We are told that Hitler started World War 2 when he invaded Poland in 1939. We are never told the real reason as to why Germany invaded Poland or why Poland welcomed it.
The German State had repeatedly warned the Polish state that unless it would stop Polish militia committing genocide against the Prussian-German population in Poland, and if it would not stop them from repeated provocative incursions across borders into German territory, the German state would resort to dire methods to stop them.
United Kingdom and France had bilaterally promised the Polish state that if Germany would start a war, they would attack from the west. Poland at this time had a military comparable in size and force to what then was believed to be the size and force of the German Wehrmacht. In fact, it was commonly believed that Germany could not conduct any warfare outside its borders for a period longer than maximum six weeks.
Poland had only eighteen years previously defeated a Soviet invasion into its territory and prior to that it had maintained military presence in Belarus and Ukraine while the Russian civil war was ongoing.
Political and military elites in Poland were convinced of their superiority in any confrontational situation against Germany and having had assurances from UK and France, they felt that if they’d be able to lure Germany into a war situation, they could enlarge the Gdansk corridor, slice East Prussia from Germany and strengthen their situation as a power broker in Eastern Europe.
Before we go on: Socialism, Marxism and Fascism, are all extremist versions of Humanism. This article is not on any one’s side.
Some historians have pointed out, that the decision to force Germany, UK and France into military conflict was left in the hands of the Polish authorities, and that they made the decision. It would be worthwhile to note that throughout World War 2, thousands of Polish males joined the German Wehrmacht and fought on its behalf and thousands of Polish females joined the war effort at home.
Now two generations later it turns out that National Socialist sympathies are strongest in Poland of all the European nations and in general when WW2 is discussed with self-informed Polish people they have very few if any negative comments to make about the five years that Polish territory was under German rule.
When one investigates the period one will discover that this territory was largely self-governed and was treated respectfully.
Regarding how WW2 was started, the facts are clear. UK and France declared war on Germany, and in the winter of ’39-’40, France invaded German territory making the German invasion into the west in May 1940 a simple act of retaliation and proactive defense. For the next year or so it is known that UK refused up to twenty times to negotiate peace terms with German diplomats and it forbade its own diplomats abroad to converse with German diplomats.
During that time The German State repeatedly offered to evacuate all occupied territories except Poland, only to prove its eagerness to start negotiations. It is also known that the so called Blitz against London, was a retaliation for at least ten British bombing attacks on Berlin.
In the summer of 1940, France made legal peace treaty with Germany and for the next four years, the treaty was respected on both sides. The victorious Germans did not abuse their victory, for example they did not demand any of the substantial navy of the French state to aid the German war effort and neither did they demand any of their colonies, but they were allowed to transport military and equipment through French territories in North Africa.
The reverse is true when it comes to UK. Churchill ordered two air raids on the French navy while it was docked in the summer of 1940, which told the French public and the French elites all they needed to know about their so called ally.
It was also largely known by French authorities and particularly the military High Command in France, that the infamous victory of the German Wehrmacht in May and June 1940, was largely due to a command from Churchill to the British Expeditionary force in France and Belgium to „advance to the sea“ as soon as the German panzer divisions were visible.
Obviously all of this can be debated but there’s more: Iran, Iraq and Iceland were illegally invaded by UK from the spring 1940 to the summer of 1941.
Egypt was forced to cooperate in the UK war effort and an illegal British invasion force was thwarted by mere hours in Norway in April 1940. Furthermore, the invasion of British and American forces into Northern Africa in 1943 and later into France in 1944 were all illegal invasions into neutral France, and against France.
It can be argued that the military campaign of the Allies from June ’44 to February ’45 on the western front in Europe was largely against French, Belgian and Dutch forces. Large part of the Wehrmacht on the Easter front was manned by Russian volunteers and thousands of people of many nationalities and ethnicities.
Now we have to confront the so called Holocaust:
It is illegal to discuss the Holocaust in approximately twenty democratic humanist countries, and if anyone does doubt it, then in almost all countries the Zionist lobby (which pretends to be Jewish and is the sole benefactor of all German war reparations to the Jewish religion) demonizes that someone and more or less suffocates him or her through the Zionist controlled mainstream media: So we won’t discuss the Holocaust.
This does not change the fact that 75% of Jews rejects Zionism and the State of Israel. Another fact is that the Zionist ideology is a National Socialist (or extreme Humanist) ideology, trying to convert a religion into ethnicity and the State of Israel is founded by The United Nations and not G-d; Everything about Zionism and modern Israel is complete anathema to Judaism.
As a point to consider: The German SS and Gestapo were careful to only put Zionists into prison camps – transitory to Birobidzhan in the fullness of time – and tried to leave alone those of Jewish faith who preferred Ghettos.
It is interesting that in the infamous uprising of the Jewish Ghetto in Warzaw in ’43, the disciplined Wehrmacht went carefully house through house, for a duration of two months, being careful to only fight Zionist guerillas and leaving peaceful Jewish Citizens alone, when they could have easily stormed the entire compound. I hope this paragraph doesn’t break any laws.
The famous Nuremberg Tribunals is when and where the Allies of UK, USA and Soviet Union created a legal faculty to execute German officials and label it a court case.
France was not a real member, but the supporters of Charles de Gaulle were labeled France and kept on board, for show. No one mentions that Italian officials had already been executed without any trial. In these tribunals – which is illegal in some countries to label Kangaroo courts – two decisions were paramount.
Modern culture Post ww2 is since then in possession of the legal term “Crime against Humanity” as defined by the Nuremberg tribunals. Large scale incarceration of humans, under any pretext, is now globally illegal, so are mandatory injections, and obviously using military or militia to kill ordinary citizens whether on large or small scale is illegal and a crime against humanity, accordingly. Any violence against POW’s is also part of this.
Under the same legal provision, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by UK and USA and also 1990 are a Crime against Humanity, also when the USA invading Afghanistan in 2001 (later participated in by NATO), the Libyan bombing campaign by NATO, the military enagagements of Germany, France, UK and USA in Syria since 2011. Any mandatory vaccinations can safely be included. Let us not forget the prison camps of Japanese-Americans in WW2.
The starving to death of millions of POW’s in Europe (by the Allies) from 1945 to 1947, or the massive bombing campaigns from 1943 to 1945 frying millions of living Europeans to death in Napalm and other explosives.
This short list is far from from exhaustive when it comes to listing the massive Crimes against Humanity conducted by the Allies – USA, UK and Soviet Union – and their collaborators i.e. Warsaw Pact, NATO and others in and since ww2, by their own legal terms. What is the definition of Anomie and Bigotry?
My personal conclusion is simple; The term Crime against Humanity, under the legal domain formed by the Allies (or their United Nations institution of post world war 2 order), is a bigoted lie, pure and simple. Notice the concept domain, it has a substantial place in this rhetoric.
Since World War 2 the population of the world is largely referred to in politics, academia, and Statecraft, as Mankind or Humankind, sometimes Humanity. For the sake of argument let us re-define the concept to clarify a distinction.
In Darwinian ideology – which is a faculty of Humanist Science and Socialist Explanation – it can be said that Mankind or Humankind is a species within the branch of Humanoid Primates. In religious ideology it could be said that Humanity is composed of the descendants of the first Humans created by God or gods.
In the former, a Human Being is a humanist classification and in the latter a Human is a spiritual or religious phenomenon. A Human Being is denoted to tissue, gene and brain. A Human is result of divine intention.
Human Beings belong to the domain of Mankind or Humankind but Humans belong to Humanity. The authority entrusted with the legal provisions and faculties within either of these domains, must have their authority or legal power derived from somewhere and to be explained by some form of ideological reasons, or logic.
Reason and Logic is not always the same thing.
The formation of the United Nations, is in essence based on the UN Security Council, where its supreme power – or authority – is contained. The five member states of UNSC who have veto power, are the real UN, the others follow suit and are Collaborators. All these states are Humanist Nationstates – or Humanist Federations (Russia and USA are Federations) who conduct their international affairs in large part based on ideas first formed in the treaties of Westphalia and later confirmed by the Viennese treaties, and so on until The UN.
This is often referred to as the Westphalian system, but it is more or less based on the Worldview of Humanism, which is where The State Entity is first explained (based on Richelieu’an explanations later confirmed by Lutheranism).
Humanism doesn’t recognize anything which cannot be directly measured or quantified.
Spirituality for example or Religion, is simply tolerated and only insofar as it does not hinder the power structure created by humanists, whether through statecraft or academia (to simplify). It should be noted that any group using religious worldview which Humanist States deem anathema to its own worldview are deemed Extremist or Fundamentalist or both, and marginalized or even made illegal where possible.
For the record: Any ideology who is intolerant of other worldviews than its own, is extremist and this applies to Humanism, which itself is entirely fundamentalist, by the same book, and shallow.
Organized religion in modern world has almost exlusively adopted Humanism to a large extent as its foundation, paying only lip service to its original dogma, and become completely incompetent in any cultural discussion. The Covid-19 lockdown’s and Corona virus discussions have proved this point.
Humanism also deems the “human mind” or “human reason” to be the supreme or highest form of sentience. Hence, anything human beings can collectively agree on to be self evident, or ultimately Logical, can automatically translate into Law, and even be declared beyond reproach (as seen regarding the Nuremberg Tribunals), except when it suits Power, Opportunity and Consensus.
It doesn’t take much to show or to prove that Humanism as a method of Reason fails completely and utterly or to which extent it does. It also is easy to prove that the rise and spread of Humanism is largely due to people of respect and conscience who believe(d) in other ideologies who expected humanists to respect their own philosophy when given chance.
These explanations are out of scope for the moment, but I – Guy Ellis – have discussed these at length in my Video/Audio archive.
As already explained, the term Crime against Humanity, within the domain of Humanist Nationstates and Humanist Academia, is meaningless. Humanism also doesn’t respect Humanity and assumes total authority over Mankind. Yet, there is such a thing as other lawful domain and a real crime against humanity.
Here it should be explained that Lawful is used in the term; Legal is not always Lawful. Further definition of the difference is also out of scope for the purpose of this article. Let us briefly point out eight possible domains: Humanism, Christianism, Islamism, Judaism, Nirvanism, Mysticism, Monotheism and Naturalism. The list is not exhaustive but does encompass most known worldviews and their translations into worldimages.
What is considered lawful within the scope of Islamic Republic, Christian Republic or Humanist Republic – not to mention Monarchies and Theocracies – would require a specific and considerable philosophical discussion. Let us simply leave with questions, as a Rabbinical philosopher first suggested to me, and I have since grown very fond of iterating in my own words (and most philosophers would perhaps cuncur):
“I don’t have any answers, only suggestions, but I have many questions.” So let us consider questions.
Is the science of Virology conclusive? Is the application and development of Big Pharma Vaccination beyond scrutiny and discussion? Is it honest to marginalize and obfuscate scientists who debate these issues? Is it justifiable that a small socialist elite has now destroyed the economical and political system the entire world uses, based on virological subversion and coercion, meanwhile censoring all criticizm of it’s actions? If the same elite has successfully drawn the entire world of Mankind into a domestic prison camp, if it is criminal and unlawful, and global in scope, is it not a crime against mankind?
Most of all, what is the lawful domain, duty and rights, of a state? How much does a state rely on the state of mind, coerced or informed, of the citizens who support it and the humans who are occupied by it?
