Who started both World Wars?

[MG1962]

Mostly because he doesn't really believe this lunacy. He just needs to rationalize the rehabilitation of Hitler. No honesty required.

Nicely pointed out in post #4663 - where he describes 10,000 Dutch citizens killed by allied bombing as sheer hooliganism and Europe-hatred-in-action

But ignores the 170,000 Dutch killed by Europes hero in waiting Hitler

And then we could mention operation Manna and operation Faust where the nasty Britsh who hate Europe bombed...yes bombed starving Dutch people with a 11,000 tons of food to try and stop them starving to death

But then again I am wasting my breath dealing with someone who seems to look forward to the potential death of 300 million people with a real sense of relish

 

[MG1962]

but miraculously spared the infrastructure supporting the concentration camps which is why the conditions found within at the end of the war were a result of Germans being mean and nothing else.

Neatly ignoring that the non destruction of the camps was an intentional act

 

[9/11-investigator]

It seems you missed my earlier comment. Let me restate it with more emphasis. Perhaps you see it this time:

I notice how you conveniently leave out how that bombing campaign also wrecked German industry, decimated its air force, ruined its transportation network, forced it to reallocate resources which helped the Allied ground campaign, and crippled Germany's ability to wage war.

Are you going to argue that those items are not of importance?

Where do I deny that?

Or is it that you want to rub it in and repeat it again in big letters?
With your worthless track record against Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Georgia, I would not make too many enemies if I were you, my paper tiger friend. Remember, there is no USSR anymore to do the heavy lifting for you. And those blacks and mestizo's you are blessed with are not going to cut it.

 

[randman]

Spin-off from the holocaust thread.

So who started WW1 and WW2? 'Easy', the average Anglo will say, 'The Germans!'... and he will continue to chew on his bagel and listen to the monotonous rap on his iPod.

Is that true? Let's start a little quiz. Here a list of possible candidates:

1) Germany
2) England
3) France
4) Poland
5) America
6) 'The Jews'
7) Hitler
8) Churchill
9) Norway
10) Kazakhstan (according to the latest insights as proposed by carlitos and TSR a European country)
11) Other, namely...

Picking more than 1 'starter' is allowed.

In order to avoid just another thread with fragmented opinions pro and contra, here is my challenge: use this discussion to construct a synthesis... come up with a coherent helicopter view story as to what you think happened, confined to a few pages maximum (pref. in one post). The topic is not when the battle of El-Alamein happened and other non-controversial trivia, this discussion is about motives of the main actors, geo-strategy and the story behind the screen. The idea is to adapt your personal narrative while our insight grows. Here is my initial version 1.0 (for the moment confined to WW2) as a kick-off:

Hitler admired Britain. He sincerely thought that the English were on the same level as the Germans (a colossal blunder). In his phantasy he had plans to extend and prolongue European rule. Hitler wanted colonies or Lebensraum as he called it in the East and he was perfectly willing to let Britain keep the 25% of the planet it already had acquired as their Lebensraum. He was even prepared to deliver troops in the support of the Empire. Hitler never wanted to attack Britain. It was sheer stupidity of Chamberlain to hand out a blanque cheque to the Poles that whatever they would do the Brits would come to their aid in case of an attack by Germany. What Chamberlain should have done was put pressure on the Poles to make concessions in the Danzig case. Danzig was a 97% German city and wanted to return to the Reich. But the Poles refused to cooperate with the British garantee in their pocket. Then there was increased border tension and next the Germans decided to take back what they considered theirs after they had made an agreement with the Soviets. Because of the garantee Britain (and France) declared war on Germany. But still not everything was lost because neither Britain nor France did anything with the war declaration ('Phoney War'/'Drole the Guerre') much to the delight of the Germans who had very bad memories from a 2-front war during WW1. However it was Winston Churchill, this prototypical drunken half-Jewish/American hooligan mystery meat (bribed by Jewish financial circles from London since the mid-thirties) who really expanded a local conflict into WW2. It was him who planned the invasion of Norway in 1940 in order to cut vital iron ore supply lines from Sweden to Germany who forced the Germans to invade Norway and Benelux and France. And even during the invasion of France he let the Brits escape (the English lied this event into the 'miracle of Duinkerken') because he was interested in peace with Britain so he had his hands free to 'stamp out Jewish communism' in the East. And on the eve of the invasion of Russia it was Rudolf Hess who made this desperate flight to Britain, obviously NOT to Churchill (who was doing the bidding of the Jews anyway) but to this Duke who could expected to be more sympathetic to peace with Germany, like many others in the British establishment who feared for the survival of the Empire. It is very likely that Germany would have offered pulling back from Western Europe in exchange for peace and free hand in the East. It was Gorbatchov with his unexpected offer to release Hess from Spandau that caused alarm within Anglo circles because if Hess would leave prison alive one of the biggest WW2 lies would have been made public. That is why the Brits were forced to 'suicide' Hess. But WW2 was never over Poland. Britain never declared war on the USSR, who had done exactly the same thing as Germany, namely swallowing half of Poland. Instead they allied themselves with the biggest bunch of mass-murderers of history to defeat Germany. Germany had expelled the Jews from Germany because they did not want to be controlled, read bolshevized by them like they had done to Russia. But the Jews who already controlled London and Washington did not like that and organized resistence. The allies won and in the end they had no choice but to invent the 'holocaust' to whitewash their own crimes.

There is no end to Anglo perfidy.

In the near future the revisionist story above is going to replace to old lies that Germany wanted to conquer the world but that luckily there were a bunch of notoriously good guys around to prevent that. And in the hour of victory, as a sort of bonus, they had accidently 'discovered' that the Germans had a little extermination program going on during the war years, conveniently distracting from the Anglo destruction of German cities (the only holocaust that really happened not counting in the holomodor and other Soviet crimes). Fortunately in the end the good guys prevailed. In reality however, the not so good guys, the Jews, prevailed and in their slipstream the Americans, our 'liberators' as you will remember. The biggest losers were the Europeans. Obviously the Germans, but certainly also the Eastern Europeans who got enslaved by Bolshevism, courtesy Churchill. And of course Britain as well, which lost its empire. Only because they let an half-american traitor control their government.

And since my opponents here consistently have shown difficulties to construct a story line longer than two sentences I will help them a bit with this seed:

Official story v1.0; picture an Anglo guy chewing on gum while saying: Well you see, we have Brits, Yanks, Frogs and Russians basically minding their own business, while all over sudden these darned Krauts tried to conquer the whole world twice. Today Germany, tomorrow ze wurld, you know what I am saying? The second time they killed 6 million Joos in gas chambers and stuff for no reason at all! Can you imagine that? Fortunately the Allies sticked together and taught those evil Germans a lesson. Twice.

Good luck.

Wel, you are right to say there is more to the story. Hitler did think of the Brits as more on their level and would have gladly made peace or even an alliance with them and the Germans were shocked at the Brit's refusal to do so. The British empire was sacrificed on the their unwillingness to compromise with Hitler. There is no doubt about that.

Additionally, we and the Brits allied ourselves with a worse monster than Hitler, namely Stalin and communism. We did so because we viewed Hitler as a greater threat that Hitler and so consigned millions in eastern Europe to communism and misery and for many, death and torture. No one should kid themselves. We are responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths and we did it out of our sense of self-interest.

I do take exception to the whole idea we did it because the Jews controlled London, etc,.....that really smacks of a bit of not only antisemitism but plain irrational thinking. If the Jews were and are so smart to accomplish something like that but obviously also relatively benign in not ushering us into gas chambers, maybe we should encourage them even more! I mean these folks are wonderful. They can rule the world even when put into gas chambers and discriminated against, denied jobs and college acceptance based on their ethnicity.

They seem to be much superior to the Aryans. Why not just submit to them?...

Of course, Jewish folks aren't really discriminated against any more here in America and the whole thing here is just something in the past.

 

[randman]

Hitler's catastrophic mistake was that he overestimated the British. He thought that they would not act against their own interest. Hitler, until Barbarossa (with the flight of Hess to Scotland), tried to persuade the British in a alliance, which would have been the most sensible thing to do for the British. Nazi-Germany was the only potential friend they had, so they decided to destroy them. At all cost. Roosevelt and Stalin were laughing in the face of the British after the war for their stupidity and functioning as their icebreaker into Europe, which was what the Soviets had hoped for all along and was the reason to offer Germany this Non-Agresson Pact and lure him into taking his town Danzig back. But Chamberlain could not row back, as he had the 'World Jews' in his neck pressing him for war. We Europeans have been betrayed by these British fools on a massive scale and their mindless century old and completely outdated 'balance of power politics', while America and the USSR were preying on Europe and Britain opened the door for them.

De Gaulle was right, Britain is the enemy of Europe, it does not belong in Europe. It deserves to be a lonely miserable island before the coast of Europe, a sort of talentless Japan. Let's make sure that that happens after the coming implosion of America.

Comments on your's.

Hitler's catastrophic mistake was that he overestimated the British.

That is absolutely true. Hitler talked a big game about the volk, but he never really fully appreciated the idea, imo. He was an idealist imo and got too wrapped up with his own ideology.

Then again, he spurred a nation to an economic miracle. Too bad he didn't leave the craziness behind.

But Chamberlain could not row back, as he had the 'World Jews' in his neck pressing him for war.

Do you really believe this anti-Jewish stuff? That was Hitler's and Germany's downfall in part. I mean how stupid was it to imprison some of your best scientists and most talented people just because they were Jewish?

I think there was something just downright diabolical about the whole thing. (I literally almost wrote "biological" thinking of the influence of evolutionism).

German Jews were loyal Germans. What insanity was it to propose killing them?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

De Gaulle was right, Britain is the enemy of Europe, it does not belong in Europe. It deserves to be a lonely miserable island before the coast of Europe, a sort of talentless Japan. Let's make sure that that happens after the coming implosion of America.

So you are posting on an American forum in the English language because?

 

[SanityGap]

; in 1943 with a lousy 125 people killed, nothing compared to what the Anglos did to Germany. They dropped 20 times as much on their opponents as Germany on Brittain. And why did they wait until1943 if they were so anxious to invade Norway to bomb Britain? But it is a lie. A filthy alllied lie. But you have to lie in order to keep the Anglo myth alive that the Germans were the agressors, but they were not.



:

Hmm. So when was the first bombing campaign of WW2, how many CIVILIANS died and who committed it?

 

[Mr Zog]

I have never come accross such a blatant attempt at ignoring the truth as 9/11 in this thread.

I was going to write a long post trying to correct some of his more blatant lies and truth streaching, but then i realised he has more than proved he is not worth it with the utter ignorance and unwillingness to look at anything that doesn't match his ready made 'facts' in his head.

Let alone his fixation with race, he mentions it in almost every post even though it is not needed at all, smacks somewhat of jelousy to me. Are you constantly finding your aryan self humiliated by so called 'inferior' races 9/11?

In a way I would love to have a time machine to send him to exactly where he is now but about 70 years ago, I'm sure he thinks it would be his own little utopia but I'm fairly certain he would last about 5 min...

 

[Corsair 115]

Where do I deny that?

You keep ignoring it with your whines about the number of casualties inflicted by the Allied raids in comparison to those inflicted by the Luftwaffe. The Allied bombing had a specific purpose: the gradual destruction of the Germany economy and the willingness and ability of its population to sustain the war effort. It achieved that goal. Not without mistakes and errors, of course, but it nonetheless crippled the German ability to wage war.

Unless tanks and aircraft without fuel and soldiers without ammunition constitute an effective military in your world.

With your worthless track record against Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Georgia, I would not make too many enemies if I were you, my paper tiger friend.

It's my track record? That's odd, I didn't realize I was an American.

Remember, there is no USSR anymore to do the heavy lifting for you.

The Soviets did not destroy the synthetic oil refineries of the Reich—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not wreck the German railway system—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not wreck much of the German steel industry—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not cripple German truck production—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not hurt German construction of its advanced U-boat types—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not crush the German ability to provide vital coal to power its industry and trains—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not attack the V-1 launching sites in France—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not decimate the day fighters of the Luftwaffe—American long-range fighters escorting the heavy bombers and the attacks upon oil refineries by Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets did not cause huge numbers of quite capable anti-tank artillery to be diverted into the anti-aircraft role—Allied heavy bombers did. The Soviets were not responsible for many military personnel sitting in Luftwaffe flak batteries—Allied heavy bombers were. The Soviets did not badly hurt German rubber production—Allied heavy bombers did (an effect of the attack on oil). The Soviets did not smash German production of nitrogen and methanol (vital components in the manufacture of explosives and ammunition)—Allied heavy bombers did (another effect of the attack on oil).

And so on.

Moreover, the Allied heavy bombers might have been even more effective in wrecking the German economy and its ability to support the war, and doing so sooner, had certain mistakes not been made.

There was no sustained effort against the German electrical supply; had there been one it had the potential to be as damaging a blow to the German war effort as were the attacks on oil. The effort against German ball-bearing production was sporadic at best; again, a sustained effort would have had a significant negative effect on German military production. The German chemical industry was left largely unscathed—but according to Albert Speer a major Allied effort there could have crippled the German ability to make explosives. Similarly, Speer relates that a major effort against German engine production could have paid large dividends to the Allies (newly produced aircraft and tanks without engines to power them are militarily useless).

Then there was the long time it took for the Allies to properly appreciate just how large a heavy bomber force was needed to wage a sustained effort against a modern industrialized nation-state, and were slow to recognize the absolutely vital necessity of long-range fighter escorts to accompany the bombers to and from their targets.

Change those errors and Germany is finished as a military power much sooner.

So, you can continue to deny all you like the significant and considerable effects the Combined Bomber Offensive had on Germany, its economy, and its ability to wage and sustain the war. The facts will remain the facts. A Germany unblunted by aerial attacks would have been a vastly more formidable foe for the Soviets to have fought. (And that doesn't even touch upon the massive amount of vital material delivered to the Soviets from the United States which greatly aided the Russian war effort. You seem to have ignored that altogether.)

 

[Tolls]

So either:
a) admit that the war in Norway was initiated by the British with the aim to cut off essential iron ore deliveries or
b) back up your ludicrous claims about Germans wanting to use Norway as a launch pad for bombing runs against Scotland by quotes from high profile historians or documents from the time.

You know very well what the truth is. Why not admit it? I admitted my mistake recently about the Russians not participating at the battle of Waterloo and I am still alive and kicking, so what is your problem?

Iron was only part of the equation.
I agree that (b) is incorrect.
It was the Germans using Norwegian waters (and ports possibly) as a hiding place for naval action in the North Sea. That was as important as the blockading of iron supplies.

(a) is also wrong on it being initiated by the British.

The German plan was drawn up in December and January. The German plan (an invasion) set off on the 3rd April. The allied (which was a mining operation) on the 4th.

The Germans landed on the 9th.

The first British (in response to the German invasion) on the 17th.

And Denmark? Invaded on the 9th to provide airfields for the invasion of Norway. No other reason. The purpose is spelled out in the German plans.

Rather like the invasions of Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg a month later. No reason other than to facilitate their main operation.

 

[Wroclaw]

Talking about the reason why Germany invaded Denmark, see this map:

http://i53.tinypic.com/28k3p11.jpg

According to that source the Germans were afraid that the alllies, apart from Norway, could invade Denmark as well.

And what is that source, please?

 

[MG1962]

And what is that source, please?

Dont rush him, it takes time to make this crap up

 

[9/11-investigator]

So you are posting on an American forum in the English language because?

If you want to become a good boxer, you need to spar a lot with opponents.

That's a metaphor.

I want a revival of European civilization, of an anti-marxist aristocratic Europe. The US are in the way. To get them out of the way you need to demolish their stories on which their alleged moral superiority is based.

Practice, practice, practice.

 

[9/11-investigator]

And what is that source, please?

tinypic.

Now back to Norway. While I still wait for any support for your insane idea that the Germans invaded Norway, just to be 150 miles closer to Scotland here is irrefutable proof of the contrary:

http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z339/Gerard1945/GERARD45-1.jpg

This is the kind of documentary proof I demand from you, namely German documents that state that they needed Norway to bomb Scotland.

Obviously these document do not exist and you know it.

Questions?

 

[9/11-investigator]

More fascinating British government documents about the war in Scandinavia:

http://i55.tinypic.com/20ubcyh.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/2qnmkuc.jpg

Obvious from the alllied effort is that they wanted to force Germany to invade Scandinavia as a diversion of the German war effort in order to make a German attack in the West impossible.

Exactly as von Ribbentrop had said in his justification for the German invasion of Norway, the alllies had prepared a small scale invasion of Finland, allegedly to come to the aid of the Finns, who were fighting the future ally of the British, the Soviets. The idea was to make the Germans invade Sweden. Unfortunately for the alllies, the war between Finland and the USSR was over before the alllies could implement their plans.

So there you have your explanation for the invasion of Denmark: it was not just Norway, whose neutrality was violated by the alllies; they threatened to do the same with other Scandinavian countries. The control of Denmark was necessary to cut this possibility off.

 

[dudalb]

I want a revival of European civilization, of an anti-marxist aristocratic Europe. The US are in the way. To get them out of the way you need to demolish their stories on which their alleged moral superiority is based.

Aristocratic Europe??? That went out with the French Revolution...which you no doubt blame on the Jews.
But at least you ar emaking it clear you do not like democracy, and want to institute rule by a small elite..of which you no doubt see yourself as a member.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Aristocratic Europe??? That went out with the French Revolution...which you no doubt blame on the Jews.

Rumours have it that that is indeed the case, well at least according to Archibald Maule Ramsay, the MP Churchill deemed dangerous enough to lock him up for 5 years without due process (it is Anglosphere after all) because of telling too much truth about WW2.

He deals with the British, French and 'Russian' revolutions here and the people behind them:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

Talking about revolutions... it has become all too obvious that former Mossad agent Sarkozy instigated the 'revolution' in Lybia and behind him his 'court philosopher' Bernard-Henri Levy, both men not exactly Norwegians. What had Mel Gibson to say again about these people?

But at least you ar emaking it clear you do not like democracy, and want to institute rule by a small elite..

My dear fellow, where do the tourists of the world flock to, to your cities where the streets have no name? To Detroit? No, they go to Paris, Versailles, Venice and all the other places in Europe to admire the splendor of aristocratic civilization. They go to operas, listen to symphonies, watch Swan lake, read fairy tales by Andersen...

What does 'democratic civilization' have to offer? Porn? Rap? Car-chase movies, moronic tv-shows where the tinned laughter indicates when 'the humour' starts? Please, give me a break.

 

[Wroclaw]

tinypic.

Tinypic is not a source. You can withdraw the source or tell us who provided the image.

Now back to Norway. While I still wait for any support for your insane idea that the Germans invaded Norway, just to be 150 miles closer to Scotland here is irrefutable proof of the contrary:

http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z339/Gerard1945/GERARD45-1.jpg[/quote]

Nobody said that England wasn't interested in stopping Germany's iron supply.

This is the kind of documentary proof I demand from you, namely German documents that state that they needed Norway to bomb Scotland.

You demand documents? And when did you ever present any?

Obviously these document do not exist and you know it.

Questions?

Yes, did you stop beating your wife?

Oh, I did read this at Wikipedia:

The German occupation of Norway was to prove a thorn in the side of the Allies during the next few years. Bombers based at Sola had a round trip of about 600 miles to Rattray Head in north-east Scotland, instead of a round trip of over 1000 miles from the nearest airfield on German soil, on the island of Sylt, and the east of Scotland and coastal shipping suffered from bombing raids, most from Norway, until 1943. After the fall of Norway, Scotland (especially the fleet bases at Scapa Flow and Rosyth) were seen as much more vulnerable to a diversionary assault by air- and sea-borne troops. German commerce raiders used Norway as a staging base to reach the North Atlantic with impunity. After Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, air bases in Norway were also used to interdict the Allied Arctic convoys there, inflicting painful losses to shipping.

You have yet to respond to this. Or is it your opinion that Goering's Luftwaffe would have been unable to see the value of bases in Norway?

 

[SanityGap]

Rumours have it that that is indeed the case, well at least according to Archibald Maule Ramsay, the MP Churchill deemed dangerous enough to lock him up for 5 years without due process (it is Anglosphere after all) because of telling too much truth about WW2.

He deals with the British, French and 'Russian' revolutions here and the people behind them:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf

Not Archibald Henry Maule Ramsey again. You know very well why he was interred. As a member of Parliament he enjoyed Parliamentary privilege, something that did not sit well with his habit of consorting with right wing anti-Semites, as well as spies (Tyler Kent).
You believe a man who quotes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Seriously?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Tinypic is not a source. You can withdraw the source or tell us who provided the image.

According to my informants the map originates from an English magazine from the end seventies, probably from the marxist historian A.J.P. Taylor (not really a neo-nazi), who was discussing 'Hitler as a strategist'. That is all I have.

Nobody said that England wasn't interested in stopping Germany's iron supply.

But you do realize that mining and blocking neutral ports to harm country A is an act of war against country A, more than enough to justify an invasion.

Now can you provide is with official documents or if you don't have them, give an expose from a credible historian (Taylor will do) who support your phantasy that the Germans invaded Norway merely to save some fuel on their way to bomb a handful of Scots in an irrelevant place like Aberdean.

You demand documents? And when did you ever present any?

Stop playing stupid, I just gave them to you!

http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z339/Gerard1945/GERARD45-1.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/20ubcyh.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/2qnmkuc.jpg

Wroclaw pretending that he has seen no documents indicates how cornered he is. But he can't admit that the alllies started the agression because that demolishes their precious stories. Again, these stories are not going to survive the internet. Boohoo.

Oh, I did read this at Wikipedia:

You have yet to respond to this. Or is it your opinion that Goering's Luftwaffe would have been unable to see the value of bases in Norway?

Wikipedia is a Zionist controlled site. I want real historians or even better original German documents, just like I gave you from the British government, clearly showing their agressive intent.