General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is beyond idiotic but it is cant in the west. The whole point of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact from the German side was to avoid a war with the west, which it desperately wanted to avoid, and offered to settle many times to be met with disdain and rejection from Churchill, a Zionist stooge, and other warmongers in Britian.

Hitler could have avoided war with Britain, the Commonwealth and France very easily.

All he had to do was not order the invasion of Poland.

Hitler was obviously not smart enough to avoid that one.
 
Eh?



Kind of ironic that Herr Hitler ended up with a war with the West in the East.


Yeah its almost like he planned for an aggressive expansion in the East......I wonder if he wrote anything about that? lol
 
You are aware that Churchill wasn't in power until after Germany invaded France? The policy was appeasement before then.

And who is this 'Zionist stooge' you list?

(It's Britain, by the way.)

As a matter of fact the appeasement policy came to an end after the invasion of Poland and the UK declaration of war to Germany. At the same time Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and, as such, was full member of the British war cabinet. One can therefore not say he was not in power or, at least, in position to influence the decisions taken by the government.
 
Britian was a small independent duchy near Liechtenstein. They were by all accounts a bunch of REAL bastards. It was wiped out in 1942 when a lost Italian truck drove off the road and landed atop the small shed where the capital was located.

More seriously....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

German plans to invade Switzerland



Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941–1944, Martin Bormann, ed., Norman Cameron, trans. (London: Enigma Books, 2000), 800.

As we all know those darn Swiss were planning on invading peaceful Germany any darn minute.

Even the most stupid robber would not attack the bank where it has his money. This is why nazi Germany never invaded Switzerland...
 
Even the most stupid robber would not attack the bank where it has his money. This is why nazi Germany never invaded Switzerland...

True but if the USSR had been defeated and after Spain had been 'Finlandized" & Portugal taken. I think Italy and Germany would have split up the properly speaking provinces of Switzerland too - not sure where the French ones would have gone - perhaps to 'Burgundy" or whatever they wanted to recreate.
 
As a matter of fact the appeasement policy came to an end after the invasion of Poland and the UK declaration of war to Germany. At the same time Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and, as such, was full member of the British war cabinet. One can therefore not say he was not in power or, at least, in position to influence the decisions taken by the government.

You are correct, of course, about when appeasement ended. My main point still stands, that Churchill was not in power at all when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed, and he was not in charge until after France was invaded.

I'm also not clear how that pact was supposed to prevent a war with the West, rather than with Russia.
 
I'm also not clear how that pact was supposed to prevent a war with the West, rather than with Russia.

Hitler knew, it was not a secret, that Britain and France had a tripwire treaty with Poland and that elements in Britain, i.e. the Jews, were lobbying for a war. He erroneously reasoned that if Britain knew that the Soviet Union would not join the war they would not declare war on Germany as they were totally unprepared.

Pat Buchanan has a great book on the subject, 'The Unnecessary War', which provides lots of details of the events and machinations of many the major public players leading up to the war.

Hitler professed admiration for the British in Mein Kampf and made many speeches about his efforts avoid war with the west ... e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAV1_bol2BM
 
Hitler knew, it was not a secret, that Britain and France had a tripwire treaty with Poland and that elements in Britain, i.e. the Jews, were lobbying for a war. He erroneously reasoned that if Britain knew that the Soviet Union would not join the war they would not declare war on Germany as they were totally unprepared.

No one was lobbying for a war in either Britain or France. That is a fabrication made up postwar by people who idolized the Nazis.

Britain and France were resigned to a war if necessary. All Germany had to do was not invade Poland, and voila, no war with Britain and France.

Pat Buchanan has a great book on the subject, 'The Unnecessary War', which provides lots of details of the events and machinations of many the major public players leading up to the war.

Pat's book is a poorly researched piece of revisionist tripe that has horribly inconvenienced some code on my hard drive. Mr. Buchanan's main point was that Britain didn't need to go to war over Poland, and that by doing so condemned Eastern Europe to 50 years of communism. His analysis omits the quite logical step that the party that started WWII in Europe was Hitler. He ordered the invasion of Poland in full knowledge that if he did it meant war with Britain and France and did it anyway.

No invasion of Poland, no war in Europe. No war in Europe, no border for Germany with the USSR. No border with the USSR, no Barbarossa, no Red Army pissing on the Reichstag because the German military didn't do logistics well and was poor at getting intelligence.

Hitler professed admiration for the British in Mein Kampf and made many speeches about his efforts avoid war with the west...


And yet, he still did the one thing he knew would lead to war with Britain.
 
No one was lobbying for a war in either Britain or France. That is a fabrication made up postwar by people who idolized the Nazis.

Britain and France were resigned to a war if necessary. All Germany had to do was not invade Poland, and voila, no war with Britain and France.



Pat's book is a poorly researched piece of revisionist tripe that has horribly inconvenienced some code on my hard drive. Mr. Buchanan's main point was that Britain didn't need to go to war over Poland, and that by doing so condemned Eastern Europe to 50 years of communism. His analysis omits the quite logical step that the party that started WWII in Europe was Hitler. He ordered the invasion of Poland in full knowledge that if he did it meant war with Britain and France and did it anyway.

No invasion of Poland, no war in Europe. No war in Europe, no border for Germany with the USSR. No border with the USSR, no Barbarossa, no Red Army pissing on the Reichstag because the German military didn't do logistics well and was poor at getting intelligence.




And yet, he still did the one thing he knew would lead to war with Britain.

......and went to war with the world's greatest naval power without enough naval or air power to deal with it......and with an industrial base that would be unable to win in long term war.
 
Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941–1944, Martin Bormann, ed., Norman Cameron, trans. (London: Enigma Books, 2000), 800.
Hans, without disagreeing with your main point (or how you expressed it LOL) but in the interest of making sure we use know what's out there about the sources, I'm of the opinion that Table Talk is a dubious source. My views were shaped by this article, "Hugh Trevor-Roper and the English Editions of Hitler's Table Talk and Testament" by Mikael Nilsson (2016).

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022009415619689
 
Last edited:
Hans, without disagreeing with your main point (or how you expressed it LOL) but in the interest of making sure we use know what's out there about the sources, I'm of the opinion that Table Talk is a dubious source. My views were shaped by this article, "Hugh Trevor-Roper and the English Editions of Hitler's Table Talk and Testament" by Mikael Nilsson (2016).

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022009415619689

Thanks I had not heard that before will read that link tomorrow!
 
Hitler knew, it was not a secret, that Britain and France had a tripwire treaty with Poland and that elements in Britain, i.e. the Jews, were lobbying for a war. He erroneously reasoned that if Britain knew that the Soviet Union would not join the war they would not declare war on Germany as they were totally unprepared.

Pat Buchanan has a great book on the subject, 'The Unnecessary War', which provides lots of details of the events and machinations of many the major public players leading up to the war.

Hitler professed admiration for the British in Mein Kampf and made many speeches about his efforts avoid war with the west ... e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAV1_bol2BM

I've read it. I'm surprised you cited it because Buchanan is no fan of the FMM (Funny Mustache Man) you're trying so desperately to exonerate.

He liked Henry Ford too, what's your point?
 
This is beyond idiotic but it is cant in the west. The whole point of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact from the German side was to avoid a war with the west, which it desperately wanted to avoid, and offered to settle many times to be met with disdain and rejection from Churchill, a Zionist stooge, and other warmongers in Britian.

A few refs: google 'President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe' to read about the machinations of Roosevelt and the Jews prior to the war.

Churchwill's War - Irving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqWLx8hSov4
When Churchill forged art, wrote for the western press, became an agent of the Jews

German vid - Who Was Really Responsible for WW II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZecpHAnX7Q
Antidote to 70 years of degenerate lies by the Jewish media ...

Saggy: with reference to Churchill as a "Zionist stooge", how do you distinguish between someone who genuinely believes in the justness of the Jewish desire for a homeland in Palestine, and a stooge?
 
Saggy: with reference to Churchill as a "Zionist stooge", how do you distinguish between someone who genuinely believes in the justness of the Jewish desire for a homeland in Palestine, and a stooge?

Why, anyone who does not believe the Jews should be exterminated is a stooge of course... And everyone who believes that people actually tried to exterminate them are stooges too for some reason.
Just goes to show how crazy these conspiracy theorists are how crafty these Jews are.
 
Saggy: with reference to Churchill as a "Zionist stooge", how do you distinguish between someone who genuinely believes in the justness of the Jewish desire for a homeland in Palestine, and a stooge?

Churchill was secretly on the Zionist payroll as Irving reveals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqWLx8hSov4

There is no question that he was a Zionist stooge.

No one questions the 'justness of the Jewish desire for a homeland in Palestine', but the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, along with the degenerate lies of the holohoax, will spell the end of Judaism.
 
Churchill was secretly on the Zionist payroll as Irving reveals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqWLx8hSov4

There is no question that he was a Zionist stooge.

No one questions the 'justness of the Jewish desire for a homeland in Palestine', but the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, along with the degenerate lies of the holohoax, will spell the end of Judaism.

I've always wanted to ask one of you guys this question:

If you watch Raid on Entebbe, who do you root for?
 
As a matter of fact the appeasement policy came to an end after the invasion of Poland and the UK declaration of war to Germany.

It ended some 6 months earlier, with the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia in mid-March. After that there was no intention of letting him grab anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom