending his Nazi savages into Bohemia and Moravia now did it.The borders ran through the middle of towns, farmhouses, cut cities off from markets, cut families in half...Listen to this.

"The arguments of Neurath and Frank convinced Hitler. Early in October 1940 he summoned both men to a conference in Berlin, where, after considering the various political alternatives available to Germany, he decided in favor of the Neurath-Frank plan. Bohemia and Moravia were to be Germanized by Germanizing the Czechs; all racially undesirable or anti-German elements were to be eliminated (sei auszumerzen). The program of Germanization was to be carried out by the Office of the Reich Protector, which was to be maintained in its present form in the interests of a uniform German policy. To emphasize this point, Hitler instructed Lammers to quash all proposals for either administrative or geographic changes in the Protectorate."

Rich., p.38even Harold Laski, a notorious Communist sympathizer, said, "I doubt whether any European statesman entirely trusts Dr. Benes. No one knows better than he how to be most things to all men."Interesting passage here:

"Increasingly worried about the Sudeten German leaders themselves were about the prospect of war, Henlein's right-hand man, Karl Hermann Frank, as early as 26 August to instigate provocative 'incidents'. He followed it up with instructions to carry out the 'incidents' on 4 September. He had left Frank in no doubt at all of his intentions. 'Fuhrer is determined on war,' Frank had reported. Hitler had verbally lashed Benes, saying he wanted him taken alive and would himself strip him up. Three days later, on 29 August, it was known, from what was emanating from Hitler's entourage, that Czech complaince, under British pressure, to the Karlsbad demands would no longer be sufficient. 'So the Fuhrer wants war,' was the conclusion drawn by Helmuth Groscurth, head of Department II of the Abwehr."

Kershaw, Hitler: 1936-45: Nemesis, pp.109-109It's not a fact that Hitler "started" WWII, it is a political value judgement masquerading as fact.k0nsl disputes the historical consensus on the issue with his fringe view.

Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1936-45: Nemesis
John Toland, Adolf Hitler
William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, A History of Nazi Germany
Joachim C. Fest, HitlerIf Mexico declared war on America because of their invasion of Panama, you we say we "started" the war with Mexico? No. You'd say they started it by declaring war on us. . . . It's like Saddam Hussain giving up all his weapons, same thing. . . . Then give you the ABC business... If 50 Arab states declared war on America because of their invasion of Iraq, you would say they "started" the war with America. Logical Fallacy: Red Herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring)

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.It's time for Americans to admit that they are doing everything they ever accused the Germans (or Hitler, if you prefer) of doing, but you are always right and the Germans are always wrong. It's wonderful, it's a system.Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque)

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. For instance:It should also be pointed out that Hitler waived all claim to extensive territories which had been claimed by every German political party except the Communists, since 1919: Alsace-Lorraine"The process of carrying out Hitler's orders to restore Alsace and Lorraine to Germany in the shortest possible time began at once. The administration of the provinces was thoroughly overhauled. After careful screening by the Germans, most of the rank and file administrative personnel were allowed to keep their jobs; but all leading French officials, including the prefects and mayors and all officials suspected of political unreliability, were dismissed or forbidden to return. They were replaced by German functionaries, many of them members of the regular administrative staffs of Germany's Gauleiters-governors. So closely were the administrations of the conquered provinces and the adjoining German Gaus coordinated that Wagner soon gave up all pretense of maintaining Alsace's independent status and openly attached the party administration of Alsace to that of Baden. Baden and Alsace together were to be called the Gau Oberrheim, and their capital was to be Strasbourg."

Rich., pp.222-223Eupen-MalmedyThere was never any doubt about Hitler's intentions in three of the princes conquered from Belgium in 1940, however. On May 18 he issued a decree providing for the reunion with Germany of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet, which had been awarded to Belgium after the First World War."

Ibid., p.172the South Tirol"In the past, in the interest of his alliance with Italy, Hitler had persistently renounced all German political or ethnic claims to Italian territory, notably South Tyrol. All available evidence indicates that he was sincere in his assurances to Mussolini on that score. But with the Italian surrender, and even after the formation of the new Mussolini government, Hitler no longer felt any obligation to respect Italy's territorial integrity. He pursued a policy that left no doubt of his intention to incorporate a large part of northern Italy into the Greater German Reich."

Rich., p.320all of East and West Prussia, including areas of enormous economic value which were 65-80% German. And all of these areas mysteriously just happened to later be reannexed to the Reich too by some strange coincidence.What speeches? Hitler made 5,000 speeches. Produce one lie, just one. I challenge you. Have you read all 5,000 speeches? Which lie are you thinking of?"We don't want any Czechs"? "It is my last territorial demand"? "We are barbarians and proud of it"? "Hearts closed to pity. Be brutal?" "Our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich"? "The Big Lie"? "The thousand year Reich"? "The Master Race"? Just one. We can start with his ridiculous peace offers.

"The 'offer" to Britain, was, in fact, no more than a ruse, another -- and by now increasingly desperate -- attempt to detach Britain from support for Poland, and prevent the intended localized war from becoming a general European war. How honest Hitler's 'offer' was can be judged from the fact that at the very time that Henderson was talking in the Reich Chancellery, final preparations were being made for the start of 'Case White' next morning, Saturday, 26 August, at 4:30 a.m. While Henderson was flying to London in the place Hitler had put at his disposal, the attack on Poland was meant to be under way. By the time the British government had considered his 'offer', the Wehrmacht ought to have been making devastating inroads into Poland. It would have been another fait accompli. As he had told his generals on 22 Aubgust, this time he was not going to be deprived of his war through last-minute negotiations."

Kershaw, p.213Hitler was the most popular head of state in history, with the largest majority in the history of the Reichstag. That's more than you can say for Benes.Adolf Hitler is perhaps the most hated man in the entire world. He is without a doubt today the most despised individual in the history of Germany in that country. Benes is not looked upon today in such a light.One person asked me, who was Hitler? Was he German? I said, well, actually he was Austrian, but here, I've got something about him right here, you can read it. He said, no, I already know alll about him. I'm surprised some of these people know the Earth travels around the Sun.This really has nothing to do with the conversation.There are white Americans born in the Southern states who think the Civil War took place in the 1950s. Perhaps you would care to give us their names. Please cite your sources.A lot of people have never heard of Hitler (or don't really know he was) and have no idea who they fought against in either World War.I wonder how many people in Germany have never heard of Adolf Hitler. Better yet, I wonder how many people in Germany actually like the man. Not many, I would suspect.Are you going to blame the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and defend the Versailles Treaty, Well, I'm prepared for that. ROFL. So now you are trying to argue that Japan was justified in attacking the United States because of the embargo the U.S. placed on Japan? It is not incumbent upon the United States to trade with anyone, much less murderous nations who thwart American interests.If you are accussing Germany of "starting" EITHER world war, Well, then I'm prepared for that one, too. Sure. You can put forth a fringe view. Yet I can easily point out that the vast majority of historians find your argument to be laughable. I notice you ripped off the above copy and paste from this website as well:

http://www.cwporter.com/japanwas.htm

I am still trying to figure out why such a charlatan has been cited by yourself as a source in this debate.What 'murders' are you talking about? I demand a specific answer. Name one person murdered by Hitler, just one. Do you have an autopsy report? Lets take a look at the Goebbels Diaries:

March 27, 1942

"Starting with Lublin, the deportation of Jews from the Government General to the east has been set in train. It is a pretty barbarous business -- one would not wish to go into details. Not much will remain of the Jews. I should think that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated and another 40 percent can be used for forced labor. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [ Odilo Globochik, head of the SS and police in the Lublin province of the Government General]. who is in charge of the operation, is carrying it out wiht a good deal of circumspection, and his methods do not seem to be attracting much publicity."

Here is another interesting passage, this time by Frank:

"We have in the Government General an estimated 2.5 million Jews; perhaps, counting the mixed-Jews and their various hangers-on, 3.5 million but we nevertheless can take measures which will somehow lead to successful annihilation in conjunction with the great measures to be discussed in the Reich. Where and how this is to be done is the task of the agencies which we will have to introduce and create here, and of whose activities I will inform you at the appropriate time."

Rich., p.102Look in any book on the Holocaust and read the footnotes. It's all Communist propaganda. Reitlinger even takes the Kharkhov show trial seriously.It would appear that someone in this debate has bought into Nazi propaganda hook, line, and sinker.The British invented concentration camps and began the mass bombing of civilians, the Poles built the first concentration camps in Europe, and those "gas chambers" everybody keeps talking about never even existed.It was the Germans who began the mass bombing of civilians in the Spanish Civil War and later in Poland and the Netherlands. The British did not invent Auschwitz either. Your claim about the gas chambers is rejected by the majority of historians.Hitler made dozens of disarmament proposals which were ignored, and 20 peace proposals during the first year of the war, which were ignored. He even ignored the British-French declarations of war for 6 months. What "murders"? What people?Some more interesting comments from the Goebbels Diaries:

24 October 1939 (Tuesday)
"The London newspaper's outbursts have the pure and simple aim of sowing distrust between us and Moscow. The Fuhrer has absolutely no thought of peace anymore. He would like to put England to the sword."

Ibid., p.28

7 November 1939 (Tuesday)
"With the Fuhrer. He is of the opinion that England must be given a k.o. blow. Quite right, too. England's power is simply a myth these days, no longer a reality. All the more reason why it must be destroyed. Otherwise there will be no peace in the world."

Ibid., p.41

9 November 1939 (Tuesday)
"And quite rightly so! He sees the general situation in a very optimistic light. England must be forced to her knees."

Ibid., p.44

18 December 1939 (Monday)
"The Fuhrer is fully determined to go for England's throat. I tell him a few anecdotes about characters in the English Information Ministry. He laughs until tears flow. These gentlemen are totally inferior to us. As they will soon learn."

Ibid., p.69

22 January 1940 (Monday)
"The Fuhrer has set his mind on a great war against England. As soon as the weather is good. England must be chased out of Europe, and France destroyed as a great power. Then Germany will have hegemony and Europe will have peace. This is our great, eternal goal."

Ibid., pp.100-101

24 January 1940 (Wednesday)
"Yesterday: Churchill's threatening speech is still going the rounds and arousing the neturals' outrage. We ignore it. Have no intention of helping out these tiny dwarf-states. They deserve to disappear."

Ibid., p.102

6 February 1940 (Tuesday)
"The poet Gunnar Gunnarsson visits. I give him a lecture on the rights and duties of neutrality. At first he is quite taken aback and tries to make excuses, but then he has to concede the main argument. The neutral states are playing a criminal game with us. They should learn from the tragic fate of other countries. But unfortunately human beings only learn from their own suffering."

Ibid., p.114

9 October 1940 (Wednesday)
"Frielitz tells me about the situation in Denmark. Much better than in Norway. But the Danes continue to harbour a few illusions about their future as a nation."

Ibid., p.135

14 October 1940 (Monday)
"Yesterday: Few incursions into the Reich. Extensive attacks on England, particularly day and night raids on London. The weather is relatively good. And so the fun goes on."

Ibid., p.142One reason why Czechoslovakia was the most heavily armed country in Eastern Europe was because it was set up that way to be used against the Germans in another war.I suppose that is why the British and French stood by and let Czechoslovakia be destroyed by Germany. It was all part of the secret plot, right?First there was the Skoda Arms Works, built by the Austrians, one of the biggest armaments factories in the world, then there was an army of 750,000 men, most of them Slovak, Hungarian, Polish and German conscripts, and finally, since the Czechs were pro-Soviet, the Russians built 25 military airports in Czechoslovakia for the express purpose, as admitted by French generals, who also had an agreement with the Russians, of bombing Germany to bits in another war. How dare the fucking Czechs defend themselves.Until the mid-30s, Germany was almost totally disarmed.That's bullshit. Rearmament began during Weimar.This was in violation of the Versailles Treaty (Preamble to Section V), which advocated general disarmament as soon as Germany disarmed. The British did disarm throughout the 1920s.Hitler offered to limit the German army to 200,000 men, then 300,000 men, to abolish all tanks, heavy artillery, military aircraft, even machine guns, but on a basis of equalilty. Hitler made all sorts of offers. Hitler was also a liar.He offered to guarantee the 1919 borders of Belgium, Holland, France, Italy and Poland.The Treaty of Locarno had already resolved the issue of Germany's Western border.All he ever got was insults and threats.That's bullshit. Chamberlain went out of his way to reach an accord with Hitler.So of course he rearmed.To launch an aggressive war against his neighbors. What would you do? I would reached a final settlement with the British.He made repeated offers of German troops to defend the British Empire.The British would never have consented to German hegemony over the continent.All he got was insults.One time Hitler himself bragged to his associates that he wanted to throw Neville Chamberlain down the stairs and jump on the silly old man with his umbrella.He refused to capture or destroy the British army at Dunkirk. He captured thousands of British soldiers and would have captured more had it not been for the RAF.He refused to occupy all of France, or any part of French North Africa."German ideas on the future of France had fluctuated sharply in the course of the summer of 1940. Initially, they had contemplated large-scale annexation, as is clear from the following official and confidential briefing to the German press by the Propaganda Ministry, dated 12 July 1940:


Quote:
The new order for Europe is to be quite consciously placed under Germany's sole auspices. It was already clear from the directives of the Propaganda Ministry that in future France would only play a role as a small Atlantic state. One must envisage this quite concretely: apart from Italy's territorial demands on France, our demands too will be very large. The Fuhrer has not yet said the final word and one is dependent on guessing as to the size of the German damns which will be contained in the peace treaty with France. It seems certain, however, that, apart from Alsace-Lorraine, we will also add the main parts of Burgundy, with the Plateau of Langres and Dijon as the capital, to the territory of the Reich. People are already beginning to talk of a 'Reichsgau Burgundy'. Also the Channel ports such as Dunkirk, Bologne [sic!] etc. will at least become German naval bases if not Reich territory as such . . .

As far as France is concerned, the maxim will be: the destruction of the Peace of Westphalia. Some people are even talking of a revocation of the partition agreed in the Treaty of Verdun in 843. For this reason, everything which serves to encourage an economic, political, or economic revival of France will be destroyed. We have no faith in any attempts at renewal in an authoritarian direction in France. We consider that all these attempts are simply camouflage and that the ideas of 1789 will soon show through again together with a revived chauvinism. For this reason, we shall have to draw certain sober conclusions which will indeed be drawn. The peace treaty will eliminate France not only as a great power but as a state with any political influence in Europe. As far as the colonial issue is concerned, things are not yet clear. . .. However, given Britain's refusal to make peace, Hitler had soon come to the conclusion that, for the time being at any rate, it would be better to grant France relatively generous terms in the hope of winning her cooperation in the war against Britain. These included permission for the continued existence of a semi-independent rump French state under Marshal Petain as head of state with its capital in the town of Vichy."

J. Noakes and G. Pridham (ed.), Nazism 1919-1945: Volume 3 Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination, A Documentary Reader (University of Exeter Press, 2000), p.272

- "Hitler wanted a Europe of independent nations working together in peace and to obtain peace he gave up all claim to Alsace-Lorraine, for example."


Oh, did he. How touching.

Cue in John Lennon's "Imagine":

"Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace..."

I guess that's why Hitler re-annexed Alsace-Lorraine to Germany immediately after defeating France in 1940.


Kunsl, you oughta learn to the difference between exoteric and esoteric, between public announcements and private intentions.


Petr

So what? Are you trying to make an argument on the basis of self-determination? That's interesting. What percentage of the population of Poland, Bohemia, and Moravia was German after Hitler sent his troops into these areas?
Restated: Millions of people hated the Germans, because they considered themselves citizens of nations destroyed by the Germans. The vast majority of Germans hate Nazis today. So do the vast majority of Americans.
Logical Fallacy: Red Herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring)

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.
Are you somehow unable to read? Czechoslovakia was dissolved in 1993, not 1989. You made a false statement. The Germans invaded France because France declared war on Nazi Germany after it attacked Poland.I was referring to the Great War.Then let us see your evidence. Don't post arbitrary quotes either. Prove to us that the Slovak people would rather be ruled by, lets say, Libyans, than the Czechs.I have Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World right here. Want me to quote that. But even better, lets take a look at the actual Covenant of the League. Perhaps you can tell us where the secret clause is that Germany shall be destroyed.


THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another,
Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/leagueofnations.htmThis is a non sequitur. 'Anybody' could not see that the League of Nations was an injustice that would have inevitably led to another war at all, much less the millions of British citizens who supported the League.More crocodile tears from k0nsl. From the Goebbels Diaries: 25 October 1939 (Wednesday)

"The Party cannot properly intervene while it has the military constantly holding it back. But that will soon be a thing of the past. The Poles are being slowly pushed off into what is left of their truncated state. Very little is left of the intelligentsia.Logical Fallacy: Red Herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring)

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.The Sudetenland was annexed by Germany. Yet that did not stop Hitler from sending his Nazi savages into Bohemia and Moravia now did it.Listen to this.

"The arguments of Neurath and Frank convinced Hitler. Early in October 1940 he summoned both men to a conference in Berlin, where, after considering the various political alternatives available to Germany, he decided in favor of the Neurath-Frank plan. Bohemia and Moravia were to be Germanized by Germanizing the Czechs; all racially undesirable or anti-German elements were to be eliminated (sei auszumerzen). The program of Germanization was to be carried out by the Office of the Reich Protector, which was to be maintained in its present form in the interests of a uniform German policy. To emphasize this point, Hitler instructed Lammers to quash all proposals for either administrative or geographic changes in the Protectorate."

Rich., p.38Interesting passage here:

"Increasingly worried about the Sudeten German leaders themselves were about the prospect of war, Henlein's right-hand man, Karl Hermann Frank, as early as 26 August to instigate provocative 'incidents'. He followed it up with instructions to carry out the 'incidents' on 4 September. He had left Frank in no doubt at all of his intentions. 'Fuhrer is determined on war,' Frank had reported. Hitler had verbally lashed Benes, saying he wanted him taken alive and would himself strip him up. Three days later, on 29 August, it was known, from what was emanating from Hitler's entourage, that Czech complaince, under British pressure, to the Karlsbad demands would no longer be sufficient. 'So the Fuhrer wants war,' was the conclusion drawn by Helmuth Groscurth, head of Department II of the Abwehr."

Kershaw, Hitler: 1936-45: Nemesis, pp.109-109k0nsl disputes the historical consensus on the issue with his fringe view.

Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1936-45: Nemesis
John Toland, Adolf Hitler
William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, A History of Nazi Germany
Joachim C. Fest, HitlerLogical Fallacy: Red Herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring)

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque)

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. For instance:"The process of carrying out Hitler's orders to restore Alsace and Lorraine to Germany in the shortest possible time began at once. The administration of the provinces was thoroughly overhauled. After careful screening by the Germans, most of the rank and file administrative personnel were allowed to keep their jobs; but all leading French officials, including the prefects and mayors and all officials suspected of political unreliability, were dismissed or forbidden to return. They were replaced by German functionaries, many of them members of the regular administrative staffs of Germany's Gauleiters-governors. So closely were the administrations of the conquered provinces and the adjoining German Gaus coordinated that Wagner soon gave up all pretense of maintaining Alsace's independent status and openly attached the party administration of Alsace to that of Baden. Baden and Alsace together were to be called the Gau Oberrheim, and their capital was to be Strasbourg."

Rich., pp.222-223There was never any doubt about Hitler's intentions in three of the princes conquered from Belgium in 1940, however. On May 18 he issued a decree providing for the reunion with Germany of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet, which had been awarded to Belgium after the First World War."

Ibid., p.172"In the past, in the interest of his alliance with Italy, Hitler had persistently renounced all German political or ethnic claims to Italian territory, notably South Tyrol. All available evidence indicates that he was sincere in his assurances to Mussolini on that score. But with the Italian surrender, and even after the formation of the new Mussolini government, Hitler no longer felt any obligation to respect Italy's territorial integrity. He pursued a policy that left no doubt of his intention to incorporate a large part of northern Italy into the Greater German Reich."

Rich., p.320And all of these areas mysteriously just happened to later be reannexed to the Reich too by some strange coincidence.We can start with his ridiculous peace offers.

"The 'offer" to Britain, was, in fact, no more than a ruse, another -- and by now increasingly desperate -- attempt to detach Britain from support for Poland, and prevent the intended localized war from becoming a general European war. How honest Hitler's 'offer' was can be judged from the fact that at the very time that Henderson was talking in the Reich Chancellery, final preparations were being made for the start of 'Case White' next morning, Saturday, 26 August, at 4:30 a.m. While Henderson was flying to London in the place Hitler had put at his disposal, the attack on Poland was meant to be under way. By the time the British government had considered his 'offer', the Wehrmacht ought to have been making devastating inroads into Poland. It would have been another fait accompli. As he had told his generals on 22 Aubgust, this time he was not going to be deprived of his war through last-minute negotiations."

Kershaw, p.213Adolf Hitler is perhaps the most hated man in the entire world. He is without a doubt today the most despised individual in the history of Germany in that country. Benes is not looked upon today in such a light.This really has nothing to do with the conversation.Perhaps you would care to give us their names. Please cite your sources.I wonder how many people in Germany have never heard of Adolf Hitler. Better yet, I wonder how many people in Germany actually like the man. Not many, I would suspect.ROFL. So now you are trying to argue that Japan was justified in attacking the United States because of the embargo the U.S. placed on Japan? It is not incumbent upon the United States to trade with anyone, much less murderous nations who thwart American interests. Sure. You can put forth a fringe view. Yet I can easily point out that the vast majority of historians find your argument to be laughable. I notice you ripped off the above copy and paste from this website as well:

http://www.cwporter.com/japanwas.htm

I am still trying to figure out why such a charlatan has been cited by yourself as a source in this debate.Lets take a look at the Goebbels Diaries:

March 27, 1942

"Starting with Lublin, the deportation of Jews from the Government General to the east has been set in train. It is a pretty barbarous business -- one would not wish to go into details. Not much will remain of the Jews. I should think that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated and another 40 percent can be used for forced labor. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [ Odilo Globochik, head of the SS and police in the Lublin province of the Government General]. who is in charge of the operation, is carrying it out wiht a good deal of circumspection, and his methods do not seem to be attracting much publicity."

Here is another interesting passage, this time by Frank:

"We have in the Government General an estimated 2.5 million Jews; perhaps, counting the mixed-Jews and their various hangers-on, 3.5 million but we nevertheless can take measures which will somehow lead to successful annihilation in conjunction with the great measures to be discussed in the Reich. Where and how this is to be done is the task of the agencies which we will have to introduce and create here, and of whose activities I will inform you at the appropriate time."

Rich., p.102It would appear that someone in this debate has bought into Nazi propaganda hook, line, and sinker.It was the Germans who began the mass bombing of civilians in the Spanish Civil War and later in Poland and the Netherlands. The British did not invent Auschwitz either. Your claim about the gas chambers is rejected by the majority of historians.Some more interesting comments from the Goebbels Diaries:

24 October 1939 (Tuesday)
"The London newspaper's outbursts have the pure and simple aim of sowing distrust between us and Moscow. The Fuhrer has absolutely no thought of peace anymore. He would like to put England to the sword."

Ibid., p.28

7 November 1939 (Tuesday)
"With the Fuhrer. He is of the opinion that England must be given a k.o. blow. Quite right, too. England's power is simply a myth these days, no longer a reality. All the more reason why it must be destroyed. Otherwise there will be no peace in the world."

Ibid., p.41

9 November 1939 (Tuesday)
"And quite rightly so! He sees the general situation in a very optimistic light. England must be forced to her knees."

Ibid., p.44

18 December 1939 (Monday)
"The Fuhrer is fully determined to go for England's throat. I tell him a few anecdotes about characters in the English Information Ministry. He laughs until tears flow. These gentlemen are totally inferior to us. As they will soon learn."

Ibid., p.69

22 January 1940 (Monday)
"The Fuhrer has set his mind on a great war against England. As soon as the weather is good. England must be chased out of Europe, and France destroyed as a great power. Then Germany will have hegemony and Europe will have peace. This is our great, eternal goal."

Ibid., pp.100-101

24 January 1940 (Wednesday)
"Yesterday: Churchill's threatening speech is still going the rounds and arousing the neturals' outrage. We ignore it. Have no intention of helping out these tiny dwarf-states. They deserve to disappear."

Ibid., p.102

6 February 1940 (Tuesday)
"The poet Gunnar Gunnarsson visits. I give him a lecture on the rights and duties of neutrality. At first he is quite taken aback and tries to make excuses, but then he has to concede the main argument. The neutral states are playing a criminal game with us. They should learn from the tragic fate of other countries. But unfortunately human beings only learn from their own suffering."

Ibid., p.114

9 October 1940 (Wednesday)
"Frielitz tells me about the situation in Denmark. Much better than in Norway. But the Danes continue to harbour a few illusions about their future as a nation."

Ibid., p.135

14 October 1940 (Monday)
"Yesterday: Few incursions into the Reich. Extensive attacks on England, particularly day and night raids on London. The weather is relatively good. And so the fun goes on."

Ibid., p.142I suppose that is why the British and French stood by and let Czechoslovakia be destroyed by Germany. It was all part of the secret plot, right?How dare the fucking Czechs defend themselves.That's bullshit. Rearmament began during Weimar.The British did disarm throughout the 1920s.Hitler made all sorts of offers. Hitler was also a liar.The Treaty of Locarno had already resolved the issue of Germany's Western border.That's bullshit. Chamberlain went out of his way to reach an accord with Hitler.To launch an aggressive war against his neighbors.I would reached a final settlement with the British.The British would never have consented to German hegemony over the continent.One time Hitler himself bragged to his associates that he wanted to throw Neville Chamberlain down the stairs and jump on the silly old man with his umbrella.He captured thousands of British soldiers and would have captured more had it not been for the RAF."German ideas on the future of France had fluctuated sharply in the course of the summer of 1940. Initially, they had contemplated large-scale annexation, as is clear from the following official and confidential briefing to the German press by the Propaganda Ministry, dated 12 July 1940:


Quote:
However, given Britain's refusal to make peace, Hitler had soon come to the conclusion that, for the time being at any rate, it would be better to grant France relatively generous terms in the hope of winning her cooperation in the war against Britain. These included permission for the continued existence of a semi-independent rump French state under Marshal Petain as head of state with its capital in the town of Vichy."

J. Noakes and G. Pridham (ed.), Nazism 1919-1945: Volume 3 Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination, A Documentary Reader (University of Exeter Press, 2000), p.272

I know Shirer, and he's a complete faker. Kershaw, I don't know, but I don't trust any Englishman, not even Irving, completely. Fest? Fraudulent, aswell.

The only way I can deal with this is to produce something completely original, like THE FORCED WAR or WAR DEUTSCHLAND ALLEIN SCHULD or KRIEGSURSACHEN - KRIEGSSCHULD, with footnotes and references. But I have no time. To track down all this info would take months.

All I can say is read THE FORCED WAR and study his footnotes. He quotes 127 sources written in Polish. He could read Polish.

That quote about Hitler saying "my only fear is that some idiot will come to me at the last minute with a peace proposal" is from Document L-3, a forgery, or something similar. All this junk can be hearsay 50 times removed, and you can quote a million books. It's like at Tokyo, the prosecution could quote a newspaper article, but if the defense quoted a book, or Douglas McArthur, the judge (Webb of Australia, for example) would say, "for every person who felt that way, there may have been 50 people who felt the opposite". Which is just another way of saying, as Italian Americans used to say, "attsa whatta you say, attsa not-a whatta I say".

Essentially you are saying that the majority is always right. Self-determination is meaningless, except when it suits you.

Bohemia and Moravia were always Austrian and were overwhelmingly ethnic German, so were large areas of East and West Prussia. You have no idea of how the war started, except the old propaganda view. People have to motivate themselves to change, it's like religion and repentence.

People hate Hitler, because of all the lies. Do YOU believe in the steam chambers? If not, how many other lies are there? You will say this is a red herring, or, as Jamie McCarthy used to say, a straw man.

IF the Goebbels diaries are authentic these quotes were written after the war started, which is not exactly comparable.

It's no good simply dismissing Hitler's peace proposals as "lies", but I will get nowhere with somebody like you. I've said all I've got to say. The point is, he made them, they were rejected, all he got was insults, THEN he had to rearm, THEN it was said that he was planning to conquer the world. The British controlled 3/4 of the world. Who's the liar. But this is polemics, it's a waste of time. Try to be like Siddartha, or Buddha, or something. As the dog returns to his vomit...

I see now why Europeans get so exasperated and start accusing Americans of exterminating the Indians and so on, your self-righteousness is disgusting.

-k0nsl

- "Bohemia and Moravia were always Austrian and were overwhelmingly ethnic German, so were large areas of East and West Prussia."


Whaaaa?

Always Austrian? Even in the Hussite period?

Bohemia and Moravia (that is, apart from Sudetenland) were most definitely not "overwhelmingly ethnic German," and neither was West Prussia.

The only area (of those territories returned to Poland in Versailles) where Germans were in the majority was the free city of Danzig.


Petr

k0nsl , Please see Middlebrook and Everitts " Bomber Command war diaries".
You will see a number raids on Germany in 1940 which targeted the Ruhr and other cities. (22 to be exact).
All carried nothing but leaflets. " Bullshit Bombers" as they were know in RAF circles.
You have yet to post up details of any bombs dropped, to date no reason to invade a neutral country.
If had not wanted you to post details I would not have asked you.
details of shots on the ice ? None as yet.
Where did you get your information of this bombing in 1939 ?
Strange local reports don't mention bombs falling.
I am tempted to think that in the absence of information you may have just made this up and are continuing to do so.
fades information from Kershaws nemesis ,I have read it as well an invasion cancelled at one stage.
The peace offers , sincere , not on your life.
He was determined on war from the outset,he miscalculated completely and ended up in a war.
" Our enemies are little worms , I saw them at Munich" not the words of man searching for peace.
Hook , line and sinker does apply , only you stripped the line and the backing from the reel as well !

Two weeks munition supply , wonder why Hitler was pressing for an invasion of France in the Winter of 39/40 , industry must have been working very hard to produce enough shells and material to resupply the army with.

I know Shirer, and he's a complete faker.So you are saying here that every claim made by Shirer in his book is false? Is that correct? That is a pretty bold claim if you are indeed making it.Kershaw, I don't know, but I don't trust any Englishman, not even Irving, completely.Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler is one of the most comprehensive you will find anywhere. You seem to be harboring a prejudice against Englishman as well. The gallery should make a note of that.Fest? Fraudulent, aswell.How about Richard J. Evans and Richard Overy? Oh wait. I forgot. You have already accused the latter of being a court historians.The only way I can deal with this is to produce something completely original, like THE FORCED WAR or WAR DEUTSCHLAND ALLEIN SCHULD or KRIEGSURSACHEN - KRIEGSSCHULD, with footnotes and references.I don't have the latter two sources but I have Hoggan's The Forced War right here at my side. We can discuss it if you would like. I checked it out of the library a few weeks ago when mugwort cited it one of our debates. Hoggan's use of footnotes and references in that book have apparently be subjected to fierce criticism. This pointed out in the introduction of the book.But I have no time. To track down all this info would take months.That's interesting. Virtually all of the revisionist material is readily available to me here in the United States. I have never had any trouble locating such sources.All I can say is read THE FORCED WAR and study his footnotes. Is it not true that Helmut Krausnick and Hermann Graml have criticized that book on account of its faulty documentation?He quotes 127 sources written in Polish. He could read Polish.This seems to be accurate from a glance through the book.That quote about Hitler saying "my only fear is that some idiot will come to me at the last minute with a peace proposal" is from Document L-3, a forgery, or something similar. This document is a forgery according to who? What proof is there that the document is a forgery? I have seen this quote cited by Toland in his biography of Hitler as well as several other sources.All this junk can be hearsay 50 times removed, and you can quote a million books.If I may ask, what is the basis for this accusation? Do you have any evidence to support this theory of yours or are you just throwing around accusations in frustration?It's like at Tokyo, the prosecution could quote a newspaper article, but if the defense quoted a book, or Douglas McArthur, the judge (Webb of Australia, for example) would say, "for every person who felt that way, there may have been 50 people who felt the opposite". This is a red herring.Which is just another way of saying, as Italian Americans used to say, "attsa whatta you say, attsa not-a whatta I say".So I take it you have no response other than to dismiss the charges made above out of hand without any basis to do so?Essentially you are saying that the majority is always right.This is a straw man argument.Self-determination is meaningless, except when it suits you.This is false. I have actually pointed out in the past that I would have been entirely in favor of Germany reannexing the German populations in neighboring states such as Poland and Czechoslovakia if it was their desire to reunite with Germany. What irritates me, however, is when you people are so vocal in your complaints about the condition of the German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia yet simultaneously try to rationalize the brutalization of the Czechs and Poles by the Nazis.Bohemia and Moravia were always Austrian and were overwhelmingly ethnic German, so were large areas of East and West Prussia.This is false. Bohemia and Moravia were not always Austrian at all, much less where they overwhelmingly ethnic German. I see Petr has already pointed this out to you.You have no idea of how the war started, except the old propaganda view. You seem to have bought the Nazi propaganda which has been refuted by most scholars of the subject.People have to motivate themselves to change, it's like religion and repentence.I pointed out to Reinhold in the Jewish Studies forum that mainstream scholars have moved quite away from the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal in the past fifty years. This does not suggest to me duplicity on the part of the majority of historians who have studied the issue.People hate Hitler, because of all the lies.What if they are not lies? Consider for a moment the possibility that they are true and that the scholars who have studied the subject are rights.Do YOU believe in the steam chambers?I have never studied that issue in any detail, as it really does not interest me and I could care or less if there were any. I am under the impression, however, that the Nazis did murder a huge number of Jews in the East and that no one really knows the exact number. If not, how many other lies are there?You can always refute the charges made by Kershaw and Rich if you desire to do so.You will say this is a red herring, or, as Jamie McCarthy used to say, a straw man.Lets try to keep the debate on topic. I stopped posting articles about the Moon Hoax when you requested that I cease to do so.IF the Goebbels diaries are authentic these quotes were written after the war started, which is not exactly comparable.YOU pointed out that Hitler made numerous peace offers in the first year after the war had already started. Yet as we can see from the Goebbels Diaries, they were made in bad faith. It is also my understanding that the Goebbels Diaries are authentic. I believe Irving is of that point of view as well.It's no good simply dismissing Hitler's peace proposals as "lies", but I will get nowhere with somebody like you.Browsing over the Goebbels Diaries and all the secondary literature that has been done on the subject, it would seem to me like a reasonable inference in light of the evidence.I've said all I've got to say. Alright then. I will reply more to your earlier post in this thread later.The point is, he made them, they were rejected, all he got was insults, THEN he had to rearm, THEN it was said that he was planning to conquer the world.Goebbels points out in his diary that Hitler's ultimate aim was a new world empire for the Germans. That quote has been posted on this forum in numerous threads now. I have shown, citing Kershaw and Goebbels, that Hitler's peace offers were insincere. I have dealt with rearmament in a previous thread. One of the biggest advocates of British rearmament was Rothermere.The British controlled 3/4 of the world. What is the basis of this claim?Who's the liar. Adolf Hitler, as historians have shown.But this is polemics, it's a waste of time. Try to be like Siddartha, or Buddha, or something. As the dog returns to his vomit...I enjoy having debates like this, as I am constantly strengthened by being forced to respond to criticism of my arguments. I also learn a lot in the course of these discussions.I see now why Europeans get so exasperated and start accusing Americans of exterminating the Indians and so on, your self-righteousness is disgusting.The Indians are alive and well today on their reservations. Yet this has nothing to do with the origins of the Second World War.

I know Hitler and he was unlike Shirer was complete faker,he did order German troops into Poland in the misheld belief that he could through the assistance of the Soviet Union take half of Poland and do so without triggering a general out break of hostilities with France and Great Britain.
k0nsl I read Raedar's account of the Altmark incident last night(my collection of naval books is not small or restricted.) , its a very sanitised view one which you will not be surprised to learn plays down the presence of over 300 undisclosed prisoners of war.
Altmark was not a merchant vessel , she had acted as a supply ship to a merchant raider and had actively co-operated with and shadowed her movements.
Her "cargo" when stopped was human, she was also armed.
Now had she been unarmed and void of the POW's the RN would have been guilty indeed, this proved not to be the case, the German captain had lied on more than one occasion to the Norwegians.

k0nsl,

Dan Dare seems to have replied to your post over at SF. friedrich braun has reposted it there.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1446421&highlight=nazi#post1446421

I wonder, if Hitler was such a peace lover, why did he attack us Dutchies and the Belgians, Danes, French, Czechoslovakians, Norwegians etc.?I'm all for the truth. That’s good. Me too. Let’s take a closer look at some of the ‘facts’ presented here then. I’ll just deal with the factual errors and pass over the obvious polemics.First, you are mistaken about the so-called Czechoslovakians. He never attacked them. Secondly there are no Czechoslovakians, only Czechs and Slovaks. Czechoslovakia had been a sovereign state since 1919. Its citizens were Czechslovakians. Slovakia did not get its independence – or more correctly its new status as a German satellite under the Nazi puppet Josef Tiso – until the country was dismembered by Hitler in March 1939.The Germans derived nearly all their iron ore from Sweden, shipped through the Baltic. The British intended to invade Norway to interdict these shipments, i.e., Sweden would have been next. There was no plan to invade Sweden, nor was there any need for such a plan. All ore shipments took place through the ice-free port of Narvik on the Norwegian coast, and securing that location was the British objective (as it was for the Germans). The British made one invasion attempt, which failed, they also sank a German ship in Norwegian territorial waters, the Altmark, ... The Altmark was attacked to obtain the release of British PoWs, this took place in February 1940. Your timeline is scrambled here. The British and French did not land troops in Norway until mid-April, after the German invasion of April 9th, and in support of the beleaguered Norwegian troops.Britain becomes the champion of the independence and neutrality of small countries, i.e., Belgium, .... Belgium’s neutrality had been guaranteed by Britain (and other major Powers) since 1831 as a consequence of the Conference of London. That neutrality was violated twice in less than 30 years by Germany. It is worth noting that, in the 80 years from 1860, Germany invaded its neighbours no less than four times. For all its supposed hypocrisy the same charge cannot be made for the British.Belgium was invaded in 1940 because the Belgians permitted the British to fly over Belgian air space for 6 months to bomb the Ruhr. The first bombing raid on targets in the Ruhr took place on May 15, 1940, following the invasion of Holland and Belgium, and the day after the Luftwaffe obliterated the centre of Rotterdam with 30,000 civilian casualties.Hitler made 20 peace proposals in the first year of the war; all he ever got was insults. It would be interesting to have a source for this assertion. I am aware of only one such ‘proposal’ – the Kroll Opera House speech of October 1939 that Chamberlain dismissed in the Commons the following day. We need details of the other 19.Incidentally the British would have gone to war in 1914 even without a violation of Belgium neutrality because they had secret agreements with the French; Prime Minister Grey lied to Parliament about this. The Entente Cordiale was no secret, nor was the extent of Anglo-French joint military planning. And Asquith was Prime Minister, Grey was Foreign Secretary, which one lied to the Commons and when? Belgium was never a neutral country: ... the Germans were accused of violating two treaties relating to Belgian neutrality: one dated 1838 and one dated 1870 (I believe). The latter expired in 12 months. The 1838 treaty no longer applied partly because of the incorporation of the Belgian Congo into Belgium proper. Under international law, a colony was considered part of the mother country. Hence the Germans and all other parties to the 1839 treaty were supposed to respect the neutrality of the Belgian Congo as well! See above: the 1831 London Conference and the 1878 Congress of Berlin both guaranteed Belgian neutrality as well as, from the latter, its colonies as well.he most astonishing really is that Hitler waited six months to do anything. The British declared war fully believing that London would be bombed with gas bombs immediately. Instead they had to bomb Germany for six months to get any reaction. See above for the first Ruhr raid. The first major German attack on civilian targets in Britain took place on September 7, 1940, the first day of the ‘Blitz’. There had been many other German raids with much ‘collateral damage’ though before that.Even then Hitler refused to occupy all of France or any part of French North Africa (which would probably have permitted him to win the war); ... French North Africa was garrisoned by French Vichy forces, it was not a neutral zone. Anyway that did not prevent Rommel from invading Tunisia when he was retreating from el Alamein. Vichy forces did intervene on the side of the Germans in Syria in 1941....he refused to destroy or even capture the British expeditionary forces at Dunkirk, .. This particular canard has been dismissed several times before, see for example here (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1180362&postcount=78)

"The first bombing raid on targets in the Ruhr took place on May 15, 1940, following the invasion of Holland and Belgium, and the day after the Luftwaffe obliterated the centre of Rotterdam with 30,000 civilian casualties."
k0nsl is under the impression that serious bombing of the Ruhr took place as well , there is no basis for this at all.

Fade said;
What proof is there that the document is a forgery? I have seen this quote cited by Toland in his biography of Hitler as well as several other sources.From Porter who reproduces photographs of L-3:

"1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain paper by an unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech' although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date. There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries: 1014-PS, 798-PS, L-3 (http://www.cwporter.com/gl3.htm), and an authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII-406-408; XVIII 390-402; XXII 65). The third forgery, Document L-3, bears an FBI laboratory stamp and was never even accepted into evidence (II 286), but 250 copies of it were given to the press as authentic (II 286)."

"L-3 (http://www.cwporter.com/gl3.htm)is the source of many statements attributed to Hitler, particularly "who today remembers the fate of the Armenians?" and "our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich". 'Hitler' also compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he will exterminate the Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same typewriter as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other versions of the same speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin from the Triumph-Adler-Werke, Nuremberg. "
http://www.cwporter.com/gl3.htm

Genuine Hitler documents were typed up on the Hitler typewriter, that is the first thing you look for. L-3 does not conform to any of the protocols that a genuine document would have. The whereabouts of the "original" are unknown.
The document was not used in evidence, wonder why?
So where did L-3 originate?

According to the IMT transcripts:
"I should like to point out that L-3, to which Dr. Siemers made reference yesterday, was offered only for identification, as the record shows for the proceedings of that day on the 26th of November, and has received the mark Exhibit Number USA-28 for identification only. Mr. Alderman pointed out, as appears in the record, that he was not offering it in evidence, that it was a paper which came into our hands originally through the services of a newspaperman."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/05-17-46.htm

More on L-3:

DAVID IRVING, NUREMBERG: THE LAST BATTLE, hard cover, 1996, E: p. 100: …”[the prefixed letter] L [on Nuremberg documents] signified a document from London, like the now-famous forgery 003-L, the report on Hitler’s speech to his generals on August 22, 1939, which the anti-Nazi opposition had fed to Associated Press journalist Louis Lochner in Berlin.”

DAVID L. HOGGAN: THE FORCED WAR, 1989, p. 472: “One version of these conferences [August 22, 1939] was presented by Louis P. Lochner of the American Associated Press to British diplomats at Berlin as a valid record of the conferences, and it consciously or unconsciously influenced the thinking of British diplomats at the time. Otherwise, it would have been dismissed as too ridiculous to receive serious consideration. The crass propaganda in the material would have been immediately discarded had people been permitted to think normally about important issues. Unfortunately, a furious and uninterrupted war propaganda campaign had been carried on in the West for more than five months, and nearly everyone, regardless of his mental calibre, had been seriously affected.


“Why would anyone believe that Marshal Goering danced on the table and shrieked like a savage before a group of austere German generals? Why would Hitler blandly announce to his Generals that ‘Goering had demonstrated to us that his Four-Year Plan is a failure and that we are at the end of our strength, if we do not achieve victory in a coming war?’ This sounded more like a leaf from the book of President Roosevelt, who, unlike Hitler, was still facing a catastrophic depression. The statement would be sheer nonsense when applied to war with poverty-stricken Poland. Every informed person, including Lord Halifax, knew that Goering was the last person in Germany who would deliver arguments in favour of a general war at this time [footnote 50: J.W. Wheeler-Burnett, Nemesis of Power, New York, 1954, pp. 446-449, W.L. Langer and S.E. Gleason, The Challenge to Isolation, 1937-1940, New York, 1952, pp. 181-1892].


“The memorandum stated that Hitler told his Generals he planned to kill the Polish women and children. This would have been proper material for an American ‘comic book’, and also for Hitler, if his purpose had been to goad his Generals into an immediate revolt against the German regime. The memorandum claimed that Germany could not hold out in a long war, but added in the same paragraph that ‘Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans’. The memorandum also claimed that Stalin was very sick, and that Germany would dismember Russia after his death.

“Succinct and reliable references to the meeting of August 22, 1939 are available from the actual participants. The traditions of popular journalism cannot excuse people, from any country, who seek to precipitate war by spreading lies when feeling is running high [Footnote 51: British Foreign Policy, III, vol. 7, no. 314; for reliable records, see especially Raeder Diaries, Washington D.C., and the account by Admiral Boehm, Washington D.C.]

[In the German-language version of Hoggans’ work, DER ERZWUNGENE KRIEG, published in 1961 and actually more complete, see p. 624.]

For a high-quality scan of this document, see http://www.cwporter.com/gl3.htm.

For a full translation of this document, see: http://www.cwporter.com/transl3.htm.

For a discussion of this treatment of document at Nuremberg, where it was never even accepted into evidence, see: NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG by C.W. Porter (http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm)

See also National Archives Head Fakes Captions to Hoaxoco$t Poster Exhibit by C.W.Porter (http://www.cwporter.com/c2.htm), and Anatomy of a Nuremberg Liar by C.W.Porter (http://www.cwporter.com/anatliar.htm).

These links contain other links to many scans of original documents, with translations.

In view of the fact that L-3 was never even accepted into evidence, it seems strange that it found its way into NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION, vol. V, a collection of so-called "authentic documents".

Have a look at the scans, and see what you think; if you want to believe this kind of thing, FadeTheButcher, you are free to do so; we will not gas you.

-k0nsl

On East and West Prussia:

From David L. Hoggan, THE FORCED WAR, 1989, p. 383:

“[Polish Premier] Beck made the false assertion that Danzig was free, and therefore not a legitimate object of German concern. He suggested that the prestige factor was involved, and that Germany was deliberately seeking to humiliate Poland. Beck claimed that Hitler was actually seeking to exclude Poland from the Baltic ‘from which Poland will let herself be barred!’. This remark was a deliberate falsehood. Beck knew perfectly well that Hitler respected and encouraged Polish maritime aspirations.

“Beck refused to use the word ‘Corridor’, because ‘it is an artificial invention, for it is an ancient Polish land, with an insignificant percentage of German colonists’. One can only wonder at the temerity and disregard for historical accuracy of this remark. Polish West Prussia was colonized by Germans when it belonged to non-Polish West Slavic tribes and heathen Bo-russians, and there had never been a Polish settlement within the region before the coming of the Germans. The majority of the province was still German at the last pre-War census in 1910, although there had been a considerable infiltration by Polish settlers in recent years. The percentage of Poles in West Prussia in 1910 was considerably less than 35% and the Polish majority of 1939 was obtained by the ruthless expulsion of the German element, and by the arbitrary confiscation of German land. Hitler’s generosity in agreeing to recognize permanent Polish rule over this ancient German territory received no recognition whatever from Beck. The Allied victors of 1919 naturally refused to allow a plebiscite in the region, because a German victory in such a plebiscite would have been inevitable. Beck made the ridiculous claim that the Polish Government had been amply generous in allowing for German facilities of transportation and communication through this area. He saw no necessity for concessions which would have provided adequate German transit facilities to East Prussia.

Beck claimed that Germany had not offered one real concession to Poland, but had merely presented demands. This was another inversion, because Hitler’s October 1938 offer for a settlement was actually heavily slanted in favor of Poland..”

Page 292: “The German program of territorial revision on the European continent was modest in its dimensions. Hitler had no intention of attempting to regain control over the remaining European territories which had been held by Germany and Austria in 1914. He had renounced Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy, North Schleswig, South Tirol, Austrian Slovenia, Poznan, East Upper Silesia, and Polish West Prussia…”

[The book contains hundreds of pages of similar statements, backed up by thousands of detailed footnotes and an annotated bibliography almost 40 pages long in small print (pp. 646-684), including 127 sources in the Polish language. The German version of the book is even longer.]

-k0nsl

- "Beck knew perfectly well that Hitler respected and encouraged Polish maritime aspirations."

HE DID? Just exactly how?


- "One can only wonder at the temerity and disregard for historical accuracy of this remark."

...said the pot to the kettle. Mr. Hoggan seems to be full of it.


- "Polish West Prussia was colonized by Germans when it belonged to non-Polish West Slavic tribes and heathen Bo-russians, and there had never been a Polish settlement within the region before the coming of the Germans."

Funny, but I could have sworn that the "Danzig corridor" area was a clear-cut part of the Polish kingdom for centuries until 1772, when Prussia grabbed it for itself.

Here's a map:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~atpc/maps/poland-1772.html

There was even a considerable Polish community living in East Prussia - the Mazurians:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Masurians


Petr

[QUOTE=k0nsl]On East and West Prussia:

From David L. Hoggan, THE FORCED WAR, 1989, p. 383:

“[Polish Premier] Beck made the false assertion that Danzig was free...

I sent a message to the fish, I told them this is what I wish. test.

[QUOTE=charlie tan][QUOTE=k0nsl]On East and West Prussia:

From David L. Hoggan, THE FORCED WAR, 1989, p. 383:

“[Polish Premier] Beck made the false assertion that Danzig was free...

I sent a message to the fish, I told them this is what I wish.
The little fishes of the sea, they sent an answer back to me.
The little fishes' answer was, we cannot do it sir because.
I told them once I told them twice, they would not listen to advice.
I took a kettle large and new, fit for the deed I had to do...

test
QUOTE]

k0nsl , Please see Middlebrook and Everitts " Bomber Command war diaries".
You will see a number raids on Germany in 1940 which targeted the Ruhr and other cities. (22 to be exact).
All carried nothing but leaflets. " Bullshit Bombers" as they were know in RAF circles.
....

In the interests of full disclosure it has to be pointed out that the above is not quite correct.

On at least one occasion, Bomber Command crews carried out ‘freelance’ operations that were not fully sanctioned by Air Ministry Western Air (W.A.) plans. One such event occurred in December 1939 when Whitleys of No. 4 Group attempted to deliver, along with the seasonal leaflets (technically known as ‘bumf’), a batch of W.C.s liberated from their billets and intended as a Christmas gift for the Führer.

However, given the rudimentary bomb aiming skills of the period as well as the sub-optimal ballistic properties of the payload, likely as not the materiel ended up in the Wannsee rather than the Reichskanzlei.

This blatant act of air piracy is documented by Alastair Revie in The Lost Command

Well its a pity they missed him :D

I just wanted to say, the info about the bombing of the Ruhr comes from the Ribbentrop and Hess case at Nuremberg, the 2-week ammunition supply info comes from Keitel and Jodl, etc. There are 9,000 pages of defense testimony, including 312,022 defense affidavits and thousands of pages of Commission testimony. The prosecution never claimed they never dropped anything but leaflets.

At the Nuremberg Trial at least 3 or 4 defendants said the British bombed the Ruhr every night, and it never occurred to me that anybody would have the effrontery to deny this. The prosecution never denied it. I've heard stories of people saying "all we're dropping leaflets" (I think most notoriously by the author of BOMBING VINDICATED, in one of his books), "why don't we drop bombs"? But I figured this was just newspaper stuff.

The point is, the prosecutors at Nuremberg never claimed, in 16,600 pages, that only leaflets were dropped. Wouldn't that have been the place to make the claim? Nuremberg?

That the British would declare war and then fail to do everything possible to provoke a war stands in contradiction to everything we know about the British. Remember the sinking of the Belgrano during La Guerra de la Malvinas?
I don't have time to continue this.

The info about the Altmark and the German survivors being machine gunned as they fled over the ice comes from the Raedercase.

also see:
http://www.hco.hagen.de/ruhr/erste.htm

-k0nsl

This does not change the fact that the bombing you refer to did not take place.
Are you familiar with the terms " Bullshit Bomber" , RAF term for the leaflet raids and "The Phoney War" often used to describe the first eight months of the war which apart from the war at sea little actual combat took place.

Middlebrook Everitt based there study on RAF/ British records and German records , its both fair, balanced and accurate.

Your reference to the Belgrano is of topic and is also inaccurate.
I would refer you to the operation of the "Veinticinco de Mayo" which was unable to launch its aircraft due to unfavourable weather conditions , it was acting in co-operation with Belgrano and her escorts.
Belgrano may have been old but she was not at sea for "the good of her health."
Whilst she was not within striking distance of the British Task force she was skirting the Burbwood Bank which she could have crossed and rapidly closed on the British , the submarine which shadowed her would have been unable to have followed her , the decision to attack given the fluid nature of the situation was and remains understandable.

The invasion itself has some parrallels with Hitlers invasion of Poland.

Raedar in his own writings made no mention of shootings on the ice nor did he mention the inaccurate information given to the Norwegians by the Captain of the Altmark.
Altmark was not a simple merchant vessel she was a ship at sea with the purpose of supporting,supplying and acting in concert with a surface raider.
Perhaps the Captian of Altmark was unware that he held 300 British merchant seamen on his ship ?

The "two weeks" supply of munitions does not change the fact that Poland was a gamble which failed it has no bearing on Hitlers intention and his ultimate actions.
"Why would the British declare a war" You seem to forget that it was Hitler who enginered a war with Poland , the declaration of war was made after Hitler act of aggression not before.
Galtieri and Hitler played bluffs which failed , they did not count on being challanged.

I will not even waste more of my time.

-k0nsl

k0nsl, Not a problem , just ask yourself this question.
Name one European country which , having been occupied by Germany would have anything good to say about the experience ?
This should sum up pretty much what was thought of Hitlers " European Tour 38-45".

k0nsl, Not a problem , just ask yourself this question.
Name one European country which , having been occupied by Germany would have anything good to say about the experience ?
This should sum up pretty much what was thought of Hitlers " European Tour 38-45".

I'm sure there are plenty of people who was happy to be "occupied" by Germany. Ask the Ukrainians (http://www.angelfire.com/ks3/klubs/victims_in_the_balt.html) for small starters. Ask the many Russians, many of whom did not last the Jewish occupation.

-k0nsl

k0nsl,
Some how I think you are serious.
Tell me if the people of the Ukraine were so well treated by the occupation forces why was German rule in russia so fatally undermined by the treatment dished out to them.
Did Ronsenberg not advocate some limited self goverment ( be it under German control) only to have this ignored compleltely.
Good treatment , come on don't act the fool all together.
The poor Iavn got it from both sides , Hitler and Stalin , both used and abused him.
Hopes of getting anything different from the German govrement in the east , was an illusion soon shattered.

k0nsl,
Some how I think you are serious.
Tell me if the people of the Ukraine were so well treated by the occupation forces why was German rule in russia so fatally undermined by the treatment dished out to them.
Did Ronsenberg not advocate some limited self goverment ( be it under German control) only to have this ignored compleltely.
Good treatment , come on don't act the fool all together.
The poor Iavn got it from both sides , Hitler and Stalin , both used and abused him.
Hopes of getting anything different from the German govrement in the east , was an illusion soon shattered.

In times of war people suffer. I'm sure it was hard times for everyone. But if you think the Latvians thought occupation by the Bolsheviks was better and more benign than that of the Germans you are free to believe that. But that belief can easily be shown to be nothing more than British imagination.

In lieu of what those peaceful and benign Bolsheviks did to the Latvians I'm not sure how many would jump about and say "OH YES! We loved the Bolsheviks, even though they slaugthered us & mutilated us in the most horrible ways imaginable".

And the Russians. I'm sure the vast majority was happy to be released from the Bolshevik hell, despite what some history gangster might assert or what imagination some British guy has (Who are prone to believe fairytales vis-a-vis the laughable "holocau$t".

-k0nsl

k0nsl,
As far as I recall I didn't say that the organs of the Communist state did the average Russian many favours.
Hitler didn't have much of a problem when he signed the August 1939 pact with Stalin giving him a free hand in Lativa , did he ?

"And the Russians. I'm sure the vast majority was happy to be released from the Bolshevik hell, despite what some history gangster might assert or what imagination some has (Who are prone to believe fairytales vis-a-vis the laughable "holocau$t".

They would have been happy to have co-operated with the Germans , except that Hitler's plans for them involved being just educated enough not to get run over by German cars and trucks and to be able to read the road signs.
I can't recall the exact quote but that was the ghist of it.
BTW Almost the exact "words" of a "history gangster" called Adolf Hitler.

"British guy" and "holocau$t" , do we really have to get into that again ? ;)

"British guy" and "holocau$t" , do we really have to get into that again ? ;)

Why not? You believe nonsense, pathetic nonsense.

Bye, bye.

-k0nsl

k0nsl,
You mean "pathetic nonsense" like Hitler didn't actually start WW2 ?
I see you keyboard skills are almost as bad as mine you keep inserting the "$" sign in words which start with "h" , well one in particular. :rolleyes:
(This gets a little predictable after a while).

k0nsl,
You mean "pathetic nonsense" like Hitler didn't actually start WW2 ?

No, nonsense as in the alleged "holocaust" - You know: steam chambers, diesel gassings, cremations in 4 minutes, gassing with chlorine, delayed action gassings that allowed them to walk to a grave and fall in, claimed to have been gassed multiple times, claimed the sky was blackened by smoke night & day, etc.

-k0nsl

k0nsl,
You mean Hitler did start WW2 and it would be nonsense to say other wise ? ;)

I will resist jumping up on a high horse and can only refer you to Reinhold who knows much more about such science and its potential "uses" than I do.
Henry M asked a reasonable question regarding such " aparatus and no answer was forthcoming, I would refer you back to Reinhold on the thread concerned. ( Sorry such "nonsense" is not of any interest to me , I myself have never seen mention of it before).

k0nsl,
You mean Hitler did start WW2 and it would be nonsense to say other wise ? ;)

I will resist jumping up on a high horse and can only refer you to Reinhold who knows much more about such science and its potential "uses" than I do.
Henry M asked a reasonable question regarding such " aparatus and no answer was forthcoming, I would refer you back to Reinhold on the thread concerned. ( Sorry such "nonsense" is not of any interest to me , I myself have never seen mention of it before).You like to stir the $hit don't you? What lies are you telling about me now? "Henry M asked a reasonable question regarding such " aparatus and no answer" Care to be specific, or are you going to do your usual thing and run?
The best thing for you to do is not even mention my name - unless of course you want a flame war. I am happy to ignore you, please show the same courtesy, Thank you.

Reinhold,
I am more than happy to ignore you.
I merely directed k0nsl to you as an informed source on the sort of "nonsense" he asked me about.
Whilst I deeply regret any injury to your person old chap, I do trust that you will be able to help k0nsl.
Not a bit interested in flame wars , I view them as being a "nonsense".
"Pip Pip"

PS
"Care to be specific, or are you going to do your usual thing and run?"
Search the thread , you will find it.
( You didn't answer it).
Now lets just ignore each other , if you don't mind old chap. :p

Reinhold,
I am more than happy to ignore you.
I merely directed k0nsl to you as an informed source on the sort of "nonsense" he asked me about.In other words you are looking for trouble.
Whilst I deeply regret any injury to your person old chap, I do trust that you will be able to help k0nsl.You are the one who needs help.
Not a bit interested in flame wars , I view them as being a "nonsense".
"Pip Pip"Then don't mention my name and don't try and misrepresent me.

PS
"Care to be specific, or are you going to do your usual thing and run?"
Search the thread , you will find it.
( You didn't answer it).
Now lets just ignore each other , if you don't mind old chap. :pSo you are going to do your usual thing and run from your baseless allegations. You say something about someone its up to you to prove it.

Look Reinhold , I really cannot be bothered entering into another of your circus acts.
If you want to take this up on a pm basis that's up to you.
For my part you can look up the question posed by Henry when he asked if anyone had ever been prosecuted on the basis of such wonderfully odd means of execution.
Now if you want to play games I suggest you enlist in a play school.
Now unless you can say something which does not include "nonsense" or another "H" circus I suggest this ends here.
Now do you understand , I can't be bothered nor will I getting bothered.

Look Reinhold , I really cannot be bothered entering into another of your circus acts. Then why did you mention my name and then go on to misrepresent me?

For my part you can look up the question posed by Henry when he asked if anyone had ever been prosecuted on the basis of such wonderfully odd means of execution.
No, no, no. You made an allegation, it is up to you to back it up.
Now if you want to play games I suggest you enlist in a play school.Don't mention my name in any context and you wont hear from me, got it?

This is London. The following official communique has been issued from 10 Downing Street:

"On September 1st, His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin was instructed to inform the german Goverment that unless they were prepared to give His Majesty's Goverment in the United Kingdom satisfactory asurances that the German Goverment had suspended all aggressive action against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory , His Majesty's Goverment in the United Kingdom would, without hesitation , fulfil their obligations to Poland.
"At 9.00 a.m. this morning, His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin informed the German Goverment that unless not later than 11.00a.m. British Summer Time today September 3rd , satisfactory assurances to the above effect had been given by the German Goverment, and had reached His Majesty's Goverment a state of war would exist between the two countries as from that hour. His Majesty's Goverment are now awaiting the reciept of any reply that may be made by the German Goverment. The Prime Minister will broadcast to the nation at 11.15 a.m. That is the end of this announcement"

THIS IS LONDON. You will now hear a statement by the Prime Minister.

" I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street. This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Goverment a final Note stating that unless we heard from them that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been recieved, and that consequantly this country is at war with Germany.
You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there ia anything more , or anything different that I could have done and that would have been more successful.
Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland but Hitler would not have it.
He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened, and although he now says he put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.
The proposals were never shown to the Poles , nor to us and though they were announced in a German broadcast on Thursday night Hitler did not wait to hear comments on them , but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier.
His actions show convincingly that there is no chance of expecting this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.
We and France are today , in fulfilment of our obligations going to the aid of Poland, who is bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people.
We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to estiblish peace.
The situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe has become intolerable.
And now that we have resolved to finish it I know that you wil all play your part with calmness and courage.
At such a moment as this the assurances of support that we have recieved from the Empire are a source of profound encouragement to us.
When I have finished speaking certain detailed announcements will be made on behalf of the Goverment. Give these your closest attention.
The Goverment have made plans under which it wil be possible to carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain that may be ahead. But these plans need your help.
You may be taking your part in the fighting services or as a volunteer in one of the branches of civil defence. If so, you willl report for duty in accordance with the instructions you have recieved.
You may be engaged in work essential to the prosecution of war, for the maintance of the life of the people-in factories , in transport, in public utility concerns, or in the supply of other necessaries of life. If so , it is of vital importance that you should carry on with your jobs.
Now may God bless you all and may He defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against- brute force, bad faith, injustice , oppression and persecution- and against them I am cretain that the right will prevail."

BBC BROADCASTS , SEPTEMBER 3, 1939.

Who started World War Two ?

The " Final Note" and the none delivery of "reasonable proposals" through diplomatic channels , a broadcast of terms followed directly by an invasion underlines the nature of the Goverment which
ordered the attack and their intention to wage war and to misrepresent the truth to emblish their own reasons for the attack on Poland.

What followed.
Hitler glaring at Von Ribbentrop and asking What do we do now ?
What took place at Munich over a year before , Hitler declaing he had no further demands to make , whilst at the same time saying that the Munich Aggreement meant nothing to him , but did mean something to Chamberlain.
To take over of what remained of Czechoslvakia in Spring of 1939 , a take over which went down on paper as an appeal for "protection" .
The appeal was done via a direct threat of aggression "appeal" or be invaded- either way German troops will come.

The increased pressure on Poland was designed to bring about the same cave in reaction from France and Great Britain.
Hitler said he had seen "our enemies" at Munich , he declared them to be " little worms".

Who started World War Two Adolf Hilter by means of a gamble which did not pay off.
Who gave him the chance to make this gamble , Joseph Stalin a man no less evil and no less lustful for power.

Chamberlains words as spoken in his broadcast of 11.15 a.m. did not start World War Two , this had been started already by an order from the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler.

Who started World War Two , to say other than the German Goverment of the day is to misprepresent truth and fact.