VIDEO: Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof on ‘The War That Had Many Fathers’ with English Subtitles

Major-General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof (ret.) talks about his groundbreaking revisionist history of the run-up to the Second World War, “The War That Had Many Fathers” (Der Krieg der viele Väter hatte). This is German with English sub-titles. Please be sure to enable “C.C.” on the YouTube video player.

This fascinating lecture has racked more than 200,000 views in various uploads on YouTube, but despite the existence of an excellent Portuguese translation, until now there has been no English version available for the rest of us. Break the spell of more than seven decades of “Allied” propaganda and try seeing the run-up to 1 September 1939 as the Germans did. The results might surprise you. Essential viewing! http://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-M…

Note 1: According to Duff Cooper’s own account of the event, as published in his 1953 volume of memoirs “Old Men Forget,” his wife did not read the Sixteen Points, but rather heard them on the radio when they were broadcast by the BBC, belatedly, on 31 August 1939:

“On the morning of September 1st I played golf at Goodwood. I never played worse. I couldn’t concentrate on the game because I was thinking of what had happened the night before. We had listened to the eleven o’clock news and had heard the German sixteen points to Poland given out without commentary. I was horrified. And was the more horrified because Diana [his wife] hearing them said that they did not seem to her unreasonable. I tried to explain to her how they meant the end of Poland, but I felt that the reactions of millions of people might be the same as hers.

“I rang up Winston, who said he felt exactly as I did, but that he had already spoken to the Daily Mail, who were inclined to take a favorable view of the German proposals. . . . I then got on to Camrose [William Berry, Baron (later Viscount) Camrose, owner of the Daily Telegraph and other papers], who also agreed with me. . . . I urged that the Daily Telegraph should come out with a strong leading article condemning the terms.

“When we had finished our round of golf we went into the club house for a drink. Two men sitting at the bar were discussing future race-meetings. One of the two, the secretary, I knew slightly. As we left he said to me, ‘Hitler started on Poland this morning.’ . . . That was how I heard that the second World War had begun. As we drove back to Bognor my heart felt lighter than it had for a year.”

— Old Men Forget (London: Ruper Hart Davis, 1953), p. 257

Despite his faulty “staging” of the event (perhaps the result of extrapolating from secondary sources), Schultze-Rhonhof thus clearly has the gist of the story correct:  Duff Cooper—and Winston Churchill, too — were alarmed at the prospect of the British public finding the program of the Sixteen Points a reasonable alternative to war, and used their influence with the press to ensure that it be presented in as unfavorable a light as possible.

(For the original Sixteen Points, see “Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War” http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/pre…, pp. 485-8. A recording of the 1939 BBC broadcast which Diana Cooper heard is available on the BBC site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ww2outbr….)

Note 2: The passage from Churchill’s speech @ 33:58 is not in fact a direct quotation, but rather a loose paraphrase of his remarks taken from a secondary German source (Erich Kern, “Verheimlichte Dokumente: Was den Deutschen verschwiegen wird“). Churchill’s actual words from the most relevant part of the speech, as recorded in the Hansard transcripts, are as follows:

“The removal of the just grievances of the vanquished ought to precede the disarmament of the victors. I hope I have made that quite clear. To bring about anything like equality of armaments, if it were in our power to do so, which it happily is not, while those grievances remain unredressed, would be almost to appoint the day for another European war—to fix it as if it were a prize fight. It would be far safer to reopen questions like those of the Danzig Corridor, and Transylvania, with all their delicacy and difficulty, in cold blood and in a calm atmosphere and while the victor nations still have ample superiority, than to wait and drift on, inch by inch and stage by stage, until once again vast combinations, equally matched, confront each other face to face.”

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/co…

Note also that the correct date for the speech is 23 (not 24) November 1932, and that it was given before the House of Commons. (Schultze-Rhonhof incorrectly states that it was an “Oberhausrede,” i.e., a speech before the [“Upper”] House of Lords.)

***

See also: Danzig and WWII

Video: 1939 German News Report on Ethnic-German Refugees from Poland

Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland (official NS Germany govt report)

100 Documents on the Origin of the War (German White Book)

What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939

Video: Hitler’s War – What the Historians Neglect to Mention

Comment:  I have been aware of the great work of Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof for several years, and have mentioned him in some earlier posts. I have one of his books and had seen a number of his presentations on YouTube. Until now, these were only available in German. His work is not well known or accepted in Germany where he has been denounced by the media lackeys, politicians and court historians of the victors and occupiers as a “right-wing extremist”,  “Neo-Nazi”,  etc.  Nothing could be further from the truth. He is a man of honour and integrity, and great courage. Something which those shameful traitors and whores know NOTHING about.  In the allegedly liberated FRG/ BRD, the truth is “verboten”.  By the way, I believe that a good portion of the documentary “Hitlers Krieg – Was Guido Knopp Verschweigt (Hitler’s War – What the Historians Neglect to Mention) was also based upon Schultze-Rhonhof’s research.

I wish to thank the person who took the time to translate this presentation and to create the English sub-titles, as well as, to upload it along with the nice commentary in the description area of the video, which I have quoted verbatim above.  Thanks also to a reader Karl M. for letting me know about this. I have a number of draft posts that I have been working on, and this fits well with a few of them, and with others which I have already published.

Finally… Dankeschoen Herr Schultze-Rhonhof fuer Ihre tolle Arbeit und Bemuehungen, aber noch viel mehr fuer Ihren Mut. Sie sind ein wahrer Held des Volkes. Nur die Wahrheit wird uns letztendlich, von der Gross Luege und Schande des 20. Jahrhunderts befreien. Moege Gott Sie segnen!

J4G

This entry was posted in Books, Churchill, England, Germany, Hitler, Poland, Policies, Versailles, Video, World War II and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to VIDEO: Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof on ‘The War That Had Many Fathers’ with English Subtitles

  1. Markus says:

    The honorable General got a lot of things right, but he’s apologetic toward the “you know what” and he thinks the BRD is a legitamite state.

    • Not surprising really …IF he wants to stay out of jail in the BRD and to keep his well earned pension! I don’t blame him for that. We know who is running the show in occupied Germany.

  2. frances says:

    Thank you very much for this video – it gives a fascinating insight into the build up to WW2. It’s a sad fact that Hitler and Germany continue to be vilified, through falsified teaching materials. Incidentally, although it can’t be proved, I believe Cooper’s wife’s version over his…

  3. toinennakemys says:

    Roewer is a Ludendorff-basher and ex-chef of the Verfassungschutz (of Thuringia if I remember right). He is very modern. But I admit that the beginning of this book is quite radical. He says that the serbs and the russians were behind the attentat and they wanted the war. More brave he is when he accuses Britain and says that she carries the main guilt. The rest of this book is quite all right. He reveals many tricks of the British and the american establishment to blame the Germans and to promote joining into the War. Not a good revisionist, but worth reading.

    • Sascha says:

      “He says that the serbs and the russians were behind the attentat and they wanted the war.” Sure, what’s wrong with this conclusion? Do we have proof of a London connection?

      “Not a good revisionist” => It’s not about “revisionism”, it’s about facts. 🙂

      That Zarist Russia and France had their own strong motivations for war against Germany (as well as against Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire in the case of Russia) is well known. That Britain took advantage of these motivations to further its own goals is also clear. Only in WWII was Britain itself, for the first time, taken advantage of (by Roosevelt, Stalin and the Zionists).

      And yes, Roewer was chief of the Verfassungsschutz in Thüringen. This is why he knows what he is talking about when he talks about covert operations… 🙂

      • toinennakemys says:

        Oh. I see I was a bit unclear. I said he is not revisionist enough. The best part of the book was the beginning. But he is not a revisionist. The rest of the book was a disappointment. And his another book “Skrupellos” is awful. He denies the “Dolchstoss” and insists that there was no “Criminals of November”. He bashes Ludendorff many times. I think he is a freemason. He bashes Karl Heise too. But I liked those brave statements about the guilt and the attentat. And the straight words about the many falseflags of the Warmongers. But he is very stupid in many cases. He has some dark agendas and could have said much more.

Comments are closed.