Who started both World Wars?

[TSR]

And I have pointed out here that Hitler already knew that war was inevitable after Molotov's visit to Berlin in November 1940 and started preparing for this eventuality.

.
Great! Then you'll be able to point the exact page in any of these links that indicate where such knowledge is to be found or even deduced.

Hint: you'll have to actually *read* them, because none of your denier buddies will be able to spoon feed it to you.

Second hint: That's because it's not there.
.

I expect that the last remaining revelation about WW2 will be that Roosevelt and Stalin conspired, uhh sorry... worked towards this goal as early as 1933, via William Bullitt.

.
But then, you also expect that your ignorance of history will be overlooked.

I once again recommend that you actually *review* your sources *before* posting them, and not just take some other hater's word for it. Neither support your contention of any collusion between Roosevelt and Stalin. In fact, the very first para in your second link explicitly states that the Bullitt memoranda I assume you're referring to were *ignored* by Roosevelt.

And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why? Do you even know who Cordell Hull was? If you had actually read your citation you would know, but of course you didn't, so you don't.
.

 

[MG1962]

I have a couple of questions

We know the name of the German operation to invade the Soviet Union. What was the name the Soviets gave to their plan three weeks later

I am struggling to find reference by Hitler public or private of where his knowledge of the impending attack came from, or when and how when he learned of the attack

The Germans faced a tank force 7 times their own. Yet managed inspite of this to advance to the suburbs of Moscow, attack Stalingrad and lay seige to Lenigrad..how?

 

[9/11-investigator]

FSM save me from a person with only one book.

Your are talking about me or Suvorow?

In case of the latter:

THE LIBERATORS
INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY
SOVIET MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
AQUARIUM
SPETSNAZ

 

[TSR]

Your are talking about me or Suvorow?

In case of the latter:

THE LIBERATORS
INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY
SOVIET MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
AQUARIUM
SPETSNAZ

.
None of which you have read.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong, cite a passage from any of these which supports your crap, along with the edition and page number.

And it obvious to any rational person that this was a reference to *you*, but I'll have to take exception to the post you responded to: 9/11 doesn't even have *one* book from a real historian about this era.
.

 

[MG1962]

.
None of which you have read.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong, cite a passage from any of these which supports your crap, along with the edition and page number.

And it obvious to any rational person that this was a reference to *you*, but I'll have to take exception to the post you responded to: 9/11 doesn't even have *one* book from a real historian about this era.
.

He has not pumped out much in the way of original thought either. Pretty much everything he has typed here as his own words comes from Mein Kampf

 

[9/11-investigator]

FSM save me from a person with only one book.

Your are talking about me or Suvorow?

In case of the latter:

THE LIBERATORS
INSIDE THE SOVIET ARMY
SOVIET MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
AQUARIUM
SPETSNAZ

 

[9/11-investigator]

I have a couple of questions

We know the name of the German operation to invade the Soviet Union. What was the name the Soviets gave to their plan three weeks later

That's a smart constructive question. Because of it I spent some time going through my copy of Icebreaker.pdf, but could not find anything. That's a pity, because if it was there the matter would have been solved. My guess would be that it were the technocratic and highly modern Germans who started to give names to military operations (Barbarossa, Sealion), a habit the Americans copied (Northwoods, Desert, Storm, Enduring Freedom). The first operation name I am aware of is the Schlieffen Plan. I doubt if Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Moltke gave similar names to their endeavours. Likely the Soviets did neither.

I am struggling to find reference by Hitler public or private of where his knowledge of the impending attack came from, or when and how when he learned of the attack

In Icebreaker Suvurow writes in chapter 31:

On 17 June 1945, a group of Soviet military investigators were interrogating some senior Nazi military leaders. In the course of his interrogation, Field-Marshal Keitel maintained that all the preparatory measures we took before spring 1941 were defensive measures against the contingency of a possible attack by the Red Army. Thus the entire war in the East, to a known degree, may be termed a preventive war . . . We decided ...to forestall an attack by Soviet Russia and to destroy its armed forces with
a surprise attack. By spring 1941, I had formed the definite opinion that the heavy buildup of Russian troops, and their attack on Germany which would follow, would place us, in both economic and strategic terms, in an exceptionally critical situation . . . Our attack was the immediate consequence of this threat . .
.
Colonel-General Alfred Jodl, the main author of the German military plans, adopted the same stance. The Soviet investigators did their best to force Keitel and Jodl out of their postures, but did not succeed. Keitel and Jodl did not change their testimony and, along with the principal war criminals, were sentenced to be hanged by the international tribunal at Nuremberg.

It must have been military intelligence gathered in the field that gave them their convinction.

The Germans faced a tank force 7 times their own. Yet managed inspite of this to advance to the suburbs of Moscow, attack Stalingrad and lay seige to Lenigrad..how?

The real answer to that question is a no-no on this German=Russian=African=Woman=Tulip Bulp forum. I would not dare to formulate an answer to that question.

 

[VonKleist]

. . . . The first operation name I am aware of is the Schlieffen Plan. I doubt if Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Moltke gave similar names to their endeavours. Likely the Soviets did neither.

Polar Star, Bagration, Colonel Rumyantsev, Uranus, Star, Iskra (spark), Saturn, Kutuzov, Mars. . . .

 

[Shangrila]

"Schlieffen Plan" is an operational name now?

Just for general informational purposes, Germany did introduce operational naming in its modern form, but in the later half of WWI and in an effort to bolster morale as it was losing the war with grandiose names rather than the previous alphanumeric or descriptive designations used by all powers, Operation Michael for instance.

 

[SanityGap]

From Neine's Wikipedia source;

"Anyway, even Gaullists always believed that the relationship to the United States was in general the most important".

Ooops.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I think that de Gaulle, the leader of the free french in their struggle against Hitler, would take offence in you using his name to describe your opnions. I think he would be very offended.

Did you really register on this forum just to tell me that!?

De Gaulle has been my only hero from WW2.

I do not think that de Gaulle was offended at all, since I think exactly like him:

- he wanted a l'Europe des patries, including Russia. Check
- he did not want any Anglo presence in Europe and UK out of EEC. Check
- never refered to the holocaust in his memoires. Check
- described France as white and catholic. Check
- was not very fond of Jews. Check
- saw Islam as the greatest danger to Europe. Check

Here is a description of ultra-lefties of de Gaulle. Probably matches your attitude:

http://www.de-gaulle.info/citations.shtml

"Charles de Gaulle le Grand criminel"

Citations:

- Les communistes russes sont des traîtres à la race blanche. Un jour, ils redeviendront solidaires de l’Europe.
- Je n’aime pas les youpins. (I do not like kikes.)
- Voulez-vous être bougnoulisés ? Voyons, Dronne! Donneriez-vous votre fille à marier à un b@#*+*#@
- Et puis, Delbecque, vous nous voyez mélangés à des Musulmans? Ce sont des gens différents de nous. Vous nous voyez mariant nos filles avec des Arabes?
- Evidemment, lorsque la monarchie ou l’empire réunissait à la France l’Alsace, la Lorraine, la Franche-Comté, le Roussillon, la Savoie, le pays de Gex ou le Comté de Nice, on restait entre Blancs, entre Européens, entre chrétiens
- Les Arabes, ce n’est rien. Jamais on n’a vu des Arabes construire des routes, des barrages, des usines»… « Ce sont d’habiles politiques. Ils sont habiles comme des mendiant
- Nous sommes quand même avant tout un peuple européen de race blanche, de culture grecque et latine, et de religion chrétienne. Essayez d’intégrer de l’huile et du vinaigre. Agitez la bouteille. Au bout d’un moment, ils se sépareront de nouveau. Les Arabes sont les Arabes, les Français sont les Français. Vous croyez que le corps français peut absorber dix millions de musulmans, qui demain seront peut-être vingt millions et après-demain quarante ?

Do I really need to convince you that grand Charles is my kinda guy?

De Gaulle stood for a European Europe without Soviet and Anglo predators. The USSR is gone and the European remnants will be incorporated into the white European world. Anglo-sphere is next to bite the dust. 750 million Eurasian whites, nuclear armed to the teeth, against 180 million white Americans, a majority of who deep in their hearts would love to be part of the old European world. And I can assure you we will have the very racialist Chinese on our side as well, certainly when we Europeans give them the nod to take Australia to alleviate their overpopulation problem. It is a bunch of American neo-Bolsheviks lead by American Jews, against the rest of the world + internet. Let's see who is going to win that fight. Gonna be a walk-over. You already lost before the war began. But there will be no armed American-European conflict. It is much more likely America will be drawn into a fight with China over either Korea or Taiwan. And will find out the hard way that fleets in the 21th century don't matter anymore in warfare between great powers with nuclear tipped MACH-10 missiles around. But lesser minds will always fight the last war.

This symbol for Europe thrilled me since my student days, when I was politically involved in European unification process organized around the Paris-Berlin axis and I remain committed to that process until this very day. The holocaust thread and this WW thread and subsequent morphing into blogs are my contribution to the resurrection of Europe after 20th century Anglo/Soviet destruction.

 

[uke2se]

From Neine's Wikipedia source;

"Anyway, even Gaullists always believed that the relationship to the United States was in general the most important".

Ooops.

Yet another reason why Nein11 really really should read the sources he posts to support his crap. Ooops indeed.

 

[hgus]

Did you really register on this forum just to tell me that!?

No. I have been lurking.

Here is a description of ultra-lefties of de Gaulle. Probably matches your attitude:

"Charles de Gaulle le Grand criminel"

I dont read french so I can't comment on the details. But you are jumping to conclusions. I admire de Gaulle for his role as leader of the free french in WW2. And as I said, I think he would be offended by someone saying he was a Gaullist and thinking Hitler was the good guy in WW2.

De Gaulle stood for a European Europe without Soviet and Anglo predators. The USSR is gone and the(sorry I have to remove urls-Hgus) into the white European world. Anglo-sphere is next to bite the dust. 750 million Eurasian whites, nuclear armed to the teeth, against 180 million white Americans, a majority of who deep in their hearts would love to be part of the old European world. And I can assure you we will have the very racialist Chinese on our side as well, certainly when we Europeans give them the nod to take Australia to alleviate their overpopulation problem. It is a bunch of American neo-Bolsheviks lead by American Jews, against the rest of the world + internet. Let's see who is going to win that fight. Gonna be a walk-over. You already lost before the war began. But there will be no armed American-European conflict. It is much more likely America will be drawn into a fight with China over either Korea or Taiwan. And will find out the hard way that in warfare between great powers with nuclear tipped MACH-10 missiles around. But lesser minds will always fight the last war.

I find your analysis extremely unlikely. A few points:

-Western europe is going to unite with russia against the UK and the USA? Poland, the baltic, the northic countries is and so on is going to unite with their ancient enemy against their present friends? Don't think so.

-Europe is going to drop its pacifist leaning and become warlike again? Highly unlikely.

-It doesnt matter if a nuclear war is a walk-over or not. You still loose.

-I notice that you only count white americans. I guess that in your world colored people can't fight?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yet another reason why Nein11 really really should read the sources he posts to support his crap. Ooops indeed.

I am talking about the real deal: de Gaulle himself, not what some Gaullist follower might have said.

 

[Corsair 115]

the US is spending 50% of the world defense budget and still cannot beat the medieval Taliban. Paper tiger.

If you can't see the difference between fighting an enemy equipped with tanks, APC, artillery, helicopters, fighters, submarines, destroyers, aircraft carriers, and all the other trappings of the military of a modern, industrialized nation, and fighting an enemy consisting of a small, mobile insurgency, and how the force designed and built to fight the former might have some problems fighting the latter, then you are truly beyond hopeless.

I'll simply note your vaunted Third Reich military, for all its strength, had some problems of its own fighting resistance and partisan groups...

 

[uke2se]

I am talking about the real deal: de Gaulle himself, not what some Gaullist follower might have said.

Then maybe you shouldn't have used it as a source. After all, that was the main point: You don't read your sources. You just throw anything in there, in a vain hope it supports your delusions.

 

[Shangrila]

Haha, no comment but to advise you to consider their abismal track record.

Ah yes, the records of the Tuskegee Airmen and the 442nd RCT were indeed abysmal. How could everyone have missed such an obvious fact?

 

[MG1962]

Ah yes, the records of the Tuskegee Airmen and the 442nd RCT were indeed abysmal. How could everyone have missed such an obvious fact?

Isandlwana anyone?

 

[Shangrila]

Isandlwana anyone?

[911]But those were worthless Anglos[/911]

Seriously, though, the British did only lose that one because they were grossly incompetent. No amount of tactical genius could have overcome the firepower disparity when competently utilized, and the Zulu didn't actually display any notable genius at all. My 2 examples though were against 911's beloved Aryan supermen.

 

[MG1962]

[911]But those were worthless Anglos[/911]

Seriously, though, the British did only lose that one because they were grossly incompetent. No amount of tactical genius could have overcome the firepower disparity when competently utilized, and the Zulu didn't actually display any notable genius at all. My 2 examples though were against 911's beloved Aryan supermen.

Oh I totally understand - I was just being lazy finding other examples