The hidden history leading up to WWII

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 



Well, from what I understand, and I may be off here, but Germany had a mutual defense treaty with austria, and so when Ferdinand was assasinated by serbians, and austria declared war with serbia, germany went along with their pact to aid austria. Accepting that germany might have been intentionally escalating the issue.


Not exactly. Germany felt that the other European powers were intentionally trying to prevent it from becoming the superpower it could be, and to a certain extent they were correct. Britain would allow no-one to challenge their sea-power, France wanted to re-annex Alsace-Lorraine, and Russia was always keen to help itself to another serving of Poland. The Kaiser Wilhelm and the German General Staff had convinced themselves that a pre-emptive strike at Paris was their best avenue of self defense. Unfortunately, the decades old plan for this strike involved a vast wheeling front through Belgium, whose neutrality was guaranteed by international treaty. Paris and London would be obliged to defend Belgium in the event of a German invasion. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand (ironically probably one of the most competent aristocratic leaders of the time) was viewed by the Hapsburgs as a prelude to a Serbian revolt, which could bring Czarist Russia into the fray. Germany took advantage of Russia's engagement in the East to open its own front in the West. Germany actually asked Belgium's permission to move its troops through its territory, but were denied. The logistics of the situation demanded that Germany proceed through Belgium anyway, though encountering resistance. Because civilians took up arms against the German troops, the Germans executed civilians as war criminals, in keeping to the letter of the Geneva Convention. This proved to be a mistake, as the mass executions were (justifiably) characterized as "atrocities." Britain was very slow to commit to the conflict. Had it not been for these "atrocities," they might well have backed out of their obligations.


Then the french, brittain, and others got tied into the war through their mutual protection agreements, and it all became a maelstrom of countries drawn in by treaties.


That's more or less accurate. The important take-away, however, is that France regained Alsace Lorraine (which it lost to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War decades earlier) and Germany lost a part of its Prussian territories to Poland. Although the Alsatians were quite happy to be French again, the German minority in the Polish territories were restive. The Nazis exploited this ethnic tension, fomenting riots and arming the populace to justify what would now be called a "humanitarian intervention." Most importantly, all of Germany's institutions were destroyed. The Imperial government, the Church, the Banking and financial sectors were gone or reduced to shells. New theories of political, social and economic organization emerged to replace the damaged machinery of society. Socialism, Bolshevism and Fascism each had their appeal. Fascism grew out of an attempt to create a truly "modern," efficient state. Unfortunately, under the cool rationality that it made it so effective in Italy, there was a hideous nightmare of irrationality in the German version, drawing on ancient pagan tradition, pseudo-science and medieval superstition. I'm neither defending nor attacking Germany and its people here, merely trying to lay out some perspective.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
I am trying to do research....sadly, the problem is so much of it is BS. I went to the WWII museum here in new orleans....and it was more like a feel good american propaganda palace. It seems there that we went in to win the war for the rest of the world. No mention of the 20 million russian soldiers who died. No mention of the Japanese concentration camps here in the US. When searching online about WWII, almost all the info is the battles, very little about before the war. Further, most of it seems pretty biased.

The US entry into the war is presented like that of a wounded giant unfairly wronged, when it seems actually that we were already planning to move b-52's into the pacific prior to pearl harbor. Thats forgetting the fact that many US groups (including the Bush family) seem to have been supplying the nazi's even after war was declared.

Also little mention of the fact that the western powers engaged in much more brutal civilian targeted campaigns, such as in Dresden, than the germans did. Its all a lot to take in, and there are so many conflicting sources....I come here for differing voices, because thats what ats is! If i was truly just looking for someone to agree with me, I would have told my girlfriend.


The United States waited until the time was right to enter the War. I think that "pretty biased' is an understatement in relation to how America present their involvment in WW2. Stalingrad was the decisive victory of WW2. Russia won the war not America. America invested as little as possible and exploited the situation to the fullest.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Like almost everything in life, war is never black and white.

In 50 years, think about how the textbooks will read regarding the US war against terrorism!

I will say, it is extremely interesting/crazy that Jews have been at the heart of virtually EVERY war in history.
JUST SAYING.
(not implying anything- interpret at your own risk!)
edit on 6-3-2012 by ltinycdancerg because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by theubermensch
 





America invested as little as possible and exploited the situation to the fullest.

And this isn't winning? America gained the most after WW2, followed by Soviet Union. But Soviet Union endured and suffered much more.
Winner is not who suffers the most though.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by theubermensch
 





America invested as little as possible and exploited the situation to the fullest.

And this isn't winning? America gained the most after WW2, followed by Soviet Union. But Soviet Union endured and suffered much more.
Winner is not who suffers the most though.


I guess. Kinda like how China are playing it this time.

They will swoop in at the right time and steal all the glory. They will be the next ones to write history.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by theubermensch
 



One of Hitlers favourite subjects was History. He said in Mein Kampf that boring dates are not impotant,that the stuff between the lines is what is important. Maybe you are reading between different lines.

I would suggest Mein Kampf would be a good place to start. Hitler's perspective on Germany after WW1 is important.


"Mein Kampf," which means "My Struggle," is a perfect example of the psychological confusion endemic in the tortured German soul. Rather than look at history as a series of mutually influencing events taking place along an objectively verifiable timeline, it takes a series of highly personal experiences and attempts to weave them into a Manichean narrative of national destiny. I would recommend reading it after first grounding yourself in more objective histories.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by theubermensch
 



One of Hitlers favourite subjects was History. He said in Mein Kampf that boring dates are not impotant,that the stuff between the lines is what is important. Maybe you are reading between different lines.

I would suggest Mein Kampf would be a good place to start. Hitler's perspective on Germany after WW1 is important.


"Mein Kampf," which means "My Struggle," is a perfect example of the psychological confusion endemic in the tortured German soul. Rather than look at history as a series of mutually influencing events taking place along an objectively verifiable timeline, it takes a series of highly personal experiences and attempts to weave them into a Manichean narrative of national destiny. I would recommend reading it after first grounding yourself in more objective histories.


And you suggest that the best place to start is to read a book written by the daughter of a banker?? A banker
You are pretty funny
edit on 6-3-2012 by theubermensch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by theubermensch
 

I was wondering when someone would notice...


ET For a slightly more uh...alternative but researched view on things, this book might be of interest to the OP.
The Biggest Secret

Yes, David Icke, the dude who talks about reptilians. Do not let that deter you though, it's quite an interesting read and seems quite well researched.
edit on 6/3/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by theubermensch
 




They will swoop in at the right time and steal all the glory. They will be the next ones to write history.

That might happen.I just really really really hope that it will not be after another WW.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by theubermensch
 



And you suggest that the best place to start is to read a book written by the daughter of a banker?? A banker You are pretty funny


Not as funny as you are for recommending he start with a book written by a man who wanted to see his country end in a Wagnerian Ragnarok.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
It is very hard to tackle the topic with any objectivity or without being sucked or swallowed into one camp or the other. Neo Nazis love to dredge up a lot of half forgotten facts to rehabilitate and retrospectively rehabilitate Hitler and Nazism.

It is fair to say that the German people were very dis-spirited after the First World War and suffered from instability, hyperinflation and poverty. Hitler tapped into0 a rich vain of discontent and sucked the nation up into his own vision which led nowhere except more calamity.

Reparations were nothing new. Following the Franco-Prussian wars the victorious German nation demanded excruciating reparations payments from France. It was also suggested that the French manipulated Jewish bankers in Munich to pull Germany's credit and topple the German monarchy and was suggested that this became the basis for anti-semitism. These were popular beliefs before WW2.

Germany coped with mass unemployment at the beginning of the 1930s under a socialist coalition by borrowing more than the entire GDP of the United States. As that coalition crumbled, Hitler took charge and forced through policies which won applause. he refused in 1935 to continue making reparations payments. Poland which was a newly reformed nation, was owed reparations money with which it needed to help sustain it's survival. Poland was actively threatening to annexe Pomerainia close to Lithuania and increasingly more of Silesia to solve Hitler's refusal to make reparations payments, whilst Hitler made counter demands on Poland for a trade corridor through Danzig.

There are many facets which are forgotten now, but hardly justify the huge war which Hitler created.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by theubermensch
 



And you suggest that the best place to start is to read a book written by the daughter of a banker?? A banker You are pretty funny


Not as funny as you are for recommending he start with a book written by a man who wanted to see his country end in a Wagnerian Ragnarok.


Hitler is pretty central to the whole thing. He talks alot about how he saw Germany after WW1 growing up in Austria and when he lived in Vienna. I think he exaggerates his hardship's perhaps but he did work as a casual labourer. He lived amongst working class people.

He was from a middle class family. I think his perspective is a valuable thing. It helps you understand where he was coming from in alot of ways when you hear what his opinions on certain things were.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I haven't read much of HItler's writings/memoirs...
but to those who have,
do y'all think Hitler intentionally set out to incite another world war?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ltinycdancerg
 


Yes.

Not a world war maybe but Hitler always intended to go to war.

He was kind of like Julius Caesar. Expanding the borders was like bringing glory to Rome. He also wanted to reclaim land that he considered German. Like Austria.


On March 15th 1938, Hitler entered Vienna in triumph. The pleasure of the huge crowds was difficult to disguise. It is said that even Hitler was surprised by the size of the crowds and by the cheering. Austria became part of the German Greater Reich; Schuschnigg was arrested and imprisoned and almost immediately the Austrian Jews lost their rights

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

He also wanted back land lost after WW1


Germany lost a lot of land to countries that surrounded them. France, Belgium, Denmark, Czechoslovakia and Poland. All of the land lost, Hitler wanted to get back. The League of Nations also took control of Germany's overseas colonies.

mrbruns.ning.com...

He saw the whole world as being 'Germania' at some point.
edit on 6-3-2012 by theubermensch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes

Originally posted by mayabong

Originally posted by DJW001
The Jewish declaration of war on Germany didn't help those feelings either


do you have sources for this act?
Would love to learn more


www.wintersonnenwende.com...

It's also on Wikipedia and the Jews against zionism website


while i sincerely thank you for the effort and the suggestions, i refrain from using this information, after researching the sources a little bit.

the article you refer to is a reprint of a story published by The Barnes Review, so i took a closer look at that website. First thing i want to know when reading stuff on a website is who's running the place. The "about us"-section shows a Personal Letter by the editor, Willis A. Carto. So I googled to see who that editor might be. What i found made me decide not to waste my time with this person. i know we should be careful with taking for granted what's on wikipedia, but i assume that if the following were false, it would have been corrected.


Willis Allison Carto (July 17, 1926) is a longtime figure on the American far right. He describes himself as Jeffersonian and populist, but is primarily known for his promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial.[1]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto

I'm interested in history, not in right-wing propaganda.






posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
First off B-52 where not in service during WWII. The History channel and History Channel International show films all the time from WWII. I have watched quite a few films from that time and I have watched a few recording of Hilter's speeches as well. They just had one on here recently that showed the war using nothing but private films.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by theubermensch
 


Thanks friend


And wow- I am seriously learning A LOT about WW2 from this thread ...
it just reiterates how pathetic and biased highschool textbooks are!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
 


Come on man. www.jewsagainstzionism.com...

Jews seem to source this conspiracy theorist
edit on 6-3-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


once again, thanks for the effort and the link, more stuff to explore.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I would like to bestow the Joseph Goebbels Golden B-S Award on this thread.

Congratulations... you may pick your brown shirts up at the exit.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join