Hitler's Second Book

I was watching this video and at about the 56:00 time mark David Irving mentions that Hitler wrote another book after Mein Kampf.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwp7tVZuXKM

I found the book on-line.
http://www.nazi.org.uk/political pdfs/HitlerSecondBook.pdf

I'm not going to have time to read it for a while but I figured that was no reason not to post it.

 

Here's another important book that I haven't had time to read.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf

Here are some related videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mA0kk29DBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtpHHQUtaeM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSy80WlmWY

 

A new book by Adolf,well he certainly leaves a long time between book releases. Is the third book due for release about the year 2090? I think I will not bother having a peak and rampant racism is not really my thing.

 

These books indicate that Hitler wasn't really in charge. He wasn't shown in the group picture of the killers, but he was as much a part of the killings as the rest of the gang.
Authors of the 2 books on Stalin/Hitler:
Boris Sokolov & Victor Suvorov

 

The German dictator was not entirely insane and he made some acute observations on world affairs at the time in "Hitler's Table Talk" but he falsely believed that England could be persuaded to quit the war against Germany and acquiesce on German hegemony in the Continent, assuming that keeping India was a greater concern than saving Poland for the British but freeing Europe from the Nazi yoke was a moral imperative and saving the Empire was secondary.


The English were generous as long as it was only a question of distributing other people's property. To-day they're not just fighting for new profits, but to try to save their Empire. Hither-to they've been able to accept things philosophically, to say that Europe was not their direct concern, that the conquered countries were not theirs. But after the fall of Singapore, everything will be different. Where, in fact, is the frontier between East and West to be laid down? Will England be in a position to hold India? That will depend on the maintenance of sea-communications, since there are no communications by land.

 

Hitler should have known better. England would never have let another great power gain hegemony over the Continent. We can see this time after time in history. The clearest example that comes to mind is the War of the Spanish Succession, but this was also the main factor in the Napoleonic wars.

Oh please, that bit about "moral imperative" and "Nazi yoke" was mostly just war-time propaganda. For the most part, Britain only cared about whatever was in the nation's own self-interest.

 

I'm finally reading the first part of the book. Check this out.

http://www.nazi.org.uk/political pdfs/HitlerSecondBook.pdf
(from chapter 2)
-----------------------------------
The sword was the path breaker for the plough. And if we want to talk about human rights
at all, then in this single case war has served the highest right of all: it gave a Folk the soil which it wanted to
cultivate industriously and honestly for itself, so that its children might some day be provided with their daily
bread. For this soil is not allotted to anyone, nor is it presented to anyone as a gift. It is awarded by Providence
to people who in their hearts have the courage to take possession of it, the strength to preserve it, and the
industry to put it to the plough.
Hence every healthy, vigorous Folk sees nothing sinful in territorial acquisition, but something quite in keeping
with nature. The modern pacifist who denies this holy right must first be reproached for the fact that he himself
at least is being nourished on the injustices of former times.
-----------------------------------

It sounds pretty fascist to me.

 

[video=youtube;lh5dnDOIBKI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh5dnDOIBKI[/video]

'Winter of the World' Description

Berlin in 1933 is in upheaval. Eleven-year-old Carla von Ulrich struggles to understand the tensions disrupting her family as Hitler strengthens his grip on Germany. Into this turmoil steps her mother's formidable friend and former British MP, Ethel Leckwith, and her student son, Lloyd, who soon learns for himself the brutal reality of Nazism. He also encounters a group of Germans resolved to oppose Hitler - but are they willing to go so far as to betray their country? Such people are closely watched by Volodya, a Russian with a bright future in Red Army Intelligence. The international clash of military power and personal beliefs that ensues will sweep over them all as it rages from Cable Street in London's East End to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, from Spain to Stalingrad, from Dresden to Hiroshima. At Cambridge Lloyd is irresistibly drawn to dazzling American socialite Daisy Peshkov, who represents everything his left-wing family despise. But Daisy is more interested in aristocratic Boy Fitzherbert - amateur pilot, party lover and leading light of the British Union of Fascists. Back in Berlin, Carla worships golden boy Werner from afar. But nothing will work out the way they expect as their lives and the hopes of the world are smashed by the greatest and cruellest war in the history of the human race. Winter of the World is the second novel in Ken Follett's uniquely ambitious and deeply satisfying trilogy 'The Century'. On its own or read in sequence with Fall of Giants, this is a magnificent, spellbinding epic of global conflict and personal drama.

 

Here are two more related videos.

"Hitler explains his reasons for invading the Soviet Union 3.10.1941"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSbLL_r1cTk

"Adolf Hitler: Explains Reasons For Invading Poland."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIsQBgvcaeA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnTaJOokDg

This all may have been a lie to get the soldiers to fight but at least we know that what we're taught in the US about the German people trying to take over the world is a lie. The German soldiers weren't thinking they were trying to take over the whole world when they invaded Poland and the USSR. They thought they were righting wrongs and defending their territory.

 

There's some repitition in this video but it makes a few points the others missed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cnP1kvdO_8
"More Myths About the Origin of WWII by Mark Weber [ihr.org] ."

Here's the site mentioned in the title of the video.
http://ihr.org/

It looks pretty good.

 

The worst thing about conspiracy theories is that they discredit other original analyses of what is going on behind the scenes. I also suspect that they are disinformation created by their supposed targets in order to discredit the opposition.

People in power do make secret plans. This should be self-evident, but unless analyses come from some self-appointed expert, the public dismisses them. But the experts themselves are flunkies of the ruling class; that was a requirement in order to gain their status as experts.

Stalin was one of the most Machiavellian leaders of all time. His character and skill at deception lead to the conclusion that he purposely provoked Hitler into invading Russia, putting the worst Russian troops at the front so that Hitler would drive too far east and be overextended. Hitler was not ignorant of the Russian winter, but Stalin purposely made it look like the Russians would be defeated long before then. An unbiased judgment makes it most likely that this is what actually happened. I first became suspicious of the required analysis on reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, where it was stated as an example of Stalin's insane greed for territory that Stalin demanded that Hitler let him take the oil in the Mideast. Shirer, though honored as an expert, proved that he couldn't connect the dots; he could only collect the dots. Anyone who has studied Stalin could see that this was an intentionally fake provocation to make the gullible Hitler decide it was time to invade Russia before the Russian-German alliance empowered Russia too much.

 

Stalin was convinced that Hitler would attempt nothing until he had resolved his conflict with Great Britain and a well-orchestrated German deception operation made Stalin ignore the massive military buildup on Soviet borders and Stalin also dismissed Churchill's famous warning of an impending German attack as disinformation. The Germans overestimated their own capabilities and underestimated the Soviet capacity to resist and the German government urged the Japanese government to join the invasion, which was denied because keeping the Soviet Union out of the war with a non-aggression pact with Moscow was a precondition to defeat the British Empire and the US and Hitler's strategic mistake sealed the fate of the Axis powers as Nazi Germany bogged down in Russia.

 

Your error, which is the received wisdom, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The reason we got into the war was that Germany seemed on the verge of conquering Russia, giving Hitler an overwhelming advantage. It was all an illusion created by Stalin.

 

Thanks for saying that, Anders. The British have no morals. Even Disraeli, the British Prime minister said that the British worship Molech, not Jesus Christ.
The British were instrumental in getting Germany to invade Poland. The British had told some of the crazier Polish officials that Britain would support any sort of Polish aggression.

"Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain -- a pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless Poles.
Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly believed that German might was only an illusion.
They were convinced that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state.
It is also important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against Germany."
From Institute for Historical Review, President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe:The Secret Polish Documents, MARK WEBER

Gen. Smigly-Rydz_Eduard a key advocate of a Polish war against Germany

 

Great observation: The Russian threat to Germany " was all an illusion created by Stalin" and Hitler.

 

Without our intervention, the German army still would have been swallowed up in Russia, but the Russians would have had to face the re-assigned Western Front and Africa Corps troops and would not have been able to take over Eastern Europe. So we could have killed two birds with one stone by not intervening on Russia's side. The fact that Hitler declared war on us first was a mere formality.

We had no business provoking Japan to attack. Its imperialism wasn't any worse than British, French, and Dutch imperialism in Asia. And it was anti-Communist. Left alone, Japan would have defeated Mao's and Ho's troops or again create mutually assured destruction between the two totalitarian ideologies. We could have had friendly relations with the Japanese Empire just as we had with previous imperialist powers.

 

Here's an on-line book I just came across.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/David Hoggan-The Forced War.pdf

I haven't started reading it yet but it looks promising.



If the link doesn't work google...


"The Forced War

When Peaceful Revision Failed

David L. Hoggan".

 

Nature is not a real estate agent. The right to territory depends on whether a Folk is taking the land from dumb savages who are incapable of getting anything out of the territory or from fellow advanced Europeans and Jews. The proper distribution is that those with the most scientific potential would be awarded the resources with the most potential value. Bright makes right. The only alternative to that is that savage animal force makes right, which the Nazis practiced.

 

That's what they say. That's what they are paid to say. It makes everybody feel good to think that Stalin was a fool, or that Hitler was insane. That makes our own incompetent and conceited ruling class look like geniuses who deserve to get their boots licked by us.

 

Anti-semites are subhuman pukes who ought to get their faces bashed in. They are brown-nosing traitors who have a sick desire to get raped by the Big Boys. They are descendants of a slavish race that inhabited Europe before real men showed up there. Just the mindless goosestepping of the Nazi scum showed what worthless trash they were. They are butt-boys for the predators who become rich. They can never become men; they are born boytoys.

 

I just started reading the on-line book about WW2 from my other post. In the preface they mentioned a guy who'd analyzed WW1. I did a Google search and found this online book.
http://www.watchmenfaithministries....World_War_Vol._1_-_Before_Sarajevo__1928_.pdf

I think I'm going to start reading it first as I've already seen this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7nE5fvFXNE

 

Actually Hitler was active as a writer into the early 1970's His biographer (Norman Spinrad) has done a lot of work bringing his material to the attention of the public

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

 

Isn't it depressing that the worst mass-murderers get most publicity in history books?

 

Very few have an organized cadre of apologists like Ol' Addie does.
Fact is the guy was a ruthless murdering racist with such grand visions that his reach far exceeded his grasp.

But according to his apologists (jew haters, holocaust deniers, neo-nazis, white power pinheads, and two bit discredited historians) he was misunderstood and the victim of a victor's propaganda.

There are about 50 "prominent and active" denialist leaders still alive, with a flock of a few thousand sheeple.

Not a single one has managed to either earn or maintain the respect of fellow historians and political analysts.

Even the "die hard" revisionists are turning on one another.
Webber was excoriated for "throwing in the towel" in his "how relevant is the holocaust revisionism?" where he thinks a more direct attack on jew/zionist domination should be persued. a face saving bit of obfuscation one should not be surprised about coming from weber.

Simple fact is that Holocaust revisionism/denialism hasnt "caught on" because it is puerile hatred built on a foundation of incompetence, logical fallacy, misrepresentation and lies.

But for some, it maintains a weird sort of relevance and consequently they have come together with a common strategy, which can be seen in action in posts by the usual suspects.

http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

 

The holocaust deniers make a pretty good case. The only forum I've ever seen that has a Holocaust section is the "War on You" forum.
http://waronyou.com/forums/

Here are a couple of good videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dxsVSzL4HE
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.10.0...0.0...1ac.1j2.11.youtube.73BU-eQY98M

Here's a thread I started on the subject.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...iers-really-holocaust-minimizers-w-471-a.html