Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
... wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, ...
Click to expand...
.
Whether Weber means ... historian who was Jewish or ... historian who wroe mainly about Jewish issues he is lying, and so the rest of the citation is tossed.

Unless you'd care to try to support that lie?

But before you do that hadn't you ought to try to present some support for your own lies about Treblinka, and European denial laws, and .....
.
 
9/11-investigator said:
For people who don't have the time to read Buchanan's book we are discussing here (that is you), here a short 2 page summary of the great revisionist Master himself:

Did Hitler Want War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Click to expand...

Buchanan is answering the easy question. From reading Mein Kampf anyone will know that Hilter had no intention whatever of engaging in a war with Britain, nor did he have global ambitions. He clearly and repeatedly states that his goal for Germany is expansion eastward.

The tough question is why did Britain enter the war. Irving, and I take it Buchanan, place much of the responsibility on Churchill. (Both Irving and Buchanan ignore geopolitics, e.g. oil, and the role of international finance, i.e., no conspriacy theory for these guys.) And, Irving traces Churchill's history as a agent of Zionism. What is Buchanan's explanation for the Churchill's machinations. Who were the other main players in Britain arguing for war, guarantees to Poland, etc.?
 
Saggy said:
Buchanan is answering the easy question. From reading Mein Kampf anyone will know that Hilter had no intention whatever of engaging in a war with Britain, nor did he have global ambitions. He clearly and repeatedly states that his goal for Germany is expansion eastward.

The tough question is why did Britain enter the war. Irving, and I take it Buchanan, place much of the responsibility on Churchill. (Both Irving and Buchanan ignore geopolitics, e.g. oil, and the role of international finance, i.e., no conspriacy theory for these guys.) And, Irving traces Churchill's history as a agent of Zionism. What is Buchanan's explanation for the Churchill's machinations. Who were the other main players in Britain arguing for war, guarantees to Poland, etc.?
Click to expand...

If GB and France hadn't intervened, Germany would have had no reason to invade Belgium, France, The Netherlands, or anything west of Germany. Practically everything in that part of Europe was secured specifically to create a buffer zone against British reprisal.

If they hadn't had the Axis Powers treaty with Italy and Mussolini hadn't foolishly tried to extend his borders, they never would have had a reason to move into Africa or Greece.

So, you could say that France and GB brought it on themselves by not just allowing Hitler to run roughshod over Eastern Europe.

Or, you could say that it wasn't in their best interests, as members of an international community, to allow such aggression to go unchecked.

It all depends on your point of view.
 
aggle-rithm said:
So, you could say that France and GB brought it on themselves by not just allowing Hitler to run roughshod over Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

Well, this begs the question - what were Hit'er's actual ultimate objectives in EE, did he have any, did they develop as the war progressed, etc.? In particular what were his ultimate objectives in Russia?

aggle-rithm said:
Or, you could say that it wasn't in their best interests, as members of an international community, to allow such aggression to go unchecked.
Click to expand...

As far as Britain was concerned, only British aggression should be allowed to go unchecked? Britain as arbiter of international justice is too ironic for words.
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
As far as Britain was concerned, only British aggression should be allowed to go unchecked? Britain as arbiter of international justice is too ironic for words.
Click to expand...

Heh...true. And to consider France to be a stern international enforcer of truth and justice is ironic for a completely different reason.
 
Saggy said:
Well, this begs the question - what were Hit'er's actual ultimate objectives in EE, did he have any, did they develop as the war progressed, etc.? In particular what were his ultimate objectives in Russia?
Click to expand...

He wanted to reinstitute the feudal system in the east, where the "inferior" slavic people would work the land for their German lords. Presumably that included a good deal of Russia.

He also wanted the oil fields. Gotta have oil.
 
Saggy said:
Buchanan is answering the easy question. From reading Mein Kampf anyone will know that Hilter had no intention whatever of engaging in a war with Britain, nor did he have global ambitions.
Click to expand...

Sadly, he was unable to meet the almost impossible criterion required for not engaging in a war with Britain, that of not invading Poland. If only we'd asked him to do something reasonable.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Sadly, he was unable to meet the almost impossible criterion required for not engaging in a war with Britain, that of not invading Poland. If only we'd asked him to do something reasonable.

Dave
Click to expand...

Sure, who HASN'T had the urge to invade Poland once in a while?

Seriously, though...if you look at a map of Eastern Europe in 1914, and again, in 1939 after Germany and the Soviet Union's land grab, it is remarkably similar. Much of the motivation for this aggression was to return the map to what the Germans and Russians thought was its proper configuration...no Poland, no Baltic states.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Sure, who HASN'T had the urge to invade Poland once in a while?

Seriously, though...if you look at a map of Eastern Europe in 1914, and again, in 1939 after Germany and the Soviet Union's land grab, it is remarkably similar. Much of the motivation for this aggression was to return the map to what the Germans and Russians thought was its proper configuration...no Poland, no Baltic states.
Click to expand...

Poland holds the dubious distinction of being one of the few entities to supervise its own dismemberment in the decades leading up to the Napoleonic Wars.

@Saggy: [Hitler] clearly and repeatedly states that his goal for Germany is expansion eastward.

Intention versus consequence.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Sure, who HASN'T had the urge to invade Poland once in a while?

Seriously, though...if you look at a map of Eastern Europe in 1914, and again, in 1939 after Germany and the Soviet Union's land grab, it is remarkably similar. Much of the motivation for this aggression was to return the map to what the Germans and Russians thought was its proper configuration...no Poland, no Baltic states.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. For Hitler, the destruction of Poland was only the starting point. He wanted to go much further in his Drive To The East then any German government had before him. He wanted almost all of European Russia,with the slavs reduced to a slave race.
 
When people talk about Hitler not wanting to fight England they conveniently forget the Nazi Party's avowed purpose of destroying democracy in Europe at a minimum. England was a democracy, the English system of government was one of those to be destroyed. Prevarication aside, it's simple sophistry to claim Germany would not have fought England when the time came, regardless of Hitler's lies to the contrary.
 
Saggy said:
Buchanan is answering the easy question. From reading Mein Kampf anyone will know that Hilter had no intention whatever of engaging in a war with Britain, nor did he have global ambitions. He clearly and repeatedly states that his goal for Germany is expansion eastward.

The tough question is why did Britain enter the war. Irving, and I take it Buchanan, place much of the responsibility on Churchill. (Both Irving and Buchanan ignore geopolitics, e.g. oil, and the role of international finance, i.e., no conspriacy theory for these guys.) And, Irving traces Churchill's history as a agent of Zionism. What is Buchanan's explanation for the Churchill's machinations. Who were the other main players in Britain arguing for war, guarantees to Poland, etc.?
Click to expand...

This is the limitation of his book. Mentioning 'the Jews' is a no-no for Buchanan. He goes as far as possible, but no Jews. Buchanan says that Churchill liked war and had a 'flawed' judgement. The core of the book is that WW2 basically was caused by a British blunder. And it certainly was a blunder if measured against the British interest. But the secret is that Churchill did not represent the British interest. The hooligan was almost broke and was paid by several foreign parties, no 1 the Jews (Shell man Cohen, Focus group). Because of this Churchill could maintain his Chartwell estate. Churchill is no Great Man, he is the prototypical corrupt politician, without loyalties towards his society. OK, he is a great corrupt politician.
 
dudalb said:
There is an excellent book ..."Hitler's Empire" by Mark Mazower

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Empire-Nazis-Ruled-Europe/dp/1594201889

which should remove all doubts about exactly what Hitler had in mind for Europe...and it went a long,long,ways beyond getting rid of the Treaty of Versailles.
Click to expand...

I take it Mazower is Jewish?

What according to him is the kosher explanation as to why the Atlantic Coast was occupied in may 1940? Implementation of Dolfie's masterplan as dreamt up while he was filling his dipers, way before Versailles?
 
Gawdzilla said:
When people talk about Hitler not wanting to fight England they conveniently forget the Nazi Party's avowed purpose of destroying democracy in Europe at a minimum. England was a democracy, the English system of government was one of those to be destroyed. Prevarication aside, it's simple sophistry to claim Germany would not have fought England when the time came, regardless of Hitler's lies to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of Rudolf Hess?
 
dudalb said:
I have to disagree. For Hitler, the destruction of Poland was only the starting point. He wanted to go much further in his Drive To The East then any German government had before him. He wanted almost all of European Russia,with the slavs reduced to a slave race.
Click to expand...

This is open to debate for me. I think he wanted to defeat 'Jewish communism' (Weltpest) and afterwards grab 'some land'.

Let's have a look at Dolfie's blog then:

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html

I am not going to read the whole thing but here is a starter:
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing Russia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its existence as a state. For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nudeus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished. It has been replaced by the Jew. Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of organization, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian I empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state.
Click to expand...

In Hitler's analysis the Jewish led Bolsheviks murdered the entire upper stratum of Russian society, which consisted mainly of Germanic blood. After the defeat of the Jews by Nazi-Germany, Russia would cease to exist (disintegrate) since there was no Germanic class to rule post-Bolshevik Russia.

I would guess that Germany would take that amount of land that it reasonable could populate with it's own people. I would guess the Ukraine and the Baltics and Poland, not much more. Afterall there were only 80 million Germans. In the link there is no mentioning of 'enslaving' other people, only preventing the Germans from becoming enslaved by 'others'.
 
Last edited:
I think he wanted to defeat 'Jewish communism' (Weltpest)
Click to expand...

How was he going to accomplish that by invading Luxembourg? Or planning to invade Swizterland. Or was the Confederation of Helvetia a hot bed of Communism? LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom