Putin Won't have it! WW2 was Wests' fault. Hitler was created and pushed to attack Russia.

Good lord. You are suggesting that Germany didn't invade Czechoslovakia to launch WWII? Revisionist history. Save your propaganda for someone else.

 

I thought it was hilarious. Just skips right over the Czech invasion a year earlier (as did Poland)...then leaves out the part about how Nazi Germany had invaded Poland 3 weeks prior to the Russians entering eastern former Polish territory because Poland had already fell to the Nazis. Of course the Russians entered that territory so as to create a buffer zone from their borders.

 

lol at 'post-modern' European history, which is starting to rival Japanese 'history' in ridiculous spins, worse than the Brits and their hilarious fictions re whitewashing Montgomery's true performance during WW II. These days, the Russians are the heroes, the U.S. an 'Evul Empire' as bad as the Nazguls in Lord Of the Rings. lol what a hoot. And, this change in narratives can even be traced directly to a nearly overnight sea change when LBJ took over from the French abandonment of Israel in 1967 and Europe's 'traditional' antisemitism was adopted by the 'New Left'.

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-32.htm

"
Common Ground between Right and Left

Today's German anti-Semitism is deeply connected to the Nazi period and the wish to expunge guilt and responsibility for dealing with it. Right-wing extremism, neo-Nazism, and extreme conservatism seem "naturally" linked to denial or minimalization of the Holocaust, or calling for a new one. As elsewhere in Europe, a relatively new "brotherhood" has emerged in Germany between the extreme Right and fundamentalist Islam.

Anti-Zionism, however - which is not mere criticism of Israeli policies, but the denial of the Jewish people's right to live in their own state - also links leftists and rightists. Since the Six Day War of 1967, both the extreme and the mainstream Left in Europe have shown strong anti-Zionist tendencies, not always distinguishable from anti-Semitism. Although leftist anti-Zionism seemed to decline after the fall of Communism in 1990, it was reanimated by the Second Intifada and the antiglobalization movement, which is today a main source of leftist anti-Semitism.

In a May 2002 survey in the weekly magazine Der Spiegel, 25% agreed that "what the state of Israel does to the Palestinians is no different than what the Nazis did during the Third Reich to the Jews."2 A new scholarly book analyzes how deeply anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are rooted in German society.3 Since 1989, united Germany seems to stand on two main pillars: a strong anti-American and anti-Israeli attitude.


The Postwar, Pre-1967 Roots

Anti-Semitism was never exclusive to the Right; Communism, for its part, often vilified Jews as capitalists. Communism in East Germany, as elsewhere, denied the right to practice the Jewish religion and sought to eradicate religion in general, including Judaism. East Germany's anti-Semitic policies first became evident in January 1953 when the Stasi - the state security service - confiscated documents of the Jewish communities, searched the homes of Jewish leaders, and spoke of a "Zionist conspiracy." After the Six Day War, East Germany officially adopted an anti-Zionist stance. However, no serious data on East German anti-Semitism is available before the reunification in 1989.

Although West German left-wing anti-Semitism also increased steadily after the Six Day War, before then the West German Left supported Israel generally, and specifically the Wiedergutmachung (Reparations Agreement of 1953) and the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1965. This friendliness was, however, based on an idealization of Israel, kibbutzim, and pioneering and was not on genuinely firm ground.4 Opposition to the conservative government of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer also played a role in this left-wing philo-Semitism.

During the 1960s, the West German Left divided into a more "conservative" wing and a New Left trend. Whereas Chancellor Willy Brandt was said to be a true and unwavering friend of Israel,5 many young leftists took radical positions and opposed Brandt's "establishment" Social Democratic Party. In 1966 they founded the Nonparliamentary Opposition (APO), a popular movement that sought to "renew" German politics from the outside. Many of its members and supporters later showed sympathy for the RAF, a leftist terrorist movement that had ties to the PLO and whose cadres trained in terrorist camps in Lebanon.


Student Radicalization


During the Six Day War, the New Left definitively transformed its hitherto moderate pro-Arab positions into full support for Arab states and the Palestinians, and its fragile pro-Israeli attitudes dissolved into anti-Semitic slogans thinly disguised as "anti-imperialist" criticism of a "fascist state."

After 1967, however, not only the radicals but large parts of the German Left turned their backs on Israel. This went hand in hand with protests against the Vietnam War, against the conservative mainstream in Adenauer's Germany and afterward the "Great Coalition" that was headed from 1966 by Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger, a former member of the Nazi Party.6 The New Left also idealized Communist China and Ho Chi Minh, despite their involvement in mass murder against their own people.7

Well-known intellectuals who were more moderate leftists tried to dissuade the New Left from its extreme positions. Ernst Bloch, Jean Amery, Herbert Marcuse, Iring Fetscher, and Jean-Paul Sartre argued with the radicals and discouraged blind solidarity with the PLO, as opposed to legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. They warned that notions of Israel's annihilation were intolerable and linked to National Socialist ideology. However, they were not heeded by the radicals.8

The 'New Left' had already been making a lot of inroads in academia in both Europe and the U.S., and then almost immediately re-legitimized antisemitism and linking it to Anti-American propaganda pushed by their Soviet masters. The author is a bit off re 'anti-globalists', though, but overall an accurate article as far as its analysis of left wing Stoogehood, even today still stuck in old 1960's Soviet Cold War lies.

 

No, I already said what I meant which was:

"You realize, of course, that the "other" side was not the only one to use propaganda and everything you've heard that has shaped your opinions about WW 2 since its end has been the victor's version of events, aka Allied propaganda."

I said nothing about Czechoslovakia because I was more interested in seeing who was simple minded enough to believe that only the "other" side used propaganda.

So far, there are only 3 examples and counting.

Who else is simple minded enough to believe that only the "other" side used/uses propaganda?


"The Hollywood Directors Who Filmed the Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps"
https://hyperallergic.com/426644/lamoth-filming-the-camps-the-holocaust/

EXCERPT "George Stevens, John Ford, and Samuel Fuller, best known for their work in Hollywood, all documented the Allied liberation at the end of the war.

But during this period of war, they were acting less as artists than as functionaries of US propaganda and information efforts, working for the US Armed Forces and Secret Services.CONTINUED

 

Thanks for the anti-American comments. I stated historical fact and you stated nationalism. Referring to Americans as simple minded does do much for your argument.

 

You're deliberately distorting what I said.
No where did I say that all Americans are simple minded, just the ones who unquestioningly parrot residual Allied propaganda without looking at history objectively.

 

You didn't look at history objectively. What do you expect from others.

 

WWII is the single most researched and documented event in world history. It’s not “mis understood” outside of revisionist of the Axis countries trying to whitewash their actions. Be it Japan or German, this attempt to justify the aggression will not work. Both countries were aggressors who choose war and went on to commit war crimes in the process.

Both received the ass whipping they deserved. They are fortunate their respective countries were not more devastated by the allies. And even more so that the Allies rebuilt them.

 

I agree with the first para but not the second. The people of any country never really choose to go to war and losing one nearly always involves much more than they deserve. We definitely should have punished more individual people in both Germany and Japan at the end of WWII but our decision to rebuild the countries was the right one and we should have given even more help to innocent victims

(Anybody who disagrees here should watch Grave of the Fireflies and realize that this work of fiction was based on many common experiences in all of the vanquished nations at the end of WWII)

 

Can not agree.

The people supported the war effort in both countries. The Japanese populace cheered as Japanese Troops rolled over Asia committing war crimes. The German populace cheered as German troops did the same.

The reluctance of both populations only showed as the war effort turned and Allied bombers appeared over their cities.

The Germans voted The Nazi party to power, they were not unaware of the Nazi ideology.

The Japanese of course has the emperor but that is not a excuse of their support of the war effort. I was stationed in Japan when Hirohito died, that was a good day.

 

I said we should have punished more individuals at the end of both wars

Hitler never got more than 32% of the vote. He lost the election for President in 1932 but was given the position of Chancellor by business interests who said "We can handle this Hitler fellow"

You can't say that people should not have supported a murderous government when the penalty for doing so was death. We Americans are lucky, we have never lived under a regime where the government regards us as prisoners in our own country and ruthlessly deals with any kind of opposition as high treason.

Even after A bombs devastated Japan there were Japanese militarists who were prepared to forcibly retire Hirohito in favor of other relatives. Hirohito had opposed the war in the beginning, but not very actively.

 

The Soviet Union by its very conception cannot be an aggressor. It was an atheist and globalist political system that didn't believe in the establishment of nation/states and boundaries. As a universalist political system, it required revolutions to achieve its goals of a one world government. Like all ideologies with specific goals, millions of civilians died as they tried to achieve that end - mostly in the first few years through the assaults on the Church by Lenin and Trotsky.

The communist international system with its large amount of Jewish followers, was creating political upheavals in all nations. In Germany, it gave rise to the opposing militant nationalism of Adolph Hitler. The Jews therefore had two strikes against them, one was their prominence in the communist party, and the other was the Zionists who were telling the German Jews in WWI to fight for Britain, and that Britain was going to give them Palestine.

The Nazis in contrast to the Soviet system, which wanted to create a universal government similar to the one the ideologues in Washington are trying to impose on the world today, was to expand Germany's boundary's by pushing the Slavs to the Urals. This is something the German tribes have been trying to do for centuries if not millenniums. Amazing how things change, and yet they never change.

Then we have Britain, whose self interests was to always maintain control by breaking up states into small ethnic and religious entities. That way there will always have friction between them, and none of them will be powerful enough to oppose or threaten their own interests.

This by the way is what the US, Britain and Israel have been trying to do in Syria, and this is why we're supporting the terrorists to keep the war going on. This is also why we have been demonizing Assad and his all inclusive secular democracy, and this is why the Syrians are willing to give up their lives to fight.

 

You lost me at the Nazi / WashIngton DC mess.

 

Since you mentioned Hirohito, here's something interesting. A few decades ago, I sat next to an old man at a church dinner, and he told me he was in the army in the Far East at the end of WWII. He was only an enlisted man, but he was a lawyer and they needed one for the trials. Pres. Truman wanted the Emperor Hirohito to be found innocent even though he was guilty as hell, and if the newspapers found out, he would be the fall guy - not the President. I think he wrote a book, but I'm not sure.

 

I was referring to the globalist one world government the Soviets wanted to impose on the world, and its similarity with the one world system the ideologues in Washington like Soros want to impose on the world. The difference is that the Washington ideologues system, unlike the Soviet system where everything was government owned and controlled, everything in the world would be owned and controlled by corporations.

We see that now, where small business' are either forced to close or bought out by larger ones. I see both systems as an enslavement of mankind and the loss of individual rights.

 

Although, as Aleksander Ulyanov points out, the majority of Germans (2/3) voted against the Nazis in the last free election they had, it's true that the German people, by and large, supported their government during the war. Of course they lived under a regime where open resistance was fatal, but by and large their support was uncoerced. The fact that Hitler had successfully used Keynsian policies to restart the German economy didn't hurt either. This was true, even though in that last free election the combined German Socialist and Communist vote outnumbered the Nazi vote.

This will be true of all peoples. It's the "my country, may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, my country" attitude, and it's completely understandable.

Your state is supposed to protect and defend you. So you feel you owe it your loyalty, regardless of the government who is at the helm of the state at any moment.

If you're a citizen of Solaria, then it's Solarian soldiers -- who are the children of your neighbors, maybe your own, who look like you, who talk like you -- who defend you. Naturally you will remain loyal to them, no matter what they do. This is completely natural. This natural patriotism to the nation-state is something the ideologues of globalization don't understand.

If you think this loyality to the forces of the national state would only be true for citizens of bad, totalitarian regimes, then I ask you to think about what punishment was given to the American soldiers who carried out unprovoked mass murder at My Lai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

The difference between advanced democratic countries and advanced totalitarian/authoritarian ones is that in democratic countries, the truth often comes out, and the ruling elite has to deplore what happened. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and advanced countries do embrace public virtue. The human race has made some advances over the centuries.

The difference beween advanced countries of either type, and backward ones, is that in backward ones the rape of enemy women and the killing of enemy children along with adults is celebrated.

 

88% of Germans voted for Hitler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_German_referendum

 

You ought to read your own source. Let me help you with an extract from it:

 

Whether is was 88%, 68% , 58% it really makes no damn difference. They voted, the end. If you really are saying that all those Germans who lined up by the thousands to kiss Hitler's ass were really just a bunch of liberal pansies that were scared to do otherwise....that dog don't hunt.

Is this where we're at now? Making excuses for the Germans? They ****ing loved that guy. And you think the vote was rigged?

 

You posted a Wiki article claiming that 88% supported Hitler just a few months after he took office, i.e. not long after two-thirds of Germans voted against him.

I actually read the article, which confirmed what I knew anyway, which stated it was a rigged referendum. I repeat my friendly advice to you: read the things you post, before you post them.

Go back and read my post above, three or four before yours. It discusses German attitudes after several years of successful Nazi rule.

By the way, photos of lots of people mean nothing. I can show you photos of lots of people in Communist Romania, just before the government collapsed. On May Day, many Cubans take part in the marches and demonstrations there, which useful idiots here use as proof that the Cuban Communist Party is very popular. But talk to real Cubans in Cuba, and you'll find out that attendance at these things is practically required.

Germany was a deeply divided society -- the Communists and Socialists together got about 37% of the vote in the election where the Nazis got 32%. They had been fighting each other in the streets. The Communists, however, were on an ultra-left kick, dictated by Stalin, which made them say that the Socialists were the main enemy, were 'social fascists', because they misled the workers. The Communists supported a rightwing effort to recall the Social Democratic police chief of Prussia, the so-called 'Red Referendum'. Had the Communists and Socialists been able to achieve a United Front against the Nazis, there would would not have been the parliamentary division that allowed HIndenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor.

If anyone else is reading this, and is interested in the attitude of ordinary Germans under Hitler to the commission of war crimes, they should look at Christopher Browning's
Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland [ https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068/ ] Then they should read about My Lai.

For a long survey of German resistance to Hitler, go back to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism

 

Wel putin is 100% correct but i would say western betrayal aplies to poland and czech and originated from there not so much for or from russia.

First France and uk betrayed the czechs literly with the munich talks. And at the end of the war again since the czech rose up against the germans when they heard there was a american army nearby. Patton asked to help, eisenhower let them die on the streets instead to avoid pissing off the soviet.

They treated poland like **** and lied in its face
Both in terms of weapons shipments loans and refusing to honor its promises. The french even issues orders that the polish envoys where not allowed to see him. Some ally

In both cases had they acted differently germany would have bled alot more. Gained alot less and as a result would not have won against france after.

The nazi relied on looting and using the countries they occupied to invade the next and the chzech had a very modern army with excellent tanks wich the germans used in the batle for france in the end. Pretty much a domino effect if you ask me.

 

Too many pages to read, however, I do know that if it were not for Germany trying to get the Russians out of the war, WWI, there would not have been a USSR.

 

Putin is just a KGB cadre and of course he is against the day which would call those who fought totalitarian regimes heroes. Othervise Stalin enabled Hitler for both to start WW2 and also to attack USSR when feeling strong enough. USSR was indeed having a big military industry because Germany was banned to develop it until Hitler - yet it developed it secretly with Soviet communist help on their territory because also politicians before Hitler wanted the division of Poland between USSR and Weimar Germany and pact between the two countries as Hitler and Stalin later did and divided/conquered Europe.

Also without western help USSR would collapse economically already in 1941-42 as even Molotov recognized to USA with words: Better to continue with it than to establish a new front in France or so.