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...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 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 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
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

[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]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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]

Originally Posted by Mondial

Germany. They include Victor Suvorov 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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

... 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

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Budly

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Budly

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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]

Originally Posted by woolfe99

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Budly

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]

Originally Posted by timhau

... 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...

[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?

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Mondial

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.

[parky76]

Originally Posted by Mondial

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]

Originally Posted by timhau

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]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

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]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Budly

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

[timhau]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Mondial

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

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.