MovieChat Forums > Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003) Discussion > Did you know that Hitler didn't really s...

Did you know that Hitler didn't really start WWII? Here's why!

posted 12 years ago by WWu777
20 replies | jump to latest

Ok I just saw this documentary that a friend recommended and posted that presents the other side of WWII that we were never told:

Hitler's War: What the Historians Neglect to Mention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0XyosEza8

And checked out this website by a German historian who found out from the historical archives that we were not told the truth about WWII:
http://www.vorkriegsgeschichte.de

Wow that was very eye opening. Apparently, WWII isn't what we've been told it was. We've been taught that Hitler was a cartoon villain who wanted to take over the world, while the Allies were good guys who were fighting for freedom and liberation. But according to the facts of the film:

- Hitler didn't actually start a world war and never intended to either. He only attacked Poland because of irreconcilable border disputes over land in Poland occupied by German immigrants there who were being treated badly. He only intended the war to be between Germany and Poland.

- It was France and Britain who declared war against Germany first, not the other way around. In response, Hitler tried to avoid fighting them by asking for a peace negotiation. He even offered to pull out of Poland as long as he could keep the land in dispute. But France and Britain refused his peace negotiations and were dead set on war with Germany for some reason. I wonder why. Why were they so set on destroying Nazi Germany? Were they or their elites threatened by it?

What this means is that it was FRANCE and BRITAIN who turned Hitler's war with Poland into a WORLD WAR, by declaring war on Germany and doing everything they could to escalate a world war. In other words, Hitler wanted peace, but the Allies didn't. Isn't that shocking? Doesn't it go against everything we've been taught?

- So we gotta wonder, if France and Britain wanted to attack Germany for invading Poland, what was their motivation? If it was moralistic or altruistic (as they would have you believe) then why didn't they attack Russia for invading Eastern Europe at the same time that Hitler invaded Poland? In fact, why don't they attack every invading country in the world, including the USA (for invading Vietnam and Iraq)? Why did they single out Germany?

The Allies' logic is not consistent. It seems that something else was going on. But what? Here is a conspiracy theory I heard. It goes like this:

Hitler was brought up and funded by the international banking elite. He was funded by US corporations after all. Otherwise, there's no way his orating skills alone could bring Germany from bankruptcy to super power. Western historians never mention this and erroneously attribute German's rise to world super power on Hitler's orating skills alone, which is nonsensical and unrealistic. But that's all Western historians know for some reason.

But somehow, he betrayed this international banking cartel (mostly run by Jews) by issuing currency through German banks rather than borrowing from the banksters to put Germany in debt, which is what the banksters wanted. Hitler cared more about the German people and about being virtuous, not corrupt. So he did what he felt was best for the German people, and ended corruption in his country as well. Furious and feeling betrayed, the banksters decided to take him out and make an example out of him. Hitler and his ways which made Germany successful in economics and societal life, were a threat to the banksters, who feared that other countries may follow the successful example of Nazi Germany. In fact, Hitler was even named "Man of the Year" in Time magazine for what he did for Germany.

So these banksters started a plot to take out Hitler and end Nazi Germany. Since they owned the politicians and government in Britain, France, and the USA, they pulled their levers in these countries so that they would be aiming to start a world war against Hitler to take him and his shining role model society out. They also tried to manipulate Stalin into attacking Germany as well. So, the Allies, under control of the banksters, did everything they could to bait Hitler into attacking Poland so that they would have an excuse to start a war with him. In fact, in some of Hitler's speeches that are available on video archives, he even said that the Allies had a tendency to bait him into fighting, and that he preferred peace and saw war as a waste of his time and resources. Hitler said he preferred to build his society rather than fight wars.

In engineering WWII, these banking elites accomplished several goals that helped consolidate their power:

1. They took out Hitler who was a threat to them and whom they felt betrayed them. And they made an example out of him. How dare he defy them!
2. They profited from the war which forced governments to borrow money from the international bankers and put themselves in debt. And from military industrial profits as well.
3. They created chaos in Europe and Asia, which they then provided the solution for after the war in the formation of the United Nations, which consolidated their power by giving them more control over more countries. Thus, power went into fewer hands after WWII, just as was intended with the League of Nations after WWI (but which failed for some reason). This is known in conspiracy research and coined by David Icke as "problem, reaction, solution", which works like this:

a) They (the banking elite) first create the problem by engineering a conflict or war.
b) Then the public cries for help and solutions from their leaders, who in turn provide the solution which works in their interests and escalates their hidden agenda (possibly for a New World Order).

4. If the elites and their secret societies (Illuminati, Freemasons) do in fact worship demons, Satan, reptilians, aliens, or occult entities, as theorized, then wars also serve as mass sacrifice rituals for them. Plenty of research has been done to show that these elites are into occult symbolism, which is embedded into every fabric of society - from words, meanings, traditions, and the architectural designs of Washington DC, London and the Vatican. So it does seem that they are into occult practices, symbolism and numerology. Based on that, wars could be a mass sacrifice event for them to appease their "gods" or whatever they worship, in order for them to keep their power and get help in what they want done.

I know that sounds out there, but intellectual conspiracy researchers/gurus like David Icke, Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell and others, have done a lot of published research on this. It would also explain why the elites that run Britain and America love war so much and always seem to want to escalate it, using any excuse they can, which they've been doing for over a century. In fact, America has been involved with more wars than any other country has, and very often, has started them or escalated them. And in doing so, has lied about the reasons for escalating these wars as well. So you gotta ask: Why does the USA want war so badly? Why does it constantly go looking for it? Why is it so gun ho on finding excuses to start wars, that it even has to lie about them?

Surely you don't believe that the reasons are moralistic or altruistic do you? War is never a good thing and never benefits the common people, only the elites, who never even fight in them but always send peasants to fight them.

So what do you all think? Is this how WWII really started and why it was engineered? Or is there another theory that better fits the data?

How many of you believe the official portrayal of WWII that we've been fed, about the Nazis being evil cartoon villains who tried to take over the world and wipe out the Jewish race, for no reason other than hate, lust, greed, and warped ideologies? Is that realistic? Is history, humans or reality ever that black and white? If so, what is the data you have to support this version of WWII? And how do you know it's not been propagandized or distorted to fit the agenda of the victorious? Isn't there a famous quote that says: "History is the propaganda of the victorious"? If so, how do you know if all the propaganda that you've been fed is the actual truth? Especially when you've never even heard from the other side (as the above documentary presents). After all, aren't there two sides to every story? If so, why do you assume that only one side has the whole truth? Haven't you falsely believed that "authority=truth" simply because that's how you were programmed and conditioned?

What's the truth here?

[–] jh66 12 years ago

Yeah you're "Youtube friend" is obviously yet another deranged nazi apologist. You are pushing his agenda, slagged off in the comments there.

What hypocritical and sterile tripe.

[–] Reephaman 12 years ago

[–] jh66 12 years ago

And the Greeks (who lost the highest % of nationals), the Soviets and Chinese who lost 20m each?

[–] Reephaman 12 years ago

Agreed. Add on the Belgians, Luxembourgois, French, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Serbs, Slovenes, Montenegrans, Bosnians - and later the Italians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Slovaks, Croats and Hungarians. My original point, however, was referring to the nations brutalised by the Nazis in 1938-39.

The OP sems to have an agenda - he's posted similar stuff on most Hitler-themed comments boards. The irony is that we accept in his right to do it, even though many of us might disagree with his views, while he ought to reflect that, in Hitler's Europe, such freedom of speech was not allowed.

[–] jh66 12 years ago

I agree- the OP is yet another book-burning coward who posts and runs?

All neo-nazi's are hypocritical and unstable, devoid of any knowledge, tolerance or responsibility. Waving UK-US flags but sucking up to a little gay Austrian corporal?

They go crying to the same authorities they would eschew.

[–] InternationaleClique 12 years ago

Utter balderdash. Britain and France were not ready for war and did everything possible to prevent one. What about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that carved up Poland before the invasion? Is that not an intention to widen the conflict beyond a border dispute?

Hitler forced everyone's hand. The only shameful thing the western allies did in 1939 was not to prepare logistically in time to uphold their promise to defend Poland.

Some revisionist history is useful, and some is just disingenuous. Nazi apologism is the worst sort of revisionism there is.

Go tell it to the Poles and the Czechs and see how far you get.

No, it's a strategic move to protect your rear while you deal with the warmongering western powers at your front. Germany was not ready for war either. Long term he might have wanted to deal with the Soviets, but how is that a bad thing?

Britain, France, America and Stalin wanted this war, and they got it.

[–] Reephaman 12 years ago

I think there's a lot more evidence to reinforce the fact that the western allies did not want a war with Germany, or anybody else, certainly more evidence than there is to back up your claim. But since this is not a history board, and I was initially responding to some kind of Neo-Nazi diatribe, rather than inviting a debate on what is historical fact, this will be my last comment on the issue.

[–] WWu777 11 years ago

Utter balderdash. Britain and France were not ready for war and did everything possible to prevent one. What about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that carved up Poland before the invasion? Is that not an intention to widen the conflict beyond a border dispute?

Hitler forced everyone's hand. The only shameful thing the western allies did in 1939 was not to prepare logistically in time to uphold their promise to defend Poland.

Some revisionist history is useful, and some is just disingenuous. Nazi apologism is the worst sort of revisionism there is.

Go tell it to the Poles and the Czechs and see how far you get.

That's not true. Even mainstream Western documentaries say that Britain and France declared war on Germany. And that Hitler tried to get Churchill to agree to peace but Churchill refused. Why did Churchill beg FDR for help when he could have just signed a peace treaty with Germany?

See the documentary "Hitler in color" and it will back this up. Western historians do not deny this.

Hitler said he hated war and that he was an artist who preferred to create rather than destroy. So why would he start a world war? Nowhere did he ever say he wanted to take over the world. That is a myth.

http://www.happierabroad.com - The Overseas Solution to Datelessness in America

[–] Reephaman 11 years ago

There is a lot of literature on this subject that arrives at a simple conclusion: Churchill didn't trust Hitler, and with good reason.

[–] WWu777 10 years ago

Hi all,
This is the OP again. After studying more about WWII history, I realized that a lot of these new documentary films, such as "Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told" (which is now listed on IMDB) are Neo-Nazi propaganda that greatly distorts the facts and is heavily biased in trying to portray Hitler as an innocent saint. So I apologize for being duped by them.

No matter how the Neo-Nazi propagandists try to defend Hitler, they can't explain away the fact that Hitler invaded a lot of countries in Europe, not just France, and he invaded them without justification and broke many peace treaties too. Also, their claim that Hitler invaded Russia because Stalin was preparing to invade Europe and Germany are unsubstantiated and unproven.

In this case and other cases, the Neo-Nazi propagandists and Hitler defenders just assume that Hitler is always 100 percent honest and truthful and never consider the possibility that Hitler lies and makes up excuses to do what he does too, just like any other politician. Therefore, they are clearly biased, not neutral or objective.

However, it is also unfair and biased of the Western media to try to portray Hitler as a cartoon villain or the devil incarnate. I'm sure all reasonable people here will agree with that too. Hitler had a lot of good traits and great accomplishments too.

For a more balanced view of Hitler, I suggest you read the book, "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny" which you can find on Amazon.com. It presents his good traits and bad traits in a more fair and balanced manner and depicts him as a more realistic complex character than just a mere cartoon villain.

By the way, I'm confused about one thing though. The Neo-Nazi documentaries claim that during The Battle of Britain, Churchill was the one who first bombed civilian cities in Germany, which resulted in Hitler bombing London rather than just military targets. But American documentaries such as "Why We Fight" (produced by Frank Capra and the US Army) claim the reverse: That Hitler was the one who first started bombing London, which resulted in Churchill retaliating and bombing German civilian cities. What's the truth on this matter?

Also, why didn't the Allies declare war on Russia for invading Poland too? And why did the Allies let Stalin capture Eastern Europe after WWII? Why didn't they fight to liberate Eastern Europe from Stalin too?

http://www.HappierAbroad.com - Discover a better life and love beyond America!

[–] WWu777 10 years ago

By the way, here is the IMDB page for the 6 hour Neo-Nazi propaganda documentary "Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told" by Dennis Wise:

As you can see, the reviews on there are all trashing the film with one star ratings, but then how come the front page shows a rating of 8 stars? That's odd.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3526810/

http://www.HappierAbroad.com - Discover a better life and love beyond America!

[–] Stevicus-2 10 years ago

Obviously, Hitler was not an innocent saint, but I agree with you that too often history portrays him as a cartoon villain. And by extension, the German people come off looking like mindless (yet innocent) pawns or dupes who were somehow dazzled by Hitler's "magic."

What often gets overlooked is that malignant nationalism had been a mainstay in German politics and philosophy for decades even before Hitler was born.

The Allies were politically and ideologically compromised, and neither the West nor the Soviet bloc could really make any definitive statement against nationalism or ultra-patriotism as a political ideology.

It was just easier for the Allies (and for many German generals and other former Nazis trying to "rehabilitate" themselves in the eyes of their occupiers) to portray Hitler as a mindless, cartoonish buffoon rather than have to answer a bunch of embarrassing questions about their own politics or governmental activities.

That's not to say that Hitler wasn't dangerous; he was an extremely malignant and murdering nationalist - but still a product of his culture and the times he was living in. He wasn't some "strange anomaly" that some people try to paint him as.

If he had been portrayed honestly from the beginning, then nobody would ever have to ask such naive questions such as "How could something like this have happened?"

By the way, I'm confused about one thing though. The Neo-Nazi documentaries claim that during The Battle of Britain, Churchill was the one who first bombed civilian cities in Germany, which resulted in Hitler bombing London rather than just military targets. But American documentaries such as "Why We Fight" (produced by Frank Capra and the US Army) claim the reverse: That Hitler was the one who first started bombing London, which resulted in Churchill retaliating and bombing German civilian cities. What's the truth on this matter?

I think the Germans did bomb London first, although the story goes that it was an "accident." It was a few bombs falling on London, giving Churchill just cause for bombing Berlin. In any case, the conventional wisdom is that the bombing of civilian cities was actually a sign that the Germans had given up on winning the air war, believing that terror bombing of cities would reduce civilian morale and bring about their capitulation. It didn't work.

Also, why didn't the Allies declare war on Russia for invading Poland too?

Probably because it would have been suicidal for the Allies to do that. They wouldn't have been able to take on both Germany and Russia at the same time, and they still had good reason to think that Russia and Germany would eventually fight each other anyway (which is what ended up happening). A declaration of war on Russia could have possibly strengthened the relationship between Germany and Russia, which could have made the Allied situation even worse than it already was.

And why did the Allies let Stalin capture Eastern Europe after WWII? Why didn't they fight to liberate Eastern Europe from Stalin too?

The Allies clearly needed Stalin to win the war against Germany, and it wasn't as if they had much of a choice in the matter. Geographically, the Soviets were already in Eastern Europe, and the Allies were not in much of a position to be able to extricate them.

I think Patton wanted to fight the Soviets after WW2, but he was fired because the Allied governments apparently didn't believe that we had enough strength to fight them. The Soviets had the largest standing army in Europe, and to defeat them would have necessitated the use of atomic weapons (which we did have a brief monopoly and a window of a few years before the Soviets developed theirs). But it would have been politically unjustifiable and unsupportable by a war-weary population which was glad that it was finally over.

It might have turned out differently if FDR could have remained healthy and lived a few years longer. Truman was a bit too bullheaded about things and didn't want to deal with the Soviets in the same way FDR had been doing. FDR probably could have smoothed things over with Stalin and worked out a deal, but Truman was not as educated and didn't really understand much about the world situation. Marshall's failed attempt at mediating between the Chinese Communists and the Chinese Nationalists was another indication of the ineptitude of that Administration. The only thing they did halfway right was the Marshall Plan, although "dollar diplomacy" wasn't exactly an original idea.

[–] ccharlie183 10 years ago

Why didn't they defend Poland from the USSR when they invaded 2 weeks later? why didn't they ANYTHING during the holodomor in 1932-1933 which took 11 million Ukrainian lives and lead to the annexation of Ukraine? where were your noble interventionist "good guys" then? oh yeah, complicit in their silence.

[–] junenj 10 years ago

What people tend to not take into consideration is the historical
background - and lineage - of the monarchs of the British Empire.

Elizabeth II is GERMAN, for the most part.

One of her ancestors, Ernest Augustus, "was descended from the Albertinian
line of the Habsburg family and also the House of Hohenzollern. The House
of Hohenzollern is a dynasty of former princes, electors, kings, and emperors
of Hohenzollern, Brandenburg, Prussia, the German Empire, and Romania."

Another early ancestor was Oberto I Obizzo (also Otbert) (died 15 October 975)
"an Italian count palatine and margrave and the oldest known member of the Obertenghi family. He was, by heredity, Count of Milan from 951. Otbert's father
was Margrave Adalbert, about whom nothing is known other than his name and title.
His [Oberto I Obizzo] great-grandson Albert Azzo II, Margrave of Milan founded the
House of Este; this makes Otbert the progenitor of the House of Este as well as its
branches, the House of Welf and the House of Hanover."

"The House of Hanover is a younger branch of the House of Welf, which in turn is
the senior branch of the House of Este. Queen Victoria (of the House of Hanover)
was the granddaughter of George III and ... an ancestor of most major European
royal houses. She arranged marriages for her children and grandchildren across the
continent, tying Europe together; this earned her the nickname "the grandmother of Europe". She was the last British monarch of the House of Hanover; her son
King Edward VII belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the line
of his father, Albert, Prince Consort."

[Elizabeth's] "House of Windsor" - the royal house of the United Kingdom and the
other Commonwealth realms -was founded by King George V by royal proclamation
on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from
the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ... to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I. The most
prominent member of the House of Windsor (i.e. Saxe-Coburg Gotha) is its head, Queen Elizabeth II."

Elizabeth's husband, Phillip, can also trace his lineage back through Germany, as
well as France - notably Lorraine. One of his ancestors was "Reginar I Longneck
(c. 850 – 915) - the Duke of Lorraine from 910 until his death - [who] stands at
the head of the clan of Reginarids, an important Lotharingian noble family ...

Lotharingia was a medieval ...kingdom of the Carolingian Empire, comprising
the Low Countries, the western Rhineland, the lands today on the border
between France and Germany, and what is now western Switzerland. It was
named after King Lothair II."

Another early ancestor of Philip was Gilbert (Giselbert), Count of Maasgau,
on the lower Meuse.

"Meuse is one of the original 83 departments created during the French Revolution
on March 4, 1790. It was created from the former provinces of Barrois (area of
Bar-le-Duc) and Three Bishoprics (area of Verdun).

The department [of Meuse] was one of the great battlefields of World War I; an
important battle was fought in 1916 at Verdun. Meuse is part of the current region
of Lorraine and is surrounded by the French departments of Ardennes, Marne,
Haute-Marne, Vosges, Meurthe-et-Moselle, and Belgium on the north. Parts of Meuse
belong to Parc naturel régional de Lorraine." So, that pretty much explains rhe 'appropriation' of Alsace-Lorraine by the Brits/French. Philip's ancestral homeland,
n'est-ce pas?

And then, of course, you have Kaiser Wilhelm II - the eldest grandson of the British
Queen Victoria and related to many monarchs and princes of Europe. As grandchild
of Queen Victoria, Wilhelm was a first cousin of the British Empire's King George V.
While not first cousins, Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II were second cousins,
once removed, as each descended from King Frederick William III of Prussia.

So basically, what you really had in WWI was sibling rivalry, taken to extremes.

"On the night of 30 July 1914, when handed a document stating that Russia would
not cancel its mobilization, Wilhelm wrote a lengthy commentary containing these
observations:

'...For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among
themselves - knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria - to use
the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us... Our
dilemma over keeping faith with the old and honourable Emperor has been exploited to
create a situation which gives England the excuse she has been seeking to annihilate
us with a spurious appearance of justice on the pretext that she is helping France and
maintaining the well-known Balance of Power in Europe, i.e., playing off all European
States for her own benefit against us.'

More recent British authors state that Wilhelm II really declared, "Ruthlessness and
weakness will start the most terrifying war of the world, whose purpose is to destroy
Germany. Because there can no longer be any doubts, England, France and Russia
have conspired them selves together to fight an annihilation war against us."

The Treaty of Versailles was basically the victorious rulers of Europe punishing poor
Wilhelm. "Upon the conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles in early 1919, Article 227
expressly provided for the prosecution of Wilhelm "for a supreme offence against
international morality and the sanctity of treaties", but Queen Wilhelmina refused to
extradite him, despite appeals from the Allies. King George V wrote that he looked on
his cousin as "the greatest criminal in history", but opposed Prime Minister David Lloyd
George's proposal to "hang the Kaiser". President Woodrow Wilson of the United States
rejected extradition, arguing that punishing Wilhelm for waging war would destabilize
international order and lose the peace."

All of the above info is from Wikipedia, so ...

The way it looks to me is that WWII was more or less a continuation of WWI.

The players were different, but IMO, Churchill, Chamberlain, Lloyd George et al.
as well as Hitler and Stalin, were basically pawns in this ages-old rivalry among
the European ruling houses, and their bloodthirsty quests for territory, power, and
control of Western Europe. The poor soldiers - on ALL sides - were then, as they are
now, "cannon fodder" - merely collateral damage, insignificant expendable peasants,
useful only for serving the interests of the various Empires.

German anti-Semitism escalated to the "Jewish Problem" and thus a convenient
tool to manipulate Hitler and the NSDAP; steering them from a course of relative
peace and prosperity, towards a war of aggression, and on to the hideous "Final
Solution" which alienated the world from whatever good Hitler and the NDSAP had
accomplished in rebuilding Post-WWI Germany and stabilizing her economy. The
British Empire (and Russia) simply could not risk having Germany become a
formidable power once again, now could they. "Farewell and toodle-pip, Third Reich,
old bean - you threaten our global supremacy".

So, while it is partially - or mostly - true that the Germans were responsible for
WW II, it's NOT Germans in the way that is taught in history books; but Germans
in the form of The British Empire, which was (and still is) actually an extension of
the old German (Prussian, etc.) Empire, its ruling houses and their rulers' individual
kingdoms. It's been going on for centuries on end, and it continues to this day.

[–] kurt7825 12 years ago

the jews declared war on germany in 1933

[–] Reephaman 12 years ago

Possibly the most idiotic comment that I have ever read.

[–] kurt7825 12 years ago

thanks. google it

[–] WWu777 11 years ago

Here is a Nazi newsletter by Joseph Goebbels explaining why Britain and Churchill are responsible for WWII. Interesting to hear their side of it.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb47.htm

It is a major error to assume that England’s plutocrats slipped into the war against their will or even against their intentions. The opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.

Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of aggression against Germany.

The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always directed its main military might against Germany. It never could tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.

In the same newsletter, Goebbels commented on how England was spreading the false propaganda that Germany wanted to take over the world, when nothing could be further from the truth:

The English warmongers claim that National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality, however, there is another reason for England’s war with Germany. The English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has never threatened English interests.

In conclusion, Goebbels emphasized that:

We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have to pay for it.

As you can see, what Goebbels wrote paints a very different picture of what the Nazis wanted - peace and the avoidance of war - than what is presented to you by Western history, which claims that Hitler wanted to take over the world.

In another newsletter "What Does America Really Want?" Goebbels stated that Germany just wanted to be left alone, yet America kept trying to support a worldwide campaign against them and would not mind their own business. He wrote:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb28.htm

Was the American president ever personally attacked in the German press, or America’s leading men slandered? We have been very restrained, even though we certainly had every reason to discuss this or that matter of American domestic policy.

Such things are not our concern. American statesmen, not us, determine American domestic policy. We are concerned only with Germany’s affairs. We also have no reason or intention of smuggling German political ideas into America. The very opposite, since the methods that we use are purely German. They are only valid in Germany. But we do believe that just as we respect the internal affairs of other countries and avoid polemics against them, they should treat us in the same way.

One cannot say that that is true of the United States of North America at present. Nearly the whole press, radio, and film industry support the worldwide campaign against Germany.

Senator Pitman put the matter bluntly on 22 December 1938: “The American people do not like Germany’s government.”

...We have nothing against the American people. We know and respect their political views and internal affairs, even if we might do things differently. We believe we have the right to expect the same of American public opinion about Germany. We also fail to see the benefits of such controversy. What good will it do America? Does it think it can starve Germany using the same methods as those of the World War?

...It is time to recommend peace and good sense. American public opinion is going the wrong way. It would benefit by returning to the old, tested practices of international courtesy and good manners, and by treating Germany in the way normal among civilized nations.

As you can see, his noble words call for peace, and for Germany to be treated with courtesy and respect, like civilized nations ought to be treated. These are hardly the words of warmongers who want to take over the world.

Here is a clip from the Nazi film "Triumph of the Will (1935)" where Hitler addresses the Hitler Youth and says "The German people must be peace-loving. They must love peace, yet be brave."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C9iUaP51CI

How come the Western media never tells you that Hitler said that? He never said in his speeches that he wanted to take over the world. But I guess actions speak louder than words.

http://www.happierabroad.com - The Overseas Solution to Datelessness in America

[–] Ehrgeiz 10 years ago

As the Third Reichs propaganda minister is a reliable source. Besides being a master manipulator, Goebbels was not involved in the German plots and planning before 1939; Hitler did not want him to take part in the foreign affairs.

And Hitler had many "peace speeches"; especially in 1938 and 1939. Still, what the told to the people, was a different thing than what he told the generals.

[–] kurt7825 10 years ago

Goebbels was a good man