Why did WWII happen ?

[Brian Foley]

Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West Russia provided Western financiers and Industrialists with a region to exploit for its resources , cheap labour and investment . In 1917 revolution this lucrative market was lost . In between the wars the German industrial/financial complex , decided to take a gamble and invade Russia , this gamble they hoped would turn their fortunes around . Their plan was one of turning Russia into a colony for the personal benefit for exploitation of its industrial/financial complex . In 1933 the German industrial/financier complex installed the Nazis in power and put in place a rearmament plan . The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded . However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest . Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize . The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly , Germany did not invade Britain because it gave Germany an excuse to Russia as to why they placing troops in Romania to forestall any British invasion of the Balkans . June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . Now the American industrial/financier complex jumped in seeing that her two main rivals England and France was finished , they saw an opportunity to gain control of Western Europe . Dec 11 1941 Germany declared war on America , America instituted the lend lease on England , bankrupting this country and turning itself into a colony of American finance . US airpower turned Germany to dust while the armies of Germany were cannibalized in Russia at Yalta America allowed Russia Eastern Europe while America secured the Affluent West .

[Fenris Wolf]

Punctuation, laddie. Did they teach you nothing in school, Or is this the result of a small dose of goey?
Some sort of question or point at the end would also be useful.

[Spyke]

Lots of fantasy in that essay.

[path]

And to think I wasted all that time and money on books about WWII :p

[cosmictraveler]

Greed brought about the war. Not allowing Germany or Japan to sell their goods to forigen nations caused those nations to take drastic actions to let them sell their wares overseas as they wanted.

[Overdose]

One night Hitler's father said to his wife "Honey it is time to make a child" That's how everything started :D

WW 2 happened because of WW 1 and the Versailles agreement. The other reason for WW2 was democracy. The Germans tried democracy after they were defeated in the WW1 but the first years of democracy brought only high unemployment, inflation and unhappiness. Germans thought that democracy was the key problem and looked for a king again. A king who can rule them again.. And that King was Hitler. :rolleyes:

[spidergoat]

I feel a conspiracy theory in the making...

[Brian Foley]

Some sort of question or point at the end would also be useful.
The Question was "Why did WWII happen ? " and my thread was an explanation of my question .

[Brian Foley]

Lots of fantasy in that essay.
Such as ? .... please elaborate .

[Brian Foley]

Greed brought about the war. Not allowing Germany or Japan to sell their goods to forigen nations caused those nations to take drastic actions to let them sell their wares overseas as they wanted.
You are getting it all wars are fought over commercial markets hence my post .

[Brian Foley]

One night Hitler's father said to his wife "Honey it is time to make a child" That's how everything started :D

WW 2 happened because of WW 1 and the Versailles agreement. The other reason for WW2 was democracy. The Germans tried democracy after they were defeated in the WW1 but the first years of democracy brought only high unemployment, inflation and unhappiness. Germans thought that democracy was the key problem and looked for a king again. A king who can rule them again.. And that King was Hitler. :rolleyes:
A war fought for Democracy ! Yeah and santa Claus comes around once a year :rolleyes:

[invert_nexus]

A war fought for Democracy ! Yeah and santa Claus comes around once a year

I think you misunderstand. Hitler, who started WW2, was put in power by a people who felt that democracy was not working.

[Brian Foley]

No I think you mis-understand Hitler never was voted into power by the German people in any election he was installed by Hindenburg . The Nazi party never had more than 27% of the vote in Germany . The ruling class installed Hitler to forestall an inevitable socialist govt which would odf nationalized their interests .

[invert_nexus]

It's true that Hitler was not elected Chancellor by the people. He did have more than 27% of the vote though.

March 13, 1932 election results:
Hindenburg: 49.6%
Hitler: 30.1%
Thaelmann: 13.2%
Duesterberg: 6.8%

Since Hindenburg didn't have the absolute majority required, another election was held 1 month later.

April 10, 1932
Hindenburg: 53%
Hitler: 38%
Thaelmann: 10.2%
(Duesterberg dropped out and gave the nationalist vote to Hitler.)

But, that's nitpicking. Hitler was eventually placed into power by Hindenburg.

One can also look at the Reichstag elections. In the last free election held during Hitler's life, on March 5, 1933. The results were:

National Socialist: 43.9%
Social Democratic: 18.3%
Communist: 12.3%
Center: 11.7%
Nationalist: 8.0%
Bavarian People's: 2.7%
Other parties: 3.8%

The National Socialist and the Nationalist parties both wanted a totalitarian system. The Nazis wanted Hitler as the Leader, the Nationalists wanted a return to the Hohenzollern monarchy. Totalled they come up to 51.9% of the vote. But, again that's nitpicking.

I guess where the people really spoke up about what they wanted as a government was when the enabling act was passed on March 23, 1933. Before this vote, Hitler of course had whipped the country into a communist terror with the reichstag fire and arrested the communist reichstag members. That's 81 votes that wouldn't count. He also arrested a few Social Democrats. Both of which were illegal. But the vote came out 441 for, 84 (all social democrats) against. The people had spoken (except for the commies). Fascism was in. Hitler used guile and trickery to get this vote, but that's all fair game in a democracy.

It is interesting to note that Hindenburg expected Hitler to reinstate the monarchy after his death. Hitler decided that was not the way he wanted to go. I'd be willing to bet, that if an election were held to reinstate the monarchy at the time, the overwhelming majority of Germans would have voted to reinstate. They had been raised on stories of the glorious old days. It was their bread and butter. (or schnitzel and saurkraut) It took the utter defeat at the end of the war to cure them of this.

[Spyke]

Lots of fantasy in that essay.
”
Such as ? .... please elaborate .

Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West Russia provided Western financiers and Industrialists with a region to exploit for its resources , cheap labour and investment . In 1917 revolution this lucrative market was lost .

Western financiers did not own czarist Russia. Czarist Russia was pretty much closed off to the West. Most financiers in the West in the late 19th century/early 20th century were investing large amounts of money in the rapidly expanding western United States, or in colonies.

In between the wars the German industrial/financial complex , decided to take a gamble and invade Russia , this gamble they hoped would turn their fortunes around . Their plan was one of turning Russia into a colony for the personal benefit for exploitation of its industrial/financial complex . In 1933 the German industrial/financier complex installed the Nazis in power and put in place a rearmament plan . The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded . However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest .

Then why did Britain and France declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland, and Britain rush an expeditionary force to France? If the idea was just to 'sit behind the Maginot Line', why declare war and force Germany to react to it?

Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize . The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly ,

There was no Anglo/French plan for Germany to 'see through'. Britain and France declared war on Germany following its invasion of Poland, as they warned Germany they would, almost 2 years before the Germans invaded Russia. Warning Germany you will declare war hardly sounds like a plan to just sit back and let Germany and Russia beat each other up, especially since those two nations hadn't even come to blows yet. Your argument makes no sense.

Germany did not invade Britain because it gave Germany an excuse to Russia as to why they placing troops in Romania to forestall any British invasion of the Balkans . June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . Now the American industrial/financier complex jumped in seeing that her two main rivals England and France was finished , they saw an opportunity to gain control of Western Europe .

So then, why didn't the American industrial/financier complex gain control of Europe?

Dec 11 1941 Germany declared war on America , America instituted the lend lease on England , bankrupting this country and turning itself into a colony of American finance

Lend lease was in place several months before 11 December 1941, and it neither bankrupted Britain, nor did it turn it into a colony of American financiers. Lend Lease was more like a giveaway program. Initially the US gave 50 WW1 destroyers to Britain in exchange for bases, later the program gave war materials to Britain, Russia, China, and a few others, with Britain getting about 60%. Lend Lease totals were around $50 billion, of which about 20% wqas ever paid back. If Britain was bankrupted it was from fighting a 6 year war, not from Lend Lease.

US airpower turned Germany to dust while the armies of Germany were cannibalized in Russia at Yalta America allowed Russia Eastern Europe while America secured the Affluent West .

And? Are you saying the industrial/financial complex in America dictated this?

[Undecided]

Western financiers did not own czarist Russia. Czarist Russia was pretty much closed off to the West. Most financiers in the West in the late 19th century/early 20th century were investing large amounts of money in the rapidly expanding western United States, or in colonies.

There were very large amounts of western investment in Russia prior to 1914. The French had the most vested in Russia at the time, as did Germany. The Americans were sucking up much of the European investment, but that doesn't nullify the amount of money the West lost in Russia. The Soviets rejected to pay the massive loans that were taken out, and billions of dollars worth of investments in Russia were gone, I believe that France had about $2 billion invested in Russia at the time. (Billions today mean possibly hundreds of billions in today's money?). Russia was the China of her day essentially...and to lose that was quite a blow to the world economy.

[Spyke]

There were very large amounts of western investment in Russia prior to 1914. The French had the most vested in Russia at the time, as did Germany.

That's true. The French had virtually all of the Western investments in Russia. US investors were mainly investing in its own West, and in Latin America and after the turn of the turn of the century, in Asia. The bulk of Britain's money was in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The French loaned money to the czar for his miliatry and the railroads. But even so, I remember reading an article in the last couple of years where APFER, the French stockholders association had recently sued the Russian government trying to recover the money it said was owed it when the Bolsheviks forfeited on the debt in 1917. The figure was roughly $3 billion. Even if that's not an inflated figure, the amount we're talking about are hardly enough to make the claim that...

Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West

Certainly the czar was using France to help modernize, but the West did not own czarist Russia.

[Undecided]

The French had virtually all of the Western investments in Russia.

I wouldn't characterize it to that level, but the French did have a lot. I have some stats which are almost impossible to find on the net:

FDI in Russia in 1914:

France: $2.4b
Germany: $400m
UK: $550m

Russia had $500m invested overseas, Russia's industrialization was financed with Western capital, and thus the West essentially did own Russian industry. Russian GDP in 1913 was $232b compared to $237b of Germany concurrently. Russia was the world's third largest economy behind the US and Germany the UK being fourth. The loss of that much capital to the capitalist economy obviously was going to make many people angry, but I don't think to the point of war. Then we forget the loans given to Russia during the war which were not repaid.

West did not own czarist Russia.

In which sense? That's the question...

[Lemming3k]

The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly.
It wasnt particularly unexpected, after all they did sign a pact with russia over poland so they werent going to break that until france was out of the way.

[Brian Foley]

Western financiers did not own czarist Russia. Czarist Russia was pretty much closed off to the West. Most financiers in the West in the late 19th century/early 20th century were investing large amounts of money in the rapidly expanding western United States, or in colonies.
Yes they did the Nobel Family of Sweden owned the caucusus oil industry , German and British industrial interests controlled the Ukrainian coal/iron fields . French finance literally kept Czarist Russia afloat in other words it was a goldmine for the affluent Western European interests .
Then why did Britain and France declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland, and Britain rush an expeditionary force to France? If the idea was just to 'sit behind the Maginot Line', why declare war and force Germany to react to it?
Britain and France were the main continental powers they always saw Germany as the threat these 2 nations were just going through the motions . It would of looked suspicious if these 2 nations did nothing . Why didnt France and Britain invade Germany straight away as well they could of ? Why was no aid sent to Poland ? Why was the Anglo/Franco military expedition too Norway halfhearted ? They really believed Germany wouldnt risk an assault on the formidable Maginot line and risk a WWI bloodfest thats why . So they said well we will sit back give the Germans the impression we wont do anything , let them invade russia and at some opportune time we will jump in .
There was no Anglo/French plan for Germany to 'see through'. Britain and France declared war on Germany following its invasion of Poland, as they warned Germany they would, almost 2 years before the Germans invaded Russia. Warning Germany you will declare war hardly sounds like a plan to just sit back and let Germany and Russia beat each other up, especially since those two nations hadn't even come to blows yet. Your argument makes no sense.
If the British and French which were at that time the worlds 2 eminent military/industrial powers said nothing it would of came off as strange . Why did they allow Germany to install such a militant govt ? Why was Germany allowed to Re-arm ? Why didnt they attack Germany when they entered the Saar region ? When Germany invaded Austria ? Invaded Czechoslovakia ? Get real this is carte blanche .
So then, why didn't the American industrial/financier complex gain control of Europe?
They did the US by denying under the Yalta agreement affluent industrialized Western Europe its traditional backyard of investment Eastern Europe then West Europe became reliant on the US market . Have you noticed since 1989 with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc that now Western Europe has the Eastern part back it is now eclipsing America as the premier world economic power .
Lend lease was in place several months before 11 December 1941, and it neither bankrupted Britain, nor did it turn it into a colony of American financiers. Lend Lease was more like a giveaway program. Initially the US gave 50 WW1 destroyers to Britain in exchange for bases, later the program gave war materials to Britain, Russia, China, and a few others, with Britain getting about 60%. Lend Lease totals were around $50 billion, of which about 20% wqas ever paid back. If Britain was bankrupted it was from fighting a 6 year war, not from Lend Lease.
Lend lease only became available only when Britain had no other way of paying for US goods as all her dollar , gold reserves and other assets were sold to the US at a considerable loss . So in order to pay for lend lease Britain had to borrow from the US to pay for it Britain ended the war owing the US $21,358 million .
And? Are you saying the industrial/financial complex in America dictated this?
Thats my theory I have put forward and I think it stands up to scrutiny .

[Brian Foley]

One can also look at the Reichstag elections. In the last free election held during Hitler's life, on March 5, 1933. The results were:

National Socialist: 43.9%
Social Democratic: 18.3%
Communist: 12.3%
Center: 11.7%
Nationalist: 8.0%
Bavarian People's: 2.7%
Other parties: 3.8%


That 43.9% included parties allied with the nazis but you are right still the nazis could of been prevented from taking power . You have too ask yourself why hand power to the Nazis ? or more imporatntly which segment in socirty benefited the most from a Nazi govt ? The industrial/financier segment of course .

[StarOfEight]

WWII happened because Germany, Japan, and Italy were pissed with the post-Versailles world order. Russia was also pissed, but given the immense casualities they suffered in the First World War, as well as the brutal, incoherent Civil War, were less willing to seek redress through conflict.

[Brian Foley]

@StarOfEight
No WWII was a good old fashioned classic scenario of capitalist/imperialist nations setting one another up , bickering over consumer markets and strategic outflanking of one another . That is what all wars are fought over pure and simple The control of MARKETS !

[invert_nexus]

If you're saying that Germany was the capitalist/imperialist nation in question then you're absolutely right. WW2 was caused by Germany invading Poland. The nations which you are trying to disparage bent over backwards trying to avoid war. They let Germany have the Ruhr, Austria, and Czechoslavakia. Hitler thought they would let him have Poland as well. Error of judgement on his part.

Hitler's original plans for war was supposed to begin around 1945. By this time, Germany's navy would be up to par and the course of the war might have been different.

[Spyke]

Yes they did the Nobel Family of Sweden owned the caucusus oil industry ,

True, the Nobel brothers were heavily involved at Baku, and it was rumored Rockefeller bought in, but still the czar maintained ownership of 90% of the land around Baku.

French finance literally kept Czarist Russia afloat in other words it was a goldmine for the affluent Western European interests .

Numbers have already been shown above of the amounts. Westerners had vested interests in czarist Russia, but hardly owned it.

Britain and France were the main continental powers they always saw Germany as the threat these 2 nations were just going through the motions . It would of looked suspicious if these 2 nations did nothing . Why didnt France and Britain invade Germany straight away as well they could of ?

For one, Britain was in no position to attack Germany. For that matter, the French army was overrated as far as what it was geared to do. Since 1932 the French army had been governed by a succession of 19 different governments. Since 1925 its role had been geared to national defense, unsuited to "adventures and conquest." It was not designed to go on the offensive on a massive scale. Almost half of France's infantry divisions were in North Africa on the Mareth Line. There were actually more divisons along the Alpine line, guarding the border with Italy and Spain, than there were along the Maginot Line. France lagged far behind Germany in armored divisons and light mechanized divisions. And the Luftwaffe was superior to Allied air power.

Why was no aid sent to Poland ?

No time. Poland fell quicker than either Britain or Germany could mobilize. Remember, right up until Hitler invaded ambassadors were meeting in Rome at the 5 power conference and Hitler was giving assurances that he was trying to diplomatically solve the issues with Poland.

Why was the Anglo/Franco military expedition too Norway halfhearted ?

It was as much as they could put together at the time.

They really believed Germany wouldnt risk an assault on the formidable Maginot line and risk a WWI bloodfest thats why .

Really? In the early days of the assault on Poland there had been talk in the French high command of trying to get the Balkan states to create a new front under French leadership. Both Weygand and Gamelin thought that while it would be nice to have Germany occupied on several fronts, they thought it a bad idea because, as Gamelin himself said, soon the Germans would be assaulting the Western Front, which indicates most of the top military leadership realized that the Germans would turn west.

So they said well we will sit back give the Germans the impression we wont do anything , let them invade russia and at some opportune time we will jump in .

Neither the French or the British were able to mobilize in the 3 weeks time that Germany overran its half of Poland. France had a war plan to attack the Germans in the event of an invasion, but the French didn't believe Hitler's prediction that Poland could be conquered that fast. And certainly neither the Poles of the French calculated the deal made between Stalin and Hitler to divvy up Poland. The Red Army invading Poland from the east was a stab in the back to Poland and ended any realistic shot of the Allies aiding the Poles. But the French didn't completely sit back.

The French did initiate Operation 'Saar' and assaulted the Siegfried Line, but again, the French army, at least on the homefront, was not geared to offensive action, and was repelled along the line. The Saar region, between the Rhine and Moselle, was tough to invade. It was prepped after the defeat of Napoleon to make future French assaults difficult, and the Germans held all the advantages. French artillery, much of which was still WW1-issue rounds, proved ineffective on the line.

If the British and French which were at that time the worlds 2 eminent military/industrial powers said nothing it would of came off as strange . Why did they allow Germany to install such a militant govt ? Why was Germany allowed to Re-arm ?[quote]

In part because France and Russia sign the Franco-Soviet pact in 1935, after Hitler declared that would void the Locarno treaty. Also because much of Germany's rearming and training had been conducted secretly in Russia. Stalin was playing both sides.

[quote]Why didnt they attack Germany when they entered the Saar region ?

Do you mean the Rhineland in 1936? Obviously the somewhat pacific governments in Britain and France turned their heads. However, under the terms of the Locarno treaty the Allies were supposed to evacuate the region by 1930 if the Germans promised not to militarize it. In 1933 Hitler promised as much. Following the Franco-Soviet pact when the Germans declared the Locarno treaty voided they marched into the Rhineland. Should France have opposed it? In hindsight, yes. But France, like everyone else, had bigger problems going on at the time to worry about the Rhineland.

When Germany invaded Austria ? Invaded Czechoslovakia ? Get real this is carte blanche .

Well, Austria was not invaded. Htiler merely threatened to invade if the Austrian Nazi party was not legalized and given a major role in the government. The Allies could do little about politics in Austria. As far as Czechoslovakia, Hitler claimed that the almost 3 million ethnic Germans in the Sudentenland diaspora wanted to be reunified with Germany. Propaganda played a role here. Those in the Sudentenland were portrayed as oppressed, and a pro-German political party in the region pressed for unification with Germany. Hitler convinced the Allies that once he united Germans with Germany he was through. In hindsight we see their mistakes.

They did the US by denying under the Yalta agreement affluent industrialized Western Europe its traditional backyard of investment Eastern Europe then West Europe became reliant on the US market . Have you noticed since 1989 with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc that now Western Europe has the Eastern part back it is now eclipsing America as the premier world economic power .

The only alternative was to not institute the Marshall Plan and allow Europe to remain in chaos and anarchy, which would have given Moscow an excuse to intevene on behalf of the communist movements in each of those western European states. The West had just defeated one totalitarian state in Europe. It was not going to just hand Europe over to a different one after fighting a war.

Lend lease only became available only when Britain had no other way of paying for US goods as all her dollar , gold reserves and other assets were sold to the US at a considerable loss . So in order to pay for lend lease Britain had to borrow from the US to pay for it Britain ended the war owing the US $21,358 million .

As I said above, the US gave away about $50 billion in military arms. Britain received the bulk of that aid, about 60%, or roughly $30 billion. That $21,358 million you quote is pittance compared to what they received. As I stated earlier, only about 20% of that $50 billion was ever paid back to the US, so Lend Lease was not designed for US financiers to feed off of the Allies. It was literally a government giveaway program.

Thats my theory I have put forward and I think it stands up to scrutiny .

I would not go so far as to deny that economics play a role in driving foreign policy, often a major role, but the theory as you put forward, that every move the Allies made in the lead up to the war was dictated by an industrial/financial complex is pure speculation, and most of your claims are easily disputed.

[StarOfEight]

@StarOfEight
No WWII was a good old fashioned classic scenario of capitalist/imperialist nations setting one another up , bickering over consumer markets and strategic outflanking of one another . That is what all wars are fought over pure and simple The control of MARKETS !

That's right. Capitalism is the source of all the world's misery. Certainly, there was no war before the Industrial or Agricultural Revolutions. Certainly, Communist states are a paradise on earth. Certainly, badly paraphrased Lenin is an adequate argument.

[Brian Foley]

True, the Nobel brothers were heavily involved at Baku, and it was rumored Rockefeller bought in, but still the czar maintained ownership of 90% of the land around Baku.Numbers have already been shown above of the amounts. Westerners had vested interests in czarist Russia, but hardly owned it.
No the Nobels controlled the Russian oil industry ! Russian economic life was totally dominated by the affluent west obviously the land was owned by the Russians but not its economy .
For one, Britain was in no position to attack Germany. For that matter, the French army was overrated as far as what it was geared to do. Since 1932 the French army had been governed by a succession of 19 different governments. Since 1925 its role had been geared to national defense, unsuited to "adventures and conquest." It was not designed to go on the offensive on a massive scale. Almost half of France's infantry divisions were in North Africa on the Mareth Line. There were actually more divisons along the Alpine line, guarding the border with Italy and Spain, than there were along the Maginot Line. France lagged far behind Germany in armored divisons and light mechanized divisions. And the Luftwaffe was superior to Allied air power.
Agreed Spyke my theory on the Anglo/Franco gamble was that they counted on Germany not risking an invasion in the West .
No time. Poland fell quicker than either Britain or Germany could mobilize. Remember, right up until Hitler invaded ambassadors were meeting in Rome at the 5 power conference and Hitler was giving assurances that he was trying to diplomatically solve the issues with Poland.
They had plenty of time they knew Germany was going to invade months before Britain/France had been warning Germany not to invade since the start of 1939 .
Really? In the early days of the assault on Poland there had been talk in the French high command of trying to get the Balkan states to create a new front under French leadership. Both Weygand and Gamelin thought that while it would be nice to have Germany occupied on several fronts, they thought it a bad idea because, as Gamelin himself said, soon the Germans would be assaulting the Western Front, which indicates most of the top military leadership realized that the Germans would turn west.
Generals follow orders they do not implement policy again this inaction you pointed out is a telling sign that the Anglo/franco ruling establishment were not going too impede Germanys military progress in Poland . As Poland was needed by Germany for a springboard to invade Russia .
Neither the French or the British were able to mobilize in the 3 weeks time that Germany overran its half of Poland. France had a war plan to attack the Germans in the event of an invasion, but the French didn't believe Hitler's prediction that Poland could be conquered that fast. And certainly neither the Poles of the French calculated the deal made between Stalin and Hitler to divvy up Poland. The Red Army invading Poland from the east was a stab in the back to Poland and ended any realistic shot of the Allies aiding the Poles. But the French didn't completely sit back.
Come on mate that is naieve Britain had been rearming since 1936 France had 2 million men under arms they built the maginot line for petes sake those 2 nations were fully prepared for conflict . The Nazi/Soviet deal was ' buy time ' for both Russia and Germany . The Russians knew the attack was coming and Germany needed space to deal with france and Britain . Dont forget Russia approached Britain and France to work out a plan to deal with Germany in the early 30's , France and Britain wouldnt deal with Russia . So in 1934 Russia began prepaing for war that early ! Moving factories behind the Urals , rearming etc . Read Khruschevs memoirs Khruschev remembers he gives a good account about pre barbarossa .
The only alternative was to not institute the Marshall Plan and allow Europe to remain in chaos and anarchy, which would have given Moscow an excuse to intevene on behalf of the communist movements in each of those western European states. The West had just defeated one totalitarian state in Europe. It was not going to just hand Europe over to a different one after fighting a war.
The West had the A-Bomb Russia didnt and the West had the Strategic Airpower Russia didnt ! They could of driven the Soviet army back to the Urals ....Why didnt they ? Go figure .
As I said above, the US gave away about $50 billion in military arms. Britain received the bulk of that aid, about 60%, or roughly $30 billion. That $21,358 million you quote is pittance compared to what they received. As I stated earlier, only about 20% of that $50 billion was ever paid back to the US, so Lend Lease was not designed for US financiers to feed off of the Allies. It was literally a government giveaway program.
$21,358 million is the sum Britain owed after the war a huge sum then and considering Britain before the war was a creditor nation with huge monetary/imperial assets/gold reserves etc . That was some looting by the US !
I would not go so far as to deny that economics play a role in driving foreign policy, often a major role, but the theory as you put forward, that every move the Allies made in the lead up to the war was dictated by an industrial/financial complex is pure speculation, and most of your claims are easily disputed.
Far from it if nations really went to war over freedom Israel would of been targeted long ago . Why did Spain conquer South America ? Gold and rubber ! Why did Britain and France aquire vast empires ? For commercial gain ! What was the opium wars fought over ? Britain controlling a lucrative market ! What did Britain and Holland fight 3 wars over ? control over the lucrative Spice Island trade ! As for my claims being easily disputed all you have done is try and justify why Britain and France dawdled , I say they deliberately dawdled afterall what was Poland to them !

[Brian Foley]

That's right. Capitalism is the source of all the world's misery. Certainly, there was no war before the Industrial or Agricultural Revolutions. Certainly, Communist states are a paradise on earth. Certainly, badly paraphrased Lenin is an adequate argument.
2000 years before the Industrial Revolution Rome accrued through conquest a vast empire based on trade and finance sought lays waste your lame argument .

[Spyke]

No the Nobels controlled the Russian oil industry ! Russian economic life was totally dominated by the affluent west obviously the land was owned by the Russians but not its economy .

Then show me some evidence of it. Europeans invested heavily in the American West in the 2nd half of the 19th century, so much that the Congress attempted to pass laws that anyone who invested had to be, or become, a US citizen, so would you say the European industrial/financier complex controlled the US?

Agreed Spyke my theory on the Anglo/Franco gamble was that they counted on Germany not risking an invasion in the West .

You're correct. Until Poland was invaded most Frenchmen and Brits likely believed, or at least wanted to believe, that Hitler was doing no more than reuniting all German territories and people lost after WW1, but the invasion of Poland certainly changed that.

They had plenty of time they knew Germany was going to invade months before Britain/France had been warning Germany not to invade since the start of 1939 .

They didn't know anything for certain, and they had been in negotiations with Germany with Hitler giving full assurances that he wanted to solve the issues with Poland diplomatically. Going to full mobilization early was an extreme risk. It had also been French and Russian mobilization in 1914 that caused Germany to mobilize and strike first. But Hitler and Stalin signing the Pact of Steel was a blow to the Allies. Had Stalin backed the Allies, as many thought he would, events might have gone differently. Before the Pact, it was assumed by the Brits and French that the Soviets would react to a German invasion of Poland, since it was on Russia's doorstep. But with the pact between the two, the Allies had no reason to assume that Germany was invading Poland as a stepping stone to Russia, since they were divvying the state up between them. Or if he was, it would be sometime in the future.

Generals follow orders they do not implement policy again this inaction you pointed out is a telling sign that the Anglo/franco ruling establishment were not going too impede Germanys military progress in Poland . As Poland was needed by Germany for a springboard to invade Russia .

Obviously the French would prefer Germany, if it became aggressive, to turn East rather than West. But the non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin changed that thinking. Now the Allies had to consider Hitler turning West, particularly if they declared war on Germany once the invasion of Poland started. And Hitler considered Britain Germany's main enemy. They had to understand that aiding Poland would invite and attack on the West.

Come on mate that is naieve Britain had been rearming since 1936 France had 2 million men under arms they built the maginot line for petes sake those 2 nations were fully prepared for conflict .

Come on mate that is naieve Britain had been rearming since 1936 France had 2 million men under arms they built the maginot line for petes sake those 2 nations were fully prepared for conflict .

The French army was vastly over-rated in 1939. Read de Gaulle's accounts of his frustrations during the 30s. German armor and air power, two important aspects of land war, were far superior to the French. Not to mention that the Wermacht was designed for offensive warfare and the french army was not. And the French army still had not improved the mobilization process from WW1 levels. And in 1939 they had no concept of the speed of the blitzkrieg and how quickly Poland would fall.

The Nazi/Soviet deal was ' buy time ' for both Russia and Germany . The Russians knew the attack was coming and Germany needed space to deal with france and Britain . Dont forget Russia approached Britain and France to work out a plan to deal with Germany in the early 30's , France and Britain wouldnt deal with Russia . So in 1934 Russia began prepaing for war that early ! Moving factories behind the Urals , rearming etc . Read Khruschevs memoirs Khruschev remembers he gives a good account about pre barbarossa .

That's true, and nobody thought it would come before 1945 at the earliest, including most of the German High Command. But I'm still trying to figure out how all this is being dictated by the Western industrial/financier complex.

The West had the A-Bomb Russia didnt and the West had the Strategic Airpower Russia didnt ! They could of driven the Soviet army back to the Urals ....Why didnt they ? Go figure .

Russian airpower was not a throwaway. Russian factories produced a massive air army during the war, and some quality planes. They used their air power similar to the Germans, blitzkrieg style, with air power working with armored assaults, as opposed to the saturation bombing adopted by the Americans and British. Advantage probably to the Americans, but they certainly would have not had undisputed control of the skies.

The US didn't have a warehouse full of A-bombs at its disposal. The only two already built were both used in Japan, and US documents showing conversations between Truman and others showed it could have been anywhere between 'several weeks' and '6 months' before the next one could be ready. And Stalin's spies kept him informed of the US' atomic program. Meanwhile the Red Army had almost 250 divisions in Europe, while the US had 77, many of which were newly arrived with no little to no combat experience. Even if the US could have driven the Soviets out of Eastern Europe, the costs in American lives in doing so would have been staggering, and after the defeats of Japand and Germany, Americans wanted the soldiers home.

Far from it if nations really went to war over freedom Israel would of been targeted long ago . Why did Spain conquer South America ? Gold and rubber ! Why did Britain and France aquire vast empires ? For commercial gain ! What was the opium wars fought over ? Britain controlling a lucrative market ! What did Britain and Holland fight 3 wars over ? control over the lucrative Spice Island trade !

I've never disputed that nations don't fight over economic competition. Nations rarely go to war if it doesn't suit their interests, and generally we're talking about economic interests. But my dispute with you in this thread is your assumption that every move the West made during WW2 was a claculated move controlled by the industrial/financier complex. Sometimes they are against war. Those who controlled the sugar industry in the US in 1898, which was lucrative, were against the US going to war with Spain over Cuba because of the risk of upsetting the sugar market.

As for my claims being easily disputed all you have done is try and justify why Britain and France dawdled , I say they deliberately dawdled afterall what was Poland to them !

If you're going to present it as fact then show some proof of it. All you've done is make the claim it is so.

I say they deliberately dawdled afterall what was Poland to them !

And I say they didn't. But if Poland meant little why did France maintain its 1921 treaty with Poland, and why did Chamberlain in early 1939 give Poland assurances of military assistance if Germany invaded? What would Britain have to gain by risking war with Germany by declaring it would aid Poland? If what you claim were true, Britain could simply have sat back and not make any guarantees to Poland.

[invert_nexus]

What's funny about the invasion of Poland is that if the League of Nations had had any balls, they could have finished Germany right there. Hitler had only a token force guarding the western border. Practically all the German troops were engaged with Poland. If France and England had cared to, they could have marched all the way to Berlin.

The same goes for the Rhineland, Hitler sent in a minimal force* and the French turned tail and ran. If Hitler had been denied his first plum, it might have stopped him from being so bold. (*According to Jodl's testimony at Nuremberg, only three battalions crossed the Rhine, and only one division was employed in the occupation of the entire territory. Allied intelligence estimates were higher at three divisions. Hitler commented later, "The fact was, I had only four brigades.")

This just goes to show the general attitude of the times. Europe (except for Germany and Italy) was still war-weary from WWI. Peace at any cost was the order of the day. Even at the end, Chamberlain thought he could still forge peace from a dismal situation. He thought he would be hailed as a hero for his actions. I think history has given him a different flavor.

[Brian Foley]

Then show me some evidence of it.
France subsidized the pre-World War I industrialization of Czarist Russia (and the pre-World War I luxury of the court and expansion of the military) by making investments in Russian government and railroad bonds http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Gold8.html
There are two stories of Russian Oil. The story of stocks and bonds and paper control, which goes on in Paris and London with occasional episodes at San Remo, Genoa and The Hague; and the story of workers and engineers in Baku, who never saw a stock or a bond. They are stories of two different worlds, and to each of them the other world is unreal and unknown. The repeated, bitter demand from America and England for the recognition of "private property" in Russia has much to do with Russian Oil. Private property is quite secure to-day in Russia; and even regarding the foreign property damaged in the past, Russia offered at Genoa to discuss compensation for all foreigners who had actually lost money by her revolution. The foreign diplomats refused this basis of settlement; they demanded, not "compensation for losses," but complete return of properties.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1925/first_time/ch05.htm
The only catch was that Russian dependence on French capital led the czarist government to heed advice from Paris — for example, about how many rail lines to build from Moscow to the Prussian borderhttp://www.wehaitians.com/the%20true%20cost%20of%20hegemony%20huge%20debt.ht ml
If you're going to present it as fact then show some proof of it. All you've done is make the claim it is so.
I stated clearly Russias lack of strategic airpower and nuclear weapons even Stalin said Russia couldnt beat America yet you still argue the point . Russia was almost annihilated in an apocalyptic attack Russia was in no shape to fight on . All you have to do is read Khruschev remembers vol 1 all of what I said is reaffirmed there . Russia was devasted economically ! Fact ? I put together a plausible scenario all you seem to be doing is offering up excuses for allied inaction.
And I say they didn't. But if Poland meant little why did France maintain its 1921 treaty with Poland, and why did Chamberlain in early 1939 give Poland assurances of military assistance if Germany invaded? What would Britain have to gain by risking war with Germany by declaring it would aid Poland? If what you claim were true, Britain could simply have sat back and not make any guarantees to Poland.
Precisely France and England had a vested interest in keeping their main economic rival Germany bottled up thats what led to WWI . But that was 1921 Poland had tried unsuccessfully to invade Russia . Germany and Russia have always vied for control of Poland that nation is a buffer between those two . All the belligerent promises to Poland in 1939 was window dressing , why didnt France and Britain go in with Stalin and stop Hitler dead in 1938 ? Again read Khruschev remembers a whole chapter devoted to that episode .
Why did britain and France aid Nazi allie Finland against the Soviet attack ? Believe me Russia knew as far back as 1933 with the advent of belligerent Nazism that the plutocratic rulers of Germany were going to take another crack at them .

[Soil Puzzled]

Britain and France were the main continental powers they always saw Germany as the threat these 2 nations were just going through the motions . It would of looked suspicious if these 2 nations did nothing . Why didnt France and Britain invade Germany straight away as well they could of ? Why was no aid sent to Poland ? Why was the Anglo/Franco military expedition too Norway halfhearted ? They really believed Germany wouldnt risk an assault on the formidable Maginot line and risk a WWI bloodfest thats why . So they said well we will sit back give the Germans the impression we wont do anything , let them invade russia and at some opportune time we will jump in .

I ah, disagree.

England and France did help the Poles, and they declared war because of the poles... They had broken one alliance with cezes, and they weren't about to do it again...

I do agree that they thought that the Germans wouldn't assult France, but it was pretty obvious that it was going to... If the Maginot line had been exteneded, it wouldn't have done much anyway... It wasn't heavy enough, and long ranged bombers would've ripped it apart. The "lighting war" is very different from Trench warfare, and a Maginot wouldn't have done anything...

And France had a pitiful offensive military, no way to grab Germany, much less Russia. And the visigoths are allies of the Germans, no, France invading Germany is no no way.

And England invading Germany is even farther fetched... They had barely came out of the depression and Germany was the strongest country on the mainland militarily...

[invert_nexus]

Brian,

You have to take into consideration the change in warfare that the Nazi's brought to the world. The blitzkrieg. Air support. The other powers were still stuck in the past. The Maginot Line was engineered to stop assaults from WWI era battle strategies. Remember the sadly comical image of the Poles sending out their cavalry against the Panzers? WWII reshaped the way battles were waged. And they were obviously good tactics, we still use them today. More or less.

There was no way for England or France to come to the defense of Poland, other than an outright invasion of Germany (which I mentioned above, most likely would have succeeded easily. Hindsight 20/20). The strategy used to balance Europe in those days, was England and France on one side, Russia on the other. When Stalin signed the nonaggression pact, that sealed Poland's doom.

It is true that Stalin woke to the German threat before the west, and that he signed the nonaggression pact after failing to alert the west. And there is no way of determining true inner motivations of the leaders at the time. But I think that they truly thought it would never come to war. Hitler seemed a reasonable fellow. A little kooky sometimes, but mostly harmless. Was it the French that did the sieg heil in the olympics? :p

In fact, Hitler hung his hopes on the west's disgust of communism. He figured that they would be happy to let him swallow eastern europe and attack Russia. He would probably be right, if there weren't all the little countries in the way. (which is why they were put there to begin with, isn't it?)

France had strong treaties with Poland. It's my understanding that Chamberlain actually was ready to let Germany have Poland. With the admonition of "Ok, Hitler, just one more..." again. But France refused, they had finally woken up. They declared war, then England had to back her up. Chamberlain was made a fool in this last round of diplomacy, by the way. If it were his plan to let Germany do it's thing, why would his humiliation be part of it?

[Soil Puzzled]

It is true that Stalin woke to the German threat before the west, and that he signed the nonaggression pact after failing to alert the west. And there is no way of determining true inner motivations of the leaders at the time. But I think that they truly thought it would never come to war. Hitler seemed a reasonable fellow. A little kooky sometimes, but mostly harmless. Was it the French that did the sieg heil in the olympics?

I diagree. Stalin knew that Hitler would invade, he was mobolizing and preparing. The pact with Hitler helped him instead of harming him. He invaded the north eastern countries as well, that meant that he would have more access to his valuable resources, he would'nt have done it without that pact with Hitler. Also to note: Mien Kamph. Destruction and slavery of the slavic people anyone? Stalin wasn't about to ignore Hitler...

[invert_nexus]

When Germany did attack Russia, it took days to convince Stalin that it wasn't a mistake. He couldn't believe it. He, in fact, retreated to his estate and waited for the hard-liners to come over and finish him off once he realized that he had made such a costly mistake. He would have done it in their place. The russian army was annihalated that first year. (at least what forces they had in the west, I'm a bit hazy here, the majority of their forces might have been in the east to deal with Japan or dealing with internal matters) If it hadn't been for Hitler cleaning up Greece after Mussolini's debacle, Russia would have fallen that first year (most likely). A month's delay found German troops within sight of Moscow when the rains began. It took time for Russia to rebuild (or move) the army. The russian defense after this was mostly (shit, what's the word? the civilian insurgency).

And about Mein Kampf, I doubt if Stalin ever read it. And if he did, he probably put much of it down as propaganda, Stalin used these techniques himself. Also, although it is clear that the Nazi's were anti-communist, they are National Socialists. It's possible that Stalin thought, much like the rest of the world, that Hitler would come around. Hitler could be quite charming when he needed to be.

Even so, it is certain that Stalin was preparing, but not fast enough. It takes time to do all these things. It's hard to create an army in a few short years unless absolutely needed, like invasion or something.

As I said before, hindsight is 20/20. All these people had other things on their minds than Germany. Hitler did amazing things lifting Germany from depression to war-readiness in such a short time. (His navy was deficient though. That's an area that can't be hurried easily.) People just weren't able to see everything clearly. The desire for peace clouded their vision.

[Brian Foley]

You have to take into consideration the change in warfare that the Nazi's brought to the world. The blitzkrieg. Air support. The other powers were still stuck in the past
Thats beside the point how each side estimated each other is immaterial . Britain and France thought they were onto a safe bet they took a gamble and lost .
There was no way for England or France to come to the defense of Poland, other than an outright invasion of Germany
Both Britain and france could of began immediate offensive opeartions against Germany remember France and England had been in an arming themselves since 1936 . Both countries had 10 aircraft carriers and very large airforces .
France had strong treaties with Poland. It's my understanding that Chamberlain actually was ready to let Germany have Poland. With the admonition of "Ok, Hitler, just one more..." again. But France refused, they had finally woken up. They declared war, then England had to back her up. Chamberlain was made a fool in this last round of diplomacy, by the way. If it were his plan to let Germany do it's thing, why would his humiliation be part of it?
That proves to you there alone with Chamberlain that some other parallaell govt was pulling the strings . Namely the Bristish Financial/Industrial complex .
When Germany did attack Russia, it took days to convince Stalin that it wasn't a mistake. He couldn't believe it. He, in fact, retreated to his estate and waited for the hard-liners to come over and finish him off once he realized that he had made such a costly mistake
That doesnt stack up if Russia had been preparing for a German invasion since 1934 why would Stalin be taken by surprise . I have raed that in many books about Stalins behaviour yet not one source can be verified . In the West we have been given an "official history " of WWII nice and tidy . The official story goes madman on the loose wants to conquer the world and destroy democracy and we in the free west stopped him . That to me is far to simplistic I believe my version is a lot more sensible concerning the nations involved in that conflict all had belligerent imperial histories .

[invert_nexus]

Thats beside the point how each side estimated each other is immaterial...
I don't see how Germany reshaped war is at all irrelevant to the discussion. It's central to the motivations of all the parties. The west was lax in it's surety that Germany would not be able to penetrate the Maginot Line. This new war made the Maginot line irrelevant. The west was sure that it would take more time for Germany to take Poland. The new type of war got it done fast. The west was basing it's strategy on outdated methods.

Both Britain and france could of began immediate offensive opeartions against Germany...
I've already explained this. They could have and would have had they known Hitler had his armies massed to attack Poland, virtually abandoning the defense of his land from the west. Look at it this way, it was a poker game and Hitler outbluffed them all. The west couldn't believe that Germany was undefended. And it wouldn't have been if the generals had maintained control of the army, but Hitler had pretty much taken it away from them by this time. His decision was reckless, but it paid off. Remember that the military establishment in Europe was like a club. There were standard tactics that could be expected for them to follow. Hitler wasn't in the club. He used his own tactics. He was a bug in the ear of military protocol.

And you can blame the west for Hitler getting such a tight grip of the army, as well. When he first began his power, the military could take him out anytime they wished. He was somewhat subordinate. Their field was war, and he had to follow their lead. But, after the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslavakia the generals had advised against some of these. In some cases almost outright rebellion. Hitler prevailed and each time his authority was greater afterwards. By the time of Poland, no one stood in his way.

That proves to you there alone with Chamberlain that some other parallaell govt was pulling the strings...
Ok, if you say so. To me it proves nothing of the sort.

...In the West we have been given an "official history " of WWII nice and tidy...
Of course, we can only know that which is taught in history books. It's impossible to verify any history for sure. History is written by the winners. This is an old saying. Nothing new there.

But the reality is that we have history (as false as it may be) or we have the choice not to believe history. If you throw out official history what can you do? Make up a new one? You'd be creating history based on what you think it should have been like. That's the way the old-timers did it. Passing on tales and hearsay and pure imagination as history. At least the history we have now is based on evidence. Governments leave paper trails. Big paper trails. If you find evidence to the contrary, then you're set. Until then, you're just theorizing.

[Brian Foley]

No I have made sensible observations with my thread I have studied that part of history . If you take into consideration the behaviour of the Britain and France towards Germany in the 1930s you see an almost bending over backwards to appease Germany . They allowed Germany to rearm they even proscribed loans to Germany American industry opened plants in Germany . Take my advice you study carefully the co-operation of that period between those countries .Look at it this way, it was a poker game and Hitler outbluffed them all Exactly he out bluffed Britain and France and they were overrun . Now just look at America after France was crushed and Britain left high and dry did you notice how belligerent America became towards Germany ? Remember America only months before was reaffirming its neutrality . America saw her 2 principal rivals disappear and saw her chance and moved in its as simple as that .Until then, you're just theorizing. I never claimed elsewise but there again you cannot talk you have not provided any stable argument to the contrary just tired old standard excerpts from dusty old biased history books .

[StarOfEight]

2000 years before the Industrial Revolution Rome accrued through conquest a vast empire based on trade and finance sought lays waste your lame argument .

I was satirizing your argument. If you'll pay attention to your posts throughout this thread, you've laid the blame for WWII at the feet of capitalism/imperialism and finance/industry. Meanwhile, you brush off the imperialism of the Communists, claiming they were allowed to take that land. They weren't allowed. They simply took. After the fact, the West acquiesced.

And to repeat, paraphrased Lenin is not particularly convincing.

[Working Class Hero]

Fat western democracies (Britain mostly, and i am British) let all the fascist dictatorships get away with too much, and didnt stamp out nazism and fascism when they had the chance. You know Britain refused to arm the Spanish republic in the civil war on the grounds that "they didnt want to aggravate Hitler" - look at the sudetenland, rhineland etc. its a disgrace to liberal democracy.

[John_angry]

world war 2 SUPPOSDELY happened becasure of Hitlers evilness and his plans to get rid of the Jews. well big news, no one gives a fuck about jews. Hitler had been doing deep persecturion of jews for over five year and no one did anything becasue they supposdely "didnt know".

no one cares about Jews, its only when Hitler became a threat to Europe when anyone did anythig.

[dixonmassey]

world war 2 SUPPOSDELY happened becasure of Hitlers evilness and his plans to get rid of the Jews. well big news, no one gives a fuck about jews. Hitler had been doing deep persecturion of jews for over five year and no one did anything becasue they supposdely "didnt know".

no one cares about Jews, its only when Hitler became a threat to Europe when anyone did anythig.

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.

[duendy]

BECAUSE of attitudes like i've just read in the last posts....--ie., the TONE, attitude, eg., "them JEWS".....etc etc. that's all it takes. the moment you separate yourseles from others and use them as scapegoat is reason not only WW1 and WW2 happens but why all conflicts happen.
but will we ever learn?

it's no point you saying that the Jewish PEOPLE act same. yeah, we all seem to wanna belong to a group etc....such as 'i am english, american, french, african, etc etc. but its when that belief takes you over and you get lost in the role of THat being your essence. it aint. your essence is as human being. so seeing through all the tribalry is first step to not starting wars or fighting in them

[Working Class Hero]

Although you know in the Warsaw ghetto, Jewish police executed Jews, and rich Jews lived in comparative luxury whilst the Working Class ones literally starved to death. People can be very cruel to each other, wether theyre Jews or Poles or Nazis or whatever.

[Working Class Hero]

And it has been theorised, that had the Spanish Republic won the Civil War there wouldve been a second world war against Russia and not Germany.

[emily]

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.


i'm sorry but i do not like the language used in this text i qoute 'fuck' there may be little children looking at this :mad: :mad: :mad:

[emily]

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.


i'm sorry but i do not like the language used in this text i qoute 'fuck' there may be little children looking at this :mad:

[emily]

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.


i'm sorry but i do not like the language used in this text i qoute 'fuck' there may be little children looking at this

[Clockwood]

Ummm.... you made three posts in your entire history and they are all the same. Do something about this.

[Carnuth]

and in doing so you said fuck 3 times when you are complaining about it once! =)

[Ophiolite]

I'm more disturbed by the fact that emily felt little children are at more risk from a swear word than from anti-semitism.

[Carnuth]

i dont think it was really antisemitic

[nirakar]

Swear words are silly. Back to the original topic:

In my opinion WWII begins in about 1870 with the Franco Prussian war and other events. Between 1870 and 1940 the world was changing. Linguistically based Nationalism and revolutionary idealism were in the process of replacing royalty and religious bureaucracy as the forces around which nation states were organized. The other organizing force, capitalism was becoming increasingly transnational and corporate. England and France had been dominating the world but rising upstarts Prussia/Germany, Russia, the United States, Italy and Japan were trying to become the new great powers. Once great or semi-great powers the Ottoman empire, Austria, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and China were fading in power. War establishes the global pecking order.

WWI was a strictly imperialist war in which there were no good guys despite the West's claim that being democracies gave them the moral high ground. The end of WWI was unfair to the German people but fairness had never been expected in the era that predated neo-democratic idealistic propaganda. WWII was almost inevitable given the way WWI ended. Machiavelli said something along the lines of "you must either make a friend of your enemy or you must utterly destroy your enemy, but do not leave your enemy around to fight you again". England and France ignored this rule with their cruel but lax treatment of Germany.




WWII was not about Jews (and the American Civil War was not about slavery) but Jews were on a percapita basis the people most severely impacted by the war.

The Holocaust was Six million terrorist murders in a century during which there were perhaps fifty million terrorist killings. Israel's ethnic cleansing and terrorist killings of Palestinians has been insignificant when compared to Terrorist killings and ethnic cleansing in the Congo and many other places.

Neoconservatives talk about Iraq being the beginning of WWIII as if having WWIII would be a good thing. Neoconservatives would be much much weaker if they did not have their alliance with Zionism. Neoconservatism is stupid and evil and a disaster for the human species; but it is wrong to blame Jews for that.

[buffys]

In my opinion WWII begins in about 1870 with the Franco Prussian war and other events. Between 1870 and 1940 the world was changing.

I can't say if those dates are correct but I think it brings up the larger point. We tend to point at an individual event and say, "this is the cause!" but thats almost never true. It's usually just the last straw, most conflicts have decades or centuries of build-up.

If you really want to know why WW2 (or any major war) happened you should be prepared to spend a few weeks in a library.

[Rajman]

The causes of World War I were the isms, alliance systems, and growing tensions between revolutionaries. The isms are Nationalism/Patriotism which is radical loyalty, Imperialism refers to the actions used by one nation to use political or economic control over smaller weaker nations and this became a problem in Europe because of competition in the next ism, Colonialism and Expansionism are the ideas that colonies are used as a source of money through trade and expanding a country’s borders and economy, and finally Militarism which is the action a country takes to increase their military might. The very roots of World War I began when the Napoleon fell. Napoleon had brought Europe together as one and once again they break apart. Then these countries started their own alliances such as the Triple Entente, which included Great Britain, France, and Russia, and also the Quadruple Alliance, which consisted of Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. The European theater became so close to war that with a single push would topple those very fragile seams that held the peace.

The thought that World War I could have been avoided has to be cast away because then history would have to be rewritten for that to happen. First thing you would have to accomplish would be the prevention of Alexander the Great’s death and his continued lineage a success to maintain a known world order. Also to complement that you would have to make his armies be really powerful and vast to suppress revolutions. If not, then you would have to prevent the barbarians from attacking the Roman Empire. Then you would have to get better leadership and all the political backstabbing. Also, you would have to give the good ol’ pep talk and boost the economy. Not only that, but somehow supplement the governing of the already large empire. If not, then you segregate the regions of Europe into particular races such as the Gauls and the Anglo-Saxons. Then you would have to stop all the rivalries and hatred among the races. You could expand Charlemagne’s empire and unite Europe. Since Catholics and Protestants hated each other you would have to unite these people too. Also, as a later point in time, you would have to stop all colonization. If WWI were to be prevented towards a more modern point in time then either Louis XIII would have to conquer and protect all of Europe or let Napoleon take over Europe and Eastern Russia. If after Napoleon’s time you were trying to find the point at which war could have been deterred then a suggestion to you would be to stop the alliances and create a European world order. If you are like one of those night before workers than try taking out all those crazy nationalists and stop the European countries from practicing Imperialism and Militarism.

As you can see, World War I was to be expected even as far back as the Macedonian and Roman Empires. The fate of Europe and its respective colonies were doomed to a full-scale world war since about 300 B.C.E. Even the Second World War was an exact repeat of WWI but just with newer and more improved toys to use against enemies and crazy fanatical leaders.

Here's when I say History is doomed to repeat itself till someone smart is incharge :mad:

[psikeyhackr]

The economic power games got out of hand and the military power game kicked in:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm

[certified psycho]

Many pepople argue that WWII started before 1939. They say the invasion of China was the start of WWII and some other invasion that I don't remember.
But didn't it start maily because England and France had the appeasement with Germany.

[Thersites]

Surely you mean because Britain and France ended appeasement of Germany?

[Hapsburg]

i think he means because france & engalnd were appeasing germany, hitler thought he could do whatever, and they'd not care, because of the appeasement policy.

[glenn239]

Q: If the British and French which were at that time the worlds 2 eminent military/industrial powers said nothing it would of came off as strange . Why did they allow Germany to install such a militant govt ? Why was Germany allowed to Re-arm ? Why didnt they attack Germany when they entered the Saar region ? When Germany invaded Austria ? Invaded Czechoslovakia ? Get real this is carte blanche .

A: These two nations were not some sort of monolithic entity. Kissinger covers the topic of the Anglo-French distrust and rivalry after the First World War, which certainly precluded any Franco-Russian partion of Germany.

To answer the question specifically, Germany was not prevented from doing any of the things you mention because of the pervasive antipathy between Moscow on one hand and London and Paris on the other.

Q: If you're saying that Germany was the capitalist/imperialist nation in question then you're absolutely right. WW2 was caused by Germany invading Poland. The nations which you are trying to disparage bent over backwards trying to avoid war. They let Germany have the Ruhr, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. Hitler thought they would let him have Poland as well. Error of judgment on his part.

A: I don't think the problem was that simple. The theoretical potential that was realized in the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 existed long before that date. In addition, the policy of "appeasement" wasn't quite as one-sided as history has subsequently suggested - there was a strong element of military strategy embedded in this Czeckered catch-phrase.

Q: Really? In the early days of the assault on Poland there had been talk in the French high command of trying to get the Balkan states to create a new front under French leadership. Both Weygand and Gamelin thought that while it would be nice to have Germany occupied on several fronts, they thought it a bad idea because, as Gamelin himself said, soon the Germans would be assaulting the Western Front, which indicates most of the top military leadership realized that the Germans would turn west.

A: It is not correct to suppose that the Maginot Line was some sort of futile speedbump. The French most certainly expected the Germans to come - and their plan was to march their very best divisions into Belgium and meet them head-on. As for the Maginot Line, it was expected to withstand direct frontal assault with any amount of aerial and artillery support unaided (which it did). The fortress line was used as an impermeable anchor on the French right.

For a primer on the viability of fortresses in this area, I'd suggest the American assault on the Siegfried Line in the fall of 1944. In that case, the attackers had far more firepower, and the defenders were few, poorly trained and equipped, and their positions weren't as sophisticated as the Maginot Line. None the less, it was one bloody, slow slog.

Q: Neither the French or the British were able to mobilize in the 3 weeks time that Germany overran its half of Poland. France had a war plan to attack the Germans in the event of an invasion, but the French didn't believe Hitler's prediction that Poland could be conquered that fast.

A: True, the French didn't believe that Poland would go down so quickly. However, this thread has yet to record a vital fact - both the British and the French appear to have DELIBERATELY exaggerated to Polish officials the strength and speed of the allied offensive to help her. The Poles were not expecting some half-hearted minor operation; they thought that the French would undertake a major offensive. This impression wasn't fantasy or wishful thinking, it was based upon military conversations with the west.

For what purpose would Paris and London mislead Warsaw save to increase the chances that Poland would fight?

Q: You're correct. Until Poland was invaded most Frenchmen and Brits likely believed, or at least wanted to believe, that Hitler was doing no more than reuniting all German territories and people lost after WW1, but the invasion of Poland certainly changed that

A: You mean to say that the occupation of Prague in March 1939 changed matters - the war with Poland was over territory that Germany lost as a consequence of Versailles.

Q: Both Britain and france could of began immediate offensive operations against Germany remember France and England had been in an arming themselves since 1936 . Both countries had 10 aircraft carriers and very large airforces .

A: For an idea of what the Allies were capable of, see Gamelin's advance into Belgium in 1940. I'd hazard a guess that France could, if desired, have organized a 30-40 division attack supported by 1000-1500 tanks by day 14 of the war. This would have pummeled Hitler's defenses and taken the left bank of the Rhine, and threatened the Ruhr.


Q: No I have made sensible observations with my thread I have studied that part of history . If you take into consideration the behavior of the Britain and France towards Germany in the 1930s you see an almost bending over backwards to appease Germany . They allowed Germany to rearm they even proscribed loans to Germany American industry opened plants in Germany . Take my advice you study carefully the co-operation of that period between those countries .

A: These calculations didn't exist in a vacuum. Russia was also rearming at a truly terrifying pace.

Q: The thought that World War I could have been avoided has to be cast away because then history would have to be rewritten for that to happen. First thing you would have to accomplish would be the prevention of Alexander the Great’s death and his continued lineage a success to maintain a known world order....

A: Two of the most important events in the leadup to the war were the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 and the defeat of Russia in Asia in 1905. Neither was dependent upon Alexander.

Q: i think he means because france & engalnd were appeasing germany, hitler thought he could do whatever, and they'd not care, because of the appeasement policy.

A: The purpose of Chamberlain's policy appears to me to have been in support of the elemental strategy necessary to defeat Nazi Germany - blockade. The panzers and the Luftwaffe required gas. Period. Without it, Germany loses the war.

Take a ruler, draw a line between Germany and Hitler's gas supply (Ploesti in Rumania). Notice how it runs right through Czechoslovakia? That's your appeasement policy, right there. Because the French wouldn't fight and the Russians wouldn't be trusted, Chamberlain brokered a deal that handed Germany a strip of Czech territory, but kept the Czech army and industrial might in the hands of Prague.

[Yazdajerd]

If Germany was shown some mercy during the aftermath of WWI, Hitler and Nazis wouldn't have had an cause to rally people....... it was the feeling of sorrow, loss, unjust and carving of Germany and its lands that made people sympathetic with Nazi propaganda, which, ultimately, pushed things towards war.

Unfortunately, Men are not learning from mistakes......

The same is happening nowadays in the Arab and Islamic world, the feeling of "everybody wants to kill muslims and destroy their land and religion" is rallying young muslims for the aid of people like Bin-Laden..........

After all, evil begets evil, you can't expect to kill people, occupy their lands, dominate their politics by pupit-rulers, and undermine their cultural heritage (the handling of the Holy Quran in Guantanamo being the latest) and think you can get away with it!!

In the end, Justice will prevail.
Salam.

[cosmictraveler]

Then again look at Isreal and how the Arabs took it over for thousands of years. Then there's Arabs that become terrorists and blow people and places up (like 9-11 the world trade center) and that doesn't sit well with others either. To think that terrorism hits those outside Arabic countries when manyArabic countries themselves are run by dictators is amazing to me. Women in Arabic countries are worthless and are not allowed to vote or hold a job. Women are treated like dirt and Arabs will kill a woman who has been raped which makes no sense. Arabs should try to realize they live in the 20th century and try and become part of it instead of trying to take the world backwards in time to the days when only the clerics have power by force and corruption.

[Hapsburg]

If germany had WON WW1, WW2 would not have happened. Hitler and the holocaust, etc. would not have happened.
Also, a common misconception is that the Kaiser and the Germans wanted all of Europe in WW1. This is total BS. If anything, all the Kaiser wanted was overseas territory, and some part of Lithuania. If anything.
The world would've been a much more peaceful place in the Centrals had won WW1.
And, also, the great depression wouldn't have hit Germany so hard, because all of europe would be tied into a germany-austria centered Economic Union (kinda like the early E.U), and economic problems would've been somewhat muffled.

[Odin'Izm]

If gangis khan took over Eurasia and kept control of it then ww1 and ww2 would have not happened...

[Hapsburg]

Yes...
Or, consequently, if the Romans had won Teutobergerwald, they could've taken over Germania, and none of the crap would've happened.
Semper Romanorum. :D

[Odin'Izm]

If Homo sapiens, were exterminated by, the Neanderthals; then modern history would not exist.

[Hapsburg]

Unga-bunga?

:D

[Chatha]

All is propaganda. Profit is usually the root of all intentions.

[cosmictraveler]

All is propaganda. Profit is usually the root of all intentions.


As I stated.

[ursula]

my history prof told me not to ask such questions. my faborite question used to be" what if paul didnt get converted on the road to tarsus. i dont want to open religious discussion!
ursula

[Xylene]

Here's an interesting idea. What if the future Edward VII had died of the flu instead of Prince Albert? Then Prince Albert could have stayed alive for who knows how long--he was only comparitively young when he died--and he would have had a major influence on English foreign policy during the remainder of the 19th Century. Possibly Britain would have helped the Prussians against France in the war of 1870, instead of staying out on the sidelines as they did (although the Prussian leadership did ask for England's help against their traditional enemy, France, and were rebuffed, much to their chagrin). Also, without Edward VII becoming king in 1901, would the subsequent raproachment with France have taken place? If not, woulf Britain have taken part in World War I, or would it have been a purely European continental war, with no input from the British (unless, ironically, they had fought alongaside Germany against their traditional enemies, the French. In that case, would World War II have even happened?

[Odin'Izm]

what if the big bang never happened and the earth was not formed...

[Hapsburg]

Then we would not be here discussing this.

[Brian Foley]

If not, woulf Britain have taken part in World War I, or would it have been a purely European continental war, with no input from the British (unless, ironically, they had fought alongaside Germany against their traditional enemies, the French. In that case, would World War II have even happened?
Nothing would of stopped Britain from entering that war , Britain had to , it was an imperial war of survival . WWl was an Anglo-Franco attempt to stop German Economic ascendancy over Europe . France used the German declaration of war against Russia to enter war against Germany . Britain used the invasion of Belgium as pretext to enter war against Germany .

[Hapsburg]

And Germany only declared war on Russia because Russia declared war on Austria, because Austria declared war on Serbia, because the Serbian Government were responisible for the assassination of Francis Ferdinand.
And the whole mess could have been avoided if Russia had stayed in the Three-Emperor-Alliance instead of allying with Serbia.

[Yazdajerd]

I think the Russian Tzar would care less if he new what would become after he took that decision..... only if he knew that this would be used by the Bolshevics to overthrow him, no doubt!!

[Yazdajerd]

Originally posted by Ursula

"what if paul didnt get converted on the road to tarsus. i dont want to open religious discussion!"

I doubt that paul did convert to christianity, historically speaking, the Church changed alot from what it was after Christ and what it became after the alleged conversion of Saul.

[Hapsburg]

I think the Russian Tzar would care less if he new what would become after he took that decision..... only if he knew that this would be used by the Bolshevics to overthrow him, no doubt!!
Or, even better, if gavrilo princip was never fucking born, the great powers would still be around, and the world would be a much better place, i.e not US-dominated.

[glenn239]

Nothing would of stopped Britain from entering that war , Britain had to , it was an imperial war of survival . WWl was an Anglo-Franco attempt to stop German Economic ascendancy over Europe . France used the German declaration of war against Russia to enter war against Germany . Britain used the invasion of Belgium as pretext to enter war against Germany .

All true, to an extent. But the other poster was wondering whether or not a different king may have influenced British policy in a different direction. And judging from events during the reign of Victoria, the answer can be supposed in the affirmative. Fisher, for instance, should probably have quickly found himself commanding a fleet of rubber duckies in a bathtub half way up the Yangtze River had he persisted with his silly "Copenhagen" comments while Vicky was on the throne!

And Germany only declared war on Russia because Russia declared war on Austria, because Austria declared war on Serbia, because the Serbian Government were responsible for the assassination of Francis Ferdinand.


Russia did not declare war on Austria-Hungary. Rather, the converse was true (August 6th, 1914, 5 days after the Germans declared war on Russia). The Austrians did not declare war on Serbia because it was felt they were responsible for the events of June 28th, 1914. Rather, the Austrians accused the Serbian Government of complicity in the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne.

[Hapsburg]

And there's a difference between complicity and responsibility in this situation?
It's serbia's fault. Let's put it at that.

[Xylene]

It's an interesting speculation to go back in time to the coffee-house where Gavrilo Princip waited, and bring him forward 80 years to 1994, just to show him the ultimate consequences of his actions. He may then have decided that pulling the trigger on the couple was not worth the trouble it would cause. None of the people involved in the plot realised that their actions were likely to start a World War. I think (if I remember rightly) that ironically, every one of the assasination-group survived the war-- I saw a photo of them all sitting together in the 1920's.

On the other hand, if G. P. hadn't done the deed, someone else would have, no doubt.

[Brian Foley]

It's an interesting speculation to go back in time to the coffee-house where Gavrilo Princip waited
This assasination reeked of premeditation on behalf of the German intelligence service . The fact that some 2 hours earlier a bomb was thrown at his car failing to kill the Archduke they still carried on with the tour . Gavrilo Princip missed an earlier opportunity to assasinate the target and retired to a cafe . Incredibly they actually drive to the cafe where Gavrilo Princip was sitting , and supposedly seeing his opportunity he shot the Archduke ! He was driven deliberately to his assasin .

[glenn239]

And there's a difference between complicity and responsibility in this situation?
It's serbia's fault. Let's put it at that.

There is an important difference. If Berchtold had made an accusation of responsibility against Pasic's government, he would have been wrong. But by sticking to the charge of complicity, they ensured that their declaration of war was on solid legal ground.

[Louis]

I heard it was because someone called Archie Duke shot an ostrich.

Oh wait. That was world war one.

[Hapsburg]

This assasination reeked of premeditation on behalf of the German intelligence service . The fact that some 2 hours earlier a bomb was thrown at his car failing to kill the Archduke they still carried on with the tour . Gavrilo Princip missed an earlier opportunity to assasinate the target and retired to a cafe . Incredibly they actually drive to the cafe where Gavrilo Princip was sitting , and supposedly seeing his opportunity he shot the Archduke ! He was driven deliberately to his assasin .
Austrian intel service, actually.
But, I'm just nitpicking here, so...

[River Ape]

If gangis khan took over Eurasia and kept control of it then ww1 and ww2 would have not happened...Were you hinting, ever so subtly, that we should get back to discussing the cause(s) of WWII? I think that would be a really good idea; it's an interesting topic

[Odin'Izm]

Actually River, I was hinting for them to get off the topic of "what if" the big bang thing was me having to go to extreme measures.

[glenn239]

Eh. I'll take a stab at it.

What the poster appears to be actually asking is what, if anything contributed to the outbreak of the war, over and beyond the ambitions of Adolf Hitler? In that spirit I'll answer, but with the provision that, "Hitler caused World War Two" is an absolute truth. How do we know for certain that this is the case? Because Germany started the war by attacking a natural German ally - Poland. Chamberlain can be charged with many stupidities in these matters, but exploiting this unbelievable mistake on Hitler's part was not one of them.

If, for a moment, as fancy, remove the lunatic dictator from Berlin in October 1938 and substitute a more palatable character (let's say a Gandi) as the German leader, the question remains; could the newfangled goodie-goodie Germany then have avoided World War Two? If the answer is "yes" then Hitler is hung because it's irrefutable that he started things. But if the answer is instead "no", then the question of ultimate causation is shown not to have been dependent upon Hitler's rantic actions; Hitler can be condemned for bringing things to a head more quickly than otherwise, but cannot be guilty of causing that which was inevitable.

I'd ask the question as follows: Given Germany's utter lack of allies, and therefore lack of security in Central Europe, what's the "reasonable" formula that assured Germany would not be attacked by a reconstituted Triple Entente, or Dual Alliance?

If the above cannot be answered for "Gandi's" Germany in a fashion we'd find acceptable in meeting some minimum standards for our own security, then the origins of the war may center on the fact that Europe was bereft of a security platform for its strongest state.

[River Ape]

. . . but with the provision that, "Hitler caused World War Two" is an absolute truth. How do we know for certain that this is the case? Because Germany started the war by attacking a natural German ally - Poland.
It is a very dangerous thing to claim an absolute truth in History. Why claim that the war started at this point (the invasion of Poland)? Presumably, you make this claim because France and Britain declared war at this time. But the invasion of Poland was a joint invasion by Germany and the Soviet Union. So why claim that Hitler rather than Stalin started the war? Simply because German troops crossed the frontier first in what was clearly a pre-planned joint attack?

Perhaps France and England started WWII by declaring war? Can we be sure that a European war was inevitable at this stage (if they had not done so)? And if so, can we be sure it would become a World War?

Unless you can substantiate the claim that German troops crossing the Polish border led inevitably to a World War, can you hold Hitler responsible for that war? Remember, Hitler did not want a World War. He desperately did not want a war against the British Empire.

[glenn239]

Unless you can substantiate the claim that German troops crossing the Polish border led inevitably to a World War, can you hold Hitler responsible for that war? Remember, Hitler did not want a World War. He desperately did not want a war against the British Empire.

As a rule of thumb in past conflicts, the powers which initiates military action is usually considered the aggressor, unless it can be shown that their actions were taken under duress (i.e., Israel, 1967) or a reasonable response to another form of aggression (i.e., Austria-Hungary, 1914). In the parlors of Europe, for centuries before Hitler ever came to power, it had been understood quite clearly that invasions (and most particularly, annexations) were automatically a casus beli for any power that chose to intervene. This is why the Great Powers went to Great Pains to consult and negotiate with one another; to avoid the odium of upsetting the applecart. Whether Hitler “didn’t want” a war with England doesn’t matter.

In 1939 it is well nigh irrefutable that Germany, not Poland instigated the crisis beginning in January. I think your point of contributory Soviet instigation has merit, but it is also true they were reacting to Hitler’s lead. Unless it can be shown that Germany’s hand was forced by some overarching European instability that made a showdown inevitable, then Hitler gets tagged with the blame. It is true that Germany was framed, victimized and humiliated in the First World War by three aggressor powers (Great Britain, France, Russia), but this does not translate into a “free hand” in Europe for a violent and racist regime decades later.

[River Ape]

I could have expressed myself better. When I asked "can you hold Hitler responsible", I was meaning in terms of historic CAUSATION. (The word "responsible" tends to imply "morally responsible" which is not what I was concerned with.)

See, what I am saying glenn239 is that I do not believe that a WORLD war necessarily had to follow from the partition of Poland. Hitler and Stalin may both have thought that there would ultimately be conflict between their two countries, but did either suppose at that time that there would be a WORLD war? Roosevelt after all was promising resolutely that the US would not get involved in a European war.

In 1939 it is well nigh irrefutable that Germany, not Poland instigated the crisis beginning in January. I think your point of contributory Soviet instigation has merit, but it is also true they were reacting to Hitler’s lead.Well, were they? The partition of Poland was undoubtedly agreed between the two powers ahead of the concocted incident that preceded German invasion. No one, I think, any longer supposes that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland was a "reaction" to the German invasion of Western Poland. The line of demarkation was agreed between Molotov and Ribbentrop in a secret annex to the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

[Brian Foley]

Well, were they? The partition of Poland was undoubtedly agreed between the two powers ahead of the concocted incident that preceded German invasion. No one, I think, any longer supposes that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland was a "reaction" to the German invasion of Western Poland. The line of demarkation was agreed between Molotov and Ribbentrop in a secret annex to the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
All the Nazi-Soviet pact was a German attempt at buying time in attempt to appease Russia whilst they dealt with their Anglo-Franco adversaries in the West . The Russian's took advantage of the Pact too put as much space between them and their future attacker turned on them . The Russian attack on Finland was a Russian attempt to protect Leningrad from direct attack .

[River Ape]

You might equally well say (as Kruschev did in his memoirs) that it was an attempt by the Soviets to buy time while rearming. It suited both sides at the time; that's why it happened. Just as Hitler wished to unite Germanic territories and to dominate the old Hapsburg lands, so the Soviet leaders wished to recapture the lands ruled by Imperial Russia. Both sides feared that a peaceful division into spheres of influence would not be accomplished. Much danger of war lay within that fear itself. It is perverse to think that an agreed partition of Poland that was accomplished without conflict between Nazis and Soviets was the cause of a World War.

[glenn239]

The Russian's took advantage of the Pact too put as much space between them and their future attacker turned on them .

This is a common interpretation, but it's also widely accepted as a theory that the Soviet Union exploited the confrontation between Germany and the west to further its own expansionist agenda. For example, the Soviet Union did not need to sign a Nazi-Soviet Pact to partition Poland in order to have secured a territorial buffer in the event of a war. But by doing so, they made war a certainty, whereas if they had abstained from cooperation, then Hitler may have backed down in August 1939.

It is perverse to think that an agreed partition of Poland that was accomplished without conflict between Nazis and Soviets was the cause of a World War.

Being labelled the aggressor has incurred odium for precisely this reason. As Hitler was perfectly aware in 1939, attacking Poland would cause a period of violent instability in Europe, in which any series of consequences (some quite severe) could come to pass. He did it anyways. That a partition did not necessarily have to lead to a world war is true, but a matter extraneous to the issue of Hitler's guilt in taking action which would virtually ensure this eventuality came to pass.

[ursula]

at least you all do not engage in german bashing!
ursula

[River Ape]

As Hitler was perfectly aware in 1939, attacking Poland would cause a period of violent instability in Europe . . .
But it didn't. It led to the "phoney war" -- though there was significant naval warfare during this period. Operations in Norway were effectively an offshoot of the naval conflict. It was the German invasion of France that led to brief but significant land battles on the European continent. But these did not make a world war inevitable.

More than anything else, it was the victory of the War Party (Churchill and supporters) over the Peace Party (British Establishment) that ensured a World War. (This is not to dismiss the likelihood of a Nazi-Soviet European war.) Of course, if you think that it was worth a world war to be rid of Hitler, you do not blame Churchill and Roosevelt for engineering it.

Or, there again, were Churchill and Roosevelt merely pawns of International Jewry?

[glenn239]

But it didn't. It led to the "phoney war" -- though there was significant naval warfare during this period. Operations in Norway were effectively an offshoot of the naval conflict. It was the German invasion of France that led to brief but significant land battles on the European continent. But these did not make a world war inevitable.

More than anything else, it was the victory of the War Party (Churchill and supporters) over the Peace Party (British Establishment) that ensured a World War. (This is not to dismiss the likelihood of a Nazi-Soviet European war.) Of course, if you think that it was worth a world war to be rid of Hitler, you do not blame Churchill and Roosevelt for engineering it.

Can you provide information that shows either Chamberlain or the French had opened discussions with Hitler on ending the war before Churchill came to power in May 1940?

[River Ape]

After the declaration of war, British contact with the Germans was necessarily discrete and "deniable". Some of it may have been technically illegal and treasonable, even though it was pursued with patriotic motives. In the aftermath of Allied victory, and the depiction of Hitler as an inhuman monster, those who had been in favour of peace were inclined to keep their secrets. Moreover, Hitler's "double-crossing" of Chamberlain had made "appeasement" a bad word.

However, a large part of the British Establishment was against the war with Germany. Many harboured great hostility towards Churchill. A fierce battle, largely hidden from the public, was fought out between (on the one hand) those who saw no advantage in continuing the conflict, who wished to conclude an as-far-as-possible-honourable peace, who saw economic ruin in the cost of a long war, and who viewed the Soviet Union as the greater enemy -- and (on the other hand) Churchill and his allies, controlling the secret service, the weapons of propaganda, and fomenting anti-German sentiment.

One of the key events of this story, of course, is the extraordinary peace mission of Rudolf Hess. We do not know what secret contacts led up to Hess's mission. We do not know whose support he enjoyed within the British Establishment. Many of the records are to be kept secret for a hundred years. Hess was not a fool or a madman. The battle between the War Party and the Peace Party was delicately balanced, and its outcome was uncertain.

Had the appeasers been successful, Britain might have avoided a long war, retained its Empire for a longer period, escaped the near-bankruptcy caused by Lend-Lease -- the United States might have remained neutral, and a second World War need not have happened.

For much more detail:
Double Standards, Picknett et al. Time-Warner, 2002
Friendly Fire, Picknett et al. Mainstream Publishing, 2004

[glenn239]

This is interesting, but what does it have to do with Hitler's decision to trigger a war, and the responsibility that came with it?

[River Ape]

The thread addresses the question: Why did WWII happen?
It did not happen as a result of the partition of Poland.
It did not happen as a result of the invasion of France.
One may argue that it happened because Britain under Churchill chose the path of war rather than peace, and sought to make the conflict global by involving the US.
One may argue that it was caused by the Japanese.
But it happened DESPITE Hitler's efforts to avoid a World War by making peace with Britain and attempting to keep the US neutral.
In no ordinary sense can Hitler be said to have CAUSED a WORLD war.

Let me stress that I am not concerned with moral responsibility here. I am addressing the path of historic causation.

[glenn239]

There is a distinction being made between a "world" conflagration, and, presumably, a "local" war in which Germany emerged victorious in July 1940?

Germany initiated the war by invading the sovereign nation of Poland. Historic precedent indicates that this action alone could reasonably be expected to cause sufficient instability in the international scene to trigger a global conflict. A speeder may run a red light in hopes that they will not broadside another vehicle, but the chance that this may not occur does not absolve the guilty party of the consequences of their reckless behavior!

Further, I'm uncertain as to how "drawing in the USA" was selected as the decisive incident in the escalation process? The Americans did not enter the war until December 1941, almost 6 months after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union (which by the definition I think you're using, triggered the "world" war). And as you will recall, it was Germany that declared war upon the United States, and not vice versa.

[Xylene]

Germany declared war on the United States in order to support the Japanese, but he need not have done so--I would argue that if he had not, the US would possibly not have sent troops to Europe, at least not until they had concentrated their main efforts into defeating the Japanese in the Pacific. I which case the war may have lasted into the 1950's.

[River Ape]

There is a distinction being made between a "world" conflagration, and, presumably, a "local" war in which Germany emerged victorious in July 1940?
Obviously.

Germany initiated the war by invading the sovereign nation of Poland. Historic precedent indicates that this action alone could reasonably be expected to cause sufficient instability in the international scene to trigger a global conflict.
This is simply untrue. One nation invading another does not regularly cause a World War -- or there would have been rather a lot of them!

Further, I'm uncertain as to how "drawing in the USA" was selected as the decisive incident in the escalation process?
I am assuming a World War includes both hemispheres.

The Americans did not enter the war until December 1941, almost 6 months after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union (which by the definition I think you're using, triggered the "world" war).
It would have suited most of the world much better if the Nazis and Soviets had slugged it out without the rest of the world becoming involved. It was what the Peace Party in Britain hoped would happen. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union did not cause a world war.

Germany declared war on the United States in order to support the Japanese, but he need not have done so . . .
This is of course a perfectly valid point -- or at least it is true that it WAS the Germans who declared war.

The US had been fighting an escalating "war by proxy" against the Germans through their support for Britain -- even occupying Iceland so that the British forces who had invaded that country could be redeployed elsewhere. Remember that the US was supplying arms and materiel to Britain even before the outbreak of war, and in defiance of a neutral position escalated the supply after the outbreak of hostilities. US support did not begin with the famous "Lend-Lease" -- that merely enabled the supply to continue after Britain's ability to pay had been exhausted.

It was Churchill's certainty that he had Roosevelt's backing that enabled him to fight his corner within the British political arena and to defeat the Peace Party. Had Britain accepted the peace deal offered by Hess, subsequent events would have been very different, and there need have been no WWII.

The Germans resolutely followed a policy of trying to keep the US out of the war -- doing all they could to avoid causing provocation. (Historians are more or less agreed on this fact.) Meantime, the US was planning war, despite Roosevelt's promises not to commit US men-at-arms to the conflict. In the autumn of 1941, the US's secret "ABC" plans for the invasion of Germany were revealed. Thereafter, German hopes of avoiding war with the US became vanishingly thin. It may still, however, have been unwise for Hitler to actually declare war in support of his Japanese ally.

[glenn239]

I think I understand your point of view now. Good luck with it, there seems to be some insurmountable hurdles; your definition of a world war is tailored to the argument you are making. I’d define a “major” or “global” war to encompass a certain number of the major powers.

The defense against the (obvious) argument that Hitler caused each of the major escalations in the road to ruin (Poland, USSR, United States) looks weak.

IMO, the case against the United Kingdom has to be improved.


Germany declared war on the United States in order to support the Japanese.

Just so long as it is understood that Hitler (and not Churchill) precipitated matters by declaring war on the United States...

[River Ape]

Just so long as it is understood that Hitler (and not Churchill) precipitated matters by declaring war on the United States...
But you cannot believe that Hitler wanted a war with the United States?

Rumours of secret US war plans, circulating in Fall 1941, were confirmed when on 3 December 1941, the isolationist Senator Burton Wheeler obtained a copy of the "Victory Program", part of the War Department's overall "Rainbow Five" plan. The US Army was to be built up to five million leading to a final offensive against Germany in July 1943, following its encirclement and bombing from Britain.

Burton passed details of the Victory Program to the Chicago Tribune and Washington Herald-Times, which published them on 4 and 5 December respectively. US WAR AIMS WERE THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE -- and they were soon read in Berlin as well.

The fact that the declaration of war came from Germany is of no particular significance. The INTENT on war came from the US. Biographers of Roosevelt agree that as early as May 1941 he revealed to several of his close circle that he was waiting for a suitable incident that would enable the US to act against Germany without appearing to the the aggressor.

I reiterate that I am concerned with CAUSATION not BLAME. Many, after all, praise Roosevelt for wanting to go to war with Hitler rather than let him defeat Britain. On the whole, the World War turned out well for the US. Churchill, on the other hand, almost certainly betrayed the best interests of his country -- left exhausted and near-bankrupt at the end of the conflict.

[glenn239]

But you cannot believe that Hitler wanted a war with the United States?

I sincerely doubt that Hitler wanted a war with anyone. But he was willing to use war to get what he wanted. The problem was hubris - he was very good at sensing weakness, but not as perceptive at gauging an enemy's strength. Hitler misjudged the potential of the United States; this led him down a path to confrontation that a more reasonable leader would have avoided.

The fact that the declaration of war came from Germany is of no particular significance. The INTENT on war came from the US.

I don't think anyone argues but that FDR was more interested in war joining the war than Hitler was in accommodating his wishes. The operative question is whether or not the violent perturbations caused by Hitler's frolicking about Europe motivated this intent.

If, by definition, causation is intrinsically linked to calculations of relative power, then war results from a schism, a disagreement, between hostile powerbrokers as to what the proper political expression of the true military balance of power is. If we are to discard moral aspects to war guilt and look only upon the realpolitik which inevitably underlies all of these decisions, then responsibility for escalation of this war still appears (to me) to belong to Hitler. His decision to invade the Soviet Union and to declare war on the United States were made under the influence of a hopelessly flawed perception of the international balance of power; (i.e., Hitler went "all in" on a pair of deuces on June 22nd, 1941). Because his strategy was so outlandishly at odds with the "true" balance of power, his actions ensured that Germany would be utterly crushed.

[River Ape]

Deciding on war is a major historic event; an actual declaration of war is diplomatic detail. By December 1941, the US was already at war with Germany in every sense short of being a fighting combattant, and had been revealed as planning the invasion of that country. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was obviously going to provoke immediate full mobilization.

How can the diplomatic detail of Hitler's declaration of war on a country that was intent on attacking his be regarded as showing "hopelessly flawed perception"? What did it change? How did it affect the outcome of the war?

Why don't you blame France for starting WWII by declaring war on Germany?

[River Ape]

Hitler misjudged the potential of the United States; this led him down a path to confrontation that a more reasonable leader would have avoided.
Peter Calvocoressi, expressing the near-universal view of historians of WWII:
Hitler had every reason to keep the United States out of the war at almost any cost and he . . . set himself not only to avoid provoking Roosevelt but also to ignore Roosevelt's provocation of him.

[crazy151drinker]

The Biggest problem Brian with your 'Theory" is the assumption that Britian and France were setting up Germany and that they were going to attack Germany when Germany was weak.

Attack with What?? Frances military was a joke compared to the Germans and was mainly set up in a defensive posture. The British had no epic military to speak of either. I understand that you are passionate about your anti-capitalism theories but this one is bogus beyond belief.

[Brian Foley]

Frances military was a joke compared to the Germans and was mainly set up in a defensive posture.
You reckon ! then explain this .
Prelude to War: France (http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/preludefrance.htm)
In the 1920’s and 1930’s the French had the largest, most powerful army on the face of the earth. Much of their equipment was good, and they had large resources in their colonies upon which to draw. Both the United States and Great Britain looked to France to secure peace on the European continent. Great Britain would secure the seas.
The British had no epic military to speak of either.
The British Navy was the most powerful afloat and the British Airforce the second largest after Russia .
I understand that you are passionate about your anti-capitalism theories but this one is bogus beyond belief.
Yeah , well , after reading your reply ...............

[River Ape]

The trouble with Brian's "industrialist/financier complexes", I think, is that finance and industry do not necessarily share the same interests. Indeed, they may sometimes have opposite interests. Henry Ford's attitude to "finance" was hostile. British post-war economic policy has been accused of favoring the interests of "the City" over those of industry. Moreover, one industry does not have the same interest as the next. Maintaining a costly coal mining industry puts up costs for energy users. Farm subsidies tend to harm almost everyone except the farmers themselves, and farm equipment and fertiliser manufacturers. Such examples are legion. A concentration on war production may root the manufacture of consumer goods out of existence.

Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize .
But what I should like to know, in particular, is your explanation for why Britain did not make peace with Germany after the fall of France. It was indeed in the interests of Britain to sit back and let Germany and Russia destroy each other. How could the best interests of Britain's "industrialist/financier complex" (insofar as such a thing exists) have been ignored? Are there actually other forces at work in the world?

[Brian Foley]

The trouble with industrialist/financier complexes, I think, is that finance and industry do not necessarily share the same interests. Indeed, they may have sometimes have opposite interests. Henry Ford's attitude to "finance" was hostile. British post-war economic policy has been accused of favoring the interests of "the City" over those of industry. Moreover, one industry does not have the same interest as the next. Maintaining a costly coal mining industry puts up costs for energy users. Farm subsidies tend to harm almost everyone except the farmers themselves, and farm equipment and fertiliser manufacturers. Such examples are legion. A concentration on war production may root the manufacture of consumer goods out of existence.
The Financiers are the prime power within society , these entities control societies wealth through debt , money supply etc . Industrial Complex's usually are indebted to these Financial institutions which is a source of great revenue for the Financial complex . Imperial conflicts are fuelled by the need of these Industrial Complex's to expand and control new markets or secure markets from rivals . The Financial complex piggy backs on Industrial corporations on these imperial conquests . The fortunes of these Industrial Complex's rise and fall with their nation of origin . The Financial complex simply moves to a new host as with France under Napoleon , when France faltered the Financial complex simply moved to Britain in 1814 and after WWI with Britain in tatters the Financial complex moved to America .
But what I should like to know, in particular, is your explanation for why Britain did not make peace with Germany after the fall of France. It was indeed in the interests of Britain to sit back and let Germany and Russia destroy each other. How could the best interests of Britain's "industrialist/financier complex" (insofar as such a thing exists) have been ignored? Are there actually other forces at work in the world?
Britain's industrialist/financier complex had been contracting since the end of WWI it was outdated as evidenced by the dynamic performance of the US model .Thats where America came in , this is where America saw her opportunity . Pre the Fall of France the US kept well out of it knowing full well that the Anglo-Franco alliance was hostile to US interests . Straight after the Fall of France and Britain being neutralised the US sensing imperial blood entered the picture with lend lease and after became very belligerent towards Germany . In effect America became Britains puppetmaster , using Britain as a base for US airpower to turn Germany into dust whilst Russia cannibalized the German armies on land . Its now accepted that Germany had no plans to invade Britain , and Britain knew this due to the breaking of the German enigma codes . America became Britains protector so peace was not an option for Britain . What I am saying is that after the Fall of France and the neutralization of Britain , that Great Britain ceased to be a prime player on the world economic stage .

[glenn239]

Deciding on war is a major historic event; an actual declaration of war is diplomatic detail. By December 1941, the US was already at war with Germany in every sense short of being a fighting combattant, and had been revealed as planning the invasion of that country. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was obviously going to provoke immediate full mobilization.

Again, no one will argue but that the impetus for war was coming from the American side. But in order to make an impression with the majority that Hitler was somehow a victim, you've got to show that the American's desire was not linked to Germany's actions in Europe between 1939 and 1941. A remarkably difficult task, I suspect.

Can you point me to any German diplomatic demarche in the period up to December 1941 which promised, as a basis for negotiation, to address the restoration of Poland as per the September 1939 Anglo-French ultimatum? And given Germany's horrific position of weakness, what excuse could possibly present itself for not having made this offer?

How can the diplomatic detail of Hitler's declaration of war on a country that was intent on attacking his be regarded as showing "hopelessly flawed perception"? What did it change? How did it affect the outcome of the war?


In December 1940 Hitler had, essentially, two options. The first was to accept Stalin's terms and begin the process of surrendering influence to Soviet control in Turkey and the Balkans as a method to lever the British to the table. We'll call this the "rational" option.

The second was to accept war with the Soviet Union and the United States. This was the "irrational" option.

Hitler's decision to risk war with the United States was "toys in the attic" crazy because he had in his possession the intelligence data showing the hopelessness of the industrial production and oil supply situations, and Germany's vulnerability to strategic interdiction of her oil supply. It was impossible but to reach the conclusion that option "b" was suicide; he undertook this course anyways, by delusionally conditioning himself to suppose these enemies were weak.


Why don't you blame France for starting WWII by declaring war on Germany?

Because Germany attacked Poland (causing the French declaration of war) and Japan attacked the United States (causing the German declaration of war). Had Poland attacked Germany, then the analogy would be valid.

The fact that Poland was a natural German ally is a dead giveaway that Hitler's actions were bald-faced aggression for the purpose of conquest. Otherwise, why else does he attack a natural ally, and not an enemy (France)?

Attack with What?? Frances military was a joke compared to the Germans and was mainly set up in a defensive posture. The British had no epic military to speak of either. I understand that you are passionate about your anti-capitalism theories but this one is bogus beyond belief.

Brian is merely extrapolating upon the tactics known to have been taken by the Entente Powers (whom were the aggressors in the Great War) and applied the same measures to the Second World War. Rather than being "beyond belief", it smacks more of reasoning by precedent (i.e., common sense).

The problem with his assumptions is that Hitler never allowed the West to seize the diplomatic initiative, and hence his theory cannot be shown to be true because the Germans never sat around waiting to be cornered. But that doesn't mean that this line of reasoning is bankrupt; that it didn't happened doesn't mean it would not have happened had Hitler allowed it.

The evidence suggests that the West greatly overestimated the military effects of a blockade before and during the war. If he's right, then these erroneous calculations will be close to the heart of the matter.

But what I should like to know, in particular, is your explanation for why Britain did not make peace with Germany after the fall of France. It was indeed in the interests of Britain to sit back and let Germany and Russia destroy each other.

Great Britain and Germany did not make peace for two reasons:

1) Churchill's terms were unacceptable to Germany
2) Hitler's terms were unacceptable to Britain.

Traditionally, powers surrender when they are defeated. Great Britain wasn't even close to this point in 1940.

I'd ask you a question; if Germany were in such a stronger position than Britain in the summer of 1940, then why is it Hitler that was desperately trying to make peace?

[Brian Foley]

and hence his theory cannot be shown to be true
This was the start of Germanys East European policy in 1871 .
German economic expansion (http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/hist-archiv/dgw/index.php#vor1871)
During the institution of the German Customers Union (1834/Zollverein), plans were first developed for a "large-area economy" under German leadership. The manufacturing nations of Prussia and Austria were to assume hegemony over an area extending from the North Sea to the Black Sea. The countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe were assigned the status of producers of food and raw materials.
Fast forward to 1918 to 1945 era
In 1925 a lobby organisation was formed, the German Group of the Central European Economic Conference, to promote the realisation of German large-area plans. Immediately after the world economic crisis of 1929/30 (and not only, as has been maintained by propaganda, after 1933 under Nazi rule) new plans for a now openly termed "German large-area economy". This aimed at the long-term subordination and control of large areas of eastern and central Europe through the conclusion of bilateral currency-free trade agreements. They proceeded on the basic assumption that German industrial products were to be traded for eastern and central European agricultural products and raw materials. The "new plan" of Minister for Economic Affairs Schacht in 1934 made such clearing agreements the decisive instrument of National Socialist foreign policy in preparation for World War II. Important segments of German import demand were re-routed from South America to eastern and south-eastern Europe, so that for war purposes a source of food and raw materials would be available that could not be blockaded. For the long-term implementation of an "organic division of labour" in the European large-area economy, strategists of the Central European Economic Conference under the leadership of IG Farben worked in cooperation with the German government during the nineteen-thirties for the restructuring of the eastern and south-eastern European economy. The goal of this effort was the extensive de-industrialisation of this area and the orientation of its agricultural production toward the demands of the German market. Beside the ransacking of important resources, this long-term goal continued to be pursued during World War II. Military hegemony over the economic "complementary area" was indispensible for the German war-waging capacity.
As I stated at the beginning of this thread WWII was a German imperial gamble to control Eastern Europe .
Great Britain and Germany did not make peace for two reasons:
Neither germany nor England forwarded any such proposals to each other .
1) Churchill's terms were unacceptable to Germany
I would be interested if you could share what source for this claim would be .
Traditionally, powers surrender when they are defeated. Great Britain wasn't even close to this point in 1940.
It was neutralized by being pushed of the continent and run out of the Balkans it posed no threat to Germany . The Royal Navy was wholly inadequately designed to fight a submarine war with Germany . The Royal Airforce was conducting a now proven impotent plan of aerial bombardment of Germany . Britain existed at first on American arms purchases then on US credit under lend lease to fund its war drive . England was finished militarily Dieppe was a classic example of such military impotency .
I'd ask you a question; if Germany were in such a stronger position than Britain in the summer of 1940, then why is it Hitler that was desperately trying to make peace?
Could I see where as to your claim that Hitler was desparately seeking peace with England ? The only offer of a German peace term to come from Rudolf Hess (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-06/tgmwc-06-53-17.html) after his lunatic flight , he was a madmen .

[River Ape]

Pre the Fall of France the US kept well out of it knowing full well that the Anglo-Franco alliance was hostile to US interests . Straight after the Fall of France and Britain being neutralised the US sensing imperial blood entered the picture with lend lease and after became very belligerent towards Germany . In effect America became Britains puppetmaster , using Britain as a base for US airpower to turn Germany into dust whilst Russia cannibalized the German armies on land . Its now accepted that Germany had no plans to invade Britain , and Britain knew this due to the breaking of the German enigma codes .
Yes; much of this is true. But you have to explain why Britain chose to follow the path of war rather than peace. The British Establishment was saw Bolshevism as a greater enemy than Nazism. Britain could not afford a long war without becoming hopelessly indebted to the US. It could only benefit from a conflict in which it remained neutral while its enemies exhausted themselves.

Britain was apparently free to make the decision that was in its own best interest. Yet it did not.

With Britain neutral, we may assume the US would not have been drawn into the conflict, and that there would have been no second World War (except a rather different one from different causes).

More than anything else, the escalation into a global conflict has to be put down to the triumph of a warmongering Churchill over his political opponents. How this was possible is a matter of considerable interest -- and it needs explaining!

[River Ape]

Again, no one will argue but that the impetus for war was coming from the American side.
Well, you've changed your tune!

Can you point me to any German diplomatic demarche in the period up to December 1941 which promised, as a basis for negotiation, to address the restoration of Poland as per the September 1939 Anglo-French ultimatum?
Why don't we begin with your own evaluation of how far you believe Germany was prepared to go to reach a peace agreement with Britain after the fall of France. Let me know YOUR understanding of the situation -- in regard to Poland and more generally. I agree it is not easy to evaluate because of the secrecy surrounding negotiations with an enemy in wartime.

Hitler's decision to risk war with the United States was "toys in the attic" crazy . . .
Are you telling me that you are in disagreement with Peter Calvocoressi (quoted earlier) and almost all other serious historians of WWII in their assessment that Hitler tried to avoid conflict with the US?

Why don't you blame France for starting WWII by declaring war on Germany?
Because Germany attacked Poland (causing the French declaration of war) and Japan attacked the United States (causing the German declaration of war).
Exactly! Decisions to attack are important. Declarations are mere diplomatic superstructure.

The fact that Poland was a natural German ally . . .
This statement would strike a lot of people as odd! Germans and Slavs are traditional enemies. The Poles had drawn up lists of Germans living in Poland, and began rounding them up and executing them after the German invasion -- arguably the first major atrocities against civilians in WWII.

Great Britain and Germany did not make peace for two reasons:

1) Churchill's terms were unacceptable to Germany
2) Hitler's terms were unacceptable to Britain.

Traditionally, powers surrender when they are defeated. Great Britain wasn't even close to this point in 1940.
This will not do. Hitler understood that an alliance between Germany and Britain was what made most sense to both countries, and this is what he wanted. Much of the British Establishment wanted peace with Germany, and had a preference for Hitler over Stalin. It was Churchill's rejection of peace that was "irrational" -- except in terms of his hatred of the Germans and desire for personal glory, or else for reasons we do not yet fully understand.

I'd ask you a question; if Germany were in such a stronger position than Britain in the summer of 1940, then why is it Hitler that was desperately trying to make peace?
Of course Hitler wanted peace with Britain and its Empire. That had always been his aim. He admired the British and wanted to enrol them (even if not as active participants) in the struggle against Bolshevism.

[glenn239]

As I stated at the beginning of this thread WWII was a German imperial gamble to control Eastern Europe

Agreed insofar as Hitler’s basic strategy was to resurect the Triple Alliance while keeping the Triple Entente divided. But “controlling Eastern Europe” required the elimination of the French, not Polish, army.

Churchill's terms were unacceptable to Germany ”
I would be interested if you could share what source for this claim would be

As far as I’m aware, Churchill did not elaborate on his war objectives during this timeframe? If this assumption is correct, then is it not safest to take reference to the Anglo-French ultimatum of September 1939 as the basis of his aims?

It was neutralized by being pushed of the continent and run out of the Balkans it posed no threat to Germany . The Royal Navy was wholly inadequately designed to fight a submarine war with Germany . The Royal Airforce was conducting a now proven impotent plan of aerial bombardment of Germany . Britain existed at first on American arms purchases then on US credit under lend lease to fund its war drive . England was finished militarily Dieppe was a classic example of such military impotency.

The “now proven” impotency of the British aerial campaign doesn’t apply to 1940, obviously. At that point in time the British establishment had great hopes for strategic bombing.

Could I see where as to your claim that Hitler was desparately seeking peace with England ? The only offer of a German peace term to come from Rudolf Hess after his lunatic flight , he was a madmen.

Proof for a topic that remains shrouded in mystery to this day?
Would you agree with the observation that Hitler was more interested in securing peace than Churchill was in granting it?

More than anything else, the escalation into a global conflict has to be put down to the triumph of a warmongering Churchill over his political opponents. How this was possible is a matter of considerable interest -- and it needs explaining!

This supposes the rather remarkable notion that the British drove American policy! Whether Great Britain had or had not made peace with Germany by this time would not materially have altered the direction of American policy if and when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.

[River Ape]

This supposes the rather remarkable notion that the British drove American policy!
Well, in a sense, that is what Roosevelt claimed. Did he not make several remarks to the effect that he could not stand by and see Britain defeated? I don't believe I would have to search too long to find one of them.

A more cynical view was that American policy was driven by Britain's purchases of arms and materiel for gold and dollars -- and then by Britain's willingness to mortgage its future to buy more.

Either way, it made a big difference to the US whether Britain opted for peace or war.

Whether Great Britain had or had not made peace with Germany by this time would not materially have altered the direction of American policy if and when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.
Really? You are saying that the US would have gone to the aid of the Bolsheviks whilst the British Empire remained neutral? Do I understand you correctly? Are you quite sure?

Justify this claim. Was American policy guided by the arms manufacturers? or by the communists inside the Roosevelt administration? or by the Jews?

[Brian Foley]

Yes; much of this is true. But you have to explain why Britain chose to follow the path of war rather than peace. The British Establishment was saw Bolshevism as a greater enemy than Nazism. Britain could not afford a long war without becoming hopelessly indebted to the US. It could only benefit from a conflict in which it remained neutral while its enemies exhausted themselves.
If you read my thread : However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest . Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize . The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly , Germany did not invade Britain because it gave Germany an excuse to Russia as to why they placing troops in Romania to forestall any British invasion of the Balkans . June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . Communism was no such threat to Britain as Russia was thourougly isolated and surrounded . Facism/Nazism was a capitalist ideology which was very much in favour and admired by the British and French ruling classes .
Britain was apparently free to make the decision that was in its own best interest. Yet it did not.


With Britain neutral, we may assume the US would not have been drawn into the conflict, and that there would have been no second World War (except a rather different one from different causes).
Britain due to her now vulnerable economic situation became a pawn of the American economic dynamo to which Britain turned too . That was in Britains interest , because seeking peace with Germany would of literally stripped Britain of her imperial assets .

More than anything else, the escalation into a global conflict has to be put down to the triumph of a warmongering Churchill over his political opponents. How this was possible is a matter of considerable interest -- and it needs explaining!
Churchill was second choice after Chamberlin resigned in May 1940 , Halifax was the preferred choice to replace Chamberlin , Halifax declined , Churchill assumed the appointment just a few days before the French collapse . After the British rout at Dunkirque and losses on the High seas and losing one third of its Airforce in France , Britain was in no position to wage any conflict without major aid . This where America stepped in and took over control of the Western sphere in the war against Germany .

[Brian Foley]

Agreed insofar as Hitler’s basic strategy was to resurect the Triple Alliance while keeping the Triple Entente divided. But “controlling Eastern Europe” required the elimination of the French, not Polish, army.
Poland originally within the German plan was going to be the springboard for the invasion of Russia , this was to be accomplished though negotiations . Poland was offered a favourable treaty with Germany with many economic enticements in return for the settlement of Danzig and a military alliance which would allow Germany to place troops in Poland . Poland only balked because of the Anglo/Franco alliance Poland had with those 2 nations Poland , and at the insistence of their Anglo/Franco allies refused Germany's offer . Germany was left with no option but invasion and physical occupation of Poland , so this situation led to the Nazi/Soviet pact which was to buy time for Germany whilst they dealt with the Anglo/Franco alliance in the West .


As far as I’m aware, Churchill did not elaborate on his war objectives during this timeframe? If this assumption is correct, then is it not safest to take reference to the Anglo-French ultimatum of September 1939 as the basis of his aims?
It is safe to say that after May 1940 , with the conquest of France , that the situation was far different from the position of strength the Anglo/Franco allaince had in Sept 1939 .


The “now proven” impotency of the British aerial campaign doesn’t apply to 1940, obviously. At that point in time the British establishment had great hopes for strategic bombing.
I was giving an example , however until US military involvment against Germany in 1942 , Britains military campaign against Germany was wholly ineffective and reliant on US material aid .


Proof for a topic that remains shrouded in mystery to this day?
Would you agree with the observation that Hitler was more interested in securing peace than Churchill was in granting it?
It no longer mattered , Britain was militarily neutralized and offered no threat to Germany , so Germany had no obligation to offer any peace terms to Britain .

[River Ape]

Churchill was second choice after Chamberlin resigned in May 1940 , Halifax was the preferred choice to replace Chamberlin , Halifax declined , Churchill assumed the appointment just a few days before the French collapse . After the British rout at Dunkirque and losses on the High seas and losing one third of its Airforce in France , Britain was in no position to wage any conflict without major aid . This where America stepped in and took over control of the Western sphere in the war against Germany .
Right (more or less). Halifax, it should be said, realised that it was no longer practical for a Lord to be PM -- especially in wartime.

Britain due to her now vulnerable economic situation became a pawn of the American economic dynamo to which Britain turned too . That was in Britains interest , because seeking peace with Germany would of literally stripped Britain of her imperial assets .
Wrong. Britain's best interest lay in peace with Germany. Hitler had no designs on the British Empire -- with the exception of the restoration of a few economically unimportant former German colonies. He had never wanted war with Britain, and saw no conflict between German ambitions in Europe and those of Britain overseas. Whereas, in an alliance with the US, Britain was bound to be the subservient partner. The US, if it had no territorial ambitions on the Empire, wished to end "colonialism" and Imperial Preference. Continuing the war against Germany was bound to lead Britain into near bankruptcy as her assets were sold or mortgaged to the US.

[glenn239]

Again, no one will argue but that the impetus for war was coming from the American side...Well, you've changed your tune!

It's self-evident that FDR wanted war more than Hitler. Your problem (that you've yet to respond to directly) is that you must divorce FDR's desire for war from Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. I submit this to be impossible, which leaves the casus beli as the overthrow of order in Europe by military force. This was a legitimate reason for American intervention and certainly doesn't require any conspiracies to explain it.

Why don't we begin with your own evaluation of how far you believe Germany was prepared to go to reach a peace agreement with Britain after the fall of France. Let me know YOUR understanding of the situation -- in regard to Poland and more generally.

Hitler demanded a "free hand" in Eastern Europe. He would probably have made concessions in the west to get it. Great Britain had no desire to grant anyone a "free hand", and therefore matters were at an impasse.

British attitudes concerning Europe were an anachronism, which sooner or later would have justified either Europe or America destroying the British Empire.

Are you telling me that you are in disagreement with Peter Calvocoressi (quoted earlier) and almost all other serious historians of WWII in their assessment that Hitler tried to avoid conflict with the US?

While Pete certainly knows waaaayyy more about than I do, obviously Hitler's "attempts" only went so far - he did, after all, declare war. Which is an awfully funny way of avoiding one. Please don't suggest that Hitler had exhausted his options for evasion. He had not.

Again, to repeat, Hitler grossly overestimated the strength of his hand when playing against Uncle Sam. He calculated that Japan was a worthy diversion, and that he could finish Stalin fast enough to turn west with his full strength. The boy was just too damn optimistic.


This statement would strike a lot of people as odd! Germans and Slavs are traditional enemies. The Poles had drawn up lists of Germans living in Poland, and began rounding them up and executing them after the German invasion -- arguably the first major atrocities against civilians in WWII.

Consult the Munich Crisis and note which country in Europe enacted the most pro-German policy.

Bulgarians are Slavs. Slovaks are Slavs. Please note upon which side they fought the war.

This will not do. Hitler understood that an alliance between Germany and Britain was what made most sense to both countries, and this is what he wanted. Much of the British Establishment wanted peace with Germany, and had a preference for Hitler over Stalin. It was Churchill's rejection of peace that was "irrational" -- except in terms of his hatred of the Germans and desire for personal glory, or else for reasons we do not yet fully understand.

Churchill's rejected peace because he could; Britain was not yet defeated. Why he did so goes back to the historic British policy of trying to prevent the rise of a continental hegemon.

Well, in a sense, that is what Roosevelt claimed. Did he not make several remarks to the effect that he could not stand by and see Britain defeated? I don't believe I would have to search too long to find one of them.


No need - I've no doubt but that they exist. It's interesting that you've deduced an American intent to bring war to Germany, but haven't taken the observation to its logical conclusion. Allow me to make a suggestion; FDR's motivation for crushing Germany was on account of the danger that Hitler could unify Europe as a rival to the United States. All that stupid talk of an Aryan race probably had a purpose - Europe was Aryan in ancestry.

This issue of security was so profound that matters such as a British continuation in the war were almost irrelevant. This eventuality would be regrettable, but America would still steamroll the Germans in any event. Certainly the fear of German hegemony which probably drove FDR would not have eased an iota if Great Britain knuckled under!


Really? You are saying that the US would have gone to the aid of the Bolsheviks whilst the British Empire remained neutral? Do I understand you correctly? Are you quite sure?


American policy would await the development of their own military power. This, rather than Stalin pleas would dictate policy. I'm guessing that Russia was unconquerable by Germany, and that wherever the front line resided, it is there the Americans would send their aid. When they were ready, they'd flatten Germany. This could be accomplished by seizing bases in Iceland and Africa, then probably into Norway, then Sweden, and from there airpower could smash the Reich. Nothing fancy.

Justify this claim. Was American policy guided by the arms manufacturers? or by the communists inside the Roosevelt administration? or by the Jews?


We're all guessing on these matters. These guys took their secrets to the grave! American policy was directed by the President and his actions were guided by American interests. If one is to talk of conspiracies, please provide names of the players and documents outlining how they exerted their influence.

Poland originally within the German plan was going to be the springboard for the invasion of Russia , this was to be accomplished though negotiations . Poland was offered a favourable treaty with Germany with many economic enticements in return for the settlement of Danzig and a military alliance which would allow Germany to place troops in Poland .

But the definition of "entice" is at odds with surrendering Danzig to a foreign power. That was blackmail. You're suggesting Hitler was willing to throw his pan-European agenda out the window over the matter of one minor city that he could still have had his way in if he had the patience to let it hang fire for a few more years. I think A.P. Taylor may have been on the right track when he suggested Hitler was, at times, winging it on the fly.

If Russia is the goal, then the order by which matters are addressed is obvious; Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Russia. Once France falls, Poland joins the Axis along with Rumania. Once Russia falls, who cares what Warsaw thinks of Danzig?

It is safe to say that after May 1940 , with the conquest of France , that the situation was far different from the position of strength the Anglo/Franco alliance had in Sept 1939 .

And yet Germany had irretrievably lost the war within 18 months. Obviously Churchill's calculations were more accurate than Hitler's.

I was giving an example , however until US military involvement against Germany in 1942 , Britain's military campaign against Germany was wholly ineffective and reliant on US material aid .

And I was pointing out that the lessons of 1944 matter nothing to the hopes of 1940. At that time the British were optimistic that strategic bombing would work.

If you wish to argue a case that a friendless Britain would kick Churchill out of office in the 1945 elections and make peace with Germany, I won't argue.

It no longer mattered , Britain was militarily neutralized and offered no threat to Germany , so Germany had no obligation to offer any peace terms to Britain .


But you are no doubt aware that one of Hitler's most often-cited explanations for Barbarossa was to force Britain to make peace by kick out her last European "prop". Using 20/20 hindsight we can see that the British Empire had shot its bolt. But this was not apparent in 1940.

[Brian Foley]

Wrong. Britain's best interest lay in peace with Germany. Hitler had no designs on the British Empire -- with the exception of the restoration of a few economically unimportant former German colonies. He had never wanted war with Britain, and saw no conflict between German ambitions in Europe and those of Britain overseas. Whereas, in an alliance with the US, Britain was bound to be the subservient partner. The US, if it had no territorial ambitions on the Empire, wished to end "colonialism" and Imperial Preference. Continuing the war against Germany was bound to lead Britain into near bankruptcy as her assets were sold or mortgaged to the US.
Germany made no advancements to Britain for peace , Germany had no intention of peace with Britain because Britain had been neutralized . Germanys war aims lay to the East against Russia and decided to use Britain as an excuse to build forces up in the Balkans . As Adolf Galland wrote in his biograghy about the battle of Britain "It was a mask for the invasion of Russia" . The US shut down the colonial system because the US had economic hegemony . France became a possession of Germany by occupation , Briatin became a possession of America by neutralization .

[Brian Foley]

But the definition of "entice" is at odds with surrendering Danzig to a foreign power. That was blackmail. You're suggesting Hitler was willing to throw his pan-European agenda out the window over the matter of one minor city that he could still have had his way in if he had the patience to let it hang fire for a few more years. I think A.P. Taylor may have been on the right track when he suggested Hitler was, at times, winging it on the fly.
No Germany had to military employ Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia . This was to be either done through diplomacy or invasion . The Danzig corridor along with other territorial claims against Poland were terms the Germans put forward knowing full well the Poles would not accept thereby facillitating a reason for invasion .
If Russia is the goal, then the order by which matters are addressed is obvious; Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Russia. Once France falls, Poland joins the Axis along with Rumania. Once Russia falls, who cares what Warsaw thinks of Danzig?
Just Poland , its the only path geographically the Germans could launch an invasion of Russia . Germany dealt with France and Britain in the West immediately after to clear their back thereby allowing full attention on Russia .
And yet Germany had irretrievably lost the war within 18 months. Obviously Churchill's calculations were more accurate than Hitler's.
Germany lost the war because they under estimated their gamble . Russia had been under estimated as the efficient communist industrial programme of mass production out paced the German industrial complex . Churchill had minimal to do with anything he was Roosevelts lap dog .
And I was pointing out that the lessons of 1944 matter nothing to the hopes of 1940. At that time the British were optimistic that strategic bombing would work.
The effects of mass bombing were known full well by 1942 to be ineffective whence why the USAAF opted for bombing Germanys industrial areas to dust ,
If you wish to argue a case that a friendless Britain would kick Churchill out of office in the 1945 elections and make peace with Germany, I won't argue.
Britain could of very well thrown Churchill out in 1942 when it was seriously put forward to Anthony Eden take over especially after Dieppe and the Balkans flops .
But you are no doubt aware that one of Hitler's most often-cited explanations for Barbarossa was to force Britain to make peace by kick out her last European "prop". Using 20/20 hindsight we can see that the British Empire had shot its bolt. But this was not apparent in 1940.
It was apparent to the Germans , Russians and the Americans as the Blitzkreig swept Britain and France from the World maps that they had shot their bolts . I mean the Germans witnessed Lend Lease that was a dead give away .

[glenn239]

No Germany had to military employ Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia . This was to be either done through diplomacy or invasion . The Danzig corridor along with other territorial claims against Poland were terms the Germans put forward knowing full well the Poles would not accept thereby facillitating a reason for invasion…Just Poland , its the only path geographically the Germans could launch an invasion of Russia . Germany dealt with France and Britain in the West immediately after to clear their back thereby allowing full attention on Russia .


If Hitler is acting upon some “master plan”, we have to accredit him with the foresight to be able to discern obvious strategic choices in fulfillment of said plan. If Hitler attacks Poland first, this is a grossly more dangerous method of attacking Russia because it leaves Germany defenseless to an intact, potentially hostile enemy army in the German backfield; not once, but twice. First, the French Army is ignored as Poland is crushed. Then the Germans must bare their backs to the Red Army while they concentrate and defeat France in what is to be expected a much longer campaign than actually occurred.

If Hitler attacks France first, then it’s the Polish Army, not the Russian that’s at Germany’s back. Poland cannot concentrate upon Germany for fear of Russia (witness what happened when they did deploy their army to the west). In contrast to what Hitler did historically, in this case he takes a risk with a natural ally, with a weak army that is probably going to be pinned to watching its great neighbor to the east. Thus, Hitler is able to attack France, then turn on Russia WITHOUT baring his back to a major enemy. Common sense dictates that this is by far the safer course than what Hitler actually did.

If we suppose that Hitler was capable of making rational decisions, and we suppose that he was interested only in attacking Russia, then the order of attack is France first, then Poland. Since he did not do this, I’m suggesting that the better explanation is that Hitler was “winging” it, and got caught up in a confrontation with Poland because he was a violent idiot. Later, in 1945, IMO, Hitler indirectly admitted that this error was fatal.

Germany lost the war because they under estimated their gamble. Russia had been under estimated as the efficient communist industrial program of mass production out paced the German industrial complex . Churchill had minimal to do with anything he was Roosevelts lap dog .

Agreed that Hitler was nuts in terms of his risk assessment. Also agreed that Great Britain contributed the least to winning the war of the “Big Three”. Disagree that the Germans in 1940 saw Britain as weaker than Russia.

The effects of mass bombing were known full well by 1942 to be ineffective whence why the USAAF opted for bombing Germanys industrial areas to dust

You’re being pretty squirmy on this one! Again, 1942 is not 1940. Hitler signed Barbarossa in 1940.

[Mr.Jack4WAR]

umm lets say we went to WW2 becuz we got bombed at pearl harbor.. sound good??

[Brian Foley]

If Hitler is acting upon some “master plan”, we have to accredit him with the foresight to be able to discern obvious strategic choices in fulfillment of said plan. If Hitler attacks Poland first, this is a grossly more dangerous method of attacking Russia because it leaves Germany defenseless to an intact, potentially hostile enemy army in the German backfield; not once, but twice. First, the French Army is ignored as Poland is crushed. Then the Germans must bare their backs to the Red Army while they concentrate and defeat France in what is to be expected a much longer campaign than actually occurred.
Of course there was a master plan the invasion of France ( case Yellow ) had been in the planning since 1937 . Nations just dont decide overnight to invade other nations on a whim . Nazi Germeny had been rearming for a war of conquest since 1933 . Russia in 1934 began preparations for war which demonstrates clearly the Russia was expecting an invasion . A full 7 years of prepatory work went in to the master plan . The Polish army was not even the slightest threat it consisted of no mechanized forces just calvary .
If Hitler attacks France first, then it’s the Polish Army, not the Russian that’s at Germany’s back. Poland cannot concentrate upon Germany for fear of Russia (witness what happened when they did deploy their army to the west). In contrast to what Hitler did historically, in this case he takes a risk with a natural ally, with a weak army that is probably going to be pinned to watching its great neighbor to the east. Thus, Hitler is able to attack France, then turn on Russia WITHOUT baring his back to a major enemy. Common sense dictates that this is by far the safer course than what Hitler actually did.
Thats where the Nazi-Soviet pact came into play , the Germans bought the Russians off to buy time whilst they dealt with the French and British in the West . The British and French decided to sit the war out behind the maginot line . In fact the Phony war was just that the Anglo/French military did not even make an advance against the Germans . Besides why France 1st ? Hitler needed Poland to invade Russia so thats what Germany did . France and Britain if they invaded could of been held at the German border whilst the German army over ran Poland and then the German forces could of turned around and confronted in force the Anglo/Franco armies .
If we suppose that Hitler was capable of making rational decisions, and we suppose that he was interested only in attacking Russia, then the order of attack is France first, then Poland. Since he did not do this, I’m suggesting that the better explanation is that Hitler was “winging” it, and got caught up in a confrontation with Poland because he was a violent idiot. Later, in 1945, IMO, Hitler indirectly admitted that this error was fatal.
Russia was the only target the Germans had since 1933 , in fact in 1914 that was the German ambition then and that was occupying Russia as an economic vasal state . read Mein Kampf , read William Shires Rise and fall of the third reich and for a Russian perspective read Khruschev remembers vol 1 .
Agreed that Hitler was nuts in terms of his risk assessment. Also agreed that Great Britain contributed the least to winning the war of the “Big Three”. Disagree that the Germans in 1940 saw Britain as weaker than Russia.
Britain was finished in all but name , Britain subsisted soley on American military aid in the form of lend lease . The Germans operated without lend lease they were intact .
You’re being pretty squirmy on this one! Again, 1942 is not 1940. Hitler signed Barbarossa in 1940 .
German plans and preparations for Barbarossa began in 1933 . Dont be fooled by this Hitler lunatic myth he was a genius who calculated each move carefully .

[River Ape]

It's self-evident that FDR wanted war more than Hitler. Your problem (that you've yet to respond to directly) is that you must divorce FDR's desire for war from Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. I submit this to be impossible, which leaves the casus beli as the overthrow of order in Europe by military force. This was a legitimate reason for American intervention and certainly doesn't require any conspiracies to explain it.
I am not aware of having a problem -- other than understanding you. I have repeatedly stated that I am concerned with the historic causation of WWII. I don't believe one gets to understand history any better by getting into the supposed rights or wrongs (or casus belli or legitimacy) of situations. These are matters for moral philosophy rather than history in my opinion. You are obviously at liberty to debate them, but it is not a debate that you can have with me.

FDR was elected on a promise to keep the US out of the war in Europe. Popular opinion in the US was isolationist. On the face of it, if Britain and Germany had concluded a peace treaty or armistice, it seems unlikely that US policy (which turned right around) would have developed in the way it did. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

While Pete certainly knows waaaayyy more about than I do, obviously Hitler's "attempts" only went so far - he did, after all, declare war. Which is an awfully funny way of avoiding one. Please don't suggest that Hitler had exhausted his options for evasion. He had not.
It's not only Peter Calvocoressi who knows more than you. Do you know of a historian who maintains that Hitler ceased to maintain a policy of conciliation and non-provocation towards the US until he finally had to bow to the inevitability of conflict?

Allow me to make a suggestion; FDR's motivation for crushing Germany was on account of the danger that Hitler could unify Europe as a rival to the United States. All that stupid talk of an Aryan race probably had a purpose - Europe was Aryan in ancestry.
Eh? Most of Europe was not Aryan. There are and were more Slavs than Aryans -- never mind all the other groups.

[glenn239]

Russia in 1934 began preparations for war which demonstrates clearly the Russia was expecting an invasion . A full 7 years of prepatory work went in to the master plan .

But if you trace the origins of Barbarossa, the planning and strategy appears to have been created on the fly during the 2nd half of 1940 and early 1941. Hitler himself waivered between differing concepts, and even fundamental matters (such as whether the center or the wings would be the focus of the main effort) went unresolved, even into the war. Straightforward stuff such as the distribution of winter clothing was completely pooched. If careful planning had been under way for 7 years, then these issues should have been long resolved.


Thats where the Nazi-Soviet pact came into play , the Germans bought the Russians off to buy time whilst they dealt with the French and British in the West .

The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was no substitute for a secure rear - the paper the treaty was written on couldn't have stopped a single one of Stalin's 20,000 tanks if push came to shove. Absolutely nothing prevented the Soviets from betraying the Germans and attacking into the vacuum of Prussia in May 1940, if so desired.

The British and French decided to sit the war out behind the maginot line . In fact the Phony war was just that the Anglo/French military did not even make an advance against the Germans .

For an idea of real Anglo-French offensive capability, reference Gamelin's May 1940 move into Belgium.

Hitler's master plan cannot rely upon fanciful hopes - if he is to invade Russia, he will have expected an intact French army to attack him in the rear.

Besides why France 1st ? Hitler needed Poland to invade Russia so thats what Germany did . France and Britain if they invaded could of been held at the German border whilst the German army over ran Poland and then the German forces could of turned around and confronted in force the Anglo/Franco armies .

I think that the point has been sufficiently hashed out. I cannot prove that Hitler was "winging it" when he attacked Poland, but the strategic logic causes me to doubt that what happened in our history in any way represented the most efficient method to attack Russia.

The best solution, IMO, is to not have to turn an unprotected back to a major enemy army. That means France first, then Poland, then Russia.

Russia was the only target the Germans had since 1933 , in fact in 1914 that was the German ambition then and that was occupying Russia as an economic vassal state . read Mien Kampf , read William Shires Rise and fall of the third Reich and for a Russian perspective read Khrushchev remembers volt 1 .

Hitler signed the Z-Plan into law in January 1939. This naval program would have cost the Germans the steel necessary to construct 30,000 tanks, and was only cancelled because the war broke out. This was fundamentally incompatible with a "Russia only" strategy; Germany did not have the resources in either oil or industry to build and operate both a top-notch army and navy.

Britain was finished in all but name , Britain subsisted soley on American military aid in the form of lend lease . The Germans operated without lend lease they were intact .

Here are the production statistics for Great Britain and Germany, 1940 through 1943:

Aircraft (UK/GER)
1940: 15049 / 10247
1941: 20094 / 11776
1942: 23672 / 15409
1943: 26263 / 24807

Tanks (UK/GER)
1940: 1399 / 2200
1941: 4841 / 5200
1942: 8611 / 9200
1943: 7476 / 17300

Artillery (over 37mm)
1940: 1900 / 5000
1941: 5300 / 7000
1942: 6600 / 12000
1943: 12200 / 27000

Germany is clearly the stronger power, but the UK is nowhere near "finished".

German plans and preparations for Barbarossa began in 1933 . Dont be fooled by this Hitler lunatic myth he was a genius who calculated each move carefully .

Hitler was not insane in the medical sense (though there is evidence that disease or drugs impaired his judgment). But he was prone to violent confrontation, and tended to meet challenges with some directive or other resolving to "crush" the offender. This suggests that his planning was hostage to all sorts of short-term diversions based upon whom currently a tantrum was focused upon. I believe that the confrontation with Poland was precisely because of such a hissy-pissy; and it cost him the war.

On the face of it, if Britain and Germany had concluded a peace treaty or armistice, it seems unlikely that US policy (which turned right around) would have developed in the way it did. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

Nor do I expect to. We're writing to try to influence a wider audience, not to alter our basic positions. I joined on to the thread because some of the opinions were fresh and I'm interested to discover how robust the thinking is behind them.

Do you know of a historian who maintains that Hitler ceased to maintain a policy of conciliation and non-provocation towards the US until he finally had to bow to the inevitability of conflict?

Are you referring to meaningless matters, such as U-Boat rules of engagement, or more serious ones, such as acts of genocide and unlawful annexations inside Russian and Polish territories?


Eh? Most of Europe was not Aryan. There are and were more Slavs than Aryans -- never mind all the other groups.

Hitler's Secret Book might be of interest to you then, if you've not read it. My impression was that the pan-Ayran garbage was a cover for the desire to forge a European superstate under German leadership.

[Brian Foley]

Eh? Most of Europe was not Aryan. There are and were more Slavs than Aryans -- never mind all the other groups.
Geramnic , Slavs , Celts and Latins are all Aryans , todays politically correct term is Indo-European .

[Brian Foley]

But if you trace the origins of Barbarossa, the planning and strategy appears to have been created on the fly during the 2nd half of 1940 and early 1941. Hitler himself waivered between differing concepts, and even fundamental matters (such as whether the center or the wings would be the focus of the main effort) went unresolved, even into the war. Straightforward stuff such as the distribution of winter clothing was completely pooched. If careful planning had been under way for 7 years, then these issues should have been long resolved.
Below is the history of German rearmament which began in 1933 and became full on in 1935 .Germany and Rearmament (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm)
The military plans for the invasion were laid out in 1939 , please read these are from official German High Command files . There are 16 parts it shows high detailed planning and commentary this opposes your view that Barbarossa was formulated on the fly .
Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression Volume I Chapter IX , Aggression Against the U.S.S.R. (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-09-aggression-12.html)
A. Inception of the Plan.

The point of departure for the story of the aggression against the Soviet Union is the date, 23 August 1939. On that day - just a week before the invasion of Poland -- the Nazi conspirators caused Germany to enter into the Treaty of Non-Aggression with the USSR This Treaty (TC-25) contained two significant articles:
Germany had to be fully equipped for war the rearmament was stage 1 and the planning of the campaign was stage 2 .
The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was no substitute for a secure rear - the paper the treaty was written on couldn't have stopped a single one of Stalin's 20,000 tanks if push came to shove. Absolutely nothing prevented the Soviets from betraying the Germans and attacking into the vacuum of Prussia in May 1940, if so desired.
Was Russia in the shape for a offensive ? When the Polish campaign ended Russia launched the Finnish War which was a disatrous demonstration of how inadequate the Soviet military was .
For an idea of real Anglo-French offensive capability, reference Gamelin's May 1940 move into Belgium.

Hitler's master plan cannot rely upon fanciful hopes - if he is to invade Russia, he will have expected an intact French army to attack him in the rear.
I fully answered that previously and explained Anglo/Franco inactivity on Germanys border for 6 months . This period of the war was known as the phony war why was there no attack from the Anglo/Franco alliance ?
I think that the point has been sufficiently hashed out. I cannot prove that Hitler was "winging it" when he attacked Poland, but the strategic logic causes me to doubt that what happened in our history in any way represented the most efficient method to attack Russia.

The best solution, IMO, is to not have to turn an unprotected back to a major enemy army. That means France first, then Poland, then Russia.
Poland First as its the easiest to deal with , then France and Britain next as they are the powerfulest . Its as simple as that ! Thats what the Germans planned and that is how there plan came off .
Hitler signed the Z-Plan into law in January 1939. This naval program would have cost the Germans the steel necessary to construct 30,000 tanks, and was only cancelled because the war broke out. This was fundamentally incompatible with a "Russia only" strategy; Germany did not have the resources in either oil or industry to build and operate both a top-notch army and navy.
The Z-plan came last because the German navy figured last in priorities procurements . This Z-Plan is evidence that by 1939 German rearmament was complete for its military and Airforce .
Germany is clearly the stronger power, but the UK is nowhere near "finished".
Explain these 3 queries 1) What thraet did Britain pose to Germanys military , civilian industrial complex prior to Dec 1941 ? 2) Explain what would happen to Britain if America never gave lend lease ? 3) Would Britain of survived the U-Boat onslaught without active US intervention prior to Dec 1941 ?
Hitler was not insane in the medical sense (though there is evidence that disease or drugs impaired his judgment). But he was prone to violent confrontation, and tended to meet challenges with some directive or other resolving to "crush" the offender. This suggests that his planning was hostage to all sorts of short-term diversions based upon whom currently a tantrum was focused upon. I believe that the confrontation with Poland was precisely because of such a hissy-pissy; and it cost him the war.
I wholeheartedly disagree I believe Hitler was a military strategist genius . If you read the Barbarossa OKW files you will see it was Hitler who devised the overall plan and it was the OKW and OKH staff who refined it and General Marcs who authored the final plan . Hitler was correct in his assessment that Normandy would be the centre of gravity of the D-Day offensive Rommel said Calias . Descriptions of Hitlers evil temper , tantrums and insane rantings come from second hand sources . I have read Rommels diary , Guderians biograpghy and they give total diametrically opposed accounts of Hitler . A lot of the blame for Germanys military set backs were put unfairly on Hitler as an excuse from other offices failings . Take Kursk that was Mansteins failure yet he blamed Hitler . Simply put irrational madmen do not remain in power long Hitler was an intelligent leader who commanded voluntary loyalty right up to his death .

[River Ape]

Geramnic , Slavs , Celts and Latins are all Aryans , todays politically correct term is Indo-European .
Actually, I agree that this is the most sensible usage of the word. The point is that Nazi teaching on race was divisive. It was hardly the thing "to unify Europe as a rival to the United States" as claimed by glenn239. Slavs were regarded as inferior to "true Aryans" of the Germanic/Nordic type.

[glenn239]

The military plans for the invasion were laid out in 1939 , please read these are from official German High Command files . There are 16 parts it shows high detailed planning and commentary this opposes your view that Barbarossa was formulated on the fly .

My most immediate source would be Fulgate, from 1984. It's pretty specific - German planning of the invasion of the Soviet Union began in July 1940. A more recent source (the Oxford companion) states the first operational studies taking place in the summer of 1940. What sources (non-internet, published works) can you direct me to that detail German planning before July 1940?

Germany had to be fully equipped for war the rearmament was stage 1 and the planning of the campaign was stage 2 .

No, merely rearming is not evidence of intent. For instance, A.P. Taylor's contention that Hitler was exploiting opportunities without reference to a long term plan, also required feverish rearmament. You can't play Texas Hold'em without chips.

Was Russia in the shape for a offensive ? When the Polish campaign ended Russia launched the Finnish War which was a disastrous demonstration of how inadequate the Soviet military was .

And how'd that work out for Finland? The Soviets made pretty short work of the Japanese, I'll add.

The Red Army was no match for the Wehrmacht. But IIRC, while the Germans deployed for the attack on France, Poland contained something in the order of 8 divisions facing a Russian army that could muster 10 or 20 times that number, backed by huge numbers of tanks and aircraft. Hitler's gamble was incredible, and only pulled through because the French Army defied expectation and collapsed in a week of fighting.

I fully answered that previously and explained Anglo/Franco inactivity on Germanys border for 6 months . This period of the war was known as the phony war why was there no attack from the Anglo/Franco alliance

We're confusing intent with capability. The French and British were capable of attacking Germany with something in the order of 50 or 60 good divisions, backed by over 3,000 tanks. Another 60 or 70 divisions of lesser quality were also available, and thousands of aircraft.

If you'll look at the British Army production figures I provided, you'll notice that the United Kingdom alone produced so much weaponry that Hitler had no hope of holding the Allies while attacking Russia.

The Allies remained passive during 1939 and 1940 because they did not suspect that they needed to go over to the attack. They overrated the effect of the blockade, and erroneously anticipated that Germany was running out of time. That they did not attack should not be confused with an inability to do so.

Poland First as its the easiest to deal with , then France and Britain next as they are the powerfulest . Its as simple as that ! Thats what the Germans planned and that is how there plan came off .

But there's no evidence that Poland would "need to be dealt with". If Germany attacks France while stroking Beck's ego, Poland probably sides with Germany, not France. Poland's nightmare loomed to the east.

Hitler can take Danzig at his leisure after Russia falls.

The Z-plan came last because the German navy figured last in priorities procurements . This Z-Plan is evidence that by 1939 German rearmament was complete for its military and Airforce .

The Luftwaffe wasn't in too bad a shape by 1939, but British and French production was ramping up quickly, so Goering could afford no letup in production increases. The army was another story. About 2/3rd's of the tanks available were weak and fairly useless. There were only 10 armored divisions, and the infantry divisions weren't well equipped, there was not enough motorized transport, etc.

Since the Z-Plan was implemented with an expectation of no war for 4-5 years, and cancelled when war broke out, it demonstrates that Hitler had decided by 1939 to ally with Russia and attack the west.

Explain these 3 queries 1) What threat did Britain pose to Germanys military , civilian industrial complex prior to Dec 1941 ? 2) Explain what would happen to Britain if America never gave lend lease ? 3) Would Britain of survived the U-Boat onslaught without active US intervention prior to Dec 1941 ?

1) The British threat in 1940 and 1941 was via strategic bombing. By 1944 it was evident that the British strategy of nightime raids was technically premature. But only a soothsayer can read the future.

2) Without Lend Lease, the British would have been unable to aquire large amounts of American weaponry. This would have forced Churchill to rely upon indigeneous production almost exclusively, but as you can see from the production figures I posted, British industry was competitive in this sense.

One side effect of a breakdown in Anglo-American cooperation may have been a failure by London to comply with an oil embargo against Japan. This would have prevented an Anglo-Japanese war in 1941.

3) I believe that Germany would have won the Battle of the Atlantic if the UK had not been supported by other powers, but it would have taken quite some time to do so. I'm thinking 1945 or later.

I wholeheartedly disagree I believe Hitler was a military strategist genius .

Actually, I think Hitler was probably the smartest of the war leaders. I didn't say he didn't have talent - I said that he was prone to violent escalation when challenged. There is speculation that this was because he suffered from syphilis, or perhaps drug addiction.

If you want examples of Hitler in action, I think his leadership when Italy collapsed in 1943 was pretty good. I'm in a minority in that I believe the decision for the Bulge offensive was the correct one. The list of good decisions goes on and on. In particular I've noticed that Hitler tended to understand the evolution of technology; for example, he may have been the first to propose the submarine-launched decoy.

But Hitler was also prone to irrational stubbornness and obsolete thinking as well. When Manstein suggested an echeloned defense in 1943 (the correct course), Hitler had a banana. Pouring troops into Tunis in 1943 was a boner move. Falaise Pocket was Hitler's baby. So was dividing his forces in front of Stalingrad during Case Blue. The list goes on.

It was hardly the thing "to unify Europe as a rival to the United States" as claimed by glenn239. Slavs were regarded as inferior to "true Aryans" of the Germanic/Nordic type.

"Nordic". "Aryan". i.e. - Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, England, Austria and portions of her former empire. Heck, even parts of France. These sorts of places. Look at it this way - Hitler wanted Germany to be to Europe what Prussia was to Germany.

Mien Kampf was supposed to be a British statemen's wetdream. Needless to say, it was published before Germany was in a position to rearm, since it's main purpose on the international front was to allow said rearmament.

[Brian Foley]

My most immediate source would be Fulgate, from 1984. It's pretty specific - German planning of the invasion of the Soviet Union began in July 1940. A more recent source (the Oxford companion) states the first operational studies taking place in the summer of 1940. What sources (non-internet, published works) can you direct me to that detail German planning before July 1940?
The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich ; William Shirer , Chapter 23. , Barbarossa: The Turn Of Russia pages 796 to 800

And

Total War: The Causes And Courses Of The Second World War ; Peter Calvocoressi , Gut Wint And John Pritchard Chap 8. , The Mediterrean , North Africa And The Middle East pages 168 to 169 No, merely rearming is not evidence of intent. For instance, A.P. Taylor's contention that Hitler was exploiting opportunities without reference to a long term plan, also required feverish rearmament. You can't play Texas Hold'em without chips.
In Germany's case it certainly was , and there was a long term plan just read the 2 books I quoted ablove .
And how'd that work out for Finland? The Soviets made pretty short work of the Japanese, I'll add.
Makes no difference , the Japanese escapade was just border clash's , I answered your question to demonstrate that Germany had intelligence to sugges
The Red Army was no match for the Wehrmacht. But IIRC, while the Germans deployed for the attack on France, Poland contained something in the order of 8 divisions facing a Russian army that could muster 10 or 20 times that number, backed by huge numbers of tanks and aircraft. Hitler's gamble was incredible, and only pulled through because the French Army defied expectation and collapsed in a week of fighting.
Germany , as I explained , in order to attack Russia must have Poland as a launch pad in order to launch Barbarossa . The only way Germany could attack Russia was through Poland as Poland was the only nation conveniently situated geograpghically in which Germany could opearte from .
We're confusing intent with capability. The French and British were capable of attacking Germany with something in the order of 50 or 60 good divisions, backed by over 3,000 tanks. Another 60 or 70 divisions of lesser quality were also available, and thousands of aircraft.
Germany had enough troops on the Siegfreid line to hold any Anglo/Franco advance whilst the German invasion of Poland proceeded . Germany used 2 army groups (North and South)to invade Poland . Whilst the invasion of Poland proceeded , in the West Germany had 3 Army Groups (A under Bock , B under Rudstedt and C under Leeb) to counter any move by the Anglo/Franco Alliance .
If you'll look at the British Army production figures I provided, you'll notice that the United Kingdom alone produced so much weaponry that Hitler had no hope of holding the Allies while attacking Russia.
In order to produce such weapons in such quantity Britain needed money whence this is where the Lend Lease loans came into play . This weapon procurement activity was extremely expensive as by mid1940 all of Britains reserves had been expended and was now fed by US loans with high interest rates .
The Allies remained passive during 1939 and 1940 because they did not suspect that they needed to go over to the attack. They overrated the effect of the blockade, and erroneously anticipated that Germany was running out of time. That they did not attack should not be confused with an inability to do so.
Which by the way lends credence to my theory I expounded originally .
The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded . However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest . Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize .
But there's no evidence that Poland would "need to be dealt with". If Germany attacks France while stroking Beck's ego, Poland probably sides with Germany, not France. Poland's nightmare loomed to the east.

Hitler can take Danzig at his leisure after Russia falls.
Poland as I explained was necessary for Germany to invade Russia as Poland offered the only strategic route for a land invasion of Russia .
The Luftwaffe wasn't in too bad a shape by 1939, but British and French production was ramping up quickly, so Goering could afford no letup in production increases. The army was another story. About 2/3rd's of the tanks available were weak and fairly useless. There were only 10 armored divisions, and the infantry divisions weren't well equipped, there was not enough motorized transport, etc.
It was the introduction of Airpower which countered the most and new tactics such as that with Airpower supporting advancing Tanks and Paratroops softening up forward targets ie: Blitzkreig .
Since the Z-Plan was implemented with an expectation of no war for 4-5 years, and cancelled when war broke out, it demonstrates that Hitler had decided by 1939 to ally with Russia and attack the west.
Germany since 1935 had been planning to go to war in 1940 and end it by 1942 , I can safely assume the Z-Plan was not going to be completed as evidenced by its cancellation of surface ships for a large U-Boat flotilla .
1) The British threat in 1940 and 1941 was via strategic bombing. By 1944 it was evident that the British strategy of nightime raids was technically premature. But only a soothsayer can read the future.
But as we have already agreed British strategic bombing prioer to 1942 was ineffective .
2) Without Lend Lease, the British would have been unable to aquire large amounts of American weaponry. This would have forced Churchill to rely upon indigeneous production almost exclusively, but as you can see from the production figures I posted, British industry was competitive in this sense.
Only such an indigenous wepons programme could only be attained with loans , namely from the US , Britain would of ground its economy into salt financing such a progamme on its own .
One side effect of a breakdown in Anglo-American cooperation may have been a failure by London to comply with an oil embargo against Japan. This would have prevented an Anglo-Japanese war in 1941.
British oil interests were in Burma , Japanese purchases came from Indonesia and America.
3) I believe that Germany would have won the Battle of the Atlantic if the UK had not been supported by other powers, but it would have taken quite some time to do so. I'm thinking 1945 or later.
No actually the US Navy began an undeclared war on the German U-Boats and actively aiding the Royal navy and protecting it . refer The Battle Of The Atlantic; John Costello & Terry Hughes Chap 5. A Certain Eventuality. According to this indepth study the U-Boat campaign would of steamrolled Britain into submission by early 1941 without US help .
Actually, I think Hitler was probably the smartest of the war leaders. I didn't say he didn't have talent - I said that he was prone to violent escalation when challenged. There is speculation that this was because he suffered from syphilis, or perhaps drug addiction.
Sure I have read all these accounts from personalities who have been near him , I think a lot is just emotional claptrap to blame Hitler for their own failings . I personally believe Hitler was a level headed strategist and leader , thats from my own deductions. I will conclude that Hitler was a sociopath and a war mongerer but that is a trait of world leaders .
If you want examples of Hitler in action, I think his leadership when Italy collapsed in 1943 was pretty good. I'm in a minority in that I believe the decision for the Bulge offensive was the correct one. The list of good decisions goes on and on. In particular I've noticed that Hitler tended to understand the evolution of technology; for example, he may have been the first to propose the submarine-launched decoy.
For me Hitlers leadership outside Moscow in the face of the Zhukov offensive was what saved Army Group North from utter rout .
But Hitler was also prone to irrational stubbornness and obsolete thinking as well. When Manstein suggested an echeloned defense in 1943 (the correct course), Hitler had a banana. Pouring troops into Tunis in 1943 was a boner move. Falaise Pocket was Hitler's baby. So was dividing his forces in front of Stalingrad during Case Blue. The list goes on.
Hitler was afterall aHuman with all the faults that go with being one .

[Brian Foley]

Actually, I agree that this is the most sensible usage of the word. The point is that Nazi teaching on race was divisive. It was hardly the thing "to unify Europe as a rival to the United States" as claimed by glenn239. Slavs were regarded as inferior to "true Aryans" of the Germanic/Nordic type.
Agreed , but as with all planned future enemies of the conquerer they must make their victims out to be sub-human . Like what the West European colonists did when they conquered the world . All those with tans were animals and were treated as such .

[john smith]

All those with tans were animals.
Nope, all those with tans were not animals....but they were treated as such, mistakes like that can get you in dog crap................

[Brian Foley]

Nope, all those with tans were not animals....but they were treated as such, mistakes like that can get you in dog crap................
If you read the line of debate , you will see there already is an established understanding of what we are meanining .

[glenn239]

The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich ; William Shirer , Chapter 23. , Barbarossa: The Turn Of Russia pages 796 to 800

I've got Shirer. First off, pages 796 to 800 contain nothing about planning for Barbarossa, nor are they even from chapter 23. Second, the Barbarossa Chapter does not appear to support your position. It outlines the standard chronology; Hitler first begins looking at an invasion of Russia in the summer of 1940 - June or July and the army begins operational studies in August of 1940. Here's an example of a valid reference,

"German strategic planning for the invasion of the Soviet Union, which was referred to under the code names Otto, Fritz, and finally, Barbarossa, began in early July 1940."

Bryan Fugate, Operation Barbarossa. PP61

If I can obtain a copy of Total War, I will check it, but your Shirer reference is wrong - or can you direct me to another quote there? One that indicates that German operational planning for the invasion of the Soviet Union started in the timeframe you are claiming?

Makes no difference , the Japanese escapade was just border clashes

In August 1939 the Japanese 23rd Division was annihilated with the loss of over 18,000 IJA soldiers killed in action as Zhukov butchered them in the Battle of Kalkhin-Gol.

Germany , as I explained , in order to attack Russia must have Poland as a launch pad in order to launch Barbarossa . The only way Germany could attack Russia was through Poland.

Correct - no need to beat a dead horse. The issue isn't Poland's geographical position, it's one of when the Germans needed said bridgehead. Germany only required a "springboard" at the point at which they're preparing to "spring". France first, then Poland, then Russia is the safest order.

Germany had enough troops on the Siegfreid line to hold any Anglo/Franco advance whilst the German invasion of Poland proceeded . Germany used 2 army groups (North and South)to invade Poland . Whilst the invasion of Poland proceeded , in the West Germany had 3 Army Groups (A under Bock , B under Rudstedt and C under Leeb) to counter any move by the Anglo/Franco Alliance .

I'll take a look at this.

It was the introduction of Airpower which countered the most and new tactics such as that with Airpower supporting advancing Tanks and Paratroops softening up forward targets ie: Blitzkreig .

Soviet production figures from 1944 are as follows:
Aircraft: 40,300
Tanks: 28,963
Artillery: 122,400

Artillery and tanks outnumber aircraft almost 4 to 1. Obviously airpower isn't the only component. In 1939 German production vs Anglo/Russian production was as follows:

Tanks: 1300 vs 3900
Aircraft: 8295 vs 18200
Artillery (1940 figures): 5000 vs 17200

And this doesn't even include France!


In order to produce such weapons in such quantity Britain needed money whence this is where the Lend Lease loans came into play . This weapon procurement activity was extremely expensive as by mid1940 all of Britain's reserves had been expended and was now fed by US loans with high interest rates .

No. In order to buy American weapons, the British needed American cooperation. This is not to be confused in any way whatever with the indigenous British industrial effort.

But as we have already agreed British strategic bombing prioer to 1942 was ineffective .

I'm wondering if perhaps there is a communication barrier of some sort. We have not agreed that "British strategic bombing prioer to 1942 was ineffective" because I think that British strategic bombing during the whole war was ineffective. To repeat, you are making the statement that the British posed no threat to Germany by 1940 and was therefore neutered, but strategic bombing was not shown to have failed until 1944.

Only such an indigenous wepons programme could only be attained with loans , namely from the US , Britain would of ground its economy into salt financing such a progamme on its own .

Great Britain was capable of financing a war effort without American aid. In 1943, the U.K. was spending 55% of its national income on the war per year in comparison to Germany's 71.3%. At the same time, consumer spending in Germany had dipped to 75% of its prewar level, as opposed to the UK's 85.5%.

British oil interests were in Burma , Japanese purchases came from Indonesia and America.

British oil imports in 1939 were 11.6 million tons, 19.2% from the United States, 46.2% from Mexico, Trinidad and Venezuela, 25% from the Persian Gulf and Iran, and 5% from Rumania, 3% from "other".

The Netherlands East Indies produced 59 million barrels of oil in 1940. Japan imported 22 million barrels during that entire year, of which only 3.5 million came from the NEI.

If Great Britain doesn't wish to cooperate with an oil embargo of Japan, then there would be no embargo.

[Brian Foley]

I've got Shirer. First off, pages 796 to 800 contain nothing about planning for Barbarossa, nor are they even from chapter 23. Second, the Barbarossa Chapter does not appear to support your position. It outlines the standard chronology; Hitler first begins looking at an invasion of Russia in the summer of 1940 - June or July and the army begins operational studies in August of 1940. Here's an example of a valid reference,

"German strategic planning for the invasion of the Soviet Union, which was referred to under the code names Otto, Fritz, and finally, Barbarossa, began in early July 1940."

Bryan Fugate, Operation Barbarossa. PP61
I well aware that the final military plans were authored in mid to late 1940 as I clearly stated earlier . If you read the Barbarossa OKW files you will see it was Hitler who devised the overall plan and it was the OKW and OKH staff who refined it and General Marcs who authored the final plan Anyway Ill help you I will type it out . Obviously you are

Hitler had in fact been mulling over in his mind the idea of turning on the Soviet Union and destroying her .
The basic idea went back much further , at least fifteen years –to Mein Kampf .
In , fact less than two months after the deal was signed and had been utilized to destroy Poland the Fuehrer instructed the Army that the conquered Polish territory was to be regarded “ as an assembly area for future German operations “ . The date was October 18, 1939 , and Halder recorded it that day in his diary .
Five weeks later , on November 23 , when he harangued his reluctant generals , Russia was by no means out of his mind . “ We can oppose Russia “ he decalred “ only when we are free in the West “
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
23. Barbarossa: The Turn of Russia page 796
There within that quote is Poland first as a springboard and France second , all with the aim of facilitating an invasion Russia .
Also
As early as October 17, 1939, with the Polish campaign scarcely over , he had reminded Keitel that Polish territory
Is important to us from a military point of view as an advanced jumping off point and for strategic concentration of troops . ………………………..
And in a harangue to them on November 23 hehad emphasized that “ we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West” .
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
19. Sitzkreig In The West: page 669
Which the above perfectly compliments my previous link below as per the theory I am putting forward in my thread Why did WWII happen I stated Their plan was one of turning Russia into a colony for the personal benefit for exploitation of its industrial/financial complex . In 1933 the German industrial/financier complex installed the Nazis in power and put in place a rearmament plan . The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression Volume I Chapter IX , Aggression Against the U.S.S.R. (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-09-aggression-12.html)
A. Inception of the Plan.

The point of departure for the story of the aggression against the Soviet Union is the date, 23 August 1939. On that day - just a week before the invasion of Poland -- the Nazi conspirators caused Germany to enter into the Treaty of Non-Aggression with the USSR This Treaty (TC-25) contained two significant articles:
Authoring the invasion plans is the final preparation , first there was rearmament , and then positioning of military in a strategic position to invade is second and securing your position is third and Fourth and last when all is ready is the invasion plans . That takes preparation , which is time . For you to claim that a major invasion operation such as Barbarossa , which by the way developed into the largest military clash in civilization , was done on the fly , is , to say the least , ridiculous .

[glenn239]

Hitler had in fact been mulling over in his mind the idea of turning on the Soviet Union and destroying her .
The basic idea went back much further , at least fifteen years –to Mein Kampf .
In , fact less than two months after the deal was signed and had been utilized to destroy Poland the Fuehrer instructed the Army that the conquered Polish territory was to be regarded “ as an assembly area for future German operations “ . The date was October 18, 1939 , and Halder recorded it that day in his diary .
Five weeks later , on November 23 , when he harangued his reluctant generals , Russia was by no means out of his mind . “ We can oppose Russia “ he decalred “ only when we are free in the West “

What’s written in Mein Kampf is not in dispute – when the Germans began planning the invasion is. You’ve stated that this was a carefully thought out, long term plan and cited materials on that basis. The reference I was able to check doesn’t support your argument, and I did read the section you quote from. We need evidence of planning with a specific objective. First, the directive to improve the communications in Poland is not an order to prepare for the invasion of Russia – this came later, in December 1940. “Future operations” can be actively offensive, actively defensive, or passive in nature. But given the fact that the border for Germany had moved east, it was only logical that Poland replaced Prussia as the eastern military frontier. This is why the term “future operations” is vague. Second, there appears to be confusion on the definition of the word “oppose”, as in “we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West.” “Oppose” does not carry the same inference as “invade”. Unless the original translation is incorrect, he’s not said “attack” “annex” or “invade”. The term oppose is associated with the idea of resistance to, or the countering of, an aggression. For example; “we can only oppose the Russian invasion of Finland once France is defeated.”

Again, I’ll check your other reference if and when I can to see whether it supports your contention that German military planning for the invasion of Russia was both long term and meticulous.


For you to claim that a major invasion operation such as Barbarossa , which by the way developed into the largest military clash in civilization , was done on the fly , is , to say the least , ridiculous.

And yet the planning, which began in July 1940, was so haphazard that even during the war basic issues like what the objective of the offensive was, were not resolved and caused serious problems in the implementation of German strategy. Failing to issue winter clothing to the troops before winter is a symptom of very poor planning!

Authoring the invasion plans is the final preparation , first there was rearmament , and then positioning of military in a strategic position to invade is second and securing your position is third and Fourth and last when all is ready is the invasion plans

“Rearmament” is too general to isolate the target as Russia. German tanks worked just the same regardless of what direction they were driving. And as mentioned before, the decision to implement the Z-Plan was completely at odds with an intention to invade Russia. I’ve posted production figures of aircraft, tanks, and artillery to show why. Keep in mind that Germany could not have produced nearly so many of each of these weapons as they did had the Z-Plan been continued.

Logistics, troop movements and operational planning denote intent, especially the last two. The fact remains that it was Molotov’s outrageous demands in November 1940, following right upon the heels of some alarming Russian military moves, which sealed Russia’s fate.

This isn’t to suggest that you’re beliefs aren’t right – it’s a leading theory. But it isn’t the only theory – had Molotov been more eager to please in November 1940 things would have gone differently.

[nirakar]

Did Germany have to attack the Soviet Union? Would the Soviet Union have attacked Germany before Germany could have consolidate victories over France and over the English naval blockade and over England's control of the Middle East?

Germany needed access to the worlds natural resources. Romania's oil was important to Germany's war effort so I understand the move in that direction but attacking Russia seems like an unnecessary overextension. Hitler should have learned from Napoleon's mistake that you can defeat the Russians time after time but you can't win the war.

[Brian Foley]

@glenn239
As regards to Poland As early as October 17, 1939, with the Polish campaign scarcely over , he had reminded Keitel that Polish territory
Is important to us from a military point of view as an advanced jumping off point and for strategic concentration of troops . ………………………..
And in a harangue to them on November 23 hehad emphasized that “ we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West” .
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
19. Sitzkreig In The West: page 669 Which country was to be the object of this advanced staging point ?
These 2 studies one an official German govt site and the other a reputable book with source material indicates German economic conspiracy and military policy . I presented them to compliment my theory and they do .
Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression Volume I Chapter IX , Aggression Against the U.S.S.R. (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-09-aggression-12.html) A. Inception of the Plan.

The point of departure for the story of the aggression against the Soviet Union is the date, 23 August 1939. On that day - just a week before the invasion of Poland -- the Nazi conspirators caused Germany to enter into the Treaty of Non-Aggression with the USSR This Treaty (TC-25) contained two significant articles:

German economic expansion (http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/hist-archiv/dgw/index.php#vor1871)
During the institution of the German Customers Union (1834/Zollverein), plans were first developed for a "large-area economy" under German leadership. The manufacturing nations of Prussia and Austria were to assume hegemony over an area extending from the North Sea to the Black Sea. The countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe were assigned the status of producers of food and raw materials. In 1925 a lobby organisation was formed, the German Group of the Central European Economic Conference, to promote the realisation of German large-area plans. Immediately after the world economic crisis of 1929/30 (and not only, as has been maintained by propaganda, after 1933 under Nazi rule) new plans for a now openly termed "German large-area economy". This aimed at the long-term subordination and control of large areas of eastern and central Europe through the conclusion of bilateral currency-free trade agreements. They proceeded on the basic assumption that German industrial products were to be traded for eastern and central European agricultural products and raw materials. The "new plan" of Minister for Economic Affairs Schacht in 1934 made such clearing agreements the decisive instrument of National Socialist foreign policy in preparation for World War II. Important segments of German import demand were re-routed from South America to eastern and south-eastern Europe, so that for war purposes a source of food and raw materials would be available that could not be blockaded. For the long-term implementation of an "organic division of labour" in the European large-area economy, strategists of the Central European Economic Conference under the leadership of IG Farben worked in cooperation with the German government during the nineteen-thirties for the restructuring of the eastern and south-eastern European economy. The goal of this effort was the extensive de-industrialisation of this area and the orientation of its agricultural production toward the demands of the German market. Beside the ransacking of important resources, this long-term goal continued to be pursued during World War II. Military hegemony over the economic "complementary area" was indispensable for the German war-waging capacity.
You just don’t want to arrive at a conclusion that prior to 1939 there was a conspiracy to facilitate German Corporate expansionism in Eastern Europe by virtue of military conquest and occupation . Where the German gamble fell was that Germany planned for a war that would end early 1942 . The German OKW in the link I provided clearly state Russia would be over run by Dec if invaded in May 1941 . With the invasion postponed till June 22 1941 the termination date was set back to early 1942 . Of course by 1942 the US had entered the War Germany was to be annihilated, Germanys gamble failed . Capitalist countries don’t go to war to spread ideological ideas of democracy they go to war for the advancement and control of markets for exploitation.

[glenn239]

Did Germany have to attack the Soviet Union? Would the Soviet Union have attacked Germany before Germany could have consolidate victories over France and over the English naval blockade and over England's control of the Middle East?

Within the archives of the Soviet Union were all sorts of records and references that could cause one to conclude Stalin would have attacked Hitler; logistic preparations in their half of Poland, a switch in army doctrine to mechanized offensives, etc. But these matters - like German efforts in Poland, constitute routine contingency planning and do not necessarily denote future intent.

I believe that Stalin would have extorted concessions from Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom but would not have attacked Germany unless the Nazis were on the verge of collapse to the Americans, or the Anglo-French. On the contrary, Stalin would have supported Hitler with weapons and raw materials, all the more so that the west could kill each other.

Germany needed access to the worlds natural resources. Romania's oil was important to Germany's war effort so I understand the move in that direction but attacking Russia seems like an unnecessary overextension. Hitler should have learned from Napoleon's mistake that you can defeat the Russians time after time but you can't win the war.

This is the heart of the matter between Brian and I. He believes there was some sort of long-term conspiracy aimed at the conquest of the Soviet Union, I believe that Hitler intended to make Germany preeminent in Europe through war, but had no particular disposition about how to go about it. He would allow events to dictate policy, and annexations would be a consequence of German victory, but would not drive German policy.

Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union shares certain similarities to Czechoslovakia and to Poland. In all three cases, during delicate and hostile negotiations, Hitler completely flew off the handle and issued proclamations that. "I have resolved to crush, murder, annihilate, the...blah blah blah". This is at the heart of the "wingin' it" theory. There was no long-term plan, but simply a man that inevitably met a political challenge with a bloodbath.
Molotov shows up in Berlin in mid-November 1940. Tensions between Russia and Germany are already heightened - Germany is sending troops to Rumania and arms to Finland, Russia has just overrun a whack-load of territory in the wake of France's unexpected collapse. Hitler arranges one of his typical "I'm better than you are" spectacles to subdue Molotov. Ignoring show, Molotov proceeded to beat the living crap out of Hitler in a ice-cold roundhouse debate, "no foreign visitor had ever spoken to him this way in my presence...Hitler, perhaps for the first time in his life, was too taken aback to answer..."

You guessed it. Hitler throws a complete hissy-pissy tantrum - and as sure as guns, in the wake of the meeting comes the Barbarossa directive. There's no need to invoke some greater conspiracy, Hitler's predilection to violent rage anytime someone wanted part of the sandbox was the root of this matter as well.

You just don’t want to arrive at a conclusion that prior to 1939 there was a conspiracy to facilitate German Corporate expansionism in Eastern Europe by virtue of military conquest and occupation .

Another straw man. Re-read my posts; if the contention is that Hitler's policy was to re-establish the Triple Alliance then we are in agreement. (The Triple Alliance being defined as Germany, Italy, the territories of the former Austrian Empire, Bulgaria, Turkey). Where we diverge is that this obvious and logical German policy was part of a conspiracy to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. Hitler's planning was more haphazard and impulsive than that. He wanted to make Germany the head of a new European order. How he was to do it was not planned to any great deal in advance - his agenda was to exploit opportunities as they arose.


Which country was to be the object of this advanced staging point ?
These 2 studies one an official German govt site and the other a reputable book with source material indicates German economic conspiracy and military policy . I presented them to compliment my theory and they do .

The fact remains - if Molotov had come to Berlin and kissed Hitler's feet there would have been no Nazi-Soviet war. The preparations you mention in Poland do not signal an irreconcilable policy, merely planning for certain eventualities.

[glenn239]

MIlitary OOB's, September 1939.

France: 110 divisions (65 active, 45 reserve) upon mobilization.
Available for use against Germany: 85 divisions.

Great Britain: 5 divisions.

Germany: 98 divisions. (52 active, 46 reserve),

"Of the remaining forty-six divisions, however, only ten were fit for action on mobilization and even in these the bulk of the men were recruits who had only been serving about a month. The other thirty-six divisions consisted mainly of veterans of World War I, forty-year-olds who had little acquaintance with modern weapons and tactics. They were very short of artillery and other weapons. It took a long time to get these divisions organized trained collectively to operate as such."

German deployment:

Used in the attack against Poland: 48 active / (and later) 6 reserve divisions.
Available against the 70 best Anglo-French formations in the west: 4 active (ie, good) divisions, 40 second and third rate formations.

The French and British were far behind the Germans in the implementation of modern doctrine and tactics, but the fact remains that they had the firepower and mass to crush the fleeting excuse for a defense Hitler offered them.

Re: Total War.

Contrary to your assertion, the pages you cite do not indicate that detailed planning for the invasion of Russia took place before July 1940. On the contrary, from pp167 comes the standard chronology,

"Hitler had already in July <1940> decided to attack the USSR in the following spring and on 18 December he issued his first Barbarossa directive."

He downplays the importance of the Molotov visit to Berlin (which in fact decided the issue), but does record this interesting quote from pp165,

"<Molotov> observed that so long as discussion had to be conducted in an air raid shelter, there was something unrealistic about a plan for partitioning a world in which the British Empire was presumed to have ceased to exist."

[john smith]

If you read the line of debate , you will see there already is an established understanding of what we are meanining .
nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah, cant hear you, cant see you...dont want to :D

[Brian Foley]

Another straw man. Re-read my posts; if the contention is that Hitler's policy was to re-establish the Triple Alliance then we are in agreement. (The Triple Alliance being defined as Germany, Italy, the territories of the former Austrian Empire, Bulgaria, Turkey).
Below was the link to the exhaustive study on the Nazi Conspiracy toward Russia and other nations please read the entiter book . Its factual , as it uses actual Nazi documents as source material .
Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression Volume I Chapter IX , Aggression Against the U.S.S.R. (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-09-aggression-12.html)
Where we diverge is that this obvious and logical German policy was part of a conspiracy to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. Hitler's planning was more haphazard and impulsive than that. He wanted to make Germany the head of a new European order. How he was to do it was not planned to any great deal in advance - his agenda was to exploit opportunities as they arose.
Again I gave a undisputable link concernining German economic expansionism into Eastern Europe and Russia .
German economic expansion (http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/hist-archiv/dgw/index.php#vor1871)
During the institution of the German Customers Union (1834/Zollverein), plans were first developed for a "large-area economy" under German leadership. The manufacturing nations of Prussia and Austria were to assume hegemony over an area extending from the North Sea to the Black Sea. The countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe were assigned the status of producers of food and raw materials. In 1925 a lobby organisation was formed, the German Group of the Central European Economic Conference, to promote the realisation of German large-area plans. Immediately after the world economic crisis of 1929/30 (and not only, as has been maintained by propaganda, after 1933 under Nazi rule) new plans for a now openly termed "German large-area economy". This aimed at the long-term subordination and control of large areas of eastern and central Europe through the conclusion of bilateral currency-free trade agreements. They proceeded on the basic assumption that German industrial products were to be traded for eastern and central European agricultural products and raw materials. The "new plan" of Minister for Economic Affairs Schacht in 1934 made such clearing agreements the decisive instrument of National Socialist foreign policy in preparation for World War II. Important segments of German import demand were re-routed from South America to eastern and south-eastern Europe, so that for war purposes a source of food and raw materials would be available that could not be blockaded. For the long-term implementation of an "organic division of labour" in the European large-area economy, strategists of the Central European Economic Conference under the leadership of IG Farben wored in cooperation with the German government during the nineteen-thirties for the restructuring of the eastern and south-eastern European ecnomy. The goal of this effort was the extensive de-industrialisation of this area and the orientation of its agricultural production toward the demands of the German market. Beside the ransacking of important resources, this long-term goal continued to be pursued during World War II. Military hegemony over the economic "complementary area" was indispensable for the German war-waging capacity.
The fact remains - if Molotov had come to Berlin and kissed Hitler's feet there would have been no Nazi-Soviet war. The preparations you mention in Poland do not signal an irreconcilable policy, merely planning for certain eventualities.
What fact ? Molotov met Hitler in 2 meetings on Nov 12 and 13 in 1940 by that German troops were being built up on Russias border in Romania and Bulgaria . It was a completely uncompromising meeting read Khruschev Remembers Chap 5 ; Prelude To The War , Soviet German Relations pages 109 to 140 . That gives you the Soviet side of Hitlers belligerence toward the Soviet Union . And the ruse of the RibbentroMolotove meeting of Aug 1939 .
As early as October 17, 1939, with the Polish campaign scarcely over , he had reminded Keitel that Polish territory
Is important to us from a military point of view as an advanced jumping off point and for strategic concentration of troops . ………………………..
And in a harangue to them on November 23 hehad emphasized that “ we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West” .
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
19. Sitzkreig In The West: page 669
Again which country was to be the object of this advanced staging point ?

[Brian Foley]

...other way round, buddy. Between 1890 to 1910, Russia had the highest GDP growth of any country in Europe, whilst the Germans were loosing ground. The advisors to the Tsar are clearly on record informing him that if he could evade a war with Germany until 1917 they would beat them hands down. Even in 1914, the Germans had banked on the Russians taking 6 montsh to mobilse, they did it in 6 weeks. The Austrrians were toast within days of conflict and the Russians were set to steamroller into Vienna and Berlin well before Christmas 1914 if Hindenburg had not pulled of the brilliant victory at Tannenburg that shold not have been his. In short, the Germans were to war in 1914 as it was their VERY LAST CHANCE to be able to stand any chance of beating the true bogeyman of Europe at that time, Tsarist Russia.
Read below Russia was a possession of Western capital.
France subsidized the pre-World War I industrialization of Czarist Russia (and the pre-World War I luxury of the court and expansion of the military) by making investments in Russian government and railroad bonds http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Gold8.html
There are two stories of Russian Oil. The story of stocks and bonds and paper control, which goes on in Paris and London with occasional episodes at San Remo, Genoa and The Hague; and the story of workers and engineers in Baku, who never saw a stock or a bond. They are stories of two different worlds, and to each of them the other world is unreal and unknown. The repeated, bitter demand from America and England for the recognition of "private property" in Russia has much to do with Russian Oil. Private property is quite secure to-day in Russia; and even regarding the foreign property damaged in the past, Russia offered at Genoa to discuss compensation for all foreigners who had actually lost money by her revolution. The foreign diplomats refused this basis of settlement; they demanded, not "compensation for losses," but complete return of properties.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1925/first_time/ch05.htm
The only catch was that Russian dependence on French capital led the czarist government to heed advice from Paris — for example, about how many rail lines to build from Moscow to the Prussian borderhttp://www.wehaitians.com/the%20true%20cost%20of%20hegemony%20huge%20debt.ht ml
...Again untrue. In late Summer 1914, all railroad and other kety stocks were frozen. The Tsarists effectively locked them out from the start of the War, UNLIKE other countries like the UK or the USA.
In Defence of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/History/copenhagen.html)
...Untrue again. Germany was such a cripple, when it could not pay its war reparation in 1923, France steamrollered into Germany, invading the Western half and literally took anything not bolted down. Getting the French out and KEEPING THEM OUT was the name of the game in 1920`s.
Bullshit .
Germany Between the Wars - Economics (http://economics.about.com/cs/econometrics/l/bltermpaper.htm)

...Again nonsense. The depression hit the Germans 100 times worse than anyone else. With Germany about to fall back to the stone age, the new Nazi governemtn offered the industrialists a simple offer. We pay you cost plus 7% or so for all you production for now and EVER MORE or we stand aside and allow you to just collapse. The industrialists took it to save themselves, but effectively sold their soul, leaving unable to make any thing much after Hitler turned the economy around in the mid-1930`s. Furthermore, in the Night of the Long Knives, it was not just the brownshirts that Hitler eliminated. Of the 88,000 who died that nnight at the hand of the SS, large numbers were from the "Old Right", the leaders of the equivalent of the Tory Party and members fo the aristrocracy were eliminated as they were the last folk left with clout amongst the industrialists to stop him. After that, Adolf was uncheecked by anyone of any real power as his SS had eliminated them. Industrialists, (susrviving) then did what they were told.
Hitler took the Germans out of the depression . Hitler and Economic Recovery (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm)
...LAughable garbage. As Hitler made it clear, it was all to go into the REICH.
Read Mein Kampf
...Laughably wrong. 32% of all eligible Germans voted for Hitler. It`s one of the big scams of history. After the war, every German says he was against Hitler, but sadly the truth was, Hitler DID represent what the people wanted, not because they were all crazy psychos, but because after so many had died of starvation, the Germans wanted soemone, ANYONE who would stand up to the French and the British.
What a majority ! Who funded the Nazis ?
...Garbage. Hitler was going to just keep invading countries one by one until war occured. He did not believe that the UK and France would defend Poland, particularly as "Poor Poland" was itself a photocopy of the 3rd Reich. Unlike Czechoslovakia, pre-War Poland was a ruthless anti-semitic dictatorship under Gerneral Sikorski who ahd himself joined with Hitler in the carve up of his next-door-neighbour Czechoslovakia.
Then explain why Germany invaded Poland ?
...Rubbish. They had already tried it in 1919 to 1920 at places such as Archangel and had failed.
No the Western allies failing to install the White Russians in power simply isolated Russia and pursued a policy of encirclement and economic isolation .
...Rubbish. Neville Chamberlain refused to declare war at all until more than 2/3 of his cabinet threatened to resign immediately unless he stuck to his ultimatum. Britain declared war at 12 noon 3rd September and France only did so as a response to the UK one hour later at 1pm.
What has this to do with the question ?

...Garbage...it was not a plan, it is called sheer cowardice by Neville Chamberlain.
Then explain the Norwegian and Naval campaigns against Germany if they were frightened of confrontation ?
...Garbage, Neville was an out and out coward. Furthermore, the biggest threat was regarded not a soviet Russian, but Japan which threatened the Empire in the east, particularly India.
Britain was getting ready to rid its empire after WWI .
...Nonsense. Hitler took the gamble of sending the Panzers throught the Ardennes which was regarded as impassable. It is one of the most stunningly daring invasions of history.
Or in other words you are corroborating my claim .
...Garbage. Germany was planning to land grab Russia for itself and would have done so 2 months earlier AND SUCCEEDED in winning the War if Hitler had not had to bail out Mussolini in Greece.
No Hitler invaded Yugoslavia first and then Greece .
...Laughable garbage. The US had devised a plan to invade Canada in 1942 and finish off the British Empire but was drawn into the War itself. Could I see a link to this plan to invade Canada ?

[glenn239]

Brian - I've noticed you didn't follow up on the weaknesses in the German OOB of September 1939. Again, given the fact that about 1/2 of the German army was badly trained and badly equipped, and much of the other half was poorly equipped (70% of their tanks were garbage), why do you still insist that the Z-Plan was compatible with war with both France and Russia?

Below was the link to the exhaustive study on the Nazi Conspiracy toward Russia and other nations please read the entiter book . Its factual , as it uses actual Nazi documents as source material .

Once again, it describes the standard timeline. Planning for the disastrously executed Barbarossa operation begins in the summer of 1940, and becomes more serious in the fall, culminating in Molotov's visit and Hitler's directive. Do you have anything, anywhere, that indicates German invasion planning prior to the summer of 1940? Say, 1933? 1936? 1938?


What fact ? Molotov met Hitler in 2 meetings on Nov 12 and 13 in 1940 by that German troops were being built up on Russias border in Romania and Bulgaria . It was a completely uncompromising meeting read Khruschev Remembers Chap 5 ; Prelude To The War , Soviet German Relations pages 109 to 140 . That gives you the Soviet side of Hitlers belligerence toward the Soviet Union . And the ruse of the RibbentroMolotove meeting of Aug 1939 .


The very fact that Hitler met personally with Molotov means that Adolf wanted to "do" a deal.

You're welcome to believe that Hitler would have attacked the Soviet Union regardless of any other consideration. As mentioned before, it's one of a few legitimate theories dealing with his motivation for the war. You're also welcome to think that a post-apocalypse Khruschev is a reliable guide as to the purpose of Molotov's visit to Berlin. Most probably would not.

[Brian Foley]

Brian - I've noticed you didn't follow up on the weaknesses in the German OOB of September 1939.
Why follow it up ? Your attempting to put across the Germa military was somehow weak . Yet the German army was so advanced it crushed Poland , overran Demark launched a amphibious/airborne invasion of Norway , invaded and crushed the powerful Anglo French military in 2 weeks and sent Britain scurrying across the channel ! All in 8 months of the invasion of Poland !
Again, given the fact that about 1/2 of the German army was badly trained and badly equipped, and much of the other half was poorly equipped (70% of their tanks were garbage),
And in 1937 the Germans manufactured the best tank prior to 1941 the PzKfW Mk. IV Panzer . Messerschimdt aircraft tore up the British airforce , junkers , heinkels all capable bombers . And as for training how can you make such a statement with the German paratroopers and SS ? The Germans began rearming in 1933 with the aim of launching war the Nazi army was more than ready in 1939 .
why do you still insist that the Z-Plan was compatible with war with both France and Russia?
The Z-plan was cancelled as I told you Germany was preparing for a land and air campign against its targets . The Navy came last because it was the least important and the Z-plan was replaced with the U-boats . Germanys strategic planners had planned for a war to start in 1940 and last till 1942 .
Once again, it describes the standard timeline. Planning for the disastrously executed Barbarossa operation begins in the summer of 1940, and becomes more serious in the fall, culminating in Molotov's visit and Hitler's directive. Do you have anything, anywhere, that indicates German invasion planning prior to the summer of 1940? Say, 1933? 1936? 1938? I gave you a link to the German Foreign Policy Institutes history of German economic expansionism toward Russia I gave you that already with Poland as a springboard . As I said once Germany was secure after dealing with the West in May 1940 and in July ordered the military to design plans for the invasion of Russia . Read Mein Kampf ! And I again ask you which country was the intended victim of this springboard ?
The very fact that Hitler met personally with Molotov means that Adolf wanted to "do" a deal.
OK what deal did Molotov and Hitler hammer out ?HITLER AND MOLOTOV MEETINGS (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Hitler-Molotov%20Meetings.htm#FOURTH%20MEETING:%20NOVEMBE R%2013,%201940) Show me where there was any agreement between the two in this very bad tempered meeting ?
You're welcome to believe that Hitler would have attacked the Soviet Union regardless of any other consideration. As mentioned before, it's one of a few legitimate theories dealing with his motivation for the war. You're also welcome to think that a pos-apocalypse Khruschev is a reliable guide as to the purpose of Molotov's visit to Berlin. Most probably would not.
Read the above if you think Khruschevs account is crap .

[glenn239]

Brian – Great discussion so far, but I think we’ve pretty much hashed out some major differences and are beginning to repeat.

Why follow it up ? Your attempting to put across the Germa military was somehow weak . Yet the German army was so advanced it crushed Poland , overran Demark launched a amphibious/airborne invasion of Norway , invaded and crushed the powerful Anglo French military in 2 weeks and sent Britain scurrying across the channel ! All in 8 months of the invasion of Poland !

Just so long as we all understand that Hitler initiated the war with about half his army still poorly trained and equipped – that he was taking on about 130 enemy divisions (of varying quality) with only 50 that were capable of offensive action. What you are thinking was a “powerful” German army was in fact a “lucky” German army. The French Army of modern history has never before and never since performed so poorly.

And in 1937 the Germans manufactured the best tank prior to 1941 the PzKfW Mk. IV Panzer . Messerschimdt aircraft tore up the British airforce , junkers , heinkels all capable bombers . And as for training how can you make such a statement with the German paratroopers and SS ? The Germans began rearming in 1933 with the aim of launching war the Nazi army was more than ready in 1939 .

I believe you’ll find that the T-34 was introduced in 1940. The Panzer MK IV was not available in any numbers in 1939 (i.e., perhaps 5% to 10% of the total German tank force). It had the short barrel 75mm, which was inadequate in the anti-tank role. The majority of the German armored forced consisted of Pz Mk1 and Pz Mk2, neither of which was worth a damn.

As I said once Germany was secure after dealing with the West in May 1940 and in July ordered the military to design plans for the invasion of Russia . Read Mein Kampf ! And I again ask you which country was the intended victim of this springboard ?

Yes, we’ve gone over that. Just for the record – there is nothing in the German archives of any operational level planning against the Soviet Union before 1940? Care to explain why?


The Z-plan was cancelled as I told you Germany was preparing for a land and air campign against its targets . The Navy came last because it was the least important and the Z-plan was replaced with the U-boats . Germanys strategic planners had planned for a war to start in 1940 and last till 1942 .

Yes, the Z-Plan was cancelled. The issue isn’t why it was cancelled; it’s why it was approved. Battleships aren’t renowned for their ability to sail to Moscow, and as we’ve already reviewed, the German army of 1939 was pretty weak and could ill-afford the diversion of resources to the navy. While I agree that Hitler was stupid in assessing risk, if he was intending war with France and Russia while building his Z-Stuff, this decision was stark raving nuts.

OK what deal did Molotov and Hitler hammer out ?HITLER AND MOLOTOV MEETINGS Show me where there was any agreement between the two in this very bad tempered meeting ?

Brian, we’ve been over this. Imo, Hitler made a final decision to invade the Soviet Union because of the “ill-tempered” meeting with Molotov. Had the Russian agreed to Hitler’s terms, there would have been no Barbarossa. This is also a commonly held viewpoint on the origins of the Nazi-Soviet War. You’re more than welcome to differ, but at least try to acknowledge the dispute.

[Dean]

World War I and the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson

"I have betrayed my country!" - Woodrow Wilson

Ask the average person, "What started World War I' and you will probably get no more than a blank stare. Even most history professors when asked this question will be at a loss for words, or at best mumble some confusing gibberish about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria As a result of Ferdinand's assassination, Austria demanded an apology from Serbia (the country in which Ferdinand was killed), and Serbia gave them one. Nevertheless, Austria declared war on Serbia anyway, and the other nations of Europe, which had no stake in the dispute, soon also entered the war. This was accomplished by the conspiracy through intense, subversive "hate" propaganda administered discretely at the upper levels of governments on both sides of the so-called "conflict" - which would never have even existed without the instigation of the international banking conspiracy!



It is not a coincidence that World War I started just one year after the creation of the Federal Reserve! The European nations were all nearly broke because they had been arming themselves heavily for several years prior to the war. This was due to the hate propaganda against all factions, which was induced by infiltrators from the banking conspiracy, with the intent of throwing the entire continent into war, so the bankers could profit from all sides! As a result, the European governments had to borrow twenty-five billion dollars from the central bank of the U.S. (or more accurately, the conspiratorial creation of the Federal Reserve), which they did with neither the knowledge nor consent of the American people until after the fact! These debts were never paid back, because they were initially made through Rothschild controlled European banks, who purposely defaulted on the loans - whether or not the European governments repaid the issuing European banks! These debts were therefore passed on to the citizens of the United States (as usual)!



In other words, the banking conspiracy, acting through the Federal Reserve, lent huge sums of American money to foreign governments (through the conspiracy's own foreign banks) - without the consent of the American people, then whether or not they received repayment of the loans from those governments, the conspirators (through their foreign banks) defaulted on the loans from the Federal Reserve, claiming inability to repay due to not having received any repayment from the various governments, so the American people would have to "pay off' the foreign loans again!! To fully understand this thievery of American property, let us use an analogy:



Imagine that you lend money your favorite Aunt, supposedly to help one of her friends. Now imagine that the friend repays the loan in full to your Aunt, but she doesn't tell you this. Instead, she says that her friend couldn't pay her back the money, so she asks you to pay it back for her friend, which you do! In other words, she asks you to pay back your own money to her, which she borrowed from you to begin with, instead of offering to pay you your money back, as she should! Would you agree to such a preposterous arrangement? Of course not! but that's exactly what happened in World War I to the American people at the hands of the unscrupulous bankers



This formula of outright extortion worked so well (thanks to their blatant lies, double-talk, and deceit) that the banking conspiracy has used this very same formula continuously and without fail at every opportunity - over and over again against the American people (in every ensuing war, every minor conflict, and every other loan for any purpose whatsoever to any foreign power - even unto this day! This is the reason why the United States jumps in and lends money to literally everyone on earth at the drop of a hat, while many Americans right here at home are starving or being forced out of their homes and onto the streets (which is exactly what the bankers want!)



In this despicable, ruthless, and unspeakably criminal way, American citizens have been forced, without their knowledge or consent, to lend to foreign governments (read that "foreign banking interests", also under control of the banking conspiracy). Then (often falsely) claiming that the loans were never repaid, they extorted the same amount (which wasn't theirs to begin with) again from the American people "Why would they do this?" you might ask. Because - beyond reaping incredible profits, not only once or twice, but sometimes three times - their main objective was to destroy the United States of America, whose Constitution was an unbearable threat to their plan of world domination.



With the power to create money out of nothing and collect interest on it through the Federal Reserve, all the banking conspiracy needed was a reason to lend enormous sums of money. World War I gave them that reason In fact, without the Federal Reserve, World War I might not have been fought, because there would have been no way to fund the war. And without the interference and manipulation of the banking cartel into the internal affairs of the European governments, there would never have been any reason for a war to begin with!



Another means of paying for the war, the graduated income tax (unconstitutionally and fraudulently imposed on American citizens, as we shall soon see) "just happened" to have been created in the nick of time! Cordell Hull, whose Memoirs shed valuable insight into the treachery and deceit of the conspiracy, had this observation:



"The conflict (World War I) forced the further development of the income-tax principle. Aiming, as it did, at the one great untaxed source of revenue, the income-tax law had been created in the nick of time to meet the demands of war. And the conflict also assisted the putting into effect of the Federal Reserve System, likewise in the nick of time." To even the most casual observer, World War I was purposely instigated only after the instruments were in place which assured the bankers of reaping the highest possible profit: the Federal Reserve and the graduated income tax!



Now at last the international banking conspirators had a central bank with which to make loans and collect interest, a locked-in source of numerous borrowers of huge loans (due to the world war), and a means of forcing the American people to foot the bill for all of the loans - both coming and going!



Interestingly, Max Warburg, brother of Paul Warburg (chief drafter of the Federal Reserve Act, principle of Kuhn Loeb Bank - one of the owners of the Federal Reserve, and highly paid associate of the Rothschilds), was the head of the German Secret Service. Max was also the personal banker for Kaiser Wilhelm, and a leading member of the dominant German news agency, Wolff - which was owned by the Rothschilds! Kaiser Wilhelm used the Wolff news agency to agitate the Germans to the degree that they were eager for World War 1. Max Warburg then secured funding for the Kaiser's war effort, while his brother Paul, through his bank and the Federal Reserve, funded the opposition to the Kaiser. All this while the Rothschilds sat quietly watching - and smiling - in the background. Are you beginning to detect a pattern here? I hope so, because twenty years later under Hitler, the exact same pattern was repeated, (although enormously magnified) by the bankers - with the help of DNB, successor to Wolff!



To pull all of this off, the conspirators needed a "yes man" in the White House. They knew that if Robert Taft were to win the presidential election, their plans would be ruined. So they manipulated the election by backing Theodore Roosevelt as a third candidate, who they knew would take votes away from Taft. Their plan worked, and Woodrow Wilson won the election. With Wilson in the White House, the conspirators had complete control.



Woodrow Wilson was not really President at all. He was no more than a pawn, totally under the thumb of his closest advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House. House was a key player in the creation of the Federal Reserve. He also assisted in channeling funds to the Bolsheviks for their revolution in Russia, was a strong supporter of the U.S. joining the League of Nations, and organized the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Royal Institute on International Affairs. House had close ties with the Rothschilds and was an avid believer in a one world government. He even remarked in his writings that he was seeking "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."



Wilson himself said, "Mr. House is my second personality. He is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one. If I were in his place I would do just as he suggested. If anyone thinks he is reflecting my opinions by whatever actions he takes, the are welcome to the conclusion." Arthur Smith, in his 1918 biography of House said that House "holds a power never wielded before in this country by any man out of office - a power greater than that of any political boss or Cabinet member."



In other words, with Wilson acting merely as a mouthpiece for House, we had a President who wanted to establish Communism as "dreamed of by Karl Marx." Actually, as previously mentioned, the Communist Manifesto was not written by Karl Marx, but was actually Amschel Rothschild's plan for world domination. Karl Marx's name did not even appear on any copies of the manifesto for more than twenty years after it was written!



Wilson was re-elected on the slogan "He kept us out of war." In true international banking conspiracy fashion, this was a blatant lie. Ten months before the election which returned Wilson to the White House in 1916, Colonel House negotiated a secret agreement with England and France on behalf of the Allies! Unknown to the American people, it was already planned that America would participate in the war!



The alleged reason America became involved in World War 1, was a German submarine torpedoed the British ship, the Lusitainia, which was carrying American passengers. Unknown to most people outside the conspiracy, however, it was also carrying a stockpile of munitions headed for England (Germany's enemy). These munitions 'just happened' to have been produced by a factory owned by J.P. Morgan, one of the international conspirators. Also, the Lusitainia was sent without her escorts at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting! The sinking of the Lusitainia and America's subsequent entrance into the war was, as usual, a set-up from beginning to end!



At the end of the war, the Treaty of Versailles was designed at the Paris Peace Conference with the sole intention of creating as much turmoil in Europe as possible. The impositions on Germany were so extreme that they could not help but create a situation ripe for the rise of someone like Hitler. Even though World War I was called "the war to end all wars," it would have been more accurate to call it "the war to start more wars!" Realizing this, Lord Curzon of England said, "This is no peace. This is only a truce for twenty years." Even conspirator John Maynard Keynes said, "This peace is outrageous and impossible, and can bring nothing but misfortune behind it."



After the Treaty of Versailles was signed, the harsh war reparations included in the treaty ravaged the economy of Germany. In attempting to pay off the war debt, hyper-inflation was rampant. This was intensified by the practices of the Federal Reserve, which threw the weight of its influence toward the policy of extreme inflation of the German Mark. The international banking cartel wanted chaos in post war Germany, in order to create a situation ripe for later wars and exploitation.



Thanks to intensive meddling from the banking cartel, the German economy almost collapsed entirely. It was rescued "in the nick of time" by the Dawes plan (created by the banking conspiracy), which was supposed to stabilize the situation and "assist" Germany in paying the war debts. As usual, the Dawes plan was set up to reap substantial profits for the bankers through countless loans.



One of the primary companies to receive "assistance" from the Dawes plan was the I.G. Farben company, which 'just happened' to be headed by Paul Warburg, and also which became one of the most important supply companies to Hitler!



In any case, Germany was purposely left in shambles at the end of World War I - both through the Versailles "peace" treaty, and from the economic "assistance" provided by the West. This fact is even acknowledged by our establishment published school textbooks, which also cite this turmoil as the cause for Hitler's rise to power.



To summarize Woodrow Wilson's Presidency: he signed into effect the Federal Reserve and the graduated income tax; he made secret agreements (through Edward Mandell House) with England and France to get America into war; he lied to the American people about almost everything that happened during his terms in office; and he was all the while in the back pocket of the conspiracy. Despite all of this, he must have felt some remorse about what he had done, because he wrote. "There is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive - that they better not, speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." He also said, "We have come to be one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."



Wilson without doubt contributed greatly to the destruction of America, committing acts of high treason against the American people. If it is difficult to understand his motives, it is almost impossible to forgive him! He seemed to know this, because on his deathbed he said, "I have betrayed my country!"



Meanwhile, the conspirators had been hard at work, laying more groundwork for their eventual world-wide dictatorship. As we have learned, World War I was fought by both the European countries and the U.S., due to the "crisis" the conspiracy created. Without their sinister influence, the war would never have been fought. They created the war in order to collect huge profits from both sides, to strengthen their grasp over the world, and to set the stage for yet another, even more costly and horrifying war. But before they could instigate World War II, they needed to establish an international political body which they could slowly expand in power and authority until it became the backbone of their "New World Order" dictatorship.



The League of Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations

'.An end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. " Richard Gardner.



The League of Nations was ratified on January 10th, 1920, and was signed by - who else? - President ("Puppet" would have been a more fitting title!) Wilson, of course! The League of Nations was supposedly an international organization, created with the intention of promoting international relations and preventing further wars. In reality, it was the first attempt at creating a world government.



The U.S. Senate, however, did not think that joining the League would be a good idea, so they voted it down. The United States' refusal to join the League of Nations was a tremendous embarrassment for the conspirators. It meant that their first attempt to unite the world into a one-world government had failed. But they realized that the reason they had failed was because they had tried to move too quickly - and too openly. The conspirators decided that they needed an organization which could implement world government through patient "gradualism" - or by making seemingly insignificant changes subtly, slowly and steadily, until they had what they wanted without alerting the people to what they were doing. They figured that by the time the American citizens realized what had happened, it would be too late, and they were right!



To accomplish their goal, the conspirators created the "Council on Foreign Relations" (or "CFR"), a very innocent sounding name for a very sinister organization! For maximum protection and effectiveness, even the "CFR" was created through the principle of gradualism.



First, the conspirators created an organization called the Round Table, which was formed by Lord Milner, an agent of the Rothschilds, and the principle trustee of the Cecil Rhodes fortune (after Rhodes' death). This group was later transformed by Colonel House, John Maynard Keynes, Arnold Toynbee, John Foster Dulles and others into a publicly acknowledged, formal council know as the Institute of International Affairs. Later, in 1921, it was decided that this council was to be broken into an American branch, the CFR, and a British branch, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA). It is members of these groups that currently control the media, tax-exempt foundations such as the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations, all major universities, and all government agencies.

[Dean]

The Bolshevik Revolution and the Rise of Communism

"The ultimate purpose of all income redistribution is people control.” Trotsky



While some of the conspirators were hard at work in the United States establishing the Federal Reserve, implementing the graduated income tax, and laying the groundwork for World War I, other conspirators were laboring patiently and diligently toward the initial implementation of Amschel Rothschild's plan for world domination. The American people still clung too strongly to their ideas of liberty and sovereignty, and were not yet even close to being ready for their ‘master plan'. Likewise, Europeans - although beset with regional differences, and thus ripe for massive exploitation (as evidenced by the relatively simple instigation of World War I) - had far too much nationalistic and ethnic pride to be herded into any type of 'super-state' political system. The orient, on the other hand, was politically and ethnically, and (most importantly) economically too far removed from western philosophy and culture for the conspirators to manipulate. Africa was too diverse and undeveloped to make such an attempt even remotely profitable. India was too poor, and still under heavy influence of the deteriorating British Empire.



Still there existed one country - very close to European in background and culture (increasing ease of infiltration), with almost unlimited natural resources (making it a very tantalizing target), and on the verge of casting off the chains of one of the last of the great western-style empires, rendering it politically unstable (and thus easier to manipulate). These factors combined made this country the perfect initial testing ground for Amschel's plan of world domination (as defined by the conspiracy's 1848 publication, "The Communist Manifesto. " The target country was, of course, Russia!



According to our history books (published by the conspiracy-controIled major publishing houses) the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was a grass-roots revolt to throw off the shackles of the Czar. Although it is true that the Russian people wanted reform, and that there was an upheaval, they in no way wanted what they got with the Bolsheviks - which merely resulted in replacing one feudal system with another.



The truth is that there were really two revolutions in 1917 Russia. The first revolution took place in February, which resulted in the establishment of a provisional socialist government under the leadership of Aleksandr Kerensky. this government was relatively mild in its policies, and attempted to accommodate all factions, including the Bolsheviks, who were in the minority. It is important to realize that when this first revolution took place, neither Lenin nor Trotsky were even in Russia!



A second revolution took place a few short months later, called 'the October Revolution,' which brought the Bolsheviks to power. This second revolution was essentially a coup d'etat, financed by the international banking conspiracy. Contrary to Marxism myth, this revolution was not a 'people's rebellion', but an insurrection of the radical Bolshevik minority who 'just happened' to have the guns and the money the for bribes and propaganda necessary to insure their victory.



Congressman Louis McFadden, a true patriot, and a man of unusual insight, honesty and courage (and about whom you will never read in our conspiracy-control led history and text books!), was Chairman of the House Banking Committee at that time. He went on record as saying: "They [the international banking conspiracy] financed Trotsky's mass meetings of the "discontented and rebellious" in New York. They paid Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian empire. They tormented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden."




teslacoils2005


Canada
117 Posts
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 13:32:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the Bolsheviks were in power, the middle class (or the 'grass roots' who initially revolted in February) was destroyed when the Bolsheviks nationalized everything, supposedly in the name of the 'people.' It is also interesting to note that after the Bolsheviks took control, all the banks were "nationalized" except one: the Petrograd branch of the Rockefeller's National City Bank. All of the banks which were "nationalized" were not run by the state, but rather by private, international bankers!



It is obvious, then, that the October Revolution was not "of the people" at all, but rather a timely grab for power by a small minority (the Bolsheviks), who wanted totalitarian control, and who were funded by the international banking conspiracy! The conspiracy got two things out of this: first, they gained control over a massive percent of the earth; and second, they now had the perfect country to use as a 'nemesis' for the U.S., so they could apply the Rothschild Formula ("pit two sides against each other, and profit from both sides"). Russia was to become "the best enemy (of the U.S.) money could buy!"



After the October Revolution, Russia was very weak. It lost 40 million of its population during the Revolution, followed by another 66 million killed by the Bolsheviks! The Bolshevik regime was saved from certain collapse, and Lenin was able to consolidate his power and control over all of Russia only because conspiracy puppet, President Woodrow Wilson, shipped 700,000 tons of American food (which should have gone to feed Americans!) to the fledgling Soviet Union.



In fact, Wilson, who was - just as the Bolsheviks were - employed by the international banking conspiracy, had this to say about the Bolshevik Revolution: "Assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world, by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening in the last few weeks in Russia. Here is a fit partner for the League of Honor." He was saying this of a "revolution" that installed as the absolute dictator of Russia, Lenin - a man who slaughtered millions! Less than two years later, Wilson sent Root to Russia with $20 million U.S. tax dollars! It 'just happened' that Root was an attorney for Kuhn Loeb Bank (one of the owners of the Federal Reserve!), and a former Secretary of State! This money was supposedly designated as part of a U.S. war fund proving that U.S. money was going to the support of the Bolshevik regime.



Lenin himself confirmed this when he said, `The Capitalists of the world and their governments, in pursuit of conquest of the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the indicated higher reality [that the bankers were the ones really in control of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.], and thus will turn into deaf-mute blind men. They will extend credits, which will strengthen for us the Communist Party in their countries. By giving us the materials and technology we lack, they will restore our military industry, indispensable for our future victorious attack on our suppliers. In other words, they will labor for the preparation of their own suicide."



To Americans who lived most of their lives under the supposed 'threat' of Soviet aggression (especially after World War II until the so-called 'demise of Communism' beginning in 1989), it will come as quite a shock that the USSR was never really a valid military threat. It was just made to appear that way. Thus the international banking conspiracy used it to apply the Rothschild formula of pitting one country against another, so the bankers could make huge profits on both sides, while moving the entire planet closer to their vision of a one-world dictatorship! The fact is, the conspiracy funded and built the USSR largely from American money, stolen from Americans through the Federal Reserve and the IRS!



In addition to funding from the U.S., the Bolsheviks relied heavily on funding from the international banking conspiracy. Russian General Arsene de Goulevitch revealed the connection between the Bolsheviks and the Wall Street bankers, saying: "Mr. Bakmetiev, the late Russian Imperial Ambassador to the United States, tells us that the Bolsheviks, after their victory, transferred 600 million rubles in gold between the years 1918-1922 to Kuhn-Loeb Company [one of the owners of the Federal Reserve]."



The director of the Federal Reserve at the time, William B. Thompson, gave $20 million to the Bolsheviks. This was very easy for him to do, because he was in a position of great power as the Federal Reserve director, but also because he held major interests in the Chase National Bank (controlled by the Rockefellers. Don't forget, the Rockefellers- 'just happened' to have the only bank in Russia which was not nationalized. Even though the $20 million Thompson gave to the Bolsheviks (never expecting or receiving repayment) belonged to the American people, Thompson was also generous enough to donate $1 million of his 'own'(?) money to the Bolsheviks for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.



To disguise their funding to the Bolsheviks, the banking conspirators organized the "Red Cross" (does the name "Rosecrucian" ring a bell?), through which various agents and associates of the bankers doled out large sums of money to Russians, usually right before they 'just happened' to revolt and join the ranks of the Bolsheviks! J.P. Morgan himself contributed $100,000. And according to his own grandson, John, Jacob Schiff "sunk about $20 million for the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia. Other New York banking firms also contributed." .By the way, William B. Thompson was the head of the American Red Cross mission in Moscow!



The head of the American Red Cross mission in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) was Raymond Robins. It 'just happened' that he had also been a leading figure in Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" campaign for the American Presidency in 1912! Although a wealthy man, he was a staunch anti-capitalist, and an avid supporter of one-world government and the international banking conspiracy. (It is interesting to note that one of Raymond Robins idols was none other than Rothschild agent, Cecil Rhodes.)



Robins was also fascinated by Lenin, and became the only man whom Lenin was always willing to see, and who ever succeeded in imposing his own personality on the unemotional Bolshevik leader. As a result, Robins became the main intermediary between the Bolsheviks and the American government, and was largely responsible for persuading President Woodrow Wilson to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet regime.



The Great Depression and the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here, so that they might emerge as rulers of us all!' - Louis McFadden



While the conspirators (through the Bolsheviks and in the name of Communism) were tightening their hold on the Russian people, and gearing up for their more-than-eighty-years of iron-fisted despotism, they were also hard at work elsewhere: paving the way for a socialist government here in the United States; and preparing Europe for the biggest and most destructive war ever - World War II.



The conspirators, who own controlling interests in both the media and in the major publishing houses which print our history books, all depict the cause of the Great Depression as massive economic speculation and a failure in the free market. In addition, they credit President Franklin D. Roosevelt for bringing the U.S. out of the Depression. Both of these "truths" are outright lies!



The real truth is that the conspirators used the power of the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply dramatically. In 1922 the amount of money in circulation was approximately $33 billion dollars. The amount was increased every year until by 1928 there was more than $45.7 billion dollars in circulation (that additional $12.7 billion dollars being that much more "debt" the American citizens supposedly "owed" to the Fed - plus interest, of course!). This period of "easy money" caused massive speculation in the private sector - just as anticipated by the conspirators, who then ordered the Federal Reserve to withdraw money from circulation as quickly as they determined the economy could bear without collapsing it entirely (which they knew could bring on a revolution from the people). By 1933 there was only $30 billion in circulation, and America was brought to her knees!



As one of the few brave enough to be an outspoken critic of the conspiracy, Congressman Charles Lindbergh wrote: "Under the Federal Reserve, panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we might figure a mathematical problem."



The hard times that followed created unspeakable suffering for all Americans except the very wealthy (mostly, the conspirators themselves!). Many families never recovered from the disaster. If anyone reading this knows or is related to anyone who went through this horrible period (and I bet that would be practically everybody who is reading this report), just consider this: 'The hardships, despair, and misery that your family or loved ones (or even you, if you were alive at the time) suffered during the Depression didn't "just happen," and were not the result of some uncontrollable force of fate or destiny, but were meticulously planned and purposely caused to turn our American Republic into socialist state! This was done by the same despicable group of criminals who have since stolen practically all our property, our rights, our freedom, and our privacy and who fully intend to continue to take everything we have until we are forced to give up the last vestiges of our sovereignty to become mere slaves to their one-world dictatorship!



Another true patriot and critic of the Federal Reserve who saw through the conspiracy's plan, Congressman Louis McFadden, was still Chairman of the House Banking Committee at the time. He had this to say about the Depression: "It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all!"



Curtis Dail, FDR's son-in-law, who also "just happened" to be a manager for Lehman Brothers (one of the owners of the Federal Reserve - what a surprise!) was on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange the day of the Crash. He said, "Actually, it was a calculated 'shearing' of the public by the world money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York money market."



William Bryon, author of The United States' Unsolved Monetary and Political Problems," had this to say regarding the Panic of 1929: "When everything was ready, the New York financiers started calling 24 hour broker call loans. This meant that the stock brokers and the customers had to dump their stock on the market in order to pay the loans. This naturally collapsed the stock market, and brought a banking collapse all over the country, because the banks not owned by the oligarchy were heavily involved in broker call claims at this time. Bank runs soon exhausted their coin and currency, and they had to close. The Federal Reserve refused to come to their aid, even though they were instructed under the law to maintain an elastic currency."



Not all members of the U.S. government had been bought off or brainwashed by the conspiracy. Those who tried to tell the American people the truth, however, were usually intimidated, coerced, threatened - or silenced - to send a message to any other public figure who might oppose them! These gangster tactics worked very well on most members of the government. But not on Congressman Louis McFadden!



As chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years, Louis McFadden understood exactly what the Federal Reserve was, who controlled it, and what they were up to! On June 10th, 1932, Congressman McFadden fearlessly stood up before Congress and bravely challenged the Federal Reserve in the following powerful speech:



"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks, which have cheated the government and the people of the United



States out of enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States, and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law, by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it!



"Some people think the Federal Reserve banks are United States government institutions. They are NOT! They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers, and the rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates, there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and wheedling us into granting new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime!



"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by bankers who came here from Europe, and repaid our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money. They planned and instigated the Russian Revolution.



"In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson Aldrich, presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association Bill. This is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill, although Aldrich did not write it. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who, for nearly 20 years, had been scheming to set up a central bank in America. In 1912 they were spending - and are continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.



"We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who ruled the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later, that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of sinister Wall Street figures, established, here in our free Country, the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the 'King's Bank' - to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave!



"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state, controlled by international bankers and international industries acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its powers, but the truth is: The Fed has usurped the government! It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations! It makes or breaks governments at will!"



The near collapse of the economy due to the contraction of the money supply led to a public outcry for government intervention. Herbert Hoover was blamed for the Depression (although in reality he had absolutely nothing to do with id), and was ousted from office by conspiracy-backed Franklin D. Roosevelt. This public outcry (greatly inflamed by the media) was exactly what the conspiracy had been trying to create as the perfect opportunity for them to institute even more of the socialistic programs that had already been laid out by Colonel Edward Mandell House.



It is important to be aware of the fact that Roosevelt (FDR) was nearly as close to House as Wilson was. This fact is amply demonstrated in a letter Roosevelt wrote House, describing the nature of the banking conspiracy's control: ''The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."



Although it was the banking cartel of the U.S. (die Federal Reserve and its owners) that orchestrated the Great Depression, it was ultimately directed by the international banking conspiracy, particularly the Rothschild family. In Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins provides evidence of the shadowy Rothschild control:



"On February 6th, 1929, Mr. Montague Norman, governor of the bank of England [and an agent of the Rothschilds], came to Washington and had a conference with Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. Immediately after that mysterious visit, the Federal Reserve Board abruptly changed its policy and pursued a high discount rate policy, abandoning the cheap money policy which it had inaugurated in 1927, after Mr. Norman's other visit. The stock market crash and the deflation of the American people's financial structure was scheduled to take place in March. To get the ball rolling, Paul Warburg gave the official warning to the traders to get out of the market."



So, the Depression was caused by the bankers - that much is obvious to even the most naive observer. But how did President Roosevelt fit into this picture?



Contrary to popular history (as edited and controlled by the conspiracy), President Roosevelt was no saint. Since we have seen that the Depression was created by - and ended by - the bankers, what role did Roosevelt play? That of 'leading man'. Here's what really happened.

[Dean]

World War II

"From the days of Spartucus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization has been steadily growing." - Winston Churchill



Unlike most wars, World War II seemed to have a real cause: a great global threat named Hitler was rising to power. History (as edited by the conspiracy) neglects to mention, however, that Hitler could never have risen to power had it not been for the circumstances created at the end of World War I, nor does it mention that Hitler was not a lone, ruthless, self-sufficient mad man, but was funded and supported - in fact created - by (who else?) none other than the international banking conspiracy!



After World War 1, the Versailles Treaty purposely left Germany in ruin. This was supposedly to have been alleviated by the Dawes plan, an 'economic recovery' act which gave banking cartel money to Germany, but also gave them U.S. taxpayer money and subsidized (by the U.S government - which really means by the American citizens) loans. Much of this money went to I.G. Farben, a giant industrial engineering company of Germany, whose major financial connection was its American branch, know as American I.G. -which 'just happened' to be headed by Paul Warburg (drafter of the Federal Reserve Act, agent of the Rothschilds, and one of the owners of the Federal Reserve).



Paul's brother, Max Warburg, "just happened" to be head of the German central bank, and was therefore able to channel a considerable amount of money from Paul in New York to Hitler in Germany!



Hitler got tremendous support from both I.G. Farben and the banking conspiracy of Wall Street, as Anthony Sutton, author of Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, points out: "Without the capital supplied by Wall Street, there would have been no I.G. Farben in the first place, and almost certainly no Adolf Hitler and World War U." Furthermore, Standard Oil, owned by the Rockefeller interests, had a joint venture with I.G. Farben to develop a process to convert coal into oil, which was crucial for Germany's war effort.



This is entirely supported by statistics. In 1943, for example, I.G. Farben produced 100% of Germany's synthetic rubber, 100% of its lubricating oil, and 84% of its explosives! It even manufactured the deadly Zyklon B gas, used to exterminate human beings in Hitler's concentration camps! I.G. Farben also supplied 45% of the election funds used to bring Hitler to power in 1933!



Another interesting note is that the Dulles brothers (legal representatives of Kuhn Loeb Company - one of the owners of the Federal Reserve) met with Hitler on January 4th, 1933, to grant Hitler the funds he needed to become Chancellor of Germany. By the way, one of the brothers - John Foster Dulles - later became" Secretary of State to Eisenhower!



Additional assistance was given to Hitler in the early part of his rise to power by the Bank of England itself (controlled by the Rothschilds). Biographer John- Hargrave revealed, "It is quite certain that Mr. Norman [head of the Bank of England at that time] did all he could to assist Hitlerism to gain and maintain political power, operating on the financial plane from his stronghold in Treadneedle Street [where the Bank of England was located]."



So Hitler was funded by the international conspiracy in the form of the Wall Street bankers and was also assisted in Germany's war effort by many U.S. manufacturers. In addition, Hitler had U.S. and British funds channeled to him, and had relations with people who were either actually in government, of at least had some ties to it.



An interesting tidbit lies in a popular song sung by the American soldiers, which poked fun at Hitler. One of the verses said. "We bring the world new order. Heil Hitler's New World Order!"



Why would the Wall Street bankers and big industry want to aid Hitler? More importantly, why would the American and British governments want to help him? The same old reasons - profit and power! The bankers and industrialists would obviously profit greatly form another war, especially since the industrialists were also the bankers (being mostly Morgan, Warburg, Rockefeller and Rothschild interests). Furthermore, both the American and British governments were already controlled by the international banking conspirators.



The truth was that Roosevelt, a shrewd banker himself (who 'just happened' to have made a considerable amount of money in the 1920s by floating millions of dollars in worthless German bonds), and hungry for the power that the conspiracy could give him, wanted U.S. involvement in World War II from the very beginning. It was just a matter of making it publicly acceptable. A 1940 Gallup poll found 83 % of Americans were against participation in the European conflict, which meant that Roosevelt had to come up with a way to get us into the war.



Getting the U.S. involved in WWII became Roosevelt's primary goal. He assigned many people to work on the task. Finally, it was decided that it would be too difficult to get Germany to attack the U.S., the only choice was to antagonize Japan into attacking us! Henry Stimpson, Roosevelt's War Secretary wrote: The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot." So some of Roosevelt's advisors on the war sent him a memorandum recommending a trade embargo against Japan, which he eventually enacted.



Roosevelt knew about the invasion of Pearl Harbor long before it happened! In The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Robert Theobald concludes that:



1) Roosevelt forced Japan to war and enticed them to initiate hostilities by holding the Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to attack.



2) The plans to use Pearl Harbor as the bait started in June, 1940 (18 months before the attack!).



3) War with Japan meant War with Germany (which is exactly what the conspiracy wanted).



4) Roosevelt, Marshall and Stark knew all about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor a full 21 hours before it happened!



As proof, Admiral Husband Kimmel, commander of the navel forces at Pearl Harbor, clearly places the blame for Pearl Harbor's unpreparedness on President Roosevelt. He wrote: "We were unready at Pearl Harbor, because President Roosevelt's plans required that no word be sent to alert the fleet in Hawaii."



The conspirators' plans were working perfectly. With their backing, Hitler had risen to power and World War II was going full tilt. And now, thanks to Roosevelt's treachery, the United States was also entering the war. But the treachery didn't stop there. The conspirators planned World War II not only to reap huge profits on all sides and force the United States into further debt and more socialism, but they also planned to use the war to seize greater control for their pet creation - the U.S.S.R.



Since the U.S.S.R. had been created by the conspirators (with considerable help from the U.S. politicians and bankers), it was not yet ready to fight an all-out war. To overcome this the U.S. government (under direction from the conspiracy) started shipping millions of American vehicles, ships and weapons for the Soviets to use - supposedly against Germany. Without this massive supply, it is doubtful they would have turned back the German army. You might say that the U.S. saved the country that later became its so-called greatest 'threat'.



One of the greatest war crimes in all of World War II, which is completely left out of our history books, is the fact that Eastern Europe was purposely handed over to the Soviet Union on a silver platter! This was done when Churchill and Roosevelt, at the urging of the international banking conspiracy, made a secret pact with Stalin, deliberately delayed the plan of invasion of Europe from 1943 to 1944! This was to allow the Russians more time to gain control of a considerably larger area of Eastern Europe than they would have gotten had the U.S. and Great Britain attacked in 1943, as originally planned. The conspirators wanted to allow the Russians to gain more territory, because it moved them closer to their goal of world domination!



Attributing the decision to assist Russia in gaining more territory to Secretary of State George Marshall, Senator Joseph McCarthy made this comment: "We now come to what was without question the most significant decision of the war in Europe - the decision by Marshall to concentrate on France, and leave the whole of Eastern Europe to the Red Armies."



In fact, only the U.S.S.R. (read that as the conspirators) emerged as winners at the end of the war. Huge tracts of land were added to the Soviet empire, while Western Europe merely gained back what it lost to Hitler. And the U.S. was the big loser - just as the conspirators had wanted! Not only did the United States loose thousands of young lives needlessly, but the American people were saddled with paying off the war debts from all the countries involved, and were further stuck with paying for the rebuilding not only of Western Europe, Germany, and Russia, but Japan as well!!



U.S. General Albert C. Wedemeyer explained that: "Stalin was intent on creating favorable conditions for the realization of Communist aims throughout the Balkans and Western Europe. We insured the emergence of a more hostile, menacing predatory power than Nazi Germany, one which has enslaved more people than we liberated."



Another wartime atrocity occurred in February of 1945 when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Yalta conference, where it was agreed that all the Russian refugees that had come west would be returned to the U.S.S.R. This was termed by the U.S. troops as 'Operation Keelhaul.' Many thousands of Russian refugees preferred suicide rather than go back to Stalin, and many more thousands were murdered upon return! In total about 2 million refugees were rounded up by reluctant American and British troops and returned to the Soviet Union.



After the war, the negotiations and treaties saw the Allies make more and more concessions to the Soviets. The Soviets got so much more out of the negotiations that James Forrestal, America's first Secretary of Defense said: ''These men are neither incompetent nor stupid. They are crafty and brilliant. Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor."



Forrestal was obviously considered by the conspirators to be dangerous because he threatened their exposure. So he was later sent to Bethesda Navel Hospital where he died, supposedly from "falling" out of a window in an attempt to hang himself, but it was really murder! Indeed, the coroners report never even used the word "suicide."



Internationally known poet Ezra Pound also realized what the conspirators were up to, and exposed them on a national radio broadcast. Just before his imprisonment by the U.S. government as a 'political prisoner' (without a specific charge or trial), he said of his exposure of the conspirators: "I reckon my last talk was the most courageous I have ever given. I was playing with fire. I was openly talking about how the war may be prolonged by fellows who were scared that the war might stop. I mean they were scared right out of their little grey panties, for fear economic equity might set in as soon as the guns stop shooting or shortly thereafter."



Pound was labeled 'mentally ill,' and moved to St. Elizabeth's Psychiatric Hospital. Since the government is not required to hold a trial for anyone deemed 'mentally ill,' Pound never got one. This was all after Pound had played a major role in developing such poets and writers as E.E. Cummings, Robert Frost, T.S. Elliot, and Ernest Hemmingway, among others, and had become well known in his own right. He obviously posed a threat to 'the powers that be,' so they had him locked up!



Soon after the end of the war, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused many people in government of being Communists. He was, of course, entirely correct. 'The government itself later substantiated what McCarthy had been saying when, on July 30th, 1953, it released a report entitled "interlocking Subversion in Government Departments", which was written by the Senate International Security Subcommittee- It read: "The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States Government, and this penetration has not been fully exposed. This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to top-level policy and operating positions in our government. Despite the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other security agencies had reported extensive information about this Communist penetration, little was done by the Executive branch to interrupt the Soviet operatives in their ascent within our government."



So things were getting much worse. Not only did the conspiracy have control of Roosevelt and much of Congress through the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), but they had also gained control over most of the agencies of the U.S. government.



The final agreements of the war saw the creation of the Marshall Plan, which was overseen by the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA). All of the aid channeled to Europe through the ECA was linked to purchases of particular American goods and services. Thus, the Marshall Plan subsidized some U.S. businesses (those already owned or controlled by the conspirators) at the expense of the taxpayer. Although the Marshall Plan was more realistic in its ability to maintain long term peace that was the Treaty of Versailles, it was not at all a beneficial plan as far as America was concerned. It guaranteed that the American taxpayers would rebuild war-torn Europe and Japan - and even Russia - while the bankers collected hefty profits on the skyrocketing American debt, the interest on countless loans, and huge upswings in their business interests. In other words, the Marshall plan did exactly what the international banking conspiracy wanted: to further finance them - very handsomely (at America's expense) - after the war ended!



In summary, World War II was set up by the conspirators through the grossly unfair Treaty of Versailles (at the end of Word War I), which completely destroyed the German economy, leading to the rise of Hitler to power. If the conspirators had not funded and supplied Hitler, the war (if it would have occurred at all) would have been relatively small and insignificant. Since the American people were largely opposed to involvement, Roosevelt (a banker himself) secretly plotted to get the U.S. into the war by antagonizing the Japanese, and enticed them to attack by sacrificing Pearl Harbor and thousands of lives. 'Men the conspirators (through secret agreements between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin), allowed the Soviets to grab as much territory as possible from Eastern Europe both during and after the war, and also allowed them to slaughter millions of returning refugees. Finally, the Marshall Plan continued to subsidize banking and big industry at the expense of American taxpayers after the war was over.



Indeed, it would seem that World War II had gone very well for the conspirators, advancing their ultimate goal of establishing the New World Order even better than they had hoped. But there was still much work to be done.



The United Nations

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "

Daniel Webster



During World War II, on January I, 1942, the 25 nations at war against Germany and Japan signed a 'Declaration by the United Nations,' which pledged that any one nation involved would not sign a separate armistice or peace treaty. This was the beginning of the creation of the current United Nations. Once World War II was just a memory, the United Nations was to be formally made into an international organization, supposedly to help maintain the peace.



Following World War II, the Council on Foreign Relations, acting through the State Department, established the United Nations on American soil, thus ensuring participation by the United States. John D. Rockefeller, one of the international banking conspirators, and an ardent supporter of the UN, donated $8.5 million (nearly $100 million in today's "dollars") to purchase the land and building for the UN headquarters in New York City.



The CFR, having persuaded America to join a limited form of world government, had achieved a major objective in its bid for domination of the world. Influencing public education and media, the CFR began to forge a favorable image of the United Nations as "promoting international peace, harmony and understanding" before. the American people, eventually intending to lead America step-by-step into a system of world government.



Its real purpose, however, ever since the official signing of the UN treaty in San Francisco on October 24th, 1945, has been to march us into a one-world totalitarian government. The CFR knew it would meet with stiff resistance from the American people if it tried to force world government upon America all at once. The immediate purpose of the UN, therefore, was to warm Americans up to the idea of global government. We were being 'conditioned' to accept the dictates of the international banking conspiracy through the United Nations' globalist leaders. The UN's record, the records of its members, and the things they have said only serve to support this fact, as in the following quotations:



"The UN is a true world organization. Actually, the creation of a world government, in any shape or form, depends not primarily upon the structure of an international organization, but upon the willingness of key countries to surrender certain sovereign rights." [Department of State Publication 3929]



John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's first Secretary of State (not to mention accomplice to Hitler), wrote, "The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore, its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization."



Another significant piece of evidence pointing to a conspiracy to install a world government is the US government document Freedom From War - State Dept Publication 7277, which reads:



"1) The first stage would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage war by reducing the armed forces of the nations; 2) The nuclear capabilities would be reduced by treaties; 3) UN 'peace keeping' powers would be strengthened. This third stage would have the nations retaining only those forces required for maintaining internal order, but the United States would provide manpower for the United Nations Peace Force." [an oxymoron - or contradiction of terms - if ever I heard one!]



This document was mysteriously taken out of print and circulation just a few years after it first came out. Could it be that it was just too close to what was really planned to happen?.



Dr. J.B. Mathews, former chief investigator or the house committee on Un-American Activities said, "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace. It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding an abetting the destruction of the Unit Stares. [from The Fearful Master: a Second Look at the United Nations, by G. Edward Griffin].



Joseph Stalin, one of the most despotic, tyrannical, and murderous dictators the world has ever seen, had this to say about the UN: "I attribute great importance to the UN, since it is a serious instrument for preservation of peace and international security."



Another top Communist Party member said, "Now, as to the United Nations. If you were, let's say, a building engineer, and someone were to show you a set of blueprints about a certain building, you would know from those blueprints how that building was going to look. Organizational 'blueprints' can be read the same way. I need not be a member of the United Nations Secretariat to know that the UN 'blueprint' is a Communist one. I was at the Moscow headquarters of the World Communist Party for nearly 3 years, and was also a leading party worker. I went to their colleges; I learned their pattern of operations, and if I see that pattern in effect anywhere, I can recognize it."



The truth is that the UN is another brilliantly conceived, masterwork of deception - designed and implemented by the international banking conspiracy as a means of achieving their goal of world domination. They never intended the UN as a peace keeping organization. What they had in mind was a fancy and colossal Trojan horse, within the structure of which their smaller agencies could more effectively operate. And in that, they succeeded - even beyond their own expectations.



British espionage authority Chapman Pincher said, "Because of the protective cover they afford, all the major United Nations institutions have been heavily penetrated. Whole books have been published listing the abuse and manipulation of the United Nations by the Soviets and their international financier backers. The area most blatantly used for active measures and espionage is the main headquarters in New York."



One of the foremost plans of the United Nations is to take over the military operations of sovereign countries in order to form a 'New World Army.' The only problem with that objective was that it would have meant an end to wars that the conspiracy could instigate, orchestrate, manipulate, and finally reap profits from both sides of the conflict. They therefore decided to bide their time until such a move (toward creating a one-world army) would be not only feasible, but practical. The problem was how could they move the world forward to such a place where nations would be willing to give up their standing armies?



They solved this problem in typical conspirators' fashion, by first creating another problem which would lead all nations into gladly surrendering their armies in the name of 'peace.' This was done by increasing the so-called Soviet 'threat,' to the point that - even though the United States and the Soviet Union were supposedly at a standoff in the famous 'cold war,' which lasted over 40 years -there was continual armed conflict spreading throughout the globe at an alarming pace. These conflicts were instigated by Soviet (read that as conspirator-paid) infiltrators, who purposely played upon the natural divisions of populations in order to incite war.



The result is that ever since the end of World War II, in addition to the obvious Korean and Vietnam wars, the earth has been in a constant state of turmoil over much of the globe. That these were not merely 'natural' conflicts between different demographic communities occupying the same area is proven by the fact that in nearly all of the areas of conflict, the populations had managed to co-exist peacefully for generations - or even centuries - before.



Finally, with the highly acclaimed 'collapse' of the Soviet Union (which was just another carefully orchestrated event to further the international banking conspirators' plans - as we will discuss in another section of this report), the world experienced a great sense of relief and even a sense of unity toward a bright, 'democratic' tomorrow - just as the conspirators had hoped. But instead of becoming more peaceful, the turbulence throughout the world had increased dramatically (with considerable help from the conspirators) since the collapse of the U.S.S.R.



Now, at last, they have us where they want us! The emphasis has been shifted from fighting between nations to internal conflict. Enter the 'benevolent' UN 'Peace Keeping' forces! These forces are not of any one nation, but of numerous nations - and always on foreign soil, to prevent any soldier from hesitating in firing on civilians. A Bosnian soldier might be reluctant to fire on Bosnian civilians, for example. Conversely, a Lithuanian soldier would not feel as much remorse in firing on American civilians as an American soldier would!



In its March 6th, 1992 article, "'The New World Army"," the New York Times said, "For years the United Nations has been notable mostly for its vocal chords. That's changed. Nowadays the UN's muscle - its blue-helmeted soldiers - seem to be everywhere. Never before have so many UN troops been committed to so many costly and diverse missions."



The Los Angeles Times of September 8th, 1992, had an article by Norman Kempster, who wrote, "Creating a standing army under the control of the United Nations Security Council would give the world organization a military punch never before had, and could convert it into a full-time international police department."



William Jasper, in his book, Global Tyranny Step By Step, asks, "In what social or economic spheres, if any, will the world orderites not find a pretext for intervention? According to the new UN agenda, there are none. Among the 'new risks for stability' listed by the Secretary General are 'ecological damage' and 'disruption of family and community life." Other 'sources of conflict' include: 'unchecked population growth;' 'drugs and growing disparity between rich and poor;' 'poverty, disease, famine;' 'drought;' 'a porous ozone shield;' and about anything else you might imagine!"



Economist and author Dr. V. Orval Watts cited a true story in his book The United Nations: Planned Tyranny. It read: "At Fort MacArthur, California, and in other centers, considerable numbers of American military forces went into training in 1951 as 'Military Government Reserve Units.' The purpose of these reserve units is revealed from their practice maneuvers during the 2 years, 1951-1952.



The CFR soon realized, however, that regionalized world government would be impossible to achieve politically, because of the resistance to the idea from the citizens of each country. So they instead decided to divide the world into economic regions, such as the European Economic Community (formerly the Common Market), and the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), hoping to pave the way for later political unions based on the same geographical boundaries!



To accomplish this, several special-task organizations were established to oversee the creation of regional trade associations. The organization responsible for Europe's economic integration into the world government was the Bilderbergers, whose name was derived from the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeck, Holland, where the group held their first meeting in 1945.



One hundred of the power elite from the member nations of NATO comprise the membership of the Bilderbergers. Its leaders are also interlocked with the CFR, making the Bilderbergers a sister organization with identical goals. Funded by several one-world foundations, including the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, the specific goal of the Bilderberg group is to regionalize Europe. This fact was first revealed by Giovanni Agnelli, head of Fiat (I always wondered if the Fiat company got its name from the fiat money we are all using?). Agnelli said, "European integration is our goal, and where the politicians have failed, we hope to succeed."



Former ambassador to West Germany, George McGhee, further revealed that "the Treaty of Rome, which brought the Common Market into being, was nurtured at the Bilderberger meetings." The European Common Market would be the great giant step to crush the sovereignty of European nations.



Like the UN and CFR, the Bilderbergers' specific goal is the establishment of a world government. This was clearly explained by the first chairman of the group, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. "Here comes our greatest difficulty, for the governments of the free nations are elected by the people, and if they do something the people don't like, they are thrown out. It is difficult to reeducate the people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supernational body. This is a tragedy."




teslacoils2005


Canada
117 Posts
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 13:37:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank

In July, 1944, a group of international financiers and politicians met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to come up with a global economic recovery plan for the ravages of WWII, and to promote global economic cooperation. It was officially called, "The United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference," but is typically known as the Bretton Woods Conference. At this conference, two international economic organizations were created: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), and The World Bank.



The two chief drafters of the Bretton Woods agreement, John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White, were dedicated socialists and followers of the Rothschilds. Keynes was the darling of the British Fabian Society, the gang of socialist conspirators who had taken over and wrecked Great Britain. White was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a dedicated Soviet agent, who had moved into various positions of importance in the U.S. Treasury Department, where he carefully laid out plans for a new monetary order. Such were the men who designed our current world monetary system!



Although the motives of the conference appeared noble at the surface, the true motives behind the conference were anything but. One result of the conference was to take the world off the discipline of gold, which would allow countries (read that as the international banks) to inflate their currencies freely, without any restraint, other than the exchange rate with other currencies.

The second result of the conference was to create the World Bank (which was essentially a Federal Reserve for the world), and the International Monetary Fund, which was supposed to be a means for recovering nations to borrow money reasonably - but actually was a way to extort infinite amounts of money from the member nations, to be used in any way the international banking conspiracy wanted.



Here's how it worked (and still does today!): The IMF "loaned" millions of dollars to "needy" countries in order to "develop" them. The countries, over time, are supposed to pay the IMF back. However, the vast majority of the time (nearly 100%!), these "backward" countries default on the loans. The supporting members of the UN and IMF[World Bank then pick up the tab (the major portion of which always falls to America to repay). This does two things for the international conspiracy: first, it gives them a 'legitimate' reason to extort more money from the supporting nations' citizens (mostly the United States), which helps them to reach their goal of lowering the living standards of the more affluent nations; and second, it allows the international conspirators to buy the support of these backward countries for a one-world dictatorship.



The IMF has become the final guarantor of the loans of the world. Most of these are to third world countries that will never be paid back. Unfortunately, the wealthy nations of the UN (particularly the U.S.), ultimately pay for these loans through subsidies to the IMF, which of course comes from taxes. A perfect example of this: in 1988 the World bank loaned Poland successive amounts of money starting with $17.9 million. Three years later, when the Polish government could not pay the $3.8 billion debt it had accumulated, President Bush advocated "debt forgiveness" and cancelled 70% of the amount owed to the U.S. Taxpayers picked up the bill.



This policy is exactly what the global conspirators want. They want to drag the economies of the wealthy industrialized nations down, and to raise the economies of the poorer countries, to whatever degree they can, in order to facilitate a comfortable merging of all countries into a one-world government. In addition, this process increases their control immensely, because they have the power to subjugate the wealthy countries through taxes, regulations and economic control. This policy also gives them control over the poor countries because the conspirators have essentially 'bought' them.



After studying the World Bank for several years, James Bovard concluded in his report entitled "The World Bank vs. the World's Poor" the following: "The Bank exists largely to maximize the transfer of resources to Third World governments. And by so doing, the bank has greatly promoted the nationalization of Third World economies and has increased political and bureaucratic control over the lives of the poorest of the poor. Bank officials are now leading a rhetorical crusade in favor of the private sector. Yet every time the bank loudly praises the private sector, it silently damns its own record. More than any other international institution, the bank is responsible for the rush to socialism in the Third World - the rise of political power over the private sector - and the economic collapse of Africa."



An article by Warren T. Brookes in the Boston Herald of March 20th, 1986 states: "...the UN's International Monetary Fund and the post-World War II monetary system... has been working for almost half a century to create a centrally controlled economic system for the planet. The IMF has also regularly created sufficient turmoil to topple governments and steer nations into the type of government-directed economic planning it favors."



Renown British author, A.K. Chesterton, who attended the Bretton Woods conference, declared in his book, The New Unhappy Lords: "The final act of Bretton Woods, which gave birth to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and many similar assemblies of hand-picked functionaries - were not incubated by hard-pressed governments engaged in waging war, but by a Supra-national Power which could afford to look ahead to the shaping of a post-war world that would serve its interests."



In 1987, Senator Jesse Helms stated: "It is no secret that the international bankers profiteer from sovereign state debt. The New York banks have found important profit centers in the lending to countries plunged into debt by socialist regimes. Under socialist regimes, countries go deeper and deeper into debt because socialism as an economic system does not work. International bankers are sophisticated enough to understand this phenomenon, and they are also sophisticated enough to profit from it. The New York banks find the profit from the interest on this sovereign debt to be critical to their balance sheets. Up until very recently, this has been an essentially riskless game for the banks, because the IMF and the World Bank have stood ready to bail the banks out with our taxpayers' money."



One of designers of the Bretton Woods agreement and a long-time conspiracy insider, John Maynard Keynes, wrote a book called The Economic Consequences of Peace, in which he writes: "Lenin is said to have declared that the best ways to destroy the Capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily, and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.



"Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of the destructors, and does it in a manner not one man in a million is able to diagnose."



Economist Dan Smoot observed in 1979: "White's Bretton Woods Conference set policies which our government has followed, without deviation, under all Presidents, since the end of World WarII. These policies were intended to accomplish four major objectives:



1) Strip the United States of its monetary gold reserve by giving gold to other nations.



2) Build the industrial capacity of other nations, at our expense, to eliminate American productive superiority.



3) Take world markets - and much of the American domestic market - away from American producers to stop American domination of world trade.



4) Entwine American affairs with those of other nations until the United States could not have an independent policy, but would become an interdependent link in a worldwide socialist chain."



Henry Hazlitt wrote of Bretton Woods: ".[Regarding] the consequences of the decisions made by the representatives of the 45 nations at Bretton Woods. These decisions, and the institutions set up to carry them out, have led us to the present world monetary chaos. For the first time in history, every nation is on an inconvertible paper money basis (thanks to the international banking conspiracy). As a result, every nation is inflating [its currency], some at an appalling rate. This has brought economic disruption, chronic unemployment, and anxiety, destitution, and despair to untold millions of families. The world cannot get back to economic sanity until the IMF is abolished. We will not stop the growth of world inflation and world socialism until the institutions and policies adopted to promote them have been abolished."



The North American Treaty Organization (NATO) was created in 1949, not long after the UN and IMF/World Bank. It was supposedly created as an anti-communist alliance - but according to the Council on Foreign Relations, NATO's purpose was much more sinister, as the April, 1948 issue of the CFR's publication, Foreign Affairs, explains: "A regional organization of nations [such as NATO], formed to operate within the framework of the United Nations, can only strengthen that organization [the UN]." The article went on to indicate that NATO could very well serve as the military of a UN world government, with the World Bank as the global government's [the UN's] means of finance.



More recently, on April 2nd, 1992, the UN passed the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There they go again, granting "Rights" to the 'common, unwashed masses', as if they were masters and the rest of us mere slaves for that is exactly how they look at themselves - and us. Don't ever forget the real truth as stated in our Declaration of Independence: "All men [and women - or all people] are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In other words, we are given our rights by God - not some two-bit little bureaucrats and dictators!



Before the vote on the Covenant, Senator Jesse Helms said of it: "Now this Senator and every other Member of Congress has taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And that means we should be fully committed to the rights of the individual, which are enshrined in our Constitution. And we should be committed to the protection of these individual rights. We cannot keep that commitment if we agree to the terms of this covenant!" Helms continued by saying that "The covenant calls into question the right of freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and just punishments - they are clearly constitutional -and even the Federal/State structure of our legal system. Now any agreement that undercuts these rights is an attack on human rights, not a safeguarding of human rights. This covenant, in sum, is a step backwards into authoritarianism."



Some excepts from the Covenant include:

Article 10 - "The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law." (What ,restrictions'? Prescribed by whom? Under what 'law?')



*Article 13 - "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." This is a blatant step toward eliminating family - especially parental - influence over children. The State would be in control of what the children see or hear - or learn. So that the children can be more easily indoctrinated with the views of the State. Parents will be hauled before a world court if they "infringe" on the child's "right" to watch or read whatever garbage, propaganda, doctrine, or even filth the State has already "approved" as "educational" for children including pornography or - even worse - "turn your parents in as criminals if they speak out against the State" just like Hitler did!). There are no mention of parents' rights!



Article 14 - "Everybody shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing," but then goes on to say, "The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order..." (How can you have a 'public' hearing if the press and the public are excluded?

* Article 18 - "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought [Gee, Thanks!], conscience, and religion," but then goes on to say, "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary." (Prescribed by whom? For what law? And 'necessary' by whose definition?)



Article 28 - Recognizes the "right of the child to education," and would "make primary education compulsory and available to all." It also states that education must teach "the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations." (Yikes! Talk about "Big Brother"!)



"The rest of the document continues like that. It grants a "right" or "freedom", and then creates vague conditions or exceptions, so that the "right" or "freedom" can be arbitrarily taken away. The document should read "we 'give' you these rights [which aren't theirs to give in the first place!], unless or until we feel like taking them away." In essence, this Covenant of the "benevolent" UN is a hollow, deceitful, and thinly-disguised, irreversible contract into slavery!



The frightening fact is that already 134 countries have signed in agreement to this fiendish and despotic 'Covenant' (with whom - Satan himself?). The United States has not signed in agreement yet - but it is being 'considered'!

By the way, the United States (read that as the American taxpayers) pay a full 25% of all the expenses of the United Nations!! If we are to preserve our freedom and God-given rights for ourselves and future generations, if there is to be a United States of America in the future, we must withdraw America completely from the United Nations IMMEDIATELY! and withdraw all of our monetary support!



The Korean War and the Vietnam War

The Korean and Vietnam wars have a lot in common. Both were aftermaths of WWII, resulting from instigation and manipulation by the international banking conspiracy for their usual goals of reaping profits on both sides, expanding their control over the globe through socialism, and pushing the U.S. closer to bankruptcy. Both wars could have been easily avoided (were it not for instigation by the conspirators). Both wars were lost by the U.S. (on purpose!). Both wars were I non-wars' (undeclared). And most importantly, both wars were under the auspices and control of the UN.



The only reason the U.S. got involved with both the Korean and Vietnam wars was to validate NATO and make it acceptable for U.S. troops to fight under UN command.



In addition, the U.S. (actually the UN) never intended to win either war. That would have caused the Communists, whom the conspirators supported, to lose territory. To prevent success in these wars, ridiculous rules of engagement were established, and allied intelligence information was often passed on to the communists. For example, during the Korean war, according to Douglas MacArthur's Reminiscences, "[U.S. General Walton Walker] continually complained that his operations were known to the enemy in advance through sources in Washington."



MacArthur went on to quote General Lin Piao as saying, "I would never have made the attack and risked my men if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communications."



Further proof that the war was "rigged" and the U.S. wasn't allowed to win, comes from George Straterneyer, a general in the Air Force during the Korean War, who said, "We had sufficient air, bombardment, fighters, reconnaissance, so that I could have taken out all of those supplies, those airdromes on the other side of the Yalu; I could have bombarded the devils between there and Mukden, stopped the railroad operating, and the people of China who were fighting could not have been supplied. But we weren't permitted to do it. As a result, a lot of American blood was spilled over there in Korea."



Meanwhile, the international conspiracy was continuing to strengthen its position in the U.S. government. Norman Thomas, president of the Socialist Party in the U.S. at this time described their progress under the presidency of Eisenhower, saying, "The United States is making greater strides towards Socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt."



One of the most significant of these "strides towards Socialism" was the defeat of the Bricker Amendment, which stipulated that no treaty signed by the U.S. could override the Constitution or infringe on the rights guaranteed Americans. Had this bill passed, it would have been a tremendous blow to the global conspirators. Stephen Ambrose, in his biography of Eisenhower said, "Eisenhower used all his persuasive powers - in stag dinners, at meetings, in private, in correspondence, even on the golf course - to kill the Bricker Amendment." So the bill was killed. The question remains, however: What harm could this bill have done to anyone besides someone attempting to infringe upon or circumvent the Constitution?. By the way, most Americans were never even aware of the bill's existence at the time!



Although Eisenhower was involved with the conspirators to some degree, he felt obliged to issue the following warning to all Americans in his farewell address of January 17th, 1961:



"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."



The conspirators never intended the United States to win in Vietnam, either. As proof, take a look at the "rules of engagement" for the U.S. military in Vietnam, as passed down to the executive branch of the U.S. government from the conspirators through the CFR:



1) The Air Force was repeatedly refused permission to bomb those targets that were deemed most strategic.



2) U.S. troops were given a general order not to fire upon Viet Cong until fired upon.



3) Vehicles more than 200 yards off the Ho Chi Minh Trail could not be bombed.



4) Surface to air missile sights could not be bombed while under construction, only after they were operational.



5) Enemy forces could not be pursued if they crossed into Laos or Cambodia. Another unbelievable aspect of the Vietnam war was that the U.S. (read that as 'the conspiracy') was really supplying both sides! The United States was sending massive amounts of supplies to the USSR, which in turn sent those same supplies straight to North Vietnam!



Still further proof that the conspirators were stacking the deck against America comes from the front line, where American boys were purposely issued the inferior M-16 rifle, which - because its very design was flawed - was almost worse than having no weapon at all! The June, 1981 issue of The Atlantic Monthly relates the following observations made by an American soldier on the front lines in Vietnam:



"Our M-l6s aren't worth much. Out of 40 rounds I've fired, my rifle jammed about 10 times. These rifles are getting a lot, of guys killed because they jam so easily... The weapon has failed us at crucial moments ... as many as 50% of the rifles fail to work. During this fight I lost some of my best buddies. I personally checked their weapons. Close to 70% had a round stuck in the chamber, and take my word for it - it was not their fault!"



All of this was obviously covered up by the government. In 1971, Louisiana Congressman John Rarick pointed this out:



"The My Lai massacre, the sentencing of Lt. Calley to life imprisonment, 'The Selling of the Pentagon,' and the so-called 'Pentagon Papers', are leading examples of attempts to shift all the blame to the military in the eyes of the people. But no one identifies the Council on Foreign Relations (the CFR) - a group of some 1400 "Americans" (they aren't worthy of that name), which includes as members almost every top level decision and policy maker in the Vietnam War. "CBS tells the people that it wants them to know what is going on, and who is to blame. Why doesn't CBS tell the American people about the CFR, and let the people decide whom to blame for the Vietnam fiasco: the planners and top decision makers of a closely knit, financial control."



It is important to note that by this time, the conspiracy had complete control of the U.S. government. For example, President Lyndon Johnson even stated, "We are going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent [emphasis added), and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have-nots' that need it so much. "(!!!) This was the basis for his "Great Society" program which is no different than the Communist Manifesto's statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need! WOW! All I can say is:



"Hey, LBJ! How about all those 'haves' - the international banking conspiracy - who stole outright practically all the property, wealth, gold, and silver (not to mention the freedom, rights, privacy, and - in far too many cases the very lives) of the citizens of this once great nation? How about making 771EM give all 'their' money - stolen from the American citizens (which we KNOW is unnecessarily being spent), and giving it back to its rightful owners, the American people, who now (thanks to 'them'), are ALL 'have nots!"



In summary, neither the Korean nor the Vietnam wars were fought with the intention of winning. They were fought to: suck more money out of America and place it in the hands of the conspiracy created communists; to create more enormous profits from both sides for the bankers; to insure the further acquisition of territory for the communists/conspirators; to push America even further into Socialism; to lend credibility to NATO; and to establish a precedent of the U.S. military fighting under UN authority. Furthermore, the one-world conspirators had effectively gained control of the majority of the U.S. government as one more step in their plan of establishing a world dictatorship.



The Report From Iron Mountain

"War is Peace.” - George Orwell



The "Report From Iron Mountain" was a confidential document prepared by nine members of the U.S. department of Defense while it was headed by Robert McNamara, in 1966. It was produced by the Hudson Institute which is located at the base of Iron Mountain in New York - hence the name. The primary purpose of this report was to find ways to perpetuate government and to subjugate the masses. The most important goal of the report, however, was to study the function of war, its uses and effects on society, and to come up with alternatives to war as a means of controlling society.



The text of the report clearly reveals the almost unbelievably shocking and disgusting total arrogance of the general mentality of the conspirators - their complete disregard and in fact disdain for the rest of the population, whom they consider to be no more than their chattel! It exposes the conspirators' typical supremacist attitude, in which the masses don't have the intelligence to be able to run their own lives, and therefore can - and should be used like mere pawns in a chess game, to help insure the positions of power and control which rightfully belong to the conspirators as more supremely intelligent and capable. The most blatant proof of their utter snobbery is demonstrated clearly in this report by their total disregard of the suffering and loss of human life caused by war - which the conspirators deem "necessary" in order to maintain and increase their control over the rest of us - 'for the good of humanity.'. This unconscionable and nauseating mentality is best expressed in their own words. For that reason, much of this section will be dedicated to directly quoting the report itself. If you are able to read the following paragraphs without getting sick to your stomach, then you are doing much better than I did!



The following excepts are direct quotes form The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace:



"War has provided both ancient and modern society with a debatable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies. No alternate method of control has yet been tested in a complex modem economy that has shown it is remotely comparable in scope of effectiveness. War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society, until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained and improved in effectiveness." War is the principle organizing force in most societies. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power.



"Allegiance requires a cause, and a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious. The critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the 'enemy' sufficient to warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.



"Me existence of an accepted external menace, then, is essential to social cohesiveness, as well as to the acceptance of political authority. The menace must be believable, it must be of a magnitude consistent with the complexity of the society threatened, and it must appear, at least, to affect the entire society.



"The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations an independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its 'legitimacy,' or right to rule its society. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and-it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood."



The report goes on to say that this 'war system' could now be obsolete, because a world government may now be possible. For this to occur, however, the global power would have to come up with alternative. reasons (threats and/or problems) with which to organize society and subjugate the people. As it explains:

"A viable substitute for war as a social system cannot be a mere symbolic charade. It must involve real risk of real personal destruction and on a scale consistent with the size and complexity of modem social systems. Unless it provides a believable life-and-death threat, it will not serve the socially organizing function of war.



"Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. It may be that the gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons, as the principle apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the main sources of food and water supply is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect. [!!!] It [environmental poisoning] constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organizations and political power. But from present indications, it will be one to one and one-half generations before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution." [Bear in mind that this report was made about 30 years ago - or approximately one and one-half generations!)



The Report From Iron Mountain was to come up with alternatives to war as a means of controlling society. The producers of this report concluded that nothing was as effective as war, but there were other promising possibilities.



First, the replacement(s) for war must meet the following requirements:



1) It must be economically wasteful. (!! Why am I not surprised?)



2) It must operate outside the normal supply-demand system.



3) It must represent a threat of great magnitude.



4) It must provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.



Next, these are some of the substitutes for war the writers of the Report came up with:



1) Complete government health care for all.



2) A guaranteed annual income.



3) A series of giant space research programs aimed at unreachable targets.



4) The specter of gross pollution as a threat to the survival of the species.



5) The re-introduction of slavery through some form of compulsory military service.



6) A universal requirement that procreation be limited to the products of artificial insemination.



7) A massive, all encompassing social welfare program.



Finally, the report concluded that: "no serious quantified studies have ever been conducted to determine the minimum levels of population destruction [!] necessary to maintain war-threat credibility under varying political conditions"; and optimal cyclical frequency of 'shooting' wars under varying circumstances of historical relationships." Essentially what this means is that no one knows how many people should be killed, and how frequently they should be killed, in order to credibly maintain the threat of war!! (What kind of cold-blooded monsters are we dealing with here, anyway??!!!)



When the Report From Iron Mountain was first leaked to the press, the U.S. government claimed it was a hoax, which has caused many people to doubt its credibility. This, of course, is exactly what the conspirators wanted because, as we have already learned, their first weapon is always concealment and deception. Since that time, however, many people involved in the creation of the report have come forward and admitted not only the existence of the report itself, but also their involvement in its production. Among those is well-known historian John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard University, who said, "As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions."



Most of the suggestions and conclusions mentioned above have already either come to pass, or are in their final planning stages. The writers of the Report, however, decided that the best alternative to war was the environmental pollution model. Recent history bears this out with the advent of all kinds of environmental "crises" arising:

[Brian Foley]

Just so long as we all understand that Hitler initiated the war with about half his army still poorly trained and equipped – that he was taking on about 130 enemy divisions (of varying quality) with only 50 that were capable of offensive action. What you are thinking was a “powerful” German army was in fact a “lucky” German army. The French Army of modern history has never before and never since performed so poorly.
I have always said it was a gamble from the start of my thread .The German economy had been preparing for war since 1933 for 6 years they built the army and airforce up . I gave you a list of stunning German conquests uptil May 1940 which proves that the German military was a technically advanced and pwerful entuty . Yet you have ignored this and still claim their army was sub standard .
I believe you’ll find that the T-34 was introduced in 1940. The Panzer MK IV was not available in any numbers in 1939 (i.e., perhaps 5% to 10% of the total German tank force). It had the short barrel 75mm, which was inadequate in the anti-tank role. The majority of the German armored forced consisted of Pz Mk1 and Pz Mk2, neither of which was worth a damn.
Makes no difference it was Airpower which was the deciding force of any conflict by the start of WWII .
Yes, we’ve gone over that. Just for the record – there is nothing in the German archives of any operational level planning against the Soviet Union before 1940? Care to explain why?
Because as I already stated 1st] there was the preparation ie: rearmament 2nd] strategic placement ie: invasion of Poland as a springboard 3rd]Once all these goals have been accomplished the final phase the plans for a military invasion and occupation .
Yes, the Z-Plan was cancelled. The issue isn’t why it was cancelled; it’s why it was approved. Battleships aren’t renowned for their ability to sail to Moscow, and as we’ve already reviewed, the German army of 1939 was pretty weak and could ill-afford the diversion of resources to the navy. While I agree that Hitler was stupid in assessing risk, if he was intending war with France and Russia while building his Z-Stuff, this decision was stark raving nuts.
It was cancelled in favour of the U-Boats which were more effective and easier to build in numbers thats why . The Z-Plan I believe would not of been finished construction until 1948 . In other words practicality .
Brian, we’ve been over this. Imo, Hitler made a final decision to invade the Soviet Union because of the “ill-tempered” meeting with Molotov. Had the Russian agreed to Hitler’s terms, there would have been no Barbarossa. This is also a commonly held viewpoint on the origins of the Nazi-Soviet War. You’re more than welcome to differ, but at least try to acknowledge the dispute.
Strange decision considering that this meeting took place some 6 months after Hitler had ordered the plans for an invasion of Russia . Care to explain that .

[Brian Foley]

@Dean
America knew about the attack on Pearl harbour months before as Britain and America had broken Japanese Naval , diplomatic codes . The suspicious part is on Dec 7th Roosevet did not act to sign any acts of war mobilization against Japan until Germany on the 11th of Dec declared war on America . This comes as no surprise as intersepted German enigma codes were being deciphered at Bletchley park .

[glenn239]

I have always said it was a gamble from the start of my thread .The German economy had been preparing for war since 1933 for 6 years they built the army and airforce up . I gave you a list of stunning German conquests uptil May 1940 which proves that the German military was a technically advanced and pwerful entuty . Yet you have ignored this and still claim their army was sub standard .

I’ve rejected any notion that the German Army was capable of handling Russia and France at the same time. What you are seeing as strength was in fact French weakness (which, IMO, could not have been predicted beforehand). The Germans did not get into a “real” scrap until the invasion of Russia, at which point their razor-thin rearmament decisions came back and bit them in the butt.

Makes no difference it was Airpower which was the deciding force of any conflict by the start of WWII.

Obviously not. World War Two tactics revolved around combined arms tactics – that is the interplay between armor, artillery, infantry and airpower. But before the war, no power had experience to justify a theory about how these elements of combat power would interplay on the modern battlefield.

Because as I already stated 1st] there was the preparation ie: rearmament 2nd] strategic placement ie: invasion of Poland as a springboard 3rd]Once all these goals have been accomplished the final phase the plans for a military invasion and occupation

So, just for the record, you’re position is that Germany undertook, at enormous expense to her economy, a fever-pitch rearmament starting in 1933 against Russia, and did so without once ever bothering to examine the requirements necessary to invade and conquer Russia?

Strange decision considering that this meeting took place some 6 months after Hitler had ordered the plans for an invasion of Russia . Care to explain that .

Gladly. Hitler’s directive ordering the invasion of Russia came after, his meeting with Molotov – Molotov came in November 1940, Hitler issued the Barbarossa decree in December 1940. Yes there was active planning and troop movements beforehand, but so what? Hitler ordered the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (along with plenty of troop movements and mobilizations), but nothing came of it at that time because he elected to settle the matter diplomatically.

[Dean]

Anti-Masonic Party
Anti-Masonic Party, the first "third party" on the American national political scene. It was a reaction to the supposed Masonic threat to public institutions. Although secret societies in general were frowned upon by early 19th century Americans, the Freemasons long continued exempt from criticismperhaps because George Washington and other statesmen and soldiers of the Revolutionary period had been Masons. Indeed, in the first quarter of the 19th century membership is a Masonic lodge was almost a necessity for political preferment.

In 1826, general approval of Masonry suffered a sudden, dramatic reversal as a result of the mysterious disappearance in western New York of William Morgan, a Mason known to be on the point of publishing an exposé of his order's secrets. It was popularly believed, although never proved, that fellow Masons had murdered Morgan. Masonry in New York received a nearly mortal blow, membership dwindling in the decade 18261836 from 20,000 to 3,000.

The Anti-Masonic Party, formed in New York in 1828, reflected the widespread hostility toward Masons holding public office. Thurlow Weed in 1828 established in Rochester, N.Y., his Anti-Masonic Enquirer and two years later obtained financial backing for his Albany Evening Journal, which became the chief party organ. There was a rapid proliferation of anti-Masonic papers, especially in the Eastern states. By 1832 there were 46 in New York and 55 in Pennsylvania.

The Anti-Masonic Party was the first party to hold a nominating convention and the first to announce a platform. On Sept. 26, 1831, convening in Baltimore, it nominated William Wirt of Maryland for the presidency and Amos Ellmaker of Pennsylvania for the vice presidency. The political effect of the entrance, for the first time, of a third party into a United States presidential election was to draw support from Henry Clay and to help President Andrew Jackson (who was a Mason) win reelection by a wide margin. Vermont gave the party seven electoral votes and elected an Anti-Masonic governor, William A. Palmer. The party also gained members in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Ohio.

After the elections of 1836, however, the Anti-Masonic party declined. Together with the National Republican Party, it eventually was absorbed into the new Whig Party.





Go To Replies

Sympatico / MSN Groups Sponsored Links

World's News in the Financial Times
Try 4 weeks risk-free home delivery of the FT and get World's News and more. If you like it, subscribe for just $99 for one year (306 issues) - a savings... www.ftnewspaper.com

Today's Newspapers
Digital replicas of 160 newspapers from 40 countries around the world. Available before they appear on the newsstands. www.pressdisplay.com

Free Video Access to World News
CNN.com has free video. Find out what’s happening in the news world across a range of topics from world to entertainment news. Enjoy easy-access video,... www.cnn.com

First Previous 2-3 of 3 Next Last

Reply
Recommend Message 2 of 3 in Discussion

From: copernicus12223 Sent: 23/06/2005 2:15 PM
Whig Party (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from United States Whig Party)
The Whig Party was a political party of the United States created in order to oppose the policies of Andrew Jackson, and which named itself by analogy with the British Whigs, who had opposed the power of the King in Restoration England.

Contents type=text/javascript> //<![CDATA[ showTocToggle("show","hide") //]]> </SCRIPT> [showhide]
1 Creation

2 Victory and catastrophe

3 A house divided

4 Dissolution

5 Presidents from the Whig Party

6 Candidates

7 Further reading


[edit]

Creation
The party was formed in the winter of 1833-1834 at Washington dinner parties by National Republicans such as Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, as well as Southern States' Rights supporters such as W. P. Mangum. In its early form the Whig Party was united only by opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson, especially his removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States. The Whigs also attracted the support of Southern states' rights supporters, such as John Tyler, offended by Jackson's strong nationalistic stand against South Carolina during the nullification crisis. The Whigs pledged themselves to Congressional supremacy, as opposed to the executive action taken by Jackson in removing deposits from the Bank without the consent of Congress, as well as his veto of the recharter of the Bank. Deriding "King Andrew," the American Whigs took their name from the English Whig Party, which had opposed the power of the monarchy and supported Parliamentary control.

In 1836 the party was not yet sufficiently organised to run one nationwide candidate. Instead William Henry Harrison ran in the northern and border states, Hugh Lawson White ran in the South, and Daniel Webster ran in his home state of Massachusetts. It was hoped that between them they would win enough U.S. Electoral College votes to deny Martin Van Buren a majority and so throw the election into the House of Representatives and there select the most popular Whig candidate as President. This tactic did not succeed, but the various candidates did cut deeply into Martin Van Buren's votes across the country.

[edit]

Victory and catastrophe
In the years that followed, the Whigs began to develop a more comprehensive platform, favoring a protective tariff, the creation of a new Bank of the U.S., and use of the proceeds of public land sales to aid the states in internal improvements. In 1839, the Whigs held their first national convention, giving the nod to Harrison, who was elected president next year, largely as a result of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent depression.

Harrison, after contracting pneumonia as the result of a two-hour inauguration speech, served only 31 days and became the first President to die in office. He was succeeded by John Tyler, a Virginian and states' rights Whig, who vetoed most of his own party's legislation and was expelled from the Whigs in 1841.

However, the Whigs' internal disunity, and the increasing economic prosperity, which made the Whigs' activist economic program seem less necessary, led to a disastrous showing by the Whigs in the 1842 congressional elections, in which they lost control of the House. Shortly thereafter, the Whig Party was dismantled.

[edit]

A house divided
By 1844 the Whigs were beginning to recover from their disaster of two years earlier and nominated Henry Clay, who lost to Democrat James K. Polk in a closely contested race, with Polk's policy of western expansion (particularly the annexation of Texas) and free trade triumphing over Clay's protectionism and caution over the Texas question. The Whigs, both northern and southern, strongly opposed the war with Mexico, which many (including Whig Congressman Abraham Lincoln) saw as an unprincipled land grab, but they were split, as were the Democrats, by the anti-slavery Wilmot Proviso of 1846. In 1848 the Whigs, seeing no hope of succeeding by nominating Clay and pushing for their traditional economic policies, selected Zachary Taylor, a Mexican-American War hero, and adopted no platform at all. Taylor triumphed over the Democratic candidate (Lewis Cass) and the anti-slavery Free Soil Party, who had nominated former President Martin Van Buren. Van Buren's candidacy split the Democratic vote in New York, throwing that state to the Whigs; at the same time, however, the Free Soilers probably cost the Whigs several Midwestern states.

Had he lived, Taylor might have triggered the Civil War ten years earlier: He was firmly opposed to the Compromise of 1850, committed to the admission of California as a free state, and had proclaimed that he would take military action to prevent secession. But on July 4, 1850, Taylor contracted acute indigestion (probably the result of typhus or cholera) and five days later became the second president to die in office. Vice President Millard Fillmore assumed the Presidency and supported the Compromise.

[edit]

Dissolution


Millard Fillmore, the last Whig president
The Compromise of 1850 fractured the Whigs along pro- and anti-slavery lines, with the anti-slavery faction having enough power to deny Fillmore the party's nomination in 1852. Attempting to repeat their earlier successes, the Whigs nominated popular General Winfield Scott, who lost decisively to the Democrats' Franklin Pierce. The Democrats won the election by a large margin. Pierce won 27 of the 31 states including Scott's home state of Virginia. Whig Representative Lewis Campbell of Ohio was particularly distraught by the defeat, exclaiming, "We are slayed. The party is dead--dead--dead!"

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act divided the Whigs even further. Northern Whigs ran against the Act, and appealed to widespread Northern outrage over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The anti-immigration Know-Nothing Party cut deeply into the Whig vote, overwhelming the Whigs in the mid-term elections, and the newly formed Republican Party won support from disaffected Democrats and Whigs.

In 1856 the remaining Whigs threw their support behind Fillmore, who by then had switched to the Know-Nothing Party (and who lost to Democrat James Buchanan), and in 1860 a few Whig diehards regrouped as the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John Bell. Bell finished third to ex-Whig Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party and Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge in a four-way race (with Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas fourth), triggering the American Civil War and bringing an end to the Whigs.

[edit]

Presidents from the Whig Party
Presidents of the United States, dates in office

William Henry Harrison (1841)
John Tyler (see note) (1841-1845)
Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
Note: Although Tyler was elected vice president as a Whig, his policies soon proved to be opposed to most of the Whig agenda, and he was officially expelled from the party in 1841, a few months after taking office. Additionally, John Quincy Adams, elected President as a Democratic Republican, later became a Whig when he was elected to the House of Representatives.




[edit]

Candidates
William Henry Harrison/Francis Granger - 1836 (lost)

Hugh Lawson White/John Tyler - 1836 (lost)

Daniel Webster/Francis Granger - 1836 (lost)

William Henry Harrison/John Tyler - 1840 (won)

Henry Clay/Theodore Frelinghuysen - 1844 (lost)

Zachary Taylor/Millard Fillmore - 1848 (won)

Winfield Scott/William Graham - 1852 (lost)

See also: List of political parties in the United States

[edit]

Further reading
Holt, Michael. The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of Civil War. Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-195-16104-1.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_%28United_States%29"
Categories: Historic United States political parties



Reply
Recommend Message 3 of 3 in Discussion

From: copernicus12223 Sent: 23/06/2005 2:17 PM
very interesting history and proof freemason killed abraham lincoln





In 1856 the remaining Whigs threw their support behind Fillmore, who by then had switched to the Know-Nothing Party (and who lost to Democrat James Buchanan), and in 1860 a few Whig diehards regrouped as the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John Bell. Bell finished third to ex-Whig Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party and Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge in a four-way race (with Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas fourth), triggering the American Civil War and bringing an end to the Whigs.

[edit]

[Dean]

http://www.seanscreenplays.com/BeteNoireCD/Articles1/HIDDEN%
20POWER.htm

[Dean]

copy and paste the link above it is not clickable

[Dean]

From: copernicus12223 (Original Message) Sent: 23/06/2005 1:22 PM
Hitler and Freemasonry



Hitler praising Freemasonry?
"All the supposed abominations, the skeletons and death's heads, the coffins and the mysteries, are mere bogeys for children. But there is one dangerous element and that is the element I have copied from them. They form a sort of priestly nobility. They have developed an esoteric doctrine not merely formulated, but imparted through the symbols and mysteries in degrees of initiation. The hierarchical organization and the initiation through symbolic rites, that is to say, without bothering the brain but by working on the imagination through magic and the symbols of a cult, all this has a dangerous element, and the element I have taken over. Don't you see that our party must be of this character...? An Order, that is what it has to be — an Order, the hierarchial Order of a secular priesthood... Ourselves or the Freemasons or the Church — there is room for one of the three and no more... We are the strongest of the three and shall get rid of the other two." 2



The reality
"Immediately on Hitler's rise to power, the ten Grand Lodges of Germany were dissolved. Many among the prominent dignitaries and members of the Order were sent to concentration camps. The Gestapo seized the membership lists of the Grand Lodges and looted their libraries and collections of Masonic objects. Much of this loot was then exhibited in an "Anti-Masonic Exposition" inaugurated in 1937 by Herr Dr. Joseph Goebbels in Munich. The Exposition included completely furnished Masonic temples.
"The persecution was carried over into Austria when the country was captured by the Nazis. The Masters of the various Vienna lodges were immediately confined in the most notorious concentration camps, including the horrible living hell at Dachau in Bavaria. The same procedure was repeated when Hitler took over Czechoslovakia, then Poland. Immediately after conquering Holland and Belgium, the Nazis ordered the dissolution of the lodges in those nations. It was also Point One on the agenda of Major Quisling in Norway. It may be taken as part of the same ugly picture that General Franco of Spain in 1940 sentenced all Freemasons in his realm automatically to ten years in prison. When France fell last June, the Vichy government caused the two Masonic bodies of France, the Grand Orient and the Grande Loge to be dissolved, their property being seized and sold at auction." 3
Hitler's hatred of Freemasonry is clearly documented. In 1931 Nazi party officials were given a "Guide and Instructional Letter" that stated, "The natural hostility of the peasant against the Jews, and his hostility against the Freemason as a servant of the Jew, must be worked up to a frenzy." 4 On April 7, 1933, Hermann Goering—who once considered becoming a freemason—held an interview with Grand Master von Heeringen of the "Land" Grand Lodge of Germany, telling him there was no place for Freemasonry in Nazi Germany. 5 The Nazi Primer, the Official Handbook for the Schooling of Hitler Youth, attacked freemasons, marxists, and the Christian churches for their "mistaken teaching of the equality of all men" by which they were said to be seeking power over the whole world. 6
Hitler, in his own words:
"To strengthen his political position he [the Jew] tries to tear down the racial and civil barriers which for a time continue to restrain him at every step. To this end he fights with all the tenacity innate in him for religious tolerance—and in Freemasonry, which has succumbed to him completely, he has an excellent instrument with which to fight for his aims and put them across. The governing circles and the higher strata of the political and economic bourgeoisie are brought into his nets by the strings of Freemasonry, and never need to suspect what is happening.
"Only the deeper and broader strata of the people as such, or rather that class which is beginning to wake up and fight for its rights and freedom, cannot yet be sufficiently taken in by these methods. But this is more necessary than anything else; for the Jew feels that the possibility of his rising to a dominant role exists only if there is someone ahead of him to clear the way; and this someone he thinks he can recognize in the bourgeoisie, in their broadest strata in fact. The glovemakers and linen weavers, however, cannot be caught in the fine net of Freemasonry; no, for them coarser but no less drastic means must be employed. Thus Freemasonry is joined by a second weapon in the service of the Jews: the press. With all his perseverance and dexterity he seizes possession of it. With it he slowly begins to grip and ensnare, to guide and to push all public life, since he is in a position to create and direct that power which, under the name of 'public opinion,' is better known today than a few decades ago." 7
"While the international world Jew slowly but surely strangles us, our so-called patriots shouted against a man and a system which dared in one corner of the earth at least, to free themselves from the Jewish-Masonic embrace and oppose a nationalistic resistance to this international world poisoning." 8
"The general pacifistic paralysis of the national instinct of self preservation begun by Freemasonry in the circles of the so-called intelligentsia is transmitted to the broad masses and above all to the bourgeoisie by the activity of the big papers which today are always Jewish." 9
"The prohibition of Masonic secret societies, the persecution of the supra-national press as well as the continuous demolition of international Marxism, and, conversely, the steady reinforcement of the Fascist state conception, will in the course of the years cause the Italian Government to serve the interests of the Italian people more and more, without regard for the hissing of the Jewish world hydra." 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Painting of Adolph Hitler, artist unknown: Imperial War Museum. ^
2. Hitler Speaks, Hermann Rauschning. Andover: Chapel River Press, 1939; Gespräche mit Hitler, Paris, 1939 ; The Voice of Destruction, New York: Europa Verlag, 1940. Hitler m'a dit. Confidences du Führer sur son plan de conquête du monde, etc. (Traduit par Albert Lehman.) Cited by Hitler and the Age of Horus, Gerald Suster, London : Sphere Books, 1981. xviii, 231 p., [8] p. of plates : ill. Bibliography: p. 215-216. Includes index. ISBN: 0722182872 p. 138.
Rauschning's writings were presented as Allied prosecution exhibit USSR-378, at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg but dismissed by the OSS as unreliable. In May 1983, Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel compiled the criticisms of Rauschning's books in a presentation at the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center, demonstrating that Rauschning only met Hitler on four occasions, not the "more than a hundred" that he claimed. Words attributed to Hitler were copied from the works of Ernst Jünger (1895 - 1998) and Friedrich Nietzsche, Guy de Maupassant and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, with the assistance of two journalists: Emery Reves in Paris, and Henry Wickham-Steele in Britain. Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw discounts Rauschning. Also see The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983; Die Zeit; Der Spiegel, 7 September 1985. ^
3. "The Annihilation of Freemasonry," Sven G. Lunden. The American Mercury, vol. lii, No. 206, February 1941. [full article available at <http://users.libero.it/fjit.bvg/fascism.html>]. ^
4. The brown book of the Hitler terror : and the burning of the Reichstag, prepared by the World Committee for the Victims of German Fascism ; with an introduction by Lord Marley. London: V. Gollancz, 1933. p. 234. ^
5. Lunden, The American Mercury p. 184. Also see, Hamilton, "Freemasonry, A Prisoner of War," in The New Age, September 1949, p. 552. ^
6. The New Age, Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction. October 1938. pp. 589-591. Also see <www.bessel.org/naziartl.htm>. ^
7. Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler [1889/04/20 - 1945/04/30]. trans. Ralph Manheim. Sentry Edition, Eleventh printing. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company: n.d. c1925. Verlag Frz. Eher Nachf, G.M.B.H. p. 314-15. ^
8. p. 465. ^
9. p. 320 ^
10. p. 637. ^



Go To Replies

Sympatico / MSN Groups Sponsored Links

What Is the Future of the News?
Shrinking audiences, focus on profits, and changing role of journalists raise serious questions. How do news magazines compare to the rest of the media... www.stateofthemedia.org

Mother Earth News Magazine-$9.96
Save up to 80% on the hottest magazine titles. Get your subscription at clearance prices. Overstock.com, your online outlet. www.overstock.com

News Magazines from Magazinecity
Buy publisher-direct and save up to 92% on 1500 magazines at Magazinecity. Legitimate discount pricing, free gift cards, worldwide delivery, the truth... www.magazinecity.com

First Previous 2-3 of 3 Next Last

Reply
Recommend Message 2 of 3 in Discussion

From: copernicus12223 Sent: 23/06/2005 1:25 PM
I searched for this post because I have a good memory and needed it to corroberate my theory. The people who erase my site I know who you are and you will no longer function when the truth is known to all. I also know why it is important to hide this fact. The reason people want to keep hitlers history secret is to keep the freemasons out of world war 2 even though most of the players were freemason inckluding winston churchill.


Reply
Recommend Message 3 of 3 in Discussion

From: copernicus12223 Sent: 23/06/2005 1:43 PM
Winston Churchill quit freemasonry and became one of the smartest people in the world. This should be a hint to the rest who still are freemasons

[Dean]

which one of these historic versions sounds like Robert L Thompsetts known as quelquechosdartre

This is written by freemasons trying to explain away crimes pulled
on fellow human beings


The Morgan affair aftermath
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------


In brief, William Morgann3 was an itinerant worker who settled in
Batavian1 in 1824. He managed to convince the Freemasons of Batavia
that he was a Freemason and participated in lodge activities, made
speeches and visited other Lodges. He signed a petition for the
formation of a Royal Arch Chapter in Batavia, but some other Masons
questioned his masonic legitimacy. Another Royal Arch petition was
then submitted, which he was not permitted to sign.n2 Morgan was
furious about this, and vowed revenge. He agreed to work with David
[C.] Miller, n5 the publisher of the Batavia Advocate, the local
newspaper, and several partners, in the publication of a book
exposing Freemasonry. The project was made public and there was
pandemonium among the Masons of Batavia and the surrounding towns in
western New York, leading ultimately to his disappearance on
September 19th, 1826.n16 It is generally agreed that William Morgan
was taken to Canada by Masons and there given $500 and a horse, with
the agreement that he never return. However, despite a lack of
conclusive evidence, rumors persisted that he had been murdered.
Business Opportunities
David Miller saw the interest in Morgan's disappearance as an
opportunity to publish and make money, and copies of his book, in a
125 page paperback pamphlet, came off his press and sold for a
dollar. There was soon a demand for a second edition, but the
competition from other anti-Masonic books and pamphlets was so great
he was forced to drop the price to fifty cents. The publication of
anti-Masonic literature flourished and by 1832 there were 141 anti-
masonic newspapers in the United States. In February, 1828, forty-
one Masons, really ex-Masons, led by Baptist pastor David Bernard,
author of the popular anti-Masonic Book Rituals and Illustrations of
Masonry, met in Le Roy, a small town about ten miles east of
Batavia. The group included David Miller, the printer, and George
Harris, a partner in the project to print Morgan's book. They
referred to themselves as "Seceding Masons" and were later known as
the Anti-Masonic Society. Speeches were given, Morgan's
Illustrations of Freemasonry was praised, information purporting to
be parts of Masonic ritual were distributed and a committee,
including David Miller, was appointed to print further "exposés" of
Masonic degrees.
Declaration of Independence
A second meeting of the Anti-Masonic Society was held in March,
1828. Politicians, always looking for a new issue, were now
interested. Thurlow Weed (1797-1882), publisher of the Rochester
Telegraph and later of the National Anti-Masonic Enquirer, was
present. The March meeting adjourned and business was resumed in
July [4 and 5] with the adoption of the "Declaration of Independence
from the Masonic Institution" which contained eighteen charges
against Freemasonry. Those in attendance included the Reverend David
Bernard, George Harris, Edward Giddins, David Miller and Thurlow
Weed. The contents of the "Declaration" were publicized repeatedly
by Soloman Southwick in the "Rochester Observer" and by Thurlow Weed
and others elsewhere. A fourth meeting was held in August, in Utica,
in which the political aspect of the anti-Masonic movement took
shape. A resolution was adopted in which they pledged to "...wholly
disregard the two great political parties that at this time distract
from the state of the Union, in the choice of candidates for office
and to nominate anti-Masonic candidates for Governor and Lieutenant
Governor." They also resolved to withhold all support from
candidates who were Masons.
Thurlow Weed
Opposition to Freemasonry 10 quickly spread to other states. In
Pennsylvania, there were many members of religious groups who were
opposed to the taking of oaths, including the Quakers, Lutherans,
Mennonites, Dunkards, Moravians and the German Reformed Church. In
Vermont, the legislature passed an act forbidding the taking of
extrajudicial oaths and Masons were forbidden to hold local offices
or be members of juries. In New York, the Anti-Masonic Society had
become a political party and began to support candidates as the Anti-
Masonic Party. The well-known Thurlow Weed rose to become the
acknowledged leader of the party. Weed was born in Cairo, New York
on November 15, 1797. He was apprenticed to a printer at the age of
14 and worked there until the beginning of the War of 1812, where he
served as a volunteer. After the war he worked as a journalist for
several newspapers until 1822, when he became editor of the
Rochester Telegraph. He became involved in the Morgan case and later
founded the Albany Evening Journal, an anti-Masonic publication
which he edited for thirty-three years.
The Anti-Masonic Party in NY
Weed was a skilled politician 4 and, although he declined to hold
high political office, was influential in the nominations of
presidents Benjamin Harrison and Zachary Taylor. In 1828, the Anti-
Masonic Party nominated Soloman Southwick as its candidate for
Governor of New York. He received 33,345 votes, but was defeated. In
1829, 22 of its candidates were elected to the New York State
Assembly, and one candidate, Albert H. Tracy, was elected to the
State Senate. A leading member of the New York Anti-Masonic Party
was William Seward, who later served two terms as Governor, served
in the United States Senate from 1849 until 1861, and was Abraham
Lincoln's Secretary of State. He is best remembered today for his
role in the purchase of Alaska from Russia. By 1832, the number of
Anti-Masons in the New York State Assembly had increased to 33.
Anti-Masons in Pennsylvania
Anti-masonic feeling was also strong in the neighboring state of
Pennsylvania. On June 23, 1829, an Anti-Masonic Convention was held
in Harrisburg with delegates from 10 of Pennsylvania's 52 counties.
The convention was addressed by Richard Whittlesly, who urged the
formation of an organized Anti-Masonic Party with a full slate of
candidates. Joseph Ritner, their candidate for governor, lost the
election, but did surprisingly well. The Anti-Masons elected one
Congressman, one state Senator and 15 state Assemblymen, and were
elated with their success. The Anti-Masonic representation in the
state legislature stayed about the same after the elections of 1831.
In 1832, Joseph Ritner again ran for governor, but this time he lost
by the narrow margin of only 3,000 votes (91,315 to 88,186.) The
strength of the Anti-Masonic vote drew national attention from the
major political parties.
Thaddeus Stevens, Rise...
Thaddeus Stevens (born 1792) was elected in 1833 to the Pennsylvania
legislature. He was born in Danville, Vermont, was a graduate of
Dartmouth College and had been practicing law in Gettysburg. He is
remembered today for his role after the Civil War and as a leader in
the movement to impeach Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson (a
Mason.) Stevens was a passionate individual who found a cause in
anti-Masonry. He almost immediately began introducing bills which
attacked Masonry (and the Odd Fellows,) and the controversy this
created gave new life to the anti-Masonic movement in Pennsylvania.
His first bill included provisions to challenge jurors and judges if
they were Masons, and to question a court case in which the
defendant and judge were both Masons. The bill was defeated, but the
discussion which surrounded it created a new interest in anti-
Masonry.
A second bill, entitled, "An act to suppress secret societies bound
together by secret and unlawful oaths," included a fine of $100 for
anyone administering an oath to initiate or advance someone in a
society, and that those present could be compelled to testify. It
also required the full disclosure of the society's membership.
...and Fall
There was resistance to the second bill, but it eventually was
passed by substituting "Secret Societies" for "Masons" and "Odd
Fellows." Joseph Ritner was elected governor in 1835, and Stevens
immediately began a furious attack on the Masonic Fraternity. By now
the political climate was beginning to change in Pennsylvania, and
the public was tiring of Thaddeus Stevens' tirades against the
Fraternity. He was defeated in his bid for reelection to the
Pennsylvania Legislature in 1836 and Pennsylvania's period of
intense anti-Masonic activity ended. There was anti-Masonic activity
in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but not to the degree of the
activity in New York and Pennsylvania. In both states the lodges
were better organized and better able to resist the anti-Masonic
attacks.
Anti-Masonic feelings were very strong in Vermont. In 1831, William
A. Palmer, an Anti-Mason, was elected governor. Palmer and his
fellow Anti-Masons managed to control the state legislature until
1835, when their vote began to decline. By 1836, Anti-Masonry was no
longer an effective force in Vermont.
Seven Devoted Brothers
In 1831, the Anti-Masonic Party held a national nominating
convention in Baltimore where thirteen states were represented by
116 delegates. Many of the delegates were in favor of endorsing
Henry Clay (a Mason and Past Grand Master of Kentucky, 1820-21) the
National Republican candidate, but William Wirt of Maryland (a
Mason) was their candidate. Wirt did poorly in the Presidential
election, winning only the state of Vermont. The election of 1832
was won by Andrew Jackson, another Mason and Past Grand Master of
Tennessee (1822-24). The effect of the anti-Masonic movement on
lodge attendance and on the number of lodges was devastating.
Immediately after William Morgan's disappearance, Batavia Lodge #433
was so divided among the membership that it soon stopped meeting.
Only a few lodges in western New York survived. Olive Branch Lodge
No. 39 located in Le Roy, worked throughout this period, and is
given credit for saving Freemasonry in Western New York. It was held
together by seven devoted brothers. Ark Lodge No. 33, in Geneva, was
kept together by seven members who, at times, were required to meet
secretly.
From New York to New England
Lodges were entered and desecrated. Lodge records and charters were
stolen due to the anti-Masonic hostility.
In 1826, there were 480 Masonic Lodges in the state of New York with
a membership of 20,000, but from 1827 until 1835, the number of
lodges declined from 228 in 1827 to 49 in 1835. In 1850, the number
was back up to 172, and by 1860, there were 432 lodges in New York.
The New England states all felt the effects of the anti-Masonic
movement: Connecticut lost about half of its constituent lodges.
Until 1820, Maine was part of the state of Massachusetts. In 1819,
with the statehood of Maine assured, proceedings were begun for the
formation of the Grand Lodge of Maine and on June 24, 1820, the
Grand Lodge of Maine was formed, consisting of 24 subordinate
lodges. Anti-Masonry hit Maine with great force. Almost all of the
lodges stopped meeting, and some charters were surrendered. In 1837,
only one lodge attended the GL Communication. In 1842, none
attended. The Grand Lodge of Maine didn't meet for several years.
From 1834 until 1843 no more than four lodges were represented at
its meetings.
A Concerted Effort
In 1843, it was decided that anti-Masonry had run its course, and a
concerted effort was made to revive Freemasonry. The results were
favorable, and sixteen lodges attended Grand Lodge in 1844. Maine
lost none of its lodges during this time. Every lodge that had
ceased to meet, or had surrendered its charter, was revived.
In 1830, there were 108 Masonic Lodges in Massachusetts. In 1840,
the number had dropped to 56, and by 1850, it had risen to only 66.
In 1860, there were 116 lodges, 8 more than thirty years before.
Feelings against Masonry were strong in Massachusetts, but the anti-
Masonic people were frustrated and enraged by the refusal of Masonry
to give in to their attacks. An example of this was a public Masonic
procession and cornerstone ceremony held in 1830, accompanied by a
hooting mob.
New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont also suffered hostilities.
Indeed, for a time there was not a single lodge working in the
entire State of Vermont, but by 1845, the Vermont Grand Lodge and
seven subordinate lodges were working.
The Southern States
In the southern states, anti-Masonry had a lesser effect on
Delaware, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia and Maryland were worse
affected. Alabama was severely affected by the anti-Masonic
movement. By 1829, about one-third of Alabama's lodges had
surrendered their charters. There was no Grand Lodge meeting in
1832, and in 1833, only six lodges were represented at the opening.
The Grand Master was not in attendance. There were no Grand Lodge
Communications in 1834, 1835 or 1836. In 1836 the six lodges
represented decided to reorganize the Grand Lodge with the adoption
of a new constitution and the election and installation of new Grand
Officers.
By 1860, there were 236 lodges in Alabama.
The Grand Lodge of Georgia was not able to meet in 1833 or 1834. In
Maryland, the number of lodges dropped to a low point of 13, and
only one lodge is reputed to have worked regularly throughout the
entire anti-Masonic era.
In The West
In the west, Michigan was severely affected. The Michigan Grand
Lodge suspended work for eleven years and was eventually replaced by
a new Grand Lodge.
The number of Masons in Kentucky was cut in half between 1828 and
1840, while the number of lodges dropped from 66 to 37. This decline
in membership was primarily due to the anti-Masonic feelings of the
time, but many in Kentucky feel that it was at least partly a result
of financial problems within the Kentucky Grand Lodge. Anti-Masonic
opposition began to decline by 1837, and in 1843, Kentucky Grand
Master Henry Wingate stated that Kentucky Freemasonry was in better
condition than before the Morgan Incident.
Indiana, Missouri and New Jersey were similarly hit hard. In New
Jersey in 1839 the the total attendance at Grand Lodge was 18
Masons. In 1840, the Treasurer's report at Grand Lodge showed a
balance of $3.54 and in 1842 there were but 8 surviving lodges. When
the Grand Lodge of New Jersey celebrated its 100th anniversary in
1887, there were 155 working lodges on the roll.
The Lessons of History
The period of anti-Masonic activity, which lasted from about 1826
until about 1845, was a time when very little if any Masonic
activity was being done in the lodges which managed to survive these
difficult times.
The older, more experienced brethren were passing away, and, due to
the lack of Masonic activity, few were being prepared to take their
places. This made the return to normal activity with a degree of
uniformity in the ritual work of the various lodges more difficult.
With the passing of time, this sad period in the history of
Freemasonry has faded from our memories to the pages of our history
books. However, from time to time, as has happened in recent years,
the ugly specter of anti-Masonry raises its head. Masons can't
ignore this.
Hopefully, this recounting of past events will remind us of the
possible consequences of indifference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Written by Bro. David P. Brownback, Providence Lodge No. 298
Reprinted from Masonry Universal, the Masonic eZine, issue 16;
edited by gordon@...
Bibliography
Beyond the Pillars, edited by The Special Committee on Publications,
Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Canada in the Province of Ontario,
Masonic Holdings, 1973.
The Builders, by Joseph Fort Newton, Supreme Council, 33rd Degree,
AASR, Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, USA, 1973
Encarta Multimedia Encyclopedia, Microsoft Corporation, 1994
Facts, Fables and Fantasies of Freemasonry, by William Adrian Brown,
Missouri Lodge of Research, 1968
Freemasonry Through Six Centuries, Volume II, by Henry Wilson Coil,
Macoy Publishing Company, 1968
History of Freemasonry in New Jersey 1787-1987, by The History
Committee of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey, RW Edward Y. Smith,
Grand Historian, Chairman, 1986
A History of the Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Honorable Society of
Free and Accepted Masons for the State of New Jersey, edited by MW
William Davies and MW Lewis M. Parker, 1961
Kentucky Freemasonry, 1788-1978: The Grand Lodge and the Men Who
Made It, by Charles Snow Guthrie, 1981
Let There be Light, A Study in Anti-Masonry, by Alphonse Cerza, The
Masonic Service Association, 1983
Masonic Literary Harvest II, Missouri Lodge of Research, 1992
The Morgan Affair and Anti-Masonry, by John C. Palmer, as reprinted
in the Little Masonic Library, Volume II, The Masonic Service
Association of the United States, 1924, 1946

now read this version.....we should have a vote on what the truth is

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/party.html

[Dean]

http://groups.msn.com/psycologicalwarfare/freemason.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1064&LastModified=4675527901001636385

[Dean]

This is a very interesting article that I found in the Islamic News Group.

The historic premise of the banking system did not take off until after the death of the prophets Moses & Solomon, thousands of years ago. That was in the form of the "Money Exchangers". These were your basic bankers, all of whom were the elite of the Jews, the Wise Men. Nevertheless, they were not the Fed Reserve of yesteryear. The governing body of the "money exchanging" was a secret society known as the Knights Templar.

The Knights Templar members were less that 15, they were the 'elite of the elite'. Their knowledge of secret arts, enlightenment of the inner religious mysteries, granted them power over Jews & Arabs. On top of all that, they were the richest people on earth, their wealth made them a power to be reckoned with, even to the Pharaoh.

Moses, on the other hand, persuaded the people to destroy them. Those are the same group referred to in the Muslim's Quran as the Shameri or Samiri, and in the Bible, he's the Shomer. They're also the ones who built the Calf when Moses went to the Mount to receive God's Book - the Ten Commandments. They're the ones who corrupted the half- faithed Jews and turned them against Moses. And, they're the ones who, until this day, want to acquire Moses' Arch, for it has Power.

When Jesus was born, his mother Mary motioned to him when people asked how she'd had him without being married, the Knights Templar were scared. They planned to steal him, kill him, get rid of him, anything. But he grew up and gathered more support than Moses did, basically through his God-given miracles. Finally, they gave up on taming him after numerous visits to him as the Wise Men and Men in Black Robes, and persuaded the King to crucify him.

Immediately after Jesus left the scene, they confiscated all books, scriptures and documents of what was to be the 'True' Bible. The little that was left in circulation was either hidden with Monks or was in the minds of the people Jesus taught. Knights Templar did not want to risk an atom worth of faith of people in a Godly figure, and since the Ten Commandments never showed up, they were able hundreds of years later to cover their tracks. You see, these are men who are very, very cautious. Through spying, power, influence and arcane occult knowledge, they knew all. They rarely made a mistake or had attention brought to them.

* * * * *


Almost all of God's prophets, apostles and messengers warned the people about a "deceiver or Dajjal", down to the last of the apostles Mohammad- who told the world that the "deceiver" would come out after his death.

Between Moses and Jesus, Knight Templars' power accumulated, but still no more than about 15 members, in all. Their money was growing at astronomical rates, having acquired mounds of gold, silver, precious metals, and of course, through the economic breakthrough of "Usury". Because of the enormous knowledge that only they knew (basically databases of knowledge in toady's terms), they could influence people (or corrupt them if necessary) and acquire their resources. They also were the ones who financed Christopher Columbus in 1492, who was looking for new resources (gold, etc..) and found it in America later on. Throughout their existence, no one knew any of their names, and other than descriptions about their work, methods of evil planning, the Bible as well as the Quran never mentioned more. Meantime, people knew that every once in a while, a secret society would pop up from nowhere, the king, leader or Caliph would suppress them, then either the king would die or another society would pop up under a different name. Commonalty- same banking procedures, debt of people, disappearance of gold and other resources, and loss of control to something as slick an unseen as a Iblis (Lucifer).

Hundreds of years after Jesus and after Mohammad's deaths, Knights Templar set up shop in Europe. But, for about 1,000 years after Mohammad's death, there was relative peace in the world. The Templars were silent, same as before- secretly financing covert operations, killing off or buying off leaders, springing up conflicts and financing terrorists.

They started with the Muslims- financed influential minority groups with little or no Islam and lots of propaganda against honest Caliph's and Muslims at large. They financed the Assassins (Hashasheen) to cover their tracks, financed and started the Crusades (indirect reason was to look for the Arch), and most importantly, kept establishing secret society after another from Australia to China to the Middle East and of course, Europe. No wars or large scale conflicts took place until mid 1600, when the Civil War erupted in England (King vs. Mason Parliament). Mohammad died around 632AD.

About 1,000 year of "relative" peace...


* * * * *


Hell broke loose thereafter. Wars, civil wars, coups, assassinations, devil worship, takeover of countries, anti-everything movements, and what have you (look up a history book).

To make the long story short, starting in early 1700, they started wide scale marketing of Illuminism or the Enlightenment. Through art, history, music, religion, clubs and of course the Pope & various corrupt kings, they started to leak little about their occult power and initiated the building of circles upon circles of protective layers through establishing hundreds of secret societies, mainly in Europe. You won't believe the sheer numbers, societies like Cathari, Hospitallers, White Lotus, Rosicrucian Order, Alambrados, Freemasons, Tammany, Knights of Malta, Knights of Benficience, Order of the Brotherhood, Order of Odd Fellows, Order of New Templars, Germanen Order, Swindenborg Order, Masonic Order, and hundreds more.

The perpetuation of these movement picked up in the 18th century in America. Americans in several states back then repudiated those societies, and almost immediately those societies disappeared, only to re-appear under different names, in different cities. Wisdom Lodge in Virginia, was followed by the Swedenborgian Order (later Church), followed by Lodge of Jupiter and National Freemasonry... all the way to the League of Nations (the parent of the United Nations).

The Knights Templar and the whole banking business started with goldsmiths issuing receipts for gold they received from people who were penny pinchers. For long times, the goldsmiths remained honest, never looting anyone's Gold, as money was never their real goal, rather a means to obtain power, manipulate nations, control markets, sell weapons & start wars, exercise monopoly and corrupt souls. By doing so, they're able to obtain even more power, control, etc.. It's an endless CIRCLE, you don't know where it starts or ends...

Still, their "secret of success", can be summed up as follows:

- The few, the proud, the privileged- The Wealthiest
- Never reveal Secrets
- Knowledge of secret arts, mysteries and religions
- Appearance of modesty, humanity, charity
- Protective Circles within Circles

basic deceiving methods..


* * * * *


The Middle East is a place of peace. Strange as it sounds, one feels a certain degree of spirituality when walking the markets and roaming the streets- despite every thing you hear. But it is also a place of struggle- Good vs. Evil. Everyone knows how the "deceiver" i.e. Dajjal (in Arabic) Anti-Christ (in English) fits into the scheme of things- Money is his language. They know money+power is behind it, yet no one can pinpoint a him (person, individual). They also resent intellectuals in the West who still think it's all about Arab vs. Jews, peace vs. war, economic prosperity against mass destruction. They've been deceived more than any other nation/race by the conner, they're not fooled by him any more. They know it's about submission (peace as we call it out here).

It is that submission to Son of Light they all refuse to accept. By the start of this past century, the Circle owned (literally) more than half of the world's resources. Their database of knowledge had gotten much larger.

And through archeology trips, Crusades, invasions, wars and occupation, they knew there was something out there. Once they found it (oil), they convinced tribe leaders in the Middle East (wealthy Sheiks)- to explore, dig, and extract oil on their behalf, gave them more money than they knew what to do with and started setting up shop in Arabia. The desert Arabs did not know a thing about the civilizations these people descended from, let alone financial formulas and economic indicators. So, the bankers took their money, deposited it in their banks (Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg, Schroder, Lazard, etc..), basically the 13 owners of today's Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Deutsche Reichsbank and other central bank franchises around the globe. The Arab money from that oil was more than the wealth of all these individuals, combined. That's a threat they can't allow to exist.

Once Arab money went to their banks, they were in control to basically declare oil countries corrupt. After all who's going to listen to Arabs whose media images was already faked, portraying them as bad guys. What do you think the Stock Market crash of 1988 was all about? Or the S&L Bank scandals? A lot of people in this country lost all. But, where did the money go? When someone looses, another always wins, right!

Major part of the money that was lost (mostly in the stock market crash) was the Arabs'- Chase Manhattan (Rockefeller's Bank) was the Arabs' investment banker. Chase did lose- Fed Reserve Won. But that was not important. The important thing is a lot of the Arab's money was lost, while bad fate was awaiting the other half...

Go back to basics- Bible, Quran and read how this Dajjal/Anti-Christ is depicted- The deceiver, man with many clothes and faces, One Eyed (One Order- One Currency- One Son of Light). That is it's MANIFESTO.

We get to the United States. This country as we all know, is the only country on the face of earth where people still have few more freedoms, privileges and some rights left. It is not in the Fed, Dajjal, Anti- Christ interest that people UNITE. Division always works- It worked between Arabs and Jews, didn't it? Anti-Christ is Anti-religion, for in religion nations are empowered. Money is power also, therefore, it must not stay in people's hands. Sane minds are dangerous, so corrupt people with drugs. Propagandas about abortion, taxes, blacks, homeless, violence, crimes, etc.. are thus necessary. But unlike other countries, there's a wide open press here (I won't call it free), thus, events must be timed very accurately and people orchestrated. That's where this Liar, the Dajjal system comes in.

The U.S. inarguably is the leader of technology in the world today, much like the Chinese, Pharaoh, Arabs and others were. But technology without knowledge is like a pen without ink. And if you read between the lines, you can extract some knowledge. You should always listen to what the Feds/government/elite DOESN'T say.

We all know that the U.S. Army, Coast Guard, CIA, FBI, DEA, DIA, Customs, Secret Service watch dope coming in this country like hawks. Yet, they tell us, it's only the tip of the iceberg. How come? All AWAKS planes and sophisticated radars don't work against the 'Cartel', right?. In a sense, they don't. Because the Cartel is the TOP of the ladder. One phone call will tell all those agencies to "stay off", we're watching this op.

Why?

You have to understand that dope trade today knocks many birds with one stone:
- Far better returns on investment than any other trade
(stocks, bonds, even gold & diamond)
- Corrupts society
- On going problem that comes up in news when needed, and
- Justification for new money

However, the real reason for currency change is not dope, tax cheaters or counterfeiters. The sole purpose is world control. As you know, the dollar is the only currency on this planet that all nations economies and currencies are based on. If the dollar falls on the Japanese market, it falls elsewhere. So far so good?

Now, when two versions of the dollar are introduced (downplayed as they were at Greenspan's announcement), one for overseas the other for U.S., the U.S. can still stay on top (for as long as necessary), when the rest of the world collapses- that collapse, brothers & sisters, has already started, beginning with the deflation of the Middle East economy.

When I say that the U.S. economy still stays on top, I'm not referring to your personal economy or mine, rather the Fed's position, control and power, which goes parallel with its Establishment. It was never meant to regulate banking, but rather gather power by taking it (the gold) out of our hands.

Now that all gold's gone, notes are left around. The devaluation of the dollar is going to come this time around through an event (war, big scandal, loan default..) on a major scale. However, it is going to be much easier to accomplish this in the U.S. than anywhere else.

How?

You see, the global banking system (incl. the U.S.) revolves around a major issue: Borrowing, Lending, Loans, Usury (interest). I would not be exaggerating if I said that 80% of the population in the U.S. have houses, businesses, cars, schools, whole life on debt.

Now, let's jump to Fractional Reserve. Created by the goldsmiths thousands of years ago, this economic formula states that, in essence, if you deposit X amount into your account, the economy gets 20 times that amount (X*20 ).

In other words, the bank only keeps 5% and loans 95% out. At any one time, 95% is out hopping from bank to bank to Fed Reserve, and back. So, if you deposit $2,000 in your account (checking, savings, CDs, mutual funds, stock portfolio, whatever) the bank keeps 5% $(100) and loans $1,900. The recipient of the loan deposits/spends $1,900, bank keeps 5% ($95), loans $1,805, etc.. At the end of the day, the $2,000 has become $40,000 (excluding interest) all of the sudden-

That's Virtual Money..

To correct this inconsistency, the Feds creates the difference (40,000-2,000) $38,000 from a note signed by Greenspan to keep from inflation, deflation, deficit, etc.. But they don't really have to. Because fractional reserve works in reverse too. It only takes 5% of the loans to become bad (we're talking on international level-Fed, World bank, IMF) for the entire system to collapse.

1995 and 1996 are preparations for this to happen. Look around, how many people do you know who are broke or unemployed, how many are in debt, afraid of loosing their home, car, or are barely surviving paycheck-to- paycheck? You're talking almost 70% of the population of earth.

Like I said, banks don't keep money- they don't have to, they can always print it, but why not loan what you have, say, to third world countries. They did. Starting in 1970, World Bank, IMF, Morgan and other large banks, loaned huge amounts to 3rd world countries whom they knew can't pay back the loans- heck they can't even pay the interest. Now, no one has announced it yet, but at last count, the banks need a couple of more countries with huge debts (Russia, Iran, Philippines, Mexico) to default on their loans to declare a major banking disaster (and you'll know it when you hear it). That money was the other half of the Arab oil money, not the Feds.

The banks have been buying each other out (since 1992) in massive mergers & acquisitions. Thus, the collapse of any of these banks, spells collapse of all.

What's the point?

The Fed Reserve is the orchestrator, right? He'll have to come up with a plan to "Save the World" from imminent starvation and danger of fast deflation after a crisis of that kind. So he buys all the banks along with their debts (your house, wife's car, credit cards, etc..).

He (a Beast) now owns you!

Is it any wonder they came so hard on the Freemen (Montana), who were trying to break out of their system? As long as you don't challenge the Feds in any way, shape, or form, you can debate politics, call Clinton names, talk about conspiracies, and the Fed won't care one way or the other. But, the minute you challenge their 'very being', you're dead!

Simple Economics- because of all the debt Mr. Fed Reserve acquired, he's going to have to liquidate and/or collect. Since most of the country is in debt, he can't kick every one out on the street, so he'd settle for second best.

Just as chief economists have come up with new "deceiving tactics" to wash money, launder it (i.e. invest it), they've also devised methods to devalue it. Remember what Einstein said, that everything is relative.

Well, this is no different. Devaluation is going to be relative to the time and space we live in and the factors that control that time and space. In 1930's there were physical money (gold), we came off of it, we had physical depression. Today, there's virtual money, so there will be virtual depression. There's virtual reality for you- Real yet not, the U.S. is rich, yet almost broke.

They would really have no alternative but to devalue the dollar and extend the loans to people and businesses. So now you owe $40,000 instead of the $2,000 you had on your Visa. And who're you going to complain to? And, complain about what, it is happening, isn't it? It happened overseas first, and you were warned.

And in order to put order back into the chaos, the Arabs, third world countries, dope dealers, tax evaders and money counterfeiters have caused, a new system will have to be implanted. Well, guess what, it's already here. It's called e-Cash: Global 2000; Phoenix.

"If you agree, rather than risk new counterfeit operation or new dope scams, we can institute an electronic cash system, thereby eliminating ALL dope trafficking, counterfeiting and what not, and you will only owe us $25,000, not $40,000". If that was the choice, and, really, you had to chose, you would chose the lesser of two evils, right? In fact, you' demand it, wouldn't you?

Brother & sisters, this is how it's going to happen, and it will happen. Look around, isn't every thing almost in place for that? The new dollars can, through satellites, IR and laser scanners be electronically detected, why have it at all?

The One Eye in space is watching everybody, the One Eye on earth is controlling everybody.

True Believers- Muslims and Christians around the world see this all too clear. Those who worship their money (i.e. swagger about their $7,000 paycheck) can not.

The Bible and Quran say so: "They Are Blinded".

The One Eyed is the Dajjal, is the Anti-Christ, is the deceiver, the Liar- The Fed Reserve, the guy who's going to leave people with no clothes.. Simple economics and relative conjecture.

Don't say this hasn't or will never happen. Yes it will. Their goal to bring it about MUST be achieved before 2000, for Lord Maitreya, the One Son of Light (Lucifer) will descend (somehow), to officially claim Godship (i.e. control of chaos) and also to inaugurate 13 Sons of Light as the Inheritors of Earth, George Bush is one of them.

>From hundreds of books, speeches, dates, religion & history, evidence indicate this is to happen before 1998 ends, for 1999 is the year hell will break loose and the Temple Guardians will gather in Egypt to receive "Final Illumination"- What do you think the pampering of Egypt is all about?

The Site..

It all started in the Middle East,

It all starts to end in the Middle East.

Remember, all is relative. You won't hear about someone calling himself Lord, or claiming to be Allah, coming from the Kalium Galaxy. You won't see a One Eyed Beast roaming around the Earth talking to humans either.

Rather something like: "The Chinese have aggressed against the United States and its interests and are threatening to take over the Asian Subcontinent.

Or, Iraq has refused to become part of the peace process (submission) and we found that it has 5,000 nuclear warheads and missile launchers hidden in the mountains.

Or, a new CIA study based on satellite photos over the last 4 years proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that 200-tons of Uranium are hidden in-and- around Tehran".

The rest will just have to be based on the factors of human actions & reactions, but that is trivial. Isn't it?

.................................................. ..
(c) Copyright 1996 by Sam Farra. All rights reserved.





Go To Replies

Sympatico / MSN Groups Sponsored Links

[john smith]

God almighty, you shud rite a book!

[Dean]

This forum is editing out what I have to say

what ever happened to freedom of speech

[Dean]

I will try to post this again

The hero Abraham Lincoln was a member of wig party which was the antimasonic party. The south admired slavery socialism and the bankers tried to bankrupt the north. Abraham knew he could print his own money and save the day. Then Abraham was assasinated and the freemasons climbed back into power. Freemason own your national security and presidency. I bleieve we can break the backs of the freemason and restore the U.S.A by reviving the antimason party name and all. Imagine the wake up call ethnic people would realize the freemason connection to the KKK. There would no longer be protection for the drug dealers who are backed by freemason. Even the Italian Mafia was started by freemason. Drugs keep everyone subdued and the addiction will have them worshipping the provider. I have shown you the corruption but not how they recruit and not how the system interlinks. We here about the Bilderbergs and the power players but never look at the system hidden at the local town level where their is a masonic temple in every small town. Manipulating politics and deciding who gets rich who goes broke. In my own town my father fought the freemasons and has lost his land to them. He lost his farm in 1981 around the time of a small depression caused by the rothschilds. The freemasons then cleaned up because they were allowed unlimited loans at lower interest. My father worked hard building road and the standard set to him were not the same to other companies and he found he had to work twice as hard to compete. My father now knows what I am telling you now and he is angry. He is only one citizen played this way and the proof is simple. Find out who bought my fathers land and is he freemason. Wallmart moved into my uncles terratory and put him out of business selling hardware. Slowly he dropped from well to do to unemployed. Wallmart is a known freemason company and most of the people dealing with wallmart were screwed over as manufacturing went oversees to slave labour camps. Wallmart has its own home homeland security office. Tim Hortons in Canada is the same thing owned by freemason and no longer hire cooks to make the doughnuts instead a manufacturing company delivers them half frozen then they are simply thawed out.

My point is this these Companies have pushed out the regular people by use of banks, other businesses, churches, suppliers. When they started stalking me they used Bell expressview. I could never get service to fix the problems I had with the satelite and it had gotten to rediculous perportions till I phoned the crtc who licenses the company to look at what i was going through there solution was that Bell expressview could not bill me for bad service. I tracked cabletronics to a south africa. Cabletronics was the contractor who serviced in my area. The Bell company is owned by freemason and if any high member says they will haunt you it is all freemason who will haunt you. Bell of course owns Bell sympatic of which is part of the microsoft network. I believe Bill Gates is freemason and if you watch the movie pirates of silicone valley pirated everything. Bill Gates was in partnership with I.B.M which is also freemason owned comany. I have seen pictures of Bill Gates wife at the Bilderberg meettings. I constantly face erasure of important information on my computer as well as out right sabotage.

The south has risen again slave ideology in tow and the only ones in the way are people who still believe they are free. If you have money and you squander on arguing these minor details you will sink us all. Set up the antimason party and tell the truth to the people and they will realize your genuine. My self My father and uncle once he realizes how he lost his business will back this bold move....

[Brian Foley]

I’ve rejected any notion that the German Army was capable of handling Russia and France at the same time. What you are seeing as strength was in fact French weakness (which, IMO, could not have been predicted beforehand). The Germans did not get into a “real” scrap until the invasion of Russia, at which point their razor-thin rearmament decisions came back and bit them in the butt.
The Germans under Hitler like the French under Napoleon under estimated the Russians its as simple as that . The Germans prepared for a large conflict in Europe by rearmament , took into account obstacles as they arose such as Britain and France and successfully dealt with them . And finally prosecuted a long desired war for control of Russia which was where their plan came apart .
Obviously not. World War Two tactics revolved around combined arms tactics – that is the interplay between armor, artillery, infantry and airpower. But before the war, no power had experience to justify a theory about how these elements of combat power would interplay on the modern battlefield.
It makes no difference Germany like America , Britain and France was a technologically advanced industrialized society . Only such nations can prosecute wars fully and on a wide scale because the industrial infrastructure can cope with military demand . As the war developed and progressed these nations could easily develop weapons which if they were not suitable could be replaced by an updated version .
So, just for the record, you’re position is that Germany undertook, at enormous expense to her economy, a fever-pitch rearmament starting in 1933 against Russia, and did so without once ever bothering to examine the requirements necessary to invade and conquer Russia?
Of course it was an enormous expense to the German economy , the fact was that the end goal for Germany was the control of Mittle Europa as virtually a closed German market . And the complete economic colonization of Russia would have been the lucrative pay off foe the German market .
Gladly. Hitler’s directive ordering the invasion of Russia came after, his meeting with Molotov – Molotov came in November 1940, Hitler issued the Barbarossa decree in December 1940. Yes there was active planning and troop movements beforehand, but so what? Hitler ordered the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (along with plenty of troop movements and mobilizations), but nothing came of it at that time because he elected to settle the matter diplomatically.
The military directive was the order authorizing the invasion of Russia after all the military plans had been developed and approved . And you say so what ! Come on you wont even fully answer this As early as October 17, 1939, with the Polish campaign scarcely over , he had reminded Keitel that Polish territory
Is important to us from a military point of view as an advanced jumping off point and for strategic concentration of troops . ………………………..
And in a harangue to them on November 23 hehad emphasized that “ we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West” .
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
19. Sitzkreig In The West: page 669 You just don’t want to make that connection . The Molotov meeting was just a charade , This was the bone of contention at the meeting , explain why Germany occupied Romania with troops and built them up on Russia’s border . The plain fact is Russia knew she was going to be invaded and began taking active steps to prepare for it . It was a foregone conclusion your theory of an aimless , haphazard German policy of meandering in and out of rash military adventures does not stack up .

[Brian Foley]

...NO, we had radar which Goering ignored for the Germans.
The Germans had radar , just not on the scale of the Anglo/American system .As the Anglo/American fought a massive large scale airwar against Germany they needed it . Germany had no requirement for a sophisticated tracking system only a directional warning system .

[Brian Foley]

PLAN RED - USA PLAN FOR THE INVASION OF CANADA
(Cleared to go for 1943, if I remember correctly, but stopped by Pearl Harbour)


http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html
This plan was devised in 1935 , I dont see what bearing this has on the future European conflict .

[glenn239]

This forum is editing out what I have to say what ever happened to freedom of speech

Interesting thing about free speach. Those that demand it the most tend to be the ones that deserve it the least, don't you think?

[glenn239]

Of course it was an enormous expense to the German economy , the fact was that the end goal for Germany was the control of Mittle Europa as virtually a closed German market . And the complete economic colonization of Russia would have been the lucrative pay off foe the German market .

Once again, for the record; it is your contention that the Germans, at great expense to their economy, feverishly began re-arming in 1933 without once bothering over the course of the next 6 years to even study the operational requirements stemming from an invasion of the Soviet Union?

The military directive was the order authorizing the invasion of Russia after all the military plans had been developed and approved . And you say so what ! Come on you wont even fully answer this.

We’ve dealt with this at length. The Germans (specifically Hitler) began toying with an invasion of Russia in the summer of 1940. By December 1940, after his stormy hissy-fit with Molotov, he decided to go ahead with it. Once again (and fatally this time), Hitler had made a decision on the basis of the fact that he was a violently inclined suck.

You just don’t want to make that connection . The Molotov meeting was just a charade , This was the bone of contention at the meeting , explain why Germany occupied Romania with troops and built them up on Russia’s border . The plain fact is Russia knew she was going to be invaded and began taking active steps to prepare for it . It was a foregone conclusion your theory of an aimless , haphazard German policy of meandering in and out of rash military adventures does not stack up .

Please let me advise what a “charade” looks like in the world of diplomacy. In one word; harmony. If you’re intending to attack someone, you pretend that everything is A.OK. With sugar on it. For Hitler, he’d have said, “sure, go ahead with invading Finland and Turkey” (as per Molotov’s agenda), and then backstabbed Stalin with a full-out invasion as the Soviet dictator committed himself to the advice.


This plan was devised in 1935 , I dont see what bearing this has on the future European conflict

We agree on something. I’ll get the champagne. :^)

[Brian Foley]

Once again, for the record; it is your contention that the Germans, at great expense to their economy, feverishly began re-arming in 1933 without once bothering over the course of the next 6 years to even study the operational requirements stemming from an invasion of the Soviet Union?
Because the German plan consisted of a short war , that was the fatal mistake , miscalculation .
The attack , he laid it down , would begin in May 1941 and would take five months to carry through .
The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Chap 23; Barbarosa: The turn of Russia pg 798
There isn’t much to study into operational requirements , the German economy was like any other advanced industrialized economy , they have the ability to wage war regardless . When you have a sophisticated industrial infrastructure base on the scale of the German Ruhr supplying your military is solved ie: making good your losses . Where the German war machine toppled over is they under estimated the Soviet Unions Industrial base and the fact that the Soviet Union was able to launch an offensive outside Moscow in Dec 1941 . Its as simple as that , Napoleon made the same mistake with Grand army .

We’ve dealt with this at length. The Germans (specifically Hitler) began toying with an invasion of Russia in the summer of 1940. By December 1940, after his stormy hissy-fit with Molotov, he decided to go ahead with it. Once again (and fatally this time), Hitler had made a decision on the basis of the fact that he was a violently inclined suck.
There was no toying involved , a firm decision to invade was made on Aug 1 by authorizing the planning of Barbarossa some 4 months before the Molotov meeting .
For the whole operation he would allot 120 divisions , keeping sixty divisions for the defense of the west and Scandinavia . The attack , he laid it downwould begin in May 1941 and would take five months to carry through . It would be finished by winter . He would have preferred , he said , to do it this year but this had not proved possible .
The next day , August 1 , Halder went to work on the plans with his General Staff .
The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Chap 23; Barbarosa: The turn of Russia pg 798-799
Please let me advise what a “charade” looks like in the world of diplomacy. In one word; harmony. If you’re intending to attack someone, you pretend that everything is A.OK. With sugar on it. For Hitler, he’d have said, “sure, go ahead with invading Finland and Turkey” (as per Molotov’s agenda), and then backstabbed Stalin with a full-out invasion as the Soviet dictator committed himself to the advice.
If you want to see what a charade is read The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Chap 23; Barbarosa: The turn of Russia; MOLOTOV IN BERLIN pages 800 through to 812 . Finland and Romania was the reason for this fall out , read the chapter very illuminating . I would like you to answer me though on this query : As early as October 17, 1939, with the Polish campaign scarcely over , he had reminded Keitel that Polish territory
Is important to us from a military point of view as an advanced jumping off point and for strategic concentration of troops . ………………………..
And in a harangue to them on November 23 hehad emphasized that “ we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West” .
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
19. Sitzkreig In The West: page 669 Which country was to be the object of this advanced staging point ?
We agree on something. I’ll get the champagne. :^)
Just an icecold beer , thanks , :) you would make an interesting drink partner ;) .

[glenn239]

Because the German plan consisted of a short war , that was the fatal mistake , miscalculation .

The duration of a conflict is irrelevant – wars need to be planned. Well, at least you’re admitting that Germany’s haphazard planning starting only in 1940 was fatally incompetent. To answer my question, “Is it your contention that Hitler re-armed feverishly, at great cost to the German economy without once bothering to check the requirements stemming from an invasion of the USSR?” Your answer is “yes”.

There isn’t much to study into operational requirements , the German economy was like any other advanced industrialized economy , they have the ability to wage war regardless . When you have a sophisticated industrial infrastructure base on the scale of the German Ruhr supplying your military is solved ie: making good your losses . Where the German war machine toppled over is they under estimated the Soviet Unions Industrial base and the fact that the Soviet Union was able to launch an offensive outside Moscow in Dec 1941 . Its as simple as that , Napoleon made the same mistake with Grand army .

Isn’t “much” to study in invading the Soviet Union??? The country was huge. The infrastructure was very poor. The location and scale of economy and industry unknown, the size of the armed forces unknown, the relative importance of resources unknown, and the overall direction of attack unknown. There was no country in Europe which required more detailed operational planning than the Soviet Union, and the failures you outline are a failure in intelligence and planning – both critical facets of operational planning.


There was no toying involved , a firm decision to invade was made on Aug 1 by authorizing the planning of Barbarossa some 4 months before the Molotov meeting .

We’ve been around the block enough on this one so that anyone still interested in the repetition understands the differing opinions. Planning an invasion does not automatically equate with launching one, and that decision was taken after the blowout with Molotov.

If you want to see what a charade is read The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Chap 23; Barbarosa: The turn of Russia; MOLOTOV IN BERLIN pages 800 through to 812 . Finland and Romania was the reason for this fall out , read the chapter very illuminating . I would like you to answer me though on this query :

No, Finland and Rumania weren’t the only reasons for the fallout. Off the top of my head:

1) Molotov was completely uninterested in Hitler’s suggestion of an advance towards Persia.
2) The Russians were upset over troop movements to Finland and Rumania
3) The Russians didn’t like Hitler’s deal between Hungary and Rumania
4) Hitler was incensed over Stalin’s claim to a free hand in Finland, to bases in Turkey, to demands for influence in Bulgaria, for military bases in Denmark, and demands of German support to extort territory from Japan (territory with oil).

This was no charade, it’s a first-class textbook diplomatic showdown. Molotov was trying to extort Hitler; he stopped him at one point and reinforced Stalin’s agreement that the United States must have no say in European affairs. This was the “carrot”. Unfortunately for Stalin, Hitler was too stupid and violent to understand the military situation

Which country was to be the object of this advanced staging point ?

Are we still unclear of the meaning to the term “oppose”? I’m wondering – is English a second language?

That Hitler recognized Poland as an area from which Russia could be attacked is unremarkable. He could not have failed to do so as early as 1919. There is evidence of preparations for routine contingencies, including attacking Russia, defending against a Russian attack, or holding an army in perpetual garrison. So what?

[Brian Foley]

The duration of a conflict is irrelevant – wars need to be planned. Well, at least you’re admitting that Germany’s haphazard planning starting only in 1940 was fatally incompetent. To answer my question, “Is it your contention that Hitler re-armed feverishly, at great cost to the German economy without once bothering to check the requirements stemming from an invasion of the USSR?” Your answer is “yes”.
What do you mean haphazard ? What are you talking about ! Germany went through a 6 year rearmament programme to prepare for a war for petes sake . Then Germany started by invading Poland as a springboard and dealing with her principal adversaries Britain and France to secure her position .And in Aug 1940 began finally drawing up battle plans for the invasion of Russia a full 10 months before Barbarossa .How the hell does that lead you to assume Germanys plan was done on the fly I have no idea ! Germany believed the war against Russia would be over by mid 1942 that was the German time table . After 1942 the US entered the war and it dragged on for another 3 and ½ years ! Hardly a case for German unpreparedness !
Isn’t “much” to study in invading the Soviet Union??? The country was huge. The infrastructure was very poor.
90% of Russia population was centered in the European part of Russia the rest was empty Siberia . Invasion plans simply consist objectives , the German plan was divided into 3 Army Groups North , South and Centre it’s a simple matter of advance and occupy
The location and scale of economy and industry unknown,
Rubbish the location of Soviet industrial centres was well known the heavy industry Donetsk region of the Ukraine , the oil fields of the Baku region . The scale of Soviet industry was well known due to the publishing of the results of the The Five-Year Plans (http://www.johndclare.net/Russ11.htm) .
the size of the armed forces unknown,
The size of the Soviet military was well known in fact the Soviet airforce was the worlds largest , you only have to go into Janes archives for such information . anyway if it was so secretive why was Russia releasing news footage of its paratroops to be viewed in the West’s cinemas in the 1930’s or how do you explain the knowledge of the great purges !
the relative importance of resources unknown, and the overall direction of attack unknown.
Please explain the relative importance of resources unknown means to you . The mainthrust of the German Barbaroosa advance was the Industrialized Ukraine and the resource rich Caucasus .
There was no country in Europe which required more detailed operational planning than the Soviet Union, and the failures you outline are a failure in intelligence and planning – both critical facets of operational planning.
The Germans covered it very well , almost pulling it off , the Geermans advanced well into Southern Russia and it was only in Feburary 1943 that the Germans went on retreat . Show me where there was a failure in German planning and intelligence .
“ There was no toying involved , a firm decision to invade was made on Aug 1 by authorizing the planning of Barbarossa some 4 months before the Molotov meeting ”
.We’ve been around the block enough on this one so that anyone still interested in the repetition understands the differing opinions. Planning an invasion does not automatically equate with launching one, and that decision was taken after the blowout with Molotov.
You just don’t want to concede that planning began in Aug 1940 , because it throws out your timeline . Once the plans had been drawn up Hitler authored his Hitler's directive 21on December 18th, 1940 (http://216.198.255.120/germanpart/dir21.html) and that was released when General Marcs had completed authoring the battles plans . Read it the directive clearly outlines German objectives in the industrial and mining zones of Russia .
No, Finland and Rumania weren’t the only reasons for the fallout. Off the top of my head:

1) Molotov was completely uninterested in Hitler’s suggestion of an advance towards Persia.
2) The Russians were upset over troop movements to Finland and Rumania
3) The Russians didn’t like Hitler’s deal between Hungary and Rumania
4) Hitler was incensed over Stalin’s claim to a free hand in Finland, to bases in Turkey, to demands for influence in Bulgaria, for military bases in Denmark, and demands of German support to extort territory from Japan (territory with oil).

This was no charade, it’s a first-class textbook diplomatic showdown. Molotov was trying to extort Hitler; he stopped him at one point and reinforced Stalin’s agreement that the United States must have no say in European affairs. This was the “carrot”. Unfortunately for Stalin, Hitler was too stupid and violent to understand the military situation
Go to the end of this transcript
HITLER AND MOLOTOV MEETINGS (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Hitler-Molotov%20Meetings.htm)
And read the section AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATES OF THE THREE POWER PACT, GERMANY, ITALY, AND JAPAN, ON THE ONE SIDE, AND THE SOVIET UNION ON THE OTHER SIDE and read such charades as 1) Germany declares that, apart from the territorial revisions in Europe to be carried out at the conclusion of peace, her territorial aspirations center in the territories of Central Africa. .
Are we still unclear of the meaning to the term “oppose”? I’m wondering – is English a second language?

That Hitler recognized Poland as an area from which Russia could be attacked is unremarkable. He could not have failed to do so as early as 1919. There is evidence of preparations for routine contingencies, including attacking Russia, defending against a Russian attack, or holding an army in perpetual garrison. So what?
No you are just being ignorant , I asked very clearly in relation to this excerpt , as to which country Hitler was concerning .
As early as October 17, 1939, with the Polish campaign scarcely over , he had reminded Keitel that Polish territory
Is important to us from a military point of view as an advanced jumping off point and for strategic concentration of troops . ………………………..
And in a harangue to them on November 23 hehad emphasized that “ we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West” .
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
19. Sitzkreig In The West: page 669
Was Hitler meaning a future invasion of Russia .

[glenn239]

Interesting debate, but we're getting repetative. I'm only going to address fresh issues...

How the hell does that lead you to assume Germanys plan was done on the fly I have no idea ! Germany believed the war against Russia would be over by mid 1942 that was the German time table . After 1942 the US entered the war and it dragged on for another 3 and ½ years ! Hardly a case for German unpreparedness !

Who won the war? Had Hitler done his homework, he'd have won. But he didn't, was an idiot, and lost.

The size of the Soviet military was well known in fact the Soviet airforce was the worlds largest , you only have to go into Janes archives for such information . anyway if it was so secretive why was Russia releasing news footage of its paratroops to be viewed in the West’s cinemas in the 1930’s or how do you explain the knowledge of the great purges

The Russian OOB was well known? You are aware that Operation Typhoon was crushed by a massive Soviet counterattack at the gates of Moscow? And that the Germans had little clue that the Russians had these reserves to throw into the fray, because they were ignorant as to the Red Army OOB?

Please explain the relative importance of resources unknown means to you . The mainthrust of the German Barbaroosa advance was the Industrialized Ukraine and the resource rich Caucasus .

It was the inability of the German High Command to establish the relative importance of taking Moscow vs. a southern drive for the resources that caused much of the chaos in German operations. In fall 1941, they decided to go for Moscow, and it cost them the war.

The Germans covered it very well , almost pulling it off , the Geermans advanced well into Southern Russia and it was only in Feburary 1943 that the Germans went on retreat . Show me where there was a failure in German planning and intelligence .

"Almost pulled it off?" Yes, that counts.

German planning failed because their schedule of advance was science fiction. They were so stupid as to believe they could take Russia in one season. German intelligence failed because they completely missed the buildup of the Russian strategic reserve at Moscow, which subsequently brutalized Army Group Center and came within an ace of breaking the back of the German army.

Those are two. Two more operational failures would be the decision to alienate the conquered peoples of the occupied territories, and the failure to mobilize the German economy for war before it was too late. These are all symptoms of stupid German decisions based on stupid German planning and intelligence.

You just don’t want to concede that planning began in Aug 1940 , because it throws out your timeline .

I told you that planning for the invasion of Russia began in the summer of 1940.

[Brian Foley]

Who won the war? Had Hitler done his homework, he'd have won. But he didn't, was an idiot,

and lost.The Germans did do their homework , 6 years of rearmament and the militarization of German society is testament to this .
The Russian OOB was well known? You are aware that Operation Typhoon was crushed by a

massive Soviet counterattack at the gates of Moscow? And that the Germans had little clue that the Russians had these

reserves to throw into the fray, because they were ignorant as to the Red Army OOB?That is where the Soviets decided to launch an offensive , what did you expect ? That the Russians would just retreat until annihilation ! its a war of attack and counter attack . Zhukovs Dec offensive pushed the Germans back 200km and the frontline stabilized around Orel for the rest of the winter that was the objective of the offensive securing Moscow . In spring 1942 the German advance continued again all the way to Stalingrad the next point where the Soviets decided to act .
It was the inability of the German High Command to establish the relative importance of taking

Moscow vs. a southern drive for the resources that caused much of the chaos in German operations. In fall 1941, they

decided to go for Moscow, and it cost them the war.
The German offensive proceeded for another 12 months until the Battle of Stalingrad . these reversals , major as they were , were not the coup de grace that came at Kursk in mid 1943 . In fact all these revesals accomplished was to give stalin confidence to meet Hitler on equal terms that in 1943
Stalin sent Peace Feelers (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw2.htm) to Hitler . This proves that the Germany military was a force to still be reckoned with in Soviet eyes .
German planning failed because their schedule of advance was science fiction. They were so stupid

as to believe they could take Russia in one season. German intelligence failed because they completely missed the

buildup of the Russian strategic reserve at Moscow, which subsequently brutalized Army Group Center and came within

an ace of breaking the back of the German army. How was it science fiction when masses of Soviet troops were bagged up in early offensives such as Kharkov , and collosal material losses like the Ukraine ? The German plan evisaged a June 1941 attack that would terminate in Aug 1942 that is a level haeded assessment based on sound military experience .Dont tell me German reconnaissance and intelligence were completely unaware of 100 Soviet divisions amassing in and around Moscow . The Germans would of believed these were going to defend the city , not launch an offensive , a miscalculation , it happens .
Those are two. Two more operational failures would be the decision to alienate the conquered

peoples of the occupied territories, and the failure to mobilize the German economy for war before it was too late. These

are all symptoms of stupid German decisions based on stupid German planning and intelligence.
What broke Germanys back was the combination of the US Air war and Russian war front . The German war economy was fully mobilized under Albert Speer in 1943 , it was out produced by the US and Russian industry . Its as simple as that , and as I said it was Germanys gamble which they lost through miscalculation not ineptitude as you assert .

[glenn239]

That is where the Soviets decided to launch an offensive , what did you expect ?

What I would expect is irrelevant. It's the fact that the Germans should have expected it (but didn't) that's important.

The German offensive proceeded for another 12 months until the Battle of Stalingrad . these reversals , major as they were , were not the coup de grace that came at Kursk in mid 1943 . In fact all these revesals accomplished was to give stalin confidence to meet Hitler on equal terms that in 1943

The turning point of the war was the crisis faced by Army Group Center in front of Moscow from December 1941. Because of the stupendous German losses there, coupled with the stupid strategic choices of the Nazi High Command prior to the reversal, the Germans were never again able to resume a general offensive on the Eastern Front. Operation Blue, the German offensive of 1942, was all that could be mustered - a push on one front. In contrast to the German ability to organize one, and only one, offensive, the Russians responded with three major pushes in 1942. These were Mars in the north, Uranus in the south, and an offensive at Kharkov in the spring. Of the four offensives only one, Uranus, succeeded.

How was it science fiction when masses of Soviet troops were bagged up in early offensives such as Kharkov , and collosal material losses like the Ukraine ?

Because, having little intelligence or understanding of the Soviet Union, the Germans failed to comprehend that they could win big battles against the Red Army and still lose the war. They literally didn't have a clue. You are aware, for instance, that Hitler was on record as stating as early as July 1941 that had he known how powerful Russia war, he'd have never invaded? And that, at around the same time, he CUT armaments production? An example of the unbelievably stupid decisions taken because no one had done their homework on the Soviet Union...

Dont tell me German reconnaissance and intelligence were completely unaware of 100 Soviet divisions amassing in and around Moscow .

A: The Germans were caught "completely unawares" by the Soviet counterattack. Their intelligence assessment of the Red Army was incompetent,

"In the course of the massive twin battles of Briansk-Vyazma, Army Group Center was able to encircle and capture almost eight Soviet armies. Hitler was already busy working out the details of the planned destruction of the Soviet capital."

Briansk-Vyazma deluded the German High Command - they'd completely missed the fact that the Soviet strategic reserves were still unblown. They thought the forces destroyed in October were the last Soviet reserves, despite the fact that many of the units used in the December counterattack had been in the Red Army OOB for years,

"At a conference chaired by the Chief of the General Staff, Halder, on 13 November 1941 at Orsha near Smolensk, the differences of opinion of the German staffs concerning the continuation of the operation became apparent. Given the exhausted condition of their units, the field commanders were opposed to further attacks. On the other hand, Hitler and OKH decided to resume the offensive and, by making a supreme effort, risk an attempt to conquer Moscow. This 'final effort of willpower' was regarded as decisive in the effort to vanquish the already teetering Red Army. The Germans staked their all on one throw."

It was Hitler's stupidity, by insisting on a continued advance, that caused the near-disaster in the winter of 1941-42. He made the error for two reasons. First, he was compulsive (almost dementedly so) gambler, and second, German intelligence was incompetent and failed to detect the scale and nature of the Russian buildup - nine armies of the strategic reserve.


What broke Germanys back was the combination of the US Air war and Russian war front . The German war economy was fully mobilized under Albert Speer in 1943.

1943 was far, far too late to matter.

The summary is as follows: Because Hitler was "winging it" in his foreign policy, the German military was woefully unprepared when called upon in 1940 to commence studies and a military buildup aimed at dealing with the Soviet Union. This lack of attention to detail caused the failure in intelligence as to the strength of the Soviet Union which caused Hitler to lose the war. The failure of German strategy which stemmed from poor intelligence caused them to make the following, fatal, errors:

1) They failed to militarize their economy starting in 1940. This, in turn, subjected their forces undertaking Barbarossa to a lack of reserves, and to be unable to replace equipment losses when unexpected reversals occurred. In addition, Germany couldn't arm her satellite armies (Hungary, Finland, Rumania) properly or adequately, meaning that when these formations were committed to battle, they were laid to waste by superior Russian material.

2) They failed to undertake the proper political policies in conquered lands. Germany could have raised millions of troops and workers in the Baltic States and the Ukraine, but failed to do so until it was too late.

3) They failed to understand the necessity of a multi-year campaign, and instead committed to a high-stakes gamble to take Moscow in year one. This lead to a disaster of supply (where troops didn't even have winter clothing!), and a near-fatal military disaster in front of Moscow.

4) They failed to flesh out a working doctrine for how to invade the Soviet Union. Rather, the High Command fell into several different camps that schemed and competed for resources, hindering the overall war effort. These competing viewpoints stressed either the south or Moscow as the ultimate goal, and the failure to definitely pick one or the other caused dissention and confusion of the overall effort.

[Brian Foley]

What I would expect is irrelevant. It's the fact that the Germans should have expected it (but didn't) that's important.



The turning point of the war was the crisis faced by Army Group Center in front of Moscow from December 1941. Because of the stupendous

German losses there, coupled with the stupid strategic choices of the Nazi High Command prior to the reversal, the Germans were never again able to resume a

general offensive on the Eastern Front.
Kursk:The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II by Roberto R. Padilla II (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html)

The German summer offensive of 1942 began in the south on 28 June over a wide front. The main axis of advance extended from the Voronezh area to Rostov and

employed five armies. "The schwerpunkt [point of attack] of the operation was initially with Army Group Weichs, which comprised three armies including the Fourth

Panzer Army."[2] The plan called for the Fourth Panzer Army to drive south along the Don River, behind the Russian forces, while the First Panzer Army, situated

near Rostov, swung north behind the Russian line. "The objective was to prevent an orderly Soviet withdrawal, force the Russians away from the south bank of the

Don, and cut them off, in a repetition of a maneuver that had been successfully employed several times in 1941."[3] The Second Army struck towards Voronezh,

anchoring the north end of the front; the Sixth Army drove through the Don basin for Stalingrad; while the Seventeenth Army pushed for Rostov.

Operation Blue, the German offensive of 1942, was all that could be mustered - a push on one front. In contrast to the German ability to

organize one, and only one, offensive, the Russians responded with three major pushes in 1942. These were Mars in the north, Uranus in the south, and an offensive

at Kharkov in the spring. Of the four offensives only one, Uranus, succeeded.
Kursk:The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II by Roberto R. Padilla II (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html) As

planned, the offensive began with rapid advances reminiscent of the campaigns of the previous year; within a month, on 27 July, the Russians evacuated Rostov

without a fight. Meanwhile the Panzer Armies smashed through and began encircling the thinly spread Soviet Sixty-Second Army defending the Don River basin. As a

counter measure the Soviets sent the First Tank Army striking out from the left bank of the Don towards Kalach, threatening the flank of the Fourth Panzer Army.

"The . . . counter-stroke did not lead to the routing of the German forces which had broken through the Don but, as later events demonstrated, it frustrated the

enemy's plan of encircling and annihilating the Soviet Sixty-Second Army."[4] The Russians had learned to fight a withdrawal. This campaign would not be a repeat

performance of the blitzkriegs of 1941; the Germans would seize territory, but few prisoners.

The goals the German High Command set for the drive south were threefold: the capture of "the Caspian oil fields, the cutting of the Volga as a maritime artery, and

the neutralization of the industrial center of Stalingrad."[5] These far-reaching plans forced the Germans to split their forces: the Seventeenth Army swung southwest

towards the oil fields at Maikop, the First Panzer Army headed south into the Caucasus towards Astrakhan and Grozny, and the Fourth Panzer Army swung

southeast to cover the First Panzer Army's northern flank and bring pressure to bear on Stalingrad. "The diversion of forces and supplies to the advance into the

Caucasus had left the Sixth Army stranded for ten days without gasoline needed to move forward." This delay would cost the Sixth Army dearly in its attempts to

take Stalingrad by storm.[6]

Because, having little intelligence or understanding of the Soviet Union, the Germans failed to comprehend that they could win big battles against

the Red Army and still lose the war. They literally didn't have a clue. You are aware, for instance, that Hitler was on record as stating as early as July 1941

that had he known how powerful Russia war, he'd have never invaded? And that, at around the same time, he CUT armaments production? An example of the

unbelievably stupid decisions taken because no one had done their homework on the Soviet Union...
The German Agression on Russia: 1941-1943 (http://history.colstate.edu/Pate/john/mainpage.htm)The Germans would reload for the

summer of 1942 and begin another series of attacks. After a Russian offensive at the Kharkov Axis failed things began to look grim for Russia once again.
A: The Germans were caught "completely unawares" by the Soviet counterattack. Their intelligence assessment of the Red Army was

incompetent,
I dont think so the Germans had just expended an offensive which when ended 2 days later the Russians launched theirs .
The Battle of Moscow (http://history.colstate.edu/Pate/john/moscow.htm)In the end of October and beginning of November the weather

would turn and the German attack would turn with it. Bad weather made the Russian roads impassable. The Germans would use this chance to replenish their

supplies for an attack when the frost season came in late November. Winter would prove to be to Russia=s advantage though as the Russians were prepared for a

tough winter and the Germans were not. The final German offensive on Moscow came on December 1. The Germans Fourth Army attacked across the Nara River

but were only able to reach as far as Aprelevka, a suburb of Moscow. Once again the Russians held firm, bending a little but not breaking. On December 3 the

Germans realized their chances of taking Moscow were dead and they called off the offensive.
"In the course of the massive twin battles of Briansk-Vyazma, Army Group Center was able to encircle and capture almost eight Soviet

armies. Hitler was already busy working out the details of the planned destruction of the Soviet capital."

Briansk-Vyazma deluded the German High Command - they'd completely missed the fact that the Soviet strategic reserves were still unblown. They thought the

forces destroyed in October were the last Soviet reserves, despite the fact that many of the units used in the December counterattack had been in the Red

Army OOB for years,
So how does this oversight prove incompetence , you seem to forget that prior to Moscow Germany had

The Battle of Moscow (http://history.colstate.edu/Pate/john/moscow.htm) By October 8 they had taken Orel and destroyed three Russian armies while

encircling the Soviet Bryansk Group. The Battles of Bryamsk and Vyazma cost Russia 11 armies and the Germans captured 650,000 men. Though the efforts outside

Moscow took the Germans much longer than expected they stood only 100 km from the city. The situation for Russia was dangerous so they set up two defense

perimeters only 20 km outside the city. With these disasters I believe the Germans had every right to under estimate Russian willpower .
"At a conference chaired by the Chief of the General Staff, Halder, on 13 November 1941 at Orsha near Smolensk, the differences of

opinion of the German staffs concerning the continuation of the operation became apparent. Given the exhausted condition of their units, the field commanders were

opposed to further attacks. On the other hand, Hitler and OKH decided to resume the offensive and, by making a supreme effort, risk an attempt to conquer

Moscow. This 'final effort of willpower' was regarded as decisive in the effort to vanquish the already teetering Red Army. The Germans staked their all on one

throw."
Again this is just banter of Generals at work ,hardly an indictment of confusion and desparation .
It was Hitler's stupidity ,by insisting on a continued advance, that caused the near-disaster in the winter of 1941-42. He made the error for two

reasons. First, he was compulsive (almost dementedly so) gambler, and second, German intelligence was incompetent and failed to detect the scale and nature of the

Russian buildup - nine armies of the strategic reserve.
1943 was far, far too late to matter.
No 1943 was the pivotal year which would make or break Germany Early 1943 (http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1943.html) and Late 1943 (http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1943b.html)


1) They failed to militarize their economy starting in 1940. This, in turn, subjected their forces undertaking Barbarossa to a lack of

reserves, and to be unable to replace equipment losses when unexpected reversals occurred. In addition, Germany couldn't arm her satellite armies (Hungary,

Finland, Rumania) properly or adequately, meaning that when these formations were committed to battle, they were laid to waste by superior Russian

material.

2) They failed to undertake the proper political policies in conquered lands. Germany could have raised millions of troops and workers

in the Baltic States and the Ukraine, but failed to do so until it was too late.

3) They failed to understand the necessity of a multi-year campaign, and instead committed to a high-stakes gamble to take Moscow in

year one. This lead to a disaster of supply (where troops didn't even have winter clothing!), and a near-fatal military disaster in front of Moscow.
4) They failed to flesh out a working doctrine for how to invade the Soviet Union. Rather, the High Command fell into several different

camps that schemed and competed for resources, hindering the overall war effort. These competing viewpoints stressed either the south or Moscow as the ultimate

goal, and the failure to definitely pick one or the other caused dissention and confusion of the overall effort
This is the Russian veiw of which was the turning point .
The summary is as follows: Because Hitler was "winging it" in his foreign policy, the German military was woefully unprepared when called upon

in 1940 to commence studies and a military buildup aimed at dealing with the Soviet Union. This lack of attention to detail caused the failure in intelligence as to the

strength of the Soviet Union which caused Hitler to lose the war. The failure of German strategy which stemmed from poor intelligence caused them to make the

following, fatal, errors:
The summary is as follows: Because Hitler was "winging it" in his foreign policy, the German military was woefully unprepared when called upon

in 1940 to commence studies and a military buildup aimed at dealing with the Soviet Union. This lack of attention to detail caused the failure in intelligence as to the

strength of the Soviet Union which caused Hitler to lose the war. The failure of German strategy which stemmed from poor intelligence caused them to make the

following, fatal, errors:
This is the Russian veiw of which was the turning point .
Kursk:The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II by Roberto R. Padilla II (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html)

Examination of the military and diplomatic aspects of the Stalingrad and Kursk Campaigns clearly demonstrates that the turning point in the east occurred with the mass destruction of German armor formations at Kursk, rather than the capitulation of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Militarily the Soviet victory at Kursk broke the back of the German army on the eastern front. The losses in men and materiel proved beyond Germany's capacity to replace, while the losses suffered at Stalingrad, though severe, were made good, allowing the Germans to launch their Kursk offensive. Concurrently, there was no net movement of the front to the west as a result of the Soviet victory at Stalingrad. By contrast, the Kursk Campaign resulted in a dramatic shift of the front to the west, pushing it beyond the Dnieper River line deep into the Ukraine. Soviet diplomatic activities reflected realities at the front. Consequently, despite the success of the Russian winter offensive of 1942, Soviet leadership felt compelled to initiate secret peace talks with the Germans while continuing to pressure the Allies for an immediate invasion of Western Europe. Stalin was aware that Zhukov's victories at Stalingrad and in the Crimea, while impressive, had not been decisive. By comparison, after the German rout at Kursk the Soviets extended no more peace feelers or urgent calls for a second front, because "the Russian command knew that by winning the Battle of Kursk Russia had, in effect, won the war."

[Red Devil]

The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded.
I wonder where you got this information from, a socialist teacher mayhaps? Germany wanted liebensraum, living space. Many of the Polish population where of Germanic origin and Hitler used an SS attack on a German speaking Radio station, dressed in Polish uniforms, as an excuse to attack Poland. Heydrich himself commanded the raid. The British had a defensive pact with Poland and, as this was transgressed, the Britsh declared war on Germany. It was not unexpected as the Polish Intelligence, which had the engima code machine, warned any Western Government willing to listen that Germany was planning a move against them. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, and his Government, were hurriedly rearming as fast as they could, having let it slip during inter war years.

Following on from WW1, Germany was being economically raped by the big jewish banks such as Rothchilds, in war reparation. This really got to Hitler and he became a Jewish "hater"; he had not been once. The rest on that side is, as they say, History. Having already taken back the demilitarised west bank of the Rhine; he then annexed the Sudetenland etc and still the rest of Europe did nothing. This gave him the confidence to move east. Hitler himself told Doenitz that there would not be a war against England, a country he feared, before 1944. His advisers did not obviously tell him of the Pact with Poland. Hitler detested Communism but made a Treaty with Molotov to appease the Soviets into a false sense of security. Operation Barbarossa put an end to that in 41. Thats a small potted version of why WW2 happened.

[glenn239]

Q: summer of 1942 and begin another series of attacks. After a Russian offensive at the Kharkov Axis failed things began to look grim for Russia once again.

The Germans were too weak to attack towards Moscow in 1942 because of their defeat of the previous year. This lead them to the south, to a strategy that could not succeed.

To repeat, there were 4 major offensives in 1942. Three of them were Russian, only one was German; that attack was not able, even under the most favorable theoretical circumstances, to deliver a fatal blow. This is in contrast to the 1941 campaign, hence why the turning point to the war was in December 1941. The Germans no longer stand a reasonable chance of defeating the Russians, and the Americans have entered the game.

I dont think so the Germans had just expended an offensive which when ended 2 days later the Russians launched theirs .

The Germans were strung out, exhausted, without air support, and far beyond their supply dumps. They walked right into an ambush and almost lost the war on the spot because of it. Had Stalin not meddled with Zhukov's original plan and dispersed the effort over a wider front, it's more than likely Zhukov would have succeeded.

So how does this oversight prove incompetence

A: The December counterattack used numerous Siberian armies that had been in existence for years and years beforehand, and therefore should have long been identified by the Germans ("should have", that is, if their invasion was as "carefully prepared" as you suggest). For all of their victories, any competent and attentive foe would duly note that many known and elite Soviet formations were not amongst the destroyed units. Given that there was only one railroad from Siberia west to watch (which was teeming with military traffic), it is yet another example of the inadequate preparations which defined the German invasion of Russia

[android]

I blame anti-German sentiment in the UK and USA

[Brian Foley]

I wonder where you got this information from, a socialist teacher mayhaps?
As early as October 17, 1939, with the Polish campaign scarcely over , he had reminded Keitel that Polish territory Is important to us from a military point of view as an advanced jumping off point and for strategic concentration of troops . ………………………..
And in a harangue to them on November 23 hehad emphasized that “ we can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West” .
Book Four: WAR: EARLY VICTORIES AND THE TURNING POINT
19. Sitzkreig In The West: page 669
Germany wanted liebensraum, living space. Many of the Polish population where of Germanic origin and Hitler used an SS attack on a German speaking Radio station, dressed in Polish uniforms, as an excuse to attack Poland. Heydrich himself commanded the raid.
Germany wanted an economic empire which controlled Eastern and Central Europe as well as Russia . German economic expansion (http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/hist-archiv/dgw/index.php#1918)
The British had a defensive pact with Poland and, as this was transgressed, the Britsh declared war on Germany. It was not unexpected as the Polish Intelligence, which had the engima code machine, warned any Western Government willing to listen that Germany was planning a move against them. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, and his Government, were hurriedly rearming as fast as they could, having let it slip during inter war years.
The British and French also had a defensive pact with Czechoslovakia as well as a guarantee to defend Czechoslovakia . Why didnt they strike then ? Why wait until Poland .
Following on from WW1, Germany was being economically raped by the big jewish banks such as Rothchilds, in war reparation. This really got to Hitler and he became a Jewish "hater"; he had not been once. The rest on that side is, as they say, History. Having already taken back the demilitarised west bank of the Rhine; he then annexed the Sudetenland etc and still the rest of Europe did nothing. This gave him the confidence to move east. Hitler himself told Doenitz that there would not be a war against England, a country he feared, before 1944. His advisers did not obviously tell him of the Pact with Poland. Hitler detested Communism but made a Treaty with Molotov to appease the Soviets into a false sense of security. Operation Barbarossa put an end to that in 41. Thats a small potted version of why WW2 happened.
As I stated in the thread that Britain and France wanted too set Germany up to invade Russia and at a crucial moment whilst these 2 are fighting each other they would jump in .

[Brian Foley]

The Germans were too weak to attack towards Moscow in 1942 because of their defeat of the previous year. This lead them to the south, to a

strategy that could not succeed.
It was obvious to the Germans after there failed offensive outside Moscow in Dec 1941 that this was what the Russians were going to defend . The Russians had all

winter to rest , recuperate and construct defensive fortifications . The Germans realising this resumed their advance in the South in 1942 .
To repeat, there were 4 major offensives in 1942. Three of them were Russian, only one was German; that attack was not able, even under the

most favorable theoretical circumstances, to deliver a fatal blow. This is in contrast to the 1941 campaign, hence why the turning point to the war was in December

1941. The Germans no longer stand a reasonable chance of defeating the Russians, and the Americans have entered the game.
Im sorry , the Germans advanced all the way to Stalingrad by the end of 1942 , how was 1941 a turning point ? Here is a summary of Barbarossa in 1942 its all a

German advance and Russian retreat .
Offensive Actions On The Eastern Front 1942 (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsRussianFront.htm)
JANUARY 1942 The Russian advance continues to make headway. In the centre it reaches to within 70 miles of Smolensk. To the south

they drive a deep salient into the German lines south of Kharkov in the Ukraine. However German resistance grows as the Russians begin to over-extend themselves.
APRIL 1942 The Russian Counter-Offensive launched in December 1941 in the north and centre has come to a halt. Territory has been

regained but few cities. The Russians maintain their hold on the Kharkov salient in the south.
MAY 1942 Eastern Front - In the south, Russian forces attack from the salient below the Ukrainian city of Kharkov and make some

progress, but the Germans counter-attack and soon encircle and capture the Russians. The Germans push on beyond Kharkov ready for the main Spring Offensive.
JUNE 1942 Towards the end of the month the Russians start to evacuate Sevastopol and by early July all the Crimea is in German

Hands. By this time the Germans have started their Spring Attack in the south with the aim of taking Rostov-on-Don and pushing further south towards the vital

oilfields of the Caucasus. Meanwhile, from the area of Kursk and Kharkov, a second army group will move on Stalingrad to protect the left flank of what is initially

the main thrust to the south. Stalingrad later dictates the outcome of the entire campaign.
JULY 1942 In the south the German Spring Offensive continues with the taking of Rostov-on-Don. After crossing the Don River they

push on into into the Caucasus. Meanwhile the protective left flank army group is approaching Stalingrad. The German advance into the Caucacus comes at a critical

time for the North African campaign, opening up the possibility of a German link-up in the Middle East. The loss of the region's oil and the potential for a

German-Japanese meeting in India could prove fatal for the Allies.
AUGUST 1942 The south continues to be the main focus of this long and bitterly contested front and remains so until January 1943. In

the Stalingrad area the German reach the River Volga and are within a few miles of the city at the start of the Battle of Stalingrad. They break into the suburbs in

September 1942 and the fighting increases in intensity as the Russians struggle to hold on to the west bank of the Volga. Further south still, the German invaders reach

the Caucasus Mountains, but thereafter make slow progress.
OCTOBER 1942 Eastern Front - Still concentrating on the south, the Germans make little progress in the Caucasus. By November they

are being worn down and the Russians start to go over to the offensive. Hitler decides to take Stalingrad and major attacks are started in October and then

November. Neither attacks succeed in merciless factory-to-factory, house-to-house, room-to-room fighting.
NOVEMBER 1942 Eastern Front - In the south, as the German forces in the Caucasus and within Stalingrad are slowly ground down,

the Russians start a long-planned Major Offensive to relieve the city and trap the invaders in the Caucasus. Along 50-mile fronts to the north and the south of

Stalingrad, two large armies break through the largely Rumanian defenders. Before the month is out the Russian pincers have met and Gen Paulus’ Sixth Army is

surrounded.
DECEMBER 1942 Eastern Front - In the south of the Front, a scratch German force tries to reach Stalingrad from the southwest but is

soon driven back. Further north, the Russians resume their push and annihilate an Italian army. By now the Germans in the Caucasus are under heavy pressure.

Fearing the Russians will reach Rostov-on-Don and trap them, they start to withdraw from the oilfields considered so important by Hitler.
The Germans were strung out, exhausted, without air support, and far beyond their supply dumps. They walked right into an ambush and almost

lost the war on the spot because of it. Had Stalin not meddled with Zhukov's original plan and dispersed the effort over a wider front, it's more than likely Zhukov

would have succeeded.
"They walked right into an ambush and almost lost the war on the spot because of it. " You havent proved anything of the sort .
A: The December counterattack used numerous Siberian armies that had been in existence for years and years beforehand, and therefore

should have long been identified by the Germans ("should have", that is, if their invasion was as "carefully prepared" as you suggest). For all of their victories,

any competent and attentive foe would duly note that many known and elite Soviet formations were not amongst the destroyed units. Given that there was only

one railroad from Siberia west to watch (which was teeming with military traffic), it is yet another example of the inadequate preparations which defined the German

invasion of Russia
But once again the Russian offensive outside Moscow in 1941 was not the turning point it was merely an action which stabilized the Central front . It wasnt even the beginning of the end . Below is the Battle of Kursk the real turning point .
Kursk:The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II by Roberto R. Padilla II (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html)

Examination of the military and diplomatic aspects of the Stalingrad and Kursk Campaigns clearly demonstrates that the turning point in the east occurred with the

mass destruction of German armor formations at Kursk, rather than the capitulation of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Militarily the Soviet victory at Kursk broke the

back of the German army on the eastern front. The losses in men and materiel proved beyond Germany's capacity to replace, while the losses suffered at Stalingrad,

though severe, were made good, allowing the Germans to launch their Kursk offensive. Concurrently, there was no net movement of the front to the west as a result

of the Soviet victory at Stalingrad. By contrast, the Kursk Campaign resulted in a dramatic shift of the front to the west, pushing it beyond the Dnieper River line deep

into the Ukraine. Soviet diplomatic activities reflected realities at the front. Consequently, despite the success of the Russian winter offensive of 1942, Soviet

leadership felt compelled to initiate secret peace talks with the Germans while continuing to pressure the Allies for an immediate invasion of Western Europe. Stalin

was aware that Zhukov's victories at Stalingrad and in the Crimea, while impressive, had not been decisive. By comparison, after the German rout at Kursk the

Soviets extended no more peace feelers or urgent calls for a second front, because "the Russian command knew that by winning the Battle of Kursk Russia had, in

effect, won the war."

[glenn239]

I'm sorry , the Germans advanced all the way to Stalingrad by the end of 1942 , how was 1941 a turning point ? Here is a summary of Barbarossa in 1942 its all a German advance and Russian retreat .

You've already admitted the Germans were too weak to attack Moscow in 1942, which is the main thing. If you're of the belief that 1942 was nothing but a "German advance", my suggestion would be not to ever read anything about Operation Uranus or Mars.

But once again the Russian offensive outside Moscow in 1941 was not the turning point it was merely an action which stabilized the Central front . It wasnt even the beginning of the end . Below is the Battle of Kursk the real turning point .

When Germany invaded Russia, they probably stood about a 3 or 4 in 10 chance of winning the war. After Typhoon in December 1941, that chance had dropped to something more like 1 in 20. This is why Typhoon was the turning point - after it, the chances of victory were fleeting, and America was in the war. 'Dolf had made one stupid gamble too many.

By the time of Kursk, the chances of a German victory in the war were certainly less than the 1 in 20 I've guessed for 1942.

[Brian Foley]

You've already admitted the Germans were too weak to attack Moscow in 1942, which is the main thing.
No I clearly sated what was written below .
It was obvious to the Germans after there failed offensive outside Moscow in Dec 1941 that this was what the Russians were going to defend . The Russians had all winter to rest , recuperate and construct defensive fortifications . The Germans realising this resumed their advance in the South in 1942 .
The fact is the German OKW realised that a full frontal assault would be unecessarily costly and decided to concentrate on the South . The German failure to take moscow only resulted in Germany simply rescheduling priorities .
If you're of the belief that 1942 was nothing but a "German advance", my suggestion would be not to ever read anything about Operation Uranus or Mars.
My suggestion is that apparently you have not read anything about it yourself . These Soviet offensives came at the end of 1942 and were in support of the defence of Stalingrad