Hitler and the Conquest of Britain, Ireland and America

pikestaff

The third Reich surrendered to Montgomery on Luneburg heath, date is somewhere on Google!

4 May 1945 - but it was "only" the German forces in the Netherlands, Denmark, offshore islands and north-west Germany - not the whole armed forces and certainly not eth 3rd Reich itself.

seandean
I am sorry that you are so steeped in the false history of the war. Do you also believe that Columbus hit the Americas while trying to sail for India?

the Indies - ie Asia - not India - look up the different while you are basking in that ignorance!

Also there is a big difference in defending the KKK or the National Socialist party. The KKK are open and proud of crimes. The Nazi leaders had their testicles crushed in torture sessions to get them to sign all confessions.

Yawn

LINK REMOVED BY STAFF

Nice quote mining - van Roden was looking at the Malmedy Massacre trial and other trials of war criminals - NOT the Nuremburg trials - completely different trials for different crimes....but hey - never let the facts get in the way of a good baseless conspiracy, right??

the 139 people mentioned in your "source" were not "Nazi leaders"

The 139 doomed men who were still alive fell into three groups. They were accused of involvement in the Dachau concentration camp crimes, in the killing of American fliers, or in the Malmedy massacres. Let me say that I believe the crimes for which these Germans were tried actually took place, and that some Germans were guilty of them.

even David Irving knows this!

pikestaff

Angelic Resurrection
Imaginative thread. Story telling
as far as I know the third reich never surrendered.

Go figure

The third Reich surrendered to Montgomery on Luneburg heath, date is somewhere on Google!

Kenneth Macksey wrote an interesting book on Hitlers invasion of England might have been like, ' invasion, the German invasion of England July 1940' arms and armour press 1980. no isbn number in the book.

I have a complete edition of the German army maps of France, coal mines, water works, electrical sub stations, roads, railways, airfields, docks, bridges, canals, etc, no wonder they beat the French (in six weeks). almost forgot even the geology of France!

The French were easily beat because their Vichy gave in. The Nazis were in France before they actually invaded and had French Jews rounded up. At first the French government did not agree to French citizens, but through pressure then turned to having them removed.

France and Germany had territorial disputes over Alsace Lorraine, and this was the marketing ploy by the Nazis. Czechoslovakia had just become a new country, but the Germans in the Sudentenlaand were asking to become part of Germany. Hitler advocates say this was his justification for invading Poland. Hitler believed in German Nationalism to the point that he wanted Germans everywhere to either be brought back to Germany or the Third Reich to take over those places. As many Germans had come to the United States, it would mean to him that the United States should be German nationalized as well.

He was operating on the premise that Germans were the perfect race. Poland had parts of Germany and the Ukraine, Hungary had parts of Germany until Czechoslovakia. Denmark was considered German, as well as the Netherlands. That nationalism goes back to the Austro-Hungary Empire and subsequent fall of it.

Hitler believed the world was against Germany, and that is why he believed Germany had suffered internal struggles because of the reparations Germany had to pay after the first world war. But he didn't seem to remember the geography of Russia either. The reason for invasion of Poland was the railroads and coal, that he desperately wanted to control.

He played the "German victimization" card. He also used propaganda that the Jews were responsible for Germany losing the first world war. This is the same propaganda spewed today for conspiracy theorists, they don't know where the original information came from because over time other people have claimed to come up with the knowledge of what happened. This is where the Rothschilds as part of the Illuminati originated, so then it was reduced to "all Jews in a conspiracy". This was German propaganda, and all one has to do is watch Der Ewige Jude to see the propaganda against them.

Hitler, as well as Henry Ford, believed the book Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be real, when in fact it never was real at all. The German film industry turned away from making actual films to sole propaganda. F.W. Murnau came to the United States to warn about what was happening, Edward Dymytryck was from Poland and came here also to stand before the Senate to tell them, of which Congress and the Senate chose to ignore their pleas. Even Casablanca was written by a husband and wife who were caught in the flux of Jews and Americans trying to escape through Morocco. That was the safe route at that time, but many were caught in Morocco.

As a film student, I had to learn the different genre of film and it should be noted that German Expressionism ended with the Hitler Regime and the Third Reich. But even the Russians were producing Russian propaganda films such as Mother and The Battleship Potemkin. No one paid attention to the warnings until Charlie Chaplin and The Great Dictator.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well, you would have to say it's kind of ironic that the German soldiers were treated in the same manner they treated the Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.

The bulk of charges were not necessarily from confessions of German soldiers, but from their own records. It was the Germans who kept the records of Auschwitz, Dachau, Chelmno and other camps. Those records are available now to view and the National Archives has the books of all the charges with evidence that was presented.

The war crimes commission, which included France, had obtained these documents from the Nazi headquarters in various places. Most of the investigations early on where about trying to determine if Hitler had actually died. That was the biggest concern for the Russians who had placed a reward for the body of Hitler. And it was in Russian prisons that the German soldiers were interrogated.

But then why are we feeling sorry that a few German soldiers had their testicles crushed when they had participated in much worse? In the light of history, I don't feel sorry for them. That might sound cruel, but what was more cruel, obtaining evidence in this manner or what they did in the first place to women and children, not to mention the elderly?

The information is out there and they were charged under and because of their own documents.

But the question of whether or not all of Germany was guilty, those Germans who protested were executed or sent to camps. Those who didn't protest were afraid to or believed the propaganda. But all of Germany knew what was happening to the Jews, the Gypsies, the Poles and the various other people. They knew, it's as simple as that. One could say they were never in the Nazi Party, but if they took part in any of the violence in any capacity toward the Jews, then they should have felt guilty. That's how I look at it.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Depends whether you want to consider yourself morally superior to people you consider criminals I guess........after all if you behave the same way in het same circumstances then what's the point?

Very interesting thread- thank you. For those who don't know, the bit about Blackpool is absolutely true. Hitler ordered that it be spared despite Wellington bombers being manufactured here and the Tower being used as a radar station. Before the war Hitler used to enjoy private performances from his favourite clown, the famous Charlie Caroli. His son, who also shares the same name, told me that when war broke out Charlie took a gold watch that Hitler had given him, walked to the end of North Pier and threw it into the Irish Sea in disgust.

Another "what if?" that is worth looking at is the Heinkel HE-100 (or HE-113). This aircraft took the world speed record from Howard Hughes shortly before the war and was capable of a genuine 400mph in battle trim when the Spitfire could only manage 250mph. It also had twice the range of the ME-109. Due to politics (Heinkel wasn't a Nazi, Messerschmitt was) it never went into full production- only 7 were built- and the contract was instead awarded to the inferior ME-109. Had the HE-100 gone into full production the outlook for the Battle of Britain could have been very different.

This aircraft, whilst it never actually flew in combat, was used in a mis-information campaign and was directly responsible for France's rapid surrender. British pilots even reported shooting them down over England, although their only possible combat activity was as a defence force for the Heinkel factory. Sadly none remain today.

Japan was to build them under licence, but the tooling was lost at sea and never made it to Japan. They had the blueprints though, and the Ki-61 looks almost identical to the HE-100 forward of the wings. It also was the only other aircraft built to share the Heinkel's unique engine mounting arrangement.

reply to post by GeeBee


I think you have the figures for the Spitfire a bit wrong. If I recall correctly the Mark I Spitfire had a maximum speed of 367 mph.

I watched a fascinating programme last night about a nazi hunter who had brought a few of them to trial but was after 'Dr Death', can't remember his real name though.
He went all over the world but couldn't confirm or deny if he was actually dead of old age. He would be in his late 90,s now.

reply to post by scotsdavy1


Hmmmm Aribert Heim was known as Dr. Death. Was that who it was about? His "claim to fame" was operating on prisoners ..minus anesthesia. Seems Dr. Feelgood figured just tying them down real well was perfectly sufficient.

Then of course there is the one who pretty well defined the face of evil within human experimentation for all time, IMO. Josef Mengele. He wasn't the Anti-Christ, but I'll bet the good Doctor had 'him' on speed dial for advice, when needed. He was tagged with the nickname "Angel of Death" though? Heck, I suppose the titles can be a bit blurry though. At some point it's like trying to rank the level of stink from an overflowing landfill. What is stinky vs. rank?

Some say he died in 1945 but he bought property about ten years later in Germany and only left Germany when an arrest warrant was put out for him.
His money is frozen and amounts to over 2 million euros in a bank and cannot be touched by his family unless it is proven he is dead but there is no body to test for DNA at this time.

reply to post by GeeBee


The He-100/113 story is certainly interesting - but as is pointed out in the linked article, Heinkel was well regarded and the political aspects of the plane not being produced as you suggest may come from him and be sour grapes.

the Me-109 was not actually selected against the He-100 - it competed against the He-112- to which it was obviously superior - the He-100 came along later, at a time when the 109 was actually still a world beater, and there was no strong need to immediately replace it at all.

German engine production was quite low - at the height of the BoB the Germans were only producing about 220-230 109's and 110's per month (vs 450 Spitfires & Hurricanes), and taking engines away from them was not a realistic option.

The 100/113 sits in a category of aircraft that were technologically superior, but not produced due to expediency/politics/economics/short-sightedness/any combination of these - others include the TSR-2, Avro Arrow, XB-70 Valkyrie, Miles M-52, SR-53, etc. - I'm sure ppl can think of others.

How did the He-100 directly cause the surrender of France??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


As you know facts about WWII, was wondering, if there is any truth about,
the Nazis detonating an atomic weapon in eastern Europe, as asserted by
joseph farrell?

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

As you know facts about WWII, was wondering, if there is any truth about,
the Nazis detonating an atomic weapon in eastern Europe, as asserted by
joseph farrell?

I'm afraid that there has never been any real evidence of that. Lots of speculation, but no evidence.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Indeed - this guy wil tell you all about it - I've discussed it with him elsewhere!

It boils down to claims by Joseph Farrell in his book "Reich of the Black Sun" that is a good rollicking read, but like so many other claims that history "is not as we know it" it is short on actual evidence and strong on innuendo, leading questions, and imagination.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Indeed - this guy wil tell you all about it - I've discussed it with him elsewhere!

It boils down to claims by Joseph Farrell in his book "Reich of the Black Sun" that is a good rollicking read, but like so many other claims that history "is not as we know it" it is short on actual evidence and strong on innuendo, leading questions, and imagination.

edit on 31-10-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

A German A-bomb at the battle of Kursk?? Is the author of that site mad? Um, he does know that the Nazis lost Kursk doesn't he?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


You might think that and I wouldn't disagree!!

Lower down the page he gets into the supposed atomic "tests" the Nazi's "carried out" in 1943-44.

reply to post by Ranong


I always find it interesting how easily people dismiss the actual history of the Irish Free State during the war. De Valera was well aware of the threat that a German occupation of Britain would pose to Ireland. The Irish ports were maintained and used by the Royal Navy throughout the war by agreement of the Irish government. There was a large scale deployment of US troops in the North of Ireland preparing for D-DAY. If the battle of Britain had been lost and operation sealion had been launched than the US would have occupied Ireland immediately, with the agreement of the Irish government. Ireland would have entered the war on her own terms as an ally of America, which was a more palatable reason than being seen as a proxy state of Britain. Large areas of Co Tipperary were concreted over to make enormous landing strips and then covered back up with a yard of topsoil and farmed. The US air force would have been landing in the south within hours of sealion being launched.

Of course, it never came to that, but the fact remains that there were plans in place for how Ireland would react in response to the invasion of Britain, and these facts are well documented in Irish state documents of the time. At the time, the Irish were the only nation that had managed to take on the British Army and win to achieve independence. It was important for the new state to maintain its Neutral status during the war but when you look at the history, the numbers of Irish that fought in the American and British armies, the treatment of air crews that crash landed in the Free State, the economic ties between Britain and Ireland and the cultural ties with America, the activities of espionage agents in Ireland collaborating with British intelligence to track the movements of German agents and Nazi sympathisers, the links with the Vatican secret service and so on. In return for their assistance, Ireland would have been given unified, North and South once the war was over. If you knew anything about Irish history at the time, you would know that that would have been a price the Free State would have been more than willing to pay for a united Ireland.

redshoes
reply to post by Ranong

 

I always find it interesting how easily people dismiss the actual history of the Irish Free State during the war. De Valera was well aware of the threat that a German occupation of Britain would pose to Ireland. The Irish ports were maintained and used by the Royal Navy throughout the war by agreement of the Irish government. There was a large scale deployment of US troops in the North of Ireland preparing for D-DAY. If the battle of Britain had been lost and operation sealion had been launched than the US would have occupied Ireland immediately, with the agreement of the Irish government. Ireland would have entered the war on her own terms as an ally of America, which was a more palatable reason than being seen as a proxy state of Britain. Large areas of Co Tipperary were concreted over to make enormous landing strips and then covered back up with a yard of topsoil and farmed. The US air force would have been landing in the south within hours of sealion being launched.

Do you have any sources for this?

Plan W - the co-operation with the UK in case of German invasion - is well enough known now, but at het time Sealion might have been launched (1940) the USA was in no position to be landing planes in Ireland at all, let alone "within hours"!