David Irving

[The Lawspeaker]

7277751690450162669


Speech by historian David Irving about his book "Churchill's War".

A blind drunken Churchill even seem to have ordered dropping poison gas-bombs and anthrax on German cities ! Thank God the military was against it :eek:

[Groenewolf]

7277751690450162669



A blind drunken Churchill even seem to have ordered dropping poison gas-bombs and anthrax on German cities ! Thank God the military was against it :eek:

I do have read that they did produce the material necessary for an anthrax attack and that the island they tested it on was only declared safe again in the 70'ties.

[Svanhild]

A blind drunken Churchill even seem to have ordered dropping poison gas-bombs and anthrax on German cities ! Thank God the military was against it :eek:
Winston Churchill was a notorious German-hater, a war criminal and ordered systematic mass murder. I can't understand why a lot of Brits and others portray him as a hero. Some of his late quotations after WW2 show that he started to realize some of the cruelties he delegated.

[Jarl]

Winston Churchill was a notorious German-hater,

He was no German hater but a sober politician... with a reason. And he was one of the more realistic leaders of his age, as it turned out.


a war criminal and ordered systematic mass murder.

Churchill "ordered systematic mass murder"? This is very peculair. When exactly did he do that? Would you care to elaborate on that accusation?


I can't understand why a lot of Brits and others portray him as a hero.

hmm...yep... perhaps because he managed to stand firm against Germany during the German Blitz and defended Britain at the Battle for England? Perhaps it's because he sealed the deal for American financial aid and arms? :rolleyes:

[Osweo]

Come on Jarl, he was a war mongerer, and widely hated in England for his part in the First World War (the debacle at Gallipoli) before the propaganda machine made him this 'hero'. A friend of mine was writing a Ribbentrop biography a few years ago, and I did some research for him, and read lots of material witnessing Churchill's obstinacy against any compromise that might have prevented war. Churchill's only aim was to preserve 'Empire' - something that had little benefit to anyone but megalomaniacs in charge.

I for one am sick of this leftover of the Cult of Personality.

the island they tested it on was only declared safe again in the 70'ties.
Ah yes, Gruinard Island, in Gruinard Bay, on the northwestern coast of the Scottish Highlands. Lovely beaches there, when I went a few years ago. ;)

[spearofperun]

Winston Churchill was a notorious German-hater, a war criminal and ordered systematic mass murder. I can't understand why a lot of Brits and others portray him as a hero. Some of his late quotations after WW2 show that he started to realize some of the cruelties he delegated.

with that i fully agree and a zionist rat as well. hes the reason why serbia got dragged into WWII, the reason why commies came to power he gave arms to the partisans or commies instead of to the the chetniks and finally even after the war and having fought bloody losing like more than a million people afterwards in 1945-46 the brits bomb us!!! The guy was a nut!!

[Guapo]

with that i fully agree and a zionist rat as well. hes the reason why serbia got dragged into WWII, the reason why commies came to power he gave arms to the partisans or commies instead of to the the chetniks and finally even after the war and having fought bloody losing like more than a million people afterwards in 1945-46 the brits bomb us!!! The guy was a nut!!

Serbia was one big mess during WWII. Germans bombed us in '41, Brits/US bombed us in '45. The Wehrmacht AND the Red Army at the end of the war killed thousands of Serb civilians, Serb political factions were killing each other etc. while in Bosnia and Croatia, Serbs were being slaughtered in concentration camps. Holy fuck.

[Beorn]

I ❤ Churchill. God bless his soul. May he be eating and drinking heartily in Valhalla as Satan has his sexual ways with Hitler and a pineapple. ;)

[Groenewolf]

Churchill's only aim was to preserve 'Empire' - something that had little benefit to anyone but megalomaniacs in charge.

And he even failed at that one. Thanks to policies from before WOII, in part encouraged by him, he could never preserve the Empire in WOII.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Winston Churchill was a notorious German-hater, a war criminal and ordered systematic mass murder. I can't understand why a lot of Brits and others portray him as a hero. Some of his late quotations after WW2 show that he started to realize some of the cruelties he delegated.

Well we have a 'supervillain' in Hitler, so we need a 'superhero' to oppose him. Stalin makes a bad candidate since he killed several times more people as Hitler, Roosevelt isn't exactly an inspiring character and did not survive the war, Truman only came in at the end and used nuclear weapons to kill a bunch of nonwhites, and nobody else really qualifies. So that leaves Churchill, who was a better orator than Roosevelt, including the 'Iron Curtain' speech at the end of the war, and not having any length of office before or after the war to have any controversial domestic issues to get in the way.

[spearofperun]

Serbia was one big mess during WWII. Germans bombed us in '41, Brits/US bombed us in '45. The Wehrmacht AND the Red Army at the end of the war killed thousands of Serb civilians, Serb political factions were killing each other etc. while in Bosnia and Croatia, Serbs were being slaughtered in concentration camps. Holy fuck.

i agree except the red army never killed thousands to the contrary it didnt really do anything bad. even knocked down a couple of the brit planes on their bombing runs.

[The Lawspeaker]

i agree except the red army never killed thousands to the contrary it didnt really do anything bad. even knocked down a couple of the brit planes on their bombing runs.Go tell that to the Germans and the Poles, the Finns, the Balts, the Hungarians, Czechs and even to your fellow Yugoslavs.

[spearofperun]

Go tell that to the Germans and the Poles, the Finns, the Balts, the Hungarians, Czechs and even to your fellow Yugoslavs.

im not taking about the others im talking about my own country. the red army did not cause any mass deaths here. hungarians and germans got a lot less than they deserve though.

[The Lawspeaker]

im not taking about the others im talking about my own country. the red army did not cause any mass deaths here. hungarians and germans got a lot less than they deserve though.
Wow.. it's pretty evident that you have been on the wrong side of the Atlantic as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Svanhild]

hungarians and germans got a lot less than they deserve though.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/iamges/liberal_idiot.jpg

[Jarl]

Come on Jarl, he was a war mongerer, and widely hated in England for his part in the First World War (the debacle at Gallipoli) before the propaganda machine made him this 'hero'. A friend of mine was writing a Ribbentrop biography a few years ago, and I did some research for him, and read lots of material witnessing Churchill's obstinacy against any compromise that might have prevented war. Churchill's only aim was to preserve 'Empire' - something that had little benefit to anyone but megalomaniacs in charge.

I for one am sick of this leftover of the Cult of Personality.

Ah yes, Gruinard Island, in Gruinard Bay, on the northwestern coast of the Scottish Highlands. Lovely beaches there, when I went a few years ago. ;)


I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with that opinion. Churchill defnitely served the interests of the British Empire, but that's hardly a reason to disrespect him. Wasn't he chosen as the most prominent Briton ever by the British themselves? If not for Churchill, the Allies could have well lost WW II and Britain would become a German puppet like Vichy. The man shipped arms to Russia, got the deal and financial support for Britain from the US. Stopped Italy and opted for the successful British campaign in Africa. Why such a harsh POV, Osweo??


im not taking about the others im talking about my own country. the red army did not cause any mass deaths here. hungarians and germans got a lot less than they deserve though.


This says a lot:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png

[The Lawspeaker]

It's a bit weird then that Germany's civilian figures are no less then 900,000
to 3,170,000 in WW II alone.These are the official figures as the real murder on the Germans started after the war.

Murders in which Poland was one of the contributing factors btw.

[Jarl]

It's a bit weird then that Germany's civilian figures are no less then 900,000
to 3,170,000 in WW II alone.These are the official figures as the real murder on the Germans started after the war.

Murders in which Poland was one of the contributing factors btw.

Atrocities on civilians were commited mostly by the Red Army and NKVD officers directing local militias and polcie. No need to bring Poland's name into that only to make things seem more even. Things were not even.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with that opinion. Churchill defnitely served the interests of the British Empire, but that's hardly a reason to disrespect him. Wasn't he chosen as the most prominent Briton ever by the British themselves? If not for Churchill, the Allies could have well lost WW II and Britain would become a German puppet like Vichy.

He helped push Britain into what he later described as an 'unnecessary war' in the first place. Germany was only interested in east/central continental Europe. Britain's colonies were all overseas. Hitler had been critical of Germany's 2-front war in WWI and considered Britain a natural ally of Germany.

[Osweo]

and not having any length of office before or after the war to have any controversial domestic issues to get in the way.
Oh, he did serve in several cabinets beforehand, actually. And was hated for his actions in the Great War's eastern theatre. And he was PM afterwards, when he did nothing to stop this country becoming an African rapist's paradise. :(

Wasn't he chosen as the most prominent Briton ever by the British themselves?
Have you forgotten my idiot countrymen's electoral behaviour only last month?!

If not for Churchill, the Allies could have well lost WW II and Britain would become a German puppet like Vichy.
WWII would have started at a different time, and been very different, without Churchill's war-mongering. I'm not altogether convinced that it was impossible to work around an untoppled Hitler. Heh, in my wilder flights of fancy we might have worked with him to root out Bolshevism. Perhaps good could have been done by linking with the different factions within Germany to change the policies of the NSDAP...

The man shipped arms to Russia, got the deal and financial support for Britain from the US. Stopped Italy and opted for the successful British campaign in Africa. Why such a harsh POV, Osweo??
I just don't like the old toff and his megalomania, his desperation to seem destiny's chosen one. I can see he did some things well, it would be stupid to deny it, but many of them might not have even needed doing without him. My quarrel is with the man's near deification.

[SwordoftheVistula]

This says a lot:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png

That graph doesn't even make sense. The bombings in Germany were far more destructive than 'the blitz' since the Germans never bothered to develop a proper heavy bomber. Civilian casualties from land fighting would mainly have come in Germany, I don't think they were very high in France & the low countries. Were the Japanese included? They took high casualties as well, both in civilian, and took much higher casualties militarily than the US due to their style of fighting combined with lack of air support towards the end of the war.

[The Lawspeaker]

The Netherlands had a total of between the 225.000 en 250.000 (http://www.verzetsmuseum.org/kinderen/nl/digitale_expo/feest,nederland/doden-wo2) deads.

And if I look a bit closely I see that 104.000 were Jews and 270 were Gypsy.. An additional 20.000 Dutch died in the East Indies. In that respect the number of Dutch casualties (minus the Holocaust and what happened in the Indies can be lowered by 124.270.
The 20.000+ that died during the 1944 famine cannot also fully be blamed on the Germans as the railway strike that started the sequence of events was proclaimed by our government-in-exile and the Queen while being far away in Britain.
So let's look at the list one by one:


Dutch military casualties at the hands of the Germans:
In total the Dutch lost 3958 soldiers. 2000 of which died during the Battle of the Netherlands in 1940. 258 Dutch died in captivity. 1500 of the Prinses Irene Brigade (Dutch army in exile) and the Binnenlandse Strijdkrachten (joint resistance forces of the interior) died during the liberation in 1944 and 1945.
An additional 1490 members of the merchant navy lost their lifes at sea in the service of the Allies during 1940-1945.

Dutch military casualties as a whole: 3958 + 1400 serving in the merchant navy makes 5358.

Civilian casualties by the hands of the Germans:
-30.000 Dutch forced laborers died in Germany because of air raids, working conditions, maltreatment, starvation, disease etc.
-7000 of the 15.000 non-Jewish prisoners in concentration camps.
-2850 were shot as a reprisal for deeds carried out by the resistance. 2000 of those shot were resistance fighters themselves. 850 were innocent civilians. Normal bystanders who were just picked off from the street and put to the nearest brick wall they could find. Others were hostages.
-900 died during the Rotterdam air raid in 1940 (note: some other figures turn in to closer to 950)
-375 from the 7000 non-Jewish prisoners in prisons etc. Most of those interned were interned for "economical crimes" (like blackmarketeering) and only a small percentage of those imprisoned were actually political prisoners.
- an unknown number of people that is being mentioned that died in the Netherlands during the occupation because there were no medicines available. And I am not sure whether this can be blamed on the Germans?

Dutch civilian casualties at the hands of the Germans: 41125
How many can actually be blamed on the Germans ? 39125
Because resistance fighters run a risk of getting shot. It's perfectly legal. However harsh that may be for those people whose family members were shot as resistance fighters. The unknown amount of people that died because they couldn't get treatment is unknown and shouldn't be used in this figure until a more definitive number is found.


Civilian casualties at the hands of the Allies:
-20.500 died during the fighting that took place in the Netherlands in 1944 and 1945.
Most fell during engagements between the Germans and Allies in Zeeland, the Battle of Arnhem and the fighting in Limburg.
What is not being mentioned are those killed during the 1943 Rotterdam Air Raid (USAF- number of people killed: 401), the 1944 The Hague Air Raid (RAF- number of people killed: 60),1944 Nijmegen Air Raid (by the USAF- number of people killed: 800) and the 1945 The Hague Air Raid (RAF- number of people killed: 301). The other various air raids will probably have been adding up to the list of civilian casualties. To this very day unexploded ordnance (mostly Allied) is being dug up all over the country.

-20.000 that died during the 1944 Famine which was the result of the by the railway strike as proclaimed on September 17, 1944 by the government in London. This was followed by German reprisals.

Dutch civilian casualties at the hands of the Allies: 42062

Military casualties at the hands of the Allies
Traitors or not. It is estimated that more then 10.000 Dutch volunteers for the German army died in battle or captivity along the Eastern front. It is also said that a number of them has died at the hands of the Western Allies at the Western front or shot, starved, maltreated by their countrymen while in captivity.

Number of Dutch military casualties at the hands of the Allies: 10.000+

Number of Dutch killed by the Germans: 46483
Number of Dutch killed by the Allies: 52062

10.000 of those killed by the Allies were stupid fools and traitors. Stupid enough to get enlisted in the army of the occupation force to "fight communism" without giving it a second thought that they might betray their country. Those 10.000 don't deserve any pity just as much as those 2000 resistance fighters don't. They knew what they were getting themselves into.

[Svanhild]

http://www.psywarrior.com/ChurchillMurder.jpg

http://www.psywarrior.com/boccasile.jpg

[Treffie]

As Sword stated, out of the three, Churchill was the best of a bad bunch.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by KEN
Churchill was the best of a bad bunch.

He was certainly no saint and prolonged a war we didn’t have to fight (at least in 1940, though I believe we would have had to fight Germany eventually), though Churchill had balls which is more than Chamberlain ever had and wasn’t weak willed enough to believe Hitler’s deceits just to sleep safe at night.

As for “war crimes” people die in war it’s generally the point, if you don’t want to play the game then don’t unleash the demon. Hitler was bent on war, the German dead are on his hands, no one else’s.

[Troll's Puzzle]

That graph doesn't even make sense. The bombings in Germany were far more destructive than 'the blitz' since the Germans never bothered to develop a proper heavy bomber. Civilian casualties from land fighting would mainly have come in Germany, I don't think they were very high in France & the low countries. Were the Japanese included? They took high casualties as well, both in civilian, and took much higher casualties militarily than the US due to their style of fighting combined with lack of air support towards the end of the war.

'the allies' also included countries in eastern europe and civilian casualties there were certainly (much) higher than in Germany, due to the Germans killing them purposefully.


I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with that opinion. Churchill defnitely served the interests of the British Empire, but that's hardly a reason to disrespect him. Wasn't he chosen as the most prominent Briton ever by the British themselves? If not for Churchill, the Allies could have well lost WW II and Britain would become a German puppet like Vichy.

the 'opinion' of the piss-ants is hardly worth considering here, Churchill failed all his goals except 'winning the war', people voted for him because he was lucky to sit on an island safe across water making stirring speeches until the Americans and Russians came to save him and that appeals to the dumbest, blindest patriotism hence the result. Today he is the 'hero war hero who defeated nazi racism' in public reputation but that's not what he was fighting for and someone who considered to make an active judgement (something 'public conscious' cannot do) will see his 'victory' as hollow and even ruinous for his real goals he wanted to stand on 'keep britain white' in the 60's for instance, now today britain & the british are going to disappear and his own 'victory' has a lot to do with that, even if he didn't mean it to.
Likewise he lost the empite (which he wanted to keep), and brought the hostile soviet union into control of half of europe (keeping down socialism and hostile europe was the other things he failed to do), bankrupted the country etc, etc. He himself being a smart(ish) person recognised that he had 'not done very well' judged as a whole, at the end of his life.
as for being a 'puppet' Hitler even went as far as offering the British troops to help fight keep their colonies (!!!!)
as further evidence that that opinion is worthless consider that the politician who had the best chance of keeping the empire, being on friendly terms with europe, defeating socialism, and keeping britain 'white', (IE: achieved all that Churchill would have wanted :wink) Oswald Mosley, was named 'worst brition of the 20th' in another poll ;)

[Jarl]

Oh, he did serve in several cabinets beforehand, actually. And was hated for his actions in the Great War's eastern theatre. And he was PM afterwards, when he did nothing to stop this country becoming an African rapist's paradise. :(

Have you forgotten my idiot countrymen's electoral behaviour only last month?!

WWII would have started at a different time, and been very different, without Churchill's war-mongering. I'm not altogether convinced that it was impossible to work around an untoppled Hitler. Heh, in my wilder flights of fancy we might have worked with him to root out Bolshevism. Perhaps good could have been done by linking with the different factions within Germany to change the policies of the NSDAP...

I just don't like the old toff and his megalomania, his desperation to seem destiny's chosen one. I can see he did some things well, it would be stupid to deny it, but many of them might not have even needed doing without him. My quarrel is with the man's near deification.


He helped push Britain into what he later described as an 'unnecessary war' in the first place. Germany was only interested in east/central continental Europe. Britain's colonies were all overseas. Hitler had been critical of Germany's 2-front war in WWI and considered Britain a natural ally of Germany.


OK... So, as I understand it, Churchuill is bad because he did not like appeasement and won the war against Germany which Chamberlain's cabinet went into? Am I correct?

[Jarl]

Because resistance fighters run a risk of getting shot. It's perfectly legal. However harsh that may be for those people whose family members were shot as resistance fighters.

Is invading and occupying a country legal? Is executing innocent civilians in reiteratrion for resistance legal?

[The Lawspeaker]

Is invading and occupying a country legal? Is executing innocent civilians in reiteratrion for resistance legal?
Shooting armed partisans is perfectly legal. I am sure you have heard about the The Hague Convention. Actually.. since the government left the country ( it would have been illegal in light of an article of the Dutch constitution that was dropped in 1983) ironical but perhaps true would have been to the notion that the German occupier... was the legal government.

If the Germans would have held elections then that government would have been the legal government.

[spearofperun]

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/iamges/liberal_idiot.jpg

hahahaha i dont know whats funnier here the dutchmen saying i have no clue when my grandpa fought in this war and i have a first hand accout or krautie calling me a commie and calling me a liberal. Where have I anywhere in my post stated anywhere that i am a communist supporter or a liberal find me that. So it goes from me saying hungarians and germans getting a lot less than they deserve from the red army to being a communist interesting. Yes Stalin was a fucking dumbfuck look he kills 30 million + Russians then the germans invade and kill 20 million. in all of world war II and time following less than 15 million germans die plus around 2 million women are raped. you call that revenge???? Germany or east germany which the soviets had should have been destroyed burned and levelled to the ground so that there was nothing left of it let alone it ever becoming a powerful state now thats revenge. Huns hmm lets see in vojvodina they used to take serbia civilans break the ice on the river open and throw them in. WWII ends and barely any huns get deported. the organizer of this si still alive to this day and living in hungary. hungary went by just fine. again when WWII ended the huns of vojvodina should of all either been killed or deported and hungary should of suffered the same fate at the hands of the partisans and the red army as east germany. not it being left alone. the huns and shiptars were tito's pets in yugoslavia yet he killed a million serbs. and you think i like commies hahaha If naionalists instead of commies were in power in both Russia and Serbia at this time the huns and germans would of faired a lot worse than they did from the commies.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
OK... So, as I understand it, Churchuill is bad because he did not like appeasement and won the war against Germany which Chamberlain's cabinet went into? Am I correct?

There is some necessity in rectifying the one sided view of WW2 historiography, victors write history and most have a penchant for good vs evil etc but it is also important to be aware of the closet Nazis who are nothing more than Hitler apologists (I’m not saying Irvine is I’ve never read the man’s books, for all I know he might be an honest man without an agenda) yet many who support the man’s work (check Stormfront out for some serious loons) want simply to cast Hitler as the “heroic, doomed, saviour of the white race, stopped in his noble quest by the evil drunkard Churchill, the Jew (note it is always the Jew rarely Jews plural, presumably they are all one transcendent telepathic organism) and whatever BS they can invent next) and it is BS as much BS as the “Churchill saviour of Britain” crap the orthodox historians like to put forth.

[Jarl]

Dutch civilian casualties at the hands of the Germans: 41125

Dutch civilian casualties at the hands of the Allies: 42062



:rolleyes:


Dutch government figures for losses in Europe released in 1948 by the Central Bureau of Statistics( CBS)100 listed 210,000 direct war casualties plus an additional 70,000 disease deaths caused by the war. The details are as follows:

- Military deaths of 8,100; which included 2,200 regular Army, 1,700 Dutch Resistance forces, 2,600 Navy forces, 250 POW in Germany and 1,350 Merchant seaman.


- Civilian deaths of 271,900; which included 27,000 forced workers in Germany, 7,500 missing and presumed dead in Germany, 2,800 victims of executions, 2,500 deaths in Dutch concentration camps, 18,000 political prisoners in Germany, 20,400 deaths due to military activities, 3,700 Dutch serving in the German military, 104,000 deported Jews and 16,000 deaths in the Dutch famine of 1944.



The official statistics also reported an additional 70,000 "indirect war casualties", which are attributed to various diseases caused by wartime conditions. Not included in these figures are an additional 1,650 foreign nationals killed while serving in the Dutch Merchant Marine100
At least 3,121 99,283 civilian members of various Dutch resistance groups were killed during the occupation, on this page they are included under military casualties. On this page the losses of the 3,700 Dutch in the German Armed Forces are not considered Dutch war casualties, they are included with the military of Germany.
The Dutch suffered additional losses in the Far East which were not included in the CBS figures except for the Navy. Military losses in Asia were 900 in the 1942 Dutch East Indies campaign and 8,500 military POW deaths in Japanese captivity.87,1275. The Australian War Memorial website reports 8,000 of the 37,0000 Dutch POW died in Japanese captivity [82]. Civilian losses in Asia reported by the Dutch Red Cross included the deaths in Japanese custody of 14,800 Europeans out of 80,000 interned in the Dutch East Indies.92,170
The Netherlands War Graves Foundation maintains a registry of the names of Dutch war dead. [83] The genocide of Roma people was 500 persons.13,183



Out of 98 000 ethnic Dutch civilians killed in WW II, 61,500 died because of German occupation, activity, 16 000 because of famine, and additional 22 000 because of "military activity"... so where's your 42 000 civilians killed by the Allies???


Shooting armed partisans is perfectly legal. I am sure you have heard about the The Hague Convention. Actually.. since the government left the country ( it would have been illegal in light of an article of the Dutch constitution that was dropped in 1983) ...

I aksed a specific question. Is shooting their families legal? Or shooting other civilians in reiteration?


Actually.. since the government left the country ( it would have been illegal in light of an article of the Dutch constitution that was dropped in 1983) ironical but perhaps true would have been to the notion that the German occupier... was the legal government.

Interesting.

[The Lawspeaker]

You haven't bothered to read it. I subtracted the numbers of those that died during the Holocaust and those that died in the Indies.
And click at the link (http://www.verzetsmuseum.org/kinderen/nl/digitale_expo/feest,nederland/doden-wo2) I provided.



- 22.000 burgers van de steden in West - Nederland, gestorven door honger en kou in de Hongerwinter, 1944 - 1945 (het totaal aantal mensen dat door schaarste en andere slechte omstandigheden van de bezettingstijd is gestorven is veel hoger geweest; veel zieken en ouderen bijvoorbeeld zouden zijn blijven leven als er geen gebrek aan medicijnen was geweest).

^The 1944 famine


- 20.500 burgers, omgekomen bij bombardementen en gevechten in de frontgebieden van september 1944 - mei 1945. Het bombardement van de Luftwaffe op Rotterdam, 14 mei 1940, kostte bijna 900 inwoners van die stad het leven. De meeste burgerslachtoffers vielen in de periode van de geallieerde bevrijdingsacties in Nederland, die begon met de Slag om Arnhem, september 1944.
^
20.500 civilians. Killed at air raids and because of the fighting from September 1944 to May 1945. This does not count the number of people killed in air raids during most of the war.


- Aan deze lijst kunnen nog worden toegevoegd de 10.000 (en mogelijk nog meer) Nederlanders die sneuvelden aan het Oostfront, als lid van de Waffen - SS en dergelijke.
Over 10.000 Dutchmen serving in the Waffen -SS and similar organizations that perished mainly at the Eastern Front.

[Jarl]

There is some necessity in rectifying the one sided view of WW2 historiography, victors write history and most have a penchant for good vs evil etc but it is also important to be aware of the closet Nazis who are nothing more than Hitler apologists (I’m not saying Irvine is I’ve never read the man’s books, for all I know he might be an honest man without an agenda) yet many who support the man’s work (check Stormfront out for some serious loons) want simply to cast Hitler as the “heroic, doomed, saviour of the white race, stopped in his noble quest by the evil drunkard Churchill, the Jew (note it is always the Jew rarely Jews plural, presumably they are all one transcendent telepathic organism) and whatever BS they can invent next) and it is BS as much BS as the “Churchill saviour of Britain” crap the orthodox historians like to put forth.

Exactly? Why Churchill is to be blamed for defending the British Imperial interests? If Hitler can be pardoned with invading Poland and Russia, or his pland for Great Germans and Lebensraum in the East, then why everyone is attacking Churchill if all he did was to defend British position in Europe and the world? Why this double standard again?

People here I blaming him for winning the war which the previous government went into. I fing it rather unfair. He did not start the war and he did not made the decision tha Britain should join it.


As for mass murder and extermination of civilians - he did not start it. Someone else turned the meat grinder on before him. Accusations of Churchill organising genocide are rather bizzare.



You haven't bothered to read it. I subtracted the numbers of those that died during the Holocaust and those that died in the Indies.
And click at the link (http://www.verzetsmuseum.org/kinderen/nl/digitale_expo/feest,nederland/doden-wo2) I provided.




^The 1944 famine


^
20.500 civilians. Killed at air raids and because of the fighting from September 1944 to May 1945. This does not count the number of people killed in air raids during most of the war.


Over 10.000 Dutchmen serving in the Waffen -SS and similar organizations that perished mainly at the Eastern Front.

No. You did not bother to read my post. There are 202 000 Dutch civilians dead - the direct war casualties. Subtracting the Jews you get 98 000 civilian deaths. 16 000 due to famines.

Out of the remaining 82 000, 61,500 deaths were directly caused by the Germans. 22 000 by "military activity".

[The Lawspeaker]

I aksed a specific question. Is shooting their families legal? Or shooting other civilians in reiteration?
No. And that was the war crime. Not shooting the partisans.




Interesting.

In absense of a legal government the occupation force in essence is. Other then every other country in Europe we were the only one that had a civilian-controlled occupation force. We had in essense a Stadholder- Reichskommissar Arthur Seyss-Inquart. No other country in Europe (apart from Norway) had such a dubious honour because our government had fled.

[The Lawspeaker]

No. You did not bother to read my post. There are 210 000 Dutch civilians dead - the direct war casualties. Subtracting the Jews you get 98 000 deaths. 61,500 directly caused by Germans.
No. Because you count those that died during the Famine as victims of the Germans whereas the Germans cannot be blamed for that famine.
The Hongerwinter was a result of Queen Wilhelmina and her government being so brave to call upon the railwaymen to strike. A proclamation issued on September 17, 1944 from the safety of a London cabinet meeting.

[Jarl]

No. Because you count those that died during the Famine as victims of the Germans whereas the Germans cannot be blamed for that famine.


No. Read again. There are 210 000 direct war casualties. 104 000 are Jews. 16 000 are due to famine. 8 000 are soldiers.


You are left with 82 000 civilians killed in WW II. 61, 500 were killed/executed by the Germans:

- executed during occupation

- executed political prisoners

- concentration camp victims

- labour camp / forced worker victims

22 000 as a result of military activity (most likely both Allied and German).

[The Lawspeaker]

No. Read again. There are 210 000 direct war casualties. 104 000 are Jews. 16 000 are due to famine. 8 000 are soldiers.


You are left with 82 000 civilians killed in WW II. 61, 500 were killed/executed by the Germans. 22 000 as a result of military activity.
The estimations of those that died in the famine varied from 16.000 to 23.000 so.
Read again. 20.000 died because of the Hongerwinter, perhaps a thousand in air raids (read that first post again !), 10.000 at the Eastern Front and some 20.000 + in fighting.

Just simply read the list. The majority of those ending up in prison camps were blackmarketeers btw. Not political prisoners. Indeed. 30.000 did die in Germany as a result of starvation, beatings, working conditions, air raids etc.
But that is the single main contributor to Dutch losses at the hands of the Germans.

[spearofperun]

the occupation of holland, germany, norway etc... would be the ideal occupations as less than 1% of the overall population of those countries lost their lives. now you take a look at say belarus where from the germans 25% of the overall population lost their lives or other places poland russia serbia etc... can see why the germans where treated to nicely after the war.

[Jarl]

The estimations of those that died in the famine varied from 16.000 to 23.000 so.
Read again. 20.000 died because of the Hongerwinter, perhaps a thousand in air raids (read that first post again !), 10.000 at the Eastern Front and some 20.000 + in fighting.

Look here is the official stats:


Civilian deaths of 271,900; which included

- 27,000 forced workers in Germany,

- 7,500 missing and presumed dead in Germany,

- 2,800 victims of executions, 2,500 deaths in Dutch concentration camps,

- 18,000 political prisoners in Germany,

- 20,400 deaths due to military activities,

- 3,700 Dutch serving in the German military,

-104,000 deported Jews and 16,000 deaths in the Dutch famine of 1944.

- additional 70,000 "indirect war casualties", which are attributed to various diseases caused by wartime conditions.





Now I am asking a simple question... Where is your 42 000 civilians killed by the Allies???

[The Lawspeaker]

From when are these statistics? 1948.
These are everything BUT accurate.

[Jarl]

From when are these statistics?

Dutch government figures for losses in Europe released in 1948 by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS):

CBS, 1948, Oorlogsverliezen 1940–1945. Maandschrift van het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, blz. 749. Belinfante, 's-Gravenhage.


PDF:

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/1FA7DF00-F612-4F46-8539-E04DCFECD7BA/0/2007k4b15p53art.pdf


From when are these statistics? 1948.
These are everything BUT accurate.

Really? Then what accurate source you pulled your 42 000 Allied-killed civilians out from?




From when are these statistics? 1948.
These are everything BUT accurate.

Then why is it given on the official governmental Central Statistics Bureau website?

http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/home/default.htm

Cut the crap.

[The Lawspeaker]

1948. Man.. those dates are out of fashion.


Civilian casualties at the hands of the Allies:
-20.500 died during the fighting that took place in the Netherlands in 1944 and 1945.
Most fell during engagements between the Germans and Allies in Zeeland, the Battle of Arnhem and the fighting in Limburg.
What is not being mentioned are those killed during the 1943 Rotterdam Air Raid (USAF- number of people killed: 401), the 1944 The Hague Air Raid (RAF- number of people killed: 60),1944 Nijmegen Air Raid (by the USAF- number of people killed: 800) and the 1945 The Hague Air Raid (RAF- number of people killed: 301). The other various air raids will probably have been adding up to the list of civilian casualties. To this very day unexploded ordnance (mostly Allied) is being dug up all over the country.

-20.000 that died during the 1944 Famine which was the result of the by the railway strike as proclaimed on September 17, 1944 by the government in London. This was followed by German reprisals.

Dutch civilian casualties at the hands of the Allies: 42062

Simply read it and do the maths again and go back to the site I provided. It's information is a lot newer. And look up the air raids yourself:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_Nijmegen

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_het_Bezuidenhout

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijke_Kunstzaal_Kleykamp

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardement_op_Rotterdam-West

[Jarl]

1948. Man.. those dates are out of fashion.

Again. It is given in by the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS):

http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/home/default.htm


Where did you take those 42 000 civilians killed by Allies from? You were obviously writing those revelations to prove some point, Asega...

[The Lawspeaker]

^ Read again. Follow the links.

Dutch famine, casualties because of the fighting, air raids. c'est ca.
Just read it and do the maths. Don't make the Germans blacker then they already are. You can't blame the Germans for the Americans bombing the living daylight out of Nijmegen. You can't blame the Germans for the famine that was caused by the Royal Family and their government in 1944.
You can't blame the Germans for the British and the Canadians bombing the living daylight out of Zealand and blowing up every single dike. You can't blame the Germans for the RAF flying over roads and railways shooting and straving anything they see. Yes.. they targeted civilians just as much as they did the German Army.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Market-Garden_-_Nijmegen_and_the_bridge.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Brandstoftekort1945.jpg

^ This Jarl. Was not the work of the Germans. This was the work of the Allies.

This was the work of the Germans:

http://www.bovenlichten.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rotterdam-laurenskerk.jpg

http://www.tweede-wereldoorlog.org/images/februaristaking/razzia.jpg

[Jarl]

^ Read again. Follow the links.

Dutch famine, casualties because of the fighting, air raids. c'est ca.
Just read it and do the maths. Don't make the Germans blacker then they already are. You can't blame the Germans for the Americans bombing the living daylight out of Nijmegen. You can't blame the Germans for the famine that was caused by the Royal Family and their government in 1944.
You can't blame the Germans for the British and the Canadians bombing the living daylight out of Zealand and blowing up every single dike. You can't blame the Germans for the RAF flying over roads and railways shooting and straving anything they see. Yes.. they targeted civilians just as much as they did the German Army.

I understand... but facts, like crime scale, are established through figures, not through emotive siding with either the Nazis or the Allies. I already have had a taste of your POV. Now, from the official figures and without digging deep into the "militiary activity casualties", I can clearly see that Germans alone are responsible for at leat some 2/3 of the direct war casualties. That is over 60 000. And the other thing I can also see here, is that the figure you boldly declared to be the number of Dutch civilians killed by Allies has simply no backing in the sources.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Jarl
Exactly? Why Churchill is to be blamed for defending the British Imperial interests? If Hitler can be pardoned with invading Poland and Russia, or his pland for Great Germans and Lebensraum in the East, then why everyone is attacking Churchill if all he did was to defend British position in Europe and the world? Why this double standard again?

Ironically the Hitler apologists would probably have been ridiculed by Hitler with their dubious romanticism, Hitler knew well the British didn’t build an empire by being nice to people, they built it by a ruthless and self centred determination to impose their control and remove those they considered as threats, just as Hitler acknowledged the British saw Imperial Germany as a threat pre-1914, Hitler admired them for it (even saw the Raj as an example of what "Aryans" could achieve) and saw the lack of it as a fundamental weakness in Germany. Hitler even grew to acknowledge the “superiority” of the Russian as they were busy reducing Berlin to rubble around his ears.

[Jarl]

Ironically the Hitler apologists would probably have been ridiculed by Hitler with their dubious romanticism, Hitler knew well the British didn’t build an empire by being nice to people, they built it by a ruthless and self centred determination to impose their control and remove those they considered as threats, just as Hitler acknowledged the British saw Imperial Germany as a threat pre-1914, Hitler admired them for it (even saw the Raj as an example of what "Aryans" could achieve) and saw the lack of it as a fundamental weakness in Germany. Hitler even grew to acknowledge the “superiority” of the Russian as they were busy reducing Berlin to rubble around his ears.

Exactly. I constantly hear how bad Asquith or Lloyd George were for fighting Germany in WW I. How bad Chamberlain was for going to war with Nazi Germany. How bad Churchill was for defending the British Empire and its interests and fighting the Germans. How bad Allies were. What is all that blame shifting about? What on earth do people expect? ;) That those politicians were to sat in silence and watch how British interests are eroded and the empire wiped out?

And what if they did not take action, would then invading Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany be ok? France, Benelux, Denmark and Norway too? Cool... :)

[SwordoftheVistula]

Is shooting their families legal? Or shooting other civilians in reiteration?

Sure was. They were under the military jurisdiction of Germany, and if the German commanders gave the orders without being in violation of higher command, then it was legal. This practice is common throughout history and also effective.



Exactly? Why Churchill is to be blamed for defending the British Imperial interests?


Exactly. I constantly hear how bad Asquith or Lloyd George were for fighting Germany in WW I. How bad Chamberlain was for going to war with Nazi Germany. How bad Churchill was for defending the British Empire and its interests and fighting the Germans.

Because he didn't, and instead lost the British Empire. What interests did the British have in eastern Europe? None.


the occupation of holland, germany, norway etc... would be the ideal occupations as less than 1% of the overall population of those countries lost their lives. now you take a look at say belarus where from the germans 25% of the overall population lost their lives or other places poland russia serbia etc

Well obviously it's something they did which resulted in this, since France, Norway, Belgium etc had such low civilian losses despite being occupied by the same people.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula
Because he didn't, and instead lost the British Empire. What interests did the British have in eastern Europe? None.

One can certainly argue that Churchill had no practical reason for continuing a war in 1940 that was neither in Britain’s immediate interest and one that when he came to office the UK was looking likely to loose.

But, it would be somewhat naïve in my opinion to believe that Britain would not, at some point in the 1940’s have had to engage in continental affairs (militarily) either because a) Hitler’s supposed interest in preserving Britain’s Empire (an empire that was already doomed long before 1939, Churchill arguably hastened its end but it was only a question of a decade or more) was asking for Britain to subordinate itself to German interests on the continent, anyone who knows anything about British foreign policy in the more or less three hundred years preceding 1945 realises how impossible that would be. How pro-British would Hitler have been sitting atop an empire from the Atlantic to the Urals? Especially when we realise his Anglophilia was really largely pragmatic, in order to over run the east. I don’t believe I would have relied on Hitler’s “good will”.

Also Hitler made it perfectly clear that he would attack France once he had dealt with the need for lebensraum in the east, Britain was hardly likely to allow Germany to do that. Face Germany in 1940 or face Germany in say 1946 if Germany had Russian resources at her command? Churchill may have made the right choice for the wrong reasons.

The there is b) the almost certain outcome that Russia would have defeated Germany regardless of whether Britain bowed out of the war, Russian troops on the Rhine would hardly have been an appealing prospect.

Whichever way you look at it, as far as I see, Britain would have been engaged in a European war in the 1940’s simply to prevent domination of the continent by any single power, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy. Of course Britain didn’t win the war it was pyrrhic in every which way, the politicians at the time realised full well Britain’s choices were either political/military subordination to the Germans or economic subordination to the USA, either way Britain’s days as a world power were over, and the simple fact is, as I see it, no one in Churchill’s position could have chosen any differently.

[Jarl]

Sure was. They were under the military jurisdiction of Germany, and if the German commanders gave the orders without being in violation of higher command, then it was legal. This practice is common throughout history and also effective.

Then shooting, raping and murdering Germans was legal too. They were under USSR jurisdiction after all, correct?



Because he didn't, and instead lost the British Empire. What interests did the British have in eastern Europe? None.


Of course they had. This was a question of balance of power. French had a vital interest in Poland and Czechoslovakia. As long as this unsteady balance was sustained, Britain could play the major European powers and have her say. Germany wiping out those pro-French countries and France meant a fatal blow to British influence over European affairs... Not to mention the fact it made Germany much stronger and more formidable a foe. The question was not about Eastern Europe since noone gives a shit about the land itself. The question was about the rising German economy which right from early 30s was being designed for one purpose - WAR... and only through war it could have paid off. This was the issue of economical and political hegemony in Europe and, by extension, the whole world. Not some crappy corridor or indebted money-sucking Ostpreussen.


Well obviously it's something they did which resulted in this, since France, Norway, Belgium etc had such low civilian losses despite being occupied by the same people.


Norway had many collaborators. France gave in and if not for the Vichy government, things could have gone much differently. However France had over 500 000 casualties. I would not call that a "low civilain loss".


One can certainly argue that Churchill had no practical reason for continuing a war in 1940 that was neither in Britain’s immediate interest and one that when he came to office the UK was looking likely to loose.

But, it would be somewhat naïve in my opinion to believe that Britain would not, at some point in the 1940’s have had to engage in continental affairs (militarily) either because a) Hitler’s supposed interest in preserving Britain’s Empire (an empire that was already doomed long before 1939, Churchill arguably hastened its end but it was only a question of a decade or more) was asking for Britain to subordinate itself to German interests on the continent, anyone who knows anything about British foreign policy in the more or less three hundred years preceding 1945 realises how impossible that would be. How pro-British would Hitler have been sitting atop an empire from the Atlantic to the Urals? Especially when we realise his Anglophilia was really largely pragmatic, in order to over run the east. I don’t believe I would have relied on Hitler’s “good will”.

Also Hitler made it perfectly clear that he would attack France once he had dealt with the need for lebensraum in the east, Britain was hardly likely to allow Germany to do that. Face Germany in 1940 or face Germany in say 1946 if Germany had Russian resources at her command? Churchill may have made the right choice for the wrong reasons.

The there is b) the almost certain outcome that Russia would have defeated Germany regardless of whether Britain bowed out of the war, Russian troops on the Rhine would hardly have been an appealing prospect.

Whichever way you look at it, as far as I see, Britain would have been engaged in a European war in the 1940’s simply to prevent domination of the continent by any single power, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy. Of course Britain didn’t win the war it was pyrrhic in every which way, the politicians at the time realised full well Britain’s choices were either political/military subordination to the Germans or economic subordination to the USA, either way Britain’s days as a world power were over, and the simple fact is, as I see it, no one in Churchill’s position could have chosen any differently.

Exactly. Just like the USA had to inevitably intervene to protect her post-WW I investments in European countries.

[Osweo]

Well obviously it's something they did which resulted in this, since France, Norway, Belgium etc had such low civilian losses despite being occupied by the same people.

:rolleyes2:

Have you never even read Hitler?

[SwordoftheVistula]

This was a question of balance of power. French had a vital interest in Poland and Czechoslovakia. As long as this unsteady balance was sustained, Britain could play the major European powers and have her say.

Turned out to not work that way: Britain ended up with a near perfect balance of power in Europe between the USSR and NATO, and yet Britain still lost its empire. The 'balance of power' concept in reference to continental Europe was outdated.

[The Lawspeaker]

-1154851922811076341

Truth in History (By David Irving)


This speech was given by historian David Irving during the summer of 1995 at Cincinnatti, Ohio (USA).

[The Lawspeaker]

3994568003943252815
Winston Churchill's Secret Communications With President Roosevelt

[Oreka Bailoak]

I couldn't watch the whole thing; it got boring to me. But the part when he talks about Roosevelt and Churchill wanting to put an oil embargo on Japan in July of 1941 and how they were scared it may provoke war because they knew Japan was running out of oil- I've never heard that before.


In 1940, Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to control supplies reaching China. The United States halted shipments of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline, which was perceived by Japan as an unfriendly act.[nb 3] The U.S. did not stop oil exports to Japan at that time in part because prevailing sentiment in Washington was that such an action would be an extreme step, given Japanese dependence on U.S. oil,[15][16] and likely to be considered a provocation by Japan.


The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941, following Japanese expansion into French Indochina after the fall of France, in part because of new American restrictions on domestic oil consumption.[20] This in turn caused the Japanese to proceed with plans to take the Dutch East Indies, an oil-rich territory.

[The Lawspeaker]

Eventhough it gets boring after a while I really recommend you to watch it. There is some truly fascinating stuff embedded in his lecture.

[The Lawspeaker]

bwp7tVZuXKM

The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History (lecture by David Irving)


77lXqP5NkVw

David Irving's Real History Conference, Cincinnati USA 1999 - TWO HOURS



On Germar Rudolf http://fpp.co.uk/online/11/02/Germar.html

Note on Himmler's probable murder:
http://fpp.co.uk/Himmler/death/index.html
has David Irving's notes on fake documents in British archives. (cf. Joseph Bellinger in this video)

David Irving's Real History Conference highlights - Cincinnati 1999. Ten speakers (listed below) with multi-faceted presentations relating to the Second World War. Valuable overview video of these revisionists, and the way they do their best to attack official lies.

(David Irving's website is fpp.co.uk)

David Irving introduces Real History - What it is - Personal Account of the Idleness and Cowardice of Official Historians (12 mins)

Bradley Smith - Keynote Speech: Memory - Inviting Students to Ask Questions of 'Survivors' and 'Holocaust Authors' (10 mins)

Peter der Margaritas - What Rommel Did on D-Day - Reconstruction of One Day, and One Mistake (11 mins)

Joseph Bellinger - The Death of Himmler - Reconstruction of Interrogation and Killing of Himmler (16 mins)

John Sack - 'Eye for an Eye' - Hollywood Writer's In-Depth Investigation of German Prisoners in 1,255 Concentration Camps (9 mins)

Brian Renk - contra Christopher Browning - Account of Part of Critique of Browning's Testimony on Supposed 'Final Solutuion', Mass Deaths at Auschwitz, etc (10 mins)

Doug Collins - The State of Freedom of Speech in Canada. Doug Collins took Part in the 1988 Trial of Ernst Zundel, the first trial in which 'Holocaust' evidence was challenged (15 mins)

Russ Granata - Report from Carlo Mattogno, a Significant Revisionist from Italy (11 min)

Germar Rudolf - The Making of a Revisionist - German Chemistry would-be PhD Who Investigated the Zyklon-B / Cyanide Story and Was Forced to Become a Full-Time Revisionist (9 mins)

Charles Provan - Massacre at Dachau - Prosecutions in Concentration Camps during WW2, not of course filmed by Spielberg! - US Soldiers in Dachau at the Close of the War (14 mins)

Technical Notes: my VHS video had tracking problems which I've covered up with subtitles. Apologies for the interlace problem. All the cuts, editing, exactly as on the tape. The titles are slightly changed - to zoom in. With permission of David Irving.

9Aq485-WwF4
David Irving - The Holocaust Lie



Wu3LMpQmb1E

David Irving - Free Speech

[The Lawspeaker]

d1MOTRIdVuQ


It was very interesting.

[Supreme American]

It was very interesting.

He had a lot of things to say about Churchill that went beyond the complimentary and conventional, such as that he was a raging alcoholic and that he in a drunken rage ordered a million-plus anthrax bombs to be dropped onto Germany. This was how "Anthrax Island" came to be. They actually began conducting experiments to that end.

[The Lawspeaker]

WaUzVEf29U0

David Irving - A Conversation about Real History

A conversation about real history that was recorded in 2008.


D2ZzrYRRpHU

David Irving - Smear campaigns to stifle truth in history

David Irving - Smear Campaigns to Stifle Truth in History.
His website can be found here : http://www.fpp.co.uk/


5OXt4Wpa_8w
David Irving - Speech at the IHR Conference (Hitlers Place in History)

TOP British Historian David Irving speaks at the IHR-Meeting in California 2005 about faked and authentic sources about the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler in particular.


I have created a single David Irving- thread that unites all the threads that I have created about this, rather brilliant, historian.

(Brilliant. Regardless of whether one agrees with him or not. This man, at least, convinced me that a full-scaled inquiry into the causes of World War II, the workings of World War II- era diplomacy and the Holocaust itself are required. And maybe even it would be time to rewrite the history books on certain issues (particularly on Dresden or people like Churchill).


fLpWA8e9w4c
David Irving - Churchill & Roosevelt


xKDLxcW6hdg
David Irving: A British Historian Examines the 'Holocaust' -1988


cO-tNdpPR8g
David Irving speaks in Canada - 1986