Hitler England & USA. His puppet master, then Who killed the jew?

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
But actually the UK and France both declared war against Germany on 9/3/1939. Suchender says that France invaded immediately and had some quick successes before abruptly halting their forward march. So your theory would explain why the French stopped their attack, but not why they started it in the first place.
The point is the the UK declared war first, by some hours. Both the Right and the Left in France were demoralized, but linked through traditional alliance with the UK. Yes, the French Right had wanted to fight but felt that the British had sold them out at Munich, whereas the French masses wanted peace - as they did in June 1940 once France's armies were routed.

FWIW, the WishyWashyPedia says that this period was known as the "phoney war", based on the comment of US Senator William Borah, who said "There is something phony about this war." A sentiment I'm sure we all can agree with. The editors go on to explain:

The offensive in the Rhine river valley area started on 7 September, four days after France declared war on Germany. Since the Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, the French soldiers enjoyed a decisive numerical advantage along their border with Germany. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km (20 miles) line near Saarbrücken against weak German opposition. The attack did not result in the diversion of any German troops. The all-out assault was to have been carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armoured, three mechanised divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions. The French Army had advanced to a depth of 8 km (5.0 miles) and captured about 20 villages evacuated by the German army, without any resistance. The half-hearted offensive was halted after France seized the Warndt Forest, 7.8 km2 (3.0 sq mi) of heavily mined German territory.
On 12 September, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately as the French opted to fight a defensive war, forcing the Germans to come to them. General Maurice Gamelin ordered his troops to stop no closer than 1 km (0.62 miles) from the German positions along the Siegfried Line. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff—General Wacław Stachiewicz—that the major offensive on the western front planned from 17–20 September had to be postponed. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to withdraw to their barracks along the Maginot Line, beginning the Phoney War.
Hitler was now the Soviet Union's ally, thus many French soldiers of Leftist persuasion would not want to fight Nazi Germany, hence France's half-hearted response, both at the top and among frontline soldiers. Britain soon became aware of France's lack of enthusiasm for war, so Churchill, when he became PM offered France "national union" with Britain in order to try to keep France fighting the Nazis. More sensible Frenchmen like Petain realized that a surrender and treaty were the correct way to go.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Why did France stop its offensive against Germany dead in its tracks in September 1939, and retreat to a defensive posture?

Suchender said:

Clearly it was not the plan to stop Hitler !

The plan was to create a large conflict in which many nations will be involved (a World War) with as much victims as possible (to make people scare again and again).
My suggestion was:

perhaps the answer is that the French wanted to leave Hitler's armies intact so that they could fight the Russians?
And, Claude's analysis:

Hitler was now the Soviet Union's ally, thus many French soldiers of Leftist persuasion would not want to fight Nazi Germany, hence France's half-hearted response, both at the top and among frontline soldiers.
If "the plan" was to create as large a conflict with as many victims as possible, what better way than to pit Hitler's armies against the Russians? But I like Claude's explanation best, because it doesn't require French government participation in a secret plan.

Things can happen for more than one reason. Some elements within France might have been devious enough to work covertly towards Suchender's "plan" while many others might simply have wanted to shy away from what was effectively a war against Stalin.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
It is not actually my analysis, Jerry...
And, Claude's analysis:
...but rather that of William Shirer who also wrote a book about France from the 1890s to WW2. When he visited the battlefront in 1940 after the fighting was over, he saw clearly that the fighting was merely along the roads, rather than the French retreating to ambush positions to hold back German forces to continue the fight. He concluded that the demoralization was contagious - the infection coming both from above in the High Command and from below, from the formerly anti-Nazi Leftist poilu too.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Suchender

Active Member
Things can happen for more than one reason. Some elements within France might have been devious enough to work covertly towards Suchender's "plan" while many others might simply have wanted to shy away from what was effectively a war against Stalin.
I wrote before about that 'surprise attack' by the Wehrmacht against Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.

I also wrote about the order to Soviet troops 'not to fall for provocation' and 'do not shoot at the enemy' which was upheld for 3 days and was absolutely devastating to the Red Army and especially the morale of Soviet troops.

Another russian revisionist historian Mark Solonin was researching this subject.
In one of his talks on Youtube he stated, that the evidence he accumulated suggest, that the Soviet Command was indeed planning a 'provocation' on the very same day the Wehrmacht started the assault : June 22 !

Solonin said that the Soviet Command was doing the same thing it did to start the war against Finnland in Nov. 1939, almost exactly 3 months after Germany's invasion of Poland on Sept. 1 :
a fictitious 'strike' by the 'Finnish artillery' against the Soviet territory which did not result in any damage.

If Solonin is right, then this planned provocation by the Soviets and the German attack the same day is ONE HELL OF A COINCIDENCE !

Reminds me of 'surprise attacks' by arab terrorists/hijackers on Sept.11, 2001 during military games with multiple hijacked airplanes.

What coincidences !

The invisible hand of God ? :oops:
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Another russian revisionist historian Mark Solonin was researching this subject.
In one of his talks on Youtube he stated, that the evidence he accumulated suggest, that the Soviet Command was indeed planning a 'provocation' on the very same day the Wehrmacht started the assault : June 22 !
Seems odd that Stalin would permit such doublethink (which he liked to indulge) to be put into action as he was trying to avoid provoking the Nazis. So I must ask, what are Solonin's own credentials? Does he represent a particular agenda or been a victim of false flag literature?

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
 

Suchender

Active Member
Seems odd that Stalin would permit such doublethink to be put into action as he was trying to avoid provoking the Nazis.
Not odd at all !

Just the normal Modus Operandi of the Soviets !

They always masked their aggressions with 'provocations' by their victims !

'Avoiding provoking' is something he missed on by annecting Bessarabia in 1940 !

Wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessarabia
In 1940, after securing the assent of Nazi Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union pressured Romania, under threat of war, into withdrawing from Bessarabia, allowing the Red Army to annex the region. The area was formally integrated into the Soviet Union: the core joined parts of the Moldavian ASSR.....

So, the argument of 'not provoking' Hitler in 1941 is nonsense !
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
'Avoiding provoking' is something he missed on by annecting Bessarabia in 1940 !

Wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessarabia
In 1940, after securing the assent of Nazi Germany through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union pressured Romania, under threat of war, into withdrawing from Bessarabia, allowing the Red Army to annex the region. The area was formally integrated into the Soviet Union: the core joined parts of the Moldavian ASSR.....

So, the argument of 'not provoking' Hitler in 1941 is nonsense !
You could also say this of Stalin's annexing the Baltic States (Lativa, Lithuania and Estonia) from September 1939. Nevertheless, Stalin prevented overflights of the front line up to July 1941 and even allowed a goods train to pass through the front line hours after the war had broken out. I.e. Stalin was trying to minimize provocation with Hitler directly while enlarging his own empire on the periphery among four small nations with limited and still-wavering connections to Nazi Germany. So you cannot merely call Stalin's "not provoking" Hitler nonsense, since he took significant steps not to antagonize Hitler, especially when the latter was committed to the Western Front fighting. After all, Stalin did not actively support Hitler. He did not offer the Nazis the assistance of the Russian Air Force - and transport ships and barges to assist a cross-channel invasion force in Operation Sea Lion - when the Nazis began to get into difficulties in the Battle of Britain from August 1940.

Remember that the Soviets thought of the breakaways from the former Russian Empire as part of themselves, and this included the Baltic States and Moldova (Bessarabia). The real provocation was the mere existence of a Communist State and there was nothing Stalin could do to sweeten that pill for Hitler. Stalin did not expect Hitler to invade - as seen by Stalin's shocked silent response - especially as he or Molotov had told Ribbentrop that "if we stand together, Britain (and therefore the USA) cannot touch us."

Putin knows this bit of history too, but in China he has a much more reliable partner now that the prejudicial affectations of Socialism have been exposed and are collapsing worldwide - even though Bernie Sanders and Jerry haven't quite come to terms with it.:cool: China made the correct alterations to Marxist theory as Chinese philosophy, polytheistic in essence, understands that the world is fundamentally disordered, not, as Western Marxism teaches in absolute contrast,, that the universe is an integral whole, which latter teaching goes back to the Monotheist prejudice universalized in the West. The fundamental disorder of nature is the reason for the Fuehrerprinzip, whereas Western democracy denies the need for Fuehrers because it fantasizes that human equality will, democratic in action, somehow bring about peace thru egalitarian democratic activity, embodying some mysterious 'harmonizing principle' supposedly active through the universe to ensure this wonderous outcome. Hence Communism's idealized outcome as to "the withering away of State" as a superfluous organizing principle. I.e. Communism, like Anarchism, is a systematized naivety.

The affectations of socialism are egalitarianism and democracy, the two favorite Western prejudices, the former of Jewish origin (think of the kibbutz where Jews live cheek by jowl, found among less than 2% of Israeli because people don't like living that way), the latter of Greek origin (Athenian democracy trying to export its democratic principles to the Greek islands, notably Corcyra, a.k.a. Corfu, with disastrous results from the resulting civil war and Athens' ultimate fall, along with its democracy).

The real issue underlying the Stalin-Hitler conflict was the complete ideological opposition. Western thinkers try to reduce this by calling both 'totalitarianism' and trying to base their ideologies on one "totalitarian philosophy". But this cannot be done, since the ideological basis of Communism is a Western one, tracing back to the liberty, equality and fraternity of the French Revolution.

Nazi Germany's racism arises from two different sources - one very Western, that of racial hierarchy which Darwin himself supported more and more in his older age, and one very Eastern, the Hindu Caste System, "the Aryan question", which seemed to show a racial hierarchy able to function well. (This notion arose from Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who wondered why civilization did NOT arise first among Nordic peoples, whom he regarded as superior. His explanation was that the Nordics needed slaves to build civilization so migrated to the Mediterranean and India to find such slaves to rule over and turn into a civilization. Racial mixing, he then claimed, destroyed those civilizations. The notions are nonsensical but when they were put forward in the late 19th century they seemed to make a lot of sense).

In consequence one cannot find a common philosophical basis for totalitarianism such that Western liberal democracy can be distinguished from it - especially as liberal democracy always depended upon slaves, wage slavery today but indentured slavery (not just Colored slavery) in the 18th and 19th century. Rather, Western democracy is a systematized deceit & hypocrisy, Judaeo-Christianity being the core of its manipulation in practice.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Top