Wow !
Who started both World Wars?
- Thread starter 9/11-investigator
- Start date
- Status
Wow !
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I think it would be more interesting to see where you got the word "innocent" from. Do you always feel it necessary to misrepresent your opponents' positions, so that it's only the misrepresentations you need to address?
Dave
Dr. Tobias Fünke
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 180
What is the point?
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Do not worry, I will address them later on.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
From Paul Craig Roberts' review of Buchanan's book:
Buchanan's latest book is by far his best. It is spellbinding from his opening sentence: "All about us we can see clearly now that the West is passing away." As the pages turn, the comfortable myths, produced by history written by the victors, are swept aside. The veil is lifted to reveal the true faces of British and American exceptionalism: stupidity and deceit.
PCR was member of the Reagan government.
PCR and Buchanan have not touched the H-word yet. In time they will.
Buchanan hides himself behind his favorite formulae that drives the Jews nuts: "WW2, the war where 50 million Christians and Jews died", a clever formulation that leaves open as to how many Jews Buchanan thinks were killed in the war.
PCR recently has declared that he opposes that people are being thrown in jail over the H-word controversy. "What kind of truth needs protection", PCR asks rethorically.
Both Buchanan and PCR are aware of "the true faces of British and American exceptionalism: stupidity and deceit".
PCR continues (italics): Both world wars began when England, for no sound or sensible reason, declared war on Germany. Winston Churchill was a prime instigator of both wars. He seems to have been a person who needed a war stage in order to be a "great man... The American President Woodrow Wilson shares responsibility with Britain and France for the Versailles Treaty, which dismembered Germany, stripping her of territory and putting millions of Germans under foreign rule, and imposed reparations that Britain's greatest economist, John Maynard Keynes, correctly predicted to be unrealistic. All of this was done in violation of assurances given to Germany that there would be no reparations or boundary changes. Once Germany surrendered, the assurances were withdrawn, and a starvation blockade forced German submission to the new harsh terms."
Buchanan produces one historian after another to testify that British miscalculations and blunders, culminating in Chamberlain's worthless and provocative "guarantee" to Poland, brought the West into a war that Hitler did not want, a war that destroyed the British Empire and left Britain a dependency of America, a war that delivered Poland, a chunk of Germany, all of Eastern Europe, and the Baltic states to Joseph Stalin, a war that left the Western allies with a 45-year cold war against the nuclear-armed Soviet Union.
People resist the shattering of their illusions, and many are angry with Buchanan for assembling the facts of the case that distinguished historians have provided.
--> the average Anglo JRef poster
Churchill admirers are outraged that their hero is revealed as the first war criminal of World War II. It was Churchill who initiated the policy of terror bombing civilians in noncombatant areas. Buchanan quotes B.H. Liddell Hart: "When Mr. Churchill came into power, one of the first decisions of his government was to extend bombing to the noncombatant area."
I repeat: it was the British, not the Germans who started to bomb civilians. The Anglos threw 20 times as much on Germany as Germany (reluctantly forced to retaliate) threw on Britain.
In 2001 the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported Churchill's plan to drop 5 million anthrax cakes onto German pastures in order to poison the cattle and through them the people. Churchill instructed the RAF to consider drenching "the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany" with poison gas "in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention."
In Holland every town has a Chirchilllaan named after the maniac. It will be a benchmark of progress to see these names replaced in some not too distant future.
British historian F.J.P. Veale concluded that Churchill's policy of indiscriminate bombing of civilians caused an unprecedented "reversion to primary and total warfare" associated with "Sennacherib, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane."
MacDonogh's book, After the Reich, dispels the comfortable myth of generous allied treatment of defeated Germany. Having discarded all moral scruples, the allies fell upon the vanquished country with brutal occupation. Hundreds of thousands of women raped; hundreds of thousands of Germans died in deportations; a million German prisoners of war died in captivity.
In the German army soldiers were punished if caught at raping women. It hardly occured. 1 million Germans died in captivity, 5 times as much as died in German concentration camps, the latter died as a consequence of the war.
The wrong party won the war, one is tempted to think.
But hey, these thoughts would be bad for your career.
For the moment.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Seconded.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Careful now, thats almost racist against Anglos
(or at least it would be if anyone knew what an anglo was)
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Well, no. Iwan waited until Heinz and Billy were already fighting, then ran off with her money. And Heinz had already beaten up a few other old ladies on the same street, and taken all their money.
Incidentally, I never knew Stalin was Welsh.
So your argument is that Britain started World War Two by not fighting the Germans?
But discussed with his friend Pierre exactly what they could do about Iwan once they'd dealt with Hans. Since they didn't really know how to deal with Hans at the time, they decided there was even less they could do about Iwan.
because Iwan had explained that he didn't intend to rob any more old ladies, and would help stop Hans instead. Perhaps Billy was a bit foolish to believe Iwan.
I think you meant "starts to drop bombs on Hans". Blurring the definition between fact and fantasy may work for you, but I'd rather be consistent.
Of course, ignoring Billy's brother Jack will lead you to false conclusions. But please tell us more about your theory of how the Allies lost the battle of El Alamein. Conventional historians seem to have got this terribly wrong, but no doubt Rommel's retreat all the way to Tunisia was part of his strategic master plan.
Yes, if you ignore everything Britain did in WW2 then it looks like Britain didn't do anything in WW2. Germany was a long way from beaten in early June 1944; Operation Bagration and the Falaise Pocket were yet to come.
Keen to dwell in reality? I've never thought of it that way. Yes, there were moral grey areas in WW2, more than simplified history likes to dwell on, but its origins are fairly well-understood. Blaming the entire conflict on Britain, while at the same time complaining that Britain took virtually no part in it, is inconsistent to the point of insanity.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
This just in: Right-wing extremist and supporter of insane 9/11 theories cites review of right-wing extremist's book by supporter of insane 9/11 theories. Sane people unimpressed.
Dave
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Paul Craig Roberts a right wing extremist??!!
Substantiate please.
To the neutral bystander: Dave Rogers will be unable to substantiate his smears. What was it again according to PCR? Oh yes, stupidity and deceit is the hallmark of the Anglo.
We are all ears Dave.
(Dave will quietly drop the subject)
Tip for Dave: why don't you try to portray PCR as a hater?
For non-Anglo's: 'hate' is the new ridiculous Anglo judicial play thingy, introduced by Jewish anti-white organizatons like the ADL and SPLC.
Last edited:
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
You mean Austria? The Austrians looked far happier then the Iraqies when they were incorporated into the Anglo empire.
New to me also.
Exactly. They carried out the half baked attempt in cutting the Swedish iron ore supply lines but got their asses whipped in a matter of days. WW2 was won by the Russians with some aid from side-kick US. The Brits only made themselves useful merely by killing civilians.
If this were true (it is not) it would have been far more sensible to let Hans and Iwan fight each other to death. This is what Buchanan says as well. But here is where the revisionism of Buchanan stops. Reason: he cannot go further because he then has to touch the Jews, something Buchanan cannot do otherwise he would get the Helen Thomas treatment. Buchanan has to introduce the idea of stupidity to explain the behaviour of Churchill. In reality Churchill was operating in defense of Jewish interests.
What, Anglos making mistakes? Impossible.
Of course that's what I mean.
My bad.
Britain never accepted the rise of Germany, who got too powerful in their eyes. Hence it needed to be destroyed.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Wait... he quoted Paul Craig Roberts? The guy who tried to peddle the "free fall" fallacy regarding the Twin Towers? The guy who thinks DRG's Debunking 9/11 Debunking was actually more credible than the NIST report?? The guy who's so paranoid he's actually stated a belief that future MIHOP 9/11 type events will occur?
You can tell who's a credulous, foolish thinker by the sources he cites. Is that ever demonstrated so clearly as it is here?
Belz...
Fiend God
Careful now, thats almost racist against Anglos
(or at least it would be if anyone knew what an anglo was)
Perhaps he doesn't like the French or Canadians either, because I'm certainly not on his side.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No. Learn to read for comprehension - although, since your main aim is misrepresentation, I suppose there's no real need. Paul Craig Roberts wrote the review, and he's a supporter of insane 9/11 theories, same as you. Buchanan is the right wing extremist who wrote the book. I'd have thought, since you were the one who raised it, that you'd be able to remember that detail for a few minutes at least.
(9/11-investigator will try to deflect attention away from his laughable inability to comprehend others' posts - or, indeed, his own).
This thing where you put words into other people's mouths and then condemn them even though they never used those words - you're quite good at it, aren't you? Do you find it convinces anyone of anything other than that you're a shameless liar?
But I see that you freely admit that Britain started World War Two by not fighting anyone. At this point, your entire house of cards has already fallen apart. If Britain indeed took no effective part in WW2, then the declaration of war on Germany was an irrelevant piece of paper. I think, at some point, you need to decide which of your contradictory accusations you really want to make, and which one you want to quietly pretend you never made. At the moment you're just making yourself look stupid.
As for not knowing who won the battle of El Alamein, that reveals an extraordinary level of ignorance of the events of WW2. l suggest you learn at least the rudiments of modern history before proclaiming yourself an expert on it.
ETA: You might, for a start, consider which battle of El Alamein you meant.
Dave
Last edited:
Oh dear.
Look, you (or the people you are summarising) are implying that the US bankers plotted around the Lusitania (1915) because they feared a German victory...while at the same time screwing Russia over (whether intentionally or not) with arms deals that were rather one-sided, right through 1916. Do you not see the slight problem with that argument?
grunion
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 11,537
Your fictitious interpretation of Dave Rogers' comment clearly and correctly identifying Buchanan as the right wing wacko and Roberts as the conspiracy nutcase doesn't say much for your uninspired rehashing of Revisionist history as described in your OP. Anti-semitic and racist doggerel further undermine whatever shred of credibility you may have had among the less informed who may be interested in your spurious argument.Paul Craig Roberts a right wing extremist??!!
Substantiate please.
To the neutral bystander: Dave Rogers will be unable to substantiate his smears. What was it again according to PCR? Oh yes, stupidity and deceit is the hallmark of the Anglo.
We are all ears Dave.
(Dave will quietly drop the subject)
Tip for Dave: why don't you try to portray PCR as a hater?
For non-Anglo's: 'hate' is the new ridiculous Anglo judicial play thingy, introduced by Jewish anti-white organizatons like the ADL and SPLC.
Ah, but you are only asking questions, aren't you. What an original trick.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
A Message From Hell, I See........
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,990
- Status