Who started both World Wars?

[332nd]

Did you ever actually read the book? The book within a book makes it very clear that EngSoc is based on both the Nazi and Soviet models.

Why read the book when you can just Google a synopsis by random people on the web?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Why would you care, therefore, about the Great Purges? Commies killing commies. The point, since you missed it, is that Hitler had racked up rather the body count before 9/39.

This assumes these people never worked, which is an assumption only someone without a soul would make.

You still fail to make your point that Hitler killed more than a few hundred before the war in Poland.

I fail to see what relevance the Iraq War has here.

There is none except that in the light of history the Kristallnacht was a minor event, just like the number of victims in a Bagdad car bomb. Just to give a present day person an idea of the scale of the event of the Kristallnacht.

Ninety Jews killed in one night. Tens of thousands sent to KZs where they would also later die.

I would agree with you that tens of thousands of people died in KZs. Not more.

You get very nasty when you're losing.

Not a single bullet was fired on Kristallnacht. Plenty were fired between January 1933 and August 1939.

I was obviously refering to your 'Nazis marched on Prague' remark as your 'proof' that Natzis did kill big time before the war. They did not.

Because he couldn't beat the British.
You don't read very well, do you?

Molotov admits that there was no way for Hitler to escape the war (imposed on him by the British/French war declaration) other than via defeating Russia. What Molotov does not say of course that Russia was preying on Germany and the rest of Europe all the time itself. But he cannot admit that in his autobiography, now can he? He is the 'good guy', remember? The Soviets were waiting to jump on Europe in 1941 but Germany preempted that. Hitler at least prevented that Western Europe was conquered by these animals, at the cost of millions of Germans lives. We owe at least these Germans a statue. And a rewriting of history to do them justice.

They're not my pals, tiny.

Breach of rule 12 noted: "address the argument not the arguer"

Yes they are. But you are not going to admit that. But you instinctively will defend the Soviets and cheer that they won over Nazi Germany, against all moral justifications.

They both killed millions of innocent people. That's what you won't own up to. That's cowardly.

No, only the commies killed millions in peace time. Millions died indeed during the war by the actions of all parties involved: Soviets, Germans, Allies.

I'm a Jew, you idiot. Why would I ever say that?

Breach of rule 12 noted: "address the argument not the arguer"


I know you are a Jew, and hence your arguments and ideas about the Natzis, WW1 and WW2 and the holocaust. That's fine with me. The battle in the end will be won by arguments, not by references to ethnic/religious identities, but it is always helpful to know from which angle a particular person is battling.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Did you ever actually read the book? The book within a book makes it very clear that EngSoc is based on both the Nazi and Soviet models.

Even if you did read 1984, you obviously did not understand it, because if you had read it you would have noted that more than once the book refers to "Jews, Negroes and South Americans of pure Indian blood" were "found in the highest ranks of the Party".

Unthinkable in Nazi Germany, a Volk based society.

 

[Wroclaw]

You still fail to make your point that Hitler killed more than a few hundred before the war in Poland.

No, I already made that point. You simply deny it. Typical.

There is none except that in the light of history the Kristallnacht was a minor event, just like the number of victims in a Bagdad car bomb. Just to give a present day person an idea of the scale of the event of the Kristallnacht.

Except that of the tens of thousands send to the KZ system immediately following, a great many eventually died.

I would agree with you that tens of thousands of people died in KZs. Not more.

That's an idiotic statement.

I was obviously refering to your 'Nazis marched on Prague' remark as your 'proof' that Natzis did kill big time before the war. They did not.

I still fail to see any kind of moral distinction.

Molotov admits that there was no way for Hitler to escape the war (imposed on him by the British/French war declaration) other than via defeating Russia.

So he makes my point. Thank you.

What Molotov does not say of course that Russia was preying on Germany and the rest of Europe all the time itself. But he cannot admit that in his autobiography, now can he? He is the 'good guy', remember? The Soviets were waiting to jump on Europe in 1941 but Germany preempted that. Hitler at least prevented that Western Europe was conquered by these animals, at the cost of millions of Germans lives. We owe at least these Germans a statue. And a rewriting of history to do them justice.

No, *you* owe the United States a statue for that, because if we hadn't jumped into that war, you'd be speaking Russian today.

You're welcome.

Yes they are. But you are not going to admit that. But you instinctively will defend the Soviets and cheer that they won over Nazi Germany, against all moral justifications.

Yes, I will congratulate anyone who defeated Nazi Schweinhunden.

No, only the commies killed millions in peace time. Millions died indeed during the war by the actions of all parties involved: Soviets, Germans, Allies.

And I still don't see the distinction. The Nazis killed millions of civilians during war. A dead civilian is a dead civilian, no matter when he or she was killed.

Or don't you think so?

Breach of rule 12 noted: "address the argument not the arguer"

Crybaby.

I know you are a Jew, and hence your arguments and ideas about the Natzis, WW1 and WW2 and the holocaust. That's fine with me. The battle in the end will be won by arguments, not by references to ethnic/religious identities, but it is always helpful to know from which angle a particular person is battling.

Seek help!

 

[Wroclaw]

Even if you did read 1984, you obviously did not understand it, because if you had read it you would have noted that more than once the book refers to "Jews, Negroes and South Americans of pure Indian blood" were "found in the highest ranks of the Party".

Unthinkable in Nazi Germany, a Volk based society.

So because one aspect of Nazi Germany, i.e., racism, was not adopted into EngSoc, then the model must be Soviet Communism, eh?

Tell you what: Read the torture sequence before Winston is sent to Room 101. Read O'Brien's words about EngSoc's precedents.

Don't pretend you've read books you haven't read.

By the way, Orwell was a socialist.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Here is a map of Poland of 1764:

http://www.wawrzak.org/images/polska_1764_duza.jpg

Note that Poland bordered Kiev!
And encompassed Minsk, Vilnius, Riga and parts of Hungary. In 1660 it even bordered the Crimea!
They lost it all after the Napoleontic era, when Prussia and Russia were the victors and redrew the map. It was this map that the 'poor little peaceloving' Poles of 1939 had not forgotten. But in their vast underestimation of the Germans as well as as insane belief in Anglos-keeping-their-word, they gave the Germans the finger over the Danzig issue and started to persecute the Germans living in Poland according to the Versailles shotgun 'treaty'. At the start of the war 80,000 German refugees from Poland were living in baracks in Germany and many killed in Poland. this was what triggered the attack, where Poland started with mobilisations. Here the real story. But things are slowly changing, as recent statements from high-ranking Russians have shown, talking about modest demands by Germany.

Mind you, I do not 'denie the right of Poland to exist'. There hardly is a moral right to exist. The rule of life is: if you don't fight you lose your right to exist.

Just like the British, Prussians and Russians were the victors in Waterloo, so were the Jews in Nuremberg. They now own the US and as a consequence we Europeans in the US and Europe are all 1900-Poles now. Harmless looking non-discrimination laws are in place almost everywhere in whitelands, meaning that with one stroke of a pen our nations effectively have been abolished. Here in Holland for instance article 1 in our constitution (about 'non-discrimination') was introduced by the Jewish communist Joop Wolf. We Europeans are considerated the 'cancer of history', as Jewess Susan Sontag once put it. Or as the Jew Noel Ignatiev of the site http://racetraitor.org/ puts it: "RACE TRAITOR - treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity". That's how most of them think of us. Most will not admit it, as they are not sure yet whether their program of the Final Solution of the White Race will succeed. And it will not. The West, the powerbase of the Jews, will not survive this decade. This is very bad news for people addicted to the comfortable western life style but it is going to be very good for the chances of our survival, since it will kill off globalism, the biggest threat for the white biosphere. Life is going to be tight, with increased competition for resources, and decreased possibilities for the non-discriminatory state for 'handouts', leading to increased tribalism and ethnic conflict. What happened between Germans and Poles in Poland will happen everywhere in the West, since ethnicity is the true bases of any stable society. That is what history teaches us.

 

[Rich_C]

Here is a map of Poland of 1764:

http://www.wawrzak.org/images/polska_1764_duza.jpg

Note that Poland bordered Kiev!
And encompassed Minsk, Vilnius, Riga and parts of Hungary.

Why is this relevant?

It's not news. Anyone who's studied a little pre-Napoleonic European history would know this.

Turkey once included most of the Balkans. Should we be worried they will invade Europe?

 

[9/11-investigator]

So because one aspect of Nazi Germany, i.e., racism, was not adopted into EngSoc, then the model must be Soviet Communism, eh?

Exactly. Both Nazism and Bolshevism were totalitarian, but the first was limited to the German Volk where the second had planetary designs. The second was by far more repressive. The Germans wanted to kick foreigners out (in 1933 meaning Jews) and wanted to be left alone:

War propaganda has obscured the true facts of history, otherwise Americans might realize that the German record is no more aggressive, if as aggressive, as that of the French, British and Dutch who conquered huge empires in Asia and Africa while the Germans stayed at home composing music, studying philosophy, and listening to their poets. Not so long ago the Germans were, in fact, among the most 'peace-loving' peoples of the world and might become so again, given a world in which it is possible to live in peace.

Tell you what: Read the torture sequence before Winston is sent to Room 101. Read O'Brien's words about EngSoc's precedents.
Don't pretend you've read books you haven't read.

I read it in secundary school, decades ago. I hated it.

By the way, Orwell was a socialist.

So was Hitler.

 

[Wroclaw]

Both Nazism and Bolshevism were totalitarian.

True.

But the first was limited to the German Volk where the second had planetary designs.

Really? Then why invade Poland? Why invade the Balkans? Why invade Ukraine and the Baltics?

No, National Socialism had Europe-wide designs.

The second was by far more repressive.

They were both highly repressive, albeit in marginally different ways. Only National Socialism was racist.

The Germans wanted to kick foreigners out (in 1933 meaning Jews) and wanted to be left alone:

Really? Then why invade Greece? Why invade Italy? Why invade Hungary?

I read it in secundary school, decades ago. I hated it.

So you're quoting a book you read "decades ago" that you didn't like and you expect me to believe you when you cite this book, a book which I've read at least a dozen times?

Please...

So was Hitler.

No, he wasn't.

Remember, the Strasser brothers had criticized Hitler as "too much national, not enough socialist." Remember also that he largely liquidated the SA because of Röhm's demands concerning socialization of the military. Finally, remember that he allied himself with the industrialists, e.g., Ferdinand Porsche.

No, Hitler ran a bourgeois party. The Strassers might have been able to claim they were socialists, but Hitler was merely an adherent to the "socialism of fools."

 

[Tolls]

They lost it all after the Napoleontic era, when Prussia and Russia were the victors and redrew the map.

Just like the British, Prussians and Russians were the victors in Waterloo...

Good lord, is there no aspect of history that you know nothing about but are still happy to pontificate on?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Really? Then why invade Poland?

In order the stop the persecution of the Germans living in Poland and take Danzig back, the Polish army had to be smashed. After he had done that Hitler proposed numerous peace offers that all contained a resurrection of the Polish state. But schools in the west never teach about German peace offers because that is detrimental for the evil-Germans-wanter-to-conquor-ze-world balony.

Why invade the Balkans?

They were forced to invade the Balkans because the British were busy opening a front in the 'soft underbelly of Europe': Greece + Balkans, together with the Turks and the Soviets. The anti-German coup in Belgrade was engineered by British, Soviets and Americans (William Donovan, special envoy of Roosevelt). Already the Soviets were building an alliance with Britain, via ambassador Cripps.

Why invade Ukraine and the Baltics?

To counter a Soviet attack that was immanent. Basically Suvurow, with that distinction that the war was already planned after the November 1940 meeting with Molotov in Berlin, where Molotov ice cold told Hitler that the Pact had been 'exhausted' and that he wanted Soviet sphere of influence extended to all Eastern-Europe, except German lands. He wanted even Soviet bases in Denmark and Turkey!!

No, National Socialism had Europe-wide designs.

Wrong. Bolshevism had European, nay global designs. So had British imperialism. Germany was confronted with opponents from all sides, a European scale conflict was imposed upon them. Exactly what Robert Jackson find out after he studied German archives:

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I really think that this trial, if it should get into an argument over the political and economic causes of this war, could do infinite harm, both in Europe, which I don't know well, and in America, which I know fairly well. If we should have a prolonged controversy over whether Germany invaded Norway a few jumps ahead of a British invasion of Norway, or whether France in declaring war was the real aggressor, this trial can do infinite harm for those countries with the people of the United States. And the same is true of our Russian relationships. The Germans will certainly accuse all three of our European Allies of adopting policies which forced them to war. The reason I Say that is that captured documents which we have always made that claim-that Germany would be forced into war. They admit they were planning war, but the captured documents of the Foreign Office that I have examined all come down to the claim, "We have no way out; we must fight; we are encircled; we are being strangled to death." Now, if the question comes up, what is a judge to do about it I would say that, before one is judged guilty of being an aggressor, we must not only let him deny it, but say we will hear his case. I am quite sure a British or American judge would say to a defendant, "You may prove your claim", unless we had something like this which says, "No political, military, or other considerations excuse going to war". In other words, states have got to settle their grievances peacefully. I am afraid there is great risk in omitting this, and I see no risk in putting it in. It may be criticized, but I see no such risk in putting it in as in leaving it out. We did not think it necessary originally, but more recently we have.

They were both highly repressive, albeit in marginally different ways. Only National Socialism was racist.

Yeah, and the Bolsheviks hated everybody who was not miserable.

Really? Then why invade Greece? Why invade Italy? Why invade Hungary?

As explained above.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Good lord, is there no aspect of history that you know nothing about but are still happy to pontificate on?

Yeah, yeah, Russia did mobilize for the event, but you see, it was a rather long walk from Russia so they entered the show when it was already over. Nevertheless, their troops reached Paris in time to declare themselves victors and divide Poland between them and Prussia. That was the point.

And you probably looked that up yourself, didn't you?

 

[Wroclaw]

Yeah, yeah, Russia did mobilize for the event, but you see, it was a rather long walk from Russia so they entered the show when it was already over. Nevertheless, their troops reached Paris in time to declare themselves victors and divide Poland between them and Prussia. That was the point.

And you probably looked that up yourself, didn't you?

You're aware that Waterloo was in 1815, right?

 

[Wroclaw]

In order the stop the persecution of the Germans living in Poland and take Danzig back, the Polish army had to be smashed.

And two-thirds of the country occupied and then the other third occupied two years later?

After he had done that Hitler proposed numerous peace offers that all contained a resurrection of the Polish state.

Your word is worth nothing here. Please cite a source.

But schools in the west never teach about German peace offers because that is detrimental for the evil-Germans-wanter-to-conquor-ze-world balony.

Blah, blah, blah...

They were forced to invade the Balkans because the British were busy opening a front in the 'soft underbelly of Europe': Greece + Balkans, together with the Turks and the Soviets.

The Turks were neutral, laughing-boy.

But why were the British going to invade Italy? Could it be because Italy was Germany's ally and had violated the sovereignty of several nations?

The anti-German coup in Belgrade was engineered by British, Soviets and Americans (William Donovan, special envoy of Roosevelt). Already the Soviets were building an alliance with Britain, via ambassador Cripps.

Sources...

To counter a Soviet attack that was immanent.

Not buying it.

Basically Suvurow, with that distinction that the war was already planned after the November 1940 meeting with Molotov in Berlin, where Molotov ice cold told Hitler that the Pact had been 'exhausted' and that he wanted Soviet sphere of influence extended to all Eastern-Europe, except German lands. He wanted even Soviet bases in Denmark and Turkey!!

Oh, my golly gee! And Hitler wanted bases in Denmark also!

Why is Hitler's claim for the same thing at Molotov acceptable to you but Molotov's request not acceptable?

Wrong. Bolshevism had European, nay global designs. So had British imperialism. Germany was confronted with opponents from all sides, a European scale conflict was imposed upon them. Exactly what Robert Jackson find out after he studied German archives:

Yawn...

Yeah, and the Bolsheviks hated everybody who was not miserable.

Your point being?

As explained above.

You have several sources to cite. Get to work.

 

[9/11-investigator]

And two-thirds of the country occupied and then the other third occupied two years later?

Yep. You 'forget' to note that the Soviets invaded the other part at the same time and more important they invaded and occupied Poland for another 45 years or so. But you see, comrade 'Wroclaw' does not give a damn about the Poles, only about German 'Schweinhunden' and their unforgivable need to not want to live under the Jewish boot, like the Russians had to.

Your word is worth nothing here. Please cite a source.

Working on it, here a preview:
http://20thcentury-blog.blogspot.com/2011/02/stefan-scheil-194041-die-eskalation-des.html

Blah, blah, blah...

Kindergarten response.

The Turks were neutral, laughing-boy.

Breach of rule 12, address the argument, not the arguer.
(that's number 4 today). Note to lurkers: I only need to do that myself and immediately LashL or another mod will rush to give me a yellow card. Never mind, all honkeydorey.

But why were the British going to invade Italy? Could it be because Italy was Germany's ally and had violated the sovereignty of several nations?

Wow, you figured that all out by yourself? Chapeau!

Oh, my golly gee! And Hitler wanted bases in Denmark also!

Yep, that is what you get if France and Britain declare war: a war on European scale.

Why is Hitler's claim for the same thing at Molotov acceptable to you but Molotov's request not acceptable?

You think that Soviet bases in Scotland is acceptable for the English?
The invasion of Denmark and Norway and the rest of Western-Europe was triggered by the France and British wer declaration, inspired by their wish to roll back Germany into Versailles straight jacket. And Soviets and Americans were smiling at a distance, because they knew they could icebreaker themselves into Europe and conquor the lot.

Yawn...

Wroclaw has clearly nothing to say to the observation about the admittance of Nuremberg chieftain Robert Jackson that he could not make a case against Germany after studying their archives. No problem for the lying Anglos + Soviets: just produce a list of things that are forbidden to be discussed at forehand. Anglo + Soviet 'justice' in action. Wroclaw understands very well that Jackson's confessions are dynamite under the alllied case. I am really surprised that these confessions were not editted out of the proceedings.

 

[dudalb]

Good lord, is there no aspect of history that you know nothing about but are still happy to pontificate on?

The Russians were at Waterloo???????????????????

 

[dafydd]

The Russians were at Waterloo? That's the best one yet from our Dutch Hitler hugger. I live on the Dutch/Belgian border and a lot of Dutch people send their kids to school in Belgium because the Dutch education system is perceived to be inferior. I didn't know it was this bad.

 

[dudalb]

And two-thirds of the country occupied and then the other third occupied two years later?



Your word is worth nothing here. Please cite a source.



Blah, blah, blah...



The Turks were neutral, laughing-boy.

But why were the British going to invade Italy? Could it be because Italy was Germany's ally and had violated the sovereignty of several nations?



Sources...



Not buying it.



Oh, my golly gee! And Hitler wanted bases in Denmark also!

Why is Hitler's claim for the same thing at Molotov acceptable to you but Molotov's request not acceptable?



Yawn...



Your point being?



You have several sources to cite. Get to work.

I see the The Lying Dutchman has never heard of The Germans plan to basically mass deport and/or kill a few million Poles to make Western Poland open to German settlement. And actual deportations did take place in the "Warthgau", the German name for a good hunk of Western Poland, land which had always been predomintely Polish.

 

[dudalb]

The Russians were at Waterloo? That's the best one yet from our Dutch Hitler hugger. I live on the Dutch/Belgian border and a lot of Dutch people send their kids to school in Belgium because the Dutch education system is perceived to be inferior. I didn't know it was this bad.

Now if he said the Russians MADE Waterloo he would be right. The director of the 1970 Waterloo film was Sergai Bordnchunk of "War and Peace" fame.......

 

[dafydd]

I see the The Lying Dutchman has never heard of The Germans plan to basically mass deport and/or kill a few million Poles to make Western Poland open to German settlement. And actual deportations did take place in the "Warthgau", the German name for a good hunk of Western Poland, land which had always been predomintely Polish.

He gets all his information from Ja(Mein Fuhrer)Tube.