Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Should women serve NSF so as to discipline them as well?
Yes,women should serve NS as well,it will discipline them better.And also,it will make them realise what Singaporean men are going through.Rather than we men serving NS,they are dating Bangladesh.Fuking dirty b1tch.
Yes,women should serve NS as well
I think angel7030 should serve, talk so much cock here.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I think angel7030 should serve, talk so much cock here.
lol
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:It's not theory, it is historical fact.
It is based on evidence.
Fact is fact.
Fact is fact ?
Whose facts ?
Whose evidence ?
See me replys to skythewood for more information.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:See me replys to skythewood for more information.
You have done a remarkable research, which I have been reading with your replies to skythewood that began on Page 13 through 16 - from Kissinger-Chou En Lai to Chairman Mao-PM Edward Heath ad verbatim record of the respective historical meetings on different dates.
Perceptions of those political leaders simply confirm the geo-political interests of the various major players, but do the expressions of political perceptions reveal the political manouvres that continue behind the scene of "real life" - where each political power continue to undermine the other's interests ?
Even as much as you will believe that Chamberlain and his French accomplices were conniving to re-direct Adolf Hitler's ambitions eastwards towards Russia, you must also note that these efforts were completely negated when at the same time Russia and Germany were signing a pact to divide Poland that Britain was sworn to defend.
This resulted in the province of Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia becoming a sacrificial lamb to "appease" Adolf Hitler.
Was Britain and France pushing Hitler to move Eastwards to neutralise Russia's communism ?
If so, historical records does not seem to agree with your views.
It was common knowledge that even before WW-2 had taken effect, the Communist threat was real and was pervasive, and have nurtured moles over decades - with the discovery of the ‘Cambridge University Spy Ring’ in mid-1960s providing a shocking revelation to the Western Governments.
Even a Pullitzer-Prize winning author's writings about "Russian moles" under-mining the Capitalist societies, as well as Adolf Hitler's Germany has shown that the threat from Russia's Communism was real.
While Stalin had signed a Peace Treaty with Hitler, Russia was also making secret plans to attack Germany, buying time for Russia to build up mulitple tank, artillery and infantry divisions in secret; while manipulating politics behind the scene to galvanise Russian Citizens' attitudes towards Hitler and Nazism.
Adolf Hitler had to attack eastward in what is now known as the Babarrossa Campaign, as Russia's military built-up had reached a critical point that threatened Germany.
In the eyes of the Germans, the Babarrossa Campaign was a pre-emptive strike against the Russians, even as much as it was portrayed to be a betrayal by Hitler after a Peace Treaty was signed with the Russians.
The conversation of the Western Political Leaders with China's Political Leaders in the 1970s simply brought up the geo-political interests that were at play, and confirms nothing of the schemes to put Russia at risks.
If at all, every country in Europe - including Russia - was buying time to prolong Peace in Europe in order to rebuild their military, as every European Country was hit by the 1930s economic recessions and had reduced their military size and expenditures - even as Hitler was expanding Germany's military to regain their loss national pride, political and economic interests.
‘The “Ugly Secret” of World War Two’
‘Critters that dig tunnels under our feet’
‘History: The Communist Threat’
‘Stalin’s Secret War Plan – Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union’
I think I will discuss your point in more detail later Atobe, but are you saying that Stalin instigated war between Germany and Britain/France?
I know some people like to make that argument.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I think I will discuss your point in more detail later Atobe, but are you saying that Stalin instigated war between Germany and Britain/France?
I know some people like to make that argument.
From documented evidences and factual discoveries, many KGB spies were discovered penetrating every levels of Western Governments and societies - which included the various essential political, military, economic and industrial units.
If Stalin was not preparing for something other then the ultimate confrontation - it is remarkable that he will go into such provocative lengths to protect Russia's interests.
Spies in government doesn't mean they had influence over policies.
I just realised the topic and the discussion is totally different
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Spies in government doesn't mean they had influence over policies.
You may want to reconsider your statement if you accept the fact that members of the "Cambridge University Spy Ring" had occupied very senior positions in the British Government throughout WW-2 and into the mid-1960s.
When spies are in a very senior position of Government - either in the Cabinet, or in the various Civil Service Department that support the Cabinet - and all working in concert, their impact can be very damaging.
It seems that up until the 21st Century, there remains at least one Communist mole that had evaded detection.
The Pullitzer-Prize Winner who wrote the book that convincingly identified Hermann Goerring as a Russian mole - and was second-in-command next to Adolf Hitler, was surely in a very influential position to have affected Hitler's decisions to suit Stalin's preparation works to face the Germans.
The Pullitzer-Prize Winner who wrote the book that convincingly identified Hermann Goerring as a Russian mole
Goring a Soviet mole?
What is the book?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Goring a Soviet mole?
What is the book?
Your reply is a dissapointment considering that the reference piece was already posted on Page 12 (twice ?) and now on this page above.
Corrections: Herman Goerring was not Number 2,
Martin Bormann was the No 2 and was identified as the mole in the book.
‘Critters that dig tunnels under our feet’
But the book says Bormann was soviet mole not Goring.
In a book entitled "Hitler's Traitor," Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Louis Kilzer now claims to have discovered the identity of Werther. Using previous secret World War II archives, Kilzer builds a convincing case that Werther was none other than Martin Bormann, Hitler's most trusted deputy.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:But the book says Bormann was soviet mole not Goring.
In a book entitled "Hitler's Traitor," Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Louis Kilzer now claims to have discovered the identity of Werther. Using previous secret World War II archives, Kilzer builds a convincing case that Werther was none other than Martin Bormann, Hitler's most trusted deputy.
Corrections made almost immediately after the reply was posted - as you can see from the time.
So what's the story?
Bormann influenced Hitler to attack Russia?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:So what's the story?
Bormann influenced Hitler to attack Russia?
If you spend some time reading some of the references that I have made, you will come to some conclusions that will not be as controversial as the ones that you have been promoting from Page 13 to 16.
In the new references given below - [Ref 1 and Ref 2] - you will note that Stalin had a design to dominate the World for Communism to succeed in colonizing Europe and Asia, which explains for the intense support given to the Russian KGB to develop moles in all countries that Stalin see as a threat.
In the referenced piece it showed a messages sent in 1940 by Stalin's Foreign Ministry to Russia's Ambassador in Tokyo - which was intercepted by the Japanese Consulate in Manchuria - and clearly showed Stalin's ambitious design at domination:
"In one of these messages, Molotov told his ambassador: "We concluded an 'Agreement with Germany' because a war is required in Europe" between the capitalist nations, to open the door for the future communization of the European continent. Molotov went on to explain that any peace settlement that would end the war between China and Japan "might destroy our work proceeding among the suppressed peoples of Asia, and . . . it would not instigate the Japanese-American war which we desire."
If Japan turned its eyes towards conquest in Southeast Asia — including the U.S.-controlled Philippine Islands — and became embroiled in a war with America, then Moscow could feel secure that the Japanese would not invade Soviet Siberia, as well. And in the chaos that a general war in Asia would create, the breeding ground for communist revolutions would be expanded. To help seal this likelihood, Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Japan in April 1941."
Ref. 1 : ‘Covering the Map of the World – The Half-Century Legacy of the Yalta Conference’
Ref. 2 : ‘Stalin’s plan for the Soviet domination of Europe – began in 1925’
In the referenced piece it showed a messages sent in 1940 by Stalin's Foreign Ministry to Russia's Ambassador in Tokyo - which was intercepted by the Japanese Consulate in Manchuria - and clearly showed Stalin's ambitious design at domination:
But the article does not quote a source for the info.
Make use of war in europe to start revolution was a common political program among communist and left wing groups in 1930s, there's no secret about that.
Workers’ International News, June 1939:
...Chamberlain’s policy of “appeasement” has been the attempt to direct Germany’s attack towards the Soviet Ukraine, and the agreement concluded at Munich seemed to leave the door open to this outcome...
...One the eve of the Great War there was an atmosphere of war preparations, of frenzied diplomacy, of uncertain pacts and treaties such as obtains to-day. There was also the same deep apprehension and longing for peace on the part of the toiling masses. It is true that the first waves of patriotism on the outbreak of war swept away the instinctive distrust of the masses but it reasserted itself in the form of revolution before long. Similarly, the bourgeois politicians who babble so glibly of peace to-day are unwittingly preparing the masses for the day when they will find the road to peace – through revolution...
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/
But if you say Stalin had a policy to instigate war between Britain/France and Germany, then I don't see good evidence to support such a claim.
you will come to some conclusions that will not be as controversial as the ones that you have been promoting from Page 13 to 16.
Actually it is not controversial.
It is only that this point of view has been suppressed in english history books.
If you go to left wing propaganda outlets, it is the common view.
...The Soviet Union together with the communist parties around the world
launched a campaign to warn that fascism meant war and that if Hitler
was to be stopped a world-wide anti-fascist front had to be created.
The Soviet Union called for a system of collective security against the
rise of fascism.
Unfortunately the western powers, led at that time by the British and
French Governments and a number of other European countries, encouraged
the rearmament of Nazi Germany believing that its virulent
anti-communism meant it could be used to attack and destroy the
socialist Soviet Union. They rejected any collective security pact with
the Soviet Union...
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1225fascism.html
Snow: That seems a rather large order for Mr. Chamberlain. I wonder if you mean that, while fighting Germany, Chamberlain's real attention is centered upon the destruction of Russia? It appears to me that Chamberlain has got his hands full with Hitler for the present, without planning an even larger war against Russia. Would it not be logical for him to try to win Russia's friendship, if possible, in order to beat Hitler, even if he does have some designs on Stalin in the future? Do you mean that he formerly dreamed of diverting Hitler's attack toward the East, or that he is actively planning it now, or that he hopes to consummate such a front out of the present war?
Mao: He formerly dreamed of it, he actually plans it now, and he hopes to realize it later. Why? Because in front of Chamberlain there is not only the problem of Hitler, but also the problem of revolt in India, and among people in his own country, while the Soviet Union is the supporter of the colonial revolutions and the people's (revolutionary) movement in capaitalist countries themselves. Hence Roosevelt also sympathizes with Chamberlain.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IvXIwkDPJg4C&pg=
...The purpose of Chamberlain's 1938 Munich agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany was, in fact, to push the Germans to the east and into confrontation with the Soviet Union. One reason for this, of course, was the imperialists' fond dream of smashing the socialist Soviet Union...
http://rwor.org/a/076/ww2-en.html
...However, influential leaders of the capitalist powers believed that
German fascism was the only bulwark against Bolshevism. They
confidently expected that a re-armed Germany would sweep to the East
and destroy the centre of the Red contagion — the USSR.
Western leaders consistently rejected calls for collective security —
it was intended to restrain aggressors, and could only be aimed at
Hitler’s Germany.
Instead, Germany was helped to rearm, to re-occupy the Rhineland, to
force through an Anschluss with Austria (basically Germany was allowed
to seize the country).
When Germany moved to occupy Czechoslovakia, which had a strong army
and an advanced armament industry, the imperialists found themselves in
a quandary.
The British and French public demanded that their governments support
the independence of Czechoslovakia while the strategic aims of the
British and French rulers called for Czechoslovakia to be given to
Hitler.
A conference of the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy held
in Munich betrayed Czechoslovakia and handed that country to Nazi
Germany. The Soviet Union was not invited to attend.
The Soviet Union offered to stand by Czechoslovakia without France if
necessary. But while Czech Communist MPs demanded that President Beneš
request Soviet assistance, he refused, apparently more fearful of
communism than of Hitler...
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
But the article does not quote a source for the info.
Make use of war in europe to start revolution was a common political program among communist and left wing groups in 1930s, there's no secret about that.
But if you say Stalin had a policy to instigate war between Britain/France and Germany, then I don't see good evidence to support such a claim.
If you had read the top and bottom of the referenced article, you will have noted the information concerning the credentials of the author of the article. You may wish to re-direct your questions concerning his sources for the article published ?
Other references given in my last post on Page 12, had shown determined efforts by all countries to buy time to avoid direct confrontation with Hitler's growing power in rebuilding Germany's military.
Stalin had Russia's interest to consider, as much as Chamberlain and the other European Government had their collective interests too.
As was mentioned, earlier, Chamberlain offered to appeased Hitler's aggressive demand for the annexation of the Province of Studetenland from Czechoslovakian sovereignty, and hoped to delay any confrontation with Hitler.
Hitler had other designs and signed a Peace Treaty to split Poland with Stalin - even ignoring British declared interests to defend Poland.
Is the Stalin's plans still not crystal clear - in making a Peace Treaty with Hitler so as to buy time for Russia to rebuild her military, and agreeing with Hitler to split Poland at the expense of the declared interests of Britain and the other European Countries collaborating to prevent the outbreak of War in Europe ?
Stalin wanted to form alliance with Britain and France against Germany but Britain refused.
They wanted to continue to push Germany eastwards to attack Russia.
Since they refused, Stalin no choice, had to sign non-aggression pact with Germany.
You think Stalin stupid and allow Britain to push Germany eastwards to attack him?
Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Sta
If you had read the top and bottom of the referenced article, you will have noted the information concerning the credentials of the author of the article.
Must have source if want to research properly.
As was mentioned, earlier, Chamberlain offered to appeased Hitler's aggressive demand for the annexation of the Province of Studetenland from Czechoslovakian sovereignty, and hoped to delay any confrontation with Hitler.
That's actually british propaganda.
So-called appease Hitler to "buy time" to rearm and fight later.
The actual plot was to direct Germany eastwards to destroy Russia.
But this is suppressed in british history textbooks.
...While all this was going on, the remorseless wheels of appeasement were grinding out of existence one country after another.
The fatal loss was Czechoslovakia.
This disaster was engineered by Chamberlain with the full co-operation of the Milner Group.
The details do not concern us here, but it should be mentioned that the dispute arose over the position of the Sudeten Germans within the Czechoslovak state, and as late as 15 September 1938 was still being expressed in those terms. Up to that day, Hitler had made no demand to annex the Sudeten area, although on 12 September he had for the first time asked for “self-determination” for the Sudetens.
Konrad Henlein, Hitler’s agent in Czechoslovakia and leader of the Sudeten Germans, expressed no desire “to go back to the Reich” until after 12 September.
Who, then, first demanded frontier rectification in favor of Germany?
Chamberlain did so...
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
...Within two weeks of Hitler's annexation of Austria, Britain was moving. It was decided to put pressure on the Czechs to make concessions to the Germans; to encourage France and eventually Germany to do the same; to insist that Germany must not use force to reach a decision, but to have patience enough to allow negotiations to achieve the same result; and to exclude Russia, although it was allied to Czechoslovakia, from the negotiations completely...
...The group which spread this version of the situation included Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, John Simon, Samuel Hoare, Horace Wilson, the Cliveden Set, the British ambassador in Berlin (Sir Nevile Henderson), and the British minister in Prague (Basil Newton)...
...As early as March 17, 1938, five days after the Anschluss, the Soviet government called for consultations looking toward collective actions to stop aggression and to eliminate the increased danger of a new world slaughter. This was summarily rejected by Lord Halifax. Instead, on March 24th, Chamberlain announced in the House of Commons Britain's refusal to pledge aid to the Czechs if they were attacked or to France if it came to their rescue. When the Soviet request was repeated in September 1938, it was ignored...
...In the meantime the British had been working out a plan of their own. It involved, as we have said, (1) separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, probably through the use of a plebiscite or even by outright partition; (2) neutralization of the rest of Czechoslovakia by revising her treaties with Russia and France, and ( 3 ) guarantee of this rump of Czechoslovakia (but not by Britain). This plan was outlined to the Czech ambassador in London by Lord Halifax on May 25th, and was worked out in some detail by one of Lord Halifax's subordinates, William (now Lord) Strang, during a visit to Prague and to Berlin in the following week.
This was the plan which was picked up by Lord Runciman and presented as his recommendation in his report of September 21, 1938.
It is worthy of note that on September and Lord Runciman sent a personal message by Henlein to Hitler in which he said that he would have a settlement drawn up by September 15th.
What is, perhaps, surprising is that Lord Runciman made no use whatever of the Karlsbad Demands or the extensive concessions to meet them which the Czechs had made during these negotiations, but instead recommended to the British Cabinet on September 16th, and in his written report five days later, the same melange of partition, plebiscites, neutralization, and guarantee which had been in the mind of the British Foreign Office for weeks.
It was this plan which was imposed on the Czechs by the Four-Power Conference at Munich on September 30th...