The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
The Nazi Plans for a United Europe
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Easter 1942 French postcard reading: “Our Mother, Europe”

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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Europe is a continent of such heterogeneity – whether in terms of states, languages, nationalities, or geography – that no one has ever really succeeded in organizing it into a coherent geopolitical whole. This is despite the demand among statesmen, businesses, and even many simple inhabitants for a peaceful and rationalized European space.

The nineteenth century saw several attempts in this direction with Napoleon’s Continental System, the German Confederation’s gradual construction of a customs union and monetary system for the German principalities, and the little-known Latin Monetary Union. Since 1945, we have of course seen the emergence of the European Union, with its common currency and customs union, as a serious economic power.

The Third Reich faced similar issues. In May 1940, hot on the heels of Hitler’s conquest of France, there were many different opinions among the Germans as to what they should do with their newfound hegemony in Western Europe. Werner Daitz, an associate of National-Socialist ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and an official in the NSDAP’s foreign policy office, wrote a memorandum advocating for the creation of a Reich Commission charged with the economic unification of Europe:

The present [British] blockade, in particular, has rendered unavoidable the construction of a continental European Greater Economic Space [Grossraumwirtschaft] under German leadership as a measure of economic self-defense on the part of the European mainland. The reorganization of the European continent, this eternal core of the white race, will thereby secure the economic recovery and independence which are essential. This economic cooperation must follow the motto: Europe for the Europeans. . . .

If we wish to secure the economic leadership of the European continent which is absolutely necessary in order to strengthen the economy of the European continent as the core area of the white race, and which will in fact do so, then for understandable reasons we must not publicly proclaim it as a German Greater Economic Space. As a matter of principle, we must always speak of Europe, for German leadership of it will emerge naturally from the political, economic, culture, and technological weight of Germany and from its geographical position.[1]J. Noakes and G. Pridham (eds), Nazism: 1919-1945, vol. 3: Foreign Policy, War, and Racial Extermination (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2001), p. 277-78.

Besides the racial rationale, one finds much the same arguments that today’s Eurocrats and German officials might make. Indeed, while the Second World War was basically fought to prevent Hitlerian/German hegemony in Europe, Germany’s size and natural gifts have led her to a kind of soft hegemony within the European Union: strip-mining Eastern and Southern Europe of their human capital through brain-drain, securing these as captive markets and low-wage outsourcing destinations, and developing the Eurozone monetary union according to her needs.

Typical infographic in Signal – the Third Reich’s foreign-audience picture magazine – showing a map of Europe superimposed with major areas of warfare throughout successive centuries. The authors argued that German supremacy heralded a new era of peace for the traditionally war-torn continent.
Typical infographic in Signal – the Third Reich’s foreign-audience picture magazine – showing a map of Europe superimposed with major areas of warfare throughout successive centuries. The authors argued that German supremacy heralded a new era of peace for the traditionally war-torn continent.

Indeed, “European unity” and “freedom” from British, American, and Bolshevik imperialism were recurring themes in German wartime propaganda. In France, “collaboration” with the Germans – whether economic or military – was often justified in the name of “Europe,” notably for those French who volunteered to fight on the Eastern Front.

The Germans never had a clear concept of what they wanted Europe to look like after the war however. For the most part, any would-be “European policy” was reduced to immediate military necessity: namely the need to economically exploit the occupied areas and, where applicable, to recruit soldiers for the war effort.

Hitler’s broad agenda can be outlined as follows: Europe’s final condition would be determined at the end of the war, presumably with the declaration of a Greater-Germanic Reich and the formal annexation of occupied Germanic nations (Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium), opening up a long period development and ethnic warfare against the Slavs in the East. France and Russia would never be allowed to recover and again threaten Germany. Thus Hitler’s threefold objectives would be achieved: the scattered German people would be united and their security guaranteed, the threat of Bolshevism would be annihilated, and a great autarkic Germanic empire would be founded, able to contest the United States of America’s emerging global hegemony. The details would sort themselves out in due course.

The difficulties of the war in some ways tended to improve Germany’s European policy, making it more realistic and conciliatory, particularly after Stalingrad. This is evident for instance in the loosening of criteria for joining the Waffen-SS, being extended to most European nationalities, and even to racially-questionable Tartars and Muslim Bosniaks. Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels issued directives around this time forbidding German media from making disparaging comments about other European nationalities.

In March 1943, Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop proposed the creation of a “European Confederation” including virtually all European states. The draft declaration states:

2. The members of the Confederation are sovereign states and guarantee one another’s freedom and political independence. . . .

4. The states of the Confederation will conclude an alliance for the defense of Europe, the plans for which will be drawn up in due course.

5. The European economy will be organized by the member states on the basis of a uniform plan arrived at by mutual agreement. Customs barriers among them will be progressively abolished.[2]Trevor Salmon and Sir William Nicoll (eds.), Building European Union: A Documentary History and Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), p. 23.

The possible members of the Confederation would initially include “Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, and Spain (? [sic]). To those would be added any states in the occupied territories which the Führer might wish to grant independence.”[3]Noakes, Nazism, vol. 3, p. 248. Curiously, the Netherlands and Belgium go unmentioned, which perhaps makes sense given that these were unspoken candidates for annexation to the “Greater-Germanic Reich,” but then again so were Denmark and Norway.

In practice, the point of the proposal was that Germany would be committed to not unilaterally annex participating countries after the war, thus reassuring public opinion in allied and neutral European countries. The vague long-term commitments to economic union and military alliance would, perhaps, eventually be hammered out by committees of diplomats, rather like the postwar European Communities.

Ribbentrop assured the Führer:

If we always appoint the right people as our representatives in these states, people who take a hard line and, despite conciliatory appearances, uncompromisingly follow the concrete political goal, we will not prejudice anything be forming such a confederation. In fact, the formation of the Greater German Reich [sic] at the end of the war will then be a matter of course.[4]Ibid., p. 248.
(Noakes, Nazism, vol. 3, p. 248.)

In the event, Hitler was uninterested and unwilling to make such a move in the absence of a major Axis victory (otherwise, the concessions of the Confederation would appear, accurately, to be an admission of weakness).[5]Ibid., p. 247.
(Noakes, Nazism, vol. 3, p. 248.)

Notwithstanding Hitler’s quite realistic critique of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s pan-Europe, we can imagine that, even in the case of Axis victory, there would still have been a need for international bureaucrats to patiently work to cobble together something coherent.

Notes

[1] J. Noakes and G. Pridham (eds), Nazism: 1919-1945, vol. 3: Foreign Policy, War, and Racial Extermination (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2001), p. 277-78.

[2] Trevor Salmon and Sir William Nicoll (eds.), Building European Union: A Documentary History and Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), p. 23.

[3] Noakes, Nazism, vol. 3, p. 248.

[4] Ibid., p. 248.

[5] Ibid., p. 247.

 
• Category: History • Tags: EU, European Right, Germany, Nazi Germany, World War II 
Hide 244 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Europe is a continent of such heterogeneity

    oh, heterogenity, the word we chose for “evil” diversity

    journalism 101

    • Replies: @IT'S ME
    , @IT'S ME
  2. onebornfree says: • Website

    Food For Thought: “Political Anarchy” Is How the West Got Rich”:

    “It is not uncommon to encounter political theorists and pundits who insist that political centralization is a boon to economic growth. In both cases, it is claimed the presence of a unifying central regime—whether in Brussels or in Washington, DC, for example—is essential in ensuring the efficient and free flow of goods throughout a large jurisdiction. This, we are told, will greatly accelerate economic growth.

    In many ways, the model is the United States, inside of which there are virtually no barriers to trade or migration at all between member states. In the EU, barriers have been falling rapidly in recent decades.

    The historical evidence, however, suggests that political unity is not actually a catalyst to economic growth or innovation over the long term. In fact, the European experience suggests that the opposite is true…….”

    Article: “Political Anarchy” Is How the West Got Rich”:
    https://mises.org/wire/political-anarchy-how-west-got-rich

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Miro23
  3. the European continent, this eternal core of the white race

    Whoa, “white race?”. Is he some sort of Neo-Nazi?

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  4. Indeed, while the Second World War was basically fought to prevent Hitlerian/German hegemony in Europe

    Some will argue that it was fought to allow American hegemony in Europe, now called NATO with its economic sidekick the EU.

  5. IT'S ME says:
    @Fuerchtegott

    Sorry ! My mistake –
    It belongs to commenter “thotmonger”

    • Replies: @Fuerchtegott
  6. Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg proposed a similar European union under German hegemony in his Septemberprogramm 1914. Hitler and Merkel merely follow in his footsteps.

    • Replies: @Johann
    , @Seraphim
  7. Miro23 says:
    @onebornfree

    In many ways, the model is the United States, inside of which there are virtually no barriers to trade or migration at all between member states. In the EU, barriers have been falling rapidly in recent decades.

    There’s no doubt that Jean Monnet wanted to create the USE (United States of Europe), but even an activist EU leadership (democratic in name only) has been unable to make it happen.

    The analogy between US states and European countries does not hold up. All US states were based on the Anglo tradition and shared the English language plus (from the start) a shared Constitution.

    In contrast, European states have different languages, different traditions, and fairly strong national frontiers, with a Spaniard and a German having less in common that a Californian and a Texan. There is a background shared European white ethnic identity and a history in the Roman Empire and Christendom – now mostly replaced by US style consumerism, financialization and the atomization of society.

    Ethnic nationalism seems to be the remaining barrier to the United States of Europe, hence its demonization by the EU elite (full members of the globalized/financialized, Davos/Bilderberg crowd). The project is to smash ethnic nationalism with mass non-European immigration, control of academia, the media and by directly criminalizing it.

    It’s interesting that Hitler didn’t include the East in his New Europe, and it’s the East that’s causing the most problems for the EU globalists. Eastern Europe still hasn’t abandoned Christianity, its frontiers, its ethnic identities, traditional education and just doesn’t seem to get the “Progressive” idea.

    • Replies: @John Regan
    , @Whitewolf
    , @Jake
  8. Wasn’t Pierre Plantard ‘de St Clair'[sic] (the dude behind the ‘hoax’ of the Prieuré de Sion centred on Rennes-le-Château) also a keen advocate for a United States of Europe? From the 40s onwards, if I’m not mistaken.

    As I understand it, they saw it as a kind of pan-European rebirth of the Holy[sic] Roman[sic] Empire[sic], with a French ultra-nationalist overlay of esoteric nonsense, reminiscent of a Frog version of Ariosophy of the early days of (what eventually became) the Thule Society.

    I know of him primarily because of the whole “Alpha Galates” thing in the 40s: they were ‘exoterically’ anti-Masonic, but the documents themselves are interesting.

    Then, for reasons best known to themselves, all the participants seemed to apply their absolute best efforts to bring their whole schtick into public ridicule.

    The main thing about Plantard was how he was obviously separated at birth from Larry Hankin –

    Plantard…

    Hankin…

    KEK

  9. jay says:

    Once the Qin dynasty set up the bureaucracy in China. The east asian equivalent of europe was unified longer and longer as a single unitary whole as each dynasty took over.

  10. jay says:

    Fractured geography and even ethnic boundaries arent barriers to bureaucratic unification:
    https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/06/geography-and-chinese-history-fractured.html

    Further expansion on China’s unification of their version of Europe:
    https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2016/07/china-was-never-empire-of-mind.html

  11. Curiously, the Netherlands and Belgium go unmentioned, which perhaps makes sense given that these were unspoken candidates for annexation to the “Greater-Germanic Reich,” but then again so were Denmark and Norway.

    One thing I noted in passing when reading Friedrich List’s The National System is that he treated the Netherlands as an integral part of Greater Germany, and viewed its incorporation into Germany as a matter of course.

    So I assume viewing the Dutch as a “fake and gay” (in /pol/ parlance) nationality was standard for 19th century German nationalists.

    I also understand that it was mainly highly ideological Nordicists who took the idea of annexing and Germanicizing the Nordic countries seriously.

    Of course there were quite of those in the SS and conceivably they’d have lobbied that vector through, but annexing/Germanizing the Netherlands and Flanders (with Wallonia, perhaps, being spun off as a separate Francophone nation along with the planned Burgundy) seems like something that would have had much more support with “normie” Germans.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    , @Vaterland
  12. There was, undoubtedly, many within the NSDAP who saw the occupation as an opportunity for expansion if the Reich. However, as AJP Taylor noted, to his personal disadvantage, the German expansion of the war was in response to British provocations, whether in Belgium, Holland or Norway. He had requested Mussolini not go into Greece, and when that was bungled, had to commit to bailing him out. The same can be said for the provocations in the Middle East and Africa.
    Hitler was on record, many times, stating that the NSDAP programme was not for export, and that it was not up to Germany to tell the French, or anyone else what to do in order to improve their economic situation. The “proposed” economic model, would depend, of course, on where the interconnected banking families still held sway.

    • Replies: @Valjean72
    , @Anonymous
  13. Mitleser says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The head of the German government in the previous war did already intend to annex Luxembourg and a large part of eastern Belgium, if not more and tie the rest as much as possible to the German Empire without annexing them.

    It is not surprising that a minister of a more ambitious German power would push for a (sooner) return of the rest of the Benelux to the German nation.

    Belgium. Liége and Verviers to be attached to Prussia, a frontier strip of the province of Luxemburg to Luxemburg.
    Question whether Antwerp, with a corridor to Liége, should also be annexed remains open.

    At any rate Belgium, even it allowed to continue to exist as a state, must be reduced to a vassal state, must allow us to occupy any militarily important ports, must place her coast at our disposal in military respects, must become economically a German province. Given such a solution, which offers the advantages of annexation without its inescapable domestic political disadvantages, French Flanders with Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne, where most of the population is Flemish, can without danger be attached to this unaltered Belgium. The competent quarters will have to judge the military value of this position against England.

    Luxemburg. Will become a German federal state and will receive a strip of the present Belgian province of Luxemburg and perhaps the corner of Longwy.

    Holland. It will have to be considered by what means and methods Holland can be brought into closer relationship with the German Empire.
    In view of the Dutch character, this closer relationship must leave them free of any feeling of compulsion, must alter nothing in the Dutch way of life, and must also subject them to no new military obligations.
    Holland, then, must be left independent in externals, but be made internally dependent on us. Possibly one might consider an offensive and defensive alliance, to cover the colonies; in any case a close customs association, perhaps the cession of Antwerp to Holland in return for the right to keep a German garrison in the fortress of Antwerp and at the mouth of the Scheldt.

  14. A123 says:

    The primary tool of the modern Left-wing elite Nazi/Globalism is the Euro [€] Currency. The Euro-reich Central Bank, located in Frankfurt, is dominated by German Elite banks.

    Trade used to be restrained by national currency valuation. The € removed that check & balance. The destructive imbalance of trade is being badly covered up by the Reich’s ECB. It is visible in balance of payment flows, known as TARGET2. The blue line on the graph shows the value the Germany has extracted from other EZ nations to their benefit.


    _____

    Greece, Italy, Hungary, & Poland all have had elections that endorsed national values. The far-left Globalist/Nazi establishment of German Elites do not believe in democracy as a value and fought back.

    — The Greece effort, led by the leftist Syriza Party failed because they could not effectively resist leftist Nazi/Globalism. As a result the Greek people were hammered down by German Austerity Economics. Unemployment is still devastating at over 16%.

    — The Italy effort was originally led by the leftist Five Star [M5S] party and had little success. The center-right Lega Nord party took up the mantle of resistance to Left/Nazi values and was doing a good job resisting Nazi mass migration theology. M5S did not like being the junior party under Lega Nord and has formed a very unstable coalition with the PD (pro-EU). As a result the Nazi/Left “open borders” migration numbers are headed up again. The center-right Lega Nord continues to gain popularity and is expected to win the next elections when they occur.

    — In both Poland and Hungary the Christian Populist resistance to Left/Nazi Globalist rule from Berlin/Brussels has been led by center right-parties, PiS and Fidesz. PiS in Poland is currently routing misconduct by Left/Nazi EU judges and is instituting broad judiciary reform that will ensure Poland’s national sovereignty. Fidesz in Hungary has successfully maintained democracy and national sovereignty by blocking the Nazi/Left attempt to force anti-Christian mass migration.
    _____

    In conclusion — Germany’s attempt to foist the far-left values of Nazi/Globalism on other countries is collapsing. The citizens of EU nations are beginning to understand that the Left/Nazi propaganda is a lie. As a result center-right Christian Populist parties are taking power and winning against far-left EU Nazi/Globalist rule.

    PEACE 😇

    • Troll: Vaterland
    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  15. Dumbo says:

    Humans are in general happier in smaller countries or units of governance.
    But rulers prefer to have more power, so they always create empires.
    Empires are good for the rulers but not so for the people.
    Small is better.
    It’s not Europe that needs to become more like the United States, it’s the U.S. that needs to decentralize and let states either join voluntarily or secede (as it used to be before it became an empire)

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @anonymous coward
  16. @IT'S ME

    looks like a interesting read anyway 😉
    Thanks

  17. @A123

    In conclusion — Germany’s attempt to foist the far-left values of Nazi/Globalism on other countries is collapsing. The citizens of EU nations are beginning to understand that the Left/Nazi propaganda is a lie. As a result center-right Christian Populist parties are taking power and winning against far-left EU Nazi/Globalist rule.

    Leaving out some uncontourable excludes to include: Covid-19, air and drinking water make your proposition as an alternative to globalism as understood commonly, rather weak in solving some planetary problems. That does not mean we vouch for EU and NATO, as proof of concept we named our favourite pet dog, Otto von der Leyen.

  18. @Miro23

    It’s interesting that Hitler didn’t include the East in his New Europe, and it’s the East that’s causing the most problems for the EU globalists. Eastern Europe still hasn’t abandoned Christianity, its frontiers, its ethnic identities, traditional education and just doesn’t seem to get the “Progressive” idea.

    Eastern and Central Europe had the good fortune to be conquered by the Communist strain of globalism following the defeat of traditional Europe in 1945. While this was a mixed blessing at best (with such negative factors as mass rape, genocide, famine and economic retardation, among others that could be cited), it did serve to insulate them from the worst extremes of liberal madness that ravaged the parts of the world ruled by capitalism in the decades between 1950 and 1990. Thus, they are roughly four decades behind their Western brethren in misfortune as far as degenerate liberal ideologies (AKA “Globo-Homo”) are concerned. For example, in Poland as of 2020, homosexuality and trannyism have been legalized and enjoy an overt public presence in society, although they are still frowned upon by most civilized people. Which is about where the US stood in 1980.

    However, make no mistake. This relatively better situation is not due to any particular resistance to this poison on the part of the East. They have simply not been subjected to it for equally long. And with the media even more globalized, indoctrination through Netflix is even more effective today than that through Hollywood was for Germans and Englishmen in the 1980s. One more generation, and the King of Poland will be marching right along in the pervert parade together with the French emperor and the German führerin.

    Unless, that is, the whole present trend of societal decay is halted and reversed across the board.

  19. A123 says:

    … Covid-19, air and drinking water make your proposition as an alternative to globalism as understood commonly, rather weak in solving some planetary problems.

    Actually 100% the opposite. Globalism/Nazism makes essentially every planetary problem worse, and its cumbersome bureaucracy is near useless for finding solutions.

    The Globalist faith involves open borders and mass migration theology. These are guaranteed to make COVID-19 spread faster. The national borders of Populism are a necessary building block for any solution. National research is also on its way to a vaccine, while the Leftist Elites have accomplished nothing. (1)

    Protecting fresh water requires investment. Crushing the people of Greece has crippled their ability to build and maintain infrastructure. Thus, Nazi/Globalism is damaging the planet in addition to injuring people.

    Globalist leader Mutti Mullah Merkel is retiring nuclear plants early. Germany is burning more fossil fuels to make up the electricity shortfall. How can Globalist/Nazi policy help air quality by increasing hydrocarbon consumption?

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/COVID-19-coronavirus-vaccine-Israel-15093659.php

  20. As a general comment, I really like the Vichy postcard M. Durocher chose to illustrate this article. It’s remarkably effective as a political cartoon, all the more so as it includes no grotesque or repulsive imagery. The general theme is positive and uplifting, as few equivalents today can apparently manage (although the consequences of falling into the “American” trap are also hinted at with sufficient clarity). The English and German chicks are especially expressive. Who was in charge of propaganda in Vichy, again? Paul Marion? His department did good work on this one.

  21. @Hippopotamusdrome

    More like Paleo-Nazi!

    Werner Daitz, an associate of National-Socialist ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and an official in the NSDAP’s foreign policy office …

  22. melpol says:

    Bolsheviks agreed on the necessity of a united Europe. They wanted to downsize monopolies and install the free market for Europe. Replacing the many languages with Yiddish would become perfect for wheeling and dealing. Bolsheviks hated Marxism and Socialism but were forced into it by Lenin.
    Bolsheviks love the system of Meritocracy, they believe each according to their smarts. Most Bolsheviks were executed by Lenin and Stalin for advocating libertarian values. No Bolshevik paid tribute to Marx or Lenin, but they admired the Rothschilds.

  23. Athena says:

    NATO US of EUROPE: are you sure this bunch of drunken idiots can really occupy Europe without disastrous consequences?

  24. Chouans says:

    The CHATHAM HOUSE, i.e., MI6-coached corporations and City of London/BIS bankers are now positioned in Poland : http://www.chathamhouse.org

    (Reminder: United States missile defense complex in Poland

    In March 2013, Polish Deputy Minister of Defense Robert Kupiecki announced that Poland intended to build its own missile defense within NATO, complementing the US deployment. Poland’s tentative budget for the next decade is “$10 billion for the modernization of air defense, where half of this sum is dedicated to lower-tier missile defense.”)

    That’s AUSTERITY for the 0.001% “elites” who say they say they have no money .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland

  25. Malla says:
    @Dumbo

    I think the Swiss have the best system of all, cantons with a lot of independence. Three (or more) ethnic groups living close to each other, each of them minding their own business. Even their version of democracy (Direct Democracy with referendums) is far more honest than the “democracy” which runs in the rest of the world. A political system like Switzerland could never become an empire.

    • Agree: S, Miro23
    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
    , @Vaterland
  26. Malla says:
    @John Regan

    it did serve to insulate them from the worst extremes of liberal madness that ravaged the parts of the world ruled by capitalism in the decades between 1950 and 1990.

    Cultural Marxism in the West (NATO World) Vs Social Realism in the East (Warsaw Pact World)

  27. @Dumbo

    Humans are in general happier in smaller countries or units of governance.

    Yes, until a larger country or unit of governance happens to sit at their border.

  28. @John Regan

    However, make no mistake. This relatively better situation is not due to any particular resistance to this poison on the part of the East. They have simply not been subjected to it for equally long.

    False. Russia in 1990 was far, far more pozzed and woke than Russia in 2020 on every possible measure you could imagine.

    The flight from globohomo in Russia is not due to some sort of ‘Soviet freezer’; quite the opposite, after the crash of the Soviet Union Russia happened to be the first guinea pig where globohomo tried to implement their New World Order. Perhaps the puppetmasters rushed their job in Russia three decades ago, and a second attempt will go down smoother. I personally doubt it.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  29. Valjean72 says: • Website
    @Curmudgeon

    Your comment is by far the best in the whole comment section so far (including the article itself)

    the German expansion of the war was in response to British provocations, whether in Belgium, Holland or Norway. He had requested Mussolini not go into Greece, and when that was bungled, had to commit to bailing him out. The same can be said for the provocations in the Middle East and Africa.

    Hitler was on record, many times, stating that the NSDAP programme was not for export, and that it was not up to Germany to tell the French, or anyone else what to do in order to improve their economic situation.

    Oh man: “Nazi, Nazi, Nazi” … always those monstrous evil “Nazis” …

    Not only the mainstream media but also most of the “alternative” media keep on following and spreading the official narrative of the absolute evil, aggressive and megalomaniac “Nazis”.

    In reality Germany did fight against this perversion that the whole West has become since then …

    • Agree: Alexandros, Fox, PeterMX
    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
  30. @anonymous coward

    Primitive populations need a different approach. They are much more prone to hold on to “archaic” beliefs. On the flip side such nations are not a threat to the world order, so it’s not a big deal if certain attack vectors do not succeed. Implementing trannie stuff is not a goal in itself, just a means to tear the nation apart. If they are already submissive and/or harmless there is no need for it. An added benefit of such failure is that the people will start to delude themselves they are “based” and “immune”, so their guard is not as high as it should be. Poles et. al think they can ride the storm surrounded by Islamic European States directed by World Jewry. Yeah, good luck.

  31. S says:

    The Germans were ‘Johnny come lately’ in this game.

    Purportedly, in the early 19th century, Napoleon had wished to create a ‘United States of Europe’ with France as the hegemonic power. The British Empire (and Allies) ultimately disabused the French of this dream in 1815. Similarly, the same was done with the paralleling dreams of the Germans in 1945 by the US/UK and Allies.

    Not to be left out, the Anglo-Saxons historically desired that it would be an Anglocentric US/UK which would be the hegemonic power over a ‘United States of Europe’, and the ‘United States of the World’ besides.

    And, will somebody else disabuse the US/UK of these intentions, as was done to France and Germany before them, with their own plans?

    In the midst of the 1848 Revolutions, the London Times published an editorial (linked below) exhorting revolutionary Europe to construct a continental super state of themselves modeled closely upon the United States.

    [MORE]

    The US journal the editorial was republished in adds the commentary (below) that someday the world may well see the USA and the USE ‘join’ in ‘peace and free trade.’


    Washington and London

    ‘..it has been clearly revealed in the Bible that it will come to pass’..

    Littell’s Living Age (May 13, 1848) – The London Times Praising America

    ‘Suppose those European nations to have settled their governments, and then to have made a Federal Union of the whole, within which peace and free trade should be perpetual, as they are between our states. And then suppose the United States of America were invited to join with the United States of Europe, not in political connection, but on the basis of peace and free trade!’

    ‘We desire to prepare our readers for such a question. It may not soon happen, but almost all Christian people think it has been clearly revealed in the Bible that it will come to pass. Who is ready to welcome the time?’

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924079579292&view=1up&seq=328

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/one_day_on_the_model_of_the_united_states_of_america

  32. @John Regan

    I agree, that postcard also reminded me of a cartoon I saw a while back related to Brexit.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  33. @Just Passing Through

    That is a grotesque immitation.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  34. Wally says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Speaking of “plans”. Just look at a map of pre-WWII Europe.

    French Empire
    British Empire
    US Empire
    Soviet Empire
    Japanese Empire
    Dutch Empire
    Belgian Empire
    Germany

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  35. utu says:
    @John Regan

    For example, in Poland as of 2020, homosexuality and trannyism have been legalize

    Wrong. There was nothing to legalize because homosexuality was never illegal in Poland in 20th century. In Italy homosexuality was not illegal since 19 century. It seems that Catholic countries do not deal with homosexuality, period because there are strong social norms that do not need to be enforced by state like in Protestant countries.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  36. PeterMX says:

    “and a great autarkic Germanic empire would be founded, able to contest the United States of America’s emerging global hegemony.” Before WW I the US was not a competitor for global hegemony. That competition was between the major European countries. After the war, the US emerged as an international power in diplomacy and finance. The US, like China today, was a major industrial power with factories churning out products, more so than any other country, but was far behind Europe and in particular Germany which led in all the sciences and engineering too. The US built the atomic bomb by giving recently arrived Europeans (many being Jewish) a safe place to work and they put a man on the moon by giving German scientists and engineers a safe place to work and live after the war. Similarly, the US took leadership in other technological areas, now that Europe was levelled and Germany was prostrate and occupied for decades afterwards.

    There was no evidence of America’s emerging global hegemony until perhaps during the war when the war was turning against Germany and Great Britain was bankrupt, but even then, the USSR was also emerging as a global power. All evidence indicates without WW II, Europe would still be the uncontested leader of the world with Germany still leading the world in science and technology. And after 75 years have passed since the end of WW II, China (a third world, backwards country 50 years ago) has now surpassed the USA as the leading economic power of the world, or will do so shortly and they have emerged as a major technology leader too. The US still leads the world in pure science (the best measurement for this being which country receives the most Nobel Prizes) since taking that position from Germany after WW II, but everything suggests that will change soon too. In fact, the next few months and this year we might get a good idea of who will be positioned to lead the world in the future and that country might not be the US.

    • Replies: @sally
  37. The standard work on this question is Hans Werner Neulen : Europa und das 3. Reich – Einigungsbestrebungen im deutschen Machtbereich 1939-45 (Universitas, München, 1987). It presents a lot of official documents.
    There is no English translation, as far as I know.

  38. Parfois1 says:
    @Alexandros

    That is a grotesque immitation.

    Please tell us why is it grotesque. I’m only asking to test my aesthetic taste because I fail to see anything grotesque about it. It is supposed to be a caricature, not to be taken seriously, you know…

  39. @Alexandros

    They are much more prone to hold on to “archaic” beliefs.

    Read my post again. Eastern Europe and Russia aren’t holding on to “archaic beliefs”, because 30 and 50 years ago they were as woke and pozzed as the West; maybe even more.

    The “based” Eastern Europe and Russia is 100% a postmodern development and a people’s reaction to living under several generations of poz.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  40. @Parfois1

    It presents the EU as the Mother of Europe. An evil stepmother who has it in for you would be more accurate. The artistic touch is also mediocre compared to the original.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  41. The possible members of the Confederation would initially include “Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, and Spain…

    Compare that with a quote taken from your essay last month (Hitler vs. Kalergi), which you linked to above, purportedly translated from Hitler’s second book:

    We know from past experience that lasting unions can only take place when the peoples in question are of equal racial quality and related…

    Had it not been for the assertiveness of Poland’s Józef Beck and Britain’s Winston Churchill during the late 1930s, in which case there might not have even been a war, a European union based on the principles quoted above might have looked different from the larger region that was vaguely envisioned later, during the war.

    According to the following map, showing Islamic conquests during earlier times, even the populations in those European regions that were merely “raided” by Islamic invaders, but not occupied and part of a caliphate, would have still had partially (diluted) Arabian and African blood as a consequence of the mass rapes during episodes of pillaging.

    Therefore, not even the southwestern regions of France and coastal regions of Italy would have been deemed eligible (i.e. sufficiently “ethnically pure”) to be part of such a grand union – and forget about all of southeastern Europe – though the regions of Lombardy and Piedmont would have been suitable, while the likely sea port to the Mediterranean would have been Genoa.

  42. @anonymous coward

    How does that make sense? The West has been pozzed for a century. It has only produced more pozz. There has been no reaction to it, no turn around.

    And when was the East worse than us in this regard? There were gay and trannie parades in the USSR? Mass immigration? What do you mean? They had early feminism, but so did the West.

    The only thing I can think of is that nationalism is slightly stronger in the East, like we see in the old DDR. Probably because Communist oppression was so obvious. Norway too is a bit more protective than their Scandi neighbors, due to a relatively young independence. But this is slight, they are still heading towards the Marxist cliff at high speed.

  43. Johann says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Albert Speer , Hitlers Economic Minister, made the same point in his post WWII books. He believed that the war industry over which he commanded brought together a French, German, Dutch, Danish, Belgium engineers who did a very good job keeping the Wehrmacht supplied for the war. The Americans basically stole this idea in order to create NATO and the EU which are the framework for the Americanized Reich.

    • Replies: @Just Passing Through
  44. @Johann

    Americans also stole the autobahn idea and used it in their inter-state highway system. And of course most people are aware of how they used Nazi scientists to get to the moon.

    Once the German brainpower ran out, the Americans reverted to their perfidious Anglo ways, of which philosemitism was a key quality.

    • Replies: @Jake
  45. @Wally

    Tu quoque is no valid argument.

    The Nazis planned to annex Germanic nations into their Greater Germanic Reich, reduce the rest of west and south Europe to vasal status and use east Europe – inhabited by the “inferior” Slavs – as Germanic Lebensraum. Should we really regret that Hitler lost the war?

    Hitler’s fault was that he wanted to practice racist colonialism inside Europe, while at his time such behavior was only accepted outside Europe. After the war, even outside Europe that was no more accepted. Those who regret Hitler’s defeat are double anachronists.

  46. Whitewolf says:
    @Miro23

    Ethnic nationalism seems to be the remaining barrier to the United States of Europe, hence its demonization by the EU elite (full members of the globalized/financialized, Davos/Bilderberg crowd). The project is to smash ethnic nationalism with mass non-European immigration, control of academia, the media and by directly criminalizing it.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to just recolonize Africa than to bring all of Africa to Europe? With it’s abundant resources it would be a smarter move.

    They don’t want a United States of Europe. They want a world without White people. That is the end goal. Everything else is a distraction or a stepping stone.

  47. Jake says:
    @Miro23

    “It’s interesting that Hitler didn’t include the East in his New Europe, and it’s the East that’s causing the most problems for the EU globalists. Eastern Europe still hasn’t abandoned Christianity, its frontiers, its ethnic identities, traditional education and just doesn’t seem to get the “Progressive” idea.”

    In ethno-cultural terms, that is because Eastern Europe is defined by and led by non-Germanic cultures and peoples. ‘Western Consumerism’ is just the Anglo-Saxon ‘nation of little shopkeepers’ writ extra large and buttressed with Modern techniques of psychology and mass advertising, giving the masses a new expression of a new religious faith.

    Continental Germany and Anglo-Saxons have been struggling to determine which large group of Germanics will lead Europe back into paganism, specifically, paganism that springs from and props up ethnic Germanic notions and leadership cadres.

    The ‘Progressive’ idea always is aligned with forging a Modernist form of Germanic paganism.

  48. @Carlton Meyer

    WWII led to the USA hegemony over western Europe. It was not fought for that purpose.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  49. Jake says:
    @Just Passing Through

    Your timeline is wrong: the Yank WASP Elites were deep into things Jewish well before WW2 started. They never turned to Jews in any kind of need of brain power. Jews simply were the globalist bankers of WASP Empire.

    That is very much a Germanic thing, not just an Anglo-Saxon thing. For example, the Lutheran Reformation used primarily Jewish printers and Jewish bankers, including Jewish bankers to fund armies for Protestant princes to steal lands and properties. The Dutch used almost exclusively Jewish bankers to wage war against Spain. The nearly unbelievable horrors of the 30 Years War could not have come about without Germanic Protestants using Jewish printers and Jewish bankers.

    The rise of Prussia could never have happened without Jewish bankers, and Prussia led Germanic states in moving into complete secularism. Prussia led by force, with troops, funded primarily by Jewish bankers. There never would have been a united Germany under Prussian rule, created by Bismarck, without Jewish bankers.

    Jewish bankers became predominant in Austria by the start of the 19th century, and then, steadily, cultural and moral decadence took over.

    Jews have seen Germanic cultures as their ideal hosts since at least the Middle Ages. Jews have used Germanic resentments toward and hatred of all non-Germanic whites as the vehicle by which Europe could be polluted and de-Christianized.

    It is a spiritual war. It is either Christ and Christendom or chaos which is anti-Christendom. History declares that Chaos is always spurred by Germanic peoples and ideas and movements, and had Jewish bankers.

  50. The plan didn’t include Portugal (what were they going to do with it? Turn it over to Arabs or Jews?) and strikingly the whitest of all European nations, Poland (of course, it wouldn’t have included Jews, who were more or less twenty five percent of the population). The plan was bound to fail!

  51. @Franklin Ryckaert

    All because he got pissy at the Whites who spoke another language during his bum days of Vienna.

    Interestingly this is all to do with correlations. It is an undisputed fact that most of the major discoveries and advancements came from man of European stock.

    We can all feel pride for the achievements of Humans, because we are all humans. Europeans can take more pride in the achievements as the achievements were made by European Humans. European men can feel even more pride as the achievements were made by Europeans male Humans…can Germans, British, French and Scandinavians males feel the most pride and superiority because most discoveries were made by males from these regions? Where does it end?

    One has to ask the question of which European group is the most superior. If hypothetically the secret White Nationalist dream of non-Whites being wiped out were to occur, then there would be a momentary period of ‘Hu-White Hu-Unity)’ but this would slowly ebb away and inter-White rivalries would re-emerge in the battle for resources and dominance, it happens on a smaller and non-violent scale within the EU with Germany, France and the UK duking it out for power. Most of these European cultures are attractive and no one would be willing to give them up and join the Anglosphere globohomo culture.

    In the old days, for all intents and purposes, non-Whites may have well been non-existant as they did not affect world politics that much apart from the odd insurrections that was easily put down.

    So which nationality would dominate? I think it would likely be the White Americans, who are actually a pan-European ethnicity brought together under special circumstances.

    Theoretically speaking, America had the upper hand in 1945 when they were the only country with the nuclear bomb. Just imagine if they went around exterminating all but Americans, there would forever be world peace!

  52. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I suppose you think Jewish mastery with endless immigration from Africa and Asia is a much better alternative than German leadership. It’s not the 70s anymore where you can pretend the West is “free”.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  53. @Alexandros

    That is a typical false dilemma. One can be a good ethno-nationalist without being a Nazi or being ruled by Nazis. See Viktor Orban of Hungary.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @Wally
    , @Jake
  54. @Just Passing Through

    All because he got pissy at the Whites who spoke another language during his bum days of Vienna.

    By that definition Jews are also “whites who speak another language”. Not to mention Turks.

    Interestingly this is all to do with correlations. It is an undisputed fact that most of the major discoveries and advancements came from man of European stock.

    Germanic stock.

    We can all feel pride for the achievements of Humans, because we are all humans. Europeans can take more pride in the achievements as the achievements were made by European Humans. European men can feel even more pride as the achievements were made by Europeans male Humans…can Germans, British, French and Scandinavians males feel the most pride and superiority because most discoveries were made by males from these regions? Where does it end?

    Who gives a shit? The goal is to preserve the best blood. That blood is found in greater quantity in say Flandern than in Sicily.

    One has to ask the question of which European group is the most superior. If hypothetically the secret White Nationalist dream of non-Whites being wiped out were to occur, then there would be a momentary period of ‘Hu-White Hu-Unity)’ but this would slowly ebb away and inter-White rivalries would re-emerge in the battle for resources and dominance, it happens on a smaller and non-violent scale within the EU with Germany, France and the UK duking it out for power. Most of these European cultures are attractive and no one would be willing to give them up and join the Anglosphere globohomo culture.

    This is decisive, because for the leadership of a people, only the Nordic racial component has any real value. In the overall selection, this will always result in a uniform picture. But one must not assume a uniform picture in nature, since nature shows us here, that in the crossing of two different parents, the talents or abilities of the son must not always come from the father, or, in the case of the daughter, from the mother; rather, on the contrary, cross-connections must appear here, [so] that, if a Nordic man marries an Alpine woman, the child of the same sex need not be Nordic; rather, it can be completely Alpine, [so] that it is also very easily possible in any racial crossing for the organisational talent to be completely pushed into the background in favour of any other [talent].

    But if I have an organisation of society based on purely capitalistic development, which has nothing to do with Nordic leadership talents, and it builds up an upper crust, then it can happen that the upper crust gradually represents completely non-Nordic people, [who are] mentally completely unfit for leadership.
    Adolf Hitler

    So which nationality would dominate? I think it would likely be the White Americans, who are actually a pan-European ethnicity brought together under special circumstances.

    America is barely 50% white and completely dominated by Jewry. The only way that country becomes nationalistic is by foreign pressure. Thank God for that. We don’t need more McDonald’s and shitty art.

    Theoretically speaking, America had the upper hand in 1945 when they were the only country with the nuclear bomb. Just imagine if they went around exterminating all but Americans, there would forever be world peace!

    A world solely inhabited by industrious worker bees? Sounds like a Jewish wet dream.

  55. @Just Passing Through

    It is insufficiently clear which part of your comment is meant seriously and which part unseriously.

    I for one accept the existence of all non-White peoples, provided they stay in their own countries. Let them be prosperous, happy and independent without bothering us and us without bothering them.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  56. @Malla

    Switzerland,

    There is also, as anywhere else, a vertical element to it. The distance between the local power elites and the surplus population is induced by global policies, global-exploits, has a global scope. Switzerland needs planetary scope to ease a local myth. Banking, off-shore links, Nestle, any name readily, let alone non-readily and mostly stealthily that comes to mind has a strong global thrift factor.

    One can see the surface, as with Hitler being the only one with global ambitions if ever, and here in the case of Switzerland, or take into account the larger scope of the matter.

  57. @Franklin Ryckaert

    No, it’s not. The World is ruled by Jewry, and unless somebody stops them all will continue to be enslaved. Jew lover Orban will contribute nothing to that end. Magyars aren’t even European.

    You can’t shut yourself up in a corner and expect to survive the onslaught. Everyone but good goyim is targeted. Hungary experienced that twice in the last 80 years.

    • Replies: @A123
  58. @Parfois1

    Because the EU is what Leon Degrelle called a “common tinpot Europe” or something like that.

  59. @Jake

    Please.

    There is a massive gulf between the Protestant Revolution in Germany and in England.

    The one produced German idealism, which is fine, while the other produced Anglo materialist empiricism.

    Both aspects of the Protestant Revolution are fatally flawed, but one is far more revolutionary than the other: Perfidious Albion indeed.

    • Replies: @Jake
  60. A123 says:
    @Alexandros

    The Christian world is under threat by Islam. Muslim lover Mutti Mullah Merkel and her mass migration welcome is clear and obvious proof of that.

    For any hope of saving Christians from death at the hands of depraved Islam:
    -1- The first step is refusing to take more.
    -2- The next step will be decontamination where 100% of invaders will be returned to the ancestral homelands of the Muslims.

    Easy to say, but hard to do. At least leaders like Orban, Salvini, and Duda understand the threat. Brown-shirt Macron and Red-armband Merkel are Islamic collaborators.

    PEACE 😇

    • Troll: Vaterland
    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Alexandros
  61. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    – Garbage in, garbage out as usual from you and your laughable & weird ‘Nazi’ obsession.

    – NS Germany did no do what is alleged and you cannot present proof to the contrary. Hence your assessment is well, ‘garbage’.

    – In fact here is where you have been repeatedly demolished with your unhinged ‘Nazi’ mania:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=Franklin+Ryckaert+&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  62. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Pay attention, please.

    1. Considering that so many already had “racist” Empires, any claims about Hitler trying to conquer the world are laughable, hypocritical.

    2. Unifying Europe is what many Europeans favor, hence the EU.

    3. Your absurd nonsense about “racist” lebensraum is debunked here:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=lebensraum&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

  63. Jake says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Orban is not Germanic, He is neither ethnically nor culturally Germanic.

    Ethno-nationalism in Germanic culture is always going be something akin to Judaizing Anglo-Saxon Puritanism (and its secularized forms) or Prussian militarism (and its Sodomite archetype Frederick the Great) or Nazism. It will always be viciously imperialistic, determined to destroy all whites who fail to serve it voluntarily.

  64. Jake says:
    @A123

    Neither of those 2 steps will work unless the nation taking them acts to revive Christendom.

    • Replies: @A123
  65. @A123

    No, it is under threat from Jewry. Islam would never get a foot inside the door without their power. The problem can be solved as easily as shipping them out. But to do that you have to reckon with the Jew. Any solution that does not address this problem is doomed to fail.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @A123
  66. Jake says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    I did not claim that the Continental Germanic Reformation was worse than the Anglo-Saxon. I simply noted the facts that without Jews and Jewish bankers there would have been no successful Protestant Reformation in any Germanic state.

    Germanic peoples rebelling against Christendom, and revving up their hatred of non-Germanic whites, always turn to Jewish bankers and Jewish propagandists and publishers.

    As the Yiddish language marks, there is deep affinity between Germanics and Jews.

    • Replies: @alba.
  67. @Wally

    It is you who has the “weird Nazi obsession”, trying to defend the indefensible and to deny the undeniable.

    BTW, I said about Hitler’s plans for Europe the same as Guillaume Durocher in this article.

    Here is the first picture that you will be forced to watch when you will be locked up in the coming Re-education Camps for Inveterate Internet Nazis :

    https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/looneytunes/images/0/0a/Hitler_looney.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20170412010303

    Heil Schicklgruber!

    • Replies: @Wally
  68. @Franklin Ryckaert

    The Nazis planned to annex Germanic nations into their Greater Germanic Reich, reduce the rest of west and south Europe to vasal status and use east Europe – inhabited by the “inferior” Slavs – as Germanic Lebensraum. Should we really regret that Hitler lost the war?

    An argument could potentially be made that the present climate of replacement-level immigration, “hate speech” legislation, globalist plutocracy, feminism and mass-scale sexual mutilation of confused children (among other things) is superior to the probable consequences of a German victory in World War II. Indeed, the narrative promoted by the mainstream media is precisely that we are very fortunate to live in a world where Freedom and Democracy triumphed, so that we may enjoy these and other blessings.

    On the other hand, I think I read a comment somewhere at the Unz Review, once, that disagreed with this consensus. As I recall, it presented a quite interesting counter-thesis.

    Hitler’s fault was that he wanted to practice racist colonialism inside Europe, while at his time such behavior was only accepted outside Europe. After the war, even outside Europe that was no more accepted. Those who regret Hitler’s defeat are double anachronists.

    You are entirely mistaken. Racist colonialism is more acceptable than ever today, and most especially inside Europe. As we speak, racist colonialists are settling Europe in large numbers, forcing the natives to work to support them even as they insult and tear down their autochthonous culture. All while celebrities, politicians and the monolithic global media endlessly cheer on the process all around the planet.

    What you perhaps meant to say, and what is anyway the truth, is that racist colonialism after World War II has been acceptable only when it is practiced against white Europeans (and their descendants in other parts of the world), and never by them. And this is indeed a direct result of Germany’s defeat.

    In this day and age, it is certainly anachronistic to hope and work for the survival of the European peoples and their culture. In addition to yourself, the entire news and entertainment media tirelessly reminds us of the unfashionability of this. Nonetheless, it is what some of us, who are either old or merely old-fashioned men, feel bound by our consciences to do. It would be a tragedy if Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) really, truly turned out to be the last man in history who made any serious effort to secure a decent future for our children.

    • Agree: ANZ
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Miro23
  69. Interesting (and as it turns out, very accurate) anticipation of what would happen after a German defeat:

    https://archive.org/details/VincentReynouardGlobalizationAgainstNationsAPropheticEditorialOf1943

    • Thanks: John Regan
  70. A123 says:
    @Jake

    Fair enough, but the two things tend to go together.

    Christianity is doing well in Poland and Hungary.

    Christians in Italy are upset with the Muslim invasion. The current corrupt Catholic leadership by Pope Muhammad Francis of Islam cannot last forever. Assuming the Catholic Church survives, presumably the Bishops will be more careful next time and select a Christian as the Pope.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  71. A123 says:
    @Alexandros

    Under the covenant of Taqiyya, Nazi/Muslims are required to deceive Infidel. (1)

    Islam is the only death rape cult that teaches its followers to lie and deceive. Historically, murderous pedophile bandit Mohammed was known to freely use lies and deceptions at every opportunity to trap and conquer his unsuspecting Jewish and Christian victims, as well as other Muslims of different tribes. His followers try to duplicate the action of, and model their lives after, this evil lowlife from the 7th century, known for not only his cruelty, depravity, but also for his duplicity and deception.

    Muslims are not only allowed, but encouraged to lie to kuffar, or non-Muslims, to either defeat or convert them, and take over their lands. These are repeated many times in Quran, Hadith, and Sunnath.

    Many of the things you find objectionable are actually Nazi/Muslim acts, falsely attributed to Jews as part of their deception. All one can achieve today by buying into Muslim/Nazi propaganda is advancing the cause of IslamoFascism at the expense of Christians.

    Once Nazi/Muslim Zero is achieved we will be able to see if Christians and Jews can live together. Without IslamoFascism creating false conflicts, there is a reasonable chance the two groups can coexist.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) http://www.freedompost.org/islam/deception/common-taqiyya-or-islamic-lies-and-deceptions-by-muslims.html

    • Replies: @Vaterland
  72. @John Regan

    See my comment #55.

    Third World immigration into White countries is not organized by the Third Worlders themselves, but by Globalists, i.e. Jews and their White treasonous lackeys. It is therefore wrong to compare that with former European colonialism.

    For a good example of this phenomenon, see :

    Western Voices World News : 2013, Great Britain’s Insane Immigration Policies Were Deliberate.

  73. Fox says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Ryckaert, you are concentrating your waking hours on making up stuff.

    • Agree: Wally
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  74. @Parfois1

    I think he may have meant the message, rather than the imagery. The latter is not grotesque as such, but rather positive in tone; and indeed, I would say it clearly imitates the Vichy postcard (unless both draw on some common earlier source).

    The problem, politically, is that it does not reflect reality. To depict the relationship between the EU apparatus and bureaucracy and the member states more appropriately, one should have, perhaps, a bit of Mother Europe’s face flaking off to reveal a globalist lizard monster underneath, like Diana in the old TV series “V” from the 1980s:

    However, credit to whom it’s due: just as the older cartoon was good pro-European propaganda, the one you posted is likewise competently executed pro-EU propaganda (albeit obviously derivative).

  75. @Alexandros

    Worse than that: the Poles, being damn fools, are willing to be cannon fodder for the NWO because they are too stubborn to put aside comparatively minor historical grievances with Russia.

    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Cyrano
  76. @Fox

    I say essentially the same thing as Guillaume Durocher says in this article :

    “…Hitler’s broad agenda can be outlined as follows : Europe’s final conditions would be determined at the end of the war, presumably with the declaration of a Greater-Germanic Reich and the formal annexation of occupied Germanic nations (Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium), opening up a long period (of) development and ethnic warfare against the Slavs in the East…”

    • Replies: @Wally
  77. ANZ says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Europe is a series of vassal states now anyhow. The question is under who’s leadership those states would be better off. Judging by the ethic invasion taking place in Europe and their slavery to international finance, I wager they would have been better off with a German victory.
    The wrong side won.

    • Agree: Wally
  78. ΑΖ says:

    Walter Funk (Reichs Wirtschaftsminister) wrote the plan that later Schuman and Monnet used to formulate the neonazi EUROPE!!!

  79. Vaterland says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    If the EU was the economic side arm of the US Empire, it would not force Microsoft, Google and other companies to pay billions in cartel lawsuit fees. In fact the US Empire, especially the Neocons, always hated the EU.

  80. Cyrano says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    You don’t understand the Polish way of “thinking”. Polaks are angry at Russia because they are unofficial leaders of the Slavic world. The Polish think that (not that their thinking is polished) they should be the leaders of the Slavic world based on their “superior” culture – which became that way thanks to them being catholic. They refer to the Russians as the hordes from the east. Right. And they are “civilized’ because they are catholic. So was Robert Mugabe. I suggest a new nickname for the Polaks – the Mugabes of the Slavs.

  81. Cyrano says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    You are absolutely right, other European colonial powers – when they wanted to engage in their favorite pastime – genocidal racism – at least had the common decency to practice their hobby in far flung colonies across the oceans.

    I don’t know what prompted the Germans not only to engage in genocidal racism in Europe – but to get married to it as well. Was it laziness, stupidity of just plain evil – to make them break a new ground and to do it against Europeans.

    That moron Hitler tried to treat one of the greatest military powers in history – Russia – like they were North American Indians. He even planned, after achieving victory, to place the Russians in some kind of native reserves – a la Indians in America.

    I must admit that Putin on that picture with a bare torso riding a horse – does look like Geronimo, but that picture wasn’t around in WW2, so I don’t know what made the Germans confuse the Russians with North American Indians.

    • Replies: @Wally
  82. Vaterland says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Dutch are basically us with a different Germanic dialect. Independent, yes, but only in so far as the Bavarians and Austrians are independent. A little bit more maybe, but not much. It’s usually anti-German leftists and Jews who put much emphasis on absolutist separation.

    Nordic countries are indeed a Nordicist thing, I think, and which I am not. For my taste we have already enough blond and blue eyed autists voting far left in Northern Germany. No need for even more.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  83. Vaterland says:
    @Malla

    I like Switzerland, too, but it is in the EU in everything but name. Switzerland was actually a perfect example before why in an age of empires, this model could not stand, even if one would like it. They have a similar deal to Norway, too: sign everything, if you want access, but have no say in it. Worse than being a EU member. The UK will get the same treatment, if they ask really nicely and get lucky.

  84. Vaterland says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    So much nonsense in so little space. Every single point debunked by articles on Unz. I thought one day you people might get tired of spreading such blatant falsehoods on the very site which falsifies them. Apparently not.

  85. Alfred says:

    It is worth noting here that Germany introduced into the occupied countries a financial system that was designed to fulfill the needs of Germany. It sucked resources from the periphery and benefited Germany. A French businessman contemplating an expansion had to get his loan approved in Germany.

    After WW2, the French used a similar system in Africa. Anyone trying to borrow money in 8+ countries in Africa needs approval from Paris.

    The Franc Zone, a Tool of French Neocolonialism in Africa

    They recently renamed it, but not much has really changed.

    West Africa’s monetary union has agreed with France to rename its CFA franc the Eco

    When Gaddafi tried to move Africa to a gold-based system, he signed his own death warrant. Not many people know that his mother was Jewish. I guess it was a tribal dispute. 🙂

    • Replies: @S
  86. Vaterland says:
    @A123

    I am usually not for banning people, but the non-stop lies and drivel leaving your hole makes a fantastic case for an exception. You are by far the dumbest and most obscene hasbara troll on this site. A supreme asshole of planetary proportions.

  87. @Vaterland

    Used up my “agree” allotments, but this comment actually calls for a “fuck yeah” category.

  88. Miro23 says:
    @John Regan

    Hitler’s fault was that he wanted to practice racist colonialism inside Europe, while at his time such behavior was only accepted outside Europe. After the war, even outside Europe that was no more accepted. Those who regret Hitler’s defeat are double anachronists.

    You are entirely mistaken. Racist colonialism is more acceptable than ever today, and most especially inside Europe. As we speak, racist colonialists are settling Europe in large numbers, forcing the natives to work to support them even as they insult and tear down their autochthonous culture. All while celebrities, politicians and the monolithic global media endlessly cheer on the process all around the planet.

    There’s a difference here. Hitler’s type of colonialism was of the classical kind – invade and defeat a country in war and put ethnic Germans in charge – and if you do it enough times, call the agglomerated result a Germanic Empire. Your subject peoples will vary in status (as did the status of various non-Italians in the Roman Empire) from disposables (Russians) to almost equals (Dutch).

    NWO colonialism is entirely different. It’s the co-option of local elites by powerful globalized special interest groups, with a view to looting the respective countries in alliance with these local elites (for example: the successful neo-con attack on/ looting of, Yeltin’s Russia ). Under this system national ethnic majorities aren’t subjected by the victors of a conventional war, they’re rather subjected by their own ethnic leaders selling out to the NWO (with their ethnic leaders joining the globalist elite).

    Nationalism and Socialism are the two great enemies of the NWO and they’re even more lethal in combination. For example, Hitler’s National Socialism was “Germany First” and directed against the globalized special interest group of Jews/cosmopolitans/ financiers . The problem was that he was also an old school racist Imperialist. He bemoaned that fact that countries like Great Britain and France had Empires, while Germany didn’t. If he’d settled on his gains in the first years of WW2, Berlin may well have become the new Rome, and he could have realized his magnificent planning for his Imperial city.

    As it was, Berlin lay in ruins by 1945 as his supposed Slav “Untermenschen” bombed it flat.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  89. @Vaterland

    That user is wasting his time, I would imagine most Unz readers have been around the block and are wised up on the Muslim/Infidel false dichotomy.

    One would have to be very dumb to think Muslims were smart enough to carry out the devastation that has been wreaked upon European built lands, they simply act as a biological weapon.

    If one believes Muslims are behind it, why not go a step further and say that Wakandans control the world?

  90. alba. says:
    @Jake

    completely false the ones who financed and prometed protestantism were german nobity specailly the norther german nobles

    To begin with, many powerful people in Germany viewed with ill will what we would call today “drainage of capital” from their lands to Rome through indulgences but also through multiple payments to the ecclesiastical treasury. With this background some of the German nobility understood that the growing climate of popular discontent and disaffection towards the hierarchy of the Church “of Rome”, perceived as corrupt, was a good time not only to end the above but also to fish in troubled waters and to achieve a greater degree of autonomy, perhaps even independence, from the Imperial institution, a power of a political kind that by its own divine justification depended largely on religious sanction. In the end, if the doctrinal order sponsored by Rome broke down, then the very political institution legitimized by it (the Imperial power) was greatly affected. There was therefore much to be gained in the process.

    In other words, as subsequent events showed, the questioning of papal authority on the basis of the excuse given by Luther opened up not only the path to religious reform but, above all, the possibility of restructuring the distribution of power and money within the Holy Empire.

    This is why Luther, unlike many other religious scholars before him, was not only not viciously persecuted by the feudal nobility but, on the contrary, was protected by them. Because, in line with everything that has been said so far, it must be clear that Luther did not want to change the unjust social order in force on earth, and in fact clearly urged that it be maintained, he simply wanted to cover it up under the mantle of a slightly different, updated and minimally rationalized theology based on the prevailing Catholic doctrine. And that, as many German princes quickly understood, opened the door to profound changes in the distribution of political power, income and land ownership among the upper classes of the Holy Empire. I therefore insist that Luther’s ideas served to trigger a process not of social redistribution of a vertical type, that is, from the top down, but rather they initiated a very different one, of a horizontal type, from the top up. In this case taking power and resources away from distant powers and rulers, especially the Pope of Rome and the Emperor, at that time sovereign of Castile and Aragon. All this to the benefit of purely German princes and electors, especially in Northern Germany to the detriment of the feudal nobles in the South.

    and dont get me stated with masonry , in germany all jews were banned in the lodges and they adapted all their simbolism to our graeco roma heritage ,changing the temple of salomon for the athenas owl as their maxim symbol, thats the reason why germans masons were banned in the international masonry congress and all the anglo lodges .

    View post on imgur.com

    thats why jews end up learning yiddish a german dialect because the same way as in spain the force to asimilate was too strong to resist in the long run

  91. Wally says:
    @Cyrano

    – The problem that you and those like you have is that Germany did not engage in your laughable claim of “genocidal racism”. It’s been noted before that there is no proof of your Zionist propaganda.

    – It’s claimed by Zionists like yourself that many millions upon millions of human remains, supposedly “genocided” by NS Germany, exist in humongous mass graves in supposedly known & marked locations. Such remains in fact do not exist. Game, set, match.

    – Hitler was forced to attack Communist USSR in order prevent the Communist USSR from launching it’s planned attacked, aka: pre-emptive strike.

    recommended:
    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
    FDR [with the USSR] Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
    Germany Did Not Start World War II, by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/
    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

  92. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Speaking of what Hitler wanted to “determine at the end of the war“, it was The Jewish Question.

    See real documents, the Schlegelberger Document & the Luther Memorandum which are more nails in the fake & impossible “holocaust” coffin:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=schlegelberger&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

  93. alba. says:

    here is a little extract of the paper of jews in early masonry in england and how diverged from continental masonry ,french at least introduced some myths that softened the british judeophilic masonry ,germans were much more extreme banned jews from the lodges and introduced completely different founding myths akin to our graeco roman heritage,spaniards simply banned it (if you dont understand magic dont play with it ) but british eat every bait throw at them
    https://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/Newman_papers/Jews_in_English_Freemasonry.htm

  94. @utu

    Too bad that strong social norm against homosexual deviancy hasn’t reached Vatican City yet.

  95. alba. says:

    protestantism and the french ilustration tamed by german idealism was the way to go for all europe .

  96. sally says:
    @PeterMX

    PeterMX your statement that there is no evidence of American’s emerging global hegemony .. appeared until after the tide of the war turned against Germany and Great Britain was bankrupt.

    I wholeheartedly disagree . evidence abounds..

    in 1897 there was the first Jewish Congress in Basil, Switzerland, <= the wealthy Jewish bankers and industrialist from all of the world attended the Rothschild supported Herzl led 1st Jewish conference, and following that conference the French banksters signed a <=suppress Germany Agreement with Russia in the same year. Then the next year. 1898 the French, British and the USA ( not America) entered into a secret agreement to get Germany and to collectively invade the Ottoman empire with the objective to stop Germany from working with the Ottoman on Oil and gas and to take the oil rich Ottoman lands from the Ottoman. [this agreement kept the planning and preparation for WWI hidden from Germany and from the American people] Two books confirm this one written by defeated Wilhelm himself in 1922 and the other by an American professor at Ohio State in 1913.. So the early existence (15 years ahead of the war) of these treaties, anchor the starting point for studying how the allies after stopping the highly successful German economy from competing, and how BIG Oil came to control all of the oil under the Ottoman Empire. It took these criminals 15 years to prepare for the Great War.

    Schiff, a wealthy multinational banker industrialist, funded the Japanese war against Russia, in 1905.. in preparation for the take over by the Bolshevik <=it materialized in 1918.. in the October Revolution.

    The British and French used Wilson to force Americans to both fund the European war and to provide the material [guns, foods, money and manpower] for the bankster war against Germany and the invasion war against the Ottoman hoping to take their oil.

    It was 1913 that should be heralded as the day that the USA achieved Hegemonic control over the entire world. because it was then that the 16th amendment to the USA constitution overthrew Article I, Section 9, paragraph prohibiting <the income tax and it was a few days later that the Federal Reserve Act was put into law. <=this mean Governed Americans would be forced to pay the bill for WWI..

    • Thanks: Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @S
  97. S says:
    @Alfred

    When Gaddafi tried to move Africa to a gold-based system, he signed his own death warrant.

    Are you sure it wasn’t Gaddafi’s choice of uniform(s) that didn’t do him in? He really couldn’t have done a better job of caricaturing himself if he had tried.

    More seriously, there may be something to the gold-based system angle of his demise.

    However, I suppose I’ve tended to to see the cynical US/UK support of the ‘Arab Spring’, which swept Gaddafi away, as simply a quite deliberate effort to clear the field of the old dictators of the region. This would get Islamac hopes up and allow for the rise of a ‘Caliphate’, which in turn would be thoroughly crushed, and thereby dash ‘Islamist’s’ dreams. [And perhaps put the seed in place for a future more serious ‘second try’ at a Caliphate restoration later on.]

    Despite Libya having in many ways become a loyal client state of the US/UK, or no, Gaddafi simply had to go.

  98. Parfois1 says:
    @Alexandros

    That’s stretching the meaning of something that visually one may find shocking, unpleasant or unnatural to ideas and concepts one would define as fantastic, a mental creation.

    There is nothing fantastic about the idea of Europe being the Mother of the European nations, the same allegoric concept the Russians apply to their Mother the most dramatic illustration being her calling her children at Mamayev Kurgan.

    All European countries have a common cultural background and history founded on Roman and Christian roots enriched by the Germanic adoption of the laws, customs and languages of the Roman provinces they migrated to from Britannia to Hispania. The Church, Crusades, Templars, Teutonic Orders and many other similar institutions and movements were Pan-European and the lingua franca was Latin, the common root of most languages, including English (Latin roots make about 60% of the English lexicon).

    The EU is only a political formality of an ideal, but it is the only body that graphically is representative of the ideal as a distinct body of nations united by their common heritage, the recognition of it being the rejection of Turkey (an Asiatic culture, although the population being partly of European ancestry) and Israel being admitted into the group in spite of US pressure.

    Nothing grotesque about it. It is rooted in two millenia as the common home for a great civilisation. The only grotesque thing about it is that it produced the US abortion.

    • Replies: @alba.
    , @Commentator Mike
  99. Parfois1 says:
    @Miro23

    If [Hitler] he’d settled on his gains in the first years of WW2, Berlin may well have become the new Rome, and he could have realized his magnificent planning for his Imperial city.

    I was about to press the “Agree” button until I came across the last bit (quote). A man and his cohorts driven by an odious ethos are incapable of a rational course. The US elite are contaminated by the same germ, hence what they are doing oblivious of the inevitable reaction to their evil ways.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  100. alba. says:
    @Parfois1

    notbody is doing more to destroy that milenial heritage that the EU itself

    european history doent start 2000 years ago with the jews like you implicity afirm but 4000 years ago when aryans conquered the land and brought their language ,gods,patriarchy… that first materialized in greece and would serve as a model to the modern world :scientific method, literature, olu¡ympic sports,phylosophy,historiografy,literacy rate over 15% while in egypt was under 1%…..

    the only thing israel and jews have brought to europe was a thousand years old stagnation that was only supered in the reinassance

  101. PeterMX says:
    @Parfois1

    I wholeheartedly agree that the world saw Germany as their toughest competitor. How that translates into US hegemony makes no sense. The other great powers, Great Btitain and France viewed Germany as the best and most successsful country in the world, not the USA, and that is why they attacked Germany in both world wars and not the USA. Britain was concerned about Germany expanding its navy before WW I, not the USA.

    As the not yet President, John F Kennedy said in 1937, ‘The Germans really are too good – therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.’

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329556/How-JFK-secretly-ADMIRED-Hitler-Explosive-book-reveals-Presidents-praise-Nazis-travelled-Germany-Second-World-War.html

    But the newsoaper has it all wrong. People around the world admired the Germans long before the “NAZIS” came to power and they continued to admire them. Countries around the world followed Gerany’s lead, not the USA, adopting universal mandatory education for all, starting with Kindergarten (a German invention), the PHD (also a German invention), universal health coverage, social security and much more. Most of the world’s armies wear a modified version of the German soldiers uniform today, including the camouflaged uniform the American soldier now wears and his helmet. The people that should be embarrased are the liars like the writer of the article from the Daily Mail that blames the Germans for the 50 million dead, when it was the British and French that made a local disagreement between a world power, Germany, and a newly recreated country called Poland with a huge chip on its shoulder into a world war. It is they who should be ashamed and should have paid for what they did. The Jews can trample all over yhe Palestinians and not a word from the American whore, but when Germany demands the freedom for millions of Germans living under foreign occcupation by Poland and others a world war erupts.

    The US achieved hegemony over half the world in 1945 when Europe destroyed itself, the other half in 1991, and now it’s coming to an end. A dirt poor, third world country only 50 years ago, China has surpassed the USA as the world’s leading economy and is a major leader in technology, an incredible achievement. The question is can Europe recover and achieve its thousands years history of leading the world or are they broken beyond repair. Right now they are a pitiful looking group.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Thumbhead Forney
  102. Fox says:

    Even a superficial reading of the “Nazi” plans for a post-war unified Europe looks a lot better than the reality that was created by the plutocratic gang at Versailles in 1919 for a disunited Europe, of which the fragments were to be under the directing power of the governments forcing the German, Austrian, and Hungarian signature under this masterplan of the stupid, inept, immoral and arrogant.
    That should be recognized in getting upset about some far-seeing plans by the “”Nazis””for the survival of Europe as a commonwealth of nations. These plans were not definite, hence, when discussing them, this has to be taken into account.
    That Germany should take a leading role in this endeavor is not that illogical: Germany the largest, most populous, most industrious nation, positioned in a strategic key position and the victor of the war would hardly be expected to act otherwise. However, the plans, as preliminary as they were, look a lot friendlier to the participants in a Greater Germanic Reich than the current EU or the powder keg created in 1919.
    In addition, if it’s no big deal for Slavs to think about Slavic unity, why is it so upsetting to think about Germanic unity?

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  103. S says:
    @sally

    PeterMX your statement that there is no evidence of American’s emerging global hegemony .. appeared until after the tide of the war turned against Germany and Great Britain was bankrupt.

    I wholeheartedly disagree . evidence abounds..

    Yes, I’d agree.

    The 19th century British PM Gladstone alluded to this in some of his writings, ie that it was evident the United States was already (even then) in the process of overtaking the British Empire in terms of it’s power.

    Though, I might, perhaps, go a bit farther than you in suggesting that the role of the US being the global hegemonic power had very probably been a very long time in the planning.

    The 1853 book, The New Rome; or, the United States of the World, excerpted below in bold, claims the 1776 American Revolution was a planned false split from the British Empire, and, that in the future, the US and UK would reunite.

    When the US and UK reunite, the first thing the US/UK will do is unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth in it’s drive to conquer Germany, before proceeding to make war upon Russia. It also claims the United States itself is the (planned) direct continuation of the British Empire.

    Relatedly, the Belcher Foundation has an extensive site dedicated to preserving the memory and life work of the prominent British royal governor, Ivy League school founder, and first ‘native born’ North American freemason, Jonathan Belcher. Of the site’s many articles, a very few examine the origins of the present US/UK centered world.

    I’ve linked one of the more fascinating of these below, though, if a person has the time, they are all certainly worth reading. It dovetails very well with the thesis of the New Rome, and fills in the details which the 1853 book doesn’t provide in regards to the power politics of the British Board of Trade and Whig party which played out behind the scenes in London in the decades prior to the 1776 Revolution.

    ‘The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States…’

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853#c89727

    https://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

  104. @Valjean72

    You dropped the last sentence which reveals the global hidden hand:

    “The “proposed” economic model, would depend, of course, on where the interconnected banking families still held sway.”

    The Banksters will always have their hands in whatever happens.

    Hitler was Jewish and gay. Eichmann and Himmler were Jewish. Jews and half Jews made up over half of the Third Reich’s Officer corps. Yes, just the people to take care of the Jews.

    There is only one group that benefits by keeping the focus on Hitler over eight decades.
    Without Hitler, “Never Again” as an excuse would lose its potency.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  105. Seraphim says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Correct. It should be reminded that similar plans were much on the drawing boards of Germany, with the same racial overtones (Germany vs Russo-Gallia, Germany fighting for the survival of the Teutonic race, Mitteleuropa under German domination, Germans as “representatives of Western culture”, forcing the ‘semi-Asiatic Muscovite Empire’ behind the Bug, promotion of revolutions in the Russian and British Empires by encouraging the Pan-Islamic movement).

  106. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Well your view won’t be popular here.

    You see this is Unz where it is believed that Hitler was at home peacefully knitting a sweater when the Jewish bankers of the UK forced him to invade Poland and carpet bomb Warsaw.

    I’ve already pointed out here numerous times that Hitler could have attacked the USSR without Poland or could have built his empire somewhere else.

    It doesn’t matter.

    There is a strong contingent here of “Hitler wasn’t a bad guy” types that don’t even care about what he wrote in his own book. They have this fantasy of him being an anti-Communist hero even though he split Christian Poland with the worst Communist of all time. But that’s also somehow the fault of Jews.

    I saw a picture once of some little blond girl cut to shreds by the Luftwaffe. I guess she wasn’t White enough for Hitler. Poor wittle dictator Hitler was forced by the Jews to kill Slavs. He had no choice.

    • Agree: Miro23
  107. @Parfois1

    I party agree but I don’t wish to dwell on the past.

    It is imperative that Eastern European countries resist immigration and Islam in the coming years and eventually the EU and NATO will break up. Then there will be war between Eastern and Western Europe with the initial conflict probably arising between Christian Poland and Islamic Germany. Russia could weigh in on the side of Eastern Europe. Also many East European immigrants could return to the East from the West as it turns more Islamic to add support to the coming war effort.

  108. @Vaterland

    I’d second that except that that melpol is even worse than A123.

  109. @John Johnson

    The problem with most people is that they always think in black-and-white terms: the world is a battle field of “good guys” against “bad guys”. If the Allies were “bad”, then that means that Hitler must have been “good” and every idea and act of his therefore must be explained as “good”. That the world is mostly a mixture of good and bad is beyond their comprehension.

    • Agree: Miro23
  110. @John Johnson

    Oh, there’s no shortage of butthurt liars like yourself to cheer him on.

    While Hitler was going out of his way to negotiate a peaceful settlement, Poland was warmongering on the behalf of the UK. Well, they got their war, and 80 years later people like you can still not stop crying about it. Typical slav megalomania. Even trying to blame the bombing of Warsaw on him, when it was a choice you made all on your own.

    Yeah, attack the USSR with backstabbing, declared enemy Poland who is allied to the UK in his back. That’s right out of the book, isn’t?

    Hitler wasn’t a bad guy. He was the most dedicated anti Marxist of all time. And he’s not going to sacrifice Germany and Europe because Judeo Christian Poland has imperial ambitions IN Germany. If you want to choose Jews, Anglo Kikes and greed over Europe, expect Adolf Hitler to bring fire and brimstone to your doorstep. It will happen again, and then it will be for all time.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  111. TheJester says:

    The argument can be made: Adolph Hitler was a futurist foreseeing the demise of European colonial empires. He also foresaw the emersion of a European (customs) Union under German control as the best way to bring peace to the fractious European statelets on the model of the 19th Century unification of the German statelets.

    If so, it appears that millions died in the European theater of operations in WWII for no reason at all. A German-controlled continental Europe? The ZOG was simply not going to allow this to happen … but it was inevitable. Millions died as the ZOG played its games.

    Chancellor Merkel knows this. Note her behaviors and the submissive behaviors of the other countries in the EU. They don’t sneeze without her permission. The staffing for the new round of apparatchiks running the EU reflects Germany and Merkel’s power and influence: they are Germany’s candidates. The other EU countries bow to German power and control. Aside: Did this have a bearing on BREXIT … Britain growing weary of German control over British trade and immigration policies?

    Notice that Führer Merkel meets foreign dignitaries with an EU flag in the background … even though she is not a European Union official and technically knows she cannot speak for the EU. She knows the EU is subject to her and Germany’s whims, i.e. the Moslem invasion in 2015 when Merkel unilaterally and without authority suspended the Schengen Agreement governing EU borders and immigration.

    Führer Merkel reigns! The rest of the EU bow to her and Germany in ritual submission. They look to her for guidance and leadership … the ultimate in soft power. Hitler is being rehabilitated!

    • Troll: Alexandros
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  112. @TheJester

    “…The argument can be made: Adolph Hitler was a futurist foreseeing the demise of European colonial empires…”

    Hitler greatly admired the British Empire and sought to cooperate with it. If he thought it would soon disintegrate, he would not desire cooperation with it for his “Thousand Year Reich”.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  113. @Gleongelpi

    What was the purpose then? Kindly enlighten me. Thanks.

  114. @SaneClownPosse

    Do you have any sources for those claims?

  115. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Fair points, but the issue isn’t whether Germany was “good” in some sense (they certainly weren’t), but whether they were (on balance) better (in whatever sense) than the other belligerents. It’s at least arguable that they in fact were.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  116. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes, his admiration for the British Empire is the main reason to dislike the guy.

  117. @Beefcake the Mighty

    My judgement is that the Third Reich was “good” in many respects of internal policy, but “bad” in many respects of external policy. The Allies were mainly hypocritical in their policy and criminal in the way they conducted their warfare. On balance, WWII was not a war of “good” against “evil”, not from the side of the Allies and not from the side of the Axis.

  118. Anonymous[664] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Wrong.

    Dr. James Sadkovich, ‘Anglo-American bias and the Italo-Greek War of 1940-1941’,

  119. @A123

    Hopefully they’ll select heterosexuals as pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests too.

  120. @John Johnson

    As I explained at some length in an earlier thread where you were involved, Hitler in fact made very considerable efforts to reach a sensible agreement with Poland. He wanted the Poles as allies against the Communist USSR, which was a mortal danger to both countries, with Stalin building larger armies every year.

    At first, Hitler got along well with the sensible Polish dictator, Josef Pilsudski. The two of them made a non-aggression agreement:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

    Later, high German officials such as Goering and Goebbels visited Poland. Relations between the countries were good. They even cooperated in the readjustment of the borders of Czechoslovakia in 1938, with Hitler going so far as to grant Poland sovereignty over the disputed Teschen region — even though the ethnic Germans who lived there would much rather be part of Germany instead. In return, Poland was expected to confirm German sovereignty over Danzig, a 95+ percent ethnically German city detached from Germany proper by the Treaty of Versailles:

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

    However, in the meantime Pilsudski had died, and his successors were under heavy pressure from the globalists, as well as radical Polish chauvinists at home. Together, these two forces blocked any agreement with Germany. At the same time, the globalists forced Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, to issue an unconditional guarantee to support Poland in any conflict with Germany:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance

    As Wikipedia notes, this caused Hitler to pause. Unfortunately, the Polish chauvinists thought the British guarantee meant that they could behave however they liked without fear of German retaliation. Thus, they launched a campaign of terror against the ethnic Germans who lived in Poland:

    https://archive.org/details/PolishAtrocities_201904

    (The figure of 58,000 fatalities given in this German document is exaggerated, but the examples of individual cases are authentic.)

    Faced with this onslaught, Hitler simply had to act. It was politically impossible not to. As I asked (rhetorically) in our previous discussion, what would be the result today if literally any country in the world smaller and less nuclear than China treated Jews this way? The entire US military would be sent against it within days, if not hours. And here, these atrocities took place right next to the German border, with refugees fleeing over it to ask for help. Hitler in fact showed great restraint in waiting for as long as he did. Many Germans thought he waited far too long, even.

    Of course, this led to war, which was what the globalists wanted. Hitler, Mussolini, the French foreign minister Georges Bonnet, and even Neville Chamberlain himself worked desperately to negotiate a peaceful solution, during these last days in August 1939. All their attempts foundered on the intransigence of the Polish chauvinists, emboldened by their globalist backers.

    Chamberlain, the poor man, was then bound to uphold the guarantee he had signed, even though he knew it meant the end of the British Empire, and in the longer term of all of European civilization. In public, he likewise had to keep a stiff upper lip. In private, however, he complained bitterly about the globalists to the US ambassador, Joseph Kennedy:

    He [Kennedy] said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.

    http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/cikkek/forrestal.html

    Or, in short: your caricature of the horrible Hitler who started World War II out of the pure evil of his heart is no more true now than when I debunked it last time around, some weeks ago. The conflict was far more complicated than that.

    • Thanks: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Wally
    , @utu
  121. @Franklin Ryckaert

    That is disingenuous, however. The world is not black and white, but that does not mean that both sides are always equally bad in every conflict. That view is not maturity, but rather nihilism.

    As for yourself, you appear to think Germany was worse than the globalists who slaughtered millions, plundered Europe and Japan of everything that was not bolted down and gave us child drag queens and a non-white majority in the US. That is your right, of course, and many of the great and glorious in mainstream politics, academia and media certainly agree with you. But surely it is not altogether surprising that a few harmless free-thinkers in a place like this might occasionally entertain alternative notions.

  122. Seraphim says:
    @John Regan

    America was taking over England through the ‘Buccaneers’, the daughters of the American multi-millionaire sent to marry the impoverished British aristocrats. Churchill (son of the ‘Dollar Princess’ Jenny Jerome), Lady Nancy Astor (the first woman to sit as an MP in the House of Commons) are cases in point. But there is an endless list.

  123. Skeptikal says:
    @Vaterland

    “The Dutch are basically us with a different Germanic dialect. ”

    Yes, was going to observe something similar but not quite the same.
    Both the Dutch and the Danish language are basically dialects of German: and very close to north German dialects. Yet both the Dutch and the Danish see themselves as the opposite of Germans. At any rate, they have a strong national identity, one that precludes any sort of identity or even relatedness to the German national identity.

  124. Wally says:
    @John Regan

    – The not so innocent Poland threaten Lithuania with invasion via an ultimatum.

    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians

    – More on Poland’s pre-war atrocitiees against Germans and others:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=poland+atrocities&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    recommended:
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

  125. utu says:
    @John Regan

    (The figure of 58,000 fatalities given in this German document is exaggerated, but the examples of individual cases are authentic.)

    Exaggerated by factor of 1,000.

    You get your chronology more or less right but you forget about one important event which was on 15 March 1939 when Wehrmacht moved into Bohemia and Moravia. Is it surprising that on March 31 issued guarantees to Poland. And few days later Hitler on April 3, 1939 issued a revised OKW directive to the armed forces, which after referring to the question of Danzig made reference to Fall Weiss (the military code name for the German invasion of Poland).

    No provocations on part of Poles whether real or imagined or false-flagged by Germans were a cause of the war. The decision to go to war was made after Hitler realized that Poland won’t be the 2nd Czechoslovakia because of British guarantees. Then the Pact Ribbentrop-Molotov made possible doing away with Poland swiftly because of Soviet participation and knowing there would be no risk of facing a hostile USSR in the East.

    Joint Soviet-Nazi military parade in Poland.


    German officers Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian (centre) and Soviet Kombrig Semyon Krivoshein (right) standing on the platform

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk

    • Thanks: Miro23
    • Replies: @John Regan
  126. Dube says:

    Spread the word. Intransigence. Without intransigence, Hitler’s grand plan would never have been launched. Had the Poles been transigent, he’d just have been all talk and no action. Take that word to your school board meetings and show them these comment threads.

  127. @utu

    utu:
    Exaggerated by factor of 1,000.

    What is your source for this extreme statement? Even mainstream popular historians in the Anglosphere such as Anthony Beevor accept that the real figure reached into the thousands. And apart from the death toll, tens of thousands were forced to flee from their homes and ended up in temporary refugee camps in Germany. By any reckoning, this reign of terror was quite real, and absolutely threatened Hitler’s credibility (both at home and abroad) if he did nothing about it.

    utu:
    You get your chronology more or less right but you forget about one important event which was on 15 March 1939 when Wehrmacht moved into Bohemia and Moravia. Is it surprising that on March 31 issued guarantees to Poland.

    In early 1939, Czechoslovakia was quickly collapsing due to its internal problems with multiculturalism and revolutionary agitation, as well as conflicts with its neighbors (especially Poland and Hungary, who both tried to sabotage it in various ways). It then became necessary for both the Czech and German governments to act decisively, so that there wouldn’t be civil war and a chaotic failed state right in the middle of Central Europe. Thus, the Czech president Emil Hacha asked for a conference, and he and Hitler negotiated a peaceful partition of the country, with an independent Slovakia and a separate Czech state under German protection (the Bohemia-Moravia Protectorate).

    Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was annoyed with this, because it had all happened too fast for the Germans to consult with him first. He believed that they should have, given the good relations both sides were trying to build and maintain, and his domestic enemies made political capital of this to discredit his peaceful policy. Nonetheless, the Munich deal he and Hitler had negotiated for Czechoslovakia in 1938 did not in fact require consultation on this issue, as Chamberlain pointed out in a public speech when the warmongers in Britain (Churchill, etc) began to complain. He further said:

    In our opinion the situation has radically altered since the Slovak Diet declared the independence of Slovakia. The effect of this declaration put an end by internal disruption to the State whose frontiers we had proposed to guarantee and, accordingly, the condition of affairs described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, which was always regarded by us as being only of a transitory nature has now ceased to exist, and His Majesty’s Government cannot accordingly hold themselves any longer bound by this obligation.

    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1939/mar/15/czecho-slovakia-1

    In other words, Chamberlain was not unduly alarmed by this pragmatic solution to Czechoslovakia’s problems when he first heard about it. He affirmed that it broke no treaties or commitments the British government had agreed to. On the contrary, he defended it in Parliament. It was only later, after intense globalist pressure (leading to his complaints which I quoted in my previous post), that he issued his government’s catastrophic unconditional guarantee to support Poland.

    The American political journalist Drew Pearson (who was blackmailing the US Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles by threatening to expose his homosexuality, and so had excellent sources in the government) wrote on this matter:

    In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had “sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that henceforth the British government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen, who completely supported Roosevelt’s move, “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”[22] Chamberlain gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

    https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__president-roosevelts-campaign-to-incite-war-in-europe/

    In fact, Chamberlain continued to work for peace even long after this, through such measures as the top secret Hudson-Wohlthat talks. However, these were sabotaged by the pro-war Churchill faction, and then by the globalists, who howled artificial outrage at them in their controlled media, such as the News Chronicle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hudson,_1st_Viscount_Hudson

    Thus, it was not enough in the end. Those who wanted war got their wish.

    utu:
    And few days later Hitler on April 3, 1939 issued a revised OKW directive to the armed forces, which after referring to the question of Danzig made reference to Fall Weiss (the military code name for the German invasion of Poland).

    Yes, this was a contingency plan in face of the hardening Polish position (and, nota bene, the British and globalist support of it). The Germans would have been exceedingly foolish if they did not plan for such eventualities, in the circumstances. However, this was still only a precaution, not a decision to go to war. See, for example, A. J. P. Taylor’s discussion of this planning in his book on the origins of World War II.

    In the document itself, which we can quote in entirety since it’s available online, General Keitel writes:

    Directive by the Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht

    TOP SECRET, MILITARY
    BERLIN, April 3, 1939.

    Officer Only
    5 copies.

    WFA. No. 37/39 g Kdos. Chefs. L. la 2nd copy

    Subject: Directive for the Wehrmacht, 1939-40.

    The “Directive for the Uniform Preparation for War by the Wehrmacht” for 1939-40 is being issued afresh.

    Part I (“Frontier Security”) and Part III (“Danzig”) will be issued in the middle of April. They remain basically unchanged.

    Part II (“Operation White”) is attached herewith. The signature of the Fuehrer will be appended later.

    For “Operation White” the Fuehrer has issued the following additional directives:

    1) Preparations must be made in such a way that the operation can be carried out at any time as from September 1, 1939.

    2) OKW is charged with drawing up a precise time table for “Operation White” and is to arrange for synchronized timing between the three branches of the Wehrmacht through discussions.

    3) The plans of the branches of the Wehrmacht and the details for the time table must be submitted to OKW by May 1, 1939.

    [Signed] The Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht,
    Keitel

    https://archive.org/details/DocumentsOnGermanForeignPolicy-SeriesD-VolumeVi-March-august

    The attachment with more detail on “Operation White” that’s mentioned I won’t quote in full, because it’s too long, but it’s at the same link. The most pertinent part is in any case the first:

    1.) Political Requirements and Aims

    German relations with Poland continue to be based on the principles of avoiding any disturbances. Should Poland, however, change her policy towards Germany, which so far has been based on the same principles as our own, and adopt a threatening attitude towards Germany, a final settlement might become necessary in spite of the Treaty in force with Poland.

    The aim then will be to destroy Polish military strength, and create in the East a situation which satisfies the requirements of national defence.

    As can be seen, this document updates the standing contingency plans for German action, laid down for such events as frontier trouble (Section I) or Polish aggression against Danzig (Section III). “Operation White” refers to general hostilities with Poland, which must by this time (April 3, as you note) be considered a real possibility. Keitel’s order thus demands greater readiness for war, but does not indicate aggressive intentions. In fact, as we can read verbatim, the “Operation White” section proper says the exact opposite.

    In this context, we should also emphasize that this was a TOP SECRET, MILITARY planning document for the top generals, issued in 5 copies only. It’s pretty much as secret as anything in Germany. If Keitel (or Hitler) had intended war at this time, they absolutely had no reason to hide it from mention here for propagandistic reasons, and every reason not to for sane military reasons.

    In fact, this document is most remarkable in proving beyond all doubt that Germany did not feel even the need to be seriously prepared for a general war with Poland in 1939 until after the British and Polish positions against her turned hostile in late March. Otherwise, this order should have been issued much earlier.

    utu:
    Then the Pact Ribbentrop-Molotov made possible doing away with Poland swiftly because of Soviet participation and knowing there would be no risk of facing a hostile USSR in the East.

    The German-Soviet Pact was a desperate attempt by Hitler to avert a general war, by preventing a hostile coalition between the USSR and the Anglo-Franco-Globalist axis. The English and French had already been negotiating with the USSR for months when Hitler reluctantly began to do so in July:

    Anglo-French talks with Soviet – Apr 15, 1939
    The British Government has instructed Sir William Seeds, Ambassador in Moscow, to seek an early interview with M. Litvinoff, Soviet Foreign Commissar, to discuss means of securing Russian co-operation in the system of pacts against aggression now being constructed by London and Paris.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/5115466/Anglo-French-talks-with-Soviet-Apr-15-1939.html

    Hitler therefore needed to forestall a global military alliance against him, which would doom Germany with complete certainty. His actions there were 100 % a reaction to his enemies’ aggressive encirclement policy. Hitler could be a pragmatic politician when he had to, but no honest person can read his writings (or dispassionately analyze his actual policy) and conclude that teaming up with the Communist USSR was what he really dreamed of all along.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  128. utu says:
    @John Regan

    Are you saying that some homosexual in the State Department made peace loving Hitler to sign the pact with Stalin (another peace loving statesman of WWII era) in “desperate attempt by Hitler to avert a general war” and immediately proceeded to invade Poland to keep peace? I think you are homophobic.

    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
  129. @John Regan

    John Regan – “(The figure of 58,000 fatalities given in this German document is exaggerated, but the examples of individual cases are authentic.)”

    What is your source or proof for your statement that 58,000 is exaggerated? Do you take this from a historian like Anthony Beevor too? If so, why do you believe him?
    What number do you believe is more correct?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  130. @Carolyn Yeager

    While there’s no question of violence (both organized and spontaneous) by Poles against ethnic Germans (and other minorities, pre-war Poland was only 60% Polish), a distinction has to be made between violence committed before the war, and violence after hostilities started. It’s quite likely the former, while undoubtedly real, was exaggerated by Nazi authorities. The 58K, even if accurate, conflates the two categories.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  131. When we were kids we played a game while walking in rows of three we boys did. It worked like this ,as we walked we would scramble and say left ball ,right ball and who was left was the prick in the middle . My grandparents were from Germany and they said they all ways felt crowded. When you think about it nobody wants to be a prick all the time.

  132. @Beefcake the Mighty

    “John Regan” said in comment #122 to utu:

    (The figure of 58,000 fatalities given in this German document is exaggerated, but the examples of individual cases are authentic.)

    You thanked him for it. The document he was referring to was published by the German Foreign Office, based on documentary evidence gathered by the Wehrmacht legal teams using men of the highest caliber. Are you trying to tell me that you and “john regan’ are more to be believed than they? He said nothing about before the war or after the war, and when it comes to the most hideous of barbaric crimes against the innocent, it makes no difference. Here is what the report said:

    More than 58,000 Dead and Missing were lost by the German minority in Poland during the days of their liberation from the Polish yoke, as far as can be ascertained at present. The Polish nation must for all time be held responsible for this appalling massacre consequent upon that Polish reign of terror. Up to November 17, 1939, the closing day for the documentary evidence contained in the first edition of this book, 5,437 murders, committed by members of the Polish armed forces and by Polish civilians on men, women and children of the German minority had already been irrefutably proved. It was quite apparent even then that the actual number of murders far exceeded this figure, and by February 1, 1940, the total number of identified bodies of the German minority had increased to 12,857. Official investigations carried out since the outbreak of the German-Polish war have shown that to these 12,857 killed there must be added more than 45,000 missing, all of whom must be accounted dead since no trace of them can be found. Thus the victims belonging to the German minority in Poland already now total over 58,000. Even this appalling figure by no means covers the sum total of the losses sustained by the German minority. There can be no doubt at all that investigations which are still being conducted will disclose many more thousand dead and wounded. The following description of the Polish atrocities which is not only confined to murders and mutilations but includes other deeds of violence such as maltreatment, rape, robbery and arson applies to only a small section of the terrible events for which irrefutable and official evidence is here established.

    The rest can be read here: https://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/atrocities/pagmp001.html#58000

    Thus the DOCUMENT is not exaggerating the number. Why do you and john regan believe the Wehrmacht is exaggerating?, is what I asked. The Foreign Office believed the final number was much greater than that, not less.

    I’d also like to ask him why he uses the word “globalist” where normally Jew/Jewish would be used. That “g”-word is peppered all over his comments in this thread. He comes across to me somewhat like a gatekeeper. Does he have a policy of not speaking directly to Carolyn Yeager?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  133. @Carolyn Yeager

    I thanked him for a very detailed and thorough comment about the context of German actions in 1939. It was a valuable contribution to this discussion, but it doesn’t mean I agreed with every particular detail and I wasn’t thanking him for a specific (and minor) part.

    Your partisanship is extreme, and ridiculous. It is no wonder you get dismissed as a Nazi nutcase.

    • Thanks: John Regan
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  134. @Alexandros

    While Hitler was going out of his way to negotiate a peaceful settlement, Poland was warmongering on the behalf of the UK.

    So Poland was warmongering by not wanting to be a German protectorate? Or did you not look at his last offer? Then Hitler brought the peace by staging a false flag operation and bombing areas with high civilian populations. What a peace lover!

    Hitler wasn’t a bad guy. He was the most dedicated anti Marxist of all time. And he’s not going to sacrifice Germany and Europe because Judeo Christian Poland has imperial ambitions IN Germany.

    Are you really going to suggest that Poland planned on invading Germany? Their leadership was terrified of Germany as seen by the fact they were in disagreement over becoming a protectorate and surrendering their autonomy.

    Why didn’t he just attack the USSR without Poland? Why split Poland with the enemy?

    There was no military requirement that he take Poland to attack the USSR. He could have led plenty of divisions from Prussia, Finland and Romania. In fact they would have certainly won because they wouldn’t have lost so many planes to the British. His generals were right that bringing Britain into war was too risky and never would have attacked Poland in the first place (and knowingly risking world war).

    The key to understanding his attack on Poland was the German view of Poland itself. They didn’t think it should exist since it was created in their loss of WW1.

    Your great anti-Marxist sent millions to their deaths and let the Soviets take eastern Europe and half of Germany. A true anti-Marxist would have surrendered earlier to the allies to prevent Soviet expansion.

  135. Real amusing that so many of you seem to think Hitler was a great strategist.

    Yea his great strategy worked out so well for Europe.

    Stalin got nukes and European countries today still have destructive leftists despite their Jewish populations disappearing.

    But Hitler had to track down every Jewish baker and shoe salesman to stop Communism. Real rational thinking there.

    Now Germany is ran by a non-Jewish Christian leftist that brought in a million Muslims. So killing all those Jewish bakers and shoe salesmen really made a difference. Non-Jewish leftists just replaced them with Muslims.

    What a maroon. Non-Jewish leftists were a problem in his time (see France) but as with so many here at Unz it must be the Jews. Gotta kill a Jewish cafe owner that is totally uninterested in politics to save Europe from bad people. Oh the irony.

  136. @Beefcake the Mighty

    So people slip in inaccurate anti-German/NS details into their “very thorough comments” about other things, and that gets a pass from you. If I don’t agree with a comment in full, I don’t hit the “thank” or “agree” button. Seems a reasonable precaution. Comments covering several items are a problem that way.

    It’s incredible that you would try to insult me by calling me “Nazi.” Do you conclude that what was published by the German Foreign Office (Nazi) on the 58,000 to be “partisan in the extreme, and ridiculous?” Do you have the conviction to answer that without hedging? I don’t think so. But this is a very fair question: Can the “Nazis” only accuse Poles of killing, torturing and stealing from ethnic German citizens of Poland from BEFORE Sept. 1, 1939? Did the Poles have the right to continue that behavior even worse and more widespread AFTER the Wehrmacht invaded and were beating the shit out of the totally dumbfounded Poles? What say you? Did the ethnic Germans in Poland have it coming to them after Sept. 1st? So they don’t count.

    And I think I’ve picked up in the past that you think a Germany-Slavic alliance is the way to go. Do you have any reasons for thinking that that you would like to share?

  137. @ Carolyn Yeager

    From the Wikipedia article Nazi crimes against the Polish nation :

    “…From the start of the war against Poland, Germany intended to realize Adolf Hitler’s plan, set out in his book Mein Kampf, to acquire “living space” (Lebensraum) in the east for massive settlement of German colonists.[2][10] Hitler’s plan combined classic imperialism with Nazi racial ideology.[11] On 22 August 1939, just before the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave explicit permission to his commanders to kill “without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language.”[12][13]

    Ethnic cleansing was to be conducted systematically against the Polish people. On 7 September 1939, Reinhard Heydrich stated that all Polish nobles, clergy, and Jews were to be killed.[14] On 12 September, Wilhelm Keitel added Poland’s intelligentsia to the list. On 15 March 1940, SS chief Heinrich Himmler stated: “All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation consider the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task.”[15] At the end of 1940, Hitler confirmed the plan to liquidate “all leading elements in Poland”.[14]

    Now you will of course object that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that it is prejudiced and partisan or even “controlled by Jews”, but if you insist we accept such “objective” sources as your beloved German Wehrmacht, then at least Wikipedia merits equal consideration. I think your “innocent” Nazis murdered far more Polish civilians that the Poles killed Germans before the war, but you only care for the latter.

  138. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Even Wiki grants that the Obersalzberg speech that you refer to is of dubious authenticity, although there is no doubt the Germans employed terror in Poland.

  139. @John Regan

    I really like the Vichy postcard M. Durocher chose to illustrate this article.

    Quite often it is not the article writer who send an illustration with their submission, but Unz (or someone here) who finds something suitable. So it’s doubtful this was selected by Durocher.

    Further, I fail to find anything “especially expressive” in the German chick; it looks quite bland, exactly like the one to the left and right of it. The British chick – yes, the only really expressive one.

  140. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Especially when it comes to subjects of high interest to Jews.

    Wikipedia does NOT merit equal consideration to the German Foreign Office and the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau. You can’t be serious when you say that. See here: https://carolynyeager.net/wehrmacht-war-crimes-bureau , although I know you already have.

    I can tell you, Franklin, that I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think, so you needn’t bother telling me. Facts and evidence-based reality are all I’m interested in.

    Beefcake the not-so-Mighty won’t answer my questions, but jumps in again where he isn’t asked, to half-agree with you. It would be interesting to know what he considers terror. The Poles officially conducted terror against their non-Polish population (which they wanted under their control, promising treatment they didn’t deliver) for many years. So who is terrorizing whom?

    • Agree: Alexandros
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  141. @Carolyn Yeager

    Where I wasn’t asked? LOL, whose website do you think this is? Here’s a hint: not the fuck yours.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  142. @Beefcake the Mighty

    But you miss the point. You were asked a couple of things that you won’t answer. What you said in comment #132 was insufficient, as I pointed out, but you won’t improve on it. I understand why–it’s because you’re not very smart and you can’t. You’re at a loss. That’s why you spend most of your time here ‘agreeing’ with other commenters who you think sound smart.

    It does become a small world at Unz Review if one stays around long enough. We get to know one another pretty darn well.

  143. @Franklin Ryckaert

    According to the Unz Historical Society that’s Jewish propaganda cuz it’s on Wikipedia.

    No one will deny though that Hitler planned on starving the entire city of Leningrad to death.

    But we are supposed to believe that Hitler didn’t actually want to kill Polish civilians. Slavs in other areas maybe but not the Poles.

    You see Hitler had a soft spot in his heart for Poles. That’s why he bombed them.

    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  144. @John Johnson

    For people like Carolyn Yeager (members of the “Holy Hitler & Noble Nazis” Sect) any report on Nazi crimes is false if :

    1) It is written in Wikipedia, which is controlled by Jews and therefore is always false.

    2) The reporter is a Jew and 100% of Jews lie.

    3) The reporter is a Slav and 100% of Slavs also lie (such as the report of mass murder of Poles).

    4) The reporter is himself a Nazi, but then he must be a “traitor” and thus also lies (such as Canaris protesting against the treatment of Jews and Poles).

    5) The report is a speech of a top Nazi, but then the report must be a falsification (such as Himmler’s Posen Speech).

    6) If the speech is not a falsification, then the speaker, although a top Nazi (such as Goebbels), is not important enough.

    7) If the speaker is Holy Hitler himself, then he didn’t really mean what he said (such as his ideas of Lebensraum in Mein Kampf).

    In this way our Nazi friends “always win”. They live in an alternative universe. Well, let them, they are a small, unimportant sect anyway.

  145. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    You mean the “undeniable” for which you nor any other Zionist has proof.

    said:
    “BTW, I said about Hitler’s plans for Europe the same as Guillaume Durocher in this article.”

    – No you didn’t.
    – Your fantasy about locking up those who debunk the fake “holocaust” is further proof of you inability to prove your impossible claims.

    Only lies require censorship.

  146. @Franklin Ryckaert

    All this to and fro on topics like this is pointless. Most are set in their viewpoints and will deny anybody else’s evidence while living in a fantasy of their own making. Look at all those here justifying Germany’s Operation Barbarossa as “pre-emptive” yet condemning any pre-emptive Polish ethnic cleansing of Germans from German territory prior to WW2 while knowing very well that Germans planned to ethnically cleanse the Poles out of Poland. Then they’ll use that minor ethic cleansing of Germans by Poles, perfectly legitimate if you consider what the Germans had planned, as a pretext for Germany starting a war that killed tens of millions and caused untold destruction. Even any suppression of Germans in Sudenteland seems justified if one considers that they would have been used as part of the colonisation programme of lebensraum in Eastern Europe. In the end, Churchill’s calls for a pre-emptive war against Germany long before Hitler even started on his expansionist incursions into neighbouring countries sounds most reasonable when all is considered. Germans should have learned to be better neighbours and they could have saved everyone a lot of bother. And they could have toned down on their pretensions for Europe. Look at them now, imposing immigrants and all sorts of policies on Europeans. Why should the rest of Europe give a shit what Germany wants or says? They should mind their own business in their own country and leave others alone.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
  147. The Othes Side Of The Coin!

    “The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover”

    by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard for “The Telegraph”

    April 27, 2016

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

    Apart from that, Brussels is the headquarter of NATO , extra part sessions of the European Parliament as well as committee meetings of EU are held in Brussels.

    Do you think it’s just a strange coincidence?

    Only a very naive person can think in that way!

    Anyway, “Reductio ad Hitlerum” ( playing the Nazi card ) without considering other important facts, in this specific case, the historical facts above mentioned, is just the old usual American propaganda to brainwash American and European common people so that the American and European elites can keep on their dirty jobs: hoard more and more money and power!!

    That’s it!!

    Best regards.

    TheTruthSeeker, greetings from Italy.

  148. Integration to my previous post.

    “The European Union Was An AMERICAN Idea” by G. Washington for “ZeroHedge”, March 2016.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-03/european-union-was-american-idea

    Best regards.

    TheTruthSeeker, greetings from Italy.

  149. Adûnâi says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Perfectly stated! Even though I myself do consider Germans to be the best Europeans, and see the NSDAP as the flower of Aryandom with Adolf Hitler’s clearly being the scion of the White race…

    …but you simply cannot blame the Poles and the Russians for winning the war which Germany had started! You cannot! This is some insane Jewish residue in the minds of neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazi chutzpah! Any sane person would say, “tough luck”. Objective reality proved the Marcomanni wrong, and the Franks right – Marcvs Avrelivs was right, and Syagrivs wrong.

    Do Carolyn Yeager & co. think Hitler would have loved to know that his descendants have taken to refer to him as to an unerring god? Is that how you learn lessons from history?

    Any honest Darwinist would see WW2 for what it was – a Russo-Germanic struggle for existence. Russians had the full right to exterminate every last German man. That they did not do that is proof of their degeneracy. A foreshadowing of the total collective suicide of the Aryan race in the second century since the births of Adolf Hitler and Kim Il Sung. You do not let your enemies live!

    • LOL: Wally
  150. @Adûnâi

    It would be more accurate to characterize the war as an Anglo-Zionist/finance capital plot to pit their two main rivals (Germany and Russia, who are natural allies) against each other fratricidally. (Stalin’s ambitions did not help matters, but that’s a different story.)

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  151. Wally says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Except that you cannot prove what you religiously believe.

    I note you ignored comment #93 which shatters your Zionist ignorance.

  152. Adûnâi says:
    @Wally

    The article by Paul Craig Roberts is so hilariously bad, no wonder the author has disabled commenting.
    https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/

    1. “a mass movement that came to power legally in Germany, to correct the unemployment caused by unjust reparations” > tries to talk in capitalist terms familiar to Americans.

    2. “The German leader, Adolf Hitler, had re-acquired German territories given to Denmark, France, and Czechoslovakia” > does not seem to know that Northern Schleswig was never returned to Germany even after the fall of Denmark in 1940, and calling the Kingdom of Bohemia a German territory is disingenuous.

    3. “Hitler’s restoration of Germany’s national boundaries was misrepresented in the British and US press as “German aggression.”” > well, that is aggression by definition.

    And so on. More knowledgeable people would demolish that article to an even greater extent, but alas, the comments are closed. Either way, any reader with a working bullshit detector can merely remind you that “Germany attacked Poland”, and that would be sufficient, too.

    • LOL: Wally
    • Replies: @Fox
  153. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    Each one of the three points made by Roberts is correct, and I assume that this obtains for the rest of the article as well.
    The main thrust of Hitler’s program was to undo the worst provisions of the idiotic, criminal and destructive “Treaty of Versailles”. Everyone knew that it was a monstrous crime to have forced such an abomination on the world, even the French who were acting most consistently hateful against Germany, and even the wizard Churchill who cold, however, change opinions and goals at the ring of the cash register, to make sure that his cash flow stayed active.
    Perhaps you would do well to remember that Germans were starving to death, due to the maintenance of the hunger blockade a f t e r the Armistice, and signing the “Treaty” lifting it was made a condition to lifting it. What does a million dead Germans matter anyway, don’t you think so? And if they feel outraged about that, why, didn’t they also sign Article 231 acknowledging “sole war guilt”. Of course, the Germans hd no say in any of the “Treaty”, they could sign and sign their doom or not sign it and await the invasion of the fine gentlemen playing with the world at Versailles. Also, remember the betrayal through Wilson’s 14 Points, accepted by Germany in good faith and as soon as Germany was powerless to defend herself they were broken. An eternal dishonor.
    The terrible state of the world of today has been handed down from the evil formulated and implemented at Versailles. Hitler was the only politician who made constructive and workable proposals of how to make life possible for everyone after the destructions of the War and the “Peace Treaty”. How would you have proceeded? Leave everything as it was until all concerned Germans were in ruins and dead? One can’t play with the fate of Nations and get away with it. Germany lost, but the world has payed for this “victory” by the doom it is tasting now. At least the Fates keep spinning their thread. That’s reassuring for all those who live by arrogance.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  154. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Germany and Russia, who are natural allies

    This is your opinion, expressed here at UR many times, but you have nothing to back it up. Germany and Russia have never been allies, as far as I can tell, and if they ever tried it for a time, it didn’t last long.

    “Over the centuries, Flegel points out that German farmers, traders and entrepreneurs moved into East and West Prussia, the Baltic region (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonian), the Danzig and Vistula River region, Galicia, Slovenia, the Banat, the Bachka, Bukovina, Transylvania, the Volga River district of Russia, Posen, the Duchy of Warsaw, Polish and Ukrainian Volhynia, Bessarabia, and the Mount Ararat region between the 17th and the 20th centuries. Often they came at the invitation of the Russian government. The Germans typically became the dominant factors in land owning and business enterprise.”

    Arthur E. Flegel, “A Summary of German Migrations Eastward into Poland, Austria, Hungary, Romania, and Russia,” Journal of the American Historical Society of Germans from Russia (1991) 14#4 pp 35-38.

    This is why Russia and Germany are not natural allies–they are not on an equal footing. Germany will necessarily dominate, which is not acceptable to unrealistic Slavic pride. If Slavs had the ability (the smarts) to be realistic about themselves, it could work. But they don’t. As proved right here in these threads.

    The natural allies of Germany are Austria, Hungary, and the United Kingdom. Hitler had it right, but petty politics and Jewish hegemony got in the way … and still does.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  155. @Wally

    Well, OK, I know that many Indians, Arabs, and Africans hoped that Hitler would reach them and liberate them from the yoke of British imperialism, but really? Hell, even some Jews thought he’d hand them Palestine on a plate. He never even intended to liberate the East Europeans and Russians from communism but to subjugate them to his Nazism. It was not a jolly experience for anybody being under Germanic rule no matter how you try to paint it relying on Nazi propaganda of the day.

  156. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “Each one of the three points made by Roberts is correct…”

    Northern Schelswig remained in Denmark in 1940, Bohemia was never a German land (it actually controlled Germany in the 14th ct.), etc. Total amateurish lies.

    > “What does a million dead Germans matter anyway, don’t you think so?”

    Besides the point. The blockade was in 1919. Germany had too large a population anyway.

    > “idiotic, criminal and destructive “Treaty of Versailles””

    > “…the “Peace Treaty”. How would you have proceeded? Leave everything as it was until all concerned Germans were in ruins and dead?”

    If you didn’t notice, the Western Powers did not attack in 1936 or 1938. But Hitler was such an incredible moron in his clumsy foreign policy that he made the ever-appeasing peace-loving degenerates in London declare war on him! That is remarkable.

    Even after dismembering Poland, he could have tried to keep face and restore the Polish state. But no. He did not sue for peace. He went straight ahead, and would have surely lost against the vastly superior French army and Empire – but lucked out because the French gambled to get the dozen Dutch divisions and lost. That undeserved victory in the Ardennes in 1940 is why we are having this conversation here. Hitler was a buffoon that lucked out.

    Too bad the Russians don’t like being joked with.

    • LOL: Wally
  157. Adûnâi says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    > “This is why Russia and Germany are not natural allies–they are not on an equal footing. Germany will necessarily dominate, which is not acceptable to unrealistic Slavic pride.”

    Are we living in the same reality? Last time I checked, it was Russia that dominated Germany in 1759 and 1945. It was Russia that won Germany its freedom from Napoleon in 1812 and 1813. Germany is speaking from a place of submission. If Russians had not been pathetic Christian Bolshevik cucks, they would have exterminated every last German man and boy in that last war.

    You neo-Nazis are like Negroes. You were spared in 1945, and yet here you are whining about how unfairly you were treated… Negroes.

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/hellstorm-chapter-9/

    Of course, Russians deserve all the scorn for their pity. Russia, as you might have noticed, is a smoldering ruin itself now. Christianity is a vicious plague. Invisible to those caught in the expanding insanity of its Red Giant bubble! Those who let their enemies live will die. That is a law of Nature that works like a clock!

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/red-giant/

    P.S. Hilariously, I still admit that Germany was the pearl among the sister Empires of Europe… But I prefer not confusing fantasy with reality.

  158. @Adûnâi

    I did once say to Wally that I want to stay out of these WWII exchanges as I don’t see the point in them, although he then thinks he won the argument, and lately I do but sometimes I can’t help firing off a comment or few.

    I do admire a lot about the Germans and don’t particularly dislike them but they do have their shortcomings. Everyone thinks their own people are the best, even some most backward nation, but the Germans take it a little too far with their bossiness and arrogance – a little too big for their boots I’d say. The Nazis should never have bothered studying the Torah and Talmud. I can just picture their dismay and shock at finding out that there is this other people who think they’re superior to everyone else, God’s chosen and all that crap. No wonder they were bristling with rage, as how could these dirty filthy Jews who don’t wash and dress in their funny clothes be superior to the mighty Germans? OK, I’m making a bit of a parody here as we all know there is more to it than that.

    I’m not sure about your final paragraph as we’d all be extinct by now if everyone had practiced total extermination in conflicts throughout history, although from what we read in the Old Testament, the Jews were successful to some extent in implementing it on many tribes in their neighbourhood. I just suppose that you can’t really take on the world as eventually everyone will gang up on you. Today the US seems the one that is continuing some of those Nazi supremacist actions with all their warmongering, and they are the ones that need to be taken down a notch or two.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  159. @Carolyn Yeager

    Let me add the Baltic countries as the natural allies of Germany. But everyone has been badly infected by the post-WW2 western world takeover and Jewish narrative. Jews are really what we must overthrow. Don’t believe those who say “Globalists” are not the same as Jews. Communists are internationalists. Jews are internationalists. Globalists are internationalists. Free traders are internationalists. Donald Trump is not an internationalist, although as U.S. president he has to play the game for the most part. It is very difficult to disengage yourself, as Adolf Hitler found out. Trump is no Adolf Hitler.

    So much of what’s written here is pure bunk – including what’s written by Guillaume Durocher.

  160. Adûnâi says:
    @Commentator Mike

    > “Today the US seems the one that is continuing some of those Nazi supremacist actions with all their warmongering, and they are the ones that need to be taken down a notch or two.”

    The US were great when they were exterminating the Indians.

    The US stopped being great when they stopped at the Rio Grande.

    All these rootless cosmopolitans (such as Noam Chomsky) can whine about muh’ American atrocities in Iraq precisely because those are no wars and no atrocities, those are admissions of Christian universalist weakness. Alas, Western imperialism was always directed at the betterment of the Negro, Hindu and Turk. Cuckoldry runs deep.

  161. @Commentator Mike

    Wow, you and Adunai will say any crazy thing off the top of your head, imagining you are defending your viewpoint. Such as justifying the Poles’ ethnic cleansing of Germans from German territory prior to WW2 because of their (secret?) knowledge that Germans planned to ethnically cleanse the Poles out of Poland. This is baseless.

    You go on to say Germans used “that minor ethic cleansing of Germans by Poles … as a pretext for Germany starting a war that killed tens of millions and caused untold destruction.” You go on to say “Churchill’s calls for a pre-emptive war against Germany long before Hitler even started on his expansionist incursions into neighbouring countries sounds most reasonable when all is considered.” And then you lecture Germans on being better neighbors. That’s a Slav talking! Do you ever read any responsible history or journalism?

    Europe was relieved to hear of the German-Polish agreement on Jan. 26, 1934. The realistic peace determination of Adolf Hitler, together with the true sense of statesmanship of Marshal Pilsudski, had found common ground in the mutual desire to establish a new state of political relationship by direct contact between Germany and Poland, the basic idea being to ensure the maintenance and security of a lasting peace between the two countries.
    […]
    The Führer held the firm opinion that, in spite of all obstructive circumstances, the German-Polish work of cooperation must be attempted and developed until the desired results had been attained. He held that despite the disappointment of the German Government caused by the unscrupulous Polish methods within the sphere of minority policy, as well as by the continuous anti-German press campaign, these must not be allowed to interfere with his hopes for the success of the final issue.
    […]
    After the death of Marshal Pilsudski (May 1935) the mask was completely dropped. A campaign [by the Poles] of aggressive activity, based on the desire for annexation and such aims was very soon developed in speech and in print.
    The continuous efforts of Germany to bring about tolerable relations …were completely frustrated by the sterile attitude of the Polish Government. Poland’s absolutely negative attitude, marked by an unbroken chain of violations of the spirit of the German-Polish pact, and also by a continual breach of the fundamental principles governing the protection of minorities, agreed to and signed by Poland in the reciprocal minority agreement of Nov. 5, 1937 became manifestly clear when the respective representatives of the central administrative offices of both countries met in Berlin on Feb. 27, 1939, to discuss all outstanding questions, pertaining to minorities.
    The specific desire of the Führer for a definite settlement of the Danzig question, and that of a territorial link between East Prussia and the Reich were repeatedly placed before the Polish Government in the friendliest manner. The evasive attitude, however, of Colonel Beck, Minister for Foreign Affairs, made it clearer from month to month that the Polish authorities were methodically turning their backs on any intention of agreement with Germany.
    […]
    Even in the spring of 1939 it became quite clear that the change in Poland’s foreign policy was being definitely advanced and guided by two forces. Polish public opinion, influenced by the Government’s toleration of anti-German propaganda, was imbued with an unparalleled feeling of hatred against everything German. […] This finally resulted in moral chaos in towns and in the country, accompanied by indiscriminate murders of thousands of defenceless and innocent minority Germans by Polish soldiers and armed civilians.
    […]
    [T]he second force which influenced Poland from outside and allowed Poland to believe that all further consideration towards the German minority or the Reich could be dropped was England, and the guarantee of assistance given by the British Government to Poland. […] As England was guaranteeing this diabolical scheme, Warsaw was of the opinion that no moderation or consideration of action as to avoiding overdoing anything was necessary.
    […]
    Thousands of German enterprises and independent German businesses had been systematically destroyed by cancellation of orders, boycott, by taxes rigorously calculated and even more vigorously applied, withdrawal of concessions, confiscation, and the refusal of permits for the purchase of land. […] German church services were disturbed, German newspapers were seized one after the other; and the use of the German language was made impossible either in the street, in shops or restaurants. Germans were attacked in the open country, in their homes and on their farms. From May 1939 onwards prohibition orders and punishments literally hailed down upon them.

    https://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/atrocities/pagmp002.html

    So where in this is the evidence of “the colonisation programme of lebensraum in Eastern Europe”? That didn’t come until AFTER Poland had to be defeated so that Germany could live. To say that Hitler could have accepted this situation and continued on ignoring it, is patently unfair. No other national leader was expected to do so. What you’re carrying on about is anti-Germanism, pure and simple. And that’s because you’re either a Slav yourself, or a communist ideologue, or just a dumb as shit imbecile who is full of resentments against smarter, more competent (and reasonable!) persons like Germans. If people like you had not fought against the Third Reich back then, globalist Angela Merkel wouldn’t be in the drivers seat today!

    • Agree: Fox
    • LOL: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  162. Adûnâi says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    > “Such as justifying the Poles’ ethnic cleansing of Germans from German territory prior to WW2 because of their (secret?) knowledge that Germans planned to ethnically cleanse the Poles out of Poland.”

    I am defending an inaction on the Führer’s part – and convict Hitler’s rash, suicidal action.

    I would not at all condemn the victorious NSDAP – but there is none.

    > “You go on to say Germans used “that minor ethic cleansing of Germans by Poles … as a pretext for Germany starting a war that killed tens of millions and caused untold destruction.””

    Is it not obvious? A wise leader would have sacrificed those paltry lives in Poland in the name of the bigger picture. But of course, Hitler was a small man with a short sight. He did not care about the Aryan race at large. He did not crucify Christians. He was all too firmly entrenched in the old-fashioned German nationalism. Wrong strategy!

    > “That didn’t come until AFTER Poland had to be defeated so that Germany could live. ”

    Germany died. Poland actually lingers on for a time being.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_ideology-free_zone

    > “…a dumb as shit imbecile who is full of resentments against smarter, more competent (and reasonable!) persons like Germans.”

    I hate Germans because they were not smart enough, not fidelious enough, not brave enough. Because Germans failed, and with them, the whole of Europe, and of Aryandom.

  163. Wally says:
    @Commentator Mike

    said:
    “He never even intended to liberate the East Europeans and Russians from communism but to subjugate them to his Nazism. It was not a jolly experience for anybody being under Germanic rule no matter how you try to paint it relying on Nazi propaganda of the day.”

    Once again, you’re all Zionist propaganda, no proof.

    Predictably you continue to ignore the numerous, irrefutable points made in comment #93

    recommended:

    Survivor” escaped gas chambers by flexing his muscles:
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/QU9awUzmmG7G/?list=notifications&randomize=false

    Eva Schloss Would Eat All Day while in sorting clothes at Auschwitz

    CONCERTS IN THE GAS CHAMBER
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ohw5GJgFmKei/?list=notifications&randomize=false

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  164. @Carolyn Yeager

    “LOL” clicks Commentator Mike. That’s the extent of his ability to carry on further with a defence of the things he says. He knows he’s got nothing more because it was just a passing thought that lit up his brain for a minute.

    An example: (Commentator Mike to Adunai) “I’m not sure about your final paragraph as we’d all be extinct by now if everyone had practiced total extermination in conflicts throughout history.” Gee, Mike, a brilliant deduction! Definitely something to consider. You surely would be extinct because you’re definitely a member of one of the always losing groups being exterminated. Why don’t you reveal what that group is? You don’t like Germans, we know that. You’re defending an indefensible position on Poles in this instance, but that doesn’t mean you are one. You might be one of those Euro bastards mixed five ways from Sunday — and that’s why you’re so confused and are unable to stand for anything.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  165. @Carolyn Yeager

    What’s there to debate with someone who wants to get personal?

    Some of you keep harping on about Germany’s “pre-emptive” attacks being justified yet deny that others would have been right in doing the same to Germany in the light of so many indicators that Germany was arming and preparing for war with clearly stated intentions of doing so. This ground has been covered umpteen times by so many so what’s the point? You obviously like to keep repeating yourself and covering the same ground over and over. Yawn.

    • Replies: @Dube
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  166. @Commentator Mike

    Hell, even some Jews thought he’d hand them Palestine on a plate.

    He basically did, but it was mainly the Zionists – a minority of Jews living in Germany during that time – who actually followed through to move there. You ought to read about the Ha’avara (Transfer) Agreement, concluded in August 1939. There is a book about this by Edwin Black, published 36 years ago.

    From Wikipedia:

    The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.

  167. Adûnâi says:
    @Wally

    To hell with the Jews! Why is nobody talking about Belarus?

    At least 5,295 Belarusian settlements were destroyed by the Nazis and some or all their inhabitants killed (out of 9,200 settlements that were burned or otherwise destroyed in Belarus during World War II). More than 600 villages like Khatyn were annihilated with their entire population. Altogether, over 1 million were killed in Belarus during the three years of German occupation.

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

    During the occupation of the BSSR, over 140 punitive expeditions were carried out. The first of them – “Pripyat swamps” – took place in July – August 1941 in the territory of Brest, Minsk, Pinsk and Polesie regions. During the operation, 13,788 people were shot by German punitive detachments.

    German occupation authorities often used children as blood donors. The local population was involved in clearing the mined areas as a human shield.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Немецкая_оккупация_Белоруссии_(1941—1944)
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Коваленя,_Александр_Александрович

    • Replies: @Fox
  168. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    You mean with the “Khatyn” the “Katyn” as in Katyn forest massacre? If so, was it not the inhabitants of a nearby village (perhaps Katyn) who pointed out to the German forces the site of the massacre by the Bolsheviks in the nearby forest. Strange! Strange! Makes me think that not everything that is being uttered makes sense.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  169. Dube says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Commentator Mike says:
    March 15, 2020 at 7:17 am GMT •
    @Carolyn Yeager

    What’s there to debate with someone who wants to get personal?

    Carolyn Yeager says
    March 15, 2020 at 3:02 am GMT •

    “LOL” clicks Commentator Mike. That’s the extent of his…he…. He… he’s…his….

    You…you’re…. you …? You …. You’re… you …. You … you’re so ….

  170. @Commentator Mike

    Oh, poor baby. Someone got personal with you. You think you can (want to) throw slop all over this thread and no one should throw it back at you. Here’s how you get personal, and also nasty:

    Germans should have learned to be better neighbours and they could have saved everyone a lot of bother. And they could have toned down on their pretensions for Europe. Look at them now, imposing immigrants and all sorts of policies on Europeans. Why should the rest of Europe give a shit what Germany wants or says? They should mind their own business in their own country and leave others alone.

    We’re discussing Hitler’s Germany and Beck’s Poland, and you throw in today’s Germany under the Allied victors (including the greedy Poles) of that war. But somehow, EVERYTHING is Germany’s fault–all the time! There’s also this from you:

    Everyone thinks their own people are the best, even some most backward nation, but the Germans take it a little too far with their bossiness and arrogance – a little too big for their boots I’d say. The Nazis should never have bothered studying the Torah and Talmud. I can just picture their dismay and shock at finding out that there is this other people who think they’re superior to everyone else, God’s chosen and all that crap. No wonder they were bristling with rage, as how could these dirty filthy Jews who don’t wash and dress in their funny clothes be superior to the mighty Germans? OK, I’m making a bit of a parody here as we all know there is more to it than that.

    So you admit you’re just taking cheap shots, as befits a person full of resentments without the power to change anything, but still, it’s of a personal nature because it’s slime you’re throwing without a single real example to prove it true. Just a cheap shot.

    I would say your comment #148 was the worst, most idiotic comment I’ve ever seen, and you cannot defend it so you don’t even try. Now that you’re forced to answer by my pursuit of you, all you’ve come up with is:

    Some of you keep harping on about Germany’s “pre-emptive” attacks being justified yet deny that others would have been right in doing the same to Germany in the light of so many indicators that Germany was arming and preparing for war with clearly stated intentions of doing so …

    First, the situations you’re comparing are not at all equal. How can Hitler’s reacting to Polish (actual and documented at the time) persecution and murder of minority Germans in Poland be compared to Poland’s (actual and documented) desire and actions to persecute and murder it’s minority German population, for the purpose of stealing their property, businesses & goods, and driving them out to replace those areas with Poles (with 20% of Poland being Jewish)? It can’t. Your whole point is null and void. Childish.

    Or that England would have been justified in declaring war on Germany as soon as they saw “indications” that Germany was “arming and preparing for war” (which it wasn’t) and, even more wrong on your part, “with clearly stated intentions of doing so”. Please explain how those clearly stated intentions were conveyed to the British government, as well as when England was sure they saw the clear indications that Germany was preparing for war. I mean, this is how it works, Mike. If you’re going to make bold claims, you have to pull them out of your head, not out of your a–.

    Further, if this ground has been covered so many times…

    This ground has been covered umpteen times by so many so what’s the point? You obviously like to keep repeating yourself and covering the same ground over and over. Yawn.

    …why did YOU repeat it in comment #148? And why can’t you come up with the factual evidence to back up your position? You can write “Yawn” all you want, and complain about “getting personal” but it doesn’t put you on top in an argument that you resoundingly lose out of carelessness and incompetence.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  171. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “You mean with the “Khatyn” the “Katyn” as in Katyn forest massacre? If so, was it not the inhabitants of a nearby village (perhaps Katyn) who pointed out to the German forces the site of the massacre by the Bolsheviks in the nearby forest.”

    No, it’s a different village. Khatiny was destroyed by the Germans on 1943-03-22.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Хатынь

    As to the perpetrator of the Katiny massacre… Many folks here deny the Holocaust (and no official history does). I then choose to support the official Soviet version – that the Katiny massacre was perpetrated by the Germans. I consider the Christian LGBT occupiers in Moscow since 1991 as illegitimate as any other anti-White Jews or Jew-worshippers, so I will disbelieve their slander.

  172. Adûnâi says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    > “I would say your comment #148 was the worst, most idiotic comment I’ve ever seen, and you cannot defend it so you don’t even try.”

    What is there do defend there? Every word of what Commentator Mike said is true.

    Look at all those here justifying Germany’s Operation Barbarossa as “pre-emptive” yet condemning any pre-emptive Polish ethnic cleansing of Germans from German territory prior to WW2 while knowing very well that Germans planned to ethnically cleanse the Poles out of Poland.

    Then they’ll use that minor ethic cleansing of Germans by Poles, perfectly legitimate if you consider what the Germans had planned, as a pretext for Germany starting a war that killed tens of millions and caused untold destruction.

    Germans should have learned to be better neighbours and they could have saved everyone a lot of bother.

    The Germans started the war. Too bad they messed with the wrong people and got beaten. They should thank the Russians for not fucking them even more deeply. For not killing every last German man. Bolshevism is incredibly humanistic and moderate. That’s why I’m NazBol.

    Now that I’m thinking of it, I’m turning a Russian chauvinist as the LGBT Poles and Ukrainians seem incredibly ungrateful by going Russophobic in this century as it was the Russian nation that saved their sorry asses from Hitlerism. (Calling Stalin’s Russia “the USSR” is political correctness.)

    > “Or that England would have been justified in declaring war on Germany as soon as they saw “indications” that Germany was “arming and preparing for war” (which it wasn’t) and, even more wrong on your part, “with clearly stated intentions of doing so”. Please explain how those clearly stated intentions were conveyed to the British government…”

    Germany was arming; Germany did start a war (so they obviously had been preparing for it); Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he wanted Germany to expand to the East of Europe.

  173. Please explain how those clearly stated intentions were conveyed to the British government, as well as when England was sure they saw the clear indications that Germany was preparing for war.

    You mean to tell me that you don’t know, that nobody has ever pointed this out to you before, and this is the first time that you have come across someone claiming something so “preposterous”? Honestly? Now go read Churchill’s The Second World War, I’m sure it’s in there somewhere, but I really can’t be bothered reading it yet again or trying to find the appropriate sections, and I don’t have a photographic memory to start reeling it off to you.

    “arming and preparing for war” (which it wasn’t)

    ??? Like Hitler didn’t want to right the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty? And you think that could have been achieved by peaceful means with the victors of WWI just handing over territories and whatever other advantages they gained?

    Since nobody has yet been able to dispel your views why should I even bother? You’re welcome to keep them. I just find fault in some of your “logic”. Like:

    First, the situations you’re comparing are not at all equal.

    Well, yeah … I see now …

    • LOL: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Fox
  174. @Commentator Mike

    It’s a bit rich to say England’s Churchill would have been justified in waging a pre-emptive war against Germany for being expansionist while, during the very same period, Great Britain was the most expansionist power on the planet.

  175. Fox says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Are you as naive as you present yourself? You think that Churchill is a totally neutral, disinterested party in writing a history of the war of which he was the main instigator and promoter? The war that is very likely going to cause the extinction of European culture and the white race? The man whose last words were “What fool I was”? His Second World War belongs to the type of literature that was produced after the conclusion of the First War by people like Grey and Poincare to wash their hands of the responsibility they had assumed by leaving no page un-turned to bring it about.
    It is also worth remembering that Churchill received the Nobel Prize in Literature (an endeavor originating in imagination and poetic presentation) for his Second World War.

    As regards Hitler’s intent to undo the damage caused by the devil-ridden people who formulated with such glee the “Treaty of Versailles”, he did everything that was humanly possible to resolve one crisis spot after another peacefully. How do you imagine a liberation of your country from the yoke of thieves, liars, blackmailers, calumniators and deceivers who are armed to the teeth would be done peacefully other than by a firm presentation of strength? The signature of the “Treaty of Versailles” was forced by the threat to occupy all of Germany, the hunger blockade was maintained until after the German signature was obtained, Germany had no say in any of the proceedings and formulations (hence, it was not a Treaty, as among decent parties, but a Dictate). Although only in 1969 was it made binding international law that forced treaties are invalid, every decent human being felt that way even on June 28, 1919.
    The encirclement was started right after June 28, 1919 again, and Hitler not only made proposals for a general disarmament – rejected in various forms by France, Poland, England- but he never made any demands on areas not settled by Germans, and even then the events were always set in motion by the German people who had been pressed under alien rule -the Sudeten Germans, the Austrian Germans, the Memel Germans, the Germans of Danzig, and the Saar statute was changed after a plebiscite as stipulated by the “Treaty of Versailles” after vigorous French attempts to cause a secession; he did advocate for the Germans who were driven away and maltreated by the Poles. He wanted to unite all Germans within a contiguous area of settlement where they constituted the majority and where they expressed the will to join the commonwealth of Greater Germany.
    And he did it all without appeal to arms. Forget about the occupation of the Rhineland. Since when is establishing authority and sovereignty in your own country “illegal”?

    Once Britain and France (i.e., their governments) had declared war on Germany, all events followed a logic stemming from the events themselves, in each case, however, Germany reacted to an aggressive move by her opponents.
    I quite aware of the Polish mathematics of calculating away the German victims of 20 years of Polish anti-German measures.
    I’ll answer one of your replies already: Czechia was occupied and not annexed to Germany; it was for the time being a protectorate (just as, e.g. the US has protectorates – how did they become that?), and as such by assent of the Czech government. The Czechs were kept out of the war by Germany, but not England or the US, the latter of which bombed Prague by the end of the war and England had flown assassins in to murder Heydrich.

    Lastly, it is worthwhile remembering that while Poles in contiguous areas had lived under German rule for about two centuries, Czechs for about a thousand years, they kept their culture, customs and language and could participate in all German affairs from trade to politics. The Slavic Sorbes exist to this day in a Slavic exclave in Central Germany, that means for more than a thousand years. In contrast, 25 years of Polish rule and 25 years of Czech rule over Germans meant the complete annihilation of everything German in large German areas, with the Germans driven away at gunpoint and hateful remarks being made about them then and now. (Eastern Germany, Memel, Sudeten, in the main, but there are also the German areas in Yugoslavia, in Transylvania, in Russia, to name the larger ones in addition to the first three).
    Based on that, who do you think is better suited for keeping the peace and avoiding harm to people of a different ethnicity?
    I know that I am speaking to the proverbial fence post, but not to notice your contortions of reality would be improper.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  176. Dube says:

    Excerpts from Mark Paul’s A Tangled Web, Part One
    http://www.kpk-toronto.org/obrona-dobrego-imienia/

    Germany rounded up its Polish citizens imprisoning them by the thousands in concentration camps even before unleashing its fury and wreaking destruction on the Polish state in September 1939.[1] Members of the German minority in Poland started to attack Poles and Jews from the time of Kristallnacht.[2] Jewish-owned shops and a synagogue were destroyed in Wilczyn near Kutno on November 10, 1939 by young Germans wearing swastika armbands.[3] Diversionary activities became frequent occurrences from the spring of 1939.[4] The German minority in Poland openly demonstrated its support for Hitler and Germans were even known to have openly assaulted Polish soldiers.[5] On August 28, 1939, explosives planted at a train station in Tarnów by a German saboteur (Fifth Columnist) killed at least 20 Poles and seriously injured 35 others.[6] From the very outset of the war the German army massacred Polish civilians and prisoners of war by the thousands. Mass executions became a daily occurrence, a matter that was covered up by German historians for decades.[7] A score of Poles were murdered in Kałdowo and another score in Szymankowo, in Pomerania, on September 1st,[8] some 75 Poles including a dozen children were executed in Parzymiechy and 38 Poles including ten children in Zimnowoda on September 2nd, with additional mass executions following on September 3rd in Albertów near Działoszyn (159 killed), Mysłów (22 burned to death), Pińczyce (20 killed), Krzepice (30 killed), Święta Anna (29 killed), Zrębice and and Nierada (25 killed), all in the vicinity of near Częstochowa.[9] These and numerous other mass executions of Polish civilians conducted in the first days of the war belie the German propaganda claim that it was Polish atrocities against Germans that led to German reprisals, and Polish reprisals must be considered against the background of mass atrocities perpetrated by the German invaders.[10] No fewer than 3,000 Polish prisoners of war were murdered. The Germans also murdered the Polish wounded. Approximately 300 Polish prisoners of war were murdered near Ciepielów on September 8 by the German 15th Motorized Infantry Regiment.[11]

    Well over 20,000 eager fifth columnists were recruited from among Poland’s ethnic Germans to take up arms against Poles, engage in sabotage, and compile lists of Poles slated for liquidation.[12] A Jewish officer and doctor in the Polish army stationed in Tuchole, in Pomerania, in May 1939, reported that the local German population was very disloyal toward Poland and hung portraits of Hitler all over the place. Military men were attacked and the German youth, in particular, behaved aggressively toward the Poles. The army was under strict orders to exercise a great deal of caution and not to succumb to these provocations, so they turned a blind eye to these anti-Polish activities.[13] A Jewish soldier in the Polish army recalled, “From the little villages, where most of the residents were Volksdeutsche, we felt the animosity towards us. They also carried out small-scale acts of sabotage against us, with the help of German agents, who infiltrated from Pomerania.”[14] (There are no credible reports that ethnic Poles residing in Germany behaved like this.) Ethnic German citizens of Poland, perhaps as many as 40,000, flocked to the Selbstschutz (so-called self-defence units),[15] a voluntary formation that supported the German invasion, and were responsible for the execution of tens of thousands of Poles in the fall of 1939. [16] Local Germans also played a key role in compiling deportation lists of Poles who were evicted from their homes with virtually no notice and deported from the incorporated territories to the Generalgouvernement to make room for Germans like the parents of revisionist German politician Erika Steinbach, who now passes herself off as a “refugee” from Polish oppression.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Fox
  177. @Fox

    I agree Churchill was biased but who wasn’t? Neither do I disagree with all of Hitler’s policies. But as far as those who blame what is going on now on Hitler losing the war, I’d say that all the sides involved in that war would be horrified with the globohomo world and the state of the immigration we see now in EU and US. This is a far more recent development that can’t be blamed on any of the leaders involved in fighting that war.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  178. @Dube

    The Nazis committed atrocious crimes against the Poles, once they crossed the Polish border and the local ethnic Germans assisted them. There was a Nazi policy of murdering the Polish intelligentsia, called “Intelligentzaktion”, in order to stiffle future rebellion against their slave status. Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article, Nazi crimes against the Polish nation :

    “…In the first three months of war, from the fall of 1939 until the spring of 1949, some 60,000 former government officials, military officers in reserve, landowners, clergy, and members of the Polish intelligentsia were executed region by region in the so-called Intelligenzaktion,[39] including over 1,000 POWs.[40][41][42][43] Summary executions of Poles were conducted by all German forces without exception including, Wehrmacht, Gestapo, the SS and Selbstschutz in violation of international agreements.[44] The mass killings were a part of the secretive Operation Tannenberg, an early measure of the Generalplan Ost settler colonization. Polish Christians as well as Jews were either murdered and buried in hastily dug mass graves or sent to prisons and German concentration camps.
    “Whatever we find in the shape of an upper class in Poland will be liquidated,”[45] Hitler had ordered.[46] In the Intelligenzaktion Pommern, a regional action in Pomeranian Voivodeship 23,000 Poles were killed.[47] It was continued by the German AB-Aktion operation in Poland in the mid-1940s.[48] The AB-Aktion saw the massacre of Lwów professors and the executions of about 1,700 Poles in the Palmiry forest. Several thousand civilian victims were executed or imprisoned. The Einsatzgruppen were also responsible for the indiscriminate killing of Jews and Poles during the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union…”

    The Nazi crimes against the Poles by far exceeded the crimes of the Poles against ethnic Germans among them before the war. To depict Hitler as an innocent nationalist bent on only recovering territories lost due to the Versailles treaty and thus forced to wage war against “unreasonable” adversaries is simply a lie.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @John Regan
  179. Fox says:
    @Dube

    These must be from “Newly discovered sources and documents”. Such discoveries are quite necessary considering the dismal situation the pro-war faction is in with regards to facts, decency, sticking to truth and evidence.

    • Replies: @Dube
  180. Dube says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation_of_Poles_during_the_Partitions
    Germanisation of Poles during the Partitions
    1871 until the Treaty of Versailles

    Within Bismarck’s Kulturkampf policy, the Poles were purposefully presented as “foes of the empire” (German: Reichsfeinde).[8] Bismarck himself privately believed that the only solution to the Polish Question was extermination of Poles[9] As the Prussian authorities suppressed Catholic services in Polish language by Polish priests, the Poles had to rely on German Catholic priests. Later, in 1885, the Prussian Settlement Commission was set up from the national government’s funds with a mission to buy land from Polish owners and distribute it among German colonists.[10] In reaction to this the Poles also founded a commission of their own to buy farmland and distribute it to Poles.[citation needed] Eventually 150,000 were settled on Polish territories. In 1888, the mass deportations of Poles from Prussia were organized by German authorities. This was further strengthened by the ban on building of houses by Poles (see Drzymała’s van)[11]Another means of the policy was the elimination of non-German languages from public life, schools and from academic settings. At its extremes, the Germanisation policies in schools took the form of abuse of Polish children by Prussian officials (see Września children strike). The harsh policies had the reverse effect of stimulating resistance, usually in the form of home schooling and tighter unity in the minority groups. In 1890 the Germanisation of Poles was slightly eased for a couple of years but the activities intensified again since 1894 and continued until the end of the World War I. This led to international condemnation, e.g., an international meeting of socialists held in Brussels in 1902 called the Germanisation of Poles in Prussia “barbarous”.[12] Nevertheless, the Settlement Commission was empowered with new more powerful rights, which entitled it to force Poles to sell the land since 1908.

    • Replies: @Fox
  181. Dube says:
    @Fox

    These must be from “Newly discovered sources and documents”. Such discoveries are quite necessary considering the dismal situation the pro-war faction is in with regards to facts, decency, sticking to truth and evidence.

    You are welcome to work through the footnotes.

    • Replies: @Fox
  182. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Franklin Ryckaert:
    murdering the Polish intelligentsia, called “Intelligentzaktion”, in order to stiffle future rebellion against their slave status

    Actually, when he made the fateful decisions that still haunt us all the way back in 1939, Hitler had no intention to “enslave” the Poles or destroy Poland. This is communist propaganda, recycled by modern liberals (and some Polish chauvinists). His actual idea was that Poland, stripped of the German lands it had conquered as well as those claimed by Stalin, should be allowed to exist within its natural borders. This was largely the same area as the classical “Congress Poland” which Poland traditionally occupied (except for that area’s eastern protuberances).

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

    Or at least, this was what Hitler said to his specialist advisor on Eastern Europe, Alfred Rosenberg, as well as his Chief of the General Staff, Franz Halder, in the autumn of 1939. He had no obvious reason to lie to either man in private, secret policy conversations. Indeed, assuming that I recall correctly, Halder (a stereotypical, Poland-hating reactionary Prussian general) actually thought Hitler was far too kind to the Poles because of this. He wrote about this conversation in his journal. Unfortunately, the edited English translation of the published Halder Diary omits the entry for September 7, which was when Hitler and Halder talked about these matters:

    https://archive.org/details/HalderWarJournal

    One has to read the original, more complete German version. This, as far as I know, is regrettably not available online.

    In any case, Hitler’s moderate plan for a resurrected Congress Poland was scotched by Stalin, who did not want any kind of independent Poland, because he was afraid it might agitate against his annexation of the ethnically East Slavic areas of interwar Poland. (He planned to keep those for good, as indeed his successors still do to this day.) Thus, under pressure from his most powerful ally, Hitler opted for the policy of direct rule over Poland until the end of the war (the Government General).

    The Intelligenzaktion, likewise, was a Soviet Communist initiative. Stalin demanded that the Germans should neutralize “dangerous” Polish nationalists in their territory, so that they should not be able to launch the agitation against his regime that he feared. He, of course, massacred all anti-communist Polish nationalists he could get his hands on, for example at Katyn:

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

    From the Soviet communist POV, this strong “anti-fascist” effort would all be in vain if large numbers of the same kind of dangerous “fascist vermin” were allowed to live in the German zone of occupation. So they put strong pressure on Germany to remedy this problem.

    Since the USSR supplied critical amounts of Germany’s petroleum, rare metals, and indeed basic foodstuffs, Hitler felt that he had to comply with this, and agreed to this demand in the secret protocol to the German-Soviet Treaty of September 28, 1939:

    The undersigned plenipotentiaries, on concluding the German-Russian Boundary and Friendship Treaty, have declared their agreement upon the following:

    Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.

    Moscow, September 28, 1939.

    For the Government of the German Reich: J. RIBBENTROP

    By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.: V. MOLOTOV

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/German-Soviet_Boundary_and_Friendship_Treaty_28_September_1939

    As we can see, Hitler had to pledge, not just to exterminate Polish nationalism, but to keep the Soviets continually updated on his efforts to do this. So he couldn’t even be slack with implementing the policies he had been forced to agree to, or they would notice immediately, and retaliate. He had to go all-in on crushing the Polish intelligentsia. That was the price he had to pay to keep safe from Soviet ambitions, at least for the present.

    Of course, Hitler could have refused this shameful treaty outright. Moral absolutists (and sanctimonious German-haters, like some who have appeared in this thread) will undoubtedly say he should have. In the best of all possible worlds, I agree that they would absolutely be one hundred percent right about that. No normal person can but be repulsed by the horrible policies initiated against the already small Polish upper class because of these Soviet pressures.

    But if he had refused, Hitler would also have had to pay a very dear price. He would have lost his desperately needed supplies, and potentially even risked war with Stalin and the Red Army, by far the largest army on the planet, right then and there. If such a war had come, Germany would in all likelihood have been defeated before Christmas by the resulting Anglo-Franco-Soviet globalist coalition. Since he knew what was at stake in this existential conflict between National Socialism and liberal-Marxist “Globo-Homo” (as we ourselves now also know only too well), he appears to have considered these anti-Polish atrocities a necessary lesser evil compared to the nightmare that is now our reality.

    We may or may not agree with that assessment, of course. But it’s extremely dishonest to say that this was all the evil Hitler’s fault alone, or a natural result of Nazi ideology. Indeed, it’s not too much to call the people who say this liars. As with many unpalatable German policies, this one was simply a result of the impossible situation Germany had found herself in. It was bad, but there were no good options.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  183. @John Regan

    Thank you for your honest reply. At least you don’t deny the facts, as Carolyn Yeager or Wally would do. I don’t know to what extent “situational morals” could justify Hitler’s actions in Poland, but I agree the political situation and the balance of military power and economical need have to be taken into account too. Still, Hitler’s actions in Poland were also inspired by ideological motives, as the kidnapping of Polish children “of valuable blood” clearly indicates.
    As for Russia, Hitler’s actions were equally not only inspired by preventive military considerations, but also by ideology, as his Table Talk indicates, where he frequently talks about German settlement in the lands of the “unworthy” Slavs.

  184. @Commentator Mike

    But as far as those who blame what is going on now on Hitler losing the war, I’d say that all the sides involved in that war would be horrified with the globohomo world and the state of the immigration we see now in EU and US.

    You have a strong habit of changing the issue in contention so that you don’t have to answer for the wrong things you say (and that’s putting it nicely). You start out making outright attacks on Hitler and his associates from that time – including the Wehrmacht – and then when those attacks are challenged and you have no answer for it, you shift to today’s situation.

    What do you call this if not dishonesty? It’s very possible you just don’t know what a debate is or how to do it. In that case you should stop “adding your two cents every once in awhile” just because you can–because it’s free. What you said above is a dodge or a ruse. I think the main question that came up between us was: Did the Poles and Polish government have the right, or sufficient cause, to persecute their German minority to the extremely brutal extent they did, even prior to Sept. 1st, or was it way out of proportion to any “cause” you might dream up for it? The answer to that is clearly, No, they didn’t and yes, it was way out of proportion. If you have some proof(s) that say otherwise, give them! So far, you haven’t. If you think you already have, please point out where you did … and not something Winnie Churchill said in his memoirs. Nothing he said could be deemed as proof of sufficient intransigence of Poland’s ethnic German citizens.

    The same cannot be said of Poles living in Germany. Please reply in a serious way, not as a joke. That is insulting.

  185. Fox says:
    @Dube

    The way Germans treated and regarded Poles, according to the Wikipedia examples you provide, seemed quite civilized. Buying land from Poles! And the Poles were doing the same for Poles under the German eye! I have never heard of mass deportations of Poles from Prussia.
    I have somewhere on my bookshelf a book about Polish history, written by a Pole, where the only thing said about the act of driving away all Germans from Eastern Germany (about 30 % of German territory of 100 years ago) and taking all of their possessions in 1945 – all of this, it may be added, according a plan that was first enunciated by chauvinistic Poles in 1848- was: “There were some hardships in connection with the takeover of the territories.”

    Poles always have been and always will be an anomaly in Europe: A people fired by unsound chauvinism, resentment against all neighbors and an extreme mis-estimation of the actual importance of Poland. This is connected with reveries of former Polish greatness and of former and future huge dominions under Polish sway.
    That’s a concise summary of what was impressed upon me from reading things by and about Poles.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Dube
  186. @Carolyn Yeager

    It was you who first brought that up with:

    If people like you had not fought against the Third Reich back then, globalist Angela Merkel wouldn’t be in the drivers seat today!

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  187. @Commentator Mike

    Not true. I said that in reply to your answer to Fox

    You said to me all the way back in comment #148: “Look at [Germans] now, imposing immigrants and all sorts of policies on Europeans. Why should the rest of Europe give a shit what Germany wants or says? They should mind their own business in their own country and leave others alone.”
    That’s your answer to bad Polish behavior in 1939!

    You still have not come up with a sufficient explanation or reason that Poland sanctioned the thefts, arrests, and murder & mutilation of ethnic German Polish citizens. Plus cross-border raids into German territory to rob and kill. I’m still waiting for that and so is everyone else. I can tell you the Germans had not broken any laws or done any harm to a Pole. So the Polish motivation was simply pure hatred combined with opportunity. That’s my explanation.

  188. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Franklin Ryckaert
    Thank you for your honest reply. At least you don’t deny the facts, as Carolyn Yeager or Wally would do.

    I think the numbers commonly touted, for this as well as other Germans misdeeds, are often exaggerated, and sometimes certain of the details in the common narratives are frivolous, but that the policy as such existed and was implemented is regrettably true.

    As for Russia, Hitler’s feelings about the Russians and their country were ambivalent. He could voice very chauvinistic sentiments against them sometimes, that make him sound like your typical arrogant “I’m Not Racist But…” straw boss at work, but at others he could see their problems rather surprisingly empathetically instead. One of the mainstays of the Nazi propaganda, after all, was to bring attention to how the East Slavic peoples had been tormented by the scourge of Bolshevism, which no one else did nearly as much at the time (or since, for that matter). Even in “Mein Kampf” itself, Hitler seems legitimately outraged about the horrors of the communist slavery and mass murder:

    The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where [the Bolsheviks] killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.

    Since he was a German nationalist in the early 20th century, with biases typical to that background, Hitler most probably did look down on the Russians as a people with an inferior culture. However, as far as I can see from reading his writings, he did not wish to enslave or exterminate them. Hitler genuinely seems to have thought that after he had freed them from Communism, they would enjoy a much higher standard of living. He did expect that the Germans would control the most valuable parts of the USSR (especially Ukraine), but even then, the people there would benefit from German rule. In fact, he thought the Germans would need to make free abortions available to the locals, so that the population wouldn’t explode uncontrollably when the country was modernized and the Germans brought in modern housing and medicine and put an end to famines, as has since happened in real life in most of the Third World when living standards have similarly improved. In one of his “Table Talk” conversations, he even joked about how, in order to avoid this, the Germans might need to call in the Jews to help them market articles of contraception in the former USSR, since they were such experts at that everywhere else.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  189. Dube says:
    @Fox

    What to do? The real estate initiative became a global calamity. Perhaps Bismarck’s opinion is correct, that extermination is the only way to solve the Polish question.

  190. Adûnâi says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    > Did the Poles and Polish government have the right, or sufficient cause, to persecute their German minority to the extremely brutal extent they did, even prior to Sept. 1st, or was it way out of proportion to any “cause” you might dream up for it?

    Every citizen of Poland is the property of the Polish state by definition. Of course, the Polish state has every right in the world to do with them as it pleases (including boiling them alive). Murdering Germans outside of Germany is no aggression towards Germany. The borders are still internationally-recognized.

    Take my with a grain of salt, however, as I consider myself a NazBol – an atheist homophobe. I only look at objective reality – Germany did something terribly wrong in 1939, and was punished for it by Nature.

    Yet it does not make me a Polak or a Russophile either – the USSR died in 1991, America is dying in 2020. They all denied Nature in their madness, and paid the toll.

    Your defence of Hitler’s mistake is, in essence, the same as the practice of genital mutilation in America and calling the result a woman – an affront to Realität.

  191. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “The Slavic Sorbes exist to this day in a Slavic exclave in Central Germany, that means for more than a thousand years. In contrast, 25 years of Polish rule and 25 years of Czech rule over Germans meant the complete annihilation of everything German in large German areas, with the Germans driven away at gunpoint and hateful remarks being made about them then and now.”

    This is so disingenuous! Slavs occupied all of Austria (see Carantania) and all of modern East Germany up to the River Elbe! The Sorbs are a pathetic enclave from the vast reaches that the Germans robbed them of! East Prussia, too, was conquered by the celibate fetishist knights of the Teutonic Order (who were later defeated on Lake Chudskoye in 1242 and at Tannenberg in 1410).

    The borders of the Kingdom of Bohemia were restored in 1945.

    And it is so dishonest of you to talk about the violence in 1945 without mentioning that little event called World War Two, preceding the said violence. The Germans had started it in 1939, and it was they who tried to wipe Poland and Czechia off the face of the Earth. 1945 was a pay off.

    How delusional you neo-Nazi Germany-worshippers must be for me to need to spell these obvious things out to you.

  192. Fox says:

    Say, were there other people living anywhere where people currently live now? For example, who lived in Palestine prior to the Jews when they wandered into that land from the desert? Also, who lived in the Ukraine 1500 years ago? Was it not the Ostrigoths? To claim a right to a land that one’s ancestors lived on 1000 or 2000 or 3000 years ago is not mentally sound. As with the Poles and the Czechs it also is to be remembered that they could only realize their reveries of dominion, revenge, and imagined greatness by appealing to the superior strength of arms of extra-European countries -the SU and the US-(France and England doing the same); all of this to satisfy a clownish chauvinism.
    I tell you a secret:
    Germans will still be the neighbors of the Czechs and the Poles, even after the Americans will have lost interest in mingling in European affairs; considering that America can be totally independent, self-relying and is absolutely secure in its geographic disposition, a new generation of American leaders can at any time drop its dependents elsewhere. Russia might also not feel an obligation to deal in the long run with historically and and psychologically predisposed hostile neighbors to the west. And failing that, the behavior of both the Czechs and Poles is the ultimate cause for Europe’s steep decline now; should you think that the chaos caused by the post-war politics in Western Europe will somehow stop at the borders of Poland or Czechia, Then I think you are mistaken. There will be a time 50, 100 and 200 years from now, historical forces work slowly, but steadily, and relentlessly, and all-too-often brutally.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  193. @John Regan

    ‘John Regan’ apparently relishes Franklin Ryckaert saying Carolyn Yeager “denies the facts” since ‘John’ includes it in the blockquote from Ryckaert. I think this is one of the things the two share in common. So let me stop right here and cut to a direct question for Regan, who wrote:

    “ I think the numbers commonly touted, for this [?] as well as other Germans misdeeds, are often exaggerated, and sometimes certain of the details in the common narratives are frivolous, but that the policy as such existed and was implemented is regrettably true. “

    What is JR saying here? He hedges and gives no details. I have noticed that when he can he quotes from a source, when he can’t we are left with his opinion.

    So I have the right to ask: What is John Regan’s view of NS Germany’s Poland policy from 1933 to Dec. 30, 1939? Please identify “Germans misdeeds” and which policy or policies were “regrettable.” There is no way for anyone to respond without that information from JR.

    Thank you in advance.

  194. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Since you say I deny the “facts”, we need to establish that what you call “facts” are “according to your opinion” and what is printed on some of the worst Wikipedia pages that you favor, such as “German Crimes in Poland,” brought to us by just about 100% Polish-Jewish sources–many available in the Polish language only! This is where we learn about the kidnapping of Polish children by the evil Nazis led by Himmler.

    To be fair, or “factual”, Ryckaert needs to provide the entire discussion(s) in Table Talk that pertained to this topic, and explain how this amounts to actual “kidnapping.” It is my understanding that what Himmler intended was to save Polish children who had, in his understanding, good genetic characteristics (often partly German) from the general mish-mash and hardship being experienced in Polish society. You can condemn it all you want, but it remains that it was not intended to harm anyone, but to help those who could be helped. At this time, and prior, Poland wanted to “Polonize” ethnic Germans and other minorities in their country; Czechs and Slovaks wanted to “Slavicize” their minorities; all nations thought in those terms.

    Naturally, after the war, the victors made a big, big deal over these few children, claiming how they were mistreated and psychologically damaged. I believe what was done after the war with the people involved was more damaging that what was done prior. It’s mostly war propaganda with a small amount of substance. So I’m calling on Franklin Ryckaert to present all the facts he thinks he has in a clear and detailed way, so others have the opportunity to question them. Or withdraw his charges.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Dube
    , @Fox
  195. @Carolyn Yeager

    Read : Wikipedia, Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany.

    But of course you now will say Wikipedia is “Jewish controlled” and therefore a lie. You will find Jewish and Polish names in the list of sources, and Jews and Slavs always lie etc. etc.

    As far as I remember the child kidnapping project is not discussed anywhere in Hitler’s Table Talk. It was a typically pet project of Himmler. Perhaps Hitler didn’t even know about it.

    As for your assertion that Himmler kidnapped the children “in order to save them”, that is rich. It is like saying you rob property from others “in order to save” it.

    Here is a video of a lecture by a German in the US on this very subject : https://youtu.be/J2d4otmtLIg

    He has written a book about it : Christoph Schwartz, Kidnapped children, forgotten victims.

    Here is a video of Polish people who were kidnapped as children : https://youtu.be/2GLsM169izM

    Is this all a hoax?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  196. Dube says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Don’t call it “kidnapping.”

    It is my understanding that what Himmler intended was to save Polish children who had, in his understanding, good genetic characteristics (often partly German) from the general mish-mash and hardship being experienced in Polish society.

    General mishmashers reaching out to save some but not all children from the general mishmash.

  197. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I’d like to know factual facts about this topic, not Polish facts. People who see nothing wrong with taking other peoples’ land because “Poles lived there a thousand years ago” are not automatically trustworthy founts of information, regarding the neighbors they have wronged in an unprecedented way.
    I find it astonishing how many new “documents and facts”, hitherto unknown, are being “discovered” lately, one of them regarding the forcible taking of Polish children by evil Germans.
    It is my opinion that to kidnap Polish (or any other) children to give them to German parents would not have been a wise undertaking. Traumatized youngsters would neither make good children for the parents, nor good and loyal Germans when grown up. So what would be the point? Could it be that Polish orphans were brought to Germany to be adopted by German parents?
    If such a thing as forcibly taking children should have happened, it would only be a single case, perhaps a few, but not a great number as Ryckaert, the fence sitter, alleges, based on a Wikipedia article written apparently by Poles – the people who have to prove to the world that they were innocent, harmless victims of the monstrous Germans, as no other remedy would undo their behavior before the war, and after the war when they took about a third of the settlement are of Germans on the globe. That crime is unique in human history, not open to questions (just open an atlas of 200 or 150 or 100 years ago) and was premeditated. Hence, a strong desire, even if unconscious, to a victim exists.

    I find the psychological aspect of the War and its outcome quite interesting, and the very fact of more than a century of vile, degrading German-hating, the catastrophic outcome of a war freely entered into to eliminate the largest, most industrious, most creative and rational (i.e., least given to paroxysmal outbursts of political sentimentality) nation in Europe and an unacknowledged recognition of the driving, promoting forces of that war prove quite unambiguously that there are many skeletons in closets.

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
  198. Fox says:
    @Dube

    Since the text in question is from a source which has as its obvious aim to get for Poles and Poland a cut of the coveted holocaust sympathy and therefore be immune to any further argument and question, and since I know the insincerity with which Poland has obtained the German territories it currently occupies, beginning with 1919, I cannot regard it as source of information, but can only see in it Polish attempts to construe a new reality that is to replace the one that led to the Second War due to Polish steps.

    • Replies: @Dube
    , @Adûnâi
  199. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes. What you have presented to me is all a hoax.

    As you already know, one wiki-page and two youtube videos are not the factual evidence and proof that I called for, and that is needed. None of this would be acceptable to serious historians, and that’s why they avoid this topic.

    If you actually know something about Germans’ kidnapping Polish children’ — stealing them from their parents — you would write about it in your own words. But you know nothing, nothing at all. As you said yourself, it was just an idea Himmler had, to germanize children who qualified. How much of it actually took place is unclear.

    Picking up every bit of trash talk about “Nazis” is your specialty, and trash is all you have to back it up, also. The entire section “German medical experiments on kidnapped children” on your Wiki page is from one book by Kamila Uzarczyk. Podstawy ideologiczne higieny ras, 2002. So how are you or I going to check that out?
    The entire section “Murder of Zamość children in Auschwitz” is from a single book by Polish Jew Richard Lukas, holocaust historian. No one else wrote about these two subjects?

    This video with Christoph Schwarz (who speaks terrible, botched-up English) claims to be a talk at an “International Historical Conference” titled “Poland First to Fight.” Haha. There were about 10 people in the audience from the sound of it. Schwarz is volunteer head of a group he started on “abducted children” around the world. He is wanting to get attention for his organization and RAISE MONEY. So the two groups are helping each other. Nothing more to it. And it’s incredibly amatuerish – did you even watch it?

    I did not assert that Himmler kidnapped the children “in order to save them.” I don’t use the word kidnap. What I said was:

    Himmler intended to save Polish children who had, in his understanding, good genetic characteristics (often partly German) from the general mish-mash and hardship being experienced in Polish society.

    It was not kidnapping. In fact, in your final youtube video showing the man who goes to his parent’s grave — it shows they died in 1943. So he was an orphan! and that was the case of many of the children who were “saved.” There are only a couple more old people used as examples in this video, so where are the thousands that you and your Polish friends claim existed? This last video is ridiculous in the extreme; I have seen it already in the past. I encourage everyone to watch it.

    Maybe you are naive, as Fox asked of you. I find it difficult to believe that you are, but it’s also difficult to believe that an otherwise intelligent man would offer these three items as “proof” of a historical reality. Then again, maybe you do because it’s all you can find. As any propagandist does, you rely on repeating “German kidnapping of Polish children” to reinforce the idea in those who want to believe it … like you want to. But facts, convincing evidence, proof are not there. And what’s worse, you know it.

  200. Dube says:
    @Fox

    You are shameless, Fox. You present yourself as German? You’re not worthy of the name.

  201. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “For example, who lived in Palestine prior to the Jews when they wandered into that land from the desert?”

    Most likely, the ancestors of the Jews. The Bible is lying, the Jews never wandered in the desert.

    > “Also, who lived in the Ukraine 1500 years ago? Was it not the Ostrigoths?”

    Are you speaking like a German chauvinist? 1. The Ostrogoths only lived in the Ukraine for 200 years. 2. The Tripolye – Cucuteni culture is as ancient as the Indus Valley Civilization, and millennia older than the Atlantic megalithic cultures.

    > “To claim a right to a land that one’s ancestors lived on 1000 or 2000 or 3000 years ago is not mentally sound.”

    Mentally sound people lay claim to all of Earth – in potentiality.

    > “…by appealing to the superior strength of arms of extra-European countries -the SU and the US”

    It worked.

    > “Germans will still be the neighbors of the Czechs and the Poles, even after the Americans will have lost interest in mingling in European affairs…”

    No. Germany is a rotting corpse. Every German will have been dead by 2100 Christian Era – Juche 189. Czechs and Poles, too. Your infantile optimism is amusing.

    > “Russia might also not feel an obligation to deal in the long run with historically and and psychologically predisposed hostile neighbors to the west.”

    If Russia ever rediscovers herself, she will bomb every major German city with atomic weapons to cleanse it of the filth.

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/dies-irae/

    • Replies: @Fox
  202. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “… know the insincerity with which Poland has obtained the German territories it currently occupies, beginning with 1919…”

    Dude, how can you be lying so shamelessly? Is it because you Westerners don’t know history at all? And thus can lie with a straight face?

    Ducal Prussia (East Prussia) was a vassal of the Polish Crown for over a hundred years! And the Polish Corridor was part of Poland for three hundred years!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Prussia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prussia

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
    , @Fox
  203. Adûnâi says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    > “I find it difficult to believe that you are, but it’s also difficult to believe that an otherwise intelligent man would offer these three items as “proof” of a historical reality. Then again, maybe you do because it’s all you can find.”

    What’s about:

    1) Did the Children Cry: Hitler’s War Against Jewish and Polish Children, 1939-45 (Hitler’s War Against Jewish and Polish Children, 1939-1945) by Richard Lukas;

    2) Cruel World: The Children of Europe in the Nazi Web by Lynn H. Nicholas;

    3) Stolen: The Story of a Polish Child ‘Germanized’ by the Nazis by Melissa Eddy?

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

  204. @Carolyn Yeager

    1) If a source is in Polish, then that doesn’t automatically mean that it is “trash”. It only means that it is inaccessible to you because of the language. Truth can be found in any language.

    2) If a source is Jewish, then that doesn’t automatically mean that it is false (though I admit the chance is higher than otherwise).

    3) As for your criticism of Christoph Schwartz, if an organization is small and financially weak and its leadership “amateurish”, then that doesn’t automatically mean that their cause is false. To think otherwise is a typical example of American quantitative thinking.

    4) “Himmler did not want to kidnap children”.

    Here is what he himself said in his Posen speech of October 4, 1943 :

    “…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…”

    Source, Wikipedia, Posen Speeches.

    5) The sources I gave are not the only ones that exist. If you google “Nazi kidnap Polish children” you’ll find whole pages with material, mostly articles in magazines.

    The best I could find is the article The Terrifying Story of Hitler’s Stolen Children in The National Interest of November 24, 2018, which can be found as nr. 9 on the first page of Google under said term.

    According to that article following are the methods the Nazis used to acquire their desired children :

    1) “The Nazis used several methods to capture the children. At first the Nazis targeted blond-haired and blue-eyed children at Polish orphanages and foster homes.”

    2) “The Nazis also confiscated children of Poles who had been sent to concentration camps”.

    3) ” In some cases the Nazis took children straight from school without any warning.”

    4) “Finally, the Nazis took Aryan-looking children directly away from their Polish parents.”

    5) ” In other cases parents received a notice from the SS telling them to bring their children to the local train station at a certain time to go on a holiday.”

    6) “Sometimes the Nazis employed the notorious Brown Sisters to find suitable children for them. The Brown Sisters were female nurses who were dedicated to the Nazi cause. They worked for the Nazi Welfare Organization and searched through villages and towns for Aryanlooking children. According to Lukas, they used “candy and even slices of bread as lures to attract boys and girls.”

    “Striking up conversations with children, the Brown Sisters inquired where they lived and if there were any similar looking brothers or sisters at home. The Sisters would then relate their information to the local SS authorities. The children would then disappear from their homes usually at night and never to be heard from again.”

    7) “Sometimes children were assigned for Germanization even before they were born. During the war, thousands of women from occupied countries, especially Poland, were rounded up by the Nazis and sent to Germany to support the war effort. These women labored on farms, were employed as servants, or worked in factories.”

    “In July 1943, Himmler issued a decree concerning pregnant foreign workers and their potential offspring. The decree stated that if the parents were “racially valuable” the child should be taken away from the mother and either placed with proper SS foster families or raised in Lebensborn homes. Children of foreign workers that were not “racially valuable” were to be eliminated.”

    Of all these methods all but the first are kidnappings, the first still being dubious (did the administrators of those orphanages agree with the “adoptions”?).

    Finally :

    “…After the war, the Polish government created the Operation for the Revindication of Children headed by Dr. Roman Hrabar. Its mission was to reunite stolen children with their rightful parents, a formidable task. Researchers had to first determine what the children’s names had been changed to and then where they were living in the West. Once found, many German parents refused to believe that their “children” were Polish and refused to give them up to the authorities. The task was made doubly hard when children did not speak Polish anymore and had no memory of their original life or family.

    Lastly, the Polish Mission could expect little help from British and American authorities to send children behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. By the end of 1950, the Polish government had only been able to repatriate 3,404 children back to Poland. It is estimated that only 40,000, or 20 percent, of the estimated 200,000 children who were stolen from Poland by the Nazis were ever reunited with their families. Thousands of others and their descendants still live in Germany today unaware of their true identity and heritage…”

    Is this all a “Judeo-Polish” hoax?

    I expect with your kind of “source criticism” you will indeed say so.

  205. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Of course no reasonable person will say that all Jews and all Poles always lie all the time. Indeed, a reasonable person will not even say that all communists lie all the time.

    However, since much of this material comes from the Polish and Soviet communist regimes, which alike had both a well-documented disregard for truth and a well-documented vested interest in demonizing Germany, I think it is nonetheless fair to approach the issue with a certain reserve. I don’t, of course, say this to endorse wholesale the lines of argument promoted by the poster who uses the name Carolyn Yeager, but that point at least is fundamentally sound.

    As for the forced relocation and assimilation of ethnic Polish children, I think there is sufficient evidence to establish that such things did indeed occur, although the numbers involved appear to have been much smaller than the commonly cited sensationalist claims of hundreds of thousands. This policy was a product of the cumulative radicalization of the Nazi regime as the global experience of total war intensified. Its origins are probably to be found in a planning memo by Heinrich Himmler from early 1940, in which he suggested that gifted Polish children were to be offered education in German schools, so that they could be assimilated into the German nation. This was a similar policy to what many other countries also practiced for their ethnic minorities at the time, including how Indian schools in the United States commonly operated, although Himmler’s version was more explicitly eugenic than most.

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

    As Himmler originally intended it, this program was supposed to be conducted in agreement with the parents of the children, who would ideally also become German citizens. (If their children were good enough, obviously they also were.) When the war became more desperate, however, elements of the German security apparatus in turn became more fanatical, and accelerated the assimilatory measures. This included “conscription” of ethnically Polish orphans, and possibly of children that had competent living guardians as well in some instances, under the cover of genuine welfare programs to protect war orphans of the German minority in Poland. The details are obscure, and to some extent controversial, since much of the documentation was destroyed during the war. After the war, everything related to this was of course also exaggerated and distorted by sensationalist press reports and anti-Nazi propaganda, similar to how the “Lebensborn” maternity homes and orphanages (also run by the SS) were transmogrified into human breeding farms in the public mind:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20070618112614/http://www.barnesreview.org/lebensborn.htm

    Himmler’s original memo can in any case be found in an English translation in volume 13 of the second series of Nuremberg Trials records:

    https://archive.org/details/TrialsOfWarCriminalsBeforeTheNurembergMilitaryTribunalsUnderControlCouncil

    The most relevant bit here is the following:

    Parents who from the beginning want to give their children better schooling in the elementary school as well as later on in a higher school, must take an application to the Higher SS and Police Leaders. The first consideration in dealing with this application will be whether the child is racially perfect and conforming to our conditions. If we acknowledge such a child to be as of our blood, the parents will be notified that the child will be sent to a school in Germany and that it will permanently remain in Germany.

    Cruel and tragic as every individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best one if, out of inner conviction, one rejects as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.

    The parents of such children of good blood will be given the choice to either give away their child; they will then probably produce no more children (so that the danger of this subhuman people of the East [Untermenschenvolk des Ostens] obtaining a class of leaders which, since it would be equal to us, would also be dangerous for us, will disappear)–or else the parents pledge themselves to go to Germany and to become loyal citizens there.

    The language here at the end is, of course, not politically correct, though in context Himmler means specifically the Polish underclass; he doesn’t think all of the Poles are subhuman, as he demonstrably wants to assimilate the better portions into the German people. In general, the memo nonetheless gives a coldhearted and cynical impression. It’s noteworthy, however, that in spite of the tenor of the rest of his rhetoric, Himmler immediately rejects the Communist practice of all-out genocide (with which he was familiar through the Soviet example, e.g. in Ukraine) as “un-German and impossible” without further consideration. That, at least, he thought was beneath him.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  206. @Adûnâi

    Ducal Prussia (East Prussia) was a vassal of the Polish Crown for over a hundred years!

    …until 1772, upon the first partition of Poland, after which it and much of its population was considered “Prussian” or “German” for over 170 years.

    Eventually the awkward occupation by Russia of this Stalinist (“Kaliningrad“) region will have to come to an end, so the more interesting question, which needs to be worked out jointly by the governments of Germany, Lithuania and Poland, is whether this vacated territory should then become a newly independent state, with three official languages, or a different arrangement would be more stable and agreeable to all parties.

  207. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    “Polish vassal state” with German population. That reminds me of Kopernikus, and how he was requisitioned by the Poles after a Polish incursion into East Prussia and the occupation of Frauenburg….Kopernikus, who spoke no Polish, avoided dealings with Poles and was German.
    Poland, in its legal borders has no coastline and is wedged inbetween the Ukraine, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany and Lithuania.
    I have absolutely no sympathy with a view such as yours that a one-time Polish suscerainty over a territory establishes an eternal pretension to it by Poland. With that view, all territories anywhere are under dispute, and even you ought to recognize that this would be silly.

  208. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    I have tried to make you aware of the reality that anywhere someone else lived prior to the current inhabitants. And according to your holy books, the Jews came to Canaan – the current Palestine- after wandering through the desert for forty years, to meet the Philistines and Canaanites in their promised land. (= these people were there before the arrival of the Hebrews).

    Mentally sound people do not lay claim to all of earth; if you think that this, your thought, qualifies as mentally sound, then I’d shudder to think of your definition of “civilized”.

    You indicate in your comment that you are from further east than Poland, and think perhaps that a magical line of demarcation will prevent the disaster that has been engineered in Western Europe in all earnest beginning with May 8, 1945, to spill into White Russia or Russia.
    I have heard similar sentiments as yours expressed by Poles, but the forces of history do not work like an engineered piece of hardware, and a border does not act like a failsafe safety valve.

    Your hope to have Germans killed in toto by Russian atomic bombing is just another proof that people who adhere to the one-dimensional narrative of the two Wars are really seeing and presenting themselves in the image they have of the Germans.

    The psychological aspect of this victory over Germany is a most interesting topic and I feel not at all flattering to human nature.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  209. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “And according to your holy books, the Jews came to Canaan – the current Palestine- after wandering through the desert for forty years, to meet the Philistines and Canaanites in their promised land. (= these people were there before the arrival of the Hebrews).”

    My holy book? Dude, I hate Christianity and other Judaisms.

    As to Canaan – modern historiography does not consider the Exodus myth historic.

    > “Mentally sound people do not lay claim to all of earth; if you think that this, your thought, qualifies as mentally sound, then I’d shudder to think of your definition of “civilized”.”

    Civilized people conquer the weak and utterly exterminate them. Otherwise, you have miscegenation and fall – see India, Alexander, Rome, New Spain.

    > “You indicate in your comment that you are from further east than Poland, and think perhaps that a magical line of demarcation will prevent the disaster that has been engineered in Western Europe in all earnest beginning with May 8, 1945, to spill into White Russia or Russia.”

    Dude, what makes you think the East of Europe is not in a state of disaster? Last time I checked, women were allowed to attain higher education. That’s a death sentence.

    > “Your hope to have Germans killed in toto by Russian atomic bombing is just another proof that people who adhere to the one-dimensional narrative of the two Wars are really seeing and presenting themselves in the image they have of the Germans.”

    The twenty-first century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall MacLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilization directed by a universal state.

    The Third Age of European Civilization commences, in a tragic acceleration of the historical process, with the Treaty of Versailles and end of the civil war of 1914-18: the catastrophic twentieth century. Four generations were enough to undo the labor of more than forty. Europe fell victim to its own tragic Prometheanism, its own opening to the world and universalism, oblivious of all ethnic solidarity.

    The Fourth Age of European civilization begins today. It will be the Age of rebirth or perdition. The twenty-first century will be for this civilization, the fateful century, the century of life or death.

    Let us cultivate the pessimistic optimism of Nietzsche. “There is no more order to conserve; it is necessary to create a new one.” Will the beginning of the twenty-first century be difficult? Are all the indicators in the red? So much the better. They predicted the end of history after the collapse of the USSR? We wish to speed its return: thunderous, bellicose, and archaic. Islam resumes its wars of conquest. China and India wish to become superpowers. And so forth. The twenty-first century will be placed under the double sign of Mars, the god of war, and of Hephaestus, the god who forges swords, the master of technology and the chthonic fires. This century will be that of the metamorphic rebirth of Europe, like the Phoenix, or of its disappearance as a historical civilization and its transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.

    © From Guillaume Faye’s “Mars & Hephaestus”

  210. @John Regan

    In John Regan’s very gentle reply to shameless propagandist Franklin Ryckaert, he acknowledges that FR’s sources:

    come from the Polish and Soviet communist regimes, which alike had both a well-documented disregard for truth and a well-documented vested interest in demonizing Germany […] I don’t, of course, say this to endorse wholesale the lines of argument promoted by the poster who uses the name Carolyn Yeager, but that point at least is fundamentally sound.

    Amazing. I use the name Carolyn Yeager because I am Carolyn Yeager. That is not doubted except in a pretend fashion as he is doing. But why does he use the screen name John Regan? Why not his real name? He came out of the blue and poses as a very knowledgeable person (relying on Wiki, archive.org, etc) who is reasonable in all things. It’s almost as if his goal is to get a gold star by his name. I think it’s only a matter of time.

    But let’s check that out. JR has said here very little that I have not already said on the subject. That is, he agrees with me, but wants to put it in his own lengthy words so as to appear as if he doesn’t. Interesting, that.

    When the war became more desperate, however, elements of the German security apparatus in turn became more fanatical, and accelerated the assimilatory measures.

    Where is the evidence, or a citation, for that? To me, it’s one of those leaps thrown into the middle of an explanations to tie one end to the other. It has a jarring effect and I think – where did that come from?

    After quoting 3 paragraphs from a translation of a Himmler memo used in the Nuremberg Tribunals, the last paragraph reading:

    The parents of such children of good blood will be given the choice to either give away their child; they will then probably produce no more children (so that the danger of this subhuman people of the East [Untermenschenvolk des Ostens] obtaining a class of leaders which, since it would be equal to us, would also be dangerous for us, will disappear)–or else the parents pledge themselves to go to Germany and to become loyal citizens there.

    Of course, Himmler did not use the word “subhuman people” but “undermen”, but even so Regan characterizes the memo as giving “a coldhearted and cynical impression.” Not at all – it is simply written in ‘officialese’ so as not to be misunderstood.

    Then at the very end, to give Ryckaert’s hand an extra pat, Regan says of Himmler’s rejection of any kind of genocide as “un-German and impossible”:

    That, at least, he thought was beneath him.

    Clearly implying that Himmler would do many things that would be beneath most of us, but at least not that.

    So what does John Regan want readers to take away about Himmler? Is it a mixed message, or is it really a negative impression that in spite of all the faults and evils of their enemies, the ‘Nazis’ were morally suspect, even below average. He may even agree with those who blame most evils on Himmler, or Goebbels–and then there’s always Bormann to blame!–while Adolf Hitler was kept in the dark somehow. Shades of David Irving? Who or what, therefore, does JR support? What worldview does he recommend? He could very likely be a David Irving ally, or follower. We’ll keep watching.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  211. @Franklin Ryckaert

    This is all opinion and hearsay – not one bit better than what you sent before. My replies:

    1) If a source is inaccessible to me (or you), it is of no value to me (or you). Citing books in Polish counts for nothing.

    2) If a source is Jewish, it is an almost 100% chance it is false–when dealing with Heinrich Himmler. Are you proud to be on the side of Jews so very often?

    3) Ridiculous comment. It’s a lousy citation. I invite people to watch it for themselves.

    4) It’s translated as “kidnap” from the German original, which you don’t provide. It’s your responsibility to provide it if this on one of your ‘proofs.’

    5) Telling me to search on Google for more sources is not providing me with evidence to prove your point. What it does prove is that I was dead-on correct when I said you specialize in just picking up ‘trash talk about nazis’ here and there, and repeating it. You’ve done no reading in depth, you have no background knowledge; in every comment you write you look up what’s on Wikipedia about it and then copy some of that or, more often, just link to the entire page. Your sole aim seems to be to put out (repeat) any attack against Hitler & National Socialism, no matter how far-fetched.

    Your extensive quoting from The Terrifying Story of Hitler’s Stolen Children in The National Interest of November 24, 2018, is nothing but imagination and hearsay. Where is the credibility? Here’s a link to it: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/terrifying-story-hitler%E2%80%99s-stolen-children-36797 Real scholarly! Not. It originally appeared on the Warfare History Network. LOL. You should be ashamed.

    From now on, I will categorize you as a type of troll, and treat you accordingly. I retract what I said about you being an otherwise intelligent person. You must not be; you’re just a heavy user of Wikipdedia and dictionaries.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  212. @Carolyn Yeager

    Was Himmler morally “below average”? You decide :

    “…Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only insofar as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished…”

    Himmler’s Posen speech October 4, 1943.

    You must have a special mentality if you want to be associated with such monsters. Untermenschen do exist, but in WW2 they wore uniforms, German uniforms.

  213. @Carolyn Yeager

    About the translation “kidnap”, here is the relevant part of Himmler’s Posen speech of October 4, 1943 in the original German language (source : Posener Reden). I have highlighted the relevant passage in bold :

    “…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. Ob die anderen Völker in Wohlstand leben oder ob sie verrecken vor Hunger, das interessiert mich nur soweit, als wir sie als Sklaven für unsere Kultur brauchen, anders interessiert mich das nicht. Ob bei dem Bau eines Panzergrabens 10.000 russische Weiber an Entkräftung umfallen oder nicht, interessiert mich nur insoweit, als der Panzergraben für Deutschland fertig wird.“

    Again that relevant passage in German with the English translation of Wikipedia’s article Posen Speeches and my own translation :

    “…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…”

    Wikipedia translation : “…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…”

    That translation is somewhat free.

    Here is my literal translation : “…That what in the peoples of good blood of our kind is available, we will take to us, in that we if necessary rob them of their children and raise them among us…”

    He uses the verb rauben which means “to rob”.
    The translation “kidnapping” is therefore not wrong, but perhaps too weak. “Rob them of their children” is more adequate. So there you have it.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  214. Adûnâi says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    > “You must have a special mentality if you want to be associated with such monsters. Untermenschen do exist, but in WW2 they wore uniforms, German uniforms.”

    Ah, how I wish the Germans had been victorious! Such barbarity towards your brotherly Aryan nations is only excusable for the winning side. Now I have no choice but to hate them.

  215. @Franklin Ryckaert

    The Himmler Posen speech of Oct. 4, 1943 is very controversial, with serious questions as to whether it was tampered with, both in what’s come down to us as the written copy and a supposed recording that was made. So naturally, this is the speech Ryckaert wants to focus on. This speech and no other.

    The quote given is one of the disputed passages, that is, it’s considered doubtful Himmler would have said such a thing, or said it in this way, to a large gathering of SS officers. No one from the outside had ever heard of this speech until it was discovered in some SS files and submitted to the Nuremberg Trials . We know the reputation of the Nuremberg prosecutors for treating their “evidence” in whatever fashion they wanted so they would definitely not have missed this opportunity! It’s reported that a few of the SS officers present who were able to be contacted about the speech later said they did not remember hearing anything out of the ordinary, as these controversial passages are. As I recall, at least one said he would have remembered such surprising language.

    So you really need to find a pattern of Himmler saying things like this if you want to condemn him as a monster. Just one disputed quote in one tampered-with speech is not enough.

    Not surprisingly, in your next comment you use the same speech!

  216. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Thanks for supplying the original German which you should have done in the first place. The literal translation is better than your “free” translation — “rob” is better than “kidnap” in my estimation. I didn’t think German had a word for kidnap. And “rob” can express many things, such as “you/it robbed me of my youth.”

    Anyway, we’re dealing with the same speech as above, so the same comments apply. Not a reliable source for Himmler’s words. Better luck next time.

  217. it’s amazing that Europe has to bother and deal with the consequences of the autistic misdeeds of a nation of delusional infantiloid imbeciles that produced Martin Luther, Hitler and Merkel

  218. Valjean72 says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    @Caroline Yeager

    You must have a special mentality if you want to be associated with such monsters. Untermenschen do exist, but in WW2 they wore uniforms, German uniforms.

    Given all the revisionist and fine articles here on this site concerning the official WWII narrative it’s quite astonishing that you (and others, too) are still following (and spreading) the anti-German propaganda.

    “Russia Insider” published some very interesting articles in this regard, too:

    Stalin Burned 100s of 1000s of Russian Peasants’ Homes, But Everyone Blames Germany – Another WW2 Anti-German Slander Goes Up in Smoke

    Russians frequently cite this alleged war crime as Exhibit A of German brutality during the war. The peasants were subsistence farmers, barely scratching out a living. Burning their homes and barns almost ensured that they would perish over the harsh winter. Now it turns out Stalin’s Jewish henchmen did it.

    It’s a very Jewish trick – do something incomprehensibly evil, and then blame your enemy for it. The NKVD at the time was dominated by Jewish revolutionaries, and they hated these deeply Christian, salt of the earth peasants, and were happy to destroy them.

    (Source: russia-insider.com; 05.02.2020)

    In this context a little riddle: Which version of the follwoing picture is the right one?

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  219. @Franklin Ryckaert

    On further thought, I’d like to add to my previous comment (#217) to ask Franklin Ryckaert just who are the monsters. It is my belief that those who would slander any man with lies and fake documents after he was dead and therefore unable to object or speak for himself are those with a “special mentality”–a mentality of baseness and hatred sufficient to justify murder of the truth, for all time, if possible.

    As I recall, Himmler had warned in early 1945 that the Allies were “setting a trap for us” in which to “blame us for everything.” He was right about that, but still, imo, did not comprehend how deep was their hatred of Germany–no one in Germany comprehended it although Hitler was getting close–and so still thought he could approach them to work out some kind of surrender short of unconditional.

    In mine and many other’s opinion, the “monsters” wore British and American uniforms, and the Untermenchen wore the Red Army uniforms. Maybe because they were Untermenchen (all the rapes, for example) those monsters have more of an excuse than do the British & Americans. What is your excuse, Franklin, for perpetuating all the fakery and lies that you do? Even when it’s pointed out to you, you continue.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  220. @PeterMX

    Poland isn’t some “newly created nation”, you fascist dork, it’s been a country for much longer than the unified Germany

    • Replies: @Fox
  221. @Carolyn Yeager

    You always resort to declaring a document “false” if it paints an unflattering image of the Nazis.

    The fact that the Allies committed crimes does not exculpate the Nazis, but that is your main idea.
    It is like denying the Spaniards committed crimes in their conquest of Mexico because the Aztecs were cruel themselves. The one does not “cancel” the other.

    “…In mine and many other’s opinion, the “monsters” wore British and American uniforms, and the Untermenchen wore the Red Army uniforms. Maybe because they were Untermenchen (all the rapes, for example) those monsters have more of an excuse than do the British & Americans…”

    Here your anti-Slavic racism shines through. The British and American soldiers were criminals (and therefore responsible), but the Russian soldiers were less responsible because they were Untermenschen anyway.

    Again, who has a “special mentality”?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  222. @Franklin Ryckaert

    You always resort to declaring a document “false” if it paints an unflattering image of the Nazis.

    You lie already. I do not. If I call a document “false” it’s because it either clearly is or serious questions about it have been raised by scholars, as with this “Himmler speech.” Can you answer those serious questions? No, you’re completely unable to, but you want me to accept it anyway. Sorry. I’m not as gullible, or dishonest, as you.

    The fact that the Allies committed crimes does not exculpate the Nazis, but that is your main idea.

    Again, you make that up because it is not my main idea and never has been. That has always been YOUR main idea, lol. I believe it was valjean72 who indicated that and we are not in league, though I agree with him/her. Maybe you should write to valjean with your answer.

    Here your anti-Slavic racism shines through.

    Oh! Racism. How awful. Can’t criticize Slavs now, even when they’re murderous, drunken rapists of thousands of helpless women, even 7 yr old girls and elderly grandmothers? They are just like everyone else? Your insistence on Communist-style political correctness when it comes to Poles or Russians makes it impossible for you to discuss the facts. I know too much about how the Red Army behaved (https://carolynyeager.net/wehrmacht-war-crimes-bureau), to be able stop myself from calling them Untermenschen. What would you call them? Heroes of the Soviet People?

    To sum up: You are unable to refute anything, or put forth a decent argument in support of your criticism of me.

    • Agree: Alexandros
  223. Fox says:
    @Thumbhead Forney

    PeterMX wrote “newly recreated”, not “newly created”.
    For you, Thumbhead Forney, it might be of interest that Poland had been re-formed as a political entity by Germany’s assistance and indulgence in November of 1916. A kindness the Poles certainly have not seen fit to honor with the slightest trace of gratitude.
    After the end of the First War, this act was expunged from practical and political memory and Poland had itself re-created by the Versailles crowd in borders entirely against ethnic, historic and political realities. Ever since then Poland has been in need of a big brother to guarantee the safety of the ill-gotten gains. That’s an unenviable position to be in.

    • Replies: @Thumbhead Forney
  224. @Fox

    Almost all borders in the 1940s were “against ethnic and historical realities”, lol.

    The Versailles crowd weren’t even especially harsh on Germany – the Brest-Litovsk treaty the Germans forced on Russia was a lot harsher than anything in the Versailles treaty. In both world wars, the Allies were fairly benevolent to the defeated Germans.

    • Replies: @Fox
  225. Adûnâi says:
    @Valjean72

    > ““Russia Insider” published some very interesting articles in this regard, too:”

    > https://russia-insider.com/en/history/stalin-burned-100s-1000s-russian-peasants-homes-everyone-blames-germany-another-ww2-anti

    This is a shameless, bald-faced lie. That article cites the forgery.

    You can see the original here.
    https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Приказ_Ставки_ВГК_от_17.11.1941_№_428

    These hunting expeditions in their activities of destruction are to be dressed to the greatest extent in German soldier’s uniforms and uniforms of the Waffen SS looted from the German Army.

    Starting with th above passage, everything cited is a lie.

    It is important to have survivors who will tell about German atrocities. For this purpose, every regiment is to form hunter units of about 20-30 men strong with the task to detonate and incinerate the villages.

    This gets better and better! Does the retarded author understand the reason behind any such operation? It’s to make Germans freeze under the open sky, you mongoloids!

    But of course, you Americans understand one thing – the feelings of the populace! The entire idea that Soviets would do such a laborious operation to stoke up the peasants’ passions is pure America. Newsflash – wars are materialist struggles, not “good angels vs evil demons” in the realm of faeries. This is why “good” Soviets burned their own cities – because morality is relative, survival is absolute.

    The forgery is debunked here. A 1 sec DuckDuckGo search in Russian. English only brings neo-Nazi bullshit. A bunch of brainless lemmings you are.
    http://wiki.istmat.info/миф:сталинские_поджигатели

    German historians Christian Hartmann and Jürgen Zarusky debunked this myth in 2000. Here’s a pdf.
    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2000_4.pdf

    These are real people.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Hartmann_(historian)
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jürgen_Zarusky

    Fritz Becker made up this quote in his 1995 book Stalins Blutspur durch Europa: Partner des Westens 1933-1945. Kiel: Arndt-Verlag, 1995. S. 268.

    • Replies: @Fox
  226. Fox says:
    @Thumbhead Forney

    I think you missed the fact that the Baltic countries, Finnland, White Russia and the Ukraine were all too happy to be separated from Russia; that’s because the Russian Empire was a multi-ethnic compound. You can see the reality of this after the break-up of the SU once the different peoples were in a position to do so. Likewise, look at Czecho-Slovakia and Yugo-Slavia.
    However, the “Treaty of Versailles” was expressely formulated to weaken and divide Germany. Hence, Germans were distributed in purely German areas among the neighboring countries, all of which with violence. The Czechs occupied the German areas of Bohemia with their armed Czech troops, remaining from the Czech units fighting on the Entente side, the Lithanians occupied Memelland, the Poles, West Prussia, Posen, tried to with Upper Silesia, then there is the simple ocupation and taking of Eupen-Malmedy, North Schleswig, the Hultschin Area, South Tyrol, Austria, and of course Alsace-Lorraine, the sham of the “Free City of Danzig”, in reality also handing a purely German city to Poland. Nothing of this sort has happened to any other country.
    In addition, all of this happened after the fraudulent peace offer by Wilson and the sham acceptance of them by the English and French leadership with the sole purpose to betray Germany and the code of honor which alone makes life possible with dignity.

  227. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    There is the Torch Men Order (Fackelmännerbefehl -burning and torching of occupied areas by sabotage troops and partisans, including murder and leaving behind corpses in German uniforms) from Stalin. The purpose was to both divert German troops from the front by forcing them to guard the hinterland, as well as to spread the rumors of German brutality. The effect of denying the Axis troops shelter and supplies is a side effect, but not the primary purpose of such a policy.

    • Replies: @tango47
  228. tango47 says:
    @Fox

    Torch Men Order. Completely debunked here.
    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=220340

    It seems that the actual order #428 was the scorched earth policy for areas still under Soviet Control but about to fall into Wehrmacht hands. It had zilch to do with dressing up as Nazis.
    The fake version of 428 was fabricated by neo-Nazis in the 90’s.
    Another CODOH wet dream for you folks.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
  229. Fox says:

    It appears that your link is not debunking anything, it states in the brief commenting section that the order in the Archives in Washington is the only source of it, or that it contains a part not found in the original, or other opinions on its incompleteness, false interpretation, or most remarkably acutely double-tongued by a German specimen of Re-educated Man: “It’s incomplete, partially untrue, and the Germans did the same thing anyway.” In this case it is both true and false, to an extent, respectively, as he sees it expedient to use for his position.

    It seems, on the other hand, to have happened that the Russian security service FSB has published the full wording of Order 0428 of November 17, 1041, and it confirms that it was indeed published with the order to kill, leave witnesses behind to attest that soldiers in German uniforms (apparently SS with preference) were the torchers and killers: “It is important to leave survivors behind so that they can tell about German atrocities.”

    • Replies: @tango47
    , @Adûnâi
  230. tango47 says:
    @Fox

    Boy, you people are either simpletons or purposely trying to be pernicious. Now why would Putin’s FSB put out anything that would tarnish the legacy of the Red Army in WW2? Does that make any sense at all to a rational thinker? According to you , any German that isn’t a neo-Nazi has been re-educated. Whatever that means. You brought up this Torch Men Order distraction so it’s strictly up to you prove its veracity. I say that it’s another CODOH fabrication. Prove me wrong.

    • Troll: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Fox
  231. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “…the Russian security service FSB has published the full wording of Order 0428 of November 17, 1941, and it confirms that it was indeed published with the order to kill, leave witnesses behind to attest that soldiers in German uniforms (apparently SS with preference)…”

    My question to you is the following – where could the USSR have possibly found German Army/SS uniforms to equip those hundreds of agents in November 1941 with? By that time, the Red Army had only faced defeat and retreat. Barely any Germans had been taken prisoner. In a word, utterly implausible.

    I will, however, share that Western Ukrainians believe Soviets used to impersonate the UPA. A similar story to the above. But more believable for 1944.

    > “It appears that your link is not debunking anything, it states in the brief commenting section that the order in the Archives in Washington is the only source of it…”

    No, it states that Fritz Becker made it up in 1995. Why would you believe a clearly debunked, unsourced lie?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  232. @Adûnâi

    My question to you is the following – where could the USSR have possibly found German Army/SS uniforms to equip those hundreds of agents in November 1941 with? By that time, the Red Army had only faced defeat and retreat. Barely any Germans had been taken prisoner. In a word, utterly implausible.

    Wrong. By Nov. 17, the war had been raging for 5 months already and though Germany was clearly dominant and winning, still hundreds of German soldiers & airmen had been killed or captured by the Russians and by the Jewish partisans. The Soviet practice was to remove their uniforms, either before or after they were killed (because they killed their prisoners), and leave them in their underwear It was not at all implausible that they had plenty of uniforms. Your specialty appears to be the “fakeout.”

    • Replies: @Yoska Ruslo
  233. @Carolyn Yeager

    why don’t you try to do something useful in your life? why so much energy and time spent in such a failed infantile bad joke like Nazism? Nazis weren’t ‘evil” only exceptionally stupid. Idiotic sheeple that believed to be wolves.
    Move on.

  234. Fox says:
    @tango47

    You can glean this information from Metapedia.
    There is also a facsimile of a German document from the 1940s spelling out the contents of the Torch Men Order, so it seems to have a connection to the 1940s. It is cited by the Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung and referenced as coming from the National Archives in Washington.
    The commenter Adunai thinks that the whole thing is made up by one Fritz Becker in 1995. Fritz Becker is the author of a book of Stalin’s Track of Blood through Europe (“Stalins Blutspur durch Europa”, according to Metapedia, the part about wearing German uniforms appears the fisr time in Becker’s book; on the other hand, the same Metapedia article cites the report of the Heerespolizeichef about several such occurrences when partisans dressed in German uniforms were entering villages, plundering them and murdering elders, kolchos directors and other important persons.
    Seems that these things really happened, and they would be in line with partisan tactics and the gebneral value put on life in the SU (reminder: e.g., holodomor in the Ukraine, e.g.).
    Under Gorbachev information was released which finally shut up the western monsters in positions of Public Prosecutors and Judges who sent people to prison because they said that the Katyn Forest massacre had been committed by the Soviet Union. Why would the FSB not make such an admission if seeming of advantage in a particular political circumstance? In 1997, it was till Yeltsin (or Eltsin), not yet Putin in power.
    The “re-education” program was a real attempt of “re-educating” Germans. They were subjected to this procedure after the lost war. That only simpletons and people without any sense of propriety or decency could come up with something like that is beyond the point, it was real, millions of Germans were subject to it, tens of thousands lost their livelihood and were subjected to a totalitarian measure.
    They had to fill out questionnaires and hand them in to be examined by simple folks from the Allied countries or the scum with German passports who had been “emigrants” or “resistance fighters”, the icky part of the German people who had been put in power after the occupation of Germany.
    I didn’t bring up the Torch Men Order. I commented on it being brought up through the >Russia Insider< article.
    tango47, I recognise in you a German who has gone through the schooling system there and who believed everything he was told, and you imbibed especially how bad your own people were, and are. That's bad Karma for your life as a German and as a human being.

    • Replies: @tango47
    , @Adûnâi
  235. tango47 says:
    @Fox

    Post the links. Something besides opinion and conjecture.

    • Replies: @Fox
  236. Fox says:
    @tango47

    Go to Metapedia.org, then choose “Deutsch”, then enter under “Suche” Fackelmännerbefehl.

    Then read.

  237. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “Seems that these things really happened, and they would be in line with partisan tactics and the gebneral value put on life in the SU (reminder: e.g., holodomor in the Ukraine, e.g.).”

    1. The population of the Ukraine reached its absolute historical peak – 53 mil. – in 1993, thanks to the Bolshevik rule.

    2. The population of Central Germany under the GDR could have all been exterminated, but instead Bolsheviks spared the lives of the Germans letting them live in peace.

    Your statement is a ridiculous blood libel than any honest person would see through.

    P.S. I may sound like a broken clock, but I see no shame in it – as the amount of bullshit Holodomor scare you Westerners have put up is more than I will answer in my lifetime.

    3. > “Under Gorbachev information was released which finally shut up the western monsters in positions of Public Prosecutors and Judges who sent people to prison because they said that the Katyn Forest massacre had been committed by the Soviet Union.”

    Katyn was perpetrated by German weapons. That Katyn was a Soviet deed was announced under the lying globohomo elite of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin – not the folks any sensible person would trust. You neo-Nazis scream about Jews in the Holocaust debate – where is your moaning about Commiephobes in the Katyn discussion?

    • Replies: @Fox
  238. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    I know about the bullets which were found at Katyn; based on one unused such bullet, and therefore usable to establish details absent from used bullets, found in Grave Nr. 2 (there were 8 mass graves at Katyn), it was established according to the German Report of the International Commission (oh yes, there were also members of countries not bound to Germany in that conflict) in 1943 >Amtliches Material< that this one bullet was manufactured between 1922 1nd 1931 in Burlach near Karlsruhe. In that time larger amounts of such ammunition had been exported to Poland, the Baltic States and Russia. I have this information from the book Victor's Justice of 1949, authored by Montgomery Belgion.
    Well, Adunai, or Adonai, or Lord God, or whatever you think you are, try to be a bit more subtle with the constructions of your imagined reality. As it is, it is woven of only coarse cloth.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @S
  239. Adûnâi says:
    @Fox

    > “…the German Report of the International Commission (oh yes, there were also members of countries not bound to Germany in that conflict) in 1943…”

    12 forensic experts and their staff, from Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Switzerland, and Slovakia

    Countries not bound to Germany? What countries not bound to Germany?

    > “I have this information from the book Victor’s Justice of 1949, authored by Montgomery Belgion.”

    Seems like a nobody. I have not researched this contentious topic at all, but here’s a blog entry; it is saying that Anders’ Army could not have been formed if anything close to 20k POWs had been shot; it is saying that the Poles are lying and misrepresenting the sources which clearly talk about the transportation of prisoners, not executions.

    https://www.politpros.com/journal/read/?ID=996&journal=96

    > “Well, Adunai, or Adonai, or Lord God, or whatever you think you are, try to be a bit more subtle with the constructions of your imagined reality. As it is, it is woven of only coarse cloth.”

    Are you trolling now? How often must I repeat the obvious – that û is not o? And by the way, where in the hell have you lernt Hebrew? And why are you flaunting that knowledge?

    http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Adûnâic

    • Replies: @Fox
  240. S says:
    @Fox

    I have this information from the book Victor’s Justice of 1949, authored by Montgomery Belgion.

    Interesting book. Thanks for the title.

    The emboldened portion of the quote below from Belgion’s 1949 book is almost identical to one I’ve read published in 1864-65 in regards to the actual purpose behind the accusations about the South’s POW ‘camps’. Of course, it’s been determined since that the North’s camps had comparable high death rates to the South’s.

    On the side ultimately victorious certain assumptions had been adopted from the beginning. It was, for instance, assumed in high quarters that the will to victory could only be kept hot in the mass of the combatant peoples if steadily subjected to the fires of hate.

    I think both ‘sides’ in the damnable US Civil War ultimately had pretty poor moral causes, ie the North’s wage slavery system (ie so called ‘cheap labor’) versus the South’s chattel slavery based system. The guns were turned on the wrong people in 1861; when violence became unavoidable, rather than upon each other, they should have been turned upon Southern slave owners and their Northern same ilk equivelant, the wage slave (‘cheap labor’/’immigrant’) exploiter ’employers’.

    As a result of the war, slavery was not only not in reality abolished, a worthy cause indeed for someone having the misfortune to live within a slavery practicing society were it truly done away with, but the ghastly institution’s more malignant and destructive monetized manifestation, wage slavery, prevailed.

    All that for the cost of six hundred thousand lives.

    When a moral cause is dubious it’s sometimes necessary to augment it with something, anything.

    Someone else in a new book has noted the close parallels (though not the same ones I have) between the US Civil War era South and WWII era Germany.

    https://guardianbookshop.com/learning-from-the-germans-9780241262863.html

  241. Fox says:
    @Adûnâi

    I have never seen you explain the meaning of the “u tectis” (u-circonflex, u-Zirkumflex?), so please tell it again. To me, as a thoroughly un-initiated individual, your Adunai looks like Adonai.
    Switzerland was not bound to Germany, and as Belgion writes, the Swiss pathologist Dr.F.Naville (University of Geneva faculty) maintained his judgement after the war, even, as Belgion writes (Belgion interviewed Neville in 1946) , he was threatened to do so, but he stood his ground. Unlike prof. Markov of Bulgaria who had after the Soviet occupation of his country the strong suggestion of GPU (or whatever Bureau of Assurance of Soviet-Allied Wishes was doing it) pragmatists who knew how to convey their wishes in an unmistakable, forceful and certain-to-be followed way.
    Montgomery Belgion was at his time a well known British author and lecturer (also: Epitaph to Nuremberg; and, if you further look up his name, numerous other books and articles in periodicals).

    You have to do better than that. Whether you can is another question.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Guillaume Durocher Comments via RSS