The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Mark Weber Archive
Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union
Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR - Two Historic Documents
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop announces Germany’s declaration of war against the Soviet Union. At a meeting room packed with foreign correspondents and journalists representing the German press, he reads the text of the lengthy diplomatic note to the Soviet government, which explains in some detail the reasons for the decision to attack the USSR. His reading of the statement on Sunday morning, June 22, 1941, is broadcast to the world on German radio.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

As dawn was breaking on Sunday morning, June 22, 1941, military forces of Germany, Finland and Romania suddenly struck against the Soviet Union along a broad front stretching hundreds of miles from the Arctic Circle in the far north to the Black Sea in the south. Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, and Croatia quickly joined the campaign – the largest military offensive in history. Soldiers from those nations were soon joined by volunteers from other European countries, including France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, and Belgium.

Joseph Goebbels announces to the world the stunning news that German, Finnish and Romanian forces were launching an attack against the Soviet Union. Broadcasting from Berlin early Sunday morning, June 22, 1941, the Reich Minister reads the text of Hitler’s proclamation explaining the background and reasons for the attack – the largest military campaign in history.
Joseph Goebbels announces to the world the stunning news that German, Finnish and Romanian forces were launching an attack against the Soviet Union. Broadcasting from Berlin early Sunday morning, June 22, 1941, the Reich Minister reads the text of Hitler’s proclamation explaining the background and reasons for the attack – the largest military campaign in history.

The stunning news of this attack was announced to the world by German radio at 5:30 that Sunday morning, when Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels broadcast the text of a proclamation by Adolf Hitler to the German people that laid out his reasons for the historic offensive.

Following that was the broadcast of Germany’s declaration of war against the Soviet Union. This was in the form of a diplomatic note to the Soviet government, read by Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop to a packed and hastily organized news conference of journalists representing the German press, as well as newspapers across Europe and overseas.

This Foreign Office statement explains in some detail the German government’s reasons for the momentous decision to attack the USSR. About two hours earlier, Ribbentrop had given the text to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin, while at the same time the German ambassador in Moscow was delivering a shorter version of it to the Soviet Foreign Minister.

The text of Ribbentrop’s statement, quickly distributed by Germany’s DNB news agency, appeared the next day in newspapers in Germany and abroad. An English-language text, which contained a number of errors due perhaps to the haste with which it had been prepared, appeared in The New York Times.

Although the two German statements of June 22 portrayed a grave and looming Soviet threat, they actually understated the scale of the danger. While Hitler and his generals knew that the Red Army was large and formidable, they had seriously underestimated its size and power. This miscalculation proved to be an important and probably decisive factor in the failure to crush the Soviet military by the onset of winter 1941-42, as planned – which then made possible the ultimate triumph of the Red Army in the titanic four-year clash.

By June 1941, the Soviet air force was not only the world’s largest, it was greater than the combined air forces of all other countries together. Similarly, the Soviet airborne assault force – which could be used only in offensive operations – was not only larger than Germany’s, it was larger than the combined paratroop forces of the rest of the world. The Soviet Red Army’s tank force was not only the world’s largest, it was larger than the tank forces of the rest of the world combined.

German leaders did not know that the Soviets were already producing the T-34, KV-1 and KV-2 tanks, the heaviest and most deadly in the world, and more formidable than any German model. Nor they did they know that the Soviet military had more than 4,000 amphibious tanks – which were meant only for offensive operations – while the Germans had none.

The Germans were also unaware of how the Soviets had been preparing their military commanders for war. For example, at a secret speech to military academy graduates in May 1941, just weeks earlier, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin said: “In conducting the defense of our country, we are compelled to act in an aggressive manner. From defense we have to shift to a military policy of offense. It is indispensable that we reform our training, our propaganda, our press to a mindset of offense. The Red Army is a modern army, and the modern army is an army of offense.”

It did not take long for German leaders to realize that they had greatly misjudged the scope of the Soviet military buildup. On August 11, 1941 – just eight weeks after the start of “Operation Barbarossa” – General Franz Halder, chief of the German army high command, noted in his diary: “In the situation as a whole, it is becoming ever clearer that we have underestimated the Russian colossus, which has consciously prepared for the war with the absolute lack of restraint that is peculiar to totalitarian states … At the outset of the war we reckoned with about 200 enemy divisions. Now we are already counting 360.”

A week later – on August 19 – the well informed Reich Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, similarly noted in his diary: “We obviously quite underestimated the Soviet shock power and, above all, the equipment of the Soviet army. We had nowhere near any idea of what the Bolsheviks had available. This led to erroneous decision-making …”

Hitler himself acknowledged, both in public and in private, that he had misjudged the extent and scale of the Soviet threat. “Certainly, though, we were mistaken about one thing,” the German leader told a large audience in Berlin on Oct. 3, 1941. “We had no idea how gigantic the preparations of this enemy were against Germany and Europe and how immeasurably great was the danger; how we just barely escaped annihilation, not only of Germany but also of Europe.”

The US government responded to the news of the German-led offensive with an official statement, issued by Deputy Secretary of State Sumner Welles. Completely ignoring the points made by the leaders in Berlin, it claimed that Germany’s “treacherous” attack was part of a plan by Hitler “for the cruel and brutal enslavement of all peoples and for the ultimate destruction of the remaining free democracies.” Actually, it was the Soviet Union – the world’s most oppressive regime at the time – that was dedicated to the eradication of “free democracies” and to the ultimate triumph of “proletarian dictatorship” in all countries. Stalin had made clear his elemental hostility to “free democracy” when the Red Army tried impose a Bolshevik regime on Finland in the “Winter War” of 1939-1940. In fact, soldiers of Finland – a parliamentary democracy – were now fighting as allies of Hitler’s Germany against the Soviets.

The American public, largely ignorant of European affairs and conditioned by years of media propaganda and alarmist rhetoric by President Franklin Roosevelt, generally accepted their government’s view of the conflict. “Of course,” Roosevelt told reporters on June 24, “we are going to give all the aid that we possibly can to Russia.” In violation of its proclaimed status as a neutral country, and with disregard for international law, the US was soon providing military aid to Soviet Russia.

Influential American historians have for years accepted the official US view of the German-Soviet clash. They portrayed the German-led offensive as a treacherous and unprovoked surprise attack against a peaceable country, motivated above all by grandiose visions of empire. Typical is the view of James MacGregor Burns, a prominent US historian and specialist of twentieth century American history. In his widely acclaimed book Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom he dismissed the German Foreign Office declaration of June 22, 1941, as a “pack of Nazi lies.”

In recent years, however, a growing number of historians have assembled considerable evidence that validates key points made by Hitler and the German government, and which shows that the Soviets were preparing a massive assault. The most influential of these historians has probably been a former Soviet GRU military intelligence officer, Vladimir Rezun. In a series of books written under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, he has presented impressive evidence to show that the Soviet regime was preparing a massive offensive against Germany and Europe, and that the German-led attack forestalled an imminent Soviet strike. It is Stalin, not Hitler – he says – who should be considered the “chief culprit” of World War II.

Numerous documents and other historical evidence have come to light in recent decades that validate key points made in the German statements of June 22, 1941. This evidence also thoroughly discredits the simplistic portrayal of the German-Soviet clash, and indeed of the Second World War itself, that US officials and prominent historians presented to the American public during the war, and for years afterwards.

Even if the leaders in Germany, Finland, and other European countries were mistaken in believing that a Soviet assault was imminent, they certainly had ample reason to regard the Stalin regime as a dangerous threat, and to conclude that the Soviets were deploying vast military forces in preparation for attack at some point in the future. The reasons given by Hitler and his government to justify the German-led attack were not lies or pretexts.

Indeed, the German, Finnish, and Romanian leaders had more valid and substantive cause to strike against the USSR in June 1941 than American leaders have had for launching a number of wars – including against Mexico in 1845, against Spain in 1898, and against Iraq in 2003. In none of those cases did the country attacked by US military forces present a clear and present danger to the US, or a threat to vital American national interests.

Because Hitler’s proclamation of June 22, 1941, and the German Foreign Office declaration of the same day, explain at some length the reasons and motives for the fateful decision to strike against the USSR, these are documents of historic importance. The texts of specially prepared translations of these two statements are given below in full.

Hitler’s Proclamation to the German People

German people! National Socialists!

Weighed down with heavy cares, condemned to months-long silence, the hour has now come when at last I can speak frankly.

When on September 3, 1939, the German Reich received the British declaration of war there was repeated anew the British attempt to thwart every beginning of a consolidation of Europe and thereby its rise, by fighting against whatever power on the Continent was strongest at any given time. That is how, in times past, Britain ruined Spain in many wars. That is how she conducted her wars against Holland. That is how later she fought France with the aid of all Europe, and that is how, at the turn of the century, she began the encirclement of the then German Reich and, in 1914, the [First] World War. It was only on account of its internal lack of unity that Germany was defeated in 1918. The consequences were terrible.

After hypocritical declarations that the fight was solely against the Kaiser and his regime, and once the German army had laid down its arms, the annihilation of the German Reich began according to plan.

While the prophecies of a French statesman [Georges Clemenceau] that there were twenty million Germans too many – in other words, that this number would have to be eliminated by hunger, disease or emigration – were apparently being fulfilled to the letter, the National Socialist movement began its work of unifying the German people, and thereby initiating the resurgence of the Reich. This rise of our people from distress, misery and shameful disregard was in the form of a purely internal renaissance. In no way did that affect, much less threaten, Britain.

Nevertheless, a new, hate-filled policy of encirclement against Germany began immediately. Internally and externally there came into being that plot, familiar to all of us, between Jews and democrats, Bolsheviks and reactionaries, with the sole aim of inhibiting the establishment of the new German people’s state, and of plunging the Reich anew into impotence and misery.

Apart from us, the hatred of this international world conspiracy was directed against those nations that, like ourselves, were neglected by fortune and were obliged to earn their daily bread in the hardest struggle for existence.

Above all, the right of Italy and Japan, just as much as that of Germany, to share in the goods of this world was contested and in fact was formally denied. The alliance of these [three] nations was, therefore, purely an act of self-protection in the face of the egoistic global combination of wealth and power that threatened them. As early as 1936 [Winston] Churchill, according to statements by the American General Wood before a committee of the American House of Representatives, declared that Germany was once again becoming too powerful and must therefore be destroyed.

In the Summer of 1939 the time seemed to have come for Britain to begin to realize its intended annihilation by repetition of a comprehensive policy of encirclement of Germany. The plan of the campaign of lies staged for this purpose consisted in declaring that other people were threatened, in tricking them with British promises of guarantees and assistance, and of getting them to go against Germany, just as had happened prior to the [First] World War.

From May to August 1939, Britain thus succeeded in broadcasting to the world that Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Bessarabia. as well as Ukraine, were being directly threatened by Germany. Some of these states allowed themselves to be misled into accepting the promise of guarantee proffered with these assertions, thus joining the new encirclement front against Germany. Under these circumstances I considered myself entitled to assume responsibility, before my own conscience and before the history of the German people, not only of assuring these countries or their governments of the falseness of these British assertions, but also of setting at rest the strongest power in the east [the Soviet Union], by especially solemn declarations regarding the limits of our interests.

National Socialists! At that time you probably all felt that this step was a bitter and difficult one for me. The German people has never harbored hostile feelings against the peoples of Russia. However, for more than two decades the Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow had been endeavoring to set aflame not only Germany but all Europe. At no time did Germany ever attempt to carry her National Socialist worldview into Russia, but on the contrary Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow unswervingly endeavored to foist their domination upon us and other European nations, not only by ideological means but above all with military force. The consequences of the activity of this regime were nothing but chaos, misery and starvation in all countries.

I, on the other hand, have been striving for two decades, with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new socialist order in Germany, one that not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the productive worker to receive an ever greater share of the fruits of his labor. The achievements of this policy of national economic and social reconstruction – which strove for a true national community by overcoming rank and class divisions – are unique in today’s world.

It was therefore only with extreme difficulty that I brought myself in August 1939 to send my [Foreign] Minister [von Ribbentrop] to Moscow in an endeavor there to counter the British encirclement policy against Germany. I did this only out of a sense of responsibility toward the German people, but above all in the hope of finally, in spite of everything, achieving lasting easing of tensions and of being able to reduce sacrifices that otherwise might have been demanded of us.

While Germany solemnly affirmed in Moscow that the designated territories and countries – with the exception of Lithuania – lay outside any German political interests, a special [supplementary] agreement was concluded in case Britain were to succeed in inciting Poland into actually going to war against Germany. In this case, as well, German claims were subject to limitations entirely out of proportion to the achievements of the German forces.

National Socialists! The consequences of this treaty, which I myself desired and which was concluded in the interests of the German nation, were very severe, particularly for Germans living in the countries concerned. Far more than half a million [ethnically] German men and women, all small farmers, artisans and workmen, were forced to leave their former homeland practically overnight in order to escape from a new [Soviet] regime that at first threatened them with boundless misery and sooner or later with complete extermination.

Nevertheless, thousands of Germans disappeared! It was impossible ever to determine their fate, let alone their whereabouts. Among them were no fewer than 160 men of German Reich citizenship. To all this I remained silent – because I had to! For, after all, it was my one desire to bring about a final easing of tension and, if possible, a permanent settlement with this [Soviet] state.

However, already during our advance in Poland, Soviet rulers suddenly, and contrary to the treaty, also claimed Lithuania. The German Reich never had any intention of occupying Lithuania, and not only failed to present any such demand to the Lithuanian government, but on the contrary refused the request of the then Lithuanian government to send German troops to Lithuania in that spirit for that purpose as inconsistent with the aims of German policy.

Despite all this I complied also with this fresh Russian demand. However, this was only the beginning of continually renewed extortions, which have been repeated ever since.

The victory in Poland, which was won exclusively by German troops, prompted me to address yet another peace offer to the Western powers [Britain and France]. It was rejected, due to the efforts of the international and Jewish warmongers. Already at that time the reason for this rejection lay in the fact that Britain still had hopes of being able to mobilize a European coalition against Germany, which was to include the Balkans and Soviet Russia. It was therefore decided in London to send Mr. Cripps as ambassador to Moscow. He received clear instructions under all circumstances to resume relations between Britain and Soviet Russia, and develop them in a pro-British direction. The British press reported on the progress of this mission, except insofar as tactical reasons did not impose silence.

In the fall of 1939 and the spring of 1940 the first results actually made themselves felt. As Russia undertook to subjugate by armed force not only Finland but also the Baltic states, she suddenly motivated this action by the assertion, as ridiculous as it was false, that she must protect these countries from an outside threat, or forestall it. This could only be meant to apply to Germany, for no other power could even intervene in the Baltic area, let alone go to war there. Still I had to be silent. However, those in power in the Kremlin immediately went further.

Whereas in the spring of 1940 Germany, in accordance with the so-called Friendship Treaty [with Soviet Russia of Sept. 28, 1939] , withdrew her forces from the eastern frontier and, in fact, for the most part cleared these areas entirely of German troops, a deployment of Russian forces at that time was already beginning, to an extent that could only be regarded as a deliberate threat to Germany.

According to a statement that [Soviet Foreign Minister] Molotov personally made at that time, there were 22 Russian divisions in the Baltic states alone already in the spring of 1940. Given that the Russian government always claimed that it had been called in by the local population, the purpose of their presence there could only be a demonstration against Germany.

While our soldiers from May 10, 1940, onward were breaking Franco-British power in the west, Russian military deployment on our eastern frontier was continuing to an ever more menacing extent. From August 1940 onward I therefore considered it to be in the interest of the Reich to no longer permit our eastern provinces, which moreover had been laid waste so often before, to remain unprotected in the face of this tremendous deployment of Bolshevik divisions.

Thus, and just as intended by this British-Soviet Russian cooperation, there came about the tying up of such strong [German] forces in the east that a radical conclusion of the war in the west, particularly as regards aircraft, could no longer be vouched for by the German leadership. This, however, was in line with the goals not only of British but also of Soviet Russian policy, for both Britain and Soviet Russia intended to let this war go on for as long as possible in order to weaken all Europe and render it ever more impotent.

Russia’s threatened attack on Romania was in the last analysis equally intended to gain possession of or, if possible, to destroy, an important base of the economic life of not only Germany, but of all of Europe. Since 1933 the German Reich sought with boundless patience to win over states in southeastern Europe as trading partners. We therefore also had the greatest interest in their internal consolidation and order. Russia’s advance into Romania and Greece’s alliance with Britain threatened to quickly turn these regions as well into a general theater of war.

Contrary to our principles and customs, and at the urgent request of the then Romanian government, which was itself responsible for this development, I advised that it acquiesce to the Soviet Russian demands for the sake of peace, and to cede [the province of] Bessarabia. The Romanian government believed, however, that it could answer for this before its own people only if Germany and Italy in compensation would at least guarantee the integrity of what still remained of Romania. I did so with heavy heart, above all because when the German Reich gives a guarantee, that means it also abides by it. We are neither Englishmen nor Jews.

I still believe at this late hour to have served the cause of peace in that region, albeit by assuming a serious obligation of our own. In order, however, finally to solve these problems and achieve clarity concerning the Russian attitude toward Germany, as well as under pressure of continually increasing mobilization on our eastern frontier, I invited Mr. Molotov to come to Berlin.

The Soviet Foreign Minister [during their meeting, Nov. 12-13, 1940] then demanded Germany’s clarification of or agreement to the following four questions:

Molotov’s first question: Is the German guarantee for Romania also directed against Soviet Russia in case of attack by Soviet Russia against Romania?

My answer: The German guarantee is a general one and is unconditionally binding upon us. Russia, however, never declared to us that she had other interests in Romania beyond Bessarabia. The [Soviet] occupation of Northern Bukovina was already a violation of this assurance. I did not therefore think that Russia could now suddenly have more far-reaching intentions against Rumania.

Molotov’s second question: Russia again feels itself menaced by Finland, Russia is determined not to tolerate this. Is Germany ready not to give any aid to Finland, and above all immediately to withdraw German relief troops marching through to Kirkenes?

My answer: As ever, Germany has absolutely no political interests in Finland. A new war by Russia against the small Finnish nation could not, however, be regarded any longer by the German government as tolerable, all the more so because we could never believe that Finland could threaten Russia. Under no circumstances did we want another theater of war to arise in the Baltic.

Molotov’s third question: Is Germany prepared to agree that Soviet Russia give a guarantee to Bulgaria and, in this regard, send Soviet troops to Bulgaria, in connection with which he – Molotov – was prepared to state that the Soviets did not intend on that account, for example, to depose the King?

My answer: Bulgaria is a sovereign state, and I have no knowledge that Bulgaria had ever asked Soviet Russia for any kind of guarantee such as Romania had requested from Germany. Moreover, I would have to discuss the matter with my allies.

Molotov’s fourth question: Soviet Russia absolutely requires free passage through the Dardanelles, and for her protection also demands occupation of a number of important bases on the Dardanelles and the Bosporus [in Turkey]. Is Germany in agreement with this or not?

My answer: Germany is prepared at any time to agree to altering the Treaty of Montreux [1936] in favor of the Black Sea states. Germany is not prepared to agree to Russia’s taking possession of bases on the [Turkish] Straits.

National Socialists! Here I adopted the only attitude that I could adopt as the responsible leader of the German Reich, but also a conscientiously responsible representative of European culture and civilization. The result was to increase the activity in Soviet Russia directed against the Reich, above all, however, the immediate commencement of undermining the new Romanian state from within, and an attempt to remove the Bulgarian government by propaganda.

With the help of confused and immature leaders of the Romanian [Iron Guard] Legion a coup d’état was staged in Romania whose aim was to overthrow Chief of State General Antonescu and produce chaos in the country so as to eliminate the legal authority and thus remove the precondition for implementing the German guarantee. I nevertheless still believed it best to remain silent.

Immediately after the failure of this undertaking, there was renewed reinforcement of concentrations of Russian troops on Germany’s eastern frontier. Tank units and parachute troops were transferred in ever increasing numbers to dangerous proximity to the German frontier. The German armed forces and the German homeland know that until a few weeks ago not a single German tank or motorized division was stationed on our eastern frontier.

If any final proof was required for the coalition meanwhile formed between Britain and Soviet Russia, despite all diversion and camouflage, the Yugoslav conflict provided it. While I made every effort to undertake a final attempt to pacify the Balkans and, in sympathetic cooperation with the Duce [Mussolini], invited Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite Pact, Britain and Soviet Russia jointly organized that coup d’état which, in a single night [March 27, 1941], removed the government that had been ready to come to agreement.

For today we can inform the German nation that the Serbian coup d’état against Germany did not take place just under British, but primarily under Soviet Russian auspices. While we remained silent on this matter as well, the Soviet leaders now went one step further. They not only organized the putsch, but a few days later [April 5, 1941] concluded that well-known friendship treaty with those submissive creatures, which was meant to strengthen the Serbs in their will to resist pacification of the Balkans, and to incite them against Germany. And this was no platonic intention: Moscow demanded mobilization of the Serbian army.

Because, even then, I still believed it better not to speak out, those in power in the Kremlin went still further: The government of the German Reich today possesses documentary evidence proving that Russia, in order finally to bring Serbia into the war, gave her a promise to supply her, by way of Salonika, with weapons, aircraft, munitions and other war materials against Germany. And this happened almost at the very moment that I was advising Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka to bring about an easing of tensions with Russia, still hoping thereby to serve the cause of peace.

Only the rapid advance of our incomparable divisions to Skoplje [Skopje], as well as the capture of Salonika itself, frustrated the aims of this Soviet Russian-British plot. Officers of the Serbian air force, however, fled to Russia and were there immediately received as allies.

It was only the victory of the Axis powers in the Balkans that thwarted the plan to tie down Germany this summer in months of fighting in southeastern Europe while meantime steadily completing the deployment of Soviet Russian armies and strengthening their readiness for battle in order, finally, together with Britain and supported by anticipated American supplies, to tie down and then defeat the German Reich and Italy.

Thus Moscow not only broke but miserably betrayed the stipulations of our friendship treaty. All this was done while the rulers in the Kremlin, exactly as in the case of Finland and Romania, up to the last moment pretended peace and friendship and issued seemingly harmless denials.

Although I have been obliged by circumstances again and again to keep silent, the moment has now come when to continue as a mere observer would not only be a sin of omission but a crime against the German people – yes, even against the whole of Europe.

Today something like 160 Russian divisions are standing at our frontier. For weeks there have been constant violations of this frontier, not only affecting us but also in the far north [against Finland], as well as Romania. Russian airmen consider it sport nonchalantly to overlook these frontiers, presumably to prove to us that they already feel themselves masters of these territories. During the night of June 17 to 18 Russian patrols again penetrated into Reich territory, and could only be driven back after prolonged exchange of fire.

This has brought us to the hour when it is necessary for us to counter this plot of Jewish-British warmongers and equally the Jewish rulers of the Bolshevik center in Moscow.

German people! At this moment a deployment of forces is taking place that, in its extent and scope, is the greatest the world hitherto has seen. United with their Finnish comrades, the fighters of the victory of Narvik are standing in the Northern Arctic. German divisions commanded by the conqueror of Norway [General Dietl], together with the heroes of Finnish freedom under their Marshal [Mannerheim], are protecting Finnish soil. Formations of the German eastern front extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. German and Romanian soldiers are united under Chief of State Antonescu from the banks of the Prut [river] along the lower reaches of the Danube to the shores of the Black Sea.

The task of this front, therefore, is not merely the protection of individual countries, but the safeguarding of Europe, and thereby the salvation of all.

I therefore decided today to once again lay the fate and future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers.

May the Lord God help us especially in this fight!

Germany’s Declaration of War Against the USSR

The German Foreign Office Note to the Soviet Government

I

When in the Summer of 1939 the Reich government, motivated by the desire to achieve a settlement of interests between Germany and the USSR, approached the Soviet government, it was quite aware that it was no easy matter to reach an understanding with a state that on one hand claimed to belong to a community of nation states with rights and duties resulting therefrom, yet on the other hand was ruled by a party that, as a section of the Comintern [Communist International], was striving to bring about world revolution – in other words, the dissolution of those nation states.

The German Reich government made the effort, setting aside its serious misgivings, which were based on this fundamental difference in the political aims of Germany and Soviet Russia, and on the sharp contrast between the diametrically opposed worldviews of National Socialism and Bolshevism. It was guided by the idea that the elimination of the possibility of war, which would result from an understanding between Germany and Russia, and the safeguarding of the real vital needs of the two nations, between whom friendly relations had always existed, would offer the best guarantee against a further spreading to Europe of the Communist doctrine of international Jewry. This belief was strengthened by the fact that certain events in Russia itself and certain measures of international scope undertaken by the Russian government allowed one to assume that a departure from those doctrines and previous methods of subversion of other nations seemed at least possible. The reception accorded in Moscow to this German initiative and the readiness of the Soviet Russian government to conclude a pact of friendship with Germany appeared to confirm this change of attitude.

Thus, a Non-Aggression Pact was concluded on August 23, 1939, while a Boundary and Friendship Agreement was signed by the two states on September 28, 1939. The essence of these agreements consisted of:

1. Reciprocal pledges by both states not to attack one another and to live as peaceful neighbors, and

2. Delineation of spheres of interest, with the German Reich renouncing all influence in Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Bessarabia, while territories of the former Polish State as far as the line formed by the Narew, Bug and San [rivers] were to be incorporated into Russia according to the wishes of the Soviets.

Immediately following the conclusion of the Non-Aggression Pact with Russia, the Reich government in fact carried out a fundamental shift in its policy toward the USSR, and since that time assumed a friendly attitude toward the Soviet Union. The German government faithfully adhered in both letter and spirit to the treaties concluded with the Soviet Union. In addition, it had – through the defeat of Poland, that is, by shedding German blood – helped the Soviet Union to gain its greatest successes in foreign policy since its establishment. That was only possible as a result of Germany’s well-intentioned policy toward Russia and the overwhelming victories of German armed forces.

Not unreasonably, the Reich government therefore felt justified in expecting that the Soviet Union would adopt a similar attitude toward the German Reich, especially given that during the negotiations conducted by Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop in Moscow, and on other occasions, the Soviet government had repeatedly expressed the view that these treaties would be the basis for a lasting settlement of German-Soviet Russian interests, and that the two nations, each respecting the regime of the other, and prepared to abstain from any interference in the internal affairs of the other partner, would achieve lasting good neighborly relations. Unfortunately it soon became evident that the Reich government had been quite mistaken in that assumption.

II

In fact the Comintern resumed its activities in every sphere very soon after conclusion of the German-Russian treaties. This was true not only with regard to Germany, but also regarding states friendly to Germany, as well as neutral States, and areas in Europe that were occupied by German troops. In order to avoid openly violating the treaties, methods were changed and camouflage was applied more carefully and with greater cunning. In Moscow it obviously was thought necessary to offset the impact of the conclusion of the pact with National Socialist Germany by continually denouncing Germany’s supposed “imperialistic war.” Strong and effective preventive police measures compelled the Comintern to try to conduct its subversive activities and its intelligence work in Germany in other ways, making use of centers established for that purpose in neighboring countries.

For that purpose former German Communist officials were deployed to foment subversion and to arrange for acts of sabotage in Germany. GPU [NKVD] Commissar Krylov was in charge of systematic training courses organized for that purpose. In addition, intensive subversive activities were carried out in territories occupied by Germany, notably in the Protectorate [Bohemia- Moravia] and in occupied France, as well as in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and so forth.

Soviet Russian diplomatic posts, notably the General Consulate in Prague, rendered valuable assistance in that regard. An active intelligence service that included radio transmitters and receivers is absolute proof of the work of the Comintern directed against the German Reich. There is also extensive documentary evidence consisting of witnesses’ statements and written materials on the full scope of other subversion and reconnaissance work of the Comintern. In addition, sabotage groups were organized, which maintained their own laboratories for making incendiary and high-explosive bombs for use in acts of sabotage. Such attacks were carried out, for example, against no fewer than 16 German ships.

In addition to this subversion and sabotage activity, espionage was also carried out. Thus, the repatriation of [ethnic] Germans from Soviet Russia was exploited by the most reprehensible means for the purpose of gaining the services of these Germans for the ends of the GPU. Not only men but women as well were victims of shameless extortion and forced to enter the service of the GPU. Even the Soviet Russian embassy in Berlin, in operations headed by embassy counselor [Amayak] Kobulov, did not shrink from unscrupulous abuse of the rights of extraterritoriality for espionage purposes. A staff member of the Russian Consulate at Prague, Mokhov [L. Mikhailov], headed another Russian espionage network that extended across the Protectorate [Bohemia-Moravia]. Further instances in which the police were able to take action in time provided clear, unequivocal evidence of these extensive Soviet Russian machinations. The evidence as a whole proves irrefutably that Soviet Russia carried out against Germany illegal, large-scale subversive activities, acts of sabotage and terror, and espionage in preparation for war, in the political, military and economic spheres.

With regard to Soviet Russia’s subversive activities in European countries outside of Germany, those extended to almost all countries in Europe that are friendly to or are occupied by Germany. Thus in Romania, for example, Communist propaganda in the form of leaflets of Russian origin portrayed Germany as being responsible for all local troubles in order to foster an anti-German public mood. The same thing had been evident in Yugoslavia since the Summer of 1940. Leaflets there incited the people to protest against the [Dragiša] Cvetković government, which was aligning with the “imperialistic” governments of Berlin and Rome. At a meeting of Communist party functionaries in Zagreb the whole of Southeastern Europe from Slovakia to Bulgaria was described as a Russian protectorate that would come into being after Germany’s hoped for military decline. In the Soviet embassy in Belgrade, German troops discovered documentary evidence of the Soviet Russian origin of this propaganda. Whereas Communist propaganda in Yugoslavia sought to make use of nationalist slogans, in Hungary it was effective chiefly among the Ruthenian population, to whom it held out hopes of forthcoming liberation by Soviet Russia. Anti-German propaganda was particularly active in Slovakia, which openly agitated for annexation of that country by Soviet Russia.

In Finland the notorious “Society for Peace and Friendship With the Soviet Union” actively worked with the [Soviet-run] Petroskoi radio broadcasting station to promote the subversion of the country, and thereby operating in an entirely anti-German way.

In France, Belgium and Holland agitation was directed against the German occupation authority. A similar propaganda campaign, but of nationalist and pan-Slavic character, was carried out in the Government General [Poland]. Scarcely had Greece been occupied by German and Italian troops when Soviet Russian propaganda commenced there as well. All this is evidence of a campaign systematically carried out in every country by the USSR against Germany’s endeavor to establish a stable order in Europe.

Parallel with that was propaganda directly aimed at countering German policy measures, which denounced those measures as anti-Russian and sought to win over these various countries for Soviet Russia and against Germany. In Bulgaria there was agitation against that country’s joining the Tripartite Pact, and in favor of a guarantee pact with Russia. In Romania attempts were made at infiltration of the [nationalist] Iron Guard [movement] and suborning its leaders, including Groza, a Romanian who initiated the attempted putsch of January 23, 1941, and behind whom Bolshevist agents of Moscow stood as wire-pullers. The Reich government has indisputable evidence of this.

With regard to Yugoslavia, the Reich government has come in possession of documents showing that the Yugoslav envoy [Milorad] Georgevic [Djordjevich] became convinced, on the basis of a conversation with [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov in May 1940 that Germany was regarded there as the “powerful enemy of tomorrow.” Soviet Russia’s attitude was made even more clear by its response to the requests for armaments made by Serbian military circles. In November 1940, the chief of the Soviet Russian General Staff declared to the Yugoslav military attaché: “We will give you, immediately, everything you ask for.” The prices to be paid and the method of payment were left to the discretion of the Belgrade government, and only one condition was made: to keep this a secret from Germany. When the Cvetković government subsequently approached the Axis powers, Moscow began to delay deliveries of weapons, and this was communicated curtly to the Yugoslav military attaché by the Soviet Russian War Ministry. The staging of the Belgrade putsch of March 27 of this year was the climax of those conspiratorial activities against the Reich by Serbian plotters and Anglo-Russian agents. The Serbian leader of that putsch and the head of the “Black Hand,” Mr. [Božin] Simić, is still in Moscow, where he works actively against the Reich in close collaboration with Soviet Russian propaganda centers.

The foregoing points are only a small portion of the enormously comprehensive propaganda activities against Germany that the USSR has been carrying out across Europe. In order to furnish the outside world with an overview of these activities by Soviet Russian agencies since the conclusion of the treaties between Germany and Russia and to enable the public to reach its own judgment, the Reich government will be publishing the extensive material at its disposal. In summary, the Reich government points out the following:

At the conclusion of the treaties with Germany, the Soviet government repeatedly made the unequivocal declaration that it did not intend to interfere, either directly or indirectly, in German affairs. When the friendship treaty was concluded, it solemnly stated it would work together with Germany in order to bring an end, in accordance with the true interests of all nations, of the war existing between Germany on one hand and Britain and France on the other, and to achieve this aim as soon as possible. In the light of the above-mentioned facts, which have steadily become more apparent during the further course of the war, these Soviet Russian agreements and declarations have been shown to be intentionally misleading and deceptive. Nor did the advantages accruing from Germany’s friendly attitude cause the Soviet government to adopt a loyal attitude toward Germany. On the contrary, the Reich government has been forced to realize that the conclusion of the pacts in 1939 was yet another instance of the application of Lenin’s thesis, as expressly reaffirmed in the October 1939 “Guidelines for the Communist Party in Slovakia,” stating that “pacts may be concluded with certain other countries if they further the interests of the Soviet government and help render the opponent innocuous.” The signing of these treaties of friendship was, accordingly, for the Soviet government only a tactical maneuver. The real goal was to reach agreements that were advantageous to Russia and, at the same time, enable preparation for powerful future action by the Soviet Union. The guiding idea remained the weakening of non-Bolshevist states in order to be in a position to subvert them more easily and, when the time came, to smash them. In a Russian document discovered after the capture of Belgrade in the Soviet legation there, this purpose was expressed with stark brutality in the following words: “The USSR will respond only at the opportune moment. The Axis powers have further dissipated their forces, and the USSR will consequently strike a sudden blow against Germany.” The Soviet government has not heeded the voice of the Russian people, who sincerely wish to live in peace and friendship with the German people. Instead, it has continued the old Bolshevist policy of duplicity and, by so doing, has assumed a heavy burden of responsibility.

III

If the Soviet Union’s subversive propaganda carried out in Germany and the rest of Europe leaves no room for doubt with regard to its attitude toward Germany, then the policy of the Soviet government toward Germany in the military sphere and in the field of foreign policy, even since the conclusion of pacts between Germany and Russia, makes matters even clearer. On the occasion of the delineation of spheres of interest, the Soviet government declared in Moscow to the Reich Foreign Minister that it did not intend to occupy, bolshevize or annex any of the states situated within its sphere of interest, other than territories of the former Polish State, which were at that time in a state of disintegration. In truth, however, and as the course of events has shown, the policy of the Soviet Union during this period was exclusively directed toward one goal – namely, to extend Moscow’s military power wherever the possibility presented itself in the area between the Arctic Ocean and the Black Sea, and to further spread Bolshevism in Europe.

The development of this policy was carried out in the following stages:

1. It was initiated by the conclusion of so-called assistance pacts with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in October and November 1939, and by the establishment of military bases in those countries.

2. The next Soviet Russian move was against Finland. When the Finnish government rejected the Soviet Russian demands, acceptance of which would have meant the end of the sovereignty of an independent Finnish state, the Soviet government then set up the Kusinin Communist pseudo- government. When the Finnish people rejected any association with that government, an ultimatum was presented to Finland, and then, in late November 1939, the Red Army attacked. The Finnish-Russian peace concluded in March [1940] obliged Finland to surrender part of her southeastern provinces, which were immediately brought under Bolshevist rule.

3. A few months later – that is, in July 1940 – the Soviet Union took action against the Baltic states. Under the terms of the first Moscow treaty, Lithuania was in the German sphere of interest. In the second treaty, and at the desire of the Soviet Union, the German government relinquished its interests in the greater part of that country for the sake of peace, although it did so with a heavy heart. A strip of this territory still remained within the German sphere of interest. Following up on an ultimatum delivered on June 15, the whole of Lithuania, including the part that had remained within the German sphere of interest, was occupied by the Soviet Union without notification to the German government, so that the USSR now extended right up to the entire eastern frontier of East Prussia [Germany]. When subsequently Germany was approached on this matter, the German government, after difficult negotiations and in order to make a further effort toward reaching a friendly settlement, ceded that part of Lithuania as well to the Soviet Union.

A short time later Latvia and Estonia were likewise occupied by military force, an action that constituted a violation of the pacts of assistance concluded with those states. Contrary to the express assurances given by Moscow, all the Baltic states were then bolshevized, and a few weeks after occupation were summarily annexed by the Soviet government. Simultaneously with the annexation, the Red Army was for the first time strongly massed against Europe throughout the entire northern sector of the Soviet Russian territory.

Incidentally, the Soviet government thereby unilaterally cancelled the economic agreements that had been concluded between Germany and those [Baltic] states, which, according to the Moscow agreements were not to be affected.

4. In the treaties of Moscow it had been expressly agreed in connection with the delineation of interests in the territory of the former Polish state that no kind of political agitation was to take place beyond the frontiers marking those zones of interests. Instead, the activities of the occupation authorities on both sides were to be restricted exclusively to the peaceful development of those territories. The German government possesses irrefutable proof that in spite of those agreements the Soviet Union very soon after the occupation of the territory not only permitted anti-German propaganda for consumption in the [German controlled] General Government of Poland but, in fact, supported it along with Bolshevist propaganda in the same region. Strong Russian garrisons were also transferred to these territories immediately after the occupation.

5. While the German army was still fighting in the west against France and Britain, the Soviet Union advanced against the Balkans. Although the Soviet government had declared during the Moscow negotiations that it would never make the first move toward settling the Bessarabia question, the German government was informed on June 24, 1940, by the Soviet government that it was now resolved to settle the Bessarabia question by force. At the same time it was stated that Soviet claims also extended to Bukovina, that is, to a territory that had been an ancient Austrian crown land, had never belonged to Russia, and, moreover, had never been mentioned at the time of the Moscow negotiations.

The German ambassador to Moscow declared to the Soviet government that its decision had come as a complete surprise to the German government, and that it would have a seriously adverse impact on German economic interests in Romania, and would also lead to disruption in the life of the large [ethnic] German settlement there, as well as for the [ethnic] German presence in Bukovina. Molotov replied that the matter was one of extreme urgency, and that the Soviet Union expected to be apprised of the German government’s attitude with regard to this question within 24 hours. In spite of this brusque action against Romania, the German government once again intervened in favor of the Soviet Union in order to preserve peace and maintain its friendship with that country. It advised the Romanian government, which had appealed to Germany for help, to yield, and recommended that it surrender Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to Soviet Russia. The affirmative answer of the Romanian government was communicated to the Soviet government by Germany, together with the Romanian government’s request to be granted sufficient time for evacuation of these large areas and the safeguarding of lives and property of the inhabitants there.
Once again, however, the Soviet government presented an ultimatum to Romania, and, before its expiration, began on June 28 to occupy parts of Bukovina, and immediately afterward the whole of Bessarabia as far as the Danube. These territories were also immediately annexed by the Soviet Union, bolshevized, and thus literally reduced to ruin.

By occupying and bolshevizing the entire sphere of interests in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans accorded to the USSR by the Reich government during the Moscow negotiations, the Soviet government clearly and plainly acted contrary to the Moscow agreements. In spite of this, the Reich government continued to maintain an absolutely loyal attitude toward the USSR. It refrained entirely from intervention in the Finnish war and in the Baltic question. It supported the stance of the Soviet government against the Romanian government in the Bessarabia question, and reconciled itself, albeit with a heavy heart, to the state of affairs created by the Soviet government.

Furthermore, in order to eliminate as far as possible from the outset any divergences between the two states, it [Germany] undertook a large-scale resettlement action, whereby all [ethnic] Germans in areas occupied by the USSR were brought back to Germany. The Reich government maintains that more convincing proof of its desire to come to a lasting peace with the USSR could scarcely be given.

IV

As a result of Russia’s advance toward the Balkans, territorial problems in that region came up for discussion. In the Summer of 1940, Romania and Hungary appealed to Germany for help in arranging a settlement of their territorial disputes, after these divergences, stirred up by British agents, had resulted in a serious crisis at the end of August. War was imminent between Romania and Hungary. Germany, which had repeatedly been requested by Hungary and Romania to mediate in their dispute, desired to maintain peace in the Balkans and, together with Italy, invited the two states to confer at Vienna, where, at their request, it proclaimed the Vienna Arbitration Award of August 30, 1940. This established the new frontier between Hungary and Romania. In order to help enable the Romanian government to justify before its people the territorial sacrifice they were making and to eliminate any dispute in this area for the future, Germany and Italy undertook to guarantee the remaining Romanian state. Given that Russian aspirations in this area had already been satisfied, this guarantee could not in any way be taken as directed against Russia. Nevertheless the Soviet Union lodged a complaint and stated that, contrary to earlier declarations according to which its aspirations in the Balkans had been satisfied by the taking of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, it had further interests in Balkan questions, though for the time being those were not further defined.

From that time Soviet Russia’s anti-German policy became steadily more apparent. The Reich government continued to receive ever more concrete reports, according to which negotiations that had been carried on for some time in Moscow by British ambassador [Sir Stafford] Cripps were developing favorably. At the same time the Reich government came into possession of evidence of the Soviet Union’s intensive military preparations in every sphere. This evidence was confirmed by, among other things, a report of Dec. 17, 1940, recently found in Belgrade, by the Yugoslav military attaché in Moscow, which reads: “According to information received from Soviet sources, the arming of the air force, tank corps and artillery in accordance with experiences of the present war are in full progress and will, substantially, have been completed by August 1941. This probably also constitutes the [time] limit before which no appreciable changes in Soviet foreign policy can be expected.”

Despite the unfriendly attitude of the Soviet Union with regard to the Balkan question, Germany made a fresh effort to come to an understanding with the USSR: the Reich Foreign Minister, in a letter to Stalin, gave a comprehensive survey of the policy of the Reich government since the negotiations in Moscow. The letter referred in particular to the following points:

When Germany, Italy and Japan concluded the Tripartite Pact [Sept. 27, 1940] it was unanimously agreed that this pact in no sense is directed against the Soviet Union, but rather that the friendly relations of the three powers and their treaties with the USSR should remain completely unaffected by this agreement. This was also placed on record in the Tripartite Pact of Berlin. At the same time the letter expressed the desire and hope that it might prove possible jointly to clarify still further friendly relations with the USSR, as desired by the signatories to the Tripartite Pact, and to give such relations concrete form. In order to discuss these questions more fully, the Reich Foreign Minister invited Mr. Molotov to visit Berlin.

During Molotov’s visit to Berlin [Nov. 12-13, 1940] the Reich government was forced to the conclusion that the USSR was only inclined toward genuinely friendly cooperation with the Tripartite Pact powers, and with Germany in particular, provided they were prepared to pay the price demanded by the Soviet Union. This price consisted of further penetration of the Soviet Union into North and Southeast Europe. The following demands were made by Molotov in Berlin and in subsequent diplomatic conversations with the German ambassador in Moscow:

1. The Soviet Union desired to give a guarantee to Bulgaria and, beyond that, to conclude with her a pact of assistance on the same lines as those concluded with the Baltic states – that is, providing for [Soviet] military bases. At the same time Molotov declared that he did not wish to interfere with the internal regime of Bulgaria. A visit of Russian commissar [Arkady] Sobolev to Sofia at that time was likewise undertaken with the object of realizing this intention.

2. The Soviet Union demanded an agreement in the form of a treaty with Turkey for the purpose of providing, on the basis of a long-time lease, a base for Soviet land and naval forces on the Bosporus and in the Dardanelles. In case Turkey did not agree to this proposal, Germany and Italy were to cooperate with Russia in diplomatic measures to be undertaken to enforce compliance with this demand. These demands were aimed at the domination of the Balkans by the USSR.

3. The Soviet Union declared that once again that it felt itself threatened by Finland, and therefore demanded complete abandonment of Finland by Germany, which practically would have meant the occupation of that state and the extermination of the Finnish people.

Germany naturally was unable to accept these Russian demands, which the Soviet government characterized as a pre-condition for cooperation with the Tripartite Pact powers. Thus the efforts of the Tripartite Pact powers to come to an understanding with the Soviet Union failed. The result of this German attitude was that Russia now intensified its already steadily more obvious anti-German policy, and that its increasingly closer cooperation with Britain became more clear. In January 1941 this disapproving attitude on the part of Russia first manifested itself in the diplomatic sphere. When in that month Germany adopted certain measures in Bulgaria against the landing of British troops in Greece, the Russian ambassador in Berlin pointed out in an official démarche that the Soviet Union regarded Bulgarian territory and the two straits as a security zone of the USSR, and that it could not remain a passive spectator of events taking place in these areas, which threatened those security interests. For that reason the Soviet government warned against the appearance of German troops on Bulgarian territory or on either of the two straits.

In response the Reich government furnished the Soviet government with exhaustive information about the causes and aims of its military measures in the Balkans. This made it clear that Germany would prevent, with every means of her power, any attempt on the part of Britain to gain a foothold in Greece, but that it had no intention of occupying the straits, and would respect Turkish sovereignty and territory. The passage of German troops through Bulgaria could not be regarded as an encroachment on the Soviet Union’s security interests; on the contrary, the Reich government believed that those operations served Soviet interests. After carrying through its operations in the Balkans, Germany withdrew her troops from there.

Despite this Reich government declaration, the Soviet government for its part published a declaration addressed to Bulgaria directly after the entry of German troops into that country that manifested a character clearly hostile to the German Reich, and said in effect that the presence of German troops in Bulgaria was not conducive to peace in the Balkans, but rather to war. An explanation for this attitude was found by the Reich government in incoming information, steadily increasing in scale, about ever closer collaboration between Soviet Russia and Britain. Even in the face of these facts, Germany remained silent.

Along the same lines was the assurance given by the Soviet government in March 1941 that Russia would not attack Turkey in event of the latter’s joining in the war in the Balkans. According to information in possession of the Reich government, this was the result of Anglo-Russian negotiations during the visit of the British Foreign Secretary [Anthony Eden] in Ankara, whose efforts were aimed at drawing Russia closer to the British camp.

V

The aggressive policy of the Soviet government toward the German Reich, which steadily was becoming more pronounced ever since that time, as well as the hitherto somewhat discreet political cooperation between the Soviet Union and Britain became, however, obvious to the entire world at the outbreak of the Balkan crisis at the beginning of April of this year. It is today fully established that the putsch instigated by Britain in Belgrade after Yugoslavia had joined the Tripartite Pact was instigated with the connivance of Soviet Russia. For some time before that, in fact since November 14, 1940, Russia had secretly assisted Yugoslavia in arming against the Axis powers. This is conclusively proven by documents that came into the hands of the Reich government after the occupation of Belgrade, which reveal every phase of those Russian deliveries of weapons to Yugoslavia.

Once the Belgrade putsch had succeeded, Russia on April 5 concluded a pact of friendship with the illegal Serbian government of General [Dušan] Simović, which was to lend moral support to the putschists and with its weight assist the growing Anglo-Yugoslav-Greek front. Evident satisfaction was expressed on that occasion by American Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, when he stated on April 6, 1941, after several conversations with the Soviet ambassador in Washington: The Russo-Yugoslav Pact might, under certain circumstances, be of the greatest importance. It is attracting interest in many quarters, and there are grounds for assuming that it will be more than a mere pact of friendship and non-aggression.

Thus, at the same time when German troops were being concentrated on Romanian and Bulgarian territory against growing large-scale landings of British troops in Greece, the Soviet Union, now obviously in cooperation with Britain, was attempting to stab Germany in the back by:

1. Giving Yugoslavia open political and secret military support.

2. Attempting to get Turkey to adopt an aggressive attitude toward Bulgaria and Germany by promising not to attack her and to deploy the Turkish army in a very unfavorable strategic position in Thrace.

3. Itself concentrating a strong military force on the Romanian frontier in Bessarabia and in Moldavia, and

4. Through a sudden attempt early in April by [Andrey] Vyshinsky, Deputy People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs in his conversations with [Grigore] Gafencu, Romanian ambassador in Moscow, to inaugurate a policy of rapid rapprochement with Romania in order to persuade that country to break away from Germany. British diplomacy, through the intermediary of the Americans, was making efforts in the same direction in Bucharest.

According to the Anglo-Russian plan, German troops concentrated in Romania and Bulgaria were to have been attacked from three sides, namely from Bessarabia, from Thrace, and from the Serbian-Greek frontier. It was due solely to the loyalty of [Romanian leader] General [Ion] Antonescu, the realistic attitude of the Turkish government and, above all, to the rapid German initiative and decisive victories of the German army, that this Anglo-Russian plan was frustrated.

According to information in the hands of the Reich government, nearly 200 Yugoslav aircraft carrying Soviet Russian and British agents as well as Simović and other Serbian putschists took off — some of them to Russia, where those officers are today serving the Russian army, and some to Egypt. This fact alone throws a particularly characteristic light on the close collaboration between Britain, Russia and Yugoslavia.

In vain the Soviet government tried on various occasions to hide the real intentions underlying its policy. Besides maintaining trade-economic relations with Germany even during the final period, it adopted a succession of specific measures to deceive the world into thinking it was maintaining normal, even friendly, relations with Germany. These include, for example, the expulsion a few weeks ago of the diplomatic representatives of Norway, Belgium, Greece and Yugoslavia, the silence observed by the British press about German-Russian relations, arranged through the British ambassador Cripps in cooperation with the Russian government, and finally the dementi [statement] issued [June 13] by the [Soviet] Tass agency, which sought to portray relations between Germany and the Soviet Russia as completely correct. These attempts at camouflage, which were in such crass contrast to the real policy of the Soviet government, naturally did not succeed in deceiving the Reich government.

VI

The anti-German policy of the Soviet government was accompanied in the military sphere with a steadily increasing concentration of all available Russian armed forces along a broad front extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Already at a time when Germany was deeply engaged in the west in the French campaign, and when only a very few German detachments were stationed in the east, the Russian High Command began systematically to transfer large contingents of troops to the eastern Reich frontiers, with especially large deployments being identified on the borders with East Prussia and the Government General [Poland], as well as in Bukovina and Bessarabia, opposite Romania.

Russian garrisons facing Finland were also steadily being strengthened. Transfers of ever more new Russian divisions from the Far East and the Caucasus to western Russia were additional measures in that regard. After the Soviet government had declared that the Baltic area, for instance, would only be occupied by very small numbers of troops, it proceeded to concentrate in that area, after the occupation had been completed, steadily increasing masses of troops, their number today being estimated at 22 divisions. It became clear that Russian troops were being moved ever closer to the German frontier, even though the German side had adopted no military measures that might have justified such Russian action. It is this Russian behavior that first compelled the German armed forces to adopt counter-measures. Moreover, various units of the Russian army and air force moved up, and strong air force detachments were posted on air fields along the German border. Since early April ever more frontier violations and a steadily increasing number of incursions over German Reich territory by Russian aircraft have also been observed. The Romanian government has reported similar developments on the Romanian frontier areas of Bukovina, Moldavia and the Danube.

Since the beginning of this year the German Armed Forces High Command has repeatedly notified the [German] foreign policy leadership of the steadily increasing menace posed against Reich territory by the Russian army, emphasizing in that regard that only aggressive intentions could account for these deployments. These Armed Forces High Command reports will be made public, with all the details.

If there was even the slightest doubt about the aggressive nature of this Russian deployment, they have been completely dispelled by the news that reached the German High Command in recent days. Now that the Russian general mobilization is complete, no less than 160 divisions are deployed against Germany. The results of reconnaissance carried out in recent days have shown that the deployment of Russian troops, and especially of motorized and armored units, has been carried out in such a way that the Russian High Command is ready at any moment to take aggressive action at various points against the German frontier. Reports of increased reconnaissance and patrol activity as well as reports coming in daily of incidents on the frontier and outpost skirmishes between the two armies complete the picture of an extremely strained military situation, which could erupt at any moment. News received today from England about negotiations by British ambassador Cripps to establish even closer collaboration between the political and military leaders of Britain and Soviet Russia, together with the appeal by [Britain’s] Lord Beaverbrook, who at one time was anti-Soviet, to support Russia in the coming conflict by every available means, and his call for the United States to do the same, show unambiguously what kind of a fate is being prepared for the German nation.

To sum up, the Reich government makes the following declaration:

Contrary to all the obligations it had assumed, and in crass violation of its solemn declarations, the Soviet government has turned against Germany. It has:

1. Not only continued but, since the outbreak of war, intensified its subversive activities against Germany and Europe. And it has

2. In steadily increasing measure developed its foreign policy against Germany in an ever more hostile way. It has

3. Deployed its entire military forces on the German border ready for attack.

The Soviet government has thus violated and broken its treaties and agreements with Germany. Bolshevist Moscow’s hatred of National Socialism was stronger than its political wisdom. Bolshevism is opposed to National Socialism in deadly enmity. Bolshevist Moscow is ready to stab National Socialist Germany in the back while she is engaged in a struggle for her existence.

Germany has no intention of remaining inactive in the face of this grave threat to her eastern frontier. The Führer has, therefore, ordered the German armed forces to oppose this threat with all the might at their disposal. In the coming struggle the German people fully understand that they are called upon not only to defend the homeland, but to save the entire civilized world from the deadly dangers of Bolshevism, and clear the way for true social progress in Europe.

For Additional Reading

Joseph Bishop, “Russian Specialist Lays Bare Stalin’s Plan To Conquer Europe”
The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1997
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n6p22_Bishop.html )
( http://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__russian-specialist-lays-bare-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/ )

J. Bishop, The Chief Culprit,” A Review .
Inconvenient History , Oct. 2009
( https://inconvenienthistory.com/1/2/1906 )

Joseph Bishop , “A Thoughtful Look at the German-Soviet Clash: Could Hitler Have Won?”
The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1995
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n6p38_Bishop.html )

Adolf Hitler. Reichstag speech of Dec. 11, 1941. (Declaration of war against the USA)
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html )

Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg, 1941-1945: Planung, Ausführung und Dokumentation. München: Herbig, 1999.

George F. Kennan, Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin. Boston: Atlantic/ Little Brown and Co., 1961

Heinz Magenhiemer, Hitler’s War: Germany’s Key Strategic Decisions, 1940-1945. Barnes & Noble, 2003

Eric Margolis, “Time to Face the Truth About World War II,” 2009 and 2011
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/time-to-face-the-truth-ab_b_282379.html )

Daniel W. Michaels, “Examining Stalin’s 1941 Plan to Attack Germany.”
The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 2000
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html )

Daniel W. Michaels, “Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe: How the Soviet Union ‘Lost’ the Second World War,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1998.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html )

Daniel Michaels, “New Evidence On ‘Barbarossa’: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia.”
The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Dec. 2001
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html )

Daniel Michaels, “Russian and German Historians Debate ‘Barbarossa’”
The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Dec. 2001
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html )

John Mosier. Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin – The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 . Simon & Schuster, 2010.

Tom Segev, “Was Stalin To Blame For World War II?,”
Haaretz (Israel), August 31, 2007
( http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/was-stalin-to-blame-1.228553 )
[ http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/08/Stalins_warguilt.html ] )

John L. Snell, Illusion and Necessity: The Diplomacy of Global War, 1939-1945. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963

Viktor Suvorov (V. Rezun), The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II . Naval Institute Press, 2008

Viktor Suvorov (V. Rezun), Icebreaker: Who Started World the Second World War?. London: 1990.

Viktor Suvorov (V. Rezun), “Stalin: ‘Chief Culprit’ of World War II.”
Lecture, C-Span. Video
( http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283856-1 )

Viktor Suvorov (V. Rezun), “Who Started World War II?”
Lecture. Video

Ron Unz, “When Stalin Almost Conquered Europe,” June 2018 .
( http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/ )

Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,”
The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html )

Mark Weber, “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two,” May 2008.
( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )

(Republished from Institute for Historical Review by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Germany, Soviet Union, World War II 
Hide 1096 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Sunday morning, June 22, 1941, military forces of Germany, Finland and Romania suddenly struck against the Soviet Union

    Technically, at least on the German front, on that day, they struck against the Soviet occupation forces in Poland. They wouldn’t get to the borders of the Soviet Union* until a little later.

    *Or, if one prefers, Bolshevik controlled territory in the Russian Empire. But hey, Communists are people too, they deserve to have their rights of sovereignty respected just like everyone else. If we just leave them alone and let them liquidate the class enemies in peace, they will be no bother to their neighbors.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  2. Why attack the Soviet Union?

    Why not attack the Soviet Union?

    Ronald Reagan – We Begin Bombing In 5 Minutes

    My fellow Americans. I’m pleased to announce that I’ve signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes.

    • Replies: @Beckow
  3. anon[318] • Disclaimer says:

    The Nazi Reich invaded the USSR because it was an impeary status, bellicose and genocidal; the Nazis did not aim for any security reasons, no matter what they said. Its objectives were to annex lands, to exploit natural resources and to enslave and annihilate the inhabitants of the Soviet Union. Any minimally serious reading of the history of the Nazi occupation of the Soviet territories confirms this.

  4. “Any minimally serious reading of the history of the Nazi occupation of the Soviet territories confirms this.”
    “Any minimally serious reading of the history… confirms this.”

    Ah yes, where have we heard these formulations before. Unquestionable, official truths without alternatives. I wonder. Maybe we should outlaw questioning the motives and actions of the “vile war of aggression on the innocent Soviet Union”, too. Us Germans are all too familiar with narratives like these after all.

    To this day the war over history does not stop, because powerful people today need its narrative to justify their power and status of ‘victim’ and ‘criminal’. If only the tyrants of old could finally rot and we could burry the tyrants of today with them. Sad!

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
    , @Matteo
  5. What about all other European countries invaded , by Germany at that time ?

  6. Mikel says:
    @european born

    They were also conspiring to attack Germany under the influence of Jewish plotters. Besides, Hitler had clearly stated in Mein Kampf that he had no expansionist designs whatsoever and held Germany’s eastern neighbors in his highest regards.

    • LOL: Plato's Dream
    • Replies: @RI
  7. Next we need Neville Chamberlain on the same subject.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @jacques sheete
  8. BiggDee55 says:

    Drang nach Osten.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  9. Mulegino1 says:

    The position of the vast bulk of the Soviet forces deployed along the western borders of the USSR says it all. There is no way in hell these deployments were defensive in nature. Had the Germans not struck when they did, and the Soviets had seized the Romanian oil fields (the 9th Rifle Army was within easy striking distance) Germany and all of Europe would have been rendered helpless and immobile within a few weeks.

    To put it quite simply, Hitler’s actions gave Europe a few years breathing space, before it was overwhelmed by Soviet-Anglo-American invaders to subsequently become the contested ground of the Cold War. Operation Barbarossa was an act of Divine Providence, and the only way that the Europe of Nations retained even a glimmer of hope of survival. A Soviet tsunami would have drowned it in 1941; the tension between NATO and the Soviet bloc allowed the core of European Christian identity to survive- ironically- in the East.

  10. Hillbob says:

    War was forced on the peace loving Fuhrer.

    Though many Soviet army personnel was on “summer” leave……
    The attack took the soviets by complete surprise with extraordinary losses in men and material in the first few days of the invasion. In fact , some units were ordered not to fire on the invaders , thinking that it was a mistake.

    Stalin went awol at the shock. The supply of produce to Germany went unhindered up to the day of the invasion.

    Stalin did not believe the warnings of the German spy Richard Sorge who proved invaluable to him in the battle of Moscow who gave him the ‘exact’ details of the attack(as well the British code breakers of Ultra)

    He even dismissed the warning of at least one German soldier who went over to the soviets to warn them the day before the actual invasion.

    In fact Stalin believed Hitler more than he did his own Generals and spies at the time.

    Sounds like a country preparing to attack Germany

    • Agree: Miggle
    • Replies: @j2
    , @Pandos
    , @KenH
  11. Hillbob says:
    @european born

    Great point. Reason finds no place in either the murderous Nazis or their present day adherents and apologists

  12. Mikel says:
    @Mulegino1

    Oh yes. Just because they had just been unable to defeat the mighty Finns it doesn’t mean that the Soviets were not about to overrun Nazi Germany (and all the rest of European nations). It was a matter of weeks before they would have been occupying Lisbon and the Straits of Gibraltar.

  13. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    The position of the vast bulk of the Soviet forces deployed along the western borders of the USSR says it all. There is no way in hell these deployments were defensive in nature.

    Maybe USSR was trying to push Germany into a defensive position so that it wouldn’t go on the offensive.

    Stalin simply wan’t a gambler on that scale.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  14. This is disingenuous in the extreme. Of course the Russians were preparing like crazy for a German invasion. Look what happened. Sheesh.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  15. j2 says:
    @Hillbob

    “Sounds like a country preparing to attack Germany.”

    The issues you mention do not prove your point. Consider the chronology. I do not know how fast Germany mobilized, but Finland mobilized as a war exercise in 18. June 1941. Finland joined the attack 25. June 1941 and the goal of the war was regaining areas lost in the Soviet attack 1939-1940. Sorge warned Stalin 20. May 1941. Probably at that time there were no clear signs of Germany mobilizing in the Eastern Front. Stalin had attack troops taking offensive positions with the planned attack in August 1941, many officers would take summer vacations in the end of June, it was summer and not yet the attack. It is possible that Stalin did not believe in the ability of Germans to start an attack. Germany was in war in the West and had so far yielded in everything. It seems true that Soviet troops were planning an attack in Central Europe. Maybe Germany mobilized faster than they thought possible.

    In the beginning of the talk Hitler gave to Mannerheim when he visited Finland Hitler explains why he attacked to the SU so late: that he wanted to attack to France much earlier but it was raining all the time, and if the Soviets had taken Romanian oil fields in 1940, Germany could not have stopped it. Possibly in 1939 Hitler was hoping to have a bit longer peace arrangement with the Soviet Union, but after the summer of 1940 (when the SU occupied the Baltic states) it must have been clear that an eastern war was coming very soon. Hitler started it two months too late considering the short summer, and because of this it may have been a preventive war, but to Mannerheim he explained the late start with the Greece expedition. As for Hitler’s general plans for gaining areas in the east, istn’t that in Mein Kampf explained well enough.=, and Germany did attack to Poland (regardless of what caused it.)

  16. Indeed, it’s a good question. Why would Germans decide at that point to declare war against the Soviet Union? Germans knew what had happened during WWI, that the war would go until the the end and only end with the defeat and unconditional capitulation of Germany. In 1941 it was clear that Germany could not defeat the UK, it was clear that there was no hope of a peace agreement. And it was clear that the USA would at some point take the side of the UK and win the war. So, why would Hitler decide at this point to attack the Soviet Union? For some reason he must have felt compelled to attack.

    • Replies: @j2
  17. @european born

    What about all other European countries invaded , by Germany at that time ?

    Possibly as a necessity of war. This is not a theme I know very much about, but as far as I know Germany could have occupayed Denmark as a necessity of war. But Germany didn’t want to conquer Denmark. The Danish government remained more or less in power, the Germans even didn’t care about the Jews in Denmark. The only thing that they wanted was to control it militarily in order that the British don’t use Denmark as a starting point to attack Germany.

    Have you tried to answer the question why France declared war against Germany on the 3 of September, 1939? And what about the British invasion of Iceland, for instance? From Wikipedia:

    “The invasion of Iceland occurred on 10 May 1940 during World War II. Iceland was occupied by troops of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom military operation, codenamed Operation Fork, was conducted by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. The invasion was performed because the British government feared that the island would be used by the Germans, who had recently overrun Denmark, Iceland’s possessing country. The Government of Iceland issued a protest, charging that its neutrality had been “flagrantly violated” and “its independence infringed”.”

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  18. Sparkon says:

    All of the pre-war maneuvering becomes easier to understand if one accepts my argument that Stalin was trying to goad, intimidate, or even frighten the Germans into attacking, in much the same way that Roosevelt was backing the Japanese into a corner so that the hotheads and militants in Japan saw few options other than to attack Pearl Harbor and eliminate the immediate American threat to their remaining sources of raw materials, or so they thought.

    No one was happier than Iosef Stalin when the Germans launched Barbarossa, unless it was Franklin D. Roosevelt or Winston Churchill. Churchill simply wanted Germany crushed again, while FDR and Stalin were motivated by their shared Communist ideology. The German attack also allowed Stalin to consolidate power as nothing else could have.

    It was all part of the plan from the beginning going back at least to 1929, when Stalin had initiated his cruel and merciless twin programs of forced collectivization and rapid industrialization that resulted in the deaths of millions of peasants, Kulaks, and Nepmen among the various nationalities of the Soviet Union, but which allowed the Red Army to build up what was probably the most powerful military in the world by the eve of Barbarossa, as Mark Weber notes in his fine article here.

    The conspiracy between FDR and Iosef Stalin was predicated on the desire and intention to let the enemy strike the first blow so that the Allies would be able to claim the moral high ground, which they did throughout the war, and during the post-war psychological beat down of Germany, which continues to this day.

    If Stalin had attacked Germany, FDR would not have been able to sell to the American public the entirely absurd idea of benevolent “Uncle Joe,” and it would have been much harder, if not virtually impossible to demonize Germany and especially Adolf Hitler.

    Hitler’s failure to bag the BEF when it was trapped at Dunkirk, along with other fatal strategic mistakes leading to Germany’s defeat, naturally leads to my conjecture that the guy with the little moustache was in fact an agent with a cryptic agenda.

    In his speech above, Hitler singles out England as the source of the conspiracy against Germany, not once but twice. Yet, when Hitler had the chance to knock England out of the war, he failed to capitalize on the golden opportunity, forgetting apparently how the Allied expeditionary force had landed and formed up in England in WWI before crossing the channel and throwing its weight against the Kaiser’s army, thereby changing the outcome of the war, and all of it based on a deal between Zionists and the British to bring the United States into the war in exchange for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the notorious “stab in the back.”

    The German war effort was also compromised, perhaps fatally, by the presence of a powerful spy within the 3rd Reich’s hierarchy in the person of Abwehr head Admiral Canaris, who supposedly turned against Hitler after the so-called Night of the Long Knives in 1934 when the German dictator liquidated the SA.

    The Allies can be grateful that Canaris apparently never learned about Stalin’s Red Army purges in 1937, or especially his murderous collectivization, dekulakization, and rapid industrialization campaigns beginning in 1929 where millions of Russians, Ukrainians, and Kazakhs (among others) perished as a result of Stalin’s ruthless policies, rather than a few hundred thugs who were killed in Hitler’s take down of Röhm and his SA.

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
  19. j2 says:
    @Mikel

    “Oh yes. Just because they had just been unable to defeat the mighty Finns it doesn’t mean that the Soviets were not about to overrun Nazi Germany (and all the rest of European nations). It was a matter of weeks before they would have been occupying Lisbon and the Straits of Gibraltar.”

    You ridicule something you do not quite understand. It is the nature conditions that count here.
    Finns stopped the Soviet main attack second time in the Summer of 1944 (with important help from German airforces), but just after that the Soviets did overrun Nazi Germany and all of East Europe fell under their power. Germans could not stop a Soviet main attack. Nature conditions in Central Europe unfortunately suit very well to mass use of tanks, unlike (fortunately) in Finland. If the Western Allied had not pushed east from the west, Soviets very possibly would have proceeded further and taken the whole Continent.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @Mikel
  20. j2 says:
    @UncommonGround

    Why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1941? Maybe he was forced to attack at that time. Possible.
    But it is a wrong question.

    The correct question is why Hitler attacked Poland? Hitler had some problems with Poles, but it did not require a war and occupation of the country. Attacking to Poland started the world war. It was known that it would bring in France, most probably also the Great Britain, and the Soviet Union was a threat, the USA would fight in Europe after some time. If Hitler tried to avoid a world war, the only decision needed was not to attack to Poland but to find some other solution, even taking Germans in Poland to main Germany.

    But Mein Kampf mentions Jews on almost every page, so that was something essential to Hitler. If the real reason of the war was forcing Jews out Europe into the homeland that Zionist bankers had got through the previous bloody world war, then occupying Poland was unavoidable as that is where most of them were. Areas in the east, stopping Communism, they were secondary goals and the final result, Germany’s defeat, could be seen, but this single goal was what Hitler wanted to achieve, and achieved: Israel.

  21. PeterMX says:
    @european born

    Which countries are you referring to? France and Great Britain that declared war on Germany in early September 1939, Holland which allied itself with Britain and France and said nothing to Britain as their bombers flew over Dutch territory (prior to the German attack on French and British troops in May 1940) to drop bombs on Germany, or the German invasion of Norway to only get their days before the British planned to invade to cut Germany off from vital natural resources it needed?

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/html_chapter/06.html

    “Churchill broadcast on the BBC a warning to Norway that Britain would no longer tolerate a pro-German interpretation of neutrality ; the Allies would continue the fight “wherever it might lead them.” (Churchill’s designs on Norway were known to German Intelligence from a series of incautious hints he dropped in a secret press conference with neutral press attaches in London on February 2.) Small wonder that Hitler later referred more than once to the indiscretions committed by Reynaud and Churchill as providing the final urgent stimulus for his own adventure.(1)”

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/12/battle-for-norway/

    The German invasion of Poland to free mistreated Germans and their territory from Polish occupation only occurred after extensive efforts to come to a peaceful solution. Something the British deliberately sabotaged by encouraging the Poles to keep the German territory when they promised to make war on Germany in early 1939 in the event Germany attacked Poland.

    The German city Memel is another example of allied behavior. The allies declared it a “Free City”, like Danzig, after WW I but in 1923 Lithuania attacked and took over the German city. The allies immediately recognized Memel as Lithuanian. Germany took it back, freeing the German population, in 1938.

    • Agree: Byrresheim
  22. @j2

    I would say that the situations in 1939 and in 1941 were quite different. I don’t think that Hitler ever wanted a war against the UK or against France. At the end his drive to reverse Versailles was too strong and led to a war. I’m not sure, but it seems that Hitler wanted to make peace with the English as soon as the war started, but it was too late (I read once a book about peace initiatives during the war where the author says that there were about 100 such peace proposals which the English ignored or rejected, the book itself talks about 50 peace proposals, I don’t remember anymore the name of the author). At that time things were very different than they are today or they had been a few years earlier). Large parts of East Europe had been a part of Austria, Hitler was Austrian and maybe it was natural for him to think that he could change things easily. Poland was a country that changed its form, location and owner quite often. Is it likely that Hitler and his generals wanted still to conquest anything at all in 1941 for the pure sake of conquest? I think that the only thing that mattered at that time was not to loose the war. They were the managers of a desaster. In 1939 Hitler could still think that he could take the initiative and determine outcomes, even if he was wrong. In 1941 it was too late for that.

    • Replies: @j2
  23. Mikel says:
    @j2

    Yes, how thoughtless of me to suggest that the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union had anything to do with Hitler’s idea of acquiring Lebensraum for Germany in the East and was not of a purely defensive nature.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Wally
  24. j2 says:
    @Mikel

    Do not be so hard on yourself, you are partially correct. In Mein Kampf there is the clear idea of gaining Lebensraum from the east, if is from Karl Haushofer. The goal of destroying Communism and pushing Russia to the east was also real. Clearly the Barbarossa Operation did not have a purely defensive nature, even if the offensive attack in 1941 was made in a situation when the Soviet Union was forming troops to an attack formation.

    Your mistake is not there, it is in misunderstanding the plan Hitler had concerning the Jews. A simple calculation of the Jewish death toll shows incorrect the common view that the goal was the destruction of the whole people and confirms that the goal followed in a more literal sense the way the final solution was described in the Wannsee conference.

    Starting from this fact that can be shown in simple arithmetics, you should investigate what it implies to the attack to Poland. There was the problem of the Free City of Danzig. That problem could have been solved, but Nazis wanted to push Poland to a war. (They were much helped by Polish attitude not to allow Germany to annex Danzig), but an agreement could have been found. Such issues as that Nazis considered Poles as untermenchen are not an explanation to the war. Hitler wanted a war with Poland that he knew he would win, not any solution to the Danzig problem.

    Thus, Hitler either wanted a war with France and England, or he just had to occupy Poland. Then you ask why Poland? The Lebensraum was supposed to be in the Baltic area, a bit higher up. I connect it to the final solution and to the homeland in Palestine, which is largely why the First World War was started by Freemasons and bankers.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Franklin Ryckaert
  25. j2 says:
    @UncommonGround

    Annexing Austria, then Czechoslovakia, which was a part of Austria before the WWI. And then the war with Poland.

    The rest is what follows: because of a war with Poland Germany ended up in a war with France and had to go through Belgium, so England joined to the war. England planned to occupy Norway, so Germany occupied Norway. Germany occupied Denmark for a similar reason. And so it goes on.

    Your explanation then is that Hitler wanted a war with Poland (it was not the question of Danzig, which could have been solved in some way) because as he wrote in Mein Kampf, he did not see the possibility of Poles having an independent state. Poland had been divided in the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century among Prussia, Austria and Russia. That would mean that the idea was to restore Germany and Austria to what they were before the WWI. It is possible that it was the idea, but it is not at all clear that this was the idea. What then about the Lebenstraum, the Jewish question, the untermenchen, Communism. I think the idea of restoring something was only a justification that was used in the beginning. The alternatives I would consider are: was is to stop Communists? Was it to gain Lebensraum? Was it to exterminate untermenchen (=Slavs)? Was it to solve the Jewish problem? I think it was the last. The main goal was the last because that is the only goal that is a logical continuation for the First World War. It is the only solution what explains why no countries including the USA wanted to take the Jews. Wars and especially world wars do not start just like that, because somebody shot an archduke or because an Austrian ex-soldier got to power in Germany. I think it is a myth that the world drifted to the WWII because of a dictator and that democracies did not stop him in time. It was not at all like that, there had to be interests and goals on the winning side to have this war.

    • Disagree: Zumbuddi, Wally
    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Wally
    , @Johann
  26. Anon[999] • Disclaimer says:

    Mein Kamph not withstanding.

    It was Trotsky who wanted to wage a global revolution and his accolites today are The NeoCon scum that infest our government. Stalin was merely a thug, but he always sought compromise and accommodation with the west. Churchill played him for a fool.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  27. @UncommonGround

    And what about the British invasion of Iceland, for instance?

    Or the joint British/ Soviet invasion of Iran

    As far as Norway goes — the Brits also planned to invade, and had already landed troops in the north when the Germans took control.

  28. Wally says:
    @anon

    Proof of their ‘genocidal’ actions is where exactly?

    It’s a basic question that those who make such a claim must produce.

    WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20

    • Replies: @Plato's Dream
  29. Wally says:
    @european born

    You are woefully indoctrinated.
    facts:
    – USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
    – The “neutral” US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany’s declaration of war on the US.
    – Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
    – France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
    – France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch “neutrality” with impunity by flying aircraft over the lowlands.
    – It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.

    “Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later…” (The Jewish Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Anon
  30. Wally says:
    @Philip Owen

    Who made a fair & reasonable deal.

    Want to talk about it?

    Thanks.

  31. Wally says:
    @j2

    LOL
    I guess Polish occupation of a large part Germany had noting to do with it.
    I guess Polish atrocities on Germans had nothing to do with.
    Poland even invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia.

    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

    ”under Polish pressure the Germans in the southern and eastern districts were subjected to oppressive treatment. On Aug. 19 1920 the Poles felt strong enough, indeed, to make an attempt to seize the country by force. On all sides bands of Poles, chiefly recruited from Congress Poland, usurped authority. A number of Germans were forcibly carried across the frontier into Poland, and many were killed. Several weeks elapsed before it was possible to quell this rising and restore order…It had been suggested by the Entente that non-resident Upper Silesians of the German Reich should vote outside Silesia, at Cologne. Germany protested against this, and her protest was recognized as valid by the Entente. In January 1921 the date of the plebiscite was fixed for March 20 1921.
    An immediate revival took place in the use of terrorism by the Poles, especially in the districts of Rybnik, Pless, Kattowitz, and Beuthen. It reached its climax in the days preceding the plebiscite. Voters from other parts of the German Reich were frequently refused admission to the polls; sometimes they were maltreated and even in some instances murdered; and houses where outvoters were staying were set on fire… The day after the plebiscite the Polish excesses recommenced, and from that date onwards continued without interruption… Practically all the towns voted for Germany… the first days of May witnessed a new Polish insurrection which assumed far greater proportions than the former one. Korfanty had secretly raised a well-organized Polish force which was provided with arms and munition from across the border, and was reinforced by large bodies of men from Poland…
    By June 20 the British troops had again occupied the larger towns, while the Poles had the upper hand in the rural districts. As a result of the difficulties in paying his men and providing them with food Korfanty now lost control over his followers. Independent bands were formed which plundered the villages, ill-treated the Germans, and murdered many of them.”

    – 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “SILESIA, UPPER”

    This article appeared in the Polish newspaper Die Liga der Grossmacht in October, 1930:

    A struggle between Poland and Germany is inevitable. We must prepare ourselves for it systematically. Our goal is a new Battle of Tannenberg. However, this time, a Tannenberg in the suburbs of Berlin. Prussia must be reconquered for Poland, and Prussia, indeed, as far as the River Spree. In a war with Germany there will be no prisoners…

    Tannenberg” refers to the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 when a Polish army defeated the German Teutonic Knights. The article is full of many more anti-German remarks.

    Also, Von Ribbentrop defended the attack of Poland by stating that between 1919-1939, one million Germans had been expelled from Polish territory accompanied by numerous atrocities, and that complaints to the World Court in The Hague and the League of Nations in Geneva had been ignored.
    IOW, the World Court did not find the accusations of Polish atrocities to be bogus.
    recommended: “Dokumente polnischer Grausamkeiten. Verbrechen an Deutschen 1919-1939 nach amtlichen Quellen” (Documentations of Polish Cruelties. Crimes Against Germans 1919-1939 According to Official Sources).: https://www.amazon.com/Dokumente-Polnischer-Grausamkeiten-Verbrechen-Deutschen/dp/3887411781

    • Replies: @j2
  32. Wally says:
    @Mikel

    Indeed.
    Germany’s preemptive attack on the USSR had nothing to do with ‘lebensraum”.
    Please actually read the article above and try again.

    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    and:
    The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving,, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    http://www.codoh.com

  33. The scalpel says: • Website

    The thesis is interesting, but not convincing. There is a difference between planning and preparing, and acting. Responsible defense requires planning and preparing. The moral response to a perceived threat is to ready one’s defenses. A competent defense makes the cost of attack impermissibly high. It keeps alive the possibility that both sides will forego violence. It gives the benefit of doubt to peace, not war.

    Preventive war pre-empts the possibility for peace and gives the benefit of doubt to war.

    In the event, Soviet defenses were not excessive, they were barely adequate. The defense planners calculations were vindicated.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @JP
  34. Because the US paid him to.

  35. renfro says:

    If you were around and reading the news back then you would know that in addition to expanding territory, the threat of Bolshevism coming to Germany was a major factor for Hitler.

    This edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck took place in 1923. It was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932

    ”When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home.”

    Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea, but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

    “Bolshevism,” the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany, continued, gazing at me balefully, “is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst.

    “The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St Germain are kept alive by Bolshevism in Germany. The Peace Treaty and Bolshevism are two heads of one monster. We must decapitate both.”

    continued…..https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

    Hitler attributed Bolshevism to the Jews, but then so did most other world leaders as in Churchills “Zionism and Bolshevism”:

    ”International Jews.
    In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. ”

  36. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    The bellicose germans are always attacking neighbours , the poor germans think they are racially superior . Now they attacking economically and psychologically other countries of the European Union , they will be defeated as usual , the EU will not last .

  37. refl says:

    I have recommended it here before: “Who set Hitler against Stalin” by Nikolai Starikov. The author concludes that the whole war on Hitlers part was a giant improvisation.

    It is devastating to see that a Russian nationalist Duma member gives more thought to what really happened back than then legions of western internet commentators, not even to speak of historical accademia. Think of Hitler as an intelligence asset installed to engage Germans, Russians and all of central Europe in a self-defeating fight to the death, leaving communism and bankerism as the lords of what once was the European world.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  38. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Great european monsters : Napoleon , Hitler , Churchill .

  39. Danilko says:

    Wonderful piece of crap…may be we can see here some analogy with the situation existing today between the « free » world and Russia/China to justify a First Strike…

    • Agree: RobinG
  40. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    The miserable finns , hungarians , romanians , slovaks …. hoped to get some bones from the ubermenschen , serving them to exterminate russians , miserable countries , miserable Europe

    • Replies: @ariadna
  41. Parfois1 says:

    Why does anyone take the author of this article seriously? My first reaction was to ignore it as a futile attempt to re-write history to whitewash Nazism; on the other hand, it might have had some new useful insight into the workings of Hitler’s brain, so I read the first paragraphs. But, alas, it was a waste of time for it is nothing more than rehashing the old platitudes of Nazi propaganda.

    A few years ago I heard the same platitudes – but this time coming from the new fascist state in Washington – before unleashing attacks on the Middle East and elsewhere in the world under the guise that they are a “threat to America’s interests”; in fact the same excuses used by the murderous fascist state of Israel when it attacks unarmed civilians.

    This article is cheap Nazi propaganda – and one wonders why it was allowed to appear in this respectable UNZ Review. Lack of suitable material for publication? Or just plain old-fashioned crass anti-sovietism?

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @CK
    , @Sin City Milla
  42. George says:

    Did the Soviet Union consciously lure the British and French Empires into a war with Germany by supporting Germany during the Polish conquest? Or was it just dumb luck?

  43. Gustav says:

    The end of a lie

    In 2015, a small German publisher publishes a book by Dr. Ing. rer. mil. Bernd Schwipper, Major General a. D of the East German Army (NVA): “Germany in the sights of Stalin”.

    Dr. Schwipper has studied at military academies in the GDR and in the Soviet Union and was most recently commander of an air defense division.

    His study is based on acts of the Soviet General Staff, which were temporarily accessible in the era of President Jeltzin.

    The operation, mobilization, infrastructure plans, etc., prove that Stalin planned the attack on Germany with the operational plans of 19 August 1940 (!), 18 September 1940, 11 March 1941 and 15 May 1941. All plans were purely offensive. It was preceded by wars of the Soviet Union against Poland, Finland, the Baltic States and Romania.

    Because of the strong border fortification in the east of Germany and the rapid German victory over France, the plans from August 1940 were not implemented.

    The preventive attack of the German Wehrmacht on June 21, 1941 came only a few days before the Soviet attack. The Soviet Union would have attacked Germany at the latest around July 10, 1941.

    The losses of the Red Army in the early days were enormous because of unprecedented defensive measures.

    From today’s point of view and knowledge of the published documents one must say, yes, the attack of the German army was preventive.

  44. In Mein Kampf Hitler clearly stated that he wanted Lebensraum in Russia, and in his Table Talk he waxed lyrical about how he would settle Germans in the East, use all its resources for Germany and reduce its Slavic population to serfdom. Nowhere in his Table Talk did he complain about Stalins “betrayal” of their mutual non-aggression pact. This renders the idea that Hitler’s attack on Russia was only preventive in intent doubtful. Stalin may have had aggressive intentions toward Germany, but Hitler did have those too toward Russia, and for different (“racial”) reasons. There were no “good guys” in WW II, everybody betrayed everybody.

  45. @j2

    “…The Lebensraum was supposed to be in the Baltic area, a bit higher up…”

    No Lebensraum was supposed to be in all of Eastern Europe up to the Urals.

    Read Generalplan Ost .

  46. @Sparkon

    No one was happier than Iosef Stalin when the Germans launched Barbarossa

    Yes he was so happy that he had a nervous breakdown you idiot. When the war started his politburo was so terrified to wake him up and tell him the ‘good news’ that they spent hours arguing as to who would break the news to him.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Sparkon
  47. @anon

    You made some claims, now attempt to substantiate them. Try reading the article while yer at it and remember that trolling isn’t well tolerated here.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  48. @european born

    Now tell us how the USSR was formed, and explain it while yer at it. Did you read the article? How many times was the word.”encirclement” used? Do you understand what it meant?

    Did you know that some New York Jews declared war on Germany in 1933, complete with boycotts and financing of international communism and that Marxists had been preaching about, advocating, and acting on the concept of violent worldwide revolution for many decades?

  49. @Philip Owen

    Next we need Neville Chamberlain on the same subject.

    And Roosevelt and Churchill who appeased Stalin in every way possible. And Churchill appeased the deranged Roosevelt as well.

  50. @Grahamsno(G64)

    No one was happier than Iosef Stalin when the Germans launched Barbarossa

    Yes he was so happy that he had a nervous breakdown you idiot. When the war started his politburo was so terrified to wake him up and tell him the ‘good news’ that they spent hours arguing as to who would break the news to him.

    Yeah,yeah, we all know the old canard about the tender hearted Stalin’s “noyvuss bweakdown.” What I’d like to know are your sources. Credible ones only, please.

    Before you waste yours and everyone else’s time, go back and read the article above, and ‘splain this.

    Influential American historians have for years accepted the official US view of the German-Soviet clash.

    And this.:

    This evidence also thoroughly discredits the simplistic portrayal of the German-Soviet clash, and indeed of the Second World War itself, that US officials and prominent historians presented to the American public during the war, and for years afterwards.

    We’ve had nearly a century now to understand that we’ve been lied to; what’s taking you so long to get a clue?

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    -Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time

    PS: Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber. Read him and wake up.Take his advice and start asking questions. Don’t be a dupe.

  51. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes, just ask General Vlasov

    I came to you the Germans to fight. This is my profession, I have been doing this for more than 25 years. I believe that I am still quite a skilled and experienced general and military leader. I was also the Deputy Commissar of Defense. … And here in Germany, I [am not needed]. My application was rejected. They didn’t even talk to me. I managed to win the sympathy of only one person with whom I communicate a lot and to whom I express my opinion. But he is just a captain. And gentlemen above the title does not seem interested in me. Oh yes, I am Untermensch.

    But from a purely professional point of view, I can not understand you. I know Stalin personally, I know his habits, I can predict his actions in certain situations. I also know all the top military leaders of the Soviet Union, I can say exactly what each of them is capable of. But you Germans seem to know everything much better. My opinion is not interesting to anyone. As a result, I sit in my house in Dalem, sunbathe in the garden and play cards, while there are battles on all fronts.

    From an interview Vlasov gave to an SS captain

    Regardless of why the war started, the German arrogance towards ethnic Slavs is one of the worst mistakes in history.

  52. Here’s another perspective for the gulls, dupes, and other forms of true believers… especially the fool who posted “Drang nach Osten” as if it validates the standard tripe.

    War propaganda has obscured the true facts of history, otherwise Americans might realize that the German record is no more aggressive, if as aggressive, as that of the French, British, and Dutch who conquered huge empires in Asia and Africa while the Germans stayed at home composing music, studying philosophy, and listening to their poets. Not so long ago the Germans were, in fact, among the most “peace-loving” peoples of the world and might become so again, given a world in which it is possible to live in peace.

    FREDA UTLEY, The High Cost of Vengeance. Chapter 5 • German Democracy between Scylla and Charybdis

    • Agree: Iris, Zumbuddi, apollonian
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  53. @The scalpel

    The thesis is interesting, but not convincing.

    Just like your comment.

    There is a difference between planning and preparing, and acting.

    Duh. FYI, you may want to state that as a plural for the sake of improved accuracy.

    Responsible defense requires planning and preparing.

    Profound, yup.

    The moral response to a perceived threat is to ready one’s defenses.

    Especially when preparing defenses to Marxist “world revolution” agitation acting in concert with moneyed imperialists’ ambitions. Are you trying to virtue signal or is this just simple minded smugness, or what? Do you and the rest of the gulls have a clue about what had been taking place in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin?

    A competent defense makes the cost of attack impermissibly high.

    But this takes time and resources. I’d guess that it would be much more difficult with a Versailles-like rope around one’s neck.

    Next time you may want to consider honing yer scalpel, doc.

    • Replies: @The scalpel
  54. @Gustav

    The losses of the Red Army in the early days were enormous because of unprecedented defensive measures.

    I think you meant to write,” The losses of the Red Army in the early days were enormous because of unprecedented lack of defensive measures on Stalin’s part.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  55. I think someone previously noted this.

    Pre-emptive warfare is not new and rife with speculative reasons why someone is attacking someone else.

    Botton line Germany did not have much of a case for war. The Allied powers had largely given up their attempts to exact revenge on Germany as evidenced by their failure to respond to Germany’s violations.

    Chancellor Hitler’s gambit was neither justified nor well thought out.

  56. @refl

    …leaving communism and bankerism as the lords of what once was the European world.

    That should be crystal clear to anyone able to breathe on his own given what’s been going vis a vis US military gangsterism even to this day. They don’t even try to hide it any longer.

    Major General Butler and many others were correct.

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism*.”

    -Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    * Marxism was a capitalist funded program from the start.

  57. Jake says:

    “I did so with heavy heart, above all because when the German Reich gives a guarantee, that means it also abides by it. We are neither Englishmen nor Jews.”

    Anglo-Zionist Empire, baby! Not marked by truth telling but by perpetual dissembling and chicanery to be the One Ring That Rules Them All. WASPs and Jews both defined by lying, together, allied in their lying which serves the purpose of amassing ever more wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority of white Gentiles, especially those who are historic Christian.

    Like a stopped clock, even a Christ hating Nazi can be correct a couple of times per day.

    Which is how Stalin realized what a Satanically blood-lusting freak Trotsky was compared to even himself.

    WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.

  58. Moi says:

    Could be, despite what we are told, Adolf was the least evil of the leaders of the time. I hear the crap that comes out of the mouths of our leaders–and Bibi–and I know lying is their default speech.

  59. @j2

    Annexing Austria, then Czechoslovakia, which was a part of Austria before the WWI. And then the war with Poland.

    So many lies and ridiculousness in just one sentence.

    Austria was not annexed, they rejoined the Reich after 98% referendum. Austrians are German people, for a very long time, the Reich had two capitals, Berlin and Vienna. What belongs together goes together, hence German troops paraded in Vienna, and Austrian mountain troopers paraded in Berlin.

    You refer to the Sudetenland? I would refer to the Munich agreement the signatory allies broke. Soviet forward airfields also played a role.

    GERMANY, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon, and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for the steps necessary to secure its fulfilment:

    (1) The evacuation will begin on 1st October.

    (2) The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by the 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed, and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.

    (3) The conditions governing the evacuation will be laid down in detail by an international commission composed of representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Czechoslovakia.

    (4) The occupation by stages of the predominantly German territory by German troops will begin on 1st October. The four territories marked on the attached map will be occupied by German troops in the following order:

    The territory marked No. I on the 1st and 2nd of October; the territory marked No. II on the 2nd and 3rd of October; the territory marked No. III on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of October; the territory marked No. IV on the 6th and 7th of October. The remaining territory of preponderantly German character will be ascertained by the aforesaid international commission forthwith and be occupied by German troops by the 10th of October.

    (5) The international commission referred to in paragraph 3 will determine the territories in which a plebiscite is to be held. These territories will be occupied by international bodies until the plebiscite has been completed. The same commission will fix the conditions in which the plebiscite is to be held, taking as a basis the conditions of the Saar plebiscite. The commission will also fix a date, not later than the end of November, on which the plebiscite will be held.

    (6) The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission. The commission will also be entitled to recommend to the four Powers, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, in certain exceptional cases, minor modifications in the strictly ethnographical determination of the zones which are to be transferred without plebiscite.

    (7) There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territories, the option to be exercised within six months from the date of this agreement. A German-Czechoslovak commission shall determine the details of the option, consider ways of facilitating the transfer of population and settle questions of principle arising out of the said transfer.

    (8) The Czechoslovak Government will within a period of four weeks from the date of this agreement release from their military and police forces any Sudeten Germans who may wish to be released, and the Czechoslovak Government will within the same period release Sudeten German prisoners who are serving terms of imprisonment for political offences.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/munich1.asp

    The Czechs have to this day the anti-German, kind of raycist Benes decrees in place, even the EUSSR complained.

    Massacres on German population, discrimination, prohibition of German language in stolen German territory after Versailles is nothing any German true chancellor can ignore due to his oath he swears to protect the German peoples.

    The situation is comparable with Ukraine, Donbass and Crimea. Yes, Putin studied closely these things, he speaks a good German, knows the truth, but keeps repeating the nonsensical Soviet narrative in public.

    You people are hopelessly trapped in your on web of lies, deceit, and you have no clue how to get out of it.

    • Agree: jacques sheete, Wally
    • Replies: @Pandos
  60. @jacques sheete

    “…the German record is no more aggressive, if as aggressive, as that of the French, British, and Dutch who conquered huge empires in Asia and Africa while the Germans stayed at home composing music, studying philosophy, and listening to their poets…”

    Admitted the Germans didn’t start to colonize as early as the French, the British and the Dutch. After all, they became a united nation only in 1871. But since 1884 they stopped “listening to their poets” and started to colonize : Togo, Cameroon, Kenya, South West Africa, Papua and Micronesia. And in spite of their previous “composing music, studying philosophy and listening to their poets”, they committed crimes to their colonial populations too. See : Wikipedia, German Colonial Empire, Rebellions and Genocide.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wally
  61. @jacques sheete

    Was Hitler’s Drang nach Osten really less bad than Stalin’s Drang nach Westen ?

  62. Wally says:
    @j2

    said:
    “As for Hitler’s general plans for gaining areas in the east, istn’t that in Mein Kampf explained well enough.=, and Germany did attack to Poland (regardless of what caused it.)”

    Your comments above debunk your own position that Hitler attacked to gain land in the east.
    All that you describe would have made such a plan next to impossible.

    Hitler simply HAD to attack the USSR when he did or else, it was a risk he had to take.
    Whereas any desire for land could easily have been put off until conditions were more favorable.

    Yes, Germany attacked Poland after much Polish aggression and land seizures. Poland was asking for and deserved it.

  63. Wally says:
    @j2

    Yet you dodge my comment #29 & 31 while you just make up what serves your Zionist agenda.

    http://www.codoh.com

  64. Wally says:
    @j2

    said”
    “But Mein Kampf mentions Jews on almost every page, so that was something essential to Hitler. ”

    No it doesn’t.

    Yes he talks about Jews, like this site talks about the sleazy Usual Enemies of Free Speech as it should, but so what?
    And when was Mein Kampf even written? The conditions of 1939 were certainly different.

    USSR’s Kruschev said “We will bury you, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini called the US the “Great Satan”, so what? Neither attacked the US.

    Once again, you tellingly dodge the comments which refute your claims.

  65. anonymous[727] • Disclaimer says:

    1. The Red Army did not outnumber Germany and her allies in 1941.
    It was was close to even. The Russians did have an enormous RESERVE military of 10 to 15M. It is best to think of this as an express draft. This was a perfect organization for defensive, not offensive operations. The Russians were able to call them up to create more defensive lines depriving Hitler of an early victory in 1941.

    2. Tanks.
    The Red Army did have a large number of tanks but 90% were the obsolete BT with thin armor and the undersized 45mm gun. The Russians were replacing that with the more modern T34 / KV85 but is this strictly an offensive weapon? No.

    Look at how the Germans used their tanks on the eastern front when they were on the retreat. They used them as fire fighting brigades to try to counter Red Army break throughs. The Russian landscape is vast. They just got experience fighting the Japanese in their vast eastern border. Why wouldn’t they plan on having mobile units to defend their territory. It is silly to say that tanks purely an offensive weapon. How would they fight defensively against an army that had tanks if didn’t have their own tank force.
    – Christian J. Chuba

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  66. @Mulegino1

    “Soviet-Anglo-American invaders”? Hardy, har har… and sorry, pal — once USA entered the war, the Nazis were finished.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Mike P
  67. Epigon says:

    Quoting Soviet aircraft and tank inventory numbers immediately paints the author as an amateur.

    http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/07/common-questions-red-army-afvs-in.html?_sm_au_=iVV2fMPRPRvTFknV

    Regarding aircraft inventory – Soviets were severely lacking in both modern monoplane fighters and pilots trained to fly them. The most numerous were I-153 biplane and I-16 monoplane of mid-1930s vintage. The organisation was flawed, VVS and PVO, aircraft regiments with a mix of fighters, CS and tactical bombers.

    Soviets caught up with German designs quality-wise only with the advent of Yak-3, Yak-9 and La-5/7 fighters (in different situations, vs. contemporary Bf-109 and FW-190 models).

    RKKA was in the middle of expansion and re-armament process. The famous T-34 was originally never planned to be full-scale production model – indeed, it was scheduled to be replaced by T-34M on production lines in July 1941, with complete replacement by November 1941, relegating it to training and second-line units; this tank design had a three-man turret, commander cupola, torsion bar suspension and was de facto a fusion of German delivered Panzer III and T-34, along with T-50, a similar scout/light tank that would have replaced the myriad of obsolete soviet light tanks of 1930s.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  68. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    You mean the Generalplan Ost which never existed

    Generalplan Ost is a laughable & fake Zionist creation. There was / is no such authentic Generalplan Ost German document. Simple as that. Show us if you can. You cannot.

    This supposed to be a believable title page? LOL

    Not a single signature anywhere on any page.
    Nothing to verify that it is authentic. Nothing whatsoever.
    Nothing whatsoever to show that the entire text is anything but manufactured text.

    Even the Zionist biased Wiki said about the bogus Generalplan Ost:”
    “Thus, no copies of the plan were found after the war among the documents in German archives. Apart from Ehlich’s testimony, there are several documents which refer to this plan or are supplements to it. Although no copies of the actual document have survived, most of the plan’s essential elements have been reconstructed from related memos, abstracts and other ancillary documents.”

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Mike P
  69. Wally says:
    @j2

    I remind the readers here that this is the same j2 who claims that the Germans shot millions of Jews, for which the human remains cannot be shown even though Jews claim that those alleged immense remains actually exist in precisely know locations.

    See j2 attempt his dancing seal act in the comments here:

    American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @j2
  70. @Anon

    It was Trotsky who wanted to wage a global revolution and his accolites today are The NeoCon scum that infest our government. Stalin was merely a thug, but he always sought compromise and accommodation with the west.

    True. But Stalin always sought to milk the West and did, spectacularly.

    Churchill played him for a fool.

    That’s backwards. Churchill hated Stalin and the Reds, but kissed the Red queen FDR’s arse as FDR was kissing Stalin’s. Maybe the old glamour queen sot was too drunk to notice, though.

    Read all about it here, -Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II

    Note: A better title would have been The Raw Dealer’s and One Worlder’s War: The 20 the Century Wars for Domination of the World. FDR and Stalin were competing for Dictator of the World; Stalin won, along with his international banking buddies.

  71. “Po lil Germany dindu nuffin. “

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @jacques sheete
  72. @obwandiyag

    This is disingenuous in the extreme. Of course the Russians were preparing like crazy for a German invasion. Look what happened. Sheesh.

    Your comment is superficial in the extreme. Pssst, look what happened to Germany, and why.

    Can you name the 4 largest empires of the time, and can you understand why Germany was motivated to avoid becoming another victim of their crimes and One World aspirations?

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  73. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    read the book :

    Soldaten , Protokolle von Kämpfen , Töten und Sterben

    Sönke Neitzel , Harald Weltzer

    S. Fischer Verlag GMBH , Franfurt am Main , 2011

  74. Pandos says:
    @Hillbob

    jews got the knife before they gave the knife.

  75. Great article, genosse Goebbels himself would be proud.

  76. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Kieve and Minsk were bombed at dawn on 22 June. They had nothing to do with Poland.

    • Replies: @Anon
  77. RobinG says:
    @Parfois1

    Are you new to the comments? The ranks of UR readers are laced with Nazi fan-boys…and girls, not to mention the regular dose of racist columnists and bloggers. They cheer each other on.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  78. @Wally

    Google “non-combatant soviet losses in WW2”

    • Replies: @Anon
  79. Epigon says:

    Comments are pure gold.
    Attack on USSR was already agreed upon in 1940.
    Start date of May 15th was desired in Weissung 21, June 10th in Weissung 32 – due to late Spring rains making movement difficult and ponds and rivers difficult to cross.

    During Cold war, the myth of Operation Maritsa taking away German forces scheduled for Barbarossa appeared. Then it was fleshed out with nonsense on missing third Panzer group based in Romania, even though the double-envelopment from Iassi was discarded as impossible to pull off due to Dniester during that time of the year.

    Soviet Union was definitely not planning a war in 1941 – in fact – artillery, tank, aviation all had their modernization and re-equipment scheduled to end by Spring/Summer of 1942.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  80. When political declarations are cited as proof, this tells us all we need to know about the author. Case closed.

  81. RobinG says:
    @jacques sheete

    Oooh, we’re so scared! Everybody hide, incoming ad hominem!

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Anon
  82. Epigon says:
    @jacques sheete

    Yes, it is a big deal.

    Not to you, but to those who don’t want to share the fate of Wends, Serby, Carinthians, Prussians, Rusyns, Serbs.

    Or see a repetition of 4th Crusade.

  83. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    Good points , so nearly all europeans were a bunch of warmongering blood thirsty degenerates , they wanted a war , they got a war , 50 million dead , plus 25 million in the great war ,

    • Replies: @Hillbob
  84. @Franklin Ryckaert

    See : Wikipedia, German Colonial Empire, Rebellions and Genocide.

    I won’t bother; Wikipedia is not a creditable source on the topic at hand. No serious historian, amateur or professional would offer that as a source.

  85. The scalpel says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    Definitely not virtue signaling. I don’t have any virtues! You can check my references on that. Whatever the perceived costs and inadequacies of defense, the costs and inadequacies of attacking the same enemy are higher, all else equal. Military science 101. Proof: How did things work out with that operation Barbarrosa any way?

    My point was simply to say that peace is preferable to war. I base this on the assumptions that human life has value and that the troops doing the dying on each side have more in common than the politicians they foolishly fight for. I doubt the common man on either side cares much about, or even understands the political philosophy of their so-called leaders. I see all politicians in general as corrupt and amoral no matter what flag they wave.

    My advice is to learn a valuable skill, live a peaceful life, let other fools go off to war. Change or ignore what one can in terms of oppression to whatever extent one is fulfilled by doing so. Accept the rest, relying on one’s value to other human beings and one’s wits to survive. It is best to have a good amount of both. Humans being what they are, there is bound to be oppression of one political stripe or another. Recognize it like a grizzly bear in the woods, and learn to survive with it there.

    Feel free to correct any grammatical mistakes in the above reply 😉

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  86. CK says:
    @Parfois1

    Both.
    And a complete inability to remember any Russian history.
    The thesis relies on the imaginings of a man who tries to steal the name
    of the most successful general in western history.
    The last of the invaders of Russia following the Revolution and the Allied Invasions at Archangel and Vladivostok departed Siberia in 1925, and these same invaders were back and attacking Russian territory in 1939. At the battle of Khalkhin Gol then Col. Zhukov handed the Japanese such a defeat as to cause that nation to enter into a mutual non-aggression pact with the USSR.
    That Stalin did not trust the assertions of the USA and the UK is not surprising given how they had arrogated to themselves the right to reverse the outcome of the Russian revolution.
    Churchill hated Russia and disliked Hitler, it was his “brilliant” idea that the two of them should bleed themselves to death on the steppes of Russia. Unfortunately for Churchill, the Germans did all the bleeding after 1942. By the beginning of 1944 it was evident that Russia did not need the help of the USA and the UK to defeat the remains of the German military and that there was nothing between the Russian Armies and the English Channel and the Pyrenees mountains.
    So, suddenly, after 5 years of inability and unwillingness, D-Day is arranged. Without D-day, Paris would have been liberated by Russian troops. Maybe they would have remembered the treatment afforded Moscow when Napoleon “liberated”?

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  87. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Was Hitler’s Drang nach Osten really less bad than Stalin’s Drang nach Westen ?

    Why even ask such a question? Stalin’s and the bankster and other millionaire Reds’ Drang nach die ganze Welt was unquestionably worse.

    Pleas don’t tell me that you’e still advocating the policies of the Neo Crazies’ One World goals!

    • Replies: @Epigon
  88. Agent76 says:

    It Happened In Paris: WWII Nazi Occupation (1942 & 1944)

    Watch this stunning footage of Nazi occupied France captured surreptitiously by a brave Pathé cameraman, Gaston Madru, from 1942 to 1944. It gives a snapshot of everything from swastikas flying from French buildings to the German retreat from France in 1944.

  89. @Epigon

    Attack on USSR was already agreed upon in 1940.

    …in August 1939…the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany after the British and French rejected Soviet offers to establish a military alliance against Germany.

    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ussr

  90. @RobinG

    Everybody hide, incoming ad hominem!

    Too late…they were launched a few comments back.

    #78 RobinG says:Next New Comment
    March 21, 2019 at 2:13 pm GMT
    @Parfois1
    Are you new to the comments? The ranks of UR readers are laced with Nazi fan-boys…and girls, not to mention the regular dose of racist columnists and bloggers. They cheer each other on.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  91. Epigon says:
    @jacques sheete

    You do realise Stalin abandoned Leninist and Trotskyst “permanent revolution” and “world revolution”, in favour of a centralised, “socialism-in-a-single-state” model?

  92. Agent76 says:

    German Invasion Of Russia – June 1941 (1941)

    Panning shot along road of advancing German troops passing retreating Russian prisoners. Various shots of German infantry advancing through smoke and rubble strewn town.

  93. @The scalpel

    Hey scalpel, your last comment was much better than your first one, and I, a fellow virtue free opinionator, agree with all except this which demonstrates a severe lack of context appreciation.:

    Whatever the perceived costs and inadequacies of defense, the costs and inadequacies of attacking the same enemy are higher, all else equal. Military science 101.

    I know nothing of military science, but I can imagine what it would be like to be faced with brutal imperialist and One World enemies on all sides.

    Proof: How did things work out with that operation Barbarrosa any way?

    How would they have likely worked out without Barbarossa? What would you have done? Please don’t tell me you’d do an FDR or a tRump and bend over.

    • Replies: @The scalpel
  94. @Sergeant Glory

    “Soviet-Anglo-American invaders”? Hardy, har har… and sorry, pal — once USA entered the war, the Nazis were finished.

    Ever ask yourself why some New York Jews declared another war on Germany in 1933? Now, tell us when the USA entered the war.

    • Replies: @Wally
  95. Mulegino1 says:

    The deployment of the Soviet forces on June 21, 1941 is sufficient evidence that Operation Barbarossa was a preventative/preemptive attack.

    They were deployed in offensive positions along an east/west axis, in vulnerable salients.

    Why was the 9th Rifle Army on the Romanian border- within easy striking distance of the oil fields- if the Soviets were in defensive mode?

    Why was light infantry deployed in the Carpathians, when heavy infantry would have been more effective for defensive purposes?

    What- other than aggressive intent explains the forward Soviet air forces lying on their tarmacs in close proximity to the front lines? Virtually their entire front line air force was destroyed on the first day of Barbarossa.

    The idea that the Soviet forces were an incompetent, “staggering Colossus” is false. The Soviet forces under Zhukov had crushed the Japanese at the Battle of Khalkin Gol, and gave such an admirable account of themselves at the defense of Brest that Hitler himself ordered that the defenders be given full prisoner of war status-even though the Soviets were not signatories to the Geneva Convention and refused prisoner of war protections to Axis prisoners.

    Germany was clearly not ready for a long term war against the USSR- most of its artillery was still horse drawn, its tanks were inferior to their Soviet counterparts. It is clear that Hitler knew that Barbarossa was a desperate gamble, yet struck anyway because he knew that any hesitation in doing so would have resulted in an aggressive and overwhelming Soviet avalanche against Europe, silly stories about “lebensraum” and Slavophobia notwithstanding.

    • Agree: Mike P
  96. MEFOBILLS says:
    @anon

    Nazis did not aim for any security reasons, no matter what they said. Its objectives were to annex lands, to exploit natural resources and to enslave and annihilate the inhabitants of the Soviet Union

    All of history can be reduced to creditor vs debtor. The creditor class becomes a plutocracy, then it controls the polity, then it makes sure debtors remain indebted, to continue the plutocracy.

    To paraphrase Ezra Pound, democracy is just a code word for Jewish run society. This means that money controls the polity.

    The money power, really international banking credit, took root in England in 1694, and then proceeded to radiate outward from London.

    This money power to used to create a one world government, using one world money, with a corresponding animating religious ideology of Tikkun (repairing the world) for the special people to own/run said world.

    This theme cannot be overlooked, especially in the context of National Socialism. NS was a serious attempt to break down class lines, and have one volk all rowing in unison. This provided a flank that Jewish power could not easily penetrate.

    NS also did a pretty good job of eliminating Jewish plutocrats grip on money power within Germany, which is why they were so effective at countering the Jewish usury method.

    Bolshevism WAS funded into existence by Wall Street interests (Jewish), so Communism cannot be divorced from Jewish finance capitalism.. They are flip sides of the same thing, both of which are pyramid control mechanisms… to control sheeple goyim by extracting their wealth in various forms, most especially to extract through debt enslavement.

    To repeat: finance capitalist west and communist Russia were flip sides of the same coin. Both were being “string pulled” by Jewish plutocracy intent on becoming its own messiah, and murdering anybody who gets in their way of global domination.

    Stalin didn’t become a National Communist until later. Around time of operation Barbarossa
    it wasn’t clear if Stalin was an International Communist doing bidding of International Jews, or if he was a National Communist doing bidding of Slavs.

    By 1946 it was clear that Stalin had pivoted away from the international.

    This third way of National Socialism (and Italian Fascism) was a threat to the Jewish world order of international credit and no national borders (with Jews being in charge by pulling strings).

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  97. anonomy says:
    @Hillbob

    So if Hitler was planning war against the Jewish Soviets, why wouldn’t he put the Jewish people in camps or ask them to leave? Is that any different than the US putting Japanese and Germans in camps? Were the communists antagonizing in other countries such as Germany? Now over to the Soviet Gulag, was that because of war plans?

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  98. @Epigon

    You do realise Stalin abandoned Leninist and Trotskyst “permanent revolution” and “world revolution”, in favour of a centralised, “socialism-in-a-single-state” model?

    Do you realize that if I were to take him at face value on that topic, that I would also realize that it was no doubt a temporary expedient?

    You do realize that there are things politicians say that are for public consumption and things they say behind closed doors? Do you realize that sometimes their actions are not consistent with their claims and that all of the above can change in a flash, then back again, in a heartbeat?

  99. @Epigon

    And another thing…

    You do realise Stalin abandoned Leninist and Trotskyst “permanent revolution” and “world revolution”, in favour of a centralised, “socialism-in-a-single-state” model?

    You do realize that was essentially what Hitler was aiming for, don’t you? Why was only one damned for it? Whose model was less brutal?

    • Replies: @RI
  100. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yep, a Zionist citing Zionist controlled Wikipedia which guarantees that anything of interest to Jews is so manipulated.

    And that’s the best that Franklin, fake Generalplan Ost, Ryckaert con conjure.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  101. RH says:

    This article is a complete waste of time, although it does have novelty value. I have never seen, or thought I would see, Ribbentrop quoted at face value. The author thinks either that his readers are credulous idiots, or is one himself. Does he actually think that his description of Soviet military capability reflects reality?

    • Replies: @David In TN
  102. Wally says:
    @jacques sheete

    “Ever ask yourself why some New York Jews declared another war on Germany in 1933? Now, tell us when the USA entered the war.”

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  103. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Epigon

    You do realize that you cannot attach a specific date as to when Stalin rejected Trotsky International Jew method.

    The Jews in Russia had not been marginalized by time of Operation Barbarossa. They were slowly being tricked by Stalin, or Stalin hadn’t pivoted yet – nobody can tell.

    So, now we all have to believe that Hitler was Omniscient and had perfect 20/20 forward vision, when we cannot even agree in hindsight?

    Much of Russian military was offensive in nature – that is clear, and it was pointed at Germany, and indeed the West had maneuvered to be buddies with “Uncle Joe.”

    AND… most especially, the German economic model, the model for governing German state, was antithetical to Jewish International Plutocracy.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  104. Wally says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Well, Germany did fight back.

    Is that the best you can do?

  105. Sean says:

    WW2 was a continuation of WW1. And long before, Fredrick the Great (Hitler’s personal hero) had been attacked by a Russian led alliance. The German nation united was just too strong, and so as it progressively grew it had natural enemies of great size. Did Russia attack Prussia because Fredrick had said the Tsarina was into horses? Partly I suppose yes, but those two powers were never going to be friends for ever

  106. All of history can be reduced to creditor vs debtor.

    And if not all, then certainly a good portion of it can be.

    One of my favorite quotes.:

    Even Aristophanes knew the score. From his satire on a communistic government to be run by women:

    Praxagora:
    Where did the lender get the money from in the first place, if all the money belongs to everyone? Obviously, he’s a thief!

    Aristophanes, “Women in Parliament”(also known as “The Assembly Women” or “Women in Power”) κκλησιάζουσαι

    Written 390 BCE, Translated by G. THEODORIDIS

  107. Wally says:
    @Hillbob

    You mean the “murderous Nazis” who gave Auschwitz inmates the choice to stay or leave with them when they pulled out.

    Most left with the “murderous Nazis” while thousands of others were allowed to stay just so thy could tell the world about the extermination of Jews that supposedly occurred there.

    Please give us proof that the ‘Nazis’ were particularly “murderous”.

    It’s a simple, reasonable request.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Hillbob
    , @Hillbob
  108. EugeneGur says:
    @Rex Germanicus

    Maybe we should outlaw questioning the motives and actions of the “vile war of aggression on the innocent Soviet Union”, too.

    Question by all means, just don’t lie and distort the facts. Psychologically, I understand the desire of the Germans to “question” the facts. However, it’s a dangerous path to take, and it’s already led Germany to support the Ukrainian Nazis, the same exact people the Nazi Germany supported and used 75 years ago. It seems to me like Germany never learns.

    The fact remains that it wasn’t the Soviet Union, with all its might, that initiated the attack, but Germany. And the behavior of the Germans – and not just the Germans, mind you, for almost the entire Europe joined in the fun – completely negates even the most remote claim that they were “defending” themselves.

    “Innocent” – I don’t know what that means, but a war of aggression it undoubtedly was, no matter how you try to spin it. You know, even when you attack a country you intensely dislike, it’s still a war of aggression.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Wally
    , @Sin City Milla
  109. MEFOBILLS says:

    Operation Barbarossa is number 6.

    https://archive.org/details/EUROPATheLastBattlePart6#

    Change url ending letters to Part1#, Part2#, Part3#….Part10# if you want to watch the series.

  110. AWM says:

    Clearly both sides were preparing for offensive actions. It is inconceivable that the coming conflict was not apparent to all after Germany scuttled the invasion of Britain. This must have been a great concern to Stalin. When the great mass of Soviet war material was discovered in the weeks in June/July following the invasion, German generals must have realized that they had no better than one chance in three at absolute best of emerging victorious as scheduled if allowed full authority to prosecute the war without interference.

    While it is easy to claim delays hurt the Germans, and they certainly did, the fall of Moscow would not have ended the war, a much more potentially successful campaign after the initial attack would have been to wheel south toward the Baku oil fields. While there is almost no possibility seizure could be accomplished it might have been a big enough threat to get a negotiated settlement while maintaining the bulk of German forces with only minor damage.

    Why didn’t Stalin send strong forces toward Ploiesti when Hitler was occupied in Western Europe is the question I have always wondered. This would have left him in a position of strength that would have even allowed him to absorb all of Europe through political as well as military solutions.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  111. EugeneGur says:
    @jacques sheete

    Can you name the 4 largest empires of the time, and can you understand why Germany was motivated to avoid becoming another victim of their crimes

    If Germany was anyone’s victim, it was of its own stupidity and arrogance. Germany was crushed because it lost WWI it had a hand in initiating. It was crushed again in 1945, because it lost yet another war it started.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Anon
  112. @Mikel

    The Winter War has been seriously misunderstood. The Finns were the second best soldiers of the war, defending their homes and fighting in a brutal environment that favored the defense. After initial missteps (and of course in typical Soviet manner they thoughtlessly fed men to the meat grinder), the Soviets recovered and imposed harsh terms on the Finns. (They acquired about 10% of Finnish economic output.). They were plainly unsphased by their experience, as they reimposed demands on the Finns later in 1940. The Winter War says absolutely nothing about Soviet preparedness and intents in the summer of 1941.

  113. Johann says:
    @j2

    Read Peter Hitches ew book called The Phony Victory. He does a very good job of explaining how much we were taught about the beginning of WWII is so much bs. Apparently a big pusher of the war was Winston Churchill whose number one concern was maintaining the British Empire. Much of the myth of Chamberlain at Munich being a traitor and the Polish Question was stirred up by unresolved issue from the corrupt Treaty on Versailles which was cobbled together by Wilson and his cohorts in the One World Government movement. Apparently FDR had a lot of contact with Stalin and FDR’s wife was an operative for the American Communist Party. So many of our history books were concocted by the Anglo American Bolshevik empire and still is today.

  114. @Wally

    Well, Germany did fight back.

    It is really astonishing, how everything is spun and turned upside down.

    The corporate Weimar regime, the democratic tyranny and masonic incompetence installed in 1919, did not make any concessions in regard to the Westprussia, the Danzig issue.
    They did not concede even an inch of Westprussia. It was the NS government that made compromises, offered the corridor, joint run infrastructure such as railway and highway.

    It is for no country a viable option to have one part cut off from the rest by a hostile force. Alaska would be an issue, if Canada was hostile to the US.

    The puppet Poles rejected any solution and their radio aired crazy speeches by polish generals proclaiming the intention to take Berlin due to british and french support promises. That went well for the Poles, and they don’t learn, the US do the same with them in relation to Russia as the Brits and French did in relation to Germany.

    • Replies: @Iris
  115. @Wally

    Here is a comment on this subject that I made at Lasha Darkmoon’s website referring to her article “In Stalin’s Gulags”, March 6, 2019 :

    [MORE]

    Franklin Ryckaert
    September 13, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    @ LUCA K

    Here is an example of one of my “projections” out of sheer ignorance of course :

    “The foundation of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great was a
    fatal event in the history of Europe; and St. Petersburg must therefore disappear utterly from the earth’s surface. Moscow, too. Then the Russians will retire into Siberia.
    It is not by taking over the miserable Russian hovels that we shall establish ourselves as masters in the East. The German colonies must be organised on an altogether higher plane.
    We have never before driven forward into empty spaces. The German people have absorbed both northern and southern Austria, and the original inhabitants are still there; but they were Sorb-Wends, members of basic European stock, with othing in common with the Slavs.
    As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilising him, goes straight off into a concentration camp !”

    Source : Hitler’s Table Talk [PDF], p.617 (google that).

    So your “innocent” Hitler who “only wanted to defend Germany” clearly talks about :

    1) Destroying St. Petersburg and Moscow.
    2) Establishing the Germans as “masters” in the East.
    3) Organizing German colonies.
    4) The fact that Germans expanded in the past, but did not mix with Slavs, implying that they are “racially inferior” to them.
    5) He calls the hundred million Slavs in the East “ridiculous” and promises to mold the best of them to the shape that suits the Germans, and to isolate the rest in their pig-styes.
    6) He says : “Anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilise him, goes straight off into a concentration camp.”

    The only way you can wriggle out of that is by saying that Hitler’s Table Talk was “written by the Jews”.
    Good luck with that!

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anon
  116. @european born

    Next Mr Weber will claim that Germany invaded Norway because Germany feared being invaded by the fearsome Vikings.

    • Replies: @Wally
  117. Hitler might have won, had he not been forced to delay the invasion of the USSR until June. The delay was caused by him having to bail out Mussolini in Greece. So Mussolini’s foolishness in invading Greece may have cost the Axis powers the war.

    • Replies: @Sean
  118. The scalpel says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    First off, a good defense would deter an attack by making the costs impermissiby high. If the attackers are too ignorant to see this, then a vigorous defense will irreparably weaken the attacker and make them susceptible to a devestating counter attack.

    So far, so good. In the event that the defenses are severely overmatched such as the scenario you describe, attacking by such an overmatched force would be suicide. In that case, the best bet is to disband and deprive the attacker of targets, then reform in small groups to engage in irregular warfare. See Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

    Regarding Barbarrosa, I think the Soviets would have been deterred by German defenses until such time that the Allies had fatally weakened Germany. That scenario would only have been possible because Germany ATTACKED first. Until then, the Allies were deterred by German defenses (peace in our time and all that)

    Finally, somewhat ironically, for now I am in favor of the proliferation of WMD’s and the means to deliver them anywhere. As is, non-nuclear countries are faced with irregular warfare as their only defense against superpowers. The ability to deliver a WMD is an adequate deterrent – see North Korea.

    Ideally, I would like to see the proliferation of effective defensive missiles. Any country with enough of those could deter an attack with a credible threat to wipe out all the attackers aircraft, ships, and armor, thus avoiding the need for WMD’s as a deterrent. I hope this day is not too far off.

    Again, in the big picture, I emphasize the individuals responsibility to choose peace as I described above. That course is the most moral and most logical for individuals with the intelligence and ability to do it. If practiced on a wide scale, it could hinder nation’s abilities to engage in aggressive war, especially in the age of WMD’s. You can get anything you want at Alice’s Restaurant….

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  119. @Wally

    When the last German dies of a heart attack after strangling the last Jew the world will be a better place.

    You German apologists are not any different than the Holohoax whiners.

    • LOL: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anon
  120. @anon

    Apparently you have delved more deeply into hysteria and the hysterical and done even less than minimally serious reading of the authentically documented history of the Third Reich and more importantly even less into the machinations of Britain’s Secret Society and FDR whose mendacity, hypocrisy, treachery and treason exceeds that of the sociopathic if not psychopathic Churchill as instigators of WW II!

  121. Sean says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/99spring/hooker.htm

    That is not what RD Hooker or RHS Stolfi said. According to Stolfi stopping in front of Smolensk for well over a month was a fatal error.

  122. That’s all we need, more wars in Europe ( in this case reasons why war was necessary ) so that more White people are killed. Itz not enough that about 37 million White people died in World War one and about 60 million died in World War two.

    At this rate there won’t be too many White people left in Europe. Add to this that White people no longer want to have babies and soon Europe will become de-populated. So send in the Africans and Asians who sure like to screw and have very few serious industrial scale wars.

    So many White people I know who have zero or only one child. There’s something wrong!

    Meanwhile the Africans didn’t get the memo about world overpopulation or don’t know how to read and the African and Asians populations are surging. African population expected to top two billion by 2050. India alone will have 1.6 billion. These numbers will swamp Europe, USA, Australia. It dosen’t look good for White people.

    And then we have this author giving us his reasons why Germany had to attack Russia. The author should really write an essay encouraging White people to have more babies.

  123. Wally says:
    @Chris Mallory

    You just admitted again that you cannot back up anything you say.

    This is just too easy.

  124. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    LOL, That’s your best shot? You are simply irrational.

    It’s noted that you dodged my information that savages your fake ‘Generalplan Ost’.
    And you cannot show the millions of human remains that are claimed to be in known locations.
    Then you blunder on and quote the known fraud of “Table Talk”. LOL

    Genoud, Heim & Picker’s Hitler’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal:
    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880
    and:
    http://carolynyeager.net/our-hitlers-table-talk-series-now-available-cds
    Our “Hitler’s Table Talk” series now available on CD’s
    A two-disc CD set containing all 56 of the newly-edited, discussing Hitler’s Table Talk, spanning 1941 to 1944.
    recommended:
    https://carolynyeager.net/

    Rauschning debunked:
    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=Rauschning

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  125. justread says:

    “Historical” documents?

    Maybe one from December 18th 1940 – would that be acceptable – even it was not written by Goebbels or von Ribbentrop, but bears the signature of Hitler himself?

    It’s called Fuhrer Directive #21 and orders preparation for the invasion of Russia. It even names the offensive – “Barbarossa”.

    It demanded that preparations be in place/guns ready to go off by mid-May of 1941, i.e. the following year.

    Unfortunately, that deadline appeared to suffer from Hitler’s military operations to secure the Balkans – especially Greece and Yugo.

    Debate rages as to whether this was necessary, but the simple fact is that Hitler’s offensive kicked off in late June (the 22nd) as opposed to Mid-May as originally conceived.

    p.s. How on earth could Hitler have moved up 3 mm men and their tanks and artillery without intending to invade Russia?

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  126. Beckow says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Bitter, very bitter losers. Next you will tell us that Mein Kampf was a fiction book and not a political program.

    A hint about how it works: you can’t go back and re-fight WWII. It is done, you lost.

    • Replies: @Cortes
    , @jacques sheete
  127. Wally says:
    @europeasant

    Actually the British invaded Norway and were there when the Germans arrived.
    Pay attention.

  128. Unz.com! Proudly transitioning from neo-Nazi to Nazi.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Anon
  129. Hillbob says:
    @Wally

    Like taking blood from toddlers(for German officers) and discarding these babies to a slow and agonizing death(if not already dead) in the Ukraine. Watching the little things squirming in death agony, the eyes beseeching …..ah those brave peaceful Nazis. Oh by the way what were the plans for Moscow again after it was taken for the fuhrer? Just the small matter of razing it and putting a man made(or beast made) lake in place

  130. ariadna says:
    @Anon

    Talking through your hat (whatever ethnic kind you sport). Not one of those countries wanted any “bones” from Germany, nor did they want to “exterminate Russians.” They wanted help in defending themselves from the imminent Bolshevik threat while internally they were also struggling to redress the judaic weimarization of their economies and culture. Oy, miserable Goyim, eh?

    • Replies: @Anon
  131. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    In the I & II world wars , most of the european nations participated and many of them cheerfully .

    Most of the Governemts showed a very high degree of criminality sending waves of millions and millions of men to kill and to be killed , not caring for civilians

    And the people , the common people also showed a very high degree of criminality , they were full o hate towards their neighbours , fought against them , killed them in the name of a pathological nationalism , killing to the last day of war ( it is amazing why the german & allies did not surrender or made a truce after Moscow and Stalingrad )

    There will be a III , and last , atomic World War ??

    Satanic times

  132. archives says:

    Now, consider this: If the Soviets had been sufficiently prepared/about to invade Germany back in 1941 when Hitler invaded, why were they routed in such spectacular fashion early on? A Great many of Stalin’s resources were still mid-country to the East. After the German invasion kicked off, these had to be moved West pronto.

    Compare and contrast this to the 1943 series of engagements that would become known as “The Battle of Kursk” (salient?). Then, both sides were preparing for what was to be Hitler’s last major offensive on the Eastern front. It was a very different story in terms of progress/ground gained.

    Stalin’s intelligence was sufficiently effective that he actually shelled the Germans just before their 1943 offensive commenced – with the result that their campaign was really very heavy going for the Germans all the way.

    This was quite unlike late June of 1941 where 3 German army groups stretching from the Baltic all the way down to the South struck altogether and really had the Soviets on the run for some time. They came quite close to capturing Moscow (again there is considerable debate over whether capturing that objective would been the end of the story, but it would not have a been a positive for Stalin.)

  133. Hillbob says:
    @Anon

    Ha Ha. So true. Unimaginable destruction in Europe. Thank god for the EUropeans who settled on other far-away peoples lands and brought such overwhelming virtue and Christianity to them. Nothing left to chance. Virtuous gems such as ‘slaves obey your masters’ and christian guarantees for a great after life (after) the body was ravaged….

  134. @jacques sheete

    Yes, has to be a typo, it was precisely the fact that Soviet forces were aligned in vulnerable offensive salients that they suffered such catastrophic losses in the initial stages when the Germans broke through.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  135. Pandos says:
    @Germanicus

    Benes was a soviet spy. His niece married Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski.

  136. @Wally

    Looks like London Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 as well. 😉

    Bbbbbut dem Nazis!

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  137. RobinG says:
    @jacques sheete

    Bears repeating –

    The ranks of UR readers are laced with Nazi fan-boys…and girls, not to mention the regular dose of racist columnists and bloggers. They cheer each other on.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  138. @EugeneGur

    It was crushed again in 1945, because it lost yet another war it started.

    OK, if you say so.

    Yawn.

    PS: So what can you say about dem holocaust viktums? Some Jews openly declared war on Germany in 1933 (see above) if not sooner, so I guess they haven’t a leg to whine on regarding “de holocaust,” eh? You know, I’ve been told that “stuff happens” in war.

    I guess some people never learn.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  139. No way the Soviets were in a position to go on the offensive against Germany in mid-1941 – total nonsense.

    All you have to do is to consult what the Soviets themselves said and did. They were playing for time, at least another year by their own reckoning, before they felt that they would be in a position to take on Germany. Yup, they had the greatest manpower and resources on paper, but they themselves didn’t feel that they were in a position to go to war with Germany. They were also still looking East towards Japan at the time.

    Stalin was at pains to be seen to yielding to the Germans, even continuing to demand that his forces cause no “provocations” against the Germans for hours after Barbarossa had begun.

  140. @Chris Mallory

    “Po lil “Chosen Ones” dindu nuffin. “

    So let’s build another holocaust memorial and by the way, where’s my “reparations?”

  141. @The scalpel

    First off, a good defense would deter an attack by making the costs impermissiby high. If the attackers are too ignorant to see this, then a vigorous defense will irreparably weaken the attacker and make them susceptible to a devestating counter attack.

    Etc., etc., etc. Thanks, general!

    PS: This stuff is fun, but I have a lot to do, and I’m not buying your theories.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  142. @europeasant

    The author should really write an essay encouraging White people to have more babies.

    Not needed. You just did.

    • Replies: @europeasant
  143. @Beckow

    A hint about how it works: you can’t go back and re-fight WWII. It is done, you lost.

    I hope you tell that to the “holocaust survivors.” Oh, wait, they won, and they still are. Well then, please tell ’em to quit whining about the one that didn’t survive.

    Thanks.

  144. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Yep, probably a typo based on what else was said.

  145. @New Dealer

    New Dealer? Really?

    Even FDR gave up on that silliness after endless variations. For many people it was and still is, a Raw Deal. I have tons of evidence.

  146. @RobinG

    Bears repeating –

    OK, but please don’t bare anything else. Deal?

    Now be nice and quit trolling, Dearie!

  147. j2 says:
    @Wally

    “I remind the readers here that this is the same j2 who claims that the Germans shot millions of Jews, for which the human remains cannot be shown even though Jews claim that those alleged immense remains actually exist in precisely know locations.”

    I am sure I do not need to remind any readers of this forum that this is the same Wally that we all know. My final calculation is in the link, it does not have Germans shooting millions of Jews, Wally made that up all by himself
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/09/24/my-final-solution-of-the-final-solution/

    • Replies: @Wally
  148. Sparkon says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    By some accounts, Stalin received no less than 87 separate messages, warnings, reports, dispatches from a variety of sources advising him of the impending German attack.

    Gorodetsky’s argument dovetails nicely with the story told by David Murphy. Murphy massively documents the in-pouring of intelligence from all over Europe and even Japan, warning of the German military buildup for invasion. Insofar as this intelligence was used at all, it was to avoid any action that might be seen as a provocation. German aircraft were allowed to fly reconnaissance missions deep into Soviet territory; German troops were allowed to violate Soviet borders in search of intelligence. All this was intended to remind the Germans of the depth of Soviet resolve, while demonstrating that the Soviet Union was not about to attack.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no1/9_BK_What_Stalin_Knew.htm

    All of it supports my argument that Stalin and Roosevelt shared the same strategy, which was to provoke the enemy, but let him strike the first blow.

    Nothing rallies patriotism like blood spilled by the enemy in a surprise or sneak attack, and no other action could have united the various Soviet nationalities like the German invasion did within the Soviet Union. In like fashion, all isolationist opposition to American involvement in WWII pretty much faded away after the “surprise” Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Anastas Mikoyan, the ever-surviving Politburo member (1922-66), one of few of Stalin’s close milieu, recalls a unique case dating back to May 1941, when the German Ambassador, Friedrich-Werner Graf von der Schulenburg, shared lunch with Stalin and made it clear to him, with the interpreter present, that Germany was planning to invade the Soviet Union. A unique situation, indeed, considering that the German embassy’s counselor Gustav Hilger was also present.

    […]

    And then it became clear that all those intrepid intelligence sources had been right and only one man was wrong. What happened next? Nothing. Back in the 19th century a political leader proven wrong on such a dramatically large scope would shoot himself, out of shame. Stalin never did, for he had been raised in a different manner. He simply told himself: shove it.

    https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/history-and-i/stalin-vs-stirlitz

    After he recovered from his nervous breakdown, that is.

  149. @j2

    I have read parts of Mein Kampf over the years and I found very little said about the Jews except in the chapters devoted to that concern. And even there, Adolph Hitler’s supposed rabid antisemitism was fairly tame in my view. In fact, he was speaking more as a political scientist would instead of an ideologue…

    • Replies: @j2
  150. The hidden agenda of WWII was to make the world safe for socialism.

    • Replies: @Anon
  151. @Wally

    For your information, Hitler-admirer Carolyn Yeager does not (repeat : does NOT) deny the authenticity of Hitler’s TableTalk, neither does David Irving. Here is what David Irving says about Hitler’s Table Talk :

    “Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine. (Ignore the 1945 “transcripts” published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament — they are fake).

    The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job). Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.”

    “The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.”

    Source : How good is Hitler’s Table Talk ? – David Irving
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Table Talk010104.html

    If you want to maintain your faith in Hitler’s innocence, you are free to do so, but it will be a faith based on wishes and not on facts.
    No matter how immoral the Allies themselves were, that does not clear Hitler from his own guilt.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Wally
    , @Steve Naidamast
  152. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Plato's Dream

    But Kiev and Minks had everything to do with international communist imperialism and its outposts. War strategy against an existential threat is what it has to be.

  153. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    The only way you can wriggle out of that is by saying that Hitler’s Table Talk was “written by the Jews”.
    Good luck with that!

    What are you talking about?

    Its not controversial to question the authenticity of the printed table talks. Even in mainstream academia, their content is widely held under high suspicion of forgery due to how many hands and translations they passed through for any given printing.

    Give us a break.

  154. Sorry, but while it might have been obvious to every one that both the Soviets and Nazis were going to clash in the West and that the U.S. and Japan were destined for a fight in the East, the run-up to both was slightly different.

    FDR might have provoked the Japanese with his petroleum embargo/economic sanctions etc. etc. , but butter wouldn’t melt in Uncle Joe Stalin’s mouth when it came to the Germans.

    He was supplying them with wheat up until the bitter end and didn’t even raise a peep against Hitler’s further adventures in Europe which led up to Operation Barbarossa. He was blowing kisses at them to play for time.

    If it’s a choice between Stalin’s being naive and/or scheming versus worrying about the preparedness of his military and playing for time, I’ll choose the latter any day.

    Hitler had been secretly preparing to invade the Soviet Union for many months, whereas the Soviets were not yet in a position to mirror those affections.

  155. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    If you want to maintain your faith in Hitler’s innocence, you are free to do so, but it will be a faith based on wishes and not on facts.

    In light of the aims of international communism, which was and is world domination to include in Germany, you cannot judge Hitler based on his actions toward communist held territory. Stated propaganda or not, he was attempting to do the rest of the world a favor by destroying communism in a primary nest of its power at the time.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  156. EugeneGur says:
    @jacques sheete

    I guess some people never learn.

    Yes, some never do, and the Germans seem to be those people.

    Some Jews openly declared war on Germany in 1933

    I neither know nor care what “some” Jews declared war on Germany in 1933. If they had, Germany should’ve concentrated on fighting them.

    What I do know, however, that the Germans exterminated Jews, as well other categories they specifically disliked, on the captured Soviet territory in a systematic manner, and those Jews definitely did not declare any war on Germany or offend Germany in any way.

    You know, I’ve been told that “stuff happens” in war.

    Oh, “stuff happens” in war, doesn’t it? When why are you whining about the Red Army treating you Nazi scum not too kindly?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @jacques sheete
    , @refl
  157. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @New Dealer

    Unz.com! Proudly transitioning from neo-Nazi to Nazi.

    Please, with your content free ad hominems. Anyone battling communism and the Jewish power behind it is fighting for the human race that the Jews plan to genocide (see many places in the Zohar).

    For one, here is the Jewish plan to destroy all other nations in a final War with Islam as well as to genocide all Muslims:

    https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1391003/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Vaeira-Day-5.htm

    You can’t hold the moral water of the average National Socialist German in 1941.

  158. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Monotonous Languor

    The hidden agenda of WWII was to make the world safe for socialism.

    There is little that is inherently wrong with a degree of Nationalist (economic) Socialism. Social (cultural) Marxism is a whole other animal.

    What WWII made the world safe for the the Jewish plan to escort it toward a final war that is meant to destroy it.

    See my above Chabad link.

  159. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    I’m not buying your theories.

    You cannot buy my theories, they are given freely and worth every penny that you pay for them.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  160. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @EugeneGur

    If Germany was anyone’s victim, it was of its own stupidity and arrogance. Germany was crushed because it lost WWI it had a hand in initiating. It was crushed again in 1945, because it lost yet another war it started.

    Thanks for the laugh.

  161. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @RobinG

    Don’t let the door hit you in the behind, hypocrite.

  162. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Plato's Dream

    I prefer to google “Gulag genocide” for immensely larger numbers.

  163. j2 says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    “I have read parts of Mein Kampf over the years and I found very little said about the Jews except in the chapters devoted to that concern. And even there, Adolph Hitler’s supposed rabid antisemitism was fairly tame in my view. In fact, he was speaking more as a political scientist would instead of an ideologue…”

    I read it some twenty-thirty years ago and noticed that there were very many incidences of the word Jew. I checked it. In the English translation there are 445 incidences of the word Jew in 697 pages, that is one incidence in 1,56 pages. I said, in almost every page. That is in average, one in 1.56 pages is almost every page. That is a lot. There are 4 incidences of the word Pole (not pole or Napoleon) and 63 incidences of French, that gives you some comparison, both were neighboring countries to Germany. I said nothing of the character of these references to Jews, only that there was very many references to Jews in that book. Seems that my old memory is still better than your reading parts of Mein Kampf.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @Rogue
  164. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @EugeneGur

    those Jews definitely did not declare any war on Germany or offend Germany in any way.

    “Those” Jews? Who are “those” Jews?

    Jewry explicitly categorizes itself as an international nation. Its one of the defining aspects of it. All Jews are therefore “those Jews”. They most certainly do not get to claim international individualism at the same time that they benefit from international unity when convenient.

    All Jewry holds the same beliefs and ultimate aims. See my above Chabad link.

    German Jews certainly did “offend” Germany. You only need to read the statements of the Germans in regard to them.

    You only need to read Jewish scripture to see just how they offend every sane nation and that they are a slow poison to every nation.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  165. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Oh my, you lose again.
    Of course there were conversations at dinners, but what has been added, mistranslated, invented within them is the issue.

    You incompetently missed:
    The Faking of Hitler’s “Last Testament”: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html
    and:
    Table Talk, Picker: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Picker.html
    and of course you dodged:
    Genoud, Heim & Picker’s Hitler’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal:
    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880
    and:
    Rauschning debunked: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=Rauschning
    And then there’s the bogus Table Talk claims here:
    How Historian Rees Falsifies and Invents : https://codoh.com/library/document/4917/?lang=en
    and:
    – It’s noted that you dodged my information that savages your fake ‘Generalplan Ost’.
    – And you cannot show the millions of human remains that are claimed to be in known locations.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  166. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @EugeneGur

    The fact remains that it wasn’t the Soviet Union, with all its might, that initiated the attack, but Germany.

    False. International communism was and is an existential threat to the world. A fact that you can derive from their texts that claim to wish to turn communist every nation in the world and to bring all of the national destruction that entails. Communism in Germany is what led to the rise of the National Socialists in self defense.

    Jewry is also an existential threat. A fact that you can derive from their texts that claim to want to genocide all non-Jews.

    And the behavior of the Germans – and not just the Germans, mind you, for almost the entire Europe joined in the fun – completely negates even the most remote claim that they were “defending” themselves.

    What a forceful conclusion after having said exactly nothing.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  167. @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Yawn” is no argument.

    Probably not meant to be, but rather a highly appropriate response to silliness. Get the hint?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  168. Logan says:

    The Germans were also unaware of how the Soviets had been preparing their military commanders for war.

    The Soviets had prepared the great majority of their senior commanders for war by shooting them. And, of course, in the process terrorizing the rest.

    It’s difficult to imagine a more counter-productive approach.

  169. @The Scalpel

    You cannot buy my theories, they are given freely and worth every penny that you pay for them.

    Yeah, but I’m a big tipper.

    Now, don’t spend it all in one place! 😉

  170. @EugeneGur

    Oh, “stuff happens” in war, doesn’t it? When why are you whining about the Red Army treating you Nazi scum not too kindly?

    I already explained why. Are you a slow learner “er sumpin?

  171. Anon[352] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris Mallory

    When the last German dies of a heart attack after strangling the last Jew the world will be a better place.

    You German apologists are not any different than the Holohoax whiners.

    That’s a pretty cucked opinion. No offense. You have to be utterly ignorant of history from WWI onward to hold it. Or merely have an irrational hatred of what are provably high quality Europeans that the Jewish poison in their midst had been gunning to kill for centuries.

    From the 17th century:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Andreas_Eisenmenger

    A further, if minor, element in his polemic consisted of an argument that Germans were a distinct people within Christianity, descended from the Canaanites, whom ‘the Jews’ were intent on destroying in accordance with Deuteronomy 7:16.

  172. j2 says:
    @Wally

    “LOL
    I guess Polish occupation of a large part Germany had noting to do with it.
    I guess Polish atrocities on Germans had nothing to do with.
    Poland even invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia.”

    You do not understand the question. I asked why Hitler attacked Poland, because he had to guess that it would bring France and probably England to the war, that is, it would start a world war.

    This is not the same question as to ask, did Hitler have any reason for a war with Poland. There could have been reason for a localized war between Germany and Poland, but the attack to Poland did not start a localized war. It started a world war.

    So, let me ask you again in a more clear way: why did Hitler attack Poland? Was he an idiot who did not understand that it would start a world war, or did he have a very specific reason to attack Poland even if it started a world war (which Germany lost and from the beginning one would guess that they would lose). Is it clear now, or do you LOL?

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @jacques sheete
  173. @Anon

    If destroying communism was his only aim I would heartily endorse such a venture. But his real aim was colonizing Eastern Europe for his “superior” Germans at the cost of the “inferior” Slavs. He could have accepted the cooperation of Russian general Vlasov and his anti-communist troops, defeat Stalin and establish a German friendly nationalist regime in Russia, but that was never his aim. His aim was Lebensraum.

  174. Wally says:
    @j2

    LOL
    In your own link you stated:

    “I believe that six million Jews were killed by Nazis, 1-1.5 million in Auschwitz.
    If it appears that the calculation does not support this belief, it is only because addition of numbers uses the normal logic where 2+2=4, but beliefs do not need to follow any logic. The Holocaust was a miracle and miracles do not follow mathematical logic.”

    but beliefs do not need to follow any logic. The Holocaust was a miracle and miracles do not follow mathematical logic.”
    Say what? IOW, you a laughable charlatan, a shyster, a deranged True Believer. LOL
    Trust me, I will follow you with that quote.
    recommended:
    Scientists Discover Gene That Predisposes Ashkenazi Jews to Schizophrenia
    Variations of the DNST3 gene make Ashkenazi Jews 40 percent more likely to develop schizophrenia and similar diseases
    .’: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-ashkenazi-gene-increases-schizophrenia-1.5294333

    Does the strong Jew tendency towards mental illness assist in their ‘holocaust’ : fantasies?:https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12239

  175. Wally says:
    @EugeneGur

    Yet you have been challenged repeatedly to present your prove of the “holocaust” narrative, heretofore you have not.

    Your discredited comments here are a reminder:

    Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

    http://www.codoh.com

  176. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    Many people claim that Hitler was a Illuminist (Henry Makow), and many others that his entire government was financed by Prescott Bush.

    Seeing how Hitler banned Freemasonry in Germany, excepting an old Prussian Aristocratic lodge of which he was never associated, can we, in your opinion, now judge all of his actions as having been free of Masonic or any other (Theosophy, Blavatsky, etc) esoteric influence?

    • Replies: @j2
  177. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @ariadna

    Miserable finns ( helped even to the siege- genocide of Leningrad`s civilians ) , miserable rumanians , miserable hungarians , croats ( big genocides , Jasenovac ) ,slovaks , etc….etc … wanted that theirs master nazi germans give them some territories ,( some bones ) for being obedient like miserable dogs . The fight agains bolshevism , against judaization was pure bullshit to cover their greed and cruelty

    In the 2 world wars the europeans proved to be the most criminal , full of hate , aggresive , greedy, blood thisty , stupid , suicidal and miserable people or the world . You have to be stupid to fight two wars like that in 31 years , against bolshevism you say , hahahahaha , in WWI bolshevism did not exist , Putin is not a bolshevik ,and all the euroyanki nazis keep barking at Russia . Is Maduro a bolshevik ? or just the euroyankis want to steal the oil of Venezuela . Is Iran bolshevik ?

    The europeans , and their sons the yankees , pretend to teach moral lessons to mankind , but they do not have credibility any longer , their hands and souls are damaged by their endless criminal wars .

  178. Iris says:
    @Germanicus

    “The puppet Poles rejected any solution and their radio aired crazy speeches by Polish generals proclaiming the intention to take Berlin due to British and French support promises”

    It is exactly the same scenario used to force Germany into WW1, with the “puppet” Serbs, backed by the White Russians funded by the French, doing the bidding for the British-French alliance (the Entente Cordiale).

    Germany was forced twice into a World War by the relentless conspiring of Britain. Britain had produced its geopolitical blueprint in the form of Mackinder’s Heartland theory as early as 1904, and set out to destroy Germany in order to stop her natural and inevitable rise as Europe’s main power.

    The criticism and focus on Stalin found in this article is somewhat naïve. What is a Machiavellian statesman, and I mean it in the positive way, supposed to do, knowing that a neighbouring nation-state is destined to be crushed by mightier powers, who’d already vanquished her a few years earlier?

    The core point is not who was responsible for Operation Barbarossa. It is that WW2 was started as a continuation of WW1, by the same actors, to finish off and quash Germany’s geopolitical prospects. Stalin knew that, and his duties being towards his country, he allied with the side most likely to win.

    • Agree: Byrresheim
  179. @Wally

    #The debunking of “Hitler’s Last Testament” is included in my quote from David Irving and thus implicitly endorsed by me. Still Irving acknowledges the authenticity of Hitler’s Table Talk.

    #I never endorsed Rauschning and acknowledge that he was a fraud.

    # General Plan Ost was not a specific document but a general plan for the Germanic colonization of Eastern Europe (up to the Urals), still in its initial stages and never worked out in details. Hence it had to be “reconstructed” from various sources, but the intention really existed. In my country, the Netherlands, the Germans tried to interest Dutchmen to settle in the East as part of this plan, but it never materialized.

    # I have tried to read Veronica Clark’s opinion on Hitler’s Table Talk, but it is too technical for me, and I lack the in-depth knowledge to be able to judge if authority David Irving had it wrong.

    # Nevertheless, it seems absurd to me that Hitler’s plan for the Germanic colonization of Eastern Europe, about which he talks in various places of his Table Talk, is entirely imaginary and a product of hostile propaganda. Hitler mentioned his wish for Lebensraum in Russia already in his Mein Kampf. But perhaps Mein Kampf is also a falsification ?

    # I have no opinion about the number of victims of the German Einsatzgruppen or of the number of civilian victims of the German Wehmacht in the East. Fact is that the Germans treated their enemies in the East differently from their enemies in the West, and that had to do with their racial theories.

    • Replies: @Wally
  180. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Hitler was a drug addict ,

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/07/518986612/author-says-hitler-was-blitzed-on-cocaine-and-opiates-during-the-war?t=1553206750573

    the german nazi soldiers were adicted to anfetamies ( Pervitin , trade name )

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  181. Iris says:
    @j2

    ” Was he an idiot who did not understand that it would start a world war, or did he have a very specific reason to attack Poland even if it started a world war “

    He probably was tricked by the Hebraic banking plutocracy, who wanted the Jewish population to be scared and to move to Palestine. A bit like Saddam Hussein with Kuwait.

    Hannah Arendt reports about the collaboration between Jews and Nazis:
    “it is indisputable that during the first stages of their Jewish policy the National Socialists thought it proper to adopt a pro-Zionist attitude” (Hans Lamm),

    • Replies: @RobinG
  182. j2 says:
    @Cowboy

    “all of his actions as having been free of Masonic or any other (Theosophy, Blavatsky, etc) esoteric influence?”

    No, we cannot. Hitler was not a Mason, nor a Theosophist and he banned Freemasonry in Germany, though he correctly commented that German Freemasonry had not been subversive (it was French-Italian Freemasonry that had been subversive, Mizraim and Memphis lodges).

    However, by the WWII Freemasons did not any more work subversively, that is directly. The esoteric connection to Nazism is the Thule Society, that is Dietrich Eckart and Alfred Rosenberg. Nazi ideology is from these Thule people. They believed in the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy (which happened to exist) and that there was Judeo-Communistic conspiracy (which also happened to exist), so naturally they were anti-Masonic. But they were not anti-Theosophy as Theosophic teaching were very similar to those of Wagner’s circle (Houston Steward Chamberlain, racism) and they read the Secret Doctrine of Blavatsky. This doctrine, which developed to Nazi doctrine, includes restoring Jews to some place out of Europe, usually to Palestine, so it is Zionism of antisemitic type.

    In case you claim that Hitler was not in any way influenced by Nazi ideology, then you can claim that he was not in any way influenced by Theosophy, which is widely taken Masonic. However, if you think that Hitler was influenced by Nazi ideology, I cannot understand how you could come to your conclusion since Nazi ideology grew out of Thule Society that was created by a Freemason and Theosophist Sebottendorf and was a combination of national romantism (runes etc.) of the Germanic Order with Theosophic racial concepts and Theosophic fear of Jewish conspiracy expressed by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Cowboy
  183. refl says:
    @EugeneGur

    Myself, I parted from the brainwashed western narrative on 20th century only after the events in Ukraine in 2014 (some might find that quite late, but anyone has to take his time to wake up).
    After all, it was my own grandfather who invaded Crimea in 1941 and I have his letters and found his Iron cross between – handed to him for conquering the Dnjepr.

    The idea that Barbarossa might indeed have preempted a Soviet attack to me is the most difficult part in this story, and indeed, stupid and arrogant they were.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  184. RobinG says:
    @Iris

    A bit like Saddam Hussein with Kuwait.

    ???? How is this comparison the least relevant?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  185. @j2

    So, let me ask you again in a more clear way: why did Hitler attack Poland?

    Simple. The Poles were goading him and had been persecuting Germans put under their heel by the corrupt and disgusting Versailles diktat.

    Any more questions about the obvious?

    If so, read this:

    And martyrdom began for our German nationals. Tens of thousands were dragged off, mistreated, and murdered in the vilest fashion. Sadistic beasts gave vent to their perverse instincts, and this pious democratic world watched without blinking an eye.

    Hitler’s Speech of September 19, 1939 at Danzig.

    Maybe talk to a Palestinian; I’m sure most of them have long had first hand experience with sadistic beasts venting their perverse instincts.

    • Replies: @j2
  186. @Iris

    It is that WW2 was started as a continuation of WW1, by the same actors, to finish off and quash Germany’s geopolitical prospects. Stalin knew that, and his duties being towards his country, he allied with the side most likely to win.

    Yes to all.

  187. @Anon

    the german nazi soldiers were adicted to anfetamies ( Pervitin , trade name )

    The US military used the crap as well. Airplane pilots especially.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  188. @Franklin Ryckaert

    If destroying communism was his only aim I would heartily endorse such a venture.

    One other significant aim was to have peace with the US and Britain, but neither FDR nor Churchill would have any of it. One of their chief aims was to crush Germany and in that regard FDR even outdid Churchill. They even rebuffed German officials who were serious about assassinating Hitler, preferring, instead, to sadistically make the German people suffer gratuitously. Both were sickos.

    • Agree: Franklin Ryckaert
  189. @refl

    The idea that Barbarossa might indeed have preempted a Soviet attack to me is the most difficult part in this story, and indeed, stupid and arrogant they were.

    More likely desperate. The Japanese were too. Ever wonder why? Ask the Indians, for one.

  190. Seraphim says:
    @j2

    Much too much was made out of the ‘Thule Society’. The pretensions that ‘Nazi ideology’ grew out of the fantasies of the ‘esoteric’ grupuscules spawned from the ‘Ariosophy’ of the Austrians Guido von List and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, was the boasting of Rudolf von Sebottendorff (formerly Rudolf Glauer), actually an adventurer, a Freemason and a practitioner of sufism and astrology, founder of the ‘Thule Society’ in 1916.
    If one care to read more attentively ‘Mein Kamf’ would realize that Hitler had a scathing contempt for those ‘wandering scholars who were peddling Germanic folk-lore and who never accomplished anything positive or practical, except to cultivate their own superabundant self-conceit…[who] rant about ancient Teutonic heroes of the dim and distant ages, stone axes, battle spears and shields, whereas in reality they themselves are the woefullest poltroons imaginable… people who brandish Teutonic tin swords that have been fashioned carefully according to ancient models and wear padded bear-skins, with the horns of oxen mounted over their bearded faces, proclaim that all contemporary conflicts must be decided by the weapons of the mind alone. And thus they skedaddle when the first communist cudgel appears. Posterity will have little occasion to write a new epic on these heroic gladiators…I have seen too much of that kind of people not to feel a profound contempt for their miserable play-acting. To the masses of the nation they are just an object of ridicule; but the Jew finds it to his own interest to treat these folk-lore comedians with respect and to prefer them to real men who are fighting to establish a German State”.

    In 1923, Sebottendorff was expelled from Germany as an undesirable alien; around 1925, the Thule Society disbanded. In 1933, Sebottendorff returned to Germany and published “Bevor Hitler kam: Urkundliches aus der Frühzeit der nationalsozialistischen Bewegung”. The book was banned by the Bavarian Political Police on March 1, 1934; Sebottendorff was arrested by the Gestapo, interned in a concentration camp, then expelled to Turkey yet again, where he committed suicide by drowning in the Bosphorus on May 9, 1945. There is a suspicion that he was a Comintern agent. It is not confirmed, but it is plausible, the Comintern and the Cheka/GPU/NKVD had indeed used esoteric organizations for espionage and covert operations.
    Anyhow, all these esoteric organizations have been banned by the anti-Masonic legislation of 1935.
    In any case they were not the origin of German anti-semitism.

  191. @jacques sheete

    Of course. All armies since antiquity give soldiers some kind of juice.

  192. The Red Army purges are another overstated narrative. (Suvorov in fact believes they strengthened the Red Army by imposing ideological discipline and getting rid of backsliders, not sure about that, but it’s at least plausible.) Simple fact is, whether you’re an unqualified lackey or not, you’d have to be simply insane to set your forces up like that, unless you were in fact preparing for offensive war.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  193. Cool story, but incomplete. The author should have mentioned that before USSR innocent Hitler defended poor lil’ Germany from many other horrible threats: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, France, and a few other countries. Like a busy bee, Hitler kept defending Germany until May 1945.

  194. RI says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Technically, German forces attacked previously occupied by Poland territories of Belarus and Ukraine, which were already liberated by the Soviet union.

  195. RI says:
    @Mikel

    So, when Hitler lied? In Mein Kampf or later?

  196. Mike P says:
    @Sergeant Glory

    “Soviet-Anglo-American invaders”? Hardy, har har… and sorry, pal — once USA entered the war, the Nazis were finished.

    Finally! The mellifluous voice of American jingoism. What took you so long?

  197. Mike P says:
    @Wally

    This looks like a memo that some enthusiastic SS-member and academic wrote in his spare time – almost doesn’t matter whether it is “authentic” or not.

    • Replies: @Wally
  198. @europeasant

    Just totally spot on. This is the sad reality we face today. And we all know it.

  199. Sparkon says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    unless you were in fact preparing for offensive war.

    Perhaps, but consider this.

    Stalin’s rapid industrialization during the 1930s was almost entirely military in character. Few consumer goods were produced during this period, but rapidly evolving military gear of all types was produced to such degree that by the eve of Barbarossa, the Red Army had the world’s largest tank park, and the Red Air Force was similarly the largest in the world, as Mark Weber notes.

    The big catch was that Stalin’s almost frenzied military industrialization program during the 1930s spawned such rapid technological improvements in military hardware that by the 1940s, much of this equipment rolled out in the 1930s was largely obsolete already even not so long after it was produced.

    In his trap for Hitler and the Wehrmacht, Stalin simply positioned formations of these seemingly menacing but largely obsolete tanks, like the T-26 and BT series, close up to the border as bait. If the Wehrmacht destroyed them, so what? It saved the Soviets the trouble, and it cost the Germans time, bullets, men, and its own tanks, which could at least knock out these obsolete models, but not the newer T-34s and KVs

    BT-7, A-20, T-34 (’40), T-34 (’41)

    When the Germans attacked, the new T-34 comprised just 4% of the Red Army’s tanks, but the type remained under constant production and refinement throughout the war, and well over 50,000 were produced (Wikipedia says over 80,000), of which almost 45,000 were destroyed by the Germans.

    Any thought that the Soviet Union was really on the ropes against the German Wehrmacht even in high summer 1941 should be dispelled quickly by taking note of the Red Army’s participation with the British and Australians in the surprise attack and invasion of Iran on August 25, 1941 when the Red Army attacked with three armored spearheads disposing of over 1,000 T-26 tanks of the 44th, 47th and 53rd armies, and formations of heavy bombers. Against Iran in 1941, the nearly obsolete T-26 was good enough.

    Soviet tankmen of the 6th Armored Division drive through the streets of Tabriz

  200. Seraphim says:

    Hitler made the same mistakes Bismarck warned against.
    Don’t get Germany bogged in the Balkans for the sake of Austria-Hungary. Bismarck would have happily let the Russians to take Constantinople.
    Don’t take head-on on Russia.
    But Hitler was Austrian. Prussian Germany was neither anti-Russian, nor anti-Slav.
    Austrian-Hungarians were both.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  201. Seraphim says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    As it turned out vodka was the best.

  202. anonymous[176] • Disclaimer says:

    Stalin knew war was coming so what’s so mysterious about him turning the country into a huge arms factory? He rushed industrialization because the showdown would come and they had to be prepared. Hitler wanted Lebensraum and that wasn’t exactly a secret. Stalin acted very rationally in building up his military capability. What else could be expected? The distinction between supposed offensive and defensive weapons and capabilities is a false one. War broke out between the western imperialist countries first which confirmed communist analysis of what would happen. Of course Stalin counted on them keeping each other busy while he built up and could later show up as the un-exhausted power. That didn’t quite work out as planned. There’s nothing hard to understand about why a country would build up its forces at maximum speed when it expects to be drawn into war in the near future.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Wally
  203. RobinG says:
    @anonymous

    The Hitler apologists here won’t let you get away with that kind of logical thinking.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Cowboy
  204. @Anon

    Russia has at various times been a feudalist monarchy, a Jewish run communist dictatorship, and a capitalist democracy and it has always been the target of hostile westerners regardless. Trying to say that Hitler’s Nazis fought to defend Europe from communism is ridiculous. Wars are usually fought over natural resources and ideologies just create covers for these designs.

    Hitler screams he wants the west, the east, the whole world for their resources to feed his German supermen, and his Nazi fans shout no, he wants to defend freedom from the commie tyrants. It’s all about freedom. Hitler was so enamoured with freedom he had it written over the entrance to the concentration camp. Or I should say the annihilation or extermination camp. And Hitler wanted to solve the Jewish problem by the most expedient means possible, and the neo-Nazis scream no he was a humane, humanitarian do-gooder who just wanted to teach Jews the value of good, honest, hard work. No shit! And he was supposedly superintelligent and smart yet he was manipulated by Churchill, Stalin or whoever. And no he wasn’t a Zionist and had no plans to ship Jews to Israel, or he changed his mind as it was too expensive. And look, look, where are all the bones of the dead Jews? Went up in smoke. Or maybe he dressed them up in BOSS uniforms and sent them east as cannon fodder? Or maybe a bit of everything. It’s just a pity good old Adolf didn’t have the last laugh. Or wait, maybe he did, enjoying retirement with his Eva in Argentina laughing at all the idiots trying to solve all the mysteries he left in his wake. Who knows maybe he even took up having the odd glass of wine and a cigar on his porch enjoying the turmoil he created for others to solve. Cheers.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  205. @Franklin Ryckaert

    ‘Was Hitler’s Drang nach Osten really less bad than Stalin’s Drang nach Westen ?’

    For the connoisseur of badness, that’s kind of an interesting question.

  206. Alfred says:

    It is no great secret that the reason for the rapid advances of Germany and its allies at the beginning of this invasion was largely due to the posture of the Soviet Army – it was preparing to invade Europe. Their divisions were no longer placed in a defensive formation.

    “Operation Groza”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich

    Operation Barbarossa was a pre-emptive attack. I hate to say it, but Mr H was correct. Anyway, we all know who writes the history books in the West. As for Russia, they certainly don’t want to open their archives on that little episode – it would be used against them in a modern context.

  207. Wally says:
    @anonymous

    Except that your peace loving Stalin invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm.

    Good ole Uncle “rational” Joe, waas only worried about Germany. LOL

    And if Hitler wanted ‘lebensraum” then he already had it.
    Polish aggression assured that.

    You have zero prove that Germany attacked the USSR, then fought a two front war, just to get land.
    No doubt you’re going to trot out the impossible ‘gas chambers, and ‘soap made from Jews’. LOL

    I suggest you actually read the article under discussion.

    http://www.codoh.com

  208. JP says:
    @The scalpel

    Perhaps you are right, the only moral way to fight a war is defensively. So, when the Brits blockade all foodstuffs coming in to your country and you wait, defensively, while your people starve, at least you can assure the families too weak to bury their children that you were morally upright. And when the bombers come in and target housing districts with napalm you can wait, confident in the strength of a static position, and assure your now homeless neighbors that you’re doing the right thing by not retaliating. True, what used to take thousands of bombers can now be done by a single Minuteman, but wouldn’t it be just awful for the children of your enemies to have to suffer along with you?

    Perhaps you should re-examine your morals if they require you to lose and be at the mercy of those who don’t follow your “morals”. Is the lion less moral than the lamb?

    • Agree: Sin City Milla
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  209. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    – Yet you have no proof for Generalplan Ost, I showed you a fake document trying be “a specific document”, and I showed you that nothing in that fake occurred, but you just ‘feel’ it.
    – As I said, there certainly were notes from Hitler’s dinners, the point is that what is laughably alleged to have been said was not. Pay attention please.
    – If you cannot / will not read information which debunks the fake ‘Table Talk’ allegations then what the hell are you doing citing fake quotes from it? You must be just ‘feeling’ it again.
    – I also noted you dodged other devastating take downs of the nonsense that was supposedly part of ‘Table Talk”. What’s wrong with you anyway?
    – What Hitler “mentioned” in Mein Kampf is certainly not something that could have been done in the midst of an immense two front war. Your claim is beyond absurd.
    And if Hitler wanted ‘lebensraum” then he already had it. Polish aggression assured that.
    As I said,, Kruschev said “We will bury you.”, Ayatollah Khomeini called the US the “Great Satan”, yet they did not attack the US.
    – Show us how “the Germans treated their enemies in the East differently from their enemies in the West, and that had to do with their racial theories.” I await. Or are you just ‘feeling’ it again.
    – Your back tracking weasel words about the Einsatzgruppen are noted.
    But how about telling us generally what you think the Einsatzgruppen did and where.

    Your clearly over matched here, you need to embrace reality, not easily debunked Zionist propaganda
    But hey, ALL Revisionists are former Believers. Cheers.
    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  210. @CK

    Marshall Pilsudski “invaded” the USSR to expand the Polish state. He detested the Bolsheviks. While he was certainly no supporter of Hitler, he understood the necessity of peace with Germany, and to that end signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934, part of which was to sort out the fate of the former German territories, including Danzig. His chosen successor Smygly-Ryz, ignored his advice and mobilized the Polish Army a few weeks before Germany invaded Poland.

    Contrary to popular belief, WWII did not start when Germany invaded Poland. It started when France and Britain declared war on Germany.
    As for the “defensive nature” of the Soviets, Why would any country need offensive weaponry for defensive reasons? Germany gave up claim to Alsace and Lorraine, built the defensive Siegfried Line, and declared its border with France as being fixed. If the Soviets were really interested in defensive measures, they had two years to construct defensive positions, yet constructed none. If they were interested in defensive measures, why would they need 360 divisions within striking distance of the German border? If the Germans were really planning for an offensive measure, why were they still using horses? https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/horses-of-the-blitz-german-cavalry-in-world-war-ii/
    Why would any leader of any country want a war on two fronts?

    Was Hitler completely innocent? Absolutely not. I urge people to stop swallowing the absolute bullshit narrative about the two world wars. There’s plenty of others to blame for both wars, most of it is inconvenient for the narrative.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @CK
  211. j2 says:
    @jacques sheete

    “Simple. The Poles were goading him and had been persecuting Germans put under their heel by the corrupt and disgusting Versailles diktat.

    Any more questions about the obvious?”

    Yes, I will reformulate my question, and I do appreciate answers from you, Mighty and or course Iris.

    Too much is made of an esoteric and occult connections of Nazis, this naturally is so. I do not try to make this connection. Hitler was no esoteric or occult person, though Rudolf Hess maybe had such features. In Mein Kampf Hitler denounces the Vo”lkish thinking. It is the legacy of the Germanic Order in the Thule Society, those romantic dreams of the past. So, Nazi leaders were not Vo”lkish.

    But as commented by Iris, WWII was a continuation of WWI with the same actors and a similar outcome. If we look at the outcome, the first world war was a terrible war (a Masonic war to finish all wars, i.e., a war without a gain to teach the people not to do wars), destroyed three monarchies (Russia, Austria, Germany), gave Russia to Communists, raised the USA to a major power, and gave a homeland to Zionists. The second world war made the USA a major world power, gave more land to Communists and led to Israel, which would not have been born without moving the Jews.

    So, how did the WWI start? It was not a dramatic consequence of an assassination done by a terrorist group. There was plan to get the parties to a war. Masons had foreknowledge, so they had a role in the plan and the results of the war agree with Masonic goals: a war to finish all wars, destruction of monarchies, restoration of Jews.

    Now to the question. How did the WWII start? It started when Hitler attacked Poland. Hitler knew that France would join the war and his plan to attack France was through Belgium, so he could assume England will join the war. There is every reason to think that Hitler knew that there would be a war between Germany and the Soviet Union, everybody expected it. Thus, by attacking Poland Hitler knowingly started a new world war.

    I give you possible reasons why Hitler attacked Poland and I ask you to consider them carefully:

    1. Hitler wanted to start a new world war. The new war would have the same players as WWI and the same result. In Mein Kampf Hitler wants the world to be divided between England, the USA and Germany. That cannot be done through a war where England and the USA are against Germany. Hitler did indeed start a new world war, but he could not have wanted to start one. He must have had a better reason for doing so than a dream of Lebensraum in the east, greater Germany, enslavement of untermenchen, destruction of Communism. Hitler must have realized that none of these goals could be reached through a new world war because the coalition against Germany would again be too strong and Germany would lose. Thus, the result would be destruction of Germany through a war. The only goal Hitler could achieve was solving the Jewish question by moving Jews out of Europe so that they could be restored to Palestine.

    2. Hitler was so angered/irritated by Poles (the atrocities and so on) that he did not care if the attack leads to a world war. But Hitler praised himself as a thinker and a thinker would first think what the consequences are.

    3. Hitler was a player who thought that maybe France and England will not protect Poland. It cannot be this because France and England did not initially protect Poland, they declared a war and did nothing. Hitler attacked France and only that made the western war real. If it had been a gamble, Hitler would have taken Poland, not attacked France and the western powers would have forgotten the issue. But Hitler knew that they would not forget the issue and a world war would be the result.

    4. The main issue of this war was the solution of the Jewish question by Hitler pushing the Jews of Europe to Palestine. If so, Hitler had to attack Poland as there were most Jews, and start moving them to camps. Jews were moved East. It was not regular internation of unreliable people to camps during a war. You normally do not move internated people to any direction, just keep them in camps. It was a systematic uprooting of Jews and moving them to the east and later to some home country.

    For these reasons I think the only solution is number 4 of these alternatives. You propose that the reason was 2 and think it is obvious. If the explanation is 2 then Hitler must have been a stupid hothead. I doubt it. There is a logic in the two world wars. They were not started by stupidity of hotheads but by a careful plan. Hitler himself warns, if the international bankers again manage to push the world into a new world war, the result for Jews will be different (that is, they will be uprooted and moved to the east to be later moved to the homeland). So, Hitler says it was the bankers who again start a world war. Why do you not believe it?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wally
    , @Iris
  212. @RobinG

    The essential point is to prove that Russia’s military upbuilding was only for defensive purposes. The Hitler apologetes aver that it was done for offensive purposes and that that justified Hitler’s preventive war. But that argument could easily be made to defeat itself : Stalin expected an aggressive war from Germany, therefore he himself prepared for a preventive war, which then was wrongly interpreted by the Germans as the preparation for a war of conquest. So which is it ? The Germans had a Lebensraum ideology, the Russians under Stalin had a Socialism-in-one-country ideology. You choose !

    • Replies: @j2
    , @jacques sheete
  213. Cundalini says:

    Quite possibly the most profoundly beautiful piece of Hitler ‘reputation laundering’ ever committed to the written word.

    • Replies: @Wally
  214. Fascinating article. It is all too clear that the United States was on the wrong side in the war in Europe. Thanks to Roosevelt.

  215. Cowboy says:
    @RobinG

    The Stalin apologists here will throw a hissy fit and blame everything on Hitler. They call their own cognitive dissonance “logical thinking.”

    Fify.

    Every European who died from 1939-1948 died because in Jew eyes they are Amalek. Hitler tried to save Europe from this jewish blood lust, and failed miserably. Stalin was a jew-stooge, just like Churchill and Roosevelt.

  216. Miggle says:

    it was the Soviet Union the world’s most oppressive regime at the
    time that was dedicated to the eradication of “free democracies” and

    WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is not a quote. This is our author!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    So Nazi Germany, where not voting got you shot, where voting for the
    wrong party got you shot, where being a (German) Communist got you
    shot, where helping Jews to escape the country, or being suspected of
    it, got you shot, where escaping from a prisoner-of-war camp and being
    recaptured got you shot, was NOT the world’s most oppressive regime at
    the time? Was one of the “free democracies”?

    Look out Maduro, here the Nazis come. Because yours is the world’s
    most oppressive regime at this time. We will give Venezuela a free democracy!

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Wally
    , @jacques sheete
  217. @Beefcake the Mighty

    All armies since antiquity give soldiers some kind of juice.

    Churchill (himself a sot) is said to have quipped that the British naval tradition was nothing more than rum, sodomy and the lash, and if he didn’t say it, I see no reason to doubt it.

    • Replies: @Miggle
  218. Rogue says:
    @j2

    I also got hold of Mein Kampf about 25 years ago.

    I assumed (due to the regular painting of Adolf Hitler as the epitome of all evil) that it would be full of lurid, political porn.

    The reality? Before I was a quarter of the way through my eyes were glazing over with boredom.

    Took it back to the library.

  219. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    “Nazi Ideology”

    Now that is a major trigger expression. The problem is that centuries of lies and misinformation has been spread by jews and communists to try to cover up their genocide of European peoples. Here are some typical jewish lies about “Nazi ideology”:

    “Lebensraum”
    The Final Solution
    Nazi Hatred for Jews
    Nazi Hatred for Poles
    “The Holocaust”

    There are many, many more lies deliberately spread by both capitalist jews like Morgenthau and communist jews like Ehrenberg, as well as the mass murdering puppets like Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. Katyn forest is one minor example of how deep the lies go. With all these lies swimming around in this jewish ocean of deception, it is nearly impossible to be certain of anything that cannot be forensically proven.

    One thing that seems clear from the photographs and film footage from that era is the degree to which the German Volk identified with Hitler and his Nazi movement. I do not think that anyone would deny that there was a special pagan bond between the German people and Hitler, and they supported him with a fervency that had not been seen in centuries. This bond is illustrated by the extreme loyalty of his officers and his armies. In essence it was a mutual trust that only Europeans seem genetically capable of creating. In truth, many Europeans in the lands that he liberated from ZOG admired and trusted Hitler to such a degree that they volunteered to go fight and die for him. Mark Weber explains it himself:

    “Soldiers from those nations were soon joined by volunteers from other European countries, including France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, and Belgium.”

    Just compare this to Stalin’s Kommisars machine gunning in the back any Communist soldier who failed to charge the MG34’s. Compare the behaviour of German troops in occupied France to the behaviour of the Soviets in occupied Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Or simply consider how jews working in German labor camps in Eastern Poland chose to retreat with their German “Death Camp” guards as the Soviets were raping and murdering their way across Eastern Europe in 1944 and 45.

    Regardless of all the lies and half truths dispensed by “scholars”, one salient fact shines through: Hitler had this special bond with the German Volk, and even the European people. Many people love to put Hitler’s decisions under the microscope of Kosher lies and half truths, but Hitler was acting emotionally and spiritually for the German people. Many of his early astute decisions were made over the objections of his officers and advisers, but he went ahead anyway, I think because he had a kind of spiritual guidance that comes from being a selfless leader. Calling it Paganism, Thuleism, Wotanism or anything else doesn’t change that fact.

    So when someone asks “Why did Germany attack the USSR”, I would reply:

    Germany had to strike to save Europe, and Hitler embodied the will of the German people. That volunteers from France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, and Belgium fought with Finland, Romania, Italy and Germany against the Jewish scourge proves that Hitler was no dictator.

    • Replies: @Anon
  220. The Hitler apologists here won’t let you get away with that kind of logical thinking.

    Robin, Sweetie, you forgot to insert the word, “twisted” as a modifier to “logical.” Are you a Red apologist? I hope not, since it’s a bit late, as in out of date, for Karl and the gang. Those well meaning useful idiots have long ago outlived their usefulness, just like the Zionist dupes of today.

    A small clique of big money boys finally have pretty much the whole world under their heels now.

  221. @AnonFromTN

    And while Germans were running amok in the rest of Europe, with plans to take more space in the east clearly stated in Mein Kampf, Soviet union obviously should not have taken any military steps to protect itself against most likely aggression. Germans crimes against Soviet POWs and civilian population that dwarf Holocaust make the whole point of this shitty article mute. It is always interesting how “partners” like to twist the truth. There is numerous examples of them invading Russia on massive scale with no similar scale invasion by Russia at all.

    • Replies: @j2
  222. Bukowski says:

    Hitler acted correctly. To allow Stalin to attack first would have been a mistake. The name for Stalin’s invasion of Germany was Operatsia Groza (Operation Thunderstorm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich
    Operation Barbarossa prevented Operation Thunderstorm.
    Stalin gave a speech in May 1941 stating that the Soviet Union was preparing for offensive war.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/Stalin_plans.html
    Straight from the horses mouth.
    Stalin sent Molotov to Berlin in November 1940 with a new list of territorial demands which made the 1939 pact out of date. He wanted more territory from Finland and Romania, all of Bulgaria, bases in Yugoslavia, control of the Dardanelles etc. And in April 1941 when there was a change of government in Yugoslavia Stalin offered them arms and ammunition to fight against Germany while at the same time professing to be a friend of that country. The Soviet dictator had proven himself to be untrustworthy.

    http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/2/4/3133

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  223. @Sparkon

    Stalin wisdom was incomparable. No wonder Lenin was promoting that “wonderfully Georgian” as he called him. Before industrialization started USSR was third world country with no capacity to produce tanks and only few tractors. I won’t even mention planes. Considering international situation there was no wonder the onus was on producing weapons. Otherwise Russia would not have existed after 1941.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  224. @AnonFromTN

    The author should have mentioned that before USSR innocent Hitler defended poor lil’ Germany from many other horrible threats: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, France, and a few other countries. Like a busy bee, Hitler kept defending Germany until May 1945.

    Before USSR Hitler did what?

    Hitler was in no position to do much before the USSR. The USSR came into being around 1922 and Hitler was not in power until a decade later.

    I think you mean that Hitler died trying to defend those other countries which were horribly threatened by international financiers and their One World Monopolists and their Mongrel attack dogs, the Marxists and Bolshies.

    If not, may I suggest you consider employing an editor?

  225. @MEFOBILLS

    AND… most especially, the German economic model, the model for governing German state, was antithetical to Jewish International Plutocracy.

    That is profound indeed!

    • Agree: Iris
  226. Miggle says:
    @jacques sheete

    Rum was the traditional drink in the English navy, but you were not supposed to drink it till the sun was above the yard-arm.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  227. @Sparkon

    Interesting speculation, but even here, your account is radically different from the official propaganda served up by the liberals and the Russians (who haven’t quite broken free of being a Soviet successor state). It’s thus much more compatible with revisionism than not.

  228. @jacques sheete

    Yes. The fact that he appeals to the case of Norway (as an example of Nazi “aggression”) demonstrates how weak his position is.

  229. Sparkon says:
    @Sergey Kriger

    Mr. Stalin’s cruel industrialization started in 1929 with the first 5-year plan, while Mr. Hitler did not come into power until Jan. 1933, when he was appointed Chancellor by Pres. Paul von Hindenburg, a development that elicited a declaration of war on Germany by international Jewry.

    But that crafty and prescient Stalin had apparently anticipated this turn of events when he wrote his reply to a query from the Jewish News Agency in the United States:

    In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

    J. Stalin
    January 12, 1931

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm

    So the Soviets were allied with the Jews against Germany, which is not to suggest of course that the Jews ever taught the Soviets any lessons about playing the victim, but does anyone familiar with the facts really think that Stalin and his generals were planning on or even capable of invading Germany in 1941, when the Red Army’s tank forces were comprised mostly of obsolete types like the T-26?

    More likely in my view, all the prewar hot air about offensive operations from Stalin and his generals was a provocation meant to make the Germans nervous, and to entice them into attacking and destroying all the Red Army’s obsolete junk seemingly poised menacingly against Germany.

    It was irresistible bait for the Germans, and they took it all, hook, line, and sinker.

  230. @Curmudgeon

    Good comment, but allow me to refine this a bit.:

    Contrary to popular belief, WWII did not start when Germany invaded Poland. It started when France and Britain declared war on Germany.

    The first is true and the second was certainly a proximate cause.

    However it started when Karl Marx and the rest of the boobs started yapping about worldwide revolution on behalf of their rich sponsors under the pretext of serving and protecting the hoi polloi. Germany (like Japan) was in their sights after it got unified, industrialized, and became a true competitor for world markets and resources and began to exercise some colonial aspirations like the big boys before them though on a much smaller scale, perhaps not sufficiently aggressive enough for the international userers.

    WW2 can be realistically viewed as a continuation of WW1, which itself can be usefully seen as a highly industrialized variant on the war between the big boys on the one hand and the one between the masters and the slaves on the other. It flared up when “Jews” from New Yoik and London declared war on Germany as front page news in 1933.

    WW2 , (essentially a continuation up of WW1), got a big boost when a certain clique of userers with One World aspirations instituted the Federal Reserve in 1913 facilitating the financing of belligerents in Europe for glee and profit. American involvement was subsequently “needed,” inter alia, to protect the loans and reap the profits.

    Of course it all really started when a vengeful and hideously sadistic “G-wd” created, in his image, ( does that tell ya something about who created whom?) the most disgusting species known to creation or existence, or whatever it is.

  231. @j2

    How did the WWII start? It started when Hitler attacked Poland…

    Hitler did indeed start a new world war, but he could not have wanted to start one.

    Stopped after the second sentence, above.

    I’ve learned to simply dismiss people who continuously repeat threadbare concepts like that, especially since I was brought up believing such trash and unlearned a lot of it through experience coupled with hard work. Once a person moves beyond such foolishness there is no looking back, so you’re just wasting your time trying to resell it to me.

    Bless you for trying, though.

  232. @RobinG

    The relevance is in the use of the double-cross as a “diplomatic” strategy. Kuwait was stealing Iraq’s oil. US Ambassador Gillespie assured Saddam that the US had no position on Iraq’s intention to put a stop to it by military means if necessary, but it was later used as a pretext for a US invasion.

    Iris would probably state it better than me but it’s hard to imagine that you didn’t already know this history.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Iris
  233. j2 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    It is not the buildup of military capabilities but the placement of the troops that indicates an attack intention. For defense purposes the Soviet troops would have been placed as defense in depth, as they had a large area and in that case you do defense in depth. It was not for a Soviet preventive attack because German forces were not concentrated for an attack when Soviets were forming attack positions. A preventive attack requires an immediate threat of an attack.

    A clear early proof that Soviet troops were in attack formation was the rapid advance of German forces and the large number of Soviet POWs. Today there is information of Soviet troop placements and they were in an offensive formation. This I would take as a proven fact.

    If by a preventive attack by Stalin you mean that Stalin guessed that sooner or later there will be a war with Germany and it is better to attack first, then it is true: both sides knew that there would be a war. It is a bit of an academic question to ask if Hitler made a preventive attack in June 1941. It may well be that in June 1941 he was forced to attack in order to prevent a Soviet attack in August 1941, but the war was certain to come and both sides were aware of it. Just as well one may think that Hitler waited until Soviets started preparing their attack and used that chance for an offensive.

    Finland was one of the three countries that attacked to the Soviet Union in June 1941. In April-May 1941 there were general staff officer war games in the Finnish army with offensive scenarios. Before that time Finnish plans were purely defensive. The offensive alternative came up stronger a month before the attack. Thus, Germany had not gathered any coalition to the attack earlier that about 2 months before the attack. Stalin had no reason to suspect a German attack still in April 1941. This agrees well with the warning he got from Sorge in 12. May 1941. That is just a bit after the time the attack plan is likely to have been made. No visible preparations for an offensive were made before 12. May, so Stalin took Sorge’s warning for planted false information to confuse Soviet plans. There is reason to believe that Stalin did plan an offensive in August 1941 and was preparing for it. Thus, in a certain sense the attack in June 1941 can be called preventive.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  234. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Stalin expected an aggressive war from Germany

    Wrong preposition and proposition.

    This is better.: Stalin expected an aggressive war on Germany.

    Which is why he tried to form an alliance with Britain and France against Hitler. When he got rebuffed by them he had to reformulate his approach, thus he fell back on one step at a time, i.e., his form of national socialism which was clever in many ways.

    So which is it ? The Germans had a Lebensraum ideology, the Russians under Stalin had a Socialism-in-one-country ideology. You choose !

    That’s known as a false dichotomy. It’s neither logical nor reasonable to demand a choice between the two when there are other possibilities. Besides being a rabble rouser, terrorist, arsonist, bank robber, assassin and mass murderer, Stalin was a master politician and it’s easy to see how that policy served his interests well. It’s not hard to understand that it was a temporary expedient which bought him time and who knows what else as I explained above, so do yourself a favor and change horses.

  235. @Commentator Mike

    Trying to say that Hitler’s Nazis fought to defend Europe from communism is ridiculous. Wars are usually fought over natural resources and ideologies just create covers for these designs.

    Here, try this.

    Hitler’s Nazis fought to defend Europe from Communist (i.e. Marxist, Bolshevist, Leninist, and Stalininst*)control of markets and natural resources, and ideologies just create covers for these designs.

    * All those cats as well as FDR and Churchill to name just the most prominent ones, were all useful idiots in the service of the international usurers (who profit from war) until proven otherwise. BTW, it’s pretty obvious that the State of Israel, as is its puppet the USA, serve that purpose today, and both are now at about the used toilet paper stage.

  236. j2 says:
    @Sergey Kriger

    “Soviet union obviously should not have taken any military steps to protect itself against most likely aggression.”

    If the Soviet Union wanted to defend itself against a German invasion, the Soviet troops would have been in defense in depth in June 1941 and Germany could not have advanced so fast and taken so many POWs, but Stalin was planning an attack and had set the troops for an attack and this is the reason why so many POWs were taken of whom so many of them later died.

    “It is always interesting how “partners” like to twist the truth.”
    The Soviet Union twisted the truth of the Winter War for all the time up to 1980s. Nobody in the Warsaw Pact countries heard the truth of that war before 1980s. Soviets twisted very many truths, and some Russians are still twisting the truth. You may be still uninformed.

    • Replies: @Sergey Kriger
  237. @Miggle

    Sometimes (most of the time) I’m denser than basalt, but now I see why the Brits had sugar plantations (and slaves) all over the Caribbean.

    George Washington, a former Brit officer, was the biggest distiller of whiskey in the colonies I believe*. Hmmmmm…

    *I need to research it to be sure. And now I remember that both he and Jefferson advocated the growing of hemp, and evidently not just for the fibers.

    FDR descended from a multimillionaire dope trafficker and profiteer, Warren Delano II, and the Japanese had been trying to control heroin addiction in the far East. To that end it also tried to develop its own sources of opium in Manchukuo…De plot do thicken, it seemeth, or maybe I’m just a wild eyed kunspirasee theerist?

  238. Seraphim says:
    @Bukowski

    It is more improbable that Stalin would have taken the initiative of the attack against Germany in the conditions of the existence of the Anti-Comintern Pact. It would have attracted the intervention of Japan and for sure Stalin wouldn’t have liked to fight on two fronts.
    The document purported to prove the aggressive intentions: “Considerations of the Plan for the Strategic Deployment of the Armed forces of the Soviet Union in Case of War with Germany and its Allies” is not a proof that Stalin intended to start the war.

  239. anonymous[176] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    your peace loving Stalin

    Nowhere in the comment was it claimed that Stalin was “peace loving”.

    No doubt you’re going to trot out the impossible ‘gas chambers

    Neither the article nor the comment dealt with that so why drag it in?

    Good ole Uncle “rational” Joe,

    If you don’t think he acted in a rational manner then show us where he acted irrationally.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  240. @Wally

    1) I said there was no specific document but only a general plan which was no yet worked out in details. That the Allies faked such a document does not disprove that the intention to colonize the East did not exsist. Otherwise, why would the Germans try to crimp Dutchmen to settle in the newly conquered territories in the East ? Nothing in that fake document occured ? Well of course, that was prevented by the course of the war.

    2) So your criterion is: if something in Hitler’s Table Talk is ebarrassing to you (“laughable”), it must be untrue, if not then it must be true. Special pleading much ?

    3) I trust David Irving more than the eccentric Veronica Clark, and he has read the original German text.

    4) Again, your criterion for something being “nonsense” is if it contradicts your image of the “innocent” Hitler.

    5) Hitler’s plans were megalomaniac anyway. Same could be said about Mussolini and the Japanese. Poland alone was never big enough for Hitler’s grandiose plans. What politicians say in public is often different from what they say in private. Public pronouncements may be for propaganda purposes only, by private remarks reveal their real thoughts and Hitler’s Table Talk was private.

    6) “…It is estimated that at 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody, out of 5.7 million. This figure represents a total of 57% of all Soviet POWs and may be contrasted with 8,300 out of 231,000 British and U.S. prisoners, or 3.6%. About 5% of the Soviet prisoners who died were Jews.[5]The most deaths took place between June 1941 and January 1942, when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through deliberate starvation,[6] exposure, and summary execution…”
    Wikipedia: German Mistreatment of Soviet Prisoners of War.

    As for the German treatment of the Russian civilian population, for them the noble Nazis had reserved their Hungerplan : take food from the population to feed the German army and if the population starves, the better : “…The plan resulted in the deaths of millions of people.[1] The plan as a means of mass murder was outlined in several documents, including one that became known as Göring’s Green Folder, which quoted a number of “20 to 30 million” expected Russian deaths from “military actions and crises of food supply…” Wikipedia: Hungerplan.

    7) The Einsatzgruppen were used to kill partisans behind the front. They were killed by shooting and were burried in graves that they themselves had to dig. Many of those partisans were Jews. It is alleged that the Einsatzgruppen also killed whole Jewish villages, but I am not sure of that.

    When all has been said and done about the crimes of the Allies and their propaganda, still that does not make Hitler and the Nazis innocent. The last thing we need is a Hitler-cult.

  241. Anon[403] • Disclaimer says:

    This article really brought the Jewish supremacists out of their rotten woodwork.

  242. It would have attracted the intervention of Japan and for sure Stalin wouldn’t have liked to fight on two fronts.

    Despite the fact that Japan beat Russia shortly before (with funds “generously ” supplied by the New York banker, Schiff), its hands were more than full in China. it wasn’t in much need of another “front” itself.

  243. @Wally

    I’ll concede to you that one about the soap. Which self respecting Nazi would want to wash himself with soap made from a “filthy” Jew? Unless of course it was given to soldiers without telling them the origin. Or maybe to those Jews still capable of work in the concentration camps before the final exit shower. I can just imagine the snigger of the SS in the know.

    • Replies: @Byrresheim
  244. RobinG says:
    @Miggle

    The author is indeed an aberration, but what a bizarre comparison! You want to tell us about the Stolypin cars in Venezuela?

    • Replies: @Miggle
  245. @jacques sheete

    A private boycott isn’t a formal declaration of war or even a sanctions regime. It’s similar to the “Divestment” campaign against the Apartheid South Africa (though sanctions were later imposed) or the current BDS campaign against Israel.

    Unlike Italy the Entente didn’t even sanction Germany, probably because Germany the largest trading partner of Britain and France. Much of the nickel used in the German war effort was for instance imported from Canada before the war with full knowledge of the British.

    World Jewry was, to say the least, not approving of the Nazi regime. But the “war” against it wasn’t universal as demonstrated by the Haavara Agreement (which Ron Unz has written about on this site).

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wally
  246. @jacques sheete

    It’s always amusing to watch Nazi fanboys twist and squirm, even play clinically dumb, when confronted with facts. Take heart: true believers never let the reality get in the way of their beliefs.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wally
    , @L.K
  247. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

    He’s a rabid Holodomor denier too.

  248. RobinG says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    How is that what Iris wrote? She said, “He probably was tricked by the Hebraic banking plutocracy…..” From the Jew thing, you’re reading that French and British official diplomats told Hitler not to worry about the [recently made, for the purpose] agreement with Poland? Okaaay. Maybe some evidence of that?

  249. @Seraphim

    Hitler’s Balkan policy was relatively successful. All of the Balkan states other than Greece entered the German sphere of influence. Unfortunately for the Germans the Yugoslav government was overthrown by a British-inspired coup d’etat and the Italians invaded Greece.

    Still, having been dealt a bad hand, German forces rapidly overran Yugoslavia and Greece.

  250. CK says:
    @Curmudgeon

    The Polish attack on the Ukraine and Belarus in 1919 was stopped and then reversed by Trotsky and the Bolshevik armies. The Poles were driven back to Warsaw and then turned the military tables on the Reds at the battle of Warsaw. A peace treaty ensued and the Poles gave up about 1/2 the lebensraum they had initially taken.
    Some folks put the start of WWII as you do with the Anglo French declaration against Germany, others put the beginning at 7/7/37 with the Japanese invasion of China; for myself, a case can be made that the century of war began 2/8/04 with the Japanese navy’s sneak attack on the Russian port Port Arthur. And even that arbitrary start date ignores the many European and Asian wars and scrimmages that fed like rivulets of lava into the larger conflagrations of 1914-1920, 1937 – 1975.
    Any weapon that can be used to defend can be used to attack. Artillery to armoured cars, bayonets to white phosphorus bombs, tanks to katyusha they can be used to lead an attack or to respond to an attack. Scythes and sticks and rocks for that manner can be offensive and defensive. The Germans made short shrift of the Fabulous Maginot Line … by going around it. Maybe the Russians couldn’t afford a border fence from the Lithuanian border to the black sea.
    As for your question re horses, the Germans, the Poles, the Russians all used horses for pulling things. The US Marines were still using horses in Korea. Animals are still used in wars today, although horses not so much ( however many mules and jackasses hold generals rank even today).
    It is convenient to theorize in terms of snapshots and snippets of time and to ignore the fluid flows of men and motives and scientific advances and moral transgressions over time. Arguing from statics in a dynamic world is what academics do; a snapshot of their navel lint does not explain the process by which their waist lines keep expanding, but it gets a publication somewhere.

  251. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Yea, right, Germany never occupied Norway, and operation Weserübung never happened.

    Sane people can find some info here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Norway

    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @Wally
  252. @Thorfinnsson

    But the “war” against it wasn’t universal …

    Of course. That’s part of the reason I specified some of the instigators.

    Anyway, I’m happy to see that you understand that there was a war going on and that there were economic components to it.

    The goofy finger pointing at Germany, Hitler and the Nazis as the major causes of the wars is essentially what I’m trying to refute.

    For most of the Hitler bashers it’s as if the Brit, US, Russian (and Soviet), and French empires never existed, and if they did, they “dindoo nuffin.”

    Furthermore, it’s as if the financial wonder boys and other scam artists “dindoo nuffin” either.

    It’s always “dem Nazis…” I call BS.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Thorfinnsson
  253. AWM says:

    Stalin was not “trustworthy”
    and Hitler became a “madman”

    Well I’m glad we cleared that up.

    Both were brilliant (Hitler less so) but criminally flawed leaders, and thank God that their conflict began in June 1941, as opposed to 1943 or even later.
    I think Richard Sorge was an even bigger player than we have thought, perhaps Joseph Stalin had intended his “Thunderstorm” to be roughly coordinated with the Japanese attack in the Pacific. But when the Barbarossa attack became obvious, he played it to maximum effect in America and in the “long game” which it always seems he excelled. His sacrifice of millions of Soviet forces was perhaps the biggest gamble a leader could ever take, but he knew this would solidify his relationship with FDR, and, as usual, he was right.
    The world, as it existed late in 1945, was almost entirely of Stalin’s creation. He had literally eliminated all of his old enemies and divided the planet into 2 parts, one of FDR and one of his.
    It was in this world, and not until this world, that his talents or perhaps spies, failed him.

  254. @AnonFromTN

    It’s always amusing to watch Nazi fanboys twist and squirm…

    Spoken like a true OGPU or NKVD sympathizer, many of whom were reportedly sadistic beyond comprehension, as exemplified by their criminality in the various Stalinist holocausts including the Holodomor, or slow death by starvation* of up to 10 million Ukrainians. No merciful “gas chambers” for them!

    Actually, however any twisting you perceive likely originates in what passes for your mind. Enjoy your fantasies, Toughie!

    * But never mind, the Brits were fond of starving people en masse as well.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  255. @RobinG

    “He probably was tricked by the Hebraic banking plutocracy…..”

    He probably was. It wouldn’t be the only time that ever happened, would it?

    • Troll: RobinG
  256. @anonymous

    If you don’t think he acted in a rational manner then show us where he acted irrationally.

    Why bother? We have some pretty good ideas how that would turn out.

    PS: If you are unable to answer your own question, then what makes you think anyone else could do it for you?

  257. Wally says:
    @AnonFromTN

    That’s it? That’s all you have to say?

    Your problem is that you cannot rationally, factually counter what Revisionist here post.
    You then become terribly frustrated and project your problem on them. It’s a classic, albeit highly juvenile, tactic.

    And do let us know how the ‘Nazi’ gas chambers’ worked when you get a chance.

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

    “No alleged human remains of millions in allegedly known locations to see, no ‘holocaust’.”

  258. @AnonFromTN

    Sane people can find some info here:

    Sane or not, smart people don’t bother quoting Wiki on such topics.

  259. Wally says:
    @jacques sheete

    said:
    “For most of the Hitler bashers it’s as if the Brit, US, Russian (and Soviet), and French empires never existed”

    Indeed.
    Whenever anyone says that ‘the Nazis wanted to take over the world’ just show them a map of the period to see who already ruled the world.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  260. Wally says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Except that the British had already invaded Norway and were there when the Germans arrived.

    See my comment #29 for many examples of Allied aggression that your limited education has failed to inform you of.

    And as if Wikipedia is an unbiased source. LOL

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet
    http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia

  261. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Except that the “neutral” US government was supplying vast amounts of arms and supplies of all types to Britain and the USSR.

    Not exactly a “private boycott”.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  262. @jacques sheete

    Wow! More obfuscation and so many changes in direction that you ravings resemble Brownian motion. To be expected.

    As the Russian phrase expresses it, “can I have cutlets separately and flies separately”?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  263. Hillbob says:
    @Wally

    You asked me for examples of the “murderous’ Nazis. I provided two(see post #131) . Not sure if you have seen them, or I did not notice your response. If I have, please forgive me and direct me to it. It may very well elucidate my ignorance on the matter. Then again, these extreme levels of brutality, may not be extreme to you at all, hence not worth your time. Alternatively, you , like the beloved fuhrer, may have chosen your own way out when the heat was turned up…

  264. Wally says: • Website
    @Miggle

    – Wrong. Communists in NS Germany were not shot.

    – Wrong. Not voting in NS Germany did not get you shot.

    – Like the US and it’s concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, Germany incarcerated those that they thought were a threat to the war effort. Like the US and all the Allies, assisting those deemed a threat would indeed beget strong punishment.
    In fact Germany would have been unusual if they did not punish those they considered to be traitors.

    – There are numerous examples of those being recaptured after attempting to escape a German facility who were in fact not shot.

    – The Allies routinely shot all recaptured escapees and attempted escapees.

    We also notice that you make no mention of the notorious Communist WWII behavior. Telling.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    , @Miggle
  265. j2 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “6) “…It is estimated that at 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody, out of 5.7 million. This figure represents a total of 57% of all Soviet POWs and may be contrasted with 8,300 out of 231,000 British and U.S. prisoners, or 3.6%. About 5% of the Soviet prisoners who died were Jews.[5]The most deaths took place between June 1941 and January 1942, when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through deliberate starvation,[6] exposure, and summary execution…”
    Wikipedia: German Mistreatment of Soviet Prisoners of War.”

    I make some comments on this.
    Firstly, Germans shot Russian POWs for several reasons, not only politrucks. One reason was that Russian POWs did not understand what being a POW implies but tried to fare war with spreading lice. In Auschwitz they tried to keep lice hidden even in their mouths and to throw them on the guards. There is a book by a Russian POW in Auschwitz Andrei Pogozev, escape from Auschwitz where he tells this.
    Secondly, Nazis misunderstood what the metabolic minimum means and calculated food portions as average metabolic minimum. It is too little for the other half. In the book Naill Ferguson, the pity of war is told of German food portions during the WWI and how somebody tried to live on them and lost some 20 kg if I correctly remember. Finns applied the same portions, or a bit bigger, but had to increase those portions as they are too small.
    Thirdly, infectious diseases had 20% (typhus) and 15% (Febris typhoidea) death ratios.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  266. @Wally

    Didn’t you know, these allies had conquered the planet, did some very questionable things in the places they conquered, they then turned twice good guys, and after the War(I +II), they again turned imperial, now with the Americans and Soviets continuing what the Brits, French and Russians did.
    The brits starved millions to death in India, the Bolsheviks in Ukraine, but hey, these allies turned twice the good guys to safe the world.

    World War 1
    “Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain.”
    – Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

    World War 2
    “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

    “Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it.” – Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US – General Robert E. Wood)

    “This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.”
    – Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)

    “The war wasn’t only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn’t want to.”
    – Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

    “Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn’t profit anymore. …We butchered the wrong pig.”
    -Winston Churchill (The Second World War – Bern, 1960)

    “We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure.”
    – US foreign minister James Baker (1992, Der Spiegel)

    “Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear.”
    – Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England

    “We didn’t go to war in 1939 to save Germany from Hitler…or the continent from fascism. Like in 1914, we went to war for the not lesser noble cause that we couldn’t accept a German hegemony over Europe.”
    – Sunday Correspondent, London (17.9.1989)

    “The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven’t understood this, haven’t understood anything.” – Churchill’s chief counselor Robert Lord Vansittart (as said to foreign minister Lord Halifax, September 1940)

    The taboo truth, which is so simple, and these things have been repeating over and over again with the “war on terror”.

  267. Wally says:
    @Cundalini

    Yep, a reputation not earned and claims about for which there is no proof.

    Cheers.

  268. @jacques sheete

    The trouble with a lot of revisionist narratives is that they seek to completely exculpate the Germans and paint them as blameless victims acting defensively (e.g. this article’s uncritical endorsement of the dubious Icebreaker thesis, also endorsed by Ron Unz), rather than simply correcting the narrative and pointing out the culpability of the other powers.

    It’s a fact, for instance, that the Germans devoured the Czechoslovak rump state (in concert with Poland and Hungary) . If I recall correctly the diplomatic excuse given was that Czechoslovakia was falling apart. The same reason the USSR gave for taking their half of Poland.

    It’s true that the British guaranteed Poland’s frontiers and the American ambassador encouraged Polish intransigence, but that doesn’t change the fact that Germany declared war on Poland and invaded the country.

    I’m reminded of the Fawlty Towers episode “The Germans”:

    Basil Fawlty (John Cleese): You started it

    German hotel guest: N0

    Basil Fawlty: Yes you did you invaded Poland!

  269. Wally says:
    @j2

    Yawn.
    j2 just repeats what I and others have utterly demolished.
    But hey, he’s one of those ‘Don’t confuse us with facts, our minds are made up’, we believe.’

    J2 is the same hasbarist who said:

    “I believe that six million Jews were killed by Nazis, 1-1.5 million in Auschwitz.
    If it appears that the calculation does not support this belief, it is only because addition of numbers uses the normal logic where 2+2=4, but
    beliefs do not need to follow any logic. The Holocaust was a miracle and miracles do not follow mathematical logic.

    j2 is a faithful True Believer. Let’s all praise his religious “miracles”!

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @j2
  270. @Wally

    In 1933?

    FDR didn’t turn to foreign intrigue until 1937, and it wasn’t until 1939 that the USA could even legally export weapons to belligerents (Cash & Carry Act).

    Lend-Lease in turn wasn’t made law until March, 1941.

    The “private boycott” in question was not about the foreign policy of the second and third Roosevelt administrations (which was clearly directed against the Axis Powers), but the 1933 Jewish commercial boycott immortalized in The Daily Express’ Judea Declares War story.

    • Replies: @Wally
  271. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I agree and I feel sorry for all the European people who died or suffered because of the megalomaniac Hitler. Some Germans did try to stop him but at a certain point his organization was too big and powerful.

    Most people just want to have something to drink and eat and enjoy life. If another Hitler comes about it will be the final death of Europeans.

    Europeans should unite against the new hordes coming from Africa and Asia.

    Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes and the Moslem Ottoman Turks invaded Europe many times but were eventually repelled.

    The new invasion strategy is to out reproduce the Europeans as they found out that they could not conquer Europe by war.

    • Replies: @Wally
  272. @AnonFromTN

    Wow! More obfuscation and so many changes in direction that you ravings resemble Brownian motion. To be expected.

    As the Russian phrase expresses it, “can I have cutlets separately and flies separately”?

    As expected, more sick glee from the sadists among us.

    And Robin (the Redbird), outdated as you feathered flatuses are, warned us about Hitler fan boys and ad hominems. But please, both of you Holodomor deniers and Stalin fan critters , do knock yourselves out.

    PS: I like Stalin for knocking off a bunch of old Bolshies, exterminating Trotsky and playing FDR and Churchill for the butt licking pimps that they were, so maybe I’m not all bad, eh? Hey, maybe I’m even a fan-boy of Stalin’s to a degree, eh? 😉

  273. @Thorfinnsson

    The trouble with a lot of revisionist narratives is that they seek to completely exculpate the Germans and paint them as blameless victims acting defensively …

    Probably a bit of hyperbole there, but who could blame them in any case? Most are so sick of hearing about “de” holocaust (as if no other one ever occurred), and the victimology of the “Chozen Wunders, that anything else comes as a relief.

    The truth of the matter is that the Germans were, in the big picture, on the defensive against certain elements of the crackpot big money crowd. Period.

    PS: You don’t need to point any of that out to me, but if it makes you feel better, be my guest. And another thing: I feel it’s important to keep hammering away at the truth because a lot of people today are being screwed over by essentially the same clowns as the Germans were.

    End of discussion, and have a nice day.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Byrresheim
  274. FDR didn’t turn to foreign intrigue until 1937,

    FDR recognized teh Soviet Union in 1933 against the better judgement of better people.

    and it wasn’t until 1939 that the USA could even legally export weapons to belligerents (Cash & Carry Act).

    Giumme a break. Your use of the word,”legal” is as meaningful as it is ridiculous. “Legal” or not, FDR was a de facto dictator who did whatever he could get away with.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  275. RobinG says:
    @CK

    Reasonable post. So, what’s your evidence that the world’s getting “colder and colder” (or weren’t you talking about climate)?

    • Replies: @CK
  276. j2 says:
    @Wally

    “j2 is a faithful True Believer. Let’s all praise his religious “miracles”!”

    But Wally, Holocaustism is the official religion of the EU, you would not want the inquisition to knock your door in the night time. We are all Holocaustists now, thanks to you our friends Americans.

    • Replies: @PeterMX
  277. @jacques sheete

    Thanks. I try as much as I can. My only regret is having a Vasectomy after only four children. I encourage all European men to withhold having this procedure until at least three children are born.

    If your woman does not want children then let her have an operation.

  278. @Sparkon

    The threat was not just from Hitler. But from all of western partners. Stalin clearly stated that Soviet union was some 50-100 years behind other western countries and to avoid destruction USSR needed to close the gap within 10 years or be crashed. Well, the gap was closed. The rest does not worth to be discussed.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  279. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    [In 2 parts: this software won’t allow my full comment. ???]

    pt.1:
    1. IOW, you believe in a plan where a fake document is debunked by claiming that there was a plan anyway, inspite of he fact that nothing that claim actually occurred.
    That’s the very definition of irrational. You just keep believing with no such proof whatsoever.

    2. The absurd claims about Table Talk have been demonstrated to be false, I gave you proof of that falsity, you dodged it.

    3. I showed you from Irving’s own website that Table Talk is filled nonsense, you dodged it, of course.
    Previously you said that you ‘didn’t understand” Veronica Clark, but now you say you don’t “trust” her without even saying why. You’re a faithful True Believer impervious to facts and rationality.

    4. I explain and prove my criteria, you just believe in yours.

    5. Like a robot you keep repeating what I have demonstrated to be false. But you religiously believe anyway. Get serious.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  280. @j2

    You must have served at general staff in some important role to make judgements about troops disposition.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  281. EugeneGur says:
    @Anon

    All Jewry holds the same beliefs and ultimate aims. See my above Chabad link.

    What an idiotic thing to say! Like “all Germans are Nazis” or “all Americans are stupid”.

    You only need to read Jewish scripture to see just how they offend every sane nation and that they are a slow poison to every nation.

    I am sorry but you are the poison and you are anything but sane.

  282. @jacques sheete

    FDR recognized teh Soviet Union in 1933 against the better judgement of better people.

    Diplomatic recognition of a sovereign state doesn’t qualify as “foreign intrigue” even if permitting a Soviet embassy in your capital has certain negative consequences. It’s also worth pointing out that there were substantial American exports to the USSR in this period, and the resumption of dipl0matic relations furthered facilitated this commercial success through the provision of c0nsular services and government-guaranteed export credit (once the EXIM Bank was created in 1934).

    In the absence of diplomatic recognition, some fraction of these export orders would certainly have been won from rival firms from other countries (mainly Britain and Germany).

    Worth weighing against the negative consequences of the usual Soviet shenanigans conducted under diplomatic cover.

    Giumme a break. Your use of the word,”legal” is as meaningful as it is ridiculous. “Legal” or not, FDR was a de facto dictator who did whatever he could get away with.

    Which weapons did America export to Britain (let alone the USSR) prior to the passage of the Cash & Carry Act?

    And in any case unlike the Lend-Lease weapons provided after March, 1941 the arms exported before then were paid for in cold, hard cash. Good business.

  283. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    [part 2, faulty software wont’ allow full post]

    6. Please present proof of your POW numbers claim, which I note is attempt by you to change the subject. Yes, there were POWs and many died. I suggest a look at Eisenhower’s POW death camps:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12370&p=91796&hilit=eisenhower#p91796

    And the Soviet gulags which your Wikipedia fails to discuss.

    Like your laughable Generalplan Ost, there is no such thing as the ‘Hunger Plan’, LOL< and you cannot show us this "plan".
    I see you cite Zionist Wikipedia, why? It's hardly reliable, it's highly fake when it comes to Jew interests,
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedi

  284. EugeneGur says:
    @Anon

    International communism was and is an existential threat to the world. Communism in Germany is what led to the rise of the National Socialists in self defense.

    You can engage in the mental equilibristics all you want but it can’t change the facts by a hair’s breadth. Germany attacked the Soviet Union and not the other way around, whatever you fantasies are about “existential threats”.

    On the other hand, perhaps, we should emulate you? We in Russia think you are an ‘existential threat” to us. Should we bomb you to oblivion, you think, preventive-like?

    What a forceful conclusion after having said exactly nothing.

    Well, don’t blame the text for your deep deficiencies in understanding.

  285. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    [part 3, faulty software won’t allow full post ???]

    7. Once again, you’re backtracking, but it’s a start.
    There is no proof for the claimed ‘killing whole Jewish villages’.

    NS Germany simply did not do what is alleged of them, simple as that. Your “cult” accusation is juvenile.

    Remember, ALL Revisionists are former Believers.

  286. @jacques sheete

    Sorry to disappoint, I am not a fan of Stalin or your beloved führer. What’s more, I am not a fan of OGPU/NKVD/KGB or Gestapo, either. Killing off a lot of old-guard Bolsheviks was arguably one of only two good things Stalin did in his life, the other being beating Nazis to pulp.

    • Agree: RobinG
    • Replies: @Sergey Kriger
  287. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    said:
    “The trouble with a lot of revisionist narratives is that they seek to completely exculpate the Germans and paint them as blameless victims”

    So show us what you feel is wrong with ‘lots of revisionist narratives’, be specific.

    We await.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  288. Wally says:
    @europeasant

    Please explain what makes you think Hitler was a “megalomaniac”.

    Tell us what you think he did, with proof.

    Or, are you just “feelin it’?

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    – so called “holocaust historian”, Raul Hilberg

    “No alleged human remains of millions in allegedly known locations to see, no ‘holocaust’.”

  289. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The date is irrelevant

    I pointed out US massive aid to Britain & USSR before the US was in the war which proves that the “private boycott” was not so “private” at all.
    Obviously Roosevelt’s Jews went to work for Jew interests.

    You don’t like it, but that’s your problem.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  290. EugeneGur says:
    @j2

    Firstly, Germans shot Russian POWs for several reasons, not only politrucks. One reason was that Russian POWs did not understand what being a POW implies

    I don’t believe you realize how obnoxious you sound. Naturally, the Russian POWs are only themselves to blame, for they didn’t stand still while being slowly murdered.

    Secondly, Nazis misunderstood what the metabolic minimum means and calculated food portions as average metabolic minimum. It is too little for the other half.

    Yes, poor little Nazis were just too dumb to understand that people need to be fed in order to live.

    Thirdly, infectious diseases had 20% (typhus) and 15% (Febris typhoidea) death ratios.

    Of course, how could the Nazis know that in crowded conditions with little food, hard labour, and no medical treatments infections are likely to spread? Such a complicated concept was clearly beyond them – those saviors of the humankind.

    • Replies: @Sergey Kriger
    , @j2
  291. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cowboy

    More than a cowboy you are a black hat gunslinger .

    Are you baving to invade Venezuela , Iran , Russia , Irak , Siria , Somalia , Lebanon , Serbia , Cuba , ….. ? get your occupation troops out of Europe , you gunslinger .

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
  292. PeterMX says:
    @j2

    And it’s heresy punishable by years long prison sentences if you’re a non-believer. In the USSR the Jews took a different tack. As 80 to 85% of the USSR’s gov’t they outlawed Christianity and outlawed anti-Semitism. Apparently, we’re all forced to be Jews now. If you’re a non-believer, you’re punished.

    Currently the 88 year old German activist Ursula Haverbeck is serving jail time for not submitting to their will. Lawyer Sylvia Stolz has served two sentences in recent years. Her client Ernst Zundel served jail time for years and had his house bombed in Canada by Jews many years ago.. Stolz and Zundel served jail time in Germany. Alfred Schafer is currently serving jail time in Germany for not being a believer. All across Europe people are in trouble with the law for not believing. Some people estimate several thousand people are serving jail time in Europe (mostly Germany) for thought crimes related to the holocaust.

    This is Monika Schafer, Alfred’s sister. She was thrown in jail for apologizing to her German mother. She no longer believes in Holocaust. See her video at the bottom of the article. That is what she was arrested for. I’m in eastern Europe right now and YouTube has blocked it from being viewed here.

    https://www.darkmoon.me/2018/holocaust-revisionist-monika-schaefer-arrested-in-germany-and-placed-in-solitary-confinement-for-thought-crime/

    So, I guess the democracies don’t believe in free speech after all, and they support censorship too.

  293. @Wally

    In my post that you responded to I brought up this:

    It’s a fact, for instance, that the Germans devoured the Czechoslovak rump state (in concert with Poland and Hungary) . If I recall correctly the diplomatic excuse given was that Czechoslovakia was falling apart. The same reason the USSR gave for taking their half of Poland.

    It’s true that the British guaranteed Poland’s frontiers and the American ambassador encouraged Polish intransigence, but that doesn’t change the fact that Germany declared war on Poland and invaded the country.

    In the first case Germany violated the Munich Agreement, and in the second case Germany invaded Poland unprovoked (unless Poland not agreeing to German demands constitutes a provocation?).

    You claimed of Poland in another post:

    Yes, Germany attacked Poland after much Polish aggression and land seizures. Poland was asking for and deserved it.

    There is definitely something wrong with this revisionist narrative of yours.

    I suppose the rump Czechoslovak state was also asking for it?

    With respect to Operation Barbarossa, while I am dismissive of the Icebreaker thesis, the actual reasons put forth by the Reich in its Declaration of War have a lot of merit. So here revisionists are on firmer ground.

    • Replies: @Wally
  294. “megalomaniac”

    A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

    I never met Hitler as I was born in Germany a few years after the war ended. But I have read a few books about him.

    He was delusional in that he thought that Slavs were weak and sub human. But maybe he only thought that for propaganda purposes.

    Of course he found out how weak Slavic people were when they kicked his ass and his followers from Stalingrad to Berlin. Therefore Delusional.

    1. Adolf Hitler by John Toland two volume set
    2.Bloodlands by Tim Snyder
    3.The Wolf of the Kremlin by Stuart Kahan
    4.Flight in the Winter by Jurgen Thornwald
    5.Hitler by Joachim Fest
    6.The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler by William Shirer
    7.Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer

    There are many many more on Hitler.

    Currently reading for the second time in order to gain more understanding of military conditions in the east.
    1. Lost Victories by Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein.

    “Manstein was born Fritz Erich Georg Eduard von Lewinski in Berlin, the tenth son of a Prussian aristocrat and artillery general, Eduard von Lewinski (1829–1906), and Helene von Sperling (1847–1910). His father’s family had Kashubian ancestry and was entitled to use the Brochwicz coat of arms (Brochwicz III).[3] Hedwig von Sperling (1852–1925), Helene’s younger sister, was married to Lieutenant General Georg von Manstein (1844–1913); the couple was unable to have children, so they adopted Erich. They had previously adopted Erich’s cousin Martha, the daughter of Helene’s and Hedwig’s deceased brother.”

    • Replies: @Wally
  295. @AnonFromTN

    I actually think he did a lot more good things. Those good things he built allow modern Russia to survive and Putin to have a lot more relaxed lifestyle than Stalin did. good education , science and industrialization would be another thing stalin did.

  296. @EugeneGur

    Somehow it all was working just fine with western POWs. Go figure. Must be different metabolism and immunity..

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  297. @Wally

    The date is relevant because what was being discussed was the Jewish private commercial boycott of 1933.

    You are instead discussing the foreign policy of the second and third Roosevelt administrations, which is a separate issue.

    I don’t even know why you insist on belaboring the point after such an obvious misunderstanding. Given that you’re the one who posted the newspaper photograph in the first place it’s exceptionally odd.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Johnny Rico
  298. j2 says:
    @Sergey Kriger

    Just a lowly professor in the defense university. What is your background that you know better?

  299. j2 says:
    @EugeneGur

    I so much like you sarcastic guys, you are really very, very bright and all knowledgeable.
    About there points I raised:
    1. Germans did shoot Russian POWs. They had some reasons, some were not acceptable reasons. Some reasons were acceptable. For instance, as a POW you are to allowed to try to infect the guards by typhus. In this war many POWs were shot, some for a reason, some for a poor reason, some without a reason.
    2. Germans made this miscalculation of the calories needed during the WWI concerning their own people, so this was a wrong misunderstanding of what the metabolic minimum means. I calculated the calories from a main stream information of flood rations in Auschwitz, that equaled the metabolic minimum. Finns used similar food portions in the beginning, the calorie content for a POW (a young man) was 1200 Cal/day. That is low. If the goal had been to starve the POWs, why to give them any food at all? Yet they got food, only incorrectly calculated. Let us add that the food portions were too small in general as there was rationing.
    3. Before antibiotics there was no way to treat several of the infectious diseases. The real solution for the Russian POW problem had been, do not become a POW, your officers should have the skill to withdraw and not to take millions as POWs. By the way, in Soviet POW camps died a higher portion of prisoners. And not only in POW camps, also Jews. some 200,000 West Polish Jews escaped to the east in 1939. They ended up to Soviet camps in Siberia. For a long time it was believed that 90% died there. Much later it was found that not all died, but well over 50%. I have information of POW camps in Finland, they were Russian POWs. Finns took most of the POWs, some 60,000. Of them died 28,5%, mainly of diseases, but in the war time there was an investigation of why so many died and they managed to decrease the death ratio quite much. In northern Finland there were these terrible Germans. They took a smaller number of Russian POWs. The death ration in German camps was 24%. That is about as low as you can go in wartime conditions with the infectious diseases, wounded POWs and so on. The Finnish camps were larger, as Finns took much more POWs. The death ratio goes up with the camp size because of infections and other problems. I currently estimate that a WWII camp, whether a POW camp or other camp, hardly could have a death ration below 25-30%. For very large camps it would be over 50%. This is just because of the time and the conditions, but you, a sarcastic very bright guy, naturally know all about everything and do not need to consider the time and the conditions in the eastern front.

  300. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Anon

    Anon 424, makes ad-hominems of Cowboy at variance with reality.

    Invasion of Venezuala, Iran, Iraq, Syria… etc. Most of these invasions are due to the usury system of world banking wanting to make new loans.

    Every time there is a war, there is a burst of new loan activity, and M2 (the broad money supply) increases. This then allows old debtors to pay their loans, and new debtors are created to make new money. New Debt Cycles pay old debt cycles.

    With regards to Germany moving against the Soviet Union, that was not due to Germany wanting to feed international usury bankers (Yes —Jews) but to instead disenfranchise them.

    Forever wars of the West are an ingenuous attempt of scaring the public, so new loans can be taken out, to then pay the MIC, to then create war machines.

    The profit motive was what created “international communism” and financial capitalism. At root, it is usury based banking. Trotsky’s first act was to put in a Wall Street Bank, in the same way that rebels in Libya put in a wall street bank.

    The bankers wanted their interests in Russia to be paid, which is why they backed Stalin.

    Hitler and Germany was having none of this, especially as they were clawing their way back after being almost destroyed by Versaille debts and hyperinflation.

    Germany represented a third way economy, of industrial capitalism (not finance capital) and this true threat has been confirmed by later utterances of Churchill.

    People, What part of “unforgivable crime” do you not understand. This is the root truth that you need to affix your eyes on, everything else is just knock on effects.

    http://www.renegadetribune.com/winston-churchill-germanys-unforgivable-crime/

    Germany’s unwillingness to be looted by international bankers was the reason million and millions of Europeans had to perish? The world elite definitely didn’t want the “Goyim” to get any big ideas after seeing Germany’s remarkable recovery under National Socialism.

    OK? That’s it. The world is run by a few psychopaths who want to “own” the world, and “repair” the world. They do this with usury banking.

    Also, who among you thinks that once whitey is wiped out from the world, that this situation will change, especially when it is whitey who makes attempts at correcting it, only to have other dupe whites fight against them.

    Here is a good rule of thumb. If a Jew is for something you should be against it. Hitler was against the Jew, who typically is an agent of usury and anti-logos behavior. Ergo, you should be for Hitler.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @jacques sheete
  301. EugeneGur says:
    @Sergey Kriger

    And, undoubtedly, the Western ones understood better what it means to be POWs – ours, you see, never quite learned to relax and enjoy.

  302. Iris says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    “The relevance is in the use of the double-cross as a “diplomatic” strategy.”

    Thank you, I could not have stated it better.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  303. @j2

    My background does not allow me to make this sort of comments, but neither is yours. But my dad did graduate from academy of general staff and occupied commanding positions. I did not hear him making this sort of comments regarding what you wrote.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Johnny Rico
  304. j2 says:
    @Sergey Kriger

    “You must have served at general staff in some important role to make judgements about troops disposition.”

    Naturally you are quite correct, I am not a general staff officer, though I did teach many of them on my topic, but the reason I can make this judgement is that the former president of Finland, Mauno Koivisto, while on pension visited frequently the university where I worked and he, as a former president, got all the help of the experts of the tactics and other departments. His conclusion was that Victor Suhurov was correct. You of course believe everything written in the always as reliable Wikipedia, so looking at the following page and searching for Koivisto you can confirm that he supported the idea:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
    What that means is that my professor colleagues in the defense university either agreed with this opinion or at minimum could not show any counterarguments to it. The professors in the operational art and tactics, strategic, and war history departments were colonels, some were later generals, not so uninformed of these things as me, just as you would like it. Satisfied?

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @EugeneGur
  305. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    No they are not separate, as I have shown.

    Do I really need to tell of the Jew influence within the FDR admin.?

    Yes I posted the newspaper, so? That does not preclude the fact that the US government worked hand & hand with Zionists against Germany before WWII.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  306. MEFOBILLS says:
    @anonomy

    So if Hitler was planning war against the Jewish Soviets, why wouldn’t he put the Jewish people in camps or ask them to leave? Is that any different than the US putting Japanese and Germans in camps? Were the communists antagonizing in other countries such as Germany? Now over to the Soviet Gulag, was that because of war plan

    The concentration camps were modeled on the English camps used during the Boer war.
    The camps were considered a intermediate method short of jail. Germany was infested by communist ideology due to proselytizing by the Jew. Red Berlin was a manifestation of this, where social norms were breaking down as is what happens when the Jew moves in. Higher Civilization falls, and in the process many are brainwashed, and need to be un-brainwashed.

    The camps, where “work makes you free” was an attempt to reverse bolshevik programming, for the lazy to learn how to work, and also to reward those who improved. The camps had camp money, and some inmates were released on the own cognizance to return later… sort of like a bonus for good behavior.

    By contrast English Boer camps had starvation and were poorly planned. American Camps for Japanese, were to isolate Japs as Japanese were being made into boogey man using wartime propaganda, which meant Japanese American’s would be at risk from the general population.

    Soviet Gulag was to terminate people, as history tells us. Gulags were run by the Jewish Cheka and were murderous in the extreme.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  307. @jacques sheete

    Same people, same arguments, over and over, even just on this thread, but all seen on other threads before. Yes I’d like to comment some more too but why bother? Nobody here is going to change anybody’s mind, all set in their opinions repeating and repeating.

    Wish more would heed Europeasant’s appeal at #280.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  308. j2 says:
    @Sergey Kriger

    “My background does not allow me to make this sort of comments, but neither is yours. But my dad did graduate from academy of general staff and occupied commanding positions. I did not hear him making this sort of comments regarding what you wrote.”

    Please, do not try to make me laugh. Finns do not like to laugh, remember out ski jumpers, never even smile. Read the other comment where I explain why I expressed that particular position, it is not from my personal competence, it is from the opinion of competent people and quite justified. Maybe your old dad just was not familiar with this topic.

    • Replies: @Sergey Kriger
    , @Seraphim
  309. @Thorfinnsson

    Dude. You are having a conversation with Wally. I thought you were smart. Lol

    • Replies: @Wally
  310. Wally says:
    @europeasant

    Yawn. You’re all talk with no proof.

    And I remind you what article you’re posting comments to. One that demonstrates that Hitler had to attack the USSR , your ‘slavs’. Hitler knew the risks, he said so, but had no choice. That’s the point you cluelessly missed.

    Hitler’s awareness of the impending Communist invasion and his reaction to it are indicative of someone who dealt with facts & reality, hardly “delusional”.

    Of that list of books, please show us the proof within them of Hitler’s “megalomania”.
    Just a list of books proves nothing.
    There’s plenty of books on witchcraft & sorcery I can cite, they do not prove the reality of witchcraft & sorcery.
    You’re simply slavushly reciting what you are instructed to recite, aka: indoctrination.

    Now, please tell us how the alleged ‘Hitler gas chambers’ supposedly worked.
    Please show us the alleged millions of human remains of those allegedly murdered by Hitler, after all, it’s claimed that those remains exist in precisely known locations.

    We await. Bye.
    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @europeasant
  311. @Wally

    Communists in NS Germany were not shot.

    Oh no? Fascinating. Can we at least agree that they were arrested?

    • Replies: @refl
    , @Wally
  312. @j2

    Defense University? What does that mean? Use some references. You both are just throwing random shit out there.

    • Replies: @j2
  313. @Sergey Kriger

    What staff academy? Which commanding positions? Which army? What units? What war(s)?

  314. @Wally

    The “Zionists”?

    I’m not an expert on Zionist history, but didn’t the Nazi government have more links to Zionism than the FDR government in the 1930s?

    As for Jewish influence in the Roosevelt administration, this is well known. As is of course Soviet influence (often but not always the same).

    None the less, the Roosevelt administration was not involved in intrigue against Germany until 1937. Some contemporary observers believed that FDR turned to foreign intrigue owing to the failure of the New Deal and the onset of the “Roosevelt Recession” caused by premature tight money policies.

    And actual arms weren’t furnished to Britain (for CASH) until 1939.

    • Replies: @Wally
  315. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Why have you ignored the specifics of what I posted about the attack on Poland? See comment #29.
    “Unprovoked”? laughable.

    You claim “there is definitely something wrong with this revisionist narrative of yours”, but you can not demonstrate what. Hardly convincing.

    I’m pleased you accept the merits of Mark Weber’s article, it is logical, supported by all kinds of proof. We have common ground on that, a start.

    The Czechs wanted, sought Germany’s assistance, hence the “protectorate of Bohemia, Moravia”.
    It’s curious that you did not mention Poland’s seizure of part of Czechoslovakia before German involvement.

    I note that you are changing the subject, hmm. You can always debate Czechoslovakia here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    No name calling, no dodging

    Regards.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  316. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    Who put a halo around this comment?

    Anyone who has spent a career in academia is beyond redemption. Get a real job, get a real life. The taxes that you think that you have paid as your side of the social contract were in reality merely plunder, stolen from the people to support your elitist existence. A career as professor in a Finnish “Defense University” is the non-plus-ultra. And now Finland is joining Nato in trying to provoke the Third World War for Israel, just as Poland did the second and Serbia the first. You are nothing more than a paid agent of ZOG. It makes Hitler’s entire SS appear angelic in comparison.

    • Replies: @j2
  317. L.K says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Take heart: true believers never let the reality get in the way of their beliefs.

    First truthful lines you have produced here, probably while looking at yourself in a mirror: YOU are a true believer of idiotic WW2 propaganda

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Iris
  318. j2 says:
    @Johnny Rico

    National Defence University of Finland.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  319. RobinG says:
    @Iris

    Apparently you couldn’t cite evidence, either. Who double-crossed Hitler? (Finland, lol?)

  320. @Gustav

    “…yes, the attack of the German army was preventive.”

    And just what did it “prevent?”

    • Replies: @Wally
  321. @Wally

    1) “…. IOW, you believe in a plan where a fake document is debunked by claiming that there was a plan anyway, inspite of he fact that nothing that claim actually occurred. That’s the very definition of irrational. You just keep believing with no such proof whatsoever…”

    If a plan cannot be implemented due to adverse circumstances, it that then a proof that the plan did not exist? We are talking here about intentions, not actions.

    2) + 3) Not by David Irving. I repeat his judgement about Hitler’s Table Talk :

    “…Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine. (Ignore the 1945 “transcripts” published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament — they are fake).

    The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job). Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate…”

    “…The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues…”

    Source : How good is Hitler’s Table Talk ? – David Irving
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/TableTalk010104.html

    If you are not an expert in some matter and have no time to do independent research, you will have to go by some authorities. I consider David Irving to be an authority. And BTW, Carolyn Yeager, who is a Hitler admirer and very critical, does also believe that Hitler’s Table Talk is genuine.

    6) I could equally demand proof from you for the number of Eisenhower’s starved POWs.

    7) Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not create information, it collects it. Information mentioned in Wikipedia already existed before it was collected. If you claim that its information is false because Wikipedia is manipulated by Jews, you will have to prove that the original information was false. Israeli manipulation of Wikipedia is mainly interested in clearing Israel’s name from war crimes.

    8) In the Wikipedia article on the Hungerplan, there are documents mentioned as proof.

    9) Another fun fact about Nazi behavior, you will undoubtedly deny :

    Wikipedia: Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany.
    Excerpt :

    Kidnapping of foreign children by Nazi Germany (Polish: Rabunek dzieci), part of the Generalplan Ost (GPO), involved taking children regarded as “Aryan-looking” from the rest of Europe and moving them to Nazi Germany for the purpose of Germanization, or indoctrination into becoming culturally German.

    At more than 200,000 victims, occupied Poland had the largest proportion of children taken.[2][5] An estimated 400,000 children were abducted throughout Europe.[1]

    The aim of the project was to acquire and “Germanize” children with purportedly Aryan-Nordic traits, who were considered by Nazi officials to be descendants of German settlers that had emigrated to Poland. Those labeled “racially valuable” were forcibly Germanized in centers and then sent to German families and SS Home Schools.[6] In the case of older children used as forced labor in Germany, those determined to be racially “un-German” were sent to extermination camps and concentration camps, where they were either murdered or forced to serve as living test subjects in German medical experiments – and thus often tortured or killed in the process.[7] Foreign children abducted

    400,000 throughout Europe [1]
    200,000 from occupied Poland [2]
    28,000 from territory of today’s Belarus [3]
    20,000 from the Soviet Union [4]
    10,000 from Western and South Eastern Europe [4]

    Dead in transit, estimated at tens of thousands, and underage inmates used as source of labour supply, not listed.

    10) Another fun fact : German general’s diary reveals Hitler’s plan for Russia – History
    https://www.history.com/…/german-generals-diary-reveals-hitlers-&#8230;

    Quote : “…On this day in 1943, upon the German army’s invasion of Pskov, 180 miles from Leningrad, Russia, the chief of the German army general staff, General Franz Halder, records in his diary Hitler’s plans for Moscow and Leningrad: “To dispose fully of their population, which otherwise we shall have to feed during the winter.”

    • Replies: @Wally
  322. @RH

    Plenty of comments from those stupid enough to think it serious. Or pretend to.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  323. @Wally

    Is that the best a Nazi apologist can do?

    • Replies: @Wally
  324. j2 says:
    @Cowboy

    “Who put a halo around this comment?”

    Not me for sure.

    “The taxes that you think that you have paid as your side of the social contract were in reality merely plunder, stolen from the people to support your elitist existence.”

    I was professor there for ten years as they needed someone like me and was mainly teaching officers, both cadets and general staff officers, lots of them, supervising their thesis, working on research projects, making project proposals, doing byrocracy. It is not elitist existence today, it is quite hard work, try once. But to cheer you up, for the last nine years I have been writing as a freelancer, so not one bit elitist existence and not making any money either, but I am not money and success oriented so it is fine for me, so now I am not working as an agent of the university or ZOG, and besides, I did work in industry quite long also in several firms. Cowboy, I think you have a complex, throw away your cowboy boots, stetson hat and the guitar you do not know how to play and get a job.

    • Replies: @Byrresheim
    , @Cowboy
  325. @j2

    I am not laughing. It is tragicomedy. You mentioned Souvorov as source.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @AnonFromTN
  326. Iris says:
    @j2

    ” The main issue of this war was the solution of the Jewish question by Hitler pushing the Jews of Europe to Palestine.”

    You are very correct, J2.

    By 1929, the Zionist movement was failing to move Jews to Palestine, principally because of a lack of funding exacerbated by the 1929 Crisis.

    When Adolf Hitler came to power in January 1933, Germany was threatened by an international boycott campaign. To try to thwart it, the new Nazi power signed an agreement with the Zionist movement, which survived until the outbreak of war in 1939. And Zionism remained the only Jewish political movement allowed in Germany during this period.

    The Nazi party seizing power in Germany from January 30 1933 came as a shock amplified by the global crisis. Germany was in a profoundly unstable political situation because of its economic woes. Further violence ensued and the first concentration camps were opened for opposition communists, not for Jews. A global trade boycott of Germany was nonetheless decreed by the organised Hebraic community.

    In this context, a daring businessman, Sam Cohen, proposed a transfer agreement in March 1933: Jews who would like to emigrate to Palestine could sequestrate their property in Germany and receive as compensation the counterpart in German goods. One would obtain so-called “capitalist” visas conditioned on the importation of a capital of at least 1000 pounds sterling. After a number of adventures, he was joined in this project by executives of the Jewish Agency. The agreement is finalized in August 1933. It was understood that the Zionist movement would put all its weight to end the boycott. This is what happened in the facts.

    The so-called “capitalist” immigration visas benefited mainly Polish Jews. The German government was transferring more Jews to Poland’s “concentration camps” to favour their emigration to Palestine, as a means to alleviate the economic boycott of Germany.

    The idea of ​​a rescue in extremis of a population in danger of death is a retrospective illusion. The deterioration of the situation in Palestine since the summer of 1936 led to a sharp reduction in emigration, but the Zionist movement strongly opposed the conclusion of an equivalent agreement to transfer Jews to other countries, thus trapping entire Jewish communities inside “concentration camps” in war-torn Europe. Best.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  327. @L.K

    Spoken like a true believer. Please accept my condolences.

    • Replies: @L.K
  328. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    – No, Germany only had Jew links that assisted in getting Jews out of Germany.

    The FDR Jews made sure the US government assisted countries against Germany when the US was legally declared to be “neutral”. Quite a difference.

    – Any dates before the US was officially, legally ‘at war’ prove my point.

    You’re spinning your wheels.

  329. @Wally

    Why have you ignored the specifics of what I posted about the attack on Poland? See comment #29.
    “Unprovoked”? laughable.

    It wasn’t part of the original discussion. I’ve now read it:

    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.

    It’s true that Poland participated in feasting on the carcass of Czechoslovakia, along with Hungary.

    It’s not true that Poland held large parts of German territory in the legal sense. There were territories that were part of Poland which contained ethnic Germans. It’s understandable that Germany was interested in revising the Versailles frontiers, but that’s not a casus belli in a legal sense. Note that the Third Reich never sought to take South Tyrol from Italy, even though this territory was solidly German as well.

    As for Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans, after the Silesian mess was settled they began in the late spring of 1939 in response to growing German-Polish tensions (other than 1927 in Rybik). I’m not going to justify any atrocities, but ethnic tensions are hardly unusual.

    Claiming that the Czechs sought occupation by Germany is patently absurd. Hacha was simply notified that the Germans were going to occupy the country and offered the option of a protectorate, which he accepted.

    I didn’t mention the Polish land grab for the same reason that I didn’t mention the Hungarian one–it’s quite obvious that the whole thing was set in motion by the Germans.

    I’m not going to visit your forum because this is the only place I still comment online. Additionally, while I do approve of your “no dodging” rule, I’m not interested in your “no name calling” rule. One of the best things about the internet is the insults.

    • Replies: @j2
  330. @David In TN

    Never trust “official statements” from countries at war.

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  331. Wally says:
    @David In TN

    Yawn.

    What is an “Nazi apologist”? There’s nothing to apologize for.

    Given the statement that I responded to, nothing more was necessary. Please pay attention.

    Still waiting for you to tell us how your impossible ‘Nazi’ gas chambers’ worked.

    Still waiting for you to show us the alleged millions upon millions of human remains that are claimed to be in precisely known locations.

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

  332. Iris says:
    @RobinG

    Hello Robin;

    It is common knowledge among us “Nazi apologists” that the Nazi regime was vastly funded by large American corporations, such as General Electric, ITT, Standard Oil, all acting on behalf of the Wall Street and London-based financial oligarchy controlling them. Best.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @L.K
  333. j2 says:
    @Sergey Kriger

    “I am not laughing. It is tragicomedy. You mentioned Souvorov as source.”

    No, I did not. You mix up a claim with the proof of a claim. Let’s say that you, Sergey, make some claim, which incidentally happens to be correct but your way of deriving it is totally incorrect. Then somebody smarter than you proves the claim. Then it is your claim but the proof of the claim is not based on your argument.

    • Replies: @Sergey Kriger
  334. refl says:
    @Sparkon

    So Stalin placed those obsolete tanks as cannon fodder for the Gernans? But why would he sacrifice them together with some 3 million soldiers who simply vanished on the front in that desastrous first half year? Being sent there with one rifle for two soldiers and not even boots?
    I am inclined to believe that a Soviet attack might have been imminent – war was coming their way in any case. But seing how events turned out the Germans could indeed have outlasted an attack. The Red army of 1941 was in disarray and nothing like the Red army of 1944/5.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  335. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEFOBILLS

    Ergo , I will never be for Hitler , only stupid masochistic europeans , or ignorant american nazis , can be for Hitler , a pagan , a drug adict stuffed with cocaine and morphinics .

    Of course there are many good german people , and germans have many talents , but , ergo , I will never be for Germany , just recenty look how they helped desintegrate and bomb Yugoslavia , look how they sadistically destroyed Greece , look how they helped to cause the Ucranian disaster , look how they profit from the euro while they plunder and humiliate south europe and the eastern european countries . Germany is a very arrogant nation , racist , and as her recent past shows a dangerous nation , cruel , without morals .

  336. @Commentator Mike

    Nobody here is going to change anybody’s mind, all set in their opinions repeating and repeating.

    For sure. And they keep repeating old war time propaganda as if they know something. Meanwhile the international bankster sociopaths keep refining their enslavement methods. And ’round and ’round she goes.

    But, hey, Baby, Yahweh luvs us!!

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  337. Iris says:
    @L.K

    “YOU are a true believer of idiotic WW2 propaganda”

    I don’t think so, L.K.
    I think that AnonFromTN is an ethnic Russian who have strong patriotic feelings for Russia, just like J2 is a Finn who have similar patriotic feelings for his beloved country Finland.

    Patriotism is a profoundly honourable ethical value that should be respected by you and me, despite we are neither Russians nor Finns. Best.

    • Replies: @L.K
  338. refl says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    That is really cool. Communists were RUNNING the camps for the SS, as they were Germans and had a strong sense of discipline. They used their position to send dissenters to the death.

    Deadly it was indeed for Russians in the camps, communist or not.

    • LOL: Wally
  339. @j2

    Thank you. That’s pretty cool. And impressive.

  340. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    1. If a plan exited we would have seen it. We do not.
    Yet you say there were actuals deeds based upon a plan that was not implemented.
    LOL !!
    2. Again, for your dense little head, as I said, yes there was ‘table talk’, some are genuine, but what you and your absurd Zionists allege about those talks are lies, contrivances completely unsupported by facts…. as I have demonstrated repeatedly and you dodge. Please review what I posted.
    6. I make no claims on the number of Eisenhower dead.
    But Jews like you DO make laughable, impossible claims for the alleged Einsatzgruppen shootings of Jews, ca. 2,000,000. Of course it depends upon which liar you talk to.
    7. I have already proven that Wiki information is filled with lies. Please pay attention.
    8. Please show us these “documents”. Go ahead. Been there, done that. I await.
    9. There is no proof for your laughable child kidnappings, abductions, otherwise you would have presented it. Wikipedia again, LOL
    And how were they supposedly murdered? In the scientfically impossible gas chambers’?LOL
    Anyone could and did write propaganda about he Germans in WWII.
    Oh, and please show some claimed ‘soap made from Jews’.
    How about the claimed human skin lampshades.
    How about the Treblinka ‘steam chambers’ or the ‘gassings that allowed Jews to walk themselves to the mass graves and jump in. It’s a long list.
    10. You ‘diary’ link does not work. But I do note that you cannot show us the actual diary, Oops! .No, not someone’s fake & supposed ‘translation. Please show us the actual diary & page / s which actually say what’s alleged. Silence.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  341. @MEFOBILLS

    Absolutely key point.:

    Every time there is a war, there is a burst of new loan activity, and M2 (the broad money supply) increases.

    Wars, and even the threat of wars, invariably cause inflation, causing many people to lose their property while the money printers, and those with access to stronger foreign capital get to buy it for fire sale prices. This happened to the Germans who saw a certain set of greaseballs getting rich off of their losses and understandably resented it.

    I’ll try to add the insert more tag here, but neither that nor the edit functions work for me on this site. Let’s see

    [MORE]

    Historian Sir Arthur Bryant summarizes Jewish power in pre-1933 Germany. I have edited this slightly for brevity, omitting the ellipses:

    It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like A THIRD OF THE REAL PROPERTY OF THE REICH.

    Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.

    But to those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.

    The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions, in spite of constituting LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION.

    The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press — all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly. Every year it became HARDER AND HARDER FOR A GENTILE TO GAIN OR KEEP A FOOTHOLD IN ANY PRIVILEGED OCCUPATION.

    At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was EXERCISED BY A MINORITY AGAINST A MAJORITY.
    There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed — and lavishly displayed—by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe.

    Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.

    Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory (1940), emphasis added. The above comment was not written by me but I cannot find the source. my apologies to the author.

  342. Wally says:
    @David In TN

    “And just what did it “prevent?” ”

    The planned Soviet attack.

    Try reading the article.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  343. @Iris

    Sweet summary there, Iris! Douglas Reed would be proud and both of you are correct.

  344. @Sergey Kriger

    Some people would believe anything that agrees with their agenda, even things they’d have trouble believing in Salt Lake City. Naturally, Nazi apologists would believe that Suvorov character, or even the voices they here in a lunatic asylum.

  345. @Sergey Kriger

    Well, the gap was closed. The rest does not worth to be discussed.

    It’s worth discussing if only to illustrate what lying, thieving, murdering SOBs “Allied” politicians and banksters were, and the hypocrisy and mendacity of the standard mythology because the world today is still suffering because of what those psychopaths did, and it will never have a chance to be mitigated until people understand what those sleazeballs have been up to for decades if not millennia.

  346. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    No, they were not shot for being communists.

    You have no proof they were.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  347. @MEFOBILLS

    The concentration camps were modeled on the English camps used during the Boer war.

    And the Brits even ran concentration camps in Kenya during the 1960s, the scum! The US attempted the same in Vietnam when they herded people into designated centers complete with curfews and called it “pacification. “

  348. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico

    You would do no better.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  349. Seraphim says:
    @j2

    You may notice that sooner or later the most unrestrained apologists of the USSR paradise disclose their ‘nomenklaturist’ background.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  350. RobinG says:
    @Iris

    So what? Your best is no April Glaspie. The analogy with Saddam still poor (at best).

    • Replies: @Iris
  351. RI says:
    @jacques sheete

    May be you both should realize that both Germany and Soviet Union during that time were a threat to the said international power, although in somewhat different manner. This would explain why they were pushed to fight each other.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  352. @j2

    Sophistry. You can twist it as much as you like. But relying on what souvorov wrote is a sign of poor defence studies level in Finland. No wonder you do not laugh.

  353. L.K says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Spoken like the intellectual fraud, pathetic propagandist that you are.

    You should take your own advice, prick; those who live in glass houses should not throw stones…

  354. L.K says:
    @Iris

    Yes, he’s a Russian who immigrated to the ZUS or Canada or something. Since he is such a great patriot, perhaps he should live in Russia…

    Anyways, your logic is really BAD; The fact that he is Russian doesn’t make it okay for him to be a disgusting LIAR.

    Furthermore, my father’s family is German and i have close relatives, like my grandfather, who fought or otherwise suffered trough the war.

    I don’t like it one bit that I have been lied to and indoctrinated via WW2 propaganda. Actually even most WW1 history is the victor’s propaganda as well.

    The moment I finally figured it out, it really pissed me off.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @jacques sheete
  355. L.K says:
    @Iris

    It is common knowledge among us “Nazi apologists” that the Nazi regime was vastly funded by large American corporations, such as General Electric, ITT, Standard Oil, all acting on behalf of the Wall Street and London-based financial oligarchy controlling them

    Not true at all!

    The Myth of the Big Business-Nazi Axis by Kerry R. Bolton
    http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/7/3/3434

    Some Wall Street luminaries who are supposed to have been “pro-Nazi” on the basis of business affiliations in Germany were among those agitating for war against Germany. Foreign business holdings were held in trust throughout the war by Germany in accordance with international law. The one individual who had convincing links with international capital, Hjalmar Schacht, was relieved of all positions by 1939 and ended up in a concentration camp. Those German businessmen who did provide funds to the Nazi party did so at a comparatively late date, and were of nationalistic sentiments in a German tradition that was alien to that of the self-interest of the English free-trade school. Even those foreign businessmen who might reasonably have been expected to fund the NSDAP on ideological grounds, primarily Henry Ford, did not do so, persistent allegations to the contrary.

    The Third Reich was a command economy, and corporate executives became “trustees” of their firms, subject to state supervision. The NSDAP premise: “the common interest before self-interest” was upheld throughout the regime. Dividends and profits were limited to a large extent. While it is a widespread assumption that Hitler reneged on the “socialist” principles of the NSDAP program, what the regime did carry out was extensive in terms of bilateral trade, and the use of unorthodox methods of finance. The machinations of international capital, including those who were supposedly pro-German, were for war, especially if Germany could not be persuaded to return to orthodox methods of trade and finance. War came the same year as Schacht was dismissed from office.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @j2
  356. The reason Operation Barbarossa was as successful as it was is because the USSR was in an offensive position in Eastern Europe and was vulnerable to an attack. If the USSR was in a defensive position in depth, they would have ground the Wehrmacht into dust. However, after achieving their initial successes, the Wehrmacht split up their forces to go to Leningrad and Caucasia (and Stalingrad). If they would have concentrated their forces directed at Moscow, they could have beaten the USSR back, because all of the USSR’s railways led to Moscow, and if they were cut off there, the USSR would not be able to transport their troops and armaments to the front, and the Wehrmacht would have had free reign to mop up Easter Europe.

  357. Iris says:
    @RobinG

    “The analogy with Saddam still poor (at best)”.

    I will make it clearer. The Nazi party was funded by the corporate and financial elite of the Anglo-Saxon world.

    During his Nuremberg trial, the former Reichsbank President and Minister of the Economy Hjalmar Schacht proposed to put on the dock those who fed the 3rd Reich, such as companies American General Motors and General Electrics, as well as the manager of the Bank of England Montagu Norman himself. He was swiftly acquitted.

    Hitler was no fool: it must have been extremely emboldening to be supported by the heavyweights of Western industry, all backed by the all-powerful tribal banking oligarchy who had its own plan: a giant wealth grabbing military base in Palestine.

    In the real world, Robin, finance and large corporations control the politicians, not the other way round.

    • Replies: @L.K
  358. @Seraphim

    Yes. Team Russia is every bit as idiotic as Team America.

  359. L.K says:

    The Saker, despite his obvious very pro-Russian feelings, worked out the basics of the problem( WW2 “history” )

    Could it be that the real crime of the Nazis was not that they were genocidal maniacs, but that they lost WWII and that their (no less genocidal) enemies got to write the history of that war?

    No wonder hard core Stalinist fanatics, like the pest SerGay Kriger, hate the guy.

  360. L.K says:
    @Iris

    The Nazi party was funded by the corporate and financial elite of the Anglo-Saxon world

    Why are you still repeating this nonsense?

  361. Iris says:
    @L.K

    “The moment I finally figured it out, it really pissed me off.”

    Likewise. The constant bashing of the German people on the basis of deliberate fabrications which are beyond common sense, such the impossible gas chambers, all to extract filthy “reparation” money from the entire world and to have free rein to torture Palestinians, sickens me to death.

    But ethnic Russians are not the ones playing that game. They have lost between 22 to 24 million people in WW2; this tragedy has had a genuine and profound impact on their worldview.

    Germans have lost 8 to 9 million people, an utter devastation of innocent civilians gratuitously murdered in aerial bombings, which is not even recognised to the day.

    On the other hand, how many within the warmongering members of AIPAC, ADL, CRIF have really lost a family member in WW2?

  362. Iris says:
    @L.K

    Anthony Sutton’s “Wall Street and the rise of Hitler” is packed with facts and figures, and backed with over 70 references. I’ll stick with Sutton.

  363. @Wally

    We can at least agree they were shot, can’t we?

    And if we can, perhaps you can say what exactly they were shot for?

    • Replies: @Wally
  364. @CK

    Paratroopers are offensive only. Setting up your military in offensive formations is not defensive. Breaching your own defensive fortifications is not defensive.
    Using horses for your supply line transport is hardly an efficient way to keep up with a rapidly advancing army, Given they need to rest and be fed and watered.
    Germany began re-arming because itwas the only country to have met its obligations of dis-armament under the Treaty of Versailles. None of the others were anywhere close to halfway dis-armed.
    Meanwhile in Britain, the development and increased manufacture of long range bombers since 1937 cannot be seen as defensive.
    All wars are economic wars. A prosperous Germany that had cut the bonds of the international banking cartel, had to be destroyed. Whether by the Eastern Communist Bolshevik Jews or the Western Communist Bankster Jews was irrelevant.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  365. Sparkon says:
    @refl

    So Stalin placed those obsolete tanks as cannon fodder for the Gernans? But why would he sacrifice them together with some 3 million soldiers who simply vanished on the front in that desastrous [sic] first half year?

    Because the spilled blood from an enemy attack, especially a surprise attack, is a primary ingredient and catalyst of patriotism. Even many if not most Ukrainians rallied behind Stalin after the Germans attacked, and they’d previously hated him with a passion because of the Holodomor.

    Millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs and other Soviet nationalities were starved to death as a direct result of Stalin’s ruthless and brutal collectivization. I don’t recall and can’t find any instance where he registered any sympathy, remorse, or regret about all the dead peasants, Kulaks, and NEPmen, nor do I find it difficult to accept that he would sacrifice millions more Red Army soldiers if it suited his purpose.

    Modern tanks comprised a small but growing part of the Red Army’s armored force at the outset of Barbarossa.

    By 22 June 1941, the Red Army deployed almost 1,000 T-34 and over 500 KV tanks, concentrated in five of their twenty-nine mechanized corps. By the end of December 1941, they had lost 2,300 T-34 and over 900 KV tanks, accounting for 15% of the 20,500 tanks lost that year.

    There were 967 T-34s and 508 KVs deployed: Erickson 1962/2001, p. 567.

    — Wikipedia

    In 1941 the Red Army lost about 17,500 tanks that were not either T-34 or KV , and virtually all of these must have been obsolete types like the T-26, although that light tank remained in service for much of the war.

    On 1 June 1941, the Red Army had 10,268 T-26 light tanks of all models on their inventories, including armoured combat vehicles based on the T-26 chassis. T-26s composed the majority of the fighting vehicles in the Soviet mechanised corps of the border military districts.

    (my bold)

    In like fashion, Roosevelt baited the Japanese by stationing several obsolete battleships at Pearl Harbor, and failed also to provide any intelligence to the Pearl Harbor commanders Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short, even though FDR knew about the approaching Imperial Japanese Navy carrier strike force. He was prepared to let the Japanese attack succeed in order to get the U.S. into the war.

    After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Adolf Hitler announced Germany’s declaration of war on the United States in a speech to the Reichstag on Dec. 11, 1941. Among Hitler’s mistakes, this was a another big one, standing alongside his failure to destroy or capture the BEF the preceding year, knock England out of the war, and Barbarossa itself.

    Hitler announces the declaration of war against the United States to the Reichstag on 11 December 1941

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  366. @RobinG

    Germany was goaded into war because German industrialisation and expansion threatened to cut into the Anglo Zionist hegemony and taking control of Russia was essential to complete the heartland aspect of McKinder’s Great Game. The idea was that they would smash one another to pieces.

    I’m sure you’ve heard such expressions as “all wars are economic”, “all wars are banker’s wars” and “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws” Right?

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  367. @Thorfinnsson

    The genius of Mr and Mrs Cleese at it’s best. Perception is often said to be reality and never more so than in humour. If the real explanation of who started the war were used then the punchline would run to a couple of volumes and wouldn’t nearly be quite as punchy.

    That’s a really good example of how popular culture is used to reinforce propagandistic mythology.

  368. @RI

    May be you both should realize that both Germany and Soviet Union during that time were a threat to the said international power, although in somewhat different manner.

    Without a doubt!

    Nothing like setting two against each other and profiting immensely no matter the outcome. Let them beat one another silly to the point of exhaustion, then walk in and grab what you can. It’s apparent to me that the Brit empire, especially, was very adept at that game.* They pulled similar stunts in Algeria and Eastern Africa, which are great examples of their mastery of the game. Very clever, but also very dastardly. Sick stuff too.

    Did you see the Arthur Bryant quote I posted above?

    • Replies: @RI
  369. @L.K

    He’s nothing more than a hot headed, opinionated amateur. No doubt gets a big kick out of hearing himself braying senselessly.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  370. @L.K

    Wow! My words are being quoted, like classical literature. Sorry, I am neither Shakespeare nor Dickens. Wrong field.

  371. @L.K

    I don’t like it one bit that I have been lied to and indoctrinated via WW2 propaganda. Actually even most WW1 history is the victor’s propaganda as well.

    The moment I finally figured it out, it really pissed me off.

    I have no ties to Germany, but I share the same feelings. I loathe the fact that I was suckered for decades, and when I figured out how badly the Germans were made to suffer for no reason, I’m beyond appalled. I’m even beyond bitter.

    And when I see that the same type of crap goes on even today, I’m filled with unspeakable contempt for the perps.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  372. @Curmudgeon

    A prosperous Germany that had cut the bonds of the international banking cartel, had to be destroyed.

    Yes.

    Given the events taking place today, that should be completely obvious.

  373. I do agree,that there was no good guys in WWII . How ever Mr Weber states – ” WHY GERMANY ATTACKED THE SOVIET UNION !!!

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  374. @Sparkon

    He was prepared to let the Japanese attack succeed in order to get the U.S. into the war.

    He even attempted to get the Japanese to fire the first shot and to get the Philippines behind him by sending a US officer and a Filipino crew with a tiny ship as a decoy, on a suicide mission to the South China Sea (I believe). They were waiting to ship out from Manila Bay when the attack on PH occurred. The boat was called the Lanikai.

    In early December 1941 in the Philippines, a young Navy ensign named Kemp Tolley was given his first ship command, an old 76-foot schooner that had once served as a movie prop in John Ford’s “The Hurricane.” Crewed mostly by Filipinos who did not speak English and armed with a cannon that had last seen service in the Spanish-American War, the Lanikai was under top-secret presidential orders to sail south into waters where the Japanese fleet was thought to be. Ostensibly the crew was to spy on Japanese naval movements, but to Tolley it was clear that their mission was to create an incident that would provoke war.

    Cruise of the Lanikai: Incitement to War by Kemp Tolley.

  375. @Wally

    LOL. The German attack in 1941 sure “prevented” the Russians from taking Berlin in 1945.

    • Replies: @Wally
  376. @jacques sheete

    You obviously get a big kick out of hearing yourself braying senselessly.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  377. Miggle says:
    @Wally

    Read Bernt Engelmann, In Hitler’s Germany.

    And read Paul Brickhill, The Great Escape.

    • Replies: @Wally
  378. Miggle says:
    @RobinG

    I don’t understand. What’s bizarre? In what way? Wild, insane propaganda is being whipped up against Maduro. We will no doubt soon learn, or soon be told, that Maduro has WMDs.

    You want to tell us about the Stolypin cars in Venezuela?

  379. @Wally

    “The Nazis kidnapped some 250,000 children for Germanization purposes – some 220,000 from Poland, many of whom were sent to Austria.After the war only 25,000 Polish children kidnapped by the Nazis were able to return to their parents.

    During the mass deportation of Poles from Zamojszczyzna, Polish children were classified by Nazi experts from the Main Office for Race and Resettlements. A file was set up for of each child with three fotos and with an expert evaluation ether positive or negative, from the racial point of view for the procreation in Germany. The children who were not acceptable were poisoned and on their death certificates pneumonia was listed as the cause of death. The poisoning was administered by the Mediznische Kinderleilanstalt department “B” in Lubiniec.”

    Source : Polish News : Polish children kidnapped by Nazi government – Polish News.com

    Were those 25,000 Polish children who were able to return to their parents, all lying ?

    I have discussed this matter with Carolyn Yeager, and again she didn’t deny it, but even tried to justify it.

    As for absurd claims of the ways the Nazis killed Jews in the concentration camps, I never mentioned them and I don’t believe them. You are projecting.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wally
  380. Crimson2 says:

    Fuck this Nazi apologist bullshit. You losers think this is gonna work?

    • Replies: @Byrresheim
  381. RobinG says:

    Bizarre = comparing Maduro to Stalin, who really was a thug. You were making a joke, of course. Do you imagine that 80 years from now, Capitalist apologists will insist that Brazil attacked Venezuela because Maduro was massing troops on the border? Hahaha. (Is this proving the failure of analogies?)

    • Replies: @Miggle
  382. fnn says:

    A good book on the period leading up to WW2 is The European Jungle , by Englishman F. Yeats-Bown:
    https://archive.org/details/BrownYeatsEuropeanJungle

  383. RI says:
    @jacques sheete

    By the way, the article we are commenting on, can serve as one of the openings of another setting against each other. Again. Just like before. Germans were made to believe that Soviets are going to attack them and Soviets were made to believe that Germans are going to attack them. Germans blinked first and made their suicidal/homicidal move. Great effort was put to achieve this.
    Again white people of Europe and European descent will vanish. Can we/you/ they understand this and stop fighting each other?

    In which post is the quote?

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  384. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    You mean:
    https://www.polishnews.com/polish-children-kidnapped-by-nazi-government
    – LOL. That’s your proof? Something that has no substantiation whatsoever.
    – Who was put on trial for the alleged “kidnappings”? Where?
    – Show us what necessarily would have been a mountain of German documents. You cannot.
    – It’s one simple minded guy looking for acclaim and cash making by stuff up.
    – Mentioned in the hilarious article was shyster Richard Lukas, see him shot down at: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=richard+lukas
    – You ask:
    “Were those 25,000 Polish children who were able to return to their parents, all lying ?”
    I haven’t seen the verbatim text of what they all claim. Please produce it.
    – you said: “As for absurd claims of the ways the Nazis killed Jews in the concentration camps, I never mentioned them and I don’t believe them. You are projecting.”
    Except what I told you is from “eyewitnesses & survivors” statements, Nuremberg, & Jew publications. LOL
    – So now you’re telling that Jews were not gassed, yet you believe in the ‘holocaust’ storyline? LOL
    – So now you’re telling that Nuremberg was a fraud? Yet you defend it.
    – You’re telling me that “eyewitnesses & survivors” are liars? But you belive in them.
    – And your misuse of the word ‘projection’ is hilarious. Did you graduate from high school?
    – I see you still dodge numerous points of information I posted here that shred your dumb ‘Table Talk claims in my comment #171. Of course Yeager doesn’t deny that there are table talk notes, neither do I. But what you and other propagandists claim was said was not said and you cannot prove they were.
    – Show us the alleged human remains of millions upon millions in allegedly known locations.
    – Tell us how the nazi gas chambers supposedly worked.

  385. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Here you go it’s in print and must be true.

    ‘Germans killed 20,000 Jews with atomic bomb’ LOL

    more:
    ‘Nazis killed Jews with magic atomic bomb…’
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1150

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  386. Wally says:
    @Miggle

    IOW, you did not read those and can’t even quote sources from them.

    Here you go, books on witchcraft, so witchcraft must be true.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=books+on+witchcraft

  387. Wally says:
    @David In TN

    But as Hitler said, it was a risk they had to take.

    Please read the article under discussion.

    http://www.codoh.com

  388. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Communists were not shot.

    You have no proof they were.
    Just like you have no proof for your beloved ‘holocaust’.
    Ah.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  389. @Crimson2

    Truth sometimes prevails.
    So why not give it a try?

  390. Miggle says:
    @RobinG

    The Unspeakablyevil States of America are telling us that Maduro really is a thug. It’s official. He’s a thug.

    It’s your scheme is it, that Capitalist apologists will insist that it wasn’t the U.S.A., it was Brazil that attacked Venezuela?

  391. j2 says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    “I didn’t mention the Polish land grab”

    and that also was a disputed area. both Poland and Czechoslovakia were created after the WWI and both claimed that small piece of land. Czechoslovakia occupied it was it 1919 or 1920 when Poland was in a war with Ukraine. Creating nation of states after empires collapse usually results into land disputes.

  392. j2 says:
    @L.K

    “Some Wall Street luminaries who are supposed to have been “pro-Nazi” on the basis of business affiliations in Germany were among those agitating for war against Germany.”

    Nobody claims that Wall Street luminaries were pro-Nazi. That is a trick that the debunkers invariably use: first they change the claim to a false one, then they argue that the opponent supports the false version of the claim, and then they debunk the false claim.

    The correct claim is that some Wall Street luminaries funded the armament of Germany and helped Hitler to prepare for the war. That means that these luminaries were pro-war, being themselves far away. Assuming that the reason for international finance to want this war was to move European Jews to Palestine, then these luminaries were pro-Zionism.

    Your quote mentions Henry Ford, who published articles on the Jewish conspiracy. Ford was a Freemason and Freemasons are almost all pro-semites. Because of this apparent contradiction, I think that Ford created antisemitism in order to push Jews to Palestine as that was the goal of all this antisemitism by Theosophists and other Masonic circles. Hitler admired Ford and gave him a medal, but Ford was not pro-Nazi to my knowledge. There were some business relations, preparations for wars usually create business opportunities, but the main help Ford gave to the war was to spread antisemitism, assuming that the Masonic/Zionist goal of the war was the creation of Israel.

    You make a similar false debunking of a claim as when people argue that how could bankers be pro-Communists as Communists were the arch enemies of capitalists, yet bankers like Jacob Schiff funded the Communist revolution. There is no conflict here once you understand that they are not pro one system or another system as long as it is far away but there is money to be made on catastrophes, wars and revolutions, and they had their own project of creating a new country.

    • Replies: @Iris
  393. @jacques sheete

    But I wonder how the almighty military industrial complex and the bankers will make money from wars if the one world government of the JWorld Order the ZOGs are planning takes over.

    Anyway for a break from dwelling on the past, here’s some good news just in:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/03/populism-triumphs-in-the-netherlands/

    This speech should cheer most up. Not all is lost yet, history marches on. Keep on debating this WWII, just don’t bloody repeat it!

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  394. This German Documentary gives the viewer the German perspective and not the standard western propaganda regarding the events that lead to WWII. The Poles were not innocent according to this film. I have never believed the Western version of events.

  395. @Wally

    If you still believe that the Nazi plan to colonize Eastern Europe with Germans (whether that plan was called “Generalplan Ost” or not) is nothing but a “Wikipedia Lie”, then please go to : Generalplan Ost : Fact or Fiction – Stormfront.
    On page 2 of that article you will find many quotations from no other than Hitler himself to the effect that he wanted to colonize Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, the Baltic states and even Czecho-Slovakia. These quotes come from David Irving’s book Hitler’s War, so unless Irving is “part of the plot to smear Hitler”, there you have the proof you demanded. You cannot get around this !

  396. @David In TN

    You obviously get a big kick out of hearing yourself braying senselessly.

    Yes, I do! Hee haww!!! 🙂

    • Replies: @David In TN
  397. @european born

    How ever Mr Weber states – ” WHY GERMANY ATTACKED THE SOVIET UNION !!!

    Ok. You read the headline.

    Now read the first paragraph. It lists other countries that joined in . If you read a bit further, you’ll discover why they all attacked.:

    Although the two German statements of June 22 portrayed a grave and looming Soviet threat…

    Threat, get it?

  398. @Wally

    It’s a good thing I’m aware of that. Your time is tick, tick, ticking away.

    • Replies: @Wally
  399. @Miggle

    where helping Jews to escape the country

    Who got shot for that? Please try to learn about Nazi-Zionist collaboration. In fact, how can there be much doubt that one of the reasons the Brits wanted to destroy Hitler is that he was supporting the Zionist program in Palestine while the Brits wanted to claim control of the area for themselves?

    They couldn’t have “dem Nazis” meddling on “their” turf, could they?

    • Replies: @Miggle
  400. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    Perhaps you have paid much more honestly earned taxes into the Finnish socialist system than you and your family have taken out as benefits. I cannot say. I do doubt it though.

    Here is a wiki chart showing “Allophones, i.e. residens with another native language than Finnish, Swedish or Sami, in Finland, 1980-2011, according to Statistics Finland”

    The chart is 8 years out of date, but I would say that Finland was already undergoing an invasion in 2011, and apparently neither you nor any of your pals in the military saw a problem getting paid to “protect” the country while it was going on.

    Which gets to the real issue here: Holocaustianity. You have clearly committed yourself to this new religion in such a fashion that you cannot allow any doubt about the 6 gorillion. Of course you cannot contradict this Talmudic number because if you did you would likely loose all the loot that the socialist state is still shoveling your way.

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7559/finland-migrant-crisis

    The Rape Problem
    With all of Finland’s talk of multiculturalism and immigration, new narratives about the corrosive effects of both multiculturalism and the wave of asylum seekers have surfaced in the media, shocking both the government and the public. News stories discuss the increase in unemployment, the mounting cost of social benefits during the decline of welfare state, problems in educating foreigners, and issues of assimilation with the majority culture, which respects Finnish values and a secular, liberal and open society — all different from traditional Muslim values.

    In Finland, more and more cases of Finnish girls and women being raped by asylum seekers are being widely publicized. Much of Finnish society seems shocked, embarrassed and angry because of the increase in rapes perpetrated by asylum seekers. These crimes have provoked many nationalists, and led to the establishment of a paramilitary movement known as the Soldiers of Odin. Members of the movement view themselves as Finnish patriots, roaming the streets of Finland, protecting against Muslim immigrant offenders.

    Good Job J2, make the Soldiers of Odin voluntarily perform the jobs that you were paid to do, but miserably failed at.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  401. @Commentator Mike

    There will still be wars, as in 1984, they’ll just be euphemistically called police actions or some such crap (which is kinda what they do now anyway).

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  402. @Franklin Ryckaert

    At the end of the day, whatever plans the Germans had to exploit Soviet territories after the war were mainly opportunistic and had nothing to do with the decision to attack.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  403. @Cowboy

    Hey, let us know when the Gatestone Institute has anything to say about things like the Gaysott Act instead of harping 100% on Muslims.

    • Replies: @Iris
  404. Iris says:
    @j2

    Great comment, J2. Mathematical logics at work is lovely to watch. Best.

    • Replies: @j2
  405. Iris says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    It is so comforting and uplifting to see free minds still exist. People like you make the world a more bearable place to live in.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  406. @Wally

    Strawman. You don’t know my opinion about the Holocaust and assume that I believe all the propaganda, nomatter how ridiculous. FYI, I have read CODOH and am convinced that : 1) There was no plan to exterminate all Jews. At least not in the beginning. The Nazis only wanted to expel the Jews. That’s why the Nazis allowed the Jews to emigrate, had the Madagascar plan and cooperated with the Zionists for Jewish emigration to Palestine (“Haavara agreement”). At the Wannsee conference only “resettlement in the East” was planned. 2) Stories about “gas chambers” were all false. 3) There were no more than 4 million Jews under German control, so 6 million of them could never have been killed, with 3 million “survivors”. However, it is uncontested that millions of Jews were abducted to concentration camps and that millions “did not return”. What happened to them still has never been explained by the revisionists. Carlo Mattogno admits as much. Untill this question is resolved I withhold judgement, but I am prepared to consider the possibility that many of them were “worked to death” *) toward the end of the war when it was clear to the Nazis that all was lost and they wanted to abreact their spite on them. From my country the Netherlands more than 100,000 Jews were abducted and 90% “did not return”. Near the end of the war 400,000 Hungarian Jews were abducted and “did not return” either. Revisionists have no explanation.

    *) For the Nazis being able to “work to death” their captives, see Himmler’s Posen speech.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @jacques sheete
  407. @RI

    Can we/you/ they understand this and stop fighting each other?

    You are preaching to the choir, my fine friend, so why are you directing your antagonism at only moi?

    The quote in question is at comment #350 at least for now.

    • Replies: @RI
  408. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Right, but during the war Hitler in his Table Talk talked all the time of his plans for Germanic colonization of Slavic lands. If Stalin never had planned to attack Germany, Hitler would have attacked Russia anyway to implement his grandiose plans. To depict Hitler as wholly “innocent”, only bent on defending Germany is disingenuous.

  409. @Wally

    So you don’t believe that the Kommissarbefehl was real?

    • Replies: @Wally
  410. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    As usual when beat, you try to change the subject.

    The discussion was about German communists.

    Please pay attention,

  411. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yeah boy, in the midst of a brutal two front war Hitler was going undertake such an endeavor. Hilarious.

    And as I explained, there was now plenty of ‘lebensraum’ via the defeat of Poland had Hitler wanted to.

    Quit digging, you make no sense whatsoever.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  412. Ok, you don’t think Ernst Thälmann was shot?

    • Replies: @Wally
  413. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    1. Please show us the ‘later plan to exterminate the Jews’.
    2.. You’re waking up.
    3. It is uncontested the Japanese-Americans were abducted and put into US concentration camps.
    – Mattogno does not say that.
    – Prove that millions of Jews are missing. Jews say they all went to enormous mass graves
    – So please show us the immense human remains that Jews like you say exist in known locations.
    – S. Spielberg admitted that he had to send his crews to SIXTY different countries to interview scamming “survivors”: https://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/03/alleged-holocaust-of-jews-is-proving.html
    – If you think they are missing then how were they killed?
    recommended:
    Juergen Graf : The Fate of Unregistered Auschwitz Inmates:

    http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/hungarian-holocaust-debate.html
    The Deportation of Hungarian Jews from May to July 1944, by Carlo Mattogno: https://codoh.com/library/document/357/?lang=en
    Most of them were transferred OUT of Auschwitz, none were gassed, ever.
    J. Graf and the illogical canard: ‘Where did Jews go then?’ / & more’
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8272
    WJC’s Stephen Wise said 1,250,000 – 1,500,000 Polish Jews homeless in Europe, outside of Poland, & alive after WWII: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10191
    Jews evacuated to USSR during war: https://archive.is/jA9iI
    More Jews evacuated to USSR during war: https://www.jta.org/1944/02/23/archive/german-lauds-russia-for-joining-intergovernmental-committee-for-refugees
    – Himmler’s Posen speech? You are way behind here.
    You the mean the top secret speech that allegedly recorded? LOL
    You ignored my comment #91 at: American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

  414. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico

    Oh I see. you’re now threatening me because you can’t refute me.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  415. @Franklin Ryckaert

    There’s enough dubiousness in Table Talk to warrant skepticism. If you’re referring to Lebensraum, Hitler’s discussion in Mein Kampf (before he was German leader) was not only in line with much German thought at the time, but much more important, took place in the context of the instability of the Russian Civil War and aftermath. Hitler believed that, owing to the Jewish domination of the early Bolshevik leadership, the Soviet Union would degenerate into chaos and offer opportunities for German expansion. Obviously, in 1941 there was no risk of the Soviet government collapsing, and Hitler’s decision to attack was driven by the contingencies he faced at that time, and not some grandiose plan of conquest.

  416. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    It would have been impossible, there was a massive two front war going on

    If Hitler wanted to “colonize” then why didn’t he? Germany had control of a massive amount of eastern territory for years.

    Khrushchev said “We will bury you.”, did he do it?

    The point of the Weber article is to point out the fact The USSR was planning to invade Germany. Unable to refute that fact you are terribly frustrated.
    It would be easier if you simply showed some integrity by going with that fact rather desperately clinging to your Jews First propaganda.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  417. EugeneGur says:
    @j2

    His conclusion was that Victor Suhurov was correct.

    A correction – he isn’t Suvorov but Resun. He is a scumbag and has no right to the name Suvorov whatsoever.

    I couldn’t care less what the former President of Finland thinks on the topic, because his opinion is rather predictable. As to supposed professional qualifications of the people you mentioned, well, I’ve noticed that if a person has an agenda, as most of you professor colleagues likely do, it can easily override his professional judgement. I’ve red enough of books written by the Western “general” to know that.

    Resun also has an agenda, so he manipulates facts, theories, rumors, anything to suit his agenda ignoring a mountain of facts that contradicts his “theory”. His number and assertions have been debunked point-by-point so many times, it’s boring.

    These argument against Resun haven’t been presented in the West, because the West isn’t interested in the truth. The West is interested in one thing only: to whitewash the horrendous crimes the Nazis committed on our soil. That effort has been ongoing for many years in Germany and elsewhere. That’s why the West cringes every time we have the Victory Parade or Immortal Regiment, because the scale of the event then becomes plain for everyone to see.

    You, Sir, are a part of that effort. You might sound scientific, count calories, present numbers, but it’s all bogus. Your numbers are bogus (1200 calories a day – a starvation level? don’t make me laugh) and you arguments are ridiculous. Chances are you even know that, for plenty of information is still available in the West in spite of all the efforts to cover it up.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
  418. @Wally

    Hitler wanted far more for his Lebensraum than Poland alone.

    Here are some quotes from the article Generalplan Ost : Fact or Fiction – Stormfront :

    (bold and caps by me)

    “…State frontiers are established by human beings and may be changed by human beings…”
    (…)

    “…Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop to the colonial and trade policy of pre-War times and pass over to the territorial policy of the future.
    But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally think of RUSSIA and the border States subject to her…”

    Source : Mein Kampf, Chapter 14 : Germany’s Policy in Eastern Europe.

    “… Turning to the Soviet Union, he addressed these remarkable words to his privileged little audience: ‘The present national [Bolshevik] government in Russia is a danger to us. As soon as the Russians can, they slit the throats of those who have helped them to attain power. That’s why it will be vital to splinter the RUSSIAN EMPIRE and to divide up her territories and soil, TO BE SETTLED BY GERMAN SETTLERS and tilled by the German plough. Then … if we were on good terms with Britain we could solve the French problem without interference from Britain…”

    Source : David Irving Hitler’s War, Millennium Edition, page 5

    “… Hitler had briefed Heydrich fully on the future of his Protectorate. Heydrich reported this to his local governors in Prague on October 2. One day, he said, the Protectorate would be settled by Germans. ‘This does not mean,’ said Heydrich, ‘that we now have to try to Germanise all Czech rabble. . . For those of good race and good intentions the matter is simple; they will be Germanised. For the rest, those of inferior racial origin or with hostile intentions, I shall get rid of them – there is plenty of room in the east for them.’ Inferior but well-meaning Czechs would probably be sent to work in the Reich. The more difficult category – those of good racial characteristics but hostile intentions – would have to be liquidated.*

    * Hitler had used the same language to Neurath, State Secretary Karl-Hermann Frank, and the minister of justice in September 1940: ‘Czechs turned down on racial grounds or anti-Reich in attitude were not to be assimilated. This category was to be eliminated (sei auszumerzen).’ In conversation over lunch on October 6, 1941 Hitler announced that the Jews in the Protectorate were all to be deported eastward. ‘After this war the Führer proposes to transplant all the racially valueless elements from Bohemia to the east…’

    Source : ibidem, page 442.

    [MORE]

    “…Some of Hitler’s quotes on Geralplan Ost

    16 July 1941, Hitler Comments, Conference in Führer Headquarters, in Czesław Madajczyk, ed., Generalny Plan Wschodni: Zbiór dokumentów (Warszawa: Glówna Komisja Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, 1990), pp. 61-64.

    On Hitler’s aims in the conquered east: “The CRIMEA must be cleared of all [racially] foreign peoples, as must the parts of GALICIA which formerly belonged to the Austrian Empire. …We must make a Garden of Eden out of the newly won eastern territories; this is important for our future existence; [overseas] colonies play a subordinate role. … ALL OF THE BALTIC LANDS MUST BE ANNEXED TO THE REICH. Similarly, the Crimea, with a significant adjoining region (the region north of the Crimea) must become Reich territory. The annexed territory must be as large as possible. … THE REICH MUST ALSO ANNEX THE VOLGA COLONY AND THE AREA AROUND BAKU.”

    D. 17 October 1941, Hitler Monologue, Führer Headquarters, in Madajczyk, Generalny, pp. 69-70.

    “The [eastern] region must lose the character of the Asiatic steppe, it must be Europeanized! It is for this purpose that we are building great highways to the southern tip of the Crime and to the Caucasus. German cities established along these roadways will stretch like a string of pearls, and around these will be German settlements. The two or three million people we need [for this program] can be found quicker than we think. We will take them from Germany, the Scandinavian lands, Western Europe, and America. Chances are that I will not live to see this, but in twenty years twenty million people will inhabit this territory. In three hundred years we will have a blossoming parkland of extraordinary beauty..!”

    As for the people indigenous to the area, we will be sure to select those [of importance]. We will remove the destructive Jews entirely. … WE WILL NOT ENTER RUSSIAN CITIES, THEY MUST DIE OUT COMPLETELY.

    There is only one task: GERMANIZATION THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF GERMANS [to the area] and to treat the original inhabitants like Indians. … I intend to stay this course with ice-cold determination. I feel myself to be the executor of the will of History. What people think of me at present is all of no consequence. Never have I heard a German who has bread to eat express concern that the ground where the grain was grown had to be conquered by the sword. We eat Canadian wheat and never think of the Indians.”

    Himmler’s comments on the issue

    24 October 1939, Heinrich Himmler: Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945 und andere Ansprachen. Edited by B.F. Smith and A.F. Peterson (Frankfurt/Main: Propyläen Verlag, 1974), pp. 124-125.

    “When we consider the issue [of eastern people], we first have to recognize that we have already long occupied ourselves with the Polish-Slavic problem … then we must clearly conclude, and thus have I received my tasks from the Führer, that in at least in the provinces which currently belong to Germany, the problem of the Polish minority must be solved, it must be eliminated in our lifetime. The problem must be eliminated.

    This is a small piece of Asia into which we have come, and we want to push the borders of Germany still farther to the east; and with that the frontiers of Europe.”

    But “innocent” Hitler only wanted to “defend Germany”, is it not ?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Wally
  419. Matteo says:
    @Rex Germanicus

    Just read Mein kampf’s last two chapters.

    All had been announced as early as in 1924. Hitler wanted to conquer Germany’s lebensraum eastwards. And he wanted to get rid of most Slav peoples in order to settle millions of Germans and have the other Slavs turned into slaves.

    Period.

    This article is BS. Nazis complaining about totalitarianism is laughable.

    Both nazism and communism are totalitarian. But nazism was genocidal.

  420. @Franklin Ryckaert

    And don’t tell me : “Hitler didn’t settle the East with Germans, therefore it never was his plan.” He would have to win the war first. Since he lost the war, his plans could not be implemented, but that it still was his plan, his own words prove, and that is all I want to say.

    • Agree: RobinG
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Wally
  421. @Matteo

    “Period.”

    Wow, that really settles it, I guess.

  422. The title is all wrong. The author should have been consistent: he should have stated that it only appeared that Germany attacked the Soviet Union, and tell that the Soviet Union attacked Germany. In the 21st century we’d be told that Stalin had WMDs.

  423. @j2

    I tried to but can’t resist commenting. My take is different from most.

    Why should the Soviet army have taken defensive positions? After all Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies and Stalin never expected that attack until Hitler stabbed him in the back. Stalin had reasons to fear that Britain and France may declare war on the Soviet Union once he also invaded Poland. Britain was on its own and France occupied by the time of Operation Barbarossa but why should Stalin have moved his troops into defensive positions? It makes sense that Soviet troops were in forward positions in case the allies declared war on them too as they did on Nazi Germany for invading Poland so that they could move in to assist German troops, and not to invade Europe on their own account. And there could have been other reasons why Soviets expected to receive a declaration of war from the allies (or just Britain at some point) instead of from Germany. They had been supplying Nazi Germany with resources for its war effort and most of German imports were from the Soviet Union after the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact was signed. But even long before that, the Soviet Union was actively helping Germany to beat the limitations on its armaments imposed by the Versailles Treaty through joint military industries and training programmes. Sure Churchill was egging Stalin on to attack Hitler but then Stalin had a treaty with Hitler he was sticking to until the Nazis broke it with their surprise attack. And maybe it wasn’t much of a surprise to Stalin as plans were underway since the previous year but perhaps he still expected to partner up with Hitler in that war if he couldn’t stay out of it.

    https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/sowing-the-wind-the-first-soviet-german-military-pact-and-the-origins-of-world-war-ii/

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @j2
  424. @Wally

    He did. What do you think Heim ins Reich was?

    • Replies: @Wally
  425. j2 says:
    @EugeneGur

    “Your numbers are bogus (1200 calories a day – a starvation level? don’t make me laugh) and you arguments are ridiculous”

    That is the number of calories that according to one source I found were given to POWs (Russian) in Finnish POW camps. It is low for a young man (conscript soldier) who has to work, POWs did work, while it is much above the metabolic limit.

    German captured very many Russian POWs and made great advance in the beginning of the war. That alone makes the claim almost obvious. Had the troops been in defense in depth, the war had looked different.

    I have no agenda and I do not defend Nazis. Instead of whitewashing Nazis, I think they in reality were ZioNazis with a mission of pushing Jews to Palestine and the millions of dead that were the result of it were a part of the plan, as was the war with all the dead and destruction.

    Finns do not try to whitewash Nazi deeds. Finland did not do major war crimes in that war and most probably it could not have stayed outside the war even if Finland had not joined Germany. Either Germany of the Soviet Union would have attacked to Finland in that case. The Soviet Union did quite enough crimes, which were whitewashed for a long time.

    Did my professor colleagues have an agenda? This topic is war history, not operational art and tactics. Yet, many war archives are kept secret and the full truth is often not told. During the time of the Soviet Union Finns tried to avoid mentioning anything that would cause a negative reaction from the Soviet Union. There were also issues that were not mentioned because they conflicted with what the politicians wanted to claim. One such thing I mentioned: there were offensive general staff war games in April-May 1941. Now this information is not secret, for a long time it was, as our politicians wanted to claim that Finland drifted to the war. Fortunately that time passed and it is more open today. I am not a historian and cannot know what is still hidden, though I am certain that not all archives e.g. in Russia are opened.

    I heard about this Koivisto’s study on this issue maybe 13-14 years ago from the head of research during a coffee break. I did not pay much attention to it at that time and maybe no name was mentioned, but it was a Russian claim that Soviet troops were in attack positions in June 1941. As for historical research, it is not taking somebody’s book and believing it. It is going to the war archives and finding documents and trying to interpret them correctly. Maybe your Resun is a poor researcher, but you can take for granted that nobody’s claim is accepted without checking and evaluating it from sources. Soviet data was so very often false and the initial assumption is never to believe anything without checking it.

    “You, Sir, are a part of that effort. You might sound scientific, count calories, present numbers, but it’s all bogus. Your numbers are bogus (1200 calories a day – a starvation level? don’t make me laugh) and you arguments are ridiculous.”

    Fine, next time I will use the Russian top research method and ask if Sergei’s officer dad has heard of some disputed topic and it not, then the topic does not exits. You know, the father knows everything. Nice that you still have such good sons who trust their fathers.

    • Replies: @EugeneGur
  426. @Commentator Mike

    Why should the Soviets have taken defensive positions? Is this a serious question? But LOL @ the standard “Stalin naively trusted Hitler” line. Maybe you are being serious.

    • Replies: @L.K
  427. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Of course treason / attempting to overthrow any government is usually considered grounds for execution.
    Yet Germany did wait 11 years.

    That’s it? A treasonous operative is all you have?

    No doubt you’ll try trotting out the homosexual nonsense and gas chambers next.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  428. @EugeneGur

    You are right that it’s ridiculous how the Americans in particular ignore the SOVIET (not Russian) war effort, and grotesquely exaggerate their (American) role in defeating Nazi Germany. But the Russian cult of victory is just that: a cult. Truly pathetic. Yeah, your grandfathers were cannon fodder. Well done!

  429. canusee [AKA "whathavewehere"] says:

    They “shoot communists don’t they?”

    Er – actually, they shot communists – absolutely the Germans did.

    Here’s the “Commissar Order” – originally issued verbally by Hitler in March 1941 to the German military staff (as noted by Halder), but which became a “top secret” order issued by the military command on June 6th 1941 (i.e. but a few days before the invasion of the Soviet Union – Barbarossa – kicked off):

    6 June 1941

    Guidelines for the Treatment of Political Commissars

    In the battle against Bolshevism, the adherence of the enemy to the principles of humanity or international law is not to be counted on. In particular the treatment of those of us who are taken prisoner in a manner full of hatred, cruelty and inhumanity can be expected from the political commissars of every kind as the real pillars of opposition.

    The troops must be aware that:
    1. In this battle mercy or considerations of international law with regard to these elements is false. They are a danger to our own safety and to the rapid pacification of the conquered territories.

    2. The originators of barbaric, Asiatic methods of warfare are the political commissars. So immediate and unhesitatingly severe measures must be undertaken against them.

    They are therefore, when captured either in battle or offering resistance, as a matter of routine to be dispatched by firearms.

    2. …Political commissars as agents of the enemy troops are recognizable from their special badge—a red star with a golden woven hammer and sickle on the sleeves…. They are to be separated from the prisoners of war immediately, i.e. already on the battlefield. This is necessary, in order to remove from them any possibility of influencing the captured soldiers.

    These commissars are not to be recognized as soldiers; the protection due to prisoners of war under international law does not apply to them. When they have been separated, they are to be finished off.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  430. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    You mean Germans returning to their land that was lost after WWI and the already German regions like the Sudetenland.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  431. canusee says:

    Historical documents sure are fun:

    Führer Headquarters,
    11th June 1941.
    9 draft copies

    Directive No. 32
    Preparations for the period after ‘Barbarossa’

    A. After the destruction of the Soviet Armed Forces, Germany and Italy will be military masters of the European Continent—with the temporary exception of the Iberian Peninsula. No serious threat to Europe by land will then remain. The defence of this area, and foreseeable future offensive action, will require considerably smaller military forces than have been needed hitherto.

    The main efforts of the armaments industry can be diverted to the Navy and Air Force.

    Closer co-operation between Germany and France should and will tie down additional English forces, will eliminate the threat from the rear in the North African theatre of war, will further restrict the movements of the British Fleet in the Western Mediterranean and will protect the south-western flank of the

    European theatre, including the Atlantic seaboard of North and West Africa, from Anglo-Saxon attack.

    In the near future Spain will have to face the question whether she is prepared to co-operate in driving the British from Gibraltar or not.

    The possibility of exerting strong pressure on Turkey and Iran improves the prospect of making direct or indirect use of these countries in the struggle against England.

    B. This situation, which will be created by the victorious conclusion of the campaign in the East, can confront the Armed Forces with the following strategic tasks for the late autumn of 1941 and the winter of 1941-42…….

  432. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Now you are changing your story yet again.

    First you said Hitler attacked for the purpose of seizing land and settling Germans on this new land.
    After getting shredded on that asinine nonsense you fall back to ‘Well, uh, he would’ve if he could’ve’.
    LOL
    Please show us actual implementation plans drawn up by the Germans.
    After all, such an undertaking would necessarily require major planning and resources.

    We await.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  433. j2 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    “Why should the Soviet army have taken defensive positions? After all Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies and Stalin never expected that attack until Hitler stabbed him in the back. Stalin had reasons to fear that Britain and France may declare war on the Soviet Union once he also invaded Poland. Britain was on its own and France occupied by the time of Operation Barbarossa but why should Stalin have moved his troops into defensive positions? It makes sense that Soviet troops were in forward positions in case the allies declared war on them too as they did on Nazi Germany for invading Poland so that they could move in to assist German troops, and not to invade Europe on their own account.”

    OK, you have zero background on operational art and tactics. Great. I will explain the little I know of that topic concerning this your idea. This is very elementary and I write it as for a person who knows nothing of the topic, so do not be irritated in case you know something and just wrote a joke.
    1. Stalin was concentrating forces on the western border. As a rule forces are not concentrated on borders if no military action is the be expected. Any concentration of forces on borders is interpreted as a potential attack threat and if a country does so, it usually informs the neighbor country why it concentrates forces on the border. Thus, when Russia after 1990 increased its forces relatively close to Finland, they informed Finland what they are doing and that is it not for attack purposes. No such explanation was given to Germany, thus the assumption is that the troops are concentrated for an attack.
    2. If the reason for concentrating forces was that Stalin expected Germany to attack and the forces were put there in order to stop the attack, then a logical necessity demands that they were placed in a way that at least theoretically could stop or delay German attack. This was not done: Soviet forces were placed totally incorrectly if they were meant for defense, as was show by the fast German advance and large number of POWs. Instead, they were placed in a logical way if the intention was to attack.
    3. You invented that Stalin wanted to defend against an Allied attack from the West side of Germany, that France and England would overrun whole Germany and West Poland and then come to the division line in Poland with the intention of attacking the Soviet Union. Such a military operation by the Allied would have taken minimum weeks and Stalin would have had enough time to form the defense line. Also in this case Soviet troops should have been in defense in depth, as the Allied power would have been very strong as it overrun Germany so fast.
    4. But maybe you mean that Stalin, as a good friend, would come to Germany’s aid without being asked by Germany. To stop together the Allied attack. To make a friendship and peace agreement. Such unasked help is called an attack. Stalin did offer this kind of help to Finland in 1939.

    I hope this clarifies the problem you have. I was not teaching operational art and tactics and only know what you have to know being ten years reading often very tactical theses of officers. But my students there never asked me to explain such things like you propose. Maybe some of the Russian top military experts here could inform you more deeply on this topic.

  434. j2 says:
    @Iris

    Thanks Iris, but you are always too kind. And thanks for answering my comment why Hitler attacked Poland. As this discussion diverges to some unwanted direction due to deep Russian expertise, I will not comment your answer.

  435. Wally says:
    @Matteo

    said:
    “Both nazism and communism are totalitarian. But nazism was genocidal.”

    Please present your proof of Nazim being “genocidal”

    – How did all the alleged victims supposedly die.
    – Where are the claimed immense human remains?

    Also follow my replies to Franklin Ryckaert which debunk the absurd ‘lebensraun / Barbarossa’ claim.

    Cheers.

  436. @Wally

    What proof do you have that Thälmann committed treason?

  437. @Wally

    No I mean Germans who had lived for generations in the Baltic states who were relocated to Warthegau and Silesia by agreement of their government with the USSR. Most had never even been to Germany. Don’t you know anything?

  438. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    – You still talk of he ‘Generalplan Ost’ which I demonstrated did not exist (recall the fake doc.), you later admitted it did it not exist. You’re clearly confused now.
    – You cited: 16 July 1941, Hitler Comments, Conference in Führer Headquarters, in Czesław Madajczyk, ed., Generalny Plan Wschodni: Zbiór dokumentów (Warszawa: Glówna Komisja Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, 1990), pp. 61-64.
    For which there are no such German documents to review, only Polish agenda driven propaganda. Please show us the actual German original documents … which do not exist. Ouch!
    – you cited:
    24 October 1939, Heinrich Himmler: Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945 und andere Ansprachen. Edited by B.F. Smith and A.F. Peterson (Frankfurt/Main: Propyläen Verlag, 1974), pp. 124-125.
    Yet you do not show us the actual genuine German text of what Himmler really said.
    False ‘translations” are legion when it comes to NS Germany as CODOH has demonstrated over & over again. So indeed, give us the real, authentic text.
    Recall this fact of Nuremberg: English translations of Russian translations of Polish copies of an alleged German original which cannot be found are typical Nuremberg ‘documents.’
    Imagine trying such nonsense in a real court of law:

    ‘Well your honor we know there are documents which prove our case, but well, uh, we cannot produce them.’ Laughter ensues.

  439. canusee [AKA "historysnotallmakebelieve"] says:

    [Comments with too much boldface may be trashed instead of published.]

    Hitler’s March 30th 1941 meeting with the German senior military (approx. 200 men).

    …He [Hitler] asserted that, despite Great Britain’s holdout, the war had been won in the West. But time was of the essence. Predicting that in four years America would be ascendant as a military power and threat, Hitler said Germany had to complete its conquest of Europe as quickly as possible. The invasion of the Soviet Union would commence on June 22.

    Then, he [Hitler] dropped his bombshell. Army Chief of the General Staff Gen. Franz Halder, who took notes during Hitler’s lecture, wrote what Hitler next said:

    “The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful, and unrelenting harshness. All officers will have to rid themselves of obsolete ideologies. I know that the necessity for such means of waging war is beyond the comprehension of you generals but . . . I insist absolutely that my orders be executed without contradiction. The commissars are the bearers of ideologies directly opposed to National Socialism. Therefore the commissars will be liquidated. German soldiers guilty of breaking international law . . . will be excused. Russia has not participated in the Hague Convention and therefore has no rights under it.”

    The Wehrmacht senior officers received the full text of Hitler’s Kommissarbefehl, or Commissar Order, the next day and began wrestling with the consequences of the Faustian remilitarization bargain they had made with the Nazis. Captured civilians such as the commissars were to be denied protection under the Geneva Convention and, if possible, executed on the spot…

  440. Wally says:
    @canusee

    Please catch up.

    The discussion is about the treatment of German communists, not Soviet Kommisars

    No one questions the Kommisar order.

    Leave it to the desperate to use strawman arguments.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  441. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    No one questions Hitler’s musings in Mein Kampf about finding living space for Germans.

    But let’s look at the actual date, period of Hitler’s expressions:

    – The British blockade during was still fresh in his mind, hundreds of thousands of Germans had died because of this blockade, a blockade left in place long after hostilities ceased.

    – The industrial Ruhr region was occupied by France.

    – Vast amounts of German land had been stolen via Versailles

    Germany did need living space at that time.

    much more: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=lebensraum

  442. @j2

    I understand what you write, but Stalin and Hitler did indeed have an agreement and after both invaded Poland, Stalin too could have expected a declaration of war by the allies in which case his troops would have indeed joined up with Germans, since in such an eventuality it would be ridiculous to expect that Hitler would have objected. Britain and France declared war only on Germany but according to their agreement with Poland they should have also declared war on the Soviet Union, which they didn’t do. But the Soviets continued supplying Germany, and as the reference I quoted states provided Germany with a base for its attack on Norway against the British there, and supplied German submarines. Of course there was mistrust on all sides but it is a fact that Hitler and Stalin had a pact and the Soviets contributed greatly to German rearmament and their war effort until the point that Germany attacked them. These are all facts but how you then interpret them that’s up to you. So they had ideological differences. If this is so important why didn’t the Soviets refuse any cooperation with Germany, military or otherwise, and refuse to supply and assist them in their war against France and Britain?

    If Stalin really wanted war with Hitler then why didn’t he attack as soon as Germans engaged the French and Brits on the western front, but instead wait until France was defeated and the British Expeditionary Force sent back to England, to launch this hypothetical nonsensical attack on Germany you and others here propagate? That would have been the ideal moment to crush Hitler and finish the war far sooner with far fewer casualties. So why wait until Hitler consolidated his rule over occupied Europe and had many more troops and equipment from the conquered nations he sent east in his own attack on Russia? Utterly preposterous and ridiculous thesis. And the answer is that Stalin did not want war with Germany, but if the allies declared war on the Soviet Union because of its own invasion of Poland or its assistance to the German war effort then he would have had to fight on Hitler’s side.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @j2
    , @L.K
  443. RI says:
    @jacques sheete

    Thanks, I am in agreement with Sir Arthur.
    I think that Germans and Russians were (still are) victims of a horrible plot to exterminate each other. And I am preaching this everywhere . And pay the price. I am not a German nor Russian. We should not fall for a similar plot even disguised as a most humanistic and tolerant one.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  444. @Wally

    Interesting that you admit Soviet commissars were targeted for summary execution. What’s your opinion of that? Was it justified?

  445. @Wally

    Interesting that you find the Generalplan Ost doc not believable but you accept the far less well substantiated Schelegelberger document. It’s almost like you dismiss every document that disproves your case but accept every document that you think does.

  446. Wally says:
    @canusee

    Given the past horrific actions of the Soviet Army, Hitler knew that the risky but imperative preemptive attack on the USSR would be rough. So what?

    Yes, Soviet Kommisars were to be executed. So what?

  447. @Commentator Mike

    It’s irrelevant what Stalin didn’t do in 1940, which I presume is your scenario. He was doubtless surprised at how quickly France fell and at any rate during this time he was seizing the Baltics (including all of Lithuania, in contravention of the modified Nazi-Soviet pact), and grabbing a piece of Romania. At the end of 194o he sent Molotov to Berlin with further demands, including against the Finns. Presumably at this stage he felt he still had time to pressure the Germans. At any rate the question concerns the situation the Germans faced in the summer of 1941, when they were clearly in a use-it-or-lose-it situation, at a minimum.

  448. L.K says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Commentator Mike is just another clueless poster who should be doing some actual research instead of posting embarrassing nonsense on the internet.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  449. j2 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    The size of the Soviet army increased from, if I correctly remember, from 2.4 million in 1939 to 5.7 million in 1941. After the war when Soviets unmobilized they had 2.8 million army, so this 2.4 million of 1939 was the peace time army size. Stalin did not have an army to go to the war in 1940, especially as the experiences from Poland and Finland in 1939 showed serious problems in the army. He could not start any attack before summer 1941.

    About this hypothesis that Stalin intended to attack, as said, I am not a historian. I have not checked the archives, and I know that many historians have rejected this theory. However, that does not say much since the main stream historians support the Holocaust story, which according to my calculations (that I did and checked) is impossible. Thus, the thesis of Stalin wanting to attack may very well be true even if the majority of historians reject it. The essential test is not if the majority reject it but are there respectable historians who do not reject it. This seems to be the case. Assuming that the thesis is easily shown wrong, I am quite sure that my professor colleagues would have explained it to president Koivisto, and as they did not, it means that the thesis is at least possible and may well be even probable.

    As this issue is now so much discussed here, I checked the size of Soviet troops in June 1941. They had 2.4 million in the area from the Polish western border to the Black Sea. It is quite irrelevant here that Hitler collected 3.3 million German soldiers to Barbarossa and had numerical superiority. This does not matter as we ask if before Hitler concentrated this force did Stalin have enough troops for an offensive. It depends on where these 2.4 million were, so I cannot answer it. Possibly that is enough, it means that Stalin had over twice the peace time army and very many tanks, though worse quality.

    In the first month Germans took 400,000 POWs from this 2.4 million. That is 12,4%. It does seem very high. Additionally comes 200,000 dead or wounded. I think it indicates that the formation of these troops was not suitable for defense. For a more precise comment on how these troops were placed I have no material. I can only say that apparently it is possible to state that the troops were in offensive positions, as this was the conclusion of Koivisto.

    To your further arguments: Soviets provided military supplies to Germany, why so if they intended to attack? I think both side knew that there would be a war sooner or later, but they made an agreement and to a certain extent followed it. In the German war declaration it is said that Soviets did not fill everything in the agreement, such as e.g. they took over the Baltic states. I do not see any special problem in fulfilling some part of a deal and cheating on some others. People do so, countries do so.

    You ask why Stalin was not a man of principle who never makes hazy deals and if he mistrusted Hitler then why did he at all make a deal with Hitler. It is because he was a smart man, old fox. Men of principle would not become dictators in the Soviet Union, you have to be ready to play.

    I already said why Stalin had to wait. You say that the ideal moment had been in 1940. But if you do not have army in fighting condition, you cannot use this ideal moment.

    I have not carefully looked at this claim of Stalin’s plan to attack. I find that there is enough evidence to consider it possible and maybe probable. I will give one argument why it is probable: Stalin did attack Finland to have, as Russians claimed, Finnish artillery further from Leningrad. I am sure Stalin did not think Finland would attack alone. It would have to be on the German side. Thus, Stalin expected a German attack. As he expected a German attack, it is likely that he did something to stop this attack? Yes, naturally he had to. He increased the army size from 2.4 million to 5.7 million, built lots of tanks, and improved the tactical concepts. It was a better army in 1941 as in 1939. Yet, this improved army lost so much ground in one week. Why? The only reason I can see is that Stalin expected a German attack and was prepared to it, but he was prepared to make the first strike, and that is why he was surprised by the fast German mobilization and that Germany made the first strike.

  450. @Wally

    Here is a passage from the German text of Himmler’s first Posen speech of October 4, 1943 :

    “…Ein Grundsatz muss für den SS-Mann absolut gelten: ehrlich, anständig, treu und kameradschaftlich haben wir zu Angehörigen unseres eigenen Blutes zu sein und sonst zu niemandem. Wie es den Russen geht, wie es den Tschechen geht, ist mir total gleichgültig. Das, was in den Völkern an gutem Blut unserer Art vorhanden ist, werden wir uns holen, indem wir ihnen, wenn notwendig, die Kinder rauben und sie bei uns großziehen…”

    The German verb rauben means literally “to rob”. The English text translates with “kidnapping”.

    And here is the English translation :

    “…One basic principle must be the absolute rule for the SS men: We must be honest, decent, loyal and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in the slightest. What other nations can offer in the way of good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary, by kidnapping their children and raising them here with us…”

    And you still maintain that a policy of kidnapping blond Polish children didn’t exist?

    • Replies: @Wally
  451. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Yep, they can always cook up some pretext, (prefereably “humanitarian”), even if they own/ control nearly everything significant.

  452. @Franklin Ryckaert

    There were no more than 4 million Jews under German control, so 6 million of them could never have been killed, with 3 million “survivors”.

    Yup.

    Note the source as well as the date.

    Allowing for a maximum of 100,000 who succeeded in emigrating from Europe, this would bring the total number of Jews under the direct rule of Nazi Germany to about 3,200,000.
    664 AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK
    http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1941_1942_9_Statistics.pdf

    http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php

    I hope the links still work. I’ve posted this info so often that it’s all probably been “expurgated” by now.

    • Replies: @L.K
  453. @RI

    I think that Germans and Russians were (still are) victims of a horrible plot to exterminate each other.

    That is, without a shred of doubt, true.

    Thank you for your comments.

    • Agree: Byrresheim
  454. @Wally

    Which horrific actions of the Soviet Army are you talking about? And shooting military commissars without even a drumhead court martial is a war crime. To plan it ahead makes the whole high command culpable.

    • Agree: AnonFromTN
    • LOL: Wally
    • Replies: @Wally
  455. L.K says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Beefcake has already taken care of your risible post.

    I’ll add that in the summer of 1940 the preparations for the Red Army to be able to attack Germany were still far from complete.
    The expectations were for the summer of the following year; 1941.

    Stalin’s goal from the beginning(Polish campaign) was to get Germany and the West to be at war, while he had a free hand to act in the background, which is exactly what he did.
    Cunning strategy except Hitler eventually realized what he was doing and manage to – barely – strike the first blow.

    Utterly preposterous and ridiculous thesis

    Well, Pyotr Grigorenko, Soviet Army Major General & highly decorated WWII veteran didn’t think so.
    Neither did many Russian historians in the post Soviet period who had access to the then open archives, now closed again.

    As D.W.Michaels wrote:
    […]he was the first leading Soviet figure to advance the revisionist arguments, which became well known during the 1980s and 1990s, on Stalin’s preparations for aggressive war against Germany. In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. Just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.”

    Since the 1990s, with the partial opening of Soviet archives(closed again), many Russian historians have refined the evidence for Stalin’s agressive aims.
    Fanatic propagandists and quacks who peddle Soviet propaganda(now incorporated by the Russian Fed. ) hate Resun( Suvorow) and would like him to have been the only Russian to advance such a thesis. Far from it:

    Russian military historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov of the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, Russian historian M. Nikitin, V. A. Nevezhin, Colonel V. D. Danilov, Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, Colonel Kiselev, Dr. Dschangir Nadschafov, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy, etc.

  456. I always admired the way Roman’s dealt with their enemies. Once enemy was defeated it was either finished off for good like Carthagen or absorbed like Gauls. This personage is talking about some horrific actions of the Soviet army which exist only in western collective inflamated brain with purpose to whitewash very real horrific crimes collective west brought upon Soviet union. The cause of all this exactly that soviet army and people happened to be extremely forgiving and merciful. Why? Because the payback for what germans and their henchmen did in Russia should have been far more serious than what happened. Germany should have been finished as independent state for good..otherwise we see how all this scum sleazes from all nooks and crannies. Letting Germany off the hook as easy as it had was really bad mistake and bad lesson.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Wally
  457. @Wally

    Funny how a Hitler-worshiper would think “horrific actions” were a bad thing.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @jacques sheete
  458. Wally says:

    said:
    “Why? Because the payback for what germans and their henchmen did in Russia should have been far more serious than what happened.”

    What do you feel the “Germans and their henchmen” did in the communist USSR?

    And oh yes, please present proof with that. We await.

    So hows life in Tel Aviv?

  459. Iris says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    You are an uneducated fool.

    And it was Carthago, not Carthagen, that the filthy Roman empire destroyed.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  460. L.K says:
    @jacques sheete

    Hey Jacques,
    Don’t even bother with this Franklin Ryckaert, just another shill. In another thread he wrote:

    Hitler’s motive for attacking Russia was creating Lebensraum for his “superior” Germans at the cost of the “inferior” Slavs

    These jokers have no shame.

    Yet even Brit historian Richard Overy, typical British Court historian and no friend of NS Germany, has been forced to admit in a recent work of his that:

    Few historians now accept that Hitler had any plan or blueprint for world conquest, in which Poland was a stepping stone to some distant German world empire. Indeed, recent research has suggested that there were almost no plans for what to do with a conquered Poland and that the vision of a new German empire in central and eastern Europe had to be improvised almost from scratch.

    Richard Overy, 1939: Countdown to War – 2009, p.124.

  461. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    As I said and demonstrated, the Posen speech is bogus, Yet you keep blundering on.
    Here you go:
    – No human remains to back up the unfounded claims. Not a single enormous mass grave as alleged has ever been excavated, contents verified and shown. Not one. The storyline says 6M Jews & 5M others = 11M, now just think about that.
    How bizarre, claims of mass murder where there is no evidence to support it. The gas chambers are scientifically impossible as alleged and have been debunked ad nauseum by Revisionists, and the alleged 1,000,000 – 2,000,000 supposed mass shootings of thousands at a time in claimed known sites have produced no mass graves at those sites. Why is that?
    – In 1993, Robert Wolfe, supervisory archivist for captured German records at the National Archives admitted that a more precise translation of ‘ausrottung’ would be extirpation or tearing up by the roots. Wolfe also pointed out that in Himmler’s handwritten notes for the speech, that Himmler used the term, ‘judenevakuierung’, or evacuation of the Jews, not ‘extermination’.
    – There are missing pages, retyped pages by different hands, even pages have been re-numbered.
    – Then we have a so called “secret” speech in front of thousands. Frankly the assertions about it are laughable.
    – Yivo (Yiddish Scientific Institute) of New York was very active in the Rosenberg Ministry to process documents for submittal to the Nuremberg trials.
    – Members of the audience like SS-OGruF Gottlob Berger denied that Himmler was talking about the extermination of the Jews at all. I suggest reading: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487
    – This alleged (recorded) speech, as German judge Staeglich has adroitly pointed out, is a hodgepodge of non-sequitors, nonsense, and re-worked text,see:
    ‘Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, by Wilhelm Stäglich’: http://codoh.com/library/document/230
    – To have a speech with such alleged secret content recorded? Right. SS General Berger did not recognize Himmler’s voice listening to the tape.
    – the complete lack of orders for the desperate assumptions made about it.[/quote]more here:
    ‘Posen speech’: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=372
    and here:
    Heinrich Himmler’s Posen Speech from 04.10.1943, , By Heinrich Himmler
    Published: 1943-10-04, Given at Posen 4 October 1943, Translation of Document No. 1919-PS, Nuremberg Trial, by Carlos Porter: http://codoh.com/library/document/891/

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  462. L.K says:

    Justice Jackson, Nuremberg trial record

    I really think that this trial, if it should get into an argument over the political and economic causes of this war, could do infinite harm, both in Europe, which I don’t know well, and in America, which I know fairly well. If we should have a prolonged controversy over whether Germany invaded Norway a few jumps ahead of a British invasion of Norway, or whether France in declaring war was the real aggressor, this trial can do infinite harm for those countries with the people of the United States. And the same is true of our Russian relationships. The Germans will certainly accuse all three of our European allies of adopting policies which forced them to war.

    The reason I say that is that captured documents which we have always made that claim – that Germany would be forced into war. They admit they were planning war, but the captured documents of the Foreign Office that I have examined all come down to the claim, “We have no way out; we must fight; we are encircled; we are being strangled to death.”

  463. KenH says:
    @Hillbob

    The attack took the soviets by complete surprise with extraordinary losses in men and material in the first few days of the invasion.

    That’s primarily because Stalin decreed that Soviet troops not yield once inch of ground to the “fascists”. As a result army after army got encircled and annihilated by the maneuver warfare of the Germans.

    Sounds like a country preparing to attack Germany

    Many German officers and soldiers observed that the Soviet army units they encountered were in offensive positions. If the Soviet Union was not preparing to attack Germany then they should have encountered a Soviet army in defensive positions with tank traps, land mines, trenches, etc. These were all the obstacles the Wehrmacht ran into at Kursk-Orel when the Red Orchestra spy ring tipped off the Soviets to the coming German offensive enabling them to make defensive preparations that checked the German advance.

  464. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Actually, they were political kommisars, aka: enforcers.

    Not even popular with Red Army soldiers.

    Not all were executed.

    The German High Command did not issue the ‘Kommisar order’.

    Ask Finland about Soviet atrocities.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  465. @Wally

    Never mind that. You alleged atrocities by the Soviet Army before Barbarossa. Got any proof?

    • Replies: @Marcali
  466. Wally says:
    @David In TN

    Yawn.

    You still have no proof for your fake ‘holocaust’, as I have demonstrated.

    But hey, you faithfully believe.

    If your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  467. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    said:
    “Why? Because the payback for what germans and their henchmen did in Russia should have been far more serious than what happened.”

    see comment 474

  468. @Wally

    That they were political commissars isn’t in dispute unless you think shooting civilians is better than shooting soldiers. Whoops! Do you?

    Whether they were popular or not and whether some weren’t shot also isn’t the point. Many were shot and none had trials. That’s a war crime, yes or no?

    The Kommissarbefehl was issued by the OKW. That’s Keitel, the high command.

    I asked you about Soviet atrocities, not Finland. But I note your dodging

    • Replies: @Wally
  469. @Wally

    Then we have a so called “secret” speech in front of thousands. Frankly the assertions about it are laughable.

    Fewer than 100 at each speech, first all SS officers and then Gauleiters and Reichsleiters.

    I have personally pointed this out to you before so when you repeat it now, you’re just lying.

  470. @L.K

    Yes. In fact (according to General Halder, I believe), Hitler entertained ideas of a Polish rump state, but this was opposed by Stalin because of the implications for Ukrainian nationalism. Not to mention German offers to Britain and France regarding peace throughout late 1939 involving some restoration of Polish sovereignty (rebuffed, needless to say).

  471. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Still, in a rambling speech (assuming its authenticity) he says very little about Jews as such, and as far as killings he only refers to the mass shootings on the Eastern Front (which no revisionist denies happened, and he uses realistic numbers of 500-1000 at a time). Hardly proof of a “Final Solution”. If a top secret “extermination plan” really existed Himmler would have to be unbelievably stupid or foolish to allow himself to be recorded or transcripted talking about it. The Posen speech is no more than a pointless rally-the-troops effort as the war got increasingly worse for Germany.

  472. @Iris

    Thanks for correcting my dumb phone. You are a bit smarter.

  473. @Wally

    Take your pills. You and a lot of likeminded locals need a lot of those.

    • Replies: @Wally
  474. anon1 says:

    It all goes back to the INSANE pledge to Poland. Without that WW2 would have just been a Russo-German war. I still do not know who was more stupid. The British for making the pledge or the Poles for taking it seriously.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  475. BTW, let’s be clear about something: I’d much rather be called a “Hitler fanboy” than a Bush or Clinton supporter, any day of the week. If that’s your idea of an insult, keep ‘em coming.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  476. @L.K

    Don’t even bother with this Franklin Ryckaert, just another shill.

    Yes.

    I have pretty much written that one off, but while scrolling past his comment, (which I didn’t read in its entirety, (yawn)), I happened to notice the claim and couldn’t resist responding, not to him per se, but for the benefit of anyone else who may happen to read it.

    I have posted that quite a bit over the years, and have yet to get any sort of response to it. I mean, if there were only 3.2 million Jews in German occupied territories, how could they have killed 6 million? Must’ve been a lot of births or conversions, or maybe some rose from the dead (it’s been done before, ya know!) or something. Maybe majik!

  477. @L.K

    Good info there! Nice work.

  478. @anon1

    What makes you think so? That pledge only got the UK and France legally at war with Germany, although they did nothing whatsoever. Hitler picked up all the low-hanging fruit (which happened to be all of Europe except the USSR and UK) first. Do you think he was interested in legalities? Fat chance! He occupied Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, none of which was legally at war with Germany. Did not stop him one bit. Germany would have occupied all of available Europe regardless, Poland was (and still is) totally inconsequential.

    • Replies: @Wally
  479. BTW, if the Germans wanted to exterminate Slavs as well, why did the Bulgarians ally with them?

  480. @anon1

    It all goes back to the INSANE pledge to Poland.

    I’m quite sure that both Churchill and FDR (both “aristocrats” to a degree) loathed the commoner, Hitler, were insanely jealous, and would have done anything to get into a war with Germany. In fact, FDR as assistant secretary of the Navy under Wilson agitated for war with Germany as far back as 1916 or so, long before anyone even heard of the wounded and decorated corporal, Hitler.

    Churchill was playing the old Brit game of getting others to fight it out for their benefit. They pulled that stunt more than once and it’s obvious to me that they just used the rather rambunctious Polish militarists and gave not a damn about them.

    It was insane but it was also consistent. The Polish militarists were suckers, the Brit militarists bastards of the highest degree, and the rest is history.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Iris
  481. @L.K

    It’s worth pointing out that Glantz himself admits that he had nothing like unfettered access to Soviet archives (although he’s done little to dispel common impressions to the contrary).

  482. @Beefcake the Mighty

    I second that sentiment and would add that the more I learn, the more I’d rather be called a Stalin fan boy than a supporter of Wilson, Churchill or FDR, all of whom are much more despicable than anything else the world could possibly produce. Pompous, power hungry, self righteous, mendacious, vengeful and ignorant as Hell, every one of those sickos.

    I’d add to that Truman, the simple minded goof, and LBJ; what a filthy piece of work that perverted, bloodthirsty, monstrosity was!

    And to think there were Americans who voted for each of them (except the Big “C” of course).

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  483. @David In TN

    Funny how a Hitler-worshiper would think “horrific actions” were a bad thing.

    Hey, ever hear of omelettes and breaking eggs? What’s a guy s’posed to do, huh? Was Hitler or was he not entitled to make an omelette or two?

    Explain.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  484. @Beefcake the Mighty

    In times of need (of troops) useful idiots are always welcome. Besides, Hitler was never interested in colonizing the Balkans.

    • Replies: @j2
  485. Wally says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    IOW, you cannot provide proof or your silly rants.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  486. Wally says:
    @AnonFromTN

    You said:
    “He occupied Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, none of which was legally at war with Germany. Did not stop him one bit. Germany would have occupied all.of available Europe regardless, Poland was (and still is) totally inconsequential.”

    Amazing ignorance.

    – France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
    – France and England were allowed to fly war planes over “neutral” Belgium and Holland.
    – Norway was invaded by Britain, the Brits were there when the German arrived and cleared them out.
    – Denmark had seized German land at the end of WWI, Germany wanted it back.
    – Germany considered Luxembourg a German state under the domination of their adversary France.
    – If Germany wanted to occupy all of Europe it would have.
    – USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.

    Cheers.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  487. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Again you dodge what I post, please review my comment #477.
    Try to pay attention for Christ sake.

    But then you’re just another run-of-the-mill dim & debunked redneck Zionist.

    BTW, tell us about those ‘gas chambers’ that you believe in. LOL

    http://www.codoh.com

  488. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Actually Romania n Finland delayed their attacks, waiting to see how the German attack progressed before committing themselves. Not that they could have done much, since they had to wait for the soviets to hastily transfer the massive numbers of troops arrayed against them away to confront the emergency posed by the German invasion.

    To speak of “borders of the Soviet Union” is to completely misunderstand the nature of that political entity. When Stalin occupied eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bukovina, n Bessarabia, he had no intention of ever allowing these territories to resume independence. These areas were well along the way of being absorbed into the global Soviet entity when the Germans invaded n halted the process.

  489. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Now you’re changing your story, again. Some things never change.

    Anyway, like the partisan terrorists , commissars were not recognized as legal combatants.

    Again, please research Soviet atrocities against Finns, shouldn’t be too difficult for you … I hope.

    Now if you want to talk about real war crimes, there’s the Red Army. Of course a Stalin apologist such as yourself tries to downplay those. Alas.

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  490. @MEFOBILLS

    Isn’t it interesting that after Stalin turned against the Jews with his planned purge of Communist Jews in the “doctors’ plot” in 1953, having lost confidence in their loyalty due to their support of Israel, that he suddenly turned up dead? It was only then that Jews around the world turned against the Soviet Union n the media stop calling it the “workers’ paradise”.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  491. Beef the Mighty.
    the Bulgarian King Boris was an Austrian . How about that ?

  492. j2 says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “In times of need (of troops) useful idiots are always welcome. Besides, Hitler was never interested in colonizing the Balkans.”

    The smaller countries could choose between two sides but they did not have a realistic chance to stay outside the war. These countries knew what Communism represented.

    Nazis had the racial teaching of lower races, untermenchen. For them Slavs and Finns and all those other people were lower races. In practice in Finland it meant that SS men were advised not to marry lower race women. So SS men in Norway made much more children with Norwegian pure blooded Aryans than with Finnish mongrel women. Which was not a so bad outcome after Germany lost. As Germans did not occupy Finland they did not realize the untermenchen philosophy.

    In Poland this untermenchen concept was realized. as the country was occupied. There was some level of apartheid, like that Nazis put a sign on a children skating place: not for dogs or for Poles. Poles were captured from the streets and forced to work in farms run by Germans. It was a form of a work duty, but in the case of untermenchen to work for the master race, so a bit different as the work duty for Germans. University education was not allowed for Poles as the lower race was not to get higher education. Warsaw university worked as an underground educational institute during the war and some students did graduate. So, these stories I know to be true.

    I have heard the story of kidnapping Polish children long ago, but have not checked if such happened. What was certainly true was that Poles with German ancestry could become Germans and this may be the actual background meaning of the story, stealing the children by converting them into Germans. Yet, only those with some German ancestry could be converted to German.

    All this kind of racism there was, but I think there was no idea of killing all Slavs. The idea was stealing their land or a part of it, pushing most of the untermenchen out and using a small number of them for simple work for the master race. So, it is just like with Palestinians in Israel.

    This all is true and if is why I am no Hitler fun boy. I know many untermenchen and they are quite similar to Germans. Actually, Finns are more different in character.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  493. @Wally

    By the way, have you (yet) figured out an explanation for Hitler’s failure to “prevent” the Soviet capture of Berlin in 1945?

    • Replies: @Wally
  494. @jacques sheete

    You just admitted you are too stupid to understand irony.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  495. @L.K

    Uh, I’m sure you guys know far more details, but then I’m also sure that the Soviets, and their western allies too, scrubbed much information pertaining to that phase of Soviet -Nazi cooperation, as it must have been quite embarrassing later on. Just like you don’t see Jews talking much about the Haavara agreement.

  496. Cowboy says:
    @Sparkon

    John Wear has written several articles about this:

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/12/21/stalin-wanted-to-mount-a-massive-air-offensive-followed-by-an-assault-of-nearly-2-million-airborne-troops/

    The ideal combat plane Stalin developed was a light bomber designed to operate free of enemy resistance. Record-breaking characteristics were not required; Stalin demanded only simplicity, durability, and firepower. Stalin planned to create a plane that could be produced in numbers exceeding all warplanes of all types of all countries in the world. Literally, Stalin planned to build as many light bombers as there were small but mobile horsemen in the hordes of Genghis Kahn.

    When Germany invaded the Soviet Union it could only send 2,510 airplanes, including many outdated planes and assorted aircraft used for transport, communications, and medical purposes. The Soviet Union had 2,769 of the newest models Il-2, Pe-2, MiG-3, Yak-1, and LaGG-3. The Soviet Union also had seven additional new types of planes: the Ar-2, Er-2, Su-2, Pe-8, Yak-2, Yak-4, and Il-4. Aside from the 12 newest models, the Soviet Union also had the “obsolete” TB-3 and SB bombers, and the I-16 and I-153 fighters.

    Why then in the first stage of the war did the Soviet air force lose air superiority from day one?

    The answer is that the majority of Soviet pilots, including fighter pilots, were not taught dogfighting. Soviet aviation was designed to conduct one grandiose, sudden, aggressive operation to crush the enemy’s air force on the ground in one raid and obtain air superiority. Hitler’s preemptive strike prevented Soviet aviation from accomplishing its planned aggressive operations of unheard-of dimensions.

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/soviet-tanks-were-to-be-the-spearhead-in-stalins-plan-to-attack-conquer-europe-he-built-mass-produced-the-best-tanks-in-the-world/

    The Germans started producing the Pz-IVA, the most powerful German tank of the first half of World War II, at the end of 1937. The T-28 tank was superior to the German tank in all respects except one: the T-28 fired shells with an initial speed of 381 m/s, while the German Pz-IVA tank fired shells with an initial speed of 385 m/s. In response, starting in 1938, the Soviet T-28 tanks were produced with a new L-10 gun that fired shells with an initial speed of 555 m/s. The L-10 Soviet tank gun was unrivaled in Germany or anywhere else in the world. Despite being outstanding in comparison with all foreign tanks, after the war Soviet historians and generals called the T-28 tank obsolete.

    Suvorov shows that the Soviet Union had 1,400 T-34s at the time of invasion. During the second half of 1941, Soviet industry produced another 1,789 T-34 tanks.

    The Soviet Union also built an entire family of BT tanks—the BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, BT-7A, and BT-7M. BT stands for bystrokhodnyi (high-speed) tank. At the beginning of World War II, the Red Army had 6,456 BT tanks, as many as all other operational tanks in the rest of the world. The BT tanks were well designed, heavily armed for their times, had standard bullet-proof armor, and used a diesel engine which made the tanks far less vulnerable to fires. The first BTs had a speed of 69 mph; today most tanks would still be envious of such high speeds. Nevertheless, Soviet historians categorized these tanks among the obsolete models, so obsolete that until 1991 they were not even included in statistics.

    The Soviet Union also built an outstanding family of amphibious tanks: the T-37A, T-38, and T-40. By June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union had over 4,000 amphibious tanks in its arsenal. By comparison, to this day Germany has never built any amphibious tanks.

    Wear also forgets to mention the British Lend Lease that started in the summer of 1941. Britain shipped hundreds of tanks and Hurricane fighters, so any gaps that Stalin had in his airforce or tank forces were immediately filled by jew owned armaments companies like Vickers.

    https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

    “The first deliveries of tanks took place already in 1941, namely 487 Matilda II tanks, Valentine and Tetrarch from UK as well as 182 M3A1 Stuart and medium tanks M3 Lee from the USA.

    The first foreign aeroplanes to arrive were two squadrons of Hawker Hurricane fighters, which were flown in combat by RAF pilots in the autumn of 1941 and then handed over to the Russians “

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  497. @Sin City Milla

    When Stalin occupied eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bukovina, n Bessarabia, he had no intention of ever allowing these territories to resume independence.

    Obviously true. All one has to do is examine his “post war” grabs, which sent his dumbass former “allies” scrambling to block. It’s fortunate that FDR croaked; had he lived, there’s no telling what more he would have given to the guy who “only wanted socialism on one country.”

  498. Cowboy says:
    @j2

    For a “scholar”, you sure lack documentation for your outrageous kosher claims, not even a wiki. Take this:

    “Nazis had the racial teaching of lower races, untermenchen. For them Slavs and Finns and all those other people were lower races. In practice in Finland it meant that SS men were advised not to marry lower race women…. As Germans did not occupy Finland they did not realize the untermenchen philosophy.

    First of all, you contradicted yourself. Second of all, this is cognitive dissonance. Third of all, care to document this for us?

    Or is this merely more lies that you spew for sheckels, like the 6 gorillian?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @j2
  499. @european born

    How about what? Are you denying that the Bulgarians are Slavs?

    • Replies: @RI
    , @european born
  500. @Wally

    Anyway, like the partisan terrorists , commissars were not recognized as legal combatants.

    Garbage. They had rank and insignia and were embedded within regular army units. They were legal combatants. You just painted yourself into a corner because you have no problem with them being shot but you’re not man enough to just say so because then you’ll have to admit your beloved Nazis actually committed a war crime.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @David In TN
  501. CK says:
    @RobinG

    Unsure what your comment is referencing in either of my comments here.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  502. Iris says:
    @jacques sheete

    “In fact, FDR as assistant secretary of the Navy under Wilson agitated for war with Germany as far back as 1916 or so, long before anyone even heard of the wounded and decorated corporal, Hitler.”

    In the gallery of rogues who planned and engineered WW1 and its continuation, WW2, Britain and the London-based financial oligarchy stand at the very top position.

    By his relentless and indefatigable efforts, King Edward VII of Great-Britain created the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia) against Germany as early as 1907. He also initiated the “Special Relationship” with the US, which dates back to his time. Churchill continued this policy which allowed quashing Britain’s main geopolitical rival and prolonged the British empire under renewed forms.

    http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/king-edward-vii-of-great-britain-evil-demiurge-of-the-triple-entente-and-world-war-1/

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  503. RI says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I think Bulgarians are Slavs, but Hitler declared them true Aryans at the time. Considering that Slavs actually belong to the Aryan group ( to which not all Germans are part off), it is strange that he declared some Slavs Untermenschen. I boils down to political convenience – those are Aryans, but those are not, so let’s take their lands.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  504. @european born

    What’s more, Bulgaria prudently never sent any troops to the Eastern front. Maybe even an Austrian understood that the result would have been the same as with the Slovak corps, which surrendered to the Soviet troops the first chance it got. Surrendered in an organized manner, with privates, officers, and commanders.

  505. @Wally

    The proof that Germans killed upward to 18 million Soviet civilians and around 3 million Soviet POWs? Take your pill.

    • Replies: @Wally
  506. @Wally

    – France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.

    Well yes…that was where the Germans invaded through in 1914 and had planned to invade through again (the plans of which fell into French hands) until the Manstein plan was adopted. Additionally, the Maginot Line did