9/11-investigator is right about the Holocaust

[Uzzy]

Well, your you being a Nazi makes you a Nazi certainly does not cut the mustard as discussion, except among small children, perhaps.

Regarding "reality": what kind of reality does for example your opposing mass-immigration just makes you a twit reflect? Did you know, that the population density in the Netherlands is higher than in any other country in Europe, except for Monaco, with about 14% from places like Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco? What makes you think you are talking for the citizens of Netherlands?

As I said, this isn't a discussion. 9/11 Investigator has shown quite clearly that he is a Nazi, not only on this thread but others. Frankly, his denial of the Holocaust puts him into that bracket single-handedly, even without his nutty views on immigration and race.

Your strawman that I'm somehow 'talking for citizens of the Netherlands' hardly cuts the mustard in debate either. When I speak, it's for myself. Now, if 9/11 Investigator's views on immigration were based on rational things, along with facts and figures, then maybe I wouldn't call him a twit. But they aren't.

 

[gtc]

I'd like to thank Oliver for starting this useless thread, really, it was a swell idea.

I like the way the title misleadingly presents the hypothetical basis of the thread 'what if he is correct?' as if it was true 'he is correct'.

 

[Uninvolved]

9/11 Investigator has shown quite clearly that he is a Nazi, not only on this thread but others. Frankly, his denial of the Holocaust puts him into that bracket single-handedly

Do you mind posting your definition of "Nazi"?

Your strawman that I'm somehow 'talking for citizens of the Netherlands' hardly cuts the mustard in debate either. When I speak, it's for myself

Only for yourself? Does your Opposing mass-immigration just makes you a twit relate to your foreign visitors, or how did you mean that?

 

[GreNME]

I find some of the posts here amusing. To 9/11 Investigator: it really doesn't matter how intelligently you try to phrase it, what you're saying still amounts to "I don't like those darkies, camel jockeys, and Christ-killers living on my lands." You yourself in a post earlier in this thread pointed out that things change-- apparently, this is an idea you're only comfortable with if your own prejudices remain unaffected or are forwarded.

 

[Uninvolved]

Ah sorry I didn't realise that Churchill forced Hitler to build up his army in contravention of the ageement reached at the end of WW1

There is much nonsense on this thread, which does not deserve any debate, but this point does, for it is a popular misconception.

1. There was no agreement at the end of WWI; it was a dictat of the liars.

2. That dictat contained provisions for disarming to such low level, which would ensure that no aggression occurs. Instead, the countries around Germany armed more and more. Germany sued for the realization of the disarmament years long without success; that was the reason of armament.

I also don't remember Churchill invading any neighbouring countries

You will be surprized by this: it was Churchill's decision to invade Norway (the first invasion of a neutral country during WWII), but Hitler was listening and acted faster. This happened after England already violated Norway's neutrality.

Mmmm again I don't remember any Bolshy Bombers destroying vast areas of London, Coventry

Mmmm again. Did Germany start bombing England, not the other way around?

exactly how large was the Soviet Union's invasion of Europe? they hardly had enough military strength to defend their own borders let alone make an attack.

More surprizes are coming.

1. the armament of the Soviet Union was on a higher level than that of Germany (the soldiers' skills made the difference),

2. even Russian historiker say (for it is proven), that Stalin had planned the invasion of Germany; it could have happened within a few months (some say within a few weeks). Hitler said that he could not sleep for a long time for fearing that Stalin makes the first move, and he was right.

 

[Stray Cat]

There is much nonsense on this thread, which does not deserve any debate, but this point does, for it is a popular misconception. etc. etc. etc.

Apparently 'Uninvolved' is a reference to your participation in historical research.
And i'm still not going to participate in this discussion any longer, most here will already know you misrepresent the facts and there's no point in me pointing that out to you either.

 

[Uninvolved]

you misrepresent the facts and there's no point in me pointing that out to you either.

Do you mean you did find misrepresentations of the facts? Come on, don't let me in the dark. If you can prove that a statement of mine above is incorrect, I don't post it any more (neither here nor elsewhere) - I mean it in earnest.

And i'm still not going to participate in this discussion any longer

Obviously posting that someone is "misrepresenting the facts" without any specifics is not participating in a discussion.

 

[ddt]

Do you mean you did find misrepresentations of the facts? Come on, don't let me in the dark. If you can prove that a statement of mine above is incorrect, I don't post it any more (neither here nor elsewhere) - I mean it in earnest.

Translation: you move on to misrepresenting another fact?

Obviously posting that someone is "misrepresenting the facts" without any specifics is not participating in a discussion.

Anyone with some basic knowledge of the history of the period can spot the misrepresentations. You're just a badly disguised Nazi apologist, and the way you try to disguise it is even viler than the ways of Holocaust deniers.

 

[dudalb]

There is much nonsense on this thread, which does not deserve any debate, but this point does, for it is a popular misconception.

1. There was no agreement at the end of WWI; it was a dictat of the liars.

2. That dictat contained provisions for disarming to such low level, which would ensure that no aggression occurs. Instead, the countries around Germany armed more and more. Germany sued for the realization of the disarmament years long without success; that was the reason of armament.


You will be surprized by this: it was Churchill's decision to invade Norway (the first invasion of a neutral country during WWII), but Hitler was listening and acted faster. This happened after England already violated Norway's neutrality.


Mmmm again. Did Germany start bombing England, not the other way around?


More surprizes are coming.

1. the armament of the Soviet Union was on a higher level than that of Germany (the soldiers' skills made the difference),

2. even Russian historiker say (for it is proven), that Stalin had planned the invasion of Germany; it could have happened within a few months (some say within a few weeks). Hitler said that he could not sleep for a long time for fearing that Stalin makes the first move, and he was right.

I can see where this guy is going.
BTW the "Stalin was going to invade Germany" is hogwash. Suvorov, the historian pushing this, has a long history of pretty questionable opinions.
And as my posting history here sjpws, I am no friend of Stalin, who is Hitler's main competitor (along with Mao) for the title of Greatest Mass Murderer of all time.

 

[Trojan]

Nazi-Germany never wanted war with Western Europe, it was forced upon them by Churchill.

It's obvious that Bolshevism never posed a threat according to Stray Cat. The Soviet-Union was heaven on earth according to our non_Aristocat. An opinion he shares with the majority of the NWO-ers on the forum. No surprises her.

Since Churchill did not come to power until May 1940, how exactly did he force this war on England and France?

(or did you just copy and paste from a revisionist site?)

 

[Uninvolved]

I can see where this guy is going.
BTW the "Stalin was going to invade Germany" is hogwash

It requires a huge dose of brain washing detergent to believe, that Stalin was not out for the war with Germany. This subject deserves its own discussion.

 

[Uninvolved]

Anyone with some basic knowledge of the history of the period can spot the misrepresentations

Yes, I see that there are some here; unfortunately all are very secretive.

You're just a badly disguised Nazi apologist, and the way you try to disguise it is even viler than the ways of Holocaust deniers.

Do you get extra shares of Holocaust Inc. for your postings?

 

[Ikarus]

Anyone with some basic knowledge of the history of the period can spot the misrepresentations. You're just a badly disguised Nazi apologist, and the way you try to disguise it is even viler than the ways of Holocaust deniers.

Can I claim a bad argument here, without picking sides?
(Argumentum ad populum^WP)

But to break the cycle of "oh but anybody who knows anything about this knows you're wrong", let's have a contest that I like to call "whoever brings the best evidence"!

Annnnd go!

But perhaps there is already a thread for it, or it should be in a separate thread. You decide, it's your beef, not mine, to be honest.

 

[Uninvolved]

Since Churchill did not come to power until May 1940, how exactly did he force this war on England and France?

Though Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty from 1939-09-03 (and he caused Chamberlain's fall in his quality as the First Lord), he did not contribute to the outbreak of the war as a member of the government.

However, he did contribute a lot to the general sentiment:

We will force Hitler in a war no matter if he wants it or not (1936)

Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her (1936)

The one pulling the strings behind the scenes was Roosevelt; Chamberlain and Daladier were only statists, as was Hitler (but the latter did not know this). For example, according to Joe Kennedy, Roosevelt's former Ambassador to Great Britain,

Chamberlain stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war

There are many proofs, that Roosevelt was not only yearning after the war but actively contributed to it.

 

[dudalb]

So now the Hatred for the Jews begins to come out. Not like 99% of the people here were not expecting it.....

 

[Chaos]

Can I claim a bad argument here, without picking sides?
(Argumentum ad populum^WP)

But to break the cycle of "oh but anybody who knows anything about this knows you're wrong", let's have a contest that I like to call "whoever brings the best evidence"!

Annnnd go!

But perhaps there is already a thread for it, or it should be in a separate thread. You decide, it's your beef, not mine, to be honest.

We´ve been waiting for evidence to be presented by Holocaust Deniers for 60 years now. None has been provided. Draw your own conclusions from that.

 

[dafydd]

So now the Hatred for the Jews begins to come out. Not like 99% of the people here were not expecting it.....

Yes,it has all the inevitability of a Greek tragedy.

 

[Trojan]

Though Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty from 1939-09-03 (and he caused Chamberlain's fall in his quality as the First Lord), he did not contribute to the outbreak of the war as a member of the government.

However, he did contribute a lot to the general sentiment:

We will force Hitler in a war no matter if he wants it or not (1936)

Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her (1936)

The one pulling the strings behind the scenes was Roosevelt; Chamberlain and Daladier were only statists, as was Hitler (but the latter did not know this). For example, according to Joe Kennedy, Roosevelt's former Ambassador to Great Britain,

Chamberlain stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war

There are many proofs, that Roosevelt was not only yearning after the war but actively contributed to it.

The claim is Churchill forced war on the West - please provide evidence that he did so or concede the point that he did not. Actions prior to September 1939 would be the only actions relevant.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Since Churchill did not come to power until May 1940, how exactly did he force this war on England and France?

(or did you just copy and paste from a revisionist site?)

You are probably referring to the so-called 'Phony War', the period that not much happened after the declaration of war of France and Britain after Hitler took back his land that was stolen from Germany by the Allies in Versailles. Churchill was not PM then. But it was Churchill who pushed for real war in Western Europe by advocating an invasion in Norway in order to cut off vital supplies to Germany from neutral Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Bitter_beginnings_of_the_war
Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the war. However, Chamberlain and the rest of the War Cabinet disagreed.

It was Churchill who consistently advocated for war against Germany. The Germans, for obvious reasons, had no interest at all in a 2 front war, considering the experiences of WW1.

And Irving makes it plausible that Churchill was bought by a group of mainly Jewish financiers (the Focus) around 1936.

Writes Buchanan about Churchill in his latest book (p367): Before the whole world Churchill greeted the Soviets as fellow freedom fighters protecting their own liberties and democracy. Reading it today, one becomes slightly nauseated by Churchills words. That's Churchill for you: kissing up to the greatest mass murderers of all time just to earn a few shekels. The 'man of the century' according to the Jewish owned Weekly Standard. No surprises here. Churchill, the best politician Jewish money can buy.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html
The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London's wealthiest businessmen. Principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bemard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen's memoirs ... The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today's figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds -- about $2 million in Canadian terms -- was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was, the tune that Churchill had to play was, fight Germany. Start warning the world about Gennany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

And this is the way politics works in Anglosphere today. Think of Lord Levy behind Blair, the Jewish Chicago businessmen who made Obama, sir Ronald Cohen behind Gordon Brown and the list goes on and on. Bought and paid for.

 

[9/11-investigator]

We´ve been waiting for evidence to be presented by Holocaust Deniers for 60 years now. None has been provided. Draw your own conclusions from that.

But you have not provided proof that it happened in 30 pages of the thread. And since you are the accuser you have to provide evidence. Saying that the holocaust happened just because the Soviets said so is not good enough.

And now Parky chickened out as well. Not a very pretty sight.