A Plan for Peace in Three Parts - Part III

[theaustinescorts]

If there wasn't an agenda in Britain and France to make war on Germany then why did they declare war on Germany in September 1939? The reason they gave was that it was because Germany invaded Poland, but neither France or England had any agreement with Poland for mutual defense. Many sources in England and France informed the Germans that neither would declare war on Germany if it attacked Poland [shades of 1991 in Iraq]. To everyone in the German government the idea of a British declaration of war over Poland would have been laughable...but that's exactly what occurred. After the Germans invaded Poland Stalin followed suit with his own invasion of eastern Poland per his agreement with Germany, yet in Britain and France there was no declaration of war on Stalin...not even a wisp of criticism. All their vitriol was reserved for Germany alone. Then from Sept. 1939 - April 1940 the Germans tried several times to negotiate, but the British and France wouldn't hear of it. They didn't want to negotiate any end to their state of war. It was only in the face of their intransigence and their rising military power versus Germany that the Germans struck in May 1940...and when they did they thought they would likely have another repeat of 1914-1918 on the Western Front. "Blitzkrieg" wasn't used in Poland, or anywhere, until May 1940...and the Germans were as surprised as anyone that it really worked.

The truth was that the same people in the US, Britain and France who led these countries to war with Germany were all key figures in the Great War 1914-18. They hated Germany and blamed the Germans for the outbreak of war in 1914. They lobbied for harsh treatment after the Armistice, and had their sights set on finishing off Germany when or if they could in the future. They guided public opinion into an alarmist view of German intentions from 1936 forward, and Hitler stupidly played right into their hands. Hitler blundered again and again with these people, and in the end their alliance was able to invade and conquer Germany - exactly the opposite of what Hitler wanted.

There is a school of thought, economic in determination, that Britain and France engineered the Great War, and WWII, in order to hobble German economic/industrial strength. I would not go that far however. I do not believe that wars are engineered by financial elites to put down industrial competitors. War is not that purposeful or rational. As I've stated before I believe war is undertaken for emotional reasons...blood-fueled competition...combined with the institutional interests of the militaries, who exaggerate everything.

Hitler's idiotic invasion of Poland is classic. There was no rational reason for doing it, only ideological and emotional ones. It led to war with Britain and the US, which meant a two front war with powers more vast than Germany could handle.

[DRorchia]

"After the Germans invaded Poland Stalin followed suit with his own invasion of eastern Poland per his agreement with Germany, yet in Britain and France there was no declaration of war on Stalin...not even a wisp of criticism."
I'm surprised for someone that speaks so much on this subject that you appear to be so misinformed. The reason there was no criticism by Britain and France is due to the fact that Stalin has already petitioned both countries along with others for permission to advance his army toward Sudentenland to prevent Germany's threatened invasion. The countries involved refused to give Stalin and the Soviet Army transit rights and did not agree with his proposal. So the Allied countries were already aware of Stalin's concerns about German military encroachment and they were well aware that his only reason for invading Poland was to create a buffer zone between Russia and Germany. In fact, Stalin felt that the West had sold him out with the Munich pact agreement and that by giving Germany access to the country of Czechoslovakia without a fight, Russia could be next to be divided in the West's interest to avoid war. It doesn't matter if this was true or not in terms of what lengths Britain and France were willing to go to avoid war, it's what Stalin believed and what influenced his decisions and his actions.

I think what you're confusing in your assertions is the will of the German Army, which had a lot of reasonable and honorable Generals prior to 1938, and Hitler's intentions which went against what most of his General staff advised him of. So some of the German population certainly didn't want war, his General Staff didn't want war but Hitler was determined and replaced his Generals as necessary to carry out his will.

Here's a good example of this in regards to the situation with Czechoslovakia in 1938 and the Munich pact.

"In Germany, the decision preempted a potential revolt by senior Army officers against Hitler. Hitler's determination to go through with his plan for the invasion of all Czechoslovakia in 1938 had provoked a major crisis in the German command structure. The Chief of the General Staff, General Ludwig Beck, protested in a lengthy series of memos that it would start a world war that Germany would lose, and urged Hitler to put off the projected war. Hitler called Beck's arguments against war "kindische Kräfteberechnungen" ("childish calculations"). On August 4, 1938, a secret Army meeting was held. Beck read his lengthy report to the assembled officers. They all agreed something had to be done to prevent certain disaster. Beck hoped they would all resign together but no one resigned except Beck. However his replacement, General Franz Halder, sympathised with Beck and together they conspired with several top generals, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (Chief of German Intelligence), and Graf von Helldorf (Berlin's Police Chief) to arrest Hitler the moment he gave the invasion order. However, the plan would only work if both Britain and France made it known to the world that they would fight to preserve Czechoslovakia. This would help to convince the German people that certain defeat awaited Germany. Agents were therefore sent to England to tell Chamberlain that an attack on Czechoslovakia was planned and their intentions to overthrow Hitler if this occurred. However, the messengers were not taken seriously by the British. In September, Chamberlain and Daladier decided not to threaten a war over Czechoslovakia and so the planned removal of Hitler could not be justified.[7] The Munich Agreement therefore preserved Hitler in power.

Obviously, if Britain and France were so eager to go to war with Germany as you claim, they could have used Czechoslovakia as a reason to do so. They also could have used Hitler's take over of Austria as another pretext for war. They did neither. By 1939 however it had become apparent to all of Europe that Hitler had no intention of stopping his planned and stated conquest of Europe and that further negotiations would be futile in light of the failure of the Munich Pact.

So as you can see, Hitler was determined to carry out his plans with or without the support of his top Generals, many of whom were replaced not only prior to the Polish invasion but during the World War that followed as well.

You have yet to address Hitler's own writings in "Mein Kampf" and his many speeches in which he advocated Germany regaining all land it had lost in WWI. You have not addressed his stated intentions to rid Europe of the Jews which by itself would necessitate him having complete control of Europe in order to carry out those plans.

[theaustinescorts]

I agree with everything you've just said, in fact Admiral Canaris almost completed a military coup against Hitler prior to the occupation of Czechoslovakia, but when the occupation succeeded Hitler became so popular that the coup was aborted.

Oh my God I never claimed that England and France were "eager" for another horrible war with Germany. No one there was "eager." But starting another war with Germany was something that many important people wanted to do none the less...it was their CHOICE, although not a welcome one, and that's how the war in the west came about. You have to remember that France and England defeated Germany in 1918, so they thought they could do it again. It wouldn't have happened otherwise, and didn't come about because Hitler just wanted to knock off France...jez after what happened from 1914-18 the last thing Hitler wanted was another war with France.

This doesn't rebut my arguments about the causes of the war in the west however. Britain and France declared war on the occassion of the Polish invasion because their populations were ready for it at that time, and no sooner. They had no choice for war as early as Munich, and they still weren't ready in Aug. 1939, but Hitler's atrocious attack on Poland forced their hand sooner then they would have liked. Then they had to wait around for months while they mobilized, and by that time the Germans pre-empted their planned invasion of Germany. That's how France came to be occupied.

As for Stalin's invasion of Poland, of course it was to create a buffer between himself and Germany - just as Germany invaded Poland to create a buffer between themselves and Stalin. That doesn't excuse what Stalin did. The simple fact is that Stalin attacked Poland in the same way and for the same reasons as the Germans, and in secret agreement with them, and France and Britain didn't criticize him at all.

You have to look to what the principals are doing, their ACTIONS, when interpreting history. You can't rely on what people SAY, their DECLARATIONS such as in propaganda like "Mein Kampf."

[DRorchia]

TAE-...jez after what happened from 1914-18 the last thing Hitler wanted was another war with France."

With this argument you just made above, I surrender this debate. You are stating the exact OPPOSITE of what Hitler himself stated his intentions were. He stated over and over again that it was his intention to erase the shame of Germany's defeat at the hands of France and Great Britain. I reiterate that HITLER HIMSELF stated that he believed certain German Generals and Aristocrats had sold Germany out. He believed Germany COULD have won WWI and set out to prove it. This is not "propaganda" it's what he SAID and it's what his actions proved.
But if you truly believe that statement you made that it's the "last thing he wanted" then there's no sense discussing this subject any further. It flies in the face of what 90% of Historians have documented and what Hitler himself told the world in interviews, speeches and writings.

[theaustinescorts]

Getting back to the subject of Israel. Israel is now toast.

The new Egyptian government which will emerge in the next few years will not cooperate with Israel as the Mubarak regime did. If the new government reflects Egyptian public opinion then Israel had better stop their settlements policies and stop pushing the Palestinian Arabs around or Egypt will tear up the Camp David Accords, which were violated by Israel within the first year of their signing [according to the accords Israel was supposed to grant elections on the West Bank, etc. as to the disposition of the Arabs there but Israel reneged].

Iraq is now pretty much in the Iranian sphere of influence, and the Israeli goal of eliminating the Iraqi baath party from the scene has backfired and created an Iranian hegemony over the whole Persian Gulf.

The Arab population within Israel is growing at such a rate that Jewish immigration cannot keep up. The Israeli non-Jewish citizens are out-breeding the Jews!

It is only a matter of time before the Jewish state is a memory.

[theaustinescorts]

All historians know that he said one thing in public and completely different things in private.

You should refer for example to the tape recordings the Finnish government made of him while on his trip to Helsinki in 1944.

In the Finnish tapes Hitler told the Finnish government:

1."If I knew the Russians could make 55 thousand tanks in just two years I never would have invaded them."

2."They outnumber us 10 to 1 in tanks and I don't see what if anything we can to do stop them. Their latest tank is better than anything we have!"

3."If I knew that England and France were going to declare war on us I certainly would never have attacked Poland."

4."I wish I had waited until 1946 to attack Russia as Mussolini and I agreed when we planned all this in 1939."

Hitler was never closed about saying exactly what was really on his mind. He was frank to everyone, but it was always the opposite of his propaganda.

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Getting back to the subject of Israel. Israel is now toast.

The new Egyptian government which will emerge in the next few years will not cooperate with Israel as the Mubarak regime did. If the new government reflects Egyptian public opinion then Israel had better stop their settlements policies and stop pushing the Palestinian Arabs around or Egypt will tear up the Camp David Accords, which were violated by Israel within the first year of their signing [according to the accords Israel was supposed to grant elections on the West Bank, etc. as to the disposition of the Arabs there but Israel reneged].

Iraq is now pretty much in the Iranian sphere of influence, and the Israeli goal of eliminating the Iraqi baath party from the scene has backfired and created an Iranian hegemony over the whole Persian Gulf.

The Arab population within Israel is growing at such a rate that Jewish immigration cannot keep up. The Israeli non-Jewish citizens are out-breeding the Jews!

It is only a matter of time before the Jewish state is a memory.

Maybe so, but before it is, I'll be there doing my part to stop that from happening....and I'm not even Jewish. If it comes down to the survival of their state, I'm sure they'll make an exception and allow even my non-Jewish self to help them out.

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

All historians know that he said one thing in public and completely different things in private.

You should refer for example to the tape recordings the Finnish government made of him while on his trip to Helsinki in 1944.

In the Finnish tapes Hitler told the Finnish government:

1."If I knew the Russians could make 55 thousand tanks in just two years I never would have invaded them."

2."They outnumber us 10 to 1 in tanks and I don't see what if anything we can to do stop them. Their latest tank is better than anything we have!"

3."If I knew that England and France were going to declare war on us I certainly would never have attacked Poland."

4."I wish I had waited until 1946 to attack Russia as Mussolini and I agreed when we planned all this in 1939."

Hitler was never closed about saying exactly what was really on his mind. He was frank to everyone, but it was always the opposite of his propaganda.

By 1944, Hitler was so drugged up that I doubt ANYONE knows if what he was saying was truth, nostalgic reflection, propaganda or anything else. The man was "mad" by any definition of the word. Certainly full blown "mad" by 1944. His generals couldn't reason with him, his closest confidants couldn't reason with him, his mistress/fiance couldn't reason with him, he was gone....long gone.

[theaustinescorts]

I think the trip to Helsinki was in early 1944, but he's pretty lucid in the conversations that the Finns recorded.

Hitler met with them in a railway car and the Finns put hidden microphones inside it. They hide the wires that led from the car to a series of recording devices outside.

As far as I know these recordings are the only such recordings of Hitler's private conversations ever made. But they don't reveal anything new as those around him have been interviewed extensively. Some like Albert Spear have also written a lot about their private conversations with Hitler.

My point is that Hitler was always lying in his public speeches and writings, and historians certainly do not draw any conclusions about his motives based on that.

Hitler was very frank and open about his real opinions on subjects, and his real views [as opposed to his public blather] are well known.

As far as coming to Israel's defense I have some personal experience as an American having worked with the Israelis.

If as an American with government experience you seek to do business with them their first goal will be to try to recruit you to spy on the United States.

This is of course what they tried to talk me into, and it should be no surprise given their long history of espionage directed against the United States government. Within the CIA the "Israeli account" is usually held by the CIA counter-intelligence Chief BECAUSE it is well known that the Israelis first goal is to spy on the US. In the 1950s and 1960s all CIA-Israeli interaction was handled personally by James Angleton.

The United States has no mutual defense treaties with Israel. Israel is not a member of NATO or anything else. The reasons for this are that Israel does not want to depend on anyone else for their defense. They do not regard the US or anyone else as their ally.

Another thing about the Israelis. Within the intl world it's well known that Mossad kills their own agents. Anyone seeking to volunteer to work for them had better watch their back because they have left a trail of dead agents in their wake. They are very treacherous. In the 1990s when I worked in Sierra Leone I saw this time and time again. The Sierra Leone diamond war was fueled by Israel. The Sierra Leone rebels, and Charles Taylor in Liberia next door, were trained and supplied by Israelis, often using Ukrainians and South Africans as fronts. The Israelis benefited by gaining diamonds, but they also wanted to keep the diamonds out of the hands of the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese community in Sierra Leone which otherwise were controlling the diamond trade. The Israeli's were kicked out of Sierra Leone in the 1970s, and in the 1990s when I was there the largest foreign embassy was the Iranian embassy. The Iranians and local Lebanese were trying to shovel diamonds to Hezbollah, and the Israelis [through the RUF Rebels] were trying to shovel them to themselves. It was a very interesting game to say the least.

I miss Sierra Leone. It had some nice beaches and the best fish and shrimp I've ever had. It was sometimes disconcerting when some kid would be pointing his AK at you, but that's Africa [child soldiers with guns]. Otherwise it was a great place, but one of those places I can never go back to.

[DRorchia]

Albert Speer's book, "Inside the Third Reich" has been questioned by numerous scholars of WWII. His conflicting accounts and efforts to portray himself in a favorable light both at the Nueremberg trial, and later in his book, cast doubt on his truthfulness. Be that as it may, he never counters the point in his book and in fact even supports it, that Hitler was a power hungry ego maniac. He also confirms my assertions that Hitler became more and more delusional as the war progressed and his top Generals began keeping him more and more out of the loop, going so far as to go against his orders where possible. Most of the great Generals, including Rommel, saw through Hitler fairly quickly and knew that he was leading the country toward ruin. Hitler managed to stay in power throughout the war largely because he had taken the time to build up so many loyalists in his inner camp prior to the start of the war. These men however were not "military" men in the true sense of the word. Few were long time serving veterans of the armed forces or even had prior military experience. Himmler, Goebels and the like were self appointed military leaders with no real experience in war fighting.
I'm sorry but nothing you wrote in the "Finnish rail car" disputes Hitler's intentions, in fact, it sounds as if he's simply making excuses for what he had already done. This does not in any way dispel what his stated intentions were since he DID in fact attack Russia, France, Poland, Great Britain, Afrika,....the list goes on. Saying in 1944 that he "would not have done this" IF he had known other facts, doesn't change the fact that it was his intention to do so and that he indeed carried out those intentions. Those are documented facts. The countries the German Wehrmacht, SS and Luftwaffe attacked are not in dispute, they are recorded in history for all time. You can try to give your opinion on what Hitler's "real" motives were for attacking those countries, you can reason that he didn't really mean to, that what he stated in "private" was more the truth than what he stated in public, but it doesn't change what his Armies actually did. It's simply your opinion, not historical fact.

As far as Israel, no need to get in a long debate here. I cast doubt on your assertions of a "trail of dead Mossad agents" that Israel killed. There have been numerous Mossad agents who left Mossad and wrote accounts of their deeds, some of them embarrassing to Israel and the Mossad and these men live just fine to this day.
In the most recent embarrassing debacle for the Mossad, the hit of the Hezbollah arms supplier in Dubai, every one of those agents is still alive. Obviously Mossad is not THAT worried about it. You can read former Delta Force operator Eric Haney's "Inside Delta Force" and come away convinced that the C.I.A. used Delta Force to kill an American down in Central America. The spy business is the spy business and as Eric Haney succinctly put it in his book 'if you're in this business and don't have an out for yourself ie...fake passport, cash, etc and you rely on the kindness of your government to get you out of a bad spot or to not turn on you, then you're a fool'.....I'm paraphrasing what he wrote but that was the gist of it.

When I mentioned helping Israel, I was not talking about spying. I'm talking about the balloon going up, and another 1948, 1967, 1973 attempt by most of the surrounding Arab countries to take Israel out. For good. As you predict. My point is simply, if that happens, I'll do my best to be there. No need to go into who did what in 1948, 1967 and the 1973 wars. I'm well aware that you feel Israel was the aggressor or had it coming or shouldn't have existed in the first place. Doesn't matter, they are there now, they exist, and if another full scale war is launched against them, I hope it will be while I can still do my part. I've been in this part of the world for the last 6 years, staying a few more for a good cause wouldn't bother me. Especially if it means ridding the world of a few more fanatics. Your Arab friends better hurry up though, in a few years I'll be getting too old for this and then I'll have to watch from the sidelines. Be a doggone shame.

[theaustinescorts]

I agree with everything you've just said about Spear and Hitler. Hitler was a violent revolutionary who launched wars on Poland and other countries when it was completely unnecessary as well as counter-productive for German security. His idiotic military schemes destroyed Germany. If it had not been for that he might have been recorded in history quite favorably given the economic miracle he brought about from 1934 forward. It was the Nazi's financial planning which rocketed Germany out of the world-wide depression while all the other countries of the west [including the US] were still mired in it for years to come. This economic miracle [having largely to do with monetary policy] gained tremendous admiration for the nazis among many in the US and elsewhere until Hitler started gobbling up his neighbors' territories.

My only point was that the war in the west was not welcomed by him, but was forced upon him by the French and British war declarations and other actions. There was much more dissent in the German military about the Polish invasion than the attack on Belgium/France for this reason. However IMHO I still think it was a disaster for Germany [just as the Schlieffen Plan was in 1914] because it involved a pre-emptive attack which turned world opinion against Germany. Part of this opinion involved important people in the US, who then made war on Germany.

IMHO I think the US should have stayed out of the European war because 1. it involved choosing between the evils of Hitler and Stalin, and I would have to choose even Hitler if that were the choice, and 2. as a republic I think instituting a draft for fighting foreign wars is something the US should never do. 60% of the men in arms in the US from 1942-45 were drafted because they didn't believe the war endangered the US directly enough for them to volunteer....I think they had a point. This is of course frustrating to idealistic people like FDR, who would like for a democracy like the US to be a fighting force for freedom in other places. However this is exactly what Washington warned us we should not do, and I think he was right. In a democracy citizens should not be compelled to die in war to free other countries from tyranny. They should only be compelled to fight if their own country has been attacked.

As far as Israel being the target of a direct military attack, that will not happen because of Israel's nuclear capabilities.

On the contrary what can happen is that Egypt can support Hamas or other militant groups in Israel which could make life there unbearable.

The way for the Palestinian arabs and their sympathizers to bring Israel to it's knees involves a revolt from within, not a conventional military assault from outside. Hezbollah in Lebanon gave the Israelis a hard fight last time around also. Life in the north of Israel can be made to be unbearable if rockets started falling on them again from bases in Lebanon.

I'm sorry you and I disagree on who in Israel is the aggressor. However from my perspective what happened to the Palestinian arabs falls into my narrow description of a just war - i.e. when someone has attacked your home and seeks to occupy it.

When I refer to the "trial of dead agents" from Mossad I mean AGENTS, not OFFICERS.

Mossad officers, as you've correctly stated, are not under any more threat than officers of any other service. However, the agents they recruit to work for them are routinely disposable. Like all case officers Mossad officers use any trick they can to gain their agents' loyalty, but it's often a one-way street.

[Billy_Saul]

Fascinating live feed (2nd hand) out of Libya on Al Jazeera. Another one bites the dust.

[theaustinescorts]

Al Jaazera, Al Arabia, and the internet have been the tools that have facilitated these spontaneous uprisings over the entire Arab/Persian worlds.

In 1978 the opponents of the Shah of Iran thought themselves techie when they smuggled in and relied on cassette audio tapes to spread their revolutionary message.

In 1776 the American revolution would never have got off the ground if it were not for the printing press and the widespread publication of "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine.

I do not think that al-Qaeda will gain anything from these revolutions either.
I previously thought they would but it's not materializing that way. I'm usually the one who marginalizes the threat from al-Qaeda, but even I'm suprised at how unimportant they have been as revealed by these events.

However it doesn't take a militant government in an Arab country to change conditions for the worse in terms of Israel. Popular opinion all over the Arab world is fed up with Israel's settlements policies and refusal to negotiate in good faith. Any government in Egypt or anywhere else which reflects public opinion spells problems for Israel.


btw....... Chicago just elected as its major a person who never served in the armed forces of the United States, but is a serving member of the Israeli army. He is also a covert agent of Israeli intelligence. His father was a known terrorist with the Irgun. His brother the Hollywood agent is also a Mossad agent.

It would be a good idea if these penetrations by the Israeli government would come to an end.

ps...... Muammar Kadaffi has deposited into his personal bank accounts in Europe probably about 75% of all the oil and gas revenues from Libya.
This is not unusual in an Arab oil-producing country, as the monarchs of the Gulf [all US allies too] do exactly the same thing. What makes Kadaffi different is that he claims to be a "revolutionary leader" opposed to the "corruption" of the traditional monarchs and other pro-US leaders like Mubarak.

The current pro-Mubarak government still in Egypt has announced a phoney "asset seizure" of Mubarak's accounts worldwide. This is of course a canard, as they will report having found perhaps only 10% of what's really there, and then declare the whole matter resolved. This happens all the time in these situations. In the Phillipines in 1988 the new government reported victory when they returned $720 million dollars, when in reality there remained several hundred billion dollars in Marcos assets remaining overseas. How did this happen? The banks holding the Marcos accounts bribed the new Phillipines officials to misreport what was there. Marcos himself and his family weren't able to obtain of these funds however. The bankers have it all.

You should think twice when a foreign banker assures you that he will hide your money for you, and that you can come get it whenever you want.

Usually when they receive it they use any means to keep you from re-gaining it.