Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dafydd said:
They are not historians.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who Scheil is but Patrick Buchanan is a right-wing (I almost typed "reich-wing") columnist and media commentator. He is also a Holocaust denier and revisionist historian. David Irving is a revisionist historian and a holocaust denier and a reich-wing conservative (the term is appropriate in his case).

Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof (b. 1939) is a retired German general who wrote "1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte” (The War which had many Fathers) a revisionist work that

argues that Adolf Hitler had not wanted to risk war right until September 1939.Thus, Schultze-Rhonhof especially blames Poland for the outbreak of World War II as a result the rejection of German willingness of negotiations. Besides, also Great Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union had taken their part in the outbreak of the war because they had driven Poland into the war. Source
Click to expand...

In the book Schultze-Rhonhof references right-wing revisionist historians and Holocaust deniers like Paul Rassinier. The book was poorly received in Germany.

Schultze-Rhonhofs writings on the origins of World War II have not been perceived by professional historians. His claim that Hitler had been against a war with Poland goes against the conventional opinion in historical research and academic teaching. Schultze-Rhonhofs book has been reviewed by important German newspapers as Die Welt and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Both articles assessed it as “myth-creating” and “abstruse”. Ibid
Click to expand...

So these are the "historians" 9/11-investigator relies on.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
I have no idea who Scheil is but Patrick Buchanan is a right-wing (I almost typed "reich-wing") columnist and media commentator. He is also a Holocaust denier and revisionist historian. David Irving is a revisionist historian and a holocaust denier and a reich-wing conservative (the term is appropriate in his case).

Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof (b. 1939) is a retired German general who wrote "1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte” (The War which had many Fathers) a revisionist work that

In the book Schultze-Rhonhof references right-wing revisionist historians and Holocaust deniers like Paul Rassinier. The book was poorly received in Germany.

So these are the "historians" 9/11-investigator relies on.
Click to expand...

These names will always 'poorly received' in a culture that is characterized by cowardly political correctness. But in the end it will be the arguments that count, not appeals to inverse/negative authority what Walter Ego tries to do in vain.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Deafening silence...
Click to expand...

Please supply your source and the content of said document as the only one I can find seems to differ wildly with how you presented it.

Is your source the book you link to?
If so, is the document mentioned and/or quoted and/or reproduced?
 
Last edited:
I see that, after another brief absence, 911 has come back with another pile of misinterpreted nonsense and ignores the ever increasing list of questions he refuses to answer.

What a surprise...
 
9/11-investigator said:
These names will always 'poorly received' in a culture that is characterized by cowardly political correctness. But in the end it will be the arguments that count, not appeals to inverse/negative authority what Walter Ego tries to do in vain.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, it's the exact opposite. Buchanan's, Irving's and Schultze's-Rhonhof's historical researches are poorly received because of the shoddy quality of their "arguments," not because their "arguments" are politically incorrect.

Normally at this point I'd provide some links where the piss-poor "arguments" of the trio above are demolished, but since you wouldn't sully yourself by reading them I won't bother.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Deafening silence...
Click to expand...

Well that's not really a conundrum. There's not much to say. Either way, most people here (like elsewhere) while gladly going into debates about WW2 history know very little about it in-depth. If you wish to discuss the knowns and unknowns and conjectures regarding Hitler's pre-war policies and plans, without it offending someones one dimensional view of him (including yours), I recommend you try debating on the Axis History forums instead.
 
And, well, as has been pointed out already, he has been answered.

In other words the peace proposal was not quite the "we just want Danzig" one that he makes out it was.

No surprises there...again.

ETA: Put another way. It's not deafening silence, it's just 911 is too busy going "LA LA LA LA LA! Can't HEAR you!"
 
Last edited:
Well, let's be humble here.
I do not claim that the link I gave is the truth of the matter. The board I linked to has been said to be pretty good just now, the info you can read seems to be well-presented, detailed, long, and with a proper presentation of sources. So on the whole, it does seem more credible.

But maybe 9-11investigator have read another version of said documents. I merely asked him to provide a source for what he claimed. Ideally a transcript, in english (those are FO documents, after all, no translation involved is always best). Since this info seems pretty scarce on the net* , I think it is maybe not feasible for 9-11investigator to provide me with what I want, so in a first time, I would be happy with merely a summary of what his source say (I understand this is the book about the Royals and the Reich?) and the level of detail that source goes into this.

It is of course obvious that by the terms presented in my links, the peace offer is hardly benelovent. Restoring sovereignty to occupied states is an hollow promise to them, as they would be released to a Nazi dominated Europe, politically and economically, with no potential help to look for across the channel and farther.

*(the link I gave is the only precise reference I have, although it seems that document is maybe mentioned in the Martin Allen book Himmler's Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler. The author was engaged in quite a bit of controversy as there was heated debates that some of the FO documents he "uncovered" were fake. The one we speak about is not concerned though, as the dubious sources were more related to Himmler's death and the hypothesis he was killed by British Intelligence).
 
Last edited:
Laeke said:
That's why prior to this they had annexed or invaded 7 or so countries? Sounds like Mars Attacks!
Click to expand...

Laeke naturally completely ignores the French and British war declaration issued a few days after Germany took it's town Danzig back as well as the French/British invasion of Norway, a neutral country, aimed at harming Germany, the sole cause of the invasion of Western Europe in the first place. But maybe Laeke fails to understand what a declaration of war is as well as it's implications.

I wonder if Laeke is able to locate Germany on a map?

I just got another warning for this post from March 12, by a mod from Texas called kmortis, having the subscript 'Chief IDIOT' and who am I to doubt that. He was obviously looking for an opportunity to 'punish' me since this is warning #4 or 5 ina short period (I lost count). From experience that means a suspension/banning, so I suspect it is time again to preemptively say goodbye again to my opponents and better spend my time on finishing my blog. We all know that there is no other way for you to escape embarrasment in direct confrontation. Ah well, the Amurrikans/Anglos, the losers of the 21th century. It will be difficult to find a comparable dethronement in history like the one you people are going to endure in the very near future. It is going to surpass the collapse the USSR experienced, mainly due to the adventurous ethnic composition of that Babylon of yours as well has the proud ownership of the dollar which reserve currency status is now challenged by the rest of the world, meaning that you will soon will be stuck with a worthless currency, meaning you won't be able to buy anything abroad anymore. Fred Reed summarized it hilariously yesterday. You deserve what's coming.

Executioner, make it brief. And permanent for all I care. Happy collapse!
 
Last edited:
Please adress my question regarding the Foreign Office document you mention, the version of which you speak about differs wildly from the version I presented here, instead of ignoring the guarantees on Poland and how he was just a peace loving little mustache that set Europe ablaze just because of one city and because we were meanies to him.

- What is the exact source for the peace offer made to Mallet that you use?
- Please provide a link to those FO documents you brought up that support your presentation, or summarize from your source.
- Please explain the differences between what you told, and the version I offered to your examination.
 
Last edited:
- What is the exact source for the peace offer made to Mallet that you use?
Click to expand...

That Foreign Office document I referred to earlier.

- Please provide a link to those FO documents you brought up that support your presentation, or summarize from your source.
Click to expand...

I don't have a link, it is probably not online. It was discovered in 2004.


- Please explain the differences between what you told, and the version I offered to your examination.
Click to expand...

What is the difference according to you?
 
9/11-investigator said:
That Foreign Office document I referred to earlier.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I found and linked a sourced and thorough online transcript, as you seem to have ignored. Which is weird since it was in the same post than my sarcastic remark which you replied to.
I kindly put it once more:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=137567&start=30#p1203389

I don't have a link, it is probably not online. It was discovered in 2004.
Click to expand...

If you do not have a link, please specify the source where you found mention of this document and in what form it was presented.

What is the difference according to you?
Click to expand...

This is what you claim this document contains:
Accordng to that offer, Hitler was prepared to clear all occupied territory and to recognize the souvereignty of all European states. Merely the Corridor to the town of Danzig should remain part of the German Reich. Hitler even declared to be ready to pay compensation to the occupied neutral states (Norway, Holland, Belgium).
Click to expand...

So to summarize, according to you the peace terms are:
- Germany would keep the Dantzig corridor
- Germany would cease occupation of all countries and restore their sovereignty
- Germany would pay compensation to the neutral states

The transcript I link to gives a slighty different story:
- The continental supremacy of Germany will not be called in question.
- All questions concerning the Mediterranean and the French, Belgian and Dutch colonies are open to discussion
- Poland. There will be "a Polish state"
- Czechoslovakia must belong to Germany

(...)

Weissauer did not go into details, but Ekeberg understood by implication that the other European States occupied now by Germany would have their sovereignity restored.

(...)

World to be devided into two economic spheres, one continental, organised by Germany, the other maritime and colonial organised by the British Empire
Click to expand...

To sum it up:
- No explicit mention of the Dantzig corridor (altough the promise of "a polish state" and not "of Poland" certainly implies that it would be restored in a different form)
- Germany will keep Czechoslovakia, which you do not mention.
- Germany would cease occupation of all countries and restore their sovereignty under an unified economic and political sphere directed by Nazi Germany, which not must be contested.
- No mention of compensation for the neutral states
- Colonies to be discussed.

Do you not see the difference there?
Please precise your source: where did you heard of the FO document? Was it a summary, or a transcript? Why do your presentation of said document differs so wildly from the one I came through?
 
Last edited:
Laeke said:
Yes, and I found and linked a sourced and thorough online transcript, as you seem to have ignored. Which is weird since it was in the same post than my sarcastic remark which you replied to.
I kindly put it once more:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=137567&start=30#p1203389



If you do not have a link, please specify the source where you found mention of this document and in what form it was presented.



This is what you claim this document contains:


So to summarize, according to you the peace terms are:
- Germany would keep the Dantzig corridor
- Germany would cease occupation of all countries and restore their sovereignty
- Germany would pay compensation to the neutral states

The transcript I link to gives a slighty different story:


To sum it up:
- No explicit mention of the Dantzig corridor (altough the promise of "a polish state" and not "of Poland" certainly implies that it would be restored in a different form)
- Germany will keep Czechoslovakia, which you do not mention.
- Germany would cease occupation of all countries and restore their sovereignty under an unified economic and political sphere directed by Nazi Germany, which not must be contested.
- No mention of compensation for the neutral states
- Colonies to be discussed.

Do you not see the difference there?
Please precise your source: where did you heard of the FO document? Was it a summary, or a transcript? Why do your presentation of said document differs so wildly from the one I came through?
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time. Our Hitler hugger never answers questions,that would bring his whole fantasy crashing down around his head.
 
Laeke said:
Do you not see the difference there?
Please precise your source: where did you heard of the FO document? Was it a summary, or a transcript? Why do your presentation of said document differs so wildly from the one I came through?
Click to expand...

That was excellent research. Good on you.
 
Yes it is always enjoyable to watch his lies or more correctly his belief in what others have told him to believe, is shown to be false yet again...and with the internet everyone can see his inability to make his point. Again!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom