|
Letter to Featherstone
by Arch Stanton
10 March 2005
Dear Mr. Featherstone,
You wrote:
"But it may not even take an attack on Iran. With the US acting increasingly like Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, making one more insane demand after another and threatening war if it doesn't get what it wants."
Its those darned Nazis again - always with the Nazis! Excuse me, but I cannot for the life of me understand this totally irrational comparison. Exactly what are you referring to as Germany's "insane demands" surely you cannot mean Hitler's demands for repatriation of the territories taken from Germany under the insane demands of the Versailles treaty? Any honest student of history knows full well that Hitler's demands for "Lebensraum" was for the return of territories that were under German control before the Versailles treaty. Every serious historian knows that Neville Chamberlain's so called "unconscionable appeasement" of Hitler's demands was in fact recognition that Hitler's demands for territorial reparations were a very reasonable response to the unconscionable demands made by the authors of the Versailles treaty.
The problem lay in the fact that early on Poland had secured a secret agreement with Britain for protection should Poland be attacked. This agreement was originally made with the idea that Russia would be the potential aggressor. The British and the French at that point were in far greater fear of a Bolshevist military takeover of Poland than of any future act of aggression by Germany. Because this agreement with Poland meant the commitment of a British military force greatly weakened by the war, it was made over the opposition of numerous political elements within the British government which maintained that there was absolutely no benefit to Britain in such an agreement.
When Hitler attacked Poland it was to reclaim the Posen, Upper Silesia and Prussian districts ceded to Poland under the Versailles Treaty. Due to the political situation of the moment including posturing toward France, Britain had no choice but to come to Poland's defense. This was done in spite of the fact that many of the cooler heads in parliament agreed with Chamberlain that it was against Britain's best interest to defend Poland against the Germans' territorial claims for what had then become western Poland.
Perhaps you ought to read a bit more history on the subject, might I suggest the excellent book by Richard M. Watts titled The Kings Depart This book details Germany's history immediately after the cessation of WWI. The Kings Depart fully explains events in Germany during 1918-1919. Mr. Watt gives an excellent description of the Jewish Bolsheviks and their Spartacus party. It explains how the Spartacists inflamed internal revolt and dissension during Germany's weakest moment and how the Bolshevists crippled Germany immediately after the cessation of war. Furthermore it explains how the Jew-led socialist movement was critical in effecting the dismemberment of Germany's second Reich.
The book also contains excellent descriptions of how Bolshevist Jews such as Bela Kuhn of Hungary, Kurt Eisner, Max Levien and Eugen Levine of Bavaria and Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg of Germany worked to foment that dismemberment in their attempts to bring about the same type of bloody and murderous Revolution Vladimir Lenin brought to Russia in 1917 in the name of yet another Jew who wrote the book on murderous communist revolution - Karl Marx.
It was in fact the actions of these Jews that led Hitler to loath them and later demand that all the former territories of Germany prior to the Versailles treaty be reunited. It was the Jewish Bolshevist that Germany feared and it was against the potential Bolshevist incursion that Hitler wanted to establish a buffer region to the east. Ironically the British and the French felt the same about the Bolshevists immediately after the cessation of hostilities in 1918. They too wanted to maintain a buffer region to the east that would insure the protection of western Europe from future Bolshevist attack. There is ample evidence that Hitler never wanted war with Europe, especially with the French and British. If you take a second look you might discover that it was Britain that declared war on Germany and that Hitler only later reluctantly declared war on the US due to his Axis pact with the Japanese.
Prior to that declaration of war, America had a large, strong, population of German immigrants. The overall the sentiment of the American public was for neutrality in the emerging European conflict. Roosevelt could not goad America into a war with Germany, so instead he started a war with Japan. This was done with the full understanding and intent that it would inevitably mean war with the real target, Germany.
One large and looming historical question that is consistently ignored is if Hitler was so intent on destroying Europe and conquering the world, why did he allow an intact British Army to leave France at Dunkirk? Why didn't Hitler have his army destroy the British when he had the chance? The answer is simple, because at that point Hitler still hoped for a peaceful resolution of the emerging conflict with Britain and France. There is evidence to prove Hitler wanted to end the war at that point and repatriate ALL the French territory he had taken in 1939 back to the French with a total removal of established German control.
Initially, after Britain's declaration of war, little happened between Britain and Germany; this was the "sitting war" or "phony war." In essence Germany took no action against Britain despite the declaration of war and Britain, cowed by German military power, felt no great inclination to stir up matters at that point. To ramp up the conflict Britain's leaders had a flight of bombers drop propaganda leaflets over Germany. It was later admitted the real idea behind this action was to show Germans how vulnerable Germany was to aerial attack. Then Air Marshal Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt had a flight of Vickers Wellingtons actually bomb Germany in September of 1939; this act of aggression over German soil would lead to Germany's retaliation against England. It was that great drunken and unelected statesman Winston Churchill who insisted the war be pursued at all cost and that the only possible resolution to the war would be "the utter and complete destruction of Germany." Truer words were never spoken.
So how does all this historical "insanity" align with the American insanity we are now witnessing in the Middle East? Let's see now, exactly what former American territories did America secede during what Middle Eastern war and to whom? For what formerly owned Middle Eastern territories is America demanding repatriation? I will agree to your point that America is making insane demands in the Middle East for which, from the standpoint of America's best interest, there is absolutely no conceivable justification. Outside that point, the only other real link I can see is the very one you fail to mention, the 800-lb. Red Gorilla sitting in the middle of the room dropping great loads of manure on one and all - the Jewish link.
In 1945 it was a Jew named Robert Oppenheimer who led America's Manhattan project to develop the nuclear bomb. The atomic development program was continued in spite of the fact the need for developing such a weapon had obviously passed, as victory for the allies at that point was assured.
As the first atomic bomb exploded on the white sands of Alamogordo, New Mexico, its mushroom cloud spreading its poisonous cloud over a peacefully sleeping America, Robert Oppenheimer stood witness to the dawn of a new era of destruction.
At that moment it was a Jew (Oppenheimer) who reportedly said: "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds" - Indeed. It was two Jews, Julies and Ethel Rosenberg, who delivered the secrets of the Manhattan project to the Soviets in 1947. That act of Jewish treason against America led to 45 years of cold war between America and Russia along with the economically ruinous continual development of advanced military weapons technology.
Once again it is the Jews who are fomenting the global unrest as they did in Russia and Germany in the early part of the last century. Today, while Iran vehemently insists that they are not developing nuclear weapons, it is the Jews who boast they are the second largest nuclear power in the world. Today, by their own admission, it is Israel that is the real nuclear power in the Middle East. While the Jews carp and scream incessantly about Iran's potential development of a - A - nuclear weapon, the entire world remains totally silent on the issue of Israel's nuclear program and their possession of around 800 nuclear warheads.
The Jews claim their god Yahweh ceded the entire Middle East to them. In fact the Jews believe Yahweh has ceded the entire planet to them! I guess this accounts for why the Jews still feel so indignant over Hitler's claim for the return of German territory, after all according to their prophets, that territory actually belongs to Jews. This utterly absurd idea is taken from them a concept based on the writings of their ancient Torah, but for which there is in fact absolutely no historical validity or proof.
Increasingly the Jews are goading America into attacking any and all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East. Starting with Iraq, the Jews are now banging America's war drums for Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. What the Jews are doing in the Middle East is much the same as what they did in Russia in 1917 and Germany in 1919. The difference this time is instead of a bunch of revolutionary Bolshevist printing newspapers and fomenting dissent, the Jews are using a military superpower to force their agenda by proxy on the Middle East. It was the Jews and their "revolutions" that led to much of the bloodshed of the twentieth century and the death of millions upon millions of non-Jews. Apparently it will be the Jews who once again who will cause the greatest death and destruction ever visited on mankind. What the Jews are doing today may well lead to the complete economic dissolution of America; worse it may well lead to WWIII and nuclear devastation heretofore unimagined.
Those inherently evil, Nazi-type, Germans just gave Israel a new fleet of submarines that will soon be capable of carrying nuclear armed, American supplied, Harpoon Missiles. Now who is the real threat in the Middle East? Israel, a country already armed to the teeth with nuclear capability, or some other country that may or may not actually develop a nuclear weapon sometime in the future? And what about nuclear inspections? When has Israel ever allowed any third party to view their nuclear facilities or weapons stockpile? Instead Israel has a list as long as your arm of UN sanctions they have broken or ignored, all the while screaming about the one or two UN sanctions broken by Iraq or some other "non-democratic" country. Not one peep is heard about the arrogant violation or rejection of the many various UN measures concerning Israel. Obviously the UN is quite toothless in any attempt to hold Israel to any UN measure; one can only wonder why might that be.
The Nazis were wiped out over sixty years ago, why after so long do so many still invoke the name of this German Nationalist Party as if they were still a living and current threat? What is it about the Nazis that they cannot be allowed to rest like every other dead and defunct power or civilization? And what other long defunct civilization or despot still gets daily mention or coverage in the news?
More importantly, in light of the fact that Israeli Jews are currently a very real and dominant power in the Middle East who make and carrying out very real threats, why this talk of long dead, powerless, irrelevant, Nazis? Why is there absolutely no recognition of the fact that a large number of top administrators who call the shot for American foreign policy are in fact Jews who hold a de facto dual citizenship with Israel? Does not the situation of a dual citizenship with Israel clearly demonstrates a conflict of interest by these politicians, especially in regards to American foreign policy decisions concerning the Middle East? Mr. Featherstone, although you may well be unaware of early twentieth century history I suspect that you know as well as I, the answers to these questions.
Regards,
ARCH STANTON
|