Today I have a case study I must preserve for posterity, mostly for myself, but also for others to use as an example of what kind of foundations the origins of the Second World War lie on. Why people, nationalists most certainly cling to the belief that Adolf Hitler “started the second world war”. My goal isn’t to necessarily dispute that claim (although it is most certainly untrue[1]), but to make another claim entirely. To shift the perspective away from such a simple explanation of the origins for that war and the idea of responsibility and history as a whole.

I’m going to lay out here a back and forth between myself and a random person whom I met on Twitter where this brief conversation took place. This discussion is one that has been rather significant in getting to the bottom of why these people believe what they do, but it also questions why it matters, and if what they believe is true does that necessarily matter as well?

A brief archive of this discussion can be seen here. The nature of twitter replies often means a jumbled back and forth between multiple comments, like branches on a tree stemming from multiple parts of its trunk. Thus an archive of all discussions in a linear fashion is difficult.

The intentions of posting directly the exact words of the discussion and not turning it into its own piece where I elaborate extensively and discuss in depth the “points” of my opponent here, is to reveal as a transcript how this conversation was argued and played out. While some points of my own could be heavily expanded upon due to the character limit of twitter, I will only edit my tweets as far as grammar and punctuation goes. Also, where I have made comments more than once in a row I have simply added it verbatim onto the previous comment to make it into one. I will not touch his wording as I am not him and do not know what changes he would make.


14.02.2020

The Beginning

Anon: Why would an Anglo support nazi Germany anyway lmao

Nigel: Because they were right. If you want a future, you don’t get hung up on the conflicts of the past because it suits your identity. Brits and Americans have this retarded desire to god worship world wars while deriding National Socialists for hating them. Ironic.

Anon: My guy, a sovereign liberal Britian is better than one ruled by fanatic Germans

Nigel: Good thing those “fanatic Germans” had no interest in ruling Britain then. In anycase, you’re wrong. Your “liberal Britain” and lack of fanaticism is why the European man is dying and Britain is the African/Arab invasion hot spot.

Anon: Liberalism is bad, no shit Europe used to be very nationalistic, but then your fanatics came around…

Nigel: You mean German Nationalists? Oh, so you’re against Nationalism now? Or is it just GERMAN Nationalists you dislike? Very odd. Very hypocritical.

Anon: You’re telling me Germans nationalism didn’t exist before Hitler? Lol

Nigel: Absolutely not. But it’s widely held that if you accept the orthodox view, Hitler’s German Nationalism was the same held by previous generations of German Nationalists. It’s literally irrelevant.

Anon: Ah yes, the Kiasers, Bismarck, Frederick the Great, all famous globohomos

Nigel: I’ll offer this to you as well. Come and layout your case and have a discussion with us.

Nigel: So. This being the case. You must just hate German Nationalists for no other reason than they’re German. As AJP Taylor said ” ‘in international affairs there was nothing wrong with Hitler except that he was a German’.

Anon: No not at all, if he wasn’t a fanatic, the war would’ve ended when France fell

Nigel: No. The war would’ve ended when Hitler offered the Brits peace and a Polish rump state after the fall of Poland in 39′.

Anon: If it was the Kiaserriech instead of Hitler, I’m sure that peace could’ve been made

Nigel: Literally no reason to believe that. Again. Feel free to make your case and have a discussion about it in a form that isn’t via short twitter messages. Perhaps you’ll learn something.

Anon: Perhaps because the nazis were fanatics?

Nigel: Yes. Of course. And I am also a fanatic, our enemies are fanatics and only men WHO ARE fanatics go down in history and do great things.

Anon: Yep But the thing is, the fanaticism lost the war

Nigel: No. It won the war. Fanaticism is the ENTIRE REASON the German home front didn’t collapse under Allied bombing. Or rather. It would’ve won the war.

Anon: But it caused them to attack the Soviets It also made the British frightened

Nigel: And the British, and the Soviets made the Germans frightened. See how easy this is? The Soviets caused the Germans to invade.

Anon: No lol Hitler wanted them gone from the start for lebensraum

Nigel: Nope. Hitler had no plans for Lebensraum. He talked about it, but that was it. Talk. And it was usually just in reference to former lands stolen from Germany. See my article on the Hossbach Memo:

The Middle

1.1

(This is a branch conversation, I have included the comment by Anon here again for a reference point) :

Anon: Ah yes, the Kiasers, Bismarck, Frederick the Great, all famous globohomos

Nigel: Yeah. It’s unfortunate Hitler lost and the “victorious” allies utterly failed in everything they pretended to fight for, securing victory for the Soviets and Globohomo which destroys Europe till this day. I agree with you.

Anon: You know how this could’ve been avoided? Not a world war

Nigel: Yeah. Too bad the British stalled and stalled until war was unavoidable, them having provoked it. But they’re not solely to blame. The responsibility for a “world war” is based on more factors than a border skirmish with Poland.

Anon: The war is everyone’s fault But I’m just saying, if Germany was the Kiaserriech, the war would’ve been much less painful for everyone

Nigel: I don’t have any reason to think that. Chamberlain certainly thought so, he felt humiliated, rightly or wrongly. But he didn’t blame Hitler. He blamed the Jews, we can thank the forrestal diary for that inconvenient fact. Churchill was only a bit more wise. He nearly, very nearly came to peace. But he’d never have been famous if he did that.

Anon: I bet a less fanatic and totalitarian Germany would’ve pushed him over the edge

Nigel: Again. No reason to think that. You’re demanding a nation which elected their representative for their people with absolute moral rights to their claims castrate themselves because the British and French were upset that Germany challenged them. Listen to yourself. It’s insane.

Anon: Because a totalitarian dictatorship fanatically expanding across Europe definitely is the same as a fight with an old enemy

Nigel: As opposed to totalitarian Democracies, or Monarchical governments? Right. You say this yet you’re lying, the Allies didn’t give a shit about totalitarianism, they let the Soviets gobble up half of Europe. Hitler managed to stop them eating it all before the Americans arrived. And again. Who the fuck cares? What are you AMERICA? You think it’s your right to overthrow and declare war on Governments you dislike? Okay. Then from my view, Hitler was justified in doing whatever he liked again democracies. There’s nothing stopping me turning it on you.

Anon: Lol

Nigel: Again, you seem comfortable with your position. If this is true then you shouldn’t have a problem coming to the forum, laying it out like you did here and viewing the facts in more detail.

Anon: I’m just laughing because I never said anything about the justifications of anything

Nigel: Keep laughing. I don’t remember asking you.


1.2

Anon: Exactly, Britian was humiliated, if the nazis didn’t make them fearmonger, moral would’ve stayed crushed

Nigel: “Make them fearmonger”. They didn’t. Hitler offered them peace, told them it had nothing to do with them, and they still interfered causing a war. In Hitler’s bid for peace, if we accept the Orthodox line, he attacked the USSR to secure it swiftly.

Anon: Because if someone just robbed you and had a gun your head and then asked you not to call the cops, you’d definitely do it

Nigel: Germany was quite LITERALLY robbed of her territory. I fail to see how your analogy is in any war supportive of the British, Poles or French.

Anon: Yea and

Nigel: Listen pal, I’m not sure of what point YOU were trying to make, only that you failed to make it.

Anon: I never said Versailles was a good thing lol

Nigel: Germany held no gun to any heads. The British and French held guns to Germany, told them if they didn’t back down from their rightful claims they’d shoot them. Germany said no, and they fired. Totally unnecessarily.

Anon: Have you heard of Appeasement?

Nigel: Yep. Good thing too.

Anon: Then you’d know your claim is dumb

Nigel: Nope. It’s very much not dumb. Mind informing me?


1.3

Anon: The war is everyone’s fault But I’m just saying, if Germany was the Kiaserriech, the war would’ve been much less painful for everyone

Nigel: I don’t have any reason to think that. Chamberlain certainly thought so, he felt humiliated, rightly or wrongly. But he didn’t blame Hitler. He blamed the Jews, we can thank the forrestal diary for that inconvenient fact.

Anon: Exactly, Britian was humiliated, if the nazis didn’t make them fearmonger, moral would’ve stayed crushed

Nigel: And if the Allies didn’t humiliate Germany then no German bid for their territory and later on security against blockade by the British would’ve drove them to those measures. Except Germany had an absolute MORAL claim. Irrefutable.

Anon: Yep But they ruined the chance themselves

Nigel: You’re right. The British ruined their chances by war-mongering in their bid for continuous Continental European control over a Nationalistic Germany that wouldn’t lie prostrate for them to influence their will/trade on Europe. The British got the war they wanted.

Anon: No, the Germans ruined the chance, the British didn’t want war, they didn’t do that properly

Nigel: Quite the claim. I guess if that were true Halifax wouldn’t have been goading the Czechs into war in 1938 while Hitler was negotiating peace Chamberlain brought to him at Bad Godesberg? But that would be untrue.

Anon: What? That was Appeasement, they could’ve put their foot down when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland

Nigel: And they knew that would have been dumb. They had no reason to do that. You realise at the time the Brits gave Poland their guarantee Germany hadn’t threatened them once? But in March 1939 the Poles had already threatened war with Germany. Again, your entire tizzy here is hindsight, wrong hindsight at that. “uh well Britain and France should’ve just used force to interfere with Germany’s equal rights”. Hypocrite.

The End

1.1

Anon: Why would an Anglo support nazi Germany anyway lmao

Nigel: Because they were right. If you want a future, you don’t get hung up on the conflicts of the past because it suits your identity. Brits and Americans have this retarded desire to god worship world wars while deriding National Socialists for hating them. Ironic.

Anon: My guy, a sovereign liberal Britian is better than one ruled by fanatic Germans

Nigel: Good thing those “fanatic Germans” had no interest in ruling Britain then. In anycase, you’re wrong. Your “liberal Britain” and lack of fanaticism is why the European man is dying and Britain is the African/Arab invasion hot spot.

Anon: Liberalism is bad, no shit Europe used to be very nationalistic, but then your fanatics came around…

Nigel: Let’s flip the switch. Europe used to be very nationalistic, but then your colonial British fanatics came around…

Anon: Ah yes, Britian is the one who destroyed Europe while trying to build an Ayran superstate

Nigel: Even if that were true, so fucking what? Britain had no problem establishing their SUPERSTATES around the world. Or is it only Germany doing this you have a problem with? Again, hypocritical. Germany is landlocked, their destiny & eyes always lay on the east. Big whoop.

Anon: No, I have nothing against empires If it was just Chancellor Hitler restoring the Kiaseriech, that would’ve been cool, but he created a totalitarian regime with the goal of creating an impossible empire

Nigel: “impossible”. What was impossible about it? Nothing. You might be surprised to know that Hitler HAD no plans, not even administration plans were drawn up for Russia until AFTER Barbarossa. And no, it wasn’t totalitarian.

Anon: Then why’d they attack the Soviets then

Nigel: The orthodox view is because Hitler could’ve made an accord with Britain by swiftly defeating the Soviets, gaining territory preventing the possibility for British blockade. And they’re partially correct. Hitler came very close to securing victory before American interference. But the more inconvenient truth is that it was a preventative strike. The details are debated, but there’s no doubt that in Hitler’s mind, this is what it was. Over 40 historians corroborate this fact. Here’s a post I made:

Anon: He despised the Soviets, very loudly in fact And there’s no evidence to prove that the Soviets had any plan to attack

Nigel: Untrue. It’s in the thread. The topic is debated. We know that the Soviet Red Army were in offensive positions, had different gauge carts that could only be used specifically in Germany, recent maps of Germany, aquatic tanks, paratroopers, bomers all designed for attacking Germany. I suggest you read.

Anon: Maybe, just maybe it is because if the Soviets were gonna fight a war, it would’ve been in Europe Especially since Hitler very clearly hated them Also, where’s the plan?

Nigel: For the plan see the thread, and search “Operation Thunderstorm”. It can be found in the so-called “Osobaya Papka”, a file which contains about 100,000 Top Secret documents. In this file it is document Nr.103202/06. I quote another plan IN FULL.

Anon: You don’t think paranoid Stalin would’ve made war preparations? Lol Besides, war was inevitable because of Hitler’s hatred of them

Nigel: Quite the claim. The Soviets were the same. Hatred of democracies and “fascism”. The desire for world revolution etc. Or do you forget that? War wasn’t inevitable. But it was justified all the same.

Anon: No shit But if war was inevitable, a less fanatic Germany would’ve taken the situation as it was, not lebensraum

Nigel: Yeah IF. It wasn’t, your point is moot.

Anon: Hasn’t much of this been about the if

Nigel: Yeah. For you. “OOh well my war mongering and provocations are okay because IF Germany wasn’t what I don’t like it MIGHT have been different!”. Here’s a great small article to put the utter failure of WW2 into perspective for you. It achieved nothing. Your, and other American/Anglo Nationalists justification for fawning over it is misplaced.


1.2

Anon: He didn’t have to declare war on America And defeating the Soviets at the same time is VERY UNLIKELY.

Nigel: The combination of the USSR and the Americans was Hitler’s downfall, if it weren’t for the supplies America provided to the USSR, Hitler would have won. However. His reasons for declaring war on America were sound. Roosevelt had been plotting war since 1939.

Anon: America had war plans for everyone

Nigel: Whatever that means. America had war plans and the INTENTION of going to war with Germany, they violated neutrality and Roosevelt lied to his constituency that the US would have peace.

Anon: Proof?

Nigel: The case of American ships repeatedly attacking German ships prior to their engagement, a fact undisputed. The case or Tyler Kent also, a man who discovered correspondence between Roosevelt and Churchill who was imprisoned before leaking the documents.

Anon: Ok But the president can’t declare war, Congress and the populous needed a justification But they didn’t need one because Germany declared war

Nigel: Big deal. Roosevelt was surrounded by Jews who wanted war as much as him. They had no problem subverting neutrality law technically making them the aggressor and declaring war. Not formally at least. Which was the goal. Remember, they allowed Japan to attack them.

Tuttutut America and Britain. Not the beacons of peace you thought huh? SAD!

David Irving, Churchill’s War, Volume II: Triumph in Adversity (Focal Point Publications, 2001), Pp. 38

Anon: Didn’t say America was, we’ve always been warmongers But I doubt Roosevelt would’ve been as fanatic if non totalitarian regime was in place

Nigel: Victim blaming. Classy. I’m sure women love that! Fact of the matter is, he wasn’t. Your attempt to justify the fanaticism for one side while decrying it for the other is so blatantly hypocritical you’re barely worthy conversing with except for in mockery.

(In Reply to the first image above) :

Anon: Again, Germany would’ve had to attack them before a war

Nigel: Maybe. But the Americans took care of that.


1.3

Anon: America had war plans for everyone

Nigel: Whatever that means. America had war plans and the INTENTION of going to war with Germany, they violated neutrality and Roosevelt lied to his constituency that the US would have peace.

Anon: Proof?

Nigel: I posted a link just a moment ago.

Anon: So we’re just gonna ignore Appeasement, nazi fanaticism, WW1, etc and just blame Roosevelt?

Nigel: At the end of the day your entire tizzy abou this can be summed up by stuttering “b-b-b-but N-n-nazi-is”. You have no real reason to find anything particularly unique or damning here other than a knee jerk reaction because you’re SUPPOSED to hate National Socialists.

Anon: You’re quite wrong But at the end of the day, I’m gonna side with my people over the Germans

Nigel: No. I’m right. Come to the forum. Lay out your case, don’t just sit there and say “you’re wrong WAAAAH” like a little baby who didn’t get his way. I’m not even German. But I’m not ethnically chauvinistic enough to side with my people when we were wrong. Morally.


1.4

Anon: So we’re just gonna ignore Appeasement, nazi fanaticism, WW1, etc and just blame Roosevelt?

Nigel: I’ve addressed all of those things. I fail to see the issue. Roosevelt plays a very large part. The largest probably. It’s his fault war broke out with Japan, it’s his goading to Germany and his constant provocations as well. He ultimately was the impetus for the pacific war.

Anon: Hitler didn’t have to declare war But a Pacific war was pretty inevitable as long as Japan and China go at it

Nigel: Nah, the USA fucked their neutrality and embargoed Japan. You know, a provocation. The British and French ALSO didn’t have to declare war. But they did. At least Hitler had a real reason.


1.5

Anon: So we’re just gonna ignore Appeasement, nazi fanaticism, WW1, etc and just blame Roosevelt?

Nigel: But all of this is irrelevant to me. I could hardly care about a war that took place 80 years ago, I’m a 21st century National Socialist and we have 21st century problems. ww2 is nothing but a fun hobby.

Anon: Then why did you sperg out in my notifications

Nigel: Because it’s fun.


And finally, his last comment:

Final Words

From this you can see how the minds of people like this work.

For example, he believed it was the duty of Germany to be “less fanatical” blind to the double standard such a demand entailed, in that it was totally arbitrarily applied to Germany and nobody else, based on no actual criteria. He, like all the others who would spout similar jargon have no solid reasoning as to why it had to be GERMANY that was less fanatical; only under the pretence that they do not like the Germans can they make such a demand.

All of his beliefs were based on Germany being the pinnacle of this conflict – as of course, this is how history about the Second World War is fed to the public. When you frame Germany in such a way, it stands to reason that she will indeed become that lynchpin, thus you get a self fulling prophecy where Germany fulfilling what is in her interests becomes the actions of a “war mongering nation”. Doing this separated Germany from the greater historical context of nations and their interests. When this occurs anything Germany does becomes historical novelty, thus Germany is put in a position where she can be uniquely attacked when there is in reality nothing particularly special about what Hitler pursued on the part of Germany. There can certainly be no moral grandstanding from any of the Allies because everything they accused Hitler of doing were things they themselves were guilty of many times over. Such as I pointed out, they sided with the Soviet Union, this single action is enough in and of itself to expose the duplicity of the democracies and their supposed attitude metered out to Dictatorships which they’re more than happy to tolerate if they’re not interfering, or threatening the interests of their own countries (in the immediate future at least). It was very easy for Britain, France and the United States to attack Germany, for she was a state open to the world, unlike the Soviet Union where only idle speculation could be made. Thus when the allies attacked Germany, they did so, ironically, as a result of Germany’s openness, and perhaps ignorance of the outside world beyond their borders. Britain in particular could use the negative currents flowing among the populace due to Jewish newspapers and books to create a fake moral panic about a country they wanted to go to war with, or restrain, perhaps peacefully if they could, but nevertheless only if Germany would fully submit to them. Hence the constant demands for “unconditional surrender”. That Germany did not do this mean’t Britain could hide her true intentions of waging war against Germany behind that moral smoke screen, when in fact what they wanted wasn’t the egalitarian fantasy they espoused, but the balance of power in Europe restored to their favour once again.

Anon here thought much the same way. Unless Germany went about pleasing the Allies in the way they demanded, then Germany according to people like him was “making trouble”. When Germany would refuse to act in accordance with the whims of the allies, Germany would be blamed for “forcing the hand of the Allies” whom we’re constantly told didn’t want to reprimand Germany, but wanted peace! Of course this is untrue, any countries that acted in the way Britain and her Allied gang of thugs did, cannot be taken seriously as countries serving the interests of peace. Heck, when they didn’t like the way Hitler went about acquiring German land from Poland or during the Munich conference they in one instance threatened war and in the other actually declared it. If we’re to believe what they said, It wasn’t Germany’s ends that were the problem, it was the rapidity and sometimes “forceful” way, in their opinion, she went about acquiring those ends. This is brought up as an excuse to blame Germany even today. Allied apologists and “historians” will claim how Germany was “constantly warned” not to act out of line, totally oblivious to the fact that demanding Germany act in such a stringent way is pretty aggressive and demanding. But the Allies get a pass on it, simply because they’re not Hitler.

In ‘The Middle” section 1.3 he makes a comment about how the Germans “ruined their chances” to take back territory which was rightfully German. Ponder that for a moment. Imagine being told that you “ruined your chance” to work at your job because you spoke back to your boss who is psychologically abusive in the workplace, then imagine this conflict gets you fired and it’s now apparently all your fault. It would be a farce. Britain and France were in no position to give Germany “chances” to have the territory that was rightfully theirs returned to them, as if Germany were a small child on his last warning. Not only were Britain and France militarily and geographically unequipped to tackle Germany, thus having no real leverage, they had no moral leverage either.

The only moral argument the Western Allies ever had was that Germany shouldn’t have invaded Poland, a “small defenseless country”. Only then could they justify attacking Germany, and this is the appeal to emotion still used today. It’s a joke, because as we all well know, the same argument in the supposed defense of Poland was never to be applied to the advancing Russians whom feasted upon Poland on September 17th, 1939; or even the Poles themselves who partook in the dismembering of Czechoslovakia. All the scorn was heaped upon Germany, while all those other countries whom acted in an opportunistic fashion to take for themselves what Germany had provided to them, wiped their lips of their own misdeeds with the bibs gifted to them by the British, only to wave the bones of their respective conquests, the Russians in hand the bones of Eastern Europe in 1945 and Poland the bones of Teschen extracted from Czechoslovakia in 1938, condescendingly at Germany. To speak nothing of “totalitarianism” which the Allies were more than happy to mobilize hatred directed at Germany for, but ignore in the interests of Russia when they acted in a way the Allies wrongly accused Hitler of acting. The joke however, displays a common thread of expectant German subservience, a prerequisite which determines the moral dichotomy, once recognized for the blatant power fantasy that it is, you can dismiss it as nothing more then petty self interest on behalf of the allies disguised as virtue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *