Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
So who started WW1 and WW2?

Is that true? Let's start a little quiz. Here a list of possible candidates:

11) Other, namely...
Click to expand...


The true "world" nature of "World War II" only came into play after the Pacific theater opened up. So, I would say that Japan started WWII.

Even you cannot actually believe that Jews controlled the Japanese government. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that Japan was tirelessly trying to root out Jews in China before they infected Japan with their Jewishness. Thus, you must agree that your whole "Teh Joos!" argument falls rather flat in the Pacific.
 
MG1962 said:
..........Great summing up. Out of curiosity, have you ever read the details of the actual assination? If the Marx Brothers had of used it as the base of one their movies, they would have been considered to have had even greater comedy genius than their reputation already demands
Click to expand...

Well, there's that, but generally, most of the violent anarchist movements of 19'th and early 20'th century are... surrealistic comedy gold.

In England for example you have some anarchist shooting a gun loaded with just a wad of paper at queen Victoria. (Still punishable by death.) Or another guy who jumps into her carriage with a loaded gun and... smacks her upside the head with it, apparently just managing to crumple her bonnet. It's stuff that you'd think "pull the other one" if it were in a novel, really.

Personally I blame it on lead water pipes :p
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, there's that, but generally, most of the violent anarchist movements of 19'th and early 20'th century are... surrealistic comedy gold.
Click to expand...

The Fenian dynamite campaign springs readily to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barrett_(Fenian)
The main case against him rested on the evidence of Patrick Mullany (a Dubliner who had given false testimony before and whose price was a free passage to Australia) who told the court that Barrett had informed him that he had carried out the explosion with an accomplice by the name of Murphy
Click to expand...
They also tried to blow up Scotland Yard, late in the evening when it was closed
:D
 
Tolls said:
As for books, Hew Strachan's (still?) in the throes of a 3 volume history, but only the first one is out, and that was nearly a decade ago now. He does have a smaller one volume one, called The First World War. That's if you want something that isn't simply battles.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. What does Strachan have to say on the financial aspects of the lead up to the war.

I've remembered a book that I have, Engdahl's 'A Century of War' which analyzes England's entry into the wars as a result of its geopolitical strategy to establish and maintain dominance of energy (oil) resources. I think that's probably correct, and I'll reread that section of the book. Also I have Griffin's 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' which analyzes the US entry as a result of the machinations of the English and US financiers who would have been in dire straights had Germany won. This too sounds right.
 
Loss Leader said:
The true "world" nature of "World War II" only came into play after the Pacific theater opened up. So, I would say that Japan started WWII.

Even you cannot actually believe that Jews controlled the Japanese government. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that Japan was tirelessly trying to root out Jews in China before they infected Japan with their Jewishness. Thus, you must agree that your whole "Teh Joos!" argument falls rather flat in the Pacific.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the Jews per se...

It just that the Rothschilds who happen to be one of the worlds wealthiest families, are Jewish.

I dont think that means anything to them at his point but they do control the worlds money system of which the Japanese are a part of.

And the Yakuza control Japans government. They get paid by the Rothschilds.

The American(IBS) bankers control America, which are controlled by Rothschilds.

So it would be very easy to start a war especially when you control the media.
That would be Rupert Murdoch(Jew) who is friends with, you guessed it, the Rothschilds.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” Gutle Schnaper (Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife speaking on her deathbed in 1849)

It has nothing to do with being Jewish but more to do with money although they sure think they are the chosen ones when you listen to Israelis talk.

PEOPLE WHO RUN THE WORLD
http://www.iosworld.org/people_who_run_the_world.htm
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
The Saar Offensive during the Phoney War
However, the French did not take any action that was able to assist the Poles. Eleven French divisions advanced along a 32 km line near Saarbrücken against weak German opposition. The French army had advanced to a depth of eight kilometres and captured about 20 villages evacuated by the German army, without any resistance. However, the half-hearted offensive was halted after France seized the Warndt Forest, three square miles of heavily-mined German territory.

Sending 11 divisions into Germany along a 32 kilometre front is called war. Generally you don't "mobilise" divisions in another country you are at war with. Let me know if there are any other basic facts I need to explain to you.
Click to expand...


Fine, you call it a war, the rest of the world prefers to call it the 'Phoney War'. You admit that the French went for a stroll and that no shooting took place and people got killed. That's not a war in anybodies book, except in those who are hell bent in winning a silly argument.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Fine, you call it a war, the rest of the world prefers to call it the 'Phoney War'. You admit that the French went for a stroll and that no shooting took place and people got killed. That's not a war in anybodies book, except in those who are hell bent in winning a silly argument.
Click to expand...

A war is a war. Only people like you, who insist on denying reality for the sake of their insane hatred, think otherwise.
 
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)
 
Last edited:
Matthew has given some very good, and detailed answers, and yet 9/11-investigator is ignoring them. That's interesting.
 
There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object?
Click to expand...

You and Buchanan fail logic forever. Starting something is not the same as turning it into something else.
 
Chaos said:
A war is a war. Only people like you, who insist on denying reality for the sake of their insane hatred, think otherwise.
Click to expand...

France Declared war on Germany within a day of Hitler's invasion of Poland. The means, except all for the insane and the extremly stupid, that they were at war. Just because active military operations are not conducted 24/7 does not mean two countries are not at war with each other.
 
But we can as easily and as accurately declare "Had x not happened at y time, the rest of history would not have happened the way it did." If a young Yugoslav nationalist had not assassinated Ferdinand, if Europe had not been plunged into a political crisis, if Austria-Hungary had not issued its intentionally impossible ultimata, if Russia could have let go of its interest in Bosnia, if the Triple Entente had not been formed compelling Britain to side with Russia... a hundred billions what if's, all leading to a perfect and peaceful alternate reality, and none of them very useful for understanding this one.

9/11-investigator said:
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)
Click to expand...
 
dudalb said:
France Declared war on Germany within a day of Hitler's invasion of Poland. The means, except all for the insane and the extremly stupid, that they were at war. Just because active military operations are not conducted 24/7 does not mean two countries are not at war with each other.
Click to expand...

I still think "A war is a war" says it more pithily.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Fine, you call it a war, the rest of the world prefers to call it the 'Phoney War'. You admit that the French went for a stroll and that no shooting took place and people got killed. That's not a war in anybodies book, except in those who are hell bent in winning a silly argument.
Click to expand...

So the French went for a "stroll" did they? (With tanks...into Germany)

The French advanced against a pitifully inadequate German force in the west. Adolf Hitler had gambled on a Schlieffen Plan in reverse, throwing the bulk of his resources against Poland while leaving only weak covering forces in the west on the correct assumption that the French would be slow to move. The German army had a maximum of 25 divisions in the west, the bulk of which were inadequately trained and poorly equipped reserves. The mechanized and motorized troops had all been committed to the fighting in Poland, and artillery had been stripped from the West Wall.

Modern Char B heavy tanks supported French infantry, but the French government, fearful of retaliation against Paris, refused to authorize bombing, and the Royal Air Force readily complied with French requests to follow the same policy.
 
WWI was the result of an outbreak of mass stupidity in Serbia, the Austro-Humgarian Empire, Russia, France and England. Germany was a major, perhaps the major player in this outbreak of mass stupidity.

WWII, was the direct result of the Germans taking an insane bum off the streets and making him the leader of their country.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)
Click to expand...
Others have made better objections than I ever could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom