Hypocritical west does it again:OSCE Vote On Nazi-USSR link
-
OSCE equates Nazi, Soviet roles in WWII2009-07-03The parliamentary assembly of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe passed a resolution Friday equating the roles of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in starting World War II.
Only eight delegates in the 385-member assembly voted against the resolution, with more than half of those present voting in favor. The assembly does not take precise vote counts, and delegates vote by raising cards.
The resolution, essentially a non-binding political statement, calls for making Aug. 23 a day of remembrance for victims of Stalinism and Nazism. That is the day in 1939 that Germany and the Soviet Union signed a pact carving up Eastern Europe between them. World War II started slightly over a week later when Germany invaded Poland.
Russia's delegates were vehemently opposed to the resolution and immediately left the hall once it passed.
"Those who place Nazism and Stalinism on the same level forget that it is the Stalin-era Soviet Union that made the biggest sacrifices and the biggest contribution to liberating Europe from fascism," Russian lawmaker Alexander Kozlovsky, who participated, was earlier quoted as saying by the Russian newspaper Kommersant.
Lithuanian lawmaker Vilija Aleknaite Abramikiene backed the resolution. "We did not seek to insult anyone. We were driven by an obligation not to forget our history and a sense of justice for those who perished during the second world war and after, including the Russian people," she told The Associated Press.
Russia has accused many Western countries of trying to rewrite history and understating the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union in defeating Nazi Germany.
Under President Dmitry Medvedev, the Kremlin in May created a commission to fight what he said were growing efforts to hurt Russia by falsifying history.
At the same time Russia is not shy about raising alternative viewpoints about World War II. A research paper blaming Poland for starting the war appeared last month on Russia's Defense Ministry's Web site, triggering a sharp diplomatic response from Poland. The paper was soon removed from the site.
Friday's resolution from the OSCE, which combines 56 nations, comes amid preparations among Russia and Western countries to mark the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II later this year.
Politicians do not make good historians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgYxEoWaAew
The west totally ignores the role played by Britain and France in instigating a German-Soviet war and puts all the blame on Germany and Soviet Union.
Super hypocritics.
-
that is why, i said PAP is better
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:OSCE equates Nazi, Soviet roles in WWII2009-07-03The parliamentary assembly of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe passed a resolution Friday equating the roles of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in starting World War II.
Only eight delegates in the 385-member assembly voted against the resolution, with more than half of those present voting in favor. The assembly does not take precise vote counts, and delegates vote by raising cards.
The resolution, essentially a non-binding political statement, calls for making Aug. 23 a day of remembrance for victims of Stalinism and Nazism. That is the day in 1939 that Germany and the Soviet Union signed a pact carving up Eastern Europe between them. World War II started slightly over a week later when Germany invaded Poland.
Russia's delegates were vehemently opposed to the resolution and immediately left the hall once it passed.
"Those who place Nazism and Stalinism on the same level forget that it is the Stalin-era Soviet Union that made the biggest sacrifices and the biggest contribution to liberating Europe from fascism," Russian lawmaker Alexander Kozlovsky, who participated, was earlier quoted as saying by the Russian newspaper Kommersant.
Lithuanian lawmaker Vilija Aleknaite Abramikiene backed the resolution. "We did not seek to insult anyone. We were driven by an obligation not to forget our history and a sense of justice for those who perished during the second world war and after, including the Russian people," she told The Associated Press.
Russia has accused many Western countries of trying to rewrite history and understating the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union in defeating Nazi Germany.
Under President Dmitry Medvedev, the Kremlin in May created a commission to fight what he said were growing efforts to hurt Russia by falsifying history.
At the same time Russia is not shy about raising alternative viewpoints about World War II. A research paper blaming Poland for starting the war appeared last month on Russia's Defense Ministry's Web site, triggering a sharp diplomatic response from Poland. The paper was soon removed from the site.
Friday's resolution from the OSCE, which combines 56 nations, comes amid preparations among Russia and Western countries to mark the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II later this year.
Politicians do not make good historians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgYxEoWaAew
The west totally ignores the role played by Britain and France in instigating a German-Soviet war and puts all the blame on Germany and Soviet Union.
Super hypocritics.
As much as the Soviets did make great contributions to the Allied war effort, they also have skeletons in their closet.
Among other killings, they murdered over 20, 000 poles in the Katyn Forest Massacre. The incident was covered up all the way till 1990. By then, even the Soviets found their propaganda would not be swallowed by the Poles and the world. I reiterate that Stalin, using the Politburo as his rubber stamper, perpetrating many, many other heinous crimes throughout WWII alone. Katyn was just one of the more prominent examples.
HOWEVER.
Having said that, the Western Allies are not exactly angels either. True, many Westerners have strongly condemned "strategic" bombing, the A-bombs, ill-treatment of (Japanese) POWs etc. Yet their governments have yet to acknowledge the full horror of their own sins. WWII for them is very much one big triumphalist fanfare. They do deserve much credit for fighting off the Axis and for conducting themselves much more humanely than their enemies. Yet they cannot be blind to their own misdeeds.
Also, if put across poorly, this is unfair to the common Soviet soldier/citizen. Nobody who's gone through the Eastern Front's shit wants to learn that others consider him/her no better than Nazis. It would be better to direct this criticism specifically at Stalin's regime, not at the people who had no say in his cruel policies.
While criticism of others' misdeeds is valid, one should also examine oneself.
Thus, the Soviet Union's victims should be acknowledged as well as the Nazis'. Even so, the criticism should be directed with more sensitivity. Moreover, the Western Allies have their own soul-searching to do. The West's reduced credibility won't make their argument less valid. But fewer people will be willing to listen to them, because the ad hominem attack is only too effective.
-
it's pretty rude.but then everyone has their own feelings. part of visiting the forum is to see what other people feel abt an issue of interest. and abt LKY being the devil on the cross, that cannot beat George Bush being a three-headed, 5-armed demon swallowing up the Muslim World, as is being depicted.
have you ever thought that maybe these offensive pple might feel offended themselves forst b4 making such a statement, what ever the reason is?
i'm not saying that such behaviot is right; i'm merely saying that such behavior does not occur without any reason. -
Originally posted by Eric21zhang:
it's pretty rude.but then everyone has their own feelings. part of visiting the forum is to see what other people feel abt an issue of interest. and abt LKY being the devil on the cross, that cannot beat George Bush being a three-headed, 5-armed demon swallowing up the Muslim World, as is being depicted.
have you ever thought that maybe these offensive pple might feel offended themselves forst b4 making such a statement, what ever the reason is?
i'm not saying that such behaviot is right; i'm merely saying that such behavior does not occur without any reason.
Hm i'm sorry, but who do you address these comments to? -
The resolution, essentially a non-binding political statement, calls for making Aug. 23 a day of remembrance for victims of Stalinism and Nazism. That is the day in 1939 that Germany and the Soviet Union signed a pact carving up Eastern Europe between them. World War II started slightly over a week later when Germany invaded Poland.
This is indeed the height of hypocrisy
The west they were the ones who wanted to instigate war, they were the ones who refused to ally with Russia, yet refuse to admit, spread false propaganda and then come and make stupid resolution.
...We have mentioned that the economic discussions between Britain and Germany, which were publicly broken off on March 28th, were secretly reopened five days later. We do not know what became of these, but, about July 20th, Helmuth Wohlthat, Reich commissioner for the Four-Year Plan, who was in London at an international whaling conference, was approached with an amazing proposition by R. S. Hudson, secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade...
...It was almost impossible to keep negotiations such as these, or rather proposed negotiations, secret. There can be no doubt that rumors about them reached the Russians in July 1939 and, by strengthening their ancient suspicions of Britain, made them decide to avoid any agreement with Britain and to take instead the nonaggression pact offered by Hitler.
The outburst of public rage at Russia for doing this by Britain and America now seems singularly inappropriate in view of the fact that the British government was trying to do the same thing at the same time and the fact that France had signed what Russia regarded as a nonaggression pact with Germany on December 6, 1938. Indeed, Sir Nevile Henderson, who undoubtedly was more extreme than some of his associates, went so far as to condone an alliance between Britain and Germany, on August 28, 1939. Obviously, such an alliance could be aimed only at Russia. The relevant portion of his report to Lord Halifax reads...
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#46
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
This is indeed the height of hypocrisy
The west they were the ones who wanted to instigate war, they were the ones who refused to ally with Russia, yet refuse to admit, spread false propaganda and then come and make stupid resolution.
...We have mentioned that the economic discussions between Britain and Germany, which were publicly broken off on March 28th, were secretly reopened five days later. We do not know what became of these, but, about July 20th, Helmuth Wohlthat, Reich commissioner for the Four-Year Plan, who was in London at an international whaling conference, was approached with an amazing proposition by R. S. Hudson, secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade...
...It was almost impossible to keep negotiations such as these, or rather proposed negotiations, secret. There can be no doubt that rumors about them reached the Russians in July 1939 and, by strengthening their ancient suspicions of Britain, made them decide to avoid any agreement with Britain and to take instead the nonaggression pact offered by Hitler.
The outburst of public rage at Russia for doing this by Britain and America now seems singularly inappropriate in view of the fact that the British government was trying to do the same thing at the same time and the fact that France had signed what Russia regarded as a nonaggression pact with Germany on December 6, 1938. Indeed, Sir Nevile Henderson, who undoubtedly was more extreme than some of his associates, went so far as to condone an alliance between Britain and Germany, on August 28, 1939. Obviously, such an alliance could be aimed only at Russia. The relevant portion of his report to Lord Halifax reads...
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#46
You don't seem to remember the Nazi -Soviet Pact of non-aggression.
-
You don't seem to remember the Nazi -Soviet Pact of non-aggression.
Ya, what about it?
On the same day, it was announced that Ribbentrop was coming to Moscow to sign a nonaggression pact. He arrived with a staff of thirty-two persons in a Condor plane on August 23rd and signed the agreement with Molotov late that night.
The published portion of the agreement provided that neither signer would take any aggressive action against the other signer or give any support to a third Power in such action. The secret protocol which was added delimited spheres of interest in eastern Europe. The line followed the northern boundary of Lithuania and the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers in Poland, and Germany gave Russia a free hand in Bessarabia.
This agreement was greeted as a stunning surprise in the Entente countries. There was no reason why it should have been, as they had been warned of the possibility on numerous occasions by responsible persons, including Germans like Kordt and Weizsไcker.It was also stated that the negotiations leading up to the agreement had been going on for months and that the Anglo-Soviet discussions accordingly were always a blind. The evidence seems to indicate that the first tentative approaches were made in May 1939, and were reported to Paris at once by the French ambassador, Robert Coulondre, from Berlin.
These approaches were distrustfully received by both sides and were broken off completely at Hitler's order on June 29th. They were reopened by the Germans on July 3rd. Only on August 15th did Molotov announce his conviction that the Germans were really sincere, and the negotiations proceeded rapidly from that point..
While it is untrue to say that the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact made the war inevitable, it certainly made it possible for Hitler to start his war with an easier mind... -
i support the resolution.
Dont ever forget the ribbentop and ,molotov agreement in spliting poland. i think that where the resolution comes about.
Soviet union interest in WWII is revenge on NAZI germany. not really interested in liberation of the occuppies territories.
when ukraine was invaded by nazi germany, many ukranians actually believe it was a liberation war from stalin bohshevism. but the NAZI are not much better off
-
Dont ever forget the ribbentop and ,molotov agreement in spliting poland.
What about munich?
At Munich, Hitler, Chamberlain, Mussolini, and Daladier carved up Czechoslovakia without consulting anyone, least of all the Czechs. The conference lasted from 12:30 P. M. on September 28th to 2:30 A. M. when the agreement of the four Powers was handed to the Czech minister in Berlin, who had been waiting outside the door for over ten hours. The agreement reached Prague only eighteen hours before the German occupation was to begin...
Beneš resigned as president of Czechoslovakia under the threat of a German ultimatum on October 5th and was replaced by Emil Hà¹�cha. Slovakia and Ruthenia were given complete autonomy at once. The Soviet alliance was ended, and the Communist Party outlawed. The anti-Nazi refugees from the Sudetenland were rounded up by the Prague government and handed over to the Germans to be destroyed.
All these events showed very clearly the chief result of Munich: Germany was supreme in central Europe, and any possibility of curtailing that power either by a joint policy of the Western Powers with the Soviet Union and Italy or by finding any openly anti-German resistance in central Europe itself was ended.
Since this was exactly what Chamberlain and his friends had wanted, they should have been satisfied.
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#45
The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR in Russian abbreviation) has declassified archive materials related to the 1938 Munich Agreement, which triggered the most dramatic events of the 20th century.
Head of the SVR press office Sergei Ivanov allowed Yarmolenko to familiarize himself with the declassified documents.
"The declassified intelligence documents reflect the political processes which took place before and after the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938, which is also called the 'Munich conspiracy,'" Ivanov explained.
These documents were kept in the archives as top secret for 70 years. They show that the Soviet political leadership was informed about the preparations for the meeting of Neville Chamberlain and Eduard Daladier, on the one hand, and Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, on the other, and predict its potential military and political consequences for Europe. The papers show what unprecedented pressure Britain and France brought to bear on Czechoslovakia, demanding that it ceded Sudeten to Germany.
...Later, on November 25, Grippenberg reported his conversation with a British government member who assured him that Britain and France would not interfere in Germany's eastward expansion.
"Britain's position is as follows: let's wait until Germany and the U.S.S.R. get involved in a big conflict," the document reads.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080929/117271264.html
Within two weeks of Hitler's annexation of Austria, Britain was moving.
It was decided to put pressure on the Czechs to make concessions to the Germans; to encourage France and eventually Germany to do the same; to insist that Germany must not use force to reach a decision, but to have patience enough to allow negotiations to achieve the same result; and to exclude Russia, although it was allied to Czechoslovakia, from the negotiations completely...
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Ya, what about it?
On the same day, it was announced that Ribbentrop was coming to Moscow to sign a nonaggression pact. He arrived with a staff of thirty-two persons in a Condor plane on August 23rd and signed the agreement with Molotov late that night.
The published portion of the agreement provided that neither signer would take any aggressive action against the other signer or give any support to a third Power in such action. The secret protocol which was added delimited spheres of interest in eastern Europe. The line followed the northern boundary of Lithuania and the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers in Poland, and Germany gave Russia a free hand in Bessarabia.
This agreement was greeted as a stunning surprise in the Entente countries. There was no reason why it should have been, as they had been warned of the possibility on numerous occasions by responsible persons, including Germans like Kordt and Weizsไcker.It was also stated that the negotiations leading up to the agreement had been going on for months and that the Anglo-Soviet discussions accordingly were always a blind. The evidence seems to indicate that the first tentative approaches were made in May 1939, and were reported to Paris at once by the French ambassador, Robert Coulondre, from Berlin.
These approaches were distrustfully received by both sides and were broken off completely at Hitler's order on June 29th. They were reopened by the Germans on July 3rd. Only on August 15th did Molotov announce his conviction that the Germans were really sincere, and the negotiations proceeded rapidly from that point..
While it is untrue to say that the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact made the war inevitable, it certainly made it possible for Hitler to start his war with an easier mind...Because you keep saying that the west instigated the war between the Soviets and Hitler's Germany. How is it that the two later became allies bent on carving up Eastern and Central Europe?
-
on the otherhand , soviet union also did make big sacrifice in the defeat of NAZI germany. it depends on which side of the story you wish to start from.
-
How is it that the two later became allies bent on carving up Eastern and Central Europe?
Because Britain pissed off both Germany and Russia, so they moved together to protect their interests.
See:
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#42
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401
The two outcast Powers drifted together and sealed their friendship by a treaty signed at Rapallo in April 1922. This agreement caused great alarm in western Europe, since a union of German technology and organizing ability with Soviet manpower and raw materials would make it impossible to enforce the Treaty of Versailles and might expose much of Europe or even the world to the triumph of Bolshevism.
Such a union of Germany and Soviet Russia remained the chief nightmare of much of western Europe from 1919 to 1939. On this last date it was brought into existence by the actions of these same western Powers...
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/06.html#16
And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine.
It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West.
Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism...
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html
-
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was also acted in Britain's best interest .
Besides, he never trusted Stalin. Why would he want to sign a pact with Stalin?
-
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was also acted in Britain's best interest .
He felt that by instigating a war between Germany and Russia, the problems of europe could be solved.
Of these three points, the first two were shared with the Chamberlain group; the third was not. The difference rested on the fact that the Chamberlain group hoped to permit Britain to escape from the necessity of fighting Germany by getting Russia to fight Germany.
The Chamberlain group did not share the Milner Group’s naive belief in the possibility of three great power blocs standing side by side in peace. Lacking that belief, they preferred a German-Russian war to a British-German war.
And, having that preference, they differed from the Milner Group in their willingness to accept the partition of Poland by Germany.
The Milner Group would have yielded parts of Poland to Germany if done by fair negotiation.
The Chamberlain group was quite prepared to liquidate Poland entirely, if it could be presented to the British people in terms which they would accept without demanding war...
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/
Severely weakened by the Great Depression and in no position to make military threats, Chamberlain and Daladier hoped to push Hitler's ambitions eastward. The one unifying belief all four leaders shared was their fanatical hatred of the Soviet Union and anything remotely related to International Communism.
A strong and well-armed Nazi regime in Central Europe, they believed, was a necessary buffer to Soviet power. And with their own domestic economic crises and their labor unions going communist, France and England focused their attention not on the threat of fascism but on the growing influence of the Soviet Union. (Their positions on the Spanish Civil War bear this fact out.)
France and England hoped Germany would spark a shooting war with the Soviet Union and then they could sit back and watch the fascists and communists tear each other apart. It didn't work out that way...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/george
A key factor in Britain and France's attitude towards Hitler was a desire to steer his ambitions eastwards and into war with Russia. In that way, it was hoped, the two perils could eliminate each other.
Stanley Baldwin, who preceded Chamberlain, was fairly frank. In 1936, he told Tory MPs alarmed about Hitler, that it would not 'break his heart' if the tensions in Europe led to 'the Nazis fighting the Bolshies'.
The diaries of Foreign Office chief Sir Alexander Cadogan, shine a light on Chamberlain's outlook.
The Russians had been calling for a strong stand against Hitler on every occasion he pushed forward his military ambitions - reintroducing conscription, occupying the Rhineland, annexing Austria and threatening Czechoslovakia.
On every occasion, the despairing Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov got the brush off from London on the grounds either that Soviet offers of aid were insincere or impractical.
Nevertheless the British chiefs of staff eventually came round to favouring what Cadogan called a 'whole hog alliance with Russia'.
He added, significantly, that the idea 'annoyed' Chamberlain. Cadogan himself was hostile to such an alliance, as was most of the establishment, constantly scared by the Communist bogey despite the party winning only one seat in 1935.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1066952/
Churchill was chosen, above all, because the chief aim of Round Table policy was the clash between Russia and Germany. That, in order to draw the United States into the war their geopolitics had brought about.
Chamberlain's role in setting Germany against Russia had exhausted its usefulness, once the secret German-Soviet Friendship Treaty had been signed.
A new ploy, other than playing up to Hitler through appeasement, was now required to advance the game. That ploy was called Winston Churchill.
For years Churchill had carefully cultivated the attentions of Moscow, as Britain's most vocal opponent of appeasing Germany, through, among others, London ambassador Ivan Maisky. Maisky apparently never quite realized how he and Moscow were merely being maneuvered by the sly Churchill, to lead the Soviet Union into a bloodbath with Germany, in pursuit of British geopolitical strategy.Chamberlain had merely represented another way to accomplish the same bloody goal, a German-Soviet war, by playing to the German side against the Soviet Union.
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/
British policy had only one aim: to cajole, wheedle, guide and direct Germany against Soviet Russia.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm
At the same time, Stalin spoke with great insight to Zhukov:
`The French Government headed by Daladier and the Chamberlain Government in Britain have no intention of getting seriously involved in the war with Hitler.They still hope to incite Hitler to a war against the Soviet Union. By refusing in 1939 to form with us an anti-Hitler bloc, they did not want to hamper Hitler in his aggression against the Soviet Union. Nothing will come of it. They will have to pay through the nose for their short-sighted policy.'
Stalin understood perfectly that France and Britain were preparing a new Munich, that they were ready to sacrifice Poland, encouraging Hitler to march on the Soviet Union. Harold Ickes, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, wrote at the time in his journal:
`(England) kept hoping against hope that she could embroil Russia and Germany with each other and thus escape scot-free herself.'
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
He felt that by instigating a war between Germany and Russia, the problems of europe could be solved.
Of these three points, the first two were shared with the Chamberlain group; the third was not. The difference rested on the fact that the Chamberlain group hoped to permit Britain to escape from the necessity of fighting Germany by getting Russia to fight Germany.
The Chamberlain group did not share the Milner Group’s naive belief in the possibility of three great power blocs standing side by side in peace. Lacking that belief, they preferred a German-Russian war to a British-German war.
And, having that preference, they differed from the Milner Group in their willingness to accept the partition of Poland by Germany.
The Milner Group would have yielded parts of Poland to Germany if done by fair negotiation.
The Chamberlain group was quite prepared to liquidate Poland entirely, if it could be presented to the British people in terms which they would accept without demanding war...
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/
Severely weakened by the Great Depression and in no position to make military threats, Chamberlain and Daladier hoped to push Hitler's ambitions eastward. The one unifying belief all four leaders shared was their fanatical hatred of the Soviet Union and anything remotely related to International Communism.
A strong and well-armed Nazi regime in Central Europe, they believed, was a necessary buffer to Soviet power. And with their own domestic economic crises and their labor unions going communist, France and England focused their attention not on the threat of fascism but on the growing influence of the Soviet Union. (Their positions on the Spanish Civil War bear this fact out.)
France and England hoped Germany would spark a shooting war with the Soviet Union and then they could sit back and watch the fascists and communists tear each other apart. It didn't work out that way...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/george
A key factor in Britain and France's attitude towards Hitler was a desire to steer his ambitions eastwards and into war with Russia. In that way, it was hoped, the two perils could eliminate each other.
Stanley Baldwin, who preceded Chamberlain, was fairly frank. In 1936, he told Tory MPs alarmed about Hitler, that it would not 'break his heart' if the tensions in Europe led to 'the Nazis fighting the Bolshies'.
The diaries of Foreign Office chief Sir Alexander Cadogan, shine a light on Chamberlain's outlook.
The Russians had been calling for a strong stand against Hitler on every occasion he pushed forward his military ambitions - reintroducing conscription, occupying the Rhineland, annexing Austria and threatening Czechoslovakia.
On every occasion, the despairing Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov got the brush off from London on the grounds either that Soviet offers of aid were insincere or impractical.
Nevertheless the British chiefs of staff eventually came round to favouring what Cadogan called a 'whole hog alliance with Russia'.
He added, significantly, that the idea 'annoyed' Chamberlain. Cadogan himself was hostile to such an alliance, as was most of the establishment, constantly scared by the Communist bogey despite the party winning only one seat in 1935.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1066952/
Churchill was chosen, above all, because the chief aim of Round Table policy was the clash between Russia and Germany. That, in order to draw the United States into the war their geopolitics had brought about.
Chamberlain's role in setting Germany against Russia had exhausted its usefulness, once the secret German-Soviet Friendship Treaty had been signed.
A new ploy, other than playing up to Hitler through appeasement, was now required to advance the game. That ploy was called Winston Churchill.
For years Churchill had carefully cultivated the attentions of Moscow, as Britain's most vocal opponent of appeasing Germany, through, among others, London ambassador Ivan Maisky. Maisky apparently never quite realized how he and Moscow were merely being maneuvered by the sly Churchill, to lead the Soviet Union into a bloodbath with Germany, in pursuit of British geopolitical strategy.Chamberlain had merely represented another way to accomplish the same bloody goal, a German-Soviet war, by playing to the German side against the Soviet Union.
The 'instigation' was immaterial and entirely unnecessay. Hitler had all along intended to invade Soviet Union.
-
Churchill was chosen, above all, because the chief aim of Round Table policy was the clash between Russia and Germany. That, in order to draw the United States into the war their geopolitics had brought about.
Chamberlain's role in setting Germany against Russia had exhausted its usefulness, once the secret German-Soviet Friendship Treaty had been signed
hard for me to believe all this shit was plan.
obviously chamerblain doesnt know hitler pact with stalin was a motive in disguise to built up its army for invasion of russia.
this is just plain conspiracy theory.
-
hard for me to believe all this shit was plan.
It is completely and totally true.
It was planned.
The evidence is conclusive.
this is just plain conspiracy theory.
It's not conspiracy theory but historical fact.
hard for me to believe all this shit was plan.
That is due to brainwashing by western false propaganda.
That is why hard to believe.
-
In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Time-Chamberlain-Hitler-Collusion/dp
The liquidation of the countries between Germany and Russia could proceed as soon as the Rhineland was fortified, without fear on Germany’s part that France would be able to attack her in the west while she was occupied in the east.
The chief task of the Milner Group was to see that this devouring process was done no faster than public opinion in Britain could accept, and that the process did not result in any out burst of violence, which the British people would be unlikely to accept.
To this double purpose, the British government and the Milner Group made every effort to restrain the use of force by the Germans and to soften up the prospective victims so that they would not resist the process and thus precipitate a war...
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley
And it was Halifax who opened the third and last stage of appeasement in November 1937 by his visit to Hitler in Berchtesgaden...
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley
The Yorkshire Post, owned by Mrs. Eden's family, did its best to sabotage Lord Halifax's visit. It was rebuked by the London Daily Telegraph (which is close to Mr. Chamberlain) for printing rumors that "There exist and are known to Germany to exist in this country [Britain] a "certain number of people—not all of them obscure [Halifax & friends]— who would be prepared to welcome a German campaign of territorial expansion in the East [Austria, Czechoslovakia, Russia] if by that means Germany could for the time being be diverted from exploiting her nuisance value in other directions [colonies].
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/
-
If History had accurately recorded what happened at Yalta, we would have a better perspective of how things became so messy.
-
France and England hoped Germany would spark a shooting war with the Soviet Union and then they could sit back and watch the fascists and communists tear each other apart. It didn't work out that way...
i wish to draw a line between action and thoughts.
i believe that what france and england are hoping coz they are in midst of a recession. no one want a war in their own country. if they can nuetralise NAZI and stalin by not doing anything, what wrong with that? would it be better than draggin g the whole europe into it?
In time of crisis, such action is justify and necessary to save it own ppl ass and possibily good for the rest of europe and world.
If pearl harbour was not bomb, would united states enter war with Nazi germany and Jpn so soon? after the war they are deem to be liberators of the world. Is american entering the war for its own agenda or liberation of the world? in the end , they achieve both, the greater good, so no one mention about their hidden agenda.
Most singapore know PAP are ruling with iron fist. but singaporeans still vote for them. becoz they can give what singaporeans need. thus after weighing pros and cons, singaporean voet them election in , election out. singaporeans aint that stupid. but ppl make a choice after weighing their options.
-
Most singapore know PAP are ruling with iron fist. but singaporeans still vote for them. becoz they can give what singaporeans need.
Fear, propaganda, repression, brainwashing, also plays a huge role.
It plays a great role.
Singaporeans, in general, are a fearful people. They are afraid to express their views and do not have any opinion. They are afraid to take any risk or face the consequences. They prefer other people to decide for them.
For several decades, they are afraid that their vote in a general election is not secret. They are afraid that they will lose their job or will get into trouble with government officials, if they are found to have voted for a party other than the party in power.
They are afraid to be sued for defamation, if they were to make any statement that is unfavourable to people in power. They are quite naïve about their rights to free and honest expression.
After many years of living in fear, they learn to withdraw from society. They do not wish to express any opinion publicly, but they will vent their anger in the coffee shops or in anonymous internet forums.
They learn not to get involved in any issue of public interest. They learned to take care only of their personal interest. If they are adversely affected, they will shout and expect other people to help them. But, they will not come forward to help other people.https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqjz7c8_222fjqrs5f5&hl=en
-
Originally posted by reyes:
i wish to draw a line between action and thoughts.
i believe that what france and england are hoping coz they are in midst of a recession. no one want a war in their own country. if they can nuetralise NAZI and stalin by not doing anything, what wrong with that? would it be better than draggin g the whole europe into it?
In time of crisis, such action is justify and necessary to save it own ppl ass and possibily good for the rest of europe and world.
If pearl harbour was not bomb, would united states enter war with Nazi germany and Jpn so soon? after the war they are deem to be liberators of the world. Is american entering the war for its own agenda or liberation of the world? in the end , they achieve both, the greater good, so no one mention about their hidden agenda.
Most singapore know PAP are ruling with iron fist. but singaporeans still vote for them. becoz they can give what singaporeans need. thus after weighing pros and cons, singaporean voet them election in , election out. singaporeans aint that stupid. but ppl make a choice after weighing their options.
The PAP continue their grip on political power by making it as difficult as possible for the full participation by a registered electorate of over 2,039,748 Singaporeans.
In Election 2006, only 1,222,884 eligible voters were able to cast their ballot - which represented only 59.95 per cent of the registered list, while the remaining sat at home unable to participate.
When the PAP count of 747,860 votes received is placed on a registered list of 2,039,748 Singaporeans - this represent only 36.66 per cent of the electorate.
Is this representative of Singaporean support ?
Can this be any mandate from the people ?
When bigger countries with larger population than Singapore - such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the USA - can have almost 80 per cent of their population participating in the Election Process, why has Singapore exclude almost half of her population from the process ?
This make clear nonsense the propaganda that the PAP claims that the Alternative Political Parties are not capable to put candidates to contest in all the constituencies.
Singapore is only a Little Red Dot, that is smaller than New York City, yet it has more Members of Parliament - (with more Town Mayors) - then New York City with only one Mayor who is paid far less and able to do more.
-
i am never a PAP supporters. i understand what atobe and ah chia are writing about. singaporeans do know we are repress, suppress, and ruling with iron fist. why do they still win evert election. my mom is more concern with cleaniness of the living area than politics. my sister is more concern with her rice bowl as she is civil servant. my good friends are more concern about soccer than who running temasek. i mean singaporeans are fine tune to such a extend to the propaganda of the PAP that we are not concern with who run the country. and many of my uni grads friends think NTUC is a subwing of PAP. sad isnt it?
-
in a war, the winners decide how the history should be written.
i think it is a good information to learnt what ah chia is trying to say, but eventually, the good guys win. the good guys are the allies. how they achieve it and fail during the process become sideshow.
