Who started both World Wars?

[Uzzy]

Tyler Kent? Really? Just lol. That's scraping the barrel even for you, Nein/11 guy.

 

[Rich_C]

Wikipedia is a Zionist editted rag. Very useful if you want to know more about non-political subjects, but not much more.

And you are willfully misquoting Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Kent
Quote:
By 1939, he was suspected of engaging in espionage for the Soviet Union, but lacking any solid evidence, the Diplomatic Service decided to transfer him to the embassy in London, where he began working on October 5, 1939.

You are the one willfully misquoting Wikipedia. Or you didn't read the rest of the article. Farther down it says

In his trial, Kent also admitted that he had taken documents from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, with the vague notion of someday showing them to U.S. senators who shared his isolationist, anti-semitic views. He said that he burned the Moscow documents before being assigned to London. It was learned later on that he fell in love with an interpreter who worked for the NKVD, thus fueling speculations that he had Soviet contacts.

Kent admitted he took documents in Moscow.

Kent was arrested, against all diplomatic rules, by the Churchill gang as soon as this hooligan and half-American traitor came to power.

He was arrested after the US Ambassador (Joe Kennedy, Sr) pulled his immunity after the evidence of his espionage was shown to him. That's not against any diplomatic rules. If you are spying against your own government's interests, you can hardly expect the government to protect you with diplomatic immunity.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Tonight I have been reading the transscript of the speech that Tyler Kent held in the eighties, long after the war. It is a real treasure trove! The most interesting quotes in the light of what has been discussed before in this thread are singled out.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.html

From Tyler Kent's speech:

Plots have a way of coming most unexpectedly to light. And so it almost was with Roosevelt's illegal plot to embroil this country in a foreign war. In 1940, an obscure cypher clerk at the American Embassy in London came across documents which, in his judgment and that of many reputable historians subsequently, proved conclusively that Roosevelt both directly and through his agents was engaged in activities designed to foment a war and eventually to compel American participation in it.

I was that cypher clerk...

I took the opportunity to meet and mingle with the ordinary Russian citizens in Moscow and learned first hand the beastly nature of Bolshevism, realizing what it would mean if this oriental barbarism were to spread further.

Edited by Locknar: 

<snip>, breach of rule 4.

The Forrestal Diaries was published several years ago and the editors, Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, were at liberty to edit out or to keep in anything they wished. No one would have been any the wiser had they omitted to include the direct quotation of a remark made by Neville Chamberlain to Joseph Kennedy to the effect that "America and the world Jews" had forced Britain into the war. This of course is a very accurate statement but it is not to be found in the numbered telegrams and dispatches from the London embassy to Washington. The record is most probably in the private papers of Joseph Kennedy and it is unlikely that these will see the light of day until such time as politicians and historians no longer fear to tell the truth because of the menaces of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

And then the revelation of how the invasion of orway came about: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.htm

Edited by Locknar: 

<snip>, breach of rule 4.

Then a nice insight in how the Nuremberg showtrial operated: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.htm

Edited by Locknar: 

<snip>, breach of rule 4.

I disagree btw with Kent that the US achieved none of it's war aims. The US succeeded the British empire and became the number one super power. It is certainly true that that the orinial alleged war aim, namely coming to the aid of poland utterly failed (it was never a real aim rather).

 

[SanityGap]

You were told about Tyler Kent in post #786 but ignored the information. Why? Because you were banging on about Archibald Ramsey MP who, according to you, had been locked up because he "knew the truth" or some such drivel.
Well done for finally finding his "works", it's not like you had any clues.

Tyler Kent was a raving anti-semite, spy and traitor. Good trustworthy source.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You were told about Tyler Kent in post #786 but ignored the information. Why? Because you were banging on about Archibald Ramsey MP who, according to you, had been locked up because he "knew the truth" or some such drivel.
Well done for finally finding his "works", it's not like you had any clues.

Tyler Kent was a raving anti-semite, spy and traitor. Good trustworthy source.

Oh, indeed you did.

My excuses that I overlooked that and that I don't spell your fascinating albeit rather short posts like they constitute the holy grail. Sorry, sorry, sorry. But you have to admit that there are rather a lot of you here.

Kent indeed was new to me and a real treasure trove at that.

- Anti-semite? True! Every sane person is if he has a clear overview of what their role has been and still is in history. Communism. Multiculturalism. Nation-destroying. Stealing of the FED from the American population. War-mongering. Porn-peddlers. 9/11. Maddof and the rest of Wallstreet. Global mafia.
- Spy and traitor? For who and against who? For the American population, against the Roosevelt-Churchill gang? Guilty as charged! But Germans or Soviets had nothing to do with it.

But even if he was a spy, what is wrong according to you in his assessment that Roosevelt was looking for war, behind the back of Chamberlain, together with Churchill? Do you really think that he lied about what he saw in these messages? Of course not. That is why he was arrested as soon as Churchill rose to power, to prevent that Kent could pass on these messages to Anglo politicians more sympathetic to the isolationist line. The majority.

Of course, you have nothing to say against that and hence you fall back on the usual Anglo/Jew smear tactics. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[9/11-investigator]

This is the best thing I learned from Kent and nobody, not even Irving, was in a better position to know these things:

What do Kimball and Bartlett know about the British plans to invade Norway or about the manner in which the United States government encouraged these plans on the grounds that some thing had to be done to raise the morale of allied troops in garrisons whose unrelieved idleness might eventually lead to insubordination and even mutiny? The "phony war" had been on for over half a year. The British plan was to draw out the German fleet for battle. Churchill and others believed that the best way to do this would be to challenge the Germans in an open competition to invade Norway. Churchill was typical of that breed of wartime leaders who always fight the previous war. He had a fanatical and absolute conviction that the British fleet could solve any of Britain's problems if only the Germans could be induced to come out and give battle. He was to be proven wrong in this as in so much else.

The plan connived between Britain and the United States was for the British to make overt and easily detectable plans for the invasion of Norway. The United States diplomatic service would assist in spreading the news all over Europe in such a way that the Germans could not possibly fail to learn about it. The Germans did take the bait and organized their own expedition to take Norway before the British could get there. There was a naval engagement in the Skagerrak, the body of water which separates Denmark from Norway, and a number of warships of Germany's rather small navy were sunk. But not enough to prevent the troopships from landing their contingents and taking over the country while meeting very little resistance... I personally saw, however, some of the numerous memoranda sent out from the London embassy to various heads of missions around Europe. These gave very specific instructions to make known as widely as possible, without arousing suspicion, the British plan to invade Norway.

So here is the real reason why the Germans invaded Western Europe: they were provoked by the British and French, with credible pledges of American (or Roosevelt gang rather) support as a backup. The problem of the jewish funded Focus lobby group, which had as explicit goals a) to start a war in Europe and b) bring Churchill to power in Britain (both aims succeeded), was that the Germans did not bite. The British and French had declare war on Germany but nothing happened at the 'front'. There merely was a 'Phoney war', meaning no war at all. The Germans did not want war in Western Europe. But the English and French, futilely desiring to uphold post-Versailles conditions in Europe, did want war, thereby vastly underestimating German military power and surprise Blitz tactics. Everybody was surprised: Stalin, BRitish, French, Americans. The British and French not only plotted for invading Norway, they also wanted the Germans to know that they were plotting it. That is new to me. The British and French were not really interested in Norway, they wanted the war finally to start and goad the Germans in making the first move so they could blame them at the end of the war. The French and British wanted an exact replica of the WW1-situation, a stalemate in Western-Europe with trenches and then wait for Roosevelt to screw Congress somehow (turned out to be Pearl Harbor), and join the war, that would be easily won again and than we would have a Versailles-2 with even more monstrous 'reparations' imposed and Germany now totally destroyed. That was the idea. But is was wrong. Why?
1) the vastly underestimated German military power.
2) there were 2 new kids on the block with design's of their own with Europe, the USA and the USSR.
While France and Britain were still in the pre-1914 mode of thinking, they did not understand that they would end up as subordinates themselves in the emerging NWO, organized by the USA and USSR. In reality there was only 1 real defender of European interests in Europe: Hitler. He even wanted to support the British empire! Hitler understood the dangers of Soviet communism and American imperialism much better then foolish French and British. The realised that both the USSR and USA were busy subjugating Europe. The buddies USA and USSR wanted to destroy Europe and British dwarfs let them. Of all the waring factions in WW2, the British were the real suckers.

 

[SanityGap]

..

 

[SanityGap]

Oh, indeed you did.

My excuses that I overlooked that and that I don't spell your fascinating albeit rather short posts like they constitute the holy grail. Sorry, sorry, sorry. But you have to admit that there are rather a lot of you here.

What are you on about?

Kent indeed was new to me and a real treasure trove at that.

- Anti-semite? True! Every sane person is if he has a clear overview of what their role has been and still is in history. Communism. Multiculturalism. Nation-destroying. Stealing of the FED from the American population. War-mongering. Porn-peddlers. 9/11. Maddof and the rest of Wallstreet. Global mafia.

Careful, your agenda is showing.

- Spy and traitor? For who and against who? For the American population, against the Roosevelt-Churchill gang? Guilty as charged! But Germans or Soviets had nothing to do with it.

You do realise that it is not necessary to spy for some one, people do spy for personal gain, ideals or just to throw a spanner in the works. Having said that, most of what he passed along went to the Nazis. After all he was an anti-Semite with extreme right wing leanings.

But even if he was a spy, what is wrong according to you in his assessment that Roosevelt was looking for war, behind the back of Chamberlain, together with Churchill? Do you really think that he lied about what he saw in these messages? Of course not. That is why he was arrested as soon as Churchill rose to power, to prevent that Kent could pass on these messages to Anglo politicians more sympathetic to the isolationist line. The majority.

You see two dates close to each other and jump to a conclusion. You do realise he had been suspected of spying pre-war? He had 2000 documents plus cables and other sensitive material, what the hell did you think the authorities would do, slap him on the wrist.
By the way, a lot of what you have quoted from his speech can be shown to be lies.

Of course, you have nothing to say against that and hence you fall back on the usual Anglo/Jew smear tactics. Nothing new under the sun.

And you accuse others of "content free smears". Where's the irony meter when you need it.

 

[SanityGap]

Seems to me Tyler Kent has been reading the same websites as Neine. Here's a different view.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/12/wicked_leaks.html

 

[MG1962]

You are only embarrassing yourself. I said:

- Bolshevism was ideologically constructed and implemented by Jews
- Bolshevik ideology has in itself no explicit references to Jews

I know you are from former penal colony, but I cannot make it easier for you than this. I am sorry. Stop pretending that you are a member of a chain gang.

Dude I quoted from your own posts. Call me what you like. But those statements are yours. The meaning is clear. Strange you completely chamge the topic with your next posts. Why is that?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Seems to me Tyler Kent has been reading the same websites as Neine.

Kent died in 1988, 7 years before the internet emerged. You should check your facts.

The comparisson with Wikileaks is indeed striking. So you want to condemn Kent because he wanted the truth to come out. Can't have that in Anglosphere, now can we. Anglosphere cannot deal with the truth. Assange needs to be killed, as some prominents from that rotten lying warmongering entity has suggested. Is that your opinion too?

Here's a different view.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/12/wicked_leaks.html

OMG...

From that BBC blog:

He was a young State Department diplomat who stole and copied thousands of Top Secret cables. Like Daniel Ellsberg, his aim was to release them to stop America’s involvement in what he believed was a disastrous foreign war.

He was called Tyler Kent. He was a diplomat at the US embassy in London in 1940 and he wanted to stop President Roosevelt bringing America into the war to help Britain.

That's correct. It was Britain and France who had declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Now why should America come to the aid of war mongers?

Tyler Kent was a horrible man. He was a rabid anti-communist who believed that the Jews had been behind the Russian Revolution.

To start with, people who are NOT rabid anti-communist are horrible people. This was the worse regime in history of mankind.

About Jews being behind the 'russian revolution' (never happened, it was a jewish coup + russian civil war), even Churchill had these ideas. Horrible man? We already proved here that it was a jewish coup.

He was convinced that Germany should be allowed to destroy both Communist Russia and the Jews. And America should not get in the way of that being allowed to happen.

Curtis does not know the most elementary facts. Kent was arrested in May 1940. At the time Germany was still at peace with the USSR. The USSR planned to attack Germany and the rest of Europe in July 1941.

But the perspective the Tyler Kent story brings is the realisation that diplomatic leaks are not automatically a good thing. It just depends on who is using them. And why.

Back in the past Tyler Kent wanted to use secret information to destroy the things that the overwhelming majority of the British people believed in and were prepared to fight for.

What a ridiculous and undeserved glorification of the British. And what might that be where the British 'believed in'? The British people were not prepared to fight at all. They were prepared to run for the beaches as fast as their shortest legs or Europe could carry them. Britain carried out 5% of the war effort and could have easily be missed from the total picture. Their only job was killing civilians from 5 km altitude and bring Soviets and Americans into Europe at the cost of their own empire. And these idots still think they 'won the war'.

Back in 1982, Robert Harris tracked Tyler Kent down. He was living in a caravan in a trailer park on the US-Mexico border. Harris persuaded Kent to be interviewed and then made a film for Newsnight that told the story.

It is a great piece of historical journalism. Kent explains how his aim was to release the secret cables during the Presidential election campaign in 1940. Over 80% of the US population didn’t want to go into the war – and the cables showed President Roosevelt secretly promising Churchill help against Germany.

And that is precisely the truth! Roosevelt was a liar and deceiver. Thanks for pointing that out!

But thanks anyway for posting this ridiculous piece of text since it contains a video of Tyler Kent! THANK YOU!! You do not need to be a graduated psychologist to see that this is a decent man.

Harris makes a powerful case in the film that if Kent had succeeded America would not have entered the war. And history would have been completely different.

Very true indeed! Too bad that that did not happen and that Britain was not forced to a peace in Europe and finally accept Germany as a reality and great power in Europe, something Britain and France egoistically never accepted.

Tyler Kent himself is weird and mesmerising. But still unrepentently anti-semitic.

Is this author Adam Curtis a Jew? Why should Kent not be antisemitic? Kent understood that the Jews were behind communism and behind WW2, the most barbaric political system and war in history, respectively.

And the film also shows just how easily Tyler Kent found willing accomplices in the heart of the British Establishment. They wanted to get rid of the Jews and communists too, even at the expense of their own country.

It was only the small gang around Churchill (Cooper, van Sittart) + the press who wanted war. As Chamerlain admitted, it were 'World Jews' who had pushed Britain into war. Unfortunately Kent could not prevent that. He acted not like a little bureaucrat but like a self-sacrificing hero and he paid dearly for his courage: 5 years in jail + ruined career.

 

[MG1962]

About Jews being behind the 'russian revolution' (never happened, it was a jewish coup + russian civil war), even Churchill had these ideas. Horrible man? We already proved here that it was a jewish coup.

Wait make up your mind, a page ago you said it wasnt

 

[9/11-investigator]

I am going to repeat what I have said before... It was the jewish dominated Roosevelt gang who as a first act of government in 1933 recognized the most murderous regime in world history. It was Bullitt, the same who in the late thirties pushed for war in Western Europe as an ambassador of France, who had insisted on this insane diplomatic act. But Bullitt was jewish, so no surprises here.

Here is my suspicion, which I cannot back up with proof, but follows from the logic of the situation: The US and USSR had very good relations as of 1933. Why is it so far-fetched to speculate that Bullitt, who was the first American ambassador to this slaughterhouse called USSR from 1933-1936, meaning during the first years of Nazi-rule of Germany, that this jew could have had cosy conversations with the Soviets, cordially discussing the menace of the 'German authoritarian regime' and discuss the option of future cooperation to address this danger in a combined US/USSR action. Why is it so far-fetched to at least contemplate the possibility that the future alliance that materialized after the start of Barbarossa, already was agreed upon between the Soviets and the Roosevelt regime and that a sort of pre-Yalta agreement was already in the works to divide Europe between the US and USSR. And that Churchill, the greatest traitor of the pack (traitor to the nation whose best interest he was supposed to defend), was an insider to this deal as well and that it was this inside knowledge that encouraged Churchill to provoke the Germans with this Norway move?

This goes way beyond Suvurow.

You read it first at JREF.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Uzzy]

It was the jewish dominated Roosevelt gang who as a first act of government in 1933 recognized the most murderous regime in world history

Roosevelt recognised the Chinese government of Chairman Mao in 1933? I knew he was impressive, but now we can add time-travel to the list of amazing things Roosevelt did.

 

[MG1962]

Here is my suspicion, which I cannot back up with proof, but follows from the logic of the situation: The US and USSR had very good relations as of 1933. Why is it so far-fetched to speculate that Bullitt, who was the first American ambassador to this slaughterhouse called USSR from 1933-1936, meaning during the first years of Nazi-rule of Germany, that this jew could have had cosy conversations with the Soviets, cordially discussing the menace of the 'German authoritarian regime' and discuss the option of future cooperation to address this danger in a combined US/USSR action. Why is it so far-fetched to at least contemplate the possibility that the future alliance that materialized after the start of Barbarossa, already was agreed upon between the Soviets and the Roosevelt regime and that a sort of pre-Yalta agreement was already in the works to divide Europe between the US and USSR. And that Churchill, the greatest traitor of the pack (traitor to the nation whose best interest he was supposed to defend), was an insider to this deal as well and that it was this inside knowledge that encouraged Churchill to provoke the Germans with this Norway move?

I highlighted the importants part for you.

But the obvious question begs. How did Stalin know Roosevelt would be a three term president.

Why did Stalin, having gained control of Russia by stopping the Jews evil plans, immediately turn around and begin doing a deal with the very Jews he just fought, to help them hatch another evil plan?

 

[9/11-investigator]

I highlighted the importants part for you.

But the obvious question begs. How did Stalin know Roosevelt would be a three term president.

He did not. But he had no reason to assume either that he would not be a four term president.

Why did Stalin, having gained control of Russia by stopping the Jews evil plans, immediately turn around and begin doing a deal with the very Jews he just fought, to help them hatch another evil plan?

You keep on hammering on this Stalin versus 'the Jews' issue... it was not an issue before and during WW2. Never said so. Stalin was a devoted communist. There was no rivalry between Stalin and 'The Jews' (before 1945); there was a rivalry between Stalin and the jew Trotsky about the leadership of the communist party. And between them on the strategy. Stalin was more prudent than Trotsky in exporting communism abroad. He wanted to wait for war breaking out between European powers. His opportunity came with the Danzig-conflict. He lured Hitler in this Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. And the rest is history as they say.

 

[MG1962]

He did not. But he had no reason to assume either that he would not be a four term president.

Really with 31 previouse examples....he would assume something different. You really are starting to stetch

 

[MG1962]

He did not. But he had no reason to assume either that he would not be a four term president.



You keep on hammering on this Stalin versus 'the Jews' issue... it was not an issue before and during WW2. Never said so. Stalin was a devoted communist. There was no rivalry between Stalin and 'The Jews' (before 1945)

wait now the dates are changing. Initiially - you said it was when Stalin beat Trotsky - which was the mid 20's - then you said mid 30's now it is the mid 40's

 

[Hans]

And that Churchill, the greatest traitor of the pack (traitor to the nation whose best interest he was supposed to defend), was an insider to this deal as well and that it was this inside knowledge that encouraged Churchill to provoke the Germans with this Norway move?

"provoke" the Germans. Ah, 9/11 you do know that 'Norway' couldn't be used to 'provoke' the Germans - In case you missed the news flash the Allies and Germany were already at war. Shheeeeesshh read some history PLEASE.

There were air raids, submarine attacks, and a full blown blockade of Germany. The nations were at war.

 

[332nd]

Roosevelt recognised the Chinese government of Chairman Mao in 1933? I knew he was impressive, but now we can add time-travel to the list of amazing things Roosevelt did.

Great... if there is a hell I'm now a lock for going because I just spent a good 10 min. lmao picturing FDR shouting " I must fix the time stream!" And going in really fast circles in his wheel chair.