Author Topic: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII  (Read 2629 times)

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2021, 03:06:34 pm »
Lance-Corporal Hitler - WW1 Trench Runner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQQnm-WEFc

Hitler clearly was no coward nor was he a terrible artist.

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2021, 08:08:34 pm »
Battle of Berlin (Soviet untermenschen take Berlin):
https://youtu.be/SgHWSJBlnas

On a side note what do you think of the BGM?

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2021, 10:06:31 pm »
Quote
On a side note what do you think of the BGM?

Eh, personally I'm more of a hip-hop, trip-hop, and EDM fan....

I always felt this song in particular would go great with a NSDAP film purely for it's lyrics alone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxWP9BhI7w

Ohh, can't anybody see
We've got a war to fight
Never found our way
Regardless of what they say

How can it feel, this wrong
From this moment
How can it feel, this wrong

Storm in the morning light
I feel
No more can I say
Frozen to myself

I got nobody on my side
And surely that ain't right
Surely that ain't right

Ohh, can't anybody see
We've got a war to fight
Never found our way
Regardless of what they say

How can it feel, this wrong
From this moment
How can it feel, this wrong

How can it feel, this wrong
From this moment
How can it feel, this wrong

Ohh, can't anybody see
We've got a war to fight
Never found our way
Regardless of what they say

How can it feel, this wrong
From this moment
How can it feel, this wrong
 
Like Like x 1 View List

Dazhbog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2021, 06:42:43 am »
On a side note what do you think of the BGM?

The first 40 seconds are okay, though I would have still preferred that part to be played on synthesizers rather than by a real life string section. Afterwards, this typical Western grandiosity sets in, if somewhat more restrained than in the pieces discussed in the "Birth of Civilization..."-thread.

I think the BGM does a swell job depicting the Battle of Berlin from an Allied point of view. The pompousness of the composition accurately captures the sense of self-aggrandizement with which Western subhumans reflect on their triumphs over us.

I guess some of the melodies are supposed to give of a more melancholic vibe, maybe to commemorate the "losses" it took to achieve this "great victory". This fails miserably, however, as even in these moments the score never drops its pretentiousness. Of course, this very fact makes them an entirely fitting tribute to the Allied henchman rightfully sent to hell by our army.

Scoring this emotionally devastating footage of our empire in ruins, its capital crawling with the subhuman Turanian hordes, our soldiers taken POW and our people desperately sifting through the charred remains of their livelihoods (as our people in Palestine are currently doing once again...) from our point of view, I suggest one of the following pieces:

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Portishead - Roads

Love it, thanks for posting!
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 12:17:03 pm by Dazhbog »

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2021, 01:23:50 am »
One thing that is always taught about WWII is the German "territorial aggression", "Lebensraum", etc. But not too long ago I learned Poland had its own version of "Lebensraum".

Immediately after receiving independence, Poland went to war with the USSR in order to gain more territory!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

March 1919, a month after the beginning of the war (and only a few months after receiving independence!):


June 1920, Poland's approximate furthest advance eastward:



Hmm..
Quote
At the height of the Polish–Soviet conflict, Jews were subjected to antisemitic violence by Polish forces, who considered them a potential threat and often accused of supporting the Bolsheviks.[84][85] During the Battle of Warsaw, the Polish authorities interned Jewish soldiers and volunteers and sent them to an internment camp.[86][87]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

Quote
In 1919, Russian Jews were caught in the middle of a civil war, and became the victims of warring Red and White Russian, Ukrainian and Polish forces, among others, resulting in the loss of an estimated 100,000 Jewish lives.[16] White Russian troops led by Denikin staged pogroms against Jews in practically every town he captured.[17] In Ukraine at this time, murders of Jews took place on an unprecedented scale, second only to the Holocaust years of World War II.[18]
[...]
However, reports of these incidents caused the United States to send a commission led by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and Sir Stuart M. Samuel to investigate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_the_Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

--

Józef Piłsudski, de facto leader of Poland from 1918 until his death in 1935 (serving as commander of the military, Prime Minister, and later military dictator), and Józef Beck (foreign policy minister of Poland in the 1930s) both wanted to recreate the Polish-Lithuanian empire, break Russia/the USSR up along ethnic lines, and even go so far as to create a large federation of central European powers (with Poland in the lead) in order to make Poland the dominant power in Europe.

The project of Polish territorial domination was called Intermarium, while the geopolitical plan to destabilize Russia/USSR and other powers via promoting ethno-tribalism within their borders was called Prometheism.

The initial plan:


Which quickly expanded:


And expanded even further!!


That's more territory than those wacky Nazis took during their "plan for global domination". How would this period in Polish history have been taught in schools if Poland lost the war???


Quote
Prospectively a federation[1][2][3][4][5] of Central and Eastern European countries, the post-World War I Intermarium plan pursued by Polish leader and former political prisoner of the Russian Empire, Józef Piłsudski (1867–1935), sought to recruit to the proposed federation the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Finland,[6] Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.[7][8]
[...]
Intermarium was, however, perceived by some Lithuanians as a threat to their newly established independence, and by some Ukrainians as a threat to their aspirations for independence,
[...]
Józef Piłsudski's strategic goal was to resurrect an updated, democratic form of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, while working for the disintegration of the Russian Empire, and later the Soviet Union, into its ethnic constituents.[29] (The latter was his Prometheist project.)[29] Piłsudski saw an Intermarium federation as a counterweight to Russian and German imperialism.[30][31]
[...]
The Lithuanians,[35][37] who had re-established their independence in 1918, were unwilling to join; the Ukrainians, similarly seeking independence,[19] likewise feared that Poland might again subjugate them;[35] and the Belarusians, who had little national consciousness and were mostly Russophiles, were similarly not interested either in independence or in Piłsudski's proposals of union.[35] The chances for Piłsudski's scheme were not enhanced by a series of post-World War I wars and border conflicts between Poland and its neighbors in disputed territories—the Polish-Soviet War, the Polish–Lithuanian War, the Polish–Ukrainian War, and border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Piłsudski's concept was opposed within Poland itself, where National Democracy leader Roman Dmowski[38][39] argued for an ethnically homogeneous Poland in which minorities would be Polonized.[40][41] Many Polish politicians, including Dmowski, opposed the idea of a multiethnic federation, preferring instead to work for a unitary Polish nation-state.[39] Sanford has described Piłsudski's policies after his resumption of power in 1926 as similarly focusing on the Polonization of the country's Eastern Slavic minorities and on the centralization of power.[33]

While some scholars accept at face value the democratic principles claimed by Piłsudski for his federative plan,[42] others view such claims with skepticism, pointing out a coup d'état in 1926 when Piłsudski assumed nearly dictatorial powers.[13][43] In particular, his project is viewed unfavorably by most Ukrainian historians, with Oleksandr Derhachov arguing that the federation would have created a greater Poland in which the interests of non-Poles, especially Ukrainians, would have received short shrift.[15]
[...]
He did not hesitate to use military force to expand Poland's borders to Galicia and Volhynia, crushing a Ukrainian attempt at self-determination in disputed territories east of the Bug River which contained a substantial Polish presence[46] (a Polish majority mainly in cities such as Lwów, surrounded by a rural Ukrainian majority).

Speaking of Poland's future frontiers, Piłsudski said: "All that we can gain in the west depends on the Entente—on the extent to which it may wish to squeeze Germany," while in the east "there are doors that open and close, and it depends on who forces them open and how far."[47] In the eastern chaos, the Polish forces set out to expand as far as feasible. On the other hand, Poland had no interest in joining the western intervention in the Russian Civil War[46] or in conquering Russia itself.[48]
[...]
Piłsudski died in 1935. A later, much reduced version of his concept was attempted by interwar Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck, a Piłsudski protégé. His proposal, during the late 1930s, of a "Third Europe"—an alliance of Poland, Romania and Hungary—gained little ground before World War II supervened.[49]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium

"Third Europe"? Wow, what does that remind you of? You really can't make this up.

The Polish government-in-exile continued this plan during WWII, and the V4 in many ways is a present-day attempt revive it, which is noted on the Wiki page:

Quote
The concept of a "Central [and Eastern] European Union"— a triangular geopolitical entity anchored in the Baltic, Black, and Adriatic or Aegean Seas—was revived during World War II in Władysław Sikorski's Polish Government in Exile.
[...]
On 12 May 2011, the Visegrád Group countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) announced the formation of a Visegrád Battlegroup under Poland's command. The battlegroup was in place by 2016 as an independent force, not part of the NATO command. In addition, starting in 2013, the four countries were to begin joint military exercises under the auspices of the NATO Response Force. Some scholars saw this as a first step toward close Central European regional cooperation.[56]

On 6 August 2015, Polish President Andrzej Duda, in his inaugural address, announced plans to build a regional alliance of Central European states, modeled on the Intermarium concept.[57][58][59] In 2016 the Three Seas Initiative held an initial summit meeting in Dubrovnik, Croatia.[60] The Three Seas Initiative has 12 member states along a north–south axis from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea and the Black Sea: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium#World_War_II_and_since

This is the future V4:


Quote
The current initiative is influenced by the Polish interwar Intermarium concept. The modern Three Seas Initiative was launched in 2015 by Polish President Andrzej Duda and Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović.[3] It held its first summit in Dubrovnik (Croatia) on 25–26 August 2016. The two-day event ended with a declaration of co-operation in economic matters, particularly in the field of energy as well as transport and communications infrastructure.[2]
[...]
Perception

Czech Republic
The Three Seas Initiative was at the beginning perceived by local experts and diplomats in the Czech Republic rather negatively. It was seen as a Polish attempt to create its sphere of influence (similar to the historical perception of Intermarium). Further fears were related to a possibility of deepening the East-West division in the EU and exclusion of Germany. A long term Czech objection is that there should be no competing geopolitical project in the region that would weaken the EU. Some of those objections have been partially addressed lately also due to a good experience with cooperation on infrastructure projects in the Visegrad group.[34]

Finland
The populist Finns Party has advocated for Finland to join the initiative.[35]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Seas_Initiative


Quote
Prometheism or Prometheanism (Polish: Prometeizm) was a political project initiated by Józef Piłsudski, statesman of the Second Polish Republic from 1918 to 1935. Its aim was to weaken the Russian Empire and its successor states, including the Soviet Union, by supporting nationalist independence movements among the major non-Russian peoples that lived within the borders of Russia and the Soviet Union.[1]

Between the World Wars, Prometheism and Piłsudski's other concept, of an "Intermarium federation", constituted two complementary geopolitical strategies for him and for some of his political heirs.[2]
[...]
A brief history of Poland's Promethean endeavor was set down on February 12, 1940, by Edmund Charaszkiewicz, a Polish military intelligence officer whose responsibilities from 1927 until the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 had included the coordination of Poland's Promethean program. Charaszkiewicz wrote his paper in Paris after escaping from a Poland overrun by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.[4]

    The creator and soul of the Promethean concept [wrote Charaszkiewicz] was Marshal Piłsudski, who as early as 1904, in a memorandum to the Japanese government, pointed out the need to employ, in the struggle against Russia, the numerous non-Russian nations that inhabited the basins of the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas, and emphasized that the Polish nation, by virtue of its history, love of freedom, and uncompromising stance toward [the three empires that had partitioned Poland out of political existence at the end of the 18th century] would, in that struggle, doubtless take a leading place and help work the emancipation of other nations oppressed by Russia.[5]

A key excerpt from Piłsudski's 1904 memorandum declared:

    Poland's strength and importance among the constituent parts of the Russian state embolden us to set ourselves the political goal of breaking up the Russian state into its main constituents and emancipating the countries that have been forcibly incorporated into that empire. We regard this not only as the fulfilment of our country's cultural strivings for independent existence, but also as a guarantee of that existence, since a Russia divested of her conquests will be sufficiently weakened that she will cease to be a formidable and dangerous neighbor.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2021, 01:24:10 am »
Further information on Piłsudski's life and views. Allegedly he asked France to join him in launching a war with Germany immediately after Hitler came to power! If Germany had won WWII, there is no doubt history would have been framed very differently, and Germany's actions toward Poland would have been framed as a retaliation against Piłsudski's aggression towards Germany and his aggressive geopolitical aims. Hitler even offered Poland an alliance multiple times, yet Piłsudski refused it, apparently still believing Poland could rise to rival both Germany and the USSR.

Quote
Józef Klemens Piłsudski (5 December 1867 – 12 May 1935) was a Polish statesman who served as the Chief of State (1918–1922) and First Marshal of Poland (from 1920). He was considered the de facto leader (1926–35) of the Second Polish Republic as the Minister of Military Affairs. After World War I, he held great power in Polish politics and was a distinguished figure on the international scene.[1] He is viewed as a father of the Second Polish Republic re-established in 1918
[...]
After the Polish Constitution of March 1921 severely limited the powers of the presidency intentionally, to prevent a President Piłsudski from waging war. He declined to run for the office.[20]
[...]
Two days later, on 16 December 1922, Narutowicz was shot dead by a right-wing painter and art critic, Eligiusz Niewiadomski, who had originally wanted to kill Piłsudski but had changed his target, influenced by National Democrat anti-Narutowicz propaganda.[105]

For Piłsudski, that was a major shock, which shook his belief that Poland could function as a democracy[106] and made him support government by a strong hand.[107]
[...]
When the Chjeno-Piast coalition, which Piłsudski had strongly criticized, formed a new government,[20] on 12–14 May 1926, Piłsudski returned to power in a coup d'état (the May Coup), supported by the Polish Socialist Party, Liberation, the Peasant Party and even the Polish Communist Party.[113] Piłsudski had hoped for a bloodless coup, but the government had refused to back down;[114] 215 soldiers and 164 civilians had been killed, and over 900 persons had been wounded.[115]
[...]
A supporter of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance and the Polish–Romanian alliance, part of the Little Entente, Piłsudski was disappointed by the policy of appeasement pursued by the French and British governments, evident in their signing of the Locarno Treaties.[144][147][148] The Locarno treaties were intended by the British government to ensure a peaceful handover the territories claimed by Germany such as the Sudetenland, the Polish Corridor, and the Free City of Danzig (modern Gdańsk, Poland) by improving Franco-German relations to such extent that France would dissolve its alliances in eastern Europe.[149] Piłsudski felt a profound sense of abandonment by France after Locarno. Piłsudski, therefore, aimed also to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union and Germany.

A recurring fear of Piłsudski was that France would reach an agreement with Germany at the expense of Poland.
[...]
In June 1932, just before the Lausanne Conference opened, Piłsudski heard (correct) reports that the new German chancellor Franz von Papen was about to make an offer for a Franco-German alliance to the French Premier Édouard Herriot which would be at the expense of Poland.[152] In response Piłsudski sent the destroyer ORP Wicher into the harbour of the Free City of Danzig (modern Gdańsk).[152] Through the issue was ostensibly about access rights for the Polish Navy in Danzig, the real purpose of sending Wircher was as a way to warn Herriot not to take Poland for granted as he talked to Papen.[152] The ensuring Danzig crisis sent the desired message to the French and improved the Polish Navy's access rights to Danzig.[152]
[...]
After Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in January 1933, Piłsudski is rumored to have proposed to France a preventive war against Germany. It has been argued that Piłsudski may have been sounding out France regarding possible joint military action against Germany.[158]
[...]
Hitler repeatedly suggested a German-Polish alliance against the Soviet Union, but Piłsudski declined, instead seeking precious time to prepare for a potential war with either Germany or the Soviet Union.

[...]
After the fall of communism and the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union, Piłsudski once again came to be publicly acknowledged as a Polish national hero.[187] On the sixtieth anniversary of his death, on 12 May 1995, Poland's Sejm adopted a resolution: "Józef Piłsudski will remain, in our nation's memory, the founder of its independence and the victorious leader who fended off a foreign assault that threatened the whole of Europe and its civilization. Józef Piłsudski served his country well and has entered our history forever."[188]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski


Józef Beck supported many of Hitler's requests to refine post-WWI borders. Poland even invaded Czechoslovakia and attempted to distinigrate it by promoting Slovak indpendence. But, of course, since the Allies won WWII you will only hear about Germany doing such things, not Poland.

Quote
Józef Beck (4 October 1894 – 5 June 1944) was a Polish statesman who served the Second Republic of Poland as a diplomat and military officer, and was a close associate of Józef Piłsudski. Beck is most famous for being Polish foreign minister in the 1930s, when he largely set Polish foreign policy.

He tried to fulfill Piłsudski's dream of making Poland the leader of a regional coalition, but he was widely disliked and distrusted by other governments.[1][2] He was involved in territorial disputes with Lithuania and Czechoslovakia.
[...]
He explored the possibility of realizing Piłsudski's concept of Międzymorze ("Between-seas"): a federation of central and eastern European countries stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas, indeed in later variants, from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean. Such a coalition between Germany in the west and the Soviet Union in the east might have been strong enough to deter both from military intervention. Beck realised that for the immediate future there was no realistic chance of building such a force and so he was prepared to settle in 1937–38 for a diplomatic bloc referred to as a "Third Europe," led by Poland, which might become the nucleus of a Międzymorze federation. Beck's "Third Europe" diplomatic concept comprised a bloc of Poland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Romania.[13]
[...]
From 1935 to 1939, Beck supported German claims against Czechoslovakia by citing purported mistreatment of Polish minorities in Czechoslovakia.[citation needed] In 1937, he began a diplomatic offensive in favour of Slovak independence.[15] He supported Hitler's position in the Munich agreement in 1938. Within days, Poland invaded and seized Teschen, an industrial district of Czechoslovakia with 240,000 people, many of them ethnic Poles.[15][16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Beck

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2021, 02:07:07 am »
Lastly, let's not forget settler-colonialism in the Russian Empire and USSR, and their respective geopolitical and territorial ambitions.

The USSR's territorial goals during their invasion of Poland (of course, the Allies never declared war on the USSR for their invasion, and they let the USSR keep their conquered territory after WWII!) was basically to take the Intermarium region.


Which is territory the Russian Empire lost to the Central Powers after WWI:


Yet all we hear about is Germany's territorial ambitions in WWII... To this day, WWII veterans and their descendants from the Baltic states who fought the USSR alongside Germany would disagree with how this is framed:
Quote
The pact was terminated on 22 June 1941, when Germany launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union, in pursuit of the ideological goal of Lebensraum.[13] After the war, Ribbentrop was convicted of war crimes at the Nuremberg trials and executed. Molotov died in 1986.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact


The USSR was kicked out of the league of nations for their invasion of Finland, which rarely ever receives mentions in standard history classes:
Quote
On December 14, 1939, the League of Nations, the international peacekeeping organization formed at the end of World War I, expels the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in response to the Soviets’ invasion of Finland on November 30.
[...]
Germany and Japan voluntarily withdrew from the League in 1933, and Italy left in 1937. The true imperial designs of the Soviet Union soon became apparent with its occupation of eastern Poland in September of 1939, ostensibly with the intention of protecting Russian “blood brothers,” Ukrainians and Byelorussians, who were supposedly menaced by the Poles. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were then terrorized into signing “mutual assistance” pacts, primarily one-sided agreements that gave the USSR air and naval bases in those countries. But the invasion of Finland, where no provocation or pact could credibly be adduced to justify the aggression, resulted in worldwide reaction.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ussr-expelled-from-the-league-of-nations

The Soviets were allowed to keep the territory they took from Finland:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War


You will always hear of Germany's non-existent aim of "global domination" during WWII. You will not as frequently hear about how, you know, the USSR was a communist state advocating for global communist revolutions...

Why do history textbooks focus on some fantasy of Germany controlling the entire globe when the communist bloc led by the USSR literally had this.


There were even concerns that France would fall to communism after WWII. The high-ranking French general, and later high-ranking NATO commander, Alphonse Juin confided to American General Patton that he was deeply disappointed WWII had destroyed Germany, which Juin viewed as the only nation which soundly opposed the USSR.

Quote
"At dinner with [French] General [Alphonse] Juin, the remarkable statement was made by him to me that "It is indeed unfortunate, my General, that the English and Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country--and I do not mean France--and therefore the road is now open for the advent of Russian Communism.""[1]

[1] Patton's diary. Entry August 18, 1945.

--

After the collapse of the Chinese Empire in 1911, Tuva gained independence. After they became anti-USSR, the USSR organized a coup and later annexed the nation:
Quote
The 1929 Tuvan coup d'état took place in the Tuvan People's Republic. It occurred in January after the Tuvan government under Prime Minister Donduk Kuular attempted to implement nationalist, religious and anti-Soviet policies, including making Tibetan Buddhism the official religion. With support from the Soviet Union, five Tuvan youths successfully overthrew the government, and one of them, Salchak Toka, became supreme ruler as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party. They quickly reversed Donduk's policies and brought the republic closer to the Soviet Union. The Tuvan People's Republic later joined the Soviet Union in 1944.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Tuvan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Mongolia also gained independence. The Russian general Roman von Ungern-Sternberg led the rebel forces to secure Mongolian independence. Soon after, Bolshevik forces overthrew his government and executed him.
Quote
often referred to as Baron Ungern, was an anticommunist general in the Russian Civil War and then an independent warlord who intervened in Mongolia against China. A part of the Russian Empire's Baltic German minority, Ungern was an ultraconservative monarchist who aspired to restore the Russian monarchy after the 1917 Russian Revolutions and to revive the Mongol Empire under the rule of the Bogd Khan. His attraction to Vajrayana Buddhism and his eccentric, often violent, treatment of enemies and his own men earned him the sobriquet "the Mad Baron" or "the Bloody Baron".

In February 1921, at the head of the Asiatic Cavalry Division, Ungern expelled Chinese troops from Mongolia and restored the monarchic power of the Bogd Khan. During his five-month occupation of Outer Mongolia, Ungern imposed order on the capital city, Ikh Khüree (now Ulaanbaatar), by fear, intimidation and brutal violence against his opponents, particularly the Bolsheviks. In June 1921, he travelled to eastern Siberia to support anti-Bolshevik partisan forces and to head off a joint Red Army-Mongolian rebel invasion. That action ultimately led to his defeat and capture two months later. He was taken prisoner by the Red Army and, a month later, was put on trial for "counter-revolution" in Novonikolaevsk. After a six-hour show trial, he was found guilty and on 15 September 1921 he was executed.
[...]
The Bolsheviks started infiltrating Mongolia shortly after the October Revolution, long before they took control of the Russian Transbaikal. In 1921, various Red Army units belonging to Soviet Russia and to the Far Eastern Republic invaded the newly independent Mongolia to defeat Ungern. The forces included the Red Mongolian leader Damdin Sükhbaatar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_von_Ungern-Sternberg

Although Mongolia was never annexed by the USSR, it was firmly a puppet:
Quote
In 1934, Peljidiin Genden visited Moscow and angrily accused Stalin of "Red imperialism". He subsequently died in the Great Purge after being tricked into taking a holiday on the Black Sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_People's_Republic

The Soviets tried to make Xinjiang a puppet as well, although they expelled the Soviets in 1943.

--
Moving on, the Russian Empire and the USSR pursued settler colonialism of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states, Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Map from 2011 showing the percentage of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states. Undoubtedly this was much higher during the Soviet period:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentage-of-ethnic-Russians-in-the-Baltic-states-2011_fig1_288344208



Briefly searching, I stumbled across some research papers raising the important fact that studies examining colonialism in the USSR are severely lacking:
Quote
This essay works through some of the necessary preliminary questions in thinking about Soviet colonialism in the Baltics. It opens by tracing the prehistory of critical thinking about Soviet colonialism in the 1960s and considers why the topic of Soviet colonialism has not (or not yet) become a dominant way to understand Soviet history. The central question posed by the article is whether one can speak about the Soviet invasions of the Baltic States as ‘colonization’. It proposes that, initially, communist Russia did not in fact seek to colonize the Baltic States and instead ‘occupied’ them; however, this initial period of occupation later developed into a period of a colonial rule.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233431195_The_Problem_of_Soviet_Colonialism_in_the_Baltics
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43212457?seq=1

Quote
Political repressions followed with mass deportations of around 130,000 citizens carried out by the Soviets.[3]:48 The Serov Instructions, "On the Procedure for carrying out the Deportation of Anti-Soviet Elements from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia", contained detailed procedures and protocols to observe in the deportation of Baltic nationals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_(1940)#Sovietization_of_the_Baltic_states

The USA and many other nations never recognized the official sovereignty of the USSR over the Baltic states. Somehow the USA was staunch enough in its position that it never even recognized that the USSR 'de facto' controlled the Baltic states. But, again, the brief war time occupations by Germany somehow get chapters upon chapters in the textbooks, but I didn't even realize basically the whole world refused to accept the USSR's control over the Baltic states until writing this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states

Light blue, orange, and yellow = did not legally recognize Soviet control of the Baltic states. Dark blue = states which never took an official position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_non_recogntion_of_the_Baltic_states.png

Quote
The Welles Declaration was a diplomatic statement issued on July 23, 1940, by Sumner Welles, the acting US Secretary of State, condemning the June 1940 occupation by the Soviet Union of the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and refusing to recognize their annexation as Soviet republics.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welles_Declaration

--

I don't feel like writing a huge analysis on this at the moment, but the type of settler colonialism which happened in the Baltics has also allowed Russia to seize Crimea and start ethnic conflicts in eastern Ukraine today.

For example, this paper seems to put forward the thesis that Russia's recent occupation of Crimea is something that has been long in the making:
Quote
The focus is on Crimea as a settler colony during the first years after the USSR’s collapse. The main argument is that the 1990s conflict in Crimea was mainly around decolonization attempts and resistance by the settler colonial system. Contrary to the analysis of ‘conflicts that did not happen’ it argues that Crimea is a case of a conflict that never stoppedsince the late 18th century. It analyses how settler colonial structures fought for their own preservation in opposition to the forces of decolonization represented by the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar national movements, maneuvering between the Russian and Ukrainian capitals, which in turn triggered perceptions of Crimean separatism.

A main theme is control over the narrative. Crimean settler colonial institutions maintained their monopoly over ‘the truth’ about the peninsula’s past and present. This dissertation demonstrates how this continued in the 1990s, how Crimean newspapers forged the meaning of ‘Crimean,’ redesigned boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in order to marginalize Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar activists. Another important issue is the role of hybrid institutions including government structures in Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet, both which conducted subversive operations (informational and military) to counter and reduce the growing presence of the Ukrainian state on the peninsula.
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/7077/


What helped ethnic Russians in the USSR gain more control over Ukraine? The holo-what?

Quote
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: moryty holodom, 'to kill by starvation'),[a][3][4][5] also known as the Terror-Famine[6][7][8] and sometimes referred to as the Great Famine,[9] was a famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The term Holodomor emphasises the famine's man-made and intentional aspects such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs and restriction of population movement. As part of the wider Soviet famine of 1932–33 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the country, millions of inhabitants of Ukraine, the majority of whom were ethnic Ukrainians, died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.[10] Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognized by Ukraine[11] and 15 other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet government.[12]

Early estimates of the death toll by scholars and government officials varied greatly.[13] According to higher estimates, up to 12 million[14] ethnic Ukrainians were said to have perished as a result of the famine. A United Nations joint statement signed by 25 countries in 2003 declared that 7–10 million perished.[15]
[...]
Whether the Holodomor was genocide is still the subject of academic debate,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Depopulation from the famine. It is not clear if this is only deaths, or deaths + people being displaced.


Quote
Some scholars have classified the famine in Ukraine and famine in Kazakhstan as genocide committed by Joseph Stalin's government,[19][20] targeting ethnic Ukrainians and Kazakhs while other critics dispute the relevance of any ethnic motivation, as is frequently implied by that term, and focus instead on the class dynamics between land-owning peasants (kulaks) with strong political interest in private property, and the ruling Communist Party's fundamental tenets which were diametrically opposed to those interests.[21] In addition to the Kazakh famine of 1919–1922, these events saw Kazakhstan lose more than half of its population within 15 years. The famine made Kazakhs a minority in their own republic. Before the famine, around 60% of the republic's population were Kazakhs, but after the famine, only around 38% of the population were Kazakhs.[22][23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333

Quote
The Kazakh famine of 1931–1933, also known as the Kazakh catastrophe, Asharshylyk and Zulmat[9] was a famine where 1.5 million (other sources state as many as 2.0–2.3 million[10]) people died in Soviet Kazakhstan, of whom 1.3 million were ethnic Kazakhs; 38% of all Kazakhs died, the highest percentage of any ethnic group killed in the Soviet famine of 1932–33.[3][7] Some historians assume that 42% of the entire Kazakh population died in the famine.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1931%E2%80%931933

What, cattle cars? Nations with rail infrastructure using trains instead of forcing people to just walk?
Quote
The deportation of the Crimean Tatars was the ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide of at least 191,044 Crimean Tatars in 18–20 May 1944 carried out by the Soviet government, ordered by Lavrentiy Beria, head of the Soviet state security and secret police, acting on behalf of Joseph Stalin.[11][12][13][14] Within three days, the NKVD used cattle trains to deport mostly women, children, the elderly, even Communists and members of the Red Army, to mostly the Uzbek SSR, several thousand kilometres away. They were one of the several ethnicities who were encompassed by Stalin's policy of population transfer in the Soviet Union.

The deportation officially was intended as collective punishment for the perceived collaboration of some Crimean Tatars with Nazi Germany; modern sources theorize that the deportation was part of the Soviet plan to gain access to the Dardanelles and acquire territory in Turkey where the Tatars had Turkic ethnic kin.
[...]
In 1956, the new Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, condemned Stalin's policies, including the deportation of various ethnic groups, but did not lift the directive forbidding the return of the Crimean Tatars, despite allowing the right of return for most other deported peoples. They remained in Central Asia for several more decades until the Perestroika era in the late 1980s when 260,000 Crimean Tatars returned to Crimea. Their exile lasted 45 years. The ban on their return was officially declared null and void, and the Supreme Council of Crimea declared on 14 November 1989 that the deportations had been a crime.

By 2004, sufficient numbers of Crimean Tatars had returned to Crimea that they comprised 12 percent of the peninsula's population. Soviet authorities neither assisted their return nor compensated them for the land they lost. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, did not provide reparations, compensate those deported for lost property, or file legal proceedings against the perpetrators of the forced resettlement. The deportation was a crucial event in the history of the Crimean Tatars and has come to be seen as a symbol of the plight and oppression of smaller ethnic groups by the Soviet Union. On 12 December 2015, the Ukrainian Parliament issued a resolution recognizing this event as genocide and established 18 May as the "Day of Remembrance for the victims of the Crimean Tatar genocide".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars


I keep stumbling across so many articles about things I've never even heard of before, even though I am generally interested in WWII history. Thank you politically-motivated Western revisionist history curriculum for never mentioning any of this.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Koreans_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Soviet_Greeks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Soviet_Greeks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2021, 06:52:45 pm »
Polish propaganda from 1931 celebrating how the percent of ethnic Germans had dramatically decreased in Polish territory. You've probably seen a comparable piece of German propaganda in a history textbook, but never one from an 'Allied' nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nalot_niemczyzny_1910_1931.jpg

--

Don't even get me started about the ethnic cleansing of German civilians after WWII by the Allied nations. I learned about this after looking into history myself during a mandatory "Holocaust education unit" in school (yes, it's mandatory to teach this in most grade levels in many US states while education on the extermination of Native Americans is not), and I was just so perplexed as to why this wasn't even mentioned if the entire point of 'educating' us on this part of WWII was to tell us ethnic cleansing was bad.

In school, I wrote a paper on it and became indescribably disgusted when I kept seeing people say these civilians deserved to be ethnically cleansed by the "good guys" in revenge for simply being born into the wrong ethnic group. I think this is when I learned that the ideologies and nations which were classified as the "good guys" in WWII were not considered good because they genuinely had admirable principles, but simply because they won and got to write their own history. They did all the same things they accused Germany of doing, but were able to write their own crimes out of the standard history curriculum.

The chilling fact is that the victorious powers conducted the largest ethnic cleansing in 'European' history:

Quote
With at least 12 million Germans directly involved, possibly 14 million or more, it was the largest movement or transfer of any single ethnic population in European history and the largest among the post-war expulsions in Central and Eastern Europe (which displaced 20 to 31 million people in total).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)

The following article states the ethnic cleansing of Germans was the largest in world history, although it also suggests conflicts during the partitioning of Pakistan and Bangladesh reached comparable numbers. (Additionally, the destruction of Native Americans, which spanned several centuries, killed tens of millions more people. The Transatlantic slave trade "transferred" over 12 million slaves over multiple centuries as well.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer


Apparently by their own definitions, the Allies committed the largest war crime of WWII with this ethnic cleansing:
Quote
George Orwell, in his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" (written during the World War II evacuation and expulsions in Europe), observed:

    "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things... can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.... Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers."
[...]
The tide started to turn when the Charter of the Nuremberg Trials of German Nazi leaders declared forced deportation of civilian populations to be both a war crime and a crime against humanity.[4]
[...]
There is now little debate about the general legal status of involuntary population transfers: "Where population transfers used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today, forced population transfers are considered violations of international law."[5]
[...]
Timothy V. Waters argues, in "On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing," that the expulsions of the ethnic German population east of the Oder-Neisse line the Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe without legal redress has set a legal precedent that can permit future ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer#Changes_in_international_law



...Wait, the reason the "good guys" ethnically cleansed tens of millions of people after WWII was to achieve "ethnically-pure" nations??? Obviously, that is an unacceptable reason to deport and kill civilians. However, ...isn't this motive the exact same thing that Western history textbooks tell us made 'Nazi Germany' a uniquely evil nation? For allegedly doing the exact same thing the Allies did, but on a smaller scale?
Quote
The creation of ethnically homogeneous nation states in Central and Eastern Europe[51] was presented as the key reason for the official decisions of the Potsdam and previous Allied conferences as well as the resulting expulsions.[52] The principle of every nation inhabiting its own nation state gave rise to a series of expulsions and resettlements of Germans, Poles, Ukrainians and others who after the war found themselves outside their supposed home states.[63][53]
[...]
The participants at the Potsdam Conference asserted that expulsions were the only way to prevent ethnic violence. As Winston Churchill expounded in the House of Commons in 1944, "Expulsion is the method which, insofar as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by the prospect of disentanglement of populations, not even of these large transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions than they have ever been before".[72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)

(That Churchill quote sounds more racist than anything I've heard Hitler say).


To Poland's credit, after Beck died, it seemed the Polish government-in-exile became less ethno-centric in its policies, although the Polish government formed by the USSR was not. In addition, the USSR ethnically cleansed over a million Poles from the eastern parts of Poland that the USSR was allowed to keep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_population_transfers_(1944%E2%80%931946)

So, who was the original advocate of ethnically cleansing the Germans, you might ask? Ah yes, Churchill.
Quote
The idea to expel the Germans from the annexed territories was proposed by Winston Churchill, in conjunction with the Polish and Czechoslovak exile governments in London at least since 1942.[2][3] In late 1944 the Czechoslovak exile government pressed[citation needed] the Allies to espouse the principle of German population transfers.
[...]
On the other hand, Polish prime minister Tomasz Arciszewski, in an interview for The Sunday Times on 17 December 1944, supported the annexation of Warmia-Masuria, Opole Regency, north-east parts of Lower Silesia (up to the Oder line), and parts of Pomerania (without Szczecin), but he opposed the idea of expulsion. He wanted to naturalize the Germans as Polish citizens and to assimilate them.[4]

Stalin, in concert with other communist leaders, planned to expel all ethnic Germans from east of the Oder and from lands which from May 1945 fell inside the Soviet occupation zones.[5] In 1941 his government had already transported Germans from Crimea to Central Asia.

Between 1944 and 1948, millions of people, including ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) and German citizens (Reichsdeutsche), were permanently or temporarily moved from Central and Eastern Europe. By 1950, a total of approximately 12 million[6] Germans had fled or been expelled from east-central Europe into Allied-occupied Germany and Austria. The West German government put the total at 14.6 million,[7] including a million ethnic Germans who had settled in territories conquered by Nazi Germany during World War II, ethnic German migrants to Germany after 1950, and the children born to expelled parents. The largest numbers came from former eastern territories of Germany ceded to the People's Republic of Poland and the Soviet Union (about seven million),[8][9] and from Czechoslovakia (about three million).
[...]
The death toll attributable to the flight and expulsions is disputed, with estimates ranging from 500,000–600,000[14][15] and up to 2 to 2.5 million.[16][17][18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)


More cattle cars. This time for Germans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vertreibung.jpg

And Hungarians being ethnically cleansed from post-war Czechoslovakia. Again, one of the standard anti-Nazi propaganda points is that they were uniquely evil for transporting people to camps in a "mechanized" and "efficient" manner. Who would have guessed that any nation with access to rail networks would have used rail networks to transport people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Old_people.jpg


...What...? The "good guys" literally implemented a "final solution"? (Successfully!) And its not in the standard history curriculum?
Quote
During the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Czech resistance groups demanded the deportation of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia. The decision to deport the Germans was adopted by the Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile which, beginning in 1943, sought the support of the Allies for this proposal.[1][2] The final agreement for the expulsion of the German population however was not reached until 2 August 1945 at the end of the Potsdam Conference.

In the months following the end of the war, "wild" expulsions happened from May until August 1945. Czechoslovak President Edvard Beneš on 28 October 1945 called for the "final solution of the German question" (Czech: konečné řešení německé otázky) which would have to be solved by deportation of the ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia.[3][4]

The expulsions were carried out by order of local authorities, mostly by groups of armed volunteers. However, in some cases it was initiated or pursued with the assistance of the regular army.[5] Several thousand died violently during the expulsion and more died from hunger and illness as a consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia

...What, the "good guys" literally put German children in the exact same concentration camps the Germans had been operating under war time conditions?
Quote
According to the German "Society against Expulsion", some Germans were sent to "concentration camps".[46] A 1964 report by the German Red Cross stated that 1,215 "internment camps" were established, as well as 846 forced labour and "disciplinary centres", and 215 prisons, on Czechoslovak territory.
[...]
According to Alfred de Zayas:

    One of the worst camps in post-war Czechoslovakia was the old Nazi concentration camp of Theresienstadt. Conditions under the new Czech administration are described by H. G. Adler, a former Jewish inmate as follows: ... in the majority they were children and juveniles, who had only been locked up because they were Germans. Only because they were Germans...? This sentence sounds frighteningly familiar; only the word 'Jews' had been changed to 'Germans'. [...] The people were abominably fed and maltreated, and they were no better off than one was used to from German concentration camps.[49]

    The civilian internees who survived to be expelled recorded the horrors of months and years of slow starvation and maltreatment in many thousands of affidavits. Allied authorities in the American and British zones were able to investigate several cases, including the notorious concentration camp at České Budějovice in Southern Bohemia. The deputy commander of this camp in the years 1945–6, Václav Hrneček, later fled Czechoslovakia and came to Bavaria where he was recognized by former German inmates of the camp. Hrneček was brought to trial before an American Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany presided by Judge Leo M. Goodman. The Court based an eight-year sentence against Hrneček upon findings that the Budějovice camp was run in a criminal and cruel way, that although there were no gas chambers and no systematic, organized extermination, the camp was a centre of sadism, where human life and human dignity had no meaning.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia

Quote
The Beneš decrees are associated with the 1945-47 deportation of about 3 million ethnic Germans and Hungarians from Czechoslovakia. The deportation, based on Article 12 of the Potsdam Agreement, was the outcome of negotiations between the Allied Control Council and the Czechoslovak government. The expulsion is considered ethnic cleansing (a term in widespread use since the early 1990s) by a number of historians and legal scholars. The relevant decrees omit any reference to the deportation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene%C5%A1_decrees#Legal_basis_for_expulsions

Recall that Czechoslovakia was created after WWI by the Allies, even though the Sudetenland wanted to remain with Austria and Austria itself wanted to join Germany. Instead, the Allies forbid both the Sudetenland from having "self-determination" and forbid Austria from merging with Germany. This whole situation could have been avoided, but the Allies didn't care.
Quote
Austria-Hungary broke apart at the end of World War I. Late in October 1918, an independent Czechoslovak state, consisting of the lands of the Bohemian kingdom and areas belonging to the Kingdom of Hungary, was proclaimed. The German deputies of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia in the Imperial Council (Reichsrat) referred to the Fourteen Points of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and the right proposed therein to self-determination, and attempted to negotiate the union of the German-speaking territories with the new Republic of German Austria, which itself aimed at joining Weimar Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#World_War_I_and_its_aftermath

Quote
On 13 November 1918, German-Austria asked Germany to start negotiations of union and on 15 November sent a telegram to President Wilson to support union of Germany and Austria. This was grounded in the view that Austria had never been a nation in the true sense. While the Austrian state had existed in one form or another for over 700 years (dating to the Holy Roman Empire), its only unifying force had been the Habsburgs. Apart from being German-inhabited, these Lands had no common "Austrian" identity. They were Habsburg-ruled lands that had not joined the Prussian-dominated German Empire after the Austrian Empire lost the Austro-Prussian War.

On 12 March 1919, the Constituent Assembly re-confirmed an earlier declaration that German-Austria was a constituent part of the German republic. Pan-Germans and Social Democrats supported the union with Germany, while Christian Socialists were less supportive.

During spring and summer of 1919, unity talk meetings between German and Austrian representatives continued. All this changed after 2 June 1919 when the draft peace treaty with Austria was presented, which demonstrated that the Western Allies were opposed to any union between Germany and Austria.
[...]
Article 88 of the treaty, sometimes called a "pre-Anschluss attempt", stated:

    The independence of Austria is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations. Consequently Austria undertakes in the absence of the consent of the said Council to abstain from any act which might directly or indirectly or by any means whatsoever compromise her independence, particularly, and until her admission to membership of the League of Nations, by participation in the affairs of another Power.

This clause effectively foreclosed any attempt by Austria to unite with Germany.[5]

Likewise, the Treaty of Versailles, dictating the terms of peace for Germany, forbade any union between Austria and Germany. With these changes and the settling of Austria's frontiers, the era of the First Republic of Austria began.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_German-Austria#Failed_union_with_Germany

By the way, the Allies allowed the Soviets to annex part of Czechoslovakia. So much for  all this hubbub about caring for its borders..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Ruthenia#Transcarpathian_Ukraine_-_Soviet_Union_(1945-1991)


The "good guys" using armbands to label ethnic-undesirables and forcing them on death marches?
Quote
Shortly after, the Germans were marked with white armbands and became subject to similar restrictions previously directed against the Jews by the Nazis.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brno_death_march

...The "good guys" lynching people and burning their bodies in concentration camp incinerators?
Quote
The Ústí massacre  was a lynching of ethnic Germans in Ústí nad Labem (Aussig an der Elbe), a largely ethnic German city in northern Bohemia ("Sudetenland"), shortly after the end of World War II, on 31 July 1945. During the incident, at least 43 Germans were killed (confirmed body count) but the estimated numbers range from 80 to thousands of victims.

Intelligence officer and police commandant Bedřich Pokorný, who previously took part in the organisation of so called Brno death march in May 1945, has been sometimes accused of organizing this massacre towards the end of the Potsdam conference (17 July to 2 August 1945) after the government had halted such acts.
[...]
The estimated number of victims is 80–120, with 43 being accounted for specifically: 24 bodies gathered in the city were burned in the crematorium of the former concentration camp in Terezín on 1 August
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Ast%C3%AD_massacre

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2021, 06:54:25 pm »
How many times have you heard of "Nazi slave labor"? 

Quote
In the years following World War II, large numbers of German civilians and captured soldiers were forced into labor by the Allied forces. The topic of using Germans as forced labor for reparations was first broached at the Tehran conference in 1943, where Soviet premier Joseph Stalin demanded 4,000,000 German workers.[1]

Forced labor was also included in the final protocol of the Yalta conference[2] in January 1945, where it was assented to by UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
[...]
The largest group of forced laborers in the Soviet Union consisted of several million German prisoners of war. Most German POW survivors of the forced labor camps in the Soviet Union were released in 1953.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Quote
In its shifted borders, post-war Poland comprised large territories that had a German-speaking majority and had been part of German states for centuries. Many ethnic Germans living in these areas were, prior to their expulsion from their home region, used for years as forced laborers in labor camps[8] such as that run by Salomon Morel.

Among these camps were Central Labor Camp Jaworzno, Central Labor Camp Potulice, Łambinowice, Zgoda labor camp and others.[9][10] The law authorizing forced labor, Article 20 of the law on the exclusion of the enemy elements from society, also removed rights to Polish citizenship and all property owned.[11]

The many camps were used during the process of the expulsions for the sake of "rehabilitating" Reichs- or Volksdeutsche, to decide if they could stay or go, but in reality this was a program of slave labor.[12] Roughly 200,000 ethnic Germans died in the Soviet run concentration camps in Poland.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Why don't we hear about people like this in history textbooks:
Quote
Salomon Morel (November 15, 1919 – February 14, 2007) was an officer in the Ministry of Public Security in the Polish People's Republic. Morel was as a commander of concentration camps run by the NKVD and Polish communist authorities until 1956.
[...]
Beginning in the early 1990s Morel was investigated by authorities for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the murder[4] of more than 1,500 prisoners from Upper Silesia, most of from the local population.[5][1][6][7] In 1996, he was indicted by Poland on charges of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and communist crimes.[3] After his case was publicized by the Polish, German, British, and American media, Morel fled to Israel and was granted citizenship under the Law of Return. Poland twice requested his extradition, once in 1998 and once in 2004, but Israel refused to comply and rejected the more serious charges as being false and again rejected extradition on the grounds that the statute of limitations against Morel had run out and that Morel was in poor health.[8] Polish authorities responded by accusing Israel of applying a double standard, and the controversy over Morel's extradition continued until his death.[5]
[...]
Morel claimed that he was at one point an inmate in Auschwitz and over thirty of his relatives were killed in the Holocaust.[12]
[...]
Solomon Morel's preferred method of torture was the ice water tank where prisoners would be put in with freezing water up to their necks until they died.
[...]
The survivor Dorota Boriczek described Morel as "a barbaric and cruel man" who often personally tortured and killed prisoners.[7] Gerhard Gruschka, a local Upper Silesian of Polish descent, was imprisoned in Zgoda when he was 14 years old and wrote a book about his experiences, detailing the endemic torture and abuse in the camp.[2] Morel was also accused of an extensive pattern of sadistic torture in John Sack's book An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945, which contributed to publicizing his case in the Anglophone world in the 1990s.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Morel

Going back to the slave labor of German prisoners that most Allied nations continued to use even after the war ended:
Quote
Many Germans in what would become East Germany were forced by the Communist authorities to work in German uranium mines producing the majority of the raw material of the Soviet atomic bomb project.[16] Beginning in the summer of 1946 the Soviets began explorations in the Erzgebirge, and sealing off the old radium hot springs by September of the same year. An initial workforce of four to five thousand was established, with another 20,000 called for by the end of the year. When an extra 60,000 workers were called for in the summer of 1947, a wave of potential workers flooded into West Germany to avoid the mines, including many citizens who would otherwise prefer to live in the communist East. Workers who began as volunteers were turned into forced laborers. Workers who attempted to escape, whether conscripts or volunteers, were hunted down and returned to the mines.
[...]
Contrary to Section IV of the Hague Convention of 1907, "The Laws and Customs of War on Land", the SHAEF "counter insurgency manual" included provisions for forced labor and hostage taking.[18]
[...]
Some of the 740,000 German prisoners transferred in 1945 by the U.S. for forced labor in France came from the Rheinwiesenlager camps; these forced laborers were already very weak, many weighing barely 50 kg (110 lbs).[21]

In retaliation for acts of resistance, French occupation forces expelled more than 25,000 civilians from their homes. Some of these civilians were subsequently forced to clear minefields in Alsace.[22]

Holy ****, no wonder we never hear about forced prison labor by the Allied nations! They were more reliant on it than the Germans. Mind you the this is from the UK using it IN PEACETIME CONDITIONS AFTER THE WAR, not during the war when every single individual capable of labor would have a pressing need to be conscripted into the war effort.

A quarter of British agricultural labor was done by slave labor of German POWs in the late 1940s. Insane:
Quote
In 1946, the UK had more than 400,000 German prisoners of war, many of whom had been transferred from POW camps in the U.S. and Canada. Many of these were used as forced labourers, as a form of war reparations.[23][24]

The two main reasons for their continued presence in Britain were to denazify them (in particular German officers), and for non-officers employment as agricultural and other labor.[25][26] In 1946 a fifth of all agricultural work in the UK was performed by German prisoners.[26] A public debate ensued in the UK, where protests over the continued usage of German labourers raged in the British media and in the House of Commons.[27] In 1947 the Ministry of Agriculture argued against rapid repatriation of working German prisoners, since by then they made up 25 percent of the land workforce, and they wanted to keep employing them into 1948.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#United_Kingdom

Quote
The United States transferred German prisoners for forced labor to Europe (which received 740,000 from the US). For prisoners in the U.S. repatriation was also delayed for harvest reasons.[29]

Civilians aged 14–65 in the U.S. occupation zone of Germany were also registered for compulsory labor, under threat of prison and withdrawal of ration cards.[30]
[...]
According to the Office of Public Administration (part of Federal Ministry of the Interior), compensation for Germans used as forced labor after the war cannot be claimed in Germany since September 29, 1978, due to the statute of limitations.[32]


After the war, the Allies made up a new classification for the captured/demobilized German military. They labelled them as "disarmed enemy forces" instead of prisoners of war, in order to ignore the Geneva Convention and other treaties regarding regulations on treating POWs. I suppose this made it easier to justify their use as slave labor.

Quote
The Rheinwiesenlager (Rhine meadow camps) were a group of 19 camps built in the Allied-occupied part of Germany by the U.S. Army to hold captured German soldiers at the close of the Second World War. Officially named Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE), they held between one and almost two million surrendered Wehrmacht personnel from April until September 1945.

Prisoners held in the camps were designated disarmed enemy forces, not prisoners of war. This decision was made in March 1945 by SHAEF commander in chief Dwight D. Eisenhower: by not classifying the hundreds of thousands of captured troops as POWs, the logistical problems associated with accommodating so many prisoners of war mandated by the Geneva Convention governing their treatment were negated.

Most estimates of German deaths in these camps range from 3,000 to 6,000. Many of these died from starvation, dehydration and exposure to the weather elements because no structures were built inside the prison compounds.
[...]
The camps were founded in April 1945 and remained in existence until September. There was a similar plan for the construction of all the camps. Open farmland close to a village with a railroad line was enclosed with barbed wire and divided into 10 to 20 camps, each housing 5,000 to 10,000 men. Existing field paths were used as streets of the camp and surrounding buildings as the administration, kitchen and hospital.[2] The prisoners of war, forced to surrender their equipment, had to dig holes in the earth by hand in which to sleep. Soon the camps were grossly overcrowded; e.g., Camp Remagen, intended for 100,000, grew to 184,000 prisoners.[3]

"Some of the enclosures resembled Andersonville Prison in 1864".[4]
[...]
On 12 June 1945, the British forces took control of the two Rheinwiesenlager camps designated to be in the British Zone. On 10 July 1945, all releases were halted after SHAEF handed control of the camps over to the French. The deal was struck because the government of Charles de Gaulle wanted 1.75 million prisoners of war for forced labor in France.
[...]
In 2003, historian Richard Dominic Wiggers argued that the Allies violated international law regarding the feeding of enemy civilians, and that they both directly and indirectly caused the unnecessary suffering and death of large numbers of civilians and prisoners in occupied Germany, guided partly by a spirit of postwar vengeance when creating the circumstances that contributed to their deaths.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinwiesenlager

They're packed in so tightly it looks like a concert with barely any room to move.







Then there's the US concentration camps which are actually sometimes mentioned in history books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

The Canadian concentration camps remained until 1949!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Canadians


In WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania was a major piece of propaganda to gain sympathy for the Allied cause. The British loaded tons of ammunition on a ship carrying civilians, with the hopes that this would be a gotcha loophole allowing them to transport whatever they wanted. The Germans called their bluff and over 1000 people died in the sinking. Around 1500 people died on the Titanic, making it the largest loss of life in a single maritime disaster in history.

Meanwhile, this death toll was surpassed multiple times in WWII and no one ever hears about it. The highest death toll was a German ship evacuating refugees from the impending Soviet invasion. Over 9000 people died, and it remains the most deadly shipwreck in history.
Quote
The MV Wilhelm Gustloff was a German armed military transport ship which was sunk on 30 January 1945 by Soviet submarine S-13 in the Baltic Sea while evacuating German civilian refugees from East Prussia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia[3] and military personnel from Gotenhafen (Gdynia) as the Red Army advanced. According to one source, the ship was carrying Lithuanian, Latvian and Polish refugee children.[4] By one estimate,[5][6] 9,400 people died, which makes it the largest loss of life in a single ship sinking in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff

Up to 7000 died in similar incident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Goya


Lastly, here is one of the most disturbing and organized war crimes to take place during WWII, committed by the Soviets:

Quote
The majority of the assaults were committed in the Soviet occupation zone; estimates of the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers have ranged up to 2 million.[11][12][13][14] According to historian William Hitchcock, in many cases women were the victims of repeated rapes, some as many as 60 to 70 times.[15] At least 100,000 women are believed to have been raped in Berlin, based on surging abortion rates in the following months and contemporary hospital reports,[13] with an estimated 10,000 women dying in the aftermath.[16] Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000.[2][17] Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass **** in history" and concludes that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone.[18] According to the Soviet war correspondent Natalya Gesse, Soviet soldiers raped German females from eight to eighty years old. Soviet and Polish women were not spared either.[19][20][21]
[...]
When the Yugoslav politician Milovan Djilas complained about rapes in Yugoslavia, Stalin reportedly stated that he should "understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle. ".[23] On another occasion, when told that Red Army soldiers sexually maltreated German refugees, he reportedly said: "We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative."[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

Quote
'They raped every German female from eight to 80'
[...]
Antony Beevor, author of the acclaimed new book about the fall of Berlin, on a massive war crime committed by the victorious Red Army.
[...]
"Red Army soldiers don't believe in 'individual liaisons' with German women," wrote the playwright Zakhar Agranenko in his diary when serving as an officer of marine infantry in East Prussia. "Nine, ten, twelve men at a time - they **** them on a collective basis."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2021, 11:38:11 pm »
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!!!

Will Westerners ever learn?

christianbethel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Location: Miami, FL, USA
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2021, 03:09:45 pm »
Are you implying that Hitler should have simply looked the other way while Poland was slaughtering its German, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian minorities, as well as training Zionist paramilitaries?

I wasn't implying anything. I'm just saying that Hitler was goaded into using military force against Poland as a result of failed negotiations (which he was planning to do anyway) by the Zionist cabal so they could have an excuse to wage war on him.
When in doubt, use the 16 Words: 'We must Engineer the Destruction of Western Civilization and Tribalism, and Unite All Races Through Nobility.'

Aryan ≠ 'White'.

History is Written by the Victors.

He Who Controls the Past Controls the Future; He Who Controls the Present Controls the Past.

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2021, 10:58:25 pm »
This is post-WWII, but you've probably heard about all kinds of wacky Nazi plans to sink the entire Netherlands, or Himmler trying to colonize the USSR with a bunch of Nordicist neo-feudalist fiefdoms, or any other kinds of crazy things. I think due to post-war propaganda, we'll never really know if most of these things were always considered to be far too impractical to ever leave the drawing board, or whether they were actually semi-serious.

But here's a barbaric plan that was serious and quite frankly dwarfs any 'evil plans' that WWII Germany allegedly had. During the Korean war, General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking General in the US Army and commander of the US forces in the Korean war) wanted to drop 30-50 atomic bombs on the border of North Korea in order to stop Chinese reinforcements. Think about that. 50 atomic bombs in the small Korean peninsula. By 1950, the Soviets had their own nuclear weapons, and MacArthur was also so antagonistic toward China that many believed he would lead to a full-on WWIII with them. For these reasons, General MacArthur was removed from his command in Korea.

How many times have we heard about the "audacity" of NS Germany using scorched earth tactics on the Eastern front, on the frontlines of a total war situation? Meanwhile, MacArthur wanted to turn parts of China and Korea into nuclear wastelands which would remain impenetrable for over an entire lifetime.

Quote
At a press conference on 30 November 1950, Truman was asked about the use of nuclear weapons:

    Q. Mr. President, I wonder if we could retrace that reference to the atom bomb? Did we understand you clearly that the use of the atomic bomb is under active consideration?
    Truman: Always has been. It is one of our weapons.
    Q. Does that mean, Mr. President, use against military objectives, or civilian—
    Truman: It's a matter that the military people will have to decide. I'm not a military authority that passes on those things.
    Q. Mr. President, perhaps it would be better if we are allowed to quote your remarks on that directly?
    Truman: I don't think—I don't think that is necessary.
    Q. Mr. President, you said this depends on United Nations action. Does that mean that we wouldn't use the atomic bomb except on a United Nations authorization?
    Truman: No, it doesn't mean that at all. The action against Communist China depends on the action of the United Nations. The military commander in the field will have charge of the use of the weapons, as he always has.[88]

The implication was that the authority to use atomic weapons now rested in the hands of MacArthur.[89][90] Truman's White House issued a clarification, noting that "only the President can authorize the use of the atom bomb, and no such authorization has been given," yet the comment still caused a domestic and international stir.[88]
[...]
On 9 December 1950, MacArthur requested field commander's discretion to employ nuclear weapons; he testified that such an employment would only be used to prevent an ultimate fallback, not to recover the situation in Korea.[92] On 24 December 1950, MacArthur submitted a list of "retardation targets" in Korea, Manchuria and other parts of China, for which 34 atomic bombs would be required.[92][93][94][95] In June 1950, Louis Johnson released a study on the potential uses of radioactive agents. According to Major General Courtney Whitney, MacArthur considered the possibility of using radioactive wastes to seal off North Korea in December 1950, but he never submitted this to the Joint Chiefs. After his dismissal, Senator Albert Gore Sr. put a similar proposal to Truman.[96]
[...]
In early April 1951, the Joint Chiefs became alarmed by the build up of Soviet forces in the Far East, particularly bombers and submarines.[98] On 5 April 1951, they drafted orders for MacArthur authorizing attacks on Manchuria and the Shantung Peninsula if the Chinese launched airstrikes against his forces originating from there.[99] The next day Truman met with the chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Gordon Dean,[91] and arranged for the transfer of nine Mark 4 nuclear bombs to military control.[100]
[...]
 In interview with Jim G. Lucas and Bob Considine on 25 January 1954, posthumously published in 1964, MacArthur said,

    Of all the campaigns of my life, 20 major ones to be exact, [Korea was] the one I felt most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria
.... It was my plan as our amphibious forces moved south to spread behind us—from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea—a belt of radioactive cobalt. It could have been spread from wagons, carts, trucks and planes.... For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the north. The enemy could not have marched across that radiated belt."[110]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Nuclear_weapons

Oh, and another thing:

Quote
There were numerous atrocities and massacres of civilians throughout the Korean War committed by both sides, starting in the war's first days. On 28 June, North Korean troops committed the Seoul National University Hospital massacre.[393] On the same day, South Korean President Syngman Rhee ordered the Bodo League massacre,[150][394][395] beginning mass killings of suspected leftist sympathizers and their families by South Korean officials and right-wing groups.[396][397] Estimates of those killed during the Bodo League massacre range from at least 60,000–110,000 (Kim Dong-choon) to 200,000 (Park Myung-lim).[398] The British protested to their allies about later South Korean mass executions and saved some citizens.[396][397]

In 2005–2010, a South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigated atrocities and other human rights violations through much of the 20th century, from the Japanese colonial period through the Korean War and beyond. It excavated some mass graves from the Bodo League massacres and confirmed the general outlines of those political executions. Of the Korean War-era massacres the commission was petitioned to investigate, 82% were perpetrated by South Korean forces, with 18% perpetrated by North Korean forces.[399][400][398]
[...]
In the most notorious U.S. massacre, investigated separately, not by the commission, American troops killed an estimated 250–300 refugees, mostly women and children, at No Gun Ri in central South Korea (26–29 July 1950).[401][402] U.S. commanders, fearing enemy infiltrators among refugee columns, had adopted a policy of stopping civilian groups approaching U.S. lines, including by gunfire.[403] After years of rejecting survivors’ accounts, the U.S. Army investigated and in 2001 acknowledged the No Gun Ri killings, but claimed they were not ordered and "not a deliberate killing".[404]:x South Korean officials, after a parallel investigation, said they believed there were orders to shoot. The survivors’ representatives denounced what they described as a U.S. "whitewash".[405][406]
[...]
In December 1950, the South Korean National Defense Corps was founded; the soldiers were 406,000 drafted citizens.[436] In the winter of 1951, 50,000[437][438] to 90,000[439][440] South Korean National Defense Corps soldiers starved to death while marching southward under the PVA offensive when their commanding officers embezzled funds earmarked for their food.[437][439][441][442] This event is called the National Defense Corps Incident.[437][439] There is no evidence that Syngman Rhee was personally involved in or benefited from the corruption.[443]
[...]
Throughout the Korean War, "comfort stations" were operated by South Korean officials for UN soldiers.[445]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#War_crimes

If you changed the names to make it seem like it happened at the hands of Germany or Japan in WWII, no one would have batted an eye. But since it happened by a different nation in a different war, it's never in regular history books. If the point of the history books was to simply teach certain actions and principles were bad in a sincere and unbiased manner, there wouldn't be such an extreme double standard focusing on the (alleged) actions of a single regime during a single time period, while ignoring all the comparable (and often worse) things that happened at the hands of other regimes (in more recent time periods!).

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2021, 11:37:27 pm »
The present-day historiography of the capital-h 'Holocaust' as a sacred thing everyone needed to talk about seems to have started in the late 1970s:


This image is from the Google Ngram Viewer, which analyzes how frequently words have been used in digitized books, etc., and was produced for the article below.

Quote
In the course of reporting "A Liberator, But Never Free," about the recent discovery of the late Dr. David Wilsey’s letters home from the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp, one intriguing semantic anomaly transfixed every expert consulted: the Spokane anesthesiologist’s persistent use of the word “holocaust” to describe the horrors all around him.
[...]
Yet for decades after the war, the genocide lacked any formal title in English except, perhaps, “The Final Solution,” the term the Nazis used. In Hebrew, the calamity quickly became known as “Shoah,” which means “the catastrophe.” But it wasn’t until the 1960s that scholars and writers began using the term “Holocaust,” and it took the 1978 TV film Holocaust, starring Meryl Streep, to push it into widespread use.
[...]
Allied governments, Donahue said, downplayed the extent of the peril to Jews in their rally-the-homefront propaganda materials, for fear that many non-Jews wouldn’t be willing to fight and die for what was still a marginalized religious minority regarded suspiciously even in the U.S. Wilsey himself reflected those attitudes in a letter on April 4, 1945, in which he complains about a Jewish anesthesiologist he was forced to bunk with. “ Dear, medicine is so full of them, so usurped by them, so progressively becoming ruled by them — that we white men just must not do all we can to help them.” A paragraph later, in fact, he blames his Jewish colleague’s “Prussianism”—his Eastern European background—for “exactly what has caused 3 holocaustic wars.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/121807/when-holocaust-became-holocaust

Lol, the person who first used the term "holocaust" to describe the events of WWII blamed Jewish attitudes for causing WWII! That tidbit will certainly not be printed in history textbooks. Nor will things such as the diary entries of people like General Patton (who complained about the attitudes of Jewish journalists who were covering the US military occupation in Germany).


There's countless famous quotations claiming victors write history. But the real power is the fact that the victors are the ones who get to teach history and shape the "official" narrative of what we accept as reality. Even if they don't outright make anything up, they pick and choose which pieces of information to include and which to selectively exclude, to shape what we think is important and what we will remain ignorant to. When it comes to facts of dubious accuracy, well, the vast majority of people don't care about facts and rational argumentation (and, even if they did, there is too much information in existence for every person to possibly process). The vast majority don't care about history either--it's just a subject they are forced to take in school and don't pay any attention to. They only care about the peer pressure to adhere to "accepted" narratives and the taboo against acknowledging unpopular narratives as potentially legitimate.

However, what narratives are "accepted" can rapidly change, yet we are rarely aware of these changes in paradigm. We often just think what we had been taught is how the narrative has always been taught. Again, this is much more powerful than simply writing down history after it happens. What has been written will always be there--the truth, the lies, and the half truths--but which pieces are ignored and which are included in the narrative of history can always change. Who knows, 100 years from now the manner in which WWII is taught could completely change, and no one alive then would even realize how the war is taught today!


To give another example of changing narratives of history, over the past few decades there's been a lot of revisionism trying to rehabilitate the legacy of Genghis Khan, apparently in a misguided (or intentionally misleading) attempt to be "woke".

Quote
Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (2004) is a history book written by Jack Weatherford, Dewitt Wallace Professor of Anthropology at Macalester College. It is a narrative of the rise and influence of Genghis Khan and his successors, and their influence on European civilization. Weatherford provides a different slant on Genghis Khan than has been typical in most Western accounts, attributing positive cultural effects to his rule.

In the last section, he reviews the historiography of Genghis Khan in the West and argues that the leader's early portrayal in writings as an "excellent, noble king" changed to that of a brutal pagan during the Age of Enlightenment.
[...]
The book suggests that the western depiction of the Mongols as savages who destroyed civilization was due to the Mongols' approach to dealing with the competing leadership classes. The Mongols practiced killing the ruling classes in order to subdue the general population, a technique used by other cultures as well. Survivors of the upper classes wrote the histories and expressed resentment of Mongol brutality toward them. Weatherford explores the Mongol treatment of the general population (peasants, tradesmen, merchants) under Mongol rule. He suggests their rule was less burdensome than that of European nobility due to lighter taxes, tolerance of local customs and religions, more rational administration, and universal education for boys.

These benefits were enjoyed only by populations who surrendered immediately to the Mongol invaders. Those populations that resisted could be massacred as a warning to other towns/cities. These massacres were a method of psychological warfare to alert those populations not yet conquered. The resulting terror helped color the historical portrayal of the Mongols.
[...]
Weatherford explores Genghis Khan's legacy and influence; he attributes many aspects of the Renaissance, such as the spread of paper and printing, the compass, gunpowder and musical instruments such as the violin, to the influence of trade enabled by Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire. Weatherford suggests that the European Renaissance was a rebirth, not of Greece or Rome, but of concepts from the Mongol Empire. He notes the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan_and_the_Making_of_the_Modern_World

Yet:

Quote
One estimate is that about 11% of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions (around 37.75 - 60 million people in Eurasia).[1] If the calculations are accurate, the events would be the deadliest acts of mass killings in human history.

Oliver Chancellor conducted research and found that the Mongol invasions induced population displacement "on a scale never seen before", particularly in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, and that "the impending arrival of the Mongol hordes spread terror and panic".[2]
[...]
The reputation of guaranteed genocide on those who fought them allowed the Mongols to hold vast territories long after their main force had moved on. Even if the tumens (tyumens) were hundreds or thousands of miles away, the conquered people would usually not dare to interfere with the token Mongol occupying force since they feared a likely Mongol return.
[...]
As Mongol conquests spread, that form of psychological warfare proved effective at suppressing resistance to Mongol rule. There were tales of lone Mongol soldiers riding into surrendered villages and executing peasants at random as a test of loyalty. It was widely known that a single act of resistance would bring the entire Mongol army onto a town to obliterate its occupants.
[...]
Genghis Khan was largely tolerant of multiple religions, but there are many cases of him and other Mongols engaging in religious war even if the populations were obedient. He passed a decree charging all Taoist followers to pay more taxes. All campaigns involved deliberately destroying places of worship.[6]

Ancient sources described Genghis Khan's conquests as wholesale destruction on an unprecedented scale in certain geographical regions, causing great demographic changes in Asia. According to the works of the Iranian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), the Mongols killed more than 700,000 people in Merv and more than 1,000,000 in Nishapur. The total population of Persia may have dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. Population exchanges also sometimes occurred.[7]
[...]
The Mongols practised biological warfare by catapulting diseased cadavers into the cities they besieged. It is believed that fleas remaining on the bodies of the cadavers may have acted as vectors to spread the Black Death.
[...]
For example, there is a noticeable lack of Chinese literature from the Jin dynasty, predating the Mongol conquest, and in the Siege of Baghdad (1258), libraries, books, literature, and hospitals were burned: some of the books were thrown into the river in quantities sufficient to turn the Tigris black with ink for several months".[17][18] [19][20]; as well as "In one week, libraries and their treasures that had been accumulated over hundreds of years were burned or otherwise destroyed. So many books were thrown into the Tigris River, according to one writer, that they formed a bridge that would support a man on horseback" [21]

The Mongols' destruction of the irrigation systems of Iran and Iraq turned back millennia of effort in building irrigation and drainage infrastructure in these regions. The loss of available food as a result may have led to the death of more people from starvation in this area than the actual battle did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire

How many times have you seen people repeat the narrative about Genghis Khan actually being "progressive" for his time and not that bad? (Even a series as "woke" as Assassin's Creed pushes this narrative of Genghis Khan!) Simply reading a few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article above could have corrected their beliefs. But they didn't bother, since narratives (i.e. propaganda) are more powerful and compelling than facts alone.


And, of course, don't get us started on discussing communist apologists who don't even try to downplay the carnage and oppression of communist regimes, and are still able to embrace communism and cling on to the tiniest examples of how communism is supposedly positive! But it is somehow too taboo to examine any of the positives of the National Socialist regime, solely because they allegedly killed....tens of millions fewer people than the Soviets or Mongols...? I guess it's because the communists and Weatherford's narrative of Genghis Khan don't fundamentally challenge Western Civilization, and therefore such narratives are allowed to exist within the Overton Window.


--------

And, just for fun, if you like to read deeply into things:

From the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
Quote
HOLOCAUST (Gr. ὁλοκαυστον, or ὁλόκαυτον, wholly burnt), strictly a sacrifice wholly destroyed by fire, such as the sacrifices of the Jews, described in the Pentateuch as “whole burnt offerings”
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39232/39232-h/39232-h.htm#ar175

From Webster's Dictionary, 1913:
Quote
HOLOCAUST
1. A burnt sacrifice; an offering, the whole of which was consumed by fire, among the Jews and some pagan nations. Milton.

2. Sacrifice or loss of many lives, as by the burning of a theater or a ship.

Note: [An extended use not authorized by careful writers.]

Quote
SCAPEGOAT
1. (Jewish Antiq.)

Defn: A goat upon whose head were symbolically placed the sins of the people, after which he was suffered to escape into the wilderness. Lev. xvi. 10.

2. Hence, a person or thing that is made to bear blame for others. Tennyson.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29765


So Zionist historians/propagandists scapegoated the Jews as the biggest victims of WWII, who were then capital-H holocausted... And Yahweh certainly rewarded them for their offering.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7417
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2021, 11:52:06 pm »
I actually find this narrative somewhat plausible:

Quote
Weatherford explores Genghis Khan's legacy and influence; he attributes many aspects of the Renaissance, such as the spread of paper and printing, the compass, gunpowder and musical instruments such as the violin, to the influence of trade enabled by Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire. Weatherford suggests that the European Renaissance was a rebirth, not of Greece or Rome, but of concepts from the Mongol Empire. He notes the following:

I merely happen to consider the Renaissance to be the worst event in all of history, therefore acknowledging Genghis Khan's role in it just makes him an even more evil villain in my mind.

The problem with False Leftists is that (being progressives) they think the Renaissance was a positive event to begin with.

True Leftists can work with anyone who hates the Renaissance, no matter whom they blame for it. True Leftists cannot work with anyone who likes the Renaissance, no matter whom they credit for it.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2021, 11:57:11 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7417
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
« Reply #44 on: August 10, 2021, 01:10:39 am »
If you ask neo-Nazis about what Hitler disliked about Poland, they will claim basically that Hitler considered Poland too ghetto. Of course they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Here are some videos of pre-WWII Poland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biBCosaZ_0w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0hlKsZdnhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7o0SP4zK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjps5GHWEgE

What you see in these videos is what Hitler actually disliked about Poland. As a matter of fact, it was only after Hitler got the Luftwaffe to bomb the above into dust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_the_Polish_nation#1939_September_Campaign

Quote
Over 100,000 Poles died in the Luftwaffe's terror bombing operations, like those at Wieluń.[27] Massive air raids were conducted on towns which had no military infrastructure.[28] The town of Frampol, near Lublin, was heavily bombed on 13 September as a test subject for Luftwaffe bombing technique; chosen because of its grid street plan and an easily recognisable central town-hall. Frampol was hit by 70 tonnes of munitions,[29] which destroyed up to 90% of buildings and killed half of its inhabitants.[30] Columns of fleeing refugees were systematically attacked by the German fighter and dive-bomber aircraft.[31]



Amongst the Polish cities and towns bombed at the beginning of war were: Brodnica,[32] Bydgoszcz,[32] Chełm,[32] Ciechanów,[32] Częstochowa,[33][34] Grodno,[34] Grudziądz,[34] Gdynia,[32] Janów,[32] Jasło,[32] Katowice,[34] Kielce,[34] Kowel,[34] Kraków,[32][33] Kutno,[32] Lublin,[32] Lwów,[34] Olkusz,[32] Piotrków,[35] Płock,[32] Płońsk,[34] Poznań,[33][34] Puck,[34] Radom,[32] Radomsko,[34] Sulejów,[35] Warsaw,[33][34] Wieluń,[32] Wilno, and Zamość.[32] Over 156 towns and villages were attacked by the Luftwaffe.[36] Warsaw suffered particularly severely with a combination of aerial bombardment and artillery fire reducing large parts of the historic centre to rubble,[37] with more than 60,000 casualties.[24]

that infrastructure was rebuilt post-WWII in the Brutalist-influenced styles that neo-Nazis complain about as being "ghetto".
« Last Edit: August 10, 2021, 01:26:48 am by 90sRetroFan »