Some people believe in conspiracy theories because it gives them a sense of comfort and security. You see, they much prefer to live in a world where everything is orchestrated by shadowy figures than the chaotic world we live in, because then at least there’s some form of control. Other people like the sense of power it gives them. After all, they’re the ones that have this privileged knowledge, and this sense of power they might not be getting in their real life. However there are certain conspiracy theories that come form a much darker place, where people bend reality to back up and justify their dislike and even hatred toward a certain group of people. And there is no better example than those who distort or flat out deny the facts of the holocaust.
I could’ve named this, “RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial Documentary ‘Judea Declares War on Germany,'” but I thought that would be too long of a title. You know, like the title “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” (still haven’t seen that movie by the way).
Anyway, I’ve been casually keeping an eye out for something that would attack the position given by that film Europa: The Last Battle, and have finally stumbled onto one. Made by that guy who did those debunking 9/11 truther’s series on youtube (which he has now condensed into one big video). While this video doesn’t address Europa directly, it does address an aspect of it, attacking a documentary that was used as a source in the Europa documentary. It attacks this little documentary made around 1997 (4 years after Schindler’s List was released) titled Judea Declares War on Germany.
Well, I’m interested in seeing if his criticism and “debunking the debunkers” points stand up to scrutiny. So, I have downloaded his 2-part videos, and the JDWoG video, just to ensure I have copies just in case youtube decides to take them down just as they took down Spielberg’s Hoax: The Last Days of the Big Lie (that’s right, I’m coming for Spielberg and Schindler’s List after this one). I’ll do so by going through his videos, and addressing each point as they come up.
Point #1: Denying the Holocaust is Done for the Purpose of Justifying Hatred Towards A (Jewish) Group of People
This is an assumption, the main assumption being that holocaust deniers are wrong and delusional and driven by hate. Which might be true for those neo-nazi assholes who suffer from delusions that go beyond the holocaust. But it’s a dangerous assumption to make if you’re trying to equate all holocaust deniers with those types of people.
Besides, accepting the validity of the Holocaust does something similar. It justifies the hatred towards Germans, and adopts a guilt complex towards a good portion of the civilized world, in a manner suggesting, “You let this happen, you didn’t stop the Nazis sooner.” Plus that bombardment of Holocaust victim support commercials (why the fuck would they still need money now this many years later!? Did the fucking Nazi’s give them cancer and retardation and make them cripples too? I’d rather give those funds to veterans of more recent wars!). The holocaust has become a multi-million dollar industry, with many organizations profiting from it. It would be nice to know whether they are profiting from a lie or truth.
So we’re left with a situation where either the Nazi-Germans were irredeemable assholes who deserved to be offed as they were in Inglorious Basterds (among other films) and deserved the treatment they got post-WWII, and to have those ancestors disrespected. Or that the (elitist) Jews deserve the hate they get today for falsifying evidence to support the Holocaust to justify hatred towards Nazi-Germans. Or perhaps somewhere in-between. Helps to listen to both sides and consider the facts (or determine which are actual facts) to get a better idea.
Anyway, one of the reasons why holocaust deniers are around is because they believe criminalization of holocaust denial, and promotion of holocaust belief, is to subliminally attack Nazis to the point that no one will want to even attempt their method of government and economy ever again, a nationalist socialist nation, where they had their own independent form of banking and currency, and a belief in helping/supporting their fellow man/citizen/culture. As opposed to being reliant on the alternatives, where banking is not run by the nation itself (among other factors).
Of course, these reasonings and assumptions don’t mean much without evidence to back them up. So…
Point #2: The Timing of the International Jewish Boycott Against German Products, and Bloody Sunday
So it is stated that the 1933 headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany” came in response to the mistreatment of Jews in Germany. According to the Europa documentary, the actual reason they did this was in response to Germany rising up, led by Hitler, to overthrow the Jewish rule, which was more or less set in place after WWI. The (Communist) Jews controlled the German economy and the banks, and Germany was suffering under it. Even official historical scholars will admit Germany wasn’t doing very well financially, under a crushing debt put upon them as a consequence of WWI. Just to give an example, Hitler had Louis De Rothschild (yes, THAT Rothschild, that banking family) arrested in Austria and held until a release was negotiated, where the Nazis were paid $21 million for his release, arguably the largest ransom payment in history; Rothschild would later immigrate to the United States. This happened in 1938, a year before WWII officially began (via Germany usurping Poland).
Once Germany began to thrive under their new rule and policy and independence, the elitist Communist Jews became enraged that a country was managing to be successful outside of their financial control, so they called for the boycott, and eventually utilized their influence across nations (partly from communist infiltration, which is backed by the novel Blacklisted by History, written by M. Stanton Evans) to have an actual war against Germany, leading to WWII.
Anyway, the alleged hostilities the Jews claimed to be facing in Nazi Germany during this time. This likely relates, at least in-part, to Hitler outlawing the debt-based system Germany was suffering under, punishing anyone attempting to re-implement it by death. You know, so he could guarantee a complete replacement, and removing/eliminating the previous bankers in the process. Other than that, Germany supposedly hadn’t enacted any anti-Jewish laws, just laws against the previous banking system, which may have ended up targeting the Jews because a good portion of the Jews were the bankers.
Myles Power states that the documentary gets the timing wrong on this, not by attacking any of the above points, but rather by going to the topic of Germany attacking Poland. September 3-4, 1939 (over 6 years after the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany”); Bromberg, Poland (the city is actually spelled Bydgoszcz, but that’s just as fucking hard to read as it is to pronounce, so I’m going with Bromberg); Bloody Sunday, where ethnic Germans were killed by the Polish. The number killed is disputed among historians, but the Germans would initially claim it was nearly 5,800 that were killed, and then later raise that number to 58,000 (and it is very tempting to point out the irony of this, when considering the holocaust numbers and how much Poland reduced the official death count at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.5 million).
So the first thing Myles seems to dispute is that the documentary utilizes the 58k number because it was the Nazi propaganda number (there-bye implying the number should be much closer to 5.8k). The second thing he disputes is the reason for Germany invading Poland. He implies it was a power grab, as opposed to Germany either retaking land that they believe they unjustly lost due to the Treaty of Versailles made post-WWI, or in response to the massacre of German civilians done in the lands in Poland lost from Germany because of the aforementioned treaty. The third thing brought up is that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union (August 23, 1939) in the hopes this would prevent them from acting against Germany invading Poland. Fourth, that Germany intended to invade Poland August 26th, but delayed after Britain signed a treaty with Poland, declaring they would provide military support should they be attacked. Fifth, Germany staged false attacks against themselves in order to create propaganda supporting an invasion of Poland. These false flag attacks would be known as Operation Himmler (aka Operation Canned Goods), named after Heinerich Himmler, the man responsible for coming up with these false flag attacks.
See Europa chapter An Unholy Alliance (44:40). (also worth seeing the chapter preceding it, The Polish Corridor)
As early as October 1930, Die Liga der Grossmacht (an influential Polish newspaper) expressed interest in preparing for a conflict with Germany, and a defeat of Germany. This would not be the last Polish paper to stir up violence against Germany, let alone the German civilians living in Poland.
August 15, 1939, the Polish ambassador in Paris stated, “It will be the Polish army that will invade Germany on the first day of war.”
Hitler declared to the British ambassador in August 25, 1939, “Poland’s provocations have become intolerable.” And in September 1939, Hitler declared that Poland committed at least 30 border violations in the month of August 1939. During that time period, it is stated that the Polish were committing atrocities to those of German descent (it’s a bit complicated, but a lot of Germans wound up in Poland due to some treaties signed post-WWI that divided Germany up, and split off a section from it that became part of Poland (ex: the city of Danzig, cutting off East Prussia), more-or-less, which accounts for those who were initially German citizens pre-WWI to be caught in this awkward situation of being in a country that stated to be no longer their own, despite living off the same land as before).
Now to be fair, Europa seems to have a bit of an error here (an error Myles states that the JDWoG documentary also makes, except more obviously). Europa seemed to imply that Hitler responded to the Bloody Sunday massacre by invading Poland on September 1, 1939. And yet that was 2 days before Bloody Sunday happened. So in actuality, Hitler had Germany invade Poland before Bloody Sunday occurred. That being said, Bloody Sunday indicates the worst incident (that took place over the course of 2 days) of the massacre of Germans in Poland prior to the war. Such crimes were committed on a smaller scale during August 1939. The invasion occurred in response to those previous massacres, with the Bloody Sunday one seeming to take place practically as a response to Germany invading Poland, by seriously escalating the intensity of the massacres. And the slaughter of German civilians would continue until about September 18, 1939, when Germany had retaken enough territory of what was lost via the Treaty of Versailles.
In any case, Europa seems to go with this 58k number as well, though now it’s not entirely clear if the 58k refers strictly to Bloody Sunday (of which at least 5.5k German civilians were slaughtered), or refers to the slaughter of German civilians throughout Poland before Germany managed to invade and push in far enough to stop the slaughter. Either way, the Germans were a persecuted minority in Poland (persecuted due to Jewish control of the news, who published such propaganda promoting violence; sound familiar to stuff going on today?). And there were 12,857 identified dead bodies (separate from the “unidentified” numbers) in Bromberg, something The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau (among some other historians, though not all) agree with. Myles states that more recent historians put that number at much lower than what the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau indicate, but he doesn’t bother citing any of them.
There was also the whole “unholy alliance” theory, that Britain, France, Poland, and the Soviet Union (with them joining last) were planning to unite against Germany to wage a war on them from all fronts, and have the U.S. intervene if necessary (France would do something similar). A book written in 1938 by Jewish author Emil Ludwig titled A New Holy Alliance would plot out this very strategy. Hitler learned about this potential alliance, so he reached out to Stalin to sign a peace pact in order to avoid fighting on 2 fronts, though he wanted to avoid conflict altogether. Plus, the Allies didn’t mention the Soviet Union invading Poland from the East and doing massacres far worse than anything the Germans were accused of doing to Poland during the war (not to mention this allowed for them to etch closer towards Germany without needing to declare war on them in the process). Plus the Unholy Alliance would later stab Poland in the back after the war and basically hand it over to the Soviet Union on a silver platter post-WWII (and would retain a firm grip on them until the wall fell in 1989, ushering the end of not just the Cold War, but of the Soviet’s hold over Poland).
So, if those massacre numbers are at least in the ballpark (though, honestly, I think just knowing of a massacre of over 5k civilians would be enough to cause outrage and war mongering), and because the Polish newspapers encouraged violence against Germans (which were carried out), and because Britain and France encouraged Poland to hit at Germany to provoke them into a war, let alone Poland’s attacks at the German border that had been occurring since the end of WWI, that puts a different light under this Operation Himmler, this false flag operation. It hardly even seemed necessary, especially since this operation was carried out August 31st, well after the attacks on German civilians within or near Poland had already started.
On the other hand, there were also reports from Poland that these attacks on German civilians were done in response to the German civilians attacking them. Possibly to assist German special forces which initiated firefights against the Poles near the border. There’s a lot of different stories flying around about the incidents here and there, it’s pretty much impossible to keep it all straight or to get a clear picture. All the more reason to create false flags so that a clear picture can be made for the civilians in Germany to back an invasion of Poland (which was allegedly done to retake that territory lost via the Treaty of Versailles).
The possible reasons for having Operation Canned Goods go into effect become more numerous when taking all these factors into account, but one likely scenario is because Hitler wanted to stop the massacre of Germans within Poland before they got worse, even if he had to have Himmler do false-flags to do it (similar to cops planting evidence on criminals who were actually guilty, but had difficulty finding evidence that could be used in a court of law). Or maybe Hitler was confident enough in Germany’s chances in a war against Poland, Britian, France, and potentially Russia (a reason I’m hesitant to believe in). Or maybe it was for the reasons Myles Power implies. Either way, Germany had reason alone just to respond to the killing of German civilians in or near Poland.
And of course Germany executed some Polish civilians in retaliation for the massacre. It was stated mobs were the ones primarily responsible for these atrocities, and last I checked, mobs aren’t made up of soldiers.
Christ, I’ve typed up all this explaining the intricacies of the Jewish boycott and the Poland/Germany relation to the Bloody Sunday incident, and we haven’t even gotten to the fucking Holocaust yet. In any case, this attempt by Myles to discredit the documentary before it even gets to the subject it wishes to document can be swatted aside. Plus, this pompous schmuck decided to concentrate on Bloody Sunday, and not the other stuff brought up such as the Unholy Alliance, the “Final Solution” being the deporting of Jews from Germany to Madagascar, and Britain agreeing to give Palestine to the Jews after the war in exchange for the internationalist Jews getting the U.S. involved in the war. But he doesn’t want to cover those inconvenient points now does he? Or even the fact that Poland was the first fucking country in Europe to build the first 2 concentration camps, and imprison Germans in them after WWI (let alone Britain being the first country to build a concentration camp anywhere). Plus the mention of Bloody Sunday wasn’t brought up until a little over 12 minutes had passed, and it’s not a topic that’s dwelled upon in the documentary.
Jesus Christ, I didn’t think I was going to have to make this into a multi-parter. Will address the other points at a later time.
Edit (4-25-2020): In the comments, that radio tower incident is mentioned, and is considered a false flag by Germany to justify invasion of Poland, similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam (for America). Well, it may not have been a false flag:
6 thoughts on “RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 1)”
Dieter Schenk in “Hitlers Mann in Danzig” on the supposed massacres:
“The number of victims was stated differently in the literature and was probably between 1500 and 5800. The head of the Homicide Commission of the Reich Security Main Office, Dr Bernhard Wehner, quantified this number in a detailed testimony after the war (3479 dead were calculated by Gentzen on the basis of the grave and missing persons file). Wehner had been commissioned with the investigation in Bydgoszcz and first reported the number 5800 to the Foreign Office in mid-December 1939, which was responsible for preparing a German White Paper. Wehner reported: ‘A short time later I learned that Hitler had been very excited about this White Paper. On his order, the entire printed edition had to be stamped in February or March 1940.’ Hitler ordered that in the edition approved by him the number of victims be increased tenfold. Thus the number of 58,000 murder victims of the ‘Polish September murders’ was taken over by German propaganda. Internally, Wehner later corrected the total number downwards to 3500, after German police stations in former Polish territory worked ‘properly’ and recorded the missing cases.”
So yeah, a pretty much entirely invented atrocity.
I think I’m going to enjoy the long-term ramifications of your response, if this goes on long enough. Even if I don’t, glad to see you actually have some solid topics/data for me to tackle.
Find it strange that this book “Hitler’s Mann in Danzig” (full title “Hitlers Mann in Danzig: Albert Forster and Nazi crimes in Danzig West Prussia”), by Dieter Schenk, isn’t more widely available, especially on Amazon, in English. I’m not saying that to bash the source of information, I just find it peculiar. Mainly because that usually indicates it’s a difficult book to reference. Looking it up made me come across this site, which seems to be either where you quoted, or it’s linked to where you quoted it from:
Which also linked me to some rather fascinating discussions on the topic (these links are optional, just in case you were interested in going in-depth with it):
Aside from the 3479 number, lower than what I thought was the original minimum of 5000 (rounded down), that doesn’t really change much of what I had been saying on the page. I even admit that it’s possible for Myles’ claim that the Germans multiplied the numbers for shock value to get more people supportive of the invasion of Poland. But at the same time, the quote doesn’t specify whether or not this number is about Bloody Sunday, the the incidents prior to the invasion. In any case, I also agree that it’s possible, if not the most likely scenario, that Hitler was looking for an excuse to invade Poland to take back territory lost to Germany from the Treaty of Versailles, and was willing to exaggerate the number of atrocities, and commit false flags, in order to do it. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the Poles weren’t very keen on Germans in their country (or at least the part of the country annexed to them post-WWI), and that there was a history of bad blood between them that extends far beyond just WWI, and that there relations were something along the lines of Britain and Ireland during the 80s (see films like In the Name of the Father, or Hidden Agenda, for examples of the latter).
They didn’t like each others, and they killed each other in what can only be considered hate crimes. The scale of it differs depending on the source (and make no mistake, legitimate/truthful or otherwise, Dieter Schenk is not the only source of information for these numbers, and his conclusions/statements should be taken with a grain of salt, just as any other). And I have gone through several sources of information on different threads and novels that I can’t wrap my head around which numbers are to be believed. Personally, I don’t fully believe either side, the Germans or the Poles. I think the truth is somewhere in-between.
So when you say, “invented atrocity,” I’m not entirely sure what you mean or even how to take that. What defines an atrocity? You saying the number has to be higher than 3000 (just to round it down the lowest thousand)? At which point do the number of deaths go from non-atrocities to atrocities? And which part about it is “invented?” The whole thing, or just part of it? Because I don’t buy that it’s invented in the sense that Poles didn’t massacre a portion of the German population in Poland amidst all this, whether it’s pre or post German invasion into Poland. That’s like saying no reason existed outside of “Hitler wanting more territorial control of Europe” for Germany to invade Poland, when there were other reasons.
What I refer to as the “entirely invented atrocity” is the claim that the Poles slaughtered tens of thousands of Germans before the Nazi invasion occurred, as all available evidence shows it to be such. I don’t deny that interwar Poland discriminated against many of its ethnic minorities, or that there were massacres of ethnic german civilians after the September 1st.
As to Hitlers motivations, one the main motivations for him starting the war was explicitly stated by him secretly on multiple occasions like here: https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php
“Danzig is not the issue. For us, it is about expanding the living space in the East and providing food, as well as solving the Baltic problem.” No “massacres” of ethnic germans figured in his actual reasons for invasion.
You’re going to send me to a website that is entirely in German? I think you’re under the false impression that I myself speak and read German. If you’re able to do that, more power to you, but that doesn’t mean much to me. If you’re using something like Google Translate, that’s not a completely reliable method.
As for the “all available evidence shows it to be such” regarding Hitler invading Poland, that’s a damn big assumption. Sure, you have that quote Hitler made at a conference with his generals in May 23, 1939, about how the “Baltic problem” was more of an issue than Danzig (which he claims in the quote was a non-issue, but that could also entail it not being an issue compared to the Baltic problem).
The better question is what is the “Baltic problem.” That problem is the “Sovietization of the Batlics. Which brings up the other reason Hitler wanted Germany’s territory back from Poland. The Soviets were the ones planning on domination of Europe, and Hitler knew this. He also knew the Soviets had plans of taking over Germany, not just Poland, and France, and many other parts of Europe until they took it as a whole. Taking Poland would push Germany closer to the Soviets to stop them. Hitler convinced Stalin to make a peace agreement with him to stem the tide, while Russia would take one half of Poland, and Germany would take the other half. This is why, before the Soviets decided to mount an attack on Germany (which they were planning to do), Germany did a pre-emptive strike on the Soviets, and intended to drive them all the way back to the capital which Germany would conquer, and leave the Soviets in such a state of dissaray that they wouldn’t be able to muster up enough force for an effective counter-attack. Unfortunately for Germany, the plan failed, as the Russian winter decimated their forces, and gave Russia enough time to rally themselves and build up a force to push Germany back. And at that point, Germany was fighting a war on two fronts, between the Soviets, and the other Allies.
So yeah, Hitler anticipated all those countries going to war with him (though he was hoping the U.S. would stay out of it, as he didn’t anticipate the Japanese bringing them into the conflict), and wanted countermeasures in addition to reclaiming territory lost by the Treaty of Versailles, lest another repeat of Germany’s fate post-WWI would happen again where they suffered economically (among other ways). They failed, and were defeated, harshly. If nothing else, at least as far as what revisionists believe with a decent head on their shoulders, they damaged Soviet Russia badly enough to where they had to put their plans for an entire takeover of Europe on hold. But the Soviets did retain their hold on Poland, as well as East Germany.
So in that context, Danzig is a non-issue. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t an issue in other smaller contexts. Anyway, now you know what that line about the “Baltic problem” actually means. And why Hitler likely felt justified in having false flag operations and exaggerating the atrocities committed by the Poles.
Wehner here shifts the blame, of course he does. Schenk just accepts what he says without consulting any other evidence, in actuality the number was bumped up by Berndt who freely admitted to Fritz Hesse that it was him who:
“”gave the Führer the little shove that landed him in the war. I got the news that the Poles had killed 30,000 Germans. As I thought 30,000 were too few, I added a nought and laid a report before the Führer which made him suppose the Poles had killed 300,000. When Hitler read it, he roared like a bull and told me I was an infamous liar. I replied that the figures might be exaggerated but that there was certainly some truth in them. Hitler was speechless and then began roaring afresh: ‘They’ll pay for this! Now no one will stop me from teaching these fellows a lesson they’ll never forget! I will not have my Germans butchered like cattle.'” https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9476&p=92850&#p92850
Typically, these Germans saving their necks put the blame onto Hitler, claiming it was HE who ordered the number bumped up. But that’s wrong, Hitler was mislead and lied to by these men.
Hitler Biographer John Toland confirms this, and doesn’t use the rubbish statement in Schenks book no doubt spouted at Nuremberg.
And in any case, this one stunt by a few men in Hitler’s circle excluding Hitler himself DOESN’T mean the plight of the Germans in Danzig wasn’t in danger. They were, and Richard Blanke in his great book “Orphans of Versailles” admits to this.
“The overall death toll from this outbreak of communal hysteria continues to be a subject of debate. Many victims, buried in unmarked graves, were never found and remain classified as “missing”. A Central Office for the Graves of Murdered Ethnic Germans was set up under Kurt Lück and Karl Berger and charged with compiling a comprehensive list of victims. Their files, deposited today in the Koblenz archives, contain 5,437 names and were the basis for several German propaganda books detailing Polish atrocities. Hitler soon seized upon exaggerated estimates of the number of dead (13,000) and missing (45,000); he combined them and then made everyone adhere to the total of 58,000. The Lück-Berger file was found in Poznań in 1945 and used by Pospieszalski to discredit the 58,000 figure. He reckoned that even 5,437 was an exaggerated count, since it included some who were missing only temporarily as well as about a thousand Polish German soldiers, who were listed whether their deaths were due to poles or to the Wehrmacht. Pospieszalski argues that most of these, and many of the civilian casualties as well were due to the war itself still others listed in the file were not ethnic Germans to begin with. He concludes that “only” about 2,000 members of the German minority in western Poland died as a direct result of popular violence during the first weeks of the war. Peter Aurich, however, studying the same evidence a decade later, found that the deaths of at least 3,841 German civilians as a result of popular violence could be attested to by more than one witness: 2,063 who were killed in or near where they lived, 1,576 who did not survive the treks eastward, and 202 who died later of injuries. Adding these figures to the number of soldiers killed by their Polish comrades, Aurich contends that between 4,000 and 5,000 members of the German minority in western Poland (or about 2% of its total number) died as a result of population violence in September 1939.”
Source: Orphans of Versaille, pp. 235-236
He concludes by saying:
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Polish state was bent on the elimination of most of the German minority in Western Poland—by forced assimilation where possible, but mainly by coerced emigration. Moreover, this goal was well on the way to being achieved in 1939; the Pozanian wojewode reportedly assured his supporters that within three years there would no longer be any Germans in Poland. A study of the minority’s actual political, cultural, and economic situation merely reinforces the pessimistic assessments of contemporaries cited above. The fact that Hitler took up the minority’s case several months before he launched World War II was perhaps the overriding consideration at the time, but it does not make the fact of the minority’s plight less compelling. Of course, any country faced with such an adversary might be justified in relegating consideration for a difficult minority to a back burner; even today, some will respond to this account of the minority’s travails with a “So What?” in view of the larger issues at stake in 1939. The point, however, is that only a small proportion of the innumerable measures directed at the German minority in Poland, essentially those dating from after April 1939, can be attributed directly to Poland’s anticipation of war with Germany. The bulk of the policies and attitudes that determined the living conditions of the minority in interwar Poland antedated 1939 (and 1933 too) and were unconnected to any immediate external threat. It hardly needs to be added that they did nothing to make Poland more secure when the mortal threat materialized. The fact is that Polish nationalism, motivated by the irrational but powerful compulsion to creation a nationally homogeneous society in it’s western provinces, created a situation well before 1939 which was bad even by the unenlightened standards of interwar Eastern Europe. Moreover, it is hard to see how this situation would have been different had there never been a Hitler. The “plight” of the German minority in Poland, in other words, was real; it was not merely alleged or fabricated in the interest of Nazi propaganda. —-Apart from the macro political situation in 1939, however, the evidence above makes clear that Germans in Poland had ample justification for their complaints; their prospects for even medium-term survival were bleak; and no German government more principled than Hitler’s would have been able to ignore their plight over the long run. Though it was not politic to make these points at the time, there is no reason why they cannot be accepted half a century later.”
Source: Orphans of Versaille. pp. 236-237
Even here Blanke is talking about NUMBERS SUBMITTED to Hitler, not Hitler himself inventing numbers as some caricature of evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating. Thanks for the info!
As for asking elias for the page number, don’t bother. He’s not going to be commenting on here again. I’ve seen to that. See the responses given in part 6 for more info: