Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What are you going to do about it? Oh wait, you're going to whine about it on the internet. Meanwhile, Jews have nukes. Not as easy to drag them off to gas chambers now.

They have indeed. And that little fact will be dealt with after the truth about 9/11 will come into the open, in a combined Russian/European/post-Zionist, post-Imperial US military action against Israel.

That is, if the Jews are not able to push the US into war against Iran first, which is not to be ruled out completely.
Far from it.

Yesterday the Mossad killed 2 Iranian nuclear scientists.
The Jews are working on it.
Maybe they succeed, but I am sceptical. Sceptical, not about the possibility of the Jews pushing America into war with Iran, but that it will prove benificial for the Jewish NWO agenda.

War against Iran will throw the entire West into an economic crisis as that the flow of oil from the Gulf will be halted indefinitely and the western economy will crash and Europe will be pushed into Russian energy deliveries dependance.

Excellent!

Rightwingers like me love crises like these. It will enable us to deal with the left swiftly and finish off the hated American imposed multiculturalism as ethno tensions inevitable will rise in the fight for scarce resources and in this dynamics the left will be exposed as the ethno-traitors they are. And the new interpretation of WW1/2+holostory will aid greatly in liquidating the West (maybe we can colonize the balkanized Euro remnants of the US, but much as we like to be nice guys, we are making no promises here).

Bring on the soup kitchens!
 
Last edited:
They have indeed. And that little fact will be dealt with after the truth about 9/11 will come into the open, in a combined Russian/European/post-Zionist, post-Imperial US military action.

I imagine you foaming at the mouth as you wrote that.

That is, if the Jews are not able to push the US into war against Iran first, which is not to be ruled out completely. Far from it.

A small piece of advice: leave sciences like political science and history to those with an ounce of integrity. In fact, leave everything to those people.

Yesterday the Mossad killed 2 Iranian nuclear scientists.
The Jews are working on it.
Maybe they succeed, but I am sceptical. Sceptical, not about the possibility of the Jews pushing America into war with Iran, but that it will prove benificial for the Jewish NWO agenda.

9/11-investigator: this is the real world. You sure you don't want to come back?

This will throw the entire West into crisis as that the flow of oil will be halted indefinately and the western economy will crash and Europe will be pushed into Russian energy deliveries dependance. Excellent! Rightwingers like me love crises like these. It will enable us to deal with the left swiftly as ethno tensions inevitable will rise in the fight for scarce resources and in this dynamics the left will be exposed as the ethno-traitors they are.

Bring on the soup kitchens!

http://www.unthinkable.biz/UserFiles/Image/Q22010/Home the end is near.jpg
 
And he's just as wrong as you. Guess it makes you feel better knowing that you're not alone in your delusions. Must chafe you that it's a Jew who's agreeing with you, though.

Indeed, as it neuters silly Nazi-acquisations.

Not that I care being called that way, after I learned what really happened during WW2.

Nazi is een geuzennaam.
 
Indeed, as it neuters silly Nazi-acquisations.

You should look up the word "chafe". It doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

Not that I care being called that way, after I learned what really happened during WW2.

You mean, after you read the works of snakeoil salesmen and decided that you were going to believe whatever you want, reality be damned.

Nazi is een geuzennaam.

Well, there isn't much point in denying it now then. You're a Nazi and you're proud of it.
 
Blah blah blah.

Any reply to the many points where you have been shown to be wrong?

ETA: The only source I can find for that alleged Jackson quote is Horst Mahler, former communist terrorist co-founder of the Red Army Faction with Ulrike Meinhof and Andreas Baader, currently incarcerated for Holocaust denial. Not the most reliable source, but about on par for nein-11.

That's because you don't want it to be true and hence put no effort in finding it.

It is in JACKSON REPORT, supra note 5, at 305–06.

See, http://law.wustl.edu/WUGSLR/Issues/Volume6_3/clark.pdf

JACKSON REPORT, supra note 5, at 305–06. He was correct, for
example, in expecting that the defense would raise the argument that the German invasion of Norway was necessary to forestall a British move.

And that would be the truth. Operation Barbarossa, same story.

Britain, France and the USSR all prepared to attack Germany, not the other way around.

Germany wanted to be a great nation among nations and nothing else.

Britain, France, USSR and present day USA were/are the real Lebensraumers and imperialists. The US today has military bases in more than 100 countries and aspires to be the global hegemon. Yet Germany is still accused of doing what it never wanted to do and never did.
 
That's because you don't want it to be true and hence put no effort in finding it.

It is in JACKSON REPORT, supra note 5, at 305–06.

See, http://law.wustl.edu/WUGSLR/Issues/Volume6_3/clark.pdf

The Clark paper doesn't provide the quote. Please quote the full text from the Jackson Report. If there is a copy online, please provide a link to it.

ETA: Given the fact that the Jackson Report is written in legal script, and not the way Mahler quoted, I find it highly unlikely that the quote Horst Mahler (convicted terrorist and holocaust denier) attributed to Judge Jackson is anywhere to be found in the Jackson Report. I will leave it up to our resident Nazi to provide a direct quote from the report, including section subtitle for verification.
 
Last edited:
The Clark paper doesn't provide the quote. Please quote the full text from the Jackson Report. If there is a copy online, please provide a link to it.

ETA: Given the fact that the Jackson Report is written in legal script, and not the way Mahler quoted, I find it highly unlikely that the quote Horst Mahler (convicted terrorist and holocaust denier) attributed to Judge Jackson is anywhere to be found in the Jackson Report. I will leave it up to our resident Nazi to provide a direct quote from the report, including section subtitle for verification.

I have it, not from Horst Mahler, but from "Stefan Scheil - 1940/41 – Die Eskalation des Zweiten Weltkriegs"

The quote is in page 11-12, which has a footnote 2.

And on page 457 we have:

2 Zit. n. Jackson, Conference, S. 306.

I trust it is genuine.

This is the quote:
http://www.vernichtungskrieg.de/kriegsausbruch.htm
"Die Deutschen werden mit Sicherheit unsere drei europäischen Alliierten anklagen, eine Politik verfolgt zu haben, die den Krieg erzwungen hat. Das sage ich, weil die sichergestellten Dokumente des Auswärtigen Amts, die ich eingesehen habe, alle zum selben Schluß kommen: "Wir haben keinen Ausweg; wir müssen kämpfen; wir sind eingekreist; wir werden erdrosselt". Wie würde ein Richter reagieren, wenn dies im Prozeß herauskommt? Ich denke, er würde sagen: Bevor ich jemanden als Aggressor verurteile, soll er hier seine Motive schildern."
 
Last edited:
As a further illustration of the total scam Nuremberg was:

Right hand of Molotov Andrej Vesinskij travelled to Nuremberg with a short list of topics that were not to be discussed during the trial. Some highlights of this gem:

- Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty
- Molotov's visit to Berlin (when M. came with outrageous territorial demands in Europe)
- the Soviet occupation of the Baltics
- Soviet foreign policy regarding Dardanelles and territorial claimes in that area.

And these topics were not discussed indeed. Nuremberg was a show trial in the best Stalinist tradition, intended to frame Germany (and Europe) and divide the booty amongst the US and the USSR. The Americans obviously went along.
 
Last edited:
I have it, not from Horst Mahler, but from "Stefan Scheil - 1940/41 – Die Eskalation des Zweiten Weltkriegs"

The quote is in page 11-12, which has a footnote 2.

And on page 457 we have:

2 Zit. n. Jackson, Conference, S. 306.

I trust it is genuine.

This is the quote:
http://www.vernichtungskrieg.de/kriegsausbruch.htm

While my German is rusty at best, I don't see how any part of that quote translates to "Who’s talking about a fair trial?" which prefaced the quote as told by Mahler.

Got any source for that part of the quote?
 
As a further illustration of the total scam Nuremberg was:

Right hand of Molotov Andrej Vesinskij travelled to Nuremberg with a short list of topics that were not to be discussed during the trial. Some highlights of this gem:

- Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty
- Molotov's visit to Berlin (when M. came with outrageous territorial demands in Europe)
- the Soviet occupation of the Baltics
- Soviet foreign policy regarding Dardanelles and territorial claimes in that area.

And these topics were not discussed indeed. Nuremberg was a show trial in the best Stalinist tradition, intended to frame Germany (and Europe) and divide the booty amongst the US and the USSR. The Americans obviously went along.

Everyone with a brain understands why those topics weren't up for discussion. There was a lot of politicking to get the Russians to even agree to a trial - they wanted to just shoot all the Nazis. For one, it had to be perfectly clear who was on trial: The Nazis. Not the Russians.
 
Everyone with a brain understands why those topics weren't up for discussion. There was a lot of politicking to get the Russians to even agree to a trial - they wanted to just shoot all the Nazis. For one, it had to be perfectly clear who was on trial: The Nazis. Not the Russians.

And you find that unproblematic: not regarding the entire picture, but picking only those elements to be able to convict the defeated party.

Are you really so blind not to see that victors 'justice' cannot be justice at all?

That Nuremberg was indeed a high grade lynch party?

Real justice is that party A and B agree in advance what justice is and that after the fact independent party C (like Swedes or Swiss or Argentinians or whatever) judges against codified law if A or B did something wrong.

Nothing of this all was true in Nuremberg.

It was a scam.
 
Last edited:
While my German is rusty at best, I don't see how any part of that quote translates to "Who’s talking about a fair trial?" which prefaced the quote as told by Mahler.

Got any source for that part of the quote?

I suspect that this is the report mentioned:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/jackson.asp

However this is in web page format, without page numbers, and I do not have the original English translation of this quote, needed for a search:

"Die Deutschen werden mit Sicherheit unsere drei europäischen Alliierten anklagen, eine Politik verfolgt zu haben, die den Krieg erzwungen hat. Das sage ich, weil die sichergestellten Dokumente des Auswärtigen Amts, die ich eingesehen habe, alle zum selben Schluß kommen: "Wir haben keinen Ausweg; wir müssen kämpfen; wir sind eingekreist; wir werden erdrosselt". Wie würde ein Richter reagieren, wenn dies im Prozeß herauskommt? Ich denke, er würde sagen: Bevor ich jemanden als Aggressor verurteile, soll er hier seine Motive schildern."

But here I have a similar quote from the same source:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/jack37.asp

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. To take an actual case, one that involves my country and one in which the Soviet Union and the United States are not involved at all-take Norway for example-you see there you have a clear aggressive attack by the Germans on Norway. But we have information that they are going to say that it was done in anticipation of measures which they claim we were about to take to prevent the Norwegians from assisting the Germans by the supply of iron-that is the sort of point. If we are going to introduce Norway -and we might want to for the atrocities in Norway-I think we are rather opening the door for trouble if there is no definition. That is a concrete point about which I am worried.

GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Would a question of that sort really come up before the Tribunal? The Tribunal would not concern itself with questions like that-why Germany attacked Norway-but take it as granted.

Here we have it, "we are not going to discuss why Germany did invade Norway, only that she did it".

That is ridiculous.

... wait, I found it!!

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/jack37.asp

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I really think that this trial, if it should get into an argument over the political and economic causes of this war, could do infinite harm [FOR THE ALLIED CAUSE, 911I], both in Europe, which I don't know well, and in America, which I know fairly well. If we should have a prolonged controversy over whether Germany invaded Norway a few jumps ahead of a British invasion of Norway, or whether France in declaring war was the real aggressor, this trial can do infinite harm for those countries with the people of the United States. And the same is true of our Russian relationships. The Germans will certainly accuse all three of our European Allies of adopting policies which forced them to war. The reason I Say that is that captured documents which we have always made that claim-that Germany would be forced into war. They admit they were planning war, but the captured documents of the Foreign Office that I have examined all come down to the claim, "We have no way out; we must fight; we are encircled; we are being strangled to death." Now, if the question comes up, what is a judge to do about it I would say that, before one is judged guilty of being an aggressor, we must not only let him deny it, but say we will hear his case. I am quite sure a British or American judge would say to a defendant, "You may prove your claim", unless we had something like this which says, "No political, military, or other considerations excuse going to war". In other words, states have got to settle their grievances peacefully. I am afraid there is great risk in omitting this, and I see no risk in putting it in. It may be criticized, but I see no such risk in putting it in as in leaving it out. We did not think it necessary originally, but more recently we have.

Now I have uke2se at his throat. He said:

Given the fact that the Jackson Report is written in legal script, and not the way Mahler quoted, I find it highly unlikely that the quote Horst Mahler (convicted terrorist and holocaust denier) attributed to Judge Jackson is anywhere to be found in the Jackson Report. I will leave it up to our resident Nazi to provide a direct quote from the report, including section subtitle for verification.

Now uke2se has to admit that Jackson himself virtually admits that he has no case!! But that is not a problem at all! You see, we are the victors so we are going to determine the rules of our little 'trial' here, and certain inconvenient topics are not going to be discussed. That's Anglo 'justice' for you!

Jackson, the mediocre provincial American, has seen all the German files while he was trying to build a case against the Germans. To his horror he has to admit that he has no case.
Jackson is a Suvorow adept!!!!!!!
He admits that the Germans were encircled by Anglos and Soviets, who all wanted war and destroy Europe for their own benefit!!
How about that!!!!
 
Last edited:
And you find that unproblematic: not regarding the entire picture, but picking only those elements to be able to convict the defeated party.

It has nothing to do with "regarding the entire picture". It was a trial to deal with the Nazi war crimes. It is a fact that Stalin's Soviet Union perpetrated war crimes as well, and that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but that wasn't the issue at Nuremberg. The Nazi war crimes were the issue.

Are you really so blind that victors 'justice' cannot be justice at all?

The trials at Nuremberg were held precisely to avoid victor's justice. They were held in the tradition of proper justice. The Nazis who were convicted were so because of overwhelming evidence. Some where acquitted.

That Nuremberg was indeed a high grade lynch party?

No, it was a trial.

Real justice is that party A and B agree in advance what justice is and that after the fact independent party C (like Swedes or Swiss or Argentinians or whatever) judges against codified law if A or B did something wrong.

Are you going to make the argument that the Nazis didn't know it was wrong to murder millions of people in death camps? No, the sentences at Nuremberg were just.

Nothing of this all was true in Nuremberg.

It's a scam.

No, it isn't.
 
I suspect that this is the report mentioned:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/jackson.asp

However this is in web page format, without page numbers, and I do not have the original English translation of this quote, needed for a search:



But here I have a similar quote from the same source:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/jack37.asp



Here we have it, "we are not going to discuss why Germany did invade Norway, only that she did it".

That is ridiculous.

... wait, I found it!!

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/jack37.asp



Now I have uke2se at his throat. He said:



Now uke2se has to admit that Jackson himself virtually admits that he has no case!! But that is not a problem at all! You see, we are the victors so we are going to determine the rules of our little 'trial' here, and certain inconvenient topics are not going to be discussed. That's Anglo 'justice' for you!

Jackson, the mediocre provincial American, has seen all the German files while he was trying to build a case against the Germans. To his horror he has to admit that he has no case.
Jackson is a Suvorow adept!!!!!!!
He admits that the Germans were encircled by Anglos and Soviets, who all wanted war and destroy Europe for their own benefit!!
How about that!!!!

So, where is the quote "Who’s talking about a fair trial?" If you, as you say, have me by my throat, you should be able to find it. So far, you haven't produced it.

As for Jackson admitting not having a case, I have to say that if you believe what you quoted says or even hints at that, you're more deluded than I thought.

ETA: Before nein-11 falsely accuses me of moving goal posts, please note that it was the "Who’s talking about a fair trial?" quote I have been asking for all along, specifically.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom