I'm not just talking about the video dragg, I'm talking about
the bullshit the japs are saying in comments all over youtube.
Jap education on WWII and our education on WWII different. A lot
of bad stuff that Japanese did in WWII are suppressed.
This is like how the actual history of Britain plotting to set
Nazi Germany against Soviet Union is also suppressed in western
textbooks.
I went to some history forum in the past to discuss this fact
with some ang moh and they had no clue whatsoever on what I was
talking about. This is how much factual truth is suppressed in
western history.
This
event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland,
was the most crucial event in the whole history of
appeasement.
So long as the territory west of the
Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the
river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles
and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move
against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
He would not have dared because, with
western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France
could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled
Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward.
And by
this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of
the British
Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they
could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia
against one another in Eastern Europe.
In this way they felt that the two
enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become
satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the
Ukraine.
It never occurred to anyone in a
responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common
cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur
to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central
Europe to Bolshevism.
In
order to carry
out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia,
it was necessary to do three things:
(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between
Germany and Russia;
(2) to prevent France from honoring
her alliances with these countries; and
(3) to hoodwink the English people
into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to
the international problem.
The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three
of these things that they came within an ace of
succeeding,
and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly
haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner
Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to
reverse it...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53130853/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-Establishment-1981
Question: Some people do not
realize yet that the
Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the result of the breakdown
of the Anglo-French-Soviet talks, but think
that the Soviet-German treaty caused the breakdown. Will you please
explain why the Anglo-French-Soviet talks failed?
Mao Zedong: The talks failed
purely because the British and French governments were insincere.
In recent years the reactionary international bourgeoisie, and
primarily that of Britain and France, have consistently pursued the
reactionary policy of "non-intervention" towards aggression by
fascist Germany, Italy and Japan.
Their purpose is to connive at wars
of aggression and to profit by them. Thus
Britain and France flatly rejected the Soviet Union's repeated
proposals for a genuine front against aggression; standing on the
side-lines, they took a "non-interventionist" position and connived
at German, Italian and Japanese aggression. Their
aim was to step forward and intervene when the belligerents had
worn each other out. In pursuit of this
reactionary policy they sacrificed half of China to Japan, and the
whole of Abyssinia, Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Italy and
Germany.
Then they wanted
to sacrifice the Soviet Union.
This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet
talks. They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to
August 23, during which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost
patience.
But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the
principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the
Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security, but refused to
do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic
states, so as to leave a gap through which
Germany could attack, and they also refused to
allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the
aggressor.
That is why the talks broke down. In the meantime, Germany
indicated her willingness to stop her activities against the Soviet
Union and abandon the so-called Agreement Against the Communist
International and recognized the inviolability of the Soviet
frontiers; hence the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression
treaty. The
policy of "non-intervention" pursued by international and primarily
Anglo-French reaction is a policy of "sitting on top of the
mountain to watch the tigers fight", a downright imperialist policy
of profiting at others' expense.
This policy was initiated when Chamberlain took office, reached its
climax in the Munich agreement of September last year and finally
collapsed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks. From now on the
situation will inevitably develop into one of direct conflict
between the two big imperialist blocs, the Anglo-French bloc and
the German-Italian bloc. As I said in October 1938 at the Sixth
Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of our
Party, "The
inevitable result of Chamberlain's policy will be like 'lifting a
rock only to drop it on one's own
toes'."
Chamberlain started with the aim of
injuring others only to end up by ruining himself. This is the law
of development which governs all reactionary
policies.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm
...Soviet
intelligence sources reported that many capitals closely watched
the geopolitical situation in Europe after the conclusion of the
Munich Agreement as well.
"As early as November 1938,
diplomatic missions of a
number of countries reported to their departments that Britain and
France would not prevent Germany's eastward
expansion,"
Ivanov said.
SVR veteran, Maj.-Gen. Lev Sotskov (Ret.), who sorted the archive
documents, is confident that the Munich Agreement eventually
destroyed the collective security system in Europe and led to the
outbreak of WWII.
Sotskov served in the Foreign Intelligence Service since 1956 both
abroad and in the central office. Now he is studying the archives
on the history of intelligence. He wrote "Operation Tarantella" and
"Unknown Separatism," and took part in the compilation of a
collection of documents, entitled "Baltic Countries and
Geopolitics."
Sotskov believes that the declassified documents make it possible
to take a new and deeper look at the role the world leaders played
in the late 1930s in Europe.
"The documents received after the Munich conspiracy are
particularly valuable. They analyze the post-Munich situation in
Europe and clearly show that Britain was trying to draw Germany and
the Soviet Union into active hostilities," Sotskov emphasized in an
interview with RIA Novosti.
In a memo on December 21, 1938, Lavrenty Beria reported to Stalin
about the Soviet-seized documents, which included reports of
Finnish envoys to London, Paris, and Warsaw on Germany's eastward
expansion, and the position of the British, French, and Polish
governments on this issue.
Thus, Finnish Ambassador in London Grippenberg reported to his
Foreign Ministry: "I heard the opinion that German propaganda of
colonies is false. As Britons put it, it is a smokescreen to cover
the preparations of a plan concerning Soviet Ukraine. Hitler
himself told French Ambassador Francois-Poncet that he was not even
thinking about any colonies," the document reads.
Later, on November 25, Grippenberg
reported his conversation with a British government member
who assured him that Britain and France would not
interfere in Germany's eastward
expansion.
"Britain's position is as follows: let's wait
until Germany and the U.S.S.R. get involved in a big
conflict," the
document reads.
Commenting on it, Sotskov explained that despite the circumstances,
the Soviet Union was still trying to set up some system for
resisting the Nazi aggression. As a result, Britain and France had
to send their military missions to Moscow for negotiations.
"Moscow presented very detailed information about the resources
which it could use against Hitler's Germany. In the event of an
anti-Hitler agreement with Britain and France, the U.S.S.R. was
ready to employ 120 infantry divisions, 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000
tanks and as many aircraft," Sotskov said.
However, despite this, the talks with
Britain and France failed. It
became obvious that they were working toward their super goal, he
noted.
The documents make it abundantly clear that both Britain and France
realized that their position was driving the U.S.S.R. into a corner
and that Moscow would have to come to terms with the Germans.
As a result, the U.S.S.R. signed the Nonaggression Pact with
Germany, which allowed it to move its border to the West and gain
some time for the preparations to repel the aggression, Sotskov
explained.
"It became obvious that a policy of appeasing Hitler did not work,
and that concessions only encouraged him further. This compelled
the Soviet leadership to look for ways of ensuring national
security in this foreign policy environment," he pointed out.
"The Western model of appeasing the aggressor (the Munich
Agreement) failed to achieve the desired effect, and the war broke
out in the West. France surrendered to Hitler, and the cabinet of
ministers changed in Britain. The anti-Hitler coalition took shape
later under the pattern suggested by the Soviet Union in 1935: the
United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and later de Gaulle's
France," Sotskov said...
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080929/117271264.html
