Stalin

Did you ever spend any time behind the "Iron Curtain" in the 1960s and 1970s?.

There's a reason that the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators from life under Communism.

"We" (i.e. Americans) were comparatively untouched by WW 2 and, contrary to British propaganda, were never in danger from German invasion.

Even after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, 80% of Americans were opposed to going to war in Europe.

Therefore, Churchill who needed the US to join Britain in expanding its Empire so atrocity and pro war propaganda(1) was widely used to dupe Americans into fighting a war to expand Communism and secure Palestine for the pro Nazi Zionists (2)

Next, Chaim Weizmann did Europe's Jews no favors by declaring:
"And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy."

Finally, it is one thing to parrot well worn demonizations of men like Stalin but it seems more constructive to study them, objectively, as products of of a violent and tumultuous era that in many ways mirrors our own time.

By haggling over how many millions were killed, we ignore the parallel demons of our own time who carry out today's genocides at our own peril.

Thanks,


(1). "The conquest of the United States by Britain"
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm
EXCERPT "The principal tactic of British propaganda, Mahl points out, was to excite American fears of a direct German threat to the United States. That involved two basic themes:

- that Germany was poised to take over Latin America and that American non-interventionists were pro-Nazi fifth columnists. (It should be noted here that there was virtually no mention of German persecution of Jews, which today has become the ultimate justification for the "good war.")

The theme that non-interventionists were really Nazi agents had perhaps the greatest long-term impact. That lethal smear destroyed the careers of many non-interventionists, eliminating opposition not only to involvement in World War II but also to postwar American globalism in general." CONTINUED




(2). "War-Treaty of Versailles 1919"

"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry... Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry.

We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going.

The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance.

And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory."

- Chaim Weizmann,
President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.
Paraphrased (not precisely and in some cases very loosely) from the
very same stuff that was disseminated in the USA town of my childhood in the Mid-
1930s The old stuff still drifted in the breeze when I was a child in the 1950s. It
had me so confused----especially the "non mention of persecution of jews"----so I asked
my mother------"when did people know"? she recounted her experiences at age 16
which was 1936 with people desperate to get relatives out of Germany. The mother of my
childhood playmate was SHIPPED out of germany by her prosperous parents ---also in the
mid 1930s--and they lost their factory----BUT the islamo nazi lie "NO ONE KNEW" is still
extant. The emphasis on JEW MONEY' was sprinkled thru ALL of the islamo nazi propaganda
in endless guises, sometimes comically rediculously
 
There's a reason that the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators from life under Communism.
+1, not only Ukrainians , the Ethic Muscovite did the same . google Collectivization
 
Paraphrased (not precisely and in some cases very loosely) from the
very same stuff that was disseminated in the USA town of my childhood in the Mid-
1930s The old stuff still drifted in the breeze when I was a child in the 1950s. It
had me so confused----especially the "non mention of persecution of jews"----so I asked
my mother------"when did people know"? she recounted her experiences at age 16
which was 1936 with people desperate to get relatives out of Germany. The mother of my
childhood playmate was SHIPPED out of germany by her prosperous parents ---also in the
mid 1930s--and they lost their factory----BUT the islamo nazi lie "NO ONE KNEW" is still
extant. The emphasis on JEW MONEY' was sprinkled thru ALL of the islamo nazi propaganda
in endless guises, sometimes comically rediculously


You're babbling again.

Re: "when did people know"

People know about the Gaza genocide going on TODAY but, surprisingly enough, the ones who whine about the Holocaust the loudest are the ones who have learned its alleged "lessons" of the Holocaust the least.

The Holocaust is not your license to commit genocide.

Go figure.


Age has not been your friend
 
You're babbling again.

Re: "when did people know"

People know about the Gaza genocide going on TODAY but, surprisingly enough, the ones who whine about the Holocaust the loudest are the ones who have learned its alleged "lessons" of the Holocaust the least.

The Holocaust is not your license to commit genocide.

Go figure.


Age has not been your friend
your islamo nazism was demonstrated AGAIN on October 7----no change in your Romanesque
filth in more than 2500 years and that of the heirs of your disgusting ethos in 1400 years. There
is no genocide in Gaza----there is a war of DEFENSE against the filth that has delighted you and
yours for thousands of years Learn some real history
ON
 
your islamo nazism was demonstrated AGAIN on October 7----no change in your Romanesque
filth in more than 2500 years and that of the heirs of your disgusting ethos in 1400 years. There
is no genocide in Gaza----there is a war of DEFENSE against the filth that has delighted you and
yours for thousands of years Learn some real history
ON


Settle down, Granny,

The nurse will be in with your meds and to rub your bunions soon.

Remember, the more you fight your restraints the worse that rash will get.
 
Settle down, Granny,

The nurse will be in with your meds and to rub your bunions soon.

Remember, the more you fight your restraints the worse that rash will get.
how long have you been in the throes of Delirium?
 
1.From the moment Hitler came to power, this is exactly what the USSR was doing - trying to create an anti-Hitler coalition. But the West (Hitler's natural ally, by the way) did everything to allow Germany to strengthen and arm itself, namely, gave loans, looked away when the Nazis armed themselves and seized land, and when the war started to run it as “The Strange War” One of the main goals of this sneaky and stupid (as it turned out) policy was to direct Germany towards the USSR, especially since this was the task of the Nazis, openly proclaimed in “Mein Kampf”.

2. Stalin was the last person in Europe who signed such an agreement with Hitler. Everyone else had already done so. And he signed it after it became obvious in the summer of 1939 that England and France did not want to conclude an anti-Hitler treaty and even more so, an alliance between these states and Hitler was quite possible.
By signing the agreement, the USSR received a two-year reprieve to prepare for war. They did everything they could, considering that at the end of the 20s the USSR did not have many types of industry.

3. The opposite happened. Socialist state and capitalist states became Allies, and Hitler got a war on two fronts. Before Hitler's attack it was important to know on which side the USA would be and for this purpose it was necessary not to become an aggressor, that is why the policy of preventing the possibility of giving a formal reason for war with Hitler was carried out. Hitler attacked, became the aggressor and the U.S. was forced to act on Truman's June 1941 statement: “If we see Russia winning, we will help Germany and vice versa. And let them fight and kill each other as much as possible.”
 
There is no way Stalin would ally with the west against Hitler. The USSR and Germany were long time allies against the west. During the twenties and thirties they cooperated in training and development programs inside Russia to avoid the Versailles restrictions. Stalin viewed the west as his enemies and Germany as a patsy or useful idiot to use to strengthen Russia’s military as he used American industrialists to strengthen his economy,
 
He was an evil antisemitic guy. But in WW2 he was on the good side, fighting Hitler. See "Barbarossa Op." .
Stalin was never on “the good side”. Stalin was on Stalin’s side and demanded support and aid to fight the Germans who invaded his country while providing little or nothing to the WAllies in return.
 
Ah, is the translation software not working well today, Ivan? What you are referring to is the period known as the "Phony War", between October 1939 (when Poland surrendered) and Spring 1940, when Hitler moved West in earnest. The problem here was that France had spent their military money on defensive measures like the Maginot Line instead of on tanks and planes to conduct offensive operations.

Your argument makes no sense, really. The west didn't enforce the provisions of the Versailles treaty because by the middle of the 1930s, even they realized that it had pushed Germany into fascism. They had also spent most of the 1920s disarming and redirecting funds into social programs.

The real problem was that when Hitler broke his promises at Munich to only claim the Sudetenland (and ended up dismembering the rest of Czechoslovakia), Chamberlain decided to write a blank check to the Polish Colonels instead of encouraging them to negotiate with Germany in good faith on territories that were in fact, German. He wasn't in any position to cash that check, that was the problem, any more than he was capable of supporting the Czechs.



Actually, Stalin had been cutting dodgy deals with the Germans all along. See the treaty of Rapallo, where the German government (still pre-Nazi) cut a deal to help Stalin train his army.

Truman was a Senator in 1940, one of the most powerful men in the USA.

Truman wasn't President in 1941. It is also unlikely that he said that at all, at least not in public.

But let's look at this. Why would the West in 1939 be reluctant to side with Russia over Germany?

Well, at that point, Hitler hadn't done anything all that bad. Most Austrians wanted the Anschluss. Austria was floundering, not being part of a bigger empire. True, he backstabbed the West at Munich by breaking most of his promises.

MEANWHILE, Stalin had murdered millions of people (not tens of millions like the idiot birchers say, but millions) either through famine or direct murder. He was funding Communist revolutionary groups worldwide through the "Third International". (which is why the Axis called itself the "Anti-Commintern Pact")

At the height of 1940, Stalin even wanted to join the Axis (obviously not getting what the name meant) and von Ribbontrop was all for it. The only reason he couldn't talk Hitler into it is Hitler saw Bolshevism as a "Jewish" movement. He was engaging in aggressive actions in the Far East, challenging Japan for control of China.
 
+1, not only Ukrainians , the Ethic Muscovite did the same . google Collectivization



Thanks for the links.

What do you think about the work done by historians Peter Padfield:

- "Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR"
http://www.historyextra.com/news/se...estern-europe-exchange-free-hand-attack-ussr’

EXCERPT ""A new book claims to have solved the riddle of the flight to Britain in 1941 of Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy. Historian Peter Padfield has uncovered evidence he says shows Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him from Hitler a detailed peace treaty, under which the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia. The episode remains, more than 70 years on, shrouded in mystery."CONTINUED


- "Hess, Hitler & Churchill"

EXCERPT "Peter Padfield presents striking new evidence that demands the wholesale reappraisal of the episode. For, allied to a powerful argument that Hess must have had both Hitler's backing and considerable encouragement from Britain, Padfield demonstrates that he also brought with him a draft peace treaty committing Hitler to the evacuation of occupied European countries. Made public, this would have destroyed Churchill's campaign to bring the United States into the war."CONTINUED


Also, do you think that the peace proposal rejected by Churchill was genuine.

It was commonly known that both Churchill and FDR were eager for war against Germany in order to expand their respective spheres of influence.

Also, please note:

“Winston Churchill: "We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)”


Thanks,
 
You're babbling again.

Re: "when did people know"

People know about the Gaza genocide going on TODAY but, surprisingly enough, the ones who whine about the Holocaust the loudest are the ones who have learned its alleged "lessons" of the Holocaust the least.

The Holocaust is not your license to commit genocide.

Go figure.


Age has not been your friend
There is no “Gaza Genocide”. Israel is fighting a war with Iran and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel is still trying to limit civilian casualties as much as possible while Hamas and Hezbollah still try to use their own civilians as human shields as they have for twenty years, in wars civilians get killed. Russia has killed hundreds of thousand Ukrainian civilians in its war of conquest and AO don’t see you condemning Russia for Genocide.
 
Thanks for the links.

What do you think about the work done by historians Peter Padfield:

- "Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR"
http://www.historyextra.com/news/se...estern-europe-exchange-free-hand-attack-ussr’

EXCERPT ""A new book claims to have solved the riddle of the flight to Britain in 1941 of Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy. Historian Peter Padfield has uncovered evidence he says shows Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him from Hitler a detailed peace treaty, under which the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia. The episode remains, more than 70 years on, shrouded in mystery."CONTINUED


- "Hess, Hitler & Churchill"

EXCERPT "Peter Padfield presents striking new evidence that demands the wholesale reappraisal of the episode. For, allied to a powerful argument that Hess must have had both Hitler's backing and considerable encouragement from Britain, Padfield demonstrates that he also brought with him a draft peace treaty committing Hitler to the evacuation of occupied European countries. Made public, this would have destroyed Churchill's campaign to bring the United States into the war."CONTINUED


Also, do you think that the peace proposal rejected by Churchill was genuine.

It was commonly known that both Churchill and FDR were eager for war against Germany in order to expand their respective spheres of influence.

Also, please note:

“Winston Churchill: "We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)”


Thanks,
It is absolutely true that both Britain and the USA had very strong Pro-nazi cohorts that
al nabi ADOLF sought as a bed-fellows-----both still exist. Churchill was anti Nazi----but
FDR was not entirely convinced----It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to push him over
the point of no-return.
 
It is absolutely true that both Britain and the USA had very strong Pro-nazi cohorts that
al nabi ADOLF sought as a bed-fellows-----both still exist. Churchill was anti Nazi----but
FDR was not entirely convinced----It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to push him over
the point of no-return.
what part do you deem "fake" unko?
 
Nazis would withdraw from western Europe in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia
This historian doesn't know that the 'Russia' (Romanov empire) collapsed in 1917. The Bolsheviks created their own world empire (USSR), which one day would include the entire world. Hitler had no choice but to attack his (Nazi) most valuable ally. Why? Because only the USA could outproduce (in terms of weapons) the Bolshevik empire in 1941, and Hitler knew it

Who Started World War II? by Viktor Suvorov​



Nazis most valuable ally - USSR
 
Stalin was never on “the good side”. Stalin was on Stalin’s side and demanded support and aid to fight the Germans who invaded his country while providing little or nothing to the WAllies in return.
+1
PS
DO you think Koba was killed ? If yes, by who?
 
+1
PS
DO you think Koba was killed ? If yes, by who?
I don’t know.
 
Um, no. Japan was illegally invading China. He tried to use economic sanctions to stop the bad behavior.
You confirmed FDR poked his nose into the affairs of Japan. And Pearl Harbor paid the price in lost crew and lost aircraft and lost ships.
 
I'm still anti-Russian.

But I also try to adhere to historical accuracy. Russia did most of the heavy lifting in Europe, and the mere threat of their entrance into the war in the Pacific was enough to get Japan to surrender (even more than the atomic bomb.)
Both Stalin and Hitler started WW2. However you happily give Stalin a pass just not hitler. Stalin and Hitler attacked Poland.
 
Back
Top Bottom