[source] Soviet ambassador Iwan Maisky talking to Winston Churchill, August 1941.
According to conventional wisdom, in 1939 ze evil Natzis set out to conquer the entire world, beginning with Poland. Next they conquered entire Europe plus considerable parts of the USSR. It would be only a matter of time, before they would invade America, China, India, South-America and what not else. Not bad for a country with merely 11% of global GDP:
Global GDP distribution 1941 in %:
Territories occupied by German forces, September 1943
Thank God, we had the notoriously noble Allies such as the US, USSR, British Empire, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, France, Canada, India, Australia, Morocco, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc., standing by to fight and defeat the menace, end good, all good. This explanation was brought to you free of charge at your doorstep by the victorious Allies during their trial in Nuremberg.
Good, let’s cut the crap.
The problem with trying to get the historic record straight is that most people are afraid of the opinions of others, an attitude also known as political correctness. The average lemming learns from television and other mass media what the party line is and what ideas need to be adopted.
Another problem is that if you try to get the historic record straight, you run the risk of being accused of secretly being a sympathizer of those being reviled most by the official party line.
Everybody understands that history is written by the victors and invariably to their own advantage. But now that the USSR no longer exists and the US is on the way out, it could pay off to see if this conventional view, as promoted by the Nuremberg trial, could be amended. Obviously we would not be writing these rhetorical words if we weren’t convinced that the Allies did indeed turn the truth upside down. Well, perhaps not 180 degrees, but at least 170 degrees.
Where to begin?
In 1987, a Soviet spy who defected to Britain, published a book that turned everything upside down. Viktor Suvorov in his book Icebreaker, claimed that:
Stalin used Nazi Germany as an “icebreaker” to start a war in Europe which would allow for the Soviet Union to come in, clean up, and take control of all of Europe. Suvorov claims that, just as Stalin eliminated his political enemies by pitting them against one another, so too was the plan when he gave Hitler the support to attack Poland, knowing that the act would trigger a war between Germany and the United Kingdom and its allies. The principal argument is based on an analysis of Soviet military investments, diplomatic maneuvers, Politburo speeches and other data.
Recently, Viktor Svorov has considerably sharpened his arguments made in Icebreaker in a follow-up book:
[amazon.com] – The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II
Here Viktor Suvorov explaining his theories, invited by C-Span, a US TV-channel not entirely in line with the aspirations of the the true US elite.
This book sold very well in Russia, but the western court historians never paid attention to it, as the AngloZionist-led West is not interested in revising history. Russia underwent a transformation, which paved the way to critically examine the Soviet past; Anglosphere has not undergone a transformation yet and is still interested in maintaining the Nuremberg status quo.
But we continental-Europeans are no AngloZionists and not interested to stay much longer in their multiculti bankster empire and as such have a different perspective and realize full well that well-founded historic revisionism could function as a torpedo, hitting our multicultural tormentors mid-ship. We are less interested in rehabilitation of the Nazis, but rather in attacking our overlord by eliminating the lies that keep him in a position of power. Our purpose is ‘saving European civilization’ from the US & other western oligarchs from multicultural destruction, not advocating the reintroduction of a system that perhaps once was necessary to attempt to stave off communism. But since communism is no longer around, Nazism is no longer useful, if it ever was.
The point however is that Suvorov is not radical enough. He only understands the politics of the USSR, concentrates on the relation Hitler-Stalin, but completely overlooks that secretly Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had already decided on a detailed plan to destroy Germany and the rest of continental Europe by the Spring of 1939. At least, if we are to believe a Finnish writer named Erkki Hautamaki. In reality these three had already prepared for WW2 as early as 1933, when two Jewish diplomats, the American ambassador to Paris William Bullitt and Soviet ambassador to Washington Maxim Litvinoff managed to get the USSR diplomatically recognized by the US, which was the beginning of what was to culminate in the combined effort to destroy the European planetary domination and replace it with theirs:
Details of the theory of Hautamaki can be found here (scroll downwards):
[deepresource] – Greece Wants WW2 Reparations From Germany
The question now is: how to verify the hypothesis of Erkki Hautamaki? His theory is based on the so-called Mannerheim-files, a number of documents in the possession of the Finnish leader, who decided to become an ally of Germany, for the simple reason that the Germans were the only ones willing to come to the rescue of the Finns against the Soviets during the Winter War. But these documents went missing, but not the gist. How to verify? In other words: if Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were already ‘in bed’ together, how did the necessary process of communication went about?
Our answer to that question is to concentrate on:
London, Spring and Summer 1939.
Four locations played a very prominent role in bringing WW2 about, c.q. attempts to sabotage the coming war:
1. Pied-a-terre Churchill until 1939 – 11 Morpeth Mansions
2. US Embassy – 1 Grosvenor Square
3. Soviet Embassy – 6/7 Kensington Palace Gardens
4. Flat Tyler Kent – 47 Gloucester Place
The destruction of the European world was masterminded within a few square miles in the center of London, early 1939.
There are only two candidates for Churchill to manage to communicate with Roosevelt and Stalin: the US and the Soviet embassy in London.
And as it turns out, Churchill used both communication channels to coordinate the Anglo-Soviet master plan to destroy Europe.
First the US embassy. How do we know that Churchill used the US embassy illegally, behind the back of his superior PM Chamberlain?
Easy: from the embassy clerk Tyler Kent, who had to type & decipher all the messages between the two conspirators Roosevelt and Churchill. Watching the following video (2 parts), nota bene made by the BBC, are probably the best spent 25 minutes to understand WW2:
[ihr.org] – The Roosevelt Legacy and The Kent Case
[youtube.com] – [21:48] David Irving, transatlantic communications Churchill-Roosevelt and at [24:18] refers to communications between Churchill’s son and Maisky, the Soviet ambassador.
It is a well-known fact that Churchill had been
warning beating the war drums against Germany since the mid thirties and there is reason for that, because he was used as a tool by financial circles we will elaborate on in a different context when reviewing this book.
But now the Soviet link. That’s a more difficult nut to crack.
This post was triggered by the publication of a new book by Israeli historian Gorodetsky: The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James’s, 1932-1943.
[wikipedia.org] – Gabriel Gorodetsky
[amazon.com] – The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James’s, 1932-1943
[theconversation.com] – How Moscow’s man in Westminster charmed Churchill out of Britain’s wartime secret
[wikipedia.org] – Ivan Maisky
Gorodetsky discusses the diaries of the Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky to London. Maisky is the man we need to focus on if we want to verify that there was indeed a secret communication channel between Churchill and Stalin.
Here is a video of a presentation by Gorodetsky of his new book:
At [57:00] briefly Gorodetsky touches the Suvorov theory, mentioned above, namely that Stalin embarked on the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression agreement in order to bring Germany into war ainst Britain and France, a theory we support. Predictably Gorodetsky rejects that possibility.
Youtube text: tuesday, February 26th, 2013 – “The Dramatis Personae behind the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact” Gabriel Gorodetsky: Quondam Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford, and Incumbent of the Rubin Chair for Russian Studies, Tel Aviv University.
Gabriel Gorodetsky will re-examine the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in the light of the personal diary of Ivan Maisky, Soviet ambassador in London from 1934-1943. Rather than focus on the traditional controversy concerning the role of ideology in the formulation of Stalin’s foreign policy an emphasis will be put on the role of the personalities involved in the process, as well as the political culture in which they performed. The impact of the purges on the execution of foreign policy, in enhancing preconceived ideas and mutual suspicions, would emerge as a key to understanding Stalin’s fateful decision to side with Nazi Germany, paving the way to the outbreak of World War II.
It is obvious that Maisky would not publicly admit in his diaries that he played a part in a conspiracy between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin to get WW2 started. And equally, court historian Gorodetsky has no intentions of lifting the veil either and damage his own tribal interests.
So neither Maisky nor Gorodetsky will hand us a smoking gun. However a clue can be found in another book by Maisky that can be found online:
p55 – I do not know who was responsible for the meeting between Churchill and myself, Churchill or Vansittart: but it is a fact that on that warm July evening in 1934 the six of us were seated at table talking about various current topics. When after coffee the ladies, according to British custom, withdrew to the drawing-room, and only the three men remained at table, a more serious conversation began. During this conversation Churchill frankly explained his position to me:
‘The British Empire/ said Churchill, ‘is my be-all and end-all. What is good for the British Empire is good for me too; what is bad for the British Empire is had for me… In 1919 I considered that the greatest danger to the British Empire was your country, and therefore I was an enemy of your country. Now I consider that the greatest danger for the British Empire is Germany, and therefore now I am an enemy of Germany. At the same time I consider that Hitler is making ready to expand not only against us but also to the east, against you. Why should we not join forces to combat our common enemy? I have been an adversary of Communism, and remain its adversary, but for the sake of the integrity of the British Empire I am ready to cooperate with the Soviets.
[pdf] – Ivan Maisky, “Who helped Hitler”
There you have it! Churchill confided to Maisky (and thus indirectly to Stalin) during his ‘wilderness years’ 1930-1939 that he was ready for an alliance with Stalin in order to destroy Germany… as early as 1934. That attitude would not change until 1945. And Churchill early on had powerful Zionist financial backers that wanted him to bring about war in Europe in order to get the US global empire started. And before 1938, both the US and USSR were under firm control of said interests. The years 1937-1939 were a struggle between the British war party with Churchill as its leader and PM Neville Chamberlain. The latter understood perfectly well the game that was being played and he managed to avoid any personal meeting with Roosevelt, despite repeated invitations. Chamberlain was a decent man, who really defended the interests of the British Empire, unlike the corrupt war monger Churchill. Chamberlain understood that the post-Versailles order could not be maintained and that the existence of Germany needed to be accepted. But when Hitler handed the Czech crisis clumsily (Germans are great engineers but not great diplomats), the war party in Britain finally got the upper hand and PM Chamberlain was forced to issue the fatal war guarantee for Poland under heavy pressure of the Americans and British war party. That was precisely the mechanism with which the Americans could get the war started in Europe, by encouraging the Poles to dump any prudence at all and provoke a war with Germany under the false assumption that the Allies would help them regardless. That was a lie, the Poles were just being used as the useful idiot to get the war started and after the war were handed over to the loving care of Stalin.
Summary: Viktor Suvorov claims that Stalin tricked Hitler into invading Poland by giving Hitler a false sense of security via the Non-agression Treaty and Suvorov is correct. What Suvorov fails to see is that in the Spring of 1939, when Hitler tried to solve the Danzig crisis peacefully, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were already in agreement that a European war was desirable in the interest of the US and USSR, which meant carving up Europe and add them to the US and Soviet sphere of influence. The way to achieve war was for America to push Britain and France into giving the Poles a carte blanche with this reckless Polish war guarantee…
Life magazine, October 15, 1951
…and once that was in place, the Americans only needed to incite the Poles for maximum demands (including persecuting the Germans forced to live in Versailles Poland and preying on Eastern Prussia) to ensure that Germany was forced to invade Poland (to come to the aid of their persecuted countrymen) and the European scale war was a fact and thanks to Churchill would be escalated into a world war.
It was btw exactly the same game the Americans played in 2014 in Ukraine: inciting Ukrainian nationalists to ethnically cleanse Donbass from ‘Moskals’, in an attempt to lure Russia into military intervening in the Ukraine and as such trapping Russia in a major military confrontation, just like happened to Germany in 1939. But Vladimir the Great knows his history and didn’t bite, much to the chagrin of the neocohns in Washington.
In 1939 Poland, Britain and France were used by the US and USSR and they couldn’t have done so if not for the traitor Winston Churchill, who had been beating the drums of war for years… in the interest of his mainly Zionist financial backers (much more on that later).
Independent conformation of the narrative as presented above can be acquired from this:
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, the American ambassador to France William Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him:
Just like in WW1, in WW2 Germany was the hunted and the US, Russia/USSR, Britain and France were the hunters. In Nuremberg they told the world that it was precisely the other way around.
But with the internet around nobody can stop the truth anymore.
[theconversation.com] – Excerpts from the Maisky Diaries
[muse.jhu.edu] – Stafford Cripps in Moscow, 1940-1942
[deepresource] – The Winter War Finland-USSR 1939-1940
[deepresource] – 1941
[deepresource] – William Bullitt, the Architect of World War 2
[deepresource] – The Soviet Story
[deepresource] – The American Century
[deepresource] – Stalingrad
[deepresource] – US Dissidents Embrace Historic Revisionism
[deepresource] – The Chief Culprit
[deepresource] – 1941 – Iwan Maisky, Soviet Ambassador to London
[deepresource] – Why We Fight: The Battle of Russia
[deepresource] – The Truth About Pearl Harbor
[deepresource] – Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[deepresource] – The Battle for Norway – Hitler’s Pre-emptive War
[deepresource] – 74 Years Ago: Operation Barbarossa