Hitler, Stalin, and the Battle for Poland (Part II)

As a matter of fact, Hitler did not utilize the Gleiwitz incident at all. Uncanny, really…seeing as how it was supposed to have made his case for war with Poland and all. Among the most pressing problems about what purportedly transpired at Gleiwitz, at least as I see it, is that there are countless versions of this most ‘singular’ event.


by Jonas E. Alexis and V. C. Clark

JEA: Did Hitler use Gleiwitz incident to invade Poland? What about other historians who do say that it was a legitimate move?

VCK: As a matter of fact, Hitler did not utilize the Gleiwitz incident at all. Uncanny, really…seeing as how it was supposed to have made his case for war with Poland and all. Among the most pressing problems about what purportedly transpired at Gleiwitz, at least as I see it, is that there are countless versions of this most ‘singular’ event. How is this possible since there is only ever one version of the truth?

To my knowledge, there is not a single historian who claims that the purported “false flag” at Gleiwitz was legitimate. Some historians have supported Hitler’s real motives for invading Poland, which are fully fleshed out in my two-volume book set, though said historians are few and far between. Most historians condemn every move Hitler and Germany made because that is what political correctness guides them to do. They are shackled by the official World War II narrative, which must always be anti-Nazi.

Having said that, TIME magazine ran the following story on Monday, 29 May 1939:

“King Alexander of Yugoslavia and French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou were murdered at Marseille in 1934 by a professional assassin whose Italian connections were carefully hushed. Two years ago British Ambassador to China Sir Hughe M. Knatchbull-Hugessen was machine-gunned and dangerously wounded by a Japanese plane. During the Spanish Civil War “pirate” submarines torpedoed British and French merchantmen. If an incident were needed to start a war, the world has recently had plenty of them.” (emphasis added)

Yes, the world, including Hitler himself, had witnessed many incidents that could rightly have been used as pretexts for war. If this was the case, then why were and are Hitler’s reasons considered “unjust”? The fact of the matter is that Hitler did not need a raid at the Gleiwitz station to invade Poland. In fact, an incident concerning a certain Mr. Gruebner is recognized by the media here as a valid case for war. The TIME journalist was in fact wondering whether Hitler would use this man’s murder as his casus belli against Poland.

The TIME article went on to report that

“Early this week there was another, this one at Kaltof in highly inflammable Danzig. Involved was no highly placed ruler or diplomat, but a German butcher named Gustav Gruebner, who was killed by a shot fired from an official Polish automobile. Since incidents amount to what nations want to make them, Führer Adolf Hitler could give Butcher Gruebner a sure niche in history by deciding that this was just the right kind of provocation he needed to march into Danzig.”

Hmm…I thought that the Gleiwitz raid was “just the sort of incident” Hitler needed? What happened to that?

We then read:

“There are always two versions to diplomatic incidents, and l’affaire Gruebner was no exception. The Polish account: the Polish Vice-Commissioner to Danzig went to Kaltof to investigate the sacking of a Polish customs house by a German mob; his party was attacked, compelling his chauffeur to fire in self-defense. To this the German version bears little resemblance: there was merely an orderly demonstration against ‘molestations’ of German girls by Polish officials, and Gustav Gruebner was plugged for no reason at all.

“The Nazi-controlled Danzig Government through the Senate President promptly demanded compensation for Butcher Gustav’s bereaved relatives, apologies, and the surrender of the ‘murderer.’ The Poles made counter-demands: punishment of those guilty of the attack on the customs house, compensation for damages and assurances for the protection of Polish interests.”

As we can see, both sides were antagonizing one another, and both sides had legitimate grievances. Germany was no more or less guilty for touching off World War II than Poland (or Britain, or France, or the US, or the USSR). As the old saying goes, “it takes two to Tango.”[1]

JEA: Who preempted who: Stalin or Hitler?

VCK: They preempted one another, of course. Both Hitler and Stalin had imperial intent and imperial designs vis-à-vis eastern Europe. The only question, really, is which man was willing to go further than the other as far as his political and geographical ambitions were concerned. The two men knew all to well the basic intentions of the other owing to their pact (the Russo-German Agreement, a.k.a. Nazi-Soviet Pact) with its secret clause to partition eastern Europe between the two European monoliths.

Moreover, Poland knew Hitler’s intentions owing to his and Hermann Göring’s incredible efforts to woo the sandwiched nation into some sort of pact against the Russian colossus. It’s possible that Polish officials shared some of that knowledge with their Russian contacts, though that would need to be confirmed by Polish and Russian sources. For the time being, call it a reasonable hunch on my part, especially in the light of historian Rolf Dieter-Müller’s research into the German-Russian war.

As I wrote in Chapter 4 of The Hitler Worship Cult:

“The Nazis believed, correctly as it turns out, that Stalin harbored aggressive intent against Poland and other parts of eastern Europe. And this is why Hitler was so angry at the Poles for refusing to join him in an anti-Soviet alliance. This is in fact the basis of Hitler’s anti-Polonism, which had nothing to do with “racial inferiority.”

But the Poles did not trust Hitler not to make untenable demands, especially concerning Polish self-rule, if they did link up with Germany in such an alliance. The Poles did not trust that Hitler was not up to some ruse; therefore, they rejected Hitler’s peace overtures.”[2]

According to the compelling thesis of Russian historian Constantine Pleshakov, which is supported by fellow Russian historian Viktor Suvorov, Stalin had a preemptive plan of his own. He proceeded to go ahead with it only after receiving assurances from the Japanese minister Matsuoka, in April 1941, that Japan not only knew of Hitler’s intent to eventually strike out at the USSR but that Japan wished to sign a neutrality pact with Stalin.

On 5 May 1941, Stalin pronounced himself ‘prime minister’ (i.e., Council of People’s Commissars). That same day he gave his infamous Red Army academy speech, the one in which he announced, “it is time to go from a posture of defense to one of attack.” Marshal Shaposhnikov originated Stalin’s preemptive war blueprint while the much younger Alexander Vasilevsky was its architect.

The final offensive plan, per Pleshakov, went as follows:

The Kiev Military District was to lead the attack at the Southwestern Front. These troops would strike at Krakow. This front was to consist of one million men and 8,000 tanks. Romania was also set to be invaded by this group. The northern Western Military District, now the Western Front, was to strike Warsaw. Stalin’s goal was to reach a line running from Ostroleka in Poland to Lowicz, Lodz, Kluczbork, Opole, and finally the Czech city of Olomouc in thirty days. Olomouc was only 270 miles from Munich and 100 miles from Vienna. The Western Front troops, being weaker, were expected to stop at Ostroleka; they were then expected to turn north and occupy eastern Prussia and the rest of Poland.

The plan does not specify what was to happen next, though Pleshakov suspects that Stalin would have demanded a peace deal granting him all of eastern Europe. While Mr. Pleshakov does not believe that Stalin would have gone so far as to strike Germany herself, who knows what he might have done?

In any case, this plan demanded a preemptive strike for which Ukraine was to serve as the “springboard of aggression.” To disguise the massive reserve armies that were needed on these fronts, the Soviet generals suggested the smokescreen of “training exercises.” This explains in part why Hitler had to invade and occupy Ukraine and other eastern European countries that he had formerly handed over to Stalin for the sake of his own imperial agenda in said region.

The following IMT testimony of anti-Hitler traitor Gerd von Rundstedt[3] is most informative in this regard:

  1. LATERNSER: You participated in the conference in March 1941, when Hitler spoke of the necessity of attacking the Soviet Union?


  1. LATERNSER: What were you told about Soviet preparations?

VON RUNDSTEDT: Until a short time before that I had been in France, and I had no knowledge whatever of the ostensible preparations of the Russians. At the conference, to our surprise, we were told that the Russians were very strongly armed, were concentrating troops and preparing to attack us. If I am not mistaken, information from the Japanese Military Attaché was referred to, and a map of the Russian distribution of forces on the borders of Poland was shown to us, so that we had to assume that these facts were actually true.

  1. LATERNSER: Was this impression confirmed after the entry into Russia?

VON RUNDSTEDT: Yes. The resistance at the border was not too great, but it grew continually as we advanced into the interior of the country. Very strong tank forces, tanks of a better type, far superior to ours, appeared; and an enormous number of airfields, troop camps, munitions dumps, and newly built roads through impassable territory were encountered. Maps were also found, showing German territory as far as Silesia, so that we had the impression that Hitler must have been right.[4] (emphasis added)

It does indeed take two to Tango.


 (relevant IMT testimony)

27 Aug. 46

I shall now turn to Section B: Crimes against Peace (Statement of Evidence V of the English trial brief against the Gestapo and SD).

As a crime against peace the SD is accused of having staged so-called border incidents before the outbreak of the war to give Hitler an excuse for starting the war. The Prosecution, however, referred to only one border incident in which the SD is alleged to have participated. That is the alleged attack on the Gleiwitz radio station.

In this connection the Prosecution made reference to the affidavit of Alfred Naujocks of 20 November 1945. This is Prosecution Document 2751-PS. The deponent of Document 2751-PS, Alfred Naujocks, was heard before the Commission. On that occasion he declared that the execution of the attack on the Gleiwitz radio station was not included in the aims and purposes of Aemter III and VI.

The witness further testified that no sections of Aemter III and VI were used for the execution of that border incident in Gleiwitz and that the men who with him attacked the Gleiwitz station did not belong to the SD, Amt III.

The witness also stated that by the term “SD men” in his affidavit of 20 November 1945 he did not mean the members of any definite office of the RSHA; but common usage of the term “SD men” referred to RSHA members of all offices which were subordinate to Heydrich.

The witness further stated that he was charged with the execution of the border incident at Gleiwitz, not because he belonged to Amt VI and worked there, but that exclusively personal reasons were responsible for that decision. The witness testified that on the basis of the conversation he had had with Heydrich he had gained the impression that Heydrich would have given him that assignment even if he had not been a member of Amt VI and the SS. The order for the execution of this assignment reached the witness Naujocks not through the official channels of the chiefs of Aemter III or VI. The chiefs of Aemter III and VI had no knowledge of this action.

The members of the SD, Amt III and Amt VI, had no knowledge that the attack was carried out by Naujocks, a member of Amt VI. Particularly the members of the SD-Leitabschnitt which was in charge of Gleiwitz, and the outpost of the SD, had no knowledge of this activity and could not have had, because Naujocks had been forbidden to get in touch with any members of the SD whatsoever in that territory.

The statements of this witness have been reaffirmed by the witness Somman and through Affidavit Number SD-11, deposed by Dr. Marx.

I also submitted 215 affidavits for the office of the RSHA as well as for all territories of the SD-Leitabschnitte and the SD-Abschnitte, particularly for those situated in the regions of Katowice, Danzig, and Saxony. Those affidavits testify that the members of the SD during the critical time had no knowledge of the faked border incidents or the participation of the SD in them.

The affidavit by the witness Dr. Mildner (2479-PS) is refuted by the testimony of the witness Naujocks and Affidavit Number SD-11, Dr. Marx. This subject matter does not provide sufficient grounds to declare the SD to have been criminal, since this would presuppose proof of the fact that the SD as an organization was employed in the aggression, and that its members had cognizance thereof. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-27-46.asp)

29 Aug. 46

The largest branch of the SS, the Waffen-SS, was created and developed for the sole purpose of carrying on the war and participated, as an SS army, in all phases of the war in the East and in the West. Its shameful record of war atrocities needs no amplification here. The Gestapo and SD were likewise involved in the commission of crimes against the peace. The very incident that served as an excuse for the invasion of Poland, and thus set off the entire war, was executed by the Gestapo and the SD. I refer to the simulated Polish attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz. where concentration camp prisoners were dressed in Polish, uniforms, murdered, and left as evidence of a Polish raid, so as to afford Hitler a justification for the attack upon Poland. Of course the professional military clique planned and participated in all aggressions from the militarization of the Rhineland in 1936 to the attack on Soviet Russia in 1941. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-29-46.asp)

23 Aug. 46

In line with the method followed in the Indictment, I shall subdivide the crimes of which the Gestapo is accused into Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity.

(a) Crimes against Peace.

In this connection the Indictment makes the charge that the Gestapo, together with the SD, had artificially created border incidents in order to give Hitler a pretext for a war with Poland. Two border incidents are cited, the attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz and a feigned attack by a Polish group at Hohenlinden.

The attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz was not carried out with the participation of Gestapo officials. The witness Naujocks,

who was the leader of this undertaking but did not belong to the Gestapo, has confirmed unequivocally that no member of the Gestapo participated in this action. Instructions for this undertaking emanated directly from Heydrich and were transmitted orally by him directly to Naujocks.

Instructions concerning the feigned attack at Hohenlinden were transmitted by Mueller, the chief of Amt IV of the RSHA, to Naujocks; however, Naujocks, who directed this action, has. expressly denied any participation by Amt IV.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Merkel, would that be a convenient time to break off?

[A recess was taken until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

  1. MERKEL: Mr. President, I have heard that the French translation of my final plea is not yet available to the interpreters. For that reason I shall have to speak more slowly for the benefit of the interpreters.

I have already deleted another 16 pages from my plea in order to comply with the ruling that I adhere to a time limit.

THE PRESIDENT: No doubt your speech will subsequently be translated and we shall have those pages before us.

  1. MERKEL: I had gone as far as the testimony of the witness Naujocks regarding the attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz and the attack of that group near Hohenlinden. He stated that, quite naturally, it was not one of the tasks of Amt IV of the RSHA to engineer border incidents. Nor did Mueller select members of Amt IV for the purpose of staging the above-mentioned border incident, but only individuals who were in his confidence; for Heydrich did not trust the Gestapo with respect to secrecy and reliability.

Naujocks stated literally: “I cannot identify Mueller with the organization of the Gestapo.”

These border incidents were therefore no concern of the Gestapo, but rather a personal concern of Heydrich, even to the extent to which Mueller participated in them.

The Gestapo has not been accused of other crimes against peace. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-23-46.asp)

  1. LATERNSER: What impression did the discussion on 22 August 1939 at the Obersalzberg make on you, Field Marshal?

VON RUNDSTEDT: When we left the conference, we thought that this undertaking would end just like the so-called Sudeten war in 1938, primarily because Russia was on our side. When on 26 August the movement for the beginning of operations, which had been ordered, was suddenly stopped, and was to begin again on 1 September, we said, “Ah, that is the same kind of bluff which we had in 1938.” We did not take the decision for war seriously.

  1. LATERNSER: Did you, after the conference of 22 August, talk to other commanders-in-chief and exchange ideas on the impressions gathered at this discussion?

VON RUNDSTEDT: I remember with certainty that I talked to Field Marshal Von Bock about it. I left Obersalzberg very quickly. With Manstein and later with my staff I exchanged the same views which I have just mentioned.

  1. LATERNSER: Did you have knowledge of the attack on the Gleiwitz radio station?


  1. LATERNSER: In what way did you learn of the intention of occupying Denmark and Norway?

VON RUNDSTEDT: I learned of the accomplished fact through official channels.

  1. LATERNSER: How about the entry into Yugoslavia and Greece?

VON RUNDSTEDT: It was the same.

  1. LATERNSER: You participated in the conference in March 1941, when Hitler spoke of the necessity of attacking the Soviet Union?


  1. LATERNSER: What were you told about Soviet preparations?

VON RUNDSTEDT: Until a short time before that I had been in France, and I had no knowledge whatever of the ostensible preparations of the Russians. At the conference, to our surprise, we were told that the Russians were very strongly armed, were concentrating troops and preparing to attack us. If I am not mistaken, information from the Japanese Military Attache was referred to, and a map of the Russian distribution of forces on the borders of Poland was shown to us, so that we had to assume that these facts were actually true.

  1. LATERNSER: Was this impression confirmed after the entry into Russia?

VON RUNDSTEDT: Yes. The resistance at the border was not too great, but it grew continually as we advanced into the interior of the country. Very strong tank forces, tanks of a better type, far superior to ours, appeared; and an enormous number of airfields, troop camps, munitions dumps, and newly built roads through impassable territory were encountered. Maps were also found, showing German territory as far as Silesia, so that we had the impression that Hitler must have been right. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-12-46.asp)

Let us take the department of Foreign Affairs. Of all the administrational sections of the State, this, according to the orthodox conception, should be the farthest removed from political doctrine. Not so in Nazi Germany. With a view to the extermination of the Jews, headquarters abroad cooperated with the Reich Security Main Office through Wilhelmstrasse, as is shown by Documents RF-1206, 1220, 1502, 1210, and Exhibit Number USA-433 Document Number 3219-PS). Wilhelmstrasse officials were called upon to advise the military police and Secret State Police Document Number RF-1061). It was Best, Ribbentrop’s representative in Denmark, who transmitted the order for the deportation of the Jews to the Chief of the German Police Mildner Document Number RF-1503). Document Number RF-1501 shows Ribbentrop defending anti-Semitism to Mussolini and asking for Italian cooperation.

Ribbentrop and Kaltenbrunner are implicated in all the terrorist measures taken against the elite. The SD and Wilhelmstrasse are also involved in the organization of attacks of a provocative nature, such as that made on the broadcasting station at Gleiwitz in order to furnish the pretext of an attack by the Poles. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-29-46.asp)

  1. FRITZ: In this Trial it has been pointed out that there are no regulations in international law on the methods of propaganda in war and peace.

FRITZSCHE: I know very well that international law places no restrictions on propaganda, especially propaganda during war. I also know very well that only in a very few individual treaties between states are there regulations about the use of propaganda; for example in the German-Polish treaty and in the German-Soviet Union treaty. But in all my life as a journalist I have emphasized that the lack of international regulations as to propaganda is no excuse for lies. I always emphasized the moral responsibility of the journalist and newsman. I did so long before the war in an international discussion with Radio Luxembourg but it would lead too far afield to go into that here.

If last May I did not seek death, one of the reasons for this was my wish-I wanted to render an account of where, in that system, there were the pure idealism and the heroic sacrifices of millions, and where there were lies and the brutality which did not shrink from committing crimes.

  1. FRITZ: Please give us examples of cases wherein you felt you were deceived.

FRITZSCHE: During this Trial the news was discussed which circulated at the beginning of the Polish war about the attack on the Gleiwitz radio station. At that time I firmly believed in the truth of the official German news. I need say nothing about this case. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/06-27-46.asp)

  1. STAHMER: Did you then on 1 September meet Goering again?

DAHLERUS: On 1 September I met Goering at 8 o’clock at his headquarters. After some hesitation he told me that the war had broken out because the Poles had attacked the radio station of Gleiwitz and blown up a bridge near Dirschau. Later he gave me more details from which I concluded that the full force of the German Army was employed in the attack on Poland.

  1. STAHMER: Did you then on 3 September meet Goering again, and did you on this occasion, make the suggestion that Goering should fly to London immediately for a personal conference? (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-19-46.asp)

20 Dec. 45

In the final act in setting off the war-the attack on Poland in September 1939-the SS acted as a sort of stage manager. The Tribunal will recall the oral testimony of Erwin Lahousen with relation to the simulated attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz, by Germans dressed in Polish uniform-what Lahousen referred to as one of the most mysterious actions which took place in the Abwehr. Describing his task of getting the Polish uniforms and equipment together, he said at Page 620 of the transcript (Volume II, Page 450):

“These articles of equipment had to be prepared, and one day some man from the SS or the SD-the name is on the official diary of the War Department-fetched them.”

I now offer in evidence Document 2751-PS, which is Exhibit USA-482. It is an affidavit of Alfred Helmut Naujocks, dated November 20, 1945. This affidavit particularly refers to the actual occurrences in connection with the Polish border incident. I believe it was referred to by the Witness Lahousen when he was on the stand:

“I, Alfred Helmut Naujocks, being first duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

“1. I was a member of the SS from 1931 to 19 October 1944 and a member of the SD from its creation in 1934 to January 1941. I served as a member of the Waffen-SS from February 1941 until the middle of 1942. Later I served in the Economics Department of the Military Administration of Belgium from September 1942 to September 1944. I surrendered to the Allies on 19 October 1944.

“2. On or about 10 August 1939 the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Heydrich, personally ordered me to simulate an attack on the radio station near Gleiwitz, near the Polish border, and to make it appear that the attacking force consisted of Poles. Heydrich said: ‘Actual proof of these attacks of the Poles is needed for the foreign press, as well as for German propaganda purposes.’ I was directed to go to Gleiwitz with five or six SD men and wait there until I received a code word from Heydrich indicating that the attack should take place. My instructions were to seize the radio station and to hold it long enough to permit a Polish-speaking German, who would be put at my disposal, to broadcast a speech in Polish. Heydrich told me that this speech should state that the time had come for the conflict between the Germans and the Poles and that the Poles should get together and strike down any Germans from whom they met resistance. Heydrich also told me at this time that he expected an attack on Poland by Germany in a few days.

“3. I went to Gleiwitz and waited there a fortnight. Then I requested permission of Heydrich to return to Berlin but was told to stay in Gleiwitz. Between the 25th and 31st of August I went to see Heinrich Muller, head of the Gestapo, who was then nearby at Oppeln. In my presence Muller discussed with a man named Mehlhorn plans for another border incident, in which it should be made to appear that Polish soldiers were attacking German troops …. Germans in the approximate strength of a company were to be used. Muller stated that he had 12 or 13 condemned criminals who were to be dressed in Polish uniforms and left dead on the ground at the scene of the incident to show that they had been killed while attacking. For this purpose they were to be given fatal injections by a doctor employed by Heydrich. Then they were also to be given gunshot wounds. After the assault members of the press and other persons were to be taken to the spot of the incident. A police report was subsequently to be prepared.

“4. Muller told me that he had an order from Heydrich to make one of those criminals available to me for the action at Gleiwitz. The code name by which he referred to these criminals was ‘Canned Goods.’

“5. The incident at Gleiwitz in which I participated was carried out on the evening preceding the German attack on Poland. As I recall war broke out on the 1st of September 1939. At noon on the 31st of August I received by telephone from Heydrich the code word for the attack which was to take place at 8 o’clock that evening. Heydrich said, ‘In order to carry out this attack, report to Muller for “Canned Goods.”‘ I did this and gave Muller instructions to deliver the man near the radio station. I received this man and had him laid down at the entrance to the station. He was alive, but he was completely unconscious. I tried to open his eyes. I could not recognize by his eyes that he was alive, only by his breathing. I did not see the shot wounds, but a lot of blood was smeared across his face. He was in civilian clothes.

“6. We seized the radio station as ordered, broadcast a speech of 3 to 4 minutes over an emergency transmitter, fired some pistol shots, and left.”

And then “sworn to and subscribed to before Lieutenant Martin”. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-20-45.asp)

4 April 46

  1. NELTE: You know, of course, that this matter was connected with the subsequent attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz. Do you know anything of this incident?

KEITEL: This incident, this action came to my knowledge for the first time here through the testimony of witnesses. I never found out who was charged to carry out such things and I knew nothing of the raid on the radio station at Gleiwitz until I heard the testimonies given here before the Tribunal. Neither do I recall having heard at that time that such an incident had occurred.

  1. NELTE: Did you know of the efforts of America and Italy after 1 September 1939 to end the war in one way or another?

KEITEL: I knew nothing at all of the political discussions that took place in those days from the 24th to the 30th, 31st of August or the beginning of September 1939. 1 never knew anything about the visits of a Herr Dahlerus. I knew nothing of London’s intervention. I remember only that, while in the Reich Chancellery for a short time, I met Hitler, who said to me: “Do not disturb me now, I am writing a letter to Daladier.” This must have been in the first days of September. Neither I nor, to my knowledge, any of the other generals ever knew anything about the matters I have heard of here or about the steps that were still taken after 1 September. Nothing at all. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-04-46.asp)

30 Nov. 45

COL. AMEN: Will you explain to the Tribunal the nature of the assistance required?

LAHOUSEN The affair on which I am now giving testimony is one of the most mysterious actions which took place within the Amt Ausland-Abwehr. A few days, or sometime before – I believe it was the middle of August – the precise date can be found in the diary of the division-Abwehr Division I, as well as my division, Abwehr Division II, were given the task of providing Polish uniforms and equipment such as identification cards and so on, for an Undertaking Himmler. This request, according to an entry in the diary of the division which was kept not by me, but by my adjutant, was received by Canaris from the Wehrmacht Operations Staff or from the National Defense Department. I believe the name of General Warlimont is mentioned.

COL. AMEN: Do you know where this request originated?

LAHOUSEN: Where the request originated I cannot say, I can only say that it reached us in the form of an order. It was, to be sure, an order on which we, the divisional chiefs concerned, already had some misgivings without knowing what, in the last analysis, it meant. The name Himmler, however, spoke for itself, and that is also evident from entries of the diary which record my question why Herr Himmler should come to receive uniforms from us.

COL.AMEN: To whom was the Polish material to be furnished by the Abwehr?

LAHOUSEN: These articles of equipment had to be kept in readiness, and one day some man from the SS or the SD-the name is given in the official war diary of the division-collected them.

COL. AMEN: At what time was the Abwehr informed as to how this Polish material was to be used?

LAHOUSEN: The real purpose was unknown to us then; we do not know its details even today. All of us, however, had the reasonable suspicion that something entirely crooked was being planned; the name of the undertaking was sufficient guarantee for that.

COL. AMEN: Did you subsequently find out from Canaris what in fact had happened?

LAHOUSEN: The actual course of events was the following: When the first Wehrmacht communique spoke of the attack of Polish units on German territory, Pieckenbrock, holding the communique in his hand, and reading it aloud, observed that now we knew why our uniforms had been needed. On the same day or a few days later, I cannot say exactly, Canaris informed us that people from concentration camps had been disguised in these uniforms and had been ordered to make a military attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz. I cannot recall whether any other locality was mentioned. Although we were extremely interested, particularly General Oster, to know details of this action, that is, where it had occurred and what had happened-actually we could well imagine it, but we did not know how it was carried out-I cannot even today say exactly what happened.

COL. AMEN: Did you ever find out what happened to the men from the concentration camps who wore the Polish uniforms and created the incident?

LAHOUSEN: It is strange. This matter has always held my interest, and even after the capitulation I spoke about these matters with an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer-he was a Viennese in the hospital in which both of us were staying, and I asked him for details on what had taken place. The man – his name was Birckel – told me: “It is odd, that even our circles heard of this matter only very much later, and then only by intimation.” He added: “So far as I know, even all members of the SD who took part in that action were put out of the way, that is, killed.” That was the last I heard of this matter. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/11-30-45.asp)

8 March 46

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, have you seen the Reich Marshal and Hitler when the reports came in of the bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam and of Coventry?

BODENSCHATZ: I cannot remember whether I was present when the reports came.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: You never saw any such reactions on their part on those bombings, I take it?

BODENSCHATZ: I only know that Warsaw was a fortress which was held by the Polish Army in very great strength, provided with excellent pieces of artillery, that the forts were manned, and that two or three times Adolf Hitler announced that civilians should be evacuated from the city. That was rejected. Only the foreign embassies were evacuated, while an officer with a flag of truce entered. The Polish Army was in the city defending it stubbornly in a very dense circle of forts. The outer forts were very strongly manned, and from the inner town heavy artillery was firing towards the outskirts. The fortress of Warsaw was therefore attacked, and also by the Luftwaffe, but only after Hitler’s ultimatum had been rejected.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: Was Coventry a fortified city?

BODENSCHATZ: Coventry was no fortress. Coventry, however, was a city which housed the key industry of the enemy air force, in which the aircraft engines were built, a city in which, as far as I know, many factories were situated and many parts of these aircraft engines were manufactured. In any case, the Luftwaffe had at that time received orders to bomb only the industrial targets. If the city also suffered, it is understandable, considering the means of navigation at that time.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were interrogated in November of 1945, were you not, by Colonel Williams?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, I was interrogated.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Colonel Williams asked you about certain fictitious incidents along the German-Polish border late in August of 1939, did he not?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, he asked me about that.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: And would you care to tell the Tribunal what you know about the fictitious incidents along the Polish border?

BODENSCHATZ: I do not know anything positive. I was asked by Colonel Williams whether I knew in advance about the incident of the Gleiwitz broadcasting section. I told him I knew nothing about it. It was only that the incidents on the Polish border were very similar to those which happened on the Czech border. It may have been presumed – that was only my opinion – that they were perhaps deliberate. But I had no positive proof that anything had been staged on our part.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you tell him on the 6th of November 1945, as follows:

“I heard about it, but I personally at that time had the feeling that all these provocations that had taken place had originated from our side, from the German side. As I said, I had no real proofs of that, but I always had that feeling.”

Did you not say that?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, I said that.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that you had talked with people about this, from whom you got that feeling. Is that right?

BODENSCHATZ: I cannot remember that very well now. I only know that the reports in the press gave me that suspicion.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were asked, were you not, this question and gave this answer:

“Question: But you are of the opinion that what appeared in the press and these incidents that were reported were not true, but done merely to cause an incident as an excuse for an invasion?”

And did you not make this answer:

“I had that feeling. I cannot prove it, but I definitely know I had a feeling that the whole thing was being engineered by us.”

Did you not make that answer to that question?

BODENSCHATZ: The minutes will show it. If it is in the minutes, I said it. At the moment I cannot remember the exact words.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: You do not deny the fact, however?

BODENSCHATZ: I had that feeling, but it was a purely subjective opinion.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: But it was your opinion?


  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now then, I ask you whether you were not interrogated about the Fuehrer’s desire to make war on Poland, and whether you did not give this answer:

“Gentlemen, this question is very hard to answer, but I can state under my oath that the Fuehrer actually wanted the war against Poland. I can prove that he actually wanted a war of aggression against Poland by the circle surrounding the Fuehrer and the remarks that were made. I was present during the night when Hitler gave Henderson his conditions that he wanted Danzig, and I concluded from all the conferences that the Fuehrer had with the Ambassador – I had the impression that the Fuehrer did not really want the Poles to accept those conditions.”

And I ask you if you made those answers to Colonel Williams?

BODENSCHATZ: I can make the following answer to that:

I was not present at the conference. If I said that, I did not express myself correctly. I was not at the conference that the Fuehrer had with Henderson, but I was standing in the anterooms with the other adjutants, and outside in the anteroom one could hear the various groups, some saying one thing, some another. From these conversations I gather that the conditions which Henderson received for the Poles in the evening were such, and that the time limit for answering these questions – which was noon of the next day – was so short, that one could conclude there was a certain intention behind it.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, that is the impression that you received from being in the anteroom and talking with the people who were about Hitler that night?

BODENSCHATZ: There were adjutants, the Reich Press Chief, and the gentlemen who were waiting in the anteroom without taking part in the conference.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask you, in order to make this very clear, one more question about your interrogation on that subject. Were you not asked this question:

“Then we can summarize your testimony this morning by saying that you knew in 1938, several months before Germany attacked Poland, that Hitler fully intended to attack Poland and wage an aggressive war against her; is that right?”

And did you not make this answer:

“I can only say this with certainty that from the night when he told Henderson that he wanted Danzig and the Corridor, from that moment, I was sure Hitler intended to wage an aggressive war.”

Were you asked that question, and did you make that answer?

BODENSCHATZ: If it is in the minutes, I said it.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, if it were not in the minutes, it would still be your testimony now, would it not? It is a fact, is it not?

BODENSCHATZ: My definition is precisely this: From the handing over of Adolf Hitler’s demands to Henderson and from the short time that Henderson was granted, I conclude that there was a certain intention. That is how I should like to define it precisely now.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that you be shown Document Number L-79, United States exhibit in evidence, Number USA-27. You have seen that before, witness?

BODENSCHATZ: A copy of this document was shown to me by Colonel Williams, and I told him that I myself could not remember having been present. But if my name is on the minutes, then I was there.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: But your name is on the document, is it not?

BODENSCHATZ: Then I was there. I cannot remember the subject of this conference. I told Colonel Williams that that must have been discussed because Colonel Schmundt, whose handwriting I know – I was shown a copy – I told him that Colonel Schmundt was a man who was very conscientious in making his notes.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is all in his handwriting?

BODENSCHATZ: That is it as I see it here.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is signed by Colonel Schmundt?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, it is signed by Colonel Schmundt – Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt. The corrections are not in his handwriting.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: But the body of the document is his handwriting?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, that is his own handwriting. I know it; yes.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: And when you were asked about that by Colonel Williams, you took time to read it, and then you said, did you not: “I think that the thoughts are right as they are expressed here; these are the thoughts that the Fuehrer usually voiced to us in a small circle.” You made that statement?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, I did say that, yes.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you said: “I cannot remember whether these things were expressed on that day. However, it is possible that the thoughts which are put down here are the thoughts of Adolf Hitler.” You said that to Colonel Williams, did you not?

BODENSCHATZ: Yes, I said that to Colonel Williams.

  1. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is all I care to ask about that, Sir. (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-08-46.asp)

[1] For much more detail about this TIME article and Hitler’s real reasons for war against Poland, please consult my book co-written with J. A. Sexton entitled The Hitler Worship Cult: Distortion, Justification & Mythmaking. We have included countless important details, such as the following: “…the German death figure of about 5,000 blew up into 58,000, and then 300,000 by the time Hitler heard about it…actual conference minutes of Hitler and his generals confirm the thesis that Hitler was willing to use force against Poland as early as March 1939 (five months’ prior to the alleged ‘anti-German massacres and atrocities’ and the physical invasion in August).”

This Hitler Worship Cult myth just collapsed. Totally. Poland was not in a position to launch an offensive war against Germany, which is why Hitler used the alleged mass persecution of ethnic Germans in Poland as his public casus belli. He could not sell his war to the German (or world) public otherwise.” (p. 29) Hitler never cited the purported Gleiwitz incident, not privately or publicly.

References for both articles:

I am currently inquiring about the testimony of Herr Schade and I will update your readers, Jonas, as soon as I have that information. It is possible that Mr. Schade based his report on what he heard during the Breslau broadcast, assuming he did hear it that night and that it contained all the necessary details, but without seeing his testimony I cannot confirm or deny this. We do not know how he got the details for this report. We also do not know exactly what was said in that broadcast. “Earwitnesses” offer conflicting testimony in this regard.

Cross-examination is when the defense attorney questions the prosecution’s witness(es), in this case Herr Schade, during a trial. Cross-examination allows the defense to present evidence via government witnesses.

See p. 437 in Vol. 1 of my Gleiwitz book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1517072921/

During an attempted kidnapping gone sour, Alfred Naujocks accidentally shot and killed Rudolf Formis, the radio technician who was operating an illegal station near Prague in behalf of Hitler’s personal enemy, Otto Strasser. Reinhard Heydrich, his superior at the time, was furious. At Venlo, just across the Dutch border, Mr. Naujocks nearly bungled the kidnapping of two British SIS agents suspected of assisting Georg Elser in the assassination attempt on Hitler at the Bürgerbräukeller—Mr. Stevens and Mr. Best. Since Mr. Naujocks did pull off the mission successfully, he was awarded the Iron Cross by Adolf Hitler.

See Bob Graham, “World War II’s first victim,” August 29, 2009, The Telegraph on the Web, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/6106566/World-War-IIs-first-victim.html (accessed November 28, 2018).

Most mainstream historians assert that deceased concentration camp inmates (referred to as Heinrich Müller’s “canned goods”) were left at the scene as opposed to just a single man. However, few of these historians agree on the number of deceased men purportedly left at the scene; nor do any of these historians support their claims with reliable evidence. They all rely on conjecture and hearsay. See Heinz Höhne’s thesis, for example. (Heinrich Müller was Chief of the Gestapo throughout the war. He disappeared or died in 1945.)

There are two more possibilities as to the origins of the Gleiwitz report/incident, one of which is that it is an Abwehr/Grenzpolizei fabrication, the other of which it is a Polish-British fabrication. I explore both hypotheses in detail, accompanied by a wide range of evidence, in my two-volume book on the topic. Please see volumes 1 and 2 of The Gleiwitz Incident: Nazi False Flag or Media Hoax?, which is available directly from me or from Amazon.

The Abwehr and Grenzpolizei worked intimately together throughout Canaris’ sabotage mission in Poland prior to the outbreak of war (i.e., leading up to the incident at Mosty). Unlike the SS, SD and Gestapo, IMT testimony exonerating these three agencies aside, neither the Abwehr nor the Grenzpolizei were implicated and/or condemned as criminal organizations during the IMT.

If the SS was trying to be clandestine and circumspect about conducting fake border incidents, then why are they mentioned by name (SS-Verfügungstruppe) in the official White Book entry of 31 August 1939 as entry #5? Were the Nazis so stupid? Not to mention this border incident happened at Hoflinden, not Hohenlinden of Hochlinden.

Sometime in March 1937, senior Abwehr officer Paul Thümmel provided much significant information about the German intelligence services to Czech agents who in turn, forwarded the data to SIS London. Thümmel also delivered details over “military capabilities, and intentions” as well as “detailed information on the organization and structure of the Abwehr and SD” along with “the near-complete order of battle of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, and German mobilization plans.” He later provided advanced warnings of the German annexation of the Sudetenland as well as the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland.” (See Jeffrey Richelson, Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 85.)

Before spring 1938 came to an end, the conservative members of the German Foreign Office and many officers in the military expressed fears over the threat of a European war initiated by Hitler. A conspiratorial group formed around General Erwin von Witzleben and Admiral Canaris as a result. Throughout the process, Canaris and subordinates such as Helmuth Groscurth worked to prevent war. Canaris participated in the plots among the military leadership for a coup against Hitler and attempted to establish covert communication lines with the British. Before the invasion of Poland occurred, the Abwehr went so far as to send a special emissary, Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin, to London in order to warn them. (See Klaus Hildebrand, The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973), 70–71; Richard Bassett, Hitler’s Spy Chief: The Wilhelm Canaris Betrayal (New York: Pegasus Books, 2011), 147–164; and Gerhard Weinberg, Hitler’s Foreign Policy 1933–1939: The Road to World War II (New York: Enigma Books, 2005), 585.

Otto Radek, First Lieutenant and later a Captain in World War I, was instructed to set up the border guard in the Gleiwitz area; he was also appointed commander in charge. Radek was a reserve officer and public school teacher, an upstanding citizen. Beginning on 24 August 1939 the border guard was deployed in full force; they received live ammunition with the objective to safeguard the region. The Gleiwitz transmitter station was secured by 3rd Company of Border Guard Battalion 1/68.

The only rival explanation (i.e., the official Revisionist explanation) which is not without its own problems is that Polish insurgents operating out of a local bank front (i.e., the “posh Polish bank branch” as described by Revisionist Carlos Porter) really did attack the station, and this whole thing was covered up by the Allies post facto. The incident was then turned around on the Nazis, hence the need for Alfred Naujocks’ affidavits for the IMT. But this explanation ignores the Mosty parallels completely, and it does not account for who was behind the Breslau broadcast about a shootout and scuffle at the radio transmitter station that certain “earwitnesses” claim to have heard. Of course, not only the shootout and scuffle but the Breslau broadcast in Polish and German could have been conducted by Polish insurgents, but there are conflicting eyewitness/earwitness reports asserting that NOTHING at all happened at the station. No insurgents, no nothing. I explore all possibilities in my books, without committing myself 100% to any single explanation owing to a few unanswerable questions. My hope is that my books will prompt further inquiry and perhaps we will get some definitive answers at last. What I can say with 100% certainty is that the Nazis did not conduct a false flag there or anywhere else on the border that evening/early morning.

Might Mr. Schade have been working with Abwehr/Grenzpolizei subversives/traitors in this regard? Yet another possibility. It would certainly explain why he could not be cross-examined (Abwehr and fellow traitors had to be protected throughout the IMT for the prosecution’s sake) and why he had to be murdered by the Allies as quickly as possible, so as not to be further questioned or allowed to talk to the public or write contradictory memoirs post facto. Bear in mind too that the Gleiwitz station manager, Herr Klose, was murdered by partisans in 1945. Odd, no?

The Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro GmbH (DNB) was the official, central press agency of the German Reich at the time of National Socialism.

He wrote on his blog, “historians are so annoyed that they don’t have good sources, that they start unconsciously acting like the sources they do have are good. Because, you know, “it’s all we have,” and “we have to work with what we have.” Historians all too often leverage sources with hope rather than fact: a source sucks and is unreliable, but is all they have, so they treat it as authoritative and reliable. This has happened with Hitler’s Table Talk: the vast suspicion that surrounds its reliability is ignored, and it continues to be treated as the verbatim words of Hitler, when in fact it appears actually to be the words of minions recording their recollections of him, and later editors who changed up what they wanted.” See Richard Carrier, “History as a Science,” October 7, 2016, https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11311 (accessed November 27, 2018).

Hitler had set the invasion of Poland date as August 26, but on August 25 he called off the attack when he heard that Britain signed a new treaty with Poland, promising military support.

For much more detail about this TIME article and Hitler’s real reasons for war against Poland, please consult my book co-written with J. A. Sexton entitled The Hitler Worship Cult: Distortion, Justification & Mythmaking. We have included countless important details, such as the following: “…the German death figure of about 5,000 blew up into 58,000, and then 300,000 by the time Hitler heard about it…actual conference minutes of Hitler and his generals confirm the thesis that Hitler was willing to use force against Poland as early as March 1939 (five months’ prior to the alleged ‘anti-German massacres and atrocities’ and the physical invasion in August).”

This Hitler Worship Cult myth just collapsed. Totally. Poland was not in a position to launch an offensive war against Germany, which is why Hitler used the alleged mass persecution of ethnic Germans in Poland as his public casus belli. He could not sell his war to the German (or world) public otherwise.” (p. 29) Hitler never cited the purported Gleiwitz incident, not privately or publicly.

See p. 33.

It is important to denote that Rundstedt was a traitor against Hitler, as he would have had good reason to implicate Hitler for an unprovoked war of aggression against the USSR for the IMT. As it turns out, he believed that Hitler was correct about Soviet intent.

The Avalon Project, “Nuremberg Trial Proceedings: Volume 21 – Two Hundred

and First Day Monday; 12 August 1946,” yale.edu, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-12-46.asp (accessed November 30, 2018).

All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. Here’s a Christmas present for you Ian. For me it is not a fine one that I gave to myself by chance.

    By shear chance and boredom waiting to eat our family’s Christmas dinner I happened on this Ron Unz article which led me to the following David Iriving lecture. David answers some of your questions and then …. watch and be amazed.


    Merry Christmas All 🙂

  2. From one of links provided here in a comment I caught this discussion,

    In defense of Veronica’s views (as I understand them) I will present this not so very old piece of news, https://tinyurl.com/y93d5zqn .

    The two Brits were caught by the Iraqi police. When they were caught the Iraqi’s said they were dressed as Arabs. Of course they were dressed as Arabs as otherwise they would stand out like an African in the middle of a snow field. They had explosives. Now had those explosive been detonated I’m sure the newspapers would have said that some “extremist Baathist terrorists” did it.

    That’s how it is done and how it works. Now try to decipher similar events prior to WW II ? As I alluded here in one of my comments, the attachment of “patches” such as Poles, Germans, Russians, Ukrainians is a problematic needs to be well understood. One should ,as best as possible, always probe the possibility of answering “cui bono” when dealing with nationalities in this region.

    Along the same line here are two interesting “coincidences” in History.
    1) A “Pole” called Joseph Retinger. Personal advisor of Gen. Sikorski in London and having an “unknown” important mission to Poland just before the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. An uprising which had absolutely ZERO chance of success and resulted in 100’s of thousand Poles dying and Warsaw being leveled. To get into Poland Retinger parachuted into Poland at the age of 56. Interestingly there was one assassination attempt (poisoning) on his life while he was in Poland. It was not by the Germans. See if you can figure out this man. Good Luck 🙂

    2 President Edvard Benes of Czechoslovakia. Is the man (plus his government) who stopped General Krejci in early September 1938 from putting up a fight against Germany. The Czechs produced some of the most modern armaments of the their class in Europe thanks to their SKODA Works. It may have even surpassed what the Germans were producing. But that is not what is interesting.

    President Benes has a relative named Emilie Benes. This lady married Zbigniew Brzezinski. It may just be a coincidence but there it is. The Trilateral Commission big thinker had 2-3 degrees of separation from President Benes who didn’t want to militarily ATTEMPT to stop Hitler.

    The foolish Poles in 1938 apparently didn’t understand what was going on as the same trick would be played on them a year later. The trick being, promise to do something and then do nothing or nearly nothing.

  3. Part 1 – I know I’m over doing it a bit but I just wanted to address the issue of,
    “You must bear in mind, there were BAD Germans, like Canaris. ”

    Yesterday when checking here I noticed this article,

    The issues raised in the article were known to me in genral as well as some of the serious troubles internally that the Roman Catholic Church is experiencing. Its the age old problem, people inside are not always who one thinks they are even though a “label” is attached to them. This issue equally applies for instance to the categories such as “Poles”, “Germans”, “Ukrainians” or “Russians”.

    Here we have a bit about being Ukrainian,

    This is “Europe” in the year 1000. We in the West tend to discount the significance of what this map is telling us, IMHO.

    How about the consequences of Partition of Poland on the people’s “perception of mind” ?

    Will Humpty Dumpty be the same afterwords once the pieces are put back together ???

    I don’t think so. In my opinion, this in part explains the strange behavior of “Poland”. At one point slightly pro-German, next neutral, then neutral to Soviet Union and Germany, and then suddenly all pro-France/Britain. Strange though it is, plenty of “rational” explanations are offered to us. Rational explanation of irrational beings leads one straight into the Land of Oz.
    Lets also recall that Hitler was an Austrian and Stalin was a Georgian. Not important ? In the Public Arena such a detail is mostly avoided so as to not complicate the “fairy tales” and trouble people’s minds.

    • Part 2 – In reading the above article about the Jesuits I was again reminded how difficult it is to unravel who the historical significant individuals is if one does not know their intimate family life. I would go even further by saying that if you don’t know who they had contact with and what they discussed you are missing extremely important information. Without this information one is only making inferences which making the whole problem an especially devilish puzzle to unravel.

      A couple of years ago I watched this film – “Where Chimneys Are Seen” – 1953, Heinosuke Gosho. The angle (if you are paying attention) at which the chimneys are seen on the horizon in different takes are constantly changing. I think the film perfectly illustrates (clever director) the above problem of trying to pigeonhole people into categories, “Who is Good and who is Bad”. I’m not implying we can’t do anything but we certainly need to be aware of how shaky our assessment can be when dealing with the human factor and limited information we have “about” people.


      PS: A good source of information on the Roman Catholic Church IMHO is Karlheinz Deschner. This man is like David Irving but on the topic of the Catholic Church.

  4. Part 3:
    So, my point is: Proving that Gleiwitz was nothing but a puffed up story by the Nuremberg Tribunal doesn’t change anything with regard to why Germany attacked Poland and waht the casus belli was. Gleiwitz as a casus belli fairy tale is only for the Western mass consumption. Gleiwitz is not “THE” casus belli for Hitler on Sept. 1, 1939 BUT IT DOES PLAY A MINOR ROLE in the sum whole of his Casus Belli. That is how I interpret his speech and what appeared IN GERMAN newspapers.

    Thus I don’t agree with “As a matter of fact, Hitler did not utilize the Gleiwitz incident at all. “

    However in the minds of most westerners we have the Western Gleiwitz casus belli repeated over and over, “Hitler started a war with a lie called Gleiwitz”. Dramatic, not complicated and easy to remember. That is how Propaganda works, it has to be simple. Sort of like “Oswald killed JFK”. Here are some examples of how this looks,

    “Sean Munger is a historian, teacher, professional speaker and author. He has a Ph.D. in environmental history and consults and speaks on the issue of climate change and its effect on history, business and society. ”
    He writes ,
    “Nobody was fooled by the fake Gleiwitz attack. Though Hitler mentioned and stressed it in his speech at the Reichstag declaring war later on September 1, the German aggression against Poland was pretty transparent. World War II had begun, and over the next six years would claim, by some accounts, as many as 80 million lives.”

    >> Hitler mentioned and stressed IT in his speech << says a PhD ????

    • To be honest, what happened or didn’t happen at Gleiwitz is inconsequential, largely an irrelevance. It might be an interesting academic exercise to drill down into the minutiae of specific events but in terms of the big picture, which is what really matters, then it’s largely pointless to study individual incidents in depth. The big picture is that Hitler was lured into a trap that plunged Germany into a war before it was ready; the Zionists had tried once in 1938 with the engineering of the Sudeten crisis where ethnic Germans were targeted in order to lure Hitler into an invasion to save them; but Chamberlain found a diplomatic way out of that mess. The Zionists repeated the trick in 1939 along the Polish side of the German-Polish border, ethnic Germans again being targeted as the lure to draw Hitler into a conflict. This time it worked, not least due to the nefarious machinations of Churchill and the rest of the traitors in the pay of Zion that lurked in the background of British politics at this time, well financed by Judeo-Zionists such as Sir Henry Strakosch.

      The big question that historians should be asking, but have almost without exception failed to do so is what exactly was the nature of the relationships between the international Zionist oligarchy and both Hitler and Stalin. The USSR under Stalin had been built up from next to nothing into an industrial powerhouse with a huge and well equipped and trained military machine thanks to international finance during the 1920s and 30s – US specialists from Detroit and finance from Wall St. built Soviet industry. Stalin was ready to invade and overrun the entirety of Europe in 1941, despite the insanity of the purges of the Red Army’s officer corps; meaning it is absolutely true that Hitler saved Western Europe from Stalin by pre-empting Stalin’s move West. Which brings us to the other half of the big question – who was Hitler, why was he picked out from a cast of thousands to become the Fuhrer, why was US finance used to rapidly build the Nazi military machine post-1933 under the guise of a German economic miracle? Was Hitler and the Nazi state created in order to oppose Stalin – with the implication that Stalin was not under Zionist control and Hitler was the tool to be used to correct this issue?

      These are the big questions of WW2 that need to be answered, sadly, precious few historians dare to even acknowledge such questions exist, let along attempt to answer them; career suicide can result and most academic historians prefer to stay within the bounds of accepted thought where the profitable book deals and speaking tours are to be found.

    • Thank You for the lengthy answer 🙂

      The Big Scam victim in all this in my opinion was Poland. In the West it is not in fashion to dissect East European History closely UNLESS it involves the Tribe. But about 10 yrs. ago I did just that as best as I could. The more I looked (when I finally had time to do it) the more I started to see a pattern.

      For me understanding the Russian Revolution was the Holy Grail. The murder of the tsar and his family showed me the level of perfidy the Shadow Powers were willing to go. Reading ambassador Potocki’s reports found in the German White Book (thank God they did it) were mind blowing,

      “… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent. “

      Poland ,like a little puppet, was taken to the slaughter house by being used to get Germany into a hot. The next desired victim was to be Soviet Union as Stalin was not “the chosen one” as per Lenin and Company wishes. The desired one should have been Trotsky. Thus Stalin had to go. By getting Germany and Soviet Union to bleed themselves to exhaustion would then allow for the Freedom Loving Democrats to send the likes of Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Bremer to help “rebuild” the destroyed nations in the desired form: plenty of land, resources and cheap labor. I suspect the only reason Soviet Union was helped by US was to make sure Germany did not have an easy time invading it. Without this help Soviet Union and Stalin would have been toast/kaput.

      How it was all done is a tough task to complete and I don’t dare to suggest that I am anywhere close. I am though farther along than the average Joe and Mary.

      Hitler is not the sole guilty party and neither is Stalin. One man alone does not run “The Show” on the Global Chess Board even if he/she thinks they are. The people around the leader and those around them are more important in understanding (if that is at all possible) where the leader is headed. When I read “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers” by Mark Rigg’s my jaw dropped. My first thought was “How many katsa and sayanim were in this Circus?” Answer: Will never really know. Another one was Anatol Mühlstein who was mentioned in some comment on the Net, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_M%C3%BChlstein

      Books by David Irving opened my eyes to the fact that Western historians write history that is a variations each others writings.

      It took me many years before I realized why US, Brits or whoever collects whatever documents they can once they defeat their enemy. Reason is simple, because then they can “sanitize” them. Remove documents showing their perfidious involvement and/or remove inconvenient information so as to be able to create the narrative about the conflict of their liking.

    • Poland is just unlucky to be sandwiched between the Teutonic German world and the Slavic Russian world and thus is prime candidate for being used as a tool to start conflicts between the Teutons and Slavs. Serbia suffered similarly in WW1 as it became the tool used to ignite that war and set Teuton against Slav, which has been a key feature of Zionist divide and conquer strategy in the last century. In this Zionist plot, all nations are victims, all lost huge numbers of men, and ultimately, it is counter-productive to blame the Germans or the Russians or any other people as that is what the Zionists want to happen – they seek to keep the nations at conflict so they can profit and achieve their hegemonic goals. I’ve spent many years trying to figure out what really was the case with Hitler and Stalin and their relationships to the Zionists and not found many answers at all, so now I think that either we will never have the answers or they are locked away as state secrets, not to be made public until long after I am dead, if they ever are made public. Ultimately, it’s not all that important to have those answers, it is enough to figure out that the war was a giant fraud and to know who manufactured it and for what purposes – the Zionists and the furtherance of their plan to create Israel and destroy the major powers of Britain, Germany etc. leaving just the US and Russia and a new cold war that they can easily manipulate for their own benefit. So different from the official narrative of evil Nazis and brave little Britain with the big lie of the 6 million dead Jews as justification for the slaughter of over 25 million.

    • Part 1 – “I’ve spent many years trying to figure out what really was the case with Hitler and Stalin and their relationships to the Zionists …”

      My suspicion is that they are very subtle and peripheral in nature. Meaning you will not see them looking straight ahead. It will be a large “arc” of the sorts where X is told to talk to Y who is to say “Bla bla bla … “ to Z (because he has certain skills Z was placed in this high position thanks to the Shadow Powers) who is then to casually work this into Hitler/Stalin’s “perception of mind” on a given subject. Money, sex, or power are the currency that makes people “jump” to do such things. Hence you will always find plenty of candidates for whatever role required at a given moment. Over the centuries I suspect this HR problem was worked out to perfection.

      Another thing to be cognizant of is that Hitler/Stalin are ALONE at the top. Like it or not they have no clue who is who around them at any moment. Goebbels in 1937 is not the same Goebbels in 1938. As situations change so do also people. Personally I can not imagine being in a situation like that. If things are going well great but if not then you can not shut the mind off from the thoughts that the daggers are somewhere in your room. Now that is one @$&ked up situation.

      In case of Hitler I suspect that someone spotted him, saw the “right qualities” and put him on a list. A moment came requiring a person with his “qualities”, “The List” was checked and someone approached Hitler to start him on his career. I doubt this is written up somewhere but if it is then we the little people will NEVER see it. Unless stuff like this is for real, Christian Rakovsky ,born Chaim Rakeover – https://www.henrymakow.com/000275.html

    • Part 2 -From my observation we only get minor clues as to how this is all done because they can not hide everything. They know that hiding something in plane sight works. Wilson gives Trotsky a US passport. Former Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan tells Ronald Reagan to “Speed it up”. In 1932, Anatol Mühlstein marries Diane de Rothschild, daughter of French banker Robert de Rothschild. and on and on . You can tell people all this stuff but expect only one reaction. A blank stare, not much more. If a pancacking WT-7 building can’t convince people that Sept 11, 2001 was Bull S&it Story then NOTHING WILL.

      The problem “they” have is the Internet. Without it I would have never caught on. I used to go to the library a lot when I was in school. One might think great unless that is one asks oneself “But those who controls what books are on those shelves ?”. Without posing that question one is unable to be concious that someone DOES control them and thus controls OUR perception of the world.

      Internet is the game changer but they are slowly going after this Source of Information. Can’t afford server fees and your off. Break “PC Norms” and you’ll be shut down. Adjust search parameters on Google and the previously easily found information will never be reached. Get too close to the Truth and out pops Lipstadt.

      “The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.”
      Senator William Fulbright at a 1963 symposium

    • Part 3 – “”In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

      Strobe Talbot, Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992. “

      Don’t I sound optimistic ? 🙂

      Just to come back to 1939. It was my experience that the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact was not something that I heard/saw mentioned in print, radio or TV in the 60’s or 70’s. It may have been in specialized history books but I have the impression that it did not leak out loudly into the Public Space. The first time I was aware of it was quite by accident in the mid-1980’s. I was walking past the current journals stacks in the university library while taking a break when I saw something that caught my eye on a cover of a journal. Word “secret” has that kind of an effect. So I picked it up. It was Lyndon LaRouche’s EIR. I had no clue who he was but in that issue there was a small insert to an article about currencies which explained the secret pact between Germany and Soviet Union. My reaction was along the line “What ? I never heard of this? Strange !!!” But coming exams and studies were more important thus I never looked any further until many years went by. That was my lesson as to how easy it is to manipulate information. You simply don’t mentioning it.

  5. Part 2: My browser is not warning me of exceeding letter limit.
    I assume that this fragment >> …. followed by more Polish atrocities. These were again repeated LAST NIGHT (Aug. 31) << refers to Gleiwitz. The Gleiwitz that appeared on the frontpages of newspapers while he was speaking in the Reichstag. Mr. Gobbels at the German Reich Ministery for Propaganda was not a fool who would not know what Hitler would be saying and what needed to appear in the newspapers that day. I have no doubt in thinking that the gears of State worked smoothly and fully synchronized that day. Ordnungsliebe!

    That it the situation.

    Now the issue that is the contention is the Casus Belli of the attack on Poland. I'll do it in equation form,

    Deutsche Reich Casus Belli = Return Danzig + Danzing Corridor + Treatment of German Minorities + Provocations by Poland + Wish for Peace in the Region + …

    Western Casus Belli (mass distribution version) = The despicable lie that is the "Gleiwitz Incident" which we fully explained at the Democratic International (how else) Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (sarcasm) was the reason for why Germany attacked Poland.

    I except that Western Casus Belli is balony without mustard but the Deutsche one stand no matter who stood behind or didn't stand behind Gleiwitz. Hitler in his speech in the Reichstag in my opinion is referring to it, “These were again repeated last night “. He didn't need to name it by name because Herr Gobells made sure that it was on the FRONT PAGES of newspapers !!! Danzig was mentioned by name more than once becaue it was very important. I'd say percentage wise it was close to 50% of his casus belli for the attack thus attacked first. Although Gleiwitz was the most recent (working on the “perception of people's mind”) “provocation” it was only one of numerous provocations,

    Provocations by Poland = Prov1 + Prov2 + ….. + Prov10 + Gleiwitz

    Not knowing how many in sum provocations there were, the above is just for illustrating my point. Gleiwitz is like the alluminum tubes for Bush Jr. to enter Iraq, a minor “event” of numerous other “important reasons”. Take it out of the equation makes little difference because there were “other”.

  6. Ian – Friday night is beer night so a bit of a delay.

    OK I’ll try to briefly explain my position. Just to be clear, I am not a historian but an engineer.

    1) Aug. 31, 1939 about 8:00 PM – Gleiwitz Radio Station Incident. Possible “realities”,
    a) Never Happened
    b) Staged by Germans
    c) Staged by Poles – (simple description of numerous dual-citizen/tribe/alligance possibilites) 🙂

    Good to know where the city is located in 1939 relative to the Polish border, https://assets.rbl.ms/2366664/980x.jpg

    2) Front pages of German newspapers for Sept. 1, 1939 report on the “Gleiwitz Incident” (links I provided above)

    3) At 4:45 AM on Sept. 1 1939 the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein attacked the Polish garrison of the Westerplatte Fort, Danzig.

    4) Few hours LATER Hitler gives a speech in the Reichstag where he says,
    “These proposals for mediation have failed because in the meanwhile there, first of all, came as an answer the sudden Polish general mobilization, followed by more Polish atrocities. These were again repeated last night. Recently in one night there were as many as twenty-one frontier incidents: last night there were fourteen, of which three were quite serious. I have, therefore, resolved to speak to Poland in the same language that Poland for months past has used toward us. This attitude on the part of the Reich will not change. ”

    I assume that this fragment >> …. followed by more Polish atrocities. These were again repeated LAST NIGHT (Aug. 31) <> Hitler mentioned and stressed IT in his speech << says a PhD ????

  7. Gleiwitz gets way too much attention though I understand why they do it (6,000,000 reasons). Gleiwitz historically is not even worth a minute of attention. Far more interesting is what happened during the British-French conference in Abbeville, France on Set. 12, 1939. Very enlightening would be to know why did Polish foreign minister Beck suddenly change course in his policy toward Germany ? Never to explain anything after the war as he suddenly died in 1944 in Romania !!! Or how is it that a little fella called Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier presents a modified Curzon Line to Stalin (nobody being none the wiser of it) and is not shot when he returns to England ? No, he gets was knighted in 1952. I’ll tell you how. “Chosen” people are chosen for specially chosen “projects”which when completed will be off limits for any inconvenient questions. Sort of like Rubi in Dallas or Zapruder the movie maker. I could go on with these “coincidences of historical figures” much longer but being a conspiracy nut I digress.
    Here are two German newspaper front pages from Sept. 1, 1939,

    Whatever may have happened in Gleiwitz one thing is certain, the “event” was completely “owned” by the German’s as it is they who are putting it on the front pages of newspapers. I doubt there were lose cannons in German press on Sept. 1 1939. “Imposters with fake papers” can not fit into this “event” UNLESS the tricked German’s said to themselves “OK, we were fooled but lets use it against the Poles anyway.” On Sept. 1 1939 the answer to the question “Qui bono ?” is only one. Germany.

    The Nuremberg embellishments years later are to be expected. Nuremberg was a Circus put together for and by the Chosen Ones. Thomas J. Dodd (Senator Dodd’s father) most certainly knew it when he sent his letter to his wife on Aug. 14, 1945 from Nuremberg. However 99% of the Sheep don’t know about the letter or what was mentioned in it.

    That Hitler didn’t mention Gleiwitz is insignificant, he had more important ideas to relay through his speech as his armies were attacking Poland. Danzig was on his mind as were the Communists. Mentioning Gleiwitz in the speech by name would buy nothing at such a moment. Besides, it was already in the German press and most likely in German radio broadcasts. Whether Gleiwitz happened or not the troops were going to go forward. To imply that Gleiwitz was no news until 1945 is to confuse the reader IMHO. Gleiwitz “happened” in the German press on Sept. 1 1939 !!!

    Gleiwitz is a bit like the fables about aluminum tubes and the yellow cake in Iraq. Needed for a brief moment and then conveniently forgotten. The truth about the latter came out but did it change anything ? Answer is NO. The same will be true for the Gleiwitz Incident. Truth about it will change nothing. Gleiwitz Incident as a casus belli is for the uninformed. Pointing to Danzig Corridor is a lot closer to the truth in my opinion.

    In the German Press on Sept. 1, 1939 Gleiwitz was Truth !!!! Later is was immaterial except maybe as a fairy tale.

    • Henry- You are incorrect. The German news versions of that event all conflict with the White Book Report.
      Veronica never said that Gleiwitz wasn’t in the news. What you’re offering is baseless speculation. Nothing is substantiated.
      You must bear in mind, there were BAD Germans, like Canaris. Why not plant a fake event in the White Book and feed it to the Nazi press, if you are working against the Nazi regime? Then, the Allies could pick up on it and say it was all a fake to start the war.

      Fact: No one can prove that the White Book Report is actually the work of Police President Schade. He was murdered and never cross-examined.

    • How are you defining ‘BAD German?’ Are you suggesting that Canaris was in some way a bad German because he wasn’t a Nazi and didn’t fully support Hitler? How would you categorise Reinhard Heydrich, using the same criteria? He was a very different character to Canaris but equally significant a figure in the world of espionage during the Third Reich years.

    • The books aren’t much use either, the true story of how WW2 was manufactured has never been written although David Irving has filled in some of the picture, particularly around Churchill and the funding by the Strakosch group. However, with so much still hidden in archives behind secrecy seals, we many never know the full truth. 95% of the mainstream writings on the origins of WW2 aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. Then there is the inconvenient fact that a lot of WW2 era records were destroyed by the war – the destruction of Warsaw destroyed the Polish records and the Allied bombing campaign destroyed a great deal more in Germany and occupied Europe.

    • Ian, I was replying to Henry. There’s a distance between “not fully supporting” and “traitorous-enemy-spy-operative” that I shouldn’t have to explain to an “historian”. Since Irving is your end-all, there’s no sense in wasting further keystrokes. It’s all been done and we’re all just babbling buffoons in His shadow. Good grief, oy vey, shut it all down.

    • Your attitude stinks, I asked you a simple question and this is your reply? Irving my end-all? babbling buffoons? WTF are YOU babbling about. If you are going to make statements like Canaris was a BAD German, then you should expect to be challenged and asked to elucidate, clearly you have no interest in debate, you just want to make statements and not be challenged, which is very bad form and runs completely contrary to how proper historical debate and research should be conducted.

    • With all due respect, Mr. Greenhalgh, VT is literally dripping with anti-Israel and anti-Zionist bias.
      Care to comment on that?

    • I must admit that for most of my life I didn’t hear much on this subject and cared little. The word “antisemitic” may have crossed my attention a few times after graduating from the university but that was about it. Things sure sped up fast after 2000. Around that time I started to look into the “USS Liberty Incident” which fully opened up my mind. After that it was JFK followed by help from Wiki. Once Wiki went into full gear providing vital CV information lots of things started to look different. Henry Kissinger’s “Early Life” simply made me laugh. It showed how easily Henry slipped proper scrutiny while carrying out policies of USA. You might argue that it was NOT HIS policy but of the Shadow Powers. Fair enough, but what I have noticed since is that “their” HR Dept. seems to consistently to reach out into that special gene pool for their candidates. Not always is the “candidate” playing in the first string, sometimes they play an ornamental role such as a wife.

      Ukraine :
      1) Super fake blond Yulia Tymoshenko
      Here we can see that the wench chameleon had no time to change so they used a “golden crown” – https://tinyurl.com/ydel98jd
      Look and laugh because that is what the Ukrainians should have done.

      2) Arseniy Yatsenyuk
      Here we have a bit of fun, as no other than the chief rabbi of Ukraine stated, “Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not Jewish.” Ha ha ha ha …

      3) Volodymyr Groysman
      From Wiki – “He is the first ethnically Jewish Prime Minister of Ukraine. “, and not the last.

      4) Petro Poroshenko, the chocolate oligarch who through sweat and tears earned his billions.
      Now this guy is super clever. A man worth BILLIONS has his PR Dept. say that they have NO INFORMATION about his mother !!! I bet even stray dogs in Kiev know better.

      5) Ihor Kolomoyskyi is another poor guy who manged to scratch out a billion. His big mouth did not make him the ideal candidate for a first seat of power so Nuland, or should I say Nudelman, put a hold on him.

      6) Vitaly Lichko
      He’s the guy that Nudelman mentioned on her intercepted cell call to Geoffrey Pyatt where she said that he was not the right guy as the next premier. So who is calling the shots here and who are the candidates ?

      4) Victoria Nuland (father Shepsel Ber Nudelman), the birth mother of the Maidan Revolution. Now to whom does she hold her allegiance to? America ? Well I bet for sure not to the auto workers who had jobs in Detroit.

      The standard Pavlovian response to all this would be along the lines ,“They are smart and reach high positions easily, so move on.”.

      So are we to ignore this aspect of history and just move on because it is not nice to talk about people’s private lives ? Such reasoning ,IN PART, is the reason why the US and Ukraine are in the toilet. In case of Ukraine, it was completely flushed down the drain requiring the opening of the EU border to redirect the social pressure. Otherwise Maidan II multiplied by 10. The financial geniuses called oligarchs there know ONLY one thing, how to steal. The vast majority of them just happen to share the same DNA.

Comments are closed.