Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
And explain why if all they wanted was Danzig and a corridor, they ,from almost the first days of occupation, set about systemically trying to destroy Poland as a nation.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Czechslovakia invasion was their attempt to take the long way around to East Prussia.
 
dudalb said:
Oh, I bet that Netherlanders are really proud to have Nein 11 as a fellow citizen.....
Click to expand...

Well, as a Dutchman I can tell you that proud isn't the word I'd use.... the words that would adequately describe to have Nein11 as my fellow countryman would get me banned instantly.
 
CptColumbo said:
So you were wrong when you said that Germany's motivation was that they "wanted Danzig back and corridor to East-Prussia."
Click to expand...

That was after Austria and Czechslovakia had already happened.

And it still doesn't explain the rest of Czechslovakia being invaded.
Click to expand...

First the context. Buchanan, p89:

After Germany mounted the scaffold came the turn of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Under the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon, that ancient empire was butchered, cut into pieces to be distributed to the nations that had supported the Allies… Czecho-Slovakia, which had emerged as a new nation in 1918 und Thomas Masaryk, was ceded rule over 3.5 million ethnic Germans, 3 million Slovaks, 1 million Hungarians, 500,000 Ruthenes, and 150,000 Poles. All resented in varying degrees being forced to live in a nation dominated by 7 million Czechs.
Click to expand...

Of course CptColumbo sees no problem at all for the Anglos to move into Europe in 1918 and destroy the entire European political structure. They can simply dissolve Austria-Hungary, no problem at all.

Those nice Czechs (Buchanan p.90):

Eduard Benes, the Czech foreign minister who was promising to model Czechoslovakia on the Swiss federation, where minorities would enjoy equal standing and cultural and political autonomy. On the eve of Munich, 1938, Lloyd George would charge Benes with having deceived the Allies at Paris... The Czechs knew what they wantede and were resolute and ruthless in taking it. As Hungary and Austria were reeling in defeat in 1918, Czech troops moved in Slovakia. They then seized the Polish enclave of Teschen, “whose coal heated the foyers and powered the industry of Central Europe from Krakow to Vienna,” and occupied German Bohemia, which would come to be known as the Sudetenland… By the time Masaryk, Benes, and the Allies were finished, they had created in the new Czechoslovakia the 10th most industrialized nation on earth, having stripped Austria and Hungary of 70 to 80 % of their industry…
Click to expand...

The Allies move in and destroy a power structure that had been stable for a long time. They created the conditions in 1918 for post-Versailles Europe to blow up. Exactly as Lloyd George had predicted. Buchanan p.91:

Hungary, however, was the “ultimate victim of every sort of prejudice, desire, and ultimate diplomatic and political error of the powers gathered in Paris. It had no real advocate there…”. By the Treaty of Trianon, signed June 4, 1920, Hungary was mutilated, the kingdom reduced from an imperial domain of 125,000 suare miles to a landlocked nation of 36,000. Transsylvania and the 2 million Hungarians residing there went to Rumania as a reward for joining the Allies. Slovakia, which a predominantly Catholic Hungary had ruled for 2 centuries, was handed over to the Czechs.
Click to expand...

The problem had been the behavior of the British themselves at Versailles in the first place. Buchanan:

p.201 - But Chamberlain and Halifax believed Versailles had been a blunder, because Germans and Austrains had been denied the right of self-determination granted to Poles and Czechs.
Click to expand...

They were a prisoner of their own policies. Deep in their hearts they agreed that Sudetenland and Danzig should return to Germany, but that would mean a breach of the Versailles-gunpoint-'treaty'. Buchanan:

Their [Chamberlain/Halifax] problem was this: If they assisted Hitler in gathering into the Reich all Germans who wished to be part of the Reich, they would be helping to remake Germany into what she had been in 1914, the dominant power in Europe.
Click to expand...

Again, this is the real motive behind the British behavior in 1914, 1918-Versailles and 1939 war declaration: British outdated European-balance-of-power politics. Outdated because of the rise of Russian Bolshevism in the east and America in the west, 2 political entities with a globalist agenda.

Buchanan, p.215:

Neither Chamberlain nor his Cabinet was willing to go to war to deny Sudeten Germans the right to self-determination or keep them under an alien Czech rule.
Click to expand...

Chamberlain had written to his sister that...

he did not care 2 hoots whether the Sudetens were in the Reich, or out of it.
Click to expand...
(Buchanan p.219).

Timeline:
1938, 12 March - Anschluss Austria with the Third Reich
1938, 30 September - Munich Agreement handing over German Sudetenland to Germany.

Munich meant that Britain and France told the Czechs to let the Sudetenland go. Buchanan p.224:

The brutal truth: The Sudeten Germans wanted to be reunited with their kinsmen and could not forever be denied. And as Britain now believed the decision to deliver them to Prague had been a blunder, why fight a war to perpetuate a blunder? Neither the British nation nor empire, wrote Henderson, would have supported war on Germany to deny Germans the right of self-determination the Allies had so loudly preached at Paris.
Click to expand...

Although today branded as 'appeasement', the British were acting sensible for a change in Munich. Buchanan p.225:

As Andrew Roberts writes in his biography of Halifax, "Although today it is considered shameful and craven, the policy of appeasement once occupied almost the whole moral high ground."
Click to expand...

The British implicitely were willing to admit that they had been wrong at Versailles.

Of course there was one person in British politics who was not very sensible, the fat drunken hooligan Churchill. Buchanan p.229:

What alternative did Churchill offer? Self-determination be damned! Rather than force the Czechs to give up Sudetenland, Britain should go to war. Yet, in Churchill's position, there was a contradiction. If Britain was as inferior to Germany in airpower as he had provlaimed, and she had no army in Europe, how could she win Churchill's war?... Churchill's answer: an alliance with Stalin.
Click to expand...

Say what??!! Buchanan:

Since Lenin's death, Stalin had surpassed him in mass murders that included the forced starvation of the Ukrainians and the Great Terror that began with the torture, show trials, and executions of his revolutionary comrades and went on to consume hundreds of thousands of lives. Was Churchill willing to ally the Mother of Prliaments with this monster?...

p.230 - "Better Hitler than Stalin" was a sentiment shared by leaders of all the nations bordering on Stalin's empire: Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Rumania...

By Munich, when the number of Hitler's victims still numbered in the hundreds, Stalin had murdered millions in his "prison house of nations", stretching from Ukraine to the Pacific...

Here, too, argues Taylor, Chamberlain and the appeasers were prescient:

Again the appeasers feared that the defeat of Germany would be followed by a Russian domination over much of Europe.
Click to expand...

In 1938, Chamberlain perceived clearly and correctly the probable outcome of a war with Nazi Germany that Churchill would not perceive until 1944 and 1945.
Click to expand...

And this again is exactly the Icebreaker scenario that Stalin had waited for and had hoped to realize when he signed the Non-Agression Treaty with Hitler rather than with Britain/France, in August 1939.

Btw: Buchanan is too kind here on Churchill if he tries to explain Chirchill's behavior from an error of judgment. In reality Churchill was bought and paid for by London Jews to pursue their agenda. But if Buchanan would say that, he would be dumped in ZOG-USA. The real reason why Churchill wanted to ally himself with Stalin is that he wanted to maintain his Chartwell estate, which he could not afford from his meager income. It is that banal.

Why did Chamberlain get a bad name in the history books? Buchanan p.231:

But if Chamberlain's strategic assessment was right and Britain's vital interests dictated staying out of a war for the Sudetenland, why was Munich a disaster? Why is Chamberlain virtually without defrenders?... Chamberlain's failure lay not in his refusal to take Britain to war with Germany over the Sudetenland. There he was right. His failure was in how he behaved at Munich and after Munich.
Click to expand...

See follow-up posts.

While you're at it, can you explain why Germany kept breaking non-aggression pacts they had signed? The one with Poland and USSR should be a good start. Did they forget about them? They must have been given a copy in German.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of a non-agression pact with Poland.
Regarding the one with Russia, you seam to have completely missed the discussion around Suvorov/Barbarossa. Read the last 5 pages of this thread again and them come back if you still have questions. After all, we are here to help you.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
They were a prisoner of their own policies. Deep in their hearts they agreed that Sudetenland and Danzig should return to Germany, but that would mean a breach of the Versailles-gunpoint-'treaty'.
Click to expand...

I've asked you three times already why Germany would sign such a treaty if they disagreed with it. You haven't responded.

If you're having a trouble coming up with a convincing post hoc explanation, don't be afraid to ask for help.
 
If Hitler believed Stalin intended to attack Western Europe when he was ready (not an unreasonable view) then why was Hitler messing around in Czechoslovakia and Poland, knowingly provoking a French and British declaration of war, instead of forming an alliance of European powers against Russia in the manner of the Crimean War?

No, the treaty Hitler wanted with Britain was one which made him into a new Napoleon - "You keep the oceans, and leave me to be the master of Europe". He thought he could take on everyone at once, and overplayed his hand massively. He wasn't forced to invade Russia underprepared. He thought he was prepared. It was just plain old hubris.
 
Austria-Hungary?
Stable?
In the early 20th century?

Blimey...

Oh, and Buchanan has it wrong (again). Chamberlain stayed out of a war over the Sudetenland under the guidance of the Imperial General Staff who felt the UK and France were not prepared for war, and any war would not prevent Czechoslovakia being overrun. This is fairly well documented, you know.
 
9/11 has a long and squalid record of just ignoring what he cannot answered. It is amusing to watch him trying to maintain any sanity in the debate while ignoring everything he 'must not see' to make a failed argument appear believable - even to himself.

Ask him why the peaceful Hitler dominated Germans invaded Luxembourg or planned to invade Switzerland and watch the evasion....
 
Hans said:
Ask him why the peaceful Hitler dominated Germans invaded Luxembourg or planned to invade Switzerland and watch the evasion....
Click to expand...

Oh, that Luxembourg invasion was due to a clerical error. Once they were there, though, there was no reason not to slaughter the Jews and raid the treasury.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Oh, that Luxembourg invasion was due to a clerical error. Once they were there, though, there was no reason not to slaughter the Jews and raid the treasury.
Click to expand...

Remember that France and Britain had declared war on Germany after Germany took back what France and Britain had stolen from Germany at Versailles. Have a look at google maps:

The German-French border was fortified. The best way around these fortifications was through [drumroll]... Luxemburg.

Even Zionist-friendly editted wikipedia admits:

The attack on the small neutral country was part of the Westfeldzug in which Luxembourg and Belgium were used as transit territories to attack France by outflanking the Maginot Line.
Click to expand...

Not that difficult. You have to explain everything to lefties.

It would have been nicer indeed if the Germans had crossed the Rhine near Strassburg, but the French were not very cooperative in 1940.

Newsflash regarding Switzerland: it was not invaded. Repeat: not invaded. Plans are a piece of paper, nothing more.

What's more important, Switzerland is landlocked, so no danger for allied troops to land on the beaches of Switzerland. Again, Nazi Germany was outnumbered 1:7 (although admittedly the opponents, Kosacs, Hillbillies and Brits, were of lower quality). So the Germans needed to be economical with where they wanted to deploy their scarce resources, they had enough enemies. Besides, Swiss are majority German speakers, not a threat. Switserland had declared itself neutral. No reason to invade.
 
Last edited:
Tolls said:
Austria-Hungary?
Stable?
In the early 20th century?

Blimey...
Click to expand...

Nothing that some disciplinary action from the side of the Austrians could not have solved. Unfortunately, Britain, Russia and France had designs on Germany in 1914. Serbian nationalism was under control until the 1980's.

Oh, and Buchanan has it wrong (again). Chamberlain stayed out of a war over the Sudetenland under the guidance of the Imperial General Staff who felt the UK and France were not prepared for war, and any war would not prevent Czechoslovakia being overrun. This is fairly well documented, you know.
Click to expand...

Tolls opines that it is not possible to have 2 opinions at the same time, and maybe this is true for Tolls' brain; Chamberlain however both knew that Britain could not fight Germany, yet at the same time thought that Germans had a point in wanting Sudetenland and Danzig back.
 
Tolls said:
Austria-Hungary?
Stable?
In the early 20th century?

Blimey...
Click to expand...







I still can't beleive somebody described Austria Hungry pre WW1 as "stable".

I think it is painfully obvious that Nein 11 is not even pro European. He is Pro Germanic ;all other Europeans are inferiors.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom