Who started both World Wars?

[aggle-rithm]

I am proud of my Dad's generation.He was trained to use a weapon,by the way. What's your problem?

Funny story...it was explained in an earlier chapter.

One of the officers had my father confused with another guy who had a similar last name who was an expert machine gunner. I believe the other guy had already been captured by the Germans at this point, so my dad got the job.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

By the same token, why should Germans rule over Poles, Ukranians, Russians, and Hungarians? Are they superior in some way? If so, how?

(Don't forget that the Poles were the first to make a breakthrough in decrypting German codes.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Is Scotland still part of the empire these days?

There is no empire. Scotland is part of the UK.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Pas tant.

Je suis désolé.

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.

When was the last time you saw somebody convincing somebody else in a public discussion. Ego is too much of a hindrance for this to occur. I could of course put anybody on ignore who insults me, but that would be the end of the discussion. I am permanently being called 'Nazi scum' and the like, insults that go uncensored here. Subtle irony is my way to hit back. In the end it is more effective than this foam-on-the-lips heavy handed insults.

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 ?

I am not that impressed with the 'light' my opponents shed on the subject we are discussing here. They just parrot the self-serving lies the victors of WW1/2 have constructed to make themselves look good. Yesterday I learned a lot. Never heard of Dahlerus before. It proves that detailed negotiations were going on on the highest level between Germany and Britain. I am already looking forward to discover new things about Barbarossa. The story as told by Buchanan is largely correct although he does not tell the complete story. He cannot. I will.

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.

You really think that I am sacrificing a large part of my summer holiday just to mock a few Anglos? Get real. Then the neo-Nasty-accuser are closer to the truth. I am preparing for ammo ('torpedo blog') to help realize a 'rightwing' backlash after the death of America along the lines I have sketches a few a posts earlier (Gaullist geostrategy, anti-immigration, society based on a mild racialism). A New Explanation of what really happened in history can be very helpful in bringing changes about. And recent history has proven that things can change overnight. Want the phone number of Gorbatchov? The timing is not right for the message now. But now is the time to prepare for the message. It will prove to be political gold if you can tell a new story convincingly.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Romanian are all modern versions of Latin.

English is technically a Germanic language but 60% of the vocabulary is Latin-based.

 

[9/11-investigator]

By the same token, why should Germans rule over Poles, Ukranians, Russians, and Hungarians? Are they superior in some way? If so, how?

They never wanted that to happen. They wanted a pure racialist German state. The new insight is that the war was forced upon them by Britain, who refused to acknowledge the folly of Versailles as theys hould have done. I have just shown you that in the peace offer made by Hitler in his October 6 1939 speech there was room for an ethnic Polish state.

 

[ddt]

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

See, e.g., Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles - and that book is sympathetic to the Germans in Poland. There are also (sourced) wiki pages on them.

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.

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.

If you want to start another thread with racist rants, fine. But this one is about WW1 & WW2.

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.

There's that verb mode again: "could". We've already seen that Dahlerus concluded 26 September that he had been deceived by Berlin.

And there were no hourly contacts between Berlin and London. Between Berlin and Dahlerus, and between Dahlerus and London, maybe.

But the BBC put it correctly, the Anglos were not interested in talks.

You have yet to show there was something to talk about. Poland would not be restored, Hitler said that quite frankly to Dahlerus, and also said so according to the purported translation of the 6th October speech. And the part you explicitly quoted about the "formation of a Polish state" says precisely what he subsequently did with the General-Government.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yesterday I learned a lot. Never heard of Dahlerus before. It proves that detailed negotiations were going on on the highest level between Germany and Britain. I am already looking forward to discover new things about Barbarossa. The story as told by Buchanan is largely correct although he does not tell the complete story. He cannot. I will.

How do you determine whether something is correct or not? Do you use your own pre-conceived prejudices as a litmus test?

Can you see how this might be a problem if you want to know the truth?

Also, about these high level negotiations....

If Hitler's Germany was as benevolent as you seem to think it is, why didn't these negotiations continue? Why did the Germans have to attack Poland at exactly 4:45 AM on September 1, 1939?

I know you think that Germany was entitled to Danzig and they were justified in invading Poland because of it. Would you feel the same way if other countries used this same logic to justify their actions?

If the US decided tomorrow that they wanted Havana back, would you support its right to invade Cuba, destroy its defenses, and relocate any non-European civilians, simply because it made a show of negotiating?

It will prove to be political gold if you can tell a new story convincingly.

Does it matter to you whether or not that story is true?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Romanian are all modern versions of Latin.

English is technically a Germanic language but 60% of the vocabulary is Latin-based.

We are not going to start a linguistic discussion here. The point was that what is on top today can be in the gutter tomorrow.

The USA is a Soviet-Union waiting to happen.

 

[Tolls]

I agree. It was a costly mistake. Even the General-Major agrees with you.

So, you agree that the Western allies (France and Britain) acted correctly when faced with someone who had, shall we say, a track record in these things?

That is that they were correct in not believing a word he said with regards to the Corridor and not having any designs on the rest of Poland?

And to describe the invasion of another country whose borders you had only just guaranteed 6 months earlier as a "mistake" is understating it somewhat...

"Oops. Sorry, I appear to have invaded someone!"
"Oops. Done it again...terribly sorry!"

 

[ddt]

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

The Pope. It is the official language of the Vatican and the RCC.

 

[dtugg]

They never wanted that to happen. They wanted a pure racialist German state. The new insight is that the war was forced upon them by Britain, who refused to acknowledge the folly of Versailles as theys hould have done. I have just shown you that in the peace offer made by Hitler in his October 6 1939 speech there was room for an ethnic Polish state.

Hitler didn't have any desire to rule those countries but he invaded them anyway. I wonder if the nazi piece of garbage is really stupid enough to believe that. The only other explanation is that he is stupid enough to believe that rational people will believe his lies. Either way, what a moron.

 

[aggle-rithm]

They never wanted that to happen. They wanted a pure racialist German state. The new insight is that the war was forced upon them by Britain, who refused to acknowledge the folly of Versailles as theys hould have done. I have just shown you that in the peace offer made by Hitler in his October 6 1939 speech there was room for an ethnic Polish state.

Amazing. 70 years out, Hitler still has some people duped.

Wishful thinking is a powerful thing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The USA is a Soviet-Union waiting to happen.

Not really.

If you don't understand the past, you shouldn't try to predict the future.

 

[ddt]

We are not going to start a linguistic discussion here. The point was that what is on top today can be in the gutter tomorrow.

Then Latin is a poor example, as it took many centuries to be replaced by the secular languages, both in diplomacy and in sciences.

To get this discussion on topic: I could think of only one instance where a language indeed in a very short timespan was replaced. In math and sciences, German was the leading language in the beginning of the 20th Century.

David Hilbert in 1934 to the Minister of Education: "there is no mathematics anymore in Göttingen".

Guess why that changed.

 

[ddt]

So, you agree that the Western allies (France and Britain) acted correctly when faced with someone who had, shall we say, a track record in these things?

That is that they were correct in not believing a word he said with regards to the Corridor and not having any designs on the rest of Poland?

And to describe the invasion of another country whose borders you had only just guaranteed 6 months earlier as a "mistake" is understating it somewhat...

"Oops. Sorry, I appear to have invaded someone!"
"Oops. Done it again...terribly sorry!"

Terribly funny kind of "mistakes", particularly as he never corrected them.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Hitler didn't have any desire to rule those countries but he invaded them anyway.

Technically, he didn't want to rule the people. He just wanted the land.

The people could be gotten rid of quite easily, as he demonstrated at Dachau, Auschwitz, etc.

 

[aggle-rithm]

David Hilbert in 1934 to the Minister of Education: "there is no mathematics anymore in Göttingen".

Guess why that changed.

In the book "Hitler's Scientists", a conversation between Hitler and one of his ministers is described in which Hitler is told that, without the Jews, there would be no science in Germany.

Hitler's reply: "Then we will have to do without science for a while."

 

[aggle-rithm]

Terribly funny kind of "mistakes", particularly as he never corrected them.

The idea that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy because he offered to back out of Poland and take just the corridor and Danzig, is laughable.

It's like beating the crap out of someone, stealing his watch and his wallet, cleaning out his bank account and maxing out his credit cards...then offering to give his watch back to appease the authorities.

 

[9/11-investigator]

How do you determine whether something is correct or not? Do you use your own pre-conceived prejudices as a litmus test?

Can you see how this might be a problem if you want to know the truth?

I could have written my blog directly, but I do not. I determine the strength of the ideas by throwing them in this snake pit first to see if they can survive. So far everything is going rather well.

Also, about these high level negotiations....

If Hitler's Germany was as benevolent as you seem to think it is, why didn't these negotiations continue? Why did the Germans have to attack Poland at exactly 4:45 AM on September 1, 1939?

I never said that Germany was 'benevolent', only that I do not accept everything an Anglo has to say on the subject as truth.

But I understand your point, that thought crossed my mind as well. My explanation is that probably the Germans had no faith in a positive outcome of the negotiations with Britain. Dahlerus mentioned a quarrel between Hitler and Henderson, the British ambassador to Berlin. I am not sure what that quarrel was about. But Hitler was in rage. He was not superior smiling because everything went according to his devious preconcieved plan to conquor Poland. What he wanted most, an alliance with Britain but it looked like he was not to get it. He understood the risk he was taking, despite his agreement with Molotov. We should also realize that both the German and Polish army were fully mobilized. the situation then creates a dynamics of it's own. I support the judgment of Buchanan: the British should never have given the Poles a war garantee. Instead they should have abandoned Versailles and put pressure on the Poles to give in regarding Danzig. Britain (read: the Anglo Jews) decided not to and decided to start WW2. With desastrous consequences for Europeans everywhere in the world.

I know you think that Germany was entitled to Danzig and they were justified in invading Poland because of it. Would you feel the same way if other countries used this same logic to justify their actions?

If the US decided tomorrow that they wanted Havana back, would you support its right to invade Cuba, destroy its defenses, and relocate any non-European civilians, simply because it made a show of negotiating?

If you want to hasten your own demise, please go ahead and occupy Havana! Where do you want to relocate the Cubans to? To Miami? What relocation did the Germans do to the Poles? It where the Poles and Russians (with the blessing of the Anglos) who did all the deportations.

Does it matter to you whether or not that story is true?

If I want I can write a blog just as I please. I want it to be on a more solid foundation hence I throw my ideas for the lions here first.