Who started both World Wars?

[9/11-investigator]

They were at war, that's what happens, counties plan to disrupt the capacity of their enemies.
How is this any different to the sinking of convoys by U-boats?

The fact that the mines were never laid removes the reason you claim for the invasion. The argument of a pre-emptive strike does not hold water.

BS.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN04-194004.htm

8th - Operation 'Wilfred': Royal Navy destroyers laid minefields, simulated and real at three points off the Norwegian coast, including near Bodo.

The actual invasion occured on April 9, so after the British laying mine fields.

We even have a video of the war mongering British laying mines in Norwegian waters.

My opponents have no case when it comes to Norway and thus in the question of who started WW2.

 

[9/11-investigator]

They have their limits.

And they are soon going to be reminded about their limits.

In the USA.

 

[9/11-investigator]

When I read through the reviews of A.J.P. taylor's Origins of the Second World War than it becomes clear that there are some honest British after all. He basically confirms most of the points made by Buchanan, Scheil and Schultze-Rhonhof:

- Hitler never wanted a world war
- He agrees with the notion that Hitler stumbled into wars he did not want
- He fully acknowledges the grievances the Germans had against Versailles
- Hitler pursued a rational foreign policy
- Hitler should be viewed as a normal politician rather than the subject of utter demonization

 

[TSR]

When I read through the reviews of A.J.P. taylor's Origins of the Second World War than it becomes clear that there are some honest British after all.

.
Because everyone knows that the surest path to a complete understanding of the history involved is to read what random people *say* someone else said about the matter, rather than to, you know, actually read what that someone else actually said.

Because Taylor blames Hitler for the outbreak of WWII. Which kinda blows your entire fantasy out of the water, but you don't know this because you *haven't* actually read your source -- you know, an honest Brit by your estimation.

In fact, he rather disliked Hitler apologists such as yourself, as you would know if your weren't so abysmally ignorant of the history on which you presume to pontificate.

D'oh!!!!
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Because Taylor blames Hitler for the outbreak of WWII. Which kinda blows your entire fantasy out of the water, but you don't know this because you *haven't* actually read your source -- you know, an honest Brit by your estimation. .

That's what you want to be the case but that is not the picture that emerges from the Amazon reviews after a search for 'blame':

- Hitler was not the only one deserving of blame. This is worth knowing...

- In his thesis, Taylor argues that the Western powers were as much to blame for the war as Hitler himself...

- Thus, while in arguing for the wider sharing of blame for the possibility of war existing Taylor does a marvelous job...

- This is a fascinating book, and Taylor argues articulately for the idea that others besides Hitler deserve a portion of the blame for what unfolded into the largest conflict in the history of the world...

- The main thrust of Taylor's book is that Hitler, the German Chancellor, did not plan the Second World War...

- his thesis disowns the conclusions reached at Nuremberg and thus challenges the validity of the moral judgements reached against the German defendants...

Why do you lie, TSR?
Would you not think that it is utter stupidity to lie when it can be so easily verified that what you say is a lie?
Dumb and lying.

 

[TSR]

That's what you want to be the case but that is not the picture that emerges from the Amazon reviews after a search for 'blame':

.
I'm not responsible for what some random person with no apparent expertise claims that someone else says about a subject.

Unlike you, I have *read* the book in question, and there is no doubt.

Why don't *you* try that, and point to the specific passage, by edition, page and para that you believe supports your position.













What's that?












You don't read books about the history you attempt to deny, unless you're quote mining -- if then?








Edition. Page. Para. One of those, you (don't) know, proper citations?
.

Dumb and lying.

.
Yeah, you are.

From your favourite "source":

Moreover, he argued that there was a symbiotic relationship between Hitler and the German people, with Adolf Hitler needing the Germans to fulfill his dreams of conquest and the German people needing Hitler to fulfill their dreams of subjection of their neighbours.

.
Did you catch that? "Subjection."

In particular, he accused the Germans of waging an endless Drang nach Osten against their Slavic neighbours since the days of Charlemagne.

.
Or that? "An endless Drang nach Osten against their Slavic neighbours since the days of Charlemagne."

Care to translate the phrase for our non-German literate readers?

Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism.

.

Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more.

.
"Failed to destroy"

Taylor always disowned the support of the neo-Nazis, making clear that he held their politics in extreme distaste.

.
That would be *you*, niner.
.

 

[abaddon]

My dear fellow, Ireland is just as interesting to me as Kazakhstan or Bulgaria.

You brought it up.

This 'Celtic Tiger' cannot be kept afloat without large financial aid from North-Western Europe.

Irrelevant to the point at hand.

Just to update you: in the times of King Billy there was no such thing as an Irish Republic.

Nobody claimed there was.

Although I am sympathetic to the idea to every now and then let my Anglo opponents score a rare point for humanitarian reasons, the Boyne river is clearly in the northern part of Ireland. I am sorry.

You should be. You claimed it was in Northern Ireland, as specific term indicating a specific geographical region. Clearly, said river is not in that region. Backpedal much.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'm not responsible for what some random person with no apparent expertise claims that someone else says about a subject.

You don't need 'apparent expertise' to summarize correctly what a writer has said. And it is you who claimed that Taylor has support from 'neo-nazies'.

Unlike you, I have *read* the book in question, and there is no doubt.
Why don't *you* try that, and point to the specific passage, by edition, page and para that you believe supports your position.
What's that?
You don't read books about the history you attempt to deny, unless you're quote mining -- if then?
Edition. Page. Para. One of those, you (don't) know, proper citations?

I don't take books from our former colony too seriously anymore. Buchanan is a rare exception.

Quote:
Moreover, he argued that there was a symbiotic relationship between Hitler and the German people, with Adolf Hitler needing the Germans to fulfill his dreams of conquest and the German people needing Hitler to fulfill their dreams of subjection of their neighbours.

Unlike the British and other Western Europeans he hardly had 'dreams of conquest' by 1937. I see I should not take Taylor all too seriously. On the other hand this is only a quote from Zionist edited wikipedia, a source without 'apparent expertise'.

Quote:
In particular, he accused the Germans of waging an endless Drang nach Osten against their Slavic neighbours since the days of Charlemagne.
.
Or that? "An endless Drang nach Osten against their Slavic neighbours since the days of Charlemagne."

No kidding? Territorial expansion is one of the main driving forces in history. And nobody beats the British in that urge (25% of the planet). Boohoo. But you will not give a peep about this particular British urge.

Quote:
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism.

So he is a moralizing Anglo after all. Any politician 'pursuits power'. That's what they do for a living.

Quote:
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more.
.
"Failed to destroy"

That's true. Your point?

Quote:
Taylor always disowned the support of the neo-Nazis, making clear that he held their politics in extreme distaste.
.
That would be *you*, niner.

Again, my actions are more motivated by an extreme distaste for Anglo dishonesty and hypocrisy and BS historical interpretations than any particular love for Nazism. My concern is to restore Europe by getting rid of Anglosphere and kicking American troops out, not for a restauration of a totalitarian ideology.

 

[Craig4]

Wow someone must of hit the Nazi pretty close to the bulls-eye to get him all riled up like this.

 

[MG1962]

Wow someone must of hit the Nazi pretty close to the bulls-eye to get him all riled up like this.

I noticed he dropped the Norway thing pretty quick, especially after having pointed out the exact squadron that was sent to Norway to do the bombing, that also happened to be an specialist anti shipping unit

 

[9/11-investigator]

I noticed he dropped the Norway thing pretty quick, especially after having pointed out the exact squadron that was sent to Norway to do the bombing, that also happened to be an specialist anti shipping unit

I am still waiting for Wroclaw to come with an answer to this post... so he can dig himself even deeper into the ground. There is no way I am groing to 'drop' this subject. Dream on.

 

[dafydd]

Wow someone must of hit the Nazi pretty close to the bulls-eye to get him all riled up like this.

It's because you pointed out the meritocracy of war. The Nazis lost so that means that Nein's Aryan racial superiority theory is in the dustbin. The Germans lost twice too,that makes it twice as galling for him. I'm so proud of the part my Dad played in wiping the floor with Nein's heroes.

 

[MG1962]

I am still waiting for Wroclaw to come with an answer to this post... so he can dig himself even deeper into the ground. There is no way I am groing to 'drop' this subject. Dream on.

So my information is not good enough...or are you ignoring it because it make you look exactly what you are

 

[TSR]

You don't need 'apparent expertise' to summarize correctly what a writer has said. And it is you who claimed that Taylor has support from 'neo-nazies'.

.
The point being, you hve no idea whether the summary was correct or not, since you have never read the book.

It's not.
.

I don't read books from our former colony too seriously anymore. Buchanan is a rare exception.

.
Confirming what I said: you won't read anything that doesn't agree with you.

Hey! Here's an idea: if you want to learn about history and not look a fool, why not read, you know, books by *actual* historians? Instead of politicians the like of which you sneer at below?


You really can't keep more than one thought in that pointy head of yours at a time, can you?
.

Unlike the British and other Western Europeans he hardly had 'dreams of conquest' by 1937. I see I should not take Taylor all too seriously.

.
Why? Because he doesn't agree with all of your pre-conceived prejudices?

Now, *there's* a recipe for uncovering historical truth...

No, Taylor for all of his multiple faults, is a worthwhile read from someone interested in another opinion on the facts.

That obviously is not you, since those facts do not support your crap.

And remember: it was *you* who brought him up, sight unseen, simply because someone else said he said something you thought might justify your hate.

*Your* source. That you didn't bother to actually check that source is no one's fault but your own. Too bad *some* of us are actually conversant in the history you're so rabid to re-write.

That is again, obviously not you.
.

On the other hand this is only a quote from Zionist edited wikipedia, a source without 'apparent expertise'.

.
... says the person who *just* based zir endorsement of Taylor on reviews from Amazon.




And do tell us: which Zionist edited this article?







Hypocrite much?
.

No kidding? Territorial expansion is one of the main driving forces in history. And nobody beats the British in that urge (25% of the planet). Boohoo. But you will not give a peep about this particular British urge.

.
You have your opinion on that, which is off topic for this thread.

Unless you are now going to claim that the Brits entered WWII for expansion -- in which case, you'll have to explain where exactly they gained (or hoped to gain) territory.
.

So he is a moralizing Anglo after all. Any politician 'pursuits power'. That's what they do for a living.

.
No, that's not what they do for a living.

And "pursuing power" is *not* what the phrase translates to.

What *is* a good translation of the phrase -- one Taylor uses, as you would know if you weren't depending on third hand accounts of what Taylor *actually* says.
.

That's true. Your point?

.
My point being (as anyone not blinded by your particularly loathsome brand of hate can see) is that WWII was not a function of overcoming the restrictions Germany agreed to when THEY LOST A WAR THEY HELPED START TO BEGIN WITH.

It was a war of aggression, started for territorial gain, and stopped on that basis.
.

Again, my actions are more motivated by an extreme distaste for Anglo dishonesty and hypocrisy and BS historical interpretations than any particular love for Nazism.

.
And your own, demonstrable and well-documented dishonesty, hypocrisy and BS historical interpretations are just fine in pursuit of that "distaste?"
.

My concern is to restore Europe by getting rid of Anglosphere and kicking American troops out, not for a restauration of a totalitarian ideology.

.
How many troops does the US have stationed in Holland?








What's that?








Exactly none?










Then what US troops are you whining about, and what gives you the right to lie and distort history in a lame attempt to justify that whining.




We get it: you don't like "Anglos". Or "Jews". Or "Muslims". Or pretty much anyone that threatens your entitlement to feel "superior".


Message recieved.





Now, unless you care to keep getting your *ss handed to you when you cite authorities that don't actually agree with that hate, I recommend that you quit while you are behind...

Or maybe you'd care to claim that the Soviets were the moving force behind the Battle of Thermopylae in '41, too, just like at Waterloo?


Here's another hint, which gives you an idea of why those who know are pointing and laughing at you right now: what was Taylor's opinion of post-war Czechoslovakia, of pre-war appeasement, and Soviet-style socialism?


Here's another hint: almost exactly opposite yours.
.

 

[Craig4]

It's because you pointed out the meritocracy of war. The Nazis lost so that means that Nein's Aryan racial superiority theory is in the dustbin. The Germans lost twice too,that makes it twice as galling for him. I'm so proud of the part my Dad played in wiping the floor with Nein's heroes.

I'd like to take credit for playing the Nazi like a fiddle but really I'd have thought the meritocracy of war to be self evident.

The Allies effected the Axis COG's, forced a fight or flight decision cycle, attacked and defended at times and places of their choosing and left the enemy with no choice but to surrender unconditionally. There's no argument here. The Axis was inferior. If they weren't they'd have dictated terms to the allies. In the end, the Axis accepted their inferiority and surrendered without terms. The Nazis sought this judgment and got it. Careful what you wish for.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'd like to take credit for playing the Nazi like a fiddle but really I'd have thought the meritocracy of war to be self evident.

The Allies effected the Axis COG's, forced a fight or flight decision cycle, attacked and defended at times and places of their choosing and left the enemy with no choice but to surrender unconditionally. There's no argument here. The Axis was inferior. If they weren't they'd have dictated terms to the allies. In the end, the Axis accepted their inferiority and surrendered without terms. The Nazis sought this judgment and got it. Careful what you wish for.

Craig4 again completely ignores the for him enbarrasing fact that the Anglos allied themselves with the worst criminals on the planet, the Soviets in order to destroy Europe. The alllies outnumbered the Germans 1:6 in a war Germany never sought. The Americans and their Soviet palls however were looking for war since 1933 and 1939 resp.

Robert Jackson about what he found in the German archives:

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."

Craig4 and his 5 friends see a girl walking in street. Craig and his palls decide to rape her. When Craig is finished with her and has strangled her and pulls up his trousers, Craig grins and says: "she is so inferior".

And that's the perfect metaphor for our Anglo friends and their Jewish overlords. It is time we Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese and muslims start teaching these folks, who day in day out dream of subjugating us in their Jew-run NWO, a little lesson before the world buries the 20th century for good and goes Huntington. The Chinese already signaled they are ready to strike against America. And they have MACH10 missiles making the entire American fleet obsolete. Japan has been nuked 3 times by America now and probably wants some action as well (Fukushima was delivered by General Electric; US leading Ukraine now 2:1 in the global incompetency match). Should be easy, they can't even beat Somalia militarily. They are soooo inferior. And we outnumber them now 1:6 for a change. Let's start refusing to accept dollars; after all the world has served them for free long enough now, that will set the train in motion and let Americans feel what it means to be a Ukrainian (comparable racial quality --> 6700$/yr). America could of course escape this gruesome fate in pursuing a little regime change at home in retaliation for 9/11.

 

[TSR]

... the worst criminals on the planet, the Soviets in order to destroy Europe.

.
And what did your "honest Brit" have to say about those "criminals," hmmmmmn?
.

 

[TSR]

Craig4 and his 5 friends see a girl walking in street. Craig and his palls decide to rape her. When Craig is finished with her and has strangled her and pulls up his trousers, Craig grins and says: "she is so inferior".

.
No, a closer metaphor would be C4 and his friends tell niner's uncle Dolphie that he'd better not rape their sister and friend, which zie had been saying for years zie would do.


Dolphie assumes that they are mostly bluster, so goes ahead and does it, because zie once bought her dinner and a movie (so she "owes zie"), and since their grandparents had once been friends, and zie had gotten zir buddies to threaten the grandparents if they didn't agree to the rape.


C4 and his friends beat the cr*p out of niner, but not before Dolphie kills close to 6 million of her friends because zie didn't like them.




But then, not only do C4 and his friends take care of all the hospital bills, but made several loans to Dolphie's heirs (since Dolphie took the brave Aryan Warrior solution) to get them back on their feet on their promise not to do it again.


But niner is still j*cking off to thoughts of raping C4's lil cousin and all her lil friends because, after all -- they's just girls, and everyone knows they's only good for one thing...
.

 

[dafydd]

The Boyne river is not in Northern Ireland. It is most firmly part of the Irish Republic, i.e. southern Ireland. Is there nothing you can actually get right?

Nothing so far. Nein does not appear to have opened a geography or history book in his life. No wonder that the Dutch who live on the Belgium/Holland border send their kids to Belgian schools.

 

[dafydd]

I'd like to take credit for playing the Nazi like a fiddle but really I'd have thought the meritocracy of war to be self evident.

The Allies effected the Axis COG's, forced a fight or flight decision cycle, attacked and defended at times and places of their choosing and left the enemy with no choice but to surrender unconditionally. There's no argument here. The Axis was inferior. If they weren't they'd have dictated terms to the allies. In the end, the Axis accepted their inferiority and surrendered without terms. The Nazis sought this judgment and got it. Careful what you wish for.

We all know that Nazis are inferior. You need a certain lack of brain power to be one.