Who started both World Wars?

[Laeke]

Can someone tell me who Scheil is? Can I assume he's no more creditable as a historian than Patrick Buchanan or Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof?

German historian. Too little facts available to me to cast judgement on his credibility (or lack thereof).

I don't have the text of the peace proposal, merely the summary given in that Foreign Office document.

So how come your original summary differs from it?
I am not asking for your opinion on Czechslovakia, Anglo evilness or Nazi peace feelers: do you agree that your presentation of this specific offer (the one made to Mallet in Sweden in September 1940) was factually wrong? That you did not mention several of the terms and added one that you say was made later but does not appear in the FO telegram that document the specific peace offer of September 1940 made to Mallet?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Can someone tell me who Scheil is? Can I assume he's no more creditable as a historian than Patrick Buchanan or Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2ASafnCCM
The speech is rethorically named 'Did Hitler really want war'. The implied answer of course is 'no'.

I like your shirt, Walter. Still upset about these few months of low paid manual labor?

 

[9/11-investigator]

More from Scheil's book:

[p179]H-H-H-H-operation. Under this label during a number of months the British government conducted maneuvers simulating contacts with the German leadership, culminating in the flight of Hess to Scotland (These H-letters refered to people like Hitler, Himler, Hess, Haushofer but also to Halifax, Hoare and the Duke of Hamilton).

You know how these Anglos are, always coming up with a fancy name for their 'operations': 'Desert Storm', 'Odyssey Dawn', 'Exercise Unified Spirit', 'Liberty Shield', etc., etc.

But seriously, Britain was conducting in a real operation to avoid peace talks, let alone peace itself and conceiling this effort for their own population. The British government had been hijacked by those who wanted war at all cost.

 

[9/11-investigator]

So there was poor Hitler, merely wanting to liberate Germany from Versailles, wanting the German town of Danzig back as well as a road to Eastern Prussia and be recognized as a normal power in accordance with it's weight.

That was it.

After the British/French invasion of Norway in an (incompetent) attempt of cutting off vital supplies to Germany, Hitler was forced to act against Britain and France, who had after all declared war against Germany, not the other way around. Having overrun Western Europe Hitler said to Britain: 'do you now want peace?'. Churchill, the usual incompetent that he was, had instigated this idiotic Norwegian move in the first place and, for some reason I don't yet understand, was rewarded for it by becoming PM. Churchill said 'no' to the peace offer. Talking about peace offers:

[Scheil p339] Another confirmation of this was a memorandum of the British Foreign ministry from spring 1941, listing no less than 16 attempts for peace.

The memorandum is FO 371/26542, Allen, Friedensfalle p86.

16 rejected peace attempts originating from Germany, all rejected by Britain.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were massed along the Russian-German frontier, ready to assault.

In November 1940 Molotov had visited Berlin and, exploiting the stalemate situation at the Western front, had basically cancelled the Non-agresson agreement; Molotov used the word 'exhausted', and demanded the entire non-German territory in Eastern Europe to become Soviet. Not only that, he demanded military bases in Turkey and Denmark (controlling access to the Baltic sea). It would have meant a total geostrategic capitulation by Germany. Molotov knew very well Germany could not accept that. He was nothing less than provoking war with Germany.

So what was Hitler to do?

More from treasure trove Scheil, this time about Barbarossa:

[Scheil p182] Jodl’s summary of thoughts expressed by Hitler on March 3, 1941. About the coming war against Russia: "The entire area must be dissolved in separate states with governments of their own with whome we can make peace".

Lebensraum, anyone?

It is obvious that 'Lebensraum' was not the motivation for Barbarossa. Hitler: "It is impossible to think of Russia without socialism. Therefore socialism only can be the foundation of bilding new states. The Judeo-bolshevik intelligence must be pushed aside. The former bourgeois-aristocratic intelligenz can be no candidate, she is rejected by the Russian population and German hostile at that… at all cost must we prevent to let Russian nationalism rise, that as history has shown us, will be Germanophobic. What we need is a socialist edifice that depends on us."

His only hope could be a preemptive strike, he had no other options. It was already clear Britain wanted the destruction of Germany. It was clear that the USSR wanted to Sovietize Europe, including Germany.

Barbarossa in itself was no surprise for the Soviets. Nevertheless Stalin made one crucial mistake: he had expected that Germany would pose an ultimatum first. They did not. They struck out of the blue, giving them 2-3 weeks head start and that was enough to almost reach Moscow. The end effect of the decision was that at least western Europe was saved from Bolshevism by the in-time arrival of the lesser evil: the Americans. Nevertheless Europe was partitioned, conquered. But that was 1945. The USSR is now non-existant and the US will be dealt with by China, so that Jewish designed multicult nightmare will be over soon.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Wow, just discovered these memorandums are online!

FO 371/26542

And the one we discussed earlier:

FO 371/24408

 

[Wroclaw]

So there was poor Hitler, merely wanting to liberate Germany from Versailles, wanting the German town of Danzig back as well as a road to Eastern Prussia and be recognized as a normal power in accordance with it's weight.

That was it.

And to keep Czechoslovakia.

You neglected to mention that.

 

[9/11-investigator]

And to keep Czechoslovakia.

You neglected to mention that.

A formation brought into life by the Allies after WW1 to pester Germany.
It had always been Germanish.
It did not resist in 1938 by firing even a single bullit.
And today it does not exist. That 'Czechoslovakia'?

Please locate 'Czechoslovakia' for us on the map:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/maps/map_images/Europe1914.gif

Not that I am against an independent Czech Republic! Heck I am in favor of an independent Scotland, and independent Wales and that the conquered territories of South-West-USA goes back to Mexico (gonna happen anyway). And that Alaska goes back to Russia. And Manhattan back to Holland.

About the history of Prague:

Die Umgebung der Stadt ist seit der Frühgeschichte dicht bevölkert. Die slawische Besiedlung begann im 6. Jahrhundert in einem Gebiet, das seit über 500 Jahren von den germanischen Markomannen bewohnt wurde. Nach der Errichtung von zwei Burgen durch die Přemysliden im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert kamen jüdische und deutsche Kaufleute ins Land. Um 1230 wurde Prag zur Residenzstadt des Königreichs Böhmen und im 14. Jahrhundert als Hauptstadt des Heiligen Römischen Reiches zu einem politisch-kulturellen Zentrum Mitteleuropas. In Prag wurde die erste deutsche Universität errichtet.

Translation: Germanic tribes were first in the area of the later Prague; 500 years later Slavs entered the territory. In the 14th century Prague even became the capital of the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation'! The first German university was founded in Prague!!!

In other words, 'Czechoslovakia' had always been immersed in German history. And then some Anglos/Jews came along and decided that it should be all different, but what do they know. It is high time that Europeans liberate Germany from Anglosphere and their Jews.

 

[Hans]

After the British/French invasion of Norway in an (incompetent) attempt of cutting off vital supplies to Germany, Hitler was forced to act against Britain and France, who had after all declared war against Germany, not the other way around.

Still lying I see 9/11

Let deal with your first lie, timeline for April 1940 by day

1: Hitler approves final plans for the attacks on Norway and Denmark.
2: Germany sets 9 April 1940 as the date for Weserübung.
3: Winston Churchill becomes the chair of the British Ministerial Defence Committee. One of his first actions is to get consent for mining operations in Norwegian territorial waters.
5: France and the United Kingdom notify Norway of their reservation of the right to deny Germany access to Norwegian resources.
6: British Admiralty receives a report from Copenhagen stating ten German destroyers are headed towards Narvik, but considers the possibility of such an event doubtful.
7: German vessels begin to set to sea for Operation Weserübung, some are seen by RAF reconnaissance and later attacked without effect by bombers. Home Fleet moves NNE in search of the enemy, they are joined by the 2nd Cruiser Squadron.
8: HMS Glowworm is sunk by the German cruiser Admiral Hipper after giving chase to the German destroyer Bernd von Arnim. Polish submarine ORP Orzeł sinks the German transport Rio de Janeiro at the southern Norwegian coast.
9: Denmark is captured by the German 170th Infantry Division and German 198th Infantry Division under command of General Kaupitsch. [German]Landings in Norway begin. German heavy cruiser Blücher is sunk by shore batteries along Oslofjord, and troops land further south than intended. German air-landed soldiers land at and capture the airport at Oslo. Weather slows but does not prevent successful landings at Kristiansand, while surprise paratrooper landings at Stavanger quickly secure the airfield there. Bergen and Trondheim are captured quickly. The Narvik landing force evades British naval forces and defeats the Norwegian vessels in the fjord.
10: The First Battle of Narvik occurs when a British force of five destroyers enters Ofotfjord. The Germans have ten destroyers defending and both sides lose two ships, with the German force suffering greater damage beyond that to other vessels. At Bergen, the German cruiser Königsberg is sunk by air attack. In Oslo, the Norwegian government has left, and Vidkun Quisling becomes the head of the new government.
12: Kongsberg falls to German forces without a fight.
13: The Second Battle of Narvik occurs when a British force of nine destroyers and the battleship HMS Warspite enter Ofotfjord and destroy all eight defending German destroyers.
14: British forces land at Namsos and Harstad as Anglo-French forces prepare to launch operations against German forces at Trondheim and Narvik.


Ah so 9/11 why are German troops in Norway before the British? LOL

Why did the Germans invade Denmark?

Where did the Norwegian government flee to?

Why did the Germans replace the legitmate government of Norway with a puppet?

As 9/11 deeply fears my historical knowledge he has me on 'ignore' please copy this message for our dear friend and leugenachtig

 

[Craig4]

Still lying I see 9/11

Let deal with your first lie, timeline for April 1940 by day

1: Hitler approves final plans for the attacks on Norway and Denmark.
2: Germany sets 9 April 1940 as the date for Weserübung.
3: Winston Churchill becomes the chair of the British Ministerial Defence Committee. One of his first actions is to get consent for mining operations in Norwegian territorial waters.
5: France and the United Kingdom notify Norway of their reservation of the right to deny Germany access to Norwegian resources.
6: British Admiralty receives a report from Copenhagen stating ten German destroyers are headed towards Narvik, but considers the possibility of such an event doubtful.
7: German vessels begin to set to sea for Operation Weserübung, some are seen by RAF reconnaissance and later attacked without effect by bombers. Home Fleet moves NNE in search of the enemy, they are joined by the 2nd Cruiser Squadron.
8: HMS Glowworm is sunk by the German cruiser Admiral Hipper after giving chase to the German destroyer Bernd von Arnim. Polish submarine ORP Orzeł sinks the German transport Rio de Janeiro at the southern Norwegian coast.
9: Denmark is captured by the German 170th Infantry Division and German 198th Infantry Division under command of General Kaupitsch. [German]Landings in Norway begin. German heavy cruiser Blücher is sunk by shore batteries along Oslofjord, and troops land further south than intended. German air-landed soldiers land at and capture the airport at Oslo. Weather slows but does not prevent successful landings at Kristiansand, while surprise paratrooper landings at Stavanger quickly secure the airfield there. Bergen and Trondheim are captured quickly. The Narvik landing force evades British naval forces and defeats the Norwegian vessels in the fjord.
10: The First Battle of Narvik occurs when a British force of five destroyers enters Ofotfjord. The Germans have ten destroyers defending and both sides lose two ships, with the German force suffering greater damage beyond that to other vessels. At Bergen, the German cruiser Königsberg is sunk by air attack. In Oslo, the Norwegian government has left, and Vidkun Quisling becomes the head of the new government.
12: Kongsberg falls to German forces without a fight.
13: The Second Battle of Narvik occurs when a British force of nine destroyers and the battleship HMS Warspite enter Ofotfjord and destroy all eight defending German destroyers.
14: British forces land at Namsos and Harstad as Anglo-French forces prepare to launch operations against German forces at Trondheim and Narvik.


Ah so 9/11 why are German troops in Norway before the British? LOL

Why did the Germans invade Denmark?

Where did the Norwegian government flee to?

Why did the Germans replace the legitmate government of Norway with a puppet?

As 9/11 deeply fears my historical knowledge he has me on 'ignore' please copy this message for our dear friend and leugenachtig

What difference would it make? His kind aren't after the truth. There's no amount of truth that would cause the Nazi to give up his dishonesty.

 

[9/11-investigator]

What difference would it make? His kind aren't after the truth. There's no amount of truth that would cause the Nazi to give up his dishonesty.

Calling names again, Craig4, my Anglo friend? Why don't you address the many arguments made in my last 10 posts or so?

But wait, I might be a Nazi... eeeeeevil!!!

So, why not listen to one of your kind, this Robert H. Jackson fella, who said during the runup to Nuremberg:

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."

Even America's top judge admitted that he could not make a case against the Germans. So who the heck do you think you are that you can!?

It is there... IN YOUR FACE!

Ah so 9/11 why are German troops in Norway before the British? LOL

Because the British are incompetents, they can't even produce a car, let alone put a man on the moon. They are an easy target for the Jews. Even the British today admit it was a fiasco for the British. Shall I say that they are racial inferior? Nah, that would be too harsh on our lying, deceiving 'liberators'.

Again my opponents are completely and dishonoustly ignoring that France and Britain had declared war on Germany. That they could strike any moment and in fact did with their preparation of the Norwegian invasion. It had become a war on a European scale. Tellingly Germany did not invade Sweden, because it doesn't have an Atlantic coast, like Denmark and Norway have. And Holland, Belgium and France. Germany was fighting for it's naked existence.

And rest assured that my opponents do not have an explanation for the fact, ackowledged by the Foreign Office, that between the western European invasion and Barbarossa Germany launched 16 peace initiatives. How is that compatible with the Anglo lie that Germany wanted to permanently occupy these territories?

But my opponents will do nothing but calling 'Nazi' names, that's all they are intellectually up to.

 

[Corsair 115]

Barbarossa in itself was no surprise for the Soviets. Nevertheless Stalin made one crucial mistake: he had expected that Germany would pose an ultimatum first. They did not. They struck out of the blue, giving them 2-3 weeks head start and that was enough to almost reach Moscow.

Am I the only one who finds the above contradictory? If they expected the attack all along, then how come so many Soviet soldiers were captured early on and much of its air force destroyed while on the ground?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Am I the only one who finds the above contradictory? If they expected the attack all along, then how come so many Soviet soldiers were captured early on and much of its air force destroyed while on the ground?

They were expecting them but that does not mean they knew the date. You can't keep your army mobilized for ever. It takes a few weeks to transport your troops from the factories to the front and arm them. The Russians estimated that there would be an ultimatum first.

 

[Hans]

Ah so 9/11 accepts the fact that he did lie about the British invading Norway first. I predict that in a few days or perhaps weeks he'll, 'forget' and start stating the same lie again.

Again my opponents are completely and dishonoustly ignoring that France and Britain had declared war on Germany.

Yet another lie, the allies clearly and repeatedly told Hitler that if he invade Poland it would be treated as an act of war against them. He started the war - why do you always seem to forget that?

That they could strike any moment and in fact did with their preparation of the Norwegian invasion. It had become a war on a European scale.

Yet the British and French had to wait until Germany invaded neutral Belgium before they moved their forces into the country to protect it

Question 9/11 if all these evil countries wanted to attack Germany, which you continually rant about why didn't they all just attack him in 1934?

Tellingly Germany did not invade Sweden, because it doesn't have an Atlantic coast, like Denmark and Norway have. And Holland, Belgium and France. Germany was fighting for it's naked existence.

Yet no one attacked Germany while he took Czechoslovakia and the war didn’t begin until Germany attacked Poland. Germany was ‘fighting for its existence because it started a war of conquest

And rest assured that my opponents do not have an explanation for the fact, ackowledged by the Foreign Office, that between the western European invasion and Barbarossa Germany launched 16 peace initiatives.

You have been caught lying about the contents of one of these how about all the others. The Allied would have talked peace if Germany had retreated back to its own borders, it didn’t
How is that compatible with the Anglo lie that Germany wanted to permanently occupy these territories?

But my opponents will do nothing but calling 'Nazi' names, that's all they are intellectually up to.

Perhaps if you should stop lying we might find you more creditable then. In case you're not aware of it 9/11 people find it insulting when people lie to them. Stop lying

Please copy for our ignoring inept revisionist

 

[Rich_C]

You can't read. Britain and France and other Western European powers had already conquered the world. I am saying that an alliance between Germany and Britain, as proposed repeatedly by Germany, would have been the dominant force on the planet and would have kept the US and USSR out of Europe. The latter happened and was the worst possible outcome for all European nations, including Britain. In fact Britain was the biggest loser of all in terms of standing and influence and territory. Britain could have had it all, instead they let this half-American (Jewish?) drunken sadist sexual pervert Churchill at the helm of their empire... in order to ruin it. This was the British empire as the Germans were willing to support, even with German troops. This is what it is today, courtesy Churchill, a miserable 3rd rate 'power'. The British choose this hooligan as their 'man of the century' where in reality he was the worst desaster ever to befell on the British Isles.

So Germany didn't want to conquer the world, Germany wanted to help Britain rule the already conquered world? And since Britain wouldn't agree, Germany invaded Poland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Egypt and Russia? Is that your story?

 

[Rich_C]

So there was poor Hitler, merely wanting to liberate Germany from Versailles, wanting the German town of Danzig back as well as a road to Eastern Prussia and be recognized as a normal power in accordance with it's weight.

That was it.

After the British/French invasion of Norway in an (incompetent) attempt of cutting off vital supplies to Germany, Hitler was forced to act against Britain and France, who had after all declared war against Germany, not the other way around. Having overrun Western Europe Hitler said to Britain: 'do you now want peace?'. Churchill, the usual incompetent that he was, had instigated this idiotic Norwegian move in the first place and, for some reason I don't yet understand, was rewarded for it by becoming PM.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat these points. They are still lies. No one rational believes them.

 

[Hans]

9/11 contradicts himself

It takes a few weeks to transport your troops from the factories to the front and arm them.

He previously claimed that Poland which mobilized partially on the 24th of August and fully on the 30th was fully ready to attack Germany......it hard to keep track of all the lies doesn't it 9/11? LOL

Oh and for those who don't recall the Germans were also partially mobilized and had been for years.

Oh and yes 9/11 you 'forgot' to answer the following questions

Where did the Norwegian government flee to?

Why did the Germans replace the legitmate government of Norway with a puppet?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Why not listen to what Ribbentrop had to say about the invasion?

On September 3, the rulers of Britain and France declared war on the German Reich. There were no rational grounds of any kind for their action. The German people and their Fuehrer have since January, 1933, constantly reaffirmed their intention and desire to live in peace and friendship with the British and French peoples. The German people, however, have accepted with solemn determination the war that has been thrust upon them. The scheme of the Anglo-French rulers to break up the German Reich....

That was indeed their intention, just like it had been before and after WW1. Germany was too powerful to their liking and could not compete with 'Made in Germany' on world markets.

Thus, the extension of the theater of war became the principal basis of war policy in the minds of the political and military leaders of the Western Powers. Since the beginning of the year, therefore, Britain and France have attempted by all the means in their power to bring about a shift in the war front by involving neutral states.

That's what they did with Norway and later on the Balkans.

On January 31, Mr. Chamberlain sharply rebuked the neutral states for their "uninterested indifference." On February 24, Mr. Chamberlain called the flagrant attack on the German vessel, Altmark, in Norwegian territorial waters only a "technical breach of neutrality."...

Thus far the utterances of the British and French politicians represented only a veiled challenge or a veiled threat to the neutrals. However, on April 12, Mr. Duff Cooper let the mask fall all the way off when he declared with brutal candor that, after having made clear to the neutrals that their own freedom and independence were at stake, the British would now openly tell them what part each had to play in the campaign to destroy Germany.

Well, well, some British fellow telling Holland, Belgium, Norway and others what to do! Obviously they did not listen to this war monger.

Britain and France saw in the Russo-Finnish conflict the first opportunity of gaining their objective, an extension of the war front. On March 12, M. Daladier and, on March 19, Mr. Chamberlain affirmed publicly that they were determined to intervene in the conflict with military power, making use of the territory of the Northern States as an operation base. However, their action depended on the consent of the Scandinavian States to permit the passage of their troops. These public declarations by the Heads of the Governments of Britain and France were naked frauds.

These dates are clearly ahead of the date of 9 April 1940 (the day of the German invasion).

It is evident that they had prepared every detail of the landing and disposition of troops in a systematic way, through the espionage organization of the Secret Service. Furthermore, as I shall outline in detail later, the Norwegian Government then in power had long been secretly in accord with the British.

Meaning, Norway no longer acted as a neutral state and should not complain about the consequences.

This is shown by a report of February 8 by the French Naval Attaché in Oslo. The report states for the benefit of the local Norwegian authorities, that all the intelligence work necessary for the landing would be carried out under the pretext of preparing transports to Finland.

The idea of Britain and France supporting Finland (or Poland or any other Eastern European country) against Russia is ludicrous, it was merely a pretext for landing in Norway.

In the report of this conference it is stated that (1) Mr. Churchill raged against Norway and Sweden because the Swedish ore was still permitted to reach Germany, (2) he openly acknowledged that his principal objective was to involve the Scandinavian States in the war

(1) It is perfectly plain from all the communications and documents which have come to the knowledge of the German Government that the Swedish Government interpreted its Declaration of Neutrality very seriously indeed; it neither committed nor encouraged any act incompatible with that declaration.

Sweden acted neutral and as a consequence it's independence was respected by Germany during the entire war.

The mining of Norwegian territorial waters by Great Britain, announced for April 8, was undertaken on the preceding day by the British Government, having as its alleged object the barring of Norwegian territorial waters to German shipping.

Actually, however, the mines which encircled the Norwegian harbors were intended to insure the safety of the British Expeditionary Force, which at the time was already in the North Sea. On April 8 the British troops who were intended to occupy Stavanger, Bergen, Trondheim and Narvik had already embarked and left the harbors.

That's April 8, still before the first date Hans mentions.

The German counteraction on the morning of April 9 took place at exactly the right moment to prevent or frustrate Franco-British landing operations on the Norwegian coast. When the responsible statesmen in England and France recognized that their plans for the occupation of Scandinavian territory had been shattered, Messrs. Chamberlain, Churchill, Halifax, and Reynaud came before the public with their usual dramatic airs and levied the most serious accusations at Germany, accompanied by categorical assurances that they themselves never intended any action against the sovereign territory of Scandinavia except mine-laying... The British Prime Minister made the following statement on the subject in the House of Commons: "It is asserted by the German Government that their invasion of Norway was a reprisal for the action of the Allies in Norwegian territorial waters. This statement will, of course, deceive no one. At no time did the Allies contemplate any occupation of any Scandinavian territory so long as it was not attacked by Germany. Any allegations by Germany to the contrary are pure invention, and have no foundation in fact."

Nobody denies now that Britain and France aimed for invading Norway.

Question to my opponents: why oh why did Germany come with 16 peace offers (as acknowledged by the British Foreign Office), including the flight of Hess to Scotland, if the Germans had merely intended to steamrole Europe all along?

Well?

 

[9/11-investigator]

So Germany didn't want to conquer the world, Germany wanted to help Britain rule the already conquered world? And since Britain wouldn't agree, Germany invaded Poland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Egypt and Russia? Is that your story?

No.

I see you have only 44 posts under your belt. Why don't you take a week of vacation and start reading this thread?

 

[9/11-investigator]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat these points. They are still lies. No one rational believes them.

Your Robert H. Jackson agrees with me.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Question to all my opponents: what is your opinion about the 16 Germans attempts to make peace with Britain? Would you not agree that it was Britain who wanted war and not Germany? This is the essence of this thread: "who started both WW1 and WW2".