Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TSR said:
.
Correct figure, 25,000.
.
Click to expand...


He's been corrected already. Indeed, I mentioned some posts back a recent book written about the Dresden raid which has a chapter detailing how the 100,000+ casualty figure came about.

It seems facts and references to sources falls on deaf ears when it comes to the intrepid 9/11-investigator.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Yep, that was the image presented by our 'cultural' hegemon during the past decades: history for children, written by children.
Click to expand...

What ? No mention of dudalb's race or nationality ?

Pure demonization and nothing else
Click to expand...

This is an odd statement. It assumes there is a reason for such demonization. I mean, the other opponents fought by the same powers throughout the 20th century were not so characterised. So why the Nazis ? Why would they go to such trouble to demonize them ? Defeating an aggressor would be enough, no ?

Also, your rules of evidence are weird. Basically you ignore all evidence and accept all indications to the contrary. It's almost as if... you had a predetermined conclusion, 9/11. Nah, that can't be it, can it ? Well, of course it is, since you admitted it yourself !
 
Gawdzilla said:
Tolls, just because he wanted to avoid a two-front war does mean he didn't have plans to put England under the Nazi thrall. No country would be spared in the long run. He just wanted to gain his lebensraum in the East and build up his forces before taking the rest of Europe.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I fully expect at the least that Britain would have been subordinate in some way (see Italy). The whole kick off for the war was the desire for conquest in the East, which required that the West be dealt with.
 
Tolls said:
Oh yes, I fully expect at the least that Britain would have been subordinate in some way (see Italy). The whole kick off for the war was the desire for conquest in the East, which required that the West be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Once the "Asian Aryans" met him around the Urals he would have turned to the West to "consolidate" Europe. Only a fool would have expected him to do otherwise.
 
Well, tecnically it was the Serbians (Serbian Society Blackhand members to be specific) who assasinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo June 28 1914. This set off a series of events, not unlike a 'chain reaction' which, led to WW1. However, it was the Germans who declared war on Serbia and really started WW1.
 
Last edited:
secrets said:
Well, tecnically it was the Serbians (Serbian Society Blackhand members to be specific) who assasinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo June 28 1914. This set off a series of events, not unlike a 'chain reaction' which, led to WW1. However, it was the Germans who declared war on Seribia and really started WW1.
Click to expand...

The Austro-Hungarian Empire sent a list of demands to Serbia. Serbia agreed to all but one of them. As the Austrian ambassador had instructions to reject ANY response to the demands the results were predictable. Germany got into the action shortly after Austria made the first declaration of war.
 
secrets said:
Well, tecnically it was the Serbians (Serbian Society Blackhand members to be specific) who assasinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo June 28 1914. This set off a series of events, not unlike a 'chain reaction' which, led to WW1. However, it was the Germans who declared war on Serbia and really started WW1.
Click to expand...

The problem was all the treaties that said, "I, country A, will fight alongside you if you, country B, go to war with country C." So when country D, who had a similar treaty with country C, heard that A and B were going to war with country C, they were obliged to declare war on countries A and B, while country E, who had a treaty with country B, now had to go to war with countries C and D...and so on.

Not unlike the automated sell orders that set off the 1987 stock market crash.
 
aggle-rithm said:
The problem was all the treaties that said, "I, country A, will fight alongside you if you, country B, go to war with country C." So when country D, who had a similar treaty with country C, heard that A and B were going to war with country C, they were obliged to declare war on countries A and B, while country E, who had a treaty with country B, now had to go to war with countries C and D...and so on.

Not unlike the automated sell orders that set off the 1987 stock market crash.
Click to expand...

When generals get control of foreign policy you get something like WWI.
 
Gawdzilla said:
When generals get control of foreign policy you get something like WWI.
Click to expand...

It probably didn't help that, in those days, a lot of major military powers were ruled by people who were all related to each other.

When they tried to identify the remains of the Romanov family found in Russia, their nearest living relative (from whom they got a DNA sample) was Prince Phillip of GB.
 
Corsair 115 said:
He's been corrected already. Indeed, I mentioned some posts back a recent book written about the Dresden raid which has a chapter detailing how the 100,000+ casualty figure came about.

It seems facts and references to sources falls on deaf ears when it comes to the intrepid 9/11-investigator.
Click to expand...

My only issue with the 25,000 is the presumption no bodies were destroyed because the fires were not hot enough. I once knew someone who went through that night.

The image they said some 45 years later still gave them nightmares was seeing peoeple being immersed in the rivers of tar that began to soften and flow down the roads due to the heat.

Obviously that would not account for the whole missing 85,000 but you have to wonder how many did die that way
 
aggle-rithm said:
It probably didn't help that, in those days, a lot of major military powers were ruled by people who were all related to each other.

When they tried to identify the remains of the Romanov family found in Russia, their nearest living relative (from whom they got a DNA sample) was Prince Phillip of GB.
Click to expand...

It's all Victoria's fault.
 
Gawdzilla said:
The Austro-Hungarian Empire sent a list of demands to Serbia. Serbia agreed to all but one of them. As the Austrian ambassador had instructions to reject ANY response to the demands the results were predictable. Germany got into the action shortly after Austria made the first declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Not quite. It took Austria a whole month to come up with that ultimatum. During that month, there was intensive contact between Vienna and Berlin whether Germany would back it. In fact, Germany even pressed Austria to whip up the demands to unacceptable level. Which the one that Serbia rejected was: it stated that Austrian police should have investigation powers equal to Serbian police on Serbian soil.
 
aggle-rithm said:
The problem was all the treaties that said, "I, country A, will fight alongside you if you, country B, go to war with country C." So when country D, who had a similar treaty with country C, heard that A and B were going to war with country C, they were obliged to declare war on countries A and B, while country E, who had a treaty with country B, now had to go to war with countries C and D...and so on.

Not unlike the automated sell orders that set off the 1987 stock market crash.
Click to expand...

You slightly overstated the case. The treaties said something like "I, country A, will fight alongside you, country B, if country C declares war on you". The effect is the same though - a chain reaction, once a single country declares war on another.
 
Belz... said:
What ? No mention of dudalb's race or nationality ?



This is an odd statement. It assumes there is a reason for such demonization. I mean, the other opponents fought by the same powers throughout the 20th century were not so characterised. So why the Nazis ? Why would they go to such trouble to demonize them ? Defeating an aggressor would be enough, no ?

Also, your rules of evidence are weird. Basically you ignore all evidence and accept all indications to the contrary. It's almost as if... you had a predetermined conclusion, 9/11. Nah, that can't be it, can it ? Well, of course it is, since you admitted it yourself !
Click to expand...

Exactly, after WW1 the German leadership wasn't characterised as the NAzis are. They were deposed from power and the Keiser forced to abdicate.

Could it be that there was an extra dimension to the Nazi regime that resulted in their demonization?
I wonder wehat it could have been?
 
9/11-investigator said:
Dresden

In 4:50 and later the English narrator says that more than 100,000 people died (correct figure 130,000).
Click to expand...

No, the correct figure is 21,271 or thereabouts. The idea that the casualties were above 100,000 was demonstrated to be one of Irving's lies and systematically dismantled in court by, among others, Richard Evans via the various primary documents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom