Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

Can you imagine the Anglos or French erecting monuments for the Red Army? The same army that held Eastern Europe under the communist yoke for half a century against their will? An army that had mass rape as it's official policy?

Of course not, our noble liberators do not like to be reminded to that alliance. Israel however has less moral scruples, because, you see, the Red Army was good for the Jews.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/10/15/26112927.html

Jewish communism, anyone?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes.

uke2se confirmed my statement: - Russia wanted to export bolshevism to Europe after West-European nations had destroyed each other.

Interesting question to uke2se would be of course: when does he think Stalin would implement this policy? Why not in July 1941 as Hitler and Suvorov would have it?

 

[dtugg]

I wouldn't call losing over 5 million of one's population "winning".

But they faked that in order to smear the good name of Adolf Hitler!

 

[uke2se]

uke2se confirmed my statement: - Russia wanted to export bolshevism to Europe after West-European nations had destroyed each other.

Interesting question to uke2se would be of course: when does he think Stalin would implement this policy? Why not in July 1941 as Hitler and Suvorov would have it?

Because in July of 1941 the USSR didn't have the means to execute such a strategy.

Now, I realize this is hard for a neo-Nazi to understand, but Stalin being a bad guy doesn't make Hitler a good guy. They were both bad guys. The alliance with the USSR was a matter of practicality for the French, British and Americans. The object was to destroy the biggest threat - Nazi Germany.

Your grasp on history is laughably lacking, so I'll let you think about this for a bit.

 

[Tolls]

Can you imagine the Anglos or French erecting monuments for the Red Army?

Oh I love this.

There's a war memorial to the soviet army in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park. near the Imperial War Museum. It's only about 10 years old, but it's there.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Oh I love this.

There's a war memorial to the soviet army in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park. near the Imperial War Museum. It's only about 10 years old, but it's there.

OMG - once again I overestimated the moral fiber and historic sense of the Amurrikans.

The army that slaughtered the entire aristocratic class of Russia under the leadership of the Jew Trotzky, committed state sanctioned mass rape and was used as a tool to enslave Eastern European Nations, is honoured by the US. There is no end to the depth of the depravity of these sons of Europe who returned home to rape mum together with some soviet scum.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Because in July of 1941 the USSR didn't have the means to execute such a strategy.

Yes they had. They prepared for it since the thirties.

Stalin being a bad guy doesn't make Hitler a good guy. They were both bad guys. The alliance with the USSR was a matter of practicality for the French, British and Americans. The object was to destroy the biggest threat - Nazi Germany.

'Matter of practicality' is good. The Germans were criminalized in Versailles by you and the Soviets, the latter being the real criminals and you being second.

Germany wanted the German city of Danzig back that was taken from them in Versailles.
The USSR wanted to bolshevize the planet.

Why was Germany a bigger threat than the USSR?

Why don't you admit what is clear to all, namely that you enjoy that you Anglos were able to destroy the core of Europe and have a go at global hegemony and save as your moral BS.

Oh, and enjoy your position as long as it lasts because the end is in sight.
The USSR is gone and you are next . And I promiss you that it is going to be a rough ride, much harder than what the Russians had to endure.

 

[uke2se]

Yes they had. They prepared for it since the thirties.

No they didn't. Planning for a major invasion doesn't normally involve killing off 90% of your competent officers.

'Matter of practicality' is good. The Germans were criminalized in Versailles by you and the Soviets, the latter being the real criminals and you being second.

Why do you say "you"? I'm a Swede. That means I embody the very ideals your ideology puts on a pedestal. I'm the blond, tall Aryan you like so much.

The Germans were "criminalized" (sic) in Versailles after WWI because France was indebted, Britain couldn't afford to way the loans and America could afford it but wouldn't. Germany was blamed entirely for the war because the victors didn't want to pay for the war. However, this doesn't make the Nazis good guys, so I don't even know why you bring this up.

Germany wanted the German city of Danzig back that was taken from them in Versailles.

Germany wanted much more than Danzig. They wanted "lebensraum". Your hero Hitler even said as much in "Mein Kampf". I thought you took everything he said at face value.

The USSR wanted to bolshevize the planet.

The USSR wanted influence in Eastern Europe, and it was very much an imperialist power. As I said, Stalin was a bad guy, but so was Hitler.

Why was Germany a bigger threat than the USSR?

Because Germany had been waging aggressive warfare since 1939.

Why don't you admit what is clear to all, namely that you enjoy that you Anglos were able to destroy the core of Europe and have a go at global hegemony and save as your moral BS.

I'm not an Anglo, so I wouldn't admit to any such thing. I will admit that your grasp on history hasn't improved.

Oh, and enjoy your position as long as it lasts because the end is in sight.

Another threat? What are you going to do, little Nazi? Raise your right arm a bit higher? You could try to be a productive member of society like these Nazis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1BJTZewsaM

The USSR is gone and you are next . And I promiss you that it is going to be a rough ride, much harder than what the Russians had to endure.

Man, your impotent threats really shine a light on your inability to understand history.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No they didn't. Planning for a major invasion doesn't normally involve killing off 90% of your competent officers.

Oh my, the same lame old argument. Here is a good comment from amazon. Use google translator if you do not speak German:

Als erstes kommt meist das schlagkräftigste Argument. Die stalinistischen Säuberungen der Jahre 1936 bis 1938 hätten die Rote Armee ihrer wichtigsten Militärtheoretiker und Führungskräfte beraubt.
Sicher ist es richtig, dass die Säuberungen einen schweren psychologischen Schlag darstellten. Drei von 5 Marschällen, 4 v. 4 Armeegeneralen, 27 v. 27 General Obersten, 85 v. 95 Korpskommandanten, 136 v. 199 Div. Kommandanten, 255 v. 433 Brigade Kommandanten und 98 von 108 Kriegsratsmitgliedern wurden verhaftet. Diese wurden aber bei weitem nicht alle umgebracht! Viele kamen 1941 wieder in Dienst! Effektiv wurden 17.000 Offiziere aus der Roten Armee ausgeschlossen, 9.500 davon verhaftet. Zwischen 1925 und 1937 wurden 135.000 Offiziere und 13.000 Kommandeure bei der Roten Armee ausgebildet. 1938 und 1939 kamen zudem Kommandeure hinzu, die sich auszeichneten und jeden Weggang durch die Säuberung ausglichen. Von der Akademie (Frunze Akademie) des Generalstabes die 1937 gegründet wurde, gingen bis 1941 4.000 Teilnehmer erfolgreich ab! Diese standen ab 1939/40 unter dem Einfluß von Timoshenko, Schukov und Pavlov. Falsch ist anzunehmen, das der Sturz von Tuchatschewski, Jegorow und Blücher (Blüjerc) die moderne Militärtheorie der Sowjetunion zerschlagen hätte. Der Beleg sind die militärischen Erfolge der Roten Armee am Chassan See und Chalchin Gol (Südmongolei 1938 und 1939) sowie die erfolgreiche Angriffsoperation in Karelyen (Winterkrieg 1939/40 Finnland/Sowjetunion). Die Rote Armee wurde zwar zu einem Großteil enthauptet, jedoch blieben die wahren Köpfe am Leben und viele im Amt. Zudem wuchs eine Militärelite nach, die nach den Lehren des sowjetischen Hauptmilitärtheoretikers, Marschall der Sowjetunion und ehem. Zarengenerals B. M. Schaposchnikow ideologisiert und ausgebildet wurden. Zu diesen Leuten zählten Köpfe wie Schukow, Wassilevski, Bagramjan (Bagration), Rokossowski, Pavlov (der sowjetische Guderian), Merezkov, Sacharow, Konew, um einige zu nennen. Man sollte dabei auch nicht vergessen, das trotz des Aderlasses im Offizierskorps, die Rote Armee von 1938 bis 1941 verdreifacht wurde. Auch dies spricht gegen eine große Auswirkung der Säuberungen. Das Regime Stalin war in der Lage die Säuberungen nicht nur zu kompensieren, nein es war sogar in der Lage seine Truppenstärke in kürzester Zeit zu verdreifachen! Zudem hat schlechte Führung noch nie einen Kriegswilligen vom Kriege abgehalten.

Why do you say "you"? I'm a Swede. That means I embody the very ideals your ideology puts on a pedestal. I'm the blond, tall Aryan you like so much.

Thanks for the info. I am a very tall, dark haired Aryan, and I admit that self hate is one of my lesser problems. Oh and that 'dark haired' is a lie, at least in 2010. Do not assume too much about me. The older I get the more I tend to think that there is some truth in the folk wisdom of 'dumb blond'. Never seen a blond chess grandmaster or philosopher. Do not take it personal. BTW the Swedes are probably the most spineless political correct sheeple of the entire EU.

The Germans were "criminalized" (sic) in Versailles after WWI because France was indebted, Britain couldn't afford to way the loans and America could afford it but wouldn't. Germany was blamed entirely for the war because the victors didn't want to pay for the war. However, this doesn't make the Nazis good guys, so I don't even know why you bring this up.

At least some truth shines through in your comment regarding Versailles. I agree with people like Lloyd George (in the essence) that without Versailles no Nazies. The Weimar democrats were unable to release themselves from the predatory allied stranglehold, so a more competent plumber was to do the job.

Germany wanted much more than Danzig. They wanted "lebensraum". Your hero Hitler even said as much in "Mein Kampf". I thought you took everything he said at face value.

He was 29 when he wrote that. When I was at that age I believed that the Jews were admirable and the Americans our liberators. Silly, right? From the 1937 Hossbach protokol it becomes obvious that Danzig and die Tsjechei were his limits. Ridiculously modest compared with the predatory colonial powers like Britain that had swallowed 25% of the planet as it's Lebensraum. But you never hear anythink about that.

The USSR wanted influence in Eastern Europe, and it was very much an imperialist power. As I said, Stalin was a bad guy, but so was Hitler.

Until the invasion of Poland Hitler had killed hundreds were Stalin had killed millions. They are incomparable.

Because Germany had been waging aggressive warfare since 1939.

Not true. Before the invasion of Poland extensive negotiations had been going onto resolve the Danzig issue peacefully.

http://gooring.tripod.com/goo22.html

What triggered the invasion was not Danzig but the persecution of Germans by agressive Poles.

Another threat? What are you going to do? Raise your right arm a bit higher?

Were do I make threats? I just make predictions.
Impotent, harmless, selffulfilling predictions.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

9/11, you finished the background material I provided? I have a few thousand more whenever you're done with that lot. I know you don't want to continue sounding ignorant of the facts in the matter.

 

[uke2se]

Oh my, the same lame old argument.

If it's so lame you shouldn't have any problems defeating it, and yet you do.

Here is a good comment from amazon. Use google translator if you do not speak German:

Als erstes kommt meist das schlagkräftigste Argument. Die stalinistischen Säuberungen der Jahre 1936 bis 1938 hätten die Rote Armee ihrer wichtigsten Militärtheoretiker und Führungskräfte beraubt.
Sicher ist es richtig, dass die Säuberungen einen schweren psychologischen Schlag darstellten. Drei von 5 Marschällen, 4 v. 4 Armeegeneralen, 27 v. 27 General Obersten, 85 v. 95 Korpskommandanten, 136 v. 199 Div. Kommandanten, 255 v. 433 Brigade Kommandanten und 98 von 108 Kriegsratsmitgliedern wurden verhaftet. Diese wurden aber bei weitem nicht alle umgebracht! Viele kamen 1941 wieder in Dienst! Effektiv wurden 17.000 Offiziere aus der Roten Armee ausgeschlossen, 9.500 davon verhaftet. Zwischen 1925 und 1937 wurden 135.000 Offiziere und 13.000 Kommandeure bei der Roten Armee ausgebildet. 1938 und 1939 kamen zudem Kommandeure hinzu, die sich auszeichneten und jeden Weggang durch die Säuberung ausglichen. Von der Akademie (Frunze Akademie) des Generalstabes die 1937 gegründet wurde, gingen bis 1941 4.000 Teilnehmer erfolgreich ab! Diese standen ab 1939/40 unter dem Einfluß von Timoshenko, Schukov und Pavlov. Falsch ist anzunehmen, das der Sturz von Tuchatschewski, Jegorow und Blücher (Blüjerc) die moderne Militärtheorie der Sowjetunion zerschlagen hätte. Der Beleg sind die militärischen Erfolge der Roten Armee am Chassan See und Chalchin Gol (Südmongolei 1938 und 1939) sowie die erfolgreiche Angriffsoperation in Karelyen (Winterkrieg 1939/40 Finnland/Sowjetunion). Die Rote Armee wurde zwar zu einem Großteil enthauptet, jedoch blieben die wahren Köpfe am Leben und viele im Amt. Zudem wuchs eine Militärelite nach, die nach den Lehren des sowjetischen Hauptmilitärtheoretikers, Marschall der Sowjetunion und ehem. Zarengenerals B. M. Schaposchnikow ideologisiert und ausgebildet wurden. Zu diesen Leuten zählten Köpfe wie Schukow, Wassilevski, Bagramjan (Bagration), Rokossowski, Pavlov (der sowjetische Guderian), Merezkov, Sacharow, Konew, um einige zu nennen. Man sollte dabei auch nicht vergessen, das trotz des Aderlasses im Offizierskorps, die Rote Armee von 1938 bis 1941 verdreifacht wurde. Auch dies spricht gegen eine große Auswirkung der Säuberungen. Das Regime Stalin war in der Lage die Säuberungen nicht nur zu kompensieren, nein es war sogar in der Lage seine Truppenstärke in kürzester Zeit zu verdreifachen! Zudem hat schlechte Führung noch nie einen Kriegswilligen vom Kriege abgehalten.

I don't speak German and I don't care to wade through a crappy internet translator which will remove any intelligence that might be in the quote. If it's important to you you'll take the trouble to translate it. If it's not, you'll leave it be. Simple as.

Thanks for the info. I am a very tall, dark haired Aryan, and I admit that self hate is one of my lesser problems. Oh and that 'dark haired' is a lie, at least in 2010. Do not assume too much about me. The older I get the more I tend to think that there is some truth in the folk wisdom of 'dumb blond'. Never seen a blond chess grandmaster or philosopher. Do not take it personal.

Oh, I don't. You're not a real Aryan though. You're a Dutchman, decedent from the lesser Germanic tribes, more kin to the Anglos than the Aryans.

Looking beyond the pseudo-scientific racial BS though, we're both human beings, and so are the Jews, the Africans (including whomever you wanted to get rid of in the Netherlands), the Asians and everyone else. I wanted to see if appealing to race would get you going, and it did. Now I know that I'm indeed dealing with a bigoted racist Nazi.

At least some truth shines through in your comment regarding Versailles. I agree with people like Lloyd George (in the essence) that without Versailles no Nazies. The Weimar democrats were unable to release themselves from the predatory allied stranglehold, so a more competent plumber was to do the job.

While "without Versailles no Nazis" might be true (emphasis on "might"), it would not be correct to say that the Versailles treaty is to blame for the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi state. Germany wasn't innocent in WWI. They weren't solely guilty either. High ranking officers warned that imposing a treaty that was too harsh would lead to another war in Europe. That's what happened. But, all that doesn't change the facts:

1. Germany started World War II.
2. Germany invaded Russia for "lebensraum" and resources.
3. The Nazi state was inherently bad for it's population, and for other European populations.
4. The atrocities committed by the Nazi state are inexcusable and need to be held up as an example of how evil human beings can be to each other.

He was 29 when he wrote that. When I was at that age I believed that the Jews were admirable and the Americans our liberators. Silly, right? From the 1937 Hossbach protokol it becomes obvious that Danzig and die Tsjechei were his limits.

Hardly. Hitlers motivations were quite clear in retrospect. The policy of appeasement didn't hold up to a predator of his stature. He needed to be put down like the sick puppy he was.

Until the invasion of Poland Hitler had killed hundreds were Stalin had killed millions. They are incomparable.

No, they are quite comparable. Both examples of evil. While Stalin killed people to secure his own power, Hitler killed people because they had been born in a different religion. It's "pick your poison" time. Both were bad.

Not true. Before the invasion of Poland extensive negotiations had been going onto resolve the Danzig issue peacefully.

The negotiations failed. Austria and Czechoslovakia stood as examples of the expansionist interests of Hitler's Nazi state. At a conference held on 23 May 1939, Hitler told his commanders (including Göring and Keitel who later verified the records): "Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problem. Food supplies can be expected only from thinly populated areas. Over and above the natural fertility, thorough- going German exploitation will enormously increase the surplus."

SOURCE1
SOURCE2

http://gooring.tripod.com/goo22.html

What triggered the invasion was not Danzig but the persecution of Germans by agressive Poles.

False. This was one of the excuses Hitler used. He lied.

Were do I make threats? I just make predictions.

Your predictions come off as threats. As impotent as they are, I'm sure they're just symptoms of your neo-Nazi frustrations.

 

[9/11-investigator]

While "without Versailles no Nazis" might be true (emphasis on "might"), it would not be correct to say that the Versailles treaty is to blame for the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi state. Germany wasn't innocent in WWI.

WW1 in essence was fought because Britain never accepted the emergence of a powerful new state in Europe and because France resented that Germany had take german speaking Elzas -Lotharingen after a war that France had started. Germany was blameless-

1. Germany started World War II.

Wrong. Germany invaded Poland. That is all. It was the British and French declarations of war that made a world war out of a local dispute.

Oh, I don't. You're not a real Aryan though. You're a Dutchman, decedent from the lesser Germanic tribes, more kin to the Anglos than the Aryans.

The Dutch (together with the Norwegians) are the tallest people on the planet, on average 10 cm taller than the British gnomes, the smallest and ugliest vicious creatures in Europe. Or am I a racist now?

2. Germany invaded Russia for "lebensraum" and resources.

No, it was a preemptive war. See next post.

3. The Nazi state was inherently bad for it's population, and for other European populations.

Wrong. The Nazi regime was popular (in Germany) until 1945.

4. The atrocities committed by the Nazi state are inexcusable and need to be held up as an example of how evil human beings can be to each other.

The holocaust was an invention made in Nuremberg intended to make the alllies look good and give themselves the moral high ground. The only real holocausts were Dresden and Hiroshima.

Hardly. Hitlers motivations were quite clear in retrospect. The policy of appeasement didn't hold up to a predator of his stature. He needed to be put down like the sick puppy he was.

One pack of lies. Hitler wanted to release Germany from Versailles and become a great nation.

No, they are quite comparable. Both examples of evil. While Stalin killed people to secure his own power, Hitler killed people because they had been born in a different religion. It's "pick your poison" time. Both were bad.

Again, the holocaust is a lie. But tell me, if both are bad, then why do you justify Stalin as an allie and Hitler as a foo?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility. Do not personalize the discussion.

The negotiations failed. Austria and Czechoslovakia stood as examples of the expansionist interests of Hitler's Nazi state. At a conference held on 23 May 1939, Hitler told his commanders (including Göring and Keitel who later verified the records): "Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problem. Food supplies can be expected only from thinly populated areas. Over and above the natural fertility, thorough- going German exploitation will enormously increase the surplus."

Utter BS. Austria voluntarily wanted to join the Reich in 1919 but was stopped by the alllies. The Anschluss was confirmed in a plesbicite. Czechia did not resist; had been part of Germany for 1000 years. CZ was an artificial state created by the alllies with the intention of crippling Germany. It's artificial nature was proven by it's collapse after the collapse of communism. Nobody wanted CZ, not even the Czechoslovakians themselves.

 

[uke2se]

WW1 in essence was fought because Britain never accepted the emergence of a powerful new state in Europe and because France resented that Germany had take german speaking Elzas -Lotharingen after a war that France had started. Germany was blameless-

Wrong. Every nation had a stake in the war and none of them were blameless, with the possible exceptions of Serbia and the US.

France, like you said, wanted to de-fang Germany and reclaim territories lost in a previous war.

Britain wanted stability in central Europe and to honor its agreements with France and Russia.

Russia wanted influence over Eastern Europe and honor its agreements with Serbia.

Austria-Hungary wanted to expand its borders and influence in the Balkans.

Germany wanted to honor its agreements with Austria-Hungary and to expand its borders eastwards, and achieve what Britain had done - a colonial empire.

Italy wanted to settle border disputes in the Alps and expand its influence in the Balkans.

The US wanted to stabilize Europe and end the threats to trade from German U-boats.

Very few blameless there.

Wrong. Germany invaded Poland. That is all. It was the British and French declarations of war that made a world war out of a local dispute.

Britain's and France's guarantee of neutrality to Poland made it Hitler's choice to start a war. He made the choice, therefore Germany started the war.

The Dutch (together with the Norwegians) are the tallest people on the planet, on average 10 cm taller than the British gnomes, the smallest and ugliest vicious creatures in Europe. Or am I a racist now?

Yes.

No, it was a preemptive war. See next post.

No, it wasn't as per Hitler's own words.

Wrong. The Nazi regime was popular (in Germany) until 1945.

But what good did it do for its population ultimately? Nothing. Nazism wasn't good for anyone, including the Germans.

The holocaust was an invention made in Nuremberg intended to make the alllies look good and give themselves the moral high ground. The only real holocausts were Dresden and Hiroshima.

Wrong, but you know that already. Holocaust denialism isn't a position one can hold and remain intellectually honest.

One pack of lies. Hitler wanted to release Germany from Versailles and become a great nation.

Not according to Hitler himself. I suppose you feel so connected to him you are able to discern his intentions despite him saying and showing otherwise.

Again, the holocaust is a lie.

No, it isn't.

But tell me, if both are bad, then why do you justify Stalin as an allie and Hitler as a foo?

"Ally" and "foe". I've already answered this at least twice. Go back and read.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed moderated content and response to same.

Utter BS. Austria voluntarily wanted to join the Reich in 1919 but was stopped by the alllies. The Anschluss was confirmed in a plesbicite. Czechia did not resist; had been part of Germany for 1000 years. CZ was an artificial state created by the alllies with the intention of crippling Germany. It's artificial nature was proven by it's collapse after the collapse of communism. Nobody wanted CZ, not even the Czechoslovakians themselves.

Not BS. History, and well sourced at that.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Regarding the true nature of Operation Barbarossa here is a good overview article of what really happened:

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time. The Soviet premier described the treaty with Germany as a game of "who outwits whom."3 He concluded that the Soviet Union held the advantage both morally and militarily.A few months later, the Soviet Foreign Office explained Stalin's decision in a telegram to its embassy in Tokyo: "The ratifying of our treaty with Germany was dictated by the need for a war in Europe."

Still want to maintain that Stalin was neutral?

On August 25, 1939, the Swiss periodical Revue de droit international published the text of a speech Stalin delivered on August 19 to a closed session of the Political Bureau in Moscow. He was quoted as follows:

It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out.

This was the classical Soviet strategy since the days of Lenin.

The question arises what Molotov, presenting patently unacceptable demands, expected to achieve through these negotiations. The contemporary German historian Walter Post offers this analysis:

Moscow had to fear that England would either be finished off by a German amphibious operation, or, due to its military weakness and miserable financial situation, find itself ready to conclude a peaceful compromise with the Reich. The Soviet Union would then stand alone against a Germany that controlled the resources of the entire European continent. Moreover, the Soviet Union saw the danger of a cooperative effort among all the capitalist powers, including the Anglo-Saxons, against the USSR. To prevent this possibility, England had to be encouraged to continue waging war... To reinforce this hope and prevent a German landing operation against England, Moscow had to seek a conflict with Germany. With the threat of Soviet expansion toward Scandinavia and the Balkans in his rear, Hitler could not risk operation Sea Lion (the invasion plan for England). Instead, he had to transfer strong formations of his armed forces to the east to protect Germany's supply sources of nickel lumber, oil and grain.

Poor Soviets, their plan went wrong majestically. The Germans had been mopping up perfume producing Frenshies in a matter of weeks. Only general de Gaulle was able to offer some resistance in a tank battle. The British were 'gloriously' advancing towards the Channel (fake miracle of Dunkerque). The Germans suffered no losses worth mentioning. So much for the Soviet 'let them weaken each other' strategy.

By June, according to recent Russian archival estimates, the Soviet armed forces had deployed 2.7 million men near the western frontier; the equivalent of 177 divisions.

This enormous fighting force was allocated 10,394 tanks, over 1,300 of which were the formidable types KV and T-34. The army was supported by nearly 44,000 field guns and mortars. Over 8,000 combat aircraft occupied forward airdromes. The western military districts established command posts close to the frontier.

One hundred Soviet divisions were positioned in eastern Poland alone. A high proportion of armored and mechanized formations deployed near Bialystok and Lvov, behind geographic bulges protruding westward along the German-Soviet demarcation line.

Hitler revealed to Finnish Marshall Mannerheim how surprised he had been by the vast amount of weapons they had found.

On May 5, Stalin and assorted Soviet dignitaries attended commencement at the Frunze Military Academy in Moscow. During the following banquet, he proposed several toasts and talked volubly. An abridged transcript of Stalin's remarks that day, from Soviet archives, was ultimately published by the Russian historian Lev Besyemski in the March 1992 issue of the periodical Osteuropa.

Now that we have become strong, one must go from defense over to the attack. To accomplish the defense of our country we are obliged to take the offensive.... We must reform our instruction, our propaganda, agitation, our press to pervade an attack spirit. The Red Army is a modern army, and a modern army is an offensive army.

For us, the war plans are ready... In the course of the next two months we can begin the struggle against Germany. It may surprise you that I'm telling you our war plans, but it has to be. We must take this step for our protection and take revenge for Bulgaria and Finland. There is a peace treaty with Germany, but that's just an illusion, a curtain behind which we can work.

There you have it, straight for the horses mouth, Stalin announced to attack Germany in July.

The Germans struck first. Thanks to Hitler Holland was not bolshevized, but thanks to the Anglos Eastern Europe was to their eternal shame.

And they will pay the bill. As Horst Mahler puts it, revisionism is the poor man's atom bomb.

 

[uke2se]

Regarding the true nature of Operation Barbarossa here is a good overview article of what really happened:

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

I'm sorry, but revisionist Nazi apologetic websites don't interest me. Come back when you can offer a proper source.

Still want to maintain that Stalin was neutral?

I never said Stalin was neutral, so this is a straw man. I am saying that Germany invaded the USSR without provocation, and that the USSR lacked the resources to attack Germany, so Hitler's excuse of a preemptive war is refuted both by historical evidence and Hitler's own words.

This was the classical Soviet strategy since the days of Lenin.

So you keep saying. Too bad history contradicts your delusions.

Poor Soviets, their plan went wrong majestically. The Germans had been mopping up perfume producing Frenshies in a matter of weeks. Only general de Gaulle was able to offer some resistance in a tank battle. The British were 'gloriously' advancing towards the Channel (fake miracle of Dunkerque). The Germans suffered no losses worth mentioning. So much for the Soviet 'let them weaken each other' strategy.

Your hate is showing again. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't keep petty hatred out of your posts.

Hitler revealed to Mannerheim how surprised he had been by the vast amount of armamounts they had found.

The USSR had a big army and lots of weapons. What they lacked - which made them unable to conduct any sneak attack on Germany, or even properly defend themselves from the German invasion in the beginning - was leadership and training.

There you have, straight for the horses mouth, Stalin announced to attack Germany in July.

No, he didn't. He was talking about preparedness and trying to conceal the poor readiness of Soviet forces. He was also talking about molding an attacking spirit into his commanders.

The Germans struck first. Thanks to Hitler Holland was not bolshevized, but thanks to the Anglos Eastern Europe was to their eternal shame.

Well, thank your lucky stars, I suppose. Hitler was still a bad guy, and the atrocities committed by his regime still remain.

And they will pay the bill. As Horst Mahler puts it, revisionism is the poor man's atom bomb.

Yet another impotent threat. Revisionism of the nature you're peddling isn't threatening to anyone, as school-children can see through the false veneer of "scholarship" and spot the billowing hatred within. It's pathetic, really.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OMG - once again I overestimated the moral fiber and historic sense of the Amurrikans.

The army that slaughtered the entire aristocratic class of Russia under the leadership of the Jew Trotzky, committed state sanctioned mass rape and was used as a tool to enslave Eastern European Nations, is honoured by the US. There is no end to the depth of the depravity of these sons of Europe who returned home to rape mum together with some soviet scum.

?? WHat have the Americans got to do with a war memorial in London?

 

[Corsair 115]

I can't believe 9/11 Investigator is still going after being proven wrong time and time again.

He's the Energizer Bunny of inaccuracy! He just keeps going wrong and going wrong and going wrong...

 

[TSR]

The Anschluss was confirmed in a plesbicite.

Would that be the referendum scheduled for 11 March 1938 which was cancelled after an ultimatum was issued by Hitler, threatening invasion if it was held, or the one on the 13th, after the invasion had already occurred and the arrest of opposition leaders such as Franz Olah, Leopold Figl, Richard Schmitz, and Friedrich Hillegeist?

You really should learn about the history you're determined to lie about so your lies aren't so easily demonstrated.

 

[Hans]

Shheessh what a pile of stupid, 9/11 out does himself again.

It's to bad that stupid doesn't hurt or he'd be in real trouble, LOL

He's giving a bad name to revisionism.

 

[TSR]

He's giving a bad name to revisionism.

.
wait wait wait: 9/11 style revisionism ever had a *good* name?

what did I miss?
.