Втората Световна Война

Американците и братята Дълъс или как нацитата създадоха съвременна Америка с парите на банкерите
Войната е бизнес
Федералния резерв и Банката на Англия финансират Хитлер
Войната е бизнес
Тависток
Чърчил за малко да започне ww3
Хитлер предлага мир на Чъчрил, за да нападне Съветския съюз

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-Hitler-sued-for-peace-several-times-but-Churchill-rejected-them-all

In order to understand why Britain would only accept an unconditional surrender from Hitler’s Germany, one most first understand that Hitler created a new economic system which cut out international banking from profiteering:

“That Churchill’s friendly hint to me that if Germany became too strong she would be destroyed, is declared irrelevant in judging the motives of German foreign policy before this forum.”

-Joachim von Ribbentrop, Nuremberg Trial

“Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain.”
– Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

“We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.”

– Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

“Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it.” – Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US – General Robert E. Wood)

“This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.”
– Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)

“The war wasn’t only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn’t want to.”
– Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

“Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn’t profit anymore. …We butchered the wrong pig.”
-Winston Churchill (The Second World War – Bern, 1960)

“We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure.”
– US foreign minister James Baker (1992)

“Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear.”
– Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England

“We didn’t go to war in 1939 to save Germany from Hitler…or the continent from fascism. Like in 1914, we went to war for the not lesser noble cause that we couldn’t accept a German hegemony over Europe.”
– Sunday Correspondent, London (17.9.1989)

“The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven’t understood this, haven’t understood anything.” – Churchill’s chief counsellor Robert Lord Vansittart (as said to foreign minister Lord Halifax, September 1940)

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Hitler’s Barter System

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…General Robert Wood testified that in 1936 Churchill told him that Germany is getting too strong and must be smashed. (p. 130). For what reason? Bernard Baruch tells us. After an interview with Roosevelt in September 1939, Baruch released a report to the press in which he said:

“If we keep our prices down, there is no reason why we shouldn’t get the customers from belligerent nations that they have had to drop because of the war. In that event Germany’s barter system will be destroyed.” (N.Y. Times, 14th Sept. 1939)

Germany was trying to escape the entanglements of world debt.
England was quite willing to lend money to buy raw materials but
Germany insisted upon exchanging goods for goods. Germany would
not be drawn into the system of increasing debt, booms and slumps.
The London Times stated that Germany’s barter system made her an
aggressor in the world market:

“One of the fundamental causes of this war has been the
unrelaxing efforts of Germany since 1918 to secure wide
enough foreign markets to straighten her finances at the very
time when all her competitors were forced by their own debts to
adopt exactly the same course. Continuous friction was inevitable. Germany adopted a new monetary policy … after which Germany ceased to experience any financial difficulty.”

In England the people suffer the burdens of heavy and increasing
taxation, but in Germany, the Times reports:

“Nothing is ever heard of the necessity of increasing taxation, compulsory savings, or the issue of enormous public war loans. Quite the contrary. Recently an important tax was abolished. Public savings bank deposits touch new monthly records again and again. Money is so plentiful that the interest rate on Reich loans could recently be reduced from 41/2 to 4 per cent.

These changes may well call for drastic readjustments in our
established conventions. A hidebound persistence in methods
and doctrines which were sound fifty years ago may easily
prove as costly in the financial and economic field as actual
war. It might not lose the war; it would certainly lose the
peace.” (London Times, October 11 and 12 and November 13,
1940).

“Germany was trying to break the credit ring of the money
monopolists by the force of economic sanity and that was un-
forgivable. She was acting like a worker who went on strike against
system which deprived him of adequate food supplies though he
as quite willing to exchange his labor to pay for them.”

In 1937 Hitler said:

‘Germany will enter into no obligations to pay for her imports than she is capable of fulfilling. The German Government thus takes the standpoint of the respectable merchant who keeps his orders in harmony with his power to pay. We laugh at the time when our national economists held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a State Bank; and more especially we laugh at the theory that its value was guaranteed thereby. We have instead come to learn that the value of a currency lies in the productive capacity of a nation.

“The world financial monopoly stood aghast. If Germany succeed in her plan of economic penetration, other nations might follow per example. The whole world would then exchange goods for goods in a basis of equality and good fellowship. No one would want to borrow and the financial pyramid of debt, from the apex of which Almighty Finance ruled the world, would collapse. Humanity would be well fed, but the financiers would lose their power.

“If the German monetary experiment had been allowed to develop
on the basis of a friendly exchange of goods it would have provided
the world with useful information to assist it in solving its commercial problems. What was a laudable effort on the part of Germany
has become a world war — a war of ideas in which Hitler strives to
form a European economic monopoly opposed to the financial
monopolies of the world

“Statesmen began to prepare the public mind for war. No mention
was made of the real causes of the crisis — the bitter scramble for
world markets, the trickery and inhuman methods used to obtain
spheres of influence for surplus investments and for increasing the
burden of world debt. Statesmen again were preparing to sacrifice
the youth of their country on the bloody alter of Mammon. As in
peace, so in war. Humanity must be sacrificed to save a worthless
economic system.

“Once again the peoples were told that if they destroyed the
leader of the German nation all would be well with the world. Germany worshipped its leader. Britain trusted its Government. Both
peoples believed their leaders would save the world. It was a
tragedy of faith in men. One nation has to fight for a new economic
and political system the other to preserve the old ones.

Source: AMERICAN MANIFEST DESTINY AND THE HOLOCAUSTS, BY CONRAD GRIEB (Liberty Bell, 1978), pp 233-236

Hitler made several peace offers which Churchill refused to entertain. Churchill would only accept total political surrender. Meaning Germany had to submit to Capitalism, international banking and parliamentary democracy as the method of government for Germany.

WW2 began on Friday September 1, 1939, but in reality it began on January 1933 when Hitler came to power. According to the Nuremberg testimony of German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop Winston Churchill threatened that Britain would destroy Germany if it become too powerful:

“That Churchill’s friendly hint to me that if Germany became too strong she would be destroyed, is declared irrelevant in judging the motives of German foreign policy before this forum.”
-Joachim von Ribbentrop, Nuremberg Trial

“The shallow and standardized answer that everyone here has provided seems to go along the lines of: Hitler couldn’t be trusted! Germany invaded everyone! Etc. etc. etc…

The truth is that the Führer admired the British as far back as Mein Kampf. He not only wished to have stronger relations with them, but even viewed them as a role model for his own Nationalist ambitions.

So what went wrong? It wasn’t to do with Hitler’s ideology – we must review the sequence of events.

Hitler wanted to re-arm, and the British really didn’t mind co-operating in the death blow of the rotting Versailles Treaty. This was made clear all the way back in the British PM’s memorandum after WWI, in which he expressed his views quite strongly: that disarming Germany was hypocritical, that the victors’ arrogance would not be forgiven, that stripping Germans off their homeland would cause another war (and he was right on point with the Danzig Crisis!)

We can also see this when the English happily made a Naval Agreement with Germany, where Hitler humbly held his naval tonnage at a modest 35:100 to England’s – exactly as Mein Kampf had said ‘Naval ambitions should have been abandoned, and attempts should not have been made to compete against British industries’ – what the Führer called the happiest day of his life.

It is often cried that Hitler took aggressive measures at every step, from conscription to occupying the Ruhr, completely ignoring that it was Germany which was trailing in every sense before Hitler came into power. The moment he did reverse the status quo, the French started buzzing their sirens, because they would much rather have had it the way it was ten years ago when French soldiers occupied the German valley. That’s why they signed an alliance with Russia, surrounding Germany and prompting the Führer to occupy the Ruhr – and as per Lloyd George, Hitler would have been a traitor to his Nation, had he not done so.

So what ended this mutual understanding and coexistence between Britain and Germany? Saying Sudetenland is a joke, because not only had the British understood long ago that having ethnic Germans trapped in surrounding countries is a horrible idea (especially if, God forbid, the Germans got a strong and competent Leader), but even Chamberlain could not understand why they must care about such a far-away situation.

So then it comes to the Reich’s ‘betrayal’ of the Münich accord, ignoring the fact that British war-mongering under Churchill and Belisha was in full force if only you read a transcript of their speeches from late 1938.

The true cause is extremely obvious: certain war-mongers taking full advantage of Chamberlain’s timidity and indecisiveness to block Hitler’s ambitions, ignoring the fact that Britain would most certainly have remained unaffected, and in fact positively affected, in case of peace and National Socialism in Germany.

This continues with Britain’s guarantee of Polish independence: they knew that Hitler would demand his citizens in Danzig back, and that many people around the world would view, and DID view, such an appeal as completely understandable; and thus, they gave such a guarantee to Poland as would allow the country to cry murder if Germany forcefully took back what Poland was unwilling to give in a peaceful manner.

All the way to 1941, Hitler was still offering peace to Britain while Churchill rejected, crying, “if Hitler invades hell then I’ll praise the Devil himself!” At this point, Germany didn’t just desire peace – they were, in every way, DESPERATE for peace, since their destiny and the future of Europe depended on it. It’s literally no secret who prevented this peace: Winston “never surrender” Churchill who put Jews, Poles, and Communists, well before the interests of Britain.

To sum up, I’d say that this isn’t even a question. Everyone will have to admit, and you don’t have to be a revisionist to believe this: it was a crusade against National Socialism itself, a moral struggle against Hitler’s ideals, and NOTHING to do with “defending Britain from evil war-mongers”.

These people can continue hailing themselves as heroes and saviours, but all I can say is this: give people a reason to believe that they’re better off under you.”
Студената война
Съветския съюз

Вашият коментар

Вашият имейл адрес няма да бъде публикуван. Задължителните полета са отбелязани с *