What does Sup Forums think of this book? It refutes the idea that Germany was the aggressor in the world wars, and instead blames the Jews for manipulating the Allies into destroying Germany.
How credible is this narrative? Was Hitler trying to save the Christian West from the Communist Jews?
This book doesn't footnote although it does have a bibliography. One obvious error that stood out:
>Even the hangman for the 10 Nazi leaders sentenced to death, Master Sergeant John C. Woods, was a Jew, and the hangings took place on October 16, 1946, the Jewish holiday of “Purim.” In the Book of Esther, the 10 sons of Haman, an enemy of the Jews, were hanged on Purim day.
This is wrong. Purim is in March. Oct.16 would've been the 7th day of Sukkot, Hoshana Rabbah, another important Jewish holiday. The Days of Judgement.
What other simple mistakes did this author make?
>Be Germany
>Be largely at fault for WW1
>Lose our military, our colonies, some minor areas where Germans are minorities, and have to pay minor reparations
>Better than the Ottoman Empire which collapsed, lost nearly all of its land and nearly resulted in the Turks being wiped out in Anatolia
>Better than the Austro-Hungarian Empire which collapsed
>Better than the Russian Empire which fought a bloody civil war, collapsed, and had its royal family executed
>Better than Belgium who gained nothing despite much of the war ruining their nation
>Better than France who lost over 8% of their male population
>Refuse to pay reparations
>France occupies part of Germany so we will pay our debts
>Chimp out
>Britain pressures France to pretty much give up on making us pay reparations
>Hitler rises to power
>Begins rebuilding military in blatant disregard for Versailles
>Britain allows this and even signs a naval treaty with us giving us express permission to rebuild our navy
>Demand the right to send troops into the Rhineland
>Britain once again pressures France to agree
>Carry out a coup in Austria
>Unstable Austria collapses, annex the country
>Britain lets it slide
>Demand that Britain and France force Czechoslovakia to hand over the Sudetenland, claim you have no more imperialist ambitions
>JK we actually want to annex the rest of Czechoslovakia
>By the way, Memel is rightfully a German city too, and if Lithuania doesn't hand it over we will invade
>Come one we just need the Danzig corridor, this is our last demand, promise, for real
Hitler wanted war, that was blatantly obvious, if he had been given his demands in Poland he simply would have made more demands, maybe demanded Alsace-Lorraine, maybe demanded west prussia, regardless Hitler repeatedly broke his promises and constantly illustrated that he had no regard for treaties made with the allies.
Not this shit again.
>Allies allow Rhineland remiliterization without sanction
>Allies allow naval treaty violations without sanction
>Allies allow air force violations without sanction
>Allies allow Anchluss without sanction
>Allies allow Sudetenland annexation without sanction
>violate Munich Aggreement by cucking the Czechs a second time, after promising not to
>UK/France openly states that any future violations will be met with war declarations in direct reference to the betrayal of the Munich Agreement
>Germany invades Poland anyway
>Britain/France declare war in accordance to their vocal guarantee
>Britain/France see the aggressors somehow
DINDU NUFFN
We can debate about whether Germany's intentions/causes were just, but they were the undisputed offensive belligerent in this war. Get over it.
All of your copypasta is refuted by the information in this book. The Versailles treaty was destroying Germany. They weren't responsible for WW1. Germans were be ethnically cleansed in the Polish corridor.
>They weren't responsible for WW1.
Fuck off with your revisionist bullshit
Can you recommend a book that has a more factual view of the history of WW2?
post PDF nigger
Ok. I was just wondering how correct the information was. No need to be snippy. You also didn't provide anything other than greentext. Where can I read about this to get a better picture?
"Hurt durr Hitler dindu nuffin he just invaded Poland, Belgium, Holland, Norway n sheit"
>basing historical analysis on an individual pieces of literatures as a "be all end all"
>falling for incestuous citation chains
noob pls
the second world war by antony beevor
Fick dich du dreckiger jude.
England and frabce for thousebd time where starving out germany.
I didn't say it was the be all end all. I asked if the narrative of Germany villainy was a myth or not. Please provide multiple pieces of literature that would help me.
>broke his promises and constantly illustrated that he had no regard for treaties made with the allies.
this sounds remarkably like the US, UK, France trio
Its easy to say it wasnt german fault because austria declared war first. But the buildup towards the war started decades later, precisely when wilhelm II became emperor.
He destroyed Bismarcks balance of power and pushed Russia and Britain into.
Prior to the war, both Russia and France increased their compulsory conscription to 3 years and Vilhelms advisors calculated that by 1916, combined french and russian army will be too big for germany to handle. He needed war asap and so he went in. If he didnt enter war, france and russia would attack germany by 1918 or something around that.
the best possible course of action for Germany was to follow bismarcks pollicies and keep Russian alliance. Or better still, dont take Alsace at all in 1871
got any books from accredited revisionists?
I didn't address villians.
I addressed this books assertion that Germany was the defensive belligerent in WW2, and was bullied into the war. This simply isn't true based merely on the chain of events leading up to the initiation of hostilities. Specifically, everything to do with the Munich Agreement, which you people always ignore in your threads.
The Austrian demands to Serbia which were almost completely accepted. firstworldwar.com
I don't have anything on those German demands to the French and I'm not in the mood to go on a scavenger hunt, sorry.
The Germans violated the Treaty of London which the North German Confederation has signed in 1839. It guaranteed Belgium's independence against any foreign aggression. It drug the UK into the war. en.wikipedia.org
Military consensus was that the first country to mobilize would win the next war, it was expected to be over in mere weeks. Mobilizing was as good as a declaration of war, the russians had to know that they would force their opponent to mobilize. This lead to further escalation and war. I hate Merkel and the eternal german as much as anyone, but that was how that went down.
What about the Munich agreement? Germany annexed an area with Germans who largely supported it.
The Munich agreement was a farce
>Czech government not invited
>France doesn't sign
Later
>Slovakia secedes and allies with Germany
>Poland and Hungary invade Czech lands and are greeted warmly
>Czech president goes to Berlin, nearly dies from a heart attack and is saved by Hitler's doctor
>Czech president agrees to lay down arms and join Germany
But if you read any textbook in grade school it's HITLER INVADED CZECHOSLOVAKIA
