WW2 Propaganda:70 Years Later The Lies Continue

[Mondial]

When discussing the nazi invasion of Poland on September 1 1939 many media reports leave out the fact that it was a two front attack as the USSR also invaded that country on September 17 1939 according to the protocols of the nazi-soviet non aggression pact. Stalin is equally as culpable for the start of the war as Hitler but not according to the "history" channel and other biased media. Britain and France declared war on Germany but not the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
In 1939 France invaded Germany. They sent troops and tanks into the Saar region in an attempt to help their Polish ally. France invaded Germany first but the media call Germany the "aggressor" in the conflict between these two countries - http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/french-invasion-of-the-saar-september-1939
I have heard it expressed in the media that Operation Barbarossa was an attack on a "neutral" and "peaceful" USSR. The Soviets invaded Poland in 1939 and Finland later that same year. In 1940 Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were taken over and in Romania the provinces of Bukovina and Bessarabia were annexed. Over 20 million people were forced to live under Stalinist occupation. Not a bad feat for a "neutral" country! Some historians contend that the nazi attack was a pre emptive strike to forestall a Soviet invasion of Germany. They include Victor Suvorov www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html) and Igor Bunich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich Joachim Hoffman has also supported this view in his book STALIN'S WAR OF EXTERMINATION.
The media contend that Adolf Hitler made a mistake by declaring war on the USA. The American government, under the leadership of the pathological liar FDR, was already in a state of war with Germany. His administration, while falsely claiming neutrality, gave billions of dollars in arms and ammunition to Britain and the USSR. A month before Pearl Harbor Roosevelt gave mass murderer Joseph Stalin a 1 billion dollar loan - interest free with no repayments until after the war. 6 months before Pearl Harbor he ordered the depth charging of German and Italian submarines in international waters. At the Atlantic Charter meeting Roosevelt said to Churchill "I may wage war, but I may never declare war". In the week before Pearl Harbor the Roosevelt administration was revealed to have a plan in operation to attack Germany and Italy with a US invasion of Europe. This plan was called "Rainbow 5" - www.strike-the-root.com/72/davies/davies9.html (http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/davies/davies9.html) Because of Roosevelt and his supporters warmongering ways the US was in a state of war with Germany anyway. Hitler's decision to declare war simply made it a formality. Germany's declaration of war against the USA -www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html)
Book by Benjamin Colby on the warmongering and lies of Roosevelt called TWAS A FAMOUS VICTORY www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Twas%20A%20Famous%20Victory_full.pdf (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Twas%20A%20Famous%20Victory_full.pdf)

[Cainkane1]

So the nazis were the victims? I guess those Frenchys got what they deserved didn't they?

Nobody ever says the soviets were innocent and every history book I've ever read does point out that the Russians invaded Poland after Germany.

Overall nobody in their right mind would say the nazis were the good guys.

[zooterkin]

Yes, many people to this day think that carrots help you see in the dark.

[aggle-rithm]

I wouldn't call such ommissions lies. Simplifying history for public consumption is fairly common.

The USSR's involvement was extremely complicated. During the course of the war they were actually at war with Japan and Finland on two seperate occasions each. They were allied with Germany (sort of) then at war with them. Although they ended up being allied with GB and the US, they are rarely included as one of the "Allies". As soon as the war was over, they became the enemy, and remained so for almost fifty years.

This isn't something that can easily be explained without going into some pretty deep issues. Heck, when I was a kid, it confused me that the US fought both Japan and Germany.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Whats your point?

Theres no revision here. None of this is secret and (unlike holocaust deniers) nobody is trying to say that any of that isnt true. It is.

Russia has always been regarded as an aggressor ( actual and potential) ( that hasnt changed- they just tripped in the 80's and fell down)

Yes the US aided those it sided with in arms, money and military support ( we still do)

yes the US makes battle plans well in advance for potential enemies ( we still do- certainly you dont think we wait until attacked to start thinking how to respond do you?)

All nations do this. Always have and always will.

Hell, I've been a part of some of this "support" in SW Asia and South America

whats your point?

[ddt]

The USSR's involvement was extremely complicated. During the course of the war they were actually at war with Japan and Finland on two seperate occasions each. They were allied with Germany (sort of) then at war with them.

Indeed. In the run-up to the (European part of the) war, there were clearly three major parties. First, the UK and France - though they sometimes had differing views, they always came to a consensus standpoint to the rest of the powers. Secondly, there's Germany with Italy as its sidekick. And thirdly, there's the Soviet Union.

Stalin was suspicious of everyone. Not long ago, English and French troops had invaded the nascent SU. Hitler quite clearly had it in for the SU. Let's also not forget how a German-Russian war ended the last time. He talked with both to look who offered him the best deal.

Munich played a big part in his decision to cut a deal with Nazi Germany. Stalin was left out of that conference, and they gave away part of the territory of an ally of his - Czechoslovakia and the SU had a military alliance. He interpreted this as that the Western Allies tried as much as possible to get Hitler's attention to the East. Talks with the UK ambassador in Moscow also amounted to nothing substantial in his opinion.

So, in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Nazi Germany and the SU divided their spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. With the eastern half of Poland in the SU sphere, the starting position of Barbarossa was at least 200 miles further away from Moscow than in case Germany had occupied entire Poland.

That is not condoning that the SU did this, and certainly not how badly they treated the Poles (e.g., Katyn). But it does explain what happened. And it also shows that it's foolish to try to paint the SU as the big aggressor in this case. Hitler was going to invade Poland, and after that the SU, anyhow, that is clear from his moves and from his words.

[Skeptic]

Yet another "but the Nazis were not SO bad" thread.

[drkitten]

Germany. They include Victor Suvorov www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html) and Igor Bunich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich Joachim Hoffman has also supported this view in his book STALIN'S WAR OF EXTERMINATION.

Seventy years later, the lies continue.

... and we can always count on the IHR to tell them, and Mondial to spread them.

[Mondial]

In a 1941 address Roosevelt claimed to be in possession of a map which purported to show a plan for a nazi takeover of South America. The map actually came from the British government and was totally bogus. Hitler and the nazis had no plans to invade South America or North America. Another pack of lies from Roosevelt - www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html)

[Skeptic]

Amazing. Some people actually consider what the IHR writes seriously, almost as if they weren't a gang of holocaust-denying neo-nazis whose relationship to "history" is about the same as the flat earth's society relationship to "geography".

Tell us again how the holocaust never happened, Mondial!

[timhau]

In a 1941 address Roosevelt claimed to be in possession of a map which purported to show a plan for a nazi takeover of South America. The map actually came from the British government and was totally bogus. Hitler and the nazis had no plans to invade South America or North America. Another pack of lies from Roosevelt - www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html)

... and that, folks, is how we know the holocaust never took place.

[Budly]

Too bad there can't be serious responses on this forum that actually address Mondial's assertions.

Hitler invading Poland and the USSR was terrible, unconscionable, and a disaster for Europe. But yes, I think it's probably true that the Soviet Union being part of the invasion of Poland is de-emphasized or even not mentioned sometimes. The Soviet Union didn't go into Poland until 3 weeks after the Germans I believe. (not positive) so perhaps that's one reason it's perceived as a German invasion.

We hear about the Katyn Forest Massacre by the Soviet Union, but what's never said, is that the Nazis are partly responsible because they made a pact with the USSR allowing them to invade Poland.

Mondial's assertions about Roosevelt lying to promote war with Germany: If you're sceptical of right wing sources stating that, then read A People's History of the United States. The author Howard Zinn says the same thing.

[Mondial]

Roosevelt made the statement "Several of my best friends are communist". Communism means a one party state, a dictatorship, secret police, prison camps, press censorship etc. It is alien to the American way of life yet Roosevelt thought it was okay. What does that tell you about the man? It tells me he used democracy to further the aims of communism. After the Teheran conference in 1943, Roosevelt said of the mass murdering Soviet tyrant "Stalin is my brother". www.geocities.com/mark_willey/fdr.html (http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/fdr.html)

[zooterkin]

Hitler invading Poland and the USSR was terrible, unconscionable, and a disaster for Europe. But yes, I think it's probably true that the Soviet Union being part of the invasion of Poland is de-emphasized or even not mentioned sometimes. The Soviet Union didn't go into Poland until 3 weeks after the Germans I believe. (not positive) so perhaps that's one reason it's perceived as a German invasion.

Well, it was certainly mentioned at the official commemoration today in Poland. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8232559.stm)
Polish President Lech Kaczynski has voiced his anger at the Soviet role in World War II at commemorations marking the beginning of the global conflict.

[dudalb]

In 1939 France invaded Germany. They sent troops and tanks into the Saar region in an attempt to help their Polish ally. France invaded Germany first but the media call Germany the "aggressor" in the conflict between these two countries -

France had been at war with Germany for several days when the "invasion" took place.
Ouch.The Stupid of using this an example of "aggression against Germany" hurts bigtime.
And it was not much of an invasion.,anyway.

[ddt]

Hitler invading Poland and the USSR was terrible, unconscionable, and a disaster for Europe. But yes, I think it's probably true that the Soviet Union being part of the invasion of Poland is de-emphasized or even not mentioned sometimes. The Soviet Union didn't go into Poland until 3 weeks after the Germans I believe. (not positive) so perhaps that's one reason it's perceived as a German invasion.

We hear about the Katyn Forest Massacre by the Soviet Union, but what's never said, is that the Nazis are partly responsible because they made a pact with the USSR allowing them to invade Poland.

Wait-a-minute. So you agree the Nazis started WW2. You even give them partly blame for Katyn, which was unequivocally a Soviet atrocity. But they didn't round up and murder the Jews?

Colour me puzzled.

[woolfe99]

Wait-a-minute. So you agree the Nazis started WW2. You even give them partly blame for Katyn, which was unequivocally a Soviet atrocity. But they didn't round up and murder the Jews?

Colour me puzzled.

Very few deniers acknowledge the Nazi responsibility for starting WWII. Rather than be puzzled, I'd give him credit for bucking the stereotype in that regard, though I wonder if he does not make this concession to present an appearance of objectivity regarding his HD claims.

- woolfe

[ddt]

Very few deniers acknowledge the Nazi responsibility for starting WWII. Rather than be puzzled, I'd give him credit for bucking the stereotype in that regard, though I wonder if he does not make this concession to present an appearance of objectivity regarding his HD claims.

That was my impression of deniers too, so we agree here. Budly gets points for originality here, but the arguments in, e.g., the photo-thread are so ludicrous that that objectivity are long gone - IMHO.

[timhau]

Roosevelt made the statement "Several of my best friends are communist". Communism means a one party state, a dictatorship, secret police, prison camps, press censorship etc. It is alien to the American way of life yet Roosevelt thought it was okay. What does that tell you about the man? It tells me he used democracy to further the aims of communism. After the Teheran conference in 1943, Roosevelt said of the mass murdering Soviet tyrant "Stalin is my brother". www.geocities.com/mark_willey/fdr.html (http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/fdr.html)

What that tells me about Roosevelt is that he was willing to side with even Stalin to stop you-know-who. Kind of like Winston Churchill who, upon learning that Germany had invaded the USSR and that he was now an ally of Stalin, said "If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons".

For some reason, your guy made very few friends in the course of WWII.

[Skeptic]

Too bad there can't be serious responses on this forum that actually address Mondial's assertions.

Why "too bad"? Nobody who knows anything about history bothers to reply to what the IHR says seriously, for the same reason nobody who knows anything about geography bothers to reply to what flat-earthers say seriously. Replying seriously to such folks just gives them credibility they don't deserve.

[Elizabeth I]

... and that, folks, is how we know the holocaust never took place.

<<whispering>>Well, you know, Roosevelt was actually a secret Jew..."Rosenfeld" and all that... :rolleyes:

[HansMustermann]

The British and French declaration of war on Germany weren't exactly an act of aggression, they were their obligation as part of their alliance with Poland. That's what an alliance is for, you know? The moment Germany declared war on Poland, you can hardly paint the Brits and French as aggressors for obeying the terms of the alliance.

France and Britain did buck their obligation the moment the USSR entered the war too. Which was actually more than two weeks later than Germany, on 17 September. Neither France nor Britain were ready to fight the USSR, and realistically there was no way to save Poland at that point any more. Nevertheless, the same alliance did require them to react to a Soviet attack too, and they bucked that obligation.

Anyway, I can understand why someone would present the latter as shameful, but presenting the former as aggression against Germany is... surrealistic. Sorry.

[Skeptic]

Yes, HansMusterman, but you have to define "aggression" in the usual Nazi way: it's only "aggression" if anybody fights back.

[Caustic Logic]

It was the Nazi invasion of Poland that triggered UK to go to war with germany. That's the main significance for the English-speaking world. Hardly anyone denies the Soviets invaded too, but that didn't trigger war with English-speakers. The reasons are complex but logical. Why should the UK declare war on Germany and the USSR over some vague principle? No they fight for interests and Germany was a threat to those. USSR was a good ally to give the real enemy two fronts. Taa-daa.

On the Nazi plans for Sud America, I've heard this in the positive [ETA; from elsewhere than IHR, before anyone gets worked up] and not debunked yet. I've tended to feel this was indeed propaganda, but I'm not sure now why. I'd be down with examining this.

So mondial - let's take both points for argument's sake as true. The USSR was given a free ride on Poland, and the Brits and Roosevelt were making up USA-riling propaganda. Two points create a line - the line points where?

[Thunder]

The media contend that Adolf Hitler made a mistake by declaring war on the USA. The American government, under the leadership of the pathological liar FDR, was already in a state of war with Germany.

please, don't hold back. tell us what you REALLY think.

[Thunder]

Communism means a one party state, a dictatorship, secret police, prison camps, press censorship etc.

So does Fascism, which you seem to be defending.

[Corsair 115]

What that tells me about Roosevelt is that he was willing to side with even Stalin to stop you-know-who. Kind of like Winston Churchill who, upon learning that Germany had invaded the USSR and that he was now an ally of Stalin, said "If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons".


Or, in the words of the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[Lonewulf]

Or, in the words of the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

It really isn't. If I were to rephrase that, I would say, "The enemy of my enemy is at least worth the consideration of a temporary alliance."

Less simple and more wordy, but more correct. :)

[Caustic Logic]

It really isn't. If I were to rephrase that, I would say, "The enemy of my enemy is at least worth the consideration of a temporary alliance."

Less simple and more wordy, but more correct. :)

No, no, it was all a well-laid plan, Communist-Liberal/Freemason-Jewish encirclement! Poor noble Third Reich was framed by the vast global conspiracy! At least that seems where we're going here, Which brings us right back to the OP title "WW2 Propaganda:70 Years Later The Lies Continue."Kudos, Mondial! You had that all planned out to unfold that way didn't you? You sly ol dog!

[side-note: Above I ignored France due to some Anglo-centric mode I'm not sure why I slipped into, and also replaced "treaty" with "sentiment," as that might be more what it felt like once literally living up to your full obligations would put you at war with both Nazi Germany AND Stalin's USSR, possibly then fully allied with conquered Poland, Italy and japan, etc... Very different history line there... sentiments, feh.]

[Budly]

In a 1941 address Roosevelt claimed to be in possession of a map which purported to show a plan for a nazi takeover of South America. The map actually came from the British government and was totally bogus. Hitler and the nazis had no plans to invade South America or North America. Another pack of lies from Roosevelt - www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html)

Hey Mondial: Thanks for letting me know about this. I never had heard of it. I still can't get over the fact that Roosevelt did this! Roosevelt also presented some secret document that said Hitler planned to get rid of all religions. Wonder where that document is today. LOL.

[Ranb]

I still can't get over the fact that Roosevelt did this!

You're kidding right? You think anything is beneath the POTUS? Being the most powerful persons (or one of them) in the world can result in them doing just about anything to support their cause; underhanded or not.

Ranb

[Mondial]

A case can also be made against Roosevelt for helping to incite war in Europe in 1939 instead of actively encouraging a peaceful solution to the mounting crisis - www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html)

[timhau]

A case can also be made against Roosevelt for helping to incite war in Europe in 1939 instead of actively encouraging a peaceful solution to the mounting crisis - www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html)

Or, as Bertrand Russell put it, "the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise".

[SezMe]

It tells me he used democracy to further the aims of communism.
It tells me he used communism to further the aims of democracy. But maybe that's just me.

[dafydd]

A case can also be made against Roosevelt for helping to incite war in Europe in 1939 instead of actively encouraging a peaceful solution to the mounting crisis - www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html)

Peace with that megalomaniac Hitler! You must be joking.Speaking as one whose Dad sacrificed a lot to stop the Nazis,I find your remarks insulting the extreme.Get a brain.

[Comrade Raptor]

Why do people who promote nonsense always complain that it generates no serious debate?

If you want a serious debate, it might be wise to start with a serious premise. If you persist in propping up ludicrous assertions there rightly should be no serious debate. Anybody serious about history already knows better.

There are still plenty of legitimate questions to go over. There's no need to make up nonsense and then cry when nobody takes it seriously.

ETA: I mean legitimate questions about the war, not the Holocaust specifically. Wanted to make it clear that I'm not trying to open the door for the deniers.

[Dave Rogers]

When discussing the nazi invasion of Poland on September 1 1939 many media reports leave out the fact that it was a two front attack as the USSR also invaded that country on September 17 1939 according to the protocols of the nazi-soviet non aggression pact.

That's certainly not true on this side of the pond. I was listening to BBC Radio 4's coverage of the memorial events yesterday, and the main thrust of the piece was the lingering resentment in Poland surrounding the Soviet invasion.

Dave

[Uzzy]

I've certainly seen articles on the BBC discussing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and concern at recent measures in Russia designed to set up a panel to defend the 'Official' History of WW2 and the Soviet's involvement, something which misses out the aforementioned Nazi-Soviet Pact, Soviet collusion with the Nazis and even Stalin's efforts to join the Axis. It doesn't seem to me that these things are being ignored in the West.

[HansMustermann]

A case can also be made against Roosevelt for helping to incite war in Europe in 1939 instead of actively encouraging a peaceful solution to the mounting crisis - www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html)

Attempts at peace had been made before. Remember that famous speech where Chamberlain came back waving the piece of paper signed at München, claiming that he secured peace in his time.

The problem is that Hitler never stopped. Each time he made a demand for just one more concession, if granted, it would just encourage him to make the next preposterous one.

Concessions Hitler received included: the anexation of the Sudetenland, the anexation of Austria, the dismemberment of Czechoslowakia (with Germany taking the Chech lands and retaining Slowakia as a puppet), getting Memel from Lithuania. And each such attempt at giving him what he wanted, in order to secure peace, just created the next even more outrageous demand.

Especially after Germany dismembered Czechoslowakia, it was clear to everyone that the previous concession of giving Hitler the Sudetenland didn't actually solve anything. He had already signed that that's all the land he wants from Czechoslowakia, but a short time later he basically remembered that he actually wants more.

_Nobody_ was prepared to do any more concessions, because it was plainly clear that they don't achieve anything.

By the time Germany delivered its "Danzig or war" ultimatum to Poland, nobody believed any more that giving Hitler whatever he wanted is a solution or achieves anything in the long run. So when Hitler's terms became "Danzig or war", everyone said, basically, "**** you! War it is, then."

Roosevelt had nothing to do with it. Britain and France just weren't willing to give Hitler everything he wants either.

And, again, it was Hitler who threatened with war, and gave a "Danzig or war" ultimatum. He alone started that war, lemming. Do you understand that crucial point? It wasn't the allies who threatened him with war, it was he who gave an ultimatum and started the war when he didn't get the lolipop he wanted.

[Debaser]

Attempts at peace had been made before. Remember that famous speech where Chamberlain came back waving the piece of paper signed at München, claiming that he secured peace in his time...

...Especially after Germany dismembered Czechoslowakia, it was clear to everyone that the previous concession of giving Hitler the Sudetenland didn't actually solve anything. He had already signed that that's all the land he wants from Czechoslowakia, but a short time later he basically remembered that he actually wants more...

...Britain and France just weren't willing to give Hitler everything he wants either.



As an aside, I remember a radio documentary on the BBC a few years ago, celebrating its 'regionality'. They played clips of vox-pop interviews taken with 'ordinary' working class people in Manchester immediately after the German invasion of Czechoslovakia proper in early 1939. Without exception the speakers all stated that we should act, i.e. go to war with Germany there and then.

Unsurprisingly, it was stated that these interviews had not been aired at the time.

There is a widely accepted idea that ordinary Britons (and, I assume, French people) were all for appeasement and just hoping Hitler would go away and leave them in peace. These clips at least showed that this wasn't the case, and that there was some appetite for honouring our commitments to the Czech people.

[ddt]

There is a widely accepted idea that ordinary Britons (and, I assume, French people) were all for appeasement and just hoping Hitler would go away and leave them in peace. These clips at least showed that this wasn't the case, and that there was some appetite for honouring our commitments to the Czech people.

Interesting. It was a bit late by then, though. Munich had stripped Czechoslovakia of its defences. The Sudentenland harboured a defence line that's often compared to the French Maginot line, and contrary to that one, the Germans couldn't bypass it easily. When the German generals inspected the Czech fortifications, they sighed in relief they hadn't have to fight over it.

[ddt]

I've certainly seen articles on the BBC discussing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and concern at recent measures in Russia designed to set up a panel to defend the 'Official' History of WW2 and the Soviet's involvement, something which misses out the aforementioned Nazi-Soviet Pact, Soviet collusion with the Nazis and even Stalin's efforts to join the Axis. It doesn't seem to me that these things are being ignored in the West.

Certainly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was shameful on the Soviets, as Munich was shameful on the West powers. Could it have gone differently?

The scene in Spring 1939 was an impossible one, especially for Poland. On a scale from 1 to 10, the Poles' hate and mistrust of both the Germans and the Russians was an 11, built up from a couple of centuries of wars and suppression. In the other direction, it was only slightly less.

England and France wouldn't really go to war over Poland; they had sold out Czechoslovakia already. IIRC, the Soviets had offered military assistance to the Czechs but, ahem, their armies would have needed to cross Poland.

There were talks between the Soviets and the UK, France and Poland. How should they have gone out in this atmosphere? Would the French have thought: well, we have 100 divisions and, though their morale is at the nadir, they can march against the handful of German divisions that guard the Westwall? Would the Poles have thought: we'll trust that the Red Army will only come to defend us and not stay and "rectify" the humiliating borders of the Peace of Riga? And what's in it for the Soviets?

[Uninvolved]

Concessions Hitler received included: the anexation of the Sudetenland, the anexation of Austria, the dismemberment of Czechoslowakia (with Germany taking the Chech lands and retaining Slowakia as a puppet), getting Memel from Lithuania. And each such attempt at giving him what he wanted, in order to secure peace, just created the next even more outrageous demand


I take an exception with these statements. Actually, I take several exceptions, for they reflect some very strange way of thinking.

1. What exactly was the "concession" in the annextation of the Sudetenland, which belonged to Germans (yes, the Austrians too were and are Germans), and where the population was overwhelmingly German?

2. What was the "concession" regarding Memel? Memel became a "state" on its own in 1919, and the Litauer have annexed it in 1923-1924. The ethnicity of the people was a mix, but the first election showed what the people wanted: 94% for the Germany Unity Party (election turnout 83%). Election in 1938: 87% for Germany-oriented parties at 96% turnout.

I wonder why you have not listed the "annexation of Saarland".

3. What exactly was the "concession" in the "annexation" of Austria? In fact there was no annexation at all. The Austrians expressed their will to rejoin with Germany already in 1919.

4. What would the "concession" have been about Danzig?

Most of those, who made the horse trading in 1919 agreed, that the result was unjust and destined to cause big trouble. (They even tried to go back on that, but could not agree how.)

However, there is no excuse (strategic consideration is an explanation but not a good excuse) for the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia. Hitler lied in Munich and he lied to his people. Although lying was - and is - the norm in politics, in international relations as well, that particular lie was not excusable, beside having been unnecessary.

Roosevelt had nothing to do with it. Britain and France just weren't willing to give Hitler everything he wants either


This is not so. Neither England nor France would have given a damn for Poland. It was Roosevelt's game, and he wanted that war, Poland was his tool.

it was Hitler who threatened with war, and gave a "Danzig or war" ultimatum


Righly so, though not wisely.

He alone started that war, lemming


What is that war? He started the German-Polish war, not WWII. MAny posters on this forum prefer to lie, that Germany made a war with England and France. Germany did not need that, did not want that and Hitler did not believe that.


It wasn't the allies who threatened him with war, it was he who gave an ultimatum and started the war when he didn't get the lolipop he wanted.


You have a strange way of thinking.

[Mondial]

Hey Mondial: Thanks for letting me know about this. I never had heard of it. I still can't get over the fact that Roosevelt did this! Roosevelt also presented some secret document that said Hitler planned to get rid of all religions. Wonder where that document is today. LOL.
Yes, Roosevelt was a practitioner of the big lie technique. He had a completely mendacious personality. Members of his administration, with his backing, even invented the story that German pilots also took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Budly]

Thanks Mondial,

I never believed that allegation that Roosevelt brought Pearl Harbor on, but now that I hear about this "official German Map showing plans for dividing most of Latin America into five vassal States" (New York Times 10/29/1941, page 1) Anything could be possible.

[Uninvolved]

Don't rewrite history, says Poland at WW2 ceremony

Polish President Lech Kaczynski warned on Tuesday against efforts to rewrite history as nearly 20 European leaders gathered on Poland's Baltic coast to mark the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War Two.

"(We need) to oppose attempts to write history anew, to question the truths of World War Two, the scale of the casualties of Nazism and also of total communism," Kaczynski wrote.

"It's not Poland that has to learn the lesson of humility. We have no reason for that. Others have -- those who caused this war," Kaczynski, a conservative nationalist, told a gathering of war veterans and government officials.

Yeah, right. Poland just likes to play the role of the innocent lamb and deny the very basics of the reasons for the war.

The cumulative effects of WWII were positive IMO, and the very best of that was, when Churchill explained the Polish, that the Soviets will keep the occupied regions, and they (the Poles) can accept that with a smile or be trampled down.

Well deserved (I mean the Poles, not the Russians).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Or, in the words of the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Would have been nicer for us if Hitler had picked better enemies.

[Thunder]

1. What exactly was the "concession" in the annextation of the Sudetenland, which belonged to Germans (yes, the Austrians too were and are Germans), and where the population was overwhelmingly German?


Wait, so since many folks in western Bohemia were German speaking, that means that Germany had the RIGHT to rule the Sudetenland?

How exactly does that work again?

Many people in Brighton Beach, NY, speak Russian. Does this mean that Russia may annex southern Brooklyn???

There are tons of Irish in Boston. Should Boston be annexed by Ireland?

Were the people of western Bohemia asked if they want to become part of Germany?

[Uzzy]

Certainly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was shameful on the Soviets, as Munich was shameful on the West powers. Could it have gone differently?

The scene in Spring 1939 was an impossible one, especially for Poland. On a scale from 1 to 10, the Poles' hate and mistrust of both the Germans and the Russians was an 11, built up from a couple of centuries of wars and suppression. In the other direction, it was only slightly less.

England and France wouldn't really go to war over Poland; they had sold out Czechoslovakia already. IIRC, the Soviets had offered military assistance to the Czechs but, ahem, their armies would have needed to cross Poland.

There were talks between the Soviets and the UK, France and Poland. How should they have gone out in this atmosphere? Would the French have thought: well, we have 100 divisions and, though their morale is at the nadir, they can march against the handful of German divisions that guard the Westwall? Would the Poles have thought: we'll trust that the Red Army will only come to defend us and not stay and "rectify" the humiliating borders of the Peace of Riga? And what's in it for the Soviets?

From what I remember, the talks between those nations collapsed when the Poles (quite understandably), refused to let the Red Army cross it's border. Given that, I don't think it could have gone differently. That said, had the Soviets not invaded Poland, the Polish army could have held out in the Romanian Bridgehead long enough for the British and French forces to attack Germany from the west.

As an aside, Hitler admitted to his generals that Danzig wasn't the motivation for his invasion, but rather the desire for Lebensraum, something eventually formulated in the Generalplan Ost. Source. (http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521558689&id=i2Z5blE1KGoC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=May+23+Hitler+lebensraum&sig=ljEb7tTkSLQ7eUPjObWawjp4jps#v=onepage&q=May%2023%20Hitler%20lebensraum&f=false)

[Caustic Logic]

Don't rewrite history, says Poland at WW2 ceremony

[FONT="Courier New"]Polish President Lech Kaczynski warned on Tuesday against efforts to rewrite history as nearly 20 European leaders gathered on Poland's Baltic coast to mark the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War Two.

"(We need) to oppose attempts to write history anew, to question the truths of World War Two, the scale of the casualties of Nazism and also of total communism," Kaczynski wrote.

I'm not denying that some people are trying to alter the record here. Who do you think these people Kaczynski's talking about are? Mondial was talking about
the "history" channel and other biased media.
and the pro-Communist Roosevelt and Churchill. That's not who's being referred to here is it? OMG! Russia is whitewashing its own history! They're secretly pro-Soviet! What will become of the word if we cant trust Russia's assessment of its own past actions? We're cast adrift!

[Uninvolved]

Wait, so since many folks in western Bohemia were German speaking, that means that Germany had the RIGHT to rule the Sudetenland?


Parky, I am impressed with this post of you.

Anyway, no, that does not involve such right. However,

1. it was not simply many folks but the majority of the population,

2. they (i.e. their ancestors) have been invited to live there from AD 1204 on,

3. they were grossly discriminated against by the Czechs.

Thus, the decision in Munich was to remove those areas from Czechoslovakia, where more than 50% of the population was German.

Many people in Brighton Beach, NY, speak Russian. Does this mean that Russia may annex southern Brooklyn???


Not a bad idea. Btw, I think much more people speak Russian in Israel, so if we are at that, then Russia should annex Israel as well.

However, if you are at asking such questions, here is another one, I wonder why you don't ask this one:

A small proportion of the inhabitants of Palestine spoke Yiddish (*). Does that mean, that Jews had the RIGHT to rule the Palestine? (**)

(*) a few of them may have been able to speak Hebrew, I guess
(**) first a smaller segment of it, with the stated - and achieved - goal to expand that over the entire Palestine.

Were the people of western Bohemia asked if they want to become part of Germany?


Again an excellent question! They had the choice to stay where they were and thus belong to Germany, or to move over with all their belongings. Guess what: about half of them opted to stay. Your job is to find out, how many of them had justified complains because of discrimination.

[Thunder]

Parky, I am impressed with this post of you.

Anyway, no, that does not involve such right. However,

1. it was not simply many folks but the majority of the population,

2. they (i.e. their ancestors) have been invited to live there from AD 1204 on,

3. they were grossly discriminated against by the Czechs.


The Sudeten Germans were persecuted in Czechoslovakia?

Prove it.

-----ok, so I read about the Sudeten Germans. It seems very odd that these lands were not made part of Austria or Germany after WW1. And it appears that there was affirmative action for Czechs and Czech culture, which may have had a detrimental affect on the Germans.

Now, let me know what I have always felt. The Treaty of Versaille and the other treaties after WW1, were nuts. They punished Germany in such a way that it made a demand for revenge upon the British, French, Russians, etc...almost inevitable.

Woodrow Wilson did not want to punish the Germans soo harshly, but the Brits and French insisted upon it.

Their punishment of Germany allowed Hitler to rise to power.

[dudalb]

It is much fun to see all the little stormtroopers try to defend the reputation of their beloved Fuehrer.

[Brainster]

I see Pat Buchanan is pushing this nonsense (http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090901/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3311160) as well:

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?

[Uninvolved]

I see Pat Buchanan is pushing this nonsense (http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090901/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3311160) as well:


What exactly is the nonsense there?

[ddt]

What exactly is the nonsense there?

Wrong question. What is not nonsense in that article. Makes a smaller list.

[Budly]

Regarding the original post, I've never seen a WWII t.v. show discuss Roosevelt's bogus documents to lie to the American people to go to war. It's never portrayed like that. A map of South America in German showing 5 vassal states?? Sheesh.

[HansMustermann]

What is that war? He started the German-Polish war, not WWII. MAny posters on this forum prefer to lie, that Germany made a war with England and France. Germany did not need that, did not want that and Hitler did not believe that.

And what exactly would _you_ expect, when one attacks a state that is a member of an alliance? If, say, Putin went nuts and Russia attacked Germany... would you expect the rest of NATO to _not_ intervene? Would you expect them to go, "oh, wait, they clearly only want war with Germany, we have no reason to get involved"? Do you think that an alliance is supposed to _not_ help each other?

Then what, pray tell, do you imagine the whole purpose of an alliance to be?

You have a strange way of thinking.

I could say the same.

[dafydd]

Yes, Roosevelt was a practitioner of the big lie technique. He had a completely mendacious personality. Members of his administration, with his backing, even invented the story that German pilots also took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Lol,Hitler lied his arse off all his life.

[drkitten]

Regarding the original post, I've never seen a WWII t.v. show discuss Roosevelt's bogus documents to lie to the American people to go to war. It's never portrayed like that. .

There's a reason for that. WWII TV shows tend to concentrate on what really happened, not on fabrications made up after the fact by Nazi apologists.

[Budly]

drkitten wrote:
There's a reason for that. WWII TV shows tend to concentrate on what really happened, not on fabrications made up after the fact by Nazi apologists.

Well no one says the Nazi map of the 5 German vassal states in South America is real anymore. Nor is the document about ending all world religions. Yet I just read about Roosevelt saying such things in the October 27-30 1941 New York Times.

[Uninvolved]

And what exactly would _you_ expect, when one attacks a state that is a member of an alliance?


Alliance? You must be in the mood for joking today.

An alliance, which provides for assistance even if the allied itself starts a war?

An alliance, which is aimed at the destruction of the junior partner?

[Rogue1stclass]

So, the revisionists are recasting Hitler and Roosevelt in opposite roles?

That's kind of funny to me, because up until WWII, the US was barely considered a world power in Europe. Britain and France more or less wanted to use those backwards yokels across the pond like they did in WWI, to bolster their own forces. In fact, the European Axis nations probably thought more of us than the Allies, at least at first. Mussolini was infatuated with the US, while Hitler had enough of an idea of what we could do to take us seriously.

The idea that the leader of this band of mutts across the Atlantic was somehow the one orchestrating everything the Allies did is just silly. Even if he tried, and he probably did, he would have been mostly dismissed as being an upstart, like Wilson had been 20 years before.

[Uninvolved]

up until WWII, the US was barely considered a world power in Europe. Britain and France more or less wanted to use those backwards yokels across the pond like they did in WWI, to bolster their own forces


It is necessary to distinguish between the intentions of the Europeans and those of Roosevelt. It was definitively not the intention of England's politicians to ruin the British Empire, but Roosevelt was working towards taking over it slowly but steadily, and very successfully.

Roosevelt fooled England and France into giving the fateful guarantee to Poland, and he helped fooling Poland into believing, that the guarantee was more worth than a used toilet paper, but when it came to actions, he did nothing. He was not allowed to do anything (Americans were rightly fed up with paying for the Europeans' escapades), and everybody knew that. Perhaps he did not even intend to do anything so soon, for he was bent on stripping England of her possessions and power, but that is a speculation based on later events.

It would be interesting to know, how far Roosevelt was planning to let the Soviet Union to go, and how happy would he have been to learn, that the Soviets too made nuclear weapons in a short time, with the help of their spies. For example China: Roosevelt did not say a word when the Soviets gained more and more power in China, but he condemned the Japs for the same, up to provoking the war.

The idea that the leader of this band of mutts across the Atlantic was somehow the one orchestrating everything the Allies did is just silly. Even if he tried, and he probably did, he would have been mostly dismissed as being an upstart, like Wilson had been 20 years before.


Neither Engand nor France would have given the Poland guarantee without Roosevelt's prodding, and they would not have entered the war without believing that they will receive US military assistance, at least in form of selling military supply.

The most important aspect is, that England, but particularly France abused their position in 1919 and created a situation, which was bound to escalate, and they knew that they need American help to stay on top of that.

[tsig]

It is necessary to distinguish between the intentions of the Europeans and those of Roosevelt. It was definitively not the intention of England's politicians to ruin the British Empire, but Roosevelt was working towards taking over it slowly but steadily, and very successfully.

Roosevelt fooled England and France into giving the fateful guarantee to Poland, and he helped fooling Poland into believing, that the guarantee was more worth than a used toilet paper, but when it came to actions, he did nothing. He was not allowed to do anything (Americans were rightly fed up with paying for the Europeans' escapades), and everybody knew that. Perhaps he did not even intend to do anything so soon, for he was bent on stripping England of her possessions and power, but that is a speculation based on later events.

It would be interesting to know, how far Roosevelt was planning to let the Soviet Union to go, and how happy would he have been to learn, that the Soviets too made nuclear weapons in a short time, with the help of their spies. For example China: Roosevelt did not say a word when the Soviets gained more and more power in China, but he condemned the Japs for the same, up to provoking the war.




Neither Engand nor France would have given the Poland guarantee without Roosevelt's prodding, and they would not have entered the war without believing that they will receive US military assistance, at least in form of selling military supply.

The most important aspect is, that England, but particularly France abused their position in 1919 and created a situation, which was bound to escalate, and they knew that they need American help to stay on top of that.

It's a shame that that sly lying dog Roosevelt maneuvered that starry-eyed innocent Hitler into WWII.

Too bad your Hero was so dumb.

[headscratcher4]

Maybe this will solve the whole problem...obviously, lying, devious, profoundly anti-semitic Rosevelt created the crisis in Europe that suckered Hitler in to not only invading countries he couldn't beat but also to help wipe out most of European Jewry so that the resulting power void in a newly Jew-free Europe (as the Jews ran the world) could be filled by American power! That crazy ol' FDR he finnagled Hitler into doing his un-holy bidding. Hitler should have just stayed home painting for all he got out of the deal.

[dafydd]

Maybe this will solve the whole problem...obviously, lying, devious, profoundly anti-semitic Rosevelt created the crisis in Europe that suckered Hitler in to not only invading countries he couldn't beat but also to help wipe out most of European Jewry so that the resulting power void in a newly Jew-free Europe (as the Jews ran the world) could be filled by American power! That crazy ol' FDR he finnagled Hitler into doing his un-holy bidding. Hitler should have just stayed home painting for all he got out of the deal.

Yes,and Roosevelt ghost-wrote Mein Kampf too.

[headscratcher4]

Yes,and Roosevelt ghost-wrote Mein Kampf too.

Shhhhh! You're not supposed to say that outloud.

[HansMustermann]

Alliance? You must be in the mood for joking today.

An alliance, which provides for assistance even if the allied itself starts a war?

An alliance, which is aimed at the destruction of the junior partner?

Exactly how did Poland start the war? Because that's who France and England were allied with. Or are _you_ in the mood for joking today?

And alliance aimed at the destruction of Poland? Hmm, now it certainly failed to prevent it, that's for sure. But if you want to claim that destroying Poland was England and France's _aim_ all along, I'm affraid I'll have to ask for some evidence.

[dafydd]

Exactly how did Poland start the war? Because that's who France and England were allied with. Or are _you_ in the mood for joking today?

And alliance aimed at the destruction of Poland? Hmm, now it certainly failed to prevent it, that's for sure. But if you want to claim that destroying Poland was England and France's _aim_ all along, I'm affraid I'll have to ask for some evidence.

He'll concoct some.

[HansMustermann]

For example China: Roosevelt did not say a word when the Soviets gained more and more power in China, but he condemned the Japs for the same, up to provoking the war.

Gee, whizz, you don't figure it had something to do with the fact that Japan attacked China repeatedly, while all the Soviets did for power there was help China? Last I heard nobody protested against Germany for training and arming two Chinese divisions either.

Or you don't suppose it might have had something to do with Japan's bombing and sinking USS Panay in the Yangtze river incident? Sinking a neutral power's ships tends to not make you particularly loved, last I heard.

Or you don't suppose that it might have had something to do with the Nanking Massacre? Who would have guessed that the West would object to a six-week stretch of slaughter and atrocities against the civillians, eh? Totally must be some subversive plan of Roosevelt's ;)

Or you don't suppose that decrypting Japanese orders to use chemical and bacteriological weapons against the Chinese might have, you know, caused people to dislike Japan?

Or you don't suppose that battles right across the river from the Western firms in Hong-Kong might have given Westerners the idea that the Japanese are a freaking long way from that Marco-Polo Bridge where they still pretended to have just a border incident?

Heh. Naah, it must be just Roosevelt's propaganda ;)

[themusicteacher]

I always knew that Hitler fellow was a nice guy. I can't believe he's been defamed for so long. I'm just so glad there are people who will defend poor, poor Adolf. I think, since so many serious and intelligent people are already on this I'm going to focus my efforts on exonerating Pol Pot, Stalin and Chairman Mao. I'll get back to you with some solid evidence after I surf the web....

[Uninvolved]

Exactly how did Poland start the war?


I have not stated, that Poland started the war; I was explaining, that it was not an alliance but a guarantee.

However, if we are at that: Poland, the innocent lamb, the unprovoking victim of Nazi Germany, right? Well, let's see.


The issue was not only Germany's claim on Danzig. Poland was bent on annex Danzig.


Polands Ambassador to Berlin, Lipski, has threatened Germany with war if Germany pursues planes of returning Danzig to Germany.


Tens of thousands of Germans are fleeing from Poland, while the Polish officiers are shooting the escapers.


Germany made six offers to Poland to solve the Danzig issue; among other, he offered, that Danzig be attached to Germany politically and to Polandeconomically. These offers were seen as reasonable by the diplomats of the Western countries.


In hindsight it appears ridiculous, but Poland had designs on East-Prussia; they belied it seriously, that they will beat Germany and annex even more German regions.


The Polish Foreign Minister declared in Berlin, that the Polish government is not in the position to control the events any more. (The Polish propaganda achieved raising the hysteria to a level, where it gout out of hand.)


The Polish Vice Minister of War expressed his belief, that the Wehrmach is a "bluff", and of course the Polish military is superior to the German one.


The Polish Ambasador to Paris explained Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister, that the Polish armee will penetrate into Germany from the first day of war.


1939-08-24: Polish flaks from shiffs are trying to shoot down a Lufthansa airliner over the Baltic Sea, 40 Km from the coast.
1939-08-25: Polis flaks are shooting at a Lufthansa airliner over the Baltic Sea, 20 Km from the coast. Polish flaks are trying to shoot down a german hydroplane.


On the last night, when Hitler was still waiting for a Polish response to the last offer, Lipski stated, that he was not interested on any German offer, for he knew the situation in Germany; there will be an uprising in Germany and the Polish troups will march in Berlin.


alliance aimed at the destruction of Poland? Hmm, now it certainly failed to prevent it, that's for sure. But if you want to claim that destroying Poland was England and France's _aim_ all along, I'm affraid I'll have to ask for some evidence.


Poland's destruction was not the actual goal. The goal was to drag Germany in a war. However, the Allies knew very well, that


Poland can not defend herself,


neither England nor France was in the position to lend any actual help to the Poles,


they did not give a damm for Poland, i.e. Polands destruction was calculated with.


Let's see, what happened.

1. England and France extended the guarantee even to the case, that Poland starts the war against Germany.

2. Hitler repeatedly asked for Englands help in the Danzig question. England has acknowledged the injustice regarding Danzig and recognized the importance of a solution.

3. England declared, that the Danzig question must be solved between Germany and Poland on a peaceful way. France stresses the same.

However, Poland sees any suggestions of Germany to consultations as an attempt to separate her from England.

4. Hitler repeatedly delayed the war against Poland. The British government interprets this as a weakness, instead of as a willingness to negotiations.

5. After Hitlers renewed pleading on England to move Poland to negotiations, the British government tells the Poles to negotiate, but they are told, that England expects no result. This is repeated later in clear-text:

We can not advise the Polish government to send a negotiator to Berlin to receive the German offer.

The Germans capture and decode the instruction to the Polish Ambassador to Berlin, to appear to "negotiation" but not to negotiate about anything[/i].

6. A traitor in the German Embassy in Moskow immediately passed the content of the secret appendix to the Soviet-German treaty, which states, that in case Germany invades Poland, then they have to stop at the rivers Narew, Weichsel and San; the rest of Poland will bge occupied by the Soviet troups.

Had the Poles known about this point of the traty, they would have made some thoughts about how to avoid the war.

Instead of warning the Poles about their fate, they were told explicitely, that the German-Soviet treaty contained secret clauses, but [b]they do not affect Poland.

[Uninvolved]

while all the Soviets did for power there was help China?


Did you go to school in East Germany?

Or you don't suppose it might have had something to do with Japan's bombing and sinking USS Panay in the Yangtze river incident?
...


I think you need a calendar, which goes back a bit more, like to the 1920s.

[Corsair 115]

Regarding the original post, I've never seen a WWII t.v. show discuss Roosevelt's bogus documents to lie to the American people to go to war.


Considering that (a) the U.S. didn't enter the war until attacked first by Japan, and (b) it was Germany which declared war on the United States first, any such instances of supposedly lying to the American people to go to war are immaterial and irrelevant as it had no effect on either the public or Congress in getting the U.S. to declare war first on Germany.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Funny how all of what you suggested is all out of any serious book about the subject.. funny.. and a little.. sad.

First off, Danzig was a Free City because of the treaty of Versallis.

[Bloodtoes]

I'm amazed you people got through that post. It's the Berlin wall of text.. O.o

[Skeptic]

I always knew that Hitler fellow was a nice guy. I can't believe he's been defamed for so long. I'm just so glad there are people who will defend poor, poor Adolf. I think, since so many serious and intelligent people are already on this I'm going to focus my efforts on exonerating Pol Pot, Stalin and Chairman Mao. I'll get back to you with some solid evidence after I surf the web....

Don't piss him off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4lJ9vsZjMU) with such suggestions!

P.S.

For German speakers, this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-7QoiOH9r0&feature=related) is pretty good too.

[HansMustermann]

I have not stated, that Poland started the war; I was explaining, that it was not an alliance but a guarantee.

Your original assertion, that I was answering to, was: "An alliance, which provides for assistance even if the allied itself starts a war?"

I can't help the feeling that some goalposts have been shifted a bit in the meantime. Or what, then, was the purpose and meaning of, "even if the allied itself starts a war?" Just as a complete red herring of a situation which never happened?

However, if we are at that: Poland, the innocent lamb, the unprovoking victim of Nazi Germany, right? Well, let's see.

Again, it looks to me like some goalposts changed places there. Between the charge of "even if the allied itself starts a war" and Poland's merely overestimating its army, that's quite the difference.

Poland's destruction was not the actual goal. The goal was to drag Germany in a war. However, the Allies knew very well, that

Again, it seems to me like some goalposts have shifted. Your original statement about it was, "An alliance, which is aimed at the destruction of the junior partner?" Your own emphasis not mine.

_That_ is what I asked for evidence about. So please kindly support _that_ statement or admit that it was wrong.

[16.5]

"pathological liar FDR."

Huh, I was not aware that Holocaust deniers attacked FDR like this.

I should have realized it though, they are mad that the poor old cripple kicked Little One Ball's Ass.

[Rogue1stclass]

"pathological liar FDR."

Huh, I was not aware that Holocaust deniers attacked FDR like this.

I should have realized it though, they are mad that the poor old cripple kicked Little One Ball's Ass.

It shocked me too. But then I realized that FDR lead his country through and out of a terrible economic collapse, successfully fought a terrible war on two fronts against powerful enemies, and set his nation up to be a leader in the world for generations to come. In other words, he did everything Hitler wanted to do, only he did them successfully. He even managed to inter thousands of an ethnic minority without wholesale slaughter, which is what the deniers want to believe Hitler attempted.

So, basically, FDR was everything the deniers want Hitler to have been, so account for this disparity, they have recast FDR as Hitler actually was. Which is funny, because it still makes FDR a better leader than Hitler.

[dafydd]

It shocked me too. But then I realized that FDR lead his country through and out of a terrible economic collapse, successfully fought a terrible war on two fronts against powerful enemies, and set his nation up to be a leader in the world for generations to come. In other words, he did everything Hitler wanted to do, only he did them successfully. He even managed to inter thousands of an ethnic minority without wholesale slaughter, which is what the deniers want to believe Hitler attempted.

So, basically, FDR was everything the deniers want Hitler to have been, so account for this disparity, they have recast FDR as Hitler actually was. Which is funny, because it still makes FDR a better leader than Hitler.

A turd would have made a better leader than Hitler.

[ddt]

I have not stated, that Poland started the war; I was explaining, that it was not an alliance but a guarantee.

However, if we are at that: Poland, the innocent lamb, the unprovoking victim of Nazi Germany, right? Well, let's see.

<list of claims snipped>


You can provide evidence for those claims? And with evidence, I don't mean quotes from Jewwatch (or Polakwatch?). They sound as ridiculous as your lists of Bolshevik commissars (btw, are you going to get back at that discussion or have you thrown the towel?).

Of all those outrageous claims were true, why would Hitler then need to fabricate the Gleiwitz incident?

[woolfe99]

It shocked me too. But then I realized that FDR lead his country through and out of a terrible economic collapse, successfully fought a terrible war on two fronts against powerful enemies, and set his nation up to be a leader in the world for generations to come. In other words, he did everything Hitler wanted to do, only he did them successfully. He even managed to inter thousands of an ethnic minority without wholesale slaughter, which is what the deniers want to believe Hitler attempted.

So, basically, FDR was everything the deniers want Hitler to have been, so account for this disparity, they have recast FDR as Hitler actually was. Which is funny, because it still makes FDR a better leader than Hitler.

Their attacks on Churchill tend to be even more shrill.

- woolfe

[Uninvolved]

(btw, are you going to get back at that discussion or have you thrown the towel?)


As I posted, I am fed up with your childishness.

Of all those outrageous claims were true, why would Hitler then need to fabricate the Gleiwitz incident?


I guess this will really surprize the resident professional Anti-Germans: there was no Gleiwitz incident. Much of the fabrication was a fabrication (not entirely w/o German participation).

[Thunder]

I guess this will really surprize the resident professional Anti-Germans: there was no Gleiwitz incident.

what??????????

are u suggesting there was no Nazi false-flag at Gleiwitz?

prove it.

[Thunder]

Much of what is known about the Gleiwitz incident comes from the sworn affidavit of Alfred Naujocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Naujocks) at the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials). In his testimony, he states that he organized the incident under orders from Reinhard Heydrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich) and Heinrich Müller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_M%C3%BCller_%28Gestapo%29), the chief of the Gestapo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident#cite_note-Nuremberg-0)
On the night of August 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_31), 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939), a small group of German operatives, dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident#cite_note-Ailsby-1) seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment) message in Polish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_language) (sources vary on the content of the message). The Germans' goal was to make the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saboteur).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident#cite_note-Ailsby-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident#cite_note-WirtzGordon-2)
In order to make the attack seem more convincing, the Germans brought in Franciszek Honiok, a German Silesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesians) known for sympathizing with the Poles, who had been arrested the previous day by the Gestapo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo). Honiok was dressed to look like a saboteur; then killed by lethal injection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection), given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene, so that he appeared to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented as proof of the attack to the police and press.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident#cite_note-Franciszek_Honiok-3)

[ddt]

As I posted, I am fed up with your childishness.
Ah yes, great excuse. You just can't prove your point, neither in that thread nor here:


I guess this will really surprize the resident professional Anti-Germans: there was no Gleiwitz incident. Much of the fabrication was a fabrication (not entirely w/o German participation).
:dl:

By now, you may have noticed that people on this site wish evidence. Your friend Budly at least understands that part. You throw out claims without the slightest hint of evidence. You've conveniently glossed over the part where I asked for evidence for your previous outrageous claims, and now you throw out another without offering up any evidence. Come on, there must be some webpage out there supporting this, even if it's from the JHR. Let us have a good laugh at dissecting it.

[Rogue1stclass]

Their attacks on Churchill tend to be even more shrill.

- woolfe

True, but that is expected, as the European Theater is often framed as Hitler v. Churchill. The Roosevelt attacks in this thread just seemed so left-field.

[Uninvolved]

what??????????

are u suggesting there was no Nazi false-flag at Gleiwitz?


Parky, Parky, why would have been a "Nazi false-flag" there, whatever that is, when Gleiwitz was in Germany? I guess there was a real German flag on the building. I'm afraid you did not understand the Wiki article you pasted here. No problem, for that article is total rubbish.

[ddt]

Parky, Parky, why would have been a "Nazi false-flag" there, whatever that is, when Gleiwitz was in Germany? I guess there was a real German flag on the building. I'm afraid you did not understand the Wiki article you pasted here. No problem, for that article is total rubbish.

It helps to know what a false flag operation is. From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag_operation):
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.


And that's precisely what the Nazi's did at Gleiwitz: they carried out the attack in Polish uniforms, so it appeared that Polish soldiers carried out the attack.

Why they did the attack on German soil? Obviously to use it as casus belli to invade Poland.

And you still haven't provided evidence that the Gleiwitz incident didn't occur. Keep on lying.

[Uninvolved]

_That_ is what I asked for evidence about. So please kindly support _that_ statement or admit that it was wrong.

Grow up, Hans. I am not here to groom your ego.

[dafydd]

Grow up, Hans. I am not here to groom your ego.

You are a liar.

[Mondial]

There's a reason for that. WWII TV shows tend to concentrate on what really happened, not on fabrications made up after the fact by Nazi apologists.
It has nothing to do with anyone being a "nazi apologist". Yours is an attempt to smear and character assassinate any even handed and fair minded study of world war 2 as being "nazi". The USA was allied to the tyrannical regime of Joseph Stalin and his blood drenched USSR - a government which was responsible for 20 million deaths. I could just as easily call you a "soviet apologist".

[Thunder]

It has nothing to do with anyone being a "nazi apologist". .

BS. there are several folks here who do indeed apologize for almost every crime the Nazis committed..and deny the rest.

please find me one individual at JREF who apologizes for the Gulags, the Holodomir, or other Soviet crimes.

[Thunder]

No problem, for that article is total rubbish.

prove it.

[Thunder]

I guess this will really surprize the resident professional Anti-Germans

anti-German?

there is nothing "anti-German" about being against the Nazis. if anything, it is pro-German.

that's like saying it is "anti-Russian" to be against Stalin and the Soviet crimes, or "anti-Semitic" to be against the Israeli settlements, or "anti-white" to be against Segregation in the American South.

keep your strawman arguments to yourself.

[timhau]

Parky, Parky, why would have been a "Nazi false-flag" there, whatever that is, when Gleiwitz was in Germany?

Yes, it would have been much smarter to dress up as Polish military and attack a Polish radio station to get a casus belli against Poland. As Hitler says in Springtime for Hitler, "We're all Germans! That means we can't attack Germany."

Excellent logic, sir.

[Chaos]

As I posted, I am fed up with your childishness.

The only childishness here come from Nazi apologists like you.

[Moss]

As I posted, I am fed up with your childishness.




I guess this will really surprize the resident professional Anti-Germans: there was no Gleiwitz incident. Much of the fabrication was a fabrication (not entirely w/o German participation).

Well, as a German: The Gleiwitz incident occurred and we have the testimony of SD member Alfred Naujocks who fabricated the incident among other things to prove it.

[Thunder]

Well, as a German: The Gleiwitz incident occurred and we have the testimony of SD member Alfred Naujocks who fabricated the incident among other things to prove it.

furthermore, would you also agree that to be anti-Nazi is very pro-German?

I am very greatful and honor those brave Germans who stood up to the Nazis before and during WW2. It took incredible courage to do so. Many of these Germans formed the new governments both in East and West Germany.

I am very anti-Nazi...but I bear no ill will to the German people. They have atoned for their great sins against the Jewish people and it is time to move on. The fact that there are now more then 200,000 Jews living in Germany shows how far that society has come.

[Uninvolved]

Parky

Gleiwitz is an entertaining story.

First, the initial situation.

Hitler on 1939-08-22:

I will provide propagandistic reasons for the war, no matter if realistic or not. The victor will not be asked if he told the truth or not.

Second, the "proof of what happened".

The only evidence is the testimony of Alfred Helmut Naujocks, a former SS member, who deserted to the Americans. His testimony has been read at the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings on 1945-12-20.

Naujocks did not offer any proof to his statements; he did not name any person participating in the action, he did not explain why Heidrich would have ordered him directly instead of the usual way through his superiors; in fact, his superiors had no knowledge of what he was doing. He did not receive the text he was supposed to read, instead one of his subordinates in this project wrote it on his own. He did not give any description of the location or any more details.

Most importantly: he admitted to having participated in a crime, which normally would have carried a serious punishment. He made that admission without any compelling reason, for he was not charged for that; nobody ever heard his name in conjunction with Gleiwitz before.

Afterwards, Naujocks was free to go and lived probably in South America; later he moved back to Germany but he never was bothered at all because of Gleiwitz.

Third: what has happened at Gleiwitz.

The radio station at Gleiwitz was 7 km from the Polish border. It was guarded by a unit of armed reserve officiers.

The radio station Breslau (the main sender) broadcast a report about the station in Gleiwitz having been attacked by Poles. (Apparently there is no recording of it and the text is not known any more.) The commander of the guard unit in Gleiwitz, Otto Radek, heard this report at home and drove immediately to the station. He found one guard on duty, everyone else was sleeping. Nobody knew of any attack, there are no traces of shootings, no casualties, no dead "Polish soldier".

So, what happened at Gleiwitz? Some members of the SS appeared in civil, they had a written command to carry out a "broadcasting excercise" in German and in Polish. They read what they wanted to and left.

Radek phoned his superiors and was told, that everything was all right and he must keep this incident secret.

The people living close to the station have confirmed, that they did not notice any fighting around the station. The chief of the local police was interrogated by the IMT, but never asked about the incident.

Finally, the consequences.

1. The "raid" of the radio station was reported by the Völkischen Beobachter as an attack on Gleiwitz by Polish "irregular units", i.e. not by soldiers.

2. Goehring told Dahlerus about the Gleiwitz incident (a Swede playing important role in communications between the German and British government).

3. Heidrich had a model of the raid made and used it in demonstrating the attack to his guests (no idea, who those were).

4. Hitler never mentioned Gleiwitz with a word.

5. The White Book of the German Foreign Ministry listed real cases of Polish attacks. The fake attacks Hoflinden, Gleiwitz, Pitschen were not among those.

Most of the above is from Pit Pietersen's Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte...

[Moss]

Where is your proof that Naujocks' testimony shouldn't be taken serious?
You offer no proof his superiors didn't know about it, you offer no proof that Naujocks didn't do it. Where else was he?
What about the murder of Franz Honiok who should have still been in Gestapo custody? His body was planted as evidence of "Polish attackers".
The Gleiwitz incident is an established fact and YOU have to offer proof that it didn't happen.
Pit Pietersen is as unschorlaly as can be. It's pure apologetic hogwash.
For a serious treatment of the incident try Jürgen Runzheimer in Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 4/1962. And funnily enough Runzheimer states that the Weißbuch (which is available online on scribd) lists the Gleiwitz incident with one dead attacker.
Doesn't seem like Pietersen is that reliable.

[ddt]

Where is your proof that Naujocks' testimony shouldn't be taken serious?
You offer no proof his superiors didn't know about it, you offer no proof that Naujocks didn't do it. Where else was he?
What about the murder of Franz Honiok who should have still been in Gestapo custody? His body was planted as evidence of "Polish attackers".
The Gleiwitz incident is an established fact and YOU have to offer proof that it didn't happen.
Pit Pietersen is as unschorlaly as can be. It's pure apologetic hogwash.
For a serious treatment of the incident try Jürgen Runzheimer in Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 4/1962. And funnily enough Runzheimer states that the Weißbuch (which is available online on scribd) lists the Gleiwitz incident with one dead attacker.
Doesn't seem like Pietersen is that reliable.

Welcome to the forum, Moss!

Link to the Weißbuch (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11444739/Auswartiges-Amt-1939-Nr-2-Dokumente-zur-Vorgeschichte-des-Krieges?autodown=pdf). Page 414, top:
4. Meldung des Polizeipräsidenten Gleiwitz. Gegen 20 Uhr wurde der Sender Gleiwitz durch einen Trupp polnischer Aufständischer überfallen und vorübergehend besetzt. Die Aufständischen wurden durch deutsche Grenzpolizeibeamten vertrieben. Bei der Abwehr wurde ein Aufständischer tödlich verletzt.

Hofflinden is also mentioned. When Uninvolved says that Hitler didn't mention Gleiwitz, it's pure sophistry. Hitler mentioned 14 incidents that night, 3 of which serious, without using names. Curiously, the Weißbuch only mentions 11 incidents.

And I guess that Pit Pietersen is at least a rung up from Jewwatch, which Uninvolved used to quote.

[themusicteacher]

anti-German?

there is nothing "anti-German" about being against the Nazis. if anything, it is pro-German.

that's like saying it is "anti-Russian" to be against Stalin and the Soviet crimes, or "anti-Semitic" to be against the Israeli settlements, or "anti-white" to be against Segregation in the American South.

keep your strawman arguments to yourself.

Oh, come now, parky! Don't you know Hitler was the Ultimate German?:D

I'm finding these recent pro-Nazi, anti-semitic revisionist posts disturbing and amusing all at the same time. I had no idea the lengths to which these sociopaths would go to "prove" that the Nazi's were somehow the good guys in all of this. The mental gymnastics and fabrication [post facto of the events leading up to the war, not to mention the denial of Nazi atrocities during the war, are, quite simply, astounding. One is tempted to jsut say "don't feed to trolls" but these guys are dead-serious about this nonsense. What a complete load.

[Uninvolved]

Where is your proof that Naujocks' testimony shouldn't be taken serious?

Where is your proof, that his testimony should be taken seriously?

What about the murder of Franz Honiok who should have still been in Gestapo custody? His body was planted as evidence of "Polish attackers"

Really? Where was his body? What happened to his body? Naujocks testified:

Actual proof of these attacks of the Poles is needed for the foreign press...

Have you seen foreign press reports, photographs and alike?

The Gleiwitz incident is an established fact and YOU have to offer proof that it didn't happen[/i]


Established BS. You must have been brainwashed heavily to accept everything the one side states and reject everything the other says. This is typical for the Exterminationist activists.

[quote]Pit Pietersen is as unschorlaly as can be


I guess he wrote something you disagree with.

For a serious treatment of the incident try Jürgen Runzheimer in Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 4/1962


I have it and I read it. I find both Pietersen's and Runzheimers' story scatchy, to say the least. This is rather like made in Hollywood.

And funnily enough Runzheimer states that the Weißbuch (which is available online on scribd) lists the Gleiwitz incident with one dead attacker.
Doesn't seem like Pietersen is that reliable.


This is really funny, for what you and ddt found on Scribd is not the White Book. AFAIK that is lost, it is probably in the closed archive of one of the victorious powers. So much to Runzheimers' reliability.

[Thunder]

This is typical for the Exterminationist activists.

:D:p

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

It was the Nazi invasion of Poland that triggered UK to go to war with germany. That's the main significance for the English-speaking world. Hardly anyone denies the Soviets invaded too, but that didn't trigger war with English-speakers. The reasons are complex but logical. Why should the UK declare war on Germany and the USSR over some vague principle? No they fight for interests and Germany was a threat to those. USSR was a good ally to give the real enemy two fronts. Taa-daa.


Umm... no.
Until June 22 of 1941 the USSR was decidedly not considered an ally, IIRC the British considered fighting with the Finns during their war with the Soviets in 1940.
The Finnish air force fought the Red Army in British aircraft models, bought as late as 1940.

[Dr. Tobias Fünke]

I guess this will really surprize the resident professional Anti-Germans: there was no Gleiwitz incident. Much of the fabrication was a fabrication (not entirely w/o German participation).

How does anti-Nazi equal anti-German?
The only accomplishment of the Nazis I could think of, ever, was completely f***ing up and winding up dead in the process.
To paraphrase Eddie Izzard: you're quite a loser if you spend your wedding night in a ditch, burning :D .
Luckily, the western allies came to the party, too, saving us (the Germans) an at least half of Europe from the Nazis and the Soviets.


(Oh, and a several successful franchises of computer games.)

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

One of the reasons to read history is that, very often, the idiotic excuses trotted out by the holocaust deniers are, history shows, not at all a "new look" at the "established dogma", but the very same idiotic excuses that Hitler & co. used 70 years ago -- with no success, the excuses for Nazi Germany's naked agression being, as I said, idiotic.

For example, William Shirer, in Berlin Diary, noted a conversation he had in 1940 (or 1941) with a German woman:

- H'm - she said -- why did Britian attack us?
- H'm -- I said -- why did you attack Poland?
- Ah, but the British, they're human beings...
- And the Poles, maybe they are human beings too?
- H'm, she said.

Shirer adds: "The Germans are out of their mind."

[Moss]

This is really funny, for what you and ddt found on Scribd is not the White Book. AFAIK that is lost, it is probably in the closed archive of one of the victorious powers. So much to Runzheimers' reliability.

That's where you are really wrong. You can get copies of the Weißbuch via anttiquarian book trading wqebsites like zvab.com. So much for that not being the Weißbuch and being kept secret.

[Moss]

And I guess that Pit Pietersen is at least a rung up from Jewwatch, which Uninvolved used to quote.

The funniest part is that Pit Pietersen admits the Holocaust happened. So much for selective quoting.

[Uninvolved]

That's where you are really wrong. You can get copies of the Weißbuch via anttiquarian book trading wqebsites like zvab.com. So much for that not being the Weißbuch and being kept secret.


You need to take a closer look at which White Book that is.

[ddt]

You need to take a closer look at which White Book that is.

Ah, when you said White Book, you actually meant this one (http://www.zvab.com/displayBookDetails.do?itemId=30340170&b=1):
Dokumente über die Alleinschuld Englands am Bombenkrieg gegen die Zivilbevölkerung Achtes Weißbuch der Deutschen Regierung. (Reihe: Kriegsursachenforschung Nr. 8) Nachdruck der Ausgabe Berlin, Auswärtiges Amt, 1943

[Eddie Dane]

Slightly off topic: Am I the only one who thinks that George S. Patton was a wonderfully inspirational public speaker?

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0806/PattonImage2.jpg

[timhau]

Oh come on. Think of our resident Neo-Nazis, you might be huwting their feewings.:hug8

Didn't one of these unforgettable geniuses once want us to stop using the word Nazi and properly call them National Socialists, because Nazi wasn't what they called themselves and the name had acquired a pejorative tone?

[Eddie Dane]

A turd would have made a better leader than Hitler.

Oh come on now. He was military genius.

I mean, who would have thought that Russia was that big?

[timhau]

I mean, who would have thought that Russia was that big?

And that's just the start of it -- contrary to expectations, it turned out that Russia is not only big, it's also cold and full of Russians!

[Eddie Dane]

And that's just the start of it -- contrary to expectations, it turned out that Russia is not only big, it's also cold and full of Russians!

Clearly an enormous failure on the part of the German intelligence services.

Contrary to all expectations, those Russians seemed to be incredibly agitated for some odd reason.

[headscratcher4]

And that's just the start of it -- contrary to expectations, it turned out that Russia is not only big, it's also cold and full of Russians!


Yes, and when you start shooting them in large numbers and treating them as subhuman slave labor they turn right around, inconsiderate of your liberation efforts, and rally to their own nationalism and re-embrace their otherwise evil dictator and his horrible ideology and regime instead of welcoming your murderous army with open arms. Funnier still is that all of those sub-human slavs figured out how to beat the German army...and it wasn't just shere numbers... it was tactics (Stalingrad comes to mind) and even weapons. Funny little subhumans those Russians. Seriously, leave it to Hitler to make people feel like the murderous, starvation regime of Stalin is better that German domination.

[Marduk]

And that's just the start of it -- contrary to expectations, it turned out that Russia is not only big, it's also cold and full of Russians!

and beetroot
:D

[Eddie Dane]

Yes, and when you start shooting them in large numbers and treating them as subhuman slave labor they turn right around, inconsiderate of your liberation efforts, and rally to their own nationalism and re-embrace their otherwise evil dictator and his horrible ideology and regime instead of welcoming your murderous army with open arms. Funnier still is that all of those sub-human slavs figured out how to beat the German army...and it wasn't just shere numbers... it was tactics (Stalingrad comes to mind) and even weapons. Funny little subhumans those Russians. Seriously, leave it to Hitler to make people feel like the murderous, starvation regime of Stalin is better that German domination.

I've just watched a documentary about Stalin.
You can safely say that he was only marginally less deplorable than Hitler.

I mean, freeing all the Russian POW's from the Nazi's and then arresting them and sending them on to Siberia? Holy crap!
Famines, gulag, purges, mass deportations of whole ethnic groups. What an utter bastard!

But he was smarter then Hitler in that he delegated military affairs to his generals. Hitler put himself in charge, and look at the results.

[dudalb]

But he was smarter then Hitler in that he delegated military affairs to his generals. Hitler put himself in charge, and look at the results.

At least after 1942 Stalin let the generals run the war.
Up until then, Stalin did play general, which is a major reason why Russia went to the brink of defeat in the fall of 1941 and again in the Summer of 1942.
But The near disaster of Stalingrad finally convinced Stalin of his own lack of military skills..but after tens of millions of Russian soliders had died from his lack of skill.
Hitler NEVER learned.

[headscratcher4]

At least after 1942 Stalin let the generals run the war.
Up until then, Stalin did play general, which is a major reason why Russia went to the brink of defeat in the fall of 1941 and again in the Summer of 1942.
But The near disaster of Stalingrad finally convinced Stalin of his own lack of military skills..but after tens of millions of Russian soliders had died from his lack of skill.
Hitler NEVER learned.


Hitler was also incapable of taking the long view. He thought Russia would be a cakewalk. Planned for about a year and had no plan B. They didn't have the men or the weapons to fight the war that began after he failed to get to Moscow. After Moscow, and especially after Stalingrad it was all only just a matter of time.

[Corsair 115]

Hitler was also incapable of taking the long view. He thought Russia would be a cakewalk. Planned for about a year and had no plan B. They didn't have the men or the weapons to fight the war that began after he failed to get to Moscow.


Arguably, he didn't have it before then either. Germany invaded Russia, a territory vastly larger than that overrun in May of 1940, with an armoured force only slightly larger than that used in the west. Add to that the deplorable state of German military logistics (relying on horse-drawn carts to supply much of your army's needs is not a recipe for long-term success in a mechanized age. And then finding out those horses are poorly suited to the terrain and climate you're now operating in.)

The Germans never really had much of a realistic chance of conquering Russia. They only did as well as they did because the Russians performed so poorly at the outset. Had the Russians been better at the start, the German invasion would have been even more of a long-term disaster than it actually was.

[headscratcher4]

Arguably, Hitler believed that the regime would collapse...not fully comprehending how strong and in control the regime really was...it took a full on body blow, staggered (with the help of Hitler's racism and his treatment of the population as just another source of subhuman slave labor) and bounced back. Bad'on ya Dolf.

Evans' recent The Third Reich at War has about as susinct a description of Hitler's many now manifest military miscalculations and pretty well left me with your conclusion that Germany -- save for the Nazi delusion -- never had a realistic shot at capturing and holding Russia, especially once the Regime survived the initial shock. And, as been pointed out, Hitler never learned not to interfere with his Generals (although, Stalin's non-interference went only so far as they won or achieved stalemate -- Generals who lost or whose advice, if taken, didn't turn out favorable, didn't hang around much as well).

[Mondial]

Parky

Gleiwitz is an entertaining story.

First, the initial situation.

Hitler on 1939-08-22:

I will provide propagandistic reasons for the war, no matter if realistic or not. The victor will not be asked if he told the truth or not.

Second, the "proof of what happened".

The only evidence is the testimony of Alfred Helmut Naujocks, a former SS member, who deserted to the Americans. His testimony has been read at the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings on 1945-12-20.

Naujocks did not offer any proof to his statements; he did not name any person participating in the action, he did not explain why Heidrich would have ordered him directly instead of the usual way through his superiors; in fact, his superiors had no knowledge of what he was doing. He did not receive the text he was supposed to read, instead one of his subordinates in this project wrote it on his own. He did not give any description of the location or any more details.

Most importantly: he admitted to having participated in a crime, which normally would have carried a serious punishment. He made that admission without any compelling reason, for he was not charged for that; nobody ever heard his name in conjunction with Gleiwitz before.

Afterwards, Naujocks was free to go and lived probably in South America; later he moved back to Germany but he never was bothered at all because of Gleiwitz.

Third: what has happened at Gleiwitz.

The radio station at Gleiwitz was 7 km from the Polish border. It was guarded by a unit of armed reserve officiers.

The radio station Breslau (the main sender) broadcast a report about the station in Gleiwitz having been attacked by Poles. (Apparently there is no recording of it and the text is not known any more.) The commander of the guard unit in Gleiwitz, Otto Radek, heard this report at home and drove immediately to the station. He found one guard on duty, everyone else was sleeping. Nobody knew of any attack, there are no traces of shootings, no casualties, no dead "Polish soldier".

So, what happened at Gleiwitz? Some members of the SS appeared in civil, they had a written command to carry out a "broadcasting excercise" in German and in Polish. They read what they wanted to and left.

Radek phoned his superiors and was told, that everything was all right and he must keep this incident secret.

The people living close to the station have confirmed, that they did not notice any fighting around the station. The chief of the local police was interrogated by the IMT, but never asked about the incident.

Finally, the consequences.

1. The "raid" of the radio station was reported by the Völkischen Beobachter as an attack on Gleiwitz by Polish "irregular units", i.e. not by soldiers.

2. Goehring told Dahlerus about the Gleiwitz incident (a Swede playing important role in communications between the German and British government).

3. Heidrich had a model of the raid made and used it in demonstrating the attack to his guests (no idea, who those were).

4. Hitler never mentioned Gleiwitz with a word.

5. The White Book of the German Foreign Ministry listed real cases of Polish attacks. The fake attacks Hoflinden, Gleiwitz, Pitschen were not among those.

Most of the above is from Pit Pietersen's Kriegsverbrechen der alliierten Siegermächte...
Hello Uninvolved,
Have you seen this article called "Gleiwitz and the Start of WW2". It is by the Spanish historian Joaquin Bochaca -
www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Gleiwitz&TheStartOfWW2-GlenI.html (http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Gleiwitz&TheStartOfWW2-GlenI.html) It describes how Naujocks was a con man who tried to make money by peddling the story.

[Thunder]

Gleiwitz was clearly a pathetic Nazi false-flag to get public support for a full-scale invasion of Poland.

Not that they even needed public support. Hitler was planning on invading Poland for months. It was the beginning of his "Lebensraum" campaign.

[Moss]

Hello Uninvolved,
Have you seen this article called "Gleiwitz and the Start of WW2". It is by the Spanish historian Joaquin Bochaca -
www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Gleiwitz&TheStartOfWW2-GlenI.html (http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Gleiwitz&TheStartOfWW2-GlenI.html) It describes how Naujocks was a con man who tried to make money by peddling the story.

I love articles that fail to provide even one source. They are just so awesomely good that you just HAVE to believe them... NOT.

[dafydd]

Isn't it a pity for the likes of uninvolved that the real history has been written down.

[bignickel]

The Germans never really had much of a realistic chance of conquering Russia. They only did as well as they did because the Russians performed so poorly at the outset. Had the Russians been better at the start, the German invasion would have been even more of a long-term disaster than it actually was.
I've heard an apocryphal story that the Russian command was looking into the option on surrendering as the Germans approached Moscow. But it didn't get any further in the idea process, because they realized they had no way of contacting the Germans.

I've never run into any additional information on this online.