Posts: 3,936
Threads: 474
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
16-05-2019, 08:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-05-2019, 06:42 AM by Lauren Johnson.)
Lot's of comments at the link: http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-lies-abo...ld-war-ii/
[FONT=&]In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the "happy account" requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won't be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor's war propaganda.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05...awareness/
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler's War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill's War: The Struggle for Power .
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles' diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: "Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot's The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving's Hitler's War.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]World War II was Churchill's War, not Hitler's war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving's factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving's research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany's mercy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Germany's mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill's rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France's powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler's program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler's demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany's request. [/FONT][FONT=&]From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn't want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany's rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany's colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Winston Churchill kept Hitler's peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain's behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world's reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high pricesfor example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company's value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also "conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932." For Cordell Hull, American aid was "a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire." Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if "Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt's league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushoverunreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR's policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill "the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man." Roosevelt pursued "his subversion of the Empire throughout the war." Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler's conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a "most unnecessary" war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-...oks&sr=1-3 [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill's bombingfirst incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazeswas to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became "the London Blitz," not the British blitz of Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country's military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill's WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syriaall ridiculous decisions and failuresand the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill's doing, not Hitler's. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with "von" before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler's worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain's side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Because of Hitler's alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini's misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler's plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war's end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that "the Jewish problem" would be settled after the war.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The "death camps" were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany's essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war's end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In his Introduction to Hitler's War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, "I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austriaan illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.[/FONT]
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 471
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
My latest thoughts on WWII are as follows:
1. Hitler was pro-German like Robert E. Lee was pro-American. Robert E. Lee loved his country if (and only if) it would be run according to the preferences of his Virginia Elite. Despite being a star at West Point and fighting in the Mexican War, Lee's priorities were soon to emerge when challenged.
2. Many people wonder why Hitler would adulate the blonde haired and blue eyed Germans when he was neither blonde nor blue eyed. That's because he was using that "Aryan" garbage to con the Prussian Junkers and the German General Staff into a suicidal war. Like a used car salesman, Hitler knew how to con people and how to evaluate things when "everyone has a price." The Prussian Junkers loved war. That was the downfall of Prussia.
3. Hitler's real enemy was Prussia. That's why he launched the attack on the Soviet Union that he knew would likely wind up in the dissolution of Germany.
4. Hitler was not a German, but rather an Austrian. He turned everything over, in the end, to his very tall Austrian cohorts, Kaltenbrunner and Skorzeny.
5. Austrians and Southern Germans ("High Germans") really came out way ahead as a result of WWII. After the German surrender, they had total control of the rump state of West Germany. Their control lasted from 1933 to 1963.
6. It was only in 1963, when Konrad Adenauer retired in October and the Protestant "middle German" Ludwig Erhard took over, that the northern Germans got back into control.
7. The last stand of the Southern Germans was the JFK assassination, but they could not sweep back the tide of history. JFK stood up to the Southern Germans (and Allen Dulles, their American benefactor). Within 4 years, there was a Socialist-involved German coalition government back in control. That was anethema to the Southern Germans.
James Lateer
Posts: 16,102
Threads: 1,770
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Lot's of comments at the link: http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-lies-abo...ld-war-ii/
[FONT=&]In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the "happy account" requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won't be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor's war propaganda.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05...awareness/
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler's War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill's War: The Struggle for Power .
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles' diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: "Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot's The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving's Hitler's War.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]World War II was Churchill's War, not Hitler's war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving's factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving's research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany's mercy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Germany's mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill's rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France's powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler's program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler's demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany's request. [/FONT][FONT=&]From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn't want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany's rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany's colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Winston Churchill kept Hitler's peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain's behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world's reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high pricesfor example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company's value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also "conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932." For Cordell Hull, American aid was "a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire." Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if "Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt's league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushoverunreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR's policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill "the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man." Roosevelt pursued "his subversion of the Empire throughout the war." Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler's conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a "most unnecessary" war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-...oks&sr=1-3 [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill's bombingfirst incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazeswas to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became "the London Blitz," not the British blitz of Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country's military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill's WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syriaall ridiculous decisions and failuresand the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill's doing, not Hitler's. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with "von" before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler's worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain's side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Because of Hitler's alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini's misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler's plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war's end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that "the Jewish problem" would be settled after the war.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The "death camps" were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany's essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war's end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In his Introduction to Hitler's War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, "I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austriaan illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.[/FONT]
I can not and will not stand by and have Irving's name and ideas elevated. Nor to have the Holocaust denied. I think that is false, provably false and below the dignity of this Forum. My uncle Raphael Lemkin, our family, our friends, organizations we worked with have proofs of the Holocaust. Documents - both US, Soviet and Nazi show this to be so. I have many of them myself here. Irving is an apologist for Hitler, the Reich and the many crimes against humanity/genocide of the Nazis. I'm upset in the extreme to see this even posted here! Irving invents, lies, hides facts and documents and is totally anti-Jew, anti-Gypsy, pro-fascist. I give his 'idea' [really propaganda] not any credence at all. If Roberts is now backing Irving then I throw Roberts in the same trashcan of false history. Why did our family loose over 95% of Lemkin's in Europe? The holocaust was no myth and the crematoria burned man, women and children alive or first suffocated them with Zyclon B. I don't want to be associated with a website that gives equal time to Nazi propaganda. Someone is cherry-picking information. I and my family, my uncle and his contacts spent lifetimes on this. I have met with hundreds of survivors of the camps and read the details of hundreds of others. They all agree. Camps like Sobibor killed EVERYONE who entered within a few hours or at most days. The others killed within hours of entry all who the Nazis felt couldn't be good slave labor and the others were worked to death and then incinerated. Shame on this post! You are trying to defend an indefensible position and one that has no historical basis in fact...only pro-Nazi and pro-fascist propaganda. Again, SHAME! There were and are lies and untruths about WWII - but this is NOT one of them! We have the documents on the 'Final Solution To the Jewish Problem'. It hides nothing. Irving does - he hides the truth. Posting this brings Night and Fog over the truth. Shame!
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Posts: 335
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2015
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:Lot's of comments at the link: http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-lies-abo...ld-war-ii/
[FONT=&]In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written. Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the "happy account" requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won't be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor's war propaganda.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05...awareness/
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler's War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill's War: The Struggle for Power .
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles' diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: "Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot's The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving's Hitler's War.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]World War II was Churchill's War, not Hitler's war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving's factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving's research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany's mercy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Germany's mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill's rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France's powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler's program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler's demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany's request. [/FONT][FONT=&]From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn't want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany's rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany's colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Winston Churchill kept Hitler's peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain's behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world's reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high pricesfor example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company's value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also "conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932." For Cordell Hull, American aid was "a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire." Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if "Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt's league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushoverunreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR's policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill "the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man." Roosevelt pursued "his subversion of the Empire throughout the war." Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler's conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a "most unnecessary" war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-...oks&sr=1-3 [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill's bombingfirst incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazeswas to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became "the London Blitz," not the British blitz of Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country's military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill's WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syriaall ridiculous decisions and failuresand the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill's doing, not Hitler's. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with "von" before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Hitler's worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain's side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Because of Hitler's alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini's misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler's plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war's end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that "the Jewish problem" would be settled after the war.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The "death camps" were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany's essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war's end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In his Introduction to Hitler's War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, "I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austriaan illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.[/FONT]
I can not and will not stand by and have Irving's name and ideas elevated. Nor to have the Holocaust denied. I think that is false, provably false and below the dignity of this Forum. My uncle Raphael Lemkin, our family, our friends, organizations we worked with have proofs of the Holocaust. Documents - both US, Soviet and Nazi show this to be so. I have many of them myself here. Irving is an apologist for Hitler, the Reich and the many crimes against humanity/genocide of the Nazis. I'm upset in the extreme to see this even posted here! Irving invents, lies, hides facts and documents and is totally anti-Jew, anti-Gypsy, pro-fascist. I give his 'idea' [really propaganda] not any credence at all. If Roberts is now backing Irving then I throw Roberts in the same trashcan of false history. Why did our family loose over 95% of Lemkin's in Europe? The holocaust was no myth and the crematoria burned man, women and children alive or first suffocated them with Zyclon B. I don't want to be associated with a website that gives equal time to Nazi propaganda. Someone is cherry-picking information. I and my family, my uncle and his contacts spent lifetimes on this. I have met with hundreds of survivors of the camps and read the details of hundreds of others. They all agree. Camps like Sobibor killed EVERYONE who entered within a few hours or at most days. The others killed within hours of entry all who the Nazis felt couldn't be good slave labor and the others were worked to death and then incinerated. Shame on this post! You are trying to defend an indefensible position and one that has no historical basis in fact...only pro-Nazi and pro-fascist propaganda. Again, SHAME! There were and are lies and untruths about WWII - but this is NOT one of them! We have the documents on the 'Final Solution To the Jewish Problem'. It hides nothing. Irving does - he hides the truth. Posting this brings Night and Fog over the truth. Shame!
Well said, Mr. Lemkin. And beware of Trine Day Trojan Horses. Listen again to George Harrison's song, 'Beware of Darkness'. (i.e., "watch out now/take care, beware of greedy leaders/they'll take you where you should not go"
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 474
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 1
Joined: Dec 2009
I'm defending my posting this article. But before giving my reasons, I certainly was shocked by Robert's statement about death camps vs work camps. In addition to Sobibor, Treblinka, and Chelmno were also death camps. Even the slave labor camps worked people to death by policy and that was after the selections. Roberts does not even mention the Einsatzgruppen in Russia which was certainly not the work of some distant bureaucrat. Personally, I affirm that Jewish peoples were targeted for extermination.
My reason for putting this up was to show another side of PCR, who has been quoted here many times favorably. Be reminded the majority of his article is about Hitler vs. Churchill and associated material.
Secondly, the one tidbit he does say that I think is obvious is how much Zionist Israel benefits from the holocaust. Gilad Atzmon, the grandson of member of the Irgun, and who fought in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, calls it Israel's state religion. His discussions of Jewish identity politics in The Wandering Who? should be seriously considered.
Finally, revisionist histories about the holocaust should not automatically be labeled anti-Semitic. There is a lot of complexity, for example, in the Zionist attitudes toward the Nazis. Nothing makes this point better than the Haavara Agreement. Here is an excellent discussion.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Posts: 471
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
If I were a college history professor, I would give the essay by Paul Craig Roberts a D-Minus (or more appropriately, a flunk). Here's why.
Mr. Roberts' and Mr. Irving's main points are these:
- England and France actually declared war on Germany.
- Germans were being abused in Poland and Hitler defended them.
- FDR was out to bankrupt England.
- Hitler attacked Russia because it was a big mistake, i.e. out of ignorance.
- The U.S. Italian campaign was due to another German mistake, more Hitler ignorance.
- The Holocaust (this is despicable) was due to typhus, not genocide.
- Hitler didn't know the Jews were being killed nor did he approve it.
Here are the problems with the above:
- Matthew 28:19-20 "19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…"The word in Greek used here is "ethnos" which in English means "ethnicity" although it is translated in our Bibles as "nations."
- You can't make useful judgments about WWII unless you put your cards on the table regarding your own personal opinion about "nations" and "nationalism", trans-national religions and quasi-religions like Communism and trans-national corporate conspiracies and empires.
- In addition to the above quote from Christ, the Peace of Westphalia (which ended the brutal Thirty-Years' religious War) provided that henceforth, people would live in "nations", no longer under particularist feudal principalities, etc. etc.
- SIMPLY PUT, the efforts of both Woodrow Wilson in WWI and FDR in WWII were for the same goal. Wilson personally managed the WWI peace conference at Versailles. His famous 14 points program was based on "self-determination" which meant that the ethnicities of Europe would each have their own nation. No more empires. No more international Communist "International". No more "Holy Roman Empire" run by the Vatican, etc. etc.
- For people reading this post, you have to decide. Do you want the globe to be organized into "nations" or do you want to have (a) trans-national empires like the British Empire, the French Empire, etc. (b) do you want huge international religious spider-webs run out of the Vatican (Catholicism), Saudi Arabia (Islam), Jerusalem (Judaism) or © international corporate empires like the EEU, I G Farben and the Rothschild banking system?
- Hitler was put in power by Vatican Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII. Mr. Pacelli preferred Nazism over Socialism and the German SPD party.
- Stalin always had in the back of his mind, the mission of international Communism. That Communist movement was, under the US constitutional law definition, a religion or at least a competitor with and for religions.
- Churchill was, to the end, promoting the British Empire, which reached its greatest geographical extent in 1945 under Churchill.
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were only reinstating the concept of the top priority as being people living in ethnicities with each having its own nation.
World War II was (mainly) religious spider-webs, international Communism and UK/French/German imperialism run amok.
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the heroes in this scenario. The villains were the people who acted on behalf of international spider-webs and international conspiracies.
Many Jewish people in Germany and in Europe thought of themselves as a "nation". The problem with that was that they wanted to dominate or have a major influence in the nation of someone else's ethnic nationality and actual nation. But they were only 1% of the German population. And just look at the horrible result of that misguided theory.
So they ultimately founded their own true nation, i.e. Israel. For all its faults, at least Israel represents Jews being in control of other Jews, not trying to control the affairs of a non-Jewish nation besides their own (in large part for financial self-interest).
As for the Vatican, it is well-known that the Roman Empire tortured Christ to (physical) death. How could that empire go forward as the proponent of Christ and Christianity when they were the murderers of Christ? It doesn't make sense. So the shell of the Roman Empire still goes on despite being the opposite of what Christ preached, i.e. each ethnicity having its own nation.
IMHO, mostly in Ireland has Catholicism really respected the concept of "nationality" and "ethnicity". And this has endured really well IMHO for the Irish people. Maybe that idea should be applied worldwide. But even some clergy see "Irishmen" to be in existing all over the world, wherever people of Irish heritage live. In my opinion, this, too is misguided and fraught with peril.
Were it not for the British Empire, there would be no United States. I get that. There have been some good effects as a result of empires. The empire of Alexander the Great spread the valuable Greek culture to half of the world. His success still endures in various parts of Asia.
But despite temporary benefits, the long-term best interests of people is for them to live, each in their own nations. And the majority ethnicity in the nation should control its affairs through majority rule, democracy, constitutions, etc.
But also respecting and protecting the rights of minorities who respect that government and that system.
James Lateer
Posts: 16,102
Threads: 1,770
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Lauren Johnson Wrote:I'm defending my posting this article. But before giving my reasons, I certainly was shocked by Robert's statement about death camps vs work camps. In addition to Sobibor, Treblinka, and Chelmno were also death camps. Even the slave labor camps worked people to death by policy and that was after the selections. Roberts does not even mention the Einsatzgruppen in Russia which was certainly not the work of some distant bureaucrat. Personally, I affirm that Jewish peoples were targeted for extermination.
My reason for putting this up was to show another side of PCR, who has been quoted here many times favorably. Be reminded the majority of his article is about Hitler vs. Churchill and associated material.
Secondly, the one tidbit he does say that I think is obvious is how much Zionist Israel benefits from the holocaust. Gilad Atzmon, the grandson of member of the Irgun, and who fought in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, calls it Israel's state religion. His discussions of Jewish identity politics in The Wandering Who? should be seriously considered.
Finally, revisionist histories about the holocaust should not automatically be labeled anti-Semitic. There is a lot of complexity, for example, in the Zionist attitudes toward the Nazis. Nothing makes this point better than the Haavara Agreement. Here is an excellent discussion.
Look, the topic is even more complex that what is thus far on this thread. My direct family lost several hundred 'Lemkins' in the Holocaust. My uncle devoted his life to this subject. My parents studied it too, as have I. Many Zionists were or are neo or not-so neo-fascist. But even they do NOT deny the Holocaust....primarily against Jews, but against MANY other groups too. I do not see, even with the 'explanation' why you or anyone would put up a post stating that the deaths called the Holocaust were due to typhus alone. Most of the people who perished in the Holocaust didn't have time to get typhus and most were dead and coming out of a crematorium as smoke and ashes the very same day they arrived from the cattle-cars they were transported on. Others were just walked into trenches and shot while the soon-to-be dead watched on. I still don't see the point being made that excuses this mention by Irving and somehow tacitly OK'd by you by posting it. There was the idea to have the Jewish 'homeland' in Madagascar, which Hitler and the Nazis were big on for a long time. There were non-Nazis who actively participated in the Holocaust: in Poland, in Ukraine, and many other places - and by inaction in most others - with notable exceptions. And one could go on. Many Jews at the time considered themselves to be citizens of the country they were born and lived in...others [in the Pale] mostly considered themselves as rather stateless - or the 'state' they were assigned to changed almost every few years. Some wanted to leave [and many left for the USA, some for Israel or other places], most wanted to stay. And the complexities go on, and I'm not going to list them all...and yes, it goes back to events from WWI and even before. Russia has a long history of antisemitism and mini-holocausts called Pogroms. If you don't like the Zionist neo-fascists in Israel now, I don't see how this history throws much light on that and lends itself to bringing up false propaganda of the Nazis and others as truths. Even most Israeli citizens do not really like their government, although slightly less than a majority, it seems, have drunk the Cool-Aide that they are not on the land of another people, namely the Palestinians and running an Apartheid state - although MANY do see that as clearly as I just stated it. Conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Jewishness is dangerous. I was just reading about the Spanish Inquisition which was mostly against the Jews, but not only. This history is long and complex and very decisive. I disagree with most everything the Israeli Government now does - but I do agree with them, and 99% of historical scholars, on this about the Holocaust. I personally believe more than 6 million died...but I'm not going to argue that here. What is certain is that at minimum 6 million Jews died [and approx. and equal number of others] at the hands of the Nazis - and about half of the Jews were killed within hours of arrival at the death/labor camps; and those not killed outright were there to be worked to death. Several camps had a special designation by the SS that 'no one was EVER to leave alive' [because some of the slave labor were working on classified projects] - even thought all the others had the same policy without the special designation. I do not see this as a valid topic to explore here. I did battle with Irving briefly on his website. There are specialized forums for this. I hope this thread dies, or is closed, and nothing like it shows its like again...... IF the real intention was to show some other side of Roberts, it could have been done another way and stating in your post about your not agreeing with his statements by Irving on the Holocaust.....but that still allows the Propaganda to be posted and some is so poisonous, I don't even think it right to post the full text of it - less so without clear disclaimers....but best not at all.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Posts: 471
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
I am totally in agreement that the above posting that seemed to deny the Holocaust is offensive. The following are nuances that I have come across randomly that shape my own perspective on the Holocaust.
1. After studying the Civil War records of those who served from Iroquois County, Illinois, I was amazed at the data. The records had two categories: (a) "killed" and (b) "died". Incredibly, it looked like at least 90% "died" and were not "killed". This, to me, says that there had to be a gigantic amount of disease in the Civil War camps. This was apparently an unavoidable consequence (at that time) of having such a large number of strangers living so close together for such a long time. This could have been typhus, smallpox, etc.
2. In one source, I read that the staff of Treblinka ranged in number from 28 to 35. Despite that small number of staff, they murdered 500k to 1Million over a year or so. That was because they had such a fiendishly efficient system. Much of this was because the Germans employed prisoner against prisoner in their murdering.
3. I have read the argument that during the period that the Germans were hunting down Jews, Commissars and other ethnicities on the Eastern Front, that these killings were not any different that the hunting down and killing men, women and children during, say, the Black Hawk War in 1832. But once the Germans set up "factories" for the purpose of mass murder, their crime eclipsed anything in history prior to that, and was all the more criminal and unjustified for any reason. And unprecedented.
4. The idea that Hitler was ignorant of the mass murders is too despicable and stupid to even print. Give me a break.
5. The deaths in the camps were not from typhus, nor did they happen from working people too hard, i.e. to death. The Germans were too scientifically advanced and efficient to "accidently" allow 6 million people to die of typhus or any other preventable disease. And some were worked to death by starvation because that cost less money than to feed them as they worked. That is a a similar logic to that found in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe in dealing with slave labor in the antebellum south on the part of a few unscrupulous slaveholders. But that wasn't prevalent in the South IMHO. And young babies were murdered too and we know that. And they weren't workers.
6. I have seen the saying that (1)Goebbels saw the murder of the Jews as a culture war, that (2) Goering saw it as mainly a financial effort to loot the property of the Jews and (3) Hitler saw it as [essentially] a war against the Jews, a civil war in which only one side had any weapons. Since Hitler had endured the horror of World War I in the trenches, one could understand if Hitler thought that not only soldiers should suffer such horrors. But in World War I, only less than 10% of the dead were civilians, while in World War II, 85% of the deaths were civilians. And that was thanks to only one man and his name was Hitler. In fairness, there were others in World War II who shared some partial blame for burning, bombing and nuking women and children merely for the purpose of terror and nothing more.
But the horrible spectre of mass death was begun by Hitler and promoted mainly by Hitler and his very close friends and associates. No Hitler, no World War II (as we know it). As an aside, I should mention that the Japanese committed atrocities against the Chinese almost as bad as the crimes of the Germans. Barbaric, but not on the same scale.
In my mind, the story of the Holocaust is basically accurate as reported by almost all WWII historians. And the more you know about A. Hitler, the worse one's opinion of him becomes.
James Lateer
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
It is very frightening to me to see all this denial here. An ex bf of mine had his entire family save for his parents murdered in the camps. His mother wrote a long essay about it during her own imprisonment. As time goes on and people like Peter, myself and others who know first hand of this history the denial will just grow.
Zionism is very real and most ugly. But these are two separate matters. The holocaust was all too real.
Posts: 471
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
In the book "Germany 1945-1990" by Jurgen Weber, the author sheds some better light on exactly how the Nazis were let off the hook by West Germany and why all of the post World War II unfinished business fell into the lap of JFK.
Weber makes the following points:
1. The WWII Nazis were not confronted in West Germany from 1945 to 1958 because the Christian Democratic Party depended on their votes to get elected.
2. The prosecutions of Nazi's only really began in West Germany in 1958 when the Central Office of Regional Judicial Administration was opened in Ludwigsburg. This was the office of prosecutor Fritz Bauer.
3. The Auschwitz Trial and the abduction of Adolf Eichmann took place centering in 1961 (the peak of this activity).
4. Another little-known attempted kidnapping happened in 1961 which was the attempt in Spain to kidnap Belgian Nazi Leon Degrelle, attempted by Israel.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tM9UDQ...in&f=false
I have still not come across ANY INFORMATION ABOUT HOW JFK WAS REACTING TO OR APPROVING OF THIS ANTI-NAZI CRACKDOWN IN 1961. Maybe Mr. Jim DiEugenio has some knowledge of the JFK policy on WWII Nazis during his administration. The silence on this issue is deafening.
I am sure that IG Farben (which ran the Auschwitz slave factories) and prominent Nazis like Hans Globke in West Germany were on extremely thin ice at the time that JFK was sworn in in 1961. As is well-known, my belief is that these desperate World War II ex-Nazis were the backbone of the plot to kill JFK.
Below is the passage from the book by Jurgen Weber cited above.
page 46 - Germany 1945-1990
However, the incorporation of such people, who had been part of the Nazi leadership and who now suddenly discovered their loyalty to the Bonn democracy, while it helped to stabilise the young Federal Republic, was morally dubious and above all completely unacceptable from the point of view of the Nazi victims. On the other hand no politically relevant potential of diehard reactionaries emerged from the former Nazis which could be said to endanger democracy.
Any overall judgement has to recognise the consequences of the halfhearted attempt to deal with the past that was characteristic of the fifties. Against this should be set the parallel laws for compensation, that were energetically pushed through, and designed to compensate Jewish and non-Jewish victims of the Nazi regime, producing a fund which is now calculated to be worth some 100 billion DM. Nevertheless, it has lasted until 2000 and beyond before the millions of Eastern Europeans used as forced labour as part of the Nazi war machine were considered for compensation. Over half a century after the end of the war, the German state and German industry (the latter not quite voluntarily) declared themselves ready to pay several thousand DM in compensation for the victims who were still alive, a total payment of about 10 billion DM.
LATE INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIALS
The systematic investigation and pursuit of Nazi criminals really began with the founding of the Central Office of Regional Judicial Administrations (Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen) in Ludwigsburg in 1958, which was devoted to the uncovering of Nazi criminality. The result of this was that the public could witness several major trials against SS functionaries, such as those who had administered Auschwitz and other extermination camps, who went before the jury court in Frankfurt am Mai 963-65), or such prosecutions as the Majdanek trial held in Düsseldorf (175-81). Suddenly the Third Reich did not seem to lie so far in the past as had appeared to be the case in the 1950's. By using judicial procedure, an attempt was now made to punish the worst crimes of the Nazi regime. It often required years of investigation to discover the culprits, to interview witnesses and to retrieve and evaluate documents. In one of the last large-scale Nazi trials in Stuttgart in 1992, a former SS camp commander was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and complicity in murder. Between the 8th of May 1945 and 1999 a total of 6495 former Nazis were prosecuted and convicted by the West German courts, of
The Federal Republic Orientates to the West page 47
which 750 were convicted after 1958. This is a small number in view of the 106,496 investigations, but a lot if one considers the actual difficulties involved, which were unparalleled given the complexity of the task. Nor should one forget that the servants of dictatorship and genocide now profited from the protection of their civil and legal rights as guaranteed by the rule of law, whereby an individual is only convicted in the event that his or her individual guilt can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was precisely this that was often lacking when witresses could be shown to have faulty memories of events. Another highly unsatisfactory outcome was that, with a very few exceptions, no Nazi judges were brought to justice for abuse of their position, not even Freisler's bloodstained assistants of the People's Court (Vol/csgerichishof) in Berlin. Likewise most of the "desk criminals" (Schreibtischtäter) of the main office of Reich security (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) in Berlin, the central organ of Nazi terror got off scot-free, with the exception of Adolf Eichmann, the former head of its Jewish Department, who was abducted by the Israeli secret service from Argentina in 1960 and condemned to death by a court in Jerusalem in 1962. It is only since the seventies, and even more in the eighties, that the memory of the massacre of European Jewry has become common knowledge to the majority of German citizens, not least because they themselves were not personally involved in this dark epoch of German history, which still casts such a long shadow. This generation had access to the results of historical research, as well as the opportunities provided by political education within and beyond the school system, and finally also to highly effective film representations of the Nazi past, for example the American TV series "Holocaust" (1979), which attracted over 16 million viewers in West Germany.
James Lateer
|
