Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Mao Zedong spoke on this issue:
Question: Some people do not realize yet that the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the result of the breakdown of the Anglo-French-Soviet talks, but think that the Soviet-German treaty caused the breakdown. Will you please explain why the Anglo-French-Soviet talks failed?
Answer: The talks failed purely because the British and French governments were insincere.
In recent years the reactionary international bourgeoisie, and primarily that of Britain and France, have consistently pursued the reactionary policy of "non-intervention" towards aggression by fascist Germany, Italy and Japan.
Their purpose is to connive at wars of aggression and to profit by them.
Thus Britain and France flatly rejected the Soviet Union's repeated proposals for a genuine front against aggression; standing on the side-lines, they took a "non-interventionist" position and connived at German, Italian and Japanese aggression.
Their aim was to step forward and intervene when the belligerents had worn each other out.
In pursuit of this reactionary policy they sacrificed half of China to Japan, and the whole of Abyssinia, Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Italy and Germany. Then they wanted to sacrifice the Soviet Union. This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks.
They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to August 23, during which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost patience.
But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security, but refused to do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states, so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack, and they also refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the aggressor.
That is why the talks broke down. In the meantime, Germany indicated her willingness to stop her activities against the Soviet Union and abandon the so-called Agreement Against the Communist International and recognized the inviolability of the Soviet frontiers; hence the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty.
The policy of "non-intervention" pursued by international and primarily Anglo-French reaction is a policy of "sitting on top of the mountain to watch the tigers fight", a downright imperialist policy of profiting at others' expense. This policy was initiated when Chamberlain took office, reached its climax in the Munich agreement of September last year and finally collapsed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks.
From now on the situation will inevitably develop into one of direct conflict between the two big imperialist blocs, the Anglo-French bloc and the German-Italian bloc. As I said in October 1938 at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of our Party, "The inevitable result of Chamberlain's policy will be like 'lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own toes'." Chamberlain started with the aim of injuring others only to end up by ruining himself. This is the law of development which governs all reactionary policies.
As mentioned in my preceding reply - as shown in the preceding Page 17, Stalin had his own "Secret War Plans" from the very beginning.
It is no surprise that Chairman Mao will have the same retrospective views of any author concerning the sacrificial lambs made in the world stage of geo-politics.
‘Stalin’s Secret War Plan – Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union’
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
There is a lot of evidence.
What no evidence?
Date: 04 Aug 1936
Scope/content:
Letter from Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, St John's Newfoundland, Canada to WSC, on the European situation. Commenting that Britain should make a strong western pact with France and Germany, and allow Germany to "settle" the Soviet Union and Bolshevism "in her own way". Stating that Germany would eventually be stronger after defeating Russia, and it would take years before her to be in a position to make war again. "Russia deserves what is coming to her as she will never stop undermining capitalistic governments in every way she can." Commenting that if left alone Russia would be the stongest power on earth in 10 years, and may be a more dangerous enemy than Germany. Praising WSC for "bradawling" the Government over re-armament.
http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search
Date: 16 Aug 1936
Scope/content:
Letter from WSC to Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, thanks for letter on the European political situation. Commenting that a strong and growing section of Conservative opinion agreed with Tudor that Britain should form a strong Western Alliance with France and Germany, leaving Germany free to deal with the Soviet Union.
http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1178907
This was part of the entire ideology of Western Society attempting to block Stalin's efforts to spread Communism globally.
In any case, prior to the outbreak of WW-2 - during the early 1930s - Britain and France were decidedly firm that after WW-1, another War in Europe should be avoided at all costs; and that peaceful resolution to settle land disputes should be used instead.
Stalin's efforts to spread Communist ideology was less a threat then Hitler's ambitions to upset the land divisions that were settled at the end of WW-1, which will surely result in war breaking out.
It does not in any way confirm your theory that Britain and France push
If you had read the reference piece that I have repeatedly brought up
I read that piece years ago and I also read Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293790/Icebr
I did research regarding this area on WWII a few years back and I came across many theories.
My conclusion is that the evidence is not conclusive to show that Stalin plotted to instigate German-British-French war.
But Britain instigate German-Russian war, the evidence is conclusive.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I read that piece years ago and I also read Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293790/Icebr
I did research regarding this area on WWII a few years back and I came across many theories.
My conclusion is that the evidence is not conclusive to show that Stalin plotted to instigate German-British-French war.
But Britain instigate German-Russian war, the evidence is conclusive.
Unfortunately, the bulk of all researches and conclusive writings do not seem to agree with your position - and it is only ironical that the one author that could back your "Conspiracy Theory" was Henry Makow, whom you derided as a lunatic.
I am willing to let you persist with your own conclusion.
In any case, prior to the outbreak of WW-2 - during the early 1930s - Britain and France were decidedly firm that after WW-1, another War in Europe should be avoided at all costs; and that peaceful resolution to settle land disputes should be used instead.
Britain wanted peace with Germany and to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia.
...A very important book, Hitler’s Spy Chief: The Wilhelm
Canaris Mystety, was published in November, 2005. It received very
little attention but it contained some very interesting new
information about the relationship between the British government
and Nazi Germany.
The author, Richard Bassett, found some
very interesting documents that helps to explain the peace
negotiations that went on between the two
governments. Bassett shows that in July, 1938, a
powerful group from within Nazi Germany that included Canaris, were
on the verge of overthrowing Hitler because they feared war with
Britain and France. The British government became aware of this
plot. However, they were determined that Hitler should not be
removed from power. The reason, they were expecting
Hitler to destroy communism in the Soviet
Union....
Unfortunately, the bulk of all researches and conclusive writings do not seem to agree with your position
Like what? English mainstream history or Russian mainstream history?
Henry Makow is complete nut.
As mentioned in my preceding reply - as shown in the preceding Page 17, Stalin had his own "Secret War Plans" from the very beginning.
No there is no evidence showing his so-called war plans.
The evidence shows Stalin offering alliance with Britain and France to stop German aggression.
But Britain was insincere and refused.
So, Stalin decided to accept Hitler's offer of pact.
That is logical.
He already made offer to stop Hitler, but was rebuffed, so plan B was to sign deal with Hitler.
Simple.
Would you sign deal with HItler, Atobe, after your offer of alliance was rebuffed?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Like what? English mainstream history or Russian mainstream history?
Henry Makow is complete nut.
Was Henry Makow a complete nut ?
He seems to be the only author that has the similar "Conspiracy Theory" as you have repeatedly insisted.
An extract from his article in the reference piece below - is made here:-
THE GREAT RUSE
Essentially Hitler was not interested in a world war. His design was to conquer the USSR in a loose "Nordic" alliance with England. Erroll belonged to the "Cliveden Set" a powerful section of the British elite that supported this alliance.
Churchill's backers, the privately-owned Bank of England set Hitler up as a means to menace Stalin, have a world war and destroy Germany once and for all . War enables them to concentrate power and wealth in their hands and slaughter national elites who might interfere with world government.
The bankers used the Cliveden types to fool Hitler into thinking England approved of his plans. Like proud proteges, the Nazis entertained the English and gave them information on their military build-up. The Nazis were set up. This is the real meaning of the "Policy of Appeasement."
The Cliveden Set divided into two groups, those who were aware of the trap, and those who were not. Erroll was one of latter who sincerely believed Hitler represented a bulwark to Communism. When the war broke out, Erroll did his patriotic duty. But he knew too much. He was aware of how Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society and he may have spoken of it within range of MI-5 assets.
Other then the writing from Henry Makow, there do not seem to be any other writings that can support your "Conspiracy Theory" which you have attributed to Neville Chamberlain's efforts to work with Germany and France to block Russia's spread of Communism into Europe.
‘The “Ugly Secret” of World War Two’
Other then the writing from Henry Makow, there do not seem to be any other writings
What bullshit is that Atobe, I gave dozens of articles already.
The bankers used the Cliveden types to fool Hitler into thinking England approved of his plans. Like proud proteges, the Nazis entertained the English and gave them information on their military build-up. The Nazis were set up. This is the real meaning of the "Policy of Appeasement."
The Cliveden Set divided into two groups, those who were aware of the trap, and those who were not. Erroll was one of latter who sincerely believed Hitler represented a bulwark to Communism. When the war broke out, Erroll did his patriotic duty. But he knew too much. He was aware of how Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society and he may have spoken of it within range of MI-5 assets.
Based on what evidence?
What source?
Banker? Who?
Nazis set up? By who?
Set up to do what?
Evidence?
Source?
Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society
HItler and Churchill both belong to same homosexual group?
Evidence? Source?
It's all horseshit written by nut.
The Cliveden Set divided into two groups, those who were aware of the trap, and those who were not.
Evidence?
Source?
Where is the evidence showing all these?
‘The “Ugly Secret” of World War Two’
http://www.savethemales.ca/001523.html
Complete and utter moronic bullshit, above information.
The bankers used the Cliveden types to fool Hitler into
thinking England approved of his plans.
Like proud proteges, the Nazis entertained the English and gave them information on their military build-up.
The Nazis were set up.
This
is the real meaning of the "Policy of Appeasement."
The Cliveden Set divided into two groups, those who were aware of
the trap, and those who were not.
Erroll was one of latter who sincerely believed Hitler represented a bulwark to Communism.
When the war broke out, Erroll did his patriotic duty.
But he knew too much.
He was aware of how Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society and he may have spoken of it within range of MI-5 assets.
If someone on Sgforums posted above, what will be most people's opinion on it?
Looks like one of lionnoisy's posts right?
By lionnoisy:
pl read my 13.10.2008 postings.
Oz gavaman banks gurantee is just a empty promises.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-moves-to-shore-up-700b-in-banks/2008/10/12/1223749845710.html
How much is the Oz banks's debt to foreign creditors which also under
Oz gavaman gurantee?
OMG.
http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/AlphaListing/alpha_listing_f.html
H05 Net Foreign Liability
599953 millions A$!! or A$600 billions!!
So, i salute to Oz gavaman so daring to gurantee local banks deposits
of A$700 billions and 600 billions in NET foreign liability,amounting
to A$1300 billions!!Oz gavamna just get A$20 b in hands!!
@@@@@@@@@
I did not post this package of info few months ago for i was
very afraid this is another anti--Aussie thread.
There are many aunties and highly educated pple
lost in the recent crash of Aussie dollars.So i just say somethings
for u guys to enjoy as laughing stocks in this sad week end!!
As usual,my postings are classified as rubbish.But i am happy
if i can make u laugh during this finaciallly difficult time.
Little well known facts:
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:What bullshit is that Atobe, I gave dozens of articles already.
All the referenced articles that you have given, I have read and made extracts from it in my replies shown in page 17, which you have read this Saturday morning.
As mentioned, I have shown that your referenced articles had even contradicted your stated position of a "Conspiracy Theory" existing.
Should we go through the entire exercise again ?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:‘The “Ugly Secret” of World War Two’
http://www.savethemales.ca/001523.html
Complete and utter moronic bullshit, above information.
Unfortunately, it is the only article that backed up your "Conspiracy Theory" to get Hitler to work with Britain to confront Russia.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
The bankers used the Cliveden types to fool Hitler into thinking England approved of his plans.Like proud proteges, the Nazis entertained the English and gave them information on their military build-up.
The Nazis were set up.
This is the real meaning of the "Policy of Appeasement."
The Cliveden Set divided into two groups, those who were aware of the trap, and those who were not.Erroll was one of latter who sincerely believed Hitler represented a bulwark to Communism.
When the war broke out, Erroll did his patriotic duty.
But he knew too much.
He was aware of how Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society and he may have spoken of it within range of MI-5 assets.
If someone on Sgforums posted above, what will be most people's opinion on it?
Looks like one of lionnoisy's posts right?
Unfortunately, lionnoisy has no ability to write in such a litary style.
Unfortunately, it is the only article that backed up your "Conspiracy Theory" to get Hitler to work with Britain to confront Russia.
No, it doesn't back up my view at all.
It's all poorly written confused writing.
Quote a few stuff from books, add in A, add in B and mess them up into some confused nonsense.
All nuts.
Henry makow is a nut.
A confused fellow with a website.
That's all.
Confused fellow with rubbish ideas, propagating them using website.
That is the cruel truth.
As mentioned, I have shown that your referenced articles had even contradicted your stated position of a "Conspiracy Theory" existing.
Show me the errors and I will explain them clearly.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:No, it doesn't back up my view at all.
It's all poorly written confused writing.
Quote a few stuff from books, add in A, add in B and mess them up into some confused nonsense.
All nuts.
As you have attempted to do in all your referenced pieces shown in your responses on Page 15 to 16, and which I have indicated in my replies - with extracts from your reference pieces that showed contradictions to your "Conspiracy Theories".
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Show me the errors and I will explain them clearly.
You will have to go through my responses on Page 16.
As you have attempted to do in all your referenced pieces shown in your responses on Page 15 to 16,
That's not true.
My posts are not confused nonsense.
That are quite clear.
They push the view of Britain turning Germany eastwards to destroy Russia and I have produced facts, I have produced documentary evidence, I have produced secondary sources to back up my statements.
But you Atobe, you quote from a nutty website.
I mean
He was aware of how Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society and he may have spoken of it within range of MI-5 assets.
What sort of crap is that?
Henry Makow wrote that Atobe, how?
It's confused shit isn't it?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:That's not true.
My posts are not confused nonsense.
That are quite clear.
They push the view of Britain turning Germany eastwards to destroy Russia and I have produced facts, I have produced documentary evidence, I have produced secondary sources to back up my statements.
But you Atobe, you quote from a nutty website.
I mean
He was aware of how Hitler and Churchill belonged to the same homosexual occult secret society and he may have spoken of it within range of MI-5 assets.
What sort of crap is that?
If you only pick up the nutty parts - and read it "without a pinch of salt" - how should we come to any conclusions to believe the "Conspiracy Theories" that you intended to squeeze out of references that do not even show the slightest hint towards this end, but had actually contradicted to your position - as shown in the extracts I made in my reponses on Page 16 and 17.
Still Henry Makow's writing is the only piece that support your "Conspiracy Theory" of Britain and France to push Germany to attack Russia.
If you only pick up the nutty parts - and read it "without a pinch of salt"
Conclusion drawn is that it is bullshit.
It's horseshit by nut.
had actually contradicted to your position
There are no contradictions.
Still Henry Makow's writing is the only piece that support your "Conspiracy Theory" of Britain and France to push Germany to attack Russia.
Hell no. Don't link up Henry Makow with my sources.
Henry Makow is nut.
Only piece only piece, below got one fucking piece:
...far from opposing Nazism, however, the political leaders of Britain and
France and a number of other western countries believed that they could
use Hitler to destroy what they saw as a far greater danger to their
power and privileges — the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union.
The socialist USSR was an example that a new social system bringing an
end to capitalist exploitation was possible. It was a hindrance to the
plans of the imperialist states to re-divide the world’s markets and
control the resources of the colonies to their own advantage.
While the governments of the US, Britain and France wanted to unite the
capitalist world against the Soviet Union by forming a compact with
Hitler’s Germany, the capitalists of Germany sought such a union
through the subjugation of other capitalist countries.
Some imperialist politicians saw this contradiction clearly — Churchill
in Britain, Barthou in France, Roosevelt in the US — but they were the
minority. Most were so blinded by anti-communism that they were
prepared to give the fascists a free hand...
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Conclusion drawn is that it is bullshit.
It's horseshit by nut.
There are no contradictions.
A horse can be led to the water, but nothing on earth can force it to drink.