Who started both World Wars?

[Belz...]

I don't need your apologies. I need your utmost attempt to floor me.

I'm sorry. It's YOUR claim, not mine.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I think my post on this wasn't very clear, so maybe I should clarify a little.

A Canadian historian, James Bacque, wrote a book called "Other Losses", in which he analysed the records of German prisoners in captivity after the end of the war. In the records for prisoners held by the US Army, the data on the eventual fate of the prisoners contains a column labelled "Other losses", which gives a figure of about 660,000. Bacque concluded, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that this column referred to prisoners who had died in captivity; in fact, contemporary sources make it clear that "Other losses" refers to prisoners who, due to their youth or extreme age, were seen as incapable of having committed any war crimes, and therefore were simply discharged without further action or documentation. Bacque went on to extrapolate additional numbers for the "Other losses" column, again with little or no justification, to produce a final figure of a million German soldiers dying in US captivity. To work around the inconvenient fact that these individuals were not in fact missing after the supposed mass deaths, he then postulated that the USSR had underestimated its figures for German POW's by the same amount, an assertion repeatedly denied by the USSR. A general consensus exists among historians that Bacque's work is incompetent and draws entirely false conclusions. Buchanan appears to have taken it at face value, which has more to say about Buchanan's competence as a historian than Bacque's; Roberts also appears to have accepted the figure, which is no great testament to his reviewing skills.

Put in simple terms, it's a classic example of the conspiracist circle-jerk. One conspiracy theorist dreams up an untenable theory, a couple of other conspiracy theorists back it up, and the rank-and-file, unable to distinguish between three individual opinions and the overall consensus of historians worldwide, treat it as established fact. This is the inevitable result of selecting sources on the basis of prejudice rather than reliability.

Dave

Amazon reviews overwelmingly in favor of Barque's thesis.

Here an attack on Barque from Eisenhower apologist Stephen Ambrose. No surprise that Nizkor hosts this attack, keen as it is to demonize the Germans to the hilt and keep the myth of Anglo sainthood alive. Barque + bishop Williamson + Suvurov/Icebreaker (if true) of course are enough to reverse this picture.

Here a recent defense of Barque against Ambrose. I have yet to look into this matter but from a propagandistic point of view Barque obviously is a treasure trove.

http://www.jamesbacque.com/

 

[9/11-investigator]

Mind you, 9-11 Investigator is the same person who believes that Jews should have no rights.

?? Link please?

Very unfair accusation. Once the Israelis have been Helen Thomasized and have their little piece of land of their own in balkanized America, they can bake as many bagels as they wish.

 

[Uzzy]

Argument by Amazon Review? Really?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Amazon reviews overwelmingly in favor of Barque's thesis.

Argumentum ad populum.

Here an attack on Barque from Eisenhower apologist Stephen Ambrose. No surprise that Nizkor hosts this attack, keen as it is to demonize the Germans to the hilt and keep the myth of Anglo sainthood alive. Barque + bishop Williamson + Suvurov/Icebreaker (if true) of course are enough to reverse this picture.

Poisoning the well, and appeal to motive. And if you can't tell the difference between an adverse review of a book and a personal attack, you have no hope of ever understanding anything. Ambrose goes back to Bacque's source material and points out the exact errors Bacque has made. And here's how he keeps the myth of Anglo sainthood alive:

Nevertheless, Mr. Bacque makes a point that is irrefutable: some American G.I.'s and their officers were capable of acting in almost as brutal a manner as the Nazis. We did not have a monopoly on virtue. He has challenged us to reopen the question, to do the research required, to get at the full truth. For that contribution, he deserves thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/24/books/ike-and-the-disappearing-atrocities.html?pagewanted=5

Wow, what a biased, one-sided, Anglocentric, Jingoistic view that is. Again, you're misrepresenting your opponents' view as black-and-white to try to cover up the fact that yours is simply white-and-black.

Here a recent defense of Barque against Ambrose.

No, it's Bacque complaining about Wikipedia exercising its freedom to decide what does and doesn't go on its web page.

It's also interesting to note that what you describe as an attack on Bacque is actually a balanced but critical discussion of his work, whereas what you describe as a defense of Bacque includes a direct personal attack on the character of Ambrose. Even your links contain deliberate misrepresentation.

I have yet to look into this matter but from a propagandistic point of view Barque obviously is a treasure trove.

Careful, you're exposing your real agenda there. All you're interested in is finding any source, no matter how poorly written, that you can twist into support for your claim that Germany was perfect throughout the early 20th Century, and all the evil was done by the Allies. Therefore, it's not surprising that you "have yet to look into this matter"; why bother checking the reasoning or the source material, when it's only the conclusion you're interested in?

Your mentor, Dr. Goebbels, would be proud of you.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

Careful, you're exposing your real agenda there. All you're interested in is finding any source, no matter how poorly written, that you can twist into support for your claim that Germany was perfect throughout the early 20th Century, and all the evil was done by the Allies. Therefore, it's not surprising that you "have yet to look into this matter"; why bother checking the reasoning or the source material, when it's only the conclusion you're interested in?

I am wondering if there is still any doubt about my agenda? I have been repeatedly very clear about it in the recent past. To sum it up: we are living in the so-called uni-polar moment, meaning Anglosphere the top-dog in the world as a front for the Jews who really run the place. The policy of the Jews is to use the H-word and the idea of WW2 as the 'good war' to enforce their policy of mass immigration to the West so they can strengthen their rule by using a divide-and-conquer strategy between the autochtone populations and the newcomers and thus justifying ever more stringent measures to keep the lot together (compare with former Yugoslavia which was kept together by a communist ideology and exploded once this ideology evaporated). I do not like this policy so I fight back. I could not care less about glorifying the Nazi-regime, although I appreciate that it looks like I am doing that. What I am really doing is attacking the multicultural ideology that is destroying my society. Sorry if your precious Anglo feelings are hurt by it. Prepare for a lot more hurt.

Your mentor, Dr. Goebbels, would be proud of you.

Dave

That's an extremely benevolent compliment, there hardly was a more skilled propagandist than Dr. Goebbels, regardless of what you might think of the man himself. Or as (I believe) Irving put it: "he was able to Nazify an ultra red city like Berlin in a matter of 2 years"... or words to that effect.

Keep the compliments coming!

I am leaving Barque for what he is at the moment but certainly will return to him. I mean statements like 'the Allies killed willfully 5 times as many Germans in their concentrations camps (Rhine banks really) as forced labourers were dying in the German camps as a result of the deteriorating conditions created by the Allies as well'... are too good to let go. I am sure you understand that.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Today we will continue to study uncle Pat’s book and describe the remaining events and motivations that led to the start of WW1.
http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X

p.19 – To Britain, security rested on a balance of power – a divided Europe with British power backing the weaker coalition… Under Britain’balance-of-power doctrine, the Kaiser could become an ally only if Germany were displaced as first power in Europe… The Kaiser was correct. As long as Germany remained the greatest power in Europe, Britain would line up against her. Britain’s balance-of-power policy commanded it. Britain thus left a powerful Germany that had sought an alliance or entente, or even British neutrality, forever frustrated.

Again, we see that Germany had no hostile intentions against Britain and wanted an understanding, but Britain was not interested. Hitler made exactly the same mistake. And even today Britain will do anything to weaken continental unity, for instance by trying to push Turkey through our throats or all these City journalists trying to write the euro into the ground. The lesson from WW1 and WW2 needs to be that Britain essentially is a hostile entity and needs to be treated as such. De Gaulle, my favorite politician from WW2 and after, was right in his opposition in keeping Trojan horse Britain out of the (then) EC. Every revolution needs a scape goat. The coming revolutionary shift from ‘unipolar moment’ (under Israel-US-UK leadership) towards a multi-polar world order (roughly along the lines Samuel Huntington predicted but without a dissolved West, and with a Balkanized America carved up between Mexico, EU, Russia (Alaska) and Asian countries, an Islamist Britain, Australia handed over to China and a EU-Russian hegemonic military alliance). In order to achive this transition the triade Israel-US-UK needs to be isolated and the rest of the world united against it. But I digress…

p.21 – Twice this policy would bring Britain into war with Germany until, by 1945, Britain was too weak to play the role any longer. She would lose her empire because of what Lord Salisbury had said in 1877 was “the commonest error in politics… sticking to the carcass of dead policies”.

And since Britain is still not willing to learn it is not just going to lose it’s empire but also it’s own lands.

Then Buchanan continues with an ignored ‘conspiracy’ between Sir Edward Grey and Churchill:

p.21 – The statesman most responsible for the abandonment of splendid isolation for a secret alliance with France was Edward Grey… he… would become the leading statesman behind Britain’s decision to plunge into the Great War… ”Grey’s Germanophobia and his zeal for the Entente with France were from the outset at odds with the majority of the Liberal Cabinet”, writes Ferguson: “within half a year of coming into office, Grey had presided over a transformation of the Entente with France, which had begun life as an attempt to settle extra-European quarrels (911-I: keyword Fashoda), into a de facto defensive alliance. [Grey] had conveyed to the French that Britain would be prepared to fight with then against Germany in the event of a war.”… neither the Cabinet nor Parliament was aware that Sir Edward had committed Britain to war if France were invaded. In 1911, 2 new ministers were brought in on the secret: Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George and the 37 year old Home Secretary, who soon moved to the Admiralty: Winston Churchill.

About the attitudes of those that prevailed in Britain:

p.23 – British hawks looked to a European war to enhance national prestige and expand the empire.A war in which French and Russian armies tore at Germany from east and west, as the Royal Navy sent the High Seas Fleet to the bottom, rolled up the Kaiser’s colonies, and drove German trade from the high seas seemed a glorious opportunity to smash the greatest rival to British power since Napoleon. And the cost of the victory, the dispatch of a British Expeditionary Force to fight beside the mighty French army that would bear the brunt of battle, seemed reasonable.

To sum it up: the British saw the oportunity to destroy Germany on the cheap. Britain wanted to destroy Germany. Germany had no similar intents towards Britain.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited to provide link and clarify quotes.

 

[abenja1]

?? Link please?

Very unfair accusation. Once the Israelis have been Helen Thomasized and have their little piece of land of their own in balkanized America, they can bake as many bagels as they wish.

I asked you in a previous thread if you believe Jews, under the United States Constituion deserve rights. You never answered. I assume you don't

Edit: Nice. Once again you sprinkle a post with your anti-Semitic garbage.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's an extremely benevolent compliment, there hardly was a more skilled propagandist than Dr. Goebbels, regardless of what you might think of the man himself.

I felt quite sure you would take it as a compliment. Goebbels was an extremely skilled liar, with a great talent for persuading people to believe what was demonstrably untrue. I'm not in the least surprised that this is a condition you aspire to

I mean statements like 'the Allies killed willfully 5 times as many Germans in their concentrations camps (Rhine banks really) as forced labourers were dying in the German camps as a result of the deteriorating conditions created by the Allies as well'... are too good to let go. I am sure you understand that.

I understand perfectly well that, when trying to convince people that your lies are to be believed, an inflammatory and grossly inaccurate quote from someone who is falsely believed by many to be an authority would be too useful not to repeat. It's enough that those listening to you understand that your sources are worthless; I can hardly expect you to reach that epiphany yourself.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

Here is something which - to some extent - you and I agree on.

plumjam says this in response to my statement: It is a general accepted fact that history is written by the victors.

You can imagine how exited I am to learn from plumjam on what areas he thinks that the history of both world wars needs to be revised.

All ears. Thanks in advance!

 

[9/11-investigator]

I asked you in a previous thread if you believe Jews, under the United States Constituion deserve rights. You never answered. I assume you don't

You are assuming too much.

I do not want to hurt your feelings, but maybe, just maybe, I was not interested to answer your boring self-absorbed question. Or maybe I simply overlooked it. But I have little patience with people who portray themselves as the eternal victims of history.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But I have little patience with people who portray themselves as the eternal victims of history.

Unless, of course, they're German.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

Unless, of course, they're German.

Dave

I would be interested to know when they portrayed themselves as victim.

 

[Uzzy]

Fundamental misreading of history here from 9/11 guy. The Tirpitz plan was solely designed around threatening the UK into an agreement with Germany. It's well known that the Kaiser wanted a navel fleet, but he primarily wanted Cruisers, which with their longer range could do useful things. Tirpitz decided instead to concentrate on building Battleships and Dreadnoughts, which only had an operational range of the North Sea. This was essentially a dagger pointed at the throat of the UK, as the German High Seas Fleet could be used to blockade the home islands quite well. Is it any wonder that the Royal Navy pulled a lot of ships back for home defence? Various Naval Laws in Germany committed more and more resources to building battleships.

Those Battleships had one purpose, to intimidate the British into coming to an arrangement with Germany. The opposite happened, and Britain came out of splendid isolation with a series of treaties, starting with the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902, signed to ensure that British colonies in Asia would be safer. Later agreements with France and Russia were designed around the same thing. Resolving colonial conflicts so that Britain could concentrate on defending the home islands.

Further, the Kaiser made quite a famous blunder in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, where he insulted the British, French, Russians and Japanese all in one fell swoop. Add in the Kaiser's continual interference in Morocco, or his actions regarding Saladin's tomb, and it's easy to see why Britain, France and Russia saw the Kaiser's Germany as an aggressive, hostile state. Germany had, after all, been born in blood barely fifty years earlier in two wars.

A response to these points would be welcome.

 

[Saggy]

To sum it up: the British saw the opportunity to destroy Germany on the cheap. Britain wanted to destroy Germany. Germany had no similar intents towards Britain.

I won't do justice to Engdahl's argument in 'Century of War', but briefly, it is this ..

In 1870 Britain was dominant in industry, commerce, technology, and sea shipping. In the next 40 years she was challenged on all fronts by Germany.

Germany built a large navy.

Germany's technological development outpaced Britain's in the 1890s. Engdahl gives examples.

A bank panic and collapse in Britain triggered by Argentinian bond defaults prompted drastic financial reforms in Germany which greatly restricted speculation giving Germany a sound financial basis.

Near the end of the century Britain became aware that oil powered ships were superior to coal powered ships, and began to convert its navy. Churchill ! led the switch to an oil powered navy.

At the time the major oil produces was the US, and Britain had no oil of its own. Hence it began acquiring rights in Arabia. Here he gives the story complete with names and deals, not unlike the purchase of Manhattan for a few beads, where the Brits sewed up lots of middle east oil.

Germany around 1900 started expanding its railways, and planned to build a Berlin-Baghdad line to acquire access to middle east oil and other commerce. Germany did try to involve Britain in the financing of this rail line but the Brits of course refused and there were many British machinations to stymie the Germans, including Balkan wars, intrigue, etc.

Germany expanded its merchant shipping fleet so that in 1914 it was second only to Britain.

Britain began negotiating secret alliances with the French and Russians early in the 1900s with the aim of stopping German economic expansion.

So, the Brits entered the war to eliminate their first rival for world dominance. It was inevitable given their record.

I've just written the above from memory, and it doesn't do the book justice and may contain errors ... you need to read the first few chapters of the book to get a better account.

A response to these points would be welcome.

Great Scott ! Uzzy can read and write ! Who knew?

 

[Saggy]

duplicate post

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would be interested to know when they portrayed themselves as victim.

That seems to be the way you choose to portray them, though.

Dave

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Regarding the question oon the OP:

“Who caused ________* war?

* Fill in the blank with any war in recorded Human History.

For some people, regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary, the answer will always be:

“The Joooos!”

The rational among us understand that this is not so.

Why then, does anyone continue to argue this issue?

 

[abenja1]

You are assuming too much.

I do not want to hurt your feelings, but maybe, just maybe, I was not interested to answer your boring self-absorbed question. Or maybe I simply overlooked it. But I have little patience with people who portray themselves as the eternal victims of history.

Nope. I assume correctly. Your silence is the answer the answer to my question. Just like Dave Rogers said, it's okay for you to make the Germans, but oh no, Jews are not allowed to be victims despite the fact they are victims. Boy you're hypocrisy knows no bounds. I bet it eats away inside that Jews have rights in America. I bet you wish you could change that. But you'll never be able to run for office here.

 

[9/11-investigator]

That seems to be the way you choose to portray them, though.

Dave

I do not portray them as victims, nor as saints.
I am busy destroying the myths created by the Allies (H-word, 'good war').
The purpose is NOT to replace all these streetnames in Holland saying 'Churchilllaan' with 'Adolf Hitlerlaan' but to attack and undermine the ruling ideology of the left.
I simply want to preserve my nation as it is and their is no way you guys will be able to criminalise that endeavour.