Hmmm. Câteodată-i bine să te mai uiţi şi-napoi...

In the FIRST World War the Germans had done pretty much the same thing, using Belgium as a battle ground, coming in through the Ardennes. But we are supposed to believe that just 25 years later, the Germans snuck up on France and Belgium through the Ardennes? French generals thought the Ardennes were “impenetrable”, though the Germans had just penetrated them in 1914?

Abel Danger:

BEFORE WWIII STARTS, LET’S GET WWII FULLY REVISED

Ed.’s note: Before we start killing each other again for our financial/banking global overlords, let’s get this history cleared up so that our children and grandchildren, for those who survive anyway and aren’t lobotomized by technology, won’t have so much historical revisionism to plow through in their lives when they try to figure all this fake shit out. If you can’t deal with this material go away, go turn a NFL Monday Night Football game on.
-------------------

The Battle of France

Rommel and his men hunting snipe

by Miles Mathis

First published September 28, 2019

The question I asked today was “How could Germany defeat France in just five days at the start of WWII?” Is that at all believable? No. Everything we read about that makes absolutely no sense. Prime Minister of France Reynaud telephoned Churchill five days in, saying they were already beaten, and England decided to do. . . pretty much nothing. Churchill had been Prime Minister for how many days at that point? Five. Five days. Churchill was appointed Prime Minister May 10 and Germany attacked France via Belgium on May 10. Just a wacky coincidence, right? France was a country of 40 million people, but they had no more troops to send to the front? The Allies let France fall without an extended fight?

Remember, Germany won this “war” not by blitzkrieging Paris or other major French cities by air. No, it supposedly blitzkrieged by driving tanks through the mountainous and heavily forested Ardennes of Belgium. The “historians” at Wikipedia tell us the Germans won so fast by

trapping the bulk of the Allied forces in a cauldron on the Franco-Belgian border near Lille.

Really? And you believe that? You believe these German tanks drove all the way across Belgium, around the top end of the Maginot Line, over hills and rivers, and did that in less than five days? Have you ever watched a tank move? It is not a great vehicle for a blitzkrieg, since its top speed is something like 20mph. In the Ardennes, its top speed would have been about 5mph, at best. Actually, its top speed in the Ardennes would have been close to. . . zero, since tanks can’t just drive through major rivers and forests. They have to use bridges, you know. The German tanks were neat and all, but they weren’t submergible or amphibious. They also can’t drive over entire forests. Yes, a tank can drive over a small tree, but it can’t just power through a forest of big trees. A tank has to drive around most trees. Also, that part about trapping the Allied forces in a cauldron near Lille? Why would the Allied forces all be hanging out in a small area near Lille? Are we supposed to think the cafes were just really top-notch there, or that all the officers were there drinking absinthe?

We are supposed to believe the Allies were caught off guard, and weren’t prepared. But they had prepared the Maginot Line, hadn’t they? The Germans had to go around that to the north, which means, logically, that line between Germany and France must have been well-defended somehow. Otherwise the mighty Germans would have just plowed right through it with their magical tanks, right? But if France and the Allies had the wherewithal to create that successful defense, how could they not have the wherewithal to defend further north? Once the German tanks left Germany and hit Luxembourg, say, why didn’t the French shift their defenses north? Why didn’t the Allied air forces attack the advancing German army?

As a measure of how absurd the history is here, we get the story about the French soldier committing suicide, but taking the time to write a postcard to the President of France, stating that he was brave and all, but he couldn’t fight tanks with a rifle. That never happened, you can be sure. That’s a made-up story if there ever was one. Do you think a soldier on the front needs to commit suicide? No, all he needs to do is run out into the field: he will be dead soon enough. And if he is going to do that, he isn’t going to write a postcard to the President first.

How backward are we supposed to believe the French army was? Why not just tell us this soldier was armed with a bow and arrow? Do you really think the Allies had no tanks or other advanced weaponry? We are about five years away from the (fake) atomic bomb here, but we are supposed to believe France is still in the dark ages, I guess, fighting with breech-loaders or cannons. Next they will tell us the French lost because the wooden pins in their catapults had gotten eaten by termites.

Again, Reynaud’s call to Churchill is highly suspicious, because by May 15, France wasn’t beaten at all. Even if we believe the mainstream story, at that point Germany had only beaten parts of Belgium, so why would France think it was all over? That would be like the US surrendering because the Soviet Union had defeated Canada.

You may also want to ask yourself this nagging little question that no “real” historian ever asks: since the Germans had attacked west through Belgium and Holland both in WWI (1914) and the Franco- Prussian War (1870), why were the French and English so sure they wouldn’t do it again in 1940? Why did they end the Maginot Line at Luxembourg, leaving the Belgian and Holland borders open?

Germany borders both Belgium and Holland, and some of Germany’s largest cities are right there near the border, including Essen, Cologne, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Wiesbaden, Mainz, and Frankfurt. So why no Maginot line there? In fact, the German border north of Luxembourg is more than twice as long as the border south to Basel, so why would the Allies all but ignore that border? Because of the Ardennes, we are told. But the Ardennes blocked only about the southern quarter of that border with Germany, so the Germans could easily drive around it. You shouldn’t be hearing about the Ardennes at all here, and the fact that it is mentioned so prominently is just proof this is all a lie.

If you ask this question at Quora.com, you find this as the top ranked answer (by Joshua Millins):

The gaps were an allied neutral nation (Belgium), Then there was the seemingly impenetrable ardennes forest that was impassable to armored vehicles. Neither was thought to be of any use in another mass offensive from the east. But they discounted ingenuity and extreme aggression from the Germans.

You see the poor misdirection. First, ignore Holland. Second, call Belgium neutral, although they had been ransacked in WWI and knew they couldn’t be neutral. Third, mention the Ardennes, which blocked only about 1⁄4 of that long border. Fourth, pretend the Allies were shocked by the ingenuity of a German command that thought to stroll across a long unprotected border a few miles from their major industrial cities.

In the first paragraph in the Maginot Line page at Wikipedia, we find this:

Constructed on the French side of its borders with Italy, Switzerland, Germany, andLuxembourg, the line did not extend to the English Channel due to the then alliance with Belgium. Unfortunately when the Second World War began in the West on May 10th, 1940,Belgium had become a neutral nation in an effort along with the Netherlands, to appease Adolf Hitler and his ever more aggressive Third Reich.

You see why I am gagging on this? The line didn’t extend north due to the alliance with Belgium?

Whose alliance are they talking about? It almost seems like they are implying a German/Belgian alliance, since that is the only way this makes any sense. If those two countries were allies, then Belgium wouldn’t need a line of defense, right? But since Belgium had been chewed up by Germany in WWI and the Franco-Prussian War, it couldn’t have been a German ally. In fact, it was an ally of England and France, as you would expect. Which means it should have built a line of defense against Germany. In fact, given the events of the previous century, it should have been far more scared of Germany than France was. Belgium should have been spending a large part of its GNP to build a Great Wall of China along that border, with huge subsidies from France and England to accomplish it. Same for Holland. Instead, we are told Belgium did almost nothing along that border, preferring to talk the Germans down with words of neutrality. Again, that makes no sense. It isn’t credible, and so is just more proof this is all a lie. The very fact that Belgium, Holland, France, and England would leave that border completely open is all the proof you should ever need that this was staged from the first shot.

We are told the Germans defeated Belgium so fast due to air superiority. The luftwaffe allegedly destroyed Belgian resistance in less than a week, even though Belgium should have been backed up immediately by French and British air support. The question begged at this point is. . . if Germany was so superior on both land and air, why did they need to come in through Belgium? Why not fly right over the Maginot Line and attack Paris directly? Why not attack London directly on May 10? Why even bother with the stupid Belgians or Dutch? Even better, why bother building all those tanks at all? Why not spend all their money on the air force, and attack London and Paris directly with that? As soon as the Americans entered the war, Hitler should have flown to the US and firebombed New York and DC off the map. The US allegedly flew all the way to Japan just a couple of years later to complete a similar trick, so if we could fly all the way across the Pacific, don’t you think Hitler could have flown across the much smaller Atlantic? So why didn’t he?

Same reason Hirohito flew all the way across the Pacific, but for some reason decided to attack the nothing target of Pearl Harbor. Why not attack Los Angeles or San Francisco? When we attacked Japan, did we target some little island far off the coast? No, we allegedly attacked Tokyo and major military targets. But the Japanese were just confused, I guess. Maybe they had been told that Honolulu was the capital of the US.

But back to Europe. The Battle of Sedan began on May 12, just two days after the beginning of the Battle of France. We are told that by then the Germans were already closing in on Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Really? Note that they aren’t telling us German planes had landed near there or something. They are telling us the German army, including tanks, were there. In Belgium the Germans were already near the Dyle river, just east of Brussels. So we are supposed to believe huge German armored divisions, including tanks, had travelled 150 miles through mountainous and wooded enemy territory in just two days?

Also remember that we are told the invading forces were divided into group A and B, with B being diversionary. Group A was the real invading force, moving south through Luxembourg and the Ardennes (which made the trip even longer, of course). Also, group A was composed of the heavier Panzer III and IV types, which were slower and less maneuverable. As such, they should have beenharder to get through forests and over mountains and across rivers. Just so you know, there are thirty rivers in the Belgian Ardennes, and very few bridges over them that could support the traffic of 1,700 heavy tanks. So do you still believe all this happened in just two days? Even if the luftwaffe drove off all Allied air forces that would naturally be attacking this advance, there is still no way all these tanks could cross that area in two days.

We are told two competing stories to explain this. In the first, the French estimated it would take the German army two weeks to cross the Ardennes to the Meuse, and were just wrong by about 12.5 days. In the second, we are told General Pretelat ran some exercises in the Ardennes in 1938 with tank brigades, finding the French were not prepared for such attacks. According to Evans, the result was so bad “the wisdom of publishing it was questioned, lest it damage morale”. Again, that story sounds manufactured. It isn’t believable at all. We are supposed to believe the French knew the Ardennes were easily penetrable, but didn’t tell their Allies, didn’t publish the information, and didn’t extend the Maginot Line north to deal with it? They just left their northern flank open, because closing it would have been “bad for morale”? Who believes this stuff?

Remember, the French or Belgians wouldn’t have had to fortify the entire Ardennes. All they would have to do is post a handful of people at important bridges with dynamite. They could have stalled the entire German army with nothing more than that. But they decided not to do that, because it would have been bad for morale.

You will tell me a traveling army can repair bridges on the run, which is true. But they can’t repair them instantly, especially bridges that have to carry 1,700 heavy tanks. So the locals didn’t need to fight German tanks with rifles. They only needed to destroy a few bridges. This is especially true regarding the Meuse. The German army should have never been able to get across the Meuse in that two-day time period, since while they were rambling through the Ardennes, the locals would have been blowing all the bridges across the Meuse. This wouldn’t even require the French army to coordinate, just a few local people. So the idea the Germans would be all the way to the Dyle in two days is absurd. It is written for readers who don’t know the first thing about. . . well, anything.

I will be told the Germans used pontoon bridges, but again, pontoon bridges don’t put themselves up instantly. You don’t just pull a cord and they inflate. You have to build them, and if you are building them on enemy territory, you are open to local fire. By their nature, they are even easier to destroy than real bridges. Amusingly, Wikipedia has a page on pontoon bridges, with sections on US, British, and Soviet bridges. Notice anything missing? No German bridges. Down the page we get a couple of pictures of German bridges during WWII, but they are from the battles of Kiev and Uman in 1941. Nothing from Belgium.

Plus, you may wish to remind yourself of a little thing called the Schlieffen Plan, by which the Germans began WWI by attacking France from the north, through Belgium. Yes, that was World War ONE. In the FIRST World War the Germans had done pretty much the same thing, using Belgium as a battle ground, coming in through the Ardennes. But we are supposed to believe that just 25 years later, the Germans snuck up on France and Belgium through the Ardennes? French generals thought the Ardennes were “impenetrable”, though the Germans had just penetrated them in 1914?

Please go to Updates to read the entire essay then pass it on to others who are looking for answers.

________

Source: https://big-lies.org/hexzane527/

My Guide to Hexzane527’s Important Revisionism of WW2

First uploaded 5 Sept 2019 by Rae West. v. 30 Sept 2019

hitler-the-jew-and-the-faked-wwii.blogspot.com  is the website of hexzane537, apparently French.  He has online articles on Second World War puzzles, for which he offers solutions assuming Hitler was just another subservient Jew, in his case masquerading as German, while bringing defeat at the hands of Jews in other areas. His files are copied below in a simpler format.

Hexzane527 includes ordinary Jews in his analyses. He seems to assume Jew leaders are in constant communication. His analysis is military, and says little about economics, raw materials, food etc. Judging by bistrobarblog.blogspot.com of 2018, Miles Mathis, by pointing out networking between Jews, suggested that Hitler was not a sole agent—something Jews are desperate to keep quiet.

The website http://hitler-the-jew-and-the-faked-wwii.blogspot.com had been unchanged since 2015, and its earliest article was in 2013.  I think I’ve done the right thing by rearranging the articles with a menu, here:–

Second World War Revisionist Ideas by Hexzane527
WELCOME   Explains the site

SUMMARY of evidence for Hitler being a Jew and WW2 being planned by Jews
Absurd lack of books about jews and Freemasons during Hitler’s Reich   proves they avoided the issues
d-day-was-staged-part-1-of-2   Two-part long piece finding evidence that the D-day landings were helped by German Jews
d-day-was-staged-part-2-of-2   See why Spielberg loved Omaha Beach.
Events pushing Germans to vote for Hitler.   Were staged by Jews
Henry Ford was a jew or freemason.   With explanation of Dearborn Independent
Franco and Salazar put in power by Jews.   And why Hitler did not attack Spain.
Hitler and Dunkirk was not a mistake   Hitler and some German generals saved the British and ruined Germany
hitler-doing-masonic-handshakes-and-signs
hitler’s strategic ‘mistakes’ 1941-1942 in Russia   Looks into Operation Barbarossa
How jewish leaders forced jews to go to Israel.   Entire 20th century
Jews staged the ‘Great War’ (WW1)   hexzane527 finds a thread; claims aim from the start was to form Israel
Nationalist movements and individuals were Jews     hexzane527 does not consider a few people, e.g. Arnold Leese
The absurdity of wanting to develop lands to the east   which was not consistent with Hitler and the ‘Nazis’
the-armistice-of-1940-strange-clemency   Why did Hitler leave Vichy France, and not go for the Straits of Gibraltar?
Miles Mathis uploaded a very detailed and brilliant paper (dated 28 Sept 2019) on the supposed very rapid victory of Germany over France (the word “Blitzkrieg” was coined in Britain). Puts Albert Lebrun into prime position.
The Battle of Britain   Decoded by hexzane527 to give a Jew view
Shady things about Hitler   which all suggest he was a Jewish Zionist
Sleazy things regarding invasion of Italy   Mussolini? Timing?
Strange Alliance between Germany and Japan   Allowed Hitler to Declare War on the USA, to get USA into War in Europe
Strange clemency of USA and Britain   After Versailles: Reparations, France, Keynes
The strange war between Italy and Greece   Mussolini, Metaxas, Hitler all Jews
Why did jewish leaders reveal that hitler was a jew?
Why didn’t Hitler attack British forces in north Africa?   despite British forces being weak at the time
Why was the Strait of Gibraltar crucial for Hitler?   Hitler had to avoid control of the Strait of Gibraltar
Why didn’t the USA declare war on Germany?   Why was WW2 delayed till 1941?
Yes, 99% of websites that say Hitler was a Jew are websites controlled by jews   and this prevents many nationalists from reading those sites

I found two newer blogs, War III Explained, and Discussing the Truth from 2016–2019, less concerned with WW2, except as providing pointers to WW3, including Brexit, Muslim immigration, false flags, and whether Jews in Israel will be expelled to fill other land(s). I may or may not upload them; I’ll try to talk with hexzane537.

World War III Predictions by Hexzane527Note that Hexzane527 is trying to predict the course of WW3, based on a revisionist view of very many centuries of the past, which assumes almost everything was, in fact, controlled from the top. His conclusions will surprise many.

He thinks Jews want to promote greater Israel, including immigrant Jews from the USA and France. He thinks war will be needed, Jews as always caring nothing for goyim war deaths. And he thinks whites need a war against Muslims and blacks, which nonwhite immigration makes less one-sided. And he thinks Jews want white emigration, contrary to the ‘white genocide’ model, with mass expulsions and killings of Muslim Arabs, blacks, after a successful but bitter controlled war, presumably on the Jewish model of killing Russians, Germans, Chinese etc. I’m spelling this out because it’s surprising, though it also appears to be cogent. 

The Jewish tradition, that seven or so nations should be exterminated by Jews, don’t seem consistent with this WW3 model, though. 

Hexzane527 wrote a long piece on population and race movements and mixing over many hundreds of years, including interbreeding blacks with Amerindians, and moving whites to Australia and the USA—he has a view of the Irish going to the USA with very cheap shipping, presumably Jewish, which I’ve never heard before. He does not seem to include so-called Jews interbreeding with elites or possible elites, or such events as Jew forcing race mixing on the Portuguese.

 –RW 11 Sept 2019
World War III – Explained
History of Race Movements, Mixings, Growths, Contractions
Will Jews from USA, France, (and Britain?) be Expelled to IsraelHow Brexit Fits In

British Empire; Far East short note