Who started both World Wars?

[uke2se]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-rescue-service-during-Battle-of-Britain.html



But, but... I thought the Germans were the evil ones?!

Here we see again the real intentions of both war parties in action: Germany desperately wanted peace with their 'racial brothers', where the British goal (under Churchill) was, the total destruction of Germany. And if the price is to suck Americans and Soviets into Europe, then so be it. Next time the English will bring the Chinese in. We Europeans from Norway to Spain to Russia should realize that. We kindly advise the Scots and Welsh to distance themselves from London, before the US will retreat from the world stage in this decade, in their own interest and go 'Europe-direct'.

You need to learn history, especially naval warfare history. Now, go away and read at least 20 books on naval warfare history, then come back and admit that what you wrote was stupid.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You need to learn history, especially naval warfare history. Now, go away and read at least 20 books on naval warfare history, then come back and admit that what you wrote was stupid.

Obviously uke2se refuses to explain what exactly in my post in his opinion was 'stupid'.
He probably has no clue either but simply likes to launch another content free smear.
It is all becoming rather transparent.

 

[uke2se]

Obviously uke2se refuses to explain what exactly in my post in his opinion was 'stupid'.
He probably has no clue either but simply likes to launch another content free smear.
It is all becoming rather transparent.

I know exactly what was stupid in your post, but there's no point just telling you. Now, go read books about the subject. I have. If you start reading other material than denial sites and "revisionist" history, perhaps you won't make a fool of yourself as often as you do.

 

[Chaos]

Obviously uke2se refuses to explain what exactly in my post in his opinion was 'stupid'.

The part of your post that was stupid was all of it. It was yet another piece of brainless blather you posted to support your fantasy that the Nazis you worship were something other than a bunch of mass murderers.

He probably has no clue either but simply likes to launch another content free smear.

You´re projecting.

It is all becoming rather transparent.

You´ve become transparent long ago. Every single of your posts contains nothing but Nazi worship and mindless hatred of pretty much everything else.

 

[Hans]

Oh my the bad historian is back.

Again 9/11 we'll go over it slowly. Germans were nice normal people like most Europeans

The NAZIS were evil

Lets repeat that

The NAZIS were evil not the normal German's nor their armed forces.

The war in North Africa was noted for being fought very 'gentlemanly' and it was thought this was because few SS units went there. Even the Italian fascists followed the rule of war.

During the battle of the Atlantic there were gentleman on both sides.

9/11 you left a lot of unanswered questions - I'll place them here - so once again you can be seen to be running away from them

Yet he didn't just take Danzig he took ALL of Poland to include parts NEVER controlled by the German Empire - gave parts of it away and proceeded with plans to destroy the Polish culture. What did that have to do with regaining Danzig?

What did destroying the Polish state and occupying parts of Poland that had been controlled by the Russian empire up to world war I have to do with Danzig?

So the German's weren't interested in the East - please explain why Hitler who was hyper about reversing Versaille didn't want to regain the lands granted to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

Why did he not want to do that? Care to explain?

Since Britain is a democracy the press can say anything they want and have been 'attacking' Churchill since before WWI.

Wait a minute didn't you say before that the Jews controyed the press ---- so how did this article get out (ignore for a moment 90 years of other comments)?

This seems to contradict your claim that the Jews control the press? Please explain

You appear to be a bit delusional when it comes to the holocaust there would have to be some evidence the holocaust hadn't happened all you've done is deny the existing evidence.

An old question you never answered. Is there anything the great 'forgers' got right? Do you mean that ever single piece of evidence was forged badly? Ever single piece there is not a single thing you cannot deny.....LOL

I put all the other ones he's avoiding in later - when one is in denial it is best to deny in small bunches


Oh one last one - sorry I couldn't resist

9/11 feels it was wrong for Britain and France to declare war on Germany for attacking their ally Poland yet he lionizes Hitler for declaring war on America when they declare war on Japan. So which is it 9/11 declaring war on somebody for attacking an ally is what good or bad, you have it both ways. Will we hear from 9/11 ------nope

 

[9/11-investigator]

I know exactly what was stupid in your post, but there's no point just telling you.

Maybe not me, but your other readers might be interested on your comments on the surprising fact that the Germans resqued British pilots in the channel in the middle of 'the battle of Britain'. Now, I know that you want to portray the Germans as mindless mass killers, but that could be just self-serving Anglo BS. Just could.

In order to shut out this possibility your are kindly invited to explain why my post was stupid.

Success.

 

[uke2se]

Maybe not me, but your other readers might be interested on your comments

As is apparent from other posts responding to your stupid post, "my readers" already understand it and have no need for my comments.

on the surprising fact that the Germans resqued British pilots in the channel in the middle of 'the battle of Britain'.

That you feel that this is surprising speaks to your profound ignorance of history.

Now, I know that you want to portray the Germans as mindless mass killers, but that could be just self-serving Anglo BS. Just could.

And this shows your profound misunderstanding of my views, alternatively your need to construct straw men because you realized you're out of your depth.

In order to shut out this possibility your are kindly invited to explain why my post was stupid.

No. Read books. Not just denialist sites. People who matter already understand. Nazis don't matter.

 

[9/11-investigator]

As is apparent from other posts responding to your stupid post, "my readers" already understand it and have no need for my comments.

Oh my, uke2se now markets himself as a clearvoyant.

That you feel that this is surprising speaks to your profound ignorance of history.

Really? Let's have a close look at what the article actually says:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-rescue-service-during-Battle-of-Britain.html

RAF pilots shot down over the Channel during the Battle of Britain had to rely on German search and rescue services to save them from drowning, new research has unveiled.

This British newspaper article is talking about new knowledge, something that our (self-styled) know-it-all uke2se could know.
Remember uke2se, in real life references by yourself or mum do not count.

And this shows your profound misunderstanding of my views, alternatively your need to construct straw men because you realized you're out of your depth.

I would love to know your views in the first place! But you keep on refusing to give your views. What are we to do?

No. Read books. Not just denialist sites. People who matter already understand. Nazis don't matter.

I am afraid that the poor old Telegraph.co.uk would be surprised to learn that they are dubbed a 'denialist site'.

But to make a long story short, uke2se cannot explain why my comments are stupid.

 

[uke2se]

Oh my, uke2se now markets himself as a clearvoyant.

Other Nazis might find your repartee witty, but I find it tiresome and dumb. Also, it's clairvoyant. Most browsers have a spelling function. Use it.

Really? Let's have a close look at what the article actually says:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-rescue-service-during-Battle-of-Britain.html



This British newspaper article is talking about new knowledge, something that our (self-styled) know-it-all uke2se could know.
Remember uke2se, in real life references by yourself or mum do not count.

Again, you show your ignorance. The new research is that they had to "rely" on it. That German aviators and sailors rescued allied airmen and sailors isn't new knowledge. You would know this if you ever read anything not posted on CODOH.

I would love to know your views in the first place! But you keep on refusing to give your views. What are we to do?

You don't care about my views. This is evident by your lack of understanding them from all the posts I've made.

I am afraid that the poor old Telegraph.co.uk would be surprised to learn that they are dubbed a 'denialist site'.

Again with that not-so-witty repartee. You need some new material.

But to make a long story short, uke2se cannot explain why my comments are stupid.

Yes, I can. I just don't goose step just because you say so. Again, the people who matter (everyone who's not a Nazi) understood me.

 

[uke2se]

On the other hand, since nein-11 is so anxious to have his stupid post eviscerated in public, who am I to say no?

But, but... I thought the Germans were the evil ones?!

You may have thought that. Nobody else did. The Nazis were what we would call "evil". The German people not so much.

Here we see again the real intentions of both war parties in action: Germany desperately wanted peace with their 'racial brothers', where the British goal (under Churchill) was, the total destruction of Germany. And if the price is to suck Americans and Soviets into Europe, then so be it.

This part is part pure speculation, pure gross misunderstanding of history. It has been well established that there were incidents of "gentlemanly" behaviour on both sides in the war. For example, both sides would look for survivors from ships they had destroyed, unless doing so put their own ship at risk. This is not uncommon in the history of armed conflict, and it shows that soldiers are human beings. We already knew that, however, and making a straw man out of it only shows nein-11's own ignorance.

Next time the English will bring the Chinese in. We Europeans from Norway to Spain to Russia should realize that.

This is pure paranoia speaking.

We kindly advise the Scots and Welsh to distance themselves from London, before the US will retreat from the world stage in this decade, in their own interest and go 'Europe-direct'.

First, "we" seems to include nein-11 and his pocket-lint. Very few people in the world agrees with his paranoid delusion. Second, this is more speculative nonsense. It seems nein-11 isn't above accusing others of pretending to be "clearvoyant" all the while making completely evidence free assertions himself.

Now that I've shown you what was stupid in your post, nein-11, do you feel better?

 

[Corsair 115]

Here we see again the real intentions of both war parties in action: Germany desperately wanted peace with their 'racial brothers', where the British goal (under Churchill) was, the total destruction of Germany.

Yes, that's why Germany, after realizing it couldn't win air superiority over the skies of Britain (it actually stood relatively little chance of doing so; the Battle of Britain was a futile action on the part of Germany from the start), it embarked on a months-long campaign of bombing London.

What an odd way to 'desperately want peace': trying to bomb Britain's capital city into rubble. Of course, waging a campaign for air superiority in preparation for an invasion is also an odd way of 'desperately wanting peace.'

 

[TSR]

But, but... I thought the Germans were the evil ones?!

.
A common strawman of deniers.

*Germans* weren't the problem, Certain *Nazis* were.

And not even all Nazis, since membership was pretty much required for advancement in certain professions, so folks joined the party without really agreeing with all of the platform.

Could you please actually *learn* a bit about the history you're so anxious to deny?
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes, that's why Germany, after realizing it couldn't win air superiority over the skies of Britain (it actually stood relatively little chance of doing so; the Battle of Britain was a futile action on the part of Germany from the start), it embarked on a months-long campaign of bombing London.

What an odd way to 'desperately want peace': trying to bomb Britain's capital city into rubble. Of course, waging a campaign for air superiority in preparation for an invasion is also an odd way of 'desperately wanting peace.'

We have seen before that the very day that fattie came to power he instructed his airforce to start hitting civilian targets in Germany. Hitler was very reluctant to respond as he was keen to have peace with Britain, knowing that an all fronts war would be a certain loss for Germany. In the end Germany had no choice to start to retaliate against Britain.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Interesting though that nobody responded to this key post of mine:

Churchill, the best politician Jewish money can buy.

I advise my opponents to really study it and try to argue against it.

If not, you Anglos run the risk of getting the blame for both world wars. And that is a losing proposition with Russia no longer on your side and 1.3 billion Chinese waiting in the wings for take over. And a US economy about to implode and your multiculturalism being discredited in Europe everywhere.

Think about all those reparations of Versailles scale waiting for you. And what if Ahmadinejad is right and the H-word turns about to be fake indeed?

And what is Suvorow is right after all? Then all over sudden Hitler is the hero and you are the villains.

Uh oh.

 

[TSR]

This British newspaper article is talking about new knowledge, something that our (self-styled) know-it-all uke2se could know.

.
The kind of new knowledge that not a single denier has been able to produce in decades.

Sad, really, that all you have is nitpicks (that don't even turn out to be true...)
.

 

[uke2se]

Interesting though that nobody responded to this key post of mine:

Churchill, the best politician Jewish money can buy.

I advise my opponents to really study it and try to argue against it.

If not, you Anglos run the risk of getting the blame for both world wars. And that is a losing proposition with Russia no longer on your side and 1.3 billion Chinese waiting in the wings for take over. And a US economy about to implode and your multiculturalism being discredited in Europe everywhere.

Think about all those reparations of Versailles scale waiting for you. And what if Ahmadinejad is right and the H-word turns about to be fake indeed?

And what is Suvorow is right after all? Then all over sudden Hitler is the hero and you are the villains.

Uh oh.

We didn't study it because it's crap.

Nobody cares who you blame for the wars because Nazis don't matter.

 

[TSR]

Interesting though that nobody responded to this key post of mine

.
Not so interesting when someone actually *reads* the thread and sees that it *was* responded to, and that you ignored those responses.

Typical denier -- pretend what you don't want to see never existed.
.

 

[Corsair 115]

We have seen before that the very day that fattie came to power he instructed his airforce to start hitting civilian targets in Germany. Hitler was very reluctant to respond as he was keen to have peace with Britain, knowing that an all fronts war would be a certain loss for Germany. In the end Germany had no choice to start to retaliate against Britain.

One does not acquire peace with one's enemy by constantly attacking them. Germany could have invested in aerial defence and otherwise left Britain alone. That would have been indicative of perhaps wanting peace (either that, or that it no longer considered Britain a threat).

Is this what happened? No. The Luftwaffe waged a campaign for air superiority over Britain as a prelude to an invasion. How on earth is that a defensive act? Similarly, how is engaging in a month-long blitz of London a defensive act?

Your grasping at straws is extraordinary.

 

[Nonpareil]

.
Not so interesting when someone actually *reads* the thread and sees that it *was* responded to, and that you ignored those responses.

Typical denier -- pretend what you don't want to see never existed.
.

In fairness, he probably didn't know that his post had been responded to. 9/11-investigator has a history of putting anyone who actually refutes his falsehoods on ignore. If I remember correctly, he put five people on ignore in three pages of the thread "9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust", including myself.

 

[9/11-investigator]

We didn't study it because it's crap.

It was a summary of a book written by a historian with a phd.

Maybe you will impress yourself by your own arguments but impartial bystanders will judge that uke2se has no arguments at all.
And that would be a correct assessment.

For the neutral bystander: Scheil showed that Britain was manouvered into war by a Jewish lobby group called Focus, using Churchill as their figure head.

Britain was brought into war by 'world Jewry', as Chamberlain later confided to Joseph Kennedy.

It is all in the open now. Churchill sacrificed that British empire for a few shekels, so he could remain in Chartwell. There never has been a man more willing to betray Britain than Churchill. Thanks to Churchill Britain morphed from the largest empire ever into the miserable multicult s*** pile it is today. Why? Because he sought to destroy a nation that admired Britain as none other and handed Europe over to the likes of Soviets and Americans in the process. All for a few shekels and a place in history. It is time to unmask this drunken idiot for all times and kick Britain out of Europe. It does not belong here. If the white race will ever vanish (it will not) than it would be thanks to Britain and it's servility to the Jews. History will not benign for Britain.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Greatest-Unmasked-Nigel-Knight/dp/0715328557

In his brand new assessment of Winston Churchill's political career, Nigel Knight challenges the sentimental image of the great wartime leader and argues that Churchill's impact on Great Britain was, in fact, consistently disastrous. The author backs up his arguments with rigorous academic research to provide a fresh insight into Churchill's entire career.This book covers Churchill's time as pre-war Chancellor and his contradictory economic policies. It also looks at his time as Prime Minister and his wartime blunders, as well as the post-war period when he failed to rectify his past errors.