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!
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 8 months ago (Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:26 am)

Die Kriegschuld-Lüge - Answering The
Victors' Lies About German War Guilt


By Jürgen Rieger
Juergen-Rieger.de
9-26-9


Translated by J M Damon
The German original is found at
http://www.juergen-rieger.de/beitraege/ ... luege.html

Once again we have another round-number date to observe: the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland.

Once again we are told that we must observe it with "shame and guilt."

We must declare ad nauseam that "...never ever again from German soil..." etc., etc.

But what else could we expect from such an occupation regime as ours?

As the Springer publication "Welt am Sonntag" laments in its issue of 30th August 2009: "...It is discouraging that at the solemn and imposing Polish observance of the beginning of the War, which took place at the place where it began, the Danziger Westerplatte, no heads of state of Western nations participated except Angela Merkel."

We are told that it would have been a good thing "...if the West, through its presence in Danzig, had solemnized the great suffering that occurred in Eastern Europe and not just Poland."

In other Establishment publications the story goes that Adolf Hitler on 1 September 1939 "ignited World War II;" "released world conflagration;" "set out to conquer the world;" and other such claptrap.

The truth is that the German-Polish war began on 1 September 1939, and this local war became a European war with England's and France's declaration of war against the Third Reich on 3 September.

The European War became World War II on 12 September 1941, when President Roosevelt instructed the American navy to sink any German warships it encountered.

(On that occasion the American Secretary of the Navy remarked laconically that the US had entered the war but the American people did not know it yet.)

The truth is that Poland, which had long been under Russian rule, was reestablished as an independent state by Germany and Austria in 1916.

As thanks for this generous act, regular units of the Polish army joined Korfanty armed bands and began seizing purely German districts in Upper Silesia and Western Prussia.
In response to German electoral victories in every region that held a plebiscite, they initiated a reign of terror; and thanks to French backing, Poland was allowed to keep these German districts.

Under the Dictate of Versailles Poland was given a "corridor" to the Baltic Sea, along with large areas of West Prussia that were populated by Germans.

This "corridor" completely separated East Prussia from the Reich, making trade and communication difficult or impossible.

During Allied discussions on the peace treaty, Lloyd George, the English Prime Minister during the First World War, tapped this spot on the map and predicted "This is where the next world war will begin!"

Unlike the Western leaders, Hitler had realistically evaluated the dangers posed by the bolshevik Soviet Union.

He realized that Germany would be unable resist the Soviet Union without an alliance with Poland.

For this reason he signed a nonaggression treaty with Poland in 1934.

President Pilsudski in turn realized that Poland could not simultaneously conduct hostilities against its two powerful neighbors Germany and the Soviet Union.

In addition to seizing German districts, Poland had grabbed White Russian and Ukrainian districts after the Russian Empire had been weakened by the First World War.

The present eastern border of Poland, which the Soviet Union established in 1939, corresponds to the ethnic border.

With its wars of aggression, Poland had overreached this line, making the Soviet Union its enemy.

The German minority had been disfranchised in the 1920s, and in the 1930s it was subjected to open terror, murder and rape, especially in the months preceding September 1939.

Under the nonaggression treaty German newspapers were not allowed to report on Polish atrocities against the minority Germans, which led to the emigration of a million Germans.
Another million remained behind in German regions that had been seized by the Poles.

A popular song about the Poles that originated among the fighting home defense units in Upper Silesia was rewritten in National Socialist songbooks to suggest that the struggle was not against "Pjorunje" but rather "Bolschewike."

Hitler badly wanted an accommodation with Poland.

Until the month of April 1939, National Socialist propaganda continued to include the names of deceased President Pilsudski and Foreign Minister Beck among the "great statesmen of Europe."

In contrast to his general officers, who with their friends and relatives had had large landholdings in the regions now occupied by Poland, Hitler did not insist on re-establishing the 1914 border.

Instead, he offered the sizeable concession of limiting Germany's demands to a plebiscite in West Prussia and nowhere else.

He proposed that in the event the plebiscite favored Germany, the city and harbor of Gdingen would remain Polish territory, along with an extraterritorial freeway extending from Poland through West Prussia to the harbor.

In case the plebiscite favored Poland, Germany would be allowed to build an extraterritorial freeway from Pomerania to East Prussia so that bothersome border controls could be eliminated.

In addition Danzig, which was 98% German and under mandate of the League of Nations, would be allowed to join the Reich, in keeping with the preference of the population of Danzig.

Publicly and privately, Hitler indicated that this would be Germany's last territorial claim since it would undo the mischief done at Versailles.

Although his proposal was decidedly moderate, the Poles reacted with obstinacy, bolstered in their hard line by Britain.
For 300 years Britain had pursued a "Balance of Power" policy of allying herself with the second most powerful nation against the most powerful.

This policy had allowed Britain to cover its rear while establishing a world empire.

In accordance with this plan, Britain in 1935 reached a naval agreement with Germany that limited the German fleet to 1/3 the size of the English fleet.

(At that time France was more powerful militarily than Germany.)

Hitler wanted to assure Britain that a naval arms race would not occur again - Kaiser Wilhelm had initiated such a contest and it led to Britain's declaration of war in 1914.

By 1938, Germany had become more powerful than France and, in keeping with its "Balance of Power" policies, Britain again adopted an anti German policy.

This led to the British government's protesting Austria's joining the Reich, even though 99% of Austrians had voted for unification in the plebiscite.

Britain has never acknowledged other nations' right of self-determination, whether in India (where those who favored independence were tied to English cannon) or in Ireland (where almost the entire population was annihilated because they would not submit to British domination.)

It is a mistake to maintain that the entry of German troops into Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939 brought about a change in Britain's policy toward the Reich.

This must be said about Czechoslovakia: in this clumsily cobbled-together country, a minority of Czechs ruled three million Germans as well as Slovaks, Ruthenians, Poles and Hungarians.

All these ethnic splinter groups wanted to rejoin their nations but were brutally prohibited by the Czechs from doing so.

The reason for this was that under the Dictate of Versailles, France was able to pursue a policy of aggrandizing Germany's neighbors so as to have powerful allies in the coming war against Germany.

After Austria had been reunited with the Reich came the problem of annexing the millions of Germans living under Czech rule.

Hitler proposed self-determination, but the Czechs responded with increased repression.

They did everything to provoke Hitler, including a general mobilization on 21 May 1938 to counter an allegedly impending attack by Germany, which was a total fabrication.

Since no attack took place, the Czech as well as French and English press triumphantly announced that their determined military measures had dissuaded Hitler from invasion, which caused the Reich to lose prestige.

The American ambassador in Paris clearly recognized the bellicose character of the Czech mobilization and characterized it in a report to President Roosevelt as a "provocation for another war in Europe."

In order to evaluate the situation the British government sent Lord Runciman to the Sudetenland.

In his report on 16 September 1938 he wrote: "I have great sympathy for the cause of the Sudeten Germans.
It is difficult to be governed by a foreign nation, and my impression is that Czechoslovak rule in the Sudetenland displays such a lack of tact and understanding, and so much petty intolerance and discrimination, that dissatisfaction among the German population must inevitably lead to outrage and rebellion."

Following this the British government joined in urging the Czechs to allow a plebiscite in Sudetenland.

The French government, which had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, did the same, since France was not prepared to go to war with Germany over the Sudetenland.

The Czech Government rejected the suggestion of a plebiscite because this would have served as precedent for other national minorities to demand plebiscites as well.

However, they agreed to relinquish the Sudeten districts without plebiscite since these regions bordering the Reich were populated almost entirely by Germans.

This is how the "Munich Agreement" came about.

It resulted not from threats and extortion by Hitler, but rather an agreement by all parties that the Sudeten Germans rightfully belonged "Heim ins Reich" (back home in the Reich.)

It is important to note that both Britain and Germany agreed to guarantee the borders of Czechoslovakia as soon as its other problems of national minorities were solved.

Neither Hitler nor anyone else guaranteed any national borders, since Czechoslovakia never solved its minority problems.

In March 1939 both the Slovaks and the Ruthenians declared independence, whereupon the Poles invaded Czechoslovakia and occupied the Olsa Region, which was populated by Poles.
The Hungarians did the same, occupying the border areas that were populated by Hungarians.

Since Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist, its President Hacha flew to Berlin on 15 March 1939 and placed the remainder of his country under the protection of the Reich.

He was afraid that Poland and Hungary would follow the Czech example and divide the Czech regions among themselves.

The Reich then formed the Protectorate of Bohemia and Maeren, which provided for exclusive Czech administration in all areas except military and foreign policy.

Hitler was concerned about the threat to German cities and industrial areas that was posed by Czech air bases.

Because it felt betrayed by the Sudeten agreement and the Western powers, Czechoslovakia had adopted close relations with the Soviet Union, which had already stationed 300 airplanes in the Czech regions.

Hitler, who knew that war with the Soviet Union inevitable, could not allow the Czech regions to serve as a staging area and "aircraft carrier" for the Soviet Union.

Hacha remained in office and attended the parade of 20 April 1939 as a guest of the Reich, standing next to Hitler.

It is very clear that Hitler did not violate the Munich accord.
When Prime Minister Chamberlain was questioned in the Lower House about the entry of German troops in Prague on 15 March 1939, he explained:

"In our view, the situation has changed significantly since the Slovakian parliament declared independence.
This explanation produced the effect that the state whose borders we intended to guarantee collapsed internally and ceased to exist. Accordingly, the situation that the honorable Secretary for the Dominions has described, and which we had always considered temporary, has now ceased to exist."

Just two days later, however, in sharp contrast to this explanation given in the British lower house, Chamberlain condemned the "German invasion" in his Birmingham speech of 17 March 1939; and on 31 March 1939 he signed an agreement with the Polish government in which Great Britain promised to support Poland in the event of war.

It promised to do this not only if Poland were attacked, but even if Poland should start a war - for example on account of its pretended "rights" in Danzig.

Both of these contradicted in word and spirit the written message that Chamberlain carried in his hand on his return from Munich, to which he proudly referred and for which he was enthusiastically applauded by the masses. At that time he had announced "Peace in our time."

In this announcement Hitler and Chamberlain established that all questions concerning their mutual interests would be handled in mutual consultations.

So how did it come about that England encouraged Poland to go to war against Germany?

Following 15 March 1939, Roosevelt exerted strong pressure on the British government to "finally exert opposition" against "Nazi tyranny" or else he would apply methods of coercion against Great Britain.

It is impossible to determine precisely what threats he made, since their correspondence is still off-limits to historians (Note: According to the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen "the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued." - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t906738/).

Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal wrote in his diary that US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy remarked that Chamberlain was convinced that America and the Jews were forcing Britain into war. This is only part of the story, however.

The germanophobic senior British diplomat Vansittart and the Rumanian Ambassador Tileda also played a major role.
Immediately after the entry of German troops into Czech territory, Tileda announced that during German-Rumanian economic negotiations, Germany had threatened to invade Rumania if it was not allowed to exploit Rumanian oil.

This was an absurd allegation since Germany and Rumania did not even share a common border - they were 400 kilometers apart.

The English believed it, however, and newspapers in London, Paris and New York spread false reports of a threatened German attack.

In reality, German-Rumanian economic negotiations were entirely cordial.

Nobody made any threats of any kind.

It could be that Tileda's false allegations about German threats were inspired by Rumania's needing British economic assistance, and he was desperately trying to persuade Britain to grant this assistance.

It could also be that Tileda had been bribed by the germanophobic Vansittart, who was determined to bring about an understanding between Tileda and Chamberlain.

At any rate, these false allegations greatly alarmed London's financial City.

The City had no economic interests in Poland and the Czech state, but it did have interests in Rumania, where most of the oil fields were owned by British stockholders.

The allegations moved British economic circles to take an anti German course.

Even more significant was the circumstance that Chamberlain was neither an appeaser nor a Germanophile, as his biographer accurately points out.

He simply realized that a war against Germany could not be won in 1939.

Britain's regular army was relatively small - it had just recently introduced conscription, and its air force was smaller than the Luftwaffe.

As Hitler well understood, Chamberlain was playing for time in order to displace Germany as the leading power on the Continent as soon as Britain, which had enormously increased its armaments program, would have adequate trained men and materiel.

What Chamberlain was really hoping for was political upheaval in Germany following a declaration of war.

He arrived at this fond hope because numerous opponents of Hitler, including the secretary to German ambassador Kordt in London, clergyman Goerdeler, head of German military intelligence Canaris, state secretary Weizsäcker (No. 2 man after Germany's foreign minister) and Army Chief of Staff General Beck had joined the opposition and established contact with the British government.

Initially, in view of the universal principle "my country right or wrong," the British had assumed that contact by the German Opposition was a trick to make them take hasty action.

On the basis of very precise details reported to them, they now assumed the honesty and correctness of the figures provided by the Opposition.

For example, Hitler was surprised by the sudden mobilization of the British Fleet, excavation of air raid shelters and drills with gas masks in London in the summer of 1939.

These had come as a response to a report by Opposition figures to the effect that Hitler was plotting a surprise attack with over a thousand bombers.

The British journalist John Colvin, who was in quest of a "scoop," had close ties with the British secret service, and met with Opposition circles that included high-ranking officers.

The officers told him that Britain's agreement in the Sudeten crisis had denied them the possibility of displacing Hitler and the National Socialist regime in a putsch.

They suggested that Britain adopt a much harder line against Germany, including a declaration of war. They believed this would make Hitler so unpopular in Germany that the generals would be able to overthrow him.

On 29 March 1939, before the British-Polish Pact, Colvin met with Chamberlain at the instigation of Churchill. He told him that there was a good chance the German generals Beck and von Witzleben, H. von Bismarck and Major von Kleist-Schmenzien would revolt and stop Hitler.

Chamberlain then asked whether it would influence these people if Britain gave the Poles a guarantee and Colvin responded: "Yes, that would help."

The guarantee followed.

Churchill, who had said that his life's mission was to lead another Thirty Year's War against Germany, remarked jovially when he met Colvin again after the War: "Here's the man who gave us the War!"

Chamberlain's diary also provides evidence that the German Opposition played a decisive role in the British declaration of war.

On 3 September 1939 he wrote that he did not believe Britain could win the war and was hoping for upheaval in Germany instead.

In the save vein, he wrote his sister on 10 September 1939: "What I am hoping for is not military victory, but rather a collapse of the German domestic front."

Since the British guarantee of 31 March 1939 gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany, Poland intensified its persecutions of the German minority.

Abductions became common, speaking German in public was proscribed, German associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in Krakow was murdered, etc.

It is irrelevant whether Poles or Germans attacked the Gleiwitz transmitting station (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t892044/); whoever reads the White Book of the German-Polish war will find countless undisputed murders and assaults committed by the Poles in the weeks and months preceding 1 September 1939.

For example, ethnic Germans attempting to flee Poland were murdered and German commercial aircraft flying between Pomerania and East Prussia were fired upon by Polish anti-aircraft artillery. Such provocations could only be intentional.

In June 1939, Pilsudski's successor Marshal Rydz-Smigly smugly addressed Polish military officers as follows: "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid war even if it so desires." Presumably he pictured himself riding a white horse at the head of victorious Polish troops marching through the Brandenburg Gate.

German intelligence succeeded in breaking the Polish code, so that the Germans knew that Warsaw had given directives to Polish ambassador Lipski that under no circumstances could he intervene or offer concessions to Germany.

In addition, the German Opposition informed Roosevelt that Germany was planning to attack Poland. They also informed the Polish ambassador, Polish government and French government, none of whom were disturbed.

They were confident that in the event of war they could penetrate deep into Germany because domestic disorders would break out there.

Thus the US, England, France and Poland all trusted in the promises of the German Opposition to execute a putsch if Hitler invaded Poland (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... /wa00.html) and the Western powers declared war on Germany.

This is surprising in view of the fact that, as several secret ballotings had shown, 90% of all Germans supported Hitler.

Germany's enemies as well as its domestic Opposition must have known that the Opposition had no support among the German people.

Against their better knowledge they continued egging Poland and Britain into war, however.

Even on 20 July 1944, despite the heavy losses Germany had already sustained in the war, the members of the Opposition still did not have enough confidence to reveal themselves as opponents of Hitler.

Instead, they prepared an explanation to be given following the anticipated death of Hitler that the SS had carried out the putsch and the Wehrmacht was now taking power.

And yet, such spineless traitors as these are officially lauded by the present System as "heroes!"

The fact that Chamberlain, knowing of the Polish, French and American desire for war, gave a free hand to Polish war policies and did not urge Poland to accept the moderate German demands can be explained only by the fact that he also wanted war on 1 September 1939.

Another indication of this is the fact that in Britain the evening edition of the newspaper DAILY MAIL for 31 August 1939 was confiscated.

The edition had carried the story of Germany's proposals concerning the Polish Corridor as well as Poland's response, which was general mobilization. The newspaper was compelled to publish a different evening edition.

The British naval minister Cooper, who favored war, was highly perturbed when he learned of the German proposal, which he considered moderate and reasonable. He telephoned the DAILY TELEGRAPH AND demanded that it present the German proposal in as unfavorable light as possible. The British ambassador to Berlin also did everything he could to keep the moderate German proposal secret for as long as possible.

Occasionally the Establishment media admit that Hitler had not planned a world war on 1 September 1939. Numerous witnesses reported that he was shaken by receipt of the British ­ French declaration of war. When this is mentioned, however, it is accompanied by the suggestion that he had been "playing Vabanque" (gambling) as he had done before, and this time his bet did not pay off.

In response to this it should be said that Hitler accurately evaluated public sentiment in England and France. Many Frenchmen were not enthused by the prospect of "dying for Danzig;" "mourir pour Danzig?" was the phrase on everyone's lips. What Hitler did not suspect, since Germans traditionally held sworn oaths to be sacred, was that influential persons in the military, foreign ministry and information agencies were conspiring with the enemy to bring about "regime change." Perhaps these individuals believed the enemy propaganda line that their goal was to replace Hitler rather than annihilate Germany.

As for the German-Soviet War, there can be no doubt, in view of the revelations of the Russian secret agent Suvorov, that what the Germans suspected in 1941 is factual:

The Reich interrupted a Russian offensive that, as we know today, was scheduled to begin on 6 July 1941.This explains why millions of Soviet soldiers were quickly surrounded and taken prisoner - they were supposed to be rushed from hidden positions to the border just before the attack.

It also explains why huge numbers of artillery pieces and stockpiles of munitions were captured at the border as well as millions of extra leather boots, detailed maps of the Red Army's objectives in Germany and so forth.

When the Establishment media blather about the "surprise attack on an unsuspecting Soviet Union in 1941," it is just one more gigantic lie.

Beginning with the English-German War of September 1939 that he so ardently desired, Roosevelt violated the guidelines for neutral nations countless times.

As early as 1939 he was already shadowing German merchant ships with US cruisers, who then called in British cruisers to sink them. He also seized German assets, supplied the British with war materiel on credit, "loaned" them fifty destroyers and guarded British convoys with American warships.

Hitler, who was determined not to provoke the US, responded to none of these provocations. He even forbade German submarines to defend themselves with torpedoes when attacked by US destroyers, remembering Washington's pretext for entering World War I in 1917.

Even in the Nuremberg show trials, the hypocritical and avaricious US government did not dare to pronounce Germany guilty of conducting "offensive war" against them, since they had already been at war with Germany for three months when Japan, driven to desperate measures by the oil embargo, attacked the US fleet at Peal Harbor in December of 1941.

The above is the simple unadorned truth.

The longer German youth remain in school, the more they are indoctrinated with lies and brainwashed against their fatherland.
After 65 years of such brainwashing, the teachers either know no better or else they are compelled to instruct nonsense.

Our Establishment media all play the same tune and our abject politicians perform never-ending kowtows to do penance for our "endless guilt" for the 60 million victims of the Second World War.

We pay countless billions in tribute to foreign countries while, to quote Merkel, we must never be allowed to "go a separate German way."

We were forced to abolish the D-mark and abandon our sovereignty to NATO and the European Union. When German nationalists demand that at long last German schools adopt a factual historiography, it is not just a "backwards-looking" as some who describe themselves as "modern nationalists" believe.

In actuality, it has an enormous political effect.

If we are unable to succeed in making German youth proud and self confident again, they will be unable to resist ever-growing foreign demands, plundering of our social security fund and squandering of our money in international banks.

They will continue to be unable to resist predatory foreign lobbyists and parasitic organizations.

The most vital task of the day is to spread the truth.

Jürgen Rieger
http://www.juergen-rieger.de
2 September 2009

http://rense.com/general87/de.htm


"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

avatar
Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Reinhard » 5 years 6 months ago (Thu May 23, 2013 5:46 pm)

Haldan wrote: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.


Well, actually his rank is Major General (rtd.)... :)


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.



This fatal decision wasn't made intentionally. A big deal of responsibility for that mistake is to blame on von Rundstedt.
In this excellent book the whole story is examined in detail by Colonel Dr. Karl-Heinz Frieser from the department of military history of the German Army (Bundeswehr):

In English:
http://books.google.de/books/about/The_ ... edir_esc=y

In German:
http://www.amazon.de/Blitzkrieg-Legende ... 3486578243

Of course, I fully agree with you that the Germans were never out for "world domination".
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«
Orwell 1984

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 6 months ago (Thu May 23, 2013 6:59 pm)

I think everything that you have told us can be also found in Udo Walendy's book, "Truth for Germany". Walendy also writes that it was the muder of 58, 000 German Nationals in Poland that finally ignited the Polish/German war.

As have long thought that if Great Britain had come to the rescue of the trapped French army that the Germans were doing an "end run" around, if the British had just slowed down the "end run" the French army would have been able to regroup and defend itself. But for some reason the RCAF did not come to their rescue. Why not? Three guesses- the first two don't count. Rather , the British "advanced to the rear" , to Dunkirk, and the French were hung out to dry. Luckily for the British Hitler was a naive Anglophile, ( read Meim Kampf) and he forbid the massacre of the British army. And the rest is history, But not the history we all took in school.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 5 years 6 months ago (Sat May 25, 2013 5:19 pm)

As for the mentioned literature authored by Walendy, Schulze-Rhonhof and others. Here are some sources:
http://archive.org/details/TruthForGermany
http://archive.org/details/UrsachenUndH ... Weltkriegs

Some insight from Hitler's mouth himself:
http://archive.org/details/HitlerSprich ... Geburtstag


The claim that "Hitler, started the war to conquer the world" is merely conjecture from wishful thinking and cherry-picked quotes.

It seems that Hitler wanted to avoid war, although not at all cost. There were other powerful forces at work that wanted war against German. And that may explain the secret addition to the Anglo-Polish treaty:
Secret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25th August 1939
The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding.
1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common;;;
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement ... %281939%29
Could there be any other plausible reason for adding a secret protocol specifying Germany, the influential circles in Britain wanting war with Germany?!

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 6 months ago (Sat May 25, 2013 7:45 pm)

According to David Irving, as he wrote in his book “Churchill’s War” , WC immediately began to bomb German cities from the moment that he had been made Prime Minister of Great Britain. However, Hitler refused at first to believe that the British bombing of a German city had been done on purpose and did not immediately retaliate as the evil Churchill thought he would. Besides Adolph was totally against the killing of civilians …something about decency, his hatred of war …and besides he had no four engine city bombers as he had forbidden his scientists and engineers
( perhaps the finest in the world) to build such planes. Big mistake. In any case Irving writes that after secretly bombing Germany for five or six times and with no retaliation from Germany, Churchill could be seen by his chauffeur and others, screaming into the night sky “ Why won’t they come, why won‘t they come. ”

Clearly the Church and his gang had planned on destroying Germany for at least 40 years by this time, since 1900 anyway, and it is not too difficult to understand Churchill’s disappoint in his not getting his bombing war going as soon as possible. They were more than ready for it. They had great plans to build their four engine city bomber as early as the 1930’s which became the Lancaster. Germany, on the other hand, had only dive bombers. And the USA had long promised to come into the war on their side. What could be better? It looked like a short victory was in the works. But is that what the British elite really wanted? How would that crush Germany forever?
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 18, 2015 2:58 pm)

Mkk wrote:The official ....
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.
....

As for Holland and Belgium, there were "staff conversations" going on, which is a serious violation of neutrality. And the British were planning on Norway AND Sweden for quite a while. Some of the records on this are public now. It's my intention to collect the info and report back on this. Which I will do in a separate thread.

User avatar
NLH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:28 pm
Location: England, UK

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby NLH » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:52 pm)

I want to stay on topic, so hope this won't turn into comment on Mark Weber himself, but I thought these podcasts suited the topic:

Some Myths About the Origin of World War II
February 29, 2012
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2012-02-29
Much of what we’re told about the how World War II began is misleading, distorted or just plain untrue. It’s often claimed, for example, that after taking power Hitler moved quickly to build a large army and air force to conquer Europe. In fact, and as reputable scholars have quietly acknowledged, Third Reich rearmament in the years before the outbreak of war in 1939 was remarkably modest. Hitler neither wanted nor planned for a major war. He sincerely sought peace with Britain and France. His main motive in attacking Poland was to secure freedom and basic rights for the Germans of the city-state of Danzig, and safety and freedom for the increasingly dispossessed and persecuted minority ethnic Germans of Poland. The British and French declarations of war against Germany, which were secretly encouraged by US President Roosevelt, transformed the limited German-Polish conflict into a major, European-wide war.


More Myths About the Origin of World War II
March 7, 2012
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2012-03-07
We’re often told that Hitler started World War II. The reality is not so simple. In early 1939, Hitler asked Poland’s leaders for a peaceful resolution of the long-standing Danzig issue by permitting the city-state to return to Germany, in accord with the wishes of its people. But the Poles rejected a diplomatic solution, confident that they would prevail in any armed clash, and emboldened by a British pledge of military support in case of war. In the months that followed, tensions between Germany and Poland worsened, with growing violence against Poland’s ethnic German minority population. As the outstanding British historians A. J. P. Taylor and B. H. Liddell- Hart, along with other scholars, have pointed out, Hitler did not want and did not prepare for a general war in 1939. He sincerely sought peace with Britain and France. US President Franklin Roosevelt secretly encouraged Britain, France and Poland to adopt belligerently anti-German policies, and to reject any peaceful resolution of the German grievances. The British and French declarations of war against Germany transformed a limited German-Polish conflict into a global war. As often happens in history, leaders in all the major countries involved badly miscalculated in 1939.


President Roosevelt’s Record of Lies and Lawlessness in the 'Good War'
June 29, 2011
http://ihr.org/mwreport/2011-06-29
Citing little-known reports and remarks of Polish, British and French officials, and other evidence, Weber traces President Franklin Roosevelt’s secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. By pressing Britain, France and Poland into war against Germany, the US President bears at least some responsibility for World War II. Weber also discusses the role of Jewish power and influence on US foreign policy during those years. Roosevelt’s record of deceit, lies and lawlessness is routinely suppressed by those who control the US media and American cultural life. Americans who express admiration for Roosevelt and his leadership have little moral right to complain when other presidents follow his example and lead the country into war by breaking the law, subverting the Constitution, and lying to the people.

The Enduring, Dangerous Legacy of Winston Churchill
February 8, 2012
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2012-02-08
Winston Churchill, Britain’s premier during World War II, is honored for his stubborn “bull dog” hostility toward Hitler and Nazism, and his important role in ultimately destroying Third Reich Germany. He pressed for war against Hitler’s Germany “at all costs,” repeatedly rejecting opportunities for peace. His policies brought death and destruction on a mass scale, Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe, a shattered British empire, and Britain itself exhausted and bankrupt. The iconic, well-polished image of Churchill as a courageous and principled defender of freedom is based on a deceitful and ultimately dangerous narrative of twentieth-century history. In our own era, the enduring Churchill “cult” encourages policies that are as harmful as they are short-sighted.

Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to Mention
An English translation of "Hitlers Krieg? Was Guido Knopp Verschweigt" by Alphart Geyer (Germany 2009).
See video description on youtube for more information about the documentary


Hitlers War
BBC documentary based on the bestselling biography by David Irving.


"Churchill's War" by David Irving
http://youtu.be/8qAdJTHQysI

David Irving - Winston Churchill And His Secret Communications with Roosevelt
http://youtu.be/kjB0mfE75h4

Exposing Winston Churchill
http://youtu.be/OYbQToOEYI8

WW2 Coventry Air Raid Bombings - Churchill Knew
http://youtu.be/obaRqykVIA4

The Zionist Influence Over Winston Churchill
http://youtu.be/vbO3_vHpehM

Mark Weber: The Real Winston Churchill
http://youtu.be/CUBCRN6bG-A

Mark Weber speaks on Hitler's Place in History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDDTmElixdM

David Irving - The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwp7tVZuXKM


Another interesting site:

http://justice4germans.com/the-peacemak ... t-germany/

Other podcasts with a similar theme:

Austria and Hitler: How 'The Sound of Music' Distorts History
May 4, 2011
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2011-05-04
The Sound of Music is a popular, tuneful and enduring American film. But its portrayal of history, and especially its depiction of the 1938 union of Austria with the German Reich is a gross distortion of reality. In fact, the vast majority of Austrians joyfully welcomed the union (Anschluss) of their homeland with National Socialist Germany, and strongly, even enthusiastically, supported the Hitler government.

Why Hitler Struck Against Soviet Russia in 1941
January 4, 2012
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2012-01-04
Important evidence has come to light in recent decades that shatters the official, endlessly repeated view that Hitler, bent on world conquest, launched a treacherous surprise attack against a peaceful Soviet Union. Long-suppressed documents and other detailed evidence shows that by June 1941 Soviet dictator Stalin had built the world’s largest military machine, and had deployed an enormous strike force on the western Soviet frontier, in readiness for a massive attack against Germany that would roll on to overwhelm central and western Europe. Hitler’s ‘Barbarossa” attack, say a growing number of historians in Russia, Germany and other countries, was actually a preventive war to forestall an imminent Soviet strike.

Deceit, Lies, Propaganda and Journalism in the World Wars
August 24, 2011
http://ihr.org/mwreport/2011-08-24
This information-packed broadcast dissects lies and deceit from the two world wars. Fantastic stories about German atrocities in World War I were promoted to mobilize public opinion in the US, Britain and France, and the public was kept in ignorance about the scope and horror of the fighting. One of the wars most lurid and widely-circulated atrocity tales was the story that the Germans were boiling the bodies of dead soldiers to extract glycerin for munitions. In World War II, Allied spinmeisters portrayed the disastrous British evacuation of Dunkirk as a great success. It was only years later that the legend of the miracle of Dunkirk was deflated. Another durable Allied propaganda myth was the story of merciless German bombing of the English city of Coventry. Churchill was eager to escalate the killing to enrage American public opinion, and thereby encourage US entry into the war on Britain’s side. For that reason, it was the British, not the Germans, who first began indiscriminate bombing of civilians. As historian Phillip Knightley points out, German news reports about the war were generally more accurate and reliable than those of the Allies.

D-Day & WWII - Familiar Myths About the 'Good War'
June 8, 2011
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2011-06-08
The great D-Day invasion of June 6, 1944, was a high point of World War II and of the US role in defeating Hitler’s Germany. The anniversary of this greatest amphibious assault in history is a good opportunity to take a sober look at some comfortable falsehoods and myths about the “good war.” The familiar American portrayal of World War II, and the “good war” mythology of the US role in it, is not just bad history. It has helped greatly to support and justify a series of arrogant US foreign policy adventures, with harmful consequences for both America and the world.

Lies and Deceit In American Film Propaganda
April 4, 2012
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120404/ ... propaganda
Decades of deceitful motion pictures have done much to produce a misinformed and compliant American public. A notable example of such film deceit is “Mission to Moscow,” a major Hollywood production made with White House backing, that portrays Soviet dictator Stalin and the Soviet Russian regime as benevlolent, peace-loving and trustworthy. Another good example is the “Why We Fight” series of documentary-style films produced by the US War Department, which have been viewed by millions. Made during World War II, these seven films use staged scenes and fake quotations to present a grossly distorted view of history and the world. Along with countless other motion pictures that likewise reflect the outlook and agenda of those who hold power in the US, these productoins promote dangerous falsehoods about modern history, including the “big lie” claim that Hitler and Third Reich Germany were bent on world conquest.


Image
"Believe me, I came into Auschwitz in a much worse condition than I actually left it."
- Kitty Hart-Moxon, Jewish Holocaust Survivor.

June 1998 testimony, USC Shoah Foundation, Visual History Archive.
Part 2 - YouTube - 1:21:42

User avatar
NLH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:28 pm
Location: England, UK

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby NLH » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:55 am)

Barrington James wrote:I think everything that you have told us can be also found in Udo Walendy's book, "Truth for Germany". Walendy also writes that it was the muder of 58, 000 German Nationals in Poland that finally ignited the Polish/German war.

As have long thought that if Great Britain had come to the rescue of the trapped French army that the Germans were doing an "end run" around, if the British had just slowed down the "end run" the French army would have been able to regroup and defend itself. But for some reason the RCAF did not come to their rescue. Why not? Three guesses- the first two don't count. Rather , the British "advanced to the rear" , to Dunkirk, and the French were hung out to dry. Luckily for the British Hitler was a naive Anglophile, ( read Meim Kampf) and he forbid the massacre of the British army. And the rest is history, But not the history we all took in school.


Image
Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World
by Udo Walendy
Edition type: revised and newly translated
Publisher: Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers
Published in: 9/2014
(Note: the US edition of this book as available from The Barnes Review, which has been printed from the translators' file without any editing or changes in layout, has a different title: Truth for Germany)
https://shop.codoh.com/book/364/365

Haldan wrote: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


From another thread that relates: The War That Had Many Fathers - The Documentary

Mortimer wrote:THE WAR THAT HAD MANY FATHERS is a book on the origins of world war 2 by Gerd Schulze Rhonhof. It shows that the Allied propaganda image of Adolf Hitler as a warmonger filled with bloodlust is not true and that there were many factors that led up to the war breaking out. Because of the media blackout a lot of people don't know these facts. A documentary which is partly based on THE WAR THAT HAD MANY FATHERS is here.
http://archive.org/details/HitlersWar-W ... estVersion


Heimwehr wrote:For people understanding German: In this speech Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvwb5QPrmc0

The British replaced complete pages in German documents, not knowing that their paper material was of different physical quality than the German originals. This was leading to a different discolouring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals seem to be lost... .


Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof on The War That Had Many Fathers w/ English Subtitles


Mortimer wrote:
Mortimer wrote:THE WAR THAT HAD MANY FATHERS is a book on the origins of world war 2 by Gerd Schulze Rhonhof. It shows that the Allied propaganda image of Adolf Hitler as a warmonger filled with bloodlust is not true and that there were many factors that led up to the war breaking out. Because of the media blackout a lot of people don't know these facts. A documentary which is partly based on THE WAR THAT HAD MANY FATHERS is here.
http://archive.org/details/HitlersWar-W ... estVersion

I have just finished reading the book on which the above documentary is based. It goes into a lot greater detail. Some interesting observations -
1) The author Gerd Schulze Rhonhof is of the opinion Operation Barbarossa was preventive - http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
2) Roosevelt entered into agreements with the British and French navies to support a blockade of Germany if war broke out. He did this without the consent of Congress.
3) Britain and France both stated they would declare war on the Soviet Union if that country invaded Poland which is what happened on September 17 1939 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland Neither country kept its word. In fact a few weeks after Poland's surrender Britain and France asked Stalin if he would like to join them and change sides by attacking Germany. The duplicity of the Anglo-French governments is beyond belief.
4) The author seems to be unaware of and does not mention the fact that in world war 2 France actually invaded German territory first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
5) Before signing the nazi-soviet pact Stalin informed the German government that it refused to acquiesce to Soviet intentions regarding the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) then it was no deal.
There are many more little known and understood facts regarding the lead up to world war 2. I recommend this book. http://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Man ... 44668623X/


Hektor wrote:
Heimwehr wrote:For people understanding German: In this speech Gerd Schulze Rhonhof describes how he discovered forged material in British archives regarding the Nürnberger Prozesse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvwb5QPrmc0

The British replaced complete pages in German documents, not knowing that their paper material was of different physical quality than the German originals. This was leading to a different discolouring process of the aging papers, so every page they replaced can now be identified, but the originals seem to be lost... .

Again for the German understanders.
Here is several speakers including Schultze Rhonhof (apparently spelled this why). I don't think it's the same speech, but content should be similar. Dr. Scheil elaborates on the prelude to Barbarossa.

For those that would like to argue this with re-educated Germans, here is a forum with opposing views (towards Scheil and Rhonhof):
http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f68/wie-k ... eis-48335/
"Believe me, I came into Auschwitz in a much worse condition than I actually left it."
- Kitty Hart-Moxon, Jewish Holocaust Survivor.

June 1998 testimony, USC Shoah Foundation, Visual History Archive.
Part 2 - YouTube - 1:21:42

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:51 am)

NLH wrote:[...
Image
Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World
by Udo Walendy
Edition type: revised and newly translated
Publisher: Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers
Published in: 9/2014
(Note: the US edition of this book as available from The Barnes Review, which has been printed from the translators' file without any editing or changes in layout, has a different title: Truth for Germany)
https://shop.codoh.com/book/364/365
....


Is this a follow up by Walendy on his pioneering work Truth for Germany?
Image
https://archive.org/details/TruthForGermany

I found lots of documents concerning
- pre-war preparations for a war against Germany.
-- Agitation in Britain
-- Getting the Soviet Union before the non-aggression pact to march through Poland against Germany
-- War preparations together with the Poles
- Plans for the violation of the neutrality of Norway and Sweden by Britain under the pretext of "aid to Finland" month before German invasion of Denmark and Norway.
- British (French) Staff conversations with Belgium and Holland, with the material on collusion with the Netherlands being a bit more meager there.
- Less on the mingling by the British in Yugoslavia and Greece. But I may find more in the future.
- Some indications of collusion with the Soviet Union prior to Barbarossa. The most extensive documents is on the supplies to the USSR for Russo-German war.

User avatar
NLH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:28 pm
Location: England, UK

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby NLH » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:13 am)

Hektor wrote:
NLH wrote:[...
Image
Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World
by Udo Walendy
Edition type: revised and newly translated
Publisher: Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers
Published in: 9/2014
(Note: the US edition of this book as available from The Barnes Review, which has been printed from the translators' file without any editing or changes in layout, has a different title: Truth for Germany)
https://shop.codoh.com/book/364/365
....


Is this a follow up by Walendy on his pioneering work Truth for Germany?
Image
https://archive.org/details/TruthForGermany

I found lots of documents concerning
- pre-war preparations for a war against Germany.
-- Agitation in Britain
-- Getting the Soviet Union before the non-aggression pact to march through Poland against Germany
-- War preparations together with the Poles
- Plans for the violation of the neutrality of Norway and Sweden by Britain under the pretext of "aid to Finland" month before German invasion of Denmark and Norway.
- British (French) Staff conversations with Belgium and Holland, with the material on collusion with the Netherlands being a bit more meager there.
- Less on the mingling by the British in Yugoslavia and Greece. But I may find more in the future.
- Some indications of collusion with the Soviet Union prior to Barbarossa. The most extensive documents is on the supplies to the USSR for Russo-German war.


From the above:

Edition type: revised and newly translated
Publisher: Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers
Published in: 9/2014
(Note: the US edition of this book as available from The Barnes Review, which has been printed from the translators' file without any editing or changes in layout, has a different title: Truth for Germany)
"Believe me, I came into Auschwitz in a much worse condition than I actually left it."
- Kitty Hart-Moxon, Jewish Holocaust Survivor.

June 1998 testimony, USC Shoah Foundation, Visual History Archive.
Part 2 - YouTube - 1:21:42

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 3 years 3 months ago (Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:02 am)

hermod wrote:
Die Kriegschuld-Lüge - Answering The
Victors' Lies About German War Guilt


By Jürgen Rieger
Juergen-Rieger.de
9-26-9


Translated by J M Damon
The German original is found at
http://www.juergen-rieger.de/beitraege/ ... luege.html
....

He realized that Germany would be unable resist the Soviet Union without an alliance with Poland.

For this reason he signed a nonaggression treaty with Poland in 1934.

President Pilsudski in turn realized that Poland could not simultaneously conduct hostilities against its two powerful neighbors Germany and the Soviet Union.

In addition to seizing German districts, Poland had grabbed White Russian and Ukrainian districts after the Russian Empire had been weakened by the First World War.
...

Hitler badly wanted an accommodation with Poland.

Until the month of April 1939, National Socialist propaganda continued to include the names of deceased President Pilsudski and Foreign Minister Beck among the "great statesmen of Europe."
...

In June 1939, Pilsudski's successor Marshal Rydz-Smigly smugly addressed Polish military officers as follows: "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid war even if it so desires." Presumably he pictured himself riding a white horse at the head of victorious Polish troops marching through the Brandenburg Gate.

German intelligence succeeded in breaking the Polish code, so that the Germans knew that Warsaw had given directives to Polish ambassador Lipski that under no circumstances could he intervene or offer concessions to Germany.
.....
Jürgen Rieger
http://www.juergen-rieger.de
2 September 2009

http://rense.com/general87/de.htm

This video is an interesting outlook on German-Polish relations and Hitler's admiration for Pilsudski:

avatar
Review
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Review » 3 years 3 months ago (Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:37 am)

Amerian ex-presidential advisor Pat Buchanan makes many good points in his argumentation that it was a war for anglo-American dominance (thesaker would call it the "anglozionist" empire) in his classic article:

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town [Danzig, Gdansk] the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination...

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that...

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.



http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Responsibility for WW2 - summary of the revisionist view

Postby Hektor » 11 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:11 pm)

Review wrote:Amerian ex-presidential advisor Pat Buchanan makes many good points in his argumentation that it was a war for anglo-American dominance (thesaker would call it the "anglozionist" empire) in his classic article:

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town [Danzig, Gdansk] the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination...

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that...

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.



http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068


The Poles already had taken territory of Czechoslovakia after "Munich". Something you won't know, if you only followed main-stream publications.
Also in the month before official war started the Brits were plotting with the Poles to wage war against Germany:
https://archive.org/details/AngloPolish ... 12June1939


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests