The Abwehr and its leader Canaris were anti Nazi and were traitors.

Yes, I’m aware of the activities of Canaris* and a few others. But their traitorous deeds were, for the most part, confined to the latter stages of the war, when Germany was evidently losing.

(*Canaris would later be hung utilising piano wire – a particularly gruesome and excruciating form of hanging – for his role in the July 20, 1944 attempted assassination plot).

With that in mind, the points I made in my original comment still remain valid.
In other words, with the information available to him at the time, obtained from reliable intelligence assets, Hitler was compelled to act as he did.

The Abwehr and its leader Canaris were anti Nazi and were traitors. Hitler had info withheld from him or given false info. Pretty hard to get things right if your own Intel service is the enemy.

Adolph Hitler betrayed Daß Vaterland, and made you all fatherless!
I pity you, and the double dealers here deserve the nether circle!

I include a lot in British, inbred as they were and are.
So there you have the clever ones.
As for AH, I would not give him the credit for the necessary defence in the east.
It is a fact that there were disputes in high ranks, about strategy pertaining to Barbarossa and Dunkirk.
Problem is, dictatorial decissions by AH, utterly sabotaged these two very decisive events.

Boulder writes:

Just read the history; Britain fooled the Germans!

Most WWII history is ZOG dictated B.S. Those who are aware of REAL history (you need only read the output of WWII’s greatest historian David Irving), know that it was in Britain’s best interests to side with Hitler’s Germany during WWII.
But British foreign policy was not based on what was good for its citizenry. It was controlled by the Zionist Usury Banking cartel, that cabal of malevolent Jewish bankers operating out of the City of London.

And thus it was Malevolent International Jewry that fooled the Germans, and instructed their sock puppet Winston Spendthrift Churchill to ignore the generous peace overtures from Hitler in the immediate aftermath of the Dunkirk evacuation.

As for your ridiculous assertion that Hitler betrayed Germany, this is about as clueless a statement as we’re likely to encounter on WWII.
Hitler was the world’s last best hope to unshackle the western world from the crushing burden of ZOG’s debt servitude.
That he failed to do so does not detract from his herculean efforts to free us from the tentacles of the Vampire Squid. We all owe him (and the collective efforts of the German people during both world wars), a debt of gratitude for the sacrifices they made and the example they’ve shown.

Such foolishness!
Britain allying with the NS!
Just read the history; Britain fooled the Germans!
And Hitler was in on it.
He betrayed Germany, the Germans and the West.

There apparently is some sort of internal dispute at CODOH that is making Inconvenient History inaccessible. Hopefully they will quickly get this matter cleared up.

It has also been said that he knew that war with the Soviet Union was unavoidable

Very unlikely. Hitler never built up his military until then, for such a war in the East, as he told the Finnish leader, Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.

chance of victory was by allying with the British.

Hitler felt that the two largest Germanic powers in Europe should not be enemies of each other.

but I was busy the last two weeks:

No worries Caroline.

Thank you for your time and effort in this work, we are deeply grateful that you have helped bring out this facts out to the English speaking World. I know every well the effort needed in listening to long videos and then write out the summaries.

Vielen Dank again.
This false demonization of Germany (and Japan) must be stopped and reversed, if right is to be done in this World.

John,

It seems that I cannot access the Inconvenient History website now. More censorship? Thanks…

> I don’t think there’s anything incriminating, no “aha!” moment.

That’s good and reasonable. The speech bears a lot of similarity to French ideas before 1914. France allowed Germany to make the first move with a declaration of war and an invasion that captured a significant share of northern France (as well as most of Belgium). But the French commanders were resolved that through active offensives, they would drive the Germans out rapidly. Words like these:

—–
This is not the attitude to the line of defense that a modern army needs. A modern army cannot treat the line of defense, no matter how strong it is, passively.
—–

Are very much like what French strategists held to in August 1914. That may have helped them with the Battle of the Marne. But not with the general war effort across 4 years. But that’s a different matter from claims that Stalin expected to initiate a war with his own starting offensive.

> Later on in the war, Stalin had already decided to invade Japan while the Soviet Union still had good diplomatic relations with them.

There’s a world of difference between planning to reap rewards over the defeat of Japan versus launching a real invasion of Germany with the intent of conquering the whole of Europe a la Rezun. Moreover, the speech of April 17, 1940, was not some public speech given to create an impression on wider audiences. In that speech, Stalin defends to decision to settle things with Finland on the grounds that it was necessary to do this while the Allies and Germans were still distracted. He is aware that the Allies could have gone ahead with joining the Finns in the Winter War, if Hitler had not stopped them with the landings in Norway and Denmark. But he maintains that the USSR got what it needed (the acquisitions from Finland were intended to be for the defense of Leningrad) and therefore it was worthwhile. Again, this is not a speech which was released to foreign diplomats (the way that excerpts from the famous speech of May 5, 1941, were quickly leaked to German diplomats). This speech of April 17, 1940, was a genuine secret speech which was only accessed after 1991.

> You seem to think the arrows

I never hinted at arrows. I simply took from the text of the plan as it reads word for word.

Regarding the forged documents:
Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof writes about them in his book “The war that had many fathers” and he also talks about them in the speech I linked below:

According to him the Germans got “their” documents back in 1953, which the German historians used to write the official history of the Third Reich. When Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof wrote his book about the outbreak of the Second World War in the early 2000’s he noticed that nearly all the documents had become brown (Germany used really cheap paper in their ministries), but some papers were still mostly white. He also noticed, that all the papers containing stuff that made no sense to him/showed the Nazis in a really bad light, were white and later specifically looked for white papers when he wanted to look up a quote that sounded odd to him.
The archivist in the German archives was shocked when Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof showed him the differences and asked why they had not noticed it sooner, but since Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof was the first to look at the documents in a couple decades the difference in browning had not been that big the last time a historian looked at the documents.

3)Speech by Udo Walendy in 1991 (shortly after German unification)

-starts by warning the audience, that he was been sentenced to 8 months on probation, because he sent a letter to 50 people containing the conclusions made by Fred Leuchter about the alleged gas-chambers in Auschwitz
-concludes, that Germany is still not a sovereign country, even after unification
-talks about his fights in the German legal system:
-sued a person, who broadcasted alleged German war atrocities with photos, that were clearly fake (wrong shadows/lighting, really bad fake)
-judge told him, that the photos clearly were fake, but in spite of this decided against him
[in Germany the judge does the sentencing, so what he was saying was that the judge told him he was right, but still decided against him]
-his books regularly get banned for very spurious reasons, decisions made in some cases after two days for a book with a couple hundred pages
-fought until the German Constitutional Court to lift the ban on his book, he won, but the book was then banned later for a different reason
[talks in the same vein for another 10 minutes, all sounds quite kafkaesk]

-then talks about the Nuremberg Tribinals
-from the start the Allies engaged in massive forgery of documents (seized from the Germans)
-also put the forged documents into the German archives
-basically calls it a kangaroo court
-confessions under torture, unreliable witnesses etc.
-legal standard was explicitly different from other legal proceedings
-in a lot of cases no exculpatory evidence was allowed to the defendants
-normal rules of evidence were explicitly waived (hearsay included, etc.)
-was reaffirmed in 1948 (?) that no other tribunal would adhere to the same „legal“ standards

-before two German republics were founded in 1949 Allies passed a couple of laws,
-one law stated that Germany (both countries) had to defend the findings of of Allied tribunals (especially Nuremberg trials)
-[IIRC this was reaffirmed at the time of German unification and was put into the treaties, remark by Caroline]

-Holocaust story is a hoax, has no credible evidence behind it
-there is one alledged extermination camp, which according to Jewish witnesses was the size of Munich (city of 1.5 million people)
-in spite of the size noone has been able to specify the location of the camp
-witnesses do not face prosecution in holocaust-trials if they perjure themselves
-false witness-testimony is attributed to trauma etc.
-some of the documents used in trials (like Nuremberg tribunal) would be laughed out of court in any country with a functioning legal system
example: Americans „copied“ a lot of documents by typing them down, then made unverified photographs of them
-photographs are part of evidence, real documents have been „lost“

Again, I am sorry, that I did not answer sooner, but I was busy the last two weeks:

2)
The second is a two-hour long interview of Udo Walendy done by Ernst Zündel

-Walendy first talks about his early life:

-was born in East Prussia in 1927
-father worked in the war industry and was transferred with family to Berlin after WW2 broke out
-was in Hitler youth, but due to some lost papers when he moved, he did not attend for 9 months after the move –> did not suffer any adverse consequences because of that
-says that Hitler was very popular
-spent some of the war years in Berlin, later was sent to Hamburg to help after the burning raids of the British
-was lucky to survive, neighbouring part of the city was heavily damaged
-was POW of the British in Denmark at the end of WW2
-was treated well and soon was released

-was raised Catholic
-always had a problem with Catholic doctrine of original sin/ collective guilt
-connects this topic the alleged German guilt for WW2

-went to work for the British in a job, that entailed very little work (worked 1 hour, spent the other 7 hours learning Russian, because he thought he needed Russian, if he wanted to return to East Prussia)
-later studied politology
-researched the reassons for the outbreak of the Second World War
-found damning stuff in the published documents of the Allies
(British ambassador [Henderson?] repeatedly accused his government of “warmongering”)

-published “Truth for Germany” about WW2

Then he mostly talks about the situation facing revisionist in Germany:
-revisionists are persecuted in Germany
-even some people are fined heavy fines, who only read the books of the revisionists
-he had to consult a lawyer and put a note into his books in order to protect the buyers of his books
-some of his books have been banned, he fought until the Germany Supreme Court, books got unbanned, but then rebanned

-Zündel asks him, whether he ever thinks about leaving Germany in order to evade the persecution
-Udo Walendy says he will stay in Germany

-Walendy then talks some more about the issues he faces in Germany as a revisionist of WW2
-Zündel tells him, that when he tells some of his Anglo/French/etc. friends about the situation facing revisionists in Germany they are incredulous
-Zündel calls it “kafkaesk”, like in “the Process”

-Walendy says his work is important, because WW2 plays a critical role in the history of Germany, foundation of Germany’s view of itself and the world
-he says Germany will have problems as long as this fake view persists
-like a house cannot stand when the foundation is bad

-Walendy concludes, that it is nearly impossible to change it from within Germany
-says that the revisionists are allowed to say things, when the foreign countries admit them
–>example Katyn: before Gorbatchev admitted that the Soviets were responsible for the massacre, Germans got into trouble for stating that, now it is permitted
-Zündel concludes that the people (ethnic Germans) outside of Germany will have to do the lion’s share of the work setting the record straight
-this is the end of the interview

I forgot to hit the reply button on my post above, but since you wanted go further into Stalin’s post-Winter War speech, I think the entire last portion is relevant in the context of WWII. I don’t think there’s anything incriminating, no “aha!” moment. But any Westerner is likely to sense an ominous and cryptic message buried in this speech.

This is the main advantage that we learned on the fields of Finland, giving our army a good fire to take into account this experience. It is good that our army had the opportunity to gain this experience not from German aviation, but in Finland with God’s help. But there can be no doubt that our army is no longer the same as it was in November of last year, and the command staff is different, and the soldiers are different. The mere appearance of your blocking groups is a sure sign that our army was becoming a completely modern army.

After this war, it is interesting to ask yourself: what is the Finnish army like? So many of you saw her mobility, discipline, saw how she used all sorts of tricks, and some envy showed through to the Finnish army. The question is, can it be called a completely modern army? In my opinion, it is impossible. From the point of view of the defense of fortified borders, the Finnish army is more or less satisfactory, but it is still not modern, because it is very passive in defense, and it looks at the line of defense of the fortified area as the Mohammedans look at Allah.

Fools, they sit in pillboxes and don’t come out; they think they can’t cope with life in the pillboxes, they sit and drink tea. This is not the attitude to the line of defense that a modern army needs. A modern army cannot treat the line of defense, no matter how strong it is, passively.

This passivity in defense and this passive attitude towards defensive lines, it characterizes the Finnish army as not quite modern for defense when it is sitting behind barriers. The Finnish army proved to itself that it was not quite modern, and because it was too religious about the superiority of its fortified areas. Like the Finnish offensive, it is not worth anything.

He betrayed Germany.

Perhaps Hitler betrayed Germany by permitting the BEF to flee Dunkirk. It has also been said that he knew that war with the Soviet Union was unavoidable, and Germany’s only chance of victory was by allying with the British. Once it became clear that Britain would never ally with National Socialist Germany, they preemptively attacked the USSR and named the operation ‘Barbarossa’, after the German emperor who did not die, but fell asleep and will rise again. The National Socialists didn’t expect to win, only to delay the onslaught of the international Socialists. The German people made an incredible sacrifice to preserve Western civilization, in the hope that a future generation would rise to fight against and defeat atheistic communism

Astonishes not only the Generals!
He betrayed Germany.

The Finnish rejection of that last offer is what Stalin means by saying “the peace talks with Finland had produced no results.” If the Finns had conceded those 4 small islands, they could have avoided the war. Stalin’s words of April 17, 1940, don’t give any indication that he was aiming at a general invasion of Europe anytime soon.

Seeing as how the U.S.S.R. was a state built on deception and lies, Stalin being the king of lies who authorized false flags and fictional accusations in order to justify his attempted (and successful) hostile takeovers in the Baltic, that’s actually not too surprising. Nobody is obligated to believe Stalin, or his henchman, the Hammer.

Later on in the war, Stalin had already decided to invade Japan while the Soviet Union still had good diplomatic relations with them. But he didn’t give the Japanese any indication that he was planning to invade Manchuria and possibly occupy parts of Japan, until the war was almost over. On the contrary, he wanted Soviet representatives to encourage the Japanese to maintain resistance against American imperialism, giving them the impression that the Soviets would negotiate with America on Japan’s behalf. Most historical accounts of the Pacific theater leave that part out. But it’s just more lies from the king of lies. Also, I don’t think he let his boy Mao know that he was planning to takeover “Soviet interests” in Manchuria, with Roosevelt’s support of course, until the war was over.

But any who, despite the CPSU being a ruling party of liars, any push into Germany had a potential to absorb any intermediate territory, which is exactly what was expected. Remember when Stalin told Molotov that borders would be decided by force?

I notice that you defer to Colonel Glantz a lot. An intelligent critic of Colonel Glantz has pointed out that none of his Soviet strategic maps in Stumbling Colossus actually show the arrows representing the Red Army penetrating into Poland across the south and approaching the Western Neisse. That’s unusual, because most strategic maps have arrows showing what advances or retreats YOUR army is expected to execute, not just the hypothetical actions of the opposing army. Glantz’s arrows are basically taken from the German strategic maps, and he has overlaid them on the Soviet maps. You seem to think the arrows driving deep into Russia mean the Red Army was expecting to fall back into the interior, or that the counter attack was supposed to be delayed by days or weeks. But that’s not what happened at all.

The offensive into Poland is what Timoshenko ordered late on 22 June, less than 24 hours after the German invasion, even though he didn’t understand the situation on the ground and must’ve assumed the frontline was basically intact. A strange assumption, but maybe Glantz’s arrows are obfuscating what was actually expected.

By the way, from the same speech:

—–
Could we have avoided the war? I think that the war was inevitable. The war was necessary since the peace talks with Finland had produced no results. We had to protect Leningrad because its safety is the safety of our Fatherland. Not only because 30-35 per cent of our defense industry is concentrated there, but because Leningrad’s safety is all-important to the country’s destiny. Besides, the city is the second capital.
—–
— Alexander Chubaryan & Harold Shukman, (eds.), Stalin and the Soviet-Finnish War, 1939-1940, 263.

I’ve mentioned before the offer made on November 4:

—–
When we said once more that Hanko could not be discussed, to our great surprise Stalin proposed an alternative–the group of islands to the east of it. He pointed on the map to the islands of Hermanso, Koo, Hasto, and Buso, around which a red line had been drawn, and asked, “Do you need those islands?” We remarked that this was a new question regarding which we had no instructions.
—–
— Vaino Tanner, The Winter War, pp. 67-8.

The Finnish rejection of that last offer is what Stalin means by saying “the peace talks with Finland had produced no results.” If the Finns had conceded those 4 small islands, they could have avoided the war. Stalin’s words of April 17, 1940, don’t give any indication that he was aiming at a general invasion of Europe anytime soon.

As for a likely German attack, the defense plans of June 2, 1941, predict:

—–
The most probable operational axes for the enemy will be (a) Til’zit, Shiauliai, and Riga (or Shiaulia and Daugavpils) with a secondary axis to Memel’ and Tel’shiai or Memel’ and Shiaulia for subsequent operations, or to Pskov in the Leningrad military district rear, or joint operations with the Kaunas grouping; (b) Gumbinen, Kaunas, and Vilnius, with a subsequent attack on Minsk; (c) Suvalki, Alitus, and Lida (or Grodno) to influence the right wing and rear of the Western Front; and (d) a local attack from Suvalki through Kalvariia to Kaunas.

Probable regions for landing amphibious assaults are (a) the islands of Hiuma (Dago) and Saarema (Ezel’); and (b) the coastal sector from Cape Kolkasrag to Palanga at the points Ventpils, Pavilosta, and Liepaia.

One must count on operations by enemy naval forces to force the Irben’ Straits to secure the Gulf of Riga and the Soela-viain and the Mukhu-viain straits to secure Dago and Ezel’ Islands.
—–
— David Glantz, Stumbling Colossus, p. 276.

It certainly does read like a plan that has been with the assumption that the German attack will come first, with specific points expected as the focus of that attack. The overall plan simply underestimates the extent of German advances which are likely to occur. But this just shows an overconfidence in the ability of the Soviet army to hold its ground and take the offensive in a counterstrike.

On April 17, 1940, Stalin made these ironic remarks in a speech he gave about the unexpected difficulties the Red Army experienced in the Winter War:

The Polish campaign harmed us terribly; it spoiled us. Entire articles were written, and speeches were made, claiming our Red Army cannot be stopped, that it has no equal, that it has everything, there are no gaps.

Our army never was, and is not now, invincible.

In general, there have never been unstoppable armies in history. The best armies that fought here and there, they suffered defeats. We, comrades, boasted that our army was invulnerable, that we could take great risks, there were no shortfalls. In practice there is no such army, and there never will be.

This prevented our army from immediately understanding its flaws and rebuilding itself in relation to the conditions of Finland. Our army did not understand—did not immediately understand—that the war in Poland was a military exercise, not a war. She did not understand that, nor did she understand that Finland would be different, that there would be a real fight. It took time for our army to understand this, to feel it, and to begin to adapt to the conditions of the war in Finland, so that it began to improve.

This most of all prevented our troops from immediately adapting to the basic conditions of the war in Finland, from understanding that they were not going for a stroll in the park, but a real war. With this psychology that our army is invincible, with boasting, which is terribly developed among us, these are the most ignorant people, i.e., big braggarts, who must come to an end. This boasting must be ended once and for all. We need to hammer into our people the reality that there is no such thing as an invincible army.

(translated by machine, so I had to take liberties with some of the phrases and expressions that did not translate well)

You quoted the conclusion rather than the argument. But that’s a terrible comparison anyway. You’re way off base, Pat. So perhaps I should clarify: I was commenting on the frame of mind that a person would need to actually believe that the Soviet “counter” offensive goals were plausible in the summer of 1941. It has nothing to do with believing a wild conspiracy like… Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and France all secretly working together to invade the Soviet Union, which is what Stalin seems to have actually believed in the 1930s.

As far as I know, in May 1940, the French leadership didn’t expect to totally stop a German offensive right at the border (without the Maginot Line of course), then quickly launch a counter offensive that would smash right through the German line, blazing a path to Berlin and crushing any Wehrmacht units in their way, wrapping things up in about two months or so. If their military leaders believed that in the summer of 1940, then they might’ve been living in a fantasy world where they imagined the French Army was invincible and therefore had no need to seize the initiative.

> If we believe the plans were truly reactive, that means Stalin, Zhukov, and Timoshenko were living in a fantasy world where the Red Army was invincible and seizing the initiative was irrelevant. I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

This is the sort of argument from incredulity which people used to make when charging that the French defeat of 1940 had been brought about by a fascist conspiracy. The French performance from September 1939 to June 1940 seemed so incompetent that one might be tempted to think it was all a pro-Hitler conspiracy laid by Petain, Laval et alia. But there’s no real evidence of that. France was simply stuck in planning for the previous war. Soviet planners, in comparison with the French, seemed to have shown a better grasp of how war develops. But not good enough.

Anyone who writes “…the volume (of currency) in circulation does not matter…”, needs to have his head examined.

Currency put into circulation for which no goods or services have been produced ie. created out of this air, is the very definition of inflation.

You ask: “If Hitler – as you claim – let the BEF escape Dunkirk as a peace ‘gift’ why did he order their ‘annihilation’? Cue Jeopardy theme.”

My response: Hitler had never wanted to go to war with Great Britain. It was Great Britain that declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939. Hitler made some very sincere peace offers to Great Britain, but they were all refused by the British.

Germany’s offensive against Dunkirk was halted by Hitler’s order on May 24, 1940. German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt insists that his hands were tied by Hitler’s instructions. Hitler talked to von Rundstedt and two key men of his staff, Gens. Georg von Sodenstern and Günther Blumentritt. As Gen. Blumentritt tells the story:

“He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world…He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.” (Source: Hart, B. H. Liddell, The Other Side of the Hill, London: Papermac, 1970, pp. 200-201; see also Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 76).

Hitler stated in his Testament on February 26, 1945: “Churchill was quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit of which I had given proof by refraining from creating an irreparable breach between the British and ourselves. We did, indeed, refrain from annihilating them at Dunkirk. We ought to have been able to make them realize that the acceptance by them of the German hegemony established in Europe, a state of affairs to the implementation of which they had always been opposed, but which I had implemented without any trouble, would bring them inestimable advantages.” (Source: Fraser, L. Craig, The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, pp. 72-73).

I believe Hitler. Hitler had hoped the British would appreciate the fact that he let the BEF escape Dunkirk, and would be willing to negotiate a reasonable peace agreement.

> The events of 1939-1940 challenge the claim that Soviet leaders were unaware of how quickly an invasion force could cover territory,

Zhukov seems to have been aware of this, and that accounts for the memo which he submitted that is dated May 15, 1941:

—–
Considering that at present Germany is keeping its army fully mobilized, with the rear deployed, it is in a position to circumvent us by mounting a surprise attack. To prevent this, I think it is essential not to allow the German High Command to seize the initiative on any account, to forestall the deployment of the enemy, and to attack the German army at the moment when it is in the middle of deployment and before it has successfully completed the organization of the front and the co-ordination of the movement of the various forces.
—–
— Gabriel Gorodetsky, Grand Delusion, p. 239.

But Stalin was not Zhukov. Stalin was not a military professional, but a politician. If the Soviet leadership in 1941 had been more like Brezhnev in the 1970s, then it’s plausible that Zhukov’s recommendations would have had a different impact. But it was difficult for subordinates to turn Stalin from one position to another.

> back to the fall of France, if Soviet leaders were surprised by the speed of German victory, this undermines the claim that a year later they were unfamiliar with the potential speed of the Wehrmacht.

It simply shows that Stalin thought that he was better prepared than France but underestimated how much better prepared he really needed to be. Soviet forces in May 1941 were more fully mobilized than French forces a year earlier. That much is objectively true. But the nature of the sweeping advances which the Wehrmacht made was such that having gotten an initial edge, they could swarm across huge pieces of territory. Stalin did not appreciate that, though Zhukov may have.

> It is more likely that, for whatever reason, the Soviets imagined a confrontation with Germany would go very differently than it did.

As I said, the expectation was that a German offensive would be halted close to the border and then turned back within the first few months of war. Zhukov by May 15 may have figured out that things would go differently. But Zhukov was not Stalin.

Insect-Us, you are one annoying little bug.

It must really irk you that John Wear is invariably right, while you struggle to take a trick.
You are one dumb bastard indeed.

The quotation “Out of thin air” regarding money creation, is from a Fed. Res. officer when he testified in front of a US gov. committee of inquiry regarding the bank’s practices.

> Stalin planned to fight enemies on their soil rather than on Soviet land.

In the broad sense, that is true. Much in the same way that Poland had hoped to penetrate into Germany and carry on a campaign there. Soviet strategy was premised on the idea that the enemy could be allowed to make an initial strike, which would be halted near the frontier within the first few months of war, and then the tide would turn with a Soviet offensive sweeping the enemy out of the country and penetrating deep into enemy territory. The Poles had planned to do exactly this with a prospective war against Germany, but the German offensive proved too strong for the Poles to throw it back. On the other side, the French had a perfect opportunity to make an offensive into west Germany in the first week of September. They could have barreled a tank force into Germany while Hitler was focused on Poland. Instead, they sat tight and waited until May for Germany to launch an offensive that was supposed to the Third Battle of the Marne or something equivalent. Instead, the German offensive in 1940 swarmed across huge patches of French territory.

At best, you’re simply giving a retroactive analysis of what would have been a better Soviet strategy in light of what we know today about how the war really went. I referred to the actual texts of Soviet war plans which are given in Glantz, Stumbling Colossus. These plans did not envision a retreat all the way back to Moscow such as occurred in September 1941.

You write: “‘Germany’s War’ is hopelessly flawed.”
My response: “You still have never answered anything I wrote in my lengthy comments #165, 208, and 240 on this discussion thread. When are you going to do so?”

I’ll repeat my answer: ‘Germany’s War’ is hopelessly flawed.

Most of your “lengthy comments” are cut-and-paste boilerplate from your magnum opus. When shown faulty, you blame somebody else (e.g. Rezun/Suvorov for a phony version of Hitler’s 21 Jun 1941 letter to Mussolini), change the subject and bury skeptics in thousands of words of the same crap. As if repeating it somehow makes it true.

“I think you are intentionally avoiding answering these comments because you are not able to do so.”

Pot meet Kettle! Answer a question you’ve avoided over multiple threads:

• If Hitler – as you claim – let the BEF escape Dunkirk as a peace “gift” why did he order their “annihilation”?

Cue Jeopardy theme.

The author of this article, F. Roger Devlin, appears on Tim Kelly’s podcast, Our Interesting Times, to discuss Hitler the Peacemaker.

F. Roger Devlin on Hitler the Peacemaker
by Our Interesting Times
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/tkelly6785757/episodes/2024-01-16T21_25_09-08_00

EPISODE DESCRIPTION

F. Roger Devlin joins Our Interesting Times to discuss his article “Hitler the Peacemaker” which is a review of David L. Hoggan’s The Forced War, a book presenting a revisionist thesis that Hitler and Germany did not bear primary responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939.

Roger Devlin is a prominent academic philosopher and American white identitarian. He is also the author of Sexual Utopia in Power and a regular author at Counter-Currents and the Occidental Quarterly.

I have some futher thoughts on this. Let us consider the Soviet plans versus how events actually played out:

On the eve of World War II, the Soviet military’s tentative plans for initial strategic operations after the first strikes by the enemy and the completion of mobilization can be briefly described as follows. The main strike was to be inflicted on the enemy on the Krakow line of advance by forces from the southwestern front and the right wing of the western front in order to cut Germany off from the Balkans, its major source of raw materials, food, and, above all, oil. Later, a Soviet attack would be carried out on the northern and northwestern lines of advance to destroy the main German forces and take Poland and East Prussia. The northwestern front and two armies of the right wing of the western front were supposed to go on the defensive, but if conditions were favorable, they were to launch an offensive to take the Suwalki region and then to attack Insterburg (Chernyakhovsk) and Allenstein (Olsztyn) in order to tie down enemy forces operating northwest of Brest and in Western Prussia. In the first stage of advance, the task of the main forces of the southwestern front and the left wing of the western front would be to defeat the Lublin and Sandomierz groupings of the enemy and in five to ten days reach the Vistula River. They were then supposed to attack Krakow and Kielce, reach the Pilica River and the upper waters of the Oder in twenty to thirty days. (p. 165-6)

Kokoshin, Andreĭ Afanasʹevich. Soviet strategic thought, 1917-91. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1998.
——————————————————————-

These plans anticipate allowing for a German first strike. What is true is that they underestimate the speed at which that first strike could sweep across huge swaths of Soviet territory before being stopped.

That might be true, but it seems irrational. The events of 1939-1940 challenge the claim that Soviet leaders were unaware of how quickly an invasion force could cover territory, while additional evidence suggests that Soviet “counter” offensive plans should not be taken at face value.

In another thread, you claimed earlier that the Soviet Union was caught off guard by the speed with which Germany conquered France in the summer of 1940, and that this unexpected outcome initiated the hostile takeover of the Baltic States as an ad hoc buffer zone. This is incorrect because the plans to install puppet regimes in the Baltic States were executed as deceptive multi-step processes which began with “mutual security” agreements, and those plans were formulated by mid-1939 at the latest. But getting back to the fall of France, if Soviet leaders were surprised by the speed of German victory, this undermines the claim that a year later they were unfamiliar with the potential speed of the Wehrmacht.

Also, the 1950 Korean War was a war of conquest, initiated by North Korea and supported by the U.S.S.R., but only after Stalin agreed that the circumstances were in North Korea’s favor. The more important point is that it was executed as a deceptive “counter” offensive, even though it was only the North Korean forces who had massed along the border in preparation for a full-scale attack.

If we just keep it to events prior to Barbarossa, we can find another example. The 1939 Soviet war against Finland was planned as a war of conquest which was supposed to last a few weeks, at most. The requirements, including the time limit, came from Stalin himself. The invasion was formulated as a “counter” offensive and was later executed under the pretense of a Finnish first strike—what became the Shelling of Mainila—which has since been revealed as a Soviet deception.

You might enjoy reading my article on Congressman Louis T. McFadden and the creation of the Federal Reserve System at http://www.wearswar.com/2021/06/19/congressman-louis-thomas-mcfadden-vs-the-federal-reserve-system/.

Thank you for the reply. I am not going to attempt to argue with you. I will just say that I respectfully disagree with you on many of the things that you have written.

Thank you for the new reply. I don’t know about all of these “conspiracy authors” that you cite, except for G. Edward Griffin. He is no conspiracy theorist, as he deals in facts, such as the creation of the “Federal” Reserve System…

Griffin’s claim to fame was in 1994 with his retelling of Mullins’ history of the Federal Reserve originally published in 1952, Griffin basically used Mullins’ 1983 revised edition, “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve” took advantage of a large majority of his sources, cited him twice to make a few discouraging remarks. Griffin wrote about the story of Jekyll Island yet never explained where he learned about the story from, being Mullins. G. Edward Griffin 5+ years ago during his “Red Pill Conference” was asked about this and he apologized for using Mullins sources as ‘the main guide’ for his influence without credit, he then abruptly ended the interview. Griffin also used Mullins’ (1983) subtitle, “The London Connection” as his own chapter title.

Griffin is a longtime conspiracy theorists, he personally funded the documentaries, “What in the World Are They Spraying” (2010) 3-part video series on Chemtrails.

All of the economies of the so-called civilized world are based on DEBT, “money” created out of thin air, loaned out and repayment with interest expected.

“Debt” is merely an obligation to pay and to redeem whatever was agreed upon. Money is not “created out of thin air” a popular meme used by Griffin, Ron Paul and the Austrians. By resorting to slogans you end up ignoring the processes of monetization.

People and corporations use debt and fiat money to “get one over” on their fellow human beings.

The multiplication of debt by interest becomes injurious, although an obligation to pay the principal sum agreed upon causes no harm. Bill Still and Ellen Brown capture the left by appealing for so-called, “debt free” money, an oxymoron by definition; being that money is tendered (accepted) for the payment of goods and services. “Debt free.” implies no (debt) obligation to pay whatever was agreed upon has the fulfilment and redeemability to pay. It is an oxymoron by terms. “FIAT” is decreed by Law, it does not refer to the material which the units are represented by, i.e banknotes, coins, digital representations. Gold when used as money became “FIAT” by first having it’s price fixed by Law; by “FIAT” decree.

I asked her if she knew where the “money” was coming from that I was going to be borrowing. She said that she had no idea, I told her that it was not coming from anywhere – it was just some numbers on someone’s computer monitor.

Somewhat true, without people going into the banks and signing a promissory obligation as an obligor (contractual obligation) creating a debt to repay the principal sum and interest no money would be created. New bank first customer, who are you borrowing money from? This soon becomes quite technical. You are monetizing your own production.

I then told her that this was not the worst of it. I told her that if I obtained the mortgage and missed some payments, the mortgage company could foreclose on the property and would wind up with a REAL ASSET. This was after “loaning” “money” that never existed in the first place.

True, and there was no risk in the process. The bank gives no consideration of value in the process. While the first down payment covers any costs of issuance of the amount to produced the money, as formally represented in the publishing of the banknotes, this now being modern digital representations coverage costs are lower.

All of the economies of the USA and the rest of the so-called civilized world are based on debt, as I mentioned earlier. They are based on FRAUD. Everything about the financial “systems” and the affected governments and their citizens are directly affected by this FRAUD.

Debt (an obligation) does not cause an injury though, it’s only with the multiplication of debt by interest that eventually dedicates more principal to interest allowing interest payments to supersede the original sum by the rate of interest charged.

And one more thing – this is not a conspiracy theory but a FACT – the United States government has so much “debt” that if every U.S. citizen sold all of his or her assets and donated the proceeds to the government, it would not be enough to satisfy the “outstanding debt.” Thank you.

It’s more-so such histories of conspiracies presented on banking by the likes of Griffin and related authors that are based in myths, more so than the process. An economy is an accounting system, the conspiracy theories are all the ridiculous sociofactors like Griffin with his Chemtrails, etc. There is not enough money in circulation to pay both the principal and interest, only the interest which is passed on to future generations, the unborn is rolled over on, paid. The multiplication of debt by interest (not debt by debt, by interest) keeps growing.

Griffin claims money is printed out of thin air and that there is an inflation of the money supply, in referring that an excess supply of money exists in circulation, negating how quickly this deflates by the multiplication by interest serviced, leaving the principal sum untouched. For this very topic, Griffin in his book “The Creature from Jekyll Island” says the volume in circulation does not matter.

You write about the Soviets: “What is true is that they underestimate the speed at which that first strike could sweep across huge swaths of Soviet territory before being stopped. It was expected that any German advance would be halted reasonably close to the border within the first few months, and then would be able to turn the tide and go on the offensive.”

My response: I don’t agree with this. Let me review some of the information I have previously given to Incitatus showing why I think this is not the case:

1) The Soviet Union destroyed its partisan movement in the late 1930s. Soviet leaders knew that partisan tactics could win a war against any aggressor. With the largest territory of any country in the world, Soviet territory naturally facilitated partisan warfare. In the 1920s, Stalin created light mobile units and stationed them in the woods in the event of a German attack. These partisan units were comprised only of commanders, organizers, and specialists that acted as a nucleus. At the very beginning of a war, each peacetime partisan unit would expand into a powerful formation numbering thousands of people.

The Soviet peacetime partisan groups had secret bases created in impenetrable forests and islets amid the swamps. In an emergency, the partisans could easily disappear from any attackers into the mined forests and swamps, which were impassable to the enemy. Soviet partisan units were formed in the Soviet security pale, where during retreat of Soviet troops all bridges would be blown up, tunnels buried, railroads destroyed, and communication channels evacuated. The partisan groups were trained to prevent the enemy from restoring the destroyed infrastructure. In addition, some partisans were trained for undercover activities. These partisans did not retreat to the forests, but stayed in the cities and towns with the task of “gaining the trust of the enemy” and “offering him assistance.”

Stalin did not create partisan units in the western regions of the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union’s industrial and military might grew, Stalin planned to fight enemies on their soil rather than on Soviet land. In the second half of the 1930s, defense systems and partisan units became unnecessary for the Soviet Union. Stalin reestablished partisan units only after Germany had invaded the Soviet Union.

2) We also know that Stalin systematically removed most of his defensive fortifications and stopped making defensive weapons. You can read my comment #165 on this discussion thread for more details.

3) Every Soviet commander, starting with regiment level and higher, had in his safe a so-called “Red Packet,” which contained the plans for war. When Germany invaded, the commanders opened their “Red Packets,” but they did not find in them anything useful for defense. The Red Army had neither prepared for defense nor conducted any training in defensive operations. The defensive operations of the Red Army in the summer of 1941 were pure improvisation.

4) Suvorov states in “The Chief Culprit” that both German and Soviet forces were positioned for attack on June 22, 1941. The position of the divisions of the Red Army and the German army on the border mirrored each other. The airfields of both armies were moved all the way up to the border. From the defensive point of view, this kind of deployment of troops and airfields by both armies was stupid and suicidal. Whichever army attacked first would be able to easily encircle the troops of the other army. Hitler attacked first to enable German troops to trap and encircle the best units of the Red Army.

5) If Stalin was preparing for a defensive war, he should have ordered his plane designers to create the best fighters in the world, capable of defending the skies over the Soviet Union. But fighters did not interest Stalin. Stalin ordered his fighter designer to drop all his work on the creation of a fighter and start developing a light bomber, named the Ivanov originally, and later the Su-2 in honor of its creator, P. O. Sukhoi.

I have written extensively on this subject in my comments #165, 208, and 240 on this discussion thread. You can read them again if you want more detailed information. I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of all of Europe. Hitler’s attack of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 was preemptive in nature.

> The phrases indicated that the Soviets were planning to conduct an offensive war in Europe.

The actual Soviet war-plans dated May 14 & June 2, 1941, can be found in Appendix B of David Glantz, Stumbling Colossus. These plans anticipate allowing for a German first strike. What is true is that they underestimate the speed at which that first strike could sweep across huge swaths of Soviet territory before being stopped. It was expected that any German advance would be halted reasonably close to the border within the first few months, and then would be able to turn the tide and go on the offensive.

Since you take an apparent interest in phrases, you should spend more time looking at Hitler’s phrases. An honest look at Hitler’s phrases shows that he was not envisioning an imminent Soviet attack on Germany, but that he expected the USSR to fall swiftly within a few months. Rezun is just manipulating select quotes out of context.

> creating “money” out of thin air, loaning it to the government (taxpayers) and expecting repayment with interest.

False.

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty7.html

by Edward Flaherty (last updated September 5, 2000)

Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.

In my experience this particular myth has alarmed more people than any other. The Federal Reserve is a bank, no? Banks do not lend money for free, right? Our currency comes into circulation only when the government borrows currency from the Fed — at interest — and then spends it into the economy, right?. This means we, as citizens, pay interest on the very currency that we use. Conspiracy theorists believe this is part of the alleged “New World Order” plot to bankrupt the United States.

What is the truth here? Does the government really pay interest on our paper money, Federal Reserve Notes?

The fact that no crash occurred following the Battle of Waterloo resulting in no take over (alleged by all great conspiracy “researchers’) collapses the foundation for such conspiracy “knowledge” it is the truth. No crash on the London Exchange, no conspiracy by the Red Shields.

Did you know Nathan was offered a knighthood by the British government weeks following the defeat of Napoleon? The same government he is claimed to have superceded by taking over the Bank of England? Nathan however dismissed the knighthood. see, Brian Cathcart he is the main Professor who has exposed such nonsense has being mere inventive, and unfounded fictions.

Thank you for the new reply. I don’t know about all of these “conspiracy authors” that you cite, except for G. Edward Griffin. He is no conspiracy theorist, as he deals in facts, such as the creation of the “Federal” Reserve System and their completely unconstitutional privilege of creating “money” out of thin air, loaning it to the government (taxpayers) and expecting repayment with interest. On “money” that never existed in the first place.

All of the economies of the so-called civilized world are based on DEBT, “money” created out of thin air, loaned out and repayment with interest expected. People and corporations use debt and fiat money to “get one over” on their fellow human beings.

I will give you one personal example of what I am talking about. When relocating to NE Tennessee from northern Illinois, i needed to obtain a mortgage, in order to purchase a home. I had the money in my IRA investments, but would have incurred a huge income tax liability, had I accessed this money. The mortgage outfit was “making me jump through hoops” and I just kept getting more and more upset with the process.

I was outside my girlfriend’s apartment one day, smoking my pipe and fuming over this situation. I walked back inside and she asked me what I was upset about. I told her that it was on account of the process of getting a mortgage. I asked her if she knew where the “money” was coming from that I was going to be borrowing. She said thar she had no idea, I told her that it was not coming from anywhere – it was just some numbers on someone’s computer monitor.

I then told her that this was not the worst of it. I told her that if I obtained the mortgage and missed some payments, the mortgage company could foreclose on the property and would wind up with a REAL ASSET. This was after “loaning” “money” that never existed in the first place.

All of the economies of the USA and the rest of the so-called civilized world are based on debt, as I mentioned earlier. They are based on FRAUD. Everything about the financial “systems” and the affected governments and their citizens are directly affected by this FRAUD.

And one more thing – this is not a conspiracy theory but a FACT – the United States government has so much “debt” that if every U.S. citizen sold all of his or her assets and donated the proceeds to the government, it would not be enough to satisfy the “outstanding debt.”

Thank you.

For UR readers not familiar with Soll (short for Solomon), they should be aware that I have crossed paths with this member of the (((tribe))) some time ago, and have observed that he is committed to distorting the facts to suit his Talmudic agenda.
Everything he says should be taken with a grain of matzah balls.

Soll makes this claim (in relation to Nathan Rothschild’s insider trading that enabled him to vastly increase his fortune based on prior knowledge of the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo):

The problem with this story was there never was a crash on the London Exchange ….

As Soll’s graph of UK perpetual bonds demonstrates, said bonds had been on a steady decline in the 18 months prior to the Battle of Waterloo (which occurred on Sunday 18 June 1815), after peaking in early 1814.
After all, if there is one thing the market is uncomfortable with, it is uncertainty (ie: uncertainty as to the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars). And periods such as these are noted for market declines.
But the graph that Soll provides tells us NOTHING about the gyrations of the markets that occurred INTRA-DAY on Monday 19 June, the day that Rothschild greatly increased his fortune.
You see, when stock market indexes are tabulated, they merely record the CLOSING PRICE for the index at the END of the days trading.

As we all know, when the market opened on Monday 19 June, Nathan Rothschild started selling in a frenzy. This panicked the other traders who sold at pennies on the pound (said traders assumed that Rothschild had gotten info on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo and that Great Britain had lost).
Meanwhile, agents of Nathan Rothschild came in at the lows and purchased at bargain basement prices.
For example, in the case of the consols in that graph Soll posted, they may have started the day at around 56, but after they crashed may have gone down INTRA-DAY to around 25, 15 (or perhaps momentarily even single digits ? )

Needless to say, as Rothschild’s agents bought all the cheaply traded consols and EXHAUSTED THE PANICKED SELLERS who were willing to sell at the lows, the price of consols would have rebounded by the end of the day and may well have reached the level that it had been trading at the start of the session.
In other words, the closing price DOES NOT REFLECT the fact that there were wild gyrations during the day.

Secondly, said graph of Soll’s only plots the index for UK perpetual bonds.
For certain the London Stock Exchange would have also traded all manner of other marketable securities – like the East India Company or perhaps some ship building stocks (Britannia did after all rule the waves in the early 19th century).

So, over and above the trading in consols, FOR CERTAIN there were numerous other marketable securities that Rothschild also picked up at pennies on the pound.

SUMMARY: Soll is indeed a slippery character. I’ve been following his misdirection in the various comments he’s posted in this thread.
Make no mistake UR readers, he and fellow members of the (((tribe))) like Patrick McNally*, have a Talmudic axe to grind, so their comments are almost invariably worthless.

(*McNally’s real name is Mordechai Moshe Baruch Shlongstein, or something equivalent.
He uses the Anglo-Celtic fake handle to deflect attention away from the fact that he has a kosher dog in the race).

It’s been over a decade since I paid attention to such conspiracies has related to the fringe history of banking commonly presented in such works as Bill Still, Ellen Brown or in the repackaging being given above by radio host Michael Rivero. It was eventually through those hoax quotes being exposed and how conspiracy authors steal prior works that turned me away from such worldwide.

To give an example which you have probably become familiar with and which all such authors and pundits promote for their narratives to hold and a main foundation they build upon.

It’s alleged that Nathan Rothschild following the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 upon receiving news of the outcome spread opposite news of the defeat at the London Exchange causing a panic and crash in the value of government consols, the stock in the Bank of England, leading to the crash and Rothschild acquiring the majority of shares to eventually come to controling the Bank of England, then spread to the world etc, the usual stories presented in, “The Creature from Jekyll Island” (1994), “The Money Masters” (1996), “The Web of Debt” (2007), “The Secret of Oz” (2009) including, “All Wars are Bankers Wars” (2013).

The problem with this story was there never was a crash on the London Exchange for any of the following claims to have occurred. The majority of conspiracy theories of the past 100+ years largely depends upon this single non-event as being true. Added with all the hoax quotes which allegedly support such a story you now end up with the lunacy of Alex Jones, David Icke and of such fringe cults like QAnon.

Incite-us (aka Insect-us), you’re a pesky little fellow, aren’t you ?

In the past I’d encountered first hand you’re shilling on behalf of your Talmudic overlords, and your constant disinfo was quite an irritant. Fortunately, I hadn’t heard from you for a while and was hoping that you’d done the honourable thing and committed ritual seppuku, to spare us from your mendacity.
No such luck. You’re back posting nonsense for the (((tribe))) like the sayan that you are.

Now be a good fellow, STFU and actually listen to those in the commentariat that are infinitely better informed than you are. Like the standout example of scholarly and independent research John Wear.

Thank you for the “back story” on the video.

You write: “LOL! 1900 words from SpamMaster Wear! Agree it’s enough. In the interest of accuracy, shouldn’t you say: ‘There is more I could cut-and-paste. A 1900-words spam is enough for now.’”

My response: What I wrote in comment #240 is not spam. It is directly on point in proving that Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature. That is what we have been discussing on this discussion thread.

I will continue with more evidence that Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature:

1) On June 13, 1941, TASS broadcast that “Germany was following the conditions of the Soviet-German pact as flawlessly as the Soviet Union,” and that rumors of an impending German attack on the USSR “were clumsily fabricated propaganda by the enemies of Germany and the USSR, interested in broadening and prolonging the war.” The TASS announcement also stated, “Rumors that the USSR is preparing for war against Germany are false and provocative.…” However, the reality is that Soviet troops were already traveling to the western border. June 13, 1941, marked the beginning of the biggest organized movement of troops, arms, ammunition, and other military supplies in history.

For example, the First Strategic Echelon of the Red Army had 170 tank, motorized, cavalry, and rifle divisions. Fifty-six of them were already located right on the border and could not move any farther ahead. All of the remaining 114 divisions began to move toward the border in the wake of the reassuring TASS announcement on June 13, 1941.

This massive troop movement could not have been defensive. Troops preparing for defense dig themselves into the ground, close off roads, establish barbwire barriers, dig anti-tank trenches, and prepare covers behind the barricades. The Red Army did none of these things. Instead, the additional Soviet divisions began to hide in the border forests just like the German troops preparing for invasion. The TASS announcement was made solely in an attempt to falsely allay German fears of a pending Soviet invasion of Europe. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 207-217).

2) Suvorov also mentions that Soviet soldiers and officers were issued Russian-German and Russian-Romanian phrase books as part of their preparations for an invasion of Europe. Thousands of Soviet troops did not think to get rid of this compromising evidence when they were captured in the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The Russian-German phrase books were composed very simply: a question in Russian, followed by the same question in German written in Russian letters, then in German in Latin letters. If the Soviet soldier did not know how to pronounce the needed German phrase, he could point to the corresponding lines in the book and the Germans could read the lines themselves.

The phrases indicated that the Soviets were planning to conduct an offensive war in Europe. For example, some phrases asked: “Where is the burghermeister? Is there an observation point on the steeple?” There were no burghermeisters or steeples in the Soviet Union. These questions are relevant only if the Soviet soldiers were in Germany. Here are other examples: “Where is the fuel? Where is the garage? Where are the stores? Where is the water? Gather and bring here [so many] horses [farm animals], we will pay!” These questions and phrases would not be relevant on Soviet soil. Other revealing phrases are the following: “You do not need to be afraid. The Red Army will come soon!” These phrases are also not relevant for a war conducted on Soviet soil. (Source: Ibid., pp. 257-258).

3) The Soviet Union also engaged in a number of military operations prior to Germany’s invasion on June 22, 1941.

In October 1939, Stalin’s diplomats continued the Soviet Union’s territorial aggression by demanding the cession of the Karelian Isthmus from Finland in exchange for a territory twice the size of the isthmus. Stalin’s demands were rejected because the Karelian Isthmus is a direct gateway to the capital of Finland. The geographical disposition of Finland is such that any aggression against Finland from the Soviet Union could come only through the Karelian Isthmus. For this reason, starting in 1918, Finland began an extensive buildup of defensive fortifications and obstructions on the Karelian Isthmus known as the Mannerheim Line. Finland spent practically all of her military budget for the 10 years preceding the war on the completion of the Mannerheim Line. Stalin’s diplomats in essence had demanded that Finland hand over to the Red Army all of her heavily fortified defenses in exchange for swampland and marshy woods which no one needed. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 136-137).

Stalin issued an order to crush Finland when Stalin’s demands were rejected. After a brief but intense artillery softening-up, the Red Army crossed the Finnish border on Nov. 30, 1939. The Red Army first encountered a security pale full of traps, barricades, obstacles, and minefields. The entire space was filled with granite boulders, concrete blocks, forest blockages, scarps and counterscarps, anti-tank trenches, and bridges wired with explosives ready to be blown up by the Finnish border patrol. Finnish snipers and light mobile squads were fully active and operating to the best of their capacity. The Red Army took two weeks and suffered heavy casualties before it passed through the security pale.

After overcoming the security pale, the Red Army reached Finland’s main line of defense–the Mannerheim Line. The line was a brilliantly camouflaged defense structure, well integrated into the surroundings, and stretching up to 30 kilometers in depth. In addition to innumerable minefields and anti-tank trenches, the Mannerheim Line contained 2,311 concrete, ironclad, and wooden defense structures, as well as granite boulders and hundreds of rows of thick barbwire on metal stakes connected to mines. The fighting on the Mannerheim Line was especially tenacious. The Red Army finally broke through the Mannerheim Line on March 12, 1940, after suffering colossal casualties: 126,875 soldiers and officers killed, 188,671 wounded, 58,370 ill, and 17,867 frostbitten. (Source: Ibid., pp. 137-140).

Only three months after the Soviet Union ended military operations in Finland, the three Baltic nations, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, surrendered to Stalin and became republics of the Soviet Union. The governments and military leadership of these three Baltic countries had carefully watched the war in Finland. They correctly concluded that the Red Army could not be stopped by any number of casualties, and that resistance to the Soviet Union was futile.

Therefore, the three Baltic nations surrendered without firing a shot. With the addition of these three neutral countries, the Soviet Union advanced its borders to the west and made it easier for the Soviet Union to conduct an offensive operation against Europe. (Source: Ibid., pp. 144-145).

Stalin also issued an ultimatum to the government of Romania to give up Bessarabia. Realizing that resistance was futile, Romania handed over both Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union without even organizing lengthy talks. (Source: Ibid., p. 145).

Thus, within less than a year, the Soviet Union took over the eastern part of Poland by military force, conducted an extremely difficult and successful invasion of Finland, forced the Baltic nations of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia to join the Soviet Union against their will, and took possession of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania. These Soviet military conquests and ultimatums expanded the Soviet Union’s territory by 426,000 square kilometers, approximately equal to the surface area of the German Reich in 1919. (Source: Hoffmann, Joachim, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 1941-1945: Planning, Realization, and Documentation, Capshaw, AL: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2001, p. 31).

These Soviet military operations prove that the Soviet Union was extremely powerful and aggressive. The Soviet Union was well-positioned after these military conquests to launch a massive offensive against all of Europe. Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 prevented the Soviet Union from conquering all of Europe.

You write: “‘Germany’s War’ is hopelessly flawed.”

My response: You still have never answered anything I wrote in my lengthy comments #165, 208, and 240 on this discussion thread. When are you going to do so? I think you are intentionally avoiding answering these comments because you are not able to do so.

“There is more I could write. This is enough for now.”

LOL! 1900 words from SpamMaster Wear! Agree it’s enough. In the interest of accuracy, shouldn’t you say:

‘There is more I could cut-and-paste. A 1900-words spam is enough for now.’

Wear: “In regard to Hitler’s letter of June 21, 1941, I got my information directly from page 159 of Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit.” I did not intentionally alter Hitler’s letter. You are making an unfair and inaccurate allegation here.”

So now it’s Rezun/Suvorov’s fault? Your/his quote is fraudulent. Don’t you/doesn’t he check your/his sources? When Suvorov speaks do your lips move?

Wear: “You declared on this discussion thread that Alan Bullock was a universally respected historian. This of course is nonsense.”

Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
• AJP Tayler ‘Origins of the Second World War’ #107,906 in Books
• Bullock: ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’ #161,106 in Books
• Irving: ‘Hitler’s War’ #1,844,559 in Books
• Harry Elmer Barnes: ‘The Genesis of the World War’ #4,103,432 in Books

AJP Taylor on ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’:

“There have been books on Nazi thought and policy, on the diplomatic conflicts, and the World War; none has attempted to cover Hitler’s record. Bullock has now filled the gap triumphantly. With this book he puts himself in the front rank of contemporary historians.”

AJP Taylor on Harry Elmer Barnes’ ‘Genesis of the World War’:

“most preposterously pro-German.”

AJP Taylor on revisionists Barnes and Hoggan:

“marked by obsessive loathing for their own country, nostalgia for isolationism, hatred for the New Deal and a tendency to engage in bizarre conspiracy theories.”

‘Germany’s War’ seems to fit that bill perfectly.

Wear: “Alan Bullock was a court historian whose job was to support the official Allied narrative.”

Sour grapes or another ‘bizarre conspiracy theory’.

Let’s get back to ‘Germany’s War’ – Chapter Three:

Wear: “Since the summer of 1934, Austria had been governed by a conservative dictatorship headed by Dr. Kurt von Schuschnigg. Schuschnigg persecuted Austrians who favored unification with Germany. Political dissidents landed in concentration camps, and the regime denied persons of “deficient civic reliability” the right to practice their occupation.“

“In January 1938, Austrian police discovered plans of some Austrian National Socialists to overthrow Schuschnigg in violation of a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” entered into with Germany on July 11, 1936. Schuschnigg met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden on Feb. 12, 1938, complaining of the attempted overthrow of his government by Austrian National Socialists. Hitler and Schuschnigg reached an agreement that day, but Schuschnigg claimed that Hitler had been violent in manner during the first two hours of conversation. Some accounts of their meeting say that Schuschnigg was bullied by Hitler and subject to a long list of indignities.”

“Schuschnigg began to consider means of repudiating the agreement made with Hitler in their meeting on Feb. 12, 1938. Schuschnigg’s solution was to hold a rigged plebiscite. On March 9, 1938, Schuschnigg announced that a plebiscite would be held four days later on March 13, 1938, to decide, finally and forever, whether Austria was to remain an independent nation.”

Here’s what Wear leaves out:

• Hitler engineered Austrian NS uprisings and a botched first Austrian putsch attempt July 1934;
• Austrian NS murdered Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dolfuß 25 July 1934;
• NSs associated with the putsch were arrested and jailed: they weren’t innocent “dissadents”;
• 10,000 NS paramilitaries, previously inciting revolt, were forced to disband – most fled to Germany;
• Hitler recognized Austria’s “full sovereignty” and promised non-intervention in its affairs in the 11 Jul 1936 Austro-German Agreement (Juliabkommen);
• Hitler continued to foment unrest against the Austrian government [Göbbels 7 May 1936: “We must maintain tension in Austria and Czechoslovakia. Never let things settle down”];
• Austrian NS terror attacks continued (800+ murders 1934-38);
• Plans for a second NS putsch and a cache of weapons were discovered at Austrian NS Party Headquarters in Vienna 25 Jan 1938; they called for sabotage to increase tension and provide a pretense for direct Wehrmacht military intervention; they also marked Chancellor Schuschnigg for assassination;
• Hitler promised to honor the Juliabkommen (Austrian sovereignty and non-intervention) as a condition for Schuschnigg’s 12 Feb 1938 visit;
• Hitler reneged on his pledge and on the Juliabkommen on Schuschnigg’s arrival, attacking with raucous boasts and violent intimidation, insisting Schuschnigg agree to his demands on the spot;
• Schuschnigg was legally unable to commit Austria to anything: demands had to be submitted to Austrian President Miklas for approval. Hitler was told at the time. Miklas subsequently refused approval. There was no need to ‘repudiate’ an agreement that never had legal standing;
• Hitler/Göring authored a cable requesting German intervention, sent it to NS Seyss-Inquart to be resent to Germany so the request would appear spontaneous and Austrian;
• Hitler’s plebiscite, held after armed German occupation, was just a “rigged” as anything Schuschnigg proposed;
• Austrians welcomed union with Germany, but not necessarily with NS; instead of co-equal status Vienna was subordinated to Berlin;
• Germany plundered 100 tons of Austrian gold (four times the German reserves);
• Germany devalued and abolished the Austrian Shilling;
• Germany confiscated more than half the Austrian industrial base;
• Germany forced the sale of privately-held gold, foreign currency and stock at bargain prices;
• Germany dismissed, arrested and imprisoned Austrians unaligned with NS;
• Germany imprisoned Schuschnigg in concentration camps 1938-45; he, and other VIP prisoners, narrowly escaped execution when their SS guard deserted.

‘Germany’s War’ is hopelessly flawed.

Michaels documentary is basically a poor retelling of Bill Stlll’s, “The Money Masters” (1996) which likewise contains practically 100% hoax quotes alleged throughout against the various presidents of the United States, from Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson etc.

Still’s sloppy work of “The Money Masters” and all such hoax quotes forced him to produce “The Secret of Oz” (2008) based on the book, “The Web of Debt” (2007) by cooking author and fringe lawyer Ellen Brown. Likewise, Brown stole her fictional work from school teacher Henry Littlefield (1964) he had created a fictional narrative to hold his pupils for learning about U.S history, by using Baum’s, “The Wizard of Oz.”

Still attempting to repair his ridiculous,”The Money Masters” turned Ellen Brown’s stolen work of Littlefield’s into “The Secret of Oz” alleging Baum wrote Oz to expose the alleged banking conspiracies of the Republic. Both present Baum as supporting the Greenbacks, when Baum advocated the Gold Standard, both twisted Baum as-a populist supporting William Jennings Byran [D] when Baum had supported William McKinley [R].

Henry Littlefield apologized for his fiction to the New York Times in early 1992 (with two columns) and formally in The Baum Bugle (Spring issue, 1992) this the connection with Baum, Oz and banking stories had ended. Then came Ellen Brown during the recession of 2007 looking to make a name and money, stole Henry Littlefield’s work has the bases for her book, “The Web of Debt” she also includes the same hoax quotes as found in “The Money Masters” which “All Wars are Bankers Wars” merely repackages.

Here’s my “utter garbage about the US installing a puppet government” that was posted 18 days before the coup.

Quote: “All wars are bankers wars.”

You are 100% correct – ALL wars are bankers’ wars.

Thank you.

The Pope sided with Germany because it was Christian/Catholic.
Do you honestly believe the Pope would have sided with the murderous atheist communist Soviet Union? The current Pope perhaps since he agrees with everything un-Christian.

> The delegates began to see Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany, bolstering the Communist Party of Germany.

> Hence, as Leon Trotsky remarked, the revolution should be “brought on the bayonets”

Another example of your dishonest way of twisting select quotes taken out of context. You’ve repeatedly resorted to citing Hitler’s remarks made from October 1941 and onward as some sort of evidence that really Hitler was only invading the USSR because he was worried about an attack from Stalin. But ant actual review of Hitler’s statements up to the launching of Barbarossa, and into the first 2 months or so of the campaign, shows that he was expecting an easy victory in which he would finally achieve his aim of conquering living space and as a side-benefit he would force Britain to concede to his terms of dominating eastern Europe. There simply is not evidence that Hitler saw Barbarossa as a preemption of anything by Stalin. That was a line which took up when he needed to justify launching a failed campaign.

Now about the statements which you are claiming to cite from Soviet officials. Trotsky’s statement was made in 1918 when no one was thinking about a Polish-Soviet war. The campaigns of the Red Army of that time were centered on territory which everyone in 1914 would have regarded as Russian territory. Conflicts with Ukraine and the Baltics were as far out as things went at that time.

By 1920, when the issue of whether or not the Soviet army should respond to Pilsudski’s offensive by trying to advance on Warsaw, Trotsky was opposed to the idea.

—–
Trotsky, as Commissar of War, had the right to press the military viewpoint. In spite of his reputation, Trotsky was cautious. As creator of the Red Army, he knew its limitations and its state of exhaustion. Its success in the Civil War was not to be put at risk lightly… He acquiesced in the Polish war sullenly and without enthusiasm. When the war was going well, he did little to restrain it; when negotiations were possible, he was ready, like Lenin, to explore them.
—–
— Norman Davies, White Eagle — Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War 1919-1920 and “The Miracle on the Vistula”, pp. 67-8, 70.

—–
Several key members of the Bolshevik Central Committee, including Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin, strenuously objected to Lenin’s plans to reach Germany. Karol Radek, the Soviet expert on foreign policy, opined that the Polish and German people were not prepared to accept communism. Why not make peace with the Poles on the basis of the British-proposed Curzon Line of 1919? … Stalin and several others changed their minds when the crucial vote was taken, giving Lenin the victory.
—–
— Robert Szymczak, “Bolshevik Wave Breaks at Warsaw,” Military History, February 1995, p. 59.

Lenin had allowed himself to get duped by claims from Polish Communists, who led him to believe that Polish laborers were ready to revolt at any time now. This was not the view shared by Trotsky, and nothing which he said in 1918 has any bearing on the Polish issue of 1920. As it happened, Lenin himself was forced to admit in conversing with Clara Zetkin that he had been misled into an awful mistake:

—–
Radek predicted how it would turn out. He warned us. I was very angry and accused him of ‘defeatism’ … But he was right in his main contention. He knows affairs outside Russia better than we do. We were reconciled a short time ago… Soviet Russia can only win if it shows that it only carries on war to defend the Revolution…, that it has no intention to seize land, suppress nations, or embark on an imperialist venture.
—–
— Davies, White Eagle — Red Star, pp. 265-6.

Nothing similar can be found anywhere in Hitler’s private statements prior to June 22, 1941. All of Hitler’s comments, from the earliest days in the 1920s and to the eve of Barbarossa, simply show him thinking of acquiring living space through a rapid strike in the east, without any expectation that the Polish or Soviet armies will be able to withstand the blow.

How many times must I repeat myself? Here’s a re-post on this very subject:

All wars are bankers wars.

International Organizations must find a way to restrict the initial flows of money and other investments that go into emerging conflict zones. This financial restriction or nipping at the bud, will stop the next major war from starting. In effect, commentators must be vigilant and follow the money from the very start to the finish line…

Be it atomic or conventional weapons warfare, military conflicts initially, have a specific goal. But how to address the premonitory period leading up to escalation, followed by mass slaughter? The UN and similar agencies tried desperately to create recognized rules of engagement-to no avail. Despite the Nuremberg trials, attempts to and codify what constitutes a war crime failed to do what was and is impossible to do, reduce the needless savagery of war. Let us take a moment to review recent U.S. history; Congress delivered on a platter the fate of Vietnam handing it to that devil’s lieutenant, LBJ. Giving him carte blanche to do whatever he ordered the military to do there. Thus Congress took steps to relinquish most of the responsibility and guilt attached to war, in this case a “police action”…not unlike the biblical Pilot of old, washing their hands of the entire matter. In the end, and with the help of President Nixon, more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than in all of World War two and then indebted our tax payers with a one trillion USD (circa a 1965 valuation) price tag. At the same time these same facts shook the Christian foundations of morality when B-52’s carpet bombed, napalmed, used Agent Orange against a third world and impoverished nation. The western media began to publish rumors of a phenomena colloquially known as “fragging”, murdering officers on patrol committed by their subordinates. Gradually over time all these atrocities became common knowledge. The one trillion USD did not include long term health care costs or the suffering wounded veterans endure to this day. My point being, no legal writ, policy or standardization can ever solve the riddle of how to turn war into a series of respectable engagements (killings). The prospect of another world war has yet to awaken the citizenry at large to denounce statements by Naval officials at the Pentagon, who now incorporate the use of small atomic munitions into conflict scenarios. They truly believe that the use of these weapons will not expand beyond a battlefield or specific region of the globe.

The handwashing by “Pilot” (incompetents like Biden) has returned to repeat history, with the introduction of AI software into Atomic munitions on the battlefield where decision making will be made inside the bomb and not some three star general.

Zooming out of this picture and prior to the Vietnam “conflict”, war bonds, war taxes, savings stamps, or other financial instrument(s) were used during any major conflict. They were a means to finance a nations war footing however were not applied after the Korean War ended. Consequently, any military actions after 1953 (Vietnam and the next seven “conflicts”) reduced the purchasing power of USD, do mainly to the printing of money (going into debt) but the economic impact was negligible at first because of a global confidence in our USD coupled with two undeniable facts. At that time, the USA was number one in a wide variety of finished product production(s) for domestic and foreign markets and Fort Knox stored most of the worlds gold, with bullion free of Tungsten !

Not to wander too far off from the original subject, somewhere between 1960 and 1970, the House Ways and Means Committee had a closed door session. To deliberate on strategies that could finance future “police or kinetic actions” since a Declaration of War by Congress automatically translated into destroying valuable private properties situated on the soil of the enemy or nonbelligerent. These properties were owned by Western Occident Oligarchs. Surely, alternative countries could be found, put in the cross-hairs of our MI then after war’s end, foreign investment would flood in. For example; During WW II German civilians were astonished by how accurate and destructive allied bombing was of residential areas adjacent to weapons manufacturing facilities, yet factory buildings were left completely unscathed. You may very well ask, why? Factories belonged to the Oligarchs. As Shakespeare once wrote, there’s the rub…in this case, property is always more valuable than life! Along similar lines During WW II, Switzerland manufactured and delivered both day and night via rail, guns and munitions to a war torn Germany, yet those factories and transportation systems were never bombed…

The grumblers at Ways and Means concluded that the only solution to investing in war, regardless of the outcome was to tap into the largest pile of money anywhere around, our Social Security Fund -SSF. In effect to finance the “softening up” aka bombing, of commodity rich but human resource(s) poor second and third world nations. This choice was far better than tapping speculative investors or issuing treasury instruments at an enticingly high interest rate for those capitalists trained in the black art of turning blood into gold. However a few congressional lobbying efforts had to overcome certain limitations within the SS Act. The fund was in a lock box, could not be borrowed against nor monies withdrawn from it for alternate purposes. FDR saw to it that restrictive protections were built-in. A necessity during promulgation, knowing the greed and rapacity of his very own aristocratic classes. Well, like contracts, any good (corrupt) lawyer can break one. So too the fate of our Social Security Fund by legislators who betrayed the rank-and-file worker, permitting the theft of monies they never intended to replace back into the SSF. Borrowing lock-box monies to fiance war. It was so easy, circulating a simple amendment to the original Act. Since 1975, the MICongressional Complex, has ravaged the Social Security Fund not to serve national interests but to steal from every day workers who paid into it by deductions from their weekly paychecks. To add to their sins, the US war machine then insisted on burning the candle at both ends by printing money atop of what they were pilfering from the Fund. Total nihilists and maniacs because the MIC knew what was indeed down the road (financially) and did not give a hoot! With three or more different passports, private jets, ready cash in their strong boxes and dozens of Greek islands to choose from, the Oligarchs could care less what flag was flying on their new overseas estate(s).

One have to conclude, that Stalin and his offensive build up, does not exonerate Hitler in his directive of Barbarossa, of which he made a disaster. The preventive move was correct, but the continuance seems megalomaniac or a sabotage.

From where do you get the nonsensical idea that Pius XII supported Hitler and Nazism? He was vilified in the German press and was the main author of the “Mit Brennender Sorge” from 1937. in which Hitler and his racist ideas were demolished.

Of course at the time it was normal not to receive a majority of the vote. It’s not like someone else got more of the vote than Hitler did.

Also recall that Stalin still has an 80% approval rating or something equally postmodernist. “You jailed 5-10% of the population, but no big.” Likewise Germans basically approved of Hitler, voting irregularities or no. Despite everything, these despots rule with the consent of the governed.

Kirdorf was personally responsible for Hitler’s connection to German heavy industry, in 1927 he had Hitler write his 2nd work after Mein Kampf, called: Der Weg zum Wiederauf-stieg (The Road to Resurgence) a 60-odd page book written only for the industrialists of Germany. The Ruhrlade, was a secret group in the late 1920s with the wealthiest in Germany who were committed to destroying the Republic, they had influenced Bruning’s austerity programs during the Great Depression which gave the opening for Hitler.

Germans elected Hitler because they accurately assessed his character.

Hitler was never “elected” into office by the Germans. He never received a majority of the vote, instead he was appointed into office by Hindenburg after Goring secured his interests with Schacht along with the industrialists of German heavy industry, such as Emil Kirdorf.

The Germans hardly knew anything about Hitler prior to 1933, as he was unwilling to even give many interviews. The Germans were done with the Weimar Republic, they voted for the end of the Republic, not through being in support of Hitler’s screaming abilities.

Very silly.

Thank you. I can seerit in Churchill’s concern that the US and. Soviet Union might suspect that Britaon was going behind theor backd. Also, all nets would be off if Hitler eas deposed. I imagine that “uncoditional surrender” would have become much more flexible.

I knew you would ask for sources, but I don’t think this is a controversial claim. I have already pointed out that two armistice offers were rejected by the end of 1940. There’s also Churchill’s famous “blood, tears, and sweat” speech of May 1940:

You ask, what is our policy? I can only say: It is to wage war by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us, to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be.

Plus Rudolf Hess was immediately imprisoned when he landed in Britain and Churchill had no interest in meeting with him. But here is more substantial evidence:

On 20 January 1941 Churchill had instructed Foreign Secretary Eden concerning any kind of peace feelers, as follows: “Your predecessor was entirely misled in December 1939. Our attitude towards all such inquiries or suggestions should be absolute silence. It may well be that a new peace offensive will open upon us as an alternative to threats of invasion and poison gas.” Churchill confirmed this position on 10 September 1941, after some officials had disregarded the earlier directive. Between 6 and 10 September 1941, Foreign Secretary Eden had reported to Prime Minister Churchill on the latest “peace feelers,” indicating at least the possibility that they might be taken seriously, as for example an approach by Dr. Goerdeler: “In July a message was sent by Herr Goerdeler (former Burgomaster of Leipzig) to our S.I.S. agent in Switzerland, suggesting negotiations in Switzerland. Goerdeler claims to be in touch with a group of German Generals headed by Generals Halder and Blaskowitz. We have had messages from him before, and are not disposed to trust him.”

Eden mentioned another proposal received through Stockholm from “a representative and influential opposition movement in Germany known as the Free Reconstruction Movement. This movement was said to accept all the eight points of the Atlantic Charter except point 8, which would be a basis for negotiation. It was suggested that negotiations should be opened in Sweden with an emissary of the British Government. The S.I.S. consider this to be a genuine approach.” Although Eden said he would advise nothing more than authorizing receipt of any further messages through neutral intermediaries, his comments seem to hint that he would have preferred to pursue the approach more actively. Churchill replied on 10 September 1941: “I am sure we should not depart from our policy of absolute silence. Nothing would be more disturbing to our friends in the United States or more dangerous with our new ally, Russia, than the suggestion that we were entertaining such ideas. I am absolutely opposed to the slightest contact. If you do not agree, the matter should be brought before the War Cabinet sitting alone.” Eden replied to Churchill’s strong language on 11 September 1941: “I do agree and am in fact relieved at your decision. The case in favour was, I thought, worth a mention.”

Hoffmann, Peter, “Peace through Coup D’État: The Foreign Contacts of the German Resistance 1933–1944,” Central European History, 19 (1986), 3–44
——————————————————

After December 1941, it was basically impossible to enter into negotiations with Germany because the Allies agreed on ‘unconditional surrender’–meaning the German state would be dissolved–and neither America or the Soviet Union would accept anything less. Although I think Stalin enjoyed upsetting the Western allies by implying (deceptively) he might accept a separate peace with Hitler.

jelly slime doesn’t deny he would blame the Germans if the allies had initiated gas warfare on Germany.

What is the evidence for the British govrrnment ‘s stance being

1.

Unless Germany agreed to return to the 1920s borders, and probably dissolve the NS party, plus other punitive measures, which obviously Germany would never accept.

and where do you find evidence for Churchill’s attitude as expressed here?

2.

But even if the generals had succeeded in a coup d’état of the Nazi regime in 1940, I think it’s unlikely Churchill would negotiate with them either.

Thank you Caroline for letting these facts about WW2 be known to the English speaking World. He is sooo correct about everything. However he missed that FDR was pro-Communist and pro-Stalin. The American Government was full of Soviet agents.

Stanton M. Evans, “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”

Stalins Secret Agents – M. Stanton Evans & Herbert Romerstein – Introduction
Examination of the shocking infiltration of the US government by Stalin’s Soviet intelligence networks during WWII.

This is ridiculous. Anglophile Hitler’s attitude towards Britain was very different from that of Kaiser Germany’s.

Suvorov was no ‘historian’, he was hack: “Viktor Suvorov” a nom-de-plume , real name Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, was a traitor

Hack? Why? Yes he defected from the USSR. According to him, he had seen the USSR exporting Gold to the USA in exchange for Grain, “the USSR could not even feed itself. ” His point of view, not of my interest.

He wrote his romantic novel ‘Icebreaker’ to please his MI6 paymasters.

This is some of the dumbest bullshit I have ever read, a person writing this is a moron par excellence. Why would MI6 want to show Hitler better than Stalin? For the Western deep states, WW2 defeat and destruction of NS Germany and Japanese Empire, is righteous and divine mythology. However anti-Soviet the Western deep states would be they would never want to show Hitler better than Stalin. In Western deep state mythology, Stalin (Uncle Joe) was always a better person than Hitler (who was devil incarnate), this is their bible. Anybody who has seen Hollywood movies or Western media, and they are partly connected to the Western deep states, it is anti-NS Germany (and to a lessor extent Japan) hate fest. The USSR is rarely portrayed badly.
I know Soviet bullshit propaganda (like the movie Stalin) the Western “Imperialist” supported Hitler behind the scenes, but that is laughable and goes against history.

Hitler wrote about Lebensraum in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925.

So? Marxism is inherently Imperialist. According to Marx, trying to attain Communism in one country would lead to failure, it had to spread around the entire World to be successful. Indeed Lenin did not even want the revolution to be contained in Russia, for him Russia was just the weakest link, Lenin was expecting revolutions of the proletariat in Western Europe, which were more industrialized. The Bolsheviks expected that the Russian Revolution would detonate a chain reaction of socialist revolutions that would spread throughout Europe and the world in a single movement, putting an end to Marxist-capitalist opposition and rendering nations and national institutions obsolete, thus obviating the need for conventional interstate relations. They were convinced that the October Revolution could not survive in isolation. According to the Bolshevik’s it’s fate depended on what happened in the rest of Europe. Left-wing critics of the Bolsheviks had argued all along that Russia was not ripe for socialism. The leading Bolsheviks, among them Lenin and Trotsky, knew this. But they were convinced that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which they had established needed to only survive until other, more advanced countries had their revolutions. And the most important of these was Germany. Lenin believed that a Socialist Russia could never survive without Socialist Germany. According to them, their Marxist revolution and a system of non-Marxist states could not exist side by side. According to them either Marxist revolutions would spread to Europe or the Marxist revolution in Russia would be defeated by international action. Though in real history, that never happened, Capitalist USA and Marxist USSR became allies, Capitalist USA gave Marxist USSR loads of land lease, Capitalist USA sold grain to Marxist USSR. In reality, Capitalist USA and Britain allied with Marxist USSR against National Socialist Germany.
When Marxist revolutions did not happen in Western and Central Europe (as most of Marx’s garbage predictions rarely happen) he started militarizing Russia. Lenin also falsely and idiotically believe that if the Western European nations and Japan would lose their colonies, they would collapse, of course that never happened because, these colonies were actually costing more money than giving any benefit. Soviet Russia already had a war with Poland back in 1919 due to border conflicts but the Soviets were also driven by a desire to spread Marxism to Germany. In Moscow, the delegates to the Second Congress of the Third International followed with enthusiasm the progress of the Russian forces. The delegates began to see Poland as the bridge over which communism would pass into Germany, bolstering the Communist Party of Germany. The Bolsheviks were implementing a strategy, “Revolution from outside” (Revolutsiya izvne), based on an assumption that revolutionary masses desire revolution but are unable to carry it out without help from more organized and advanced Bolsheviks. Hence, as Leon Trotsky remarked, the revolution should be “brought on the bayonets” (of the Red Army), as “through Kiev leads the straight route for uniting with the Austro-Hungarian revolution, just as through Pskov and Vilnius goes the way for uniting with the German revolution. Offensive on all fronts! Offensive on the west front, offensive on the south front, offensive on the all revolutionary fronts!”.

I have posted this before somewhere, either on Unz or a different website.

From a guy who was born in the USSR

Stalin “was not ready” myth

He speaks of the difference in the way history was taught in Western and Soviet schools. He finds the claims by traditional mainstream Western historians that the USSR was not ready for war against Germany in June of 1941, laughable. And he spits the facts sarcastically. 2:40 minutes, he says ofcourse the Soviet Union was not ready at all if we see the numbers(sarcasim).
When the German Army of 3 million soldiers attacked Red Army of 5 million soldiers in the first echelons ALONG THE BORDER. Germans had about 3,700 tanks against Soviet 12,700 tanks!! Germans had 4,950 airplanes versus Soviet 10,700 airplanes. So definitely Soviet Union was not ready for the war against Germany (his sarcasm). So Mr. Sergei Sputnikov asks the million dollar questions to those pro Soviet, pro Allied Western historians as well as Soviet historians. He asks, when would the Soviet Union would be READY for the war?
When instead of 5 million, the USSR would have 10 million soldiers? When instead of 12,000 tanks, the USSR would have 20,000 tanks against German 4000? Mr. Sputnikov asks, “What numbers were the Soviets supposed to have ON THE BORDER ready to go, to call them ready for the war?”

At 6:40 minutes, Comrade Sergei asks”Half of Europe was Bolshevised by the Soviet Union, “not ready for war”. The question is what would happen to Europe, if Soviet Russia WAS READY for the war? If the war they “were not ready for” they ended up taking over half of Europe What would happen of they were READY and they would smash the Germans, right there on the border and rolled. I don’t think they would stop at the French border or at the Switzerland border or the Swedish border or for that matter the channel would stop them. If Soviets would be ready for that war against Germany (which they were, he is talking in a sarcastic tone), there would be a big European Union under the Red Flag”
At 7:25 minutes, ex Soviet citizen Comrade Sergei says “If you look at some events that were going on in the Soviet Union before the war, it kind looks like maybe Comarade Stalin had such a plan as one Europe under one red flag. I remember, I had a video about it, Soviets began this giant construction in Moscow, they blew up a very important church of Christ and in its place they began began huge basement for the tallest building in the World, Dvorjez Sovjetov (Дворец Советов), The Palace of Soviets, supposed to be the tallest building in the World, with a giant Lenin statue at the top of it. Moscow was getting ready to be capital of (Marxist) Socialist Europe, if not the World. When 1941 war broke out, the plans were shelved and later abandoned. Khruschev converted the basement into what is today’s World’s largest swimming pool.”

There is one more very interesting point Comrade Sergei says at 8:35 minutes, “You would think Stalin would be very proud to win the war, he was not ready for, right? He was caught “off-guard”, wasn’t prepared, he managed to gather our strength and win the war, you would think we would be super proud, super happy, but he never was!!! There was never a parade on May 9th!!, except Victory Parade, when they were burning German flags and tossing them by the Kremlin walls. After that, May 9th was never celebrated in Soviet Union, it was just a regular work day and there were no parades on the Red square in Moscow!! It began only, I believe under Leonid Brezhnev, he was big fan of big parades, of the great Fatherland war. They made May 9 as holiday and we had annual parades. It never happened during Stalin rule. Also during Stalin era, no one was allowed to write books about the war, no memoirs were published ever…It was only later generals and marshals were allowed to write their stories, under Stalin rule, it was big no-no, for whatever reasons”

What I mean is that after Britain declared war on Germany, there is little chance they would’ve accepted an armistice offer. After that, the British leadership did want war and only war until Germany could be “subdued”. After Churchill succeeded Chamberlain, all negotiations were prohibited. Unless Germany agreed to return to the 1920s borders, and probably dissolve the NS party, plus other punitive measures, which obviously Germany would never accept. Whereas, if we believe Hitler was following his 1920s plans, then he would’ve accepted and preferred an armistice with Britain, while pursuing hegemony over continental Europe. But even if the generals had succeeded in a coup d’état of the Nazi regime in 1940, I think it’s unlikely Churchill would negotiate with them either.

“wanted war” is where you leave fact behind. Of course Hitler wouldn’t have begun to want war with Britain until he had acquired at least Ukraine and allowed himself to fantasise more extravagantly. But if you think there is any meaningful sense in which Britain “wanted war” with anyone you really haven’t a clue. Try looking up “Oxford Union King and Country debate”I suggeat off the top of my head. Consider the famous “far away country of which we know little”that a search enlarges to

a notorious comment made by UK prime minister Neville Chamberlain in a radio broadcast on 27 September 1938, in which he described Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia as “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing”.

That country wanted war a lot less than Hitler.

Have you heard of the Geneva Protocol? I think not.

It was probably reinforced by the practical consideration that the consequences of the use of gas in WW2 couldn’t be reliably forecast given the fact that long range bombers had been developed.

You write: “15 of 16 paragraphs, 1751 of 1800 words [97%] of your #165 response is verbatim text from ‘Germany’s War’. Congratulations Mr. Wear! Another magnificent cut-and-paste snow job masquerading as intelligent dialogue!”

My response: You are correct that I frequently cut and paste excerpts from my book “Germany’s War”. There is nothing wrong with this. It saves a lot of time.

My lengthy comment #165 is not a “snow job masquerading as intelligent dialogue.” You still haven’t responded to any of its content. Why not? Is it because you are not able to?

I will continue with more documentation from my book “Germany’s War”. The following are additional factors indicating that Stalin was planning to attack Germany and all of Europe:

1) German intelligence officers asked Stalin’s son why the Soviet artillery, which had the best cannon and howitzers in the world, fired so poorly. Stalin’s son truthfully answered: “The maps let the Red Army down, because the war, contrary to expectations, unfolded to the east of the state border.” The Soviet maps were of territories in which the Red Army planned to advance, and were useless for defending the country. Storages of topographic maps located unreasonably close to the border were either destroyed by the advancing German army or by the retreating Soviet forces. In 1941, the Red Army fought without maps, and the Soviet artillery could not fire accurately without maps. (Source: Suvorov, Viktor, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 258-259 ).

2) Every Soviet commander, starting with regiment level and higher, had in his safe a so-called “Red Packet,” which contained the plans for war. When Germany invaded, the commanders opened their “Red Packets,” but they did not find in them anything useful for defense. The Red Army had neither prepared for defense nor conducted any training in defensive operations. The defensive operations of the Red Army in the summer of 1941 were pure improvisation. (Source: Ibid., pp. 252-253).

3) Suvorov states in “The Chief Culprit” that both German and Soviet forces were positioned for attack on June 22, 1941. The position of the divisions of the Red Army and the German army on the border mirrored each other. The airfields of both armies were moved all the way up to the border. From the defensive point of view, this kind of deployment of troops and airfields by both armies was stupid and suicidal. Whichever army attacked first would be able to easily encircle the troops of the other army. Hitler attacked first to enable German troops to trap and encircle the best units of the Red Army. (Source: Ibid., p. xx).

4) The Soviet Union built an entire family of BT tanks—the BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, BT-7A, and BT-7M. BT stands for bystrokhodnyi (high-speed) tank. At the beginning of World War II, the Red Army had 6,456 BT tanks, as many as all other operational tanks in the rest of the world. The BT tanks were well designed, heavily armed for their times, had standard bullet-proof armor, and used a diesel engine which made the tanks far less vulnerable to fires. The first BTs had a speed of 69 mph; today most tanks would still be envious of such high speeds. Nevertheless, Soviet historians categorized these tanks among the obsolete models, so obsolete that until 1991 they were not even included in statistics.

The disadvantage of BT tanks is that they could only be used in aggressive warfare on good roads such as the autobahn in Germany. The BT tank’s most important characteristic–its speed–was achieved through the use of its wheels. The wheels of the BT tank made it impossible to use the BT tank successfully off the roads, or on the bad roads of the Soviet Union. In the battles fought on Soviet territory, thousands of BT tanks were abandoned. Historians say that Stalin’s BT tanks were not ready for war. This statement is not true. The BT tank was ready for an offensive war on German territory, but not in a defensive war fought on its own territory. (Source: Ibid., pp. 51-53).

5) The Soviet Union also built an outstanding family of amphibious tanks: the T-37A, T-38, and T-40. By June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union had over 4,000 amphibious tanks in its arsenal. By comparison, to this day Germany has never built any amphibious tanks. Amphibious tanks are useful in offensive operations to cross rivers and seize bridges before the enemy can blow the bridges up when threatened with a takeover. If there are no remaining enemy bridges, amphibious tanks allow an army to cross the river and establish a bridgehead on the other side of the river. Amphibious tanks are useful in offensive operations; they are of little use in a defensive war.

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, it had a total of 3,350 tanks on the Eastern Front, all of them inferior to the Soviet tanks and none of them amphibious. Yet historians called the Soviet amphibious tanks obsolete. The Soviet amphibious tanks in 1941 became unnecessary and played no role in the war. But the question remains: Why were the amphibious tanks developed and built? Why did Stalin need 4,000 amphibious tanks which could not be used in a defensive war? The obvious answer is that Stalin planned to use the amphibious tanks in a massive military invasion of Europe. (Source: Ibid., pp. 55-57).

6) If Stalin was preparing for a defensive war, he should have ordered his plane designers to create the best fighters in the world, capable of defending the skies over the Soviet Union. But fighters did not interest Stalin. Stalin ordered his fighter designer to drop all his work on the creation of a fighter and start developing a light bomber, named the Ivanov originally, and later the Su-2 in honor of its creator, P. O. Sukhoi.

The ideal combat plane Stalin developed was a light bomber designed to operate free of enemy resistance. Record-breaking characteristics were not required; Stalin demanded only simplicity, durability, and firepower. Stalin planned to create a plane that could be produced in numbers exceeding all warplanes of all types of all countries in the world. Literally, Stalin planned to build as many light bombers as there were small but mobile horsemen in the hordes of Genghis Kahn.

Germany carried out a preemptive strike on Soviet air bases when it invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Hitler’s preemptive strike did not permit the Su-2 to do the work it was primarily designed to do. The Su-2 was ineffective and not needed in a defensive war. Production of 100,000 to 150,000 Su-2 planes had been planned for conditions in which the Red Army would deliver the first attack, and nobody would hinder production of the plane. Hitler’s invasion ruined Stalin’s plan. Production of the Su-2 was stopped, but the Soviet Union produced tens of thousands of planes later in the war that were much more complex in terms of production than the Su-2. (Source: Ibid., pp. 64-65).

7) Airborne assault troops were also part of Stalin’s plans. According to the official Communist Party newspaper, Pravda, on August 18, 1940, the Soviet Union had more than 1 million trained parachutists at the beginning of the war. Airborne assault troops can only be used in the course of offensive operations and only in conjunction with regular troops advancing against the enemy. In light of declassified documents, it is clear that Pravda lowered the number of Russian paratroopers to one million to calm fears of Soviet aggression. The actual number of trained parachutists in the Soviet Union at the beginning of the war was arguably closer to 2 million. Never before had the world seen such large-scale preparations for offensive war. (Source: Ibid., p. 73).

8) The Red Army needed an air armada of transport planes and gliders to deliver hundreds of thousands of paratroopers. Soviet factories started the mass production of cargo gliders beginning in the spring of 1941. On April 23, 1941, Stalin and Molotov signed an order to accelerate the production of an 11-seat glider with a deadline of May 15, 1941, and of a 20-seat glider with a deadline of July 1, 1941. The gliders that were produced in the spring of 1941 had to be used by the latest in the early fall of 1941. Gliders had light and fragile bodies and wings and could not be parked outdoors. Keeping a huge cargo glider outdoors during fall winds and rains would harm it beyond repair. Since all available hangars were already full with previously produced gliders, the mass production of gliders in the spring of 1941 meant that they had to be used either in the summer of 1941 or early fall at the latest. (Source: Ibid., p. 76).

9) The Soviet gliders and transport planes would be easy prey for enemy fighters if the Soviet Union did not secure complete air superiority. The Red Army had to begin the war with a massive air attack and invasion against the enemy’s air bases. Tens of thousands of paratroopers could then be dropped to seize and control key bases and strategic sites. Any other scenario was not viable. Instead, it was Hitler who carried out a preemptive strike, and Stalin’s strategy to strike the first blow was aborted. The Soviet Union’s carefully designed plan to mount a massive air offensive followed by an assault of airborne troops had to be abandoned in the desperate rush to fight a defensive war. (Source: Ibid., pp. 77-78).

10) In the summer of 1940, Stalin brought Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Soviet Union, and concentrated his forces in that region on the border of Eastern Prussia. The occupation of these Baltic countries by the Red Army made sense only if there were plans for an aggressive war against Germany. The Red Army transferred its air bases to the very front edge of the German border. From the air bases in Lithuania the Soviet air force could support the advance of Soviet troops to Berlin. The Soviet navy also transferred primary forces and reserves to naval bases established in Tallinn, Riga, and Liepāja. Since it was a short distance from Liepāja to the routes taken by German vessels carrying ore, nickel, and wood to Germany, a strike from this area could be sudden and devastating. (Source: Ibid., pp. 150-152).

11) The Soviet Union annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in 1940. From Bessarabia the Soviet air force could keep the Romanian oil industry, which was the main supplier of oil to Germany, under constant threat. Northern Bukovina was needed because it had a railroad of strategic importance that had a narrow gauge track which enabled it to be used by railroad cars from all over Europe. The Soviet Union used a broad gauge track. Soviet locomotives and trains could therefore not be used on the narrow gauge tracks of Central and Western Europe. In a Soviet invasion of Europe, Stalin would need many locomotives and trains with a narrow gauge to supply his troops that were quickly moving westward.

During the course of the Bessarabia campaign, the Soviet Union captured 141 locomotives, 1,866 covered train cars, 325 half-covered train cars, 45 platforms, 19 cisterns, 31 passenger cars, and two luggage cars. But this was not enough for Stalin. At the Soviet-Romanian talks in July 1940, Soviet representatives demanded that Romania return all captured mobile railroad units. On July 31, 1940, Romania agreed to transfer 175 locomotives and 4,375 cars to the Soviet Union by August 25, 1940. None of these trains would have been needed in a defensive war. Stalin needed these trains seized in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in an offensive war designed to take over all of Europe. (Source: Ibid., pp. 156-157).

There is more I could write. This is enough for now.

You write: “Hitler’s motive in launching Barbarossa is the issue. You altered his 21 Jun 1941 letter to Mussolini to imply preemption of an immanent [sic] Soviet attack…This obviously includes Mr. Wear, who willfully alters source quotes to communicate meaning never intended.”

My response: Hitler’s motive in launching Barbarossa was preemptive in nature. In regard to Hitler’s letter of June 21, 1941, I got my information directly from page 159 of Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit.” I did not intentionally alter Hitler’s letter. You are making an unfair and inaccurate allegation here.

You write: “‘Germany’s War’ frequently omits decisive facts, context and source words in Chapters One-Four. Alan Bullock, for example, is misused to portray the Dunkirk BEF escape as Hitler’s “gift”, proof he selflessly wanted peace, something Bullock never wrote.

My response: You mentioned this on a previous discussion thread located at https://www.unz.com/article/the-evidence-for-the-holocaust/?showcomments#comment-6216143. You declared on this discussion thread that Alan Bullock was a universally respected historian. This of course is nonsense. For example, when David Irving was asked at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial if there are factual errors in major history books, Irving stated:

“Oh, yes. I think it would be a foolish historian who denies he makes errors on Adolf Hitler. The standard works like Allan Bullock, his book “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny,” is riddled with errors and yet that book goes into reprint after reprint.” (Source: Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, p. 372).

Alan Bullock was a court historian whose job was to support the official Allied narrative.

You write: “Wear elsewhere cites Hitler’s 19 July 1940 Reichstag speech as a major ‘peace overture’, but omits his threat to ‘shatter’ England – mob-boss rhetoric. An ultimatum is not a ‘peace overture’.”

My response: We have also been over this before on the previous discussion thread. You are repeating yourself in a continuing attempt to undermine my credibility. Hitler’s speech on July 19, 1940 was extremely lengthy. I accurately quoted the peace offer that was made toward the end of this speech. There is nothing wrong with this.

You write: “You never answer the questions, even the easy ones. Instead, you paste lengthy book exerts. In your #208 four of nine paragraphs, 575 of 800 words (72%) are irrelevant cut-and-pastes from Chapter One ‘Germany’s War’. A snow job intended to hastily change the subject.”

My response: My comment #208 on this discussion thread is not a snow job and is totally relevant to our topic at hand. You are calling it a snow job in an attempt to not answer its content.

We know that Stalin systematically removed most of his defensive fortifications and stopped making defensive weapons. You can read my comment #165 on this discussion thread for more details. You have so far failed to respond to the content in my comments #165 and #208. I ask that you answer my content in these two comments instead of ignoring them completely.