In this Rising Tide Foundation presentation, economic analyst, researcher and historian Alex Krainer shed light on the shocking truth of the 1938 Munich Agreement and broader Tripartite agenda for a fascist world order which nearly succeeded before and even during WW2.
Since this is a long-term goal and they're above the law, we can never trust those in power. Need to never concentrate power. Power must always be monitored and redistributed. If that is possible.
This system we continue to utilize, over how many thousands of years? seems to be intricately connected to Patriarchy and the silencing of women. I think if we're ever going to outgrow this need to slaughter each other, it behooves us to include women into the conversation, if not simply turn it over to them altogether.
Do you understand what gaslighting is? A non-sequiter? A false analogy?
Where, exactly, have I made the statement that women are not flawed? Where have I said that women are never wrong, never behave horribly, etc. If you don't understand someone's statement(s), ask for clarification, don't just make stuff up and then pretend that's what they said.
*I fail to see how "women can be more vicious than men" is even a real argument. Is there going to be a list, a contest, and then we choose who is more vicious? ABSURD. Fail.
*Real Housewives is a TV show, not reality. Fail.
*Exceptions to a rule is not a substantive argument, as in there's a queen or two. Fail.
*You say "blaming Patriarchy is never the answer." According to YOU, so that's your opinion, and not an Ultimate Truth. Fail.
*I didn't "demonize" men. Another of your opinions. Fail.
*I didn't say "This is the cause of all our problems." Fail.
"It is entirely different than Hitler blaming Jews, etc. Fail.
*Too many variables-- also your opinion. Fail.
*Too simplistic." Another opinion. Fail.
"Too divisive" Another opinion. (How is Patriarchy OR Matriarchy -- which I did not suggest replace Patriarchy-- NOT divisive? Fail.
"Too cruel." Silly attempt to assert yet another opinion. FAIL.
You not only completely don't "get it," but you CHANGE it, IGNORE it, and pretend it's something else. Logical fallacies galore.
I won't spend any more time trying to have a debate with someone who can't, or won't, even understand what I'm saying. Have a nice day.
Oh, you know what I "consider" now, too? LOL I actually CONSIDERED everything you said.
What you said was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY off point. That's what I said. You got EVERYTHING WRONG. That's what I think. You couldn't argue your way out of a sandwich bag.
While there's much in this presentation that I can agree with, one statement you made I cannot agree with is “that Britain only joined WWII in May 1944 after the USSR had already shredded the Nazi war machine.” This is false because it ignores a lot. It is true that the main Allied invasion of Europe didn't come until June 1944, it is false to say that Britain was just sitting around doing nothing, suffering nothing, while Russia was getting invaded by Germany. While the Soviet Union and Germany were busy carving up Poland, Germany began their bombing campaign against Britain during 1940. This was before Operation Barbarossa which invaded the Soviet Union (June 1941). Don't forget the submarine warfare being conducted against Britain beginning in 1940 (Battle of the Atlantic), sinking many neutral and British ships importing war goods to Britain from the US. This cost many lives and tonnage. In 1940, both the British and French had to evacuate their troops (not their equipment) from Dunkirk, a miraculous evacuation, but nevertheless a defeat. Their invasion of Norway in 1940 was a defeat, partly because the army was poorly supplied and the operation was generally ill-conceived.
Britain's peacetime army was always small compared to its navy. After WWI, during the Baldwin/Chamberlain years, it was not well-funded and therefore ill-equipped and not very modern. Its air force was even less funded or modernized and was significantly smaller than the Germans. Britain had made little preparation for war in the 1930s and France poured all their military resources into the Maginot Line. So when Britain reluctantly went to war with Germany in 1939 (France was even less willing to go to war), these armies were poorly led by un-aggressive, even defeatist generals (like Gamblin) and neither British or French governments in the years 1939-1940 had much stomach for war. Only after Chamberlain resigned in September1940 and Churchill took over did the British tempo of the war change, becoming much more aggressive against Germany. They sank the battleship Bismarck in 1941 (after taking big losses themselves) and began their bombing campaigns against Germany. Churchill was also quite willing to make deals with the Soviet Union to accomplish the defeat of Germany https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/churchills-deal-with-the-devil/, whereas Chamberlain had not been at all. It was Chamberlain's implacable hostility to the Soviet Union that pushed the Soviet Union to suddenly ally itself with Germany just prior to the beginning of the war. That, of course, was a major strategic mistake on the part of Chamberlain.
But Britain was in no shape to undertake a major invasion of Fortress Europe after it had lost its equipment in Dunkirk, while also being starved of war supplies and raw materials and its cities bombed every night. Even in 1942, after America joined the war, the outcome was still very much in doubt. I remember a veteran who served in North Africa and Italy told me that in 1942 the Allies were losing the war everywhere. It takes time to recruit, train and equip an army. The American army was quite small in 1941 (only 300k soldiers). These troop numbers became even more contracted when Roosevelt made the decision NOT to rescue our troops under siege by the Japanese in the Pacific (we lost 30,000 in the Philippines alone), and instead to concentrate on sending the bulk of American effort to Europe. Ditto for British troops lost in the Far East with the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong. No one came to their rescue or were able to.
Britain and the US did invade North Africa to prevent Germany from seizing the Suez Canal. Both invaded Sicily and Italy and southern France (Dieppe) and these were not easy campaigns. The Normandy invasion needed careful planning, a lot of logistics, and a lot of American troops shipped over to make it successful. Otherwise, what is the point of sacrificing these lives to accomplish nothing?? It is true that Stalin criticized the western Allies for not invading sooner, but this criticism comes from someone who was often needlessly wasteful of his troops. He expected the western Allies to waste their troops too. In a dictatorship, a tyrant can get away with that, but other forms of government cannot without losing support of their own people.
So I think your statement is false because it ignores the whole story.
Oops I lost my comment - I hope I am not repeating it. I had left this comment also at Alex’s web site with his article. His explanation of the Munich agreement was how we were taught this history in Czechoslovakia after WW II. Plus one more fact – Germany taking over the Czechoslovakian arm industries etc. made its army much stronger.
Since this is a long-term goal and they're above the law, we can never trust those in power. Need to never concentrate power. Power must always be monitored and redistributed. If that is possible.
This system we continue to utilize, over how many thousands of years? seems to be intricately connected to Patriarchy and the silencing of women. I think if we're ever going to outgrow this need to slaughter each other, it behooves us to include women into the conversation, if not simply turn it over to them altogether.
I guess you’ve never worked for a woman or with a bunch of women…..
Woman can be more vicious than men.
Real Housewives anyone?
Or have you not researched and applauded how many women have reached great heights.
How about Queen Elizabeth 1 and 2. Long reigns.
Blaming so called Patriarchy is never the answer.
Demonizing men is ridiculous at best.
To me, anytime fingers are pointing out saying This! This is the cause of all our problems.
Is no different than Hitler blaming Jews, gypsies and disabled people.
Too many variables to blame A group. Period
It’s too simplistic.
Too divisive
Too cruel.
Do you understand what gaslighting is? A non-sequiter? A false analogy?
Where, exactly, have I made the statement that women are not flawed? Where have I said that women are never wrong, never behave horribly, etc. If you don't understand someone's statement(s), ask for clarification, don't just make stuff up and then pretend that's what they said.
*I fail to see how "women can be more vicious than men" is even a real argument. Is there going to be a list, a contest, and then we choose who is more vicious? ABSURD. Fail.
*Real Housewives is a TV show, not reality. Fail.
*Exceptions to a rule is not a substantive argument, as in there's a queen or two. Fail.
*You say "blaming Patriarchy is never the answer." According to YOU, so that's your opinion, and not an Ultimate Truth. Fail.
*I didn't "demonize" men. Another of your opinions. Fail.
*I didn't say "This is the cause of all our problems." Fail.
"It is entirely different than Hitler blaming Jews, etc. Fail.
*Too many variables-- also your opinion. Fail.
*Too simplistic." Another opinion. Fail.
"Too divisive" Another opinion. (How is Patriarchy OR Matriarchy -- which I did not suggest replace Patriarchy-- NOT divisive? Fail.
"Too cruel." Silly attempt to assert yet another opinion. FAIL.
You not only completely don't "get it," but you CHANGE it, IGNORE it, and pretend it's something else. Logical fallacies galore.
I won't spend any more time trying to have a debate with someone who can't, or won't, even understand what I'm saying. Have a nice day.
I see you failed to consider anything I said.
Doth protest too much.
Oh, you know what I "consider" now, too? LOL I actually CONSIDERED everything you said.
What you said was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY off point. That's what I said. You got EVERYTHING WRONG. That's what I think. You couldn't argue your way out of a sandwich bag.
While there's much in this presentation that I can agree with, one statement you made I cannot agree with is “that Britain only joined WWII in May 1944 after the USSR had already shredded the Nazi war machine.” This is false because it ignores a lot. It is true that the main Allied invasion of Europe didn't come until June 1944, it is false to say that Britain was just sitting around doing nothing, suffering nothing, while Russia was getting invaded by Germany. While the Soviet Union and Germany were busy carving up Poland, Germany began their bombing campaign against Britain during 1940. This was before Operation Barbarossa which invaded the Soviet Union (June 1941). Don't forget the submarine warfare being conducted against Britain beginning in 1940 (Battle of the Atlantic), sinking many neutral and British ships importing war goods to Britain from the US. This cost many lives and tonnage. In 1940, both the British and French had to evacuate their troops (not their equipment) from Dunkirk, a miraculous evacuation, but nevertheless a defeat. Their invasion of Norway in 1940 was a defeat, partly because the army was poorly supplied and the operation was generally ill-conceived.
Britain's peacetime army was always small compared to its navy. After WWI, during the Baldwin/Chamberlain years, it was not well-funded and therefore ill-equipped and not very modern. Its air force was even less funded or modernized and was significantly smaller than the Germans. Britain had made little preparation for war in the 1930s and France poured all their military resources into the Maginot Line. So when Britain reluctantly went to war with Germany in 1939 (France was even less willing to go to war), these armies were poorly led by un-aggressive, even defeatist generals (like Gamblin) and neither British or French governments in the years 1939-1940 had much stomach for war. Only after Chamberlain resigned in September1940 and Churchill took over did the British tempo of the war change, becoming much more aggressive against Germany. They sank the battleship Bismarck in 1941 (after taking big losses themselves) and began their bombing campaigns against Germany. Churchill was also quite willing to make deals with the Soviet Union to accomplish the defeat of Germany https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/churchills-deal-with-the-devil/, whereas Chamberlain had not been at all. It was Chamberlain's implacable hostility to the Soviet Union that pushed the Soviet Union to suddenly ally itself with Germany just prior to the beginning of the war. That, of course, was a major strategic mistake on the part of Chamberlain.
But Britain was in no shape to undertake a major invasion of Fortress Europe after it had lost its equipment in Dunkirk, while also being starved of war supplies and raw materials and its cities bombed every night. Even in 1942, after America joined the war, the outcome was still very much in doubt. I remember a veteran who served in North Africa and Italy told me that in 1942 the Allies were losing the war everywhere. It takes time to recruit, train and equip an army. The American army was quite small in 1941 (only 300k soldiers). These troop numbers became even more contracted when Roosevelt made the decision NOT to rescue our troops under siege by the Japanese in the Pacific (we lost 30,000 in the Philippines alone), and instead to concentrate on sending the bulk of American effort to Europe. Ditto for British troops lost in the Far East with the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong. No one came to their rescue or were able to.
Britain and the US did invade North Africa to prevent Germany from seizing the Suez Canal. Both invaded Sicily and Italy and southern France (Dieppe) and these were not easy campaigns. The Normandy invasion needed careful planning, a lot of logistics, and a lot of American troops shipped over to make it successful. Otherwise, what is the point of sacrificing these lives to accomplish nothing?? It is true that Stalin criticized the western Allies for not invading sooner, but this criticism comes from someone who was often needlessly wasteful of his troops. He expected the western Allies to waste their troops too. In a dictatorship, a tyrant can get away with that, but other forms of government cannot without losing support of their own people.
So I think your statement is false because it ignores the whole story.
Oops I lost my comment - I hope I am not repeating it. I had left this comment also at Alex’s web site with his article. His explanation of the Munich agreement was how we were taught this history in Czechoslovakia after WW II. Plus one more fact – Germany taking over the Czechoslovakian arm industries etc. made its army much stronger.