The German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact or the Ribeentrop-Molotov Pact caused shock waves in Europe and North America when it was signed. The German and Soviet governments were at odds with one another. This was more than just because of ideology; Germany and the Soviet Union were being played against one another in the events leading up to the Second World War, just as how previously Germany, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire were played against one another in Eastern Europe [3]

This is why Britain and France only declared war on Berlin, in 1939, when both the U.S.S.R. and Germany had invaded Poland. If the intentions were to protect Poland, then why only declare war against Germany when in reality both the Germans and the Soviets had invaded? There is something much deeper to be said about all this.

If Moscow and Berlin had not signed a non-aggression agreement there would have been no declaration of war against Germany. In fact Appeasement was a deliberate policy crafted in the hope of allowing Germany to militarize and then allowing the Nazi government the means, through military might, to create a common German-Soviet border, which would be the prerequisite to an anticipated German-Soviet war that would neutralize the two strongest land powers in Europe and Eurasia. [4]

British policy and the rationale for the non-aggression pact between the Soviets and Germans is described best by Carroll Quigley. Quigley, a top ranking U.S. professor of history, on the basis of the diplomatic agreements in Europe and insider information as an professor of the elites explains the strategic aims of British policy from 1920 to 1938 as:

[T]o maintain the balance of power in Europe by building up Germany against France and [the Soviet Union]; to increase Britain’s weight in that balance by aligning with her the Dominions [e.g., Australia and Canada] and the United States; to refuse any commitments (especially any commitments through the League of Nations, and above all any commitments to aid France) beyond those existing in 1919; to keep British freedom of action; to drive Germany eastward against [the Soviet Union] if either or both of these two powers became a threat to the peace [probably meaning economic strength] of Western Europe [and most probably implying British interests]. [5]

In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against [the Soviet Union], it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and [the Soviet Union]; (2) to prevent France from [honouring] her alliances with these countries [i.e., Czechoslovakia and Poland]; and (3) to hoodwink the [British] people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem. The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the [geo-strategic] implications of their policy [which to their fear united the Soviets and Germans] and tried to reverse it. [6]

It is because of this aim of nurturing Germany into a position of attacking the Soviets that British, Canadian, and American leaders had good rapports (which seem unexplained in standard history textbooks) with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis until the eve of the Second World War.

In regards to appeasement under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and its beginning under the re-militarization of the industrial lands of the Rhineland, Quigley explains:

This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date [1936], certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and [the Soviet Union] against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and [the Soviet Union] might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that [the Soviet Union] might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism. [7]

The liquidation of the countries between Germany and [the Soviet Union] could proceed as soon as the Rhineland was fortified, without fear on Germany’s part that France would be able to attack her in the west while she was occupied in the east. [8]

In regards to eventually creating a common German-Soviet, the French-led military alliance had to first be neutralized. The Locarno Pacts were fashioned by British foreign policy mandarins to prevent France from being able to militarily support Czechoslovakia and Poland in Eastern Europe and thus to intimidate Germany from halting any attempts at annexing both Eastern European states. Quigley writes:

[T]he Locarno agreements guaranteed the frontier of Germany with France and Belgium with the powers of these three states plus Britain and Italy. In reality the agreements gave France nothing, while they gave Britain a veto over French fulfillment of her alliances with Poland and the Little Entente. The French accepted these deceptive documents for reason of internal politics (...) This trap [as Quigley calls the Locarno agreements] consisted of several interlocking factors. In the first place, the agreements did not guarantee the German frontier and the demilitarized condition of the Rhineland against German actions, but against the actions of either Germany or France. This, at one stroke, gave Britain the right to oppose any French action against Germany in support of her allies to the east of Germany. This meant that if Germany moved east against Czechoslovakia, Poland, and eventually [the Soviet Union], and if France attacked Germany’s western frontier in support of Czechoslovakia or Poland, as her alliances bound her to do, Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy might be bound by the Locarno Pacts to come to the aid of Germany. [9]

The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 was also deliberately signed by Britain to prevent the Soviets from joining the neutralized military alliance between France, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Quigley writes:

Four days later, Hitler announced Germany’s rearmament, and ten days after that, Britain condoned the act by sending Sir John Simon on a state visit to Berlin. When France tried to counterbalance Germany’s rearmament by bringing the Soviet Union into her eastern alliance system in May 1935, the British counteracted this by making the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 18 June 1935. This agreement, concluded by Simon, allowed Germany to build up to 35 percent of the size of the British Navy (and up to 100 percent in submarines). This was a deadly stab in the back of France, for it gave Germany a navy considerably larger than the French in the important categories of ships (capital ships and aircraft carriers), because France was bound by treaty to only 33 percent of Britain’s; and France in addition, had a worldwide empire to protect and the unfriendly Italian Navy off her Mediterranean coast. This agreement put the French Atlantic coast so completely at the mercy of the German Navy that France became completely dependent on the British fleet for protection in this area. [10]

The Hoare-Laval Plan was also used to stir Germany eastward instead of southward towards the Eastern Mediterranean, which the British saw as the critical linchpin holding their empire together and connecting them through the Egyptian Suez Canal to India. Quigley explains:

The countries marked for liquidation included Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, but did not include Greece and Turkey, since the [Milner] Group had no intention of allowing Germany to get down onto the Mediterranean ‘lifeline.’ Indeed, the purpose of the Hoare-Laval Plan of 1935, which wrecked the collective-security system by seeking to give most Ethiopia to Italy, was intended to bring an appeased Italy in position alongside [Britain], in order to block any movement of Germany southward rather than eastward [towards the Soviet Union]. [11]

Both the Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, and Germany, under Adolph Hitler, ultimately became aware of the designs for the planning of a German-Soviet war and because of this both Moscow and Berlin signed a non-aggression pact prior to the Second World War. The German-Soviet arrangement was largely a response to the Anglo-American stance. In the end it was because of Soviet and German distrust for one another that the Soviet-German alliance collapsed and the anticipated German-Soviet war came to fruition as the largest and deadliest war theatre in the Second World War, the Eastern Front.

The Origins of the Russian Urge to Protect Eurasia

With this understanding of the Anglo-American strategic mentality of weakening Eurasia the ground can be paved for understanding the Russian mentality and mind frame for protecting themselves through protecting their European core and uniting  Eurasia through such organizations as the Warsaw Pact, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and such Russian policies as the Primakov Doctrine and allying Moscow with Iran and Syria.

As spheres of influence were carved in Europe, it was understood that Greece would fall into the Anglo-American orbit, while Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia would fall within the Soviet orbit. Due to this understanding the Red Army of the Soviet Union watched as the Greek Communists were butchered and the British militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War. The reason for these agreements involving spheres of influence in Europe was that the Soviets wanted a buffer zone to protect themselves from any further invasions from Western Europe, which had been plaguing the U.S.S.R. and Czarist Russia.

In reality, the Cold War did not start because of Soviet aggression, but because of a long-standing historic impulse by Anglo-American elites to encircle and control Eurasia. The Soviet Union honoured its agreement with Britain and the U.S. not to intervene in Greece, which even came at the expense of Yugoslav-Soviet relations as Marshal Tito broke with Stalin over the issue. This, however, did not stop the U.S. and Britain from falsely accusing the Soviets of supporting the Greek Communists and declaring war on the Soviets through the Truman Doctrine. This move was a part of the Anglo-American  bid to encircle the Soviet Union and to control Eurasia. Today this policy, which existed before the First World War and helped spark the Second World War, has not changed and Anglo-American elites, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, still talk about partitioning Russia, the successor state of the Soviet Union.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate for the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specilizing in geo-politics and strategic issues.

NOTES

[1] British elites, however, had managed to incorporate themselves into the economic livelihood of the U.S., forming an Anglo-American elite and effectively separating themselves from the interests of the majority of British citizens.

[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), November 18, 2006.

[3] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The “Great Game”: Eurasia and the History of War, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), December 3, 2007.

[4] China at this time was already being limited by Japan and before that by combined Japanese, Russian, and Western European policies. This would leave Germany and the U.S.S.R. as the two main threats to Anglo-American interests.

[5] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden (San Pedro, California: GSG & Associates Publishers, 1981), p.240.

[6] Ibid., p.266.

[7] Ibid., p.265.

[8] Ibid., p.272.

[9] Ibid., p.264.

[10] Ibid., pp.269-270.

[11] Ibid., p.273.

WILL THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AGAIN CONFISCATE PRIVATELY HELD GOLD?

This notice, which was placed in post offices in 1933 is a bitter reminder that it could happen again. If you click on the image, you can read an enlarged copy and see for yourself that, the last time America faced a financial crisis, the President declared a national emergency and ordered all citizens to turn in their gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates (paper notes backed by gold). The only exceptions were coins that were perceived to have significant collector's value. Many coin dealers today point to this fact as a reason to purchase numismatic coins instead of what they call bullion coins. This is a reasonable precaution but it comes with a significant price tag, because one must pay for collectors' value in addition to gold value and, if they are ever needed as barter for necessities, it is doubtful that the common man would appreciate their collector's value. In times of crisis, gold weight is what matters most. Also, there is the possibility that gold coins will not be confiscated at all, inasmuch as so few of them are in private hands today compared to 1933. At that time gold, literally, was money, and a significant proportion of the population held them. We mention this, not because we think we are smart enough to know what will happen and to make a recommendation one way or the other, but because we feel that Reality Zonedwellers should have as much knowledge about these issues as possible so they can make informed decisions for themselves.
G. Edward Griffin

WHO IS COUNTING THOSE COFFINS?
Someone needs to address the facts. If there have been 4400 casualties in Iraq and 2100 in Afghanistan, why have more than 16,000 coffins been shipped home with strict enforcement of "rules" barring filming or tracking of the coffins and 19 different contractors used for the transportation? Are they lying about US Casualties, or have the coffins been used for the CIA dope trafficking operations, with the $$$$ going to the Bush / Clinton crime syndicates? Someone should openly address this to Obama, our new Commander-in-chief, who espouses "Transparency". I have asked the religious TV personalities to address the issue, but they will not touch it.
Greatview, 2009 Feb 17

STUDENT TEACHER CONDUCTS CLASS BASED ON CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND
Dear Mr. Griffin,
My cousin, Benjamin Lertola, goes to Carnegie Mellon University where students can create and teach their own classes. Last year I gave him a copy of your book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" and I just found out that this semester he is teaching a class on it. Apparently the class generated a lot of interest, because he has over two dozen students in it. Just thought you would like to know.
Kris Borer, 2009 Feb 16

REPLY: Indeed, I am delighted to know about this. The thirst for truth will never be quenched.
Ed Griffin

STIMULUS CRIMULUS
The "Stimulus" and earlier "Bailout" measures are nothing more than a "taking" of the people's credit [money] and handing that all over to the Big Banks and corporations. --WITHOUT GETTING A SINGLE THING FOR THE PEOPLE IN RETURN FOR THESE PAY-INS. It's larceny. Pure and simple. Very large.

And worse: These bills are literally thousands of pages in length, that no one in congress has read. Nor did Congress or Obama write them. They were written by lobbyists for the recipients of these funds. The bills contain hundreds of complex provisions all designed to tighten controls over we the people by leaps and bounds. You are literally seeing here in these measures the architechture of the coming police state, under construction. Nothing less. And there is nothing left out there, that can stop it, save you and me.

"Members of Congress should be made to wear coveralls like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors."

Dennis Morrisseau, FireCongress.org, 2009 Feb 15

FROM "THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO"
(1973 by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn)

ON HOW TO RESIST MASS ARREST

"During an arrest, you think since you aren’t guilty, how can they arrest you? Why should you run away? And how can you resist right then? After all, you’ll only make your situation worse; you’ll make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?

"Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs [government agencies] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We didn’t love freedom enough. Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."

From Walter Butler, 2009 Feb 14

REGARDING NEWS THAT 8 STATES HAVE DECLARED THEY WILL REFUSE TO HONOR UNCONSTITUTION...
From Ron Avery. Posted 2009 Feb 5

So far Arizona and Washington legislative resolutions just tell the feds to stop doing what they have no authority to do. They do not tell the feds exactly what it is that is unconstitutional. This is fatal error in the resolution. New Hampshire tells the feds exactly what laws they have made that are unlawful and void which they will not comply with and that such laws if not already if pursued further will dissolve the union. NH wins so far!

The Montana resolution to the US is stupid. The fed 2nd Amendment protects all firearms not just guns able to be carried by one man with a bore less than 1.5 inches. It is clear that the people have a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of the state and citizens thereof from the federal and state governments that violate the constitution. Those firearms consist of all weapons that would be used in the state militias including jets, rockets, mortars, missiles, Vulcan electric guns, tanks, cannons and nuclear devices. The rule is if the government has it the people should keep it and bear it. It's just too bad that the government went and developed all that stuff. Now we get to carry it around and scare them with it. I didn't make this up this comes from the mouth of Alexander Hamilton in the federalist letters to which no one argued:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."http://www.constitution.org/

Clearly Hamilton is speaking not of the army but of a militia of well trained people with the use all military fire power to be held by them in defense of the state, their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. Is that not the best thing you've ever read short of John 3:16? THANK YOU ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

Old Hamilton was not all together a bad guy as some make him out to be. Or you might say even the questionable patriots of the revolution were absolute saints compared to the majority of ordinary tyrannous federal legislators, judges and executives of today!

THE UN'S PLAN TO USE FOOD AS A WEAPON OF CONTROL
by Robert Singer posted on 2009 Feb 3

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, based in Rome, is an international organization jointly created in 1962 by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations, “allegedly” to protect the health of consumers with guidelines for food standards.

Codex Alimentarius may present the greatest disaster for our food supply—and thus for our health—this country has ever seen, and if not stopped is likely to be implemented starting in 2011. Let me repeat that, the greatest disaster to our health if not stopped, starting in 2011. More

ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN EXPLAINED
from many sources on the Internet, 2009 Jan 30

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition
TV set, a analog to digital converter box, or a new computer, thus stimulating the economy. Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.

Globalization... The big banks wanted it...the huge industrial cartels wanted it...agribusiness wanted it... all the "policy experts" pushed it...and White House criminals like Bill Clinton and George Bush railroaded it.

Who didn't want it?

Labor unions...small farmers...citizens concerned about the sovereignty of their own countries...human rights activists.

Well, we're economically "globalized" now.

And here's what one of the leading mathematicians in the world and one of the currently most successful options traders in the world has to say about the potential consequences.

Make sure you're sitting down and don't operate heavy machinery right after watching this. Video

Global leaders use financial crisis to call for summit meeting to expand international financial power. Here it comes!Prison Planet 2008 Oct 16

UFN call for global finance

American kids - most medicated in the world

kidsmedicated

brasschecktv.com

storyofstuff.com

www.citizen.org/

Scary movie: brasschecktv.com/

Site to sign name to list of internationals international Investigation of 9/11

Ideas for the future: Clean Energy