Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
gtm said:
The moral of the story is to read threads more closely :D

9/11 investigators premise is still wrong. The naval blockade & the horrendous casualties made a German defeat inevitable irrespective of US involvement but it would have probably happened in 1919. The British & French victory in the 1918 spring offensive was very much the last straw for the Germans. They only have the man power for defensive operations after that.
Click to expand...

That's not to say mutual exhaustion would not have ended up with some form of compromise, but that always struck me as unlikely. 1917 was the shift, with the Royal Navy finally conducting proper convoying operations, thus dramatically reducing the effect of the UBoats. Of course, if we're postulating a no-US entry, then I would argue you have to also go with a no-Unrestricted UBoat Warfare.

Into 1918 the British were ramping up tank production, and the plans for available tanks in 1919 were pretty impressive...I wish I had the figures with me, but we're talking thousands, with a sizeable (possibly majority?) being supply tanks.

Still, Spring 1918 would have been harder going without a load of fresh divisions available to plug some gaps. Then again, would Lloyd George have pulled strings to hold back on replacements without the US manpower around? Survive the spring offensives and Germany loses.
 
9/11-investigator said:
He said so himself he was there.

Not believing Freedman would be a clear sign of blatant antisemitism and we are all glad we are not like that.
Click to expand...

prove he was there.

and please provide evidence that "the Jews" orchistrated the attack on the Lusitania and the two other ships attacked by U-Boats, which led to America's entry into the war.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Until the US came in there was a stalemate situation on the battle field.
What Dave forgets to mention is WHY the US joined.

Enter the Jews as another party in the cafe brawl.
Click to expand...

Enter the holocaust deniers in the form of a scum sucking parasite on the back of a cockroach.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Captain Swoop wants to use ownership of the Daily Mail in the thirties to basically prove that these British divers did not exist at all.

English, by any chance?
Click to expand...

Are you still 'here'? Perhaps you'd be happier peddling your wares at stormfront or vnn?
 
9/11-investigator said:
Until the US came in there was a stalemate situation on the battle field.
What Dave forgets to mention is WHY the US joined.
Click to expand...

The USA joined because the **** ing Germans were attacking civilian ships. That's why.

It had nothin to do with the Jews, the Zionists, or the Klingons.

What proof do you have that "the Jews" somehow got the USA to join the war?

None....zero...nada....
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
The USA joined because the **** ing Germans were attacking civilian ships. That's why.

It had nothin to do with the Jews, the Zionists, or the Klingons.
Click to expand...

Try to let it sink in that the Germans were entitled to sink the Lusitania. It is not (just) me who says so but the Daily Mail, simply reporting what British divers have found. I wonder when they will start diving to the other ships.

Come to think of it, why would Germany attack ships and provoke another potential enemy into the war against them unless they have a very good reason to do so. Like preventing the British to receive ammunition?

What proof do you have that "the Jews" somehow got the USA to join the war?

None....zero...nada....
Click to expand...

I have the speech by Freedman.

What do you have apart from whining about sunken ships carrying contrabande?

Why would Britain give one of its colonies to the Jews without a counter favour?

Well?
 
Last edited:
Palestine wasn't a British Colony.

The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone.
Click to expand...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine)

It was never the intention to make it a 'Colony'.
Click to expand...
 
You do realise that attacking ships flying American flags, regardless of it being justified or not, is a good way to get into a fight with the Americans? The US declared war on Germany due to her policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in an attempt to starve out the United Kingdom, which resulted in plenty of American ships being sunk.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Palestine wasn't a British Colony.

The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine)

It was never the intention to make it a 'Colony'.
Click to expand...

True, although you could argue that there was little practical difference between a Colony and a Mandate. The UK sure as hell seemed to expect that they would control Palestine for a long,long,time to come.
And although Japan held many of the Pacific Island chains that were to become famous in World War 2 (The Marshalls, the Marianas, the Palus, Truk,etc) as a League Mandate, when Japan left the league in 1931 it kept the islands.
Sad fact is the difference between a Mandate and Colony was the classic example of a "distinction without any real difference".
That the League never set up any kind of agency to monitor how the powers that held Mandates were governing the Mandates shoudl tell you something.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MaGZ said:
You must have read some Yockey.
Click to expand...

I am aware of him, have not read Imperium though. Too esoteric rightwing even for me.

My reference points are one toe into libertarianism, another in 19th century conservatism, post-Christian, post-Holocaust, very Nietzschean, Euro-centric, Archaism (Guillaume Faye). Very anti-modern, Jew-wise, some remote sympathy for Islam (gender roles). Huntington as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Supportive of the EU (not very common for right wingers) but with the aim to transform it from within. Political/military axis Berlin-Moscow-Paris. Gladly bringing about the Death of the West.

But I agree with Yockey that America (Anglosphere rather) is far more dangerous for the future of the European race than the Soviets ever where for the simple reason that Russia is a real nation with identity able to throw off the Jewish joke by itself during the fifties. Sceptical that the deracinated American hybrid Europeans, whose only identity is that of a consumer, ever will be able to do the same. The US likely to be the next USSR, this time no longer based on economic egalitarianism and class struggle but on racial egalitarianism.

P.S. come to think of it, cannot really use Yockey as a source for the topic of this thread, but this gentleman centainly can be used:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War.pdf
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Captain_Swoop said:
Palestine wasn't a British Colony.

True, although you could argue that there was little practical difference between a Colony and a Mandate. The UK sure as hell seemed to expect that they would control Palestine for a long,long,time to come.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Maybe dudalb would be so kind to elaborate on why the British gave it to the Jews anyway.

We are all ears.

P.S. I already gave the answer earlier but it would be nice to hear it from the mouth of my personal (yet unpaid) advisor in all matters concerning anti-semitism.
Click to expand...
 
9/11-investigator said:
Try to let it sink in that the Germans were entitled to sink the Lusitania.
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish. The Germans were entitled, under international law as it stood at the time, to demand that the Lusitania stop and submit to search for contraband; only having done so and found contraband aboard, were they then entitled to take further action. Sinking the ship by torpedo without warning was a clear violation of international law whatever the cargo. If the Daily Mail says otherwise, it's simply wrong.

I suggest you take a look at Prize RulesWP on Wikipedia.

wikipedia said:
Prize rules state that passenger ships may not be sunk, crews of merchant ships must be placed in safety before their ships may be sunk (life boats are not considered a place of safety unless close to land), only warships and merchant ships that are a threat to the attacker may be sunk without warning.
Click to expand...

The Lusitania, as a passenger ship that presented no threat to a submarine, could not legally be sunk either with or without warning. The German attack was a clear and unarguable violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. And, of course, the unrestricted submarine warfare that Germany planned from 1917 - part of the real cause of America's entry into the war - was even more so, as it was planned at the highest level of command.

Try to let it sink in that the sinking of the Lusitania was a war crime. There is no other possible interpretation.

Dave
 
Last edited:
"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

The eternal English inferiority complex (based in reality) towards the Germans.
Still alive and kicking in English people today, cheering for the Argentinian soccer team while it plays Germany (4-0 :D ).

And they will even ally themselves with the biggest mass murderers in history to get the Germans down and then make up stories afterwards to make themselves look good... English.... Angelen und Sachsen themselves, 2nd hand Germans, immigrants to the British Isles from Germany after the Roman era, probably meaning losers ('huddled masses') from Germany trying to build a living elsewhere.

Don't you English understand what a deadly combination historical WW/H-word revisionism, the internet and the crumbling of the multicultural ideal will mean for the future and moral standing of your country?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom