At the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the one who led the Russian delegation was the jew Leon Trotsky, and the one leading the German delegation was Richard von Kühlmann.
Kühlmann was married to a Marie-Anne von Goldschmidt-Rothschild:
If w just undid the first world war and put all of Europe's borders back to where they were, the jews would come undone. Take back our countries from their banks, public schools and 501C tax shelters, and destroy their media. They'd be so much wailing and gnashing of teeth we'd have to throw a cross on them and watch them sizzle and melt.
Germany didn't lose ww1 cause of russia so what difference would that have made? After warburg & co got the germans to support the bolshevik regime and knocked russia out of the war, they then turned their full attention on sparking revolutions in germany and bulgaria. These revolutions are what lost them the war. Only if they had suddenly out of nowhere did a Hitler purge on all the jews in Germany would they have prevented this and would have gone on to win it. Too many jews still held capitalist levers in germany and working together were able to manipulate events whenever they chose.
I think you missed the point, it's not about who won the war, none of the nations who fought the war won, WW1 was a catastrophe for the entirety of Europe, the only one who won was the jews because the war was rigged that way. The point here is that Germany had the opportunity to destroy the Bolsheviks before they ever managed to consolidate their power over the entirety of Russia.
because doing so risked russia reuniting against them and upsetting the peoples they had just conquered. they had successfully knocked russia out of the war. it was a huge victory for them. why would they jeopardise that? they had to focus all their attention thereafter on the french front. after winning that i guarantee they would've began to assert more authority in russia, they'd already taken 1/3rd of russian land, set up new puppet monarchies, etc.. They were on the cusp of setting up a new world order. Russia was no longer a concern. It's only after ww1 that they become one, yet the Germans fired anyone in their govt who spoke out against the Ottoman genocide to not upset that alliance, so they could hardly pretend to be of altruistic motivation anyways.
because doing so risked russia reuniting against them and upsetting the peoples they had just conquered
No offence, but here you seem to show that you know little of Russia's situation at that time, the Bolsheviks even after the October Revolution was still weak and haven't truly establish them as the ultimate authority yet, they didn't even have a functioning army at this time and many people within Russia opposed them, so much so, it sparked a Civil War in Russia that would a couple of years. So no, they wouldn't 'unite' against the Germans, hell, many Russians would have welcomed them, also Germany had no intention of conquering Russia, their second alternative was to remove the Bolsheviks, which they could have done easily and quickly, and install a new government.
Also, the revolution in Russia spread over to Germany shortly after did it not? Astute politicians, even before the start of WW1, had warned that Russia going to war against Germany would allow revolutionaries to cause uprisings in both countries, it was not in Germany's interests to help the Bolsheviks, certainly when Germany was still a monarchy at this time, they could have removed Russia from war without having to make peace with the Bolsheviks, again Russia at this time, was incredibly weak and wouldn't be able to stand a chance against an offensive attack from the Germans.
to presuppose i don't know about the civil war despite my obvious intellect suggests a lack of yours. you then follow that up with saying it wasn't in germany's interest to help the bolsheviks. you can't be fucking serious? now that is a lack of knowledge. the bolsheviks are HOW they removed russia from the war. they funded the bolsheviks, and when the bolsheviks stirred up internal war and got enough control of russia, they made peace with germany, abiding albeit reluctantly by the deal they had made.
the irony of your comment is that the civil war is exactly why germany didn't press an attack while it was happening. they wanted internal strife, they didn't want the russian people to unite again against the external threat. when they got the peace deal, they could have betrayed the bolsheviks and taken russia, but that would've required an enormous amount of troops to control the new populations and fight another battle with a no doubt new russian resistance govt formed beyond the urals when they were desperately needed in the west, not to mention all the resources they just got from russia would then go from easy access to having to hold and work it amidst another state of war and constant sabotage.
germany did everything right in the east, which is why they did it, and they were beyond successful. they only failed in stopping their own internal threats. persisting in the east not only does nothing at all to stop this, it makes it more likely because they would then be further strained economically.
you then follow that up with saying it wasn't in germany's interest to help the bolsheviks.
Yes, and that's a fact. To think otherwise might have made sense at that time by some men who saw it as nothing more than Germany vs Russia and ignoring what's going on behind the scenes, and foresee the consequences of making peace with the Bolsheviks. But we know it was a bad decision because we saw the eventual consequences of it.. Yes, it's in the best interest of Germany to help a group that made itself quite known to be anti-monarchy and called for WORLD REVOLUTION, take over an enormous country that's right next door, that has a history of warfare against Germany.. Yes, I'm sure that didn't end badly for Germany?
Oh wait, we can look back and see that it actually did!
It might have been the right call for someone who had no idea what the Bolsheviks were about... but many Germans discovered that making peace with the Bolsheviks was a mistake, again even the prominent German General Hoffman as quoted in the post realized that. But hey, you would know better with your 'obvious intellect'.
but that would've required an enormous amount of troops
No it wouldn't, what do you even base this on? The Bolsheviks didn't even have their Red Army yet, Germans estimated they needed just a few battalions to overthrow the Bolsheviks, they could also have allied themselves with the White Army... And what's this with controlling the new population, why would Germany need to occupy Russia? All they needed was to install a new provisional government or reinstate the Monarchial system after overthrowing the Bolsheviks.
they wanted internal strife, they didn't want the russian people to unite again against the external threat.
'They' as in jews? Because jews and their lackeys ran the German Foreign Ministry, they were responsible for the peace agreements with the Bolsheviks, and obviously they needed that to ensure the survival of the Bolsheviks, so that they could be left in peace in Russia and continue to take control there without fear of German intervention. But according to you, these jews were correct in their policies even though we can see how these policies later turned out be devastating for Germany as a consequence, but very rewarding for the Bolshevik jews!
you don' even understand the basics of ww1 and simply want to keep arguing your original point no matter what. i'm not wasting my time repeating myself when you refuse to listen. learn the details yourself and stop talking shit.
okay i have a bit more time now so i'll give you a slightly better reply to show you how dumb your reply is. your counter is to first not fund the bolsheviks.. so in other words proceed with the war on 2 fronts and inevitably lose. obviously stupid, which is why they funded the bolsheviks and went with that strategy.
your second counter then is to betray the deal with the bolsheviks. i've already explained to you why and because of your total lack of knowledge and inability to compromise you refuse to see sense. the war on the french front was imperative. if they wanted to do your strategy, which i admitted they did, they would've won against france first, then came back to execute the east. to do otherwise is absolutely illogical and ridiculous to suggest. just to control the lands they had gained, they still had at the last day of the war 27 divisions in the east. it was something like 40 until they the last few weeks when they were desperately sent west. so no it doesn't require 'just a few divisions'. they also got 600,000 prisoners of war returned to them by the bolsheviks, experienced soldiers whom they could put back into action. 90% of russia's coal, so basically they got all of it so the main point of immediately invading russia further is void right there. they would've gained nothing by doing it and lost plenty while in the middle of a massive war. how can you not comprehend this?
And you ignore that the Russian army was incredibly demoralized even before the Bolshevik Revolution and was an even weaker state after it and that the Russian's were doing awfully in the war, certainly during 1917 to 1918. The problem with your arguement is that you make it out to seem that the German's had no way of winning the Eastern Front and the entirety of the war without having to compromise with the Bolsheviks, this is what I disagree with heavily.
And okey, let's say that was the best they could do? They still lost the war at the Western Front, sure much of it had to do with internal struggles within Germany, and much of that had to do with, can you guess? Bolshevik subversion within Germany...
But it also had to with the U.S entering the war with their military on the Western Front and as they had done so, Germany started to lose all the ground they had made during their 1918 Spring offensive. Germany war effort was also suffering from heavy logistical problems.. So things ended all the same for Germany did it not? Not only did they lose the war, but now they had also created a monster on the East that would come to cause massive suffering to Germany in the following decades to come.
Look at Germany today, it's an outgrowth of what they helped to put in power in Russia.
'just give in and lose the war on purpose bro so the country you're at war against will be nicer to their own people' 'the bolsheviks had barely any power yet, yet they also had the power to bring down germany'
how many times do you need to be told that the bolsheviks had nothing to do with germany's fall? their having an administration in russia at that time contributed almost nothing whatsoever to the revolt within germany. it happens whether they have attained power in russia or not. the only effect it had was the german govt trusting their main jews more because those jews had seemingly saved germany and delivered to them a master stroke in knocking russia out of the war. they then stabbed them in the back.
[ - ] 3Whuurs 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 2, 2022 22:43:55 ago (+1/-0)
Interesting! These are the historical outlooks that are good to validate the counter narrative of jewish history. There must have been millions of Europeans horrified watching the Jews run millions of Russians through the meat grinder, then shocked as their governments demonized Germany to ally with the Bolsheviks. Obscuring this particular kind of historical tales must have been more effective then many of the major players.
My pre 35 history is lacking, what was the significance of Ludendorff in the 10-30s?
Only really heard the “Hitler was a Jew” types, like Christopher ((Bjerknes)) claim Ludendorff both sent Lenin to Russia and somehow orchestrated Hitlers rise somehow.
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 3, 2022 18:01:55 ago (+1/-0)
I know more about him in his role during WW1, and from what I have gathered, he seemed to be a sleazy type, who by his actions, helped to shape the destruction that we saw spawn after WW1.
His role was not a key one when it comes to the 'sealed train' fiasco, the one playing the key role would be the Foreign Ministry of Germany who had been infiltrated by pro-Bolsheviks, such as Richard von Kühlmann mentioned above and Kurt Riezler who also had a jewish wife. Both of whom I suspected being cryptos.
Ludendorff had ties with one of the main orchestrators of the sealed train, the jew, Alexander Parvus, even Radek had meet with one of the chief advisor for Ludendorff, Colonel Bauer, for lunch, were they discussed both domestic and foreign policies of Germany.
Ludendorff provided the transportation for Lenin to be transported from Germany to Russia. He admitted this himself.
Ludendorff had no problem with seeing Russia being destroyed from within, because in his eyes, being at war with Russia, it made it justified. According to General Max Hoffmann, who later criticized both Hindenburg and Ludendorff, he stated both him and the Commander-in-Chief at the Eastern front had no idea of the sealed train fiasco and only found out later.
Ludendorff was in agreement with the pro-Bolshevik stance of the German Foreign Ministry, in that he wanted to make peace with the Bolsheviks, so he could return the German troops from the Eastern front to start his German offensive of 1918, that only succeeded initially and then started to crumble quickly, leading to German defeat.
Interesting, thanks for that. Guys like that Christopher ((Bjerknes)) go around making a stink to the “Hitler was a jew” types claiming Hitler and Lenin knew each other and Ludendorff single handedly started them both. Blah blah.
that only succeeded initially and then started to crumble quickly, leading to German defeat.
In fairness, Germany was never defeated in ww1, Rosa Luxemberg overthrew the Kaiser and 48hrs later ordered the Germans to lay down their arms and forfeit the war and wait to be delivered the Versailles treaty.
So he both claims that Lenin and Hitler knew each other on top of Ludendorff single handedly started both Hitler and Lenin? That sounds just absolutely stupid and wrong in every way..
Do people take him seriously even? This is not the first time I've heard him make outlandish claims.
You’d have to listen to his debate on Adam Greens YouTube channel with Dennis Wise. It’s a bit hard to remember because it was chaotic as Bjerknes was being a total spaz. But he claimed Ludendorff “created both Hitler and Lenin by being Hitlers commander in ww1 as well as being the one that allowed Lenins train to go to Moscow or St Petersburg. (That part is for sure true)
He also made the claim that Hitler was an actual Bolshevik who was at the funeral of some Commie wearing the hammer and sickle arm band and everything.
And when Wise questioned it, Bjerknes source literally went something like “the friend of the brother in law of the grave digger, told someone, and they wrote in their diary that they seen him there”…. Shit you not, I had to rewind it 3 times just to make sure I heard it right.
In the chaos he was listing Bolsheviks at that funeral and I think (but I’m not sure) he mentioned Lenin was there.
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 6, 2022 12:12:25 ago (+1/-0)*
Hahahahah, wow, What a total fraud. You would think that when you make unbelievable statement like that, you better be damn sure that you have very good reliable sources for it. But hey, I guess even when you are quarter jewish (that's what I found out about him), you can't help yourself but to make up bullshit lies to suit whatever bullshit narrative you want to push..
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 3 points 2.6 yearsOct 2, 2022 23:50:08 ago (+3/-0)
If w just undid the first world war and put all of Europe's borders back to where they were, the jews would come undone. Take back our countries from their banks, public schools and 501C tax shelters, and destroy their media. They'd be so much wailing and gnashing of teeth we'd have to throw a cross on them and watch them sizzle and melt.
[ + ] GlowNiggerDick
[ - ] GlowNiggerDick 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 3, 2022 08:17:40 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 3, 2022 02:39:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 5, 2022 03:05:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 5, 2022 03:24:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 5, 2022 05:07:12 ago (+0/-0)*
No offence, but here you seem to show that you know little of Russia's situation at that time, the Bolsheviks even after the October Revolution was still weak and haven't truly establish them as the ultimate authority yet, they didn't even have a functioning army at this time and many people within Russia opposed them, so much so, it sparked a Civil War in Russia that would a couple of years. So no, they wouldn't 'unite' against the Germans, hell, many Russians would have welcomed them, also Germany had no intention of conquering Russia, their second alternative was to remove the Bolsheviks, which they could have done easily and quickly, and install a new government.
Also, the revolution in Russia spread over to Germany shortly after did it not? Astute politicians, even before the start of WW1, had warned that Russia going to war against Germany would allow revolutionaries to cause uprisings in both countries, it was not in Germany's interests to help the Bolsheviks, certainly when Germany was still a monarchy at this time, they could have removed Russia from war without having to make peace with the Bolsheviks, again Russia at this time, was incredibly weak and wouldn't be able to stand a chance against an offensive attack from the Germans.
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 5, 2022 06:08:13 ago (+0/-0)
the irony of your comment is that the civil war is exactly why germany didn't press an attack while it was happening. they wanted internal strife, they didn't want the russian people to unite again against the external threat. when they got the peace deal, they could have betrayed the bolsheviks and taken russia, but that would've required an enormous amount of troops to control the new populations and fight another battle with a no doubt new russian resistance govt formed beyond the urals when they were desperately needed in the west, not to mention all the resources they just got from russia would then go from easy access to having to hold and work it amidst another state of war and constant sabotage.
germany did everything right in the east, which is why they did it, and they were beyond successful. they only failed in stopping their own internal threats. persisting in the east not only does nothing at all to stop this, it makes it more likely because they would then be further strained economically.
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 5, 2022 17:08:02 ago (+0/-0)*
Yes, and that's a fact. To think otherwise might have made sense at that time by some men who saw it as nothing more than Germany vs Russia and ignoring what's going on behind the scenes, and foresee the consequences of making peace with the Bolsheviks. But we know it was a bad decision because we saw the eventual consequences of it.. Yes, it's in the best interest of Germany to help a group that made itself quite known to be anti-monarchy and called for WORLD REVOLUTION, take over an enormous country that's right next door, that has a history of warfare against Germany.. Yes, I'm sure that didn't end badly for Germany?
Oh wait, we can look back and see that it actually did!
It might have been the right call for someone who had no idea what the Bolsheviks were about... but many Germans discovered that making peace with the Bolsheviks was a mistake, again even the prominent German General Hoffman as quoted in the post realized that. But hey, you would know better with your 'obvious intellect'.
No it wouldn't, what do you even base this on? The Bolsheviks didn't even have their Red Army yet, Germans estimated they needed just a few battalions to overthrow the Bolsheviks, they could also have allied themselves with the White Army... And what's this with controlling the new population, why would Germany need to occupy Russia? All they needed was to install a new provisional government or reinstate the Monarchial system after overthrowing the Bolsheviks.
'They' as in jews? Because jews and their lackeys ran the German Foreign Ministry, they were responsible for the peace agreements with the Bolsheviks, and obviously they needed that to ensure the survival of the Bolsheviks, so that they could be left in peace in Russia and continue to take control there without fear of German intervention. But according to you, these jews were correct in their policies even though we can see how these policies later turned out be devastating for Germany as a consequence, but very rewarding for the Bolshevik jews!
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 6, 2022 02:08:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 6, 2022 04:37:21 ago (+0/-0)
your second counter then is to betray the deal with the bolsheviks. i've already explained to you why and because of your total lack of knowledge and inability to compromise you refuse to see sense. the war on the french front was imperative. if they wanted to do your strategy, which i admitted they did, they would've won against france first, then came back to execute the east. to do otherwise is absolutely illogical and ridiculous to suggest. just to control the lands they had gained, they still had at the last day of the war 27 divisions in the east. it was something like 40 until they the last few weeks when they were desperately sent west. so no it doesn't require 'just a few divisions'. they also got 600,000 prisoners of war returned to them by the bolsheviks, experienced soldiers whom they could put back into action. 90% of russia's coal, so basically they got all of it so the main point of immediately invading russia further is void right there. they would've gained nothing by doing it and lost plenty while in the middle of a massive war. how can you not comprehend this?
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 6, 2022 12:06:07 ago (+0/-0)
And okey, let's say that was the best they could do? They still lost the war at the Western Front, sure much of it had to do with internal struggles within Germany, and much of that had to do with, can you guess? Bolshevik subversion within Germany...
But it also had to with the U.S entering the war with their military on the Western Front and as they had done so, Germany started to lose all the ground they had made during their 1918 Spring offensive. Germany war effort was also suffering from heavy logistical problems.. So things ended all the same for Germany did it not? Not only did they lose the war, but now they had also created a monster on the East that would come to cause massive suffering to Germany in the following decades to come.
Look at Germany today, it's an outgrowth of what they helped to put in power in Russia.
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 7, 2022 03:50:14 ago (+0/-0)
'the bolsheviks had barely any power yet, yet they also had the power to bring down germany'
how many times do you need to be told that the bolsheviks had nothing to do with germany's fall? their having an administration in russia at that time contributed almost nothing whatsoever to the revolt within germany. it happens whether they have attained power in russia or not. the only effect it had was the german govt trusting their main jews more because those jews had seemingly saved germany and delivered to them a master stroke in knocking russia out of the war. they then stabbed them in the back.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 2, 2022 22:43:55 ago (+1/-0)
There must have been millions of Europeans horrified watching the Jews run millions of Russians through the meat grinder, then shocked as their governments demonized Germany to ally with the Bolsheviks.
Obscuring this particular kind of historical tales must have been more effective then many of the major players.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 3, 2022 08:53:21 ago (+0/-0)
But is was WW1 era.
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 3, 2022 00:59:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 2, 2022 22:53:28 ago (+0/-0)
Only really heard the “Hitler was a Jew” types, like Christopher ((Bjerknes)) claim Ludendorff both sent Lenin to Russia and somehow orchestrated Hitlers rise somehow.
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 3, 2022 18:01:55 ago (+1/-0)
His role was not a key one when it comes to the 'sealed train' fiasco, the one playing the key role would be the Foreign Ministry of Germany who had been infiltrated by pro-Bolsheviks, such as Richard von Kühlmann mentioned above and Kurt Riezler who also had a jewish wife. Both of whom I suspected being cryptos.
Ludendorff had ties with one of the main orchestrators of the sealed train, the jew, Alexander Parvus, even Radek had meet with one of the chief advisor for Ludendorff, Colonel Bauer, for lunch, were they discussed both domestic and foreign policies of Germany.
Ludendorff provided the transportation for Lenin to be transported from Germany to Russia. He admitted this himself.
Ludendorff had no problem with seeing Russia being destroyed from within, because in his eyes, being at war with Russia, it made it justified. According to General Max Hoffmann, who later criticized both Hindenburg and Ludendorff, he stated both him and the Commander-in-Chief at the Eastern front had no idea of the sealed train fiasco and only found out later.
Ludendorff was in agreement with the pro-Bolshevik stance of the German Foreign Ministry, in that he wanted to make peace with the Bolsheviks, so he could return the German troops from the Eastern front to start his German offensive of 1918, that only succeeded initially and then started to crumble quickly, leading to German defeat.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 4, 2022 00:43:07 ago (+0/-0)
Guys like that Christopher ((Bjerknes)) go around making a stink to the “Hitler was a jew” types claiming Hitler and Lenin knew each other and Ludendorff single handedly started them both. Blah blah.
In fairness, Germany was never defeated in ww1, Rosa Luxemberg overthrew the Kaiser and 48hrs later ordered the Germans to lay down their arms and forfeit the war and wait to be delivered the Versailles treaty.
But point taken.
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] -1 points 2.6 yearsOct 5, 2022 03:09:51 ago (+0/-1)
Do people take him seriously even? This is not the first time I've heard him make outlandish claims.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 5, 2022 22:33:51 ago (+0/-0)
It’s a bit hard to remember because it was chaotic as Bjerknes was being a total spaz. But he claimed Ludendorff “created both Hitler and Lenin by being Hitlers commander in ww1 as well as being the one that allowed Lenins train to go to Moscow or St Petersburg. (That part is for sure true)
He also made the claim that Hitler was an actual Bolshevik who was at the funeral of some Commie wearing the hammer and sickle arm band and everything.
And when Wise questioned it, Bjerknes source literally went something like “the friend of the brother in law of the grave digger, told someone, and they wrote in their diary that they seen him there”….
Shit you not, I had to rewind it 3 times just to make sure I heard it right.
In the chaos he was listing Bolsheviks at that funeral and I think (but I’m not sure) he mentioned Lenin was there.
[ + ] didyouknow
[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 6, 2022 12:12:25 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 6, 2022 22:34:03 ago (+0/-0)