Nazi International

PAT BUCHANAN’S “DID HITLER WANT WAR?” A CRITIQUE

Recently, Mr. Pat Buchanan wrote the following blog arguing, or rather, attempting to argue that Hitler did not want a general European war:

Did Hitler Want War?

It is difficult to write this blog, because on the one hand I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Buchanan, and on the other, I have grave misgivings about his recent efforts in the service of what may best be called "revisionist history." Mr. Buchanan makes a number of assertions in his article that must be dealt with and I have numbered them for ease of reference:

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

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

(3)"Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

(4)"Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after fell, and again after fell?

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

(6)"Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps."

Let's look at each of these:

(1) It is to make complete military fools of the German General Staff or indeed of the Nazi leadership to assume that they intended upon the military conquest and occupation of the entire world. Under the exigencies of military operations of that period, the Germans knew this was an impossibility, and everyone else knew it too. The Nazi war aim was to dominate the world by dominating the crucial Eastern European and Russian-European area of the Eurasian heartland, and thus to dominate Asia, and thus to dominate the world. It was, after all, a stated intention of Hitler himself in own notorious autobiography and exposition of his "philosophy," Mein Kampf. As for the Siegfried Line, this was constructed as a defensive bulwark against France, to be sure, but only because in German General Staff planning of the period, it was a stop-gap measure to allow Germany a defensive position against Allied invasion while dealing with the East. As for the German navy, it is simply untrue that it had no surface fleet. To be sure, Germany's surface fleet in World War Two was tiny, and not the monster that the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet had been. Nonetheless, Germany started World War Two with three pocket battleships, the two battlecruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, a number of cruisers and destroyers. And the two behemoths, the battleships Bismarck and sister-ship Tirpitz were being constructed, and two even larger battleships were also under way, along with the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin (launched but never completed). No troop transports? Well, think again Mr. Buchanan, for what do you think Germany invaded Norway with? Dreams? Wishes? The German navy was unable to get out of the Baltic Sea? On the contrary, at the outbreak of the war, Grand Admiral Raeder began to dispatch the German surface raiders over the surface of the globe, ranging during 1939 and 1940 over the North and South Atlantic Oceans and as far away as the Indian Ocean. Don't believe me? Google the German raider Atlantis or the pocket battleship Graf Spee. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank the British aircraft carrier Glorious during the Norwegian invasion, which had the unfortunate luck to be sited by the German battlecruisers within range of their long-range 11" guns. They went on to a career in the North Atlantic, sinking British merchantmen while the Royal Navy hunted unsuccessfully for them.

(2) OK, on then to the strategic bomber question. To be sure, Germany did not place as heavy a reliance on the creation of a strategic bomber force, and the story of why this decision came about is locked within the internal murky politics of Nazi Germany. Luftwaffe General Wever in fact pressed heavily for the creation of just such a bomber force until his untimely death prior to the war. As for the Luftwaffe not being in a position to be a potential for "world conquest," just ask the Dutch of Rotterdam, or the English of Coventry, or the Russians at Sevastopol or Kursk. And as for not having long range bombers, well, to set the record straight once again, that while their numbers were always small in comparison with the rest of the Luftwaffe, Germany did have a small number long range bombers, from the pre-war four-engine He 274, to the various wartime projects which, thankfully, never saw full production, such as the Me 264, which looks suspiciously like the B-29 (or, to put it with more accuracy, the B-29 looks suspiciously like the Me264).

(3) On to Dunkirk. It is true that a revisionist case has been made in recent years that "Hitler showed mercy" to the encircled British and French forces at Dunquerque in 1940, and some have argued a plausible, if not entirely convincing, case that Hitler was trying to show clemency to the British in hopes for a negotiated end to the War. And to be sure, Hitler was sending out quiet peace feelers to the British. All true. But equally true is the fact that Reichsmarschal Goering had persuaded Hitler to allow the Luftwaffe to finish off the British on the beaches (which of course didn't happen), to the consternation of the German General staff which wanted the German army to do so. The point here, is once again, Mr. Buchanan's assertions are debatable.

(4) Why did Hitler offer the British numerous peace overtures after the fall of Poland and France? Well...do we really need to ask? Hitler's mortal enemy was Russia. Hitler no more wanted a two front war than the Kaiser, but if forced to fight one, he would. And let's all remember something. Russia did not fare too well in World War One, and eventually surrendered to the Kaiser. Hitler faced a much tougher, much more industrialized Russia, and a much more determined opponent in Josef Stalin. And both dictators, to be sure, were planning invasions of the other's country, and both dictators knew it. We may debate endlessly all we wish whether Great Britain's geopolitical motives in the war were entirely "moral," but in June of 1941, had Hitler not had to tie down divisions in the West against the British, the result of his war in Russia may very likely have been very different. As it was, it was a close enough call. (Just ask the Russians!) The result of that victory, had Hitler secured it, would be a German dominated Europe.

(5) The French Fleet, Bases in Syria, and the Italian Invasion of Greece. Here Mr. Buchanan, in my opinion, is either simply unduly ignorant(which I find hard to believe), or simply raising questions he (probably) knows have different explanations than the simplistic ones he is implying. Hitler, in not pressing for the surrender of the French Navy, was simply acknowledging facts. Admiral Francois Darlan had made it abundantly clear that the French Navy would never be surrendered, and took the wise and precautionary step to evacuate the bulk of it from metropolitan France to naval bases in North Africa. For Hitler, it was also a politic decision, to persuade the Vichy government of a pliant attitude. As for bases in Syria, this is simply ... and to put it as honestly as possible - nuts. Bases would have required a heavy naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, which was basically a British lake, the Italian Regina Marina notwithstanding. Admiral Iacchino was no less a naval adventurer and playboy than Admiral Darlan, and was ill-disposed to risk his fleet for Hitler's or Mussolini's adventures. As for Mussolini's poorly-handled invasion of Greece, Hitler's main concern, once again, was not out of some altruistic desire to see a free and independent Greece, but simply to make sure he had no problems in the Balkans before his invasion of Russia. In the final analysis, he did, and to avoid a prolonged British presence on his flank during his invasion of Russia, in early 1941 launched Operation Merkur, and swiftly crushed Yugoslavia and Greece in an almost textbook case of efficient military operations.

(6) This, really, is the saddest point in Mr. Buchanan's whole dismal exercise, and that is, that somehow, the Final Solution was not on Hitler's mind after the Fall of France in June of 1940, the implication being, that had Britain but negotiated a peace, the whole brutality of the Holocaust might not have happened. To be sure, Mr. Buchanan does not say this, but it is one of the logical implications of his remark. Again, this makes short shrift of the reality. The Nazi Nuremberg race laws were in effect before the war. Kristallnacht had already happened in 1938. The camps were already being built. In January of 1939, Hitler had warned the world in a speech before the Reichstag, that if the Internazionalfinanzjudentum (or was that, International-Finanzjudentum, or maybe it was international Finanz-Judentum, or maybe international Finanzjudentum, or maybe ... well, this isn't the place to explore the subtleties of whatever his original German text really stated), succeeded in plunging the world into another world war, then it would not result in a victory for Bolshevism (there's the International part of his speech), but in the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe. This is eight months before the outbreak of the war, Mr. Buchanan, and the meaning, in view of subsequent events, is quite clear. The real question, and it is one that both defenders of the status quo history, and the revisionists alike, have never answered, is who is Hitler really talking about in that speech? Who is he fingering as the "real conspirators"? To whom is he really sending his "message"?

As for the the historical lesson of Mr. Buchanan, the devil, as they say, is in the details, and Mr. Buchanan's details are sadly lacking.

35 thoughts on “PAT BUCHANAN’S “DID HITLER WANT WAR?” A CRITIQUE”

  1. A number of my komeraden assiduously monitor a myriad of sites/discussions (those deemed promising).
    We watch for one reference from a specific subclass of possible references, any one of wh/ is a “Tell” that learned ladies and gentlemen are on a rabbit trail wh/ winds all the way to the great river.
    Please forgive, I am not wonderful w/ English metaphors.
    Dr. Farrell, one of his contemporaries, and one individual possibly unknown to either of them have, on five documented, separate instances during the last fourteen years, individually placed us at edges of our chairs. Alas.

      1. We are almost always challenged here day-to-day, sometimes hour-to-hour.
        Danke for the lovely, unexpected rejoinder, wh/ evoked chuckles & laughs (sympathetic).
        If you cease the day job, a welcome surely awaits among cabaret comedians.
        Sieg.

        1. I am sure you are. You will find more clues, if you know where to look… and how to connect the dots between contexts. And as I am sure you’re aware, there are really only two great rivers, with currents on a multitude of levels.

    1. You say : “Dr. Farrell, one of his contemporaries, and one individual possibly unknown to either of them have, on five documented, separate instances during the last fourteen years, individually placed us at edges of our chairs. Alas.

      I find this vague, or ambiguous – can you be specific with more detail, Marsiland ?

      * which of his contemporaries
      * list 5 documented occasions
      * what 14 years, and where / what forum – and the ‘who'(s) too ?
      * why at a chairs “edge”, anticipation, excitement, anger ?

      Thank You !

  2. I’m glad that Buchanan opened up this discussion. Especially with all the books out now on “The Transfer Agreement”, “IBM and the Holocaust”….there is a very different picture out there that has been covered over with what I call the Holocaust Industry. Yes, yes, both of these books are by a Jewish author. No, he’s not a self hating Jew.

    We need to discuss EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SECOND WORLD WAR and not be silenced by certain groups of people, who for some reason do not want to discuss anything, but litigate and silence discourse.

  3. Now let me set the record straight. Mr. Buchanan has made a valiant attempt at revising WWII history. I wouldn’t say he is is carrying out a revolutionary act, he is just riding a wave of public sentiment that is thirsty for the truth about their captors. On the other hand, the real revolutionary is Dr. Farrell. He has put into the public discourse the idea that a sinister demonic alien race is in our midst plotting our destruction. And for this, he shall be ungrudgingly pardoned for his attempt at scholarly even-handedness.

    First, to say that I am the bad guy in WWII is preposterous and I can prove it using simple math. From my ascent to power in 1933 until the commencement of hostilities with Poland in 1939, my Nazi regime executed roughly 5000 German citizens. The exact number is unknown due to the fact that so many records were destroyed or absconded with after the war. But even the most outrageous, amateurish excuse for an academician that the US, Great Britain, France, or Israel can pump out of their pathetic excuses for Institutes of Higher Learning and their equally pathetic Departments of Holocaust Studies, would not waver greatly from this number of 5000 executed German citizens. Of those 5000, most were legitimate criminals and traitors who deserved nothing short of execution— violent bolsheviks, gangsters, sex deviants, political prostitutes from the Weimar Government, rebellious Brown Shirts, and sadly, some of the mentally and physically impaired. (The euthanasia of physically impaired individuals, while wrong, was not a strictly Nazi affair but was prevalent in the United States and Anglo-sphere as well). In contrast, the Soviet Union between the years 1933 to 1939 has been calculated by a bevy of reputable scholars including Nobel prizer winner Alexander Soltzenichen to have liquidated at least 20 million Russian citizens but some estimates put it as high 40 million.

    So who is the bad guy? The one that killed 5000 or the one that killed 40 million? If your country aligned itself with the country that killed 40 million, then your country was on the side of the bad guy. That’s very simple math. If you can’t figure that out, then I would guess your mind has been poisoned by the small, vocal minority who believe their right to corrupt the morals of a country and control their economy and politics is far more important than rescuing millions of Russians from death..

    1. So would you have preferred that the allies had of allied themselves with Nazi Germany instead?

      Further if you are going to compare the regimes then you CAN NOT leave out the deaths/murders carried out during the 1939-1945 period as if that doesn’t matter. I note that Aktion T4 was responsible for around 200,000 to 275,000 deaths alone and the vast majority of these were mentally handicapped. Not to mention all the rest of the executions/exterminations carried out.

      Now certainly both regimes were bad, hideous, horrendous or any other word you care to use but the simple fact of the matter is that without the Soviet Union we would have lost the war and the tally of Nazi executions would be much higher than it ultimately ended up being.

      A hard choice to make, siding with Stalin or Hitler but i can tell you this, that if we had of opposed both then it was well and truly game over.

      1. I don’t recall what the Akton T4 was. Were they the SS death squads that rampaged through Russia and the Baltic States? ?

        War is a horrible business. All rules of civility get thrown out the window. Look at the American Civil War. The object is to kill your enemy before they kill you. This opens up the floodgates for demonic possession and people are no longer in their right mind. I don’t think the Nazi savagery was any worse than the savagery of the Soviets or Allies during the war. I personally would prefer to live in a world where the Nazis had won. The world we live in now is an absolute mess: the earth is dying and over 2 billion people live in abject poverty. I think the Nazis would have brought their depression era prosperity to the rest of the world by now. Nature would be deemed sacred. Most people would play sports and not watch them on tv. All people would know that meat comes from animals and not from McDonalds. Mobile homes and shopping malls would not exist. A group of nefarious men would not be able to print money for the majority of the world’s governments and thereby hold the governments, citizens and economies hostage. MTV would not exist. Tel Aviv would be named Hitlerberg. The Sinai desert would be modern day Israel and its inhabitants would have to grow their own food and wouldn’t be allowed to handle money, slaves, drugs, ivory, precious metals, pornography, or media of any kind.

        1. The SS were the Einsatzgruppen mobile death squads sent in the wake of the Wehrmacht to round up and dispose of communists, Jews and generally anyone they didn’t like. Aktion T4 was carried out by the German medical profession as an exercise of sick eugenics.
          All I know is that I wouldn’t prefer to live under either system, especially under the Nazi system as my sister is handicapped and she sure as hell wouldn’t be alive today under the Nazi’s.

        2. I would prefer to work for a system where government of the people, by the people and for the people shall re-appear on the earth.

          1. That type of system ended in 1913 unfortunately, just about the same time as the planned takeover of The Russian Empire. Then all of Europe was next on the list.

            The United States of Amerika was captured via The City of London at the end of the war,although they didn’t know it at the time.

            In all of the “Bogus” written history since the war, none of it justifies the truth that appears outside of our windows.

            IMO We lost when Germany lost!

          2. unfortunately the American system of government can not work so long as Babylon Banksters walk the earth. They are too insidious for this form of government. You can’t bar them from your country because they will just find another country to exploit and use it to attack you like they did to the Spartans and the Germans and so many others. Right now our best bet is a merger of the eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic Church and a return of the Holy Roman Empire with Germany and Russia as the muscle and maybe one day the US and Brazil. Anti-usury laws would be re-established and people found to have nephilim DNA would be placed in walled in ghettos where they would be forced to live on a diet of processed and GMO food, pharmaceuticals, and allowed to watch only bad television produced in old Hollywood before it was leveled. The expanded Roman Catholic Church would build an army of exorcists to purge the demons currently infesting the populous. This would not involve executions of any sort.

            The biggest mess would be the US with the large number heretical evangelicals and their Babylon Bankster inspired un-Christian nonsense. As the neo-con traitors including some evangelical ministers are purged from our midsts as the Holy Roman Empire takes over by making public the true culprits of the 9-11 false flag, hopefully many evangelicals will see the writing on the wall and convert to Roman Catholicism without the need for re-education. Those who hold onto their false beliefs will be brought to their local sports stadium where they will be “raptured” in a sophisticated government psy-op. .

    2. “He has put into the public discourse the idea that a sinister demonic alien race is in our midst plotting our destruction.”

      I don’t recall Dr Farrell ever saying that we are being controlled by an alien race, I have read nearly all of his books and he never once said that. Factions of bad humans, yes, but aliens, no.

        1. Sorry. I have read many books on this and related subjects as of late and I may have jumbled them in with Dr. Farrell’s outstanding work. They all seem to flow into one another after a while. Clearly you can tell from my posts that I’m not in my right frame of mind. I’m just another American lab rat– poisoned by air, food, water and drugs.

          I have come up with this list of current human species:

          1) homo sapiens– humans with a fully developed chakra system and an ability to think critically and exercise free will. They are aware that they have a Soul and are sometimes guided by their Soul. They can from time to time access their higher chakras.

          2) homo goyimus– the devolved former homo sapien who can only react to situations in instinctual animalistic fashion and usually does what the tv or authority figures tell them. They can not rise above their third chakra. They are animal men.

          3) homo luminous– the human being who, through Divine grace or yogic alchemy, lives beyond time and space and resides in their highest chakra. This type of human is aware that their physical and astral body are merely a shell for their Eternal Soul which is Divine. They are God men.

          4) homo nephilim– an alien created human who is a vehicle for demons desperate to manifest in this physical world and lead it back to chaos, destruction and darkness. They are demon men.

        1. I have not read “The Cosmic War” as of yet, but you did say, in your Cosmic War interviews on “The Byte Show” (if I remember correctly) that you “Suspect that they went underground.” Regardless though, the reader can draw his own conclusions, and I concur with the conclusion that remnants of that ancient civilization might still be here, living amongst us.

          1. Dr. Farrell interprets the Cosmic War as a ‘family feud’ terrestrial (even if interplanetary) scenario of a group that are all at least of the same genus. With the law of parsimony, Dr. Farrell doesn’t interpret the story as aliens from another solar system or galaxy. I would read the Cosmic War in conjunction with his Nazi Bell or Secrets of the Unified Field books if you want to understand what he thinks.

          2. Although I have read many of Dr. Farrell’s books thus far, I have not read his Cosmic War as of yet, but I am looking forward to the read. In relation to the above Title, and applying what my reading of the good doctor’s books thus far, as I understand it, there are two philosophies of two brotherhoods. “The Brotherhood of Light” and “The Brotherhood of Darkness.” Their science and philosophy is encoded in esoteric traditions which date back to an ancient technologically advanced civilization that was here on the Earth. Also remnants of their knowledge was encoded and handed down from generation to generation, but was largely lost in a cosmic war. I understand that a part of this, are two opposing doctrines of Physics and Economics. One system believes in scarcity of resources, and imposes debt banking on societies. The other believes that there is unlimited energy, and resources, and that the best way to manage economies is for the State to issue money debt free. In my own case, and agreeing with many of Father Krespi’s comments, I would make the leap that Dr. Farrell will not make, and I would point out that this system of Jewish Supremacism, and British/American elites that we presently find ourselves being crushed under, operates under the Dark Brotherhood’s own system of scarcity and debt banking. It was the Nazis who tried to do away with all this scarcity non-sense, and debt banking, and because of it they now find themselves the victim of a holocaust industry that promotes a free license of any type of defamation whatsoever, so long as it makes Nazis out to be the pure essence of Evil. I don’t see that the Nazis were any different than anyone else in WW2, but the stupid text book idea seems to be that WW2 was a cauldron of British/American morality, and the evil German lost his moral compass, and now he must eternally repent and beg for forgiveness. Since the accusations of genocide were made in a kangaroo court and the holocaust industry will not allow any discussion, and literally jails people in many countries for questioning their official version of history, IMO, we can never really know. But anyway, it seems to me that it was the Nazis who applied a philosophy and science of light, and burned the scarcity manuals, and issued money debt free, and proved to the world that this approach can work so well as to literally raise a ruined country out of the ashes. The other side tells us that Nazis were pure evil, while at the same time they give us more scarcity physics, and their debt Babylonian Banksters tell us that 70 percent of humanity will have to die, because humans are using too many of their scarce resources, ruining the Earth, and causing global warming/cooling/who knows/ it’s not really even happening, but it sounds like a good excuse to kill a lot of people. Some of my own conclusions in reading these books by Dr. Farrell are my own speculation that there is indeed a “Black Brotherhood” that is presently crushing the life out of us with their scarcity, and debt, and endless human sacrifice, as they bomb everything under the sun. Perhaps they are in contact with, or even part of an evil race that survived that cosmic war, and lives with us here on Earth, promoting their evil philosophy of death and destruction.

  4. “…on the one hand I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Buchanan…”

    and with the other you slapped him silly- good job!-

    keep up your tremendous work, Dr. Farrell- greatly appreciated-

    Larry in Germany

  5. “The real question, and it is one that both defenders of the status quo history, and the revisionists alike, have never answered, is who is Hitler really talking about in that speech? Who is he fingering as the “real conspirators”? To whom is he really sending his “message”?”

    A very interesting question to pose Dr Farrell and I would love to hear your thoughts on that. I would have said the Rothchild’s at first glance but they weren’t exactly touched during German occupation now were they?

  6. G’day everyone,
    I agree to the above assessment Dr Farrell, but there are a few things that i would add to that:

    1. Exactly the Germans were mainly interested in the East and had no desire to conquer Britain and her empire at all.

    2. The Wehrmacht attack doctrine was based around the Panzer Division so that all arms were subordinated to support the Panzer divisions in their advance. The Germans knew that if they managed to break through the enemy line and to exploit this by deep and rapid thrusts then they needed to address the problem of artillery support. Though some artillery was self propelled the vast majority of artillery was horse drawn and there was no way that they could keep up and provide the necessary support to the advancing panzertruppen. And so the Luftwaffe was designed primarily to provide that missing hitting power, it was designed as flying artillery for the Wehrmacht. That was the primary focus of the Luftwaffe, own the sky and support the Panzers. As for strategic bombers well as Dr Farrell pointed out even the smaller bombers were more than capable of inflicting significant damage. Finally as the war showed strategic bombing was at most a minor nuisance militarily as the campaign against Britain by the Luftwaffe and the later campaign against Germany later showed. It did not destroy the morale of the Germans and it made a very little dent in German war production.

    3. As for Dunkirk, well the good doctor hit the nail on the head there. It is true about the peace feelers and it is known that Hitler never wanted Britain as an enemy, rather he wanted Britain as an imperialist ally. But to say that this led to mercy for the BEF is way off the mark. Firstly it wasn’t Hitler’s call to halt the Wehrmacht, It was Von Rundstedt who was concerned about continuing the advance on ground that was so unsuitable to a panzer advance, the ground around Dunkirk being very soft. Von Rundstedt was concerned about the state of his panzers, after all they had already done so much and were in desperate need for repairs and resupply and with the supply trains so far in the rear it was prudent to halt and regroup. The aim being to allow the infantry to catch up and to continue the assault. The Germans and the British for that matter were completely surprised by the speed and the success of Operation Dynamo. Secondly it is generally forgotten that the Wehrmacht was still heavily engaged with the French in the south of the country, the campaign had not been won yet and the French would indeed put up a much fiercer fight than they had previously.

    4. Again the Germans offered peace only to secure their rear for the operations against Russia.

    5. Hitler did not push the Vichy french due to the reasons that Dr Farrell addressed above but also because Hitler wanted the Vichy french to take a more active role in the war against the Western Allies. he was trying to have them onside and continued to do this until the final annexation of France in 1943. Most people don’t like to remember that the Vichy French engaged the allies in North Africa and the Middle East and indeed fought harder and with much more brutality against the western allies than they did against the Germans.

    6. Well Dr Farrell said it all there other than that when Hitler made his prophecy against the Jews that if they started another world war then they would be in for it, this speech wasn’t made in January 1939 but months later (I can’t recall the exact date but I think it was in March of that year). Hitler re-dated his speech to coincide with the anniversary of his assumption of the Chancellorship.

    Whatever else you make of it, it should be pretty clear that Pat Buchanan is a bumbling buffoon of the highest order when he utters and believes such rubbish as he sprouted above.

    1. “Whatever else you make of it, it should be pretty clear that Pat Buchanan is a bumbling buffoon of the highest order when he utters and believes such rubbish as he sprouted above.”

      Or he is making this revisionist statement on behalf of someone ELSE?

  7. WITNESS TO HISTORY dismantles the entire post-war fabrications structure and presents the birth of National Socialism, its merits and its appeal as never before in just one book. Please give others the opportunity of dissembling the propaganda of the victor nations and their palace media. Thank you. – Michael Walsh

    Now available on Kindle through Amazon:

    Click to view link

    “Witness to History” a Book By Michael Walsh – ONLINE
    Click to view link

    1. My error. Here are the links:

      WITNESS TO HISTORY dismantles the entire post-war fabrications structure and presents the birth of National Socialism, its merits and its appeal as never before in just one book. Please give others the opportunity of dissembling the propaganda of the victor nations and their palace media. Thank you. – Michael Walsh
      Now available on Kindle through Amazon:

      http://www.amazon.com/Witness-To-History-ebook/dp/B006IGS7SC/ref=sr_1_5?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1323342867&sr=1-5#_

      “Witness to History” a Book By Michael Walsh – ONLINE
      http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/witness2history/1.html

      And more: http://www.archive.org/details/WitnessToHistory_331

  8. Hitler=Obama in that both their strings [are] showing.
    Both brainwashed by chemistry AND physiology changes.

    Hitler did not write Mein Kampf.
    Yeah, go ahead, throw it at me.
    I don’t have time to explain it here.

    Hitler was somewhat brain damaged in WW1
    and became a junkie very early on.
    Boy! was he convient !
    Obama is a complete fabrication.

    There is no such thing as an evil genius
    because no one that smart would ‘choose’
    ‘the evil.’

    Back track, I’ve already gone into some of the reasons
    for WW2.

    Ovens (?)
    Crematorians (?)
    He needed the slave labor !!!
    And those pulling the strings needed world sympathy
    for the creation of Israel……….

    The Elite of “God’s Chosen”
    were quite willing to sacrifice many of
    their own because [to them] they
    were/are almost as worthless as the Goyum.

    1. “Ovens (?)
      Crematorians (?)
      He needed the slave labor !!!”

      I would point out the additional millions of Russian, French and Italian POW’s captured by the Wehrmacht and the millions more of civilians deported from occupied countries to the Reich for slave labour. With or without the Jews and Gypsies the Reich had their hands on more than enough slave labour.

      1. Noted and well known.

        I am unsure and have not formed a constructive
        opinion in the matter, but suspect that the
        full truth may lie somewhere in the middle;
        in consideration of the Holocoust I mean.

        And yes, it was not just Jews.

  9. (1) Hitler did conquer the world—thru Bormann bankster ‘plastic diplomacy’ & shared tech. The nazi saucer crashes in Roswell etc as cleverly-cloaked indications that something’s rotten in Denmark.

    (2) Why build long-range bomber fleets, if you’ve got your hands on strategic “Bell” technology? And possible planned off-world bases?

    (3) Why queer a Deputy Führer Hess deal in the making? Secret flight to Britain in a Messerschmitt 110 to sign an armistice with British antiwar faction?

    (4) The fourth offer for British peace as the postwar Anglo-American Cold War set-up deal to share nuke technology etc. between the 2 ‘victorious’ super-powers.

    (5) Why build up a surface naval fleet when a saucer fleet was already in the making?

    (6) The camps providing underground tunnel labor & power for processing the forthcoming nuke-antigrav propulsion systems. Shifted to Argentina.

      1. I like you Galgenlieder sense of humor:

        “Does this advanced ET heavy water doughnut cold fusion reactor with typewriter keys come with automatic, or just standard?”—Joseph P. Farrell, Reich of the Black Sun

        A Kammlerstab independently surviving Nazi research black project. The Roswell crash as a back-engineering project that failed. I can follow your reasoning here. From there thru Majestic Twelve, the fleet sightings as ours rather than the Nazis? Majic-12 beginning as a modest back-engineering black project ballooning into a mega-bureaucracy of many black project secret weapons research?

        “The idea that the Nazis were constructing a saucer fleet is erroneous. See my critique of this whole mythos in Saucers, Swastikas, and Psyops”

        So “…if these are indicators pointing to a terrestrial origin for the craft, then the only other possible place it can point to besides the United States, is the Nazi secret weapons project and its possible post warfare offshoots.”—Joseph P. Farrell, Reich of the Black Sun, 301

        In other words, the documented mass-sightings of post-Roswell UFO fleets were probably ours not the Reich. Unless, of course, Argentina and Bormann got the tech first rather than us. The ambiguity between the two conflicting data-sets favor, as you mention in your book, is a secret bogus ET UFO hypothesis.

        “The German rocket scientists were not able to identify it as any German V-weapon. But this may be obfuscation of a sort, for as Corso has indicated, the Germans clearly told General Twining something that did not make it into either of his reports.”

        One wonders what was left out of the Twining report? A report on “charge differential” propulsion? A “heavy water” reactor? Fusion gravitonics? But then, all of that is old hat now….

Comments are closed.