Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.amazon.com/Molotov-Remembers-Inside-Kremlin-Politics/dp/1566630274

On page 23 Molotov himself says:

Hitler had no other option than attack us. He never would have been able to end the war with Britain.

Molotov, another Suvorov adept. Well, sort of.

The air is getting thin for my NWO friends.

P.S. For future reference.

 

[TheRedWorm]

NWO.... don't you adolph fanbois have any new material?

 

[Uzzy]

The air might be getting thin if you had provided evidence that Hitler knew about an imminent Soviet attack, thus making Barbarossa a pre-emptive operation. But you have consistently failed to do so, as it doesn't exist. You've consistently failed to show evidence that Stalin as even planning an attack, but that's expected.

Oh, and Stalin favoured Socialism in One Country, rather then Trotsky's World Revolution, so saying the Soviet aim was to take over the world at that point is rather fanciful. German territorial demands were far from limited and centred around the Ostsidlung, or in Hitler's parlance (and you can read this in Mein Kampf), harnessing the Drang nach Osten for the purposes of establishing Lebensraum. Feel free to do research on this if you want.

 

[9/11-investigator]

And there we have it. Invading other countries is justifiable if they have something you want, but opposing those invasions for any reason is tantamount to crimes against humanity; the morality of Nazism laid bare.

Dave

This is so unbelievable hypocritial... Dave is from a country that was the largest coloniser of them all, yet our Dave has the audacity to moralize those who have far smaller empires than Albion.

Boozing, always loosing with soccer... it is all bearable, but this incredible hypocrisy...

 

[MG1962]

This is so unbelievable hypocritial... Dave is from a country that was the largest coloniser of them all, yet our Dave has the audacity to moralize those who have far smaller empires than Albion.

Boozing, always loosing with soccer... it is all bearable, but this incredible hypocrisy...

And this advance the argument how exactly.

We are calling you out about Hitler and the Soviet war plan and your response is a critique of a nations soccer playing ability?

 

[Alareth]

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.

Perhaps he borrowed Churchill's direct line to the TARDIS

 

[Chodorov]

I think we do have to blame World War I primarily on the Germans. But World War II was more Stalin's fault than anyones. Even more than Hitlers. And the British were pretty hopeless as well. For one thing they did not prepare adequately. Then they tried to appease. Then they made a bluff threat that they subsequently did not follow up on. Then they and the US failed to take advantage of the Hitler-Stalin double-cross to let the two tyrants cancel. It must be understood that Stalin tipped the balance enough to bring both Hitler and Mao to power. Stalin had much more influence than is normally supposed. You don't have to control all events. Tipping the balance in many areas is sufficient and that was what Stalin seemed to be able to do. He really is the perpetrator of World War II if you had to choose one person.

 

[Hans]

Tipping the balance in many areas is sufficient and that was what Stalin seemed to be able to do. He really is the perpetrator of World War II if you had to choose one person.

Nope pretty much Hitler takes first prize for starting WWII with help from Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Chamberlin and Lebrun plus a host of tertiary figures in the minor countries.

 

[abenja1]

9/11 Investigator: a big a glass of fail. BTW, you also have refused to answer my questions.

 

[dudalb]

Nope pretty much Hitler takes first prize for starting WWII with help from Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Chamberlin and Lebrun plus a host of tertiary figures in the minor countries.

Agreed. Stalin was evil, no debate, and one of history's great mass murderers, but the Blame for starting WW2 in Europe has to rest on Der Fuehrer.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Agreed. Stalin was evil, no debate, and one of history's great mass murderers, but the Blame for starting WW2 in Europe has to rest on Der Fuehrer.

If dudalb takes a minute to let sink in his own statement, he will finally understand that 'starting WW2 in Europe' is a contradictio in terminis. When America invades Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, or whatever, America does not 'start a world war'. Likewise did Germany not 'start a world war' when it took back the territory that was stolen from them in Versailles. There never was any intention to get into war with Britain, France, let alone America.

Here are the real plotters for world war. Preparing for a war against Germany from US territory, that is by definition planning for a world war. Here is precisely described how Roosevelt's Jewish Cabal was plotting for war in Europe. And it was Jewish money organized in the so-called Focus group who used Churchill for the same purpose.

- Hitler wanted to establish Germany as a great nation among other nations and if possible an alliance with Britain and nothing more.
- France and Britain, who together had colonized 1/3 of the planet, wanted to prevent the rise of a neighbouring nation more powerful than them. They wanted and declared war in 1939 with the intent of organizing a rollback towards the 1918/post-Versailles situation, with this time Germany even more crippled. France and Britain were prisoners of their own Euro-centric thinking and did not understand that there were 2 new powerful kids on the block: USSR/USA waiting in the wings to take over the century old global leadership role from Europe.
- The USSR wanted world bolshevism directed from Moscow and Germany was their next planned victim. The USSR was waiting for the first opportunity to act upon their intentions. That moment was June 10, 1941. It was preempted by 3 weeks by Germany.
- The US wanted world hegemony directed from Washington (that is what we are having now, but on it's final legs).
- The US and USSR were natural allies because they both could move upwards in the global pecking order from position 2 & 3 towards a position from where they both could compete each other for world hegemony over the dead corpse of Europe. The US and USSR never were our 'liberators' but intentional destroyers of European civilization.
- WW2 was a war of the Jews against Europeans, Jews won. WW2 was a war between nationalism (Germany) and jewish globalism (USSR/USA).

Obviously my Anglo opponents understand this all very well, but they want to push the story that Germany was Absolute Evil ('holocaust') and that hence the actions of the alllies were morally justified. But you must be truely moronic to push the mass murdering USSR (even dudalb is forced to admit that) as 'the good guy' of history. As you will remember, this stinking excuse for a civilization called CCCP sat on the chair of the judge in Nuremberg, next to our noble city nuking Americans. Once you understand this it is a small step towards the understanding that the globalist alllies had to invent the holocaust story to get away from the WW2 horrors as the Righteous, where in reality the global mafia had won.

Unfortunately for the remaining alllies (Anglos) the lights have switched on globally with the emergence of the internet. And this inconvenient little fact will prove to be the deathblow for their pack of lies. And as a consequence for their geostrategic supremacy. Anglosphere is now a hostage of the tales they invented themselves and that they will be forced to defend against the rest of the world. Nick Terry against the rest of the world, that is a losing proposition. But hey, every revolution needs guilliotine material, figuratively speaking of course. The world is running out of fuel, finishing off any globalist design. The New New World Order (NNWO) will be multipolar a la Huntington. This NNWO will be an easy sell to everybody on the planet except to the tiny minority ruling Washington and London today. But nobody is going to ask them for permission. 180 million aging Americans cannot control a de facto soft coalition of 1.3 billion Chinese (with an average IQ of 100, who took over the industrial production from the US, thanks to the actions of the globalists), a reemerging Russia (with nuclear parity with the US), a hostile Islam of another 1.3 billion holding all the oil cards or what is left of it. And of course a EU of 500 million who always had a certain dedain for America and will be anxious to absorb a new interpretation of history that will enable them to retake the position that was lost in 1945. Europe in this decade will ever more be the Trojan horse in the dying Atlantic alliance. The first action of this global soft anti-Anglo ('anti-semitic') coalition will be to quietly drop the dollar as an excepted currency. Iraq was the first to try this with the familiar consequence. Russia and China have recently started to make moves in this direction and it will be impossible for the US to treat them like another Iraq. In the end the enormous dollar quantities will return to the only place on the planet where it cannot be refused, the US. This will be like a rain of confetti comparable to that during a New York ticker parade, finishing of the Reichsdollar in a single day. That will be the end of superpower status of the US, resulting in a balkanization of that New Babylon.

 

[Uzzy]

- Hitler wanted to establish Germany as a great nation among other nations and if possible an alliance with Britain and nothing more.

Again, incorrect. Hitler's aim, as has been endlessly stated, was the creation of a German Lebensraum on already occupied territory, namely that land in the east. Do research into Generalplan Ost. This was not a plan to make Germany a great nation, it was a plan of genocide.

His attitude towards Britain was less certain. While he mentioned Britain as a potential ally in his Zweites Buch, by the time of the Hossbach Memorandum, he called Britain a 'hate filled antagonist' and planned for a European war with Britain and France by 1943 at the absolute latest. Such was his incompetence that when he invaded Poland in 1939, he had no plan whatsoever to deal with the British, perhaps hoping they wouldn't honour treaty obligations.

- France and Britain, who together had colonized 1/3 of the planet, wanted to prevent the rise of a neighbouring nation more powerful than them. They wanted and declared war in 1939 with the intent of organizing a rollback towards the 1918/post-Versailles situation, with this time Germany even more crippled. France and Britain were prisoners of their own Euro-centric thinking and did not understand that there were 2 new powerful kids on the block: USSR/USA waiting in the wings to take over the century old global leadership role from Europe.

A nation which had twice in recent memory invaded France and caused mass damage. Now, while the Germans were negotiating, the British and French were more then willing to accommodate them. You may have heard about this, it's called appeasement if you need to do some research on it (and you do). This was based on the idea that, no matter how vile Hitler may be, he was the legitimate leader of a nation with justifiable grievances, so his claims could be resolved by negotiation. It was only when Hitler showed his intentions on taking land beyond what could be reasonably claimed by force (the Invasion of Czechoslovakia), did the British and French switch from accommodating German claims to objecting to them and being willing to use force.

- The USSR wanted world bolshevism directed from Moscow and Germany was their next planned victim. The USSR was waiting for the first opportunity to act upon their intentions. That moment was June 10, 1941. It was preempted by 3 weeks by Germany.

Again, false. Stalin fought an internal political battle with Trotsky over the direction of Soviet Foreign Policy, and won. Socialism in One Country, i.e. not sponsoring foreign revolutions, was the policy chosen by Stalin. What Stalin really wanted was security, for himself, his party and his country, in that order, hence his willingness to negotiate with Germany and come to some sort of arrangement. The negotiations only failed in late 1940, when Operation Barbarossa was drawn up. And once again, you've consistently shown no evidence of Hitler knowing about Soviet invasion plans.

- The US wanted world hegemony directed from Washington (that is what we are having now, but on it's final legs).

Not really. The US wanted trading partners. War is bad for trade.

- The US and USSR were natural allies because they both could move upwards in the global pecking order from position 2 & 3 towards a position from where they both could compete each other for world hegemony over the dead corpse of Europe.

So unbelievably wrong. The US and USSR were such unnatural allies that once the Nazis were defeated they settled into something called the Cold War. You might have heard of it. The US didn't even recognise the Soviets until 1933, well after many other nations, such as Germany (1923) or Japan (1925). A host of ideological, political and strategic differences suggested that an alliance between the US and the USSR wouldn't work, and when the Soviets broke promises in the post war settlement around Eastern Europe, the alliance collapsed.

The US and USSR never were our 'liberators' but intentional destroyers of European civilization.

European civilization died at Auschwitz, killed by the Nazis.

- WW2 was a war of the Jews against Europeans, Jews won. WW2 was a war between nationalism (Germany) and jewish globalism (USSR/USA).

Drivel, along with the rest of your post. Not worthy of a response.

 

[MG1962]

- The USSR wanted world bolshevism directed from Moscow and Germany was their next planned victim. The USSR was waiting for the first opportunity to act upon their intentions. That moment was June 10, 1941. It was preempted by 3 weeks by Germany.

Okay I am just not getting this. Bolshevism was a Jewish led revolution finally defeated by Stalin. Stalin then fights Trotsky (Jew) over the question of international expansion of Jewish communism. Then adopts the exact same plan that the Jewish Bolshevics and Trotsky had

- WW2 was a war of the Jews against Europeans, Jews won. WW2 was a war between nationalism (Germany) and jewish globalism (USSR/USA).

I am pointing this out because it might be a typo, and I would not want you to embarrase yourself with a mistake. But earlier - I can supply the exact post numbers if you require them. You say the Jews were no longer in control of the CCCP when WW2 started, but in the above statement you reverse that position...so obviously there is a typo somewhere

balkanization of that New Babylon.

Could you show me this on a map, or perhaps latittude and longtitude so I can look it up in a number of excellent resources I have on hand

 

[Hans]

9/11 Investigator: a big a glass of fail. BTW, you also have refused to answer my questions.

That is 9/11 trademark, denial, lies and ignorning that which he cannot answer.

As the Dutch would say he is , 'schroomvallig'

 

[VonKleist]

- The USSR wanted world bolshevism directed from Moscow and Germany was their next planned victim. The USSR was waiting for the first opportunity to act upon their intentions. That moment was June 10, 1941. It was preempted by 3 weeks by Germany.

I imagine this is another typo, then. He appears to have the USSR planning to attack Germany 3 weeks before Barbarossa. I guess he means July 10.

In reality, Zhukov and Pavlov's explorations of the viability of a Red Army offensive in January '41 had revealed that the Red Army was incapable of conducting an effective offensive operation in 1941. Three years later, of course, it was a different matter entirely. . .

 

[dudalb]

Stalin believed in a worldwide Communist Revolution, but felt the Soviet Union had to built up into a strong power first. He and Trotsky did not differ in goals, only in timing and methods.

 

[MG1962]

Stalin believed in a worldwide Communist Revolution, but felt the Soviet Union had to built up into a strong power first. He and Trotsky did not differ in goals, only in timing and methods.

I disagree. Germany and France were both handed to the Soviets on a stick and they did not take either - with an ounce of luck they could have had Italy as well

 

[9/11-investigator]

Stalin believed in a worldwide Communist Revolution, but felt the Soviet Union had to built up into a strong power first. He and Trotsky did not differ in goals, only in timing and methods.

Correct.

 

[9/11-investigator]

In reality, Zhukov and Pavlov's explorations of the viability of a Red Army offensive in January '41 had revealed that the Red Army was incapable of conducting an effective offensive operation in 1941. Three years later, of course, it was a different matter entirely. . .

You say this without providing links. Let's assume it is true, in a big country like the USSR you can find every opinion you want. It is far more interesting what the Great Leader wants. And that is this:

http://www.carlonordling.se/ww2/stalin_speech_complete.html

Stalin politburo speech, 19 August 1939. He announces that war wil be immanent.

The question of war and peace has entered a critical phase for us. Its solution depends entirely on the position which will be taken by the Soviet Union. We are absolutely convinced that if we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would be avoided, but further events could prove dangerous for the USSR.

On the other hand, if we accept Germany's proposal, that you know, and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will certainly invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England is then unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. In this case we will have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war.

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough for the Bolshevik Party to seize power. The dictatorship of such a Party will only become possible as the result of a major war.

And here is his how Stalin explains his pact with Germany towards his communist buddies in Europe:

http://www.carlonordling.se/ww2/ribbentrop.html

- Have the final aims of the Comintern been changed?
- No. The final aim of the Comintern is still the same: world revolution.
- Is a world revolution possible at the moment?
- No, all attempts at activating a world revolution have failed.
- Could not the outbreak of a world revolution be hastened through reinforced agitation?
- No. (Here follow enumerations of the causes why this is impossible in the various countries.)1
- How could a world revolution be hastened?
- A lengthy war. (Here follow detailed explanations and quotations from Marx, Engels and Lenin.) 1
- Is a European war in the interest of Comintern?
- Yes, provided that such a war paves the way for a revolution among the masses. (Here follow quotations from Lenin.) 1
- Would a pact between the Soviet Union, England and France expedite a war?
- No, such a pact between Russia and the Western Powers would occasion Germany to forbear to plunge into a “military” adventure.
- Will a Russo-German pact hasten the outbreak of war?
- Yes, since the neutrality of Russia gives Germany the possibility to carry out her plans.

You cannot get it clearer than this.

In these days the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is in the works. Stalin expects that Hitler will attack Poland and that as a consequence Britain and France will declare war on Germany. Hitler gambled that that would not happen. Stalin was correct, Hitler was wrong. Stalin was merely following the strategy formulated many years before that communism was to be imposed on Europe after European nations had beaten each other to pulp. What Stalin (and Churchill and the French and Roosevelt) had not expected was that the invasion of Western Europe was a walk over. German strength had been vastly underestimated; Britain and France sent packing during the first leg of the tournament, just like the recent world soccer championship SA/2010. From Tyler Kent (fascinating 25 minute video in this BBC blog; this is as close as you can get into the kitchen where WW2 is being cooked) we know first hand how much in panic the mentioned leaders were. Tyler Kent saw the cables where Churchill was begging the Americans for help. So there was poor Stalin with his strategy: Germany had minimal losses, not beaten to pulp at all. What was he to do? He had prepared the USSR for 2 decades against incredible cost and hardship for the population for the assault. It had to happen at some point.

My intuition is that Stalin was briefed by the Americans that they intended to join the war at the first opportunity once they had solved their little problem, namely opposition from Congress and the American population, little inconveniences that Stalin had not to deal with him self. After all, the USSR was designed by Jews, where the US unfortunately was designed by Gentiles. The Jew Bullitt, Roosevelt's most important man in Europe, had been ambassador in Moscow since the Roosevelt government came into office. It had been Bullitt who had advocated the diplomatic recognition of this slaughterhouse, so was on very cordial terms with those in power in Moscow. It should have been not too difficult for him to 'leak' American intentions from Paris to the Soviets, so the Soviets decided to strike, since a two-front war at the cost of Germany was almost garanteed.

Stalin decided to strike at July 10, 1941, regardless of the state of his army. An army that was designed to attack, not to defend. Communism was inherently expansive and had global intentions. And it is impossible to realize global intensions with a defensive army.

Not that difficult.

 

[MG1962]

You say this without providing links. Let's assume it is true, in a big country like the USSR you can find every opinion you want. It is far more interesting what the Great Leader wants. And that is this:

http://www.carlonordling.se/ww2/stalin_speech_complete.html

Stalin politburo speech, 19 August 1939. He announces that war wil be immanent.

Boy thats the pot calling the kettle black. How hard did you have to dig to find a speech half of which appears in a Russian magazine, half in a Belgium journal, as interpreted by an an ex Finnish national living in Sweden who is a famous for being a holocaust denier.