Who started both World Wars?

[Uzzy]

Well, it's good that you've finally referred to your actual aim. I guess actual historical research and good history is too much for you, and you'd rather aim for cheap propaganda. So now we can put your 'evidence' in the right context.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Does that include Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal? Seems the United Europeans are going to have to spend the next few years trying to prop up the Euro or ditch the Southern Europeans from it.

Merkel already openly hinted that she wanted to be able to throw countries out of the euro. There will be no repetition of the Greece solution in case Spain will sink through it's knees. Thank God London is not in the euro (they are about to lose their largest company BP also). I do not care about extended club-Med (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Britain, Ireland) except as a holiday resort (does not include Britain). I put my cards on the Paris-Berlin axis, later to be extended to Moscow. It is fine with me if the euro is rolled back to the original EC core countries: Germany, France, Benelux, Italy extended with Austria and Scandinavia.

They won't have the resources to be the dominant factor in economics for a long time.

Industrial society will come crushing down on a planetary scale anyway in the coming decades due to lack of resources, oil first. Somewhere between 3-15 years from now John Doe will be forced to step out of his car for ever, for instance. Globalisation exit. But some entities will crash sooner than others. US/UK will be among the first.

 

[Saggy]

I've been following the thread and have learned a bit .... I'm no historian and the only book I'd read on England's entry was W. Engdahl's 'Century of War' which I still think is spot on, and Griffin's 'Jekyll Island' which I see is a bit disingenuous at best as he goes straight from the Lusitania to the US entry without any intervening time or events (but Griffin is still the best source on the lead up to the sinking of the L).

But, now I'm thinking, is it not the case that the historical relationship between the US and Britain makes it a safe assumption that the US will enter any war before it sees Britain go down to defeat? And, had not (here I don't know the history) the US in effect entered WW I from the beginning as financier and supplier to Britain (and her allies?) exclusively?

 

[dafydd]

I've been following the thread and have learned a bit .... I'm no historian and the only book I'd read on England's entry was W. Engdahl's 'Century of War' which I still think is spot on, and Griffin's 'Jekyll Island' which I see is a bit disingenuous at best as he goes straight from the Lusitania to the US entry without any intervening time or events (but Griffin is still the best source on the lead up to the sinking of the L).

But, now I'm thinking, is it not the case that the historical relationship between the US and Britain makes it a safe assumption that the US will enter any war before it sees Britain go down to defeat? And, had not (here I don't know the history) the US in effect entered WW I from the beginning as financier and supplier to Britain (and her allies?) exclusively?

Of course.The USA always supports the good guys.

 

[9/11-investigator]

But, now I'm thinking, is it not the case that the historical relationship between the US and Britain makes it a safe assumption that the US will enter any war before it sees Britain go down to defeat? And, had not (here I don't know the history) the US in effect entered WW I from the beginning as financier and supplier to Britain (and her allies?) exclusively?

The special relationship is far more intensively felt in Britain than in the US. Basically it is a joke in America. Then and certainly now. It is likely that the BP-engineered oil spill desaster will not add much goodwill either. Remember that the US fought for it's independence against Britain.

The US war entry in both world wars on the side of Britain was organized by the Jews, not 'the population' (just like the Iraq war and the future war against Iran, however Gibsonian this might sound). The America First Committee and it's spokesman Charles Lindbergh warned against war entry. After all the group of people of German descent was and is still the largest in America so there is no reason to assume why America automatically should take side of Britain in case of a conflict between Britain and Germany. In fact during this silly Malvinas conflict the US took a mediating stance at best.

 

[MG1962]

The US war entry in both world wars on the side of Britain was organized by the Jews, not 'the population'.

So let me get this right in my head. Germany DIDN'T declare war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

 

[9/11-investigator]

So let me get this right in my head. Germany DIDN'T declare war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

Pearl Harbor was engineered. Just like 9/11 (by the Neoconservatives avant la lettre described as The New Pearl Harbor).

The first a provocation, the second a false flag. Both events as desired by the (Zionised) American elite. The German war declaration was factored in.

But if you don't mind I would like to go back to the fil rouge of Buchanan's book.

After The Match

 

[MG1962]

Pearl Harbor was engineered. Just like 9/11.

The first a provocation, the second a false flag. Both events as desired by the (Zionised) American elite.

But if you don't mind I would like to go back to the fil rouge of Buchanan's book.

After The Match

But you agree Germany DID declare war...yes?

 

[MaGZ]

You do realise that attacking ships flying American flags, regardless of it being justified or not, is a good way to get into a fight with the Americans? The US declared war on Germany due to her policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in an attempt to starve out the United Kingdom, which resulted in plenty of American ships being sunk.

But not when Israel does it.

 

[MG1962]

But not when Israel does it.

Operative word being many............how many has Israel sunk?

 

[9/11-investigator]

But you agree Germany DID declare war...yes?

Yes, as a predictable consequence of their alliance with Japan.

You see, if a father and his little son walk hand in hand over the market place and you kick the little boy under his behind than you can be certain that you will be at war with his father. Even without kicking him.

That's predictable.

 

[TjW]

Yes, as a predictable consequence of their alliance with Japan.

You see, if a father and his little son walk hand in hand over the market place and you kick the little boy under his behind than you can be certain that you will be at war with his father. Even without kicking him.

That's predictable.

Let me parse this out.

If a father and his little son walk hand in hand over the market place and you kick the little boy under his behind than you can be certain that you will be at war with his father.

Even without kicking him.

So if we take the second sentence as being true (that no kicking took place), then from the first sentence we have:

If a father and his little son walk hand in hand over the market place than you can be certain that you will be at war with his father.

While I grant you that this may be a good metaphor for Nazi behavior, I'm not really sure what lesson we should take away from it.

 

[MG1962]

Yes, as a predictable consequence of their alliance with Japan.

You see, if a father and his little son walk hand in hand over the market place and you kick the little boy under his behind than you can be certain that you will be at war with his father. Even without kicking him.

That's predictable.

So.............then Chamberlain knew the Jews were dragging Britian into the war. There is no doubt he would have told Hitler. So when the Jews laid the trap for Hitler....he walked right into it?............I am getting that right..yes?

 

[Hans]

I think its about time that 9/11 brings out his blockbuster - yes Hitler did have Germany declare war on America, that is because Hitler was secertly a Jew......

LOL

 

[MaGZ]

Yes, as a predictable consequence of their alliance with Japan.

You see, if a father and his little son walk hand in hand over the market place and you kick the little boy under his behind than you can be certain that you will be at war with his father. Even without kicking him.

That's predictable.

However, the US had been waging war against Germany before Pearl Harbor.

 

[MaGZ]

So.............then Chamberlain knew the Jews were dragging Britian into the war. There is no doubt he would have told Hitler. So when the Jews laid the trap for Hitler....he walked right into it?............I am getting that right..yes?

There is no doubt the Jews were pushing the US into war. Do you disagree with this?

 

[MG1962]

However, the US had been waging war against Germany before Pearl Harbor.

So then Pearl Harbor was not a Jewish trick to get America in the war?

 

[MG1962]

There is no doubt the Jews were pushing the US into war. Do you disagree with this?

Well according to your friend, the Americans staged the attack to draw the US in. But you say someone else staged the attack to bring the US in

 

[MaGZ]

So then Pearl Harbor was not a Jewish trick to get America in the war?

You know perfectly well FDR wanted war with Germany first. That is why American ships fired upon German ships in the Atlantic: to provoke an incident.

 

[MG1962]

You know perfectly well FDR wanted war with Germany first. That is why American ships fired upon German ships in the Atlantic: to provoke an incident.

Then why was there a need for Pearl Harbor