DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: YouAreFucked! Date: April 27, 2025, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Western "whites" wish Hitler spoke this disputed "white" western
nonsense:
[quote]I don't see much future for the Americans... it's a
decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the
problem of social inequalities... It goes without saying that we
have no affinities with the Japanese. (UMMM, NS Germany was
allied with Japan "white" western racist moron!). They’re too
foreign to us, by their way of living, by their culture. (Both
Japan and Germany have militaristic culture and ways of
living?). But my feelings against Americanism are feelings of
hatred and deep repugnance. I feel myself more akin to any
European country, no matter which. (NS Germany waged war against
all of "white" western Europe, duh!?). Everything about the
behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised,
and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like
that to hold together—a State where 80 percent of the revenue is
drained away for the public purse—a country where everything is
built on the dollar? From this point of view, I consider the
British State very much superior. - Adolf Hitler, 7 January
1942, evening[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
What was most likely said by Hitler:
[quote]“I don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a
decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the
problem of social inequalities ... my feelings against
Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ...
everything about the behavior of American society reveals that
it's half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one
expect a State like that to hold together?” - Adolf Hitler,
Remarks recorded by Martin Bormann, published in Hitler's Table
Talk (1953).[/quote]
HTML http://enroll.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/quotations/axis-leaders.html
I completely agree. The only thing that could save the AMERICA
at this point is the negro. Russia knows this too, I'm sure...
#Post#: 30073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
By: antihellenistic Date: May 4, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are the writings of Hitler’s thoughts in the Table Talk book
from 1941–1944 (Hitler’s Table Talk/HTT) fake or authentic?
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EWd-IH6HI
[quote]Research from the TIKHistory [i]YouTube channel[/i] on
Hitler’s Table Talk book, minutes 23:10 to 24:23
The critics who initially recommended this source to me (as a
way to weaken what I was saying), if they read it, either didn’t
read it to the end or didn’t pay enough attention. And in this
case, I blame the author for how he wrote the book. He paints a
picture throughout the first part of the book that Hitler’s
Table Talk cannot be used as a historical source. He denounces
it, and repeatedly shames the historians he mentions for using
this source. However, right at the end of the book, he says
(words from TIKHistory):
“However, and this is very important, the results presented in
this book should in no way be interpreted as meaning that the
Table Talk is inauthentic. It is indeed, at least for the most
part, a memorandum of statements made by Hitler at some time or
another at his wartime headquarters. It was made by Heim,
Picker, Müller, or Bormann, although there are also some notes
without names.”
— Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 388
[Minute 23:10 to 24:14]
Yes, the German version of the Table Talks is NOT a forgery. It
is a valid primary source. (words from TIKHistory)
[Minute 24:23]
TIKHistory quotes Mikael Nilsson’s writing:
“In fact, even the German texts [of the Table Talks] are not
primary sources in the same sense as, for example, Hitler’s Mein
Kampf and Zweites Buch… These texts are secondary sources
regarding Hitler’s statements, based on the memories of those
who heard him speak. Thus, they are primary sources in the same
way as Goebbels’ diary, or other retrospective recollections of
what Hitler said, are primary sources.”
And that is what makes it a primary source.
— Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 26
[Minute 42:47 to 43:20]
According to Ranke, the German historian who founded modern
history and coined the terms “primary” and “secondary” sources,
a primary source is a source written by people who were there
and witnessed the events. He did not say they had to write the
primary source immediately afterward. As long as they witnessed
the event, they are a primary source for that event. So, the
Table Talks are a primary source, not a secondary source as you
state in the middle of the paragraph. Goebbels’ diary is also a
primary source for the same reason — he himself witnessed the
events he wrote about. Yes, and so did Picker, Heim, and the
others. Now, I 100% agree that Ranke made no distinction about
when the primary source was written, and that is a weakness in
how we think about memoirs. But I’ve said this before, so I’m
not shy to say it again: memoirs written many years after the
events they describe cannot be trusted as much as other primary
sources. Even so, these sources are still classified as primary
sources and still need to be used carefully. And in the case of
the Table Talks, it’s clear that part of it was written at the
time. So clearly, these memoirs are better than other memoirs
out there, because parts of them are based on notes taken at the
time, which is not always the case with other memoirs.
— TIKHistory, How Hitler’s “Table Talks” Broke History
[Minute 43:20 to 44:48][/quote]
#Post#: 30081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
By: Wikiquote Date: May 4, 2025, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=antihellenistic link=topic=40.msg30073#msg30073
date=1746364576]
Are the writings of Hitler’s thoughts in the Table Talk book
from 1941–1944 (Hitler’s Table Talk/HTT) fake or authentic?
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EWd-IH6HI
[quote]Research from the TIKHistory [i]YouTube channel[/i] on
Hitler’s Table Talk book, minutes 23:10 to 24:23
The critics who initially recommended this source to me (as a
way to weaken what I was saying), if they read it, either didn’t
read it to the end or didn’t pay enough attention. And in this
case, I blame the author for how he wrote the book. He paints a
picture throughout the first part of the book that Hitler’s
Table Talk cannot be used as a historical source. He denounces
it, and repeatedly shames the historians he mentions for using
this source. However, right at the end of the book, he says
(words from TIKHistory):
“However, and this is very important, the results presented in
this book should in no way be interpreted as meaning that the
Table Talk is inauthentic. It is indeed, at least for the most
part, a memorandum of statements made by Hitler at some time or
another at his wartime headquarters. It was made by Heim,
Picker, Müller, or Bormann, although there are also some notes
without names.”
— Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 388
[Minute 23:10 to 24:14]
Yes, the German version of the Table Talks is NOT a forgery. It
is a valid primary source. (words from TIKHistory)
[Minute 24:23]
TIKHistory quotes Mikael Nilsson’s writing:
“In fact, even the German texts [of the Table Talks] are not
primary sources in the same sense as, for example, Hitler’s Mein
Kampf and Zweites Buch… These texts are secondary sources
regarding Hitler’s statements, based on the memories of those
who heard him speak. Thus, they are primary sources in the same
way as Goebbels’ diary, or other retrospective recollections of
what Hitler said, are primary sources.”
And that is what makes it a primary source.
— Mikael Nilsson, Swedish historian
Reference: Nilsson, Hitler Redux, Kindle p. 26
[Minute 42:47 to 43:20]
According to Ranke, the German historian who founded modern
history and coined the terms “primary” and “secondary” sources,
a primary source is a source written by people who were there
and witnessed the events. He did not say they had to write the
primary source immediately afterward. As long as they witnessed
the event, they are a primary source for that event. So, the
Table Talks are a primary source, not a secondary source as you
state in the middle of the paragraph. Goebbels’ diary is also a
primary source for the same reason — he himself witnessed the
events he wrote about. Yes, and so did Picker, Heim, and the
others. Now, I 100% agree that Ranke made no distinction about
when the primary source was written, and that is a weakness in
how we think about memoirs. But I’ve said this before, so I’m
not shy to say it again: memoirs written many years after the
events they describe cannot be trusted as much as other primary
sources. Even so, these sources are still classified as primary
sources and still need to be used carefully. And in the case of
the Table Talks, it’s clear that part of it was written at the
time. So clearly, these memoirs are better than other memoirs
out there, because parts of them are based on notes taken at the
time, which is not always the case with other memoirs.
— TIKHistory, How Hitler’s “Table Talks” Broke History
[Minute 43:20 to 44:48][/quote]
[/quote]
Interesting. I also found this on Hitler's Wikiquote page, in
the disputed section at the bottom:
[quote]Hitler's Table Talk (1941-1944) (published 1953)
Die Bormann Vermerke: Transcripts of Hitler's conversations (5
July 1941 - 30 November 1944), made under the supervision of
Martin Bormann, published in the UK as Hitler's Table Talks
(1953). The source material is generally accepted as reliable;
the accuracy and reliability of the English translation is often
disputed.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
I, as probably most here, have always felt much of what Hitler
said has been lost in translation.
#Post#: 30089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
By: antihellenistic Date: May 5, 2025, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hitler's plan to attack Europe, written by Hermann Rauschning,
the German politician and author, adherent of the Conservative
Revolution movement who briefly joined the NSDAP movement before
breaking with it.
[quote]Hitler : "I shall do everything in my power to prevent
cooperation between Britain and France. If I succeed in bringing
in Italy and Britain on our side, the first part of our struggle
for power will be greatly facilitated. Anyhow, we don't for a
moment pretend to believe that this degenerate Jewish democracy
has any more vitality than France or the United States. It will
be my mission to see that at least an effort is made to inherit
this disintegrating empire peacefully, so that conflict can be
avoided entirely. But I shall not shrink from war with Britain
if it is necessary. Where Napoleon failed, I shall succeed.
Today there is no such thing as an island. I shall land on the
shores of Britain. I shall destroy her towns from the mainland.
Britain does not yet know how vulnerable she is today."
Hermann Rauschning : "But supposing Britain, France and Russia
make an alliance?"
"That would be the end. But even if we could not conquer then,
we should drag half the world into destruction with us, and
leave no one to triumph over Germany. There will not be another
1918. We shall not surrender."
...
Hitler : "We need space to make us independent of every possible
political grouping and alliance. In the east, we must have the
mastery as far as the Caucasus and Iran. In the west, we need
the French coast. We need Flanders and Holland. Above all we
need Sweden. We must become a colonial power. We must have a sea
power equal to that of Britain. The material basis for
independence grows with the increasing demands of technique and
armaments. We cannot, like Bismarck, limit ourselves to national
aims. We must rule Europe or fall apart as a nation, fall back
into the chaos of small states. Now do you understand why I
cannot be limited, either in the east or in the west?"
...
"In the center I shall place the steely core of a Greater
Germany welded into an indissoluble unity. Then Austria,
Bohemia, and Moravia, western Poland. A block of one hundred
million, indestructible, without a flaw, without an alien
element, the firm foundation of our power. Then an Eastern
alliance: Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, the Balkan states,
the Ukraine, the Volga basin, Georgia. An alliance, but not of
equal partners; it will be an alliance of vassal states, with no
army, no separate policy, no separate economy. I have no
intention of making concessions on sentimental grounds, such as
re-establishing Hungary, for example. I make no distinction
between friends and enemies. The day of small states is past, in
the west as well. I shall have a Western Union too, of Holland,
Flanders, Northern France, and a Northern Union of Denmark,
Sweden and Norway."
Raushcning writes on Voice of Destruction : Hitler's imagination
ranged over the entire world. He would attack Britain at all its
weakest points, India no less than Canada. He planned the
occupation of Sweden as well as Holland. The latter country, in
particular, seemed to him valuable jumping-off ground for air
and underwater attacks on England.
Hitler : "In less than eight hours we shall break through to
their coast, if they don't like it, they can try to drive me
out. In any case they will have to bear the main burden of
attack. The day of Britain's might at sea is past. Aircraft and
the U-boat have turned surface fleets into the obsolete
playthings of the wealthy democracies. They are no longer a
serious weapon in decisive warfare."[/quote]
Source :
The Voice Of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning page 120 - 126
HTML https://archive.org/details/voiceofdestructi027169mbp/page/n129/mode/2up
#Post#: 30111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
By: christianbethel Date: May 7, 2025, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I, as probably most here, have always felt much of what
Hitler said has been lost in translation.[/quote]
Same with Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, etc.
#Post#: 30146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: antihellenistic Date: May 8, 2025, 10:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Relationship between Jews and Europe before the Hitler era
[quote]Minute 11:51 until Minute 12:58
“There was no ‘Jewish Question’ in Germany or Western Europe.
Anyone who acknowledged such a thing was merely accepting — or
affirming — the false premise of the NSDAP and supporting its
agenda. Until 1933, and for at least a century prior, German
Jews were fully German and nothing else. Their Jewish ancestry
was simply a testament to the fact that Jews and Germans had
lived and worked side by side, without friction, in all aspects
of life.
Anti-Semitism, though it had always existed, was by no means
evidence to the contrary. The tension between Jews and Aryans
was no greater than that between Protestants and Catholics,
between employers and workers, or between East Prussians and
southern Bavarians, or Rhinelanders and Bavarians.
German Jews were a part of the German people, just as French
Jews were part of the French nation, and so on. They had their
place in German life and were in no way a burden on society as a
whole.”
— Victor Klemperer
References : Klemperer, January 10, 1939, “I Will Bear Witness:
1933–1941,” p. 291.[/quote]
Source :
Why do people believe propaganda? (German ‘justification’ for
invading Poland 1939) - TIKHistory, 6 December 2022
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm0H9oblK8E
#Post#: 30157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 9, 2025, 7:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]“There was no ‘Jewish Question’ in Germany[/quote]
Actually, there was a debate with two sides, one (Nietzschean)
which considered Jews superior:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/arthur-schopenhauer-vs-friedrich-nietzsche/msg17020/#msg17020
and another (Schopenhauerian) which considered Jews inferior:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/arthur-schopenhauer-vs-friedrich-nietzsche/msg17022/#msg17022
of which Schopenhauer fan Hitler subscribed to the latter.
#Post#: 30239--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: May 20, 2025, 3:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The anti-moderate and pacifist roots of Hitler's thinking
The God Behind Hitler's National Socialism - TIKhistory, 19
November 2024
HTML https://youtu.be/5xW_-4yTnPY
Minute: 07:54 – 09:47
[quote]So, the swastika is a symbol of Odin, and also of
“struggle.” War, struggle, death. So what is Hitler all about?
War, struggle, and death! The number of times Hitler uttered the
words “battle” or “struggle” — or both — in his speeches and
writings is absolutely absurd. These two words are synonyms in
the German language.
Examples include:
Kampfgruppen – battle groups
Panzerkampfwagen – armored battle vehicle
Mein Kampf – my struggle, my battle
Battle and struggle are core concepts of National Socialism, and
Hitler used these terms thousands of times in Mein Kampf, his
speeches, and elsewhere. We’d be here for weeks if we went
through all of them, so let’s just give a few examples:
“The Almighty has chosen me among all people to be permitted to
fight for Germany.”
— Adolf Hitler, March 24, 1936, Collection of Speeches
1922–1945, p. 321
TIKHistory comments:
“In other words: ‘Thank you Odin, God of War, for allowing me to
fight in this battle.’”
Elsewhere:
“Our entire struggle is a battle for the soul of our people.
Furthermore, it is a structure — a structure consisting of ideas
that are the bearers of our worldview and that will form the
foundation of the new state.”
— Adolf Hitler, August 21, 1927, Collection of Speeches
1922–1945, p. 69
TIKHistory adds:
“The struggle is a battle for the soul of the German people,
whose god is Odin.”
And perhaps the most striking quote:
“We are not peace-loving people, because we know that the mother
of all things is battle and struggle.”
— Adolf Hitler, January 18, 1927, Collection of Speeches
1922–1945, p. 64
TIKHistory comments:
“The father — the All-Father, Odin — is battle and struggle!
Odin is about war and death, which is why they were no
pacifists.”[/quote]
Minute: 29:01 – 38:19
[quote]Even the origins of the National Socialist movement are
drenched in Odinism. Hitler said that the term Sieg Heil was a
“battle cry” and a “sacred oath” of the German volk and the
National Socialist movement. But why?
“Let us join with the rest of the Germans throughout the Reich
who, at this moment, express our love, our devotion, our
willingness to sacrifice, our faith, our loyalty, and our
conviction through the battle cry: our people and our German
Reich — Sieg Heil!”
— Adolf Hitler, March 23, 1939, Collection of Speeches
1922–1945, p. 560
On another occasion:
“And I would ask you once more to join me in pronouncing the
battle cry for what means the most to us in this world — what we
have struggled and fought for and won, what we did not forget in
times of defeat, what we loved in times of need, what we
worshiped in times of disgrace, and what is sacred and dear to
us now in times of victory. Our German Reich, our German Volk,
and our one and only National Socialist Movement: Sieg Heil!
Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!”
— Adolf Hitler, January 30, 1936, Collection of Speeches
1922–1945, p. 287
And again:
“And thus I ask you: renew on this greatest and most glorious
demonstration day in the world your pledge to your Volk, to our
community and to our National Socialist State. My will — and
this must be the vow of each of us — is your faith! For me — as
for you — my faith is everything I have in this world! But the
greatest thing God has given me in this world is my Volk! In it
rests my faith. To it I dedicate my will, and to it I give my
life! May this be our shared sacred vow on German Labor Day,
which is, rightly, the day of the German people! To our German
working Volk: Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil!”
— Adolf Hitler, January 30, 1936, Collection of Speeches
1922–1945, p. 287
TIKHistory comments:
So, what does Sieg Heil really mean? First, note that the runes
used by the National Socialists were pseudo-runes (not original
Norse ones) created by Guido von List. Their meanings,
therefore, differ from the original Norse symbols.
In the case of Guido von List and the National Socialists:
The Sieg rune (lightning ‘S’ – two of these became the SS
symbol) means victory.
This was associated with the Tyr rune, represented by an
upward-pointing arrow.
“Týr is the Norse god of war, depicted as the one-handed
warrior. The symbol of Týr is a sword. In Viking times, Týr was
somewhat overshadowed by Thor and Odin… In Nazi Germany, the Tyr
rune was also known as the Kampfrune (Battle Rune) or Pfeilrune
(Arrow Rune), and symbolized leadership in battle.”
TIKHistory adds:
Battle also means struggle — as discussed before — so the Tyr
rune represents both. These are the core ideas of National
Socialism.
“This symbol was widely used by youth organizations post-WWI,
including the Hitler Youth and the SA (Sturmabteilung). Worn on
the upper left sleeve, it signified graduation from the
SA-Reichsführerschule. It was also used by the SS’s Recruitment
and Training Department, and as the emblem of the Waffen-SS
division ‘30 January’. The Tyr rune replaced the Christian cross
on SS graves.”
Moving on to the Sieg rune:
“Sig is the Armanen name for this rune. In ancient Norse and
Germanic runelore, it originally referred to the sun:
Proto-Germanic: sowilo (‘sun’)
Younger Futhark: sól (‘sun’)
Anglo-Saxon Futhorc: sigel (‘sun’)
Guido von List redefined it to mean ‘victory’ (Sieg in German).”
Here’s the crucial part:
“The order of the Sig and Tyr runes in von List’s Futhark
together formed ‘Sigtýr’ — one of Odin’s names.”
So, Sigtýr — “Victory in Battle” — is one of Odin’s names, and
sounds very close to Sieg Heil.
References:
1. Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism, pp. 20, 52,
151–152
2. Hale, Himmler’s Crusade, ebook pp. 34, 62, 124, 129
3. McCoy, The Viking Spirit, Kindle p. 31
4. The Viking Rune: Norse Rune Symbols and the Third Reich,
HTML https://www.vikingrune.com/2009/07/norse-runic-third-reich-symbols/
Thus, Sieg Heil — which Hitler called the sacred battle cry of
the German volk and National Socialism — links back to Odin, the
god of war and death.
Further backing this is the perspective of Julius Evola, who
believed that the Germanic god Odin would grant victory, as he
is the god of war. Therefore, what they may have really been
doing with the Sieg Heil salute was praising Odin — or at least
invoking him by calling for victory from the God of War and
Death.
“You have been chosen by Fortune.” (TIKHistory clarifies:
“‘Fortune’ is capitalized here because it refers to God.)
“You have been chosen by Fortune. You have joined the right
banner. (Odin’s Swastika.) And you will stand by this flag as
the Old Guard of the National Socialist Revolution. Long live
our National Socialist Germany! Long live our Volk! And may
today, the victims of our Movement — German men and women, both
living and dead — live on! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!”
— Adolf Hitler, November 8, 1935, Collection of Speeches
1922–1945, p. 284
TIKHistory comments:
“He’s calling on God — ‘Fortune’. He’s invoking Odin’s swastika.
He’s calling upon the dead to live on, and praising victory from
the God of War and Death. Now that we know this is Odin, we can
understand what he’s saying. It’s not random — he’s calling on
Odin here.”
“Odin’s chosen warriors are always elite, and this selection
extends to all other areas of life; those who take Odin as their
patron, like Odin himself, are always elite and exceptional in
some way. As the ruler of the gods, he is the natural protector
of kings and human chieftains… But Odin is the antithesis of the
‘law and order’ type of ruler like the god Tyr. Instead, he is
the ‘terrible ruler’ who governs through brute — often magical —
force.”
— McCoy, The Viking Spirit, Kindle p. 29
TIKHistory comments:
“We can see the similarities with Hitler here. It’s speculative,
but let’s think. Odin is the antithesis of Tyr. So that means:
the thesis is ‘Sieg’ (Odin), the antithesis is Tyr, and the
synthesis is Sigtýr. Hmm? Could this hint at a Hegelian
dialectic influence? A National Socialist version of ‘Aufheben’?
I don’t know, but I wanted to point this out in case that’s
what’s happening.”
Other notable comparisons:
McCoy, in The Viking Spirit, notes that Odin is the most complex
and contradictory Norse god (again, aligning with the Hegelian
concept of contradiction and Aufheben). Odin’s name literally
means “The Inspired One,” “The Ecstatic One,” and “The Furious
One” — all of which sound remarkably like Hitler.
— McCoy, The Viking Spirit, Kindle pp. 26–27
Odin is associated with war and proudly declares in one Eddic
poem:
“I incite princes never to make peace...” Which may explain why
Hitler never sought peace either.
— McCoy, The Viking Spirit, Kindle p. 27[/quote]
#Post#: 30262--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: antihellenistic Date: May 25, 2025, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hitler Wanted War: Debunking the Myth of Polish Aggression
[size=12pt]Did Poland bring on her own Destruction in 1939
because of her Aggressive Foreign Policy? – TIKhistory, 17
November 2020
HTML https://youtu.be/6DV20f1d6hI?feature=shared
[quote]From Minute 16:02 to 24:07 — TIKhistory cites and
explains a passage from Hoggan’s book regarding the history of
the Danzig region:
“The final treaty provisions gave Poland more than it should
have received, and more than it should have requested. Most of
West Prussia, which had a German majority according to the last
census, was handed over to Poland without a plebiscite. Later,
the richest industrial part of Upper Silesia was also given to
Poland, even though Poland had lost the vote there. The
establishment of a League of Nations protectorate for the German
national community in Danzig was a disastrous move; a free port
for Poland in Danzig under German control would have been far
fairer. The main errors of the treaty included the creation of
the Corridor, the so-called Free City of Danzig, and the
transfer of parts of Upper Silesia to Poland. These errors were
made to Poland’s benefit and Germany’s detriment—but they
ultimately harmed both Poland and Germany. Lasting peace in the
German-Polish border region was impossible under these
conditions.”
Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 18
TIKhistory provides a metaphorical explanation of this quote
from Hoggan’s book:
“To give a similar example, this is like Alaska being
disconnected from the mainland United States. Clearly, it's
impossible to achieve lasting peace with such a border. So, I
guess the U.S. should invade Canada. I mean, that’s the only way
to solve this problem. And then, once Canada is fully annexed
into the United States, its people should be starved and
enslaved… because, you know… reasons.
I mean, that’s obviously the only option. And from experience, I
know there's a significant minority of people watching this
video who don’t understand sarcasm, so let me be very clear: I’m
not actually advocating this. Because it’s a dumb idea—just like
it was a dumb idea to invade, destroy, and enslave Poland
because you couldn’t swim, or fly over, or drive through that
territory. And before you argue that Poland wouldn’t
negotiate—maybe not in 1939—but Hitler believed in autarky. He
didn’t believe in trade, negotiation, or transit rights. He
believed in bringing all German ‘blood and soil’ back into the
Reich.
So don’t go there. This was never really a problem. Hitler made
it a problem. And this is the so-called ‘Versailles legacy’ that
Putin keeps referring to. But it should be obvious to all of us,
just by looking at a map, that Poland was in a precarious
position. It had hostile neighbors to the west and
east—specifically Germany and the Soviet Union. And both were
aggressive powers.”
“Not according to Mr. Hoggan, of course. Throughout his book, he
tries to portray Poland as the aggressor, hostile toward both
Germany and the Soviet Union, and deserving of what it got. On
page 25, he claims that the Soviets didn’t realize that the
‘Polish-Romanian alliance of 1921’ was primarily aimed at the
Soviet Union.”
Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 25
“Yes, that’s a distortion of history. The ‘1921 Alliance’ (which
he implies was aggressive) was actually a ‘Defensive Alliance’
(which was non-aggressive). That alliance was formed to defend
against a Soviet invasion from the east.”
Reference: Tomasz BAK, Polish - Romanian Military Cooperation,
PDF 2018, pp. 9–11
HTML https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326651293_Polish_-_Romanian_Military_Cooperation
“The Soviet Union under Lenin had just destroyed its own state,
killed millions, and its Marxist-Socialist ideology openly
called for a ‘world revolution’ (a.k.a. imperial conquest). They
actively sought to expand that revolution abroad—‘Workers of the
world, unite!’ and so on. So yes, they were hostile neighbors,
which is why conflict broke out in the early 1920s, and why the
defensive alliance was needed. That alliance was meant to
protect against an ideology that openly declared its intent for
war.”
References:
1. Courtois, Werth, Panne, Paczkowski, Bartosek, Margolin – The
Black Book of Communism, pp. 71–126
2. Engelstein – Russia in Flames, p. 560
3. Gellately – Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, pp. 63, 65, 72, 75
“Germany, as we’ve explained, essentially wanted to reconnect
Alaska with the mainland United States—eh... sorry, East Prussia
with the German heartland—and thus was also hostile to Poland.
The problem is that both Putin and Hoggan twist the facts to
push their narrative. Again, on page 25 of his book, Hoggan
presents his opinion that during the Weimar years, Poland and
Germany were in constant conflict, mentioning a German-Polish
trade war since 1925. But he fails to mention who started it...
because that would contradict his narrative that ‘Poland was the
aggressor’. It turns out that Germany was the one who
‘aggressively’ initiated the trade war in 1925 as a way to
economically cripple Poland.
Perhaps that’s why, from 1926, the Defensive Alliance between
Poland and Romania was expanded to cover aggression from both
the West and the East. The only reason the 1921 alliance wasn’t
aimed westward was because Poland didn’t want to get dragged
into a Balkan war involving Romania. Clearly, Poland did not
want to go to war, and its actions were defensive—not
aggressive. Yet the way Hoggan writes it suggests Poland was
aggressively plotting against both the Soviets and the Germans.
In reality, Poland was caught between a rock and a hard place
and had to act defensively to survive. But it seems that when
Poland acts defensively, Hoggan calls it aggression.”
TIKhistory continues by quoting Hoggan:
“Poland’s policy toward Germany during the last years of the
Weimar Republic was a mixture of threats and attempts to render
Germany powerless.”
Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 25
TIKhistory comments:
“Of course, it's not that Germany acted aggressively toward
Poland and Poland responded in ways meant to keep Germany in
check. No—apparently, Poland proactively acted against Germany
to keep it powerless, because Poland is somehow the ‘aggressor’
in this relationship. Do you see how the language is twisted
here? And remember, all these points come from just one page of
Hoggan’s book. That means multiple distortions in just a single
page. This book is 350 pages long. And it goes on like this.
Distortion after distortion, half-truth after half-truth, lie
after lie, page after page. I’ve already discussed Hoggan’s
views on the Hossbach Memorandum in a previous 50-minute
video—dissecting what was written in less than one page of his
book.
I could do this for every single page of his book, but it’s just
not worth our time. The point is: this book is completely
unreliable and nothing more than Nazi propaganda.”
Source: Hoggan, The Forced War, PDF p. 25
“Ultimately, what we must remember is that Nazi Germany needed
to expand eastward because of its own ideology. Hitler made it
very clear in Mein Kampf that only an eastward expansion policy
would solve their ‘land’ crisis (Lebensraum). But also, because
they were trying to create a socialist-style economy, Germany’s
economy was collapsing. As Götz Aly explains in Hitler’s
Beneficiaries, if Germany hadn’t conquered Austria,
Czechoslovakia, and Poland when it did, it would’ve faced a real
economic crisis.
Their only solution was to go to war, plunder Europe, and export
their financial problems abroad. And that’s crucial to
remember—while Putin and Hoggan try to blame Poland, in reality,
it was Germany that was forced into war by its own ideology and
economic desperation. Poland may have made mistakes (as did the
Soviets and the Western powers), but Hitler and the Nazis were
ultimately the ones who wanted war.”
References:
Aly – Hitler’s Beneficiaries, pp. 36, 38–40, 44, 52
Kotkin – Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941, p. 563
Zitelmann – Hitler: The Policies of Seduction, pp.
206–239[/quote]
White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis have always portrayed a
historical narrative in which Hitler was a peacekeeper. This
makes no sense, given that Hitler was a socialist and thought to
reject pacifism, and reject Western colonialism.
#Post#: 30263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: christianbethel Date: May 26, 2025, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis have always portrayed a
historical narrative in which Hitler was a peacekeeper. This
makes no sense, given that Hitler was a socialist and thought to
reject pacifism, and reject Western colonialism.[/quote]
Yeah, that's true. Still, authors like Stolfi, Tedor, Taylor,
and Schultze-Rhonhof can't be ignored or discredited because
they use primary German-language sources in their books
discussing the origins of WWII. Conversely, this 'historian'
you've been quoting does not.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page