RE: Pearl Harbor Day

RE: Pearl Harbor Day (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/11/2015 1:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail In any case, when the next world war comes, we will not have the luxury of building for 2-3 years before we are in the middle of it. Couldn't give a flying one, Ron. I won't be in the middle of someone else's fight.

Real0ne -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/11/2015 4:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent RealOne, War is futile, in my opinion. But not for the same reasons as you, which is a good indicator of why I'm a liberal and you're a conservative. I've always found it strange why Americans will say on one hand: "we the people" and on the other hand say: "the government is nothing to do with us" to explain away an embarrassing episode and also feel that Americans are some beacon of individual rights. I know, I know - you'll say that's what it could be if only. Except that to me isn't that far away from Socialism - we're not really like this, it's just we're being taken for a ride. To an Englishman all of that is completely contradictory. The people who run countries are no different to the rest of us except they're in a position of power. The real reason why war is futile is nothing to do with politics or any of that, it's because nothing changes. Maybe in a year or a decade, but give it 40 years and everything returns to normal. Germany rebuilds, Britain rebuilds, France rebuilds - who would know there had been a devastating war 1914-1918? In the grand scheme of life it is simply nowhere near worth a Mother losing her children for something that is a mere aberration and within no time it'll all be forgotten about. And, no, the Americans were not in some way in bed with Hitler. Some were trying to make a few quid - there's not much room for sentiment in business - and, the Americans were not our allies for 30% of the war and had no obligation to any nation. They wouldn't be the first who traded with whomever was prepared to put money upfront. Well you try to paint a rosy picture but war whatever else it is...is a racket. It is a profit center and not just 'few quid' but untold billion$. Then there is the small matter of death and destruction which doesn't seem to trouble but a few million of the powerless masses. (look at the drone war now) The international bankers (western) financed WWI, Hitler, Lenin and ran all of the way to the bank with the proceeds because taxpayers foot the bill and when needed...added even more in debt. Kant said it and it is true. To paraphrase: Power (political/elites) send young men off to other countries to invade them as if they belong to nobody. The elites and powerful sit back in their palaces with their luxuries, wine and women to enjoy the proceeds. Proving that history will forever...be written in blood. You think 'International Bankers' were responsible for WW1 at the expense of unwilling people? I would have thought that an American would understand the sentiment of pride and fear considering you tend as a people to place such stock in a flag? Are the bankers making you rally behind the flag? You're miles away from the answer, mate. The answer is 'the people'. In all countries, not just the United States. Not the bankers or anyone else. We always have a choice and I'm afraid that there are a decent proportion of people in any given country who choose to rally behind the flag, usually at odds with all reason. I suppose it's a nice story though to claim: "it's the bankers" - that way everyone else is absolved of blame. Gent Hitler was wall streets darling! Even featured on the cover of time magazine. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/holycausts/1101330313_400.jpg[/image] Where Did the Nazis Get Their Funds for Revolution? In " Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" [see text --ed], we described several financial conduits between Wall Street and the Nazi party. This was later supplemented by publication of a long suppressed book, "Hitler's Secret Backers". Still other books have emphasized the Fritz Thyssen financial connection to Hitler. After he split with Hitler, Thyssen himself wrote a book, "I Paid Hitler". We are now in a position to merge the evidence in these books with other material and our documentation on The Order. The records of the U.S. Control Council for Germany contain the post-war intelligence interviews with prominent Nazis. From these we have verification that the major conduit for funds to Hitler was Fritz Thyssen and his Bank fur Handel and Schiff... Documents linking Wall Street to Hitler have for the most part been removed from U.S. Control Council records. Thyssen was former head of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the German steel trust, financed by Dillon, Read of New York. [He] played a decisive role in the rise of Hitler to power by contributing liberally to the Nazi Party and by influencing his fellow industrialists to join him in support of the Fuehrer. In reward for his efforts, Thyssen was showered with political and economic favors by the Third Reich and enjoyed almost unlimited power and prestige under the Nazi regime until his break with Hitler in 1939 over the decision to invade Poland and precipitate the Second World War. The Union Banking Connection This flow of funds went through Thyssen banks. The Bank fur Handel and Schiff cited as the conduit in the U.S. Intelligence report was a subsidiary of the August Thyssen Bank, and founded in 1918 with H.J. Kouwenhoven and D.C. Schutte as managing partners. In brief, it was Thyssen's personal banking operation, and affiliated with the W.A. Harriman financial interests in New York. Furthermore, the Thyssen front bank in Holland -- i.e. the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. -- controlled the Union Banking Corporation in New York. The Harrimans had a financial interest in Union Banking Corporation, and E. Roland Harriman (1917), Averell's brother, was a director. The Union Banking Corporation of New York City was a joint Thyssen-Harriman operation with the following directors in 1932: E. Roland Harriman (1917) Vice President of W.A. Harriman & Co., New York H.J. Kouwenhoven (Nazi) Nazi banker, managing partner of August Thyssen Bank and Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart N.V. (the transfer bank for Thyssen's funds) Knight Wooley (1917) Director, Guaranty Trust, New York and Director, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Cornelius Lievense President, Union Banking Corp. and Director, Holland-American Investment Corp. Ellery Sedgewick James (1917) Partner, Brown Brothers & Co., New York Johann Groeninger (Nazi) Director, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart and Director, Vereinigte Stahlwerke (Thyssen's steel operations) J.L. Guinter Director, Union Banking Corp. Prescott Sheldon Bush (1917) Partner, Brown Brothers, Harriman (and father of Vice President George H.W. Bush) The eight directors of Union Banking Corporation are an interesting bunch indeed... Out of eight directors of Thyssen's bank in New York, we can therefore identify six who were either Nazis or members of The Order. This private bank was formerly named Von Heydt Bank and von Heydt is named by Shoup in "Hitler's Secret Backers" as the intermediary from Guaranty Trust in New York to Hitler between 1930 and 1933. Above all, remember that Shoup was writing in 1933 when this information was still only known to those on the inside... In brief, when we merge the information in Project Dustbin with Shoup's "Hitler's Secret Backers" we find the major overseas conduit for Nazi financing traces back to The Order and specifically cell D 115 [the class of 1917]. (see note [E1]) Profit From Conflict Out of war and revolution come opportunities for profit. Conflict can be used for profit by corporations under control and influence of The Order. In World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnamese War we can cite examples of American corporations that traded with "the enemy" for profit. Corporations -- even large corporations -- are dominated by banks and trust companies, and in turn these banks and trust companies are dominated by The Order and its allies. The [cargo ship] M.S. Frederick S. Fales owned by Standard Vacuum Company was sunk by a German submarine on September 21, 1940. Yet in 1941, Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) had six Standard Oil tankers under Panamanian registry, manned by Nazi officers to carry fuel oil from Standard Oil refineries to the Canary Islands, a refueling base of Nazi submarines (see War Department document). Yet another example is that of Chase Bank. Chase was linked to The Order through the Rockefeller family, Percy Rockefeller (1900) and Vice-President Reeve Schley (Scroll & Key). Directors of Chase in The Order included: Frederick Allen (1900), W.E.S. Griswold (1899), and Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose brother Gwynne Vanderbilt (1899) represented the family before his death. President of Chase was Winthrop Aldrich. The extent of Chase collaboration with the Nazis is staggering -- and this was at a time when Nelson Rockefeller had an intelligence job in Washington aimed AGAINST Nazi operations in Latin America. In December 1944, Treasury Department officials examined the records of the Chase Bank in Paris. On December 20, 1944 the senior U.S. examiner sent a memorandum to Treasury Secretary Morgenthau with the preliminary results of the Paris examination. Here's an extract from that report: a. Niederman, of Swiss nationality, manager of Chase, Paris, was unquestionably a collaborator. b. The Chase head office in New York was informed of Niederman's collaborationist policy but took no steps to remove him... c. The German authorities were anxious to keep the Chase open and indeed took exceptional measures to provide sources of revenue. d. The German authorities desired "to be friends" with the important American banks because they expected that these banks would be useful after the war as an instrument of German policy in the United States. e. The Chase, Paris showed itself most anxious to please the German authorities in every possible way... f. The whole objective of the Chase policy and operation was to maintain the position of the bank at any cost. In brief, Chase Bank was a Nazi collaborator, but the above preliminary report is as far as the investigation proceeded. The report was killed on orders from Washington, D.C. On the other hand, Chase Bank, later Chase Manhattan Bank, has been a prime promoter of exporting U.S. technology to the Soviet Union. This goes all the way back to the early 1920s when Chase broke U.S. regulations in order to aid the Soviets. In conclusion, we have seen that the two arms of the dialectic described...clashed in World War II. Furthermore, the corporate segment of the elite profited from Lend Lease to the Soviets and by underground cooperation with Nazi interests. The political wing of The Order was at the same time preparing a new dialectic for the post World War II era. http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=SkullBones&C=3.4

Real0ne -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/11/2015 5:17:05 PM)
and there is more: Businesses that Worked With the Nazis Dow Chemical Brown Brothers Harriman Woolworth Alcoa Ford Motor Company General Motors International Business Machines http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php Chase Bank Ford Random House Kodak Coca-Cola Allianz Novartis Nestlé BMW General Electric (GE) http://www.businesspundit.com/10-global-businesses-that-worked-with-the-nazis/

thompsonx -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/11/2015 5:24:35 PM)
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers ORIGINAL: thompsonx The two atomic bombs were not "pay back" but the most effective way to get Japan to surrender. Not according to harry truman. [/quote] The US invited the Japanese to witness a test. They refused. Would you have any validation for this?

Real0ne -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/11/2015 5:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You think 'International Bankers' were responsible for WW1 at the expense of unwilling people? I would have thought that an American would understand the sentiment of pride and fear considering you tend as a people to place such stock in a flag? Are the bankers making you rally behind the flag? You're miles away from the answer, mate. The answer is 'the people'. In all countries, not just the United States. Not the bankers or anyone else. We always have a choice and I'm afraid that there are a decent proportion of people in any given country who choose to rally behind the flag, usually at odds with all reason. I suppose it's a nice story though to claim: "it's the bankers" - that way everyone else is absolved of blame. Yes! They control the gubblemints of the world yours too and they fund it once everything is in place and set they stage a terrorist attack. Its right out of the nazi play book. Hermann Göring “Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -------------------------------------- Hitler didn't want world war Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk? Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell? Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece? Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps. Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia. Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally. As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia? Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization. http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

MrRodgers -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/11/2015 7:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: MrRodgers ORIGINAL: thompsonx The two atomic bombs were not "pay back" but the most effective way to get Japan to surrender. Not according to harry truman. quote: The US invited the Japanese to witness a test. They refused. Would you have any validation for this? Can't find it in writing but did see it in a documentary way back. Something like that could have been passed on through back channels as is often done between such parties to keep it out of the public eye.

thompsonx -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/12/2015 2:31:06 AM)
double post

thompsonx -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/12/2015 2:41:15 AM)
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: MrRodgers ORIGINAL: thompsonx The two atomic bombs were not "pay back" but the most effective way to get Japan to surrender. Not according to harry truman. The US invited the Japanese to witness a test. They refused. Would you have any validation for this? Can't find it in writing but did see it in a documentary way back. Something like that could have been passed on through back channels as is often done between such parties to keep it out of the public eye. The potsdam conference was 17 july-2august 1945. The trinity test was on 16 july. Truman was notified while at the conference of it's success. No one was certain that it would work. How effective would it have been if the japs had been there and it failed? So the story that the japs were invited to the demo is just not believable. At the previous conferences it had been decided that the russians would attack the japanese three months after the defeat of germany. True to his word stalin attacked the japs on 9 aug 1945. This is from a document search: Note handed to Naotake Sato, Japanese Ambassador to the USSR, by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov in Moscow, on August 8, 1945: After the defeat and capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, Japan remained the only great power which still stands for the continuation of the war. The demand of the three powers , the United States, Great Britain and China, of July 26 for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was rejected by Japan. Thus the proposal made by the Japanese Government to the Soviet Union for mediation in the Far East has lost all foundation. Taking into account the refusal of Japan to capitulate, the Allies approached the Soviet Government with a proposal to join the war against Japanese aggression and thus shorten the duration of the war, reduce the number of casualties and contribute toward the most speedy restoration of peace. True to its obligation as an Ally, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposal of the Allies, and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26. The Soviet Government considers that this policy is the only means able to bring peace nearer, to free the people from further sacrifice and suffering and to give the Japanese people the opportunity of avoiding the danger of destruction suffered by Germany after her refusal to accept unconditional surrender. In view of the above, the Soviet Government declares that from tomorrow, that is from August 9, the Soviet Union will consider herself in a state of war against Japan. V.e. day was 8 may for the anglo americans and 9 may for the russians because the germans were still fighting the russians until the 9. http://historyimages.blogspot.com/2012/10/soviet-army-invades-japanese-manchuria-august-1945.html There is an interesting book called "racing the enemy" it is available to read on line. It references the notes of the potsdam conference in which truman discusses why he would drop the atomic bomb, the attack by russia on japan and the invasion of japan by the russians. It also documents that the russians killed and captured more japs in a month than the anglo american alllies did in four years. This is not a work of fiction.

NorthernGent -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/12/2015 11:27:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent RealOne, War is futile, in my opinion. But not for the same reasons as you, which is a good indicator of why I'm a liberal and you're a conservative. I've always found it strange why Americans will say on one hand: "we the people" and on the other hand say: "the government is nothing to do with us" to explain away an embarrassing episode and also feel that Americans are some beacon of individual rights. I know, I know - you'll say that's what it could be if only. Except that to me isn't that far away from Socialism - we're not really like this, it's just we're being taken for a ride. To an Englishman all of that is completely contradictory. The people who run countries are no different to the rest of us except they're in a position of power. The real reason why war is futile is nothing to do with politics or any of that, it's because nothing changes. Maybe in a year or a decade, but give it 40 years and everything returns to normal. Germany rebuilds, Britain rebuilds, France rebuilds - who would know there had been a devastating war 1914-1918? In the grand scheme of life it is simply nowhere near worth a Mother losing her children for something that is a mere aberration and within no time it'll all be forgotten about. And, no, the Americans were not in some way in bed with Hitler. Some were trying to make a few quid - there's not much room for sentiment in business - and, the Americans were not our allies for 30% of the war and had no obligation to any nation. They wouldn't be the first who traded with whomever was prepared to put money upfront. Well you try to paint a rosy picture but war whatever else it is...is a racket. It is a profit center and not just 'few quid' but untold billion$. Then there is the small matter of death and destruction which doesn't seem to trouble but a few million of the powerless masses. (look at the drone war now) The international bankers (western) financed WWI, Hitler, Lenin and ran all of the way to the bank with the proceeds because taxpayers foot the bill and when needed...added even more in debt. Kant said it and it is true. To paraphrase: Power (political/elites) send young men off to other countries to invade them as if they belong to nobody. The elites and powerful sit back in their palaces with their luxuries, wine and women to enjoy the proceeds. Proving that history will forever...be written in blood. You think 'International Bankers' were responsible for WW1 at the expense of unwilling people? I would have thought that an American would understand the sentiment of pride and fear considering you tend as a people to place such stock in a flag? Are the bankers making you rally behind the flag? You're miles away from the answer, mate. The answer is 'the people'. In all countries, not just the United States. Not the bankers or anyone else. We always have a choice and I'm afraid that there are a decent proportion of people in any given country who choose to rally behind the flag, usually at odds with all reason. I suppose it's a nice story though to claim: "it's the bankers" - that way everyone else is absolved of blame. Gent Hitler was wall streets darling! Even featured on the cover of time magazine. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/holycausts/1101330313_400.jpg[/image] Where Did the Nazis Get Their Funds for Revolution? In " Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" [see text --ed], we described several financial conduits between Wall Street and the Nazi party. This was later supplemented by publication of a long suppressed book, "Hitler's Secret Backers". Still other books have emphasized the Fritz Thyssen financial connection to Hitler. After he split with Hitler, Thyssen himself wrote a book, "I Paid Hitler". We are now in a position to merge the evidence in these books with other material and our documentation on The Order. The records of the U.S. Control Council for Germany contain the post-war intelligence interviews with prominent Nazis. From these we have verification that the major conduit for funds to Hitler was Fritz Thyssen and his Bank fur Handel and Schiff... Documents linking Wall Street to Hitler have for the most part been removed from U.S. Control Council records. Thyssen was former head of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the German steel trust, financed by Dillon, Read of New York. [He] played a decisive role in the rise of Hitler to power by contributing liberally to the Nazi Party and by influencing his fellow industrialists to join him in support of the Fuehrer. In reward for his efforts, Thyssen was showered with political and economic favors by the Third Reich and enjoyed almost unlimited power and prestige under the Nazi regime until his break with Hitler in 1939 over the decision to invade Poland and precipitate the Second World War. The Union Banking Connection This flow of funds went through Thyssen banks. The Bank fur Handel and Schiff cited as the conduit in the U.S. Intelligence report was a subsidiary of the August Thyssen Bank, and founded in 1918 with H.J. Kouwenhoven and D.C. Schutte as managing partners. In brief, it was Thyssen's personal banking operation, and affiliated with the W.A. Harriman financial interests in New York. Furthermore, the Thyssen front bank in Holland -- i.e. the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. -- controlled the Union Banking Corporation in New York. The Harrimans had a financial interest in Union Banking Corporation, and E. Roland Harriman (1917), Averell's brother, was a director. The Union Banking Corporation of New York City was a joint Thyssen-Harriman operation with the following directors in 1932: E. Roland Harriman (1917) Vice President of W.A. Harriman & Co., New York H.J. Kouwenhoven (Nazi) Nazi banker, managing partner of August Thyssen Bank and Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart N.V. (the transfer bank for Thyssen's funds) Knight Wooley (1917) Director, Guaranty Trust, New York and Director, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Cornelius Lievense President, Union Banking Corp. and Director, Holland-American Investment Corp. Ellery Sedgewick James (1917) Partner, Brown Brothers & Co., New York Johann Groeninger (Nazi) Director, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart and Director, Vereinigte Stahlwerke (Thyssen's steel operations) J.L. Guinter Director, Union Banking Corp. Prescott Sheldon Bush (1917) Partner, Brown Brothers, Harriman (and father of Vice President George H.W. Bush) The eight directors of Union Banking Corporation are an interesting bunch indeed... Out of eight directors of Thyssen's bank in New York, we can therefore identify six who were either Nazis or members of The Order. This private bank was formerly named Von Heydt Bank and von Heydt is named by Shoup in "Hitler's Secret Backers" as the intermediary from Guaranty Trust in New York to Hitler between 1930 and 1933. Above all, remember that Shoup was writing in 1933 when this information was still only known to those on the inside... In brief, when we merge the information in Project Dustbin with Shoup's "Hitler's Secret Backers" we find the major overseas conduit for Nazi financing traces back to The Order and specifically cell D 115 [the class of 1917]. (see note [E1]) Profit From Conflict Out of war and revolution come opportunities for profit. Conflict can be used for profit by corporations under control and influence of The Order. In World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnamese War we can cite examples of American corporations that traded with "the enemy" for profit. Corporations -- even large corporations -- are dominated by banks and trust companies, and in turn these banks and trust companies are dominated by The Order and its allies. The [cargo ship] M.S. Frederick S. Fales owned by Standard Vacuum Company was sunk by a German submarine on September 21, 1940. Yet in 1941, Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) had six Standard Oil tankers under Panamanian registry, manned by Nazi officers to carry fuel oil from Standard Oil refineries to the Canary Islands, a refueling base of Nazi submarines (see War Department document). Yet another example is that of Chase Bank. Chase was linked to The Order through the Rockefeller family, Percy Rockefeller (1900) and Vice-President Reeve Schley (Scroll & Key). Directors of Chase in The Order included: Frederick Allen (1900), W.E.S. Griswold (1899), and Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose brother Gwynne Vanderbilt (1899) represented the family before his death. President of Chase was Winthrop Aldrich. The extent of Chase collaboration with the Nazis is staggering -- and this was at a time when Nelson Rockefeller had an intelligence job in Washington aimed AGAINST Nazi operations in Latin America. In December 1944, Treasury Department officials examined the records of the Chase Bank in Paris. On December 20, 1944 the senior U.S. examiner sent a memorandum to Treasury Secretary Morgenthau with the preliminary results of the Paris examination. Here's an extract from that report: a. Niederman, of Swiss nationality, manager of Chase, Paris, was unquestionably a collaborator. b. The Chase head office in New York was informed of Niederman's collaborationist policy but took no steps to remove him... c. The German authorities were anxious to keep the Chase open and indeed took exceptional measures to provide sources of revenue. d. The German authorities desired "to be friends" with the important American banks because they expected that these banks would be useful after the war as an instrument of German policy in the United States. e. The Chase, Paris showed itself most anxious to please the German authorities in every possible way... f. The whole objective of the Chase policy and operation was to maintain the position of the bank at any cost. In brief, Chase Bank was a Nazi collaborator, but the above preliminary report is as far as the investigation proceeded. The report was killed on orders from Washington, D.C. On the other hand, Chase Bank, later Chase Manhattan Bank, has been a prime promoter of exporting U.S. technology to the Soviet Union. This goes all the way back to the early 1920s when Chase broke U.S. regulations in order to aid the Soviets. In conclusion, we have seen that the two arms of the dialectic described...clashed in World War II. Furthermore, the corporate segment of the elite profited from Lend Lease to the Soviets and by underground cooperation with Nazi interests. The political wing of The Order was at the same time preparing a new dialectic for the post World War II era. http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=SkullBones&C=3.4 Too much information for me to get through, but you seem to be under some illusion that your own countrymen are so stupid that they would prop up some fella who wouldn't have lasted beyond 1950 war or no war. Hitler and associates were idiots not fit to run a bath let alone a country, and it was only a matter of time before it all came crashing down - war or no war. The people who run your country are a lot smarter than what you think and they would have known far well that they would not be in it for the long term. The Nazis were massively out of their diplomatic depth with seasoned professionals like Britain and the United States and neither were interested in being bedfellows with them - whether a few people made a few quid out of them or not.

MrRodgers -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/13/2015 12:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Too much information for me to get through, but you seem to be under some illusion that your own countrymen are so stupid that they would prop up some fella who wouldn't have lasted beyond 1950 war or no war. Hitler and associates were idiots not fit to run a bath let alone a country, and it was only a matter of time before it all came crashing down - war or no war. The people who run your country are a lot smarter than what you think and they would have known far well that they would not be in it for the long term. The Nazis were massively out of their diplomatic depth with seasoned professionals like Britain and the United States and neither were interested in being bedfellows with them - whether a few people made a few quid out of them or not. You seem to be missing one very important aspect let alone the relative stupidity of govts. at least as compared to the relative influence of powerful men and groups behind the scenes. Along with many of the intellectuals of the time, that proclaimed in the 40's the treaty of Versailles is what started (fed the rhetorical base for) WWII, it being so obviously punitive toward Germany. That missing aspect, was money and the German economy after Wiemar Germany. John Manard Keynes on the Treaty of Versailles 1919: if the Allies were to ‘nurse’ the trade and industry of Germany for a period of five or ten years, supplying her with large loans, and with ample shipping, food, and raw materials during that period, building up markets for her, and deliberately applying all their resources and goodwill to making her the greatest industrial nation in Europe, if not in the world, a substantially larger sum could probably be extracted thereafter; for Germany is capable of very great productivity. The west did not that is, until they got the crazy politician in place...Hitler. As I've written and seems to be completely discounted, yet is as important as anything within this discussion, is that reliable estimates had, that the war reparations contained in that treaty were still not going to paid off until 1988...if at all. How then did Germany not only pay the reparations but also build up what did in fact, become the greatest industrial economy in Europe ? European and US loans. How did German industry empower its military with such advanced might ? US and European industry and direct technological advancement and assistance is how. You say it yourself NG, if Hitler and his gang were not fit, the western, international bankers and all of those western industrialists...were very fit. IF the allies don't get involved, IF they leave German alone under the terms of that treaty, she goes bankrupt and into chaos. Hitler and his gang were only the politics and THE politician of choice for Germany and her backers. The international bankers were her economic partners and their industrial and businesses...her co-conspirators without which there as likely, would have been no WWII. The allied govts. press and diplomatic core...said nothing and did nothing to stop Germany's build up.

NorthernGent -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/13/2015 12:38:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Too much information for me to get through, but you seem to be under some illusion that your own countrymen are so stupid that they would prop up some fella who wouldn't have lasted beyond 1950 war or no war. Hitler and associates were idiots not fit to run a bath let alone a country, and it was only a matter of time before it all came crashing down - war or no war. The people who run your country are a lot smarter than what you think and they would have known far well that they would not be in it for the long term. The Nazis were massively out of their diplomatic depth with seasoned professionals like Britain and the United States and neither were interested in being bedfellows with them - whether a few people made a few quid out of them or not. You seem to be missing one very important aspect let alone the relative stupidity of govts. at least as compared to the relative influence of powerful men and groups behind the scenes. Along with many of the intellectuals of the time, that proclaimed in the 40's the treaty of Versailles is what started (fed the rhetorical base for) WWII, it being so obviously punitive toward Germany. That missing aspect, was money and the German economy after Wiemar Germany. John Manard Keynes on the Treaty of Versailles 1919: if the Allies were to ‘nurse’ the trade and industry of Germany for a period of five or ten years, supplying her with large loans, and with ample shipping, food, and raw materials during that period, building up markets for her, and deliberately applying all their resources and goodwill to making her the greatest industrial nation in Europe, if not in the world, a substantially larger sum could probably be extracted thereafter; for Germany is capable of very great productivity. The west did not that is, until they got the crazy politician in place...Hitler. As I've written and seems to be completely discounted, yet is as important as anything within this discussion, is that reliable estimates had, that the war reparations contained in that treaty were still not going to paid off until 1988...if at all. How then did Germany not only pay the reparations but also build up what did in fact, become the greatest industrial economy in Europe ? European and US loans. How did German industry empower its military with such advanced might ? US and European industry and direct technological advancement and assistance is how. You say it yourself NG, if Hitler and his gang were not fit, the western, international bankers and all of those western industrialists...were very fit. IF the allies don't get involved, IF they leave German alone under the terms of that treaty, she goes bankrupt and into chaos. Hitler and his gang were only the politics and THE politician of choice for Germany and her backers. The international bankers were her economic partners and their industrial and businesses...her co-conspirators without which there as likely, would have been no WWII. None of that has any basis in reality. Firstly, contrary to your belief that bankers are behind all of these things, it does not suit 'bankers' or 'international financiers' or whatever you want to call them for nations to become embroiled in a war. The age prior to WW1 was the first age of globalisation. People were generally prosperous, 'bankers' were rolling in money - and then bang - a war brought the whole thing crashing down pretty much in the space of a week and everyone lost out including 'the bankers'. Secondly, the whole point of Versailles was that the Germans were not trusted - by politicians and militarists - not by 'the bankers'. Nothing to do with them. France in particular did not trust them because they shared a border with them and were in the firing line should the Germans rear their heads again. Britain actually felt that a weakened Germany in the centre of Europe was not in out interests, 'the bankers' felt the same - just as they would with a weakened Britain or a weakened United States - this doesn't mean they were pulling the strings behind the scenes. The Americans wanted their money back that they'd loaned to Britain and we had passed onto the French. Except, France was the bare bones of its arse and so it was decided that the only way to get the money back was from Germany. And, Versailles did not cause WW2 - that is popular history not scholarly history. The Germans deliberately generated hyper-inflation to avoid paying reparations. They were opposed to it from the start, not because of the date - 1988 or whatever it was - but because they did not accept defeat. They remained unswervingly committed to dominating continental Europe and they felt they were better than the likes of France and should never accept a dictat from them. The French wanted to follow them all the way into Germany and annihilate them in order to deter them from starting another war; the British said no because for us the job had been done and the Germans had been chased out of France - beyond that there was no motive for us to lose more men. The French were proved right and the British wrong as it turned out. So, right from the moment the guns ceased firing in November 1918, WW2 was only a matter of time because the German psyche dictated that they would not accept a return to the international power structure of pre WW1 as they felt their rightful destiny was to be at the very least one of the world's leading powers. There was a mass of people like Hitler in Germany. Schooled on a peculiarly German form of Conservatism and Militarism. And, it was only a matter of organising themselves and time. As for the German recovery post WW2: the United States pumped a lot of money into Germany to rebuild it - clearly to prevent the spread of Communism. Nothing to do with 'the bankers' - more to do with a battle of ideas and values that the United States and associates, such as Britain, were determined to win. And, you can't keep a good man down: so the Germans would have recovered economically at some point due to certain values and the creativity they have as a people.

NorthernGent -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/13/2015 1:11:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You think 'International Bankers' were responsible for WW1 at the expense of unwilling people? I would have thought that an American would understand the sentiment of pride and fear considering you tend as a people to place such stock in a flag? Are the bankers making you rally behind the flag? You're miles away from the answer, mate. The answer is 'the people'. In all countries, not just the United States. Not the bankers or anyone else. We always have a choice and I'm afraid that there are a decent proportion of people in any given country who choose to rally behind the flag, usually at odds with all reason. I suppose it's a nice story though to claim: "it's the bankers" - that way everyone else is absolved of blame. Yes! They control the gubblemints of the world yours too and they fund it once everything is in place and set they stage a terrorist attack. Its right out of the nazi play book. Hermann Göring “Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -------------------------------------- Hitler didn't want world war Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk? Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell? Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece? Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps. Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia. Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally. As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia? Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization. http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068 Goering's point does not support your point; it supports mine. He is saying that 'the people' are susceptible to an appeal to pride and fear. Going to war being a choice on the part of the people - all the 'leaders' have to do is play on these emotions/instincts. At root, he is saying: "more fool you, in the event you choose to follow such leadership". As for Hitler/Germany war aims, you're missing two points as follows: Firstly, the Germans had been gearing up for this for years, since before 1933 even; the philosophy at the core of Nazi politics was the supremacy of the German race and expansion to the East. Without war aims there would have been no point in the Nazi Party existing. Secondly, Hitler and associates were not reasonable men, and so trying to apply reason in order to determine why they did this or that is futile. What they were was pack of opportunists, political gamblers, petty criminals, street thugs, fantasists, impulsives and ultimately half-wits - who simply made it up as they went along - with one exception, they were determined to make Germany the master of Eastern Europe right from the start. Edited to add: the Germans didn't let the British Army go at Dunkirk. The French held them off while British and French soldiers got on the boats, all the while the Germans were bombing the beaches and the boats. And, as for peace feelers with Britain, as said Hitler and associates were monumental fantasists. They really admired the British and felt we were natural allies. These people believed they were like British gentlemen and modelled themselves on British ways of behaviour. Except when their representatives came to England, such as Ribbentrop, they were pretty much seen as dickheads with few manners - and certainly not natural allies. In Hitler's mind the two greatest nations that ever lived were going to dominate the world and that was his motive for an alliance with Britain. Unfortunately for him, the feeling was not reciprocated.

thompsonx -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/13/2015 4:15:44 AM)
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk? Only the dumbest of dumbasses believes that. The idea that Hitler ordered a grand stand down of his troops is deflated by one simple fact: the pause order didn’t actually originate with Hitler. It was first given by General Gerd von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, which was the large force fighting in western France. In turn, the pause was requested by von Rundstedt’s tank unit commander, who had lost 50% of his armored forces and needed time to regroup. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p375_Lutton.html

Real0ne -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/14/2015 8:38:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Goering's point does not support your point; it supports mine. He is saying that 'the people' are susceptible to an appeal to pride and fear. Going to war being a choice on the part of the people - all the 'leaders' have to do is play on these emotions/instincts. At root, he is saying: "more fool you, in the event you choose to follow such leadership". As for Hitler/Germany war aims, you're missing two points as follows: Firstly, the Germans had been gearing up for this for years, since before 1933 even; the philosophy at the core of Nazi politics was the supremacy of the German race and expansion to the East. Without war aims there would have been no point in the Nazi Party existing. Secondly, Hitler and associates were not reasonable men, and so trying to apply reason in order to determine why they did this or that is futile. What they were was pack of opportunists, political gamblers, petty criminals, street thugs, fantasists, impulsives and ultimately half-wits - who simply made it up as they went along - with one exception, they were determined to make Germany the master of Eastern Europe right from the start. Edited to add: the Germans didn't let the British Army go at Dunkirk. The French held them off while British and French soldiers got on the boats, all the while the Germans were bombing the beaches and the boats. And, as for peace feelers with Britain, as said Hitler and associates were monumental fantasists. They really admired the British and felt we were natural allies. These people believed they were like British gentlemen and modelled themselves on British ways of behaviour. Except when their representatives came to England, such as Ribbentrop, they were pretty much seen as dickheads with few manners - and certainly not natural allies. In Hitler's mind the two greatest nations that ever lived were going to dominate the world and that was his motive for an alliance with Britain. Unfortunately for him, the feeling was not reciprocated. Well that's a lot of nice sounding political rhetoric however the facts do not agree with you and tell a differnt story entirely. First; You can't support that the people went along anything unless you can show the people actually 'voted' on it. They didn't. Georings point is that the gubblemint can and will always drag the people along no matter what type of gubblemint they have. Thats the idea behind a false flag, give the people something that will not riot, they do not need to agree, just not riot and take over the gubblemint that is all that is necessary. Nam comes to mind. What really happens is SSDD, some government stages a false flag as Georing said, Lithuania, Tonkin, Pearl, and like Georing said screams they are being attacked and 'the gubblemint' runs off to war against any protest demonizing protestors. Exactly like 911. Gubblemints takes nations to war not the people who have to foot the bill, so to say that the people want it and at the people went along with it, is NOT true because they had no real choice in the matter, no vote no choice. Gubblemints do any damn thing they want and the only option the people have if they disagree is to go along or riot. Nothing else works. Hitler was set up by the real maniacs, germany was set up for the fall no matter what they did. UNless of course you can justify how a leader of a country can sit by and watch 50000 of 60000 of their citizens being slaughtered by another country and do absolutely nothing about it. That is treason you know. Germany was set up, The Treaty of Versailles cut out the Danzig corridor the pols moved in and slaughtered 50 to 60,000 German farmers to steal their land, and meanwhile England went under the table and made a compact to be polands allie. If hitler did nothing the germans took him out if he attacked poland like we in the US did to Afghanistan and iraq then he has the brits against him. That is a trap. When there is no possibility of an amicable solution left open by the big bullies who can just as easily create an amicable solution as to create a trap, that is called a set up. So Hitler did what any leader would do and went to defend the Germans that were being slaughtered in the Danzig and put an end to it just like we went to defend the 3000. Its okay for the United States to take over Afghanistan and the take over Iraq but it's not okay for Hitler to take over Poland are your to occupy Poland How do you justify thats its ok for the US of K and the UK but not for Hitler? Seems some of your fellow countrymen know about hitlers appeal for peace. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/war/hitler%20no%20war_3.gif[/image] Personally I think you have a lot of explaining to do to make your version fly gent.

NorthernGent -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/19/2015 11:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne First; You can't support that the people went along anything unless you can show the people actually 'voted' on it. They didn't. Georings point is that the gubblemint can and will always drag the people along no matter what type of gubblemint they have. Thats the idea behind a false flag, give the people something that will not riot, they do not need to agree, just not riot and take over the gubblemint that is all that is necessary. Nam comes to mind. This is what I can't understand with you Americans (some of you). On the one hand the people are never to blame and the government always are; on the other hand people are individuals, and this of course necessitates that people are free from external influence. How on earth do you reconcile what is a glaring contradiction? From an English pragmatic point of view; in the event all the 'government' have to do is spin a yarn and appeal to pride, then the people are well and truly useless - and certainly not imbued with the spirit of freedom. Except I tend to think many people want war - the common people - it ain't all 'the government's fault' - that's just in your head. It's a nice story to say the people are always scammed and it's a get out of jail free card. I'm afraid that large swathes of the people have been more than complicit in wars down the years. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne So Hitler did what any leader would do and went to defend the Germans that were being slaughtered in the Danzig and put an end to it just like we went to defend the 3000. Its okay for the United States to take over Afghanistan and the take over Iraq but it's not okay for Hitler to take over Poland are your to occupy Poland Yes, he decided to invade Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, and so on; due to something to do with events in Danzig. Because of course in the event your next door neighbour waltzed into your home and started smashing up the kitchen, you'd take this as your cue to smash up the entire village. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne How do you justify thats its ok for the US of K and the UK but not for Hitler? You should read more of the history of your own country. Believe me your 'US of K' is nothing of the sort.

MercTech -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/20/2015 8:17:53 PM)
On thesis I've seen that seems to hold a lot of water is that the U.S. most effective contribution to the war in Europe in both WWI and WWiI was to be the armory for the European allies. One good example that documents this relationship is the WWI "Winchester Enfield". When the U.S. got into WWi U.S. firearm companies had already been producing .303 Enfield rifles for the British war effort (The Pattern 1914 Rifle). It was child's play to re-chamber for the .30-06 round the U.S. Army used and the M1917 rifle was born. (5 round magazine bolt action with manlicher stock and elevating peep site. Made a great deer rifle.) For several years before U.S. got into either world war; the U.S. had been sending supplies and arms to Britain. Yes, some of the big money liberals were also sending engineering help and funds to Hitler at the same time.

Real0ne -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/21/2015 12:01:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne First; You can't support that the people went along anything unless you can show the people actually 'voted' on it. They didn't. Georings point is that the gubblemint can and will always drag the people along no matter what type of gubblemint they have. Thats the idea behind a false flag, give the people something that will not riot, they do not need to agree, just not riot and take over the gubblemint that is all that is necessary. Nam comes to mind. This is what I can't understand with you Americans (some of you). On the one hand the people are never to blame and the government always are; on the other hand people are individuals, and this of course necessitates that people are free from external influence. How on earth do you reconcile what is a glaring contradiction? From an English pragmatic point of view; in the event all the 'government' have to do is spin a yarn and appeal to pride, then the people are well and truly useless - and certainly not imbued with the spirit of freedom. Except I tend to think many people want war - the common people - it ain't all 'the government's fault' - that's just in your head. It's a nice story to say the people are always scammed and it's a get out of jail free card. I'm afraid that large swathes of the people have been more than complicit in wars down the years. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne So Hitler did what any leader would do and went to defend the Germans that were being slaughtered in the Danzig and put an end to it just like we went to defend the 3000. Its okay for the United States to take over Afghanistan and the take over Iraq but it's not okay for Hitler to take over Poland are your to occupy Poland Yes, he decided to invade Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, and so on; due to something to do with events in Danzig. Because of course in the event your next door neighbour waltzed into your home and started smashing up the kitchen, you'd take this as your cue to smash up the entire village. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne How do you justify thats its ok for the US of K and the UK but not for Hitler? You should read more of the history of your own country. Believe me your 'US of K' is nothing of the sort. Gent you need to come out here with something that has teeth rather than rhetorical approach. Your first question is because we the people in our imaginary democracy do not get to vote on going to war. We get to vote on a new set of rulers every few years and THEY vote on what THEY want to do for THEIR interests and those of the CORPORATIONS they are in collusion with. You nor they can tell anyone that the people agree with ANY thing without a vote to PROVE it. Thats right, individuals get shit on in a mob world. As the leader of the German people Hitler had an obligation to defend Germans who were victims of ongoing polish atrocities. I want to know how you or anyone else can justify 911 and the take over of 2 sovereign nations as a result of the [alleged] actions of a handful of individuals that did not represent the governments in either nation? Hitler was set up. Rockefeller supplied him with the fuel additives he needed to fly his high performance planes before and THROUGHOUT the war! The government did NOTHING to stop US corporations from suporting Hitler through the war! Everything was bombed to the stone age but the ford plants magically survived! They wanted this war, everything they did and the sequence of events is perfectly clear and points to that fact! Britain as always is right in the middle and conspired with other nations to set Hitler up for a fall. Documents prove this: quote: Stalin 'planned to send a million troops [before the Second World War'] to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact' By Nick Holdsworth in Moscow Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance. But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. "This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement," said Gen Sotskov, 75. The declassified archives - which cover the period from early 1938 until the outbreak of war in September 1939 - reveal that the Kremlin had known of the unprecedented pressure Britain and France put on Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler by surrendering the ethnic German Sudetenland region in 1938. quote: [I am asking neither that Germany be allowed to oppress three and a half million Frenchmen, nor am I asking that three and a half million Englishmen be placed at our mercy. Rather I am simply demanding that the oppression of three and a half million Germans in Czechoslovakia cease and that the inalienable right to self-determination take its place. — Adolf Hitler's speech at the NSDAP Congress 1938] Doesnt sound like a mad man to me does that sound like a mad man to you Gent Britain on the other hand: On 28 September, [British prime minister] Chamberlain appealed to Hitler for a conference. Hitler met the next day, at Munich, with the chiefs of governments of France, Italy and Britain. The Czechoslovak government was neither invited nor consulted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia On 4 December 1938, there were elections in Reichsgau Sudetenland, in which 97.32% of the adult population voted for National Socialist Party. About 500,000 Sudeten Germans joined the National Socialist Party which was 17.34% of the German population in Sudetenland (the average National Socialist Party participation in National Socialist Germany was 7.85%). This means the Sudetenland was the most "pro-National Socialist" region in the Third Reich Hitler summoned President Hácha to Berlin and during the early hours of 15 March, informed Hácha of the imminent German invasion. Threatening a Luftwaffe attack on Prague, Hitler persuaded Hácha to order the capitulation of the Czechoslovak army. Hácha suffered a heart attack during the meeting, and had to be kept awake by medical staff, eventually giving in and accepting Hitler's surrender terms. Then on the morning of 15 March, German troops entered Bohemia and Moravia, meeting practically no resistance (the only instance of organized resistance took place in Místek where an infantry company commanded by Karel Pavlík fought invading German troops) It [Czechoslovakia] has also been condemned by its detractors as an artificial and unworkable creation of intellectuals supported by the great powers. [image]http://www.johndclare.net/images/map%20of%20versailles.jpg[/image] "At every stage of the appeasement process, from the earliest top secret meetings between the British and French, we understood exactly and in detail what was going on," Gen Sotskov said. "It was clear that appeasement would not stop with Czechoslovakia's surrender of the Sudetenland and that neither the British nor the French would lift a finger when Hitler dismembered the rest of the country." It was only two years later, following Hitler's Blitzkreig attack on Russia in June 1941, that the alliance with the West which Stalin had sought finally came about - by which time France, Poland and much of the rest of Europe were already under German occupation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html Its not too much more than a game of chess by interested parties, one move begets another. Its no secret that the treaty of versailles was set up to break germanys back. Then one set of inappropriate actions led to another all of which were sanctioned by Britain, France and Italy, Russia excepted.

Real0ne -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/21/2015 1:31:18 PM)
more: French Protest against Polish Police Terrors. "A wave of terror is sweeping Poland at this very moment. The Press can hardly breathe a word because it is gagged. [sounds very familiar] A police regime with all its horrors and its wild measures of oppression strangles the country. The prisons of the Republic to-day hold more than 3000 political criminals who are maltreated by their jailers, humiliated and beaten up with belts and sticks. The life they have to stand is such that in many prisons the inmates prefer death to the slow torture inflicted upon them." Paul Painlevé, Edouard Herriot, Léon Blum, Paul Boncour, Séverine, Romain Rolland, Victor Basch, Georges Pioch, Pierre Caron, Charles Richet, Aulard, Hadamard, Bouglé, F. Herold, Mathias Mornardt, Jean-Richard Bloch, Pierre Hamp, Charles Vildrac, Lucien Descaves, Henri Béraud, Michel Corday, Léon Bazalgette, Paul Colin, Albert Crémieux, Henri Marx, Paul Reboux, Noel Garnier. From: Protest against the terrorisation of minorities in Poland submitted by French politicians and men of letters, 1924. More than 58,000 [Germans] Dead and Missing were lost by the German minority in Poland during the days of their liberation from the Polish yoke, as far as can be ascertained at present. The Polish nation must for all time be held responsible for this appalling massacre consequent upon that Polish reign of terror. Up to November 17, 1939, the closing day for the documentary evidence contained in the first edition of this book, 5,437 murders, committed by members of the Polish armed forces and by Polish civilians on men, women and children of the German minority had already been irrefutably proved. It was quite apparent even then that the actual number of murders far exceeded this figure, and by February 1, 1940, the total number of identified bodies of the German minority had increased to 12,857. Official investigations carried out since the outbreak of the German-Polish war have shown that to these 12,857 killed there must be added more than 45,000 missing, all of whom must be accounted dead since no trace of them can be found. Thus the victims belonging to the German minority in Poland already now total over 58,000. Even this appalling figure by no means covers the sum total of the losses sustained by the German minority. There can be no doubt at all that investigations which are still being conducted will disclose many more thousand dead and wounded. The following description of the Polish atrocities which is not only confined to murders and mutilations but includes other deeds of violence such as maltreatment, rape, robbery and arson applies to only a small section of the terrible events for which irrefutable and official evidence is here established. SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND EXPLANATIONS The statement of the acts of atrocity committed on minority Germans in Poland is based on the following documentary evidence, the penal records of the Special Courts of Justice in Bromberg and Posen, the investigation files of the Special Police Commissions, the testimony of the medico-legal experts of the Health Inspection Department of the Military High Command, and the original records of the Military Commission attached to the Military High Command for the investigation of breaches of International Law. The documentary evidence concerning the individual cases of atrocity has been taken from the aforementioned files. The Special Courts of Justice set up at Bromberg and Posen are regular courts, their administration of justice being based on the Common Law of Germany and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Reich, and which deal with all cases in complete accordance with the principles of the German Penal Code. The legally justified confirmation of verdicts and the sworn statements of German as well as Polish witnesses have been used. These were taken from the records of these Special Courts of Justice up to the Nov. 15, 1939. The various Criminal Investigation Departments' reports, documents, and photographs, have been employed and taken from the files of the Special Commissions. Reproductions of statements, photographs and preserved specimens, as well as the collective memoranda representing a report on the result of the autopsy on the victims, were taken from the records of the medico-legal experts. The statements of eye-witnesses sworn and taken down before the military legal officials, have been taken mainly from the investigation files of the Army Investigation Department. These in turn are based upon extracts from the High Command's (Legal Dept.) book on this subject, issued in two volumes, "Polish Atrocities on minority Germans and Prisoners of War in Bromberg, Pless, Stopanica" (vol. 1) and "Polish Atrocities on minority Germans and Prisoners of War in the District and Province of Posen" (vol. 2) and in which the various statements are compiled. The records have been supplemented by accounts of personal experiences by individuals of the German minority arrested, ill-treated, and abducted, as well as by photographs of numerous atrocities on minority Germans, as perpetrated by soldiers of the Polish army and by Polish civilians (i. e. murders, mutilations, and arson). The photographs are genuine copies of snap shots taken of the actual victims, either beaten to death, shot dead, or mutilated, and taken on the spots where the victims were found and the crimes committed. Any pictures that could not be considered definitely authentic were rejected and not included in the collection. Attached are photographic reproductions of whole pages of "dead and missing" notices. These appeared daily for weeks, after those days of horror, in the Bromberg and Posen newspapers. [p. 10] In the text, the findings of the Military Investigation Department are cited with the reference No. W. R. I and W. R. II, those of the Special Courts with the reference No. Sd. K. Ls. or Sd. Is. with consecutive file numbers. Those resulting from the investigation of the Special Police Commission of the Criminal Police Office of the Reich are marked RKPA., and those of autopsy and post mortem findings with OKW. HS. In. Br. or P. The amount of material on atrocities was so great as to render it impossible to print the full text of the sworn statements in all cases. Some are printed in their original version. Others refer to the decisive position, as narrated by the eye-witnesses. For the same reason it was decided to omit the history of illness suffered by minority Germans, due to their serious injuries received during the marches they were forced to make through Poland. All this collection of facts is stored in the Protestant Deaconess Hospital of Posen and in the German Military Field Hospital and Municipal Hospital in Bromberg, and is open to any further investigation. Only a selection of the copious photographic material is used in this book. All the documents and proofs used in this collection of material are filed in the respective central offices in Berlin. This book deals exclusively with acts of violence committed by Poles on minority Germans. Further evidence of the Polish breaches of International and Military Law, in so far as it concerns the treatment of German prisoners of war and Germans killed in action, has been placed in safety elsewhere and has not been included in this book, as well as that of numerous acts of atrocity committed on minority Germans before the outbreak of war. The answer to this leads to the second force which influenced Poland from outside and allowed Poland to believe that all further consideration towards the German minority or the Reich could be dropped. This force was England, was the guarantee of assistance given by the British Government to Poland, and the British active influence to use Poland as a pawn to stimulate the British encirclement policy so thoroughly as to kindle the fires of war -- a war which had been prepared long beforehand, and was intentional, and which actually broke out in connection with Danzig and the Corridor. (1) The British Government must have known, having due regard to the temperamental national character and inclination to extremes of political megalomania, of the likewise anti-German propaganda carried on in the Press for years and worked up against Germany and the German minorities some months before the War to a definite state of aggressive bloodthirstiness. She must have known that her active interest in the warlike policy of Poland, backed up by the pact of assistance, would of necessity be the cause of national hatred, spreading like an epidemic and resulting in the most unbelievable and bloody outrages on German citizens. If the British Government had not realised the delirious effect on Poland of the pact of assistance which was responsible for the ghastly consequences, then it would appear that the extent of the bestiality of the Polish atrocities on Germans must prove England to be even more guilty of the bloodshed. Only he who moved amongst Poles during those decisive weeks could really measure the direct destructive effect of Chamberlain's guarantee of assistance on the Polish mentality and psychology. Without the blank cheque given by Great Britain to Poland the latter would never have so frivolously rejected the unique offer for compromise made by the Führer, as was made public in his speech in the Reichstag on April 28, 1939, or would Poland ever have started her war machinery or opened the doors to the Provincial governors' policy of extermination of the German minority. The German minority in Poland had long since been gagged and deprived of all rights (2). (2) The terrific losses caused to German interests in Poland during the Polish domination can be given in figures under the heading of emigration, expropriation, closing of German schools, as follows: up to the middle of 1939, 1.4 million Germans under the pressure of Polish officials had emigrated from Posen-West Prussia and from Upper Silesia. German settlers had lost 1,263,288 acres of land and of these 265,288 acres due to the one-sided Agrarian Reforms unilaterally applied against Germans, 998,000 acres due to cancellation and liquidation. Of the 657 public German minority schools in existence in 1925 (in 1927 only 498), only 185 were left at the beginning of the school year 1938/1939 (of these 150 in Posen-West Prussia and 35 in Upper Silesia). Thousands of German enterprises and independent German businesses had been systematically destroyed by cancellation of orders, boycott, by taxes rigorously calculated and even more vigorously applied, withdrawal of concessions, confiscation, and the refusal of permits for the purchase of land. http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Polish_Atrocities_intro.htm So anyone fancies themselves a ww2 historian care to explain why germany would or should allow this to happen without some kind of reprisal to defend german citizens, and why Britain would undermine talks where Hitler was proposing a compromise to maintain peace?

mnottertail -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/21/2015 2:14:00 PM)
LOL. So what? If such a EE-YUL EE-YUL was occurring, why Austria, Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia first? Were they rapin and killin heinies even faster than the Poles? asswipe. pure asswipe.

NorthernGent -> RE: Pearl Harbor Day (12/21/2015 3:01:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech On thesis I've seen that seems to hold a lot of water is that the U.S. most effective contribution to the war in Europe in both WWI and WWiI was to be the armory for the European allies. One good example that documents this relationship is the WWI "Winchester Enfield". When the U.S. got into WWi U.S. firearm companies had already been producing .303 Enfield rifles for the British war effort (The Pattern 1914 Rifle). It was child's play to re-chamber for the .30-06 round the U.S. Army used and the M1917 rifle was born. (5 round magazine bolt action with manlicher stock and elevating peep site. Made a great deer rifle.) For several years before U.S. got into either world war; the U.S. had been sending supplies and arms to Britain. Yes, some of the big money liberals were also sending engineering help and funds to Hitler at the same time. I think that underestimates the American contribution, certainly in WW2 and also certainly in WW1 in my opinion. As always, context is everything. When the Americans joined the war in 1917, the French had mutinied to the extent French soldiers refused to go on the offensive. At one point the British Army, and Empire forces, was the effectively the only allied fighting force in the field - and you have to remember that while the likes of Germany, France and Russia has huge professional armies, Britain didn't; and so it was a group of volunteer clerks, gardeners and cooks with limited training who were charged with taking the fight to the Germans. When the Germans broke through the British lines in March 1918 it was something like 60 odd of the best trained German divisions up against around 20 British divisions who you wouldn't class as professional soldiers - just about all of Britain's 100,000 professional soldiers were dead by spring 1915. So, the allies were more than pleased at the prospect of another million allied soldiers to share the burden. People had fought themselves to a standstill and the British Government refused to supply more men to the military - and so resources were wearing thin. It is true that the Americans didn't get involved in the fight as quickly as the British and French would have liked, but that was down to the Americans not being ready because like us it wasn't in your history and culture to have a large standing army, and also there was a spot of political manoeuvring to ensure the Americans were equipped to take their place at the table when negotiations came 'round - and who can blame them - no one is going to sacrifice anything unless there is something in it for them. The Germans were certainly worried about American intervention, naturally, because even then it was a country with huge resources; and they didn't take the decision lightly to employ what was seen to be underhand tactics in submarine warfare - they simply felt they had no way out as the British Navy was starving them to death. Without American money, the French wouldn't have been able to keep going. It wasn't borrowed to the French because they didn't have the credit rating we had, but we passed it on to them. I don't know a great deal about the American military during WW1 but I think they made a contribution but not in the British sector - they fought in the French sector. WW2 doesn't need a comment, suffice to say they did a lot more than supply armoured vehicles.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625