Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tolls said:
Oh dear.

Look, you (or the people you are summarising) are implying that the US bankers plotted around the Lusitania (1915) because they feared a German victory...while at the same time screwing Russia over (whether intentionally or not) with arms deals that were rather one-sided, right through 1916. Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?
Click to expand...

Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?



Not really. Don't know the details on the arms deal, but I'd imagine bankers would love to screw both sides of any war in every deal. The result would be that the Russians would get the arms, win the war, and bonus, be indebted indefinitely to the banks. A win win.
 
Saggy said:
Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?



Not really. Don't know the details on the arms deal, but I'd imagine bankers would love to screw both sides of any war in every deal. The result would be that the Russians would get the arms, win the war, and bonus, be indebted indefinitely to the banks. A win win.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or do CT Loons have simply NO IDEA of what Bankers actually do in the real world?
 
dudalb said:
Is it just me or do CT Loons have simply NO IDEA of what Bankers actually do in the real world?
Click to expand...

Read 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' ... you might learn something, then again, you might not.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Churchill admirers are outraged that their hero is revealed as the first war criminal of World War II. It was Churchill who initiated the policy of terror bombing civilians in noncombatant areas. Buchanan quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: "When Mr. Churchill came into power, one of the first decisions of his government was to extend bombing to the noncombatant area."

I repeat: it was the British, not the Germans who started to bomb civilians. The Anglos threw 20 times as much on Germany as Germany (reluctantly forced to retaliate) threw on Britain.
Click to expand...

History would appear to disagree wth you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz#Air_raids_1940-1945
 
MG1962 said:
History would appear to disagree wth you
Click to expand...

One of the odd behaviour patterns adopted by most Holocaust Deniers is the illogical claim that Churchill was responsible for every evil act of the war. Churchill wasn't even prime minister when war was declared.

I haven't done any research to explain this however I have a couple of theories.
1) Because Holocaust Deniers quote each other and the movement is driven by the commercial sale of books from an elite to junior holocaust deniers, certain "best selling" themes are going to "evolve" as their "main gripes". Churchill has become a "main theme"

2) Because Germany subdued France so quickly, german wartime propaganda in the west concentrated on Churchill. Because holocaust deniers can't read Russian and anti-Russian wartime propaganda, they are still regurgitating original war time propaganda as promoted by the few pseudo-Nazis who work within todays holocaust denier movement.

3) Jealousy! Churchill was a fat, witty man who drank too much and made military mistakes early in his career yet he beat Hitler the non-drinking, military genius, who lead the master race and used propaganda to state German superiority. For someone like 9/11 who believes in european superiority Churchill is a stumbling block.

Regarding Bombing Civilians
Wikipedia has a good summary of national policy here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

When the war began on 1 September 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the then-neutral United States, issued an appeal to the major belligerents to confine their air raids to military targets.[15] The French and the British agreed to abide by the request which included the provision "that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents".[16] Germany also agreed to abide by Roosevelt's request and explained their bombing of Warsaw as within the agreement because it was a fortified city—Germany did not have a policy of targeting enemy civilians as part of their doctrine prior to World War II.

The United Kingdom's policy was formulated on 31 August 1939: if Germany initiated unrestricted air action, the United Kingdom "should attack objectives vital to Germany's war effort, and in particular her oil resources". If Germany confined attacks to purely military targets, the RAF should "launch an attack on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven" and "attack warships at sea when found within range".[19] The government communicated to their French allies the intention "not to initiate air action which might involve the risk of civilian casualties"

I have already informed 9/11 of this but he is ignoring my posts. In the Saar Offensive during the Phoney War, which 9/11 denies occured, the French did not bomb German troops as they feared counter-bombing retaliation against Paris.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
One of the odd behaviour patterns adopted by most Holocaust Deniers is the illogical claim that Churchill was responsible for every evil act of the war. Churchill wasn't even prime minister when war was declared.
Click to expand...

Well to be truthful (as an Australian)I dont have a high opinion of Churchill either. However he was a man of his time and he made decisions based on what was best for Britian.

But all that aside, the thing everyone has to remember WW2 was a truely horrible time, and by the end of it the lines between the good guys and bad guys had become badly blurred. Particularly the intentional targeting of civilians.

The victors got to express their outrage at Nuremberg, but admitted their own guilt by the creation of the war crimes commission, and the whole crimes against humanity legislation.

But as you suggest, many try to lessen the crimes of the Nazis by focusing on the actions of others. Great....so people thinl Churchill should have been charged with war crimes. It still does not excuse the action of Hitler and his plonker mates
 
MG1962 said:
Well to be truthful (as an Australian)I dont have a high opinion of Churchill either. However he was a man of his time and he made decisions based on what was best for Britian.

But all that aside, the thing everyone has to remember WW2 was a truely horrible time, and by the end of it the lines between the good guys and bad guys had become badly blurred. Particularly the intentional targeting of civilians.

The victors got to express their outrage at Nuremberg, but admitted their own guilt by the creation of the war crimes commission, and the whole crimes against humanity legislation.

But as you suggest, many try to lessen the crimes of the Nazis by focusing on the actions of others. Great....so people thinl Churchill should have been charged with war crimes. It still does not excuse the action of Hitler and his plonker mates
Click to expand...

In fact, it goes further than that. 9/11-investigator simply ignores the crimes of the Nazis, and pretends that the lesser wrongdoings of the Western Allies were not only their only actons, but were carried out in a vacuum. Look at the way, for example, that he's conveniently forgotten the German annexation of Czechoslovakia (for the time being; he'll no doubt respond to this with some extraordinary mental gymnastics over the Munich Agreement that will assert that Germany was entirely within its rights to annexe the Sudetenland while at the same time Britain and France were entirely culpable for allowing Germany to do so, and he'll then conveniently forget that Germany almost immediately broke the Munich Agreement by annexing the remainder of Czechoslovakia), British financial support and weapons supply to Finland in the Winter War against the USSR, the bombing of Rotterdam, and anything else that doesn't fit his idealogy - like, for example, the very existence of Japan.

What is truly ironic, of course, is that through all this he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of black-and-white thinking. I've yet to see anyone on this thread assert that the Allies were entirely virtuous in all their actions in both World Wars; in fact, I think most would agree that neither side came out of WW1 with a great deal of credit. And yet, this is the strawman view of history that 9/11 tries to attack. And how does he do so? By a simply inversion; he attacks a fictitious Germany-bad, Allies-good position by asserting that everything Germany did was good and everything the Allies did was bad. In fact, his thinking is far more black-and-white than anyone else's in this thread; he's just defining black and white in the opposite sense to the one he likes to pretend everyone else uses.

Dave
 
Saggy said:
Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?



Not really. Don't know the details on the arms deal, but I'd imagine bankers would love to screw both sides of any war in every deal. The result would be that the Russians would get the arms, win the war, and bonus, be indebted indefinitely to the banks. A win win.
Click to expand...

Deals, plural.

You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...resulting in a shortage of arms and ammunition. Hastening the collapse, and threatening defeat for the west. Not the actions of people who were apparently steering this whole thing to make a profit, and who had to get the US into the war because they feared defeat, at a time when they were failing to support Russia...

In other words, it really doesn't hold water.

Not that I expect you to take any of that on board.
 
Tolls said:
Deals, plural.

You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...resulting in a shortage of arms and ammunition. Hastening the collapse, and threatening defeat for the west. Not the actions of people who were apparently steering this whole thing to make a profit, and who had to get the US into the war because they feared defeat, at a time when they were failing to support Russia...

In other words, it really doesn't hold water.

Not that I expect you to take any of that on board.
Click to expand...

You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...

Why not, pray tell. As a result of the purposeful actions of the bankers? Sounds very unlikely. Let's have the full story.
 
Is 9/11 guy really once again bringing up the 'Britain started area bombing first' canard? The one repeatedly shot down like the Luftwaffe over Dover? Do we have to bring up Wielun, Frampol and Rotterdam again?
 
Dave Rogers said:
What is truly ironic, of course, is that through all this he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of black-and-white thinking. I've yet to see anyone on this thread assert that the Allies were entirely virtuous in all their actions in both World Wars; in fact, I think most would agree that neither side came out of WW1 with a great deal of credit. And yet, this is the strawman view of history that 9/11 tries to attack. And how does he do so? By a simply inversion; he attacks a fictitious Germany-bad, Allies-good position by asserting that everything Germany did was good and everything the Allies did was bad. In fact, his thinking is far more black-and-white than anyone else's in this thread; he's just defining black and white in the opposite sense to the one he likes to pretend everyone else uses.

Dave
Click to expand...

I definately agree with you. The history of the first 50 years of the 20th Century is so interlocked with cause and effect momments, you can't remove one set of facts without severely corrupting sets of facts around it
 
Saggy said:
You see the problem is, though, that the Russians often didn't get the arms they were paying for...

Why not, pray tell. As a result of the purposeful actions of the bankers? Sounds very unlikely. Let's have the full story.
Click to expand...

From memory, it was largely a mixture of rather unscrupulous business men making a fast buck (or pound), and shipments simply never being sent...or being delayed for lengthy periods (ie incompetence at the factory end).

Now, I might be misinterpreting your scenario (but I don't think I am), but I'm reading it that you think there was some cabal of business men and bankers who engineered the war, and when presented with a possible German victory then engineered the US entry into the war via the Lusitania (which you mentioned earlier). Since they were powerful enough to achieve that, then I would expect them to be powerful enough to ensure that important arms shipments were actually, you know, shipped.

If they couldn't achieve that, then I have to say the idea they could manipulate the war in any meaningful way really strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.
 
Tolls said:
From memory, it was largely a mixture of rather unscrupulous business men making a fast buck (or pound), and shipments simply never being sent...or being delayed for lengthy periods (ie incompetence at the factory end).

Now, I might be misinterpreting your scenario (but I don't think I am), but I'm reading it that you think there was some cabal of business men and bankers who engineered the war, and when presented with a possible German victory then engineered the US entry into the war via the Lusitania (which you mentioned earlier). Since they were powerful enough to achieve that, then I would expect them to be powerful enough to ensure that important arms shipments were actually, you know, shipped.

If they couldn't achieve that, then I have to say the idea they could manipulate the war in any meaningful way really strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.
Click to expand...

it was largely a mixture of rather unscrupulous business men making a fast buck

Big surprise (not).

Now, I might be misinterpreting your scenario (but I don't think I am), but I'm reading it that you think there was some cabal of business men and bankers who engineered the war, and when presented with a possible German victory then engineered the US entry into the war via the Lusitania (which you mentioned earlier).

Mostly right. There are two aspects .... the British entry was 'engineered' by the ruling elite to preserve their world dominance and access to energy resources .... this is the subject of Engdahl's book and is obviously correct. Second, the US financed the war as Britain was broke ! at the start. When it became clear that the Germans might win, the banking interests engineered the US entry. This is covered in detail in Griffin's book. I think it is correct.

Since they were powerful enough to achieve that, then I would expect them to be powerful enough to ensure that important arms shipments were actually, you know, shipped.

You are making unwarranted and irrelevant assumptions just to advance some of kind paper thin argument.

If they couldn't achieve that, then I have to say the idea they could manipulate the war in any meaningful way really strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.

This is practically a non-sequitur and absurd. You should read Griffin's book to see the actual dynamics of what happened.

That is, if you are allowed to read anything not on the ADL approved reading list !
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom