Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
uke2se said:
And all this has, of course, been shown to be crap in this thread. Nein11's closed mind prohibits him from acknowledging that his grasp of history is sub par - even when compared to a normal high school student. Thankfully, most of the rest of us are able to point out the many mistakes and lies in Nein11's narrative.
Click to expand...


It's also fun to ask it questions that it can't answer honestly. Makes it abundantly clear to lurkers why its moniker "the lying dutchman" is so apt.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Well, the Aryan race is not limited to the Germans, so your sentence is a little incoherent.
Click to expand...

I would have presumed that a world war which involved a large contingent of Aryan blood fighting on both sides would be an ideal way of weakening the race with a possibility of extinguishing it.
 
uke2se said:
Is your dismal reading comprehension

A. stemming from your poor grasp of the English language

B. a willfully implemented trick to fool your mind that you're winning a debate

or

C. trolling?
Click to expand...

So we can now add sexist to the Lying Dutchman's list of accomplishments. Can't say I am surprised.Fits with the pattern.
 
dudalb said:
So we can now add sexist to the Lying Dutchman's list of accomplishments. Can't say I am surprised.Fits with the pattern.
Click to expand...

Never underestimate the power of denial with a side order of lying through your teeth.
 
Tolls said:
Considering the Luftwaffe was attacking the beaches from day 1 of the evacuation, unless Irving thinks the Luftwaffe consisted of complete imbeciles, I think it's fair to say that Irving does not have a clue what he's talking about.
Click to expand...


Well, the Luftwaffe did have an imbecile in charge of it—Hermann Göring. Had someone more competent been in charge, someone like Adolf Galland say, it would have been performed considerably better.
 
Suvorov's idea that Barbarossa was a preemptive strike is far more mainstream in Russia than in the West. That is going to change:

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_4/deathride.php

Review of DEATHRIDE: Hitler vs. Stalin: the Eastern Front, 1941-1945
by John Mosier, Simon & Schuster, New York, 470 pages, 2010.

Instead of a mad dictator greedy to conquer the world and making endless blunders, Hitler is presented as a sane and rational man making sensible and very smart decisions, understanding strategy and global politics far better than his generals. Instead of a surprise attack on the innocent Russians, Mosier has concluded that the war was a pre-emptive strike on a predator poised to invade Germany and Europe... The very idea of assigning real blame for the war to the Soviets instead of to Hitler flies in the face of too many verities, and is usually treated as a taboo.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a taboo! "The Good War" ostensibly was fought to resque Poland out of the hands of an evil dictator, determined to conquer the world. If we accept Suvorov's premisse, then it means that the UK and US were allied to a monster state that itself was determined to conquer the world and not Germany.

And that was precisely the case.

There were in fact two entities looking to conquer the world in 1933, the USSR and the USA. They used the Poland pretext as an excuse to destroy Europe, the entity that combined had ruled the planet, Britain formost, next France, Spain, Holland, Portugal and others. And during the war the US was on the side of the USSR, because it was advantageous for both to climb from position #2 and #3 to position #1 and #2, with both newcomers having prospects of becoming #1, a contest only decided as late as in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I am perplexed how long it took for the world to finally begin to see the truth about WW1 and WW2! That everything in it's interpretation was turned upside down, that everything was a lie:
- the so-called concern for Poland (it was merely willingly used by both the US and USSR to foment war in Europe)
- the American concern about 'autoritarian states' like Germany, Japan and Italy, but at the same time sucking up to the USSR, the most authoritarian and murderous one of all.
- the holocaust, a lie to cover for the crimes of the Alllies and enable them to crown themselves as the Good Guys.

His analysis of the Stalin-inspired Soviet myths is replete with a careful study of both German and Russian records. In his view, the German records are quite accurate and were kept in painstaking detail. Far from a German military growing weaker in both manpower and armor etc. year by year, he demonstrates that it progressively grew stronger in troops, armor, in all forms of effective firepower, and in quality of leadership both tactical and strategic. The Russian resources, presented as limitless and leaping in strength, were steadily diminishing. Their troops were perishing in the tens of millions thanks to Stalin's orders for continual frontal attacks everywhere, while their armor was being steadily 'shredded' by German firepower and tactics...

What is revealed is that the casualties on both sides reflected a ratio of about 5:1 favoring the German forces. With a USSR population of about 170 million at that time and a German population of close to 100 million, the Russians could not long sustain a ratio of greater than 2:1. In other words, the attrition rate was bleeding Russia dry in manpower. Hitler understood this and wisely strove to continue the process...

The author shows that the German troops and officers were well-trained and got better at tactics and strategy as the war progressed, while Soviet troops and officers generally remained poorly trained and prepared and even more poorly led. Mosier frankly presents the Soviet military as generally incompetent, continuing to take huge losses and suffer countless major and minor defeats right up to the end of the war.
Click to expand...

So why did the USSR in the end win the war?

Mosier shows how, firstly, the USSR received tremendous amounts of lend-lease and other forms of aid from the USA and Britain. Trucks, aircraft, American tanks, fuel oils, food, all was amply, even hugely provided to the Soviets and indeed saved them from destruction at the hands of the Germans—all contrary to the Stalinist myth that said aid was insignificant and played little or no role in the Red Army's defeat of the Wehrmacht. The author conclusively shows that what really gave the Soviets the edge was the steady switching of Germany's best units from the eastern front to other theatres in the west, to the Balkans, to France, to Italy, and elsewhere, in response to real or expected threats from the Allies.
Click to expand...


An interesting and unique conclusion drawn by the author is that the Soviet Union's gigantic manpower losses and physical destruction suffered during the war, ultimately led to the collapse of communism in that country several decades later. If this is so, then Adolf Hitler is the man or agent to be credited with that seminal event. But at the very least, he did in fact prevent most of Europe from being overrun by Stalin's henchmen in 1941—something which almost no one today is willing to admit.
Click to expand...

The understanding I have reached now about the WW2 surpasses my wildest expectations when I began this thread. What Buchanan has to say is a sort of revisionism that is so utterly watered down as to compared what really happened, that I have yet to grasp the enormity of the consequences of these new insights.

It looks like revisionism is becoming mainstream:

Overall, Mosier's work is sure to be found refreshing and pleasantly surprising to revisionists. He even cites some material from the IHR's Journal of Historical Review, as well as some of Walter Sanning's work, both sources heretofore relegated to historiography's outer margin. This book's imprint, Simon & Schuster, is top-drawer, at least for purposes of prestige among readers generally, and Mosier's previous titles seem to have done well in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

So the European world was willingly destroyed by the Real Inglorious Basterds, the mass murderers, the mass rapists, the city nukers, the gulag organizers, the testicle kickers, the holo-liars, the porn peddlers, the television zombies, the rap lovers.

Any Eurasian political movement that would undertake a Renaissance of European civilization from Anglo/Soviet destruction in the sense of Charles the Gaulle would start with the revisionism as discussed in this thread.

There is a nice task ahead of us...
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
I would have presumed that a world war which involved a large contingent of Aryan blood fighting on both sides would be an ideal way of weakening the race with a possibility of extinguishing it.
Click to expand...

In general that is true. A new war between America and (this time) Euro-Siberia would be a Jew's dream. I expect America to balkanize in the near future due to it's racial composition; all racial empire's in history at some point fell apart. But there is a smaller possibibility that the federal government will succeed in transforming the US in a new Soviet-Union, her current intention (everything will depend on whether the 9/11 truth movement will succeed in a revolution bringing down ZOG, the perpetrator). That would propably lead to a large extent to the fullfulling of Orwell's geostrategic prophesy formulated in 1984:

http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/1/15/1984map.png

Thallasocratic Oceania, consisting of the US and UK and others (symbol: masonic star of David or related communist star) against Euro-Siberia with the Swastika as it's predictable symbol.

In 10 years we will know how the history of the West, now near the end, will unravel into something new.
 
Last edited:
9/11 your version of history is summarily rejected by any competent unbiased historian. End of story. Who are you trying to convince?

Why can't you deal with that and get another hobby?
 
Strange. So the Germans were winning the war, with the Soviets only kept afloat by American and British Lend-Lease. And the Germans still would have won if not for the Americans and British coming in and drawing off Germany's best units.

So the "Anglos" did do their share of the fighting then? So you now want to adjust that 5-15-80 ratio for contribution to the defeat of the Nazis that you had repeatedly trotted out, yes? Indeed, since the Soviets were so very decrepit, the "Anglos" must be better at war than those oh so Aryan and oh so competent and oh so professional Germans, since the Nazis were crushed so very thoroughly, right? But the "Anglos" were controlled by Jews. That means Jews must have been more competent than Germans. That's got to sting.
 
Shangrila said:
Strange. So the Germans were winning the war, with the Soviets only kept afloat by American and British Lend-Lease. And the Germans still would have won if not for the Americans and British coming in and drawing off Germany's best units.
Click to expand...

That's what the author says. We are learning every day and that includes me. But the deliveries of war material were more important than the actual allied fighting in secondary 'theaters' like Egypt and Sicily.

So the "Anglos" did do their share of the fighting then? So you now want to adjust that 5-15-80 ratio for contribution to the defeat of the Nazis that you had repeatedly trotted out, yes?
Click to expand...

These ratios were based on performance on the battlefield and casualties suffered, that is known and does not change with this new knowledge. New aspect is (if the author is right) that greater weight should be attributed to deliveries of war material in the final victory of the allies.

Indeed, since the Soviets were so very decrepit, the "Anglos" must be better at war than those oh so Aryan and oh so competent and oh so professional Germans, since the Nazis were crushed so very thoroughly, right?
Click to expand...

The answer to that point is that the allies outnumbered Germany 7:1. So the correct picture to synbolize the outcome WW2 is this:

http://www.collider.com/uploads/ima...els/gulliver_travels_tied_by_lilliputians.jpg

Morale: add enough lilliputians and at some point they will beat Gulliver. Does it make you proud to be a lilliputian or are you a Jew? Tell me Shangrila, if you have a holiday in an Austrian hotel and you watch a football match Germany-Argentina, you will be cheering Argentina, right?

But the "Anglos" were controlled by Jews. That means Jews must have been more competent than Germans. That's got to sting.
Click to expand...

Not more competent, they just outnumbered the Germans. (please consider that Jews are incompetents when it comes to art, sport, music, idealism, architecture, nobility of character as compared with Aryans. Jews are only good in letters, words, books, text, media, law, dialectics in short. People of the Book, remember? Almost all glasses!).

But you are right, it does sting indeed. Nobody likes to see his people being subjected to a final solution. But you can rest assured that we are going to fight back. After all this is page 88 in this thread, hint, hint.

Question: how do you plan to survive the internet? What are you going to do to prevent the first American pogrom after 9/11-truth comes out? Are you going to explode a nuclear device in an American or European city and blame Pakistan? We already see through that. The colossal blunder you made by not forseeing the internet forums and blogosphere when designing 9/11, which will be decisive in bringing down the current power structure, is a clear sign you guys are losing touch.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
9/11 your version of history is summarily rejected by any competent unbiased historian. End of story. Who are you trying to convince?
Click to expand...

Historians are almost invariably court historians. They write stories their masters want to hear. If you don't, you end up in jail like Irving and Rudolf or you have to flee, like Graf and Suvorow. But I am saying that our masters are broke; they are running their societies into the ground. New masters are needed and new masters need new stories. I stay with my hobby.

And why do you think I want to convince anybody here? My presence here is a sacrifice in time in order to gain insight in this particular field of history. Strength is won in the arena, not in bed.

Why can't you deal with that and get another hobby?
Click to expand...

Why can't you for once in your life write a coherent post with more than 2 sentences?
 
Last edited:
Well, you've just presented the case that the Soviets were grossly incompetent, and utterly worthless without endless infusions of American and British aid. So those sub-human Slavs can be discounted except as cannon fodder. And as mere cannon fodder is surely no good against the proud Aryan legions, it's really those American and British workers making weapons for the Sovs that uber competent Germans actually face a threat from.

That means 81 million Germans, 73 million Japanese and 45 million Italians against 47 million Britons, and 132 million Americans, 11 million Canadians, 7 million Australians, 1.6 million New Zealanders, and 10 million South Africans. In case you aren't good at numbers, that would be 199 million Axis against 209 million WAllies. Curious, there's a distinct lack of a 1:7 ratio. But wait, there's more. Much of the population of the U.S. and South Africa in particular are also subhuman, especially the U.S. with all those Jews too. Then there's the population of occupied Europe. The sub-human Poles and other Slavs can be discounted, but the 63 million white Europeans of highly advanced and industrialized Western Europe surely supported Germany in its grand crusade to protect them from the Jewish Bolsheviks. After all, there's the example of you for how the average Dutchman must have reacted to their liberators from Jewish domination.

Man, the (true) Americans and Britons are great at fighting. So many sub-humans in their own populations dragging them down, and having to take orders from Jews, who as you say, all wear glasses and are terrible at strategy. Yet, badly outnumbered, they kept their subhuman allies in the fight, and crushed the Axis on their home turf. The Jews sure know how to pick the right side. One would almost think the Nazis were just jealous the Jews would rather back the towering manly men of America and Britain over...less sterling physical and mental specimens like Hitler, Himmler, or Goering.
 
Last edited:
Shangrila said:
...less sterling physical and mental specimens like Hitler, Himmler, or Goering.
Click to expand...

I always found that immensely funny.

I mean, look at them:

http://www.germanpostalhistory.com/inventory/thumbnails/41769t.jpg

http://hjordisklan.blogg.se/images/2009/goebbels_56569076.jpg

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/2F5A1C6B-424F-4C68-BCD9-B6E191381A51/IH170907.jpg

A tiny Austrian swarthy man, an obvious Jew in Nazi disguise and a fatty. Not really the epitome of the Aryan race, wouldn't you say, Nein11?
 
Shangrila said:
Well, you've just presented the case that the Soviets were grossly incompetent, and utterly worthless without endless infusions of American and British aid. So those sub-human Slavs can be discounted except as cannon fodder. And as mere cannon fodder is surely no good against the proud Aryan legions, it's really those American and British workers making weapons for the Sovs that uber competent Germans actually face a threat from.

That means 81 million Germans, 73 million Japanese and 45 million Italians against 47 million Britons, and 132 million Americans, 11 million Canadians, 7 million Australians, 1.6 million New Zealanders, and 10 million South Africans. In case you aren't good at numbers, that would be 199 million Axis against 209 million WAllies. Curious, there's a distinct lack of a 1:7 ratio. But wait, there's more. Much of the population of the U.S. and South Africa in particular are also subhuman, especially the U.S. with all those Jews too. Then there's the population of occupied Europe. The sub-human Poles and other Slavs can be discounted, but the 63 million white Europeans of highly advanced and industrialized Western Europe surely supported Germany in its grand crusade to protect them from the Jewish Bolsheviks. After all, there's the example of you for how the average Dutchman must have reacted to their liberators from Jewish domination.

Man, the (true) Americans and Britons are great at fighting. So many sub-humans in their own populations dragging them down, and having to take orders from Jews, who as you say, all wear glasses and are terrible at strategy. Yet, badly outnumbered, they kept their subhuman allies in the fight, and crushed the Axis on their home turf. The Jews sure know how to pick the right side. One would almost think the Nazis were just jealous the Jews would rather back the towering manly men of American and Britain over...less sterling physical and mental specimens like Hitler, Himmler, or Goering.
Click to expand...

:wave1
 
Shangrila said:
Well, you've just presented the case that the Soviets were grossly incompetent, and utterly worthless without endless infusions of American and British aid.
Click to expand...

Not really, I was merely quoting John Mosier who said that:
a) Barbarossa was a preemptive attack (for me the most interesting development: Suvorov on the shelves of Simon & Schuster)
b) That the influence of Western weapon deliveries were more important than previously thought. Nobody but you babbles about 'endless infusions'.

So those sub-human Slavs can be discounted except as cannon fodder.
Click to expand...

I protest against the word 'subhumans', we all know how Jews tend to think about everybody else, I believe Goyim (cattle) is the word you use for us. You are already convicted by the UN who equated Zionism=racism, so you already had a yellow card, to speak in soccer terms. I have made it clear that I want to see the clever move by Chirac-Schroeder-Putin, where they outsmarted the American Jews in 2003, converted into a more permanent alliance, including your 'subhumans'. As a reminder, these illustrious 3 refused to join America in Iraq resulting in probably the fatal weakening this ZOG entity. Boy did we have a good laugh when Jonah Goldberg foamed aboat 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' (I love the sight of angry Jews) or when the Pentagon refused to serve 'french fries' any longer and offered 'freedom fries' instead. That was a punishment of truely Versaillesque proportions. I believe the measure has meanwhile been reversed. :D

And as mere cannon fodder is surely no good against the proud Aryan legions, it's really those American and British workers making weapons for the Sovs that uber competent Germans actually face a threat from.
Click to expand...

Well, it was Stalin who treated his own people as canon fodder you see and nobody claims that Germans cannot get killed from allied weapons. Ask the 50 or so Anne Franks from Pforzheim. Oh, wait, that is not possible any longer.

That means 81 million Germans, 73 million Japanese and 45 million Italians against 47 million Britons, and 132 million Americans, 11 million Canadians, 7 million Australians, 1.6 million New Zealanders, and 10 million South Africans. In case you aren't good at numbers, that would be 199 million Axis against 209 million WAllies. Curious, there's a distinct lack of a 1:7 ratio.
Click to expand...

Well between you and me, Italy is seen here in Northern Europe merely as a tourist destination and one big restaurant. When mighty Italy decided to invade Albania, they could not get the job done by themselves and even requested help from Germany. Italy does not count. There is an anecdote about chancelor Helmut Schmidt of Germany (1/4 Jewish from grandfather, so not really Jewish at all): he was shown a tank factory and the director explained that a particular type of tank was able to drive 80 kmh in reverse. Aha, said Schmidt, that might be of interest for the Italian government! :D And about the Japanese, they are a head smaller than Europeans. Ever seen a group of Japanese tourists on a Swiss Bahnhof? Difficult to take these people serious as a fighting force. After all, the US had merely 300,000 casualties, the Russian 50 times as much. Reason: they had to fight the Germans where Americans only the Japanese. That explains the low casualty figure on the American side. So it was Germans (80 million) against Americans (220M?) + British (60M) + Canadians (20M?) + Down Under (15M?) + rest of the empire (XXM?) + Soviets (250M?) = 560M? That's how I arrive at 1:7.

Man, the (true) Americans and Britons are great at fighting. So many sub-humans in their own populations dragging them down
Click to expand...

?? Not in 1940. These days literally everybody beats Americans: Somalies, Lebanese, Vietnamese, Taliban very likely. Oh wait, there is of course Grenada (10,000 inhabitants), the only war in the entire 20th century that America won on it's own!

and having to take orders from Jews, who as you say, all wear glasses and are terrible at strategy. Yet, badly outnumbered, they kept their subhuman allies in the fight, and crushed the Axis on their home turf. The Jews sure know how to pick the right side. One would almost think the Nazis were just jealous the Jews would rather back the towering manly men of America and Britain over...less sterling physical and mental specimens like Hitler, Himmler, or Goering.
Click to expand...

I did not say they are bad at strategy. And again, it were the Germans who were outnumbered, not you. Himmler was 40 something when he single handedly had build up the SS, the most formidable fighting force on this planet ever. Goebbels had an ultra red city like Berlin Nazified within 2 years. And Hitler had Europe overrun from the Pyrenese until nearly Moscow in merely 18 months. Not even a Roman rebirth like Napolean did manage something like that (but he had admittedly no engines, just horses).

Until this day Jewish controlled Hollywood produced thousands of movies about the WW2 period. Ever fought of compensating the Germans for all this free content? And after being beaten they put a man on the moon. Man, what a drama! Something these boring British or Americans would never achieve, let alone Jews, who are only good for ripping people off Maddof style or producing porn, another Jewish core business. Tell me, what is that boooooring Jewish 9/11 compared with German WW2?
 
Last edited:
So nothing but random dodging, goal-post moving, red herrings, and attempted derails. That was not unexpected.

Though I love how you broke down exactly how you made up the 1:7 lie.

9/11-investigator said:
So it was Germans (80 million) against Americans (220M?) + British (60M) + Canadians (20M?) + Down Under (15M?) + rest of the empire (XXM?) + Soviets (250M?) = 560M? That's how I arrive at 1:7.
Click to expand...

...by randomly giving the U.S. 90 million more people than it actually had, the Soviets an extra 60 million, and similar increases for all the other Allies, and by ignoring Germany's allies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom