World War Two Behind The Scenes

I like history but most people deplore the thought of remembering anything they do not understand.

There are many things about this war that few know anything about….basically because because they do not want to know they had rather believe the lopsided stories they have been told.

About the only thing anyone can recall is that ill-fated statement by Chamberlain (a post for another day)

Me? I like to look beyond the popular crap and do a deeper dive.

So were there any efforts to avoid World War 2….beyond that famous statement by Chamberlain…..( I know there will be inevitable condemnation of Chamberlain’s efforts…please don’t)

There are many military historians who are familiar with the battlefield history of World War Two but few know much about the diplomatic history of the war when it comes to peace initiatives, long suppressed by liberal establishment historians, to terminate the war, in many cases years before it ended in actual history, or even prevent it from happening at all. Americans have been indoctrinated to believe since grade school that the war could not have been averted and that our only mistake was not invading and crushing Nazi Germany in its cradle when it was still military inferior and in the process of rebuilding its armed forces following the crushing disarmament constraints of the Treaty of Versailles.

According to the dominant historical narrative, Hitler could not be trusted to keep any of his agreements so any negotiated peace settlement would only delay the inevitable. The only problem with this accepted historical narrative of the war is that none of it is true. These peace offers, which have been largely covered up and/or erased from the annals of history, serve to convincingly rebut the myth that Hitler, an evil dictator who mass murdered five to six million Jews, was undeterrable and unappeasable. They provide convincing evidence that World War Two was, in fact, neither a necessary nor inevitable war to stop a dictator who was bent on nothing less than world conquest as Americans have been taught to believe.

However, the most glaring historical misconception of the war by far, which has since been used to justify numerous wars including an indefinite, unnecessary, destabilizing and incredibly dangerous prolongation of America’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, was that it was Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler with the Munich Agreement that caused the outbreak of World War Two and therefore the chief lesson of the war is that we must never accommodate our adversaries or else they will be emboldened to invade other countries and perhaps start another world war. In fact, it was not the British policy of accommodating Nazi Germany that caused the outbreak of World War Two but rather it was Chamberlain’s decision to abruptly abandon it and issue an ill-considered British military guarantee against a German invasion that Hitler had never previously considered, in view of the fact that Hitler had spent the previous five years trying to cultivate Poland as an ally against the USSR, that resulted in the outbreak of the war.

https://dpyne.substack.com/p/lost-opportunities-for-peace-the

There is always more to any war than what lopsided history has taught…..this includes all wars….including the most recent one that all have very strong opinions about as a bit deluded that they are)

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Is Ukraine A Stalemate?

Probably not.  (Semantics)

More like an impasse.

Impasse: a predicament affording no obvious escape.

That is my thought….no matter how much equipment and money that is poured into Ukraine this situation will only be settled by negotiations….the only thing a prolonged war accomplishes is more death and destruction.

But stalemate is liberally used in this case….

But stalemate often involves large and bloody battles. The Battles of the Somme, Verdun, and Passchendaele took place in conditions of stalemate. Hundreds of thousands were killed in those battles that moved the front lines a little, but not much. And stalemates can ultimately be broken, as the one in World War I eventually was. One side or the other can lose its will. One side or the other can gain a new ally (like the US in World War I). One side or the other can gain a technological advantage, although that’s less common (and was less important in World War I than the entry of the US). One side or the other can just be ground down and collapse (like Russia in 1917). Many things can happen in the context of a huge amount of fighting and dying, all in conditions of stalemate. That is the most likely course of action we see in Ukraine right now.

Our assessment that the Russian campaign has culminated and that conditions of stalemate are emerging rests on our assessments, laid out carefully in many fully documented reports published on our website (not just maps) and increasingly validated by reports from various Western intelligence communities, that the Russians do not have the capability to bring a lot of fresh effective combat power to the fight in a short period of time. The kinds of mobilizations the Russians are engaging in will generate renewed fighting power in months at the earliest. Unless something remarkable happens to break the stalemate now settling in, the stalemate is likely to last for months. Hence our assessment and our forecast.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/what-stalemate-means-ukraine-and-why-it-matters

All sides seem to want this conflict to go on and on…..so how may this situation be resolved….

Ukraine’s war reaches the one-year mark with no immediate end in sight. Both sides want to carry on fighting, and any negotiated peace looks a long way off. So how might the war end? Here are five scenarios to consider.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/24/how-might-the-ukraine-war-end

Then there is the BS about the tanks and planes will change the direction of the conflict….not gonna happen.

Western and NATO countries promised to send modern weaponry to Ukraine. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin put it, the intent was to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to drive Russia out. As signs indicate a Ukrainian spring offensive may soon launch, many Western military analysts claim that a sufficient amount of Western armor could turn things around for Ukraine. A careful analysis reveals such optimism may be misplaced.

Bad News: NATO Tanks, Planes, and Artillery Unlikely to Win Ukraine War

All that is left now in Eastern Ukraine is to start digging the trenches….(a WW1 reference in case you are confused….which you probably are….)

How will this end?

And the war drags on….and on….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”