Red line for WWII? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By OnTPath
#14333348
wat0n wrote:....thanks for showing us why the UK and France stayed firm in their previous commitments to Poland.


Uhh, sounds so heroic.
But only a few days after their heroic Ultimatum against the evil Hitlerists they uttered not a blip when Stalin put his boot on Polish soil. So much to it's heroism and living up to her obligations.

This is not the behaviour of heroes in the interest of mankind and peace but mere foolishness. If they really intended to neutralize Germany they would have gone into a treaty with Stalin, but Eden that fool didn't want (Stalin with glee would have done that, because he was not ready yet for a big confrontation). They wanted War and they received it and came out on the loosing side in the process.

Once they commited to that suicide, they then got into a buying frenzy of weaponry and materials selling all their country's gold in return for second rate material, only after that the US put up the Lendlease treaty.

As it seems, some circles saw the United Kingdom's British Isles maybe not the best location to control a World Empire but instead wanted the policing military force being anchored on a Continent, one of it's colonies, the US, fully self sufficient if needed and the necessary production base. Now, these succeeded indeed !

Poor romantic Poles all the while fighted and died in France/Germany 44/45, the same time it's homeland was annexed by their strange ally, Stalin. Sold beforhand by Roosevelt in the 43 Tehran conference, where Stalin succesfully parted Roosevelt from Churchill, and charmed him into handing him over all the later Eastern-bloc countries, minus Greece (that was the sole success of Winnie). The Baltics for Finland etc.. Stalin had reached EVERYTHING he wanted, Winnie almost none. It took the Red Army six month to liberate Warszaw (Jan. 45), although they had reached the Vistula at the end of July 44 during Operation Bagration and even had created a bridgehead not far from the city. Now one can speculate, but fact remains that there was no hurry on the side of the Allieds to aid the Poles in any way.
By wat0n
#14333558
OnTPath wrote:Uhh, sounds so heroic.
But only a few days after their heroic Ultimatum against the evil Hitlerists they uttered not a blip when Stalin put his boot on Polish soil. So much to it's heroism and living up to her obligations.

This is not the behaviour of heroes in the interest of mankind and peace but mere foolishness. If they really intended to neutralize Germany they would have gone into a treaty with Stalin, but Eden that fool didn't want (Stalin with glee would have done that, because he was not ready yet for a big confrontation). They wanted War and they received it and came out on the loosing side in the process.

Once they commited to that suicide, they then got into a buying frenzy of weaponry and materials selling all their country's gold in return for second rate material, only after that the US put up the Lendlease treaty.

As it seems, some circles saw the United Kingdom's British Isles maybe not the best location to control a World Empire but instead wanted the policing military force being anchored on a Continent, one of it's colonies, the US, fully self sufficient if needed and the necessary production base. Now, these succeeded indeed !

Poor romantic Poles all the while fighted and died in France/Germany 44/45, the same time it's homeland was annexed by their strange ally, Stalin. Sold beforhand by Roosevelt in the 43 Tehran conference, where Stalin succesfully parted Roosevelt from Churchill, and charmed him into handing him over all the later Eastern-bloc countries, minus Greece (that was the sole success of Winnie). The Baltics for Finland etc.. Stalin had reached EVERYTHING he wanted, Winnie almost none. It took the Red Army six month to liberate Warszaw (Jan. 45), although they had reached the Vistula at the end of July 44 during Operation Bagration and even had created a bridgehead not far from the city. Now one can speculate, but fact remains that there was no hurry on the side of the Allieds to aid the Poles in any way.


You do realize that these commitments dealt with a German invasion only, correct? In fact, the Poles weren't too happy about that but what else could they do?

Likewise, I never argued the UK or France were so worried about Poland's independence. The top priority for them was to stop Germany, not to save Poland.

Now please continue with your straw man, thank you.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14333680
As it seems, some circles saw the United Kingdom's British Isles maybe not the best location to control a World Empire but instead wanted the policing military force being anchored on a Continent, one of it's colonies, the US, fully self sufficient if needed and the necessary production base. Now, these succeeded indeed !


Bingo! You have hit the nail on its head.

Neither UK nor Poland, nor France profited from this suicidal war, which could have been avoided.

The Polish elite was immediately killed by the Soviets at Katyn. The Soviets tried to blame this massacre on the NS-Regime, claiming that this killing was perpetrated according to some plan, called "Generalplan Ost".

In reality nobody could find any documents that prove this plan, according to which the native population of Poland and Russia should have been replaced by Germans.

The Brits were also scared to death by their media, they were afraid that the Anglophile Hitler is eager to invade the Albion and replace the native Brits with Germans.

But today the native population of GB is rapidly replaced by migrants from Africa or Asia.

Is this really victory?

No former British leader could foresee in the 30th the genocide of the native Brits that is going on today, because they cared about their own people before WWII. If they knew what consequence this war will have, they would never have acted as foolishly, as they did.

But if somebody sides with the communist regime that murdered millions and millions of their own people from 1918 till 1941, then it is obvious that leftist ideology will eventually prevail in the "winner nations", and the native population of these nations will have the same destiny, like Russian people had after 1918.

[content removed, yellow card issued - SD]

The population is exchangeable, the Soviets just exchanged the Ukrainian population (after the Holodomor) with migrants from different parts of the Soviet Union! That was good for them, because they crushed the resistance of nationalist forces in the Ukraine!

The killing of Polish elite in the Katyn-Forest was also good for the Soviets, they just crushed the potential resistance of nationalists!

[content removed, yellow card issued - SD]

But Russian people did not profit from this war, because the more able young people were killed, and that seriously damaged the gene pool of Russians.

After the project "Soviet Union" was not needed any more, they just stopped their support and the "cold war" just evaporated in one day without any big bloodshed.

[content removed, yellow card issued - SD]
#14333857
ArtAllm wrote:The Polish elite was immediately killed by the Soviets at Katyn.

Technically it wasn't "immediate", the Katyn massacre did not commence until April 1940, just shy of six months after offensive operations by the Red Army ended in Poland.

But I'm glad you've mentioned this aspect because you can now perhaps discuss how the Einsatzgruppen fit into your narrative of a "good war" by Germany against Poland? Like the Soviets the German army crossed into Poland with a plan to round up political leaders, cultural figures etc. for detention and execution. Lists of tens of thousands of Poles to be arrested had started to be compiled from 1937, which would seem to suggest a fairly deliberate plan for war with Poland. Also I'm guessing a lot of those names were not living in the Danzig/Polish Corridor regions either which suggests that contrary to your claims the invasion was never meant to be about historic land claims. The Einsatzgruppen followed on the heels of the German army in 1939, again not exactly indicative of the measured response and peaceful intent you seem to contend.

You can go on about the Katyn massacres if you like but really the question that ought to come out of this thread is what do you have to say about the Germans doing much the same thing in places like Piasnica or Bydgoszcz?

Also while we're talking about plans, apparently the Pabst Plan was first conceived in June 1939, well before the invasion. Why was tearing down Warsaw and rebuilding it as a 'German city' even considered by Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pabst-Plan

Also while I'm correcting yet another one of your 'errors'
ArtAllm wrote:In reality nobody could find any documents that prove this plan

Hans Ehlich and Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski testified as to the existence of Generalplan Ost and its content. Further elements of Generalplan Ost were referenced and discussed in other documents which have been recovered. Saying Generalplan Ost is made up is totally ridiculous.
By Rich
#14333920
It doesn't really matter as far as the main argument is concerned what was preplanned. What matters is what was done. I really can't see what the problem would have been with the Nazis running Germany. Sure they weren't ideal but they were a lot better than many of our allies as well as the majority of our opponents in the Cold War. However Nazi rule of Slavic nations was unacceptable. The fact that the Nazis targeted the Jews first is irrelevant. The so called "the holocaust of the Jews" is also totally irrelevant. If rather than robbing, gethoising and murdering the Jews the Nazis had accepted Jews as full blooded Aryans, Nazi rule of Slavic nations would still have have been totally unacceptable.

Hitler failed to make one real long term peace deal with any of the nations he over ran. Hitler and the Nazis had to be removed from power, and they had to be removed form power before we could deal with the Soviets.

In September 1939 Britain and France's victory over the Nazis was almost certain. The British and French did not expect the defeats of 1940, nor is it reasonable to criticise them for not basing their policies on that possibility.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14334074
wat0n wrote:Likewise, I never argued the UK or France were so worried about Poland's independence. The top priority for them was to stop Germany, not to save Poland.


Stalin was pushing for a World Revolution and the destruction of Capitalism, and from his point of view the destruction of the GB was a very important task. All quotes from the book by Meltyukhov were already published in this tread:

1 сентября Германия напала на Польшу, а 3 сентября Англия и Франция объявили Германии войну. Оценивая начавшуюся войну в Европе, Сталин в беседе с руководством Коминтерна 7 сентября 1939 г. заявил, что "война идет между двумя группами капиталистических стран (бедные и богатые в отношении колоний, сырья и т.д.) за передел мира, за господство над миром! Мы не прочь, чтобы они подрались хорошенько и ослабили друг друга. Неплохо, если руками Германии будет расшатано положение богатейших капиталистических стран (в особенности Англии).

[Hitler invaded on 1st September Poland, on 3d September UK and France declared war on Germany. Stalin told the Comintern leaders on 7th September 1939: "There is a war between two groups of capitalist countries (rich capitalists, like UK and Frnace, who have a lot of colonies and resources, and the poor Germany) who fight for their spheres of influence. It is in our interest that the Capitalists weaken each others. Hitler is good for us, he weakens the most rich capitalist countries (especially England)]

юююю
Quote:
"Внешняя политика СССР исходит из того непререкаемого положения, что столкновение между миром социализма и миром капитализма неизбежно. Основная цель внешней политики СССР — своими особыми средствами обеспечить все необходимые предпосылки для победоносного решения вопроса "кто кого" в международном масштабе".


The Soviet foreign policy is derived from the indisputable position, that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is to provide with their own special means all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question "who will destroy whom" on an international scale.


Hitler never intended to invade GB, and he even proposed to the Brits to protect British interests.

But GB decided to side with Stalin and stop Hitler.

After WWII GB became a pathetic indebted insular power, threatened by the Soviets (former allies).

The Brits and other western allies were so afraid of Stalin and his followers that they even abandoned their Morgentau Plan and they rearmed Germany!!!

Everybody with half a brain can see that the actions of GB did not make any sense.


The moderator Smilin' Dave believes that "кто кого" is translated like "who is who", because he does not have any basic knowledge of Russian.

Here is his misleading translation:

"Soviet foreign policy comes from the indisputable proposition that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union - its special funds [I think maybe the intended term is 'resources' here] to provide all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question "who is who" on an international scale "


viewtopic.php?f=63&t=152854&start=60


Moderator Smilin' Dave does not speak German, either, but he decided to link an article from the German Wiki:

Smilin' Dave wrote:Also while we're talking about plans, apparently the Pabst Plan was first conceived in June 1939, well before the invasion. Why was tearing down Warsaw and rebuilding it as a 'German city' even considered by Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pabst-Plan


Smilin' Dave could only read the English article, but he decided to link for some reason the German article that he cannot understand.


Nach Ende des Polenfeldzuges und der Militärverwaltung am 25. Oktober 1939 sowie dem Aufbau einer deutschen zivilen Besatzungsverwaltung wurde der Stadtkämmerer von Würzburg, Oskar Rudolf Dengel, am 4. November 1939 zum Stadtpräsidenten von Warschau ernannt. Für die geplante Umgestaltung von Warschau holte sich Dengel in der zweiten Dezemberhälfte 1939 Hubert Groß und etwa 20 weitere Mitarbeiter der Stadt Würzburg nach Warschau und beauftragte diese mit einem Entwurf zum „Abbau der Polenstadt“ und den Umbau in eine „neue Deutsche Stadt Warschau“.
...
Da Dengel sich letztlich jedoch nicht durchsetzen konnte, erklärte er im Februar 1940 seinen Rücktritt als Stadtpräsident. Am 21. März 1940 wurde er nach Lüttich versetzt. Der von Dengel aus der Würzburger Stadtverwaltung angeworbene Mitarbeiterstab kündigte nun ebenfalls und verließ zum größten Teil Warschau.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pabst-Plan

Dieses unzutreffend als „Pabst-Plan“ (nach dem Nachfolger von Groß in Warschau Friedrich Pabst) bekannte und im Warschauer Stadtmuseum ausgestellte Planwerk besteht aus 15 Tafeln in einer gebundenen 59 × 75 cm großen Mappe

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Groß#Warschau


Well, I will not do a word by word translation, everybody can do it for themselves.
In a nutshell: This plan has nothing to do with Pabst, who was the follower of Groß, already the name of this plan is a misnomer.

The person, responsible for this plan, was Oskar Rudolf Dengel, who was appointed to the president of the city Warschau in Noverber 4. 1939. In June 1939 there were no plans concerning Warsaw.

It was just the sick fantasy of Dengler who hired the architect Groß and his collegues to make this crazy plan.

In fact, Dengler, Groß and his colleagues had to resign because their plan was not supported, they could not push trough their plan.

Dengler had to resign in February 1940, he has lost his office, and he was moved from Warschaw to Lüttich, like all his architects.

A reader of the English article does not get this information.

Rich wrote: However Nazi rule of Slavic nations was unacceptable.


Was the Bolshevik rule of Slavic nations acceptable?

Do not forget that Bolsheviks killed millions of Slavic Christians (Holodomor etc) BEVORE the outbreak of WWII.
The crimes of Bolsheviks against Christian Slavs were well known in 1939.

According to some users of this thread Slavs were (from the point of view of Brits) "less European", that is the reason why nobody talked a lot in GB about the genocide of Slavs under the Bolshevik domination.

The question about Slavs is irrelevant, because it is clear that Churchill and his colleagues did not care a rat's ass about thier freedom. How could he, if GB was a brutal colonial empire that despotically ruled its colonies, subjugated the native population and crushed every resistance?


The only relevant question is: Who was a bigger threat to the interests of GB, Hitler or Stalin?

Nobody was able to point out in this tread any arguments that make sense and explain why it was in the interests of GB to support Stalin and to stop Hitler, who never intended to invade GB, but who intended to stop Stalin (speak the expansion of Communism).

wat0n wrote:In September 1939 Britain and France's victory over the Nazis was almost certain. The British and French did not expect the defeats of 1940, nor is it reasonable to criticise them for not basing their policies on that possibility.


Sorry, but this does not make any sense and does not explain why GB and France had to support Stalin, a brutal murderer who already killed millions of Christians in 1939 and openly talked about the inevitable clash between Communism and Capitalism, and he believed that GB is a very important capitalist country that has to be crushed in the first place.
Last edited by ArtAllm on 25 Nov 2013 22:19, edited 1 time in total.
By Rich
#14334081
ArtAllm wrote:Was the Bolshevik rule of Slavic nations acceptable? Do not forget that Bolsheviks killed millions of Slavic Christians (Holodomor etc). According to some users of this thread Slavs were (from the point of view of Brits) "less European", that is the reason why nobody talked a lot in GB about the genocide of Slavs under the Bolshevik domination.
Well Churchill did try to do something after the first world war. In September 1939 war with Nazi Germany was doable, like Saddam in 2003. Supporting war against Nazi Germany in 1939 is not the same thing as supporting the demand for unconditional surrender made by Roosevelt in 1942. Its notable that both Lord Rothemere and Lord Beverbrook supported war against Germany.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14334084
Rich wrote:Well Churchill did try to do something after the first world war.


Yes, Churchill did not like Bolshevism, and he believed that it is necessary to “strangle the Bolshevik baby in its cradle” .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Ch ... tics:_1900–1939

But it is obvious that he didn't get any financial support for his intentions. Why?

Rich wrote:In September 1939 war with Nazi Germany was doable, like Saddam in 2003.


Well, that does not give an answer to the question, why would the war against Germany be in the interests of GB, and why it was not done, if it was doable?

Sorry, but I cannot address your remarks about Saddam and the purpose of the war against Iraq, a country that was no threat to the USA ... my arguments will be deleted.
By pugsville
#14334178
Hitler and Nazi Germany were an unpredictable loose cannon armed to the teeth. France and Britain could never be sure of Hitler's intentions. Hitler said a lot of things and lied a lot in political international dialog. Hitler intended to use war and his armed might to redraw European borders and establish German dominance. They took this threat seriously and draw a line in the sand, he crossed it. The defeat of france in 1940 was not predictable or certain, without that the massive cost of defeating Hitler was not easily foreseeable. WIth the Balance of forces, a stalemate with an Allied blockade slowly destroying the German economy was a reasonable prediction. Attacking was seen as generating vast amounts of casualties.

Stalin and the Soviets were not taken as a serious threat to France or British interests, there was no way for Stalin to attack either, he would have to fight his way across europe which they certainly did not think he capable of. In 1939 Hitler had made many aggressive moves, Stalin had attacked Finland and been successful only at a fearful costs. Together with the purges made the underestimation of the Soviet strength very understandable. Yup Stalin had a large amount of crimes and mass murder, but it wasnt fully appreciated , and the British and French didnt particularly care. Stain just wasnt regarded as a threat, Hitler was.

There was a lot of racism and self interests in the concerns and attitudes of the British and the French. Both had colonial Empires. The Writing was on the wall for both colonial Empires, particularly the British as the common people had more of a say and had said quite plainly they were nit going to support the maintaining of the empire, while Churchill was an arch imperialists, more and more the British Ruling class were going to face facts and withdraw from the Empire.
#14334206
Rich wrote:It doesn't really matter as far as the main argument is concerned what was preplanned. What matters is what was done.

Yes and no. In ArtAllm's narrative there was no master plan for domination of Poland, but clearly there was and it was followed through with. Not only was there a master plan, but it was apparently not one focused on simply reclaiming Danzig etc. Such a plan also doesn't square well with the idea that Germany just wanted peace, apparently much more effort was put into a war plan.

As always there is also the problem of double standards - ArtAllm goes on and on about a supposed Soviet invasion plan but ignores German ones. He wants to shed crocodile tears about Katyn but brushes aside similar German mass executions. Because none of these inconvenient facts suits the picture ArtAllm wants to paint of the invasion of Poland. He wants to claim that Generalplan Ost is totally undocumented and thus not worth discussing, while referencing two authors whose work is highly speculative.


ArtAllm wrote:Smilin' Dave could only read the English article

I used an online translator again. You could complain about this but when you say things like:
ArtAllm wrote:Well, I will not do a word by word translation, everybody can do it for themselves.

You are basically encouraging people to do this. As you note I couldn't have gotten this informtion from the English article so I didn't have a lot of choice.

The parts of the text you've subsequently quoted don't actually relate to what I was referring to. I meant this part,
Die gemeinsamen Anstrengungen des Würzburger Planungsstabes mündeten in einer Projektdokumentation mit dem Titel: „Warschau, die neue Deutsche Stadt“, deren Deckblatt folgende Aufschrift erhielt: „Diese Arbeit wurde ausgeführt von Stadtplanern aus Würzburg, deren Würzburger Städteplan am 20. Juni 1939 die Anerkennung des Führers gefunden hat. Ich danke meinen Mitarbeitern für das Werk und lege dasselbe in die Hände des Generalgouverneurs der besetzten polnischen Gebiete Reichsminister Pg. Dr. Frank. Warschau, den 6. Februar 1940. Der Stadtpräsident Dr. Dengel“.

The combined efforts of the Würzburg planning staff resulted in a project documentary entitled: "Warsaw, the new German city" whose cover was the following inscription: "This work was carried out by city planners from Würzburg, Würzburg their cities plan on 20 June 1939 which has found recognition of the leader. I thank my colleagues for the work and put the same Minister in the hands of the Governor General of the occupied Polish territories Pg Dr. Frank. Warsaw, 6 Februar 1940. The mayor, Dr. Dengel ".

Which was clearly what I was referring to when I mentioned the date June 1939, but for some reason you overlooked that. While the 'Pabst Plan' was not formalised prior to the invasion of Poland, it had clearly been conceived and well received by Hitler prior and if I'm following correctly this was acknowledged in the later formal plans.

Also why didn't you address the matter of the Einsatzgruppen?

We'll discuss this once you get off your Red Card of course.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14347412
First of all: Happy New Year to all users and moderators of this forum!


pugsville wrote:Hitler and Nazi Germany were an unpredictable loose cannon armed to the teeth.


Stalin and his Soviet Union were armed to teeth, too, and the Soviets did not make any secrets of heir intentions, speak they openly announced that the final struggle between Communism and Capitalism is inevitable, and they were eager to destroy the most important capitalist countries, speak the British Empire, in order to enlarge the sphere of Communism.

And the Soviet Union had huge resources and the support of the Commintern!

That was already mentioned in this thread:

The SU had the capabilities to win a war against the Third Reich without any external help.
- The TR had only 4000 tanks, the SU 14 000 tanks.
- The TR had only 5 000 planes, the SU 10 000 planes.
- The TR had only 42 000 artillery units, the SU 59 000.
- The TR had had maybe more soldiers, that the SU (because the Soviets neglected to declare a total mobilisation), but it was obvious that the Soviets could easily increase their man power in any time.

2002.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2002/66n/n66n-s32.shtml
viewtopic.php?f=63&t=152854&start=40


On the one hand we had Stalin who had 4 times more tanks than Hitler, 2 times more planes than Hitler, and huge natural resources and man power, and Stalin openly talked about crushing Capitalism and destroying the big and fat Capitalist countries, like GB and France.

On the other hand we had Hitler, who constantly repeated that he does not have any claims to France or GB.
But, nevertheless, Stalin could be trusted, but Hitler could not be trusted.

pugsville wrote:France and Britain could never be sure of Hitler's intentions.


They could be sure of Stalin's intentions, because he made open declaration about enlargement of the sphere of Socialism.
And after WWII France and GB had to rearm what was left of Germany to stop the "enlargement of the sphere of Socialism.



pugsville wrote:Hitler said a lot of things and lied a lot in political international dialog. Hitler intended to use war and his armed might to redraw European borders and establish German dominance. They took this threat seriously and draw a line in the sand, he crossed it.


Well, the European borders were re-drown after WWII, because Germany was desmembered. As I have already mentioned in this forum, the re-establishment of Germany was the official goal of any party of the Weimar Republic, speak this was nothing special and Hitler had just to continue this policy.

And, as already many times mentioned in this forum, this policy did not threaten any interests of GB or France.

But, on the other hand, the intentions of the Soviets (Stalin and his predecessors and followers) were a real threat to the interests of GB and France.

But GB and France could on the one hand trust Stalin (speak become his allies), and on the other hand they could not trust Hitler.
A very strange logic.


pugsville wrote:Stalin and the Soviets were not taken as a serious threat to France or British interests, there was no way for Stalin to attack either, he would have to fight his way across europe which they certainly did not think he capable of.


Are you kidding?
Stalin had 4 times more tanks, 2 times more planes, huge amounts of man power and natural resources.
Besides that Stalin could (via the Commintern) support communists inside the Capitalist countries, and he could easily invade British Colonies in South Asia.
Stalin was a real potential threat to the interests of GB and France, not Hitler, and Stalin really became a mortal threat to the West after WWII. The western allies had to rearm what was left of Germany to stop the expansion of Communism, and USA had to fight a war in South-East Asia (Vietnam etc) to stop the expansion of Communism.

And it was predictable that this would happen even before WWII.
So there is still no logical explanation why western leaders believed that Hitler is a bigger threat to their interests than Stalin and the Soviets.

pugsville wrote:In 1939 Hitler had made many aggressive moves, Stalin had attacked Finland and been successful only at a fearful costs.


As already many times repeated, Hitler did not make any aggressive moves against the interests of GB or France.
Stalin made aggressive moves not only attacking Finland, he also supported the Communists in France and GB, and supported the anti-colonial movements in British and French colonies.

pugsville wrote:Together with the purges made the underestimation of the Soviet strength very understandable. Yup Stalin had a large amount of crimes and mass murder, but it wasnt fully appreciated , and the British and French didnt particularly care. Stain just wasnt regarded as a threat, Hitler was.


What are you talking about?
All the crimes of Stalin were well known to the French and British elites.
Yes, the French and British media did not make a big deal of this, and the rank and file Brits and Frenchmen were not aware that the Soviets were Antichrists that were killing their Christian brethren in the former Russian Empire.

But the crimes of the Soviets and Stalin and the military capabilities of the Soviet Union were no secret to the decision makers in the GB or France, speak to the secret services of the GB and France.

The British and French elite were aware that Stalin was a real mortal threat to their interests, but they "trusted" Stalin.
Does that make any sense?


pugsville wrote:There was a lot of racism and self interests in the concerns and attitudes of the British and the French. Both had colonial Empires. The Writing was on the wall for both colonial Empires, particularly the British as the common people had more of a say and had said quite plainly they were nit going to support the maintaining of the empire, while Churchill was an arch imperialists, more and more the British Ruling class were going to face facts and withdraw from the Empire.


That is ridiculous!
Of course the British and French ruling classes were eager to protect their interests, speak to protect their colonial possessions with all means. And the rank and file Brits and Frenchmen were also eager to protect the interests of their empires, and they were not "anti-racists", either.

Do you really believe that the British and French people could have been stampeded into a war with Germany and into a Union with Stalin because they were so bothered about the human rights of Algerians or Indians?

Are you kidding?

The rank and file Brits and Frenchmen could be stampeded into a union with Stalin and into a war with Hitler because they were scared to death by French and British media.

But it is obvious that the owners of the media in France and GB were not telling the truth, and the French and British elite were aware that Brits and Frenchmen were fooled, but they allowed this scum.

The question is:

How could this have happened?

Well, the user "OnTPath" delivered a plausible explanation, but I do not dare to quote his explanation a second time.




Smilin' Dave wrote:
The parts of the text you've subsequently quoted don't actually relate to what I was referring to. I meant this part,


"Die gemeinsamen Anstrengungen des Würzburger Planungsstabes mündeten in einer Projektdokumentation mit dem Titel: „Warschau, die neue Deutsche Stadt“, deren Deckblatt folgende Aufschrift erhielt: „Diese Arbeit wurde ausgeführt von Stadtplanern aus Würzburg, deren Würzburger Städteplan am 20. Juni 1939 die Anerkennung des Führers gefunden hat. Ich danke meinen Mitarbeitern für das Werk und lege dasselbe in die Hände des Generalgouverneurs der besetzten polnischen Gebiete Reichsminister Pg. Dr. Frank. Warschau, den 6. Februar 1940. Der Stadtpräsident Dr. Dengel“.



[i]The combined efforts of the Würzburg planning staff resulted in a project documentary entitled: "Warsaw, the new German city" whose cover was the following inscription: "This work was carried out by city planners from Würzburg, Würzburg their cities plan on 20 June 1939 which has found recognition of the leader. I thank my colleagues for the work and put the same Minister in the hands of the Governor General of the occupied Polish territories Pg Dr. Frank. Warsaw, 6 Februar 1940. The mayor, Dr. Dengel ".[/b]

Which was clearly what I was referring to when I mentioned the date June 1939, but for some reason you overlooked that.


I honestly don't mean to sound rude, but even according to your machine translation the architects from Würzburg got the recognition for their reconstruction plan of their native city Würzburg on 20 June 1939.

On 20 June 1939 there were no plans of reconstruction of Warsaw!

There are very good German articles in the Wiki that deal with this question, but there is still no English translation and people who cannot speak German can be easily fooled by the English articles.

In Eigeninitiative entwarf Groß mit seinem Mitarbeitern Hans Schädel, Karl Schmaderer und Otto Nürnberger, der im Tiefbauamt für den Bau des neuen Hafens in Zell zuständig war, vier Varianten zur Neugestaltung der Gauhauptstadt Würzburg. Bereits am 11. April 1939 konnte Groß ein Gipsmodell im Maßstab 1:250, das eine Münchner Fachwerkstatt angefertigt hatte, zusammen mit dem ersten Bauvorschlag mit der Bezeichnung „0“ vorweisen. Komplettiert durch drei weitere Varianten präsentierte Groß diese Anfang Mai 1939 dem Stadtoberhaupt und dem Gauleiter von Mainfranken Otto Hellmuth. Dem Gauleiter gelang es schon am 13. Mai 1939 die Modelle dem Generalbauinspektor für die Reichshauptstadt Berlin und NS-Architekten, Albert Speer, vorzustellen und begutachten zu lassen. Die Arbeit von Groß stieß auf eine positive Resonanz bei Adolf Hitlers Lieblingsarchitekten, so dass dieser die Pläne und Modelle auf den Berghof schaffen ließ, um sie Hitler und etwa 50 Gästen am 20. Juni 1939 vorzuführen.

Groß konnte dort zusammen mit dem Würzburger Oberbürgermeister Memmel und Gauleiter Hellmuth seine Planungen persönlich vorstellen und Fragen beantworten. Hitler äußerte sich zustimmend und entschied sich seltsamerweise für die Weiterentwicklung der Variante, die eine asymmetrische Anordnung der Baublöcke vorsah.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Groß#Warschau


They say in plain German that it was the initiative of the architect Groß and his colleagues to develop a new plan for the reconstruction of Würzburg. On 11. April 1939 Groß presented an architectural model of Würzburg, made of plaster in the scale 1:250. They could present this model to Speer, and Speer presented Groß to Hitler.

Groß could present his plan of Würzburg to Hitler on 20th June 1939, and Hitler liked this plan of reconstruction of the German city Würzburg.

But what has this to do with Warsaw?

It is written in plain German that the plan of reconstruction of Warsaw was initiated by Dengel, who was appointed as a manager of the Civil Administration of Warsaw only on 1. Oktober 1939. Dengel was born in Würzburg, and that is why he invited the prominent architect Groß and his team from Würzburg to Warsaw.

Dengel ordered the development of the reconstruction plan of Warsaw on his own initiative and only 6th Februar 1940 he presented his plan (worked out by Groß and his team) to his boss Generalgouverneur Hans Frank.

Hans Frank did not like the initiative of Dengler who did not stick to official instructions and Dengler was kicked out from his office.

In a nutshell: Dengler was just a small fish who violated the rules of bureaucratic subordination, he ordered the project of Warsaw without any coordination with his boss, and he was kicked out of his office.

The architect Groß and his team were not planning anything concerning Warsaw on 20th June 1939.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Rudolf_Dengel

Smilin' Dave wrote:While the 'Pabst Plan' was not formalised prior to the invasion of Poland, it had clearly been conceived and well received by Hitler prior and if I'm following correctly this was acknowledged in the later formal plans.


No, the so called „Pabst-Plan“ did not exist on 20th June 1939, and the architect Groß was received by Hitler because of his plan of reconstruction of WÜRZBURG, not of Warsaw.

There was no plan of reconstruction of Warsaw on 20th June 1939, and that is a historical fact that can be easily checked by anybody with a sufficient command of the German language.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Groß



Smilin' Dave wrote:Also why didn't you address the matter of the Einsatzgruppen?

We'll discuss this once you get off your Red Card of course.


Please remove the Yellow Card and restore the private messages function of my account and I will answer all your questions.

When I try to send a private message to you, I get the following message:

"You are not authorised to send private messages".
#14348381
ArtAllm wrote:Please remove the Yellow Card and restore the private messages function of my account and I will answer all your questions.

1. There is an appropriate forum for requesting the removal of cards, and this isn't one of them.
2. I don't want PMs from you as you are rude, which ironically is why you have that card.
3. I see no reason why you can't address the topic of the Einsatzgruppen in the public forum.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14348555
ArtAllm wrote:Please remove the Yellow Card and restore the private messages function of my account and I will answer all your questions.


Smilin' Dave wrote:1. There is an appropriate forum for requesting the removal of cards, and this isn't one of them.


OK, I will do this in the basement.

Smilin' Dave wrote:2. I don't want PMs from you as you are rude, which ironically is why you have that card.


OK, I will address this in the basement, too.

Smilin' Dave wrote:3. I see no reason why you can't address the topic of the Einsatzgruppen in the public forum.


I will address this after you admit, that you were wrong about the so-called "Pabst-Plan".
Your interpretation of the machine translation was wrong, and you have to admit that before we move on.

Besides that you have to admit that your interpretation of the machine translation of the quoted Russian text from the book by Mikhail Meltyukhov (Михаил Мельтюхов) was wrong, too.

Here is the original text:

"Внешняя политика СССР исходит из того непререкаемого положения, что столкновение между миром социализма и миром капитализма неизбежно. Основная цель внешней политики СССР — своими
особыми средствами обеспечить все необходимые предпосылки для победоносного решения вопроса "кто кого" в международном масштабе".

Here is my word by word translation:

The Soviet foreign policy is derived from the indisputable position, that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is to provide with their own special means all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question "who will destroy whom" on an international scale.


Here is your translation:

"Soviet foreign policy comes from the indisputable proposition that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union - its special funds [I think maybe the intended term is 'resources' here] to provide all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question "who is who" on an international scale "



You have totally distorted the original meaning of the secret report, dated May 1941, which was presented to the military personal in the SU.

"who is who" is here totally wrong, the right translation is "who will destroy/kill whom".

And you have totally distorted the events concerning the so-called "Pabst Plan", there was no such plan before the invasion of Poland, and the architect Groß was not honoured for the so called "Pabst Plan", he was honoured for the plan of reconstruction of the city Würzburg.

Just admit that I was right and you were wrong in these points, and we can move on with our discussion... as far as the German legislature permits any discussions.
#14348775
ArtAllm wrote:I will address this after you admit, that you were wrong about the so-called "Pabst-Plan".

I misread something that was in a language other than my own. Acknowledged.

I'm willing to admit my mistakes, yet you bury your head in the sand when your errors are pointed out. Such as your misrepresentation of Meltyukhov's position as compared to Rezun's. And no, I don't want to discuss that with you again because I can't be bothered going around in circles. But please, prattle on about translation errors on my part. Because the important thing are minor differences in translation of Meltyukhov, rather than completely missing the point he is making. Or how you kept claiming you were not allowed to read Mein Kampf in Germany even after it being pointed out this wasn't the case.

ArtAllm wrote:as far as the German legislature permits any discussions.

So long story short you don't want to post in the public forum about the Einsatzgruppen and other items because you're only move at this point is to adopt an outright Nazi position*. Hold on a tick while I try to constrain my considerable surprise at this revelation.

Incidentally if your plan was to use PMs because you thought PMs were unmoderated, you are mistaken. They can be reported like any other post.

*Or you are again misleading people about German laws again, which illustrates what a waste of time discussions are with you.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14349405
ArtAllm wrote:I will address this after you admit, that you were wrong about the so-called "Pabst-Plan".

Smilin' Dave wrote:I misread something that was in a language other than my own. Acknowledged.
I'm willing to admit my mistakes...


Thank you!

I am not perfect, too, and I acknowledge that.
Neither Russian nor English are my native languages, and despite the time I have spent on studying these languages, my Russian and English spelling are still far from perfect. I use a spell checker that corrects my misspellings, but sometimes the spell checker makes wrong corrections. So please do not be offended if I misspell some words that may sound offensive. I am not good at slang expressions, I only speak the Standard English.

Smilin' Dave wrote:... yet you bury your head in the sand when your errors are pointed out.
Such as your misrepresentation of Meltyukhov's position as compared to Rezun's. And no, I don't want to discuss that with you again because I can't be bothered going around in circles.


You seem to contradict yourself. The books by Meltyukhov are only available in Russian, and you acknowledged that you do not speak this language. So how can you know what Meltyukhov's position is if you are unable to read his books?


ArtAllm wrote:as far as the German legislature permits any discussions.

Smilin' Dave wrote:So long story short you don't want to post in the public forum about the Einsatzgruppen and other items because you're only move at this point is to adopt an outright Nazi position*.


Sorry if this will offend you, but you sound like a functionary from the former GDR.
Anybody who attempted to question the official story of the GDR was called a "Nazi" or a "supporter of Nazis". That is the way communists prevented any discussion about the established Soviet version of the history of GDR and other Communist countries.

[Removed. Events in 1975 have no bearing on decisions made in 1939. Rule 15 - SD]

Smilin' Dave wrote:Incidentally if your plan was to use PMs because you thought PMs were unmoderated, you are mistaken. They can be reported like any other post.


It seems to me that you are not interested in the truth. There is a big difference between a scientific approach to history that is advocated by real scientists and an ideological approach of activists who prostitute science in order to protect or fight some ideology. And if the facts and the truth do not fit into their ideological world view, then they are accusing their opponents of being "bad guys" or of supporting "bad guys", and they are ready to hide the truth and distort the facts in the name of fighting the "bad guys".

I do not care about ANY ideology, I only care about the facts and the historical truth.
If the Communists tell the truth, then this if fine with me. If they are hiding the truth, then this must be exposed.
The same is true with National Socialists, Cannibals and so on.
If they tell the truth, then this is acceptable, even if I do not like their ideology or way of life.

I am a busy person and I do not have time on childish "ad-hominem" discussion.

The topic of this discussion was outlined in the OP, it is about the reasons why GB and France had to declare war on Germany, though they were not threatened by Germany. And why the GB and France had to become allies of Stalin, though they were threatened by Stalin.

The theory that the leadership of GB and France hated racism and bothered about the freedom and human rights of people (speak non-German people, because they never cared about the human rights of Germans in Danzig or the occupied former German territory) is just ridiculous, because we are talking about colonial powers that severely subjugated the freedom and human rights of the inhabitants of British and French colonies. In fact, France and GB fought a devastating colonial war against the subjugated people in French and British colonies after WWII.

[Post-colonial wars and conspiracy theories about "bankers" are similarly not related to events in 1939 - removed. - SD]



As we see from this text, the Soviets, the Americans, the Brits and the French had a different understanding of the principle "the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government".
Before WWII they excluded Germans in Danzig and on the occupied German territories from this principle, and they believed that the subjugated people in their colonies are also excluded from this principle.

[Again, post-colonial conflicts after WWII have very very little to do with 1939 - SD]

It is obvious that the official version of the reasons why the elite of GB and France (supported by American elite) declared war on Germany in 1939 is a lie.

Neither Americans, nor Brits or French ruling elites cared a rat's ass about the human rights of people, if this was not in their interests.

And we know that supporting the Poles or the Soviets was not in their interests in 1939, because the Third Reich was not a threat to their interests.

So we have still to look for the answer, because in the history of WWII there is a big grey zone, considering the outbreak of WWII.

[More rubbish about "bankers", removed - SD]

[Finally, this isn't the place to editorialise about how this thread should be moderated or whether it is sufficiently 'lively' for you - SD]
#14349814
ArtAllm wrote:You seem to contradict yourself. The books by Meltyukhov are only available in Russian, and you acknowledged that you do not speak this language. So how can you know what Meltyukhov's position is if you are unable to read his books?

None of the lame corrections you've made to the translations I've referenced from Meltyukhov have contradicted my basic assertions. Basically Meltyukhov's position isn't the same as Rezun's, but you insist it is in every way and ignore any item that doesn't suit this. Meltyukhov has been pretty clear about how he sees himself as different from Rezun which again you ignore.

Should we ignore your points about Rezun/Meltyukhov since, as you state, your command of Russian isn't perfect?

ArtAllm wrote:Sorry if this will offend you, but you sound like a functionary from the former GDR.

Oh very clever - I called you a Nazi so you thought you would do a bit of mirroring and call me a Communist. Master strategist you are

Of course it isn't a difference of opinion that makes you look like a Nazi. It is your constant indulgence in what are clearly anti-semitic conspiracy theories and irredentist views of territory.

ArtAllm wrote:It seems to me that you are not interested in the truth.

I'm not the one avoiding the hard questions, going off topic or just straight ignoring them.

ArtAllm wrote:There is a big difference between a scientific approach to history that is advocated by real scientists...

That's why you rely so heavily on Rezun's work right? The guy who isn't a historian, whose work was savaged by historians and who conclusions were mostly dismissed by Meltyukhov for his less than rigourous treatment of the material? Oh wait I forgot, you only reference the bits of Meltyukhov that support Rezun, not the rest of it.
By Rich
#14349885
ArtAllm does provide a useful service. He gives us insight into how Hitler thought. Like Hitler he just can't seem to understand why we might really object to him taking over Czech and treating it as a native colony. As if it was some matter of legal sophistries. Prior to this act the Germans / Nazis had a lot of sympathy in Britain and America because their demands were all seen as reasonable within the context of self determination. Hitler was a megalomaniac genocider. His problem was that he seemed incapable of taking the most minimal steps to hide this. Lots of people in Britain and America were desperate to believe that Hitler wasn't really that bad, wasn't really that much of a threat. But Hitler did everything he could to confound them, to make them look like fools.

Twice Hitler had essentially won. After he gained the Sudetenland and after the fall of France. Both times he threw his position away. If Hitler had restrained himself from invading Czech, he could easily have manoeuvred Poland into fighting him alone. He could have made demands on Poland that would have appeased reasonable or at least moderate to most British and Americans, but that the Poles would have rejected.

Where I utterly reject the mainstream view is on blaming the Germans for the extremes of Hitler. Conservatives and Libertarians in Britain and America and others praised and supported both the fascists and the Nazis. Libertarians and Conservatives in Finland, Hungary and Romania not to mention the Baltic states continued to ally with the Nazis right into 44. After January 33 the average German had practically zero ability to influence the course of events. Far less than people in democracies. in fact they lacked the where with all to even workout what was really going on. So why do Germans get the blame? The alliance of Italian and Spanish Conservatives and Libertarians with fascists in Italy and Spain and the alliance of traditional German Conservatives and Libertarian with the Nazis was widely supported by Conservatives and Libertarians internationally.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14349978
Rich wrote:ArtAllm does provide a useful service. He gives us insight into how Hitler thought.


Well, any intelligent and honest investigator tries to guess how Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt or other invisible players in this game thought and the reasonable assumption is that they were doing what made sense, speak they were acting in the interests of the groups of people they represented.

Rich wrote:Like Hitler he just can't seem to understand why we might really object to him taking over Czech and treating it as a native colony.


As already many time repeated in this thread, there was no Czech republic before WWII, there was Czechoslovakia, and Slovakia was treated by the Czechs like their native colony.

That was the reason why the Slovacs got fed up with it and declared their independance from Czechs, and - as a consequence - Czechoslovakia disappeared before WWII... and again after the collapse of Communism in Europe.

If Czechoslovakia was a free liberal state, then this state would not have disappeared before WWII, because only due to the internal struggle between Slovaks and Czechs (and the desire of Poland and other neighbours to cut off chunks from this artificial creation), Hitler could achieve his own goals

And no, I do not understand why the British government cared more about Czechs than about the Slovaks (who were subjugated by the Czechs) and did not care at all about the people of their own colonies who were severely subjugated by the Brits.

Do you have any intelligent answer to this question?



Rich wrote: He could have made demands on Poland that would have appeased reasonable or at least moderate to most British and Americans, but that the Poles would have rejected.


Well, the politicians of the liberal and democratic Weimar Republic constantly made such proposals to Poland, and their follower Hitler had just to step in the footsteps of his democratic and liberal predecessors.

But all proposals were rejected not only by Poles, but but the ruling elite of western countries, too.

So your thesis does not seem to be very intelligent.

Rich wrote:Where I utterly reject the mainstream view is on blaming the Germans for the extremes of Hitler. Conservatives and Libertarians in Britain and America and others praised and supported both the fascists and the Nazis.


I agree with that, and even leading Zionists did not mind Hitler during the first years of his government.

They believed that Hitler is good for their plans in Palestine (Haavara agreement, the proposal of the Zionist Stern-Gang to fight Brits on the side of Hitler, the Judenraete etc).

Lenni Brenner has written a book about the cooperation between the Zionists and the NS-Regime.

It is obvious that capitalists were more afraid of Stalin and his predecessors who were eager (and capable!) to "free" the West from "rotten capitalists", than of Hitler, and it makes perfectly sense that capitalists supported extremists with an anti-Communist rhetoric.

They just acted in their own interests!
That makes perfectly sense!

And most Russian Historians agree that the West tried to use Hitler to destroy communism.

Rich wrote:After January 33 the average German had practically zero ability to influence the course of events. Far less than people in democracies.


I fully agree with this statement!

Rich wrote:So why do Germans get the blame? The alliance of Italian and Spanish Conservatives and Libertarians with fascists in Italy and Spain and the alliance of traditional German Conservatives and Libertarian with the Nazis was widely supported by Conservatives and Libertarians internationally.


Fully agree with this statement, too!

The Western powers were afraid of Communism (for a good reason), and this is the logical reason why they supported the extreme forms of anti-Communism, speak Fascism and national Socialism.

They hoped that these guys would protect them from the threat of Communism, speak they hoped that they would kill Communism with the hands of National Socialists and Fascists, and after that they would get rid of the "winners".

Hitler was just a "useful idiot" from the point of view of western powers.

But Hitler was a "useful idiot" from the point of view of Communists, too!
Stalin believed that Hitler is good for his plans of "liberating the Europe from rotten Capitalism".

There were REAL Soviet plans to invade western Europe after Hitler had weakened the "fat capitalists" (see the quotes by Meltyukhov).

And Stalin would have really launched the first strike and cut-off the Third Reich from the only oil reserves in Romania... if Stalin was not scared to death by the flight of Rudolf Hess to GB.

That is the only reason why the Soviets postponed their aggression, speak postponed their official plans about the first strike.

Without the flight of Rudolf Hess to GB Stalin would have launched the first strike, cut off the Third Reich from the oil reserves in Romania, and then finished Germany in a couple of months (he had 4 times more tanks and 2 times more aeroplanes)... and after that the rest of Europe would be just a cake walk, and we would be living today in a totally different world.

I almost agree with everything you say, but you neglect that the plans of Stalin partially became true (the enslavement of half of Europe, the collapse of the colonial France and GB and the spread of Communism to the former colonies of the French and British empires).

On the other hand the plans of the Western powers totally failed.

They hoped to finish Communism with the hands of Hitler and they hoped to preserve their own colonial empires, and it was predictable that this will not work out, because they abandoned their "phony war" tactics and became active allies of Stalin", and that policy does not make any sense.

The Third Reich was not a threat to their interests (but Stalin was), but the Western powers suddenly decided (after the appointment of Churchill to the office of Prime Minister) to abandon the tactics of the "phony war" (and these tactics made perfectly sense and were in the interests of Western powers), and the Western powers actively support Stalin, a guy they were so afraid of only a couple of years ago.

Does that make any sense?
It is obvious that there is some invsible force that made this sudden change possible, so what is this force?

The question remains:

How could they have stampeded the GB and France into a union with Stalin and into a real genocidal war with Hitler, if Hitler was not a threat to their interests, but Stalin was?

Well, I have already many times presented my arguments and explanations (and you have to see the forest behind the trees, speak you have to deal with the broader context to be able to see the forest) but my arguments seem to be unwanted in this discussion.

So the question is still not answered, but if you do your own research and read all the factual material, you will eventually agree with me, because you are an intelligent guy that dares to question the official version of the events.



ArtAllm wrote:You seem to contradict yourself. The books by Meltyukhov are only available in Russian, and you acknowledged that you do not speak this language. So how can you know what Meltyukhov's position is if you are unable to read his books?


Smilin' Dave wrote:None of the lame corrections you've made to the translations I've referenced from Meltyukhov have contradicted my basic assertions. Basically Meltyukhov's position isn't the same as Rezun's, but you insist it is in every way...


I have not said that Rezun and Meltyukhov agree on everything (see my posts from 18.10.2013; 13:28, 22.10.2013 07:38, the slight difference between the opinions of Rezun and Meltyukhov was clearly pointed out), but it is obvious that they agree on the main issue: USSR was preparing an aggression against Germany and against the entire Capitalist world.

You have claimed that Stalin was advocating the principle of co- existence with the Capitalists and that he did not have any intention to promote the World Revolution and to enlarge the sphere of Communism any more, and that was debunked in this thread with the quotes from the books by Meltyukhov.

There are declassified Soviet official documents that prove this. Besides that Stalin had the physical capability to do that (a huge number of tanks, aviation, manpower, the support of the Commintern and unlimited natural resources).

You claimed in your post dated 05.10.13 15:10 that the NS- Regime had plans to invade even the USA, but you failed to support your claims with any factual materials.

BTW, there is a big difference between the empty talk and "ardentia verba" of some budding political leaders who write books before they have real political power and REAL plans, supported by RAEAL capabilities.

Churchill talked about the necessity of destroying Communism ("strangle Bolshevism in its cradle"), but it is crazy to believe that GB had real plans to invade the SU and destroy Communism.

According to Russian historians, the Brits have tried to used Hitler to do this job for them.

I could paste here many quotes of Polish or Western leaders with the threats to invade Germany, destroy Germany etc. There was even a so-called "Kaufman Plan" that was published in the New-York-Times, and this plan was advertised in the Time Magazine.

But there is no evidence that this plan was the official policy of the USA, because there are no official documents that support this plan, like it was the case with the Morgentau Plan and the JCS 1067. That are official documents, signed by the empowered leaders, and that is the reason why we can talk about real plans and real intentions of the US government.

You are not familiar with the works of Meltyukhov, because they are not translated into English, but even the short Wiki Article about Meltyukhov says that he agrees with Rezun on the main issue: USSR was an aggressive and dangerous state that believed in the final struggle between Communism and Capitalism and the Soviets were dreaming about the total victory of Communism in 1941, speak they were dreaming about the enslavement of the entire word (including Poland, France, GB and the USA).

Meltyukhov agrees that the Third Reich did not have any oil reserves, and Stalin could easily cut off the Third Reich from its only oil reserve in Romania after the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia. They even mention that in the English Wiki.

As we see, before the occupation of Rumania the Third Reich did not have any oil resources at all, and therefore it is idiotic to talk about ANY big scale aggressive plans of the Third Reich, because there were no physical possibilities for such plans.

But, on the other hand, USSR already had such possibilities before the invasion of Bessarabia, they had huge oil reserves on their huge territory, and they already had a huge amount of tanks and so on.

Anybody who can play chess or who is an military expert can realise who was in real danger, who had which plans and who had to launch a preventive strike.

Even if you read the English Wiki about the "Stalin's Missed Chance" you can find the following statement:


The Kremlin viewed Germany as a force capable of weakening the position of the United Kingdom and shaking the capitalist order. And "then at a suitable moment the Red Army could have destroyed Germany and would have freed Europe both from fascism and "rotten capitalism".



What else do you need?

The main thesis of Rezun was that Stalin's intention was to use Hitler as an Icebreaker, speak Hitler was only a strategic means to achieve the final goal: to free Europe from "rotten capitalism".

In a normal human language that means the instalment of Communism in the entire Europe, including France and GB, like it was with the enslavement of Poland and half of Europe after WWII.

So if everything evolved according to Stalin's plan, then the Soviets would not only have enslaved half of Europe, they would have enslaved GB and France, too, and after that the enslavement of the entire world would have been just a cake walk.

In a nutshell:

Stalin had REAL plans of the enslavement of the entire world, and he had REAL capabilities to do this, and Meltyukhov and Rezun agreed in this point, an even the reader of the English Wiki can find out that I am right.

What to Hitler, he did not have any REAL officially signed and approved plans of invading UK, France or the USA, and he did not have any REAL physical capabilities to do this. Any honest military expert can see that.

So I repeat my theory:

Hitler had just to continue the policy of the Weimar Republic, he did not have any other choice, because that was the demand of German people.

It is an obvious fact that the Weimar republic never accepted the dismemberment of Germany and always tried to solve the Danzig Problem and restore the territorial connection between what was left of Germany and the German Danzig and East Prussia... with peaceful means.


So the justice could have been restored before Hitler came to power, but the Western power ignored the proposal of the liberal Weimar Republic, they refused to pay attention to any proposals of mutual disarmaments even before Hitler came to power, they just used the Versailles' treaty to suck out the German taxpayers, but they ignored their own obligations that were signed in Versailles and they permitted the Poles to violate the Treaty of Versailles

That generated huge resentment in the Weimar Republic.

In the end, what western powers refused to grant to the democratic and liberal Weimar Republic, they were forced to concede to Hitler.

Germans were just tired of the inefficiency of the elected governments of the Weimar Republic, and they were so desperate with the hypocrisy of western powers, that they elected Hitler who continued the policy of the Weimar Republic with different means.

Any honest professional historian knows that Hitler did not push for any new policy regarding the East Borders of Germany, he just continued the the previous policy of democratic and liberal Germany.

But the policy of the Weimar Republic regarding Poland became just a blind spot, and and that is the reason why so many fools still believe that Hitler was demanding something new regarding the East Borders of Germany, because he allegedly wanted to invade the USA and conquer the entire world.

Hitler desperately tried to solve the problems that had not been solved by his democratic and liberal predecessors, who constantly promised to solve them but constantly failed.

That is all regarding the invasion of Poland.

After that that the western powers started their "phony war", and Hitler desperately believed that it would remain by this "phony war", because he knew that the western powers are aware that he is not a danger to them, and that Stalin is a REAL danger to Europe and to the entire world.

What to the strike against the USSR - well, it is a proven fact that Stalin REALLY planned a first strike against Germany and this strike was only the first step in his plans to conquer the entire Europe.

The USSR had the physical capability to do this, and that is the most important and crucial point.

And after that the old Bolshevik plans about the victory of Communism in the entire World would have become a REALISTIC plan, too.

So Hitler had two options:

1. Wait till Stalin cuts him off from the only oil reeves in Romania and invades Germany and then goes after the "fat capitalists" in France and GB.

2. Play "Va Banque", speak launch the first strike against Stalin, and hope that the Western powers will act according to the interests of their people.

Well, today it is obvious that the governments of France and UK did not act according to the best interests of their people and it even became obvious immediately after WWII (communist threat, cold war, etc).

The question remains:


Why did the western governments act against the best interests of their own people?


It seems to me that you are afraid to discuss this question, but if some attentive reader reads our discussion, then I will point his attention to the post by the user "OnPath", dated 23.Nov. 2013, 14:06.

That is the most important remaining post in the entire thread.



Another interesting and virtually unknown "grey zone" of WWII is the biography of Rudolf Hess who desperately tried to prevent a large scale genocidal war between the European nations.

Here is a quote from from the Wiki:

American journalist H.R. Knickerbocker, who had met both Hitler and Hess, speculated that Hitler had sent Hess to deliver a message informing Winston Churchill of the forthcoming invasion of the Soviet Union, and offering a negotiated peace or even an anti-Bolshevik partnership [73].

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin believed that Hess' flight had been engineered by the British. Stalin persisted in his belief as late as 194, when he mentioned the matter to Churchill, who insisted that they had no advance knowledge of the flight.[74]


The Soviets postponed their strike against the Third Reich because they were very scared by this event.

So why would Stalin believe that Brits were involved
in this affair?

Well, because it makes perfectly sense.

Russian historians agree that western powers wanted to destroy communism with the hands of Hitler, and they were interested in a war between the Third Reich and the SU.

But Hitler and his military advisers knew that they do not have any chance to win a war against the SU (who had a huge amount of tanks, planes, man power, steal and oil), so they needed the support of GB before starting their attack against Stalin.

If we assume that the NS-Regime was fooled by the British secret services into believing that UK would not mind the German attack against Stalin, then all the pieces fall into place and everything makes perfectly sense.

Rudolf Hess is the crucial figure in WWII, he wanted to prevent a large scale genocide of European people, but he was found guilty and kept in prison, speak his mouth was kept shut till the collapse of the Communism in East Europe.

The second man after Hitler (Albert Speer, the chief architect in the Third Reich and the minister of Armaments, who was very cooperative during the Nuremberg Trials) was released from prison already in 1966, but Hess was kept in prison till his death, and he constantly complained that his food was poisoned with some substances.

His health was gradually and intentionally deteriorated, but he had the chance to survive the DDR, which was not acceptable for some fores.

The official story is that he eventually committed suicide.

Why should he have done this when the time of the communist dictatorship in the GDR/DDR was already counted and Gorbachev made public many secret documents, including the documents about Katyn?

It is obvious that the official story is rotten, and there is no reason to believe the story, presented by the DDR officials.

The Spandau prison was a prison guarded by the Soviets and their DDR subordinates, and it is obvious that some forces in GB and the opponents of Gorbachev in the KGB could NOT accept that Hess comes out of the prison and tells the real story about the reason why Hitler launched the first strike against Stalin in 1941.

The publication of what is said to be a suicide note written “a few minutes before my death” by Hitler’s former deputy appears to add weight to claims that it had actually been penned nearly 20 years before when he was seriously ill. Photographs of the “summer house” in the ground of Spandau Prison where the 93-year-old died – and the electrical cord he was said to have used to take his own life – seem to deepen the mystery even further.
...
His son Wolf Hess has claimed that the UK, US and France - who had long said they were prepared to consent to his release were it not for a Soviet veto - feared a new mood of openness in Gorbachev’s Kremlin would call their bluff.

He also claimed that the contents of the “suicide” note actually refer to a period in 1969 when he had a perforated ulcer in the duodenum and feared he could die.
...
Formerly Hitler’s loyal deputy, he took it upon himself to fly a plane to Scotland in 1941, apparently in an attempt to secure peace – parachuting from his Messerschmitt and being arrested by a farmer with a pitchfork.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... icide.html

The reason for Hitler's deputy making his solo flight to Scotland in May 1941 has kept conspiracy theorists busy for decades.

He was arrested in Renfrewshire and spent the rest of his life in prison.
...

Author John Harris claims that Hess was lured to Britain in an MI6 plot led by Tancred Borenius, a Finnish art historian who was working as an agent for the British secret service.

Borenius travelled to Geneva in January 1941 and convinced Hess that members of the Royal Family were willing to broker a peace deal with Germany, according to Harris.

"Tancred was key in giving Hitler hope that Britain was interested in joining an alliance," he said.


Harris claims that Borenius's son, Lars, gave him the information shortly before he died.


The theory is expounded in a book, Rudolf Hess:
The British Illusion of Peace.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/worl ... -plot.html


Well, we deal with a witness account, not with a theory, because Harris claims that Borenius's son gave him the information shortly before he died.

I think that this witness account and the faked suicide of Hess make sense, you will call it "conspiracy theory", and the readers of our discussion can do their own research and come to their own conclusion.

BTW, I have never said that you ARE a Communist, I have said that you SOUND like a Communist functioner, and that is a huge difference.

There are a lot of users who sound like communists when they talk about the history of Europe, and they sound like Nazis, when they talk about what happens in Palestine today, but that does not mean that they are Nazis or Communists.

And no, I am neither a "Nazi" nor an "anti-Semite".

I have many times repeated in this forum that I am against totalitarianism and the suppression of the freedom of speech. I hate all totalitarian regimes that suppress the freedom of speech, be they communist, socialist or national-socialist regimes.

The NS would have put me into a concentration camp if I was born 90 years ago and grew up in the Third Reich. And the Communists would have put me into the Gulag, if I was born in the SU.

I do not see big differences between the NS-Regime and the Communist regime, both these regimes advocated collective punishment of groups of people whom they considered to be their enemies, and they suppressed the freedom of speech.

I am not an anti-Semite, because I know that most Zionists have nothing to do with Semites, and I do not hate anybody for the reason of his semitic origin.

In a nutshell: the terms "Nazi" and "anti-Semite", applied against me, is a total lie, libel and defamation.

So if you want to call names, please call me an anti-Zionist, I do not mind.

BTW, there was a cooperation between Zionists and the NS-Regime, you can read about this in the works by Lenni Brenner (he is a decent leftist Jew and I like him) or read the Wiki-Articles about the Lehi group and Avraham Stern.

Zionists were eager to expel the native semitic population from Palestine before and during WWII, and they were cooperating with Hitler and with Stalin in this regard.

There are many decent Jewish historians who mentioned that in their books, and I like these Jewish historians and other decent Jews who are telling the truth.

You cannot call me a "Jew-Hater", because Jew-Haters hate ALL Jews for the only reason that they are Jews, and that is not the case with me.

My only concern is historical truth and freedom of speech, I am not a member of any ideological or religious movement and do not have any ideological or religious agenda.

I hate hypocrisy and double standards and I do expose these things, that is all my agenda in this forum and I am sure that any decent and intelligent reader of our discussion can see that.

Everybody who reads this forum can check the facts, connect the dots and decide if I am wrong or not.


PS:
I will address the questions of the forum rules, my OP of this thread and the off-topic issues in the basement-subforum.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#14731329
ArtAllm wrote:The British elite acted irrational. The Brits were not threatened before WWII by the Third Reich

The British elite did not act in the best interest of their people


Under the 'balance of power' policy strategy it was long Britain's stance to oppose one major/great power controlling most of Europe. Britain opposing Hitler was no different than its previous opposition to Napoleon. Obviously it WAS in the 'interests' of Britain's citizens to be opposed to a new empire dominating Europe, with a single trade policy & expansionist imperial foreign policy.

Hitler promised to withdraw the troops from Poland and pay reparations to Poland for the inflicted damage.

He sent the ambassador Hesse to Chamberlain on 2. September 1939 to communicate this proposal.

If the UK had agreed to this proposal, that was made on 2. September 1939, then Poland would have remained an independent state


It was seen as insincere, as the Munich Agreement was by Chancellor Hitler in 1936. He proved he couldn't be trusted and was just playing for time. The defense pact of France & Britain was to protect Poland, as in ALL of it, and to be invoked the moment it was breached by Nazi Germany. the Allies had no reason to accept the 'offer' as real, Hitler could have simply refrained from attacking and proceeding to occupying it. While making this offer more forces were dispatched with a collaborationist regime being constructed to be deeper. The logical conclusion being the 'offer' was a lie.

UK started a war with Argentine because of some islands that are situated in the vicinity of Argentine, though there was no significant British population on Falkland Islands. It was just a relic of the Colonial Empire, but Brits were reluctant to give this island to Argentine


False on both counts, Argentina fired the first shot. Wars of aggression and imperialism are banned totally, doesn't matter what the population size of the victim state is. And Britain was bilaterally negotiating for withdrawal under leaseback. Both Labour & Conservative Governments, starting from the u-turn to negotiate in 1974, began a gradual negotiated process. Depending on how things alternatively would have happened without war in 1982, in a few months or a year at most maybe, the handover would have occurred. The junta was obviously just getting impatient.

The invasion preparations appear to begin around the time Britain drops the leaseback proposal after the FI Legislative Council elections of 1981 in which a new batch of Councillors came in opposed to a handover totally. Then the UK position became 'we will negotiate on all issues below sovereignty.'

Also after the Task Force was dispatched Britain offered a UN Interm Administration Agreement in which the future could be independently processed & decided upon. The Argentines had two options; withdraw & accept UN interm administration or be expelled by force.

The junta responded with a series of proposals with passages planted to rig the outcome, including right to property & residence of the FI so as to flood the islands with their citizens before a plebiscite to rig the result.

The Argentines were wrong & the Brits were right. There could have been a peaceful handover (which was already like 90% there) but the junta got impatient, and even afterwards played diplomatic games & delaying tactics while sending reinforcements to the islands.

UKHoC Debate 1, UKHoC Debate 2

I support this initiative. Small migrant boats can[…]

I saw that too, but I do not think Sinn Fein winn[…]

Bernie has the momentum and I don't think he could[…]

Liars and ruthless people change the world too. […]