Secret allied documents found in Warsaw

[HelloKitty]

In Hitlers speech of July 19 1940 he states the following:

"Es wurden die Geheimakten des Alliierten Obersten Kriegsrates gefunden, einschließlich der Protokolle aller Sitzungen dieser illustren Vereinigung. Und dieses Mal wird es Mister Churchill nicht möglich sein, die Wahrheit der Dokumente einfach zu bestreiten oder wegzulügen, so wie er es seinerzeit bei den Akten aus Warschau zu tun versucht hatte."

Translation:
"The secret files of the Allied Supreme War Council have been found, including the minutes of all the meetings of this illustrious organization. And this time Mr. Churchill will not be able to simply challenge the authenticity of the documents or lie it away, like he tried to do with documents from Warsaw."

The secret documents found in France are well documented and were published in 1941 as "“Les Documents Secrets de l'Etat-Major Général Français”. However, I couldn't find anything about the secret documents found in Warsaw, of which Churchill appears to have denied the authenticity. Does anyone know to what documents Hitlers refers here?

[HelloKitty]

I found the reference, its about "Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges", which was published in March 1940.

https://archive.org/details/Weissbuch_N ... 3/mode/2up

[Hektor]

I found the reference, its about "Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges", which was published in March 1940.

https://archive.org/details/Weissbuch_N ... 3/mode/2up

It's an Axis/German documents and hence will simply be dismissed out of hand. This while there is no real doubt about its authenticity. The fact that 'the Nazis established it and used it' is a blanket excuse to simply discard it as a source. That's of course in conflict with what would be rational in the matter. Sure, it is an Axis document and it is reasonable to expect it to be published with ulterior motives. But this doesn't mean that it doesn't have a sound factual base. Yet this is done by virtually all the Main-Stream historiographers. The better ones will of course know about it, but they want touch it nor consider it, when forming a judgment on how World War Two came about.

[Mortimer]

In Hitlers speech of July 19 1940 he states the following:

"Es wurden die Geheimakten des Alliierten Obersten Kriegsrates gefunden, einschließlich der Protokolle aller Sitzungen dieser illustren Vereinigung. Und dieses Mal wird es Mister Churchill nicht möglich sein, die Wahrheit der Dokumente einfach zu bestreiten oder wegzulügen, so wie er es seinerzeit bei den Akten aus Warschau zu tun versucht hatte."

Translation:
"The secret files of the Allied Supreme War Council have been found, including the minutes of all the meetings of this illustrious organization. And this time Mr. Churchill will not be able to simply challenge the authenticity of the documents or lie it away, like he tried to do with documents from Warsaw."

The secret documents found in France are well documented and were published in 1941 as "“Les Documents Secrets de l'Etat-Major Général Français”. However, I couldn't find anything about the secret documents found in Warsaw, of which Churchill appears to have denied the authenticity. Does anyone know to what documents Hitlers refers here?

John Wear goes into detail about the Warsaw documents in the following article. The gist of it is that Roosevelt was interfering with Polish-German relations and telling the Poles not to negotiate over Danzig. He even went and told them he would support them with military supplies even though he had not discussed this with the US Congress. It is proof of FDR's warmongering.
http://www.wearswar.com/2018/03/31/why- ... gated-ww2/

See also Roosevelt's Road to War.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7486

[Otium]

As I pointed out here, former 31st President of the United States Herbert Hoover confirmed in his posthumously published book 'Freedom Betrayed' (published by the Hoover Institution at Standford University) that the documents are authentic.

Another action by Mr. Roosevelt was his infl uence upon the Poles not to negotiate the question of Danzig.

The adamant attitude of the Poles against negotiations received support from the Washington Administration.

[...]

After the Germans had invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and seized the Polish Foreign Office records, they released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt , who could act only on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, in January, 1939, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States. These statements by Bullitt were contained in numerous dispatches from Polish Ambassadors abroad to their Foreign Ministers in Warsaw.

When published, these documents were denounced as fabrications by Ambassador Bullitt, the Polish Ambassador to Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, and by our State Department. But subsequently, the Polish Ambassador in Washington informed me that the documents were genuine and that he had denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department.

However, more convincing than these denials are the fi les of the Polish Embassy in Washington which were given to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. A new translation showed only minor differences from the German publication. There were many of these documents—too long to reproduce here. A typical paragraph in one of Polish Ambassador Potocki’s dispatches to the Polish Foreign Office, dated January 16, 1939, nearly two months before the guarantees, but after Hitler’s demands, reads:

. . . In talking with Bullitt I had the impression that he had received from President Roosevelt a very detailed defi nition of the att itude taken by the United States towards the present European crisis. He will present this material at the Quai d’Orsay and will make use of it in discussions with European statesmen. Th e contents of these directions, as Bullitt explained them to me in the course of a conversation, lasting half an hour, were:

1.–The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.

2.–The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried out at an accelerated speed and will consume the colossal sum of 1, 250 million dollars.

3.–It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.

4.–Th ey have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

Another of the documents, a dispatch from Polish Ambassador Juliusz Łukasiewicz in Paris addressed to the Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, dated Paris, February 1939, about two months before the guarantees, states:

. . . if war should break out between Britain and France on the one hand and Germany and Italy on the other, and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would become dangerous to the realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally aft er some time had elapsed aft er the beginning of the war Ambassador Bullitt expressed this as follows:

“Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.” . . .

For the time being, I should like to refrain from formulating my own opinion of Ambassador Bullitt ’s statements. . . . One thing, however, seems certain to me, namely, that the policy of President Roosevelt will henceforth take the course of supporting France’s resistance, to check German- Italian pressure, and to weaken British compromise tendencies.

The documentation of our State Department on these matters is as yet undisclosed.

Herbert Hoover, George H. Nash (ed.), Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath (Standford: Hoover Institute Press, 2011), pp. 131-133.

At the time, in February 1939, the Polish Ambassador to France Juliusz Łukasiewicz records in a report back to his government very similar comments. The report sent around February 4 or 5 (it was read in Poland on February 7th):

A week ago the ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt [...] I have had two long conversations with him so that I can inform you of his views regarding the European situation and Washington’s policy. [...] Those in authority are of the opinion that, should war break out between Britain and France on the one side and Italy and Germany on the other, and should Britain and France suffer defeat, the Germans would directly threaten the real inter¬ ests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, in case of war the participation of the United States on the side of France and Britain is already envisaged, naturally some time after the start of the war. As Ambassador Bullitt said: “Should war break out, likely we shall not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish it.”

According to Ambassador Bullitt, the above-mentioned attitude of official Washington circles is not based on ideological motives but stems entirely from the necessity of defending the realistic interests of the United States, which, in case of a Franco-British defeat, would be seri¬ ously and directly menaced, from the Pacific as well as from the Atlantic.

[...]

3. The attitude of official American circles toward Italy and Germany is negative, mainly because they consider that new successes of the RomeBerlin axis, which would undermine the prestige and authority of France and England as imperial powers, would almost directly threaten the actual interests of the United States. Thus, Washington’s foreign policy will oppose any development of the situation in this direction.

[...]

For the time being, I should like to refrain from formulating my own opinion regarding Ambassador Bullitt’s statements, and before doing so, I would like to have from him additional comments. However, it seems certain that President Roosevelt’s policy will henceforth take the course of supporting France’s resistance, checking German-Italian pressure, and weakening the British tendencies toward compromise.

Wacław Jędrzejewicz, Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939: Papers and Memoirs of Juliusz Łukasiewicz Ambassador of Poland (New York/London: Columbia University Press, 1970), pp. 168, 169, 170.

The line found in one of the Polish documents found by the Germans: "Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it" and the line from Łukasiewicz's report quoting Bullit: "Should war break out, likely we shall not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish it.” are practically identical. There has never been any doubt as to the authenticity of the Polish documents published by the Germans. The exact same documents can be found in the Hoover Institutions archive, as Hoover said, retrieved from the Polish embassy in Washington.

[hermod]

Read

President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe
The Secret Polish Documents
by Mark Weber
https://codoh.com/library/document/pres ... war-in/en/
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

and

President Roosevelt and The Origins of the 1939 War
by David L. Hoggan
https://codoh.com/library/document/pres ... e-1939/en/
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html

and

The German White Paper
Full text of the Polish documents issued by the Berlin Foreign Office
With a foreword by C. HARTLEY GRATTAN 1940
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t90673 ... st10578651
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t90673 ... st10578837
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/showth ... stcount=12

and

Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe
We Elected Their Nemesis ... But He Was Ours
by John Wear
https://codoh.com/library/document/roos ... -ii-in/en/

https://postimg.cc/Wh9rT8qr

https://postimg.cc/NL5CMB3T

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGgZ4tiWAAAwwet.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGgbydDXcAA4O2h.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/PhkX5Txp/WW2-The-J ... Europe.jpg

https://postimg.cc/2bcNDLSL

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t906738/

[Hektor]

That's quite rich. Top class Americans inciting war against Germany, even prior to the invasion of Poland. And Poles actually confirming this by way of Jerzy Potocki.
It should be noted that despite the propagation of war, it seems that a majority of Americans didn't want to have anything to do with this. That attitude may however have changed after pearl harbour, which appeared as an unprovoked attack.

From the American perspective the "German Danger" was merely one of industrial power. The Americans had the Monroe doctrine, which means US hegemony on the American continent. This also means that the US dominates the industrial trade or commodities against advanced goods trade with those countries. This puts those countries in a weaker position, since they are competing with each other, while the US has no competitors. Now if e.g. the Germans compete on those markets this can become a problem for the Americans. Those banana republics could then get better prices for their commodities, while paying lower prices and perhaps getting better quality on industrial goods. It would shrink the American export revenue as well. Which would be undesirable for the business interests in the US. And it would have political repercussions as well. Well, it already had in terms of the world economic crises, which lead to unemployment. The US had programs under Roosevelt akin to what was done in Italy and Germany. But they weren't successful. In fact there were further repercussions in this. To not be a rubbish president, Roosevelt needed a successful war for the US. And that was a given, if he could support the USSR against the Axis. Together with the British of course. And with them he would have command of the seas, which means they could source commodities, they again processed in American industries.

It's amazing that the Hoover institute would publish something such unequivocally. WW2 would be seen already quite different, if there would have been some remote room for objectivity. Which is not in the interest of many that have power within the present system. Which is why this isn't going to happen lightly. There is of course major interest groups that wouldn't fare to well, if things were viewed in a balanced way. There is of course the banking establishment that weren't really fond of NS-financial policies. In fact taking economics as an example would have been seen as a major danger at the time to them. But there are also those that have ideological/cultural skin in the game. One would only to see what the mainstream NS-views on cultural matters were and contrast this with the dominant cultural views at the moment. And it is not only the NS-views at stake, but all the more traditional occidental views on questions of social and cultural relevance. What crystals out is a conflict between social conservatism and (to use a euphemism) progressive views. What the later can't handle are positive views on family, folk and fatherland. Clarity of language, morality, law and other institutions. They want the 'self-realized' individual (a person living out its lust to the fullest with no respect for parents, partner, family and of course broader community)... a undefined global society and essentially the right to do anything everywhere. It's a deconstructed language that isn't really meaningful, just happens to sound clever. Morality is also a perverted form of utilitarianism, which lines up with the with 'self-realization' and pursuit of desire no matter how off healthy norms it is. They still attach to formal institutions that serve them in some pursuit. It has attractiveness for a segment of the population, but by far not for all. Now for the minority to dominate and transform the majority of populations they need institutional power, cultural power, and political power. And that can be achieved by gaslighting and dominance of the cultural production, which consists of academia and media at the moment. To push things through it's of course useful to paint someone that opposed those views into the darkest colors possible. Set up a diablography and make him the representation of evil within the present world. That strategy worked. Critics are scared to be called 'Nazi' And those 'in line' feel that they are somehow 'good'.