Die Kriegschuld-Lüge – Answering The Victors’ Lies About German War Guilt

Jürgen Rieger

“The most vital task of the day is to spread the truth” ~ Jürgen Rieger, 2 September, 2009

The following article was originally published on September 2, 2009 by a German lawyer,  politician and activist Jürgen Rieger, on his own website in Germany. It was written in response to the now infamous speech by FRG Chancellor Angela Merkel’s at Westerplatte, in Polish occupied Danzig, on the 1st of September 2009 in which she declared that “Germany alone was responsible for the war and the deaths of 60,000 million people and that there can be no re-writing this history”.  That speech was enough to make any knowledgeable and patriotic German’s blood boil. But he Herr Rieger had a more pressing personal motivation, as we shall see later on.

A portion of that Merkel speech is featured in the film “Hitler’s War? – What the Historians Neglect to Mention” and I have included an excerpt below.  Herr Rieger’s article very eloquently elucidated many of the same facts covered in that documentary film, and echoed many of those documented by Maj.-Gen (Ret) Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s book “The War that Had Many Fathers” (1939 – Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte) and Prof. Udo Walendy’s book “Truth for Germany” (Wahrheit fuer Deutschland).

Herr Rieger’s article was subsequently translated by J.M. Damon and posted at Rense.com on September 26, 2009.  I am re-posting here with some added graphics.   Sadly, less than two months after publishing this article, Jürgen Rieger suddenly passed away as the result of a stroke.  But it must be said that he left nothing unsaid.  His courageous parting words, however, remain with us, and they continue to educate and inspire us in this struggle for truth and justice for Germans.

Jürgen Rieger wrote:

“Once again we have another round-number date to observe: the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland. Once again we are told that we must observe it with “shame and guilt.” We must declare ad nauseam that “…never ever again from German soil…” etc., etc. But what else could we expect from such an occupation regime as ours?

As the Springer publication “Welt am Sonntag” laments in its issue of 30th August 2009:

“…It is discouraging that at the solemn and imposing Polish observance of the beginning of the War, which took place at the place where it began, the Danziger Westerplatte, no heads of state of Western nations participated except Angela Merkel.”

We are told that it would have been a good thing

“…if the West, through its presence in Danzig, had solemnized the great suffering that occurred in Eastern Europe and not just Poland.”

In other Establishment publications the story goes that Adolf Hitler on 1 September 1939 “ignited World War II;” “released world conflagration;” “set out to conquer the world” … and other such claptrap!

THE TRUTH is that the German-Polish war began on 1 September 1939, and this local war became a European war with England’s and France’s declaration of war against the Third Reich on 3 September. The European War became World War II on 12 September 1941, when President Roosevelt instructed the American navy to sink any German warships it encountered. (On that occasion the American Secretary of the Navy remarked laconically that “the US had entered the war but the American people did not know it yet”.)

THE TRUTH is that Poland, which had long been under Russian rule, was reestablished as an independent state by Germany and Austria in 1916. As thanks for this generous act, regular units of the Polish army joined Korfanty armed bands and began seizing purely German districts in Upper Silesia and Western Prussia. In response to German electoral victories in every region that held a plebiscite, they initiated a reign of terror; and thanks to French backing, Poland was allowed to keep these German districts.

danzig map

Under the Dictate of Versailles Poland was given a “corridor” to the Baltic Sea, along with large areas of West Prussia that were populated by Germans. This “corridor” completely separated East Prussia from the Reich, making trade and communication difficult or impossible. During Allied discussions on the peace treaty, Lloyd George, the English Prime Minister during the First World War, tapped this spot on the map and predicted “This is where the next world war will begin!”

Unlike the Western leaders, Hitler had realistically evaluated the dangers posed by the Bolshevik Soviet Union. He realized that Germany would be unable resist the Soviet Union without an alliance with Poland. For this reason he signed a non-aggression treaty with Poland in 1934. President Pilsudski in turn realized that Poland could not simultaneously conduct hostilities against its two powerful neighbors Germany and the Soviet Union.

In addition to seizing German districts, Poland had grabbed White Russian and Ukrainian districts after the Russian Empire had been weakened by the First World War. The present eastern border of Poland, which the Soviet Union established in 1939, corresponds to the ethnic border. With its wars of aggression, Poland had overreached this line, making the Soviet Union its enemy.

The German minority had been disfranchised in the 1920s, and in the 1930s it was subjected to open terror, murder and rape, especially in the months preceding September 1939. Under the nonaggression treaty German newspapers were not allowed to report on Polish atrocities against the minority Germans, which led to the emigration of a million Germans. Another million remained behind in German regions that had been seized by the Poles.

A popular song about the Poles that originated among the fighting home defense units in Upper Silesia was rewritten in National Socialist songbooks to suggest that the struggle was not against “Pjorunje” but rather “Bolschewike.”

Hitler badly wanted an accommodation with Poland. Until the month of April 1939, National Socialist propaganda continued to include the names of deceased President Pilsudski and Foreign Minister Beck among the “great statesmen of Europe.”

Adolf Hitler at Jozef Pilsudski, 1935

In contrast to his general officers, who with their friends and relatives had had large landholdings in the regions now occupied by Poland, Hitler did not insist on re-establishing the 1914 border. Instead, he offered the sizeable concession of limiting Germany’s demands to a plebiscite in West Prussia and nowhere else.

He proposed that in the event the plebiscite favored Germany, the city and harbor of Gdingen would remain Polish territory, along with an extraterritorial freeway extending from Poland through West Prussia to the harbor. In case the plebiscite favored Poland, Germany would be allowed to build an extraterritorial freeway from Pomerania to East Prussia so that bothersome border controls could be eliminated. In addition Danzig, which was 98% German and under mandate of the League of Nations, would be allowed to join the Reich, in keeping with the preference of the population of Danzig.

Publicly and privately, Hitler indicated that this would be Germany’s last territorial claim since it would undo the mischief done at Versailles. Although his proposal was decidedly moderate, the Poles reacted with obstinacy, bolstered in their hard line by Britain.

Beck_and_hitler

For 300 years Britain had pursued a “Balance of Power” policy of allying herself with the second most powerful nation against the most powerful. This policy had allowed Britain to cover its rear while establishing a ‘world empire’. In accordance with this plan, Britain in 1935 reached a naval agreement with Germany that limited the German fleet to 1/3 the size of the English fleet. (At that time France was more powerful militarily than Germany.) Hitler wanted to assure Britain that a naval arms race would not occur again – Kaiser Wilhelm had initiated such a contest and it led to Britain’s declaration of war in 1914.

By 1938, Germany had become more powerful than France and, in keeping with its “Balance of Power” policies, Britain again adopted an anti-German policy. This led to the British government’s protesting Austria’s joining the Reich, even though 99% of Austrians had voted for unification in the plebiscite. [Editor’s note:  my research indicates that this was not the case; that Hitler in fact was deliberately deceptive in overstating Germany’s military strength. He bluffed in the hopes of deterring an attack, but more on this another in a future post]

Britain has never acknowledged other nations’ right of self-determination, whether in India (where those who favored independence were tied to English cannon) or in Ireland (where almost the entire population was annihilated because they would not submit to British domination.)

It is a mistake to maintain that the entry of German troops into Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939 brought about a change in Britain’s policy toward the Reich. This must be said about Czechoslovakia: in this clumsily cobbled-together country, a minority of Czechs ruled three million Germans as well as Slovaks, Ruthenians, Poles and Hungarians.

All these ethnic splinter groups wanted to rejoin their nations but were brutally prohibited by the Czechs from doing so. The reason for this was that under the Dictate of Versailles, France was able to pursue a policy of aggrandizing Germany’s neighbors so as to have powerful allies in the coming war against Germany.

After Austria had been reunited with the Reich came the problem of annexing the millions of Germans living under Czech rule. Hitler proposed self-determination, but the Czechs responded with increased repression. They did everything to provoke Hitler, including a general mobilization on 21 May 1938 to counter an allegedly impending attack by Germany, which was a total fabrication.

Since no attack took place, the Czech as well as French and English press triumphantly announced that their determined military measures had dissuaded Hitler from invasion, which caused the Reich to lose prestige.

The American ambassador in Paris clearly recognized the bellicose character of the Czech mobilization and characterized it in a report to President Roosevelt as a “provocation for another war in Europe.”

In order to evaluate the situation the British government sent Lord Runciman to the Sudetenland. In his report on 16 September 1938 he wrote:

“I have great sympathy for the cause of the Sudeten Germans. It is difficult to be governed by a foreign nation, and my impression is that Czechoslovak rule in the Sudetenland displays such a lack of tact and understanding, and so much petty intolerance and discrimination, that dissatisfaction among the German population must inevitably lead to outrage and rebellion.”

Following this, the British government joined in urging the Czechs to allow a plebiscite in Sudetenland. The French government, which had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, did the same, since France was not prepared to go to war with Germany over the Sudetenland. The Czech Government rejected the suggestion of a plebiscite because this would have served as precedent for other national minorities to demand plebiscites as well. However, they agreed to relinquish the Sudeten districts without plebiscite since these regions bordering the Reich were populated almost entirely by Germans.

sudetenland

This is how the “Munich Agreement” came about. It resulted not from threats and extortion by Hitler, but rather an agreement by all parties that the Sudeten Germans rightfully belonged “Heim ins Reich” (back home in the Reich.)

It is important to note that both Britain and Germany agreed to guarantee the borders of Czechoslovakia as soon as its other problems of national minorities were solved. Neither Hitler nor anyone else guaranteed any national borders, since Czechoslovakia never solved its minority problems.

In March 1939 both the Slovaks and the Ruthenians declared independence, whereupon the Poles invaded Czechoslovakia and occupied the Olsa Region, which was populated by Poles. The Hungarians did the same, occupying the border areas that were populated by Hungarians.

Since Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist, its President Hacha flew to Berlin on 15 March 1939 and placed the remainder of his country under the protection of the Reich. He was afraid that Poland and Hungary would follow the Czech example and divide the Czech regions among themselves.

The Reich then formed the Protectorate of Bohemia and Maeren, which provided for exclusive Czech administration in all areas except military and foreign policy. Hitler was concerned about the threat to German cities and industrial areas that was posed by Czech air bases.

Because it felt betrayed by the Sudeten agreement and the Western powers, Czechoslovakia had adopted close relations with the Soviet Union, which had already stationed 300 airplanes in the Czech regions. Hitler, who knew that war with the Soviet Union inevitable, could not allow the Czech regions to serve as a staging area and “aircraft carrier” for the Soviet Union. Hacha remained in office and attended the parade of 20 April 1939 as a guest of the Reich, standing next to Hitler. It is very clear that Hitler did not violate the Munich accord.

When Prime Minister Chamberlain was questioned in the Lower House about the entry of German troops in Prague on 15 March 1939, he explained:

“In our view, the situation has changed significantly since the Slovakian parliament declared independence.

This explanation produced the effect that the state whose borders we intended to guarantee collapsed internally and ceased to exist. Accordingly, the situation that the honorable Secretary for the Dominions has described, and which we had always considered temporary, has now ceased to exist.”

Just two days later, however, in sharp contrast to this explanation given in the British lower house, Chamberlain condemned the “German invasion” in his Birmingham speech of 17 March 1939; and on 31 March 1939 he signed an agreement with the Polish government in which Great Britain promised to support Poland in the event of war.

It promised to do this not only if Poland were attacked, but even if Poland should start a war – for example on account of its pretended “rights” in Danzig. Both of these contradicted in word and spirit the written message that Chamberlain carried in his hand on his return from Munich, to which he proudly referred and for which he was enthusiastically applauded by the masses. At that time he had announced “Peace in our time.”

In this announcement Hitler and Chamberlain established that all questions concerning their mutual interests would be handled in mutual consultations.

Gemeinsame Erkl„rung Neville Chamberlains und Adolf Hitlers nach dem Mnchener Abkommen.

So how did it come about that England encouraged Poland to go to war against Germany?

Following 15 March 1939, Roosevelt exerted strong pressure on the British government to “finally exert opposition” against “Nazi tyranny” or else he would apply methods of coercion against Great Britain. It is impossible to determine precisely what threats he made, since their correspondence is still off-limits to historians.

Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal wrote in his diary that US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy remarked that Chamberlain was convinced that America and the Jews were forcing Britain into war. This is only part of the story, however. The germanophobic senior British diplomat Vansittart and the Rumanian Ambassador  Tilea also played a major role.

Immediately after the entry of German troops into Czech territory,  Tilea announced that during German-Rumanian economic negotiations, Germany had threatened to invade Rumania if it was not allowed to exploit Rumanian oil. This was an absurd allegation since Germany and Rumania did not even share a common border – they were 400 kilometers apart.

The English believed it, however, and newspapers in London, Paris and New York spread false reports of a threatened German attack. In reality, German-Rumanian economic negotiations were entirely cordial. Nobody made any threats of any kind.

It could be that Tileda’s false allegations about German threats were inspired by Rumania’s needing British economic assistance, and he was desperately trying to persuade Britain to grant this assistance. It could also be that Tileda had been bribed by the germanophobic Vansittart, who was determined to bring about an understanding between Tileda and Chamberlain.

At any rate, these false allegations greatly alarmed London’s financial City. The City had no economic interests in Poland and the Czech state, but it did have interests in Rumania, where most of the oil fields were owned by British stockholders. The allegations moved British economic circles to take an anti German course.

Even more significant was the circumstance that Chamberlain was neither an appeaser nor a Germanophile, as his biographer accurately points out. He simply realized that a war against Germany could not be won in 1939. Britain’s regular army was relatively small – it had just recently introduced conscription, and its air force was smaller than the Luftwaffe.

As Hitler well understood, Chamberlain was playing for time in order to displace Germany as the leading power on the Continent as soon as Britain, which had enormously increased its armaments program, would have adequate trained men and material. What Chamberlain was really hoping for was political upheaval in Germany following a declaration of war.

He arrived at this fond hope because numerous opponents of Hitler, including the secretary to German ambassador Kordt in London, Clergyman Goerdeler, head of German Military Intelligence Canaris, State Secretary Weizsäcker (No. 2 man after Germany’s foreign minister) and Army Chief of Staff General Beck had joined the opposition and established contact with the British government.

Initially, in view of the universal principle “my country right or wrong,” the British had assumed that contact by the German Opposition was a trick to make them take hasty action. On the basis of very precise details reported to them, they now assumed the honesty and correctness of the figures provided by the Opposition. For example, Hitler was surprised by the sudden mobilization of the British Fleet, excavation of air raid shelters and drills with gas masks in London in the summer of 1939. These had come as a response to a report by Opposition figures to the effect that Hitler was plotting a surprise attack with over a thousand bombers.

The British journalist John Colvin, who was in quest of a “scoop,” had close ties with the British secret service, and met with Opposition circles that included high-ranking officers. The officers told him that Britain’s agreement in the Sudeten crisis had denied them the possibility of displacing Hitler and the National Socialist regime in a putsch. They suggested that Britain adopt a much harder line against Germany, including a declaration of war. They believed this would make Hitler so unpopular in Germany that the generals would be able to overthrow him.

On 29 March 1939, before the British-Polish Pact, Colvin met with Chamberlain at the instigation of Churchill. He told him that there was a good chance the German generals Beck and von Witzleben, H. von Bismarck and Major von Kleist-Schmenzien would revolt and stop Hitler. Chamberlain then asked whether it would influence these people if Britain gave the Poles a guarantee and Colvin responded: “Yes, that would help.” The guarantee followed.

churchill2

Churchill, who had said that his life’s mission was to lead another Thirty Year’s War against Germany, remarked jovially when he met Colvin again after the War: “Here’s the man who gave us the War!” Chamberlain’s diary also provides evidence that the German Opposition played a decisive role in the British declaration of war. On 3 September 1939 he wrote that he did not believe Britain could win the war and was hoping for upheaval in Germany instead. In the save vein, he wrote his sister on 10 September 1939: “What I am hoping for is not military victory, but rather a collapse of the German domestic front.”

Since the British guarantee of 31 March 1939 gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany, Poland intensified its persecutions of the German minority. Abductions became common, speaking German in public was proscribed, German associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in Krakow was murdered, etc.

It is irrelevant whether Poles or Germans attacked the Gleiwitz transmitting station; whoever reads the White Book of the German-Polish war will find countless undisputed murders and assaults committed by the Poles in the weeks and months preceding 1 September 1939.

For example, ethnic Germans attempting to flee Poland were murdered and German commercial aircraft flying between Pomerania and East Prussia were fired upon by Polish anti-aircraft artillery. Such provocations could only be intentional.

savoia-marchetti-sm-75

In June 1939, Pilsudski’s successor Marshal Rydz-Smigly smugly addressed Polish military officers as follows: “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid war even if it so desires.” Presumably he pictured himself riding a white horse at the head of victorious Polish troops marching through the Brandenburg Gate.

Rydz-Smigly

German intelligence succeeded in breaking the Polish code, so that the Germans knew that Warsaw had given directives to Polish ambassador Lipski that under no circumstances could he intervene or offer concessions to Germany. In addition, the German Opposition informed Roosevelt that Germany was planning to attack Poland. They also informed the Polish ambassador, Polish government and French government, none of whom were disturbed. They were confident that in the event of war they could penetrate deep into Germany because domestic disorders would break out there.

Thus the US, England, France and Poland all trusted in the promises of the German Opposition to execute a putsch if Hitler invaded Poland and the Western powers declared war on Germany. This is surprising in view of the fact that, as several secret ballotings had shown, 90% of all Germans supported Hitler. Germany’s enemies, as well as its domestic Opposition, must have known that the Opposition had no support among the German people. Against their better knowledge they continued egging Poland and Britain into war, however.

Even on 20 July 1944, despite the heavy losses Germany had already sustained in the war, the members of the Opposition still did not have enough confidence to reveal themselves as opponents of Hitler. Instead, they prepared an explanation to be given following the anticipated death of Hitler that the SS had carried out the putsch and the Wehrmacht was now taking power. And yet, such spineless traitors as these are officially lauded by the present System as “heroes!”

The fact that Chamberlain, knowing of the Polish, French and American desire for war, gave a free hand to Polish war policies and did not urge Poland to accept the moderate German demands can be explained only by the fact that he also wanted war on 1 September 1939.

Another indication of this is the fact that in Britain the evening edition of the newspaper DAILY MAIL for 31 August 1939 was confiscated. The edition had carried the story of Germany’s proposals concerning the Polish Corridor as well as Poland’s response, which was general mobilization. The newspaper was compelled to publish a different evening edition.

The British Naval Minister Cooper, who favored war, was highly perturbed when he learned of the German proposal, which he considered moderate and reasonable. He telephoned the DAILY TELEGRAPH AND demanded that it present the German proposal in as unfavorable light as possible. The British ambassador to Berlin also did everything he could to keep the moderate German proposal secret for as long as possible.

Occasionally the Establishment media admit that Hitler had not planned a World War on 1 September 1939. Numerous witnesses reported that he was shaken by receipt of the British ­ French declaration of war. When this is mentioned, however, it is accompanied by the suggestion that he had been “playing Vabanque” (gambling) as he had done before, and this time his bet did not pay off.

In response to this it should be said that Hitler accurately evaluated public sentiment in England and France. Many Frenchmen were not enthused by the prospect of “dying for Danzig;” “mourir pour Danzig” was the phrase on everyone’s lips. What Hitler did not suspect, since Germans traditionally held sworn oaths to be sacred, was that influential persons in the military, foreign ministry and information agencies were conspiring with the enemy to bring about “regime change.” Perhaps these individuals believed the enemy propaganda line that their goal was to replace Hitler rather than annihilate Germany.

As for the German-Soviet War, there can be no doubt, in view of the revelations of the Russian secret agent Suvorov, that what the Germans suspected in 1941 is factual: The Reich interrupted a Russian offensive that, as we know today, was scheduled to begin on 6 July 1941. This explains why millions of Soviet soldiers were quickly surrounded and taken prisoner – they were supposed to be rushed from hidden positions to the border just before the attack. It also explains why huge numbers of artillery pieces and stockpiles of munitions were captured at the border, as well as millions of extra leather boots, detailed maps of the Red Army’s objectives in Germany and so forth.

When the Establishment media blather about the “surprise attack on an unsuspecting Soviet Union in 1941,” it is just one more Gigantic Lie.

Beginning with the English-German War of September 1939 that he so ardently desired, Roosevelt violated the guidelines for neutral nations countless times. As early as 1939 he was already shadowing German merchant ships with US cruisers, who then called in British cruisers to sink them. He also seized German assets, supplied the British with war materiel on credit, “loaned” them fifty destroyers and guarded British convoys with American warships.

Hitler, who was determined not to provoke the US, responded to none of these provocations. He even forbade German submarines to defend themselves with torpedoes when attacked by US destroyers, remembering Washington’s pretext for entering World War I in 1917.

Even in the Nuremberg show trials, the hypocritical and avaricious US government did not dare to pronounce Germany guilty of conducting “offensive war” against them, since they had already been at war with Germany for three months when Japan, driven to desperate measures by the oil embargo, attacked the US fleet at Peal Harbor in December of 1941.

The above is the simple unadorned TRUTH!

The longer German youth remain in school, the more they are indoctrinated with lies and brainwashed against their fatherland. After 65 years of such brainwashing, the teachers either know no better or else they are compelled to instruct nonsense.

Our Establishment media all play the same tune and our abject politicians perform never-ending kowtows to do penance for our “endless guilt” for the 60 million victims of the Second World War. We pay countless billions in tribute to foreign countries while, to quote Merkel, we must never be allowed to “go a separate German way.”

We were forced to abolish the D-Mark and abandon our sovereignty to NATO and the European Union. When German nationalists demand that at long last German schools adopt a factual historiography, it is not just a “backwards-looking” as some who describe themselves as “modern nationalists” believe. In actuality, it has an enormous political effect.

If we are unable to succeed in making German youth proud and self confident again, they will be unable to resist ever-growing foreign demands, plundering of our social security fund and squandering of our money in international banks. They will continue to be unable to resist predatory foreign lobbyists and parasitic organizations.

The most vital task of the day is to spread the truth!”

Jürgen Rieger
2 September 2009
(The original German version was published at
http://www.juergen-rieger.de  and no longer exists)
http://rense.com/general87/de.htm

Juergen Rieger

Rest in Peace

Jürgen Rieger died on October 29, 2009 at the age 0f 63 at the Vivantes Clinic, Neukölln (Berlin), after suffering a stroke on October 24th.

In his political life, he was roundly denounced in the FRG mainstream media and by establishment leaders as a “Neo-Nazi”, “right-wing extremist” and “Holocaust denier” etc. all politics aside, he was a very patriotic German, and not a “sell out”, who demonstrated great courage in speaking out on behalf of the German people, to tell the truth as best he knew it, in the interest of Justice for Germans!

Jürgen Rieger was also very involved in the defense of Ernst Zundel (in Germany). On the basis of the evidence which he presented in court, which included some 700 documents, Herr Rieger was then also charged and convicted under S.130 of the FRG Penal Code, and facing a sentence of 5 years imprisonment, along with fellow lawyer Sylvia Stolz.  Only his passing prevented this indignity, and would have also meant that he could never again practice law.

Knowing his fate, however, no doubt prompted him to write this article, anticpatiing that he may never get another chance to publicly speak his truth, and the stress of the legal ordeal likely led to his demise.

In the following video, Herr Rieger spoke about (in German) her case, his own case, and that Orwellian laws and trials in Germany which demonstrate clearly that Germany is not a free country.

I concur with Herr Rieger’s article, and with honour I heed his call to “spread the truth!” and I proudly pick up the torch where he, Udo Walendy, and other great post-war German patriots have left off (including those who have been silenced by law) and I carry on to tell the truth as best I know it, for as long as I can,  in seeking truth, justice and freedom for my Volk, in our undying hope of a Golden Future,  won with our blood, our sweat and tears, in a glorious victory over the Blackness of foreign rule,  tyranny, and sheer ignorance.

Justice for Germans - Amazing cure for chronic low self-esteem among Germans

I pray that God Almighty intervened on behalf of Herr Rieger, and that he is now in a much better place and having a good long laugh at those devils in the corrupt FRG legal system, for whom a special place is reserved in Hell for the betrayal of our people and of the justice which they profess to represent.

Gott segne ihn, und möge er in Frieden ruhen!

http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Rieger,_J%C3%BCrgen

This entry was posted in Churchill, England, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hitler, Poland, Policies, Soviet Union, USA, World War II and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Die Kriegschuld-Lüge – Answering The Victors’ Lies About German War Guilt

  1. John Wotherspoon says:

    It really is important in this day and age that the truth should come out. It is impossible for a whole nation the size of Germany to be as evil and lust for war as is made out by all the hypocrites, and it is really astonishing that this drivel has been believed for over 70 years. Shame on the Western governments.

  2. RickB says:

    Excellent. Thanks again for all your work. It is great that one can point to a source for truth about WWII.

  3. Markus says:

    Sudeten-Germans were Volksdeutsche, like all Austrian-Germans. The Sudetenland was part of Austria until 1918/19. There was a referendum that the Sudetenland would rejoin Austria shortly after WW1 when main Austria demanded the Anschluss to Germany in 1919 already.

    Most people think the Sudeten-Germans used to be part of the German Reich before WW1, for its close proximity to the German Reich.

    • herbda2 says:

      The sounds of a newly awakening Nation is pain .. the majority of the people today never knew its genesis and this is not just German but it is also a global phenomenon and so effective was the propaganda that many Jews believe it as well .. Elie the Weasel and his henchmen did their job well.
      The German Patriots on this forum expose threads of the truth but it seems to me that we are pissing on a hot tin roof for all the good it does .. Markus please excuse me if I appear to mess your threads around .. that is not my intention for I am with you.

      We British have a much celebrated war film called ‘A Bridge Too Far’ (Nijmegen) ring Wikipedia .. what a disaster .. and as a veteran I must salute those who fought the battle .. so fast track to 9/11 and the twin skyscrapers .. this was the Zionist Bridge Too Far .. this is one horrific crime that will be uncovered .. the time is close ..

      Once that one is uncovered .. then anything else these insane monsters have to say will be stained with the truth and they cannot continue to live on a lie .. then bit by bit we will unroll the truth and regain our freedom.

    • Markus says:

      [In 1918, Deutsch-Österreich (1918-1919) that included the Sudetenland] drafted a provisional constitution that stated that “German-Austria is a democratic republic” (Article 1) and “German-Austria is a component of the German Republic” (Article 2). The latter provision reflected the deputies’ feelings that Austria was no longer viable on its own with the loss of 60 percent of its territory, and the only course was union with Germany. Later plebiscites in the provinces of Tyrol and Salzburg yielded majorities of 98 and 99% in favor of a unification with Germany.

      …The deputies of the 1918 German-Austrian government were not Nazis, or were they? 🙂

  4. Florin says:

    Thank you!
    You did succeed to bring to surface another excellent article and his author that sheds the light of truth on the events, could not be more clear!
    As this is important for everyone in search of the real line of events and key participants to these events I would like to suggest an imperious note on your part that would correct the name of the Romanian ambassador in London from Tileda to Tilea. His full name is Viorel Virgil Tilea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viorel_Tilea). I think it would help other interested readers, as myself, to identify this individual for an eventual extended research on him. I will look up myself the intricate facets of the German-Romanian economical agreements and Romanian political environment at the time and see what were the grounds for Tilea’s claims of a german invasion.
    Also important fatcs are:
    “Tilea served as Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Envoy of Romania to London between 1938 and 1940. In September 1940, he was recalled from his post, but decided to stay in England, requesting political asylum.[1] Resigning his post, he co-founded the Free Romanian Movement.”
    I am Romanian and honoured to stay as close as possible to the truth along with people like yourself.
    Keep up the good work,
    God bless you,
    Florin

    • Thank you Florin, I have corrected that spelling.

    • hrvoje says:

      Florin, if you find out something interesting regarding GER-ROM economical agreement and claims of german invasion, i would be very interested in reading that parhaps here you could post?

  5. Florin says:

    The German-Romanian economical agreement that is significant to our topic is the one signed by both sides in March, 1935. There is a clearing of payment terms that followed in September, same year. As the European political and military context is gradually taking a course marked by possible conflicts the 1935 terms of the agreement are actualized on 23 of March, 1939. All the time the economical clauses between Germany and Romania had been governed on both sides by good will , fairness and reciprocal advantage. The terms of the treaty never had the faintest tone of imposition from the stronger towards the weaker state, no means of leverage were used by Germany against Romania. This are, in brief, the essentials on the bilateral economical context.

    However, the political background is far more intricate but in anyway not to the extent that Tilea’s false rumors to be justified, his actions were pure diversion set in motion, probably, by his masters. An important biographical detail is that he was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (C.B.E.) in the 1920’s when in his early 20’s.

    It is worth noting that “Tilea incident” took place on 15 and 16 of March, 1939, only days before the renewing the contract between the two countries.
    Another major event took place on 15 of March, 1939, Slovakia became an independent state. The Czechoslovak Republic ceased to exist, Bohemia and Moravia became a German protectorate. In my view this very event encouraged the occult string-pullers to give a go, to a provocation that looked very “similar” to a just-happened event, through Tilea’s theatrical action that targeted England’s government decision makers and public opinion.

    Just to give more contour to the context it is worth exploring a few other aspects of the relationship of Germany and Romania.

    As far as 9 of June, 1934, Romania did not have the eastern border recognized by Soviet Union.
    Diplomatic relations between the two countries were just reinitiated by Nicolae Titulescu, minister of external affairs and plenipotentiary minister of Romania to The League of Nations, two times president of the aforementioned institution. Interesting enough Titulescu had been initiated in freemasonry by a French lodge as early as 1903-1905 when attending his doctorate in Law, in Paris.

    On the 22 of October, 1934, Hitler, through Hermann Göring, stated for the first time his offer to Romania.
    The proposal had been presented in Berlin to the Romanian plenipotentiary minister, Nicolae Petrescu-Comnen. Germany was guaranteeing all borders of Romania including the ones with Soviet Union and Hungary. In addition the offer assured rearmament of Romanian Army with latest military technique. Germany did not make any request to Romania to abandon any of the existing treaties or agreements it was part of. The only request that Germany had was that Romania should oppose any soviet tentative of crossing their common border or passing through Romanian territory.
    At the time Titulescu already made the promise to his western friends, particularly to the French and Czechoslovakian ones that he would permit the Soviet troops, in the event of an European conflict, to moving across the Romanian territory. He also, as traitorous as he could be, concealed the German offer from government attention. This decision and many others are part of a long chain of actions directed against the very interests of Romanian people and were partially the causes that brought Romania in the position of a Soviet slave state by 1947.

    It is important to remark that all the time from 1934 to 1939, Hitler sought such an agreement with both Romania and Poland as the main tool of his attempt to discourage the aggression of communist Russia. In the case of Romania the very offer from 1934 had been reiterated numerous times, last one on 12 of August, 1939. The German leader pursued these proposals until the last moments preceding the debut of war. On 23 of August Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is signed, as a consequence part of Romanian territory fell under, undisclosed at the time, special clauses of the agreement.

    My understanding of the events, as I distrust a too scholarly approach on such topics, is largely based on the memoirs of a Romanian patriot, diplomat and former Minister of external affairs, his writings reveals us many hidden strings of history, the proximity of such events and the influence they have on each other. His book that I highly recommend is called “The Suicide of Europe: Memoirs of Prince Michel Sturdza, Former Foreign Minister of Rumania”.

  6. Markus says:

    Die überregionale schwedische Tageszeitung Dagens Nyheter schreibt zu dem Thema (Anti-Germanismus):

    „Die Verachtung der Deutschen ist eine Art Rassismus, an der sich viele festklammern, weil jeder andere Rassismus verboten ist.”[2] (Metapedia)

Comments are closed.