Quotations Real/Fake

[Otium]

This is a thread in which I would like everyone at this forum to contribute real quotes, or quotes that are fake. All must have adequate sources that have been checked for authenticity.

To begin. I have attempted to find the source for a quote commonly tossed around regarding the bombing campaigns against Germany:

It may be Inconvenient History but England rather than Germany initiated the murderous slaughter of bombing civilians thus bringing about retaliation. Chamberlain conceded that it was “absolutely contrary to International law.” It began in 1940 and Churchill believed it held the secret of victory. He was convinced that raids of sufficient intensity could destroy Germany’s morale, and so his War Cabinet planned a campaign that abandoned the accepted practice of attacking the enemy’s armed forces and, instead made civilians the primary target. Night after night, RAF bombers in ever increasing numbers struck throughout Germany, usually at working class housing, because it was more densely packed.

This quote is generally supplemented with a citation which reads: (The Peoples’ War, Angus Calder. London, Jonathan Cape, 1969). You can find this quote and the citation in (Gerard Menuhin, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil (Castle Hill Publishers, 2016), Pp. 63)

The problem with this quote is that there's no page number. This set off red flags to me immediately. I have tried to find out if this quote is legitimate by using google, nothing comes up except the exact same repeated quote and lousy source time after time. I went to the book by Calder on google books to search for the quotation and found absolutely nothing. Zero results. Feel free to search the book for yourself: https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_People_s_War.html?id=aCRuuAXx-WkC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false you can also borrow the book in full here and search for yourself, still no quote is to be found: https://archive.org/details/peopleswarbritai00cald/mode/2up?q=murderous+slaughter

Right now, this "quote" is bogus until proven otherwise.

Another seemingly fake quote comes from the same book by Menuhin, although I doubt he is the original author of any of these fake quotes, I think he fell victim to them online like many others.

Already, by 1944, it should have been clear to most people in the government that we would have to deal with . . . Germans once victory had been won . . . [W]e went on bombing German cities months and months after it had been clear that we would win, and that Stalin would be as potentially deadly an enemy. Some of the bombing was just pointless. In the last days of the war, we struck at the old gingerbread towns south of Wuerzburg, where there was no military target at all . . . just refugees, women and children. Of these acts of gratuitous sadism, the worst was the bombing of Dresden.

The source for this is allegedly: (Norman Stone, Professor of Modern History at Oxford, Daily Mail). It is cited as such in Menuhin page 59-60. I cannot find a single reference on google to back up this quote, besides more circular usage of this quote in and of itself, it's origin is undetermined. I couldn't find any such daily mail article written by Norman Stone. This quote is probably a fake too. I see no reason why anyone couldn't provide a date and title of the article in order to make searching for this quote easier, unless it was a fake. The same goes with the Calder quotation, a simple page number, as the copy of the book has already been specified wouldn't have been a difficult task. Thus, for these reasons I think these quotes are false. Lord knows how many others are also false.

Speaking of false. The quote often thrown and attributed to Rydz-Smigly:

Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it, even if it wants to

was supposedly made in June of 1939 in a public speech to Polish officers. If this quote was legitimate it surely would have a well known source. Yet, any source for this quote cannot be found. I would expect, if it was real, to have been quoted by Udo Walendy, yet I have searched his book and it isn't anywhere to be found. This isn't proof that it's not legitimate, only that I think if it were to be quoted anywhere it would be in his book "Who Started the Second World War?".

Nick Kollerstrom was unable to locate a source for this quote, and goes so far as to say that "there is doubt over the authenticity of this quote" (Nick Kollerstrom, How Britain Initiated Both World Wars (3rd Edition, 2020), Pp. 138, footnote 96 regarding p. 116) There is the possibility that when the quote was translated into English it was from a source which has no English equivalent, thus isn't easy to find when searched in English. Or if it does exist in English, the phrasing is different. It's possible.

[Lamprecht]

Winston Churchill

There are a lot of false or unverifiable Churchill quotes going around. Where are two articles that compiled a list of them:

9 Quotes From Winston Churchill That Are Totally Fake
http://archive.fo/vXjiE or http://web.archive.org/web/201612292327 ... 1790585636

Quotes Falsely Attributed to Winston Churchill
http://archive.fo/VgiCv or http://web.archive.org/web/201704100912 ... attributed

Wikiquote has a "misattributed" and "disputed" section for Churchill:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

[Otium]

Winston Churchill could never make up his mind as to whether or not war was imminent. He had been war-mongering, and fear-mongering ever since Hitler first came to power.

On March 10, 1936 Churchill said:

...Since the arrival of Herr Hitler in power three years ago the Germans have spent about £1,500,000,000 sterling upon warlike preparations directly or indirectly. The money has been raised by internal borrowing, and the revenues of Germany are already mortgaged two or three, or possibly four, years ahead...

Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (C.C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954), Pp. 283

This was an absolute lie that even at the time was known to be untrue, even amongst hostile critics who had been to Germany and evaluated what was going on (Neilson, p. 283)

In the first volume of his post-war memoirs 'Gathering Storm' (1948) Churchill erroneously claimed that Germany in 1939 amassed twice, if not three times as many munitions as Britain and France combined! Yet Neilson by quoting various Allied military reports swiftly refutes this sensationalist nonsense as espoused by Churchill (Neilson, p. 284). The brief point I wish to illustrate is that Churchill was stoking the flames of war by pretending that Germany was amassing materials in order to start a war in Europe, in which Britain would be compelled to fight. This justified the British increasing their armaments, which Churchill promoted (Neilson, p. 285).

Again, this time On April 3rd 1936 Churchill wrote:

The financial and economic pressures in Germany are rising to such a pitch that Herr Hitler's government will in a comparatively short time have only to choose between an internal and external explosion.

Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (C.C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954), Pp. 287

It doesn't take Nostradamus to see how such rhetoric would ferment the brewing of a new war. Combining the claims of Germany borrowing capital to build a military, with the claim that she must act in order to alleviate the pressure of such expenditure can only be implying that Germany would be seeking a war.

Neilson makes a mockery of Churchills exaggerated war-mongering:

Why should he (Hitler) bother about one (a war), when he was getting what he desired without firing a shot? Amazing man - the first politician in history to add to his dominions without losing a solider without slaughtering the foe!

Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (C.C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954), Pp. 285

Churchill nonetheless resolves upon war, with the famous quote from November 1936:

"Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her."

Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (C.C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954), Pp. 286

Neilson asks:

For what reason? The bloodless conquests had not begun. The Sudeten question and Munich were still far off. There could be only one reason for Churchill's determination to smash Germany, and that was she had shown the world that a State could make a success of the barter system and dispense with foreign loans. There was panic among the international bankers at what Germany had done, and it was soon realised that if the peoples of other States heard of the methods employed by Hitler, they might ask their governments to try them.

Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (C.C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954), Pp. 286

The victories Hitler had achieved hardly went unnoticed by Churchill and other British statesmen, thus it is hard to dismiss them:

In three years he had reduced unemployment from 6,000,000 to 1,000,000. Germany's total national income rose from 41 billion to 56 billions. The German middle class and the German trade experienced a period of prosperity; 640,000 tons of new shipping were under construction in German yards. The production of automobiles of all kinds rose from 45,000 to nearly a quarter of a million, and the deficits of the cities and provinces almost disappeared.

There were only a few of the financial and industrial wonders that had been performed without asking for a foreign loan. These miracles wring from Churchill an unusual tribute: "Whatever else may be though about these exploits, they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world."

Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (C.C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1954), Pp. 286

Anyway. I mainly wanted to provide some context for the quote regarding Churchill's intention to smash Germany. It's a real quote, and there's no reason to doubt its authenticity, Here I will provide a scan from the original news article, with the quote highlighted in red - as well as a link with the full article from February 5th, 1941 from the New York Times:

New York Times, February 5th 1941
https://archive.org/details/new-york-times-february-5th-1941

[Hannover]

Here's an expose' of fake Hitler quotes concerning Armenians which are used frequently.
Taken from:
the 'Who today remembers the Armenians?' canard:
viewtopic.php?t=624

According to the 'holocaust' Industry, when questioned about the possibility of negative world opinion over the persecution of the Jews, Hitler allegedly replied:

"Who today remembers the Armenians?"

The occasion was a meeting of Hitler, Goering, and the top military staff in late August 1939. Hitler was supposed to be using the meeting to motivate the Generals for the coming conflict. Not only is Hitler supposed to have said, "Who today remembers the Armenians?" but Goering is supposed to have gotten up on a table to "Sieg Heil!"

There are several references to the meeting from people who were there and they confirm that no such statement was made. One of the strongest rejections comes from Erich von Manstein, who discusses the meeting in his memoirs, "Lost Victories". As he points out, Hitler never would have used that kind of rhetoric to his generals, who were, for the most, very straight-laced Lutherans aristocrats and in any case very intellectualized by their exposure to the Prussian General Staff.

In addition, it makes little sense to say that 'no one remembered the Armenians' in 1939 as Franz Werfel's novel, "The 40 Days of Musa Dagh" (1936) was wildly popular and snagged the author a Nobel Prize.

A main reason you hear the lie is because the US "Holocau$t Museum" has reproduced it; a deliberate ploy to gain Armenian-American support and to distract folks into accepting the ridiculous 'holocaust' story as alleged via a backdoor tactic. So, what we have is more 'garbage in, garbage out'....the norm for the 'holocaust' shysters.
---------------------------------------
also see:
Heath W. Lowry, "The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians," Political Communication and Persuasion, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1985. Reprinted in: Armenian Allegations: Myth and Reality (Washington, DC: 1986), pp. 119-132.; and the letters by Dr. Robert John in the New York Times, June 8 and July 6, 1985.

And from:
News! The 'Who Remembers Armenians' Lie Debunked / forgery:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=943

An Armenian Deception: "Who remembers Armenians? - Adolf Hitler"

Historian of Armenian Descent Says Frequently Used Hitler Quote Is Nothing But a Forgery

http://web.archive.org/web/200212232119 ... ption.html

Baden-Baden, W. Germany - Dr. Robert John, a historian and political analyst of Armenian descent from New York City, declared here that a commonly used quotation of an alleged statement by Adolf Hitler concerning the Armenian massacres was a forgery and should not be used.

Dr. John demonstrated how he had traced the original document in the Military Branch of the National Archives of the U.S.A. after being handed a folder bearing the quotation at a rally outside the United Nations building in New York following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

The quotation: "Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality.... For the time being I have sent to the east only Death's Heads units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children... Who talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?"

Dr. John showed slides of this document, undated and unsigned, with some words cut out of the last page. The statement was supposed to have been made at a meeting of the top German staff of the Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939. The document was released to the international press covering the Nuremberg War Crimes trials on Friday, November 23, 1945. The trials had commenced that Monday.

The document was one of several made available to the press that day. Two-hundred-fifty copies were given to press correspondents, but only five copies were given to the 17 defense counsels - 24 hours before the Court convened on Monday!

Much later in the trial, the German defense lawyers were able to introduce the most complete account of the address, taken down by German Admiral Hermann Boehm, which runs to 12 pages in translation. There is no mention of the Armenians or the rest of the "quotation."

Dr. Robert John said he believed that the document was introduced to create a climate of hate which was needed to stifle the protests of eminent American jurists such as Sen. R. Taft and Chief Justice Harland Stone. He had discussed it with Gen. Telford Taylor, who had said, "I know the document you mean, I don't know its provenance, and I have not used it in my own work."

"We all believe that violence breeds violence," said Dr. John. "There has been an increase in Armenian violence since this false inflammatory statement was given publicly. Films like 'The Day After' are a form of violence, and should not be shown to children - who are unable to evaluate their content. Films about the "Holocaust" are a form of violence and are harmful to us as well as to Jews. There is a high probability that the surprising violence and brutality shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians, may be a result of being frequently exposed to these old scenes. Just as parents who abuse their children have often been abused themselves."

Dr. John briefly traced the history of atrocity propaganda, particularly from the British - and later - American view. Real atrocities certainly occurred, but the deliberate fabrication and dissemination of atrocity stories increased the probability of their occurring. "Hate hurts the hater and hated. We are still living in the haze of distortions and actual horrors which occurred so long ago." he commented.

"The time has come to stop psychologically damaging ourselves and our children by "Holocaust studies" and Holocaust" museums," he continued. "The Armenian, the Jew, or the African, should not damage their development with a continual conditioning of hate, neither should spurious guilt be visited upon others. These negative preoccupations and obsessions are obstructing our evolution."

Dr. John, whose paper is entitled "Information and Misinformation," hails from Armenian parents who moved from New Julla, Iran to India. His father changed his name from Hovhanes to "John," and subsequently the family moved to England. Dr. John studies law in England and holds a doctoral degree in political science from London University. He is presently a contributor to the London, England based The Middle East Magazine monthly, and in addition to giving lectures, is a frequent contributor to numerous magazines and publications. He is also the author of Palestine Diary, and specializes in Middle Eastern issues, including the Palestinian issue.

From The Armenian Reporter, Vol. XVII, NO. 40 August 2, 1984
P.O. Box 600, Fresh Meadows, N.Y. Telephone: (718) 380-3636

- Hannover

[Kretschmer]

While I did mention this one in another post, it is easily one of the most prolific false quotes of all time, this being a statement allegedly made by PNF Duce Benito Mussolini:

Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism, since it is the merger of State and Corporate power.

This one is used all the time when in a debate with Marxists over whether Corporatism is really "rebranded Capitalism" or not, and frequently appears on leftist blogs in order to somehow prove that Neoliberal / Neoconservative Corporatocracies like modern America are "Fascist." However, there is no evidence of any kind that this was ever said by Mussolini, or by any Italian Fascist, for that matter.

There are no recordings, audio tapes, or books from the Fascist era from which this quote is supposedly sourced, and the very earliest proven source of this quote dates to 2004. Even The Skeptical Libertarian of all places acknowledges all of this information (see here: https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/02/07/fake-quote-files-mussolini-on-fascism-and-corporatism/.) What's more is that the quote itself, even if "evidenced," is still patently false. The economic system of Corporatism is not exclusive to Fascism at all, nor does any form of Fascism seek a marriage between the power of the State and the power of private enterprise (which is Corporatocracy.)

The entire point of Corporatism is to balance the influence of the employer and employee, thereby eliminating (or at least alleviating) class conflict and allowing the Nation, not International Capital, to guide its own destiny. Mussolini's concept of the "Corporative Regime" as the basis for Fascism was by no means a Corporatocracy, and was instead a foundation for all economic activities of the State, which would be organized into "corporations" (or more accurately described in English as guilds) to fairly represent every industry and trade and its employees and employers.

[Otium]

Great points Kretschmer, very true.

The economic system of Corporatism is not exclusive to Fascism at all, nor does any form of Fascism seek a marriage between the power of the State and the power of private enterprise (which is Corporatocracy.)

There's also no reason to expect such a thing would be desirable to all forms of Fascism (or any forms of Fascism) - which is much more dynamic economically than Communism and Capitalism, which are stagnant economic doctrines that are really 'one size fits all', which Fascism is most definitely not. Also, there is nothing written, to my knowledge in Fascist economic theories (or otherwise) which would necessarily precipitate a view inclined towards Corporatocracy; and certainly nothing that requires any Fascist state to regard any one view on economics as foundational to Fascism, let alone definitive.

Since these Marxists consider Hitler to be a "Fascist", which he wasn't, as we've discussed before Kretschmer - I think it would be beneficial for the hell of it, to quote Hitler himself and what he thought about Corporatocracy:

Wagener continues by recounting his efforts, at Hitler's behest, to comprehend the theories of the Austrian corporatist Othmar Spann. He reports uniting Spann's disciple. Professor Walter Heinrich, to come to Germany and deliver talks about Spann's plans for a corporatist state. Spann called for the replacement of a parliament based on geographical representation with one based on occupational representation. Wagener found this scheme incompatible with National Socialism, since it relied on the rule of an oligarchy.

“Such a state." Hitler said, “cannot open the way to a new. great, socialist awareness. It can only be reactionary. .Although the idea of choosing the best is good, that plan represents regression, not progress. The format through which lie intend to give a voice to the professional groups and their representatives, so to speak alongside the parliament, the great forum of the will and the opinions of the Volk, is unquestionably more advantageous, more suited to the times, more democratic, and more socialistic.

“Spann's plan is better suited to the formation of a consistory or a synod for a religious community but not for the revolutionary organization of new governmental structures for a world that finds itself in a period of radical change."

Otto Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (Yale University Press, 1985), Pp. 260.

Wagener was in 1929-1933 at the head of the NSDAPs economic policy, and he reports on economic conferences that Hitler and Gregor Strasser attended. Henry Ashby Turner who edited the volume also provides enlightening comments. It was Turner, after all, who exposed the fake memoirs "I Paid Hitler" claimed to have been authored by Fritz Thyssen and beloved by Marxists who wanted to push their self-serving interpretation of "Fascism". Turner also published a fine book entitled 'German Big Business & the Rise of Hitler' which dispelled the Marxist myth of Hitler being in the pocket of the Capitalists, and working for their interests.

In fact Wagener was, according to Turner, the only Corporatist in the NSDAP, but very clearly Wagener's Corporatism wasn't a Corporatocracy or an oligarchy:

Wagener reports on another conference on economic policy in which he participated along with Hitler, Strasser, and Gauleiter Wagner. He explained to them his proposals for economic self-administration by means of corporatist representative bodies. He called for a pyramid of economic chambers, beginning at the local level and rising to the national level, for each of five branches of the economy: (1) agriculture, (Z) artisanry, (3) industry, (4) commerce, (5) banking and the professions. Employers on the one hand and white- and blue-collar workers on the other would be equally represented at each level.

In addition to supervising the system of capital contraction and shifting ownership Wagener had outlined earlier, these chambers would regulate such matters as wages and welfare measures. The whole structure would be capped by a Reich economic council that would serve as a kind of economic parliament. This Reich economic council would be anchored in the state and work with the national government.

Such a system of self-administration, Wagener assured Hitler, Strasser, and Gauleiter Wagner, would also serve as a mechanism for identifying men with leadership qualities and advancing them to national prominence. Hitler voiced special approval of this last point.

Otto Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (Yale University Press, 1985), Pp. 54ff.

[Otium]

Another fake quote worth documenting is Ludendorff's "prophesy" of February 1, 1933, from a letter he allegedly wrote to the German President, Paul von Hindenburg:

'You have delivered up our holy German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time, I solemnly prophesy that this accursed man will cast our Reich into the abyss and bring our nation to inconceivable misery. Future generations will damn you in your grave for what you have done.

Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (London: Allen Lane, 1998), Pp. 427.

In 1999, a year after the first volume of Kershaw's biography was published, this quote was shown to have likely been a misremembering of two real letters Ludendorff did write to Hindenburg, because no such letter was actually found to exist among Ludendorff's files:

The letter in question is not contained in the papers of Ludendorff, the sender, which were left behind. The editor of Ludendorff's memoirs from 1933-1937, Franz Freiherr Karg von Bebenburg, who published a whole series of Ludendorff's letters to Reich President v. Hindenburg in the appendix, expressly states: "A carbon copy of this letter or telegram was not found in the estate, therefore it is reproduced according to Hans Frank

Lothar Gruchmann, Ludendorffs "prophetischer" Brief an Hindenburg vom Januar/Februar 1933. Eine Legende (Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Heft. 4/1999), p. 559.

Nor is the letter contained in Hindenburgs presidential chancellery files, where the other letters addressed to Hindenburg which show concern about the first somewhat lawless/hectic months of the Third Reich are contained:

The letter mentioned is also not found in the files of the addressee, i.e. in the files of the Presidential Chancellery, which was headed at that time by State Secretary (from 1937 State Minister) Otto Meissner. While Ludendorff's other letters to Hindenburg from 1933 on, in which he complained about violence against his followers and their lawless treatment, are present in these files, the letter mentioned is missing. Otherwise, Meissner would hardly have refrained from mentioning this sensational document in his memoirs.

Ibid., p. 560.

The quote was first published in the memoirs of Hans Frank, who is infamous for his role as Governor General in Poland. Gruchmann believes, and I must agree with him, that Frank saw the real letters Ludendorff did write, but simply did a poor job remembering them, and this mistake of memory was committed to the annals of history by being erroneously reproduced in official document books, which were subsequently used by Ian Kershaw who didn't do his due diligence and check his sources to make sure they were accurate. In fact, in a letter to Gruchmann dated February 15, 1999, Kershaw admitted that he just assumed the quotation was real because it originated from a "renowned research institute".

At the start of his relatively small article, Gruchmann summarises the letter as follows:

The aforementioned letter is nowhere verifiable as a document and therefore cannot be accepted as a source by scholars.

Ibid., p. 559.

It's that simple.