Direct Deposit Authorization Form - Stevens Institute Of: Fill & Download for Free

here is more than everything that you wanted to know about stimulus checks.VID-19 Stimulus Checks: Your Questions AnsweredAmong the various coronavirus news reports, one of the most prominent topics this week has been focused around the economic stimulus package and, more narrowly, the stimulus check that is part of the package. While many are eager to know more about the stimulus check, it’s important to know about the stimulus package it’s part of and the reason the government is coordinating this effort in the first place. We’ve got answers to your questions below.What Is A Stimulus Package?A stimulus package is a variety of economic measures created by the government to aid a struggling national economy. True to its name, its purpose is to stimulate the economy by increasing government spending, thus preventing, slowing or reversing a recession or depression.The 2020 economic stimulus package is a response to the impact COVID-19 has had on the national and global economy. It goes by a few different names, including the economic relief package, the coronavirus stimulus bill and the economic stabilization package, but its official name is the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Home - ACT nearly $2 trillion, the CARES Act is the largest rescue package in our country’s modern history.What Does The 2020 Stimulus Package Include?You can read the full CARES Act bill online, but here are a few key features of the stimulus package: More than $350 billion in funding to help small businessesMore than $100 billion in funding for hospitals$500 billion in government lending for distressed businessesProtection against foreclosure and evictionExtended and additional unemployment benefitsMore people able to qualify for unemployment, including self-employed people like contractors, freelancers and gig workersEligible people directly affected by COVID-19 to withdraw from 401(k) savings without penaltyDirect payments to individual Americans through a stimulus check While there is much to digest from the mammoth, 800-plus-page bill, this article will focus on one particular section that has piqued the interest of most Americans: the stimulus check.What Is A Stimulus Check?A part of the broader stimulus package, the stimulus check is a payment made to eligible Americans from the U.S. government. Not only can the money help provide some financial relief for many who are facing hardship, but it can also help boost the economy when the money is spent.How Much Money Will I Get?Individuals will receive up to $1,200, while married couples will receive up to $2,400. Parents will receive an additional $500 per child listed as a dependent on their most recent tax return. Notice that when we list how much money you can get, we say “up to.” That’s because the payments are based on your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) on your most recent taxes and scale down when it’s over a certain amount.Here’s how it works: Individuals who earned $75,000 or less on their most recent taxes will receive the full $1,200.Heads of household who earned $112,500 or less on their most recent taxes will receive the full $1,200.Married couples who earned $150,000 or less on their most recent taxes will receive the full $2,400.For every $100 earned over those limits, the check amount decreases by $5.Individuals who made over $99,000, heads of households who made over $136,500 and married couples who made over $198,000 will not receive a stimulus check.Individuals, heads of household and married couples can earn up to $500 per child under 17 and claimed as a dependent on their most recent taxes.The amount for that check decreases by $5 per $100 earned over the limits listed above. The $100 is taken from the combined total of all children, not each individual child.Did you get all that? Here are a few examples of how much individuals and couples will receive based on their incomes and whether or not they have children: Individual under $75,000: Alex earned $60,000 in 2019. Alex will get a stimulus check for $1,200. Individual under $75,000 with children: Now let’s say Alex has two children under the age of 17, whom he claimed as dependents on his 2019 taxes. In addition to the $1,200, he will receive $500 for each child. In this scenario, Alex will receive a stimulus check for $2,200. Individual over $75,000: Jane earned $90,000 in 2019. She will get a check in the amount of $450. Since she made $15,000 over the maximum, she will receive $750 less. Individual over $99,000: Roger’s income in 2019 was $125,000. He has no children. He will not receive a stimulus check. Individual from $99,000 to $108,999 with child: Erin’s income in 2019 was $100,000. She would not be eligible for a stimulus check, but she has one child. Since she made $1,000 over the maximum, the check for her child will be $50 less. She will get a check for $450. If she had two children, her check would be $950. Individual at $109,000 or more, with child: Since the check amount decreases by $5 per $100 over, once an individual makes $109,000, they will not receive a check for one child. However, if they have two children, they would receive a check for $500. Married couple under $150,000, with child: Jack and Amy earned $120,000 and claimed one child under 17 on their most recent taxes. Jack and Amy receive $2,400 plus $500 for their child. Their total check amount will be $2,700. Married couple over $150,000: Mark and Sarah had a combined income of $160,000 on their recent taxes. They will get a stimulus check for $1,900. Since they made $10,000 over the maximum, they receive $500 less. Married couple over $150,000, with child: Greg and Mary’s combined income on their 2019 taxes was $200,000, which makes them ineligible to receive the stimulus check. However, they have one child. They will receive a check for $400. Since they earned $2,000 over the maximum, they receive $100 less. So, if the couple had two children, they would receive a check for $900, instead of $1,000. Married couple at $208,000 or more, with child: Since the check amount decreases by $5 per $100 over, once the couple makes $208,000, they will not receive any check for one child. However, if they have two children, they would receive a check for $500.You can determine your check amount by using this stimulus check calculator.Remember, the amount of money you receive is based on your adjusted gross income (AGI), which is your total taxable income. If you don’t know what that is, you can find it on line 8b on Form 1040 of your 2019 or line 7 on Form 1040 of your 2018 return.Where Will The IRS Get My Information?The IRS will use your 2019 taxes to get information on your adjustable gross income, your dependents, filing status (single or married). If you authorized direct deposit for electronic payments on taxes, the IRS will use that information as well. We’ll touch on that more when we talk about how you’ll get your stimulus check.If you have not prepared your 2019 taxes yet due to the COVID-19 tax extension, the government will use your 2018 taxes. If you have not filed your 2019 or 2018 taxes, the IRS will use information from a 2019 Social Security Benefit Statement (Form SSA-1099) or a 2019 Social Security Benefit Statement (Form RRB-1099). If you didn’t receive those types of benefits and therefore don’t have these forms either, you may not get a stimulus check.Do I Qualify For The Stimulus Check?Many Americans are eligible for the stimulus check, including unemployed people, veterans, retirees and people on disability receiving social security.You must have a Social Security number or adoption taxpayer identification number (ATIN). This is true for adults and children. According to The Institute On Taxation And Economic Policy, if you’re an immigrant who filed taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), you will not qualify for a stimulus check.You will not qualify for a stimulus check if you filed any of these forms in 2019: 1040-NR, 1040-NR-EZ, 1040-PR or http://1040-SS.As stated before, if you made more than $99,000 as an individual or $198,000 as a married couple and do not have children, you will not receive a stimulus check. You may also not receive a stimulus check if you did not file your 2018 or 2019 taxes and do not have a 2019 Form SSA-1099 or Form RRB-1099.Do I Need To Apply To Receive Money?No. You do not need to apply to receive a stimulus check. However, as stated before, if you do not have 2018 or 2019 taxes filed and do not have a 2019 Form SSA-1099 or Form RRB-1099, you should file your taxes immediately to ensure you get a check. Those who do not normally file taxes due to low income and, in addition, do not receive Social Security benefits may still be required to file a tax return for 2019 to get their stimulus checks. You’ll need to verify with the IRS whether you’re required to file a tax return to get your stimulus check. If you do need to file, you can do so for free through the Free File program offered by the IRS.How Will I Receive The Money?If you authorized a direct deposit on your 2018 or 2019 taxes, you’ll receive your money via direct deposit. If not, a physical check will be mailed to the address the IRS has on file. Within 15 days of sending payments, the IRS will send a paper notice by mail with information on how and where the payment was sent. Wait until you receive that notice to worry about your check as it may take some time for the IRS to send out all payments. However, if you do not receive your check by the time you receive the notice, follow the letter’s instructions for reporting your missing check.If you would like to receive your money via direct deposit, but the IRS does not have your direct deposit information, sit tight. According to the IRS, “In the coming weeks, Treasury plans to develop a web-based portal for individuals to provide their banking information to the IRS online.”When Will I Receive The Money?Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has expressed that he would like the payments to go out within 3 weeks of President Trump signing the CARES Act into law. However, a 3-week turnaround may be a little optimistic as stimulus payments in the past took a few months to arrive.The IRS plans to begin issuing up to 70 million stimulus checks via direct deposit starting Thursday, April 9, with those payments showing up in bank accounts by April 15. Those receiving a paper check by mail will have to wait longer, months even. Paper checks are scheduled to start going out at the end of April at a rate of about 5 million checks per week. At that rate, it is estimated that some checks will not arrive in homes until end of August or early September. Those with lower incomes will be mailed their checks first.For those who are able to be paid through direct deposit, the checks may come sooner than those getting a physical check in the mail.The stimulus checks will be available through 2020, so if you still need to file your tax return or provide more information, you have time. However, the sooner you provide your information, the sooner you may get a check.How Will I Know It’s Not A Stimulus Check Scam?Unfortunately, it’s during times of uncertainty that scammers really try to cash in. One of the best ways to avoid being scammed is to remember that the IRS will not call, text or email you. The IRS will not reach out to you on social media. If someone is asking for your bank account information or any other personal information, do not give it to them. The IRS will not ask for that information, nor will they ask for any money from you. The IRS will not send you an email with links or attachments. Do not click on those links or open any attachments claiming to have information on your stimulus check. If you aren’t sure if a letter you receive is from the government, visit An official website of the United States government.How Should I Use My Stimulus Check?How you use your stimulus check is entirely up to you based on your financial situation and current needs. Here are some ideas for how to use your check: Use the money to live off, pay your mortgage or meet any financial needs.Put the money into your emergency fund for future needs.Use the money to pay off some of your high-interest debt, which can free up more money each month.Save for your future and put the money into your 401(k).Invest in stock, while the market is down.Donate your money to a loved one in need or a nonprofit helping those affected by COVID-19. While we’ve compiled a list of some of the ways you can use your stimulus check, consider your own financial situation and see how it can best be used. If you are out of work, have reduced hours or are already living paycheck-to-paycheck, it may be in your best interest to use the money to pay bills or other monthly expenses to help maintain your financial health. If you are still working full-time, living comfortably and have a healthy emergency fund, you may consider donating the money or using it in other areas of your finances. We recommend speaking to a financial advisor to help you figure out the best way to spend the money.Can Money Be Taken From My Check?The stimulus checks are not taxable, meaning you’ll get the full amount. If you owe past taxes or have defaulted on your student loans, your check will not be reduced. However, if you owe past child support and it has been reported to the government, you could have that money taken from your stimulus check.Will There Be A Second Stimulus Check?As of right now, the CARES Act calls for only one stimulus check for 2020. However, this situation is fluid and more may need to be done in the future. We don’t know. If there is a need for another round of stimulus checks, another bill would need to be written and approved.Where Can I Get Stimulus Check Information From The IRS?For the most up-to-date information straight from the source, visit IRS.gov/coronavirusThe Bottom LineMany Americans can expect some kind of stimulus check in the coming weeks or months. How much you receive will depend on your adjusted gross income from your most recent taxes, your filing status (single, married or head of household) and the number of children you have. While this may offer some reprieve for those who have lost their jobs, had wages cut, live on low-income or live paycheck to paycheck, there is still uncertainty in what lies ahead. As we continue to live through the COVID-19 situation, much of the impact from the virus is experienced as it happens. We’ll keep you updated on changes to the economy, housing market and the daily lives of Americans as they happen. You can find more information in our COVID-19 Resource Guide. As we get through this together, remember to stay updated, stay calm and stay safe.

I will quote the historians Stephen Zaloga and Victor Madej, who put it most succinctly:“The roots of the Polish defeat are not particularly difficult to trace, though they have often been distorted. The outcome of the campaign was a foregone conclusion before it began—so long as France and Britain had no serious intention of directly intervening on the Western Front. Without Allied military intervention, the Wehrmacht could take the risk of committing the vast bulk of its strength against its much smaller Polish adversary. Although Western historians have been especially critical of Polish strategic deployment, the fact remains that the Polish Army could not have resisted the Wehrmacht single-handedly even under the most favorable circumstances. The task was even more hopeless after the intervention of the Red Army on 17 September. Correcting the shortcomings in Polish command decisions, troop dispositions, and tactical doctrine might have caused higher German casualties or prolonged the fighting by a few days or weeks, but it could not have substantially altered the outcome.”(Zaloga, Steven and Madej, Victor, The Polish Campaign, 1939. New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1991; Pg. 157)At the end of the 2nd week of the campaign, Poland desperately waited for France, which was under treaty obligations to aid Poland in the event of an invasion, to invade western Germany to draw forces away from Poland. But the leading French general, General Maurice Gamelin, repeatedly lied to the Poles, claiming he was preparing for his attack on Germany, when in reality he was doing nothing. Based on his assurances that a French invasion was imminent, the Poles launched a series of counter-attacks at the end of that second week along the Bzura River (west of Warsaw) to slow the German advance. Initially successful, it quickly turned around into a bloodbath and slaughter of Polish forces. As Zaloga and Madej make clear above, the Poles alone had no hope of stopping the Germans, but the mass destruction of Polish forces in this counter-offensive helped hasten the end.This destruction also convinced Hitler’s ally at the time, Stalin, to invade Poland from the east, on September 17. Hitler had been goading Stalin into invading but Stalin was hesitant, afraid to completely alienate the West, but with the main Polish defenses around Warsaw crushed he decided to move lest German forces overrun the previously-agreed Soviet-Nazi demarcation line. When Soviet forces did cross the Polish border, they lied to locals that they were coming to help the Poles against the Germans, only making their intentions clear when they encountered Polish military forces. Polish-American historian Jan T. Gross went into some detail about the Soviet invasion in his 1988 book:Gross, Jan T., Revolution from Abroad, The Soviet Conquest of Poland’s Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988Further notes: Adrian Garcia-Landa posted this question in the form of an edit: “can you give a document to prove this point? Not that i font believe you. On the contrary, im part french and i am shocked by the mental weakness and cowardice of Gamelin. He could have shortened WW2 had he been a real warrior ]” I can’t read French (which puts Gamelin’s memoirs out of my reach) so I must rely on sources in English, Polish, Russian or Hungarian. A couple secondary sources (in English) that cover Gamelin’s behavior during the 1939 Polish campaign are 1. William L. Shirer’s The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940 (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1969) which goes into detail about Gamelin’s communications with Warsaw; 2. Martin S. Alexander’s The Republic in Danger: General Maurice Gamelin and the Politics of French Defence, 1933-1940 (Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University press, 1992) which details the Polish-French military relationship in the 20 years before 1939 and touches in less detail the 1939 campaign itself; and 3. a paper by Anna M. Cienciala, “Poland in British and French Policy in 1939: Determination to Fight—or Avoid War?” (The Polish Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1989), pp. 199-226 (28 pages), which addresses Gamelin’s deceit.The shorter answer about your question though, aside from Gamelin’s own personality and shortcomings, is that both Britain and France signed the treaties with Poland in 1939 not to save Poland, but to create a tripwire that would hopefully intimidate Hitler from starting World War II. In other words, neither Paris nor London were too terribly concerned about Poland. After all, Chamberlain had made it clear during the 1938 Sudetenland Crisis that Britain had no intention of fighting a war for some far-away Eastern Europeans that neither he nor most British had ever heard of. The issue with the Polish crisis of August, 1939 was that it finally dawned on Britain and France that Hitler wasn’t going to stop, that he wanted a European-wide empire and the only question for Paris and London was whether they were willing to live with a Continental Nazi empire. So both signed the treaty guaranteeing Poland’s security in an effort to scare Hitler into stopping — and it worked, for a few days. Hitler’s original invasion date for Poland was August 26, but Britain had signed and announced its mutual defense treaty with Poland the night before on August 25, causing Hitler to hesitate and call off the invasion. (Read about Lt. Hans-Albrecht Herzner, who had orders to infiltrate Poland from the Slovak Tatry Mountains and seize a strategic bridge on August 26, and carried out his orders — only to learn after beating a hasty retreat in the face of determined Polish resistance that the August 26 invasion had been postponed. Other German units also failed to receive the postponement orders, and attacked their targets on August 26. Berlin claimed rogue elements in a diplomatic explanation to both Warsaw and the Western Allies.) But obviously Hitler was only shaken a bit by the British alliance, and moved ahead with the Polish invasion days later on September 1. When the invasion began, Poland moved (in Paris’ and London’s eyes) from being a tripwire to a delaying party whose job it was to keep the Nazis occupied for as long as possible, allowing Britain and France — whose forces were unprepared for major war operations yet — to build up their strength. The expectation was that Poland would be defeated, but would likely hold out for several months before defeat. This deposits us at the point of the original question, about how shocked everybody (again, including Hitler) was how quickly Poland was defeated, begging the question why….Addendum: Per some comments below, I’ll address some important issues. Both the British and French were under treaty obligation to aid Poland militarily in 1939, but neither fulfilled those obligations. The French shelled a couple abandoned German villages on the border and occupied them for a couple days, then withdrew. The German military didn’t even bother responding. The British sent bombers over Germany — carrying not bombs, but leaflets, begging Germans not to obey their Führer. As I responded to comments below, a key part of the story for Poland in September, 1939 was that the authorities in Warsaw (and, to be fair, in most of Europe) seriously overestimated Britain’s and France’s war preparedness and capabilities in 1939, thinking that they — global empires at the time, after all — would easily be able to handle the revived but ultimately smaller German war machine, led by its crazed former corporal (Hitler).But that leads to another important dimension in this story, which is that of Blitzkrieg: the Germans in 1939 had developed a doctrine based on their experiences at the end of World War I which emphasized the concentration of force and by-passing strong points of resistance, instead of the more traditional advance of the (front) line. The British had also begun to develop similar strategies in World War I and British military officers such as Captain Liddell Hart advocated something similar to Blitzkrieg, and he designed war games involving tanks on Salisbury Plain in the 1930s to showcase his ideas — but the conservative British military establishment ultimately rejected his ideas. But so did the post-war Prussian-dominated German military establishment; it was Hitler’s sponsorship of Heinz Guderian — Hart’s German counterpart — which overcame German military resistance to change. France was also resistant to new ideas, and Poland in the 1920s and 30s was most closely aligned with French military doctrine. So while most in Europe expected the Poles to lose, and badly, nobody (including the Germans) expected Poland to be defeated as quickly as it was, from September 1 to October 5: in 35 days. The story of the Battles of the Bzura River, the Polish counter-offensive mentioned above, began with German surprise and humiliating defeats for the first several days — but Blitzkrieg had introduced an unprecedented level of operational flexibility into the Wehrmacht that allowed the Germans to quickly redistribute and redeploy resources, so that by the end of the first week they had turned an embarrassing reversal into a huge advantage, and laid waste to the extended and exposed Polish attackers.Europe had never seen anything like this before, and quite frankly missed the lesson. Polish politicians and military personnel able to escape to the West in 1939 were chastised by the British and French for their monumental failure and weak fighting capabilities. That the lessons of Blitzkrieg had been missed and misunderstood became apparent the following spring as German forces barrelled into the Netherlands, Belgium and France, fighting these armies and Britain’s, and defeating them decisively in just 46 days — only 11 days more than the Polish campaign, which was fought against a much smaller foe and with aid from the Soviets. Blitzkrieg has by now become a buzzword used to describe any fast-moving process or plan, but in 1939 (and 1940) it was shockingly new. The French army, for instance, had superior tanks to Germany’s in 1940, the Renault Char-B1 and 2 series heavy tanks which had superior armor and gunnery to Germany’s Panzer IIIs. But Germany used their tank forces more effectively as concentrated “spear heads” to break French lines, while the French diluted their advantage in numbers — yes, they had more tanks than the Germans in 1940 too — by dispersing their tanks among the infantry as support. The point here isn’t to trash France, but rather to show that Europe’s leading military powers in 1939 — Britain and France — were wholly unprepared for the new and more effective Blitzkrieg doctrine, and could not mount any counter to stop it. What chance did a mid-level and economically under-developed military power like Poland have? This is a key lesson of World War II still often missed today, and going back to the original quote above from Zaloga and Madej, one that frustrates Poles who are asked time and again to re-explain why they were defeated so quickly.Addendum II: Sorry — sometimes it takes a few days for these things to twist and turn in your head. So Poland had its own intrinsic issues which contributed to the defeat of 1939 as well. From 1795 (some territories as early as 1772) until 1918, Poland had been divided and ruled by three different empires: the Russian, Prussian (after 1870, German) Empire, and the Habsburg (after 1806 - Austrian Empire, after 1867 Austro-Hungarian Dual-Monarchy). Each empire had its own laws, currencies, economic organization, and policies towards the Poles they ruled. Russian Poland (which included Warsaw) had experienced strong industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th century, Prussian-German Poland had also experienced some though not as strongly, while Austrian-ruled Poland (including Kraków) remained almost frozen in the 18th century socially and economically. This meant that the new country from 1918 had to try to stitch together a single country out of a jumble of regions with very different legal, social and economic structures and traditions. Each region had their local elites who insisted on doing things their own way. There was a lot of frustration with Warsaw in outer regions. And cutting ties with the three empires in 1918 also meant losing markets and economic access that had developed over 120+ years’ time, as well as having to redesign local pricing and cost structures around an unstable, untested new currency (while losing access to Russian Rubles, German Reichsmarks, and Austrian Kronen). Poland in 1939 was still something of a Frankenstein creature, barely held together by new national institutions, laws and a currency few trusted, despite the strength of Polish national identity. From March until September, 1939 for instance, Poland failed miserably to mobilize and deploy its full military potential, finally getting something like only about a quarter of its total troop strength in the field by the time the Germans invaded.(Poland was nowhere near the class of the British or French militaries, but outside Germany’s and the Soviet Union’s, was considered the largest and most potent military in Eastern Europe, certainly the one most likely to be able to resist — or at least stall — a German or Soviet invasion, compared to the other Eastern European states. Poland had, after all, successfully defeated and driven out a nascent Soviet invasion in 1920 in the see-saw Polish-Soviet War. This is another factor in the shock many expressed across Europe at Poland’s rapid defeat in 1939.)Another important factor I alluded above but didn’t go into was that while in November, 1918 an independent Poland was declared, soon to be recognized by the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, its borders were not at all yet determined. This was the case across Eastern Europe with the sudden emergence of new states and the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman empires. There simply was no way to make ethnic boundaries match political ones, and immediately in 1918 — as Churchill famously quipped — the armies of the “pygmies” (meaning the smaller states) began to march. Eastern Europe dissolved into a huge land-grab as each new country tried to grab as much strategic, ethnic and historical territory its people had ever set foot in as possible. Poland was no exception, and fought a series of wars with the Soviets, Czechs, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Germans over 1918–1922. This antagonized relations with these countries (and vice-versa), dooming any cooperation between states in the region despite Allied attempts — especially France — to create an anti-German, anti-Soviet alliance through the Little Entente (La Petit Entente). Especially after the West abandoned Eastern Europe in 1925 with the Treaty of Locarno, this refusal by most of the Eastern European states to cooperate in any meaningful way left the region very vulnerable to German, Italian and Soviet manipulation.Finally, Poland in 1918 was struggling with its own identity. What did it mean to be “Polish?” The later medieval Polish state had been highly ethnically mixed so there were those in 1918 who wanted to recreate that state, a sort of mega-state kind of like the Habsburg empire, comprised of many peoples but serving as a(n admittedly unequal) political vehicle for each. So historical people like Adam Mickiewicz or Copernicus are argued over constantly today by different nationalities trying to claim them as their own, but they called themselves Polish — albeit with a very different meaning of “Polish.” Meanwhile, over the 19th century a new Polish ethnic nationalism had risen, and there were those who wanted an ethnically “pure” (whatever that means) Polish state. Group A won this argument, which meant that by the end of 1922 about one-third of Poland’s population was non-Polish (mostly Ukrainians, Belarussians, Lithuanians, Jews and Germans). Initially Warsaw tried to placate and provide reasonable accommodations for these minorities in the 1920s, helping with schools, newspapers, etc., but by the 1930s — especially after 1935 — Warsaw behaved increasingly nationalistically and alienated many of these minorities. During the actual 1939 campaign, for instance, as the panicked Polish government retreated towards Romania, it debated feverishly whether to provide arms to Ukrainian civilians, not knowing whether they would use them to resist the German invasion or turn them on their Polish neighbors. (Gross’ book, mentioned above, goes into some detail about this.) So having this large portion of the population that was not trusted by Warsaw also impacted Poland’s defense capabilities somewhat — though again, returning to Zaloga and Madej’s point, ultimately, a better-coordinated military organization coupled with better minority relations would have improved Polish performance in 1939, but still, could not have changed the outcome.I promise, no more addendums, though they ultimately point towards the answer: “There were really a lot of complicated factors that led to the stunning Polish defeat of 1939.”

How does one explain to an anti-semite that Barbara Lerner Spectre is not evidence of a Jewish conspiracy?Barbara Lerner Spectre has published that she’s an Armenian Genocide denier / Armenian Holocaust denier. Multiple articles by her as proof will be included. She shamelessly flat out said “it wasn’t genocide”. She has been promoting Armenian Holocaust denial conspiracy theories, which is illegal to do in several countries. She compares Palestinians and Armenians and calls both “incompetent at governing” and “propagandists”, and she blamed the victims for their own genocide, which is all extremely offensive, so she’s bigoted, racist, and an Armenian Holocaust denier. Disgusting.She has also been funded by the Swedish government after publishing her Armenian Holocaust denial conspiracy theories and hate. Barbara Lerner Spectre - WikipediaRevisionists typically argue the academic consensus of it being a genocide as anti-Turkish propaganda or as a conspiracy spread by the Armenians, instead claiming that it either did not occur or that it was somehow justified at the time.Denial of the Armenian Genocide is officially outlawed in Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia.Currently, only the governments of Turkey and Azerbaijan deny that there was an Armenian genocide. [1][1] Armenian Genocide denial - WikipediaThe following quote is from an article by Barbara Lerner Spectre showing she denies the Armenian Genocide. She lies, and she also shows bigotry to Armenians and Palestinians, which is not surprising since she’s a Holocaust denier to Armenians.The bottom line here is that in actual historical fact, Turks were not like Nazis; Armenians were not like Jews; and attempts to convince Americans that they were are propaganda, not history. The Armenian tragedy was real and terrible, but it was not the only terrible tragedy in Turkey in 1915 and it wasn’t genocide; it was that in the midst of a wider war that brought death and destruction to millions on all sides, nationalist Armenians fought a war to claim a piece of Turkey for a country of their own, and lost. Later, they got a state of their own, but its development has been stunted from that day to this by high levels of poverty, corruption and political violence. If Armenians would accept their share of responsibility for the tragedies of 1915, trade with their increasingly prosperous Turkish neighbors could do much to alleviate that poverty. Some in Armenia have long wanted to do that, but most government leaders — and the powerful Armenian diaspora community those leaders rely on — have always insisted, instead, on demonizing Turks and whitewashing all Armenian actions in World War I. And, although they proved incompetent at governing, they achieved great success as propagandists. In this, Armenians are very similar to Palestinians; very different from both Jews and Turks. [2][2] http://www.tc-america.org/files/news/pdf/blerner_nro.pdfPress coverage during the Armenian Genocide - WikipediaSeptember 10, 1895, New York Times, Another Armenian Holocaust” - Web ArchiveShe’s the same as people who say Jews died in WW2, but it wasn’t a genocide. Jews did write the genocidal book titled Germany must Perish![3] in 1941. That is true, but that and various other excuses, including the Kapo[4] and Judenräte,[5] are not a “share of responsibility for the tragedies” that minimize the Jewish Holocaust and Barbara Spectre and others needs to stop being am Armenian Holocaust deniers and making bigoted and offensive excuses.[3] Germany Must Perish! - Wikipedia![4] Kapo (concentration camp) - Wikipedia[5] Judenrat - WikipediaHitler’s Jewish SoldiersOr saying Jews started it by doing the Armenian Genocide first, since several of the so called “Young Turks” and collaborators were important Jews, which is well documented. You can still find copies of major newspaper articles, such as The London Times, sourced below. It is relevant since Barbara Spectre has blatently denied the Armenian Genocide. Others like banker Max von Oppenheim from the wealthy Jewish Oppenheim banking family have openly approved[6][7][8] of the Armenian genocide. Disgusting.In late 1915, British High Commissioner in Cairo Henry McMahon claimed in a report that Oppenheim had been making speeches in mosques approving of the massacre of Armenians initiated by the Young Turk government earlier that year.[6][7][6] Max von Oppenheim - Wikipedia[7] Digitised Manuscripts"The attempts of the American Ambassador to procure some alleviation of the lot of Armenians have thus far proved unsuccessful. Mr Morganthau, in the opinion of good observers, wasted too much diplomatic energy on behalf of the Zionists of Palestine, who were in no danger of massacre, to have any force to spare. Talaat and Bedri simply own that persecuting Armenians amuses them and turn a deaf ear to American pleadings. German and Austro-Hungarian residents in Turkey at first approved of the punishment of Armenian 'traitors', but the methods of the Turkish extremists have sickened even Prussian stomachs. True the Jewish Baron von Oppenheim, now in Syria, has been preaching massacre, and the German Consular officials al Aleppo and Alexandretta have followed suit, perhaps with the idea of planting German colonists in the void left by the disappearance of the Armenians when the war is over.""THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES: EXTERMINATING A RACE: A RECORD OF HORRORS", Times of London, (8 October 1915),[8][8] The Armenian massacres :: www.haias.netMax von OppenheimOppenheim family - WikipediaOppenheim relatives. Warburg, Rothschild, et. al.Theodor Herzl (born Benjamin Ze'ev Herzl)The Armenian question has occupied the Zionist movement since a mass killing of Armenians was carried out by the Turks in the mid 1890s – prior even to the First Zionist Congress. Herzl’s strategy was based on the idea of an exchange: The Jews would pay off the Ottoman Empire’s huge debt, in return for the acquisition of Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state there, with the major powers’ consent. Herzl had been working hard to persuade Sultan Abdul Hamid II to accept the proposal, but to no avail.“Instead of offering the Sultan money,” Herzl’s diplomatic agent Philip Michael Nevlinski (who also advised the Sultan) told him, “give him political support on the Armenian issue, and he’ll be grateful and accept your proposal, in part at least.” The Christian European countries had been critical of the murder of Armenian Christians at the hands of Muslims, and committees supporting the Armenians had been founded in various places, and Europe also offered refuge to leaders of the Armenian revolt. This situation made it very difficult for Turkey to obtain loans from European banks.Herzl eagerly took the advice. He felt that it was appropriate to try any means possible to hasten the establishment of a Jewish state. And so he agreed to serve as a tool of the Sultan, by trying to convince the leaders of the Armenian revolt that if they surrendered to the Sultan, he would comply with some of their demands. Herzl also tried to show the West that Turkey was in fact more humane, that it had no choice but to deal with the Armenian revolt this way, and that it aspired to a ceasefire and a political arrangement. After much effort, he also met with the Sultan on May 17, 1901.This drama involving Herzl – a leader who subordinated humanitarian considerations and served the Turkish authorities for the sake of the ideal of the Jewish state – is just one illustration of the frequent clash between political goals and moral principles. Israel has repeatedly been faced with such tragic dilemmas, as evidenced in its long-standing position of not officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, as well as in other more recent decisions that reflect the tension between humanitarian values and realpolitik considerations.[9][9] Haaretz (Israeli Newspaper): How Herzl sold out the ArmeniansDespite the image that we have of Herzl, there have been a few instances which seem rather deplorable, even if they were acts of realpolitik, in his search for a greater Yisrael. He lost some respect among other Jewish journalists when he supported the Ottoman cause of destroying Armenian Christians, although it was not clear that he actually knew what was happening to the Armenians at the time, in order to try and gain favor and support from the Sultan to allow Jews to immigrate to Palestine freely. More precisely in 1896, when he visited Sultan Abdul Hamid to try and persuade him to open up Palestine, he did not gain any ground, yet due to his fame as a journalist agreed to provide support for the Sultan in the papers, as he was ravaged by Europe’s press for his deplorable and unspeakable actions in Armenia. These are the instances when we must look at history and understand its reality, however much we wish we did not, for although Herzl was indeed a great figure, he was not by any means a perfect one.Most historians have given Herzl a great deal of criticism because of his support for the Sultan in the Armenian-Ottoman conflict which of course was a genocide, which infallibly has even led some to call it-unjustly by the way- the “first original sin of Zionism.”[10][10] The Jerusalem Post: Herzl: The interesting character that inspired a nationTheodor Herzl - WikipediaTalk:Theodor Herzl - WikipediaThe Palestine issue that cost Sultan Abdülhamid II the Ottoman throneRise and Fall of the Ottoman EmpireThe real purpose of the deportation was robbery and destruction; it really represented a new method of massacre. When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.[11][11] —Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story pg. 309."The attempts of the American Ambassador to procure some alleviation of the lot of Armenians have thus far proved unsuccessful. Mr Morganthau, in the opinion of good observers, wasted too much diplomatic energy on behalf of the Zionists of Palestine, who were in no danger of massacre, to have any force to spare.[12][12] The Armenian massacres :: www.haias.netHenry Morgenthau (/ˈmɔːrɡəntaʊ/, with a /t/; April 26, 1856 – November 25, 1946) was an American lawyer, businessman and United States ambassador, most famous as the American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. As ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Morgenthau has come to be identified as the most prominent American to speak about the Armenian Genocide.like other prominent Jewish Americans, Oscar Straus and Solomon Hirsch before him, Morgenthau would be posted as the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.Wilson assured him that the Porte in Istanbul "was the point at which the interest of American Jews in the welfare of the Jews of Palestine is focused, and it is almost indispensable that I have a Jew in that post".[13][13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau_Sr.Abram Isaac Elkus (August 6, 1867 – October 15, 1947), was an American ambassador, judge and public official. He was one of the most prominent Jews in American government.[14][14] Abram Isaac Elkus - WikipediaAmbassador to the Ottoman Empire (1916–1917)The Ottoman Empire severed diplomatic relations with the United States on April 20, 1917, after the United States declared war against Germany on April 4, 1917. Normal diplomatic relations were reestablished with the Empire's successor state, Turkey, in 1927.[15][15] United States Ambassador to Turkey - Wikipedia“It is a well-known fact that the Salonika Committee was formed under Masonic auspices with the help of the Jews and Donmehs, or crypto-Jews of Turkey, whose headquarters are at Salonika, and whose organization took, even under Abdul Hamid, a Masonic form. Jews like Emmanuel Carasso, Salem, Sassun, Fardji, Meslah, and Donmehs or crypto-Jews, like Djavid Bey and the Baldji family, took an influential part both in the organization of the Committee and in the deliberations of its central body at Salonika. These facts, which are known to every Government in Europe, are also known throughout Turkey and the Balkans, where an increasing tendency is noticeable to saddle the Jews and Donmehs with responsibility for the sanguinary blunders which the Committee has made."Vienna Correspondent for The Times of London Times, "Jews and the Situation in Albania", The London Times, (11 July 1911), p. 5.[16][16] The New York Times from New York, New York on July 11, 1911Emmanuel Carasso or Emanuel Karasu (1862 in Salonica – 1934 in Trieste) was a lawyer and a member of the prominent Sephardic Jewish Carasso family of Ottoman Salonica (now Thessaloniki, Greece). He was a prominent member of the Young Turks..Karasu was a member (some sources say founder) and later president of the Macedonian Risorta Masonic lodge in Thessaloniki and pioneered the masonic movement within the Ottoman Empire. Masonic lodges and other secret societies in Salonica were meeting places for sympathizers of the Young Turks, including Talat Pasha.Karasu was one of the first non-Muslim members of the Ottoman Freedom Society, which later became part of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP); when the CUP came to power, he became the Salonica deputy in the Ottoman parliament. He was offered various positions in the Ottoman government, but turned them down. Karasu was one of the three men who told Sultan Abdülhamit II of his deposition in April 1909. He worked for the cooperation of various Jewish organizations in Turkey..[17][17] Emmanuel Carasso - WikipediaDönmeh “Dönmeh (Turkish: Dönme) refers to a group of crypto-Jews in the Ottoman Empire who, to escape the inferior condition of dhimmis, converted publicly to Islam, but were said to have retained their beliefs.The Dönmeh played an enormous role on the Young Turk movement, a group of modernist revolutionaries who brought down the Ottoman Empire.”[18][18] DönmehDr Nazim played a significant role in the Armenian Genocide and the expulsion of Greeks in Western Anatolia..From a Dönmeh background, Nazim was born and raised in Salonica;..In a speech delivered on during the closing remarks of a Committee of Union and Progress meeting, Dr. Nazim has said:“If we remain satisfied with the sort of local massacres which took place in Adana and elsewhere in 1909...if this purge is not general and final, it will inevitably lead to problems. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to eliminate the Armenian people in its entirety, so there is no further Armenian on this earth and the very concept of Armenia is extinguished.”And continued by saying, "the procedure this time will be one of total annihilation-it is necessary that not even one single Armenian survive this annihilation".During one of the secret meetings of the Young Turks, Dr. Nazim was quoted as saying, "The massacre is necessary. All the non-Turkish elements, whatever nation they belong to, should be exterminated". In February 1915, two months prior to the commencement of the Armenian Genocide, Dr. Nazim declared a new government policy which would "produce total annihilation" in which would be "essential that no Armenian survives".He has been noted to have said that the Ottoman Empire should be "freeing the fatherland of the aspirations of this cursed race" when referring to the Armenians.[19][19] Nazım BeyIn 1908, the Berlin Executive office of the World Zionist Organisation (WZO), sent Jabotinsky to the Ottoman capital Constantinople. Jabotinsky became editor-in-chief of a new pro-Young-Turkish daily newspaper "Jeune Turc", which was founded and financed by Zionist officials like WZO president David Wolffsohn and his representative in Constantinople Victor Jacobson. The journalists writing for that paper included the famous German Social democrat and Russian-Jewish revolutionary Parvus, who lived in Constantinople from 1910 until 1914.Quote“A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German custom, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-racial type are Jewish. ... It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. ... There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. ... An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. ... A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority.”[20][20] Ze'ev JabotinskyMehmet Cavit Bey, Mehmed Cavid Bey or Mehmed Djavid Bey (1875–1926) was an Ottoman Sabbatean (Jewish) economist, newspaper editor and leading politician during the last period of the Ottoman Empire. A member of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), he was part of the Young Turks and had positions in government after the constitution was established.Cavit was born in Salonica (Thessaloniki), then in the Salonica Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire. His father was Naim, a merchant, and his mother was Pakize; they were cousins. He was of Dönmeh descent.[21][21] Mehmet Cavit BeyMarcel Samuel Raphael Cohen, [Moiz Cohen, Moise Cohen, or Moise Kohen] (aka Tekin Alp [or Munis Tekinalp]), born to a Jewish family in Salonica under Ottoman control (now Thessaloniki, Greece), became one of the founding fathers of Turkish nationalism and an ideologue of Pan-Turkism.[22][22] Young Turks - Wikipedia"The author of the standard exposition of the 'Pan-Turanian Movement,' who called himself by the pure Turkish name of 'Tekin Alp,' is believed to have been a Salonika Jew; and there is also reason to suppose that the secularizing, anti-Islamic tendency which is so remarkable a feature in Pan-Turanianism was partly the effect of this Jewish influence."The Times History of the War, Printing House Square, London, Volume 14, (1918), p. 308[23][24][23] The Times History of the War, Vol 14[24] Full text of "The Times history of the war"James Aratoon Malcolm, born 1868, was a British-Iranian Armenian financier, arms dealer and journalist.In early 1916, he was appointed by George V of Armenia as one of the five members of the Armenian National Delegation to lead negotiations during and after the war, and the effective representative in London (the other four members were all based in Paris).He was Chairman of the Royal Thames Yacht Club, and a founder in 1894 of the British Empire League.He was awarded an OBE in 1948.He was the son of Aratoon Malcolm, of Bushehr in Qajar Persia, whose family had lived in Persia "since before Elizabethan days", in shipping and commerce, having acted as treasurers to British Missions to the Shah of Persia. They had numerous contacts with significant financial families in the region such as that of David Sassoon.He came to England at the age of 13 years old in 1881, for his education, under the guardianship of Albert Sassoon. As a boy he was friends with Albert Goldsmid. [25][25] James Aratoon Malcolm - WikipediaSASSOON - JewishEncyclopedia.com(English Spelling as Sassoon, Sassun, Sasson, etc.)Alexander Lvovich Parvus born Israel Lazarevich Gelfand (1867-1924), was a Marxist theoretician, revolutionary, and a controversial activist in the Social Democratic Party of Germany..Israel Lazarevich Gelfand was born to an ethnic Jewish family on September 8 1867 in the shtetl of Berazino, now part of Belarus..Soon afterwards Parvus moved to Istanbul in Turkey, where he lived for five years. There he set up an arms trading company which profited handsomely during the Balkan War. He became the financial and political advisor of the Young Turks. In 1912 he was made editor of Turk Yurdu, their daily newspaper.He worked closely with the triumvirs known as the Three Pashas - Enver, Talat and Cemal - and Finance Minister Djavid Bey [26][26] Alexander Parvus (Born Israel Lazarevich Gelfand)Alexander Parvus (Real name: Israel Lazerivich Gelfand)Three Pashas - WikipediaAccording to various sources, Talaat Pasha had developed plans to eliminate the Armenians as early as 1910. Danish philologist Johannes Østrup wrote in his memoirs that in the autumn of 1910, Talaat talked openly about his plans to "exterminate" the Armenians with him. According to Østrup, Talaat stated: "If I ever come to power in this country, I will use all my might to exterminate the Armenians." In November of that year, a decision to carry out such a plan was made in Thessaloniki where a secret conference was held by prominent members of the CUP.In a memorandum sent to Berlin demanding the removal of German ambassador Paul Wolff Metternich because he interceded on behalf of the Armenians, Talaat reaffirmed such a commitment: "the work must be done now, after the war it will be too late." By the end of the war, the subsequent German ambassador Johann von Bernstorff described his discussion with Talaat: "When I kept on pestering him about the Armenian question, he once said with a smile: 'What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians'".[27][27] Talaat PashaMustafa Kemal “Atatürk”These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule.[28](Note: The word “genocide” did not exist yet when he said this.)[28] Armenian Genocide QuotesRevisionists typically argue the academic consensus of it being a genocide as anti-Turkish propaganda or as a conspiracy spread by the Armenians, instead claiming that it either did not occur or that it was somehow justified at the time.Denial of the Armenian Genocide is officially outlawed in Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia.[29][29] Armenian Genocide denial - WikipediaA quote by Barbara Spectre:On many blogs and websites, Armenians often accuse these scholars of being part of a Jewish and/or Zionist conspiracy because Israel has always steadfastly rejected the genocide charge, as Turkey’s own Jewish citizens do. In America, all of the existing long-established Jewish organizations also reject it (that is, until last month when one major American Jewish organization capitulated under mounting pressure).[30][30] Judgment Time by Barbara Lerner SpectreWe reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide."[31][31] Shimon Peres - WikipediaWilliam Cohen (Jewish), Madeleine Albright (Jewish) Grilled on Hypocrisy of Opposing Genocide Recognition While Leading New Genocide Prevention EffortSecretaries Albright and Cohen Should be Removed from Genocide Task ForceANCA Confronts Cohen/Albright Hypocrosiy on GenocideWatertown severs ties with the Jewish Anti-Defamation League for denying the Armenian GenocideUPDATE: MEMPHIS CONGRESSMAN STEVEN COHEN (Jewish) SHOVES ARMENIAN AMERICAN JOURNALIST OUT OF PRESS CONFERENCE - Armenian National Committee of AmericaYet again, Israel denies the Armenian genocideADL local leader fired on Armenian issueThe Armenian Genocide and the ADL - The Boston GlobeTrump Joins Grand Bipartisan Tradition Of Denying Armenian GenocideJerusalem archive yields Armenian genocide ‘smoking gun’‘Sherlock Holmes of Armenian Genocide’ Uncovers Lost EvidenceMemorandum of the “TEN COMMANDMENTS” by the “Committee of Union and Progress” outlining the strategy for implementing the Armenian Genocide, 1914-1915Harrowing photo collection shows true horror of Armenian ‘genocide’The Armenian Genocide Museum-institute Photo CollectionImagine that you’re walking in Manhattan a few days before Holocaust Memorial Day and see five airplanes skywriting in massive letters that the Holocaust was a hoax.How would you feel?Imagine that you later find out that a full-page advertisement had run the same day in the Washington Post explaining that although some Jews were killed during World War II, the Holocaust never occurred. Imagine if that advertisement directed readers to a website that explained that these same Jews were responsible for their own deaths.How would the American Jewish community react?And imagine that a massive billboard with the same advertisement was erected in Times Square shortly before tens of thousands of Jews were set to gather there to commemorate Kristallnacht.To whom would you turn? Would you still feel safe living in New York?For New York’s Armenian community, this is unfortunately not just a hypothetical situation. On April 20, a few days before the 101st anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide, five airplanes really did skywrite over the Hudson River that the Armenian Genocide is a “Geno-lie.” A full-page advertisement was really run in the Washington Post explaining that although some Armenians were killed during WWI, there was never a genocide against them, and the same advertisement directed readers to a website explaining that the Armenians were responsible for their own deaths. When tens of thousands of Armenian Americans gathered in Times Square to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the April 24, 1915 mass arrest and subsequent execution of 250 Armenian intellectuals, regarded as the first attack of the genocide, attendees really were confronted by a large billboard denying the slaughter.[32]Read more:[32] Why Jews Need To Recognize the Armenian Genocide Once and for AllFull-page ad denying the Armenian genocide in The Wall Street Journal spurs angerThe Armenian Genocide anniversary. It says: “101 YEARS OF GENO LIE”