76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:27 pm)

borjastick wrote:
Unfortunately most of the British public are ignorant thugs who get their WWII history from atrocious and cheaply made one-sided documentaries. I don't expect the overwhelming evidence assembled by persevering revisionists to make much of an impression in this delusional and truth-fearing country.


Meanwhile in the real world I'll take that as an offensive comment. I am British and despite being a revisionist concerning the holocaust I fully understand that Hitler was the aggressor evidenced by the simple fact that he invaded, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland etc etc blah blah blah. There was only one country that took up arms against Hitler and fought the fight against him and his aggression from start to finish, and that was Great Britain. The war was correct though regrettable and we were right to take a stand.

The holocaust is a completely different matter and subject for discussion here. If you think Britain should have stayed at home knitting cardigans and drinking tea while Hitler marched his armies largely unopposed throughout Europe you are deluded.


"right to take a stand" blah blah. Against what? Shit that didn't concern you. Yeah, sit home and knit your cardigans or stick your nose where it doesn't belong. As an Australian I resent a Brit telling any other country that they had the right to stick their nose in anywhere, my country had to fend of hordes of Chinese and declare ourselves a Federation to avoid the Multiculti grip of the egalitarian British empire. So frankly, the Brits and their noses can go to buggery. Not to say I don't love Britain, but the alternative was pretty simple. Join Hitler. If you want to talk about gobbling up countries, and then moralise about it, Britain isn't the one to be doing such a thing, nor is she the one who should have "taken a stand" against Germany asserting her rights, either through force or peaceful resolution. It matters not.

France, Belgium and Holland were all invaded once war began, a war BRITAIN and FRANCE declared. For one reason or another invading these countries, with little resistance, secured Germany from Allied invasion and attack. No shit they'd do this, you getting upset about it is a post hoc justification for continuing hostilities, it's nothing more than an act of confirmation bias, used justify and to prolong a war that needn't have even extended as far as the necessary occupation of those countries. In truth, did you really expect that those countries wouldn't have been invaded by Germany or the Allies at some point during the hostilities between them? Really? I find that hard to believe. For Germany and Britain to even touch each other they had to violate the neutral airspace of those countries, and they themselves had to allow it. So let's not moralise on inevitabilities.

As Richard Overy said:

It must not be forgotten that war in 1939 was declared by Britain and France on Germany and not the other way round. A large part of any explanation for the war that broke out in September 1939 must rest on this central point. Why did the two Western powers go to war with Germany? Immediately the question is put this way round, the role of Germany assumes a new and very different perspective.

Richard Overy, Origins of the Second World War (Routledge, 3rd Edition 2014), Pp. 59


The fact of the matter is that the British motives were not so noble, in fact, they were entirely selfish. There's little more than can be said about this, other than the moral justification for the Second World War was also invented after the fact, and despite the actual overwhelming failure of the Allies to "liberate" anything for anyone at all.

Instead historians now emphasize that French and British foreign policy in the 1930s was the product of a complex interplay of domestic and international pressures and interests which cannot be adequately subsumed in the popular notion of appeasement. It was in fact, as A.J.P. Taylor pointed out to public dismay in 1961, old-fashioned balance-of-power politics (Taylor, 1961).

Ibid, Pp. 59-60


The truth is as A.J.P. Taylor said, that:

'in international affairs there was nothing wrong with Hitler except that he was a German'.

Mark Mazower, Hitler's Empire Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe, (Penguin Books, 2008), pp. 182
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:40 pm)

borjastick wrote:If you think Britain should have stayed at home knitting cardigans and drinking tea while Hitler marched his armies largely unopposed throughout Europe you are deluded.

It does not appear to be the case that Hitler wanted to take over all of Europe. The behavior of the USSR is much more in line with that.

Aggressive Soviets violated numerous treaties with neighboring countries
viewtopic.php?t=12434

When Germany invaded Poland in Sept 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany. Prior to this, there was no marching of armies all throughout Europe. The unification of Austria and Germany was supported by the local populations even though the "Peace treaties" at the end of WW1 explicitly stated that Austria had to change its name from "German-Austria" and could not unify with Germany. Well, who gets to make those decisions and why does that matter more than the people who live under them?

The state of Czechoslovakia failed, this was acknowledged in the British parliament. After the Slovak republic declared its independence Germany, Poland, and Hungary occupied parts of this silly invented country. It was recreated after the war and then at the next opportunity [in 1993] the same thing happened.

When the USSR invaded Poland also in Sept 1939, Britain and France did not declare war. They also did not declare war when the USSR invaded Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, or Romania. The USSR had a policy of expansion at its communist roots, a policy of world domination under a communist one-world government. Hitler was opposed to this, as were the UK and USA after WWII ended.
Germany invaded Norway and Denmark in response to Britain's secret plan to occupy Norway; it was strategic, not expansionist.
The Benelux countries (which were not really neutral) were occupied because of France's declaration of war; unfortunately for these countries, they are in a bad geographic position when it comes to wars between Germany and France.

Hitler was not secretive about what he wanted. He was public about his opposition to the so-called "Peace treaty" of Versailles.
He also wrote in Mein Kampf (chapter 4) about his desire to destroy communism or "Jewish Bolshevism" and have an alliance with the British. After the war, Soviets engaged in a policy of psychological warfare to demoralize the British public and make them welcome a communist revolution, although USA was the primary target. You can see the effect of this long-term policy of subversion today.

Suggested:

Why did Hitler invade so many 'neutral' European countries?
viewtopic.php?t=12421

The Ideological shift in the USA (and West) after WWII and why it happened + Yuri Bezmenov
viewtopic.php?t=13209
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:17 pm)

It's also worth pointing out that not even the British were sad to see Czechoslovakia go. They only pretended they were in order to justify further anti-German hostility.

When Germany formed the protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia the British initially didn't much care, only then, after those in the British public (probably more like Jewish newspapers and immigrants) complained about it did Chamberlain buck up to moralise against Germany's actions. Only then did they claim, erroneously that Hitler "broke" the Munich agreement.

Chamberlain accused Hitler of a “breach of faith.” The prime minister cited the document both statesmen had signed in Munich on September 30, 1938, pledging to discuss matters of mutual concern before taking action, and the Führer’s assurance that the Sudetenland was his last territorial demand in Europe. Hitler had supposedly broken his word, since he had promised in a Berlin speech last September 26 that he had no further interest in the Czech state after Munich. The September 30 document Chamberlain referred to reads, “We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries."48 The German text of the agreement translates to the verb between – “affect” – for the English word “concern.” From Hitler’s standpoint, his arrangement with Hacha did not affect England, hence no consultation was required. As for the Berlin speech, Hitler said word for word, “I assured him that from the moment that Czechoslovakia resolves her other problems; that means, when the Czechs have come to an arrangement with their minorities peacefully and without using force, then I am no longer interested in the Czech state. And I for my part will guarantee it." 49 Hitler made his disinterest in the Czechs and guarantee of their sovereignty contingent on the solution of the country’s minority issues. He in no sense broke his word to Chamberlain.

As for the British government’s genuine (and unpublicized) reaction to the events in Prague, Halifax confided to the cabinet, “It had brought to a natural end the somewhat embarrassing commitment of a guarantee in which we and the French had both been involved."50

Richard Tedor, Hitler's Revolution, Pp. 157


Chamberlain didn't care, infact

Chamberlain was obliged to deliver a strongly worded speech in Birmingham, demanding: ‘Is this in fact a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?’ About a week later, however, Chamberlain reassured Hitler through a third party that he quite sympathised with Germany’s move, even though he was unable to say so in public, as he was being exposed to intemperate attacks by the Churchill clique.

David Irving, Hitler's War and The War Path (Focal Point Publications, 2002), Pp. 162-3


In regards to Poland, the British guarantee was unprompted, hence not in reaction to any actions taken by Hitler or "his armies":

In Rhodes he (Goebbels) read that Chamberlain had guaranteed Poland against any aggression.*

*Except, it turned out, aggression by the Soviet Union; a secret addendum made this clear. It was Ian Colvin of the News Chronicle, whom Goebbels expelled a few days later, who tilted the balance to war by telling Chamberlain, untruthfully, on March 29 that Hitler had already drawn up plans to destroy Poland. However the contingency plan (Hitler’s Case white) was now activated as a result of the British guarantee.10

David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (Focal Point Publications, 2012), Pp. 293
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:33 pm)

In the WWII forum, there are threads on the topic of Czechoslovakia. In the post below I quote directly from the House of Commons, 15 March 1939:
In the event, therefore, of an act of unprovoked aggression against Czecho-Slovakia, His Majesty's Government would certainly feel bound to take all steps in their power to see that the integrity of Czecho-Slovakia is preserved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th October, 1938; col. 303, Vol. 339.]" That remained the position until yesterday, and I may say that recently His Majesty's Government have endeavoured to come to an agreement with the other Governments represented at Munich on the scope and terms of such a guarantee, but up to the present we have been unable to reach any such agreement.
In our opinion the situation has radically altered since the Slovak Diet declared the independence of Slovakia. The effect of this declaration put an end by internal disruption to the State whose frontiers we had proposed to guarantee and, accordingly, the condition of affairs described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, which was always regarded by us as being only of a transitory nature has now ceased to exist, and His Majesty's Government cannot accordingly hold themselves any longer bound by this obligation.
...
The central tragic thing I would put in a sentence which I observed in, I believe, one of the evening papers, and which was reported to be included in a proclamation or pronouncement of some sort by Herr Goebbels, to whom was attributed the statement issued in Berlin: "The State of Czecho-Slovakia has ceased to exist." That is the central tragic thing. It does not require any very technical or precise advice from anybody else for the Prime Minister to make the point—if I may say so, the obvious point—that in that situation it was indeed impossible to suppose that a guarantee to maintain the State of Czecho-Slovakia could have any meaning at all.

Re: Why did Germany annex all of Czechoslovakia? / Anschluss of the Sudeten Regions
viewtopic.phpt=9569#p93454
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Hektor » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:30 pm)

Back to veterans:
VeteransWW2.jpg


Wonder if from now on movies could be made on this.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby borjastick » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:28 am)

Okay Lamprecht, sure. They stuck to their guns the way they planned to and declared the war against Germany that they wanted. This hardly means that they "honoured" their agreement, because honouring it actually would mean fulfilling it which they did not do even when they had multiple chances to do so; particularly in victory or when Hitler offered them peace. In both cases they decided to do nothing at all. So the fact is, in the long run, when all was said and done, the only thing they did do was declare and fight a war, seemingly, for no war aim; while in the end doing nothing to honour their black check to Poland.


So as I said we entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany if they attacked Poland etc. Nothing too difficult to understand about that. We stuck to our agreement. Nothing too difficult to understand about that part either.

I am concerned that none of you bring to the argument why Churchill fulfilled that obligation when he could have wobbled on it. The reason is, and it was touched on briefly in the recent film, The Darkest Hour, jews. The reason was that Churchill was in debt to the jews to the tune of about £30,000 which was a huge amount of money in the late thirties. Poland had the largest jewish population in Europe and financiers of Churchill, a group called, I think, the London Committee, wanted him to take action.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby borjastick » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:32 am)

attenuate wrote:
borjastick wrote:If you think Britain should have stayed at home knitting cardigans and drinking tea while Hitler marched his armies largely unopposed throughout Europe you are deluded.


You sound like the sort of person who has a photograph of bomber Harris on the mantlepeice and a scale model of Dresden after the firestorm.

I would just like to tell my German friends that there were people in Britain who opposed WWII. My own great grandfather was one of them and he considered Churchill a warmonger. Conscientious objectors represented the only moral perspective in this country during the Second World War and unsurprisingly they were treated very badly.


Oh do please grow up son.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:14 am)

borjastick wrote:
Okay Lamprecht, sure. They stuck to their guns the way they planned to and declared the war against Germany that they wanted. This hardly means that they "honoured" their agreement, because honouring it actually would mean fulfilling it which they did not do even when they had multiple chances to do so; particularly in victory or when Hitler offered them peace. In both cases they decided to do nothing at all. So the fact is, in the long run, when all was said and done, the only thing they did do was declare and fight a war, seemingly, for no war aim; while in the end doing nothing to honour their black check to Poland.


So as I said we entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany if they attacked Poland etc. Nothing too difficult to understand about that. We stuck to our agreement. Nothing too difficult to understand about that part either.


Sticking to your agreement in spirit isn't the same as fulfilling it. The expectation was that Poland would be secured and the British would ensure it. What the British did was knowingly lie and then moralise about that agreement which you could not fulfill. The fictional morality was, as everyone knows, the idea that Britain would secure Poland's borders, the fact is they couldn't have done that, nor did they when they actually could.

It was irresponsible to make an agreement and counts for nothing when all you did was declare a war that needn't have been fought in the first instance. Actions speak louder than words so to speak. Declaring war only ensured more death and is quite apart from achieving any favourable outcome for Poland whom the British claimed to support. Which, again, they simply didn't. Being a lair yet technically allotting yourself into the position of technically, on the outside, fulfilling a promise you couldn't keep, but say you could doesn't make you any less of a liar.

An equivalent would be telling a friend of yours that in a fight you would back them up by being on their side, and your friend, believing you'd actually back him up entered into a conflict that he expected to win with your support, but when the fight actually broke out you just stood on the periphery stating your support for your friend without actually contributing to the conflict he was now engaged with and expected you to participate in. I'm pretty sure your friend wouldn't fell much consolation if you were to tell him that you "technically" fulfilled your promise to him because you were rooting for him the entire time. Clearly, there was a lack of specificity.

In the case of Poland though, they probably should've known that Britain couldn't do anything. The Poles themselves, as we know, and as British documents have shown, had an inflated sense of their own capabilities.

From a report detailing Anglo-Polish Staff conversations in July 1939:

It will be noted that the Deputy Chiefs of Staff form the opinion that the Poles tend to underrate the German strength, and overrate their own (paragraphs 9 and 14)

Source: https://archive.org/details/BritischPolnischerKriegsplanGegenDeutschlandJuli1939

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
borjastick wrote:I am concerned that none of you bring to the argument why Churchill fulfilled that obligation when he could have wobbled on it. The reason is, and it was touched on briefly in the recent film, The Darkest Hour, jews. The reason was that Churchill was in debt to the jews to the tune of about £30,000 which was a huge amount of money in the late thirties. Poland had the largest jewish population in Europe and financiers of Churchill, a group called, I think, the London Committee, wanted him to take action.


Why is it relevant? The fact that Jews had a hand in the Churchill Clique isn't a surprise. I think the group was "The Focus". Irving also spoke at some point about the Jews, Czechs and the British colluding during the collapse of Czechoslovakia (http://library.flawlesslogic.com/irving.htm). I agree it's important, I just do not see why it's necessarily worth mentioning here. The fact that Jews behind the scenes would be doing something like this just goes to show the character of Jews, but it also shows us that regardless of what people say about Hitler, he'd never sell his people out for money like the British establishment did; all for the Jews and their money. That's the type of government I wouldn't mind seeing smashed to pieces. The British people deserve better than such scoundrels, and the fact that they're being lampooned by the legacy of Churchills hunger for money to this day should make the regular Briton angry. Yet they aren't, because they falsely believe they fought a "good war", which was only "good" insofar as it boosted the ego and status of Winston Churchill and gave rise to atrocity myths that Jews could use to skewer the European man further into submission and racial displacement.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Pia Kahn » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:11 am)

"I don't agree. Firstly, the D-Day was not designed to "prevent" that the USSR conquer Europe, quite the contrary, it was designed so that the USSR would take over half of Europe and the other half would be left to them. The Soviets were not able to defeat the Germans without the Anglo-American help (despite having the overwhelming numerical superiority and having their entire army concentrated on the same front, in contrast to the Germans), in 1941 they had to call their American "enemies" to send them tons of weapons and supplies to avoid losing the war against Germany (and yet the Germans were almost defeat the Soviet Union) and were unable to expel the German troops from their territory until the Western Allies landed in Normandy and the western front was reopened (which it had been closed since the German victory against France and Great Britain in continental Europe in 1940), If the war between Germany and the Soviet Union/Hitler vs Stalin had been waged without Anglo-American massive aid in favor of the Communists, Germany would have defeated the red plague, that is the historical reality. ...

None of this is of any relevance for the US/British decision to invade in Normandy in June 1944, we are not talking about 1940 or 1941. In June 1944 the USSR had effectivly won the war. Thus, there was no need at all for the US/British to sacrifice their soldiers in order to defeat Germany in June 1944. That's a propaganda lie.

On April 30 1944, the USSR had reconquered the vast majority of its territory, the troops were on the border to Rumania and close to Poland. Everybody knew that Stalingrad and Kursk had been decisive victories for the USSR:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 944-12.png
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby borjastick » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:48 am)

Pia Kahn wrote:"I don't agree. Firstly, the D-Day was not designed to "prevent" that the USSR conquer Europe, quite the contrary, it was designed so that the USSR would take over half of Europe and the other half would be left to them. The Soviets were not able to defeat the Germans without the Anglo-American help (despite having the overwhelming numerical superiority and having their entire army concentrated on the same front, in contrast to the Germans), in 1941 they had to call their American "enemies" to send them tons of weapons and supplies to avoid losing the war against Germany (and yet the Germans were almost defeat the Soviet Union) and were unable to expel the German troops from their territory until the Western Allies landed in Normandy and the western front was reopened (which it had been closed since the German victory against France and Great Britain in continental Europe in 1940), If the war between Germany and the Soviet Union/Hitler vs Stalin had been waged without Anglo-American massive aid in favor of the Communists, Germany would have defeated the red plague, that is the historical reality. ...

None of this is of any relevance for the US/British decision to invade in Normandy in June 1944, we are not talking about 1940 or 1941. In June 1944 the USSR had effectivly won the war. Thus, there was no need at all for the US/British to sacrifice their soldiers in order to defeat Germany in June 1944. That's a propaganda lie.

On April 30 1944, the USSR had reconquered the vast majority of its territory, the troops were on the border to Rumania and close to Poland. Everybody knew that Stalingrad and Kursk had been decisive victories for the USSR:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 944-12.png


We invaded at the best and most suitable time for victory against the Germans. Sure they had effectively lost but who were they losing to? They were losing to Russia and certainly the US was not about to risk Russia over running the whole of western Europe. Some would say that the US only came in once they realised this.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:12 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:None of this is of any relevance for the US/British decision to invade in Normandy in June 1944, we are not talking about 1940 or 1941. In June 1944 the USSR had effectivly won the war. Thus, there was no need at all for the US/British to sacrifice their soldiers in order to defeat Germany in June 1944. That's a propaganda lie.

On April 30 1944, the USSR had reconquered the vast majority of its territory, the troops were on the border to Rumania and close to Poland. Everybody knew that Stalingrad and Kursk had been decisive victories for the USSR:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 944-12.png

Sure there was a reason, those in power in the USA did not want USSR to take over all of Europe even if they believed that destroying the Third Reich was a more meaningful goal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
"Operation Paperclip was a secret program of the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) largely carried out by special agents of Army CIC, in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians, such as Wernher von Braun and his V-2 rocket team, were taken from Germany to the United States, for U.S. government employment, primarily between 1945 and 1959. Many were former members, and some were former leaders, of the Nazi Party.[1][2] The primary purpose for Operation Paperclip was U.S. military advantage in the Soviet–American Cold War, and the Space Race."

There's also:

Theft of intellectual property and patents by the allies; Third Reich technological advancement
viewtopic.php?t=12416


Nick Cook, Aerospace Consultant for Jane’s Defence Weekly wrote in the Daily Mail August 19, 2001:
"A lot of the (American) expertise on anti-gravity dated from decades earlier, and National Socialist Germany in particular. Much of what formed the basis of the Skunk Works’ (Lockheed) projects came from the German technology and expertise plundered by the Allies at the end of the Second World War. Germany was a treasure trove of desirable technology, covering everything from weaponry to electronics to textiles and medicine.
Briton Ian Fleming, who was later to write the James Bond novels, set up what was virtually a private army tasked with ‘tech-plunder’. However, the British were ill prepared to take advantage of the opportunities that faced them. The more resourceful (rapacious) Americans simply removed the paperwork for hundreds of thousands of patents and shipped them home. According to the US Office of Technical Services, the body set up to ensure that German technology was rapidly moved into American industry, the documents contained a wealth of material which “very likely contained practically all the scientific, industrial and military secrets of National Socialist Germany.”
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Pia Kahn » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:07 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:....
Sure there was a reason, those in power in the USA did not want USSR to take over all of Europe even if they believed that destroying the Third Reich was a more meaningful goal....


Exactly!

D-Day was the beginning of the US confrontation with the USSR.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Pia Kahn » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:11 pm)

borjastick wrote:... certainly the US was not about to risk Russia over running the whole of western Europe. Some would say that the US only came in once they realised this....


That's spot on.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:17 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:
Lamprecht wrote:....
Sure there was a reason, those in power in the USA did not want USSR to take over all of Europe even if they believed that destroying the Third Reich was a more meaningful goal....

Exactly!

D-Day was the beginning of the US confrontation with the USSR.

It really was not. Indeed, it is the case that in 1904, Jewish Wall Street speculator Jacob Schiff, planning ahead for a communist takeover of Russia, helped to finance the Japanese in the Russian-Japanese war and used his influence to block loans to the Czar's government from America. Just over 1 decade later, the very same Jacob Schiff provided the Bolshevik Red Army $25 million for bombs and missiles, equivalent to about $375 million today. Well, Jews hated the Czar and there were some rich Jews in the US at the time, so what can we expect?

The US government, on the other hand, was not pro-Communist but quite openly anti-communist. When the US military intervened in the Russian Civil War it was on the side of those fighting the Bolsheviks. Some troops were sent over to help the White Army but mostly the US provided indirect aid such as food and supplies to those fighting the Bolsheviks. Lenin agitated to the American poor in 1918 in an effort to get them to join in on a communist uprising, but the vast majority of Americans did not want anything to do with that. US President Woodrow Wilson (1913 to 1921; Wilson, to be fair, also was funded by Schiff) was against Bolshevism but most likely believed that it was only temporary and Russia would eventually become more of a democracy.

In 1919, Herbert Hoover (later to become US president 1929-1933) warned Wilson about the USSR:
"We cannot even remotely recognize this murderous tyranny without stimulating action is to radicalism in every country in Europe and without transgressing on every National ideal of our own."

American Secretary of State Hughes rejected recognizing the USSR as an independent state after the Bolsheviks got the upper hand and toppled the Czar in the 1920s. It was not until 1933 that the US even recognized the Soviet state, and FDR did that after taking media polls and seeing if it was actually something with public support. The US government was hostile to the Soviets when European nations such as the UK were starting to reopen trade with Moscow. The USA was solidly against Bolshevism since it first came into existence. Besides Jews, a very small minority of self-proclaimed "Intellectuals" who were very leftist (every country has them), and some big businessmen trying to make money from it, nobody in the US at the time wanted anything to do with the USSR and their Bolshevik nonsense.

Anyway, it was not the job of a US president to send in the US military for the purpose of toppling foreign regimes because of human rights violations or whatever. That may be hard to believe given what has happened in recent decades, but the first US president in his Farewell Address of 1796 warned the American people against engaging in foreign entanglements, stating:
"it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world"

Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, inspired by Washington's words declared in his First Inaugural Address in 1801:
"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none"

So non-interventionism is part of American culture. Again, I recognize that it probably does not appear that way given the present state of things. But that is how it was supposed to be, and this was even brought up in the 1940s in anti-war protests:
Image

It was 165 years after the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France before the US negotiated its second permanent military alliance, during WWII.
And remember what actually got the US officially into the war: a direct attack on our military base in Pearl Harbor. Really, nothing short of something like that would have turned US public opinion in favor of jumping into WWII.
And the anger was directed towards Japan, although the incessant anti-German propaganda did have its effect, as did the deliberate hushing up of Soviet atrocities by the US government such as at Katyn and Vinnytsia.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: 76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

Postby sfivdf21 » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:06 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:"I don't agree. Firstly, the D-Day was not designed to "prevent" that the USSR conquer Europe, quite the contrary, it was designed so that the USSR would take over half of Europe and the other half would be left to them. The Soviets were not able to defeat the Germans without the Anglo-American help (despite having the overwhelming numerical superiority and having their entire army concentrated on the same front, in contrast to the Germans), in 1941 they had to call their American "enemies" to send them tons of weapons and supplies to avoid losing the war against Germany (and yet the Germans were almost defeat the Soviet Union) and were unable to expel the German troops from their territory until the Western Allies landed in Normandy and the western front was reopened (which it had been closed since the German victory against France and Great Britain in continental Europe in 1940), If the war between Germany and the Soviet Union/Hitler vs Stalin had been waged without Anglo-American massive aid in favor of the Communists, Germany would have defeated the red plague, that is the historical reality. ...

None of this is of any relevance for the US/British decision to invade in Normandy in June 1944, we are not talking about 1940 or 1941. In June 1944 the USSR had effectivly won the war. Thus, there was no need at all for the US/British to sacrifice their soldiers in order to defeat Germany in June 1944. That's a propaganda lie.

On April 30 1944, the USSR had reconquered the vast majority of its territory, the troops were on the border to Rumania and close to Poland. Everybody knew that Stalingrad and Kursk had been decisive victories for the USSR:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 944-12.png


First of all I have never denied that Stalingrad and Kursk were decisive victories for the USSR, but it's not true that the USSR won the war in 1944 (before the D-Day) or that it was able to defeat Germany without Western Allied help (it never was, since 1941 the Bolsheviks had already received massive American aid). The Soviets were not able to expel the Germans completely from their territory until the Operation Bagratión ended in August 1944. The Operation Bagratión began on June 22, 1944 (exactly three years after Operation Barbarossa) and the D-Day was begin on June 6, meaning that Stalin did not decide to launch the great reconquest offensive until the western allies landed in Normandy. Although it is also true that by April 30, 1944 the Bolsheviks had already reconquered most of their territory, but if the Western Allies had not landed in Normandy in June 1944, Stalin's Operation Bagration probably have ended into failure, remember that the Germans were constantly defeating the Soviets battle after battle until they arribed in Moscow in the terrible winter of 1941 and when the Bolsheviks managed to successfully defend their capital they launched a counteroffensive to drive the Germans out of their territory, and although they managed to reconquer some territories, when the winter ended they were defeated by the Germans once again and Hitler again launched a new massive invasion into Soviet territory, this time to the Caucasus and the German troops advanced victoriously to Stalingrad (where the great military tragedy that we all know was produced in early 1943) and the Soviets launched a new counteroffensive to expel the Germans that was successful until the Germans once again defeated the Bolsheviks at the Third Battle of Kharkov on March 15, 1943, and then Hitler and his Generals took the initiative again until the Soviets defeated them in the battle of Kursk in August 1943.

As you can see the German-Soviet war until the Western Allies landed in Normandy, can be defined as this way: the Germans advance unstoppably and victoriously until in a some battle they are defeated by the Bolsheviks and then the Soviets undertake a counteroffensive to expel the Germans from their territory until in a some battle they are defeated by the Germans once again. If Stalin had decided to launch the Operation Bagratión before the Western Allies landed in Normandy (and therefore another war front had not been opened for the Germans, who almost allways were at a numerical inferiority), who assures us that at some point in the umpteenth Soviet counteroffensive, would the Germans have defeated the Bolsheviks once again by stopping their counteroffensive and Hitler would have taken the initiative once again? We will never know that, because the Germans had to further distribute their army by sending many of their troops that were on the Eastern Front to Normandy to fight the Western Allies. But if had not been for the Anglo-American landing in Normandy, the Soviet counteroffensive would probably have failed again. If the Western Allies had not landed in Normandy, Hitler would not have had to send large troops who were in the Eastern Front to France to stop the Anglo-American invasion (which would have considerably reforced the German troops to defend themselves of the 1944 Soviet counteroffensive). Which would have greatly increased the German troops chances of success in stopping the Soviet offensive of the Operation Bagration.


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests