Was World War II necessary?

Was World War II necessary or good?

  • It was good but not necessary.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    102

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Interesting that I have never heard such information. Where did you get this from? Sounds like a false flag to me.

That was actually the case, in fact it's eerily similar to what's going on right now in the Ukraine, where you have a government, emboldened by an aggressive NATO, bombing Russian-speaking villages in the Donbass in a very provocative escalation:

 
Britain didn't want the war but was goaded into the Polish defence pact by Jew controlled Roosevelt with Jew controlled France.

William Bullitt the Jew French ambassador to Poland assured the Poles that Anglo French Jewry would back them.

The Polish fascists tried to return Danzig and make an alliance with Hitler against the Wall Street and Jew backed Soviet Union.

The USA let Britain bleed for years to make sure they took over the Empire.

WW2 was a kosher sandwich against fascist Europe preceded by a Jewish attempt to turn Europe communist.
 
Interesting that I have never heard such information. Where did you get this from? Sounds like a false flag to me.
That's a link to the documentary "The Greatest Story Never Told" Watch starting at 1:04:07 the chapter titled "1939 The Polish Conflict". They were massacring German people for no apparent political or military reason.

"Problems had arisen in Poland over access to the German territory of East Prussia and the coastal city of Danzig. Hitler on several occasions presented proposals to try and resolve both situations peaceably, but the Poles refused to seriously negotiate. Now in Poland, just as in Czechoslovakia, the safety of ethnic Germans was again becoming a concern for Hitler."

The Poles were egged on by English and French support to redraw their borders and ignore German negotiations. They began a series of pogroms against the German minorities, and their own troops would even shoot at ones running away.

"The democratic states should not be so vain as to think this state of affairs will last forever." - Hitler in 1939.

If you truly want to understand the reason why he stepped in, watch the following chapter called "The Danzig Massacres" starting at 1:06:17. Hitler was placed between a rock and a hard place on whether to step in and save thousands of innocent lives from being slaughtered for merely being German and risk the aggressors declaring war on Germany, or ignore them and keep a steady but uneasy political affiliation alive between the rest of the big powers in Europe. I believe he chose correctly, the Germans were being butchered like animals.
 

Mountaineer

Pelican
Gold Member
I'm not convinced, this 'smells' to me. I'm not a historian so I need to confirm this in Polish sources. Not a word so far which indicates to me it's some kind of propaganda sold by Germany to the West. Nazis did a number of false flag operations to justify a war like the Gliwitz radiostation.

 
Last edited:
Looking at the political situation, we can see that after WWI, the people of Germany felt crushed by Europe, bonded together in patriotism, and wanted revenge. Looking at history, most of Europe was obsessed with national socialism, including Britain and the US. Incidentally, Churchill was not a bad guy. He was a monarchist who warned of the problems that were arising in Germany. Nobody listened. The stupid Brits picked Chamberlain. I'll get back to Churchill in a minute.
Historically, societies were very male-centric, patriarchal. As modern times developed, European socities became strongly masculine, with the exception of Russia, which became strongly feminine. For this reason, Karl Marx was booted from patriarchal Germany and made popular in Russia. The masculine nature of Germany became extremist under the influence of Satan, the same way we are experiencing extreme left (communism) and extreme right (neo-Nazism) here in the US. Satan loves extremism. The extremisms are masculinism and feminism. Masculinism leads to strong socialism, male-dominant societies with male virtues (such as patriatism/tribalism/protectionism) made pinnacle. Feminism leads to communism, female-dominant societies with female virtues (such as inclusiveness/equality/openmindedness) made pinnacle.
With Russia adopting feminism and Germany adopting the masculinism, the two were ideological enemies bound for war much the same way the US is heading for Civil War 2.
Let's be clear: masculinism and feminism are both evil. God wants balance, albeit the balance should be tipped in favor of men (but not radically in favor). As governments of US and Europe swung strongly towards masculinism, over time it was evident that - given the structure of republic *ahem* "democracies" *ahem* socialism - the pendulum would swing back the other way strongly, as it has.
Churchill in England probably could see the writing on the wall, but he was surrounded by idiots and had to make allies with people he didn't want as friends, including socialist FDR and communist Stalin. Truth by told, Churchill was pro-Brit.

One interesting piece of evidence for the masculinism of Europe and the US can be seen in the fact that they were all isolationist. i.e. Other than Germany (who was out for revenge), they did NOT want to get involved in war. Chamberlain tried to get Hitler to sign a non-aggression pact. France made no attempt to retake the Reinland(?) after Hitler re-militarized it. The US didn't enter the war until 1942. Let's be clear: no one COUNTRY but Germany wanted war. That's not to say there weren't many individuals who wanted it, but that's a complicated story.
 
The person who wanted a war, got it, and got absolutely everything he wanted after the war, was Joseph Stalin. He wanted a chunk of Europe, and took half of it. He could not care less about hordes of surplus Soviet peasants dying. And he got China to go communist as a bonus.

There is a theory that Stalin had the communists in Germany vote for the Nazis, knowing that would stir something up. There is a strong argument to be made that after Poland was divided Stalin was mobilizing troops and supplies to invade Germany. Hitler caught wind of it, and ordered and immediate attack, which over ran the supplies the Soviets had staged. And that could be why the Nazis were not ready for the Russian winter, because it had not been planned. But the point is, perhaps the one who ultimately started the war was the one who got everything he wanted in the first place in the end.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
@ chronologicaldot

Sorry to say this, but never seen so much senseless things mingled in one comment.

Very confusing and very messy with little truth in it.

I don't have the energy and time to comment right now, maybe 911 or Aquila Negra might do so.

Nick, I have read like 80% of the Mein Kampf but whatever me and you have read was highly edited and manipulated by the victors of the war .
 

NickK

Woodpecker
There is a theory that Stalin had the communists in Germany vote for the Nazis, knowing that would stir something up. There is a strong argument to be made that after Poland was divided Stalin was mobilizing troops and supplies to invade Germany. Hitler caught wind of it, and ordered and immediate attack, which over ran the supplies the Soviets had staged. And that could be why the Nazis were not ready for the Russian winter, because it had not been planned. But the point is, perhaps the one who ultimately started the war was the one who got everything he wanted in the first place in the end.
Ah the Suvorov theory. It's named after a guy because he was the only person to ever contemplate such an easily debunked theory.
The truth is the Soviets couldn't have been more unprepared in 1941 even if they tried.
 

RKS

Sparrow
Wars are necessary to kill the strongest young men from each society. It's really that simple, in spite of the many narratives that were created for justification.
 
Last edited:
Ah the Suvorov theory. It's named after a guy because he was the only person to ever contemplate such an easily debunked theory.
The truth is the Soviets couldn't have been more unprepared in 1941 even if they tried.
I watched Suvorov give a talk on it on CSPAN several years ago and I think he made a compelling argument. He was a Soviet military intelligence officer who defected in the 1970's. The theory goes against the received history, but I have hardly seen anything in this thread that is part of the received history.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
Suvorov had an obvious bias to cook such a theory.
His theory is easily debunked by studying operation Barbarossa in detail, especially the declassified Soviet documents.
They show that the Red Army in 1941 was in a state of general reorganization, they weren't fit for defense, let alone an offensive. Their officer corps was decimated. Their tank formations were completely overrun, most of their tanks being immobile because of lack of fuel and spare parts.
The earliest they could have mounted a credible offensive is 1943.
 
The crippling conditions of the world war 1 Versailles treaty practically guaranteed world war II's occurrence. As good ol' Machiavelli noted destroy you foe utterly, half measures only lead to the enemy becoming stronger through their hatred and rage.
That's 100% correct. In fact, before the Nazis even were a "thing", Germany and the Reichswehr and the Freikorps were already well on their way in planning towards rearmament ambitions / interest, because it was even known during the period of the Weimar Republic that another war would be inevitable. All they lacked was a strongman who would be capable to terminate the Treaty of Versailles in order to give hope to lifting the restrictions imposed on their Military.
 
Suvorov had an obvious bias to cook such a theory.
His theory is easily debunked by studying operation Barbarossa in detail, especially the declassified Soviet documents.
They show that the Red Army in 1941 was in a state of general reorganization, they weren't fit for defense, let alone an offensive. Their officer corps was decimated. Their tank formations were completely overrun, most of their tanks being immobile because of lack of fuel and spare parts.
The earliest they could have mounted a credible offensive is 1943.
If the naht-sees were so evil, can you explain this?
https://counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/
or this perhaps?
https://lordmolyneaux.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/complete-list-of-jewish-expulsions-908/
Both are touched upon in several documentaries, but none are backed by "mainstream" producers like the History channel or National Geographic because of (((who))) owns them. Stop shilling.
Even Patton was critical of the events and the aftermath, read his notes which the SJWs that run the US still haven't removed form the Library of Congress:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss35634.00311/?sp=2&r=-0.619,-0.04,2.238,1.428,0
part 2
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss35634.00312/?sp=2
part 3
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss35634.00313/?sp=2

When you look at history as a complete picture, not just six years in Europe in the mid-20th century, you begin to see the pattern. Elitist cabals turn against their population, foreign aliens teach people to betray their roots, faiths, traditions, and kin, wars ensue pitting brother against brother. The exact decimals of the events leading up to the war may never be known, but I know enough Germans to know that they are not monsters, devils, or beasts, but some of the most civilized and restrained people out there. But in this fallen world, when you aren't tough enough for the job, the job overtakes you, old Adolf was a seasoned veteran, but he did not possess the inherent vindictive personality to truly destroy those who intended to destroy him. There is old blood going back millennia with the peoples of the Rhine, Bohemia, and those under the Piast, in ways that many of us cannot comprehend as outsiders. The almost npc-ish response "Germany attack Poland, Germany bad, bad pretzel people must pay!" is cringeworthy to any wartime historian that only a blind obedience or sheer ignorance to a body of government captained by a chain-smoking masonic obesity like Churchill could have swindled millions of people with such a lie into attacking their brethren.
 
Top