Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Mkk » 5 years 7 months ago (Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:13 am)

The official position is Germany, namely the Nazi regime, is responsible for the Second World War, it being the country that invaded Poland in September 1939.

But if we dig a little deeper we see that German war guilt may not be as obvious as it seems.

The main event used to prove Germany's war guilt is her invasion of Poland. But revisionists see this as a legitimate response to the Polish government which had ignored all peace offers, would not come to any agreement and had mobolized it's army, and per some sources was persecuting the German minority, as Hoggan documents in his book. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7265

The book also shows that Italy had called for a peace conference just before Britain and France's deceleration of war. This had been accepted by Germany. Again the fact that Hitler, supposedly a war monger, was willing to end a war 2 days after it started says a lot. It was the Allies refusal to negotiate, and later declarations of war, that unnecessarily turned a local conflict that lasted barely a month into a world war.

On September 3 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany. The military conflicts that ensued between Germany and those two countries after that point can thus not be properly blamed on the former party.

Also, Holland and Belgium which had let British planes fly over their territory were invaded with less than 2 weeks of fighting. Another reason for the invasion is the possibility of a British invasion of this area. Norway was also invaded for the same reason - for military nessecity. Thus this can't be blamed on Germany either.

There are numerous peace offers made to Britain in 1940 and even later. Again this is not mentioned by the official version, as it lessens German guilt.

As for Germany's decleration of war on the U.S, the U.S had abused Japan, their ally, given Britian aid and other non-neutral actions.

The Soviet Union is believed to have been preparing for a large scale invasion of Europe just a few weeks after the Axis beat them to it.

Thus the revisionist view states that Germany's actions in WW2 were largely in self defense.


"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 5 years 7 months ago (Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:20 am)

I think there isn't really a consensus revisionist position on WW2 yet. There was however some work being done on the phases and theaters that show what really was happening deviates from the quasi-official stance in main-stream (government funded and controlled) academia and publishing.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9490
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hannover » 5 years 7 months ago (Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:50 pm)

I think the fact that Hitler let the British flee from Dunkirk is a key point. Had the Germans wanted 'world domination' that they are accused of, why would they then let a huge, trapped British force return safely back to Britain?

H.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 5 years 7 months ago (Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:54 pm)

The issue is a bit more complex. From the source materials I'd however say that the "official version"....
Hitler wanted to conquer Lebensraum and that why he raided Poland in an unprovoked war

... is not defensible by any means. The situation was far different and there is even many details used to support that notion one could list and debank.

I think it's necessary to subdivide the issue due to complexity into several chapters.
- Prelude to war dealing with 1933 to 1939
- German-Polish War 1939
- Western Campaign Denmark - Norway - Lowlands - France
- Balkan war
- War in North Africa followed up by Italian retreat campaign
- Barbarossa
- War with America
- Normandy to the End
- Aftermath

An institutional analysis of the parties involved would be necessary as well.

The following could be a good beginning:
http://archive.org/details/HitlersWar-W ... estVersion

For those that understand German:
http://archive.org/details/UrsachenUndH ... Weltkriegs

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Haldan » 5 years 7 months ago (Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:53 pm)

I'm currently occupied with Major Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof's book DER KRIEG, DER VIELE VÄTER HATTE, got it in German, but it is now available in a good English translation called THE WAR THAT HAD MANY FATHERS.
There is a short review of it in German, here:
http://korrektheiten.com/2009/10/24/ger ... rezension/
A somewhat good translation of this review exists in English here:
http://warreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/r ... krieg.html

I have not gone far with it but would consider it a book worth looking into for anyone interested in this topic. :P

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Mortimer » 5 years 7 months ago (Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:09 pm)

Mkk wrote:The official position is Germany, namely the Nazi regime, is responsible for the Second World War, it being the country that invaded Poland in September 1939.

But if we dig a little deeper we see that German war guilt may not be as obvious as it seems.

The main event used to prove Germany's war guilt is her invasion of Poland. But revisionists see this as a legitimate response to the Polish government which had ignored all peace offers, would not come to any agreement and had mobolized it's army, and per some sources was persecuting the German minority, as Hoggan documents in his book. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7265

The book also shows that Italy had called for a peace conference just before Britain and France's deceleration of war. This had been accepted by Germany. Again the fact that Hitler, supposedly a war monger, was willing to end a war 2 days after it started says a lot. It was the Allies refusal to negotiate, and later declarations of war, that unnecessarily turned a local conflict that lasted barely a month into a world war.

On September 3 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany. The military conflicts that ensued between Germany and those two countries after that point can thus not be properly blamed on the former party.

Also, Holland and Belgium which had let British planes fly over their territory were invaded with less than 2 weeks of fighting. Another reason for the invasion is the possibility of a British invasion of this area. Norway was also invaded for the same reason - for military nessecity. Thus this can't be blamed on Germany either.

There are numerous peace offers made to Britain in 1940 and even later. Again this is not mentioned by the official version, as it lessens German guilt.

As for Germany's decleration of war on the U.S, the U.S had abused Japan, their ally, given Britian aid and other non-neutral actions.

The Soviet Union is believed to have been preparing for a large scale invasion of Europe just a few weeks after the Axis beat them to it.

Thus the revisionist view states that Germany's actions in WW2 were largely in self defense.

If the fate of Poland was of such concern to Britain and France then why didn't they declare war on the Soviet Union when that country invaded Poland on September 17 1939? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland Also the whole of that country was given to Stalin in 1945 and a communist dictatorship was installed. So much for going to war for the independence of Poland! Every year when September rolls around the media always mentions the nazi invasion of Poland but not many sources talk also about the soviet invasion.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9490
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hannover » 5 years 7 months ago (Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:06 pm)

Mortimer:
If the fate of Poland was of such concern to Britain and France then why didn't they declare war on the Soviet Union when that country invaded Poland on September 17 1939? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland Also the whole of that country was given to Stalin in 1945 and a communist dictatorship was installed. So much for going to war for the independence of Poland! Every year when September rolls around the media always mentions the nazi invasion of Poland but not many sources talk also about the soviet invasion.

Precisely. This is a point I use with good results in discussion with those who believe in their directed history. This point is worthy of a separate thread.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Balsamo » 5 years 6 months ago (Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:31 pm)

Hannover wrote:I think the fact that Hitler let the British flee from Dunkirk is a key point. Had the Germans wanted 'world domination' that they are accused of, why would they then let a huge, trapped British force return safely back to Britain?

H.


Well i am affraid that there is some legend about this event.
Although it is true that Hitler had no interest in the west, and would have loved to make a deal with Britain, as far as Dunkerk is concerned, it is ofter forgotten that it was still heavily defended by several french divisions, with anti tanks guns. During the Blitzkrieg, only Panzers reached Dunkerk in time, the german infantry was still way behind. So he chosed to rely on the luftwaffe instead of risking his Panzers.
So i guess there is a mixt of both consideration: not humiliating the Brits and not ending the very successful campaign with a costly and not guaranteed panzer offensive that could have spoiled the myth.

PS: I don't know who among serious Historians are still pretending that Hitler "wanted to rule the whole world" (well maybe in the US)

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9490
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hannover » 5 years 6 months ago (Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:46 pm)

Well Balsamo, the Luftwaffe story I've heard before, it is the standard narrative. However, if the Luftwaffe had truly been released to finish off the Brits I can't imagine all these fishing boats, freighters, etc, as lore has it, having a chance. Fish in a barrel is the expression.

"heavily defended by several french divisions, with anti tanks guns" who would have swept up along with the Brits. At a bare minimum the Wehrmacht could have simply waited them all out since they were absolutely trapped in a relatively small area.

"several french divisions"? What is that? Their tanks had 3 gears, 1 forward, 2 backward. :lol: The Wehrmacht utterly routed the French who, BTW, had more men and tanks than the Germans.

The only logical explanation is that the Germans had no interest in "world domination", which is in itself an absurd accusation. Take a look at a world map of the period, the world was already dominated by the British, French and American empires. It takes a lot brass (and misinformation to the public) to accuse the Germans of something that the accusers had done and were doing.

A separate thread is probably good for the Dunkirk topic.

Thanks, Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 5 years 6 months ago (Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:14 am)

Balsamo wrote:....
PS: I don't know who among serious Historians are still pretending that Hitler "wanted to rule the whole world" (well maybe in the US)

That's a tautology. Of course no serious historian ever pretended that this was the case. Just as none ever pretended that Hitler wanted to "exterminate all the Jews". What they tell in public is of course another matter. On a general note I do not take historians that serious. They are for most court historians parroting the party line. But there are exceptions. People that really go to the ground of things. They will admit in private that they don't share the main stream view.

avatar
Renewal
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:20 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Renewal » 5 years 6 months ago (Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:54 am)

Mkk wrote:The Soviet Union is believed to have been preparing for a large scale invasion of Europe just a few weeks after the Axis beat them to it.
Thus the revisionist view states that Germany's actions in WW2 were largely in self defense.


In 1930's Soviet Union made preparations to take over and occupy most of the Europe.
By the way, Soviet Union provided demilitarized Germany with neutral territories where they could build up for war.
Before Germany invaded USSR, Soviet Union had already issued their soldiers with Russian-German dictionaries that were meant to aid invading Red Army. Germany had previously "sold" the Baltic States to USSR, but Stalin also wanted to have Finland, Denmark, possibly Sweden, Romania, and also Kuwait. When Hitler figured that out, he attacked Soviet Union. Without Germany, some European nations would now exist only in history books.

avatar
Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Mkk » 5 years 6 months ago (Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:41 pm)

Germany had previously "sold" the Baltic States to USSR, but Stalin also wanted to have Finland, Denmark, possibly Sweden, Romania, and also Kuwait.

"Kuwait"?

Germany didn't own the Baltic states. She tried to accept the Soviet conquest of Eastern Poland, the Batltics, parts of Finland and Besserabia, but as you said wanted other areas of Eastern Europe (if not all of Europe)

"Comrade Stalin's 3 plans" - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t941137/
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

avatar
Renewal
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:20 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Renewal » 5 years 6 months ago (Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:56 pm)

Mkk wrote:
"Kuwait"?


Exactly. Soviet Union needed a seaport in a tropical area.

Germany did not try to accept anything. The spheres of influence were specified in the secret protocol of Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, where Baltic States were left to Soviet Union. But after USSR went berserk, there was a change of plans. Hitler realized that Stalin had tricked Germany into war and was playing a double game.

avatar
Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Barrington James » 5 years 4 months ago (Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:11 am)

I think the best evidence that Germany and Hitler did not want and did not cause WW2 is to look at the barbaric behaviour of those during the war and afterwards who I believe wanted the war and casued it: The USA, the USSR, and Great Britain. Many people, of course , have rightly criticized the USA for their twice atomic bombing of Japan within three days in the middle of Japan’s surrender negotiations. However, just as hideous , was their
1, 000 bomber raid on Tokyo a few days after the these two atomic attacks and after Japan had agreed to the terms of surrender. Of course, as we all know, the British and American destruction of Dresden Centre, not the Dredens railroads, followed by the American strafing of the civilian survivors huddled along the river , let alone the crime of bombing civilains in the first place, was beyond all reason and decency.

However even more telling has been the never ending US initiated wars from Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea,Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, to the PNAC targeted Middle East and African countries such as Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia, the Sudan, and soon to be Iran; the dozens of assassinations which have probably included Arafat, Rabin, and Chavez; the dozens of false flags from 9-11 to Lockerbie, to the SS Liberty; and the US support of dozens of dictators from Noriega, to the Saudis, to Suharto , to the Shah of Iran; and , finally, to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the creation of the apartheid state of Israel .

I am not even going to try to list the all the US created death squads, the phoney revolutions , and the crushing of real revolutions that have destroyed all hope of the poor in Central America , Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan and the world; nor will I more than mention the hundreds of thousands of rapes done to the women and children of Germany by the Allies during and after the war.

This was hardly the behaviour of honourable men who have been trying to make the world a better place. It was and continues to be the work of monsters who use war for profit and power. Who wanted the war? Think about it. Who had the most to gain, the most to lose from a war, and what have they done since the war?
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby hermod » 5 years 4 months ago (Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:13 pm)

What did the British leaders hope when they gave a Mutual Assistance Pact to the "Colonels' Regime" ruling Poland at that time?

"Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance." - Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics

"In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results." - Harry Elmer Barnes. American Historian

"The fact is that the only real offer of security which Poland received in 1938 and 1939 emanated from Hitler. He offered to guarantee the boundaries laid down in the Versailles Treaty against every other country. Even the Weimar Republic had not for a moment taken this into consideration. Whatever one may think of Hitler's government or foreign policy, no doubt exists on this point; his proposals to Poland in 1938/39 were reasonable and just and the most moderate of all which he made during the six years of his efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means." - Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, American Historian

"The precise effect of the Mutual Assistance Pact was to give Poland a clear signal that aggression and belligerency was tolerable and a warning to Germany that any retaliation would be met by force." - Sir. Basil Liddell Hart, The History of the Second World War

"The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war. His people, and particularly his generals, were profoundly fearful of any such risk - the experiences of World War One had scarred their minds." - Sir. Basil Liddell Hart, The History of the Second World War

"I believe strongly in the honourable intentions of your Fuhrer, however, tell him he should not overlook the fact that the ancient hatred of my people against everything German is abysmal." - Marshall Pilsudski (1867-1935)

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

"Of all the Germans, Believe it or not, Hitler is the most moderate as far as Danzig and the Corridor are concerned." - Sir, Neville Henderson, British Ambassador to Berlin, 16th August, 1939

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it, even if it wants to." - Rydz-Smigly, Chief inspector of the Polish army in a public speech in front of Polish officiers (Summer 1939)

"Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other." - Lord Halifax, English embassador in Washington (1939)

"There will be no peace in Europe until all Polish lands shall have been restored completely to Poland, until the name Prussia, being that of a people long since gone, shall have been wiped from the map of Europe, and until the Germans have moved their capital Berlin farther westwards." - Henryk Baginski, Poland and the Baltic, Edinburgh 1942.

"Poland's decision of August 30, 1939 that was the basis for general mobilization marked a turning point in the history of Europe. It forced Hitler to wage war at a time when he hoped to gain further unbloody victories. " - Kazimierz Sosnkowski, Polish General and Government-in-Exile's commander-in-chief, August 31, 1943

Who were the real war mongers?

September 1, 1939: Mussolini proposes a suspension of hostilities and the immediate convening of a Conference of the Big Powers, Poland included, to discuss terms for a peaceful settlement. Germany, France and Poland immediately accept Mussolini's proposals. Britain categorically rejects any negotiations and demands withdrawal of German troops from all occupied Polish territory (30 kilometers deep). Note: Britain does not consult with Warsaw before making its decision.

September 3, 1939: Mussolini makes one more attempt to be the peacemaker.

From Ribbentrop's IMT Testimony: On 3 September, in the morning, such a proposal of mediation arrived in Berlin stating that Mussolini was still in a position to bring the Polish question in some way before the forum of a conference, and that he would do so if the German Government agreed rapidly. It was said at the same time that the French Government had already approved this proposal. Germany also immediately agreed. But a few days later--I cannot now state the time precisely--it was reported that, in a speech I believe, by the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the House of Commons or in some other British declaration, this proposal had been turned down by London.

From the IMT testimony of Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt: On the morning of the 3rd, at about 2 or 3 o'clock, the British Embassy telephoned the Reich Chancellery, where I was still present with the Foreign Minister in order to be available for possible conferences, to give the information that the British Ambassador had received instructions from his government, according to which, at exactly 9 o'clock, he was to make an important announcement on behalf of the British Government to the Foreign Minister. He therefore asked to be received by Herr Von Ribbentrop at that time. He was given the reply that Ribbentrop himself would not be available but that a member of the Foreign Office, namely I, would be authorized to receive the British Government's announcement from the British Ambassador on his behalf. Thus it happened that at 9 o'clock in the morning I received the British Ambassador in Ribbentrop's office. When I asked him to be seated Henderson refused and while still standing he read to me the well-known ultimatum of the British Government to the German Government, according to which, unless certain conditions were fulfilled by Germany, the British Government would consider themselves at war with Germany at 11 o'clock that morning.

After we had exchanged a few words of farewell, I took the document to the Reich Chancellery. In the Reich Chancellery I gave it to Hitler, that is to say, I found Hitler in his office in conference with the Foreign Minister and I translated the document into German for him. When I had completed my translation, there was at first silence. And when I had completed my translation, both gentlemen were absolutely silent for about a minute. I could clearly see that this development did not suit them at all. For a while Hitler sat in his chair deep in thought and stared somewhat worriedly into space. Then he broke the silence with a rather abrupt question to the Foreign Minister, saying, "What shall we do now?" Thereupon they began to discuss the next diplomatic steps to be taken, whether this or that ambassador should be called, et cetera.

I, of course, left the room since I had nothing more to do. When I entered the anteroom, I found assembled there--or rather I had already seen on my way in--some Cabinet members and higher officials, to whose questioning looks--they knew I had seen the British Ambassador--I had said only that there would be no second Munich. When I came out again, I saw by their anxious faces that my remark had been correctly interpreted. When I then told them that I had just handed a British ultimatum to Hitler, a heavy silence fell on the room. The faces suddenly grew rather serious. I still remember that Goering, for instance, who was standing in front of me, turned round to me and said, "If we lose this war, then God help us." Goebbels was standing in a comer by himself and had a very serious, not to say depressed, expression. This depressing atmosphere prevailed over all those present, and it naturally lives in my memory as something most remarkable for the frame of mind prevailing in the anteroom of the Reich Chancellery on the first day of the war.

September 3, 1939 Der zweite Weltkrieg: WW2 begins as Britain, Australia, New Zealand and France declare war on Nazi Germany.
From Ribbentrop's IMT Testimony: The decisive factor (that started the war) was the English guarantee extended to Poland. I do not need to elaborate this point. This guarantee, combined with the Polish mentality, made it impossible for us to negotiate with the Poles or to come to an understanding with them. As for the actual outbreak of war, the following reasons for it can be given:

First of all, there is no doubt that on 30 and 31 August, England was well aware of the extreme tension of the situation. This fact was communicated to Hitler in a letter, and Hitler said that the decision must be made and a way of solving the problem found, with all possible speed. This was Chamberlain's letter to Hitler.

Secondly: England knew that the proposals made by Germany were reasonable, for we know that England was in possession of these proposals in the night of 30 to 31 August. Ambassador Henderson himself declared that these proposals were reasonable.

Thirdly: It would have been possible, therefore, on 30 or 31 August, to give a hint to Warsaw and tell the Poles to begin some sort of negotiations with us. This could have been done in three different ways: Polish negotiator could have flown to Berlin, which would have been, as the Fuehrer said, a matter of an hour to an hour and a half; or, a meeting could have been arranged between the foreign ministers or the heads of the states to take place on the frontiers; or else, Ambassador Lipski could simply have been instructed at least to receive the German proposals. If these instructions had been given, the crisis would have been averted and diplomatic negotiations could have been initiated.

England herself, had she wished to do so, could have sent her ambassador to represent her at the negotiations, which action, after what had gone before, would undoubtedly have been regarded very favorably by Germany. This, however, did not take place, and, as I gather from documents which I saw for the first time here, nothing was done during this period to alleviate this very-tense situation. Chauvinism is natural to the Poles; and we know from Ambassador Henderson's own words and from the testimony of Mr. Dahlerus that Ambassador Lipski used very strong language illustrative of Polish mentality. Because Poland was very well aware that she would, in all circumstances, have the assistance of England and France, she assumed an attitude which made war inevitable to all intents and purposes.

I believe that these facts really are of some importance for the historical view of that entire period. I would like to add that I personally regretted this turn of events. All my work of 25 years was destroyed by this war; and up to the last minute I made every possible effort to avert this war. I believe that even Ambassador Henderson's documents prove that I did make these attempts. I told Adolf Hitler that it was Chamberlain's most ardent desire to have good relations with Germany and to reach an agreement with her; and I even sqnt a special messenger to the Embassy to see Henderson, to tell him how earnestly the Fuehrer desired this, and to do everything in his power to make this desire of Adolf Hitler's clear to his government.

http://propagander3.tripod.com/nur02a.html


YouTube

YouTube

YouTube
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests