On, on to the brink once more

Perpetual war since 9/11 has brought us progressively towards WW3. Historians may well look back at 9/11, rather like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand which kicked off WW1, as the spark to ignite global conflagration and the destruction of Afghanistan as the beginning of WW3.

Wars aren't a linear progression. Had Hitler allowed his generals to finish the job at Dunkirk, Britain would have been beaten and WW2 ended in 1940 but he had a misguided respect for Britain and sought peace. Churchill and his bankster puppet-masters had other ideas. Kaiser Wilhelm similarly sought peace in 1916 from a position of strength but Woodrow Wilson, also under the control of the Rothschild led banksters, ensured America was brought into the war (in exchange for the Balfour Declaration to satisfy the Zionist lobby) and the rest is history.

Russia was wrong-footed over Libya by agreeing to a "no fly zone" under the UN Responsibility to Protect (R2P) mandate - code for "let's bomb the country to destruction". Putin wasn't keen to repeat the process in Syria and Russia has reversed the tide there. Similarly in Ukraine, Putin wasn't about to let the US have Crimea to lose a vital strategic asset and consign its largely Russian population to the misery and oppression of the illegal, US-backed regime in Ukraine.

More recently, in spite of hopes of US-Russian détente under Trump, the drums for war beat ever louder across the globe.

5 Signs We’re Headed Toward a Major War By Darius Shahtahmasebi
In January of this year, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev warned that the whole world is preparing for war. There are many indicators that back up Gorbachev’s assertion, but to discuss them in their entirety would take a dissertation or two. Instead, we have put together a list of the five most obvious signs of impending war currently being overlooked by the media. As a result of these oversights, the public is also missing them.

Banksters and the Zionist lobby were behind the destruction of Tsarist Russia and Germany in two world wars; they are behind 9/11 and the current march to WW3.

We can stop this because we, all of us, are the source of their power; as long as we participate in their oppressive and destructive political economy, wars will continue. The only solution is to build an alternative to leave them to their games - they are unlikely to fight themselves. We, people around the world, don't have to be the schmucks who fund and fight their wars for them.

Comments   

 
0 #11 James Walter 2017-03-05 16:48
Quoting Robert Mune:
Mike Rothschild's blog about Hitler's decision to allow the British army to escape is a very weak rebuttal to what he terms the Revisionist point of view. I started to pull apart the sorry mess and ran out of space seconds before I ran out of patience. Believe what you want to believe, the subject deserves more than a quick Google search for 'the Miracle of Dunkirk'. History that relies on the pejorative 'Nazi' and references to Hitler as a 'psychotic despot' is too childish to deserve our attention.

Now you are character assassinating and providing no proof! You have therefore lost the argument by leaving the field
 
 
0 #10 Clive Menzies 2017-03-05 16:44
[quote name="James Walter"
I suggest you read:
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/04/15/no-hitler-did-not-let-the-british-escape-at-dunkirk/
and
http://worldwar2questions.blogspot.com/2007/06/could-germany-have-invaded-and.html

I want also to point out that Stalinism was not Communism.

Hi Jimmy, Our understanding of both world wars and the Bolshevik revolution need re-examining because most of what we've learned are lies and deception. Hidden History and Under the Sign of the Scorpion are not bad places to start

http://freecriticalthinking.org/daily-pickings/1716-who-started-two-world-wars

http://freecriticalthinking.org/daily-pickings/1885-the-good-war

http://freecriticalthinking.org/daily-pickings/2111-myths-and-madness
 
 
0 #9 Robert Mune 2017-03-05 16:19
Mike Rothschild's blog about Hitler's decision to allow the British army to escape is a very weak rebuttal to what he terms the Revisionist point of view. I started to pull apart the sorry mess and ran out of space seconds before I ran out of patience. Believe what you want to believe, the subject deserves more than a quick Google search for 'the Miracle of Dunkirk'. History that relies on the pejorative 'Nazi' and references to Hitler as a 'psychotic despot' is too childish to deserve our attention.
 
 
0 #8 James Walter 2017-03-05 12:42
Quoting Robert Mune:
If you really aspire to understand Hitler you must see him as a man who was frequently too sentimental for the role history gave him to play. Dunkirk was not the only time his rose-tinted Bohemian judgements undid him. The vegetarian animal lover was no match for the depraved cynical brutality of Churchill and Stalin.

I suggest you read:
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/04/15/no-hitler-did-not-let-the-british-escape-at-dunkirk/
and
http://worldwar2questions.blogspot.com/2007/06/could-germany-have-invaded-and.html

I want also to point out that Stalinism was not Communism.
 
 
0 #7 Robert Mune 2017-03-05 08:58
If you really aspire to understand Hitler you must see him as a man who was frequently too sentimental for the role history gave him to play. Dunkirk was not the only time his rose-tinted Bohemian judgements undid him. The vegetarian animal lover was no match for the depraved cynical brutality of Churchill and Stalin.
 
 
0 #6 Clive Menzies 2017-03-05 08:49
Quoting Robert Mune:
Hitler's alliance could not possibly have been taken down alone by the USSR unless Hitler were foolish enough not to have launched his preemptive (spoiling) attack. The truth often claimed by Wehrmacht veterans is that their fight inside the USSR was later to save Western Europe from Communist occupation like that experienced by the Eastern Bloc.


Added to which, if Hitler had taken advantage of his "victory" at Dunkirk, he may not have had to fight the war on multiple fronts, making him much stronger on the Eastern front.
 
 
0 #5 Robert Mune 2017-03-05 08:37
I don't need you to 'yield' James Walter. It is only truth that interests me. The armoured vehicle production figures you quote from Wikipedia may conceivably be backed up by more reputable sources but it does not change the thrust of my argument. Hitler's alliance could not possibly have been taken down alone by the USSR unless Hitler were foolish enough not to have launched his preemptive (spoiling) attack. The truth often claimed by Wehrmacht veterans is that their fight inside the USSR was later to save Western Europe from Communist occupation like that experienced by the Eastern Bloc. Post war history finds it unacceptable to ever credit Hitler with any rational thought or prescient action so we are left with an utterly incoherent 20th Century history.
 
 
0 #4 James Walter 2017-03-05 07:48
Robert Mune: seems that you are mostly right:
Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."[21][22]

Also helpful was the bombing of Romanian oil fields and German production facilities. From 1943, Germany was running short of weapons and ammunition, whereas the USSR received an increasing amount of vehicles, airplanes, food and other resources from the USA. The famous Katyusha rocket launchers: Most were installed on US light Studebaker truck chassis. Around 400,000 medium transport trucks was supplied by the US, along with warships and warplanes.

The Normandy landings in 1944 were a huge help, but by that time Germany was already losing the war.

The first shipments arrived (November 1941), but it was not until after Stalingrad (November 1942-January 1943) that supplies began arriving in large quantity. Food was a very important part of the shipments. By 1943 food and other supplies were reaching the Soviets in great quantities. Lend Lease food shipments increased the availability of sugar and vegetables by more than half. SPAM became virtually synonymous with America. Food was less than 15 percent of total shipments, but they were highly concentrated foods, meat, butter and dehydrated food stuffs. We know that in conferences with the Americans during the War, Stalin pushed the hardest for raw material and food. [Erickson, p. 84.] Most of the food went to the Red Army, but civilians benefited as Soviet food that would have gone to military could be diverted to the Civilian population. Lend Lease shipments must have saved millions of Soviet citizens from starvation.


However, while significant, the Allies only supplied 16-20% of the tanks and other armored vehicles:
The Red Army used extensive quantities of Lend-Lease tanks and other armoured vehicles from the USA, Great Britain and Canada. A total of 22,800 armoured vehicles were supplied to the Red Army during the war, of which 1,981 were lost at sea on the one or other dangerous Arctic convoy .
In total, Lend Lease armoured vehicles amounted to about 20 per cent of the total number of armoured vehicles manufactured by Russia in WW2. These shipments were the equivalent of 16 per cent of Soviet tank production, 12 per cent of self-propelled gun production, and all of Soviet armoured troop transporters.

Tank Production (all types)WWII

United States 60,973

Soviet Union 54,500

Britain 23,202

Germany 19,926

Italy 4,600

Japan 2,464

By the end of the war, soviet armor production was high. More details here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

So I must yield to you.
 
 
0 #3 Robert Mune 2017-03-04 22:32
Absolutely not, James Walter.

The Royal Navy defeated the Kriegsmarine very quickly. The Axis powers were now cut off from many vital raw materials and food. This would become an increasingly significant problem. The Red Army would rely almost entirely on American trucks for its mobility (which Allied control of the Atlantic made possible to supply). Britain and the US also supplied huge quantities of armour which although left out of most Soviet propaganda footage nevertheless was very widely used. Despite all of this support the Red Army was very nearly bled dry. The German kill ratio against the Red Army hovered around 12:1 for the entire conflict. The famous battle of Kursk (1943) was very close to breaking the Russians, but Allied landings in Italy panicked Hitler who withdrew his three best equipped armoured divisions from the battle frightened that Italy would drop out of the war.

Britain declared war on Germany on September 1939 while Germany and the USSR were still allies, within two weeks the USSR would invade Poland, Stalin deliberately holding back so the world would blame Hitler and the Germans would suffer the most casualties. Stalin had for years been laying detailed plans for invasion of western Europe (which Hitler's preemptive attack forestalled). This explains the enormous losses suffered by the Red Army in the first weeks of Barabarossa. Their artillery were still being dug in in front line positions, planes were neatly lined up at new airfields, soldiers still under orders in preparation for a huge offensive intended to push through Romania and capture all of western Europe.
 
 
0 #2 Arvind Parmessur 2017-03-04 16:29
The problem for Trump is that he will be fighting on many fronts:Home, Russia,China, Half of Arab/Muslim countries while he has only 2 years before he starts fighting to keep his presidency. Furthermore the US army has proved itself incapable of winning a war against lesser / not well organised countries.Am I being too optimistic?
 

Please register to post comments