Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

The battle between Truth and Propaganda

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
49 Comments  comments 

49 Responses

  1. I’m in my correction mode again. Today, I confused the 570 page book by the four clowns with the new book of 1500 pages by Mattogno, Kues and Graf. That happened because I didn’t get back to the same page on CODOH website I had read earlier. I was going by what I remembered seeing more than what I was actually seeing! That is how these dumb things happen, because I’m moving around but not taking the time to really comprehend what is in front of me. And my brain is slowing down.

    Anyway, here is the link to Juergen Graf’s Introduction: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar-intro.pdf It’s not long.

    Here’s the link to the full book: http://codoh.com/sites/default/files/downloads/28-tecoar-long.pdf It’s worth taking a look just to see the incredible expertise that has gone into it.

  2. Markus

    Good propaganda includes all avenues to spread the message. Film, radio, posters, academia etc. Too often it is said that propaganda itself is deceitful, but that’s not true. It’s a neutral term to deliver information.

    I agree with Hasso, going into West-Prussia was a total trap. Even though, Germany was totaly justified marching in there, the International Press had its pretext. Bohemia and Moravia was different because Czech president Hacha had asked Germany for protection after Czechoslovakia fell apart as it was a protectorate for 1,000 years of Austria/or other German states.

  3. It’s true “propaganda” is a neutral word, but it’s commonly viewed differently. It is that which is put forth to support your own side, rather than seeking an objective truth. Is there such a thing as objective truth?

    I believe Hasso disapproved of Hitler’s “agreement” with Hacha about Bohemia/Moravia but, as you say, it was too vulnerable as it was.

  4. I listened to the August 17th program with Vincent Reynouard in which he spoke about Mussolini’s attempts to keep peace through negotiations with France and England. Mussolini wanted to set up a meeting with Hitler, France and England. France was “okay” with it, England told the French that “we can’t say no because we must be seen as wanting peace, but our condition is that Poland must be invited to the meeting.” They thought Hitler would refuse this, but Hitler said “okay” to it. But then Germany went ahead with it’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1st.

    Mussolini persevered and this time England again agreed to a peace meeting but with the condition that Hitler must stop the invasion right where it was (cease-fire), thinking again Hitler would refuse. But Hitler, on the 2nd of Sept., said “okay, I will stop.”

    But now England put on another condition, that Germany pull all it’s forces out of Poland and return across the border before talks could begin. To this demand, on Sept. 4th, Mussolini said, “No, it’s not possible. In history, it has never happened that a victorious army goes back.” So Mussolini’s attempt for peace failed, but in fact London was not sincere.

    But at Nuremberg, only the last message of Hitler was shown, not the previous times when Hitler agreed. This is in Vincent’s video “Acquittal for Hitler” #1 and #2.

    This shows the kind of cat and mouse game England was playing, with the encouragement of the U.S.; the whole idea was to start a war and blame Hitler for it. If Hitler could have avoided it, I am not at all sure.

  5. I also remembered the “Dutch person” that Hasso Castrup said he had translated for me. Max Hamburger, the “buchenwald survivor” who I wrote about on Elie Wiesel Cons The World. There was an interview with Hamburger in Dutch that was only on a PDF. Hasso managed to get the photo for me too.

    I have Hasso’s blog “Shoabloger” among the very selective links at http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com.

  6. truthspeech

    At the very end of this podcast, Carolyn Yeager criticizes the hypocrisy of the Jews decrying the taking of a human life as contemptible, when they take human life in huge numbers all the time. But there is no hypocrisy. To a Jew, only other Jews are human. Non-Jews are not human and this is specifically said in the Talmud in several places. So the Jews are inwardly smirking when they moralize publicly about how taking human life is a moral crime, because they can say this sincerely while at the same time knowing that in our ignorance, we have no idea what they really mean.

  7. Audun

    HC makes a great point that his work may not be so beneficial now b/c so few people are interested. But it will when people are ready to listen… I agree that there should be more attractive ways to distribute the truth. And I agree that it does not help if it is watered down by not mentioning Hitler or the Holocaust. But, it is better to avoid using counter propaganda. This will create more inter conflict. We should stick to the truth.

  8. Audun – It’s easy but not helpful to spout generalities, so please give some specifics as to how it should be done. The truth is not attractive to most people. What is an example of counter-propaganda?

  9. Okay truthspeech, but I was actually quoting the new President of Iran, Rouhani. And saying that the Western Democrats in general do not show a concern for human life … only when they are spouting pious talk. So they are hypocrites … including Rouhani. There are many things people care more about than human life … of people they don’t know.

  10. Repe

    And Hitler asked 2.9.1939 if the ultimate ultimatum of Britain mean war if he did not agree. England said no. But after the short time of the ultimaatum had gone, England declared that refusing meaned England must declare the war. Perfidious Albion…

    I remember that Hitler said to Mannerheim: Ich hatte ju keine andere Möglichkeit. Or something like that. Also: Hitler said he had to attack in any case although the decision would have been even more difficult if he had known the realities of the military power of the Soviet Union. The traitorous generals had, btw, concealed information about the strength of Russia.

  11. For a long time I thought that A.H. acted properly and optimally in 1939, but I doubt it now.

    It’s easy to be a judge afterwards, of course. But in the tense atmosphere at the time, made even tenser by a relentless media hetz against Germany, it would have been better to find a more conciliatory solution in the Czech problem. True, Skoda factories and the Czech tanks came handy, but the effective annexation of Czechia weakened the peace parties in England and France and scared the Poles from any concessions.
    I would argue that the actions (and later atrocities) against ethnic Germans in Poland, inexcusable of course, were caused, at least in large part, by fear of Germany and fear of the 5th column, after what happened in Czechia. And without this, the problem of Danzig and Corridor easily could have waited. I know that Beck and Rydz-Smigly said something about that they wanted war, but everybody was just afraid of was in Poland and wanted to preserve sovereignty.

    I am interested, if someone has a good argument proving me wrong. It is a huge subject and I am no expert.

  12. WWWM

    I have decided being up front about the Holocast, that we believe it is a fraud, is the route to take. But what we really should be up front about is the extraordinary level of Jewish political power, particularly in the United States, that is controlling perceptions of all the major issues. When we were once shocked that anyone could “deny” the Holocaust it was because we were force-fed a Jewish narrative since the time we learned how to speak.

  13. I like your comment, Repe. I agree with it. Hitler didn’t say to the Finnish leader that he would not have gone into the Soviet Union, just that he would have had to think more about it. Can you say which generals you are referring to that concealed information about Russia’s arms strength? Thanks.

  14. Yes, the two go together. They should be the joint thrust.

  15. Hasso, I would bring up just one point for now. The “fear of Germany” was not there when Poland was approving of German moves in Czechia because it gave Poland the opportunity to grab a part of Czech territory that had Poles living in it. Poland was happy then. Keep this in mind.

    Poland’s fears regarding Germany were based on the Poles knowledge that they were the recipients of the unfair Versailles Treaty which took German land and gave it to them, and that Germans had not forgotten that. The territory in question was heavily populated with ethnic Germans, in spite of the fact that the Polish government had tried to send as many Poles to live there as possible between 1919 and 1939 – for 20 years! The Polish government passed laws that all schools had to be conducted in Polish, so Polish teachers and administrators were sent in. This is just one example of their actions against the ethnic Germans living there. So many Germans were unemployed because the Polish government replaced them in their jobs with Poles. Despite the fact that Germans were superior administrators in all areas to Poles, generally.

    If the Poles “feared the Germans,” why did they not try to be more conciliatory in their actions toward their ethnic German population? Instead, they grew increasingly antagonistic toward them. It was Hitler who was trying to be conciliatory toward Poland, but Poland would not cooperate. Poland was the aggressive party. Truly, Hitler was left with no choice — that’s why he was “forced” or trapped into it.

  16. truthspeech

    As to the much commented-on subject here of whether or not to water down our speech, and if our message is made too unattractive to the white masses by including or endorsing Hitler & Third Reich due to how vilified they’ve become by Jew media: I don’t know the answer with 100% certainty, but I do know what feels right when I say it, and that’s to not avoid the truth or pussyfoot around it.

    They say: “You are an anti-Semite!”
    My reply: “If you mean I’m anti-Jewish, then yes, that’s right, I am. And so is any reasonable non-Jew who is educated on what Jews are doing and how they regard non-Jews.”

    They say: “You are a Nazi!”
    My reply: “If you mean the NSDAP, they are long gone. But there’s nothing to be ashamed of in what Germany and Hitler did. We’ve all been lied to about what happened back then and the real facts are out there if you take the time to look, rather than repeat what we’ve been brainwashed with.”

    They say: “You are a racist!”
    My reply: “Well what do you mean exactly by that term? I’ve woken up to the fact that there is such a thing as race, that there are inherent differences between them, that different races produce different cultures, and that this was well known and scientifically proven 100 years ago, but we’ve forgotten this because we’ve all been lied to. Once you find out who is propagating this lie and why, things become very clear.”

    They Say: “You would exterminate Jews!”
    My reply: “Jews can live but they have to do it somewhere else. Jews have proven to cause the same kinds of problems over and over in every society they’ve been allowed to live, for hundreds of years now. Jews are the biggest problem for our country from which so many other problems stem. They are alien and will always be alien to western culture. At the very top of their organized political power, they are waging deliberate war on the rest of us. So they need to go. All of them. It’s a matter of the survival of the rest of us and the nation.”

  17. Carolyn, we have had our discussions about guilt. Of course, the Poles were acting in bad faith and to the detriment of their German population for a long time.

    I am not talking about it now, but only about what Hitler could do, or not do, to avoid war. Knowing that powerful interests were only waiting to start a war against Germany, he should have been much more careful. At that moment, it didn’t matter who was to blame for what, but to avoid war which could cost millions their lives, and the end of National Socialism. Is seems that he understood the seriousness too late. I am not saying, he wasn’t right, morally speaking. But Reich’s situation was precarious and he should have used Realpolitik. Was Czechia worth it? Why not let it alone and give it a guarantee of independence and wait for a better weather, instead of marching Wehrmacht units with tanks and airplanes through Prague like a conqueror in front of cameras from around the world. With all due respect for AH, I consider it bad timing.

  18. code law

    “It’s easy to be a judge afterwards, of course. But in the tense atmosphere at the time, made even tenser by a relentless media hetz against Germany, it would have been better to find a more conciliatory solution in the Czech problem. True, Skoda factories and the Czech tanks came handy, but the effective annexation of Czechia weakened the peace parties in England and France and scared the Poles from any concessions.”

    - the czech state was installed for being a problem to germany. In April Hitler reported about the crazed scale of military assets including gas
    - I have serious doubt of the existence of a significant peace partie. On the contrary, the media coverage would not have allowed a peaceful europe for the upcoming period after fall´39

  19. Knowing that powerful interests were only waiting to start a war against Germany, he should have been much more careful

    I do not think it’s accurate to say that “he knew” that powerful interests were waiting to start a war against him. I believe you are speaking from hindsight. Do you have clear evidence that he knew that? And I hope some others will weigh in here.

  20. Hasso C

    Dear Carolyn, I am surprised. I thought you had a higher opinion about Hitler’s knowledge of international politics. After all, Roosevelt was not hiding his hostility ever since the Chicago speech. His many Jewish top-mandarins were even more bloodthirsty in their utterances. Ambassador Potocki’s report about pro-war atmosphere in the US was based on open source info, mainly if not entirely. As to England, Churchill was since 1936 financed by the Jewish Focus group and was war-mongering all the time. Major Jewish leaders, national and international were declaring war on Germany regularly (internet is full of these quotes). And you are saying:
    “I do not think it’s accurate to say that “he knew””
    I think, you owe Hitler an apology :)

    Code law:
    “- the czech state was installed for being a problem to germany. In April Hitler reported about the crazed scale of military assets including gas”
    Whatever was the reason of “installing” the Czech state, the nation of Czechs was and is a reality, and their aspirations to sovereignty are the evidence of it, also today where the Czech Republic is a very robust and very successful state indeed. I have visited Prague on a couple of occasions and have witnessed this.
    They did have a very substantial military and a very modern war industry. They probably also had gas munitions. But, on the other hand – any European army had gas at that time. Thank God, nobody used it in WW2. The last large-scale use of gas in warfare, as far as I know, was pacification of Ukrainian and Russian rebellions during Civil War in Russia.

    “- I have serious doubt of the existence of a significant peace partie.”
    Apparently, Hitler believed in possibility of avoiding an all-out war. His attempts to stop the general war before and after September 1st, 1939 as well as his repeated peace feelers and proposals to England are evidence that he believed in such a possibility. Then, his aggressive posture in the Czech crisis is an evidence of lack of consistency. I too believe that the war with the Wetern Powers was avoidable. And Stalin seems only to have contemplated an attack on a weakened Europe. I believe that that the Czech problem could have been tackled more carefully and the Danzig/Corridor could have waited for better times. The persecutions of Germans in Poland became really acute only when the Poles got scared after Czechia and Memel. (Again, Carolyn: I am NOT excusing anything, I am just thinking loudly about chances of avoiding the war which, I believe, Hitler wasted.) I am still waiting for a substantive proof to the contrary.

  21. Repe

    In his book “Verrat an der Ostfront (Der Verlorene Sieg 1941-42)” Friedrich Georg gives in this case only one name but this is most heaviest: Franz Halder. He says that (of course) especially Admiral Canaris an his Abwehr (F. E. Hans von Dohannyi, Karl Ludwig von Gutenberg and Justus Delbrück etc.) made catastrofal, untrue reports. Tri Barth (high Abwehr-man) said to Georg Pemler that Halder concealed reports and sent back reports that had checken soon many times (Pemler: Der Flug zum Don). The book reveals, that many other generals were traitors too. In other parts of the book are named also Fremnde Heere Ost as almost 100 % traitorous organization (Gehlen & co.)

    I think that Rydz-Zmigly and Beck not only spoke that they wanted war. They wanted it and they had their “Blancoscheck”. The jews wanted the war and so England wanted the war. France and England had dificulties with the poles because the poles wanted to send their troops into Danzig. The West wanted that Germany would look like the aggressor. But the war would have started anyway because the ruling elite wanted it and the West had promised to help Poland in any case and so also if they were the attackers.

    In march 1939 the diplomats of both England and France had sent signals that Germany is allowed to do what she want with Czechia. Everybody knew that Czechoslowakay was sinking into the chaos and the bolshevists were taking over. The nationalists and the bolshevicks were fighting with the slowaks and the hungarians etc. They had broken their promises and the treaty of Munich. Hacha could not cope with the situation and had travelled to Berlin to ask help. He just could not guess that Hitler wanted to take the whole country.

    Because Poland and The Hungary would had conquered the Czechoslowakay in any case, Hitler had to take the whole Czechia and guarantee the souverenity of the Slowakay. The West seemed not to be interested.

  22. Knowing that powerful interests were only waiting to start a war against Germany, he should have been much more careful

    I do not think it’s accurate to say that “he knew” that powerful interests were waiting to start a war against him. I believe you are speaking from hindsight. Do you have clear evidence that he knew that? And I hope some others will weigh in here.

    If by “powerful interests” you mean Jews, they could not have started a war against Germany on their own … not a hot war. I don’t think Hitler believed at the time that the English or French would go to war just for the Jews. Also, if Jews were the most powerful enemy of Germany, how was being nicer to the Czechs and mollifying the Poles going to change what the Jews had in mind? If Hitler had left the Czech rump alone in ’38, it would have been a small, weak nation unable to defend itself from it’s hungry neighbors. The “Protectorate” for Bohemia-Moravia was described as just that — protecting the Czech people and their independent survival, and they were not so against it. Naturally, they would have liked things to have turned out differently, but under the circumstances it was not a bad deal. It was the English and Americans who did not like it! But, in real diplomacy, it was none of their business! – being not their neck of the woods.

    Hitler was fully in his rights and made the right decision. I have not seen any evidence that what happened with the Versailles-created state of Czechoslovakia had the effect of making the Poles more fearful of the Germans. They had allied with the French-English-Americans and felt confident they could take on Germany. If Hitler had allowed what was going on to continue, it would only have gotten worse and worse. It had already been escalating for months.

    You can’t be afraid to fight.

  23. instead of marching Wehrmacht units with tanks and airplanes through Prague like a conqueror in front of cameras from around the world.

    I believe that was meant to show that the Reich was strong in defense of the Czech semi-independence, not to strike fear in the Czechs themselves who took it all quite calmly and went on about their business. Naturally, the world Jewish press would send a different message.

    If you’re going to be afraid of what the Jewish press is going to say about you, you’re never going to do anything.

  24. In his book “Verrat an der Ostfront (Der Verlorene Sieg 1941-42)” Friedrich Georg gives in this case only one name but this is most heaviest: Franz Halder. He says that (of course) especially Admiral Canaris an his Abwehr (F. E. Hans von Dohannyi, Karl Ludwig von Gutenberg and Justus Delbrück etc.) made catastrofal, untrue reports. Tri Barth (high Abwehr-man) said to Georg Pemler that Halder concealed reports and sent back reports that had checken soon many times (Pemler: Der Flug zum Don). The book reveals, that many other generals were traitors too. In other parts of the book are named also Fremnde Heere Ost as almost 100 % traitorous organization (Gehlen & co.)

    Yes, this is covered in Hermann Giesler’s book Ein Anderer Hitler, and in our commentary here (the last part) and here. Also here.

  25. Hasso C

    “If by “powerful interests” you mean Jews, they could not have started a war against Germany on their own … not a hot war.”
    … powerful enough to turn Neville Chamberlain from “appeasement” and give Poles the guarantee – an unheard-of act of war-mongering. This alone proves how powerful the war-party was, no matter -“just” Jews or more. Btw. how come that you, Carolyn, of all people downplays Jewish influence? Of course, they would not man tanks and bombers, but their money and media would make their goys do the job.

    “how was being nicer to the Czechs and mollifying the Poles going to change what the Jews had in mind?”
    It was not about being nicer but about UNNECESSARILY doing very much to make everybody nervous and make pro-war propaganda much easier. Hitler must not above critique.

    “it would have been a small, weak nation unable to defend itself from it’s hungry neighbors. The “Protectorate” for Bohemia-Moravia was described as just that — protecting the Czech people and their independent survival, and they were not so against it. Naturally, they would have liked things to have turned out differently, but under the circumstances it was not a bad deal”
    I think you are repeating German propaganda now. At one moment – they have a great army with gas, tanks and everything, at other – they are suddenly oh so small and weak. And uncle Adolf just wanted to come and help them against the hungry wolves, by flying his bombers and rolling his tanks through Prague. What circumstances? Did the Czechs actually ask anybody for help? Poland, after taking Teschen county (308 square miles), was not interested in Böhmen and Mähren. Hungary the same. Who exactly was Hitler defending the Czechs against? He had to threaten the weak and old Hacha with bombing of Prague, in the middle of the night in order to make him understand that he neede “protection”! Of course, they would have liked to remain on their own, just like today. Denmark and Holland are also small, so what?
    I don’t think it helps to use Hitler’s argument about the “neck of the woods” describing a small but well organized nation, very proud of their country. I maintain that this action was unnecessary, badly timed, terribly performed and damaging for Germany. Hitler needed friends and not indignant (or scared) enemies in 1939. Why did he REALLY do it?

    “not to strike fear in the Czechs themselves who took it all quite calmly and went on about their business”
    What could they do? In 1945 they showed their feelings. Not a pretty sight, but true. So, the benevolent “protection” was paid my a couple of millions innocent civilians.

    “If you’re going to be afraid of what the Jewish press is going to say about you, you’re never going to do anything.”
    But why do THIS? THEN? Why actually serve headlines to the Jews on a silver platter? Precisely the ones they’ve been expecting and yearning for …

  26. Hasso C

    Carolyn,
    “(Poland) had allied with the French-English-Americans and felt confident they could take on Germany. If Hitler had allowed what was going on to continue, it would only have gotten worse and worse. It had already been escalating for months.”

    That happened AFTER the liquidation of Czech sovereignty and after the one-sided British guarantee. If you have a reliable timeline of excesses/persecution of German minority, please, let me know. I don’t, but somehow I wouldn’t be surprised to see some uptick after “Prague spring”.

    You just won’t concede that I may be a little bit right?

  27. Dear Carolyn, I am surprised. I thought you had a higher opinion about Hitler’s knowledge of international politics. After all, Roosevelt was not hiding his hostility ever since the Chicago speech. His many Jewish top-mandarins were even more bloodthirsty in their utterances. Ambassador Potocki’s report about pro-war atmosphere in the US was based on open source info, mainly if not entirely. As to England, Churchill was since 1936 financed by the Jewish Focus group and was war-mongering all the time. Major Jewish leaders, national and international were declaring war on Germany regularly (internet is full of these quotes). And you are saying:
    “I do not think it’s accurate to say that “he knew””
    I think, you owe Hitler an apology :)

    If you think that Roosevelt’s hatred of National Socialism, and Churchill’s hatred for Germany (who was not PM in 1938) should have deterred Hitler from pursuing the right policies for Germany in it’s own area of influence … well, he would have then waited forever to do anything. (Roosevelt and his Jews wanted Hitler to be their leash dog – they wanted to bully him and he said he would not be bullied.) There was a strong anti-war, stay-out-of-Europe public opinion at that time in the U.S. – even having support from major newspaper empires. Hitler DID NOT anticipate a big reaction to what he did in Czechoslovakia. And he did not get it, either. The Czechs were rational. So no, he did not “know” that what he did in “Czechia” would lead to war. That is what you were saying. That he knew what would happen and ignored that knowledge, acting rashly.

    As I recall, you were addressing the 1938 Czech takeover, saying that was the mistake. If you want to move on to Poland, he also did not expect England and France to declare all-out war over Poland. That is shown by his well-documented reaction when it happened. In fact, his willingness to stop the invasion in it’s tracks and engage in talks shows that he did not want a larger war (as you said), therefore did not expect a larger war from his actions. He was not an idiot! Your idea that he knew the consequences, and therefore should not have acted as he did, make him out to be one.

    An important element involved here is that England was giving misleading answers and messages; and then directing Poland to do so also. Hitler had too much respect for Englishmen and didn’t expect their diplomatic exchanges to be “black-ops.” But there is nothing too low for an English elite to stoop to.

    We should be careful not to get our arguments mixed up, since they don’t appear in a neat row. :)

  28. Hasso C

    I never said he knew this or that would lead to war and I don’t think he was an idiot. My argument is that he should have foreseen these possibilities and avoid bombastic actions. I think he made a mistake in Czechia, and then he couldn’t stop the events even if he wanted. Whether war with Poland could be prevented after Czechia? But without the Czech annexation, possibly.
    You say:
    “he would have then waited forever to do anything”
    Like what? And at what cost? He could have concentrated on building strong and prosperous Germany and gain supporters by peaceful means. National socialist economy with parasitic debt system eliminated was a promise of explosive development without war.

    What does it say about a politician when reaction to his very important international moves surprise him completely?

    Let us say, we agree to disagree on this. I have to move my translations ahead and we can’t change history anyways. :)

    (Czechia sounds well: Germans say “Tschechei” or “Tschechien”)

  29. (Czechia sounds well: Germans say “Tschechei” or “Tschechien”)

    I was just following your example in using Czechia. There was no name for that territory after it was broken up, as far as I know. I have never known what to call it.

    I never said he knew this or that would lead to war and I don’t think he was an idiot. My argument is that he should have foreseen these possibilities and avoid bombastic actions. I think he made a mistake in Czechia, and then he couldn’t stop the events even if he wanted. Whether war with Poland could be prevented after Czechia? But without the Czech annexation, possibly.

    What you’ve been saying is entirely a personal opinion based on hindsight and your own personality, and saying that Hitler should have known what all this was going to lead to … since you know it today. He should have “foreseen” what could have happened. Perhaps he did. I’m sure he discussed with a number of people. But he decided to do it. You think, from the vantage point of where you are today, and all the books you’ve read, that that is where the mistake was made. But your further argument is, in my opinion, weak:

    Like what? And at what cost? He could have concentrated on building strong and prosperous Germany and gain supporters by peaceful means. National socialist economy with parasitic debt system eliminated was a promise of explosive development without war.

    How long do you think the N-S economy without the parasitic debt system would have been able to last? Germany was incredibly short of resources. All enemy forces were gathering against it. This is pie-in-the-sky to say they could have just continued on with their success, making others look bad. And the Soviet Union was preparing for eventual attack. That was a given.

    What does it say about a politician when reaction to his very important international moves surprise him completely?

    I said that the British Foreign Office, and the Polish foreign ministry too, were giving false or misleading messages to Germany. When this diplomacy was all about averting war, one wouldn’t expect to find that, would one? The Germans were the only honorable parties in this affair.
    Even when Mussolini got involved at the last minute, Britain was still doing it.

    It’s entirely okay if you don’t continue, but I am wanting to find my own positions on these important questions … based on something that feels solid to me. I appreciate your bringing it up.

  30. If you have a reliable timeline of excesses/persecution of German minority, please, let me know. I don’t, but somehow I wouldn’t be surprised to see some uptick after “Prague spring”.

    I can offer this from Wikipedia: In 1919-20 after the Polish Republic was formed:

    “About a third of the people were minorities, including five or six million Ukrainians, over three million Jews, one and a half million Byelorussians and some 800,000 Germans.[22] They felt increasingly alienated, complaining that they were marginalized in politics and denied rights Poland had agreed to in treaties. Historian Peter D. Stachura has examined the ethnic issue in interwar Poland and summarizes the consensus of historians, He writes:

    “It is undeniable that the Second Republic did not face any greater challenge than that of devising a policy towards the minorities that would bring harmony and peaceful coexistence rather than bitterness, confrontation and strife. The historiographical verdict is that Poland signally failed to address this question in a satisfactory manner. Indeed, the vast majority of historians have adopted a highly censorious attitude towards the multitude of policies and attitudes which were pursued towards the minorities by the state. Often influenced by Communist, Marxist, Soviet or liberal political and ideological perspectives, they refer unequivocally to ‘oppression’, ‘persecution’, ‘terror’, ‘discrimination’, even ‘murder’, as the salient characteristics of an intrinsically chauvinistic Polish approach that was designed to relegate the minorities to the status of second-class citizens. Such a situation, it is argued, meant that Poland failed repeatedly to respect the formal statutory guarantees which were introduced after 1918, notably through the Minorities’ Treaty of 1919, the Treaty of Riga (Article VII) in 1921, and the Polish constitutions of 1921 and 1935.”[23]

    The Czechs did the same thing. If the Polish government didn’t like their 3 million Jews (!), and they didn’t, they should have allied with N-S Germany and cleaned out their population. But they were too PROUD.

    “The Germans in Poland had above average incomes, had a full panoply of civic organizations and German-language schools, and were represented in the Sejm. A stalemate resulted. Their status became a major threat after Hitler came to power in Nazi Germany in 1933 because the overwhelming majority (this is disputed by many) of these Germans became ardent Nazis in the 1930s and a ‘fifth column’ when Poland was attacked in September 1939.” [Peter D. Stachura]

    The Poles that were attacking the German populace were the independent militia-type of roaming gangs. But as I’ve said before, the Polish Army didn’t try to stop them; they let the Germans be physically attacked, robbed, humiliated and more and more often, killed.

    The problem the Poles had (and still have) is that they saw themselves as a major European power, leading the Eastern European bloc, and didn’t want to be secondary to anyone, especially Germans. But alliance with Germany was always their best bet. How much better off everyone would be (except the Jews) if they had done that.

    You just won’t concede that I may be a little bit right?

    No, I can’t because I just don’t see that Hitler’s decisions re Czechoslovakia were responsible for what followed. We have to remember that Germany was surrounded by nations. Borders everywhere. They needed buffers from east, west, north and south.

  31. Hasso C

    “They needed buffers from east, west, north and south.”
    It turned out to be the most expensive buffer in the world!

    I agree with everything above, except the explanation: “too PROUD”. They had their antipathy towards Germans, not least due to Germanization attempts in XIX century and complex of inferiority (which all nations have towards Germans, let’s face it).

    “What you’ve been saying is entirely a personal opinion based on hindsight and your own personality,”
    Of course it’s my personal opinion (even if shared by many). It is easier to look in back mirror, but one should not make it too easy for oneself either. The ideal is to come as near to the point of view of the historical person as possible. What Irving tried to do in “Hitler’s War”. Hitler’s temperament made him hold a parade in Prague. I would have made a treaty with the Czechs and Poles and promised them to never ever want a centimeter of their dirt. But with my temperament I would have never become a Führer in the fist place.

    “And the Soviet Union was preparing for eventual attack. That was a given.”
    In 1939 Hitler had no idea whatsoever about Stalin’s plans and he despised Soviet army: “kick the gate and …” He became aware of the danger a year later. Mark Solonin says that Stalin’s army was easily stoppable due to the soldiers’ zero motivation. So, Hitler was right in underestimating them, even if he lacked solid information. Suvorov is healing the Russian inferiority complex by painting the red Army as a TIGER able to swallow whole Europe in a couple of weeks. That’s why his books are extremely popular in Russia – they are on sale everywhere (as opposed to Solonin’s) and in Germany – there they are sold to those who like the preventive thesis.

    “How long do you think the N-S economy without the parasitic debt system would have been able to last?”
    It depends on how long the anti-war party in the West would have been able to prevent war. With Hitler’s conciliatory posture – maybe for long, especially as the crisis there was deep and prolonged. Well armed but peaceful Germany was not attractive to attack. Even today, the US will not touch North Korea or Russia just because they can credibly retaliate. Lack of natural resources? Was Rumania not selling them oil? Despite Jewish attempts to blockade Germany for 6 years, and the crisis everywhere, the country was blossoming. You seem to say that war was a way to escape ahead, do something. I think that war is too costly in all respects, and that peace, even without tropical fruits, is always preferable. I think, all taken into account, that time worked for Germany. Poland would have come eventually, cap in hand, and proposed to give the Corridor and Danzig in exchange for some know-how and trade. Poles like money too, pride or not. From here to a defensive bloc against Russia, together with Italy and Japan, is not far. Poland was not a darling of the Jews either and Hitler’s policies against the Jews were even popular in Poland. But fear (esp. after Czechia) was stronger than any affinity.

    But Hitler, I think, was subconsciously pushing to war. He had his long-term plans for Russia and was afraid that without him, people would have forgotten to think great ideas. Maybe he was right, but Germany would have been better without the war.

    “I said that the British Foreign Office, and the Polish foreign ministry too, were giving false or misleading messages to Germany. When this diplomacy was all about averting war, one wouldn’t expect to find that, would one?”

    Both in Britain and in Poland there were parties for war and against it. In both lands, large part of the press was in Jewish hands and thus – pro-war. Some were pro-war fearing even stronger Germany later on. Better finish the mad dog Hitler off (or: cut Germany to a manageable size) now.
    German diplomacy should not have played in the hands of war parties, and tip the balance in the other direction. An affluent Germany, able to offer good trade and technology would have been a magnet for most of Europe and more.

  32. Hasso, all of this from 2013/10/01 at 6:10 pm is a response to me, but not an answer to anything. I don’t get anything out of it. You’re right that you would never be any kind of leader, let alone a Fuehrer. You value peace above all. You would never even begin to do what Hitler did; not even the first step. Think where Germany was when Hitler started. Yet you think you know better than he what should have been done.

    I would have made a treaty with the Czechs and Poles and promised them to never ever want a centimeter of their dirt.

    This is nuts. Apart from the fact that Prague was a German city through and through, as Cracow was also German, Hitler promised to Poland in his points about Corridor rights that he would guarantee Poland’s border with Germany for 50 years or something like that! Did you forget that? The arrogant Poles did not even respond. The only reason being that they thought England was more powerful, and deep in their hearts they harbored the insane idea they could defeat Germany and take over Berlin.

    In 1939 Hitler had plenty of ideas about Stalin; but he had put Stalin to the side for the time being with the treaty he signed with him. You don’t elaborate on why you think he had no idea whatsoever. It doesn’t mean H. was right about S. but he knew he was a factor and eventually they would clash. You speak about Solonin, the writer, but in fact it has nothing to do with the question we began with — Hitler’s Czech policy.

    Your paragraph on the N-S economy continuing on with no problem is just coming from your imagination and musings. No basis at all. One thing: “Lack of natural resources? Was Rumania not selling them oil?” Yes it was, until the Soviet Union would cut it off, which they intended to do. If the S.U. was building up tons of armaments, planes, tanks in the East, and the German were just merrily being conciliatory and nice with their neighbors, what was the sure outcome? What you’re saying doesn’t seem consistent.

    Poland was not a darling of the Jews either and Hitler’s policies against the Jews were even popular in Poland. But fear (esp. after Czechia) was stronger than any affinity.

    I had already said that Hitler’s Jewish policy was good for Poland too. So here, the Polish elite made a big mistake by joining the “Jew” party, the Allies.
    You have yet to give a single piece of evidence to back up this idea of yours about the fear of the Poles after the Czech takeover. I think it is an assumption you’re making, thinking it’s just obvious. But it doesn’t seem to be true. It was not fear, but the long-held competitive feeling that Polish elites did not want to be in a subordinate role to Germans. That is where the problem lies even though you don’t want to admit it. Yet Germans never really mistreated Poles historically, until they invaded in 1939. By then, they were heartily pissed off and the gloves were off. They were out for total victory.

    So we haven’t gotten anywhere, after all this. Did the Poles have a justifiable fear and distrust of the Germans after 1938? Was it Hitler’s fault for not appeasing their fear? He did give the Polish leaders and diplomats lots of guarantees during 1939, but they were never honest with the Germans, as Pilsudski had been. You say it’s Hitler’s fault, and that of his foreign ministry, that they did not know Poland was not being honest. I think it’s a failed argument.

  33. ulf

    H. had to choose in ´39:

    Expressing appeasement = sign of disability to use appropriate force = intention to attack germany is rising ( PL & UK/FR )

    Expressing own strength and determination = sign of inevitable use of military action = intention to attack germany is rising ( PL & UK/FR )

    Poland did not fear Hitler. They knew, little french/english – forces attacking in the west during “Fall Weiss” could save Poland. And desperate poles paralyzed by fear would not have printed maps which enlarged polish territories close to Berlin in the time before sept. first. They were self-confident, but the army was poorly structured, Hitler said in 10/39 that quality of polish troops decreased from the bottom to the top. He said, the “poles fought very brave on some places” but “the organization was polish”.

  34. Repe

    Hasso: “The persecutions of Germans in Poland became really acute only when the Poles got scared after Czechia and Memel.”

    At the same time Poland got the “Blancoscheck”. The guarantees. They negotiated about war. The poles wanted to force Germany into the war. The poles were not scared at al. They got the green light from the West for a war. That light they had waited for many years.

    In fact there was a change soon in winter in every country. Everybody had suddenly become very cod and heateful towards the german dilomats. The war party got stronger and stronger in France and in England. The press were mean and in parliaments hateful speeches were heard. I think that the war was in the air and therefore the problems with Czechia had to be solved. The Czechs were friends of Stalin and the bolsheviks were taking over. Germany had to finish the threat of the Czechs because Poland was so isig and hateful.

    And yes, Hungary and Poland were threats towards the Czhechia and the Slowakay. They wanted to occupy the whole country.

  35. Carolyn, I will start with a quotation from Ravage which I like very much:
    “Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands.”

    Nothing I write, satisfies you, even though I do my best. Hitler and his actions must not be criticized, it seems. I will not comment the rest because you have already begun with emotional expletions lie “Insane” and “arrogant”, and what can one do with arguments like “Prague and Cracow were German cities”? It’s better to stop.

  36. Hasso, my dear friend,

    You can certainly stop. But I do want to point out that two people who appear to be European, Repe and ulf, have written that they do not think the Poles were scared at all, and why. Neither do I and that is why I don’t and cannot agree with you on this, even just half-way. It’s not that Hitler cannot be criticized [though I have come to my own conclusion from this little debate of ours that I don't think it's helpful to do so, and it's best to try to understand Hitler because he was a larger-than-life personality with a broad vision], but that this particular criticism is not valid, imo.

    I’m not trying to be difficult and drag things out (really), but as to my “emotional expletives,” I’ve been using the word “arrogant” to describe the Poles all along. I’m told this trait stems from a cover-up for a national inferiority complex, which underneath that lies an unrealistic idea or image of themselves as a people. Well, there are many people who see it that way. I have been in Poland (but only 24 hours) and I did run into a prickliness on several occasions. And these were people dealing with tourists, so on their best behavior one would think.

    “Insane” seems a logical term to use for the concept that developed in Poland that they could expand so far into Germany, up to and even including Berlin. Here, their idea came into play that they were superior to Germans, which is part of the above-stated “arrogance.” And I am certainly not the only person who acknowledges that both Prague and Cracow were both German-built and, at one time, German-populated cities. Warsaw is all Polish.

    Now I’m sounding like a little kid telling another that “my daddy’s better than your daddy.” I realize. But I’m actually trying to stick with the facts, and I hope others will continue to chime in on this, whatever position they take. I would really like to hear it. These questions are still troubling German-Polish and German-Czech relations today and play a big role in WWII “truth in history.” As we know though, conflicts between “neighbors” never really get settled.

  37. I went to British Pathe and found some film that is must see. The tanks and planes are not threatening at all, but everything is done in a friendly way. Hitler is there both times, smiling and waving to the welcoming crowds. Naturally, Sudetenland is full of Germans, but are all the friendly people in Prague ethnic Germans too?

    First Hitler enters Sudetenland 1937:
    http://www.britishpathe.com/video/hitler-in-sudetenland-beware-other-items-share

    Next, Hitler enters Prague 1938:
    http://www.britishpathe.com/video/germans-enter-prague
    http://www.britishpathe.com/video/bohmen-und-mahren-protektorat-des-deutschen-reiche
    http://www.britishpathe.com/video/the-crisis-latest

    German invasion of Poland, 1939
    http://www.britishpathe.com/video/german-invasion-of-poland

  38. ulf

    Relations between Germany and Poland, Czechoslovakia and particular to Russia seem to be better than ever. Nations and people can slaughter each other and – when some time has passed – return to “healthy rivalry”. Europe will of course become a third-world-like place when people continue to regard themselves as islands, when the immigration maintains like today, when “hate-speech” prevents the solving of conflicts in early stages and the hostile MSM is allowed to exist for some more years

  39. Hey, just because I do not agree that Hitler did not make mistakes, does not mean that I am an ambassador of Poland in this little exchange here. I refuse to be in this role. Even though I am 50-50% Polish and German, and been raised in Poland, I have a love-hate relationship with both. Therefore,

    1. Repe: Poles is also written with a capital letter, not only German and Czech.

    2. I maintain that it is a good idea to criticize any historical person, no matter how great. It’s just another way of learning and understanding. When I say “Hitler made a mistake” does not mean that I think it was avoidable. Avoiding such an approach borders on fatalism and denial of free will, doesn’t it?

    3. My grandparents and their friends, all members of well-to-do circles in Warsaw 1939, knew who they were afraid of, and I kinda doubt they were alone. The Polish govt. (Beck, Rydz and many others) refused to budge not only because they got the guarantee, but mainly because they saw what happened to Czechia and, out of fear, preferred war to becoming vassals, go the way of Czechia. AND they were pressured by USA and England: budging to Hitler meant being alone vs. Germany and becoming a pariah to “democracies”. The result was disastrous because they believed in the guarantee AND underestimated Germany and overestimated own power. Too many mistakes to be taken seriously by historians.
    But most in Warsaw, I believe, trusted in a preventive role of the guarantee and did not want war. There are good discussions on Polish websites and forums. If there is an interest in this, I might find it and translate.

    4. I maintain that without taking Czechia, the war and the destruction of the Reich might have been avoided, and that taking Czechia was not necessary for Germany. If someone comes with the argument that taking Czechia was economically necessary for Germany, he/she will admit that NS Germany, as it was set up was an unsound construction, able only to thrive at the expense of other nations, through aggression. Such an explanation has been set forth. Germany did take and used Czech gold and treasure. This was not a selfless “protection” by Hitler.

  40. Repe

    I have criticized Hitler but only when he deserves it. I think he did not many mistakes in 1938 and 1939. Maybe he should have spied the german jews and his own people more intensively. Especially jews and the army. The ReichsKristallnacht could have been prevented. The traitors were encouraging the enemies and betraying everything.

    Of course the elite was poisoning the ordinary people with propaganda and fear of the germans. But I have heard that the ordinary people were convinced that Poland would win the war.

    The Czechs and the Poles were led by the freemasons. Their chauvinism and the hatred towards the Germans were not natural reactions or the genuine part of their culture. They were brainwashed by the freemasons from the very beginning (soon in 1800th Century).

    I think tha the polis elite was a puppet of the West. It did fear more the Western countries than the Russia and the Germany. Otherwise it would not have done as the Western countries demanded. They did not want to give Danzig to the Germany and seek peace with it. Instead they wanted to kill and expulse all the germans of Danzig too. They did not care to defense their border with the Soviet Union.

  41. ulf

    Czechoslovakia was created after WWI WITHOUT its later inhabitants having expressed that they want their own state or that they have a desire to live together. Why establish such an entity and then crowding this place with airplanes, artillery, etc.?
    Because the destruction of the reich always was part of the agenda, politically (treaty) or military, regardless of the kind of government

  42. Ulf, The present good relations in Europe are due to the treasonous elites, particularly in Germany. As soon as German nation regains its voice, a sizable part will recall the lost 25% of the Reich, and it is only understandable. One can hope that Germans and Poles will be able, nevertheless and despite enormous undigested historical problems, to give birth to reasonable elites. Otherwise, the problems of 1939 return, only 10x stronger and worse. My position, in the middle, would have been difficult. Luckily, I live in a third country which I love more than any other, and am able to look at the two from a distance. I am trying.

  43. Repe, No doubt, some part of the Polish elites were freemasons. But there are always several strains balancing one another. I have read somewhere that Pilsudski, after returning from western Europe in 1906, said that there is going to be a general war and that Russia and Germany are going to lose, Germany having beaten Russia first. That’s why he decided to form his Legions in Austrian Galicia, and later refused to cooperate, for which he was imprisoned in Magdeburg by the German leadership.

    Ulf, of course, the Czech and Slovak unitarian state (with 3 million Germans) was as peace-promoting as leaving East Prussia separate and a 97% German Danzig as a Free City! BUT Czechs are a very defined and strong nationality. Just go to Prague and see around.

    I am translating an interesting interview by a Polish half-revisionist, historian and and writer. It is coming soon on my blog. It’s about Poland’s options in 1939.

  44. I received an interesting email from “stuart” commenting on this program, so I’m posting it. I basically agree with what he says.

    Very interesting discussion on the H. Castrup show. Couple of points to remember is that one need only “be ready to a certain degree”: as Hitler quite well understood, TIMING, also counts for a certain amount of divisions.

    The more one studies Hitler, the more one is amazed at his profound insights, both politically AND militarily. On the former he understood he was up against the Jewish plutocrats in the West and the Jewish Bosheviks in the East. He was ahead technologically and tactically. He knew war would come, in any case, and time was not on Germany’s side; thus, any war had to be won quickly at the right moment. On May 5, 1941, Stalin gives a top secret speech at a banquet for one thousand graduating officers from Moscow’s staff colleges, where he states, “It is time to stop chewing that particular cud [promoting the peace movement], Comrade Chosin: stop being a simpleton! The era of forcible expansion has begun for the Soviet Union.”

    And so all the “timing”, i.e., conquests, of the last years solidified Germany to funnel everything East without danger from other directions.

    On the the treachery and “lack of spirit” of too many Generals, it is interesting to note that Hitler towards the end stated that maybe Stalin was right in purging many of his Generals before the outbreak of the war, since they were not ideologically motivated enough and that, perhaps, he made a mistake in siding with the Army against Rohm in the “night of the long knives”.

  45. ulf

    “Ulf, of course, the Czech and Slovak unitarian state (with 3 million Germans) was as peace-promoting as leaving East Prussia separate and a 97% German Danzig as a Free City! BUT Czechs are a very defined and strong nationality. Just go to Prague and see around.”
    I was not about to doubt that, but this is outside the parameters for the reasoning of march 15th ´39

    Nevertheless, when they were so cohesive, why
    - accepting the arranged marriage (which they laid off two times last century)
    - allowing foreign powers to use their area as a populated deployment zone
    - withhold the german (and other) minorities the rights they should have according to Versailles
    - not drawing the conclusion of this which would have assured them that they will be sacrificed without mercy by their western friends (can we say “western”, at least the Warburgs were “transnational”)

    “it is interesting to note that Hitler towards the end stated that maybe Stalin was right in purging many of his Generals before the outbreak of the war, since they were not ideologically motivated enough and that, perhaps, he made a mistake in siding with the Army against Rohm in the “night of the long knives”.”
    Doesn´t the generals of the red army rescued their country by demanding more power for themselves after the disaster in the beginning? Maybe Hitler thought about a more strict punishment for military personnel like the “kommissars” carried out. (Hitler himself limited death-penalties to officers, generals were more likely to be forced to retire at some nice refugium in germany)

  46. Repe

    Beck was most afraid of the coming generations. He said 1939, that they will never forgive the leaders of 1939 for not creating the “Great-Poland” when there was a chance for it.

  47. Hasso

    Repe, do you know a reference to this quote? I am not denying he said it, but I can’t remember. What was the context?

  48. Repe

    I think I read it from some of Stefan Scheil’s books. But there it was. I cannot remember the source. Maybe I’ll search it but now I’m lazy. But I can believe that the polish leaders said this. They had said many times something like that. The leaders of the army had published openly all kinds of visions and demands for years etc.

  49. I have stopped the debate here as it is going off into pointless directions and no one can even give a source or reference for his “beliefs.” Regular comments on the show will still be accepted – Carolyn

© the White network