Questions about a WW1/2 German history website I found

In My Humble Opinion
1

the sites in two parts really

Heres the WW1 side of it

http: //www .revisionist .net/hysteria/index.html

Heres is the WW2 part :
http: //www. revisionist. net/

My questions are … Did the UK really run what looks like one of the biggest propaganda campaigns in history on the US to get us in ww1? and for the ww2 part what part is true and what is just BS? I mean did we really try to destroy german culture and the psyche of the German people so they wouldn’t start ww3?

And what do you think of them in general?

2

Well, you can tell they’re parti pris from the domain name and title they choose for themselves. Contrarian “the Germans/Nazis were only doing what everyone else did” whataboutism is flagged up from the outset.

That said, yes of course the UK took every possible chance to sway US public opinion against Germany in WW1 (and there was plenty on which they could do so, from the “Rape of Belgium” onwards). So?

And yes there was a strong, if contested, current of opinion among the Allies in WW2 that “they have sown the wind and shall reap the whirlwind” when it came to bombing (Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, London and the rest): coupled with those in charge of bombers in both the US and the UK determined to prove they could win the war practically on their own. And yes, there was a strand of thought that aimed to return Germany to a predominantly agrarian economy after WW2 (which didn’t survive contact with the postwar reality). So?

3

I mainly wondered if there was any truth to any of it or if it was another CT site with made-up bull and since there are a number of history enthusiasts here on the boars <

4

Just the previews struck me as a bit on the shrill ranty side. Didn’t make a great impression, so I didn’t bother reading much further.

5

I’m not sure how it compares, but yes, the Western Allies did spread anti-German Empire propaganda very heavily during WWI, which is something fairly normal of the era (propaganda by the belligerents of both of the World Wars is almost its own form of art.)

The bombing of Germany in WW2 was comprehensive and extensive, along with the bombing of Japan these are far and away the largest bombings of a civilian population to ever occur. Britain and the United States combined dropped around 68,000 tons of bombs on Berlin–the Red Army dropped a lot too via artillery and the Red Airforce dropped a large amount by air as well.

The Sun reported that around 30,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Britain during WWII by the Luftwaffe ( Was your town bombed? Map plots 30,000 Luftwaffe attacks on the UK in WW2 (thesun.co.uk)); this would suggest that yes–Berlin was bombed by more bombs than all of Britain.

The entire German bombing campaign against Britain killed around 40,000 British civilians, the Allied bombing campaign on Berlin alone killed around 25,000 civilians by current best estimates. Other German cities fared worse in total deaths from bombing–the bombing of Dresden may have killed 45,000 people or more. Many German cities were essentially destroyed by bombing, with one writer calling it a “Day Zero” situation by the time Germany surrendered.

We certainly undertook a deliberate “alteration” of German culture and society during the occupation, a process formally called “De-Nazification.”

I will note, looking over this website–whoever did this appears to be very interested in the topic and it has a huge amount of text on German history from as far back as the 18th century. While some things I skimmed seemed more or less correct, there is no way I can reasonably read through it all to find errors. What I find most important is this person does not cite almost any of their factual claims; there are literally tons (I have dozens–I can recommend some if you’re interested) of good books on German history, by professional historians who have rigorously researched the topic and prepared tons of formal footnotes for their sources, while the site may be harmless, it may peddle disinformation–I just don’t know without citations. When there are tons of high quality, cited history on Germany, I question the real benefit of spending time reading the hundreds of pages on that site.

6

It’s immediately obvious from the website’s home page that it’s not just “revisionist”, but an attempt to rewrite history wholesale to justify German warmongering and atrocities. Those of you who learned that German aggression was the trigger for both WWI and WWII…well, you’ve been deceived by vile Allied propaganda. This explanation of what led to the outbreak of WWI gives the essential flavor:

“After Belgium refused to allow Germany’s free and safe passage, Germany responded by invading “neutral” Belgium on August 4th so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route should her defence require it.”

“The Germans had valid arguments justifying what most modern historians consider an invasion of Belgium: that Belgium’s neutrality was first violated by France; Since Belgium’s neutrality had been guaranteed in an 1839 treaty by France, Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria, Belgium behaved unneutrally by cooperating with the British and by not planning a defense against a French invasion.”

No, “most modern historians” do not subscribe to any such cockamamie theory. Belgium “behaved unneutrally” during the prewar period when it focused its defense against a German invasion because Belgium had received unequivocal threats from Germany, and because any sentient Belgian knew there was zero chance of aggression from France.*
That crap about Germany needing to invade Belgium to speed passage to Paris “should her defence require it” is laughable (actually, it reflects some of the delusional nonsense Kaiser Wilhelm II and his sycophants were spewing at the time).

There’s similar counterfactual garbage elsewhere in that section which does not require sober refutation. I have no desire to see what creepy justifications the website creator(s) give for Hitler’s aggressions and the Holocaust.

*an example of German attempts to intimidate Belgium came in 1913, when Belgian King Albert visited Germany and was treated to what one account calls the “dinner party from hell”.

"It seems Albert’s hosts had decided to take the opportunity to persuade the Belgian king to ally with Germany in any future war with France—or at least allow the Germans to pass through Belgium unimpeded on their way to France, as called for by the Schlieffen Plan. Wilhelm and the German chief of staff, Helmuth von Moltke (the Younger), set about the task in typically muddled fashion, prying and bullying by turns as they sought to ascertain Belgium’s likely course of action.,
After Wilhelm’s opening salvoes, Moltke took the lead with all the subtlety of a Prussian drill sergeant, warning his listeners, “Small countries, such as Belgium, would be well advised to rally to the side of the strong if they wished to retain their independence.”

And lest we forget, it was the German Chancellor, von Bethmann-Holweg, who upon the German invasion of Belgium, entertaingly described the treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality as “a scrap of paper”.

7

Looking at the WWII links, they seem to have missed all that “Clean Wehrmacht” claptrap so abundant elsewhere.

8

This is complicated. There was definitely a campaign to vilify Germany both at home and in the US, that did emphasize the German atrocities in Belgium. But it largely stick to the facts (albeit a version of them that put the Germans in a bad light). It was this campaign which formed the germans=Huns trope. But the kinds of outright falsehoods that were later claimed to be examples of this campaign we’re not from the British government instead they were from the tabloids who had as many scruples then as now.

9

Yep, There were no good guys or bad guys in that war. All the main players were militaristic colonial imperialists. The Sleepwalkers makes this clear- they were all pretty much evil warmongering imperialists. And what the Belgians did in the Congo ranked it with some of the worst imperialist colonial powers. That doesn’t excuse the German invasion of Belgium, mind you but Belgium wasn’t really a "neutral. ". There are rumors the French asked for and got the okay to go through Belgium if the Germans didn’t.

For example- the Lusitania was listed in Janes all the World Warships as an Auxiliary Cruiser, but the British had only put the gun mounts in, not the guns. And it was packed with illegal munitions. So, the Germans were completely justified in sinking it.

However, there is no excuse whatsoever about the Nazis. They were evil and totally wrong. Yeah, if the allies had lost the firebombings would have been considered war crimes, but the Nazis started them.

So, if the site is Kaiser apologists, then fine. But there is NO excuse for Hitler apologists.

10

There is an onus that attaches to starting wars that you seem to have missed.

Which in your mind justifies the sack of Louvain and other German atrocities in Belgium?

"Throughout the beginning of the war, the German army engaged in numerous atrocities against the civilian population of Belgium, including the destruction of civilian property; 6,000 Belgians were killed, and 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, imprisonment, or death sentence by court.[2] Another 3,000 Belgian civilians died due to electric fences the German Army put up to prevent civilians from fleeing the country and 120,000 became forced laborers, with half of that number deported to Germany.[3] 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities were destroyed in 1914 alone, and 1.5 million Belgians (20% of the entire population) fled from the invading German army.[4]: 13

It’s “rumored” that this is bullshit on the order of the Nazis claiming that the Poles attacked them in 1939.

But it’s what I’d expect from someone who in a previous thread, claimed that the German invasion of France in WWI was a mere trifle since not all that much territory was involved.

11

Sure, so who started it? The Sebians who assassinated the Archduke? The Austro -Hungarians who declared war on Serbia? The Russians who declared on AH, then Germany. then a cascade of Germany, France, etc, finally GB?

I never claimed that.

12

Invading a neighboring country is generally regarded as starting the war.

It looks especially flagrant when you follow a plan you’ve had in mind for decades (Germany), or ignore your enemy’s concession to virtually all terms of a humiliating ultimatum (Austria-Hungary).

13

Grrrrrr. This is a horrific revisionism at its worst. Well, maybe not the absolute worst, but it is flat out morally wrong.

The title of the WWII article, Holocausts in Germany: Physical and Cultural Destruction is deeply offensive, equaling the attacks on Germany, with the deliberate genocide inflicted by the Nazis against the defenseless Jews and other victims. Sure, total war was not fun and everyone, including the Allies, were required to implement measures with had horrific costs to civilians. However, there were no other options and it’s disingenuous to argue against the bombings of German cities when it was their armies and agents which were slaughtering millions of innocent civilians.

There is a point to some of their claims, but context matters. Yeah, the Soviets did some particularly horrible things as retribution. The mass rape of perhaps 2 million German women by Soviets soldiers is one example, but making yourself the victim without acknowledging the great evil they did is a sign that this person isn’t really interested in a meaningful discussion.

Japan does this shit about the atomic bombing without any context and without acknowledging any responsibility for the actions which got them there in the first place.

14

Japan’s entire messaging and stance on their behavior before they became a pacifist country in the late 1940s has always been pretty bad, like it was entirely different people who spent 40 years previously tearing up half of Asia and to which they had limited moral responsibility.

15

Back in the 80s, I had a Japanese girlfriend who came over to the States and studied English for a while. In her class, there was an older Korean woman who was in her class, and who spoke Japan. My ex had absolutely no idea why that Korean woman could speak her language. Just none. Their high school Japanese history class skipped that who period.

16

There is a banner at the bottom of each of those pages that links to a web page that hosts Holocaust denying material. The pages themselves are consistent with (even if they do not state explicitly) Holocaust denial (such as by equating the waging of total war against Germany with a “Holocaust” while apparently ignoring the genocides committed by the Nazis).

I’d say, considering the source, there isn’t much that can be done to salvage the integrity of those sources. I hope I have succinctly but directly responded to the questions posed by the OP, to the extent that I can.

17

Growing up on Wisconsin in the 70’s, I knew a few kids with uncles who’d been in the Wehrmacht; but besides the “ain’t that weird?” factor, it wasn’t made prominent. My SO, on the other hand, has a family album with one of her uncle’s GI photo in his 442nd “Go for Broke” pinks. On the very next page is another uncle, in his gleaming Imperial Japanese Navy summer whites.

Western culture is guilt-based, while Far Eastern is shame-based. And they just don’t see how their boys brought shame on their people. More than once I’ve pulled up that horrible photo of two Japanese soldiers with the Chinese baby on the bayonet (like Hell I’ll provide a link), when she gets on the apologist bandwagon.

18

That doesn’t shock me given the quick look at the site I took–I was not willing to dig much into it once I realized it was a huge site with tons of pages full of uncited takes on German history (there is just no reason to consume uncited history of such a well-documented country when it comes to their history from 1945 back to the late 18th century.)

There is probably a good guideline that, while there is always nuance to some aspects of history (and German culpability in starting WWI for example is a topic that has some wrinkles and discussion to be had to it), a source that seems to overwhelmingly be attempting to minimize German misdeeds probably has a decent chance of having some form of Nazi sympathies. It’s obviously a tight line, I think you can professionally analyze the lead up to WWI and at least conclude Germany wasn’t solely responsible for starting the war, you can criticize the terms of Versailles, you can criticize the western allies treatment of Germany post-WW2 etc, but these sort of broader efforts that appear basically designed to “indemnify” Germany for its actions in both wars…yeah, no serious historian is going to do that, that will almost always be Neo-Nazi or Neo-Nazi adjacent as some underlying ethos.

19

It looks like one of the sites that this one links to is ran by an infamous British Neo-Nazi who has been imprisoned at least four times for various hate crimes, in both Britain and the Netherlands. Yeah this is Nazi shit.

20

I broke the links as linking to a Nazi supporting, Holocaust denying website is not fighting ignorance but supporting hate and ignorance.

I hate the idea of leading them back to here.