Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Today, August 2010, in parts of London only 9% of the children born are British. It is a good thing that the Englishman is going to vanish from this earth. They deserve it. If you don't fight for your people and your nation, you deserve to die. Bye bye Britain, rot in hell.

So the Saxons, Jutes and Angles, who were from Germany and now speak English were not born in England. The Normans from France now speak English were not born in England. Even holocaust deniers from the lowlands who hate England still speak English.

Gee golly gosh that language is obviously about to die out. ( What language is this forum in again?) All those damn foreigners, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Normans who make up modern England should er um err err um be born again in England!

( You really don't get it. An "Englishman" can be French, Scot, Welsh, Pakistani, West Indian, German or anything else if he or she want's to join England. It's a nation of ideals and not skin colour measurements )
 
Don't let this sorry excuse for a human being color your image of The Netherlands. Thankfully the state of mind (such as it is) that 9/11 displays is pretty rare.

The Netherland's beauty is in no danger of being compromised by the antics of one of its citizens. Hot chips, a bicycle to the museum and a sleep in the afternoon and a concert at the old Milkyway venue are always going to be fun.
 
That is true, Versailles Poland was history. What would return was a Polish ethno state. that was good enough. Why should Poles rule over Germans, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, etc.? Just because some Anglo decided in Versailles that that should be the case? To hell with Anglos.
There's that basic ignorance of yours again rearing its ugly head. The western border was decided at Versailles. The eastern border was decided at the peace of Riga, 1920, after the Polish-Russian war. The western border very closely followed the ethnic lines. In Upper Silesia there was a plebiscite and it was split following the ethnic lines. There would always be minorities. For comparison, ever looked at the Vance-Owen plan? The whole of Eastern Europe looked like that in the start 20th Century. Western Europe too, to a lesser degree, 200 years earlier, but due to the pressures of national states, minorities had largely "assimilated". How many people still speak Dutch in the Dunkirk region? Or in Cleves? How many people still speak East-Frisian?

No it is not. The treason the Allies committed against the Germans was outrageous. Even Wilson was disgusted by it and the Senate refused to sign the treaty.
Wilson enraged? No, a bit disappointed. The Senate refused to sign because of isolationist tendencies.

Are you that desperate that you are going to doubt that Hitler held the public address at all on October 6, 1939??!!
No, as a matter of fact, I mentioned it first.

That is irrelevant. Are you proposing that they made up the speech? Show me the real transscript then if you want to make a fool of yourself.
No, you provide a transcript from a bonafide site. Or just forget about the contents of the speech.

But as the BBC article confirms, the British were not interested. They and Roosevelt were already on a war path. Or as Chamberlain revealed to Joseph Kennedy: it is the Jews that push us into the war.
Let me quote Basil Fawlty on this: "You started it. You invaded Poland". He could at least get his facts straight.

What do you mean 'small'? 2 million is not small.
I wonder where your general got his numbers. The Polish 1921 census listed only 1 million, and the Polish 1931 census listed ca. 700,000. The roots of many of those Germans can be doubted, e.g., the Prussian officials who had been assigned there. And boohoo, after the oppression of the Polish majority in those areas and the outright Germanification policies of Prussia, I really can't bring myself to have much sympathy for the German minorities after the tables had been turned.

Interestingly, modern Poland is one of the ethnically purest in the entire world. Just as Dolfie liked it. :D
Thanks to Jozef Stalin and the postwar Eastern European regimes, yes, there's been a lot of ethnic cleansing.

Oh yes you are right, and it should be on A4-format, otherwise it is not a valid peace proposal. And it must have a valid stamp in a valid envelope. Otherwise ti does not count.
I can't help if you can't see the disparity between a public speech for the own citizens and a peace proposal directed to another state. The first has no value whatsoever in diplomacy.
 
1. First you are going to do some killing in Iran, that has already has been decided upon by your masters. They think that killing holocaust denying Iranians is a good idea.
2. Next the Chinese are going to dump the dollar, because they will not like it that their premier oil supplier will be bombed to pieces. Collapse of the dollar will result of this.
3. Next foodstamp America will arise and you are going to sink back to 1990 Ukraine levels.

Would you please stop derailing your own thread with insults towards other posters, and instead focus on the topic ?
 
You dont actually know where Tobruk is do you - or how the rats got the name. Such a light weight with such a big mouth

He's like so many other woo posters here. He spotted "rat" in your post, stopped reading and imagined a way to turn that word into a "clever" retort. It's all about how he perceives his own performance in this thread, not about the truth of history or some other important thing.
 
So the Saxons, Jutes and Angles, who were from Germany and now speak English were not born in England. The Normans from France now speak English were not born in England. Even holocaust deniers from the lowlands who hate England still speak English.

Gee golly gosh that language is obviously about to die out. ( What language is this forum in again?) All those damn foreigners, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Normans who make up modern England should er um err err um be born again in England!

Nobody speaks Latin anymore these days. A lesson in modesty.

( You really don't get it. An "Englishman" can be French, Scot, Welsh, Pakistani, West Indian, German or anything else if he or she want's to join England. It's a nation of ideals and not skin colour measurements )

Yes, that is the Jewish creed of 'proposition nation' of passport 'Englishmen', not a surprising position for an 'Australian' who spends a large chunk of his free time to ensure that nobody escapes the holocaust story. You just have to look at Zimbabwe to know what is in store for the Europeans. SA will follow that path soon. These Asians and Blacks act 100% tribal (99% of the American blacks voted for Barry Soetoro), in contrast to the Christian love-thy-neighbour European idiots (either in Europe or Anglosphere), who believe all the stories that are being fed to them via the Jewish controlled media. Meanwhile racial separation in the US (and everywhere else) is the norm.

Ah well, if Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Belgium and Britain had/have trouble staying in one piece, what chances are there that the US is going to survive the coming depression. None. Every American city will be one big Belfast, with walls seperating competing ethnic factions. Amsterdam same story.
 
Last edited:
He's like so many other woo posters here. He spotted "rat" in your post, stopped reading and imagined a way to turn that word into a "clever" retort.

Belz is a tad smarter than MG. But not much.

Tout est bien avec vous?

It's all about how he perceives his own performance in this thread, not about the truth of history or some other important thing.

You really think I am doing this for fun?
 
Last edited:
So why did this 'country' then fall apart at the first opportunity?



Cripple in the sense that millions of Germans were placed in foreign countries (like CZ), reducing the strength of Germany.

I never said that CZ was part of Germany, just that is was a country created out of thin air on the design table of Versailles, in stead of through historic struggle.

Your ignorance of Czech history has already been noted, however I would ask why you think it was OK for Germany to occupy all of the Czech part of the republic after they had already been given what they asked for (ie the Sudetenland)? You know, the bits that were not even vaguely German.

That's the bit of my argument you seem to be avoiding...though I find that hardly a novel approach of yours. But to try one more time...

Hitler guaranteed at Munich in late 1938 that all he wanted was the Sudetenland (the bit with the Germans in), and had no designs on the rest of Czechoslovakia. A scant 6 months later he rolls in (threatening invasion should the Czechs not submit) and occupies the remaining Czech part.

So, bearing that event in mind, why do you think anyone at all should have believed a word he had to say about Poland 6 months after that?
 
I wonder where your general got his numbers. The Polish 1921 census listed only 1 million, and the Polish 1931 census listed ca. 700,000. The roots of many of those Germans can be doubted, e.g., the Prussian officials who had been assigned there.

I wonder where you got your numbers from. Could you provide us a link to the Polish census of 1921, 1931? Thanks in advance.

And boohoo, after the oppression of the Polish majority in those areas and the outright Germanification policies of Prussia, I really can't bring myself to have much sympathy for the German minorities after the tables had been turned.

But the logical conclusion that it is not a got idea to mix ethnicities in the first place, that is obviously too much to ask, right? Does not fit your agenda. Fine with me. You cannot say that I did not warn you that in the end it is always a bad idea to commit treason towards your own people. You will find out the hard way.

Thanks to Jozef Stalin and the postwar Eastern European regimes, yes, there's been a lot of ethnic cleansing.

But that's a thing of the past, right? Everybody knows that you can prevent a timebomb from exploding by just introducing laws that forbid time bombs to explode.

I can't help if you can't see the disparity between a public speech for the own citizens and a peace proposal directed to another state. The first has no value whatsoever in diplomacy.

There were excellent contacts on an almost hourly basis between Berlin and London in the runup to the war as we have seen from the Nuremberg file we discussed earlier. Dahlerus was still alive in October 1939 and could have continued his mediation services. But the BBC put it correctly, the Anglos were not interested in talks. The British (and the Jews in the background who pushed them, as Chamberlain revealed to Joseph Kennedy) wanted to see Germany destroyed. Germany had removed the Jews from power because they saw correctly that they were behind Bolshevism. But the Jews in London and Washington did not like it that a country had escaped the Jewish grip. And they knew could count on their dumm serfes, who until this day do not understand why their countries are going down the drain, to do the dirty work for them.
 
Your ignorance of Czech history has already been noted, however I would ask why you think it was OK for Germany to occupy all of the Czech part of the republic after they had already been given what they asked for (ie the Sudetenland)? You know, the bits that were not even vaguely German.

That's the bit of my argument you seem to be avoiding...though I find that hardly a novel approach of yours. But to try one more time...

Hitler guaranteed at Munich in late 1938 that all he wanted was the Sudetenland (the bit with the Germans in), and had no designs on the rest of Czechoslovakia. A scant 6 months later he rolls in (threatening invasion should the Czechs not submit) and occupies the remaining Czech part.

So, bearing that event in mind, why do you think anyone at all should have believed a word he had to say about Poland 6 months after that?

I agree. It was a costly mistake. Even the General-Major agrees with you.
 
Belz is a tad smarter than MG. But not much.

Tout est bien avec vous?

Pas tant.

I don't understand why you feel the need to belittle your opponents in every debate, when it becomes clear that you are failing to convince them with your unsupported claims.

J'ai des nouvelles pour vous: les personnes que vous considérez comme stupides sont celles qui apportent des preuvent dans ce débat, alors que vous vous contentez de régurgiter les paroles de vos idoles. À la lumière de cela, qui est l'idiot, ici ?

You really think I am doing this for fun?

No. In fact the answer to your question lies in the bit you quoted: It's all about how he perceives his own performance in this thread, not about the truth of history or some other important thing.

It's a matter of self-esteem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom