Who started both World Wars?

[dafydd]

I'm still confused as to why 911-investigator is supremely uncritical of his sources. What kind of investigator has a different standard of believability for information he agrees with than that which he does not?

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Carry on.

If your basic premise is hating Jews and your dearest wish is that the Holocaust would happen again,then the rest follows naturally.I content myself with the thought that 99.9999999 percent of the world will not fall for his lies.

 

[Tolls]

New information: when the British plane attacked the German sub, the American destroyer was already engaged in a hunt on the German sub.

So, a US destroyer on convoy duty in the Atlantic in the middle of a war shouldn't keep an eye on a submarine that is part of a fleet that has been sinking ships for the past several months? Whether they were at peace with both sides at the time or not. You know very little about naval ops.

In any case you've been shown that the UBoat fired on the Greer first.

 

[uke2se]

The intention of the German U-boat is a self-serving assumption made by you. You have no knowledge of it´s ´intentions´. Again, Germany in 1941 had more than enough enemies. To assume it was looking for war with the US is utter ridiculous. Germany knew very well that the US government sought to enter the war and was looking for an excuse.

I am sorry for you guys, but I have US Admiral Harold R. Stark on my side.

I was going to add that disputing the intentions of the U-boat would be retarded even for you, nein11, but I didn't because I thought higher of you. Now that you dashed my hopes once again, I will note that the U-boats only purpose in the Kriegsmarine was to strangle trade to the British isles by attacking ships. I had hope that you at least knew that much, but it seems I am doomed to be out of luck when ascribing any kind of knowledge to you.

Thanks for making yourself look even dumber though.

 

[9/11-investigator]

So, a US destroyer on convoy duty in the Atlantic in the middle of a war shouldn't keep an eye on a submarine that is part of a fleet that has been sinking ships for the past several months? Whether they were at peace with both sides at the time or not. You know very little about naval ops.

In any case you've been shown that the UBoat fired on the Greer first.

Hunting for a sub in close cooperation with a plane that throws bombs for hours is not 'keeping an eye', but an assault.

And concerning your "sinking ships for the past several months?"... this did not apply to American ships but British, who had declared war on Germany first.

The Greer was the first incident between a German and American ship in WW2.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I will note that the U-boats only purpose in the Kriegsmarine was to strangle trade to the British isles by attacking ships.

That's what you get when you declare war on Germany. Yes the subs were at war with Britain and busy cutting off trade with Britain. All legal by international law.

 

[uke2se]

The Greer was the first incident between a German and American ship in WW2.

Wrong.

As usual.

 

[uke2se]

Here's some more US ships attacked by German U-boats before Hitler declared war:

Lehigh - Steam Merchant - Sunk 19 Oct 1941.

Sagadahoc - Steam Merchant - Sunk 3 Dec 1941.

USS Kearny (DD 432) - Destroyer - Damaged 17 Oct 1941.

USS Reuben James (DD 245) - Destroyer - Sunk 31 Oct 1941.

USS Salinas (AO 19) - Fleet oiler - Damaged 30 Oct 1941.

 

[uke2se]

That's what you get when you declare war on Germany. Yes the subs were at war with Britain and busy cutting off trade with Britain. All legal by international law.

Thanks for making my point for me and not making yourself look even more stupid.

The U-boats intentions are thus clear and undisputed.

Attacking neutral shipping - which the U-boats did as already shown - breaches rules of war. Unrestricted submarine warfare may breach the rules of war as is, but when it comes to neutral shipping there's no room for doubt.

 

[dtugg]

I wonder why the nazi keeps coming back after getting pwned over and over again. Is he actually dumb enough to think he is going to fool anybody with his pathetic lies?

 

[dafydd]

I wonder why the nazi keeps coming back after getting pwned over and over again. Is he actually dumb enough to think he is going to fool anybody with his pathetic lies?

I have no idea.I live near the Dutch border,I would like to meet him to see how dumb he is,but he might turn me into soap and a couple of fetching lampshades.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Wrong.

As usual.

OMG, uke2se cannot distinguish between merchant shipping and military vessels.

With the Greer we were discussing exchanges between German and American military vessels. From the Stark report:

Greer lost sound contact during the maneuvers, and began to quarter the area in search of the U-boat. After 2 hours, she re-established sound contact and laid down a pattern of 11 depth charges before discontinuing the engagement. Greer had held the German raider in sound contact 3 hours and 28 minutes[3]; had evaded two torpedoes fired at her; and with her 19 depth charges had become the first American ship in World War II to attack the Kriegsmarine.

That is military. Got that?

The ship you mention was a merchant vessel. From your own link you probably did not read or worse did not understand:

Once the ship sank beneath the waves, the submarine's crew pulled up to Captain W.E. Myers' lifeboat, left him with four tins of ersatz bread and two tins of butter, and explained that the ship had been sunk because she was carrying supplies to Germany's enemy.

Knowing the Germans, that was probably true and hence were entitled to sink the ship.

Next.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Attacking neutral shipping - which the U-boats did as already shown - breaches rules of war. Unrestricted submarine warfare may breach the rules of war as is, but when it comes to neutral shipping there's no room for doubt.

Wrong. If 'neutral' America sends weapons to Britain, like was the case with the Lusitania, than Germany is entitled to sink the ship to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[uke2se]

OMG, uke2se cannot distinguish between merchant shipping and military vessels.

OMG, nein11 said "The Greer was the first incident between a German and American ship in WW2" and did not specify military vessels. He's now trying to move the goal posts after being proven wrong yet again.

With the Greer we were discussing exchanges between German and American military vessels. From the Stark report:



That is military. Got that?

You said "ship". Got that?

The ship you mention was a merchant vessel. From your own link you probably did not read or worse did not understand:

You probably didn't read your own writing when you said "ship" as opposed to "military vessel".

Knowing the Germans, that was probably true and hence were entitled to sink the ship.

The ship was headed for Mozambique, a Portuguese colony. Portugal was neutral. It was scheduled for a stop in South Africa for refueling and supplies. The action of the U-boat is labeled as piracy according to maritime laws.

Next.

Indeed.

 

[uke2se]

Wrong. If 'neutral' America sends weapons to Britain, like was the case with the Lusitania, than Germany is entitled to sink the ship to the bottom of the ocean.

Wrong. Unrestricted submarine warfare is sketchy in itself, but targeting neutral ships is a breach of the rules of war. This should be evident to any rational person, as the U-boat cannot see the contents of the cargo hold through the attack periscope.

 

[dafydd]

This is a long thread about a question with a one word answer.Still it's fun to see Nein11 making a bradworst of himself.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I said (quoted rather):

Greer lost sound contact during the maneuvers, and began to quarter the area in search of the U-boat. After 2 hours, she re-established sound contact and laid down a pattern of 11 depth charges before discontinuing the engagement. Greer had held the German raider in sound contact 3 hours and 28 minutes[3]; had evaded two torpedoes fired at her; and with her 19 depth charges had become the first American ship in World War II to attack the Kriegsmarine.

For any sane person it will become immediately clear that if a ship attacks a U-boat that that ship must be a military vessel. And it already had been made clear that the Greer was a destroyer.

Except of course for uke2se, who refuses to pay attention.

 

[Tolls]

And concerning your "sinking ships for the past several months?"... this did not apply to American ships but British, who had declared war on Germany first.

The Greer was the first incident between a German and American ship in WW2.

This statement here is wrong, as uk2se has pointed out. The Germans had already sunk an American ship. Which is what I was saying (though I thought it was more than 1, so I sit corrected on that).

Wrong. Unrestricted submarine warfare is sketchy in itself, but targeting neutral ships is a breach of the rules of war. This should be evident to any rational person, as the U-boat cannot see the contents of the cargo hold through the attack periscope.

This all came up in WW1. Maritime law essentially said you couldn't sink neutral shipping, but you could board it and demand to search it. The Germans chose to ignore this because they felt this negated the power of their UBoats (and left them vulnerable). That didn't change the rules, though...unrestricted UBoat warfare was still illegal.

For any sane person it will become immediately clear that if a ship attacks a U-boat that that ship must be a military vessel. And it already had been made clear that the Greer was a destroyer.

Except of course for uke2se, who refuses to pay attention.

You were wrong...

 

[9/11-investigator]

It's Canadian based and it is very left wing. But I repeat myself.
It is even chaired by a Jew, Michel Chossudovsky.
It is nevertheless on my daily reading menu:

globalresearch.ca

It is very critical of Israel, it is pro 9/11-truth and it regularly hosts conservative thinkers,, like PCR and Buchanan. And it is certainly not pro-Hitler.

So what's new?

Today we are commemorating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And what does globalresearch?

It publishes a revisionist article.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22305

Some highlights:

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's fervent hope for years was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter the war in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry, as it had been doing.

That's interesting. Leftwingers accepting that Roosevelt was looking for war in Europe. That's what 'extreme' right wingers like Mark Weber said all along.

Even the British cabinet as early as August 1941 knew that some 'incident' was to happen to bring the US in war against Germany:

On August 18, 1941, Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: " The President had said he would wage war but not declare it." In addition, "Everything was to be done to force an incident."

Some foresight in the US:

On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: "A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war."

The link between an oil embargo and a potential attack on PH was clearly understand in advance:

On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, "If we cut the oil off , [the Japanese] probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there."

Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said "was" rather than "is." The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan...

By September the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from "economic war."

There was no lack of warning against the consequences of the oil embargo:

On November 3, 1941, our ambassador tried again to get something through his government's thick skull, sending a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit " national hara-kiri." He wrote: " An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness."

The US government did not need a warning, they knew all along of the consequences of their embargo:

Apparently nobody in Washington wanted to hear it in 1941 either. On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as "the Marshall Plan." In fact we don't remember it at all." We are preparing an offensive war against Japan," Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.

A white house meeting shortly before the attacks:

Ten days later Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that he'd met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday.

Obviously the more than 2000 sailors were never warned, but sacrificed instead (9/11, the New Pearl Harbor, same story).

Nice to read this in a left wing internet periodical how Japan was setup for war by the US.

 

[TSR]

I think his credentials are good enough to assume that he can set up an argument.

.
I sit corrected. I had forgotten he (after washing out of two other colleges) managed a graduate degree from a non-descript midwestern state college.

Probably forgot it because he's never actually published any original research, nor had his works cited by anyone but other deniers.

Nor does he ever *cite* anyone but other deniers, that I am aware of.

But he does lie -- that much has been amply established.

Beard, on the other hand, not only earned a doctorate (not least on the basis of an extensive bibliography) but went on to actually become a professor at Columbia (at Oxford, he only "lectured.")

But let's run with this (which in your case always means "run from this"):

Have you read Weber's commentary from January 2009 wherein he talks about Goebbel’s diaries documenting a concerted campaign to eliminate the Jews, and noting regarding the denier circle-jerk in Iran “If the point of the conference was to be scholarly, the thing was a failure?”

Anyone can "set up" an argument -- your behaviour here demonstrates that. The tricky part is actually *supporting* that argument factually, and on that both you and he fail.
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Have you read Weber's commentary from January 2009 wherein he talks about Goebbel’s diaries documenting a concerted campaign to eliminate the Jews, and noting regarding the denier circle-jerk in Iran “If the point of the conference was to be scholarly, the thing was a failure?”

I have read it but since he is from a non-descript midwestern state college I chose to ignore it.

Seriously:

April 29, 1942: “Short shrift is being made of the Jews in all eastern occupied territories. Tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.”

Tens of thousands shot in the East, I will grant you that.

The essence of the article is that Mark Weber opines that holocaust revisionism has failed in bringing the message across, not necessarily because the revisionist message is inherently false as his detractors tried to read into this somber article. Poor Mark is sick and tired of the holocaust on which he spend most of his professional career. Weber is understandably gloomy but premature. In order to get a message across two conditions need to be met:
1) the quality of the message of the broadcaster
2) the receptivity of the receiver
3) the channel to bring the message across

1) Is the least of the problems. There is a vast literature, also in popularized format
3) Changes come in leaps and bounds. The internet is around since 1995, but the blog and internetforum phenomena did not arise before 2002. The wikileaks meltdown only in 2010. If you read comments at youtube videos or news paper articles there is a clear growth in awareness of the revisionist message.
2) The 'masses' don't care, they want to be fed and entertained. But with the crisis setting in and politics moves to the right as is clearly the case in Europe, receptivity for a different explanation of history will greatly increase. When multiculturalism starts to bite (as it does) more and more people will want to know from what corner this megadesaster came from in the first place and they will soon discover the holocaust. That's how I arrived at it.