Who started both World Wars?

[TjW]

Once again, a conspiracy hinges on a single participant being simultaneously marvelously clever and hideously stupid.
Roosevelt wanted to defeat Hitler, so he deliberately provoked a war on a second front nowhere near Hitler, so he could tie up personnel and resources that could otherwise be committed to the European/African theater.
Then, knowing ahead of time that his clever ruse has worked to entice the Japanese to attack, rather than using the opportunity to destroy his enemy's fleet, and shorten the provoked war, instead uses it as an opportunity to destroy his own fleet. The fleet will have to be replaced by something, if he doesn't want to lose the war he's just provoked, making that many fewer resources available to the Atlantic fleet busily resupplying Britain and Russia.
Are you sure he was working for the jews, and not in secret contact with Hitler?

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Then why didn't they just declare war? It's not like they'd been shy about it in the past or since...
.

There always must be a valid reason for attacking a country.
Blame game and stuff.

.
You mean of course "helping them rebuild their economies and infrastructure so that they are once again world powers?"
.

That's very sweet of the Americans of lending some money to rebuild the infrastructure after destroying it first. Oh yes, and next incorporate the beaten nations in a globalist system under the leadership of the US with the dollar as a global reserve currency (Bretton Woods).

I am in tears.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Once again, a conspiracy hinges on a single participant being simultaneously marvelously clever and hideously stupid.
Roosevelt wanted to defeat Hitler, so he deliberately provoked a war on a second front nowhere near Hitler, so he could tie up personnel and resources that could otherwise be committed to the European/African theater.

He was provoking Germany as well, but Germany was keen on not giving the US a pretext for war. The most important obstacle for American war entry was located in the US itself: the isolationists and America First types a la Charles Lindbergh. Japan was indeed 'nowhere near Hitler', but at the same time allied with Hitler. War with Japan automatically meant war with Germany. And Germany was the main target for America. America was allied with the USSR and Britain, remember? This coalition had more than enough resources to beat Germany and Japan, these 'identitarian nations', that were the main hindrance for a globilized world under US leadership. The one we have today. Enjoy your positions while it lasts.

Then, knowing ahead of time that his clever ruse has worked to entice the Japanese to attack, rather than using the opportunity to destroy his enemy's fleet, and shorten the provoked war, instead uses it as an opportunity to destroy his own fleet. The fleet will have to be replaced by something, if he doesn't want to lose the war he's just provoked, making that many fewer resources available to the Atlantic fleet busily resupplying Britain and Russia.

The destruction of the PH fleet was necessary to cause a shock in the US public. Exactly like 9/11.

Are you sure he was working for the jews, and not in secret contact with Hitler?

You seem to forget that America won the war rather easily, having the USSR to do the real fighting. Something that a half-baked Jewish geo-strategist could have predicted in advance.

Not a stupid mediocre gentile like Nuremberg judge Jackson, of course. He believed the allied war propaganda and thought that making a case against Germany should be a piece of cake. But it was not. He discovered:

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." Now, if the question comes up, what is a judge to do about it I would say that, before one is judged guilty of being an aggressor, we must not only let him deny it, but say we will hear his case. I am quite sure a British or American judge would say to a defendant, "You may prove your claim", unless we had something like this which says, "No political, military, or other considerations excuse going to war". In other words, states have got to settle their grievances peacefully. I am afraid there is great risk in omitting this, and I see no risk in putting it in. It may be criticized, but I see no such risk in putting it in as in leaving it out. We did not think it necessary originally, but more recently we have.

Jackson to his horror discovered that the allies had no case at all. The only internal (non-propagandistic) documents they could find were saying that Germany considered itself under attack from all sides and that they were forced to fight! That is what Jackson says himself! The 'creative solution' the allied Nurembergers came up with was to forbid questions being asked by the defense that implicated allied behavior. Like the invasion of the France and Britain before Germany did. Like the invasion of Poland by the USSR. Like the occupation of the Baltic states. Or the attack plan by Stalin of Europe in july 1941, preempted by weeks by Germany, the only reason why Holland was not bolshevized.

About the first thing that Roosevelt did when he came into office was recognizing the Soviet regime. The same regime that in 1933 had blood on it's from millions. That's the ally America choose! Once you know the larger context, it is not difficult to understand what the alllies did in Nuremberg to justify their own deeds: inventing stories.

 

[TjW]

He was provoking Germany as well, but Germany was keen on not giving the US a pretext for war. The most important obstacle for American war entry was located in the US itself: the isolationists and America First types a la Charles Lindbergh. Japan was indeed 'nowhere near Hitler', but at the same time allied with Hitler. War with Japan automatically meant war with Germany. And Germany was the main target for America. America was allied with the USSR and Britain, remember? This coalition had more than enough resources to beat Germany and Japan, these 'identitarian nations', that were the main hindrance for a globilized world under US leadership. The one we have today. Enjoy your positions while it lasts.



The destruction of the PH fleet was necessary to cause a shock in the US public. Exactly like 9/11.



You seem to forget that America won the war rather easily, having the USSR to do the real fighting. Something that a half-baked Jewish geo-strategist could have predicted in advance.

No, it's still stupid. If Hitler was keen on not giving the US a pretext for war, not sinking US ships in the Atlantic would be a good start. They were sunk anyway.

I've never spoken to a WWII veteran who thought it was won rather easily.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No, it's still stupid. If Hitler was keen on not giving the US a pretext for war, not sinking US ships in the Atlantic would be a good start. They were sunk anyway.

It was the US that was preparing hostilities against Germany, not the other way around:

On March 11, 1941, Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease bill into law, permitting increased deliveries of military aid to Britain -- a policy that violated U.S. neutrality and international law. In April Roosevelt illegally sent U.S. troops to occupy Greenland.

Next commie lover Roosevelt started to send military aid to the USSR:

Following Germany's attack against the USSR in June, the Roosevelt administration began delivering military aid to the beleaguered Soviets. These shipments also blatantly violated international law.

You are probably refering to the Roosevelt's "shoot on sight" order. This is what really happened:

In July Roosevelt illegally sent American troops to occupy Iceland. And in September Roosevelt announced a "shoot on sight" order to U.S. naval warships to attack German and Italian vessels on the high seas... The President began his Navy Day address by recalling that German submarines had torpedoed the U.S. destroyer Greer on September 4, 1941, and the U.S. destroyer Kearny on October 17. In highly emotional language, he characterized these incidents as unprovoked acts of aggression directed against all Americans. He declared that although he had wanted to avoid conflict, shooting had begun and "history has recorded who fired the first shot." What Roosevelt deliberately failed to mention was the fact that in each case the U.S. destroyers had been engaged in attack operations against the submarines, which fired in self-defense only as a last resort. In spite of Roosevelt's "shoot on sight" order, which made incidents like the ones he so piously condemned inevitable, Hitler still wanted to avoid war with the United States. The German leader had expressly ordered his submarines to avoid conflicts with U.S warships at all costs, except to avoid imminent destruction. In spite of President Roosevelt's provocative efforts to goad Hitler into declaring war against the U.S., most Americans still opposed direct involvement in the European conflict.

You say:

I've never spoken to a WWII veteran who thought it was won rather easily.

I was obviously not talking about experiences of individual soldiers but on the price tag the US as a society had to pay. That was some 300,000 soldiers on the battle field. But for every American 50 Soviets died. Russia did the real fighting, far more than America, let alone Britain (in proportion: 80%-15%-5% resp.)

WW2 was basically a war between Germany and Russia. The rest was a neglectable side issue. America was catapulted into world power on the cheap. But you know the saying: easy come, easy go!

 

[TSR]

There always must be a valid reason for attacking a country.
Blame game and stuff.

.
And "they chose to apply economic pressure on us because of our actions against their allies" is a valid reason?
.

That's very sweet of the Americans of lending some money to rebuild the infrastructure after destroying it first. Oh yes, and next incorporate the beaten nations in a globalist system under the leadership of the US with the dollar as a global reserve currency (Bretton Woods).
I am in tears.

.
I'm sorry, what money did Japan lend to rebuild PH?

None at all?

And who was it that started shooting at PH?





And what was the historical precedent for offering to rebuild infrastructure to conquered countries after a war?

Your tears much be those of laughter, much like everyone elses' at your ignorance of the history you pretend to know so well.
.

 

[TSR]

The most important obstacle for American war entry was located in the US itself: the isolationists and America First types a la Charles Lindbergh.

.
Ah, so now America *didn't* want war.


Would you please make up your mind which side you're arguing?
.

 

[TSR]

It was the US that was preparing hostilities against Germany, not the other way around:

.
You keep quoting the known and proven liars Irving and Weber.

Do you honestly believe this *advances* your arguments?

In spite of the fact that you been shown, time and again, to be almost completely (and willfully) ignorant of the history you're so keen to deny?
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Ah, so now America *didn't* want war.

Would you please make up your mind which side you're arguing?
.

The American population, lead by the 'antisemite' Charles Lindbergh, in majority did not want war.

It was the jewish cabal around Roosevelt that wanted war. In the end they got their way by manouvering Japan into war.

Not that difficult.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
You keep quoting the known and proven liars Irving and Weber.

Do you honestly believe this *advances* your arguments?

In spite of the fact that you been shown, time and again, to be almost completely (and willfully) ignorant of the history you're so keen to deny?
.

So what is it you do not like about the arguments as presented by Weber?

Try to refute, if you can (you can't).

This is the statement to be refuted by you:

What Roosevelt deliberately failed to mention was the fact that in each case the U.S. destroyers had been engaged in attack operations against the submarines, which fired in self-defense only as a last resort.

Good luck.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
And "they chose to apply economic pressure on us because of our actions against their allies" is a valid reason?
.

.
I'm sorry, what money did Japan lend to rebuild PH?

None at all?

And who was it that started shooting at PH?

And what was the historical precedent for offering to rebuild infrastructure to conquered countries after a war?.

What was the historic precedent of Hiroshima? What was the historic precedent of being able to push the dollar as global reserve currency, the equivalent of being able to print trillions and trillions of free money that is going to be sucked up by the world anyway? And you are wining about about a few ships send to the bottom of the ocean because you wanted to destroy the Japanese empire?

 

[Tolls]

Japanese and Americans knew in April that the war was over.

No they didn't.
I will ask again, have you read any of the minutes and recollections from meetings of the Big Six in Japan in the 4 months prior to the atomic bombings?
Have you read any of the strategic concepts the Japanese were working under for the nigh-on 4 years they were at war with the US?

Because if you had you would realise they were never going to simply surrender. As witnessed by the attempted coup.

 

[TheRedWorm]

No they didn't.
I will ask again, have you read any of the minutes and recollections from meetings of the Big Six in Japan in the 4 months prior to the atomic bombings?
Have you read any of the strategic concepts the Japanese were working under for the nigh-on 4 years they were at war with the US?

Because if you had you would realise they were never going to simply surrender. As witnessed by the attempted coup.

I have a feeling that nein11 doesn't intentionally read anything that disagrees with his nazi sympathies. It's much easier to deny reality that way.

 

[Tolls]

I have a feeling that nein11 doesn't intentionally read anything that disagrees with his nazi sympathies. It's much easier to deny reality that way.

I'm just waiting for him to come back with his tried and trusted "I don't actually care about Japan and the Pacific war".

 

[BadBoy]

What was the historic precedent of Hiroshima? What was the historic precedent of being able to push the dollar as global reserve currency, the equivalent of being able to print trillions and trillions of free money that is going to be sucked up by the world anyway? And you are wining about about a few ships send to the bottom of the ocean because you wanted to destroy the Japanese empire?

Still pedalling your lies 9/11

Shame on you.

Happy Holidays

 

[9/11-investigator]

Still pedalling your lies 9/11

Shame on you.

Happy Holidays

Any 'lie' that you would care to address in particular?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 12.

Merry Christmas to you to, toodeloo!

 

[TheRedWorm]

Any 'lie' that you would care to address in particular?

What's the point of pointing out lies to someone who so eagerly denies reality?

 

[Drachasor]

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but don't believe everything you read on the internet guys, that's how WW1 was started.

 

[TSR]

So what is it you do not like about the arguments as presented by Weber?

Try to refute, if you can (you can't).

This is the statement to be refuted by you:

What Roosevelt deliberately failed to mention was the fact that in each case the U.S. destroyers had been engaged in attack operations against the submarines, which fired in self-defense only as a last resort.

Good luck.

.
Short answer: "No, they hadn't been."

Please note that I offer exactly the same amount of evidence Weber does, with the added bonus of me not being a proven liar.

Long answer, which 9/11 will ignore anyway, offered for the edification of other readers:

In reference to the Greer:

"the initial attack in the engagement had been made by the German submarine."

That would be the Charles Beard who, at the time, strenuously *objected* to US involvement in WWII, quoting the Navy Department without contradiction.

The one with degrees from Oxford and Columbia.

Remind me again -- where did Weber study history?

Weber then spectacularly fails to mention the fact that the U-568 was engaged in an attack on a peaceful convoy being escorted by Canadian ships when the Kearney was called in to help.

Of course, then there was the Robin Moor, the Sessa, the Steel Seafarer, the Montana, the I.C. White, the Pink Star, the Lehigh, the Reuben James, the Salinas...

Which of these were destroyers actively engaged in operations?

Seriously, you need to learn some history from actual historians, rather than liars who happen to cater to your hate.
.

 

[stilicho]

The USSR had its demise in 1991, the US somewhere in the coming decade.

...

But now that The Death of the West is immanent, prepare for some old open bills that need to be paid soon.

Prospects for the end of Western civilisation are very dim. I think you were born at least three centuries too late.