WW II: Whose War was it?

Published: 2003-02-01

This document is part of the The Revisionist periodical.
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.

The time between the beginning of the first and the end of the second world war is more and more called what it actually was: The third Thirty Year War (1914-1945) for the destruction of Germany, which since the end of the 19th century had been becoming a scientific and economic super power. This fact, however, is hidden behind a veil of ongoing war propaganda by the media, historians and politicians. The reason for this propaganda is that the entire post-war order depends on hiding this fact. The historical truth, however, demands a correction of the historiography of both world wars: Germany did not unleash any world war.

1. Is Germany's guilt for two world wars an illusion?

The almost identical victorious powers of both world wars against Germany understood and labeled both world wars as a "Thirty Year War", of course not without reason (Winston Churchill, Herbert Gladwyn, John Major, Alfred M. de Zayas, Charles de Gaulle). Lord Gladwyn[1] even called the two world wars the "third Thirty Year War." In order to fend off embarrassing questions, the Allies made a response to the question in the headline of this article easy: without historical substantiation and against better knowledge, they decreed the responsibility for both wars on the vanquished. Article 231 of the "peace dictate" of Versailles reads as follows:[2]

"The allied and associated governments declare and Germany acknowledges that Germany and her allies are responsible for all losses and all damages which the allies and associated governments and their dependants have suffered as a result of the war forced upon them by the attack of Germany and its allies."

By treating the question of responsibility for the war this way, moral values, trust and justice were destroyed as a basis for peasceful coexistence and for politics between the nations. Because this era was, by declaration, the era of a "Thirty Year War", the French scientist Jacques Bainville, who was known for anti-German attitude, could declare in 1920 in his best selling book Les conséquences de la paix (The consequences of the peace):

"It can be said, that the peace treaty of Versailles organized the eternal war."[3]

In accordance with the demands for "unconditional surrender" as agreed upon in Casablanca in 1943, the victorious powers did not even attempt to enter into peace negotiations during or at the end of World War II, but let the German Wehrmacht first surrender, then disarmed it, subsequently simply arrested the German Dönitz-government, and finally and illegally seized power in Germany according to the 'Berlin Declaration' of June 5, 1945. Moreover, they did not forget to state:[4]

"The German forces on land, water, and in the air are totally beaten and surrendered unconditionally, and Germany, who is responsible for the war, is no longer able to defy the will of the victorious powers. Thus the unconditional surrender of Germany took place."

From Local Conflict to World War
Declaration of War 1914-1918
Date Country
July 28, 1914 Serbia
Aug. 6, 1914 Russia
Aug. 1, 1914 Russia
Aug. 2, 1914 Luxemburg
Aug. 3, 1914 France
Aug. 4, 1914 Belgium
Mar. 9, 1916 Portugal
Aug. 28, 1916 Romania
Aug. 4, 1914 Germany
Aug. 12, 1914 Austria-Hungary
Nov. 5, 1914 Turkey
Oct. 15, 1915 Bulgaria
Aug. 6, 1914 Germany
Nov. 7, 1914 Turkey
Aug. 7, 1914 Austria-Hungary
Aug. 11, 1914 Germany
Aug. 11, 1914 Austria-Hungary
Nov. 6, 1914 Turkey
Oct. 16, 1915 Bulgaria
Aug. 23, 1914 Germany
Nov. 2, 1914 Turkey
Oct. 20, 1915 Bulgaria
May 23, 1915 Austria-Hungary
Aug. 20, 1915 Turkey
Oct. 19, 1915 Bulgaria
Aug. 20, 1916 Germany
Oct. 14, 1915 Serbia
Sept. 1, 1916 Romania
Aug. 27, 1916 Austria-Hungary
Aug. 30, 1916 Romania
Nov. 25, 1916 Germany
Apr. 6, 1917 Germany
Dec. 7, 1917 Austria-Hungary
Aug. 14, 1917 Germany
Aug. 14, 1917 Austria-Hungary
Crucial Turning Point of Foreign Policy
After Bismark’s Departure 1890
1882 Secret Three-Power Treaty with military alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy in case of a French attack against Italy or Germany
1887 Renewal of the Three-Power Treaty (further renewals 1891, 1902 and 1912)
1887 Secret neutrality agreement between Germany and Russia (limited for three years) in case of war; excluded are a Russian war of attack against Austria-Hungary and a German war against France (Re-Insurance Treaty). In a very secret add-on protocol the Russian interest for access to the Black Sea is recognized.
1890 Re-Insurance Treaty not renewed by Germany. Decisive turning point of foreign policy.
1891 Treaty between France and Russia about mutual agreement in case of imminent danger of war.
1892 French-Russian military alliance: In case one of the treaty partners would be attacked by a third power alliance under participation of Germany, the other is obligated to the fight against Germany with all forces.
1904 French-British colonial treaty: Termination of all quarrels overseas. General political agreement (entente cordial).
1907 British-Russian treaty about Persia, termination of colonial quarrels.
1908 Enforcing of the British and Russian entente (under inclusion of France’s ‘Three Power Alliance’)
1912 French-Russian navy convention, cooperation of sea-forces in case of war.
1912 Agreement about taking over the protection of the French North Sea coast by Great Britain in case of war.
Encirclement completed,
condition for war readiness is reached.
The Automatism of the Mobilization 1914
July 25 15:00 Serbia orders mobilization.
  21.00 Austria’s partial mobilization against Serbia.
July 26 03:26 Russia orders period for war preparation.
July 29 Afternoon Great Britain declares state of threatening war danger.
  Evening Russia orders partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary.
July 30 18:00 Russia orders total mobilization.
    France orders mobilization of the border guard; Germany orders ‘security’ for the fleet.
July 31 Morning Austria-Hungary orders border protection against Russia
  12:23 Austria-Hungary orders total mobilization
  13:00 Germany orders deployment of border protection (threatening war danger).
  19:00 Belgium orders mobilization.
August 1 16:30 France orders mobilization.
  17:00 Germany orders mobilization.
  18:00 Border transgression by Russian cavalry.
August 2 02:25 Great Britain orders mobilization of the fleet (Practice mobilization already since middle of July).
August 4 16.00 Beginning of hostilities in the west.
August 5 Morning Great Britain orders mobilization of the army.

At this point it can simply be noted: The German Reich did not surrender in 1945. No documentary evidence exists for this. To the contrary: in the declaration of Monheim of July 5, 1945, the last head of state of the German Reich Admiral Karl Dönitz, who had been arrested by the allies, protested against the illegal seizure of power by the allies.[5]

The exclusive responsibility, which was placed arbitrarily to the Germans by the victorious powers at the end of both world wars, is historically without proof, not justifiable by international law and therefore politically untenable. Only one year after the termination of the Re-Insurance Treaty between Germany and Russia in 1890, a security treaty between France and Russia came about, and already in 1892 a military alliance was forged between France and Russia, which resulted in a twenty year long preparation for the first world war. With time, more alliance partners joined this alliance, leading to the encirclement of Germany. In all the decades following the end of hostilities in 1945, no international peace treaty with Germany was signed, which, as should be known, can only be signed by the German Reich which is still incapacitated. Hence, the so-called "Two-plus-Four-Agreement" from 1991, signed by the four allied powers and the two German post-war satellite countries, cannot be considered as anything close to a peace treaty. One could therefore just as well speak of a hundred year war against Germany (1891-1991).

The following critical remark is quoted from a book entitled Teufelszeug von A bis Z (Devil's Stuff from A to Z) by Carl-August Moser:[6]

War from 1800 to 1940
The following nations participated in 287 Wars:
Great Britain in 80 wars = 28 Percent
France in 75 wars = 26 Percent
Spain in 66 wars = 23 Percent
Russia in 63 wars = 22 Percent
Austria-Hungary in 55 wars = 19 Percent
Turkey in 43 wars = 15 Percent
Poland in 32 wars = 11 Percent
Sweden in 26 wars = 9 Percent
Netherlands in 23 wars = 8 Percent
Germany with Prussia in 23 wars = 8 Percent
Denmark in 20 wars = 7 Percent
Chincy Wrigth, A Study of War, Vol. 1, 1960, p. 221

"Because the peace-treaty after the first world war was the reason for the second, none at all was closed in order to avoid a third one!"

Regarding the question about the responsibility for the war, the victorious powers' acting toward the German nation and the German people in Versailles, Nuremberg or elsewhere is best described by a sentence of Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach: "The justice of the stronger is the greatest injustice."[7] From the outset, the dragon seed of Versailles[8] and revengeful justice of Nuremberg[9] were a challenge to the cultivated and civilized nations asking for correction.

When delving into the background of the problem of responsibility for the wars, it becomes clear why Hugo Wellems titled his book The Century of the Lie,[10] and what Winfried Martini wanted to make clear to the re-educated reader with his book title: The Victor Writes the History.[11] It is only the 'tip of the iceberg' when the British Lord Buckmaster (1915/16 Lord Chancellor) says about the treaty of Versailles:[12]

"To get any nation to lay down its weapons based on certain conditions, and then, when it is defenseless, to impose different conditions, is a dishonorable act which can never be erased."

Entrance into World War II
Allied Forces Germany Italy Japan
Abyssinian Dec. 1, '42 Dec. 1, '42 Dec. 1, '42
Egypt Feb. 26, '45 - Dec. 9, '41
Australia Sept. 3, '39 Jan. 3, '42 Dec. 8, '41
Belgium1) May 10, '40 Jan. 3, '42 Dec. 10, '41
Bolivia Apr. 7, '43 Apr. 7, '43 Apr. 7, '43
Brazil Aug. 22, '42 Aug. 22, '42 June 06, '45
Bulgaria2) Sept. 8, '44 - -
China (Kuomintang) Dec. 9, '41 Dec. 9, '41 July 07, '371)
Costa Rica Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 8, '41
Denmark Apr. 9, '40 - -
Dominican Republic Dec. 11, '41 - Dec. 9, '41
Finland2) Mar. 3, '45 - -
France1) Sept. 3, '39 June 10, '40 Dec. 10, '41
Greece Apr. 6, '41 Oct. 28, '40 June 03, '45
Great Britain Sept. 3, '39 June 10, '40 Dec. 8, '41
Guatemala Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 10, '41
Honduras Dec. 12, '41 Dec. 12, '41 Dec. 9, '41
India (British) Sept. 3, '39 June 12, '40 Dec. 10, '41
Iraq2) Jan. 16, '43 Jan. 16, '43 Jan. 16, '43
Iran2) Sept. 9, '43 - Mar. 1, '45
Italia2) Oct. 13, '43 - July 14, '45
Yugoslavia1) Apr. 6, '41 Apr. 6, '41 Jan. 3, '424)
Canada Sept. 10, '39 June 11, '40 Dec. 8, '41
Cuba Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 9, '41
Liberia Jan. 27, '44 - Jan. 27, '44
Luxemburg1) May 10, '40 Jan. 3, '424) Jan. 3, '424)
Mexico May 22, '42 May 22, '42 May 22, '42
New Zealand Sept. 3, '39 June 11, '40 Dec. 10, '41
Nicaragua Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 8, '41
Netherlands1) May 10, '40 Jan. 3, 424) Dec. 10, '41
Dutch India - - Dec. 8, '41
Norway1) Apr. 9, '40 Jan. 3, 424) Jan. 3, 424)
Panama Dec. 10, '41 Dec. 10, '41 Dec. 9, '41
Peru Feb. 12, '45 - Feb. 12, '45
Poland1) Sept. 1, '39 Jan. 3, 424) Jan. 3, 424)
Romania2) Aug. 26, '44 - -
San Salvador Dec. 12, '41 Jan. 3, 424) Dec. 9, '41
Soviet Union June 22, '41 June 22, '41 Aug. 8, '45
South African Union Sept. 6, '39 June 12, '40 Dec. 10, '41
Syria2) Feb. 26, '45 - Feb. 26, '45
Czechoslovakia1) Mar. 15, '39 Dec. 17, '41 Dec. 17, '41
Hungary2) Dec. 31, '44 - -
USA Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 11, '41 Dec. 7, '41
Turkey Mar. 1, '45 - Mar. 1, '45
1) Government in exile; 2) Axis power who joined the Allies during the war; 3) Beginning of the Chinese-Japanese war; 4) 26-powers-declaration directed against the Axis powers in Washington on January 3, 1942

Senator Robert T. Taft (1889-1953) made a similar statement in the beginning of October 1946 during a university event in Ohio. Right after the judgments of October 1946 were announced, this respected jurist and honorable republican spoke of the legal monstrosities and historic falsifications of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunals:[13]

"I believe that the majority of the Americans will be very alarmed because of the war trials just coming to an end in Germany, and now beginning in Japan. They violate the fundamental principal of the American legal system, which requires that an individual cannot be sentenced with reference to a law which was enacted only after the incriminated deed was committed. The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial, however the forms of its jurisdiction may be disguised. About the sentences floats the spirit of vengeance. [...] In these trials we assumed the Russians' understanding of this type of trial. We risk to have discredited the concept of justice in Europe for years to come."

It is really as U.S. President Ronald Reagan expressed it in Bitburg (Eifel) on May 5, 1985:

"A feeling of guilt was unjustly forced upon the Germans."

Thus, a correction regarding the question of responsibility for the war is now overdue. Let us move therefore The Century of the Lie to the century of the truth!

2. Germans are addicted to self-accusation

The inaccuracy with which the victorious powers of both world wars decreed Germany's war guilt has been convincingly proven through an abundance of documents, facts, witnesses, and testimonies as well as a large amount of expert literature from all over the world. One has to wonder therefore, why top representatives of the Federal German authorities, which can easily be recognize by their false arguments, still seem to live in the fairy tale world of the early enemy propaganda. If German Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had read only a few of the 21 books listed in the table below, he would not have exposed himself as ignorant during the conference for security policy in February 1999 in Munich. During this meeting of international 'insiders,' he had stated that Germany has to carry the burden of responsibility for both world wars.[14]

It does not seem to interest the representatives of the German people, their government officials, or historians in the Federal Republic of Germany, whether the American historian Harry E. Barnes ascertained in his thoroughly researched book The Genesis of the World War (New York 1929):[15]

"Of all powers involved in the war, Germany was the only one which is not guilty at all for the outbreak of the war [of 1914]";

whether a common declaration drafted during a German-British conference of historians in 1955 in Bamberg about the subject "Germany and England 1904-1914" stated:[16]

"In 1914, the German policy did not aim at the unleashing of a European war";

whether in 1928, the American historian S. B. Fay came to the conclusion that:[17]

"Germany did not instigate a European war, it did not want it. The best historical researchers of all countries generally acknowledge that the Versailles verdict of Germany's guilt is no longer tenable or defendable";

or whether the Deutsch-Amerikaner (The German American, Chicago)[18] introduced the basic theses of the book by R. F. Keeling, Cruel Harvest – The Expensive Attempt to Exterminate the German People (Chicago 1947) in November 1973 with the following words:[19]

"For a long time have honorable historians rejected the fable that Germany is solely or originally responsible for World War I. And even for the outbreak of World War II, Germany's enemies have to carry the burden of a large part of responsibility."

It does also not seem to interest representatives of the Germans that Winston Churchill declared in November 1939 to the British people on the radio:[20]

"This war is a British war, and its goal is the destruction of Germany!"

Around Christmas 1970, on occasion of the preparation of the so-called German East Treaties with Poland and the Soviet Union, the German historian Emil Maier-Dorn prepared a compilation of 1000 statements by politicians, militaries, and historians of the victorious powers. In their statements, they expressed their desire for war and their subsequent satisfaction about the escalation of a local conflict into a world war. Maier-mailed this Dorn compilation to each German member of parliament and requested that they notify him of error or falsifications, but the entire parliament stayed mute.[21]

Seen from an international perspective, this behavior of the carriers of responsibility of the great German people after the second world war is completely abnormal. It caused American historian Prof. H.E. Barnes, who visited Germany in the spring of 1964, where he had just published his book The German Question of War Guilt in Tübingen, to express the following full of surprise:[22]

"At my time [before WWII] the German people and its scientists searched for the facts of the origins of the war of 1914, which liberated them from the sole responsibility for the outbreak of the World War I, but in 1964, they were still intentionally attempting to suppress all facts suitable to liberate them from the sole responsibility for 1939. Viewed in connection with the German guilt feeling, the situation in 1964 presents a case of incomprehensible addiction for self-accusation that is unparalleled in history.

I for one don't know of another historical example, where a people shows this lunatic addiction to burden itself with the dark shadows of political crime that it did not commit – except for the crime of imposing the responsibility of the second world war on itself. In the years 1926/27, the German government and the German public actively and enthusiastically supported the research into the truth of 1914. In 1964, however, those who searched for the truth about 1939 were vilified and even exposed to persecution as political criminals. The German press, of course, did not mention this fundamental fact in any way."

In his book, H.E. Barnes also appreciated the fundamental research results of Prof. Dr. L. Hoggan:[23]

"He has, for all times, destroyed the myth of Germany's sole guilt for the outbreak of the war in 1939. This myth, on which all post-war German policy is based, will never again be revived successfully in the domain of science, never mind how long the west German policy can avoid its consequences."

This myth of the federal German policy that Germany has to carry the burden of responsibility for both world wars of the 20th century contradicts the current results and knowledge of national and international scholarly research. In 1963, it caused the British attorney and historian F.J.P. Veale to make the following attempt to explain:[24]

"The question of the responsibility for the outbreak of the second world war is of unique importance. It is not an academic problem. It is not a question of finding the truth for some event of the past. Its clarification will unavoidably influence the future on a massive scale. The main points of this question were much too important and their importance reached too far to leave its answering solely up to historiography. To the politicians, it was clear that practicality requires under all circumstances to uphold the interpretation which had been accepted for a quarter century."

War Calendar between 1792 and 1945
Great Britain
1803-1815 France
1807 Denmark
1812-1814 North America
1839 Afghanistan
1840-1842 Opium war
1849-1850 Greece
1850 Africa (Kaffern)
1854-1856 Crimean War
1856-1858 China
1857-1858 India (Sepoys)
1860 China
1860 New Zealand
1816-1862 Mexico
1867 Ethiopia
1878-1879 Afghanistan
1879 Africa (Zulus)
1880-1881 Boer War
1882 Egypt
1884-1885 Sudan
1885-1886 Burma
1893 Africa (Matab.)
1895 India-Tschiral
1896-1899 Sudan (Mahdi)
1897 India (Afridi)
1899-1902 Boer-War
1900 China (Boxer)
1904 Tibet
1914-1918 First World War
1939-1945 Second World War
1798-1801 Turkey (Egypt)
1805 Austria
1806-1807 Prussia, Russia
1807-1814 Spain, Portugal
1809 Austria
1812-1814 Russia
1813-1814 Prussia, Austria, Great Britain a.o.
1815 Nap.’s 100 Days
1823-1828 Spain
1827-1840 Algeria
1844 Morocco
1851 Morocco
1854-1856 Crimean War
1858-1862 Amman
1859 Austria
1860-1861 Syria
1863 Mexico
1867 Italy
1870-1871 Prussia
1881 Tunisia
1882 Amman
1883-1885 China
1884-1885 Madagascar
1895 Madagascar
1900 China (Boxer)
1914-1918 First World War
1939-1945 Second World War
1794 Poland
1796 Persia
1799 France
1800 Great Britain
1804-1813 Persia
1805-1807 France
1806-1812 Turkey
1806 Sakhalin
1808-1809 Sweden
1812-1814 France
1813 Georgia
1820 Kazakhstan
1826-1828 Persia
1828-1829 Turkey
1833 Constantinople
1839 China
1847 Kazakhstan
1850 Kosh-Kurgan
1853 Ak-Metched
1853 Kokand
1853-1856 Crimean-War
1860-1866 Kokand
1865 Tashkent
1866-1868 Bukhara
1868 Samarkand
1873-1875 China
1877-1878 Turkey
1880-1881 Turkmenistan
1884-1885 Afghanistan
1901 Mandchuria
1904-1905 Japan
1914-1917 First World War
Soviet Union
1917 Finland
1918 Baltics
1919 White Russia
1919 Ukrain
1920-1921 Poland
1920-1921 Caucasus
1921 Georgia
1939 Poland
1939-1940 Finland
1941-1945 Germany
1945 Japan

3. The 'Riddle's' Solution: Illegal Re-Education of the German People

During his visit to Germany in 1964, American historian H.E. Barnes was able to observe a war guilt feeling without parallel in history, accompanied with an incomprehensible addiction for self-accusation. That this has not changed after 35 more years have passed is indicated by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder with his 1999 statement that Germany has to carry the burden of responsibility for both world wars of the 20th century. Thus, this phenomenon must have deeper reasons, particularly when considering that its people are generally considered to make up the land of 'Poets and Thinkers'. We find a clue for this in F.J.P. Veale's statement of 1963, when he noted that the solution of the question of war guilt, which is of unique importance for the future, is neither a mere academic problem nor a question of finding the truth, and hence cannot be left up to historiography for resolution. Because it became clear to the politicians that the victor's point of view must remain generally accepted for at least a quarter of a century in order to fulfill its usefulness (which one, for what?). This effort is reflected in the scientifically indefensible statement by Prof. Eschenburg of March 1960, which shows a complete adaptation to the Zeitgeist:[25]

"The question of the guilt for the Second World War, which is scientifically clearly answered, is not a matter of historiography. Rather, the realization of Hitler's uncontested and sole guilt is the basis of the policy of the Federal Republic [of Germany]."

In 1965, during the XIIth International Congress of Historians in Vienna, the German historian Prof. B.V. Richthofen declared to the applause of the large majority of participants:[26]

"The discussed thesis that Germany carries the sole guilt for the outbreak of World War II, is a false generalization that has long ago been finally refuted with scholarly means."

The striking contradiction between the war guilt allegation, declared as "politically useful," and the repeated scholarly refutation of this allegation on an international level is clearly explained by the re-education of the entire German population during the time of occupation between 1945 and 1952, which was planned well in advance. The basic prerequisite for this was an "unconditional surrender", not provided for by international war. This is also evident when comparing the different perceptions of history of the war and immediate post-war generation on one hand and the succeeding generations on the other hand. Thanks to the 'mercy of late birth,' the latter generations were fully hit by the 'curse of the re-education'.

The chief editor of the New York World, Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), explained the planned re-education as follows:[27]

"A war can only be considered lost when the territory is occupied by the enemy, the leading elite of the defeated people is sentenced in war crime trials, and the conquered are subjected to a re-education program. An obvious method for this is to plant the victor's perception of history into the minds of the vanquished. It is of the utmost importance to transfer the 'moral' categories of the victorious nation's war propaganda into the conscience of the vanquished. Only if the victor's war propaganda found entry into the history books of the vanquished and is believed by the following generation, then the re-education can be considered as really successful."

No occupational power was legitimized for this brain manipulation and other encroachments.

4. Thoughtful Ideas for the 21st Century

The 20th century came to an end. "It could have been Germany's century", said the French sociologist Raymond Aron and the German-American historian Fritz Stern jointly in West-Berlin in 1979. It did not become a "German", but an "American" century. For the aspiring Germany, it became the Century of the Lie (H. Wellems). Envy and hate perfidiously triggered two unnecessary world wars. The victors decreed Germany's war guilt. These were the two lies of the century. International historiography has refuted them both long ago. Why is the truth kept silent? Let us start now into the century of enlightenment and truth.

Those who belong to the generation sharing the 'mercy by late birth' usually do not know that they are also victims of the 're-education.' One focus of the 're-education' of Germans is also the de-nationalization and the belief in the war guilt. The victors' historical perception and the 'moral' category of their war propaganda was meant to be planted into the minds of the vanquished. When the history books have been rewritten in this style, cinemas, theaters, churches, unions, and all media observe their tasks to teach and the new generation believes, then the process of re-education was successful. In May 1945, the intended ruthless application of atrocity propaganda was explained to Prof. Friedrich Grimm by a high official of the allied victors as follows:[28]

"We will continue with this horror propaganda, increase it, until no one will accept a good word from the Germans [...] and until the Germans themselves will have become so confused that they do not know anymore what they are doing!"

Check yourself, whether you have become confused, and then struggle for the truth.

In November 1999, the writer Heinz Mahncke submitted a petition to the German Parliament requesting the forming of a "commission consisting of selected historians and scientists" with the task to investigate "dubious historical post-war allegations," The applicant was thinking among others of the following:

  1. Research about war guilt and war cause.
  2. Coming to terms with all inhumanities of the last war, including the cruelties which befell the German people during expulsion, mass rapes, and territorial annexation.
  3. Coming to terms with the question of guilt of the terror bombing against German civilians.
  4. Investigation of the forced labor question, including the German slave workers abroad.
  5. The whole complex of questions regarding anti-Semitism.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the German people as the political sovereign of the country should cooperate more intensely with its representatives and state officials and request more information from them.

Because according to Prof. H.H. von Arnim:

"the basic evil of [Germany's] democracy lies in the fact that it is not a democracy!"

Let us check this out!

Hitler's, Churchill's, Roosevelt's, or Stalin's War?

Many of the following books, which are decisive for a thorough understanding of WWII, never appeared in English

  • Kunert, Dirk: Hitlers kalter Krieg - Moskau, London, Washington, Berlin: Geheimdiplomatie, Krisen und Kriegshysterie 1938/39, Kiel 1989. (Hitler's Cold War - Moscow, London. Washington, Berlin: Secret diplomacy, crisis and war hysteria 1938/1939)
  • Klüver, Max: War es Hitlers Krieg? Die 'Irrtümer' der Geschichtsschreibung über Deutschlands Außenpolitik 1937-1939, Leoni 1984. (Was it Hitler's War? The 'errors' of historiography about Germany's foreign policy 1937-1939)
  • Klüver, Max: Es war nicht Hitlers Krieg. Neues aus dem britischen Staatsarchiv, Essen 1993. (It was not Hitler's War. News from the British State Archive)
  • Berber, Friedrich: Deutschland - England 1933-1939. Die Dokumente des deutschen Friedenswillens. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Instituts für Außenpolitische Forschung, Vol. VIII., 106 Documents, Essen 1940. (Germany - England 1933-1939. Documents for the German desire for peace)
  • Ribbentrop, Annelies von: Deutsch-Englische Geheimverbindungen. Britische Dokumente der Jahre 1938/1939 im Lichte der Kriegsschuldfrage, Wuppertal 1967. (German-English Secret Connections. British documents of the years 1938/1939 regarding the question of responsibility for the war)
  • Gellermann, Günther W.: Geheime Wege zum Frieden mit England. Ausgewählte Initiativen zur Beendigung des Krieges 1940/43, Bonn 1995. (Secret Paths to Peace with England. Selected initiatives to the termination of the war 1940/43)
  • Hesse, Fritz: Vorspiel zum Kriege. Englandberichte und Erlebnisse eines Tatzeugen 1935-45, Leoni 1979. (Prelude to War. England reports and experiences of a witness 1935-45; cf. Hitler and the English, London 1954)
  • Klüver, Max: Die Kriegstreiber. Englands Politik gegen Deutschland 1937-1939, Berg 1997. (The War Mongers. England's policy towards Germany 1937-1939)
  • Nicoll, Peter H.: Britain's blunder; an objective study of the Second World War, its cause, conduct and consequence, London 1949
  • Irving, David: Churchill's War, Focal Point, London 1987
  • Grohler, Olaf: Selbstmörderische Allianz. Deutsch-russische Militärbeziehungen 1920-1941, Berlin 1992. (Suicide Alliance. German-Russian military relations 1920-1941)
  • Becker, Fritz: Im Kampf um Europa. Stalins Schachzüge gg. Deutschland u. d. Westen. Graz-Stuttgart 1991. (In the Fight for Europe. Stalin's chess moves against Germany and the West.)
  • Thadden, Adolf von: Stalins Falle. Er wollte den Krieg, Rosenheim 1996. (Stalin's Trap. He wanted war)
  • Topitsch, Ernst: Stalins Krieg. Moskaus Griff nach der Weltherrschaft. Strategie und Scheitern, Herford 1993. (Stalin's War. A radical new theory of the origins of the second world war. London/New York 1987)
  • Hoffmann, Joachim: Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945, Munich 51999. (Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945, Capshaw 2001)
  • Becker, Fritz: Stalins Blutspur durch Europa. Partner des Westens 1933-45, Kiel 1995. (Stalin's Trace of Blood through Europe. Partner of the West 1933-45)
  • Kunert, Dirk: Ein Weltkrieg wird programmiert. Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin: Die Vorgeschichte des 2. Weltkrieges nach Primärquellen, Kiel 1984. (A World War is Programmed. Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin: The prehistory of the 2nd world war according to primary sources)
  • Dall, Curtis B.: FDR, my exploited father-in-law, Tulsa, OK, 1967
  • Colby, Benjamin: 'Twas a famous victory. New Rochelle, NY, 1975,
  • Bavendamm, Dirk: Roosevelts Krieg 1937-45 und das Rätsel von Pearl Harbor, München-Berlin 1993. (Roosevelt's War 1937-45 and the Puzzle of Pearl Harbor)
  • Fish, Hamilton: FDR: the other side of the coin: how we were tricked into World War II, New York 1976 / Tragic deception: FDR and America's involvement in World War II, Old Greenwich, CT, 1983
  • David L. Hoggan: The Forced War. When peaceful revision failed, Costa Mesa 1989

  • Notes

    First published in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 4(2) (2000), pp. 179-185; translated by Fabian Eschen.

    [1] Cf.: Lord Gladwyn, H.: Plädoyer für Europa, Köln 1967, p. 29 & 32.
    [2] Cf.: Martini, W.: Der Sieger schreibt die Geschichte, Munich 1991, p. 35; Lentin, A.: Die Drachensaat von Versailles. Die Schuld der "Friedensmacher", Leoni 1994. - Ebray, A.: Der unsaubere Frieden. Versailles - Der zweite Akt des Vernichtungskrieges gegen Deutschland im 20. Jahrhundert, Viöl 1996 (first edition: 1925).
    [3] Bainville, J.: Les conséquences de la paix, Paris 1920, p. 57.
    [4] Grabert, W.: Jalta-Potsdam und die Dokumente zur Zerstörung Europas, Tübingen 1985, p. 44f.
    [5] Ibid., p. 54f.
    [6] Moser, C.-A: Teufelszeug von A bis Z. Wörter und Worte der Zeitkritik, Berg 31986, p. 159 (keyword: „Geschichtslücke").
    [7] Quoted in: Peltzer, K.: Das treffende Zitat, Gedankengut aus drei Jahrtausenden und fünf Kontinenten. p. Aufl. Thun 1974, p. 551: aus Aphorismen, Berlin 1880.
    [8] Lentin, A.: Die Drachensaat von Versailles, Leoni 1984.
    [9] Saunders, H.A: Forum der Rache, Deutsche Generale vor alliierten Siegertribunalen 1945-1948, Leoni 1986.
    [10] Wellems, H.: Das Jahrhundert der Lüge. Von der Reichsgründung bis Potsdam 1871-1945, Kiel 21999.
    [11] Martini, W.: Der Sieger schreibt die Geschichte. Anmerkungen zur Zeitgeschichte, Munich 1991.
    [12] Quoted and retranslated from: Grenfell, R.: Bedingungsloser Haß? Die deutsche Kriegsschuld und Europas Zukunft, Tübingen 1954, p. 78 (date of statement: 1922); Engl.: Unconditional hatred. German war guilt and the future of Europe. Devin-Adair, New York 1953.
    [13] Quoted in: Bardèche, M.: Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer, Viöl 1992, p. 25f.
    [14] Cf.: Stürmer, M.: Schröders lockere Lektion über eine Chefsache, In: Welt am Sonntag, Feb. 21, 1999, p. 35.
    [15] A. A. Knopf, New York, London 1929; quoted and retranslated acc. to: Maier-Dorn, E.: Alleinkriegsschuld. 1200 Antworten auf 400 Fragen. Großaitingen 1970, p. 118.
    [16] Ibid., in the report mentioned: p. 11, Chap. IX.
    [17] Quoted in: Lutz, H.: Verbrechervolk im Herzen Europas? Tübingen 1958, p. 26.
    [18] Official periodical of the German-American National Congress, an umbrella organization of 300 German-American associations.
    [19] Quoted in: Richthofen, B. v.: Kriegsschuld 1939-1941. Der Schuldanteil der anderen. Kiel 1981, p. 11f.
    [20] Quoted in: Bernhardt, H.: Deutschland im Kreuzfeuer großer Mächte. 1000 aufschlußreiche Zitate als Jahrhundertzeugen, Preuß. Oldendorf 1988, p. 274.
    [21] Quoted in ibid., p. 357.
    [22] Barnes, H. E.: Die deutsche Kriegsschuldfrage, Tübingen 1964, p. 124; Engl.: Revisionism and brainwashing, 1963; more recent in: The Barnes Trilogy, IHR/HRP, Torrance/ London 1979.
    [23] Ibid., p. 125.
    [24] Veale, F.J.P.: Schuld und Sühne, Munich 1963. Quoted. acc. to: Richthofen, B. v.: op. cit. (note 19), pp. 31, 64; Engl.: Crimes discreetly veiled IHR, Torrance, CA, 1979.
    [25] Eschenburg, Th.: Zur politischen Praxis in der Bundesrepublik. Kritische Betrachtungen 1957-1961, Bd. I, Munich 1961, p. 162ff.
    [26] Richthofen, B. v.: op. cit. (note 19), p. 7f.
    [27] Quoted acc. to Diwald, H.: Geschichte der Deutschen, Propyläen, Frankfurt, 1978, p. 98.
    [28] Grimm, F. W.: Politische Justiz, die Krankheit unserer Zeit, Scheur, Bonn 1953, p. 146ff.; similar in Grimm: Mit offenem Visier, Druffel, Leoni 1961, p. 248f.

    Additional information about this document
    Property Value
    Author(s): Prof. Dr. H.C. Emil Schlee
    Title: WW II: Whose War was it?
    Sources: The Revisionist 1(1) (2003), pp. 56-62
    • Fabian Eschen: translation
    Published: 2003-02-01
    First posted on CODOH: June 7, 2012, 7 p.m.
    Last revision:
    Comments: First published in "Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung," 4(2) (2000), pp. 179-185
    Appears In: