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
Cerdic
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:39 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Cerdic »

been-there, I don't have much time for posting right now, sorry, so I'll keep this kinda short.

It is not claimed by historians that Hitler had immediate aggressive plans against Britain. What is clear is he had plans, which go as far back as the 1920 25 NS points and Mein Kampf, to invade other European lands [namely, Poland, the Baltics and Russia].

In later years, he proved himself extremely untrustworthy in his promises and treaties, countless examples of which were broken, and invaded several countries, namely Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland (all before the British declaration of war). If Hitler had proven, even once, that he was trusthworthy, perhaps the UK would have listened.

In 1939, Britain set a very, very clear line, and Germany willingly crossed it via use of force and aggression. Britain gave Germany plenty of chances to stop its expansionist policy and withdraw from the use of force. How far was Britain supposed to allow Germany to go before saying enough is enough?

I do not doubt, at all, that in 1940 Hitler really did want peace with Britain. But why should we agree to be at the mercy of a rogue state, of a man and nation who's chosen weapons were threats, demands, aggression and force?

You also bring up the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, which is something typically done by Nazi apologists, as like that was something the Allies could have predicted at the start of the war and thus proves that the war was pointless. Instead, it looked more likely that the Nazis and Soviets would have ended up as allies rather than enemies - the pact of August 1939 started to make it look that way.

You also ask "What was Hitler left to blame for?". For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume that Hitler's very well documented aggression against other nations never happened, which led to a perfectly rational and judged response by the UK. Lets assume that Jews were not murdered simply for being Jews. Lets forget about all of that. He and his regime was still responsible either directly or indirectly for all the things I listed here, minus the Holocaust.

Did Hitler want peace? In a way, yes. If he could get what he wanted without war, he would. But Hitler was a gambler. He was willing to use force, and (especially with the USSR invasion) take big chances.

You can have all the apologetics you want - but it all comes down to Hitler's naked and unprovoked aggression against other states and his complete disregard for treaties and the law. Simply put, nothing will ever change that no matter how hard Revisionists and Nazi apologists try.

There's a lot more I could correct, but this will do.

Our PM said it all:

I would sum up the attitude of His Majesty's Government as follows Herr Hitler rejected all suggestions for peace until he had overwhelmed Poland, as he had previously overthrown Czechoslovakia. Peace conditions cannot be acceptable which begin by condoning aggression.

The proposals in the German Chancellor's speech are vague and uncertain and contain no suggestion for righting the wrongs done to Czecho-Slovakia and to Poland.

Even if Herr Hitler's proposals were more closely defined and contained suggestions to right these wrongs, it would still be necessary to ask by what practical means the German Government intend to convince the world that aggression will cease and that pledges will be kept. Past experience has shown that no reliance can be placed upon the promises of the present German Government. Accordingly, acts—not words alone— must be forthcoming before we, the British peoples, and France, our gallant and trusted Ally, would be justified in ceasing to wage war to the utmost of our strength. Only when world confidence is restored will it be possible to find—as we would wish to do with the aid of all who show good will—solutions of those questions which disturb the world, which stand in the way of disarmament, retard the restoration of trade and prevent the improvement of the well-being of the peoples.

There is thus a primary condition to be satisfied. Only the German Government can fulfil it. If they will not, there can as yet be no new or better world order of the kind for which all nations yearn.

[Chamberlain. Hansard. House of Commons Debate - British Reply to German Proposals 12 October 1939]

P.S The Treaty of Versailles did NOT blame Germany for the war. This is a common misconception. It blamed the Germans for war damages as a justification for reparations, which were not the same thing. Simmi;liar clauses were contained in the treaties with Austro-Hungary and Turkey IIRC. I could also explain Germany and Austria's overwhelming war guilt for WW1 but that'd make this post even longer and would take us off topic - so read e.g Max Hastings' recent book.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932


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


User avatar
Cerdic
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:39 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Cerdic »

One last thing: This discussion, while lengthy, contains much interesting information. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=189354
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9210
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the essentially unfair character of the Nuremberg proceedings than the treatment of Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment even though he alone of leading figures of the countries involved in the Second World War risked his life in a dangerous but fruitless effort to conclude peace between two of the warring nations.

British historian A.J.P. Taylor once succinctly summed up the injustice of the Hess case and, by implication, of the entire Nuremberg enterprise:
Hess came to this country in 1941 as an ambassador of peace. He came with the ... intention of restoring peace between Great Britain and Germany. He acted in good faith. He fell into our hands and was quite unjustly treated as a prisoner of war. After the war, we should have released him. Instead, the British government of the time delivered him for sentencing to the International Tribunal at Nuremberg ... No crime has ever been proved against Hess ... As far as the records show, he was never at even one of the secret discussions at which Hitler explained his war plans.
"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: 9210
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the essentially unfair character of the Nuremberg proceedings than the treatment of Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment even though he alone of leading figures of the countries involved in the Second World War risked his life in a dangerous but fruitless effort to conclude peace between two of the warring nations.

British historian A.J.P. Taylor once succinctly summed up the injustice of the Hess case and, by implication, of the entire Nuremberg enterprise:
Hess came to this country in 1941 as an ambassador of peace. He came with the ... intention of restoring peace between Great Britain and Germany. He acted in good faith. He fell into our hands and was quite unjustly treated as a prisoner of war. After the war, we should have released him. Instead, the British government of the time delivered him for sentencing to the International Tribunal at Nuremberg ... No crime has ever been proved against Hess ... As far as the records show, he was never at even one of the secret discussions at which Hitler explained his war plans.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
eschoocheschooch
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:13 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by eschoocheschooch »

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.

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!
The document hess was carrying is likely a forgery. Hitler did not sanction Hess' hair brain peace mission to Britain. Hitler disowned him.
"I am on a mission from Judah to enlighten these illuminated types & lucifer told me he wants to bum them"


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9210
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

A mutually destructive war over German Danzig or Polish Gdansk and a corridor to East Prussia?
been-there wrote:
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?

http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... =40#p31003
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
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28806
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by Nessie »

Hess has a memorial at the site where he landed near Eaglesham in Scotland.

Image

http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index. ... HessFlight

EDIT - it may be the case he had that memorial as other sites say it is not there anymore.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9210
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

A correspondence.
On 2 Oct 2015, at 06:33,
K*n wrote:Your sentence "after Britain and France had been defeated...with relatively tiny numbers of deaths and practically no destruction" is incorrect. There were many casualties in Hitlers initial invasions up to and including France. To minimise these thousands of deaths and use the word "tiny" is almost beyond comprehension to me, considering your otherwise erudite and seemingly learned expressions and references.
...All's fair in love and war Chris, you don't seem to understand that.
Dear K*n
Let's be respectful but clear. I haven't and do not “minimise”anyone's death. I will explain what I meant below.
But your last sentence!!! :-0 “All's fair in love and war”????
I myself don't believe that at all. No, no, no!
If that were true what were the Nuremberg show-trials all about?
If that were true why do we still force our kids to take trips to Poland to look at seventy-year old labour camps?
If that were true why do we have internationally applicable war-crime statutes.
No, no. Mass-murder of civilians by deliberately targeting and burning to death, crushing to death, suffocating to death the elderly, woman and children from the air was in my opinion THE GREATEST and cruelest war crime known to mankind. And that was ALLIED policy.

As for my wording "relatively tiny deaths and destruction" let me explain.
By the time of the British and French defeat at Dunkerque and the capitulation of France, a common estimate of German casualties is about 27,074 killed, 111,034 wounded and 18,384 missing. Thats approximately 157,000 military personnel dead and wounded.
Losses on the allied side were higher with an estimated 350,000 military personnel dead and wounded.

So, by this time in July 1940, destruction of cities was minimal. There had been no deliberate destruction of civilian areas, nor of cities as a deliberate terrorisation of civilian populations. Nor were civilians being deliberately targeted. And as a sign of that, there are – as far as I am aware – NO estimated figures for civilian casualties by this stage of the war. Churchill and his adviser Frederick Lindemann were the instigators of the later policy of deliberately targeting civilians. THEY started the carpet-bombing of cities. They escalated the violence to mass murder of non-combatants.
Churchill wrote:"When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power... there is one thing that will bring him [Hitler] back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through."
Memo from Churchill to Minister of Aircraft Production, 8th July 1940.
In July 1940 the deaths and destruction were relatively tiny compared to what came later. That is a statement of verifiable fact. The key word is “relatively”. To understand that you need to compare those figures up to July 1940 with the death toll and destruction that came AFTER Churchill refused all Hitler’s peace overtures.
The war could have been ended then in 1940. To achieve that, Hitler offered to withdraw from all territory occupied during the war declared by the Allies. He even offered to return Polish sovereignty and suggested a plebiscite on Danzig, etc., etc. These peace proposals — which as a last resort were even delivered in person by Rudolf Hess — are still restricted under the UK offical secrets act (which has recently been extended for another 20 years).
Churchill, Lindemann and Anthony Eden rejected these proposals and escalated the war to focus on the deliberate targeting of civilians. Proof of this is now well acknowledged. Evidence of that has been presented to you K*n, and yet has been ignored by you.

By the wars end in 1945 the death tolls were monumental in comparison to those before July 1940.
Total WW2 deaths are in the region of between 55 million to more than 80 million.
The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine.
Civilians killed totalled 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine.
67% of the total WW2 casualties were CIVILIANS (in WW1 it was just 3%).

So we are comparing 55 to 80 million deaths in total PLUS many beautiful, irreplaceable cultural treasures of huge cities totally destroyed, infrastructure destroyed, lives irretreivably shattered, people permanently maimed, children orphaned,women raped, immense suffering and ethnic cleansing on an humonous scale. All that compared to the “relatively tiny” amount of total deaths in 1940 of around 90,000 military deaths??!

Almost ALL those civilian casualties are a result of:
a.) Churchill’s refusal to accept peace terms which his own ambassador to Washington called “generous”;
b.) Churchill’s policy of deliberate targeting of civilians in carpet bombing;
c.) Churchill’s democidal starvation blockade of Europe.

The TOTAL military casualties by the end of WW2 are estimated to be 18,587,000.
Of that figure Britain’s and its commonwealth countries' death casualties were just 452,000 in total.
America’s was just a comparitively small 295,000.
So the leaders of those two countries Britain and America must take responsible for the deaths of so many people, for prolonging the war. Not Hitler who tried to avoid it and end it.

SUMMARY: The largest percentage of destruction and killing came AFTER July 1940 and therefore must be blamed on Churchill.

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
"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: 9210
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Hess and Hitler deserved Nobel Peace Prizes

Post by been-there »

While the theory of Hitler’s diabolism is generally accepted, there are very well informed persons who contend that he brought himself and Germany to ruin by being too soft, generous and honourable rather than too tough and ruthless. They point to the following considerations:
• he [Herr Hitler] made a genuine and liberal peace offer to Britain on August 25, 1939;
• he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace, which later on cost him the war in North Africa;
• he failed to occupy all of France, take North Africa at once, and split the British Empire;
• he lost the Battle of Britain by failing to approve the savagery of military barbarism which played so large a role in the Allied victory;
• he delayed his attack on Russia and offered Molotov lavish concessions in November 1940 to keep peace between Germany and Russia;
• he lost the war with Russia by delaying the invasion in order to bail Mussolini out of his idiotic attack on Greece;
• and he declared war on the United States to keep his pledged word with Japan which had long before made it clear that it deserved no such consideration and loyalty from Hitler.
The Barnes Trilogy, section “Revisionism and Brainwashing,” p.33.
http://justice4germans.com/peace-prize/
Interview after the war of Herman Göring as a PoW
Heckler: Why did Germany declare war on the United States?

Göring: I was astonished when Germany declared war on the United States. We should rather have accepted a certain amount of unpleasant incidents.
It was clear to us that if Roosevelt were re-elected, the U.S. would inevitably make war against us. This conviction was strongly held, especially with Hitler. After Pearl Harbour, although we were not bound under our treaty with Japan to come to its aid since Japan had been the aggressor, Hitler said we were in effect at war already, with ships having been sunk or fired upon, and must soothe the Japanese. For this reason, a step was taken which we always regretted. It was unnecessary for us to accept responsibility for striking the first blow. For the same reason, we had been the butt of propaganda in 1914, when we started to fight, although we knew that within 48 hours Russia would have attacked us. I believe Hitler was convinced that as a result of the Japanese attack, the main brunt of the United States force would be brought to bear on the Far East and would not constitute such a danger for Germany. Although he never expressed it in words, it was perhaps inexpressibly bitter to him that the main force of the United States was in fact turned against Europe.
http://www.historynet.com/lost-prison-i ... ations.htm
Roosevelt’s real policy was revealed when the Germans were able to search through Polish documents and found in the archives in Warsaw “the dispatches of the Polish ambassadors in Washington and Paris which laid bare Roosevelt’s efforts to goad France and Britain into war. In November 1938, William C. Bullitt, his personal friend and ambassador in Paris, had indicated to the Poles that the president’s desire was for “Germany and Russia [to] come to blows, whereupon the democratic nations would attack Germany and force her into submission”; in the spring of 1939, Bullitt quoted Roosevelt as being determined “not to participate in the war from the start, but to be in at the finish.”
-- 'Hitler’s War' by David Irving. p.235
Oliver Lyttelton, wartime British production manager, was undeniably correct when he declared: “America was never truly neutral. There is no doubt where her sympathies were, and it is a travesty on history ever to say that the United States was forced into the war. America provoked the Japanese to such an extent that they were forced to attack.”
-- The Saga of Hog Island, by Martin R. James, p.63.
Hitler told American Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, on March 2nd, 1940
1.) that he had long been in favour of disarmament, but had received no encouragement from England and France;
2.) he was in favour of international free trade;
3.) Germany had no aim other than the return of the “German people to the territorial position that historically was rightly theirs”;
4.) he had no desire to control non-German people and he had no intention to interfere with their independence; and
5.) he wanted the return of the colonies that were stolen from Germany at Versailles.
-- 'Back Door to War, p.577 by Charles Callan Tansill
Sumner Welles' March 2nd 1940 letter to Roosevelt detailing his conversation with Adolf Hitler
“...Hitler is taller than I had judged from his photographs. He has, in real life, none of the somewhat effeminate appearance of which he has been accused. He looked in excellent physical condition and in good trainlng. His colour was good, and while his eyes were tired, they were clear. He was dignified both in speech and movement, and there was not the slightest impression of the comic effect from moustache and hair which one sees in his caricatures.
His voice in conversation is low and well modulated. It had only once, during our hour and a half's conversation, the raucous stridency which is heard in his speeches — and it was only at that moment that his features lost their composure and that his eyes lost their decidedly “gemütlich” look.
He spoke with clarity and precision, and always in a beautiful German, of which I could follow every word.

...The Chancellor then very quietly and moderately outlined his foreign policy during the past seven years.
Hitler emphasised even more strongly than had Herr von Ribbentrop, his desire to reach an amicable and lasting understanding with England. He stressed particularly the naval agreement of 1935 as an indication that Germany, under his Government, had no intention of challenging British naval supremacy nor the security of the British Empire. When he came to the account of the negotiations with Poland which had resulted in the invasion of Poland by Germany in September, he turned to me and said:
“I have never in my life made a more earnest nor a more sincere appeal than I did to the British Ambassador, Sir Neville Henderson, when I sent for him just prior to the break with Poland. He was sitting in the same place where you are now sitting, and I besought him to tell his Government that Germany had no intention of attacking England nor of impairing directly or indirectly British interests, but that Germany could not permit a continued domination by the Western European powers of the smaller States of Eastern Europe, nor the continuation of a state of affairs which resulted in a continuous attack and a continuous threat upon German vital interests.”
The Chancellor then concluded by saying:
“That appeal, like every other approach made to England in seven years, was rejected with derision.”

Hitler then said that I had referred to the problem of limitation and reduction of armaments. Time and again, he said, he had offered England and the other powers of the world the opportunity for a real and practicable reduction of armaments. He had guaranteed... [etc., etc., etc.]

-- Sumner Welles. March 1940.
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/PSF/box6/a72f03.html
Sumner Welles' March 1940 letter to Roosevelt detailing his conversation with Herman Göring and the peace offers Germany had ensured to France prior to the French declaration of War against Germany in 1939
His [Herman Göring's] manner was simple, unaffected and exceedingly cordial, and he spoke with far greater frankness and clarity than any other German official whom I met. We dispensed with the services of the interpreter, except for the translation by Dr. Schmidt into German of what I had to say.

The Field Marshal, after I had once more set forth the nature and purposes of my mission, reiterated the history of German foreign policy during the past seven years along exactly the same lines as those followed by Hitler and Ribbentrop. At one point, however, Göring deviated from the account given by the two others. In discussing the causes of the war against Poland, Göring stated with the utmost precision that at the time Ribbentrop had visited Paris on December 6, 1938, to sign the non-aggression pact between France and Germany, Bonnet, then Foreign Minister, had assured him in the name of the French Government that as a result of the conclusion of the agreements of Munich, France would renounce all interests in Eastern Europe, and specifically that France would refrain from any further influencing of Polish policy. While I had seen, of course, the recently published offlcial declarations of the French and German Governments in regard to this question, I had not before received so precise a statement of the alleged commitments made by Monsieur Bonnet at that time.

I consequently asked the Marshal to repeat this statement, and the Marshal turned to Dr.Schmidt who, it appeared, had been present in Paris at the interview between Monsieur Bonnet and Herr von Ribbentrop when the alleged commitments were made, and Dr. Schmidt related textually what had been said upon that occasion. The exact statement, according to him, whlch Monsieur Bonnet had made, was that France renounced all political interests in Eastern Europe, and specifically agreed not to influence Poland against the conclusion of an agreement with Germany whereby Danzig would return to Germany, and Germany would receive an extra-territorial corridor across the corridor from East Prussia to Greater Germany.

In his statement of German objectives, the Field Marshal was very clear. Germany had renounced forever any ambitions upon Alsace-Lorraine. Germany not only had no desire to impair the integrity of the British Empire; it believed in her own interest that the British Empire should be maintained intact. Germany must retain as an integral part of the German Reich, Austria, the Sudetenland, and all of those portions of Poland inhabited by German peoples. During the war Germany would continue her military occupation of Bohemian-Moravia and of Poland. If peace came, Germany would grant independence to the Czechs, but upon the understanding that they would remain completely demilitarised, so that never again would the Czechs or the Slovaks constitute a threat to Germany's military security in Central Europe. The Polish people who were really Poles would be installed in a free and independent Poland with access to the sea. Germany must regain her colonies. In addition to this, Germany must possess a recognised position of economic preference in Eastern Europe.

From this point the Field Marshal went on and discussed British policy, and the inability of Hitler to reach any form of understanding with England. The Field Marshal said that he knew Hitler so well that he realised that, as a result of so many years of failure in this regard, Hitler had now hardened, and that he doubted whether Hitler could bring himself to believe that there was any way of destroying the British will to destroy Germany, except through military victory. He recounted to me his own conversation with Lord Halifax when the latter visited Gemany two years ago. He told me he had warned him time and again not to encourage Poland and Czechoslovakia to refuse to reach a reasonable and pacific understanding with Germany. He told him that if England persisted in this course, war was inevitable, and that there was no justifiable need of war.

Both the problem of the German minorities in Czechoslovakia, and the Czechoslovak military threat to the military security of Germany, as well as the problem of Danzig and the Corridor in relation to Poland, could have been settled readily if England and France had not refused to permit such a settlement.

The Field Marshal himself had never believed that there was any possible justification for war, and he had done everything within his power to avert it, but England and France had persisted in bringing it about.

...I discussed at some length with the Field Marshal the conversations which my Government had recently undertaken with the neutral powers in order to ascertain whether it was possible to find an agreement in principle upon the problems of the limitation and reduction of armaments and of a sound international trade policy. He said that at the first appropriate opportunity he himself, in a public speech, would indicate Germany's intention to cooperate towards that end.

Insofar as the question of the limitation and reduction of armaments is concerned, Göring made to me very much the same statement as that made to me by Hitler the day before. He said that the armament race was ruining the economy of the entire world, and that no people could stand the strain much longer. He said that time and time again the German Government had offered in all sincerity to participate in any reasonable plan for disarmament, and time and time again her offers had been rejected. If peace came, Germany would enter into any practical plan which would make a real reduction of armaments possible.

Göring reverted to the British war objectives. He said that he was completely convinced that the British and French Governments were determined to destroy the German Regime, to subjugate the German people, and to split Germany into small units under military control. He said, "The English say that that is the way to get a lasting peace, because early in the 19th century, when Germany was a collection of small independent states, with an infinity of customs barriers, the Germans were only a race of musicians and poets. But they have never made a greater mistake. If they succeeded today in carrying out that plan, they would find, not a race of musicians and poets, but a horde of Bolsheviks and Communists."

At the end of our interview the Field Marshal said to me very simply, but with a great deal of feeling, "My government is grateful to your Government for your mission. I fear that when you visit Paris and London you will realise that there is no hope for peace. You will there learn what I now know, and that is that the British and French Governments are determined to destroy Germany, and that no peace, except on that basis,will be considered by them. If there is any way of averting the war which I believe is inevitable, your Government will have accomplished the greatest thing which human beings could desire. From the bottom of my heart I wish you success."

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/PSF/box6/A72H04.html
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/PSF/box6/A72H05.html
When Churchill was leaving London to meet Roosevelt for a conference in Quebec late in the summer of 1943, a reporter asked if they were planning to offer peace terms to Germany.
Churchill replied: “Heavens, no. They would accept immediately.”-- 'Revisionist Viewpoints', p,75 by James J. Martin.
So the war went on from August 1943 until May 1945 — for another twenty-two more months.
http://justice4germans.com/peace-prize/
Last edited by been-there on Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:13 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Nessie and 7 guests