Who started both World Wars?

[Mirrorglass]

I must remind you that Le Pen was the opponent of Chirac in the final leg of the presidential elections.

Start the engines, Anglosphere!

While that is depressing, too, I would think even Le Pen would not like his name associated with open Nazi admiration, the way you do.

 

[9/11-investigator]

While that is depressing, too, I would think even Le Pen would not like his name associated with open Nazi admiration, the way you do.

You are mixing up Germans with Nazis.

You will be hard-pressed to produce quotes where I express unconditional admiration for everything the Nazis did. I don't.

The point is I am no longer willing to accept selfserving Anglo BS as an explanation of what happened. The story needs to be corrected.

 

[dudalb]

While that is depressing, too, I would think even Le Pen would not like his name associated with open Nazi admiration, the way you do.

That is because Le Pen has some smarts.

 

[stilicho]

The Napoleonic wars involved exactly the same parties: France, Britain, Russia, Austria,etc. Nobody ever calls the Napoleonic wars world wars.

These wars become world wars if you invite extra-European powers to the war.

It's not that difficult.

They don't carry that name but they were global conflicts. So were the Seven Years' War and a series of international conflicts fought under different names in different continents over a period of centuries.

The American Revolutionary War was one regional manifestation of a much larger conflict that saw the first legitimate challenge to growing British power on the world stage.

I think you're hung up on the word "world" contained in the term "world war". Real historians are not fooled by semantics.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You are mixing up Germans with Nazis.

You will be hard-pressed to produce quotes where I express unconditional admiration for everything the Nazis did. I don't.

The point is I am no longer willing to accept selfserving Anglo BS as an explanation of what happened. The story needs to be corrected.

There's a pretty long continuum between unconditional admiration for everything the Nazis did and having an entirely non-Nazi ideology. Even if you're not at either end, it's fairly obvious you're quite a bit nearer to one than the other.

And the point is, all evidence suggests that the 'Anglo BS' is far closer to what happened than your BS, which bears a striking resemblance to what is often called 'Neo-Nazi BS'. You consistently demonstrate ignorance of said evidence, but very little else.

 

[stilicho]

The point is I am no longer willing to accept selfserving Anglo BS as an explanation of what happened. The story needs to be corrected.

Does Fischer count as a non-selfserving non-Anglo historian? I don't agree with everything he wrote but his account of twentieth century German history is radically different than yours.

If you are looking for "corrections" to historians you should first identify which historians you disagree with and why. Running to Pat Buchanan as a source for anything is frankly silly. Even Pat Buchanan knows that.

 

[dudalb]

Seven years war was fought in Europe (Frederick The Great great campaigns were in this war),America(The French and Indian War) and Asia (France and England went at each other colonies in India).Sounds like a world war to me.

 

[Hans]

Yet another historical error

The Germans never aspired for a Festung Europa. It was forced upon them when Churchill started to prepare the invasion of Norway with the intent of cutting Swedish supply lines.
Sweden was never occupied by Germany, neither large parts of France, let alone Spain, Switserland. Hitler had made it clear as early as the twenties that he wanted to expand eastwards (just like the British had expanded southwards). There was more land than he could ever occupy.

You may wish to read about operation Wilfred and Plan R4, they intented to reroute German supplies of Iron ore not take over the country.

These occupations would only occur if Germany invaded first if mining of the Norwegian waters to specifically cause a diversion of (not stop) ore being shipped out. They had no intention of taking the lands over or replacing the legal governments.

This mining was interrupted by the German invasion of the Norway and Denmark and in Norway's case replacement of their government by the hated Qusiling one. The first German ships left port on 3 April, two days before the mining ships put to sea. The Germans also occupied Denmark....Why?

Sweden was never occupied by Germany, neither large parts of France, let alone Spain, Switserland.

All of these countries were attacked and occupied and their governments replaced by puppets, etc for France...initially

Denmark
Norway
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Part of France until 11 November 1942 when they took over all of it
They also took over Italy in September 1943......

(just like the British had expanded southwards).

And the Germans did too, have you forgotten their Colonial empire? It must have accidently slipped your mind they had:

Cameroons
German East Africa
German South West Africa
Togo
Various Pacific islands

Now I have left one error in this reply, see if you can find it.

 

[stilicho]

You may wish to read about operation Wilfred and Plan R4, they intented to reroute German supplies of Iron ore not take over the country.

This still has little to do with the OP. 9/11 Investigator is trying to move back the dates both wars started just to include these sorts of activities.

That's not right. The origins of both wars started long before they each took place. But if the Kaiser had not violated a treaty his own ancestor had signed as a guarantee then the Great War would not have been such a big war but merely the Third Balkan War. And if Hitler and Stalin had not used military force to subdue Poland they probably could have gotten their way through diplomacy. There were precedents.

I still want 9/11 Investigator to define precisely what an "aggressive defence strategy" is. And to explain which "Anglo BS" historians he objects to and why.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I still want 9/11 Investigator to define precisely what an "aggressive defence strategy" is.

You are a woman and in a parking garage after a shopping spree. While opening your car you see a big guy of undefined color approaching straight towards you, he says nothing (mobilisation). The woman grabs for her pepper spray and von Schlieffenises him.

And to explain which "Anglo BS" historians he objects to and why.

- H-word baloney (Jewish casualties exaggerated by factor 10-20, no extermination program in sight, most casualties as a result of Anglo-bombing campaign, "Anne Frank killed by the Anglos").
- The Jews (AIPAC du jour) bringing in America into the war in exchange for Palestine (Balfour) at the expense of Germany.
- Total villification of everything German ('tomorrow ze wurld') while the English maintained a world empire themselves and the Americans up to 2003 openly dreamed of their 'benevolent empire' (Anglos as the total hypocrites that they are).
- Non-discussion of the 'Jewish communism' (when is Spielberg going to make a movie about these inglorious bastards?). Israel is about to erect a monument for the Red Army. I mean, who needs David Duke if we have the Jerusalem Post?
- Monstrous behaviour of the Anglos, committing the only holocaust that really happened (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden).
- Forcing the Japanese to commit Pearl Harbor as an excuse for the Jewish mob around Dutch Jew Roosevelt to enter the war and go for world power. Roosevelt knew PH was coming but LIHOP-ped it anyway.
- WW2 fought for Jewish interests (NWO), the Anglos even more so than the Russians (Jewish world revolutionary Trotzky was already ice-picked in Mexico with no Sharon Stone in sight, Russia slowly morphing from world revolution to communism-in-one-country, roughly 1935 --> 1953).
- Churchill bought and paid for by Jewish circles in London (chaired by Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, chairman of British Shell) to do the dirty work for them.
- Anglo alliance with Soviet monsters as morally absolute inexcusable.
- Europe was not liberated but carved up between Kosaks and Hillbillies. Basically Europe's ugly sons coming home to kill mum.
- Poland was divided between Germany and Russia in 1939. Ostensibly Britain declared war on Germany for it, but tellingly not the USSR. Britain even allied itself later with them. Conclusion: the war was never about 'poor little Poland'.

Enough?

This story plus the immanent Hellenization of the Anglo economy will be enough to kiss you guys goodbye from world history.

 

[dafydd]

Edited for rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[9/11-investigator]

Well, well, well, what a nice find on this Russian forum, the illustrious Pravda no less, the main outlet of your former ally, remember?

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?249076-WW2-the-responsibles-the-winners-the-losers.

Some interesting quotes by Winston Churchill:

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

"Germany becomes to powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936 to US-General Robert E. Wood)

"Germanys unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an own exchange system from which the world-finance couldnt profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." - Winston Churchill, The second World War (Bern, 1960)

"The war wasnt only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didnt want to." -
Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

"Should Germany merchandise again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in Times (1919)

"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)

Others:

"Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear." - Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England

"We didnt go to war in 1939 to save Germany from Hitler...or the continent from fascism. Like in 1914 we went to war for the not lesser noble cause that we couldnt accept a German hegemony over Europe." - Sunday Correspondent, London (17.9.1989)

"Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other." - Lord Halifax, English embassador in Washington (1939)

"The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still havent understood this, havent understood anything." - Churchills chief counselor Robert Lord Vansittart (September 1940 to foreign minister Lord Halifax)

"It will be the Polish army that will invade Germany on the first day of war." - The Polish embassador in Paris (15.8.1939)

"I will crunch Germany." - Roosevelt 1932(!)

My opponents are now going to show that all this is "quote mined", right?

It is also an indication of how profoundly Russia has changed. Or seen otherwise, that maybe the US is turning the screws on Russia so tight that Russia is paving the way to a new understanding with its former enemy, Germany. This event of enormous geostrategic importance also points in the same direction. Europe is decoupling from America. Moscow opening it's H-word archives will be the final blow. Wouldn't this make for nice television:

CNN anchorman: "we are going live to the Kremlin where PM Putin has ordered a press conference. It is not clear what the reason is..."

Camera shows a table with Putin sitting behind it. To the right of him is sitting David Irving of Great-Britain and Patrick Buchanan of the US, to the left Jean-Marie le Pen of France, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Persia and Bishop William Richardson of Great-Britain.

Putin starts the press conference. For 5 minutes he talks about history and the need to constantly reevaluate it. Finally it becomes clear what he is getting at. Putin says he has ordered scholars of the State Institute for Contemporary History to open the archives that had been under seal since 1945. The conclusions drawn from the data contained is that there was no German extermination program. There were no gas chambers.

Obviously this would be more effective that a German-Canadian parading with a hard hat. The holocaust would never be the same again. It would be finished once and for all. And America and Britain would be the laughing stock of the world.

Think about it, mr. Putin.

 

[SanityGap]

So now your source is a posting on a forum of a collection of quotes, all of which appear in the same order on various revisionist sites and even some Illuminati gibberish. I cannot find seperate sources for the quotes at all. You may also like to take note of the grammar errors running through the quotes.
"Germanys unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an own exchange system from which the world-finance couldnt profit anymore..." This, for instance, is not something a native English speaker would come up with. More like a bad translation.
Quote mining? Quote creating is more like it, until you produce a proper verifiable source for any of them.

 

[SanityGap]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Harsh but fair.

It is unlikely that a neutral passer by will take an insult as a substitute for an convincing rebuttal. In fact he might think that the name caller has no arguments. And you know what? He would be right.


More interesting quotes:

"Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain). He says that Chamberlain stated that America and world Jewry forced England into World War II." - James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry.

Britain started WW2 over Poland remember?

"So far as Britain and Russia were concerned, how would it do for you to have 90% of Romania, for us to have 90% of the say in Greece, and go 50/50 about Yugoslavia?" - Churchill, addressing Stalin in Moscow (October 1944)

Irving probably calls this typical British perfidy.

 

[SanityGap]

The first quote is anecdotal ("He says.."). Proper link to a verifiable source please.

The second quote is genuine. Would you like to find the rest of it and then see if you can understand the point Churchill was making.

 

[SanityGap]

... Putin says he has ordered scholars of the State Institute for Contemporary History to open the archives that had been under seal since 1945. The conclusions drawn from the data contained is that there was no German extermination program. There were no gas chambers.
[/I][/B]
Obviously this would be more effective that a German-Canadian parading with a hard hat. The holocaust would never be the same again. It would be finished once and for all. And America and Britain would be the laughing stock of the world.

Think about it, mr. Putin.

You're 14 years late. From 1996
"Russia's Federal Security Service turned over copies of 15,000 pages from the archives of the former Soviet KGB to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Monday in a gesture of openness that may shed new light on the first mass killings of Jews after the German attack on the Soviet Union in 1941.

The documents, culled from wartime field reports and post-war Soviet legal proceedings, are expected to offer fresh evidence of the brutal attacks by the German units known as Einsatzgruppen, mobile killing squads that rushed into Soviet territory behind the invading German troops and slaughtered more than a million Jews and others in 1941 and 1942.

Most of the documents have not been seen before in the West and scholars have yet to examine them for their significance. But the decision to turn them over to the museum in Washington marks another milestone in Russia's gradual and sometimes hesitant path toward revealing the Soviet Union's darkest secrets, which still lie in its vaults.

Soviet archives have been opened to chronicle key turning points in the Cold War, to show how writers and poets were tormented, to reveal the secret pact between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, and to lay bare some aspects of the history of the Soviet Communist Party. But many other documents remain locked up, for now.

"Pages of these documents are soaked in blood and human suffering," said Alexander Yakovlev, chairman of the Commission for Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression and an architect of the policy of glasnost, or openness, under the last Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev. "These facts must not be archived in book storages, but known to everybody."

At a Kremlin ceremony, a sample of the files was symbolically handed over to Walter Reich, director of the Holocaust museum, and U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering. The full load required Russian experts to sort out "four freight trains of documents," according to Russian security service chief Nicholai Kovalyov. Pickering said the materials are to be trucked away, and flown back to Washington shortly.
Copyright 19,95, The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Tuesday.
Volume 116, Number 54.
This story appeared on page 3.

This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details."

 

[SanityGap]

Some more information gleaned from Russian files http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/29/news/29iht-files.html

"...What Mr. Pressac found in Moscow were the archives of the Bauleitung SS, the organization in charge of construction for the Nazi SS... "

 

[Corsair 115]

Monstrous behaviour of the Anglos, committing the only holocaust that really happened (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden).

From the above I can only conclude you know next-to-nothing about the background, development, and actual conduct of the strategic bomber offensive over Germany and Japan.

As to Dresden specifically, had it not been for the freak occurrence of a firestorm, casualties would have been nowhere as high as they ended up being. Bomber Command could not create firestorms at will—had they been able to, they would have burned to the ground, shortly after Hamburg was burned to the ground in 1943, another half-dozen or so German cities and quite likely ended the war (according to statements of leading Third Reich officials such as Albert Speer).

It's curious how you leave Hamburg off your list of 'monstruous behaviour' especially considering more were killed in the Hamburg raid than at Dresden. Only 'monstruous behaviour' in 1945 counts?

Forcing the Japanese to commit Pearl Harbor...

The only person who 'forced' the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor was Admiral Yamamoto. He was the one who insisted on a strike there as the opening move of the war against the U.S.

Roosevelt knew PH was coming but LIHOP-ped it anyway.

This allegation has been thoroughly debunked many, many times. And even if we were to accept it as true, it doesn't make any logical sense. You do not put valuable military assests at risk purely as bait to supposedly justify the war taking place. You'll need those assest to actually fight and win the war. The U.S. had no way of knowing the Japanese weren't going to launch a third assault wave and put Pearl Harbor out of commission as a functioning naval base for many months. (Several commanders aboard the Japanese attack force recommended a third strike, but Nagumo vetoed the idea. It was, by most accounts, a poor decision.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Can we have some sources for the Churchill quotes please. I don't recognise them.