Who started both World Wars?

[JimBenArm]

So you are here only to make fun and not engage in a serious debate?

Fine with me.

Adieu. Ignore.

Serious debate?

How do you have a serious debate when everything posted is a joke?

 

[Hans]

Hitler quote

I want war. To me all means will be right. My motto is not "Don't, whatever you do, annoy the enemy." My motto is "Destroy him by all and any means." I am the one who will wage the war!

quoted by Louis Leo Snyder in Hitler and Nazism, Franklin Watts, Inc., NY, (1961). p. 66.

Try explaining Hitler to a kid.

George Carlin from Brain Droppings

Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.

Pat Buchanan, in a 1977 column discussing John Toland's biography of Hitler

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Excellent, I am happy for you. I really am.
You can even call me Nazi, if you like, all wonderful.

You take all the challenge out of it.

"In other news, water is wet."

There is only one condition: every now and then you have to make a smart remark that is on topic and helpful to my cause.

And should we mark them as such so you know what "smart" looks like.

Otherwise you will follow Hans to the ignore Hades sooner than you think.

Nirvana! You put us on ignore, you can't respond to us. We can continue to talk about you. Win-win.

 

[dudalb]

Hitler quote

I want war. To me all means will be right. My motto is not "Don't, whatever you do, annoy the enemy." My motto is "Destroy him by all and any means." I am the one who will wage the war!

quoted by Louis Leo Snyder in Hitler and Nazism, Franklin Watts, Inc., NY, (1961). p. 66.

Try explaining Hitler to a kid.

George Carlin from Brain Droppings

Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.

Pat Buchanan, in a 1977 column discussing John Toland's biography of Hitler

In the days before Buchanan went off the deep end.

Buchanan was right; Hitler did have some extraordinary gifts. No use to deny it. If he did not, he never would have gotten as far as he did. That does not make him any less insane or evil. Buchanan is certainly correct that Hitler saw how he could intimidate Chamberlane and Company in 1938.

 

[dafydd]

I started this thread, remember?
I knew in advance that it would be me against the rest.
That's why I choose this forum in the first place.
I don't care about little stitches from fruit flies.

I have done it before, you see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128473

The upshot of that thread was the further finetuning of this blog: http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

So far 50,000 hits and counting since it was prominently linked on whatreallyhappened.com, iamthewitness.com and henrymakow.com

Very satisfying result indeed. That's multiplying.



What are you going to do about it?

Keep on reading and wetting myself laughing at you.There are so many hits because we want to see your latest bigoted rant.None of us take you seriously.Don't flatter yourself.Fruit flies,lol.Are all Nazis megalomaniacs? if you think that you are destroying us with your knowledge and debating skills,then think again.You are pathetic and ignorant.I would hate to be you,it must be awful.

 

[Corsair 115]

The Allies waging war are the politicians and generals. In their eyes a few hundred of aircrew are expendable.

Still can't admit you were flat-out wrong in your claim of it being a 'safe' way to wage war? You're inability to simply offer a mea culpa for your inaccuracy says much.

Well then, Corsair is basically pleading for the next time to kill the entire population, because you see, these civilians are all somehow involved in the war effort.

'Somehow' involved in the war effort? How exactly did all those Me 109s, Fw 190s, Me 262s, Ju 88s, Panzer IVs, Panzer Vs, Panzer VIs, MG 42s, Mauser Karabiner 98k's, MP40s, Sturmgewehr 44s, Panzerfausts, Type VII U-boats, Type IX U-boats, just to name a fraction of the war material produced, get built? Did it all magically and spontaneously assemble itself and deliver itself to the men who would fight with them? Where did all the raw resources, the steel, the aluminum, the rubber, the chemicals for explosives and gunpower, again to just name a few, come from? Did it all magically and spontaneously mine and process itself too? Did the petroleum extract itself out of the ground and refine itself?

You seem to have the mistaken idea that WWII was just like the days of ancient warfare where the two armies would march out onto the field, fight each other for a little while, then go home when it was done. Total war between industrialized nation-states was a vast war of attrition, since an industrialized nation-state had a nearly unlimited capacity to supply replacements—unless, that is, you choke off its ability to acquire the raw resources and destroy its industrial capacity to produce the arms of war.

Mind you, Corsair is talking about a war that was declared by the Anglos, not by Germany.

And what, exactly, prevented Germany from saying, "Hey, we don't want to fight this war. It's nasty and people are getting killed. Let's sit down and come to a negotiated agreement instead"?

The frightning point is that Corsair is not even trying to hide his intentions and gives an unlimited licence to kill to himself and his kind.

No, I'm pointing out your idea of a clear and indisputable separation between civilian and military does not exist in a state of total war between industrialized nation-states. You seem to think that the war should have like the ancient old days, where the two armies march out into the field, fight each other for a little while, then go home. That is pure fantasy.

I think it quite clear you don't have the slightest clue about the sheer amount of logistical support which is required to keep an army in the field.

You seem quite content to absolve the German population from its responsibility in allowing the war to continue. If you drive the bank robber to the bank, and drive him away afterwards once he has robbed the bank and killed someone, are you completely free from guilt or responsibility for the crime just because you only did the driving? Does the fact that you facilitated the crime not matter?

What I am not buying however is your moralistic BS stories of your kind about the so-called good war. It was your kind who sought the war because your Jewish overlords told you to do so, that is the Jewish financial backers of Churchill and Zionist mob around Roosevelt. They order to jump and the Anglos ask: "how high?".

You're projecting. Nowhere did I say anything about it being a 'good war.' I said nothing at all about it being right or wrong.

I did, however, talk about the tactics and strategies of how the war was waged in regards to the aerial campaign. I did, however, point out the fallacy of your 'safe' bombing comment and highlighted your complete lack of understanding in regards to the history and development of the strategic bombing effort. How can one hope to pass proper judgement on it without fully understanding all of the history, theories, circumstances, and the technological and operational limits which shaped it? (Not that your total lack of knowledge has stopped you so far from passing judgements.)

I would not have declared war on Germany in the first place.

Well, given your apparent admiration for the Nazi regime, I hardly find that hardly surprising. But you still didn't answer my question. I'll ask again: You are in charge of the war effort. How do you suggest prosecuting the war?

By the way, you didn't answer another question I asked earlier. I'll repeat that one too: What precisely is a 'civilian' target?

Why was it necessary to look for war with Japan in the first place?

Well, if it hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, it wouldn't have been at war with the United States, would it? Japan was even dumber than Germany: the U.S. had a better than 5:1 GDP superiority over Japan. When it comes to war production, Japan wasn't just outnumbered, it wasn't even in the game. (One of the reasons it had to resort to suicide tactics to try and stem the Allied tide.)

It's fine if you declare yourself as the completely unrestricted Machiavellist and totally let go any moral consideration, but than you should not be surprised that the rest of the world will turn against you. You probably did not notice but the US and Israel are not very popular in the world and we all smell the (financial) blood that is visibly pooring from your wounds.

Mindless political babble and rhetorical doubletalk that has absolutely nothing to do with the facts presented. I suppose it's too much to ask you to stick to the specific topic at hand and avoid drifting off into your bizarre political rants?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yamamoto even told the japanese High Command he could fight for two years, if the war wasn't won by then Japan could only lose.
he was right. Japan has no indigenous raw materials to speak of. Everything has to be imported. Once their merchant fleet was sunk they had lost. US and British Submarines destroyed the japanese merchant fleet and choked the military.

 

[dudalb]

You take all the challenge out of it.

"In other news, water is wet."

And should we mark them as such so you know what "smart" looks like.

Nirvana! You put us on ignore, you can't respond to us. We can continue to talk about you. Win-win.

In the 9/11 Investigator's Holocaust Denial thread in the History section, we are getting up a betting pool as to how long until he has everybody at JREF on ignore.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yamamoto even told the japanese High Command he could fight for two years, if the war wasn't won by then Japan could only lose.

"I will run wild for one, maybe two, years. After that, I guarantee nothing."

 

[9/11-investigator]

Still can't admit you were flat-out wrong in your claim of it being a 'safe' way to wage war? You're inability to simply offer a mea culpa for your inaccuracy says much.

We are nitpicking. We both know what the other means.

'Somehow' involved in the war effort? How exactly did all those Me 109s, Fw 190s, Me 262s, Ju 88s, Panzer IVs, Panzer Vs, Panzer VIs, MG 42s, Mauser Karabiner 98k's, MP40s, Sturmgewehr 44s, Panzerfausts, Type VII U-boats, Type IX U-boats, just to name a fraction of the war material produced, get built? Did it all magically and spontaneously assemble itself and deliver itself to the men who would fight with them? Where did all the raw resources, the steel, the aluminum, the rubber, the chemicals for explosives and gunpower, again to just name a few, come from? Did it all magically and spontaneously mine and process itself too? Did the petroleum extract itself out of the ground and refine itself?

Ergo, it is justified to bomb towns indiscriminately, because we can be sure that some of these civilians during the day are assembling weapons.

And what, exactly, prevented Germany from saying, "Hey, we don't want to fight this war. It's nasty and people are getting killed. Let's sit down and come to a negotiated agreement instead"?

Ever heard of Rudolf Hess? He was killed by the Anglos in Spandau when Gorbatchov proposed to release him. They had to prevent the world from knowing about his peace offer in order to keep the myth alive that Germany wanted to conquor the world.

No, I'm pointing out your idea of a clear and indisputable separation between civilian and military does not exist in a state of total war between industrialized nation-states. You seem to think that the war should have like the ancient old days, where the two armies march out into the field, fight each other for a little while, then go home. That is pure fantasy.

I know that and hence the justification of killing everybody who moves. In what horror movie have I ended up?

You're projecting. Nowhere did I say anything about it being a 'good war.' I said nothing at all about it being right or wrong.

Well, at least that is something. So you advocate a total lack of restraint but you claim no moral superiority.

Well, given your apparent admiration for the Nazi regime, I hardly find that hardly surprising.

I have expressed maybe a more than average admiration for the Germans in general, but not for all the actions of the Nazi's. I think the Germans were right to be angry about Versailles. I think that in 1914 Germany was the party with the least ambition to go to war ('satiated power') but was confronted with a revanchist France and expansionist Russia. Then they decided to hit first. Bad geostrategic position and stuff. Always difficult position to sell. And then there was Britain with their secret deal with France (Grey) leading Germany to miscalculate the situation.

But you still didn't answer my question. I'll ask again: You are in charge of the war effort. How do you suggest prosecuting the war?

I agree with the policies of Chamberlain. I would not give the Poles a war garantee and I would put pressure on the Poles to give in on the Danzig issue. And I would never ever start an alliance with the Soviets, the biggest mass murderers from history. I would watch Germany fight the Soviets and help the party that threatens to lose.

By the way, you didn't answer another question I asked earlier. I'll repeat that one too: What precisely is a 'civilian' target?

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/685_2/index.jpg

Well, if it hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, it wouldn't have been at war with the United States, would it? Japan was even dumber than Germany: the U.S. had a better than 5:1 GDP superiority over Japan. When it comes to war production, Japan wasn't just outnumbered, it wasn't even in the game. (One of the reasons it had to resort to suicide tactics to try and stem the Allied tide.)

Makes one wonder why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I mean Japan has a higher national IQ than the US. Maybe the answer is here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/trask1.html

 

[9/11-investigator]

In the 9/11 Investigator's Holocaust Denial thread in the History section, we are getting up a betting pool as to how long until he has everybody at JREF on ignore.

The thread now has 4329 posts, a JREF classic I might say.

Sure some provokers and agitators have bitten the ignore dust, others have arrived instead. The thread is still alive and kicking.

 

[plumjam]

9/11 -Investigator, what are your opinions on Dr Josef Mengele and his experiments which involved killing identical twins, injecting benzene into human beings just to see what would happen, doing things to kill one twin while the other one may well survive, standing people out in the winter in wet clothing to see how long it would take them to die, immersing human beings in ice baths to see how long it would take them to die.. etc..

What is your opinion on the German state systematically killing the mentally handicapped from well before WWII started?

Was all this pretty good?
Part of the kind of society you'd like to eventually be a part of?

How is all that in any way morally comparable to the bombing the Allies were doing (which the Axis powers would surely have similarly been doing themselves if they had not already lost the Air War)?
The bombing was part of trying not to lose the war (self-preservation) by inflicting maximum damage on the means of resistance (factories and workers of opposing economy).
That shouldn't be so difficult to understand.
Unless, perhaps, you have a neo-nazi worldview and a lazy-lob-on infatuation with Adolf Hitler which clouds your reasoning.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well, if it hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, it wouldn't have been at war with the United States, would it? Japan was even dumber than Germany: the U.S. had a better than 5:1 GDP superiority over Japan. When it comes to war production, Japan wasn't just outnumbered, it wasn't even in the game.

Makes one wonder why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I mean Japan has a higher national IQ than the US. Maybe the answer is here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/trask1.html

I had a look, and it isn't. That's just conspiracy stuff about FDR knowing about the attack in advance. Why did you imagine that would provide any insight into why the attack occurred?

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they believed they had to neutralise the American fleet to protect their own forces.

America had opposed Japan's invasion of French Indochina with trade embargoes, and the oil embargo in particular placed Japan in a desperate position where it had to take a gamble to sieze oil production in the Dutch East Indies.

WP expresses it rather well: "First, it intended to destroy important American fleet units, thereby preventing the Pacific Fleet from interfering with Japanese conquest of the Dutch East Indies and Malaya. Second, it was hoped to buy time for Japan to consolidate its position and increase its naval strength before shipbuilding authorized by the 1940 Vinson-Walsh Act erased any chance of victory. Finally, it was meant to deliver a severe blow to American morale, one which would discourage Americans from committing to a war extending into the western Pacific Ocean and Dutch East Indies. To maximize the effect on morale, battleships were chosen as the main targets, since they were the prestige ships of any navy at the time. The overall intention was to enable Japan to conquer Southeast Asia without interference."

The aim wasn't to defeat the USA, it was give the USA such a bloody nose that it would keep out of Japan's wars of conquest in Southeast Asia. Which was a monumental miscalculation, of course, as it completely misunderstood how America would react to such an attack.

 

[MG1962]

Now a slightly embarrassing question: what kind of Angelen und Sachsen do you think emigrated to Britain? You think it were the bright and shining aristocrats, the ones giving up a good position in Germany, in short the best? Or were it the losers, the huddled masses of those days, the Lads, who were looking for a new life elsewhere? Hint: the Moroccans who emigrated to Holland, do you think they represent the best Morocco has to offer?

It must totally torque you that the French cleaned them up so fast, and that this combination of weak racial blood lines kicked German supremecy all over Europe not once but twice

 

[dafydd]

The thread now has 4329 posts, a JREF classic I might say.

Sure some provokers and agitators have bitten the ignore dust, others have arrived instead. The thread is still alive and kicking.

It's still going but purely for laughs now.And it's nowhere near a classic.Again,don't flatter yourself.You are a pygmy amongst giants here.

 

[Hans]

The thread now has 4329 posts, a JREF classic I might say.

Yep classic crap. Its amazing how long you can keep a thread going as long as you ignore all the contrary evidence to your OP. Since you by choice blind to all truth. This should go on forever. Congrats!

So why did the peaceful Germans invade Luxembourg?

Why did the peaceful German plan to invade Switzerland as part of operation Tannenbaum?

What was your thoughts on Anton's traitorous actions towards the Dutch? Is he your hero....LOL

Why do you feel Germany had a right to attack Poland?

Since our superior human cannot answer these question. I guess he cannot find a website to tell him what he is suppose to believe in regards to these issues, LOL, would someone else like to anwer them?

Lets see what other howlers and embarrassments 9/11 can get himself into. One area of hate he doesn't seem to have stepped into yet is women. I wonder if he considers them equals or breeders?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Why did the peaceful German plan to invade Switzerland as part of operation Tannenbaum?

Thank you for this. I never heard of this before. My jaw dropped when I looked it up. It was really interesting history.

 

[Corsair 115]

We are nitpicking. We both know what the other means.

So you are constitutionally unable to apologize for sloppy argumentation? Does something inside you die if you admit error? The intent of your comment was clear; it was demolished with a factual rebuttal. Too difficult to face I guess?

Ergo, it is justified to bomb towns indiscriminately, because we can be sure that some of these civilians during the day are assembling weapons.

No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. Feel free to prove that equation incorrect. Alternatively, you could show how steel, aluminum, rubber, gunpower, oil, bombs, tanks, planes, rifles, etc., assemble and distribute themselves without human contribution.

I already gave the average bombing accuracy rates some posts back. I'm sure the commanders of the day would have loved to have had bombs with the accuracy that today's weapons have They could have ended the war in a matter of weeks. Alas, they did not. Getting with several hundred yards of the aiming point was considered a very good effort; such was the technological capability of the time. The choice for the Allies was simple: bomb the cities and industries of Germany to impede its war effort, even though that unavoidably would cause collateral casualties; or do nothing and let Germany produce its war material unhindered.

Which do you suggest as a commaner-in-chief of a nation at war?

Ever heard of Rudolf Hess? He was killed by the Anglos in Spandau when Gorbatchov proposed to release him. They had to prevent the world from knowing about his peace offer in order to keep the myth alive that Germany wanted to conquor the world.

Sure. And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

Even if we grant your fantasy was true, some peace overture. Why not make it a little more obvious and direct rather than letting some guy fly off on his own to England? What, Germany couldn't make an offer of peace through the Swiss? If it really wanted peace and its offers were rejected, why not make that blatantly and obviously public? Why the secrecy on Germany's part?

I know that and hence the justification of killing everybody who moves. In what horror movie have I ended up?

I'll repeat, perhaps with repetition it'll sink in:

No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. Feel free to prove that equation incorrect. Alternatively, you could show how steel, aluminum, rubber, gunpower, oil, bombs, tanks, planes, rifles, etc., assemble and distribute themselves without human contribution.

Well, at least that is something. So you advocate a total lack of restraint but you claim no moral superiority.

Are you under the delusion war is somehow moral? War involves killing. By its very nature it is immoral. I find the idea that the dead from a bombing raid somehow deserve more sympathy than the dead from an artillery barrage or the dead from starvation due to a lack of food* or the dead from the armies fighting in the streets to control the city, to be ludicrous. I don't think the dead particularly care about the manner of their death from acts of war. They're still dead. That's the tragedy. So in that regard all deaths in a war all share the same moral failing: they were killed as a result of warfare.

Perhaps the only 'moral' thing one can do when fighting a war is to win it as quickly as possible so that the bloodshed and destruction ends as quickly as possible.

*See: Holland under the German occupation and the major efforts by the Allies near the war's end to get food to the civilian population there. Being Dutch, I would have thought you aware of this particular bit of history. Or do you deny starvation was widespread in the country due to the German occupation?

I have expressed maybe a more than average admiration for the Germans in general, but not for all the actions of the Nazi's.

Except that when I and others here have pointed out transgressions committed by Germany during the war, you have rejected those transgressions purely on the grounds that because the Allies did it more. If an act is wrong, then it is equally wrong regardless of which side commits it. The relative scales shouldn't matter whatsoever. In which case you should be condemning Germany for its wrongs just as much as you have condemned the Allies.

But you haven't done that.

I agree with the policies of Chamberlain. I would not give the Poles a war garantee and I would put pressure on the Poles to give in on the Danzig issue. And I would never ever start an alliance with the Soviets, the biggest mass murderers from history. I would watch Germany fight the Soviets and help the party that threatens to lose.

And you still avoid answering my question. I'm reminded of the scene in The Matrix where Neo dodges the bullets. The twisting you are doing to evade answering my question is similar.

You are in charge of the war effort. How do you propose prosecuting the war? Is strategic bombing off the table entirely? If it is on the table, under what conditions? What circumstances might change your decision? What would you classify as a military target and what would you classify as a civilian target?

I've promoted you to commander-in-chief. What are your orders?

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/685_2/index.jpg

Not an answer, I'm afraid. Or are you under the impression that cities are only filled with happy-go-lucky citizens frolicking around with nary an industry to be seen? I guess the many workshops, factories, railways, roads, bridges, warehouses, depots, and other various elements of a national economy, all of which allow the war effort to continue, are not located in a city? A city had no economic value then to a nation's war effort?

Makes one wonder why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I mean Japan has a higher national IQ than the US. Maybe the answer is here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/trask1.html

Ah, yes, link to a conspiracy theory that has been completely debunked over and over. Hell, that conspiracy theory doesn't even pass a basic logic test. Do you enjoy coming across as a crazy fool? I find it hard to believe you derive satisfaction being mocked for the silly nonsense you offer as 'evidence.' But who knows, perhaps you have a masochistic streak.

Anyway, be that as it may, you appear to have overlooked the very simple fact that Japan could have simply chosen not to attack. But it did. It opted for war. So much for 'peaceful' intentions. (Of course, the Chinese were already well aware of how 'peaceful' Japanese occupation was. Or is the infamous 'Rape of Nanking' another conspiracy committed by the Jews to make those honourable and noble Axis nations look like the bad guys?)
.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Ever heard of Rudolf Hess? He was killed by the Anglos in Spandau when Gorbatchov proposed to release him. They had to prevent the world from knowing about his peace offer in order to keep the myth alive that Germany wanted to conquor the world.

Really? Hess died at 93 from suicide. The Russians kept him at Spandau because Spandau is in West Berlin. Hess stated

“I knew that there was only one way out — and that was certainly not to fight against England,” Hess said into the tape recorder. “Even though I did not get permission from the Führer to fly I knew that what I had to say would have had his approval. Hitler had great respect for the English people ... little did I know that Churchill did not have the power to stop the rolling stone. I went too late.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7144499.ece

 

[Hans]

Do you enjoy coming across as a crazy fool? I find it hard to believe you derive satisfaction being mocked for the silly nonsense you offer as 'evidence.' But who knows, perhaps you have a masochistic streak

Yes I think he does. I think he is an evil plotting Jew and trying to give fine upstanding revisionists a bad name. He hasn't denied it I might note too! LOL

Hitler had great respect for the English people

So our friend is going against the Fuhrer and not respecting the LOL 'Anglos' LOL!!

Thank you for this. I never heard of this before. My jaw dropped when I looked it up. It was really interesting history.

yes our hating friend wasn't aware of it either