Who started both World Wars?

[Arisia]

Sweden was neutral and not invaded.
Switzerland likewise.

Reason: it could not be invaded by Britain.

There were indeed neutral countries invaded. But the British started becoming serious about invading those neutral countries, like Norway.

Why didn't the horrid ol' Anglos just turn the corner of that peninsula and invade Sweden? You'd think they would, if they were so horrid.

 

[Belz...]

Another impotent one-liner of my cowboy friend here.

This entire thread is the Big Revelation, provided one is equiped with a brain to follow it's content.

I'll take that as a "no", then.

 

[CptColumbo]

IMO the brain being referred to has been hit with a lemon wrapped around a large gold brick. Possibly from a Swiss bank (if you know what I mean).

 

[Hans]

Remember that France and Britain had declared war on Germany after Germany took back what France and Britain had stolen from Germany at Versailles. Have a look at google maps:

The German-French border was fortified. The best way around these fortifications was through [drumroll]... Luxemburg.

Hand waving away. The British had no intention of taking over the Norwegian government.

The Germans did - brutally

The Germans invaded Luxembourg and once they had past thru the country - did they free it?

Nope brutal occupation and killing off those whom they didn't like - 4 years of hell

They invaded the Netherlands - and brutally occupied it too - no British intent to invade. Again 4 years of hell

Why did they invade and brutally occupy Denmark? Where the evil 'anglos' going to invade Denmark? LOL

Didn't invade Switzerland - yeap but they planned to as soon as they finished off the Soviet Union - I guess those Switzers were going to attack them like Luxembourg. Why would a nice friendly 9/11 type Germany do this? Because they weren't

9/11 grasp on history is extremely poor

He's using the lame excuse that Germany ONLY invaded countries to save them from evil British invasion.

So why did the Germans invade Yugoslavia? Greece? Were the British going to invade Yugoslavia! LOL

Oh and yes 9/11 is very afraid of me and has me on ignore. I'd appreciate a copy or ask the questions yourselves.

 

[Corsair 115]

But you leave it to me to guess where exactly I am wrong.

We've proven you wrong on so many things throughout this entire thread. That your ego is unable to accept that you are wildly and hopelessly wrong is not our problem.

I wonder when 9/11 is going to start ranting about the U-boat unrestricted warfare?

Let's hope so. The WWII U-boat campaign offers a couple of good examples of Germany's (more specifically, Hitler's) military stupidity. Diverting U-boats from the Atlantic campaign to the Mediterranean? Stupid.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hand waving away. The British had no intention of taking over the Norwegian government.

The Germans did - brutally

The Germans invaded Luxembourg and once they had past thru the country - did they free it?

Nope brutal occupation and killing off those whom they didn't like - 4 years of hell

They invaded the Netherlands - and brutally occupied it too - no British intent to invade. Again 4 years of hell

Why did they invade and brutally occupy Denmark? Where the evil 'anglos' going to invade Denmark? LOL

Didn't invade Switzerland - yeap but they planned to as soon as they finished off the Soviet Union - I guess those Switzers were going to attack them like Luxembourg. Why would a nice friendly 9/11 type Germany do this? Because they weren't

9/11 grasp on history is extremely poor

He's using the lame excuse that Germany ONLY invaded countries to save them from evil British invasion.

So why did the Germans invade Yugoslavia? Greece? Were the British going to invade Yugoslavia! LOL

Oh and yes 9/11 is very afraid of me and has me on ignore. I'd appreciate a copy or ask the questions yourselves.

Ah. Perhaps that begins to explain his incomprehensible remark that he thinks this thread is going well. I tend to forget about the ignore function.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Wow, you don't even know the standard Neo-Nazi talking points of how the Jews betrayed Germany at the end of WWI and that's why the Germans had to surrender.

Here's what really happened.
German army, couldn't hold the lines in the West, was retreating several miles per day.
Austria-Hungary had capitulated.
Turkey had surrendered.
There were food riots across Germany (Hitler came along years later and blamed the Jews. Of course).
Parts of the German Navy were threatening revolution because of the lack of food.

The German army put everything they had left into the offensives in early 1918, to try to force France to surrender before the Americans had time to make an impact. That failed, and the German army had no reserves, and they had no food left for the people. That's why they surrendered, not because of anything Wilson or anyone else said.

It was both. Your list AND the prospect of bearable Wilsonian peace conditions. But these Wilsonian peace conditions were overruled by the French and the British at Versailles. It was not for nothing that the Americans refused to sign Versailles. Could it be explained out of a sense of guilt from the side of the Americans? After all, there was no reason at all why the Americans would side with the British and French in the first place. Until of course we consider that very interesting explanation made by the Jew Benjamin Freedman, namely that the AIPAC equivalent of those days was already powerful enough to push America in a war to serve Jewish interests, namely this time on behalf of acquiring Palestine from the British.

Jews to Britain: give us Palestine and we make sure that our American serfs will help you win the war.

That had been the deal that destroyed Germany.

 

[CptColumbo]

It was both. Your list AND the prospect of bearable Wilsonian peace conditions. But these Wilsonian peace conditions were overruled by the French and the British at Versailles. It was not for nothing that the Americans refused to sign Versailles. Could it be explained out of a sense of guilt from the side of the Americans? After all, there was no reason at all why the Americans would side with the British and French in the first place. Until of course we consider that very interesting explanation made by the Jew Benjamin Freedman, namely that the AIPAC equivalent of those days was already powerful enough to push America in a war to serve Jewish interests, namely this time on behalf of acquiring Palestine from the British.

The major reason that the United States didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the Republican* controled Senate's fears that the League of Nations provisions would circumvent their ability to declare war. Which is the jurisdiction of Congress under the Constitution. This is not to say Wilson was happy with the treaty, but as one of his friends wrote "While I should have preferred a different peace, I doubt very much whether it could have been made, for the ingredients required for such a peace as I would have were lacking at Paris."

*The opposition party to Wilson's Democratic party. For those who obviously know nothing about American politics.

Jews to Britain: give us Palestine and we make sure that our American serfs will help you win the war.

That had been the deal that destroyed Germany.

Again, Germany declared war on the United States.

 

[Tolls]

Nothing that some disciplinary action from the side of the Austrians could not have solved. Unfortunately, Britain, Russia and France had designs on Germany in 1914. Serbian nationalism was under control until the 1980's.

AH was in the process of disintegration, hastened by WW1.
It was, as much as the Ottoman Empire, the sick man of Europe.

Tolls opines that it is not possible to have 2 opinions at the same time, and maybe this is true for Tolls' brain; Chamberlain however both knew that Britain could not fight Germany, yet at the same time thought that Germans had a point in wanting Sudetenland and Danzig back.

What 2 opinions? He asked the IGS whether we were in a position to fight over Czechoslovakia...are those the actions of someone who thought the Germans had a point? As for Danzig...well, bollocks. March 1939 was the last straw, before the demands over Danzig. Indeed, Munich was very much a "this is all you're getting"...

 

[9/11-investigator]

Hand waving away. The British had no intention of taking over the Norwegian government.

The Germans did - brutally

The Germans invaded Luxembourg and once they had past thru the country - did they free it?

Nope brutal occupation and killing off those whom they didn't like - 4 years of hell

They invaded the Netherlands - and brutally occupied it too - no British intent to invade. Again 4 years of hell

Why did they invade and brutally occupy Denmark? Where the evil 'anglos' going to invade Denmark? LOL

All balony. Norway, Denmark, Holland, Luxemburg were merely pawns in the chess game between Germany on the one side and Britain/France on the other. You keep 'forgetting' that France and Britain had declared war on Germany, not the other way around. You realize what war means, right? It means destruction of your cities, it means food blockades as the British had done in WW1 resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. It means a Carthaginian peace like the Versailles one. So what were the Germans supposed to do, waiting for the British to do the same again, let them invade Norway so they could cut the iron ore supply lines from Sweden? The British were about to turn the Phoney War into a hot war starting March 1940. The Germans had no other choice than to invade Norway and thus Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France.

Didn't invade Switzerland - yeap but they planned to as soon as they finished off the Soviet Union - I guess those Switzers were going to attack them like Luxembourg. Why would a nice friendly 9/11 type Germany do this? Because they weren't

Nobody says that the Germans were nice types. There were no nice types in the most vicious war of all human history.

He's using the lame excuse that Germany ONLY invaded countries to save them from evil British invasion.

Never said that. The Germans were locked in a fight with Britain and France, who had declared war on Germany first for reversing Versailles, that had been imposed on Germany by them.

So why did the Germans invade Yugoslavia? Greece? Were the British going to invade Yugoslavia! LOL

Good point! Let's hear what Dolfie had to say about this drama that happened in April 1941 (only 2 months before Barbarossa):

If any final proof was required for the coalition meanwhile formed between Britain and Soviet Russia, despite all diversion and camouflage, the Yugoslav conflict provided it. While I made every effort to undertake a final attempt to pacify the Balkans and, in sympathetic cooperation with the Duce [Mussolini], invited Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite Pact, Britain and Soviet Russia jointly organized that coup d'etat which, in a single night, removed the government that had been ready to come to agreement.

For today we can inform the German nation that the Serb putsch against Germany did not take place merely under the British, but primarily under Soviet Russian auspices. While we remained silent on this matter as well, the Soviet leaders now went one step further. They not only organized the putsch, but a few days later [April 5, 1941] concluded that well-known friendship treaty with those submissive creatures, which was meant to strengthen the Serbs in their will to resist pacification of the Balkans, and to incite them against Germany. And this was no platonic intention: Moscow demanded mobilization of the Serbian army...

Only the rapid advance of our incomparable divisions to Skopje, as well as the capture of Salonika itself, frustrated the aims of this Soviet Russian-British plot. Officers of the Serbian air force, however, fled to Russia and were there immediately received as allies.

It was only the victory of the Axis powers in the Balkans that thwarted the plan to tie down Germany this summer in months of fighting in southeastern Europe while meantime steadily completing the deployment of Soviet Russian armies and strengthening their readiness for battle in order, finally, together with Britain and supported by anticipated American supplies, to tie down and then defeat the German Reich and Italy.

Thus Moscow not only broke but miserably betrayed the stipulations of our friendship treaty. All this was done while the rulers in the Kremlin, exactly as in the case of Finland and Romania, up to the last moment pretended peace and friendship and issued seemingly harmless denials.

And this is exactly what Suvorov and meanwhile many others are now saying, that the USSR was preparing for a war against Germany in July, 1941.

It will take a while before the lefties will see that their crown jewels ('WW2 as the good war' and the hollowcause) are becoming rusty. The Right can make the time work for them. Because life in multicult Utopia will ever more become a hell, the receptivity to rethink the conventional interpretation of history will ever increase. And the internet is going to provide the ammo.

Oh and yes 9/11 is very afraid of me and has me on ignore. I'd appreciate a copy or ask the questions yourselves.

Hansje denkt in alle ernst dat een links l*lletje roozewater zoals hij schrik kan inboezemen. Hansje heeft nog niet door dat het tij begint te keren, zelfs al zou de gedoogcoalitie op het laatste moment worden afgeblazen. Maakt allemaal niet uit. Den Haag is een ijsschots op weg naar de zomer, zoals chef multicul van Thijn terecht opmerkte. Wilders of geen Wilders, die kan niet meer dan een voetnoot van de geschiedenis zijn. Uiteindelijk wint ethnopolitiek het altijd van landverraders als Hansje. Hansje wil zijn land op een zilveren schaaltje overdragen aan de Islam. Fout Hansje, waardeloze overlevingsstrategie. Denk maar zo Hansje, de blauwe lucht kan heel intens zijn tijdens je laatste minuten op de Waalsdorpervlakte, de afwerkplaats van NSB-ers, die de tekenen des tijds niet begrepen. We waren toch al een beetje uitgekeken op Paul de Leeuw, voetbal and Clairy Polak. Elke revolutie heeft zijn guillotine-materiaal nodig. En voor die rol Hansje, hadden wij echte Nederlanders, jou op het oog. Zet 'm op, Hansje!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll take that as a "no", then.

It's a case of the Internet reflecting real life for 9/11.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It was both. Your list AND the prospect of bearable Wilsonian peace conditions. But these Wilsonian peace conditions were overruled by the French and the British at Versailles. It was not for nothing that the Americans refused to sign Versailles. Could it be explained out of a sense of guilt from the side of the Americans?

America didn't have the political clout to dictate terms to the British and French over a war that they had just entered in the waning moments. Why would you think they did? Why did Germany think they did?

After all, there was no reason at all why the Americans would side with the British and French in the first place. Until of course we consider that very interesting explanation made by the Jew Benjamin Freedman, namely that the AIPAC equivalent of those days was already powerful enough to push America in a war to serve Jewish interests, namely this time on behalf of acquiring Palestine from the British.

You have your interpretation of history, Benjamin Freedman had his. Historians have theirs.

Jews to Britain: give us Palestine and we make sure that our American serfs will help you win the war.

Please identify these Jews by name, or admit you're making it up.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Until of course we consider that very interesting explanation made by the Jew Benjamin Freedman, namely that the AIPAC equivalent of those days was already powerful enough to push America in a war to serve Jewish interests, namely this time on behalf of acquiring Palestine from the British.

Lookie here:

Benjamin Harrison Freedman, (1890 – May 1984) was a convert from Judaism to Roman Catholicism, known for his antisemitic views and writings

 

[ingoa]

I wonder when 9/11 is going to start ranting about the U-boat unrestricted warfare?

[sarcasm]
Warfare? That was no warfare! The unsuspecting German U-boats were frolicking in the Atlantic. Then the treacherous Brits, Canadians and Americans shoved merchant ships in front of the torpedoes of the U-boats. Just to make Germany look bad.
Similarily nasty Polish and Ukranian civilians threw themselves in front of the innocent markmens competition of the "Einsatzgruppen".
[/sarcasm]

 

[aggle-rithm]

The Germans had no other choice than to invade Norway and thus Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France.

NOT invading was a choice.

You could also say, using the same logic, that France and Britain had no other choice than to invade Germany in response to Germany's invasion of Poland. Except that you KNOW they had a choice, because they stupidly DIDN'T invade, when they had a golden opportunity.

In a like manner, the USSR had no choice but to bomb the Ploesti oil fields in Romania in preparation for their planned invasion of Germany that Hitler so bravely thwarted. It would have been easy, and Germany would have been easy pickings for the Soviets.

Except that you KNOW they had a choice, because they didn't do it.

Just because history turned out a certain way doesn't mean it HAD TO turn out that way.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It will take a while before the lefties will see that their crown jewels ('WW2 as the good war' and the hollowcause) are becoming rusty.

Who are the lefties?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Who are the lefties?

If I had to guess, I suspect it's very nearly everyone.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who are the lefties?

In this case, the ones who aren't confined to a mental care institution.

 

[aggle-rithm]

And this is exactly what Suvorov and meanwhile many others are now saying, that the USSR was preparing for a war against Germany in July, 1941.

So Operation Barbarossa was a defensive maneuver, right? Germany had no choice because they were about to be invaded?

If so, please explain these actions by the Russians in the context of USSR=Aggressor and Germany=Defender:

1. Soviets did not bomb the Ploesti oil fields until AFTER Germany attacked. A pre-emptive bombing would have left Germany defenseless.
2. Stalin ignored intelligence reports from the Allies that Germany was about to attack.
3. Soviet troops were ordered not to engage attacking German troops for fear of "provoking" them.

Also, please explain the actions by the Germans in the same context:

1. Encirclement of Leningrad, which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians (far more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined). How did this contribute to the defense of Germany?
2. Continued aggression after the Soviet threat to Germany was already destroyed.
3. Attack on Moscow.
4. Attack on Stalingrad.
5. Attempted attack on the Caucasus.

If the Germans were concerned about defense rather than expansion, why didn't they stop and set up a defensive position once they were a good distance from the German border....say, once they had re-occupied the land they had been ceded by Lenin when Russia withdrew from the first World War?

At this point, the Soviet threat had been squashed. There was NO danger that Russia would try to invade Germany. Even if they did, there was a substantial buffer zone.

 

[Belz...]

Please identify these Jews by name, or admit you're making it up.

9/11 likes to group people into easily-labeled categories.