Black Lies are being circulated in White Nationalism -

“Hitler did not instigate the war”

“He only modestly sought territory ‘wrongly’ appropriated”

Those claims are demonstrably false from the beginning of Mein Kampf:

“People of the same blood should be in the same Reich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state. When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people to acquire foreign territory. The plow is then the sword and the tears of war shall produce the daily bread for the generations to come.”

                                                                                            - Hitler

Does this statement from the very start of Mein Kampf, from the second paragraph in fact, indicate that Hitler was for peace and the head of a Reich merely, passively victimized? Obviously not. It is clear pseudo-justification typical of the inter-European war-mongering that underpinned his world view. Indeed, this statement makes it clear that Hitler was no pacifist nationalist, but an imperialist; and of course this is just one among many examples in which he makes that plain. What is far more exasperating than alarming is that even where present day White Nationalists are altercast their clear innocence, Hitler advocates disingenuously try to bury, justify and even assimilate the facts of Hitler’s intent of inter-European war rather than work to coordinate present- day European efforts to our mutual interests: coordination of nations places an emphasis on mutual non-interference of national sovereignties with one another, but alignment of objectives at the same time. That is very different from what Hitler sought and from what his present day apologists implicate.

 

.............

A frequent commentator at Carolyn Yeager’s blog and treated as a level-headed purveyor of truth in White advocacy by Kyle Hunt at Renegade is the Nazi Markus:

Markus proposes to resume World War II (real good thinking):

December 3, 2013 at 3:29 am

“Under International Law, the winner doesn’t make the rules. That’s why you have the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention. The non-German world just doesn’t care about them very much. And by that, Germany didn’t lose any war, WW2 in particular. Only a peace treaty between the war parties would determine the winner, loser or a draw and that treaty is pending”

In that regard prior Markus said:

November 19, 2013 at 9:36 pm

“Because of Poland, Germany has no peace treaty and WW2 between Germany and the United Nations is still going on.”

http://www.selbstverwaltung-deutschland.de/Kein-Friedensvertrag-beabsichtigt.jpg

“This document proves that Poland complained at the 4+2 conference in 1990 that a peace treaty would threaten “their” Western border.

Gorbatchev wanted peace with Germany and prepared officials to return their zone to Germany. The Russian zone includes North-East Prussia but slso all areas of Germany ADMINISTERED by Poland.”

Referring to the Kalisz massacre, Markus says:

December 4, 2013 at 3:31 pm

“Whatever happened during WW 1 by the Prussian Army to Polish cities in some incidents need to be addressed and reparations need to be paid (and have). These actions happened during war, when Germany was encircled as always and the circumstances had strategic reasons.”

Apparently, Markus would say Germany was surrounded and being attacked by Belgium as well.

In pursuit of Hitler’s agenda, he goes on to say:

“But there is no comparison to what Poland did to the Germans during Peace Times. An attempted genocide of a whole nation. When and how will Poland pay?” (see note on Fort VII, for one among many “payments”)

Markus suggests:
December 4, 2013 at 4:38 pm

“Poland has nothing to offer anyway. I am suggesting returning our land only and let Poles off the hook.”

“It is upheld (viz., e.g. resolution of the Federal Constitutional Court, 1956-08-17, 1 BvB 2/51, BverfGE 5, 85 [126]) that the German Reich has outlasted the collapse of 1945 and has never gone under or fallen, neither through capitulation nor through the exertion of foreign state authority in Germany by the Allies, nor in the later course of time; it still is an entity with legal capacity, even though it is not fully operable as a government due to a lack of organisation. The Federal Republic of Germany is not the successor of the German Reich.”

“The German Reich is classified for occupation in the 1937 borders by the UN mebership Allies. Under International Law, it exists in its 8/31/1939 borders though, and I might remind you that no German government has ever ratified the Corridor land grab, which makes that action not binding. The Federal Republic can proclaim all it wants that the current border is final, but that is only valid for its limited purpose during the Allied occupation. The Federal Republic does not speak for Germany/German Reich, but for the Allied control council.”

“If Poland had any dignity, they would have negotiated with Germany or fight an honorable one-on-one war over the dispute and not rely on the sneaky empires to do the fighting for them” (regarding a one on one fight, see Greater Poland uprising in response to Markus, also narrated here)

“Competing on the intellectual level for dominance, was and is not an option for Poles”

It would be too kind to refer to Markus as a technokraut, but even that would play into his mesh, re-animating his pseudo-dignity, that of a reborn Prussian warrior who, in truth, seeks to put across excuses to once again take lands stolen by Friedrich The Great et al; and to obfuscate that Germans had committed atrocities as well in times prior to World War II, much farther back still. That is, the sequence of historical punctuation does not merely start were it conveniently suits Nazi ideology. Nor do the facts conveniently fit the inclination to distort the context and extent of misdeeds against German civilians in those prior times. Goebbels would never lie and edit-out inconvenient facts (or non-facts), would he?

Carolyn says that I should thank her for editing my redundancy, but she ignores the fact that it, repetition, is made necessary by Nazi advocates repeating the same one-sided and inaccurate propaganda.

Because of their intransigence, it is unfortunately necessary then to repeat (to be “redundant”):

After World War I, Germany still had: All of what is now Kaliningrad/East Prussia; North-east parts of what is now Poland (Elblag/Elbing and even kept a few towns that were subject to referendums as to which nationality they would prefer - e.g. Olsztyn /Allenstein and some smaller ones); Germany kept outright Opole (Oppeln), Wroclaw (Breslau), Piła (Schneidemuhl), all lands and cities west of those cities; and all of Pomerania (what is now northwest Poland), lands west of Gydnia and Gdańsk (Danzig).

After WW I, Germany lost outright (only):

Poznań, which was boldly, audaciously even, but justifiably retaken by Poland, its being their original, ancient capital and an integral Polish city until it was taken by the Prussians in the late 1800’s.

Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) and Thorn (Toruń ) - these two relatively small cities were, as cities go, about Hitler’s best bone of contention. However, it is apparent that Versailles adjudged them to Poland as doing otherwise would have Germany extrude into Poland’s sea access and suggest an outpost for continued military incursions against Poland’s existence (as Germany obviously had no problem seeing Poland’s nationhood disappear just as it had prior to Versailles). Thus, giving these cities to Poland, which were also Polish in historical times, could have been sought to discourage the historical tendency to military incursion; provide logistical contiguity for Polish sea access; and compensate for the loss of some lands, such as Pomerania and other places, which had been Polish but were then destined to be German.

Danzig was made neutral - as it had been not only a German city, but a Polish city as well as a neutral city at times in history - Germans were nevertheless entitled to live there and did in vast majority.

Had Hitler been a better man, he would have taken such factors to account, recognizing that a relatively small amount of territory was lost in concession to Polish nationhood, that these were concessions with historical justification; and he would have appreciated that Germany was in fact, huge after World War I.

But he could not be placated. Even after conceded the valuable Sudetenland , he took all of Czechoslovakia - another dead-ringer as to his so-called defensive motives.

As for the land that Germany lost to Poland up to the Oder river after World War II, though not particularly Poland’s choice, rather Stalin’s, it is justifiable compensation and buffering: given Poland’s losses in the East; Nazi Germany’s having initiated such a cataclysmic war for its unwillingness to make such small concessions; instead betraying any idea of Eastern borders and the clearly demonstrated willingness,* ability and sacrifice that those nations had made in fighting The Soviet Union - a service to Germany and proof that Germany was not under threat of attack from the East; and would not have been if Nazi Germany could have managed to be a decent neighbor nation. But they were not, they stabbed the intervening Eastern nations in the back, with the objective to take control of their lands; and more - Table Talk making it clear that Hitler had in mind a German imperial enterprise of taking lands up to the Urals; casting Slavs into limited, subservient roles; any of their nationalists in between and in the way of those aims be damned.

* Poland had already demonstrated its willingness and ability to fight-off Soviet advances; Belarusian and Ukrainian nationals were more than willing to fight the Soviets as well; add countries such as Czech, Slovakia and more to the list. Nazi Germany did not want cooperation with them, it wanted dominion over their lands and people.

Andrew Anglin captions this image with, “Inspiration: There was actually a time when scenes such as this happened in real life.  And it is possible it could happen again.”

No thanks Andrew.

But what we can do is shore-up the borders as they are drawn for our discreet peoples and work to establish more sovereign territories for our discreet and mixed-European kinds on other continents. That accomplished, we will wonder why we did not think of that in the first place rather than fighting over the likes of the dank gray Baltic coast of Pomerania (coast from Szczecin to Gdańsk).

Poland’s borders now - reasonable after the historical circumstances.

 

Addendum

This map, showing a still enormous and sprawling Germany after the Versailles treaty, illustrates German populations in green; and hence, where they were in Poland after the Versailles borders were set, basically confirming the trouble areas as I have outlined them - the most difficult being Bromberg and Thorn. *

In terms of overall territory, Germany’s complaint and concessions to Polish nationhood were small and relatively trivial.

Suggestions by Markus et al. that Hitler made reasonable proposals to solve these difficulties are prima-facie absurd: i.e., “negotiations with Hitler.” That’s really all you have to say to provoke a laugh in a normal person.

Regarding Danzig’s (Gdańsk’s) neutrality, contrary to what Hitler says, there are Poles who speak as sincerely that Gdańsk should be Polish on historical grounds. Historically, it had been held by Poles at times (including during its heyday). It had also been neutral at times. Versailles had made it neutral again and Germans could live there as they did in vast majority. Discussion of difficulties of that time only takes us back to the absurdity of having to rely on Nazi propaganda and supposedly reasonable deals from Hitler - i.e., “negotiations with Hitler.”

* But seriously, the ousting of ethnic Germans from Poznań in 1918 could have been highly disturbing, traumatic in fact, given that they had occupied the city as Posen for a few generations - in fact, there would have been nobody alive who remembered a time when it was Polish - after it was taken from the Poles by the Prussians (i.e., Poles were forced-out of their ancient capital). But the Poles were determined to take it back, Poznań, the ancient capital of the Polane, along with their nation at all, with its having been removed from the map for 123 years - a historical situation of Polish national non- existence that Nazi Germany and prior regimes of Germany were evidently content to maintain. Hence, the removal of German control apparently had to be done at least in part by force if the Poles were to have their nation back. Needless to say, Hitler would not be sympathetic to the motivation and historical grounds of the Poles. And we come back to the proposed “negotiations with Hitler” - i.e. an absurdity to any honest person. In fact, before someone like Markus suggest that something is owed to the Germans for this - Hitler got his revenge:

Fort VII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_VII

The prisoners were mostly Poles from the Wielkopolska region. Many were representatives of the region’s intelligentsia, often people who had been engaged in social and political life, as well as known Polish patriots and veterans of the Wielkopolska Uprising (1918–1919) and Silesian Uprisings.

According to different estimates, between 4,500 and 20,000 people, mostly Poles from Poznań and the surrounding region, died while imprisoned at the camp.

 

Posted by DanielS on October 23, 2014, 11:12 PM | #

I strongly suspect Graham is right to move what he calls “the F people” out of the conversation. But the following node allows for a summing-up and for them to be put-aside for a time.

You can include the F politics of Renegade, American Nationalist Network, needless to say Carolyn, as covered by this example, but the discussed example focused from Storm-Fronters to Daily Stormer (the two most popular WN-Fuher mongers now). That is, the Stormfronters (Don Black et al.) were saying that DS in particular, should not be criticized.

Some interesting indirect feedback has come of this and recent threads at MR.

Don Advo has said that WN’s should not criticize the F worshiping Daily Stormer “for using a more direct approach” ..in other words he believes that they are saying the same European-friendly thing as any good WN, only louder.

Don Black “totally agreed” with Don Advo that we shouldn’t criticize the DS. Fromm agreed too, citing the “New Orleans Protocol” - this thing David Duke made up which I guess is supposed to say that you should treat Hitler like your buddy.

Well, a used car salesman can fool some of the people some of the time but can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

And here’s an example of what the DS is putting out that’ll fool some of the people, a post http://www.dailystormer.com/polish-pimps-tattooed-their-own-names-in-huge-letters-on-their-hoes/- where Anglin uses “Ebonic language to ‘speak for the Poles.” Appearing on its discussion thread was

ELSE LÖSER’s protracted smear of Poles and Poland. Naturally Carolyn Yeager picked-it-up and ran with it, “oh, I was looking for this.”..  “This” http://www.danzigfreestate.org/loeser.html is a hit piece which I first saw at Renegade and when people there like blutenboden, Markus et al., tried to uphold it as truth, I realized that I could not agree and get along with them.

Coming back to the aptly named MS Loser, Carolyn is now busily discussing her “truthfulness” http://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-hitler-and-slavs-2  with Markus, along with some supposedly Polish guy who dutifully swears to its truth, Hadding (naturally) and (don’t laugh) Thorn - ha ha ha! Carolyn trusts Thorn’s word!

As she does Else’s

Hers is one of a few protracted diatribes against Poland (Czech etc.) that Nazis circulate. When I locate the other, I’ll include it here, but the other one cites absurdly exaggerated statistics of alleged atrocities against German civilians and other excuses for war [I have located it. This is apparently the one: http://www.danzigfreestate.org - the Loser tract diatribe is just one of its links]. It is absolutely dishonest - Nazi propaganda that only someone as immoral as Carolyn Yeager could try to put across. Sad, alarming, but some believe this stuff, and worse, believe it is relevant and somehow characteristic now. As they do Ms. Loser’s particular diatribe.

Because its so long, I’ll keep my response terse; hopefully more won’t be necessary. Just a sample shows the speed of their “objectivity and concern for truth.”

It takes a perspective as Carolyn does, that “Polish people do this, they all do”

http://www.danzigfreestate.org/loeser.html

The first thing to note about Else Loser is that she grew up in that one most hot area of contention between Polish and German nationhood as I had mentioned: Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) and Thorn (Torun).

This was the spearhead of both Polish and German collective historical grievance against the other. The people in these areas were most threatened and subject to folk propaganda, inherited grudges, resentments embellished lest they be forgotten - the place where it was necessary to maintain the most anti-other narrative.

And she was born in and wrote of Poland in a post-war time when Poland was under communist control.

She begins her diatribe by fore-fronting her strongest argument - they got ‘em now! - Kopernikus was German.

One of the first discussions that I ever had with Carolyn was to tell her to take the crypt of this man to Germany and keep him.  He is not Polish, fine. I don’t care, don’t need him, wasn’t meditating on it in my life. Poles do not need him.

But in thinking about why some would have (wrongly) claimed his Polishness historically, note again where Kopernikus was born - that same area of hot contention. He was born in Thorn (the adjacent town to Bromberg/Bydgoszcz). Not only was he born in Thorn/Torun, but politically, Kopernikus took the side of Poland and Polish nationhood against the brutality of The Teutonic Knights (another regime admired by the F god. The Teutonic Knights in fact took Gdansk from the Poles after the Poles held it for a time; the Teutonic Knights conducting themselves treacherously, brutally, gruesomely in the take-over there as they had elsewhere). Kopernikus recognized this, took the side of the Poles and he was associated with the spear point of Torun. Thus, it may have seemed politically expedient to shore up Polish nationhood at that spear point against it; and with that, enfranchise a prominent figure taking their (Polish side).

Knowing Poles, Poland, I can confidently say that Loser’s is a colossal smear that only people who really want to believe it, like Carolyn and Markus, would fall-for. But what can you expect from people who admire a regime that burned Polish libraries?

They characterize Poland as this, that, and the other way unable and unworthy of nationhood - how convenient and how interesting that this was written in 1982, when Lech Walesa was being jailed for protesting in an effort to achieve Polish sovereignty from the Soviet Union.

But Ms. Loser says, see? Poland can’t run a nation. It was 1982, the Soviet Union is in control, Poland is leading the way among nations under its control to bring it down, but she and Carolyn say never mind.

And now, after 20 years of nationhood, Poland having the largest growth in GNP in the world from 1994 - 2004, her kind are still wanting to remove Polish nationhood.

Like Ms. Loser, Carolyn is sure it has always been true that Poland doesn’t deserve a nation…as Hitler was sure after just 20 years in 1939..

As Friedrich the “Great” was sure just after a newly reborn Poland established the world’s second Constitutional Republic after the US. Never mind, F the G needed to remove Poland’s nationhood.

And so Poland had their language not their nation. Ms Loser and fellows will make a big deal then about Poland valuing its language and historical narratives as a means to keep its people and nation together despite its political absence; as a means to preserve collective memory and aim to restore their geographical nation.

..in fact, they will try to say that Poland was never a nation…the Polans were never there, the Pomeranians, the Silesians, the Mazurians the Vistulans…all a product of that “Polish imagination.”

It is a very nasty strategy that the Nazis deploy to try to erase the history of peoples. I can’t imagine doing that. But..

...that is the Nazi propaganda put forth by Ms. Loser, consumed wholesale by Carolyn, Markus and the other Nazi freaks.

New Orleans Protocol, Dave? We shouldn’t disparage the DS and others speaking the same way, only louder, Don Advo?

Don’t get me wrong Don Advo, you do many things very well, that is why I address you. Because I expect better.

 

Another map showing Bromberg and Thorn located at critical border points - in this case, at the border of the Hansa League.

Note that along with the map of German speaking peoples above, the map of Western Slavic tribes above also reveals that Bromberg and Thorn were at the dividing point between the Polan and Mazurian Polish tribes.

Carolyn goes on to try to suggest that Poles are not truly a genetic/racial European group. All evidence belies her absurdity, of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_European_populations

...........................................................................................................................................................
If this segment of Hitler’s table talk does not disabuse the listener of Hitler admiration then they are indeed, hopeless:

http://carolynyeager.net/hitlers-table-talk-study-hour-episode-33

There is a difference here, though, as Hitler is so plain in his intentions of colonization up to the Urals and in his intentions for the Slavs that well, I laughed and I laughed hard at his absurdity.