Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
Why don't you prove that he was not there?

He said so himself he was there.

Not believing Freedman would be a clear sign of blatant antisemitism and we are all glad we are not like that.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait, so if I say that I was on the Titanic when it sank, then it's true unless you can prove it otherwise?

But on the whole I get the feeling you don't quite get this newfangled burden of proof yet.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Fine then, it was a secret defensive alliance, that's also a defensive alliance. It was clear that the Germans hoped that the case for war would not materialize. The telegram explicitly makes clear that it will be tried to keep the US neutral.

„Wir beabsichtigen, am ersten Februar uneingeschränkten U-Boot-Krieg zu beginnen. Es wird versucht werden, Amerika trotzdem neutral zu halten. Für den Fall, dass dies nicht gelingen sollte, schlagen wir Mexiko auf folgender Grundlage Bündnis vor. Gemeinsame Kriegführung. Gemeinsamer Friedensschluss. Reichlich finanzielle Unterstützung und Einverständnis unsererseits, dass Mexiko in Texas, Neu Mexico, Arizona früher verlorenes Gebiet zurückerobert. Regelung im einzelnen Euer Hochwohlgeborenen überlassen. Euer Hochwohlgeborenen wollen Vorstehendes Präsidenten streng geheim eröffnen, sobald Kriegsausbruch mit Vereinigten Staaten feststeht, und Anregung hinzufügen, Japan von sich aus zu sofortigem Beitritt einzuladen und gleichzeitig zwischen uns und Japan zu vermitteln. Bitte Präsidenten darauf hinweisen, dass rücksichtslose Anwendung unserer U-Boote jetzt Aussicht bietet, England in wenigen Monaten zum Frieden zu zwingen. Empfang bestätigen.

Zimmermann“
Click to expand...

But somehow you don't find anything inflaming about the phrases following the part you underlined? Or for that matter about the phrase before it?
 
Myriad said:
Just imagine how much faster and more thoroughly Churchill would have kicked the Nazis' asses if he'd been lean, sober, and well-behaved!
Click to expand...

He did not kick any asses, it was mainly the Soviets who did the kicking. The Anglos merely confined themselves to killing civilians from a safe 10 km altitude and joining the party when it was almost over fighting children in the Ardennes. As Buchanan correctly stated Americans are lousy imperialists. After all, the only war America ever won on it's own since 1900 was against Grenada (10,000 inhabitants). What happened on the battle fields in South-Africa was a nice indicator of the overwhelming strength and competence of the Anglo's. :D

By the way, here are what some of the top ranking Nazis had to say about the Jews' responsibility for starting the World Wars:

"Gakkkkkkkkk" - von Ribbentrop, during his hanging, 16 October 1946.

"Agggghccchcgg allcchhhhhhhh gliiiigh oooaah aagggh." - Goering, shortly after poisoning himself with cyanide, 15 October 1946.

"Hurrrrrrkk chhh chhh chh gh" - Frick, during his hanging, 16 October 1946.

I find these quotes even more meaningful today than they were when they were uttered more than 60 years ago. One thing you have to give Nazis, they can be quite eloquent when in their natural environments. Respectfully,

Myriad
Click to expand...

Yep, hanging political leaders is an Anglo specialty indeed. As is nuking cities. And become buddy-buddy with the largest mass murderers in history. And making up horror stories regarding your opponents. Hanging Germans, Hussein (a former ally against Iran)... even Napoleon was send to an island twice, but then Europeans were in charge, who are a little more civilized. Anglosphere always has been a bit greasy, certainly now.

Ah well the new geopolitical constellation Israel/USA/UK against the rest of the world + internet will be your rope. After all you have a load of bad historic kharma behind you making noise like tin cans behind a marriage car.

GootchiBlubberdeblubAaaaagh.

Don't take it personally. Happy clashing with China/Russia/Iran! We come later, honest! Toodeloo!

Kind regards

9/11-investigator
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
He did not kick any asses, it was mainly the Soviets who did the kicking. The Anglos merely confined themselves to killing civilians from a safe 10 km altitude and joining the party when it was almost over fighting children in the Ardennes. As Buchanan correctly stated Americans are lousy imperialists. After all, the only war America ever won on it's own since 1900 was against Grenada (10,000 inhabitants). What happened on the battle fields in South-Africa was a nice indicator of the overwhelming strength and competence of the Anglo's.
Click to expand...

How much German war material was diverted to the Western front upon the 'Anglo' invasion? The Battle of the Bulge consumed basically another 6th Army, one that would've been fighting the Russians had the Americans not invaded.
 
ddt said:
So what? Can you point me to some evidence that Buchanan's pseudo-historical ramblings deserve attention at all in a historical discussion?
Click to expand...

This thread is in its 13th page already and probably will become much larger.
Meaning the content is interesting and is attracting attention, even is Buchanan's book is central.

P.S. I am surprised that you even talk to 'scum'.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
So what was the aim of this German exercise: to force Britain to peace!!!
Click to expand...
.
Because, of course, negotiating a ceasefire and then entering good faith peace negotiations would never have achieved peace -- everyone knows that...
.
 
Uzzy said:
Actually, Suez is considered a better starting point for the rapid decline in the British Empire, not WW2.
Click to expand...

I think the Empire was pretty much done with when India and Pakistan got their independence. Fact is, the Brits got control of the Suez Canal in order to safeguard a short route to India, and once India was gone there was a lot less reason for them to control Suez.
I am one of those who thinks that WW1 rather then 2 was the deep factor that doomed the British..and all other..European empires. It just took 30 years for this to become apparent.
 
dudalb said:
I think the Empire was pretty much done with when India and Pakistan got their independence. Fact is, the Brits got control of the Suez Canal in order to safeguard a short route to India, and once India was gone there was a lot less reason for them to control Suez.
I am one of those who thinks that WW1 rather then 2 was the deep factor that doomed the British..and all other..European empires. It just took 30 years for this to become apparent.
Click to expand...

beat me by 7 minutes and 3 lines.

Damn you, sir.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It was an invitation to Mexico to declare war on America. I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid suggestion, but it was certainly a provocative one. And it was a proposal in support of an invasion of America by a country that was not at war with America. So which bit was a lie?



So they did something that was extremely stupid, and forced the USA into war as a result. I agree entirely. Sadly, though, they acted as provincial criminals; the policy announced in the Zimmerman Telegram was a clear violation of international law.



Whatever the intent, a policy of deliberately killing citizens of a neutral power isn't an intelligent or effective way of preventing war with that power. They should have learned that when they violated the neutrality of Belgium. Or had you forgotten that breach of international law too?

Dave
Click to expand...

In 1915, there had been a pretty serious incursion from Mexico into the US when Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico,provoking the Pershing expedition into Mexico. In fact, some Historians think that Villa did the raid to cause a conflict between the US and the Carranza Government ,which Villa was trying to overthrow. Mexicans were mystified by why Villa did it, they called it (I forget the Spanish) " Pancho's Great Insanity".
So the Mexican border was a very sensative area to the US at the time of the Zimmerman Telegram. Barbara Tuchamen's excellent book on the Zimmerman Telegram explains in detail on if the Germans delibertly wanted to force the US into war, No better way could have been found then by threatening a Mexican Invasion of the US.
 
Damien Evans said:
beat me by 7 minutes and 3 lines.

Damn you, sir.
Click to expand...

The fall of the British Empire was a process rather then a single event. I might even make the case that Ireland's gaining it Independence in 1922 sounded the death knoll. Gandhi and the Indian Independence leadership were following events in Ireland very closely.
 
dudalb said:
In 1915, there had been a pretty serious incursion from Mexico into the US when Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico,provoking the Pershing expedition into Mexico. In fact, some Historians think that Villa did the raid to cause a conflict between the US and the Carranza Government ,which Villa was trying to overthrow. Mexicans were mystified by why Villa did it, they called it (I forget the Spanish) " Pancho's Great Insanity".
So the Mexican border was a very sensative area to the US at the time of the Zimmerman Telegram. Barbara Tuchamen's excellent book on the Zimmerman Telegram explains in detail on if the Germans delibertly wanted to force the US into war, No better way could have been found then by threatening a Mexican Invasion of the US.
Click to expand...

So what did the good Barbara Tuchman conclude after she had written an entire book over this telegram that almost fits in an sms?

Did the Germans, according to this Jewish historian, indeed aim for US war entry?
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
It was not an unconditional declaration of war, it was an attempt to form a defensive alliance to keep the US out of a war with Germany.

Since when is seeking alliances a violation of international law? Germany was suggesting that Mexico would take back the lands the US had conquered from Mexico in the past (in agreement with international law I am sure, is it not Dave?). Mexico btw will take back this territory in the coming years due to changing demographics alone, but that is a different story altogether.
Click to expand...

(Regarding the Zimmerman note):

While this might technically be true, or at least debatable, surely the Kaiser's advisors could have arrived at a more discreet way of seeking a mutually beneficial alliance than this. The US was still smarting from French adventurism in Mexico only a few decades prior.

Why are we discussing the US and the Zimmerman note? WWI was well underway by the time this occurred. Has someone suggested the US started WWI?
 
It was World War One more than anything. The colonial powers of Europe built in France and Belgium the worlds largest meat grinder and spent four years pouring the cream of their young men into it, more than 15 million of them.

It was as if Britain and the others ate their own guns of their own accord.
 
9/11-investigator said:
So what did the good Barbara Tuchman conclude after she had written an entire book over this telegram that almost fits in an sms?

Did the Germans, according to this Jewish historian, indeed aim for US war entry?
Click to expand...

Do you look under you bed each night to be sure they are no Evil Jews hiding there?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
It was World War One more than anything. The colonial powers of Europe built in France and Belgium the worlds largest meat grinder and spent four years pouring the cream of their young men into it, more than 15 million of them.

It was as if Britain and the others ate their own guns of their own accord.
Click to expand...

So maybe Lord Palmerston started WWI in 1839:

Article VII.
Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other States.

(Source: http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/treatyoflondon1839.php )
 
If Belgium had not been invaded, Britain probably would have remained neutral. Up to the Belgian invasion, the UK Cabinent was busy trying to find ways to weasel out of it vague agreements with France on mutual defense.
BTW one of the major German miscalculations was how much power Britain could bring to the table in a war. They were blinded by the comapratively small size of the British army and ignored what a British Blockade could do to Germany. Thus the now infamous "Comtemptible Little Army" remark. I understand the actual term in German is "Negliable" rather then Contemptable but still is shows the huge blind spot Germany had.
And, of course, the British soldiers who fought the Germans at Mons and First Ypres called themsleves" The Old Contemptibles" after they heard about that remark....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom