Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts
In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it. Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors. People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information. To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades. Memoirs of participants are not yet written.
Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution. It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions. Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough. For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia. A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.
As I reported recently, Harry Elmer Barnes was the first American historian to provide a history of the first world war that was based on primary sources. His truthful account differed so substantially from the war propaganda that he was called every name in the book. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/09/the-lies-that-form-our-consciousness-and-false-historical-awareness/
Truth is seldom welcomed. David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished. Nevertheless, Irving persevered. If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .
Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on. He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined. The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.
Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works. Irving himself is very scant on opinions. He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized. The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts. Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
Similarly for Winston Churchill. Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.
This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship. I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established. You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.
Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain. For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
In Britain, Churchill was out of power. He figured a war would put him back in power. No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations. Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people. He acted for the German people. The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that. Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.
From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves. When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee. But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war. But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him. Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy. After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain. He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies. He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion. He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace. Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory. Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf. Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency. Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic. FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa. Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments. For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million. It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.” For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.” Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “Great Britain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with our blood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”
A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR. He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.” Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.” Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler. The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war. Pat Buchanan sees it that way also. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pat+Buchanan&qid=1557709100&s=books&sr=1-3
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities. It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans. Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production. The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war. One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths. Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders. At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded. The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.
Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war. He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders. Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked. To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco. Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet. Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership. Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France. This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s. Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty. But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name. He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris. On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia. He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army. But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.
It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia. One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft. Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side. Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia. A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed. The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy. Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete. Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini. Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender. Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications. The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption. Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.
It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation. Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches. Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them. The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography. This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians. The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.
In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”
So much for free thought and truth in the Western world. Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth. In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Paul Craig Roberts is an example of integrity and courage. He knows more than most people could even imagine can be learned.
As far as the history he summarizes, David Irving’s Hitler’s War is one of the several very lengthy works I plan to finish reading in the future. I had not yet known about Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, but I will look for it.
The way Irving and others who have taken similar if not identical viewpoints about history (Ernst Zundel, David Cole, and Fred Leuchter) have been persecuted, ostracized, threatened, harassed, stalked, assaulted, vilified, slandered, demonized, shunned, and otherwise turned into veritable lepers whose lives were turned into living hells only demonstrates that if the “mainstream” narrative both of World War II and of the fate of European Jewry were indeed as we were all taught, there would be no need to expend so much money, energy, and time to silence and to demonize these people.
Lies and frauds ultimately come to the surface and are discarded, relegated to the dustbin of history. If what Irving and the others proclaim is true, it would explain the great lengths to which “disaffected academics and influential citizens” will go to ensure that there is and can only be one line of thought and one view of history.
Irving’s work is among many which I will be reading. Life does get in the way but even if finishing his and other important works happens when I have retired and I am relegated to sitting in my own personal study, facing a window, bookshelves loaded with books I’ve had for many years and books I will still purchase, and my computer with my PDF and other virtual books… I will read them all.
I will go to a grave one day, but when that day happens, I will have learned as much as I possibly can. Roberts and Irving are inspirations for me to attain that goal.
Read this if possible:
The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940 by William L. Shirer
A fact is that France had more tanks and airplanes than Germany, it was that the communist in the French Army just walked away and would not fight.
That whole book along with The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich written by Shier, should be a wake up call to America of today and the path we are on.
I agree, Shirer wrote some good historical books – relying on those who witnessed the event (WWII) – not like this article’s author, who makes it up as he goes with no facts.
To add to your France comments, the French had put all their trust in the Maginot Line – a huge complex of hard fortifications – “to keep Hitler out”! Hitler had his military perfecting the lightening strike force of armored dividsions (blitzkreig), and the Germans just went around the Maginot line! These quick armor movements – with airpower, would be used repeatedly and very successfully in the Russian campaign during the first two years. Until Russia had more tanks and artillery than the Germans. And as the US launched D-Day in June of 1944.
But he starts his premise from this, “World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany” leaving out the FACT that Germany had invaded Poland and was killing civilians by the 1,000s.
I stopped reading at that point so let me ask you, does he excuse the gassing and ovens because that sure looks like where he”s going?
I agreer with you! I can’t believe the respones from the ‘readers’ of TBP – they all appear to be revisionist history – propagandized thru public K-12 ‘education’ know-nothings. This is scarey!
PCR does not ignore Germany’s invasion of Poland. My gleaning of this essay does not lead me to conclude he viewed Germany’s decision to attack the Poles as lawful, although he does provide important historical context as to why Germany took this route: the recovery of German territory taken through the Treaty of Versailles. German territory with German people was taken by other countries, and for what reason?
Britain and France made it a “world war” by jumping into what was a German-Polish affair.
You know NOTHING. Wrong again libtard. Germany and Soviet Union had a pact to attack Poland TOGETHER – and they did in 1939. If you pull your head out of your ass and do a modicum of research you would know this!!! Just because a country does not ‘declare war’ does not mean they are not the beligerents.
YOU’RE TOTALLY WRONG ROBERTS – WAIT A MINUTE…. You have it all ASS-backwards. The progressives in UK (David Lloyd George) and France took over control of their governments about ten years after WWI. They did the appeasement contortion for years; they did not keep Germany from re-arming (Germany broke many key aspects of the Versailles treaty: troop size, number of airplanes, and of course the number of battleships/cruisers/destroyers – number and size). Then Hitler became belligerent with the UK and France, due to his new-found military prowess. THEY GAVE HIM Czechoslovakia, ala, Neville Chamberlin’s infamously stupid “peace in our lifetime” – DO YOU RECALL THIS??? HITLER INVADED POLAND IN 1939 WHILE CHAMBERLIN WAS IN OFFICE. That was not Churchill’s administration! These progressive morons allowed WWII to happen.
At the same time these progressives did what our very own US progressives do -SEVERELY cut their own country’s military strength. They were very successful to the point where they (UK & France) did get whipped by the Wehrmacht rather quickly.
WWII was called the unnecessary war for these reasons. All of this grande-scale debacle could have been avoided if we had leadership from the UK/France/US to enforcee the Versailles Treaty.
YES YOU GUESSED IT, F. D. Roosevelt was on the same page as these progressives in the UK and France!!
Roosevelt was great at GUTTING our military strength – to the point where we could not launch a second front against Hitler until 1944!
It figures a lib-tard like Paul Roberts would lay the whole thing on Winston Churchill’s doorstep. Typical revisionist history, by Mr Robets a useful idiot!
Public school education?
You literally know nothing of the ‘why’ behind historical events. You have been lied to, your whole life – not merely about this topic, either.
Try refuting the actual facts and not defend the unsupported BS opinions of”why” stated in this article. The guy has no facts or context, just blame it on Churchill??? Really? The policies of George, Baldwin, to Neville Chamberlin in the UK, along with the same fabian socialists in France and US (FDR) created the NAZI party. You’re the ‘product’ of public school indoctrination, or a very poor student, or both….
You just reaffirmed everything I said. You can’t cope with the situation you are in. Some people can’t.
The information you need is available. Go find it yourself, when you are ready.
Snow-flake, live in your parents’ basement social justice warrior – IDIOT- Shut the fuck up.
“Hitler became belligerent with the UK and France, due to his new-found military prowess.”
Bass-ackwards, Anonhole.
Hilter became the force he was, and created its military might, because the entire German nation was feeling belligerent.
With the Treaty of Versailles, the winners of WWI saddled Germany with onerous, impossible terms of reparation for Germany’s ‘aggression’. It destroyed Germany’s economy, as intended, and nearly the German people, as hoped for.
Hitler promised to Make Germany Great Again. Libtards wound up in rail cars or a Warsaw Ghetto.
It’s all inmuh elimintry Histry s’coolbook.
I believe we owe it to the people who went through this shit-mess in history to remember it correctly. If nothing else, so we do not repeat it. Several of my uncles fought in N. Africa, Italy and W. Europe. Estimated, 20,000,000 people died because of this ‘event’.
We are all in trouble in the US with two things that did usher in an Adolph Hitler: 1) democratically elected dictator, 2) hyper-inflation due to massive money printing. The third item, appeasment of NAZI germany DID happen as I stated, but please read this..
Hitler’s blueprint was totally followed in his book ‘Mein Kampf’. Hitler played ‘statesman’ for many years before becoming aggressive with foreign policy. Not until he had the big stick to back up the rhetoric, which was possible by the UK/France leadership through the 20s and 30s – and an indifferent US under FDR. The NAZI party was always a small faction with the brownshirts as the muscle- basically, until they could rig elections and limit choices. Then it was too late. Reseach the burning of the Reichstag.
The Weimar republic (1918 – 1933 ) destroyed the German economy through printing of money and creating hyper inflation…. Germany was paying reparations timely prior to rampant inflation…. Then could not meet its obligations afterwards.
Let’s be clear who was in rail cars off to extermination camps: Jews, Gypsies, any German who was a threat to the NAZIs, (authors, doctors, artists, company owners), and the infirmed. Yes libtard socialists, too, but they were a small percentage.
There weren’t any extermination camps. Please try to keep up,
TomatoBubble.com counters the general story of much concerning WW2 and presents the Jewish influence to much of history. Hitler has been maligned by history.
https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/
WOW, just WOW. PCR will now be on the official “eat shit” list, if he wasn’t already. My respect for him just multiplied 10x for embracing truth in a way he didn’t need to. Most of Irving’s excellent books can be downloaded for free from his site, at least until the internet is no longer “free.” The other book I would recommend is “Onward Christian Soldiers” by Day. He was a hardscrabble newspaper reporter stationed in that area during the time between the World Wars and offers amazing insight into what was going on in that period that you won’t read in any other history book.
What a bunch of crap that article was.
I was not there , but have met plenty that were there
This article makes sense and presents what would be what a true reporter would present We like to look at as we only won and defeated a devil
Germany was in only a position for recovery. Hitler accomplished that. Imagine taking on the whole of Europe as your only way back to recover from signing a bullshit agreement if this is correct versus what we were force feed to believe – it shines a new light on the whole affair
Like killimg off the native Indians in America. Aka savages, reading and believing without digging in to the details and exactly understanding what were the goals. What was achieved. And where are we at as a result
Winners write the history books.
Two points that look like the article is not presenting all the facts:
1. What fair and honest terms did Hitler offer to Poland? What terms can one country offer to another country, that is not an act of war?
2. Where is Hitler’s “master race” ever mentioned in the article? There is plenty of evidence of this in the youth groups in Germany and in the pursuing of an Aryan race of blond haired blue eyed peoples?
I’m willing to accept evidence that shows a particular slant of perceiving history through primary sources, but for me to consider them as reality, these two points will need to be addressed.
“Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry.”
Our very own Anarchyst calls it Holocaustianity.