Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: The Hitler/Hess Deception

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 31st, 2021 @ 12:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,682
    Thanked in
    1,444 Posts

    The Hitler/Hess Deception

    I'm just reading a book with the above title and am sitting here quite agog at some of the stuff in it!

    The author is very commendable inasmuch as he's done his research and (for those unaware) highlighted the extaordinary lengths to which Hitler was prepared to go in order to accommodate the British and avoid what subsequently became World War Two. However, the disastrous Churchill was detrermined from the outset that Germany had to be crushed to prevent her from becoming the main power on the European continent and hated any notion of a German 'Reich'. Truth be told, he wasn't so much an 'anti-Nazi' as an anti-German, full stop!

    So, you can imagine that any peace attempts by Germany towards Britain were a non-starter and the 'deception' part of the title refers to how, during 1940 and 1941, the British Intelligence Services managed to dupe Germany into believing that war could be averted. As I said earlier, the author deserves huge credit for pointing this out BUT what I see as a dishonourable piece of deceit, he sees as a brilliant strategy that culminated in luring Rudolf Hess over to Scotland (in good faith, believing he was going to save millions of British and German lives) only to lock him away until he died in Spandau prison about 40 years later. Either myself or the author, Martin Allen, has a rather perverse values system but I could never laud anything quite as ignoble as this, regardless of the actors concerned!

    In one of the chapters, Martin Allen takes the trouble to detail all of the concessions that Germany was prepared to make and it is a truly incredible list, going way beyond anything I'd previously been aware of. In fact, the terms were so favourable to Britain that Churchill had some kind of panic attack and his reaction was 'This has to be kept secret. If the public ever hears of this, the war will be off!' Incredible, isn't it, that one man's ego was deemed more important than the fate of Europe's two greatest nations at that time.

    Another of Churchill's classic quotes is that he would rather surrender the British empire to the Americans piece by piece than allow Germany to become the foremost power on the European continent. Well, he certainly succeeded in this particular endeavour! Hitler, on the other hand, warned him that if Britain and Germany went to war then the USA and Russia would become the next two superpowers with Europe being their battlefield ... prescient words, indeed!

    Well, most folks will know from here on how things eventually turned out. Basically, Churchill & Co. managed to exploit the Fuhrer's good faith and stall him for long enough to bring the USA and Russia into the war, sealing Germany's fate. I think all historians would agree that, had Hitler wished to crush Britain in 1940/41, he could have done so with relative ease. Instead he showed us good will, believing the British to be Germany's Aryan brothers and we stabbed him in the back in the most disgraceful manner. The author, again, thinks that this was some kind of 'master plan' and it can be annoying to read his constant praise for those who executed it so well but at least he's brought to light the true events of this period and most of his readers will be astute enough to form their own judgement.

    I'm actually surprised that this book made it past the present-day censors because it depicts many of the National Socialists as normal human beings. The author stops short of approval for such figures as Rudolf Hess but he does come across well on the whole, although others such as Ribbentrop are portrayed as complete idiots. One whose intellect is highly praised though is Albrecht Haushofer, whose Mother was Jewish, and he was Hitler's main peace negotiator/go-between and diplomatic confidant etc.. Once again, the more perceptive readers will realise that Hitler didn't just shoot all the Jews on sight! On the side of the 'good guys' there are winners and losers too and someone who emeges with a lot of honour and dignity is Hugh Dalton. This was a Labour politician who was head of the SOE (a branch of the British Secret Service) but who resigned because he could see the carnage that Churchill was about to unleash and felt that he couldn't in all conscience go along with it. He could have saved millions of lives but was naturally condemned by 'Winnie the Warmonger' as being a traitor and a defeatist, as one would expect!

    Anyway, I still haven't finished reading the book yet so my review is a little premature and maybe the final third will not live up to expectations. However, I'd say that, so far, this is as good as anything I've read on this particular subject. The fact it's from a 'mainstream' source also lends it more credibility; at least in the eyes of the public, who are conditioned to scream 'conspiracy theory' at anything one quotes from such places as the Internet. As for my own view of British history (much of which I support, despite a few dark chapters here and there) I'd say that this was a quite appalling episode that evokes nothing but total shame. However, looking at where we find ourselves today, it looks like our former leaders' misguided policies have ultimately backfired on us and perhaps a more fitting title for this book would have been something on the lines of 'Britain's Self-Deception'

    ---------------------------------


  2. #2
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germanic
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Gender
    Politics
    GPWW
    Posts
    1,630
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    A realistic draft.

    So, you can imagine that any peace attempts by Germany towards Britain were a non-starter and the 'deception' part of the title refers to how, during 1940 and 1941, the British Intelligence Services managed to dupe Germany into believing that war could be averted.
    Maybe, but Hitler had no choice anyway. His problem is obvious, he cannot get the status of peace/truce from Britain, because he has no means (unless he would resort to WMD, a chemical and biological attack on London, Midlands and Southern England) to force the British to a negotiated peace.

    Which of course indicates that not Germany is the attacker ("aggressor"), but Great Britain is. This perspective is also much more correlate with the indisputable facts rather than Churchillian gramophone phraseology "Germany is to blame ".
    1914, August 5: Great Britain declares war on Germany
    1939, September 3: Great Britain declares war on Germany
    From Hitler's view (in 1940+41)there are only 2 options left if the employed method "Continental Blockade" (U-Boat and air warfare) doesn't work.

    1. First use of WMD against the British Isles.
    2. Alternate: On what do they hope? Clearly on the USSR and USA, the latter already a semi belligerent. The only way to escape long term defeat for Hitler or any other German "decider" is logically to overthrow the Red-Army as long as Roosevelt is not an active belligerent. Speak Operation Barbarossa as long as there is time.

    As long as Downing Street No. 10 is occupied by an individual who is prone on war (and thrives on it, see any Churchill biography, the only point all biographers agree on), and who wants the war no matter what the price is for his own people, Europe, and the World.

    And for this it doesn't really matter who is at the helmet in Germany, whether it is a Jesuit priest, a moderate centrist or a populist radical like Hitler.


    So Kudos to Martin Allen when he wants to discuss Hitler's several truce offers in 1940/41. It reminds the reader that "Hitler's War" was to a great degree "Churchill's War".

  3. #3
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germanic
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Gender
    Politics
    GPWW
    Posts
    1,630
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    I've seen the thread yesterday, yet wanted to make my mind up about the content and the author before giving any feedback.
    Editorial Reviews
    Review
    'Martin Allen has turned up hitherto hidden documents which make an enormous contribution to our understanding of the British deception operation preceding Rudolf Hess's flight to Scotland in May 1941. The outlines of the intrigue have been evident for some time; Allen's sleuthing brings the personalities and the methods into sharp and sensational focus. This must surely be the final blow to those historians who have doggedly stuck to the authorised version of a crazy exploit by a madman' Peter Padfield, author of Hess: The Fuhrer's Disciple

    For more than 60 years mystery has surrounded the flight to Britain of Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess. In 1941 the polite, unassuming character known as 'the acceptable face of Nazism' parachuted from a Messerschmitt-110, landed on a remote hillside in Scotland and demanded to see the Duke of Hamilton. Hours earlier, Hess had told his wife he had a secret mission to accomplish but would be back home within a day or two. As it happened, he would spend the rest of his life in jail. The official version of events in both Britain and Germany was that Hess had suffered a brainstorm, stolen a Luftwaffe plane and flown it to Scotland believing he could personally end the war by negotiation. He was obviously a madman, someone not to be taken seriously. But according to Martin Allen's view of things, Hess was no madman. Nor had he 'stolen' an aircraft - he flew to Britain with the enthusiastic endorsement of Adolf Hitler. They had both been suckered by Winston Churchill and Britain's security services into thinking they had made contact with a rebel faction keen to overthrow the British government. This scenario might sound just as implausible as the official version, but it does have a lot going for it. Not least is the wealth of information Allen has pieced together from archives in Britain, Germany and the US. Many of the documents have previously been unseen by historians or their significance has not been realized. Just as tellingly, perhaps, is what the archives do not show. Many documents that would support the official account of Hess's flight are strangely absent. A massive cover-up has clearly been perpetrated, and Martin believes he has the answer as to who and why. In his previous book, Hidden Agenda, Martin claimed that the Duke of Windsor was in secret collusion with the Nazis and passing information to Hitler. His latest revision of history may not cause as many ripples but it is certainly more complex. Here we have what was apparently a plot involving the Prime Minister, four Cabinet ministers, two ambassadors and top-ranking intelligence staff to hoodwink the German hierarchy. If Martin is right, they succeeded in a spectacular way - and the consequences were more far-reaching than either Hitler or Hess could have imagined in the spring of 1941. (Kirkus UK)
    From the Publisher
    On the night of May 10, 1941, a Messerschmitt–110 crash–landed on a remote Scottish hillside. Its pilot was Rudolf Hess, the Deputy–Führer of the German Reich. Hess’ remarkable solo flight was immediately dismissed in both Britain and Germany as the act of a deranged mind. He was disowned by Hitler, and Churchill’s government insisted that his unexpected arrival on British soil was of no lasting consequence. Nevertheless, the mysterious circumstances of the flight, and Hess’ silence during fifty years of imprisonment, have led to endless speculation as to his true motives. Until now, no one has found the crucial pieces of evidence that prove that a small group of men within the British government and intelligence services were, in fact, conducting a brilliantly clever plot that would not only lead to Hess’ flight, but would have a decisive impact on the course of the war and the forces that shaped postwar Britain. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.
    No objection here.

    Martin Allen also wrote about the Duke of Windsor.

    Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies
    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

    The Duke of Windsor was one of the few high ranking English individuals of who his SD-Amt VI dossier says: "Genuine" German friendly and interested in cooperation.

    So Martin Allen's book-title "How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies" is perhaps kind of---appropriate.

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 06:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    England/Scotland/Germany
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    South Australia South Australia
    Location
    Adelaide
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    NS
    Religion
    not sure
    Posts
    170
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    The book sounds interesting, I haven't seen too much detail about the offers that Hitler was making to the British before but they must have been something big for Hess to be treated so much more harshly than Speer for instance (not even allowed to touch his son, while Speer was able to smuggle out whole books) and then eventually murdered by the British as I believe he was.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Thorbrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 29th, 2018 @ 03:55 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Ancestry
    Northern European
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Orange Free State Orange Free State
    Location
    Albion
    Gender
    Age
    55
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    teach, research
    Politics
    Radical Traditionalist
    Religion
    Gottgläubig
    Posts
    384
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Yes, totally plausible in fact logical. I never had any doubt that Hess's mission was condoned by the Führer - they had a lengthy and private meeting prior to the flight. I intend to make a pilgrimage to Maindiff Court Military Hospital, Abergavenny, where Hess was held for the duration of the war. I admire Hess deeply and reject the enormous libel that has been propagated about his character post-war. It's tragic the way things turned out and a real condemnation of Churchill (again). I am looking forward to reading this account, thanks Godwinson!
    “unless they know, mystically, that beneath the concrete lies the earth which has nourished their race for a thousand years and ... that it is their own earth from which their blood is shed and renewed, then they are a lost people, and easy prey for those who have lacked roots for many centuries"
    A. K. Chesterton

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 31st, 2021 @ 12:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,682
    Thanked in
    1,444 Posts
    The book sounds interesting, I haven't seen too much detail about the offers that Hitler was making to the British before but they must have been something big for Hess to be treated so much more harshly than Speer for instance
    Below is the answer to your enquiry, ampersand, taken from pp. 125-127 of the aforementioned book.

    Hitler made it known via his intermediaries (who, in this instance, was the Papal Nuncio) that he desired a peace conference ASAP in order to end hostilities in western Europe. He put forward the following list of suggestions and concessions that he was prepared to make ...

    [1] The negotiating parties to meet on neutral teritory under the stewardship of a neutral state, such as Switzerland or the United States of America.

    [2] Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France would be independent free states, able to choose their own constitution and government; but opposition to Germany must be excluded and assurances of non-retaliation given. Germany would withdraw her military forces, would not claim military concessions in these countries and is prepared to negotiate a form of reparation for damage inflicted during conquest.

    [3] All aggressive weapons to be destroyed and then armed forces reduced to correspond with the economic and strategic requirements of each country.

    [4] Germany requests the return of her former colonies but would advance no other territorial claims. South-West Africa might not be claimed. Germany might consider the payment of an indemnity for improvements effected in the colonies since 1918, and the purchase of property from present owners who might desire to leave.

    [5] The political independence and national identity of 'a Polish State' to be restored, but the teritory occupied by the Soviet Union is to be excluded from discussions. Czechoslovakia would not be prevented from developing her national character, but is to remain under the protection of the Reich.

    [6] Greater European economic solidarity should be pursued, and the solution of important economic questions solved by negotiation and national European agreement.


    Here are some extracts taken from the next few paragraphs of the book ...

    The nature of what was on offer must have left SO1 gasping at the concessions Hitler was prepared to make to attain peace with Britain.

    The last thing anyone had expected was that the German Führer would respond by making an offer so good that it left the majority of Britain's official war aims hollow.

    From Churchill's point of view, nothing could have been more dangerous. Such a set of consequences was a remarkable development, which had the potential to bring Britain's war effort to a shuddering halt if it ever became public. This could not be allowed to happen.

    What would happen if the governments in exile of Norway, Holland, Belgium and France were to discover that Hitler was offering to withdraw German forces from their countries and, what was more, intimating that he was prepared to pay compensation for the damage that had occurred during the invasion? It was an extremely difficult and dangerous call for Churchill.

    ... and so on! In fact, the whole book is full of stuff such as this with the Germans sincerely believing that they could broker peace whilst Britain was stalling for time and conspiring to bring other nations into the war against Germany. It really is a disgusting chapter of deceit, which culminated with Rudolf Hess flying over to Britain in good faith and being imprisoned for the rest of his life!

  7. #7
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germanic
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Gender
    Politics
    GPWW
    Posts
    1,630
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Godwinson View Post
    Below is the answer to your enquiry, ampersand, taken from pp. 125-127 of the aforementioned book.

    Hitler made it known via his intermediaries (who, in this instance, was the Papal Nuncio) that he desired a peace conference ASAP in order to end hostilities in western Europe. He put forward the following list of suggestions and concessions that he was prepared to make ...

    [1] The negotiating parties to meet on neutral teritory under the stewardship of a neutral state, such as Switzerland or the United States of America.

    [2] Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France would be independent free states, able to choose their own constitution and government; but opposition to Germany must be excluded and assurances of non-retaliation given. Germany would withdraw her military forces, would not claim military concessions in these countries and is prepared to negotiate a form of reparation for damage inflicted during conquest.

    [3] All aggressive weapons to be destroyed and then armed forces reduced to correspond with the economic and strategic requirements of each country.

    [4] Germany requests the return of her former colonies but would advance no other territorial claims. South-West Africa might not be claimed. Germany might consider the payment of an indemnity for improvements effected in the colonies since 1918, and the purchase of property from present owners who might desire to leave.

    [5] The political independence and national identity of 'a Polish State' to be restored, but the teritory occupied by the Soviet Union is to be excluded from discussions. Czechoslovakia would not be prevented from developing her national character, but is to remain under the protection of the Reich.

    [6] Greater European economic solidarity should be pursued, and the solution of important economic questions solved by negotiation and national European agreement.


    Here are some extracts taken from the next few paragraphs of the book ...

    The nature of what was on offer must have left SO1 gasping at the concessions Hitler was prepared to make to attain peace with Britain.

    The last thing anyone had expected was that the German Führer would respond by making an offer so good that it left the majority of Britain's official war aims hollow.

    From Churchill's point of view, nothing could have been more dangerous. Such a set of consequences was a remarkable development, which had the potential to bring Britain's war effort to a shuddering halt if it ever became public. This could not be allowed to happen.

    What would happen if the governments in exile of Norway, Holland, Belgium and France were to discover that Hitler was offering to withdraw German forces from their countries and, what was more, intimating that he was prepared to pay compensation for the damage that had occurred during the invasion? It was an extremely difficult and dangerous call for Churchill.
    The blue marked is relevant for today's policies. All minor and major governments surely have their Real History departments somewhere, likely in their foreign ministries. And their archives.

    This implies that behind the facade of a pro-Allied approach since 1945, most of the smaller countries have realized that they had been become victims of the circumstances (Denmark, Norway, Benelux) of the major conflict, thus major powers at war with each other. Major powers who did not give dam about their "rights as neutrals" when they were geographically in the way (Denmark, NL). Most were also victimized by both sides during the rest of the war, that is German "police brutality" versus Anglo-American air bombardments. The French surely know somewhere that it was they themselves who "started" the war by declaring war onto Germany following the British with a 6 hour delay.

    For example, all air bombardments Paris suffered from 1940-44 were in fact conducted by the Anglo-Allies. Soon in a few months "70 years ago" (March 6, 1942) the first large scale RAF Bomber Command attack on Paris will be commemorated, at least by me posting both the French and German news coverage in the "70 Years ago" thread. Paris still waits on a humble UK official who travels on that day to France, apologizing for this and all further bombardments (especially in 1944 in preparation of D-Day) of the French capital. After all, one started out as "Allies" until Churchill attacked the French fleet in Africa (Oran, Dakar, Mers-El-Kebir) in 1940.

    Here the Germans have to thank Mr. Churchill as this action turned public opinion in France and Vichy France against Great Britain. The next day saw long columns in front of the offices for the LVF (French Legion) and the PPF (Populist Party France, the pro-Hitler party inside wartime France).
    The public outcry against "perfidious Albion" and "traitorous Churchill" in France was immense, and was water on the mills of the French Fascists and Nazi-sympathizers who wanted Vichy-France to join Italy-Germany and declare war on Britain, by signing the Tripartite Treaty.

    I am always amazed that Churchillites up to the day brag about these raids,
    praising him and the RN for having conducted another ruthless "Copenhagen".
    They apparently cannot think around corner, thus that on the "plus" side for Britain are just a few French capital ships, while on the "minus" side it turned much of the French public opinion against Britain, ensuring functioning "collaboration" (economically important for the Germans) until 1944.



    ---
    French newsreport covering the visit of Vichy France PM Laval on the Berghof.
    ---

    Allen's book may well serve the purpose to reveal parts of the truth, using backdoor mirrors to point out what official Britain cannot or is unwilling to admit:

    The legacy of Mr. Churchill is the millstone around modern day's UK-neck.

    Not only that Britain started the war, but also kept it going, hoping on enlarging the conflict wherever possible (Norway 1940, Yugoslav coup March 1941) and ultimately recruiting the USA and the USSR onto the British side (lack of means for the BE alone to archive the stated war goal "Unconditional Surrender" aka complete conquest of Germany), after Poland and France did not fulfill the military expectations set into them.

    Last not least, British historian R. Grenfell about "Total War" and the air bombardments of France who were, according to Churchillian mytholgie, "popular" in France.

    As a matter of fact, the 1939 war did not start on a total basis. Mr. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister at its outset, had set a definite limit to violence. Whatever the lengths, he said, to which other belligerents might go, the British Government would never resort to the deliberate air bombing of civilian targets. Much the same limitation applied to ground bombardment, and the instructions given to General Mackesy for the Norwegian campaign included the injunction, recorded by Mr. Churchill in his first volume, that "it is clearly illegal to bombard a populated area in the hope of hitting a legitimate target which is known to be in the area but which cannot be precisely located and identified" *; a statement which, if true, clearly makes most of the later bombing of Germany also illegal.
    * Churchill, Vol. I, p. 482.
    [172]

    [B]Mr. Chamberlain's "untotal" views on warfare lasted, however, no longer than his own premier¬ship. No sooner was Mr. Churchill in the saddle than such limitations were cast aside. Believing that "bombers alone could provide the means of victory," * Mr. Churchill instituted the bombing of civilian targets without reserve, although this complete change of policy was for a time suitably camouflaged.As a matter of fact, the 1939 war did not start on a total basis. Mr. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister at its outset, had set a definite limit to violence. Whatever the lengths, he said, to which other bel¬ligerents might go, the British Government would never resort to the deliberate air bombing of civil¬ian targets. Much the same limitation applied to ground bombardment, and the instructions given to General Mackesy for the Norwegian campaign included the injunction, recorded by Mr. Churchill in his first volume, that "it is clearly illegal to bombard a populated area in the hope of hitting a legitimate target which is known to be in the area but which cannot be precisely located and identified" *; a state¬ment which, if true, clearly makes most of the later bombing of Germany also illegal.
    * Churchill, Vol. I, p. 482.
    [172]

    Mr. Chamberlain's "untotal" views on warfare lasted, however, no longer than his own premiership. No sooner was Mr. Churchill in the saddle than such limitations were cast aside. Believing that "bombers alone could provide the means of victory," * Mr. Churchill instituted the bombing of civilian targets without reserve, although this complete change of policy was for a time suitably camouflaged. By 1942, however, there was no longer any serious pretence that civilians were not being at¬tacked. The Chief of Bomber Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, told the Germans by broadcast that he was bombing their homes; while the new term "area bombing" then being introduced to describe British bombing policy was in patent disregard of the spirit of General Mackesy's instruc¬tions just referred to. Mr. Churchill himself left no room for doubt about his utter rejection of his predecessor's attitude to civilian bombing. "I may say," he said, "that as the year advances, German cities, harbors, and centers of production will be subjected to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by a country in continuity, severity, and magnitude."** Total war was on.
    Nevertheless, the concentrated and devastating air attack that Mr. Churchill directed against the German cities and people did not bring the victory by bombing in which he had put his faith. Terrible as was the punishment inflicted on the German population and enormous as was the damage and destruction to German cities and towns, amounting to a major blow at European civilization, Germany fought on.
    By 1942, however, there was no longer any serious pretence that civilians were not being attacked. The Chief of Bomber Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, told the Germans by broadcast that he was bombing their homes; while the new term "area bombing" then being introduced to describe British bombing policy was in patent disregard of the spirit of General Mackesy's instructions just referred to. Mr. Churchill himself left no room for doubt about his utter rejection of his predecessor's attitude to civilian bombing. "I may say," he said, "that as the year advances, German cities, harbours, and centres of production will be subjected to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by a country in continuity, severity, and magnitude."** Total war was on.
    Nevertheless, the concentrated and devastating air attack that Mr. Churchill directed against the Ger¬man cities and people did not bring the victory by bombing in which he had put his faith. Terrible as was the punishment inflicted on the German population and enormous as was the damage and destruction to German cities and towns, amounting to a major blow at European civilisation, Germany fought on.
    Bombing the French:
    In Britain, at the time, the people were told that the Anglo-American bombings of French factories and other targets were highly popular in France; that the French so much liked having their houses blown to bits and their relatives and neighbors killed that they would run out into the streets and wave enthusiastically to the bombers who had done the damage. I thought these stories, as I read them, indicated an almost superhuman degree of patriotism on the part of the French. Sisley Huddleston, who was in France during the war, discredits any waving there may have been as quite unrepresentative of general feeling.
    "The bombing definitely did harm to the Allied cause one town that I know (in Normandy) had 2,000 inhabitants killed or wounded out of a population of 5,000, and hardly a house was left standing. It is better not to ask the survivors what they think today. Under the official friendship for England and America there is a smoldering sense of injury . . . they (the French) were pained at the idea that there was no way of separating the Germans from the French, and that they were, in fact, if not in intention, lumped together as the enemy to be hurt. . . .
    I, myself, being in a part of Courseulles on the Normandy coast on D + 1 day was cautioned against walking alone in the less busy parts of the small town, as the French inhabitants were said to be so vindictive about the manner of their liberation that they were taking any good opportunity of sniping their liberators. To bomb a country, to destroy its factories, to flatten its towns, to kill and injure its citizens is to make war on that country, whether it is done or alleged to be done for the benefit of that country or not. We may have thought we were doing the French a good turn by knocking them and their country about. It is undeniable that we believed we were looking after our own interests at the same time, and it is unlikely that unless we and the Americans had been satisfied on that latter point we should have indulged in any killing of Frenchmen for their own good. The time may come, who knows, when the British may find themselves in a similar position to the French, and after being atom bombed by one side may be atom bombed by the other. Should that happen, I know at least one English¬man who will find it difficult to regard either bombing as the friendly action of a peace-loving well-wisher. [Liberator]

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 06:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    England/Scotland/Germany
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    South Australia South Australia
    Location
    Adelaide
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    NS
    Religion
    not sure
    Posts
    170
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    That is some absolutely stunning stuff. It would have been incredibly damaging to Churchill and his gang, both in Britain and the occupied countries.

    It completely puts the lie to everything that is said about Hitler and his dreams of ruling Europe / the world; Germany at this stage was in a completely dominant position in Europe and still at peace with the USSR. There was no need to offer any concessions whatsoever, except in the genuine interests of peace.

    I wonder if things would have turned out better if someone less blinded by anti-German hatred like Lord Halifax had been PM, or whether the rot was too set in.

  9. #9
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 03:13 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    BOER
    Ancestry
    German
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Eire
    Gender
    Family
    ..raising kids..
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Dutch Reformed
    Posts
    289
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Judging from the peace terms offerred to the Brits it is once more confirmation of what an amazing visionary the Fuhrer was because we can now view these term in hindsight and see why they were made. Truly Genius!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 31st, 2021 @ 12:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,682
    Thanked in
    1,444 Posts
    In Britain, at the time, the people were told that the Anglo-American bombings of French factories and other targets were highly popular in France; that the French so much liked having their houses blown to bits and their relatives and neighbors killed that they would run out into the streets and wave enthusiastically to the bombers who had done the damage. I thought these stories, as I read them, indicated an almost superhuman degree of patriotism on the part of the French. Sisley Huddleston, who was in France during the war, discredits any waving there may have been as quite unrepresentative of general feeling.
    "The bombing definitely did harm to the Allied cause one town that I know (in Normandy) had 2,000 inhabitants killed or wounded out of a population of 5,000, and hardly a house was left standing. It is better not to ask the survivors what they think today. Under the official friendship for England and America there is a smoldering sense of injury . . . they (the French) were pained at the idea that there was no way of separating the Germans from the French, and that they were, in fact, if not in intention, lumped together as the enemy to be hurt. . . .
    I, myself, being in a part of Courseulles on the Normandy coast on D + 1 day was cautioned against walking alone in the less busy parts of the small town, as the French inhabitants were said to be so vindictive about the manner of their liberation that they were taking any good opportunity of sniping their liberators. To bomb a country, to destroy its factories, to flatten its towns, to kill and injure its citizens is to make war on that country, whether it is done or alleged to be done for the benefit of that country or not. We may have thought we were doing the French a good turn by knocking them and their country about. It is undeniable that we believed we were looking after our own interests at the same time, and it is unlikely that unless we and the Americans had been satisfied on that latter point we should have indulged in any killing of Frenchmen for their own good. The time may come, who knows, when the British may find themselves in a similar position to the French, and after being atom bombed by one side may be atom bombed by the other. Should that happen, I know at least one English¬man who will find it difficult to regard either bombing as the friendly action of a peace-loving well-wisher. [Liberator]
    --------------------------------------------

    I used to go camping in Toulon every year and there was a degree of hostility towards the English that was at times quite discernible. One of my mates from Toulon came over to see me this summer, funnily enough, and started to tell me about how the British had killed 14,000 sailors when they destroyed the French fleet. He was very cagey at first, trying to be as diplomatic as possible, but once he realised my allegiances he really opened up rather venomously against Churchill & Co.

    Regarding the book, which I've just finished reading, it concludes with Rudolf Hess safely locked away and unable to deliver his peace message whilst Churchill is now full of smug satisfaction at the prospect of Germany and Russia going to war. Well, after all, it only involved the loss of another 30 million lives and what was that to Churchill?

    I'll leave the final words to Adolf Hitler himself, (taken from his testament and copied from the book "Hitler and Stalin - Parallel Lives" by Alan Bullock) ...

    If Fate had granted to an ageing and enfeebled Britain a new Pitt instead of this Jew-ridden, half-American drunkard [Churchill], the new Pitt would at once have recognized that Britain's traditional policy of balance of power would now have to be applied on a world-wide scale.

    Instead of maintaining European rivalries, Britain ought to do her utmost to bring about a unification of Europe. Allied to a united Europe, she would then still retain the chance of being able to play the part of arbiter in world affairs ... [but] I had underestimated the power of Jewish dominance over Churchill's England.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Deception of Thor [Anti-Homosexuality]
    By tirannis in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: Monday, February 7th, 2011, 05:10 PM
  2. Placebos Work Even Without Deception
    By Hersir in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 09:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •