9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Wroclaw]

Not according to Codoh.

Huh?

 

[Wowbagger]

You probably forgot that there was a war going on.

Sure, that justifies throwing innocent people into camps against their will.

The conditions in most camps was reasonable (with exceptions like Mauthausen) during the first part of the war.

Honestly, have you SEEN the photos coming out of those camps?!!

How would you feel if you were forced into one of them? What if it was solely because someone didn't like something about your ancestry?

 

[Hans]

Wrong. Britain and France prepared for an invasion of Norway and as a matter of fact did. There were some 25,000 (out the top of my head, was discussed earlier in this thread) alllied soldiers captured in Norway by the Germans. That move triggered the Germasn actions in May 1940. Although I have to admit that Hitler confided to Mannerheim that he already wanted to attack Western Europe after Britain and France had declared war in September 1939, but that bad weather conditions had kept him from doing so.

9/11 lies again

The German plan to invade Denmark and Norway began before any Allied move - that is a fact the denier cannot seem to remember

The conflict in Norway did not 'trigger' anything again the German plan to invade the west was made well before it

Oh 9/11 if you keep lying about this why don't you show us the time lines of when the various plans were made and decision decided....what no?

 

[VonKleist]

9/11 lies again

The German plan to invade Denmark and Norway began before any Allied move - that is a fact the denier cannot seem to remember

The conflict in Norway did not 'trigger' anything again the German plan to invade the west was made well before it

Oh 9/11 if you keep lying about this why don't you show us the time lines of when the various plans were made and decision decided....what no?

The German decision to invade Norway followed from the Altmark incident. General Nikolaus von Falkenhorst was ordered to compose an invasion plan on February 20, 1940. Falkenhorst had no access to any military maps of Norway so he went to town and bought a Baedeker guide to find out 'where the ports were, how many inhabitants Norway had, and what kind of country this was. . . . I absolutely did not know what to expect'.
He planned the operation using the Baedeker guide in his hotel room and submitted it to Hitler at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

 

[9/11-investigator]

$3.95

Headline + first lines are free.

 

[VonKleist]

Headline + first lines are free.

As is establishing that the article is in the archive and can easily be found.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The German decision to invade Norway followed from the Altmark incident. General Nikolaus von Falkenhorst was ordered to compose an invasion plan on February 20, 1940. Falkenhorst had no access to any military maps of Norway so he went to town and bought a Baedeker guide to find out 'where the ports were, how many inhabitants Norway had, and what kind of country this was. . . . I absolutely did not know what to expect'.
He planned the operation using the Baedeker guide in his hotel room and submitted it to Hitler at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

We have discussed Norway here, here, here, here (and the rest of the page).

 

[9/11-investigator]

As is establishing that the article is in the archive and can easily be found.

LGR already gave the necessary comments.

Thanks anyway!

But you could of course show to us how clever you are and produce the NYT link to the van Roden article.

 

[Hans]

Just a note on some of 9/11 lies

The Nazis were able to feed their population and army with little difficulty until 1945 while people were straved to death at camps

The Nazis were able to feed the allied prisoners of war enough to strave off death - except for the Russian swho were deemed subhuman and left to strave -while people straved to death at camps

The Nazis were able to fend off mass infectious outbreaks in their own civilian areas and the allied prisoner of war camps (except as noted about the Russian ones) but not at the camps

So how did the allies effectively 'cause all the deaths at the camps' while not affecting everything else? How was that done? LOL

 

[Hans]

Deleted

 

[VonKleist]

We have discussed Norway here, here, here, here (and the rest of the page).

Good for you. Couldn't care less I'm afraid. Hans brought the subject up and I thought I'd share the von Falkenhorst anecdote with him in case he wasn't aware of it.

 

[Hans]

Good for you. Couldn't care less I'm afraid. Hans brought the subject up and I thought I'd share the von Falkenhorst anecdote with him in case he wasn't aware of it.

Thanks I had read that a long time ago but that must have been a change to the plan as the initial plans for Invading Norway and Denmark were written out in 1939, the initial plan was called Studie Nord and was authorized on the 14th of December of that year - interestingly just four days before asking for a plan to invade the Soviet Union.

The British plan to occupy Narvik was initially recommend by Churchill also in 1939 and was modified into a plan to support Finland during the winter war but the proposal was declined by the Swedes and Norway

 

[VonKleist]

Thanks I had read that a long time ago but that must have been a change to the plan as the initial plans for Invading Norway and Denmark were written out in 1939, the initial plan was called Studie Nord and was authorized on the 14th of December of that year - interestingly just four days before asking for a plan to invade the Soviet Union.

The British plan to occupy Narvik was initially recommend by Churchill also in 1939 and was modified into a plan to support Finland during the winter war but the proposal was declined by the Swedes and Norway

Just as a slight nitpick, Hitler's order of 18 December was to carry out a plan that had already been worked out between 31st July and December 5th when it was approved by Hitler.

The Altmark incident marks the time where we can say that Hitler had a definite intent to invade Norway. The OKW had a first draft of Studie Nord completed by 20th January, but Jodl had stipulated that this be undertaken with the smallest possible staff. Similarly when a Sonderstab was formed to prepare an operational plan, following this first draft, Admiral Krancke noted that he was of the impression that Hitler and Jodl were 'not firmly resolved to execute the operation.' Is there anything to suggest that Studie Nord had more 'impetus' behind it?

I know very little about the allied planning before the Norway campaign. . .

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-banned-end-World-War-II-removed-iTunes.html

Nazi tunes: Shame-faced Apple bosses forced to remove marching anthem from sale on Holocaust Memorial Day

The media keep beating the holo drum. Interesting though are the majority sceptical comments below the article. That's the influence of the internet: political correct talk during lunchbreak in the company restaurant and reading stormfront in the evening.

More to come.

 

[uke2se]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-banned-end-World-War-II-removed-iTunes.html

Nazi tunes: Shame-faced Apple bosses forced to remove marching anthem from sale on Holocaust Memorial Day

The media keep beating the holo drum. Interesting though are the majority sceptical comments below the article. That's the influence of the internet: political correct talk during lunchbreak in the company restaurant and reading stormfront in the evening.

More to come.

Wow, it's posts are becoming parodies.

 

[Hans]

Just as a slight nitpick, Hitler's order of 18 December was to carry out a plan that had already been worked out between 31st July and December 5th when it was approved by Hitler.
.

I'd agree to that

The Altmark incident marks the time where we can say that Hitler had a definite intent to invade Norway. The OKW had a first draft of Studie Nord completed by 20th January, but Jodl had stipulated that this be undertaken with the smallest possible staff. Similarly when a Sonderstab was formed to prepare an operational plan, following this first draft, Admiral Krancke noted that he was of the impression that Hitler and Jodl were 'not firmly resolved to execute the operation.' Is there anything to suggest that Studie Nord had more 'impetus' behind it?

I know very little about the allied planning before the Norway campaign. . .

I'd say that the example of what happened in WWI was well remembered by the the Allied blockade of the North sea. This blockade made trade all but impossible and later made moving U-boats and raiders much harder.

Both sides were aware of the effect of this blockade - the allies realized the defect in it was the iron ore shipments and the Nazis knew they couldn't operate out of a box. So a war with the west required the 'north' flank to be occupied.

I'm now wondering how the Altmarck affair effected the final decisions. The incident showed the Nazis would violate Norwegian neutrality, that the British would violate it and the Norwegians would do nothing. So it was a setting of the parameters.

Question would the Nazis have invaded if the Altmarck incident not occurred or if the Norwegians were more aggressive?

Quislings meeting with Hitler was also a trigger. I wonder how much the position of Norway in Nazi mythology had on the decision to invade Norway and Denmark and why the Sweden wasn't?

 

[Hans]

Wow, it's posts are becoming parodies.

Gee how many neo-nazis exist around the world, we've got few here, but they seem like internet Nazis wannabees only

 

[uke2se]

Quislings meeting with Hitler was also a trigger. I wonder how much the position of Norway in Nazi mythology had on the decision to invade Norway and Denmark and why the Sweden wasn't?

Sweden wasn't invaded for a number of reasons.

1. Sweden didn't have the strategic position of Norway. There was no land-link to continental Europe like in Denmark, and it had no coast allowing traffic into the Atlantic. Occupying Denmark and Norway was sufficient to control traffic into the Baltic.

2. Sweden's iron ore was a major part in Nazi Germany's armaments industry. Germany couldn't risk being cut off from it in case Sweden resisted fiercely or got help from the Allies. Furthermore, Sweden had fairly close ties with Nazi Germany and Hitler was certain trade would continue no matter what.

3. Taking Sweden would be a major undertaking for already stretched German forces. The Swedish army - while not huge - was larger than the Norwegian and the Danish armies combined, and the country is huge. A campaign here would likely tie up good German divisions for extended periods of time in a war that would have been largely unnecessary.

4. Sweden made extensive concessions to Germany, allowing her to transport troops through the country.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The pushers of the H-tale do not like te be reminded about this fact, but 95% of the Jews killed in the Baltics were killed by the locals. Even the Wiesenthal Center has to admit that, as we have seen earlier in this thread.

Now look at this article in a mainstream Nowegian newspaper published today:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/03/05/...ndre_verdenskrig/baltikum/kommunisme/5137478/

Here a google translator version.

And here comments on Codoh.

The article in the Norwegian newspaper makes clear why the locals wanted to kill the Jews. We have discussed this before and is not new. What is new is that a mainstream paper finds courage to publish the other side of the story.

 

[uke2se]

The pushers of the H-tale do not like te be reminded about this fact, but 95% of the Jews killed in the Baltics were killed by the locals. Even the Wiesenthal Center has to admit that, as we have seen earlier in this thread.

None of us likes to be reminded of the holocaust at all, but you seem obsessed to keep pushing your lies, so we respond. The holocaust in the Baltic states is a well known and understood subject. Read this article for more information (not you, Nein11, you wouldn't understand it):

http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/holocaust.html

The article in the Norwegian newspaper makes clear why the locals wanted to kill the Jews. We have discussed this before and is not new. What is new is that a mainstream paper finds courage to publish the other side of the story.

No it's not new. This is well known history, taught to every student of World War 2 and the holocaust. That it seems to be new to you is indicative of your gross ignorance of the subject matter.