Who started both World Wars?

[twinstead]

Well, it appears that 9/11-investigator hasn't convinced me of anything, and I will continue to believe what the vast majority of legitimate historians have to say about this subject.

Now what?

 

[MG1962]

Nein/11 confabulator's Ignorance List

This list compiles all major issues coming up in this discussion of which the OP turned out to be ignorant.

World War One:
- Zimmermann Telegram

Versailles Treaty
- Treaty of Frankfurt 1871 and its terms
- Demilitarization of the Rhineland

World War Two:
- Polish basic history, e.g., Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish Partitions
- Ethnic make-up of Poland inter-war
- Polish-Russian war and Peace of Riga
- The General-Government
- Generalplan Ost, both the plans and the executed mass expulsions
- Czech basic history
- Oderberg & Teschen were in Czechoslovakia, and had never been German
- Sudetenland never was part of Germany
- Nazi occupation of the Czech rump state in March 1939
- Operation Tannenbaum (invasion plans of Switzerland)
- British Press were neither controlled by nor sympathetic to the Jews
- ca. 6 million Poles deported by the Germans, roughly half of them not Jewish
- Vichy France occupied in November 1942

You need to add in - no understanding of Japanese USA relationships from 1907 to 1941

 

[9/11-investigator]

First, let's look at the reparations. Those were 20 to 25% of the French GDP (link) and had to be paid within 3 years - for a war that lasted less than a year and left both countries relatively unscathed.

By comparison, the German war reparations in 1919 amounted to 83% GDP that could be paid at a much longer term, for a war that lasted 4 years and in which Germany willfully destroyed French and Belgian industry and infrastructure, while Germany's own industrial base was unharmed. Really, I never understood the German whining about the height of the reparations.

That is a factor of 4, not counting other losses, like all it's colonies. Debt can be refinanced and spread out over a longer term.

Then there's the territorial changes. France lost 20% of its industrial base with Alsace-Lorraine. Apart from Upper Silesia, the territorial loss of Germany in 1919 had no big economic relevance.

Lastly, in 1871, Germany kept parts of France occupied until the reparations were paid. In this respect, Versailles was much more lenient. France only occupied the Rhineland after Germany defaulted on its payments.

We already discussed that France had taken the mainly German Elzas by force. It went back.

ddt tries to minimize Versailles:

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/treatyofversailles/p/overtofvers.htm

Not relevant.

For ddt the question whether one starts a war or not is not relevant. We will remember that statement for future reference.

Lying for Dolfie, again?

If Dolfie says that 2 + 2 = 4, then I support Dolfie.

Indeed, because of that new kid's Sonderweg.

Sounds sinister. Not sure what you mean by this. What was wrong with post 1871 German behavior? That they spoke German? Made great economic progress?

Evidence for invasion plans, please? Only minelaying.

I am shocked by your utter lack of knowledge as to why Norway (and your own country) was occupied! Even the liars of Zionist edited Wikipedia cannot hide the truth, although they try to peddle the idea that Britain and Germany invaded Norway at the same time by coincidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_campaign_in_Norway

The Allied campaign in Norway during World War II took place from April 1940 until early June 1940. Allied operations were focused in two areas, in northern Norway around Narvik and in central Norway.

The British campaign was coincidentally commenced simultaneously with Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway in Operation Weserübung of April 9.

Here is what really happened:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/2001/HW_Web_dl.pdf

p277: Winston Churchill flew in person to Paris on the eleventh to inform the French government that his expeditionary force was to sail for Narvik on March 15. At 3:30 p.m. on the twelfth Hitler’s Forschungsamt intercepted an urgent telephone call from the Finnish envoy in Paris to his foreign ministry in Helsinki, reporting that Churchill and Daladier had promised him that if the Finns would appeal for help at once, British and French troops would land in Norway. That really put the fat in the fire. Hitler ordered all German invasion plans accelerated, and the forces to stand by for the socalled Immediate Op.. That

This was the first sign that British and French were preparing to turn their war declaration into real action. That was the sign that forced Hitler to act and invade Norway in April.

And what has this to do with Holland? Looking at a map, it doesn't lie on the route from Norway to Germany. Let's also add Belgium and Luxembourg to the list.

The invasion was not about Holland, but about preventing Britain troops to enter mainland Europe. Hitler remembered very well that in 1914 it was a British expedition force that torpedoed the Schlieffen plan resulting in a stalemate of 4 years and a loss after the Americans came in. Hitler did not want to see that experience repeated. the invasion of Western Europe was forced upon him.

To sum it up: Britain and France declared war on Germany after refusing to cooperate in giving the German town of Danzig back, that had stolen in Versailles from Germany and Hitler took it back by force. Then there was a peace offer by Hitler in October to recreate a Polish rump state, which was turned down. In march it became obvious that Churchill was preparing for an invasion of Norway.

You repeatedly failed to give an answer to this. So, why a plan at all for invading Switzerland?

Who cares about plans? They never did it. Period. Every army has contingency plans for what-if situations.

Fact of the matter is that Germany, after Bismarck's dismissal, wasn't ruled by talented people, but by a dimwitted emperor and militaristic types like Tirpitz who continuously veered to the brink of war.

Fact of the matter is that British government officials like Grey, did not like at all to see that a powerful competitor was emerging o the continent. So the Germans had all reason to prepare themselves.

Another one for the list. Under Versailles, the Rhineland was to be demilitarized.

Fine. Versailles was a 'treaty' at gunpoint to be abandoned at the first opportunity.

And what language do they speak in Antwerp?

Flemish Dutch. Nevertheless, the Flemish would hate to see to be united by a larger group of lefty Dutch fanatics (did you see Doekle Terpstra or Peterr de Vries at KB the other day?). You really think the people from Antwerp would cheer if Doekle would be driving in an open car through Antwerp after a Aansluiting? That was not the case with the Austrians. They had lost their empire as a result of Versailles and had now 'different fish to fry'. The fact the Dolfie was Austrian himself probably helped a lot. They cheered en masse. I am sorry for you.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

England did plan for an invasion of Norway to cut German iron ore supplies from Sweden. However, the Germans got there first. Germany invaded Norway, then England retaliated. (I wonder who the Norse would have rather had? The Nasties or the English?)The matter was settled, however, before the OKW dusted off the Schlieffen Plan and decided to have another go at France. France and England had not entered Belgium at this time, again it was Germany who invaded first.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Nein/11 confabulator's Ignorance List

This list compiles all major issues coming up in this discussion of which the OP turned out to be ignorant.

World War One:
- Zimmermann Telegram

Lie. We disagree about it's significance, not it's existence. I say it was the Balfour issue that brought the US in the war, not a stupid telegram the size of an sms. I agree that that the telegram was used a pretext.

Versailles Treaty
- Treaty of Frankfurt 1871 and its terms
- Demilitarization of the Rhineland

Lie. Frankfurt Treaty is irrelevant for the discussion. The standard tactic for ddt is that he brings up a topic first (after he googled it up) and next proclaims 911 never heard about just because 911 did not bring it up first.


World War Two:

- Polish basic history, e.g., Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish Partitions

Lie. I posted maps of Poland through the centuries.

- Ethnic make-up of Poland inter-war

Lie. I came up with the figures of Schultze-R. of 2 million Germans in Poland. You with a different figure. Remains open.

- Polish-Russian war and Peace of Riga

Lie. The standard tactic for ddt is that he brings up a topic first (after he googled it up) and next proclaims 911 never heard about just because 911 did not bring it up first.

- The General-Government

Lie to cover up ddt's erroneous suggestion that 300,000 Poles were deported during the Phoney War. Was not true.

- Generalplan Ost, both the plans and the executed mass expulsions

Lie. I did not comment these expulsions, just the 300,000 figure mentioned.

- Czech basic history

ddt corrected me in that the country code was CS rather than CZ for Czechoslovakia. Ddt's conclusion: 911 knows nothing about basic history.

- Oderberg & Teschen were in Czechoslovakia, and had never been German

Let ddt explain why this town has a German name? I acknowledged that it probably was a mixed town. I showed you a quote (from a Jewish source) that refered to German settler's centuries ago.

- Sudetenland never was part of Germany

Lie. I was aware that that area was part of the Austrian empire. It was German nevertheless as in ethnically and liguistically German.

- Nazi occupation of the Czech rump state in March 1939

Lie. I admitted that Schultze-R. was right when he said that the occupation of Prague was a mistake, causing mistrust under the allies.

- Operation Tannenbaum (invasion plans of Switzerland)

True. It is true that I had never heard of it before (I am not a historian), but since it was merely a plan on a paper and never carried out, it is totally irrelevant. The British for instance had plans to invade Ameland in 1940. Should we ask for war reparations from the British?

- British Press were neither controlled by nor sympathetic to the Jews

Lie. I never said the British press, just the press. That could include the American press as well.

- ca. 6 million Poles deported by the Germans, roughly half of them not Jewish

True for the simple reason that I have not yet looked into that subject. ddt googled that up and know presents it as his 'knowledge'. In 2010 it is irrelevant to have these figures in your brain when they are a few keystrokes away. Important is the big picture we are constructing here.

- Vichy France occupied in November 1942

Lie. I was referering to the situation of 1940 to illustrate the fact that Germany invaded Western Europe to prevent a British expedition force to land and stop the German invasion as it did in 1914. The reason why they occupied was the landing of the Allies in North Africa (Operation Torch) on November 8, 1942 (I googled that up).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

- British Press were neither controlled by nor sympathetic to the Jews

Lie. I never said the British press, just the press. That could include the American press as well.

How utterly pathetic. You said:
"How on earth could Chamberlain reveal that he was serving Jewish interests rather than British interests, what he was supposed to do. But Chamberlain understood very well that if he would not do the bidding of the Jews he would be finished off by the Jewish press."

And now it's been pointed out to you that the press were in no way pro-Jewish you start backpedalling and pretend you meant Chamberlain was scared of the American press? Comedy gold.

By the way, I have absolutely no idea whether there's anything in the new assertion that the US press was under Jewish control. On previous form, I'm sure 9/11 has no idea either. Perhaps someone else could educate us both.

 

[9/11-investigator]

England did plan for an invasion of Norway to cut German iron ore supplies from Sweden. However, the Germans got there first.

Exactly.

Germany invaded Norway, then England retaliated.

No they did not, it was a disaster. As a consequence Chamberlain had to step down a few weeks later, although it was Churchill who had mismanaged the Norway operation (just like Gallipoli) and nevertheless of all people he became the next PM. It was Churchill who turned the Phoney War into a real war. The first thing he did when he became PM was starting bombing civilian targets in Germany. Chamberlain, the real wise man, tried to avoid this war that neither he nor Hitler wanted. It was Churchill who destroyed the empire, against the wishes of Chamberlain AND Hitler.

(I wonder who the Norse would have rather had? The Nasties or the English?)

Quisling would vote for the Nasties.
Oh, and Norway is very blond.

The matter was settled, however, before the OKW dusted off the Schlieffen Plan and decided to have another go at France. France and England had not entered Belgium at this time, again it was Germany who invaded first.

Yep, correct, accept for some 'minor details':

- France had declared war on Germany in 1939. That is asking for this kind of operations.
- France and Britain were preparing for a Norway operation 15 March, 3 weeks for the factual German invasion of Norway, see my Irving quote. As you admit yourself because of the iron ore, clearly directed against Germany.
- Regarding WW1 I intend to incorporate in my blog the idea that Germany was to be compared with a lady in a parking garage when all of a sudden a big guy of unidentified color approaches her straight without saying something. She grabs for her pepper spray and uses it before he can do something.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No they did not, it was a disaster.

They didn't retaliate?

Do you read your posts before hitting the reply button or is this all on automatic?

That is asking for this kind of operations.

Yeah, and Germany invaded. What's your point?

As you admit yourself because of the iron ore, clearly directed against Germany.

Unless you're getting paid by the word there was no point in this, it just repeats what I said.

She grabs for her pepper spray and uses it before he can do something.

"Nasty Germany as a little old lady." You just Big Banged that metaphor.

 

[ddt]

World War One:
- Zimmermann Telegram

Lie. We disagree about it's significance, not it's existence. I say it was the Balfour issue that brought the US in the war, not a stupid telegram the size of an sms. I agree that that the telegram was used a pretext.

May I remind you of this post:

I never heard of it before. You brought it up, remember. I had a short look at the wikipedia entry and saw some interesting pointers. Then I tried to make you make positive statements about the telegram because I had an intuition as to what you were going to say. Then you stopped elaborating about it, probably afraid as you were to make mistakes.

So here the question to you: what according to you is the significance of the Zimmermann telegram for the US war entry?

You may use a calculator for this exercise.
Good luck.

You admitted there you hadn't heard before of the Zimmermann telegram. So who his lying here?

For the rest of the list, I'm not going to bother to dig up the relevant posts. The above already shows you for the liar you are. If you want to debate it, you show the proof.

Lie. Frankfurt Treaty is irrelevant for the discussion. The standard tactic for ddt is that he brings up a topic first (after he googled it up) and next proclaims 911 never heard about just because 911 did not bring it up first.

It is relevant as comparison with Versailles. You should have known about its draconian conditions.

Lie. I posted maps of Poland through the centuries.

No you claimed that Poland was a fake state and had no history.

Lie. I came up with the figures of Schultze-R. of 2 million Germans in Poland. You with a different figure. Remains open.

And pretended that figure was relevant in 1939, when it was only 700,000.

Lie. The standard tactic for ddt is that he brings up a topic first (after he googled it up) and next proclaims 911 never heard about just because 911 did not bring it up first.

No you claimed that (all) the Polish borders were determined at Versailles.

Lie to cover up ddt's erroneous suggestion that 300,000 Poles were deported during the Phoney War. Was not true.

Which is true. And when I mentioned the General-Government, you asked where it was prior to Barbarossa. Which means: you didn't know about it.

Lie. I did not comment these expulsions, just the 300,000 figure mentioned.

You didn't even know about the plans, even less so about their partial implementation.

ddt corrected me in that the country code was CS rather than CZ for Czechoslovakia. Conclusion: 911 knows nothing about basic history.

No you claimed that CZ came out of thin air in 1919.

Let ddt explain why this town has a German name? I acknowledged that it probably was a mixed town. I showed you a quote (from a Jewish source) that refered to German settler's centuries ago.

Why Arnheim, Nimwegen, Lüttich, Prag, Warschau, etc.? None of them ever were German. But you didn't check it was historically part of Bohemia resp. Austria-Hungary.

Lie. I was aware that that area was part of the Austrian empire. It was German nevertheless as in ethnically German.

Funny you always leave this "ethnically" out then. To quote Heine: Deutschland ist ein geographischer Begriff ("Germany is a geographical name").

Lie. I admitted that Schultze-R. was right when he said that the occupation of Prague was a mistake, causing mistrust under the allies.

You conveniently left it out where it was very relevant.

True. It is true that I had never heard of it before (I am not a historian), but since it was merely a plan on a paper and never carried out, it is totally irrelevant. The British had plans to invade Ameland in 1940.

You still have failed to comment on it. It wasn't just a plan on paper. Switzerland mobilized to counter the threat.

Lie. I never said the British press, just the press. That could include the American press as well.

Prove it. And then show your statement did apply to the American press.

ETA: see 2 posts above Jack by the hedge's answer which shows you're lying here.

True for the simple reason that I have not yet looked into that subject. ddt googled that up and know presents it as his 'knowledge'. In 2010 it is irrelevant to have these figures in your brain when they are a few keystrokes away. Important is the big picture we are constructing here.

The statement should be a bit stronger: the Nazis murdered 3 million Jewish Poles and murdered 3 million non-Jewish Poles. The first were to be murdered to the last person. The latter mass-murder was aimed at decapitating the Polish nation of its leadership. All Polish intelligentsia was to be murdered. And take the word "intelligentsia" broad. That included the village vicar. Every highschool kid who has read a decent book on WW2 knows that.

Lie. I was referering to the situation of 1940 to illustrate the fact that Germany invaded Western Europe to prevent a British expedition force to land and stop the German invasion as it did in 1914. The reason why they occupied was the landing of the Allies in North Africa (Operation Torch) on November 8, 1942 (I googled that up).

No, you clearly said that a part of France had never been occupied by Nazi Germany.

 

[MG1962]

Lie. Frankfurt Treaty is irrelevant for the discussion. The standard tactic for ddt is that he brings up a topic first (after he googled it up) and next proclaims 911 never heard about just because 911 did not bring it up first.

Actually I brought it up first, but one has to wonder if I had to google it, how did I know what to look for, and then call it the wrong name. Seems a pretty silly concept even for your perception of me

 

[ddt]

- France had declared war on Germany in 1939. That is asking for this kind of operations.

Ah, so because France declared war (and rightly so), Germany has the right to invade and occupy Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland? Strange logic.

- France and Britain were preparing for a Norway operation 15 March, 3 weeks for the factual German invasion of Norway, see my Irving quote. As you admit yourself because of the iron ore, clearly directed against Germany.

Aren't we forgetting the Altmark incident here?

 

[ddt]

Quisling would vote for the Nasties.

You did read how few votes he got? And what happened to him after the war?

Oh, and Norway is very blond.

Do you mean here "blond" as circumlocution for "stupid"? Anyway, the Norwegians weren't so stupid to believe in Hitler's racial nonsense. And being blond is not a prerequisite for being Aryan. E.g., Anni-Frid Lyngstad is not blonde, yet a certified Aryan.

 

[dudalb]

No you claimed that Poland was a fake state and had no history.

Yeah, that's rich.
That it looked for a while in the Late 1500's and the Early 1600's that Poland, and not Russia ,was going to be the dominant power in Eastern Europe seems to have passed by 9/11 Investigator.
Time for me to put on my DVD of the excellent 1999 Polish film "With Fire and Sword" again. Any movie with Polish Winged Hussars in full outfit is a good movie.....

 

[ddt]

Yeah, that's rich.
That it looked for a while in the Late 1500's and the Early 1600's that Poland, and not Russia ,was going to be the dominant power in Eastern Europe seems to have passed by 9/11 Investigator.

Or that a Pole managed it to Russian Czar. Was that the first or the second false Dimitri?

 

[ddt]

England did plan for an invasion of Norway to cut German iron ore supplies from Sweden.

Invasion is a big word. All England planned was to lay mines in the Norwegian waters to disrupt the iron ore supply.

However, the Germans got there first. Germany invaded Norway, then England retaliated. (I wonder who the Norse would have rather had? The Nasties or the English?)The matter was settled, however, before the OKW dusted off the Schlieffen Plan

Fighting in Narvik continued well into June, IIRC.

 

[ddt]

Nein/11 confabulator's Ignorance List

This list compiles all major issues coming up in this discussion of which the OP turned out to be ignorant.

World War One:
- Zimmermann Telegram

Versailles Treaty
- Treaty of Frankfurt 1871 and its terms
- Demilitarization of the Rhineland

World War Two:
- Polish basic history, e.g., Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish Partitions
- Ethnic make-up of Poland inter-war
- Polish-Russian war and Peace of Riga
- The General-Government
- Generalplan Ost, both the plans and the executed mass expulsions
- Czech basic history
- Oderberg & Teschen were in Czechoslovakia, and had never been German
- Sudetenland never was part of Germany
- Nazi occupation of the Czech rump state in March 1939
- Operation Tannenbaum (invasion plans of Switzerland)
- British Press were neither controlled by nor sympathetic to the Jews
- ca. 6 million Poles murdered by the Germans, roughly half of them not Jewish
- Vichy France occupied in November 1942
- Sonderweg theory
- No understanding of US-Japanese relations 1907-1941

 

[9/11-investigator]

You did read how few votes he got? And what happened to him after the war?

Probably the same what happened to the NSB top brass in the Netherlands, as it should.
And the same what is going to happen to the neo_NSB top brass who enabled (even invited) the Islamic invasion, the invasion to the Netherlands of a group of people even more hostile to our civilization.

Do you mean here "blond" as circumlocution for "stupid"? Anyway, the Norwegians weren't so stupid to believe in Hitler's racial nonsense. And being blond is not a prerequisite for being Aryan. E.g., Anni-Frid Lyngstad is not blonde, yet a certified Aryan.

Gawdzilla, the commie whacker, was wondering whether the Norwegians prefered a British or a German invasion. Most likely neither. I teasingly refered to the fact that a lot of Dutch people volunteered for the SS. Probably much the same in Norway. Blond as you remember was the Nazi ideal. Not for nothing was the Lebensborn exercise had a large branch in Norway.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

 

[TSR]

Probably the same what happened to the NSB top brass in the Netherlands, as it should.

.
"Probably?" Your own source details what happened. Did you not read it before citing it?

Or would that be too much like actually learning about the history on which you pontificate?
.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Blond as you remember was the Nazi ideal.

Yeah, that's why Hitler Goering Himmler Hess was blond.

 

[dudalb]

Or that a Pole managed it to Russian Czar. Was that the first or the second false Dimitri?

The false Dmitri's. Russia's Answer to England's Princes in the Tower.