Israel Strikes Iranian Oil Tankers Bound For Syria

You are believing that exact same thing. And from a government that had an ACTUAL Ministry of Propaganda.

 

To get back to the topic of sinking Iranian oil tankers. I don't know if any poster mentioned this, but the tankers are now being escorted by Russian warships. Russia is also supplying Syria with grain, since that too is being stolen together with its oil.

 

We didn't need one. We had the sinking of the Lusitania and this:



.

 

You ignore the obvious: With the technology available at that time, the British had no way of being sure a German submarine would locate and torpedo the Lusitania.

 

Recruiting posters used to be so much more fun! With added nudity!

 

Sometimes called the Second Holocaust. The Volga Germans being just one group who suffered greatly. The real horror is that the majority were people who had lived quietly in those areas for generations many of whom saw themselves as patriotic citizens of ancestral homelands. They were singled out only by their last names in most cases.
I doubt that could happen at this point in time. The entire world is much like America now. Since WWII and probably well before our nationalities are mixed together as thoroughly as ingredients in a salad. It makes you wonder if real nationalism is anything more than a justification for people hating other people and we really don't need any reason for that. We live where we live and so does everyone else. I have no more rights than you just for being here longer.

 

Oh please! No Lusitania conspiracy theories, she was carrying munitions for the war effort. It was not so much the torpedoing as the German celebration;

 

Thanks for another interesting and informative Post.
The degree to which British Intelligence used both propaganda and deadly deception to lure the US into both WW 1 and WW 2 is grossly understated.

Re:

The same two war mongers, Churchill and FDR along with British Intelligence succeeded in deceiving Americans who were overwhelmingly anti war that US involvement in the war in Europe was compelling.
Few people know of Hitler's 1940 peace offer via Hess that was rejected by Churchill(1) so that the British could enlist America into destroying Germany and preserving Churchill's precious and brutal Empire(2)


(1) "Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR"
http://www.historyextra.com/news/se...estern-europe-exchange-free-hand-attack-ussr’

EXCERPT ""A new book claims to have solved the riddle of the flight to Britain in 1941 of Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy. Historian Peter Padfield has uncovered evidence he says shows Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him from Hitler a detailed peace treaty, under which the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia. The episode remains, more than 70 years on, shrouded in mystery."CONTINUED


(2) "The conquest of the United States by Britain"
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm

EXCERPT "Mahl evaluates British intelligence activities in the United States as "one of the most important and successful covert operations of history." (p. 186) What is most astounding, however, is not the British activity but the collaboration by the Roosevelt administration. For while Britain was simply pursuing her perceived national interest, Roosevelt's cooperation with the intelligence service of a foreign state could certainly be labeled as treasonous.”CONTINUED

 

I thought that was considered a historical given. Because Hitler himself had written about the idea in Mein Kampt

 

The US does / did have an actual government run propaganda agency called the Office of War Information (OWI).
Both during WW 2 and up to today, Hollywood functions as America's propaganda ministry(1).


(1) "The Hollywood Directors Who Filmed the Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps"
https://hyperallergic.com/426644/lamoth-filming-the-camps-the-holocaust/

EXCERPT "George Stevens, John Ford, and Samuel Fuller, best known for their work in Hollywood, all documented the Allied liberation at the end of the war.

But during this period of war, they were acting less as artists than as functionaries of US propaganda and information efforts, working for the US Armed Forces and Secret Services.CONTINUED

 

Please clarify.

What was considered a historical given?

 

From what I know, the waters around Britain was packed with U-boats, and the Lusitania's sister ship was torpedoed 3 times and didn't sink.

The German embassy was warning passengers before the Lusitania was torpedoed, not to sail in a British flagged ship, and that they were risking their lives. Because of this warning to the American passengers, I have to assume the Germans knew about the ships cargo. They might have even been tipped off by a British agent.

Only 2 passengers heeded the warning and decided not to sail. Many might not have seen the warning until they began to sail. What is hypocritical, is that the American Ambassador to Germany was furious with neutral Sweden for sending food to Germany and felt we had to punish them, while at the same time a neutral US was supplying Britain with arms.

 

Hitler wanting to leave the British and their empire in existence while Germany conquered all of mainland Europe.

 

gross exaggeration and overstatement.

 

Do you really think that Hitler could have been trusted to keep his word?

 

My grandfather was 6th Armored...one of the first into Buchenwald.

 

No...but by sending it without escort (ordered to return to port), at deliberately-reduced speed, an an area known for U-boat activity...it was a damn likely thing.

 

In the 19th century the nation that was regarded as the militaristic villain of Europe was France. Germany (not Prussia, but the old descendant of the Holy Roman Empire) was regarded as mainly home to philosophers, dreamers and lovers, nice people but they were NEVER going to really get their **** together.

 

Bismarck changed that by uniting the German states, and imposing Prussia's war culture on all Germany. Oddly enough, he kept telling people he had a demon inside of him, and no one believed him.

Well I do!

 

The Germans always conquered and established themselves as the nobility. Eventually though they would adapt to the culture of the people they conquered. As an example; the Lombards in Italy and the Franks in France. It was the natural order of things.

Hitler's ideology though was criminal. If it had it been a conquest by the Kaiser, then things would have been different. Even considering the difficulty of Wilhelm's personality and his upbringing by Bismarck, he was still nobility, and they were raised with some sense of honor and responsibility.

Anyway Hitler really wanted the Russian lands. He was dragged into the war with Britain through its alliances and also through circumstances - like for instance Mussolini who had his own dreams of reviving the Roman Empire. So what did Mussolini do, he attacked Greece. But you don't mess with men in skirts, so his men were pushed back.

Hitler was forced to save Mussolini's face so he had to invade Greece - which meant his men had to fight through the mountains of Yugoslavia. Britain in the mean time panicked since taking over Greece and especially Crete threatened their life line.

So what you had was all of Europe at war and a delay in Germany's invasion of Russia so that they ended up facing the Russian winter.

It is-a mine, because-a I say so.

Finito! ​

 

If you mean withdrawing from from pre WW 1 territories to the West in order to focus on fighting Communism to the East, I think he would keep his word. He certainly realized the suicidal aspect of fighting the 3 front war that evolved and felt a kinship with the British to the extent that he allowed the British army to escape at Dunkirk.

If Hitler was intent on conquering the world as some people mistakenly believe, he would have allowed his generals to wipe out the British at Dunkirk(1) but Hitler correctly believed that the greatest threat to not only Germany but all of Western Europe was Stalin's military machine that was in offensive positions and planning to move Westward in 1941-1942 (2), (3).

Hitler witnessed the futility of fighting a 2 front war in WW 1 and I think he would have made significant concessions to avoid a repeat. It was Churchill who wanted Germany destroyed and would have engaged in any deception to drag America back to Europe. That's why Churchill rejected and buried Hitler's peace offer via Hess.(4)


(1) "Hitler didn't want world war"
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/hitlernowar.html

QUOTE: "The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed," Hitler said. "Our two people belong together racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can't grasp it." (Kilzer, p.213)


(2) "Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler in 1941? The Historiographical Controversy Surrounding the Origins of the Nazi-Soviet War"
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/art...urrounding-the-origins-of-the-nazi-soviet-war

EXCERPT " He [Victor Suvorov] cites a lack of defensive preparations, such as the construction of fortified lines and anti-tank ditches, and notes their deployment in hidden areas (such as woods) as evidence of the intention of the soviet leadership to conceal an imminent offensive operation.

…Stalin’s desire to attack Nazi Germany in 1941 with an analysis of soviet foreign policy during the 1930s. They contend that Stalin believed in the concept of world revolution, and that the Second World War provided Stalin an opportunity to extend soviet influence throughout Europe. Mel'tiukhov, for instance, asserts that, “the USSR’s principal aim was to expand the “front of socialism” across as much territory as possible.”CONTINUED


(3) "Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe:…"
https://www.counter-currents.com/201...onquer-europe/
EXCERPT "In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world — actually the world’s first superpower — for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable.

Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent."CONTINUED


(4) "Churchill's Deception"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1839087.Churchill_s_Deception

EXCERPTS "Churchill's Deception describes how Great Britain shunned opportunities to end the war because it sought to dismember Germany, not merely to destroy Hitler.

German generals were ready to topple the Fuhrer in 1939 and 1940, but only if Britain agreed not to take advantage of a civil war that would follow.

England did not agree. And because of Hitler's own obsession about obtaining a pact with Great Britain, he offered to return his Western conquests in exchange for guarantees concerning Germany's interests in the East.

Though Churchill held out for more, he took note of Hitler's obsessive desire for peace with England.

They invited the Deputy Fuhrer of Germany, Rudolf Hess, to attend a peace conference at which Hitler would negotiate the coming invasion of the Soviet Union with the British "Peace Party."

Had the British adopted an anti-Hitler, instead of an anti-Germany, foreign policy, the history of the twentieth century could have been dramatically altered. Kilzer raises the significant question: Would another policy have avoided the Holocaust?"CONTINUED

 

To return to the topic:

I think the ME needs a Palestinian Gandhi, somebody on the Palestinian side who will decide to utilize the philosophy of nonviolence. Of course, that implies they recognize Israel's right to exist, and don't the Israeli's say that if that sine qua non is granted they are willing to negotiate most anything?

If Hitler hadn't wanted to take Western Europe why didn't he just sue for peace during the "Sitzkrieg"? Invading countries, attacking refugees, and then starting to bomb cities and target civilians with incendiaries hardly seems the best way to enlist Allies, or even guarantee neutrals.

Your other idea, that an enemy ready to attack you is somehow far more vulnerable to your attack on them, seems a rather novel idea within my admittedly lacking knowledge of known military strategies. I've always been told that a good part of WWII's initial development was actually due to the fact that Stalin trusted Hitler and thought that Hitler trusted his stated goals of "Socialism in One Country", which Stalin had bolstered by exiling and then assassinating Trotsky who had been the main proponent of World Revolution. Indeed, I had always heard that Stalin so trusted Hitler that he ignored reports from his spies that German preparations for a major attack were ongoing.

In light of these objections along with a somewhat telling lack of documentation and corroboration by other historical figures ( frex I tend to disagree strongly with Suvarov's implied suggestion that Roosevelt was a naif easily misled by Churchill) I find Suvarov's books to be yet another attempt by some Germans to dissociate themselves from an uncomfortable past

 

You mean FDR and WSC, the heroes who saved the Free world from Nazism. Do explain to me how Britain 'tricked' the US into WW1? By showing them the genuine intercepted telegram offering Mexico a reward for attacking the southern US? By the German's sinking American merchant shipping? By the Germans waging a sabotage campaign against the US?

And in WW2? Was Britain responsible for the Japanese attacking Pear Harbour? Or the German's subsequently declaring war on the US?

 

1, The US was happy to support both sides, just the Germans couldn't do it because of our blockade.
2. You're talking about the actions of one pro-German diplomat
3. Of course the US supported Britain, we were the good guys.

Britain didn't start escorting merchant ships until late 1917, there is no conspiracy, ludicrous to suggest otherwise.