Who started both World Wars?

[SanityGap]

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

I have alreay asked. I'm not holding my breath

 

[9/11-investigator]

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).

Hello world, wake up! Try to understand what this guy is saying here: "If we had the chance we would have burned cities to the ground even more efficiently". This is the quintessential Anglo for you. They first dismember your country for no reason at all accept that they consider you too strong for their liking, next you try to recover from that injustice and they declare war again and destroy you. Boy does mainland Europe have some scores to settle with these *******. They first declare war on you, next they burn you to death, preferably children and women. They did it in Vietnam as well. Throwing incindiaries from great altitude.

Thanks for your coming out Corsair! Very revealing.

Remember, the US spends more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined. We should not for a moment make illusions of what Jewish controlled Washington is up to. It is going to be Europe, Russia, China, Muslim world against Israel/US/UK. That's the future conflict going to be.

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?

I am more than willing to put Hamburg on said barbarity list as well if you insist.

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.)

We are going to discuss PH when we come to it, chronologically.

Boy, that was revealing!
Where is that aceton shower?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Most of the documents have not been seen before in the West and scholars have yet to examine them for their significance.

Let's wait for the results then. You basically say that you have nothing. No surprises here. If they would contain anythying of significance it would have been trumpeted from all the American media. Conclusion: worthless material (from the Jewish point of view). Another nail in the coffin of the holo story.

That was 1996. The US pretended to be a friend of Russia then and was so kind to send a couple of vulture advisors of certain ethnic background, who next robbed the country blind. The Russians learned at their own peril who they were dealing with. Next came the color coded revolutions paid for by Soros, no Norwegian either (now fortunately all ended in failure, Ukraine is more or less Moscow-oriented again, Europe blocked further NATO expansion), then came the Nabuco pipeline (will also likely end in failure), next came the Washington inspired assault of the Georgian freak against the Ossetians. Also ended in failure for the Clouseaus from Washington. Then we have these missiles, to be located in Poland, ostensibly against Iran but in reality against Russia.

Conclusion: if pushed too much Moscow might be tempted to jump over it's own historic shadow, declare the US of today more dangerous than the enemy of yesterday Germany and to pull the plug on the H-word. It is difficult to deal Washington a more effective blow.

 

[Uzzy]

It is interesting, if not surprising to see you run away from the historical significance of Germany's deceleration of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram, a document you apparently haven't heard of until this week, and retreat to your 'safe zone' of the Allied Bombing Campaign, something you've consistently gone back to any time your points get exposed for the work of an ignorant layman that you are. It is seemingly irrelevant to you how many times your Allied Bombing Campaign points get rejected with evidence, again exposing your ignorance of the historical method.

Now, let me educate you about history. When you make a point, you back it up with evidence, either the work of legitimate historians or, ideally, primary documents of at the time. You'll see this in our mentions of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. When we mention these things, we bring up the primary documents relating to them, such as President Wilson's speech to Congress. You consistently fail to do this, as seen most lately in your selection of quotations, taken from a web forum and unsourced. In historical parlance, this is known as '******** some idiot's made up', at least until you've sourced it from the primary documents. That shouldn't be too hard for a historian, but you're an admitted and proven ignorant layman.

If you wish to learn further about history, there are ways to do that. I've linked you to various books which will give you a good overview of the 20th Century, which should be available from your local library. Further, any good history course from your local educational establishment should prepare you for historical study. I would suggest looking into those.

In short, you're an ignorant idiot talking history to people who have actually studied History at a high level. Get a clue.

 

[9/11-investigator]

From the dust jacket of Irving's 'Churchill's war'

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Churchill/1/index.html

"WHEN I was born in 1938," observes the author, "the British Empire was at its greatest extent. By the end of Churchill's war, it was becoming extinct."

In one hundred years this book may be regarded as having started the collapse of the Winston Churchill legend. It begins in 1936, with Churchill struggling to survive in a hostile political environment. It ends with Potsdam and electoral defeat.

After seven years' research in British and foreign archives like Washington, Moscow, Paris -- because the Churchill trustees still refuse access to his papers to any except their official biographer -- Irving has built up an unusual portrait of the man who brought devastation to Europe and ruin to his own people, while leading them to a Pyrrhic victory. Unstinting in his praise of the achievement of an old man in uniting and inspiring a moribund Mother Country to make one last great effort, Irving conceals little of the uglier detail, like how Churchill thwarted the only chances Europe had of peace in 1939 and 1940, or how he unleashed the cruel bombing war that killed one million Europeans. There are touching sidelights on Churchill' s strained relations with his own family, cast by the unpublished papers of his daughters; but a harsher light is thrown on the demi- corruption, hard drinking, cynicism, brutality, deceit and callousness of Winston's regime. He rejoiced in killing, was intoxicated by the sound of cannon, exhilarated by his own graphic language.

This is a stout picture of a hard old man, aged sixty as the book begins -- emerging from a political wilderness to fight a war with a toughness that appalled men even half his age. "Some chicken, some neck!" was his famous epigram at Ottawa at the end of 1941. He applied it to Britain; this book applies it to him.

 

[twinstead]

From what I have seen on this thread, 9/11 investigator uses the same kind of debate technique with his delightful historical revisionism as he, and all 9/11 truthers, does--HIS sources, HIS evidence is unimpeachable, to be accepted no questions asked. All the while ANY source that disagrees with him is hand waved away without further comment--and that includes the world main-stream historian community.

There is nothing new under the sun; an irrational ideologue is an irrational ideologue.

 

[kookbreaker]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, if anyone's interested, here's my synopsis of the First World War.

Germany, Austria and Italy are stood together in the middle of the bar-room, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.
Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.
Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view.
Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.
Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria's trousers.
Russia and Serbia look at Austria.
Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at.
Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.
Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.
Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.
Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?
Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.
Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium.
Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.
Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.
France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britan and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.
Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.
France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.
Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.
America waits till Germany is about to fall over, then walks over, waves a fist at Germany while Britain knocks it out, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.
By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

Nobody comes out of it looking particularly good.

Dave

Somebody sent me this today and I thought of this description:

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs46/f/2009/187/d/e/World_War_One__Simple_Version_by_AngusMcLeod.jpg

 

[BaaBaa]

- Nazi pact with Soviet monsters as morally absolute inexcusable..

FTFY

http://century.guardian.co.uk/1930-1939/Story/0,,102946,00.html

Poland had it coming, anyway, right?

 

[Corsair 115]

Hello world, wake up! Try to understand what this guy is saying here: "If we had the chance we would have burned cities to the ground even more efficiently".

The above only illustrates your complete ignorance of the history that underlies the bombing campaign and how it came to be what it was.

The fact remains: if Bomber Command could have created firestorms on command, it would have won the war in 1943. That didn't happen. The conclusion? Either Bomber Command deliberately refrained from winning the war in 1943 for some reason, or it could not create firestorms whenever it wished. And if it could not create firestorms at will, then the casualty count at Dresden is the result of a freak occurrence and not a deliberate act.

I suppose next you'll recite the false claim that Dresden was a peaceful city devoid of any war industries?

Remember, the US spends more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined.

Do tell me what that has to do with the so-called historical points you made in your post to which I replied. It seems nothing more than an attempt at evasion.

I am more than willing to put Hamburg on said barbarity list as well if you insist.

The fact that you didn't include straight off in your list of 'monstruous behaviour' suggests to me you weren't even aware of what happened there. If you had even the slightest awareness of the history of the bombing campaign, you would have known the significance of that event and where it fits into the overall picture.

We are going to discuss PH when we come to it, chronologically.

And I am sure there'll be much to correct in your posts on that subject as well.

 

[SanityGap]

Let's wait for the results then.

You did read the date on that, right? 1996. I think you will find that it all confirmed what we all knew about Nazi genocide. If there was any information that indicated differently do you not think that revisionists would be shouting it from the rooftops?

Any news on those Churchill quotes yet?

 

[dudalb]

I have alreay asked. I'm not holding my breath

And that is why we call a certain Investigator "The Lying Dutchman".

 

[dudalb]

Somebody sent me this today and I thought of this description:

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs46/f/2009/187/d/e/World_War_One__Simple_Version_by_AngusMcLeod.jpg

THat's Great except France and Russia need to change places in the early panels. Russia was the nation that was very big on protecting Serbia;France was dragged along by the Franco Russian Alliance.

 

[stilicho]

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.

So Germany was the woman. Who was the coloured man? France? We know it was France who wanted revenge for the humiliation of Sedan. So why did the Kaiser approve a plan violating the neutrality of a nation his own ancestor helped to create? They didn't do it in 1870 so what changed by 1914?

Gotcha.

- 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.

A lot of handwaving but still you haven't identified the "Anglo BS" historians.

Can't be JFC Fuller. He was English and wrote extensively of the problems of substituting the Pax Britannica with either the Pax Teutonica (his preference) or the Pax Tartarica (the Russians, in case you didn't read him that far).

Can't be David Irving. He wrote several respected works on the ideologies of both Churchill and Hitler.

Can't be AJP Taylor. He wrote about the train timetables influencing the German General Staff in the Great War and the mistaken impression by Hitler that he could call off the invasion of Poland at literally the eleventh hour.

Can't be John Keegan. He's explained both wars as merely military exertions that didn't work. He probably disliked both Hitler and the Kaiser more than the other three did but he didn't directly pin the blame on them.

That's four "Anglo BS" historians who have not portrayed Germany in a light other than the clear blue one that dispassionate intellectuals tend to do.

You've tried to hijack every discussion here. Why not answer my questions? Identify these "Anglo BS" historians or shut up.

 

[Tricky]

Get this thread back into the realm of civility PDQ or there will be more action by moderators.

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

 

[stilicho]

THat's Great except France and Russia need to change places in the early panels. Russia was the nation that was very big on protecting Serbia;France was dragged along by the Franco Russian Alliance.

French foreign policy from roughly 1880-1913 was as expansionary as anyone else's in Europe. They were always seeking revenge for the humiliation of Sedan. They were a threat to Germany's western flank and everyone knew it at the time.

Even after the war was finished, France wanted military occupation of the Rhineland because Poincare (among others in their administration) knew that failure to do so would cause a sense of redress among the Germans.

They had paid severe reparations to Prussia-cum-German Empire after 1870, demanded the same of Germany after 1918, and knew full well that another war would result in the same demands.

That said, they did not attack Germany, and would not have done so without external support. They knew in 1914 that Russia would not be capable of mobilising quickly enough and secured British support after a series of disastrous German policies threw them together.

If Germany had not instigated the Great War, there is a good chance the French would have eventually tried to recover their lost possessions. The facts are, though, they didn't have to do anything because the hotheaded Kaiser did their work for them.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The second quote is genuine.

Nice for me that you admit that. But that does not trouble you, what? Churchill casually dividing Eastern Europe with uncle Joe makes a mockery of the ostensibly reason for entering a war with Germany, namely Poland, does it not?

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

Don't ask me to help you make your point. Make it yourself.

 

[SanityGap]

Nice for me that you admit that. But that does not trouble you, what? Churchill casually dividing Eastern Europe with uncle Joe makes a mockery of the ostensibly reason for entering a war with Germany, namely Poland, does it not?



Don't ask me to help you make your point. Make it yourself.

I believe the point was yours. A clue. The rest of the quote changes the meaning entirely.

Any progress with the other Churchill quotes?

 

[9/11-investigator]

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.

I do not have a source, you guys are free to dismiss these quotes. But they are completely consistent with what Buchanan has to say about the motives of certain dominant circles within the British leadership and that the real reason why they declared war on Germany twice (and both times expanded the European war theatre into a world war) had everything to do with their traditional power politics, namely preventing one continental entity of becoming too powerful.

That's why I like our boring EU: these devastating power games are now a thing of the past, although Britain has yet to accept this new reality.

And that 500 million united Europeans are going to be the dominant factor on the world stage at least in economic terms is a nice-to-have additional feature of that boring EU.

 

[Andy_Ross]

500 million united Europeans are going to be the dominant factor on the world stage at least in economic terms is a nice-to-have additional feature of that boring EU.

Does that include Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal? Seems the United Europeans are going to have to spend the next few years trying to prop up the Euro or ditch the Southern Europeans from it. They won't have the resources to be the dominant factor in economics for a long time.

 

[9/11-investigator]

A lot of handwaving but still you haven't identified the "Anglo BS" historians.

You are sloppy quoter, I never talked about Anglo BS historians.

I said (#595): 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.

I was referring to the provocative cartoonish picture I painted in post #1 of this thread of the imaginary 'average Anglo', never referred to Anglo historians.

Again my agenda. I am busy constructing propaganda. I am using the book of Buchanan as the backbone for that propaganda plus endless additional revisionist material I have gathered through the years from the internet. The idea is to make a blog, that is not too long, that uses the multimedia possibilities of the internet, just like with my 911 blog. Although I am not even an amateur historian I can at least read a book and make a summary of it. The most important aspect however is that I am not restricted be political considerations that real historians are bound to. Buchanan cannot even touch the Jews without ruining his media career. I however can say what I want so I can fill the gaps concerning the role of the Jews.

And just like with my 911 blog I am using you as the unpaid editors for that exercise.

Not that I expect major corrections from you. The only upshot I got from the 911 battle here was that you guys convinced me that the 911 planes could not have had an unoverrulable automatic pilot. From that I had to change my theory towards the idea that poison gas had been used to incapacitate the pilots. A few months later that idea was confirmed by Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre who told Alex Jones that he knew the name of the pilot who had reported that when he flew next to F93 he had seen that everybody on board was dead (that pilot turned out to be Lt. Col. Rick Gibney). As a consequence of that observation he was ordered to shoot down F93 (note: I am note going to discuss 911 here, I just brought it up to give my esteemed opponents a clear idea of their role in my private little labor camp).