Who started both World Wars?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So we finally agree on something: we agree that Japan was just the backdoor to war in Europe.

You have a knack for saying things that don't make sense.

Tell, why was it important for Americans to kill Germans?
What had they done to America?

Nazis. Killing Nazis. And I know you'd rather we just sat by and watched the whole of Europe go down under the Nazi boot, but unlike "some people", we weren't inclined to stand by and watch as murder, looting, and tyranny ran amok.

Surely you've heard of the Nacht Und Nebel decree?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Even if the NYT article is properly quoted (which we have every reason to mistrust given the source) Roosevelt's personal feelings aren't an issue. We all know he personally thought the Second World War was a war that America should be involved in. What he personally thought has no bearing on the fact that the nation wouldn't go to war. They did want to go to war after Japan attacked (which they did without the specific knowledge of Americans, as we have already determined),

Yes, the Jew Roosevelt wanted to wage war in order to grab power on a global scale. Such is the 'calling' of the Jews.

The bolded sentence does not make sense. Explain. Are you admitting that Roosevelt led the US into war without the knowledge of the population about how the nation got into war?

and then your heroes, the Nazis, made a huge blunder and declared war. Kind of a stupid move, but hey, they were Nazis after all.

Are you sure it is in your interest to show your deceptive character to the rest of the world? The difference between Germans and (Jewified) Anglos is that the first once's keep their word. They had an agreement with Japan, remember? Now I know that it is seen as sane behavior by Anglos to betray anybody. Like America did in 'brokering and honest peace' in 1918, persuading the Germans to surrender and then not live up to the promise.

Or the case of Poland, where Britain promised to guarantee the integrity of that country, but next happily handed it over to the Soviets in Jalta.

Anglo perfidy it is called, I believe.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You have a knack for saying things that don't make sense.

Nazis. Killing Nazis. And I know you'd rather we just sat by and watched the whole of Europe go down under the Nazi boot, but unlike "some people", we weren't inclined to stand by and watch as murder, looting, and tyranny ran amok.

Surely you've heard of the Nacht Und Nebel decree?

It looks like you have not been paying attention at all in this thread.
It was the US who had set up Britain for this idiotic war garantee to the Poles and at the same time instructing the Poles not to give in one jota towards the reasonable demands of the Germans, namely Danzig and a corridor, reversing Versailles a little bit. Even Chamberlain was convinced that the demands were reasonable, but he could not move because he had Churchill and his Jewish funded bloodhounds in his neck. It was the American government who had set the avelange going. Or 'world Jews' as Chamberlain himself later privately confided.

The Nacht und Nebel directive dated from December 7 1941, on the very day of PH, yet you want to maintain that that was the reason for noble Roosevelt to wage war against Japan and Germany!
You are a funny chap, really.

 

[twinstead]

I get it now. 9/11 you just pick a couple pseudo-historians who tell you what you want to hear and you stick with them through thick and thin. Sorry it took me so long to realize this.

That's called confirmation bias. People like you make TERRIBLE historians

 

[Corsair 115]

The Germans Gawd does not understand the chess concept of pawn sacrifice.

The eight battleships in Pearl Harbor that day were most assuredly not pawns. They were capital ships, expensive pieces of hardware, and were considered the prime weapon of naval warfare; aircraft carriers were seen as little more than a scouting force for the main, big gun fleet. Sacrificing the battleships is more akin to giving up one's Queen at the start of a chess match.

The Nacht und Nebel directive dated from December 7 1941, on the very day of PH, yet you want to maintain that that was the reason for noble Roosevelt to wage war against Japan and Germany!
You are a funny chap, really.

And yet after Pearl Harbor the U.S. was only at war with Japan. It was not at war with Germany. It took Germany declaring war on the U.S. for the U.S. to be at war with Germany. And Germany was actually under no obligation to declare against the U.S. since Japan had been the one to strike the first blow.

 

[Corsair 115]

Wrong. PH was an act of desperation.

Pearl Harbor only happened at Yamamoto's insistence. He was well aware of the economic might of the U.S. (he had studied at Harvard and spent several years in Washington) and knew all too well that Japan was doomed in any long war with the U.S. So he proposed a first strike to cripple the U.S. fleet in its home port so that Japan could conduct its conquests without interference. Then, hopefully, it would be able to successfully defend its conquests from the inevitable counterattack.

The original Japanese war plan was entirely different. It called for the capture of the Philippines, which would draw the U.S. fleet out and across the Pacific. Then, in a pitched battle in and around Japan, the Japanese would defeat their adversaries. This is exactly what the U.S. and expected and planned for as well.

The 'mighty Japanese' were with their backs against the wall as a result of the US oil embargo, with the US asking impossible demands from the Japanese.

Might you explain why asking Japan to stop its brutal and vicious war against and occupation of China was an unreasonable demand? Or do you generally favour brutal and vicious occupations?

 

[twinstead]

Oh, I meant to ask you, 9/11: what do your pseudo-historians say is the reason Japan invaded China?

 

[Shangrila]

Pearl Harbor only happened at Yamamoto's insistence. He was well aware of the economic might of the U.S. (he had studied at Harvard and spent several years in Washington) and knew all too well that Japan was doomed in any long war with the U.S. So he proposed a first strike to cripple the U.S. fleet in its home port so that Japan could conduct its conquests without interference. Then, hopefully, it would be able to successfully defend its conquests from the inevitable counterattack.

The original Japanese war plan was entirely different. It called for the capture of the Philippines, which would draw the U.S. fleet out and across the Pacific. Then, in a pitched battle in and around Japan, the Japanese would defeat their adversaries. This is exactly what the U.S. and expected and planned for as well.

Yeah, in a way, it is accurate to say that Pearl Harbor was an act of desperation. It was an act of desperation on the part of Yamamoto. He knew, as most other Japanese leaders refused to believe, that Japan could not possibly win in open conflict against the U.S.

Thus he and a few other officers developed the PH strike plan at the last moment and completely separate from the war plan being developed by the Army and Navy General Staffs. A compromise had already been reached for simultaneous attacks on Malaya (what the Army wanted) and the Philippines (what the Navy wanted), when Yamamoto forced the leadership to accept a third simultaneous operation against Pearl Harbor by threatening to resign. Doesn't exactly sound like something that would happen if the Japanese leadership as a whole were desperate.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It looks like you have not been paying attention at all in this thread.
It was the US who had set up Britain for this idiotic war garantee to the Poles and at the same time instructing the Poles not to give in one jota towards the reasonable demands of the Germans, namely Danzig and a corridor, reversing Versailles a little bit. Even Chamberlain was convinced that the demands were reasonable, but he could not move because he had Churchill and his Jewish funded bloodhounds in his neck. It was the American government who had set the avelange going. Or 'world Jews' as Chamberlain himself later privately confided.

Corkscrew mind is impressive.

The Nacht und Nebel directive dated from December 7 1941, on the very day of PH, yet you want to maintain that that was the reason for noble Roosevelt to wage war against Japan and Germany!
You are a funny chap, really.

I point it out as an example of Nazi behavior, not as a causus belli. Sorry you can't score any points of that, you just misunderstood.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Even if the NYT article is properly quoted (which we have every reason to mistrust given the source)

It is from LewRockwell, libertarian central. But for you anything right of правда is unacceptable to you

Nice crack-pot source.

You seem too have trouble discerning between medium and message.

Here is the same text hosted on the libertarian Mises institut:

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/4_1/4_1_3.pdf

Harry Elmer Barnes: Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It is from LewRockwell, libertarian central. But for you anything right of правда is unacceptable to you



You seem too have trouble discerning between medium and message.

Here is the same text hosted on the libertarian Mises institut:

http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/4_1/4_1_3.pdf

Harry Elmer Barnes: Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century

That pdf has 124 pages. How many of them did you read?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Corkscrew mind is impressive.

Content free smear.

I point it out as an example of Nazi behavior, not as a causus belli. Sorry you can't score any points of that, you just misunderstood.

You brought it as such, and probably did not realise that it could not serve as a casus belli until I pointed it out for you (admittedly after a search myself).

The directive you referred to was about dealing with resistance fighters.
As far as I am aware these people can be shot under general accepted rules of warfare.

So I repeat the question: why was it necessary for Americans to kill Germans while Germany had done nothing to the US.

Why don't you admit that this moral BS is just an excuse to hide your real intentions: bringing mother Europe under the American/Soviet boot?

And would you not agree that Roosevelt and his gang already declared war on Germany on the very moment Roosevelt became president, in 1933?

 

[9/11-investigator]

That pdf has 124 pages. How many of them did you read?

Nothing, I just pointed out to our Swedish friend here what the source of the devastating quote from the NYT was, namely that this Jewspaper itself admitted that Churchill and Roosevelt had been plotting for US war entry via the Japanese 'backdoor'.

In this post.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Content free smear.



You brought it as such, and probably did not realise that it could not serve as a casus belli until I pointed it out for you (admittedly after a search myself).

The directive you referred to was about dealing with resistance fighters.
As far as I am aware these people can be shot under general accepted rules of warfare.

So I repeat the question: why was it necessary for American to kill Germans while Germany had done nothing to the US.

Why don't you admit that this moral BS is just an excuse to hide your real intentions: bringing mother Europe under the American/Soviet boot?

I know all about Nacht und Nebel, 9ish, I put it on the internet in 1994.

As for killing nazis, what's not to like?

And would you not agree that Roosevelt and his gang already declared war on Germany on the very moment Roosevelt became president, in 1933?

I think you have some serious issues, 9, and need to talk to somebody. FDR had more than enough domestic issues to deal with.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yeah, in a way, it is accurate to say that Pearl Harbor was an act of desperation. It was an act of desperation on the part of Yamamoto. He knew, as most other Japanese leaders refused to believe, that Japan could not possibly win in open conflict against the U.S.

Thus he and a few other officers developed the PH strike plan at the last moment and completely separate from the war plan being developed by the Army and Navy General Staffs. A compromise had already been reached for simultaneous attacks on Malaya (what the Army wanted) and the Philippines (what the Navy wanted), when Yamamoto forced the leadership to accept a third simultaneous operation against Pearl Harbor by threatening to resign. Doesn't exactly sound like something that would happen if the Japanese leadership as a whole were desperate.

Illogical conclusion. Maybe the rest of the leadership was not convinced that the US would intervene when Japan tried to get the oil elsewhere. Maybe they trusted that Congress would get it's way and would not give permission to Roosevelt to wage war against Japan. You know, there was a secret illegal understanding between the British, Dutch and Roosevelt about mutual cooperation in case of a Japanese attack. It looks like Yamamoto made the blunder of his life and that Roosevelt would have been highly embarrased if the Japanese had not attacked PH.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I know all about Nacht und Nebel, 9ish, I put it on the internet in 1994.

No kidding, on the internet in 1994!

As for killing nazis, what's not to like?

What happened to the Christian principle where Western societies are based on: "love thy Nazi"

I think you have some serious issues, 9, and need to talk to somebody. FDR had more than enough domestic issues to deal with.

You are saying the Rosie was already overworked on the first day he entered office?! 1933?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No kidding, on the internet in 1994!

It was on wvnet.bryd at that time.

What happened to the Christian principle where Western societies are based on: "love thy Nazi"

I've never had a problem with killing those how need it.

You are saying the Rosie was already overworked on the first day he entered office?! 1933?

In case you're totally ignorant of history, I'll state the obvious. THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

 

[uke2se]

Wrong. I am engaged in this matter for 10 years now, ever since the rise and murder of Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands. And I am far from the only one her in Holland.

No matter how long you've been denying reality in the Netherlands, you clearly still know nothing of Sweden, so I wasn't wrong. I wasn't wrong about you lacking intellect, integrity or rationality either, as anyone here can testify.

What a joke! The 'integration' in the south has failed because of the high concentration of unintegratable muslims (whatever integration might mean). As the numbers rise everywhere, expect the whole of Sweden become one big Malmo!

Like I said, you know absolutely nothing about the situation in Malmö.

About the 'radical right'... it will come as a surprise to you that I was very leftwing myself before 2000 and before moving to Amsterdam. But change has come to every sane Dutchman. Just change the circumstances enough and you can turn anybody into a 'Nazi'.

Who cares. You're a Nazi now, no matter your political ideology in the past. Your sudden sharing of your past also has nothing to do with the South of Sweden being the center for radical right ideology in Sweden.

uke2se is a dangerous doogooder (or a Jew) who threatens to throw his native country into civil war, just because of his 'high-minded ideals'.

No, I'm just a rational person who stands up against injustice, hate and lies - that is to say, I stand up to your kind of people.

But uke2se is not just an idealist, he is also a dangerous commie, who has recognized that he can import a new proletariat from the third world, with which he will try to wage his little revolution of his own with his new won lefty voters. But the example of Holland has shown that for every invader who enters the electorate of a leftwing party, a lefty Dutchman will leave that party and move to the right. In the end the leftwing parties will be colored parties, making a mockery of the 'integration promiss' by the left. And then the gloves are off.

Lol paranoia. You wanna threaten some more people while you're at it? How about that little ol' lady you wanted to beat up on some pages ago?

I am not threatening you at all, I have enough to do here in Holland, to be bothered by an anonymous Swedish fruit fly, who I don't know and certainly not wish to know.

You did attempt to threaten me, but your pathetic attempt was hardly worth my notice. As it is against board rules, I felt it best to warn you about this, as I don't want to lose my favorite chew-toy.

I am merely predicting what is going to happen to you and your traiterous ilk and it won't be pretty.

Please understand that "predictions" is not the same as "disturbed masturbatory fantasies".

Just read a book about Yugoslavia. But I can tell you I will be writing blogs in order to prevent the decay and destruction of our societies.

What you write on blogs has no bearing on reality. As you said yourself, 99% of Europeans (at least) disagree with you, and see you for the Nazi filth you are.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Hey, no need to beat around the bush. Good for you to have admitted it, and even provided directly textual support: The Japanese were not inferior to the Germans. Due to their lack of racial integity, this cannot be said for the WAllies. Thus in any accounting of numbers, the Japanese must be counted on the German side, while the vast majority of the American population cannot. Thus the Germans and their racial equals, the Japanese, were defeated by the minority of the WAllied population that do have a certain degree of racial integrity, namely the "Anglos," who were grossly outnumbered, and impeded by their Jewish Masters.

So I take it you agree one Anglo is worth many Aryans in fighting prowess?

Explain to me why the Americans or British had no racial integrity before the 1965 immigration desaster started to develop as a consequence of the murder of JFK? Even Hitler calls Anglos "Aryans". We have already seen from Mein Kampf that he did not see Japanese as Aryans. Aryan simply means white. European. Euro-American. Hitler was basically a multiculturalist, well a special variant of it, namely one culture per territory. But he refused to see the Japanese or Chinese as inferior. But that does not mean they have equal fighting strength. In my family there were quit a lot of colonials, Dutch people with a history in the Dutch Indies, present day Indonesia. One of them was interned by the Japanese. I remember vividly him saying, that although the treatment in the camp was harsh, somehow it was impossible to take these little fellas seriously. In the early sixties there was no such thing as political correctness in Holland.

Surely the Germans thought they were fighting for a just cause. The WAllies, on the other hand, were merely deluded dupes of the Jews, who had to know in their heart of hearts that something was amiss. So the Germans won, right?

OK, I have to qualify my remark somewhat, at some point the enemy can be so overwelming strong in numbers that the higher quality party loses. But you have to admit that the fighting spirit and morale was unbroken until the last minute of the war.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, the Jew Roosevelt wanted to wage war in order to grab power on a global scale. Such is the 'calling' of the Jews.

You really can't write a single post without your hatred shining through and making whatever you have to say easily dismiss able as the paranoid ravings of a mad man.

The bolded sentence does not make sense. Explain. Are you admitting that Roosevelt led the US into war without the knowledge of the population about how the nation got into war?

It doesn't make sense to you because you are dumb. It makes sense to people who matter.

Are you sure it is in your interest to show your deceptive character to the rest of the world? The difference between Germans and (Jewified) Anglos is that the first once's keep their word.

No, that's not the difference between Germans and Englishmen.

They had an agreement with Japan, remember?

Like the British and French had with Poland.

Now I know that it is seen as sane behavior by Anglos to betray anybody.

Like the Nazis did to the Soviets when they invaded despite their alliance.

Or the case of Poland, where Britain promised to guarantee the integrity of that country, but next happily handed it over to the Soviets in Jalta.

They did guarantee the independence of the nation of Poland. The Nazis invaded and Britain went to war. That's honoring an agreement, something the Nazis failed to do when they invaded the Soviet Union.

Anglo perfidy it is called, I believe.

What you believe has no bearing on reality.