Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Post Reply
User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

Rudolf Hess carried with him a fantastic peace offer to Britain in May of 1941. The following link gives much of the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/1033 ... -USSR.html

There appears to be some unwillingness to make all of the evidence public. Can anyone guess why?

If the evidence stands, and I think it will because there was supporting evidence already at the time of the flight, it makes perfectly clear that the western Allies really were the "Bad Guys." Both Hitler and Hess should have received Nobel Peace Prizes. Hess proved with his own physical presence in Britain that Germany was absolutely sincere in its oft-repeated claims to wanting to end the war with Britain--and at no cost to Britain. Hitler's role in the peace offer is proved by the document Hess carried. For his Christ-like act, Hess was rewarded, not with a Nobel Peace Prize which he certainly deserved more than anyone else in human history--but with life imprisonment and finally his own murder in prison by a British agent.

So, after Hess' flight, what was left for Britain to fight Germany over? I think Britain and the US were possessed by racist insanity--driven by Jews--to destroy the German people once and for all. It was perfectly OK when God did it in the Old Testament to people the Hebrews wanted to destroy. The British and later American bombing and strafing of totally innocent German civilians served that same monstrous purpose perfectly.

The "Bad Guys" really were the Allies! The "Good Guys"were the Germans including the Nazis, and especially the SS.

The good news for the US and Britain is that there really is no God! Such a pity! If there were a God who resembled in any way the brutal arbiter of justice and punishment that Anglo-Americans pretend to believe in, he would have destroyed America and Britain thousands of times since the war.

Image
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:Rudolf Hess carried with him a fantastic peace offer to Britain in May of 1941. The following link gives much of the story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/1033 ... -USSR.html
There appears to be some unwillingness to make all of the evidence public. Can anyone guess why?
If the evidence stands, and I think it will because there was supporting evidence already at the time of the flight, it makes perfectly clear that the western Allies really were the "Bad Guys." Both Hitler and Hess should have received Nobel Peace Prizes. Hess proved with his own physical presence in Britain that Germany was absolutely sincere in its oft-repeated claims to wanting to end the war with Britain--and at no cost to Britain. Hitler's role in the peace offer is proved by the document Hess carried. For his Christ-like act, Hess was rewarded, not with a Nobel Peace Prize which he certainly deserved more than anyone else in human history--but with life imprisonment and finally his own murder in prison by a British agent.

So, after Hess' flight, what was left for Britain to fight Germany over? I think Britain and the US were possessed by racist insanity--driven by Jews--to destroy the German people once and for all. It was perfectly OK when God did it in the Old Testament to people the Hebrews wanted to destroy. The British and later American bombing and strafing of totally innocent German civilians served that same monstrous purpose perfectly.

The "Bad Guys" really were the Allies! The "Good Guys"were the Germans including the Nazis, and especially the SS.
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
I agree. The realisation that it was in fact Churchill who wanted war and that he and other British Commonwealth leaders perpetuated the war out of largely economic reasons is demonstrated by the following top secret communication regarding how to reject Hitler's peace proposals without looking guilty in the eyes of the world:
W A R C A B I N E T.
PEACE PROPOSALS BY GERMANY.
At the Prime Minister's request I circulate, for the information of the War Cabinet, copies of a telegram to the four Dominion Governments, and of General Smuts' reply.
Cypher telegram to the Governments of Canada, Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.
Sent 12 noon 12th July, 1940.

Circular D. No. 340 Most Secret.


"We have been considering possibility that Herr Hitler may shortly launch plan for a European, if not world-wide economic conference, a move which would not necessarily interfere with, any military operations which he has in view. He would no doubt represent himself as founding a new European economic system, which would sweep away the customs barriers, quotas, currency restrictions, wastefulness and inefficiency of an anachronistic capitalist system, and all other obstacles which have prevented efficient European, economic co-ordination. He would promise ' that, this economic unit once established, all would share in the wealth and resources of Europe as a whole within the framework, of course, of an all-embracing and benign totalitarian system.

It is obvious that he [Hitler] could make great play with all this amongst most neutrals and some belligerents... ...who are longing to get back to normal peace-time regime. Moreover, it would be easy for him to represent that sole barrier to his economic paradise was obstinacy and selfishness of Great Britain, who not merely refused to co-operate but by her continuance of the war, particularly by her blockade, was demonstrable bent on reducing the greater part of the world to ruin. We are putting these consideration to the United States Government and suggesting advisability of concerting with them anticipatory counter-offensive.
For example, we might discuss likelihood of Herr Hitler dressing up German and Nazi Fascist domination in the guise of an economic paradise. We could show that it is merely a device to harness all European wealth and production to the Nazi chariot wheels - an extended German "autarky" for military aggrandisement of the "superior" German race and for the suppression of freedom everywhere. We could, demonstrate that German economic domination invariably means German political domination.

To these somewhat negative arguments it would be necessary to add something more positive, defining advantages of the international economic structure which the United States and we wish to emerge as part of the peace settlement. It is in this particular direction that we are inviting suggestions from the United States President and Secretary of State. We would hope, with them to make clear that our aim is to break down artificial barriers to trade, which impede any general rise in the standard of living and that we are convinced that this can only be achieved by free peoples, freely negotiating on an equal basis and animated neither by ideological passion nor political ambition.

Our idea would be that speeches might be made by leading politicians on both sides of the Atlantic embodying
the foregoing arguments and any others which the United States Secretary of State may care to suggest.

---------
Cypher telegram from the Minister of Externa l Affairs, Pretoria , to the High Commissioner, London. [General Smuts' reply]
Received- 6 p.m 17th July. 1940
No.547* Secret.


"Circular D340 of June 25th raises a very important point which has trouble d me for some time. It is most probable that Hitler wil l start a peace offensive at an early date . This may be either for a conference or some other form of peace propaganda.
With practically the whole of Europe in Hitler's hands and Russia and the Balkans in his pocket before winter comes he may then think the auspicious moment has come to launch his peace offensive. He will pose as the regenerator of an effete European system and will propose a United States of Europe composed of so called free states between whom tariff walls and economic barriers will have been abolished and only some such Schacht currency plan will exist. Being in fact master of Europe, Hitler can afford to restore the semblance of freedom to his victims. America will be plausibly reminded of her own Monroe Doctrine. In fact, however, the Continent will become a closed German market from which Britain and America will be largely excluded.
Some such scheme could be clothed in such plausible appearances as to make a formidable appeal to world public opinion already sickened of the horrible destruction of the war, and the spectre of the coming European famine. If, in addition, Hitler is big enough to renounce annexations and indemnities, its appeal may become irresistible and make Europe accept a peace which will be a moral and political disaster of the first water.
The problem is how to meet such a peace offensive if and when i t comes. I think suggestion for American consultation and. agreement' on a positive alternate plan will be essential. A warning note in advance in the press and on platform in both countries would also help to prepare public opinion against this peace manoeuvre. Advance ridicule may take much sting out of it.

The problem is, however, a very serious one and I would advise that in addition it be submitted to special committees of first rate minds in both countries'for their careful exploration in all its aspects. We have been surprised at every, stage of the war and should now take every precaution not to be surprised into a fatal peace.

Let brain trusts be set going to work out an alternate democratic plan for countering a peace movement which is certain to come sooner or later and, should find us prepared with the answer."
General Smuts

http://ukwarcabinet.s3.amazonaws.com/do ... 0-0001.pdf
Hitler's speech to the Reichstag, Berlin. OCTOBER 6th, 1939
It is impossible for any French statesman to get up and declare I have ever made any demands upon France the fulfillment of which would be incompatible with French honour or French interest. It is, however, true that instead of demands I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts.
Among the German people, I have done my utmost to eradicate the idea of everlasting enmity and to inculcate in its place a respect for the great achievements of the French nation and for its history, just as every German soldier has the greatest respect for the feats of the French Army. I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of an Anglo-German understanding, nay, more than that, of an Anglo-German friendship.

At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests. Unfortunately I have only too often been forced to guard against instances of British interference in German affairs, even in cases which did not concern Great Britain in the least. I actually considered it as one of my life aims to reconcile these two peoples, not only through mutual understanding but through inner sympathy.

The German nation has gladly followed my lead in this respect. If my endeavors have been unsuccessful, it is only because of an animosity on the part of certain British statesmen and journalists, which has deeply affected me personally. They made no secret of the fact that - for reasons which are unfathomable to us - their sole aim was to seize the first opportunity in order to resume the fight with Germany. The fewer reasons of substantial nature these men have for their schemes, the more they attempt to motivate their actions with empty phrases and assertions. But I believe even today that there can only be real peace in Europe and throughout the world if Germany and England come to an understanding. Because of this conviction I have often shown the way to an understanding. If in the end there was not the desired result, it was really not my fault.

Finally, I now also attempted to bring the relations between the Reich and Soviet Russia to a normal and, in the end, to a friendly basis. Thanks to a similar trend of thought on the part of Mr. Stalin these endeavours have now been realized. Now with that State lasting and friendly relations have been established, the effect of which will be a blessing to both nations.

Thus the revision of the Versailles Treaty carried through by me did not cause any chaos in Europe, but on the contrary produced the prerequisite of clear, stable and bearable conditions.

Only those who detest this order of things in Europe and wish for disorder can feel hostile to these actions. If, however, certain people think themselves obliged to reject with a hypocritical air the method by which a tolerable order of things was established in Central Europe, then my only reply to them is that in the end it is not so much the method but the useful result that counts.

...Moreover, previous to each single revision I have put forward proposals. I had attempted, by means of negotiations, to achieve and secure what was absolutely indispensable. In a certain number of cases I was successful. In other cases, I am sorry to say, my readiness to negotiate and perhaps also the small extent of my demands and the modesty of my proposals were interpreted as a sign of weakness and therefore rejected. Nobody could have regretted this more than I did.

There are, however, in the life of nations certain necessities which, if they are not brought about by peaceful methods, must be realized by force, however regrettable this appears, not only to the life of the individual citizen but also to the life of the community. It is undeniable that the greater interests common to all must never be impaired by the stubbornness or ill will of individuals and communities. To Poland, too, I made the most moderate proposals.

They were not only rejected, but on the contrary brought forth the general mobilization of that State, for which reasons were advanced which proved conclusively exactly that it was the very modesty of my proposals which was considered a confirmation of my weakness, nay, even of my fear. Really, such an experience is apt to make anyone shrink from ever again making any reasonable and moderate proposals.

Also at present I once more read in certain newspapers that every attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement of relations between Germany on the one hand and France and England on the other was doomed to failure, and that any proposal in that direction only proved that I, filled with apprehension, anticipated Germany's collapse and that I only made such a proposal out of cowardice, or from a bad conscience.

...I can very well understand that there are interested parties who profit more from war than from peace, and I also understand that for a certain variety of international journalist it is more interesting to report on war than on peaceful activities or cultural achievements, which they are incapable of either judging or understanding. And finally it is clear to me that there is a certain Jewish international capitalism and journalism that has no feeling at all in common with the people whose interests they pretend to represent, but who, like Herostrates of old, regard incendiarism as the greatest success of their lives. But there is still another reason why I feel obliged to voice my opinion.

When reading certain international press publications, or listening to speeches of various capitalist glorifiers of war, I consider myself entitled to speak and reply in the name of those who are forced to serve as the living substance for the mental activities of these formulators of war aims, that living substance to which I myself belonged as an unknown soldier for more than four years during the Great War.

Why should this war in the West be fought? For restoration of Poland? Poland of the Versailles Treaty will never rise again. This is guaranteed by two of the largest States in the world. Final re-organization of this territory and the question of re-establishment of the Polish State are problems which will not be solved by a war in the West but exclusively by Russia on the one hand and Germany on the other.

Furthermore, the elimination of the influence of these two Powers within the territories concerned would not produce a new State but utter chaos.

The example of Palestine shows it would be better to concentrate on the tasks at hand and solve these in a reasonable manner instead of meddling with problems which lie within the vital spheres of interest of other nations and could certainly be better solved by them. At any rate, Germany has in her Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia not only established peace and order but, above all, has laid the foundation for a new economic prosperity and increasing understanding between the two nations. England still has much to accomplish before she can point to similar results in her Protectorate in Palestine.
One also realizes that it would be senseless to annihilate millions of men and to destroy property worth millions in order to reconstruct a State which at its very birth was termed an abortion by all those not of Polish extraction.

What other reason exists? Has Germany made any demands of England which might threaten the British Empire or endanger its existence? On the contrary, Germany has made no such demands on either France or England.

But if this war is really to be waged only in order to give Germany a new regime, that is to say, in order to destroy the present Reich once more and thus to create a new Treaty of Versailles, then millions of human lives will be sacrificed in vain, for neither will the German Reich go to pieces nor will a second Treaty of Versailles be made. And even should this come to pass after three, four, or even eight years of war then this second Versailles would once more become the source of fresh conflict in the future.

In any event, a settlement of the world's problems carried out without consideration of the vital interests of its most powerful nations could not possibly, after the lapse of from five to ten years, end in any other way than that attempt made twenty years ago which is now ended. No, this war in the West cannot settle any problems except perhaps the ruined finances of certain armament manufacturers, newspaper owners, or other international war profiteers.

Two problems are ripe for discussion today.
First, the settlement of the problems arising from the disintegration of Poland and, second, the problem of eliminating those international difficulties which endanger the political and economic existence of the nations.
What then are the aims of the Reich Government as regards the adjustment of conditions within the territory to the west of the German-Soviet line of demarcation which has been recognized as Germany's sphere of influence?

First, the creation of a Reich frontier which, as has already been emphasized, shall be in accordance with existing historical, ethnographical and economic conditions.

Second, the disposition of the entire living space according to the various nationalities; that is to say, the solution of the problems affecting the minorities which concern not only this area but nearly all the States in the Southwest of Europe.

Third, in this connection: An attempt to reach a solution and settlement of the Jewish problem.

Fourth, reconstruction of transport facilities and economic life in the interest of all those living in this area.

Fifth, a guarantee for the security of this entire territory and sixth, formation of a Polish State so constituted and governed as to prevent its becoming once again either a hotbed of anti-German activity or a center of intrigue against Germany and Russia.

In addition to this, an attempt must immediately be made to wipe out or at least to mitigate the ill effects of war; that is to say, the adoption of practical measures for alleviation of the terrible distress prevailing there.
These problems can, as I have already emphasized, perhaps be discussed but never solved at the conference table.
If Europe is really sincere in her desire for peace, then the States in Europe ought to be grateful that Russia and Germany are prepared to transform this hotbed into a zone of peaceful development and that these two countries will assume the responsibility and bear the burdens inevitably involved.
For the Reich this project, since it cannot be undertaken in an imperialistic spirit, is a task which will take fifty to a hundred years to perform.
Justification for this activity on Germany's part lies in the political organizing of this territory as well as in its economic development. In the long run, of course, all Europe will benefit from it. Second, and in my opinion by far the most important task, is the creation of not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European security.

For this it is necessary first that aims in the foreign policy of European States should be made perfectly clear.
As far as Germany is concerned the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy.
In so doing, they begin by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by them as obsolete; in other words, that the government of the German Reich, and with them the whole German people, no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, namely, in the first instance, for the return of German colonies.

This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to German colonies but above all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.

Secondly, the demand for a real revival of international economic life, coupled with an extension of trade and commerce, presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system; in other words, of production in the individual States. In order to facilitate the exchange of goods thus produced, however, markets must be organized and a final currency regulation arrived at so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can be gradually removed.

Thirdly, the most important condition, however, for a real revival of economic life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and of a sense of security on the part of the individual nations.

This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use of an application of certain modern armaments which can, at any given moment, have such a devastating effect on the pulsating life of every nation and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity.

In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected -maybe for the simple reason that they were made by me. I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements have provided a comprehensive definition of the legitimate and illegitimate use of armaments.

A Geneva convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, ill treatment of prisoners, war against noncombatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve universal observance of this statute, a way must surely be found to regulate aerial warfare, use of poison gas and submarines, etc., and also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of conflict waged against women and children and against noncombatants in general. A growing horror of certain methods of warfare will of its own accord lead to their abolition and thus they will become obsolete.

In the war with Poland I endeavoured to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of so-called military importance, or only to employ it to combat active resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross and to draw up some universally valid international regulations. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly in our densely populated continent - a peace which, uncontaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity.

I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people. To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept, and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm - in short, of peace.

Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; this is, without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it.

If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed. Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruccken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms, and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigour of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields.
One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards.

Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering.
If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last.
Then we shall fight. Neither force of arms nor lapse of time will conquer Germany. There never will be another November 1918 in German history. It is infantile to hope for the disintegration of our people.
Mr. Churchill may be convinced that Great Britain will win. I do not doubt for a single moment that Germany will be victorious. Destiny will decide who is right.

One thing only is certain. In the course of world history, there have never been two victors, but very often only losers. This seems to me to have been the case in the last war.

May those peoples and their leaders who are of the same mind now make their reply. And let those who consider war to be the better solution reject my outstretched hand.

As Führer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/ ... 10-06.html
Last edited by been-there on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2513472

HITLER'S PEACE FEELER GIVEN TO POPE AND MR. WELLES

LONDON, March 19th, 1940

Hitlers peace proposals, as reported from Rome, contain little that is new to make them more acceptable to the Allies. Accordinq to the News-Chronicle's Rome correspondent
Signor Mussolini went to Brennero at the request of the King of Italy to try to get Hitler to modify the terms.
A Vatican source understands that Hitler's plan does not comprise actual peace terms, but is more in the nature of a feeler, which could be elaborated later.

The Rome correspondent of the New York Times gives details of Hitler's peace proposals, which the Pope 'heard from Ribbentrop (the German Foreign Minister) and Mr. Sumner Welles heard from Hitler.

These proposals are: —
(1) General, simultaneous, and immediate disarmament.
(2) A return to the Four-Power Pact (Germany, Italy, Britain, France), in the form of a new European Directory, substituting for the League of Nations the four States, dividing
Europe into zones of influence, and inaugurating an anti-Bolshevik policy aimed at the liberation of Russia by arms, if necessary from Communism.
(3) The recognition of absolute religious freedom after Germany has forced all Jews to emigrate under the direction of England, Italy, and France, to Palestine, Ethiopia, and Madagascar respectively.
(4) Absolute freedom of trade, and access to raw materials, with close economic co-operation with the United States, and facilitation of Italian and German immigration.

RESTORE COLONIES
(5) Restitution, within 20 years, of the former German colonies or equal colonial compensation, or at least the protection of German emigration to determined areas in Africa.
(6) The reconstruction of an independent Poland, composed primarily of the central zone of Polish territory with 10,000,000 inhabitants, Gdynia to be a Polish free port. Poland also
to have free trade through Danzig and a general facilitation of Polish communication to the sea; the settlement of the Polish frontiers by an internationally-controlled plebiscite; Polish and Danubian minority problems to be settled by transmigration.
(7) The Czechs. Slovaks, and Maygars to constitute a tripartite State allied 'to the Reich, which would enjoy industrial communication and. privileges in that State for 25 years.
(8) Austria to remain in the Reich.
(9) A Danubian Federation to be constituted as a customs union, equalising the interest of the large and small Danube Basin States, Italy, Germany, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bohemia, Slovakia, and Hungary to participate in such customs union.
(10) The Balkan status quo to be maintained.
(11) Free customs transit for Italian goods through Djibouti (the port for the Addis Ababa railway) anticipating the expiration of the Suez Canal Convention, also a new status for the Tunisian Italians.

FOUR-POWER PACT
Messages which have reached London from Vatican City show some divergence in the points reported from New York.
According to London reports Hitler proposes: —
(1) Disarmament on the land, on the sea and in the air.
(2) The formation of a small independent Poland near Warsaw, with a population of 10,000,000, minority problems to be solved by mass migrations.
(3) Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians to form a tripartite State allied to the Reich, Germany to hold certain rights in such State for 25 years.
(4) Austria to remain with the Reich.
(5) Germany to get back her former colonies within 25 years.
(6) The formation of a Danubian confederation, with Italy and Germany as guardian Powers, to cover Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary, Slovakia, Moravia, and Bohemia.
(7) The Balkans status quo to be maintained.
(8) Recognition of religious liberty; German Jews to migrate to Palestine, Italian Jews to East Africa, and French Jews to Madagascar.
(9) The establishment of absolute freedom of trade and economic collaboration with the United States,
(10) Italian commerce to receive special treatment at Djibouti (the port for the Addis Ababa railway) and free passage through the Suez Canal
(11) The Tunisian Italians to receive new status.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Posts: 1972
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Statistical Mechanic »

If Hitler said it, it must be true?
"the Germans had ample justifiable cause to oppose a minority within their society who worked AGAINST their county's interests" -- been-there, 24 April 2014

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Now, who had really been lying? And who telling the truth?
Was Churchill telling the truth when he 'warned' that Hitler was secretly re-arming and therefore was intent on war?
Or was HE, Churchill himself the one who had been lying and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Is the historian Peter Padfield lying ('Hess, Hitler and Churchill') now?

Was the anonymous ex-MI6 operative/translator academic who later worked at a leading university lying when he told Padfield about this peace treaty?

Did Hitler offer "a fully developed peace treaty for Germany which included the promise to evacuate all the occupied countries in the West" or not?

Did Churchill lie to the British people, and with American, Canadian, Australian and S. African connivance, lie to world opinion in order to continue the slaughter and bring the USA into the war, so as to safeguard their control of international markets?

Who has really been saying what was 'true' to us?

It is a fact that there is no mention of this treaty in any of the official archives which have since been made public.
Mr Padfield believes this is because there has been an ongoing cover-up to protect the reputations of powerful figures.

So c'mon. Think it through for yourself. Who had really been the most honest to its populations?
Did you even read the top secret memo from Churchill and General Smuts' reply! :o

Hitler offered a mutual disarmament programme from 1933 to 1936.
All the French, Brits and Yanks needed to do was call his bluff and agree. Then EVERYONE could have disarmed together. Then there would have been no war, no invasions, etc.

Germany DID disarm after WW1 and in agreement with its commitment to the Treaty if Versailles which stated that ALL signatories to the treaty would disarm. But Britain France and the US did not keep to that commitment. They actuall reneged on it and increased their navies, armament productions, etc.

What people tend to forget now is that after the huge death tolls in WW1, the vast majority of people realised that with the increased mechanisation of weapons-of-war, we had become in increased danger of being capable of wiping out whole civilisations if we didn't get a grip.
The death tolls of the Napoleaonic wars were horrendous enough because of the improvements in weaponry such as muskets and canons. WW1 took all that to a vastly more deadly level PLUS now with the addition of an aerial bombardment capability for attacking cities and civilian populations.
That is why people at the time called WW1 'the war to end ALL wars'.
Because ordinary people who had to actually do the killing and the being killed (or were related to them) had become more educated, more aware and less inclined to do the bidding of an aristocratic elite that was screwing them over. They were saying 'never again'. That is partly why there was a revolution in Russia and an increasing interest across Europe in different systems of government and ways to achieve economic parity.

Hitler was a revolutionary who offered a unity of his people but in a way that wasn't based on communism or Marxism, yet was still much fairer than the aristocratic capitalist systems of before. Look how in a short time he eliminated the unemployment and inflation of the 1920's. Before Hitler came to power, 7 million Germans were unemployed and over 6 million only partially employed. From 1929 to 1933, Germany had 250,000 deaths by suicide because of the poverty and depression and hopelessness of the German situation and almost civil-war anarchy.
Hitler took Germany out of the international gold standard and created a modern succesful independent economy with an infrastructure (autobahns and cheap cars for the people volks wagen) that was the envy of the rest of the world who were still struggling with the after effects of the great American-caused economic depression.
From 1933 to 1937, he made Germany virtually self-sufficient in the production of steel, aluminum, chemicals, petroleum and general industrial production.
That this was linked to a repugnant racial policy based on the current popular eugenics paradigm looks bad to us now. But at the time such thinking was largely accepted across the white-man's suprmacist colonialist world. What was not universally accepted was Hitler applying it to white-man Jewry.
Roosevelt and Churchill had equally as repugnant and already murderous racial white-supremacist policies. They just didn't direct their racist policies at white people who considered themselves 'Jews'.
As the majority of the German's saw it at the time, by the expulsion of Jewish elites from their disproportional control of German banking, media, commerce, industry and the arts, Hitler was casting out the money-changers from the temple. (And these similar elites today do not want people to relate to that, and thus the historical distortion, deciet and demonisation - so long after the events - is considered necessary and is therefore still continuing).

Amidst all that, Germany had kept its agreement to disarm, and Hitler on coming to power offered to maintain that ON CONDITION that the rest of Europe kept their commitment to also do likewise.

THAT is the background to these peace proposals that we don't get taught and which we don't teach our children.

On May 17th 1933 he had said publically and officially:
"Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness.
...Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention.
...Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security."

On December 18th 1933, he proposed the following six points:
1. Germany receives full equality of rights.

2. The fully armed States undertake amongst themselves not to increase their armaments beyond their present level.

3. Germany adheres to this agreement, freely undertaking to make only so much actual moderate use of the equality of rights granted to her as will not represent a threat to the security of any other European power.

4. All States recognize certain obligations in regard to conducting war on humane principles, or to the elimination of certain weapons for use against the civilian population.

5. All States accept a uniform general control which will watch over and ensure the observance of these obligations.

6. The European nations guarantee one another the unconditional maintenance of peace by the conclusion of non-aggression pacts, to be renewed after ten years.
We only have to read the history from the 'loser's' point of view, impartially and critically, and it becomes clear who has actually been lying. http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... wwr00.html

But this would entail actually considering an alternative understanding to the one we have all been conditioned with.
Ah, there's the rub...
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Posts: 1972
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Statistical Mechanic »

The Nobel Peace Prize for giving long-winded speeches? Really. The Nobel Peace Prize awarded on the basis of dubious tu quoque logic? Well, you might want to check the sales figures of Volkswagen GmbH before you go making too much of the "People's Car." Anyway:
been-there wrote:Now, who had really been lying? And who telling the truth? . . . So c'mon. Think it through for yourself. Who had really been the most honest to its populations? . . . .
But this would entail actually considering an alternative understanding to the one we have all been conditioned with.
Ah, there's the rub...
Here's another rub, which is to the point of this forum:
Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth and this the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!
Hitler in the Reichstag, 30 January 1941
In my speech before the Reichstag on the first of September 1939, I spoke of two matters: first, since we are forced into war, neither the threat of weapons nor a period of transition shall conquer us; second, if world Jewry launches another war in order to destroy the Aryan nations of Europe, it will not be the Aryan nations that will be destroyed, but the Jews...Once the Germans Jews laughed at my prophecy. I do not know whether they are still laughing, or whether they are laughing on the other side of their faces. I can simply repeat — they will stop laughing altogether, and I will fulfill my prophecy in this field too.
Hitler in the Reichstag, 30 September 1942

The Nobel Peace Prize for annihilating Europe's Jews in the name of bringing the German people together? Not so much.
"the Germans had ample justifiable cause to oppose a minority within their society who worked AGAINST their county's interests" -- been-there, 24 April 2014

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
been-there wrote:Now, who had really been lying? And who telling the truth? . . . So c'mon. Think it through for yourself. Who had really been the most honest to its populations? . . . .
But this would entail actually considering an alternative understanding to the one we have all been conditioned with.
Ah, there's the rub...
Here's another rub, which is to the point of this forum:
Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth and this the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!
Hitler in the Reichstag, 30 January 1941
In my speech before the Reichstag on the first of September 1939, I spoke of two matters: first, since we are forced into war, neither the threat of weapons nor a period of transition shall conquer us; second, if world Jewry launches another war in order to destroy the Aryan nations of Europe, it will not be the Aryan nations that will be destroyed, but the Jews...Once the Germans Jews laughed at my prophecy. I do not know whether they are still laughing, or whether they are laughing on the other side of their faces. I can simply repeat — they will stop laughing altogether, and I will fulfill my prophecy in this field too.
Hitler in the Reichstag, 30 September 1942

The Nobel Peace Prize for annihilating Europe's Jews in the name of bringing the German people together? Not so much.
But he didn't annhilate Europe's Jews, did he? They are still here aren't they. Try to let some reality get in the way of your rhetoric, it helps keep it more accurate.
And consider that despite all Adolf's peace overtures, a Jewish International elite did force a war on Europe, just as was apparently admitted by Neville Chamberlain to Joe Kenndey. (And Neville should have known, right?)
And even after Hiltler had won that war, in 1940 (Poland and France defeated and occupied; Britain defeated and almost bankrupt; Soviet Union in a non-aggression pact; US not involved and Roosevelt elected on a promise to keep the US out of the war) Hitler STILL offered a peace treaty, with a withdrawal of his troops, a plebiscite on Poland, etc., etc., etc.

What have you got to rebutt this mass of evidence of the sincerity of his proposals and of the Allied leaders believeing his sincerity and worried that their populations would want to accept them? What have you got to refute this evidence that they decided to lie about the details of it, didn't release the details of his offer into the public arena, imprisoned Hess the bearer of the final offer for the rest of his life, and then murdered him when his release seemed immanent with the emergence of Gorbachov's glasnost? What have you got? Just that Hitler wasn't serious, or was lying?! :roll:

So who really was lying, and who had something to cover up?
We need to think about it afresh, not just repeat unthinkingly what we have been conditioned with since childhood.

Just imagine how it COULD have been:
Hess and Hitler could have got a Nobel Peace prize, war would have been avoided, we could have had a fairer European common market that was not controlled by the Rothschild International banking system; and the European Jews would never have been in the situation that they came to be in in 1942. Those that wanted it could have had their own state in Madagascar or somewhere where they would have been free of persecution.
Japan would never have been nuked. The Soviets would never have been able to take over most of East Europe, no cold war against the spread of communism, no Korean war against the spread of communism, no Vietnam war against the spread of communism, no western-sanctioned democide of about a million people in the 1960's in Indonesia to stop the spread of communism, etc., etc., etc.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:Rudolf Hess carried with him a fantastic peace offer to Britain in May of 1941. The following link gives much of the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/1033 ... -USSR.html

There appears to be some unwillingness to make all of the evidence public. Can anyone guess why?
If the evidence stands, and I think it will because there was supporting evidence already at the time of the flight, it makes perfectly clear that the western Allies really were the "Bad Guys." Both Hitler and Hess should have received Nobel Peace Prizes. Hess proved with his own physical presence in Britain that Germany was absolutely sincere in its oft-repeated claims to wanting to end the war with Britain--and at no cost to Britain. Hitler's role in the peace offer is proved by the document Hess carried. For his Christ-like act, Hess was rewarded, not with a Nobel Peace Prize which he certainly deserved more than anyone else in human history--but with life imprisonment and finally his own murder in prison by a British agent.
So, after Hess' flight, what was left for Britain to fight Germany over? I think Britain and the US were possessed by racist insanity--driven by Jews--to destroy the German people once and for all. It was perfectly OK when God did it in the Old Testament to people the Hebrews wanted to destroy. The British and later American bombing and strafing of totally innocent German civilians served that same monstrous purpose perfectly.

The "Bad Guys" really were the Allies! The "Good Guys"were the Germans including the Nazis, and especially the SS.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
In the case of Hess the official files in the British National Archive have been extensively "WEEDED":
e.g. the inventory of his possessions when apprehended in Scotland is now missing; the last page or pages of the MI5 report is/are missing.
There is incontrovertable evidence that Rudolf Hess brought with him documents.
These documents are missing from any files.
This is proof of official concealment. This much is undeniable fact.
What is being concealed is therefore open to conjecture.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Duke Umeroffen
Posts: 5785
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Duke Umeroffen »

Statistical Mechanic wrote:If Hitler said it, it must be true?
"I have no more territorial claims."

That is all.

Sure it must be true. Hitler, man, where do I begin in this mostly forgotten den of Hitler kissers? I'll say one thing Mack, his reputation betokens so much trustworthiness...I'm sure an erudite fellow like you (as opposed to a whooping nutty loon,) not that there are any here of course, could dredge up innumerable examples where Hitler said one thing and then did another.

But that would just encourage the posting of yet more of this "Adolf my unsung hero," stuff I fear and the conspiratorial. That too.
Viking; North Utsire; South Utsire; Forties; Cromarty; ; Firth; Tyne; Dogger. Fisher; German Bight; Humber; Thames *; Dover;

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

September 26, 1938.
"...I am grateful to Mr Chamberlain for all his efforts. I have assured him that the German people desires nothing else than peace, but I have also told him that I cannot go back behind the limits set to our patience. I have further assured him, and I repeat it here, that when this problem is solved there is for Germany no further territorial problem in Europe. And I have further assured him that at the moment when Czechoslovakia solves her problems, that means when the Czechs have come to terms with their other minorities, and that peaceably and not through oppression, then I have no further interest in the Czech state. And that is guaranteed to him! We want no Czechs! But in the same way I desire to state before the German people that with regard to the problem of the Sudeten Germans my patience is now at an end! I have made Mr Benes an offer which is nothing but the carrying into effect of what he himself has promised. The decision now lies in his hands: Peace or War! He will either accept this offer and now at last give to the Germans their freedom or we will go and fetch this freedom for ourselves."
--Hitler in Berlin in 1938"
General Ismay, Chamberlain’s military adviser wrote:"From the military point of view time is in our favour. If war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in six to twelve months time, than to accept the present challenge."
--Chamberlain’s military advisers, 1938
Chamberlain wrote:I had a very friendly and pleasant talk. At the end I pulled out the declaration, which I had prepared beforehand and asked if if he would sign it. As the interpreter translated the words into German, Hitler frequently said 'Ja, Ja' and at the end said 'Yes, I will certainly sign it: when shall we do it?' I said 'Now'.
-- Neville Chamberlain in a letter to his sisters, October 1938
Dr. Paul Schmidt wrote: "Hitler listened absent-mindedly to Chamberlain's remarks, contributing little to the conversation. Towards the end, Chamberlain drew the famous Anglo-German Declaration from his pocket. Slowly, empahasising each word, I translated this statement to Hitler. I do not share Chamberlain's impression in a private letter now published, that Hitler eagerly assented to this declaration. My own feeling was that he agreed to the wording with a certain reluctance, and I believe he added his signature only to please Chamberlain, without himself promising too much from the effects of the declaration."
--Hitler's translator, Dr. Paul Schmidt, 1951
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests