Who started both World Wars?

[stilicho]

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but don't believe everything you read on the internet guys, that's how WW1 was started.

Best. Marketing campaign. Ever.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Short answer: "No, they hadn't been."

Please note that I offer exactly the same amount of evidence Weber does, with the added bonus of me not being a proven liar.

In reference to the Greer:

That would be the Charles Beard who, at the time, strenuously *objected* to US involvement in WWII, quoting the Navy Department without contradiction.

The one with degrees from Oxford and Columbia.

Remind me again -- where did Weber study history?

I thought that you sceptic people always were opposed to the usage of "Appeal To Authority"!?

Weber then spectacularly fails to mention the fact that the U-568 was engaged in an attack on a peaceful convoy being escorted by Canadian ships when the Kearney was called in to help.

Five minutes of reading suffice to debunk the lies by TSR.

Of all places, in Zionist-friendly edited wikipedia we read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_(DD-145)

At 0840 that morning, Greer, carrying mail and passengers to Iceland, was signaled by a British plane that a German submarine had crash-dived some 10 miles (16 km) ahead. Forty minutes later the destroyer's soundman picked up U-652, and Greer began to trail the submarine. The plane, running low on fuel, dropped four depth charges at 1032 and returned to base, while Greer continued to "trail the submarine, broadcasting its position."[3] Two hours later the German boat began a series of radical maneuvers and Greer's lookouts saw her pass about 100 yards (100 m) off. An impulse bubble at 1248 warned Greer of a torpedo, and she rang up flank speed and bore rudder hard left. Lookouts watched the torpedo pass 100 yards (100 m) astern and the warship then charged in for an attack. She laid a pattern of eight depth charges which missed, and less than two minutes later a second torpedo passed 300 yards (300 m) to port.

Greer lost sound contact during the maneuvers, and began to quarter the area in search of the U-boat. After 2 hours, she re-established sound contact and laid down a pattern of 11 depth charges before discontinuing the engagement. Greer had held the German raider in sound contact 3 hours and 28 minutes[3]; had evaded two torpedoes fired at her; and with her 19 depth charges had become the first American ship in World War II to attack the Kriegsmarine.

These revelations caused Arthur Krock to comment upon the argument "over who 'attacked' whom". Krock stated that a reasonable definition of the term "attack" is "an onset, an aggressive initiation of combat, a move which is the antithesis of 'defense' [, and by] that definition, all three of our destroyers (the Greer, the Kearny, and the Reuben James -- all in separate incidents) attacked the German submarines." [4]

It is obvious that the British plane started hostilities. Probably done on purpose to let the German U-boot believe that the American ship had started agression (in order to provoke German-American agression), which was confirmed by the American destroyer starting to hunt for the submarine.

Weber was right, as confirmed by Arthur Krock. According to him in all 3 cases American destroyers started hostilities.

Q.E.D.

And it does not make sense at all for Germany to acquire even more enemies than they already had in Britain and USSR. As they dearly learned during WW1. Germany could easily defeat Britain, France, Russia and certainly America on it's own. But all 4 combined is too much, even for Germany.

Seriously, you need to learn some history from actual historians, rather than liars who happen to cater to your hate.

Why do you lie?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Prospects for the end of Western civilisation are very dim. I think you were born at least three centuries too late.

Not sure what you mean with that sentence?

Anyway, these guys...

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2010/12/05/taking-down-america/

...give you until 2025.

I personally not later than until 2020, possibly much sooner.
Afghanistan can be a bitch. Ask the Ruskies.
I am sorry.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'm just waiting for him to come back with his tried and trusted "I don't actually care about Japan and the Pacific war".

You really think I let this propaganda coup go? The idea that the American government deliberately took the decision worth 1000 Hollywood style Mengele's and carried out a medical experiment on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I started this thread under the influence of Buchanan's mildly revisionist book. I am truly shocked by what I have learned since the beginning of this thread:

- We no longer need esoteric Benjamin Freedman to know for a fact that the Jews brought the US into WW1 in exchange for the Balfour declaration. We have British government documents to prove that.
- The war in western Europe was forced upon Germany by the war preparation by Britain and France in Norway
- Churchill was brought to power by the Jewish funded Focus lobby group with the specific aim of bringing Britain into war with Germany, all for the purpose of American (read Jewish) global hegemony
- The USSR was armed with American weapons
- Germany preempted a Soviet attack by merely 3 weeks, preventing Western Europe becoming Bolshevized
- The US forced Japan into the Pearl Harbor attack
- The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with 100% Jewish invented nukes was nothing less than a completely unnecessary medical test to study the effects of the bomb
- Nuremberg was designed to finish Germany (and hence Europe) off morally and bring the holo tale into being, white washing the crimes of the alllies.
- From the notes made by Jackson we now know that the Germans never aspired vast conquests and that they felt attacked from all sides. There were only two parties aiming for conquering the world: the US and USSR. British fools enabled them in this endeavour at the cost of Europe and the British empire.

The picture of WW2 has now completely reversed. Once this story comes into the open, as it will, America will have nothing but enemies. And since the US is defenceless against the internet, it's demise is preprogrammed. Wikileaks is merely an opening salvo against this former European colony run completely out of control. I think that an imperial meltdown in 2014 is more likely than 2020, possibly even under emperor Obamus Africanus.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Germany [/THREAD]

 

[TSR]

I thought that you sceptic people always were opposed to the usage of "Appeal To Authority"!?

.
Then I guess we have to add the "appeal to authority" fallacy to the long list of subjects on which you are willfully ignorant.

Hint: it only applies when the authority in question *isn't* an authority on the topic at hand, which both Beard and the Navy Department were,

You, on the other hand, offer a known liar as *your* authority, who offers nothing better than his say-so.
.

Five minutes of reading suffice to debunk the lies by TSR.

.
And once again, 9/11 offers an own-goal.
.

Of all places, in Zionist-friendly edited wikipedia we read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_(DD-145)
It is obvious that the British plane started hostilities. Probably done on purpose to let the German U-boot believe that the American ship had started agression (in order to provoke German-American agression), which was confirmed by the American destroyer starting to hunt for the submarine.

.
Now, all you have to do is actually *quote* the part of the article which even touches on this "probability."

And remind me again: How many American ships had been sunk by this point?

And from the article you cite: "An impulse bubble at 1248 warned Greer of a torpedo, and she rang up flank speed and bore rudder hard left. Lookouts watched the torpedo pass 100 yards (100 m) astern."

How many shots had the Greer taken at this point?
.

Weber was right, as confirmed by Arthur Krock. According to him in all 3 cases American destroyers started hostilities.

.
And he would know, having actually been present on the Greer and all, that they weren't just looking to defend their passengers and the mail they were carrying.

What's that? He *wasn't* present on the ship and so has no way to have known the intent? So his "reasonable" definition of an attack relies on information he could not have had.

But of course, he's a recognized expert on what constitutes an atta...

What's that? He was a newspaper writer with no known war correspondence experience? Hmmmmn. What was that "appeal to authority" thing you were *just* whining about?

QED.

And it does not make sense at all for Germany to acquire even more enemies than they already had in Britain and USSR. As they dearly learned during WW1. Germany could easily defeat Britain, France, Russia and certainly America on it's own. But all 4 combined is too much, even for Germany.

.
Nor does it make sense to assume that just because *you* make treaties you have no intention of honouring, that no one else will honour theirs, but they did.

Nor does it make sense to send troops into Russia in October without any winter gear, but they did.

Nor does it make sense to spend resources shipping harmless civilians to death camps in the middle of a war, but they did.

Your mistake is in believing that Nazi Germany made sense. But I suppose you have to, so you can pretend your own hate makes sense.
.

Why do you lie?

.
Unlike you, I have no need to lie, nor have you documented a single one (also unlike your own documented lies and reliance on liars.)
.

 

[Hans]

9/11 amusingly babbled

The picture of WW2 has now completely reversed. Once this story comes into the open, as it will, America will have nothing but enemies. And since the US is defenceless against the internet, it's demise is preprogrammed. Wikileaks is merely an opening salvo against this former European colony run completely out of control. I think that an imperial meltdown in 2014 is more likely than 2020, possibly even under emperor Obamus Africanus.

LOL what a nut!

Nor does it make sense to assume that just because *you* make treaties you have no intention of honouring, that no one else will honour theirs, but they did.

Nor does it make sense to send troops into Russia in October without any winter gear, but they did.

Nor does it make sense to spend resources shipping harmless civilians to death camps in the middle of a war, but they did.

Your mistake is in believing that Nazi Germany made sense. But I suppose you have to, so you can pretend your own hate makes sense.

Well said TSR!

 

[TSR]

Well said TSR!

.
Thank you, I have my moments. Many of them recently poking at 9/11.
.

 

[Tolls]

You really think I let this propaganda coup go? The idea that the American government deliberately took the decision worth 1000 Hollywood style Mengele's and carried out a medical experiment on the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I started this thread under the influence of Buchanan's mildly revisionist book. I am truly shocked by what I have learned since the beginning of this thread:

- We no longer need esoteric Benjamin Freedman to know for a fact that the Jews brought the US into WW1 in exchange for the Balfour declaration. We have British government documents to prove that.

No you don't. You showed no such thing.

- The war in western Europe was forced upon Germany by the war preparation by Britain and France in Norway

You mean the war that started with the invasion of Poland? That war? Now, who invaded Poland? Let me think...tip of my tongue...

- Churchill was brought to power by the Jewish funded Focus lobby group with the specific aim of bringing Britain into war with Germany, all for the purpose of American (read Jewish) global hegemony

You showed no such thing. You showed no evidence whatsoever, merely assertions.

- The USSR was armed with American weapons

Yes they were. Once the Germans invaded the USSR then the US extended lend lease to the Soviet Union. The same as they were doing for the UK.

- Germany preempted a Soviet attack by merely 3 weeks, preventing Western Europe becoming Bolshevized

You have failed to show evidence for this, frankly. All other analysis of Soviet dispositions in early 1941 show an army being re-euipped and restructured. A process not expected to be complete until 1943. You, on the other hand, have one slightly dubious Russian historian.

- The US forced Japan into the Pearl Harbor attack

Again, you failed to show this. Or are you saying the Japanese had no choice but to continue their invasion of China to the extent that they had to attack the US. You know, they could have agreed to come to the negotiating table.

- The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with 100% Jewish invented nukes was nothing less than a completely unnecessary medical test to study the effects of the bomb

Nope. It was a bomb invented to be used during the war against the Axis. Or are you arguing that it should not have been used? I suppose we could simply have continued bombing the Japanese cities killing at least as many people as in the 2 atom bombings...and resulting in the Japanese still refusing to surrender.

- Nuremberg was designed to finish Germany (and hence Europe) off morally and bring the holo tale into being, white washing the crimes of the alllies.

Assertion with no evidence.

- From the notes made by Jackson we now know that the Germans never aspired vast conquests and that they felt attacked from all sides. There were only two parties aiming for conquering the world: the US and USSR. British fools enabled them in this endeavour at the cost of Europe and the British empire.

You failed to show any of this, as has been pointed out to you.

The picture of WW2 has now completely reversed. Once this story comes into the open, as it will, America will have nothing but enemies. And since the US is defenceless against the internet, it's demise is preprogrammed. Wikileaks is merely an opening salvo against this former European colony run completely out of control. I think that an imperial meltdown in 2014 is more likely than 2020, possibly even under emperor Obamus Africanus.

All these things have been asserted by you and yours for decades in one form or another...it simply doesn't dent the facts. That must really piss you off.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Then I guess we have to add the "appeal to authority" fallacy to the long list of subjects on which you are willfully ignorant.

Hint: it only applies when the authority in question *isn't* an authority on the topic at hand, which both Beard and the Navy Department were,

You, on the other hand, offer a known liar as *your* authority, who offers nothing better than his say-so.

TSR tries to peddle the lie that he can use the Navy as his witness. The oppopsite is true. The wikipedia article tells the story on the basis of a report by Admiral Harold R. Stark. It is this admiral who says that the statements made by Roosevelt "appear in some respects inadequate, and, in others, incorrect.". This is diplomacy talk for that Roosevelt was lying when he claimed that German vessels had started hostilities.

The following is a synopsis of Stark's report:

At 0840 that morning, Greer, carrying mail and passengers to Iceland, was signaled by a British plane that a German submarine had crash-dived some 10 miles (16 km) ahead. Forty minutes later the destroyer's soundman picked up U-652, and Greer began to trail the submarine. The plane, running low on fuel, dropped four depth charges at 1032 and returned to base, while Greer continued to "trail the submarine, broadcasting its position."[3] Two hours later the German boat began a series of radical maneuvers and Greer's lookouts saw her pass about 100 yards (100 m) off. An impulse bubble at 1248 warned Greer of a torpedo, and she rang up flank speed and bore rudder hard left. Lookouts watched the torpedo pass 100 yards (100 m) astern and the warship then charged in for an attack. She laid a pattern of eight depth charges which missed, and less than two minutes later a second torpedo passed 300 yards (300 m) to port.

Greer lost sound contact during the maneuvers, and began to quarter the area in search of the U-boat. After 2 hours, she re-established sound contact and laid down a pattern of 11 depth charges before discontinuing the engagement. Greer had held the German raider in sound contact 3 hours and 28 minutes[3]; had evaded two torpedoes fired at her; and with her 19 depth charges had become the first American ship in World War II to attack the Kriegsmarine.

Whatever TSR says, the US Navy itself concludes that it was the British plane that started throwing depth charges.

In my opinion obviously with the British intention in creating an incident between a German and American vessel. It had been British (read Churchill) policy to bring the US into the war.

And then comes the for TSR's case devastating quote from a distinguished American journalist Arthur Krock:

These revelations caused Arthur Krock to comment upon the argument "over who 'attacked' whom". Krock stated that a reasonable definition of the term "attack" is "an onset, an aggressive initiation of combat, a move which is the antithesis of 'defense' [, and by] that definition, all three of our destroyers (the Greer, the Kearny, and the Reuben James -- all in separate incidents) attacked the German submarines."

TSR started this discussion in lying that Germany had started attacking American vessels. the opposite is true as admitted by an American Navy admiral and confirmed by a distinguished American journalist.

Why do you lie, TSR?

 

[TSR]

TSR tries to peddle the lie that he can use the Navy as his witness. The oppopsite is true. The wikipedia article tells the story on the basis of a report by Admiral Harold R. Stark. It is this admiral who says that the statements made by Roosevelt "appear in some respects inadequate, and, in others, incorrect.". This is diplomacy talk for that Roosevelt was lying when he claimed that German vessels had started hostilities.

.
No, this is you selectively quote mining what the article actually says, and choosing to interpret it to support your hate.

Or did you conveniently forget that Beard endorses the Navy Department statement?

Why is it that you cannot actually, you know, *quote* Stark on which *specific* respects the Roosevelt address was incorrect?

Hint: it doesn't support your crap.
.

Whatever TSR says, the US Navy itself concludes that it was the British plane that started throwing depth charges.

.
And why did they do so?

Your claim (via Weber) was that the Greer initiated the attack.

You don't seem to have noticed the question about how many ships Germany had sunk at the time of the Greer Incident.

But everyone else has noticed your failure
.

In my opinion obviously with the British intention in creating an incident between a German and American vessel. It had been British (read Churchill) policy to bring the US into the war.

.
An opinion which you have been spectacularly unable to support with any, you know, facts.
.

And then comes the for TSR's case devastating quote from a distinguished American journalist Arthur Krock:
TSR started this discussion in lying that Germany had started attacking American vessels. the opposite is true as admitted by an American Navy admiral and confirmed by a distinguished American journalist.

.
I have yet to see a citation to an actual, you know, *quote* from any admiral.

And once again: did this journalist actually talk to the admiral in question, and were either of them on the Greer so they could speak to other than defensive actions on the part of her Captain or staff?









No?



I've pointed out this lie on your part before -- do you really think repeating it will convince any *rational* being?
.

Why do you lie, TSR?

.
As has also been pointed out before, you have yet to make a credible case that I have.

I haven't reported the others, but one more time and your posts will start getting reported.
.

 

[uke2se]

This is actually pretty easy, nein11, if you just think about it.

UK at war with Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany at peace with USA
USA in convoy with UK

Nazi German U-boat shows up at convoy. Intention of U-boat is to sink convoy ships. UK planes discover U-boat and fires. U-boat fires at convoy ships, including US naval vessels.

UK aggression was directed at the U-boat. The U-boat's aggression was directed at US ships.

Now, considering that US ships went in convoy over the Atlantic before the US started sending escorts and these ships were attacked by Nazi German U-boats, the U-boats started attacking US ships long before a US ship fired the first shot at a Nazi German U-boat. Once again, nein11 is willfully wrong.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Just read this from Buchanan:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=235593

Not since Leon Trotsky began publishing the secrets of the Romanov archives in 1918 has there been a more devastating leak of diplomatic documents than this week's WikiLeaks dump.

The Romanov files contained the secret treaties the imperial Allies had signed to carve up the Hohenzollern, Habsburg and Ottoman empires after a war fought "to make the world safe for democracy."

That´s interesting! I have to look into this. Never thought that I possibly could use the revelations of Jewish aristocrat murderer for my case!

 

[9/11-investigator]

This is actually pretty easy, nein11, if you just think about it.

UK at war with Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany at peace with USA
USA in convoy with UK

Nazi German U-boat shows up at convoy. Intention of U-boat is to sink convoy ships. UK planes discover U-boat and fires. U-boat fires at convoy ships, including US naval vessels.

UK aggression was directed at the U-boat. The U-boat's aggression was directed at US ships.

Now, considering that US ships went in convoy over the Atlantic before the US started sending escorts and these ships were attacked by Nazi German U-boats, the U-boats started attacking US ships long before a US ship fired the first shot at a Nazi German U-boat.

The intention of the German U-boat is a self-serving assumption made by you. You have no knowledge of it´s ´intentions´. Again, Germany in 1941 had more than enough enemies. To assume it was looking for war with the US is utter ridiculous. Germany knew very well that the US government sought to enter the war and was looking for an excuse.

I am sorry for you guys, but I have US Admiral Harold R. Stark on my side.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://web.viu.ca/davies/H324War/Tansill.isolationist.1952.htm

On July 7 he ordered American occupation of Iceland. Two days later Secretary [of War Frank] Knox gave a statement to the press which implied that the American patrol force in the North Atlantic had the right to use its guns when the occasion arose.

This occasion arose on September 4, 1941, when the destroyer Greer, bound for Iceland, was informed by a British plane that a submerged U-boat lay athwart her course some ten miles ahead. The Greer at once laid a course for the reported submarine, and after having made sound contact with it, kept it on her bow for more than three hours. During this period a British plane dropped four depth charges in the vicinity of the submarine without effect. Finally, the submarine commander grew tired of this game of hide-and-seek and launched a torpedo which the Greer was able to dodge. When the Greer counterattacked with depth charges, the submarine launched another torpedo which was avoided. When sound contact with the submarine could not be re-established, the Greer resumed course for Iceland.

On September 11 the President gave a broadcast which presented a distorted version of the Greer incident. He conveniently forgot to tell that the initiative had been taken by the Greer.... [T]his serious incident . . . clearly showed the aggressive character of American naval patrolling....

New information: when the British plane attacked the German sub, the American destroyer was already engaged in a hunt on the German sub.

Mind you, America had already occupied Iceland as a preparation of it's assault on Europe.

Related source: http://www.amazon.com/Back-Door-War-Roosevelt-1933-1941/dp/0837179904

More wikipedia:

In August 1939, Stark became Chief of Naval Operations with the rank of Admiral. In that position, he oversaw the expansion of the Navy during 1940 and 1941, and its involvement in an undeclared war against German submarines in the Atlantic during the latter part of 1941. It was at this time that he authored the Plan Dog memo, which laid the basis for America's Europe first policy.

Thank you, wikipedia!

My opponents invariable run into trouble as soon as they engage in real historic specifics. They should take dudalb as an example and stay in the realm of smearing. That's all they can do.

You only have a few years left until the ugly historic truth will leak over you by the bucket load. Thanks to this medium.

 

[TSR]

I am sorry for you guys, but I have US Admiral Harold R. Stark on my side

[/quote]
.
No, you have your interpretation of what Stark said. You have yet to actually cite *him* in context.

Meanwhile, the source you *have* cited contradicts you with the full authority of the Navy Department, whose comments are unequivocal.

I mean, other than one of the proven liars on which you regularly rely.

Remind me again -- why don't you ever mention those lies when you appeal to their authority? Remind me again, what training in history does Weber have? Which sources does he cite?

None and none?







Why do you continue to use him as a source, then?
.

 

[twinstead]

I'm still confused as to why 911-investigator is supremely uncritical of his sources. What kind of investigator has a different standard of believability for information he agrees with than that which he does not?

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Carry on.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'm still confused as to why 911-investigator is supremely uncritical of his sources. What kind of investigator has a different standard of believability for information he agrees with than that which he does not?

Oh, wait. Never mind.

Carry on.

As you wish.

For decades we were fed with Hollywood proganda from the likes of Spielberg, all based on the Nuremberg lies.

Now that we have youtube we can of course illustrate what kind of ally the lefty slaughterhouse USSR in fact was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSwvr8ui7C4&feature=related

This happened million-fold.

Warning, graphic.

And these people presided at Nuremberg. You can't make this up.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No, you have your interpretation of what Stark said. You have yet to actually cite *him* in context.

Go ahead.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Remind me again, what training in history does Weber have?

You could do this yourself, my lazy friend.

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

After graduating from Jesuit High School in 1969, he studied history in Chicago at the University of Illinois[1]. He continued his studies for two semesters at the University of Munich, and, returning to Oregon, took a B.A. degree in history with high honors from Portland State University. In graduate school, he continued the pursuit of history at Indiana University, receiving an M.A. degree in modern European history in 197

I think his credentials are good enough to assume that he can set up an argument.