Who started both World Wars?

[uke2se]

After the fall of America.

Lol lunacy.

 

[9/11-investigator]

There's nothing devastating in that speech for people who know, understand and accept history.

Stalin reveals that he wants to conquor Europe. And you accept that? And nevertheless you want to defend the case of fighting together with these criminals because Germany wanted Danzig back and a corridor? How desperate can you be to defend an alliance with a slaughterhouse that killed millions of it's own people before? Oh, wait you were Jewish, now I remember.

The USSR and Nazi Germany were allies, despite their opposite ideologies.

They were not 'allies'. Having a non-agression agreement does not mean you are an ally.

USSR needed Germany to hold back the capitalist nations to the west, and preferably to bleed them dry.

Oh really? Did France and the UK plan an attack on the USSR? Fascinating. Maybe it is time for you to go to bed and get some rest. Believe me, you need it!

Germany needed the USSR to stay out of war long enough for Hitler's forces to mop up in the west.

Again, France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around. With the invasion of Norway by Britain and France they acted upon their war declaration and Germany was forced to react to avoid being cut off from vital iron supplies, which was the intention of the invasion of Britain and France.

Stalin's speech is pretty arrogant given the fact that his purges had left his armies sorely inadequate to face anything coming their way. This also proved to be the truth with operation Barbarossa, and it wasn't until one and a half year after the invasion of their homeland that the Soviet armies were able to muster an effective counter offensive.

Wrong. Stalin was caught by surprise; his entire army was designed for attack, not defense. Germany struck first while large parts of the Soviet army was still in the train on their way to the front.

 

[dudalb]

Lol lunacy.

God, I am beginning to think that Nein 11 is trying to shill for the upcoming remake of "Red Dawn" with this "Fall Of America" BS.

I would like to figure out how he developed such a deep hatred of Jews, Americans, and The British, but I don't want to ruin my appetite for dinner.

BTW I love our guy's fondness for the Dutch SS volunteers defending Holland against the Menace of those Evil Joos. Anne Frank was a real threat........

 

[9/11-investigator]

On 10 February 1945, the brigade was redesignated 23rd SS Volunteer Panzer Grenadier Division Nederland., although its strength at the time was barely 1,000 men

This "division" never got bigger than a brigade.

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

For your information, SS was elite, by definition limited in numbers.
20,000 Dutch volunterered to fight against Bolshevism:
http://www.eenvandaag.nl/buitenland/29425/nederlander_aan_het_oostfront

That was very interesting. I have not seen this poster before. The style is unusual as it is modern and not like other late war German propaganda posters used in occupied areas. I did a google image search and found that it was a colour cover of a magazine called Kultur Terror which is actually Danish, not Dutch. ( I apologise for going off topic. I have a general interest in art movements in propaganda)

http://www.artsnotdead.com/PhotoDetails.asp?ShowDESC=N&ProductCode=MN00001

Your version has a Danish text, mine has a Dutch text. Looks like this was a SS poster used in several occupied countries. But the buildings shown look Dutch, not Danish, so I think the poster is of Dutch origin anyway.

 

[uke2se]

Stalin reveals that he wants to conquor Europe. And you accept that? And nevertheless you want to defend the case of fighting together with these criminals because Germany wanted Danzig back and a corridor? How desperate can you be to defend an alliance with a slaughterhouse that killed millions of it's own people before?

I've already told you before that Stalin was every bit as evil a dictator as Hitler was. The alliance between the western Allies and the USSR was one of convenience. Germany was the belligerent party. The Nazi regime was the target to be taken out. The Cold War followed.

Oh, wait you were Jewish, now I remember.

No, I wasn't. It seems you need to ascribe characteristics to your opponents because you can't deal with the fact that you're wrong.

They were not 'allies'. Having a non-agression agreement does not mean you are an ally.

They were allies. They divided up Poland between them. The Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was the very definition of an alliance.

Oh really? Did France and the UK plan an attack on the USSR? Fascinating.

Not to my knowledge, no. If you think that's what I wrote, perhaps it's your poor grasp of the English language acting up.

Maybe it is time for you to go to bed and get some rest. Believe me, you need it!

I do need it, but my brain still works better than yours, apparently.

Again, France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Yep, just like they said they would if Hitler attacked Poland. Hitler attacked Poland anyway. He needed the USSR to stay out of any war with the western Allies until he could mop them up.

With the invasion of Norway by Britain and France they acted upon their war declaration and Germany was forced to react to avoid being cut off from vital iron supplies, which was the intention of the invasion of Britain and France.

Complete and utter falsehood. Britain and France never invaded Norway, as you have been shown earlier. They planned to, but Germany beat them to it. You repeating such an obvious falsehood is tantamount to lying on your part.

Wrong. Stalin was caught by surprise; his entire army was designed for attack, not defense.

True, Stalin was caught by surprise, and his forces were offensive. This doesn't change the fact that they were sorely inadequate to meet anything coming at them after Stalin's purges. Even Finland was a match for them.

Germany struck first while large parts of the Soviet army was still in the train on their way to the front.

No, Germany struck when the Soviet army was sorely unprepared, untrained and poorly led.

 

[9/11-investigator]

God, I am beginning to think that Nein 11 is trying to shill for the upcoming remake of "Red Dawn" with this "Fall Of America" BS.

I am far from the only one who expects a breakup of the country. In libertarian circles they are discussing this topic on a daily basis. Buchanan speculated about it.

Ah wait, all Nazis.

 

[uke2se]

By the way, Nein11, who forced wittle ol' Nazi Germany to invade the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece?

Did the British and French invade those countries as well?

 

[uke2se]

I am far from the only one who expects a breakup of the country. In libertarian circles they are discussing this topic on a daily basis. Buchanan speculated about it.

Ah wait, all Nazis.

Pat Buchanan is about as Nazi as you get without openly peddling racial profiling. Don't even get me started about those poor deluded libertards.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Complete and utter falsehood. Britain and France never invaded Norway, as you have been shown earlier. They planned to, but Germany beat them to it. You repeating such an obvious falsehood is tantamount to lying on your part.

You obviously have not a clue what you are talking about:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Preemptive-War-Historys-Operations/dp/1932033920/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3
Book 2008, written by a Henrik Lunde (must be Norwegian).

After Hitler conquered Poland, and while still fine-tuning his plans against France, the British began to exert control of the coastline of neutral Norway, an action that threatened to cut off Germany s iron-ore conduit to Sweden and outflank from the start its hegemony on the Continent. The Germans quickly responded with a dizzying series of assaults, using every tool of modern warfare developed in the previous generation. Airlifted infantry, mountain troops and paratroopers were dispatched to the Scandinavian nation, seizing Norwegian strong points while forestalling larger but more cumbersome Allied units. The German navy also set sail, taking a brutal beating at the hands of Britannia, while ensuring with its sacrifice that key harbors could be held open for resupply. As dive bombers soared overhead, small but elite German units traversed forbidding terrain to ambush Allied units trying to forge inland. At Narvik, some 6,000 German troops battled 20,000 French and British, until the Allies were finally forced to withdraw by the great disaster in France, which had then get underway. As a veritable coda to the campaign, the aircraft carrier Glorious, while trying to sail back to Britain, was hammered under the waves by the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst. The air, airborne, sea, amphibious, infantry, armour and commando aspects of this brief but violent campaign are here covered in meticulous detail.

 

[9/11-investigator]

By the way, Nein11, who forced wittle ol' Nazi Germany to invade the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Greece?

Did the British and French invade those countries as well?

The British expedition force that invaded Belgium in 1914 was the cause of the failure of the Schlieffenplan. hence the invasion of Holland and Belgium.

Look, this was a European war between major European powers. We are not going to whine about little countries standing in the way.

 

[uke2se]

You obviously have not a clue what you are talking about:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Preemptive-War-Historys-Operations/dp/1932033920/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3
Book 2008, written by a Henrik Lunde (must be Norwegian).

You obviously have not a clue what you are talking about.

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

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

In central Norway, the campaign was centered on Åndalsnes and Namsos (see Battle of Åndalsnes and Namsos Campaign). British bases were established at those two ports very soon after the German invasion. However, in the face of German air superiority, it proved impossible to maintain forces there. After penetrating into the valley of Gudbrandsdal, British forces were withdrawn from central Norway in early May.

Now, please stop lying about this. Germany invaded Norway. Not the British. Not the French. Germany. Denying history isn't going to work.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Pat Buchanan is about as Nazi as you get without openly peddling racial profiling.

No problem with being compared with Buchanan. Calling him a Nazi makes you a fool.

Not sure what you mean with 'racial profiling'. I am against mass immigration, which is a majority position in Europe and America. Only haters of European civilization like you would advocate bringing endless numbers of third worlders in.

 

[uke2se]

The British expedition force that invaded Belgium in 1914 was the cause of the failure of the Schlieffenplan. hence the invasion of Holland and Belgium.

Yes. Holland and Belgium was brutally invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany to circumvent the British and French defenses. Good to see you admit it.

Look, this was a European war between major European powers. We are not going to whine about little countries standing in the way.

Lol.

I'm sure the Czechs, Greeks, Luxembourgians, Belgians and people of former Yugoslavia are terribly amused by the little Dutch neo-Nazi telling them not to whine about their nations being brutally invaded.

By the way, what way were the German armies going if Yugoslavia and Greece were in the way?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Now, please stop lying about this. Germany invaded Norway. Not the British. Not the French. Germany. Denying history isn't going to work.

They all invaded, but the British and French planned first, but were incompetent in carrying it out. Have a look at this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Preemptive-War-Historys-Operations/dp/1932033920/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3

the British began to exert control of the coastline of neutral Norway, an action that threatened to cut off Germany s iron-ore conduit to Sweden and outflank from the start its hegemony on the Continent. The Germans quickly responded with a dizzying series of assaults, using every tool of modern warfare developed in the previous generation. Airlifted infantry, mountain troops and paratroopers were dispatched to the Scandinavian nation, seizing Norwegian strong points while forestalling larger but more cumbersome Allied units. The German navy also set sail, taking a brutal beating at the hands of Britannia, while ensuring with its sacrifice that key harbors could be held open for resupply. As dive bombers soared overhead, small but elite German units traversed forbidding terrain to ambush Allied units trying to forge inland. At Narvik, some 6,000 German troops battled 20,000 French and British, until the Allies were finally forced to withdraw by the great disaster in France, which had then get underway. As a veritable coda to the campaign, the aircraft carrier Glorious, while trying to sail back to Britain, was hammered under the waves by the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst. The air, airborne, sea, amphibious, infantry, armour and commando aspects of this brief but violent campaign are here covered in meticulous detail.

 

[uke2se]

No problem with being compared with Buchanan. Calling him a Nazi makes you a fool.

Good thing I didn't call him a Nazi then. I likened him to a Nazi.

Not sure what you mean with 'racial profiling'.

Maybe you should read some history books.

I am against mass immigration, which is a majority position in Europe and America.

Prove it. Note that one poll isn't proof. You need to provide several proper polls from each country to prove your case. Tough, but then your assertion was mighty large in scope.

Only haters of European civilization like you would advocate bringing endless numbers of third worlders in.

I love European civilization. I enjoy the benefits of multiculturalism. I dislike petty haters like you and your ilk.

 

[uke2se]

They all invaded, but the British French planned first, but were incompetent in carrying it out. Have a look at this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Preemptive-War-Historys-Operations/dp/1932033920/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3

You keep linking to that quote despite me having disproved your silly assertion already.

Once again:

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

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

British troops were landed in Norway after the German invasion. The Allied plans to occupy Norway were never implemented. The German invasion made all further speculation moot.

Now, will you please stop lying? It's making you look dumb(er).

ETA: Why is it so important to you for Germany to not have invaded Norway anyway? Isn't Norway just another little country that was in the way, like you said Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia and Greece were?

 

[Tolls]

Do you admit that the 2 aircraft carriers were send away from PH?

Yes, as I said earlier. Do you know what, for example, Enterprise was doing?

Taking fighters to Wake to help defend against a possible Japanese attack there. An attack which occured 2 weeks after Pearl.

How about Lexington (the other carrier)? It was transporting fighters to Midway. You know Midway. The place that was attacked 6 months after Pearl.

In other words the carriers were performing the role they had been doing for the previous few months, of providing fighters to vulnerable US outposts.

So...do you admit that the US forces inthe Pacific were put on war alert some 10 days prior to the attack?

 

[9/11-investigator]

You keep linking to that quote despite me having disproved your silly assertion already.

Once again:

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

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

British troops were landed in Norway after the German invasion. The Allied plans to occupy Norway were never implemented. The German invasion made all further speculation moot.

Now, will you please stop lying? It's making you look dumb(er).

You are a stubborn fellow, aren't you. The issue is not who landed where first, the issue is who started hostilities. Here is yet another book about the Norwegian campaign:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/112982.Norway_1940

Norway 1940 (World War II)
by François Kersaudy

In the late 1930s, as Europe moved toward war, the peaceful kingdom of Norway found itself strategically vital to the interests of Germany, France and Great Britain. Though Norway was strictly neutral, in April 1940 Britain and France mined Norwegian territorial waters to prevent supplies from reaching Germany. Immediately, the German Reich invaded the militarily weak Norway. Norway 1940 shows the country fighting valiantly, assisted by the Allies in a two-month campaign that has become a textbook example of confused aims and faulty coordination. François Kersaudy delved deeply into the archives of the nations involved to offer the most balanced account to date. He depicts the glaring political and military errors of the campaign and goes on to consider large questions about its conduct and consequences

From the Amazon site about the same book:

This is an excellent overview of the British, French, German and Norwegian war campaigns in Norway in the spring of 1940. This remarkable campaign began with the British and French trying to cut off Axis iron ore supplies, which in winter came from Sweden through Norway to Germany, and ended with a decisive German victory. It is an amazing study of military incompetence on the part of Norway, Britain and France, and substantial competence on the part of the Germans.

And unsurprisingly the British (basically another word for incompetence) did not look good:

The initial planning for the campaign by the British was astonishingly amateurish. The political leadership both micromanaged and failed to make major decisions simultaneously... This was a campaign in which the British resolutely refused to trust or listen to the Norwegians. Their generals operated with tourist maps, and the communications were so bad that the unified commander was actually in London because no place in Norway could reliably communicate with any place else.

British, in essence, are useful for bringing in barbarians like Soviets and Americans into Europe, mass killing of innocent woman and children and losing football matches but not much else. WW2 was a war between Germany and Russia, the rest was a side show.

 

[Hans]

The plan for Operation Wilfred called for three groups of ships. Force WS was the most southerly. It was to consist of the Teviot Bank and four destroyers and would lay mines off Stadtlandet, the most westerly area of the Norwegian mainland. Close to the north would be Force WB, consisting of two destroyers. This force would pretend to lay a minefield off Bud. Finally, Force WV, consisting of four mine laying destroyers and four destroyer escorts would lay mines in Vestfjord, the channel of water that leads to Narvik.

These forces were then reinforced with the battlecruiser HMS Renown under Vice-Admiral W. J. Whitworth, to protect the minelayers against Norway’s four coast defence ships, which were believed to be at Narvik. Finally, troops were embarked on cruisers at Rosyth and transport ships were prepared in the Clyde just in case the Germans responded to the British mine laying by attempting to occupy Norwegian ports (this was known as Plan R4).

The actual operation was carried out successfully. The Teviot Bank sailed on 5 April, as did the Renown and her destroyers. On the following day they were joined by Force WV, but the destroyer HMS Glowworm was detached to search for a man who had fallen overboard. Late on 7 April the British naval force approached the Vestfjord, and in the early morning of 8 April the mines were laid.

At that point Operation Wilfred ended, but the British ships at sea were about to become entangled in the German invasion of Norway, which had been set in motion just before the British expedition. HMS Glowworm would be the first British victim of that campaign, clashing fatally with the German cruiser Hipper on 8 April. After all of the dithering about the decision to lay a minefield in Norwegian waters, within two months it would be irrelevant. The German invasion of Norway ended in success after a sometimes chaotic Allied intervention. Once Norway was occupied by the Germans, ships in her coastal waters were no longer protected by her neutrality, and would eventually become the target of a long running campaign of attacks by Coastal Command.

It is sometimes suggested that the German invasion of Norway was launched in response to Operation Wilfred. Although the two operations were indeed first mentioned at about the same time, the German invasion plans were in place well before the British made their move. Detailing planning work had begun in January 1940, the directive authorising the attack had been signed on 7 March, and the invasion date had been set on 2 April. The first German ships left port on 3 April, two days before the Teviot Bank put to sea.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_wilfred.html

Yep 9/11 still lying

Not to forget that the Nazis invaded Denmark at the same time - with no real or planned British attack........yep 9/11 making up stuff
LOL

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes, as I said earlier. Do you know what, for example, Enterprise was doing?

Taking fighters to Wake to help defend against a possible Japanese attack there. An attack which occured 2 weeks after Pearl.

How about Lexington (the other carrier)? It was transporting fighters to Midway. You know Midway. The place that was attacked 6 months after Pearl.

In other words the carriers were performing the role they had been doing for the previous few months, of providing fighters to vulnerable US outposts.

So...do you admit that the US forces inthe Pacific were put on war alert some 10 days prior to the attack?

Do you admit that the Mossad did warn the Americans in 2001 about an impending terrorist attack, but that despite this vague warning, the attack happened anyway (the Mossad knew because they organized the attack themselves)?

Question to you: do you accept that this entry in Stimson's diary is authentic?

25 Nov. - Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary "FDR stated that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next Monday." FDR asked: "the question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

Yes or no?