Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

The Turks were neutral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#Turkey

Turkey was neutral until several months before the end of the war, at which point it joined the Allies. The president Ismet Inonu did his best to keep Turkey out of the war despite pressure from Nazi Germany and the Western Allies.

That was what I was talking about: the British tried to get the Turks on their side.

Relevant quotes about Balkans, Turkey and the German invasion from Stefan Scheil's book “1940/41 Die Eskalation des Zweiten Weltkriegs”, 2005.

[101]In 1948 Churchill pretended that the expansion of the war to a neutral region was his work: “I wanted Yugoslavia and I hoped for Turkey. Together with Greece it would have brought us 50 divisions, meaning a nice nut for the Germans to crack.”

[104] Yugoslavia... Players: Italy wanted to expand it’s sphere of influence on to the Balkans; Russia had a drive toward the Dardanelles. And then there was Britain that had an alliance with Greece and Turkey and a war guarantee with Rumania similar to the one with Poland. Obviously the British cared as much about Poland as it did about Rumania, just as long as it could be used to harm Germany. The only party who had no interests on the Balkans, except for peace, was Germany… In the secret annex of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany had expressed that it had no interests in the Balkans… Germany had not given any to the USSR either.

[233] Winston Chuchill to the Yugoslav PM on March 22, 1941: “If Yugoslavia and Turkey join with Greece and helps Britain as much as possible, then the Germans can be contained and final victory will be ours, just like last time.”

The USSR had made it clear it would join… deputy foreign minister Vysinskij made it clear to Yugoslav ambassador Gavrilovic, that if Britain would open a Balkanfront, the USSR would join in the war against Germany… This remark by Vysinskij reached Germany, just like the message that Eden had met Soviet ambassador to Ankara Winogradow. Eden had promissed the Turks 250,000 men if they would join Britain in the war against Germany… Also in Turkey together with Eden nobody less than Cripps was present who could inform the Turks first hand about the immanent participation of the USSR in the war against Germany… A very large anti-German coalition was in the making.

Vysinskij later made sure that the Balkans issue was a forbidden topic during the Nuremberg tribunal.

[235] The scenario was obvious: pushed from both sides (London and Moscow) Yugoslavia was supposed to join the Balkan front together with Greece and Turkey.

The German leadership clearly recognized the intentions of the allies: “if we don’t act now, then the entire Balkans including Turkey would slip, this has to be avoided.” (Goebbels, diary April 6, 1941).

[238] William Donovan was in Belgrad (Januari 1941, check this) to bring about the great Balkan constellation against Germany. A few days before the USA had lifted the moral embargo against the USSR, that had been in place as a retalliation for the assault of the USSR on Finland. This was a political signal of the first order: the USSR had became acceptable again as a partner to negotiate with… The western powers were courting the USSR.

At least Wroclaw now slowly will get a clou of what he will be up against, 'armed' as he is with his shabby Spielberg/Hollywood style interpretation of the events of WW2.

 

[Wroclaw]

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.

That's irrelevant to the point under discussion, which is whether NS Germany had aims beyond Danzig.

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.

Blah, blah, blah.

Are you congenitally unable to stay on topic?

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

How about a reputable source?

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

So you admit that the Axis were the aggressors.

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

The mere repetition of a falsehood does not result in truth.

You think that Soviet bases in Scotland is acceptable for the English?

What does that have to do with anything? Stay on topic!

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.

You're officially raving.

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.

I paid no attention as it was not on topic.

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.

Whatever...

You admitted above that the Axis were the aggressors.

 

[Wroclaw]

At least Wroclaw now slowly will get a clou of what he will be up against, 'armed' as he is with his shabby Spielberg/Hollywood style interpretation of the events of WW2.

Wow.

I mean, wow.

You're, like, proud of yourself for having shown precisely nothing.

Amazing.

Tell me: Why do you continue to change the subject? Are you not aware how freaking transparent that is?

 

[Hans]

Hi Wroclaw

He is using a modification of what is known as the 'Gish Gallop', constantly trying to change the subject to avoid responding to evidence that shows he is wrong about the subject. So he mentions subject #1 and then immediately moves to subject 2 without responding to the information on subject #1. I'd suggest you just ignore his attempts to change the subject and get him to admit German attack Poland.

This has worked before when he admitted that Germany attacked Luxembourg because WWII was about major powers and who cared about the little guys anyway!

 

[Tolls]

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?

Nope.
I happen to be quite well read on the subject.
You know, from history books by well regarded authors.

The Hundred Days campaign had nothing to do with the 1815 division of Poland. The Russians only crossed the Rhine after Napoleon had already abdicated. And arrived in Paris 2 weeks after the Prussians had captured it.

Of course, using your link, you could argue they arrive over a year before the Prussians...but then that would imply you had foolishly mistaken the Hundred Days campaign for the 1814 one. And you're not that ill-informed, are you?

 

[Wroclaw]

Hi Wroclaw

He is using a modification of what is known as the 'Gish Gallop', constantly trying to change the subject to avoid responding to evidence that shows he is wrong about the subject. So he mentions subject #1 and then immediately moves to subject 2 without responding to the information on subject #1. I'd suggest you just ignore his attempts to change the subject and get him to admit German attack Poland.

I'll try it. Thanks.

 

[Tolls]

I'll try it. Thanks.

Good luck.
I'm still not sure we got him to admit that Hitler had already got form for going against his word prior to September 1939 so why should anyone believe him over Danzig? And that was waaaay back in the thread.

 

[Wroclaw]

Hey, well, hope springs eternal.

 

[dafydd]

I have the Nazi jongen on ignore. Has he been presenting more facts,like the Russians at Waterloo?

 

[Wroclaw]

Of course. And Waterloo apparently occurring in 1814. Remarkable!

 

[9/11-investigator]

I frankly admit making mistakes regarding the off-topic issue of Napoleon. Since Russia and Prussia had been able to divide Poland between them after the defeat of Napoleon, I had assumed that Russia had participated the battle of Waterloo, without checking that fact (Russian troops were indeed underway but it was quite a walk, they simply were too late). Then I made matters worse by throwing in another link about Russians entering Paris in 1814, indeed before the battle of Waterloo.

It is all off-topic, but I am glad, on humanitarian grounds, that my opponents were able to score a few rare minor points, totally off-topic in this thread.

Congratulations.

Now back on topic, ww2.

While doing research for my blog I encountered this character, Joseph Davies, the 2nd American ambassador to the USSR: Joseph Davies. I was amazed that I could use zionist friendly editted wikipedia for my purpose, namely to show that the Roosevelt government was USSR friendly to a criminal extent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Davies

While Davies' predecessor, William Christian Bullitt, Jr. had been an admirer of the Soviet Union who gradually came to loathe Stalin's brutality and repression, Davies remained unaffected[7] by news of the disappearance of thousands of Russians and foreigners in the Soviet Union throughout his stay as U.S. Ambassador. His reports from the Soviet Union were pragmatic, optimistic, and usually devoid of criticism of Stalin and his policies...

Davies' work in the Soviet Union resulted in his popular book, Mission to Moscow. The book -- published by Simon and Schuster in 1941 which sold close to 700,000 copies world wide in many languages -- consists of letters, diary entries, and Davies’ State Department reports between 1936 and 1938, which Roosevelt agreed for Davies to use.

In 1943, the book was adapted as a Warner Brothers movie in starring Walter Huston as Davies and Ann Harding as his wife Marjorie Post Davies. As part of his book contract, Davies retained absolute control of the script, and his rejection of the original script caused Warner Brothers to hire a new screenwriter, Howard Koch, to rewrite the script in order to gain Davies' approval.[15] The movie, made during World War II, showed the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin in an extremely positive light. Completed in late April 1943, the film was, in the words of Robert Buckner, the film's producer, "an expedient lie for political purposes, glossily covering up important facts with full or partial knowledge of their false presentation[16]...

I did not fully respect Mr. Davies' integrity, both before, during and after the film. I knew that FDR had brainwashed him..."[15]

The movie whitewashed the Moscow trials, rationalized Moscow's participation in the Nazi-Soviet Pact and its unprovoked invasion of Finland, and portrayed the Soviet Union as a non-totalitarian state that was moving towards the American democratic model, a Soviet Union committed to internationalism. As did the book,[17] the final screenplay portrayed the defendants in the Moscow trials as undeniably guilty.

That's the Roosevelt government for you. Even wikipedia admits that this government completely whitewashed the Soviets.

It is not difficult that they extended their practises in Nuremberg, that was nothing else than one big pack of lies. War guilt, holocaust, you name it.

And it is now all coming into the open. The Jews dominating Washington since the days of Wilson know this very well. Here is a ZOG-bot, the Jew Cass Sunstein trying to undermine the internet, since the internet and free speech is detrimental for his neo-bolshevik mindset of total information control, like in the good old days of the USSR, when the Cass Sunsteins reigned supreme there as well. Too little, too late, old chap. The internet is going to be the backbone of the economy in a resource starved world. Meaning that everybody can exchange information with anybody else on the planet. Including about topics such as 9/11, the holo tale and the world wars, not necessarily in your favor, Cassius.

Boohoo.

 

[TSR]

Because, of course, producer Robert Buckner is well-known expert on brainwashing, and can tell it has occurred simply by looking at someone.

And no, a single movie proves nothing at all about the US government. Nor have you shown a single lie in the judgments at Nuremberg.

We really don't need you to show that you grasp at any straw and twist anything spoon fed you by others of your ilk without even the semblance of a fact check -- we get it already.

 

[Tolls]

It is all off-topic, but I am glad, on humanitarian grounds, that my opponents were able to score a few rare minor points, totally off-topic in this thread.

Well, no. It pretty much sums up the level of knowledge you have because this has been happening throughout this thread even in the area of the two world wars.

Waterloo was just another example...

 

[Hans]

We really don't need you to show that you grasp at any straw and twist anything spoon fed you by others of your ilk without even the semblance of a fact check -- we get it already.

That is the essence of 9/11.....but now he's becoming boring so instead of his putting out nonsense lets ask some questions. Some things to ponder upon:

Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war....

Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

9/11 if you could ask Hitler three questions what would they be?

9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

Feel free to repost

 

[Rich_C]

That is the essence of 9/11.....but now he's becoming boring so instead of his putting out nonsense lets ask some questions. Some things to ponder upon:

Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war....

Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

9/11 if you could ask Hitler three questions what would they be?

9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

Feel free to repost

The last question is the most interesting one. Who does Hitler go after next if Britain and France don't back Poland? IRL it was Denmark and Norway but I don't know if a Germany that isn't at war with Britain would do that. Hungary? Netherlands? Belgium? Switzerland? Does he go after the USSR right away?

 

[Hans]

The last question is the most interesting one. Who does Hitler go after next if Britain and France don't back Poland? IRL it was Denmark and Norway but I don't know if a Germany that isn't at war with Britain would do that. Hungary? Netherlands? Belgium? Switzerland? Does he go after the USSR right away?

Probably continue plan Z to improve the fleet. Use diplomatic methods against the demonstratably weak allies to pressure Luxembourg to join the Reich if not then a 'Anschulss' type maneuver, pressure against Switzerland to cough up its German Cantons, probably working with the Italians who would gain the italian and Rumantsch ones. Pressure on Belgium to give up its German enclaves received in WWI.

A great deal of diplomatic pressure in the Balkans - perhaps help to Italy in its invasion of Greece (if that occured). Working with German ethnic Greek monarchy to make them allies of the Nazis. Bringing Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to heel. Bring Turkey into its camp by offering to restores the lands lost to the Ottoman empire in 1918.

Finally a full scale war against the Soviets in 1944-45

Of course we could have gotten lucky and someone might have poisoned 'da fuhrer' with an arsenic laced vegetarian sausage

 

[Wroclaw]

The last question is the most interesting one. Who does Hitler go after next if Britain and France don't back Poland? IRL it was Denmark and Norway but I don't know if a Germany that isn't at war with Britain would do that.

He would eventually have gone for union of Europe under German rule to include Benelux, Scandinavia, the Baltics, Austria, and traditionally German or Austrian and German-speaking parts of the rest. He'd have kept Poland and Ukraine for farming — perhaps Russia for long-term settlement.

Hungary?

Probably not. It was not a Germanic nation and already had a prominent fascist movement. For this reason, he also probably would not have bothered with Romania either.

Netherlands?

Absolutely. It was a kindred people.

Belgium?

Flanders, yes. Wallonia, perhaps.

Switzerland?

Tough call. He likely would have respected Swiss neutrality in the short term, as he did Swedish neutrality, but eventually he would have wanted both within the Reich for ethnic reasons. Probably he would want the German-speaking sections the most. They could perhaps random their independence with their banking.

Does he go after the USSR right away?

Two possibilities:

(1) He gets the support of the U.K. against the Soviets, and he goes after after finishing with France. I feel strongly he wanted to punish France but not effect a long-term occupation there as with other nations. I'd say he would have gone after it by July 1941. He needs to keep the element of surprise, and the longer he goes without attacking would allow Soviet suspicion to rise to unsafe levels. He possibly wins in this case, which means a Nazi Reich in Europe until at least the 1960s — perhaps even to this day — and the complete obliteration of European Jewry. No remnant to speak of.

(2) He has to go against the Soviets essentially alone, but he isn't fighting a two-front war because of the above conditions. So give it an extra year: July 1942.

Whether he would have won in the USSR is the stickiest question of all. He might have been more willing to hear his generals had things gone different in the first two years, but it's not likely.

Failure to defeat the USSR results in U.S./U.K. interference against Stalin to prevent massive loss of European capital markets — perhaps on Hitler's side. No way to predict how that might have turned out. We (U.S.) would have been unlikely to nuke Russia, and whether we would have baited the Japanese in the manner we did without FDR wanting war in Europe is also highly debatable.

 

[Wroclaw]

Bring Turkey into its camp by offering to restores the lands lost to the Ottoman empire in 1918.

Interesting. Does he promise them Palestine?

Finally a full scale war against the Soviets in 1944-45

Do you think the British join in? If not, then the questions are:

(1) When does he finally lose?

(2) What happens to Palestine?

 

[Rich_C]

Probably not. It was not a Germanic nation and already had a prominent fascist movement. For this reason, he also probably would not have bothered with Romania either.

He has to secure Romania at some point. They control his oil supply. Even Hitler wouldn't attack the USSR with out some guarantee of Romania under control.

Failure to defeat the USSR results in U.S./U.K. interference against Stalin to prevent massive loss of European capital markets — perhaps on Hitler's side. No way to predict how that might have turned out. We (U.S.) would have been unlikely to nuke Russia, and whether we would have baited the Japanese in the manner we did without FDR wanting war in Europe is also highly debatable.

I'm not sure what the Japanese do if there's no war in Europe. They took French Indochina because France was occupied. I don't think they are as aggressive with the French and the British not at war with Germany. They probably just stick to China (for now).

And I don't think I would call not selling to oil to Japan as baiting them for war. I think it was a reasonable response to Japanese aggression.

 

[Hans]

Interesting. Does he promise them Palestine?



Do you think the British join in? If not, then the questions are:

(1) When does he finally lose?

(2) What happens to Palestine?

Of course Al Quds was greatly missed by the Turks, probably offer them back Syria, Lebanon, Jordan etc but that would mean war with France and England.

France and England could probably drive off Turkey or they might give the colonies back as they were a drain of revenue. Might have kept Jerusalem as an international city (if the League of Nations still existed)

And I don't think I would call not selling to oil to Japan as baiting them for war. I think it was a reasonable response to Japanese aggression.

you may look at the time line of when these descisions were made - also that Britain and the Dutch also implemented them. The Dutch embargo being the most painful - as the Americans had only stopped the shipping (knowledge to make) aviation gasoline.

There is no 'rule', legal or moral, as to whom one can trade or what you trade - especially if they are doing something you don't like.