WW2: what was it really about?

  • 20 Replies
  • 2319 Views
*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
WW2: what was it really about?
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:22:43 AM »
When I think about the motivations for World War 2 according to History, such as the motivations behind the conflicts between Germany and Poland and from this on, I fail to believe the official historical analysis of the conflict.

Since we are well aware of the fact that official information should very well analyzed, what do you think this War was about?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 01:51:00 PM by Uninvited Guest »
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4092
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2016, 09:49:59 AM »
Read the following works:

Icebreaker by Victor Suvorov

Red Symphony document


The Western secret societies struck a deal with Stalin in 1938: Stalin would attack Germany, which the USSR did in the summer of 1941 (Icebreaker).

Stalin had a secret plan: attack Germany with full might (again, read the Icebreaker for full details), and then turn on continental Europe, thus betraying the deal he had just reached.

The Nazi spoiled this secret plan by retaliating at the very last moment: Hitler had no intention at all to fight the Soviets.

The date for Operation Thunderstorm (invasion of Germany) was set for July 6, 1941; it was only at the last moment that the Wehrmacht decided to strike back, knowing full well that a war on two fronts could not be won.

As we have seen from the Red Symphony document, the Western leaders wanted a war against Hitler, using Stalin; they did not understand that Stalin had a hidden plan of his own: to swiftly attack Europe in 1941 and take over the entire continent very fast.

At the news of the battle of Kursk, where the Germans and Soviets were annihilating each other, the leaders of the West must have been laughing their bellies off: Germany and the USSR should have been fighting standing back to back and not face to face (Germany to have the time to attack Britain, and the USSR to attack Japan and Asia).

Realizing this fact, Stalin began another set of secret operations in 1945: in less than ten years, to invade both Europe and Alaska, and from there Britain, Canada, and western part of the United States.

Stalin, however, did not understand one basic fact: that the secret societies which ruled the Vatican, London and New York could have taken him out at any time, no matter how many purges were going on in the former USSR.

I fully believe that if Stalin had not made this unfortunate remark to Churchill, he might have been given some five more years to live.

“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill’s line of reasoning.

The response from Pius XII was this:

"You can tell my son Joseph that he will meet my divisions in heaven”.



V. Suvorov - Icebreaker

Suvorov challenges the widely-accepted view that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime attacked an unsuspecting USSR on June 22, 1941 with a much superior and better prepared force. Instead, Suvorov argues that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Nazi-controlled territories in July 1941.

Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany from the rear in July 1941, only a few weeks after the date on which the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union took place. According to Suvorov, the Red Army had been already redeployed from a defensive to an offensive position. As described in Suvorov's books, Stalin had made no major defensive preparations. On the contrary, the Stalin line fortifications through Belarus-Ukraine were dismantled, and the new Molotov line was all but finished by the time of Nazi invasion.


From the classic "Red Symphony" document (time of writing, January 1938)

G. - Exactly. Have you thought of the practical plan of realization?

R. - I had had more than enough time for that at the Lubianka. I considered. So look: if there were difficulties in finding mutually shared points between us and all else took its normal course, then the problems comes down to again trying to establish that in which there is similarity between Hitler and Stalin.

G. - Yes, but admit that all this is problematical.

R. - But not insoluble, as you think. In reality problems are insoluble only when they include dialectical subjective contradictions; and even in that case we always consider possible and essential a synthesis, overcoming the "morally-impossible" of Christian metaphysicians.

G. - Again you begin to theorize.

R. - As the result of my intellecutal discipline - this is essential for me. People of a big culture prefer to approach the concrete through a generalization, and not the other way round. With Hitler and with Stalin one can find common ground, as, being very different people, they have the same roots; if Hitler is sentimental to a pathological degree, but Stalin is normal, yet both of them are egoists: neither one of them is an idealist, and for that reason both of them are bonapartists, i.e. classical Imperialists. And if just that is the position, then it is already not difficult to find common ground betveen them. Why not, if it proved possible between one Tsarina and one Prussian King ...

G. - Rakovsky, you are incorrigible ...

R. - You do not guess? If Poland was the point of union between Catherine and Frederick - the Tsarina of Russia and the King of Germany at that time, then why cannot Poland serve as a reason for the finding of common ground between Hitler and Stalin? In Poland the persons of Hitler and Stalin can coincide. and also the historical Tsarist Bolshevik and Nazi lines. Our line, "Their' line - also, as Poland is a Christian State and, what makes the matter even more complex, a Catholic one.

G. - And what follows from the fact of such a treble coincidence?

R. - If there is common ground then there is a possibility of agreement.

G. - Between Hitler and Stalin? ... Absurd! Impossible.

R. - In politics there are neither absurdities, nor the impossible.

G. - Let us imagine, as an hypothesis: Hitler and Stalin advance on Poland.

R. - Permit me to interrupt you; an attack can be called forth only by the following alternative: war or peace. You must admit it.

G. - Well, and so what?

R. - Do you consider that England and France, with their worse
armies and aviation, in comparison with Hitler's, can attack the united Hitler and Stalin?

G. - Yes, that seems to me to be very difficult ... unless America ...

R. - Let us leave the United States aside for the moment. Will you agree with me that as the result of the attack of Hitler and Stalin on Poland there can be no European war?

G. - You argue logically; it would seem impossible.

R. - In that case an attack or war would be useless. It would not call forth the mutual destruction of the bourgeois States: the Hitlerist threat to the USSR would continue in being after the division of Poland since theoretically both Germany and the USSR would have been strengthened to the same extent. In practice Hitler to a greater extent since the USSR does not need more land and raw materials for its strengthening, but Hitler does need them.

G. - This is a correct view ..., but I can see no other solution.

R. - No, there is a solution.

G. - Which?

R. - That the democracies should attack and not attack the aggressor.

G. - What are you saying, what hallucination! Simultaneously to attack and not to attack ... That is something absolutely impossible.

R. - You think so? Calm down ... Are there not two aggressors? Did we not agree that there will be no advance just because there are two? Well ... What prevents the attack on one of them?

G. - What do you want to say by that?

R. - Simply that the democracies will declare war only on one aggressor, and that will be Hitler.

G. - Yes, but that is an unfounded hypothesis.

R. - An hypothesis, but having a foundation. Consider: each State which will have to fight with a coalition of enemy States has as its main strategical objective to destroy them separately one after another. This rule is so well known that proofs are superfluous. So, agree with me that there are no obstacles to the creation of such conditions. I think that the question that Stalin will not consider himself aggrieved in case of an attack on Hitler is already settled. Is that not so? In addition geography imposes this attitude, and for that reason strategy also. However stupid France and England may be in preparing to fight simultaneously against two countries, one of which wants to preserve its neutrality, while the other, even being alone, represents for them a serious opponent, from where and from which side could they carry out an attack on the USSR? They have not got a common border; unless they were to advance over the Himalayas ... Yes, there remains the air front, but with what forces and from where could they invade Russia? In comparison with Hitler they are weaker in the air. All the arguments I have mentioned are no secret and are well known. As you see, all is simplified to a considerable extent.

G.- Yes, your arguments seem to be logical in the case if the conflict will be limited to four countries; but there are not four, but more, and neutrality is not a simple matter in a war on the given scale.

R. - Undoubtedly, but the possible participation of many countries does not change the power relationships. Weigh this in your mind and you will see how the balance will continue, even if others or even all European States come in. In addition, and this is very important, not one of those States, which will enter the war at the side of England and France will be able to deprive them of leadership; as a result the reasons which will prevent their attack on the USSR will retain their significance.


Outwardly everything seemed equitable, a part of Poland for Hitler and a part for Stalin. However, just one week after the signing of the Pact, Stalin played his first dirty trick. Hitler began the war against Poland, while Stalin stated that his troops were not yet ready. He could have told Ribbentrop that before the Pact was signed, but he did not do so. Hitler began the war and found himself on his own. The result? He, and he alone, was branded the perpetrator of the Second World War.


In the end, however, Poland, for whose liberty the West had gone to war, ended up with none at all. On the contrary, she was handed over to Stalin, along with the whole of Eastern Europe, including a part of Germany. Even so, there are some people in the West who continue to believe that the West won the Second World War.


History states [wrote Stalin] that when one country wants to go to war with another, even one which is not a neighbour, then it begins to seek frontiers across which it would be able to reach the frontiers of the countries it wishes to attack. (Pravda, 5 March 1936)

*

Symptom

  • 2294
  • Bash The Fash
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2016, 01:58:06 PM »
Also; penguins.
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 39236
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2016, 02:34:02 PM »
Also; penguins.

WW2 was really about the rise of the penguins. I'm glad you recognize their nefarious nature!
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Symptom

  • 2294
  • Bash The Fash
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2016, 02:51:12 PM »
Also; penguins.

WW2 was really about the rise of the penguins. I'm glad you recognize their nefarious nature!

Those evil little bastards with their non-functional wings and dead eyes...
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

*

Kali

  • 45
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2016, 06:43:57 PM »
Wretched and Perfidious Albion dragged the rest of the world into conflict with Germany.

*

Symptom

  • 2294
  • Bash The Fash
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2016, 07:50:12 PM »
Wretched and Perfidious Albion dragged the rest of the world into conflict with Germany.

No, it was the penguins. Deal with it.
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2016, 05:26:24 AM »
Also; penguins.

WW2 was really about the rise of the penguins. I'm glad you recognize their nefarious nature!

Is that the reason why the Nazis fled to Neuschwabenland in Antarctica after losing the war?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 39236
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2016, 07:56:59 AM »
Also; penguins.

WW2 was really about the rise of the penguins. I'm glad you recognize their nefarious nature!

Is that the reason why the Nazis fled to Neuschwabenland in Antarctica after losing the war?

The penguins are Nazis!
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2016, 11:18:51 AM »
Also; penguins.

WW2 was really about the rise of the penguins. I'm glad you recognize their nefarious nature!

Is that the reason why the Nazis fled to Neuschwabenland in Antarctica after losing the war?

The penguins are Nazis!

I am the penguin whisperer here and I tell you they are not!

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 39236
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2016, 05:32:12 PM »
Then maybe they is aliens.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Symptom

  • 2294
  • Bash The Fash
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2016, 06:02:37 PM »
The plot thickens!
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 39236
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2016, 08:09:27 AM »
Then maybe they is aliens.

Ancient aliens, even.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2016, 11:01:38 AM »
Thanks, sandokhan.
But this subject got me bored. I think I won't pay attention to it anymore.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16196
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2016, 04:17:48 PM »
Anyone have a good penguin recipe?

RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

Symptom

  • 2294
  • Bash The Fash
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2016, 10:19:44 PM »
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15345
  • Quantum Ab Hoc
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2016, 12:22:24 PM »
Good? No. But here's a googled recipe.

http://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/Whats_On/Virtual_Exhibitions/To_the_Ends_of_the_Earth_Norfolks_Place_in_Polar_Exploration/Antarctica_Finds/NCC082667

Sautéed Penguin

Ingredients:

Penguin breasts

1 cup of dried onions

1 tin tomatoes

1 tin tomato soup

4oz. butter

Mixed herbs

Salt and pepper to taste

Method:

Cut the penguin breasts into small pieces and fry in the butter until brown then add the onion. Drain the tomatoes and mash half the tin into a purée, then stir into the meat and onion mixture. Add salt and pepper and some mixed herbs and the tomato soup. Simmer until the meat is tender and the sauce had thickened.

N.B. The meat of young shags, seals and penguins makes excellent eating, but in the natural state is rather too highly flavoured to be palatable. It should therefore be washed thoroughly and hung in the fresh air for a few days (in the case of shags, a couple of weeks), before cooking. The meat is further improved by blanching. Remove all blubber before cooking and replace the fat with beef suet when cooking.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 12:24:22 PM by John Davis »
[John Davis is a DANGEROUS TERRORIST who MAKES US LOOK BAD

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37801
  • I have artificial intelligence

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 39236
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2016, 03:03:27 PM »
If I ever catch a penguin I'm gonna try John's recipe.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2016, 01:13:20 AM »
Also; penguins.

WW2 was really about the rise of the penguins. I'm glad you recognize their nefarious nature!

Is that the reason why the Nazis fled to Neuschwabenland in Antarctica after losing the war?

Bullshit, I saw the documentary that undeniably shows they went to the moon.
Turkish joke. A prisoner goes to the jail's library to borrow a book. The librarian says: "We don't have this book, but we have its author"

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16196
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: WW2: what was it really about?
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2016, 01:31:08 AM »
Good? No. But here's a googled recipe.

http://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/Whats_On/Virtual_Exhibitions/To_the_Ends_of_the_Earth_Norfolks_Place_in_Polar_Exploration/Antarctica_Finds/NCC082667

Sautéed Penguin

Ingredients:

Penguin breasts

1 cup of dried onions

1 tin tomatoes

1 tin tomato soup

4oz. butter

Mixed herbs

Salt and pepper to taste

Method:

Cut the penguin breasts into small pieces and fry in the butter until brown then add the onion. Drain the tomatoes and mash half the tin into a purée, then stir into the meat and onion mixture. Add salt and pepper and some mixed herbs and the tomato soup. Simmer until the meat is tender and the sauce had thickened.

N.B. The meat of young shags, seals and penguins makes excellent eating, but in the natural state is rather too highly flavoured to be palatable. It should therefore be washed thoroughly and hung in the fresh air for a few days (in the case of shags, a couple of weeks), before cooking. The meat is further improved by blanching. Remove all blubber before cooking and replace the fat with beef suet when cooking.




I have eaten a bunch of weird things.

Genetically engineered penguins are now high on the list.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.