Who started both World Wars?

[332nd]

A 20 year veteran of the Navy and still fooling around with juvenile cartoons.

No wonder that you guys lose every war you blunder yourself into.

Unlike the Nazis who crushed... Wait a tick!

Eta: Weren't they supposed to be the best of the "white race"? The funny lil crosses on the side of my granddad's mustang say different.

 

[drkitten]

A 20 year veteran of the Navy and still fooling around with juvenile cartoons.

No wonder that you guys lose every war you blunder yourself into.

And how many wars did the Nazi's win?

 

[aggle-rithm]

A 20 year veteran of the Navy and still fooling around with juvenile cartoons.

No wonder that you guys lose every war you blunder yourself into.

Sir, you have SLAIN me with your razor-sharp intellect and superb grasp of logic!

I must sit down now.

 

[drkitten]

The world-wide most renowned historian on WW2.

Not at all. He was lying about World War II from the very beginning of his career. As established in court with his blatant mistreatment of the documentary evidence about Dresden.

 

[aggle-rithm]

And how many wars did the Nazi's win?

Well, the Netherlands certainly folded like a cheap suit as soon as they arrived...

 

[dudalb]

Not at all. He was lying about World War II from the very beginning of his career. As established in court with his blatant mistreatment of the documentary evidence about Dresden.

I think Notorious might be a better word for Irving then Renowned. Yeah, he has a lot of fame, but it is not of a good kind.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A 20 year veteran of the Navy and still fooling around with juvenile cartoons.

No wonder that you guys lose every war you blunder yourself into.

 

[Uzzy]

So/ How was the German U-Boat campaing not an attempt to starve the British into surrender? If they had gone with unrestricted U-Boat warfare from the start they might have done it.

You're forgetting nein/11's golden rule. Anything the Germans/Nazis did in the war was an entirely justified act, while the 'anglos' committed constant atrocities.

German Blockades: Legitimate attempt to end the war.
British Blockades: Horrible atrocities.

German Aerial Bombing: Legitimate attacks.
British Aerial Bombing: Horrible atrocities.

German Invasions: Legitimate moves to bring Germans together.
British living up to treaty obligations: Disgraceful actions.

Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians: Working against 'partisans' (Yes, even the children)

Forcing people into concentration/death camps: Oh, they were making them work!

It's pretty much a religious devotion at this point. His friends can do no wrong, while us 'anglos' are evil incarnate.

 

[stilicho]

The problem was all the treaties that said, "I, country A, will fight alongside you if you, country B, go to war with country C." So when country D, who had a similar treaty with country C, heard that A and B were going to war with country C, they were obliged to declare war on countries A and B, while country E, who had a treaty with country B, now had to go to war with countries C and D...and so on.

Not unlike the automated sell orders that set off the 1987 stock market crash.

The systems were so firmly interlocked and bureaucratised by that time that an individual decision (such as the Kaiser appeared to want to do a couple days before hostilities broke out) could not stop the machinery of state.

The treaties were not intended to cause those problems. The Balkans had suffered two brutal wars in the two years leading up to the outbreak of the Great War. There was no reason this should not have been something like the Third Balkan War.

There is not one single point you could indicate as the lynchpin but the closest thing to it was Austria-Hungary's refusal to accept any of the fairly reasonable responses by Serbia.

 

[Thunder]

WWI was started by stupid people defending stupid alliances. That's all.

Although, one of the end results was a very good thing. Independence for many peoples, including Czechoslovakia.

 

[stilicho]

Key video of David Irving about Zionist influence on Churchill.

Video from 1995. In 4:00 and later Irving says exactly what Buchanan says 13 years later: the British should have told the Poles to sort their own problems out with the Germans.

6:35 Irving cites from a letter from Weizmann to Churchill asking for favours regarding Palestine. Weizmann says that he can bring the US into WW2 on the side of Britain just like we did in WW1. After Freedman and another person, here is the third independant source that reveals that it were the Jews who brought the US into WW1, and not this Lusitania BS, let alone the Zimmerman telegram.

Good that I watched that video again! Nice entry for my blog.

The Jews? Were some of them working in the financial sector too? As bankers?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguycartoons/spongebob.gif

 

[9/11-investigator]

Unlike the Nazis who crushed... Wait a tick!

Eta: Weren't they supposed to be the best of the "white race"? The funny lil crosses on the side of my granddad's mustang say different.

They are, but they where outnumbered 7:1, too much even for them. Again, the Soviets defeated the Nazies while you were drinking tea at the safe side of the Channel and postponed joining the party until it was almost over. Once the Amis are on their own they are Clouseau's.

Except for Grenada. That was the only war that the Americans won on their own in the entire 20th century. Grenada btw has 10,000 inhabitans.

Nevertheless, an excellent operation.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How many wars have the Germans won in the 20th C.?

 

[MG1962]

They are, but they where outnumbered 7:1, too much even for them. Again, the Soviets defeated the Nazies while you were drinking tea at the safe side of the Channel and postponed joining the party until it was almost over. Once the Amis are on their own they are Clouseau's.

Except for Grenada. That was the only war that the Americans won on their own in the entire 20th century. Grenada btw has 10,000 inhabitans.

Nevertheless, an excellent operation.

One of the rules of discussing debating or having an intelligent observation about history is to actually know at least a little about it.

How many wars have the US fought in the 20th cent - look it up instead of guessing. But you wont. it does not fit your MO

 

[9/11-investigator]

And how many wars did the Nazi's win?

They fought the largest battle in history, against an enemy that overwhelmingly outnumbered them and they lost.

They wanted to stamp out the most murderous regime that ever existed on the face of the planet and they would have succeeded, were it not for the most treacherous people in Europe, the British. Rather than pursuing their own interests they did what the Jews in the personification of Winston Churchill asked them to do: to destroy Germany, sacrifice their own empire and bring the victory to said Soviet mass murderers. And invent a holocaust story so that they could paint themselves in the most advantageous colors. And draw the nitwits from the other side of the ocean into Europe as well. A process described as 'liberation'. The Jews, who control these dummies, ordered that the West is to commit racial suicide ('multiculturalism'). Would not have happened under Dolfie, even if you do not like his table manners.

 

[Thunder]

what do you expect from a guy who never heard of the Zimmerman Telegram?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

(David Irving) The world-wide most renowned historian on WW2.

(a moment to clear my mouthful of coffee off my computer screen......)

What do you think would be his highlights?
1) His statement that the Hitler diaries were actually authentic on the day the forensic test stated they were fake?
2) His misreading on purpose of a internal communication that 120,000 "missing people" were actually "dead people" at Dresden?
3) The judge saying he was a liar?
4) His acceptance of $5,000 to be gassed on an Australian comedy TV show by its jewish host?

Shall I ask John Keegan for his opinion?

 

[drkitten]

They fought the largest battle in history, against an enemy that overwhelmingly outnumbered them and they lost.

That's right.

They wanted to stamp out the most murderous regime that ever existed on the face of the planet

No, they wanted to be the most murderous regime that ever existed.

They failed at that, too.

they would have succeeded, were it not for the most treacherous people in Europe, the British.

... who treacherously honored their commitment to the Poles when the Nazi regime invaded them without justification.

But the Nazi's still would have lost, because the actual most treacherous people in Europe, the Nazi's, broke faith with their own allies, the Soviet Union, and thereby forced the Soviets to switch sides and guarantee that the Nazis would be overwhelmingly outnumbered.

So, basically, the Nazis lost because they had neither military, economic, nor diplomatic ability.

 

[MG1962]

They fought the largest battle in history, against an enemy that overwhelmingly outnumbered them and they lost.

Awww and you are so cute - you think the Germans fought the big bully Russians all by themselves?

 

[TSR]

(a moment to clear my mouthful of coffee off my computer screen......)

What do you think would be his highlights?
1) His statement that the Hitler diaries were actually authentic on the day the forensic test stated they were fake?
2) His misreading on purpose of a internal communication that 120,000 "missing people" were actually "dead people" at Dresden?
3) The judge saying he was a liar?
4) His acceptance of $5,000 to be gassed on an Australian comedy TV show by its jewish host?

Shall I ask John Keegan for his opinion?

.
Or, my favourite:

In a speech in 1993, Irving quotes Adolf Eichmann talking about how the Holocaust was ordered. Eichmann meets Reinhard Heydrich, and, according to Irving:

Heydrich utters to him the fateful words, "I've come from the Reichsführer SS [Himmler]. The Führer [Hitler] has given the order for the physical destruction of the Jews."

.
How does Irving explain this?

Well, if you look just at that sentence, we can say that you've only got to change one or two words and you get a completely different meaning. If it wasn't "The Führer has ordered the PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION of the Jews," but rather "the extirpation of Judaism," you've only changed the words by a fraction and yet you've got a totally different meaning.

.

Are historians now in the business of changing what their sources actualy said to support an agenda?

On top of that, shortly after he notes

What else is there in the Eichmann papers? Well, he describes how, after Heydrich called him to Berlin and uttered this fateful sentence about the Führer having given the order, Heydrich said that Himmler has ordered Odilo Globocnik to carry out this task, and that Himmler had actually ordered that the Russian anti-tank ditches were to be used for disposing of the bodies."

.
Now, why would they need ditches to extirpate Judaism?
.