WWII - Eastern Front - General Remer

WHOSE ' PROPAGANDA'"

I can think of few better examples of ".......how well propaganda works" when the Victors write the History than your comments:

AND:

AND:

Rather than believing you, I prefer to believe more prominent thinkers:


1. George Orwell once wrote: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”


2. “History is written by the victors.”
― Walter Benjamin
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/97949-history-is-written-by-the-victors



3. “History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu380864.html


I suspect that whatever "research" you may have done included little personal experience in the military, War, combat etc but more likely came from the many Zionist dominated "sources" like the Israeli State supported Hasbara infected Wikipedia,[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] tortured confessions, profit-driven pseudo- science & sanitized, cherry-picked "Tall Tales"


I'm not sure where you got your M.A. in History but most post- Graduate Level degree holders wouldn't drop such an amusing malapropism as:

I assume you meant "assure" rather than to take out an insurance policy but I am hardly "assured" that whatever indoctrination you received included "Critical Literacy"

Too much of what is commonly taught doesn't take into account the fact that WW 2 was an inevitable product of many complex & tragic realities of that era.

Firstly, many historians consider WW 1 & WW 2 as one long war since the inequities of the Treaty of Versailles, subsequent plundering, persecution & starvation inflicted by the Former Allied Powers on the Germans guaranteed further hostilities & would have done so if done to any other country.

In the late 1960s, & during the Viet Nam War, I foolishly, joined the US Army under the mistaken belief that I was helping to further & protect Free Speech etc.

My comparatively brief time in the military including combat in Laos & time among other combat Veterans taught me far more about the subject of War & the strident propaganda that always surrounds it than anything I learned in any classroom.

After military service & Honorable Discharge, I left the country (USA) partly because of the way Veterans were reviled by most of my generation, especially naive & pampered College egg-heads.

I ended up hitch-hiking, walking etc from London to Iran and after extended stays with multiple warm, generous & curious Muslim new friends & hosts in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey etc wandered into what is now called the "'73 War" (aka "Yom Kippur War").

Eventually, I ended up traveling more & staying with new friends I made throughout Europe but settled in, then, W. Germany's Black Forest in Freiburg i. Br. where I lived, worked, studied & eventually studied at Albert Ludwigs Universitat Freiburg.
There, in the mid 1970s, I learned even more about WW 2 from the various widows, Landladies & German WW 2 Veterans with whom I worked doing misc. jobs to support myself.

Among the more educational "classes" I took was working for/with German stone mason who served as a very young Waffen SS officer on the Eastern Front. This was after his wrestling in the 1936 Olympics (winning a Bronze medal) & playing with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra & building an "indestructible" home & shelter for his family that later trapped them under heavy debris after a direct hit fro an Allied bombing of civilians..

His post War misery was worse than his War time misery as he lost his entire family during that one of the many intentional Allied Bombings of civilian targets.
Since he was very modest & reserved, I learned more about him, his traumatizing experiences, Allied War Crimes & atrocities from his friends & our mutual employer than from him.

I also got a "class" on finding the grain in & breaking/shaping granite in the deal.




There is a certain, non- B.S. camaraderie between all combat Veterans that transcends nationalities & decades from which I benefited as well as from related experiences as related by Germany's women who survived the various Allied atrocities about which you, apparently, did NOT learn in whatever History classrooms you spent your time.


All older Veterans eventually end up spending more of their time in V.A. Hospitals with other Veterans of all Wars. Since one of the Units in which I served was the 82nd Abn., I've learned a lot from U.S. WW 2 Veterans of that Unit as well as many others in that hospital & from others as far back as the 1950s.

My decades of non- B.S. camaraderie between all combat Veterans was spent learning from all those combat Veterans of all nationalities as well as countless WW 2 era civilian survivors has been that those who have seen the worst & done the most are the least judgmental & the last to demonize the other side.

It appears that I'm not alone in expressing that sentiment:

"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are NOT fighting."
George Orwell, 1938



In reference to:

The advent of recent revelations such as books like "Other Losses", "An Eye for an Eye", "Germany's Forgotten Victims" and “Eisenhower’s Holocaust: His Slaughter Of 1.7 Million(*)Germans!”
https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...locaust-his-slaughter-of-1-7-million-germans/
is a strong indication that your "research" was severely limited, myopic & bias.



I don't know where you received an M.A. in History but you were ill-served if you were indoctrinated to believe that any one nationality, Religion, Ethnic Group was more barbaric, genocidal or malevolent in WW 2 or any other war so please don't be so quick to pronounce others as "poorly informed or reject Independent sources because they may conflict with your indoctrination.










[1] “Aligning text to the right: Is a political organization editing Wikipedia to suit its interests?”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.530285



[2] “Manipulating Wikipedia Content: Israeli Program to Train Editors to Ensure that “What is Written” is “Zionist in Nature”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/manipu...-what-is-written-is-zionist-in-nature/5321059



[3] “CAMERA; REWRITING HISTORY ON WIKIPEDIA”
http://electronicintifada.net/conte...el-groups-plan-rewrite-history-wikipedia/7472


[4] “Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189#.VUeAds02UzY

EXCERPT “The strategy and goal of the course is to educate and enable an 'army' of editors of Wikipedia, giving them the professional skills to write and edit the online encyclopedia's content in a manner which defends and promotes Israel's image.”CONTINUED



[5] “Zionists Manipulating Internet And Wikipedia”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mJ7EjJ0goU


[6] “Germany's forgotten victims”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/22/worlddispatch.germany

EXCERPT “Last week, one of Germany's most controversial historians, Jörg Friedrich, published a new photo book about the issue. Called Brandstätten, or Fire Sites, it contains some of the most grisly images from the war ever to be published. None of them have been seen before.
The victims are not Jewish, but German. The charred, mutilated bodies of women, children and babies are all civilians who perished during the allies' bombing campaign against Germany's cities."CONTIUED

 

I will address as much of what you said, as I possibly can.

Whose propaganda? In this case Nazi-propaganda seen in the interview Otto Ernst Remer. But as you may have found out traveling to other countries, every country is full of propaganda. So you will have some forms of propaganda in pretty much every country in the world, while the intensity may vary.

I’m flattered that you’d consider me a thinker. I do recommend choosing newer sources though. A lot of things have changed since Walter Benjemin, George Orwell and Winston Churchill died, never mind published their thoughts. Brilliant reads nevertheless!

In history the language and the age of a source is important, specifically in contemporary history. A book published in the 60s just cannot have the accuracy of books published today. Back then there was just a lack of information or access to it. An archive could have been on the wrong side of a border, or still classified, etc. Remember that in 1993 the Russian archive showed the remains their army got in Berlin 1945 of Goebbels and Hitler. Yet, to this day you have conspiracies of Hitler getting somehow to Argentina… But I digress…

The language is even more of a problem, at least for me living in central Europe. Within a 200 mile radius I have 7 languages spoken natively (German, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Slovene, Croatian and Italian). To top it off, there are huge variations in accents which was a problem because I conducted interviews for my thesis, and a lot of code names for WW2 stuff. For example, locally we had partisan troops fighting and they would refer to “bela garda” (“white guard&#8221 to domobranci troops, which were Slovene troops fighting alongside the Germans and Italians and “plava garda” (“blue guard&#8221 to soldiers still loyal to the Yugoslav royal family. The language also changes over time severely, which is another reason to avoid older books on this topic. As someone born in the 40s, you may realize that your children or grand-children use different vocabulary, or changed the meaning of words. I found books published in the first decades after WW2 to lack information on the Nazi-Parties internal structure and the apparatus to make it work. But back then it was so self-evident that the author just neglected to mention. Also stories which may still get someone in trouble are not shared. The question sometimes is not “What is said?” but “What is avoided and not mentioned?”.

I had the good fortune to never being forced to serve in a war, however I did spend some time as a civilian in one. Being a child in a warzone made me a pacifist. I despise conflict, because I feel there are no winners for those who are involved.

Wikipedia is not my source of knowledge, but it is an aid. My knowledge is partly found in my education in the subject and in part it being my hobby as well. I do read as much on the subject as I possibly can, and I also talked to several people who saw WW2 first hand.

Forgive the error, but it is a second language. I am doing my best to improve my English further, however, it is hard to practice sometimes not having native speakers around me all the time.

It is the rhetoric indeed that WW1 and WW2 ought to be connected because of this reason. A weak peace agreement tends to provide ammunition for future conflicts. It is doubtful that a second conflict between Germany and France could have been prevented.

As you may have seen from these travels and your stay in Germany it was and still is a country trying to deal with the consequences of WW2. You arrived at a critical time in Germany (I suspect in the 70s and 80s) because the Germans, thanks to philosophers and historians (i.e. Jan & Aleide Assmann) German storytelling and history-science went form “Sieger” and “Verlierer” (as in “winner” and “looser&#8221 of a conflict or war, and more towards “Täter” and “Opfer” (as in “perpetrator” and “victim&#8221. This was a critical development which started in Germany in the late 60s as (usually) college students confronted their parents and grandparents about the Nazi-era which was previously a taboo topic.

Moving things to “perpetrator” and “victim” gave the Germans a path to process their own history and not work from the “winner” and “looser”-angle done previously. Lately, in regards to the 70-year anniversary since the end of WW2, women and the last year of the war was put into focus. This means that now women come forward with themselves or their mothers being rape victims in the end of the war or the first year of occupation. Numerous amounts of men were still in war captivity, yet in 1946/47 many children got born with father’s unknown.

Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I didn’t hear it. I was merely replying to the Otto Ernst Remer interview and the accuracy of its content.

I found spending time as a civilian in a war-zone, that I was most frightened as a child by soldiers. I didn’t see them as protectors, but rather as people most likely to kill me. This included the soldiers on “my” side. I have this memory of going to one bar with my sister and a few friends. It was the only bar opened at the time because it was on the second floor and therefore not viewable from the sky, and therefore not in danger of being bombed. At the entrance I ran into my sister, who ran into the friend in front of her. He stopped and said: “Let’s go. This place is full of soldiers, they’ll get drunk and might shoot someone.” The problem was that the police, or justice-system didn’t hold them accountable anymore because going to the front-line and potentially dying there was seen enough of a punishment. Unfortunately there were multiple rapes and homicides committed by the own soldiers on their own people.

This source is luckily false. I have heard of this conspiracy before and I did some research. In total roughly 3.6 million soldiers went into captivity to the Western Allies of which 3.1 million ended up being detained by the US because Americans were also seen as the country which would treat you best. Many fled to surrender to the US-Forces and not getting captured by the Soviets, which was seen as the worst. If the source was correct 55% of all soldiers in American captivity would have had to die. In fact merely 5,802 (0.2%) died while the rest was released within 12 months of the peace declaration. The Marshall-Plan needed workers, and because only 371,000 German soldiers ended up in America (many actually decided to stay) they were released rather quickly. If you were unlucky as a German soldier you ended up being released to the French occupied part, and then the French would insist on another 12 months for them which could turn out to be longer. The Americans where the only side to keep enemy solders just one year after the end of the war, as it was and is agreed upon in the Geneva Conventions of 1929. (I hope I can find the right article of the Geneva Conventions soon to add it as a link to this, because I think it's fitting)

I received my M.A. at the Karl Franzens University of Graz, Austria, and I’m working there on my PhD at the moment. Independent sources are always welcome, if they don’t have a clear agenda and can be disproven quickly. The fact of the matter is, that I learned in college to criticize a source for its accuracy. This means I read first who wrote it, who published it, and do either do so with an agenda. This has to be done in historic research, maybe even more so than in other fields.

I suggesting taking these sources under a similar process. Remember the vast majority of the historic community contradict the Zionist conspiracy. I’m staggered sometimes that people believe that 14.2 million people have more control than the 2.2 billion Christians in all these countries around the planet. I think most people don’t even realize how small Israel is. Not even 9 million inhabitants of which 75% are Jewish, and it’s roughly the size of Slovenia (which is hard to find even on a map of Europe). But I digress from the topic again.

While I could go into much greater detail in all of them, I doubt you’re really interested. However if you wish to talk about it, I’d love to. However, I propose private messages, because I think we ought to stick to the Remer-interview here.

 

I have to come back to your post, because in the meantime I came upon an article by a Russian professor...

Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II

To mark the 70th anniversary of the Victory against Nazism, we publish a study of Valentin Katasonov on financing the NSDAP and the rearmament of the Third Reich. The author deals with new documents that confirm the organization of the Second World War by US and UK Bankers, covered by President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in the hope of destroying the USSR.

The war was not unleashed by a frenzied Fuehrer who happened to be ruling Germany at the time.

WWII is a project created by world oligarchy or Anglo-American “money owners”.

Using such instruments as the US Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England they started to prepare for the next world conflict of global scale right after WWI.

The USSR was the target.

Read full article here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html
------------------
The way I understand this article is, that US and England fattened up Germany to fight Russia, while hoping both countries would destroy each other in the process. But why then would they help Russia to overrun Germany in the end?
NO, I believe the plan was to annihilate Germany and save Russia!
Why the Russian professor feels his country was to be destroyed is not clear to me.
The western powers, including Canada, determinedly made sure with their deliveries of small tanks, weapons and food etc. via the merchant fleet, Russia would be able to overpower Germany.

Said General Patton in 1945: "We killed the wrong pig!"

 

Your last paragraph is soo typical of the Jewish tactic to play the small, innocent victim role.
First of all, I don't believe there are only 14.2 million Jews/Zionists in the world of which roughly 7 million reside in Israel. That would leave another 7 million spread across the world.
The US alone has about 8.3 mil.
It is the Jews' nature to take control of their host countries... look at the United States! France, Britain, Germany and many other countries who are controlled by Jews, either directly or indirectly.

How many nuclear bombs does Israel have? A guesstimated 400+! It is rated the fifth largest nuclear power in the world.
Who controls the media? The film industry?
Do I even need to mention the Jewish bankers?

The 2.2 billion Christians are no match, because they don't band together!

 

Amazing, I do the same! But I have a feeling we use different criteria.

 

If you research you will find that there are about 6.4 million Jews in Israel and 5.3 million Jews in the USA. But there is an enlarged Jewish population including those, who for one or another reason consider themselves Jewish. The enlarged numbers estimate a world wide population of 20 million and a total of 6.8 million in the US. 600,000 live in France, 370,000 in the UK and 250,000 in Germany always now taking the enlarged Jewish population into account. In neither of these countries it is even 1% of the population. I wonder what your source is to get your numbers, at least when there are population census out there which reinforce these numbers.

The only serious contender of an American president running for the white house is (or has been) Bernie Sanders to my knowledge. You let me know of any of the 44 presidents who's been Jewish. 3 of the 8 current supreme justices happen to be jewish with all of them being democratic, so a majority ruling cannot be achieved. 19 (18 democrat, one independent) are represented in the house of Representatives (which is a representation of 4.4% within the 435 seats) and 10 (9 democrat, one independent) represented in the US Senat (10%). Most jewish representation is politically left leaning, like in other countries, which can be explained because of their history. You see Jews who settled in the middle ages in Europe had no worldly representation. Dukes, kings and even higher clergy like bishops would give Jews an area to settle on. They would be invited by higher worldly leaders to settle and because of the restrictions to the Jews they insisted on settling near that worldly leader, who had to insure their protection. Jews were also not allowed to be farmers, so their means of income had to be in areas the christian church made restrictions for christians. In the middle ages for example, trades were done with gold and silver, and because of that, inflation was low or really non-existent. The church therefore claimed that it wouldn't be christian to ask for interest and that a christian must loan money out of their kindness and not ask for more back. Because the trade was needed, another demographic had to fill that role.

The term "Ghetto" comes from this time. Jews settled in Ghettos, which were usually very close to the worldly leader who invited them and protected them. Jews were not allowed to raise an army nor could they have done in a meaningful size at that time. For the protection and the land including a cemetery, Jews then had to pay taxes to the worldly leader. Christians could do so with material goods, Jews had to do it with gold and silver. Christian communities were organized well into the modern era by worldly leaders, while Jewish communities had to organize and govern themselves starting in the middle ages. They had to find a way to pay the christian leader the amount of gold and/or silver agreed on, so they self-organized and had a very early method of tax collection, with additional services. For example, every Jewish boy had to learn how to read and write, also in time Jews had their own security with a wall a guards within the city limits to protect themselves from Christians robbing them. Government services christians really started to develop is with the start of some form of democracy when control went over from one or few worldly leaders to the people. That's when people like Benjamin Franklin saw the need to collect money from everybody to build a fire department in case of emergencies. New solutions for problems for Christians in the 17th and 18th century, while solved similarly in Jewish communities centuries earlier. To have a public school was a radical idea in the 17th century with the demand that everybody should know to read and write. It is only natural that Jews tend to be fairly "socialist" or "left-leaning" in christian countries. We just happen to be centuries behind this development and some ideas seem radical to us, while they are normal and have been practiced successfully in Jewish communities for centuries, so Jewish representatives often have problems understanding why Christians refuse a "social" or "left leaning" solution.

EDIT:

After reading the paragraph again I think I forgot to mention a few facts. Jews in the middle ages were not allowed to own land (except in a few special occasions). Therefore the Jews who settled in the Holy Roman Empire at the time, couldn't grow their own food. That means that the Jewish communities had to create revenue as craftsmen, traders or bankers. A stereotype has evolved from that claiming that Jews can't do sports, because physical activity was traditionally handled primarily by Christians starting back then.

This means that a Jewish community had not only to generate the revenue, but they also had to organize their food being supplied kosher as it is according to their belief. Internally the community had to be well organized to being able to pay the much higher tax burden (compared to Christians) and to collect enough so that they could build their own temples, provide kosher food for themselves, teach their boys to read and write including sometimes the girls as well...

End of the EDIT

Most of the news-media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch in some shape or form in the English speaking world. And I believe that the news-media is more important that Warner Bros. I think much of political money and lobbying is done by the Koch Bros. (Charles Koch and David Koch) rather than Warner Bros.

Israel is home to about 8.5 million inhabitants of whom 6.3 million are Jewish. 2.8 million people live in the West Bank and 1.8 million people live in the Gaza Strip. In other words roughly 5 million people face oppression and are also acknowledged to being oppressed by most countries in the world. The USA's veto in the UN is the only thing that stops Palestine from becoming a country and the people actually getting some basic rights. On 23 December 2015 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding Palestinian sovereignty over the natural resources in the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation. It called on Israel to desist from the exploitation, damage, cause of loss or depletion and endangerment of Palestinian natural resources, the right of Palestinians to seek restitution for extensive destruction. The motion was passed by 164 votes to 5, with Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, and the United States opposing.

This idea that Israel is so greatly under threat is based on the fact that most countries in the world don't support the war on Israel's side, and few countries do. It is no wonder that Israel doesn't get along with any neighbor. I tend to compare Israel's attitude towards muslims similarly to Apartheid in South Africa...

This UN General Assembly is one example why Israel has not faced consequences for their actions yet. Also foreign aid by America to Israel is huge. Germany's total reparations for the holocaust since 1945 are smaller than what the USA gives Israel in foreign aid every few years. To top that off, Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. Having conflicts with their neighbors, oppressing Palestine, and their general conflicts with the Muslims in that region, make them specifically threatening to anybody living nearby. Israel's arsenal is estimated between 60 to 400 nuclear warheads making them (if you look at the top end of the estimates) the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world. Israel is a very dangerous neighbor to have. I must point out, that all the things mentioned have nothing to do with being Jewish. This is geopolitics!

I think if the highest representation of Jews (Israel and USA) represent a Jewish ideology like you claim, they face resistance from 164 countries in the world, if you take my example into consideration. Rather than dismissing everything Jewish as bad or evil or whatever else judgement you may have, learn about it in great detail not just from an anti-Semite standpoint. Those 14.2 million (or 20 million if you prefer the enlarged version) have a vast history and are not different from you or I. Their attitude has logical reasons, which can be found in their history. Try to understand them, like I as a historian try to...

 

Thanks for an extensive reply... I can see the scholar in you! But let's try to avoid this thread becoming a Jewish thread (t). Let me just briefly state my perception of the Jewish or Zionist problem to the world. One only needs to look down a short stretch of the pathway of recent times to notice the belligerent and deceiving behavior of the Jewish leadership, whether it be in Germany, the Middle East, the USA or South Africa and South America.
Just listen to Benjamin Freedman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

or read here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/soft-coups-threaten-brazil-venezuela-south-africa/5525142

Since the Zionists control American foreign policies, it is clear where they are headed... world domination.







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygbOVnVdIQc

 

Benjamin Freedman is a known Anti-Semitic holocaust denier. It is very hard to take such a bias source on this topic seriously. I shall read the Hugo Turner text and check out the sources on a later date, to see if the content was to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, I'm too tired tonight to have a closer look at this source you provided.

World domination is a conspiracy, I'd like to point out. Inevitably we will decrease the amount of borders over time and work closer with our neighbors. This is as a result to our changing world. With countries out there with populations well over 1 billion people (like China or India) it will be increasingly hard for countries with a quarter of that population to compete economically and in any other way. Inevitably, the USA with her 340 million inhabitants will have to join with Canada and possibly with some hispanic countries in central America to create a more competitive market long term. There are 500 million people living within the borders of the EU. The more we work together the less of an influence the US has. If the EU joined her forces militarily used one currency instead of many, the US dollar and the US market would loose its leading status in the world instantly. China and India are on the rise as well. Outside those, other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) will join forces to more easily compete with the western dominance in the world economy.

Sun Tzu, who used to be quoted so much for military theory and strategy, has moved from the battlefield into business administration classes. His military strategy is now used to gain customers and lure them away from the competition. That is the new battlefield! The battle is no longer fought between the American military and another superpower's on some battlefield, but with Walmart investing billions to enter the German market, and asking the US government for support in the sense that the loose US regulations and laws ought to apply in Germany as well. Trade agreements between presidents of different countries and opening borders assure American companies better and more easier conquest. In the end, GM or Ford will hardly sell more cars to Americans per year, than they did in the past decades, but they may find millions of willing costumers in the EU, China or India, if their governments would only wouldn't lock down these governments with rules and regulations for them, to protect their own brands. It's just the way the cookie crumbles these days, and the process will continue. Longterm we (as in EU and US) may be even force to join forces to compete with the billions living in India and China. We can hardly longterm outproduce the average Chinese or Indian citizen 5 to 1 to remain competitive. At some point these countries will catch up, and they're catching up quickly now.

 

Same here... I can hardly keep my eyes open.

 

Sorry for the delay in responding, repeatedly, to your thoughtful Post. I say "repeatedly" because a ongoing thunderstorm keeps knocking out the electric power & I keep losing what I've already written then have to write it over.


Firstly, I'd like to apologize for criticizing your excellent command of the English language. (Re: "insure" vs "assure")
Your english is excellent but because some native English speakers display a different flag than their home country flag, I mistakenly assumed that English was your native language.

There are several things on which we agree and, naturally, issues on which we disagree.
It is extremely important to me that you & others with whom I may disagree be able to freely express your beliefs without being insulted, censored or in any way repressed for your thoughts.

I've already expressed how strongly I feel about your or my ability to express our thoughts

Examples of things about which we agree are:

AND

However, in reference to:

I believe that their observations are a true today as at the time they were spoken.


It may be because of a difference in our ages that I'm afraid that I must disagree about the realities of "The Victors writing the History" as some facts have proven as timeless as the "Law of Gravity".

To be precise in my opinion, I should clarify that I feel that the expression "The Victors Write the History" especially applies to more recent wars in which there is a financial incentive to perpetrate a particular "Good vs Evil" version of history.

For example:

“QUESTIONING THE HOLOCAUST”“Holocaust Claims Conference fraud likely ‘much higher’ than $57 million”

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Holoc...aud-likely-much-higher-than-57-million-408298

EXCERPT “The scope of a conspiracy to defraud the world’s largest Holocaust reparations organization, uncovered in 2009, was much greater than previously believed, a former senior official has alleged.”CONTINUED



Perhaps one of the most powerful & influential forces in perpetuating the myth that all Germans including all German military Veterans were / are intrinsically Evil is what Norman Finkelstein termed "The Holocaust Industry": a powerful, influential, corrupt & dishonest, profit driven entity that must imprison anyone who questions their version of WW 2's history.

As I have already stressed, I believe that true stories do not abhor the sunlight of examination & open, free expression of thoughts.

It is important for "The Holocaust Industry" & its complicit ADL, B’nai Brith, C.A.M.E.R.A. & Israeli Government run Hasbara network etc to perpetuate the myth (propaganda) that ALL German WW2 Veterans were intrinsically evil Genocidal Monsters. Ensuring that their precise version of WW 2's history is believed world-wide is their multi Billion dollar business.
Sadly, very little of the $ Billions extorted reaches those who need it but goes to Holocaust Industry C.E.O.s, Museum Directors, lawyers etc




I know few specific details about Gen. Remer except that he was a highly decorated, excellent soldier who followed what is called the “Chain of Command”, was trusted by Hitler for his role immediately after the assassination attempt on Hitler's life & had the misfortune of being on the side that lost War 2.

While I'm aware of the truthfulness of some of what he says, I wasn't there & never spoke with anyone who know him etc

At any rate, I strongly suspect that "History" would read differently, that you would have different opinions & that he, his actions and his credibility would be much more highly regarded if his side HAD won the War.

Do you agree?




As a Veteran of a very unpopular & lost War in & around Viet Nam, long ago, I, along with my fellow Veterans, too, was vilified as crazed “Baby Killers” by my own generation in my own country when I / we came home.

This was due to both the reality of American War Crimes in S.E. Asia & exaggerated War-Time Propaganda from all sides of US society.

Therefore, I have some experience in fraudulent vilification as a result of propaganda. Even though I committed no War Crimes I was condemned by many as if I had simply because of War's omnipresent propaganda.
I ended up leaving my country & beginning my travels.

The U.S. dropped more bombs in Laos, alone, during the Viet Nam War than in all of WW 2 killing countless innocent civilians.

Among the differences between that War and the War in which Gen. Remer fought is that the people of S.E. Asia have moved on, rebuilt their own countries & not assembled multi Billion Dollar extortion & propaganda industries to slander & persecute US participants in that War.

Perhaps because of that experience and 50 years of working, studying & living in other cultures, among all sorts of people throughout Europe, the Balkans, the Mid East, S.E. Asia & the Caribbean, I am not so quick to declare IHR etc a “Neo Nazi propaganda” site, condemn Gen. Remer & others like him.


Since our ages, locations, life experiences & things that shaped our differet impressions are so different, it seems only natural that we would have a different view on what is considered, today, “Neo- Nazi / Revisionist propaganda" & what are currently unpopular realities of that conflict based on what has been impressed into so many Western minds over the decades since the Communists / Allies won WW 2.


I appreciate your invitation to contact you by P.M. & hope you will feel free to do the same.

I'd better send this, unedited, now before the power goes off & I have to re-write what I've already written.



Thanks

 

As I said before, I don’t think that Walter Benjemin, George Orwell and Winston Churchill are the right authors to consult to address issues of the second world war. While their thoughts are an excellent read, they are fairly outdated when it comes to the “victor writes the history” angle. Maybe it wasn’t clear before.

The victors writing history how they see fit is true in countries which haven’t applied the “perpetrator” and “victim” angle yet, as pointed out before. Storytelling was before done with sides, and not with individuals. If you say who won, you have to basically talk on a group level, so you’re automatically implying groups and their accomplishments and/or failures. In the new storytelling norm since the late 60s with the husband and wife Assmann philosophers leading the way, the focus went away from high ranking individuals and groups, and rather to those impacted by the policies applied. In other words: How did the average folks act and what opportunities they have. And because you look at the perpetrator vs. victim angle, you tend to how each individual suffered for different or same reasons, and it is much harder as an individual to fall into the perpetrator group. If someone gets actually hit as “perpetrator” than the argumentation is there to support the claim as well, and it makes it very easy for the rest to distance themselves from such an individual. Think of a random serial killer and how the community and even neighbors or family can distance themselves from such and individual. The same technique is now basically applied in history and since the 80s pretty much mandatory, especially in German.

It is a brilliant way to show Germans as victims in WW2 as well, while also attacking and distancing yourself from those who done wrong. Germany is in reality the first country to get conquered and destroyed by the Nazis (at least in my opinion), because the country “der Dichter und Denker” (which means “poets and philosophers”) is now associated with anti-Semitism, holocaust, racism, etc. Independ of what was achieved since the first Germanic tribes set foot on today German territory, it is all ignored because of 12 years out of the nearly 2000.

The science of history moves now strongly away from a group thinking, because individuals impact others, but the effect can be positive or negative. Individual stories are also more truthful, because it’s actually impossible to say how a group of people felt or what options they had in the past. If you go with your friends to a restaurant, it would be impossible to agree on a meal, so it is unfair for us historians to bundle 20,000 people and claim what happened to all of them. You can do that with a side story, but the main story have to be induvial people the reader can identify with and understand why things happen the way they did. That at least is the goal. You try to make the readers understand how the circumstances were, and what options people truly have, and show ideally with a few individuals who chose different paths, what consequences they experienced.

I must admit that I believe that Germany is the most advanced country in that regard. As I pointed out before, the actively point out the wrong doing of their own people to their own people and are far away of claiming that their country is the greatest. Brilliant example of this “individual” responsibility out of history being used these days is the VW scandal, because the VW workers sued the management for the scandal, and got them fired and charged with several crimes. The people remain with a strong group attitude “we sink or swim together” however if you’re destroying the boat, they will as a group through you off and charge you as a perpetrator of some sort, while everyone else becomes a victim.

History books I read so far in English lack that attitude big time. I’m reminded of Henry Kissinger’s “Diplomacy” which is a fantastic read, and especially enlightening for non-historians in the first 200 or 300 pages how diplomacy worked prior to WW1. It gives a terrific overview. But Kissinger would talk in length about the Vietnam war and repeatedly mention the death toll on the American side (58,000 if memory serves me right), but not mention once that the stupid war claimed the death of nearly 2 million people in the region. The people there were just considered less important, or at least that seemed to be the message between the lines…

History as a science was best defined by a historian and philosopher called Wilhelm Dilthey, who basically pointed out the difference between the humanities and other scientific fields. Every other scientist looks at something in the world and then tries to explain. This is true in physics, in biology, in medicine and even in engineering. People in the humanities fields don’t. They try to understand!

In other words, while a biologist looks at an animal and explains what they see scientifically, I as a historian am supposed to look at people and understand why they made the decisions they made. And naturally we are confronted with people we usually cannot interview and who have an entirely different character and view on the world, yet I in our world today am supposed to understand why.

This distinction is very important in my opinion. In order to achieve that, you really have to understand a system or the circumstances very well. In my case, focusing on contemporary history, this means that I understand internal workings of the Nazi party, which are usually completely ignored by hobby historians. I notice that in questions I used to ask at the start of college or am asked now. One of the most popular questions I’ve been asked “What would have happened if Hitler never went into Russia, could he have won?” This to me is a question without an understanding what was happening back home, and not realizing how the 3rd Reich economy worked.

Just one example: Most people don’t realize that Hitler’s ideal society would have one university and three high-schools for exclusively boys in Germany. He would have catapulted the Germans back into the stone-age.

I will clarify something as I think it may point you to another direction while answering many questions. The world’s biggest problem is Germany, and let me explain why. There are several Superpower’s in the world, but in reality worldwide politics has come out of Europe. Every political idea, which went across the planet, has its roots in Europe. Europe’s importance is still unparalleled in the world, however internal conflicts in Europe make it more vulnerable than a united Europe would be. In Europe you have a few big players. The English (I exclude, the Scots and Irish), the French and the Germans. The Russians as the 4th European superpower is geographically isolated and not as highly developed. Basically these three peoples have been fighting one and another for many centuries over who dominates Europe and with it predominantly the world as well. The problem are the deep roots of Germans. Germans were the rulers in many other countries. The Russian czar had German roots, as well as most English royals. Spain was ruled by the Habsburgs for 200 years. Italy, was either Austrian or French, even the Greek royal family used to be German.

The problem of these constant conflicts was that usually France who was the main opposition to all the German might, was unable to compete simply because of the population gap. In the 30-year war (1618-1648 ) the French cardinal Richelieu made the geo-political genius move to force the war going, because it was fought primarily on German territory. The result was a split and destroyed Germany, which resulted in the French dominated Europe until England lead ahead because of the industrial revolution and colonial might.

In the 1800s Germans started uniting again, and as soon as they are most other countries in Europe have to unite into opposition to be competitive. The reason is found in the population. Today the UK is home to 64 million people of which millions are Scots, Irish or Welsh and want a greater independence which creates some internal turmoil, France is home to 66 million people, while Germany 82 million, excluding the 8.5 million Austrians and other countries deeply economically dependent on Germany, like Poland (38.5 million), Czech Republic (10.5 million) and many others.

Think of it this way: While about 64 million people speak English natively in Europe, nearly 120 million speak German. As a group united the dominance of Germans in Europe is evident, especially because former German “colonies” like the Balkan or northern Italy is more valuable economically speaking than former British or French colonies. The EU is now home to 500 million people of whom most look to Berlin economically for guidance and leadership.

So as I hopefully have shown, it is clear the Europe being dominated by Germans in some form or fashion is a problem for the other bigger players. In WW1, France, Britain, Russia and Italy had to join forces to win, and they barely made it. In WW2 they again got the might of Germany demonstrated. This resulted in the creation of the UN. One of the main purposes of the UN was to keep Germany in check so that there would be some balance in Europe. By demilitarizing Germany, the German government had loads of money to reinvest into infrastructure and into their economy, and it wasn’t long, even after extensive destruction as a result of WW2, that Germany again overtook economically Britain and France. To slow down the process, Germany was allowed to rebuild their military. First with soldiers, who got the best equipment in the world but because that wasn’t expensive enough they could rebuild their air-force, however, having German fighter planes, which would now be again superior to the British and French was too much of a danger. So the German Luftwaffe was stationed in Canada. Ideally the German government would now blow enough money on those planes so that Britain and France could catch their breath.

But that wasn’t enough. So they allowed Germany to rebuild the navy, which was still not enough. And then the decision was made that Germany had to become a nuclear power, because those weapons can’t be used, and they cost a fortune to store. However, the demilitarization worked so well, that Germans flat out refused to become a nuclear power. Luckily at that time the Soviet Union crashed and quickly East Germany was allowed to unite with the West. Ideally Germany would now blow so much money into rebuilding the East, that France and Britain could reclaim their status. Unfortunately, Germans still produce more than the French and British and to make things worse, other countries like Austria insisted on balancing their currency on the German Mark. So the German Mark was the bases for the Euro, not the French Franc, or something like that. And the Central Bank of the EU, is in Frankfurt in Germany.

To slow down the process further, as you may see in the news, various foreign leaders keep insisting that Germany ought to join a military intervention whether it’s Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya or somewhere else, yet the Germans refuse. You see, a Battleship costs a fortune to make, to maintain, to train the personal to use it, and then after a decade it’s completely outdated. There is not a worse way to spend government money than on military, if you don’t use it. And if you use your military, you better have some geopolitical benefit from it fast which will repay the millions and billions invested. Simply by not getting involved and for 70 years investing more money into their economy and infrastructure than the competition, the Brits and French are just unable to compete. I think it was Tony Blair who said that Angela Merkel has conquered Greece without loosing one soldier. Greece among other countries is now so dependent on Germany, that they basically rule over it.

So again, the number one problem in the world is Germany, for everybody who doesn’t happen to be in the German sphere of influence.

This is geopolitics, and may explain better how “winners” rewrite history, but are just unable to if so outnumbered.

I know I have not come too far through what you wrote, but I think this may explain some English-speaking literature about German or Germans, especially if the first editions were published prior to the 1990s. Since the attitude has evolved as stated because of the trend and evolution on how to conduct research in history, and that groups shouldn’t just be bundled but rather induvial stories of preferably ordinary people pointed out. Because this may be a fairly new development in the English history books, I can understand that you may not have spotted it, however I can insure you that it custom in German, especially if you try to be taken seriously as a historian.

You can write the 20th book on Hitler or Goebbles, or the first one about people who were deeply impacted by decisions made from people, which are already well documented in 20 other books. It is also very hard to gain a great new insight into Hitler, but it can be very insightful reading about the life of the family down the road…

 

Continuing on that, I would imagine that you as a Veteran know that many wars are not won by soldiers, but rather by the situation back home. The bravery or equipment rarely makes the difference. Usually it’s the economic brake-down as a result of the war back home, or the lack of the support. Statistically speaking one soldier in battle needs 50 workers supporting him/her, because so much on equipment and its production, transport, logistics etc. is necessary.

In the case of a war as massive as WW2 with Germany deploying millions of soldiers, most if not all of Germany’s workforce in some way or another had to be involved in the war effort. This means that the war was lost for Germany economically, if the ran out of reserves, or if the people back home refused to work while being bombed, just to support the war effort. The war’s unpopularity was the reason the US had to get out of Vietnam, while it was money and unpopularity to get out of Iraq. In the case of WW2 the propaganda machine set up by Goebbels was so brilliant, that the support by the people was there, especially because the POW or people considered as such, were usually abused to aid the war effort, independent of their suffering or death toll.

The problem Germany had at that time was economical. The Nazis blew all of Germany’s financial reserves within the first 5 years of them coming to power. I don’t know if you realize that the US governments reserves these days are substantial and that the trillions in debt are not important out of an economic point of view for the countries health. While the trillions in debt are not ideal, the powerful dollar, the fact that US still has plenty of gold and other raw materials reserves, the fact that the vast majority of the debt is US government debt to US citizens, the fact that the US government has still great credit and can get additional funds if needed, etc. make the country very very healthy, and independent of the trillions in debt, economically the US and US government is still healthy is a major player in worldwide politics.

These reserves mentioned here the US still have today, which are very vast, Germany had prior to 1933 as well: gold, ability to get credit, etc. Starting with the rule of Hitler in 1933 these reserves were spend, creating the need for workers in Germany. The famous may be the building of the Autobahn-system (the high-ways) among others. By 1938 Germany was broke, and would have been forced to declare bankruptcy within a few months. No country nor private individual was willing to loan the government money, and most of the other reserves the country had to work, had been used up. The reason the war started in 1939 was the annexation of Austria. Austria with numerous unemployed had healthy reserves, and could finance the Nazi-Spending for another year. Then the Czech people got overrun. Most people don’t realize that the Czech Republic at the time was one of the most advanced countries in the world, and was competitive with Switzerland’s economic status at the time. This countries reserves would last again a year more. The Nazi’s economy was build on conquest of new territory and abusing that territory’s wealth, before moving on. If Germany had not attacked Poland and later Russia, the 3rd Reich would go bankrupt quite quickly and loose everything. The entire structure was build in conquering the world.

Taking this and my previous post into consideration I hope you understand now (if you didn’t previously) that the Nazi’s economic strategy and the economic health of Germany since WW2 contradict in a sense what you used as sources.

The amount of money Germany and Austria paid in reperations for the holocaust is laughable especially because the US give more in foreign aid to Israel every few years, than what we paid total since 1945. This money had zero impact on our economies and as a matter of a fact Germany may make money of the holocaust museums in the end, as it gets you additional tourists. The real winner of WW2 was the US who got many of the German scientific mind as a result of the Nazis and moved to becoming a global player. If you were useful with knowledge you’d get protected by the Americans and didn’t need to go to Argentina. Werner von Braun comes to mind. People who ended up in Argentina usually were military personal of some sort who knew that they’d face stiff consequences if caught. Werner von Braun may have caused more deaths, but was protected for his knowledge. An SS-Officer who killed civilians for whatever reason would not experience the same protection.

If the outcome of the war had been different, I probably wouldn’t have been able to visit any institution of higher education, and the massive propaganda apparatus may prevent the truth of being told. The censorship under Nazi-rule was huge. Being politically radical, whether left or right, tends to have negative consequences for the people.

Personally I don’t understand how the Nazis could have possibly sustained, and as I see it, the things we talk about now, would have just been postponed maybe a century. History, despite what people may think, tends to be quite logical and makes sense. And because of the structure of the Nazi party, the foolishness of the leading class apart from people like Goebbels or Speer was incredible.

I shall address the rest soon... It's becoming a longer and longer read for you, which I hope you don't mind...

 

I would like to go back first to the Remer credibility. Being a general may seem credible, however in Germany especially in WW2 there was so much military personal and so man soldiers and officers who fell on the front lines, that it was rather easy to make career and move up the ranks quickly. The numbers vary because it is not always clear who falls as “German” in the 3rd Reich, but approximately 6.3 million Germans died as a result of WW2 of whom 5.1 million were military personal.

These number I hope reinforce the statement that making career as an officer in WW2. When the war started Otto Ernst Remer had the position of a lieutenant colonel. In 1942 he was promoted to a captain. He participated in the war-effort against the Soviet Union. After getting injured, he was moved to Berlin. There he was in command of some guard forces, which were supposed to arrest Goebbels in the coup d’état as part of the plot to overthrow the Nazis in the July 20th 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler. Because it wasn’t clear if Hitler was assassinated successfully at the time, Remer called for instructions to the Wolfsschanze (Hitler’s bunker) and was to his surprise connected with Hitler himself, who ordered him to arrest the conspirators.

This somewhat coincidence of being on the phone at the right time, and arresting his commanding officer Paul von Hase. He was promoted as a result of this and the propaganda celebrated him as a hero. In January 1945 he was promoted to a major general at the age of 32, and was one of the youngest generals in the German armed forces. He was arrested as a POW a few months later.

I do suspect that you know, how excessive and well working the German propaganda in the Nazi-era was and I do hope that I don’t have to go into greater detail in that. His credibility was pushed highly as a hero because he was to some extent involved with arresting the people trying to assassinate Hitler.

The date of his promotions also indicate to me that he received these honors because so many other officers had died, injured or were POW somewhere.

Since WW2 he was heavily supportive in right extreme policies and founded right extreme parties. His political orientation undoubtable right and with it Nazi friendly. The political orientation doesn’t enhance his credibility, but diminishes it, especially because he kept claiming and stating Nazi-propaganda when the content was already clearly proven false. The interview you see in the opening topic here is sort of a “best of” or “greatest hits” of Nazi BS propaganda. So let me answer your question: If the Nazis had won, would we discredit him this much, probably not because the Nazi propaganda would by now have proven how Germans evolved out of Spartans or Trojan warriors.

However, it is not my goal, to talk about Nazi-propaganda, but rather clarify the faulty content, and set the record straight according to today’s research standards.

As you may have experienced in your travels propaganda is a very powerful tool. In fact it works so well, that companies or governments don’t shy from spending billions on propaganda. I think it is part of my job to read to all that and discover the BS and point it out and set the record straight.

As a part of my studies I did interviews with witnesses of an event in World War 2. To use the testimonies I had to write a 25 page introduction into what is called commemorative culture. I wouldn't be surprised if you've never heard of it, (because neither had I prior to working with witnesses) but basically it is the study of memories, and how distorted they can be and for what reason.

I'll give you a practical example to what usually happens. Say a group of people witnessed a very important event. For arguments sake, 9/11 and the planes which crashed in New York into the World Trade Center. Emotional experiences tend to be remembered in greater detail. Because this was such an important event people feeling scared, shocked or what ever the case may be, people remember it more than events without the (in this case) shock value. Therefore the memory after the planes hit are more detailed than those two hours prior.

On top of that, the same event witnessed by multiple people is usually different for each individual. While they might have seen the same thing, individually they consider something specific more important than someone else. Therefore if you interview people on the same event right after something happened, usually their memories and therefore their stories differ quite a bit.

If you now witness an event like 9/11, subconsciously you start seeking approval for what you witnessed. Meaning, you tell others what you saw and how you felt and in return listen to their testemonies. During this process your mind adjusts the story you witnessed with the stories you heard. Subconsciously you adapt your story with memories which are not your's. Enough time passes and your mind fools you into thinking that this is something you personally saw, while its someone else's memory.

The third step is usually that your story gets filled with something you didn't witness, but actually was impossible for you to have seen. For example because you've seen it on TV so many times, your mind actually starts believing that you were present at an event where you couldn't have been.

Basically that's the problem: any testimony you hear, can be unique like the individual who saw it, the story might be full of adjustments to others, can be full of memories of others, and added with completely random events the person could not have seen. And that would be of course only then, if the human mind and eye wouldn't be so easy to fool in the first place, and considering that the person just simply isn't lying.

In the case of Otto Ernst Remer you have an individual who was born in 1912, and 20 years old at the time Hitler came to power. Having then listened and being decepted by propaganda constantly for 12 years, he didn’t even chose to question the propaganda later in his life either. The propaganda made him into a general and a hero, however, it also fooled him greatly. Military personal especially at that time also was denied the attitude to ever question their commanding officer.

Credibility in my mind is created by scientific recognition of your fellow colleagues. I’m in the process of becoming a scientist in my field, but I truly believe that if I find something flying in the face of historic research or historic knowledge currently, I’d gain great recognition, if I use the historic tools correctly and can prove the claims beyond doubt to my fellow colleagues.

If your research is rejected by 90% or more of the scientists in your field, it just means to mean you’re not working correctly. Things that fly in the face of previous knowledge generally is rewarded with Nobel prizes, not with being fired from your job.

_________

I hope you didn't fall a sleep just yet, and will make it thru the entire reply. I bet it's a bit longer than you might have anticipated, but I also hope it will support my initial statements.

 

No, I didn't fall asleep or even come close because I was / am very interested in what you wrote. I'm actually flattered that you took the time to write the extremely thoughtful observations you've made during your studies.

It's a shame we couldn't have this exchange of ideas, experiences & impressions over a slow, delicious dinner & excellent wine. I have a feeling that it would be good spirited & go well into the early morning.

I strongly believe that it is possible to hold different views on "Hot Topics" yet still remain friendly while disagreeing.


I am familiar with what you have termed as "commemorative culture" which sounds like what I've heard as a part of "Collective Psychology" among other expressions.


Since the Topic of this thread is about Gen. Remer & his impressions of decisions to invade Poland, Russia etc, I will try to speak to that & directly related issues first to keep our exchange as salient to the issue as possible.

1. When I said that I "didn't know that much about Gen Remer", I have read what you wrote & more.

I should have expressed myself more clearly: I meant that I hadn't heard much about him through people who served with him and did't know him personally. I only know what different history books (sources) say about him and his rise through the ranks as you wrote.


2. When you wrote:

I assume you didn't mean to include civilian casualties as the: ".....6.3 million Germans died as a result of WW2...."
At any rate, would you mind Posting our source.


3. I believe you wrote, at one point, that German expansion into Poland ,the former Czechoslovakia etc was solely for "Raw Materials".
However, since there is seldom a single historical motive for a leader / country doing anything, I don't believe that Raw Materials was the only reason for post WW 1 German expansion. I don't believe that Germany could have survived under the Treaty of Versailles.
I assume that you are aware of the atrocities, starvation, persecution etc of Germans & additional seizure of German land even in the early 1920s at the hands of the French & British. I heard of these things during my more informal "interviews" / conversations during the 1970s of Germans who had experienced these things.

At that time there were still intellectually sound & stable German WW 1, WW 2 Veterans & civilians around whose experiences died with them long ago. I feel that their recollections of history are every bit as truthful as individuals you interviewed.

Since I don't know if you are 25 years old or 75 years old, it's difficult for me to know about the sources, people, & documents with which you are familiar. I don't expect you to disclose personal information on a public forum but it's difficult for me to know what you consider "Nazi B.S. / Neo Nazi Propaganda" without knowing the degree to which your sources & the people you interviewed had related information that was tainted by what you term as "commemorative culture"

Since I have both an academic background & work experience in the field of psychology, I have some familiarity with what & how different people may remember the same event & remember it differently a few years later.


I've got 2 dogs & 6 cats, all rescued and / or adopted & they all are barking & demanding my attention at the moment, so, I have to close for now with this unedited Post (please excuse my predicament).


Thanks

 

1. I personally also didn't have the chance to do interviews with people who know him either, but I don't think that these subjective opinions would help with his historic credibility in accounts to WW2, and the content of the interview.
2. My sources are predominantly German. In this case I used the MGFA (Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt) which I believe is called the Military History Research Office in English. Their release of "Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg" has those estimates included in the 10th volume of the series.

3. If I gave the impression that Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland were targeted exclusively for their raw materials, I must have not been clear. The German government's economic strategy of the 30s, which was build on extreme and massive overspending. The implication was that the German reserves were wasted by the year 1938 and merely the financial and other reserves of other countries kept the system running. One of Czechoslovakia's main prizes was the Skoda factory. The German economic system implied that they were heading towards economic bankruptcy if they didn't gain new territory to exploit in some way.

The treaty of Versailles by 1930 had changed. The initial deal which was very stiff, was loosened as time progressed, because many countries saw it as unfair; among other peoples, the Brits. The French who suffered, not only in a high death toll, but also by having massive destruction on their land, were the only ones still insisting on following through. However, it couldn't be achieved without the support of the other people in the League of Nations. By the time Austria got annexed, the League of Nations saw it as a "inner German conflict", which was far away from what was said in the treaty of Versailles just a couple of decades earlier.

The problem of the treaty of Versailles was the limitation of military personal in Germany to 100,000. This may not seem so little, but was much lower than the 10 million soldiers (if memory serves me right) in service at the end of the war, of whom many wanted to continue to serve. The underline problem of this decision was the loophole: The German government was allowed to employ 100,000, however there was no limitation on militia. Militia organized according to political orientation, this means that many parties had their private military force, which in some circumstances could outnumber the official German army at the time. The most famous was the SS.

The French and British occupation of the Rheinland didn't actually achieve all that much, apart from further despise from the German people. But you have to keep in mind, that neither France nor Britain were economically healthy in the 20s. Pretty much all of Europe was in a crisis situation and rebuilding from the worst war up to that point.

 

The trouble with that source is, that the Germans are not allowed to state the real truth about WW2.

I found a fantastic scholarly work by

Korean Minjok Leadership Academy
International Program
Lee, Joo Hyung .......(a hug for him from me!)
Term Paper, AP European History Class, April 2008

For your enjoyment, mihapiha, here is the link:

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/joohyung/ljh2.html#I

 

What is your evidence to support that claim?

 

apparently ... German General Otto Ernst Remer ... did not know about the existence of:



The Generalplan Ost (German pronunciation: , Master Plan East), abbreviated GPO, was the Nazi German government's plan for the colonization of Central and Eastern Europe. Implementation of the plan necessitated genocide and ethnic cleansi.

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

 

In 1938 "very modest demands" were even more modest.

in 1938 Hitler wanted the Sudetenland only.

 

Jazz, You also do not know about this?

.

 

See Otto Ernst Remer... he was to be incarcerated for his thought crimes.
Check Ursula Haverbeck and many others.

 

NO, never heard of it. Hitler wanted to get all the former German lands back... Sudetenland comes to mind.

P.S.
You are forgiven!

 

That is your proof that sources in German are wrong? That would mean that the Otto Ernst Remer interview is also wrong, now wouldn't it?

 

You misunderstood!! On purpose?

 

The Rhineland issue was a side show compared to the hyperinflation in the 1920s. In 1914, at the start of World War I, the dollar was worth 4.20 marks. By November 1923 the dollar was at 4.2 trillion marks. In 1921, the Allies set Germany's reparations at 132 billion goldmarks. From then until 1932 an estimated 26 billion goldmarks was paid out in cash and goods, corresponding to an annual 10 percent of national income. The French occupation of Germany's Ruhr valley further exacerbated Germany's economic hardship as the Ruhr valley was no longer permitted to deliver coal. National Socialism is largely a lower-class movement and millions of Germans suddenly became impoverished at the time, which was the direct cause of the rise of Hitler.