Who started both World Wars?

[dafydd]

Because they didn't.
Luftflotte 5 attacked the north as part of the mid-August 1940 raid...and were nigh on wiped out. They couldn't attack again until 1943 because they simply didn't receive replacements, and had been stripped of fighters etc.

Don't forget that you are talking to a man who thought that the Russians fought at Waterloo. His knowledge of history could be written on the back of a postage stamp. All he does know is that he hates Jews.

 

[Craig4]

Did the Nazi really say "ludicrous"? Oh the irony. That, and he should simply accept it when he's corrected.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://gerard45.bloggertje.nl/note/21161/1943-amerikanen-bombarderen-scholen-in-brielle.html

Never realized this:

NIOD-directeur J.C.H. Blom op 12 december 2004:
"Als gevolg van 5 Duitse bombardementen vielen tussen de 1000 en 1200 dodelijke slachtoffers. Het aantal burgerslachtoffers als gevolg van de ongeveer 600 geallieerde luchtaanvallen op Nederlands gebied, is een veelvoud daarvan; naar schatting omstreeks de 10.000 doden naast een veelvoud aan gewonden - dikwijls levenslang verminkt - en enorme materiële schade."

The NIOD is the official state institution for war documentation. In 2004 it's director informed the public that 1000-1200 Dutchmen got killed as a result of German bombing. And a whopping 10,000 Dutchmen as a result of Alllied bombing.

Any explanation for this or was it sheer hooliganism and Europe-hatred-in-action?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Really? You didn't bother to measure it, did you. Aberdeen is 150 miles closer to Bergen than Wilhelmshaven.

And that's why the Germans invaded Norway?
Excellent, we take note of that for future reference.

Yes, I'm quite sure their families felt it was no big deal.

We are not too concerned here about casualties among British war mongers, who killed hundreds of thousands in Germany in a bombing campaign they started.

No, they warned Hitler that if he invaded Poland they would declare war. Didn't they?

Yep, the word of the Anglos rules in Middle-Europe, right? If they rip off a piece from Germany that had been part of Germany for centuries than it should remain seperated from Germany for all eternity?

And you haven't told us all why Hitler invaded Denmark.

Let's finish the Norway discussion first, shall we. I remember the tenacity you and your palls exercised with your list of questions recently.

So either:
a) admit that the war in Norway was initiated by the British with the aim to cut off essential iron ore deliveries or
b) back up your ludicrous claims about Germans wanting to use Norway as a launch pad for bombing runs against Scotland by quotes from high profile historians or documents from the time.

You know very well what the truth is. Why not admit it? I admitted my mistake recently about the Russians not participating at the battle of Waterloo and I am still alive and kicking, so what is your problem?

 

[Corsair 115]

...nothing compared to what the Anglos did to Germany. They dropped 20 times as much on their opponents as Germany on Brittain.

You keep stating this as if it says something bad about the Allies. It doesn't. What it does show is that Germany did not place any thought into the role and importance of strategic bombing. The results of the war demonstrated the error the German regime made in this regard.

 

[dudalb]

You keep stating this as if it says something bad about the Allies. It doesn't. What it does show is that Germany did not place any thought into the role and importance of strategic bombing. The results of the war demonstrated the error the German regime made in this regard.

It's like a bank robber opening up on the cops, and then condemning the cops for immoral use of violence because they outgun the bank robber.

 

[Corsair 115]

We are not too concerned here about casualties among British war mongers, who killed hundreds of thousands in Germany in a bombing campaign they started.

I notice how you conveniently leave out how that bombing campaign also wrecked German industry, decimated its air force, ruined its transportation network, forced it to reallocate resources which helped the Allied ground campaign, and crippled Germany's ability to wage war.

 

[Craig4]

You keep stating this as if it says something bad about the Allies. It doesn't. What it does show is that Germany did not place any thought into the role and importance of strategic bombing. The results of the war demonstrated the error the German regime made in this regard.

I guess then maybe the Nazis shouldn't have started the war. This was always within their power to avoid.

 

[abaddon]

You keep stating this as if it says something bad about the Allies. It doesn't. What it does show is that Germany did not place any thought into the role and importance of strategic bombing. The results of the war demonstrated the error the German regime made in this regard.

How dare the allies have a better strategy than Germany.

 

[dafydd]

How dare the allies have a better strategy than Germany.

They were bound to have a better strategy than the Squareheads. The Allies had expelled Jewish expertise on their side.

 

[9/11-investigator]

You keep stating this as if it says something bad about the Allies. It doesn't. What it does show is that Germany did not place any thought into the role and importance of strategic bombing. The results of the war demonstrated the error the German regime made in this regard.

At least Corsair does not try to moralize, like his palls invariably do.
He says: the alllies outsmarted the Germans, period.

Fine with me.

Greatly helped, I might add, by the stupidity of the British, the biggest losers of them all, since they lost their world empire. Reason: they let the half-American Churchill at the helm of their state, who began to demolish the British empire to the advantage of the Americans. To top it off, the Brits choose Churchill 'man of the century'. You can't make this up, until you get a clear picture of the racial quality of these people.

There is a catch, of course, in the approach of Corsair, since he does not even pretend to be a friend of Europe, his 'cultural and racial mother'. Now, unlike the situation in 1940 America has no friends. Their pall USSR is gone and China is rising mightily. And Europe is united and holds most of the economical cards. America lost the competition on world markets. We in Europe just need to wait until the moment that China will challenge American hegemony, as it soon will. We in Europe must adopt the Stalinist approach and let these contenders for world hegemony weaken each other by fighting each other, while we do business with Russia and stay out of any conflict and in the end meet the Chinese somewhere halfway in the US, possibly here. And then we have our revenge for what the Americans did to Europe in WW2.

 

[9/11-investigator]

How dare the allies have a better strategy than Germany.

Hitler's catastrophic mistake was that he overestimated the British. He thought that they would not act against their own interest. Hitler, until Barbarossa (with the flight of Hess to Scotland), tried to persuade the British in a alliance, which would have been the most sensible thing to do for the British. Nazi-Germany was the only potential friend they had, so they decided to destroy them. At all cost. Roosevelt and Stalin were laughing in the face of the British after the war for their stupidity and functioning as their icebreaker into Europe, which was what the Soviets had hoped for all along and was the reason to offer Germany this Non-Agresson Pact and lure him into taking his town Danzig back. But Chamberlain could not row back, as he had the 'World Jews' in his neck pressing him for war. We Europeans have been betrayed by these British fools on a massive scale and their mindless century old and completely outdated 'balance of power politics', while America and the USSR were preying on Europe and Britain opened the door for them.

De Gaulle was right, Britain is the enemy of Europe, it does not belong in Europe. It deserves to be a lonely miserable island before the coast of Europe, a sort of talentless Japan. Let's make sure that that happens after the coming implosion of America.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Talking about the reason why Germany invaded Denmark, see this map:

http://i53.tinypic.com/28k3p11.jpg

According to that source the Germans were afraid that the alllies, apart from Norway, could invade Denmark as well.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Roosevelt and Stalin were laughing in the face of the British after the war for their stupidity and functioning as their icebreaker into Europe, which was what the Soviets had hoped for all along and was the reason to offer Germany this Non-Agresson Pact and lure him into taking his town Danzig back.

From Scheil's book:

[Scheil-303] Despite the decisive defeat of France, several high-ranking politicians in London were confident that Britain could manipulate both American and Soviet politics to the effect of defeat of Germany without significant obligation for Britain… It must have been a big disappointment for Churchill that the American government did not play along with Britain to make the concept work. The US more or less had decided to share the European continent with the USSR. Churchill in May 1945 attempted to establish an Anglo-American front against the USSR to prevente Stalin from swallowing Eastern Europe, but he was rebuked by the American ambassador to Moscow Joseph Davies… He reacted mockingly: "it possibly had been a mistake by him (Churchill) and Britain to not support Hitler; then as far as I have understood it properly, Hitler had the same doctrine as you have." [304] The only chance to prevent a partition of Europe by the US and USSR had been sabotaged by Churchill himself, if he choose for unconditional escalation of the war, rather than work for a negotiated settlement.

Here we have it, the US ambassador mockingly telling Churchill ('the Fool of the Century') that he should have allied himself with Hitler.

Churchill quote:

"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."--Winston Churchill, Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, p. 145

And that was the real truth. The British, an envious and deceptive race, could not accept that a new talented nation had come into existence, outcompeting these incompetents on world markets. As a consequence the British allied themselves with the worst criminals on the planets, the Soviets, to destroy Germany. And in Nuremberg they invented the most vicious lie in world history in an attempt to morally destroy the Germans after they had been destroyed physically. History will judge harshly over these British liars.

 

[Rich_C]

Talking about the reason why Germany invaded Denmark, see this map:

http://i53.tinypic.com/28k3p11.jpg

According to that source the Germans were afraid that the alllies, apart from Norway, could invade Denmark as well.

Lame. You're not even trying anymore.

 

[MG1962]

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, kicking European arse since 1588 and still going strong
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/#cite_note-12

 

[Corsair 115]

At least Corsair does not try to moralize, like his palls invariably do.

It seems you missed my earlier comment. Let me restate it with more emphasis. Perhaps you see it this time:


I notice how you conveniently leave out how that bombing campaign also wrecked German industry, decimated its air force, ruined its transportation network, forced it to reallocate resources which helped the Allied ground campaign, and crippled Germany's ability to wage war.


Are you going to argue that those items are not of importance?

 

[Craig4]

It seems you missed my earlier comment. Let me restate it with more emphasis. Perhaps you see it this time:


I notice how you conveniently leave out how that bombing campaign also wrecked German industry, decimated its air force, ruined its transportation network, forced it to reallocate resources which helped the Allied ground campaign, and crippled Germany's ability to wage war.


Are you going to argue that those items are not of importance?

I guess we can add the art and science of war to the vast list of topics about which the Nazi is ill informed. The allies bent the Nazis to their will. You'd think he'd understand at least that.

 

[Craig4]

Lame. You're not even trying anymore.

Mostly because he doesn't really believe this lunacy. He just needs to rationalize the rehabilitation of Hitler. No honesty required.

 

[Dogzilla]

I notice how you conveniently leave out how that bombing campaign also wrecked German industry, decimated its air force, ruined its transportation network, forced it to reallocate resources which helped the Allied ground campaign, and crippled Germany's ability to wage war.

but miraculously spared the infrastructure supporting the concentration camps which is why the conditions found within at the end of the war were a result of Germans being mean and nothing else.