76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:36 pm)

Hektor wrote:Back to veterans:
VeteransWW2.jpg

Wonder if from now on movies could be made on this.


Great and very certain cartoon, on which website have you found it?
As long as the Jews continue to dominate the entire Western World (and therefore controlling Hollywood and all the Mainstream Media) that will not be possible.
I hope and I wish that when things return to their natural order and the Jews lose all their power in the Western Nations, will be made many movies and video games about World War II and the Third Reich where the Germans, Adolf Hitler and the rest of the Nacionalsocialist leaders will be portrayed as heroes and the Jews, the Western Allies and the Soviets as the villains of the History (or what is the same: to show the historical reality) to counter more than 70 years of disgusting Hollywood and anti-German/Anti-Nacionalsocialist black propaganda.

Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Pia Kahn » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:19 pm)

"First of all I have never denied that Stalingrad and Kursk were decisive victories for the USSR..." The were decisive because they turned around the war. From then on the USSR was on the offensive and the German army was retreating.

"... if the Western Allies had not landed in Normandy in June 1944, Stalin's Operation Bagration probably have ended into failure, remember that the Germans were constantly defeating the Soviets battle after battle until they arribed in Moscow..."

That's contrafactual. In June 1944 the German Army was thousands of miles away from Moscow. From 1943 to the summer of 1944 the Soviets were constantly defeating the Germans. The German Army was no longer capable of large scale counter offensives. There are no reasons whatsoever why this would have changed.

"If the Western Allies had not landed in Normandy, Hitler would not have had to send large troops who were in the Eastern Front to France to stop the Anglo-American invasion..."

Hitler didn't send large troops to France. 90% of the German Army was fighting in the east and this did not change by the invasion in Normandy.

In 1943 the Axis forces were already fighting a lost war:

"Fighting a Lost War: The German Army in 1943" by Dr. Robert Citino

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SdO-btKuds
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:26 pm)

borjastick wrote:
Okay Lamprecht, sure. They stuck to their guns the way they planned to and declared the war against Germany that they wanted. This hardly means that they "honoured" their agreement, because honouring it actually would mean fulfilling it which they did not do even when they had multiple chances to do so; particularly in victory or when Hitler offered them peace. In both cases they decided to do nothing at all. So the fact is, in the long run, when all was said and done, the only thing they did do was declare and fight a war, seemingly, for no war aim; while in the end doing nothing to honour their black check to Poland.


So as I said we entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany if they attacked Poland etc. Nothing too difficult to understand about that. We stuck to our agreement. Nothing too difficult to understand about that part either.

I am concerned that none of you bring to the argument why Churchill fulfilled that obligation when he could have wobbled on it. The reason is, and it was touched on briefly in the recent film, The Darkest Hour, jews. The reason was that Churchill was in debt to the jews to the tune of about £30,000 which was a huge amount of money in the late thirties. Poland had the largest jewish population in Europe and financiers of Churchill, a group called, I think, the London Committee, wanted him to take action.


This is false, you the British did not "stuck" to your agreement with Poland, if that had been the case you would also have declared war on the USSR when Stalin invaded the eastern Poland and once the war was ended you would not have handed ALL Poland (and indeed ALL Eastern Europe) to the Bolsheviks. The motivation of your war (and above all, the International Jewry's war) was not to "defend Poland" (as your propaganda says), your war was against Adolf Hitler and the Nationalsocialist regime, and not only against Adolf Hitler and the Nationalsocialist regime but against the German nation. If the leader of Germany had been "Lord XP" then the war would have been against "Lord XP" and not against Hitler), you the British used Poland as an excuse to carry out the destruction of what you considered a "threat" to your country (ignoring of course the Hitler's many failed attempts to achieve an Anglo-German friendship) and evidently when you used the "Agression on Poland" excuse you did so shamefully concealing the numerous atrocities of Poles perpetrated against the German minority living in Poland and the Hitler's attempts to find a peaceful solution on the German-Polish border conflict in the previous months before the 1 september 1939.
It's obvious that Winston Churchill was little more than a genocide, war criminal, anti-German warmonger and a corrupt politician who allways worked for Jewish interests. And it's also evident that by working for Jewish interests Churchill was not going to accept Adolf Hitler's peace offers and that therefore he was going to continue his unconditional warfare policy and the "victory at all cost", another reason for his refusal to accept Germany's peace proposals is (as David Irving said) that if the peace between Germany and Britain had taken place in 1940, then Churchill's political career would have ended.
Winston Churchill was an infamous figure for humanity (and certainly for Germany) but also for Britain itself, his refusal to accept the many Adolf Hitler's peace offers and his policy of continue the war at all cost led to the death of many Britons and the total destruction of the British Empire and the ruin of his own country despite having "won" the war, he was also guilty (along Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman among others) that half of Europe had stay under the communist tyranny after the War and with his terrorist bombings was also responsible for the murder of millions of German civilians (and with his planned famines also of the death of millions of Indian civilians). It really is hard for me to understand that there are Britons (and any person, except the Jews obviously) who have a good opinion of Churchill.
About the movie "The Darkest Hour" I only have this to add: http://ihr.org/other/darkesthour

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:37 pm)

sfivdf21 wrote:This is false, you the British did not "stuck" to your agreement with Poland, if that had been the case you would also have declared war on the USSR when Stalin invaded the eastern Poland

But it has been pointed out in my post on page 2 that the agreement had a "Secret Protocol" that explained that the agreement only applied to Germany:

viewtopic.php?t=13294&start=15#p96819
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:42 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:
Lamprecht wrote:....
Sure there was a reason, those in power in the USA did not want USSR to take over all of Europe even if they believed that destroying the Third Reich was a more meaningful goal....


Exactly!

D-Day was the beginning of the US confrontation with the USSR.


Then they're wrong to later state that the USSR was no threat to Europe, and Hitler attacked without any basis for doing so. It has also been put forward that the Western Allies attempted to force Hitler into invading Russia against his own will.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:50 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:
sfivdf21 wrote:This is false, you the British did not "stuck" to your agreement with Poland, if that had been the case you would also have declared war on the USSR when Stalin invaded the eastern Poland

But it has been pointed out in my post on page 2 that the agreement had a "Secret Protocol" that explained that the agreement only applied to Germany:

viewtopic.php?t=13294&start=15#p96819


Yes, but that was the whole point. It was still hypocritical of the British to boast about securing Poland's sovereignty by declaring war on Germany and not subsequently doing the same in regards to the Soviet Union. By this, it completely throws out their first moral prerogative to chastise and declare war on countries which would destroy Polish sovereignty. The heart of the matter is that the British didn't care about Poland or their phoney guarantee, it was a simple casus belli to declare war on Germany by forcing Germany's hand into action when they wouldn't encourage the Poles to negotiate and instead bolstered their resistance to generous German terms. Having done this, the British could declare a war at the supposed behest of themselves, and load the guilt onto Germany.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:23 pm)

borjastick wrote:
Hannover wrote:borjastick said:
Meanwhile in the real world I'll take that as an offensive comment. I am British and despite being a revisionist concerning the holocaust I fully understand that Hitler was the aggressor evidenced by the simple fact that he invaded, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland etc etc blah blah blah. There was only one country that took up arms against Hitler and fought the fight against him and his aggression from start to finish, and that was Great Britain. The war was correct though regrettable and we were right to take a stand.
Were off topic, but that's simply not true,

That surprises me given the real facts that are available here:
WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum at: viewforum.php?f=20
such as:
'Responsibility for WW2' viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
Why Germany Invaded Poland', by John Wear / 'peaceful Poland' debunked: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12331
Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525
How Britain & Roosevelt conspired to get America into WW2: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13252

briefly:
- Britain & France did not declare war on the communist USSR which invaded from the east and took 60% of Poland.
- The aggressive Soviets violated numerous treaties with neighboring countries, yet Britain did nothing.
- Before the German attack on war mongering Poland, Poland threatened force against Lithuania with an ultimatum..
- Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
- The “neutral” US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany’s declaration of war on the US.
- Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
- British invaded Iceland and Iran
- Norway, who claimed neutrality, in fact aided & abetted Britain by not mobilizing it's armed forces against British mining of their ports & sea lanes.
- "Neutral" Belgium actually aided & abetted France & Britain by allowing France to position 2 million if it's soldiers in Belgium, and also allowed the British to add another half million troops within Belgium.
- France and England were also allowed to use Belgian and Dutch airspace with impunity for their military aircraft.
- It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.

Regards, Hannover


Be unhappy then it doesn't alter the fact that we stupidly entered a pact with Poland and honoured it. Your argument is like someone bitching about being slapped in the face and then returning with a machine gun and fifty mates with baseball bats to knock the shit out of the slapper. Germany was very aggressive and no little incursion here and there causing mild offence justified his full scale invasions around Europe.


"Germany was very aggressive" ... If Germany was "very agressive", then explain to me why Adolf Hitler made so many peace offers to the Allies (he even let the British soldiers escape in Dunkirk as a gesture of goodwill and peace, which was undoubtedly a great mistake on his part) and Germany did not adopt the policy of total war until 1943 (the Allies adopted it since the war began). How easy it is to declare an international boycott of a country to try to starve it by hunger and strangle it economically ("Judea declares war on Germany" in 1933) due to the fact that its leader decided to rule only for his people and free them from the yoke of the Jewish financial tyranny and of the infamous treaty of Versailles, then invent defamatory black propaganda to try to turn the world against them and constantly launching threats and provocations against that nation to provoke a war, make the life impossible for the German minorities in Czechoslovakia and Poland, try to sabotage their international relations and finally declare the war against them. And when finally that nation and that statesman runs out of patience and decides to give to Britain and France their own medicine then you start crying and screaming like a hysterical child like you the British and the French did in 1940: "Muh, these goddamn Nazis have invaded me." The Jews and the Allies were evil hypocrates.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:38 pm)

borjastick wrote:Be unhappy then it doesn't alter the fact that we stupidly entered a pact with Poland and honoured it. Your argument is like someone bitching about being slapped in the face and then returning with a machine gun and fifty mates with baseball bats to knock the shit out of the slapper.

The argument seems to be that the decision did not benefit the British people. That's easy to see in hindsight.
There is nothing wrong with reneging on bad agreements. Was the Edict of Expulsion ever formally revoked? If the government agrees to do something that is bad for the people, they should not do what they agreed to do.

Germany was very aggressive

Not really, at least in comparison to the USSR. And even if they were, so what?
Britain was very aggressive as well, what is this map?
Image

and no little incursion here and there causing mild offence justified his full scale invasions around Europe.

Invasions? Austria unified with Germany, the public supported it. Czechoslovakia broke apart and was invaded by Germany, Poland and Hungary. It was a bad idea from the get-go and was never going to work.

As for justifying things, in hindsight, I do not see how this decision could be justified.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:50 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:Yes, but that was the whole point. It was still hypocritical of the British to boast about securing Poland's sovereignty by declaring war on Germany and not subsequently doing the same in regards to the Soviet Union.

That would be a silly boast since the end result was that Poland was turned over to the USSR and therefore Poland's territorial integrity was not protected by the British at all. But I do not believe that was the goal anyway, that was just a trick.

By this, it completely throws out their first moral prerogative to chastise and declare war on countries which would destroy Polish sovereignty.

I see no moral prerogative at all with the agreement, just a scheme to start a war with Germany by promising Poland that if Germany attacked them they would come to their aid, but only Germany. It was just a way to trap Germany into a war

John Wear:
British historian Niall Ferguson states that the war guarantee to Poland tied Britain’s “destiny to that of a regime that was every bit as undemocratic and anti-Semitic as that of Germany.”[15] English military historian Liddell Hart stated that the Polish guarantee “placed Britain’s destiny in the hands of Poland’s rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment. Moreover, the guarantee was impossible to fulfill except with Russia’s help.…”[16]

American historian Richard M. Watt writes concerning Britain’s unilateral guarantee to Poland: “This enormously broad guarantee virtually left to the Poles the decision whether or not Britain would go to war. For Britain to give such a blank check to a Central European nation, particularly to Poland—a nation that Britain had generally regarded as irresponsible and greedy—was mind-boggling.”[17]
https://codoh.com/library/document/why- ... poland/en/

The heart of the matter is that the British didn't care about Poland or their phoney guarantee, it was a simple casus belli to declare war on Germany by forcing Germany's hand into action when they wouldn't encourage the Poles to negotiate and instead bolstered their resistance to generous German terms.

Exactly, but the purpose of the agreement (as indicated by the secret addendum) was quite obviously to start a war with Germany. And they did do that.

Having done this, the British could declare a war at the supposed behest of themselves, and load the guilt onto Germany.

Well I do not know how ecstatic the British public was to go to war with Germany for the sake of destroying Germany, maybe that was just the hoax that was chosen to justify the war to the public.
The USA in comparison just aided and abetted the "allies" (meaning: not neutral) until the Japanese decided that they had no choice but to attack. A secret document was declassified in 1970 that showed FDR authorized the bombing Japanese cities by US aerial bombers deceptively flying under the Chinese flag. This was 4 months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Webmaster
Administration
Administration
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:58 pm
Contact:

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Webmaster » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:23 pm)

This thread has been moved to the WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
A shadow topic has been left in its place so as to avoid confusion

Webmaster

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:29 am)

Lamprecht wrote:
HMSendeavour wrote:Yes, but that was the whole point. It was still hypocritical of the British to boast about securing Poland's sovereignty by declaring war on Germany and not subsequently doing the same in regards to the Soviet Union.

That would be a silly boast since the end result was that Poland was turned over to the USSR and therefore Poland's territorial integrity was not protected by the British at all. But I do not believe that was the goal anyway, that was just a trick.


I agree with you, it was silly to boast for that very reason. However, it doesn't change the fact that the British held the proclaimed sovereignty of Poland and the defense of "little countries" to be their moral justification for war against Germany, even though, as we've seen, they couldn't have cared less about that goal for the exact reason that they didn't uphold this principle in the face of the Soviet Colossus. Which, they never intended too, as we both know. The point is that they lied to justify the Second World War as a "good war", a fight against evil for the sake of the underdogs. When in reality, the Second World War was the bullying of the underdog (Germany) for the benefit of the powerful.

Lamprecht wrote:
By this, it completely throws out their first moral prerogative to chastise and declare war on countries which would destroy Polish sovereignty.

I see no moral prerogative at all with the agreement, just a scheme to start a war with Germany by promising Poland that if Germany attacked them they would come to their aid, but only Germany. It was just a way to trap Germany into a war

John Wear:
British historian Niall Ferguson states that the war guarantee to Poland tied Britain’s “destiny to that of a regime that was every bit as undemocratic and anti-Semitic as that of Germany.”[15] English military historian Liddell Hart stated that the Polish guarantee “placed Britain’s destiny in the hands of Poland’s rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment. Moreover, the guarantee was impossible to fulfill except with Russia’s help.…”[16]

American historian Richard M. Watt writes concerning Britain’s unilateral guarantee to Poland: “This enormously broad guarantee virtually left to the Poles the decision whether or not Britain would go to war. For Britain to give such a blank check to a Central European nation, particularly to Poland—a nation that Britain had generally regarded as irresponsible and greedy—was mind-boggling.”[17]
https://codoh.com/library/document/why- ... poland/en/


Perhaps prerogative was the wrong word. Or, I should've added more onto that sentence. Their "proclaimed moral prerogative", was a lie. Their stated goal of course was different from their real goal.

The guarantee to Poland was deliberated amongst the British as to what exactly they would be securing. Whether it was Poland and her sovereignty or a German invasion to regain Danzig and whether that was an actual threat to Polish independence that invoked the guarantee. They let the Poles decide:

Was there a distinction between a seizure of Danzig and an attack against Poland? who decided if a Danzig coup threatened Polish independence? [...] Chamberlain felt inclined to leave the decision of a response to a Danzig coup to the Polish government

Sidney Aster, ‘1939’ The Making of the Second World War (Andre Deutsch, 1974), Pp. 191


Halifax, according to Aster, told Count Edward Raczynski somewhere around March 20th that the guarantee would have to be backed up by a German :

threat to Polish independence and not merely the outbreak of disturbances in Danzig

Ibid., Pp 190


Chamberlain however thought that:

he had reserved to himself the ultimate sanction against Poland. That was why the guarantee pledged support for Poland's independence and not her territorial integrity.

Ibid., Pp, 191


This was eventually undone on April 6th 1939 when:

Any loose ends as to the exact meaning of the guarantee were effectively tied up at a final meeting on April 6th. No minutes were taken. William Strang later recalled "that both sides agreed that the occupation of Danzig by German armed forces would be a clear threat to Polish independence" and would bring the British guarantee into operation. It was for this reason that the "Summary of Conclusions", a confidential document communicated only to the Dominions and the United States, discreetly referred to "other action" which threatened Poland and which the Polish government considered it necessary to resist.

Ibid., Pp, 194


Like I quoted Irving before, Aster confirms that only after the British gave Poland their guarantee did Hitler decide to prepare 'Case White', the plan to invade Poland if necessary.

Hitler reacted by preparing for possible war. He retired to the Berchtesgaden, leaving instructions in Berlin that the Polish question was to be reserved to himself. On April 3rd, on his instructions, General Keitel, Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, issued the orders for "Operation White": the code name for the plans of a possible attack against Poland. These orders were signed by Hitler on April 11th.

Although Germany would continue trying to avoid a conflict with Poland, the preamble to "Operation White" stated that Poland would be destroyed if she changed her policy. Military preparations had to be complete and plans ready for action by September 1st, 1939. The task of diplomacy was to isolate Poland.

Ibid.


Doesn't sound aggressive to me. As per usual, Hitler is responding to events and problem created by others and suffering all the blame.

There's a lot more that could be said about the British guarantee, so I will make a thread on it at some point. I would like to evaluate all the claims made about it and come to the most reasonable conclusion. I'm not convinced for example, that somehow the guarantee was supposed to have "put pressure" on Poland to accept some kind of German offer. If this were true the Poles would surely have made concessions. Which brings up the question as to why the Poles didn't in fact concede. It seems to be self defeating. The Poles couldn't have been forced to make concessions by a guarantee that supported them with military assistance if they were to be attacked by Germany, something which they had a free had in determining, as I have shown. Chamberlain by April 6th 1939 didn't end up leaving himself any room to maneuver in case the Poles decided to be obstinate and refuse German offers. In reality, the Poles, even without the guarantee probably would've gone to war anyway. What could've been avoided was any British/French involvement. I think Walendy's book bares this out, just having read some of the statements made by Rydz-Smigly:

An occupation of Danzig by Germany would remind us of the partitions of Poland. For this reason I ordered a mobilisation four months ago when the German Chancellor renewed his demands concerning Danzig and Pomorze [i.e. the Corridor]. Please believe me when I say that this mobilisation was no mere
demonstration. We were ready for war then in case of necessity... even should she [Poland] have to fight alone and without allies.”192

Rydz-Smigly, quoted in, Udo Walendy, Who Started the Second World War? (Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2014), Pp. 187


So in effect the guarantee could only have bolstered the Poles or made no difference whatsoever about their warlike determination to fight over Danzig, that the Poles play a very large part in making the war inevitable.

Lamprecht wrote:
The heart of the matter is that the British didn't care about Poland or their phoney guarantee, it was a simple casus belli to declare war on Germany by forcing Germany's hand into action when they wouldn't encourage the Poles to negotiate and instead bolstered their resistance to generous German terms.

Exactly, but the purpose of the agreement (as indicated by the secret addendum) was quite obviously to start a war with Germany. And they did do that.


Yeah sure, they did that, but that's not the point. The point was that they did not do what Poland expected them to do, and that was what was on the agreement, to come to Poland's defence and secure her independence.

Lamprecht wrote:
Having done this, the British could declare a war at the supposed behest of themselves, and load the guilt onto Germany.

Well I do not know how ecstatic the British public was to go to war with Germany for the sake of destroying Germany, maybe that was just the hoax that was chosen to justify the war to the public.
The USA in comparison just aided and abetted the "allies" (meaning: not neutral) until the Japanese decided that they had no choice but to attack. A secret document was declassified in 1970 that showed FDR authorized the bombing Japanese cities by US aerial bombers deceptively flying under the Chinese flag. This was 4 months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.


Perhaps it was, I don't know, all I do know is that the British were able to position themselves as the ones responding to events, claiming to have played no part in bringing the issues in Europe to ahead, if not exacerbating them. They maneuvered in such a way as to avoid war guilt.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:22 pm)

Hannover wrote:borjastick:
I speak on the basis of those I knew and know - fathers of friends when I was growing up, family members (uncles and the like) and of course my own father now 94. Foot soldiers don't have an agenda except to survive. They are pawns in the larger game and do as they are told in the face of difficult odds. Any sense of ego and victory they may have was well won.

I certainly agree with that. The men who fought in WWII, my father included, thought they were doing the right thing.
In spite of their courageous efforts, they were led astray, they had bad information.

However, in order to maintain the initial propaganda of the time, secondary layers have been created in order to mandate acceptance of the fraudulent 'holocaust' narrative and enable dismissal of the horrors of Allied tactics.
Power & influence are the results of continual, additional use of such propaganda. And as we are seeing, such perverse influence has created an utterly dysfunctional west based upon false 'history'.

The manipulators know what buttons to push. WWII Vets, most are senile & compromised, bask in the fantasy fed to them that they were 'the good guys that saved the world'.

Thanks, Hannover

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.
- George Orwell


"I certainly agree with that. The men who fought in WWII, my father included, thought they were doing the right thing.
In spite of their courageous efforts, they were led astray, they had bad information".
Wow, I was very surprised that you said that, I thought you were German.
I'm totally agree with you in that since the end of the Second World War what the Jews, their owned media and their puppet politicians have promoted ad nauseam 24/7 and they call "history" is nothing more than the evil anti-German propaganda that the victors created. And all of this while they censoring and merciless persecuting the true historians who spread the real History of the Third Reich and WWII. And evidently all this atrocious anti-German propaganda has perverted, brainwashed, and dehumanized the Western nations. And certainly this terrible situation since 1945 has created a utterly dysfunctional West based upon false "history".
And obviously that in order to maintain the perverse anti-German propaganda with which they were brainwashed and to justify the innumerable and monstrous Allied war crimes, the lie of the "Holocaust" was created. But 75 years have passed since then, overwhelming and irrefutable historical evidence has emerged showing that the "Holocaust" is a lie and that Adolf Hitler and the German people were not guilty of World War II and didn't committed any crime (or in other words: that the Western Allied soldiers were deceived into fighting a war that only benefited the Jews and the Bolsheviks). I wonder... at this point tbe most Western Allied WWII veterans do not feel remorse for the atrocious war crimes that they perpetrated against the German, Japanese and Italian civilians (and also against many of their disarmed POWs)? Are most of the Western Allied WWII veterans still not realize of the terrible world they have bequeathed to the next generations (their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren)? Are the most of the Western Allied WWII veterans still unaware of the terrible damage that Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Churchill, etc. did to their own nations by dragging them into that terrible war by ignoring Hitler's peace offers? Do most of the Western Allied WWII veterans still not realize that they fought not for the "freedom" and the future of their nations but for the perverse interests of the evil Jews? And what I have said is nothing new, in fact before and during World War II Adolf Hitler and the German people repeatedly warned them that Germany did not want a war against them and that they had nothing against their nations, of in fact, the Führer told them (and rightly) that Germany was not the real threat to France, Great Britain and the United States but that the real threat was Bolshevism from the East (he even proposed an alliance with them so that Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States will fight together aganist the USSR). And finally I wonder about this issue... To this day with all the misfortunes, wars and injustices that have been systematically taking place in the world after their victory (including their own nations), most of the Western Allied WWII veterans continue without reflect on those prophetic words that Hitler said to them over 70 years ago?
Although it's obvious that the Western Allied troops committed countless and atrocious war crimes and their leadership was evil and criminal (and the few Western Allied leaders who were not evil and criminals, like the American General George S. Patton died shortly after the war "in strange circumstances"), that does not mean that each and every one of the Western Allied soldiers were criminals and murders, not all of them were that and I'm convinced that there were also Western Allied soldiers who were not evil people and who enlisted in the army without bad intentions because they really believed thay they were fighting on the right side and defending their countries (although they were obviously deceived). But 75 years later, after seeing in what thing their nations and the entire Western World have become (and therefore it has become evident that they were deceived and did not really fight for what they were made to believe they fought for), the most of Western Allied WWII veterans really still believe that they fought for the right side? If so, they are indeed totally lost and they will never see reality, and the British historian David Irving is wrong when he says that: "If all the dead Allied soldiers could see their countries today, they would have dropped their weapons and fought alongside the Germans".

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:54 pm)

Mortimer wrote:Doug Collins was a British veteran of WW2 who settled in Canada after the war. He took up journalism and supported the right of Ernst Zundel and other revisionists to question the holocaust story. He even wrote a negative review of Schindler's List.
https://codoh.com/library/authors/collins-douglas/


Thanks for the information, I will read it.
On all sides and in all wars there are always good and bad people, and it's obvious that not all Western Allied soldiers were criminals, murders and evil people (although their leaders were it). Doug Collins was one of those decent Western Allied soldiers who realized that they fought for the wrong side and against the wrong enemy. But do you think that the most British and American WWII veterans think like Collins or do they still believe the myth that they were "the greatest Generation"? What do you think about David Irving's quote that he said: "If all the dead Allied soldiers could see their countries today, they would have dropped their weapons and fought alongside the Germans". Do you think that this Irving's quote is wrong or that what he says its true?

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:59 pm)

attenuate wrote:Allied wartime propaganda is still as effective today as it was seventy-five years ago. All western history since the second world war has been a lie. The Holocaust has become the central dogma of war-authenticating western democracy and only its collapse will finally dispel this untruth.

Academia has a vested interest in downplaying atrocities committed by the Allies'. Allied strategic bombing of German towns and cities, necessitated the fabrication of German atrocity propaganda and this has been propagated by academic historians ever since.

The only British WWII veteran I have any respect for is Victor Gregg, who was present during the obliteration of Dresden and speaks unflatteringly of the perpetrators of this event.

He is a rare exception, in general, British people unquestionably accept and will even violently defend a false, historically distorted narrative, completely exonerating Allied war crimes. In reality, WWII was initially a contractual war which subsequently developed into the systematic mass-murder of German civilians.

The recognition of this very real genocide of German civilians will be prevented as long as the Holocaust continues to be the cornerstone of western history.


If what you said it's true, then the British historian David Irving is wrong when he says that: "If all the dead Allied soldiers could see their countries today, they would have dropped their weapons and fought alongside the Germans".

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:49 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:"First of all I have never denied that Stalingrad and Kursk were decisive victories for the USSR..." The were decisive because they turned around the war. From then on the USSR was on the offensive and the German army was retreating.

"... if the Western Allies had not landed in Normandy in June 1944, Stalin's Operation Bagration probably have ended into failure, remember that the Germans were constantly defeating the Soviets battle after battle until they arribed in Moscow..."

That's contrafactual. In June 1944 the German Army was thousands of miles away from Moscow. From 1943 to the summer of 1944 the Soviets were constantly defeating the Germans. The German Army was no longer capable of large scale counter offensives. There are no reasons whatsoever why this would have changed.

"If the Western Allies had not landed in Normandy, Hitler would not have had to send large troops who were in the Eastern Front to France to stop the Anglo-American invasion..."

Hitler didn't send large troops to France. 90% of the German Army was fighting in the east and this did not change by the invasion in Normandy.

In 1943 the Axis forces were already fighting a lost war:

"Fighting a Lost War: The German Army in 1943" by Dr. Robert Citino

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SdO-btKuds


You haven't understood what I meant. I don't denied that the decisive front of the Second World War was the Eastern Front, nor that before and after the D-Day the 90% of the German army was fighting in the East. What I meant was not that the Germans would have returned to Moscow if the Western Allies had not landed in Normandy in 6 June 1944, what I meant is that the German-Soviet War was characterized by the fact that the Germans initially always had the initiative, they were dominate the Eastern Front and they undertook a great offensive that always advanced unstoppably until at a certain moment they were defeated in some important battle by the Soviets (Moscow in January 1942, Stalingrad in February 1943 and Kursk in August 1943) and then the Bolsheviks undertook a great counteroffensive to reconquer their territory which it was successful until at one point they were defeated in some important battle by the Germans (Kharkov in May 1942, and Kharkov once again in March 1943) and then it was repeated again the cicle. And it's an evident fact that Stalin did not dare to launch the Operation Bagratión until June 22 (16 days after the Western Allies launched the Operation Overlord), if the Western Allies had not opened another front and therefore Hitler had not been forced to send many troops on the Eastern Front to Normandy, the Germans would have had a considerably larger and stronger number of troops to stop the massive Soviet counteroffensive of Operation Bagratión, and it would not be the first time that the Germans had achieved great defensive victories on the Eastern Front by successfully stopping large counteroffensives launched by the Bolsheviks (see the Operation Mars, the Second Battle of Kharkov or the Demyansk Pocket).

When the Western Allies landed in Normandy on June 6, 1944, Hitler sent 380,000 German soldiers to stop the Anglo-American invasion, and as the battle progressed it became clear that more troops were needed to have the Anglo-American invasion (the Wester Allies initially had 1,452,000 soldiers and by the end of August 2,052,299 soldiers) they had to send many more troops and by the end of August it is estimated that the Germans had 1,000,000 soldiers fighting in Normandy. At the Operation Bagratión the Germans had 1,036,760 soldiers facing Stalin's umpteenth counteroffensive and the Bolsheviks had 2,331,700 soldiers. If Hitler had not been forced to send 380,000 soldiers into Normandy and another war front had not opened for the Germans, and he would have these troops available on the Eastern Front (380,000 soldiers is a considerable number that can be decisive in any battle), it is highly probable that the Operation Bagratión would have failed. We will never know that for sure because it never happened, the only thing we can do is hypotheses, but knowing the fact that the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS were far superior than the Red Army (even the Soviet generals themselves recognized it) encourages me to think what I have saying.

And by the way it is not true that from 1943 until the summer of 1944, the Soviets were constantly defeating the Germans, the Germans defeated the Bolsheviks once again in the famous Third Battle of Kharkov in March 1943 and since then they dominated once again the Eastern Front until they were defeated at Kursk in August. And although it's true that since the Battle of Kursk the Germans did not take the initiative again that does not mean that the Soviets were "constantly defeating them", even with all this catastrophic situation the Germans still defeated the Soviets in some important defensive battles such as the Battle of Narva in August 1944 or the First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive in June 1944 (this defeat was so embarrassing for the Bolsheviks that they have since avoided all mention of such a battle, something similar happened to the Americans in the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest, where they suffered a humiliating defeat by the Germans, this battle is generally considered the worst defeat that the U.S army has suffered not only in WWII but in its entire history). And by the way, the day that the German-Romanian troops defeated the Soviets in Jassy-Kishinev and temporarily stopped their offensive was on June 6 (the same day that D-Day occurred) which again prompts me to think that it was D-Day that makes possible the Bolshevik victory on the Eastern Front, the Soviets could never have defeated the Germans without the help of the Western Allies.

And although it's true that in 1943 the course of the war had turned in favor of the Western Allies and the Bolsheviks, it's not true that the Germans were "fighting a lost War" in that moment. In 1943 Germany was still strong and dominant and still had a chance of winning the War, when the Germans really lost the War and had no chance of winning it was when they were defeated in the Battle of the Bulge. As Hitler himself pointed out, if the German Ardennes counteroffensive had been successful and had succeeded in pushing the Western Allied armies beyond France then the United States and Great Britain probably would have been forced to accept peace with Germany (or at least a truce) and fighting together against the Bolsheviks, which would undoubtedly have changed the course of the War, especially on the Eastern Front (unfortunately for the Humanity the Ardennes offensive failed and Germany lost the war).


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests