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).
User avatar
Blogbuster
Posts: 2959
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Blogbuster »

Cerdic wrote:Charles
Poland – This was a territorial dispute between Germany and Poland which could have been settled peacefully had Britain and America not been interfering behind the scenes
It could have been "settled peacefully" if Germany hadn't a) demanded the Polish land or League of Nations [under partial Polish sovereignty] land and b) aggressively invaded Poland and occupied the whole country and c) not left Poland very untrusting of any German promises after the Czechoslovakia affair.

You claim we "betrayed" Poland. As for 1939, it took a while to make a plan of attack, but the Germans took Poland so quickly we had no means to fight back. As for 1945, we had very little choice here. The Soviets were already occupying the whole of Eastern Europe and we couldn't afford another war after we were all worn out. These "betrayals" were unintentional, while the Germans' and Soviets' slaughter of 6 million Poles (perhaps more?)

But this is what I expect from apologists for German aggression. Germany had the right to use aggression (threatened or real) against any other country, and these countries HAD to trust everything Germany promised despite the dozens of treaties torn up.

Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Greece, Denmark - its true that these countries may have come under Allied occupation at some point if Germans hadn't invaded, but what is the concept of neutral countries for? Additionally, there is documentation that the Nazis were planning to invade these countries before any similar British plans emerged: See Nazi conspiracy and aggression.

Yugoslavia - Not aware of any Allied plans to invade this country.

I'm not even getting into the usual neo-Nazi claim that the Nazis saved Europe from the Soviets. I dont believe in Surovov's theory, and even if it is true, there is no way that the Soviets would have gotten anywhere. Look at Finland 1939/40.
Like I said, the way they give out Nobel Peace prizes, even Jack the Ripper qualifies.
Blogbuster

Get the facts about the strange phenomenon of Holocaust hate blogging!
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=667

http://hateblogwatch.nazihunter.net/forum


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: 9219
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Cerdic, you are obviously an honest and decent chap.
Please accept that I am not an "apologist for German aggression" nor a "neo-Nazi". (Str.Man +Ad.Hom)

I ask you to consider that there may be some considerable hypocrisy that you, a Britisher – knowing the history of Britain - could write: "apologists for German aggression: Germany had the right to use aggression (threatened or real) against any other country, and these countries HAD to trust everything Germany promised despite the dozens of treaties torn up."

Can you try and consider it from a non-British perspective?
I.e. why should Germany have accepted British right to use aggression (threatened or real) against other countries, and why did these countries HAVE to trust everything Britain promised despite broken treaties by the British?"

Do you not accept that it was the Allies who refused to honour their Versailles Treaty promises to mutually disarm – despite German compliance – and who actually increased their armnaments. Check it out if you doubt this.

Those who don't allow an ongoing injustice to be resolved by peaceful means,
invite an attempt at resolution seeking justice by violence. (Ask any USA cop) ;)

It was actually almost the opposite to what you wrote: i.e. the rest of the world having to accept British aggression for a few centuries. Which becomes clear when we take a little longer view of history. (Heard of "Gunboat diplomacy"?)

Image

I DO understand where you are coming from... for I have been-there.
But in August 2011 I suddenly saw a pattern:

1. That underneath all the victor's propaganda, the wars of my grandfathers and my parents generation were actually chiefly fought to protect empire and maintain power and control over foreign colonies and world resources. (In other words they were not chiefly to defend weak countries against the designs of 'evil' men.)

2. That though the more recent military struggles in my own lifetime have been supposedly against the spread of communism (e.g. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Latin America) they have been more about maintaining control of world resources and our European/American access to them.

3. This has become most clear in the struggle to maintain control over the Middle eastern oil fields with the new threat now being presented to us as being chiefly against the alleged spread of what we call 'radical Islam' (e.g. our recent involvement in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan again, Lebanon, then Libya, plus with the recent constant pimping in the media for aggression against Iran and Syria).

War and European (British) Imperialistic pursuits.
I've been brought up on the idea that we, the 'good guys' had to combat
1. the spread of Facism,
then 2. the spread of Communist world conquest
and now 3. the spread of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
But in reality it seems to me now that the elephant in the room has always been that at the back of all this is the preceding two centuries of 4. the spread of European Imperialism (coupled with a fear of 'people power' and revolution).

Image

I hadn't understood before that it was European Imperialism that has been behind most of the European and World wars of the last two centuries. The penny dropped when in my fifty-fourth sojourn around the sun I finally learnt the cause of what in Britain are called 'the Napoleonic wars': they were started by a.) a British attempt to steal French colonies during the French revolution and b.) when that failed, the desire to crush Napoleon out of fear his success in thwarting us might be a spark for revolution across Europe.

The basic thinking in Britain that its populations have been indoctrinated with (and which I think I am increasingly beginning to understand more correctly), appears to me to have been that the British themselves can rightfully invade and control other countries as they are intrinsically good and their motives are always noble and benign or at worse pragmatic, yet if any country attempts to compete or subvert or oppose their power then they became an enemy who British propaganda machines will declare were/are threatening you.
Napoleon, Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Hitler, Stalin, Brezhnev, (the Soviet Union), Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and now Ahamdinejad and even Ghaddafi and Assad all fit into this category.

E.g. Consider this.
Q: What does the victor's propaganda tell us the biggest baddest bogeyman of recent history, MR. H did that was initially so bad?
A: Why, he started a huge war by invading other countries without provocation, didn't he. And at Nuremberg we set new standards of civilisation in declaring that starting an unprovoked conflict by invading was against international law, right?
What we don't hear was that there was no international law against that in 1939 (i.e its ironically unlawful to apply laws retroactively) and anyway Britain and France had been doing exactly that for two hundred years.
Plus Russia ALSO had invaded Finland AND Poland AND Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1939 yet they were sitting in the Judges seat at Nuremberg!? :-o
(How often do we hear about Britain planing an invasion of neutral Norway in 1940 to secure its Iron ore (but the Germans guessing this pre-empted it) and illegally invading neutral Iran in 1941 to control its oil?)

So Germany didn't really "start a huge war". What it did initially was took back some lands that had been German for centuries (and which still had predominantly German speaking peoples) that we had taken from them as spoils of war after WW1. Naughty, naughty! Admittedly Hitler then made agreements he didn't intend to keep regarding reclaiming more than just old German territory. But even so it WAS Britain and France who declared war, not Hitler.

Think about it: we are taught that we HAD to go to war to protect Poland from evil Herr Hitler and the Germans, but then we gave it Stalin and the Soviets once the war was over.

So what was all that about? :-0
Churchill himself admitted that his main aim in opposing German rearmament in the years PRECEDING WW2 and his push to declare war and stop Hitler was to protect the British Empire. Yet still we are all taught and most believe that 'evil' Mr. H caused that war all on his own!?

But... To go back to where the penny dropped... Napoleon.
Image

The Napoleonic Wars
The rise of Napoleon in the French Army was through the battles he fought in a struggle for power and empire started largely by the British (they had attempted to utilise the chaos resulting from the French Revolution to take over the French Colonies).
What are now called the Napoleonic wars were born out of neighbouring European countries to France wishing to contain Napoleon due to a fear of Revolution and the resultant demise of European Aristocracy and monarchy that Napoleon's rise to power represented. What we are taught was maintaining 'the balance of power'.
Summary: Though the economic origins are obviously complex, basically they started as a continuation of the Anglo-French contest fought to control the peoples and resources of what we call 'the third world' and then spread into a wider conflict due to an aristocratic fear of the European people being inspired to revolution by the examples of France and America.
I.e. Imperialism and a monarchic fear of revolution.
British attitude: We Britain are allowed to invade, occupy and control other countries and can rightfully fight to keep them. Any foreign territories you other European states have invaded and occupied you can keep if you play according to our rules. Removing European monarchies and overturning aristocracies is not allowed under these rules.

The First World War
Basically it again came out of the continued competition to keep and further increase empire. Rivalries among the great European powers were exacerbated starting in the 1880s by the scramble for colonies which brought much of Africa and Asia under European control. Britain and France accumulated great wealth in the late 19th century through their control of trade in foreign resources, markets, territories, and people. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia all wanted to do likewise. But their ambitions were frustrated by British policies of strategic exclusion and control of sea routes which created tensions.
The existent loose web of alliances between these 'powers' were utilised in a struggle for power and control by all parties. During the resulting war, revolution was latent amongst disillusioned troops and so was feared by those in power who were running the war. Yet each side encouraged it in the opposing alliances in order to help defeat their adversaries. The Germans did so successfully in Russia thus nullifying its alliance with France and Britain via the Russian Revolution of 1917. (E.g. Lenin was protected by two German bodyguards on his return from exile from Zurich to Russia through Germany).
Summary: these wars came as a result of continued European imperialism. And though all European states feared it at home, instigating and supporting revolution to destabilise opposing countries was used as a weapon of war. (Remember that when you look at the news of what is happening in the Middle east - e.g. Iran and Syria and what has just happened in Libya. I.e. deliberate clandestine instigation and open support of destabilising forces within foreign sovereign countries to promote revolution/regime change.)
British attitude: We were allowed to invade, occupy and control other countries and can still rightfully fight to keep them. Any countries you have invaded and occupied you can still keep if you play according to our rules. The question of who is allowed to expand empire by occupying and controlling countries and territories now creates problems that we will deal with as and when they occur and as we see fit. If you as a country oppose us we will instigate disruptive situations to undermine your social fabric in order to promote revolution and support regime change.

Image

The Second World War
The conclusion of WW1 was a dividing up of German territory and its Imperial colonies amongst the 'winners' (the Treaty of Versailles) . Germany lost land to Lithuania, France, Poland, and Denmark. The second world war came out of the German effort to revoke the Treaty of Versailles, reoccupy its lost territoriy in Europe, restore its position of strategic power and reclaim some of its colonies (empire).
Simultaneously other emerging 'powers' wanted to get in on the act of empire building. Japan invaded and occupied China for its resources. Italy under Mussolini invaded and occupied Abyssinia, Albania, Ethiopia, Greece and Libya.
Summary: Victor's propaganda is that Hitler single-handely started the war by invading other countries which everyone agrees is a dastardly act, even though Britain had been doing that for centuries. The reality is that it was more of a tango to war and not a solo effort by one dancer.
British attitude: Continued European imperialism is OK when we practice it against perceived inferior races. Its not Ok within Europe against causcasian countries. We are ALL (except GermanY) still allowed to keep control over countries we have previously invaded, occupied and can rightfully fight to keep them. Germany specifically is not allowed to invade and occupy anyone even if the territory is inhabited by Germans and was German territory two decades ago.


In the light of this re-evaluation of history I am more and more inclined to feel sympathy for the people in Middle-eastern, North African, Asian and Latin American countries who resent our interference in their affairs, and who have become increasingly radicalised by our control over their resources via our support for undemocratic leaders and our clandestine destabilisation of their governments if they elect people we don't approve of.
Last edited by been-there on Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:19 pm, 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
Blogbuster
Posts: 2959
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Blogbuster »

How does the Allied behaviour at versaille and after, hence qualify Hitler for a peace prize? That's what I'm confused about?
Blogbuster

Get the facts about the strange phenomenon of Holocaust hate blogging!
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=667

http://hateblogwatch.nazihunter.net/forum

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9219
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Blogbuster wrote:How does the Allied behaviour at versaille and after, hence qualify Hitler for a peace prize? That's what I'm confused about?
You will need to try and consider it from a more neutral perspective.
Britain and America had greater responsibilty for causing World War 1,
Despite Britain and France nearly losing, they then forced Germany to agree on Armistice (despite it not 'losing' the war) via applying economic pressure from America and a clique of powerful International Jews.
They then unjustly blamed and punished Germany alone for the war.
Then stole its colonies.
Then promised to disarm if Germany did, blockaded the country causing many thousands of deaths and hardship till it complied, then broke its agreement and rearmed.

Despite all this – and the American caused 'Great Depression' – Germany came out of an almost civil-war situation through the unifying force of National Socialism to become an extremely strong, co-ordinated, united, modern, productive nation who sought to regain its former territories and reunite all its German speaking expatriates: in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. Lebensraum wasn't a NSDAP invention. All those European borders had been in a state of flux for centuries.

So if you accept that picture of recent history, the declaration of War was NOT a German crime. Danzig was NOT Polish, it WAS German. War had been forced upon Germany who didn't want it, TWICE, but it wanted its territories back and to be treated equally with the victors of WW1. Germany also feared the spread of communism, as did all those in power in Europe.

So, try starting looking at what Hitler then did from that understanding.

Despite his offers over Poland/Danzig and the 'corridor' to East Prussia, the 'Allies' refused and declared war and lost.
Poland fell and was occupied.
France fell and was occupied.
Britain lost at Dunkirk and its army allowed to escape.

What did he do next?
Hitler sought peace.
He offered to vacate France, return most all non-German occupied territory, let Britain keep its colonies, allow a plebiscite in Poland, etc., etc.
He even sends his Deputy and Vice-Führer to personally negotiate a mutually agreeable peace deal.

That's why if PEACE had been ACCEPTED he would have deserved it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hitler made several official peace offers to Britain, most notably in September 1939, October 1939, July 1940 (after the fall of France), January 1941, etc.

References: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411003bwp.html

German General Blumentritt stated that Hitler allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk:
"He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but “where there is planing, there are shavings flying.” He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church — saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere."
Reference: Barnes, Harry Elmer, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 162
During the Blitzkrieg, it was also noted:
The Germans contacted the British embassador in Sweden during the invasion of France - Victor Mallet, through Sweden´s Supreme Court judge Ekeberg, who was known to Hitler´s legal advisor, Ludwig Weissauer.

"Hitler, according to his emissary [Weissauer], feels himself responsible for the future of the White race. He sincerely wishes friendship with England. He wishes peace to be restored, but the ground must be prepared for it: only after careful preparation may official negotiations begin. Until then the condition must be considered that discussions be unofficial and secret. [...]

Hitler´s basic ideas [are that] today´s economic problems are different from those of the past [...] In order to achieve economic progress one must calculate on the basis of big territories and consider them an economic unit. Napoleon tried, but in his days it wasnt possible because France wasnt in the center of Europe and communications were too hard. Now Germany is in the center of Europe and has the necessary means to provide communication and transportation services.

England and America now have the best fleets and will naturally continue to, because they will need the oceans for their supply. Germany has the continent. In what concerns Russia, Weissauer has given the impression that it should be seen as a potential enemy. "
According to Mallet, these were Hitler´s peace terms:

"1-The British Empire retains all its Colonies and delegations
2- Germany´s continental supremacy won't be questioned
3- All questions concerning the Mediterranean and its French, Belgian and Dutch colonies are open to discussion
4- Poland. A Polish state must exist
5- Checkoslovakia must belong to Germany

Weissauer didn´t go into details, but Ekeberg understood that implied that all European states occupied by Germany would see their sovereignty restored. Germany´s occupation was only due to the present military situation.
Reference: The Hitler Hess Deception by Martin Allen

German General Blumentritt’s statement (shown above) is not the only notice about Hitler’s hope of peace and friendship with England. The renowned Swedish Explorer Sven Hedin observed Hitler’s confusion about Britain’s refusal to accept his peace offers:
Hitler “felt he had repeatedly extended the hand of peace and friendship to the British, and each time they had blacked his eye in reply.” Hitler said, “The survival of the British Empire is in Germany’s interests too because if Britain loses India, we gain nothing thereby.”
Reference: Irving, David, Hitler’s War, paperback edition, Avon History, 236.
For 20 years Hitler had dreamed of an alliance with Britain.
As Hitler told Maj. Quisling on August 18, 1940: “After making one proposal after another to the British on the reorganization of Europe, I now find myself forced against my will to fight this war against Britain....”
Reference: Irving, op. cit., 236.
Hitler tried to remain as civil in war as possible towards Britain, that is before the British bombing of civilian targets.
"Hitler had given orders that no British towns were to be bombed and, above all, bombing of London was completely forbidden and embargoed."
Reference: Theodore J. O'Keefe. Irving on Churchill. Institute for Historical Review. Date: Spring 1986. Issue:Volume 7 number 4. Location: Page 498 ISSN: 0195-6752 http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html
Hitler stayed the hand of the Luftwaffe and forbade any attack on London under pain of court-martial; the all-out saturation bombing of London, which his strategic advisers Raeder, Jodl, and Jeschonnek all urged upon him, was vetoed. Though his staffs were instructed to examine every peripheral British position—Gibraltar, Egypt, the Suez Canal—for its vulnerability to attack, the heart of the British Empire was allowed to beat on. In these months an adjutant overheard Hitler heatedly shouting into a Chancellery telephone:
“We have no business to be destroying Britain. We are quite incapable of taking up her legacy,” meaning the empire; and he spoke of the “devastating consequences of the collapse of that empire."
Reference: Irving, op. cit., 236.
More:
Hitler offered total cessation of the war in the West. Germany would evacuate all of France except Alsace and Lorraine, which would remain German. It would evacuate Holland and Belgium, retaining Luxembourg. It would evacuate Norway and Denmark. In short, Hitler offered to withdraw from Western Europe, except for the two French provinces and Luxembourg [Luxembourg was never a French province, but an independent state of ethnically German origin], in return for which Great Britain would agree to assume an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards Germany as it unfolded its plans in Eastern Europe. In addition, the Führer was ready to withdraw from Yugoslavia and Greece. German troops would be evacuated from the Mediterranean generally and Hitler would use his good offices to arrange a settlement of the Mediterranean conflict between Britain and Italy. No belligerent or neutral country would be entitled to demand reparations from any other country, he specified.

The proposal contained many other points, including plans for plebiscites and population exchanges where these might be necessitated by shifts in population that has resulted from the military action in Western Europe and the Balkans. But the versions circulating in authoritative circles all agree on the basic points outlined above.
Reference: Mark Weber. The Inside Story of the Hess Flight. Institute for Historical Review. Issue:Volume 3 number 3. Location: Page 291 http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p291_Anon.html
In January 1941, Hitler was making extraordinary efforts to come to peace terms with England, undoubtedly in preparation for war with Russia. He offered, if Britain would assume an attitude of neutrality, to withdraw from all of France, to leave Holland and Belgium . . . to evacuate Norway and Denmark, and to support British and French industries by buying their products. His proposal had many other favorable points for England and Western Europe.
Reference: McLaughlin,op cit., 10.
In a January 1, 1944, letter to Stalin, Churchill said:
“We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?”
Reference: Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3.
There are some more interesting points made about WWII in this article:

Was WWII Worth It? For Stalin, yes
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=5899
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in. If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe. Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead? The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism.
--Patrick J Buchanan
Last edited by been-there on Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:24 pm, 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
Blogbuster
Posts: 2959
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Blogbuster »

Been There, I accept your points about the Allies and Germany around the first World War.
However there was peace prior to the Gleiwitz episode. Hitler's entire lebensraum was based upon invasion of the east countries.

This was an expansionist plan meant to come at the expense of the Slavic peoples. Just because he sued for peace with the Western powers to avoid a two-front war, does not make him or his ideology (well outlined in Mein Kampf) in way peaceful or proliferating. C'mon you are really stretching it now.
Blogbuster

Get the facts about the strange phenomenon of Holocaust hate blogging!
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=667

http://hateblogwatch.nazihunter.net/forum

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9219
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Blogbuster wrote:Been There, I accept your points about the Allies and Germany around the first World War.
However there was peace prior to the Gleiwitz episode. Hitler's entire lebensraum was based upon invasion of the east countries.
This was an expansionist plan meant to come at the expense of the Slavic peoples. Just because he sued for peace with the Western powers to avoid a two-front war, does not make him or his ideology (well outlined in Mein Kampf) in way peaceful or proliferating. C'mon you are really stretching it now.
Ok. I know and accept that that is the currently accepted consensus view.
But can you document that assertion with verifiable, reliable references?
And can you refute any of the specific points (with references) I have made?
Hitler DID make repeated peace proposals. And the essential details of them and the documents are still kept secret. Think about why that might be, for a moment...

I have already supplied a reference to Smuts' TOP SECRET reply to Churchill. This was around the time of Hitler looking for a cessation of the War that he DID NOT want. A war that he then went on to win very quickly and easily with comparitively little loss of life or civilian destruction. A war which he then offered to end but still giving back all his war conquests, for peace with his antagonists and a proposal for a fairer new Europe not controlled by greedy capitalists but united against the perceived threat of Communist expansion.
That 'fairer new Europe' was what scared Churchill, Smuts and their aristocratic capitalist ilk so much: a new fairer, socialist European Union with a strong Germany and without tariff walls and economic barriers.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Blogbuster
Posts: 2959
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Blogbuster »

been-there wrote:
Blogbuster wrote:Been There, I accept your points about the Allies and Germany around the first World War.
However there was peace prior to the Gleiwitz episode. Hitler's entire lebensraum was based upon invasion of the east countries.
This was an expansionist plan meant to come at the expense of the Slavic peoples. Just because he sued for peace with the Western powers to avoid a two-front war, does not make him or his ideology (well outlined in Mein Kampf) in way peaceful or proliferating. C'mon you are really stretching it now.
Ok. I know and accept that that is the currently accepted consensus view.
But can you document that assertion with verifiable, reliable references?
And can you refute any of the specific points (with references) I have made?
Hitler DID make repeated peace proposals. And the essential details of them and the documents are still kept secret. Think about why that might be, for a moment...

I have already supplied a reference to Smuts' TOP SECRET reply to Churchill. This was around the time of Hitler looking for a cessation of the War that he DID NOT want. A war that he then went on to win very quickly and easily with comparitively little loss of life or civilian destruction. A war which he then offered to end but still giving back all his war conquests, for peace with his antagonists and a proposal for a fairer new Europe not controlled by greedy capitalists but united against the perceived threat of Communist expansion.
That 'fairer new Europe' was what scared Churchill, Smuts and their aristocratic capitalist ilk so much: a new fairer, socialist European Union with a strong Germany and without tariff walls and economic barriers.

I don't doubt for a second that Hitler made all sorts of outreaches, or that the Brits secretly had their own plans for aggressive expansionism. What I am saying is that Hitler and the Nazi Party ideals were based upon domination at the expense of the east and this is documented in Hitlers own books. He wrote, then he did it.

The list of Nobel Peace Price recipients can be found here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... index.html

The intent of the prize was for people who advocated peaceful interactions with all other countries, races, and cultures. Those who active sought conflict resolution etc.

Hitlers peace outreach to the west was purely political, just as his treaty was with the Russians. (we saw how that ended up)
Blogbuster

Get the facts about the strange phenomenon of Holocaust hate blogging!
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=667

http://hateblogwatch.nazihunter.net/forum

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9219
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Blogbuster wrote:I don't doubt for a second that Hitler made all sorts of outreaches, or that the Brits secretly had their own plans for aggressive expansionism. What I am saying is that Hitler and the Nazi Party ideals were based upon domination at the expense of the east and this is documented in Hitler's own books. He wrote it, then he did it.
This is the version of history the victor's have written, I agree. But how accurate is it really?
This is why I requested verifiable, reliable references supporting it. I have never read 'Mein kampf'. Have you?
And if you admit Brits had there own aggressive expansionist plans, why demonise Adolf for the same thing? :?:
Blogbuster wrote:The intent of the prize was for people who advocated peaceful interactions with all other countries, races, and cultures. Those who active sought conflict resolution etc. Hitler's peace outreach to the west was purely political, just as his treaty was with the Russians. (we saw how that ended up)
We saw how that ended up, yes. With the Soviets occupying Czechoslavakia and Poland, the countries whose sovereignty the Allies supposedly went to war to protect but then gave away. Even though they were supposedly considered so important that 50 to 60 million lives and the wastage of so much natural resources and the destruction of so many cities were worth fighting to protect. (And then there was Latvia, Estonia, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc., etc.)

ImageImageImage

The victor version really doesn't add up, except if you cast Adolf as a crazy, psychopathic, mass-murdering, racist monster who had to be stopped at any cost. (Er... which is precisely the picture everyone has been conditioned to accept). If you take that hypocritical and inaccurate caricature out of the frame, then the victor version of history falls apart.
(And the 'holocaust' mythology is the largest part of that demonisation.
Take that away and the picture is completely different, don't you agree?)


Imagine an alternative scenario. War over, peace restored, Polish sovereignty reduced but restored, ethnic Germans repatriated, the Soviet expansion (which occurred because of Allied intransigence) contained. A new paradigm for a fairer more open Europe embarked upon.
Would a war with Stalin have happened in such a scenario? Who knows? (Answer: no-one).
At that time there was a non-aggression pact in place between Germany and Russia. And any Soviet pre-emptive strike' plans would no longer have been so viable. Hitler would have had no need to attack them.
Yes, Germany had been considering eastward lebensraum since the time of Bismark. But that could have been achieved non-violently.
I understood that when Germany did invade and occupy eastern territories some of these 'conquered' peoples were pleased as life under Soviet rule was tough and murderous for many.

Image
E.g. "After facing brutal Soviet occupation, majority of Latvians celebrated Germans as liberators."

So what's left to blame Hitler for? His racist eugenical world-view? Churchill and Roosevelt were no better as has been argued previously. PLease do take a quick look at these links.

The only way to get a really accurate and impartial understanding is to think it through for ourselves after temporarily laying aside our current conditioned and biased view-point.

Image Image
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Blogbuster
Posts: 2959
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Blogbuster »

Been-There, I am not saying the Brits deserve a nobel peace prize. thats the difference.
Blogbuster

Get the facts about the strange phenomenon of Holocaust hate blogging!
http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=667

http://hateblogwatch.nazihunter.net/forum

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9219
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Blogbuster wrote:Been-There, I am not saying the Brits deserve a nobel peace prize. thats the difference.
The Brits declared war.
Adolf won that war.
And he so by quite brilliant blitzkrig tactics with compratively light loss-of-life, and destruction
AND THEN he offered to give back all the newly-conquered non-German territory for a peace that everyone supposedly wanted.

That's the problem.
Winston NEVER wanted peace. He admitted that to Stalin.

That is what I see as the big difference:
Hitler wanted peace, Churchill and his financial backers didn't.

The reasons given for why he didn't want peace are the victor's self-justifications we have all been conditioned to accept uncritically. That is all unravelling now. Though some of us alive now are maybe too old or too well conditioned to be able to impartially re-appraise the actual evidence.

BTW, Blogbuster, you haven't provided a single reference to support of any of your viewpoints yet. ;)
"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: Google [Bot] and 20 guests