Who started both World Wars?

[TSR]

.
Oh, look at this: niner snips and runs from the fact even zir own deliberate distortions in translating this article do not support zir assertion that Hitler disapproved of Hess traveling to England.

How ... revisionist.
.

What TSR is basically saying is that if French troops had conquered, say Dover, that Britain should have asked Berlin for permission to hit the French, otherwise risk a Soviet/American invasion.

.
No, that's not even *close* to what TSR is saying.

TSR would *not* say this, since the two situations have very little in common. Unless you can point us to a Common Defense Pact between the UK and Germany? Some sort of treaty between Germany, France and either the US or the USSR guaranteeing France's right to invade?
.

That's insane.

.
Quite.
.

Danzig was 97.5% German, it wanted to return to the Reich and then there was this Wilson fella, solemnly pledging the principle of self-determination, on the basis of which the Germans had surrendered.

.
No, Germany surrendered after having their asses handed to them in WWI -- that's what happens when you lose a war.

And of course, this Wilson fella was ruler of the entire world. You *did* know that the US *rejected* the ToV, making their own peace with the Central Powers via the Knox-Porter Resolution?
.

Excellent, now I have TSR implicitly admitting that 'world war 2' broke out over the Danzig issue after all and not Germany wanting to conquer ze wurld as conventional wisdom would like to have it.

.
No, now you have TSR repeating a quote from which you continue to run:

It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our Lebensraum in the east ...

.
Given this, Danzig was just a pretext to justify the invasions which Hitler had planned. Had it not been Danzig, some other pretext would have been found.
.

This is more than I could hope for. But more likely TSR is talking his mouth off in his naivite.

.
No, more likely niner is twisting words and running away from the facts of the matter.



Again.
.

The last thing nationalists want to do is conquering the world. That urge can be safely left to the New World Order crowd and TSR is one of them.

.
Yet another claim niner is unable to factually support. Just like when zie insists I must be Jewish.
.

P.S. to the lurkers: note that although I gave a complete revisionist summary of WW2 in the size of 1 page A4/letter, the only thing TST does is nitpicking about the correct translation of the Spiegel article.

.
So it's "nitpicking" to point out that your 'translations' completely change the meaning of the words you actually cited, and that your premise that Hitler disapproved of Hess' trip is no where, not even in your dishonest distortions, support by that citation?
.

Thoroughly outmaneuvered.

.
... as you so often are.
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

And numerous other posters have given rebuttals, with sources, that show your claims are worthless. (Rebuttals you conveniently ignore. Or, to use your own statement: You can't read, can you.)

You've peppered this thread with various comments disparaging the Allies. The idea being that, by painting them as vile and evil, it makes your claim of them picking on poor little Germany more believable. ""The alllies [sic] threw 20 times as much on Germany as the other way around." Those mean Allies, look at how much they hurt poor Germany! Clearly, if the Allies were nice, they would not have hit Germany more than it had hit them. But no, those mean, nasty Allies, the punched Germany twenty times as hard as Germany had punched them. Obviously that's because they hated Germany and must've really started the whole war!

Unfortunately for you, the aerial aspect to the war is something I happen know about, and for which I have reference books on hand. Which means your nonsense will get challenged, and shown for the nonsense it is. I repeat again: the link you gave in post #4899 is filled with errors, lack of context, and appeals to emotionalism. In short: it's pure junk. Yet you used it to try and bolster your position.

So your attempts to paint the Allies as mean and nasty by your selective, out-of-context, or downright false, statements about the aerial campaigns of the war will draw my rebuke. Every time. You can now try to shift the debate and imply all your prior comments littered throughout this thread don't actually matter, but the remarks remain on the record and visible to all.

Your obfuscations will achieve nothing. You and your motivations remain crystal clear. As shown by your own words in this thread.

Corsair claimed that this recent post of mine was nonsense.
I asked him to explain why it was nonsense.
That is a reasonable question, because said post neatly sums up what happened during WW2, the subject of this thread.
Obviously Corsair evades to give an answer, because he knows very well that he has no answer.

In stead he goes on rambling about how much he knows about aerial warfare and how this knowledge somehow, mysteriously debunks my claims that the alllies (sic) threw 20 times as much on Germany as the other way around. And that Britain started bombing Germany on the very day that Churchill came to power on top of that.

Your case is weak, sir.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The Daily Mail picks up the story about the find in the Moscow archive, published yesterday by Der Spiegel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392208/Hitler-gave-ahead-Rudolf-Hess-peace-mission.html

It turns out to be connected to a sort of diary/notebook written by an aide of Hess:

But a 28-page notebook discovered in a Russian archive disputes this theory and indicates that Hitler was in on the mission. It was written in 1948 by Major Karlheinz Pintsch, a long-time adjutant to Hess.

He was captured by the Soviets and spent years undergoing torture and interrogation at their hands.

In the notebook he writes that Hitler hoped that an ‘agreement with the Englishmen would be successful’.

Pintsch notes that Hess’s task – five weeks before Germany launched its invasion of Russia – was to ‘bring about, if not a military alliance of Germany with England against Russia, then to bring about a neutralisation of England’.

Makes perfect sense.

But of course this was not what American, Soviet and British liars wanted to become public. They wanted to peddle the story of an agressive Germany that wanted to conquer ze wurld, where in reality American and Soviet barbarians wanted to do just that, while the British had already conquered 25% of the planet as their little Ueber-Lebensraum of their own:

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/map_of_the_british_empire_in_the_1920s.png
(we leave it as an exercise for the esteemed reader to figure out where exactly in the map the city Danzig is located, the reason why the British deemed it necessary to start a world war).

The conspirators had been looking for war all along and made sure it happened:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe:
The Secret Polish Documents

Fortunately these noble alllies were standing by to commit some disinterested liberation, all for free. Is that nice of those alllies or what?!

You can't make this up.

And when a halfway decent politician, Gorby, came along and wanted to release Hess as a gesture of goodwill, all alarmbells went off in London and a bunch of British officials were send to Spandau to prevent a PR desaster. Imagine this: tenths of millions of people had to die because Churchill-Britain, acting in the interest of America (read: Jewish interests), America and the USSR were not interested in peace, but in shifting the geostrategic balance to their advantage, at the expense of Europe.

And do you really think that these criminals were not up to the task of inventing a horror tale about gaschambers if it served their interests? Think again.


[*] - An action comparable to the killing of David Kelly on orders of Tony Blair.
Such is British political 'culture'.

 

[9/11-investigator]

This reminds me of a story widely published 2 years ago about a Russian historian blaming Poland for WW2.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009302983_russiapoland05.html

Far more important than the opinion of a lone historian was the fact that the story was published on the website of the Russian Defence ministery.

That's big, modern Russia turning revisionist. They know that they can't keep the dirty secret's about WW2 under the lid, so they take up positions and try to exercise damage control.

Obviously it is insane to blame either Poland or Germany for 'starting WW2' because they were merely fighting about a local issue. 'Starting WW2' is a phrase invented by the real starters of WW2. Poland provoked Germany into war, because it felt itself strong enough to go for territorial gain, as it (mistakenly) believed it was backed by major powers like the US and Britain. A lot of Polish higher ups dreamed of 'marching towards Berlin' and the German invasion was a surprise to nobody. But of course they did not know about the contents of the secret annex of the Molotov-Ribbentrop accord. Roosevelt though did know as he was briefed by a German traitor in the German ambassy in Moscow hours after the signing had taken place. Roosevelt could of course had warned the Poles to be prudent because it was about to be swallowed by Germany and Russia, because of it's uncompromising stance towards Germany about the Danzig issue and even more because of the persecution of the Germans living in Poland as a result of the Versailles Diktat and subsequent refugee crisis.

But obviously Roosevelt said nothing about the secret annex and instead encouraged the Poles to stay uncompromising while hinting at support for Poland by the US. In reality Roosevelt cared nothing about Poland, he gladly handed over Poland to the Soviets. He merely saw Poland as an opportunity to set Europe on fire, to his own advantage and his NWO aspirations. But I digress.

Post-communist Russia knows the truth about WW2. In fact if Russia will be pushed too much by the West (anti-missile defense or Khodorkovski for example) it could be tempted to spill the beans about the holocaust. This episode with blaming Poland for WW2 could be a small sign of things to come.

But it likely will not get this far as the American empire and the NWO is about to die in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://lewrockwell.com/wile/wile19.1.html
http://www.thedailybell.com/2225/Bin-Laden-Episode-End-of-Empire.html

On a lighter note, the poor queen of Britain expressed her doubts about the chances of survival of the empire as well. Uh, her empire that is, or the sorry remains of what is left of it. That's what you get if you refuse to cooperate with Hitler by letting a traitor at the helm of your nation. Now that Scotland is likely choosing the path of independence she can only hope that maybe Wales will be so kind to stay with her. Nevertheless, a Scottish independence would end the geostrategic advantageous position Britain had for century, including during WW1 and WW2 (only the Dutch were able to invade and easily defeat the British), as it opens the door for military actions by, say Norway or Iceland (or Euro-Siberian troops) against London, just in case the UK shows itself willing again to be hospitable anti-European powers. Again, Britain is not a European nation. Scottish independence would mean that the vision of Eric Blair...

http://meanjin.com.au/static/files/assets/b5596fea/1984_fictious_world_map.png

... will be impossible. Well, at least as far as Britain is concerned. But if the US stays in one piece (and for that to happen it has to turn totalitarian in order to prevent that racial powder kegg from exploding, Yugoslav style), the picture by Eric Blair could be rather visionary... of almost Huntingtonian quality.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No, now you have TSR repeating a quote from which you continue to run:

Given this, Danzig was just a pretext to justify the invasions which Hitler had planned. Had it not been Danzig, some other pretext would have been found.

TSR indeed brought up the lame quote here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6869661&postcount=4148

... hoping that I had forgotten that I had responded to that quote, after which it was TSR himself who run as fast as he could:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6871865&postcount=4166

For starters, the British historian AJP Taylor calls the quote 'fake'.

Keep trying old chap.

 

[ddt]

Of course, you also mised the very first sentence of the article you cite:

"Adolf Hitler war womöglich in den Alleinflug seines Stellvertreters Rudolf Heß nach Großbritannien vor 70 Jahren eingeweiht."

And since we cannot trust you not to distort the translation, here it is for our non-German literate members:

"Adolf Hitler was perhaps open < in German, a stronger word, implying approval. ed. > to the solo flight of his deputy Rudolf Hess to the UK 70 years ago."

Nitpick: "eingeweiht" simply means Hitler was informed of Hess' plans. But yes, it logically implies that Hitler did not disapprove, otherwise he would have stopped Hess from flying to the UK.

No where in the article is there any suggest of disapproval on the part of Hitler, and in fact the single document it cites goes on to say:

"Der prominente Nazi habe dabei die Aufgabe gehabt, 'mit allen ihm zu Gebote stehenden Mitteln, wenn schon nicht ein Militärbündnis Deutschlands mit England gegen Russland, so doch wenigstens eine Neutralisierung Englands zu erreichen'."

IOW:

"The prominent Nazi would have had, 'all means available to him, if not (to achieve) a military alliance of Germany with England against Russia, then at least (assure) England's neutrality.'"

The Daily Mail picks up the story about the find in the Moscow archive, published yesterday by Der Spiegel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392208/Hitler-gave-ahead-Rudolf-Hess-peace-mission.html

It turns out to be connected to a sort of diary/notebook written by an aide of Hess:

Your German as well as your English must be really crappy. The part you bolded is exactly the part TSR already quoted and translated from Der Spiegel.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Your German as well as your English must be really crappy.

Only after 4021 posts in English mijnerzijds you found out that 'my English is really crappy'.

Now what does that say about you?

 

[TSR]

TSR indeed brought up the lame quote here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6869661&postcount=4148

... hoping that I had forgotten that I had responded to that quote, after which it was TSR himself who run as fast as he could:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6871865&postcount=4166

.
Nope.

I responded to your non-answer in post 4178 by pointing out that the quote you claim to be faked (based on what someone else told you that yet another someone else said, since you have not read the book in question) DOESN'T EVEN DISCUSS THE QUOTE I OFFERED.

What do you think it says about you that you must lie to maintain (in what passes for your mind, anyway) the illusion that you weren't soundly spanked?
.

For starters, the British historian AJP Taylor calls the quote 'fake'.

.
No, for starters, you have the wrong quote from a book you have not even read but have simply been lied to addresses what Hitler says.

For seconds, you have been offered no less than four *real* historians discussing the correct quote -- you know, historians who haven't lost their teaching jobs over their shoddy methodology?
.

Keep trying old chap.

.
Keep running, wannabe.
.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, it's time to admit it. My grandad started the war. It was a prank that got out of hand. You know how those trips to Berlin get out of hand, one drink leads to another and next thing you know you say something about the Furhers moustache, he takes offence and there you go.

 

[Corsair 115]

...In stead [sic] he goes on rambling about how much he knows about aerial warfare and how this knowledge somehow, mysteriously debunks my claims that the alllies (sic) threw 20 times as much on Germany as the other way around.

And you've still yet to show what this statistic of yours (which you've repeated several times in this very thread) has to do with anything.

And that Britain started bombing Germany on the very day that Churchill came to power on top of that.

Wait, you think it's somehow strange that someone might authorize attacks against a nation with which one is at war?!? Was Churchill just supposed to write a stern letter to Hitler asking him to cut it out?

Yes, poor little Nazi Germany. Invaded Poland. Invaded Denmark. Invaded Belgium. Invaded Holland. Invaded Luxembourg. Invaded France. Invaded Norway. Invaded Russia.

Your case is weak, sir.

If mine is weak, yours is non-existant. I'd call your claims dumber than dirt but that'd be unfair to dirt.

 

[Hans]

I have old 9/11 on ignore but he appears to have switched to a sub set of denial called, denial by denial

In this he says very old and very debunked things and says they are true and insults everyone. I suspect he'll be following this path for awhile as he has no intellectual argument he can make. He may be trying to get you guys to unload on him so you get suspended.

Have fun going over the same stuff for the 5-6th time......while he denies everything and is rude as he can be!

 

[Aitch]

OK, it's time to admit it. My grandad started the war. It was a prank that got out of hand. You know how those trips to Berlin get out of hand, one drink leads to another and next thing you know you say something about the Furhers moustache, he takes offence and there you go.

They were told that a Rugby League tour of Germany was a bad idea, but would they listen?

 

[Craig4]

And you've still yet to show what this statistic of yours (which you've repeated several times in this very thread) has to do with anything.





Wait, you think it's somehow strange that someone might authorize attacks against a nation with which one is at war?!? Was Churchill just supposed to write a stern letter to Hitler asking him to cut it out?

Yes, poor little Nazi Germany. Invaded Poland. Invaded Denmark. Invaded Belgium. Invaded Holland. Invaded Luxembourg. Invaded France. Invaded Norway. Invaded Russia.





If mine is weak, yours is non-existant. I'd call your claims dumber than dirt but that'd be unfair to dirt.

Again we get the complaint from the Nazi that the British bombed Germany. Yes, in a war it's generally a good thing to bomb your enemy. It's okay to destroy the enemy centers of gravity. Germany could simply have obeyed the diplomatic note handed them when they waged aggressive war against Poland to avoid the bombing. The claim that Poland was at fault here has been discussed and we need not be bothered with it.

 

[MaGZ]

This morning in Germany's #1 magazine Der Spiegel:

New document find in Moscow archive confirms that Hitler likely had known about the flight of Hess to Scotland on may 10, 1941.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,765508,00.html

Then follows the hilarious remark:



'Hess did not act on request of Hitler'

... mildly ignoring the fact that Hitler was firmly in charge and that the 2nd man in the Nazi hierarchy Hess was a total devotee of Hitler. He would never disobey Hitler.

So Hitler knew but did not approve?

Why does America-groupie Der Spiegel say this? To keep pushing the myth that Hess was a little bit of a loon and disturbed individual who did not know what he was doing. After all that's what Hitler had said as well.

But Hess (and Hitler) knew very well what they were doing: they were lookin for peace with Britain. The reality is that they were in a desperate situation:

- Negotiations had been going on between Berlin and London for months about the corridor and the German town of Danzig. These failed because of the stubborn attitude of the Poles, who felt encouraged by the UK and USA to not give in to any demand.
- After the Poles started killing the Germans and thousands of Polish Germans fled to Germany, Hitler had no choice but to take measures against the Poles after he got assurances from Stalin that he would go along. A fatal mistake, since it had been Soviet strategy from the early days of the revolution to instigate war between the capitalist countries in order to weaken them so that they could be taken over. Stalin succeeded in this aim and brought Germany into war with France and Britain, who were waiting to kick Germany back in the Versailles mode or worse. Not that Hitler had much choice than to fell in Stalin's trap.
- Hitler to his horror got a declaration of war from Britain and France days after he invaded Poland. As a consequence of that he stumbled from one war into another, to start with the Norway campaign.
- By may 1941, against his wil, Hitler was the proud owner of Norway, the Low Countries and France, all in response to British and French (incompetent) war preparations against Germany.
- Recent publications by the British Foreign Office revealed that they had counted none less than 16 peace offers from Germany, which they all rejected, because from the start Churchill (and his Jewish backers in America and The City, the Focus group) were interested in nothing less than the total destruction of Germany, who had dared to replace the Jewish dominated Weimar period with a German run regime. But they could not openly admit that. The game that Churchill played was to give Hitler the illusion that negotiations were going on, in the mean time playing for time until the inevitable war between the USSR and Germany would break out.
- By May 10, 1941 the USSR had concentrated millions of troops along the German-Ukrainian border to carry out what the USSR had prepared for for decades: the final assault on Europe. The preparations had been achieved with intensive (private) American aid via the Jew Armand Hammer, who via his Moscow bureau was responsible for a large part of the Soviet armaments industry. This build-up had been achieved over the backs of the Soviet population, including the starvation of millions of Ukrainians, whose grain/wheat was used to pay for this buildup (and break the back of Ukrainian resistance against collectivation as a nice side-effect).
- The flight of Hess to Scotland (with full knowledge of Hitler as many had suspected before the new document find in Moscow) was an act of desperation. Hitler from the days of Mein Kampf had dreamed of an alliance with Britain, whom he for some mysterious reason admired (in reality the British are not European, but basically Celts with a considerable amount of Germanic Danish/Saxon invader blood). By May 10, 1941 the latest, Hitler knew that he was trapped and that he had only enemies who were preying on Germany and Europe. And that America would soon join the war and de facto had already entered the war by the deliveries of 50 destroyers to Britain and whose navy were already provoking the Germans into open combat, what Germany tried to avoid at all cost. It is very likely that Hess was lured to fly to Britain by the Churchill junta. And that he was arrested to his surprise. Hitler for prestige reasons could not publicly admit that he had been fooled so he went along with the British explanation that Hess was 'confused'.
- Hess was murdered in spandau for this very reason, namely to hide for the public that Germany had been desperately looking for a peace arrangement with Britain ever since the fall of France, offering a complete pre-1939 territorial rollback (except for Danzig and majority German 'polish' territories) and that Britain had lost the largest empire in history just because the Churchill traitor and warmonger had been working for Jewish/American interests all along and not for British interests. The fact that the British population chose Churchill as the 'man of the century', where in reality he was the largest disaster ever happened to Britain, does not constitute a good reference for the intelligence of that nation (or it serves as strong proof of the brainwashingpower of the modern mass media, now circumvented by the internet).

The only thing left for Hitler in his desperate fight for naked survival was to use the surprise element of preempted attack against the Soviet forces, massed along the border, ready for attack and try to reach Moscow and dissolve the Evil Empire. He almost succeeded save for 50 miles. Germanic Europe from the Norwegian North-Cape to Milan had been destroyed by an agressive coalition of Jews (the brains behind the operation), Celts, Slavs and Euro-Americans, who were too stupid to understand what was going on (except for a minority around Charles Lindbergh).

Nobody less than Molotov in his memoirs confirmed that there was nothing left for Germany to escape than to attack the USSR.

Excellent post, nominated.

 

[dafydd]

Excellent post, nominated.

For what? The Total Crap Award?

 

[Dave Rogers]

For what? The Total Crap Award?

I don't think MaGZ quite understands that there's more to this nomination business than just replying with a post that says "Nominated." Which, of course, tallies with the level of ignorance that informs the rest of his world view.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

OK, it's time to admit it. My grandad started the war. It was a prank that got out of hand. You know how those trips to Berlin get out of hand, one drink leads to another and next thing you know you say something about the Furhers moustache, he takes offence and there you go.

Wrong. David Hughes revealed in his book "But For Bunter" that Greyfriars was real and the Famous Five were in fact the budding NWO and that Billy Bunter was responsible for WWI,WWII and the Titanic,amongst others.

 

[dafydd]

I don't think MaGZ quite understands that there's more to this nomination business than just replying with a post that says "Nominated." Which, of course, tallies with the level of ignorance that informs the rest of his world view.

Dave

The damage that hating Jews does to your thought processes!

 

[Hans]

For what? The Total Crap Award?

I'll second that nomination!

 

[9/11-investigator]

OK, as promised I have been reading and summarizing the latest revisionist thinking about the Norway campaign, April-1940.

Here is the summary, some 10 pages Letter/A4 excluding the pictures:

http://20thcentury-blog.blogspot.com/

The discussion point was:

Why did Germany invade Norway?

Me and Gareth opined that it was all about the iron ore. I am pleased to be able to announce that after reading the latest book about the subject that I do not have to change one jota of my original opinions. No surprises here.

My opponents initially claimed (Wroclaw and Ellard) that Germany needed a launchpad for bombing campaigns.

Wroclaw and Ellard ramble on a little bit:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7025256&postcount=4620
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7035062&postcount=4664

Nowhere in the book of Lunde the argument of bombing Britain from Norway is mentioned.

After I showed them British government documents Wroclaw backtracked:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7039413&postcount=4707

Summing up the conclusions of Lunde (which I support):

- The Allies wanted to finally start the war THEY declared.
- The Allies had too much respect for Germany to attack it directly, certainly the French, who were bordering the Germans
- only days after war broke out in Poland Churchill came up with a stupid plan to attack Germany in the Baltics (Germany had 1300 military planes)
- Next it was Churchill who came up with the iron ore supply disruption plan. His plan was to provoke the Germans into action and then he counted on the superiority of the his navy to deal with the Germans. That was the plan.
- The Germans were forced to react to the Allied plans if they wanted to avoid losing the war before it really started. Germany had two 'heels of Achilles': iron ore from Sweden and oil from Rumania and Germany's enemies knew it.
- According to Lunde it was Britain who violated Norwegian neutrality most by far.

Does anybody dare to come up with a different interpretation of events regarding Norway?