SECOND WORLD WAR DECLARED BY ENGLAND NOT GERMANY!

1. 65

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   Another lie that we've been fed to. I've learnt like everybody that the Allies declared war to Germany because it invaded Poland on Sept 1939, the truth is different. Georges VI's speech says it all! You will notice that the style is the copycat of the one we use to justify our invasions (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria...).
   
   It's too long-winded! What George VI's adviser thought of early draft of the King's Speech
   Document, announcing the outbreak of World War II, shows Britain was ready to declare war on Germany a week before Hitler invaded Poland
   Famous address was depicted in Colin Firth's 2010 film, The King's Speech
   Document, uncovered after 74 years, is to be auctioned next month
   
   
   By William Turvill
   
   PUBLISHED: 06:42 EST, 24 November 2013  | UPDATED: 20:42 EST, 24 November 2013 
   
   
   
    
    
   
     90  shares
   
   
   5
   
   View
   comments
   
   An early version of the ‘King’s Speech’ reveals Britain was preparing to declare war on Germany before Hitler invaded Poland.
   
   George VI’s address to the nation, depicted in the 2010 movie starring Colin Firth as the stammering monarch, had been written at least nine days beforehand.
   
   The three-page document that has come to light is entitled ‘Draft King’s Speech’ and is dated August 25, 1939.
   
   
   
   
   This early draft of the King's Speech, announcing the outbreak of war, was criticised for being too long-winded
   This early draft of the King's Speech, announcing the outbreak of war, was written at least nine days before George VI addressed the nation
   
   
   
   The document, which was written on August 25, 1939 - seven days before Germany’s invasion of Poland - has come to light after 74 years.
   
   
   The typed document, the second draft of the speech, was retained by civil servant Harold Vale Rhodes, who had previously written a first attempt.
   
   
   In a pencilled note in the left-hand margin, Mr Rhodes criticised the length of some of the sentences in the second draft and hinted that his should be used.
   
   
   
   
   More...
   The devil's in the detail! Sixteenth-century mural of Henry VIII reveals image of SATAN when viewed upside down
   'Wild West' gunslinger Annie Oakley's 130-year-old shotgun on sale for $100,000
   
   
   It would appear his advice was followed - the final speech read to the nation and the Commonwealth by the King on September 3 contained shorter, more concise sentences.
   
   Although the tone remained the same, some of the content was significantly different. For instance, it did not mention Germany or Hitler by name but merely 'our enemies’.
   
   The early draft accused Germany of being a bully that wanted to dominate the world by brute force and stressed that 'we are fighting for the principles of freedom and justice'.
   
   
   
   
   King George VI
   
   Colin Firth
   
   
   
   The address was delivered by King George VI (left) on September 3, 1939, after Hitler's Germany had invaded Poland. It was depicted in the 2010 film, The King's Speech, which starred Colin Firth (right) as King George VI
   
   
   
   
   In the Oscar-winning film, Colin Firth's royal character was given little time to prepare for his defining address to the nation but in reality it appears the speech was being readied for him more than a week beforehand.
   
   
   The rejected draft was acquired by the unnamed owner in a load of paperwork from Mr Rhodes' estate following his death in 1970.
   
   
   It has now been put up for sale at auction with a pre-sale estimate of £4,000.
   
   Dr Gabriel Heaton, of Sotheby's, which is selling the speech, said: ‘This is a fascinating document for a number of reasons.
   
   
   ‘It brings to life not just the speech, but a pivotal moment in British history.
   
   
   ‘It was written before Poland had been invaded but at a time when it was clear we were moving towards war with Germany.
   
   
   ‘It shows that something was being prepared days in advance of the declaration of war so that the monarch had a speech ready in order to speak to the nation and the Commonwealth.'
   
   
   He added: ‘You get a sense of the preparations for the speech and the struggle to find the right words to prepare the nation for the terrible fight that lay ahead.
   
   
   
   
   The three-page second draft, uncovered after 74 years, is to be auctioned by Sotheby's next month
   The three-page second draft, uncovered after 74 years, is to be auctioned by Sotheby's next month
   
   ‘There would have been a group of people writing this speech and Rhodes was one of them.
   
   
   ‘He had provided a first draft and was sent this revised version. His note in the margin is saying that his original is better than this one and that the wording should be shorter.
   
   
   ‘The final version was a lot clearer. The sentences were shorter and the structure was simpler and that is what you want for public speaking, especially when the speaker has a speech impediment.’
   
   Nigel Steel, a historian at the Imperial War Museum, said: ‘When it happened, war wasn't out of the blue.
   
   
   ‘There had been a number of political crises involving Germany going on for over a year before.
   
   
   ‘The idea that this speech was prepared in advance of war is not a huge surprise, especially as the King had difficulties in delivering speeches.’
   
   
   The auction takes place at Sotheby's in London on December 10
   
   
   Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z2mvwejrsv
   Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SandCastlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And if England hadn't declared war (for whatever the reason) Hitler would have had everything his own way and even more Jewish people would have been murdered, along with anybody else Hitler and his Nazis didn't like.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Quite SandCastles, I had come to the conclusion that the purpose of this thread was nothing more than an anti England rant, albeit from an unexpected quarter, but an anti English rant nevertheless.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly. Anti-England and equally decidedly anti-United States.
            
            I read this is yet another assault, however veiled, on the US/Great Britain and their allies; yet another assault on western powers, western politics, western culture, etc. wrapped yet again in web-based revisionist axe-to-grind "histories" wallowing in anti-American and anti-British and anti-western conspiracy theories.
            
            Are we surprised?

            replyreport
2. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   I have no idea what you point is.
   
   Germany invaded a sovereign nation.  Britain declared war.  they had been preparing for that eventuality for some time.
   
   This is well known to anyone who reads history books.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My point is I always thought that our participation was a reaction to a wrongdoing. In fact, we were building this war. We wanted a war. What were our original motives to go to war? What did we lack that forced us to jump in the killing of millions? What did we covet? Now it makes me wonder why we only intervened in 1943/44? Why didn't we intervene as Hitler invaded Poland if we were already prepared to wage war?
      It is unfortunately the difference between you and I. You are still stuck to your history book version and I am turned to the future implying the questioning of the delay as for the intervention of the Allied.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         aguasilverposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I am assuming from your questions that you are an American?
         
         Please forgive me if you are not.
         
         
         
         The USA's original motives were two fold:
         1) to end the great depression by gearing up your manufacturing (military) industrial complex to full production.
         
         2) To ensure the bankruptcy and implosion of the British Empire by Americas 'Lend Lease' provisions and facilitate the emergence of the American Empire, which though proving to be short lived is still causing universal problems as we speak.
         
         
         
         Take a look at the stats:
         
         World War 2 Total Deaths (Approximate):
         
         COUNTRY    CASUALTIES
         Soviet Union    23,954,000
         China    15,000,000
         Germany    7,728,000
         Poland    5,720,000
         Japan    2,700,000
         India    2,087,000
         Yugoslavia    1,027,000
         Rumania    833,000
         Hungary    580,000
         France    567,600
         Greece    560,000
         Italy    456,000
         Great Britain    449,800
         United States    418,500
         Czechoslovakia    345,000
         Netherlands    301,000
         Austria    123,700
         Finland    97,000
         Belgium    86,100
         Canada    45,300
         Australia    40,500
         Bulgaria    25,000
         New Zealand    11,900
         South Africa    11,900
         Norway    9,500
         Spain    4,500
         Denmark    3,200
         TOTAL:    63,185,500
         
         Americas population in 1940 was 132,164,569, and WW2 cost the USA 418,500 lives (0.0031%)
         
         The UK's population was 46,467,000 and WW2 cost them 449,800 lives (0.0096%)
         
         The population of Russia in 1940 was 170,500,000 and WW2 cost them 23,954,000 lives (7.12%)
         
         Germany had a population of 80,600,000 and WW2 cost them 7,728,000 lives (10.46%)
         
         All those deaths made coming out of recession/depression easier and opened up the world to US 'interests'
         
         Who benefited most from WW2? (actually it was the Rothschilds...)
         
         
         
         First your citizens sensibly wanted to stay out of world wars, and just be happy and safe 'back home' which would have been a great idea, but politicians wanted a war, so they provoked Pearl Harbour in order to get your citizens incensed enough to buy the lie, that took a while, and in any case the politicos wanted to see who would win before they got involved (hedge your bets) so when Uncle Joe took to attacking the Nazi's, they knew they needed to be at the table or they would miss the carve up of spoils that comes with defeat.
         
         
         
         See above and think outside the square, and stop thinking that the US was acting to save the world, when in fact the US was conspiring to control the world.
         
         America won, but they are not as adept at controlling their Empire as the Brits were, hence they have stuffed the whole thing up and will soon lose their empire... such is the world of empire building.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            By "we" I meant the Allied. The Americans entered the war after Pearl Harbor (Dec 41). Hitler invaded Poland in Sept 1939 (If my memory is good). Why did England was so eager to wage war?
            Yalta was all about pilfering and I guess showed our (I mean the West) greed!

            replyreport
            1. 70

               aguasilverposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I guess the fact that the Brits lost 886,939 lives in WW1 made them wary about a nation that showed clear military designs on conquering their neighbours second time around.

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  If we refer to our "the West" worldwide interventions our motives are mainly geostrategic and economical. Can we deduce that we were willing to sacrifice millions for financial gains?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Your statement makes one thing entirely clear: You have no real grasp on the  narrative that is global history---particularly of World War II; no grasp of the fact that geopolitics and economics are just part of the World War I to World War II narrative, but most certainly NOT the entirety of the narrative.

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Not at all! Rothschild had no interests at all! How naïve! It is as cute as it is sad!

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Whatever.

                           replyreport
                           1. 65

                              maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              This is your educated answer!

                              replyreport
            2. 0

               mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Have you ever heard of Neville Chamberlain?
               
               If you had, you would understand how British RELUCTANCE to engage Germany in war almost resulted in the total loss of British national sovereignty.
               
               As was noted previously by another in this forum: What is your point with this hub? Are you now an apologist for Nazi Germany?

               replyreport
         2. 65

            maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            EXACTLY. YOU MADE THE POINT. GREED AND HEGEMONY.

            replyreport
      2. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It was a reaction to what people saw coming for  long time.  Hitler did not just wake up one morning and decide to invade Poland.
         
         And I think invading other sovereign nations is a completely valid reason to wage war.  Are you suggesting Hitler should have been given free reign to create a world wide Reich?  because I prefer the current version where my country is sovereign, not a farming zone for Japan.
         
         Seriously, you seem to be suggesting nasty Britain was picking on poor Hitler.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            NO, that's not what I am suggesting. You don't seem to understand or know history. I am wondering why the Allied waited so many years to stop the Germans whereas they could have done it earlier? What is it so difficult to understand? Apparently they "the Allied" had ulterior motives! Which ones were they?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               If you understood some global history of the inter-war years, you would understand that multiple factors played significant roles in creating an environment in which what would become the "allied" nations (the Allies) were less than willing or able to immediately engage the Third Reich.
               
               Among these: American isolationism not only in Congress, but among the general public which made it near-political suicide to support internationalism of any kind---including economic internationalism, let alone war; the Great Depression (globally) which had essentially dismantled the military capabilities of much of Europe; lingering Wilsonianism---particularly in England which contributed to a sense that the League of Nations and diplomacy could effectively deal with the Third Reich.
               
               The list goes on.
               
               You suggest "ulterior motives". So, you identify and define them and offer substantive historical documentation for them.

               replyreport
         2. 65

            maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            But it doesn't bother you when other countries were harvesting for Britain?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Harvesting?
               
               What do you mean "harvesting"?

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Why don't you refer to psyskinner then you may understand my allusion!

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly!

      replyreport
3. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   Craig Shirley has written a book call 31 Days That Changed The World and Saved America. you should read.
   I didn't get this from the book originally, but have been pondering it for some whiles.
   On December 4th 1941 the US was preparing to sign a treaty with the Japanese saying Japan would disarm.  All the while the Japanese fleet had been in radio silence for days as they moved into position to bomb Pearl Harbor.
   The United States after WWI was so isolationist they were disarming rapidly. There was no taste for another war. Neville Chambers was bowing to Germany like crazy. How far into France did the Germans go before war was declared?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I read differently. That the US needed the war to reboot its economy. Then came the Marshall plan to ensure the US ideology in Europe and we know the rest.
      I believe that the US knew that Pearl Harbor would be attacked and did nothing. It gave them the legitimacy to enter the war whereas they were isolated.
      Nine months later France was invaded and was freed by summer 45. The Northern part of France was under German rule (Vichy regime) accepted by Marshal Petain who was seen as a collaborator/traitor.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Belief has nothing to do with history.
         
         History is about factual events and documentary evidence.
         
         If you knew a little history you would also know that World War II did not "reboot" the US economy or that of Europe and the Marshall Plan had little affect on the ideological center of Europe---past or present.
         
         And for the factual record:
         
         Germany began its invasion of France on 10 May 1940---yes 1940, almost a  year and a half BEFORE the Pearl Harbor attack.
         
         And again for the factual record:
         
         France was liberated between 19 August and 25 August in 1944 and NOT 1945.
         
         And lastly for the factual record:
         
         The Vichey were NOT Germans, but French, and it is a common misconception that the Vichey government persisted only in the north of France. In fact, while the Vichey government was headquartered in northern France, it was most clearly a national movement AND was acknowledged until August of 1944---even by the US, as the official government of France.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            And you know about history! WHY DO PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ANSWER?
            Every person who is serious about history will see you as a fool, a propagandist. You are telling us that the US assault on Europe had no impact at all? Then who do you think pushes Europe to enlarge, who is pushing Europe to keep the Euro whereas everybody wants to dump it, which country has military bases on European lands therefore dictating through NATO their maneuvers, who Schuman and Monnet were working with if not the US.
            Don't get confused between the invasions of the western allied forces and the day of liberation. The French were free in 1945. You won't rewrite their history as the US government rewrote ours! As for "nine months" it meant after Sept 39, date of the invasion of Poland, you definitely don't know your history otherwise how could you be mistaken?
            As it took 50 years for the department of the US Foreign Relations to acknowledge the overthrow and the assassination of Lumumba, it will take longer to acknowledge their participation in the Pearl Harbor attack.
            The French thought that Petain was the man because of his honorific past but they quickly realized that he was a traitor. De Gaulle, Jean Moulin represented France. Just for you to know that the US wanted the Vichy Regime meaning the traitors to cling to power. They saw De Gaulle who dreamed of Grandeur as the enemy to kill (that how he ended his life). As soon as he was elected he fervently opposed the US. IT SAYS IT ALL about our intentions. You should read "the grand chessboard" by Brzezinski, it will teach who we are!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               My credentials as a professional historian speak for themselves and need no justification from, or for, you.
               
               As I suggested, get the facts and avoid relying so much on patented revisionism found in books or websites published for an agenda-driven mass market.

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  This is your answer to facts? To history? Which one of us is the revisionist?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Your anti-American axe to grind is obvious.
                     
                     What you claim are facts and history are nothing more than the anti-American propaganda of those who share your worldview.

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        You wished I were anti-American but I am not. I am anti-lies. I crave for truth. I am not anti-American but anti-political corruption. I am anti-elite. Anti-corrupt government.
                        Can you read or not? It clearly states that the Brits knew about Hitler and waited for more deaths and destruction to stop him. Here are our heroes. Here is the West that unfortunately for you I represent. The difference between you and I is my objectivity. I am not blind and never will be.
                        What am I claiming exactly because so far the Brits themselves are claiming it!

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           If you had even a meager understanding of the historical events  that led up to the Second World War or  the socio-economic, cultural, and political positions in which nations found themselves, you would be able to understand why there was an international hesitation regarding declarations of war of Germany.
                           
                           If you could even begin to understand the influence of the lingering remnants of the League of Nations, isolationism, appeasement-driven policies, and of anachronistic diplomacy, then you might  be able to grasp some of what is being said in this forum.
                           
                           I am amused by your persistent claim that what you read, consume, and believe---so long as it is not part of any larger mainstream narrative, is true and that whatever other facts and information exist that inform the opinions of others---particularly those who disagree with you and your conspiracy-driven, anti-American sources, are little more than "lies".
                           
                           I am amused by your claim that you represent something challenging to the west---objectivity and vision.

                           replyreport
                           1. 65

                              maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              All this blah blah for what? Thin air, nothing to bring to the plate. As I underlined it precedently, your eroded version of history is not mine. History is not part of my weaknesses.
                              I am part of the West that is opening their eyes and mouths. You want to be a sheep be my guest but don't come and teach me your lies. I know my history.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Exactly right: You know YOUR history, but you do not know history as it exists in fact.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 65

                                    maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    This is MY history. The one that you avoided answering.
                                    
                                    And you know about history! WHY DO PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ANSWER?
                                    Every person who is serious about history will see you as a fool, a propagandist. You are telling us that the US assault on Europe had no impact at all? Then who do you think pushes Europe to enlarge, who is pushing Europe to keep the Euro whereas everybody wants to dump it, which country has military bases on European lands therefore dictating through NATO their maneuvers, who Schuman and Monnet were working with if not the US.
                                    Don't get confused between the invasions of the western allied forces and the day of liberation. The French were free in 1945. You won't rewrite their history as the US government rewrote ours! As for "nine months" it meant after Sept 39, date of the invasion of Poland, you definitely don't know your history otherwise how could you be mistaken?
                                    As it took 50 years for the department of the US Foreign Relations to acknowledge the overthrow and the assassination of Lumumba, it will take longer to acknowledge their participation in the Pearl Harbor attack.
                                    The French thought that Petain was the man because of his honorific past but they quickly realized that he was a traitor. De Gaulle, Jean Moulin represented France. Just for you to know that the US wanted the Vichy Regime meaning the traitors to cling to power. They saw De Gaulle who dreamed of Grandeur as the enemy to kill (that how he ended his life). As soon as he was elected he fervently opposed the US. IT SAYS IT ALL about our intentions. You should read "the grand chessboard" by Brzezinski, it will teach who we are!

                                    replyreport
   2. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.
      
      Isolationism and appeasement almost led us to a global Nazi state; a global Third Reich.

      replyreport
4. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   I think that by any reasonable definition invading a sovereign country constitutes 'declaring war'.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon now...?

      replyreport
5. 61

   John Holdenposted 10 years ago

   Maxoxam, I'm forced to ask you, is that what you were taught in your school, that Germany, not the UK, declared war?

   replyreport
   1. 65

      maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Why you were taught otherwise?
      I was also that the Marshall plan was to help Europe. Later, I was also taught that we used Pearl Harbor as a launching ramp to war.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Yes!
         You weren't!
         
         Sorry for my earlier comment.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            What is your point?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               My point is that for most of my concious life I've been aware that we declared war on Germany, that if Chamberlain hadn't been such a wuss, we would have declared war sooner and it was not in Hitler's interest to declare war on us.

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  maxoxam41posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  By invading Poland, Hitler declared war. By invading Poland, he knew that a coalition will league against him. It seems logic. Chamberlain was a wuss as you said it, he was probably obeying orders coming from a higher sphere.
                  I don't see in what way England would frighten Hitler in 1939? The first German defeat against the allies was in 1942/43 against the Russians and not because they were stronger but only because the Russian winter was unbearable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I didn't say we frightened him, I said it was not in his interest.
                     He saw us as either potential allies or at worst, neutral.

                     replyreport
               2. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I think everybody knows that Chamberlain was operating in terms of 19th century gentlemanly diplomacy and that Chamberlain believed that appeasement could and would work in dealing with Hitler.
                  
                  Clearly, Chamberlain was wrong.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Indeed.

                     replyreport
6. 65

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   What bothers me the most is a gathering of super powers "the allies" that PRETENDED that they intervened because Hitler invaded Poland whereas the reality was different. Whatever the agenda was, the reality only speaks for itself, the allies waited patiently FOR MONTHS before acting. What does it mean mean? That Hitler was not really a problem otherwise they would have stop him before his incursion in Poland since they had the info. That the deaths of people and the damages of countries were secondary in their agenda. On the contrary it was in their interests.
   Now, if that pro profit state of mind was already in action in 1939 what can I say about Syria 2014? Who is going to rebuild Syria? The US or Russia? If Russia is helping Syria, it is obviously for its interests. We are destabilizing Russia (in Kiev), it is our enemy. Not because we are afraid of communism but we just experienced a rebirth of Russian power since its "solidarity" towards Syria. Don't get me wrong, if Russia and China didn't oppose their veto, Syria would be under our yoke.
   Is it the same logic? I think so. Economical and geostrategic gains.

   replyreport