Who started both World Wars?

[Belz...]

The NAACP was founded to further Jewish interests, meaning pushing back whites, a process near completion.

The NWO's global takeover has been "near completion" for the past few centuries, if we're to believe the CTers. Sounds like a second coming of Christ scenario, where it never actually happens.

 

[ddt]

While going over part of this thread, here's some that has been overlooked, in nein11's renderings of Schulte-Rhonhof's ramblings:

The Soviets annexed territory in close proximity of the Romanian oilfields on which Germany depended for a large extend. Germany tried to invite Russia to the existing alliance Germany-Italy-Japan in september 1940.

And SR names explicitly the Romanian regions of Bessarabia and the Northern Bukovina. The first was mentioned in the secret annex of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact:

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

The Bukovina was not mentioned, but that really didn't bring the Soviet-Union nearer to Ploesti.

Molotov came to Berlin and came with new demands:

Dazu forderte er folgende Staaten und Gewässer für die Sowjetunion: Finnland, die Donau, Rumänien, Ungarn, Bulgarien, die Türkei mit dem Schwarzmeer-Ausgang, Iran, Griechenland, Jugoslawien, die Ostseeausgänge und Spitzbergen. Da die Sowjets inzwischen alle Staaten, die 1939 ihrer Interessensphäre zugesprochen worden waren, annektiert hatten, musste die deutsche Seite davon ausgehen, dass die Sowjetunion nun ebenfalls beabsichtigte, diese hier genannten Staaten zu unterwerfen.

The USSR meanwhile had occupied all the territory of it's sphere of influence as agreed in the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement. It was to be assumed that the USSR would also invade all the territory of the new 'sphere of influence': Finland, Danube area, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Jugoslavia, Ostsee exits, Spitsbergen (yes, we are still talking about America's later noble allie here).

Contrary to nut11's translation, SR here claims that Molotov actually demanded those areas. Evidence please?

And the claim that the USSR had annexed all of its sphere of influence is false. Again, the secret annex of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact:

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania),

Highlighting mine. We all know how the Winter War went, not? And meanwhile, Germany had stationed troops in Finland.

 

[ddt]

This gem of irony is worthy of reposting:

Well, it's a proven historical fact that the Germans are a peace-loving people who have been sadly, badly misunderstood. The Prussians, for example, are amongst the greatest flower-arranging peoples in the world, but they never get credit for that because people just want to talk about their supposed militarism. It's a shame we can't just ignore all that and embrace the wonder that is Germany without all the baggage.

But then, it touches upon a question that has been puzzling many. How could the nation that brought forth Bach and Beethoven, Goethe and Schiller, Kant and Hegel - and numerous other artists and scientists of world class - stoop to so low a level of barbarism, especially the Holocaust?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We're at 1900 posts in this thread, and we've seen a lot of ignorance from our esteemed interlocutor, nein/11 confabulator, on many important points of WW1 and WW2 history. I suggest we compile a list of those, as a reminder, and keep it updated. Here's my first shot at it, from memory and the last couple of pages.

Nice idea. May I add one?


World War One:
- Zimmermann Telegram

World War Two:
- Treaty of Frankfurt 1871 and its terms
- Polish basic history, e.g., Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish Partitions
- Ethnic make-up of Poland inter-war
- Polish-Russian war and Peace of Riga
- The General-Government
- Generalplan Ost, both the plans and the executed mass expulsions
- Czech basic history
- Oderberg & Teschen were in Czechoslovakia, and had never been German
- Sudetenland never was part of Germany
- Nazi occupation of the Czech rump state in March 1939
- Operation Tannenbaum (invasion plans of Switzerland)
- British Press were neither controlled by nor sympathetic to the Jews

 

[Jack by the hedge]

By the way, does anything dramatic happen when we get to post #1945?

 

[ddt]

Nice idea. May I add one?

Of course, that's the whole idea! Good idea to do it like that - repeating the whole list and highlighting the additions. I've put a link to the latest version in my signature.

By the way, does anything dramatic happen when we get to post #1945?

No, but you should have made a mention of the Morocco crisis or to the Russian revolution. I can't think of anything for 1906...

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By the way, does anything dramatic happen when we get to post #1945?

We may get a bang out of it. I'll seen what's in the bucket.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Epic Fail

If I've correctly interpreted 9/11's hidden agenda in this thread, he is saying that the Anglos (English, Canadians, Americans, Australians) started WWII as puppets of the Jews. They did so in forcing Germany to accept the Versailles Treaty, which handed control of land that was rightfully German into foreign (Jewish?) hands.

Only a few problems with this argument, if indeed this is the argument he is making.

1. He cannot name these Jews that pulled the puppet strings of the Anglos.
2. The "Anglos" not only could not agree on the Versailles Treaty (US congress rejected the treaty in 1920), they were considerably softer on the issue than the French. Although the British signed the treaty, there was increasing sympathy for the Germans as time went on. This is probably why Hitler hoped he could forge an alliance with Britian.
3. The British said they would declare war if Germany invaded Poland. They did not...not immediately. They waited several days to see if the Germans would STOP invading Poland before declaring war.
4. Even after declaring war, the British took no aggressive action against Germany. They sat and waited for the Germans to come to them.

Really, I can't understand how any variety of dung-colored glasses through which one views history can possibly interpret these facts as "Jewish-led Anglos started WW2". It's pure fantasy and wishful thinking.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Really, I can't understand how any variety of dung-colored glasses through which one views history can possibly interpret these facts as "Jewish-led Anglos started WW2". It's pure fantasy and wishful thinking.

That just means you don't think like a neo-Nasty. Good on you!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Really, I can't understand how any variety of dung-colored glasses through which one views history can possibly interpret these facts as "Jewish-led Anglos started WW2". It's pure fantasy and wishful thinking.

Exactly. Just because pre-war Nazi Germany was rabidly and officially anti-semitic doesn't mean that pre-war British society wasn't anti-semitic. The idea that Britain was somehow controlled by Jews is compete and utter fantasy.

 

[TSR]

World War One:
- Zimmermann Telegram

World War Two:
- Treaty of Frankfurt 1871 and its terms
- Polish basic history, e.g., Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish Partitions
- Ethnic make-up of Poland inter-war
- Polish-Russian war and Peace of Riga
- The General-Government
- Generalplan Ost, both the plans and the executed mass expulsions
- Czech basic history
- Oderberg & Teschen were in Czechoslovakia, and had never been German
- Sudetenland never was part of Germany
- Nazi occupation of the Czech rump state in March 1939
- Operation Tannenbaum (invasion plans of Switzerland)
- British Press were neither controlled by nor sympathetic to the Jews

.
- ~6 million Poles deported by the Germans, roughly half of them not Jewish
.

 

[aggle-rithm]

.
- ~6 million Poles deported by the Germans, roughly half of them not Jewish
.

Oh, that part of history is supposed to be allegorical.

 

[Tolls]

Exactly. Just because pre-war Nazi Germany was rabidly and officially anti-semitic doesn't mean that pre-war British society wasn't anti-semitic. The idea that Britain was somehow controlled by Jews is compete and utter fantasy.

Well, don't forget Disraeli.

OK, he died 60 years before the second world war, and was an Anglican, and was only in office for less than 10 years...but, that was all a front!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Indeed. In fantasy world, any example of a Jew (or merely someone with a Jewish sounding name) in a position of influence must be the tip of an iceberg.

(Hmm. Iceberg. Now that's obviously a Jewish name. See how well this works?)

9/11 posts so much scattergun garbage that it hardly seems worth the effort to try to refute it point by point. That's how he gets away with posting stuff like, an example from earlier in this thread, the bank of England was founded by and for Jews. Do you imagine he actually researched that to see if it contained any morsel of fact? Naturally not.

Edit to add: May I propose the name "the IceBerg fallacy" as it may prove useful from time to time?

 

[9/11-investigator]

But then, it touches upon a question that has been puzzling many. How could the nation that brought forth Bach and Beethoven, Goethe and Schiller, Kant and Hegel - and numerous other artists and scientists of world class - stoop to so low a level of barbarism, especially the Holocaust?

Wow, ddt, who appropiatly nicks himself after a forbidden poison, for the first time is asking an intelligent question!

Do you have at least a beginning of an answer yourself, ddt?
Or shall I give the answer for you? After all I am here to help you...

- Woodrow Wilson wanted a treaty based on his 14-point plan which he believed would bring peace to Europe.
- Georges Clemenceau wanted revenge. He wanted to be sure that Germany could never start another war again.
- Lloyd George personally agreed with Wilson but knew that the British public agreed with Clemenceau. He tried to find a compromise between Wilson and Clemenceau.

Lloyd George thought that the treaty was too harsh, and that it would start another war in 25 years time. And right he was. But he signed the 'treaty' (robbery at gun point really) anyway. The Americans did not even sign it, Wilson probably out of a sense of guilt, because he knew as no one else that the disaster that had befell Germany was caused by war entry of the Americans for no reason at all, except that Wilson had given in to pressure by the Jews who were pushing for war to further their own interest, namely Palestine, that they would get as a reward from the British.

ddt says that he does not understand why the Germans committed the H-word. Neither do I. Unless of course we have to consider the possibility that a second rate 'nation', without a Bach, Beethoven and Goethe, sat behind the table in Nuremberg together with the greatest criminals in human history, dressed as judges, speaking 'justice' and decided to use this opportunity to destroy this fine nation morally by making up a story and make themselves look good in the process.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

Chief US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson (a county-seat lawyer who never completed law school), for example, declared in his opening address to the Tribunal: (note 1)

The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis were those against the Jews ... It is my purpose to show a plan and design, to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to annihilate all Jewish people....

Mind you, this was the opening address! Jackson, a mediocre person, already had the Germans declared guilty before the trial began, meaning it was a setup.

As even some leading Allied figures privately acknowledged at the time, the Nuremberg trials were organized not to dispense impartial justice, but for political purposes. Sir Norman Birkett, British alternate judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, explained in a private letter in April 1946 that "the trial is only in form a judicial process and its main importance is political."

Translation: it was a show trial. And this was the sort of material that played judge:

Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, who presided at the Tribunal's solemn opening session, was a vice-chairman of the supreme court of the USSR before and after his service at Nuremberg. In August 1936 he had been a judge at the infamous Moscow show trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev.

In other words, the dregs of humanity, as Hitler had called them, presided behind the table.

We don't have to look very far to know who organized this showtrial:

Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added.

Here another American judge (Iowa Supreme Court justice) who participated:

Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process. "The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ... Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices."

The condemnation of the trial was to be heard in the highest circles:

America's leading jurist was dismayed by the Nuremberg process. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone remarked with irritation: "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." In a private letter he wrote: "... I wonder how some of those who preside at the trials would justify some of the acts of their own governments if they were placed in the status of the accused." On another occasion Stone specifically wondered "whether, under this new [Nuremberg] doctrine of international law, if we had been defeated, the victors could plausibly assert that our supplying Britain with fifty destroyers [in 1940] was an act of aggression ..."

Likewise this reaction in Congress:

In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst."

US Senator Robert A. Taft also condemned the trial as a political one.

But ddt will not consider the possibility that Nuremberg was a fraud.
The current version of history suits him fine.
ddt once confessed that he played the piano with the, let's say '2 finger sytem', meaning he is not a very talented person. ddt is a lefty, meaning having a world view where everybody is somehow a victim, except for the strong and talented people who make society shine. ddt does not like these people because it makes him aware of his own smallness. ddt loves the holocaust. Now he can be a good guy on the cheap. ddt sits on the first rank of society because he believes in the H-word.

Mag ik even overgeven?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Topic is "Who started WW1 and WW2".

 

[gtm]

Re: Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

I'd have just shot the lot of 'em (like Churchill wanted to do) - good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The Americans did not even sign it, Wilson probably out of a sense of guilt, because he knew as no one else that the disaster that had befell Germany was caused by war entry of the Americans for no reason at all, except that Wilson had given in to pressure by the Jews who were pushing for war to further their own interest, namely Palestine, that they would get as a reward from the British.

Yeah, the British handed it right over, didn't they?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Topic is "Who started WW1 and WW2".

Topic is 9/11 hates everybody.

 

[ddt]

Re: Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

I'd have just shot the lot of 'em (like Churchill wanted to do) - good riddance to bad rubbish.

IIRC, Stalin also proposed to just shoot 20,000 Nazis. Still, Nuremberg was a good idea, even if only for the precedent it set for other war tribunals.