I first read The Screwtape Letters as a simple work of fiction because it so entertaining. Only many years later read it for some of its deeper meanings. So great on salvation and socialism.
As a teen, Karl Marx (ethnically Jewish but raised a Christian) wrote this:
Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ."
ā
Several years later, as a young man, Marx wrote poetry re: satan:
Thus, we know that Marx knew Scripture well. However, soon after high school, Karl began an abrupt shift toward the adversary, Satan. Again, this time in a poem, Marx writes,
"I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above".
This statement is quite consistent with a Satanist, who believes in God, Who rules above, but who has made a personal decision to side with Satan against God.
One of the key understanding of Satan is that he hates all mankind, and wishes them dead and in hell with him, simply and only because all human beings are made in the "image of God" (Genesis 1:26). Satan wishes eternal damnation for every human being God has ever created, even those people who serve him. Now listen to Marx:
"...Yet I have power within my youthful arms
To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)
with tempestuous force,
While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.
You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,
Whispering in your ears 'Descend,
come with me, friend'".
This is the attitude, the voice, of Satan. Marx knows his choice will send him to Hell for eternity and he wants to carry as many people with him as possible; and, Marx knew he was headed for Hell, as his next poem shows so very well:
"Thus Heaven I've forfeited,
I know it full well,
My soul, once true to God,
Is chosen for hell."
I cannot imagine a more terrible personal conclusion, that Marx knew, and accepted, the knowledge that he had made a lifelong choice for Satan and Hell. Reverend Wurmbrand shows many instances in which Marx possessed great hatred for all mankind and wanted nothing more than to destroy it and to enjoy that destruction. Because our space is so limited, we will quote just one representative sample:
"With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
Full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant
Whose fall will not stifle my ardour.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious
Through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force,
I will feel equal to the Creator."
Again, we see the two Satanic characteristics of desiring to destroy all mankind and to become God or godlike.
Then Reverend Wurmbrand states his belief that Marx was actually possessed of demons, as he quotes Engel's written statement that Marx was a "monster possessed by 10,000 devils". This certainly explains Marx's many evil statements and the evil fruits of Communism so amply displayed before the world. Wurmbrand then proceeds to document the many instances in which 20th Century Communist leaders have either practiced aspects of Satanism or have actually worshipped Satan. He succinctly states his conclusion, "Communism is collective demon-possession".
Also G Edward Griffin warned us in the 1960's of their plot to use black people, arson, lockdowns and othet psychological methods to take over. His accuracy about what's happening today in America is chilling.
wanna read up on the McCarthy era...if you are really interested...read Witness, by Whittaker Chambers. Best chronicle of the whole ordeal, written by one who was there every step. very long, but really great. and he's a good writer, too. Really an eye opener.
You probably think this to, but Iām going to say it. I think the US suffers from two main things that bleed into each other. First I think US suffers from the after effect of the Cold War when the Soviet was doing demoralising against the US, and we are seeing the effects now since demoralisation takes 20-30 years to spring into effect. Demoralisation / envy bleeds into wanting big government which bleeds into Central Banking to pay for it. Central Banking inflates the currency making things more expensive making which feeds into the demoralisation/ envy. Because some people become poorer / can not cope.
To reverse the effect one has to strengthen the morality of the country. You see this in Russia today. They build new orthodox churches. But this is to get a strong moral backbone in the country. So: people need to follow Christ-> leads to not wanting to be socialist-> leads to less government-> leads to less central banking preferably ENDING THE FED -> this leads to an healthy economy with high efficiency -> which leads to people not being envious and wanting socialism.
And the man who interviewed Yuri, G.Edward Griffin, had been warning about communists taking over since the 60's. I'm going to try to find the video. It's literally what's happening in 2020.
Correct. Khazarian Empire. Neither Jews nor Semites. Wolves. The cause of most, but not all antisemitism, as the true semitic satanic cult killed Christ and is today primarily known as Chabad/Lubavich.
I don't put much faith in the Old Testament, especially all the Jewish/Pagan bird blood magic (Leviticus 13) or claims that a Jew must REMORSELESSLY slaughter his entiore family for the crime of not being Jewish enough (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) or murdering strangers for working on Saturday (Exodus 35:2).
I put my faith in the acts and lessons of Jesus Christ, as defined in the New Testament... with an understanding even the New Testament was INSPIRED by the word of God but also written by fallible humans and is subject to the full spectrum of human error in it's initial record, compilation, translation and interpretation.
Do you think Jews are somehow all knowing beings impervious to deception?
No, but I wonder how such a MASSIVE secret can remain a secret for so long, without "real Jews" warning everyone about the risk of all these "fake Jews".
If "real Jews" can only identify "Sons of Satan Jews" after they've slit our throats, then perhaps... (ahem) ... Would you eat candy from a bowl if you knew that 50% of the sweets were deadly?
Catholics are the new Jews. Would you condemn them the same?
All of the Catholics I know HATE the Vatican and openly recognize and decry it's degeneracy.
Yes, I condemn the Vatican dogma that attempts to conceal child sex crime in the same way I condemn the Jewish Talmud.
Yes, Christianity is the continuation of the Hebrew beliefs. God revealed his Grace and they failed to see it just like they did back when they worshipped the golden calf and when they killed the prophets.
They are the chosen people to show that all people are fallen, meaning we will turn away from God at any moment to pursue other false idols, even when chosen to be guided by God.
Only in Jesus Christ do we find a way out. Judaism is basically the very denifition of hubris. It is the failure from climbing out of the old bucket of crabs.
Doesnāt make it right. Even Patton realized we shouldāve went after the Soviets instead.
Not instead but in addition to. Pattonās diaries make it clear that he was always an anti-communist and anti-Fascist, who was worried about German-Russian alliances both before and after WWII
Remember, they stopped teaching in the schools that many people in Poland actually wanted Germany to come in and help them.
Mostly because those didnāt happen, outside of maybe a few ethnic Germans and Ukrainians. Even ethnically Polish Fascists quickly came to regret trying to come to a detente with the Nazis, since they largely got purged
They were suffering from the same leftist sickness that threatened to consume Germany.
The Sanitation Military Dictatorship in Poland said otherwise, made of the same people who had smashed the Bolshevik advance into Europe at Warsaw and Lviv.
Hitler was evil and went too far,
Indeed.
but in the beginning all he wanted was to be left alone, for the German people to be left alone. They wanted to take care of their own business, get rid of the Bolsheviks, no more Weimar Republic, but the international community couldnāt leave it alone.
Not true. Firstly, even the surface level demands for revisions on all but one of Germanyās borders means he was not trying to be āleft alone.ā
And his real ambitions went far further. In his āSecond Bookā- the unreleased sequel to Mein Kampf- he was already talking about preparations for war with the US. And this was written in the mid 20ās, well before the end of the Weimar Republic. So clearly he did not just plan to be left alone.
If Trump decides heās going to remove the tumors from the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and the DOJ, and liberals call in the UN to fight him, and we lose, what do you think the history books are going to say about Trump? Whoās going to be the Nazis in that scenario? Itās you and me.
Much like what the Communists did to the Polish Home Army?
The fact that totalitarian psychos will lie about their enemies does not mean we should. Or even that we need to, the record speaks clearly enough.
Of course none of the deals were on Britain's favor, you don't expect to sue for peace and come out on top do you? Also please look into the reason for the invasion of Czechoslovakia and joint Soviet/German invasion of Poland. They were both because the German minorities in those countries were being oppressed. In Czechoslovakia the entire German region was under martial law and in Poland the German minority was being slaughtered up until the day Germany invaded.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm
Of course none of the deals were on Britain's favor, you don't expect to sue for peace and come out on top do you?
Except Britain never sued for Peace. Hitler āgraciouslyā floated terms greatly detrimental to the British cause and fully expected them to simply eat his shit and believe Hitler wouldnāt violate this one again. So he was shocked when a humiliated but unbowed Britain would continue fighting.
Also please look into the reason for the invasion of Czechoslovakia and joint Soviet/German invasion of Poland.
I have.
They were both because the German minorities in those countries were being oppressed. In Czechoslovakia the entire German region was under martial law and in Poland the German minority was being slaughtered up until the day Germany invaded. http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm
Ah yes, the propaganda line.
Unfortunately for you, it is utterly false.
Hitler did not invade Czechoslovakia or Poland because the German minorities were being discriminated against, let alone because of counterfactual peacetime massacres.
How do we know?
For starters, none of this supposedly happening prevented Hitler from coming to a Polish-Nazi Nonaggression Pact in 1934.
And more importantly, because there was a neighboring country that was brutally persecuting and even murdering ethnic Germans in territory it annexed after WWI.
But that neighbor was Fascist Italy and the german minority was in South Tyrol.
And Hitler not only did not invade it, he formed an alliance with it, complete with an agreement telling the South Tyrol Germans to either come āBack to the Reichā, become Italian, or die.
No. This is false. Hitler broke peace treaties all the time. Remember Neville Chamberlain and āpeace in our timeā?
See the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Invasion of Poland faking the attack on the German radio tower to start WWII. He dressed concentration camp victims in polish uniforms and shot them.
Hitler was a liar!
Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as well.
Indeed, the very name itself was abolished after carving up by Germany, Hungary, Poland (in Zaolzie) and an "independent" German-dominated Slovakia, with the remaining rump becoming the "Protectorate of Bohemia und Moravia" under a Reichsprotector, the infamous Reinhard Heydrich.
and much of it was occupied by Germans.
Indeed.
Czechs were treated well and well fed by Germans until very end of the war when the supply lines broke.
Tell that to fucking Lidice.
And Lidice was in reaction to the assassination of the man nicknamed in his own life as the "Butcher (or "Hangman") of Prague."
If Czechs were "well treated and well fed" by the standards of people in occupied territories and especially other Slavs (which is debatable true) it underlines just how inhuman and cruel said standards were.
Germany invaded Poland in response to Germans being slaughtered by commies in places like Danzig.
DANZIG WAS FUCKING CONTROLLED BY THE DANZIG NAZI PARTY AND HAD BEEN SINCE 1935.
So how the FUCK were the Danzig Nazis allowing Germans to be slaughtered- let alone by the absolutely minuscule and persecuted "Commies"- in territory they controlled?
Much of what you were taught is a total lie and you should look into it.
Incorrect. Hitler was infatuated with the concept of lebensraum or living space. He wanted German borders to encompass anywhere Germans had ever lived. Even if the pesky fact a nation already existed there was in the way.
Czechoslovakia was raped. Hitler's goons raided and looted the territory. They destroyed the non-Germans there and took the land for themselves.
Second Poland was about the free city of Danzig. Hitler wanted a sea port to control the north Atlantic. Without Danzig there was no way to get that. So Hitler demanded Poland give him Danzig or they would attack. Poland said, no so Hitler attacked. That triggered treaties all over Europe and was the start of Germany's downfall.
We know all this because of CAPTURED NAZI DOCUMENTS. We have all the truth in their own words.
The low IQ get off on it. They try desperately to shoe horn Adolf into a nationalist hero vs. weimar degeneracy but do so without any historical knowledge or context, namely that he was a dishonorable/untrustworthy psychopath socialist, at best. They'll try to tell you that ww2 history is almost entirely invented, but that's because they've never dipped into the hundreds of memoirs from every person that mattered on every side of the war, which all loosely tell the same tale. Most importantly, the german high command and military officers.
It's not so much as trying to redeem Hitler as it is that Chrchill sorta licked Commie taint and it started the wars after Hitlers fall + you could say it's why communism is effecting us now.
Stalin did the same thing! [Pam] Its the same picture!
Stalin severly abused his own people. His people were his jews...
Churchill and American would basically buy russian soilders for frontline canon fodder.
Their is a reason General Patton's said we choose the wrong side.
It was all fucked honestly.
To be fair, If they would have sided with Hitler. Pretty sure wed be fighting Nazi radical defectors burning down America in the name of the democratic party right now.
Even after the dunkirk disaster hitler offered several peace deals that were no brainers.
They were no brainers because they were thoroughly scummy and disadvantageous to the British. And this is before you realize what a conniving, backstabbing little shit Hitler was. The British had fought about 300-400 years to prevent any continental power from uniting the place, and particularly to avoid monopolizing the Channel Ports. Hitler demanded them. The British could and would carry on the fight. So they did.
And this was shown to be the correct path given how badly Hitler mistreated places like Vichy France.
England decided it would be better to have a full blown war that resulted in millions of europeans dead and half of europe enslaved by red communists.
I am sorry, what the flying fuck do you think happened on September 1st 1939? That the Wehrmacht was going on a sight seeing tour?
There was already a full blown war, started by the National Socialists in league with the Communists. And the policies of both guaranteed that millions would die in Poland alone, even if the war had somehow stopped there (which of course it would not; Hitlerās unpublished āSecond Bookā was already talking about war with the US in the 1920ās).
Oh, and england lost their empire.
You mean like Vichy France did, but less violently or disasterously?
Churchill was a blood thirsty moron.
You know it is rich that you the National Socialist apologist- heir to two ideologies that glorified in war as being to men what maternity was to a woman- is accusing CHURCHILL of being blood thirsty.
Oh I can't fucking WAIT.to hear what the National Socialist shill who thinks the ideology that glorified war as integral to society, broke treaty agreements constantly, and was dumb enough to think an unbroken Britain would agree to compromise key interests like the Channel Ports thinks.
You really think germany just decided one day to invade poland so they could kill all the jews?
No, but that's the strawman.
German territorial claims on part or all of Poland go back centuries and indeed were viewed as crucial to German well-being. Or do you think Danzig happened overnight?
So German ultranationalists and other totalitarians (such as the communist Thalmann) viewed it as important to seize territory that became part of Western Poland after WWI, much as during WWI the German Leadership considered ethnically cleansing a "Polish Border Strip" for German colonization.
So Germany invaded Poland primarily to obtain "living space" and agricultural resources, and only secondarily to kill the Jews (which was more of Hitler and the Nazi Party's hobby horse rather than a consensus that united Germany's nutbar expansionists).
I know that is the "official story" we are told to believe, but it is total garbage.
The fact that you don't even understand what "the official story" is- much less identify it correctly- speaks to how you are the fool who is totally ignorant of what led up to WWII.
Everything I told you is based on actual documented evidence and is backed up by several credible historians.
None of which you have identified or quoted, and many of which can be easily disproven by pointing how even German warmongerers who WEREN'T interested in exterminating Jews wanted to conquer Poland.The kicker is, I can also provide actual documentation evidence and actual credible historical analysis, rather than merely asserting that they exist.
And that's the kicker, ironically like so many National Socialist shills. Like a lot of lay leftists and pop culture, you think Fascism was centered around the Jews. Which is understandable, given the prominent role they played among Hitler's demonology.
But they were always just one prominent threat among many, and National Socialism was ultimately meant to destroy them AND OTHER ENEMIES in order to ESTABLISH A NEW, SELF-SUFFICIENT ORDER.
Which was the main reason for the invasion of Poland.
I didnt just pull it out of my ass or copy and paste from a neo nazi site.
I can believe that, the problem is it doesn't matter because the claims are still Provably Wrong.
The Jews were always going to be on Hitler's target list, but they were not always at the top of the list. Nor were they on the lists of every German expansionist through the centuries, many of whom the Nazi party co-opted.
Dont believe me, read Pat Buchannans book "Churchill, Hitler, and the unnecessary war".
HAHAHAHAHA
Pat Buchanan, "credible historian"?!?!
Buchanan's a fucking idiot and smear merchant whose research skills were lacking at the best of times, and whose retarded hatred for Churchill (who he keeps forgetting was a secondary decision maker in foreign policy prior to 1940) and the British Empire, as well as a disturbing trend of National Socialist apologist leads him to be a fool.
I do not need to respect someone who is so blatantly dishonest (indeed, a plagiarist) and incompetent, to say nothing of often acting as an apologist for German imperialism.
I guess you also think Pat is a "nazi" now
I've known about Buchanan's shitty book for years. My opinion remains consistent.
And while I do think he is an apologist for German expansionists and even the Nazis, I think that is secondary to the real issue.
That I think he's a dishonest idiot and an incompetent.
because he doesnt swallow the official bullshit narrative.
Except that isn't "the official bullshit narrative", and he can't even identify it correctly. The idea that Hitler was only ever interested in killing Jews is retarded, and while some of the short-bus members of the public might be led to believe it, people who have actually STUDIED shit like the Hossbach Memo and Hitler's unpublished "Second Book" have never believed that.
The Jews were an integral enemy to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and always slated for destruction, but they were only part of the issues on his plate. Chief among them being regaining territory lost after WWI and establishing the Third Reich as a superpower astride the world. That would always have to come at the expense of Poland, sooner or later.
Invading Poland united not just the National Socialists but also more "traditionalist" German expansionists like Rommel.
How dare him look at history objectionable, right?
I would have more respect for Buchanan if there was much evidence that he looked at history much at all.
Alas, his dishonesty and incompetence give me little reason to believe that was the case.
You can even read the book "What the world rejected-hitlers peace offers 1933-1940"
I HAVE.
Heck, I've even read most of the official German peace offers from 1939-1940, as well as crucial documents like the Nazi-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, the Compiegne Armistace, Munich, the South Tyrol "Option" agreement, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
I've also read the documents where Hitler would-one after the other- betray every single goddamn one of them. Up to and including Hitler trying to incompetently gas-light the Poles by insisting that the Anglo-Polish Alliance somehow violated the Nazi-Polish Nonaggression Pact (in spite of that being utterly false).
Which further underlined why nobody could afford to trust Hitler, and why those that did wound up suffering greatly.
History is not so black and white,
No, but black and white are parts of its color palette.
I could rant CONSISTENTLY about things such as Czechoslovak and Polish discrimination against ethnic Germans and other minorities, the Weimar Government's role in Germany's great interwar depressions, Western Cravenness, Polish authoritarianism, and so on. And I've already spoken about Hitler was not obsessed with the Jews to the point of completely ignoring every other motive such as Autarky and National Power.
But none of that changes the final balance. Adolf Hitler was a totalitarian, mass murdering, war mongering socialist well in excess of others like Tojo and Mussolini and arguably matched only by Stalin. He was also perfidious, crafty, and untrustworthy even by the standards of the time. And by mid 1939 everybody knew it because of what had happened with Munich.
That he was not pure black and his enemies (especially those like Stalin, who weren't really "Enemies" until later) not pure white does not change that.
and sometimes the truth is offensive to some who refuse to see the whole picture..
Bitch, you're the one who completely ignored some of the integral parts of National Socialist ideology: that of autarkic self-sufficiency and the expansion of German borders to encompass most of the "Aryan" German diaspora. Both of which involved going after Poland.
To say nothing of Fascism in general's love of war, hence Mussolini's quote that it was to a man what "maternity is to a woman."
You don't have much grounds to lecture me on not seeing hte whole picture.
Why were England and France so hellbent on protecting poland from germany from taking back Danzing
Simple.
They had been awake for Munich. They had seen Hitler wipe his ass with it.
And so the pattern of Hitler demanding outwardly modest territorial concessions of ethnic German territory in order to prepare for further reaching annexations of non-German territory in order to fuel the Reich was clear.
Why would they rely upon making another agreement to appease Hitler when they had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to trust that Hitler would stick to it any more than he had the previous agreements?
(formally german territory where ethnic germans were being systematically slaughtered)
Oh What Fucking Idiocy.
Firstly: Do you even know who governed the Free City of Danzig prior to the invasion of Nazi Germany?
IT WASN'T POLAND. IT WAS THE FUCKING DANZIG NAZI PARTY.
Indeed, this was one of the unwritten corollaries of the Hitler-Beck Pact of 1934: that the Poles would tolerate the ascendancy of the Danzig Nazi Party in turn for Hitler not trying to annex it into the Reich.
An agreement that Hitler- of course- broke when it no longer suited him.
So if ethnic Germans were being "systematically slaughtered" in Danzig, HOW THE FUCK DID IT HAPPEN< WHEN DID IT HAPPEN, AND WHY WERE THE NAZIS DOING IT?!?!
Because that's what you are literally claiming.
Secondly "formally German territory"..... kinda "conveniently" limited sense of history, don't ya have?
It would stay there (barring occasional occupations) until 1793, when Prussia annexed it after the final Partitions of Poland. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25642478
During all of that time it had been a majority German city ethnically and culturally, but with a strong Polish minority and ties to the Polish crown going back centuries.
But i suppose we have to ignore all that?
while turning a blind eye to barbaric soviets who also invaded Poland
They didn't turn a "blind eye" to it, but they unfortunately did not go to war with the Soviets (Though they considered doing so). But they were hamstrung by the fact that they had ALREADY entered into war with one of the continent's two great Totalitarian powers (September 3 vs. the Soviet invasion on September 17th).
But that didn't stop the French from planning to bomb Baku and Churchill advocating for an Anglo-French Expeditionary Force to fight alongside the Finns, which was scuttled by Sweden saying they would not accept any passage. And ultimately, the Nazis proved to be a potent enough threat on tehir own.
while mass murding civilians (Katyn massacre)?
Katyn and its sisters at places like Mednoye are a bad example, because they happened in Spring 1940, after the initial Nazi invasions of Scandinavia and just as they were mopping that up and beginning to invade Western Europe, meaning hte West had bigger problems on its plate. Moreover, the massacres at Katyn remained unknown and only guessed at until more than a year later, when Polish laborers working with the Nazi army invading the USSR found the mass graves.
Or the soviets invading finland 1939,
See above. The Western Allies tried to send an expeditionary force into Norway, through Sweden, and into Finland during the Winter of 1939-1940, but were handicapped by their own lack of preparation for war in general and ultimately defeated by the one two punch of Sweden refusing transit rights and the Soviets invading it.
And how the fuck were the Western Allies going to prevent that? In addition to being on the wrong side of Europe and almost impossible to reinforce at the best of times, those invasions happened during or after the decisive parts of the Battle of France, meaning that the Western Allies wouldn't just have had to take troops and material they didn't have and TELEPORT.
So in short, they tried to intervene where they could in the Winter of 1939-1940, found out they couldn't, and then decided to stay back from a bombing of Baku just before being hit by the Nazi offensives in the West during the Spring of 1940. Which meant they had enough to chew on in the war they were already in.
all after genociding 10 million ukrainians in the 1930s?
To name just one.
Unfortunately, Churchill's attempts to support an intervention in the USSR were muted, and the Big Lies of the Soviet Union concealed the full extent of the atrocity. You know Duranty?
So sadly, national interest trumps humanitarian concern. As it should, bluntly.
If anyone was trying to take over the world and mass murder the population, it was the fucking soviets.
I am well aware. Unfortunately they were just one of several competing totalitarian regimes trying to do that, as well as the longest lived.
Look at their track record from 1917-1990, then look at cultural marxism has affected the west including right now when you turn on the tv and see what they are doing right now.
I have.
Patton was right, we defeated the wrong enemy.
Except if you actually look at the sum total of Patton's words rather than just his post-war ones (and even the sum total of his post war writings are pretty clear). While he had a fair amount of admiration for the German people and nation, he had scant for Hitler or the NSDAP. And he correctly recognized them as being totalitarian enemies much like the Soviets.
Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!
Above all he was fearful of an alliance between Germany and Russia, both before WWII and After it. Indeed, he feared that the Soviets would go on to make such an alliance after WWII.
(former German officer Arnold Rechberg) also states thatin (SIC) Rus-ia-, tere is a concealed German army of some 500,000 men under a German General Seydlitz. According to him, the Russians hope to in-duce considerable trouble in the portion of Germany not occupied by themselves through guerilla bands of desperate and hopeless indivi-duals whom they, the Russians, will finance and arm.. Then when the Allies have been worked on sufficiently, The German Army of Russia will go into action."
In short, you- like many Nazi apologists- greatly underrate Patton's astuteness and his disgust with both Nazism and Communism, as well as the threat of a German-Russian alliance.
Secret deals? Churchill was remarkable in making very few āsecretā deals with Communists. Those few he made he tended to make public, such as British Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union. He also thoroughly hated the Soviets and believed the West should have destroyed Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the post-WWI era.
In contrast to... oh, Molotov-Ribbentrop and nearly a quarter century of Soviet-German rearmament agreements.
Perhaps the best single treatment I have seen of it though was āChurchillās Secret War with Leninā by Damian Wright.
And then of course there was Operation Unthinkable, which he spearheaded.
Churchill was incredibly based on the Communists, but he was either consistently overruled by people in the actual positions of authority or could not act on it (like with the Nazis tearing through the West in 1940 or a crippled and US dependent British Empire during his second PMship).
Thanks I will look into this, I know for a fact that the US and British governments were compromised during that time and both were working to get into war and empower the USSR. If this is accurate, its fits right into my suspicion and vindicates Churchill, who I think, if nothing else, was well spoken.
I know for a fact that the US and British governments were compromised during that time and both were working to get into war and empower the USSR. If this is accurate, its fits right into my suspicion and vindicates Churchill, who I think, if nothing else, was well spoken.
Indeed, it was hard to find a government that WASN'T in some way compromised by the Soviets and their ComIntern during the 1930's and late 1920's. Which makes the fact that outside of a transitory alliance between the Soviets and France (that the Soviets ultimately betrayed, leading to the French contemplating bombing Baku in 1939-1940) the Nazis were the first major power to come to an alliance with them.
But what's more damning is that the Soviets were still a very new government in the crucial period of 1917-1922, when the Russian Civil War was raging and Churchill was advocating a surgical intervention to destroy them. But in spite of that the "leadership" of the West consistently overrode and rejected him. So sadly "Soviet puppets" isn't enough to explain Western passivity towards Communism; the reality is even more repulsive and craven.
Indeed. I suspect it has to do with the financial sector which played an instrumental roll in financing the Bolshevik uprising. What's worse is a sequel is playing out again now and the players are moving the pieces are moving into place.
Hitler would have won without soviet interference. So there were two options, soviets exists or Nazism rules Europe.
Edit: So do the downvotes mean you guys are Nazis or do you think America won the war on their own? Britain didnāt have the strength to invade the western front on their own.
Im not defending communism but the other option was a pan-germanic europe and even more ethnic cleansing then there was. Nazism was probably the immediate threat but communism was the sleeping giant.
Maybe Europe was doomed to fall no matter what. They spent centuries killing each other. Mainland Europe is only āfreeā because of UK,US,USSR, countries outside the mainland intervening. Now the are giving themselves away to the middle east and still watching culture erode. We will never see pre WW1 Europe again. Perhaps if Hitler hadnāt been a mass murdering lunatic Europe would be better off right now.
people need to remember that the national socialists were invading everything, sure the soviets would do the same thing (and did small scale invasions) but they were kind of just sitting around at that time
unfortunately, ww2 would have likely been avoided if lenin wasn't used as a weapon in ww1
hell I think europe is destined for eternal war, it's in their blood
I'm not sure that's true. Germany had pretty severe oil and rubber shortages thanks to the british blockade. What the krauts got from the soviet union and romania wasn't enough (which is why the invasion of the soviet union happened earlier than hitler wanted). If the germans didn't invade the soviet union you likely end up with the european axis running out of resources to fight. The british can then invade, which will be bloody but not unwinnable, especially if the US helps.
Honestly, the western powers got lucky that the soviets took the brunt of the german assault throughout most of that war.
You may have a point. Germany was desperate for resources which is why you saw Rommel running around Africa, and the attack on Stalingrad. If Hitler had not been so preoccupation with the Soviets he may have held the rest of Europe.
I disagree. It was better for the Nazis and Soviets to bleed each other out, but the Nazis could- and probably would- be beaten even if the Soviets went down, as WWI attested.
Wouldn't you if your entire country was being bombed to rubble and everyone decided you were in charge? Plus its 1940s. Pretty positive smoking and drinking was the norm. Not like London had clean air either prior to the war.
Churchill was a war monger who allied himself with a murderous bolshevik. Same for FDR.
This is rich considering how Hitler decided to form an alliance with the Soviets, while the Soviets were forced into an alliance with the West due to Hitler backstabbing and attacking them.
And Pat Buchanan the dumbass apologist who tried to argue that the Holocaust- which Hitler was referencing as soon as the first edition of Mein Kampf at the latest- was the fault of the British for not resisting. And who could not see how Churchill worked to help provide food to Germany after both world wars in spite of there being plenty of evidence.
False. They actually wanted to deport the european jews to palastine (Haavara Agreement 1933-1939),
...where they would have been FUCKING EXTERMINATED by Adolf Hitler's dear BFF, Hajj Amin al-Husseini/al-Husayni, Mufti of Jerusalem, as borne out by Nazi propaganda and weapons smuggling in support of his revolt and the accompanying pogroms from 1936-1939.
Oh, of course you do. After all, I'M the one who doesn't know the "bigger picture."
So no matter how you slice it, the Haavara Agreement was nowhere near as benevolent as Buchanan and other National Socialist shills like to paint it as. Unless you think that expelling people from one country (often at great cost) while training genocidal terrorists that massacre their kin and plan to wipe THEM out in the destination is "benevolent."
And while the near simultaneous collapse of the Haavara Agreement and al-Hussayni's rebels in 1939 is PROBABLY coincidental, the defeat of a genocidal anti-Jewish terrorist group made sending Jews to the Palestinian Mandate made it less attractive. Which is why as far back as 1938 the Nazis argued that the increase in the Jewish population in Palestine was not to their interest.
which was in reaction to the world wide jewish boycott started in march 1933 before anything bad ever happened to jews.
You must think History began in March 1933.
Which is laughable if you've bothered studying interwar history or the pre-1933 era of the NSDAP.
The fact is, in the areas they controlled the NSDAP were REGULARLY launching boycotts and pogroms of Jews and other "undesirables."
Dont believe it go google search the news paper clippings "Judea Declares War on Germany". (History is neat isnt it?)
Yes it is.
Unfortunately for you, history did not begin with one fake news, Jew hating idiot's sensationalist BS. Nor is it the only or most relevant of the old things.
Then there were plans to relocate them to Madagascar (Madagascar plan 1940).
Where they would be deprived of adequate food and treatment (like basically everyone else) and essentially left to die of hunger, abuse, and tropical disease.
Sort of like how most people in Nazi occupied territory were treated but worse.
It takes a particularly twisted and idiotic sort to argue that either the Madagascar or Haavara Plans were some kind of "mercy" when put into the big picture.
This is what was referred to as "The Final solution to the jewish question".
Cute, but no.
The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was- and I quote- the "Annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jewish Race in Europe."
THEORETICALLY he considered deportations from Europe that would have left them alive (at least in the immediate future before disease or his foreign friends killed them) but genocide had always been his preferred way. ANd by 1939 he had settled on it, just not on the means (which were hammered out at Wansee).
And this had not been rare.
The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom. An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combating and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us. The ultimate objective must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general. - Hitler, Reply letter to "Herr Gemlich", 1919
Now pray tell me, how did Hitler envision an "irrevocable removal"
Goring even clarified this during Nuremberg trials.
And Goering was a diagnosed psychopath and utterly remorseless liar who was repeatedly caught in said lies during the trial. In addition to being heartily contradicted by other evidence.
I know I know, we aren't allowed talk about these things because the truth is uncomfortable etc etc.
No, we are entirely. Indeed, I ENCOURAGE people to do it, which is why I despise decriminalization of Holocaust Denial and Neo-Fascism.
Because talking about the truth reveals how your claims and those of Buchanan and other Nazi Apologists are full of shit.
They're overtaxed trying to explain away even a fraction of the evidence, let alone all of it.
Which is why those who understand the Big Picture best realize that the extermination of Jews was one of the NSDAP's profoundest beliefs, and one that it rarely even CONSIDERED diverting from.
That didn't mean it motivated literally everything it did (after all, it didn't plan on having the Jews continue to exist for long). But it was a powerful one.
downvote me all you want,
Oh I intend to.
but history is history regardless if you know it or are ignorant to it...
Oh I know.
Which is why I am reaming your asshole over your ignoranceo f said history.
Go to youtube and listen to Benjamin Friedmans speech in 1961. I dare you.
Already have. And it's- unsurprisingly- a load of idiotic shit.
I don't even need to talk much about the Jewish issue in order to know that. My historical interests have always primarily been in history and the military.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.
This is hilariously wrong on multiple occasions, and that's borne out by the German military themselves.
Indeed, 1916 was a catastrophic year for the German-led Central Powers, so catastrophic it led to the downfall of Germany's previous Shogun, Erich von Falkenhayen, and the rise to absolute power of Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff, the masterminds behind the victories on the only front the Germans had won: the Eastern One.
Submarine casualties were grievous but not enough to stop the war. The German attempt to "Bleed France White" at Verdun had failed. The offensive on the Somme was a clusterfuck but one that ultimately saw Germany retreat from the Somme River Valley, having it be marked as 'the muddy grave of the German Army."
Don't believe me? Explain why Falkenhayn got his ass kicked out of power at exactly that point.
And the fact that dumbass tries to convince people that the Balestinian Arabs (led by the genocidal lunatic al-Husayni and his heirs) "only wanted" the UN Resolutions carried out is further proof of that.
I wouldn't call that socialism though, because there weren't soyboys miniature dictators back then. We would have just killed them and fed their meat to the boars.
We need to stop the normalisation of socialism. Every person should say the word like Alan B'Stard did in The New Statesman; as if he was spitting out something unpleasant tasting.
Also, good luck for the election from England! This one is a big one, it's going to decide the fate of the western world. We are all counting on you, even the ones who don't know it yet.
All by Satanic design. Imagine a pendulum consisting of a ripe apple on the tail of a Snake.
The Snake swings the apple of virtue right towards the masculine and we weaken ourselves chasing it. Then left towards the feminine and we repeat the same.
Ultimately we confuse the apple for the snake ... chasing the carrot of virtue while being ridden by a demon each way.
Socialism/communism started because of the horrors of war.
Nah Fam. You' make good points in the rest of your post but this shitshow had been around for a LOOONG time. The Paris Commune was in 1871, and Lenin was a hardened terrorist for years before 1914. The war helped shift Europe to the left and caused a whole lot of new converts but the rot was already established.
Jim jones was a commie as well;
"In 1951, 20-year-old Jones began attending gatherings of the Communist Party USA in Indianapolis.[16] He became flustered with harassment during the McCarthy Hearings,[16] particularly regarding an event that he attended with his mother focusing on Paul Robeson, after which she was harassed by the FBI in front of her co-workers for attending.[17] He also became frustrated with the persecution of open and accused communists in the United States, especially during the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.[18] Jones said he asked himself, "How can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."[16][17]"
What's happening here but you just can't see the demonic forces at work in people and all around. ~For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places.~ Eph. 6:12
And tellingly, just like the actual Brits, she chooses to make a melodramatic POSE, rather than, you know, taking the fucking trident, thrust it in the commie chimps guts and disembowel it.
National Archives Catalog, World War II Posters, 1942 - 1945, "Posters from various federal agencies, assembled by the Division of Public Inquiries, Office of War Information, and used to promote the war effort."
Socialism comes from Satan.
Screwtape Letters
I first read The Screwtape Letters as a simple work of fiction because it so entertaining. Only many years later read it for some of its deeper meanings. So great on salvation and socialism.
As a teen, Karl Marx (ethnically Jewish but raised a Christian) wrote this:
Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ."
ā
Several years later, as a young man, Marx wrote poetry re: satan:
"I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above".
This statement is quite consistent with a Satanist, who believes in God, Who rules above, but who has made a personal decision to side with Satan against God.
One of the key understanding of Satan is that he hates all mankind, and wishes them dead and in hell with him, simply and only because all human beings are made in the "image of God" (Genesis 1:26). Satan wishes eternal damnation for every human being God has ever created, even those people who serve him. Now listen to Marx:
"...Yet I have power within my youthful arms
To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)
with tempestuous force,
While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.
You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,
Whispering in your ears 'Descend,
come with me, friend'".
This is the attitude, the voice, of Satan. Marx knows his choice will send him to Hell for eternity and he wants to carry as many people with him as possible; and, Marx knew he was headed for Hell, as his next poem shows so very well:
"Thus Heaven I've forfeited,
I know it full well,
My soul, once true to God,
Is chosen for hell."
I cannot imagine a more terrible personal conclusion, that Marx knew, and accepted, the knowledge that he had made a lifelong choice for Satan and Hell. Reverend Wurmbrand shows many instances in which Marx possessed great hatred for all mankind and wanted nothing more than to destroy it and to enjoy that destruction. Because our space is so limited, we will quote just one representative sample:
"With disdain I will throw my gauntlet
Full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant
Whose fall will not stifle my ardour.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious
Through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force,
I will feel equal to the Creator."
Again, we see the two Satanic characteristics of desiring to destroy all mankind and to become God or godlike.
Then Reverend Wurmbrand states his belief that Marx was actually possessed of demons, as he quotes Engel's written statement that Marx was a "monster possessed by 10,000 devils". This certainly explains Marx's many evil statements and the evil fruits of Communism so amply displayed before the world. Wurmbrand then proceeds to document the many instances in which 20th Century Communist leaders have either practiced aspects of Satanism or have actually worshipped Satan. He succinctly states his conclusion, "Communism is collective demon-possession".
ā
[https://www.cuttingedge.org/pages/seminar2/MARXPASS.htm]
Marx was a contrarian neckbeard.
great comment. Perhaps you should create a poston this and really expand on it. It was pretty interesting.
Marxism certainly does. As I understand it, Marxism essentially acts as the satanic gatekeeper for social progress.
Much like the infiltrated Catholic or Judaic clergy, the demon must first be defeated.
Our government used to protect us from commies. Wonder wtf happened. I actually know, just wondered if y'all did.
McCarthy was right.
Also G Edward Griffin warned us in the 1960's of their plot to use black people, arson, lockdowns and othet psychological methods to take over. His accuracy about what's happening today in America is chilling.
wanna read up on the McCarthy era...if you are really interested...read Witness, by Whittaker Chambers. Best chronicle of the whole ordeal, written by one who was there every step. very long, but really great. and he's a good writer, too. Really an eye opener.
You probably think this to, but Iām going to say it. I think the US suffers from two main things that bleed into each other. First I think US suffers from the after effect of the Cold War when the Soviet was doing demoralising against the US, and we are seeing the effects now since demoralisation takes 20-30 years to spring into effect. Demoralisation / envy bleeds into wanting big government which bleeds into Central Banking to pay for it. Central Banking inflates the currency making things more expensive making which feeds into the demoralisation/ envy. Because some people become poorer / can not cope.
To reverse the effect one has to strengthen the morality of the country. You see this in Russia today. They build new orthodox churches. But this is to get a strong moral backbone in the country. So: people need to follow Christ-> leads to not wanting to be socialist-> leads to less government-> leads to less central banking preferably ENDING THE FED -> this leads to an healthy economy with high efficiency -> which leads to people not being envious and wanting socialism.
Yes. Yuri Bezmenov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI
And the man who interviewed Yuri, G.Edward Griffin, had been warning about communists taking over since the 60's. I'm going to try to find the video. It's literally what's happening in 2020.
They are REALLY sensitive when you refer to them as Sons of Satan.
They'll stop stabbing you in the back for a moment, just to accuse you of being a Nazi.
Jews are on our side.
Synagogue of Satan is not.
In fact, Jews passed us the torch and it is now our job to fulfill their prophecy.
Correct. Khazarian Empire. Neither Jews nor Semites. Wolves. The cause of most, but not all antisemitism, as the true semitic satanic cult killed Christ and is today primarily known as Chabad/Lubavich.
https://youtu.be/oUppu2OHVTY
This will help you understand
How do you know those Jews in your video aren't controlled-opposition "Sons of Satan Jews", given the former type of Jews are so treacherous?
Perhaps you're just underestimating how Satanic the "Sons of Satan Jews" are?
He's representing source material. You can read the Torah and then the Old Testament yourself to verify.
Never rely on an interpreter. That is a door for Satanism, Talmudism, Vaticanism, MSM, etc.
Never rely on gatekeepers
Furthermore every true religion points you to the path of abandoning religion.
No truly religious person should need a teaching for more than 10 years. Perhaps 1 at most if fully practicing.
I don't put much faith in the Old Testament, especially all the Jewish/Pagan bird blood magic (Leviticus 13) or claims that a Jew must REMORSELESSLY slaughter his entiore family for the crime of not being Jewish enough (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) or murdering strangers for working on Saturday (Exodus 35:2).
I put my faith in the acts and lessons of Jesus Christ, as defined in the New Testament... with an understanding even the New Testament was INSPIRED by the word of God but also written by fallible humans and is subject to the full spectrum of human error in it's initial record, compilation, translation and interpretation.
Do you think Jews are somehow all knowing beings impervious to deception?
How many can tell their story accurately and how many fall for deception with good intentions?
Judaism is most infiltrated, because it was the most dangerous.
Light and Dark is a spectrum.
Catholics are the new Jews. Would you condemn them the same?
No, but I wonder how such a MASSIVE secret can remain a secret for so long, without "real Jews" warning everyone about the risk of all these "fake Jews".
If "real Jews" can only identify "Sons of Satan Jews" after they've slit our throats, then perhaps... (ahem) ... Would you eat candy from a bowl if you knew that 50% of the sweets were deadly?
All of the Catholics I know HATE the Vatican and openly recognize and decry it's degeneracy.
Yes, I condemn the Vatican dogma that attempts to conceal child sex crime in the same way I condemn the Jewish Talmud.
You underestimate the power of Satan. Jews protest in Palestine and elsewhere. How would you know if Satan doesn't tell you?
Satanic Jews persecute Godly Jews daily. Do you think Hitler was the good guy? No. He was a fucking Satanic Jew killing Godly Jews and "Aryans".
That's why he inverted the Holy Swastika. It was a massive Satanic ritual. He could just as easily been a fucking Khazarian-Bolshevik named Stalin.
Yes, Christianity is the continuation of the Hebrew beliefs. God revealed his Grace and they failed to see it just like they did back when they worshipped the golden calf and when they killed the prophets.
They are the chosen people to show that all people are fallen, meaning we will turn away from God at any moment to pursue other false idols, even when chosen to be guided by God.
Only in Jesus Christ do we find a way out. Judaism is basically the very denifition of hubris. It is the failure from climbing out of the old bucket of crabs.
That's false in context. They left Egypt to shine light upon the world.
They failed. Satan won.
They produced Jesus Christ and ....
Jews? Or Satanists?
What is a like? A Jew? No. A like is a demonic false jew.
You are rambling.
Sorry
Originated in Babylon by folks that denied God and wanted to create their own society.
He also made secret deals with the USSR, you know...actual Communists.
Context: Hitler was kind of conquering Europe at the time.
Not instead but in addition to. Pattonās diaries make it clear that he was always an anti-communist and anti-Fascist, who was worried about German-Russian alliances both before and after WWII
Mostly because those didnāt happen, outside of maybe a few ethnic Germans and Ukrainians. Even ethnically Polish Fascists quickly came to regret trying to come to a detente with the Nazis, since they largely got purged
The Sanitation Military Dictatorship in Poland said otherwise, made of the same people who had smashed the Bolshevik advance into Europe at Warsaw and Lviv.
Indeed.
Not true. Firstly, even the surface level demands for revisions on all but one of Germanyās borders means he was not trying to be āleft alone.ā
And his real ambitions went far further. In his āSecond Bookā- the unreleased sequel to Mein Kampf- he was already talking about preparations for war with the US. And this was written in the mid 20ās, well before the end of the Weimar Republic. So clearly he did not just plan to be left alone.
Much like what the Communists did to the Polish Home Army?
The fact that totalitarian psychos will lie about their enemies does not mean we should. Or even that we need to, the record speaks clearly enough.
Context: Hitler offered Britain peace numerous times.
And none of those were acceptable to British interests nor trustworthy in light of Hitlerās provable track record in violating past agreements.
Of course none of the deals were on Britain's favor, you don't expect to sue for peace and come out on top do you? Also please look into the reason for the invasion of Czechoslovakia and joint Soviet/German invasion of Poland. They were both because the German minorities in those countries were being oppressed. In Czechoslovakia the entire German region was under martial law and in Poland the German minority was being slaughtered up until the day Germany invaded. http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm
Except Britain never sued for Peace. Hitler āgraciouslyā floated terms greatly detrimental to the British cause and fully expected them to simply eat his shit and believe Hitler wouldnāt violate this one again. So he was shocked when a humiliated but unbowed Britain would continue fighting.
I have.
Ah yes, the propaganda line.
Unfortunately for you, it is utterly false.
Hitler did not invade Czechoslovakia or Poland because the German minorities were being discriminated against, let alone because of counterfactual peacetime massacres.
How do we know?
For starters, none of this supposedly happening prevented Hitler from coming to a Polish-Nazi Nonaggression Pact in 1934.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk01.asp
And more importantly, because there was a neighboring country that was brutally persecuting and even murdering ethnic Germans in territory it annexed after WWI.
But that neighbor was Fascist Italy and the german minority was in South Tyrol.
And Hitler not only did not invade it, he formed an alliance with it, complete with an agreement telling the South Tyrol Germans to either come āBack to the Reichā, become Italian, or die.
https://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3047&context=theses
https://bas.tirol/en/cpt_allgemein/das-suedtirol-problem/
And half of Europe fell to the USSR.
No. This is false. Hitler broke peace treaties all the time. Remember Neville Chamberlain and āpeace in our timeā?
See the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Invasion of Poland faking the attack on the German radio tower to start WWII. He dressed concentration camp victims in polish uniforms and shot them.
Hitler was a liar!
Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as well.
Yes, it fucking was.
Indeed, the very name itself was abolished after carving up by Germany, Hungary, Poland (in Zaolzie) and an "independent" German-dominated Slovakia, with the remaining rump becoming the "Protectorate of Bohemia und Moravia" under a Reichsprotector, the infamous Reinhard Heydrich.
Indeed.
Tell that to fucking Lidice.
And Lidice was in reaction to the assassination of the man nicknamed in his own life as the "Butcher (or "Hangman") of Prague."
https://allthatsinteresting.com/reinhard-heydrich
If Czechs were "well treated and well fed" by the standards of people in occupied territories and especially other Slavs (which is debatable true) it underlines just how inhuman and cruel said standards were.
DANZIG WAS FUCKING CONTROLLED BY THE DANZIG NAZI PARTY AND HAD BEEN SINCE 1935.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/570067/pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election
So how the FUCK were the Danzig Nazis allowing Germans to be slaughtered- let alone by the absolutely minuscule and persecuted "Commies"- in territory they controlled?
I agree, you should look into it.
But it's funny to see you peddling lies.
Incorrect. Hitler was infatuated with the concept of lebensraum or living space. He wanted German borders to encompass anywhere Germans had ever lived. Even if the pesky fact a nation already existed there was in the way.
Czechoslovakia was raped. Hitler's goons raided and looted the territory. They destroyed the non-Germans there and took the land for themselves.
Second Poland was about the free city of Danzig. Hitler wanted a sea port to control the north Atlantic. Without Danzig there was no way to get that. So Hitler demanded Poland give him Danzig or they would attack. Poland said, no so Hitler attacked. That triggered treaties all over Europe and was the start of Germany's downfall.
We know all this because of CAPTURED NAZI DOCUMENTS. We have all the truth in their own words.
why are people trusting a mass murdering dictator?
Or course stalin was as well but still why are people actually trying to redeem hitler?
The low IQ get off on it. They try desperately to shoe horn Adolf into a nationalist hero vs. weimar degeneracy but do so without any historical knowledge or context, namely that he was a dishonorable/untrustworthy psychopath socialist, at best. They'll try to tell you that ww2 history is almost entirely invented, but that's because they've never dipped into the hundreds of memoirs from every person that mattered on every side of the war, which all loosely tell the same tale. Most importantly, the german high command and military officers.
It's not so much as trying to redeem Hitler as it is that Chrchill sorta licked Commie taint and it started the wars after Hitlers fall + you could say it's why communism is effecting us now.
Stalin did the same thing! [Pam] Its the same picture!
Stalin severly abused his own people. His people were his jews...
Churchill and American would basically buy russian soilders for frontline canon fodder.
Their is a reason General Patton's said we choose the wrong side.
It was all fucked honestly.
To be fair, If they would have sided with Hitler. Pretty sure wed be fighting Nazi radical defectors burning down America in the name of the democratic party right now.
Radicalism is radicalism.
They were no brainers because they were thoroughly scummy and disadvantageous to the British. And this is before you realize what a conniving, backstabbing little shit Hitler was. The British had fought about 300-400 years to prevent any continental power from uniting the place, and particularly to avoid monopolizing the Channel Ports. Hitler demanded them. The British could and would carry on the fight. So they did.
And this was shown to be the correct path given how badly Hitler mistreated places like Vichy France.
I am sorry, what the flying fuck do you think happened on September 1st 1939? That the Wehrmacht was going on a sight seeing tour?
There was already a full blown war, started by the National Socialists in league with the Communists. And the policies of both guaranteed that millions would die in Poland alone, even if the war had somehow stopped there (which of course it would not; Hitlerās unpublished āSecond Bookā was already talking about war with the US in the 1920ās).
You mean like Vichy France did, but less violently or disasterously?
You know it is rich that you the National Socialist apologist- heir to two ideologies that glorified in war as being to men what maternity was to a woman- is accusing CHURCHILL of being blood thirsty.
Oh I can't fucking WAIT.to hear what the National Socialist shill who thinks the ideology that glorified war as integral to society, broke treaty agreements constantly, and was dumb enough to think an unbroken Britain would agree to compromise key interests like the Channel Ports thinks.
No, but that's the strawman.
German territorial claims on part or all of Poland go back centuries and indeed were viewed as crucial to German well-being. Or do you think Danzig happened overnight?
So German ultranationalists and other totalitarians (such as the communist Thalmann) viewed it as important to seize territory that became part of Western Poland after WWI, much as during WWI the German Leadership considered ethnically cleansing a "Polish Border Strip" for German colonization.
So Germany invaded Poland primarily to obtain "living space" and agricultural resources, and only secondarily to kill the Jews (which was more of Hitler and the Nazi Party's hobby horse rather than a consensus that united Germany's nutbar expansionists).
The fact that you don't even understand what "the official story" is- much less identify it correctly- speaks to how you are the fool who is totally ignorant of what led up to WWII.
None of which you have identified or quoted, and many of which can be easily disproven by pointing how even German warmongerers who WEREN'T interested in exterminating Jews wanted to conquer Poland.The kicker is, I can also provide actual documentation evidence and actual credible historical analysis, rather than merely asserting that they exist.
https://fee.org/articles/the-heart-of-nazism-was-national-self-sufficiency/
http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1551
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/hossbach.asp
And that's the kicker, ironically like so many National Socialist shills. Like a lot of lay leftists and pop culture, you think Fascism was centered around the Jews. Which is understandable, given the prominent role they played among Hitler's demonology.
But they were always just one prominent threat among many, and National Socialism was ultimately meant to destroy them AND OTHER ENEMIES in order to ESTABLISH A NEW, SELF-SUFFICIENT ORDER.
Which was the main reason for the invasion of Poland.
I can believe that, the problem is it doesn't matter because the claims are still Provably Wrong.
The Jews were always going to be on Hitler's target list, but they were not always at the top of the list. Nor were they on the lists of every German expansionist through the centuries, many of whom the Nazi party co-opted.
HAHAHAHAHA
Pat Buchanan, "credible historian"?!?!
Buchanan's a fucking idiot and smear merchant whose research skills were lacking at the best of times, and whose retarded hatred for Churchill (who he keeps forgetting was a secondary decision maker in foreign policy prior to 1940) and the British Empire, as well as a disturbing trend of National Socialist apologist leads him to be a fool.
https://scottmanning.com/content/churchill-had-no-starvation-blockade/
https://scottmanning.com/?s=Buchanan
I do not need to respect someone who is so blatantly dishonest (indeed, a plagiarist) and incompetent, to say nothing of often acting as an apologist for German imperialism.
I've known about Buchanan's shitty book for years. My opinion remains consistent.
And while I do think he is an apologist for German expansionists and even the Nazis, I think that is secondary to the real issue.
That I think he's a dishonest idiot and an incompetent.
Except that isn't "the official bullshit narrative", and he can't even identify it correctly. The idea that Hitler was only ever interested in killing Jews is retarded, and while some of the short-bus members of the public might be led to believe it, people who have actually STUDIED shit like the Hossbach Memo and Hitler's unpublished "Second Book" have never believed that.
The Jews were an integral enemy to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and always slated for destruction, but they were only part of the issues on his plate. Chief among them being regaining territory lost after WWI and establishing the Third Reich as a superpower astride the world. That would always have to come at the expense of Poland, sooner or later.
Invading Poland united not just the National Socialists but also more "traditionalist" German expansionists like Rommel.
I would have more respect for Buchanan if there was much evidence that he looked at history much at all.
Alas, his dishonesty and incompetence give me little reason to believe that was the case.
I HAVE.
Heck, I've even read most of the official German peace offers from 1939-1940, as well as crucial documents like the Nazi-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, the Compiegne Armistace, Munich, the South Tyrol "Option" agreement, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
I've also read the documents where Hitler would-one after the other- betray every single goddamn one of them. Up to and including Hitler trying to incompetently gas-light the Poles by insisting that the Anglo-Polish Alliance somehow violated the Nazi-Polish Nonaggression Pact (in spite of that being utterly false).
Which further underlined why nobody could afford to trust Hitler, and why those that did wound up suffering greatly.
No, but black and white are parts of its color palette.
I could rant CONSISTENTLY about things such as Czechoslovak and Polish discrimination against ethnic Germans and other minorities, the Weimar Government's role in Germany's great interwar depressions, Western Cravenness, Polish authoritarianism, and so on. And I've already spoken about Hitler was not obsessed with the Jews to the point of completely ignoring every other motive such as Autarky and National Power.
But none of that changes the final balance. Adolf Hitler was a totalitarian, mass murdering, war mongering socialist well in excess of others like Tojo and Mussolini and arguably matched only by Stalin. He was also perfidious, crafty, and untrustworthy even by the standards of the time. And by mid 1939 everybody knew it because of what had happened with Munich.
That he was not pure black and his enemies (especially those like Stalin, who weren't really "Enemies" until later) not pure white does not change that.
Bitch, you're the one who completely ignored some of the integral parts of National Socialist ideology: that of autarkic self-sufficiency and the expansion of German borders to encompass most of the "Aryan" German diaspora. Both of which involved going after Poland.
To say nothing of Fascism in general's love of war, hence Mussolini's quote that it was to a man what "maternity is to a woman."
You don't have much grounds to lecture me on not seeing hte whole picture.
Simple.
They had been awake for Munich. They had seen Hitler wipe his ass with it.
And so the pattern of Hitler demanding outwardly modest territorial concessions of ethnic German territory in order to prepare for further reaching annexations of non-German territory in order to fuel the Reich was clear.
https://ww2days.com/hitler-invades-czechoslovakia-2.html
Why would they rely upon making another agreement to appease Hitler when they had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to trust that Hitler would stick to it any more than he had the previous agreements?
Oh What Fucking Idiocy.
Firstly: Do you even know who governed the Free City of Danzig prior to the invasion of Nazi Germany?
IT WASN'T POLAND. IT WAS THE FUCKING DANZIG NAZI PARTY.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/570067/pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Free_City_of_Danzig_parliamentary_election
Indeed, this was one of the unwritten corollaries of the Hitler-Beck Pact of 1934: that the Poles would tolerate the ascendancy of the Danzig Nazi Party in turn for Hitler not trying to annex it into the Reich.
An agreement that Hitler- of course- broke when it no longer suited him.
So if ethnic Germans were being "systematically slaughtered" in Danzig, HOW THE FUCK DID IT HAPPEN< WHEN DID IT HAPPEN, AND WHY WERE THE NAZIS DOING IT?!?!
Because that's what you are literally claiming.
Secondly "formally German territory"..... kinda "conveniently" limited sense of history, don't ya have?
Because Danzig revolted against the Teutonic Order in 1440 or 1454 (depending on which you go with) and offered submission to the Kingdom of Poland. https://mirekkruk.wordpress.com/2019/11/03/the-end-of-the-teutonic-state-in-prussia/
It would stay there (barring occasional occupations) until 1793, when Prussia annexed it after the final Partitions of Poland. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25642478
During all of that time it had been a majority German city ethnically and culturally, but with a strong Polish minority and ties to the Polish crown going back centuries.
But i suppose we have to ignore all that?
They didn't turn a "blind eye" to it, but they unfortunately did not go to war with the Soviets (Though they considered doing so). But they were hamstrung by the fact that they had ALREADY entered into war with one of the continent's two great Totalitarian powers (September 3 vs. the Soviet invasion on September 17th).
But that didn't stop the French from planning to bomb Baku and Churchill advocating for an Anglo-French Expeditionary Force to fight alongside the Finns, which was scuttled by Sweden saying they would not accept any passage. And ultimately, the Nazis proved to be a potent enough threat on tehir own.
Katyn and its sisters at places like Mednoye are a bad example, because they happened in Spring 1940, after the initial Nazi invasions of Scandinavia and just as they were mopping that up and beginning to invade Western Europe, meaning hte West had bigger problems on its plate. Moreover, the massacres at Katyn remained unknown and only guessed at until more than a year later, when Polish laborers working with the Nazi army invading the USSR found the mass graves.
See above. The Western Allies tried to send an expeditionary force into Norway, through Sweden, and into Finland during the Winter of 1939-1940, but were handicapped by their own lack of preparation for war in general and ultimately defeated by the one two punch of Sweden refusing transit rights and the Soviets invading it.
https://histdoc.net/history/velikie193
And how the fuck were the Western Allies going to prevent that? In addition to being on the wrong side of Europe and almost impossible to reinforce at the best of times, those invasions happened during or after the decisive parts of the Battle of France, meaning that the Western Allies wouldn't just have had to take troops and material they didn't have and TELEPORT.
Part 2
So in short, they tried to intervene where they could in the Winter of 1939-1940, found out they couldn't, and then decided to stay back from a bombing of Baku just before being hit by the Nazi offensives in the West during the Spring of 1940. Which meant they had enough to chew on in the war they were already in.
To name just one.
Unfortunately, Churchill's attempts to support an intervention in the USSR were muted, and the Big Lies of the Soviet Union concealed the full extent of the atrocity. You know Duranty?
So sadly, national interest trumps humanitarian concern. As it should, bluntly.
I am well aware. Unfortunately they were just one of several competing totalitarian regimes trying to do that, as well as the longest lived.
I have.
Except if you actually look at the sum total of Patton's words rather than just his post-war ones (and even the sum total of his post war writings are pretty clear). While he had a fair amount of admiration for the German people and nation, he had scant for Hitler or the NSDAP. And he correctly recognized them as being totalitarian enemies much like the Soviets.
https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Buchenwald/Liberation8.html
Above all he was fearful of an alliance between Germany and Russia, both before WWII and After it. Indeed, he feared that the Soviets would go on to make such an alliance after WWII.
But I take it you haven't read his diaries?
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss35634.00313/?sp=24&r=-0.088,0.66,1.268,0.51,0
In short, you- like many Nazi apologists- greatly underrate Patton's astuteness and his disgust with both Nazism and Communism, as well as the threat of a German-Russian alliance.
Inshallah, is my english ok?
Secret deals? Churchill was remarkable in making very few āsecretā deals with Communists. Those few he made he tended to make public, such as British Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union. He also thoroughly hated the Soviets and believed the West should have destroyed Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the post-WWI era.
In contrast to... oh, Molotov-Ribbentrop and nearly a quarter century of Soviet-German rearmament agreements.
"He also thoroughly hated the Soviets and believed the West should have destroyed Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the post-WWI era."
I've never heard of this. Do you have any sources? I will read up on it.
I have quite a few, unfortunately many of them are in book form.
But here are some:
https://richardlangworth.com/white-russians
https://www.historyhit.com/british-intervention-in-the-russian-civil-war/
https://history.sfsu.edu/sites/default/files/EPF/1991_Julie%20Hecomovich.pdf
Perhaps the best single treatment I have seen of it though was āChurchillās Secret War with Leninā by Damian Wright.
And then of course there was Operation Unthinkable, which he spearheaded.
Churchill was incredibly based on the Communists, but he was either consistently overruled by people in the actual positions of authority or could not act on it (like with the Nazis tearing through the West in 1940 or a crippled and US dependent British Empire during his second PMship).
Thanks I will look into this, I know for a fact that the US and British governments were compromised during that time and both were working to get into war and empower the USSR. If this is accurate, its fits right into my suspicion and vindicates Churchill, who I think, if nothing else, was well spoken.
Glad I could help.
Indeed, it was hard to find a government that WASN'T in some way compromised by the Soviets and their ComIntern during the 1930's and late 1920's. Which makes the fact that outside of a transitory alliance between the Soviets and France (that the Soviets ultimately betrayed, leading to the French contemplating bombing Baku in 1939-1940) the Nazis were the first major power to come to an alliance with them.
But what's more damning is that the Soviets were still a very new government in the crucial period of 1917-1922, when the Russian Civil War was raging and Churchill was advocating a surgical intervention to destroy them. But in spite of that the "leadership" of the West consistently overrode and rejected him. So sadly "Soviet puppets" isn't enough to explain Western passivity towards Communism; the reality is even more repulsive and craven.
Indeed. I suspect it has to do with the financial sector which played an instrumental roll in financing the Bolshevik uprising. What's worse is a sequel is playing out again now and the players are moving the pieces are moving into place.
Hitler would have won without soviet interference. So there were two options, soviets exists or Nazism rules Europe.
Edit: So do the downvotes mean you guys are Nazis or do you think America won the war on their own? Britain didnāt have the strength to invade the western front on their own.
And now Soviet is winning and England is turning into Caliphate. Grats.
Im not defending communism but the other option was a pan-germanic europe and even more ethnic cleansing then there was. Nazism was probably the immediate threat but communism was the sleeping giant.
Maybe Europe was doomed to fall no matter what. They spent centuries killing each other. Mainland Europe is only āfreeā because of UK,US,USSR, countries outside the mainland intervening. Now the are giving themselves away to the middle east and still watching culture erode. We will never see pre WW1 Europe again. Perhaps if Hitler hadnāt been a mass murdering lunatic Europe would be better off right now.
people need to remember that the national socialists were invading everything, sure the soviets would do the same thing (and did small scale invasions) but they were kind of just sitting around at that time
unfortunately, ww2 would have likely been avoided if lenin wasn't used as a weapon in ww1
hell I think europe is destined for eternal war, it's in their blood
I'm not sure that's true. Germany had pretty severe oil and rubber shortages thanks to the british blockade. What the krauts got from the soviet union and romania wasn't enough (which is why the invasion of the soviet union happened earlier than hitler wanted). If the germans didn't invade the soviet union you likely end up with the european axis running out of resources to fight. The british can then invade, which will be bloody but not unwinnable, especially if the US helps.
Honestly, the western powers got lucky that the soviets took the brunt of the german assault throughout most of that war.
You may have a point. Germany was desperate for resources which is why you saw Rommel running around Africa, and the attack on Stalingrad. If Hitler had not been so preoccupation with the Soviets he may have held the rest of Europe.
it would have been scary if germany was on par with any of the 3 superpowers
Well about every modern country that was involved has their own history. They keep and omit what they want.
I disagree. It was better for the Nazis and Soviets to bleed each other out, but the Nazis could- and probably would- be beaten even if the Soviets went down, as WWI attested.
https://youtu.be/R_RaSGMhbiQ
This might interest you. Also not America, but this happened in the early 'Peaceful' Riots.
Wouldn't you if your entire country was being bombed to rubble and everyone decided you were in charge? Plus its 1940s. Pretty positive smoking and drinking was the norm. Not like London had clean air either prior to the war.
Well he did what he had to do. He wasn't perfect, but he raised enough people up to defend against German Bombers during the Battle of Britain.
This is rich considering how Hitler decided to form an alliance with the Soviets, while the Soviets were forced into an alliance with the West due to Hitler backstabbing and attacking them.
And Pat Buchanan the dumbass apologist who tried to argue that the Holocaust- which Hitler was referencing as soon as the first edition of Mein Kampf at the latest- was the fault of the British for not resisting. And who could not see how Churchill worked to help provide food to Germany after both world wars in spite of there being plenty of evidence.
...where they would have been FUCKING EXTERMINATED by Adolf Hitler's dear BFF, Hajj Amin al-Husseini/al-Husayni, Mufti of Jerusalem, as borne out by Nazi propaganda and weapons smuggling in support of his revolt and the accompanying pogroms from 1936-1939.
https://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eARMOR/content/Historical/Aboul-Enein.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4282292
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44510568
Indeed, he had even sent his nephew to get explosives training in Germany from the Wehrmacht and various German intelligence services in 1938. https://www.newenglishreview.org/Ibn_Warraq/Grand_Mufti_Haj_Amin_al-Husaini_and_the_Nazis/
Oh wait. You DO know about the "Arab Revolt" in the Palestinian Mandate from 1936-1939, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
Oh, of course you do. After all, I'M the one who doesn't know the "bigger picture."
So no matter how you slice it, the Haavara Agreement was nowhere near as benevolent as Buchanan and other National Socialist shills like to paint it as. Unless you think that expelling people from one country (often at great cost) while training genocidal terrorists that massacre their kin and plan to wipe THEM out in the destination is "benevolent."
And while the near simultaneous collapse of the Haavara Agreement and al-Hussayni's rebels in 1939 is PROBABLY coincidental, the defeat of a genocidal anti-Jewish terrorist group made sending Jews to the Palestinian Mandate made it less attractive. Which is why as far back as 1938 the Nazis argued that the increase in the Jewish population in Palestine was not to their interest.
You must think History began in March 1933.
Which is laughable if you've bothered studying interwar history or the pre-1933 era of the NSDAP.
http://pdfs.jta.org/1931/1931-10-28_247.pdf
http://pdfs.jta.org/1932/1932-06-04_132.pdf
The fact is, in the areas they controlled the NSDAP were REGULARLY launching boycotts and pogroms of Jews and other "undesirables."
Yes it is.
Unfortunately for you, history did not begin with one fake news, Jew hating idiot's sensationalist BS. Nor is it the only or most relevant of the old things.
Where they would be deprived of adequate food and treatment (like basically everyone else) and essentially left to die of hunger, abuse, and tropical disease.
Sort of like how most people in Nazi occupied territory were treated but worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT2NPAoXeSk
It takes a particularly twisted and idiotic sort to argue that either the Madagascar or Haavara Plans were some kind of "mercy" when put into the big picture.
Cute, but no.
The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was- and I quote- the "Annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jewish Race in Europe."
https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1939-1941/hitler-speech-to-german-parliament
THEORETICALLY he considered deportations from Europe that would have left them alive (at least in the immediate future before disease or his foreign friends killed them) but genocide had always been his preferred way. ANd by 1939 he had settled on it, just not on the means (which were hammered out at Wansee).
And this had not been rare.
Now pray tell me, how did Hitler envision an "irrevocable removal"
And Goering was a diagnosed psychopath and utterly remorseless liar who was repeatedly caught in said lies during the trial. In addition to being heartily contradicted by other evidence.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Goering1.html
No, we are entirely. Indeed, I ENCOURAGE people to do it, which is why I despise decriminalization of Holocaust Denial and Neo-Fascism.
Because talking about the truth reveals how your claims and those of Buchanan and other Nazi Apologists are full of shit.
They're overtaxed trying to explain away even a fraction of the evidence, let alone all of it.
Which is why those who understand the Big Picture best realize that the extermination of Jews was one of the NSDAP's profoundest beliefs, and one that it rarely even CONSIDERED diverting from.
That didn't mean it motivated literally everything it did (after all, it didn't plan on having the Jews continue to exist for long). But it was a powerful one.
Oh I intend to.
Oh I know.
Which is why I am reaming your asshole over your ignoranceo f said history.
Already have. And it's- unsurprisingly- a load of idiotic shit.
I don't even need to talk much about the Jewish issue in order to know that. My historical interests have always primarily been in history and the military.
This is hilariously wrong on multiple occasions, and that's borne out by the German military themselves.
Indeed, 1916 was a catastrophic year for the German-led Central Powers, so catastrophic it led to the downfall of Germany's previous Shogun, Erich von Falkenhayen, and the rise to absolute power of Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff, the masterminds behind the victories on the only front the Germans had won: the Eastern One.
Submarine casualties were grievous but not enough to stop the war. The German attempt to "Bleed France White" at Verdun had failed. The offensive on the Somme was a clusterfuck but one that ultimately saw Germany retreat from the Somme River Valley, having it be marked as 'the muddy grave of the German Army."
Don't believe me? Explain why Falkenhayn got his ass kicked out of power at exactly that point.
And the fact that dumbass tries to convince people that the Balestinian Arabs (led by the genocidal lunatic al-Husayni and his heirs) "only wanted" the UN Resolutions carried out is further proof of that.
Looks like the one who shot the Los Angeles sheriffs
socialism is a vestigial appendage.
That implies it was once useful.
Socialism is a cancerous tumor.
I wouldn't call that socialism though, because there weren't soyboys miniature dictators back then. We would have just killed them and fed their meat to the boars.
Chad lives matter.
Thot and soyboy lives do not.
We need to stop the normalisation of socialism. Every person should say the word like Alan B'Stard did in The New Statesman; as if he was spitting out something unpleasant tasting.
Based Churchill!
Also, good luck for the election from England! This one is a big one, it's going to decide the fate of the western world. We are all counting on you, even the ones who don't know it yet.
Soros looking unusually youthful
All by Satanic design. Imagine a pendulum consisting of a ripe apple on the tail of a Snake.
The Snake swings the apple of virtue right towards the masculine and we weaken ourselves chasing it. Then left towards the feminine and we repeat the same.
Ultimately we confuse the apple for the snake ... chasing the carrot of virtue while being ridden by a demon each way.
Why? Because we look without and not within.
Nah Fam. You' make good points in the rest of your post but this shitshow had been around for a LOOONG time. The Paris Commune was in 1871, and Lenin was a hardened terrorist for years before 1914. The war helped shift Europe to the left and caused a whole lot of new converts but the rot was already established.
Brits : socialism is bad
also Brits : make sure you pay your taxes so the queen can get her cut and keep funding all her inbred pedo weirdo nonsense
cucks
Ok, I'll just say it. That nasty animal looks like the mascot for Black Lives Matter.
What did socialists use before candles? Electricity ;)
Then England went full marxist. The NHS was established shortly after WW2 ended.
this is exactly what this is
If she had a firearm she'd still be alive.
Jim jones was a commie as well; "In 1951, 20-year-old Jones began attending gatherings of the Communist Party USA in Indianapolis.[16] He became flustered with harassment during the McCarthy Hearings,[16] particularly regarding an event that he attended with his mother focusing on Paul Robeson, after which she was harassed by the FBI in front of her co-workers for attending.[17] He also became frustrated with the persecution of open and accused communists in the United States, especially during the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.[18] Jones said he asked himself, "How can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."[16][17]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
She needs a higher stability shield & endurance. Sorry I play too much Dark Souls.
Poor goat people getting such a bad rap in these turbulent times!
What's happening here but you just can't see the demonic forces at work in people and all around. ~For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places.~ Eph. 6:12
This is Britannia. She rules the waves, and that is Neptune's trident.
Not sure what the Socialism thing is, maybe some simian protovulcan ancestor of Commander Spock.
The goblin needs a bigger nose.
Racist, lol
Insulting the Queen's English, well then you can take this soggy biscuit and shove it
And tellingly, just like the actual Brits, she chooses to make a melodramatic POSE, rather than, you know, taking the fucking trident, thrust it in the commie chimps guts and disembowel it.
actually a pretty good description of the marxists
Photoshop Capt America shield in
I watched the movie Darkest Hour again recently, the similarity with Pres. Trump is striking. Watch it again, knowing now what Pres. Trump is facing.
To leftists, Politics (Communism/Climate Change) is THEIR religion, and they need their finger in that pie constantly.
It's fitting that the death of culture is represented by a jungle monkey.
Dress Satan up like a colorful clown and you have Democratic socialism
"The devil's on my side, hes a good communist"
I just posted this, adding it here also for OP.
https://thedonald.win/p/HEueHg2O/
National Archives Catalog, World War II Posters, 1942 - 1945, "Posters from various federal agencies, assembled by the Division of Public Inquiries, Office of War Information, and used to promote the war effort."
looks like Europe today with all those "refugees" raping and murdering our women
Satanism is an evil force which seeks to infect all that is good.
We need to reclaim Socialism and Communism/Communalism with the Christian value of love thy neighbor, as opposed to worship thy master.