Who started both World Wars?

[abenja1]

Arguing with 9/11 Investigator is like arguing with a wall. Except a wall has 10x the intelligence he does.

 

[Corsair 115]

Arguing with 9/11 Investigator is like arguing with a wall. Except a wall has 10x the intelligence he does.

Only 10x? I think you're being unfair to the smarter walls out there.

 

[stilicho]

Why did Britain fight?

What are you doing? I've noticed you're citing this book almost page by page. Do you read slowly?

You agree that Germany started WWI and that Germany and Russia started WWII. At least I think you do. You've been distracted from that so I'll ask you again.

Anyhow, let's look at your friend Buchanan's ideas:

1. Preserve France as a Great Power

This is Buchanan's first reason? Really? Then why didn't the UK intervene in the Franco-Prussian War? Why did they sponsor Belgian independence and its severance from France and the Netherlands in 1830? Since when has the UK felt that preserving itself as a Great Power was not of supreme importance?

2. British Honor

Yes.

3. Retention of Power

Yes.

4. Germanophobia

Buchanan has it backwards. The British royal family is of German ancestry. Prior to the Great War, Canadian towns such as Kitchener were lovingly named after German towns. Its name was Berlin. The UK signed treaties with Japan, the foe who defeated France's strongest continental ally, Russia, in 1905. There was nothing inherent in British foreign policy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that displayed fear or unfriendliness towards Germany. It was Germany foreign policy that worked the other way. This is something like second year survey history stuff and everyone should understand it.

5. Imperial Ambition and Opportunism

Oh. Opportunism? Ambition? These are not purely British characteristics. All the European powers exhibited these from the time of the Napoleonic Wars until 1914 and yet no all-inclusive war had resulted. What changed in 1914?

You might want to read Keegan more carefully than you do Buchanan. Why did Bethman-Hollweg refuse to convene a congress to resolve what should have been merely the Third Balkan War? Do you know anything about the man or just reading Buchanan, slowly, page by page, and believing only that the UK started WWI?

 

[Belz...]

That's the second time we agree. One more and I am going to see you as an ally! Now you really feel dirty, what?

No, agreeing with you that Uranium has 92 protons wouldn't make me sick to my stomack, either.

I have no problem whatsoever to describe the Nazi's as criminals. According to historic orthodoxy it were the Anglos who we should regard as saints.

No, this is your own invention. But I will say this: in WWII, the allies were the "good" guys, and the Axis were the "bad" guys. It doesn't mean one is immaculate and the other evil incarnate.

 

[9/11-investigator]

We continue with the German position (p.52-59)

Buchanan points at mistakes the Germans made.

p.52 - Neither the Kaiser nor Chancellor Bethmann is blameless for what the Great War historian Jacques Barzun calls the '"blow that hurled the modern world on its course of self-destruction." But neither entered it with the "zest" of the First Lord (Churchill).

Germany had agreed to stand by Austria in its conflict with Serbia but had urged Austria to settle things quickly. The Kaiser meanwhile had sailed of th Norway for his summer vacation, making it clear that he did not expect war, let alone planned for it.

But the Austrians waited 4 weeks to act, and when they did they set in train the events that led to the European war. Yet, in the last hours before August 1, the Kaiser and Bethmann tried to pull back from a war that neither wanted... Only at the 11th hour did they begin to lose their nerve: the Kaiser first, on July 28, and then Bethmann who... frantically sought to apply the brakes... But it was the German military which ultimately secured, by a combination of persuasion and defiance, the mobilization orders, the ultimata and declarations of war which unleashed the conflict.

A further indication of German restraint:

p.54 - The Kaiser... implored his cousin, the Czar, to rescind his order for full mobilization, as Russian mobilization meant German mobilization, and under the Schlieffen Plan, that meant immediate war on France if she did not declare neutrality. And that meant marching through Belgium, which risked war with Britain and her worldwide empire.

From this it is obvious that the German leadership did not want war.

None of the monarchs - Nocolas II, Wilhelm II, George V, or Franz Josef - wanted war. All sensed that the great war, when it came, would imperil the institution of monarchy and prepare the ground for revoloution. In the final hours, all four weighed in on the side of peace. But more resolute and harder men had taken charge of affairs.

 

[Belz...]

It is this typical Anglo lack of concern with burning to death of innocent civilians that is so frightening about them.

Appeal to emotion.

It isn't a lack of concern with innocent civilians, but a strategic consideration. Please don't play around with people's feelings.

Could somebody please turn this guy off?

I realise you hate it when people disagree with you, but no. Corsair'll just keep going, and going, and going...

 

[Belz...]

Welcome to war, where you have to make many unpleasant choices.

It's amazing how 9/11 makes up excuses and "explanation" for his Nazi heroes while simultaneously demonizing the British. Even if he were right (and he isn't), he would sound entirely unreasonable.

I also noticed he didn't reply to your post, which says a lot in my book.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Didn't the Germans also bomb cities? Rotterdam springs to mind. London, Coventry and sundry other British towns and cities spring to mind.

it's called War. it's what happens.

 

[9/11-investigator]

But I will say this: in WWII, the allies were the "good" guys, and the Axis were the "bad" guys. It doesn't mean one is immaculate and the other evil incarnate.

Still the silly kiddy Disney interpretation of events.

Here is a better one: WW2 was a war between the dummies of the white race led by Jews against the core of the white race.

Jews won, Europe lost.

The only race who is able to set and implement interplanetary goals is now framed in a diabolical dialectical prison of words (racism, equality, terrorism) and historic lies (the 'Good War', H-word, 9/11), designed by Jews aimed at the dumbing down through mongrelization and subsequent destruction of European Civilization, both here and in America (but America has an 'Uncle Tom head start'). The escape from that prison, the survival of the white race and the resurrection of that Civilization (in Europe), that's what is at stake here.

Joe Liebermann knows the score: the internet is going to destroy the Jewish agenda because it circumvents the century old media near-monopoly of the Jews. Liebermann is scared as hell. He should be, because now we get to see scenes like this one.

Political correct conversations during lunch breaks in the office and Stormfront in the evening at home.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Didn't the Germans also bomb cities? Rotterdam springs to mind. London, Coventry and sundry other British towns and cities spring to mind.

it's called War. it's what happens.

Get lost with your Coventry...

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html

Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and "buzz bombs" on Britain – five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Even if he were right (and he isn't), he would sound entirely unreasonable.

Translation: if 911I says that 2 + 2 = 4 than he is entirely unreasonable.

You really need a new script writer!

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Didn't the Germans also bomb cities? Rotterdam springs to mind. London, Coventry and sundry other British towns and cities spring to mind.

it's called War. it's what happens.

They got their practice in by bombing Warsaw in 1939, actually, before moving onto Rotterdam, as you say. After a long session against Britain, they kept their hand in during 1941 with Belgrade, before really working up to Operation Barbarossa. And just to keep themselves in tip-top city-bombing form, the Luftwaffe bombed Malta non-stop from April 1941 for over two years.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't let 9/11 Investigator drag you down to general insults when your knowledge gives you the opportunity to "educate him slowly over the coals bit by bit". "9/11 Investigator" changes topics when faced with hard evidence so that is your best weapon.

9/11 Investigator claims that Churchill knew in November, from Bletchley Park Japanese decrypts, that Pearl Harbour was going to be attacked in December. ( I assume he means Japanese Navy codes JN4, JN11, JN40, and JN25) He bases this on a David Irving editorial. I have pointed out that Hong Kong was attacked on the same day as Pearl Harbour and considering Churchill did not put Hong Kong on a war footing it is probable that Churchill knew nothing about Pearl Harbour. Does this seem a logical position? What does the USN Intelligence say about this history?

I do like a nice knife fight, sorry. Strangely these never happen IRL.

As for the JN codes, you're right. CT nuts tend to do something like this:

They cut out a one inch square in a piece of paper (a "shield" as it were) and put it over the documents in question. Then, when something appears in the "window" they like, they run with it. The paper keeps them from having to worry about context or the larger questions and avoids the dreaded "fatal flaw" that destroys their pet theories. The shield shields them from reality.

 

[9/11-investigator]

German war aims

p.55 - Could Britain have defended her honor and secured her vital interests had she not gone to war when Germany invaded Belgium? In 'The Pity of War', Ferguson argues "yes"

Asquith and Grey... emphasized that Britain had not been obliged to intervene by any kind of contractual obligation to France.​

If Britain would have been judged dishonorable by not coming to the aid of France, it was only because Grey and Churchill, without the approval of Parliament, had committed her to go to war for France.

And then the central quote regarding the German Kaiser and his (true) assessment of the war aims of the Allies:

"Was the Kaiser really Napoleon?", asks Ferguson.

Tuchman portrays the Kaiser on the eve of war as a ruler trapped, searching for a way out of the conflagration he sees coming. When Russia mobilized, the Kaiser went into a tirade against the nation that had conspired against Germany - and against the arch-conspirator, his dead uncle:

The world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation... that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII... The encirclement of Germany is at last an accomplished fact. We have run our heads into the noose... The dead Edward is stronger than the living I.​

Here the text of a real significant telegram for a change send in the last hours before the war from the German Kaiser to both the Czar and King George V, almost in despair:

"It is not I who bears the responsibility for the disaster which now threatens the entire civilized world. Even at this moment the decision to stave it off lies with you. No one threatens the honour and power of Russia. The friendship for you and your empire which I have borne from the deathbed of my grandfather has always been totally sacred to me... The peace of Europe can still be maintained by you, if Russia decides to halt the military measures which threaten Germany and Austria-Hungary."

Buchanan asks rethorically:

p.56 - Is this the mind-set of a Bonaparte launching a war of conquest in Europe or a war for world domination?

Of course not. He realized that he was set up for destruction.

Meanwhile in London:

p.56 - The British inner Cabinet, however, had persuaded itself that the Kaiser was a Prussian warmonger out to conquer not only Europe but the world.

p.57 - Churchill echoed Haldane, calling the Kaiser a "continental tyrant" whose goal was nothing less than "the dominion of the world".

Typical Anglo demonising, btw on full display here in this and similar threads in every single post and in every single line. Kind of a race that invents a 'holocaust' as the ultimate divine Anglo smear. The Anglo, basically in character a little Jew. Although completely outmanouvered by the real Jews on his own territory, he accepts their leadership without complaint, hides behind their broad shoulders, and enjoys the fruits of their Grand Strategy at the expense of the rest of the world. So far so good.

A quarter of a century later, in Great Contemporaries, Churchill would exonerate the Kaiser of plotting a war for European or world hegemony: "History should incline to the more charitable view and acquit William II of having planned and plotted the World War".

But in the meantime the damage was done. The demonisation was used to bring the terrible war about to destroy Germany that was ostensibly in the way of the real (would-be) hegemon Britain.

On the cusp of war, the Kaiser was in near despair and the German General Staff in near panic to get its armies marching before the nation was crushed between France and Russia.

Lessons for the present:

- Germany must see the EU as a protective shield against Anglo predators.
- The German racism under Hitler was excessive and hence unproductive. Sure, German ingenuity put a man on the moon (using the American tax base), something to be proud of. But it were the Russians who put a man in orbit first (OK, again using German ingenuity). Nevertheless accept the Russians as a worthy ally. In contrast to mega-Babylon USA (easy come, easy go), Russia is a real nation. And 700+ million united Europeans should be enough to finish off Anglo (read: Jewish) shaped NWO modernity.
- Eastern Europeans are not yet NWO brainwashed like the Western Europeans are. The Anglos are brainwashed beyond repair. No sense of identity or nationhood, hybrids really. Today living in Milwaukee, tomorrow in LA, next week in Siberia.
- Use the European position within the NATO alliance to slowly morphe in a Trojan horse. Smile to the Anglos, pat them on the back, say nice words, even kiss 'em on the cheek if you have been eating garlick and in the meantime.... wait and prepair.
- Repeat the behavior during the Iraq war: "you go first we come later, honest". That trick meant a relative power shift US --> EU to the tune of at least 3 trillion dollars and a demoralizing display of incompetence: A huge army basically trapped in a 'green zone' and unable to win from medieval retards in Afghanistan. The army in Iraq running the severe risk of being crushed by the Iranians if it will come to a war there as well. Price for the French for this behavior: renaming of 'French fries' into 'freedom fries' in the Pentagon canteen. Boo hoo. The fries now have their old name again.
- Don't repeat the mistake the Germans made twice. Don't admire Britain, there is nothing to admired about them. Every revolution needs a scape goat, don't look too far.
- Learn Russian.

 

[Uzzy]

9/11 guy, excusing German bombing attacks. Unsurprising. It should be noted that the RAF, at the start of the war, had a policy of bombing only military targets and infrastructure of military importance. The UK Government even renounced the deliberate bombing of civilian property. This policy was abandoned on the 15th May, 1940. I wonder what might have happened to cause such a thing?

Oh yeah, the Rotterdam Blitz. I think Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris says it best.

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So the Allies outbuilt the Germans in aircraft, out produced them in Bombs and outbombed them becuase they had more bombers and bombs. That's how you win a war. Should the Allies have restricted themselves to building and operating the same number of aircraft as the Germans? Just matched them bomb for bomb to keep it fair?

'Sew the wind and reap the Whirlwind' is the saying I think.

 

[9/11-investigator]

So the Allies outbuilt the Germans in aircraft, out produced them in Bombs and outbombed them becuase they had more bombers and bombs. That's how you win a war. Should the Allies have restricted themselves to building and operating the same number of aircraft as the Germans? Just matched them bomb for bomb to keep it fair?

'Sew the wind and reap the Whirlwind' is the saying I think.

Captain_Swoop, childish in choice of name and avatar, in all earnest believes that Britain won the war. In reality Britain was the biggest loser of all (although the biggest loss has yet to come as it will come). The Anglos will prey on each other if they get the chance. So much for the special relationship.

Captain_Swoop never noticed that Britain lost big time, older more experienced people than television junky CS know better.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Childish Avatar? is that the best you can do?
It's the emblem of the Eagle Squadrons. American Volunteers who flew with the RAF before 1941 then with the USAAF.
I suppose that you wouldn't appreciate their sacrifices.
In your world view it would have been better to let the Germans hang on to the Netherlands. After all these years only their supporters would have been left alive.

Sorry, forgot a quote from the Right Wing Tabloid Press. In fact the Daily mail, the newspaper that supported the Fascists and admired Hitler and his Goons before the war.

Colour Me impressed.

 

[9/11-investigator]

On the German war record

p.58 - In defense of the declaration of war on Germany, it is yet said that Britain had to save the world from "Prussian militarism" - the relentless drive for world domination of the Teutonic warrior race.

Looking back on the century 1815-1914, from Waterloo to the Great War, Germany appears to have been among the least militaristic of European powers.

Nation......Number of wars
Britain......10
Russia.......7
France.......5
Austria......3
Germany...3

From 1871 to 1914, the Germans under Bismarck and the Kaiser did not fight a single war. While Britain, Russia, Italy, turkey, Japan, Spain, and the USA were all involved in wars, Germany and Austria had clean records.

In the 3 wars Prussia fought between 1815 and 1914, the first was provoked by Denmark in 1864... the 2nd, in 1866 with Austria, over the same duchies, was a "Teutonic" civil war of 7 weeks, and a far less bloody affair than our own Civil War. The 3rd was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, declared by Napoleon III.

In 1914, Churchill denounced Wilhelm II as a Prussian warlord out to take over the world... Churchill, however, was already a veteran of wars.

 

[Andy_Ross]

IS your entire argument based on this one book?