Hitler did not start ww2

[Hektor]

....
It refers to a statement Winston Churchill made during the ‘phony war’ period.

The problem with such statements is there verifiability or lack thereof. What can be shown is however statements Churchill put into writing... And they show he pushed for war and tried to provoke German reactions....

[Wahrheitssucher]

....
It refers to a statement Winston Churchill made during the ‘phony war’ period.

The problem with such statements is there verifiability or lack thereof. What can be shown however, is statements Churchill put into writing... And they show he pushed for war and tried to provoke German reactions....

What “can be shown”is we are not given the whole story.
What “can be shown” is that the current ‘history’ is a calculated LIE BY OMISSION.

What “can be shown” is that Adolf Hitler did NOT want another war, tried hard to avoid one, and so can not fairly or honestly be said to have started WW2.

Apparently the source for this alleged Churchill quote is David Irving.

Irving claimed that Churchill said this to JFK’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. who was US Ambassador in London at the time, during this ‘phoney war’ period.
Irving claimed the quote appears in Kennedy's writings so presumably his diaries. As far as I know, Irving did not provide a verifiable archival citation. But I haven’t read Irving’s voluminous work on Churchill.
Have you?

Churchill's War (1987) ISBN 0-947117-56-3: (in 4 parts).

Churchill's War Volume II: Triumph in Adversity (1997) ISBN 1-872197-15-9: (in 3 parts)

If it is an actual, genuine quote, it is not at all surprising that court-historians have not highlighted it nor regurgitated it in their own writings of the period.
So the fact that no other historian has admitted to looking for it and to have checked whether it exists in Joe Kennedy’s papers, is actually support for its genuiness. Otherwise it would be raised high as proof David Irving isn’t an honest or trustworthy historian.

That it hasn’t been raised at all, suggests the quote IS in Joe’s writings.

It appears to be similar to Forrestal’s quote, ALSO from Joe Kennedy.
Court-historians do not highlight and regurgitate that quote either.

The reason for avoiding mentioning BOTH quotes is obvious: they demonstrate that IT WAS NOT ADOLF H WHO WANTED NOR STARTED WW2.
This Churchill quote — if genuine — further corroborates the view that Churchill goaded Germany into escalating the war, because he NEEDED the Americans to join it on his side, otherwise by 1941 he had lost the war he helped start.

BRITISH PRIME MINISTER Neville Chamberlain told Joseph Kennedy, then US Ambassador to Great Britain, that “America and the world Jews” pushed Britain and Germany into war with one another.
This exchange was documented in The Forrestal Diaries, the published journal of the first US Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal.

US Jews, including William Bullitt, used economic and political leverage to foment an Anglo-German war.

The following is an excerpt of The Forrestal Diaries:

Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph Kennedy, US Ambassador to Great Britain right before World War II and father of future US President John F. Kennedy]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler.

Kennedy’s view: that Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, US Jewish diplomat, descendant of Hyam Saloman, then US Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.

Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not…

To summarize, Forrestal is saying that at the height of positive Anglo-German relations in 1938, US and world Jews in general were working to destroy those relations. In particular, US Jew and envoy, William C. Bullitt, was striving to undermine peace between Britain and Germany. Bullitt put pressure on Roosevelt to harden US diplomacy toward Germany. His pressure on Roosevelt succeeded in putting pressure on Britain. The aim of US and world Jewry was to use Poland to commit Britain to go to war against Germany.

In Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover, Bullitt is recounted pressuring Poland to refuse a deal of any sort with Hitler that would peacefully return Danzig to Germany:

Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records. The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.

Bullitt left no doubt of the intended effect of US foreign policy toward Britain, Poland, and Germany. US would push Britain into a suicidal war, and the US would finish it:

As Ambassador Bullitt puts it:
“If a war breaks out, we probably would not participate in it at the beginning, but we would finish it.”

[continued here: https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/05/am ... recounted/ ]

[Hektor]

....
It refers to a statement Winston Churchill made during the ‘phony war’ period.

The problem with such statements is there verifiability or lack thereof. What can be shown however, is statements Churchill put into writing... And they show he pushed for war and tried to provoke German reactions....

What “can be shown”is we are not given the whole story.
What “can be shown” is that the current ‘history’ is a calculated LIE BY OMISSION.

What “can be shown” is that Adolf Hitler did NOT want another war, tried hard to avoid one, and so can not fairly or honestly be said to have started WW2....

Indeed, but presenting the evidences for this still needs some work. While AI is often preprogrammed to be biased in this regard, I think it can assist with the research it's presentation in this regard.

[Wahrheitssucher]

[Eye of Zyclone]

[Gonzalo]

What do you mean, “no”? So who was it? A body double playing the role of the Führer on September 1?

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

– Hitler, 23/5/1939

Hitler attacked all of Poland on September 1, bombed Wieluń, killing hundreds of civilians on the first day, and did so under a pact with the Soviets that stipulated the division of the continent into spheres of influence. Let’s also remember that Hitler had been warned that invading Poland would mean war with France and Great Britain due to the March 31 guarantee, in addition to the Anglo-Polish mutual defense pact of August 1939 [the latter pact caused Hitler to cancel the invasion of Poland scheduled for August 26]. Hitler started a world war out of his desire to secure “living space” and brought about the total destruction of the continent, along with millions of deaths and the definitive downfall of Germany as a world power. Everything that Bismarck, Wilhelm I, the Prussians, and the Teutons had built up over hundreds of years for the German people was destroyed by the revisionists’ beloved Führer in just 12 years.

Your Excellency, 10 Downing Street, August 22, 1939.

YOUR Excellency will have already heard of certain measures taken by His Majesty's Government, and announced in the press and on the wireless this evening.

These steps have, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, been rendered necessary by the military movements which have been reported from Germany, and by the fact that apparently the announcement of a German-Soviet Agreement is taken in some quarters in Berlin to indicate that intervention by Great Britain on behalf of Poland is no longer a contingency that need be reckoned with. No greater mistake could be made. Whatever may prove to be the nature of the German-Soviet Agreement, it cannot alter Great Britain's obligation to Poland which His Majesty's Government have stated in public repeatedly and plainly, and which they are determined to fulfil.

It has been alleged that, if His Majesty's Government had made their position more clear in 1914, the great catastrophe would have been avoided. Whether or not there is any force in that allegation, His Majesty's Government are resolved that on this occasion there shall be no such tragic misunderstanding.

If the case should arise, they are resolved, and prepared, to employ without delay all the forces at their command, and it is impossible to foresee the end of hostilities once engaged. It would be a dangerous illusion to think that, if war once starts, it will come to an early end even if a success on any one of the several fronts on which it will be engaged should have been secured.

Having thus made our position perfectly clear, I wish to repeat to you my conviction that war between our two peoples would be the greatest calamity that could occur. I am certain that it is desired neither by our people, nor by yours, and I cannot see that there is anything in the questions arising between Germany and Poland which could not and should not be resolved without the use of force, if only a situation of confidence could be restored to enable discussions to be carried on in an atmosphere different from that which prevails to-day.

We have been, and at all times will be, ready to assist in creating conditions in which such negotiations could take place, and in which it might be possible concurrently to discuss the wider problems affecting the future of international relations, including matters of interest to us and to you.

The difficulties in the way of any peaceful discussion in the present state of tension are, however, obvious, and the longer that tension is maintained, the harder will it be for reason to prevail.

These difficulties, however, might be mitigated, if not removed, provided that there could for an initial period be a truce on both sides-and indeed on all sides-to press polemics and to all incitement.

If such a truce could be arranged, then, at the end of that period, during which steps could be taken to examine and deal with complaints made by either side as to the treatment of minorities, it is reasonable to hope that suitable conditions might have been established for direct negotiations between Germany and Poland upon the issues between them (with the aid of a neutral intermediary, if both sides should think that that would be helpful).

But I am bound to say that there would be slender hope of bringing such negotiations to successful issue unless it were understood beforehand that any settlement reached would, when concluded, be guaranteed by other Powers. His Majesty's Government would be ready, if desired, to make such contribution as they could to the effective operation of such guarantees.

At this moment I confess I can see no other way to avoid a catastrophe that will involve Europe in war.

In view of the grave consequences to humanity, which may follow from the action of their rulers, I trust that Your Excellency will weigh with the utmost deliberation the considerations which I have put before you.

Yours sincerely,

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN.

What did England and France stand to gain by entering into another all-out war with Germany? What was their opportunity cost in 1939? World War I was extremely painful for the French and British empires, both of which were left weakened and lost their hegemony to the United States. And what about Poland? Why would Poland want to go to war when its army was extremely weak compared to the German army, which, incidentally, rearmed on a massive scale between 1933 and 1938 through MEFO bonds? Why did Poland sign a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1934 and bilaterally ratify a treaty respecting German minorities in November 1937?

[Eye of Zyclone]

Why would Poland want to go to war when its army was extremely weak compared to the German army, which, incidentally, rearmed on a massive scale between 1933 and 1938 through MEFO bonds?

Not the opinion of the Polish military staff in 1939.



Nothing to worry about with American and British military agreements in their pockets.





Was among the secret diplomatic documents captured by German troops in Warsaw and incriminating enough to be denied by US leaders during WW2 (but still 100% genuine despite the American dementi) and ignored by Establishment historians after the war.

the German army, which, incidentally, rearmed on a massive scale between 1933 and 1938

Very overestimated and distorted for obvious reasons...

Germany's post-WW1 disarmament was supposed to be the 1st step of a general disarmament. It had been completed in 1928. And since the victors of WW1 were clearly unwilling to disarm themselves as they had claimed they would do at the 1919 'peace' conference, there was no good reason for any responsible German leader to leave his country unarmed and surrounded by quite hostile countries.

[Gonzalo]

Why would Poland want to go to war when its army was extremely weak compared to the German army, which, incidentally, rearmed on a massive scale between 1933 and 1938 through MEFO bonds?

Not the opinion of the Polish military staff in 1939.
[...]

The Polish General Staff was aware of its absolute military inferiority compared to Germany, and its strategy in the event of a German attack was to retreat eastward and wait for Germany to be defeated by the Anglo-French forces. The Poles never believed they could defeat Germany. And the British guarantees were defensive in nature; their goal was to deter Germany from attacking.

[HansHill]

Why would Poland want to go to war when its army was extremely weak compared to the German army, which, incidentally, rearmed on a massive scale between 1933 and 1938 through MEFO bonds?

Not the opinion of the Polish military staff in 1939.
[...]

The Polish General Staff was aware of its absolute military inferiority compared to Germany, and its strategy in the event of a German attack was to retreat eastward and wait for Germany to be defeated by the Anglo-French forces. The Poles never believed they could defeat Germany. And the British guarantees were defensive in nature; their goal was to deter Germany from attacking.

Yet the Poles still agitated for war, even attempting to enlist the French three times in a Polish war against the 3R. Source: Richard Tedor, Hitler's Revolution.

[Gonzalo]

Yet the Poles still agitated for war, even attempting to enlist the French three times in a Polish war against the 3R. Source: Richard Tedor, Hitler's Revolution.

I've read Tedor, and I think it's one of the few interesting revisionist works. However, he is completely wrong about that point. The only one who pushed for war was Adolf, who, practically from the moment he came to power, spent an enormous amount of money on arms production, and part of that expenditure was financed by debt [at interest...]. Hitler occupied Bohemia and Moravia, breaking his word, and immediately began to intensify the pressure on Poland. A month later, he denounced the German-Polish non-aggression pact that he himself had signed in 1934 and gave the order to begin preparations for the invasion of Poland (Fall Weiss). For Poland, ceding Danzig meant losing its access to the sea and being left at the mercy of a historic enemy like Germany; moreover, Hitler had already proven himself untrustworthy.

23 November 1939, 12 Uhr

Meeting with the Führer, which all supreme commanders are ordered to attend
The Führer refers the following: [...]
The growing number of people requires greater living space. My goal was to bring about a reasonable relation between the number of people and the space available to it. Here the fight must commence. No people can go around solving this task, lest it wants to do without and gradually vanish. This is what history teaches us. First the peoples’ migration to the Southeast, then the adaptation of the number of people to the scarce space through emigration. In the last years adaptation of the number of people to the insufficient space by reducing the number of births. This would lead to the death of the people, to its bleeding dry. If a people takes this way, it renounces violence towards the outside and applies it against itself by killing its infants. This means greatest cowardice, decimation and devaluation.
I decided to take the other way: Adapt the living space to the number of people. One realization is important: the state makes sense only if it serves to maintain the substance of the people. In our case it is 82 million people. This means greatest responsibility. He who doesn’t take this responsibility upon himself is not worth belonging to the body popular. This gave me the strength to fight. It is an eternal problem to bring the number of Germans in relation to the soil. To secure the necessary space. No windy smartness helps here, a solution is only possible by the sword. A people that doesn’t put together the strength to fight must leave the stage.
Fighting is different today from what it was 100 years ago. Today we can speak of a fight of races. Today we fight for oilfields, rubber, raw materials etc. After the Peace of Westphalia Germany had fallen apart. This German impotence was again removed by the foundation of the Reich, when Prussia took conscience of its task. Then the antagonism towards France and England began. England stands against us since 1870. Bismarck and Moltke saw clearly that there would be another round. At that time there was the danger of a two-front war. Moltke for some time favored a preventive war, taking advantage of the slower mobilization of the Russians. The German striking power was not fully taken advantage of. Insufficient toughness of the leading personalities. The basic thought of Moltke’s plans was offensive. He never thought of defensive.
After Moltke’s death numerous chances were missed. The solution was only possible by attacking a state at the most favorable opportunity. The political and military leadership were to blame for this chance having been missed. The military command was always declaring that it was not yet ready. In 1914 the war on several fronts broke out. It didn’t bring the solution of the problem.

Today the second act of this drama is being written. For the first time in 67 years it must be verified that we don’t need to wage a war on two fronts. We have the situation that was desired since 1870 and actually considered impossible. For the first time in history we have to fight only against one front, the other is currently free. But no one can no how long things will stay this way.
For a long time I was in doubt whether I should strike first in the East or in the West. As a matter of principle I didn’t create the Werhmacht in order not to strike. The decision to strike was always in me. Sooner or later I wanted to solve the problem. Necessarily it was decided to make our first move in the East.
If the Polish war succeeded so quickly, this was due to the superiority of our Wehrmacht. The most glorious achievement in our history. Unexpectedly low losses in men and material. Now the Eastern Front is held with few divisions. It is a situation such as we considered impossible to achieve in the past. Now the situation is the following: the enemy in the West lies behind his fortifications. It is not possible to attack him. What is decisive is: how long can we bear this situation ?
Russia is currently harmless. It is weakened these days by many internal occurrences. Besides, we have an agreement with Russia. Agreements, however, are held only as long as they are useful. Russia will stick to this agreement only as long as she considers it good for herself. Bismarck thought so as well. Remember the Reinsurance Agreement [Footnote: this remark is completely out of place. The Reinsurance Agreement (a mutual neutrality agreement between Germany and Russia, signed by Bismarck in 1887) was dropped not by Russia, but by Germany; this was done not by Bismarck, but by his successor Caprivi.] Now Russia still has far-reaching goals, principally reinforcing her position on the Baltic.
We can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West. Russia furthermore strives for strengthening her influence in the Balkans and for the Persian Gulf. This is also the goal of our foreign policy. Russia will do what she considers good for herself. At the moment Internationalism has stepped back. If Russia should renounce it, she will go over to Pan-Slavism. It is difficult to look into the future.
The fact is that the Russian armed forces are currently of little value. For the next one or two years the current situation will stay the same.
Much depends on Italy, especially on Mussolini, whose death can change everything. Italy has great goals for the consolidation of her empire. The bearers of this idea are Fascism and the Duce personally. The court is in a position of rejection. As long as the Duce lives, we can count on Italy taking advantage of every possibility to reach her imperialist goals. It is asking to much of Italy, however, to expect her to intervene before Germany has taken to the offensive in the West; Russia also intervened only after we had invaded Poland. Otherwise Italy will think that France is busy only with Italy because Germany is sitting behind its West Wall. Italy will only intervene after Germany herself has proceeded offensively against France. Just like the death of Stalin the Duce’s death can bring danger for us.[…]

If you’re referring to the Polish-French talks of 1933, those are simply rumors. They are unconfirmed, and no plan of aggression against Germany was carried out in 1933. Unfortunately...

[Eye of Zyclone]

Why would Poland want to go to war when its army was extremely weak compared to the German army, which, incidentally, rearmed on a massive scale between 1933 and 1938 through MEFO bonds?

Not the opinion of the Polish military staff in 1939.
[...]

The Polish General Staff was aware of its absolute military inferiority compared to Germany

Not what transpired from the Anglo-Polish staff conversations of 1939 (see the report in my previous post)...

[Gonzalo]

Not what transpired from the Anglo-Polish staff conversations of 1939 (see the report in my previous post)...

Poland wasn't plotting anything against Germany. Neither were England nor the United States. Both countries intervened in favor of a peaceful resolution to the Czech-German conflict over the Sudetenland in 1938. Even Roosevelt, who disliked Nazism, tried to engage Hitler in dialogue and persuade him to calm down. Accept it: your idol was a semi-illiterate man with no diplomatic skills who did everything wrong.

[HansHill]

Glad to see you found some value in Tedor. It might be worth revisiting his work since you seemingly forgot this (quick search for the Danzig Port canard):

The Danzig
territory, encompassing 730 square miles, was under League of Nations,
not Polish, jurisdiction. Regarding the city’s value as a harbor, the Poles no
longer needed it for nautical export; further up the coast they had
constructed the port city of Gydnia, which opened in 1926. Offering
economic incentives to shippers, they had taken more than half of
Danzig’s commerce by 1930.

Ch 3

.

[Gonzalo]

Glad to see you found some value in Tedor.

Yea, the value of Tedor’s work (I assume you’re referring to *Hitler’s Revolution*), in my opinion, lies in shedding light on National Socialist racial beliefs and on what high-ranking Nazis thought about various issues. For someone like me, who is interested in understanding Nazi ideology from its beginnings in Austria-Hungary to its end in the bunker, this has a certain value.

It might be worth revisiting his work since you seemingly forgot this (quick search for the Danzig Port canard):

The Danzig
territory, encompassing 730 square miles, was under League of Nations,
not Polish, jurisdiction. Regarding the city’s value as a harbor, the Poles no
longer needed it for nautical export; further up the coast they had
constructed the port city of Gydnia, which opened in 1926. Offering
economic incentives to shippers, they had taken more than half of
Danzig’s commerce by 1930.

Ch 3

.

Danzig remained the most strategically important port, and Hitler, in the end, demanded Danzig plus the corridor—which wasn’t even entirely populated by Germans. The Poles weren’t going to let themselves be humiliated, especially after seeing what had happened to Czechoslovakia. Hitler made war inevitable. Danzig was just the excuse.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Not what transpired from the Anglo-Polish staff conversations of 1939 (see the report in my previous post)...

Poland wasn't plotting anything against...

Nice regurgitation of the victors' fable! Do you feel better now?