Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Best WWII General: Poll

    Share

    Poll

    Best WWII General

    [ 13 ]
    62% [62%] 
    [ 1 ]
    5% [5%] 
    [ 0 ]
    0% [0%] 
    [ 1 ]
    5% [5%] 
    [ 4 ]
    19% [19%] 
    [ 2 ]
    9% [9%] 

    Total Votes: 21

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Fri Oct 01, 2010 4:37 am

    Erich von Manstein by a long-shot.

    Read his memoirs and realize what he was doing, he was engaged in the monumental task of holding back the Soviet Army in many instances with only a few divisions covering 10-20 miles of front. He also stood up to Hitler and gave Hitler a REALISTIC portrayal of the situation rather than being a yes man like so many others.

    Manstein was the best strategist and also the best defensive tactician, I'd say. If he had been given operational control on his section of the Eastern Front I believe the situation would have been stabilized by mid 1943, assuming Stalingrad had even happened to begin with, which I don't believe it would have.




    May I post a few pages from his memoirs that I typed into word?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:34 am

    Stalingrad had to happen.
    It had nothing to do with Hitler fixating on it and everything to do with the fact that Stalingrad was an economic, military and transport hub in the region and taking it would protect the flanks of the forces heading south to get Caucasus oil which Germany desperately needed.

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:Stalingrad had to happen.
    It had nothing to do with Hitler fixating on it and everything to do with the fact that Stalingrad was an economic, military and transport hub in the region and taking it would protect the flanks of the forces heading south to get Caucasus oil which Germany desperately needed.


    If Manstein had been given freedom of action either Stalingrad would never have happened or if it had happened he would have successfully pulled off the relief combined with a break-out from within the city, rather than just having 6th Army wait to be rescued entirely by outside forces.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:24 pm

    BTRfan wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Stalingrad had to happen.
    It had nothing to do with Hitler fixating on it and everything to do with the fact that Stalingrad was an economic, military and transport hub in the region and taking it would protect the flanks of the forces heading south to get Caucasus oil which Germany desperately needed.


    If Manstein had been given freedom of action either Stalingrad would never have happened or if it had happened he would have successfully pulled off the relief combined with a break-out from within the city, rather than just having 6th Army wait to be rescued entirely by outside forces.

    If ''IF" have happened, then we wouldn't be arguing! "IF" is a senseless base for any argument.

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:29 pm

    These four pages make it pretty clear Manstein knew exactly what should have been done in regards to the military situation.



    Lost Victories

    Field Marshal Erich von Manstein

    P 501-505

    At the beginning of January the position of the Army Group as a whole grew progressively worse. In the Dnieper Bend (and this also applied to the Nikopol bridge-head), a fresh offensive was being prepared against Sixth and Eighth Armies. Should it break loose before the eastern part of the river-bend had been relinquished in accordance with the Army Group’s demand, the situation of this wing could become extremely grave. Worst of all, it would no longer be possible to disengage the armoured divisions which were to follow H.Q. First Panzer Army to the northern wings as a second wave and whose released had already been ordered by the Army Group. A major enemy attack did in fact materialize east of the Kirovograd on 3rd January, and the two divisions there were stuck for the time being.

    All this time it was becoming increasingly urgent that the northern wing should be supplied with further forces, the enemy having meanwhile recognized the big opportunity offered to him by the gaps torn in Fourth Panzer Army’s front.

    In what was now the area of First Panzer Army, the headquarters of which had assumed command in the sector south and south-west of Kiev with effect from 3rd January, the enemy pushed southwards to a point some 30 miles north of Uman. Here he was provisionally halted by the arrival of 3 Panzer Corps’ forward elements.

    A particularly serious situation had arisen in Fourth Panzer Army. Faced with the danger of having both wings outflanked, it had by 4th January been compelled to fall back on a front which began less than 40 miles east of Vinnitsa and ran north towards Berdichev (for which a battle was already in progress), finally ending about 40 miles west of the town on the former Soviet-Polish frontier.

    In the broad gap between ourselves and Central Army Group further north, 59 Corps had gone back to the former frontier along and north of the highway from Zhitomir to Rovno.

    These developments during the first few days of the month impelled me to fly to Hitler’s headquarters on 4th January to try to persuade him once and for all of the need for a radical transposition of forces from the right to the left wing of the Army Group.

    I began by describing the new danger threatening us in the Dnieper bend and the exceedingly critical state of affairs in the area of Fourth Panzer Army.

    Next I gave a detailed explanation of our plan to take the enemy harassing this Army in his flanks by attacking with First Panzer Army’s 3 Panzer Corps from the east and 26 Panzer Corps, now arriving behind Fourth Panzer Army’s northeastern wing, from the north-west. [footnote: Hitler showed sound judgement on this occasion, for he doubted our ability to strike on both wings of Fourth Panzer Army. Subsequent events proved him right. Author]. At the same time I warned Hitler that the most these projected counter-attacks could do would be to provide a purely temporary relief from the immediate danger which threatened. From a long-term point of view they offered no solution to the situation on the Army Group’s northern wing. If the position were not cleared up once and for all, the entire southern wing of the Eastern Front would be in mortal peril, and Southern Army Group and Army Group A would ultimately meet their end in Rumania or on the Black Sea.

    If the Supreme Command, therefore, did not provide substantial reinforcements, it would no longer be possible to put off withdrawing the southern wing of the Army Group- which would mean abandoning Nikopol and, ipso facto, the Crimea- for the purpose of extricating forces for the decisive northern wing.

    I ought to point out at this stage that the Army Group regarded a withdrawal from the east of the Dnieper bend as only the first step towards transposing the main effort of the northern wing on a scale consistent with the overall situation.

    In order to regroup to that extent, it would be necessary to shorten the front in the south far more radically.

    For this reason the Army Group had already taken the precaution of having a defence line further west reconnoitered and developed- a fact of which Hitler was naturally aware. Taking advantage of the favourable stretches of river, this line ran in a more or less northerly or north-westerly direction from the low reaches of the Bug to the southern extremities of the area in which the battles of the Army Group’s northern wing were at present raging. Occupation of this line would roughly halve the length of the front behind held by Sixth and Eighth Armies, which had now been stretched to 560 miles through the continued retention of the Dnieper Bend. By cutting our frontage as drastically as this and saving really substantial forces (coupled with the transfer of Seventeenth Army from the Crimea to the mainland), we should at last be able to shift our main efforts to our northern wing. At the same time the southern wing would still be left with enough forces to hold the aforementioned line against a far superior opponent. On the other hand, in view of the damage we had done to his railway network, the enemy would scarcely be capable of shifting forces from his own southern wing into the area west of Kiev at the same speed and on the scale as we could.

    The basis for such a sweeping withdrawal of the German southern wing, of course, first had to be created by the evacuation of the Dnieper bend. To have demanded it straight off would have been most inexpedient in view of what we knew Hitler’s attitude to be. He just was not the man to recognize the need for a far-sighted operational policy.

    On the contrary, Hitler now even categorically refused to evacuate the Dnieper bend or to give up Nikopol, as he contended that the resultant loss of the Crimea would provoke a change of heart in Turkey, as well as in Bulgaria and Rumania.

    He went on to declare that he was in no position to let the Army Group have any further forces for its northern wing, as he would at best be able to take these from Northern Army Group, and then only by pulling it back to Lake Pepius. This might lead to the defection of Finland, which would in turn lose us mastery of the Baltic. Thereafter it would no longer be possible to bring ore from Sweden, and our U-boats would be deprived of a vital training area.

    As for giving us forces from the west, said Hitler, he could not do this until an enemy landing had first been beaten off or the British did as he expected and tied themselves down in Portugal. What he must do was to play for time until things clarified in the west and our new formations were ready to go into action. From May onwards, moreover, submarine warfare would begin to make its effect felt.

    There were so many disagreements on the enemy side, Hitler added, that the coalition was bound to fall apart one day. To gain time was therefore a matter of paramount importance. While he took just as grave a view as I did of the threat to my Army Group, he had to accept a risk here until he had more forces at his disposal. It was quite futile to attempt to refute Hitler’s arguments, since he would merely retort- as he could usually do in such cases- that I lacked an overall perspective.

    All I could do was to keep referring to the gravity of the situation on our northern wing and to emphasize that the counter-measures being taken by the Army Group could not possibly offer a final solution to the crisis. It was absolutely imperative that in some way or other a new army be swiftly assembled behind the northern wing of the Army Group, roughly in the region of Rovno, to meet the threat of a large-scale envelopment by the enemy.

    As there could be no point in prolonging this discussion with Hitler in front of the large number of people who attended the daily conference, I asked to see him privately, with only the Chief-of-Staff present. Obviously wondering what I was going to bring up this time, Hitler reluctantly gave his consent, and the emissaries of O.K.W. and Goring, the various aides, Hitler’s historiographer and the two stenographers duly departed. (Normally the stenographers had to take down every word of these daily meetings. Having no maps in front of them, however, they often could not grasp the sense of all that was said.)

    I had flown to General Headquarters with the firm intention of raising the question of the top-level military leadership again, in addition to discussing the position of my Army Group.

    As soon as everybody but General Zeitzler had left the room, I asked leave to speak quite openly.

    ‘Please do,’ said Hitler. His manner, if not actually icy, was certainly distant.

    ‘One thing we must be clear about, mein Fuhrer,’ I began, ‘is that the extremely critical situation we are now in cannot be put down to the enemy’s superiority alone, great though it is. It is also due to the way in which we are led.’

    As I spoke these words, Hitler’s expression hardened. He stared at me with a look which made me feel he wished to crush my will to continue. I cannot remember a human gaze ever conveying such willpower. In his otherwise coarse face, the eyes were probably the only attractive and certainly the most expressive feature, and now they were boring into me as if to force me to my knees. At the same moment the notion of an Indian snak-charmer flashed through my mind, and I realized that those eyes must have intimidated many a man before me. I still went on talking, however, and told Hitler that things simply could not go on under the present type of leadership. I must, I said, revert to the proposal I had made to him twice already. To handle grand strategy he needed one thoroughly responsible Chief-of-Staff on whose advice alone he must rely in all matters of military policy. The logical effect of this arrangement on the Eastern Front must be- as was already the case in Italy and the West- the appointment of a Commander-in-Chief enjoying full independence within the framework of the grand strategy.

    As had happened on the two previous occasions when I had approached Hitler about the need for a radical change in his handling of military affairs (amount in practice, if not formally, to his relinquishment of command), he reacted entirely negative, asserting he alone could decide what forces were available for the various theatres of war and what policies should be pursued there. In any case, he said, Goring would never submit to another man’s orders.

    As regards the proposed appointment of a commander-in-chief for the eastern theatre of the war, I have already quoted Hitler's retort that no other man had the same authority as he had. 'Even I cannot get the Field Marshals to obey me!’ he cried. ‘Do you imagine for example, that they would obey you any more readily? If it comes to the worst, I can dismiss them. No one else would have the authority do that.'

    When I replied that my orders were always carried out, he made no further comment and brought the meeting to a close.

    Once again, then, I had failed in a well-disposed attempt to persuade Hitler to change the system of command at the top in such a way as to satisfy the exigencies of the war without affecting his prestige. His unwillingness to hand over to a soldier was probably due to his exaggerated faith in his own powers. Not even in private would he admit to having made mistakes or being in need of a military adviser. Another cause was probably the mistrust which made the dictator determined to keep the army under his control against my contingency.

    On the other hand, I was well aware that any attempt to settle the matter by force would lead to the collapse of our armies in the field. As far as I was concerned, the prospect of the Russians’ getting into Germany excluded the use of violent means just as much as the Anglo-American demand for unconditional surrender.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:17 am

    Memoirs are a poor substitute to analytical historical investigation. If we were to read Churchill’s memoirs and base history on those, we would have a totally distorted view of history [as most currently do].

    Inevitably, memoirs are self laudatory – with the exception of Gen Slim – Defeat to Victory.

    While I am not condemning Manstein, a balanced view of his achievement and failures need to be taken into account – other than his recollections.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:36 am

    I agree regarding memoirs... wasn't it Churchill himself who said that history would look kindly upon him because he intended to write it himself... and that is exactly what he did.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:46 am

    GarryB wrote:I agree regarding memoirs... wasn't it Churchill himself who said that history would look kindly upon him because he intended to write it himself... and that is exactly what he did.

    Too true GaryB, too true. The degree to which Churchill stooped to "alter' history is almost beyond imagination. The son of a syphilitic alcoholic father, Winston was paranoid about succumbing to the evils of the vices that his father fell too [and with very good reason – he was an alcoholic and womaniser] and felt that he was in a race against time, to fulfil his destiny. Here’s an article of mine you might find interesting.



    Churchill – The Man Who Wrote History

    Introduction

    It is hard to imagine a personage so distorted by history than Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, FRS (Born 30 November 1874 – died 24 January 1965). Those of us brought up in the Commonwealth of Nations have been imbued with the stories of this great statesman, fearless bulldog, saviour of the world and man of destiny.

    When I was growing up, I too totally believed the many stories about Churchill, he was my hero – idol worshiped as the statesman and orator that he was. All publications emphasised the good Churchill did – his heroics in war, his prophecy of war and campaign against appeasement, his standing up for the free world and the galvanising of nations against the evil of Fascism. What a role model!

    Fortunately now, with the release of many previously secret documents from Britain, Germany and other European states, made available after 50 and 60 year embargos have been lifted, the true story of Churchill can be recounted. However, the damage done by the sheer volume of distorted publications may well render history distorted forever.

    The realisation of the evil in Churchill, is hard to convey in a short article like this. I would recommend that anyone whose appetite is whetted by this precise of the many books and articles that I have read on the subject, take the time to read some of the publications listed in the “references” to this article. In them, a detailed and true picture of the man will emerge.

    There is much that I wanted to include in this article – but for fear of being labelled a sensationalist kook, I have omitted. For brevity, I also skip the long and somewhat tedious “history” of Churchill – there are many publications which can account for this in much more detail that whatever I could. So I cut to the chase.

    The cult of personality

    Churchill was a war monger. He gloried in war and conflict. When not engaged in armed conflict, he would seek out verbal discourse (argument) and an extremely quick and cutting wit he possessed – as many could testify to their discomfort at his comments. He sought out conflict – physical or verbal and thrived on the thrill of the event. He was in India, served with Lord Kitchener at Khartoum and was decorated (a shame the Arabs rifle miss-fired, or history may well have been much different), went to the Boar War, served in the First World War and started the Second World War. In 1955, he mused to a secretary “The last enjoyable war was the Boar War”. Truly, he felt most at home in times of conflict and sought conflict as a salve for his soul. He was reckless and given to believing his own creations, bombastic in his deliverance of “his ideas”, which by the time he delivered them – were in his mind (at least) fact.

    Churchill had a propensity for alcohol – that’s putting it mildly! Boarding on the alcoholic, he made many ill fated decisions while grossly intoxicated and because of his autocratic rule [dictatorship], no-one was there to countermand him: often with the result that Allied lives were lost because of his drunken stupor.

    Churchill was a political butterfly – really, a miss-fit, changing parties as a naughty girl might change underwear. He became somewhat of a political pariah; an embarrassment to a party, but one that would want to be kept at least close least you loose track of what mischief he is up too. Such were his ramblings between wars. He professed a great admiration for Mussolini and this from a man who would lead a nation to fight fascism! He commented to Italian journalist: “If I had been an Italian, I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. Your movement has rendered a service to the whole world”. In this statement, however, we do see the basis for his starting WWII – his loathing of Leninism.

    He was a most prodigious writer and covered the whole gambit of writing – Newspapers, Journals, short-stories, novels, historical papers and documents, speeches and condensing Classics. However, in doing all this, he engaged a large team of researchers and writes, taking the time to float his pen over their works and make corrects and notes as he saw fit. As an employer per sae, he was arrogant, obnoxious and quite ungrateful. One of his longest serving writers, who after some 30 years left his employment was seen off with the comment to the effect that he was of little good anyhow.

    Because of the sheer volume of his writings, we have now essentially been left with the history according to Winston Churchill – and Churchill lies! For example, his personal “Report” on “The Dardanelles Campaign”, so distorted facts and events that the Admiralty could only explain that it was “a pack of lies”. What he would write, contained his idea of events and history – to the point whereby he outright lied, doctoring many incidents to paint a different picture and portray himself in a better light than otherwise should be noted. His entire volume set “The Second World War” is of value mainly in establishing dates.

    Churchill was a man possessed by a desire to complete something – what?: he wasn’t sure, but was convinced he was a man of destiny. [Remarking during the war that this was his destiny being fulfilled]. The degree to which he helped destiny, you can judge later. His arrogance and events propelling him to be dictator of the Commonwealth during the war years – his most memorable and rewarding years.

    Churchill was consumed by the motion that he would die before he could do whatever it was he was to do – to die early like his farther. Almost a morbid fear of passing away too early, before he could do what he had to do; before he could imprint history and fulfil his destiny.

    Red Sky In The Morning

    Like some voice in the wilderness, Churchill needed a cause to fight for and in the period mid 1920’s early 1930’s he found it in “the struggle for India”. In this however, he was alone. His Parliament and closest fiends turning against him. He made some very stout enemies. Sam Hoare being one, Lord Halifax being another, but there were many: indeed, he became a very lonely little figure. The leaders of the main political parties distancing themselves from him, he finally gave up on India, early 1930’s.

    Dangerous is a man like Churchill, without a cause, and he was soon to find one in the form of Adolph Hitler, although initially it was Germany that he attacked. [I cannot fathom what inspired Churchill to start this crusade against Germany because it was contrary to the vast public opinion, political will and the persuasion of Royalty]. Almost as though he had a masochistic or self-destruct mechanism – failed over India, against the vast general opinion and now another crusade also against the flow of opinion. Perhaps he saw in this, his opportunity to “fulfil destiny”. Another figure was waiting in the wings – convinced by the occult that he too was a man of density – how events would transpire to unite them!

    Whatever, he threw himself feverishly into the fight against Germany and initially was jeered and derided in Parliament. However, he had as an ally his immense oratory skills and an imagination that would be feed by an entrepreneurial ex Major of the Intelligence Service who would supply Winston, clandestinely, completely spurious and fanciful intelligence briefs on Germany’s “war efforts”. This self-serving gentleman was later to receive a Knighthood from a most appreciative Winston. However, it seems the cordial and friendly relationship was not mutual as the ex Major remarked that “he wouldn’t even go to his funeral if he died”. For whatever reason Winston was feed this “illicit” information – it was totally at odds with the Government’s own analysis’s and subsequently, totally at odds with later captured German records [which were more in line with the Government assessments], we do not now know. Nor do we know who sponsored the ex Major to initially make contact with Churchill. What we know for certain is, the information was totally bogus, but Winston loved it – it fully supported his conviction of a coming war of which he was the prophet. Beware the ides of March!

    His speeches in Parliament increased in number and in intensity and urging, on the coming menace. He bombarded newspapers with articles and took whatever chance he had to speak on the subject –home and abroad [America was a very sympathetic audience, who just seemed to love his oratory]. It is easy for us now, to look back and say, “hell, he was right, didn’t we end up with war?” What we have to judge history by, is the events and the forever recoded messages of Winston. But this is very much contrary to the public position – the position of the Government and the Royal Family. What has happened is that post war, the government of the day, has been derogatorily labelled “appeasers” and the public opinion of the time totally silenced and forgotten. The Royals, shamed into silence.

    Many very influential people were fully supportive of Hitler and the German nation, there was much more support than we have previously given credit. To list them all out would be a near impossible task for me.

    However, there were many in Britain who did not wish for war with Germany either – who in fact, shared a similar “dream” as Hitler. Lord Rothermere, [Harold Harmsworth, the son of an English barrister, was born in London in 1868.] newspaper mogul, wrote to Hitler on 29th April 1935 and was most flattering toward Hitler and critical of Churchill. Such entreaties toward Hitler from many within Britain – including Royalty, firmly established in Hitler’s mind, that Brittan would ultimately be Germany’s ally. Lord Rothermere had lost two sons in the Great War and this no doubt influenced his strong anti-war sentiments and appeasement attitude. Unlike Churchill, he saw no glory in war.

    Lord Rothermere’s letter contained the following:

    “My Dear Fuhrer, as one who may occupy the first place in all European history”. He said that he was not taking to heart the current disruption in Anglo-German relations adding “The sentiments and views of parliamentary demagogues [referring to Churchill] were capable of quick and unexpected changes”. The people’s friendship towards Germany was steadily growing, adding that 7 out of 10 people writing to his Daily Mail were in favour of Germany’s claims being entirely acceded to.

    In reply, Hitler urged Lord Rothermere “not to head the parliamentary demagogues – 9/10th of the blood that flowed in the last three centuries had flowed in vain. At least for the interests of the peoples involved. Britain had been shrewd enough to keep out, and her mighty empire was rewarded” .

    Lord Rothermere appealed to Hitler in reply, saying that he had held this dream and conviction for the last 16 years and this was not just something recent. His previous audiences at speeches in Germany would vouch for this. He then repeated his long held dream – “An Anglo-German entente would form in Europe and thus in the world a force for peace and reason of 120 million of the most superior people. Britain’s sea power and unique colonial talent would be united with the world’s first solider-race. Were this entente extended to embrace the American nation, then it would, indeed, be hard to see who in the world could disturb the peace without wilfully and conscientiously neglecting the interests of the White race… The Gods love and favour those who seem to demand the impossible”.

    A copy of his 8 page letter was sent to Churchill – it doesn’t seem to find reference in any of Churchill’s personal memoirs – Churchill having by that time, firmly set himself against Hitler – convinced by his own rhetoric and lies. Churchill rebuked Lord Rothermere over the letter stating “that if we should come to an understanding with Germany to dominate Europe, I think this would be contrary to the whole of our history”.

    This was not a singular incident – Lord Rothermere had much correspondence with Hitler and visits to Germany –

    Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail (10th July, 1933)

    I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia.

    They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call "Nazi atrocities" which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.

    The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministers only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew.

    Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mirror (22nd January, 1934)

    Timid alarmists all this week have been whimpering that the rapid growth in numbers of the British Blackshirts is preparing the way for a system of rulership by means of steel whips and concentration camps.

    Very few of these panic-mongers have any personal knowledge of the countries that are already under Blackshirt government. The notion that a permanent reign of terror exists there has been evolved entirely from their own morbid imaginations, fed by sensational propaganda from opponents of the party now in power.

    As a purely British organization, the Blackshirts will respect those principles of tolerance which are traditional in British politics. They have no prejudice either of class or race. Their recruits are drawn from all social grades and every political party.

    Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W.

    Lord Rothermere wrote an article for The Daily Mail where he argued that Germany should be given back Tanganyika, the Camerons and Togoland (21st March, 1934)

    Though this proposal may not be popular, I am convinced that it is wise. We cannot expect a nation of "he-men" like the Germans to sit forever with folded arms under the provocations and stupidities of the Treaty of Versailles. To deny this mighty nation, conspicuous for its organizing ability and scientific achievements, a share in the work of developing backward regions of the world is preposterous.

    G. Ward Price described how the Black Shirts dealt with anti-fascist demonstrators in The Daily Mail (8th June 1934)

    If the Blackshirts movement had any need of justification, the Red Hooligans who savagely and systematically tried to wreck Sir Oswald Mosley's huge and magnificently successful meeting at Olympia last night would have supplied it.

    They got what they deserved. Olympia has been the scene of many assemblies and many great fights, but never had it offered the spectacle of so many fights mixed up with a meeting.

    Adolf Hitler, letter to Lord Rothermere (7th December, 1933)

    I should like to express the appreciation of countless Germans, who regard me as their spokesman, for the wise and beneficial public support which you have given to a policy that we all hope will contribute to the enduring pacification of Europe. Just as we are fanatically determined to defend ourselves against attack, so do we reject the idea of taking the initiative in bringing about a war. I am convinced that no one who fought in the front trenches during the world war, no matter in what European country, desires another conflict.

    Lord Rothermere, telegram to Adolf Hitler (1st October, 1938)

    My dear Fuhrer everyone in England is profoundly moved by the bloodless solution to the Czechoslovakian problem. People not so much concerned with territorial readjustment as with dread of another war with its accompanying bloodbath. Frederick the Great was a great popular figure. I salute your excellency's star which rises higher and higher.
    [http://http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk]

    It is most important to note that such feelings were well understood by Hitter and played a most important part in his overall scheme of things. I have recently completed reading several books on the Spanish Civil War and the position of the League of Nations, but Britain and France particularly, were totally supportive of the Fascists. The concept (policy) of “Non Intervention” was nothing more than total support for the fascists, short of actual military involvement. Using the Royal Navy to blockage Spain and deny arms and materiel from being delivered to help a democratically elected government (Socialist, mind you) stave of a coup attempt by fascists, had Hitler’s undying thanks. “Of course Hitler was assured of the support of Britain and the tacit support of the League of Nations!” On this point – notice also that it was only the communists in Britain who actively condemned Mosley and his black shirt fascists. Even the Police attempted to assist the fascists in their parades and it was only the determined effort of the Communists who turned Mosley’s major parade – “The Real Band Of Brothers – The Spanish Civil War” by Max Arthur.

    German Air Force General Erhard Milch noted in his diary after his meeting with foreign Secretary Sir John Simon; “February 1935 – “We are banking on Britain. Against Russia”.

    While the majority of Britain favoured acceptance of Hitler, Churchill was hell bent on his personal crusade. Indeed, he really was a singular voice in this regard. However, it is curious to note that he had come a full circle in his “beliefs” in the space of just 15 years – more of his “butterfly” antics, or carpetbagging politics.

    Churchill had published a vitriolic attack against Jews, in a newspaper article wherein he called them: “the principle inspiration and driving power [behind Bolshevism] and he stated, “ the prominent, if not indeed the principle, part of the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter-Revolution has bee taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses”. [Here Churchill was referring to the Notorious Che-Ka.’s. In his 1920 article he had written of the “evil prominence” obtained by Jews in Bela Kun’ recent brief “rule of terror” in Hungary].

    Now it would seem, Churchill’s benefactors were Jews – the wealthy and influential flocked to become his friends. The gold mining industrialist Sir Henry Strakosch, furnishing him with incredibly inaccurate information about Germany’s rearmament expenditure – put by him at one thousand, six hundred million pounds since 1933~!

    It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Zionists had been instrumental in recruiting a disillusioned and down Churchill into their struggle against Germany. By support, monetarily, politically and moral support [along with false friendships], Churchill had become their mouth-piece.

    Boosted by falsehoods, Churchill went from strength to strength in his one man crusade. German ministers noting that wherever Churchill went there was a tirade of abuse against Germany and falsehoods aplenty.

    On 5 November 1935, the Air Staff issued a secret memorandum stating that Germany only had 594 front line planes [unbeknown to Churchill at the time, this was accurate information obtained by secret code breaking of the German codes]. Churchill wrote a letter to the Committee of Imperial Defence: “It is to be hoped that this figure will not be made public, as it would certainly give rise to misunderstandings and challenge”. Was this a threat? Whatever, it was effective and the findings were never made public.

    The German Prospective

    At this point, we should pause and consider the German position.

    Hitler was not the idiot manly portrayed by our propaganda – he was an intelligent man, a man of vision and a natural leader. He had turned a destitute and morally broken country, in the depths of depression, into a world superpower in the space of a decade. He was the undisputed leader of the nation and whether they want to admit it or not – the people’s choice of the German nation.

    Hitler was a man of vision and clarity – he saw and understood quite clearly what the Zionist had done to his country while he was at war. How the social fabric of the country had been broken, the banks and institutions fermenting unrest and hardship which ultimately broke the will of the people to continue the war. He knew, as did the Germany Army, that the Army had not been defeated! The war had been lost because of the Zionist. [See my article – WWI to Modern Terrorism – Pravda forum] .

    His attacks against the Zionists was portrayed as a general attack against Jews. However this needs to be contrasted against actual events - where Jews were not of Zionist nature or culture, they were accepted by the Reich. Consider the position of Air force General Erhart Milch – his father was Jewish. His mother “produced” a Blood Certificate indicating that his father was actually a non-Jewish German [essentially, saying she had an affair]. When this was questioned, Göring famously said, “I decide who is and who is not a Jew”. [This was later stated again at the Nuremburg show trails]. It is now impossible, because of the vast amount of propaganda and programming that we have sustained over 60 years to sort fact from fiction now – but events such as this, clearly indicate that Hitler’s attitude towards all Jews was different to that is currently accepted.

    Hitler saw Joseph Stalin as a role model of a leader – he admired Stalin immensely- studying him from afar and while there was admiration for Stalin, there was also the certain knowledge that he was going to be an adversary. Stalin, like Hitler had turned a country around in very short time, the actual degree of progress was surprising to Hitler – it was also worrying for his future plans. Stalin was the stumbling block for Hitler’s expansion into Europe and ultimate control of the European Continent. Keep you friends close – but your enemies closer!

    Hitler’s mentor(s) were Karl and Heinz Haushofer; it is on his geopolitical theories that Hitler formulated Mein Kampf – with Rudolph Hess. [This can be looked-up quite easily]. It is from the many meetings with his mentor that Hitler formulated his concept of the Third Reich. His very strong occult beliefs leading him to the conclusion that he was a man of density. A clairvoyant telling him that he would come to power, be in a conflict and that he would die if a certain event happened – it did.

    Hitler’s plan was to replace the Zionist NWO with The Third Reich - and to usher in a thousand years of peace. To achieve this there would be a grand alliance between Britain and Germany – with an invitation to America to participate. Under this grand alliance, Germany would be the land power in Europe and Britain and colonies would control the sea and shipping lane, facilitating world wide trade. America, would be offered the Americas and Japan/East Asia/Pacific. Under such an alliance, Hitler said that no country would be able to stand against or to seriously challenge it – thus ensuring world peace. Russia and the close Eastern countries were to be the living space needed for the German peoples. The Russians/Slavs [untermenchen] were to be the new work-force for the future prosperity of the Reich.

    This can clearly be seen in the dispositions of the German military. Hitler was “scared’ of the sea – it was not his environment; besides, he had a firm conviction that Britain could not be seriously challenged on the sea. His Kriegsmarine was not built with a view to challenging Britain, but in operating in tandem with Britain in securing the shipping lanes. [It wasn’t until into the war that it’s focus became that of a blockading navy – but note that at no time was there ever any attempt to challenge the British fleet]. The large capital ships that were built were not in the concept of “convoy raiders” as Churchill coined, but rather to operate as convoy and shipping lane protectors, in conjunction with the Royal Navy – securing the world’s waterways for the Reich. The Air Force was designed as a ground support/interdictory air force. There were no long range strategic bombers, as would be needed for a war against Britain, for example. The small twin engine bombers were for interdictory raids, beyond the reach of heavy artillery, in the depth of enemy lines so as to disrupt supplies etc. The other aircraft were for ground attack in the Blitzkrieg strategy of ground warfare. The Wehrmacht being a mechanised force with air support designed to quickly over-run positions and out-flank an enemy. All of this is hardly a force put-together with a plan of single-handedly ruling the world – it simply is too deficient in composition. Historians fail to draw this connection when considering the question as to what was Germany’s goals in the war. We are constantly told that they were after world domination – part of the story, only! Any logical analysis of the German forces give total credence to the fact that they were designed and equipped solely as a continental ground force; thus reinforcing the notion of Hitler’s grand alliance.

    Haushofer was very well connected in British society – including connections to Royalty. There was a “great intrigue” played out between prominent people and parliamentarians in Britain and Hitler thought his proxies. [In his book “The Hitler Hess Deception” Martin Allen makes a sound and unequivocal link supporting the whole messy business – one that I do not intend to troll thought here]. Britain was on the brink of a coup – to destroy Churchill’s position in politics and wrestle control from the dictator, into the hands of the “appeasers”. By extremely cleaver manipulation (to what extent he has to thank the Zionists – I am unsure), Churchill skilfully out manoeuvred the vast array of those – including Hitler – who were out to do him down. When Churchill took over as PM, he was then privy to the code braking of Enigma and held total control over such transcripts. He used Enigma to his own ends. While Hitler still held out hope against hope, that Britain would “see sense” and join her: Churchill was hell bent on seeing that the public was prepared for his war.

    Consider the period regarded a “The Phoney War”. Truly an apt name – generally historians cannot reason the event – however, it simply was because Hitler was involved in extremely complex and delicate intrigue to secure Britain as an Ally; plain and simple. This period say a flurry of diplomatic (clandestine) activity as each side wanted to preserve their face and public image – but both tried to hobble together a grand alliance. There simply was no other reason for the phoney war.

    Hitler stopped his forces at Dunkirk - no leader wishing to win a war/battle would ever have contemplated such a move; even to this day, ill-informed historians and military strategists ponder and pontificate over the Dunkirk conundrum. If they applied the “big picture” it really is quite simple. Hitler did not want to crush the British Forces – for a start, he wanted them as intact as possible in the event that they would help against Russia and secondly, a crushing defeat of the British at Dunkirk would most definitely harden British resolve against Germany. All of this Churchill knew from the code braking, yet he played the whole situation up, to his advantage – with his oratory and rousing speeches, he turned the population.

    Quite by error – the pilot was lost – a lone bomber strayed up the Thames and dropped it’s bomber on the Eastside docks. This was absolutely contrary to Hitler’s express orders. Churchill knew full well that Hitler was not going to bomb the cities – this he knew from the coded intercepts, yet he used this singular event [incidentally, Hitler was absolutely furious to learn of the mistaken bombing] to his advantage to tip the scales into his war. By a small retaliatory strike against Berlin, he forced Hitler’s hand into a escalating the war against Britain. Churchill took the gamble of world war – a gamble that he hoped would see the two evils he opposed – Germany and Bolshevism wipe each-other out and the merging of two Zionist controlled states - Great Britain and America.

    For Hitler, desperate times, required desperate actions – None more so than what he then contemplated. With his most trusted friend Rudolf Hess and the combined input from the Haushofer’s and some other trusted contacts; they agreed on a personal approach direct to British Royalty and the possible coup leaders. [Remember, that for the British, this was high treason at a time of war – the subsequent failure meant that both Churchill and plotters had grounds to be silent – Churchill to conceal his secret, the plotters to avoid treason charges]. Hitler and Hess agreed on their very last meeting, that in the event of anything unforeseen happening – Hess would be denounced as a lunatic. [Notice how Hitler still protected and supported the Hess’s family after the event – hardly likely to have done so if he believed all he said about Hess]. This flight was a last ditched attempt to sway events from war – the removal of Churchill was seen by all parties as the key to peace – with Churchill removed the two governments could easily patch differences, turn public opinion and form the grand alliance – The USSR was waiting.

    Rather like Maggie Thatcher torpedoed the Belgrado and ensured the Falklands War, Churchill torpedoed every attempt Hitler made for peace with Britain. Hess flew to Britain at the request of the “coup group” and Royalty, to convey the highest possible credence to Hitler’s overtures and promises regarding the alliance. Churchill was able to use the Secret Service to interfere in this endeavour – Hess was taken by the Secret Service and held in solitary confinement the duration of the war – drugged and broken mentally; rendered totally implausible. At Spandu Prison, he again was held in solitary confinement and his family threatened if he ever should “regain his mind” and want to speak out. Hess’s failed flight on 10th May 1941 signalled all out war.

    A month later, Hitler revealed his plan – Operation Babarossa – the attack on the Soviet Union – his primary objective all along. Failure to secure an alliance with Britain left Hitler with no choice but to “go alone”. Hitler had been deceived and out-played by Churchill. The world got a war it did not need.

    The Soviet position

    During all of this manoeuvring, Stalin had been very interested in the activities. He was well aware of the entrée’s being made by Germany towards Britain and he knew that it was to form a grand alliance against him. [Remember that Stalin had spies on the very top level of British Secret Service and was also reading Enigma transcripts, almost in real time, because of his informants in the code braking department]. Stalin, like Hitler, needed time! Alliances were made [Molotov/Ribbintrop] in much the same manner as a prostitute engages a John – simply a means to an end. Churchill’s avowed enmity against Leninism gave Stalin no grounds for comfort in Britain as an Ally.

    In the West, Stalin is painted as a paranoid despot – Stalin had very good grounds to be paranoid; given Churchill’s life long stated hatred for Leninism, his love and admiration for fascism, the manoeuvrings between Germany and Britain [of which Stalin did not know the full story] and Churchill’s linking Judaism as supporting communism – why wouldn’t he distrust the man? I don’t know how he could sit and eat and drink at the same table with him!

    Stalin desperately tried to buy time with Hitler – the war came a year too soon for Stalin.

    The Contagion of War

    There can be non more evil in this world that that or a warmonger – a person so warped in mind as to glory in the death and misery of millions. The wanton destruction and total waste caused by war is hard to imagine by the sane minded.

    Churchill was a warmonger.

    I do not intend to go into the morality of a war against the Soviet peoples as opposed to a war against the German peoples – such ethical debate is perhaps for a different time.

    What is clear, is Churchill condemned the world to total destruction, participated in the genocide of a nation and wagered his empire against defeating the German empire for no other reason that his own personal hatred of Leninism and his own alter-ego.

    History’s despot, who wrote history – his way.

    The man who started a war and destroyed two empires; one of them his, the other one Germany - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.


    References:

    “Encyclopaedia Britannica 1963” - For reference items., dates et al.
    “The Gathering Storm” – Winston S Churchill – Part 1 of 5 part volume.
    “The Historical Encyclopaedia of World War II” – MacMillan reference Books.
    “Operation Cicero” – L C Moyzich – (recommended).
    “Full Circle” – Biography of Admiral Sir Bertram Home Ramsay.
    “The Gehlen Memoirs” – General Reinhard Gehlen – 1972 edition.
    “The Ultra Secret” F W Winterbottom. (Recommended).
    “The Hitler/Hess Deception” – Martin Allen: (Highly recommended).
    “Churchill’s War Vol 1” – David Irving: (Highly recommended).
    “The Real Band Of Brothers – The Spanish Civil War” by Max Arthur. (Great Reading)
    Sundry articles and internet searches.



    Last edited by Kysusha on Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:39 pm; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : Formatting - removal of a link)

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:27 am

    GarryB wrote:I agree regarding memoirs... wasn't it Churchill himself who said that history would look kindly upon him because he intended to write it himself... and that is exactly what he did.


    History is written by the winners, so it seems anyway.

    Churchill not a hero but rather just another who made a career hanging heroes. He massacred Boers, massacred Germans, and spent most of his life massacring people for the sake of the British Empire, an Empire that was buried years before he was.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:45 am

    BTRfan wrote:
    GarryB wrote:I agree regarding memoirs... wasn't it Churchill himself who said that history would look kindly upon him because he intended to write it himself... and that is exactly what he did.


    History is written by the winners, so it seems anyway.

    Churchill not a hero but rather just another who made a career hanging heroes. He massacred Boers, massacred Germans, and spent most of his life massacring people for the sake of the British Empire, an Empire that was buried years before he was.

    Yeah, just like Eisenhower who murdered 1.7 million Germans in an attempt at genocide between 1945 /46 and who helped the Allies commit genocide against the Germans by killing around 20 million in compliance with the Zionist Morgenthau Plan of 1944 – 45.

    The threat to expose this is what got Patton killed.

    So don’t think Churchill had it all to himself – the Yanks were up to their necks in it too. All the while pointing the bloody finger at Stalin, and calling him a butcher etc.

    The Nuremburg retribution war crimes tribunal was nothing more than an elaborate attempt to suppress the truth and remove potential leaders of the “New Germany”. Ever noticed how America has never been brought to trial in an International Court – American crimes against humanity are well documented – even this week Obummer has had to apologise for crimes against humanity for “Nazi like” medical experiments on Guatemalan civilians – and there are many other similar atrocities, all of which American commits with total disregard for human rights while lambasting all other nations about their human rights abuse – what hypocrites!

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:55 am

    Kysusha wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:
    GarryB wrote:I agree regarding memoirs... wasn't it Churchill himself who said that history would look kindly upon him because he intended to write it himself... and that is exactly what he did.


    History is written by the winners, so it seems anyway.

    Churchill not a hero but rather just another who made a career hanging heroes. He massacred Boers, massacred Germans, and spent most of his life massacring people for the sake of the British Empire, an Empire that was buried years before he was.

    Yeah, just like Eisenhower who murdered 1.7 million Germans in an attempt at genocide between 1945 /46 and who helped the Allies commit genocide against the Germans by killing around 20 million in compliance with the Zionist Morgenthau Plan of 1944 – 45.

    The threat to expose this is what got Patton killed.

    So don’t think Churchill had it all to himself – the Yanks were up to their necks in it too. All the while pointing the bloody finger at Stalin, and calling him a butcher etc.

    The Nuremburg retribution war crimes tribunal was nothing more than an elaborate attempt to suppress the truth and remove potential leaders of the “New Germany”. Ever noticed how America has never been brought to trial in an International Court – American crimes against humanity are well documented – even this week Obummer has had to apologise for crimes against humanity for “Nazi like” medical experiments on Guatemalan civilians – and there are many other similar atrocities, all of which American commits with total disregard for human rights while lambasting all other nations about their human rights abuse – what hypocrites!



    From what I read, upwards of 15-16 million Germans died after being expelled from the Eastern European countries. It is unknown exactly how many POWs were killed after they were shoved into prisoner of war "camps" that were nothing other than open field with razor wire fences, I've heard official US figures place the death toll at least than several thousand, but the actual numbers are at least a few hundred thousand.

    Compared to where the German POWs were locked away along the Rhine, Auschwitz and Dachau were five star hotels, they at least had buildings, beds, hospitals, swimming pools, stage theater, etc.


    Unless I am mistaken Patton's vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by some Jewish soldier and then he died while under the care of a Jewish doctor, which would suggest they were taking their orders from Eisenhower who was answering to Morgenthau and Truman.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:46 am

    WWI was really a story about the start of the end of colonialism.

    At high school one of my teachers was a Mr Schwalga (spelling). A clearly German name but he was Samoan because Germany occupied Samoa... till the US and New Zealand moved in and created American Samoa and Samoa.

    This is just an example of how former German colonies were jumped upon and carved up.

    The standard victim of WWII... apart from the Jews were the Polish, yet we forget the war Poland waged with Russia in the early 1920s to take land, and of course before the German invasion of Poland the Polish were happy to take parts of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. They also rejected any agreement offered by Stalin, as did Britain before the secret non aggression pact with Germany was signed.

    The signing of the molotov treaty is seen in the west as an alliance, but you don't sign non aggression pacts with allys. The US currently has no non aggression pact with the UK does it?
    It was the revelation that Germany and the Soviet Union had signed a non aggression pact that convinced the Japanese to not trust the Germans and only use them. It prevented a second front when Germany was asking Japan to attack.

    Of course colonialism after WWII continued, but it was called communism. Vietnam, Cuba et al were about poor natives rising up against their rich white masters... the mob from the US controlled Cuba and the future for a Cuban was to cut sugar cane or wait tables or run a wheel at a casino. The Cubans didn't actually want communism but it was the only other option and they chose communism over slavery. Fidel asked the Americans for help first and got nothing. The Soviets were happy to oblige and the rest is history. For the Vietnamese it started as France and then during WWII it was the Japanese and then immediately after WWII it was Japanese guards because there were not enough French troops to control the masses and then the French returned. The Vietnamese looked for help and the only ones offering help were the Chinese and Soviets and so they took that help... first against the French and then against the Americans(and allies like NZ and Australia and Canada).

    Now Venezuela has voted in a guy that can't be bought, they have voted him in several times and the CIA even tried to get rid of him, which explains his love for the democratic US. Hugo Chavez is called a dictator in the west yet he has been voted in to power many times. He is called a dictator because he represents the poor majority instead of the rich minority.

    Most of central and south america... and north america for that matter is a victim of colonialism. There is an upper class of rich and powerful and they are all descended from the colonial country that control them. The lower class is the natives, they are put in reservations and ignored. They don't own land and they have little money. The few rich upper class people control the government. If the poor majority don't take bribes or somehow try to have a say in government they are called communists. Now they will likely be called narco terrorists.

    Oops... sorry... off topic.

    Interesting article on Churchill BTW.

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Sun Oct 03, 2010 4:57 am

    Britain and France would have us believe they declared war on Germany to save Poland, but they never fought the USSR for invading Poland and at the end of the war they handed Poland over to the USSR.


    The elite Jews in the West were just looking for a reason to get into a war with Germany because Hitler put an end to usury and Jewish finance/money power in Germany and they weren't going to stand for being thrown out of one of the most populous and powerful countries in Europe.


    Nobody in their right mind would go to war over Poland and indeed Germany was VERY close to securing a diplomatic solution over Danzig when Poland received word from the Americans that FDR would not let Germany overrun them and that they would have American support as long as they did not enter into any agreements with Germany.

    Germany was the best choice for an ally with Poland, they were the most natural choice. Neither Britain nor France was in any position to aid Poland in any significant way and the most likely threat to Poland would have been from the Soviet Union who they had fought in the 1920s. Poland could have given up Danzig and joined sides with Germany which would have secured them an alliance with a nation in a great position to help them.

    Poland was just the sacrificial lamb that the Western powers cooked up to get the war their finance/banker masters demanded. Some Jews (maybe a few 100,000) in Poland suffered and died because they wouldn't go along with the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine, and the rest were terrified into fleeing, and flee they did, mostly to Britain, Argentina, South Africa, Canada, USA (Jewish population in the USA went up by about 3-4.5 million), Australia, Brazil, Palestine, and a few other places. The elite Rothschild type Jews have little sympathy for the "lesser brethren" as they call them, and don't mind sacrificing a few hundred thousand "ghetto jews" if it furthers their objectives.


    Perhaps the greatest irony is that WW2 was supposedly fought, from the Western perspective, to make the world safe for democracy, freedom, etc, yet at the end of the war they handed over half of Europe to the USSR, began abandoning the colonies in Africa to tinpot dictators and warlords, and let almost all of the colonies in Asia wind up in the hands of similarly thuggish dictators, while the Middle East was left to descend into almost incessant war, be it between the Arabs and Israelis or between the Arabs and Arabs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:38 am

    It was the standard sport of the German officers to blame their mistakes and failures on Hitler, and in many cases they were right, but the German officers didn't have to cope with obtaining oil reserves out of reach of western bombers.

    The simple fact... ignored in the west... is that the Germans wanted the East as living space and that those there at the time were in their way.
    As long as the Germans treated the Soviets the way they did there was no benefit to surrender or capitulation... the Soviets had to fight and while that was true there was no way the Germans could win.
    The Soviets didn't lost 20 million civilians by accident or incompetence, it was merely a result of the German attempt at extermination. You can see it in terms of the Georgian attack on South Ossetia in 2008, they wanted the land, not the people on it, so the best way to fight was with artillery.

    Britain and France would have us believe they declared war on Germany to save Poland, but they never fought the USSR for invading Poland and at the end of the war they handed Poland over to the USSR.

    Indeed, ask a Brit when WWII started and they will name the date of the German invasion of Poland. Ask someone who is German and they might say there is no such thing as WWII... WWII was the continuation of WWI and was created by the unfair treatment of the German people by the western allies at the Treaty of Versalles (spelling) where Germany was given the blame for something that everyone in Europe contributed to. Stupid alliances that were supposed to make Europe safe actually dragged everyone into a war no one wanted or needed. Ask someone from China and they might say WWII started in 1933 when the Japanese invaded. What would someone from Austria or Czechoslovakia say? I would guess it would depend on how they felt about the Germans at the time.

    Germany was the best choice for an ally with Poland, they were the most natural choice. Neither Britain nor France was in any position to aid Poland in any significant way and the most likely threat to Poland would have been from the Soviet Union who they had fought in the 1920s. Poland could have given up Danzig and joined sides with Germany which would have secured them an alliance with a nation in a great position to help them.

    Stalin approached the British for a three way alliance with Britain and Poland and the Soviet Union, but the British told them to go talk to the Poles and the Poles rejected them outright.
    Those not understanding Stalin signing a treaty of any kind with Germany need to take into account that Britain was no friend to the Soviet Union either. In the 1917 revolution the British and other European colonial powers and the US sent forces to fight the reds. In the 1920s the Germans and the Soviets had a lot in common and started to work together on a lot of projects that Germany wasn't allowed to work on at home and much of German tank warfare tactics were probably worked out with the Soviets. In 1933 however this cooperation ended when Hitler rose to power.

    Perhaps the greatest irony is that WW2 was supposedly fought, from the Western perspective, to make the world safe for democracy, freedom, etc

    Uncle Joes definition of freedom was not really the same as what was meant in the west, but then the west is happy to support dictatorships when it suits.

    If you get a map of the Middle East from before WWI you will find Palestine and Arabia shown and not much else. When Germany was defeated in WWI the British and the French had long talks to carve up all the new territories. They created countries in the Middle east... not along ethnic lines, but material lines. If you fill in the known oil reserves at the time you will find it was carefully divided amongst the colonial powers. There is not Kurdistan even though there should be is just one example of the impact of western meddling. The Saudi royal family didn't exist in the 19th century... the pattern was to find the lower caste or minority group in the region and make them leaders. They will happily be brutal to the majority because they likely suffered under the majority before the colonial power arrived. By giving power to the minority you get their total loyalty that will hold no matter what the majority of the country want. The majority of the country can be dirt poor while the elite are making billions on oil or minerals and outburst will be called communism and will be ruthlessly crushed with colonial power support. The Saudi Royal family would rather keep the US and UK happy than its own people because it got its power from the UK and then US. Democracy in Saudi Arabia would lead to a country with a government like Iran, but while Iran has universal suffrage even for the women Saudi Arabia does not... But it is Iran that is evil... because it doesn't jump when told to do so.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:59 am

    Well done guys, you are much better informed than many others. We were decived into a World War which no one but the Jew Zionists wanted so that Britain would have to ratify the Balfour Declaration [Creation of the Bastard State of Israel].

    I'll post more on this later - just in from mowing the lawns and need a beer.

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:52 am

    Kysusha wrote:Well done guys, you are much better informed than many others. We were decived into a World War which no one but the Jew Zionists wanted so that Britain would have to ratify the Balfour Declaration [Creation of the Bastard State of Israel].

    I'll post more on this later - just in from mowing the lawns and need a beer.


    The First World War also weakened Russia sufficiently to allow the Jewish Bolsheviks to topple the Czar and take over. They had tested the waters in 1904-1905 with the Russo-Japanese war, with Japan winning due to financing to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from Jacob Schiff from Wall-Street, along with naval training and equipment from Great Britain. The revolution of 1905 was a sincere attempt to take over but the Czar's position was not as weak as the Jews had hoped.

    In the USA they achieved everything with Woodrow Wilson that they needed to dominate and destroy the USA. They got the Federal Reserve in 1913 (most important thing they received), women's suffrage, income tax, American entry into WW1, etc.


    The First World War also broke up the Ottoman Empire and allowed the Rothschild/Jewish/British Empire to pick dry the corpse of the Ottoman Empire, along with the French who picked it dry.

    Perhaps most importantly they pushed through the League of Nations, their first real attempt at true global government since the Congress of Vienna which was their first attempt at continental government in Europe.

    Additionally they weakened Germany to the point that there were Bolshevik uprisings across Germany in places such as Bavaria, which were only put down by various Freikorps organizations.


    Had I had been the Kaiser I would have told Austria-Hungary to go to hell since they were detrimental to the German element in Austria, trying to turn Austria into a multi-ethnic hodge podge nation, selling out to Jews (Hapsburgs were the first ones to give peerages to Jews), and I would have pursued an alliance with Russia. The idea being that Germany will annex Austria and perhaps some German areas of Czechoslovakia, while Russia can freely expand their influence in the Balkans, be the recognized protector/mentor of the Balkans nations, particularly Serbia, and either help establish a free Hungarian Republic, or ally with Hungary, or incorporate Hungary as a province.

    The most sensible alliance was Germany and Russia in 1914, since Austria-Hungary was doing nothing other than dragging Germany into their messes. Austria would have bailed on Germany in an instant if a war had erupted in a fashion that did not directly involve Austria. As Hitler wrote, had the war not begun in a manner that absolutely and directly dragged Austria into it, Austria would have left Germany to rot. Germany should have pursued an alliance with Russia even though it would have been mutually exclusive with an alliance with Austria.

    Likewise, the First World War killed about 50-100 million White European Christians and left the Jews in firm domination of Germany (until Hitler drove them out), Russia/USSR, and many other nations.

    I have original documents from the 1910s and 1920s which prove that everything I've been saying. Additionally, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria had very vibrant anti-Jewish movements and political backlashes throughout the 20s and 30s, which is why the Jews were keen to bring the Red Army down on them in the 40s to put them down and punish them.

    With WW2, America was in a horrible Jewish instigated Great Depression which basically ended the day America declared war on Germany, Italy, and Japan. Hitler's declaration of war is WELL worth reading as he makes it clear America was instigating war and going out of their way to interfere with peaceful diplomacy. American destroyers were ordered to sink German u-boats on sight, and to seize German merchant ships, as early as the spring and summer of 1940! Pearl Harbor was 7 December 1941 yet American destroyers were seizing German ships in 1940 and claiming to be neutral!


    If anybody wants, I will post, jpeg by jpeg, a copy of this...


    1919 White Paper (Russia No 1.) A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia.



    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:03 am

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html


    Institute for Historical Review

    Germany’s Declaration of War Against the United States
    Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941

    It has often been said that Hitler's greatest mistakes were his decisions to go to war against the Soviet Union and the United States . Whatever the truth may be, it's worth noting his own detailed justifications for these fateful decisions. On Thursday afternoon, December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler spoke to the Reichstag in Berlin. The 88-minute address, which he had written himself, was broadcast to the nation. In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war in September 1939, explained why he decided to strike against the Soviet Union in June 1941, reviewed the dramatic course of the war thus far, and dealt at length with President Franklin Roosevelt's hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler detailed the increasingly belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government, and then dramatically announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United States. The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times. Although this historic address should be of particular interest to Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made available in English.

    This translation is my own, as are the brief clarifications given in brackets.

    Following the speech text is Germany's formal note to the U.S. government declaring war, and a short list of items for suggested further reading.

    -- Mark Weber

    Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

    A year of world-historical events is coming to an end. A year of great decisions is approaching. In this grave period I speak to you, deputies of the Reichstag, as the representatives of the German nation. In addition, the entire German nation should also review what has happened and take note of the decisions required by the present and the future.

    After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that this war would have to be fought through to the end, contrary to all logic and necessity. You, my old Party comrades, know that I have always detested half-hearted or weak decisions. If Providence has deemed that the German people are not to be spared this struggle, then I am thankful that She has entrusted me with the leadership in a historic conflict that will be decisive in determining the next five hundred or one thousand years, not only of our German history, but also of the history of Europe and even of the entire world.

    The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.

    The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion of the conflict in Norway [in June 1940] compelled the German leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important political, strategic and economic areas that had been won. Consequently, the defense capabilities of the lands which were conquered at that time have changed.

    From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses. Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north that were blasted out of granite. The number and strength of the protected submarine shelters that defend naval bases are such that they are practically impregnable from both the sea and the air. They are defended by more than one and a half thousand gun battery emplacements, which had to be surveyed, planned and built. A network of roads and rail lines has been laid out so that the connections [to the installations] between the Spanish frontier and Petsamo [in northern Norway] can be defended independently from the sea. The installations built by the Pioneer and construction battalions of the navy, army and air force in cooperation with the Todt Organization are not at all inferior to those of the Westwall [along the German frontier with France]. The work to further strengthen all this continues without pause. I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any enemy attack.

    This defensive work, which continued during the past winter, was complemented by military offensives insofar as seasonal conditions permitted. German naval forces above and below the waves continued their steady war of annihilation against the naval and merchant vessels of Britain and her subservient allies. Through reconnaissance flights and air attacks, the German air force helps to destroy enemy shipping and in countless retaliation air attacks to give the British a better idea of the reality of the so-called “exciting war,” which is the creation, above all, of the current British prime minister [Churchill].

    During the past summer Germany was supported in this struggle above all by her Italian ally. For many months our ally Italy bore on its shoulders the main weight of a large part of British might. Only because of the enormous superiority in heavy tanks were the British able to bring about a temporary crisis in North Africa, but by March 24 of this year a small combined force of German and Italian units under the command of General [Erwin] Rommel began a counterattack. Agedabia fell on April 2. Benghazi was reached on the 4th. Our combined forces entered Derna on the 8th, Tobruk was encircled on the 11th, and Bardia was occupied on April 12. The achievement of the German Afrika Korps is all the more outstanding because this field of battle is completely alien and unfamiliar to the Germans, climatically and otherwise. As once in Spain [1936-1939], so now in North Africa , Germans and Italians stand together against the same enemy.

    While these daring actions were again securing the North African front with the blood of German and Italian soldiers, the threatening clouds of terrible danger were gathering over Europe. Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National Socialist] Party. Objectively, though, this was a simple matter because in all the countries that Britain said were threatened by us and which were offered military alliances, Germany actually had only economic interests.

    I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way. Moreover, there was the sober military realization that in case of a war which might be forced upon the German nation by British diplomacy, the struggle could be fought on two fronts only with very great sacrifices. And after the Baltic states, Romania, and so forth, were inclined to accept the British offers of military alliance, and thereby made clear that they also believed themselves to be threatened [by Germany], it was not only the right but also the duty of the German Reich government to delineate the [geographical] limits of German interests [between Germany and the USSR].

    All the same, the countries involved realized very quickly -- which was unfortunate for the German Reich as well -- that the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to help. When it became clear to us that Soviet Russia concluded that the [German-Soviet] delineation [in August 1939] of political spheres of influence gave it the right to practically exterminate foreign nations, the [German-Soviet] relationship was maintained only for utilitarian reasons, contrary to reason and sentiment.

    Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed incapable of defense.

    The quick conclusion of the campaign in the West [May-June 1940] meant that those in power in Moscow were not able to count on the immediate exhaustion of the German Reich. However, they did not change their plans at all, but only postponed the timing of their attack. The summer of 1941 seemed like the ideal moment to strike. A new Mongol invasion was ready to pour across Europe. Mr. Churchill also promised that there would be a change in the British war against Germany at this same time. In a cowardly way, he now tries to deny that during a secret meeting in the British House of Commons in 1940 he said that an important factor for the successful continuation and conclusion of this war would be the Soviet entry into the war, which would come during 1941 at the latest, and which would also make it possible for Britain to take the offensive. Conscious of our duty, this past spring we observed the military build-up of a world power that seemed to have inexhaustible reserves of human and material resources. Dark clouds began to gather over Europe.

    What is Europe, my deputies? There is no geographical definition of our continent, but only an ethnic-national [volkliche] and cultural one. The frontier of this continent is not the Ural mountains, but rather the line that divides the Western outlook on life from that of the East.

    At one time, Europe was confined to the Greek isles, which had been reached by Nordic tribes, and where the flame first burned that slowly but steadily enlightened humanity. And when these Greeks fought against the invasion of the Persian conquerors, they did not just defend their own small homeland, which was Greece, but [also] that concept that is now Europe. And then [the spirit of] Europe shifted from Hellas to Rome. Roman thought and Roman statecraft combined with Greek spirit and Greek culture. An empire was created, the importance and creative power of which has never been matched, much less surpassed, even to this day. And when the Roman legions defended Italy in three terrible wars against the attack of Carthage from Africa, and finally battled to victory, in this case as well Rome fought not just for herself, but [also] for the Greco-Roman world that then encompassed Europe.

    The next invasion against the home soil of this new culture of humanity came from the wide expanses of the East. A horrific storm of cultureless hordes from the center of Asia poured deep into the heart of the European continent, burning, ravaging and murdering as a true scourge of God. On the Catalaunian fields , Roman and Germanic men fought together for the first time [in 451] in a decisive battle of tremendous importance for a culture that had begun with the Greeks, passed on to the Romans, and then encompassed the Germanic peoples.

    Europe had matured. The Occident arose from Hellas and Rome, and for many centuries its defense was the task not only of the Romans, but above all of the Germanic peoples. What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident, enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly alien outside world.

    Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals, nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and complementary whole.

    And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the [British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood mixture.

    My Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

    I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa, they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire continent.

    And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support or with streams of volunteers.

    When the German and Italian armies took the offensive against Yugoslavia and Greece on April 6 of this year, that was the prelude to the great struggle in which we now find ourselves. That is because the revolt in Belgrade [on March 26, 1941], which led to the overthrow of the former prince regent and his government, determined the further development of events in that part of Europe. Although Britain played a major role in that coup, Soviet Russia played the main role. What I had refused to Mr. Molotov [the Soviet Foreign Minister] during his visit to Berlin [in November 1940], Stalin believed he could obtain indirectly against our will by revolutionary activity. Without regard for the treaties they had signed, the Bolshevik rulers expanded their ambitions. The [Soviet] treaty of friendship with the new revolutionary regime [in Belgrade ] showed very quickly just how threatening the danger had become.

    The achievements of the German armed forces in this campaign were honored in the German Reichstag on May 4, 1941. At that time, though, I was not able to reveal that we were very quickly approaching a confrontation with a state [Soviet Russia] that did not attack at the time of the campaign in the Balkans only because its military build-up was not yet complete, and because it was not able to use its air fields as a result of the mud from melting snow at this time of year, which made it impossible to use the runways.

    My Deputies! Men of the Reichstag!

    When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored, motorized and infantry divisions. The human and material resources for them were abundantly available. [In this regard] I can make only one promise to you, my deputies, and to the entire German nation: while people in democratic countries understandably talk a lot about armaments, in National Socialist Germany all the more will actually be produced. It has been that way in the past, and it is not any different now. Whenever decisive action has to be taken, we will have, with each passing year, more and, above all, better quality weapons.

    We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart. Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they do not understand either the situation or me.

    I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the outbreak of this conflict.

    A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.

    I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.

    Several nations have been destined to prevent or parry this blow through the sacrifice of their blood. If Finland [for one] had not immediately decided, for the second time, to take up weapons, then the comfortable bourgeois life of the other Nordic countries would quickly have been extinguished.

    If the German Reich, with its soldiers and weapons, had not stood against this opponent, a storm would have burned over Europe that would have eliminated, once and for all time, and in all its intellectual paucity and traditional stupidity, the laughable British idea of the European balance of power.

    If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns, and [Soviet] Tatars and Mongols would [then], on the open country by the Ionian Sea, force a revision of the Treaty of Montreux [regarding the Dardanelles strait].

    If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in the truest sense of the word.

    This is not yet the right time to speak of the planning and direction of this campaign. However, in a few sentences I would like to say something about what has been achieved [so far] in this greatest conflict in history. Because of the enormous area involved as well as the number and size of the events, individual impressions may be lost and forgotten.

    The attack began at dawn on June 22 [1941]. With dauntless daring, the frontier fortifications that were meant to protect the Soviet Russian build-up against us from surprise attack were broken through. Grodno fell by June 23. On June 24, following the capture of Brest-Litovsk, the fortress [there] was taken in combat, and Vilnius and Kaunas [in Lithuania] were also taken. Daugavpils [in Latvia] fell on June 26.

    The first two great encirclement battles near Bialystok and Minsk were completed on July 10. We captured 324,000 prisoners of war, 3,332 tanks and 1,809 artillery pieces. By July 13 the Stalin Line had been broken through at almost every decisive point. Smolensk fell on July 16 after heavy fighting, and German and Romanian units were able to force their way across the Dniester [river] on July 19. The Battle of Smolensk ended on August 6 after many encircling operations. As a result, another 310,000 Russians were taken as prisoners. Moreover, 3,205 tanks and 3,120 artillery pieces were counted -- either destroyed or captured. Just three days later the fate of another Soviet Russian army group was sealed. On August 9, in the battle of Uman, another 103,000 Soviet Russian prisoners of war were taken, and 317 tanks and 1,100 artillery pieces were either destroyed or captured.

    Nikolayev [in the Ukraine] fell on August 13, and Kherson was taken on the 21st. On the same day the battle near Gomel ended, resulting in 84,000 prisoners as well as 144 tanks and 848 artillery pieces either captured or destroyed. The Soviet Russian positions between the Ilmen and Peipus [lakes] were broken through on August 21, while the bridgehead around Dnepropetrovsk fell into our hands on August 26. On the 28th of that month German troops entered Tallinn and Paldiski [Estonia] after heavy fighting, while the Finns took Vyborg on the 20th. With the capture of Petrokrepost on September 8, Leningrad was finally cut off from the south. By September 16 bridgeheads across the Dnieper were formed, and on September 18 Poltava fell into the hands of our soldiers. German units stormed the fortress of Kiev on September 19, and on September 22 the conquest of [the Baltic island of] Saaremaa [Oesel] was crowned by the capture of its capital.

    And now came the anticipated results of the greatest undertakings. The battle near Kiev was completed on September 27. Endless columns of 665,000 prisoners of war marched to the west. In the encircled area, 884 tanks and 3,178 artillery pieces were captured. The battle to break through the central area of the Eastern front began on October 2, while the battle of the Azov Sea was successfully completed on October 11. Another 107,000 prisoners, 212 tanks and 672 artillery pieces were counted. After heavy fighting, German and Romanian units were able to enter Odessa on October 16. The battle to break through the center of the Eastern front, which had begun on October 2, ended on October 18 with a success that is unique in world history. The result was 663,000 prisoners, as well as 1,242 tanks and 5,452 artillery pieces either destroyed or captured. The capture of Dagoe [Hiiumaa island] was completed on October 21. The industrial center of Kharkov was taken on October 24. After very heavy fighting, the Crimea was finally reached, and on November 2 the capital of Simferopol was stormed. On November 16 the Crimea was overrun as far as Kerch.

    As of December 1, the total number of captured Soviet Russian prisoners was 3,806,865. The number of destroyed or captured tanks was 21,391, of artillery pieces 32,541, and of airplanes 17,322.

    During this same period of time, 2,191 British airplanes were shot down. The navy sank 4,170,611 gross registered tons of shipping, and the air force sank 2,346,180 tons. Altogether, 6,516,791 gross registered tons were destroyed.

    My Deputies! My German people!

    These are sober facts and, perhaps, dry figures. But may they never be forgotten by history or vanish from the memory of our own German nation! For behind these figures are the achievements, sacrifices and sufferings, the heroism and readiness to die of millions of the best men of our own people and of the countries allied with us. Everything had to be fought for at the cost of health and life, and through struggle such as those back in the homeland can hardly imagine.

    They have marched endless distances, tortured by heat and thirst, often bogged down with despair in the mud of bottomless dirt roads, exposed to the hardships of a climate that varies between the White and Black Seas from the intense heat of July and August days to the winter storms of November and December, tormented by insects, suffering from dirt and pests, freezing in snow and ice, they fought -- the Germans and the Finns, the Italians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians and Croatians, the volunteers from the northern and western European countries -- in short, the soldiers of the Eastern front!

    Today I will not single out specific branches of the armed forces or praise specific leaders -- they have all done their best. And yet, truth and justice requires that something be mentioned again: As in the past, so also today, of all of our German fighting men in uniform, the greatest burden of battle is born by our ever-present infantry soldiers.

    From June 22 to December 1 [1941], the German army has lost in this heroic struggle: 158,773 dead, 563,082 wounded and 31,191 missing. The air force has lost: 3,231 dead, 8,453 wounded and 2,028 missing. The navy: 310 dead, 232 wounded and 115 missing. For the German armed forces altogether: 162,314 dead, 571,767 wounded and 33,334 missing.

    That is, the number of dead and wounded is somewhat more than double the number of those lost in the [four month long] battle of the Somme of the [First] World War [in 1916], but somewhat less than half the number of missing in that battle -- all the same, fathers and sons of our German people.

    And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.

    When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.

    You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland]. You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups [notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less severe.

    During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text. Today I would like to recall that proposal and review it with you.

    [Text of the German proposal of August 29, 1939:]

    Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:

    The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the minority populations in the lost territories.

    In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation, secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority populations with secure guarantees of their rights.

    The German Reich government is convinced that it is absolutely necessary to investigate the economic and physical damage inflicted since 1918, with full reparations to be made for that. Of course, it regards this obligation as binding on both sides.

    On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete proposals:

    1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of its population.

    2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north] to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder, Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then westwards to Schoenlanke.

    3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory. All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.

    To insure an impartial plebiscite and to make sure that all necessary preliminary preparation work is properly carried out, this territory will come under the authority of an international commission, similar to the one organized in the Saar territory [for the 1935 plebiscite there]. This commission is to be organized immediately by the four great powers of Italy, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. This commission will have all sovereign authority in the territory. Accordingly, Polish military forces, Polish police and Polish authorities are to clear out of this territory as soon as possible, by a date to be agreed upon.

    4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary, established by an international court of arbitration.

    5. In order to insure ample time for the preparations necessary in order to conduct an impartial plebiscite, the plebiscite will not take place until after at least twelve months have elapsed.

    6. In order to ensure unhindered traffic between Germany and East Prussia, and between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea, during this period [before the plebiscite], certain roads and rail lines may be designated to enable free transit. In that regard, only such fees may be imposed that are necessary for the maintenance of the transit routes or for transport itself.

    7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the territory will go to Germany or to Poland.

    8. After the plebiscite has been conducted, and regardless of the result, free transit will be guaranteed between Germany and its province of Danzig-East Prussia, as well as between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea. If the plebiscite determines that the territory belongs to Poland, Germany will obtain an extraterritorial transit zone, consisting of a motor super-highway [Reichsautobahn] and a four-track rail line, approximately along the line of Buetow-Danzig and Dirschau. The highway and the rail line will be built in such a way that the Polish transit lines are not disturbed, which means that they will pass either above or underneath. This zone will be one kilometer wide and will be sovereign German territory. In case the plebiscite is in Germany's favor, Poland will have free and unrestricted transit to its port of Gdynia with the same right to an extraterritorial road and rail line that Germany would have had.

    9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.

    10. The special rights that may be claimed by Poland in the port of Danzig will be negotiated on the basis of parity for rights to Germany in the port of Gdynia.

    11. In order to eliminate all fear of threat from either side, Danzig and Gdynia will be purely commercial centers, that is, with no military installations or military fortifications.

    12. The peninsula of Hela, which will go to either Poland or Germany on the basis of the plebiscite, will also be demilitarized in any case.

    13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit these complaints to an international investigation commission, which will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and physical damage as well as other acts of terror.

    Germany and Poland pledge to compensate for all economic and other damages inflicted on minority populations on both sides since 1918, and/or to revoke all expropriations and provide for complete reparation for the victims of these and other economic measures.

    14. In order to eliminate feelings of deprivation of international rights in the part of the Germans who will remain in Poland, as well as of the Poles who will remain in Germany, and above all, to insure that they are not forced to act contrary to their ethnic-national feelings, Germany and Poland agree to guarantee the rights of the minority populations on both sides through comprehensive and binding agreements. These will insure the right of these minority groups to maintain, freely develop and carry on their national-cultural life. In particular, they will be allowed to maintain organizations for these purposes. Both sides agree that members of their minority populations will not be drafted for military service.

    15. If agreement is reached on the basis of these proposals, Germany and Poland declare that they will immediately order and carry out the demobilization of their armed forces.

    16. Germany and Poland will agree to whatever additional measures may be necessary to implement the above points as quickly as possible.

    [End of the text of the German proposal]

    The same [measures] would have applied with regard to the proposals to secure [the rights of] the minorities.

    This is the treaty proposal – as straight-forward and as generous as has ever been presented by a government – that was made by the National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.



    The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture, and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces?

    A look at the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man [President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man [Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that, in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?

    With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following should be said:

    1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and particularly the United States, has only benefited.

    2. In the entire history of the development and existence of the United States, the German Reich has never been hostile or even politically unfriendly towards the United States. To the contrary, many Germans have given their lives to defend the USA.

    3. The German Reich has never participated in wars against the United States, except when the United States went to war against it in 1917. It did so for reasons that have been thoroughly explained by a commission [a special U.S. Senate investigating committee, 1934-1935, chaired by Sen. Gerald Nye], which president Roosevelt himself established [or rather, endorsed]. This commission to investigate the reasons for America's entry into the [First World] war clearly established that the United States entered the war in 1917 solely for the capitalist interests of a small group, and that Germany itself had no intention to come into conflict with America.

    Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between the American and German nations that could possibly involve the existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its naturally ordained sphere.

    America is a republic led by a president with wide-ranging powers of authority. Germany was once ruled by a monarchy with limited authority, and then by a democracy that lacked authority. Today it is a republic of wide-ranging authority. Between these two countries is an ocean. If anything, the differences between capitalist America and Bolshevik Russia, if these terms have any meaning at all, must be more significant than those between an America led by a President and a Germany led by a Führer.

    It is a fact that the two historical conflicts between Germany and the United States were stimulated by two Americans, that is, by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, although each was inspired by the same forces. History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a pledge [notably, Wilson's “14 points”]. The result was the ruin of national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic ruin.

    After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind the current developments.

    First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  BTRfan on Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:03 am

    After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.

    Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The “brain trust” that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.

    And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

    From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.

    But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany took measures against financial speculation, it flourished tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.

    Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign policy.

    The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim [slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.

    The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies.

    His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches, including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only by charges d'affaires.

    Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals, calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a shocking insight.

    This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.

    He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself with central European affairs than the German head of state has to take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United States.

    Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like, would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments. He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories [Greenland and Iceland ].

    On April 15, 1939, Roosevelt made his famous appeal to me and the Duce [Mussolini], which was a mixture of geographical and political ignorance combined with the arrogance of a member of the millionaire class. We were called upon to make declarations and to conclude non-aggression pacts with a number of countries, many of which were not even independent because they had either been annexed or turned into subordinate protectorates by countries [Britain and France] allied with Mr. Roosevelt. You will recall, my Deputies, that then [on April 28, 1939] I gave a polite but straightforward answer to this obtrusive gentleman, which succeeded in stopping, at least for a few months, the storm of chatter from this unsophisticated warmonger.

    But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had taken from Warsaw.

    On April 9 [1940] he froze all Norwegian and Danish assets [in the United States] on the lying pretext of wanting to keep them from falling into German hands, even though he knew full well, for example, that Germany has not interfered with, much less taken control of, the Danish government's administration of its financial affairs. Along with the other governments in exile, Roosevelt now recognized one for Norway. On May 15, 1940, Dutch and Belgian governments in exile were also recognized, and at the same time Dutch and Belgian assets [in the USA ] were frozen.

    This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American government would double its aid to France, on the condition that France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about peace while at the same time he incites to war.

    And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940, the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca on an American cruiser.

    In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war, such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air force and the training of British air force personnel in the United States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers, who really deserve pity.

    He moved still closer to war in September 1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a role.

    After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941]. As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.

    As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa] that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27, 1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.

    On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle East.

    In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.

    On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier, President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade. In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets.

    Starting in mid-April [1941] US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9 came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland with depth charges.

    On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the shutting down of the German “Transocean” press agency, the German Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn [national railway] office.

    On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July 10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a British convoy.

    In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in violation of international law, took it to an American port, and imprisoned its crew.

    I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr. Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson, as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].

    We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations. He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war. And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth and violations of law are unparalleled in history.

    I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941]. After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.

    We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.

    And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another. The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National Socialist Germany of today.

    When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr. Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts conspire together to prevent it.

    Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way. At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly informed of the following:

    President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence. For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in the world, for both the present and the future.

    Since the beginning of the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law. Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack, fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no effort to deny it.

    Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.

    Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.

    The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement, which was signed today in Berlin:

    [Agreement text:]

    With an unshakable determination not to lay down arms until the common war against the United States of America and Britain has been fought to a successful conclusion, the German, Italian and Japanese governments have agreed to the following:

    Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.

    Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.

    Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact concluded by them on September 27, 1940.

    Article 4. This agreement is effective immediately upon signing and is valid for the same period as the Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940. The high contracting parties shall inform each other in due time before the expiration of this term of validity of their plans for cooperation as laid out in Article 3 of this agreement.

    [End of Agreement text]

    Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

    Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end. We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany, and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to annihilate our enemies.

    When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it possible. Today I stand at the head of the mightiest army in the world, the most powerful air force and a proud navy. Behind and around me is a sacred community -- the [National Socialist] Party -- with which I have become great and which has become great through me.

    Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than twenty years. But the path before us cannot be compared with the road we have already taken. Today the German people fully realizes that this is a decisive hour for our existence. Millions of soldiers are faithfully doing their duty under the most difficult conditions. Millions of German farmers and workers, and German women and girls, are in the factories and offices, in the fields and farm lands, working hard to feed our homeland and supply weapons to the front. Allied with us are strong nations that have suffered the same misery and face the same enemies.

    The American President and his plutocratic clique have called us the "have not" nations. That is correct! But the "have nots" also want to live, and they will certainly make sure that what little they have to live on is not stolen from them by the "haves." You, my Party comrades, know of my relentless determination to carry through to a successful conclusion any struggle that has already commenced. You know of my determination in such a struggle to do everything necessary to break all resistance that must be broken. In my first speech [of this war] on September 1, 1939, I pledged that neither force of arms nor time would defeat Germany. I want to assure my opponents that while neither force of arms nor time will defeat us, in addition no internal uncertainty will weaken us in the fulfillment of our duty.

    When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the duty that is ours.

    But whoever tries to shirk this duty has no right to be regarded as a fellow German. Just as we were pitilessly hard in the struggle for power, so also will we be just as ruthless in the struggle for the survival of our nation. During a time in which thousands of our best men, the fathers and sons of our people, have given their lives, anyone in the homeland who betrays the sacrifice on the front will forfeit his life. Regardless of the pretext with which an attempt is made to disrupt the German front, undermine the will to resist of our people, weaken the authority of the regime, or sabotage the achievements of the homeland, the guilty person will die. But with this difference: The soldier at the front who makes this sacrifice will be held in the greatest honor, whereas the person who debases this sacrifice of honor will die in disgrace.

    Our opponents should not deceive themselves. In the two thousand years of recorded German history, our people have never been more determined and united than today. The Lord of the universe has been so generous to us in recent years that we bow in gratitude before a Providence that has permitted us to be members of such a great nation. We thank Him, that along with those in earlier and coming generations of the German nation, our deeds of honor may also be recorded in the eternal book of German history!

    Germany's Formal Declaration of War Against the United States

    About two hours before Hitler began his address to the Reichstag, Germany formally declared war against the United States when Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop delivered a diplomatic note to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin, Leland B. Morris.

    At almost the same time, the German Charge d'Affaires in Washington, Hans Thomsen, presented a copy of this note to the Chief of the European Division of the Department of State, Ray Atherton. Here is the text of the note:

    The government of the United States of America, having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

    On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.

    Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that the American destroyers attacked German submarines.

    Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under order of their government and contrary to international law, have treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy ships.

    The German government therefore establishes the following facts:

    Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States of America during every period of the present war, the government of the United States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby virtually created a state of war.

    The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

    For Further Reading

    William Henry Chamberlin, “The Bankruptcy of a Policy,” in: Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (1953), Chapter 8.

    William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade. Chicago: Regnery, 1952, 1962.

    Benjamin Colby, `Twas a Famous Victory. New Rochelle: 1979.

    Robert Dallek, Franklin Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979.

    Matthew DeFraga, “March 1939: America’s Guarantee to Britain,” Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San Francisco State University. 1998, Vol. VII. (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/defraga.html)

    Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg, 1941-1945: Planung, Ausfuehrung und Dokumentation. Muenchen: Herbig, 1999.

    Thomas Fleming, “The Big Leak” (“F.D.R.'s War Plans"), American Heritage, Dec. 1987 (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1987/8/1987_8_64.shtml)

    Thomas Fleming, The New Dealer’ War: Franklin Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

    J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World. New York: 1987. Vol. 3, esp. pp. 372-375, 411-419.

    Germany, Auswaertiges Amt [German Foreign Office]. Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War. New York: 1940.

    Germany, Auswaertiges Amt. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges. Erste Folge. Berlin: 1940.

    Germany, Auswaertiges Amt. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: 1943.

    Patrick J. Hearden, Roosevelt Confronts Hitler: America's Entry into World War II. Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 1987.

    David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. IHR, 1989.

    Daniel W. Michaels, “Examining Stalin's 1941 Plan to Attack Germany,” The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 2000 (Vol. 19, No. 6), pp. 40-47. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html)

    Daniel W. Michaels, “Exposing Stalin's Plan to Conquer Europe: How the Soviet Union 'Lost' the Second World War,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1998 (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 30-37. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html)

    Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography. New York: 1985. Esp. chapters 17, 18 and 20.

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

    Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War. Chicago: 1952.

    A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.

    Ernst Topitsch, Stalin's War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War. New York : St. Martin's Press, 1987.

    Mark Weber, “President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pp. 135-172. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html)

    Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s 'Secret Map' Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 125-127. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html)

    From: The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pages 389-416.

    (Revised: October 2007)

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am

    Consequently This Country is At War….

    Some of you “older” folk on the forum may well remember hearing or seeing old Newsreel “Movietone” etc of Chamberlain’s famous speech – of how bedraggled and emotionally strained he was.

    For all who had fought the War To End All Wars – who had fought so valiantly to maintain the peace only to have it snatched from their hands by the Zionist plotters; this was a bitter moment and it showed in the emotion of Chamberlain’s speech.

    Chamberlain's Broadcast on the Outbreak of War: -


    September 3rd, 1939

    “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 heard 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.” [Chamberlain]

    Contrast this sombre mood, to the exhilaration felt by Churchill that he at last had his war; to the joy of the Zionist who now could manoeuvre nations and to the smug satisfaction of The Forum who considered they had a victory.

    Chamberlain was devastated, all he had worked for was in tatters, but more so, as he realised that his own efforts to maintain the peace had been used against him and his own efforts had ultimately been the tipping point, used by the Zionist, for propelling the world into war.

    As in the First World War; a war that is it said no nation wanted by had to fight as a result of treaties and allegiances, so too, the genesis of the Second World War was in the print on paper agreements.

    As a result of the Munich agreement – “Peace In Our Time” - Churchill and the Zionists felt totally out-manoeuvred by Chamberlain. They regrouped and fermented other attempts to torpedo the peace process. The advent of the murder of a German diplomat in France by a “Jew”, was the catalyst they needed. This sparked a wave of anti-Semitism throughout Germany and resulted in the infamous "Kristallnacht" or "Crystal Night".

    The assassination in Paris of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew, has been widely labelled in history as “the Nazi’s revengeful attack on Jews”. Revenge of what, exactly? This is yet another of the great lies, perpetrated by the Zionist controlled media and has now become “History”. There is much more to suggest that Herschel Grynszpan, was perhaps the world’s first “suicide bomber” so to speak. The Zionists had much more to gain from a war than anyone and Hitler and England certainly didn’t want a war. The assassination had the desired effect of “galvanising” Jewish opposition to Germany, around the world. This resulted in huge amounts of money pouring into The Forum’s coffers. The money was used in a clandestine “re-programming” media campaign [in Jewish controlled media in Britain AND America] to turn Britons from liking Germany and desiring peace, to loathing the Germans and wanting war. [In this, it was singularly successful]. It was also used in a subversive manner to overtly support Churchill and put him back in cabinet – and ultimately – Prime Minister. The major newspapers ran long, feature articles, praising Churchill and decrying Chamberlain, there were advisements in the papers and short articles [letters to the editor] all suggesting that Churchill NEEDS to be in cabinet; there even were “sandwich boys” walking the streets with notices which said -”What Price Churchill?” . Of course, Churchill denied all knowledge of such a campaign when questioned on this – but it is very clear that because of his high office in The Forum, he must have been aware of the conspiracy.

    The Czechs had been totally underhanded in their dealing with both Britain and Germany; from a position of total acceptance of the Sudetenland going back to German control, to being vociferous in the condemnation of “German pressure” in this regard. Their position, altering alternatively as to what side they were listening too and as to whom they thought might prove the winner; helped of course, as always, by the covert and conspiratorial dealings of The Focus who singularly vehemently opposed any agreement which might result in a peaceful settlement. Add to this unholy mix, the personal aspirations of the key players and their avarice and desire for power (Dr Benes) and the huge amounts of money “gifted” for favours to The Forum, Churchill and others. The 10 million pounds loan the Britain agreed to the Czech was later handed out to Czechs who had jumped ship and could prove that their money was now “frozen” as a result of sanctions. Benes, himself, transferred million of pounds to Britain through what could only now be described as “money laundering techniques”. Corruption was endemic and really, there was little liking for the Czechs inside Britain (or Germany). The Annexing of the Sudetenland was somewhat of a relief – the lancing of a festering boil and the outlook of “peace in our time”. It went some way to soothing over eh simmering tensions caused by the barbaric nature of the forced conditions in the Treaty Of Versailles. The Armistice was nothing more than a colonial land grab and a tool to oppress the German peoples; it created countries with no regard to ethnic or political allegiances. Czechoslovakia and Poland were but two examples of colonial meddling. Many have said that the seeds of the Second World War were sown in the Treaty Of Versailles. This may be so, it may very well be so – but it was the Zionists who watered the seeds.

    This, in part, is what Hitler had to say on the subject:

    “I do not intend to speak about the injustices of Versailles. Perhaps the worst thing in the lives of the nations is not so much the injustice, but the senselessness, the folly, and the utter stupidity with which in those days a peace was imposed upon the world, that completely disregarded all historical, economic, national and political facts. Regulations were arrived at which actually force one to doubt whether the men who perpetrated them were really in their right mind. Devoid of all knowledge of the historical development of these districts, devoid even of all economic understanding, these people juggled about with Europe, tore States apart, divided up countries, suppressed and handed over nations, destroyed culture.

    This land, too, was a victim of that madness and the Polish State itself a product of this folly. What Germany had to sacrifice for this PolishState the world probably does not know. One thing only I should like to declare here: The development of all the territories which were at that time incorporated into Poland is entirely due to German energy, German industry, and German creative work. They owe their cultural importance exclusively to the German nation.” [Adolf Hitler – Uniting Danzig with Germany, 19th September 1939.].

    Hardly the comments of a dented madman – as the media would have us believe.!

    Britain (Chamberlain) and Germany had come to an understanding over the Sudetenland, together they moved on and recognised the general public wish for peace – they recognised that with the signing of an agreement. An agreement which history paints as having been broken by Hitler – should familiar – it should as it is the same song sung over the Sudetenland. However, if one takes the time to actually look into events – a much different picture emerges.

    For 20 years, German people inside Poland had suffered unbelievable hardship and pain. 58,000 Germans were massacred by the poles up until 17th September 1939 – when Official records were stopped. The German Polish agreement of 26 Jan 1934 offered some hope as to better treatment of German in the Polish occupied zone of what was previously Germany. Marshal Pilsudski was a genuine statesman and have found some common ground between Germany and Poland. While he was alive, he controlled the excesses of the barbaric element in the Polish majority – who were themselves made up of a potpourri of races, religions and ethnic cultures – all over lorded by a small elite few of nobility. This was realised by those who wanted to ferment trouble [war] that the latent peace between Germany and Poland was an obstacle to their endeavours. In fact, this peace threatened to spread to the whole of Europe unless stopped! This statesmanship between Germany and Poland left the door open to other gentlemanly and peaceful agreements to correct the grievous wrongs of the Versailles treaty. All who knew the treaty, could clearly see that the terms of it were to be short lived – there would be an adjustment of boundaries based on ethnic, political and economic grounds.

    "It depended on the honesty of purpose of Poland as to how far an arrangement of a closer understanding between the two countries could fulfil the sincere hopes of Germany and all peace-loving friends. At that time already, certain definite forces abroad were actively trying to disturb the work of conciliation between Germany and Poland. The opponents of the Third Reich were not in the least interested in a relaxation of the tension between Germany and Poland; in fact they were secretly and openly fanning the ever-glowing fires of propaganda in Poland and directed against Germany and everything German. The change of course in policy both in Berlin and Warsaw in no way suited their plans. Apart from this, a reconciliation of Poland with her neighbour did not represent the aims of the supporters of the Treaty of Versailles, who intended that Poland should remain in a state of permanent opposition to Germany, and that she should remain as an active instrument in the encirclement policy against the Reich. As a result the enemies of friendly advances between Germany and Poland tried to stifle from the very beginning any reasonable political arrangement and any attempt at a reconciliation between Germany and Poland, by resuscitating the old differences and suspicions. With the help of extremist Polish societies and the Press, already controlled by Jewish elements, the saboteurs of conciliatory measures very soon gained the upper-hand. " [Polish Atrocities Against the German Minorities in Poland 1940 – German Archives].

    From the very beginning, anti-German activities found a fertile ground well tendered by Zionist. While the Poles did their best to facilitate this problem. Polish Officers and the military in general [as well as the Police force] were more than willing to participate in this persecution of Germans and indeed, mainly lead the massacres. The Reich, seeing the problem tried to persuade those in Warsaw, responsible for public opinion, to act in accordance with the German- Polish Press agreement of 24 Feb. 1934 and to arrive at effective moral disarmament of the Polish archivist – but this failed; largely as the Poles had their own agenda and were heavily influenced by the huge Jewish population in Warsaw – who themselves were slaves to the Zionist.

    With the passing of Marshal Pilsudski, the atrocities and excesses of the Polish Officer Corps and military became increasingly unbearable.

    “The continuous efforts of Germany to bring about tolerable relations between the German minority and the Polish population were of no avail. Her efforts were completely frustrated by the sterile attitude of the Polish Government. Poland's absolutely negative attitude, marked by an unbroken chain of violations of the spirit of the German-Polish pact, and also by a continual breach of the fundamental principles governing the protection of minorities, agreed to and signed by Poland in the reciprocal minority agreement of Nov. 5, 1937 became manifestly clear when the respective representatives of the central administrative offices of both countries met in Berlin on Feb. 27, 1939, to discuss all outstanding questions, pertaining to minorities. These unsuccessful discussions showed that Poland had no intentions of carrying on Marshal Pilsudski's clearly defined policy of peace and harmony with his German neighbour. The specific desire of the Führer for a definite settlement of the Danzig question, and that of a territorial link between East Prussia and the Reich were repeatedly placed before the Polish Government in the friendliest manner. The evasive attitude, however, of Colonel Beck, Minister for Foreign Affairs, made it clearer from month to month that the Polish authorities were methodically turning their backs on any intention of agreementwith Germany. [ibidem].

    And;

    During the twenty years of Polish domination, Germans in Poland had become used to injury and want. Devoid of every right and protection they were also prepared for their position to become more threatening and subject to more intolerable pressure as the German-Polish relations aggravated. During the last weeks before the outbreak of war, they were under such pressure and their private life so continually watched by Polish spies, that they already scented the danger that was being brought about by the work of agitation, emanating from secret and public Polish sources. Not even the worst pessimist had ever visualized that the wide-spread menaces, attacks, and acts of violence would increase and reach the point of the massacre of men, women, and children, or that these murders would ever reach the gruesome total of over 58,000. One could feel the abysmal hatred that the Poles had for anything German; hatred that was being engendered by an anti-German press, radio and pulpit propaganda. The Warsaw rulers gave proofs daily of their hostile attitude towards any sincere understanding. This manifested itself even down to the subordinate official positions, where a white-hot fanaticism culminated in treating all Germans as spies and suspected enemies of the State. It was known that the Association of the West, rebels, and rifle corps were planning evil, and that Polish Youth organisations, above all the boy scouts, were being systematically trained under military supervision in the use of firearms. Outbursts of racial propaganda could be read in the Polish press; in just the same way the poisoned atmosphere emanating from the excessive provocation of public agitators could be felt more and more every week as it spread and penetrated deeper and deeper amongst the Polish population. [ibidem].

    This background had definitely influenced “The British” Chamberlain and the FO in general, had total distain for Poland – yes, even Churchill had no time for Poland – Poland was a pariah in the world stage and yet history records the start of the Second World War as going to the aid of Poland – why?

    Well, Chamberlain, in an attempt to spike the guns of the Zionists, attempted an out-flanking manoeuvre which nearly paid off. The agreement with Hitler over the Sudetenland. To consolidate this process he thought that by Britain and France showing solidarity over Poland and creating an alliance to “come to Poland’s aid” , he would accomplish two things:

    One, he would show he actually had strong leadership and was not caving in to Hitler’s demands – as the Zionist propagandist said and,

    Secondly, he sincerely hoped that it might defuse the simmering situation between Germany and Poland – a situation for which he [and the rest of the world had considerable sympathy for Germany in].

    This was the tool the Zionist had been waiting for – another alliance – like that of the First World War – another chance to repeat history! Besides, their master orator, they had a venerable army of workers, all toiling way at anti German propaganda and inciting hatred against Germany wherever and when ever they could.

    Unfortunately, the Alliance also had a negative effect in that it emboldened Poland to even greater excesses and barbarism. The Poles, “secure” in the belief that nothing would come to them as a result of Britain/France guarantee: blistered by Zionist support and blanket news propaganda both inside Poland and abroad – made the Poles feel invincible to Germany’s outcry.

    Hitler’s reply was contained in his speech:

    "I tried to find ways and means for a bearable solution of this problem also. These endeavors I submitted in the form of verbal proposals to the former Polish rulers. With these proposals you are all familiar; they were more than reasonable. I attempted to arrive at an understanding doing justice to our desire to re-establish a connection between East Prussia and the Reich, and the desire of the Poles to retain access to the sea. Above all, I tried to find a synthesis between the German character of the city of Danzig and its firm resolve to return to the German Reich, on the one hand, and the economic demands of the Poles, on the other. I consider myself justified in saying that at that time I was more than modest. There were moments when I reflected and asked myself over and over again whether before my own people I could take the responsibility of submitting such proposals for a solution to the Polish Government. My only reason for doing so was that I was anxious to spare both the German and the Polish peoples the sufferings resulting from another conflict.

    During the course of this spring I have again repeated this offer in the most concrete form.

    Danzig was to return to the Reich. An exterritorial road was to be built to East Prussia—at our expense of course. In return Poland was to receive the most extensive Free Port rights, and similar exterritorial access. I, on the other hand, on top of that, was prepared to guarantee the existing frontiers, hardly bearable as they were, and finally to let Poland participate in guaranteeing the safety of Slovakia. I cannot imagine what a state of mind the Polish Government was in when it rejected these proposals. I do know, however, that untold millions of Germans gave a sigh of relief because they were of the opinion that in making those proposals I had gone too far.

    Poland's reply was to order the first mobilization, immediately followed by ferocious terrorism. My request to the then Polish Foreign Minister to visit me in Berlin in order to discuss this question with me once more was rejected. Instead of coming to Berlin, he went to London! "[Adolf Hitler – Uniting Danzig with Germany, 19th September 1939.].

    Poland mobilised on the request of the Zionist.

    Poland was the antagonist and provocateur in the whole affair.

    Germany responded to project human rights, the rights and welfare of German people and to correct the injustices of a barbaric Armistice.

    Put these events in today’s light and see what the situation would be; America – a world power – do you think that America would sit by and watch such events unfold to American citizens across the boarder in Mexico? Or in Guatemala, Honduras etc? No, we already have a precedent in that region, don’t we?!

    History has been written by Churchill and the Zionist – we have believed what we have been told, essentially.

    We will continue to repeat the calamities of history until we learn to question it!

    I leave you with the words of the great orator himself.

    “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
    Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in November 1942

    zraver
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 14
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2011-01-21

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  zraver on Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:14 pm

    My vote for the best on the Eastern Front is not on that list. While Zhukov was effective he relied on overwhelming material advantage and conducted battles in carefully organized stages. He was much like Montgomery in Africa but on a vastly larger scale. In fluid situations he was now where near his best.

    Probably the best Soviet commander in battles of maneuver was Vatutin. He was the only Soviet commander to be able to go head to head with Mainstein with near equal resources and win. He saved Leningrad from Mainstein in 41, blunted operation Blau in 42, helped encircle and destroy the German 6th Army, destroyed the Italian 8th Army, blunted Mainstien's Winter Storm relief attempt of the 6th Army and almost did a double envelopment that would ahve bagged nearly all the German forces in the south. He was in command and changed the course of the war at Kursk, considered by many as THE BATTLE that decided the war against Hitler. He not only stopped the best units the Germans had, but rapidly switched over to the offensive pushed the Germans back. His death at the hands of Ukrainian Partisans was a huge blow. If it had occurred in 42 instead of 44 the course of the war might have changed.

    In the west I am going with Patton who9 like Vatutin had an instinctive feel for the flow of battle at the operational level.

    For the Germans I am torn between Hoth and Guderian on the offensive and Heinrici and Kesselring on the defensive.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:24 pm

    Good objective analysis; while I don’t necessarily agree – I commend you on the post.

    zraver
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 14
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2011-01-21

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  zraver on Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:48 am

    Kysusha wrote:Good objective analysis; while I don’t necessarily agree – I commend you on the post.

    Where do you dissagree? If there is a commander in WWII superior to Vatutin I'd love to learn about them. While I think Patton and a few others were his equal, I don't see anyone his better alive at the time. I would have to go back in time to Agrippa to find his better.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:59 am

    Fd Marshal Slim! Best General of all nations Second World War/Great Partiotic War. He turned defeat into victory and did so with minimal assistance, intelligence briefs and materiel. He inspired and transformed a demoralised, mish-mash of soldiers from many nations into a supreme fighting body of men. His Auto - Defeat to Victory should be a hand book for all young Officers.

    zraver
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 14
    Points : 16
    Join date : 2011-01-21

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  zraver on Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:17 pm

    Kysusha wrote:Fd Marshal Slim! Best General of all nations Second World War/Great Partiotic War. He turned defeat into victory and did so with minimal assistance, intelligence briefs and materiel. He inspired and transformed a demoralised, mish-mash of soldiers from many nations into a supreme fighting body of men. His Auto - Defeat to Victory should be a hand book for all young Officers.

    No doubt FM slim is an impressive commander. However, do you think he could have enjoyed success in the more fluid situations of the Eastern and Western Fronts? He never faced massed tanks or artillery and fought a mostly infantry based war.

    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 221
    Points : 239
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Kysusha on Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:34 pm

    One will never know! We can postulate “what if” all we want but it is only theory - History is already recorded by events. What is certain, is Slim had the charisma necessary to mould and lead men – a very rare commodity in men. He had a thorough understanding of the Principles of War and applied them imaginatively to the theatre he was in. Arguably, those qualities are transferable to any other theatre.



    All the other “allied” Generals, fought the Germans with the sure knowledge of what the Germans were going to do –because of Ultra [with the exception of the Russians].; and so British and American Generals were given a huge advantage over their adversaries and for that reason, most are [in my books] inferior to the German nd Russian Generals. Slim was the exception – he did not have Ultra to rely on.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Best WWII General: Poll

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:21 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:21 pm