Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you live in a frontier fort composed of civilians, intended to surround a concentration camp, then what did these settler colonists expect? Neighbors who bring them candy and flowers?
Hamas was created by Israel with a divide and rule intention, to undermine the authority of the PLO. Search that and one will find hundreds of articles, incl. from Israeli sources, which will confirm this intentional Israeli strategy of deceit and division.
Gaza is the world's biggest concentration camp, ringed in by a cicle of Kibbutzim, inhabited by armed settler colonists. If you want to know what's going on, ask a Jwe. They will honestly tell you straight in your face, and dare you to resist: "We are a generation that settles the land, and without the steel helmet and the cannon's fire we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.” Moshe Dayan
The intention is ethnic cleansing, and a pretext is needed to vacate the land under the terror of cannon fire, in order to create the next concentration camp, ringed in by the next ring of Kibbutzim, inhabited by the next selection of future "victims of terrorism"...
What you are witnissing today, is the own biblical "logic" of "reap as you sow". Israeli strategists, safely within the reach of the safety of their BUNKERS, intended to "sow division" between the peoples of Palestine, and now individual Israelis and foreigners are "reaping" the effects of previous choices. Not a nice personal tale, agreed, so sorry about the personal misfortune of living in a frontier fort, and choosing to become a tool of encirclement.
But the own personal decisions to live a life as soldiers of fortune, using the own families as a human shields, whilst surrounding an open-air concentration camp as a tool of strategic encirclement, sometimes have unhappy consequences...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By "no fault of their own", I am merely referring to those Arabs who declared their neutrality when neighboring Arab states attacked.
Here we shouldn't confuse entities like "religion", "citizen", or "country".
Note here, even the fact that many (now de facto Israeli citizens) Arabs declared their neutrality, or even support for the new state, it didn't save them from retribution...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Why should an Arab living in the new state (after it's declaration) suffer because of the actions of OTHER Arabs, with whom they had nothing to do?
Not all of the 700,000 "Palestinians" were against Israel, and many fled in panic after events like Deir Yassin became known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war
Whether intentionally, or unintentionally, this exodus was exactly what some of the founding fathers of Israel wanted.
I don't agree with the "Arabs better off in Israel", since it is a generalization which has nothing to do with the people themselves, but more a result of the situation (situational vs. dispositional debate).
Would you state that Arabs in oil rich countries are not well-off, or that the standard of living here (including innovation, for example in Dubai, Quttar, etc.) are not at a similar level as Israel?
IMO, the standard of living has to do with resources. Israel obviously benefited immensely from western support, and the influx of well-educated (mostly in western countries) in the initial stages (say, directly following WW2), when much of the Arab countries were hardly out of colonialism.
Were it not for the constant violence, the Arabs of Palestine could have enjoyed a similar state of wealth as Libanon did in the 1960s and 70s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
History repeats itself in eternal cycles.
Bismarck's "something silly in the Balkans" has morphed into "something silly in the Ukraine".
Of course, Bismarck's quote is in reference to the age-old "contested sphere of influence", and big power ambitions.
At the time it was the Balkans.
Today it is the Black Sea/Ukraine, or simply "shifted east Balkans"-Bismarkian logic.
It does not matter.
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was standing down and standing by" to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
Of course the Ottoman Empire was not Europe's only "sick man" at the time.
The Ottoman Empire was weak, and therefore a favorite on "the European good guys" with their "shopping lists"-mentality.
Of course, the "always on the right side of history"-good guys have one main goal: "carving up" weakness.
That goal is eternal, always searching for weakness.
Of course in the late 19th-century, the Ottomans weren't the only failing empire, desperately trying to hold together their own past accomplishments (previously gained by a mixture of blood and diplomacy).
There were two others.
Of course Spain was the first weak empire on the American Internationalist's own "no more Monroe Doctrine restrictions"-shopping list of suitable weak empires.
The American Century needed divided "weany libruls" to succeed in their quest.
Easily explained empire 101...
Europe's other "sick man" was Austria-Hungary, and Berlin adamantly refused to throw her to the wolves.
Bad bad Berlin ...the "good guys" had an appetite and came with a vengeance.
Dissed girlfriend Russia of course intented to encircle Austria-Hungary, using the "poor people"-argument (aka "Pan Slavism").
And in the respect of "losing favored status" in the good guys' with their eternal games of divide and rule (favoratism):
Russia today.
Not such fun getting encroached upon, as Russia once did to "sick man" Austria-Hungary, and having own security issues ignored by the eternal good guys, right?
Not so great having historical spheres of influence carved up by "ICEBREAKER NATO" paving the way to new profitable EU/PNAC markets, eh?
Shouting "poor me" in "the game" of default good guys/default bad guys, when own interests to dominate and rule over others, using human lives as "tools" not working out anymore?
Why don't your leaders roll out the old "protector of all slavs"-trope again, hmmmm?
Suddenly "Russian power" as a "tool" don't suite the "good guys" anymore, and the own Moscow interests ("security issues": remember that term for a while) get thrown out the back door.
Not so much fun anymore when you are "in the shoes" of others, right?
What happened to those eternal dreams of access to the Med for your navy and the own projection of power (Mahan)? Today Russia doesn't even fully control the Black Sea anymore, and St Petersburg/Moscow geostategic goals/aims have been thrown back over the last 30 years, step by step, back 200 years to the 18th century when it all started.
Not such fun if one isn't on the "default good guy list" anymore...
Today, Moscow's dream of "top down influence in Turkey" (Erdogan/Turkish state access to the Med, janking Turkey out of NATO) is being countered by western economical warfare on the Turkish state. Watch on while the next bloody "bottom up" orange revolution is being set up by "the good guys" with the cash, creating the next "poor people"-argument for the primed/conditioned masses back home in front of their TVs...impervious in regards to "what happened". They just want the feelgood story, so too bad...
Back to "good ol' days" when Imperialist Russia was still "best fwiends":
Of course during the "good ol' days" of "friendly entente Russia", St. Petersburg/Russia could appease Belgrade in their quest of destabilising their neighboring state (Austria-Hungary) in their violent nationalist quest for Nacertanije and carving up Austria-Hungary. St Petersburg could try to misuse known Serb ambitions for Greater Serbia (openly known since 1906) for the own goal of destabilising the Balkans for own geopolitical goals (access to the Med via the Dardanelles), as the "entente good guys" turned a blind eye. Being a "good guy" herself, Russia could set out to misuse Serbs as a "human wall" in lieu of overly obvious direct state influence, to stop a potential alliance between Berlin and the Ottoman Empire becoming viable. The "usefull tool" aka "Entente partner" St Petersburg had the tacid permission and could appease Belgrade and convert the previous Austrian-Hungarian sphere of influence (Serbia) into a "tool" to create a security issue for Austria-Hungary (potential two-front war danger for Vienna/Budapest).
Note how the "good guys" create "poor people"-arguments directed at Moscow today, the same way that the predecessor St. Petersburg created "poor people"-arguments against the object of their desire...Austria-Hungary.
The "regular run" of history is of course that "poor slavs" trapped in an Imperialist Russia (conquered, brutalized and oppressed) is perfectly OK, but Serbs trapped in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire just screams for a "historical adjustment". Go figure...
Anyway.
What happened to these "party times" when the good guys told you you could do no harm?
Doesn't everybody just love becoming encroached upon and encircled?
Let's ask Russians today how they feel about "encroachment/encirclement".
Not so nice, eh?
(Google "hypocrisy")
The same "security issues" St Petersburg once created for Austria-Hungary, suddenly don't sound so "cool" anymore, when the shoe is on the other foot.
Biblical history (and 2,000-year old observations re. human nature), unfolding again, right in front of our eyes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politicians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles (see my comment 4 weeks ago).
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary "green lines" drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that the "faraway empires" who suggested these "historical borders", would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy...lol"
How telling. Today, re. the events in the Ukraine, the deceiving manipulators won't even point at the the correct date on the timeline which is March 1939, when they did nothing.
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not in my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies. How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets have they. Me want some...me take some."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen positive relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Curb the darker aspects which create internal division.
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Be principled, or become a tool.
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up.
Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
Sorry Ukraine.
On behalf of my crooked leaders.
So now that history has taken the (somewhat) predictable path in the Ukraine, it's time for slimy politians to put themselves in the limelight again.
Predictably the spectrum of responses range from finger pointing everywhere else (except the finger-pointer of course) in attempts of deflection, to the "not my fault"-style washing hands in innocence (Pilatus). It's always never the fault of any of these self-proclaimed "good guys" who are "always on the right side of history".
Far and wide, not a spine in sight anywhere.
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose.
Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever thought about what such a policy meant?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be written off...
It means these slimy deceitful Albions expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
To hell with them.
A few historical examples:
At Versailles Poland decided to cuddle up to faraway empires France and GB, in order to achieve their Greater Poland "Intermarium" dreams. Empires which saw Poland's main function in the protection of own interests (search for Limitrophe States).
How'd that work out in 1939, or 1944?
London/Paris in 1939: "I'm not ready yet. You're not interesting enough anymore...bye bye..."
London/Paris/Washington DC in 1944: "Don't worry best fwiends. Stalin, the world's biggest advocate of freedom and liberty, pwomised you democwacy..."
Me: ROFL
Or the creation of artificial entities like the "Switzerland of Central Europe" (aka "pistol pointing at the heart of Germany") imposed on the people without referendum and with arbitrary lines drawn across the map by people at faraway green tables. Imposed "top-down" by rulers, rather than desired "bottom-up" by the people. Czech leaders foolishly thinking that "faraway empires" would protect them forever and ever...lmao
March 1939: "Not interesting enough for a war. There you go Adolf...just don't tickle my 'empire' too hard..."
Even before that, France had decided to befriend itself to an empire which could simply "evacuate" by hopping across the English Channel if a conflict evolved unfavorably. How'd that work out in 1940?
British Empire: "Been nice knowing you chaps...but err, we're off...oh, and can we have your Navy please? It looks very interesting. Fight to the last bullet? Nah...I've changed my mind. That's not my interests."
Or the British Empire, thinking that a faraway empire (USA) would ensure their future. Leaders and people who for a large part didn't care about the British Empire. In fact, the "new rich" many Europeans looked down onto, which had grown economically way above its previous colonial masters, simply didn't like the idea of colonies...
How'd that work out after WW2? Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century: "Hmmmm, interesting markets they have. Want some..."
Lesson to be learnt by future leaders?
Ally yourself with neighbors.
Reach agreements after mutual negotiations.
Make painful compromises, no matter how difficult it is.
Create strong mutual alliances, independent of outside meddling.
Deepen relationships between the people (cultural, trade, education, tourism, knowledge, etc.).
Then, stand up to all outside efforts of "divide and conquer/rule".
Here is my personal advice to leaders.
When my country's slimy deceitful leaders come with their smiling faces and backpats (a skill honed to perfection by "body language experts"), then simply put on a suitable fake smile yourself and pat them back...and then send them on their way back to where they came from.
Wisen up. Kick them out.
1
-
1
-
Stalin, or why we shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
Stalin, or why we should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
Not even a case of the often criticized hindsight.
Obviously, to everyone in the diplomatic corps at the time, it was clear that Hitler wanted to attack Poland.
He already had a "suitable excuse", so why didn't he?
Why didn't he attack Poland in July or August, while the SU was engaged in the East (Khalkin Gol)?
If he could simply attack Poland, why didn't he?
Stalin had figured it out. Hitler was afraid of the existing status quo, which was a "2 front war with 4 enemies at the same time".
The political situation that existed de facto, kept the peace.
All that was needed for war was for 1 of the four parties to opt out de jure (aka via treaty)....
Stalin said he thought it would be one of the other 3, but hey...it's Stalin right? Such an honest, upright, decent human being, who always kept his word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1