Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
Einstein is indeed a smart Jew, smart in the sense that he plagiarized himself into prominence, greated helped by the Jew controlled MSM who pimped him into an undeserved demi-God status.
Click to expand...

You should understand what Einstein actually contributed before you mouth off.

ETA: The linked page is rife with errors. I would consider not referencing it anymore.
 
Last edited:
While browsing through Irving's Nuremberg for info about Keitel, I found this gem:

Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel’s lawyers challenged the British government in March 1946 to produce certain foreign office and cabinet documents relating to Churchill’s identical plans for the invasion of neutral Scandinavia. The request caused a mild panic in Whitehall. Cabinet secretary Sir Norman Brooke warned the foreign office that when he took the stand Keitel was expected to claim that Hitler’s invasion of Norway had been undertaken to anticipate a Franco-British plan to go into Norway. The embarrassing thing, said Brooke, was that this defence claim was true – it would 'be supported by documents captured by the Germans in France including records of the meetings of the Supreme War Council'.
Click to expand...

This of course makes a mockery of the official story that Hitler had willfully invaded Western Europa for collecting some additional Lebensraum. The war was forced upon him. Both in the west and later in the east (Suvorov).

Picture Nuremberg: Soviets, Americans and Brits (and not to forget Jews) having a field day 'explaining' history, totally to their advantage, with the H-word as the main prize. Now the USSR is gone. America (or rather their ruling Jewish class) is trying to be the enemy of allmost everybody. Now we have 1.3 billion Chinese, 1 billion Muslims, 250 million Slaves and 500 million Europeans to make short shrift with the Anglos, before their ruling class gets the chance to destroy Eurosphere multiculturally.

Let's do it. Payback time.
 
Last edited:
"The embarrassing thing, said Brooke, was that this defence claim was true – it would 'be supported by documents captured by the Germans in France including records of the meetings of the Supreme War Council'."

Oh good. "I committed a crime because someone else was thinking about committing that crime. They didn't do it, but that really doesn't matter, does it?"

You, 9/11, are your own refutation.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Does anybody have an idea? Google does not help me further.
Click to expand...

You didn't try that hard. I found Keitel's Nuremberg testimony in 5 minutes.

I can't post links. Add Http to the beginning of the following
//avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-04-46.asp#keitel2

DR. NELTE: Was it never actually discussed that if one wanted to launch an attack on the Soviet Union, one would previously have to take diplomatic steps or else send a declaration of war, or an ultimatum?

KEITEL: Oh, yes, I discussed that. As early as the winter of 1940-1941, whenever there were discussions regarding the strength of the Russian forces on the demarcation line, that is, in December-January, I asked Hitler to send a note to the Soviet Union so as to bring about a cleaning-up of the situation, if I may express it so. I can add now that the first time he said nothing at all, and the second time he refused, maintaining that it was useless, since he would only receive the answer that this was an internal affair and that it was none of our business, or something like that. At any rate, he refused. I tried again, at a later stage, that is to say I voiced the request that an ultimatum should be presented before we entered upon an action, so that in some form the basis would be created for a preventive war, as we called it, for an attack.

DR. NELTE: You say "preventive war." When the final decisions were made, what was the military situation?

KEITEL: I am best reminded of how we, or rather the Army judged the situation, by a study or memorandum. I believe it is Document 872-PS, dated the end of January or the beginning of February, a report made by the Chief of the General Staff of the Army to Hitler on the state of operative and strategic preparations. And in this document I found the information we then had on the strength of the Red Army and other existing information known to us, which is dealt with fully in this document.

Apart from that, I have to say too that the intelligence service of the OKW, Admiral Canaris, placed at my disposal or at the Army's disposal very little material because the Russian area was closely sealed against German intelligence. In other words, there were gaps up to a certain point. Only the things contained in Document 872-PS were known.
Click to expand...

Keitel says that he asked Hitler to ask the Russians to remove troops from the border, so that there would be some basis for the attack. Hitler rejects that and Keitel accepts that, since he's a good Nazi soldier. Then Keitel says that they had little knowledge of actual Red Army strength. The only thing they had was a document from January 1941.

And somehow Suvarov interprets that to mean Keitel thought the Soviets were going to attack?

Like I said, Suvarov lied.
 
Gawdzilla said:
"The embarrassing thing, said Brooke, was that this defence claim was true – it would 'be supported by documents captured by the Germans in France including records of the meetings of the Supreme War Council'."

Oh good. "I committed a crime because someone else was thinking about committing that crime. They didn't do it, but that really doesn't matter, does it?"
Click to expand...

Slowly... It was Britain who had declared war on Germany 8 months earlier.

Britain was looking for a fight (because American Jews had instructed Chamberlain to do so, as Chamberlain himself admitted). Britain wanted to destroy Germany. Again. Keep this in mind.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Norway-1940-Forgotten-Joseph-Kynoch/dp/1840373806
Almost 2000 British troops landed in Norway on 18 April 1940; on 2 May, the Royal Navy rescued 163 men from one of the worst planned operations of WW II. When the British landed, the Germans were already marching to meet them; these were the first British troops to understand the word "Blitzkrieg".
Click to expand...

'Forgotten Fiasco' is good. The subject was quietly dropped after the war because the allies had the lie in place that the Germans had invaded Western-Europe for no reason at all, other than wanting to conquor the place. That is what nearly everybody still thinks. And that my American friend, is an outright lie.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Norway-Campaign-Graham-Rhys-Jones/dp/1844157539
I have read about the Norway campaign before and am familiar with the general contours of what took place. Churchill's role is interesting in perspective because in this fiasco the buck stopped with him in many areas, yet at the end of it, unlike over Gallipoli, he not only avoided getting the blame for the fiasco but got the biggest prize of all: the post of prime minister. Yet his behaviour was tempremental throughout to say the least, confirming all his critics expectations and it would seem therefore illustrating his his un-fitness for the highest office. Thus a book focusing upon Churchill's decisions, judgements and general twists and turns during the campaign could be of good historical interest. For example, Churchill must have known he got off scott free when he ended up at no. 10 and therefore this might contribute to our understanding of his careful nutruring of Chamberlain's goodwill in May 1940 which was a critical factor at the end of that month when crucially Chamberlain backed Churchill, (sort of), in his show down with Halifax over whether Britain should seek peace terms with Germany.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/norway_campaign_01.shtml
The BBC-Brits basically admit how daring the Germans operated in May 1940 and (surprise, surprise) outsmarted the British.

Germany had also seen the signs that the British would not necessarily be bound by Norway's neutrality, and could hinder the process if they were so minded. The British position was made fairly clear when Royal Navy seamen boarded the German naval auxiliary Altmark, in Norwegian waters, to free the prisoners on board, and the Allies had indeed for some time been making plans for aggressive action to plug the gap in their blockade.
Click to expand...

The Germans lost and now Eurosphere is stuck with Americans, headed by the Black Knight, of whom nobody knows where he is born and what his religion is. Americans and British, people who seriously believe that progress is giving your country away to Mexicans, Somalis and Pakistani. These kind of people won. There are no words to describe the sadness I feel now I slowly start to understand what really happened.
 
No words can describe the sadness I feel that people like you spew your crap all over the Internet.
 
The British position was made fairly clear when Royal Navy seamen boarded the German naval auxiliary Altmark, in Norwegian waters, to free the prisoners on board,
Click to expand...
So what was a German navy ship doing hiding in Norwegian Waters anyway?

As it happens I knew one of the prisoners on the Altmark. He was a friend of my dads, they worked together for years. If anyone is interested I can tell what I know of his story. My Uncle Martin was aboard Achilles at the Battle of the River Plate and was still aboard when they made the film and Achilles played herself in the film.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Britain was looking for a fight (because American Jews had instructed Chamberlain to do so, as Chamberlain himself admitted).
Click to expand...

Chamberlain took orders from the American Secretary of the Treasury and one of the Supreme Court justices?

Or are there other Jews you have neglected to name?
 
9/11-investigator said:
Slowly... It was Britain who had declared war on Germany 8 months earlier.

Britain was looking for a fight (because American Jews had instructed Chamberlain to do so, as Chamberlain himself admitted).
Click to expand...

Just to pick up on that point, as far as I recall, you said that someone said that Joe Kennedy said that Chamberlain said that American Jews instructed him to declare war.

If you stop for a moment and think like a historian (and that means not hitting the facts with a hatchet until they take the shape you require) what is your assessment of the credibility of that report? In the chain of reporting, from the historian on back, are there, for example, any personal prejudices at play which might colour our view of its veracity?

Or is it just a pile of crap?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No words can describe the sadness I feel that people like you spew your crap all over the Internet.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. It just goes to show that while I have nothing against crazy, stupid, or ideologically-biased people, when their crazy or bias or stupididy insults the memory of so many people it just is sad.

9/11-investigator has the double whammie; he insults the holocaust victims and the victims of 9-11 all in one neat package.
 
twinstead said:
9/11-investigator has the double whammie; he insults the holocaust victims and the victims of 9-11 all in one neat package.
Click to expand...

Insulting 'holocaust victims' in 2010? :D

Let me see, that must be a 90 year old, living (amongst others) on German handouts.

You need a new text writer.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So what was a German navy ship doing hiding in Norwegian Waters anyway?

As it happens I knew one of the prisoners on the Altmark. He was a friend of my dads, they worked together for years. If anyone is interested I can tell what I know of his story. My Uncle Martin was aboard Achilles at the Battle of the River Plate and was still aboard when they made the film and Achilles played herself in the film.
Click to expand...

What was Britain doing in Norway? Oh wait...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Preemptive-War-Historys-Operations/dp/1932033920/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3
Book 2008, written by a Henrik Lunde (must be Norwegian).

Product Description
After Hitler conquered Poland, and while still fine-tuning his plans against France, the British began to exert control of the coastline of neutral Norway, an action that threatened to cut off Germany s iron-ore conduit to Sweden and outflank from the start its hegemony on the Continent. The Germans quickly responded with a dizzying series of assaults, using every tool of modern warfare developed in the previous generation. Airlifted infantry, mountain troops and paratroopers were dispatched to the Scandinavian nation, seizing Norwegian strong points while forestalling larger but more cumbersome Allied units. The German navy also set sail, taking a brutal beating at the hands of Britannia, while ensuring with its sacrifice that key harbors could be held open for resupply. As dive bombers soared overhead, small but elite German units traversed forbidding terrain to ambush Allied units trying to forge inland. At Narvik, some 6,000 German troops battled 20,000 French and British, until the Allies were finally forced to withdraw by the great disaster in France, which had then get underway. As a veritable coda to the campaign, the aircraft carrier Glorious, while trying to sail back to Britain, was hammered under the waves by the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst. The air, airborne, sea, amphibious, infantry, armour and commando aspects of this brief but violent campaign are here covered in meticulous detail.
Click to expand...

It was new to me that French were also in Norway, probably not for sight-seeing purposes. And of course they got their asses kicked, even when they outnumbered the Germans by more than 3 to 1.

So let me get this straight...

France and Britain destroyed Germany at Versailles in 1918, because they resented that Germany came into existence in 1871 in the first place, shifting the existing scheme of European balance of power. Although they never really won (mind you, it was Germany against Britain + France + Russia + America, clearly showing who the giants are and who the lesser fauna), they deceived the Germans into peace with this Wilsonian 14 points 'peace program' and then betrayed their own words. The Germans assumed they dealt with men, instead they dealt with the Allies.

German lefties played along with this during the Weimar period. Then came the crisis and a patriot from the lower classes decided to restore Germany in it's old glory and succeeded, initially. He decided that there was nothing wrong with the Bismarck Germany from 1914 and decided to roll back the Versailles situation. He was even prepared to let go of Elsas-Lotharingen and majority ethnic Poles territory. That's when the American Jews pushed Chamberlain into the war declaration.

Hitler took his territory back, aided by a Pact with Stalin, the real mastermind of the WW2 pack. Stalin knew what Hitler wanted and he knew that a war between Germany and Britain/France would follow. That's why he preferred a pact with Hitler over a similar pact with Britain/France (these noble people were equally willing to sacrifice the Baltics to Stalin, no moral difference here). And I would not be very surprised if it later will be discovered that Stalin and Roosevelt had a discrete line of communication as well in August 1939, masterminding towards the destruction of Europe and dividing both parts among them, with the aid of British and French fools.

Anyway, Germany invades Poland, Britain/France declare war but no action is followed, which is fine with Germany. Hitler has achieved all his goals and is offering peace a tous azimuts. No response. Meanwhile Stalin is preparing for an invasion of Europe. Then in March 1940 Britain and France start to prepare for real action against Germany in Norway. The Germans find out about it and outsmart the British/French in a matter of days if not hours. No surprises here. Poor Stalin, he had hoped for a long exhausting war between Germany and Britain/France, but they were smashed in a matter of 6 weeks. So no icebreaker role for Germany here. Meanwhile Stalin, who is a communist, and is hence ideologically obliged to conquor the world and liberate the suppressed masses, continues with his military build-up. In 1941 he has outnumbered Hitler with a factor of 7 to 1 when it comes to military hardware. My Anglo opponents will still maintain that Stalin basically still was a peace loving guy, minding his own communist business. But if Anglo's say something, than you can be pretty sure it is probably not true.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom