Found some interesting excerpts:

"It was Baldwin, working in his emollient way behind the scenes, who resolved the crisis. On 20 March 1925 the Cabinet, after prolonged discussions, authorised Chamberlain to state in Parliament that the German Government's proposals offered the best basis for European security; and that this cooperation would be limited to the western frontiers of Germany. No one, certainly not Austen Chamberlain, would consider involving England in the preservation of the unstable new frontiers between Germany and her eastern neighbours. As Chamberlain wrote to Crowe on 16 February 1925, Great Britain was not to be called upon to defend the Polish Corridor, 'for which no British Government ever will and ever can risk the bones of a British grenadier'. The French, on the other hand, not least because of their alliances, believed that a new treaty ought not to ignore eastern Europe; that a conflict in the east could not faily eventually to draw in the western powers, as in 1914. But on 16 June they at last gave way an accepted the British (or German) proposals. In October the European great powers, including Italy, met in conference in Locarno, the southern Swiss lakeside resort, all pastel villas, Mediterranean flora and benign autumnal sunshine; a highly suitable venue for a collective act of escapism.

For such the group of treaties known under the generic title of the Treaty of Locarno proved to be."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1972), p.331

"In regard to Europe, therefore English policy did nto merely display a characteristic escapism and self-deception, but, the realities of power and strategy having been left so far behind, now veered positively into fantasy, like an unsound financier who, devoid of cash resources, deludes himself and his creditors with grandoise paper transactions.

Yet the Locarno Treaty did not protect the frontiers of Germany's eastern neighbours even on paper; the English had steadfastly refused to enter into an even hollow commitment towards eastern Europe, holding that developments in this region were not, and could not be, among the interests of England. This reflected the English belief, which had been gathering strength and currency since 1919, that in future Germany would conveniently expand eastwards. It was indeed well recognised that even the reformed Germany of the Weimar Republic had designs on Poland. For this reason, Stresemann had refused to extend the Locarno Treaty in its western form to eastern Europe. D'Abernon's opinion was threfore that 'now Locarno has diminished danger on the German-French frontier, the Polish Corridor is the danger-spot in Europe'. Marshal Foch, for his part, had stated as early as 1919 that the Polish Corridor would occasion the next war. But English statesmanship still convinced itself that the Polish Corridor and similar eastern focuses of German resentment were no direct concern of England's."

Ibid., pp.332-333

I think it was a mistake for England to withdraw from the continent and concentrate on overseas. If she had just tried a bit harder she could have won the 100 Years War and done even better. Anyway it seems obvious that the Jewish puppetmasters came in and switched English foreign policy 180 degrees around. I hope that England and Germany can cooperate in future to extend the domain of the Germanic Folk.:)

Perhaps at that moment in time , by 38/39 things had changed considerably and the planned expansion would eventually lead to all of Europe.
Why did NC come back from Munich under the impression that Hitler was a man of his word and why did he have to make such a sudden change in direction in relation to dealings with Germany ?
This was not down to "Jewish Puppetmasters" it was to do with "I have no further demands" (AH) and the taking of the remainder of Czechsolavakia.

It was because of Churchill and his crew and all the hate they were fomenting. Chamberlain was being put under enormous pressure on the domestic front.

D'Abernon's opinion was threfore that 'now Locarno has diminished danger on the German-French frontier, the Polish Corridor is the danger-spot in Europe'. Marshal Foch, for his part, had stated as early as 1919 that the Polish Corridor would occasion the next war. In fact, up until August 29, 1939, Hitler had made no requests with regard to the Polish Corridor per se. One thing which I rarely see mentioned and yet is a fact, is that the offer by Hitler to which Poland (encouraged by Britain) did not bother to respond, included an offer to guarantee the Versailles boundaries of Poland. All he asked was an access road to Danzig across the Corridor, and a railroad, and the city of Danzig itself--which did not belong to Poland anyway, as it was an international city, and a large majority of whose mostly German population had already made it clear they wished to rejoin Germany. Hitler offered in return an access road and railroad to Danzig for the Poles, as well as economic predominance in the city.

It's pretty sad that Poland rejected an offer by Germany which would have guaranteed her existing borders, in favor of a pie-in-the-sky offer by Britain which encouraged the notion that Poland could grab still more German territory if she would start a war with Germany in which she would be backed up (ha-ha) by Britain and France.

Why did NC come back from Munich under the impression that Hitler was a man of his word and why did he have to make such a sudden change in direction in relation to dealings with Germany ? Jewish agenda, I'm quite sure. Also, did you know that Churchill was, and had been for a while, receiving large monthly stipends from Beck, of Czechoslovakia, and that the purging of the Sudeten Gemans had already been suggested by him (Beck) before the war started?

This was not down to "Jewish Puppetmasters" it was to do with "I have no further demands" (AH) and the taking of the remainder of Czechsolavakia. In fact, Slovakia came to Hitler and asked for Germany's protection--which was very smart, considering how close the newly seceded country was to Russia. Do we ever hear about that? No, of course not.

Why did NC come back from Munich under the impression that Hitler was a man of his word? Hitler had earned a reputation as a man of his word; Lord Rothermere said of him, "There is no human being living whose promise on important matters I would trust more readily." He had, amazingly, kept his word on the 4-year plan to turn Germany's economy around. Germany did business by barter with many countries based on Hitler's word, and the country ran as well as it did largely based on trust in Hitler's word.

At any rate, to make a causus belli of it every time a politician goes back on his or her word, changes his/her mind, or is forced to change position based on a new constellation of events, would guarantee perpetual war.

The war was, as always, about wealth and power for the few.

:: Hitler had earned a reputation as a man of his word

ROFL you are joking, right?

:: Hitler had earned a reputation as a man of his word

ROFL you are joking, right?

Mugwort is the biggest dupe of National Socialist Propaganda that you'll ever meet.

Mugwort actually believes all of it.

Incapable of any critical thought whatsoever.

:: Mugwort actually believes all of it.

Hitler asked for lots of things. Then when the British met his demands (as Chamberlain did) he simply made more demands. Anyway, here are some more excerpts:

"But it was Halifax who reminded the Cabinet of the long-standing and fundamental British predicament in regard to eastern Europe -- one to which Austen Chamberlain had tried to find an answer in 1926, Eden in 1937, and Chamberlain in 1938. Geography made it impossible for England to lend military weight to her diplomacy in that region. There was, Halifax said, no way in which we could save Poland or Romania. 'We were faced with the dilemma of doing nothing, or entering into a devastating war.' If we did nothing, the result would be a great accession of German strength, and a weakening of our own position and support. 'In these circumstances,' said Halifax, 'if we had to choose between two great evils, he favoured going to war.' Inskip agreed with him: 'In a sentance, we were in a weak military position to meet a political situation we could not avoid.'

The committee gave its consideration to the usefulness of assuring Poland and Romania that, if they should resist aggression, we should go to their aid -- a proposition hardly compatible with the views just voiced that it was not within our power to bring them aid.

Sir Samuel Hoare alone was of the firm opinion that Russia ought to be included in an Eastern Pact, because in his own words, 'all experience showed that Russia was undefeatable'.

On 30 March came another panic. The Foreign Secretary called a Cabinet at shore notice because of information than an imminent German coup de main against Poland was likely. The Cabinet decided that, as the record expresses it, the Germans could not be allowed to takee us by surprise -- that Poland would not be allowed to let slip [sic], and that the Foreign Secretary, in answering a forthcoming arranged question in the House of Commons should answer that 'if . . . any action which clearly threatened the independence of Poland so that Poland felt bound to resist with her national forces, His Majesty's Government would at once lend them all the support in their power'.

That afternoon Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, accepted this British assurance between, as he put it, 'two flicks of the ash off his cigarette'.

In such panicky haste therefore did the British finally and totally reverse their traditional eastern European policy by giving to Poland the guarantee they had refused to give to Czechoslovakia in 1937-8, and thereby accept at last that Europe posed a single, indivisible strategic problem. Yet it was an incautious guarantee. It was unconditional; it was up to the Poles, not the British, to decide when and whether the time had come to fight. It was one-sided; for Poland was not asked to give a reciprocal assurance.

Ibid., p.560

"In August 1939, the League of Nations Free City of Danzig, an enclave between East Prussia and Poland with a predominantly German-speaking population and a Nazi-controlled Senate, served the place of the Sudetenland a year before: anti-Polish demonstrations, demands to be allowed to join the Reich. Hitler, having stated his demands on Poland in the spring, followed his usual strategy of vague menace -- military preparations, the uttering of blood-curdling threats of forcible intervention to visiting statesmen -- a strategy well-designed to give him both the initiative and freedom of manoeuvre. But in 1939 the strategy did not work as it had in 1938; the Poles, unlike the Czechs, simply refused to budge. Since Britain was now unconditionally committed to go to war for Poland if the Polish Government thought its independence threatened, the British Government had locked themselves into yet another fearsome predicament, and this time the most dangerous of all.

For Chamberlain and Halifax, aware as they were of England's military and even more her economic, weakness, still wished above all things to avoid, not fight, a European war. The purpose of the Polish and Romanian guarantees, and of the military convention with Russia (if it ever came off), was deterrent; to have to fulfill them could only lead to a catastrophe for England. All through the spring and summer the British Government sought to bring about a peaceful solution of the German-Polish dispute by pressure in Warsaw and by trying to demonstrate to Hitler how much more profitable it would be for him if he refrained from force. This was a new and different kind of appeasement, no longer motivated by idealism, but expediency; appeasement wholly justified by the state of British world power.

Unfortunately its chances were ruined by Polish pride, obstinacy and folie de grandeur. Unfortunately too Chamberlain's attempt to propel Hitler along the right course by threatening him with war if he were violent and offering him rich rewards if he were not, suffered from Hitler's total disbelief since Munich that this sanctimonious old gentleman with the umbrella would ever really go to war. It was a year too late for a show of British resolution to exert any deterrent power; perhaps four or five years too late. As Hitler told Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister, on 12 August, he proposed to attack Poland by the end of the month unless he got complete satisfaction beforehand: 'he was absolutely certain that the Western democraciees . . . would shrink from a general war'.

Ibid., pp.571-572

'At 11:30 PM, the Cabinet met -- and agreed to instruct Sir Nevile Henderson to seek an interview with Ribbentrop next morning at 9 AM and inform the German Government that

unless they were prepared to inform His Majesty's Government by 11 AM that they would . . . give satisfactory assurances that they had suspended all aggressive action against Poland, and were prepared to promptly withdraw their forces from Polish territory, a state of war would exist between Great Britain and Germany as from that hour.
When the British ultimatum was delivered by Henderson the next morning, it flabbergasted Hitler, as well it might, in view of all that had gone before since 1933. Who could have imagined that the British should have chosen such a moment and such a pretext for opposing German ambitions by force, when they had neglected so many better opportunities in the past? But just as the British had utterly failed to comprehend the outlook of Nazi Germany until too late, so Hitler on his side completely misjudged the British. As Neville Henderson justly observed in his memoirs, Hitler's 'great mistake was his failure to understand the inherent British sense of morality, humanity, and freedom'.

It was this sense which at 11 AM on 3 September impelled the British into a war which, according to the Treasury, they could only afford to wage if short, but, according to the Chiefs of Staff, could only hope to win if long."

Ibid., pp.574-575

Mugwort is the biggest dupe of National Socialist Propaganda that you'll ever meet.

How is "History" Propaganda, you balkan pimp?

Mugwort actually believes all of it.


There is nothing wrong with believing the TRUTH!

Exactly who and on what authority did a member / members of the Czech goverment approach Berlin and invite German troops in ?
If this is the case whay was the Czech "ordered" to Berlin and then kept waiting until 1.00am to be told that german troops would be in Prague the next morning.
The news footage of troops entering Prague is shot with out the obvious welcome of the population (who if the looks on their faces are anything to go by) are being occupied and not rescued.
I would be interested to read the words of this invitation to the German Goverment and the circumstances in which it was given.
For a nation seeking protection they got occupation.
The "protector" certainly didn't work in the interests of those he was protecting. ( And this exploitation has already been defended by some on this forum as a right of the German state . Protection ?)
This word protection does closely resemble Heydrich's title of office which had in it the word "Protectorship" or was that "Reichsprotector" , either way there was little prrotection and the entery of German troops had nothing to do with protecting the local population and everything about occupying .
Please I would love to see your source of information .
Had the Czechs asked the german Goverment to withdraw their troops , would they have gone , in 39 or 42 ?
After all the cou try was not being occupied it was memrely being "protected".
Forgive me if I seem slightly cynical but , I am.

As Neville Henderson justly observed in his memoirs, Hitler's 'great mistake was his failure to understand the inherent British sense of morality, humanity, and freedom'.Bulltwat!

Hitler's great mistake, and one that he repeated until he finally learned his lesson, was his failure to understand the inherent British deceitfulness, inhumanity, and desire to have other countries under her imperial thumb.

He was unable to believe that they would start a genocidal world war over a local dispute that was patently none of their business.

Joe Kennedy reports in his diary talking to members of the War Party in England during the phoney war, asking if there was not some way all-out war could be avoided. Their reply was that if they did NOT use force on Germany to settle this dispute it would send the message that it was acceptable to settle disputes between countries by force!!! (???)

The March agreement with Poland was a set-up pure and simple, as demontrated by the secret clause which specified that the word "aggressor" in it referred only to Germany.

And if England was so honest and upright, why would they make an agreement with Poland they couldn't keep? The obvious anwer is that they were deliberately misleading Poland in order to encourage her government to do things it would not do if it knew the truth, such as foment war against a much more powerful and organized Germany, with the confident-but-vain expectation of being bailed out by Britain.

If this is the case whay was the Czech "ordered" to Berlin and then kept waiting until 1.00am to be told that german troops would be in Prague the next morning.

The Czechs were not "orderd" as Neville Henderson writes in his "failure of a mission" on page 238: "Dr. Hacha followed Tiso on 14th march to berlin, wheras one has to be fair and admitt, that he went there out of his own free will...."

And again it has been proven, that Cerberus is a proffesional LIAR.


BRITISH LEGATION,
PRAGUE.
No.462. 3Oth December, 1938.

(44/l889/3a)

MyLord,

I have the honour to lnform you that an article dealing with German—Czech relations by Monsieur Peroutka, the well—known Czech journalist, has appeared in a Prague weekly.

2. Monsieur Peroutka said that the Goverment must not try to dictate by force the country‘s new relationship with Germany; lt would be aufficient to address an appeal to the reason of the realistic Czech people. Czecho— Slovakia considered herself entirely disarmed vis-a-vis Germany and the Czecho—slovak people would not forget for centuries what France and England had led them to. Czecho— Slovakia had lost all partners for a policy hostile to Germeny, even it she wished to pursue it. France would in future find no one who would embark on any risky enterprises with her. England, too, was no partner for a security policy. Czecho—Slovakia would honour her pledge of loyalty to Germany as she had been ready to honour her pledges to her allies. In the struggle for Ruthenia she had embarked on closer and more positive co—operation with Germany who had protected her whilst France and England had not yet lost their ”September hoarseness‘. The field was thus open for positive co—operation in foreign affairs with Germany‘.


3. Czecho—Slovakia‘e relations with Germany must be straightforward and nobody should pretend that he was delighted at the way matters had developed. Qn the contrary undue subservience aroused amongst the Germane more suspicion than gratitude. The Germans could be quite frankly told that Czecho—Slovakia‘s own interests led to co—operation with them. Whatever‘ might divide the Czecho—Slovaks from the Germans they had one factor in common, namely, that both peoplee ware in September the only ones who were ready to fight for their cause.

4. I am sending a copy of‘ this despatch to His Majesty‘s Ambssador in Berlin.

I have the honour to be, with the highest respect, Your Lordships most obedient,

humble Servant,



Eric E.Crowe

(Vor His Majesty‘s Minister)

:: Hitler's great mistake, and one that he repeated until he finally learned his lesson, was his failure to understand the inherent British deceitfulness, inhumanity, and desire to have other countries under her imperial thumb.

This is a load of bull****. Actually, just the opposite it is true. The British allowed William Lyon MacKenzie King to wreck the Empire at the imperial conferences throughout the 1920s after the Chanak crisis. At the outbreak of the Second World War, Britain could no longer even count on the assistance of the dominions when the mother country itself was threatened with invasion. Furthermore, the British made an unnecessary enemy of out Italy in the Abyssinia affair because the British sense of morality could not tolerate such an obvious act of Italian aggression, even though the Italian annexation of Abyssinia forced the British to divide the fleet even further between the Mediterranean and the Far East. This moral highmindedness can also be seen in the failure of Chamberlain's government to cut a deal with Stalin before the outbreak of the war. The British were not willing to cut willing to cut the sort of ruthless deal with Stalin that Hitler could do with a clear conscience.

:: He was unable to believe that they would start a genocidal world war over a local dispute that was patently none of their business.

It should first be noted here that Hitler had absolutely no problem with destroying other nations, members of the League of Nations. That was his policy! He demonstrated that 1.) after Munich and 2.) in the Nazi-Soviet Pact. On the other hand, the British government gave guarantees to both Poland and Romania, even though there was nothing the British could do to save either of these nations. From the standpoint of British power, this was clearly an irrational policy. But it was not self-interest that was motivating the British government in the 1930s, but moralising internationalism and high-mindedness.

Chamberlain desperately wanted to preserve the peace in Europe. He was sincerely motivated by that desire. Hitler knew that, as he told Ciano, but for this reason he held Chamberlain in contempt. He was convinced that Chamberlain was a spineless democratic weakling after Munich and that he would not go to war over Poland. The preservation of the League of Nations had long been a pillar of British foreign policy. So in the minds of moralising internationalists, German aggression against Poland was the business of the British Empire.

:: Joe Kennedy reports in his diary talking to members of the War Party in England during the phoney war, asking if there was not some way all-out war could be avoided.

Joseph Kennedy was also an Irish bigot who hated the British, which is precisely why Roosevelt sent him there in the first place as a joke. So whatever he might have to say about the British is unreliable at best. Hitler's invasion of the rump of the Czech state after Munich convinced Chamberlain that Hitler's word was worthless and that he only understood force. The warmongerers were in the Liberal and Labour parties and a few Conservative backbenchers like Churchill. The notion that NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN was a warmongerer is laughable.

:: Their reply was that if they did NOT use force on Germany to settle this dispute it would send the message that it was acceptable to settle disputes between countries by force!!!

A very logical induction given Hitler's foreign policy. Chamberlain put enormous pressure upon the Czechs to give the Sudeten Germans everything they wanted. Chamberlain arranged the peaceful transfer of the Sudetenland to Germany and gave it international legitimacy in the process. Chamberlain was convinced that Hitler's policy was not an expansionist one (although his critics had long suggested otherwise), but a desire to unite all Germans in a greater German Reich.

BUT THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR HITLER. He occupied the rump of the Czech state and made a fool out of Chamberlain in the process. He brought non-Germans under German rule. And this was the root cause of World War 2, because it convinced Chamberlain that Hitler could not be trusted. It convinced Chamberlain that Hitler's complaints about the Sudeten Germans were insincere, that it was merely a pretext to destroy Czechoslovakia. He tried the same strategy on Poland. It failed because Chamberlain would not be fooled again.

:: The March agreement with Poland was a set-up pure and simple, as demontrated by the secret clause which specified that the word "aggressor" in it referred only to Germany.

That's nonsense. Germany WAS a threat to Poland in 1939. That the March agreement took note of the possibility of German aggression against Poland was nothing more than a statement of the obvious. Prior to the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Soviets were willing to come to the aid of Poland in the case of German aggression. But this deal fell through because of the unwillingness of the Poles to allow the Soviets to march through their territory.

:: And if England was so honest and upright, why would they make an agreement with Poland they couldn't keep?

What are you talking about? The English did declare war on Germany after Hitler ordered the the invasion of Poland.

:: The obvious anwer is that they were deliberately misleading Poland in order to encourage her government to do things it would not do if it knew the truth, such as foment war against a much more powerful and organized Germany, with the confident-but-vain expectation of being bailed out by Britain.

Non Sequitur. The British attempted to broker a peace between Poland and Germany throughout the summer of 1939. Furthermore, the notion that Chamberlain's government DESIRED a war against Germany is RIDICULOUS and flies in the face of Chamberlain's efforts at Munich to avoid war. If there was one man in Europe who sincerely wanted to avoid World War 2 and made every effort to do so, then it is Neville Chamberlain. It was only after he was convinced that Hitler was a liar and that his policy was one of expansion as opposed to simply reuniting Germans under the German Reich that British foreign policy viz Eastern Europe did a 180.

So Fade, are you arguing that Hitler in 1939 drove Chamberlain and other pro-peace British against their own will to the hands of Churchill and his Jewish supporters?

And then, in 1940, when Hitler restrained his hand from attacking vulnerable British after Dunkirk and the fall of France, he was perhaps thinking that he was still dealing with guys like Chamberlain who actually wanted to make peace with reasonable terms?


Petr

:: So Fade, are you arguing that Hitler in 1939 drove Chamberlain and other pro-peace British against their own will to the hands of Churchill and his Jewish supporters?

I am arguing that:

1.) Chamberlain was sincerely committed to maintaining peace in Europe, whereas Hitler was not. The situation in Poland would most likely have been resolved peacefully had circumstances been different. See 2.

2.) The utter reversal of British foreign policy viz Eastern Europe was a result of Hitler humiliating Chamberlain after Munich. It convinced Chamberlain that the situation of the Sudeten Germans was merely a pretext to destroy Czechoslovakia. This was confirmed, in his view, by non-Germans being brought under German rule. This led to the unconditional guarantee to Poland which led to Polish obstruction and unreasonableness which led to the breakdown in negotiations which led to the invasion. The guarantee of Poland was the fuse the ignited the war.

3.) Chamberlain was under enormous pressure, from Conservatives like Churchill (along with his Jewish allies in The Focus) and the Labour and Liberal parties.

4.) Yes. The British did not want a war in Europe. This can be seen in the Locarno Treaty, which did not guarantee Germany's eastern borders. The British fully expected the Germans to expand eastwards and reunite all Germans under a German government eventually. They were willing to give the Germans a free pass on this until Hitler demonstrated after Munich that he could not be trusted.

5.) Hitler did not want a war with the Western powers either. He was convinced that he could have his way with Poland and that the spineless democrats of the West, men like Chamberlain, would do nothing to stop him.

:: And then, in 1940, when Hitler restrained his hand from attacking vulnerable British after Dunkirk and the fall of France, he was perhaps thinking that he was still dealing with guys like Chamberlain who actually wanted to make peace with reasonable terms?

Hitler's mistake was his assumption that British foreign policy was motivated primarily by British self-interest and reason. But that was not the case at all. The British had long abandoned the 'balance of power' strategy. This is why they rejected again and again his offer of an alliance that would have secured the British Empire. The British were fundamentally swayed by emotion and their irrational sense of morality and highmindedness. Numerous examples illustrate this: 1.) how they made Italy an enemy over Abyssinia 2.) their inability to broker an anti-German alliance with the Soviets 3.) their devotion to the League of Nations 4.) the guarantee of Poland and Romania, even though Britain could do nothing to help these nations.

- "He was convinced that he could have his way with Poland ..."


So you don't believe that Hitler was after just for those German-inhabited areas of Poland, but would have swallowed them like Czechs instead?


Petr

- "their inability to broker an anti-German alliance with the Soviets ..."


Now THAT would have been a one low-down trick from them indeed - and possibly quite short-sighted.

Had Great Britain even recognized the formal legitimacy of Christian-butchering, international-revolution-fomenting Soviet government of Russia in 1939?


Petr

:: So you don't believe that Hitler was after just for those German-inhabited areas of Poland, but would have swallowed them like Czechs instead?

Hitler was using those German-inhabited areas of Czechoslovakia and Poland as a pretext to destroy those nations. Germany above all, that was his policy. On the other hand, people like Chamberlain and Halifax were moralising internationalists who subordinated the national interests of Britain to their own highminded ideals, as irrational as those might often be. Hitler's policy was one of expansion: as he described in Mein Kampf, his unpublished foreign policy book, and throughout the Table Talks.

:: Now THAT would have been a one low-down trick from them indeed - and possibly quite short-sighted.

Not really. It was only after the humiliation of Chamberlain in the aftermath of Munich that the British attempted to revive the 'balance of power' strategy, but the breakdown in negotiations with the Russians clearly illustrates that even then their hearts were not in it.

:: Had Great Britain even recognized the formal legitimacy of Christian-butchering, international-revolution-fomenting Soviet government of Russia in 1939?

I am not sure if they had recognised the Soviet Government, although I pretty sure that was the case by then. Roosevelt had recognised the Soviet Union years before. The Soviets were nasty and Chamberlain found them repulsive, but from the standpoint of British power, an alliance with the Soviets made perfect sense. World War 2 would have immediantly started out as a two-front war. The Germans would not have been able to concentrate on knocking France out with the Soviets as an enemy in the East.

The British attempted to broker a peace between Poland and Germany throughout the summer of 1939. Wrong. The British PRETENDED to try to broker a peacebetween Poland and Germany throughout the summer of 1939. The documentary evidence is very clear on this point. I need to order a book, then I'll give you some citations.

Logically, all the British would have had to do in order to "broker a peace" between the two countries was to tell the truth: that in the event of a war between Poland and Germany, the agreement between Poland and England might as well be used for toilet paper for all the good it would do to help Poland. I think Poland would have quickly perceived the advantages of an agreement with Germany which guaranteed Polands current borders, gave Poland many economic advantages along with protection from Russia (Germany's offer to Poland was made long before the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and would have prevented it, or at least any part of it that could affect Poland), asked from Poland only the space for an autobahn and railroad across the Corridor (while offering Poland a similar accessway to Danzig), and in any case was better than precipitating a war with Germany with no ally to pull the chestnuts from the fire.

There is a lot more in your post to anwer, obviously, but I have no time now to answer the rest. I'll try to when I get more time. Meanwhile, you might ponder the possibility that what some people call "Nazi propaganda" just could be the closest you'll get to the truth of these events as shown by the documentary record, and that what you are accustomed to considering the truth is a pack of self-serving lies by the instigators and victors of the war.

By the way, perhaps you can tell me how their deliberate policy of "terror bombing" every German city with a population over 100,000, deliberately targeting crowded working class areas so as to get more bodies per bomb, fits into your rosy portrait of the British national character?

Regarding those terror bombings, mugwort:

I believe that none other than Tom Metzger once wrote that while Negro violence is usually "spontaneous" and not planned or very effective, it is the ARYAN RACE that really excels in a cold, premeditated slaughter. I think he mentioned WW II bombings in the connection.

Those terror bombings might be simply the British demonstrating some Aryan efficiency in a less enchanting manner.


Petr

- "He was convinced that he could have his way with Poland ..."


So you don't believe that Hitler was after just for those German-inhabited areas of Poland, but would have swallowed them like Czechs instead?


Petr

Petr, Hitler was not even asking for those territories--just a road and railroad across them so Germany could have access to Prussia by land; peace was obviously more important to him than getting the territories back. He was offering to GUARANTEE Poland's Versailles borders.

Hitler's policy was one of expansion: as he described in Mein Kampf, his unpublished foreign policy book, and throughout the Table Talks.Hitler's policy was of peaceful revision of the Versailles treaty (partial revision, as in more than one instance he was willing to trade land for peace). His country, unlike warmongering Britain and the pushing-from-behind-the-scenes United States, was in excellent shape; therefore he needed no war to keep him in office, stimulate the economy, or cover up his mistakes. The raw materials he would acquire by expanding eastward he could obtain less expensively and without loss of life and devastation of land and property by trading. He envisioned a peaceful, productive, mutually rewarding European Union; how does that jive with his allegedly wanting to conquer the east?

:: Wrong. The British PRETENDED to try to broker a peacebetween Poland and Germany throughout the summer of 1939.

You are dead wrong. Chamberlain was absolutely committed to preserving peace in Europe, even during the crisis over Poland. But Chamberlain was not willing to tolerate the Germans using FORCE to advance their interests (e.g., German expansion at the expense of non-Germans), at the expense of independent countries who were members of the League of Nations, for it was not something the British moralising internationalists would not condone. Hitler demonstrated his willing to do just that when he repudiated the Munich agreement and occupied the non-German remainder of Czechoslovakia. The guarantee of Poland was meant to deter Hitler from attacking Poland, not to incite a war between those nations. And even after he invaded Poland, Chamberlain still hoped he would submit to a conference to end the dispute, but Hitler would have none of it.

:: The documentary evidence is very clear on this point.

Then lets see it. Show me your evidence that Chamberlain and Halifax wanted a devastating European war with Germany. No. They did not want the war at all. They felt it was forced upon them by Hitler, who refused to be constrained either by diplomacy or treaties.

"Yet in point of fact no general discussion even took place in the Cabinet as to whether it would be expedient to fulfil the British guarantee to Poland. There were no prolonged and anguished debates such as had taken place during the Czechoslovakian crisis. Nor were the Chiefs of Staff asked for an assessment of the military implications of going to war over Poland. For throughout the Polish crisis there had been no doubt whatsoever in Chamberlain's mind, or in the mind of his Cabinet, or in the mind of Parliament and public, that there was only one course of action England could follow should Germany attack Poland: the course of action dictated by moral obligation. On 1 September, as news came of the bombing of Polish towns and the killing and maiming of women and children, Chamberlain told his colleagues '. . . the Cabinet met under the gravest possible conditions. The event against which they had fought for so long and so earnestly had come upon us. But our consciences were clear, and there should be no possible question now where our duty lay'.

Yet even now Chamberlain hoped that Hitler might consent to a conference, and thereby save England from a war which must, whatever its course, inevitably ruin her. The French government too, having seen France's military superiority stripped from her since 1929 epaulette by epaulette and medal by medal, not least owing to the well-meant offices of England, was even less keen to fight for Poland than for Czechoslovakia. While the very last possibilities of a conference were being pursued. England and France therefore delayed their declaration of war."

Ibid., p.574

:: I need to order a book, then I'll give you some citations.

I would love to see your evidence that Neville Chamberlain was a warmonger who, gasp, wanted a war with Germany! That is absurd!

:: Logically, all the British would have had to do in order to "broker a peace" between the two countries was to tell the truth: that in the event of a war between Poland and Germany, the agreement between Poland and England might as well be used for toilet paper for all the good it would do to help Poland.

But you are missing the point: the reason the British gave a guarantee to Poland, something they would not do in the case of the Czechs, is because Hitler had already demonstrated that he did not negotiate in good faith. He burnt his bridges when he repudiated the Munich agreement. The purpose of the unconditional guarantee was to make it absolutely clear to Hitler that the British would not tolerate the use of force against Poland. It was meant to put steel behind British words in the hope that this would have deterred him. Yet even in the face of the unconditional guarantee of Poland, Hitler was absolutely certain that the Western democracies would not go to war if he attacked Poland. He was wrong. His miscalculation landed him in World War 2.

:: I think Poland would have quickly perceived the advantages of an agreement with Germany which guaranteed Polands current borders, gave Poland many economic advantages along with protection from Russia (Germany's offer to Poland was made long before the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and would have prevented it, or at least any part of it that could affect Poland), asked from Poland only the space for an autobahn and railroad across the Corridor (while offering Poland a similar accessway to Danzig), and in any case was better than precipitating a war with Germany with no ally to pull the chestnuts from the fire.

Listen. I fully agree that the Poles abused the unconditional guarantee and refused to negotiate in good faith, that this brought on the invasion by Germany. But the purpose of the unconditional guarantee was not intended at the time to give Poland a blank cheque, but to deter Hitler from attacking Poland. The guarantee was meant to demonstrate to Hitler that Britain would not stand by and let him attack and destroy Poland with military force. It most certainly WAS NOT Chamberlain or Halifax's desire to start a war with Germany.

This notion of yours that the guarantee was some sort of conspiracy against Germany makes no sense. If Chamberlain sincerely wanted to attack Germany, then why, pray tell, did he not use the crisis over Czechoslovakia to do just that? The Soviets had a treaty with Czechoslovakia and would have entered the war. The Czechs had several first class divisions of their own. The Germans were outnumbed in the West by the French, which so worried the German Generals that their was almost a mutiny against Hitler. It was not Chamberlain's desire to start a war at all, as history and logic clearly shows.

:: There is a lot more in your post to anwer, obviously, but I have no time now to answer the rest.

I would love to see you explain how Neville Chamberlain was some sort of warmongerer, that there was a British conspiracy to destroy Germany, when it was the British (in the name of 'morality') who castrated the French grand strategy of surrounding Germany with a hostile alliance.

:: . I'll try to when I get more time. Meanwhile, you might ponder the possibility that what some people call "Nazi propaganda" just could be the closest you'll get to the truth of these events as shown by the documentary record, and that what you are accustomed to considering the truth is a pack of self-serving lies.

You seem to be under the impression that I am anti-Hitler or anti-National Socialist. That is not the case. My posts on this forum clearly show that. It is my position that WW2 was caused by the British and French, not the Germans, and that the irrational guarantee of Poland was the root cause of the conflict. The Poles used the guarantee to refuse to negotiate in good faith. They thought they were a 'great power'. They were sorely mistaken.

But it is simply BEYOND ABSURD, now, to suggest that Neville Chamberlain of all people was a warmongerer, that the British were out to destroy Germany, even in the MIDST of Munich. Now you could argue that the French might have been motivated by such sentiments, but that was obviously not the case with respect to British foreign policy.

:: By the way, perhaps you can tell me how their deliberate policy of "terror bombing" every German city with a population over 100,000, deliberately targeting crowded working class areas so as to get more bodies per bomb, fits into your rosy portrait of the British national character?

I never said that Winston Churchill was a Chamberlain, Baldwin, or MacDonald. Nowhere have I made that argument. But rest assured, it was the actions of Herr Hitler that made the advent of someone like Winston Churchill possible. It was Hitler who discredited and humiliated the supporters of restraint and European peace within the UK.

:: Hitler's policy was of peaceful revision of the Versailles treaty (partial revision, as in more than one instance he was willing to trade land for peace).

Hitler's policy, throughout his entire career, as that of uniting all Germans in a greater German Reich and expanding east at the expense of the Slavs. He makes this clear in:

1.) Mein Kampf
2.) His unpublished foreign policy book
3.) The Table Talk
4.) His actions in the East

No one who is familar with any of these sources can argue otherwise. He stated on numerous occasions that it was not his policy simply to overturn the Versailles Treaty. He makes this especially clear in his unpublished foreign policy book, when he attacks the hotheads who demanded action on the South Tyrol question. He hoped to resettle these Germans in the East. He was also comfortable with France retaining Alsace and Lorraine. He was an Anglophile and did not want a war with Britain. It WAS NOT his goal simply to overturn the Versailles Treaty.

:: His country, unlike warmongering Britain and the pushing-from-behind-the-scenes United States, was in excellent shape; therefore he needed no war to keep him in office, stimulate the economy, or cover up his mistakes.

What sort of delusional world does mugwort live in? How, pray tell, was Great Britain a warmongering country? If Britain was a warmongering country, then why did Britain abandon France after it invaded the Ruhr? Why did it retract its guarantee of France in case of a German attack? Why did Britain obstruct France's efforts to divide Germany by fomenting separatist movements? Why did it, for years, refuse to renew the Anglo-French alliance? Why did Britain, on the advice of Keynes, assist the U.S. in reviving the German economy? Why did Britain consent to the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and the annexation of Austria? Why did Britain dely its construction of its base in Singapore? Why didn't Britain attack Germany after it walked out of the League of Nations? And above all, why did Britain cripple the French system of alliances and deliver Czechoslovakia to Germany on a silver platter at Munich while proclaiming that we would have 'peace in our time'? How were moralising pacifists and humanitarians like Lord Halifax warmongerers, or better yet, Neville Chamberlain? It also seems to have eluded mugwort that a general European war meant suicide for Great Britain, as it was exposed to Germany in the North Atlantic, Italy in the Mediterranean, and Japan in the Far East. Indeed, the war did not 'revive' the British economy at all: it destroyed British economic independence, and by extension, the British Empire with the Lend-Lease agreement.

:: The raw materials he would acquire by expanding eastward he could obtain less expensively and without loss of life and devastation of land and property by trading.

That's very true. But you must remember that Hitler's ambition to expand east was not motivated by reason either, like British support of the League of Nations, but by a romantic, utopian, and irrational fantasy!

:: He envisioned a peaceful, productive, mutually rewarding European Union; how does that jive with his allegedly wanting to conquer the east?

There is no 'allegedly' about it:

25th September 1941, midday

Asia, what a disquieting reservoir of men! The safety of Europe will not be assured until we have driven Asia behind the Urals. No organised Russian State must be allowed to exist west of that line. They are brutes, and neither Bolshevism nor Tsarism makes any difference -- they are brutes in a state of nature. The danger would be still greater if this space were to be Mongolised. Suddenly a wave comes foaming down from Asia and surprises a Europe benumbed by civilisation and deceived by the illusions of collective security.

Since there is no natural protection against such a flood, we must meet it with a living wall. A permanent state of war on the Eastern front will help to form a sound race of men, and will prevent us from relapsing into the softness of a Europe thrown back upon itself.

The points we have reached are dotted along areas that have retained the memory of Germanic expansion. We've been before at the Iron Gates, at Belgrade, in the Russian space.

The German past, in its totality, constitutes our patrimony, whatever may be the dynasty, whatever may be the stock from which we arise. It is important to bring together in the German Pantheon, all the glories of Germany's past -- as Ludwig I did in the eyes of the whole world.

As regards myself, I shall never live to see it, but one day my successors must be in a position to bring out from a drawer every historical date that justifies a German claim.

Once our position is consolidated, we shall be in this sphere to go back as far as the great invasions.

Berlin must be the true centre of Europe, a captial that for everybody shall be the capital.

17th October 1941, evening

In comparison with the beauties accumulated in Central Germany, the new territories in the East seem to us like a desert. Flanders, too, is only a plain -- but of what beauty! This Russian desert, we shall populate it. The immense spaces of the Eastern Front will have been the field of the greatest battles in history. We'll give this country a past.

We'll take away its character of an Asiatic steppe, we'll Europeanise it. With this object, we have undertaken the construction of roads that will lead to the southernmost point of the Crimea and to the Caucasus. These roads will be studded along their whole length with German towns, and around these towns our colonists will settle.

As for the two or three million men whom we need to accomplish this task, we'll find them quicker than we think. They'll come from Germany, Scandinavia, the Western countries and America. I shall no longer be here to see all of that, but in twenty years the Ukraine will already be a home for twenty million inhabitants besides the natives. In three hundred years, the country will be one of the loveliest gardens in the world.

As for the natives, we'll have to screen them carefully. The Jew, that destroyer, we shall drive out. As far as the population is concerned, I get a better impression in White Russia than in the Ukraine.

We shan't settle in the Russian towns, and we'll ket them fall to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We're not going to pay at children's nurse; we're absolutely without obligation as far as these people are concerned. To struggle against the hovels, chase away the fleas, provide German teachers, bring out newspapers -- very little of that for us! We'll confine ourselves, perhaps, to setting up a radio transmitter, under our control. For the rest, let them know just enough to understand our highway signs, so that they won't get themselves run over by our vehicles!

For them the word "liberty" means the right to wash on feastdays. If we arrive bringing soft soap, we'll obtain no sympathy. These are views that will have to be completely readjusted. There's only one duty: to Germanise this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins. If these people had defeated us, Heaven have mercy! But we don't hate them. That sentiment is unknown to us. We are guided only by reason. They, on the other hand, have an inferiority complex. They have a real hatred towards a conquerer whose crushing superiority they can feel. The intelligentsia? We hve too many of them at home.

All those who have the feeling for Europe can join in our work.

In this business I shall go straight ahead, cold-bloodedly. What they may think about me, at this juncture, is to me a matter of complete indifference. I don't see why a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat wheat from Canada, we don't think about the despoiled Indians.

The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practise it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell! If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!

For Ley, it will be the job of his life to drag that country out of its lethargy. Fields, gardens, orchards. Let it be a country where the work is hard, but the joy pays for the trouble.

We've given the German people what is needed to assert its position in the world. I'm glad that this call to the East has taken our attention off the Mediterranean. The South, for us, is the Crimea. To go further would be nonsense. Let us stay Nordic.

- "The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practise it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell! If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!"


It is somehow weird to hear such humanistic crybaby rhetoric coming from A. Hitler.

Petr

:: Petr, Hitler was not even asking for those territories--just a road and railroad across them so Germany could have access to Prussia by land; peace was obviously more important to him than getting the territories back. He was offering to GUARANTEE Poland's Versailles borders.

As I said before, Hitler asked for lots of things. Then when he got what he wanted, he simply made more demands. He made a lot of promises to get these things as well, and when he got them, he broke his word. The logical consequence of this is that those who negotiated with him were no longer willing to take him seriously. So even if was sincere in this is case, others had no way of knowing for sure.

:: Wrong. The British PRETENDED to try to broker a peacebetween Poland and Germany throughout the summer of 1939.

You are dead wrong. Chamberlain was absolutely committed to preserving peace in Europe, even during the crisis over Poland. Chamberlain had nothing to do with it by then. By the summer of 39 Britain's foreign policy in relation to Germany was firmly in the hands of Lord Halifax. I'm curious what was happening behind the scenes between Halifax and powerful Jewish interests, because at that point Halifax was clearly working methodically to start the war the Zionists wanted. It's true that FDR was also putting pressure on England towards the same end, but I don't think that sufficiently explains his behavior.

I've been wondering this for a while, so I was interested recently to see a German political cartoon of that time depicting Halifax as a puppet whose strings were being pulled by powerful Jews. Of course, the control by Jewish internationalists over the politics and politicians of the time is a common theme in Third Reich political cartoons, but having already had my suspicions I thought, and think, it possible there was something specific the cartoon was referring to.

And even after he invaded Poland, Chamberlain still hoped he would submit to a conference to end the dispute, but Hitler would have none of it. Not true; Hitler was eager, but Halifax refused (and I don't know why you're speaking of Chamberlain here, when Halifax was England's representative in this matter).

This was the second occasion on which Halifax lied outright in order to prevent the possibility of his war-plans' being derailed. As you know, there was a very narrow window of opportunity between when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 (without, BTW, declaring war, as his hopes were for a more limited action) and Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939.

On September 1 Mussolini offered to help set up an international conference in which Britain, France, Poland, Germany, and Italy would be represented. Hitler accepted gladly, and expressed his willingness to pull his troops out of Poland upon the conclusion of a mutually satisfactory agreement between Germany and Poland. When Ciano went to Halifax to get his answer about the conference, Halifax not only refused to participate unless Hitler first pulled out his troops (which was not a reasonable demand, given the circumstances), but also LIED and told Ciano that France, too, had refused. Obviously without the urging of France and England Poland would not come to the table, so at this point Ciano gave up and the last chance to work things out peacefully passed.

Why would Halifax have lied to prevent the possibility of a peace conference if he and England wanted peace?

:: Chamberlain had nothing to do with it by then.

What are you talking about? Chamberlain was Prime Minister of Great Britain during 1939. He had absolutely everything to do with the crisis over Poland and Great Britain's response to it. It was HIS decision to reverse the traditional hands off British foreign policy towards Eastern Europe, because Hitler demonstrated after he repudiated the Munich agreement that his foreign policy ambitions were not limited to simply reuniting Germans into a Greater German Reich. This was the assumption that led to Munich in the first place. This assumption was repudiated after Hitler brought non-Germans under German rule with his invasion of the rump of Czechoslovakia. THAT is why Poland was guaranteed.

:: By the summer of 39 Britain's foreign policy in relation to Germany was firmly in the hands of Lord Halifax.

Are you trying to say here that Lord Halifax was a warmongerer who wanted to embroil Great Britain in a war with Germany? Because if that is what you are suggesting, then I would really be interested in seeing your evidence.

:: I'm curious what was happening behind the scenes between Halifax and powerful Jewish interests, because at that point Halifax was clearly working methodically to start the war the Zionists wanted.

1.) Show us your evidence that Halifax was in the pocket of the Jews. That is nonsense. Halifax was no warmongerer. That is ridiculous.
2.) I have a better explanation:

"Yet perhaps the most dangerous of all consequences of the Munich crisis was the total contempt in which Hitler now held Chamberlain. An English diplomat in the Berlin embassy was informed by reliable sources in Hitler's entourage that 'Hitler regarded the Prime Minister as an impertinent busybody who spoke the ridiculous jargon of an outmoded democracy. The umbrella, which to the ordinary German was a symbol of peace, was in Hitler's view only a subject of derision. ' According to the same sources, Hitler had been heard to observe: 'If ever that silly old man comes interfering here with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers'.

On 14 November a meeting of the Cabinet Foreign Policy Committee discussed a number of confidential reports from hitherto reliable sources in Germany to the effect that Hitler was no longer worried about British rearmament; and that he no longer believed the British would go to war, and that he was ready to therefore embark on a vast programme of national expansion. This information led Halifax to argue: 'As regards Germany the immediate objective should be the correction of the false impression that were were decadent, spineless and could with little impunity be kicked about.'

Ibid., p.550

:: I've been wondering this for a while, so I was interested recently to see a German political cartoon of that time depicting Halifax as a puppet whose strings were being pulled by powerful Jews.

Yeah. The Germans also believed that Roosevelt of all people was under the thumb of the Jews, which is funny since the British and Americans were actually worried about European Jewry flooding into the Allied nations. So answer me this, if Chamberlain's government was truly under the thumb of the Jews, as you are suggesting here, then why, pray tell, were the Jews not allowed to enter Palestine en masse, or even America, as they so desparately wanted to do?

:: Of course, the control by Jewish internationalists over the politics and politicians of the time is a common theme in Third Reich political cartoons, but having already had my suspicions I thought, and think, it possible there was something specific the cartoon was referring to.

They exaggerated the extent of Jewish influence over America and Britain. The anti-German boycott started by the Jews actually failed due to Jewish infighting. Many of the German Jews that did make their way to America were incarcerated as enemy aliens! Organised Jewry in Britain was financing Churchill and his clique of warmongerers, who were striving to BRING DOWN Chamberlain's government! So now you are faced with a paradox: why would British Jewry seek to topple a government, as you have argued, they supposedly controlled?

- "The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practise it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell! If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!"


It is somehow weird to hear such humanistic crybaby rhetoric coming from A. Hitler.

PetrIt sounds kind of bogus to me. Actually, it has a touch of Jewish victimology quality,as well as supporting the agenda of representing Hitler as an anti-Christian, which he was not--he lived and died a Catholic. His problems with the Protestant church, insofar as they concerned doctrine and not political subversion, arose from what he quite reasonably saw as the Judaizing tendency implicit in depending so much on Old Testament, pre-Christian precepts. The national church he favored instituting (but gave up, as it was not successful) was based on the New Testament, eliminating the copious admonishments to mass-bloodletting with which the Torah is rife.

Where is this quotation from?

From "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", I think.

And you know what, David Irving fully vouches for the authenticity of the Table Talk. He even says that they contain much more reliable picture on what really went on inside Hitler's mind than Mein Kampf.


"David Irving replies:

HITLER'S Table Talk comes from the original Bormann Vermerke which the late François Genoud purchased from Bormann's widow Gerda Bormann. They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day's entry was initialled by Bormann at the end. They are genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable.

...

http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html


Petr

- "The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practise it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell! If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!"


It is somehow weird to hear such humanistic crybaby rhetoric coming from A. Hitler.

Petr

LOL! You don't know our Führer! It's not "humanistic", it is spoken with sarcasm and irony. "The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory ..." That cleary states, that he doesn't hold much of this phoney "humanism".

:: Not true; Hitler was eager, but Halifax refused (and I don't know why you're speaking of Chamberlain here, when Halifax was England's representative in this matter).

You are wrong. Halifax insisted that the conference could only be held if Germany withdrew from all Polish territory. Hitler replied to Mussolini that he would give his reply before September 3rd. Chamberlain, at the very last minute, did strive to postpone the declaration of war but the Italians had already dropped the entire idea because they knew Hitler would not agree to such conditions.

:: This was the second occasion on which Halifax lied outright in order to prevent the possibility of his war-plans' being derailed.

mugwort suggests here, on the basis of no documented evidence, that Halfiax was a warmongerer out to get Germany. Halifax did accept such a conference, on the condition that Germany would withdraw its forces from Poland.

:: As you know, there was a very narrow window of opportunity between when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 (without, BTW, declaring war, as his hopes were for a more limited action) and Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939.

I have the details on that right here:

"Here was a clear casus foederis for both Great Britain and France. Their ally had been wantonly attacked; it only remained for them to declare war on the aggressor. Nothing of the kind happened. Both governments addresed a pained remonstrance to Hitler, warning him that they would have to go to war unless he desisted. Meanwhile they waited for something to turn up; and something did. On 31 August Mussolini, carefully following the precedent of the previous year, proposed a European conference: it should meet on 5 September and should survey all the causes of European conflict, with the precondition that Danzig should return to Germany in advance. The two Western governments were favourable to the proposal when it first reached them. But Mussolini had got his timing wrong. In 1938 he had three days in which to avert war; in 1939 less than twenty-four hours, and this was not enough. By 1 September, when the Western governments replied to Mussolini, they had to postulate that fighting must first stop in Poland. Nor was this all. Whle Bonnet was enthusiastic for Mussolini's proposal, in Great Britain public opinion took charge. The House of Commons was restive when Chamberlain explained that Germany had merely been "warned"; it expected something more sold next day. Halifax, swinging as usual with the national mood, insisted that the conference be held only if Germany withdrew from all Polish territory. The Italians knew that it was hopeless to place such a demand before Hitler; they dropped the conference without further effort.

Yet both the British and French governments, the French especially, went on believing in a conference which had vanished before it was born. Hitler had initially replied to Mussolini that, if invited to a conference, he would give his answer at mid-day on 3 September. Therefore Bonnet, and Chamberlain with him, strove desperately to postpone a declaration of war until after that time, even though the Italians no longer intended to invite Hitler or anyone else.

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (New York: Antheneum, 1962), pp.276-277

:: On September 1 Mussolini offered to help set up an international conference in which Britain, France, Poland, Germany, and Italy would be represented.

And Chamberlain and Bonnet were still holding out hope for that conference after it already had fell through. Some warmongerers!

:: Hitler accepted gladly, and expressed his willingness to pull his troops out of Poland upon the conclusion of a mutually satisfactory agreement between Germany and Poland. When Ciano went to Halifax to get his answer about the conference, Halifax not only refused to participate unless Hitler first pulled out his troops (which was not a reasonable demand, given the circumstances), but also LIED and told Ciano that France, too, had refused

Hitler had already blew his last chance for peace. His invasion of Poland turned British public opinion against Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. And as A.J.P Taylor points out, Halifax went along, as usual, with public opinion. The Italians dropped the whole idea of a conference because it was made supported by the British only on the condition that Hitler would withdraw all his forces from Poland.

:: Obviously without the urging of France and England Poland would not come to the table, so at this point Ciano gave up and the last chance to work things out peacefully passed.

The British had no reason to believe that Hitler was sincere about any deal or any conference, even if that might have been the case.

:: Why would Halifax have lied to prevent the possibility of a peace conference if he and England wanted peace?

Perhaps because after Hitler invaded Poland, discrediting Chamberlain and his policies yet again, British public opinion was no longer in the mood to appease an aggressive state. YET STILL, there was a chance that there could have been a conference. It fell through because the Italians discarded the entire idea because they were convinced that Hitler would not withdraw his forces.

The bottom line here is that the British and French did not want the war (as A.J.P. Taylor explains above), in fact, they went absolutely out of their way to prevent the war. It was Hitler that kept making demand after demand after demand, who broke his word again and again, who simply could no longer be reasoned with.

More information discrediting mugwort's lie about British warmongerers:

"Bonnet conjured up the excuse that the French military wanted the dealy in order to carry through the mobilisation, undisturbed by German air attack (which, they knew, would not occur anyway -- the German airforce was fully employed in Poland). Chamberlain conjured up no excuse except that the French wanted delay and that it was always difficult to work with allies. In the evening of 2 September he was still entertaining the House of Commons with hypothetical negotiations: "If the German Government should agree to withdraw their forces then His Majesty's Government would be willing to regard the position as being the same as it was before the German forces crossed the Polish frontier. That is to say, the way would be open to discussion between the German and Polish Governments on the matters most at issue." This was too much even for loyal Conservatives. Leo Amery called to Arthur Greenwood, acting leader of the Opposition: "Speak for England", a task of which Chamberlain was incapable. Ministers, led by Halifax, warned Chamberlain that the government would fall unless it sent an ultimatum to Hitler before the House met again. Chamberlain gave way. The objections of the French were overruled. The British ultimatum was delivered to the Germans at 9 AM on 3 September. It expired at 11 AM, and a state of war followed. When Bonnet learned that the British were going to war in any case, his overriding anxiety was to catch up with them. The time of the French ultimatum was advanced, despite the supposed objections of the General Staff: it was delivered at noon on 3 September and expired at 5 PM. In this curious way the French who had preached resistance to Germany for twenty years appeared to be dragged into war by the British who had for twenty years preached conciliation."

Ibid., p.277

17 September 1941, evening, and the night of 17th-18th

The spirit of decision does nto mean acting at all costs. The spirit of decision consists simply in not hesitating when an inner conviction commands you to act.

Last year I needed great spiritual strength to take the decision to attack Bolshevism.

I had to forsee that Stalin might pass over to attack in the course of 1941. It was therefore necessary to get started without delay, in order not to be forestalled -- and that wasn't possible before June.

Even to make war, one must have luck on one's side. When I think of it, what luck we did have!

I couldn't start a campaign of propaganda to create a climate favourable for the reverse situation; and innumerable lives were saved by the fact that no newspaper or magazine article ever contained a word that could have let anyone guess what we were preparing. I decided to take into account the risk that in the ranks of the Wehrmacht there might still be some elements contaminated with Communism. If there were, I suppose that those of them who could see what happens in Russia have now been cured. But at the moment of our attack, we were entering upon a totaly unknown world -- and there were many people amongst us who might have reflected that we had, after all, a pact of friendship with the Russians!

The German soldier has again proved that he is the best soldier in the world. He was that in the time of Frederick the Great, and he has always been that. When it's a question of holding on, that's when he reveals his full effectiveness. On every level, every man does exactly what is expected of him. After the campaign in the West, people were still saying that the soldier of today hadn't the endurance of the infantryman of the first World War. here, on the Eastern Front, he has proved that he has this endurance.

At the time of the First World War, nobody paied any attention to the soldier's individual value in combat. Everything was done en masse. During the period of the war of movement, in 1914, compact units were thrown into the battle. In the war of position that followed, the posts were much too close together. Another mistake was to have as company-commanders elderly men of forty to fifty. For infantry, physical agility is everything. So one must have young officers leading these units.

The factor of surprise is half the battle. That's why one cannot go on repeating an operation indefinitely, simply because it has been successful.

Antonescu is using in front of Odessa the tactics of the first World War. Every day he advances a few kilometers, after using his artillery to pulverize the space he wishes to occupy. As regards artillery, he has a crushed superiority over his opponent. In view of the circumstances of the terrain, it's obviously possible to set about things in this fashion!

The operation now in progress, an encirclement with a radius of more than a thousand kilometers, has been regarded by many as impracticable. I had to throw all my authority into the scales to force it through. I note in passing that a great part of our successes have originated in "mistakes" we've had the audacity to commit.

The struggle for the hegemony of the world will be decided in favour of Europe by the possession of Russian space. Thus Europe will be an impregnable fortress, safe from all threat of blockade. All this opens up economic vistas which, one may think, will incline the most liberal of the Western democrats towards the New Order.

The essential thing, for the moment, is to conquer. After that everything will be simply a question of organisation.

When one contemplates this primitive world, one is convinced that nothing will drag it out of its indolence unless one compels the people to work. The Slavs are a mass of born slaves, who feel the need of a master. As far as we are concerned, we may think that the Bolsheviks did us a great service. They began by distributing the land to the peasants, and we know what a frightful famine resulted. So they were obliged, of course, to reestablish a sort of feudal regime, to tbe benefit of the State. But there was this difference, that, whereas the old style landlord knew something about farming, the political commissar, on the other hand, was entirely ignorant of such matters. So the Russians were jsut beginning to give their commissars appropriate instruction.

If the English were to be driven out of India, India would perish. Our role in Russia will be analogous to that of England in India.

Even in Hungary, National Socialism could not be exported. In the mass, the Hungarian is as lazy as the Russian. He's by nature a man of the steppe. From this point of view, Horthy is right in thinking that if he abanonded the system of great estates, production would rapidly decline.

Its the same in Spain. If the great domains disappeared, famine would prevail.

The German peasant is moved by a liking for progress. He thinks of his children. The Ukrainian peasant has no notion of duty.

There is a peasantry comparable to ours in Holland, and also in Italy, where every inch of ground is zealously exploited -- also, to a certain extent, in France.

The Russian space is our India. Like the English, we shall rule this empire with a handful of men.

It would be a mistake to claim to educate the native. All that we could give him would be a half-knowledge -- just what's needed to conduct a revolution!

It's not a mere chance that the inventor of anarchism was a Russian. Unless other peoples, beginning with the Vikings, had imported some rudiments of organisation into Russian humanity, the Russians would still be living like rabbits. One cannot change rabbits into bees or ants. These insects have the faculty of living in a state of society -- but rabbit's haven't.

If left to himself, the Slav would never have emerged from the narrowest of family communities.

The Germanic race created the notion of the State. It incarnated this notion into reality, by compelling the individual to be a part of a whole. It's our duty to continually arouse the forces that slumber in our people's blood.

The Slav peoples are not destined to live a cleanly life. They know it, and we would be wrong to persuade them of the contrary. It was we who, in 1918, created the Baltic countries and the Ukraine. But nowadays we have no interest in maintaining Baltic States, any more than in creating an independent Ukraine. We must likewise prevent them from returning to Christianity. That would be a grave fault, for it would be giving them a form of organisation.

I am not a partisan, either, of a university at Kiev. It's better not to teach them to read. They won't love us for tormenting them with schools. Even to give them a locomotive to drive would be a mistake. And what stupidity it would be on our part to proceed to a distribution of land! In spite of that, we'll see to it that the natives live better than they've lived hitherto. We'll find amongst them the human material that's indispensible for tilling the soil.

We'll supply grain to all in Europe who need it. The Crimea will give us its citrus fruits, cotton and rubber (100,000 acres of plantation would be enough to ensure our independence).

The Pripet marshes will keep us supplied with reeds.

We'll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like.

The Germans -- this is essential -- will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native.

For German youth, this will be a magnificent experiment. We'll attract to the Ukraine Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes. The army will find areas for manoeuvres there, and our aviation will have the space it needs.

Let's avoid repeating the mistakes committed in the colonies before 1914. Apart from the Kolonialgesellschaft, which represents the interests of the state, only the silver interests had any chance of raising their heads there.

The Germans must acquire the feeling for the great, open, spaces. We msut arrange things so that every German can realise for himself what they mean. We'll take them on trips to the Crimea and the Caucasus. There's a big difference between seeing these countries on the map and actually having visited them.

The railways will serve for the transport of goods, but the roas are what will open the country for us.

Today everybody is dreaming of a worl peace conference. For my part, I prefer to wage war for another ten years rather than be cheated thus of the spoils of victory. In any case, my demands are not exorbitant. I'm only interested, when all is said, in territories where Germans have lived before.

The German people will raise itself to the level of this empire.

6th August 1942, midday

When the rest of the world was engaged in seizing the open spaces, Germany was in the throes of religious warfare.

The foundation of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great was a fatal event in the history of Europe; and St. Petersburg must therefore disappear utterly from the earth's surface. Moscow, too. Then the Russians will retire into Siberia.

It is not by taking over the miserable Russian hovels that we shall establish ourselves as masters in the East. The German colonies must be organised on an altogether higher plane.

We have never before driven forward into empty spaces. The German people have absorbed both northern and southern Austria, and the original inhabitants are still there; but they were Sorbs-Wends, members of basic European stock, with nothing in common with the Slavs.

As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilising him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!

At harvest time we will set up markets at all the centres of any importance. There we will buy up all the cereals and the fruit, and sell the more trashy products of our own manafacture. In this way we shall receive for these goods of ours a return considerably greater than their intrinsic value. The profit will be pocketed by the Reich to defray the price of the campaign. Our agricultural machinery factories, our transport companies, our manfacturers of goods and so forth will find there an enormous market for their goods. It will also be a splendid market for cheap cotton goods -- the more brightly coloured the better. Why should we thwart the longing of these people for bright colours?

My one fear is that the Ministry for Eastern Territories will try to civilise the Ukrainian women. These girls, bursting with health, would introduce a welcome strain into the race, for many of them are obviously of sound Germanic origin -- otherwise, whence the fair, blue-eyed children? The best among them we will gradually assimilate and take into the Reich; the rest can remain here.

My one fear is that the Ministry for Eastern Territories will try to civilise the Ukrainian women. These girls, bursting with health, would introduce a welcome strain into the race, for many of them are obviously of sound Germanic origin -- otherwise, whence the fair, blue-eyed children? The best among them we will gradually assimilate and take into the Reich; the rest can remain here.

Where did you get this quote from? :confused:

Sunday, 27th July 1941, evening

It is striking to observe to what a degree a people's place in the world is a function of its age. A young nation is compelled to constant successes. An old nation can allow itself continual setbacks. Germany and England.

We must take care to prevent a military power from ever again establishing itself on this side of the Urals, for our neighbours to the West would always be allied with our neighbours to the East. That's how the French once made a common cause with the Turks, and now the English are behaving in the same fashion with the Soviets. When I say, on this side of the Urals, I mean a line running two or three hundred kilometers east of the Urals.

It should be possible for us to control this region to the East with two hundred and fifty thousand men plus a cadre of good administrators. Let's learn from the English, who, with two hundred and fifty thousand men in all, including fifty thousand soldiers, govern four hundred million Indians. This space in Russia must always be dominated by Germans.

Nothing would be a worse mistake on our part than to seek to educate the masses there. It is to our interest that the people shold know just enough to recognise the signs on the roads. At present they can't read, and they ought to stay like that. But they must be allowed to live decently, of course, and that's also to our interest.

We'll take the southern part of Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There'll be no harm in pushing out the population that's there now. The German colonist will be the soldier-peasant, and for that I'll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously. In this way we shall dispose, moreover, of a body of courageous N.C.O's, whenever we need them. In future we shall have a standing army of a million and a half to two million men. With the discharge of soldiers after twelve years of service, we shall have thirty to forty thousand men to do what we like with each year. For those of them who are sons of peasants, the reich will put at their disposal a completely equipped farm. The soil costs us nothing, we have only the house to build. The peasant's son will already have paidfor ir by his twelve years' service. During the last two years he will already be equipping himself for agriculture. One single condition will be imposed upon him: that he may not marry a townswoman, but a countrywoman who, as far as possible, wil lnot have begun to live in a town with him. These soldier-peasants will be given arms, so that at the slightest danger they can be at their posts when we summon them. That's how ancient Austria used to keep its Eastern peoples under control.

Where did you Where did you get this quote from?get this quote from?
H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations trans. by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens (New York City: Enigma Books, 2000), p.617-618

11 August 1941

If America lends her help to England, it is with the secret thought of bringing the moment nearer when she will reap her inheritance.

I shall no longer be there to see it, but I rejoice on behalf of the German people at the idea that one day we will see England and Germany marching together against America.

Germany and England will know what each of them can expect of her partner, and then we shall have found the ally whom we need. They have an unexampled cheek, these English! It doesn't prevent me from admiring them. In this sphere, they still have a lot to teach us."

fadethebutcher: the English
fadethebutcher: were governed by moralising internationalists
fadethebutcher: the Victorian country gentleman
fadethebutcher: altruist
fadethebutcher: they wanted to abolish war
fadethebutcher: and guarantee peace for all time
fadethebutcher: and they truly believed such stupid notions
fadethebutcher: it was for them, all about Christianity
fadethebutcher: and doing good unto others
fadethebutcher: and fairness
fadethebutcher: and so on
fadethebutcher: typical moralising attitude
fadethebutcher: just like cerberus today
fadethebutcher: on the other hand
fadethebutcher: Germany was governed by Hitler
fadethebutcher: who had no problem with ruthlessly pursuing German interests
fadethebutcher: or at least, what he perceived to be German interests
fadethebutcher: he didnt have the sort of regard for other nations
fadethebutcher: that the British most certainly did
fadethebutcher: he wanted peace, sure, but peace was only a secondary issue for him
fadethebutcher: it was always 'Germany above all'
fadethebutcher: for Hilter
fadethebutcher: Hitler*
fadethebutcher: if he could get his way by running over others, then he had no problem doing it
fadethebutcher: it was absolutely just the opposite worldview that prevailed in England in the 1920s and 1930s

See my post on it here, From Kissinger's book (http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?p=29429#post29429).

- "Where did you get this quote from?"


See above, from Hitler's Table Talk, the authenticity of which has been confirmed by David Irving.

Perun, you being an (part)Ukrainian, I honestly think you should got to get rid of unnecessary nostalgia for Hitler.

Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn writes (in his Gulag Archipelago) that the idea of turning Russia into a German colony was an idea too preposterous to be believed before you actually experienced it.

(In the chapter where he dealt with Vlasovites)

He said that if Nazis had played their cards even a little bit better with Slavs, Communism would have collapsed by 1942.


Petr

There is a new book out about the German occupation of the Ukraine. I have yet to read it, but flipping through it (checked it out the other day), it has some pretty gruesome stuff in there.

Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine Under Nazi Rule (2004)
by Karel C. Berkhoff

I've often seen this excerpt from "Table Talk" posted on the net; Hitler was apparently not going to let Slavs own weapons or form their own militias:


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

--Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.
Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html


(By this policy Hitler probably lost any hopes of vanquishing the growing partisan movement...)


Petr

There is a new book out about the German occupation of the Ukraine. I have yet to read it, but flipping through it (checked it out the other day), it has some pretty gruesome stuff in there.

Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine Under Nazi Rule (2004)
by Karel C. Berkhoff


Karel C. Berkhof = :jew:

Have fun reading!


Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk

There is no entry of 11th April in the Monolouges by Heinrich Heim. Thus they must be from Pickers or Rauschnigg, and thus are the forgeries.
I also don't believe it because you can get tons of books on Russian/Ukranian Police- and Militiaunits. Doesn't make much sense to state that they are not allowed to have Guns and then arm them (even with tanks).

You should document your claims, Brandt.

And what has Rauschnigg (I suppose you mean Hermann Rauschning) got to do with this? He was not involved with the Table Talk at all.


Petr

Fade neat list of B. points.
1. Fade, I won't defend Empire.
2. British view to make the world English. belonged in times past , even by 20-30's.
3. All European nations played with Empires and ruling away from home .
America is now playing at it and the fingers well and truely burnt.
Time for this is over.
Sadly the UN does not always have the balls to act as it should and is open to the political agendas of some member states.
4.Moralising. You have me down for one who comes from Christian value system. (Don't know if this is strictly true)
Perhaps this mpralising which you refer to comes from talking to some who would appear to have a twisted and unrealistic value system in that "pretty gruesome stuff" you are going to read about was parr for the course when dealing with others.
T4 which I did I must admit harp on about is part of that same " pretty gruesome stuff ".
BTW It probably comes as no surprise that I am a pretty tolerant person ( I am told anyway) and I do put some value on human life , which may be the seat of what you percieve as my " moralising " if I seem to be pushing it down anyones throat I apologise.
Having said all this I refer you to ;
"Karl C. Berkhof = :jew: "
FB's rebuke of "read book then comment" may hold more water here than my general response which brought forth the remark in the first place.

You should document your claims, Brandt.

And what has Rauschnigg (I suppose you mean Hermann Rauschning) got to do with this? He was not involved with the Table Talk at all.


Petr

There are three sources for the "Tabletalks"; Heim, Rauschnigg and Pickers. the later two have been debunked as forgerys. Acording to Bormans (?) calender Pickers wasn't even present on the days he wrote down certain entrys. thus they are made up or someon simply manipulated them. As for Rauschnigg, he turned on Germany and NS and only wrote bad about it (from exile). I could just as well trust the words of Elie Wiesel or Steven spielberg.

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?S=R&wauth=hermann+rauschning&siteID=q7nXh2zoI9U-x_mnIQBLrGrPEzGzmNzYJg

Excuse me, but Rauschning moved out of Germany in 1936. These Table Talks that we are talking about cover the years 1941-1944.

- and THEY have been certified by David Irving.


Petr

Excuse me, but Rauschning moved out of Germany in 1936. These Table Talks that we are talking about cover the years 1941-1944.

- and THEY have been certified by David Irving.


Petr

You should differentiate between Heim and Pickers then. If Iriving certefied the Heim entries, I see no problem. Pickers is a different story.
Personaly I couldn't care less what Hitler said or did not say. That will not change my admiration and loyalty to him and his cause, which was Germanys glory and eternal greatness. I dont have to agree with him on everything (I will NEVER understand his fondness for the english and I personaly think that this was his greatest mistake and our downfall).

Never the less, I would rather bite my tounge off then join our enemys in slandering his memory and honour. All that we have left is our honour and loyalty. If we give this up also, then we don't deserve a future.

- "You should differentiate between Heim and Pickers then."


If you had followed that David Irving link that I presented, you would have found out that:

"2. Henry Picker took over as Bormann's secretary/adjutant from Heim. He found a lot of Heim's notes in his desk and rewrote them in reported speech and published them and his own notes as Hitlers Tischgespräche. Good, but less reliable."

http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html


So, Picker was not involved with the "Table Talk." Irving specifies that is comes from Heim:

"HITLER'S Table Talk comes from the original Bormann Vermerke which the late François Genoud purchased from Bormann's widow Gerda Bormann. They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day's entry was initialled by Bormann at the end. They are genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable."


(I have not personally read this whole book yet, I have only seen chapters of it in the Internet. One day I will get it to my hands, that's for sure.)


Petr

- "You should differentiate between Heim and Pickers then."


If you had followed that David Irving link that I presented, you would have found out that:

"2. Henry Picker took over as Bormann's secretary/adjutant from Heim. He found a lot of Heim's notes in his desk and rewrote them in reported speech and published them and his own notes as Hitlers Tischgespräche. Good, but less reliable."

http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html


So, Picker was not involved with "Table Talk."


Petr

"Less reliable" doesn't mean much to you? Also the part about "found a lot of Heim's notes in his desk and rewrote them ..."

I have read just about every for me available Hitler-speech. I know how he thought and mostly, how he formulated his words. I can detect a fake when I see it. For example in one of Pickers entrys, he puts the words in to the Führers mouth, that he wants the German Youth of the future to be "mercyless and animalistic" (in that sense). That is such hogwash and I know imeadiately that this is fake.

I think this is a basic reading comprehension test.

IRVING QUITE CLEARLY SAYS THAT PICKER WROTE HIS OWN BOOK. He was not involved with that book that is now known as "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944."


Petr

I think this is a basic reading comprehension test.

IRVING QUITE CLEARLY SAYS THAT PICKER WROTE HIS OWN BOOK. He was not involved with that book that is now known as "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944."


Petr

Yes indeed, it is a basic reading comprehension test....for YOU!

"He found a lot of Heim's notes in his desk and rewrote them in reported speech and published them and his own notes as Hitlers Tischgespräche."
Now guess what "Hitlers Tischgespräche" means in ENGLISH? Could it possibly mean - *gasp* "Hitlers Tabletalk"? :rolleyes:

I knew enough German to realize that.


But Irving is answering a question:

"IS the book commonly know in the English-speaking world as the Hitler's Table Talk an English translation of François Genoud's French text? And how reliable is it?"


And it is hard for me NOT to get the impression that Irving says that it is reliable.


"5. One final detail: the English translation of the original Hitler's Table Talk was published in about 1949 by George Weidenfeld, who paid a huge sum for the rights -- half to Genoud, and half at Genoud's insistence to Paula Hitler. The Weidenfeld translation is idiomatic and excellent. I read the book as a boy, enthralled. I used the text on several occasions in my book Hitler's War: for that I was denounced as a "falsifier of history", as I preferred the idiomatic Weidenfeld translation to a wooden, turgid, and sludge-like Richard Evans translation as offered to the High Court during the Lipstadt Trial. ... "


Frankly, unless you have some special expertise on this issue, I think I'll believe Irving (and remember to get the right edition).


Petr

I picked up Halifax's memoirs and the Goebbel's diaries at the library. Excerpts coming soon. :)

Interesting passage. :)

"That change of opinion and feeling was of course the immediate consequence of Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. By that action, which could no longer make any pretence of being directed to reunion of scattered elements of the German people, the purpose of dominating Europe was exposed. But if this was now Hitler's plain intention, it might still be possible to deter him from its execution if, as we had failed to do in 1914, we made it unmistakably clear that the particular acts of aggression which he was believed to have in mind would result in general war. And if the event showed that Hitler was not to be restrained, it was better that the nations under threat should stand and fight together than that they should await German attack one by one. That was in two sentances the justification for the decision to give guarantees.

As regards the practical worth of such guarantees on any short calculation, it may be safely asserted that neither the Polish Government nor the Roumanian Goverment was under any illusion as to the measure of concrete help they might expect from Great Britain in the event of Hitler choosing war. For them as for us the guarantees were the best, indeed the only, chance of warning him off that decision."

Lord Halifax, Fullness of Days (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1957), pp.208-209

10 October 1939 (Tuesday)

"The Fuhrer's verdict on the Poles is damning. More like animals than human beings, completely primitive, stupid and amorphous. And a ruling class that is an unsatisfactory result of mingling between the lower orders and an Aryan master-race. The Poles' dirtiness is unimaginable. Their capacity for intelligent judgement is absolutely nil. Even Lipksi believed that we would lose our never after a week of war. Poor fool!

The Fuhrer has no intention of assimilating the Poles. They are to be forced into their truncated state and left entirely to their own devices. If Henry the Lion had conquered the East, a task for which he possessed the power at that time, the result would certainly have been a strongly slavicised race of German mongrels. Better the present situation: now we know the laws of racial heredity and can handle things accordingly. The Fuhrer takes a very positive view of thee general situation. We can only watch and wait. We dare not lose our never or our peace of mind."

Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, 1939-1941 (New York: G.P Putnam's Sons, 1983), pp.15-16

9 October 1940

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. I intend to invite a large group to study in Germany.

Ibid., p.135

10 August 1940 (Saturday)

We have a lot to tell each other. And I have to work on late into the night.
Russian film of the Finnish campaign. Pathetic. Dilettantism in its purest form. The handiwork of subhumans. Then Wagner music. A blasphemy.

Perhaps we shall be forced to take steps against all of this, despite everything. And drive this Asiatic spirit back out of Europe and into Asia, where it belongs.

Ibid., p.124

17 August 1940 (Saturday)

Later we intend to pack the Jews off to Madagascar. There they too can establish their own state.

Ibid., p.125

24 January 1940 (Wednesday)

Yesterday: Churchill's threatening speech is still going the rounds and arousing the neutrals' outrage. We ignore it. Have no intention of helping out these tiny dwarf-states. They deserve to disappear.

Ibid., p.102

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.

pp.100-101

28 December 1939 (Thursday)

"The Fuhrer speaks of Count Bethlen's article with contempt; he also reckons it to be typically Hungarian. These Magyars will learn another side of us when we have won our victory."

"I put forward my complaints about the church. The fuhrer shares them completely, but does not believe that the churches will try anything in the middle of a war. But he knows that he will have to get around to dealing with the conflict between church and state. At the moment, however, our own extremists are making things too easy for the churches. They are presenting them with cheap ammunition. The Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole, exclusive role is that of a politician. The best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a 'positive Christian'. So far as these questions are concerned, therefore, the technique must be to hold back for the present and cooly strangle any attempts at impudence or interference in the affairs of the state."

"We come back to religious questions again. The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He iews Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable. He has little regard for homo sapiens. Man should not feel so superior to animals. He has no reason to. Man believes that he alone has intelligence, a soul, and the power of speech. Has not the animal these things? Just because we, with our dull senses, cannot recognise them, it does not prove that they are not there."

Ibid., pp.76-77

17 November 1939 (Friday)

The Czechs are a strange people. Like all Slavs, they live in a world of make-believe, filled with illusionary dreams that have no basis in reality. They are good cooks. And this history has taught them how to overthrow their masters.

Ibid., p.51

13 November 1939 (Monday)

. . . Paris and London have given a negative answer to the Belgian-Dutch appeal for peace, as expected. They save us the necessity of a painful answer. War, then.

Ibid, p.47

3 November 1939 (Friday)

We talk about the resettlement of the South Tyroleans. The Fuhrer has Burgundy in mind for them. He is already dividing up the French provinces. He hurries ahead, far in advance of developments. Like every genius. In declaring war, France has committed the greatest mistake in her history. This will soon become clear.

Ibid., p.39

Here's what some freethinker site says about those two versions:


" There are two versions of the original German of Hitler's Table Talk. One version of the notebooks was edited and collated by Martin Bormann, called the Bormann Vermerke ("Bormann Notes"), which until recently existed only in the private collection of François Genoud. He bought it in 1948 from an Italian official, who in turn received it from Bormann's wife Gerda, who took the manuscript with her when she fled the Allied invasion in 1945, dying in an Italian detention camp in 1946. This text continues to 1944.

" The other version is that of Picker, who received his copy from Heim upon replacing him, then added his own entries until Heim's return. This text only reaches to mid-1942, because Picker was then reassigned and no longer had access to Heim's notes. The Bormann Vermerke also contains entries made by Bormann, and presumably Heim, during the period covered by Picker's text, which are inexplicably not found in his copy. There is also supposed to be a third copy, which Bormann forwarded to an office in Münich, but it was lost (most likely destroyed by Allied bombs).4

" The two surviving manuscripts have spawned an endless number of printed editions in various languages. Apart from changes of title, publisher, and publication date, these are the major variants: First came the German of Henry Picker in 1951 (2nd ed. in 1963; 3rd in 1976) entitled Hitler's Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier, 1941-42 ("Hitler's Table Talk in the Central Headquarters").

" In 1952 came a French translation of half the Bormann Vermerke, by Genoud himself, called Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix: Recueillis sur l'Ordre de Martin Bormann ("Candid Remarks on the War and the Peace: Collected by Order of Martin Bormann"). A second volume was promised but never produced.

" Then in 1953 the entire Bormann Vermerke appeared in English, edited by H. R. Trevor-Roper (but translated by R. H. Stevens and Norman Cameron). This bore the titles Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944 and Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1944. A new edition of this appeared in 1973, and a third in 2000.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/nov02/index.php?ft=carrier.html


- and it is this English "Bormann Vermerke" version that Fade (edition 2000) and I (edition 1973) have been quoting, and which Irving vouches for.

"HITLER'S Table Talk comes from the original Bormann Vermerke which the late François Genoud purchased from Bormann's widow Gerda Bormann. They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day's entry was initialled by Bormann at the end. They are genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable."


http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html


Petr

Fade, I'm sorry to say that I wrote responses to a couple of your posts and managed to disappear them both. For some reason I get logged out of this site before I know it, so when I try to post what I've written it disappears, if I haven't remembered to save it somehow first. Is there a way for me to adjust my profile so I stay logged on?

Anyway, here are responses to a few of your points:

But it is simply BEYOND ABSURD, now, to suggest that Neville Chamberlain of all people was a warmongerer,
You keep saying "Chamberlain". I said several times (admittedly, perhaps most were in the disappeared posts), that it was not Chamberlain, but Halifax, who was driving the foreign policy bus that took Germany to war at the time it did. Chamberlain was apparently neutred after Munich as not being sufficiently warlike (though there are those who make a convincing case for the claim that by "appeasing" Hitler at Munich Chamberlain was in fact buying time for Britain to finish building her armaments and otherwise prepare for the planned war).

The whole idea of "appeasement" as a bad or shameful thing is ridiculous. What's bad or ridiculous about keeping the peace? It was the war party and the complicit (Jewish) media that managed to make a wise policy seem bad--of course it was bad for them, since they wanted war, and had wanted it for years. Remember the media in the US in the months leading up to the Iraq war? No difference. You might as well have said that by not attacking Iraq we'd have been "appeasing" Saddam Hussein (As a matter of fact, that was said, and the comparison drawn with the "shameful" appeasement of Chamberlain at Munich).

That kind of comparison is not benign, but rather can spell the deaths of countless innocents by apparently legitimizing the concept of preventive (not pre-emptive, which is legitimate) war. This is one of many reasons it's important to get misconceptions about the genesis of WWII straightened out ASAP, and replace false history with the truth insofar as possible.

If Chamberlain's "appeasement" had continued, rather than being derailed by the war party, the world could have avoided 50 million dead or so, and the destruction of continental Europe and England. Don't believe me? You're certain they were right, and Hitler would have started a world war sooner or later if Britain hadn't selflessly jumped in to save the world? Prove it. It seems very unlikely to me that Hitler would have overrun Europe--it was Stalin who was planning that, and if Germany had been free to oppose Russia unhindered, instead of the Allies crushing Hitler and helping Stalin, there would perhaps be a vibrant and vital Europe today instead of her being, unable even to protect her own borders or take pride in her own culture, as she is today.

Many peace-loving people in England and the US in the thirties were aware of the drive to war by the soon-to-be Allies; the vilification of Hitler and Germany in the media made it apparent. Here are a few books-on-line by people of the time who could see the writing on the wall (and it wasn't in German).

( And note that there was no comparable media buildup in Germany to match that in Britain, Poland, or the US (France as well, I assume, but I'm not sure. France's media, her press bribed by the Russians through Poincare, had been the champion warmonger and Germany-trasher in the leadup to WWI).

Germany, OTOH, had a lid on her media for much of 1939 concerning the atrocities and disappearances of ethnic Germans in Poland, because the Poles had been informed by their government that references to Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans in the German press would signal an approaching attack), and the German government didn't want to get them stirred up.

Some books from the late thirties which referred to the apparent war drive:

1. The Czech Conspiracy: a Phase in the World-War Plot[/i], by George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers. Notice the words "World-War Plot" in the title. This book was written by an Englishman who seems by his name to have had some illustrious statesmen as ancestors, in 1938[/i]

Take note, in this book, of the abject wretchedness of the Sudeten Germans of that time as witnessed by a disinterested observer. Do you think they should have been abandoned by Germany in such a condition?

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/czechconspiracy/cc00.html

2. The Case for Germany: A Study of Modern Germany, by Dr. Arthur Pillans Laurie

The Scriptorium site writes:This rare 1939 treatise gives the view of National-Socialist Germany that the author, a Scottish scholar, developed during his time inside Hitler's Third Reich. Far from being the sort of hateful diatribe that was the common British judgement in those days, this book gives an insightful overview of National Socialism and of the domestic and foreign-political state of Germany less than 100 days before the outbreak of World War Two.

Here are a few excerpts:

The first from the chapter, Acts of "Aggression" by Germany
In order to get a true perspective towards what has taken place in Central Europe during the last five years, it is necessary to grasp the fact that what we have been witnessing is a rebellion of the German peoples in Central Europe against the peace treaties.

Hitler has been the leader, and the Nazi movement the spear head, but the rebellion was not confined to Germany, but included the German population of Austria and the Sudeten German area.

The allies had made an "Independent" state of Austria in spite of the unanimous vote of the first Austrian parliament for union with the Reich, and had handed over the Sudeten Germans to the Czechs in spite of their protests, for purely strategic reasons.

Dollfuss in order to maintain Austria as an independent state had to abolish the Austrian parliament, and rule as an absolute dictator, and Schuschnigg had to continue this policy. The Nazi movement progressed at first more rapidly in Austria than in Germany.

Once we have grasped the central fact that we have been witnessing a rebellion of the German peoples, all that has happened in the last five years falls into place and becomes intelligible.

Having risen in rebellion against the articles in the peace treaties which applied to them, they have re-armed, have occupied with troops their own frontiers, and have taken over the administration of their own rivers, railways and canals. In addition the German people of Austria have joined with the German people of the Reich under one government.

All these acts have taken place within territory inhabited by and belonging to the German people, and have in no way interfered with the rights of any other nation. In addition, with the consent of the three powers and of the government of Czecho-Slovakia, the Sudeten German area has been joined to the Reich. This addition to German territory was advised by our commissioner Lord Runciman, and has been described by Sir John Simon as an act of justice.

We are told by the enemies of Germany in this country that these acts of the German people were aggressive, violent and illegal acts, and we must proceed to examine these three accusations.

An act of aggression involves interference with other nations. It is not regarded by us as an aggressive act on our part to spend vast sums on munitions, or if we chose to do so to introduce conscription. If the Union between England and Scotland was taking place to-day, it could not be described by other nations as an act of aggression on our part. As all these re-adjustments made by German peoples took place in territory which contained an almost totally German population, we must give a verdict of not guilty when they are accused of acts of aggression.

The second accusation is that the German people have acted in a violent manner. As all these changes have been accomplished in a perfectly orderly way amid the rejoicing consent of the populations concerned, and without the loss of a single life, the charge of violence falls to the ground. There are people in this country who talk of the "invasion" of Austria. An "invasion" in which the people of the "invaded" country decorate the guns of the "invader" is something new in history.

The third accusation of having acted in an illegal manner is made under two heads. They are accused of breaking international law by tearing up the Treaty of Versailles, and also of acting against the protests of the League of Nations.

Let us begin by examining the first accusation. It has long been the custom among civilized nations who have been at war, after an armistice has been declared, for the delegates of both nations to meet in conference and draw up a treaty together. Such a treaty is regarded as binding on both parties until owing to changing circumstances one party or the other denounces the treaty and a new treaty is drawn up. It has also always been understood that no act of war takes place after the armistice has been signed.

The allies when engaged in drawing up the Treaty of Versailles, departed from both these customs which have been recognised by all civilized nations. The Treaty of Versailles was drawn up by the allies without the German delegates being admitted. They were then called in and graciously allowed to suggest certain modifications which were promptly rejected, and told to sign. They signed under protest, and said that the German people would never regard the treaty as binding. The second departure from civilized practice was the continuance after the armistice had been signed of the blockade which was starving the German people. The signature of the German delegates was made the condition for raising the blockade. [Note by Mugwort: it was in this blockade that three-quarters of a million Germans were starved to death. That's how their signature on the Versailles treaty was wrung from the German delegates.]

A treaty between two nations is of the nature of a contract between two men, and both parties are expected to carry it out. But if one of the parties after signing the contract can convince the judge that he signed it by compulsion with a pistol held to his head, no court would uphold the contract.

In the case of the entry into the neutral zone of the German troops, there is a plausible case against Germany. Her defence is that France, by making a treaty with the Soviet directed against Germany, had already torn up the Treaty of Locarno, and was fully warned of the view that would be taken of this act in Germany. Even if the verdict goes against Germany, and she did commit an illegal act, the crime of occupying your own territory with your own troops cannot be regarded as a very serious one.

The other accusation is that Germany acted in an illegal manner in defying the protests of the League of Nations. The victorious powers decided to set up a perpetual committee which they invited other nations to join, and which they called the League of Nations. [Note by Mugwort--Harry Elmer Barnes, in [Revisionist Pamphlets[/i], had some choice things to say about the hypocrisy of an organization to promote peace set up by the victors of an agressive war in order to enforce their terms. Both the league of Nations and The UN were so constituted.] Germany was excluded at the beginning and the USA. washed their hands of the whole affair. The main object of the League was to keep the peace treaties inviolate, but it also took on other international duties. Those joining it signed a covenant promising not to make war on each other, but to refer matters of dispute to the League, and in certain articles the League took power to use force through its members against any nation which it had named as an aggressor.

The League arrogated to itself a legal status which would not be recognised in international law. It had no more authority over other nations than any other alliance of the powers. The members of the League were of course bound by the terms of their contract while they remained members but if they chose to leave the League, the League had no jurisdiction over them and protests passed by the League had no more legal status than if they had been passed by a Mothers Meeting.

International law has grown up slowly through certain customs being finally accepted by all nations, and it is possible that if a League of Nations had been formed at some time before the war when the whole world was at peace, and had in the first instance been a voluntary body with no compulsory powers, it might in time have been recognised by all nations that its decisions were binding; but a League set up by the victors after a war to enforce the maintenance of a status quo which was intolerable to the conquered nations, was doomed to failure. We must therefore return a verdict of not guilty under the second accusation of illegal action.

The German peoples have only claimed and taken such rights as are granted to all nations, and have carried out their programme among themselves and within their own territory with the exception of the union of the Sudeten German area to the Reich which was done with the consent of the other three powers. Such action is neither aggressive, violent nor illegal, and in no way injures the interests of external powers.

Another accusation made against Germany that she uses the threat of force while the League and the Democracies confine themselves to sweet reasonableness and would never use a potential force to get their own way. They blame Hitler for having re-armed Germany. Surely that is an absurd accusation when France at the time he re-armed had an army of five hundred thousand men on a peace footing, and the Soviet an army of one million three hundred thousand men.

Hitler has only once threatened to use force, when he stated that after a certain date he would if necessary force his way into the territory already assigned to him.

The fact is that in the present crude and barbaric conditions of the relations between nations, every nation has to be "well heeled" before going into a conference.

The allies used potential force to compel the Germans to sign the Treaty of Versailles and to prevent the union of Austria with Germany, and the League refused all concessions to Germany, and ignored the appeals of minorities in Czecho-Slovakia, because behind the League was the army of France.

It is now generally agreed that the Versailles Treaty was most unjust to Germany, but if Germany had not defied the League and begun to re-arm, she would to-day be in the position she was in 1932. Concessions are not made by one nation to another nation because they are just, but because it is dangerous to refuse.

It is true that Chamberlain agreed to the cession of the Sudeten German area because he thought it was just and right, and there are instances in our history when we have acted even to our own detriment on the merits of a case; but I know of no instance of such an action by any other nation except ourselves.

<...>

We are re-arming to-day not because Great Britain or the Empire is in the slightest danger from attack, but because we want to go into any discussion with any other power as "well heeled" as they are.

When Hitler says "the army is Germany", has not that lesson been taught him by all that has happened since the Armistice was signed? If after the signing of the Armistice the army of Germany though in retreat had still been in being, the Treaty of Versailles would have been a very different document. Would France have entered the Ruhr if there had been the German army to oppose her? An unarmed nation will get no justice from the other nations.

Hitler says "the army is Germany". Is it not equally true that our navy is the British Empire? We have built the Empire by force, we hold it by force, and we will defend it by force, and we possess it intact to-day because our navy is far stronger than the navy of any other Power.

"Ah", my critic will reply, "the League, the Allies, France and Great Britain only use force in a just and righteous cause. All other nations and more especially Germany and Italy use it in an unrighteous cause", which reminds me of a story told me by my father. When he was a boy Scotland was under the tyranny of a rigid Sabbatarianism. One day he was scolded for having laughed on the Sabbath day. He retorted that he had heard the minister laugh on the Sabbath. "Ah", was the reply, "but that was a Holy smile".

Two other interesting chapters in The Case for Germany that are particularly relevant to our discussion are The Beleaguered City, about Germany's vulnerable position, and The Dance of Death, about the dangers of the hate-filled rhetoric about Germany in which British media indulged.

3. Why the Treaty of Trianon is Void, by Louis K. Birinyi
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/birinyi.htm

This 1939 book whose earlier version from 1924 was called The Tragedy of Hungary, describes the interwar plight of Hungary which, like Germany, suffered from a destructive, imposed treaty at the end of WW1. Its author, Louis K. Birinyi lived in America.

This is a most enlightening book on the real nitty gritty of the behind-the-scenes action before, during, and after WWI. The following passage makes it clear that he, like many other knowledgeable citizens of the time, understood that a new world war was in the making--and he didn't make the mistake of thinking it was Hitler who was planning it:Propagandists in the pay and employ of foreign interests that have put Europe on the rocks and are responsible for the mutilation of Hungary are using various devices to distract the attention of the American people from the solution of their own problems. They want us to boycott Germany and they have succeeded in depriving us of the German trade.

We have lost thirty million dollars' worth of citrus fruit market, many million dollars' worth of cotton market and about sixty million dollars' worth of steel market from Germany alone, while most of us are on a starvation level. The foreign invisible forces want us to boycott Japan, so that we might lose her good-will and they might gobble up Japanese trade. They want us to interfere in European affairs, help the continuation of human slavery there and fight the countries which they do not like. [Note from Mugwort--Sounds like Iraq]It is their plan to inveigle us into another world war, and, when we are in it, they would pounce on us, plant their red flag in our soil and make us their slaves. Their obedient servant, comrade foxy Trotsky, is now sitting snugly in Mexico, scheming and waiting for the opportunity to invade our country and become our dictator.

4. Dupes of Judah, by William Dudley Pelley
http://www.faem.com/books/

Here's a short bio of Pelley from the FAEM website:
William Dudley Pelley (1890 - 1965) founded the Silver Rangers of America on 31 January 1933 which soon became known as the Silvershirts. He was an accomplished author and was involved with many screen productions. After the jews declared their holy war on Germany in 1933, he soon became fingered as "the most dangerous man in America." The American Hebrew magazine, which first used the 6,000,000 figure in its October 31, 1919 issue, targeted Mr. Pelley since patriotism interferes with internationalism schemes. Pelley based his Silvershirts in Asheville, NC, which is my home town. A WWI vet, in the mid-thirties he gave talks at American Legions around the country, enlightening them about the root causes of WWI and warning them about the coming war. He was jailed during WWII for his outspoken subversiveness. Suddenly in Italy appeared Mussolini, and he put a halt to Communism. He introduced one-man Fascism because Yiddisher "democracy" doesn't serve in such a turmoil. Out of Mussolini's success grew Hitler's.

Hitler knew the crowd that had wrecked the Fatherland, and he started a one-man war in Germany to best it -- and drive it forth.

We know that he did drive it forth. He even went so far as to clap the sacrosanct person of one omnipotent Rothschild in a common hoosegow.

Over here into the United States swarmed the mob of mischief-making scoundrels, to use the Democratic Party, the American press and radio, the American movie screen, to work up a wild hysteria to have Hitler kicked to limbo.

And again we're falling for paid propaganda and poison-pen bilge, to make us go to war to pull the Rothschild chestnuts out of the fire a second time.

We must do this, it seems, in the name of racial tolerance and religious freedom.

Now what kind of sense does it make that Britain and the US were planning and preparing for a war with Germany, using the press to get the public in the right frame of mind while building up their armaments, but they had no plans for war? The armaments buildup could be genuine mistrust; the hate-propaganda is the giveaway. In Germany the tell-tale torrents of war-hysteria propaganda in the media are noticeably lacking.

Hitler also, contrary to popular myth, had put a much smaller percentage of his country's resources into armaments, and was not prepared, at the time Germany invaded Poland, for more than that limited engagement (had Britain and France attacked at that time, the war would have gone very differently).

How does Germany's lack of military preparedness for large-scale warfare jive with the idea that Hitler was planning a Drang nach Osten, or any other kind of foreign war? Was Hitler that loony that he would plan such things but not prepare for them? Stalin didn't think Hitler was looney; when Roosevelt alluded to Hitler's alleged insanity, at Yalta (I think it was), Stalin dismissed the idea brusquely; he did not underestimate his opponent.

So if Hitler wasn't planning war, what is the rationale for England's declaring war on Germany? Certainly not what was alleged as the reason.

This post is long enough (!!!), but in another post I'll quote some statements from theThirties which reveal the war plans of the future Allies.

It's a matter of logic: if it's the Allies who were arming for a big war, and the Allies who were making plans for a big war, and the Allies who were encouraging Poland not to settle with Hitler--and finally, the Allies who declared war on Hitler, how is it Hitler who caused the war? Hitler forced them by his behavior to declare a war on Germany which they happened to have been planning for years? Very convenient. It's pretty easy to see that whatever he had done they would have made it an excuse. Especially, since all he basically did was recover, bloodlessly, some territories illegally seized after WWI, and about which there had been a broad consensus for years that they should, in principle, be restored for the good of their overwhelmingly German populations, who wanted the reunion and were being oppressed as minorities, and for the health of Europe and the prevention of another possible war over them.

Which leads one to think that simply for Britain not to smooth the way for the revision of the Versailles boundaries--not just in Munich, but in the rest of the disputed territories--was a sign that peace was not what they were seeking. Plausible deniability, yes. Peace, no.

This post is for some background to the details of the spring/summer of 1939, which we can examine in a few days, when I get the book I need...

Here's what some freethinker site says about those two versions:


" There are two versions of the original German of Hitler's Table Talk. One version of the notebooks was edited and collated by Martin Bormann, called the Bormann Vermerke ("Bormann Notes"), which until recently existed only in the private collection of François Genoud. He bought it in 1948 from an Italian official, who in turn received it from Bormann's wife Gerda, who took the manuscript with her when she fled the Allied invasion in 1945, dying in an Italian detention camp in 1946. This text continues to 1944.

" The other version is that of Picker, who received his copy from Heim upon replacing him, then added his own entries until Heim's return. This text only reaches to mid-1942, because Picker was then reassigned and no longer had access to Heim's notes. The Bormann Vermerke also contains entries made by Bormann, and presumably Heim, during the period covered by Picker's text, which are inexplicably not found in his copy. There is also supposed to be a third copy, which Bormann forwarded to an office in Münich, but it was lost (most likely destroyed by Allied bombs).4

" The two surviving manuscripts have spawned an endless number of printed editions in various languages. Apart from changes of title, publisher, and publication date, these are the major variants: First came the German of Henry Picker in 1951 (2nd ed. in 1963; 3rd in 1976) entitled Hitler's Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier, 1941-42 ("Hitler's Table Talk in the Central Headquarters").

" In 1952 came a French translation of half the Bormann Vermerke, by Genoud himself, called Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix: Recueillis sur l'Ordre de Martin Bormann ("Candid Remarks on the War and the Peace: Collected by Order of Martin Bormann"). A second volume was promised but never produced.

" Then in 1953 the entire Bormann Vermerke appeared in English, edited by H. R. Trevor-Roper (but translated by R. H. Stevens and Norman Cameron). This bore the titles Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944 and Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1944. A new edition of this appeared in 1973, and a third in 2000.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/nov02/index.php?ft=carrier.html


- and it is this English "Bormann Vermerke" version that Fade (edition 2000) and I (edition 1973) have been quoting, and which Irving vouches for.

"HITLER'S Table Talk comes from the original Bormann Vermerke which the late François Genoud purchased from Bormann's widow Gerda Bormann. They were actually typed from notes taken by the stenographer Heinrich Heim, whom I interviewed and who confirmed the procedure in detail. Each day's entry was initialled by Bormann at the end. They are genuine, in the first person, and highly reliable."


http://fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Law200603.html


Petr


Ok, for the LAST TIME let me try to explain it to you.

The englisch version of the "Tabletalks" are a combination of the HEIM AND PICKERS notes. In Germany they are Published seperately and this has its obvious reasons.
Rainer Zitelmann used both in his first edition of "Hitler: Selfunderstanding of a Revolutionary"!. In his last edition he took the pickers entrys out, because he himself learned they were unreliable. Here you can get Heinrich Heims notes of the Tabletalks under the title of "Monolouges in the führerheadquarters".
That is the reason why I check the dates. If it is an entry-date which can not be found in Heims notes, then I do not consider them authentic. I dont trust books where the author adds his own opinion. I haven't read pickers, just some excerpts and I know from those few, that they can not be authentic. Even when I read them quoted in Zitelmanns book, I knew they were fake. It is for example impossible for Hitler to have made posetive remarks on Marxism. A pathetic attempt of the forgers to portrait Hitler sympathetic to communism.
I don't care if you believe Pickers or not.If you are so desperate in trying to make your point that Hitler was "Anti-Slav", then I am sure you can find enough material in Heims notes if you search long enough.

- "I don't care if you believe Pickers or not.If you are so desperate in trying to make your point that Hitler was "Anti-Slav", then I am sure you can find enough material in Heims notes if you search long enough."


"Desperate"? Unfortunately, the evidence isn't exactly hard to come by. And like I said, I haven't yet gotten my hands on this whole book myself, so I refrain from definitive comments.

I can't help noticing, however, that you clearly have practically pseudo-religious attitude on these issues. You seem so sure that your beloved Fuhrer wouldn't betray your own presuppositions about him.


Petr

9 October 1940


Russian film of the Finnish campaign. Pathetic. Dilettantism in its purest form. The handiwork of subhumans. Then Wagner music. A blasphemy.Perhaps we shall be forced to take steps against all of this, despite everything. And drive this Asiatic spirit back out of Europe and into Asia, where it belongs.

ROFL! :D




He has little regard for homo sapiens. Man should not feel so superior to animals. He has no reason to. Man believes that he alone has intelligence, a soul, and the power of speech. Has not the animal these things? Just because we, with our dull senses, cannot recognise them, it does not prove that they are not there."
Ibid., pp.76-77

Excellent! How true!


The Czechs are a strange people. Like all Slavs, they live in a world of make-believe, filled with illusionary dreams that have no basis in reality. They are good cooks. And this history has taught them how to overthrow their masters.


ROFL! *holding my side* Lovely!


10 October 1939 (Tuesday)

"The Fuhrer's verdict on the Poles is damning. More like animals than human beings, completely primitive, stupid and amorphous. And a ruling class that is an unsatisfactory result of mingling between the lower orders and an Aryan master-race. The Poles' dirtiness is unimaginable. Their capacity for intelligent judgement is absolutely nil.. Even Lipksi believed that we would lose our never after a week of war. Poor fool!

The Fuhrer has no intention of assimilating the Poles. They are to be forced into their truncated state and left entirely to their own devices. If Henry the Lion had conquered the East, a task for which he possessed the power at that time, the result would certainly have been a strongly slavicised race of German mongrels. Better the present situation: now we know the laws of racial heredity and can handle things accordingly. The Fuhrer takes a very positive view of thee general situation. We can only watch and wait. We dare not lose our never or our peace of mind."

Tell me Fade how does this "left into their trunctated state left entierly to their own" fit into the "Lebensraum" theory and the rule of the "Masterrace" over the "Subhumans"? I always thought Poland was between Germany and Russia? So how do we get into our new coquered "Lebensraum" with a "truncated polish state" between us an the new "colony", eh?

As far as his opinion on Polaks is concerned, I couldn't agree more! :D

Fade - I'm afraid I will have to report your post. you know very well that polak bashing is not allowed. You are going to get into serious trouble if you continue this way. :D *waves with finger*

More like animals than human beings, completely primitive, stupid and amorphous. And a ruling class that is an unsatisfactory result of mingling between the lower orders and an Aryan master-race. The Poles' dirtiness is unimaginable. Their capacity for intelligent judgement is absolutely nil.

Fade is again flaming polacks! :222 :D

I also liked it when he called the British jews. He really hit it on the nail.

If had a choice between nuking Britain or Polackia I would be left in a state of total quandary.

Its very amusing how mugwort turns warmongering national chauvinists into moralising Victorian country gentlemen and moralising Victorian country gentlemen into warmongering national chauvinists. The result is the most confused, contradictory, and illogical argument I have ever seen on the internet. The major premisses of which are as follows:

1.) The British were 'out to get' Germany, even though:

a.) the British delivered the Sudetenland to Germany on a silver platter.
b.) the British wrecked the French effort to divide Germany at Versailles.
c.) the British retracted their guarantee of French security after Versailles
d.) the British refused to renew the Anglo-French alliance for years (for fear of offending Germany).
e.) the British let Germany remilitarize the Rhineland.
f.) the British let Germany rearm.
g.) the British let Germany annex Austria, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
h.) the British were aware of desire of the German generals to overthrow Hitler before Munich, but failed to act on it.
i.) the British were aware of the Czech treaty with the Soviets. The Soviets were willing to act in concert with the British and French which would have immediantly forced Hitler into a three or four front war.
j.) the British let Germany leave the League of Nations.
k.) now despite all of this, Great Britain stood by and let Germany become the most powerful nation on the continent. But this was all part of a secret plot and larger plan to 'get the Germans'. So the British stood by and waited until they were in the weakest possible position viz German power in two decades to attack!

2.) Chamberlain's government was 'controlled by the Jews', even though:

a.) the Jews were financing Churchill and his associates who were trying to BRING DOWN Chamberlain's government.
b.) so, by mugwort's own argument, organised Jewry was attempting to overthrow a government they controlled
c.) and what is even more amusing, while millions of Jews in Germany and the territories under its occupation wanted to escape to the West and Palestine, this Jewish controlled government refused to accede to the wishes of the Jews,
d.) even when Hitler offered, again and again, to let the Jews immigrate to Britain and the United States, on one occasion, in luxury ships!

3.) But this is all explainable since Lord Halifax was part of this great conspiracy to 'get Germany':

a.) Despite there being no evidence this was the case.
b.) Despite David Irving not associating Halifax with The Focus or Anti-Nazi League in Churchill's War.
c.) On top of Halifax urging the British to consider Hitler's terms of peace once the war started.

4.) This larger conspiracy apparently also includes President Franklin Roosevelt:

a.) which is mysterious, since hundreds of thousands of Jews could have immigrated to the U.S. under our immigration laws, yet were unable to do so.
b.) odd since the U.S. did not enter the war until after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war.
c.) even more ironic since little effort was made to rescue Jews until 1944.
d.) puzzling since U.S. war plans were not altered in order to 'liberate the Jews', despite the demands of the organised Jewish community.
e.) which led to the death of an enormous amount of Jews (no one really knows how many).

5.) The Table Talk is a forgery:

a.) even though historians are virtually unanimous on its authenticity.
b.) even David Irving agrees it is not a forgery.

6.) It was simply Hitler's wish to repudiate Versailles:

a.) despite Hitler having made a point to publically state this was not the case on numerous occasions, like when he argued the Germans of South Tyrol should be resettled.
b.) despite his mention of expansion in Mein Kampf, his unpublished foreign policy book, as well as the Table Talk (all of which I possess).
c.) which is confirmed by the Goebbels' Diaries and numerous other hard sources.
d.) show to be patently false by his own actions and official German documents.
e.) even though Irving does not make that argument.

There is more, but I have class until 4 PM. I will respond, in detail, to your latest reply above.

More information discrediting mugwort's lie about British warmongerers: Good luck trying to discredit my claim, since it's the truth. Are you English, by the way?
<...>
Ministers, led by Halifax, warned Chamberlain that the government would fall before the House met again. Chamberlain gave way. The objections of the French were overruled. There's the crux of it--thanks, Fade. Notice that the ministers are "led by Halifax"? Notice the strong-arm tactics? Notice that the French, whom you portray as having to be restrained by a peace-loving Britain, "were overruled"? that Chamberlain "gave way"? It's pretty obvious who's driving the warmobile. Warmongerus Halifaxus, I presume?

The British ultimatum was delivered to the Germans at 9 AM on 3 September. It expired at 11 AM, and a state of war followed. When Bonnet learned that the British were going to war in any case, his overriding anxiety was to catch up with them. The time of the French ultimatum was advanced, despite the supposed objections of the General Staff: it was delivered at noon on 3 September and expired at 5 PM. In this curious way the French who had preached resistance to Germany for twenty years appeared to be dragged into war by the British who had for twenty years preached conciliation."What difference does it make what Britain or France preached for twenty years previously? What's important for the question at hand is specifically who took actions which caused the war to start at the time it did. If a man murders his mother-in-law, the fact that he's spent 20 years saying what a fine woman she was will not trump the DNA evidence.

(Anyway, preaching's easy. Remember the Walrus from the poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter" in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-glass?
When Alice remarks that at least the Walrus felt sorry for the poor oysters, since he wept as he ate them, she is told that by holding his handkerchief in front of his face he was able to down the larger share of oysters without being observed.)

As I recall, Bonnet, the French minister, was reluctant. He seemed interested in coming to a peaceful solution, but France was bound to follow England's lead--you probably know the nature of the bond--I don't. I'm sure we can find it somewhere in the 716 pages of The Forced War if necessary.

I found a quote that illustrates the attitude of Halifax at this crucial juncture. It's from Witness to History, by Michael Walsh, on the Historical Review site, url:http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/witnesstohistory/withis_ch13.htm

"Uneasiness ruled in the House of Commons. A delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax on September, 2nd, (1939) in the lobby of Parliament. 'Do you still have hope?' he asked. 'If you mean hope for war,' answered Halifax, 'then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow.'

'God be thanked!' replied the representative of the British Labour Party." Professor Michael Freund
Sounds like the icy cold warmonger who'd lied and manipulated in the preceding weeks and months to get the war ticking--doesn't he? Now it's in his pocket, all sewn up, and as you see, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

He was said never to have regretted, in later life, having been point-man for starting a war that killed 50 million people and spelled the rapid decline of his country. Perhaps he had a lot of financial padding to keep his conscience comfortable. And I suppose there's always the "If I hadn't done it someone else would have" ploy, which--strange as it seems, considering his specialized role--is probably true; because if he hadn't been the willing tool the Warmasters needed to carry out their project, the war might have had to be posponed a little, but it would have happened all the same. "So why should someone else get the money?" he might understandably have thought.

Fantasy? No--working hypothesis. When I first read of the crucial role of Halifax in the war-making machine, in The Forced War, I wondered. Then when I happened on that cartoon of him as the Jews' puppet I wondered some more. Time to put my nose to the ground and follow it up.

- "I don't care if you believe Pickers or not.If you are so desperate in trying to make your point that Hitler was "Anti-Slav", then I am sure you can find enough material in Heims notes if you search long enough."


"Desperate"? Unfortunately, the evidence isn't exactly hard to come by. And like I said, I haven't yet gotten my hands on this whole book myself, so I refrain from definitive comments.

I can't help noticing, however, that you clearly have practically pseudo-religious attitude on these issues. You seem so sure that your beloved Fuhrer wouldn't betray your own presuppositions about him.


Petr

Each to his own. You have your Christian church and I have my Nationalsocialism. What does it concern you what some "Kraut" thinks?

"Like all Slavs, they live in a world of make-believe, filled with illusionary dreams that have no basis in reality."

LOL - this seems so true. Hitler just has to be anti-Slav even though he was friends with Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia....

Where does it say that we have to love all Slavs? Not even Slavs love slavs. Ask a slovak if he likes Czechs. Ask the same a Croat about Serbs, or a Polak about Russians. Or an Ukranian. And yet you people have the nerv to point with fingers at us. Just because I hate Polaks from the bottom of my heart, doesnt mean I hate "Slavs".

To Hitlers 55th Birthday the "Black Korps" published an article "He is our victory", which includes following passage: "Even if we knew that he were wrong, we would still follow him to the end....". I have nothing to add to this. He is our savior and the Father of the Fatherland and in times of dispair and War we don't question him. He sacreficed his life for us. So who are we to pass judgement over him, just to apease some hypersensetive people, who probaly hide their anti-german feelings behind a mask of Anti-Hitlerism.
Aperantly "Slavs" can never do wrong and are always the inocent victims - even if ruled by a bolshevik tyranny.
We NS don't wear velvet gloves when dealing with people that are out to exterminate us.

See above, from Hitler's Table Talk, the authenticity of which has been confirmed by David Irving.

I've already debated the Table Talks when concerning Hitler's remarks on Christianity, I have no desire to restart it.


Perun, you being an (part)Ukrainian, I honestly think you should got to get rid of unnecessary nostalgia for Hitler.

Except I dont have nostalgia for Hitler. For the last time people, Im not a National Socialist! I adhere more to native Slavic theories of nationalism. Now that doesnt mean Im against NS necessarily, Im just not a follower of it per se. I basically support any geniune form of nationalism: whether it be NS, fascism, falangism, distributism, third positionism, etc. Im not a secterian ideolouge.

Now my thinking is heavily influenced by the theories of Integral Nationalism as proposed by the Ukrainian thinker Dymtro Donstov, and this is what he thought of Hitler and the NS regime.


http://www.geocities.com/una_unso/antisem.htm

Even though the consequences of the World War II to the Ukraine, Dontsov continued to hail fascist regimes (those of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco) as models for the Ukraine to emulate: “having liberated the social life of Germany from Judaizing influence, National Socialism (together with similar movements) in opposition to democracy, to the Western-Jewish Communism of Marx and the Eastern-Russian Communism of Lenin — created its own system that in a basic way changed the face of the German world....”27


And it is fact that the NS regime gave support to Ukrainian nationalists. In fact entire division of the Waffen-SS was composed of Ukrainians(the 14th aka Galicia Division). Also if Dr. Brandt is correct, the NS also gave support to the UPA(Ukrainian Insurgent Army). I do know that the main Ukrainian nationalist organization the OUN recieved support from the NS regime. Also from reading Orest Subtelny's Ukraine: a History he mentions how the NS allowed many Ukrainian communities complete autonomy in local matters, even allowed to organize local defenses. The church, which was persecuted under Soviet rule, thrived under the NS.

The only real proof of NS abuse against Ukrainians or Slavs in general are the actions of Erich Koch. But recent evidence is emerging that Koch was a Soviet agent. But not only that, Koch ruled over only a section of Ukraine. Another sector of the Ukraine was ruled by somebody else(cant find his name perhaps Brandt can help me) but he enjoyed popularity among the Ukrainians, especially when dealing with the Soviet partisans.


Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn writes (in his Gulag Archipelago) that the idea of turning Russia into a German colony was an idea too preposterous to be believed before you actually experienced it.

(In the chapter where he dealt with Vlasovites)

Well I have not read the Gulag Archipelago(I have a dislike for fiction) but I know he makes similar remarks in his The Russian Question at the End of the 20th Century(which is a history). He does mention that the NS policies were what turned Slavs against the Germans, but I do wonder if hes just spouting a typical argument made on this topic.

Although he does state that the true voice of the Russian people was found among those who fought with the NS, as can be proven by the fact many of them fought with Germany to the bitter end(he mentions some units fought in Berlin).

Although most literature Ive read on this topic seems to contradict itself: one mintute the Germans give support to Ukrainian nationalists while conducting atrocities against the local population; yet at other times allowing them significant freedoms and autonomy when governing local matters.

- "Well I have not read the Gulag Archipelago(I have a dislike for fiction)"


Good heavens. Reading this book should be a requirement for passing as a civilized person - especially if you have some Russian ancestry and consider yourself a conservative nationalist!

"Fiction?" Do you know so little about this magnum opus? It is decidedly NOT a fictional work, in fact, one of the most detail- and factoid-filled books I've ever read.


Petr

Good luck trying to discredit my claim, since it's the truth. Are you English, by the way?
That should not be that hard, as virtually no reputable historian anywhere takes it seriously, David Irving included. I have Halifax's memoirs right here. More interesting excerpts shall be forthcoming.

There's the crux of it--thanks, Fade.
The crux of the issue is that Adolf Hitler was a warmongerer who went about attacking and brutalising other nations in order to steal their land. So the British concluded that it was in their best interests to oppose him before he got even more out of control.

Notice that the ministers are "led by Halifax"?
What about Halifax? Halifax did not force Adolf Hitler TO INVADE POLAND!

Notice the strong-arm tactics?
Do you call attacking and destroying other nations in order to get your way 'strong-arm tactics'?

Notice that the French, whom you portray as having to be restrained by a peace-loving Britain, "were overruled"?
Yes. By that time, it was absolutely clear that Hitler could not be trusted and that his policy was one of expansion to the East at the expense of Germany's neighbours.

that Chamberlain "gave way"?
Unlike Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain made every effort to preserve peace in Europe.

It's pretty obvious who's driving the warmobile.
Yes, it is. Adolf Hitler invaded Poland.

Warmongerus Halifaxus, I presume?
Halifax came to support war with Germany once he concluded that Hitler was not interested in negotiations.

What difference does it make what Britain or France preached for twenty years previously?
The bottom line is that Adolf Hitler was a reckless warmonger who attacked other nations and left Europe in flames in pursuit of his romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs, whom he considered to be mongrelised subhumans.

What's important for the question at hand is specifically who took actions which caused the war to start at the time it did.
Adolf Hitler declared war on Poland. He broke the Munich Agreement and brought non-Germans under German rule. Thus he was no longer able to invoke the principle of self-determination. That was demonstrated yet again when he attacked Poland, and yet again when he attacked the Soviet Union.

If a man murders his mother-in-law, the fact that he's spent 20 years saying what a fine woman she was will not trump the DNA evidence.
Hitler had been talking about expanding east at the expense of Germany's Slavic neighbours for close to twenty years. And during the war, he talked even more about it!

As I recall, Bonnet, the French minister, was reluctant.
Its a good thing that France declared war. Hitler was, after all, intent on destroying France. See the Goebbel's Diaries.

He seemed interested in coming to a peaceful solution
LOL what credibility did he have?

but France was bound to follow England's lead--you probably know the nature of the bond--I don't.
The British and French woke up after Munich to realise that Hitler's goal was to dominate Europe and expand east at the expense of the Slavs. They were no longer willing to tolerate that.

I'm sure we can find it somewhere in the 716 pages of The Forced War if necessary.
Please do so.

I found a quote that illustrates the attitude of Halifax at this crucial juncture.
mugwort seems to have a case of amnesia here: it was Germany who invaded Poland. Lord Halifax did not force him to do so.

It's from Witness to History, by Michael Walsh, on the Historical Review site
Don't quote garbage off the internet. Cite referred articles from scholarly journals or hard sources. Don't waste our time with conspiracy theory junk on the internet. I don't take that from cerberus or anyone else.

Sounds like the icy cold warmonger who'd lied and manipulated in the preceding weeks and months to get the war ticking--doesn't he?
LOL mugwort seems to have forgotten that GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON POLAND.

Now it's in his pocket, all sewn up, and as you see, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
For Halifax, war with Germany was preferable, from the standpoint of Britain, in 1939 as opposed to even later, once Germany had been strengthened from more of its conquests.

He was said never to have regretted, in later life, having been point-man for starting a war that killed 50 million people and spelled the rapid decline of his country.
What does he have to regret? It was Hitler's policy to attack his weaker neighbours and expand eastward in aggressive wars. He talked often of expelled the Russians into Siberia. And what confidence did England have that, once in an even more entrenched position of strength, he would not break his word yet again and attack the West?

Perhaps he had a lot of financial padding to keep his conscience comfortable.
Are the Slavs subhumans, mugwort?

And I suppose there's always the "If I hadn't done it someone else would have" ploy, which--strange as it seems, considering his specialized role--is probably true; because if he hadn't been the willing tool the Warmasters needed to carry out their project, the war might have had to be posponed a little, but it would have happened all the same. "So why should someone else get the money?" he might understandably have thought.
There would never have been a war between Great Britain and Germany had not Hitler brought up down upon his own head.

Fantasy? No--working hypothesis.
So let me get this straight: the Jews were out to overthrow a government they secretly controlled?

When I first read of the crucial role of Halifax in the war-making machine, in The Forced War, I wondered.
Who was the author of that again?

Then when I happened on that cartoon of him as the Jews' puppet I wondered some more. Time to put my nose to the ground and follow it up.
Show us your evidence that Halifax was controlled by the Jews.

The only real proof of NS abuse against Ukrainians or Slavs in general are the actions of Erich Koch. But recent evidence is emerging that Koch was a Soviet agent. But not only that, Koch ruled over only a section of Ukraine. Another sector of the Ukraine was ruled by somebody else(cant find his name perhaps Brandt can help me) but he enjoyed popularity among the Ukrainians, especially when dealing with the Soviet partisans.



you are speaking of alfred Eduard Frauenfeld, former Gauleiter/Governour of Vienna. an Autro-German. He was General-Kommisar of the Crimea and a bitter enemy of Koch. I don't think Koch was a soviet Agent. He was just a chauvenistic, primitive asshole. In the Party he had the nickname "Red Erich". He was very popular in East Prussia, because he was an advocate for the farmers and workers against the "upper class" and Junkers.
Fruanefeld eventually managed to get Koch dismissed, but then it was already to late.
In his recolections Frauenfeld dedicates an entire chapter to his relation to Koch.

Good heavens. Reading this book should be a requirement for passing as a civilized person -

I tend to read what interests me, whether or not its a requirement for passing off as a "civilized person".


especially if you have some Russian ancestry and consider yourself a conservative nationalist!

Well I dont have Russian ancestry and Ive admitted this here.I thought I did and there were several factors contributing to that; but upon closer examination of some family records I discovered I was not Russian by heritage. I do have Russian relatives, but they're inlaws from my grandmother's second marriage. But nobody told me this so I assumed for many years that I was related to them by blood, and fellow family members implied I was related to them by blood.

So in terms of being Slavic, Im largely Ukrainian(50%) with some Polish(25%).


"Fiction?" Do you know so little about this magnum opus? It is decidedly NOT a fictional work, in fact, one of the most detail- and factoid-filled books I've ever read.

Nevertheless its written in the manner of a novel. Which may also explain why I generally dislike reading scriptures, because much of it is written as a novel. But then again I hate reading many texts of ancient historians largely because they write their histories as if they were telling a story; and frankly this just bores me. In a strange paradox Im interested in the history books of the OT but cant stand reading them. Same with the Gospels. The only books of the Bible I really enjoy reading are the Wisdom books(Pslams, Proverbs, Songs, etc) and some of the Epistles.

Its just a simple issue of my tastes for reading materials. I like Solzhenitsyn's non-fiction writings, I just cant stand his novels! Lenin in Zurich was one of the most boring things Ive ever read.

Someone should inform Fade that Sulla came back and hijacked his account. All those "LOLs" are a dead giveaway.
No, Fade could never be such an @$$hole.

Someone should inform Fade that Sulla came back and hijacked his account. All those "LOLs" are a dead giveaway.
No, Fade could never be such an @$$hole.

That would certainly explains Fade's strange behavior lately. Since when did Fade declare Hitler a war-monger?

Even Michael A. Hoffman II,

(who scripted these very un-PC cartoons:

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3975


had to eventually face some less-than-flattering facts about the Third Reich, and he did it, with genuine intellectual courage, AND without simultaneously turning into a born-again PC puppy.

It's nice to see that Fade is doing the same thing.


Petr

you are speaking of alfred Eduard Frauenfeld, former Gauleiter/Governour of Vienna. an Autro-German. He was General-Kommisar of the Crimea and a bitter enemy of Koch.

I believe thats the man.


I don't think Koch was a soviet Agent. He was just a chauvenistic, primitive asshole.

Well Ive read some things that points to the possibility he was a Soviet agent. I first heard this argument made by J.P. Slovjanski, whose a half-Ukrainian NS. There was an article I posted on the old phora dealing with this issue as well.

- "Each to his own. You have your Christian church and I have my Nationalsocialism."


Thank you, that's just I wanted to hear. So many non-Christians who mock believers act as if they were the epitome of objective rationalism. It's a good thing that you have the honesty to admit the pseudo-religiousity of your worldview.


Petr

had to eventually face some less-than-flattering facts about the Third Reich, and he did it, with genuine intellectual courage, AND without simultaneously turning into a born-again PC puppy.
There is no point in denying the undeniable, solely because it makes National Socialism look bad. When people like mugwort do that, the only result is that we look foolish and dishonest, and we lose credibility. That's not in our interests. It was Hitler's goal to reunite the Germans into a greater German Reich and expand east. He wasn't the greatest fan of the Slavs. So why bother denying it? That was the crux of his grand strategy. Along the way, he hoped to fight Bolshevism and the Jews. On the other hand, Britain's foreign policy after the Great War slipped from idealism (the whole brouhaha over the 'League of Nations') into expediency after Hitler's repudiation of the Munich Agreement. After Hitler repudiated the Munich Agreement, the British shifted gears and returned to the balance of power strategy (with a mixture of moralising highmindedness). The guarantee to Poland was given, in part out of fear, in part of a sense of moral obligation. The Poles became unreasonable. Germany invaded. Britain and France declare war.

It's nice to see that Fade is doing the same thing.
There was a Jewish plot to destroy Germany. Churchill was involved with it. He was not so much 'controlled' by the Jews as he was 'allied' with them. Halifax and Chamberlain were not part of it. There were Jews around Roosevelt but he was not controlled by them. You can say, I suppose, that he was 'allied' with them, although they were clearly in the subordinate relationship. Roosevelt was a ruthless politician who took advantage of European disarray to advance what he perceived to be American interests.

Watch this. Observe another one of mugwort's tall tales being debunked:

"The Daily Mail was the largest paper of the most complete newspaper combine in Great Britain. In 1937 its circulation was 1,580,000; it was the only popular daily paper which had a predominantly upper- and middle-class readership. Until his retirement in 1937, Lord Rothermere dictated the paper's policy; he was succeeded by his son, the Hon. Esmond Harmsworth.

From the very outset, the Daily Mail's attitude toward the Nazi regime was one of admiration for its internal accomplishments, both spiritual and material. Rothermere's editorial article of 10 July 1933, 'Young Triumphant', was used for Nazi propaganda throughout the 1930s. With a dateline 'Somewhere in Naziland,' the article stated that

As a sexagenarian myself I welcome the example that has thus been set to the world. I maintain that youth has a right to rule. Mussolini succeeded to supreme authority in Italy at the age of 39. His collaborators were even younger. Together they have made their country the best-governed state in Europe.

I confidently expect to see similar results acheived by Hitler, who has come to power at the age of 3.
The Daily Mail had no patience with 'the old women of both sexes' who filled British newspapers with hysterial reports about Nazi 'excesses'. Hitler had retrieved Germany from the hands of its alien elements, 'Israelites of international attachments', and if excesses existed, 'the minor misdeeds of individual Nazis will be submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany'.

Franklin Reid Gannon, The British Press and Germany, 1936-1939 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp.32-33

- "Each to his own. You have your Christian church and I have my Nationalsocialism."


Thank you, that's just I wanted to hear. So many non-Christians who mock believers act as if they were the epitome of objective rationalism. It's a good thing that you have the honesty to admit the pseudo-religiousity of your worldview.


Petr

I see no reason to be loyal to a church (lutherans) who have abandoned all good principles of Martin Luther and have turned on their own pwople and suck up to the Jews. If this "God" want's the extermination of my country, volk and culture, then it's not my God, nor my "church".

Answerme this question: Would you have fought in the "great patriotic War" in the Red Army against Germany?

- "Answerme this question: Would you have fought in the "great patriotic War" in the Red Army against Germany?"


Well, I am Finnish and my paternal grandfather (still alive, 83 years) is a veteran of the 1941-1944 war against the Soviet Union.

(Finland was probably the most militarily independent and successful ally Germany had in the whole war).

So, in all probability I would have fought against the Bolshevik monster that tried to swallow my country.

That doesn't mean, however, that I would have approved the megalomaniacal idea of turning Russia into a German colony.

(I recall that William Shirer quoted some Hitler's memo in 1941, planning to gradually and discreetly transform Finland into a German province. Care to deny it? )


Petr

Finland was probably the most militarily independent and successful ally Germany had in the whole war


That would be an interesting discussion. They were the ally of Germany with the best position when the whole thing had been decided, but the Nips clearly had more sucesses if temporary gains are considered.

Japanese had much more manpower. Considering their limited resources,
Finnish performed best without a doubt.

And enough of this, let's not distract the thread.


Petr

- "Answerme this question: Would you have fought in the "great patriotic War" in the Red Army against Germany?"


Well, I am Finnish and my paternal grandfather (still alive, 83 years) is a veteran of the 1941-1944 war against the Soviet Union.

(Finland was probably the most militarily independent and successful ally Germany had in the whole war).

So, in all probability I would have fought against the Bolshevik monster that tried to swallow my country.

That doesn't mean, however, that I would have approved the megalomaniacal idea of turning Russia into a German colony.

(I recall that William Shirer quoted some Hitler's memo in 1941, planning to gradually and discreetly transform Finland into a German province. Care to deny it? )


Petr

Finnish? You sure had me fooled.

No, why deny it. Everyone knows that we were out to conquer the [roarrrrring voice]Worrrrrrrrrrrld! [/roarrrrring voice] :rolleyes:

- "Finnish? You sure had me fooled."


(Petr is not my real name)

If that was true, Hitler probably thought he was doing us a favor - we were good Aryans (even though we don't speak Indo-European language), and should have been part of the Germanic empire. I guess he didn't think we might have actually wanted to stay independent.


After all, Fade quoted Goebbels' diary earlier in this thread:


9 October 1940

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. I intend to invite a large group to study in Germany.


If they intended to swallow Denmark, then why not Finland?


Petr

No, why deny it. Everyone knows that we were out to conquer the [roarrrrring voice]Worrrrrrrrrrrld! [/roarrrrring voice] :rolleyes:

I believe it was Ribbentropp who stated at the Nuremberg trials about how ironic it was for the Allies to talk about how Germany wanted to conquer the world when Britian alone ruled the largest empire since the Mongols(encompassing something like 1/4 of the globe). Apparently the West still doesnt recognize that irony.

That would be an interesting discussion. They were the ally of Germany with the best position when the whole thing had been decided, but the Nips clearly had more sucesses if temporary gains are considered.
The British almost went to war with the USSR over Finland. See A.J.P. Taylor's book. Finland capitulated though before the Brits entered the war.

[COLOR=DarkRed]


If they intended to swallow Denmark, then why not Finland?


Petr

I cant read the word "swallow" anywhere in that Goebbelsquote. Maybe it was written in invisible ink and in uguric, so only you can read it.

Yes, why not Finnland? And why not Galapagos, Thailand, Brasil and Canada?
I now understand why Wintermute refuses to talk to you. It realy is a waste of time. I think I will join his club.

Good day.

I believe it was Ribbentropp who stated at the Nuremberg trials about how ironic it was for the Allies to talk about how Germany wanted to conquer the world when Britian alone ruled the largest empire since the Mongols(encompassing something like 1/4 of the globe).
The dominions were more or less independent nations. The rest of the Empire was overwhelmingly composed of coloureds.

Apparently the West still doesnt recognize that irony.
I don't see the irony. I don't think the Russians should have been treated like Redskins. Do you?

If they intended to swallow Denmark, then why not Finland?
Switzerland and Sweden too, according to Goebbels. I will find those quotes again. He also speaks of attacking Hungary after the war. Those ****ing Swiss warmongerers.

Attacking Hungary after the war? That does not make much sense when they were quite the Allies and Hitler himself in some quotes you made earlier on the Tabletalks was agreeing that Horthy knew best about how to rule his folk..why should he attack them, under what reasoning? Is that the same talk about taking France apart and reclaiming the Burgundy?

:: Attacking Hungary after the war?

Yes.

:: That does not make much sense when they were quite the Allies and Hitler himself in some quotes you made earlier on the Tabletalks was agreeing that Horthy knew best about how to rule his folk..

Well. He was allied with Stalin too. :/

:: why should he attack them, under what reasoning?

To force German hegemony onto Europe.

:: Is that the same talk about taking France apart and reclaiming the Burgundy?

Its in the Goebbels' Diaries. I didn't put it there. So don't blame me for it.

The dominions were more or less independent nations.

They're still required to fight for Britian in their wars.


The rest of the Empire was overwhelmingly composed of coloureds.

Irrelevant. Britian still had the largest empire in the world at the time.


I don't see the irony. I don't think the Russians should have been treated like Redskins. Do you?

What does Russia have to do with this?

- "... Finland capitulated ..."


Excuse me Fade, but we won AN HONOURABLE PEACE from the Soviets.

If we had CAPITULATED, we would have been occupied and brutalized like the three Baltic states.

Out of all Axis states, we alone managed to fight our way to safe waters, and avoid the occupation of our entire country.


Petr

:: They're still required to fight for Britian in their wars.

False. None of the dominions were obligated to fight for Britain in 1939. They were tied to the Empire, at that point, only by sentiment. One of the principal motives to appease the Germans was fear that a conflict with the Germans would render the Empire asunder.

:: Irrelevant. Britian still had the largest empire in the world at the time.

So what? Are you suggesting that coloureds and whites are equal?

:: What does Russia have to do with this?

You should consider rereading this thread. Answer my question. Should the Russians, not simply the Bolsheviks, be treated like Redskins? Should they be deported to Siberia for the Germans can colonise the Ukraine?

- "I now understand why Wintermute refuses to talk to you."

Because I have kicked his butt in so many debates? ("sore loser" syndrome)

On the contrary, until very recently he seemed very eager to slander me.


Petr

False. None of the dominions were obligated to fight for Britain in 1939. They were tied to the Empire, at that point, only by sentiment. One of the principal motives to appease the Germans was fear that a conflict with the Germans would render the Empire asunder.

Are you sure about this? The official Head of State of the Dominions is whoever happens to be the British monarch. For e.g., the Canadian constitution states that the Canadian Head of State is the British monarch; actually, the British monarch is also the Canadian monarch. (If Great Britain decided to become a republic the Queen would nevertheless remain the Canadian Head of State, do you follow me?). In other words, when the British monarch is at war, so is Britain (obviously) and so are the Dominions. Ergo, in WW I and WW II all of the Dominions participated in those conflicts even though an overwhelming majority of French-Canadians wanted to stay out of both British wars.

:: Are you sure about this?

I am absolutely positive. See Barnett's The Collapse of British Power. There is a section that deals with this very issue.

:: The official Head of State of the Dominions is whoever happens to be the British monarch.

That goes for Britain as well. It does not mean the King can send Canadians or Australians into battle.

:: For e.g., the Canadian constitution states that the Canadian Head of State is the British monarch; actually, the British monarch is also the Canadian monarch. (if Great Britain decided to become a republic the Queen would nevertheless remain the Canadian Head of State, do you follow me?).

I understand that the British monarch is the Canadian head of state, but that does not obligate Canada, or any of the dominions, to fight for Britain. As I noted before, in 1938 during the crisis over Czechoslovakia, one of the principal motives to appease Hitler was the fear that it would rip the Empire apart, as the British could not be ensured of Canadian or South African cooperation.

:: Ergo, in WW I and WW II all of the Dominions participated in those conflicts even though an overwhelming majority of French-Canadians wanted to stay out of both British wars.

I understand that as well, but the relationship between the dominions and the Empire was altered in the 1920s at the Imperial Conferences after the Chanak Crisis almost embroiled Canada in a war with Turkey. William Lyon MacKenzie King, in cooperation with the South Africans and the Irish Free State, successfully neutered the Empire. I can post details if you wish, but that would be rather tiresome and I could not post all the material. So I suggest you pick up Barnett's book to pursue the matter further if you are interested. :)

- "I understand that as well, but the relationship between the dominions and the Empire was altered in the 1920s at the Imperial Conferences after the Chanak Crisis almost embroiled Canada in a war with Turkey. William Lyon MacKenzie King, in cooperation with the South Africans and the Irish Free State, successfully neutered the Empire."


Fade, if those Allied politicians really managed to prevent the British forces from fighting against the Turks alongside with the Greeks, then I officially withdraw my "Yee-haa!" from them on that other thread!


Petr

Its very amusing how mugwort turns warmongering national chauvinists into moralising Victorian country gentlemen and moralising Victorian country gentlemen into warmongering national chauvinists. The result is the most confused, contradictory, and illogical argument I have ever seen on the internet. The major premisses of which are as follows: I'm sure you're aware, Fade, that widely different currents coexisted in British culture and politics. That means that the facts that some British were "out to get" Germany and others were friendly to Germany are not mutually exclusive.

1.) The British were 'out to get' Germany, even though:

Fade, you don't seem to get the fact that all these things you list do not negate facts that are proven. Yes, elected officials change, appointed officials change, individuals change their minds, or are forced to, or bribed to, or external circumstances change. You could list a thousand things about how many pro-German things England at one point or another did.

That kind of information, though, goes only to the sentencing, not the verdict, if certain individuals are found to have been instrumental in deliberately starting WWII. And whatever explanations you give for it, the primary evidence is right in front of us: Britain declared war on Germany over a local dispute--in which if you know much about it you know that there was a great deal of provocation on Poland's side, enough so that any country in Germany's position (except Germany, of course) would be considered by an objective party to have had ample cause. If you don't know this, it's time to find it out.

So you say that Britain made the pact with Poland in order to discourage Hitler from attacking Poland. I disagree: I think Britain made the pact so that after Poland, with plenty of encouragement, stirred up a war with Germany Britain would have an excuse to declare the war the Warmasters had been planning for a while.

But so what? That part is interesting, but it's the events of the late summer of '39 that are crucial. If whoever held the reins of British foreign policy in this matter had NOT wanted England to go to war with Germany, the agreement with Poland was no problem, since it had not been ratified by Parliament, and therefore didn't have the status of a treaty. If you think Britains's honor was at stake, because she had to keep her word, you're quite wrong; there are a million reasons that could have been proffered for not being bound to keep the agreement.

Here are a few off the top of my head--and these are all absolutely factual; I could probably come up with a list as long as your lists in this post if I started creating semi-plausible excuses which would be enough to cry off, in a pinch. Here goes:

1. Poland, taking advantage of Britains kind assurances went and deliberately provoked Hitler to attack, in order to grab territory for herself (here Britain, if so inclined, produces some--genuine--belligerent memos between Polish officials, or a--genuine--map of a future Poland with most of Germany included). Britain had made the agreement out of the goodness of her heart, thinking Poland needed defending. If instead, Poland was instigating a war for plunder, Britain was under no obligation to act as her private army.

2. Hitler hadn't declared war; it was merely a local policing action to stop the border violations and protect the Ethnic Germans in the area. It was up to Poland to work out this little quarrel with Germany.

3. Poland had not conformed to her treaty obligations re: the Ethnic Germans and since emboldened by Britain's promised protection had been perpetrating numerous expulsions, atrocities, etc. Being in breach of treaty, Poland couldn't expect Britain to come in to defend her lawless conduct.

4. Poland had mobilized first--therefore Germany was entitled to defend herself. International law does not require that a country wait like a sitting duck till attacked once another country has demonstratd her intention of making war by mobilizing her armed forces. That makes Poland, not Germany, the aggressor; therefore the agreement doesn't apply.

5. Poland had refused to negotiate with Germany, when the long-suffering Germany--even after Poland's mobilization--requested it. The Polish government not only did not bother to send a plenipotentiary to receive Germany's offer, which would immediately have defused the situation, as the 2 countries would then have been engaged in an ongoing process of negotiations, but they did not even send a message saying whether they would or wouldn't, or needed more time, or had an alternative suggestion for a meeting place, or anything. This was a clear signal of unwillingness to negotiateas well as a serious breach of etiquette, and Britain was not obligated to help Poland out of the mess she got herself in from her own rudeness and stubbornness.

6. Poland had been firing on Germany's ships outside the free city of Danzig, which was not her territorial waters. This was a clear act of war, and therefore Germany was not the aggressor, but the defender.

7. The night of August 31 Polish troops invaded Germany and took over the radio station at Gleiwitz, broadcasting incendiary Polish propaganda. Clearly the advance guard of a full-fledged invasion, the troops were repulsed by Germany, not without casualties, and the radio station recaptured. Germany then counterattacked. Poland being the aggressor, Britain had no obligation to aid her in her aggression.

8. Parliament had not ratified the agreement at the time it was made, so it had no treaty status, and therefore Britain couldn't act without the consent of Parliament, who refused to give it (here you could give any combination of 1-7 as reasons why Parliament refused to give its approval).

Et voila! Britains out of the mess with clean hands and a clear conscience, and international reputation unsullied.

So the only reason Britain had to go to war with Germany was that, for reasons of her own, she (or rather, whoever was holding the reins at that time) chose to.

a.) the British delivered the Sudetenland to Germany on a silver platter.

They weren't yet ready to start the war. Czechoslovakia had certainly been considered and positioned as a potential causus belli, but the timing wasn't right. They used it as part of their later justifation based on Hitler's insatiability. Never mind that reasonable thinkers had long before said that ALL of the Versailles thefts of German territory should be restored

b.) the British wrecked the French effort to divide Germany at Versailles.
c.) the British retracted their guarantee of French security after Versailles
20 years before??? That's supposed to mean something??? What world do you live in?

d.) the British refused to renew the Anglo-French alliance for years (for fear of offending Germany).
Well, they had obviously resuscitated the alliance recently, which goes to my point that you can't necessarily gauge the foreign policy of today by the foreign policy of yesterday.

e.) the British let Germany remilitarize the Rhineland.
f.) the British let Germany rearm.

Are you aware that Britain herself was breaking the Versailles treaty in building up her arms? Germany's disarmament was supposed to be just the first step in a general disarmament, which was broken by the other nations long before Germany began her modest buildup. For

g.) the British let Germany annex Austria, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

1. Let her? You talk as if Britain had sovereignty over the nations of Europe. Of course, in practical terms, she had just as much sovereignty as she was willing and able to enforce, and if she wasn't ready to enforce it, I guess she'd let it slide. And everyone with any sense agreed that the Versailles Treaty was an abomination that should by rights have been put out of its misery already.

The Anschluss, was, in fact, following the will of over 90% of the Austrian people, so it's a little hard to pay lip service to democracy and prevent such a prime example from fulfilling itself.

h.) the British were aware of desire of the German generals to overthrow Hitler before Munich, but failed to act on it.The point is, contrary to their prattling assurances, the Allies were not just making war on Hitler--they were making war on the people of Germany.

Therefore, when key people were asked if Hitler's resignation would avert the war (and there's no evidence that he would not have resigned if necessary to keep the peace), the offer was rejected. I suppose that having sunk so much into vilifying Hitler in order to get the people primed for war, it might have been difficult to suddently substitute a new German Bogeyman and have it be as effective.

i.) the British were aware of the Czech treaty with the Soviets. The Soviets were willing to act in concert with the British and French which would have immediantly forced Hitler into a three or four front war.I don't know much about thse circumstances. Whatever they were, they don't alter the facts of what happened in August of 39.

j.) the British let Germany leave the League of Nations.
Let Germany leave...Wow--you really have a thing about Britain's assumed sovereignty over Germany. How about the US? Did the US have Britain's permission to leave the League of nations?

What was Britain supposed to do--declare war?

k.) now despite all of this, Great Britain stood by and let Germany become the most powerful nation on the continent. But this was all part of a secret plot and larger plan to 'get the Germans'. So the British stood by and waited until they were in the weakest possible position viz German power in two decades to attack! So you aren't aware that it was only after Hitler came in, and after he began to turn Germany around that she was really felt to be a threat again? There's absolutely no reason the British should have feared Germany before that. So that gives them, at a maximum, about 6 years to make some general plans and set goals, propagandize the public, build up their military strength, solidify their alliances, get the money together, and plan the starting mechanism. Perhaps also you overestimate Germany's military strength at the time war was declared, whereas Britain had been building up like a fiend--the US too, and Stalin, and I assume France.

2.) Chamberlain's government was 'controlled by the Jews', even though:
Who said that? Not I--at least not intentionally.

Why do you keep talking as if it was Chamberlain's government that started the war? It seemed clear to me in that quote you posted that it was the opposition, led by Halifax, who threatened to topple the government if war were not declared. It looks pretty clear cut to me.

a.) the Jews were financing Churchill and his associates who were trying to BRING DOWN Chamberlain's government. I knew that. [smile]
b.) so, by mugwort's own argument, organised Jewry was attempting to overthrow a government they controlled Jesus, Fade, I didn't say that, but if they had done so I'm sure it would not have been the first time they'd done that. You know they like to cover all the bases, finance both sides of a war, etc.

c.) and what is even more amusing, while millions of Jews in Germany and the territories under its occupation wanted to escape to the West and Palestine, this Jewish controlled government refused to accede to the wishes of the Jews, The Zionists didn't want any old trash Jews settling in Palestine, you know; they too had their racial ideals. They also needed plenty of Jews left behind in Europe for the war (I'm guessing that partly by the fact that they did leave them behind. Since the Zionists had enough money to get all the Jews out if they wanted, then logically they either were indifferent, or preferred for the European Jews to stay and suffer through the war).

OK--Here's a reference--it's from Lenni Brenner's online book Zionism in the Age of Dictators (Ch.7:

For instance, in November 1942, Rabbi Michael Dov-Ber Weismandel, a Jewish activist in Slovakia approached Adoph Eichmann's representative, Dieter Wisliceny: "How much money would be needed for all the European Jews to be saved?" Wisliceny went to Berlin and returned with an answer. For a mere $2 million they could have all the Jews in Western Europe and the Balkans.

Weismandel sent a courier to the World Zionist Organization in Switzerland. His request was refused. The official, Nathan Schwalb sent enough money to save only Weismandel and his cadre. He wrote:

"About the cries coming from your country, we should know that all the Allied nations are spilling much of their blood, and if we do not sacrifice any blood, by what right shall we merit coming before the bargaining table when they divide nations and lands at the war's end? ....for only with blood shall we get the land." (p.237)

Brenner writes that Zionism had come full turn. "Instead of Zionism being the hope of the Jews, their blood was to be the political salvation of Zionism" (p.238).
[...]
Brenner documents how the Zionist and World Jewish leadership prevaricated and obstructed all efforts to save the Jews of Europe who apparently were worth more to them dead than alive.


d.) even when Hitler offered, again and again, to let the Jews immigrate to Britain and the United States, on one occasion, in luxury ships! I don't remember discussing it on this forum, but it was specifically Chaim Weizmann who vetoed this plan, which had been designed by Hjalmar Schacht, approved by Hitler, and, presented by Schacht to a conference of bankers in London, was approved by them. Josef Burg, the courageous German Jewish revisionist relates this.

3.) But this is all explainable since Lord Halifax was part of this great conspiracy to 'get Germany': I don't see why not. You seem to be gravely underestimating the conspirators. Either he was part of it, which seems likely to me since he appeared quite single-mindedly focussed on war, and obviously did not welcome attempts at peaceful solutions--or he did the work of the Warmasters without knowing why; but you can be sure "They" knew what he was doing and why.

He played a double game, in which he encouraged the Poles not to negotiate with Germany, while he was pretending to Germany that he was encouraging them to cooperate.

I can't see why he wouldn't want them to reach an agreement unless he was set on war for a reason outside of the best interests of the two parties. It's generally acknowledged that Hitler's offer to Poland was a dream of an offer; when you take a good look at it you realize that even without the danger of war as incentive to settle, Poland would have been much better off with the agreement than without, since she was being asked to sacrifice nothing that would materially affect her, and she would have gained tremendous advantages in wealth and security.

That means that in discouraging Poland from reaching an accomodation with Hitler, Halifax wasn't acting in either Poland's best interest or Germany's best interest. For that matter, his behavior wasn't in Britain's best interest either--far from it. Are you aware that Hitler would have offered Britain immense benefits if she only would have consented to be on a friendly footing with Germany?

So since it wasn't in the best interests of any of the parties concerned, it starts looking like other conflicts that haven't been in the best interests of any of the participants--Iraq comes to mind, and we know for whom that's being fought.

a.) Despite there being no evidence this was the case.

The evidence of his actions is in the diplomatic records. You'll see. I make no claims of knowing his motives.

b.) Despite David Irving not associating Halifax with The Focus or Anti-Nazi League in Churchill's War.It would have been much smarter to have someone with a lower profile do the dirty work, don't you think? So the impression could be, as it has been, that the failure of diplomacy was just unfortunate, or Hitler was just stubborn, or bent on war, etc. That way no blame would fall on England for the war.

c.) On top of Halifax urging the British to consider Hitler's terms of peace once the war started. I remember reading this, but don't know much about it. If he was sincere, then maybe he wasn't working for the WarMasters, but was just a crappy diplomat and/or in a bad mood when he started the war; or maybe he changed his mind afterwards.

Another good possibility is that he knew that even if he urged the British to consider the peace terms there was no "danger" of a peace agreement, so he could afford to appear peaceloving and further cover his butt re: his previous war-making.

4.) This larger conspiracy apparently also includes President Franklin Roosevelt: You bet. Though I don't think the clueless asshole necessarily knew what he was doing, or for whom. For one thing, I think he believed the propaganda about Hitler being mad. Also, he had his own selfish reasons for wanting to be in the war, with the US economy going down the toilet, and him wanting to serve a third term and be a war president..

a.) which is mysterious, since hundreds of thousands of Jews could have immigrated to the U.S. under our immigration laws, yet were unable to do so. Not so mysterious once you realize the Zionists didn't want them to--right?

b.) odd since the U.S. did not enter the war until after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war.
That part is easy--that's how long it took for FDR to drag the American public with him. He'd actully been waging undeclared war on Germany for quite a while, but the people refused to get outraged when he would provoke incidents at sea with the Germans. The US was strongly anti-interventionist, largely owing to the revelations that had come out about WWI and how pointless it had been and how deceitful the propaganda had been. Because of that he finally had to manipulate the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor, so there would be enough casualties to get a reaction. But you knew all this, didn't you?


c.) even more ironic since little effort was made to rescue Jews until 1944. What makes you think anyone in charge gave a **** about the Jews at any point in the conflict. That's not the kind of thing wars are fought for.
d.) puzzling since U.S. war plans were not altered in order to 'liberate the Jews', despite the demands of the organised Jewish community. Which organized Jewish community? The ones holding the purse-strings of the war? Anyway, as you see, World Jewry is not monolithic. Just because some powerful international Zionists wanted a blood sacrifice for Israel doesn't mean all the Jews did by any means.

e.) which led to the death of an enormous amount of Jews Two thirds of the deaths in the camps were in the last month or so of the warand the first month or so of the occupation. I admit that with my now almost limitless cynicism on this subject, I suspect that it part of the plan. You see, there is no reason that the Allies needed to bomb all the supply lines leading to the camps, which led to severe malnutrition, making in mates even more susceptible to typhus and other diseases. There is also no reason why they could not have made plans to lessen much of the hardship on the internees. Both sides had personnel whose primary responsibility was taking care of prisoners and/or internees; there was also the Red Cross.

FDR himself once said about world politics, "Things don't just happen; if they happen, you can bet they were planned that way.". And if the camps were hellholes with corpses stacked like cordwood, it was largely the result of choices that were made--by the Allies, of course, since they, at that point, had all the power.

(no one really knows how many).
I suspect something under 200,000

[quote]5.) The Table Talk is a forgery:
I don't think I said that. I said that a certain passage didn't sound like Hitler to me. Now that I understand about the two different secretaries it will very likely make sense.

[quote]a.) even though historians are virtually unanimous on its authenticity. Authentic what? What Hitler actually said? The provenance can be authenticated, but unless (and possibly even if) it's a recording, it's virtually impossible to be sure it's what he actually said.

And does this mean you see no difference between the ones possibly manipulated by Picker and those by Heim, which are most likely accurate?

[...]

6.) It was simply Hitler's wish to repudiate Versailles:

Basically, yeah--in that I don't believe he had expansionist plans until circumstances of the war, which was not of his choosing, put the territories in his hands. That's an example of policies changing as circumstances change


a.) despite Hitler having made a point to publically state this was not the case on numerous occasions, like when he argued the Germans of South Tyrol should be resettled.

I'd have to know when the statements you're talking about were made, as well as the source.

He was perforce involved in the war on the Eastern Front--which was not undertaken to conquer eastern lands, but in defense against Stalin, who indubitably had planned an invasion of Western Europe, wiping out Germany, on the way. Once he was involved in the war in the east, it's natural he might make plans, but that's quite different from having a Drang nach Osten policy before the war took the German troops there.

b.) despite his mention of expansion in Mein Kampf, Written 15 years before the war, in prison after the Beerhall Putsch! I see no reason at all to think that so much later, and dealing with the realities of being a head of state he would have the same ideas. And the proof of it is his actions, which speak louder than words. If he had seriously planned a great expansion in any direction, he would have begun making necessary preparations--first of all, investing more time, money, and labor in armaments than he in fact did, so as to be halfway ready for such a venture. To me this is insurmountable. Talk is cheap.

his unpublished foreign policy book, as well as the Table Talk (all of which I possess).
c.) which is confirmed by the Goebbels' Diaries and numerous other hard sources.
Can't comment.
[quote]d.) show to be patently false by his own actions and official German documents. Huh? Oh. Please itemise.
e.) even though Irving does not make that argument.
Haha--I don't hold Irving's opinions sacrosanct. Obviously he knows a whole lot more than I do on these subjects, but I have caught a few errors as well as what it seems to me may be mis- or perhaps over-interpretations.

Aside from that, as far as I know, most of Irvin's writing on Hitler is about the period after the war started, at which time der Fuehrer would already have started dranging nach Osten, whether he had had such a policy in peacetime or not.

I think it's extremely important to distinguish between his outlook at the two different times, because in the prewar time it has a bearing on whether or not, during the peacetime he was planning to grab land through war and therefore was a threat to Europe, blabla.

I don't buy it . He didn't need it; he was just gettin up to speed on a lot of the peacetime stuff he was doing. Germany was doing just great for the most part, as you know. Troubles of ethnic German minorities beyond the Reich borders were a problem, of course, but that's a different thing.

Plus Hitler was a bona fide vet from the miserable Great War. He didn't like war, lots of his highest officials felt the same, and moreover he knew the German people had just barely emerged from a horrendous two decades, and the last thing they needed was another war. And he had plans for his European Union project, etc.

It's such a waste when all the talk about Hitler is "Drang nach Osten! Ubermensch! We must be ruthless! Survival of the fittest! [i]Untermensch! Achtung!!"

It takes up the space that could be used for more nuanced topics. That's one reason I'd like to get some of the persistent propaganda schlock out of the picture, and strip down the person of Hitler to what was actually there, to the degree it's possible--good, bad, or indifferent.

Watch this. Observe another one of mugwort's tall tales being debunked:

"The Daily Mail was the largest paper of the most complete newspaper combine in Great Britain. In 1937 its circulation was 1,580,000; it was the only popular daily paper which had a predominantly upper- and middle-class readership. Until his retirement in 1937, Lord Rothermere dictated the paper's policy; he was succeeded by his son, the Hon. Esmond Harmsworth.

From the very outset, the Daily Mail's attitude toward the Nazi regime was one of admiration for its internal accomplishments, both spiritual and material. Rothermere's editorial article of 10 July 1933, 'Young Triumphant', was used for Nazi propaganda throughout the 1930s. With a dateline 'Somewhere in Naziland,' the article stated that


The Daily Mail had no patience with 'the old women of both sexes' who filled British newspapers with hysterial reports about Nazi 'excesses'. Hitler had retrieved Germany from the hands of its alien elements, 'Israelites of international attachments', and if excesses existed, 'the minor misdeeds of individual Nazis will be submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany'.

Franklin Reid Gannon, The British Press and Germany, 1936-1939 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp.32-33

Perhaps you can tell me about some of the other papers, Fade, if you know. Preferably one of those "popular daily papers" which did NOT have a predominantly upper- and middle-class readership.

And what was the population of the British Isles at that time?

Although most literature Ive read on this topic seems to contradict itself: one mintute the Germans give support to Ukrainian nationalists while conducting atrocities against the local population; yet at other times allowing them significant freedoms and autonomy when governing local matters.This is a topic I'm very interested in, largely because of the contradictions which make it hard to get a handle on it.

That's interesting about Koch perhaps having been a Soviet agent.

This will be fun. So stay tuned.

This is a topic I'm very interested in, largely because of the contradictions which make it hard to get a handle on it.

Well heres information about German policies towards Ukrainians during the occupation of Poland 1939-41

¡°Soon after the Germans arrived, dozens of self-help committees, staffed by OUN[Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists] members or sympathizers who had fled from Galicia, sprang up to look after the basic economic and educational needs of the Ukrainian populace in the General Government. In spring 1940, with the acquiescence of Frank, these committees formed a coordinating body in Cracow called the Ukrainian Central Committee (UCC) and elected Volodymyr Kubijovyc, a well known geographer, as its head. The UCC was a Ukrainian social-welfare agency whose mandate was to look after the sick, the aged, and homeless, to care for public health and education, to help prisoners of war, and to represent the interests of Ukrainian workers from the General Government who were sent to Germany. The Germans made it very clear that the UCC was not to have any political prerogatives whatsoever.

But in fulfilling these functions, the UCC also sought to satisfy its own hidden agenda, which consisted of countering the strong Polonizing influences on its isolated Ukrainian constituents and raising their national consciousness. The Nazis were aware of these objectives and, to a limited extent, encouraged their attachment in hopes that the growth of Ukrainian national consciousness would act as a counter-weight to the more numerous Poles. For this reason, the Germans often favored the appointment of Ukrainians to low-level administrative posts or to the police in ethnically mixed communities. When Ukrainians sometimes used their positions to avenge themselves on Poles for the wrongs they suffered before the war, the Germans were not dismayed by the communal tensions that arose.

Under the able leadership of Kubijovyc and with the help of refugees from Galicia, the approximately 800 officials of the UCC soon organized Ukrainian schools, cooperatives, and youth groups in almost all localities where there were considerable numbers of Ukrainians. They also established a publishing house in Cracow and greatly expanded the Ukrainian press in the region. Its activities not only helped Ukrainians in these isolated regions to make up for the losses they suffered during the Polish repression, but also alleviated some of the heavy burdens that war and German occupation had brought upon them.¡±
--Orest Subtelny Ukraine: a History pg.457-8

And apparently Dr. Brandt was correct about Bandera:

¡°A product of German/OUN collaboration was the creation, shortly before the invasion of the USSR, of a Ukrainian military unity in the German army called the Legion of Ukrainian Nationalists. Composed mainly of pro-Bandera Ukrainians recruited in German occupied-territories, this force consisted of 600 men divided into two units that bore the code names Nachtigall and Roland. The Germans planned to use these units for diversionary purposes but the OUN-B hoped they would become the core of a Ukrainian army, as well as a means of extending the Bandera faction¡¯s influence.¡±
--inbid pg.463

And then with the German invasion of the USSR:

¡°Because German military authorities were relatively civil in their treatment of the populace during the early months of German occupation, many Ukrainians spontaneously established local administrations. Expecting the Germans to liquidate the hated collective farms and to redistribute the land to individual owners, peasants brought in the harvest under exceedingly difficult conditions. Teachers organized schools and workers often ran factories on their own¡¦.Over 100 non-Communist newspapers appeared throughout the Ukraine. In large cities, especially Kiev, Ukrainian literary, scholarly, and social groups sprang up in great numbers¡¦..In short, as Soviet rule disintegrated, a spontaneous upsurge of Ukrainian social, cultural, and economic activity occurred, fueled by the expectation that the Germans were about to establish a Ukrainian state.¡±
--inbid pg.464-5

So we do see a contradiction here with the popular image of German treatment of Slavs and sadly Orest Subtelny perpetuates this image often immediately after he talks about how the Germans were generous to the Ukrainians.


That's interesting about Koch perhaps having been a Soviet agent.

Well as for Koch, Subtelny makes it clear on pg. 467 he was ¡°the man who more than any other was instrumental in turning Ukrainians against the Germans.¡± Subtelny notes that Rosenberg had good knowledge about Eastern Europe(after all he was from the Baltic) and advocated gaining the support ¡°of the Ukrainians against the Kremlin by offering them their own state, which would remain, however, under German tutelage.¡±(pp. 466-7)

So clearly Koch's views of Ukrainians(once uttering that if he met a Ukrainian equal to himself, he'd immediately have him shot) were not official NS doctrine and was certainly not held by all NS.

Now as for the Dominons question, no they didnt have to declare war on Germany; but because of their close economic and political ties to Britian they were in many ways forced to. I'll quote my source later.

Interesting.

During four strenuous but enjoyable days, Goering build a relationship with Pilsudski, working hard to convince him that the Polish Corridor need not be a contentious issue, and that both their countries could expand in the East, with a little collusion. In return for allowing Germany a free hand in the North East of the Soviet Union, Poland could have the Ukraine. Assuring him that a 'common German-Russian frontier would be highly dangerous to Germany', he promised that Hitler would never do a deal with Stalin at Poland's expense. Goering's efforts to arrange a summit between Hitler and Pilsudski foundered on the Polish dictator's pre-condition of a guarantee that Germany would not interfere in Danzig.

The Devil's Disciples, Hitler's Inner Circle

Anthony Read, page 389

Listen to this.

"It's amazing how lacking in logic men are. The people most devoid of logic are the professors. In two thousand years' time, when they study the origins of the inhabitants of the Ukraine, they'll claim that we emerged from the marshlands. They're incapable of seeing that originally there was nobody in the marshlands, and that it was we who drove the aboriginals into the Pripet marshes in order to instal ourselves instead of them in the richer lands."

Hitler's Table Talk, p.115

Tell me, Fade, how many National Socialist (or sympathetic) historians exist in your university? :|

Do you have an idea what would happen to such a creature if he/she lectured at a western university? I would submit that mentioning Marxists as an example of academic open-mindedness is no evidence for the lack of censorship when National Socialism and National Socialists are concerned. The only way that questions pertaining to the abovementioned topics are allowed to be formulated is by demonizing them and by presentating the most horrifically phantasmagoric scenarios. For e.g., look at the storm that greeted John Charmley's publication of Churchill: The End of Glory: A Political Biography. Folks in the British and American media called for his head in the early 90s (he teaches at East Anglia). Discredited, folkloric, woolly Marxism in not a threat to Jews and their helpmates and associates in the same way that völkisch blood and soil philosophies are threatening to their hegemony. Exibit B: J. Philippe Rushton's work on race. Again, the Canadian political class called for his firing (he teaches at Western University) in the mid-nineties because they objected to the publication of his uncomfortable truths ("a threat to Canadian democracy!" when headline in a national daily screamed). Subsequently, he was forced to stop giving lectures in class because aggressive and hostile minorities would continuously interrupt his classes. Now, can you point out a Marxist egalitarian who recently got into trouble for expressing his or her views -- even in the deep American South? I didin't think so. Therefore, with all due respect, your analogy is erroneous.

:: Tell me, Fade, how many National Socialist (or sympathetic) historians exist in your university?

I can't think of any. Then again, I am not a history major either, so I would not be one to know.

:: Do you have an idea what would happen to such a creature if he/she lectured at a western university?

I can think of plenty of racialists who work within academia.

:: I would submit that mentioning Marxists as an example of academic open-mindedness is no evidence for the lack of censorship when National Socialism and National Socialists are concerned.

I have had liberal, conservative, communitarian, objectivist, and marxist professors. Virtually all of them have been openly critical of 'the establishment' in some way or another. But here is an even more important question: how many National Socialists are there who actually become professors?

:: Now, can you point out a Marxist egalitarian who recently got into trouble for expressing his or her views -- even in the deep American South?

The Negro professor that I always used to laugh about, for one.

:: I didin't think so. Therefore, with all due respect, your analogy is erroneous.

Please point out where I ever suggested that there was not censorship of certain political viewpoints in Canada and Europe. Most people in my area are racists to some degree anyway.

Who published The Bell Curve and Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray? I had no problem whatsoever acquiring either of these books at my local bookstore. I was also able to easily locate Vincent Sarich's and Frank Miele's Race: The Reality of Human Differences. I purchased that book as well. FYI even William Pierce's The Turner Diaries and Hitler's Mein Kampf are readily available here.

The Revilo P. Oliver Collection

ABOUT THE AUTHOR...

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/RPO_63smism.jpg

http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/

The late Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver, Professor of Classics at the University of Illinois for 32 years, was a scholar of international distinction who wrote articles in four languages for the most prestigious academic publications in the United States and Europe. His first book was a copiously annotated translation from the Sanskrit (Mrcchakatika, the Little Clay Cart, Urbana, 1938).

During World War II, Dr. Oliver was Director of Research in a highly secret agency of the War Department, and was cited for outstanding service to his country.

One of the very few academicians outspoken in his opposition to the progressive defacement of our civilization, Dr. Oliver insisted that the fate of his countrymen hangs on their willingness to subordinate their doctrinal differences to the tough but idealistic solidarity which is the prerequisite for the resurgence of European-Americans.

Books and Reprints by Professor Oliver: America's Decline: The Education of a Conservative
Christianity and the Survival of the West
Conspiracy or Degeneracy
Christianity Today
Can Liberals be Educated?
The Enemy of Europe (F.P. Yockey) and The Enemy of Our Enemies (Professor Oliver)
History and Biology
Is There Intelligent Life on Earth?
'Populism' and 'Elitism'
The Uses of Religion
The Yellow Peril

Hitler didn't do a deal with Stalin at Poland's expense until Poland had made the obviously mischievous agreement with Britain, and had also refused any contact with Germany for months, at which point Hitler formally abrogated--with abundant cause-- the treaty of amity he had made with Pilsudski, before concluding the non-aggression pact with Stalin. If Britain and Poland had not been behaving in such an unfriendly manner as to put Germany in a very insecure position, Hitler wouldn't have felt compelled to do that in order to, hopefully, prevent the possiblity of a two-front war.

So it was not he who was behaving deceitfully--or intriguing to make war--it was Britain and Poland.

The idea that the non-aggression pact was an agreement to "divide up Poland" between Stalin and Hitler is erroneous. Realistically speaking it was obvious that there were forces working to start a war with Germany and that Poland was likely to be the trigger. However, Poland was not the only country named in the agreement. Specifying the respective "zones of influence" of Russia and Germany merely defined the limits of their guarantee of neutrality. In fact, Stalin almost immediately began breaching that part of the agreement by grabbing parts of Lithuania and elsewhere that were in Germany's zone of influence, but Hitler let it slide.

- " However, Poland was not the only country named in the agreement. Specifying the respective "zones of influence" of Russia and Germany merely defined the limits of their guarantee of neutrality. "


You're telling me. By signing that deal, Hitler de facto authorized Stalin to invade and brutalize the Baltic states and to attack Finland.


Petr

How could Hitler "authorize" Stalin to invade another country? All it meant was that they would remain neutral, in accordance with their non-aggression pact, unless one was in the other's "zone of influence". And even that was overlooked by Hitler in the interest of avoiding war.

It was not easy for the Germans, including Hitler, to allow the invasion of those countries without lifting a finger, but he had only two alternatives--allow it, or start a war to stop it--and he chose the former.

You're telling me. By signing that deal, Hitler de facto authorized Stalin to invade and brutalize the Baltic states and to attack Finland. Petr
That's what the Warmasters say, Petr. Good night. :p

- " That's what the Warmasters say, Petr. "


Huh?


Petr

how many National Socialists are there who actually become professors?
I suspect, unless we're talking about a closeted NS, it might be easier to find professors who became NS than the other way around. The chance of a known National Socialist being allowed to become a professor seems pretty remote to me. Is that what you meant? Jewish activists even agitate, sometimes successfully, to have doctoral degrees revoked if they don't approve of the message of the academic.

:: I suspect, unless we're talking about a closeted NS, it might be easier to find professors who became NS than the other way around

Maybe.

:: The chance of a known National Socialist being allowed to become a professor seems pretty remote to me. Is that what you meant?

No. I am just not convinced there are that many National Socialists with the talent and ambition to infiltrate academia. That has certainly been my experience. That's simply a sad reflection upon our current situation. There are probably a few such individuals, but they are few and far between.

:: Jewish activists even agitate, sometimes successfully, to have doctoral degrees revoked if they don't approve of the message of the academic.

The Jews are quite skilled at advancing their interests. They are willing to make sacrifices for the common good of the Jewish community that millions of Aryan individualists would never contemplate. A perfect example comes to mind here: the sort of person who would quit this forum simply because someone disagreed with him in a thread on the internet.

How could Hitler "authorize" Stalin to invade another country?


The German Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office

VERY URGENT
Moscow, October 3, 1939-7:04 p. m.
Received October 3, 1939-11:10 p. m.
STRICTLY SECRET

No. 463 of October 3
Molotov summoned me to his office at 2 p. m. today, in order to communicate to me the following:

The Soviet Government would tell the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, who arrives today, that, within the framework of an amicable settlement of mutual relations (probably similar to the one with Estonia), the Soviet Government was willing to cede the city of Vilna and its environs to Lithuania, while at the same time the Soviet Government would indicate to Lithuania that it must cede the well-known portion of its territory to Germany. Molotov inquired what formal procedure we had in mind for carrying this out. His idea was the simultaneous signing of a Soviet-Lithuanian protocol on Vilna and a German-Lithuanian protocol on the Lithuanian area to be ceded to us.

I replied that this suggestion did not appeal to me. It seemed to me more logical that the Soviet Government should exchange Vilna for the strip to be ceded to us and then hand this strip over to us. Molotov did not seem quite in accord with my proposal but was willing to let me ask for the viewpoint of my Government and give him a reply by tomorrow noon.

Molotov's suggestion seems to me harmful, as in the eyes of the world it would make us appear as "robbers" of Lithuanian territory, while the Soviet Government figures as the donor. As I see it, only my suggestion enters into consideration at all. However, I would ask you to consider whether it might not be advisable for us, by a separate secret German-Soviet protocol, to forego the cession of the Lithuanian strip of territory until the Soviet Union actually incorporates Lithuania, an idea on which, I believe, the arrangement concerning Lithuania was originally based.

SCHULENBURG

----------------------------------
The Reich Foreign Minister to the German Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Schulenburg)

STRICTLY SECRET
BERLIN, October 4, 1939.

No. 488
Reference your telegram No. 463.

I, too, do not consider the method Molotov suggested for the cession of the Lithuanian strip of territory as suitable. On the contrary, please ask Molotov not to discuss this cession of territory with the Lithuanians at present, but rather to have the Soviet Government assume the obligation toward Germany to leave this strip of territory unoccupied in the event of a posting of Soviet forces in Lithuania, which may possibly be contemplated, and furthermore to leave it to Germany to determine the date on which the cession of the territory should be formally effected. An understanding to this effect should be set forth in a secret exchange of letters between yourself and Molotov.

Reich Foreign Minister



All it meant was that they would remain neutral, in accordance with their non-aggression pact


The State Secretary in the German Foreign Office (Weizsäcker) to German Missions Abroad

In your conversations regarding the Finnish-Russian conflict please avoid any anti-Russian note.

According to whom you are addressing, the following arguments are to be employed: The inescapable course of events in the revision of the treaties following the last Great War. The natural requirement of Russia for increased security of Leningrad and the entrance to the Gulf of Finland. The foreign policy pursued by the Finnish Government has in the last few years stressed the idea of neutrality. It has relied on the Scandinavian states and has treated German-Russian opposition as axiomatic. As a result Finland has avoided any rapprochement with Germany and has even rejected the conclusion of a non-aggression pact with Germany as compromising, even though Finland has a non-aggression pact with Russia. Also in the League of Nations, Finland, in spite of the debt of gratitude which she owed to Germany for the latter's help in 1918, has never come out for German interests. Foreign Minister Holsti is typical of this point of view and particularly hostile to Germany. Extensive elements in Finland emphasize their economic and ideological orientation in the direction of democratic England. Correspondingly the attitude of most of the organs of the press is out-spokenly unfriendly to us. The platonic sympathy of England has confirmed Finland in her previous attitude and has done the country no good.

WEIZSÄCKER



It was not easy for the Germans, including Hitler, to allow the invasion of those countries without lifting a finger


Was it easy when Moscow notified him they were going to do it, he signed off on it, and even was offered portions of the conquest? :p

Yeah, I knew what you meant to imply, Fade. I suspect that the bottom line, though, other than my point about hiring practices is that, given the level of societal disapproval, if not outright criminalization of National Socialism there is a much smaller pool to begin with than of Marxists or other less-reviled allegiances.
perfect example comes to mind here: the sort of person who would quit this forum simply because someone disagreed with him in a thread on the internet

You're talking about yourself, right, Fade? :D