The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Depth Charge
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:32 pm

Re: The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat

Postby Depth Charge » 1 year 9 months ago (Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:48 am)

Angles of treachery need to be handled with care, it's a typical Anglo-Zionist propaganda tool. It serves the purpose of sewing discontent and disillusion among the defeated as well as making their own intelligence apparatus appear all knowing and super human.

I am suspicious of Speidel's actions on D-Day, withholding Panzer forces when they were desperately needed.

Mortimer wrote:Adolf Hitler addresses the German nation on radio after the July 1944 attempted assassination - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpCwuCzud-E He sounds fairly calm and collected considering that a bomb went off in his vicinity only hours earlier.


He may have been given painkillers to treat his leg wound and a bit relaxed.



User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3162
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat

Postby Hektor » 1 year 9 months ago (Sun Dec 25, 2016 3:37 pm)

Mortimer wrote:The Valkyrie bomb plotters were in touch with the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA) and other Allied officials. They were told that even if Hitler was killed or imprisoned the policy of Unconditional Surrender would still apply. The Valkyrie bomb plotters wanted to make a separate peace with the USA/UK but continue fighting the USSR. But Roosevelt and Churchill were the ones who insisted on Unconditional Surrender so their plan was doomed to fail. Yet they still went ahead. So the Valkyrie bomb plotters were not only traitors they were inept and delusional as well -
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/ ... crime.html



I read somewhere the BBC aired the names of supposed coup plotters two days after Stauffenberg failed. The Allies wanted the National Socialists to get rid of as many prominent Germans as possible. Especially those they considered to be a threat to their post-war aims. Consider the Wheeler Bennett Memorandum in this regard. Shall I post what I have on this and then we can discuss this separately.

avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: The Role of Treason In Germany's Defeat

Postby Mortimer » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:02 pm)

adolf wrote:Motrimer:

3. I disagree with the assumption that: "If the German armed forces were in a better position militarily and able to hold out longer and inflict more casualties on the Allies then it's possible a negotiated peace might have been arranged instead of the unconditional surrender which Roosevelt and Churchill insisted on. ", for the simple fact that, regardless of Roosevelt and Churchill insistence on an unconditional German surrender, Hitler himself wasn't willing to negotiate peace. Even if the allies had promoted negotiations for peace, Hitler was not willing to consider such option. So, in no way was there going to be a negotiated peace.


You can disagree all you like but you are dead wrong. Hitler was willing to have a negotiated peace. It is well documented in this thread Hitler's Peace Offers vs Unconditional Surrender - viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10192
Hitler was wary of the Allied powers because during WW1 Germany surrendered based on Wilson's 14 Points but was then hit with the Versailles Treaty which blamed that country solely for the start of WW1 - viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937
Despite this Hitler was still willing to have a negotiated peace.
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests