Who started both World Wars?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You came on a Sheep? You do not smell of a Sheep..........

My Welsh ancestry coming out, I suppose.

 

[dudalb]

My Welsh ancestry coming out, I suppose.

You know the source of that quote?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know the source of that quote?

I just wrote it?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Remember that France and Britain had declared war on Germany after Germany took back what France and Britain had stolen from Germany at Versailles.

Stolen how? At gunpoint?

We're all familiar with the geography. What I want to know is WHY Germany gave it away if they really wanted it so badly?

Strange how you won't answer this question.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Switserland had declared itself neutral. No reason to invade.

You realize this is a non-sequitur, right? It would have made just as much sense to say, "I like pancakes. No reason to invade."

Because whether or not a country declared itself neutral obviously made no difference to Hitler and his goons.

 

[abenja1]

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.



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.

You're wrong about everything 9/11 Investigator.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You're wrong about everything 9/11 Investigator.

But you leave it to me to guess where exactly I am wrong.

 

[excaza]

But you leave it to me to guess where exactly I am wrong.

I would think "everything" is pretty comprehensive.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You realize this is a non-sequitur, right? It would have made just as much sense to say, "I like pancakes. No reason to invade."

Because whether or not a country declared itself neutral obviously made no difference to Hitler and his goons.

Sweden was neutral and not invaded.
Switzerland likewise.

Reason: it could not be invaded by Britain.

There were indeed neutral countries invaded. But the British started becoming serious about invading those neutral countries, like Norway.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sweden was neutral and not invaded.
Switzerland likewise.

Reason: it could not be invaded by Britain.

There were indeed neutral countries invaded. But the British started becoming serious about invading those neutral countries, like Norway.

And then, starting in the summer of 1945, Britain invaded neutral Luxemborg, neutral Holland, neutral Belgium, neutral Denmark. Why was that?

 

[excaza]

And then, starting in the summer of 1945, Britain invaded neutral Luxemborg, neutral Holland, neutral Belgium, neutral Denmark. Why was that?

So the British couldn't invade them first! Duh!

 

[9/11-investigator]

Stolen how? At gunpoint?

We're all familiar with the geography. What I want to know is WHY Germany gave it away if they really wanted it so badly?

Strange how you won't answer this question.

I did answer, but you pretend not to understand the word 'gunpoint'.

Somebody in bondage is brought to a firing squad and is about to be shot.
Then aggle-rithm asks: why is he shot? Why did he agree with being shot?

It is difficult to take people like aggle-rithm seriously.

Buchanan:

p.77 – THE STARVATION BLOCKADE
Why did Germany sign? Germany faced invasion and death by starvation if she refused. With her merchant ships and even Baltic fishing boats sequestered and the blockade still in force, Germany could not feed it her people. When Berlin asked permission to buy 2.5 million ton of food, the request was denied. From November 11 through the peace conference, the blockade was maintained… It’s architect and chief advocate had been the First Lord of the Admiralty. His aim, said Churchill, was to “starve the whole population – men, women, and children, old and younng, wounded and sound – into submission.”

The decisive point was the war entry of the Americans. It was clear for all involved that this would break the stalemate.

And then Wilson came along and promised the Germans a mild peace. And that's where the Germans gave in and surrendered. And that was their main mistake: never, ever trust an Anglo. Wilson broke almost all promises he had made to the Germans. Among the white race there is nothing more vicious, deceptive and traiterous (or perfidious as Irving would say) than an Anglo (reason: culture dominated by Jewish values):

p.69 – In the end, the Americans proved decisive. With Yanks moving into the front lines at 250,000 a month, German morale sank and the German lines buckled… There was Prince Max of Baden who had sounded out Wilson on a peace proposal based on 14 points. Wilson responded and began to add conditions. The Kaiser had to go, Allied ‘military supremacy’ had to be garanteed, and a democratic and representative government had to be established. Prince Max agreed and Wilson discussed the offer with his Allies.

And this was the consequence:

p.76 – Today, men do not appreciate what Versailles meant to the Germans, who, triumphant in the east, believed they had laid down their arms and accepted an armistice and peace in the west based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points.

The Germans were betrayed into peace. By empty promises made by the Americans.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I did answer, but you pretend not to understand the word 'gunpoint'.

Somebody in bondage is brought to a firing squad and is about to be shot.
Then aggle-rithm asks: why is he shot? Why did he agree with being shot?

It is difficult to take people like aggle-rithm seriously.

Sorry, you're not going to wiggle out of it that easily.

Germany was NOT in bondage. They laid down their weapons LONG before they were beaten.

Most of the German population could hardly tell they were in a war, since all the fighting was done in enemy territory. The Rhein was never breached.

So why did Germany give up, and agree to the terms of the Versailles Treaty? They certainly had the right to do so, of course, but why pretend later that they were "robbed" or "tricked"?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wonder when 9/11 is going to start ranting about the U-boat unrestricted warfare?

 

[Rich_C]

And then Wilson came along and promised the Germans a mild peace. And that's where the Germans gave in and surrendered.

Wow, you don't even know the standard Neo-Nazi talking points of how the Jews betrayed Germany at the end of WWI and that's why the Germans had to surrender.

Here's what really happened.
German army, couldn't hold the lines in the West, was retreating several miles per day.
Austria-Hungary had capitulated.
Turkey had surrendered.
There were food riots across Germany (Hitler came along years later and blamed the Jews. Of course).
Parts of the German Navy were threatening revolution because of the lack of food.

The German army put everything they had left into the offensives in early 1918, to try to force France to surrender before the Americans had time to make an impact. That failed, and the German army had no reserves, and they had no food left for the people. That's why they surrendered, not because of anything Wilson or anyone else said.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Wow, you don't even know the standard Neo-Nazi talking points of how the Jews betrayed Germany at the end of WWI and that's why the Germans had to surrender.

Here's what really happened.
German army, couldn't hold the lines in the West, was retreating several miles per day.
Austria-Hungary had capitulated.
Turkey had surrendered.
There were food riots across Germany (Hitler came along years later and blamed the Jews. Of course).
Parts of the German Navy were threatening revolution because of the lack of food.

The German army put everything they had left into the offensives in early 1918, to try to force France to surrender before the Americans had time to make an impact. That failed, and the German army had no reserves, and they had no food left for the people. That's why they surrendered, not because of anything Wilson or anyone else said.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now, personally, I think Germany did the right thing. But do you know who didn't think so? Hitler. He thought the Kaiser threw the towel in too early. Which is probably one reason why Hitler insisted on continuing to fight long after the issue was decided.

Since in 9/11's mind, everything Hitler said and did was pure gold, then he must agree that it was Germany's fault that they signed a bad armistice agreement.

 

[aggle-rithm]

There were indeed neutral countries invaded. But the British started becoming serious about invading those neutral countries, like Norway.

And Belgium?

 

[aggle-rithm]

But you leave it to me to guess where exactly I am wrong.

I don't think anyone has a realistic expectation that you will be that self-aware.

 

[dtugg]

I am not quite sure if the nazi scumbag actually believes the nonsense that he is constantly spewing or if he is deliberately lying because he thinks that it will help his sick agenda.

 

[CptColumbo]

That was after Austria and Czechslovakia had already happened.

Right and what is your point? They did the other two first and when they saw that they could get away with violating treaties they had just signed they went ahead and invaded Poland too.

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.

and you would seem to be happy with the Germans taking over all that territory.

I am not aware of a non-agression pact with Poland.

It was signed in 1934 and in it both countries pledged to resolve their problems through bilateral negotiations and to forgo armed conflict for a period of ten years. Which Nazi Germany broke.

I think you are also overlooking one of the major motivations for taking over the Sudetenland. It eliminated all the fortifications between the Reich and Czechoslovakia.

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.

I think you don't understand how violating written agreements with other nations might spark a war, and how the violator would be seen as the country that started the war.