Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saggy said:
I watched the first Buchanan video. Great stuff. Not a mention of Zionism, in particular Churchill's position as Zionist front man as per Irving. Not a mention of Irving ! Not a mention of money, finance, oil, economics, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's where I come in! :D

He can't afford discussing these topics without losing his comfortable position as an (almost) elder statesman and probably the most prominent conservative commentator in the US. American so-called white nationalists always in the best puritan tradition denounce Buchanan for this behavior, I don't. I think that Buchanan is very effective in what he does. He goes as far as possible in the US where the boundaries of discourse are determined by Zionist organisations like the ADL, SPLC and the media. The Zionists hate Buchanan but are not powerful enough to silence him like they could with Helen Thomas. Buchanan does not cross the line but he comes close, very close. His latest book is a bomb shell. And I would not be surprised if he, as a last deed in his life, would launch a sceptical book on the H-word. He has the weight the kill the thing off or at least cause considerable damage. Buchanan is a few steps higher on the prestige ladder than David Irving or bishop Williamson. I greatly admire Buchanan, always have.
 
dudalb said:
I just figured out why 9/11 Investigator sticks around here; this is one of the few "Mainstream" sites the will tolerate his Racist Bullcrap. Most would have sent him out the door along time ago.
And it is so boring preaching to the converted on the White Supremists sites.
Click to expand...

I hardly discuss race.

And never ever posted on sites like Stormfront etc., only on a libertarian forum.
And I have not posted for almost 10 years anywhere except in the case of 9/11.
Hanging around on a forum is an interesting method of shaping your own ideas. I have discovered that additionally it is an effective way of preparing an article by throwing ideas to the lions. See it as an open source project.

Dudalb is more or less suggesting to the referees that there is a moral case for a red card, to stay in soccer terms.

Go ahead, I am flattered by dudalb grabbing for the emergency break. Dudalb knows that nothing good will come for his case from these threads, that my defeat is not very likely. I recognize this behavior from Dutch forums were certain elements always tried to silence me by pointing out that my posts were bad for the image of the forum or the libertarian cause (without having the slightest affinity with the libertarian cause themselves).

But the forum administrators are primarily interested in content, otherwise the forum dies a slow death.

Again, I know from my experiences from the very lively 9/11 thread that hardly anybody reads a forum in 2010 except for the participants themselves and a few lurkers. And however controversial the topic of this thread, at least it is interesting.

And dudalb, what happened to the old adagium: "know thy enemy"?

Oh and dudalb, I am not a white supremacist, I am a seperatist who happens to be white, a subtle but essential difference.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
The Germans did not want war but were confronted with a mobilizing Russia and a France (ever since 1870 looking for revanche for the loss of Elzas-Lotharingen) that refused to declare itself neutral, forcing the Germans to act (well in their own eyes at least) to commence the flight forward in order to prevent being crushed in a two front war from a hopeless geostrategic position.
Click to expand...

So, France refused to declare itself neutral, and therefore the Germans had to act. But if Germany really didn't want war, why didn't they declare themselves neutral in Russia's conflict with Austria-Hungary? France and Britain didn't mobilize until after Germany did.
 
ANTPogo said:
So, France refused to declare itself neutral, and therefore the Germans had to act. But if Germany really didn't want war, why didn't they declare themselves neutral in Russia's conflict with Austria-Hungary? France and Britain didn't mobilize until after Germany did.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the chain of events was:

- Serb shoots Austrian heir to the throne (June 28, 1914)
- Austria wants to punish Serbia (shooting is pretext) and surpress Serbian nationalism in the process (real reason) and delivers ultimatum (July 23). Austria is basically fighting disintegration or 'Balkanization' in the truest sense of the word.
- Germany backs it's ally Austria and gives it a blanc cheque (always a mistake)
- Russia expresses it's support for Serbia and mobilizes (July 30)
- Germany asks Russia to demobilize and after a refusal mobilizes itself
- Germany ask France to stay neutral and not come to the aid of Russia or face attack (ultimatum)
- France mobilizes (August 1)
- Grey warns Germany that it will go to war if Germany invades Belgium (August 1)
- Germany occupies Luxemburg (August 2)
- German ultimatum to the Belgian government requesting free passage on it's way to France (August 2). Belgium refuses.
- Germany declares war on France (August 3)
- Germany declares war on Belgium (August 4)
- British ultimatum to Germany to stop violating Belgian neutrality (August 4, 7 PM). Germany (Bethmann Hollweg) highly surprised that Britain wants to go to ware over a treaty from 1839.

The Germans were not blameless. Buchanan quotes Bismarck as saying: "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death.".
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Elzas/Lotharingen???????
God, even the Germans use Alsace/Lorraine nowdays.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjviMVTRqRc

No, they don't.

Elzas btw is the Dutch name.

Drive through the Elzas as I did recently and you (not me) will be surprised by all the German names these villages and towns have, although often changed a bit to make it sound French:

French name - original German Name
--------------------------------------------
Strassbourg - Strassburg
Mullouse ----- Muehlhausen
Sélestat ----- Schlettstadt
Guebwiller -- Gebweiler
And so on...
Even Metz was part of the German Reich for centuries during the Middle Ages

After all the French had honestly found the area in 1648, who were at the time the strongest in Europe.
But from it's origin the territory was German.

Here a map of the current dialects spoken:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Dialectes_Alsace.PNG
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
You were the one who raised the spectre of Dresden as an example of Allied 'monstruous behaviour' and, essentially maligning the entire Allied strategic bomber offensive.
Click to expand...

Dresden was designed to cause as much human misery as possible while the victory was already secured; 130,000 people were killed. It was an insane satanic attack justified by no consideration at all.

Rotterdam in contrast was a rather minimalistic effient way of getting the Dutch to surrender; 800 people were killed, 0.6 percent of the Dresden death toll. The Dutch did surrender under the threat that other cities would be bombed as well.
 
It must be nice living in a fact free zone. Probably helps in spreading your insane propaganda.

An independent group of historians, commissioned by the city of Dresden itself, came up with a figure of between 18,000 and 25,000 dead. Source 1, 2. Add in the key transportation links the city of Dresden possessed, and it's quite arguably a justified attack. Oh, and the city was defended.

Quite unlike Rotterdam really.
 
9/11-investigator said:
As I understand it the chain of events was:

- Serb shoots Austrian heir to the throne (June 28, 1914)
- Austria wants to punish Serbia (shooting is pretext) and surpress Serbian nationalism in the process (real reason) and delivers ultimatum (July 23). Austria is basically fighting disintegration or 'Balkanization' in the truest sense of the word.
- Germany backs it's ally Austria and gives it a blanc cheque (always a mistake)
- Russia expresses it's support for Serbia and mobilizes (July 30)
- Germany asks Russia to demobilize and after a refusal mobilizes itself
- Germany ask France to stay neutral and not come to the aid of Russia or face attack (ultimatum)
- France mobilizes (August 1)
- Grey warns Germany that it will go to war if Germany invades Belgium (August 1)
- Germany occupies Luxemburg (August 2)
- German ultimatum to the Belgian government requesting free passage on it's way to France (August 2). Belgium refuses.
- Germany declares war on France (August 3)
- Germany declares war on Belgium (August 4)
- British ultimatum to Germany to stop violating Belgian neutrality (August 4, 7 PM). Germany (Bethmann Hollweg) highly surprised that Britain wants to go to ware over a treaty from 1839.

The Germans were not blameless. Buchanan quotes Bismarck as saying: "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death.".
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you forgot the date of Germany's mobilisation in your timeline. That was the statement you sought to refute. Germany mobilised on 31 JUL 1914.

Why again didn't they simply walk through France? You've never explained that. What was so important about violating a treaty they themselves were a party to from 1839?

Is it possible that Bethman-Hollweg and Moltke Jr weren't quite as clever as their predecessors? I don't think anyone here would confuse either of them with the real Moltke and von Bismarck. Those two actually knew what they were doing and continue to be widely respected and even envied.

Where did you ever get the idea that Bethmann-Hollweg was surprised that his own nation's guarantee of Belgian neutrality, upon being violated, wouldn't be properly construed as an act of aggression? Was there an expiration date on Prussian/German guarantees? Any cites?
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
Buchanan was so kind to make clear to us that although at first sight it is true that everybody blundered into WW1, from a long term strategic perspective it was Britain who had never had accepted the existence of Germany in the first place and that an influential minority around Grey (later seconded by Churchill) had set a trap for Germany in the form of this secret agreement with France, that it would come to it's aide in case of an armed conflict with Germany.
Click to expand...

Wait can you tell me what page of Buchanan's book that this comes from
 
9/11-investigator said:
Dresden was designed to cause as much human misery as possible while the victory was already secured; 130,000 people were killed. It was an insane satanic attack justified by no consideration at all.
Click to expand...

You need to learn to read German. The copy of the British decoded radio communication you have offered is discussing missing persons and not casualties. Point "c" states that only 9720 missing persons were confirmed as casualties.

How "David Irving" of you to try slip this through

You have also forgot to mention that the Germans were trying to get troops to counter attack the Soviets in Budapest in February 1945 and they needed to travel through Dresden. I don't think the Red Army is complaining that the Dresden rail system was knocked out for a few days.
 
9/11-investigator said:
But from it's origin the territory was German.
Click to expand...

1) Alsace-Lorraine was a territory created by the German Empire in 1871 after the annexation of most of Alsace and the Moselle region of Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War.

2) It was once held by Lious the "Bavarian" (who was actually a Frank ) during the Holy Roman Empire. (Please note that Germany didn't exist yet but rather separate states.)

3) Yes it has German dialects along the Rhine. Languages spread by commerce and not lines on maps. Alemannic german dialects are spoken in Alcase because the Alamanni Gauls who fought Rome from this area spoke a type of German. The rest of France ended up speaking Latin. Does that make french people Romans?
 
9/11-investigator said:
Dresden was designed to cause as much human misery as possible
Click to expand...


False. Dresden was just another area bombing raid. The mix of incendiary and high explosive bombs carried was the same as had been used previously on similar raids, and the crews were given no special instructions. The ONLY reason things got really bad was because a firestorm was created. Remove that, and casualties are vastly lower and no worse than raids of similar size and the attack becomes just a footnote in the history of the war.

Now, if you want a bombing raid that really does seem to be little more than inflicting punishment for the sake of inflicting punishment, then you ought to cite the raid on Weisbaden the evening of February 2/3, 1945. The city had little in the way of war industries and was known mostly for its spas. The briefings given to the crews seem to indicate the raid was mostly about teaching the German population a lesson about having waged war and ensuring no German city or town was left untouched by the conflict. The attack hit the city hard, leaving some 30,000 homeless. But only about 500 were actually killed. That low casualty count ensures it gets little notice from folks such as yourself.


9/11-investigator said:
130,000 people were killed[/B].
Click to expand...


That casualty figure has been completely debunked. It is based on no actual data whatsoever and was essentially conjured into existence out of thin air. Actual historical data and scholarly research puts the toll between 25,000 to 40,000 depending on the source, with the lower figure being the more widely accepted value.

The book Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 by Frederick Taylor has a chapter which traces the how the 125,000+ casualty figure came into being.


Uzzy said:
Add in the key transportation links the city of Dresden possessed, and it's quite arguably a justified attack.
Click to expand...


As to targets of military value in the city, I offer the following from the book Reap the Whirlwind by Spencer Dunmore and William Carrter:

Pre-war Dresden could hardly have been described as a major industrial centre. But the war had changed the city's industrial face. By early 1945, Dresden had two companies engaged in aircraft and engine repairs plus twenty-four engineering and armaments firms. Products included small arms and ammunition, machine tools, electric gauges and measuring instruments, radio receivers and transmitters for ships and aircraft, electric generators and motors for U-Boats, gear wheels and differentials for vehicles, firefighting equipment, grinding wheels, small steam turbines for minesweepers, cameras and lenses for U-Boat periscopes, anti-aircraft and artillery weapons, tank landing and assault craft, chemicals and explosives. The city had long been an important railway centre with many repair shops and yards. Through Dresden passed the lines that connected Berlin with Prague and Vienna and that linked eastern and southern Germany. The city was also a freshwater port, the Elbe being a much-used artery for freight traffic.
Click to expand...


Now, it should be pointed out that the aiming point for the Dresden raid, a large sports stadium, was selected because it was easy to see, not because it led to any specific targets. But then, as it was an area bombing attack, that should not be surprising. The entire idea behind area bombing is to cause general damage and general economic dislocation and disruption, as opposed to striking specific installations for specific economic effect.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
False. Dresden was just another area bombing raid. The mix of incendiary and high explosive bombs carried was the same as had been used previously on similar raids, and the crews were given no special instructions. The ONLY reason things got really bad was because a firestorm was created. Remove that, and casualties are vastly lower and no worse than raids of similar size and the attack becomes just a footnote in the history of the war.
Click to expand...

No the British element of that raid was trying to create a fire storm. Having the second wave go in when it did was to specifically disrupt fire fighting efforts.

The use of cookie bombs before the incendiares

The second wave was specifically designed to bomb either side of the developing firestorm to encourage its growth

It is easy to say the bomb loadout was nothing special compared to other raids. It is how they were delivered that proves the intent
 
9/11-investigator said:
Dresden was designed to cause as much human misery as possible while the victory was already secured; 130,000 people were killed. It was an insane satanic attack justified by no consideration at all.

Rotterdam in contrast was a rather minimalistic effient way of getting the Dutch to surrender; 800 people were killed, 0.6 percent of the Dresden death toll. The Dutch did surrender under the threat that other cities would be bombed as well.
Click to expand...

First, the 130,000 figure, just like the 300,000 figure and the 200,000 figure, is known to be false. By using it, you are once more showing your agenda.

Second, why do you not consider Dresden a means to getting Germany to surrender? Germany didn´t surrender - not after Berlin, not after Cologne, not after Hamburg, not after Dresden. So who is sitting by idly, watching his own citizens burn? Your hero, Hitler.

Third, why can you not admit that Rotterdam also designed to inflict as much human misery as possible? Just because your Nazi heroes weren´t as competent at it as the British, doesn´t excuse what they did.
 
9/11-investigator said:
So statements like...



... are an 'optical illusion'?

Fascinating.
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder about people who are unable to understand jokes, or who twist opposing arguments into something else.

These people are detached from reality by choice, and that's what my comment meant. Which is ironic because you answered precisely the way you should in order to prove it.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not the one offering this as a summary:



This is an invention, pure and simple. In fact, it doesn't even make sense.

WW2 was a war between the axis, the aggressor, and the countries that responded to their attacks.



:rolleyes: What did Jews win, exactly ?



What in the blue hell are you talking about ? This isn't an argument, this is you making stuff up.



Wow. And YOU need some courses in English.

I was refering specifically to YOUR COMMENTS, not some other subject. Your tendency to lie and obfuscate in an attempt to appear to have the upper hand in a debate is apalling and disgusting.
Click to expand...

Well, 9/11 ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom