Wars and Conflicts permalink
If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by vinnie (U230615) on Monday, 30th March 2009
We promised Poland assistance against aggressors, so we declared war on Germany following their invasion, why did we not do this against Russia following their invasion from the East?
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 2
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 30th March 2009
vinnie
We promised Poland assistance against aggressors, so we declared war on Germany following their invasion, why did we not do this against Russia following their invasion from the East? This is the best question I've ever seen on this board. Thank you.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 3
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
We had just fought a horrendous war.
Exactly how do you think we would immediately set out on another one ?Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 4
Posted by caveman1944 (U11305692) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Two different scenarios.
It is my view that we were not specifically interested in Poland itself, but they wanted Hitler stopped, and as Poland was next in line , gave that ultimatum.
You see, had Hitler been left to dominate Europe, he would have had two things; the overseas posessions of several European countries.... a ready made empire, and the channel ports, and putting to sea with a strong navy.
Not on for the British, and furthermore, not on for the Americans who saw this as so highly undesirable, that Hitler came first before the enemy on America's doorstep
JOhnLink to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
We had just fought a horrendous warÂ
No we hadn't, we had only just declared war on Germany.
The OP is referring to events in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Except that should read when Germany invaded WESTERN Poland, as the USSR and Germany had agreed on their own "spheres of influence" in Poland, effectively splitting the country in two (the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact).
Germany invaded western Poland on 1st September, the USSR invaded eastern Poland on 17 September (violating the 1932 Soviet-Polish non-agression pact). The two armies controlled the areas agreed in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 6
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
What does the question refer to?
Does it mean - why didn't we fight against the Russians (Soviets) when they invaded Poland and Germany from the East? Or does it mean why didn't we support the Russians (Soviets really) when Barbarossa happened?
The answer to the first one is that your enemy's enemy is your friend - and Britain was fighting Germany like Soviets were, so had allied with the Soviet Union to fight a common enemy.
The answer to the second one is that Britain did fight against the Germans by bombing Germany and her allies, and did help to supply the Soviets by the Atlantic convoys. It wasn't much in the scheme of things compared to the giant land battles of the Eastern front, but the bombing hindered the German war effort and the convoys game the Soviets some much needed supplies.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 7
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
The answer to the first one is that your enemy's enemy is your friend - and Britain was fighting Germany like Soviets were, so had allied with the Soviet Union to fight a common enemy.Â
The Soviet Union was not fighting against Germany in 1939. The reverse was true. The Soviet Union invaded Poland in alliance with Germany.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 8
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
1507George Does it mean - why didn't we fight against the Russians (Soviets) when they invaded Poland and Germany from the East? Or does it mean why didn't we support the Russians (Soviets really) when Barbarossa happened? Just days before the invasion of West Poland by Wehrmacht and a few weeks before the invasion of East Poland by Red Army, Stalin sent the French and the British negotiators home and made the deal with Hitler. The French and the English fulfilled their obligation to the Poles by declaring war on Hitler on the third day of their invasion, yet they ignored Stalin. Moreover, it turns out that Roosevelt and then Churchill - when things got pretty tough for the latter - had offered Stalin all sorts of carrots well before Wehrmacht attacked Red Army in East Poland on June 22, 1941. So, the question on top of this board is loaded much heavier than you may think.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
This is the best question I've ever seen on this board. Thank you.Â
Hear, hear absolutely to that and I'm stumped for an answer too. I can only surmise that Chamberlain used the same specious argument that he had used the previous March when the Munich Agreement was abrogated by force and he argued that the treaty had been invalidated by the secession of Slovakia which meant that the entity known as Czechoslovakia no longer existed (even though Czechoslovakia had never been a signatory to the Agreement).
By 17 September when the Soviets invaded he could have argued that the Polish state had effectively ceased to exist (although I don't think Warsaw had yet fallen) therefore invalidating further committments. There was a good deal of public pressure for war to be joined with the Soviet Union as an effective ally of Nazi Germany (Fascist Italy still being neutral at this stage) especially after Stalin's assault on Finland in December 1939.
Plans were drawn up to send an expeditionary force to help the Finns although Sweden (mindful of her iron ore exports to Germany) refused the troops passage through her territory. However despite this the expedition took so long to organise that the Finns had signed a peace treaty with the Soviet Union before help could be rendered to them. This episode however did bring about the fall of the Daladier Government in France in January 1940 and his replacement by Reynaud.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 10
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Surely the answer to this question is obvious? If we had declared war on both Germany and Russia our chances of beating the Germans would have been zero. Imagine the D Day landings with no Eastern Front to distract the German forces!
Whereas by turning a blind eye to Russia's aggression we left open the possibility of a future alliance against the Germans - which of course is what eventually happened.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Valid question but it is answered as simply as followingly:
"The WWII had little to do with Poland and those pacts and more to do with international investments that dictated who went on war with whom".
So that answers it all.
You should be asking yourself better why on earth should Britain permit and thus then help Germany built their war machine in the first place. 1920s Germany could had been contained and controlled even by ridiculusly small badly armed badly trained militia... Ask yourself how the loser of WWI had all the freedom to built aircrafts and ships and tanks violating blatantly peace agreements and being able to find the money among an as-if financial crisis... (really... why don't they find money in today's crisis like this? Why nobody can do this again, even on a smaller scale?)
Because accepting all that and then asking why British did not declare war on Russians is really jumping incoherently...Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 12
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Idamante Surely the answer to this question is obvious? If we had declared war on both Germany and Russia our chances of beating the Germans would have been zero. Imagine the D Day landings with no Eastern Front to distract the German forces! I think what you are trying to say is that by mid-September 1939, the game was already rigged. But how did it get to that point? I say, this is a good start:
Nik,
as Paul has already told you, nobody will buy your sweeping speculations mixed up with ethnical bias, without credible factual back-up. He is right that the closest to your theory source would be Anthony Sutton, but Sutton is much more careful in formulating his thesis and very meticulous with his sources.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 13
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Nik you are at it again. WWII had nothing to do with investments and those who controlled them whom you claimed dictated the course of events.
Proof of your claim please.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 14
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Er, we didn't declare war on the Soviet Union along with Germany as it would have been suicidal to do so. Britain did not go to war to fight for Poland (or against fascism, Nazism, to save jews etc). Britain went to war with Germany as it had always been British imperial policy to avoid any one power dominating the European continent as this would threaten the Empire. As has already been said, the guarantee was given over Poland as it was obvious that Poland would be Germany's next target. The goal was to stop German expansion.
Cheers,
PaulLink to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 15
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Scottish librarian (gorman1)
Britain went to war with Germany as it had always been British imperial policy to avoid any one power dominating the European continent as this would threaten the Empire So, how did that work out?Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
What ethnic bias have you seen suvorovetz? ok we have heard that also! Anyway guys, let me hear you : how do you explain then the ease of Germans to built in ten years during a terrible financial crises? Either you accept my explanation, either you accept that suddenly for 10 years US, British and French diplomacy and politics became utterly idiotic, either you accept that Germans are... a superior tribe... explain yourselves.
It goes withoutsaying, hands down, pants down that my explanation is the one and only rational, guys do not try and justify the unexplainable. Nobody leaves the enemy recreate his war machine after beating him in a war like WWI unless "it is decided to be that way".
To help you a bit, there is another one (and ony another one) and that is the theoretical will of British and Americans to recreate a powerful Germany so as to act as a stopper to communism. Yes that could be some valid argument. Can we substantiate from what we know? Well no. Nobody worked on that direction.
You cannot be that propagandised to that extend guys as to think it was all a mad mans' work and the complexes of a nation. Show some initiative! Some genuine thinking!Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 17
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Nik how do you explain then the ease of Germans to built in ten years during a terrible financial crises? There's no question that many western interests - particularly American - were instrumental in triggering hyperinflation in Germany and consequently snatching German assets at dirt-cheap valuations. FDR was involved in this during the 20s, interestingly enough (see A. Sutton). And then they owned it.
To help you a bit, there is another one (and ony another one) and that is the theoretical will of British and Americans to recreate a powerful Germany so as to act as a stopper to communism. It does not work this way, because we know for a fact that Stalin helped Hitler to rearm in violation of the Versaille Treaty. Moreover, Hitler's future military brass, such as Keitel, was trained at Lipetsk in Russia in late 20s - early 30s.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 18
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Suvorovetz,
It didn't.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 19
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Hi Idamate,
I fully agree with you, it would be utmoust stupidness to declare war on both Germany and Sovietunion at the same time.
More over when they declared war on Germany on 3. September there was still chance for hepl for Poland. On the 17 September there was no hope for Poland.
best regards
HambiLink to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 20
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
We promised Poland assistance against aggressors, so we declared war on Germany following their invasion, why did we not do this against Russia following their invasion from the East?
=================================================
The "Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland" (London, 25 August 1939) states in Article 1: "Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power."
When halifax was asked by the Polish Forgien Sec to DOW on Russai, he was bluntlt told by Halifax that it was the UK to determine whom it would declare war on.
It was already at war and one of its war aims to restore Polands sovreignty, which it atempted to do in the long run, circumstances unfourtunatly dictated it was unable to do so.
The lawyer in me wants to argue Russia was not a european, but an asiatic power btw.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 21
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
A related question is why the Russians agreed to this carve up in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better to keep Poland as a buffer state against future German aggression?
Or did they think that a German conquest of Poland was inevitable so they might as well make the best of a bad job by making sure the Germans didn't take over the whole country?Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 22
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Idamante A related question is why the Russians agreed to this carve up in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better to keep Poland as a buffer state against future German aggression? I believe you can find your answer right here:
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Well anyone can tell you that you do not enter in a major war for the shake of ... Poland or whatever other country. You enter a major war for your own shake (obviously I am not implying here the shake of British people themselves!).
WWI and WWII anyway proved that the worst thing it could happen to you would be to have Britain coming to your aid... nearly all "aided" countries lost and their force to even resist was crippled... we are talking about catastrophe!Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 24
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Well anyone can tell you that you do not enter in a major war for the shake of ... Poland or whatever other country.
==================================================
Really?. WSC FDR was a couple someone who said and thought different.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 25
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Nik,
Beter reread your history and consider why Britain was coming to their aid, secondly what would have happened to them if Britain had not continued the fight.
If you consider the countries invaded by the Germans were quite happy with that and welcomed the Germans with open arms then fine. Back to fantasy landLink to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 26
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
WWI and WWII anyway proved that the worst thing it could happen to you would be to have Britain coming to your aid... nearly all "aided" countries lost and their force to even resist was crippled... we are talking about catastrophe!
==================================================
You must mean the eastern europeans the West was unable to restore their Sovreignty to, ROTW was returnin to the people of that nation by the western allies.
But you dont mean Russia who the West gave aid and comnfort to though right?.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 27
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Beter reread your history and consider why Britain was coming to their aid, secondly what would have happened to them if Britain had not continued the fight.
==================================================
UK decalred war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland and was told top remove iots militray forces by a fixed point in time, failure to do so would causea state of war to exist.
The Free Poles fought for the UK, had thet stayed the Nazis and the Russians would have been able to exterminate still more Poles between them.
Since you are not aware of the fatcs, please obtain some from a passer stranger and repost.
=================================================
If you consider the countries invaded by the Germans were quite happy with that and welcomed the Germans with open arms then fine. Back to fantasy land
=================================================
None responsive to anything i posted.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 28
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Im sorry Peteratwar, i mmistook you for another.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 29
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
That OK crossed in the post I guess!!
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 30
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
Our aggression aggreement only extended to the aggressor being Germany (it was in the small print). Read "behind closed doors" by Lawrence Rees, it is all in there.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 31
Posted by curiousGareth (U8383504) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
We had actively supported and sponsored the Bolsheviks from day one, with the short term agenda of removing the Tsar and prevnting the dreaded 'Eurasian embrace'. Via the Milner circle, we had funneled millions of pounds to Lenin and Trotsky to overthrow the Monarchy, and then the coalition government which proceeded it. Our 'project' had succeeded in driving a wedge between Germany and Russia, and by 1939 we were in a position to watch each country partly destroy each other, before consolidating post-War spoils with the USSR - which without Anglo-American finance would have been a flop.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
Ha! Beyond the details, at last someone that speaks along the same line as me. I am not saying this in any self-acclaiming way, far from that, I am just hapy to know there are people out there that try to see beyond, under and behind events.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 33
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
For once do I agree with Nick our Greek friend.
States do go to war for their self intrest.
GB and France didnt primaraly go to war for to save the Poles,but to stop Hitler.
After the German take over of Rheinland,Austria and Checkoslovakia had the Germans grown to powerful.
Hitlers attack on Poland did show even Chamberlain that he was duped by Hitler in München,and Checkoslaovakia wasnt his last crave.
What would he go after next Alsac-Loraine or what.With the Polish attack was it clear that Germany had become a threat against France and GB.Soviet wasnt at this time seen as a big threat as Germany was.So it is logical both in a realpolitic sence and military strategic one to declare war on Germany alone,treaty or no treaty with Poland.
HasseLink to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 34
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
curiousGareth We had actively supported and sponsored the Bolsheviks from day one, with the short term agenda of removing the Tsar and prevnting the dreaded 'Eurasian embrace'Â Bolsheviks never removed the Tsar. They removed the Provisional Government and the Duma. Germany did in fact sponsor the Bolsheviks as their most effective 'weapon of mass distruction' that took Russia out of the first world war.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 35
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
We had actively supported and sponsored the Bolsheviks from day one, with the short term agenda of removing the Tsar and prevnting the dreaded 'Eurasian embrace'.Â
Evidence? The monarchy had been overthrown (peacefully) in March 1917 while Lenin was still in exile and the Bolsheviks were caught unaware. It was the German government that provided the so-called 'sealed' train, "carrying the plague bacillus" as Churchill termed it, that returned Lenin to Russia from exile in Switzerland in April 1917 in order to overthrow the Provisional Government and pull Russia out of WWI.
The signature of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk coincided with the Kaiserschlacht or German Spring Offensive of March 1918 in which almost all the Allied gains achieved so painfully in the preceding three and a half years were wiped out and it was only the arrival of the bulk of US forces which finally tipped the scales in the Allies' favour.
By secret clauses in the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922 - the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not unique in having secret clauses; the history of Russo-German diplomacy is littered with secret clauses dating back to the Partitions of Poland in the 18th century - Germany was allowed to use Soviet territory to train the Reichswehr in contravention of the disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty. Until Hitler's assault in 1941 the Soviet Union was the largest external supplier of raw materials to the Third Reich.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 36
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
Re: Message 33.
Hasse,
completely agree with you in that.
Lev väl,
Paul.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 37
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 2nd April 2009
Hitlers attack on Poland did show even Chamberlain that he was duped by Hitler in München,and Checkoslaovakia wasnt his last crave.Â
Neither Chamberlain nor Halifax wanted to declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. They both hoped that Mussolini would arrange another conference as he had done over the Sudetenland crisis the year previously. An all-day Cabinet meeting on Saturday, 2 September 1939, the day after Hitler's invasion, could not even agree to an ultimatum mainly due to Chamberlain's and Halifax' intransigence. It was only on Saturday evening when Sir John Simon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Samuel Hoare, the Lord Privy Seal, previously Chamberlain's staunchest supporters saw Chamberlain in his room in the House of Commons (which was debating the crisis) and threatened wholesale Cabinet resignation that Chamberlain finally cabved in and agreed to issue an ultimatum that expired the following morning.
See Andrew Roberts' biography of Lord Halifax, "The Holy Fox", for an account of the events leading to the declaration of war.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 38
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
As a correction to the above Sir Samuel Hoare was Â鶹ԼÅÄ Secretary on 2 September 1939 not Lord Privy Seal. In the reorganisation of the government Chamberlain made the next day following the declaration of war Hoare exchanged posts with the then Lord Privy Seal, Sir John Anderson.
Apologies for the error but I can only plead that I was eager to beat the midnight closure deadline so did not check as I intended to (this also accounts for the typing error). When Churchill formed the Coalition Government in May 1940 Simon was sent to the House of Lords and became Lord Chancellor whilst Hoare became Ambassador to Spain, entrusted with the task of ensuring the Franco regime remained neutral thus safeguarding the naval base at Gibraltar, whilst retaining his seat in the Commons as MP for Chelsea until Churchill created him Viscount Templewood in 1944.
He published a memoir of his period in government from 1931-40 (plus a short period on the backbenches following his enforced resignationn over the so-called Hoare-Laval Pact in 1935) entitled "Nine Troubled Years" in 1954. He died in 1959.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 39
Posted by curiousGareth (U8383504) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Read Tradegy and Hope, by . The Warburgs in Germany were working a cross-Atlantic financing plan for the Bolsheviks from the previous decade, alongside other international financiers such as Shiff, Loeb, and the Milner circle in London. The Bolsheviks had staged unsuccessful coup attempts against the Tsar for 12 years prior to the Revolution - this may explain why their leaders were in exile. While Trotsky was detained in Canada, US-UK efforts enabled him to be released despite the Bolshevik promise to draw Russian troops from the front, and weaken the Allied resistance. He was also given millions of dollars to overthrow the Provisional Government and install a dictatorship suitable to the Rhodesians who occupied the intellectual and political circles in London and Washington.
This seemingly hazardous and contradictory policy of the Anglo-American operators can only be interpreted correctly after reading the above (Tradegy and Hope, Carroll Quigley) and Guido Giacomo Preparata's works, amongst others.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 40
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
This conspriacy and the Milner group are merely wild theories. There has never been any real proof.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 41
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Dear Allan
Thanks for that you make clear the moves behind the scene leading to GB ultimatum,diidnt know that.
You learn as long as you live
.
Your friend
HasseLink to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 42
Posted by curiousGareth (U8383504) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Quigley was privy to the private documents of the RIIA, and its sister organisation the CFR, and other internationalist organisations which recorded the events. He wrote numerous books supportive of their aims. Besides Milner, there's Morgan, Rockefeller, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, and other financiers who had supported the Revolution.
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 43
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
We promised Poland assistance against aggressors, so we declared war on Germany following their invasion, why did we not do this against Russia following their invasion from the East? Â
Because it wasn't really about Poland.
GB and France had become afraid of Hitler, and had decided it was time to "draw a line in the sand". Poland was just where they happened to draw it.
They did not, as yet, feel threatened by Stalin in the same immediate way, so felt less need to act. There was also the general inadvisability of getting into a fight with two great powers at once, if you didn't have to. As Abe Lincoln put it "One war at a time".Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 44
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Tradegy and Hope, Carroll Quigley should be read, just as the conspiritary theorist on 911 should be read, after all, we cant get enough good comedy from just the TV now can we.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 45
Posted by curiousGareth (U8383504) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
'Tradegy and Hope, Carroll Quigley should be read, just as the conspiritary theorist on 911 should be read, after all, we cant get enough good comedy from just the TV now can we.'
Never can enough comedy be extracted from bad spelling; not sure about the laughing value of some 3000 deaths in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Keep up the good work. Not only are you unable to spell the word correctly, but you can't even select the correct word for your sentence. The expression is 'conspiracy theorist', and Dr Carroll Quigley is a renowned historian, with very special access to records of the State Department, the CFR, the Rhodes Circle, and other exclusive groups important to history.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 46
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Quigley's reliability on this topic has long been suspect
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 47
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Re Post 31 by Gareth who posted.
"We had actively supported and sponsored the Bolsheviks from day one, with the short term agenda of removing the Tsar and prevnting the dreaded"
Now he finds himself as funny as others no doubt, preventing btw.
:not sure about the laughing value of some 3000 deaths in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Keep up the good work:
It not the number of deaths, but the reasons for them, and yours are indeed funny.
:Keep up the good work.:
Ok will do.
Post 39 by Gareth "Read Tradegy and Hope, by". Tragedy btw.
Not only are you unable to spell the word correctly, but you can't even select the correct word for your sentence. The expression is 'conspiracy theorist', and Dr Carroll Quigley is a renowned historian, with very special access to records of the State Department, the CFR, the Rhodes Circle, and other exclusive groups important to history.
Hows this for the correct use of tense, "Quigley retired from Georgetown in June, 1976, and died the following year".
It of course a conspircy theory that you posit by posting he IS alive when you aparantly want to select the correct word and tense for the deceased.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 48
Posted by curiousGareth (U8383504) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
As opposed to the reliability of the conventional view that the Russians did it all by themselves? Evidence of Morgan, Warburg, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb, Rockefeller et al funding has come from all sources. The Red Cross, the US State Department, Declassified records etc. Read Anthony Sutton for some of the more up-to-date stuff. The Soviet project was eulogised in the works of Ruskin, and propogated across the Empire. As Marx himself (supposedly) said, the true destiny of Capitalism is socialism (as they both share the goal of monopoly power).
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 49
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
"As opposed to the reliability of the conventional view that the Russians did it all by themselves?"
No acording to what the evidence will support, which is the conventional view of most things, rather than comedy which is much more subjective.
You forgot D Icke in your list btw.Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
-
Message 50
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Knew the Martians or ET would ultimately be responsible!!!
Link to this forum: If we fought the Germans over Poland, why not Russia?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.