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

I never said that I personally had any objection to wiping Poland off the map. I just tried to show what was actually motivating Hitler and the British. The Poles refused to negotiate in good faith with the Germans and committed lots of atrocities. I agree.

My question is, if the Poles were as bellicose and brutal as you say, why did the Germans have to stage a Polish attack?

What makes you think it was staged? Because after the war the Allies were able to get an SS guy in fear for his life to say what they wanted to hear? Is there any physical evidence that it was staged?

I hope that in spite of being Jewish you'll consider actually looking into these things from a revisionist perspective. Some great revisionist historians have been Jewish, and it's very interesting to research.

What makes you think it was staged?


How about because it was?

I'm both amused and surprised anyone believes that it wasn't staged. Are you suggesting that a Polish 'invasion' was two dozen guys trying to sieze a radio station? You believe that the Polish military, with a large portion of its army in the East guarding against the Soviets and its Western army in defensive positions, was preparing for an assault on Germany?

Why do "Polish" troops sieze a German radio station, mugwart, to order an attack?

Explain to me the reason "Polish" troops attack a radio station, kill no one, and encountering NO German response and no request for German aid from the station itself until the Poles are gone, give a 4 minute broadcast in Polish?


Because after the war the Allies were able to get an SS guy in fear for his life to say what they wanted to hear?


So the premise for your disbelief in this fact is that you don't trust the Allies, and thus anything any German told them is a lie?

That's a very reasoned analysis. :p

Its also bizzare considering that Naujocks never went to trial.


Is there any physical evidence that it was staged?


Yeah. The Germano-Soviet pact, the German negotiations with the Italians, the absurdity of the act, the lack of any knowledge of such an attack from the Polish end, and the fact that this is the very same sort of thing that Heydrich and Naujocks did to frame Tukhachevsky.


I hope that in spite of being Jewish you'll consider actually looking into these things from a revisionist perspective.


Let me ask you a question. You seem eager to doubt established facts on the subject of the war. Why don't we try one exercise, can't hurt, right?

Lets apply your skepticism to your position on this issue. Isn't it interesting that Hitler has a plan for an invasion of Poland drawn up months before the 'incident', has an agreement with the Soviets to DIVIDE Poland, has repeatedly asked the Italians to involve themselves diplomatically once Germany invades Poland, has the date for the invasion set on September 1st.....

.....And you don't find it interesting that the 'incident' happens the day before?

And you're the skeptic?

Funny I have asked about Mosty as well and no one wanted to answer on it .
Max Williams biography of Heydrich ( Ulric of England) makes specific mention of this , as he does of a similar ploy to engineer circumstances for an invasion of Czech lands.
Hitler was quite happy to see it dusted off for use in Poland.
With such extensive reasons as mentioned by Dr. Brandt one would wonder why Heydrich need have bothered. :(
Is Hitler not on record as saying that the danzig Corridor was no longer the issue , that the real interest lay in aquiring living space .
Seems he forgot to tell Dr. Brandt . :D

"Interesting research" , only because it says excatly what you want it to say.
BTW the Hitler note on Danzig , march 39 that's what six months prior to the invasion , kinda does make you a little skepical , does it not ?

Originally Posted by Henry Morgenthau
How about because it was?
Nope--not good enough. Very tenuous evidence. I know that everybody and his cousin assumes that it was staged—that, however, has nothing to do with real evidence, and everything to do with PR. Kind of like the way Americans think Saddam did 911.

I'm both amused and surprised anyone believes that it wasn't staged.
You mean it never occurred to you that someone other than the Germans might be lying? That it could be a false-false-flag op, like the Reichstag fire? Or do you also think the Germans set the Reichstag fire and framed the poor Dutch Communist?

Perhaps you could offer some actual evidence that the apparent operation by Polish troops was something other than what it seemed. Something other than testimony obtained by victorious forces from a man over whom they had the power of life and death.

Are you suggesting that a Polish 'invasion' was two dozen guys trying to sieze a radio station?
I believe I said "precursor to an invasion"--and taking over a radio station in an area with a lot of Ethnic poles seems like a reasonable thing to do as a precursor to an invasion.

You believe that the Polish military, with a large portion of its army in the East guarding against the Soviets and its Western army in defensive positions, was preparing for an assault on Germany?I have no way of knowing that. What I do know is that Poland announced on August 30 that it was commencing full mobilization for war, an action that is considered by international standards to be equal to a declaration of war against a neighboring country. At this time the German army had not yet mobilized.

Why do "Polish" troops sieze a German radio station, mugwart, to order an attack?
I don't recall saying that they seized it to order an attack. I suspect, instead, that they may have wanted to incite the ethnic Poles in the area.

My guess is that there probably were a good number of Poles in that border area of Germany.

If you were able to demonstrate that there were very few, it would lend support to your hypothesis of German trickery--which, may I remind you, is just that: a hypothesis, since I have yet to see any credible evidence that it was anything but what it appeared to be: another of the extremely frequent incidents of Border violations by the bellicose Poles. Or perhaps, given the full military mobilization of the Poles at that point, the beginning of something more serious.

Explain to me the reason "Polish" troops attack a radio station, kill no one, and encountering NO German response and no request for German aid from the station itself until the Poles are gone, give a 4 minute broadcast in Polish? You tell me why the Germans would choose such a lame scenario, allegedly as an excuse for war, especially when the mere fact that Poland had already fully mobilized was sufficient under the customs of war for the Germans to respond with force. Not to mention Poland’s countless previous border violations, firing on German ships, expelling and committing atrocities against thousands of ethnic Germans in Poland...

So the premise for your disbelief in this fact is that you don't trust the Allies, and thus anything any German told them is a lie?

Well, first of all I'd like to know what the premise for my belief of the tall-tale should be--the Nuremberg Tribunal is a neutral, benevolent organization, which never tortured or threatened confessions from prisoners or told lies?

That's a very reasoned analysis.
Thank you. ;)

You're responding from a culture-centric perspective, from which you somehow assume that because the lying, mass-murdering, looting and raping Allies said something, it must be true--especially if it's a smear against Germany. Or at any rate, whether it's true or not, everyone has to believe it, because the Good Guys said so.

Well, Mr. Morganthau, that halo of the WWII Allies has gotten plenty tarnished recently, with the same lying, murdering trio doing the same sleazy act in Iraq. Nothing gets to be taken on faith any more. You're claiming it was a false flag op by German agents, not a border violation by Polish agents--what's the evidence

Its also bizzare considering that Naujocks never went to trial.


That's my point exactly; he never went to trial. It's just what I'd expect, seeing he gave the Americans what they wanted. Do you know what was happening to plenty of captured former SS in those days? He escaped that fate.

Yeah. The Germano-Soviet pact, the German negotiations with the Italians,
The German-Soviet pact tells you that the Germans faked a Polish takeover of a radio station in Gleiwitz? Do tell.

the absurdity of the act,
Not, I think, a good candidate for a casus belli for Germany, given its absurdity.

And as I said, the Germans already had a few perfectly good excuses to defensively attack Poland.

the lack of any knowledge of such an attack from the Polish end
The Poles told you there was no such attack, so you know it’s true, right?

and the fact that this is the very same sort of thing that Heydrich and Naujocks did to frame Tukhachevsky.
I see no similarity. Naujocks, being an experienced spy, obviously was pretty adept at saving his own skin by giving his captors what they wanted.

Let me ask you a question. You seem eager to doubt established facts on the subject of the war.
What "established facts" would those be?

[…]

And you're the skeptic?

Well, I guess one of us has to be; you certainly aren't, if you buy that stale bullshit about the Germans dressing dead people in Polish uniforms and planting them in a radio station to establish a casus belli that they didn't need.

Nope--not good enough. Very tenuous evidence.


LOL Anyone who thinks that direct testimony of the fellow who did it, the circumstances I described, and the absurdity of the act is 'tenuous evidence' is a fanatic.



I know that everybody and his cousin assumes that it was staged—


No, it isn't assumed. Its historical fact. And you're right, virtually everyone familiar with the facts knows that Germany staged the incident.


that, however, has nothing to do with real evidence, and everything to do with PR. Kind of like the way Americans think Saddam did 911.


America? 9/11? Iraq? What do these things have to do with a Polish invasion of Germany?


You mean it never occurred to you that someone other than the Germans might be lying?


Its strange that you respond to my responses to your questions with more questions, and don't respond to my questions at all.

LOL By the way, Mugwart is the one accusing people of lying.

Mugwart, FYI, is accusing a German of lying.


That it could be a false-false-flag op, like the Reichstag fire?


Could be? Has it ever? Might be?

LOL Your theories of history revolve around 'might have beens'?


Or do you also think the Germans set the Reichstag fire and framed the poor Dutch Communist?


No, I don't. But I don't think that Dutch Communist set the fire with his t-shirt, half a can of gas, and a zippo either.


Perhaps you could offer some actual evidence that the apparent operation by Polish troops was something other than what it seemed.


You mean like operation "Canned Goods", where Canaris had gathered about a hundred Polish uniforms, weapons, and kits?

Like the testimony of the fellow who did it?


Something other than testimony obtained by victorious forces from a man over whom they had the power of life and death.


Naujocks was threatened with death if he didn't make that statement? He was promised his life if he did?


I believe I said "precursor to an invasion"--and taking over a radio station in an area with a lot of Ethnic poles seems like a reasonable thing to do as a precursor to an invasion.


Polish radio can't broadcast messages to the Poles themselves? "A lot" of Ethnic poles in the area? How many?

What was the disposition of these Polish insurgents? What were they armed with? Who gave them arms?

Please explain.


I have no way of knowing that.


I see. But that won't stop you from speculating, I'm sure. After all, history books are fiction. We've got to piece this puzzle together ourselves....lets put our Hardy boy hats on.


What I do know is that Poland announced on August 30 that it was commencing full mobilization for war, an action that is considered by international standards to be equal to a declaration of war against a neighboring country.


Because the Germans had cut off negotiations and had the vast majority of their army on the Polish border in OFFENSIVE positions.


At this time the German army had not yet mobilized.


LMAO I could provide you with figures, but I'm sure that we can do this with logic alone, using your claim and my fact.

You claim the Polish declare they are going to mobilize on August 30th. The German Army invades Poland on September 1st.

The German Army wasn't mobilized for an attack on Poland? Two days was all it took to bring up and move 60 divisions to the Polish border and fight a battle on their arrival?

Thats amazing.


I don't recall saying that they seized it to order an attack. I suspect, instead, that they may have wanted to incite the ethnic Poles in the area.


Your suspicion is interesting, and this is fun, I can see the appeal in it. Its like "Choosing your own history" instead of going through a thousand pages in a reputable, scholarly work on the subject.

Do you have an order you can show us? Do you think a three minute speech on a German radio station is an effective plan to launch a guerilla war? Why wern't any Germans harmed in this operation?

Why couldn't the Poles broadcast their own speeches across the border to these violent ethnic Poles?

The Poles attack, lose a guy and kill no one but still take the objective? No German troops come to help the defenders? The Poles don't bother to keep the radio station they lost a man?


My guess is that there probably were a good number of Poles in that border area of Germany.


How many?


If you were able to demonstrate that there were very few


Its my responsibility to provide evidence for your theory? Strange.


it would lend support to your hypothesis of German trickery--which, may I remind you, is just that: a hypothesis


LOL

At 8.30 p.m. the German radio announced that an important communication would be made at 9 p.m.

This broadcast dealt with the German proposals, of which the British Government was alleged to have been informed (this is untrue-see the official bulletin on the subject which appeared in the Press of September 1) and which the Reich Government regarded as having been refused by the Polish Government, the latter not having sent a plenipotentiary within the period fixed by the Reich.

At about 10.30 p.m. the German radio announced a Polish raid on the broadcasting station at Gleiwitz.

On September 1, at 4 a.m., it broadcast a proclamation by the Chancellor of the Reich, stating that Germany would henceforth meet force with force.

Towards 7 a.m. it announced that the Anschluss of Danzig to the Reich had been proclaimed by Herr Forster.

At 830 a.m. a communication from M. LÉON NÖEL informed this Department that the German troops had, at 5 a.m., attacked on all the Polish frontiers without ultimatum or previous warning.


Seven hours after this supposed "Polish" attack, the German army mobilized 60 divisions of troops, put them on the Polish border, signed a treaty with the USSR to divide Poland, asked the Italians repeatedly to endorse the attack, and get all the official bureacratic ducks in a row for the German army to push into Poland.

Well, thats impressive. And I can see that you certainly aren't the sort of person to be taken in by ridiculous historical theories.

Seven hours from a three minute speech to German troops crossing into Poland along all fronts. German efficiency in action, I suppose, since its impossible they knew about the attack on the radio station before it happened. I've never heard of anything in military history like it.


since I have yet to see any credible evidence that it was anything but what it appeared to be


You've seen a great deal of evidence, actually.


another of the extremely frequent incidents of Border violations by the bellicose Poles.


The Poles with cavalry and biplanes? Those bellicose Poles?


Or perhaps, given the full military mobilization of the Poles at that point, the beginning of something more serious.


The Poles announce they're mobilizing on August 30th and are fully mobilized by August 31st?

Thats a level of Polish efficiency which rivals the seven hour German mobilization. No wonder the Germans were so scared.


You tell me why the Germans would choose such a lame scenario, allegedly as an excuse for war, especially when the mere fact that Poland had already fully mobilized was sufficient under the customs of war for the Germans to respond with force.


Polish mobilization in the face of an obvious German invasion is not a sufficient excuse for war, and there is no limit to the lameness of German excuses for any number of actions it took during WWII.


Not to mention Poland’s countless previous border violations


LOL


, firing on German ships, expelling and committing atrocities against thousands of ethnic Germans in Poland...


According to Goebbels?


Well, first of all I'd like to know what the premise for my belief of the tall-tale should be--the Nuremberg Tribunal is a neutral, benevolent organization, which never tortured or threatened confessions from prisoners or told lies?


No, of course. The Nuremberg Tribunal was an organ of the Elders of Zion who put every German in an iron maiden and concocted a vicious lie about everything the Germans did, got everyone from priests to soldiers to Eastern European peasants to cooborate it, then dug up the mass graves of bombing and typhus victims to provide photographic evidence of it.

Then, they meticulously wrote out perfect forgeries of German documents, hid them in German bases and government buildings, and 'found' them to use against the same Germans they were torturing with Inquisition era devices, ironically discovered in the Berlin History for Medieval Studies.

It is surprising that so many Germans escaped this terrible auto de fe. The vast majority, in fact, with only a handful being executed for these crimes....which never happened. All a myth. No German ever did anything wrong in WWII.

Not many people know this, but John Lenin's Imagine was actually stolen from a poem written by Adolf Hitler himself!



You're responding from a culture-centric perspective


So says the fellow who suggests that every person testifying at Nuremberg had a shard of glass stuck in their genitals if they didn't admitt to atrocities.

Herman Goering must have been the toughest guy in the world, since he admitted to nothing.


from which you somehow assume that because the lying, mass-murdering,
looting and raping Allies said something,


LMAO Please, lecture me more on a 'balanced perspective' of the war as you attempt to ridicule the notion that a side is 'evil' while you call the Allies mass murdering rapists.


Or at any rate, whether it's true or not, everyone has to believe it, because the Good Guys said so.


We can accept the facts or we can continue to play your game of "Choose your own Adventure" in discussing history.

You'll notice that Herr Mudwart's views on this subject often start with, "It seems to me..." or "I think they did it because...." or "I don't know, but I don't believe you...." or "Maybe they..." or "They could have...."


Well, Mr. Morganthau, that halo of the WWII Allies has gotten plenty tarnished recently


Not to anyone familiar with the facts and aware of German behaviour.


, with the same lying, murdering trio doing the same sleazy act in Iraq.


The Iraqis fired on US aircraft. By YOUR standards, we have every right to annex it.


Nothing gets to be taken on faith any more.


The only one operating by faith is you. I've provided ONLY facts. You've provided supposition and asked for the ASSUMPTION of doubt without providing any evidence whatsoever.


You're claiming it was a false flag op by German agents, not a border violation by Polish agents--what's the evidence


I've given it to you and you studiously ignored it. Like a Creationist refusing to look at a fossil for fear of sin.


That's my point exactly; he never went to trial. It's just what I'd expect, seeing he gave the Americans what they wanted.


So you're saying the Americans let him live because he made that statement?


Do you know what was happening to plenty of captured former SS in those days?


In American hands? An SS man who had been in the thick of every German atrocity from Gleiwitz to Malmedy would have been safer in American hands than a Russian conscript would have been in German captivity, thats for sure.



The German-Soviet pact tells you that the Germans faked a Polish takeover of a radio station in Gleiwitz? Do tell.


Hmmm....you don't understand? Let me provide you with an example:

Frank: "Hey Bill, you and I are thirty year old men, both older and stronger than that 15 year old kid over there, across the street.

Bill: "Thats true Frank. You noticed that kid has a wallet full of cash?"

Frank: "Yes. We should split that cash between us."

(Bill nods. Kid walks by, Frank bumps into him)

Frank: "Did you see that Bill? This kid assaulted me."

(Frank and Bill proceed to kick the snot out of the kid and take his money, dividing it between them as they had agreed before the)

Do you see a parallel? Tell us how this is not similar. Tell us how one makes an agreement to divide a nation that hasn't attacked your radio station, sets the date for the invasion of that nation the DAY AFTER an attack takes place you supposedly have no idea is coming.

The German invasion for Poland was set at September 1st. It was not spontaneous, if you didn't get my earlier sarcasm about the seven hours.


Not, I think, a good candidate for a casus belli for Germany, given its absurdity.


At about 10.30 p.m. the German radio announced a Polish raid on the broadcasting station at Gleiwitz.

On September 1, at 4 a.m., it broadcast a proclamation by the Chancellor of the Reich, stating that Germany would henceforth meet force with force.


So you're saying the German pretext for war against Poland was absurd? Couldn't agree with you more.



And as I said, the Germans already had a few perfectly good excuses to defensively attack Poland.


Like Goebbels lying?


The Poles told you there was no such attack, so you know it’s true, right?


Can you provide a single Polish document to substantiate your claim? Or did the Anti-Polish, Communist Russians destroy all evidence of the ultra Nationalist, rightist Polish government's complicity?

Sounds like something they would do....protecting the reputation of a right wing Polish state.

The Germans didn't find any Polish documents when they occupied the country for five years?



I see no similarity.


You see no similarity between fabricating an incident to harm your enemy and fabricating an incident to attack your enemy?


Naujocks, being an experienced spy, obviously was pretty adept at saving his own skin by giving his captors what they wanted.


Can you give us an example to support your premise? An example to show that this is something Naujocks did in order to support your claim that he did it in the instance where he made a statement against your Nazi regime?


What "established facts" would those be?


The Nazi-Soviet pact, the affidavit of Naujocks, Operation Himmler, "Canned Goods", the Italians, the German war plans, the rapidity of the response, the absurdity of the 'action'.

By the way, you have provided exactly zero evidence, 'questionable' or otherwise. Thats something you should fix before you continue to (irrationally) doubt every fact you're presented with.


[…]

Well, I guess one of us has to be; you certainly aren't


LOL You're about as much of a skeptic as a Catholic Priest in Opus Dei.

My guess is that there probably were a good number of Poles in that border area of Germany.

If you were able to demonstrate that there were very few, it would lend support to your hypothesis of German trickery--which, may I remind you, is just that: a hypothesis, since I have yet to see any credible evidence that it was anything but what it appeared to be: another of the extremely frequent incidents of Border violations by the bellicose Poles. Or perhaps, given the full military mobilization of the Poles at that point, the beginning of something more serious.

You've made a number of good points on your side, however, the totality of your arguments remain quite weak. This is because you have not addressed the following questions:

Isn't it interesting that Hitler has a plan for an invasion of Poland drawn up months before the 'incident', has an agreement with the Soviets to DIVIDE Poland, has repeatedly asked the Italians to involve themselves diplomatically once Germany invades Poland, has the date for the invasion set on September 1st.....

.....And you don't find it interesting that the 'incident' happens the day before?

By the way, I am pretty sure there were very few Poles living west of the German-Polish border. Approximately the western third of Poland was rightfully eastern Germany, which had been stripped from the Germans at Versailles, so it was the Germans who were living in Poland, rather than Poles living in Germany. Generally when there is ethnic seepage (so to speak) of one form or another across an international border (even if it is caused by the redrawing of said international border), that seepage tends to be a one-way affair, much as one tends to find many more Mexicans on the American side of the border, rather than lots of Americans in Mexico.

You've made a number of good points on your side, however, the totality of your arguments remain quite weak. This is because you have not addressed the following questions:I was aware I did not address those questions. The reason was that to respond to them could end up requiring a lot of writing time, which I can't afford to spend at this time. That's because what I have to write at this time are a paper on the influence of Debussy on certain 20th century Mexican composers, and one on Cuban influences on the Mexican composer Manuel Ponce during his forced vacation in Cuba during World War I. Those projects cannot be put off, so I need to put off any detailed response to Mr. Morgenthau's query's until after their completion.

I will be glad to reply afterwards; meanwhile, in response to suggestions by Mssrs Fade and Morgenethau that my statements are the result of a naive and overactive fantasy, let me list a handful of books that I just retrieved from my bookcase, which contain information relevant to the question of responsibility for the outbreak of WWII:

--The Forced War:When Peaceful Revision Failed, by David Hoggan.

--Republic of Poland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Official Documents 1933-1939

--German Foreign Office, Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941

--German White Book, Documents Concerning the Last phase of the German-Polish crisis

--The Origins of World War II: A Brief Survey of the beginnings of the Present War, on the Basis of Official Documents, by Alfred von Wegerer

---FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, by Hamilton Fish

--Design for War: A Study of Secret Power Politics, by Frederick R. Sanborn

--Back Door to War: the Roosevelt Foreign Policy, by Charles Tansill

That's a partial bibliography of writings I have at hand at this moment, not counting web sources, that deal with the present question.

Also, re: the Gleiwitz affair, the Wegerer book lists the following as containing, on p. 273, a detailed account of the Geliwitz incident: They Wanted War, by Otto Tolischus, a New York Times correspondent.

It is easily procurble at university libraries, as is often the case with older revisionist materials that don't deal with the inflammatory topic of the "Holocaust".

Isn't it interesting that Hitler has a plan for an invasion of Poland drawn up months before the 'incident', has an agreement with the Soviets to DIVIDE Poland, has repeatedly asked the Italians to involve themselves diplomatically once Germany invades Poland, has the date for the invasion set on September 1st..... Of course it's interesting. On the other hand, the simplistic, self-serving, and one-sided explanations found in most accounts on the web and in standard history books ignore the broader context and many relevant details in order to make a political argument: that of Germany's exclusive, or almost-exclusive guilt (which means all other parties' complete or almost-complete innocence) for the outbreak of WWII.

In order to do this, the actions of Germany must be taken out of context and portrayed as acts of aggression in a peaceable vacuum, while on the other side, any actions of the Allies are portrayed as natural and defensible responses to the unprovoked aggression of a state bent on forcible expansion. It must be admitted that in a relatively objective analysis both parties to the eventual conflict must be considered in relation to the whole picture.


.....And you don't find it interesting that the 'incident' happens the day before?

Yes, of course; but the fact that it happened the day before does not tell us who perpetrated the act--

It could as easily have been an act by the Poles in order to provoke the attack by Germany, as they had already mobilized for war but probably, as do all nations who make war, preferred for Germany to make the first move. That the Poles were confident that England and France would save their butts, in the unlikely event that their brave Polish troops did not immediately score a decisive victory, and that they eagerly anticipated further cessions of German land to Poland in the--they thought-- almost certain event of Germany's defeat, is a matter of record.

The Gleiwitz incident could, alternatively, have been the work of a third party bent on getting the war started. If so, the most likely would be Communists and/or Jews and/or Communist Jews; I suppose it might also have been Britain, working sub rosa to make sure her diplomatic intrigues did not fail in their effect. This does not exhaust the possibilities--and is a reminder that most either/or questions are ipso facto omitting a lot of possibilities,

Don't forget that if you really want an answer to what happened at Gleiwitz before I'm able to post again, you can check the book listed above, They wanted War, by Otto Tolischus. It was written close to the time of the event, by a New York Times reporter, and there's a good chance it may tell the real story. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if it supports my contentions or those of Mr. Morgenthau and the bulk of the Zionist media and educational organs.

By the way, I am pretty sure there were very few Poles living west of the German-Polish border. Approximately the western third of Poland was rightfully eastern Germany, which had been stripped from the Germans at Versailles, so it was the Germans who were living Poland, rather than Poles living in Germany. Generally when their is ethnic seepage (so to speak) of one form or another across an international border (even if it is caused by the redrawing of an international border), that seepage tends to be a one-way affair, much as one tends to find many more Mexicans on the American side of the border, rather than lots of Americans in Mexico. I think ultimately, though, that question must be answered by a determination of the population in the specific area, since tendencies can't necessarily be extrapolated to individual incidences.

Here's one interesting paper I happened on, in the book of Polish documents: a recommendation that the Polish Ambassador in Berlin communicate to the German Government [i]after midnight on August 31 that the Polish Embassy in Berlin is at their disposal.

Given that the expiration date given by Germany for negotiations (ending an interval of 48 hours, and was midnight of August 31/September 1, this very specific instruction to their ambassador appears to be intended to prevent
negotiations, thus precipitating the desired war, while allowing them to say--
as they did--"But we were willing to negotiate; they just weren't flexible enough!" Of course, if they had been willing to negotiate they would have communicated as much to the German government at some time within, not after the specified 48 hour window for negotiations. During this period they had myriad communications with England, while pointedly declining to reply in any way to the German government.

It is also important to keep in mind that Poland had announced her general mobilization, an act of war, on August 30, as Germany was endeavouring again to open negotiations through the channel of the devious and double-dealing British.

Well, I just read Fade's new adieu. I guess I'll see what's happened with the 2 split forums. I'll be back in a few weeks, and if Mr. Morgenthau or anyone else wants my answers on the situation in Aug/Sept, 1939 then, let me know.

Mugwort,
Correct me if I am wrong , but you say taking over a radio stsion is something which seems reasonable prior to an anvasion ? Why ?
If its the Poles taking over a German Radio Station , what is the gain ?

Unfortunately for you it is all true , it was a German move and Heydrich was the man who put it forward.
If you are interested I can give you all the names of men involved and yes , they did bring along "dead poles" with them.

I find it amazing that everything which is estiblished fact has to be a lie and that Hitler was so misunderstood.

Mugwort,
[quote]Correct me if I am wrong , but you say taking over a radio stsion is something which seems reasonable prior to an anvasion ? Why ?
If its the Poles taking over a German Radio Station , what is the gain ? As I mentioned in another post, one possibility is to provoke a German attack, given that the Poles are on record as wanting war with Germany.

Unfortunately for you it is all true , it was a German move and Heydrich was the man who put it forward. I'd like to know the basis of your certainty since, particularly on matters of this ilk, consensus must not be mistaken for evidence.

f you are interested I can give you all the names of men involved and yes , they did bring along "dead poles" with them.What I'm more interested in is your sources. Could you please PM them to me? I'll be off the group for a couple weeks or more, focussing on schoolwork.

You might want to check out the book I mentioned in my previous post on this thread: They Wanted War, by NYT correspondent Otto Tolischus. I don't know what it says, but he was a contemporary observer of affairs, so he may have some good information.

I find it amazing that everything which is estiblished fact has to be a lie and that Hitler was so misunderstood.That's because much in our "history" of the time in question was declared to be "established fact" based on important political (and economic) considerations, and has no basis in fact. That's why every "fact", particularly those that put Germany and Hitler in a bad light--which was, of course, important to the victors--must be gone over again with a fine-tooth comb, and the evidence, or lack of it, for or against the truth of the alleged fact, reexamined.

LOL Anyone who thinks that direct testimony of the fellow who did it, the circumstances I described, and the absurdity of the act is 'tenuous evidence' is a fanatic. So you say.






Naujocks was threatened with death if he didn't make that statement? He was promised his life if he did? More likely than not. That was SOP at that time, as the victors went about collecting "information" with which to convict the Germans of war crimes, crimes against the peace, etc., and thus "justify" their ongoing genocide of millions of Germans and the current and projected massive looting of the country.

Because the Germans had cut off negotiations You are quite mistaken; the records of all parties are clear. At this time Germany was inviting direct negotiations with Poland.

The Poles made a formal announcement of their mobilization on August 30. Just as you correctly say of the Germans, this does not meant that Polish troops had not been mobilizing unofficially for some time before. But an official declaration of mobilization, as this was (Official Comunique, no. 99, pp. 108-109: Official Documents 1933-1939, Republic of Poland Ministry for Foreign Affairs) is more serious: it was well known that in international diplomacy it is the equivalent of a declaration of war against a neighbouring state, and an attack by the state in question is at that point considered justified. As far as I can see, the only point of the Poles announcing their mobilization was in order to provoke an attack by Germany, at which point they expected Britain and France to intervene militarily on their behalf.

Gleiwitz was very likely more of the same: inflammatory actions designed to provoke a German attack.

Your suspicion is interesting, and this is fun, I can see the appeal in it. Its like "Choosing your own history" instead of going through a thousand pages in a reputable, scholarly work on the subject. Not really. See my post above for a partial list of books I've consulted on this subject.



[...]
No, of course. The Nuremberg Tribunal was an organ of the Elders of Zion who put every German in an iron maiden and concocted a vicious lie about everything the Germans didWho told you????? ;)


Then, they meticulously wrote out perfect forgeries of German documents Actually, a lot of them are very bad forgeries, as you'll find if you do a little research in the field. Carlos Whitman Porter, I think, has done a lot of work in this field. Or read about the document previously considered to be the Wannsee Conference Protocol. Look in the online book, Dissecting the Holocaust on the Zundelsite or VHO or CODOH, and there's a chapter devoted to that particular forgery.


It is surprising that so many Germans escaped this terrible auto de fe. The vast majority, in fact, with only a handful being executed for these crimes....which never happened Just remember that thousands were persecuted, imprisoned, and often tortured on the basis of these lies, and hundreds hanged. Also that some of those hanged were deliberately tortured to death by positioning the knot so that their necks wouldn't break, so they might be kicking and struggling for breath for over 15 minutes after the drop. Not to mention the millions of Germans killed in horrible ways, the tens of millions rendered homeless, starving in cellars beneath the rubble of the cities, either expelled from their homelands or their towns completely bombed, the millions raped, starved to death, dead of TB and other diseases for which they had no antibiotics...

Of course, the worst crime, as was decreed at the Nuremberg witch-trials, is conspiring to wage aggressive war--the worst war there has ever been, killing more than 50 million people--and that honor goes to the victors. No wonder they're still covering up after 60 years.

And no. The alleged crimes of the defeated never happened. If you're actually interested in investigating the truth rather than dutifully regurgitating the tales you've been told, you're going to have to look beyond mainstream publications, and get your feet wet in the steadily increasing flood of revisionist writings. If after you've read copiously in the revisionist literature you still think you knew it all already, at least you'll know you haven't ignored a potential source of enlightenment, and have given the claims of the "other side" a fair shake.


LMAO Please, lecture me more on a 'balanced perspective' of the war as you attempt to ridicule the notion that a side is 'evil' while you call the Allies mass murdering rapists. Sorry, Mr. Morgenthau, but that's a matter of fact--not victors' history or atrocity propaganda, but cold fact.

"Balanced? Did I say that? An investigation can of course be balanced, but there's no virtue in dissimulating a truth that tilts wildly with the weight of the evil of one side or the other. "Split-the-difference" is not truth.


The only one operating by faith is you. I've provided ONLY facts. You've provided supposition and asked for the ASSUMPTION of doubt without providing any evidence whatsoever. Au contraire., M. Morgenthau. You obviously have a childlike faith in official truths as encountered in bookstores, newspapers and universities, without considering that they may not, in fact, be truths. And what's wrong with the assumption of doubt until one has sufficient real evidence?

So you're saying the Americans let him live because he made that statement?It's likely, givenwhat was going on at the time, who he was, and the nature of his testimony.


In American hands? An SS man who had been in the thick of every German atrocity from Gleiwitz to Malmedy would have been safer in American hands than a Russian conscript would have been in German captivity, thats for sure.Read about the interrogation of the SS members tried for complicity in the so-called Malmedy Massacre. And I don't mean on Nizcor--which can hardly claim objectivity, since upholding the Holocaust lie provides those whose interests they represent, with billions of dollars a year.

Or how about Dachau massacre (that's right, no quotes) in which US soldiers lined up and killed most of the guards at Dachau (the others got to be killed by the angry mob of former internees). Most of these guards were youngsters, disabled, or old men, recruited to guard the camp while the able went to the front.

[...]

I've listed some of the books I've used, in a preceding post. I'm off now for a while to do schoolwork. Meanwhile, why don't you consider broadening your research, instead of assuming you know it all. It really is much more "fun", as you put it, than enrolling as yes-man to the manufactured war-propaganda a great deal of the world has been induced to regard as the history of WWII.

Here's a portal to a great deal of interesting information: http://www.ihr.org .

Malmedy , the men were killed , they were unarmed .
The circumstances of the killings may never be known for certain , Peiper probably didn't know about it and its almost certain he didn't order it.
Dachau , it happened. Given what was found I don't condone but can understand , as far as the inmates killing the guards , I can understand why they would want to.

There are other killings which the SS certainly did carry out , I have put them to dr. Brandt in the past but he just writes them of as being unworthy of consideration and that as long as the dead were not Germans who really cares.
The victors don't write all the history .
I refer you to a number of books in my cases, which include German written histories of the 12th SS panzer Division , The Leibstandarte,autobiography works by Guderian and manstein , Kesselring a number of Kreigsmaine histories written by german authors who are respected internationally.
This victors write the history is a self serving statement which is not entirely accurate.

cerberus said;

Dachau , it happened. Given what was found I don't condone but can understand

That's very intriguing, what was found in Dachau that enables you to "understand" murder?

Reinhold,
The reaction of the inmates I can understand , the rage of the Allied soldiers I can understand , the behaviour of the people who staffed the camp can you explain that , the indifference , the neglect , the deaths ?
Understanding and condoning are two different things , don't confuse understanding with anything other than what it is , given the circumstances of what they found or do you find things camps like dachau everyday of the week ?
One thing always confused me having " resettled these unfortunate people to the east" why where they not simply left there , why march them back across Europe ?
Though AH and HH would have been glad to be rid of them , this si you realise Reinhold not a one way street and you have to accept it warts and all ?

The reaction of the inmates I can understand , the rage of the Allied soldiers I can understand , the behaviour of the people who staffed the camp can you explain that , the indifference , the neglect , the deaths ?

You are so "understanding" of allied crimes and yet you are not in the least concerned with establishing what actually happened.

When the allied troops arrived in the camps they had been fed full of all sorts of stories about deathfactories and the like, that is what they expected to find so that is what they found. Did you know that Dachau was portrayed as a "death camp" with gas chambers initially? Very quickly they realised this was not true, but by then it was too late for the poor wretches who had been murdered by the Americans and by communist prisoners.

The scenes of breakdwon adn death in Belsen and Dachau and other western camps was brought about through two major causes. Breakdown of logistics and supply lines thanks to indiscriminate allied bombing of everything that moved, supplies could only be moved at night and the whole system was disintegrating rapidly. Secondly, a massive influx of prisoners being evacuated from the eastern camps. Their arrival excaerbated the situation. Under these conditions typhus hit and spread killing many. The only foresnic pathologist in the western zone at the time - attached to the US 7th army, as far as I can remember, carried out autopsies on about 90 bodies and found the cause of death to be typhus.

When you arive in a camp where there are many dead and dying (from typhus) it would of course look like a "death factory", and that is what the allied soldiers had been conditioned to expect.

One thing always confused me having " resettled these unfortunate people to the east" why where they not simply left there , why march them back across Europe ?

Why indeed? Part of the answer may lie in the fact that the final solution (expulsion) was not implemented. There is an OKW (?) log entry which has Hitler saying to someone in response to a question that the FS would have to wait until after the war. Many of those prisoners would have been other categories, and what about the paid workers? They weren't just Jews.

They offered the choice to either stay and be "liberated" by the Red Army or go back to Germany with the "evil SS". You can read about this in Elie Wiesel's 'Night' and elsewhere. You want to know why they did this? I want to know why most prisoners chose to go with the "evil SS" rather than be "liberated" by the Red Army?

To your question, I would suggest that the camp officials did not like the idea of abandoning them to the tender mercies of the Soviets. You will of course find this laughable, but then you will still have to ask youself why most chose to go with the Germans?

Reinhold,
I simply don't believe you when you say the the prsioners went willingly.
Nor do I believe you when you say that the food suply system was destroyed and everything broke down .
I do believe you when you say that people died of thypus , the over crowding was compounded by the forced movement of prisoners.
In those conditions thypus spreads quickly and those contracting it had no means of resisting the inflection , and the camp staff made little or no effort to treat them.

I am surprised that the prisoners showed so little gratitude towards the SS for saving them from the Russians , did the Red Army kill the few the found alive at Auschwitz ?

Reinhold , I know you might think me something of a fool , but I am not as slow as I walk easy.

I simply don't believe you when you say the the prsioners went willingly

You don't have to believe me. This is what the "survivors" have said. See Elie Wiesel's Night; he said they were given a choice.

Another thing, why didn't the SS just kill them all? Why bother slowing themselves down with all these sick an dnweakend prisoners. Don't you see how the story does not make sense; on the one hand we are told the Germans were gassing them wholesale, a prigramme of systeamtic extermination then we are told they are going to all this trouble to bring them back to Germany with them. Big contradiction there staring us in the face!

Nor do I believe you when you say that the food suply system was destroyed and everything broke down .

Again, you don't have to believe me on this either. Go and read the history of the air campaign for the last few months of the war; both strategic and tactical. Typhoons and P-47's straffing everything that moved.

I do believe you when you say that people died of thypus , the over crowding was compounded by the forced movement of prisoners.

Again, this has nothing to do with believing me, these are merely the facts.

I am surprised that the prisoners showed so little gratitude towards the SS for saving them from the Russians , did the Red Army kill the few the found alive at Auschwitz ?

Certainly they would have killed any Russians they found there, but I imagine the Germans took them. BUt to no avail becasue your saintly beloved allies handed them all over to Stalin when they took control of Germany knowing they would be murdered - Operation Keelhaul.

Reinhold , I know you might think me something of a fool , but I am not as slow as I walk easy.

I think that you are obstinate in clinging on to official narratives rather than looking cooly at the facts without prejudice. I know its diffciult, we were all once believers . . .

- " Certainly they would have killed any Russians they found there, but I imagine the Germans took them. BUt to no avail becasue your saintly beloved allies handed them all over to Stalin when they took control of Germany knowing they would be murdered - Operation Keelhaul. "


Perhaps this is a nitpick, but not all of those "keelhauled" Russians were murdered - at least not immediately.

Some of them was executed right away, some of them sent home, and the majority sent to GULAG.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn met many of them in the camps, and some of them survived until the death of Stalin and the following rehabilitation.


Petr

Perhaps this is a nitpick, but not all of those "keelhauled" Russians were murdered - at least not immediately.

I suppose the unlucky ones were tormented further before being killed. There is also the fate of the VIth Army after Stalingrad . . .

Reinhold you would almost have me believe that the perosns you talk about were actually cared for and looked after.
I am sorry but I can't cross this gulf with you.

Regarding the 6th Army , certainly a terrible fate , in common with the NSDAP the NKVD had little value on life and few returned home.
I refer you again to the Fuhrer who consigned the 6th Army to its fate , he killed them as sure as any Russian bullet , and he cared not.

Reinhold you would almost have me believe that the perosns you talk about were actually cared for and looked after.

Not at that stage, but then neither were they gassed - obviously!

in common with the NSDAP the NKVD had little value on life and few returned home.

No sorry, there is no comparison. You are forgetting to mention how it was the Britsh who handed them over knowing precisely what their fate was to be.

I refer you again to the Fuhrer who consigned the 6th Army to its fate , he killed them as sure as any Russian bullet , and he cared not.

Complete BS and you know it. They were fighting a war - it was the USSR that repudiated the Geneva and Hague Conventions not the Germans.

Reinhold, you will no doubt be aware that Hitler himself stated that all laws and conventions were to be set aside and that the Russian was not to be viewed as a comrade soldier.
Comissar order speaks for itself.
I think you will find that Fade argued quite fluently in the past that germ,an was not bound by thesearticles and that they never signed them .
You will find that the war in the East was fought with little or no quarter given by any side .

Warts and all Reinhold , sauce for goose and same for the gander ?
Your recognition of "BS" is extremely limited and is highly selective.
Handing over of soviet citizens , certainly not a major brownie point for Allied forces on that i would agree.

Reinhold, you will no doubt be aware that Hitler himself stated that all laws and conventions were to be set aside and that the Russian was not to be viewed as a comrade soldier.

No doubt you will be aware that because of the USSR's repudiation of Geneva and Hague, Soviet prisoners were rendered rightless. That the Germans did often treat them humanely was a privilege not a right. So when the Germans treated their Soviet prisoners with consideration, as they did notwithstanding your predictable objections, they showed more resepct for them than their Bolshevik masters.

Comissar order speaks for itself

Which was not enforced on the ground and eventually recinded.

The Germans were full signatories to Geneva and Hague.

You will find that the war in the East was fought with little or no quarter given by any side .

True to a point but I have found many exceptions. Again, blame the Soviets for creating that situation.

Your recognition of "BS" is extremely limited and is highly selective.

LOL!
Stand in front of a mirror and say that aloud.

Handing over of soviet citizens , certainly not a major brownie point for Allied forces on that i would agree.

Oh, how grudging of you to admit that your saintly Brits were involved in knowingly aiding and abetting in mass murder! That "soviet citizens" is a piece of rhetoric that rather screams in its disingenuity.

Your chosen role of moralist is really quite distasteful you know.

I just have to point out that while the Germans probably set the tone in Russia, chances are if they hadn't done it the Russians would've sooner or later.

I mean, Christ, they treated their own people so shitty (taking Russian civilians and forcing them into German fire to clear minefields and force the Germans to waste ammo, sending Russian soldiers captured by the Germans who escaped to the gulags, etc) what chance is there they would have treated the Germans decently, even if the Germans treated Russian prisoners like bloody royalty?

I just have to point out that while the Germans probably set the tone in Russia, chances are if they hadn't done it the Russians would've sooner or later.

I would just like to remind you that in fact it was the Soviets who set the tone. Not only did they repudiate Geneva and Hague in the 1920's but they also conducted large scale partisan operations. Partisans at that time were not recognised as lawful combatants and were liable to be executed on capture. Partisan warfare also placed civilian populations in great danger because of reprisal raids etc. It may surprise and shock you to learn (it did me anyway) that reprisal shootings were not banned under the conventions at this time!

By repudiating Geneva and Hague they effectively rendered their own people rightless. That the Germans very often did treat their prisoners there humanely is a credit to them.

Uh, how many Russian POWs in German custody died again? The whole tone set by the NS administration, explicitly or implicitly, did not encourage German soldiers to treat Russian prisoners well.

Not to mention that the SS's racial policies in the East did a hell of a lot to turn away local populations that hated the Russians.

Uh, how many Russian POWs in German custody died again? The whole tone set by the NS administration, explicitly or implicitly, did not encourage German soldiers to treat Russian prisoners well.

Rubbish! Don't you understand this simple thing? The Soviets repudiated Geneva and Hague, therefore their people had NO rights under international law. If and when they were treated humanely it was because the Germans were more civilised than the Judeo-Bolsheviks who treated the Russians like animals. Its only when Stalin invoked "Mother Russia" that the people really fought. Aren't you forgetting the penal battalions and the NKVD follow up units with machine guns?

Not to mention that the SS's racial policies in the East did a hell of a lot to turn away local populations that hated the Russians.

More nonsense. How do you account for the droves of volunteers from the Ukraine and the Baltic states? Perhaps you should start studying history instead of watching the History Channel.

Reinhold,
Warts and all if you don't mind.
The war in the east was a war of no quarter driven by the masters on each side.
When I said Soviet citizens it did perhaps underpin the value of their lives to the Soviet Goverment , that was in part the point I was making.
When an objective view of the eastern front the two sides don't come out of it holding any of the moral high ground , the utter contempt for live shown by both leaderships is their common ground.

More nonsense. How do you account for the droves of volunteers from the Ukraine and the Baltic states? Perhaps you should start studying history instead of watching the History Channel.
The Balts were treated better than Ukes. The Nazis weren't exactly interested in Slavs asserting their nationalism.

Rubbish! Don't you understand this simple thing? The Soviets repudiated Geneva and Hague, therefore their people had NO rights under international law. If and when they were treated humanely it was because the Germans were more civilised than the Judeo-Bolsheviks who treated the Russians like animals. Its only when Stalin invoked "Mother Russia" that the people really fought. Aren't you forgetting the penal battalions and the NKVD follow up units with machine guns?

Did I not mention that the Russians treated their people badly?

The Germans were the ones who attacked first, and as they held the initiative they were the ones who set the tone. Russian troops were the first to surrender: How many survived? The Geneva Convention is not the issue here: The issue is that no matter what rules you're playing by, treating enemy prisoners well usually ensures they'll treat yours well, or at least better than they would otherwise.


More nonsense. How do you account for the droves of volunteers from the Ukraine and the Baltic states? Perhaps you should start studying history instead of watching the History Channel.

A lot of them, Balts especially, still hated the Russians more than the Germans. But the Germans could have had more allies. This would have been good for German prospects for victory. And what the hell is with this "History Channel" remark? I haven't watched anything on that channel in at least a year. What I *have* been doing is reading books. And not necessarily books by Nazi sympathizers, which I think may be what you dislike.

The Germans were the ones who attacked first, and as they held the initiative they were the ones who set the tone.

They set the momentum but the tone was set by the Soviets.

The issue is that no matter what rules you're playing by, treating enemy prisoners well usually ensures they'll treat yours well, or at least better than they would otherwise.

Quite, and it was the Soviets who showed clearly that they intended to throw the rule book out the window. The Germans eventually responded in kind.

I haven't watched anything on that channel in at least a year. What I *have* been doing is reading books. And not necessarily books by Nazi sympathizers, which I think may be what you dislike.

Your line is little different from what comes out of the box. I am not bothered if you do not read books by "Nazi sympathisers". Most histories are written from the allied point of view, where of course the Nazis are completely evil. That revisionism shows that this is far from being the case, does not make them "Nazi sympathisers" - although some may be - it makes them partisans of objectivity and truth.

Reinhold, warts and all .
You must be using "DAZ" to wash things so clean , this is the sort of answers which washing your credibility away with the crimes of the party edicts and the Orders rubber stamped by Keitel et al.

Reinhold you are so detached from reality that I begin to think that what you actually want is a blank cheque or get out of jail free card.

The arguement that "history is written by the victors" does wear a bit thin after a while , I am starting to think that you must be Dr. Brandt ;)
BTW I don't have the History Channel and I do have histories written by German authors mostly veterans of the Eastern Front.
This " it was the Russians who started it first" does not sit well with the policy of goverment as carried out in the east , the number of volunteers gathered could have been much more had a racist agenda not been followed and some consideration been given to the needs and aspirations of those who had previously sufferred under Stalin.

"Do not pass go and do not collect any Prisoners"

- "They set the momentum but the tone was set by the Soviets."


Well, if we follow that line of argument, we could say that Hitler had already in "Mein Kampf" (1923) announced his firm intention to get lebensraum for the Germans in the East:

" For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.

--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


In other words, Hitler intended to do for Russia what Alexander the Great did to the Persian Empire, and Soviet leaders were certainly aware of this.

The Soviet atrocities in the 1930s - forced-industrialization, purges - resulted to a large degree from the fact that Stalin was furiously preparing for the coming conflict with Germany, smashing all the internal dissent that might even potentially aid the enemy, and did care about the human costs.


Petr

Reinhold.
From kershaws "Nemesis" he provides the following quotes from Hitler on Batbarossa.
The "tone" as you dsecribe it is set in these few words.

"The forthcoming campaign is more than just an armed conflict; it will lead too, to a showdown of two different ideologies....The Jewish-Bolshevik intelligentsia , the "oppressor" of the people up to now , must be eliminated.
"Operational guidelines for Barbarossa" March 1941.

"We must forget the concept of comradeship between soldiers. A Communist is no comrade before ort after the battle. This is a war of annihilation.
Hitler addressing senior officers 30th March 1941.

"Whether right or wrong , we must win....And when we have won, who will ask us about the method".
Hitler, speaking to Goebbels , 16th June 1941.

Meeting which took place on 16th july1941 at the Fuhrer Headquarters attended by Goring , Rosenberg, Lammers , Keitel and Bormann.
Hitler estiblished policy and guidelines for adminstratio of the eastern lands.

Bormann party Sec. records.
" The motivation of our stepsin the eyes of the worldmust be directed by tactical viewpoints. We must proceed here exactly as we did in the cases of Norway , Denmark, Holland and belgium. In these cases, too , we had said nothing about our intentions and we will sensibly continue not to do so.
"We will then again emphasize that we were compelled to occupy an area to bring order , and to impose security. In the interest of the native population we had to see to providing calm , food, transport etc.Therefore our settlement. It should ten not be recogniziable that a final settlement is begining ! All necessary measures- shooting, deportation -we will and can do anyway..
We don't want to make any premature or unnecessary enemies. We will simply act, therefore, as if we wish to carry out a mandate.But it must be clear to us that we wiull never again leave these territories."
The words are Hitlers.

With these you can forget any idea of acting in the interets of or giving consideration to other european Nations and their peoples , all are subserviant to the german interest.
Russia would be likewise , did he not say that the local population would need only a basic education to allow them to serve their German masters and betters.

The war against Russia be in no mistake reinhold Hitler set the tone before the first shot was ever fired and he too had set out that any idea of a brotherhood of European Nations was but propaganda , the occupied countries only role was to serve Germany and would be bent to her will accordingly.
Hitler had set the tone.

Cerberus, you might be interested in this thread here, relating to the siege of Leningrad:

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60489

Potyondi kind of overdid it, I wouldn't even want to try to sort through the volume of material he presents. But, it is all supposedly source material, in German with an English translation. And it is very similar to what you're quoting...and just as disturbing.

Cool name, btw.

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator
It must have taken the Zionists a long time forging these documents!

What attention to detail!
Good point.

Reinhold.
From kershaws "Nemesis" he provides the following quotes from Hitler on Batbarossa.
The "tone" as you dsecribe it is set in these few words.

"The forthcoming campaign is more than just an armed conflict; it will lead too, to a showdown of two different ideologies....The Jewish-Bolshevik intelligentsia , the "oppressor" of the people up to now , must be eliminated.
"Operational guidelines for Barbarossa" March 1941.

"We must forget the concept of comradeship between soldiers. A Communist is no comrade before ort after the battle. This is a war of annihilation.
Hitler addressing senior officers 30th March 1941.

"Whether right or wrong , we must win....And when we have won, who will ask us about the method".
Hitler, speaking to Goebbels , 16th June 1941.

Cerberus, you sit comfortably in the armchair of a decadent cizilisation, til, of course, you feel the need to get up and stand on your soap box and piously preach to those who are not as lost in their own self-righteousness as you yourself are, those who view the universe with their eyes wide open.

From such a great and giddy height, I know it must be difficult to your eyes, for you view a common grass snake to be as dangerous as a death adder.

The war against Russia be in no mistake reinhold Hitler set the tone before the first shot was ever fired and he too had set out that any idea of a brotherhood of European Nations was but propaganda , the occupied countries only role was to serve Germany and would be bent to her will accordingly. Hitler had set the tone.

Hitler could assume many things about Bolshevism based on his own experiences, he witnessed with his own eyes Eisner's Bavarian State. He also knew all about the cruelty, stupidity and brutal terror of Bela Kun's Hungary. National Socialists, like Rosenberg, who had returned to the Reich from the Baltic States would also have given testament to Bolshevik methods having lived through them.

In short, to have any hope of success Hitler had to stoop to his enemies proven level.

"USA Presidential Candidate John Kerry is proud to claim Béla Kun (Kohn) as his near-relative. Kerry's grandfather, Israel Kohn, changed his name to Kerry, upon immigrating to America."

:222 :222 :222

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

The judgment whether a people is virtuous or not virtuous can hardly be passed by a human being. That should be left to God.
—Adolf Hitler Speech delivered at Wilhelmshaven (April 1, 1939)

But then again Hitler never met Cerberus. :p

Hyperborea,
From my great height , boy the vertigo is really bad. :rolleyes:
Refer you to my point that common ground did exist between Hitler and Stalin and the two political systems. ( In case you missed it their willingness to exploit others and their collective disregard for life ).
I am always amused when any critical view of Hitlers morality (or lack of it) is viewed as being "Self-righteousness". ( Which is exactly the attitude you have adopted , you forget I have equal contempt for both Hitler and Stalin).
There was nothing glorious about the eastern front especially if you were taken prisoner , the exerince was common.
The tone had been set and your playing the " we had to do it to win" cuts no ice. "GOOJF"
I refer you again to what Hitler described as " our intentions" and "our" sensible silence regarding "our intentions".

Hyperborea,
From my great height , boy the vertigo is really bad. :rolleyes:

Where are my manners? Please feel free return to your armchair.

[QUOTE=cerberus]Refer you to my point that common ground did exist between Hitler and Stalin and the two political systems. ( In case you missed it their willingness to exploit others and their collective disregard for life ).[QUOTE=cerberus]

Like the ground which existed between the allies and good old Uncle Joe ;)

[QUOTE=cerberus]I am always amused when any critical view of Hitlers morality (or lack of it) is viewed as being "Self-righteousness". ( Which is exactly the attitude you have adopted , you forget I have equal contempt for both Hitler and Stalin).[QUOTE=cerberus]

There is such a thing as a dual morality and if you have ever found love in your heart for at least one other person you might be able to understand it. And I didn't forget.

[QUOTE=cerberus]There was nothing glorious about the eastern front especially if you were taken prisoner , the exerince was common.[QUOTE=cerberus]

Yes, war is brutal. One behaves as the other does, or as the other is perceived to have done.

[QUOTE=cerberus]The tone had been set and your playing the " we had to do it to win" cuts no ice. "GOOJF"[QUOTE=cerberus]

The tone had been set by the Bolsheviks in the period 1917-1922 and during the Ukranian Famines of 1921-22 and 1932-33. And of course it does cut the ice, at least in the West where historians continually attempt to justify the aerial warfare and the destruction wrought on Germany's cities and death on its civilians.

[QUOTE=cerberus]I refer you again to what Hitler described as " our intentions" and "our" sensible silence regarding "our intentions".[QUOTE=cerberus]

All great powers are the same. Are you aware of the future plans currently being hatched by the power elite in America? They are out of sight and I can't see from this level, so I for one am not. When playing for high stakes cards are to be held close to the chest, otherwise you'd be a fool. Anyways, events are liquid and intentions aren't actions.

Perhaps, one day all of America's secrets will be bought out into the light of day

HB you say what "about the Aliies" and then you do exactly the same yourself.
Keep to the subject of the east.
It was never going to be a remotely humane conflict , both Hitler and Stalin would see to that.
Hitler set the tone before the first shot was fired and he continued to do so in his treatemtn of the local population who could have been won over.
Keeping secrets of intent , you skirt away from the issue that everything was going to be second to the interests of german and this much talked about European front against Communism was but propaganda.

"We had to do it to win". Bombing again .
Big difference between destroying industry and the killing of surrendered soldiers by way of orders selective or otherwise and the killing of local population / sections of them.
BTW Bombing was a two way street, you would think that only the Allies bombed , germany did exactly the same , the only restraint being her lack of suitable aircraft not the will to do it.
( Yes , I am fully aware of the civilian population and bombing , again it was not a one way street).
In famines which Stalin engineered , read Stalin in common with Hitler their respect for life will endure for all time. :rolleyes:

BTW My armchair was on the soap box ;) One must have comfort all that standing bad for the veins and V.V's are most unsightly.

Proven level of the enemy , Hitler was already there , he defined it.
Differences between snakes , I think its you who even at ground level can't see , are you colour blind by any chance.
If you are looking in black and white the grass snake is sort of green the adder well hes a bit bigger , and has a very nice diamond pattern on him.

HB you say what "about the Aliies" and then you do exactly the same yourself.
Keep to the subject of the east.
It was never going to be a remotely humane conflict , both Hitler and Stalin would see to that.
Hitler set the tone before the first shot was fired and he continued to do so in his treatemtn of the local population who could have been won over.
Keeping secrets of intent , you skirt away from the issue that everything was going to be second to the interests of german and this much talked about European front against Communism was but propaganda.
Very well.

Very well. I agree it was never going to be a humane conflict. I wholly disagree that Hitler set the tone and I have given you my reasons, if you still fail to understand and cannot see what Bolshevism in Europe was in the period 1917-1922 I cannot help you. In fact I don't think anybody can.

"We had to do it to win". Bombing again .
Big difference between destroying industry and the killing of surrendered soldiers by way of orders selective or otherwise and the killing of local population / sections of them.
BTW Bombing was a two way street, you would think that only the Allies bombed , germany did exactly the same , the only restraint being her lack of suitable aircraft not the will to do it.
( Yes , I am fully aware of the civilian population and bombing , again it was not a one way street).
In famines which Stalin engineered , read Stalin in common with Hitler their respect for life will endure for all time.

I know of a small village in Western Germany with a population of approximately 1000 inhabitants, with no military-industrial base whatsoever which was bombed during the war. As well as with many other villages and towns of only cultural importance, Cleves is a good example of this. You have of course heard and understood the spirit of the Lindemann plan?

No I don't think only the allies bombed. You are being absurd and are obscuring the discussion. However, with regards to a policy which aimed purely at the killing and terrorizing of the civilian population the British dropped the first bomb and here the Anglo-Saxons hold first place.

I don't recall Hitler purposefully starving his people to death, nor literally stealing sustenance from out of their mouths.

It depends upon what you would view as a life of purpose. If you are speaking of the beauty, honour and dignity of Weimar then please forget it.

BTW My armchair was on the soap box One must have comfort all that standing bad for the veins and V.V's are most unsightly.

In which case, do take care not to fall off. :D

Proven level of the enemy , Hitler was already there , he defined it.

This is tiresome. No he did not define it no he was not already there. 1939-1945 is not a world nor thing-in-itself but rather this period of time is a part of a greater thread of time.

Differences between snakes , I think its you who even at ground level can't see , are you colour blind by any chance.
If you are looking in black and white the grass snake is sort of green the adder well hes a bit bigger , and has a very nice diamond pattern on him.

Would you then treat with a common grass snake in the same manner with which you would a death adder ? :confused:

HB.
Why stand when you can sit , I come from a long line of circus preformers. :D
Snakes , seems you can't see them very clearly and you are a good deal closer than me...Hitler / Stalin same breed of snake to me the flags and slogans changed , the nature of the snake remained the same.
Allies and Stalin , things cooled very quickly.
Dirty tricks started before WW2 was over.

Stalin , yes I am aware of his track record which is up there with Satan and Hitlers.
Setting the tone , the quotes I gave stand on their own merits and throught them Hitler very much set the tone.
As far as Hitler never starving people or killing his own people , again I say T4 and those people who he deprived of their citizenship before he had them abused further.
:jew: 's were also German first.
Likewise I know small villages which were bombed by German aircraft creepback and lost aircraft account for such.
CLeves , did you ever hear Horricks talking about the order / request he gave for bombing of the town , he did not ask for it lightly .

Hitler / Stalin same breed of snake to me the flags and slogans changed , the nature of the snake remained the same.
Allies and Stalin , things cooled very quickly.
Dirty tricks started before WW2 was over.

That is not my opinion. The allied alliance held together whilst Roosevelt lived, I believe that to be of some importance. Dirty tricks started before WW2 was begun.

Stalin , yes I am aware of his track record which is up there with Satan and Hitlers.
Setting the tone , the quotes I gave stand on their own merits and throught them Hitler very much set the tone.
As far as Hitler never starving people or killing his own people , again I say T4 and those people who he deprived of their citizenship before he had them abused further.

Funny you should mention Satan, a Jewish desert spook :222

You take those quotes somewhat out of context. Why did Hitler draw those conclusions? His view of the Bolsheviks as ruthless and brutal dogs fell not from the clear blue sky.

"Killing his own people" you are putting words in my mouth I never spoke, which of course allows you to mention T4 and start banging your drum again. I refuse to argue with you about T4 as it would be a long and pointless debate. I've been there before, and I am not fond of deja vu.

and those people who he deprived of their citizenship before he had them abused further.

Citizenship laws are constantly being altered.

:jew: 's were also German first.

I reckon not, be it for better or for worst, Jews are Jews first and foremost.

Likewise I know small villages which were bombed by German aircraft creepback and lost aircraft account for such.

Are you or are you not aware of the Lindemann plan? Do you understood the spirit of the Lindemann plan? I can only believe you to be lying by omission here, or is your selective memory playing up again?

CLeves , did you ever hear Horricks talking about the order / request he gave for bombing of the town , he did not ask for it lightly.

His heavy heart, I am sure was of comfort to those who were killed in the bombing. :rolleyes:

If I might borrow the name of a band my daughter saw earlier this week.
Tell me about the plan , if its bomber realted I can look it up at this end.
T4 only creeps in as when you mentioned starving people and taking the bite from their mouth death usually follows , does the method really matter that much ?
:jew: 's being :jew: 's first that is your opinion one which is racist and is not objective. they held german citizenship paid taxes and contributed to the country , if they went abroad they did so using a German passport.
Its a religion not a national identity.
Does this make Catholic Germans something other than German ?
Hitler was as comitted to the use of violence as the Communists were , it was a means to an end, thus exit ER and the Strassers.

De ja vu Know what you mean , don't really want to get back into all that stuff either , but the value system which gave birth to it is still relevant.
I would remind you again of the plans to enslave the local Russian population and to subdue them completly , being rid of an members of that population with any military training or potential leadership would also follow.
Why have Red Army POW's if they might be potential enemies on the land as workers ?

"USA Presidential Candidate John Kerry is proud to claim Béla Kun (Kohn) as his near-relative. Kerry's grandfather, Israel Kohn, changed his name to Kerry, upon immigrating to America."


Quite frankly, I don't believe this, not just because of some puny Wikipedia article says so.

There are MYRIADS of Ashkenazim named "Kohn."


Petr

If I might borrow the name of a band my daughter saw earlier this week. Tell me about the plan , if its bomber realted I can look it up at this end.

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

Whilst you might object to the cant of the website I will link for you, J. M. Spaight was the Principle Asst. Sec. of the British Air Ministry. Do you disregard his testimony?

BOMBER COMMAND: THE MYTHS AND REALITY OF THE STRATEGIC BOMBING OFFENSIVE 1939-45 by Max Hastings

Quotes Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of Air Staff, to his Deputy on 15 February, "Ref. the new bombing directive: I suppose it is clear that the aiming-points are to be built-up areas, not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories ... This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood."

"searching for an area target that they could find, strike, and utterly destroy."
In this particular case Hansestadt Lubeck. "Above all it was an old, closely-packed medieval town that would burn far better than the spacious avenues of any modern metropolis..."

General Sir Frederick Pile, Chief of British Flak Defence told B.H. Liddell Hart

"Winston is pinning all his faith to the bombing offensive now. The devastation it causes suits his temperament, and he would be disappointed at a less destructive ending to the war."

David Irving - Hitler's War

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/html_chapter/09.html

"This was the dilemma confronting Hitler that summer. He hesitated to crush the British. Accordingly, he could not put his heart into the invasion planning—G–ring at least noticed this and drew the appropriate conclusions. More fatefully, Hitler initially stayed the hand of the Luftwaffe and forbade any attack on London under pain of court-martial ; the all-out saturation bombing of London, which his strategic advisers Raeder, Jodl, and Jeschonnek all urged upon him, was vetoed for one implausible reason after another. Though his staffs were instructed to examine every peripheral British position—Gibraltar, Egypt, the Suez Canal—for its vulnerability to attack, the heart of the British Empire was allowed to beat on, unmolested until it was too late and its armor of fighter squadrons and antiaircraft batteries rendered it impregnable. In these months an adjutant overheard Hitler heatedly shouting into a Chancellery telephone, “We have no business to be destroying Britain. We are quite incapable of taking up her legacy,” meaning the empire ; and he spoke of the “devastating consequences” of the collapse of that empire."

"One night late in August 1940, British aircraft appeared over Berlin for the first time and dropped a few scattered incendiary bombs. Hitler refused to believe that Churchill could have authorized such a folly, given the Luftwaffe’s intimidating superiority in bombers ; but in the early hours of the twenty-ninth word was telephoned to the Berghof that the bombers had again struck Berlin and that this time ten civilians had been killed. Evidently the Reich capital now faced an ordeal of fire by night."

"As for the night bombardment of Germany’s Ruhr cities that Churchill had begun three months before, Hitler now announced he would reply measure for measure and more. “If they proclaim they will attack our cities on a grand scale, we will wipe their cities out !” "

:jew: 's being :jew: 's first that is your opinion one which is racist and is not objective. they held german citizenship paid taxes and contributed to the country, Its a religion not a national identity.

You are not serious are you? I suppose racism is in the eye of the beholder.

You previously mentioned your daughter. Let us say that your daughter were to meet a good fellow, of the same race, falling in love with him, they marry and immigrate to China. In the years following she will give birth to two children, together the five of them proceed to protest and pester in order to gain Chinese citizenship, which is eventually granted [An enlightened ruler, or out of exasperation?]. Tell me, by this event, would your daughter, her husband, and their children become Chinese?

They held Citizenship, which is a privilege and not a right, from the eighteenth century until 1935 at which point in time the qualifications for Citizenship were changed, and they could no longer qualify.

Aristotle was never granted Athenian citzenship.

Jewry is neither merely a religion nor a national identity, but an ethnicity. Hence, Karl Marx, an atheist Jew.

Does this make Catholic Germans something other than German ?

You are being absurd again. The German Nation is a genus, body organism. The genetic heritage of the Germans existed before they chose to profess the Catholic faith. The Jews of Germany were in-wanderers [volkerwanderung], initially from the south, then in the last three hundred years, from the east.

I would remind you again of the plans to enslave the local Russian population and to subdue them completely , being rid of an members of that population with any military training or potential leadership would also follow. Why have Red Army POW's if they might be potential enemies on the land as workers ?

Do you talk about the perhaps, rather dubious document: General Plan Ost. A document which did not survive the war and can only be "reconstructed from memos, abstracts and other ancillary documents".

I would remind you again of the plans to enslave the local Russian population and to subdue them completely , being rid of an members of that population with any military training or potential leadership would also follow.

I need no reminding.

- " Do you talk about the perhaps, rather dubious document: General Plan Ost. "


No need for anything that fancy, Hitler's own Table Talks are more than enough.

" 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! "

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3918&page=4&pp=10&highlight=hundred+million


Petr

Quite frankly, I don't believe this, not just because of some puny Wikipedia article says so.

There are MYRIADS of Ashkenazim named "Kohn." Petr

Yes, a leap of faith would certainly be required to believe so blanket a statement, and without any evidence on offer to weigh the scales with.

- " Do you talk about the perhaps, rather dubious document: General Plan Ost. "


No need for anything that fancy, Hitler's own Table Talks are more than enough.

" 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! "

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3918&page=4&pp=10&highlight=hundred+million Petr

I don't doubt the intent so much as I do the existence of the document. The statement itself raises one or two questions. How many of the one hundred million Slavs would have been considered by Hitler to be the "the best of them"?

And what would the precise details of isolation entail?

- "And what would the precise details of isolation entail?"


You should have read that thread a bit further:


"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."

and:

"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."


Petr

HB its you that is being absurd , the law was changed to deny citizenship and remove this section of german society from the national life.
To me if a people live in a country for 300 years they have a right to be considered part of the nation.
Jewish germans did serve in 14-18 did they not , although they would not be spared.
Hitler was recommended for EK 1st Class by an officer who was Jewish.
The Doctor who attended Hitlers mother when she was dying was Jewish , was he not ?
An absurd law , a sick joke of a law. Absurd to say the least , but in this case absurb is in the eye of the beholder.
Max Hastings book , yes its on a book acse beside me .
Without going into a bombing debate ( again) I would point out that the germans were dropping fire bombs as well it was part of their standard pay load , same rational , HE to expose the timbers fire bombs to do the rest.
You are familiar with the term " Bullshit Bomber" , RAF dropped more leaflets than anything else prior to BoB.
As far as the daft quote from ffp. London had no hope of defending itself , AA was totally inefective and there was no nightfighter force. London was easy to find and could be seen burning a long way off.
Berlin on the other hand with no long range aids , no PFF no marking system was difficult to find as was any German city or target the bombs you claim which rained down on german Cities fell mostly on farm land.
The Baltic targets , because these they could find.
If it mean destroying surrounding areas to hit industry so be it , it was the only way to carry the war to Germany and as time went on accuracy increased.
Haris was right when he said that Germany thought she would do all the bombing , Hitler must have thought the same when he said there would be no need for a NJG force.
Correct me if I am wrong but did not some German bombs fall on London first ?
Don't worry I can easily check this.
Petr has answered on the other point , I see no need to repeat his words.

- "And what would the precise details of isolation entail?"


You should have read that thread a bit further:


"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."

and:

"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."


Petr

Thank you. I have read Hitler saying though, that he wished to encourage as many different sects of Christianity in as many different villages as possible to maintain a disunity. I'll try to track down the source.

HB its you that is being absurd...

Not at all.

...the law was changed to deny citizenship and remove this section of german society from the national life

Now, that statement is true. Don't you ever wonder why?

To me if a people live in a country for 300 years they have a right to be considered part of the nation.

That is for the State to decide.

Jewish germans did serve in 14-18 did they not , although they would not be spared.

Some yes. Do you know if this was at a proportionate rate? And if casualties were at a proportionate rate?

Hitler was recommended for EK 1st Class by an officer who was Jewish. The Doctor who attended Hitlers mother when she was dying was Jewish , was he not ?

The first statement is untrue. The second one is true.

An absurd law , a sick joke of a law. Absurd to say the least , but in this case absurb is in the eye of the beholder.

Not absurd at all, it was done for a purpose.

London was easy to find and could be seen burning a long way off.

Actually not always. It was the experience of the 10th Bomber Squadron, based in Yorkshire, to mistake the Thames estuary for the Rhine and bomb an RAF station at Bassingbourn in Cambridgeshire.

You are familiar with the term " Bullshit Bomber" , RAF dropped more leaflets than anything else prior to BoB.

And what did those leaflets say Cerberus? Please tell me I would really like to know.

Berlin on the other hand with no long range aids , no PFF no marking system was difficult to find as was any German city or target the bombs you claim which rained down on german Cities fell mostly on farm land.

True enough, the British bombing raids of 1939-1940 could be described thusly: "again and again at this period, Germany would be genuinely unaware that Bomber Command had been attempting to attack a specific target or even a specific region. There was merely a litter of explosives on farms, homes, lakes, forests and -- occasionally -- on factories and installations from end to end of the Reich."

If it mean destroying surrounding areas to hit industry so be it...

You fail to understand. The idea was to kill and terrorize as much of the civilian population as possible.

Correct me if I am wrong but did not some German bombs fall on London first ?

Dates please.

You must be using "DAZ" to wash things so clean , this is the sort of answers which washing your credibility away with the crimes of the party edicts and the Orders rubber stamped by Keitel et al.

Sarcasm cannot help you here. Would you actually like to discuss the facts about the Commisar Order?

Reinhold you are so detached from reality that I begin to think that what you actually want is a blank cheque or get out of jail free card

"Reality" here meaning the fabulous one-sided official history of WW II in which the Saintly Allies Who Can Do No Wrong heroically saved the planet from the Evil Nazis?

The arguement that "history is written by the victors" does wear a bit thin after a while ,

I suppose the truth does wear thin and become irritating for those who prefer fairy tales.

I am starting to think that you must be Dr. Brandt ;)

:D No, but I feel I must take up the vital task of Idiotenentsorgung after his abrupt and uncalled for depature.

This " it was the Russians who started it first" does not sit well with the policy of goverment as carried out in the east

Is it that you have a comprehension problem or what? No one disputes that the Germans treated their western POW's very well indeed, whereas in the East things were slightly different. Has it not ocurred to you that western allies were signed up to Geneva and Hague whereas the Soviets were not? Has it not occured to you that if partisan warfare is illegal, then those engaged in it are criminals and subject to execution? Are you so blinded by the triumphalist propaganda you were brought up with that you cannot see the obvious?

Petr said;

The Soviet atrocities in the 1930s - forced-industrialization, purges - resulted to a large degree from the fact that Stalin was furiously preparing for the coming conflict with Germany, smashing all the internal dissent that might even potentially aid the enemy, and did care about the human costs.

This is great - the Christian defending the atheist Church-persecuting Bolsheviks.

You have exceeded even yourself here Petr. The suggestion being that the Germans were somehow responsible for the Soviet's domestic criminal regime!

I'll try to track down the source.

Found it: Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944 p671

"In the Eastern territories, our policy should be to encourage the survival of as many religious sects and communities as possible. If anyone should try to form them into one corporate entity, I shall have plenty to say to him; I should like each petty little district to have its own Pope."

- "This is great - the Christian defending the atheist Church-persecuting Bolsheviks."


I'm just calmly and rationally trying to evaluate the motives of both Stalin and Hitler, and what drove them to their deeds.

And I'm not alone in my estimation that Stalin's purges, crushing all independent will in Russia, made it possible for Soviets to stand the German attack without an internal collapse.

(There never was equivalent of "Stauffenberg plot" in USSR!)


Just listen to Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler:

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


"The Russian leadership

First, the military situation. I will begin with Russia. When -- I believe it was in 1937 or 1938 -- the great show trials were being held in Moscow, and the ex-Czarist officer and later Bolshevik general Tuchachevski and other generals were shot, we were, at that time, all over Europe, even in the Party and the SS, of the opinion that the Bolshevik system, and therefore Stalin, had made one of its most serious mistakes.

We were absolutely mistaken in this judgment of the situation. We can state this, once and for all, in a spirit of full respect for the truth. I believe that Russia could not have withstood the two years of war -- it is now in the third year of war -- had it retained its ex-Czarist generals. It turned -- I'll discuss this first of all -- its political commissars into generals, it sought out those who had grown up through the Red Army as commanders, as generals, so that they could simultaneously act as political commissars. The stubbornest bearers of the will of the Bolshevik... doctrine, I should like to call it, not an ideology ... is, in Russia, simultaneously a commander and leader. "


Petr

"In the Eastern territories, our policy should be to encourage the survival of as many religious sects and communities as possible. If anyone should try to form them into one corporate entity, I shall have plenty to say to him; I should like each petty little district to have its own Pope."


Yes, apparently Hitler had many different plans on how to keep Slavs utterly powerless.


Petr

And I'm not alone in my estimation that Stalin's purges, crushing all independent will in Russia, made it possible for Soviets to stand the German attack without an internal collapse.

I'm sure you are not alone! That the purges may have prepared the USSR better able to withstand attack is different from the previous implication that somehow the Germans must bear responsibility for that barbaric regime. I don't agree with you anyway.

Equally, there are those who are of the view that Stalin was preparing to invade the west and that the Germans beat them to the post.

I can understand why you might like to identify with someone who believed that "crushing independent will" is laudable.

- " That the purges may have prepared the USSR better able to withstand attack is different from the previous implication that somehow the Germans must bear responsibility for that barbaric regime. "


A very indirect responsibility, nothing to feel sorry about. A bit like the aggression of Bolshevism gave birth to National Socialism.



- "I can understand why you might like to identify with someone who believed that "crushing independent will" is laudable."


A cheap shot - when did I say that I found Stalin's behavior laudable?

I only say that his actions made certain sense in a BRUTAL, DARWINIAN, AMORAL manner - and it is the NAZIS who should be able to appreciate Stalin's methods, and like I just showed, Himmler in fact did!


Petr

A very indirect responsibility, nothing to feel sorry about. A bit like the aggression of Bolshevism gave birth to National Socialism.

This is very lame. Barbarity is inherent to Bolshevism - it began within months of their gaining power; the terror, class war, destroying the Kulaks.

Thye NS was in part a response to the threat of Bolshevism, it was also a determination to destroy the unjust Versailles and put an end to pernicious Jewish influence.

A cheap shot - when did I say that I found Stalin's behavior laudable?

Not really - isn't 'crushing independent will' part of the Christian thing? The 'sin of pride?' Then there is the crushing of heresy and all the rest. I'm sure there all sorts of interesting comparions to be made between Bolshevism and Christianity.

and it is the NAZIS who should be able to appreciate Stalin's methods, and like I just showed, Himmler in fact did!

Himmler was nowhere in comparison to Stalin and his chums. Himmler there is commenting only on the purge of the army, noton the terror, Kulaks, Gulag system etc.

- "Barbarity is inherent to Bolshevism - it began within months of their gaining power; the terror, class war, destroying the Kulaks."


In fact, the destroying of Kulaks began only eleven years after the revolution, 1928-1929, when Communists had stabilized their rule and could begin their "class war" in the earnest.

Likewise, we could presume that it would take about ten years for National Socialists to secure their position before they could begin exterminating their opponents in a really massive scale...

When you dealing with totalitarian regimes, you should always remember that more they feel themselves secured, the more they feel free from consequences and therefore more brutal they become.

Have you noticed how "the final solution" of the Jewish problem (whatever that meant) began immediately in December 1941, after Hitler had gone to war with the United States, and no longer had to care about its public opinion?


- "Not really - isn't 'crushing independent will' part of the Christian thing? "

Only in the feverish paranoid dreams of people who have a nerve to call themselves as "freethinkers."

God loathes worship that doesn't come from the heart (quite unlike Stalin):

"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:23-24 (NKJV)


- "Then there is the crushing of heresy and all the rest."

What happened to Strasser brothers, or the Röhm faction? Their "socialist nationalism" was considered to be "a heresy."

(Also, if you think that pagans were incapable of heresy-hunting and censorship, you should see how Plato treated Homer's poetry)


- "I'm sure there all sorts of interesting comparions to be made between Bolshevism and Christianity."

Myriads of talentless anti-Christian hacks have done such shallow comparisons. Sure, Christianity prohibits reckless selfishness. What about it? Do you think that Nazi Germany was some sort of paradise of individuality?

Ever heard of the slogan "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz"?



- "Himmler was nowhere in comparison to Stalin and his chums. "

In the terms of mentality, he was entirely comparable.

"What happens to the Russians, the Czechs, is totally indifferent to me. Whatever is available to us in good blood of our type, we will take for ourselves, that is, we will steal their children and bring them up with us, if necessary. Whether other races live well or die of hunger is only of interest to me insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise that doesn't interest me. Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down from exhaustion [verb: "umfallen"] in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany. "

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


Petr

Reinhold I refer you back to the quotes I provided earlier on the tone set by Hitler.
Stalin , Hitler two of a kind I will make no attempt to defend them.
I would however apologise for my terrible keybpoard skills , "crap and I know they are".
The leaflets probably said how nasty Hitler was and how the reich was doomed to defeat etc , some even said that French soldiers were having " relationships" with German girls when Fritz was at the front.
Allied propaganda was just as bad as German propaganda.
I don't think 10 Squadrion made it a regular occurance of bombing their own people.
The purpose of the "law" was to make Germany a racist state and to provide a base for this to be advanced.
The first I will check on again , could be faulty memory on my part.
Go beyond 41, into 42 , it was poor even then.

Bombing people , industry and its workforce.
they failed just as Germany had failed and would fail again in 44-5 with the V1-2.
America failed at the same game in the 60-70's.
Dates I will have to look up , will try to do this this evening , I think Ebusitanus and I had this point out some time back but again faulty memory on my part ( perhaps).
Reinhold I will have to look up details of the order , give me a while to do that .
Scarcasm , I know a low form of humour but I have detected some from you as well . No injury to pride or otherwise intended, I would apologise for any percieved.

Reinhold partasians being shot I have no problem with its a chance they take , but Germany did go a little over board in the east .
The local population got shot by both sides , water a Germans horse and you get shot , the Russians steal your bread and you get shot , great life.
REprislas for partsaian actions against the locals is illegal and is outside the "rules of war" , likewise starving POWs is likewise and killing them , both sides did this.
Fairy tales no , Saintly Allies , their track record was better than Hitlers , wearing thin .
Yes when its used as a means of painting war crimes as being none events.
Dr. Brandts departure , you will have to take it up with fade.
Abrupt , not according to fade , seems he was trying to reason with him for ages and he got no where , that's what I take from it.
Commisar order I will get back to you on.

Here are some excerpts which might be worth reading.

Sir Charles Snow, Science and Government (pp. 47-48.).

'Early in 1942 Professor Lindemann, by this time Lord Cherwell and a member of the Cabinet, laid a cabinet paper before the Cabinet on the strategic bombing of Germany. It described in quantitative terms the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942 - September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and "military objectives" had long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too difficult to find and hit. The paper claimed that - given a total concentration of effort on the production and use of aircraft - it would be possible, in all the larger towns of Germany (that is, those with more than 50,000 inhabitants), to destroy 50 per cent of all houses.'

David Irving Hitler’s War p328

“One night late in August 1940 British aircraft appeared over Berlin for the first time and dropped a few scattered incendiary bombs. In the early hours of the twenty-ninth word was telephoned to the Berghof that the bombers had again struck Berlin and that this time ten civilians had been killed. Evidently the capital now faced an ordeal of fire by night. That same afternoon Hitler flew back to Berlin.”

Page 330
“As for the night bombardment of Germany’s Ruhr cities that Churchill had begum three months before [in June], Hitler now announced he would reply measure for measure and more. ‘If they proclaim they will attack our cities on a grand scale, we shall wipe their cities out!’ On the fifth [of September 1940] however Churchill’s bombers came again to the Reich capital, killing fifteen more Berliners. Over lunch on September 6, it was plain that Hitler’s patience was at low ebb. ‘The Fuhrer,’ noted Goebbels, ‘is fed up. He clears London for bombing. It is to begin tonight.’”

{The Royal Air Force official history says: “The attack on the Ruhr … was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London.”}

Page 332
“He [Hitler] would still not permit the Luftwaffe to carry out saturation bombing raids on London’s residential districts, as Goering’s Chief of Staff Jeschonnek had requested.”

{By the end of August, 1940 the British had already dropped 6,766 tons of bombs on Germany. The ‘Blitz’ did not begin until September of 1940.}

Benjamin Colby, Twas a Famous Victory p173

”A myth which is still generally believed, despite the publication of British official histories and memoirs frankly stating the contrary, is that the bombing of civil populations began with the blitz of London in September 1940. Actually the bombing of German cities, as attested to by official British histories, began nearly four months before any bombs fell on London, and the blitz itself was deliberately encouraged by Prime Minister Churchill. With British fighter airfields suffering acutely from Luftwaffe assaults, Churchill ordered a series of night raids on Berlin for the specific purpose of diverting German attacks from the airfields to London. After Berlin was attacked six times, the German air force was ordered to attack London, and, as Churchill anticipated, the pressure on the airfields was relieved. Thus began the blitz.
That Britain began the bombing was not revealed at the time. Not until 1944, when the tide of war had turned heavily against Germany, did the Air Ministry seeking credit for its achievements, admit it. The principal assistant secretary of the Air Ministry, J.M. Spaight, then wrote proudly: “We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland.” He said frankly that “because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 1940 the publicity which it deserved”

David Irving, Churchill’s War Volume One The Struggle for Power Page 181

”He [Churchill] treated the laws of war with abandon. A year later the chief of air staff would refuse to allow assassins to parachute into France in plain clothes. When the Air Staff submitted legal objection to his project for mining enemy rivers, Churchill scored through their heading (“Note on the Use of Mines laid by Aircraft in Inland Waterways”) and angrily wrote instead: “Some funkstick in the Air Ministry running for shelter under Malkin’s petticoat.” He broke international conventions with little more compunction than his enemy. In October he would endorse the Panama agreement for a 300-mile zone free of hostilities, then ordered the German pocket battleship Graf Spee attacked inside it. In December he recommended mining neutral Norway’s waters.”

Page 182
”He himself would do so without a second thought. In February 1940 he would order the seizure of a German supply vessel in Norway’s waters; in June he would browbeat the French to transfer to Britain the Luftwaffe Pilots they had taken prisoner, although a Geneva convention specifically forbade such transfers by the detaining power; in July he would bombard a French naval squadron at Mers-el-Kebir – a war crime by any definition, since it was an unprovoked attack on an allied force without declaration of war; in August he would recommend Dum Dum bullets as the best way of “killing Huns;” and reply, when his son pointed out they were illegal, that since the Germans would make “short shrift” of him he had no intention of showing any mercy. He would suggest drenching invasion beaches with poison gas, arguing that he could do as he liked on his own territory – which was certainly not a view held at Geneva; and four years later, demanding that his forces use bacterial warfare and poison gas, he would later write: “It is absurd to consider morality … It is simply a question of fashion changing, as she does between long and short skirts for women.””

Clive Ponting, Armageddon: The Reality Behind the Distortions, Myths, Lies, and Illusions of World War II

Page 174

”In the summer of 1944, after the first V-1 attacks on London, Churchill wanted “a cold-blooded calculation” made on whether it would be advantageous to use poison gas. In retaliation for the bombardment he wanted to “drench” the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany. The Chiefs of Staff opposed such a move, fearing that the British people would react badly in the face of German retaliation with their own gas attacks”

Hb.
Talk of doing something means nothing , its actions which count.
Both sides had gas stocks and both sides had the potential to use it.

Dates for bombing, 25/26 August 1940.
"Following raids by german bombers on London and other English Cities the previous night , the War cabinet sanctioned the first raid on Berlin.103 Aircraft were dispatched on operations and approximately half of theses (50) were sent to Berlin.
Bomber Command records on this night are not clear on the cloud , which prevented accurate bombing and a strong headwind was encounteredon the return flight"
"The only bombs falling within the city liits of Berlin destroyed a wooden summer -house in a garden in the suberbs of Rosenthal and 2 people were slightly injured. the Berlin records show that many of the bombs fell in country areas south of the city and that some of these fell into large farms
- Stadtguter- owned by tthe city of Berlin. The joke went around berlin "Now they are trying to starve us out".
Approx. 24 Whitleys and Wellingtons bombed Bremen , Cologne and Hann and 12 Blenheims attacked airfields in France and Holland.

The American journalist William Shirerrecorded that " Berliners are stunned. They did not think it could ever happen. When this war began Goring assured them it couldn't....they believed him. Their disillusionment today therefore is all the greater. You have to see their faces to measure it".

"An immediate report is required identifying those crews who dropped bombs within the perimeter of London. Luftwaffe High Command will itself undertake the punishment of eash aircraft captain involved. They will be posted to infantry regiments.
REICHSMARSCHALL HERMAN GORING,AUGUST 25th 1940.

Churchill is also on record as saying that the attack on Crete was "a great opportunity to kill Germans".
You also forget HB that bombing of Cities and attacks on civilians began before the BoB , the Luftwaffe did bomb Amsterdam and Warsaw very heavily and there was no compunsion on attacking civilians in France.

Which brings us back to the east.

Seriously, cerberus - why is your spelling so horrible?


Petr

:: Hb. You also forget HB that bombing of Cities and attacks on civilians began before the BoB , the Luftwaffe did bomb Amsterdam and Warsaw very heavily and there was no compunsion on attacking civilians in France.

It is the impudent cheek of a mind subject to ideology which leads you to compare the spirit of the Lindemann plan with the bombing of Amsterdam and Warsaw. The difference is stark.

Both are examples, and Rotterdam was done in error, illustrate the use of bombing in support of ground forces. The Germans were fighting at the gates. The purpose was not to kill as many folks [civilians] as possible. The Russian barrage prior to the battle of Berlin in 1945 is another example of bombing in support of ground forces.

It should be key to point out where the responsibility lies for escalation.

Could you please expand on the following: "there was no compunsion on attacking civilians in France."?

- "It is the impudent cheek of a mind subject to ideology which leads you to compare the spirit of the Lindemann plan with the bombing of Amsterdam and Warsaw."


What about Belgrade, an utterly defenseless city? The name of the operation alone should tell us something:

" Personally offronted that a country he had courted as an ally had rejected him, Hitler ordered the terror bombing of Belgrade. He calling it "Operation Punishment". [Fest, p. 711.] The Luftwaffe on April 6-10, 1941 flew more than 500 sorties against undefended Belgrade killing more than 17,500 people. "

http://www.histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/ww2/air/ac-ter.html


Petr

- "It is the impudent cheek of a mind subject to ideology which leads you to compare the spirit of the Lindemann plan with the bombing of Amsterdam and Warsaw."


What about Belgrade, an utterly defenseless city? The name of the operation alone should tell us something:

" Personally offronted that a country he had courted as an ally had rejected him, Hitler ordered the terror bombing of Belgrade. He calling it "Operation Punishment". [Fest, p. 711.] The Luftwaffe on April 6-10, 1941 flew more than 500 sorties against undefended Belgrade killing more than 17,500 people. "

http://www.histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/ww2/air/ac-ter.html


Petr


I quite agree, Belgrade was a terrible revenge.

Sorry ! :o Crap I know but 90% of it is down to terrible keyboard skills.

People trying to get out of the way , those on the roads.
Rotterdam , was there not a demand that the city be surrendered or it would be bombed , the City did try and surrender but the raid went ahead be it by accident but the bombs still fell and people still got killed.

Sorry ! :o Crap I know but 90% of it is down to terrible keyboard skills.

People trying to get out of the way , those on the roads.
Rotterdam , was there not a demand that the city be surrendered or it would be bombed , the City did try and surrender but the raid went ahead be it by accident but the bombs still fell and people still got killed.

My understanding of Rotterdam is this: Luftwaffe bomber squadrons had already taken off to relieve the pressure on German paratroops, who were involved in a fierce action at Rotterdam, when the Dutch capitulated. Only half the bombers could be recalled—and the other half dropped nearly a hundred tons of bombs on targets in Rotterdam; nine hundred people died in the subsequent fires.

The Dutch had placed the majority of their anti-aircraft guns in the city centre, also one of the German bombs went astray and struck a margarine factory, there following a rapidly spreading fire.

Reinhold I refer you back to the quotes I provided earlier on the tone set by Hitler.

What is the point? I will merely refer you back to my rebuttals of same.

Stalin , Hitler two of a kind I will make no attempt to defend them.

This something you got from Kershaw, right?

I would however apologise for my terrible keybpoard skills , "crap and I know they are".

Ah, don't worry about that. Its the fact that you don't make sense which should worry you.

The purpose of the "law" was to make Germany a racist state and to provide a base for this to be advanced.

The purpose of the law was to put an end to Jewish influence in Germany (I presume that is what you mean - you seem to be responding to two people at the same time)

Reinhold I will have to look up details of the order , give me a while to do that.

So you mean to say you don't know anything about this, yet you are willing to argue about it? Don't you realise how foolish you are looking?


Reinhold partasians being shot I have no problem with its a chance they take , but Germany did go a little over board in the east .

Oh, the vagueness!

The local population got shot by both sides , water a Germans horse and you get shot , the Russians steal your bread and you get shot , great life.
REprislas for partsaian actions against the locals is illegal

It looks like this is yet another issue you havent done your homework on.
It may shock and surprise you (I know I was when I first delved ito this question) to learn that reprisal shootings against non protected persons was not illegal at the time. Protected persons would be POW's etc.

"A general prohibition of reprisals against civilians was not issued until August 12, 1949, by the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."

According to Dr. jur. Karl Siegert, Professor at the University of Göttingen, drew up a legal expert report shortly after the end of the war, pertaining to the trial conducted at that time in Italy against Herbert Kappler.

"Concerning the concept of reprisals, Oppenheim-Lauterpacht's definition has been most widely accepted. According to this definition, a wartime reprisal is the case if one warring party retaliates against another by means which are otherwise unlawful acts of warfare, and with which he wants to force his opponent, his opponent's branches and the members of the opposing armed forces to give up their illegal acts of war and to return to the principles of lawful warfare."

"This definition shows better than most others that a reprisal is not retrospective punishment or revenge for past injury. Rather, a violation of international law by the opposing side is its prerequisite, and its purpose is to force this opposing side to restrict itself to internationally lawful behavior in future."

Remember, partisan warfare was in breach of the rule governing war, which the USSR had unilaterally withdrawn from (as I have said many times already).

"As early as July 30, 1863, the American President Lincoln threatened to execute prisoners of war in retaliation against the killing of Negroes; General Sherman ordered the execution of 54 prisoners of war as reprisal for the murder of 27 of his soldiers, whose bodies had been found bearing the notice "Death to the plunderers"."

"In December 1918, for example, the Belgian Commanders of occupied cities in the Rhineland ordered the taking of hostages whose lives were to guarantee the safety of the occupation troops."

and an example from close to home,

"During the political upheavals in Ireland in 1919-1921, the British troops carried out numerous reprisal killings."

"After the capture of Bengasi, Montgomery stated that he believed that numerous mines and traps had been set in the city. For every British soldier that was killed, he would have 10 Italians shot."

[NB, this was ILLEGAL as these POW's were 'protected persons' by law]

As for the American occupation;

"Further threats of reprisal killings were proven in the SouthEast Trial in Nuremberg in Case VII;[70] examples include a ratio of 1:25 in Stuttgart, 1:10 in Birkenfeld, 1:30 in Markdorf, and an American threat of 1:200 in Harz. Hoppe[71] mentions further that the Americans took French officials hostage in 1941 in Syria; as well, the Russians took Persian officers hostage in 1949 in Azerbaijan. Further, the French took and killed hostages in Indochina.[72] Sonnenburg[73] reports that the French shot 80 prisoners of war in Fort Mont Lucon in 1944, as well as 20 hostages in Saigon in May 1951."

The British again;

"the Judge Advocate General stated on May 3, 1947:[77]

"However, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing which makes it absolutely clear that in no circumstance and especially in the circumstances which I think are agreed in this case - that no innocent person properly taken for the purpose of a reprisal cannot be executed."

Thus, British law also permits the execution of reprisal prisoners."

and the note to this

"This was already pointed out by J. M. Spaight, War Rights on Land, Macmillan, London 1911, p. 465, and S. Glueck, War Criminals, Their Prosecution and Punishment, A. A. Knopf, New York 1944, p. 55, both cited in Laternser, op. cit. (note 36), p. 193. Much harsher measures, which in fact violate international law, are urged by the English Handbook of Modern Irregular Warfare, Pamphlet No 1: The Principles of Irregular Warfare (Document Warlimont No. 10 in Case V before the American Military Tribunal in Nuremberg). This work states, among other things: "[...] 7. [...] best method of dealing with informers is their ruthless extermination as soon as discovered. Pin a note to the body saying why they were killed [...] 8. for the time being every soldier must be a potential gangster [...]: use the gangster methods [...] 9. close combat [...] you have to kill [...] a strangle hold from behind [...]"

"The American verdict in the SouthEast Trial (Case VII) stressed that many nations, including the USA, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union, have acknowledged the lawfulness of the execution of hostages."

So what were the Germans up against in the East?

"Within three years of the war, the Byelorussian partisans eliminated approximately 500,000 German soldiers and officers, 47 Generals, blew up 17,000 enemy military transports and 32 armored trains, destroyed 300,000 railway tracks, 16,804 vehicles and a great number of other material supplies of all kinds."

according to

B.S. Telpuchowski, Die Geschichte des Grossen Vaterländischen Krieges 1941-1945, Bernard & Graefe Verlag für Wehrwesen, Frankfurt/Main 1961, p. 284; comparable Seidler, op. cit. (note 155), p. 36f.; similar data may also be found in Heinz Kühnreich, Der Partisanenkrieg in Europa 1939-1945, Dietz, Berlin (East) 1965

all of this from http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndSiegert.html

and is outside the "rules of war"

Which has just been shown to be hopelessly wrong.

likewise starving POWs is likewise and killing them , both sides did this.
Fairy tales no , Saintly Allies , their track record was better than Hitlers , wearing thin .

Sorry, not according to the evidence. Looks like your Saintly Allies Who Can Do No Wrong are largely a figment of the propagandist's imagination. You really must stop watching the History Channel.

Commisar order I will get back to you on.

Yea, right.

So you say.


And since only one of us seems interested in learning about the subject through legitimate scholarship, what "I say" can be taken as fact. Your position is that your LACK of evidence is evidence itself. It is the height of dellusion to suggest that the vast majority of scholarly work on the subject of WWII is a lie. Not just 'oversimplifying' or 'incomplete', but a total lie.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but that position is simply laughable. Its viewing history as a world of make believe where you, independant of facts, come up with 'the truth' and then declare any historical analysis which doesn't fit 'the truth' (In this case, the vast majority of historical analysis) to be part of a sinister conspiracy.

No rational person can accept that. It is simply irrational.



More likely than not.


Prove it.


That was SOP at that time


Prove it.

At Kransberg, which had been converted into a German airforce headquarters for Goering by Albert Speer in 1939, the prisoners were housed in a two story servant block. The rooms were clean and the food, basic military rations, generous by the standards of defeated Germany. The prisoners were allowed to walk and talk freely, to write occasional letters and to listen to the radio. A weekly cabaret was arranged. Schacht, one of two defendants along with Speer who would be featured at Nuremberg, entertained his fellows with poetry readings.

Richard Overy
Interrogations
The Nazi elite in Allied Hands, 1945

Sounds terrible. Provide contradicting information establishing "standard operating procedure", and please remember that facts don't start with 'it seems to me' or 'i believe...'.



as the victors went about collecting "information" with which to convict the Germans of war crimes, crimes against the peace, etc., and thus "justify" their ongoing genocide of millions of Germans and the current and projected massive looting of the country.


We've established there was no genocide of Germans. The fact that the Germans still exist prove that to be false, setting aside the fact that your sources have been debunked on the subject.

Here's how it seems to me. It seems to me that with many people who have deeply held beliefs, things based on a matter of faith, you have a tendancy to disregard those 'claims', or more accurately, established facts which contradict your core beliefs.

As a matter of faith, you assume torture. Of course, I'm sure you've heard of a case of it. Maybe two allegations of it. But because it is convenient for you to disregard the facts discovered in these trials, you expand these allegations (Rather dubious ones at that) to cover ALL cases, and since it is all a conspiracy in the first place, you justify your lack of evidence by blaming it on the success of the conspiracy.

But I would like for you to explain the testimonials of Nazis not just at the time, but AFTER the fact. People like Speer and Hans Munch continued to stand by the facts for decades after all of these trials.

Furthermore, that you don't 'believe' in the trials gives you the excuse to avoid learning about them, sparing you from the inevitable discrediting of your view.

There ARE defendants who deny the charges. There ARE defendants who deny some charges while agreeing that others happened. There ARE defendants who are not eligible for execution who deny the charges, and those that testify that they are true, and everything inbetween.

You reject facts out of faith, and defend that rejection with assumptions.


You are quite mistaken; the records of all parties are clear. At this time Germany was inviting direct negotiations with Poland.


(Raised eyebrow)

When Henderson asked why the German proposals could not be given to the Polish Ambassador in the normal way, Ribbentrop lost all control and began shouting. Henderson tried to carry on in his normal calm way, but was soon on his feet, too, shouting back and giving as good as he got. He reprimanded Ribbentrop like a naughty schoolboy for using bad language, which only made matters worse. 'Schmidt kept his head down and scribbled furiously in his notebook, afraid that the two men would come to blows. 'The least that can happen now,' he thought, 'is that the Foreign Minister of the Reich would throw His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador out of the door.'

Fortunately, the storm passed, and, as Schmidt put it, 'it did not come to wrestling'. But when Henderson asked for Hitler's proposals, Ribbentrop read them to him in German, gabbling so fast that the Ambassador could not follow, and then refused to follow the usual practice and give him a copy -- Hitler had in fact explicitly forbidden him to do so, to make sure they were not given to the Poles who might spoil everything by accepting them.

The Devil's Disciples, Hitler's Inner Circle
Anthony Read
Page 586


The Poles made a formal announcement of their mobilization on August 30. Just as you correctly say of the Germans, this does not meant that Polish troops had not been mobilizing unofficially for some time before.


Henderson left the Chancellery 'filled with the gloomiest forebodings'. When he had protested again about the twenty-four-hour time limit for the arrival of a Polish plenipotentiary, Hitler had told him the General Staff were pressing him for a decision:

His army and air force were ready to strike, and had been since August 25th. They were telling him that one week had already been lost, and that they could not afford to lose another, lest the rainy season in Poland be added to their enemies. When I passed through the ante-room on my way back to my car, it was full of army officers, Keitel and Brauchitsch among them. Meeting them there did not tend to dispel my apprehensions.


Hitler's Inner Circle
Anthony Read, page 584


But an official declaration of mobilization, as this was (Official Comunique, no. 99, pp. 108-109: Official Documents 1933-1939, Republic of Poland Ministry for Foreign Affairs) is more serious: it was well known that in international diplomacy it is the equivalent of a declaration of war against a neighbouring state, and an attack by the state in question is at that point considered justified.


Ah. So the Poles officially calling up twenty divisions is WORSE than the Germans actually placing sixty divisions of about a million men on the Polish border.

Thats an interesting point of view. I have absolutely no idea how you could find it a legitimate one, but interesting none the less.


As far as I can see, the only point of the Poles announcing their mobilization was in order to provoke an attack by Germany, at which point they expected Britain and France to intervene militarily on their behalf.


Listen, its time to stop pretending that there is any real possibility of a POLISH invasion of Germany. We have established that the Polish 'attacks' on Germany were in fact staged by Germany itself, but even disregarding that, the notion of an all out Polish assault with cavalry, infantry, tankettes, and biplanes is so ridiculous as to make this discussion a parody of historical debate.

Therefore, knowing what we do about Polish capabilities, and knowing how familiar the Germans were with them, how could Germany POSSIBLY be 'provoked' by Poland?

Furthermore, considering the fact that Germany and the USSR had a pact to divide Poland before this mobilization, and Germany in fact had a plan to invade Poland long before that pact was even established, it is nonsense to suggest that the Poles have any real responsibility for the invasion of its territory by Nazi forces.

I notice that you make reference to my point to help prove yours without addressing my point at all. WHY were there sixty divisions on the Polish border?


Gleiwitz was very likely more of the same: inflammatory actions designed to provoke a German attack.


Ah. I see. The Poles were trying to provoke the Germans to invade them before they had actually mobilized their army or had these British and French troops to help defend against the German onslaught?

The Poles were trying to trap the Germans by just THINKING of trapping them and then taking this small, meaningless action before any aspect of this trap was ready?

I've noticed that often in debates like this, people of your particular bent pick and choose what they respond to. I'll accept that you are a reasonable fellow and thus assume that those points I mention that you do not respond to are accepted as fact by both parties.

Therefore, it is interesting in this discussion that you ignore what we both know to be true, the fact that German plans for an invasion of Poland were being developed on March 25th, and the Germans tore up their non-aggression pact with Poland on April 28th. The next act is to threaten the Poles, make a pact with the USSR to divide Poland, and to put over a million men on their border.

And somehow this discussion, for you, revolves around when the Poles announce they're mobilizing?


Not really. See my post above for a partial list of books I've consulted on this subject.


I haven't heard much reference from them.


[...]
Actually, a lot of them are very bad forgeries, as you'll find if you do a little research in the field. Carlos Whitman Porter, I think, has done a lot of work in this field.


LMAO Carlos Porter, the guy who translates, "fallen" or "fell" in reference to death as "falling down" in the Posen speech as an attempt to explain away Himmler's anti-Slavic policies?


Or read about the document previously considered to be the Wannsee Conference Protocol.


The Wannsee Protocol is a forgery? THIS I have to hear.


Look in the online book, Dissecting the Holocaust


:rolleyes:


on the Zundelsite or VHO or CODOH, and there's a chapter devoted to that particular forgery.


I deal in facts not internet tripe. We can trade websites all day. Please refer to Nizkor and the Holocaust History Project to read the exact opposite conclusion.....with more evidence and substance, by the way.

So we can either swap websites endlessly, which is inane, or we can use hard sources. I prefer the later. Lets do that, shall we?


Just remember that thousands were persecuted, imprisoned, and often tortured on the basis of these lies, and hundreds hanged.


Germany was finished with Nazism. You'll notice that it was the Germans themselves who outlawed the successor to the Nazi Party (Which, in fact, was a Soviet pawn). And it is laughable for a Nazi to complain about 'persecution', since the 'will to power' justifies excesses which follow.

Secondly, people who abuse power and murder innocents should be imprisoned and executed. Since that inarguably occurred, those punishments meted out for such acts were quite fair.

As those charges being 'lies', I'll happily debunk your claims, as soon as you make a specific charge rather than these bland generalities.


Also that some of those hanged were deliberately tortured to death by positioning the knot so that their necks wouldn't break


This is meaningless to me. Also vague, much like your other positions. However, I honestly don't care if a concentration camp guard gurgled a bit before his neck snapped.


so they might be kicking and struggling for breath for over 15 minutes after the drop.


Not quite meathooks and shrunken heads, though, is it?


Not to mention the millions of Germans killed in horrible ways


You mean millions of Germans killed in the war, which they started?


, the tens of millions rendered homeless,


From the bombing in a war...which they started?


starving in cellars beneath the rubble of the cities


Rubble from bombing, which they started?


, either expelled from their homelands


Expelled from nations they invaded because of the presence of Germans?

Expelled by the USSR.....which they invaded?


or their towns completely bombed


Because of the war they declared?


, the millions raped


By the Soviet troops who were fighting back the German invasion?


, starved to death,


Because of the infrastructure Hitler ordered destroyed?


dead of TB


LOL The smallet violin in the world is playing for the nation which sought to conquer Europe and payed the price for its failure.


and other diseases for which they had no antibiotics...


Maybe if they hadn't been wasting so many supplies on euthanasia shots and corrosive chemicals injected into people's reproductive organs, they would have had more vaccines.


Of course, the worst crime, as was decreed at the Nuremberg witch-trials, is conspiring to wage aggressive war


Which they did.


--the worst war there has ever been, killing more than 50 million people--and that honor goes to the victors.


It helped that the victors were the more honorable.

It helped that the victors were the more honorable.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?

Reinhold,
Don't you like Kershaw ?
I do and , no it was a conclusion I came to on my own being the bright spark that I am. ( Seems David Overy came to much the same as well and Taylor).

The order to kill Soviet political officers.
Reinhold I have to work for a living , well at least until I win the lottery.
I apologise for not being quote it chapter and verse to you at the drop of a hat.
The order itself was illegal then and it is now , nothing has changed.
It was murder to kill civilians by way of reprisal and to implement the order as directed then and it is not , again you demand a "get out of jail free card."

The order in detail I am quoting you from Kershaw again as I know you really like him , but if you want you can get something similar from Prof. John Erickson , its really up to you.
You see Henry M. made the same point , somewhat better than I did in a previous reply to Mugwort , what you really want Reinhold is to discuss events as if history did not exist , you want to replace it with your own reality something which is user friendly to you and which will be like "DAZ Automatic" something which will wash the dirt "whiter than white".
Sorry but I can't do this and neither can you.
It was not illegal , cuts no ice murder is still murder , you can if you wish construct your own morality and value system to suit the regime you defend but that is up to you. ( Just don't ask me to feed into it , I won't.)

The order.
"Commissar Order" dated 6th June. " The Instruction for the treatment of Political Commissars".
" We must not assume that the enemy's conduct will be based on principles of humanity or of international law.In particular , hate-inspired, cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners can be expected on the part of all grades of political comissars, who are the real leaders of resistance.To show consideration to these elements during this struggle , or to act in accordance with the international rules of war , is wrong and endangers both our own security and the rapid pacification of conquered territory...Political commissars have initiated barbaric ,Asiatic methods of warfare. Consequently , they will be dealt with immediately and with maxium severity. As a matter of principle, they will be shot at once , whether captured during operations or otherwise showing resistance".
This is an order to murder , nothing less no matter what your opinion of the soviet system is. Murder , it was illegal then and it is illegal now.
Create your own reality Reinhold if you want but don't ask me to go along with you or talk down to me for saying otherwise.

Kershaw goes on (P,358 Nemesis) to say how some officers sought to frustrate the order by asking on a confidential level that their divisional commanders set it aside.
Tresckow commented"If international law is to be broken , then the Russians not we, should do it first".
The point is made that the order was a breach of international law.
Von Bock ignored the commissar order.
David Overy comes to the same conclusions in his book "The Dictators" ,
He quotes how Hitler declared in March 1941 how he would be waging "a war of extermination" , which speaks for itself.
The orders like the commissar order must be enforced in " the most bruutal form" , which certainly sets a tone.
Remember that the order "assumes" what soviet behaviour would be and Tresckow's consideration on the deliberate rejection of international law.
You must see Reinhold that Hitler would pay little heed to whatever Germany had signed up to he , the Fuhrer was setting the tone and the standard.
Internaional law meant nothing , you are deluded or are ignoring the facts of the matter to suit your own reasoning , your own reality.
But hey , who am I to deny you this , feel free but just be aware that you are largely on your own.
" Collective reprisals" were to be premitted if the culprites could not be caught. What Hitler intended to give was something akin to a "Papal Indulgence" , a " get out of jail free card" a license to kill without fear of any legal come back.
The international laws which you say Germany signed up to would be set aside.He , Hitler would set both the tone and the rational even if he had to "assume" it.
Overy mentions ( P,518) how the Soviets requested that the Red Cross become involved in defining the treatment of POWs on both sides , Germany refused to allow this.
He describes that Hitler's attitude towards prisoners and civilian populations was "overtly genocidal". I refer you again to my previous quotes , those which you rebutted , ignored would be more to the point.
The propaganda of each side was extremely similar the same tone and presentation of the enemy , differenent sides , same horror stories.
In common both sides made poor provision for POW welfare , lives meant nothing , I refer you again to Hitler and Stalin who had set the tone.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?

No, the difference between us is that I believe in real things.

Reinhold , is Ian Kershaw really the Tooth Fairy :D

I do and , no it was a conclusion I came to on my own being the bright spark that I am. ( Seems David Overy came to much the same as well and Taylor).

He is an establishment historian content to continue pushing mtyhs and legends about Hitler. You are content to believe in them - you deserve each other.


The order to kill Soviet political officers.
Reinhold I have to work for a living , well at least until I win the lottery.
I apologise for not being quote it chapter and verse to you at the drop of a hat.
The order itself was illegal then and it is now , nothing has changed.

There you go again, trying to cover over your embarssment. You had not even heard of the Comisar Order before I mentioned it. Why should anyone take anything you have to say about this seriously?

The order in detail I am quoting you from Kershaw again as I know you really like him , but if you want you can get something similar from Prof. John Erickson , its really up to you.

I prefer to deal with the primary sources.


It was not illegal , cuts no ice murder is still murder , you can if you wish construct your own morality and value system to suit the regime you defend but that is up to you. ( Just don't ask me to feed into it , I won't.)

Not only was it not illegal but as I have shown everone was doing it. Montgomery's order concerning Italians was illegal though.

We are not interested in your moral sense, only with historical facts and the discussion thereof.

Your attempts to demonise ther Germans will fail everytime because I will just continue to produce facts that refute your propagandistic assertions.

This is an order to murder , nothing less no matter what your opinion of the soviet system is. Murder , it was illegal then and it is illegal now.

Don't such public displays of ignorance ever embarass you? Do you know better than the international lawyers at the OKW who drafted the order? Perhaps it was illegal, perhaps not. Was it moral? Perhaps, but then you are not in a position to impose your moral prejudices on others. Was it necessary, very probably. What is certain is that before I mentioned it you had never heard of it. Anything you have to say about the subject will be informed by the same ignorance you have consistently displayed all along.

He quotes how Hitler declared in March 1941 how he would be waging "a war of extermination" , which speaks for itself.

No it doesn't. First of all its a mistranslation, secondly the context shows that Hitler is concerned that the Bolsheviks will annihiliate Germany.

Remember that the order "assumes" what soviet behaviour would be

No it doesn't. The Germans were very well aware of what the Commissars were up to; they knew what they were like domestically, and, they knew about their record in Poland and the Baltic states. That is why they drafted the order.

Internaional law meant nothing , you are deluded or are ignoring the facts of the matter to suit your own reasoning , your own reality.

Ignorant troll.

The international laws which you say Germany signed up to would be set aside.

Have you any evidence of this?

Overy mentions ( P,518) how the Soviets requested that the Red Cross become involved in defining the treatment of POWs on both sides , Germany refused to allow this.

Do we have a source for that? Should be in the notes.

He describes that Hitler's attitude towards prisoners and civilian populations was "overtly genocidal"

I really couldn't care less what some establishment historian has to say, I am interested in what the primary sources have to show.

When are you going to stop parroting Kershaw and Co. and start dealing with the sources? You could always start here

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm#key

No, the difference between us is that I believe in real things.


You believe in self-serving myths and legends.

Reinhold,
I leave you to obtain the book and look up the reference index yourself as you might want to consult the primary source yourself.
The legal meeting you refer to at OKW.
Overy "The Dictators" P,514.
"At a meeting of military judges in June, General Eugen Muller told them that it was Hitler's intention that in the coming invasion "legal considerations have to take a step back behind the necessities of war".

I refer you again to my quote from Kershaw in Nemesis.
"Whether right or wrong we must win....And when we have won , who will ask us about the method"
Hitler to Goebbels , 16th June 1941.

Now it may not suit your own view to be confronted by the side step of legal issues or Hitler's morality that winning was all that mattered and "right and wrong " mattered not , but its what the man said and what he did.

You seem to be under the iimpression that in some way the leagl department of the army and the civil courts had a free hand and were independent , only an " ignorant troll" could be under that impression.

Your views on what I might or might not know or if I had heard about the Commissar order or not Reinhold don't really interest me nor do I sit nursing wounded pride.

Let us not move from the issue reinhold stick to Hitlers view as per the two sections I have quoted to you.
No public display of my ignorance do not embarass me , the order was not legal within the provisions of the papers you say Germany had signed up to and as I have quoted to you Hitler had set them aside and had refused the Red Cross to define care of POW's.
( I will give you the source later , as I mentioned I have to work for a living (at least until my lottery win , and in common with the "CO" I don't have time to look it up right now. And yes , I am aware about the notes , that bit commonly found in the back of books which are linked by numbered reference to the various chapters. Strange that you would be interested when you discount "establishment historians", do you think i made it up , perhaps they did or the Russians did :p )
The egg sits on your face and trying to rubbish the "estiblishment" sources and onlyy to be interested in the primary sources is an efort to box clever.
The two quoted sources are what must concern you in your reply.

"That is why they drafted the order" and if I am to subscribe to your reasoning does not that also not imply that the Soviets knew well what the SS/ SD were at in Poland ?
Sound a bit like "Kershaw" again to me Hitler and Stalin , not so very different in their approach to life.

You believe in self-serving myths and legends.

You're the one rubbing prayer beads as you deny history without any basis whatsoever.

Renny and Henry, save us from these boring nyah-nyah-nyah one-sentence soundbites.

Give us some hard data to chew at instead - if you can, of course.


Petr

You're the one rubbing prayer beads as you deny history without any basis whatsoever.


Listen up troll, you posted Munch - clearly he does not know Birkenau, neither does he know anything about the chemical properties of Zyklon B - and that you post this nonsense shows that you have not the remotest clue about this topic either.

Reinhold,
I leave you to obtain the book and look up the reference index yourself as you might want to consult the primary source yourself.

If you can't be bothered, why should I?


The legal meeting you refer to at OKW.
Overy "The Dictators" P,514.
"At a meeting of military judges in June, General Eugen Muller told them that it was Hitler's intention that in the coming invasion "legal considerations have to take a step back behind the necessities of war".


Yes, and the other legal opinions expressed? And anyway, I thought you had shifted onto the moral plane having lost the legal argument?


I refer you again to my quote from Kershaw in Nemesis.
"Whether right or wrong we must win....And when we have won , who will ask us about the method"
Hitler to Goebbels , 16th June 1941.

Ironic isn't it? That so much more describes the allies with their carpet bombing of cities, and nuking.

Now it may not suit your own view to be confronted by the side step of legal issues or Hitler's morality that winning was all that mattered and "right and wrong " mattered not , but its what the man said and what he did.

Its you who clearly does not like the legal argument - I suppose learning that your beloved Montgomery was a war criminal has you smarting still.

You seem to be under the iimpression that in some way the leagl department of the army and the civil courts had a free hand and were independent , only an " ignorant troll" could be under that impression.

The ignorant troll is the one who pontificates about things he had not even heard about until not two days ago!


Your views on what I might or might not know or if I had heard about the Commissar order or not Reinhold don't really interest me nor do I sit nursing wounded pride.

Then why draw attention to this embarassing moment by mentioning it?

Let us not move from the issue reinhold stick to Hitlers view as per the two sections I have quoted to you.

The facts are much more interesting than the decontextualised musings of the Fuhrer, fascinating as they are.

No public display of my ignorance do not embarass me , the order was not legal within the provisions of the papers you say Germany had signed up to and as I have quoted to you Hitler had set them aside and had refused the Red Cross to define care of POW's.

How do you know? Have you managed to become an expert on international law up to 1945, mastered the history of Barbarossa, the doings of the OKW, as well as the legal advice given to the German government in 1941 in less than 48 hours? Oi, vey! Its a miracle!

( I will give you the source later , as I mentioned I have to work for a living (at least until my lottery win , and in common with the "CO" I don't have time to look it up right now. And yes , I am aware about the notes , that bit commonly found in the back of books which are linked by numbered reference to the various chapters. Strange that you would be interested when you discount "establishment historians", do you think i made it up , perhaps they did or the Russians did :p )

Of course you didn't make it up - I want the primary sources so I can study them myself, that's how I work.

The egg sits on your face and trying to rubbish the "estiblishment" sources and onlyy to be interested in the primary sources is an efort to box clever.

You think so? You are criticising me becasue I prefer not to have things mediated by establishment historians? As if I am not capable of studying myself?

The two quoted sources are what must concern you in your reply.

What must concern you is an appreciation of the importance of recovering a context and understanding things in that context.

"That is why they drafted the order" and if I am to subscribe to your reasoning does not that also not imply that the Soviets knew well what the SS/ SD were at in Poland ?

Tell me then, what were they at in Poland?

Do you know what the SD was?

Renny

Don't get so familiar, troll.

Who are you calling troll, amateur?

I've made more than twice the number of posts on this forum than you.


Petr

Who are you calling troll, amateur?

I've made more than twice the number of posts on this forum than you.


Petr


"Never mind the quality feel the width!"

Renny ,
"Ar you not Lt.Gruber mit der little tank parked outside Cafe Rene !" :D
"Ignorant troll" seems to be your standard reply.
Reinhold this is just disolving into a pointless tit for tat , which I to be honest can't be bothered with and I am not going to be drawn into stupid exchanges by " Do you know what the SD is or "What were they at in Poland".
If you want to stick out your tongue and say " he does not know, ignorant troll etc" I only hope it gives you as much pleasure as it does me reading it , that way at least we both gain from it and my time is not entirely wasted. :rolleyes:

Your enticing line about Monty is really lost on me , I am not a fan of Monty's and won't be rushing in with "how dare you knock the great man."
Like all he had his good points but he is not a person I can warm to.

The legal arguement was not lost , I merely draw your attention to the judges you mentioned, that they were in no doubt that legality had been set completely aside .
If you are aware of the meeting ( as you indicate ) you will have the source to hand , no doubt in your long list of "primary sources".
Hitler to Goebbels 16/6/41 stick to the context of Russia , you are off the point , again :rolleyes:
It under pins the position of the Military Judges and the legal position recognised by some officers as quoted to you.
Rene you make much of Germany having signed up on legal positions but say nothing of them when they are abandoned by way of Hitler's directives .
The Fuhrer's musings determined actions which remain facts.
"Never mind the quality , feel the width".
Are you perhaps related to a Jewish tailor ? :p

Listen up troll, you posted Munch - clearly he does not know Birkenau


LOL Don't waste my time, fanatic. Either post a rebuttal of the evidence presented or accept silence. I'll take these types of "It isn't true because it can't be true" mantras as an acceptance of the facts unless you provide a real argument justifying your position.

Otherwise, take your repititious slander back to the madrassa which spawned you.

LOL Don't waste my time, fanatic. Either post a rebuttal of the evidence presented or accept silence. I'll take these types of "It isn't true because it can't be true" mantras as an acceptance of the facts unless you provide a real argument justifying your position.

Otherwise, take your repititious slander back to the madrassa which spawned you.


The fanatic is the one who prefers to believe in impossibilities - that Zyklon B can do what he claim it can do in the time that he claims.

Now you tell me; where are these mysterious gassing/cremating facilities that he says were OUTSIDE Birkenau hidden in a wood?

We are talking about Munch, i.e. his testimonies about gassings in Auschwitz-Birkenau. He makes some other demonstrably false claims which we can deal with once you have supported your witness.

And yes, you are a troll; you post stuff but don't defend it. You are the one who posted Munch not me - now he is your man, defend him or be quiet.

Your enticing line about Monty is really lost on me , I am not a fan of Monty's and won't be rushing in with "how dare you knock the great man."
Like all he had his good points but he is not a person I can warm to.

Don't you read anything I post in response? Clearly not, for if you did you would know that that refers to Monty's order to execute Italian prisoners.

The legal arguement was not lost , I merely draw your attention to the judges you mentioned, that they were in no doubt that legality had been set completely aside .

The legal argument was lost when you erroeneously stated that reprisal shootings were illegal prior to the post-war ammendment of the Geneva Conventions

Rene you make much of Germany having signed up on legal positions but say nothing of them when they are abandoned by way of Hitler's directives .

So have you investigated how the Commissar Order was not carried out and why?

The Fuhrer's musings determined actions which remain facts.
"Never mind the quality , feel the width".
Are you perhaps related to a Jewish tailor ?

LOL! And how would you know that that is a Jewish tailor joke?

Reinhold,
The Jewish tailor. Could be one of two " The Sleeper" ( Woody Allen) or the 1960's "sit. com" about a Jewish and an Irish tailor .
I think Milo O'Shea was in it but can't be sure. ( I was very young and I was only "obeying order from a Higher Command". My late father enjoyed it.).

Monty , I feel sure you are going to tell me , the floor is yours.
Why do you say the Commissar order not implemented, again the floor is yours.
This is a litle like your question regrading Kaytan Wood is it not ? ;)
( Loaded ). Just to remind you it need only involve the killing of one political officer and the Fuhrer is guilty of murder.
Can you be 100% sure that not one was killed ?
( But what does this matter , by 1941 his track record was good in any case).
The shooting of civilians as an act of reprisal , why do you think it was written in in post war years if it was fair and reasonable.
Code of honor thing perhaps you can kill civilians if they are over 21 perhaps ?
Some of the obvious names spring to mind in Western Europe , and you think they were fair and reasonable acts and not crimes ?
Murder , Reinhold by any reasonable standard , but the Fuhrer had set the tone and relieved the Armed Forces of any accountibility.

I think Milo O'Shea was in it but can't be sure. ( I was very young and I was only "obeying order from a Higher Command". My late father enjoyed it.).

Your old enough to remember that series? Yes, it was Milo O'Shea.

Monty , I feel sure you are going to tell me , the floor is yours.

It was posted in the Reprisals post

Why do you say the Commissar order not implemented, again the floor is yours.

I didn't say it wasn't implemented. I should have been clearer when I said "how it was not carried out". Keitel talks about how most officers were unwilling to enforce it. They issued the order as they were obliged to do, but made no efforts to enforce it. Manstein says that he and a number of other officers actually countermanded the order verbally. Brauchitsch also issued orders that were designed to impede the Com Order.

It was not a not loaded question.


Just to remind you it need only involve the killing of one political officer and the Fuhrer is guilty of murder.

There was a lot more than one commissar shot. No it does not make Hitler guilty of murder - heads of state were immune from guilt.

Can you be 100% sure that not one was killed ?

I never claimed that no commissar was killed.


( But what does this matter , by 1941 his track record was good in any case).

Oh really? Care to elaborate on that?

The shooting of civilians as an act of reprisal , why do you think it was written in in post war years if it was fair and reasonable.

Did I say it was fair and reasonable? Did I not say to you that I was shocked when I first discovered the matter? I showed that it was LEGAL in refutation of your suggestion otherwise.

Code of honor thing perhaps you can kill civilians if they are over 21 perhaps ?
Some of the obvious names spring to mind in Western Europe , and you think they were fair and reasonable acts and not crimes ?

"Truth is the first casualty of war" as they say, then fairnes and reasonableness must surely follow. War is hell as Gen Sherman said.

Murder , Reinhold by any reasonable standard , but the Fuhrer had set the tone and relieved the Armed Forces of any accountibility.

Don't you realise that your moralising counts for nothing in this?

cerberus,

Just a follow up to the last. In order to avoid confusion and possible accusations that I am asking loaded questions, when we are talking about the legality of the Commissar Order, we have to distinguish between the international law situation and German law, particularly military law and the Code of Honour.

The USSR repudiated Geneva and Hague therefore no-one under the jurisdiction the USSR was a Protected Person as defined by Geneva. Therefore the advice of the international lawyers was almost certainly sound.

The problem came from the generals. They deemed it to be contrary to military law and in flagrant breach of the Code of Honour. As officers and gentlemen they could not bring themselves to enforce it with any enthusiasm, and, as can be shown, took steps to screw it up and make it unenforceable.

However, German law at the time did not recognise any provision for refusing to obey orders, so if the generals countermanded or refused to carry it out, they were in breach of the law.

The few military commanders who did not follow it to the letter did so to preserve their own honour and that of the army.
I would imagine that civilians in German occupied territory and soldiers captured by the German Army would be under German juristication and that the behaviour of the occupying power and the Army would be regulated by what they had signed to not what the Russians had not signed to.
I refer you again to the Red Cross issue mentioned earlier.

There was never a blank cheque to kill civilians or selected groups of POW's.
Cold blooded murder is illegal , even the killing of political officers.

May I refer you to the case of General Dostler who was tried with murder of American soldiers ( Commandos , but serving men in uniform) in March 1944.
It is the conduct of the "power" and not the identity of the prisoner which is the issue.

I also refer you also to the Gardelegen Killings of 15th April 1945.
1016 POWs killed by German forces for no reason , you say there is nothing illegal in this ?
Reinhold had you been serving in the Heer or SS ,39-45 you would have been some kid.
Manstein I would have my doubts him , he had no worries about allowing his troops "to co-operate" with rounding up of " Jews".
Brauchitsch was not over joyed with the order but he wanted the shooting done out of sight and he was ok about killing of civilinas as a reprisal as long as an officer gave the order. ( Better class of killing).
He saw the possible breakdown of order and respect for rank as being his main issues more than anything which troubled him sleeping at night.
l The "Commissar order" like the "Commando order" and the "order" which killed the men of " the great escape" the common feature is that on moral and legal grounds it has to be "sooner you than me".
The legal system was run by Hitler who made ad hock law as he saw fit.
Hitler was the law in Germany and the legal system served Hitler and the Party not the people , international law meant nothing to him.
Your confidence in what you believe German law to have become and the standards to which it now operated are very much misplaced.

Heads of State are imune from Guilt .
On paper the Queen of England may be but only on paper.
I would have to say Richar Nixon got away with a bit more than Charles 1st did .
No, direct rule from god is not a "GOOJFC" for Hitler , but then this would not be his first murder would it ?

BTW Dostler was executed and rightly so.
Milo O'Shea , now that might date us both ;)

The few military commanders who did not follow it to the letter did so to preserve their own honour and that of the army.
I would imagine that civilians in German occupied territory and soldiers captured by the German Army would be under German juristication and that the behaviour of the occupying power and the Army would be regulated by what they had signed to not what the Russians had not signed to.
I refer you again to the Red Cross issue mentioned earlier.

Geneva and Hague only obtained between contracting parties - the Soviets withdrew because clearly they did not want to be bound by it. The German were shocked and appalled by what they faced in the summer of 1941.

There was never a blank cheque to kill civilians or selected groups of POW's.
Cold blooded murder is illegal , even the killing of political officers.

You are moralising again.

May I refer you to the case of General Dostler who was tried with murder of American soldiers ( Commandos , but serving men in uniform) in March 1944.
It is the conduct of the "power" and not the identity of the prisoner which is the issue.

I will have to look into it.

I also refer you also to the Gardelegen Killings of 15th April 1945.

There is something not quite right about the testimonies of the survivors.

"One night we stopped near the town of Gardelegen. We lay down in a field and several Germans went to consult about what they should do. They returned with a lot of young people from the Hitler Youth and with members of the police force from the town. They chased us all into a large barn. Since we were five to six thousand people, the wall of the barn collapsed from the pressure of the mass of people, and many of us fled. The Germans poured out petrol and set the barn on fire. Several thousand people were burned alive. Those of us who had managed to escape lay down in the nearby wood and heard the heart-rending screams of the victims. This was on April 13."
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Gardelegen/Massacre.html

Seeing as you are in the mood for calling epople murderers, what does that make your beloved saintly allies here?

"Two German officials, a man and a woman, were brought to the scene and were being questioned. One of the prisoners seized one of the officer's pistol and shot the German man. His prison mates grabbed the German and dragged him to the corner of the building where some gasoline cans sat, poured gasoline on him and set him afire. This happened so fast I guess everyone froze."

http://h-67-100-213-222.snvacaid.covad.net/Gardelegen/Massacre03.html

The bodies do not look like people who have been burnt alive.
There are a lot of question here.

However, we can return to this.

1016 POWs killed by German forces for no reason , you say there is nothing illegal in this ?

When did I say anything about this case? As I said, there is something fishy about this which I will have to look into. You say they are POW's? That site claims they were Jews.

Reinhold had you been serving in the Heer or SS ,39-45 you would have been some kid.

What's this supposed to mean?

Manstein I would have my doubts him , he had no worries about allowing his troops "to co-operate" with rounding up of " Jews".

We are back to the holocost. What is the source for this (original not secondary)?

Brauchitsch was not over joyed with the order but he wanted the shooting done out of sight and he was ok about killing of civilinas as a reprisal as long as an officer gave the order. ( Better class of killing).

Nothing illegal in that as has been shown.

He saw the possible breakdown of order and respect for rank as being his main issues more than anything which troubled him sleeping at night.

Quite right, that is the first responsibility of an officer.

l The "Commissar order" like the "Commando order" and the "order" which killed the men of " the great escape" the common feature is that on moral and legal grounds it has to be "sooner you than me".

Morality has no place in this discussion. Only facts and legality are of import.

The legal system was run by Hitler who made ad hock law as he saw fit.
Hitler was the law in Germany and the legal system served Hitler and the Party not the people , international law meant nothing to him.

That is nonsense. Why then did they take such pains over legal advice for what they did?

Your confidence in what you believe German law to have become and the standards to which it now operated are very much misplaced.

Please enlighten me so.

Heads of State are imune from Guilt .
On paper the Queen of England may be but only on paper.
I would have to say Richar Nixon got away with a bit more than Charles 1st did .

We are talking about legality, remember?

No, direct rule from god is not a "GOOJFC" for Hitler , but then this would not be his first murder would it ?

What murders did he commit?

Reinhold,
See "After The Battle" issue 111.
Its quite plain from the article that the killing was planned and that people were burnt alive , Jews , Russian POW's and Poles.
There really are not any questions to be asked , only excuses to be made , if you can find any.
Not moralising , there was never a blank cheque to kill civilians or surrendered soldiers.
If you can't tell what murder is well you have just happened on what I mean by you " being some kid" , if you would have done this sort of killing without question seeing it as all legal and above board you too would be between a rock and a hard place at the end of the war.
The killing by General Dostler and the killings in Russia of Russian Political Officers were both illegal , as was the "Commando Order" , both came expressly from Hitler , he may not have pulled the trigger but he gave the order and hangs with rest had he made it to the dock.
Dare I say T4 again , he was guilty as sin there as well.
As far as being head of State , he would still be guilty and would still hang .
ER. his old brownshirt friend, murder as well.
Lidice murder as well , the jews gassed , but that never happened did it.

Source (Manstein) secondary but I will have to go hunt for it.

Sorry Reinhold , Mai lai all over again . In any war there is no blank cheque to kill civilians as a repirsal nor can you shoot a pow at will with no come back , no matter what has or has not been signed.
Murder is still the end result , you can't honestly see this can you ?

Great pains , Hitler took great pains to ensure that he had the legal system just where he wanted it and that he Hitler was " the supreme Judge in Germany" , he told the judges that he would replace them if any objected to this. Great pains , you really don't have a clue .
Hitler murderer already answered.

- "Ever see that movie "Little Nicky" , scene with the pine apple ?"


Cerbo, I must tell you that crappy movies are NOT acceptable or authoritative source material.


Petr

Its quite plain from the article that the killing was planned and that people were burnt alive , Jews , Russian POW's and Poles.

What's plain, is that the account is dependent on these survivors, and that should always make us cautious. I am not in the habit of uncrticially swallowing what people with an axe to grind have to say. That doesn't mean I am rejecting their account, it means I will reserve judgement pending further research and consideration.
Not moralising , there was never a blank cheque to kill civilians or surrendered soldiers.
Did someone say there was?
If you can't tell what murder is well you have just happened on what I mean by you " being some kid" , if you would have done this sort of killing without question seeing it as all legal and above board you too would be between a rock and a hard place at the end of the war.
You don't seem to understand that 'murder' is a legal concept, you use it as a rhetorical weapon. Not very effectively might I add.

The killing by General Dostler and the killings in Russia of Russian Political Officers were both illegal , as was the "Commando Order" , both came expressly from Hitler , he may not have pulled the trigger but he gave the order and hangs with rest had he made it to the dock.

By your own admission you are not in a position to declare those things illegal.

Dare I say T4 again , he was guilty as sin there as well.
You see this why I think you are just a troll. Why do you want to start that one again?
As far as being head of State , he would still be guilty and would still hang .
Nonsense, you don't undertsand the legal enivornment of the time. There was no precedent in history for heads of state being culpable for crimes which were acts of state.
ER. his old brownshirt friend, murder as well.
No, Roehm and co were plotting a coup probably with French help.
Lidice murder as well , the jews gassed , but that never happened did it.
Your belief in gas chambers is akin to an article of religious faith.
Source (Manstein) secondary but I will have to go hunt for it.
Fine.
Sorry Reinhold , Mai lai all over again . In any war there is no blank cheque to kill civilians as a repirsal nor can you shoot a pow at will with no come back , no matter what has or has not been signed.
No argument here. My Lai was a criminal act (incidentally it was a young Colin Powell who was given the job of whitewashing it) becasue it was an atrcoity. Reprisals - which were banned after the war - still had to be authorised and had to fulfill certain conditions in order for them to be legal.
Murder is still the end result , you can't honestly see this can you?
There is no argument in the case of My Lai.
Great pains , Hitler took great pains to ensure that he had the legal system just where he wanted it and that he Hitler was " the supreme Judge in Germany" , he told the judges that he would replace them if any objected to this. Great pains , you really don't have a clue .

You are the clueless one - you've got to stop reading all that allied establisment history and get to grips with the primary sources. Step one, learn German.
Hitler murderer already answered.
But incorrectly.
Maybe we should start talking about Allied war crimes? That should keep us very busy indeed.

- "Ever see that movie "Little Nicky" , scene with the pine apple ?"


Cerbo, I must tell you that crappy movies are NOT acceptable or authoritative source material.


Petr

Quite, but then that is the level.

Petr ,
I agree , my only excuse is my 15 year old was watching it , myself I would not rate it Harvey K. was well wasted . :o
The line I will delete but in no respect to what RE described as a "Jewish Desert Spirit".

Petr ,
I agree , my only excuse is my 15 year old was watching it , myself I would not rate it Harvey K. was well wasted . :o
The line I will delete but in no respect to what RE described as a "Jewish Desert Spirit".

My dear cerberus, if RE refers to yours truly, you are surely getting tied up in knots, when did I say "Jewish desert spirit?" :D

Reinhold , I think it was your reply when i ranked Hitler and Stalin as being in the same league as "Satan".
Your come back was that you did not believe in any Jewish desert spirits , something like that ...i thought it was quite good actually. :D

Reinhold , I think it was your reply when i ranked Hitler and Stalin as being in the same league as "Satan".
Your come back was that you did not believe in any Jewish desert spirits , something like that ...i thought it was quite good actually. :D


:D I think it might be time you had a little rest my friend;

"Jewish desert spook" - Hyperborea
http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=33401&postcount=48

:D

Its true blindness follows :D :eek:
"And ist goodnight from me" Ronnie C.
"And its good night from him" Ronnie B.

Its true blindness follows :D :eek:
"And ist goodnight from me" Ronnie C.
"And its good night from him" Ronnie B.
Your showing your vintage again (as am I by recognising the reference) :D

I was very young :(