Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was Hitler “manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined”?


Len Colby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whether he (Hitler) was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined would ensue from his own actions up to September 3rd 1939, is an interesting question - and one that, in my view, merits discussion.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145

I asked the author of this curious statement to elaborate but thus far he hasn’t, since he thinks it “merits discussion” perhaps he could present his evidence.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whether he (Hitler) was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined would ensue from his own actions up to September 3rd 1939, is an interesting question - and one that, in my view, merits discussion.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6655&view=findpost&p=72145

I asked the author of this curious statement to elaborate but thus far he hasn’t, since he thinks it “merits discussion” perhaps he could present his evidence.

Len

Len

I have already made it clear that I'm too busy to do more than drop in occasionally to this forum for a week or so.

Perhaps you took note and to cause me extra irritation you've started another thread attacking statements I made elsewhere on this forum.

I guess I should be flattered by your interest.

However, I do challenge your proposed rules of discussion and debate.

You are not my pupil Len. I am under no contractual obligation to educate or inform you. I'm not your paid research assistant.

If, therefore, you have a problem with something I write, why not say so, say why and why not give credible references to back up your claims?

I don't waste my time 'elaborating' for folk who, if they are not lazy trolls, sure as hell behave like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

[

Sid, by your own words this "merits discussion"All Len has done is give you the oportunity to begin the discussion. I for one would welcome a debate on this subject, and one that touches on the nature of facism, its constant need for scapegoats, territorial conquest and ritual. Care to begin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already made it clear that I'm too busy to do more than drop in occasionally to this forum for a week or so.

Truth be told I first asked you a few weeks ago to defend this rather extraordinary theory of yours and you didn’t previously say how long you would be occupied with other matters. I am always amused when people spend as much time making an excuse not to reply as they would replying. Interesting that despite your claimed lack of time you found the time to make that post about the arrested seaman.

Perhaps you took note and to cause me extra irritation you've started another thread attacking statements I made elsewhere on this forum.

I didn’t attack your statement as much as I questioned it. Is there some rule or ethical bar about questioning a members statements on a more appropriate section of the forum then where they were made?

You are not my pupil Len. I am under no contractual obligation to educate or inform you. I'm not your paid research assistant.

I never indicated I thought anything of the sort. It's your theory it's up to you to do the research.

If, therefore, you have a problem with something I write, why not say so, say why and why not give credible references to back up your claims?

You’ve got that a bit backwards, you are the one who made an extraordinary claim. A claim not backed AFAIK by any legitimate historian (but quite popular with neo-Nazis and other apologists for Hitler). Since you think it merits discussion perhaps you can oblige yourself.

I don't waste my time 'elaborating' for folk who, if they are not lazy trolls, sure as hell behave like it.

The way I look at it a person who makes an extraordinary claim but presents no evidence to back it up and then tells someone who questions that claim to debunk him is a “lazy xxxxx”. The burden of proof lies with you. How can I (or anybody else) debunk a claim that hasn’t been articulated?

A few questions for you.

Was Hitler manipulated into invading the USSR and other countries into Eastern Europe?

Didn’t his pact with Stalin indicate his intention to fight the western Allies?

Wasn’t Britain and France’s entry into the war a predictable outcome of his invasion of Poland?

Was he manipulated into invading Norway, Denmark and the Low Countries?

Was he manipulated into aiding Japan’s attack on the US? http://www.trivia-library.com/a/pearl-harb...mily-part-1.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, therefore, you have a problem with something I write, why not say so, say why and why not give credible references to back up your claims?

You’ve got that a bit backwards, you are the one who made an extraordinary claim. A claim not backed AFAIK by any legitimate historian (but quite popular with neo-Nazis and other apologists for Hitler). Since you think it merits discussion perhaps you can oblige yourself.

I don't waste my time 'elaborating' for folk who, if they are not lazy trolls, sure as hell behave like it.

The way I look at it a person who makes an extraordinary claim but presents no evidence to back it up and then tells someone who questions that claim to debunk him is a “lazy xxxxx”. The burden of proof lies with you. How can I (or anybody else) debunk a claim that hasn’t been articulated?

Len,

Like others of your ilk that I’ve encountered in cyberspace, you feel you have a right to define what’s an “extraordinary claim”.

You typically focus on topics from Zionism’s psychological heartlands - topics that have been ceded by the left as a whole to its Zionist members for a very long time … the topic of Jewish economic power (discussed by Marx, but not by most of his modern followers), the history of the (allegedly never-ending persecution of the) Jewish people, the history of Jewish suffering during World War Two, the influence of the Zionist lobby in modern history and the contemporary world.

You pick statements that offend your sense of orthodoxy about those topics.

You then start a debate – perhaps even a new thread – based on your assault on those statements. You attempt to portray the statements as self-evidently beyond the pale. For good measure, you impute bad, evil… even ‘Nazi’ motives.

What is this really about Len? Judging by your past postings to this forum, you didn't seem to have a close interest in the detail of events triggering World War Two until now.

I suggest what it’s really all about is the attempt to frame current events in terms of a stilted, simplistic and misleading portrayal of the history of the Second World War.

This is a project of today’s war lobby. It is brilliantly critiqued by Jim Lobe in this recent essay: Fascism" Frame Set Up by Right-Wing Press

I’m sorry to say this Len, but I believe you are a small cog in that gigantic, disgusting war lobby. Not content with unprovoked assaults on Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and the Lebanon in recent years... you and your chums want morenew wars. The list of immediate additional targets is obvious - I just have to turn on my TV to see spokespeople for the war lobby name them. Funnily enough, they just happen to be Israel's greatest perceived enemies.

A few questions for you.

Was Hitler manipulated into invading the USSR and other countries into Eastern Europe?

I don't think so. While no expert in this area of history, I understand there’s at least a case to be made that he launched Operation Barbarossa because he had accurate intelligence that the USSR was preparing to attack German forces. Hitler wanted to get in first with a decisive military strike.

Now, how's about you answer a question or two…

Was Stalin manipulated into invading Poland and Finland in late 1939?

Why did these assaults not precipitate declarations of War against the USSR by Britain and France?

Didn’t his pact with Stalin indicate his intention to fight the western Allies?

Did it?

Do you have evidence for that proposition? (evidence, not inference).

The text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact suggests to me that it was in part defensive pact, in part collusion between two great powers carving up their respective spheres of interest in Eastern Europe. The former is unobjectionable. The latter is noxious behaviour, in my opinion, but not essentially different in nature from the conniving, militant imperialism of nations such as Britain, France and the USA (or enfant terrible Israel), imperialistic behaviour that sadly lingers to this day.

Wasn’t Britain and France’s entry into the war a predictable outcome of his invasion of Poland?

Depends how good you are at war predictions.

You are probably very good at it, as I suspect you move in well-informed circles when it comes to war-monguering.

I might ask you "Was Britain and the USA's invasion of Iraq in March 2003 a predictable outcome of Saddam Hussein's 'refusal' to relinquish his (non-existent) WMDs?"

Or, on a matter of more contemporary releavnce, I might ask "Is an Israeli/US bombardment of Iran a predictable outcome of its refusal to relinquish its rights under international law - such as the treaty on nuclear non-proliferation that nuclear-armed Israel refuses to sign at all?"

Was he (Hitler) manipulated into invading Norway, Denmark and the Low Countries?

No.

Was he (Hitler) manipulated into aiding Japan’s attack on the US? http://www.trivia-library.com/a/pearl-harb...mily-part-1.htm

Len, are you claiming that Hitler 'aided' Japan's attack on Pearl Habor? Where's your evidence for that?

There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that Roosevelt knew the Pearl Habor attack was coming having actively created the conditions making a Japanese attack likely while able to monitor Japanese communications - and that he wanted an attack of this nature to be launched against America to help him persuade a deeply reluctant public and congress to support US involvement in the growing World War.

The US President of the day, therefore, deliberately let Japan's attack succeed, failing to alert the commanding officers at Pearl Harbor to the imminemnt danger.

It could therefore be said that Roosevelt 'aided' Japan's attack on Parl Habor. Perhaps Hitler did too.

Say what... you show me a credible reference for your take on Hitler's involvement in Parl Habor and I'll show you mine re: Roosevelt's.

Finally, Len, I wonder if you agree with me that one of the very sad consequences of World War Two – speeded by Winston Churchill’s rise to power in 1940 – was abandonment of the posaition taken by HMG in its pre-war White Paper on the future of Palestine.

In that May 1939 White Paper, the British Government decided to proceed no further down the track of supporting the emergence of a Zionist State in Palestine, but instead to support the eventual independence of a bi-national, pluralistic and multiracial new state in the British mandated territory of Palestine. The House of Commons approved the White Paper by a sizeable majority, although it was opposed by some senior Government politicians such Leslie Hore-Belisha and Winston Churchill. After World War Two, of course, it was essentially forgotten, as responsibility for Palestine's future moved out of the primary control of Great Britain and her Parliament

How many of today’s problems could have been avoided if the authors of the 1939 British policy on Palestine had been able to implement it!

A short extract follows (emphasis added):

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

The establishment of the independent State will be preceded by a transitional period throughout which His Majesty's Government will retain responsibility for the country. During the transitional period the people of Palestine will be given an increasing part in the government of their country. Both sections of the population will have an opportunity to participate in the machinery of government, and the process will be carried on whether or not they both avail themselves of it.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Churchill, Winston (1874-1965), British Prime Minister: "Germany is becoming too strong. We must crush her." To American General Robert E. Wood, in November 1936. Quoted in: Peter H. Nicoll, Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland, p. 83.
Churchill, Winston: "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit." Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, as quoted in: Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War (Foreword to the second edition 2001), originally published in 1938.
Churchill, Winston: "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145; quoted as per: Adrian Preissinger, Von Sachsenhausen bis Buchenwald, p. 23.
Delmer, Sefton (1904-1979), former British Chief of "Black propaganda": "Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war... And we're only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again - those indestructible weeds of historical truth." (Said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm.)
Fuller, John Frederick Charles ("J.F.C.") (1878-1966), British General and historian: "What thrust us into war were not Hitler's political teachings: the cause, this time, was his successful attempt to establish a new economy. The causes of the war were: envy, greed, and fear." As quoted in: Joachim Nolywaika, Die Sieger im Schatten ihrer Schuld, p. 35.
Gautier, Philippe, French historian: "History as it is being written and conveyed today is all too often only a crude mix of untruths, remnants of Allied propaganda from the Second World War, half-truths, tales and myths, cleverly put together for purposes of indoctrinating the brain-dead masses." From: Deutschenangst, Deutschenhaß: Entstehung, Hintergründe, Auswirkungen, p. 276
.
Lecache-Lifschitz, Bernard, Zionist leader: "It is our Cause to organize the moral and cultural blockade of Germany and to draw and quarter this nation. It is our Cause to finally bring about a war without mercy." Le droit de vivre, December 18, 1938.
Maier-Dorn, Emil: "It was England and France who declared war. It was England and France, not Germany, who rejected the offers of peace and insisted not only on the perpetuation of the war but on its escalation. The British and French imperialists wanted to turn this war into a world war..." In his book Alleinkriegsschuld, Unkenntnis oder Feigheit?, p. 51
Mocarstwowiec, Polish newspaper: "We are aware that war between Poland and Germany cannot be avoided. We must systematically and energetically prepare ourselves for this war. The present generation will see that a new victory at Grunwald will be inscribed in the pages of history. But we shall fight this Grunwald in the suburbs of Berlin. Our ideal is to round Poland off with frontiers on the Oder in the West and the Neisse in Lausatia, and to reincorporate Prussia, from the Pregel to the Spree. In this war no prisoners will be taken, there will be no room for humanitarian feelings. We shall surprise the whole world in our war with Germany." Issue 3 from 1930, i.e. before Hitler became Chancellor! Mocarstwowiec was the voice of the Polish "League for Great Power". Quoted in: Bertram de Colonna, Poland from the Inside, p. 90.
Rathenau, Walter (1867-1922), Foreign Minister of Germany, son of Jewish parents: "Today France is politically very strong: thanks to a large and victorious army and to powerful alliances. But even if the alliances with Italy, England and America hold fast for five hundred years without faltering even for a moment, no far-sighted person will be able to give France any advice but this: do not rely on it! Destroy Germany in the truest sense, kill her people, settle the land with other races..." Letter to France, February 6, 1920.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others of your ilk that I've encountered in cyberspace, you feel you have a right to define what's an "extraordinary claim".

You typically focus on topics from Zionism's psychological heartlands - topics that have been ceded by the left as a whole to its Zionist members for a very long time … the topic of Jewish economic power (discussed by Marx, but not by most of his modern followers), the history of the (allegedly never-ending persecution of the) Jewish people, the history of Jewish suffering during World War Two, the influence of the Zionist lobby in modern history and the contemporary world.

You pick statements that offend your sense of orthodoxy about those topics.

You then start a debate – perhaps even a new thread – based on your assault on those statements. You attempt to portray the statements as self-evidently beyond the pale. For good measure, you impute bad, evil… even 'Nazi' motives.

As I indicated previously I found your claim to extraordinary because I know of no legitimate historian who backs your theory, can you name a few?

As with the Holocaust you try to frame this as "Zionist" version of history which simply isn't the case, this is not AFAIK an issue debated by historians. Historians independent of their race, religion and ideology lay the blame for WWII with Hitler blaming other leaders only for failing to challenge him earlier.

Please clarify exactly what you mean by people of my "ilk". Also I don't focus on Jewish or Zionist topics especially not the ones you mentioned. I only focus on them when people like you and Piper and others of your "ilk" show up.

What is this really about Len? Judging by your past postings to this forum, you didn't seem to have a close interest in the detail of events triggering World War Two until now.

I don't have a close interest in the subject, you not I brought it up.

I suggest what it's really all about is the attempt to frame current events in terms of a stilted, simplistic and misleading portrayal of the history of the Second World War.

See above. Find me a trained historian who backs your view that the almost universally accepted "portrayal of the history of the Second World War" is "stilted, simplistic and misleading". I think you've been reading too much David Irving, he is a great favorite amongst people of your "ilk".

This is a project of today's war lobby. It is brilliantly critiqued by Jim Lobe in this recent essay: Fascism" Frame Set Up by Right-Wing Press

Interesting essay, I largely agree with what he says but I have nothing to with and oppose Bush's militarism. Cite where I have argued that the events related to the start of WWII justify the current behavior of the Israeli or American governments. Behavior which I have criticized.

I'm sorry to say this Len, but I believe you are a small cog in that gigantic, disgusting war lobby. Not content with unprovoked assaults on Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and the Lebanon in recent years... you and your chums want morenew wars. The list of immediate additional targets is obvious - I just have to turn on my TV to see spokespeople for the war lobby name them.

Oh you love to make unsupported vituperative insinuations well I'll play along I believe you and Fredrick Toben and Mel Gibson and his dad should go and have shindig with members of the Patriotic Youth League get real smashed on mezcal then rant on about how a certain ethnic group is "responsible for all the wars in the world" (No offence to Australians not cited intended)

Funnily enough, they just happen to be Israel's greatest perceived enemies.

Off topic, a common tactic of people on the loosing end of a debate is changing the subject, but I'll indulge you. People from you camp claim that Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded at Israel's behest. Show me where the former was ever cited as a particular threat to Israel. As for the latter you contradict yourselves you claim on one hand that Iraq was so weak as to not represent a real threat yet claim the country was such a threat to Israel that the neo-cons staged 9/11 so as to have an excuse to eliminate that country as an enemy of Israel. Of course if Iraq presented such a little threat to the rest of the world the second premise makes no sense. I happen to support the 1st thesis.

A few questions for you.

Was Hitler manipulated into invading the USSR and other countries into Eastern Europe?

I don't think so. While no expert in this area of history, I understand there's at least a case to be made that he launched Operation Barbarossa because he had accurate intelligence that the USSR was preparing to attack German forces. Hitler wanted to get in first with a decisive military strike.

Please provide a link or cite a book supporting this theory. I imagine that IF true (though I doubt it) this was because Stalin for good reason feared German attack. It's interesting that you don't seem to be challenging accepted history for this aspect of the war which was it's bloodiest and most horrendous. So unless you can find credible backing for your "Hitler invaded the USSR because be feared Soviet attack" theory you've basically admitted your other theory is invalid.

Hitler made his intentions toward the USSR clear in Mein Kampf:

In Mein Kampf Hitler declared that: "The external security of a people in largely determined by the size of its territory." If he won power Hitler promised to occupy Russian land that would provide protection and lebensraum (living space) for the German people. This action would help to destroy the Jewish/Marxist attempt to control the world: "The Russian Empire in the East is ripe for collapse; and the end of the Jewish domination of Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmein.htm
Now, how's about you answer a question or two…

Was Stalin manipulated into invading Poland and Finland in late 1939?

Why did these assaults not precipitate declarations of War against the USSR by Britain and France?

Wow, you brought up a reasonably good point that wasn't off topic. I'm not an expert either but I suppose Britain and France didn't declare war on the USSR because 1) they saw Nazi Germany as the greater threat and didn't have the resources to fight both by the time the Soviets invaded they already were at war Germany 2) they had specifically warned Hitler and not Stalin not to attack Poland 3) Finland in this case doesn't fit the analogy because Britain and France didn't have defense pacts with that country.

France had good reason to believe Hitler's expansionism would turn its way:

Only when this is fully understood in Germany, so that the vital will of the German nation is no longer allowed to languish in purely passive defense, but is pulled together for a final active reckoning with France and thrown into a last decisive struggle with the greatest ultimate aims on the German side- only then will we be able to end the eternal and essentially so fruitless struggle between ourselves and France; presupposing, of course, that Germany actually regards the destruction of France as only a means which will afterward enable her finally to give our people the expansion made possible elsewhere. Today we count eighty million Germans in Europe! This foreign policy will be acknowledged as correct only if, after scarcely a hundred years, there are two hundred and fifty million Germans on this continent, and not living penned in as factory coolies for the rest of the world, but: as peasants and workers, who guarantee each other's livelihood by their labor.

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch15.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't his pact with Stalin indicate his intention to fight the western Allies?

Did it?

Do you have evidence for that proposition? (evidence, not inference).

The text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact suggests to me that it was in part defensive pact, in part collusion between two great powers carving up their respective spheres of interest in Eastern Europe.

LOL quoting your own source "News of the Pact stunned the world and paved the way for the beginning of World War Two with Hitler assured the Germans would not have to fight a war on two fronts." Also look again at his comment s about France quoted above.

The former is unobjectionable. The latter is noxious behaviour, in my opinion, but not essentially different in nature from the conniving, militant imperialism of nations such as Britain, France and the USA (or enfant terrible Israel), imperialistic behaviour that sadly lingers to this day.

That is a complex question which I won't get into because it's not directely related to the question at hand. How does this support your theory that Hitler was manipulated into a "war more terrible than he imagined"?

Wasn't Britain and France's entry into the war a predictable outcome of his invasion of Poland?

Depends how good you are at war predictions.

Most contemporary observers predicted war when the Hitler Stalin pact was announced. Hitler had long made his intentions clear. Perhaps a paraphrasing of Martin Niemoeller is appropriate "First they took over Austria but we did nothing because we weren't Austrians, then they invaded the Sudetenland but we did nothing because we weren't Sudetens, then they invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia but we did nothing because we weren't Czechoslovakians, then they invaded Poland…" by that point they realized it was time for them to act.

You are probably very good at it, as I suspect you move in well-informed circles when it comes to war-monguering.

More unsupported insulting insinuation.

I might ask you "Was Britain and the USA's invasion of Iraq in March 2003 a predictable outcome of Saddam Hussein's 'refusal' to relinquish his (non-existent) WMDs?"

Or, on a matter of more contemporary releavnce, I might ask "Is an Israeli/US bombardment of Iran a predictable outcome of its refusal to relinquish its rights under international law - such as the treaty on nuclear non-proliferation that nuclear-armed Israel refuses to sign at all?"

Not relevant to the question at hand

Was he (Hitler) manipulated into invading Norway, Denmark and the Low Countries?

No.

Was he (Hitler) manipulated into aiding Japan's attack on the US? http://www.trivia-library.com/a/pearl-harb...mily-part-1.htm

Len, are you claiming that Hitler 'aided' Japan's attack on Pearl Habor? Where's your evidence for that?

The Germans placed spies on Japan's behalf in Pearl Harbor starting in 1935 till the attack, this obviously qualifies as aid. Do you think it's realistic to believe that Goebbels would have done this without the Furhrer's knowledge?

There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that Roosevelt knew the Pearl Habor attack was coming having actively created the conditions making a Japanese attack likely while able to monitor Japanese communications - and that he wanted an attack of this nature to be launched against America to help him persuade a deeply reluctant public and congress to support US involvement in the growing World War.

The US President of the day, therefore, deliberately let Japan's attack succeed, failing to alert the commanding officers at Pearl Harbor to the imminemnt danger.

You go from saying "there is…considerable evidence that Roosevelt knew the Pearl Habor [sic] attack was coming" to concluding it was true. This however doesn't undermine the consensus that war was initiated by the Japanese, due to the implications it is hard to believe they would not have consulted the Germans before hand. I any case it was Germany that declared war of the US a few days after the attack, not the other way around.

Did FDR "actively create the conditions making a Japanese attack likely". I think you would agree that the imperialist aggression of Japan against its neighbors was wrong, was FDR wrong for using trade sanctions to try to stop that aggression? Japan had three choices 1) stop its imperialists expansion 2) continue its expansion without the raw materials being blocked by the US 3) attack the US.

Finally, Len, I wonder if you agree with me that one of the very sad consequences of World War Two – speeded by Winston Churchill's rise to power in 1940 – was abandonment of the posaition taken by HMG in its pre-war White Paper on the future of Palestine.

[…]

No, I don't agree but this has nothing to do with your theory unless you want to push the idea that the "Zionists" are responsible for the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can either ignore this excrement or you can lend it credence. You've chosen to lend it credence.
I don't think ignoring this kind of stuff is the best tactic. Kerry ignored the "Swift Boaters" and Dukakis ignored the Willie Horton thing it might have cost them both getting elected. IIgnoring spurrious BS doesn't make it go away
Churchill, Winston (1874-1965), British Prime Minister: "Germany is becoming too strong. We must crush her." To American General Robert E. Wood, in November 1936. Quoted in: Peter H. Nicoll, Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland, p. 83.
Churchill, Winston: "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit." Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, as quoted in: Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War (Foreword to the second edition 2001), originally published in 1938.
Churchill, Winston: "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145; quoted as per: Adrian Preissinger, Von Sachsenhausen bis Buchenwald, p. 23.
Delmer, Sefton (1904-1979), former British Chief of "Black propaganda": "Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war... And we're only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again - those indestructible weeds of historical truth." (Said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm.)
Fuller, John Frederick Charles ("J.F.C.") (1878-1966), British General and historian: "What thrust us into war were not Hitler's political teachings: the cause, this time, was his successful attempt to establish a new economy. The causes of the war were: envy, greed, and fear." As quoted in: Joachim Nolywaika, Die Sieger im Schatten ihrer Schuld, p. 35.
Gautier, Philippe, French historian: "History as it is being written and conveyed today is all too often only a crude mix of untruths, remnants of Allied propaganda from the Second World War, half-truths, tales and myths, cleverly put together for purposes of indoctrinating the brain-dead masses." From: Deutschenangst, Deutschenhaß: Entstehung, Hintergründe, Auswirkungen, p. 276
.
Lecache-Lifschitz, Bernard, Zionist leader: "It is our Cause to organize the moral and cultural blockade of Germany and to draw and quarter this nation. It is our Cause to finally bring about a war without mercy." Le droit de vivre, December 18, 1938.
Maier-Dorn, Emil: "It was England and France who declared war. It was England and France, not Germany, who rejected the offers of peace and insisted not only on the perpetuation of the war but on its escalation. The British and French imperialists wanted to turn this war into a world war..." In his book Alleinkriegsschuld, Unkenntnis oder Feigheit?, p. 51
Mocarstwowiec, Polish newspaper: "We are aware that war between Poland and Germany cannot be avoided. We must systematically and energetically prepare ourselves for this war. The present generation will see that a new victory at Grunwald will be inscribed in the pages of history. But we shall fight this Grunwald in the suburbs of Berlin. Our ideal is to round Poland off with frontiers on the Oder in the West and the Neisse in Lausatia, and to reincorporate Prussia, from the Pregel to the Spree. In this war no prisoners will be taken, there will be no room for humanitarian feelings. We shall surprise the whole world in our war with Germany." Issue 3 from 1930, i.e. before Hitler became Chancellor! Mocarstwowiec was the voice of the Polish "League for Great Power". Quoted in: Bertram de Colonna, Poland from the Inside, p. 90.
Rathenau, Walter (1867-1922), Foreign Minister of Germany, son of Jewish parents: "Today France is politically very strong: thanks to a large and victorious army and to powerful alliances. But even if the alliances with Italy, England and America hold fast for five hundred years without faltering even for a moment, no far-sighted person will be able to give France any advice but this: do not rely on it! Destroy Germany in the truest sense, kill her people, settle the land with other races..." Letter to France, February 6, 1920.

What exactly do you think these quotes prove? Having links back to the complete texts would be helpful in understanding the context in which they were made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, you requested this “discussion” when you started this thread. And now you’ve got it in all its glory. Nazi Revisionism at its finest. Hitler acted in pre-emptive self-defense against all His enemies. He was provoked, and had to preserve the racial Identity of his people. Churchill a tool of international Jewry. All the sacrifices of all those who fought to defeat the Nazis means not a goddamned thing. You can either ignore this excrement or you can lend it credence. You've chosen to lend it credence.

Interested in the intervention of another forum member with a strange avatar into this rather obscure debate pertaining to the events of more than 60 years ago, I thought I'd check Daniel Wayne Dunn's bio.

I was born a poor black child.

I hate Nazis.

I hate Nazi sympathizers.

I hate Nazi apologists.

I hate Nazi revisionists.

I hate Nazis.

That's it. Not very illuminating, really.

Daniel appears to have had a childhood memorable for its poverty - and his skin, we are told, is black.

You have my sympathy for your alleged childhood poverty, Daniel. Your skin color is of little interest to me, although it doesn't seem apparent from your avatar. Thanks for sharing the information, anyway.

I wonder why you hate Nazis so much - to the apparent exclusion of others who might attract your loathing? Too many Hollywood war movies, perhaps? Or did your family came from a part of the third world colonized by Nazi Germany? Where was that, I wonder?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I indicated previously I found your claim to extraordinary because I know of no legitimate historian who backs your theory, can you name a few?

As with the Holocaust you try to frame this as "Zionist" version of history which simply isn't the case, this is not AFAIK an issue debated by historians. Historians independent of their race, religion and ideology lay the blame for WWII with Hitler blaming other leaders only for failing to challenge him earlier.

Please clarify exactly what you mean by people of my "ilk". Also I don't focus on Jewish or Zionist topics especially not the ones you mentioned. I only focus on them when people like you and Piper and others of your "ilk" show up.

I'll just focus on this for now Len.

What is a "legitimate historian?"

Who defines 'legitimate' historians - and the converse?

Are 'illegitimate' historians those historians targeted by Zionists for physical assault, imprisonment, extradition, loss of employment and other forms of harrassment that discredit western civilization and our post-Enlightenment tradition of free speech?

As for "people of your ilk", Len, I guess I had in mind annoying folk who reflexively uphold Zionist verities and appear to believe it is their right and duty to define what other views are ‘acceptable’ – and what are not. In the case of the latter, "people of your ilk" often try to ban, abuse, marginalize, misrepresent and generally hassle their quarry.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len said:

What exactly do you think these quotes prove? Having links back to the complete texts would be helpful in understanding the context in which they were made.

Do you think context is going to add/detract very much from the sentiment of many of these quotes? I accept that some of the quotes are less specific than others, but those attributed to Churchill appear specific enough. I have no particular like for the Nazis, in my view they are just one more group who perpetrated crimes against their own people and those of other countries. They are just one in a long line of murderers, their ideologies or position on the political spectrum don't appear to have made a jot of difference to their actions. Stalin, Pol-Pot, Lenin, Bush (Sr & Jr) and even Blair are all cut from the same cloth. Some murder their own people and others murder foreigners. I detest anyone who rationalizes murder, particularly of innocents, to further their cause. If we lose the (aggressive) wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, heaven forbid, are actually held responsble, Bush and Blair could just as easily be tried as war criminals as Georing. Their actions are no different from any other butchers of innocent men, women and children. We in the West are just a little better at spinning our ultimately identical actions in the facade of good intentions, but still kill for oil, or control of the Suez/Panama canals, or to remove leaders who fail to allow western market liberalisations to ravage their countries and their people, or opium, or even water.

The point of my quotes was simply to further re-inforce the idea of the winners of conflicts (re-)writing history. I don't think it is possible, any more(if it ever was), to accept what we are told about major historical events 50 years after the fact, as it is often indistinguishable from propaganda. Incubator babies, Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian gulags, The Gulf of Tonkin, Crucified Canadian Soldiers (WWI) all turned out to be lies. Truth is the first casualty of war. Why would anyone think that WWII was any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len said:
What exactly do you think these quotes prove? Having links back to the complete texts would be helpful in understanding the context in which they were made.

Do you think context is going to add/detract very much from the sentiment of many of these quotes? I accept that some of the quotes are less specific than others, but those attributed to Churchill appear specific enough. I have no particular like for the Nazis, in my view they are just one more group who perpetrated crimes against their own people and those of other countries. They are just one in a long line of murderers, their ideologies or position on the political spectrum don't appear to have made a jot of difference to their actions. Stalin, Pol-Pot, Lenin, Bush (Sr & Jr) and even Blair are all cut from the same cloth. Some murder their own people and others murder foreigners. I detest anyone who rationalizes murder, particularly of innocents, to further their cause. If we lose the (aggressive) wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, heaven forbid, are actually held responsble, Bush and Blair could just as easily be tried as war criminals as Georing. Their actions are no different from any other butchers of innocent men, women and children. We in the West are just a little better at spinning our ultimately identical actions in the facade of good intentions, but still kill for oil, or control of the Suez/Panama canals, or to remove leaders who fail to allow western market liberalisations to ravage their countries and their people, or opium, or even water.

The point of my quotes was simply to further re-inforce the idea of the winners of conflicts (re-)writing history. I don't think it is possible, any more(if it ever was), to accept what we are told about major historical events 50 years after the fact, as it is often indistinguishable from propaganda. Incubator babies, Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian gulags, The Gulf of Tonkin, Crucified Canadian Soldiers (WWI) all turned out to be lies. Truth is the first casualty of war. Why would anyone think that WWII was any different?

Well said Steve. Spot on.

I understand that after the first World War, apologies were proferred to Germany for some of the most egregious untruths of British wartime propaganda.

It was indeed a golden Age of Chivalry, compared with what has followed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel appears to have had a childhood memorable for its poverty - and his skin, we are told, is black.

The first line in Daniel's new bio is obviously a homage to the first line of the classic Steve Martin movie The Jerk. :rolleyes: You take things too literally.

Also, Len, I think you need to stop feeding the shark. Sid, unlike the Swift Boaters, only really comes out when you call him out.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel appears to have had a childhood memorable for its poverty - and his skin, we are told, is black.

The first line in Daniel's new bio is obviously a homage to the first line of the classic Steve Martin movie The Jerk. :rolleyes: You take things too literally.

Also, Len, I think you need to stop feeding the shark. Sid, unlike the Swift Boaters, only really comes out when you call him out.

I think I understand, Owen.

I hadn't realized Daniel's bio is meant to be interpreted as allegory - or that it changes over time.

Silly question...

Do either of you have real bios?

Also, I've heard of jerks, but who are 'Swift Boaters'? Is this schoolyard slang? What does it mean?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...