World War I
This is why most of us—anyone schooled after 1939—have a clear idea Germany started both wars and is guilty of crimes against humanity.
I’m going to give you six examples, starting with WWI. Did Germany start it? Let’s look at the sequence of events and see where and when Germany enters the picture.
- 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, visited the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo where he and his wife were assassinated by Serbian nationalists.
- 23 July, Austria-Hungary delivers to Serbia the July Ultimatum, a series of ten demands that were made intentionally unacceptable, in an effort to provoke a war with Serbia.
- 28 July, a month after the assassination, Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia.
- 29 July, Russia, in support of Serbia, declares partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary. The next day Russia orders general mobilization.
- Germany asks France not to support Russia if it comes to the aid of Serbia. The French do not respond but start mobilizing.
- 1 August, after the Russian response, Germany mobilizes and declared war on Russia.
So, just looking at that sequence of events we see Serbia started it with an assassination, Austria overreacted with a loaded demand, Serbia refused to accept it, Russia mobilized in support of Serbia and then, two days later, Germany mobilized. It should be pointed out that, at the time, full mobilization was considered the same as declaring war; it was a “fact on the ground” and meant a declaration was sure to follow.
Germany had two war plans, both of which involved simultaneous attacks on Russia and its ally, France. The attack on France was to go through Belgium, but first Germany asked (demanded in British history books) for permission to pass through Belgium. Incredibly, it promised to pay for any damages as its army transited the country. What country “invading” another country promises to pay for damages and reparations? Damaged bridges, potholes, scuffed curbs? Well, none.
Here’s what the German Secretary of State said to the Belgian ambassador:
“If the Belgian army,” the Secretary of State replied, “allows us to pass freely, without destroying the railways, without blowing up the bridges and tunnels, and if it retires on Antwerp without attempting to defend Liege, we promise not only to respect the independence of Belgium, the lives and property of the inhabitants, but also to indemnify you for the loss incurred.
The Belgians, who could have demanded the exact same guarantee from the French, instead refused. As a result, the Germans invaded Belgium on August 4. Even that would have limited the conflict to Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, France, Serbia and Russia, but Great Britain, in an act of willful adventurism, declared that a 75-year old peace treaty between Belgium and Holland gave it the right to intervene, and declared war on Germany.
Of course, this was all Germany’s fault: the Serbian assassination, the Austrian response, the Russian response to Austria, the French alliance with Russia, signed years earlier, the British interpretation of a 75-year old Belgian-Dutch treaty; all Germany’s fault.
Or at least it was after British propaganda was through with it. Given the horrendous death toll it had to be someone’s fault! Britain, which was last in the group to act, wasn’t to blame. And certainly France, which was only interested in defence, couldn’t be blamed. And Russia was only trying to help its fellow Slavs. And Germany was just helping Austria. And Austria, for all its bluster, was the victim, was it not? That leaves Serbia.
Historians like to muddy this up; like to confuse readers with the details of of the crisis, like to cover up the fact that Germany was responding to a Russian-French mobilization pincer movement. They concentrate on German actions and ignore the Russian-French alliance which provoked them.
If there had been no French alliance with Russia there would have been no attack on France. But do you ever see France blamed for WWI? Or Britain, which involved itself for no reason? No. Of course not. Germany’s guilty, we all know that, right?
 |
| Daily Express, March 24, 1933 |
Jewish Economic War on Germany
It is widely believed Germany initiated legal persecution of the Jews. But the timing of action and reaction shows it was the other way around.
Read the headline, and the sub-head and then the date. This is March 24, 1933 and the Daily Express is reporting a concerted effort by Jews around the world, including powerful Jewish financial interests, to boycott German goods with the aim of crippling the country’s already precarious economy.
Its Special Political Correspondent correctly says they had, in effect “declared war” on Germany.
He could hardly have missed the story because on March 12 the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27 and the day before, on March 23, 20,000 Jews protested at New York’s City Hall and rallies were staged outside the North German Lloyd and Hamburg-American shipping lines. Boycotts were also mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City.
The article described a forthcoming “holy war” in which Jews everywhere were urged to boycott German goods and engage in mass demonstrations against German economic interests. According to the Express:
The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers.
The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people.
The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry…. In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.”
So what, you ask, prompted this attack on Germany? The answer lies in the events of the previous seven weeks.
Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933. The National Socialists didn’t have a majority in the Reichstag, but they did have police powers and on February 24 the Gestapo raided the Communist Party (KPD) headquarters. Three days later the Reichstag building caught on fire and Communists were blamed for an attempted coup. Orders were given to arrest all the KPD members.
The result was that when the National Socialists subsequently proposed a constitutionl change to give the Chancellor dictatorial powers, it passed on March 23 with a three-quarters majority. Shortly afterwards the KPD and the Social Democratic Party became banned organizations.
So now we have the context for the New York demonstrations. It was partly a preemptive effort to topple Hitler before he could take absolute power, and partly a protest over the police sweep against the KPD and the SDP. It wasn’t a response to an attack on Jews per se, but on the left-wing organizations they supported.
Meanwhile, the Jews in Germany were horrified. If the international campaign against Germany gained any traction, they would be the immediate losers. As a result, the Zionist Association of Germany put out a telegram on the 26th of March—two days after the Express article—rejecting many of the allegations made against the National Socialists as “propaganda,” “mendacious” and “sensational.”
No matter; the big rally at the Gardens went ahead and 40,000 Jews showed up to shout support for the boycott and opposition to Germany. The This is Zionism website takes up the story:
“Hitler himself responded to the Jewish boycott and the threats in a speech on March 28 – four days after the original Jewish declaration of war – saying:
“Now that the domestic enemies of the nation have been eliminated by the Volk itself, what we have long been waiting for will not come to pass. The Communist and Marxist criminals and their Jewish-intellectual instigators, who, having made off with their capital stocks across the border in the nick of time, are now unfolding an unscrupulous, treasonous campaign of agitation against the German Volk as a whole from there….Lies and slander of positively hair-raising perversity are being launched about Germany. Horror stories of dismembered Jewish corpses, gouged out eyes and hacked off hands are circulating for the purpose of defaming the German Volk in the world for the second time, just as they had succeeded in doing once before in 1914.”
“Thus, the fact—one conveniently left out of nearly all histories on the subject—is that Hitler’s March 28, 1933 boycott order was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership just four days earlier.”
This is Zionism continues:
“To understand Hitler’s reaction to the Jewish declaration of war, it is vital to understand the critical state of the German economy at the time. In 1933, the German economy was in a shambles. Some 3 million Germans were on public assistance with a total of 6 million unemployed. Hyper-inflation had destroyed the economic vitality of the German nation. Furthermore, the anti-German propaganda pouring out of the global press strengthened the resolve of Germany’s enemies, especially the Poles and their hawkish military high command.
“The Jewish leaders were not bluffing. The boycott was an act of war not solely in metaphor: it was a means, well crafted, to destroy Germany as a political, social and economic entity. The long-term purpose of the Jewish boycott against Germany was to bankrupt her with respect to the reparation payments imposed on Germany after World War I and to keep Germany demilitarized and vulnerable.”
All of this was prior to the restrictive laws, the seizure of goods, the forced labour camps. Indeed, had Jews outside Germany searched for a better way to isolate their co-religionists inside the country, they could hardly have hit on a more powerful weapon.
Many commentators are skeptical Communists set the Reichstag fire, or that the Communist Party of Germany was planning a coup. And yet, the threat expressed by Hitler at the time had a real basis. Wikipedia notes that:
After the Nazis came to power in January 1933, (Ernst) Thälmann (leader of the KPD) proposed that the SPD and KPD should organize a general strike to topple Hitler, but this was not achieved. In February 1933, a Central Committee meeting of the already banned KPD took place in Königs Wusterhausen at the “Sporthaus Ziegenhals”, near Berlin, where Thälmann called for the violent overthrow of Hitler’s government. Following the Reichstag fire, on March 3, he was arrested in Berlin by the police.
So, to put all this in order, first Thälmann proposes a general strike in January together with the Socialists. This fails. Then, in February, he proposes the KPD should launch a “violent overthrow” of the government. This is followed by the Reichstag fire, Thälmann’s arrest, the first American Jewish protests, March 12, the Enabling Act, March 23, the Jewish boycott of Germany March 23 and the German boycott of Jewish goods March 28.
In the end, what the Jewish call for an economic boycott of Germany did was to turn a political issue between the Communists and National Socialists into a racial issue between the National Socialists and the Jews. Did American Jews realize what they were doing? Do they even today?
 |
| Book burning by students |
Book Burning in Germany
My third example of fake news has to do with the notorious book burnings in Germany later the same year. The popular view is that the National Socialists in Germany were anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-literature.
In fact, since the burnings followed the Jewish declaration of economic war, the campaign was primarily against Jewish authors, Jewish intellectuals and Jewish throught.
Among those targeted was Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jew, a homosexual and an early promoter of deviant sexuality. Wikipedia says this about him:
An outspoken advocate for sexual minorities, Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee. Historian Dustin Goltz characterized this group as having carried out “the first advocacy for homosexual and transgender rights.” “Hirschfeld’s radical ideas changed the way Germans thought about sexuality.”
Well, that was the problem because the nuclear family was the key building block of the Volk for the National Socialists and they strongly opposed alternative lifestyles. They felt they had to cleanse themselves, and Germany, of deviant thought and philosophy.
The first action, based on Martin Luther’s burning of a Papal bull, and the burning of French books by students at Wartburg castle in 1817, was announced on April 8, 1933 by the press office of the German Student Union. The Union proclaimed a nationwide “Action against the Un-German Spirit”, which was to climax in a literary purge or “cleansing” (“Säuberung”) by fire. The first book burning took place on May 10.
Included in the lengthy list of targeted books, and topics, were books on Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism; books that were pornographic, and “writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk.”
Because the students considered Jews and homosexuals to be behind the lax morals of the Weimar Republic (something portrayed in the American musical Cabaret in 1966), and because they wanted teachers to improve their own morals, all Jewish authors were caught up in the same sweep. Inevitably, some non-Jewish authors were named, as well as Jews who were not in the least political.
Into the fire they went.
My point is that this all started with students, not the government, it was directed at Jews not all intellectuals and was aimed at decadent and immoral lifestyles. The students were trying to clean up the country, to purify it; a noble ambition you would think.
At the time, homosexuality, transgenderism, prostitution, drug taking, and miscegenation were illegal in the Western world generally, while the nuclear family, patriotism and the white race were promoted . . . just what the students were trying to do in Germany.
You can consider how strange it is that this essentially uplifting story of purification and renewal has been turned upside down into the intellectual thought crime it is today.
 |
| German soldiers entering Poland, 1939 |
World War II
The conventional wisdom is that Germany adopted a policy of expansion by negotiation, bluster, and occupation in the 1930’s and that only timely action by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain slowed this policy of aggression. As with the book burning, this was largely fake news.
A glance at the map (below) shows what was actually going on.
 |
| Germany dismembered |
Despite the fact it did not start WWI, and had not yet lost it, a starving Germany agreed to a disastrous peace treaty in 1919 that carved up the country like a butt of ham. Germany lost territory and populations to Belgium, France, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Lithuania. The largest loss was to Poland, including almost all of Posen, West Prussia and the city of Danzig.
In effect, the Allies in giving Poland access to the sea, tried to drive a stake through Prussia, the ancient heart of Germany, as if the country were Count Dracula.
Viewed by Germans, what Hitler was trying to do was to rebuild a dismembered country. Viewed by France and Britain, Germany was aggressively invading neighbouring countries. This is a subtle but critical point. If Prussia was historically, and ethnically, German, how could trying to get it back be “aggression?” Can one invade one’s own country?
Germany opened its negotiations with Poland on October 24, 1938 in a co-operative way.
It asked for Danzig and a strip a kilometer wide across the Polish Corridor to provide a highway and four-track railroad under German sovereignty. Poland’s economic and harbor rights in Danzig were to be guaranteed and the “corridor across the Corridor” was to be isolated from Polish communications by bridging or tunneling. In addition, Germany asked Poland to join it in an anti-Russian alliance in exchange for other concessions.
Considering that Danzig was 95 percent German and Poland was sitting on a large part of Prussia, and considering that Poland had fought a war with the Soviets in 1920, this was a reasonable proposal. It got nowhere, but Germany persisted.
On January 6th, 1939, German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop met with the Polish Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, in Munich to discuss the situation. Von Ribbentrop made the following proposal:
the return of Danzig to Germany. In return, all of Poland’s economic interests in this region would be guaranteed, and most generously at that. Germany would be given access to her province of East Prussia by means of an extraterritorial highway and rail line. In return, Germany would guarantee the Corridor and the entire Polish status, in other words, a final and permanent recognition of each nation’s borders.
This is not Germany asking for all its people and property back; this is a compromise. On March 22, 1939, Polish leaders meeting at Warsaw Castle, rejected the proposal. Nine days later, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain extended an offer of support to Poland, later solidified into a military treaty.
Germany comes up with another suggestion; a referendum held under international supervision. If residents of the corridor voted to return to Germany, Poland would be given a one-kilometer corridor through Germany to the Baltic Sea. So now Germany has proposed two solutions, a corridor through the corridor for Germany or a corridor through Germany for Poland. Poland says no.
Meanwhile, the population of Danzig and the corridor is clamoring to rejoin the Fatherland on a daily basis. Attacks and assaults against Germans are reported, exaggerated by German propaganda, but nevertheless real.
Hitler, who’s long-term plan, as laid out in his book Mein Kampf, was to invade the Soviet Union, wanted Poland as either an ally or a neutral state, like Hungary or Bulgaria. However, if Poland wanted to be an enemy, well, so be it. The invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, must have been viewed in Berlin, after these negotiations, with some satisfaction.
The response by Britain on September 3 was greeted with stupefaction. What was Britain thinking? Germany didn’t want a war with Britain and Britain couldn’t intervene in any useful way in Poland. It was 1914 all over again; Britain intervening in a European war that didn’t concern it and didn’t involve it.
We can look back across the decades, now that the fog of war has cleared, to see what really happened. First, Britain and France starve Germany into submission, then they cut off pieces to create new countries, then, 20 years later, they block Germany’s attempt to negotiate a solution that recognizes the German population of Danzig and reunites the German province of East Prussia with the rest of the country.
This act forces Germany to the only other solution, war. So, once again, it’s all Germany’s fault, right?
Slave Labour
 |
| IG Farben BUNA Werke |
Germany’s problem in WWII was primarily demographic; it was vastly outnumbered by the Allies: America, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. Its solution, if I can call it that, was to dragoon its prison population into the workforce as slave labourers.
You’re looking at a photo of the IG Farben BUNA Werke in Monowice on the outskirts of Oświęcim Poland taken during its construction in 1942. The name BUNA is derived from butadiene-based synthetic rubber and the chemical symbol for sodium (Na), a process of synthetic rubber production developed in Germany.
This one factory, although part of a complex of industrial plants, was very large in its own right, covering two square miles, with scores of buildings involved in rubber, chemical and fuel production. The large building at centre left is the power plant which eventually had three prominent smoke stacks. At the height of production in 1944, the BUNA Werke employed 80,000 workers.
Most of the factory was carried off to the east by Soviet forces in 1945 but you can still see numerous buildings and structures which point to what was one of wartime Germany’s largest synthetic rubber plants.
Although built by 8,636 workers from Italy, it was staffed by slave-labourers, a majority of them Jewish, from several nearby concentration camps. This is why you’ve never heard of the Buna Werke in Monowice; the camps are far more famous and go under their German name, Auschwitz.
At the BUNA Werke there is no doubt conditions for the workers were terrible, the German overseers harsh, and workers’ life measured in months, not years. What there is doubt about, however, are the German intentions, their motives; was it to make rubber and gasoline or destroy a people? Did this enormous enterprise act as a cover for killing one Million Jews, or was it an essential war industry staffed by slave labourers, many of whom died? On this issue rests the whole body of German guilt, promoted after the war by the released inmates and continued today in museums around the world.
What is the purpose of the plant? What makes sense from a strategic point of view in a country with no natural rubber resources? Why would a country, fighting for its life, spend its money, time and energy killing workers for an essential war industry, particularly workers within walking distance of the plant?
The noted English historian, David Irving, says the idea that the camps clustered around BUNA Werke were designed specifically to kill inmates is demonstrably false. In a speech given in Cincinnati in 1995 he demolished all the conventional arguments accusing the Germans of mass murder based on original research, scientific analysis and official documents. Irving says the deaths at Auschwitz were a byproduct of overwork, malnutrition and (mostly) disease and likely totaled, according to Russian figures, no more than 100,000.
This is a terrible number of deaths, but it is not the 1,000,000 now claimed; the 4,000,000 originally claimed or 6,000,000 familiar to the public. Those numbers are clearly Fake News.
Those Terrible Bodies
 |
| Dachau dead |
Anyone who has seen the pictures of emaciated bodies piled up in German concentration camps at the end of WWII has felt a wave of revulsion. How could a nation do this to millions of people? The pictures condemn the National Socialists for all time.
Or do they? Could there be another explanation for mounds of corpses? Indeed, did Allied actions create the conditions which resulted in what we see in the pictures? Or to put that more plainly; were our bomber crews the people responsible for killing those pitiful inmates?
Here are the circumstances that affected the camps as the war came to an end. First, the German economy was shattered, not just the war-fighting economy, but the domestic economy involving food production and distribution. This meant the camps weren’t receiving the food necessary to feed the inmates. They were literally starving.
Second, because of the poor nutrition, poor sanitation and crowding (caused by the retreat from Russia), disease ran rampant around the prisoner blocks, especially Typhus.
Typhus is an interesting bacterial disease because it’s spread by parasites. Here’s Wikipedia.
Epidemic typhus is due to Rickettsia prowazekii spread by body lice, scrub typhus is due to Orientia tsutsugamushi spread by mites, and murine typhus is due to Rickettsia typhi spread by fleas.
There is no vaccine commercially available (2019). The only way to stop the spread is to eliminate the carriers: lice, mites and fleas. This is done by fumigating clothing with a pesticide.
Wikipedia again:
Zyklon B a cyanide-based pesticide invented in Germany in the early 1920s. It consisted of hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid), as well as a cautionary eye irritant and one of several adsorbents such as diatomaceous earth.
Each concentration camp had small disinfestation rooms for this purpose. The camps also had large shower rooms so prisoners could wash themselves, for the same purpose.
As Allied bombing intensified, a vicious circle developed: less food, less fuel, less pesticide control, more disease. Since fuel was also used in crematoria to eliminate disease in dead bodies, these began to pile up as the supply was cut off. Finally, in the last few days, guards deserted the facilities, and nothing was done. That, then was what our soldiers, and the Red Army, discovered when they arrived. And so, the pictures. Yes, they are real bodies, but how they got that way is Fake News.
In his History of the Second World War, published in 1975, speaking of the Belsen concentration camp, Russell Barton had this to say:
German medical officers told me that it had been increasingly difficult to transport food to the camp for some months. Anything that moved on the autobahns was likely to be bombed . . . I was surprised to find records going back for two or three years, of large quantities of food cooked daily for distribution. I became convinced, contrary to popular opinion, that there had never been a policy of deliberate starvation. This was confirmed by the large numbers of well-fed inmates . . . The major reason for the state of Belsen were disease, gross overcrowding by central authority, lack of law and order within the huts and inadequate supplies of food, water and drugs.
As food and fuel were cut off, so were supplies of Zyklon B. The vicious cycle got worse. With no disease control, hundreds of people were dying every day in all the camps.
 |
| Zyklon B dispenser |
This brings up an interesting point; how the Zyklon B was handled where dispensers were installed in deinfestation chambers. Here’s a picture of one in such a chamber at Dachau.
A can of the pesticide is inserted at the top right. Then the chamber door is closed, and the can is opened from the outside with a crank operated can opener. The pellets drop down the chute to the basket where heated air from the plenum on the left is blown through them.
What’s important about this sophisticated equipment is that no such equipment was found in any of the rooms used by humans in any of the camps. Surely, if they went to this trouble for clothes, they would have gone to more trouble for people.
There’s a more important point made by this dispenser. Its whole purpose was to suppress disease so slave labourers wouldn’t die. Why would the Germans work to keep people alive if they were planning to kill them?
If you’ve not been exposed to these arguments before, you may still be skeptical. And yet, ask yourself, what is likely to happen in any slave labour system when the system breaks down? What is it going to be like if disease prevention fails, if an epidemic sweeps through the camp, if the crematorium has no fuel? Where will the bodies go? It’s not a pretty picture.
From this horror, it was a very short step for the survivors to insist the deaths were part of a plan, that the camp was a death camp, not a work camp, that the Zyklon B was meant for them, not their clothes. It was also in our interest to vilify the Germans because we were about to put their leaders on trial for war crimes. For a trial, you need a crime, yes? It’s all so convenient, when you really think about it.
Except for the Germans, whose failure at disease control was renamed and converted into a crime against humanity.
Conclusion
A pervasive miasma of self-loathing is seeping across the West like poison gas; a feeling Europeans are responsible for all the troubles of the world. You can see evidence of it everywhere, particularly in Sweden, Norway and Germany where dark-skinned economic migrants are welcomed with open arms and legs.
Eight years ago a Swedish comedy show, Grotesco, showed a miscegenation video with a white girl having sex with a black immigrant over the slogan “Mix it up!” It was supposed to be humour based on exaggeration. Today, American television has mixed couples in bed as a matter of course.
Even pictures of happy white families are criticized as showing “white privilege” or even “white supremacism.” What’s disheartening is not that whites are being attacked—nothing new there—but that they’re not fighting back. Many, perhaps most, whites now believe our time has passed, and it’s time for other peoples, other races to take the lead. All of which leads to the question, ‘what happened?’
Some observers blame feminism. Certainly, Angela Merkel and Theresa May have done their part to weaken Europe as have the millions of European women who have refused motherhood and marriage. They’ve also blamed the secularization of society, the turning away from religion. And they have blamed Cultural Marxism which has been trying to tear down the nuclear family from before the nuclear age.
Somehow, none of these explanations quite hits the mark. I have another theory: German guilt, or rather our elaboration of wartime propaganda which blames, Germany, the heart of Europe, for being irredeemably flawed. This anti-German rhetoric has been spread around the world by survivors of the German slave-labour system. We believed them, blamed the Germans for genocide and began erecting Museums pushing the idea of ethnic mass murder.
Since both the English (Anglo-Saxons), and French (the Franks) are closely related to their German ancestors, the accusations of crimes against humanity have now reflected back on the very people who put an end to National-Socialist Germany. The victors have become victimized by association with the vanquished.
In this article, I made the point that most of what we think of as German guilt is based on fake news, Allied propaganda that’s been printed in history books and carved into stone monuments.
What we need to do to save ourselves, is to save Germany from the history we’ve given it. We have to take Germany to the car wash to rise away all the crap we’ve thrown at it for a century. Only when Germany recovers will the West recover. Nothing else will work; nothing else is enough.
It’s time we started this process.
Author
