Did Hitler Want War?

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world—Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia—why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece? continues here

EDITOR'S Note : Have you read, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War by Patrick J. Buchanan, if not I suggest you do, other P.Buchanan titles available here  

Visitors to World War Two-themed weekend banned from wearing Hitler costumes

Visitors to a railway attraction's Second World War-themed weekend were banned from dressing up as Hitler or SS officers.

They were invited to don 1940s-style clothes, both British and German, for Severn Valley Railway's re-enactment yesterday and today.

But the Swastika, Nazi uniforms and Hitler impersonations were barred from the popular tourist draw in Worcestershire because organisers feared they would cause offence.continues here

You have to question who complained, who was it that felt aggrieved visiting an event, where the participates were in all likelihood to be wearing “Nazi”, (sic) uniform, what next, will plays be banned if they portray WW11 soldiers, will feature films merely allude to an enemy, let the audience guess as to their attire ,for fear of offence. I’m afraid it is an attack, leftists rule the roost I am afraid and they will censor, disparage and attack any and all “nationalistic” imagery, organisations or individuals and have no doubt, WW11 German soldiers, unlike our own, fought for a nationalist interest.

There are still today unanswered questions as to the purported holocaust, questions that they, in their wisdom, markedly fail to answer, to my mind it seems that nationalistic forces in any era are to be vilified, condemned, hated, yet leftist inspired murderers are seen as heroes. In that regrettable war, in that contrived event to seize control, atrocities were committed on all sides, Russian soldiers raped their way to wars end and we slaughtered civilians, attacking non-combat targets to weaken German morale, oh it was more than mere bombs we burned them alive, created a terrifying firestorm incinerating the innocent where they stood.

I should imagine though that such uniforms are worn at re-enactment events, that nothing is said and if it is it is ignored, so I would ask of you dear reader, do not believe the hype, close your ears to their propaganda and continue on to a hoped for victory. Today that have us, hold us fast by the hair of our heads, tomorrow belongs to some-one, I pray it is us.

Paris liberation made 'whites only'

Papers unearthed by the BBC reveal that British and American commanders ensured that the liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944 was seen as a "whites only" victory. 

Many who fought Nazi Germany during World War II did so to defeat the vicious racism that left millions of Jews dead. 

Yet the BBC's Document programme has seen evidence that black colonial soldiers - who made up around two-thirds of Free French forces - were deliberately removed from the unit that led the Allied advance into the French capital. 

By the time France fell in June 1940, 17,000 of its black, mainly West African colonial troops, known as the Tirailleurs Senegalais, lay dead. 

Many of them were simply shot where they stood soon after surrendering to German troops who often regarded them as sub-human savages. 

Their chance for revenge came in August 1944 as Allied troops prepared to retake Paris. But despite their overwhelming numbers, they were not to get it. 

'More desirable' 

The leader of the Free French forces, Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that he wanted his Frenchmen to lead the liberation of Paris.

Allied High Command agreed, but only on one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers. 

In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel. 

"This would indicate the Second Armoured Division, which with only one fourth native personnel, is the only French division operationally available that could be made one hundred percent white." 

At the time America segregated its own troops along racial lines and did not allow black GIs to fight alongside their white comrades until the late stages of the war.

Morocco division 

Given the fact that Britain did not segregate its forces and had a large and valued Indian army, one might have expected London to object to such a racist policy. 

Yet this does not appear to have been the case. A document written by the British General, Frederick Morgan, to Allied Supreme Command stated: "It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco. 

"Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division." 

Finding an all-white division that was available proved to be impossible due to the enormous contribution made to the French Army by West African conscripts. 

So, Allied Command insisted that all black soldiers be taken out and replaced by white ones from other units. 

When it became clear that there were not enough white soldiers to fill the gaps, soldiers from parts of North Africa and the Middle East were used instead. 

Pensions cut 

In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish.

The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian. 

For France's West African Tirailleurs Senegalais, however, there was little to celebrate. 

Despite forming 65% of Free French Forces and dying in large numbers for France, they were to have no heroes' welcome in Paris. 

After the liberation of the French capital many were simply stripped of their uniforms and sent home. To make matters even worse, in 1959 their pensions were frozen. 

Former French colonial soldier, Issa Cisse from Senegal, who is now 87 years-old, looks back on it all with sadness and evident resentment.  continues here


So there you have it, apparently non-whites mostly fought for France and again we have the sentence, “Many who fought Nazi Germany during World War II did so to defeat the vicious racism that left millions of Jews dead”, poppycock, many who fought Germany in the war did so because to do otherwise meant the firing squad, further, for many others a climate of anti-German feeling had been ratcheted up by, who else but the owned press. Aren’t you sick of it yet, the relentless use of history to aid current evil, the use of propaganda to again fool the people, for Frenchmen everywhere this will hurt, it will cut and I mean real Frenchmen, not imported peoples, given a passport and set loose to culturally and genetically change France, no-one fought for that, no soldier ever did, be they of whatever side and don’t let them lie you into believing it.