Are you doing MATH problems today??? Hey, lets just stick to amercians then..................... "Skepticism about the official account has increased since 2001. In 2006, a New York Times/CBS News poll revealed only 16% of Americans thought the government was telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks. In 2004 a Zogby Poll showed that just over half of New Yorkers believed there was a cover up. In May of 2006, another Zogby poll indicated approximately half of all Americans did not believe the official version." If you do a search on this topic for additional polling you will see the numbers have CONTINUED to show the growing LACK OF SUPPORT for the official (CON) story.
May I ask what authors did you read? Very few has been written from the German perspective because the Allies imposed their view of history on post-war Germany. In the Nuremberg trials, historical "facts" weren't allowed to be researched but had to be acknowledged as dictated by the victors. Witnesses couldn't be charged with perjury even if they verifiably lied. Later, for Germany to partly regain sovereignty, transition contracts had to be signed that stated all Allied rulings were rightful and legally binding. Even today, German school books are still required to comply with the transition contracts. Almost all academic staff of history and political sciences was replaced after the war with people chosen by the victors -- people that shaped the German historians of today.
There are always gonna be "stories". How credible one is depends on the number of witnesses. The following are books I read: James Lucas. Das Reich: The Military Role of the 2nd SS Division. 2nd ed. London: Cassell, 2001. James Lucas. War on the Eastern Front: The German Soldier in Russia, 1941 - 1945. London: Greenhill, 1998. F.W. von Mellenthin. Panzer Battles. 2nd ed. New York: Ballantine, 1971.
This past week, Rocky Mountain PBS aired a story called "9/11... Loose Change". If you saw that, at a minimum you'd have to question the Government's official postion. If there is any truth to this documentary, it looks like the government tried to SNOW the people with lies, LIES, and MORE LIES... as usual.
That's because anti-Americans, leftists, and jihadists, like you are dispensing propaganda. Leftist authors are the ones who write history books.
Thanks. I didn't read these books, just glanced through what's available on Amazon for preview. The focus seems to be narrow on specific aspects of WWII that are covered in depth. I think it's easier for books like this to accurately reflect a German perspective, rather than writings about the grand scheme of things.
For example, the myth of Germany's sole or even main responsibility for WWII can't withstand the facts. In his book "Truth for Germany" published first in 1964, Udo Walendy covered the outbreak of WWII in relation to important previous events and policies worldwide. While overall still condensed, the book contains a wealth of details. It's available online and just reading through the first few pages reveals the high caliber of his work. http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/WALENDYeng.pdf German authorities tried to silence Walendy in many ways but couldn't simply forbid "Truth for Germany", so they considered his principal work "liable to corrupt the young" which resulted in an advertisement ban for 15 years. Even that ban had to be lifted because the book was factually accurate and courts had no handle to remove it from the public any longer.
While I agree there were many reasons for the conditions which allowed Hitler to come to power, including the overly harsh Versailles treaty. Some of the authors premises seemed flawed. For example he states that the dispute over Danzig "could have easily been solved diplomatically". If so then why didn't Hitler make more of an attempt to do so? And IF after exhaustive diplomatic efforts failed. Why invade the whole country and divide it with Russia, why bomb Warsaw into rubble, why not just take Danzig by force and stop there? (I only skimmed over the first fifty pages or so) On the cover the author states that since all the published documents make Germany look like the villain then therefore many of the unpublished documents must necessarily, at least partially, exonerate Germany. I find that a bit of stretch and the comment even leads me to think the author may not be as unbiased and objective as he'd like to think he is.