1940: Why Did #Hitler #Invade #Belgium & #Holland?

THE SETTING

Eight months have passed since the Allied powers of Britain & France had declared war against Germany for its justified invasion of Poland. The Allies have ignored Hitler's numerous pleas for peace while amassing their armies in Northern France, close to France's border with Belgium. Other than low-scale British and German maneuvers in Norway and Denmark, the great bloodbath known as World War II has not yet begun and can still be avoided.

The tiny states of Belgium and The Netherlands / Holland (both members of the Globalist League of Nations) claim to be "neutral." In reality, under the pressure and influence of mighty England & France (also members of the League of Nations) the two mini-states have been assisting the Allies in their preparation for an attack upon Germany - which had quit the League of Nations in 1933. On May 10, 1940, Hitler orders the invasion of the Low Countries.

Britain, France, Holland and Belgium were all members of the Globalist League of Nations. Germany took the fight to them in self-defense. 

The hysterical headlines of the West's major newspapers rush to condemn Germany's aggression, and today's history books portray the event as ultimate evidence that Hitler had been lying all along about not wanting to fight a war with the Western powers. Lost in the history books is the fact that Germany believed that it had no choice but to invade because Belgium and Holland were plotting with the Allies, while claiming to be neutral.

Even amidst its anti-German hysteria, The New York Times, in an effort to appear "objective", did indeed publish "Germany's side of the story", in the form of statements issued by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. It is an account that you will neither find in contemporary history books, nor hear on a TV crockumentary.

During better times, Hitler (left) and von Ribbentrop (right) enjoy a good laugh. 

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to reject Germany's claim as being a false propaganda pretext for war, a la 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', the question remains: why do the 'court-historians' continue to conceal such serious allegations from us? Why are we not given all of the data so that we can make up our own minds? What are they so afraid of? The truth?

In the belief that "there are two sides to every story", we are posting abridged reproductions of the May 10 and May 11 Times articles containing the von Ribbentrop allegations. A few bits of highlighted analysis are also included.The full originals can be viewed by copy-paste-enlarging the article images.

******** 

As you can see, press accounts from New York's two major Jewish-owned newspapers of May 10, 1940 were heavily slanted against the "Nazis": 

But a de-emphasized article from that same Times' issue did present a different version of events -- an 'inconvenient' version that has long since 'disappeared' from history.

CONTINUE READING