MovieChat Forums > Valkyrie (2008) Discussion > Had Coup Succeeded...

Had Coup Succeeded...

posted 14 years ago by rsr26
179 replies | jump to latest

I think the attempt to kill Hitler was "too little, too late" to make much of a difference for Germany. The attempt was made in July of 1944, after D-Day and after Russia started closing in on Germany. Total surrender by Germany was not until April 1945, but the Allies were well on their way when Operation Valkyrie was executed.

I think had the plot worked, the best that Germany could have hoped for was an immediate unconditional surrender to the West while trying to keep the Soviets out of their country. Germany knew that the Soviets were going to want revenge after the horror they had inflicted in the early days of the war and, maybe, a surrender in July of 1944 could have stopped communist takeover of East Germany. I doubt it though- Stalin wanted blood and knew he would soon get it.

At best, many lives would have been spared but Germany would still have been taken over by the Allies.

An attempt in early 1943, however, might have made a real difference. If Germany agreed to withdraw all of its forces out of occupied Europe then I think they might have been able to avoid being conquered.

[–] rmiikku 14 years ago

At some point war wasnt anymore about second world war but the cold war. Even if Germany had surrendered unconditionally offer might had been refused.

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

At some point war wasnt anymore about second world war but the cold war.

The Soviets and USA were ALLIES and the “Cold war” was a propaganda operation.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Berliner Luft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgKiAb5b2LI

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"The Soviets and USA were ALLIES and the 'Cold war' was a propaganda operation."

Interesting. Now you are rewriting history about the Cold War. So I suppose the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan were not really wars at all, but "propaganda operations." And the same is true for other wars where the US and Soviets were supporting opposite sides, like the Arab-Israelis wars and the Sandinista/contra war in Nicaragua? I suppose when the Soviets shot down a US spy plane over its territory, it was actually planned in advance by both sides? And the same for the Cuban missile crisis, which almost brought the world to the brink of nuclear war?

I am beginning to think you are a troll.

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"The Soviets and USA were ALLIES and the 'Cold war' was a propaganda operation."

Interesting.

Yes, particularly the name: Cold War.

So I suppose the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan were not really wars at all, but "propaganda operations. And the same is true for other wars where the US and Soviets were supporting opposite sides, like the Arab-Israelis wars and the Sandinista/contra war in Nicaragua? I suppose when the Soviets shot down a US spy plane over its territory, it was actually planned in advance by both sides? And the same for the Cuban missile crisis, which almost brought the world to the brink of nuclear war?

Well, the soldiers and civilians died in reality, of course. But their governments cooperated, in other words: They sacrificed these people.

If you take a look at what is behind it, you will see that the wars you mentioned are rather petty conflicts among the same gang at best, or even worse, propaganda wars to sell arms, reduce the population, strengthen influence and distract away attention from the concentration of power behind the scenes and from the REAL conflict, of course.

Just look who financed the communist “October Revolution”.

DIVIDE ET IMPERA!

Yours,

Thusnelda

WHY THE USA IS GOING TO FALL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_6AaHT7ZSQ

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"Yes, particularly the name: Cold War."

The U.S. and the Soviets hated each other, but they had a common interest in preventing a "hot" war from breaking out, i.e. a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. If such a war broke out, it could have quickly escalated into a nuclear exchange, which could have destroyed both sides. Nuclear weapons may actually have prevented World War III.

"Well, the soldiers and civilians died in reality, of course. But their governments cooperated, in other words: They sacrificed these people."

Their cooperation was limited to preventing these conflicts from expanding into a war between the U.S. and the Soviets. Other than that, each side wanted to maximize its own advantage and minimize its opponent's.

By the way, the presence of U.S. troops in Europe prevented Europe from being overrun by the Soviets. While the actions of your hero Hitler brought the Red Army into Berlin, the actions of the U.S. eventually led to the Red Army returning home.

"distract away attention from the concentration of power behind the scenes and from the REAL conflict, of course."

And what is the REAL conflict?

"Just look who financed the communist 'October Revolution'. DIVIDE ET IMPERA!"

I don't know who financed it. But I DO know that it was none other than Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm who allowed Lenin safe passage in a railroad car to St. Petersburg, where he could lead the revolution. The Kaiser wanted the Russians to withdraw from WWI, and he got what he wanted. DIVIDE ET IMPERA!

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"Yes, particularly the name: Cold War."

The U.S. and the Soviets hated each other, but they had a common interest in preventing a "hot" war from breaking out, i.e. a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. If such a war broke out, it could have quickly escalated into a nuclear exchange, which could have destroyed both sides. Nuclear weapons may actually have prevented World War III.

That's the official version.

In reality, they were allies in WWII and they were allies after 1945.
For instance, they worked harmoniously together in the Alliierte Kommandantura in Berlin.
Or their space programs miraculously "compeleted" each other...

"Well, the soldiers and civilians died in reality, of course. But their governments cooperated, in other words: They sacrificed these people."

Their cooperation was limited to preventing these conflicts from expanding into a war between the U.S. and the Soviets. Other than that, each side wanted to maximize its own advantage and minimize its opponent's.

= official version.

By the way, the presence of U.S. troops in Europe prevented Europe from being overrun by the Soviets.

Nonsense! The USA were the ally of the Soviet Union and provided them with support even before becoming a formal party of WWII ("lend-lease-act").

Hitler brought the Red Army into Berlin

Nope, Germany fought the Soviet Union, whereas the USA supported them.

"distract away attention from the concentration of power behind the scenes and from the REAL conflict, of course."

And what is the REAL conflict?

The COLD war.

Very cold.

"Just look who financed the communist 'October Revolution'. DIVIDE ET IMPERA!"

I don't know who financed it.

Super-rich New York bankers.

But I DO know that it was none other than Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm who allowed Lenin safe passage in a railroad car to St. Petersburg, where he could lead the revolution.

And who was the chief of the German secret service back then?

Max M. Warburg!

"His brother Paul Warburg was the chief architect of the Federal Reserve Board in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Warburg

Yours,

Thusnelda

Der Himmmel ist offen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDaqgfGLQmA

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"In reality, they were allies in WWII and they were allies after 1945.
For instance, they worked harmoniously together in the Alliierte Kommandantura in Berlin."

Yes, they were allies when the Soviets shot down an American U-2 spy plane over Soviet territory. And they worked harmoniously during the Korean War and the Cuban missile crisis.

"The USA were the ally of the Soviet Union and provided them with support even before becoming a formal party of WWII (lend-lease-act)."

Hitler and Stalin were allies when WWII began. Hitler gave Stalin a green light to gobble up eastern Poland and the Baltic countries. Hitler then decided to expand the war so he could take on England, Russia, and the U.S. all at the same time, which was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Maybe he actually WANTED to lose. Maybe he WANTED the Soviets to take over Europe.

"Nope, Germany fought the Soviet Union"

Not when the war started. Hitler was willing to cooperate with the Slavs and communists of Russia in order to defeat his fellow "Aryans", the British.

"And who was the chief of the German secret service back then? Max M. Warburg!"

I don't know if it was his idea to help Lenin. But from the point of view of Germany, it was a good idea as it neutralized Germany's enemy in the east. If Germany had not offended America and brought it into WWI, Germany could have won. (Warburg was driven out of Germany in 1938 for being a Jew. Ingrates.)

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"In reality, they were allies in WWII and they were allies after 1945.
For instance, they worked harmoniously together in the Alliierte Kommandantura in Berlin."

Yes, they were allies when the Soviets shot down an American U-2 spy plane over Soviet territory. And they worked harmoniously during the Korean War and the Cuban missile crisis.

What a show!

You'd better look at the big picture.

"The USA were the ally of the Soviet Union and provided them with support even before becoming a formal party of WWII (lend-lease-act)."

Hitler and Stalin were allies when WWII began. Hitler gave Stalin a green light to gobble up eastern Poland and the Baltic countries.

Non-aggression doesn't equate support: That is was the USA did.

Hitler then decided to expand the war

Absolute nonsense.

Germany offered peace to the Allies, but they refused.

The war with the Soviet Union was a preventive one, since the Soviet Union was about to attack Germany, as even the BRD mass media concede nowadays (only the time when the attack was to expect is disputed).

Maybe he actually WANTED to lose. Maybe he WANTED the Soviets to take over Europe.

No.

This is rather true for the Western Allies.

Hitler was willing to cooperate with the Slavs and communists of Russia in order to defeat his fellow "Aryans", the British.

?

It was Britain who declared war on Germany and refused all German peace offers - not vice versa.

If Germany had not offended America and brought it into WWI, Germany could have won.

"Offended America" - ???

By 1917, before USA declared war on Germany, Germany had pratically won the war and offered a very mild peace. More than 100,000 American soldiers died for nothing.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Mind Control In America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZvAc-McLEo

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"Non-aggression doesn't equate support: That is was the USA did."

The Nazi-Soviet pact included more than just non-aggression. The two totalitarian powers agreed to carve up Poland. Germany also agreed to allow the Soviets to conquer the Baltic countries. (One of them, Estonia, actually ran to Germany for help, but in this case Hitler held up his part of the bargain.) Stalin continuously sent supplies to Hitler to fuel Germany's war against France and England. On the very morning of Operation Barbarossa, a train carried supplies from Russia bound for Germany.

"Germany offered peace to the Allies, but they refused."

Hitler's behavior convinced the Allies that no peace would last unless Germany surrendered unconditionally. A "peace" with Hitler or Nazis still in power, or Germany still controlling Poland or other territory it conquered, would mean that Germany would go on the war-path again in another 5 or 10 or 20 years. The Allies did the right thing. Germany surrendered unconditionally, and there has been no world war for the past 65 years.

"The war with the Soviet Union was a preventive one, since the Soviet Union was about to attack Germany"

Do you have any LEGITIMATE proof of this? Russia was in no condition for war. Stalin had gutted the Soviet military with his insane purges. (It was sheer luck that Russia won: Hitler's campaign in Yugoslavia delayed Barbarossa so that there was fighting in winter, the Russian winter was unusually harsh, and Stalin did not micromanage the military as much as Hitler did.)

Anyway, Stalin was satisfied watching the Allies and the fascists, both of whom he hated, kill each other.

"No. This is rather true for the Western Allies." (wanting the Soviets to take over Europe)

Allowing the Soviets to take over Eastern Europe was the price the West had to pay in order to defeat Germany. Better a half-free Europe than a completely enslaved Europe.

It took 45 years, but Europe is free once again, thanks to NATO, which includes everyone you hate: America, Britain, France, and the BRD.

"It was Britain who declared war on Germany and refused all German peace offers - not vice versa."

If Hitler really wanted peace, he should not have attacked Poland in the first place. If he really wanted peace, he could have ordered the German army to withdraw from Poland and the other countries it conquered, apologized for his acts of evil, and stepped down from power.

"Offended America - ???"

Germany was using submarines to attack American shipping, and then offered to give Mexico control of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.

[–] Cat_Behemoth 13 years ago

The two totalitarian powers agreed to carve up Poland.

No, they did not. The USSR didn't object to getting its own Poland-occupied territories back, though.

Please, stop spreading International fairytales and educate yourself.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_ poland.html

Germany also agreed to allow the Soviets to conquer the Baltic countries.

'The Baltic States' were integral and legally BOUGHT part of Russia. Internationals 'gave them independence'. It took a while to return 'em into the fold after the International-led 'revolution'.

Stalin continuously sent supplies to Hitler to fuel Germany's war against France and England. On the very morning of Operation Barbarossa, a train carried supplies from Russia bound for Germany.

No $h!t, Sherlock! Guess what - two countries had something called the Trade Agreement!

Now, while we at it, wanna come clean about the involvement of American and British businesses, mainly International again into militarising Germany?

Rockefeller's oil company making synthetic fuel for Germany, among other thing.

Rockefeller's tankers supplying German U-boats with fuel well in to 1944(!), giving finger to the US Govt, threatening to cut all fuel to the US military if they interfere with 'business'?

What about all the International credits Germany received?! There was so much International dosh pumped into Germany, that Germany lent some of that money to Stalin interest-free, i kid you not.

Stalin had gutted the Soviet military with his insane purges.

'Purges' were not insane, and their scale was totally overblown by western propaganda. Many traitors got weeded out as the result.

Many more remained unpurged, though, some top-level ones criminally underachieved in the first days of the war. They were tried and offed later.

It was sheer luck that Russia won: Hitler's campaign in Yugoslavia delayed Barbarossa so that there was fighting in winter

There was no 'delay'. Hitler invaded only three days after Napoleon's schedule and there's a reason for that. Roads. After 130 years they didn't change much lol. They were a total quagmire in spring. Had Germans invaded earlier they would've drown in mud.

Anyway, Stalin was satisfied watching the Allies and the fascists, both of whom he hated, kill each other.

Link...or stfu lol! I take it Stalin did not confide in you personally.

However, let's quote one of the biggest democrats in the greatest US history - International-controlled Harry S. Truman aka The Bomber...

"Let's help the Russians when the Germans are winning and the Germans when the Russians are winning. So each may kill off as many as possible of the other."

Harry Truman
in U.S. Senate on June 5, 1941

So don't put Truman's revelations into Stalin's mouth, please.

Germany was using submarines to attack American shipping, and then offered to give Mexico control of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.

That started taking place after Germany declared war on the US.

US Navy was engaging German U-boats pissing all over alleged US 'neutrality.

See USS Reuben James incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)

Brave German U-boat men could not take more of that unbelievable International 'US neutrality' chutzpah, delivering war supplies to Germany's enemy. So they had to sink that old tub for good.

In essence, US was at war with Germany in all but name.

Roosevelt personally threatened Chamberlain to 'put iron up his backside' unless England declared war on Germany ASAP.

The US Secretary of Defense James Forrestal brings this up in his memoirsSame James Forrestal who was later assassinated by the Zionists by not conforming to their demands.

And don't go hard on my blonde Aryan girlfriend Thusnelda!

if it wasn't for the Internationals, we'd be sharing the same lebensraum now.

i'll be carefully watching your antics from now on, as you spread too much cheap 3rd grade US chutzpoid propaganda around lol.

BTW, how's that American Lebensraum working out for ya?

Danced and sang Hava Nagila on any Native massacre sites lately?

"This is the United States - we are a nation of laws." - lesstrollingmoreculling

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"stop spreading International fairytales"

If you are using the word "International" as an insult, why are you defending the Soviet Union? "The Internationale" was the Soviet anthem at the very time it cooperated with Germany in destroying Poland.

"'The Baltic States' were integral and legally BOUGHT part of Russia."

Then why are they independent countries today?

"wanna come clean about the involvement of American and British businesses, mainly International again into militarising Germany? Rockefeller's oil company making synthetic fuel for Germany, among other thing. Rockefeller's tankers supplying German U-boats with fuel well in to 1944(!), giving finger to the US Govt, threatening to cut all fuel to the US military if they interfere with 'business'?"

I am unfamiliar with this, but I will take your word on it. Rockefeller was acting for a private company, and you yourself indicate that he was acting against the wishes of the U.S. government. In contrast, Stalin (Comrade Soviet Union himself) was all for supporting the Nazis (until Operation Barbarossa, that is).

"'Purges' were not insane, and their scale was totally overblown by western propaganda. Many traitors got weeded out as the result."

Stalin was a paranoid maniac. Tens of millions of people were "weeded out", i.e. murdered. See http://users.rcn.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

"Link...or stfu lol! I take it Stalin did not confide in you personally."

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that communism is hostile to both capitalism and fascism*. Thus, during the 1930s, the Soviets were hostile to both the West and to the Nazis.

*Perhaps I should have said National Socialism, as opposed to the Soviets' INTERNATIONAL Socialism.

Germany was using submarines to attack American shipping, and then offered to give Mexico control of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That started taking place after Germany declared war on the US."
"US Navy was engaging German U-boats"
"See USS Reuben James incident."
"Roosevelt personally threatened Chamberlain"

I was referring to events before the U.S. entered the FIRST World War. You thought I was talking about WWII.

"Same James Forrestal who was later assassinated by the Zionists by not conforming to their demands."

Ah, the Zionists. Any unexplained disaster can be blamed on them. You know, the east coast of the U.S. is now experiencing an unusually harsh winter. I know the Zionists are responsible. They used a highly secret weather-changing device. The purpose is to convince Americans to worry more about global climate change, and therefore cut their dependence on foreign oil, which will of course hurt the Arab economies. (A Zionist movie called The Day After Tomorrow documents the connection between global warming and COLDER weather.)

"Danced and sang Hava Nagila on any Native massacre sites lately?"

No. Have you sung or danced at Katyn or the sites of the GULAG?

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

________________________________________
Germany was using submarines to attack American shipping, and then offered to give Mexico control of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
________________________________________

That started taking place after Germany declared war on the US.

US Navy was engaging German U-boats pissing all over alleged US 'neutrality.

See USS Reuben James incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)

Brave German U-boat men could not take more of that unbelievable International 'US neutrality' chutzpah, delivering war supplies to Germany's enemy. So they had to sink that old tub for good.

In essence, US was at war with Germany in all but name.

Roosevelt personally threatened Chamberlain to 'put iron up his backside' unless England declared war on Germany ASAP.

The US Secretary of Defense James Forrestal brings this up in his memoirsSame James Forrestal who was later assassinated by the Zionists by not conforming to their demands.

And don't go hard on my blonde Aryan girlfriend Thusnelda!

if it wasn't for the Internationals, we'd be sharing the same lebensraum now.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Coming Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0QBh0naPA

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"Non-aggression doesn't equate support: That is was the USA did."

The Nazi-Soviet pact included more than just non-aggression. The two totalitarian powers agreed to carve up Poland.

Germany tried to prevent a war with the Soviet Union, if the negotiations with Poland failed and, as ultima ratio, Germany had act militarily.

"Germany offered peace to the Allies, but they refused."

Hitler's behavior convinced the Allies that no peace would last unless Germany surrendered unconditionally.

Thank you for admitting that it was the Allies that didn’t want peace.
As Churchill himself said as early as September 1939: “This war is an English war and its aim is the destruction of Germany.”

A "peace" with Hitler or Nazis still in power, or Germany still controlling Poland or other territory it conquered

Germany had offered retreats, and still the Allies refused to make peace.

would mean that Germany would go on the war-path again in another 5 or 10 or 20 years

Proof?

The Allies did the right thing. Germany surrendered unconditionally

You call WWII with 60 million dead and the destruction of the European civilization “the right thing”???

and there has been no world war for the past 65 years.

Nonsense!

1. WWII is not formally over, i. e. STILL ongoing.
2. There were lots of wars since 1945, the world was anything else than peaceful.
3. WWIII is imminent.

"The war with the Soviet Union was a preventive one, since the Soviet Union was about to attack Germany"

Do you have any LEGITIMATE proof of this?

It’s even in FRG-mass media now, i. e. “official”. Only the time as for the Soviet attack on Germany is disputed, ranging somewhere between 2 years and 2 weeks.

Russia was in no condition for war.

Nonsense.
A huge army was on its western border, prepared for attack.

"No. This is rather true for the Western Allies." (wanting the Soviets to take over Europe)

Allowing the Soviets to take over Eastern Europe was the price the West had to pay in order to defeat Germany. Better a half-free Europe than a completely enslaved Europe.

Indeed, the West supported the communist Soviet Union taking over Eastern Europe.
Thank you for confirming this: The “West” preferred supporting the biggest murder machine in the known history of mankind (aka “Soviet Union”) over Germany trying to save Europe from them.

It took 45 years, but Europe is free once again

No, Europe is not “free”, but under US-American heel, particularly Europe’s heart: Germany.

thanks to NATO, which includes everyone you hate: America, Britain, France, and the BRD.

While Secretary General, Ismay is also credited as having been the first person to say that the purpose of the alliance was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down," a saying that has since become a common way to quickly describe the alliance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Ismay,_1st_Baron_Ismay#Secretary _General_of_NATO

"It was Britain who declared war on Germany and refused all German peace offers - not vice versa."

If Hitler really wanted peace, he should not have attacked Poland in the first place.

Germany did not “attack” Poland, but responded to Poland’s behavior. Apart from the Polish full mobilization (which in the case of Poland equated a declaration of war), the ongoing violence against Germans in Poland and the ongoing border violations etc. etc. made the German actions against Poland legal according to international law back then.

If he really wanted peace, he could have ordered the German army to withdraw from Poland and the other countries it conquered

That’s precisely what Germany offered again and again – but no answer from the Allies.

As Churchill said already in the first week of September 1939: “This war is an English war and its aim is the destruction of Germany.” He didn’t care about Poland, nor did he care about peace, nor did he care about Europe and her peoples, Churchill didn’t even care about the British Empire, which he eventually destroyed.

"Offended America - ???"

Germany was using submarines to attack American shipping

The US-war support for Britain, you mean.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Coming Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0QBh0naPA

[–] Lyndhen 13 years ago

T quoted "This war is an English war and its aim is the destruction of Germany"

She neglects to give the source (she's learning)

it's from- Truth for Germany: the guilt question of the Second World War by Udo Walendy who is "a prominent holocaust denier"!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Walendy

By those she quotes shall we know her.

btw, could someone ask her to check out these other things she quoted

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be making things up.

T said You mean Goldhagen, who actually claimed that Germans have "antisemitic murder genes"?

I wouldn't believe this quote

nothing about genes in goldhagens 'willing executioners'

http://books.google.com/books?ei=1OcuTcvDMcnDswaIvPS_CA&ct=result&; amp; amp;id=BBRClVfrDtAC&dq=goldhagen&q=genes#search_anchor

Goldhagen does say in 'worse than war' that killing is not in our genes.

T. quoted: "It was not Hitler's political ideas that plunged us into the war. The cause was the success of his growth, to build up a new economy. The roots of the war were envy, greed and fear."
-- Generalmajor J. F. C. Fuller ("Der Zweite Weltkrieg", Wien 1950)

You shouldn't quote from a book that is freely available on the internet. no such quote - Please check
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=412&view=image&size=100 &id=inu.30000011889007&q1=plunged&u=1&num=1

T quoted: "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."
-- Winston Churchill (to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the foreword to the Second edition (2001) of Sidney Rogerson's "Propaganda in the Next War")

In google books or amazon, no such edition exists (except on conspiracy websites) - Please check

T. quoted: "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."
-- Winston Churchill
T. gave no reference but I did find one on stormfront - -Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145;

no such quote exists - Please check - use snippet search.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=1hIuTYi7Hsj1sgalntSNCA&ct=result&; amp; amp; amp;id=2w9IAAAAMAAJ&dq=Winston+Churchill+-+His+Career+in+War+and+P eace,&q=jesuit#search_anchor

Your 'Polish' quotes are inadequately referenced and only appear on neo nazi / denail websites (eg Stormfront etc). Please provide references
-The newspaper Despesza [sic] didn't exist - check here for comprehensive list of Polish, Yiddish, Hebrew German newspapers in Poland in 39.
http://www.polona.pl/dlibra/editionindex?startstr=D&dirids=40

The quote from Ward Hermans may be accurate - but he was a Nazi.

while you're at it - could you also check the following things that you quoted earlier and I couldn't find in your references

T. said ""Operation Himmler" is completely unknown in Germany today."

please check here

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46415349.html

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46172740.html

T. said "The wikipedia article you linked doesn't even have a version in German language!"

Perhaps you should write it.

T. said "Not even the Polish press contradicted Germany."
The Polish FO 'contradicted' the Gleiwitz propaganda - 2 /9 /39 - the Times of London. Please check (1st article, 2nd column)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3yag48d

T. said "Poland .....even criticized by the British Premier Chamberlain, who on July 10th, 1939 declared in the British House of Commons that this Polish partial mobilization is anything else than helpful for further negotiations."

I can't find such a criticism in his speech of July 10 39. Please double check for me.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/27t8rdy

T. quoted the British ambassador "...the mistreatment of the German minorities in Poland has to stop. I wished to send some English newspaper correspondents there in order to inform themselves."
- "Documents on Foreign Policy 1919-39", Vol. IV, Doc. 37

I can't find such a statement in Documents on British foreign policy, 1919-1939
, Volume 3, Part 4 - Volume 4, Part 4. Please check it here (use snippet search).
http://preview.tinyurl.com/299ksd6

[–] chus07 13 years ago

Great Job. Thank you

Let her try to defend herself

[–] Thusnelda 12 years ago

You’re talking about me?

The posting you mentioned I can’t see, sincee the poster apparently is on my very short ignore list, due to frequent lying and/or vulgarities.

Yours,

Thusnelda

The Ides... are Upon us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc-yg04rVw4

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"Thank you for admitting that it was the Allies that didn’t want peace."

They wanted TRUE peace, with Germany not a threat to its neighbors. And peace came in 1945 with Germany's unconditional surrender.

"Proof?" (Germany would go on the war-path again in another 5 or 10 or 20 years)

Without a total defeat, Germans would continue to think of themselves as the Master Race, with the right to enslave or exterminate all inferior races (as they did after WWI).

"You call WWII with 60 million dead and the destruction of the European civilization 'the right thing'???"

Sometimes you have to choose between two bad alternatives, and pick the one which is not as bad. Tens of millions more people would have died if Hitler had won the war: Jews, Slavs, and everyone else you consider inferior. Eventually Germany would probably have attacked America and murdered all of its blacks and Jews.

"WWII is not formally over, i. e. STILL ongoing."

Only in your dreams.

"There were lots of wars since 1945, the world was anything else than peaceful."

But, as you say, a world war would mean "60 million dead and the destruction of the European civilization."

"WWIII is imminent."

That's news to me. Who will be fighting whom?

"A huge army was on its (Russia's) western border, prepared for attack."

Show me evidence.

"The 'West' preferred supporting the biggest murder machine in the known history of mankind (aka 'Soviet Union') over Germany trying to save Europe from them."

Nazi Germany was just as big a murder machine.
Remember that many Russians and Ukrainians welcomed the German army, but then turned against it when it proved to be just as brutal and murderous as the Soviets.

"No, Europe is not 'free', but under US-American heel, particularly Europe’s heart: Germany."

You define the word "free" very differently than the way I do. You consider Nazi Germany a free society while the BRD is not. I say freedom means freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom to petition, freedom to quit your job, multiple political parties, a government with checks and balances, and the right to vote a leader out of office. All of that was lacking in your precious Deutsche Reich.

Ask a former inmate of a Nazi concentration camp whether he thinks Nazi Germany was a free society.

"the purpose of the alliance was 'to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'"

Say what you like about NATO. There has been no major war in Europe since your precious Deutsche Reich surrendered.

"Germany did not 'attack' Poland, but responded to Poland’s behavior."

I have already shown you where Hitler says Germany must conquer land in the east by force, and that peace is "pacifistic nonsense."

"the ongoing violence against Germans in Poland"

There was a lot more violence against Jews in Germany than there was against Germans in Poland. Germans in Poland never suffered a Kristallnacht.

"As Churchill said already in the first week of September 1939"

It was Chamberlain who declared war, not Churchill. Chamberlain wanted to avoid war, and believed Hitler when he said the Sudetenland would be his last territorial claim in Europe. But when Hitler started demanding Danzig and the Polish corridor, even Chamberlain realized that Hitler could only be stopped by force. Churchill was simply correct in predicting that feeding Czechoslovakia to the crocodile would not make it less hungry.

"nor did he (Churchill) care about peace."

As opposed to Hitler, who condemned "pacifistic nonsense"?

I don't understand you. You claim to admire Hitler. But then why don't you praise what he wrote in Mein Kampf: That Germany must gain living space in the east, at the expense of Russia (and Poland, which lies between Germany and Russia), and that this can only be done by force, i.e. by war?

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"Thank you for admitting that it was the Allies that didn’t want peace."

They wanted TRUE peace

Thank you again for admitting that it was the Allies who refused all German peace offers, not vice versa.

with Germany not a threat to its neighbors

Germany wasn’t a “threat” to his neighbors, just to begin with:
It was her neighbors who attacked and declared war on Germany – not the other way round!

"We now have to be honest about the German question, as uncomfortable it may be for the Germans, for our international partners and for ourselseves... In the essence, the question stays the same. Not how we prevent German tanks from rolling over the Oder or the MArne, but how Europe is getting along with a people, whose numbers, talent and efficiency makes it rise to our regional super-power. We didn't enter the war in 1939, in order to prevent Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the Continent from Fascism. Like in 1914, we entered the war for the no less noble reason that we cannot accept a German predominance in Europe."

-- "The Sunday Correspondent", London, September 16th, 1989 (as quoted in “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, September 18th, 18.9.1989)

"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."

-- Winston Churchill (to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the foreword to the Second edition (2001) of Sidney Rogerson's "Propaganda in the Next War")

"It was not Hitler's political ideas that plunged us into the war. The cause was the success of his growth, to build up a new economy. The roots of the war were envy, greed and fear."

-- Generalmajor J. F. C. Fuller ("Der Zweite Weltkrieg", Wien 1950)

What you mean with “true peace” is the nothing else but the destruction of Germany – the peace of a graveyard.

And peace came in 1945 with Germany's unconditional surrender.

No, not at all.

1. For the 1231st time or so: In 1945, not “Germany” (i. e. the Deutsche Reich) declared surrender, but (at best) the Deutsche Wehrmacht according to Art. 35 Hague Convention.
2. The Deutsche Reich is still formally at war with the Allies (more than 50 states), and, in a broader sense, even with all members states of the UNO. Read Art. 53 and Art. 107 UN-Charter, where this is explicitly written.
3. Until 1990, there was the “Cold War” between US and SU (= propaganda operation to cover-up the war mentioned under # 2), cutting Europe and the world in half, with 2 armed-to-the-teeth military blocks threatening each other, and Germany in particular, with total annihihaltion.
4. There were many other wars since 1945, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%931989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operat ions
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/
etc.

"Proof?" (Germany would go on the war-path again in another 5 or 10 or 20 years)

Without a total defeat

By “total defeat” you mean the destruction of the Deutsche Reich, don’t you?

Germans would continue to think of themselves as the Master Race

1. The term “Master race” is an English translation of the term “Herrenrasse” or “Herrenvolk”.
The term refers to the Aryans entering Europe who called themselves “aryafulka” or “Aryan Volk”. As far as I know, the German term “Herr” derives from the word “Aryan” as well.
Aryan /ˈɛərjən/ is an English language loanword derived from Sanskrit Arya ('Noble')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan
2. The Germans back then did not considered themselves to be a kind of “descendants” of the former Aryan Volk, thus, they aimed at evolving to former heights.
E.g.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoNP4-cxMUk

with the right to enslave or exterminate all inferior races (as they did after WWI).

Proof?

According to what you wrote here, it is you (the Allies) who claim the right “to enslave or exterminate” another race.

"You call WWII with 60 million dead and the destruction of the European civilization 'the right thing'???"

Sometimes you have to choose between two bad alternatives, and pick the one which is not as bad.

So –
you are seriously telling me that making peace with Germany in October 1939 or in 1940 would have been a “not so bad” alternative than a war with 60 million dead and the destruction of the European civilization?

Tens of millions more people would have died

Proof?

if Hitler had won the war

What about a negotiated peace?

Eventually Germany would probably have attacked America and murdered all of its blacks and Jews.

Proof?

"WWII is not formally over, i. e. STILL ongoing."

Only in your dreams.

No.

Read Art. 53, 107 UN-Charter.

"There were lots of wars since 1945, the world was anything else than peaceful."

But, as you say, a world war would mean "60 million dead

Shall we count the accumulated number of victims since 1945 – even more victims of the “peaceful” Allies?

and the destruction of the European civilization

That one has been already destroyed by the war you support so much.

"WWIII is imminent."

That's news to me. Who will be fighting whom?

In a world-wide war?
Almost everybody fighting everyone.

Let’s start with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznkEjYO1BA

"A huge army was on its (Russia's) western border, prepared for attack."

Show me evidence.

Oh, this is even “official narrative” now even in the FRG mass media.

For the start:
http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article1802258/Kampfplatz_Deutschland.ht ml

"The 'West' preferred supporting the biggest murder machine in the known history of mankind (aka 'Soviet Union') over Germany trying to save Europe from them."

Nazi Germany was just as big a murder machine.

Even according to the official narrative, the communists (Allies) were the by far bigger murderers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yud4Me9hZ1U

"No, Europe is not 'free', but under US-American heel, particularly Europe’s heart: Germany."

You define the word "free" very differently than the way I do.

In the first place, I was talking about the USA’s “military presence” in Europe.

You consider Nazi Germany a free society while the BRD is not.

The Deutsche Reich was a sovereign state, while the FRG is just an occupied territory.
Thus, by definition, the inmates of the FRG are not “free”.

I say freedom means freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom to petition, freedom to quit your job, multiple political parties, a government with checks and balances, and the right to vote a leader out of office.

All this is lacking in the FRG, since it is, as mentioned repeatedly, an occupation regime.

All of that was lacking in your precious Deutsche Reich.

How a sovereign people organizes itself in the inside, is nobody’s business but this very people’s.
The vast majority of the Germans back then supported and even loved their government. They did not want “Western style” government.

Ask a former inmate of a Nazi concentration camp whether he thinks Nazi Germany was a free society.

1. He would not be able to discuss away that the Deutsche Reich was a sovereign state – in contrast to the FRG.

2. The Allies had (and have) concentration camps as well. So, by your definition, the Allies are not “free societies”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camp s

"the purpose of the alliance was 'to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'"

Say what you like about NATO.

You don’t contradict.

There has been no major war in Europe

LOL

Remember the “Cold War”, as it was officially baptized?
Remember Yougoslavia, for instance?

since your precious Deutsche Reich surrendered

For the 1232nd time or so: The Deutsche Reich did not declare surrender, only the Deutsche Wehrmacht.

"Germany did not 'attack' Poland, but responded to Poland’s behavior."

I have already shown you where Hitler says Germany must conquer land in the east

What he wrote in a book years before is no refutation in any way of my remark you just quoted.

peace is "pacifistic nonsense."

Life is struggle. That’s true.

What the Allies understand as “peace”, that’s what Germany thoroughly learned, if not since 1919, then since 1945: mass rape, mass murder, mass starvation, robbery, insult, more robbery, blackmail, suppression, subjugation, humiliation, more bloodshed, perversion, decadence, filth, whorishness, porn, beastiality, degeneracy etc. etc.

"the ongoing violence against Germans in Poland"

There was a lot more violence against Jews in Germany than there was against Germans in Poland

Between 1933 and 1939, more than half a million Jews fled Poland to or via Germany (!).
Between 1919 and 1939, more than 1 million Germans fled Poland to Germany.

Germans in Poland never suffered a Kristallnacht.

Germans were murdered, their houses burnt down, the borders were repeatedly violated etc.
The Poland had made lists to murder thousands of Germans, which they did even while the Germany army was advancing.
For example:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromberger_Blutsonntag

"As Churchill said already in the first week of September 1939"

It was Chamberlain who declared war, not Churchill.

I never claimed that it was Churchill who declared war.

But it was Churchill who already back then said that the aim of the war was the destruction of Germany.

But when Hitler started demanding Danzig and the Polish corridor

Those were only underlying factors. What immediately caused the war was Polish provocations, violence, border violations etc.

Chamberlain realized that Hitler could only be stopped by force

Nonsense. It was Poland and Britain who refused to settle the conflict peacefully.

Churchill was simply correct in predicting that feeding Czechoslovakia to the crocodile would not make it less hungry.

Nonense. He was just *beep* that Britain didn’t succeed in making Czechoslovakia (an artificial multi-ethnic state that fell apart) a pretext for attacking Germany.

"nor did he (Churchill) care about peace."

As opposed to Hitler

…who offered peace, Churchill refused it.

I don't understand you. You claim to admire Hitler. But then why don't you praise what he wrote in Mein Kampf: That Germany must gain living space

Autarkie is an important goal – otherwise, a people cannot be sovereign and forever can be blackmailed.

at the expense of Russia

Interestingly, Germany called back former German settlers in Russia to come back to Germany (“Heim in Reich”) - quite the opposite of what you claim.

Poland, which lies between Germany and Russia

The German territories inhabited by Germans and given to Poland in the Versailles Dictate were a problem, yes.
Germany had offered to solve this by referendums, with guaranteed transit and minority rights for the respective losing part: The Allies refused.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Return of White
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QsvYnC4vCI

[–] Lyndhen 13 years ago

Lying again?

T. quoted: "It was not Hitler's political ideas that plunged us into the war. The cause was the success of his growth, to build up a new economy. The roots of the war were envy, greed and fear."
-- Generalmajor J. F. C. Fuller ("Der Zweite Weltkrieg", Wien 1950)

You shouldn't quote from a book that is freely available on the internet. no such quote - Please check
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=412&view=image&size=100 &id=inu.30000011889007&q1=plunged&u=1&num=1

T quoted: "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."
-- Winston Churchill (to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the foreword to the Second edition (2001) of Sidney Rogerson's "Propaganda in the Next War")

In google books or amazon, no such edition exists (except on conspiracy websites) - Please check

btw, could someone ask her to check out these other things she quoted

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be making things up.

T quoted "This war is an English war and its aim is the destruction of Germany"

She neglects to give the source (she's learning)

it's from- Truth for Germany: the guilt question of the Second World War by Udo Walendy who is "a prominent holocaust denier"!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Walendy

By those she quotes shall we know her.

T said You mean Goldhagen, who actually claimed that Germans have "antisemitic murder genes"?

I wouldn't believe this quote

nothing about genes in goldhagens 'willing executioners'

http://books.google.com/books?ei=1OcuTcvDMcnDswaIvPS_CA&ct=result&; amp; amp; amp;id=BBRClVfrDtAC&dq=goldhagen&q=genes#search_anchor

Goldhagen does say in 'worse than war' that killing is not in our genes.

T. quoted: "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."
-- Winston Churchill
T. gave no reference but I did find one on stormfront - -Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145;

no such quote exists - Please check - use snippet search.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=1hIuTYi7Hsj1sgalntSNCA&ct=result&; amp; amp; amp; amp;id=2w9IAAAAMAAJ&dq=Winston+Churchill+-+His+Career+in+War+and+P eace,&q=jesuit#search_anchor

Your 'Polish' quotes are inadequately referenced and only appear on neo nazi / denail websites (eg Stormfront etc). Please provide references
-The newspaper Despesza [sic] didn't exist - check here for comprehensive list of Polish, Yiddish, Hebrew German newspapers in Poland in 39.
http://www.polona.pl/dlibra/editionindex?startstr=D&dirids=40

The quote from Ward Hermans may be accurate - but he was a Nazi.

while you're at it - could you also check the following things that you quoted earlier and I couldn't find in your references

T. said ""Operation Himmler" is completely unknown in Germany today."

please check here

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46415349.html

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46172740.html

T. said "The wikipedia article you linked doesn't even have a version in German language!"

Perhaps you should write it.

T. said "Not even the Polish press contradicted Germany."
The Polish FO 'contradicted' the Gleiwitz propaganda - 2 /9 /39 - the Times of London. Please check (1st article, 2nd column)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3yag48d

T. said "Poland .....even criticized by the British Premier Chamberlain, who on July 10th, 1939 declared in the British House of Commons that this Polish partial mobilization is anything else than helpful for further negotiations."

I can't find such a criticism in his speech of July 10 39. Please double check for me.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/27t8rdy

T. quoted the British ambassador "...the mistreatment of the German minorities in Poland has to stop. I wished to send some English newspaper correspondents there in order to inform themselves."
- "Documents on Foreign Policy 1919-39", Vol. IV, Doc. 37

I can't find such a statement in Documents on British foreign policy, 1919-1939
, Volume 3, Part 4 - Volume 4, Part 4. Please check it here (use snippet search).
http://preview.tinyurl.com/299ksd6

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"Thank you again for admitting that it was the Allies who refused all German peace offers, not vice versa."

I've said before that when Germany invaded Poland, the British said they would not go to war if Germany would withdraw its troops. Hitler refused, thus it was he who wanted war.

"Germany wasn’t a 'threat' to his neighbors."

Germany invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Greece, and the Soviet Union, none of whom had attacked Germany. Ask the people in any of those countries whether Germany was not a threat. They'd laugh at you.

"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit. -- Winston Churchill"

I question the legitimacy of this quote. I cannot imagine him saying such a thing during or after the war. Show me the quote in Churchill's speeches or in his history of the war.

"What you mean with 'true peace' is the nothing else but the destruction of Germany – the peace of a graveyard."

Germany is not a graveyard today. It is a peaceful and prosperous society, the BRD. The only thing destroyed was National Socialism and your precious Deutsche Reich.

"For the 1231st time or so: In 1945, not 'Germany' (i. e. the Deutsche Reich) declared surrender, but (at best) the Deutsche Wehrmacht."

You said yourself that the aim of the Allies was to destroy "Germany", i.e. your precious Deutsche Reich. Karl Doenitz, the last leader of the Reich, ordered his subordinate to sign the surrender. That put the Reich to an end.

But I'll tell you. If the Deutsche Reich still exists, then it did not pay reparations to all of its victims. (Only the BRD did that.) So as part of any "peace agreement", the Reich must pay reparations.

"The Deutsche Reich is still formally at war with the Allies."

Well, then it's time for it to surrender.

"By 'total defeat' you mean the destruction of the Deutsche Reich, don’t you?"

Absolutely.

"Proof?" (That the Nazi Reich would continue trying to enslave or murder "inferior races.")

Hitler did not express his long-term ambition for Germany after Russia was conquered. But we can make an educated guess based on some of his remarks. For instance:

"Germany stands for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally includes active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which is nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany is resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well." - Hitler, in meeting with foreign leader, November 1941.

Hitler's "appeal" to European nations consisted of murdering all Jews in territory under Nazi or Axis control. It is clear from this passage that he was also going to invade Palestine and murder the Jews there. And his reference to "a similar appeal to non-European nations" can mean he would eventually ask the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and other countries to turn over their Jews for annihilation. The penalty for refusing would be German invasion.

"According to what you wrote here, it is you (the Allies) who claim the right 'to enslave or exterminate' another race."

The U.S. abolished slavery in the 1860s, and Britain even earlier. As for extermination, if you are alluding to the demand for Germany's unconditional surrender, that was not a demand for the extermination of the German people. The German people survived, and they have a wonderful country today, the BRD. Only your precious Deutsche Reich was destroyed (and even that you claim still exists.)

As for the Soviets, it is true that they engaged in enslaving and exterminating, but their behavior was almost identical to that of your precious Deutsche Reich.

"Shall we count the accumulated number of victims since 1945 – even more victims of the 'peaceful' Allies?"

I have not examined all the figures, but I bet that fewer people were killed per year in wars for all the years since 1945, than the years of WWII.

"That one (European civilization) has been already destroyed by the war you support so much."

Europe still exists, and has had 60 years peace and prosperity, at least in the western part.

"Let’s start with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznkEjYO1BA";

A war between the U.S. and China is a possibility, but neither country actually wants war. If war erupts, it will be because we stumbled into it, the way you Europeans stumbled into WWI (and sucked the rest of the world into it).

"Even according to the official narrative, the communists (Allies) were the by far bigger murderers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yud4Me9hZ1U";

Only because your precious Deutsche Reich was destroyed after only 12 years. The Soviet Union and Mao's China lasted much longer, giving them more time to murder people. But Hitler is the all-time winner in terms of the RATE at which he murdered people.

"The Deutsche Reich was a sovereign state, while the FRG is just an occupied territory. Thus, by definition, the inmates of the FRG are not free."

The Deutsche Reich may have been a "free" STATE, but its PEOPLE were not free.

The BRD is not occupied territory. And its "inmates" are free to come and go as they like. You are even free to protest outside a NATO base in Germany if you want. You certainly are free to type the things you've been posting on this board. If I had been posting what I am posting in your Deutsche Reich, I would have either been sent to a concentration camp or immediately executed.

"How a sovereign people organizes itself in the inside, is nobody’s business but this very people’s."

You are demonstrating blatant hypocrisy.
I doubt you would say regarding Czechoslovakia in 1938, "How a sovereign people organizes itself in the inside, is nobody’s business but this very people’s."
I doubt you would say regarding Poland in 1939, "How a sovereign people organizes itself in the inside, is nobody’s business but this very people’s."

You have shown me no evidence that those two countries oppressed their Germans, but suppose they actually did. Why would that be wrong, while at the same time it was fine for Germany to oppress its Jews?

Germany denied sovereignty to the Czechs and the Poles after it conquered them. Why are Germans entitled to sovereignty, but not other peoples?

"He (concentration camp inmate) would not be able to discuss away that the Deutsche Reich was a sovereign state – in contrast to the FRG."

Any German who survived your concentration camps and remained in (western) Germany after the war would obviously say they were free in the BRD - in contrast to the Reich.

I just thought of something else. If the BRD was and is a slave regime, why did Germans in the DDR risk their lives to cross the border?

"The Allies had (and have) concentration camps as well. So, by your definition, the Allies are not 'free societies'?"

The Soviets did have Nazi-like concentration camps. But the American and British internment camps were like Club Med compared to the camps of your precious Nazi Reich. Would you rather have been interned in Manzanar (a WWII American camp for Japanese-Americans) or in Auschwitz?

"For the 1232nd time or so: The Deutsche Reich did not declare surrender, only the Deutsche Wehrmacht."

Under direct orders from the last leader of the Reich, Karl Doenitz

"What he (Hitler) wrote in a book years before is no refutation in any way of my remark you just quoted." (That Germany didn't attack Poland but was simply 'responding' to Poland's behavior.)

Again, Hitler wrote that Germany must conquer land in the east by force, and that this solution to Germany's problems HAS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ADVANTAGES compared to any other solution. Since Poland lies directly to the east of Germany, a Nazi invasion of Poland was inevitable.

"The Poland had made lists to murder thousands of Germans, which they did even while the Germany army was advancing. For example: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromberger_Blutsonntag";

That event happened AFTER Germany invaded Poland! What, did Hitler have a time machine and say, "The Poles are going to massacre hundreds of Germans next week, so we should invade"?

"Life is struggle. That’s true."

But that does not mean life should be made into Auschwitz. It does not mean that, since nature destroys and makes life extinct on a massive scale, man should behave the same way.

You claim to hate the communists, but you and they have the same underlying idea: The individual is nothing; the group is all. The communists saw all of life as a struggle between the ECONOMIC CLASSES. You Nazis see all of life as a struggle between the RACES. Both groups oppose individual freedom, see individual rights as a joke, and enthusiastically advocate mass murder. You claim that the Nazis did not want war. But war is INEVITABLE given your ideology.

"What the Allies understand as 'peace', that’s what Germany thoroughly learned, if not since 1919, then since 1945: mass rape, mass murder, mass starvation, robbery, insult, more robbery, blackmail, suppression, subjugation, humiliation, more bloodshed, perversion, decadence, filth, whorishness, porn, beastiality, degeneracy etc. etc."

Every one of those words applies to how you treated inmates in your concentration camps. They also apply to the way you treated people in occupied Russia, Ukraine, Poland, and elsewhere. Given that the Soviet Union was a murderous totalitarian state similar to that of your Reich, are you really surprised at how the Soviets treated Germans after the war?

If you did not want half of Germany to be conquered by the Soviets, you should not have attacked them in the first place. And you should not have offended Britain and France (your natural allies against the Soviets) by invading Poland.

"But it was Churchill who already back then said that the aim of the war was the destruction of Germany."

The DEUTSCHE REICH, and its Nazi ideology, had to be destroyed. But the German people were not destroyed, and the BRD is one of the most successful and prosperous states today.

"Those were only underlying factors. What immediately caused the war was Polish provocations, violence, border violations etc."

You have presented no evidence that there were border violations or that ethnic Germans were mistreated in Poland. But even if they were, you seem to believe that "How a sovereign people organizes itself in the inside, is nobody’s business but this very people’s."

If you are upset about "provocations and violence", what was Kristallnacht?

[–] Lyndhen 13 years ago

@ Mars atax

"
"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit. -- Winston Churchill"

I question the legitimacy of this quote. I cannot imagine him saying such a thing during or after the war. Show me the quote in Churchill's speeches or in his history of the war.
"

I don't know if you saw my reply to Thusnelda's post - the reference she gives for this quote simply doesn't exist.

Thusnelda gets most of her quotes from like minded Neo Nazi and revisionist websites. It's very easy to find the books they quote from on line and invariably the quotes don't exist when the books themselves are checked.

She seemed to have stopped using these made up quotes after I pointed this out six months ago but maybe she's starting again.

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

Good work. I don't have the patience to look up all those questionable quotes, so thank you. But it's pretty obvious that what she claims Churchill said is a blatant phony.

[–] shurbanm 14 years ago

1) This was only the 15 in a chain of attempts at assassinating Hitler. Yes late as all the others did not succeed either. Hitler was no dummy.

2) The soviets may not have stopped on their own but if the other Allies agreed to the truce they could have forced Stalin to stop. The allies were already worried about Russia moving into Europe - that was the only real reason for Normandy invasion. They knew Germany was done with but they wanted to save Europe from the Soviets.

3) well of course. that is obvious. the point of this was to save lives. what other reason would their be. They state that in the movie - "Save europe from total destruction" which inevitably happened.

4) there were many attempts in early 1943 but none were successful obviously.

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

the point of this was to save lives. what other reason would their be. They state that in the movie - "Save europe from total destruction" which inevitably happened.

Absolute nonsense.

Saving Europe and particularly Germany from destruction would have been easy:
Accept one of the many German peace offers, stop war crimes (illegal bombing of civilian targets).

Remember that the Allies even destroyed German cultural heritage sites after (!) the (alleged) end of war.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Berliner Luft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgKiAb5b2LI

[–] shurbanm 13 years ago

erm...did you perhaps notice this was Germans attempting this and not Allies....I am not sure why I am even responding to this...
you must be a moron

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

did you perhaps notice this was Germans attempting this and not Allies

???

you must be a moron

No.

Yours,

Tusnelda

WHY THE USA IS GOING TO FALL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_6AaHT7ZSQ

[–] coolaree 13 years ago

Accepting peace offers would have meant (I'am assuming) accepting that Hitler and/or his party be allowed to remain in power in Germany. Which means accepting the existence of concentration camps and such.

I'am guessing you find this acceptable, Thusnelda?

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

Accepting peace offers would have meant (I'am assuming) accepting that Hitler and/or his party be allowed to remain in power in Germany.

In other words:
They didn’t want to make peace, but to occupy Germany and replace the German government with a puppet regime in oder to enslave the German people.

Moreover, the Allies even refused to negotiate – for instance, about a different head of state.
The point was, as the Allies themselves signaled to the German “Resistance”, that their aim was not to end the war or the end of national socialism, but the destruction of Germany as a sovereign state, thereby replacing the elites.

"What we in the German Resistance didn't really want to understand during the war, we fully comprehended afterwards: That the war was eventually not waged against Hitler, but against Germany."
"Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung", March 21st, März 1975
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Gerstenmaier

Which means accepting the existence of concentration camps and such.

?

The Allies had concentration camps, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camp s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Regulation_18B

I'am guessing you find this acceptable, Thusnelda?

Of course I find peace acceptable.

But thank you for confirming that the Allies refused peace, and obviously you still do.

Yours,

Thusnelda

WHY THE USA IS GOING TO FALL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_6AaHT7ZSQ

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"Saving Europe and particularly Germany from destruction would have been easy:
Accept one of the many German peace offers, stop war crimes (illegal bombing of civilian targets)."

An even better way to save Europe from destruction would have been even easier: Hitler surrenders unconditionally to the Allies, steps down from power, apologizes for starting the war, and kills himself.

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"Saving Europe and particularly Germany from destruction would have been easy:
Accept one of the many German peace offers, stop war crimes (illegal bombing of civilian targets)."

An even better way to save Europe from destruction would have been even easier:

So?

Hitler surrenders unconditionally to the Allies

Unconditional surrender = agreeing in the destruction of Germany.

Why not negotiating a peace?

steps down from power

The Allies' aim was not a different German government, the war and the destruction were not directed against a certain form of government ("Nazis"), but against the German people as a whole.

"What we in the German Resistance didn't really want to understand during the war, we fully comprehended afterwards: That the war was eventually not waged against Hitler, but against Germany."
"Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung", March 21st, März 1975
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Gerstenmaier

apologizes for starting the war

Why should he?
The war was instigated by Poland and Britain.

and kills himself

No.

Yours,

Thusnelda

WHY THE USA IS GOING TO FALL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_6AaHT7ZSQ

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"Unconditional surrender = agreeing in the destruction of Germany."

Germany DID surrender unconditionally, but Germany is alive and well 65 years later.

"The Allies' aim was not a different German government, the war and the destruction were not directed against a certain form of government ("Nazis"), but against the German people as a whole."

Their aim was to bring a permanent end to Germany's ability to launch aggression against other nations. The Allies saw from WWI and its aftermath that a Germany which is not completely occupied and reformed can threaten the world and start another world war a mere 21 years later. The Allies were not going to make the same mistake twice.

"That the war was eventually not waged against Hitler, but against Germany."

Under the totalitarian Nazi regime, the German people subjugated themselves to Hitler's will. A slogan of the regime was "Hitler is Germany and Germany is Hitler." To defeat one, the other also had to be defeated.

I am actually glad the Valkyrie coup failed. If Hitler had been assassinated, and Germany signed an armistice (as in WWI) or there had been a negotiated peace, then Germans would again claim they'd been "stabbed in the back," and would again threaten the world another 20 years down the road or so.

"The war was instigated by Poland and Britain."

We've been through this before. In 1938, Hitler claimed the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe." England believed him and gave in. But Hitler was a liar. He started making demands on Danzig and the Polish corridor. At this point, England's Chamberlain (who truly wanted peace) realized that only force would stop Hitler's bullying. Chamberlain warned Hitler that if he started a war against Poland, England would also fight. Hitler basically said, "F--k you. I want Poland's land and I am going to take it. I have a powerful army, so I can get away with it. I'll even make a deal with Stalin to keep him from helping you."

I don't know what your motives are. You seem to want Germany to abandon more than 50 years of peace and prosperity and start confronting the world again. Keep in mind that Germany's four main enemies in WWII (England, France, Russia, and the U.S.) all have nuclear weapons. So does Germany's main victim, the Jews (Israel).

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"Unconditional surrender = agreeing in the destruction of Germany."

Germany DID surrender unconditionally,

Ony the Deutsche Wehrmacht declared surrender (disp.), nobody else.

but Germany is alive and well 65 years later.

No.

Large parts of her territory are still occupied and her people are exploited and subjugated.

"The Allies' aim was not a different German government, the war and the destruction were not directed against a certain form of government ("Nazis"), but against the German people as a whole."

Their aim was to bring a permanent end to Germany's ability to launch aggression against other nations. The Allies saw from WWI and its aftermath that a Germany which is not completely occupied and reformed can threaten the world and start another world war a mere 21 years later. The Allies were not going to make the same mistake twice.

Utter nonsense, since Germany launched neither WWI nor WWII!

That the war was eventually not waged against Hitler, but against Germany."

Under the totalitarian Nazi regime, the German people subjugated themselves to Hitler's will. A slogan of the regime was "Hitler is Germany and Germany is Hitler." To defeat one, the other also had to be defeated.

You're just proving again that the Allies didn't want to make peace and fought the war against the German people as such.

I am actually glad the Valkyrie coup failed. If Hitler had been assassinated, and Germany signed an armistice (as in WWI) or there had been a negotiated peace

No, the Allies refused any negotiated peace, no matter under what government. They told this even to German "Resistance" groups.

Germans would again claim they'd been "stabbed in the back,"

Germany was backstabbed in WWI.
And a main reason for the tragic situation in 1945 was, again: treason from within.

and would again threaten the world another 20 years down the road or so.

Germany did not "threaten the world"!
Remember that it was the Allies who declared war on her and who refused all German peace offers - not vice versa.

"The war was instigated by Poland and Britain."

We've been through this before."

Indeed!

The Polish full mobilization of August 30th, 1939, in the case of Poland, still equated a declaration of war by Poland.
Even if you don’t agree with this legal opinion, there’s still the ongoing Polish aggressions, suppressions of the German ethnic minority, murders, border violations etc. etc. -
which made the German action not only legal self defense, but also necessary.

I don't know what your motives are.

Taking part in discussions of this board.

You seem to want Germany to abandon more than 50 years of peace

???

Germany is formally still at war with more than 50 states, and, in a broader sense, with all members states of the UNO - and still occupied.

For decades, there was even a deadly frontier built right within it.

and prosperity

???

Germany got and is getting robbed exploited like probably no country in the history of manking.

start confronting the world

Confronting the world = being free?

Keep in mind that Germany's four main enemies in WWII (England, France, Russia, and the U.S.) all have nuclear weapons.

Trying to threaten me?

Yours,

Thusnelda

Der Himmmel ist offen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDaqgfGLQmA

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"Ony the Deutsche Wehrmacht declared surrender, nobody else."

So Nazi Germany still exists? By that logic, the Weimar Republic still exists, because Hitler never bothered to declare the Weimar constitution void.

Large parts of her territory are still occupied and her people are exploited and subjugated."

Germany is a sovereign country and is the most prosperous country in Europe. I remember back in the 1980s that Germans were complaining about the noise from the constant NATO flights over the country. Well, they kept (western) Germany free from Soviet domination and led to the reunification. I don't know what more you want.

"Germany launched neither WWI nor WWII"

Germany was partly responsible for starting WWI, as were Austria, Serbia, Russia, and France. But WWII (in Europe) was entirely Hitler's fault. He promised that the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe" but was a blatant liar. He soon demanded Danzig and the Polish corridor, and then attacked Poland.

"You're just proving again that the Allies didn't want to make peace and fought the war against the German people as such."

The Allies wanted a PERMANENT peace, not just an armistice as in WWI where Germany would again go on the war-path 20 years later, and not a Munich-type agreement which Germany would break whenever it felt like it.

"the Allies refused any negotiated peace, no matter under what government."

Good. Without unconditional surrender, Germany would rebuild and again threaten the world, as it did 20 years after WWI.

"Germany was backstabbed in WWI."

Germans had that illusion because they never saw Allied troops marching victoriously into the country. They believed the German army was never defeated. Well, after WWII, even you admit that "the Deutsche Wehrmacht declared surrender."

"And a main reason for the tragic situation in 1945 was, again: treason from within."

What treason? The German army fought until it had no choice but to surrender. Hitler was neither assassinated nor overthrown. He killed himself when he saw he had no chance. I see how you could fall for the "stab in the back" theory after WWI. I DO NOT see how you could fall for it after WWII.

"Germany did not 'threaten the world'!
Remember that it was the Allies who declared war on her and who refused all German peace offers - not vice versa."

If there was one man in England who desparately wanted to avoid war with Germany, it was Neville Chamberlain. (Hitler had contempt for him, calling him a "little worm.") Even after Germany invaded Poland, Chamberlain still thought peace was possible. But Hitler proved otherwise. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/08/99/world_war_ii/4300 71.stm

Excerpt:
"I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street.

This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that, unless we hear from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it. He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland, whatever happened, and although he now says he put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.

His action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force."

If Hitler truly wanted peace, he could have withdrawn from Poland. But he was not interested in peace.

"Even if you don’t agree with this legal opinion, there’s still the ongoing Polish aggressions"

You are ignoring the fact that Hitler started to make demands on Poland after promising that the Sudetenland would be enough for him. His bottomless appetite for territory can only be labelled "aggression."

"suppressions of the German ethnic minority, murders"

Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia were a lot better off than Jews in Germany. I don't recall any Kristallnacht against Germans in Poland or Czechoslovakia.

"border violations etc. etc."

Germany did not just invade Poland. It also gobbled up Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg, none of whom had attacked Germany. You should keep those attacks in mind before you accuse someone else of aggression and border violations.

"Germany is formally still at war with more than 50 states, and, in a broader sense, with all members states of the UNO"

What are you talking about? Germany is a full member of the UN, and has diplomatic relations with most countries in the world.

"Germany got and is getting robbed exploited like probably no country in the history of manking."

Like a Third World country? I don't think so.

"Confronting the world = being free?"

Germany is ALREADY a free country. See http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw10/FIW_2010_MOF.pdf

"Trying to threaten me?"

No. I am just saying that it would be madness for Germany to return to its old habits. Since the 1960s it has been an economic powerhouse, a free country, and a country with an exceptional human rights record. Why do you want to throw that all away?

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

"Ony the Deutsche Wehrmacht declared surrender, nobody else."

So Nazi Germany still exists?

The Deutsche Reich as a legal entity still exists, even according to the highest court of the BRD.

By that logic, the Weimar Republic still exists

You have absolutely no idea.

The "Weimar Republic" was the Deutsche Reich - the Deutsche Reich just gets called like this in a certain period of time.

Large parts of her territory are still occupied and her people are exploited and subjugated."

Germany is a sovereign country

No it isn't.

In 1990, the Allies just put some occupation zones together.

I remember back in the 1980s that Germans were complaining about the noise from the constant NATO flights over the country. Well, they kept (western) Germany free from Soviet domination

Nonsense. The Soviets and the Western Allies collaborated in occupying and suppressing Germany.

and led to the reunification

Only partially. And only some occupation zones were put together.

I don't know what more you want.

A sovereign Germany - without occupants.

He promised that the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe" but was a blatant liar.

Is that what the British propaganda says? I'm asking, because I never heard that argument in BRD ever, but only from British people on discussion boards.
However, where did Adolf Hitler sign a legally binding treaty that says that Germany renounces her right to defend herself?

Moreover, the conflict with Poland was not about "territorial demands" - but the Polish aggression towards Germany.

He soon demanded Danzig and the Polish corridor

Poland was violating the treaties, and Germany tried to settle things peacefully, but Poland even refused to negotiate, even to physically accept diplomatic notes!

and then attacked Poland

No.

It was Poland who repeatedly committed atrocities, murders againt the ethinic Germans in Poland (Corridor), who repeatedly committed border violations which gave a legal right for Germany to defend herself. The Polish full mobilization alone, in the case of Poland, could be regarded as a declaration of war back then.

You are ignoring the fact that Hitler started to make demands on Poland after promising that the Sudetenland would be enough for him. His bottomless appetite for territory can only be labelled "aggression."

Trying to solve the conflict of Polish violations of the treaties (e.g.storing arms in Danzig) you call "aggression"? Just how delusional you are?

"border violations etc. etc."

Germany did not just invade Poland...

Here we're coming into the later course of war. A bit much for one posting on a movie board. Just let me point out that it was Britain who dragged Norway into the war - Germany just reacted when she learned about the British plans to occupy Norway and was a little bit faster.
I will consider replying extensively to this when I finally get a convincing answer why, besides Poland, Britain and France - India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declared war on Germany in September 1939: All countries Germany never was a "threat" to.

"Germany is formally still at war with more than 50 states, and, in a broader sense, with all members states of the UNO"

What are you talking about? Germany is a full member of the UN, and has diplomatic relations with most countries in the world.

No.

BRD (= Allied puppet regime) is a member of the UNO, not Germany (= Deutsches Reich).

UNO = broadened coalition of the Allies in the continuing (!) World War II (incredible but true!).

"Article 53

1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter8.shtml

"Article 77

1. The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
2. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter12.shtml

"Article 107

Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action."
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter17.shtml

See?

Please don't confuse BRD with Germany.

Germany = Deutsches Reich

BRD = Allied puppet occupation regime to suppress and exploit the German people

"Confronting the world = being free?"

Germany is ALREADY a free country

No.

"Article 139 [Continuing validity of denazification provisions]

The legal provisions enacted for the “Liberation of the German People from National Socialism and Militarism” shall not be affected by the provisions of this Basic Law."
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#139

This regulation in the (Allied-written) "Basic Law" for (!) the BRD (not a Constitution) is a euphemism meaning that the Allied occupation law is still in force and higher-ranking than the law of the puppet state BRD (assuming for a moment that the "Basisc Law" is still in force anymore at all, but that's a different question).

"Trying to threaten me?"

No. I am just saying that it would be madness for Germany to return to its old habits.

What "old habits"? Being a sovereign country? Yes, THAT it should be.

Since the 1960s it has been an economic powerhouse

It was before WWI and before WWII as well.
But material well-being is not everything, there are things more important in the world.
Moreover, the "wealth" isn't ours, since Germany, since we are "seized" by the Allies.

a free country

No.

BRD is an Allied occupation zone on part of the territory of the Deutsche Reich.

and a country with an exceptional human rights record.

No.

Human rights don't even apply to Germans. That is why violations of "human rights" against Germans are rarely mentioned.

Why do you want to throw that all away?

???

There's nothing to "throw away", because we don't have all that what you may think. But there's something left to throw away: illusions one got used to.

And if I may ask you:
After more than half a century of war and without a peace treaty - don't you think it is time to eventually make peace?

Yours,

Thusnelda

Mind Control In America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZvAc-McLEo

[–] NoRevisionism 13 years ago

The most disturbing thing is the amount of "research" thuSSy does & the time spent trying to convince IMDB fellow posters that she's nuts.

[–] TheSilverScreenJunkie 13 years ago

lol Ive never seen a real live Nazi before, and its quite amazing, shes pretty lucky she is behind a computer screen, because she knows talking like this among the real world with real people would not go well, her arguments ARE quite argumentative, but she speaks with reasonance of the propaganda delusioned brainwashed people of 1940's nazi germany, its though as if goebbels has been talking to her directly for the last 60 years

She ceases to repeat herself, she ceases to mention countries "legally declared war on germany" with the sense that she and germany had to "defend" themselves for "illegaly delcaring war on the world", where she will no doubt say "proof?", where everyone else knows : Hitler declared war on europe, he just didnt fax it to anyone.

She has not ONCE brought up a valid argumentative responce for the systematic extermination of 6 million individuals, in which the manners of their execution were.. ruthless to say the least... and which the SOLE PURPOSE of the extermination was blatant, unconditional, lack of a better word : Evil and Vendetta, nobody on the planet, not even neo nazis like her, can justify how it was planned out, how it was carried out, and how 6 999 999 999 people out of 7 billion know and accept that it was one of the most horrific moments in history our world, but it was done because "germany was defending itself, sorry herself" from starved, shot up, gassed jews, surrounded by barbed wire fences...
And this time, come up with a better argument than "well pfff tons of countries exterminate people! what we did was ok too!" come ON.. YOU need to justify this, and it better be good.

"...8 year olds, dude..." -Walter , The Big Lebowski (1998)

[–] tbeller80 13 years ago

Don't feed the zoo animals. Thusnelda is all over the WWII movie threads taking up space on these boards and never makes any sense. I put her on ignore and it was amazing how much easier it became to read these threads.

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

lol Ive never seen a real live Nazi before

What I said here referring to the LEGAL situation of Germany is the truth – NO MATTER any political views.

Interestingly, 95 % of what I say here are official facts, only 5 % or so opinions.

Whenever I invite people to discuss political questions, they refuse.

and its quite amazing, shes pretty lucky she is behind a computer screen, because she knows talking like this among the real world with real people would not go well

???

What I say here regarding the legal position is the OFFICAL version that can be heard even in the BRD mass media. Every law student learns about it in the first semester.

her arguments ARE quite argumentative

Sic!

but she speaks with reasonance of the propaganda delusioned brainwashed people of 1940's nazi Germany

???

In the 1940s the Deutsche Reich made propaganda regarding the legal situation of the BRD???

its though as if goebbels has been talking to her directly for the last 60 years

“Channelling”, maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeling_%28mediumistic%29

talking like this among the real world with real people would not go well

??

What I say IS the real world.

Well, maybe except for Fox News and crap movies from Tinseltown.

That the Deutsche Reich still exists and that there’s no peace treaty is the official line, in public speeches even by BRD polticians.

germany had to "defend" themselves

Yes, it was Poland, Britain and France (usw.) that attacked and declared war on Germany and refused German peace offers - NOT vice versa.

delcaring war on the world",

???

Hitler declared war on Europe

Proof?

Yours,

Thusnelda

Parliamentarianism Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lECo9-oGQKI

[–] TheSilverScreenJunkie 13 years ago

lol as expected, you completely stay away from my "extermination of millions" part of my message. how convenient. You nor anyone else for the rest of time, can ever justify such a thing, so you choose to ignore it.

"Who is This under my Knife!" - Bill "The Butcher" Cutting

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

In plain words:

NoRev has no, not even a single argument to refute me.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Écrasez l'Infâme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hgA-GMAKbc

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"The Deutsche Reich as a legal entity still exists."

Karl Dönitz was the last leader of the Reich, and he surrendered unconditionally to the Allies.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_D%C3%B6nitz

In his last will and testament, dated 29 April, Hitler named Dönitz his successor as Staatsoberhaupt (Head of State), with the title of Reichspräsident (President) and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. The same document named Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels as Head of Government with the title of Reichskanzler (Chancellor).

However, on 1 May—the day after Hitler's death—Goebbels committed suicide. Dönitz thus became the sole representative of the crumbling German Reich.

On 4 May, German forces in the Netherlands, Denmark, and northwestern Germany under Dönitz's command surrendered to Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery at the Lüneburg Heath, just southeast of Hamburg, signalling the end of World War II in northwestern Europe.

A day later, Dönitz sent Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg, his successor as the commander in chief of the German Navy, to U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower's headquarters in Rheims, France, to negotiate a surrender to the Allies. The Chief of Staff of OKW, Colonel-General (Generaloberst) Alfred Jodl, arrived a day later. Dönitz had instructed them to draw out the negotiations for as long as possible so that German troops and refugees could surrender to the Western Powers. However, when Eisenhower let it be known he would not tolerate the Germans' stalling, Dönitz authorised Jodl to sign the instrument of unconditional surrender at 1:30 a.m. on the morning of May 7. Just over an hour later, Jodl signed the documents.

"The Soviets and the Western Allies collaborated in occupying and suppressing Germany."

If so, why did they "allow" Germany to become the predominant economic power in Europe?

"A sovereign Germany - without occupants."

Germany is already sovereign. And NATO forces are not "occupying" Germany. If you want NATO to remove its military bases, start a movement of Germans urging the government to do so. But if a majority of Germans are not interested, do not call them traitors, do not put them in concentration camps, and do not exterminate them.

"I never heard that argument in BRD ever, but only from British people on discussion boards."

I am American, not British. But Hitler did promise that the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe," as you can easily find on the Internet.

"However, where did Adolf Hitler sign a legally binding treaty that says that Germany renounces her right to defend herself?"

Nowhere. Hitler would never renounce the right to self-defense, and he would never renounce his right to engage in wars of aggression.

"Poland was violating the treaties, and Germany tried to settle things peacefully."

Why don't you stop all the nonsense?
Read this chapter from Mein Kampf. http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/mkv1ch04.html

I will summarize it for you. Hitler echoes Thomas Malthus in warning that Germany faces disaster because its population is increasing faster than its food supply. He lists four solutions that could be considered:
1. Decreasing Germany's number of births.
2. Colonization within Germany.
3. Gaining new soil via territorial expansion.
4. Industrial development and trade with other nations.

Hitler argues that the third option is, by far, the best. "The acquisition of new soil for the settlement of the excess population possesses an infinite number of advantages."

Furthermore, this new territory should be conquered in Europe: "It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in the Cameroons, but today almost exclusively in Europe. We must, therefore, coolly and objectively adopt the standpoint that it can certainly not be the intention of Heaven to give one people fifty times as much land and soil in this world as another. In this case we must not let political boundaries obscure for us the boundaries of eternal justice."

Of course, the nations that own this territory now will not willingly give it up. Therefore, it must be taken by force: "True, they will not willingly do this. But then the law of self-preservation goes into effect; and what is refused to amicable methods, it is up to the fist to take. If our forefathers had let their decisions depend on the same pacifistic nonsense as our contemporaries, we should possess only a third of our present territory; but in that case there would scarcely be any German people for us to worry about in Europe today. No-it is to our natural determination to fight for our own existence that we owe the two Ostmarks of the Reich and hence that inner strength arising from the greatness of our state and national territory which alone has enabled us to exist up to the present."

Note that, although you claim that Germany wanted peace, Hitler clearly dismisses such aspirations as "pacifistic nonsense."

Hitler advocates a war of conquest in Europe. "For Germany, consequently, the only possibility for carrying out a healthy territorial policy lay in the acquisition of new land in Europe itself. But in the nineteenth century such colonial territories were no longer obtainable by peaceful means. Consequently, such a colonial policy could only have been carried out by means of a hard struggle which, however, would have been carried on to much better purpose, not for territories outside of Europe, but for land on the home continent itself."

Such a war of conquest is not for the faint of heart. Germany must be regimented so that the main objective of every German is to fight a war of conquest. "Such a decision, it is true, demands undivided devotion. It is not permissible to approach with half measures or even with hesitation a task whose execution seems possible only by the harnessing of the very last possible ounce of energy. This means that the entire political leadership of the Reich should have devoted itself to this exclusive aim; never should any step have been taken, guided by other considerations than the recognition of this task and its requirements. It was indispensable to see clearly that this aim could be achieved only by struggle, and consequently to face the contest of arms with calm and composure."

Germany must launch a war to its east in order to gain territory. "If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only at the expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation.'

"The acquisition of new soil was possible only in the East."

"It was Poland who repeatedly committed atrocities, murders againt the ethinic Germans in Poland (Corridor), who repeatedly committed border violations which gave a legal right for Germany to defend herself."

First, provide a LEGITIMATE link to prove these claims. Second, even if they are true, does the word "hypocrisy" ring a bell? Even before WWII began, Germany repeatedly committed atrocities and murders against Jews in Germany.

"Trying to solve the conflict of Polish violations of the treaties (e.g.storing arms in Danzig) you call 'aggression'? Just how delusional you are?"

Delusional enough to read that chapter of Mein Kampf and to look at a map of Europe. Hitler stated openly that Germany must conquer land from Russia. Poland lies directly between Germany and Russia, so in order to conquer Russia, Germany first had to conquer Poland. Issues about treaties, Danzig, the Polish corridor, and alleged mistreatment of ethnic Germans were side issues to Hitler. His main objective was to obtain living space in the east, by force, as he admitted to his generals in August 1939:

"Our strength is our speed and our brutality. Genghis Khan chased millions of women and children to death, consciously and with a happy heart. History sees him only as a great founder of states. It is of no concern, what the weak Western European civilisation is saying about me. I issued the command - and I will have everybody executed, who will only utter a single word of criticism - that it is not the aim of the war to reach particular lines, but to physically annihilate the enemy. Therefore I have mobilised my Skull Squads, for the time being only in the East, with the command to unpityingly and mercilessly send men, women and children of Polish descent and language to death. This is the only way to gain the Lebensraum, which we need. Who is still talking today about the extinction of the Armenians?"

"Why, besides Poland, Britain and France - did India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declare war on Germany in September 1939: All countries Germany never was a 'threat' to."

I am not British, but I suppose that since those countries were part of the British Empire/Commonwealth, they had treaties of alliance with Britain. Even so, an expansionist dictatorship like Nazi Germany could be a threat to anyone.

"The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements..."

Germany itself is on the Security Council at this very moment!

"Please don't confuse BRD with Germany.
Germany = Deutsches Reich
BRD = Allied puppet occupation regime to suppress and exploit the German people"

Nazi Reich = regime devoted to obtaining Lebensraum and racial purity for the German people, by occupying, suppressing, exploiting, and/or murdering anyone considered inferior.

BRD = Germany today, one of the most successful democracies in the post-war period.

"What 'old habits'? Being a sovereign country? Yes, THAT it should be."

Germany IS a sovereign country. The occupation ended in 1990.

"But material well-being is not everything, there are things more important in the world."

Of course. There are the bonds of family. There is friendship. There is human achievement. There is spirituality. And in the BRD you can focus on these things without enslaving or murdering anyone.

"Human rights don't even apply to Germans. That is why violations of 'human rights' against Germans are rarely mentioned."

Evidence of this?

"Don't you think it is time to eventually make peace?"

The U.S., Britain, France, and Russia are all at peace with Germany.

[–] TheSilverScreenJunkie 13 years ago

great post mars atax

mind blowing rly lol, i dont see how she can ever counter what you brought up.

"Who is This under my Knife!" - Bill "The Butcher" Cutting

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

Karl Dönitz was the last leader of the Reich, and he surrendered unconditionally to the Allies.

No, there’s no declaration of surrender on behalf of the Deutsche Reich, not even according to the official version. There’s only a declaration of behalf of the Wehrmacht – nobody else declared surrender.

"The Soviets and the Western Allies collaborated in occupying and suppressing Germany."

If so, why did they "allow" Germany to become the predominant economic power in Europe?

You can’t milk a dying cow.

Germany is already sovereign

No, not even according to the official FRG-politicians.

And NATO forces are not "occupying" Germany.

Indeed, the Allied forces are still occupying Germany. That’s even openly written in the “Basic Law for the FRG”.

"However, where did Adolf Hitler sign a legally binding treaty that says that Germany renounces her right to defend herself?"

Nowhere. Hitler would never renounce the right to self-defense

So then why are you claiming that he “lied” to have done so?

"Poland was violating the treaties, and Germany tried to settle things peacefully."

Why don't you stop all the nonsense?

IT’s not nonsense, it’s true. The German attempts to settle the things with Poland peacefully (stopping Polish aggression and violence) failed, Poland even refused to physically accept diplomatic notes! That’s why the (attempts at) negotiations had to be lead via a Swedish businessman and via London. Thus, you can still find all this in the official files of the British Foreign Office. Or do you want to tell me that Britain forged their own files – in favour of Adolf Hitler?

Read this chapter from Mein Kampf…

Does this chapter reflect Germany’s actual policy in the 1930s? No.
Quite the contrary, with the “Heim ins Reich” project, German settlers who had lived in Eastern Europe for decades or even centuries were encouraged to come back to Germany!!

Yours,

Thusnelda

Coming Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0QBh0naPA

[–] Mars_atax 13 years ago

"The German attempts to settle the things with Poland peacefully (stopping Polish aggression and violence) failed, Poland even refused to physically accept diplomatic notes!"

After the British saw what Germany did to Czechoslovakia, they held Hitler to his promise that he had no more territorial claims to make in Europe. When he started demanding Danzig and the Polish corridor, the British realized Hitler's appetite was insatiable. So they encouraged the Poles to stand up to Hitler.

As for "stopping aggression and violence", any free society would have a right to attack Germany after Kristallnacht in order to stop Germany's violence.

Hitler's "attempts to settle the things with Poland peacefully" are best summarized by these remarks he made to his Generals in August 1939:

Unsere Stärke ist unsere Schnelligkeit und unsere Brutalität. Dschingis Khan hat Millionen Frauen und Kinder in den Tod gejagt, bewußt und fröhlichen Herzens. Die Geschichte sieht in ihm nur den großen Staatengründer. Was die schwache westeuropäische Zivilisation über mich sagt, ist gleichgültig. Ich habe Befehl gegeben — und ich lasse jeden füsilieren, der auch nur ein Wort der Kritik äußert —, daß das Kriegsziel nicht im Erreichen von bestimmten Linien, sondern in der physischen Vernichtung des Gegners besteht. So habe ich, einstweilem nur im Osten, meine Totenkopfverbände bereitgestellt mit dem Befehl, unbarmherzig und mitleidslos Mann, Weib und Kind polnischer Abstammung und Sprache in den Tod zu schicken. Nur so gewinnen wir den Lebensraum, den wir brauchen. Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?

Our strength is our speed and our brutality. Genghis Khan chased millions of women and children to death, consciously and with a happy heart. History sees him only as a great founder of states. It is of no concern, what the weak Western European civilisation is saying about me. I issued the command — and I will have everybody executed, who will only utter a single word of criticism — that it is not the aim of the war to reach particular lines, but to physically annihilate the enemy. Therefore I have mobilised my Deaths-Head Squads, for the time being only in the East, with the command to unpityingly and mercilessly send men, women and children of Polish descent and language to death. This is the only way to gain the Lebensraum, which we need. Who is still talking today about the extinction of the Armenians?

"Does this chapter reflect Germany’s actual policy in the 1930s? No."

Starting in 1939, YES. Hitler stated openly that Germany must conquer land from Russia in order to survive. Poland lies between Germany and Russia, so Germany would have to conquer Poland first, which indeed it did in 1939. It then went after Russia in 1941.

Hitler also made clear that attempts to keep the peace in Europe were "pacifistic nonsense."

[–] dragonlord216 8 years ago

Sir, I commend you for refuting every single piece of (mis)information that the Neo-Nazis are bringing up. We need more people like you.

[–] ltr-1 13 years ago

Thusnelda you are quoting the Federal Constitutional of Germany and you are right that the court says that the Deutsche Reich still exists.

But you are ignoring another part of the same court decission and I know why.

Because the same court decission says that the Federal Republic of Germany is not legal successor of the Deutsches Reich, it is identically with it.

And you should go to a law school and learn

that

- a constitution is not defined by its name, its defined by its task.

As for the name "Grundgesetz" (Basic Law) you should look at the Danish constitution and the Danish word "Grundlov" which is "Grundgesetz" in German.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.

[–] Thusnelda 13 years ago

Thusnelda you are quoting the Federal Constitutional of Germany and you are right that the court says that the Deutsche Reich still exists.

Indeed! Thanks for conceding this.

But you are ignoring another part of the same court decission

What that court says further doesn’t contradict what he says before.

Because the same court decission says that the Federal Republic of Germany is not legal successor of the Deutsches Reich

Of course FRG isn’t the legal successor of the Deutsche Reich, since the Deutsche Reich still exists.

it is identically with it

That is absolute nonsense. A sovereign state cannot be “identical” with an occupation regime.
The court goes on pointing out that the FRGt is only partly “identical” as for the territory– which is true insofar, as the FRG is (or better: was)t on part of the German territory.
What that court does here is dancing around publicly pointing out that FRG is nothing but a puppet regime and thereby revealing the courts own parading around as “constitutional court” is grotesque.

And you should go to a law school and learn

that

- a constitution is not defined by its name, its defined by its task.

It is you who should go back to law school and at least read the Basic Law:

” Article 146
[Duration of the Basic Law]
This Basic Law, which since the achievement of the unity
and freedom of Germany applies to the entire German people,
shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution
freely adopted by the German people takes effect.”
https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

FirstArt. 146 says itself that GG is not a constitution. This is even what every German law student learns in first semetes!

As you mention the task: The task or pupose of the Basic Law is to temporarily restore order in an occupied territory, particularly according to Art. 43 of the Hague Convention.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/195-200053?OpenDocument

Honestly, I don’t see why you make such fuss about this: That FRG was until 1990 and still is until today nothing but a dictatorial occupation puppet regime on part of the territory of the Deutsche Reich is even officially (!) recognized: by the Basic Law, by the Allies, by FRG politicians and by the UN Charter.

Yours,

Thusnelda

Coming Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0QBh0naPA

[–] mysikot 10 years ago

It is good to have in this day and age someone as dedicated as you are to the memory of your beloved Fuhrer. Your attention must thus be directed to a vile piece of commie trash called variously "The Producers" or "Springtime for Hitler".

Not only it mocks the gentle Goebbels, the fun-loving friend of all children Himmler, or the sharp-dressing aviation pioneer Goering, but - oh the horror - the Father of your great nation himself, Adolf Hitler..

You go girl, show them fugitives from Auschwitz and lay down the law.

Sieg Heil!

[–] smfilm 13 years ago

wow this got far away from the op.... responding to the OP

there were a long string of assassination attempts and plots as far back as 1936... notable Germans saw the writing on the wall and tried to stop it... there was just a never ending string of unfortunate events... most significantly Hitler would frequently change time frames of his appearances and travel foiling timed explosives.... also he rotated security constantly and changed his advisors all the time... it was incredibly hard to get near him without being searched...

If this attempt had succeeded countless lives would have been saved... the conspirators immediate goal was to stop hostilities and the Allies wouldn't have agreed to anything less than unconditional, thus stopping the holocaust, which was dramatically accelerated beginning around this time (750k Hungarian Jews didn't arrive at Auschwitz until about this time and there were still more than 100k Jews in Polish ghettos in July )... also, Hitlers scorched earth and murder policy in the East would have been greatly mitigated... so I strongly disagree that its too little too late...

also, if the plot worked, a new, pro peace government would have been installed that had killed Hitler.... something that would have been recognized by the world and made a huge difference for post war Germany....

killing Hitler at ANY time prior to his death would have made a huge difference...

[–] zooeyhall 13 years ago

An interesting question. If the plotters had succeeded and Hitler would have been killed, I think we can safely assume that would have been the end of the Nazi govt. Allthough there were plenty of fanatics, the entire Nazi system was highly and perhaps exclusively dependent on Hitler and the influence of his personality. None of of his subordinates would have been able to step into his shoes.

I also doubt that it would have ended the war. While you say there would have been "immediate unconditional surrender to the West" I doubt the Western Allies would have accepted it. There was an agreement between all the Allies not to make a seperate peace with Germany. I think the U.S. and Britain would not have broken this agreement with Stalin. Also--Stalin by this time already had his sights set on the domination of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union. He wasn't about to at this point in the war--with Soviet troops moving into Central Europe--to suddenly make peace.

[–] Buckaroo-Robot-Monster 13 years ago

The plotters need the loyalty of a whole regiment of soldiers who will be willing to kill a lot of Nazi Party officials such as Goebbels, et al. Otherwise, the Nazi Party finds a new Furher and the war continues on all fronts.

[–] gandia_3 11 years ago

Totally agree with you...

I have another point to add... interesting that the 'good' Germans tried to kill Hitler when they started losing the war. If those same Germans hated Hitler's ideals and actions so much, why didn't they try to kill him when the Germans were still winning the war?!

They tried to kill him to save their own skins when they saw that they were doomed.

[–] Panzerschiffe-1 11 years ago

Totally agree with you...

I have another point to add... interesting that the 'good' Germans tried to kill Hitler when they started losing the war. If those same Germans hated Hitler's ideals and actions so much, why didn't they try to kill him when the Germans were still winning the war?!

They tried to kill him to save their own skins when they saw that they were doomed.

Clearly you've never actually picked up a book on the German Resistance, or you'd know that many of the members of the Operation Valykrie conspiracy had been trying to either depose or kill Hitler since the 1930s. Gen. Ludwig Beck, Fieldmarshal Witzlebein, Carl Goerdler, Majorgeneral Henning von Tresckow, Wilhelm Canaris, Hans Oster - I could on listing names, but suffice to say that all of those men had been involved in some form or another in failed coups and assassination attempts on the Fuhrer since his rise to power.

The long history of the German Resistance is briefly acknowledged in the films' epilogue, which accurately states that there were fifteen recorded attempts on Hitler's life. Valkyrie was the last, tragic gasp of the German Resistance to Hitler, and by no means was it an isolated attempt. Go read a book before you go about slandering the memories of the dead - specifically, Joachim Fest's "Plotting Hitler's Death" and Peter Hoffman's "German Resistance to Hitler", which are two of most accessible and seminal works on the subject.

Tempus edax, homo edacior

[–] gandia_3 11 years ago

Obviously you didn't read the whole thread. If you had, you wouldn't look as thick as you do now.

German resistance to Hitler was like what? 2% of Germans? Not good enough to make a difference in my eyes. I watched the film carefully, so, yes, I understood that this hadn't been an isolated attempt. I still insist, they tried to kill Hitler ONLY cos they wanted to save their own worthless skins.

About slandering... I think it's an insult to any country who suffered Hitler's and Germany's insane butchery to even feel the slightest pity for those people.

When they showed Tom Cruise's (sorry, forgot the officer's name and I'm in too much of a hurry to look it up)family home being bombed, my wife felt sorry for them. I didn't. My family is spread all over Europe cos of Germany. And, like many, many families in Europe, we lost many relatives. My mum at the time had to sleep in the Underground (metro tunnels) cos we were bombed day and night without respite. The Luftwaffe killed tens of thousands in London alone.

I recommend you read books or watch documentaries on the savagery of WWII Germany.

[–] Panzerschiffe-1 11 years ago

Obviously you didn't read the whole thread. If you had, you wouldn't look as thick as you do now.

Why, of course I'll go read through 150+ messages before countering some clearly ill-informed opinions on German history - I think not.

German resistance to Hitler was like what? 2% of Germans? Not good enough to make a difference in my eyes. I watched the film carefully, so, yes, I understood that this hadn't been an isolated attempt. I still insist, they tried to kill Hitler ONLY cos they wanted to save their own worthless skins.

You really need to pick up an actual book, because you're grossly ignorant on this subject. Actual percentages are difficult (if well nigh impossible) to come by, but from what we do know the German Resistance had a base of support that encompassed civilian officials, military officers, the Abwher, political conservatives, socialists, liberals, clergymen - a remarkably broad cross-section of society. And even if their number was small when compared to that of Hitler's supporters, why does that detract from their sacrifice? If anything, doesn't that make their heroism greater for standing up against something that they knew would surely kill them?

As for saving their skins: you acknowledge that many (if not the majority) of the conspirators of the Valkyrie plot had been trying to kill or depose Hitler well before July 20th, 1944 - in which case, what makes you think that their motivations for killing Hitler in 1944 were different from the moral outrage that had spurred their efforts in the 30s? Can you present proof of this assertion?

The reality is that the July 20th attempt on Hitler's life was, in essence, a suicidal effort. Col. Stauffenberg and Henning von Tresckow knew the slim odds, the latter going so far as to admit shortly before the operation that "It is almost certain that we will fail. But how will future history judge the German people if not even a handful of men had the courage to put an end to that criminal?". Many within the Resistance doubted that killing Hitler would effect any great change in the outcome of the war, but ultimately it was decided that, no matter the cost, the assassination had to attempted. Again, in Tresckow's words: "The assassination must be attempted at all costs. Even if it should not succeed, an attempt to seize power in Berlin must be made. What matters now is no longer the practical purpose of the coup, but to prove to the world and for the records of history that the men of the resistance dared to take the decisive step. Compared to this objective, nothing else is of consequence."

About slandering... I think it's an insult to any country who suffered Hitler's and Germany's insane butchery to even feel the slightest pity for those people.

Let's suppose a family is brought to trial for various murders, and four are guilty of the act. Now suppose there's a fifth family member who had no part in the murders, and did everything in his power to prevent them - including alerting the proper authorities as to the heinous undertakings of his strangely violent kin. Would justice demand that we drag this man to jail and put him on trial to be punished with the murderers? Does that accord with reason or justice? I think not. Your stance seems to dictate that the innocent should be arrested, tried and executed with the guilty. Should we then condemn Oskar Schindler for the crime of being a German, despite his saving over a thousand Jews from extermination? Shall we condemn the German Resistance on the same grounds? I find that reprehensible however you spin it.

When they showed Tom Cruise's (sorry, forgot the officer's name and I'm in too much of a hurry to look it up)

Col. Claus Scheck Graf von Stauffenberg

family home being bombed, my wife felt sorry for them. I didn't. My family is spread all over Europe cos of Germany. And, like many, many families in Europe, we lost many relatives. My mum at the time had to sleep in the Underground (metro tunnels) cos we were bombed day and night without respite. The Luftwaffe killed tens of thousands in London alone.

Your point? My great-grandparents and grandparents were based in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941, (my great-grandfather was an officer in the U.S. Army Air Corps); they experienced the terror of war firsthand. Yet for all of that, that doesn't put them or me in the right to condemn the entirety of the Japanese people for the sins of the majority at that time, nor to hold grudges against their descendants for being citizens of that nation. The Luftwaffe killed thousands in London, and so the culpability lies with the Luftwaffe, Herman Goering and Adolf Hitler. Beck, Stauffenberg, Tresckow and the rest of the German Resistance were not responsible for it. Give blame where the blame is due, not where it is wholly unwarranted.

I recommend you read books or watch documentaries on the savagery of WWII Germany.

I've read and seen plenty. Need I mention that Stauffenberg and Tresckow found these appalling acts sickening and shameful?

In closing, I believe Tresckow's last known words before his suicide on July 21st, 1944, speak for themselves:

"The whole world will vilify us now, but I am still totally convinced that we did the right thing. Hitler is the archenemy not only of Germany but of the world. When, in few hours' time, I go before God to account for what I have done and left undone, I know I will be able to justify what I did in the struggle against Hitler. God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany. No one among us can complain about his death, for whoever joined our ranks put on the shirt of Nessus. A man's moral worth is established only at the point where he is ready to give up his life in defense of his convictions."

In closing, Tresckow's

Tempus edax, homo edacior

[–] gandia_3 11 years ago

Mate, really, I wish I had the time to answer you properly, but I have a job, a family and a million more important things to do (for example, watching grass grow) than having to answer the encyclopedia of an answer you have given me.

All I'd like to say is that I don't judge nowadays Germany for the atrocities in WWII. I judge the Germans of that time. So, no, I'm not racist in any way. Those people who played even the smallest of roles in them atrocities and who supported any of it from beginning to end, should burn in hell for all eternity.

Thanks for all the details you have provided (yes, I read it through and through, unlike you who didn't have the courtesy of reading the thread before spilling your opinion all over the place), though in all honesty, I must say that it has not changed my mind one iota. Nor I imagine, anybody else's.

Buh bye now :)

[–] smfilm 10 years ago

in January 1943, the Allies had already agreed on the unconditional surrender pledge, so Germany wasn't going to be able to do anything to avoid being conquered, and it was very doubtful that Russia would have allowed a negotiated peace that avoided an occupation of Germany after they got so viciously attacked in June 1941.

If the July 20 1944 plot had succeeded:

- negotiations would have begun immediately and it would have made a huge difference for Europe. Most of the destruction in central Europe would have been avoided, millions of lives would have been spared including at least 1.5 million victims of the Holocaust...

- Europe would have exited World War II in a much stronger state and been significantly less dependent on the US, having a huge effect on post war US domination of the world

- Japan would have come under huge Soviet pressure a year earlier and they would have certainly have surrendered as this was their greatest fear and it would have saved at least 2 million lives in the Pacific theater and at least 750,000 Japanese civilian lives, possibly many more

- the Atomic bomb most likely wouldn't have been used and the US's push for world supremacy would have had much less teeth to it.

The domino effect of a coup success would have been HUGE.

So, nope, don't agree at all that it was too little too late and a success would have been inconsequential.

[–] emrld005 9 years ago

Had it succeeded it would have saved many lives and a great deal more suffering, but they tried....they sure did.