Hitler versus Rothschild: the Logistics and Background of World War Two

I thought through Revisionist History it was a sure fire bet that the Soviets were headed West and something had to be done?

That 'something' involved getting your nation genocided and handing over all power to the Talmuds?

Anyone who thinks Hitler was good proves themselves to have terrible judgement, and a 3rd rate mind.

People confuse the righteousness of Hitler's cause, with the actions of Hitler. No one cares if you are 'right,' in politics only victories count.
 
I'm not at Liberty or qualified to discuss Military decision making of the 3rd Reich's Artist Chancellor.

But I pose the question...Then who was qualified and stacked militarially in a world of Multi-National Corporations where resources are scarce and not too many Nations, besides The U.S. and Russia who have vast Natural Resources to sustain a Pro-longed Multi-front war. That being said...that vast International Economic Network (Globo-Ho-Mo) has, just guessing a large Dominion of Jews at the helm or behind the scenes as Financiers. That being said Was anybody short of Jesus Christ in the 2nd Coming really ready to take on the Dark Principalities? Especially when World Jewry Declared War on Germany in '33 I believe.

I mean all those Anglosphere'ed Civilized Statesmen and Generals were evidently in the Jews pocket. And the Judeo-Masonic powers were on the March, i.e. Russian Revolution, So playing Devil's advocate who was equipped Politically and Militarily to take on an old foe whom evidently had the Horsepower to live out their wicked playbook and Destroy "Amalek" once and for all?

Maybe this is adolescent to say, but maybe Hitler should've Firebombed the "Square Mile" or the London Banking District to really get to the point.
 
Last edited:
....That's if he as a Leader Declared Germans Free from International Finance Jewry in 1933. It would have sent a Clear Message. That was my critique of the Austrian Artists...

Funny enough aren't several of the European Nations such as Northern Italy and France and other Nations abound basically are sect of Germanic People's?
 
But I pose the question...Then who was qualified and stacked militarially in a world of Multi-National Corporations where resources are scarce and not too many Nations, besides The U.S. and Russia who have vast Natural Resources to sustain a Pro-longed Multi-front war.

Read the thread? I've listed numerous blunders of Hitler, and Japan. It's ridiculous Hitler lost, Germany had no reason to lose and yet they did.
 
@magoo
Hitler good with great stache. Very stylish khaki look. Flag design impecable indeliably burned into Jungian collective world unconsciousness for eternity because of Litler's great fail artist background. German engineering and metalturgy top of races because of God chosen arian supreme. Bratwurst spicy mustard sauerkraut dog with pilsner in bmw and porche very tasty, especially giant pretzel with thick blonde fraulein in lederhosen enlisted by joy division. Litler confiscate all jew stolen french art because french too stinky and dumb to know Van Gogh art good until dead. Also Litler kick french ass because french weak scared of war fagglts suck jew foreskin and why US save their rubber trees in vietnam
 
Last edited:
Could WW2 Germany have actually invaded Britain with troops? How would Germany have been able to knock Britain out of the war when its naval forces couldn't hold a candle to Britain's navy? It's my understanding that the British launched Operation Catapult to seize, control, or destroy France's fleet and prevent Germany from acquiring it and using it against Britain. That is, Britain knew that Germany's naval forces were inferior to Britain's fleet and they did not want to lose their advantage to Germany.

I'm open to thoughts from anyone.
The main instance of Catapault was the attack on Mers-el-Kebir, in French Algeria, which was an embarrasment for the Allies. English and French were both openly killing each other this day while just previously they were both in unison in a declared war on Germany. The results were almost footnote-worthy, as if one battleship that was sunk was enough to deter German maritime countermeasures to the British Navy. The British reported phony losses of German U-boats all throughout the war. France was in a peaceful Armistice with Germany after June 1940, and was technically no longer a combatant in the war, so it was technically just England versus Germany then. Britain took no hesitation to refrain from attacking French assets. Very slithery moves on their part due to Churchill's incessant warmongering, as this attack on the French ships galvanized many Frenchmen to fight for the Axis in what eventually became the Waffen-SS divisions which held out beyond the last Germans. Churchill would not tolerate anyone making peace with Germany, and these sentiments were echoed from fellow jew FDR across the pond. The French fleet would have ultimately yielded little in an invasion on England.

The conclusion of the French campaign prohibited Germany from launching an invasion on Britain. because the various situations in central Europe were deteriorating from partisan and communist influence. Yugoslavia and the Balkans had divided populaces on the Axis and the Soviets, and Stalin's armies had already breached the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact on at least four occasions before the Spring of 1941. Germany's attention was greatly required in the east. As for invading England, it remains one of history's most debated military disputes. No one here can give an absolute answer, no matter what they say. The general consensus is that no, they wouldn't have tried an invasion for multiple reasons. One that is evident is that the Royal Navy did pose a significant challenge for whatever naval forces the Kriegsmarine could muster if there was an intention to invade England. Instead, fortress Europa, or fortifications built around France were the order to deter English landings. It took 4 years for them to break back through to France albeit as a minority force within the larger American invasion force, so in retrospect, lining the French coast with cement barriers and legions of foreign troops was a deterrent path that allowed the Reich to focus on the developments in the east (there were lots of French Axis, Russian POW-turned Axis soldiers, and even soldiers from the Far East among the captured combatants at D Day by the Allies).

The issue is not with Germany invading England, but that England acted as a transit for the Lend-Lease Act of all the military equipment going into Murmansk, USSR from the USA starting heavily in late 1941. I don't know how well-informed the German high command were on the artery of barges from the USA into the USSR until the spring of 1942 when they started seeing more American tanks on the battlefield under Soviet command instead of Russian tanks. The behind-the-back moves of USA, England, and the USSR were not something fully realized until well after the war. Their open moves were well known, but the complete logistics of how they were able to exhaust the Axis is something that can only be analyzed in retrospect.

For everyone claiming Hitler opened two fronts of war, they don't seem to understand sequence of events. The First front, unwanted, and undeclared by Germany, was opened upon Germany by England and France in September 1939. France invaded Germany before Germany in turn reacted. The Second front was, by military law, already opened by Stalin upon Germany in the beginning of 1941 because of the USSR's breaches in the non-aggression pact by various bombings in neutral countries and their building up of all the offensive fortifications (runways, main routes for tanks and troop carriers, along the west/east border, where Germany had not done such.) Both fronts were waged against Germany, and Europe, by outside threats. Had Germany not reacted to this, then the USSR would have likely pummeled through them, France, and Spain with the treacherous assistance of FDR and his Lend Lease devilry, and none of Europe would be around today that resembles its former past. Essentially the boot of Italy was a third front which in the order of events is the second front on the European homeland that was forced on Europe by the Allies, again not started by Hitler. Pseudo-historians who advocate this two-front-idiocy of Hitler's military prowess also don't seem to understand the minutia of the Diktat of Versailles and everything that changed because of it, which Hitler was undoing bit by bit without ever firing a shot prior to the Polish situation, where his moves had successfully overturned most of the injustice of Versailles.
 
Last edited:
The First front, unwanted, and undeclared by Germany, was opened upon Germany by England and France in September 1939. France invaded Germany before Germany in turn reacted.

A big fat lie. Operation Pike shows both France and England were considering invading the USSR before Germany's surprise invasion of Poland.
 
Can people please stop heaping abuse on people of German descent? Calling them "devils", "cancer", "dumb", and "enemies of Europe" is completely inappropriate. Dr. E. Michael Jones is part German and he's a great defender of the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity. Pope Benedict XVI was German as well. Fomenting racial hatred against any group is a bad look for this website. Let's try to aim for a higher quality of discussion here.
 
Can people please stop heaping abuse on people of German descent? Calling them "devils", "cancer", "dumb", and "enemies of Europe" is completely inappropriate. Dr. E. Michael Jones is part German and he's a great defender of the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity. Pope Benedict XVI was German as well. Fomenting racial hatred against any group is a bad look for this website. Let's try to aim for a higher quality of discussion here.
I guess it doesn't violate the rules and the rules don't need to be updated.
 
Can people please stop heaping abuse on people of German descent? Calling them "devils", "cancer", "dumb", and "enemies of Europe" is completely inappropriate. Dr. E. Michael Jones is part German and he's a great defender of the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity. Pope Benedict XVI was German as well. Fomenting racial hatred against any group is a bad look for this website. Let's try to aim for a higher quality of discussion here.

A german complaining about racial hatred against a group...

Those are obviously figures of speech. Not meant to be taken literally. Germans are not a cancer. Or devils.

Figures of speech as Musicforthepiano would say a concept clearly invented by a german author: Frumgwasvaltensheishestanlein.
 
Can people please stop heaping abuse on people of German descent? Calling them "devils", "cancer", "dumb", and "enemies of Europe" is completely inappropriate. Dr. E. Michael Jones is part German and he's a great defender of the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity. Pope Benedict XVI was German as well. Fomenting racial hatred against any group is a bad look for this website. Let's try to aim for a higher quality of discussion here.

People vent on groups here all the time, Blacks, Talmuds, women, etc. There is merit to discussing groups. I agree with you however, that the criticisms of Germans here seem too extreme, but, people can have their opinions on these subjects but I would caution people about being too dogmatic. The goal is to learn not espouse an ideaology.

As for Germans, one of the most severe criticisms I've heard about Germans came from a German himself, Arthur Schopenhauer, who called Germans nitwits easily fooled by the latest fashion. He said that about 100 years before Hitler, so I think he may have been onto something.

"But the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had previously been known only in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, and will remain as a monument to German stupidity. "
- The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2 (1844)
 
People vent on groups here all the time, Blacks, Talmuds, women, etc. There is merit to discussing groups. I agree with you however, that the criticisms of Germans here seem too extreme, but, people can have their opinions on these subjects but I would caution people about being too dogmatic. The goal is to learn not espouse an ideaology.

As for Germans, one of the most severe criticisms I've heard about Germans came from a German himself, Arthur Schopenhauer, who called Germans nitwits easily fooled by the latest fashion. He said that about 100 years before Hitler, so I think he may have been onto something.

"But the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had previously been known only in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, and will remain as a monument to German stupidity. "
- The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2 (1844)
I understand and appreciate that, but banter should be kept to other threads. People should be discussing the merits/demerits of the NS regime in Germany ITT.
 
A big fat lie. Operation Pike shows both France and England were considering invading the USSR before Germany's surprise invasion of Poland.
Detecting porkies here, this was mostly planned in 1940 to stop the oil supply from Soviet Russia to Germany.
 
Detecting porkies here, this was mostly planned in 1940 to stop the oil supply from Soviet Russia to Germany.
Right, and if there was a large attack on the USSR by France and Britain, Hitler would have found himself with allies when attacking the USSR, and not enemies.
 
Right, and if there was a large attack on the USSR by France and Britain, Hitler would have found himself with allies when attacking the USSR, and not enemies.
A big fat lie. Operation Pike shows both France and England were considering invading the USSR before Germany's surprise invasion of Poland.

Most of this reply is a fleshing out of these considerations you raise here, more the background of what Unz used to write this article you posted and some previous sentiments about the nature of war. So read whenever you have time.

The idea is interesting, but Operation Pike never made it past the theoretical drafting phases prior to Germany's September 1st 1939 return-fire on the Polish forces and subsequent rescue of ethnic Germans. It is prudent we do not call this an invasion or an unprovoked attack, because most of the territory Germany engaged the Polish forces on was legitimate German soil where Germans, not Poles were suffering. The Polish mobilization kept escalating every time the Ribbentrop asked for terms about Prussia, the Danzig corridor, and the slaughtered civilians. The murder of ethnic Germans didn't cease until September 18th when German troops entered Lowitsch (Lowicz). If we look at the chronology of Hitler's speeches we see Poland pop up more rapidly starting in April of 1939, almost five months before the war began, because after the Sudeten Volksgenossen were saved from communist-inspired Czechs and and Bolshevik gangs operating with impunity under Benes by Hitler's intervention in the Sudeten referendum, the strategy was then enacted with ridiculous propaganda by British intelligence on the Polish radio against the ethnic Germans then living in 'Germany-redrawn-into-Poland.'

When the USSR entered on the east borders of Poland on September 17th, (which they had no claim to, it simply did because Germany was now in a non-aggression pact with it and would not attack it upon remaining within the agreed influence boundary) was the true litmus test of where England's top loyalties lay. They had every reason to go and bomb the Oil Fields then, and the USSR was not suped up with all the Lend Lease gibs from FDR, so it would have been little resistance to England, but they did not. Hitler also knew that England's promises to Poland were fake, and this was proved true based on England's reaction.

There is no evidence to suggest that Operation Pike was imminent or directly linked to the German advance on France, which was a delayed response to France's invasion of the Saar in Germany in 1939. (Another instance of someone else attacking Germany first, just like Poland). Operation Pike wasn't revisited for potential strategies by the British again until Stalin's setback in Finland of May 1940. This is from the book "Operation Pike: Britain Versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941 by Patrick Osborn" that Unz used to base this theory off of from the article you originally posted. It would not have been an "invasion" of the USSR, but simply a bombing operation on remote oil facilities far away from Soviet cities. The British and American strategic bombing of German cities was intentional and resulted in extremely high civilian casualties alongside widespread infrastructure and environmental destruction, whereas Operation Pike had a different strategic objective and was not meant to be anything more than a denial of resources.

The book Unz uses is highly speculative and misses out on many pertinent details of both the funds of the British Empire during this time and the movements of the USSR. For a more accurate in-depth understanding of British-Soviet relations, this document here is better sourced, it contains a chapter of the prelude of the war and not just 1941:

"In the House of Rimmon: British Aid to the Soviet Union, June-September 1941"
https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/68a26daf-71df-45f1-b86c-bfe994005ef1/content

Churchill was very anti-Soviet and anti-communist in the 1920s, but his hatred for Hitler, bought and paid for by the Focus Group, was more important to their future. The British only had aerial reconnaissance flights done of the Baku fields, which were fired upon by Soviet sentries stationed there. Had someone other than Churchill been pushed to the front of English politics then perhaps England would have ceased its warmongering with Germany and been more anti-USSR. The most important thing about Operation Pike was that it was deemed ineffective in stopping the German supply of fuel, most of which came from Romania. The English were only willing to risk war with the USSR if it meant for sure the defeat of Germany (revealing Churchill's pathology once again) and it was assessed by British intelligence that Baku was not a worthy investment for the defeat of Germany. So the entire premise of the Unz article is based on misinterpreting Osborn's book about the timeline of the oil embargo and the assessment of German fuel reserves by the British which led to them constructing the idea of the potential Operation Pike after May of 1940. The Unz article says that it was prior to the fall of France, but it was logistically the most fleshed-out after the fall of France. The idea of Germany not going into France (a country that declared war on it and had physically invaded it both in 1939) to end the war would not make sense. They reached an armistice and the operations in France were a massive success.

The next time they opened up talks of bombing the Caucasian oil fields was after July 1941, with the consent of Russian oil experts, to convince them of an alliance with England and that England would supply oil during and after the war to the USSR at the cost of bombing their oil fields to prevent German use of the resource. There was never any inclination of any invasion or war of England and France against the USSR.

The idea of the USSR fighting England, it joining the tripartite (becoming the quadripartite) is a massive hypothetical which is not uncommon in the Unz articles and alternative WW2 mythos. Entertaining theories, but not much more. We can draw more congruent parallels to how these events would have played out from real life similar events between England and other countries that were friendly towards Germany and how England behaved towards those countries. France is the epitome example of this since it has been talked about quite a bit here recently.

The way the English acted at Mers-el-Kebir was considered one of the most shameful acts in the war by the Allies themselves, over 1200 French sailors were killed in the strafing and bombing runs from the British fighters when just months earlier those same British fighters were on "their' side. All so that the Germans wouldn't acquire a few French battleships. The English lay magnetic sea mines at the harbor entrance, to prevent the ships from leaving, and French pilots even attacked British ships from the air while some British planes were shot down by the boats under fire. It wasn't just a "sinking of the French Fleet" it was a major attack on the French forces by the English. This battle was very significant and should have sparked a war between England and France in early Summer of 1940, but no war came.

Admiral Somerville, who carried out the attack on the French Fleet under Churchill's orders, wrote in his diaries that he held back a lot during the attack and had many regrets about it. He was likely against the aggressive warmongering orders Churchill kept giving him as he also let the Italian fleet get away on several occasions. The French were ready to completely switch sides and enter the war as a combatant against England had De Gaulle's funding of the partisans not been such a disruptive force. The French did retaliate against the English with raids on Gibraltar on July 5th, two days after Mers-el-Kebir, and the English responded by going back to the harbor again on the 8th of July and blasting the damaged battleships some more, killing more Frenchmen. Yet this significant back-and-forth conflict never amounted to anything substantial that would hinder England or assist the German war effort. It actually proved to be a massive waste of resources as the French fleet it attacked was far beyond the reach of the Axis yet they still chose to destroy most of it. Churchill was fuming that the French decided to have an Armistice with Germany and his reaction was that of a raging hormonal woman that cost many French lives.

In between all of this madness the British basically carried on via funds from the USA after their humiliation and unexpected retreat at Dunkirk. This is never explicitly talked about. The only reason why Churchill kept refusing every single one of Hitler's two-dozen peace offers between 1939 and 1941 was because he used his fraternal connections to push the US to covertly assist him in the war. Many of the arguments for Hitler doing this or not doing that in Europe between May of 1940 and June of 1941 do not consider that Hitler had no control over the affect of the United States, or how FDR was a more chillingly lethal adversary in the shadows than Churchill's open and brazen warmongering. Hitler ultimately pinned the blame of the war on FDR with Churchill merely being an accomplice when their crimes were both measured out by those they proceeded to kill. The post-Dunkirk and pre-Pearl Harbor events are some of the most complex of the war:

"Despite the British Empire's vast resources, and the millions of men at her disposal, including 1 million Australians, 2 million Indians, 1 million Canadians, Churchill and Roosevelt will push for the US to enter the war. However, polls consistently show that ordinary Americans have no have no wish to be involved in what to them is just another European civil war.

In spite of this, Roosevelt will now force laws through congress making a mockery of the USA's supposed neutrality.

1939 - The US Neutrality Act was repealed in favor of a one-sided arms supply to Germany's enemies.

That same year, Roosevelt freezes the assets of all defeated European countries, refusing to recognize their new governments.

1940 - The "Destroyers for US Bases"
agreement is passed, whereby 50 reconditioned US Navy destroyers are transferred to the Royal Navy in exchange for British bases in the Caribbean.

1940 - Roosevelt will persuade congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act which officially ends his pretense of being neutral. He will also allow American citizens to enter the British Air Force.

1941 - Roosevelt freezes all German assets in the US, a violation of international law.

The US announces an oil embargo against "aggressor" nations.

$1 billion dollars in Lend-Lease aid is sent to Britain.

The US will eventually ship a total of $31.4 billion worth of supplies, the equivalent of $445 billion in today's money. The loans will take Britain 61 years to repay, with the last installment made in 2006.

The enormous amount of US funds, along with the covert US operations in the Atlantic, help Britain sustain the war against Germany.

The quick knockout blow Goring had hoped for now seemed unlikely, and the Battle of Britain will shortly give way to a more important fight.

Hitler will now concentrate on the battle he believes will eventaully decide the outcome of World War Two.

On December 11, 1941 he gives a speech describing the growing Soviet menace.

"Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear form month to month that the plans of the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of Europe. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of unique world-historical proportions was being carried out."

Clearly the Soviet Union had been expanding West.

30 November 3919 - Finalnd is attacked.
21 Feb 1940 - Sweden is bombed.
18 June 1940 - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are invaded.
27 June 1940 - Romania is forced by Stalin to surrender Bessarabia (Moldavia)."


- TGSNT Part 7.

The British immediately switched to supplying the Soviet Union after Barbarossa began, while still retaining potential plans to bomb their oil fields when the Germans were approaching it in late 1941-1942, which reflects their consistent behavior of simply destroying Germany by any means necessary. Since Lend-Lease effectively kept the Soviet slave empire on life support, it proved to be a more effective method for their cause (destroying Germany no matter who else gets destroyed in the future) than bombing oil fields, so Pike never manifested because of British planning. So wasteful were these bloodthirtsty warmongering policies, that the economic disasters which accompanied them ended up bankrupting the British Empire post-war. It was specifically the actions of the British War Cabinet that are responsible for the destruction of Europe, enabling the hellscape of the east by supplying the USSR with endless equipment via the shipping lanes from America, and agitating for war amongst the European peoples without mercy for those who spoke against the war, and didn't give a hoot who got hurt in their desperate bid to maintain themselves as the worlds primary superpower which they ended up losing.

If the British bombed the Caucasian oil fields with much less Soviet personnel and loss of life and simply jogged off back to merry old England it may have pissed off Stalin but Churchill, Stalin, and all other western leaders were united in their fraternal oaths beyond any national interests, and were kept to the orders of their jewish advisors above all other earthly goals. This was clearly evident post-war with all the betrayals of England: nearly every single Pole, Croat, Serb, Cossack, Ukrainian, Russian defector, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Belarussian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Bulgarian they sent back to Stalin were annihilated by death squads just over the eastern borders or stuffed like sardines in freight cars to go live the gulag life.

There are multiple mini timelines to be cognizant of when suggesting this alternative of alliances and adversaries along with the general sequence of action - reaction specific to the British-French-German-USSR interactions, which can be confusing to even adept historians without microscopic scrutiny. The German-USSR Non Aggression Pact was official from August 22nd 1939 - June 22nd 1941. (The whole premise of this pact was to ensure that with Stalin on his side that England and France would not interfere with his plans to save the Germans in Poland and to use the peaceful nature to receive a steady supply of resources from the East in new trade deals). The nature of the Non-aggression pacts with the USSR are complex, as Japan also signed one with the USSR in 1941 but were betrayed by the USSR in August of 1945 just prior to the war's end in Manchukuo with another ridiculous battle that killed tens of thousands of men for no reason. As I posted above, Stalin had clearly violated it numerous times prior to Barbarossa and the gambit for that pivotal event was up to who struck first. The US-dominated world would not have come to Germany's aid had the USSR struck first as they intended to do in July of 1941.

The German power that protected Christendom then was antithetical to these masonic machinations which were aggravated by the personal jewish hatred for losing their control over the German people with their usurious economics. Most of the war was proactive unprovoked "punishment" from the judeo-masonic lens upon a free Germany and Austria.

Never before was such a grave betrayal seen by brother kindred, and it pales against many of the previous inter-religious conflicts between Christians in the preceding centuries due to the gravity of the sheer number of deaths and the magnitude of destruction that the first modern war like this caused, greater than WW1 in all fronts except for chemical gas weapons.

In 1939 there was no a priori "I should wipe them all out because they will never allow peace," but flash forward 80 years and we can say otherwise for what we're dealing with now, as in all the corrupted Whites who have sold-out quite literally everything for the sake of a jewish escahtology and betraying their Christian origins for doing so in ways they will never know except on Judgment day. So I will meet you halfway on the claim of the necessity of wiping out a brother who is infested with Talmudic masonic masters. Anyone who assumes command now and studies history knows this, and should act accordingly going forward. Hence why we learn from history.. then again, the Rothschilds were running their operations out of Switzerland uninterrupted during the whole of the war, not just England or its internal (((City of London))), and Switzerland was not being aggressive at all. Had Hitler invaded Switzerland is a debatable topic, many Rebbe's fled their after pushing aggressively for jews to accept the Haavara and leave specifically for Palestine, yet these jews stayed in Switzerland until well after the war. Some never left, and it remains a hub for parasitic bankers to this day (along with occult techno-fetishists, they all could use a good stake burning).

I look at the state of affairs for England and Germany today as isolated cases for independent critique, and I see a difference in that the eastern Germans have significant towns, and mid-sized cities where I have visited that are not lit up with so many non-Germans (or non-Europeans, as there are many Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Slovenians, and other similar ethnicities living there). Even rural areas in West Germany are not scathed like their cities are of this rot. On the east the provinces of Saxony, Brandenburg (outside the Berlin cesspit) even parts of Bayern (Bavaria) are very rural and the native Germans there still tend to the land as they always have. In England however, it is utterly hopeless in some places that will now never change without a literal hot war by a dwindling English population against incredible odds.

For as destroyed as Germany was following 1945, and for how grim all European nation's futures look, the German people are going to survive a lot longer than England at the rate that island is replacing itself. A European Identity is forming in this century that, though it may consist of less European people surrounded by non-Whites in the world around them, will be sharper, stronger, faster, smarter, and more spiritual than any previous iteration of a collective identity. Coincidentally, East Germany is much more Christian than England is. Less globohomo churches, less trannification, less blasphemous laws, despite whatever the puppets are pushing from Berlin. So when I see the results of the destruction from 80 years ago today, I see Germany suffering second only to England, which is a realization of what Churchill's pyrrhic victory cost him. The damage Churchill did to England may never change and it may become a permanent offshore satellite for Mohammedans, Africans, and Pajeets to mix foul weather with excrement and become the literal shittiest place on earth, surpassing even Canada. Unless the Irish race rises up and takes it over, which is a future possibility, and if they ever attain the means to carry that out it would be their God-given mandate to do so. Lord have mercy.

This book here for anyone who wants to learn more about the statistical specifics of how jewified Germany was during Weimar:

"jewish Domination of Weimar Germany 1919-1932"
https://ia803007.us.archive.org/7/items/JewishDominationOfWeimarGermany_201904/Jewish domination of Weimar Germany.pdf
Specifically page 24 "The jews as the apostles of communism" is of interest.
 
Last edited:
Most of this reply is a fleshing out of these considerations you raise here, more the background of what Unz used to write this article you posted and some previous sentiments about the nature of war. So read whenever you have time.

The idea is interesting, but Operation Pike never made it past the theoretical drafting phases prior to Germany's September 1st 1939 return-fire on the Polish forces and subsequent rescue of ethnic Germans. It is prudent we do not call this an invasion or an unprovoked attack, because most of the territory Germany engaged the Polish forces on was legitimate German soil where Germans, not Poles were suffering. The Polish mobilization kept escalating every time the Ribbentrop asked for terms about Prussia, the Danzig corridor, and the slaughtered civilians. The murder of ethnic Germans didn't cease until September 18th when German troops entered Lowitsch (Lowicz). If we look at the chronology of Hitler's speeches we see Poland pop up more rapidly starting in April of 1939, almost five months before the war began, because after the Sudeten Volksgenossen were saved from communist-inspired Czechs and and Bolshevik gangs operating with impunity under Benes by Hitler's intervention in the Sudeten referendum, the strategy was then enacted with ridiculous propaganda by British intelligence on the Polish radio against the ethnic Germans then living in 'Germany-redrawn-into-Poland.'

When the USSR entered on the east borders of Poland on September 17th, (which they had no claim to, it simply did because Germany was now in a non-aggression pact with it and would not attack it upon remaining within the agreed influence boundary) was the true litmus test of where England's top loyalties lay. They had every reason to go and bomb the Oil Fields then, and the USSR was not suped up with all the Lend Lease gibs from FDR, so it would have been little resistance to England, but they did not. Hitler also knew that England's promises to Poland were fake, and this was proved true based on England's reaction.

There is no evidence to suggest that Operation Pike was imminent or directly linked to the German advance on France, which was a delayed response to France's invasion of the Saar in Germany in 1939. (Another instance of someone else attacking Germany first, just like Poland). Operation Pike wasn't revisited for potential strategies by the British again until Stalin's setback in Finland of May 1940. This is from the book "Operation Pike: Britain Versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941 by Patrick Osborn" that Unz used to base this theory off of from the article you originally posted. It would not have been an "invasion" of the USSR, but simply a bombing operation on remote oil facilities far away from Soviet cities. The British and American strategic bombing of German cities was intentional and resulted in extremely high civilian casualties alongside widespread infrastructure and environmental destruction, whereas Operation Pike had a different strategic objective and was not meant to be anything more than a denial of resources.

The book Unz uses is highly speculative and misses out on many pertinent details of both the funds of the British Empire during this time and the movements of the USSR. For a more accurate in-depth understanding of British-Soviet relations, this document here is better sourced, it contains a chapter of the prelude of the war and not just 1941:

"In the House of Rimmon: British Aid to the Soviet Union, June-September 1941"
https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/68a26daf-71df-45f1-b86c-bfe994005ef1/content

Churchill was very anti-Soviet and anti-communist in the 1920s, but his hatred for Hitler, bought and paid for by the Focus Group, was more important to their future. The British only had aerial reconnaissance flights done of the Baku fields, which were fired upon by Soviet sentries stationed there. Had someone other than Churchill been pushed to the front of English politics then perhaps England would have ceased its warmongering with Germany and been more anti-USSR. The most important thing about Operation Pike was that it was deemed ineffective in stopping the German supply of fuel, most of which came from Romania. The English were only willing to risk war with the USSR if it meant for sure the defeat of Germany (revealing Churchill's pathology once again) and it was assessed by British intelligence that Baku was not a worthy investment for the defeat of Germany. So the entire premise of the Unz article is based on misinterpreting Osborn's book about the timeline of the oil embargo and the assessment of German fuel reserves by the British which led to them constructing the idea of the potential Operation Pike after May of 1940. The Unz article says that it was prior to the fall of France, but it was logistically the most fleshed-out after the fall of France. The idea of Germany not going into France (a country that declared war on it and had physically invaded it both in 1939) to end the war would not make sense. They reached an armistice and the operations in France were a massive success.

The next time they opened up talks of bombing the Caucasian oil fields was after July 1941, with the consent of Russian oil experts, to convince them of an alliance with England and that England would supply oil during and after the war to the USSR at the cost of bombing their oil fields to prevent German use of the resource. There was never any inclination of any invasion or war of England and France against the USSR.

The idea of the USSR fighting England, it joining the tripartite (becoming the quadripartite) is a massive hypothetical which is not uncommon in the Unz articles and alternative WW2 mythos. Entertaining theories, but not much more. We can draw more congruent parallels to how these events would have played out from real life similar events between England and other countries that were friendly towards Germany and how England behaved towards those countries. France is the epitome example of this since it has been talked about quite a bit here recently.

The way the English acted at Mers-el-Kebir was considered one of the most shameful acts in the war by the Allies themselves, over 1200 French sailors were killed in the strafing and bombing runs from the British fighters when just months earlier those same British fighters were on "their' side. All so that the Germans wouldn't acquire a few French battleships. The English lay magnetic sea mines at the harbor entrance, to prevent the ships from leaving, and French pilots even attacked British ships from the air while some British planes were shot down by the boats under fire. It wasn't just a "sinking of the French Fleet" it was a major attack on the French forces by the English. This battle was very significant and should have sparked a war between England and France in early Summer of 1940, but no war came.

Admiral Somerville, who carried out the attack on the French Fleet under Churchill's orders, wrote in his diaries that he held back a lot during the attack and had many regrets about it. He was likely against the aggressive warmongering orders Churchill kept giving him as he also let the Italian fleet get away on several occasions. The French were ready to completely switch sides and enter the war as a combatant against England had De Gaulle's funding of the partisans not been such a disruptive force. The French did retaliate against the English with raids on Gibraltar on July 5th, two days after Mers-el-Kebir, and the English responded by going back to the harbor again on the 8th of July and blasting the damaged battleships some more, killing more Frenchmen. Yet this significant back-and-forth conflict never amounted to anything substantial that would hinder England or assist the German war effort. It actually proved to be a massive waste of resources as the French fleet it attacked was far beyond the reach of the Axis yet they still chose to destroy most of it. Churchill was fuming that the French decided to have an Armistice with Germany and his reaction was that of a raging hormonal woman that cost many French lives.

In between all of this madness the British basically carried on via funds from the USA after their humiliation and unexpected retreat at Dunkirk. This is never explicitly talked about. The only reason why Churchill kept refusing every single one of Hitler's two-dozen peace offers between 1939 and 1941 was because he used his fraternal connections to push the US to covertly assist him in the war. Many of the arguments for Hitler doing this or not doing that in Europe between May of 1940 and June of 1941 do not consider that Hitler had no control over the affect of the United States, or how FDR was a more chillingly lethal adversary in the shadows than Churchill's open and brazen warmongering. Hitler ultimately pinned the blame of the war on FDR with Churchill merely being an accomplice when their crimes were both measured out by those they proceeded to kill. The post-Dunkirk and pre-Pearl Harbor events are some of the most complex of the war:

"Despite the British Empire's vast resources, and the millions of men at her disposal, including 1 million Australians, 2 million Indians, 1 million Canadians, Churchill and Roosevelt will push for the US to enter the war. However, polls consistently show that ordinary Americans have no have no wish to be involved in what to them is just another European civil war.

In spite of this, Roosevelt will now force laws through congress making a mockery of the USA's supposed neutrality.

1939 - The US Neutrality Act was repealed in favor of a one-sided arms supply to Germany's enemies.

That same year, Roosevelt freezes the assets of all defeated European countries, refusing to recognize their new governments.

1940 - The "Destroyers for US Bases"
agreement is passed, whereby 50 reconditioned US Navy destroyers are transferred to the Royal Navy in exchange for British bases in the Caribbean.

1940 - Roosevelt will persuade congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act which officially ends his pretense of being neutral. He will also allow American citizens to enter the British Air Force.

1941 - Roosevelt freezes all German assets in the US, a violation of international law.

The US announces an oil embargo against "aggressor" nations.

$1 billion dollars in Lend-Lease aid is sent to Britain.

The US will eventually ship a total of $31.4 billion worth of supplies, the equivalent of $445 billion in today's money. The loans will take Britain 61 years to repay, with the last installment made in 2006.

The enormous amount of US funds, along with the covert US operations in the Atlantic, help Britain sustain the war against Germany.

The quick knockout blow Goring had hoped for now seemed unlikely, and the Battle of Britain will shortly give way to a more important fight.

Hitler will now concentrate on the battle he believes will eventaully decide the outcome of World War Two.

On December 11, 1941 he gives a speech describing the growing Soviet menace.

"Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear form month to month that the plans of the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of Europe. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of unique world-historical proportions was being carried out."

Clearly the Soviet Union had been expanding West.

30 November 3919 - Finalnd is attacked.
21 Feb 1940 - Sweden is bombed.
18 June 1940 - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are invaded.
27 June 1940 - Romania is forced by Stalin to surrender Bessarabia (Moldavia)."


- TGSNT Part 7.

The British immediately switched to supplying the Soviet Union after Barbarossa began, while still retaining potential plans to bomb their oil fields when the Germans were approaching it in late 1941-1942, which reflects their consistent behavior of simply destroying Germany by any means necessary. Since Lend-Lease effectively kept the Soviet slave empire on life support, it proved to be a more effective method for their cause (destroying Germany no matter who else gets destroyed in the future) than bombing oil fields, so Pike never manifested because of British planning. So wasteful were these bloodthirtsty warmongering policies, that the economic disasters which accompanied them ended up bankrupting the British Empire post-war. It was specifically the actions of the British War Cabinet that are responsible for the destruction of Europe, enabling the hellscape of the east by supplying the USSR with endless equipment via the shipping lanes from America, and agitating for war amongst the European peoples without mercy for those who spoke against the war, and didn't give a hoot who got hurt in their desperate bid to maintain themselves as the worlds primary superpower which they ended up losing.

If the British bombed the Caucasian oil fields with much less Soviet personnel and loss of life and simply jogged off back to merry old England it may have pissed off Stalin but Churchill, Stalin, and all other western leaders were united in their fraternal oaths beyond any national interests, and were kept to the orders of their jewish advisors above all other earthly goals. This was clearly evident post-war with all the betrayals of England: nearly every single Pole, Croat, Serb, Cossack, Ukrainian, Russian defector, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Belarussian, Hungarian, Romanian, and Bulgarian they sent back to Stalin were annihilated by death squads just over the eastern borders or stuffed like sardines in freight cars to go live the gulag life.

There are multiple mini timelines to be cognizant of when suggesting this alternative of alliances and adversaries along with the general sequence of action - reaction specific to the British-French-German-USSR interactions, which can be confusing to even adept historians without microscopic scrutiny. The German-USSR Non Aggression Pact was official from August 22nd 1939 - June 22nd 1941. (The whole premise of this pact was to ensure that with Stalin on his side that England and France would not interfere with his plans to save the Germans in Poland and to use the peaceful nature to receive a steady supply of resources from the East in new trade deals). The nature of the Non-aggression pacts with the USSR are complex, as Japan also signed one with the USSR in 1941 but were betrayed by the USSR in August of 1945 just prior to the war's end in Manchukuo with another ridiculous battle that killed tens of thousands of men for no reason. As I posted above, Stalin had clearly violated it numerous times prior to Barbarossa and the gambit for that pivotal event was up to who struck first. The US-dominated world would not have come to Germany's aid had the USSR struck first as they intended to do in July of 1941.

The German power that protected Christendom then was antithetical to these masonic machinations which were aggravated by the personal jewish hatred for losing their control over the German people with their usurious economics. Most of the war was proactive unprovoked "punishment" from the judeo-masonic lens upon a free Germany and Austria.

Never before was such a grave betrayal seen by brother kindred, and it pales against many of the previous inter-religious conflicts between Christians in the preceding centuries due to the gravity of the sheer number of deaths and the magnitude of destruction that the first modern war like this caused, greater than WW1 in all fronts except for chemical gas weapons.

In 1939 there was no a priori "I should wipe them all out because they will never allow peace," but flash forward 80 years and we can say otherwise for what we're dealing with now, as in all the corrupted Whites who have sold-out quite literally everything for the sake of a jewish escahtology and betraying their Christian origins for doing so in ways they will never know except on Judgment day. So I will meet you halfway on the claim of the necessity of wiping out a brother who is infested with Talmudic masonic masters. Anyone who assumes command now and studies history knows this, and should act accordingly going forward. Hence why we learn from history.. then again, the Rothschilds were running their operations out of Switzerland uninterrupted during the whole of the war, not just England or its internal (((City of London))), and Switzerland was not being aggressive at all. Had Hitler invaded Switzerland is a debatable topic, many Rebbe's fled their after pushing aggressively for jews to accept the Haavara and leave specifically for Palestine, yet these jews stayed in Switzerland until well after the war. Some never left, and it remains a hub for parasitic bankers to this day (along with occult techno-fetishists, they all could use a good stake burning).

I look at the state of affairs for England and Germany today as isolated cases for independent critique, and I see a difference in that the eastern Germans have significant towns, and mid-sized cities where I have visited that are not lit up with so many non-Germans (or non-Europeans, as there are many Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Slovenians, and other similar ethnicities living there). Even rural areas in West Germany are not scathed like their cities are of this rot. On the east the provinces of Saxony, Brandenburg (outside the Berlin cesspit) even parts of Bayern (Bavaria) are very rural and the native Germans there still tend to the land as they always have. In England however, it is utterly hopeless in some places that will now never change without a literal hot war by a dwindling English population against incredible odds.

For as destroyed as Germany was following 1945, and for how grim all European nation's futures look, the German people are going to survive a lot longer than England at the rate that island is replacing itself. A European Identity is forming in this century that, though it may consist of less European people surrounded by non-Whites in the world around them, will be sharper, stronger, faster, smarter, and more spiritual than any previous iteration of a collective identity. Coincidentally, East Germany is much more Christian than England is. Less globohomo churches, less trannification, less blasphemous laws, despite whatever the puppets are pushing from Berlin. So when I see the results of the destruction from 80 years ago today, I see Germany suffering second only to England, which is a realization of what Churchill's pyrrhic victory cost him. The damage Churchill did to England may never change and it may become a permanent offshore satellite for Mohammedans, Africans, and Pajeets to mix foul weather with excrement and become the literal shittiest place on earth, surpassing even Canada. Unless the Irish race rises up and takes it over, which is a future possibility, and if they ever attain the means to carry that out it would be their God-given mandate to do so. Lord have mercy.

This book here for anyone who wants to learn more about the statistical specifics of how jewified Germany was during Weimar:

"jewish Domination of Weimar Germany 1919-1932"
https://ia803007.us.archive.org/7/items/JewishDominationOfWeimarGermany_201904/Jewish domination of Weimar Germany.pdf
Specifically page 24 "The jews as the apostles of communism" is of interest.
People don't always understand that the Zio-Freemason agents aren't always friends - they are usually evil people forced to share common purpose with other plants puppets and other kinds of evil people, and the first chance they get to turn on one another and watch each other fall they pounce on it.

The USSR was the creation of jewish Wall Street jewish MI6 and the jewish City of London - 264, the majority of the Soviet council, were jews who flocked to Russia from outside countries.
It scared and surprised the non jews in Washington so much that they commissioned a report named "The Power and Aims of World Jewry"

But WHAT IF the revanchist element in France that resented Jewish control managed to take power and France was in danger of wandering off the ZOG chessboard?
Well turn to the planners, where is our plan to invade France (given the ever present threat that a nation might do a Germany 1933)? Operation Pike is swiftly located on its shelf and produced.

jews ran Washington AND Westminster but there were Britons close to power who HATED jewish control.
What IF the jewified zionist British tried to wander off the ZOG chessboard? Voila - Operation Red.
What IF '**actual Russians** took control of the Bolshevik USSR? Cant allow that. you begin to see the picture.


I had a brief daydream that instead of complaining about 'the Left' all the time British conservatives just quietly took out the ZOg Conservative party - no more Conservatives, no ZOG structure to astroturf any resistance to the British Left.
But Lo and behold that is EXACTLY what the kosher-grift conservatives in the UK are now saying 'must happen' - ergo, they now have a plan in place for after the Conservatives have gone.
TPTB have plans on the shelf for everything. 911 used to reference an MI6 whistle blower who said they have plans on the shelf for Britain becoming a failed war torn nation ruled over by competing war lords.

World War Two was planned out and Hitler was blindsided, even if he could imagine the evil of his enemies - what could he do? The US and Britain had spent over ten years turning the occupied USSR into a weapons factory with a giant army.
They were always coming for an NSDAP Germany - from France, from Britain, from the US, from the USSR - it was always coming, and they hugely outnumbered the Germans in weaponry, men, ships etc.
as I said before "appeasement" was a total lie.. the UK and France were arming themselves at a rate of knots, at an accelerated pace far beyond NSDAP Germany.
First we take Manhattan Then we take Berlin..
First they the British helped change the Polish government, then the jewish commissars started the anti German antics.

Hitler had met with huge success re uniting, justifiably, the German people who had been cruelly sundered by the jewish Versailles outrage (and cruelly tyrannised at home by jewish Weimar rule)
A little known fact is that Hitler wanted a political solution to the Danzig question, despite the provocations. Arguably it was his old school non-NSDAP generals who wanted to act, and fast..
Hitler told them "give me a short war, advance as far as you can - and be prepared to hold and defend your gains within days as we sue for a political solution"

But the plan to destroy Germany was the only one that Four Great Powers really believed in and wanted to execute.
The rest, as they say, is history...
 
Back
Top