Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

Zhukov didn't mind that the armies to the flanks of Paulus' 6th army were Romanian and Italian.

I value the Italians for their food but as soldiers they are hopeless indeed.

I remember a report of a scene concerning former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt visiting a tank factory. The CEO of that factory was explaining that the tank could reach speeds of 80 kmh in reverse gear. Schmidt added dryly: "this might interest the Italian government".

Schmidt btw had to hide his partial Jewish identity for the Nazi's, otherwise he had been carted off as well to a labor camp. Instead he was so 'lucky' to be part of the siege of Leninggrad (Schmidt has always been one of my favorite politicians, mainly because of his style, his Ostpolitik, his emphasis of the German-Franco axis. Other favorits are: de Gaulle, Adenauer, Giscard, Kohl, Gorbatchov, Putin. I used to have some sympathy for Reagan as well, but I understood later that it was under Reagan that the Jews were able to penetrate into the right wing of US politics as well, via the Jewish dominated 'neo-conservative' movement. Since Reagan the Jews enjoy full spectrum dominance in US politics).

But indeed it was basically the Germans against Russia, US and UK.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Ah, so the war began when Germany invaded Poland, then.

We can count on you not trying to blame the "Anglos" for starting the war anymore, then?
.

We will discuss the war in Poland later on by following Buchanan's book. There is a lot to be said about the start of the war. But it were the Anglos who turned the invasion of Poland into a world war.

Remember the title of the thread: who started both world wars.

 

[TSR]

We will discuss the war in Poland later on by following Buchanan's book. There is a lot to be said about the start of the war. But it were the Anglos who turned the invasion of Poland into a world war.

Remember the title of the thread: who started both world wars.

.
Ah, so then the world war didn't start until 1940, making the Eastern front the second front of that war (the only war under discussion in this part of the thread.)

You can't have it both ways.

Or are you going to assert that Germany continued fighting to the East, despite their non-aggression pact with the Soviets?
.

 

[stilicho]

We will discuss the war in Poland later on by following Buchanan's book. There is a lot to be said about the start of the war. But it were the Anglos who turned the invasion of Poland into a world war.

Remember the title of the thread: who started both world wars.

Talk about picking nits. This has been a feature of your contributions. If a world war only becomes a world war once the British and Americans are involved then WWI began in late 1917 and WWII on 07 DEC 1941.

No historian agrees with you on these two dates. Not a single one.

Next.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Your detachment from reality is both apalling and worthy of concern. Please seek the nearest mental health professional and tell him of your theories.

 

[Belz...]

Content free smear.

Indeed:

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.

 

[Oystein]

...(Schmidt has always been one of my favorite politicians, mainly because of his style, his Ostpolitik, his emphasis of the German-Franco axis...)

I'd love to see you debate Schmidt on the issues here. He'd take you apart. With impeccable style, yes!

 

[Childlike Empress]

It would spice things up if Schmidt brings his close friend Henry Kissinger to the debate, wouldn't it?

(Just found this on youtube, should be interesting to watch (german))

 

[Andy_Ross]

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 again you forget that the US and Britain were fighting on Two Fronts up until Normandy when they were then fighting on 3.

You always seem to forget the war in the Pacific, South East Asia and the Med.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

TSR tries to score some nitpicking points. The war started in 1939 in the east. The other one in the west in 1940.

For once I can sort of agree with you. "Second Front NOW" was a favorite chant of the Communist Party of the United States after June 1941. Before then it was, of course, "Stay OUT of the EUROPEAN War!"

Hence the name 'second front' for the western front. I am aware of the MR-Pact.

Oh, I didn't know they'd made it into a comic book. Ya learn something new every day.

 

[aggle-rithm]

They are, but they where outnumbered 7:1, too much even for them.

Sounds like it was a bad idea to invade Russia.

It's no wonder Stalin was caught off-guard. He couldn't believe Hitler was that stupid.

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.

First, it wasn't all that safe. 40,000 people were killed by German air raids and missiles. Not as many as the Russians lost, granted, but far more than you usually lose by merely drinking tea.

Second, they were preparing for the largest beach invasion in history. The Normandy operation used a strategy very similar to what General Zhokov used in Russia: Stay a safe distance from the enemy while you build up your forces, then hit them with everything you have.

 

[aggle-rithm]

.
Ah, so then the world war didn't start until 1940, making the Eastern front the second front of that war (the only war under discussion in this part of the thread.)

You can't have it both ways.

Or are you going to assert that Germany continued fighting to the East, despite their non-aggression pact with the Soviets?
.

It actually didn't become a WORLD war until Japan went all monkey-cookies on the Pacific Rim at the end of 1941.

World War I was never really a WORLD war, more of a European war with a few Americans, Canadians, and Australians.

 

[aggle-rithm]

We will discuss the war in Poland later on by following Buchanan's book. There is a lot to be said about the start of the war. But it were the Anglos who turned the invasion of Poland into a world war.

Remember the title of the thread: who started both world wars.

You're arguing semantics here.

In fact, the whole concept of "who started it" is pretty meaningless when it comes to WWII, as the whole conflict was a highly complex series of interactions between different factions.

During the war years, the Soviet Union went to war with Japan twice, and with Finland twice. Italy started out as an Axis power and ended up as just another Nazi-occupied nation. Japan was fully at war with China in 1938, which led to the US entering the war in 1941. Great Britian fought both on the side of France and against (Vichy) France. The Soviets were both defenders and aggressors at different times, and their "alliance" with the West was as shaky as any in history.

Also, about the Anglos "turning it into" a world war...who was more prepared to go to war? Who was bluffing, and who held all the cards?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It actually didn't become a WORLD war until Japan went all monkey-cookies on the Pacific Rim at the end of 1941.

I like to point out to Merkin students that "WWII" started in 1937 if you consider the first serious fighting between major combatants.

World War I was never really a WORLD war, more of a European war with a few Americans, Canadians, and Australians.

Fighting around South America and in the African colonies is enough for me to go with "World" War. Plus charting the "participants" gives that impression.

 

[Harpo]

It actually didn't become a WORLD war until Japan went all monkey-cookies on the Pacific Rim at the end of 1941.

World War I was never really a WORLD war, more of a European war with a few Americans, Canadians, and Australians.

So WW2 wasn't a world war until the United States got involved?

And WW1 wasn't a world war at all?

 

[9/11-investigator]

It would spice things up if Schmidt brings his close friend Henry Kissinger to the debate, wouldn't it?

(Just found this on youtube, should be interesting to watch (german))

I am not interested in a debate with Jewish war criminals like Kissinger.

I have 3 biographies of Schmidt, all in German.

I will never forget the decisive debate I saw on German television in Holland he had with Straus, candidate of the Union in 1980 I believe, highly impressive (I was a lefty student at the time and heavily involved with a German woman). It was that debate (and the woman of course) that tunneled me away from the proverbial post-war Dutch anti-Germanism into my early pro-German attitude and into great interest in European politics and readiness to work abroad (amongst others Germany).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schmidt

In November 2007, Schmidt wrote in the German weekly Die Zeit that the United States was a greater threat to world peace than Russia. He argued that Russia had not invaded its neighbors since the conclusion of the Cold War and that he was surprised that Russia allowed Ukraine and other former components of the Soviet Union to secede peacefully. He noted that the United States' invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush was "a war of choice, not a war of necessity."

Schmidt always portrayed himself as the anglophile Hanseatische Hamburger. And him being part Jewish himself no doubt opened many Anglo doors for him. But he is 100% not corrupt, unlike almost every anglo politician (with the exception of Ron Paul). 'Corrupt' in this context meaning 'not defending the interests of the population they are supposed to represent' but following the Jewish NWO globalisation agenda. In later years he, the European pur sang, admitted that the EU had gone too far. He also deplored the excessive admission of all these Tuerkische 'Gastarbeiter' (read: colonizers). Moreover, he is against Turkey becoming member of the EU (the main reason I voted for Wilders). I still have Schmidt in very high regard. Hey he plays Bach (4:50), just like me. Schmidt does not follow the Jewish NWO agenda, he defends German interests, within a European framework. There is hardly a point I disagree with him until this day.

Of course he would blast me away if I would present myself as a H-word denier. But I would never do that, I do not have sufficient grip yet on the matter to take such a position in the open. So that's where you guys come in, you defending the orthodox position, me playing the devil's advocat. And the longer I play that role, the more I become convinced there 'is something rotten in the State of Denmark'. Regarding the topic in this thread, I would expect less controversy. Buchanan is not Ernst Zuendel.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So WW2 wasn't a world war until the United States got involved?

I'm sure it seemed like a World War until Japan dramatically raised the stakes by expanding it's territory and opening up a whole new war for the British, Canadians, and Australians. The fact that the US entered at this point isn't as important as the implications of a whole new war being started on the other side of the world.

And WW1 wasn't a world war at all?

Certainly not on the scale of WWII. Japan was technically on the side of the Allies, but didn't really participate that much.

I tend to think that calling it a World War was kind of Euro-centric--it involved all the world powers anyone of importance cared about.

ETA: I should point out that my knowledge of WWI is pretty sketchy. I just know that it wasn't nearly on the scale of WWII in terms of geography and casualties.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Of course he would blast me away if I would present myself as a H-word denier. But I would never do that, I do not have sufficient grip on the matter to take such a position in the open. So that's where you guys come in, you defending the orthodox position, me playing the devil's advocat. And the longer I play that role, the more I become convinced there 'is something rotten in the State of Denmark'. Regarding the topic in this thread, I would expect less controversy. Buchanan is not Ernst Zuendel.

I would encourage you to look at as wide a variety of historical sources as you can, keeping an open mind as you do so. I have found that this allows me to see through some of the distortions that can creep in when someone applies their pre-conceived beliefs to their interpretation of history.

One of the most common things I see is that the enemy is always "fanatical" when they fight well, while the good guys are "heroic". You have to learn to take things like that with a grain of salt.

My father used to say that he and his buddys fighting in France would rather have been on the side of the Germans fighting the British, because they were much better soldiers. In fact, this stems from the fact that German soldiers were culturally more similar to Americans than the British. The British believed in a slow, methodical approach to battle, with great care taken to minimize casualties. The Americans and Germans both believed the opposite; that one reduced casualties by hitting the enemy hard and fast, resulting in a quick victory (of course, this only worked if you won). Here, again, ethnocentricity distorts the truth of the matter.

Another distortion is that the Germans were unable to fight off the Normandy invasion because they were too rigid and set in their ways, while the Americans were able to quickly improvise and adjust to new situations. In reality, this had more to do with the fact that the Americans were on the offensive and could afford to make quick changes. Trying to do this from a defensive standpoint would have been a foolish move on the part of the Germans.

These are all interpretations of undisputed events, however. It's another matter entirely to deny that major events of the war actually happened.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Sorry for being so long-winded, but this is a subject that fascinates me. Probably because both my parents were WWII veterans, and I owe my existence to the post-war baby boom.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I am not interested in a debate with Jewish war criminals like Kissinger.

Awww...Kissinger will be so disappointed.

(How about Gentile war criminals? Are they OK?)