Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: NATO's Real Purpose: "To Keep the Germans Down"

  1. #1
    aka Wehrmacht

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, August 16th, 2004 @ 07:59 PM
    Subrace
    Dinarid
    Location
    Großdeutschland
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalsozialist
    Posts
    290
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    NATO's Real Purpose: "To Keep the Germans Down"

    COMMENTARY

    Germany and the Purpose of NATO

    By GUILLERMO COLETTI

    I have often considered writing about the real purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as I see it. However, lack of means to substantiate a number of my suspicions was a major reason of discouragement.

    Now I have at my disposal something that can help me break the ice: an American General speaks openly, on national television, on the real reason for the existence of NATO. What he has to say is quite interesting for the uninitiated as well as for the irreverent and the perennial skeptic. I will use this opportunity to explain some of my initial ideas on this matter.

    Adolf Hitler, simultaneously with Mussolini, and other European leaders, was involved in an extraordinary effort to eradicate the threat of Bolshevik tyranny from Europe. The stability of the governments they led was threatened via the USA as much, or perhaps more, than any danger that could have originated in Moscow.

    When Hitler's defense of Europe was forced into the military alternative, the United States made an alliance with Stalin. That to me was an indication that America was becoming friendlier to Communism than to the traditional values of Western Europe. We know that American intervention resulted in a greater and stronger Soviet Russia. The Communists have indeed a debt of gratitude to America for the expansion of Bolshevism.

    But when the Second World War was over, America "agitated" the anti-Communist cause and formed NATO! Why NATO? It all sounded very phony to me, because if America had truly stood against Bolshevism it should have joined Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, instead of Josef Stalin. America, of course, has never admitted to have fought on the wrong side.

    I can't help but asking myself when was NATO a real problem for the solidity of Soviet Communism? Certainly not when Russian tanks and the Red Army occupied the streets of Prague, or Budapest. The anti-Communism of the American Establishment has always been as serious as an Abbot-and-Costello movie.

    However, America's true concern was what Germany represented and what to this day survives in the German. Ellie Wiesel expressed similar sentiments, when he advocated that every Jew must have same room in his heart for hatred against the Germans. The great difference between Wiesel, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and "Ike" Eisenhower is that Wiesel has expressed his emotions with more sincerity. The real hazard to the American Way, the America of the Gay Pride Parades and Martin Luther King Day, was not Bolshevism, but the Traditional Western values that Germany had tried to maintain at the expense of a multitude of sacrifices.

    On April 24, 1999, NBC aired John McLaughlin's "One on One." The show had the participation of two guests: Lieutenant General William Odom and Professor Harvey Sapolsky. We are going to review same of the remarks made by General Odom.

    General William Odom was introduced as a graduate from West Point, who obtained his PhD at Columbia. He served in President Carter's National Security Council and during President Reagan's administration in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence and for the director of Reagan's National Security Agency. He is currently director of International Security Studies at the Hudson Institute and professor of Public Policy and Organization in the Department of Political Science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is also the Director of the Security Program. Gen. Odom authored six books, the latest of which is The Collapse of Soviet Military.

    What I have always suspected as the real purpose of NATO was disclosed, much to my surprise, right at the beginning of the show by Gen. Odom: "(NATO) was created not as most people think to defend against the Soviet military threat. The French didn't even mention the Soviet Union in the debate for it. They wanted NATO to deal with the German question. The British wanted NATO to keep the U.S. in Europe."

    Gen. Odom added, still remarkably candid, that "the expansion of NATO is for the same reason; the German question versus Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary is put to bed if there is a NATO roof over it."

    The type of policy advocated by this American General is strikingly similar to the policies the Germans were accused of implementing during the Third Reich era, in the Nuremberg Trials. Here are two more passages of this conversation between McLaughlin and Gen. Odom:

    Mr. McLaughlin: Are we supposed to run Europe?

    Gen. Odom: It pays. Yes.

    Mr. McLaughlin: Why does it pay?

    Gen. Odom: You are richer today because of it.

    And then, Mr. McLaughlin: Can the United States defend its interests in Europe without NATO?

    Gen. Odom: No.

    One of Odom's comments brings to public attention a second player in the game, further substantiating the Germanophobic character of NATO: "In 1994, the British foreign secretary said it would be better to have the Russians on the Adriatic than the Germans."

    I hope that this brief article will bring some light to those who still don't understand why Dresden was destroyed and why millions of Germans were exterminated in American and Russian concentration camps at the end of the war.

    Those who desire to verify the veracity of these quotes can order their own transcript of "One on One" from:

    Federal News Service
    620 National Press Building
    Washington, DC 20045
    (202) 347-1400



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    One of the best indications of the correctness of the above contention is the simple fact that while the U.S. military is scrambling to maintain its troop strength in Iraq, it is not even discussing the redeployment of forces from Germany. After all, they are there—just as in Iraq—for the purpose of OCCUPATION!

    Here are one correspondent's further comments:

    Dear Mr. Coletti:

    Many thanks for your excellent analysis of NATO as an occupier of Germany, rather than a defender of Europe. I have seen these indications in my own research over the years on such major points as The Cold War Hoax, to wit:

    The U.S.A. aided in the foundation of the Soviet Union and continued to fund it and feed it until its recent name-change under its kosher commissars now turned capitalist.

    Then I encountered such minor points as the article of the United Nations Charter that allows any World War II ally to invade Germany unilaterally, at any time. The deployment and equipment of NATO forces was far more appropriate to an occupation force, than it was 'for the defense of Europe'.

    The fact that the French kicked NATO headquarters out of France was another indication of NATO's true role as occupier of Europe. It is obvious that the undemocratic Zionist occupation regime in Germany would be swept away were NATO to leave or evaporate, for Germans bear the burden of endless tribute to their enemies inside and outside Germany.

    From my childhood experience in wartime U.S.A., I had no doubt who was the enemy of White Civilization: it was the people of the U.S.A. The Germans were the defenders of White Civilization.

    Hitler deemed those who appreciate music to have political potential. I appreciate music in the European tradition. Such music quickly vanished after 1945 on U.S. radio stations.

    As I noted, the Western Allies SEEMED to champion White Civilization, so Whites who fought for the Western Allies were successfully duped into killing the defenders of our civilization in the name of White Civilization!

    It is cruel irony that Stalin duped Russians into fighting fellow nationalists in the name of nationalism. That is why Soviet propaganda suddenly switched from its promotion of Communist internationalism to the promotion of Mother Russia. Anything to gull the Goyim.

    After 1945 we could see what we really fought for: the Afro-Asiatic values of Judaism! In musical terms, postwar American culture was dominated by Africa, not Europe, as we see today. The White people served their purpose as the destroyers of their fellow Whites. Now they are being 'phased out' culturally and demographically. The absurd thing is that most Whites seem to enjoy being Africanized and Judaized to extinction.

    Most Whites have lost their racial identity under the Jewish spell. Many of them identify with their enemies: They applaud non-White victories and side with non-Whites on every issue. If Whites are to survive, along with White Civilization, we must become aware of our racial identity and become pro-White. Afterwards, our successful self-defense will follow logically and naturally.


    Continuing the fight for a better world —

    NEW ORDER
    Dept E
    PO Box 270486
    Milwaukee WI 53227
    http://www.theneworder.org

  2. #2
    New Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 14th, 2006 @ 06:46 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    1
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Good article. If NATO was really meant to protect Western Europe during the (phony) cold war, it would have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviet Union, but, obviously, there was a hidden agenda.
    First is the legitimization of the American (and by proxy - Jewish) power projection into Euroasia (notice how the ZOG likes to talk about 'coalitions', 'alliances', 'international communities' etc. when they invade and bomb other countries into smitherines). The second, obvious purpose is as an enforcer of the politically correct totalitarian/consumer regimes in Germany and the rest of Europe. Germany in particular is kept in a state of constant prostration and mortification more than half a century after the end of WWII. There is no doubt in my mind that Germany is still an occupied country. No peace treaty has ever been signed between the Allies and Germany and the country doesn't even have a constitution (Verfassung), only a 'basic law' (Grundgesetz) that is really an extension of the occupation law. It has, on the other side, a political police called Verfassungschutz (the office for the protection of the constitution) that every year arrests more people than the 'notorious' STASI used to do in the ex-DDR.
    There is even an informal agreement between the German puppet government and the powers that be that, should any nationalist party gain more than 15% of the vote, it would have to be banned immediately (like it happened to the Otto Roemer's Reichpartei in the 50s). A (highly unlikely) surge of NPD votes in Germany would cause either the party's outright ban, or a NATO-sponsored 'Jaruzelski' solution or, if push comes to shove, an Iraqui stile 'democratization'.
    The picture of the supposedly extreme-left 'anti-nazi' crowd during the Dresden memorial waiving the US, the British, the communist and the Israeli flags together speaks volumes.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Mac Seafraidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, April 20th, 2018 @ 08:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    German, Irish, Italian, and either Flemish or Walloon
    Subrace
    Alpinid/Borreby
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Delaware Delaware
    Location
    U$$Rael
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Forum activist
    Politics
    Fascism and National Socialism
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    1,598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Post Nato's real purpose: "To keep the Germans down"

    Nato's real purpose: "To keep the Germans down"
    A view I heard express in Russia a couple of years ago was that NATO is run by about 1500 families, mainly Jewish in origin. The fact that the former communist countries of eastern Europe that wished to join NATO all have to enshrine in their legal system Holocaust denial laws, speaks for itself. In January 1999 Poland enacted such laws, and in April it joined NATO, by June the first academic, from Opolen University, was before the courts: Dr Dariusz Ratajczak. The court's sentence destroyed his career.
    That's how it works for individuals!
    Get the details by writing to Dr Ratajczak <dariusz.ratajczak@wp.pl>
    Fredrick Töben, 11 February 2005
    COMMENTARYGermany and the Purpose of NATO

    By GUILLERMO COLETTI

    I have often considered writing about the real purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as I see it. However, lack of means to substantiate a number of my suspicions was a major reason of discouragement.

    "Lord Ismay, Nato’s first Secretary General, said about Nato's purpose: ‘To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down’."

    Die Welt, May 18, 2001, page 8
    Now I have at my disposal something that can help me break the ice: an American General speaks openly, on national television, on the real reason for the existence of NATO. What he has to say is quite interesting for the uninitiated as well as for the irreverent and the perennial skeptic. I will use this opportunity to explain some of my initial ideas on this matter.

    Adolf Hitler, simultaneously with Mussolini, and other European leaders, was involved in an extraordinary effort to eradicate the threat of Bolshevik tyranny from Europe. The stability of the governments they led was threatened via the USA as much, or perhaps more, than any danger that could have originated in Moscow.

    When Hitler's defense of Europe was forced into the military alternative, the United States made an alliance with Stalin. That to me was an indication that America was becoming friendlier to Communism than to the traditional values of Western Europe. We know that American intervention resulted in a greater and stronger Soviet Russia. The Communists have indeed a debt of gratitude to America for the expansion of Bolshevism.

    But when the Second World War was over, America "agitated" the anti-Communist cause and formed NATO! Why NATO? It all sounded very phony to me, because if America had truly stood against Bolshevism it should have joined Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, instead of Josef Stalin. America, of course, has never admitted to have fought on the wrong side.

    I can't help but asking myself when was NATO a real problem for the solidity of Soviet Communism? Certainly not when Russian tanks and the Red Army occupied the streets of Prague, or Budapest. The anti-Communism of the American Establishment has always been as serious as an Abbot-and-Costello movie.

    However, America's true concern was what Germany represented and what to this day survives in the German. Elie Wiesel expressed similar sentiments, when he advocated that every Jew must have some room in his heart for hatred against the Germans. The great difference between Wiesel, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and "Ike" Eisenhower is that Wiesel has expressed his emotions with more sincerity. The real hazard to the American Way, the America of the Gay Pride Parades and Martin Luther King Day, was not Bolshevism, but the Traditional Western values that Germany had tried to maintain at the expense of a multitude of sacrifices.

    On April 24, 1999, NBC aired John McLaughlin's "One on One." The show had the participation of two guests: Lieutenant General William Odom and Professor Harvey Sapolsky. We are going to review same of the remarks made by General Odom.

    General William Odom was introduced as a graduate from West Point, who obtained his PhD at Columbia. He served in President Carter's National Security Council and during President Reagan's administration in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence and for the director of Reagan's National Security Agency. He is currently director of International Security Studies at the Hudson Institute and professor of Public Policy and Organization in the Department of Political Science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is also the Director of the Security Program. Gen. Odom authored six books, the latest of which is The Collapse of Soviet Military.

    What I have always suspected as the real purpose of NATO was disclosed, much to my surprise, right at the beginning of the show by Gen. Odom: "(NATO) was created not as most people think to defend against the Soviet military threat. The French didn't even mention the Soviet Union in the debate for it. They wanted NATO to deal with the German question. The British wanted NATO to keep the U.S. in Europe."

    Gen. Odom added, still remarkably candid, that "the expansion of NATO is for the same reason; the German question versus Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary is put to bed if there is a NATO roof over it."

    The type of policy advocated by this American General is strikingly similar to the policies the Germans were accused of implementing during the Third Reich era, in the Nuremberg Trials. Here are two more passages of this conversation between McLaughlin and Gen. Odom:

    Mr. McLaughlin: Are we supposed to run Europe?

    Gen. Odom: It pays. Yes.

    Mr. McLaughlin: Why does it pay?

    Gen. Odom: You are richer today because of it. We've been in Korea and Japan and Germany forever, and It's paid ... If you look back and see what's happened over the years, we've gotten richer and richer and richer.

    And then, Mr. McLaughlin: Can the United States defend its interests in Europe without NATO?

    Gen. Odom: No.

    One of Odom's comments brings to public attention a second player in the game, further substantiating the Germanophobic character of NATO: "In 1994, the British foreign secretary said it would be better to have the Russians on the Adriatic than the Germans."

    I hope that this brief article will bring some light to those who still don't understand why Dresden was destroyed and why millions of Germans were exterminated in American and Russian concentration camps at the end of the war.

    Those who desire to verify the veracity of these quotes can order their own transcript of "One on One" from:

    Federal News Service
    620 National Press Building
    Washington, DC 20045
    (202) 347-1400


    One of the best indications of the correctness of the above contention is the simple fact that while the U.S. military is scrambling to maintain its troop strength in Iraq, it is not even discussing the redeployment of forces from Germany. After all, they are there - just as in Iraq - for the purpose of OCCUPATION!

    http://www.globalfire.tv/nj/05en/politics/natos_purpose.htm

Similar Threads

  1. Atheists Are Right, "God" Isn't "Real"
    By Rev. Jupiter in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 14th, 2021, 08:42 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, November 12th, 2017, 08:58 PM
  3. Replies: 87
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 21st, 2011, 06:59 AM
  4. NATO Generals Consider "New Generation" of Awards
    By Zimobog in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Friday, May 7th, 2010, 05:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •