The Gleiwitz "False Flag" myth and the testimony of Alfred Naujocks

[Hektor]

The Gleiwitz (alleged) "False Flag" operation on the eve of WW2 is a key piece of propaganda supposed to show German guilt for the start of WW2. In fact, however, there has never been any documentary evidence presented that would indicate that the attack in Gleiwitz - or any of the other border incidents in the weeks before the war, for that matter - was a German "False Flag". The only evidence has been the testimony of a certain Alfred Naujocks, a member of the SD secret service that defected to the Allies in October 1944 and who claimed to have directed the supposed "False Flag" action in Gleiwitz. His testimony however, contains quite a number of, ahem, pecularities:

Camp 020 Report on the Case of Alfred Naujocks 14.1.1945, p.11 (See Alfred Naujocks British Documents Vol.1.pdf, https://archive.org/details/alfred-nauj ... -documents)
.....

Indeed correct and it appears that this Naujocks character testified directly what accusers of Germany would like to hear. During the interrogation a number of other issues were noted by the interrogators, you won't usually hear. Apparently:
- Naujocks was degraded as punishment. Hence had reasons for a grudge.
- Claimed to be part of 'the Austrian resistance movement'.
- Never was accused of what he claimed in the documents (Which would be common law crimes).

The claims were taken at face value and the DDR even made a movie about it.


Also from the Wendig: https://archive.org/details/GleiwitzVorfall


The allegation always was that the purpose of the 'false flag' was to have a justification for War. Now while it was mentioned in German newspapers, it was never played up as such. The German casus belli was far more nuanced and detailed than some ominous incident near the border with Poland.

[PangaeaProxima]

Documents from the files of the public persecutor for the Naujocks case bear the stamp "Politische Sache!" - "Political Issue!" A very blatant signifier how those postwar "warcrimes" cases had absolutely nothing to do with an objective and impartial investigation...

AkteNaujocksPolitischeSache.jpg (265.33 KiB) Viewed 738 times

[Eye of Zyclone]

it appears that this Naujocks character testified directly what accusers of Germany would like to hear.

Providing the victors with false confessions was a successful defense strategy under such circumstances. (see the cases of Kurt Becher and Wilhelm Hoettl for instance)

Alfred Naujocks

Alfred Helmut Naujocks (20 September 1911 – 4 April 1966), alias Hans Müller, Alfred Bonsen, and Rudolf Möbert, was a German Schutzstaffel (SS) functionary during the Third Reich. He took part in the staged Gleiwitz incident, a false flag operation intended to provide the justification for the attack on Poland by Nazi Germany, which ultimately culminated in starting World War II.

Later life

At the Nuremberg trials, Naujocks declared the attack against the Gleiwitz radio tower was under orders from Heinrich Müller, the head of Gestapo and his superior, Reinhard Heydrich. After the war, he was not considered high-ranking enough to stand trial, but was called as a witness at the Nuremberg trials.[12]

Following the trials, Naujocks worked as a businessman in Hamburg, where he eventually sold his story to the media as The Man who Started the War. Naujocks died of a heart attack in Hamburg on 4 April 1966, aged 54.[14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Naujocks

"Not considered high-ranking enough to stand trial," my arse!

Food for thought:

• Say you don't believe that the Gleiwitz incident was a false flag operation and you'll be called a mad conspiracy theorist.

• Say you believe that the 9/11 attack on the WTC was a false flag operation and you'll be called a mad conspiracy theorist.

[TlsMS93]

It's important to clarify that this only came to light in the context of the demand to prove "conspiracy to commit crimes against peace."

Neither Hitler nor Goebbels specifically used it to prove the need to invade Germany; they cited several incidents on the border, but why did Allied jurists focus on Gleiwitz? Because they had an SD officer willing to save face?

The German-Polish war was imminent; there was no need to stage anything, and even if there were staged events, who guarantees that the Poles didn't actually engage in real skirmishes? After all, Poland had already mobilized a day before these events.

[Eye of Zyclone]

It's important to clarify that this only came to light in the context of the demand to prove "conspiracy to commit crimes against peace."

Neither Hitler nor Goebbels specifically used it to prove the need to invade Germany; they cited several incidents on the border, but why did Allied jurists focus on Gleiwitz? Because they had an SD officer willing to save face?

The German-Polish war was imminent; there was no need to stage anything, and even if there were staged events, who guarantees that the Poles didn't actually engage in real skirmishes? After all, Poland had already mobilized a day before these events.

More info about the numerous incidents on the German-Polish border in late August 1939 :

[Hektor]

It's important to clarify that this only came to light in the context of the demand to prove "conspiracy to commit crimes against peace."

Neither Hitler nor Goebbels specifically used it to prove the need to invade Germany; they cited several incidents on the border, but why did Allied jurists focus on Gleiwitz? Because they had an SD officer willing to save face?

The German-Polish war was imminent; there was no need to stage anything, and even if there were staged events, who guarantees that the Poles didn't actually engage in real skirmishes? After all, Poland had already mobilized a day before these events.

They cited a whole number of incidents and grievances. Where did they cite Gleiwitz? So all the tireless effort of Mr. Naujocks and they boss didn't care to use it?

And as far as the meager documentation goes... Did our esteemed, tax-payer funded historians even seriously care to check the veracity and authenticity of it?

[TlsMS93]

They cited a whole number of incidents and grievances. Where did they cite Gleiwitz? So all the tireless effort of Mr. Naujocks and they boss didn't care to use it?

And as far as the meager documentation goes... Did our esteemed, tax-payer funded historians even seriously care to check the veracity and authenticity of it?

And how on earth is a false flag attack sold in an autocratic regime without the safeguards that a liberal system possesses to ensure such an event is broadcast? This is very different from Pearl Harbor where Roosevelt got what he wanted; this is a pure false flag operation.