Some Revisionist Viewpoints On World War II
by Ben Kriegh

December 1989

The Colorado Daily has asked me to write an article on some of the unpublicized findings of certain writers in regard to World War Two. I agreed to do so in the interest of examining all aspects of an issue, no matter how controversial it may be. If we have hope of improving our future, we must seek to understand the failures and errors of the past.

Many who are familiar with our debacle in Viet Nam and its attendant propaganda seem to think this experience was unique in history. However, according to unpublicized findings of numerous qualified writers and historians, Viet Nam was merely another example of a long series of episodes in which the American majority has been propagandized, misled and even betrayed by its leadership.

According to these writers, it is only when we begin to peek beneath the propaganda curtain which still veils World War Two that the enormity of the deception can be seen.

An illustration of the power of propaganda provided by Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, is the widely held misconception that National Socialist Germany was a totalitarian state. In Tragedy and Hope I he writes "unlike Italy or Soviet Russia, the economic system was not ruled by the state but was subject to 'self rule' (free enterprise) .... Newspapermen and journalistic writers applied the term 'totalitarian' to the Nazi system, and the name has stuck without any real analysis of the facts as they existed. In fact, the Nazi system was not totalitarian either in theory or in practice."

Dal Hitchcock, in The German Financial Revolution, described German financial and fiscal policy as "revolutionary" and "successful," and noted that National Socialism involved no nationalization of factories or industry, and that all business organizations were privately owned. In particular, control of the issuance of money was taken from the hands of international financiers and put into the hands of the government. This move helped Germany to recover from the Depression while other industrialized nations of the world still wallowed in it. It also made Hitler a target of the monopoly capitalists, which includes the Socialists and Communists.

(Abraham Lincoln had a similar confrontation with the inter-national banking interests when he issued interest free U.S. Notes to help finance the Civil War. The Bank of England in its famous "Hazard Circular" stated " ...capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling money. The great debt ... made out of the war must be used as a means to control money .... Bonds must be used as a banking basis .... It will not do to allow the green-back ... to circulate as money ... as we cannot control that." Today, our money is interest bearing Federal Reserve Notes backed by bonds. The last U.S. Note in circulation was the old $2 bill. Some time ago it was replaced by a new $2 bill -- a Federal Reserve Note.)

So dramatic was Germany's economic recovery that Churchill stated to General R. E. Wood in November 1936, "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." In 1938 Bernard Baruch, advisor to President Roosevelt, remarked to General George C. Marshall, "We are going to lick that fellow Hitler. He isn't going to get away with it."

These remarks suggest that leaders in Britain and the United States were contemplating war. Accordingly, a propaganda barrage was launched against Germany -- she was building a war machine to conquer the world.

But, according to several writers, this charge was phony. Quigley in Tragedy and Hope: "From 1936 to the outbreak of war in 1939, German aircraft production was not raised ... its tank production was low, and even in 1939 was less than Britain's .... Britain produced about 8000 (military planes) in 1939 compared to 4733 (produced in Germany) In 1939 ... From these facts it's quite clear that Britain did not yield to superior force..."

In The World Crisis in America's Foreign Policy 1937-1941, W. L. Langer and S. E. Gleason show that Germany was unprepared for a major European war in 1939, having not planned for such a dire eventuality. In The Myth of the New History, Dr. David Hoggan writes, "The Churchill myth of Germany armed to the teeth in 1940 (flies) in the face of all the statistical evidence which has been offered by ... Asher Lee" (in The German Air Force).

In The Origins of the Second World War, A.J.P. Taylor, a leading British historian, shows that "Hitler did not wish a war, either local, European, or world. His only fundamental aim in foreign policy was to revise the unjust and unfair Treaty of Versailles, and to do this by peaceful means." (Quotation from a review by Harry Elmer Barnes.)

H. E. Barnes, who was one of America's leading revisionist historians, stated in Blasting the Historical Blackout, "It is well established that no responsible leader in Germany, France, or Italy wanted war in 1939. President Roosevelt apparently desired to have the European war break out as soon as possible, pressed Chamberlain to go ahead, and encouraged Polish ... stubbornness..."

One of the most comprehensive studies on the origins of the war was made by David Hoggan in his doctoral thesis at Harvard in 1948 which he expanded into a 900-page book over a 15-year period, to be published in English under the title When Peaceful Revision Failed. In a reference to this book in The Myth of the New History, Dr. Hoggan states, "...As demonstrated in my book ... Germany, whatever her faults in her own domestic system and foreign policy, was the victim of an English Tory conspiracy in September 1939 ... (Lord) Halifax conducted a single-minded campaign to plunge Germany into war and in such a way as to make Germany appear to be the guilty party .... Poland was the pawn in the game.... The documentary record has long since revealed that in 1939 it was Hitler's utmost desire to enjoy peaceful and friendly relations, and if possible alliances, with both Great Britain and Poland."

Supporting Hoggan's view, H. E. Barnes states, "...The public announcement of the final shift of British policy to hostility to Germany ... rested on a twofold fraud, (1) the charge that Germany was preparing for widespread military aggression, and (2) a hoax concocted through Virgil Tilea, the Rumanian minister to London." (Tilea was induced by the British Foreign Office to draw up a false statement charging Germany with seeking to seize the Rumanian economy.) So blatant was the deceit that, according to Barnes, "Both Chamberlain and Halifax falsified their reports of Hitler's favorable reaction to a proposed international conference on September 2 (1939) which still might have ... stopped the German-Polish war and prevented the European war."

Deceit was not peculiar to the British leadership. The role of the United States in promoting war against Germany is considered by C. C. Tansill in The Back Door to War. He shows that FDR was interested in creating a breach between Germany and England. His findings were based on unpublished state department documents which revealed that FDR encouraged the British to go to war in 1939 and then considered the best means of obtaining the intervention of the United States.

In The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Theobald shows that FDR alone was responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. He demonstrates beyond question, by means of documents, that FDR had ample warning of the impending attack which he failed to pass on to Admiral Kimmel. He writes, "Our main deduction is that President Roosevelt forced Japan to war by unrelenting diplomatic-economic pressure and enticed that country to initiate hostilities with a surprise attack by holding the Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to that attack."

General Wedemeyer, in the Wedemeyer Reports, writes, "The fact that Japan's attack had been deliberately provoked was obscured by the disaster at Pearl Harbor." Thus, the U.S. was brought into the war by the deliberate sacrifice of over 3300 of our young men. Watergate pales to insignificance by comparison. The brief insights into unpublicized aspects of World War Two may shed some light on our present demoralized state. During the 1930s Communism was said to be the antithesis of our way of life. Why, then, were we so anxious to destroy Germany whose primary goal was to contain Communism? Why have we been fraudulently led to sacrifice so many of our best young men in foreign wars? What has been our gain?

Although the fact remains that the foreign interventionist policies of our leadership have consistently aided the Communist cause, the greatest threat to our future is not Communism per se. Rather, it is the portrait of an unreal world being painted for us by the propaganda media, the abandonment of intellectual leadership by the academic world, and a lack of moral and spiritual courage. There can be no doubt that the best interests of the American majority have not been served by our leadership. Nor can we expect any remedies in the near future. The liberal establishment has been exposed as phony, subservient to alien interests. It can offer only bankrupt ideas and licentiousness. Traditional conservatism offers only stagnation. The majority political parties are enslaved to monied interests with Socialism as their ultimate goal, for Socialism-Communism is the ultimate of monopoly capitalism. Only a new political movement in a new direction can offer any hope for a rewarding future. And it is only the young, who still have the time and the inclination to understand the failures of the leadership of the past, who can generate a successful remedy.


http://www.thirdworldplanet.com/jubel/srvww2.htm

Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II, Part 5
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 1995

When Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1933, Americans expected him to fulfill certain promises that he had made during the presidential campaign: balance the budget; lower taxes; reduce government spending; downsize government; and keep the U.S. out of foreign wars. Americans were in for a surprise. Roosevelt not only broke all of his promises, he also engaged in the most radical restructuring of society in American history.

For over 100 years, Americans had placed individual liberty at the top of their value scale. While there were certainly exceptions (like slavery and tariffs), the following philosophy guided our American ancestors: Individuals come into life with certain talents and abilities. They use these talents to get the food, clothing, and shelter necessary to sustain their lives. In order to improve their own well-being, they enter into trades with others — trades in which both sides mutually benefit. In this process, they begin to accumulate wealth and property. It is the inherent right of the individual to keep the fruits of his earnings and to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth. It is the right of the individual to decide what to do with that wealth — donate it to the poor, spend it, invest it, or whatever.

Thus, the core of our ancestors' philosophy was that the individual in society — and his right to live his life the way he chooses — are sovereign and supreme. In other words, as long as an individual does not murder, rape, steal, and so forth, he has the God-given right to be free of government control. In fact, our ancestors believed that one of government's few functions was to protect peaceful individuals as they pursued happiness in their own way.

Thus, it is not a coincidence that for over a century, our ancestors said no to: income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, central banking, economic regulations, and the like.

With his New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt abandoned that philosophy. From the day he assumed the presidency, Roosevelt told the American people that what mattered was not the sovereignty of the individual, but rather the sovereignty of the nation — society — the collective. He said that whenever the freedom of the individual collided with the interests of society, as expressed through the government, the individual's interests would have to be sacrificed.

How did FDR sell this new order of things to the American people? He said that the stock market crash of 1929 proved the failure of America's free-enterprise system. What was needed, Roosevelt said, was massive government intervention into people's economic affairs in order to save free enterprise.

Of course, by 1933, the U.S. had an entire generation of people who had been forced to attend public (government) schools. They had been taught that good citizenship meant obedience and support of their political rulers. Thus, it did not occur to most Americans that Roosevelt was lying to them — that what had failed in 1929 was not free enterprise, but rather the socialized, central planning of the Federal Reserve Board — the agency that had been created in 1913 to stabilize the monetary system.

Immediately after his election, FDR approached Congress and asked to be given virtually unlimited powers to deal with the economic emergency. Give me the power to rule by decree, Roosevelt said, because I know the way out of this crisis.

And Congress gave him what he requested. What was Roosevelt's plan for America? Contrary to the campaign promises he had made, he embarked on a massive program of governmental borrowing; government spending; public works (including road construction); tax hikes; military spending; welfare; economic regulation; and a national youth corps. It was a way of life and a philosophy that were totally contrary to every principle on which this nation was founded.

There were two obstacles to Roosevelt's plans: the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. When the New Deal legislation ultimately reached the court, much of it was declared in violation of the Constitution and the way of life that had been established in 1787. For example, the National Recovery Act required entire industries to combine into government-protected cartels and directed them to fix wages and prices in their respective industries. If a businessman disagreed with the cartel, he was threatened with a massive protest by "Blue Eagle" demonstrators. More important, he was threatened with prosecution and punishment.

The Supreme Court said that this way of life was not constitutionally permitted in the U.S. The court declared the NRA and several other New Deal programs unconstitutional.

Roosevelt was outraged. How can "nine old men" interfere with my power to do what is right for America? Roosevelt asked. He came up with a plan to pack the court with additional judges who would rule in his favor. But although FDR was changing America's economic system without a constitutional amendment, the American people refused to permit him to change the judicial system. FDR's court-packing scheme failed. However, as a result of the pressure he had put on the court, one justice changed his vote ("the switch in time that saved nine"), enabling Roosevelt to win the judicial war. From 1937 on, the court took the position that government had omnipotent powers over the wealth and economic activity of the American people.

Ironically, in 1933, another man assumed high political office, and it is instructive to review his philosophy and programs. Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany when that nation, too, was suffering from the Depression. The Germans actually had it worse — they were still suffering the effects of World War I. Their industrial base had been shattered; thousands of young men had been killed; they were still paying reparations; their country had been split in two (the Polish Corridor separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany); and there was communist agitation.

Hitler immediately approached the Reichstag and said: Give me the power to rule by decree; I know the way out of this crisis.

The Reichstag granted Hitler his wish. And when German President von Hindenberg died, the Reichstag granted Hitler's request to combine the offices of president and chancellor into one. Hitler had secured even more power than Roosevelt to address the German economic emergency.

What did he do? He embarked on a massive program of governmental borrowing; government spending; public works (including road construction, e.g., the Auto-bahn); tax hikes; military spending; welfare; economic regulation; and a national youth corps. Hitler's philosophy was encapsulated in the Nazi Party platform: "The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all."

Any German who objected to Hitler's plan was immediately threatened with persecution and prosecution.

If you detect a similarity between the economic philosophy and programs of Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler, then it will not surprise you to know that Hitler sent the following letter to U.S. Ambassador Thomas Dodd on March 14, 1934:

The Reich chancellor requests Mr. Dodd to present his greetings to President Roosevelt. He congratulates the president upon his heroic effort in the interest of the American people. The president's successful struggle against economic distress is being followed by the entire German people with interest and admiration. The Reich chancellor is in accord with the president that the virtues of sense of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline must be the supreme rule of the whole nation. This moral demand, which the president is addressing to every single citizen, is only the quintessence of German philosophy of the state, expressed in the motto "The public weal before the private gain."

John Toland observes in his biography Adolf Hitler (1976):

Hitler had genuine admiration for the decisive manner in which the President had taken over the reins of government. "I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt," he told a correspondent for the New York Times two months later, "because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy." Hitler went on to note that he was the sole leader in Europe who expressed "understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt."

And Hitler was not Roosevelt's only admirer. Benito Mussolini had led Italy into fascism, an economic philosophy that called for government control over economic activity, including government-business partnerships. Mussolini said that he admired FDR because he was, as Mussolini, a "social fascist."

Of course, Hitler had his admirers too. Toland points out:

[Winston] Churchill had once paid a grudging compliment to the Führer in a letter to the Times : "I have always said that I hoped if Great Britain were beaten in a war we should find a Hitler who would lead us back to our rightful place among nations."

Toland points out that the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith would later write:

Hitler also anticipated modern economic policy . . . by recognizing that a rapid approach to full employment was only possible if it was combined with wage and price controls. That a nation oppressed by economic fear would respond to Hitler as Americans did to F.D.R. is not surprising.

It was this similarity between communism, socialism, fascism, welfare statism, and New Dealism that caused Friedrich Hayek, who would later win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, to warn the West that it was following the same collectivist, statist road as the Nazis, socialists, fascists, and communists. Hayek's famous book, The Road to Serfdom (1944), angered Americans — they did not like hearing what Hayek said to them.

In the late 1930s, Hitler's economic program of massive government intervention was moving toward collapse. Thus, he did what rulers have done throughout history. He moved toward war in order to distract the German people from the growing economic crisis. But the German people remembered the ravages of World War I and were overwhelming against another war. Even many of Hitler's generals were opposed to the invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. When Chamberlain made his famous trips to Germany trying to secure peace, the German people wildly cheered him. But Hitler believed that war would be in the best interests of the nation.

As the end of the 1930s approached, Roosevelt's New Deal programs were also collapsing. There was a deep economic depression in 1937. People were figuring out that free enterprise is not saved by massive government control over people's lives and money. Roosevelt came to a firm conclusion before his reelection in 1940 that he kept secret from the voting public: Americans would have to go to war. There was a problem: the American people were even more insistent than the German people about staying out of another European war. But Roosevelt believed that war would be in the best interests of the nation.

Even though the Russian communists, the National Socialists (Nazis), the welfare statists, the fascists, and the New Dealers all had the same philosophical core, Roosevelt felt much more sympathy toward the communists. In fact, as recently opened Soviet files show, the Roosevelt administration was riddled with communist spies. Roosevelt believed that while the Nazi goals — full employment, public works, public highways, Social Security, national health care, public schooling, and so forth — were good and honorable, he did not like the notion of Aryan superiority promoted by the Nazis. He instead leaned toward what Stalin was doing, because he believed that the communists were for the little guy — the proletariat — the masses.

Hitler, on the other hand, was an ardent anticommunist. Like later American presidents, he rose to political power and justified his huge military buildup by pointing to the threat of communism. The goal of the communists, Hitler repeatedly said, was world conquest and domination. The West must combine to keep communism from taking over the world, he continually told Great Britain and the United States.

Franklin Roosevelt disagreed — Joseph Stalin ("Uncle Joe," he called him) was a man he could work with; the threat to world peace came from the Nazis, not the communists. Winston Churchill, on the other hand, while fighting to defeat the Nazis, fully agreed with Hitler's assessment of the communist threat to the West.

After FDR's death and the defeat of Nazi Germany, Harry Truman concluded that communism was the enemy and West Germany (even Nazis) was America's friend.

And this sets the backdrop for what happened to American soldiers who were in Nazi POW camps that were "liberated" by America's communist ally — the Soviet Union — as the war neared its end.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.


http://www.fff.org/freedom/0795a.asp

Some Revisionist Viewpoints On World War II
by Ben Kriegh

----

An illustration of the power of propaganda provided by Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, is the widely held misconception that National Socialist Germany was a totalitarian state. In Tragedy and Hope I he writes "unlike Italy or Soviet Russia, the economic system was not ruled by the state but was subject to 'self rule' (free enterprise) .... Newspapermen and journalistic writers applied the term 'totalitarian' to the Nazi system, and the name has stuck without any real analysis of the facts as they existed. In fact, the Nazi system was not totalitarian either in theory or in practice."


Note: Bold in original post.


Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II, Part 5
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 1995

----

The Reichstag granted Hitler his wish. And when German President von Hindenberg died, the Reichstag granted Hitler's request to combine the offices of president and chancellor into one. Hitler had secured even more power than Roosevelt to address the German economic emergency.

What did he do? He embarked on a massive program of governmental borrowing; government spending; public works (including road construction, e.g., the Auto-bahn); tax hikes; military spending; welfare; economic regulation; and a national youth corps. Hitler's philosophy was encapsulated in the Nazi Party platform: "The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all."

Any German who objected to Hitler's plan was immediately threatened with persecution and prosecution.


Note: Bold is my addition.

MorphicOutFielder, could you kindly explain where in the wide, wide world of sports you're going with this? First you post that National Socialist Germany was not a "totalitarian system." Then, you immediately post than anyone who disagreed with the NS government was "threatened with persecution and prosecution." Assuming you agree with both sentiments -- a fair assumption, since they're your links -- could you please define exactly what constitutes a "totalitarian" system, then?

Originally posted by Ironweed


Note: Bold in original post.



Note: Bold is my addition.

MorphicOutFielder, could you kindly explain where in the wide, wide world of sports you're going with this? First you post that National Socialist Germany was not a "totalitarian system." Then, you immediately post than anyone who disagreed with the NS government was "threatened with persecution and prosecution." Assuming you agree with both sentiments -- a fair assumption, since they're your links -- could you please define exactly what constitutes a "totalitarian" system, then?

It is sort of like Israel being a democracy. Well it sort of is...For Jews Only!

Or it is sort of like free speech in America. Yeah....As long a it is politically correct.

Germany was not tolerating people who felt no alliance with Germany. I guess that I don't see a need for communists in WWII era Germany, especially knowing what was happening and has happened to Russia. Hitler knew that Russia had systematically and intentionally starved 7,000,000 people to death in the Ukraine durring the winter of '32-33.(Roosevelt knew it too! And Roosevelt still called Stalin "uncle Joe".)

Aside from all of that, I'm reading information from diverse sources, and contradictions are inevitable. I read the Bible and generally try to follow many of its teachings, but that doesn't mean that I believe everything in it.

Personally, I believe that Hitler made a multitude of mistakes and was cunningly manipulated by the global elites of his time. A good question to ask is: Who actually benefitted from WWII and who continues to benefit yet today? Another good question is: In the long term, who lost the most because of WWII?

If you answer those two questions with total honesty, you are a rare individual.

I can answer it for you!

Who actually benefitted from WWII and who continues to benefit yet today?

The Jews.

In the long term, who lost the most because of WWII?

White people.

That's being completely honest.

Curse you, Grand Inquisitor, you have beaten me to the 'buzzer' ...

Your fingers are faster on the trigger than I.

Or maybe you just to this thread before I did. Either way, you stole my answers ...

Or maybe this is my oppurtunity to 'second the motion' that Jews benefited from WWII and Europeans (and whites everywhere) 'lost out' from WWII.

So, Morphic, what do we win ?

Originally posted by NJ Refugee

So, Morphic, what do we win ?

Only what we are stong enough and intelligent enough to take and keep. And since WWII that hasn't been much.

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder


It is sort of like Israel being a democracy. Well it sort of is...For Jews Only!

Or it is sort of like free speech in America. Yeah....As long a it is politically correct.


The question asked was, "how do you define a totalitarian regime?" Quite a few people arrested in NS Germany had not one jot of Jewish blood in them.

I submit to you that this forum (DA) would not have been tolerated in NS Germany. It is tolerated in America. I believe you are simply wrong on your second point, and have lost touch with reality if you equate the censorship of NS Germany with the censorship that occurs in the USA.

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
Hitler knew that Russia had systematically and intentionally starved 7,000,000 people to death in the Ukraine durring the winter of '32-33.(Roosevelt knew it too! And Roosevelt still called Stalin "uncle Joe".)

Please show me one quote, one source, one link where Hitler ever expressed the slightest pity or concern for the plight of a single ethnic Slav in the Stalinist era USSR. Assuming he knew, Hitler didn't care, as best I can tell.

I haven't the foggiest idea why you bring this up, or where you're going with it (again!), but you seem to have forgotten, or are unaware, that Hitler cheerfully negotiated with Stalin when it suited his purposes.

Here is a letter he wrote to Mussolini in an attempt to smoothe his feathers, since Il DUCE was not included or apparently aware that such negotiation was undertaken.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns057.htm

The readiness on the part of the Kremlin to arrive at a reorientation of its relations with Germany, which became apparent after the departure of Litvinov, has become ever stronger in the last few weeks and has made it possible for me, after successful preparation, to send my Foreign Minister to Moscow for the conclusion of a treaty which is the most extensive non-aggression pact in existence and whose text will be made public. The pact is unconditional and includes also the obligation for consultation about all questions affecting Russia and Germany. I may tell you, Duce, that through these arrangements the favorable attitude of Russia in case of any conflict is assured, and that the possibility of the entry of Rumania into such a conflict no longer exists!

Here is a copy of the non-agression treaty signed in 1939:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nonagres.htm

Doubtless both parties to the "Pact of Mutual Cynicism," as I think the London press called it would break it at their earliest convenience. However, Hitler broke his word first.



Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
Aside from all of that, I'm reading information from diverse sources, and contradictions are inevitable. I read the Bible and generally try to follow many of its teachings, but that doesn't mean that I believe everything in it.

As best I can tell, you quoted one source that said we are dealing with a C-A-T, then immediately followed that with another source that said, no, we are dealing with a D-O-G. They both cannot be right. Yet, you appear to disavow neither?

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder

Personally, I believe that Hitler made a multitude of mistakes and was cunningly manipulated by the global elites of his time.

Who were the "global elites" of his time? How did they manipulate him?

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
A good question to ask is: Who actually benefitted from WWII and who continues to benefit yet today?

Poland, which has a national existence. France, which has a national existence. Switzerland, which has a national existence. Sweden, which has a national existence.

Check out Goebbels' diaries, and read the charming things he has to say about these nations, if you don't understand to what I'm referring.

Or, as Heinrich the chicken farmer put it:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

For the SS Man, one principle must apply absolutely: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood, and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, the Czechs, is totally indifferent to me. Whatever is available to us in good blood of our type, we will take for ourselves, that is, we will steal their children and bring them up with us, if necessary. Whether other races live well or die of hunger is only of interest to me insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise that doesn't interest me. Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down <umfallen> from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany.

The Italian theatre of war

Now for Italy, the other theatre of war! There must be no doubt in our minds that the weakness of this people lies in their blood, in their race. In considering this problem, we must distinguish between that which is comfortable or uncomfortable for us today, and that which will be comfortable or uncomfortable for us in the future. Italy was a weak ally, beginning with Greece and Africa, and ending with Russia. There is, after all, no nation which hasn't thrashed the Italians, from whom the Italians haven't taken a beating. The Italians, we can see this right now, will be considered the most contemptible people in the world; no one, no Albanian, no Montenegrin, no Frenchman, no American, no Englishman, no Russian, no German, will have any respect for them, since they have proven themselves everywhere to be cowards, as soldiers, as men. That is the most contemptible judgement that one can hand down against a people and a race.

So, let's add Italy, Russia (in some form or another) and the Czech Republic to the list of "beneficiaries" of World War II. Not that Poland, the (then) USSR or the (then) Czechoslovakia didn't have fifty years of US led "Containment" directed against them to look forward to. But, it beats anything Goebbels or Himmler had in mind.

I could go on, but that's seems good enough to me.

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
Another good question is: In the long term, who lost the most because of WWII?

A vicious gang of German Supremacists lost the most. The British Empire probably didn't have much longer to run, but WW2 doubtless accelerated its decline. I'm not even certain that can be termed a "long-term" loss.

Hmm, Germany and Japan both rapidly climbed from the rubble to become economic powerhouses. They got the same free ride under American military protection that America got in the 19th Century while expanding trade under British naval protection. No long term loss there.

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
If you answer those two questions with total honesty, you are a rare individual.

Not really. Apply Occam's Razor.

Quite a few people arrested in NS Germany had not one jot of Jewish blood in them.

Jews weren't the only people arrested. Political enemies and sexual deviants were also amongst them.

I believe you are simply wrong on your second point, and have lost touch with reality if you equate the censorship of NS Germany with the censorship that occurs in the USA.

The censorship and bias that is in the American media is, in my opinion, just as if not stronger than that of NS Germany. This (http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america) should set you straight. Ignore the purpose of the rest of the site, the essay is objective.

Please show me one quote, one source, one link where Hitler ever expressed the slightest pity or concern for the plight of a single ethnic Slav in the Stalinist era USSR. Assuming he knew, Hitler didn't care, as best I can tell.

Hitler was a Pan-Germanist, not a White Nationalist by today's standards (Yggdrasil's).

but you seem to have forgotten, or are unaware, that Hitler cheerfully negotiated with Stalin when it suited his purposes.

Hitler stated in 'Mein Kampf' that the Russians were the traditional and ultimate enemy of Germany. I can't get a quote for it, but its there. He only negociated with Stalin because he didn't want to fight the USSR just yet, and he profited from the negociations anyway.

Who were the "global elites" of his time? How did they manipulate him?

Wall Street. There is a recent discussion on DA which mentioned this.

Poland, which has a national existence. France, which has a national existence. Switzerland, which has a national existence. Sweden, which has a national existence.

Those countries are currently being wrecked by multiculturalism and political correctness. Switzerland was not harmed by Germany or the Allies during WW2 anyway.

A vicious gang of German Supremacists lost the most.

No, white people as a whole lost, and are still losing. WW2 is a perfect excuse for the Jews to continue to weaken the white race, using the holocaust as justification of political correctness and multiculturalism. These weaken the white race by encouraging race-mixing and other decadent and non-productive behaviour. Israel, for example, is not multi-cultural. They do not practise what they preach.

So dramatic was Germany's economic recovery that Churchill stated to General R. E. Wood in November 1936, "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her."


I'm curious how relevant this is, since Churchill didn't become Prime Minister until AFTER the Nazis started the war.

"The signing of a pact between two great nations is a solemn act"

--Hitler, speaking about the Germano-Soviet treaty

"Germany must reckon with its two hateful enemies, England and France."

--Adolf Hitler....in 1938

"The victor shall not be asked later on whether we were telling the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory."

---Adolf Hitler, May 1939

"... Breach of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is meaningless. No one will question that when we have won we shall not bring about a breach of neutrality as in 1914."

--Adolf Hitler, November 1939 (Note: Germany had non-aggression pacts with both of those states)

"No war could be carried on if the Navy was not able to safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia."

--Adolf Hitler, November 1934

Germany had signed a Non-Aggression pact with DENMARK on the 31st of May, 1939.

Hitler's view of treaties is the following:

"Considerations of right or wrong or treaties do not enter into the matter."

"If new territory were to be acquired in Europe it must have been mainly at Russia’s cost, and once again the new German Empire should have set out on its march along the same road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic Knights, this time to acquire soil for the German plough by means of the German sword and thus provide the nation with its daily bread."

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924.

Originally posted by Grand_Inquisitor


Jews weren't the only people arrested. Political enemies and sexual deviants were also amongst them.


The Jews were the vast majority of the people arrested.


The censorship and bias that is in the American media is, in my opinion, just as if not stronger than that of NS Germany.


Thats absurd. Seriously.


Ignore the purpose of the rest of the site, the essay is objective.


ROFL


Hitler was a Pan-Germanist, not a White Nationalist by today's standards (Yggdrasil's).


He was just more honest. "White Nationalists" will fall on each other if they were given their wish for a racially pure homeland. The same arguments made against blacks can easily be made against Poles, Russians, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, etc.



Hitler stated in 'Mein Kampf' that the Russians were the traditional and ultimate enemy of Germany.


Which he was really sincere about when he let the Russians occupy the Baltic states, which had a large amount of Germanic peoples living in their borders. :rolleyes:


He only negociated with Stalin because he didn't want to fight the USSR just yet, and he profited from the negociations anyway.


ROFL So Hitler isn't obligated to keep his promises? He isn't obligated to keep his word? I think this behavior is pretty typical of people with white supremacist views. Liars and backstabbers.



Those countries are currently being wrecked by multiculturalism and political correctness. Switzerland was not harmed by Germany or the Allies during WW2 anyway.


The Germans considered invading Switzerland.


No, white people as a whole lost, and are still losing.


ROFL I thought Hitler didn't represent "White Nationalism"?


WW2 is a perfect excuse for the Jews to continue to weaken the white race, using the holocaust as justification of political correctness and multiculturalism.


Maybe your case would hold more water if your belief system wasn't responsible for the systematic attempt to anihilate a people.

LMAO

So...the Allies started the war. Not the illegal-forced Anschluss. Not the invasion of Checkslovakia. Not the invasion of Poland.

No.

:|

Hmm...

Comedy abounds.

So...the Allies started the war. Not the illegal-forced Anschluss. Not the invasion of Checkslovakia. Not the invasion of Poland.

From a particular POV, yes the Allies did start the war. On Nov 11, 1918. When they forced Germany to sign a very punishing Treaty of Versailles, they were virtually guaranteeing that there would be another war.

The Treaty of Versailles was the 'seeds of their own destruction'. Years after those seeds were sown, WW2 was the harvest.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
LMAO

So...the Allies started the war. Not the illegal-forced Anschluss. Not the invasion of Checkslovakia. Not the invasion of Poland.

No.

:|

Hmm...

Comedy abounds.

Actually they were as much if not more responsible. Germany had seen what the communists had done to people and was frightened. Reparations debts created by the the declining British Empire, the fallen French empire, and the United States, who should never have been involved in WWI, practically insured a second war. Germany was out producing France and England and Germany's merchant and military Navy was rivaling Englands.

England, France, global jews, and Roosevelt(Closet jew?-I don't know.) wanted to destroy Germany. No one got upset when Russia invaded Poland. The allies were an unholy alliance of evil. No one gave a damn about jews except jews, because everyone knew what jews did to a culture at that time. No one gave a dfamn about China. Those were just issues to incite the people and troops. The American people did not want to fight in either WWI or WWII, but the elite, as usual, saw opportunities for more power and greater wealth. Never mind the jew Morgethau advising Roosevelt. Damn curios that Russia was given a pass for greater atrocities than Germany. Of course the jew is always worth more than white people. Lindbergh pointed out who was controling the press, as Henry Ford had pointed out earlier.

Yes. The allies were at least equally responsible for WWII, probably more responsible.

Anyone who says that Hitler was out to conqueror the world is either brainwashed by the jew media, or just plain lying.

Originally posted by Ironweed


The question asked was, "how do you define a totalitarian regime?" Quite a few people arrested in NS Germany had not one jot of Jewish blood in them.

Communists, Jehovah's Wittnesses, drunks, drug addicts, anyone who was a threat to the security of Germany, Gypsies, and worthless people in general. Hitler signed papers and made a lot of jews instantly Aryan. Many in the military were jew, including an admiral, some generals, a lot of other high ranking officers, and tens of thousands of troops. Personally I think Hitler was wrong in such a blinf condemnation of jews. All people should have been judged solely on their demonstrated loyalty, and contributions, to Germany.

Hitler was wrong about a lot of things.

I submit to you that this forum (DA) would not have been tolerated in NS Germany. It is tolerated in America. I believe you are simply wrong on your second point, and have lost touch with reality if you equate the censorship of NS Germany with the censorship that occurs in the USA.

"Sort of" does not mean "equal to" to me. You are so anxious to believe(for whatever reason) that I have lost touch with reality that you misinterpret what I write.

If all continues as it has throughout the world, forums like this may be abolished. This sort of speech has been banned in much of the world, including most of Europe, England, Canada, and Australia. If I were to visit Germany I could be arrested and imprisoned for what I have posted in this forum. This has already happened to an American citizen. There are forces at work to bring these laws into being in America.

The Patriot Law allows arrest without any evidence, and we say nothing. Hitler and Stalin banned guns. Germany forbade gun shows.



Please show me one quote, one source, one link where Hitler ever expressed the slightest pity or concern for the plight of a single ethnic Slav in the Stalinist era USSR. Assuming he knew, Hitler didn't care, as best I can tell.

Hitler knew what was happening to germans in Poland. Poles were exterminating them. Hitler knew that Russia was exterminating millions of people. Germany was scared![/QUOTE]


[/QUOTE]
I haven't the foggiest idea why you bring this up, or where you're going with it (again!), but you seem to have forgotten, or are unaware, that Hitler cheerfully negotiated with Stalin when it suited his purposes. [/QUOTE]

He knew Russia was coming, AND Russia was coming! Delay them until ready. I would have done the same thing. You act as if The United States, Great Britain, and every other country hasn't violated a treaty.


Here is a letter he wrote to Mussolini in an attempt to smoothe his feathers, since Il DUCE was not included or apparently aware that such negotiation was undertaken.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns057.htm



Here is a copy of the non-agression treaty signed in 1939:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nonagres.htm

Doubtless both parties to the "Pact of Mutual Cynicism," as I think the London press called it would break it at their earliest convenience. However, Hitler broke his word first.

There was an abundance of treachery to go around. It goes back to WWI and includes every country involved and global jews. If you can't see that, you are missing a lot of history.


As best I can tell, you quoted one source that said we are dealing with a C-A-T, then immediately followed that with another source that said, no, we are dealing with a D-O-G. They both cannot be right. Yet, you appear to disavow neither?

Ever read the Bible? Or how about a newspaper? Ever take a college history class? Any inconsistencies?



Who were the "global elites" of his time? How did they manipulate him?

Wall Street and wealthy New York jews helped finance the rise of Hitler. Originally Churchill and many powerful people in western nations admired and praised Hitler. Of course the jew press was enraged. Hiler had reason to believe that the United States would support him. In truth, if the American people had been told the truth they probablly WOULD have supported him. Prescot Bush, Joe Kennedy, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, and many more supported Hitler. He was working with Israel to resettle jews there. There was a group of jews in Israel who wanted to join his army.

Hitler was really naive not questioning the funds provided by wealthy New York jews. He seriously miscalculated the power of the jew press and the sophistication of posible jew treachery. In a sense he learned little from WWI and the Balfour Declaration.

If Russia could invade Poland with impunity, why should Germany be attacked for invading to save Germans living inside the (illogical?)Polish boundaries established by WWI.



Poland, which has a national existence. France, which has a national existence. Switzerland, which has a national existence. Sweden, which has a national existence.

What exactly was Poland's boundary? AND how did we help Poland in WWII?

Check out Goebbels' diaries, and read the charming things he has to say about these nations, if you don't understand to what I'm referring.

Or, as Heinrich the chicken farmer put it:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html



[/b]

So, let's add Italy, Russia (in some form or another) and the Czech Republic to the list of "beneficiaries" of World War II. Not that Poland, the (then) USSR or the (then) Czechoslovakia didn't have fifty years of US led "Containment" directed against them to look forward to. But, it beats anything Goebbels or Himmler had in mind.[/QUOTE]

Odd that when given the choice of waiting to be liberated by your Russian heroes or leaving the camps with their "Nazi" guards, the jews choose to leave with the guards. Apparently you see him as Old Uncle Joe, too. Stalin slaughtered many times what Hitler did. Where is the jew Hollywood movie?



I could go on, but that's seems good enough to me.

Gee. I expected you to tell me about the rape and slaugter of german women by our glorious allies.



A vicious gang of German Supremacists lost the most. The British Empire probably didn't have much longer to run, but WW2 doubtless accelerated its decline. I'm not even certain that can be termed a "long-term" loss.

I knew that you were to weak to be honest. Nope. White people lost WWII, and they are still losing. Some of the best genetics in the world was lost. Germany was on the path to creating the finest, and the jew sumpremists rallied the masses to destroy Germany. Russia has systematically destroyed its best genetics through repeated purges. Russia is in shambles.


Hmm, Germany and Japan both rapidly climbed from the rubble to become economic powerhouses. They got the same free ride under American military protection that America got in the 19th Century while expanding trade under British naval protection. No long term loss there.

Are you being dishonest here, or do you just not understand? America and Russia plundered the minds, inventions, and patents of Germany. America was catapulted forward in science by that plunder. Russia made giant leaps, but as I stated, repeatedly purging the best minds has nearly destroyed it.

Lets understand one point. The best minds in Germany were generally German. Being a jew, Einstein and fellow jews were lauded by the jew press and elevated much like the jew Freud. The jew press is still at it today. Research the origin of the Segway. Invented in Japan, but a jew gets the raves of the jew press. The highest concentration of geniuses in the world is(was?) in White South Africa, and they are of German and English heritage.

A frustrating phenomena is the lesser able repeatedly destroying those who are the most able. Think about the blacks chastising one of their own in school who studies and works. "Acting White". Look at the prisons. Any inmate who trys to change and create a better way for themself is targeted by the lesser able inmates. I'm not saying that Hitler was the best. He was not! But in his time he had the greatest dream for his people, and the lesser able couldn't stand it. The jews were not going to allow it. White people destroyed their own future, and since so many nonwhites all over the world live off of white people and white civilization, they lose too. Look at what Africa is doing to itself today. The less able just keep killing their best hopes.

The highest concentration of geniuses in the world is(was?) in White South Africa, and they are of German and English heritage.


Your sources for this? First of all, White South Africans don't exactly have the world's most brilliant IQ (94-I am not sure about the SD). Second of all, most are of mixed Dutch, German and French heritage.

Earl, your ignorance is highly irriatting and amusing at the same time.
Germany was on the path to creating the finest, and the jew sumpremists rallied the masses to destroy Germany.

Jesus Christ, Morphic, that is the most ridiculous ****ing the I have ever heard. The SS was hardly "the finest". LOL. ROFL. Many SS conscripts were illiterate. Some may very well have been borderline mentally retarded; there wer eabsolutely no educaitonal or IQ requirements to enter the SS. As a matter of fact Hitler Banned IQ tests because he thought they were "Jewish" (LMAO). The SS was a hodgepodge of "Aryan" murderers and ignoramuses who were hardly qualified to be janitors. The Nazis completely and utterly destroyed Germany's educaitonal system by turning it into an indoctrination center. "Finest"? Hardly.

Russia has systematically destroyed its best genetics through repeated purges. Russia is in shambles.

LOL. LMAO. The Russian ruling class wasn't "Russia's best genetics". Russia was never stratified by intelligence or talent; only by inheritance. There are plenty of brilliant and talented people still left in Russia, and there always were. Sure, Russia is in shambles, but that says nothing about the quality of its people. North Korea is in shambles too Morphic; are you going to tell me that Koreans are stupid? The intelligence of the political leadership is far more important than the general intelligence of the population (especially when that populaton is powerless to replaces its leadership as Russia's population was). Russians are fairly intelligent people, and always have been. Its the leadership that's brought it to the brink of ruin, just as unintleligent leadership has nearly ruined China and ruined North Korea.



Russia made giant leaps, but as I stated, repeatedly purging the best minds has nearly destroyed it.

No, Morphic. "The best minds" were not as throughly purged as you make them out to be. Perhaps those midns with msot opportunities, but as I've sated before, Russian society wa snever stratified by intellect. Your average peasant could have an IQ 30 points higher than that of the czar. Feudal socieites with dynastic monarchies are never stratified by intellect and that's something you don't seem to understand.

Hitler was not all bad.

Germany Recovers from the Depression

Like most other economies, Germany's economy had hit bottom in 1932. Under Hitler, the strategy for recovery was largely the work of his economics minister, Hjalmar Schaact, traditionally a conservative but dynamic in thought. Schaact stopped the sending of German money out of Germany. He reduced foreign trade largely to barter agreements, and he put strict limits on imports -- all this to keep wealth within the country. Under Schaact, private industry was compelled to reinvest its profits in manufacturing approved by the state. And crucial to Germany's recovery was government spending, much of it on public works, the most visible of which was a new highway system -- the autobahn -- which the army wanted for more efficient movements within Germany. There was also an electrification program, and government investment in industry. One third of Germany's income had as its source government payments and investments -- almost three times the percentage being spent by the U.S. government. And, as in Sweden, the government debt that Schaact was creating was quickly offset by the recovery in revenues that came with the rise in the economy.

Wages and the standard of living remained relatively low for Germans, but the aim of the government was not public consumption but increased industrial production of non-consumer goods. Unemployment was falling, and business optimism returned. In 1935 compulsory labor service was introduced, and unemployment was reduced further as tax incentives were introduced to persuade women to leave the labor force, to return to what was considered traditional for German women: cooking, children and church attending (küche, kinder und kirche).

Re-armament (in defiance of the Paris Peace Conference) helped boost Germany's economy, and without independent trade unions, Germany could keep its wages low and it prices stable. Hitler's economy remained low in productivity, as there was little incentive, and some disincentives, to innovate -- the usual incentive for innovation being high profits, which in Germany were heavily taxed. But by 1935, Germany's farmers were prospering, and industrial production was above its 1929 level and rising rapidly.2 German workers had the right to try their employers in special courts in order to protect themselves from abuse. But more importantly, many workers and others were saying that Hitler had saved them from starvation. And they were grateful to Hitler for his having brought economic recovery -- more than the common U.S. citizen was grateful to Roosevelt.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

Who says that Hitler was all bad? It depends solely on one's perspective; to the destitute German middle-class fmaily of the bankrupt Weimar years, Hitler was nothing short of a Messiah and his economic policies nothing short of miracles.

The Jews were the vast majority of the people arrested.

True.

Thats absurd. Seriously.

Slightly exaggerated, but only slightly.

ROFL

They are facts and figures. Don't even try and argue, the essay shows who runs the Media. It may go off on a tangent once or twice, I'm not sure.

Which he was really sincere about when he let the Russians occupy the Baltic states, which had a large amount of Germanic peoples living in their borders.

He reclaimed these.

ROFL So Hitler isn't obligated to keep his promises? He isn't obligated to keep his word? I think this behavior is pretty typical of people with white supremacist views. Liars and backstabbers.

Hitler just got there first. I'm not a white supremacist, and don't hold too much respect for anyone who is.

The Germans considered invading Switzerland.

Considered. And Germany had a use for Switzerland anyway - banking. (Perhaps corrupt banking, I don't know or care.)

ROFL I thought Hitler didn't represent "White Nationalism"?

Most of people who are losing aren't even German.

Maybe your case would hold more water if your belief system wasn't responsible for the systematic attempt to anihilate a people.

I'm not a Nazi. I don't want to "anihilate" (sic) Jews, I just want them to stop having disproportionate Media, political and banking influence in some countries. I don't like Judaism, I don't want to exterminate it however.

Originally posted by NJ Refugee


From a particular POV, yes the Allies did start the war. On Nov 11, 1918. When they forced Germany to sign a very punishing Treaty of Versailles, they were virtually guaranteeing that there would be another war.


By this argument, Germany's role in assisting the Communists in their overthrow of the Russian government GUARANTEED the actions of the Red Army in Berlin and East Germany. So Germany started that particular war, TWICE.


The Treaty of Versailles was the 'seeds of their own destruction'. Years after those seeds were sown, WW2 was the harvest.

Considering we won, not really.

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator


By this argument, Germany's role in assisting the Communists in their overthrow of the Russian government GUARANTEED the actions of the Red Army in Berlin and East Germany. So Germany started that particular war, TWICE.



Considering we won, not really.

Actually the overthrow of the Romanovs was by jews and primarily jews from the United States. Jews were less than 10% of the population, but they were over 50% of the revolutionaries. Names and numbers can be found at Jew Watch. Nearly all of the leaders of the revolution were jews. At that point in history communist=jew. People like to ignore or forget that point. Germany knew exactly who the communists were. We confined the japanese and Germany confined jews. It was perfectly logical on both sides.

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder


Actually the overthrow of the Romanovs was by jews and primarily jews from the United States.


Actually thats totally absurd. Tell the people, Morphic, who smuggled Lenin into Russia.

Do you know?


Jews were less than 10% of the population, but they were over 50% of the revolutionaries.


PROVE that. Give evidence of that.




Names and numbers can be found at Jew Watch.


That is a bull**** source and not acceptable. Take your bigot source elsewhere. Give us a BOOK or a link to an educational source with that figure.


Nearly all of the leaders of the revolution were jews.


Like Lenin and Stalin? No? I thought not.


At that point in history communist=jew. People like to ignore or forget that point.


Umm...actually I don't think you know what you're talking about, since you seem to get your information from "Jew Watch".

The census of the Communist Party conducted in 1922 showed that only 959 Jewish members joined before 1917.

Why was the Jewish Labor Bund one of only two political parties (the other one was the small and heavily Jewish PSR, a democratic socialist party) to unequivocally condemn in the Congress of Deputies the Bolshevik seizure of power?

LOL Anti-Semites like to pick out people like Trotsky, yet they don't seem to understand that Trotsky was one of Stalin's most vocal opponents. In fact, Trotsky was in FAR GREATER opposition to Stalin's regime in 1939 than Hitler was.

And thus Morphic has hung his own argument. Blaming Jews for Communism means that it is PERFECTLY VALID to blame Germans for Nazism, Georgians for Stalinism, and Arabs for 9/11. I invite Morphic to now say that the people at Dresden got what they deserved, since he's willing to say that about Jews.


Germany knew exactly who the communists were.


Who got Lenin into Russia Morphic, do you know?

Jewish Bankers Finance Revolution In Russia

American Jacob Schiff was the wealthiest Jewish banker in the world as head of the international bank of "Kuhn, Loeb & Co." Note here that Schiff "floated the large Japanese War Loans of 1904-1905 which made their victory over Russia possible". At the end of the article we read that Schiff "used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money markets of the U.S." Also note that Schiff controlled all of the railroads in the U.S. and "suppressed ruinous competition." [Note: This would be like allowing one person to own all of the Air Lines today and "suppressing all competition." He also controlled the Central Trust Bank and Western Union.). Thus, with all this money power, Schiff was able to prevent the Czar from obtaining loans to raise armies for a defense against the Japanese. Schiff formed called "The Friends of Russian Freedom." Its purpose was to agitate for the overthrow of the Christian Czar. This group, with the help of the Japanese, ran an anti-Czar indoctrination campaign among the 50,000 Russian soldiers taken as POWs during the war. They returned home ready to support the Jewish revolution.

The first "Soviet" seized control of the city of St. Petersburg on March 14, 1917, while the nation was in turmoil over their defeats by the Germans during World War One. "The New York Times" of March 24, 1917, reports that Jacob Schiff sent the following telegram to members of his "Friends of Russian Freedom": "Will you say for me to those present at tonight's meeting how deeply I regret my inability to celebrate with the Friends of Russian Freedom the actual reward of what we had hoped and striven for these long years." (Schiff was obviously referring to the spreading Communist revolution in Russia.)

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
An illustration of the power of propaganda provided by Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, is the widely held misconception that National Socialist Germany was a totalitarian state. In Tragedy and Hope I he writes "unlike Italy or Soviet Russia, the economic system was not ruled by the state but was subject to 'self rule' (free enterprise) .... Newspapermen and journalistic writers applied the term 'totalitarian' to the Nazi system, and the name has stuck without any real analysis of the facts as they existed. In fact, the Nazi system was not totalitarian either in theory or in practice."
to·tal·i·tar·i·an Pronunciation Key (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

- dictionary.com

Economic?

"PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS' PARTY

The National Socialist German Workers' Party - registered as the "National Socialist German Workers' Union" - at a great mass meeting on February 25, 1920, in the Hofbrauhaus-Festsaal in Munich, announced its program to the world.

In Section 2 of the Constitution of our Party this program is declared to be unalterable. It is as follows:

[...]

12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have (hitherto) been amalgamated (into trusts).

14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.

[...]

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land."

- Das Programm der NSDAP und seine weltanschaulichen Grundgedanken (Munich, 1930)

The Reichsbetriebszellenabteilung (RBO) was formed 15 January 1931 out of an amalgamation of the NS Wählerschaf (later the NS Arbeiterkampfbund), the Sekretariat für Arbeiterangelegenheiten, the Gaubetriebszellenabteilung, and became the largest union and workplace-group for NSDAP voters in Germany. On 8 March, 1931, it was redesignated the Nationalsozialistische Betriebszellenorganisation (NSBO) and represented the submussion of all NSDAP trade unions (former Zeller) to a central party authority. In 1934, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF) was founded and became the only legal trade union in the Third Reich. With the creation of the DAF, independent labour unions such as the SPD's free, the KPD's Red, and the Hirsch-Dunkler of the DDP were nationalised and incorporated into the German Labour Front. Wages were fixed, strikes were forbidden, and place of employment was determined by the state. Farmers were tied to their land by the ancient feudal law of hereditary ownership and were forced to remain in their vocations or lose their livelihoods. War profiteering by military firms was stricly disallowed and all funds procured thusly were seized by the state. Commissions for the largest quantities of industrial and military goods (notoriously at the Krupp steelworks in Essen) were derived exclusively from the state after 1936 and the beginning of Hitler's rearmament. Hitler's 'economic miracle' was a product of his national labour programmes including most notably, the autobahn and the development of the volkswagon (for which germans had to pay a stipend from their monthly salaries). In fact, average German wages were nearly as low or sometimes lower in the Third Reich than during the 1929 Great Depression in the twillight years of the Weimar Republic [Shirer].

The Musterbetriebsfahne (economic cousin to the Hakenkreuzflagge):

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/d/de_mufte.gif

Education?

With the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Hitler commandeered the state appartus of education in order to mould young German minds to become his willing executioners. History and biology were the two subjects most profoundly affected. The Great War was taught as a betrayal by Marxists and Jews and as a subversion of Germanic superiority on the behalf of the November Criminals. Biology was meant to emphasize racial awareness and hatred while extolling the virtues of a pure German race.

"No boy or girl should leave school without complete knowledge of the necessity and meaning of blood purity." - Adolf Hitler

The entire educational system was overtaken as traditional textbook problems came to be replaced with questions such as:

"A bomber aircraft on take-off carries 12 dozen bombs, each weighing 10 kilos. The aircraft takes off for Warsaw the international centre for Jewry. It bombs the town. On take-off with all bombs on board and a fuel tank containing 100 kilos of fuel, the aircraft weighed about 8 tons. When it returns from the crusade, there are still 230 kilos left. What is the weight of the aircraft when empty?"

and

"To keep a mentally ill person costs approximately 4 marks a day. There are 300,000 mentally ill people in care. How much do these people cost to keep in total? How many marriage loans of 1000 marks could be granted with this money?"

Any teacher considered disloyal to National Socialist principles was fired and by the fall of the Third Reich, 97% had joined the Nazi Teachers' Association. The Medical profession had been corrupted to disseminate Nazi eugenic and racial ideals. The University of Heidelberg trained doctors who would later supervise gassings at extermination camps and declare which prioners were fit for labour and which were to be killed. Gassing of jews in the Third Reich was a medical procedure.

Modelling Collective Belief?

Goebbels speaks for himself on this issue:

"Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal."

[...]

"National Socialism learned from these two examples. It drew the correct practical conclusions from that knowledges. The ideal of a socialist national community did not remain mere theory with us, but became living reality in the thoughts and feelings of 67 million Germans. Our propaganda of word and deed created the conditions for that. Mastering them kept National Socialism from the danger of remaining the dream and longing of a few thousand. Through propaganda, it became hard, steely everyday reality."

- Joseph Goebbels, Goebbels at Nuremburg, 1934, Der Kongress zur Nürnberg 1934 (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Frz. Eher Nachf., 1934), pp. 130-141.

"There are a variety of ways to gain power. There are illegal means to gain power through brute force; one can also gain power legally by winning a majority in an election. There are revolutions, Putsches, uprisings. But each of these methods requires a political group to win the sympathies of the broad masses, if it wishes over the long run to maintain is power. But the sympathy of the people does not come of itself; it must be won.

The means of gaining that support is propaganda. The task of propaganda is not to discover a theory or to develop a program, rather to translate that theory and program into the language of the people, to make them comprehensible to the broad masses of the people. The goal of propaganda is to make what the theorists have discovered clear to the broad masses."

[...]

"No other political movement as understood the art of propaganda as well as the National Socialists. From its beginnings, it has put heart and soul into propaganda. What distinguishes it from all other political parties is the ability to see into the soul of the people and to speak the language of the man in the street. It uses all the means of modern technology. Leaflets, handbills, posters, mass demonstrations, the press, stage, film and radio—these are all tools of our propaganda. Whether or not they serve or harm the people depends on the use to which they are put.

In the long run, propaganda will reach the broad masses of the people only if at every stage it is uniform. Nothing confuses the people more than lack of clarity or aimlessness. The goal is not to present the common man with as many varied and contradictory theories as possible. The essence of propaganda is not in variety, rather the forcefulness and persistence with which one selects ideas from the larger pool and hammers them into the masses using the most varied methods."

[...]

"Today we have a tight network of National Socialist propaganda throughout the country. It should be clear to any observer that we are preparing not only for the tasks of today, but for the future. National Socialist propaganda serves to educate the people. Its task is not only to win them for the tasks of today, but to assist in the transformation of the character of the broad masses. We are convinced that a new politics in Germany is possible only after a complete transformation of our national character, after an entirely new national way of thinking. This is our most pressing task, and in working for these tasks today we are doing the best preparatory work for the great political tasks of tomorrow."

- Joseph Goebbels, Unser Wille und Weg, 1931

The Angriff and the Volkischer Beobachter were the only two newspapers allowed in the Nazi racial state, the former being Goebbels' personal propaganda rag and the latter being under the control of the Ministry of Popular Enlightmentment. All other venues of communication, public radio, television, cinema, books, educational materials, and magazines were controlled both in terms of publication and content by the state.

I might go into the Third reich's cultural and social policies involving Himmler's ban on jazz music and the attempted destruction of the Edelweiss Pirates, to name but a few things, but there's little point in humiliating and embarassing you further.

Dal Hitchcock, in The German Financial Revolution, described German financial and fiscal policy as "revolutionary" and "successful," and noted that National Socialism involved no nationalization of factories or industry, and that all business organizations were privately owned.
Semantic. While privately owned, all business life was regulated by the state. Who the factories and industries had to employ, what wages to pay, what to produce, at what price, and for whom all fell under the authority of the government. I suspect Hitchcock makes this distinction clear in his book (though I've never read it) but the article chooses to deliberately quote him out of context to support its spurious thesis.

So dramatic was Germany's economic recovery that Churchill stated to General R. E. Wood in November 1936, "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." In 1938 Bernard Baruch, advisor to President Roosevelt, remarked to General George C. Marshall, "We are going to lick that fellow Hitler. He isn't going to get away with it."
In 1936, Winston Churchill was not in power and was repeatedly ignored in british parliament despite his vehement recommendations for an Anglo-Russo alliance and his opposition to Munich. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Churchill's statement was made in reference to Germany's economic might. It is highy plausible that given germany's violation of the Treaty of Versailles, remilitarization of the Rhineland, occupation of the Saar basin, rearmament, and withdrawal from the League of Nations that Churchill foresaw the consequences of Hitler's actions which would manifest themselves on 1 September, 1939. The same can be said for Baruch, who made his comment after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the rape of Austria.

These remarks suggest that leaders in Britain and the United States were contemplating war. Accordingly, a propaganda barrage was launched against Germany -- she was building a war machine to conquer the world.
The statements of an ignored non-governmental fringe politician and a presidential advisor do not constitute a national policy of contemplation for war. These isolated incidents suggest nothing of the sort. In fact, no "propaganda barrage" was launched against Germany; other western leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain, trusted Hitler's good intentions and saw Munich as an effective way of placating a potentially pan-European expansionist Hitler. Chamberlain had obviously been thinking about Czechoslovakia early in the year and he seems to have made his mind up that there was nothing that he could do to defend it against Germany. This is clear from his diary. He was not prepared to get Britain involved in a war that we were not ready for. When Hitler made his demands on 12 September, Chamberlain reacted immediately and went to meet him in Berchtesgaden. He agreed to all of Hitler's demands and the letter to his sister suggests that he believed that he could do a deal with Hitler. He must have thought this or he would not have written to someone so close. The question remains as to what Chamberlain believed after the second and third visits to Germany. In public he appeared to believe that it was 'peace in our time', even though preparations for war were speeded up during the winter of 1938-9. When you look at him after his return to London from Munich, it certainly appears that he really believed that Hitler could be trusted.

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/ww2/chamberlain.jpg

But, according to several writers, this charge was phony. Quigley in Tragedy and Hope: "From 1936 to the outbreak of war in 1939, German aircraft production was not raised ... its tank production was low, and even in 1939 was less than Britain's .... Britain produced about 8000 (military planes) in 1939 compared to 4733 (produced in Germany) In 1939 ... From these facts it's quite clear that Britain did not yield to superior force..."
It's not surprising that Germany's airforce production was down; Goering always was an inefficient and buffoonish Luftwaffe commander. The lagging rate of tank production was due in no small part to the fact that hitler had only begun remilitarising in 1936 and prior to this point, all military industry had been rendered inoperational by the Versailles Treaty. Simply put, Hitler lacked the infrastructure to create more military units, faster. This is not tot say, as the article implies, that he would not have done so give the opportunity. Morevoer, even in the absence of a military, Hitler had drafted invasion plans codified by colour which detailed invasions and attack plans for most European nations, including France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Norway, and Russia as early as 1938.

In The World Crisis in America's Foreign Policy 1937-1941, W. L. Langer and S. E. Gleason show that Germany was unprepared for a major European war in 1939, having not planned for such a dire eventuality. In The Myth of the New History, Dr. David Hoggan writes, "The Churchill myth of Germany armed to the teeth in 1940 (flies) in the face of all the statistical evidence which has been offered by ... Asher Lee" (in The German Air Force).
This is correct and is easily explained by hitler faith in Britain and France's unwillingness to declare war on Germany if Germany invaded Poland. This proved not to be the case, but in any event, Hitler did not plan for the contingency despite Ciano's best attempts to persuade him to delay risking world war. This phenomenon also explains the sixth month lull and 'false war" between the 1 September 1939 invasion of Poland and the 10 May 1940 Blitzkrieg of France. That period of time gave Hitler sufficient time to build up his landwehr.

In The Origins of the Second World War, A.J.P. Taylor, a leading British historian, shows that "Hitler did not wish a war, either local, European, or world. His only fundamental aim in foreign policy was to revise the unjust and unfair Treaty of Versailles, and to do this by peaceful means." (Quotation from a review by Harry Elmer Barnes.)
LOL this is the funniest thing I've read in this entire article. The author apparently couldn't be arsed to actually read the book, simply paraphrase a reviewer's interpretation of its thesis. It's cute, because I have the book downstairs and just read it. This statement is bollocks.

H. E. Barnes, who was one of America's leading revisionist historians, stated in Blasting the Historical Blackout, "It is well established that no responsible leader in Germany, France, or Italy wanted war in 1939. President Roosevelt apparently desired to have the European war break out as soon as possible, pressed Chamberlain to go ahead, and encouraged Polish ... stubbornness..."
If only Hitler were responsible in the least, this statement would have credence. In any event, it's explained above. Mussolini and Ciano didn't desire war because of their military inadequacy. France did not desire war because of the prospect of another Great War, as well as the depression and its own military unpreparedness. Throughout the 1930s, Roosevelt persistently made pleas for peaceful resolutions to Hitlerian claims about German territories in Europe and was, for his rewatds, sysmetically ridiculed by Hitler in numerous Reichstag speeches. Poland's "stubbornness" arose from a simple desire for national existence, which was guaranteed multiple times by Hitler, most notably in 1934.

One of the most comprehensive studies on the origins of the war was made by David Hoggan in his doctoral thesis at Harvard in 1948 which he expanded into a 900-page book over a 15-year period, to be published in English under the title When Peaceful Revision Failed. In a reference to this book in The Myth of the New History, Dr. Hoggan states, "...As demonstrated in my book ... Germany, whatever her faults in her own domestic system and foreign policy, was the victim of an English Tory conspiracy in September 1939 ... (Lord) Halifax conducted a single-minded campaign to plunge Germany into war and in such a way as to make Germany appear to be the guilty party .... Poland was the pawn in the game.... The documentary record has long since revealed that in 1939 it was Hitler's utmost desire to enjoy peaceful and friendly relations, and if possible alliances, with both Great Britain and Poland."

Supporting Hoggan's view, H. E. Barnes states, "...The public announcement of the final shift of British policy to hostility to Germany ... rested on a twofold fraud, (1) the charge that Germany was preparing for widespread military aggression, and (2) a hoax concocted through Virgil Tilea, the Rumanian minister to London." (Tilea was induced by the British Foreign Office to draw up a false statement charging Germany with seeking to seize the Rumanian economy.) So blatant was the deceit that, according to Barnes, "Both Chamberlain and Halifax falsified their reports of Hitler's favorable reaction to a proposed international conference on September 2 (1939) which still might have ... stopped the German-Polish war and prevented the European war."
Utter nonsense. This doesn't deserve a debunking, it's obvious from the facts of history and from what I posted above that it's simply a ridiculous view of things.

Deceit was not peculiar to the British leadership. The role of the United States in promoting war against Germany is considered by C. C. Tansill in The Back Door to War. He shows that FDR was interested in creating a breach between Germany and England. His findings were based on unpublished state department documents which revealed that FDR encouraged the British to go to war in 1939 and then considered the best means of obtaining the intervention of the United States.
Curious that FDR didn't delcare war until japan attacked in 1941 and Hitler delcared war on America. Curiouser still is that FDR and American diplomats in Germany at the time made every effort to reconcile American sensibilities with the partition of Czechoslovakia and to maintain peaceful relations in Europe. Tansill's thesis is fundamentally contradicted by evidence the article (and perhaps even his book) no doubt excludes.

In The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Theobald shows that FDR alone was responsible for the disaster at Pearl Harbor. He demonstrates beyond question, by means of documents, that FDR had ample warning of the impending attack which he failed to pass on to Admiral Kimmel. He writes, "Our main deduction is that President Roosevelt forced Japan to war by unrelenting diplomatic-economic pressure and enticed that country to initiate hostilities with a surprise attack by holding the Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to that attack."

General Wedemeyer, in the Wedemeyer Reports, writes, "The fact that Japan's attack had been deliberately provoked was obscured by the disaster at Pearl Harbor." Thus, the U.S. was brought into the war by the deliberate sacrifice of over 3300 of our young men. Watergate pales to insignificance by comparison. The brief insights into unpublicized aspects of World War Two may shed some light on our present demoralized state.
I'm sure FDR was repsonsible for the Japanese army carrying out the attack on Pearl Harbour to the same extent that a rape victim is responsible for her own violation. In any event, this rather pathetic thesis, which is nothing more than a thinly disguised political piece of anti-Americanism has been thoroughly refuted by the distinguished John Keegan who showed that the attack at Pearl harbour can be attributed to economic, industrial, and wartime pressures within Japan and the Phillipines.

During the 1930s Communism was said to be the antithesis of our way of life. Why, then, were we so anxious to destroy Germany whose primary goal was to contain Communism?
Germany's primary goal was the foundation of a totalitarian racial state, the expansion of this state into nearly all corners of Europe, the extermination of all those considered racially inferior to the Germanic peoples and the repopulation of their lands by volkdeutsche. Notice the article makes no mention of the Nazi-Soviet pact and Hitler's complicity with Stalin with regards to the Balkans and Finland.

"Our strength is our speed and brutality. Ghengis Khan drove many women and children to death, deliberately and joyously. History sees him as a great founder of a state. What weak western European civilization says about me doesn't matter. I have given the order - and I will have anyone shot who expresses even one word of criticism - that the aim of the war is not to reach definite lines but rather the physical destruction of the enemy.

"To make this reality happen the Death's Head Community, who at the time being is in the east, will go forth with the command to send every man, woman and child of Polish origin and language to death, ruthlessly and mercilessly. This is the only way to win the living space we need. Poland will be depopulated and settled by Germans."

- Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1938, Adolf Hitler

In any event, the answer to the article's rhetorical question is neatly summed up by then-Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King:

"Hitler and the Nazi regime in germany have pursued aggressive designs in wanton disregard of all treaty obligations and peaceful methods of adjusting international disputes. They have had resort increasingly to agencies of deception, terrorism, and violence. It is for this reliance upon force, this lust for conquest, this determination to dominate throughout the world, which is the real cause of war that threatends the freedom of mankind. Everything which free men value and cherish, on this side of the grave, is in peril.

The forces of evil have been loosed in a struggle between the pagan conception of social order which ignores the individual and is based upon the doctrine of might, and a civilization based upon the Christian conception of the brotherhood of man, with its regard for the sanctity of contractual relations and the sacredness of human personality.

The king, speaking to his people at home and overseas, appealed to all to make their own cause the cause of freedom. Canada has answered that call."

Why have we been fraudulently led to sacrifice so many of our best young men in foreign wars? What has been our gain?
Ironweed answered this excellently above.

Originally posted by NJ Refugee



The Treaty of Versailles was the 'seeds of their own destruction'. Years after those seeds were sown, WW2 was the harvest.

And the French insistence on "reparations" including the occupation of the Saar.

Originally posted by kaleun
And the French insistence on "reparations" including the occupation of the Saar.

Indeed.

Originally posted by kaleun
And the French insistence on "reparations" including the occupation of the Saar.
Originally posted by Spießer
Indeed.
The Saar Basin was made a League of Nations mandate by the Versailles Treaty, not a French one. Control over the Saar's coal mines was granted to the French according to Part III, Section IV, Article 45 of the Treaty, but not its political governance.

Germany could have easily paid its reparations debt, which it owed especially to such people as the Belgians, but also the French.

"Almost from the first hours, innocent civilians were shot and villages burnt, outrages all hotly denied by the Germans as soon as the news - subsequently well attested - reached neutral newspapers. Priests were shot, too, perhaps because German officers remembered that it was the priests who had led the restistance of Catholic Brittany against the armies of the French revolution in 1793. The "rape of Belgium" served no military purpose whatsoever and did Germany untold harm, particularly in the United States, where the reputations of the Kaiser and his government were blackened from the outset by reports of massacre and cultural despoilation. The reputation of the German army was dishonoured also. On 4 August, the first day of the Emmich incursion against the Meuse forts, six hostages were shot at Warsage and the village of Battice burnt to the ground. "Our advance in Belgium is certainly brutal," Moltke wrote on 5 August, "but we are fighting for our lives and all who get in the way must take the consequences." The consequences were to get worse. Within the first three weeks, there would be large-scale massacres of civilians in small Belgian towns, at Andenne, Seilles, Tamines and Dinant. At Andenne there were 211 dead, at Tamines 384, at Dinant 612. The victims included women and children as well as men and the killing was systematic; at Tamines the hostages were massed in the square, shot down by execution squads and survivors bayoneted. The execution squads were not, as were the "action groups" of Hitler's holocuast, specially recruited killers but ordinary German soldiers. Indeed, those who murdered at Andenne were the reservists of the most distinguished regiments of the Prussian army, the Garde-Regimenter zu Fuss.

Worst of all the outrages began on 25 August at Louvain. This little university town, the "Oxford of Belgium," was a treasure of Flemish Gothic and Renaissance architecture, painting, manuscripts and books. Panicked allegedly by a misunderstood night-time movement of their own troops, the occupiers, 10,000 strong, began to shout "snipers," and then set fire to the streets and buildings where francs-tireurs suspectedly operated. At the end of three days of incendiarism and looting, the library of 230,000 books had been burnt out, 1,100 other buildings destroyed, 209 civilians killed and the population of 42,000 forcibly evacuated."

- John Keegan, The First World War, p. 82-3.

Before his death in October of 1929, Gustav Stresemann, leader of the DVP (German People's Party) had successfully negotiated Versailles reparations down from US$31 billion to US$2.4 billion to be paid over 59 years under the Young Plan. Moreover, Stresemann negotiated US loans to aid in the payment of reparations. In her book, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, Margaret Olwen Macmillan describes how Versailles was illegitmately scapegoated by Hitler and post-WWII historians to account for the rise of Nazism and the outbreak of the Second World War.

Originally posted by Grand_Inquisitor
I can answer it for you!



The Jews.



White people.

That's being completely honest.

The answer of an angst-ridden aspiring provocateur. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Potyondi

I'm sure FDR was repsonsible for the Japanese army carrying out the attack on Pearl Harbour to the same extent that a rape victim is responsible for her own violation. In any event, this rather pathetic thesis, which is nothing more than a thinly disguised political piece of anti-Americanism has been thoroughly refuted by the distinguished John Keegan who showed that the attack at Pearl harbour can be attributed to economic, industrial, and wartime pressures within Japan and the Phillipines.

Potyondi, it is quite refreshing to hear you attack an instance of anti-americanism.

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
(Schiff was obviously referring to the spreading Communist revolution in Russia.)


ROFL Morphic responded to nothing in the post. Indeed, Morphic responded with nothing more than innuendo and supposition in response to facts.

Let me help you Morphic:

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (1870-1924) Leader of the Bolshevik revolution and the first head of state in Soviet Russia, 1917-24. Lenin was returned from exile into Russia aboard a German military train in April 1917. Wanting no part in the Allied war effort, he was the driving force behind the separate peace treaty concluded by Russia with Germany at Brest-Litovsk 11 months later.


Who was the architect for that Morphic? Who arranged for that train and safe passage to Russia? Hmm....no, not a Jew, but:

Ludendorff had promoted revolution in Russia and agreed to transport Lenin to St. Petersburg with the idea of making a settlement in the East and shift massive troops to the battle in the West. But the forcefully extracted Treaty of Brest Litovsk took longer to extract than he anticipated. The seizure of territory in the East, particularly the Ukraine, required more forces than he realized. The anticipated supply of much-needed food from the Ukraine was also a disappointment.


Now, who was it who marched with Hitler in Munich, Morphic? What WWI General was that? LOL One with considerably more balls than Hitler, considering the relative performance by each on that day.

Who was responsible for the return of Lenin and thus the success of the Communist Revolution again? Who signed a pact with the USSR, the child of that revolution to divide up Eastern Europe?