Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Yeah, so what's the big deal with the 269B gold mark that was initially made out as the reparations for Versailles? Why didn't Germany just loan that money on the Frankfurt exchange?

We already discussed that France had taken the mainly German Elzas by force. It went back.
You really throw around that word "German" with very little specificity. What do you mean?

That it's geographically in your conception of Germany? As in west of the Maas, see the first strophe of the Deutschlandlied: "Von der Maas bis an die Memel, von der Etsch bis an den Belt"?

Or that they speak some Germanic dialect? Really, if you look at the German dialect continuum, Dutch is as much as a (Low Franconian) dialect as Luxemburgish, Alsatian or Swiss German. The Alsatians didn't, and don't speak German, they speak Alsatian, and someone from Berlin can't understand them.

Or that they feel "ethnic Germans"? I've seen no evidence.

And yes, the Alsace was politically French since Louis XIV.

ddt tries to minimize Versailles:
You have very little in the way of counter arguments.

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?
See the new ignorance listing.

Hitler did not want to see that experience repeated. the invasion of Western Europe was forced upon him.
It's never Hitler's fault in your world. Yes we get it.

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.
We've already gone over this. Hitler had already showed that if you give him one finger, he takes the whole hand. There was no realistic peace offer in October. And England didn't try to invade Norway, only lay mines.

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.
And therefore, they built a big fleet. Useless (except for the U-boats), as can be seen from the naval history of WW1, as it never made it out of the Northsea, but it did manage to piss off Britain to no end. That was actually the prime objective of Tirpitz, though he worded it a bit differently.

Flemish Dutch. Nevertheless, the Flemish would hate to see to be united by a larger group of lefty Dutch fanatics
Thanks for proving my point. You used the fact the Viennese speak German to argue it should belong to Germany.
 
Oh, and Norway is very blond.

As is the North of England. We were a Viking Kingdom you know, up until 1066 when Harold defeated the Vikings at the Battle of Stamford bridge. We were later colonised by the Normans. they get their name becuase they are also Norsemen.

So I would think Norway would feel more affinity with England then germany.
 
Probably the same what happened to the NSB top brass in the Netherlands, as it should.
It behooves to actually read the source before you answer.

I teasingly refered to the fact that a lot of Dutch people volunteered for the SS. Probably much the same in Norway.
No, the ca. 20,000 Dutch volunteers for the SS was anomalously high in comparison with other occupied countries.

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
Yep, Anni-Frid's mother used those facilities too. The treatment of the kids from the Lebensborn program after WW2 in Norway was quite abysmal. But that also says all about the attitude of Norwegians towards the Nazi occupiers.
 
This is page 50 in this thread, a nice opportunity to make a interim summary of the conclusions reached so far. In the future I will add or correct this list as we go. Obviously the list only contains elements that deviate from the orthodox history interpretation.

- Allthough the Germans started hostilities in WW1 the real reason for WW1 was that Germany's opponents never had accepted the birth of Germany in 1871 in the first place. WW1 started as a flight forward for Germany surrounded as it was by hostile powers, all with an axe to grind. Germany by contrast was a ‘satiated power’

- The Jews were responsible for the US entry of WW1, leading to the defeat of Germany; the sinking of the Lusitania/Zimmermann telegram were merely a pretext, Balfour/Palestine was the real reason for US war entry.

- In 1917, after a Jewish led coup d'état and assasination of the czar, the most murderous regime in the history of mankind was established in Russia. The fact that the Western powers allied themselves with these dregs and handed over Eastern Europe to them eliminates any possibility that WW2 can be called a 'good war'. This alliance is a source of eternal shame on the Western Powers.

- The Versailles Treaty was a 'Carthaginian Peace' instigated mainly by France and provoked the rise of a Hitler, just as Lloyd George predicted.

- WW2 as 'The Good War' is a myth invented by the victors of that war. The holocaust needs an urgent review just to make sure that it was not an invention of the Allies to make themselves look good and to draw the attention away from the many crimes the Allies committed themselves.

- The rise of Hitler was a succesfull attempt to 1) liberate Germany from the stranglehold of the post-Versailles Allied predators; 2) prevent the rise of a Bolshevist regime in Germany; 3) economic recovery after the depression.

- Churchill was bought and paid for by Jewish circles in London. That explains the difference in behavior between Chamberlain (the one who really defended British interests and the empire) and Churchill whose actions (destroying Germany) served the agenda of the Jews (not letting a country escape the Jewish grip). Iran in this respect is to be seen as a present day Nazi Germany.

- Britain blundered it's way into the war by giving a war garantee to the Poles. It lost it’s empire as a consequence. Nobody wanted that, not even Berlin. Britain could have ruled the world (as in ’being the dominant force’) together with Germany, instead the British decided to commit suicide and hand over the world to the extra-European powers USA and USSR without any necessity. The British are the leak of the White Race.

- Intensive negotiations were going on between Berlin and London using the Swede Dahlerus as a mediator in August 1939 to prevent an outbreak of war, clearly showing that the invasion of Poland was not a done deal for the Germans. They wanted Danzig back, a corridor and protection for the German minority and that was it.

- One week before the invasion in Poland, Roosevelt knew about the secret annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop accord and the very real possibility of the immanent division of Poland between Russia and Germany. He did nothing to inform and hence moderate the Poles. Roosevelt and his Jewish clique saw their chance to destroy the core of Europe that had managed to dethrone the Jews by helping (not preventing) a war in Europe.

- On October 6, 1939, Hitler again offered peace in all directions. Versailles Poland was gone, but the restauration of an ethnic rump Poland was still in the cards.

- Hitler never sought war with western Europe, it was forced upon him by the actions of Churchill, March 1940, by preparing for an invasion of Norway.

- Britain started the bombing of civilian targets in Germany as soon as Churchill became PM; the so-called 'Blitz' constituted not more than 5% of what the Allies dropped on Germany.

- The flight by Rudolf Hess to Britain was a last and desperate attempt by Germany to establish a peace and alliance with Britain. Hess was murdered in Spandau by British agents to prevent that Hess would be able to tell this to the world upon his immanent release as proposed by Gorbachov. Typical British perfidy in action.

- Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was about to happen but let it happen anyway.

- WW2 was in the deepest sense a war about who should control European Civilization; Jews won, Europeans lost. The multicultural destruction of the white world (Europe and America) under Jewish aegis could begin.

Yet to be investigated: Barbarossa (probably another Allied lie). Possibility that that war was also forced upon Hitler (Icebreaker theory).
 
Last edited:
This is page 50, a nice opportunity to make a interim summary of the conclusions reached so far. In the future I will add or correct this list as we go. Obviously the list only contains elements that deviate from the orthodox history interpretation.
And obviously, the list is 100% evidence-free.

- In 1917, after a Jewish led coup d'état and assasination of the czar, the most murderous regime in the history of mankind was established in Russia.
Yes, Trotzky totally deserved that pick-axe, and Zinoviev and Kamenev also deserved their - waitaminute, you didn't approve of the judge because of his judgment in this case. I really can't follow you.

BTW: can you name the other Jewish members of the 1917 Politburo?

And with all your allegations "the Jews this", "the Jews that", I note a total failure to name even one Jew in this respect. You didn't even realize Zinoviev and Kamenev were Jews when you accidentally mentioned their names until I pointed that out to you.

Just more "Iceberg fallacy" (as coined by Jack by the hedge).
 
- Britain started the bombing of civilian targets in Germany as soon as Churchill became PM; the so-called 'Blitz' constituted not more than 5% of what the Allies dropped on Germany.

Disingenuous spin. So Churchill takes charge and the British immediately start bombing German cities? Might it not be rather more honest to mention that 3 days before Churchill became PM the Luftwaffe began bombing London?
 
Last edited:
Disingenuous spin. So Churchill takes charge and the British immediately start bombing German cities?

You are a smart mister and not easy to deceive!

Might it not be rather more honest to mention that 3 days before Churchill became PM the Luftwaffe began bombing London?

Please give us a link to a source that states that the Luftwaffe bombed civilian targets in London 3 days before Churchill became PM so he could start to wreck the British empire.

My opponents and I discovered that Moenchen-Gladbach was the first civilian target in Germany bombed by the RAF on the very day that Churchill came to power. You can imagine how shocked we all were.
 
Disingenuous spin. So Churchill takes charge and the British immediately start bombing German cities? Might it not be rather more honest to mention that 3 days before Churchill became PM the Luftwaffe began bombing London?

Not surprising,Nazi investigator has never read a history book in his life.
 
You don't know that, but if you insist, here it is:

This is the best and most recent (German): Wer wollte den Krieg? (10/16)
Starting at 5:00 until video 16/16.

Here even a Roosevelt lover admits it in a book of 2007.

An Interview with Admiral Kimmel (Pearl Harbor)

How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War
by William Henry Chamberlin

The Mystery of Pearl Harbor
Percy L. Greaves, jr

I'll see your babble and raise you 25,000 pages:

Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings.
 
My opponents and I discovered that Moenchen-Gladbach was the first civilian target in Germany bombed by the RAF on the very day that Churchill came to power. You can imagine how shocked we all were.

Doubtless you'll have no problem providing a reference showing that the RAF's target on that occasion was in fact civilians?
 
How can one man be so ignorant about history? You would think that it would take a committee.I live in Belgium,I have Dutch friends,all quite intelligent.911 is an exception and I wouldn't want members here to judge the Nederlanders by our resident Nazi's vile opinions.
 
And obviously, the list is 100% evidence-free.

Of course it is, it is a summary. The evidence is in the previous 49 pages, but you probably have been sleeping all the time.

Yes, Trotzky totally deserved that pick-axe, and Zinoviev and Kamenev also deserved their

Admit that it cost you a lot of effort to admit that, right?

- waitaminute, you didn't approve of the judge because of his judgment in this case. I really can't follow you.

I am afraid I cannot follow you either.

BTW: can you name the other Jewish members of the 1917 Politburo?

And with all your allegations "the Jews this", "the Jews that", I note a total failure to name even one Jew in this respect.

Here is some material to get you started on Jewish communism:

- The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime - Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism

- The End of the Romanoffs: Nicholas, Alexandra, & Their Children

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's “The 1920s.” Chapter 18 of 200 Years Together

You didn't even realize Zinoviev and Kamenev were Jews when you accidentally mentioned their names until I pointed that out to you.

How do you know that? Do you have a crystal ball? If so, you urgently need to clean it.
 
Y
My opponents and I discovered that Moenchen-Gladbach was the first civilian target in Germany bombed by the RAF on the very day that Churchill came to power. You can imagine how shocked we all were.

Spin it as you will. Note that Mönchen-Gladbach is a road and rail hub and lies near Venlo with its bridges across the Maas. The attack was not on the town but on the rail and roads.

49th Squadron:
11/12th May 1940 : 3 Hampdens bombed exits of Monchengladbach, 1 a/c subsequently crashing in France due to engine failure (none of crew injured). 2 other Hampdens aborted.

61th Squadron:
19 Hampdens (of 49 Sqdn., 61 Sqdn. and 144 Sqdn.) and 18 Whitleys (of 51 Sqdn., 58 Sqdn., 77 Sqdn. and 102 Sqdn.) bomb road and rail targets in Mönchengladbach - the first raid on a German town. 2 Hampdens and 1 Whitley lost; 4 people killed.

And a source you may find more trustworthy - Stormfront:
The raid was by 37 RAF aircraft on road and rail communications in Monchengladbach. 4 people were killed.
Bomber command had a self impossed restiction about bombing east of the Rhine until May 15 1940. After the Germans bombed Rotterdam on 15/5/40 then the RAF were allowed the same rules of engagement as the Luftwaffe.

So, nothing "civilian target".
 
Doubtless you'll have no problem providing a reference showing that the RAF's target on that occasion was in fact civilians?

No problem at all sir.

http://www.epibreren.com/ww2/raf/77_squadron.html

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mönchengladbach
Im Zweiten Weltkrieg fielen in Mönchengladbach die ersten Bomben in der Nacht zum Pfingstsonntag (11./12.Mai) 1940. Es war dies der erste (britische) Luftangriff überhaupt, der im 2. Weltkrieg gegen eine deutsche Stadt geflogen wurde. Der Angriff, der aus insgesamt 37 Flugzeugen erfolgte, galt vor allem dem Straßen- und Eisenbahnnetz in Mönchengladbach. Es wurden 5 Bombenabwürfe gezählt. Auch Rheydt wurde angegriffen. Weitere Flächenbombardements der Alliierten auf Mönchengladbach und Rheydt, auch im Rahmen der Moral bombing-Strategie, folgten in mehreren Großangriffen bis 1945. Den letzten Großangriff mussten die ohnehin schwer getroffenen Städte am 1. Februar 1945 über sich ergehen lassen. Dabei wurden aus 160 Flugzeugen 1200 Spreng- und 65000 Brandbomben abgeworfen. Fazit des Kriegs war eine 65 %ige Zerstörung der beiden Städte und ca. 2000 getötete Zivilpersonen.

Getting anywhere with your London bombing of civilian targets, 3 days before Fatty came to power?
 
Spin it as you will. Note that Mönchen-Gladbach is a road and rail hub and lies near Venlo with its bridges across the Maas. The attack was not on the town but on the rail and roads.

49th Squadron:


61th Squadron:


And a source you may find more trustworthy - Stormfront:


So, nothing "civilian target".

You find that trustworthy, 'roads' in Moenchen-Gladbach?

But I agree, it is just a first exercise, it is not yet Dresden. But it is on a city, not on a weapons factory or similar targets.
 
Admit that it cost you a lot of effort to admit that, right?
I see, you need sarcasm smilies otherwise you don't note it.
I am afraid I cannot follow you either.
I can't help it if you don't see the internal contradiction.

Here is some material to get you started on Jewish communism:
I don't read IHR garbage.

I suggest you start with giving actual numbers. How many percent of the Bolsheviks were Jews?

How do you know that? Do you have a crystal ball? If so, you urgently need to clean it.
It's abundantly clear that you don't know anything about WW1 or WW2 beyond that which you post. So in your case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
 
We already discussed that France had taken the mainly German Elzas by force. It went back

Elzas????
Give it up, Even Germans use "Alsace" nowdays.
Alsace went back and forth between The Holy Roman Empire and France like a tennis ball in the 1600's. In the early 1700's France finally got a firm hold of it.
WHat our investigator seems to be peddling is good old fashioned Pan Germanism...which the vast majority of Germans have given up as nonsense.
I note that he seems to hate anybody who get in the way of a "Greater Germany" Poles, etc.
Yeah, his opinions are REALLY popular with his fellow Netherlanders.
And I want to see his justification for the 1939 takeover of the rump state of Czechslovakia, which NEVER belonged to Germany or had a lot of German Speakers in it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom