The Bromberg Holocaust or Why Hitler Invaded Poland
As is the case with most of the historical narrations concerning the persecution of Jews in the 20th century, we are usually only given the second half of the story, while the first half is swept under the rug of controlled historical censorship. All historical events begin with an initial action or set of actions, which in turn produce a chain of subsequent reactions. However, when it comes to the history of Jewish persecution, we are usually only told about the “reaction†side of the story, and more often than not, it is portrayed as the first side, or initial “action†side of the event. We are told that the enraged bull killed the matador, but are not told that the bull was initially provoked by the picadors who can no longer be seen within the arena. The Jews are always portrayed as the victims of sudden, out-of-nowhere bursts of “irrational†hatred and aggression, but are never shown as the initiators of actions which in turn produce a general persecution against Jews as a group. We see this phenomenon in relation to the Nazi persecutions of Jews in Germany, beginning with the decreeing of the Nuremberg Laws on September 15, 1935 by the German Reichstag. What “mainstream†historians always neglect to add to this narrative is that the German people by 1935 had found out about the Balfour Declaration which had prolonged WWI after Germany had already won the war; that the hand of British Zionism was highly influential in the post-war imposition of massive, economically crippling reparations on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles; that this sent Germany into a financial depression which allowed wealthy Jewish interests to essentially buy German industry and infrastructure at a deep, desperate discount; that German Jews working on behalf of international Bolshevism sought to wage a communist revolution against the German state; and that on top of all this, these “mainstream†historians always conveniently leave out the part of the story where, on March 24, 1933 the World Zionist Congress in Geneva and the militant, right-wing Revisionist Zionists, headed by the Russian Vladimir Jabotinsky, declared on the front pages of European newspapers world Jewry’s war on Germany and her people, accompanied, of course, by an international boycott against German exports (so that Germany would not be able to pay its imposed reparations and essentially go bankrupt). These “historians†always leave out passages from newspapers of the time such as London’s The Daily Express or the Jewish newspaper Natscha Retsch which proclaimed at the beginning of 1933:
“The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses...by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed.
“The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time. . . .In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.
In our school day history classes we were always simplistically taught that in January 1933, Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, and because he was a natural-born “Jew hater,†he immediately, from day one, used his power to begin persecuting the “innocent†Jews of Germany simply because he hated their religion, or maybe he hated “their freedoms†(cf. the Zionist-devised 9/11 myth). He was a Christian, they were all “Christ killers,†and he decided to thus persecute the Jews because of these reasons, end of story. In history class we were never told the first part of this story—the initial “action†side of the equation—in which German Jews (as pawns in the hands of Zionist ideology), beginning with the 1919 Spartacist Uprising, had basically begun conducting themselves as an enemy “fifth column†within the state. Here is a good historical tip for such fifth columnists (cf. new U.S. President Rahamim Israel Emanuel): If you openly declare war against a state (any state) and its people from within that state, you should EXPECT to get rounded up as “enemies of the state.†This type of political “reaction†against an initial “action†of a declaration of national treason has absolutely nothing to do with racial, ethnic, or religious hatred, and portraying it as such is historically and morally disingenuous to say the least.
With this background in mind, we arrive at this blog’s “main event†which concerns one of the major historically unspoken of reasons as to why the German Reich invaded Poland in September 1939, an event which has nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler’s oft touted desire to “conquer the world.†Germany in fact did not invade “Poland†in 1939. Germany was “invading†the Danzig corridor, also known as West Prussia. The Danzig corridor was originally part of Germany until the Zionist conquistadors at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference gave it away to Bolshevik and Zionist-friendly Poland. Most of its residents were German nationals, and before Hitler rolled the treads of a single tank across the Versailles imposed Polish-German border, or before the first gate of any Nazi political detention work camp was even opened, a real Holocaust was visited upon the German civilians of the Danzig corridor in which 58,000 Germans were brutally massacred in the streets of their towns by Polish gangs of Zionist Jews and Bolsheviks.
In 1937 Hitler negotiated a deal with Poland that would give Germany a one-mile wide strip of land providing Germany access to its province of East Prussia which had been separated from West Prussia (the Danzig corridor area) and the rest of Germany because of the land divisions of the Versailles Treaty. In 1939 the negotiations were nearly completed on a positive note when Poland suddenly broke off all talks. On March 31, 1939 Britain and France had given Poland assurances that if Germany attacked it to retake its territory given away at Versailles, the British, French, and the U.S. would defend Poland. Rydz Smigly, commander of the Polish armed forces, and Polish president Ignacy Moscicki, emboldened by these guarantees, began threatening Hitler’s government. Threatening to overrun Germany in three days, General Smigly stated that, “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.â€
“BLOODY SUNDAY†IN BROMBERG
Among the massacres in the Danzig corridor committed against the civilian ethnic German populace by Polish Jews of the Bolshevik NKVD and Polish Army, the most infamous massacre is the one that took place on what has been called “Bloody Sunday,†September 4, 1939 in the town of Bromberg. For several months before Germany’s invasion of “Poland†the Polish Bolsheviks, Zionist Jews of the Russian NKVD, and Polish Army units, confident that they were about to lure Germany into war and then defeat it, began the mass killings of German nationals living in the Danzig corridor. Many of these thugs and psychopathic murderers were also seeking to appropriate, through their genocidal acts, the Germans’ rich farmlands and businesses. Prior to Hitler’s 1939 invasion, an estimated 58,000 German civilians lost their lives in a murderous Holocaust that had been carried out against them from as early as April 1939, with some incidents going back as far as the end of WWI. The German government had lodged dozens of formal written protests to the completely useless League of Nations, but with no results, nor even a single word of condemnation (cf. the also completely useless U.N. and Israel’s 60+ years of genocide against the Palestinians).
On Sunday, September 4, 1939, gangs of Jewish Bolsheviks and NKVD members from Ponz, Warsaw, and Lodz, protected by the Polish Army, descended upon Bromberg, a German town given to Poland at the signing of the Versailles Treaty. They began killing the German farmers and their families on the outskirts of town, nailed children to their fathers’ barns (see the numerous photos at the URL given below), and proceeded to gang rape German women after which they hacked their bodies to pieces with axes. Men were lined up in the streets, executed with a bullet to the back of the head, and left where they fell. After the pastor of Bromberg’s Protestant church was dragged off by Jewish gangs and soldiers, 328 German parishioners were forced into the town’s church, whereupon the church was plundered and then set on fire, burning alive all 328 people locked inside. At 5:45 p.m. the clock on the church came to a final stop as the gangs of ravenous wolves deserted the town and moved on to their next slaughter.
In light of all this history, you must honestly ask yourself, if you were the Chancellor of Germany, what would you do? Would you sit on your hands listening to Donovan records and naively flashing a peace sign, or would you step in to stop the merciless slaughtering of your countrymen by rolling tanks across the border into Poland? I know most definitely what I would do, but I have taken a vow of silence on these things. Be that as it may, it is nonetheless the duty of a country’s leadership to PROTECT its citizens, and that is exactly what German Chancellor Adolf Hitler did in September 1939 when the German army rolled into the rogue nation of Poland. Of course, in our history classes, we always hear about how it was Hitler who was the aggressor in this situation and was the one who fired the first shot across the bow. However, the truth about history always has a nasty habit of eventually coming out and setting the story straight. Eventually, we do get to finally hear about the first part of the story, the part that sets into motion all the other parts, and for the long-tongued liars and fabricators of “selective history,†this does not bode well for them at all.
WARNING: The numerous photos of the Bromberg Holocaust displayed at this URL below are some of the worst images of human butchery and savagery I have ever, ever seen. For those with heart problems or weak stomachs, I highly recommend not looking at these, but for those who want to get a visual taste of what might have motivated Hitler to invade Poland, this is for you. No amount of research or fancy writing on the travails of history can supercede the power of these photos. You have been forewarned. Do not turn your eyes away.
- Lazlo Toth's blog
- Login to post comments
I had no idea
The history you tell is so very different from what I learned in school (which was pretty cursory - Germany invaded Poland, although I later heard that it was to take back the land lost in WWI) and that I'm sure is your point.
It was very hard to look at these pictures -- men, women, children, the elderly, the weak, the disabled, everyone was included. The pictures are indeed the worst I have ever seen.
How did you discover this material? Do polish scholars know of it? Are these pictures archived somewhere? Who is holding on to this truth that has been so well hidden away?
E
-------
"It is difficult to get the news from poems yet men die miserably every day for lack of what is found there."
--William Carlos Williams (from the poem 'From')
more history we didnt learn in school
To much to post individualy.
http://www.read-all-about-it.org/archive_english/germany_prior_to_WW2/bo...
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archivesindex.html
http://www.codoh.com/found/fndgcffor.html
http://www.codoh.com/found/found.html
sources?
I'm wondering what sources exist for the actions against Germans in Bromberg. A cursory look through The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich turns up no mention of it, which is no surprise since it is well known to be less than totally objective or accurate as a source. Instead there are passing references to German complaints of Polish aggression against Germans in the German areas that the Treaty of Versailles had given to Poland (some of which were apparently at one point originally part of Poland?) In any case there isn't much that would surprise me any more when it comes to the writing of history to make Germany look as evil as possible including the whitewashing of real provocations. I also feel though that Hitler was indeed bent on conquest. That others were as well and that his aggression was at least in part a response to that I also think is probably the case.
also I think the title is misleading
Whatever happened in Bromberg wasn't the actual reason Hitler invaded Poland--there were many reasons including some which you do allude to in the post, namely the unjust Treaty of Versailles...
Much better treatment by Richard Blanke
Richard Blanke, ORPHANS OF VERSAILLES, is a much more professional treatment of the issues involved. Of course there's no evidence to suggest that Zionists, never mind Bolsheviks, had anything to do with this. The Polish government had its own nationalist agenda which didn't require any alien influences to bring it about. Poland's government had abused the rights of their minorities for quite some time in an effort to encourage emigration, much as Hitler wished to pressure Jews to emigrate from Germany. But the Bromberg massacre was an event which followed the outbreak of war.
It doesn't make sense to say that Hitler's invasion was a responce to the Bromberg massacre, since Hitler invaded Poland several days before the massacre began. It's also silly to make it sound as if Hitler's move into Poland was only a well-meaning but necessary response to the Polish actions, when MEIN KAMPF and many other statements by Hitler had repeatedly invoked the idea that the Aryan race must expand to the east at the expense of the Slavs.
That said, the details given by Blanke are a reminder of how wars are more complicated than we like to believe. I remember in the 1990s people debating the Serb-Kosovo wars used to sometimes argue that "this isn't like it was with Hitler." But Blanke's analysis makes the German-Polish conflict seem a lot more like a Balkan war than we were trained to believe.
It's also clear that Hitler did not mean for this to be the beginning of a new world war. Richard Overy has shown in great detail how the economy of the Third Reich was bound to plans for war and military build-up with works like WAR AND ECONOMY IN THE THIRD REICH and THE NAZI ECONOMIC RECOVERY 1932-1938. But Overy also agrees that Hitler did not mean for 1939 to be the beginning of a major war. Maybe he would have started one later, or maybe things would simply have locked into an arms race similar to what happened later with Russia. But the war which broke out in 1939 occurred because Poland refused to reach an agreement on the Danzig Corridor and Hitler had the impression that England and France wouldn't back Poland up very seriously. He took a calculated gamble that they'd respond the way they had over Czechoslovakia, and then was stuck with a long war that he hadn't intended.
Inflated propaganda
"58,000 Germans were brutally massacred"
While there were actual massacres of German citizens in Poland, the actual numbers are more likely in a range of 2-3 thousand and possibly a maximum of 5-6 thousand. This 58,000 drivel was just hype stirred up by Nazi propaganda. All of the numbers are discussed by Blanke in ORPHANS OF VERSAILLES.
Outdated myth
"economically crippling reparations on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles"
This is a myth which goes back to John Maynard Keynes. Keynes had an incentive to push this view because he wished to argue that what was holding economies back were that government spending had been diverted by things like treaty payments. Researchers have established that Germany's economy was not substantively crippled by the Versailles Treaty, the money could have been paid off if the Germans had set themselves to do it, the actual demands made on Germany were relatively light vis-a-vis the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and any other peace terms which Germany would have imposed as a winner, and the worst thing about the Versailles Treaty was its indecisiveness.
If the Allies had chosen to, they could have easily reversed Bismarck's unification of 1871. There were calls for independence in states like Bavaria which could have easily been used to split Germany apart the way that Yugoslavia was split after 1991. The Allies chose not to do this because they were afraid that the Comintern would take advantage of such. I doubt that would have worked in practice since we know that Rosa Luxemburg had cultivated a semi-anarchistic influence in Germany which obstructed any attempt to build a party similar to the Bolsheviks. But the Allies chose not to take a chance.
Instead they accepted a new government of a still unified Germany led by the Social Democrats. But then in that context they should have been consistent and welcomed the Social Democratic government as a way of encouraging their prestige. Instead the Allies chose to force the Social Democrats to accept some humiliating gestures that weren't really backed up by any force. The German Right-wing loved it to see the Social Democrats embarrassed that way and in the end the Versailles Treaty had really done nothing to restrict Germany's power. So instead of helping the Soc Dems establish a stable unified republican government the Allies made it more likely that a Right-wing movement would eventually come to power in a unified Germany.
full disclosure
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/637#comment-6659
I think people should be aware that our friend "Patrick S McNally" is not exactly into 9/11 truth... he is welcome to post on the site since he has demonstrated that he can act in a civil manner but please note that some on the site, like me, don't accept anything he claims at face value...
If not recycling all the rumors
that are in circulation constitutes being "not exactly into 9/11 truth" then I'd have to plead guilty. I went looking across your page this morning and noticed that you still carry the Chertoff cousin hoax in one of your statements. When I pointed out a few months ago that that rumor started by Bollyn had been debunked and the two are not cousins you shrugged it off as inconsequential. But still you feature the story anyway. What does that have to do with seeking the truth about anything? When 911 occurred it was relatively easy to poke holes in the stories pushed by the Bush administration about Saddam being behind it. Now that alleged truth-seekers have attained public attention there's been enough rumors put into circulation among them that it's easy to poke holes in most of what passes for truth literature. But does anyone really care about finding any actual truth about anything? Maybe a few do, but most have mainly set themselves on their own ideological rant without caring about the facts.
With regards to the starting topic of this thread, if truth is of any concern to you then I'd have to suggest looking up Blanke's book ORPHANS OF VERSAILLES. It was fairly clearly that OP on this thread was by someone who is only concerned with ideological rantings and doesn't care enough about facts to check absurd claims such as that the Polish government of the 1930s was somehow controlled by Bolsheviks and Zionists. How much preposterous can we get here? If I wasn't so laidback I'd take offense at such a racist insinuation. My mother was Polish and this clown "Lazlo Toth" is asserting that Poles are incapable of whipping up violence they way everyone else in the world does unless they have a Zionist agent whispering in their ear telling them what to do? The Polish government of that time followed nationalist politics of a classic type and was hostile towards Jews, Germans, Russians and any other alien nationalities. They got a bit too big for themselves and paid the price. But there's no evidence at all to suggest that they were ever following "Bolshevik" orders. That takes the cake for nonsense.
PSMN, you're an annoying pedant and that's all there is to it
Your historical knowledge and willingness to provide a counterpoint to historical arguments made here is welcome, but the way you latch onto trivia AND ignore the big issues of 9/11 truth is increasingly irritating.
Please feel free to get completely fed up with the nonsense here and fuck off to some other site.
"you latch onto trivia AND ignore the big issues of 9/11 truth"
This must be one of the most popular and cheapest ways that is currently used whenever people are caught in an error. Jumping into bigger issues seems to be the way of avoiding owning up to specific technical mistakes, such as the Chertoff cousin hoax spread by Bollyn. Or the fact that the Twin Towers took 16+ seconds each to collapse and Building 7 took 18 seconds. People will casually toss around claims that the collapses occurred in 8, 10, and 6.5 seconds, but when the error is pointed out they turn to "bigger issues" as an escape. That's a pattern which I've had many chances to see on multiple threads. Unfortunately, the dirt is in the details and if the latter are gotten wrong then the "bigger issues" are skewed too.
Thank you for a stellar example of what I am talking about.
1. The jury is still out on the Chertoff relationship as far as I know. The significance of their familial relationship OR lack thereof is miniscule compared to the fact that the PS article and book followed on the heels of a great institutional purge.
2. With regard to collapse times, your suggestions here make me more likely to consider that you are working AGAINST the cause of 9/11 truth than merely being skeptical. Different parties have arrived at different figures based on the subtleties of what precisely they are counting -- for instance, a count time that starts at the beginning of the WTC 7 penthouse descent versus the collapse of its outer walls. Any of these collapse times are obviously much too fast to be accounted for by any scenario that does not include substantial energy ADDED to the effects of gravity on a compromised structure. Getting people hung up free-fall time versus freefall + some small increment is just inexcusable in light of the self-evident reality that the buildings were blown the fuck up. Really. That's the kind of pernicious pedantry that I have very little tolerance and patience for -- and what I had in your case I am very close to having used up.
OTOH, your post in Lazlo's thread regarding Holocaust revisionism reflects the kind positive addition you bring the overarching discourse here. However, this is not a Holocaust revision site per se -- only a site that allows such discussions of manipulated/manipulable historical narratives because by nature they intersect with what we understand about 9/11. You will need to either tone down the pedantry and/or evince a willingness to get on the same page as the rest of us with regard to 9/11 or wear out the very last of your welcome.
Has anyone checked into this?
"the fact that the PS article and book followed on the heels of a great institutional purge"
Just asking. I'll assume that "PS" was a small typo for "PM" as in POPULAR MECHANICS. I've tried searching several times for something that would support that story. All I've come up with so far is this old Bollyn piece where he has a few lines:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/march2005/200305hiddenhand.htm
-----
In the months leading up to the Chertoff article in PM, a brutal take-over occurred at the magazine. In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazines former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a deputy, Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PMs 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office.
A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.
-----
As far as I can see, the second paragraph is not easy to crosscheck with anything. But in the first paragraph were given some names like "Oldham," "Meigs," and it's suggested that Oldham was removed as part of the asserted purge. Now when I check on PM's own page I find:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/marketing/email/
-----
Editor-In-Chief James B. Meigs <-------
Executive Editor David Dunbar
Design Director Michael Lawton
AUTOMOTIVE
Editor Don Chaikin
Detroit Editor Jim Dunne
Senior Editor Mike Allen
West Coast Editor Ben Stewart
Contributing Editors Jay Leno, Joe Oldham, <------- Jim McCraw, Ken Juran
-----
The word "purge" suggests that Oldham was sacked from his job. Did that ever really occur? Was he sacked for awhile and then rehired, now in the capacity a Contributing Editor to the Automotive section? Is the purge which Bollyn refers really just a reshuffling of positions where Oldham now works in a different capacity on the same magazine?
Obviously I don't know the answers to these questions myself. But has anyone actually tried to investigate this? Or is this "purge" story just another Bollyn-launched rumor which has managed to sail around the net? These are the types of simple questions which a real truth-movement has to show some interest in getting straight on.
No, not really.
Thanks for completely bypassing the substance of my post and sailing on into another minor issue (yes, minor -- just not AS minor as the Chertoff relationship.)
PSMN, I think you should clarify, for us and perhaps yourself, what your interest is in being here. I think I have made clear that we aren't interested in the kind of trivia quibbles that completely derail people who are approaching a realization along the lines of what is in our mission statement. That's the specialty of folks like "Diane" so maybe you could save that stuff for her blog. Substantive posts aimed at ADDING to our collective knowledge base (such as your comment in Laz's latest blog) are what I suggest you focus on -- and you can subtract some of the snark from those, as well.
the Chertoff "hoax" is VERY instructive
in the methods of deception employed by the 9/11 perpetrators and their apologists. let's look at the facts:
1) popular mechanics, benjamin chertoff and michael chertoff all lie through their teeth about 9/11 - this is not only morally reprehensible but quite possibly criminal behavior.
2) Bollyn claims, and no one denies, that he spoke to Ben Chertoff's mom. Bollyn says she said "of course, he's a cousin".
3) Popular Mechanics has this to say on pages 102-03 of Debunking 9/11 Myths: "Christopher Bollyn phoned Ben's mother, who volunteered that yes, she thinks Michael Chertoff may be a distant cousin." AND "it's possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related"
Why, if the two are definitely not cousins, does PM not just say "They are not related"? Why do they have to resort to saying they MAY be related? Wouldn't it be easy enough to show that they are not cousins if in fact they are not cousins? Why didn't they get Ben's mom on the record saying something like "This Bollyn guy totally misquoted me! I said they MAY be DISTANT cousins but I couldn't know for sure!" Surely they could have, and she would have. But they didn't. Why? Because the two ARE cousins and they are saying everything they think they can later claim is not a lie and that makes it sound like the question of their being related is not certain.
So sorry, PSM, but you do not seem very trustworthy or reliable. I have wanted in the past to give you every benefit of the doubt but you've worn out that courtesy and I can state openly that I think you have an agenda, to quote Fire Engineering, "that lies far afield of full disclosure" with regard to 9/11. I think you are an inherently dishonest person and given the subject to which you apply your dishonesty I would add that I suspect you are an immoral person who is quite probably engaged in what may constitute criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.
I have no intention of banning you from posting here because above all we value free inquiry and discourse and however reprehensible I consider you you adhere on the whole to our semi-official code of conduct. Your persistent dissembling is most instructive and as with most people who think they are more clever than they are you help uncover the truth about 9/11 more than you help to keep it covered up, which again I can only assume is your intention. Similarly Popular Mechanics may think their work helps to hide the truth but that is only true in the case of the most willfully ignorant or naturally dense individuals--most people comparing their book with David Griffin's come away with no doubt as to which side is lying and which side is right.
One of the great things about the truth movement is that it has turned a problem -- that of people being afraid to admit to being skeptical of the official conspiracy theory-- into an asset. Confused? Let me explain--there are more of us than anyone knows and we are accomplishing more than people think because we are doing so in private and without a lot of publicity. This is why every so often I am approached in public by usually very obvious (though they must think otherwise) would be infiltrators with whose script I am by now so familiar that I can anticipate their questions and "helpful suggestions" (oh yes, David Icke, I love his work! BWAAHAHA) trying to figure out what the truthers are up to. A sure sign of a lost cause is one in which its supporters are as clueless as the supporters of the 9/11 cover up seem to be.
Know this: we will win, because we are winning and because we have already won. Some day you'll know exactly what I mean by that. Until then, try to sleep well.
Hi Cass, I had previously
Hi Cass,
I had previously asked PSMN about his big picture on 9-11. I always thought he was very well read on historical details so maybe he had an interesting POV and also I wanted an insight whether his niggling doubts were justified or a FUD play. He did not respond, unfortunately. Now he tries to FUD the time it took for building 7 to collapse. Hmmm, has any building ever collapsed in 18 seconds due to fire alone? How about 60 seconds, any time in history, ever? Nice try, but no dice PSMN, even if the WTC7 collapse took 18 seconds, it can still only be explained by controlled demolition. Somehow I think that is what PSMN wants to attack with these detail FUDs, but he fails yet again.