Who started both World Wars?

[abaddon]

He would eventually have gone for union of Europe under German rule to include Benelux, Scandinavia, the Baltics, Austria, and traditionally German or Austrian and German-speaking parts of the rest. He'd have kept Poland and Ukraine for farming — perhaps Russia for long-term settlement.

I have a few observations to make

1. This is pure speculation, let us be clear

2. Such speculation, IMHO, provides a smoke screen for our protagonists to dive beneath.

3. That said, sheer weight of numbers on the Russian side would have won the day, I think. And it is unclear where the US would be in such a scenario.

Also, before anyone jumps on me, yes, I am speculating too, despite points 1 and 2 above.

 

[Wroclaw]

He has to secure Romania at some point. They control his oil supply. Even Hitler wouldn't attack the USSR with out some guarantee of Romania under control.

But consider that with its own home-grown fascist movement and its desire to eliminate its own Jewish population, it is a natural ally. As such, as Hitler needs to do is conclude an economic and military pact, and he can not invade or occupy Romania.

I'm not sure what the Japanese do if there's no war in Europe. They took French Indochina because France was occupied. I don't think they are as aggressive with the French and the British not at war with Germany. They probably just stick to China (for now).

And I don't think I would call not selling to oil to Japan as baiting them for war. I think it was a reasonable response to Japanese aggression.

We violated our own laws on neutrality by arming China in a massive way. This was long before there was a war in Europe and Lend-Lease on that continent, by the way.

The build-up of the Pacific Fleet, furthermore, indicated a desire on the part of FDR's administration to entangle Japan on some level, if only to be able to justify war with Germany in the wake of an attack on the Pacific Fleet by Japan.

I don't think much of this is controversial anymore, by the way.

Incidentally, we didn't just refuse to sell them oil; we embargoed oil from them.

 

[9/11-investigator]

While my opponents occupy themselves with childish irrevant what-if games, I am more interested in reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

In private, Churchill agreed that the atrocity was likely carried out by the Soviets. According to Count Edward Raczyński, Churchill admitted on 15 April 1943 during a conversation with General Sikorski: "Alas, the German revelations are probably true. The Bolsheviks can be very cruel."[55] However, at the same time, on 24 April 1943 Churchill assured the Soviets: "We shall certainly oppose vigorously any 'investigation' by the International Red Cross or any other body in any territory under German authority. Such investigation would be a fraud and its conclusions reached by terrorism."[56] Unofficial or classified UK documents concluded that Soviet guilt was a "near certainty", but the alliance with the Soviets was deemed to be more important than moral issues; thus the official version supported the Soviet version, up to censoring the contradictory accounts.

We are told (by the victors of WW2) that WW2 was 'the good war', a war between good and evil. Fortunately the good guys won (according to the winners).

These days we can even find out using Zionist friendly edited Wikipedia that the noble victors of WW2 were not interested in morals after all.

In reality, WW2 was a Vernichtungskrieg, a war sought and perpetrated by extra-European powers: Anglosphere, lead by Jews and the USSR, a system initiated by Jews. Both NWO powers, brutal powers that sought to subjugate the entire world in their respective systems/tyrannies: bolshevism and capitalism, over the dead body of Europe. The Jews did not really care which system would win, as long as they could erect a single global power structure with them at the helm. Anyone of both would be fine. Bolshevism is dead, the US almost. One month ago a Chinese piano player humiliated the Americans by playing an anti-American song in the White House! This is to be understood as little less than a declaration of independence from the NWO. The declaration made yesterday against the dollar as world reserve currency should be seen as a logical next step in challenging American hegemony. We in Europe reject both America and China; we neither want a Jewish brown planet nor a yellow one. We want a resurrection of European civilization run by Europeans. We want a Huntingtonian world. All we need to do is to smilingly watch how these 2 go at each others throat. A little bit like Stalin did while he saw how Britain and Germany slaughtered each other into oblivion. Meanwhile we should have discrete talks with Moscow and for the rest keep our powder dry. And make contingency plans and secret preparations to rapidly expand our nuclear strike capability. And only come to Euro-America's aid when it is down, so we can incorporate it, in the coming European world, on our terms, as a sidekick. Exactly like America did with Germany, but without generating bad karma by actively looking for war, what the Americans and Soviets did. Do nothing. Let the time work in our favor.

 

[dafydd]

While my opponents occypu themselves with childish irrevant what-if games, I am more interested in reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre



We are told (by the victors of WW2) that WW2 was 'the good war', a war between good and evil. Fortunately the good guys won (according to the winners).

These days we can even find out using Zionist friendly edited Wikipedia
that the noble victors of WW2 were not interested in morals after all.

In reality, WW2 was a Vernichtungskrieg, a war sought and perpetrated by extra-European powers: Anglosphere, lead by Jews and the USSR, a system initiated by Jews. Both NWO powers, brutal powers that sought to subjugate the entire world in their respective systems/tyrannies: bolshevism and capitalism over the dead body of Europe. The Jews did not really care which system would win, as long as they could erect a single global power structure with them at the helm. Anyone of both would be fine. Bolshevism is dead, the US almost. One month ago a Chinese piano player humiliated the Americans by playing an anti-American song in the White House! This is to be understood as little less than a declaration of independence from the NWO. The declaration made yesterday against the dollar as world reserve currency should be seen as a logical next step in challenging American hegemony. We in Europe reject both America and China; we neither want a Jewish brown planet nor a yellow one. We want a resurrection of European civilization run by Europeans. We want a Huntingtonian world. All we need to do is to smilingly watch how these 2 go at each others throat. A little bit like Stalin did while he saw how Britain and Germany slaughtered each other. Meanwhile we should have discrete talks with Moscow and for the rest keep our powder dry. And make contingency plans and secret preparations to rapidly expand our nuclear strike capability. And only come to Euro-America's aid when it is down, so we can incorporate in a the European world on our terms, as a sidekick. Exactly like America did with Germany.

Is that a fact? Like the Russians being at Waterloo?

 

[Corsair 115]

(2) He has to go against the Soviets essentially alone, but he isn't fighting a two-front war because of the above conditions. So give it an extra year: July 1942.

Practically speaking, it wasn't a two-front war until June of 1944. Unless one wishes to consider the Strategic Bombing Offensive a second front.

 

[Vladd]

Practically speaking, it wasn't a two-front war until June of 1944. Unless one wishes to consider the Strategic Bombing Offensive a second front.

What about North Africa?

 

[HawksFan]

What about North Africa?

Good point. Wouldn't the Normandy invasion technically have created a third front? We were already fighting them in North Africa and then Italy in '42 and '43. This was consuming German resources they needed elsewhere.

 

[Corsair 115]

What about North Africa?

Then the original comment should have said "a three-front war."

 

[Hans]

But consider that with its own home-grown fascist movement and its desire to eliminate its own Jewish population, it is a natural ally. As such, as Hitler needs to do is conclude an economic and military pact, and he can not invade or occupy Romania

We violated our own laws on neutrality by arming China in a massive way. This was long before there was a war in Europe and Lend-Lease on that continent, by the way.

The build-up of the Pacific Fleet, furthermore, indicated a desire on the part of FDR's administration to entangle Japan on some level, if only to be able to justify war with Germany in the wake of an attack on the Pacific Fleet by Japan.

I don't think much of this is controversial anymore, by the way.

Incidentally, we didn't just refuse to sell them oil; we embargoed oil from them.

Howdy Wroclaw

China wasn't at war (old fashioned declared war) therefore there was no violation of the neutrality act. 'Massively', er like what do you consider massive? I consider aid to England and Free France 'massive'.

Yes it is still controversial.

'Embargo'd is what? I hope you aren't suggesting that we were stopping the Dutch and Brit ships carrying oil! So why did the Brits and Dutch want a war with Japan? They did the same thing that the US did.

 

[Hans]

In some ways it was a four front war, East front, African or southern front, the Air war and then the smallest front, the economic, espionage and diplomatic offensive against the Axis. The axis resources fed into trying to keep the occupied countries down and defending against the air attacks - and the cuting off of trade except for a few country damaged the Axis ability to wage the war.

Oh yeah and here are those questions 9/11 is to afraid to answer...because he knows where it leads

Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war....so I'll just repeat them - feel free to copy and repost - and add your own

Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

9/11 if you could ask Hitler three questions what would they be?

9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

 

[dudalb]

What about North Africa?

And Sicily and Italy?

 

[9/11-investigator]

As a special service to my opponents I made a list of all the main players/'movers and shakers' of WW1 and WW2. Expect the list to grow.

http://20thcentury-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/personalia.html

As a little Dankeschoen my esteemed opponents could help me and suggest names of people who are at least as important and the reason why they are deemed important.

 

[Hans]

Hi Wroclaw

He is using a modification of what is known as the 'Gish Gallop', constantly trying to change the subject to avoid responding to evidence that shows he is wrong about the subject.

Needless to say he is still doing it. Did Germany attack Poland, yes it did.

 

[twinstead]

Is it me, or is 9/11 simply reiterating Nazi Germany's rationalization of their aggression instead of quoting historical fact? The world didn't buy it then, so why does he think it would buy it now? I guess it's ok to be a Nazi fanboy, but nobody likes historical revisionism.

 

[MG1962]

Needless to say he is still doing it. Did Germany attack Poland, yes it did.

Well I am still waiting for an explanation of Molotov's quotes. Think I should just give up?

 

[Hans]

Well I am still waiting for an explanation of Molotov's quotes. Think I should just give up?

Nope just keep putting them up. It is always important when dealing with dishonest attempts to revise history to make sure the person doing so doesn't escape without expaining questions ask - particularly the ones that shows their revisions are rubbish!

I recommend that you keep reposting

It might be worthwhile to make a list of questions 9/11 avoids and keep reposting them each day.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Is it me, or is 9/11 simply reiterating Nazi Germany's rationalization of their aggression instead of quoting historical fact? The world didn't buy it then, so why does he think it would buy it now? I guess it's ok to be a Nazi fanboy, but nobody likes historical revisionism.

Breathtaking naiveté.

The fact that Nazis come up with a rationalization for their actions, automatically means they must lie, right? After all, Steven Spielberg said so himself.

Thank you for your tolerance towards me and accepting my humble self as a 'nazi fan boy' (I am not).

'Nobody likes historical revisionism'. Of course not! Almost everybody was the victor after WW2, the alllies outnumbering the Germans 1:6. So everybody had a stake in the 'truth' around WW1/WW2 as delivered to us by the victorious alllies. So we westerners could enjoy our status as 'good guys' to the max while sitting on the couch, drinking beer and dipping potato chips in the sauce, while watching Steven Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' pack of lies. Accepting revisionism would expose us as liars or at least as intellectual lazy dummies.

Meanwhile, being brainwashed by the tales around WW2 and the holo thingy, enforcing the idea of racial seperatism, and in it's wake nationalism, as absolute evil (racism!), we allowed our cities to gradually being taken over by 3rd world foreigners, the new proletariat. All according to the plan of the media owning brainwashers, smelling a new possibility of erecting a global Soviet style tyranny based on 'anti-racism', the new egalitarian concept replacing the Soviet egalitarian concept of 'class struggle'.

 

[Uzzy]

The fact that Nazis come up with a rationalization for their actions, automatically means they must lie, right? After all, Steven Spielberg said so himself.

Pretty much. The Nazis often used propaganda in an attempt to cloak their actual aims, but historians after the war, searching through the archives, uncovered the truth through good historical research.

You'd be familiar with the first, as a propagandist yourself, but the second? No chance. You can't even get basics right, so why should anyone trust you on more complex matters?

 

[dafydd]

Breathtaking naiveté.

The fact that Nazis come up with a rationalization for their actions, automatically means they must lie, right? After all, Steven Spielberg said so himself.

Thank you for your tolerance towards me and accepting my humble self as a 'nazi fan boy' (I am not).

'Nobody likes historical revisionism'. Of course not! Almost everybody was the victor after WW2, the alllies outnumbering the Germans 1:6. So everybody had a stake in the 'truth' around WW1/WW2 as delivered to us by the victorious alllies. So we westerners could enjoy our status as 'good guys' to the max while sitting on the couch, drinking beer and dipping potato chips in the sauce, while watching Steven Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' pack of lies. Accepting revisionism would expose us as liars or at least as intellectual lazy dummies.

Meanwhile, being brainwashed by the tales around WW2 and the holo thingy, enforcing the idea of racial seperatism, and in it's wake nationalism, as absolute evil (racism!), we allowed our cities to gradually being taken over by 3rd world foreigners, the new proletariat. All according to the plan of the media owning brainwashers, smelling a new possibility of erecting a global Soviet style tyranny based on 'anti-racism', the new egalitarian concept replacing the Soviet egalitarian concept of 'class struggle'.

Tell us another tale about the Russians at Waterloo,it's funnier than that load of crap.

 

[Hans]

the alllies outnumbering the Germans 1:6

If Hitler hadn't attacked Poland where would we be now? A Nazi government in Berlin headed by one of Himmler's kids - springtime for Germany. As noted before getting yourself into a fight no one wanted but you - and getting clobbered is the mistake of the attacker. I suggest you read Sun Tzu, Jomini, Clausewitz and other strategists, who make the point of 'not attacking into strength'.