PDA

View Full Version : Who started both World Wars?


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21

Myron Proudfoot
11th January 2011, 01:09 PM
9/11 will be taking a week's vacation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6749698#post6749698).

thank you!

Hans
11th January 2011, 09:14 PM
Hey, I was first with hthe Adowa reference
:D

Sorry about that I must have missed it but you must admit I mentioned it with a bit more aplomb! LOL

Hans
11th January 2011, 09:25 PM
If we are going to expand examples of White Aryans being defeated by Inferior races, The First Afghan war comes to mind.......I recommend Colonel Flashman's memoirs for a very good description of that.....

Ah yes flashman - of course some of the tribes in Afghanistan are 'white' using 9/11 weird parameters.

I seem to recall the Swedish army being defeated by the Russian Slavs on more than one occassion.

Hmmm I wonder how the French defeated the Prussian army in 1806? I've forgotten but on planet 9/11 are the French considered to be 'white'? LOL

Unfortunately/fortunately the northern Europeans didn't get into Colonization as much as others, Swedish and Danish colonization being rather rare. So they have had fewer contacts with those pesky 'inferior' races. I seem to recall that the Dutch army in The Dutch East Indies and Ceylon didn't do very well against the Japanese and during 300+ years in the east and suffered a number of defeats against all types of inferior foes to include the British......

Hans
11th January 2011, 09:30 PM
When I cover WWII I tell my students all the nations that participated with the Allies, not just formally by declaring war, but by sending troops, and they're amazed. All they ever think about is the US, USSR and Britain.

Yes I've noted that too. I also note that the Axis only includes the Germans and Japanese and tends to leave out the Italians, Roumanians, Hungarians and Bulgaria and few other occupied/puppet states and the odd co-belligerent.

Most forgotten is the follow on Italian state that fought for the Axis after the Kingdom of Italy surrendered and switched sides. The much forgotten Republic of Salo (Italian Social Republic or Repubblica Sociale Italiana or RSI)

SpitfireIX
11th January 2011, 09:47 PM
thank you!


Or maybe I should have said we all get a week's vacation from 9/11.

Hans
11th January 2011, 09:57 PM
Additional comments:

Hitler changed the subject to the larger matter of the opportunities available after the conquest of England. Hitler told Molotov that:

“ After the conquest of England, the British Empire would be apportioned as a gigantic world-wide estate in bankruptcy of forty million square kilometers. In this bankrupt estate there would be for Russia access to the ice-free and really open ocean. Thus far, a minority of forty-five million Englishmen had ruled six hundred million inhabitants of the British Empire. He was about to crush this minority . . . Under these circumstances there arose world-wide perspectives . . . All the countries which could possibly be interested in the bankrupt estate would have to stop all controversies among themselves and concern themselves exclusively with the partition of the British Empire. This applied to Germany, France, Italy, Russia and Japan.


Shirer 1990, p. 725

In the air raid shelter, Ribbentrop gave Molotov a draft agreement with two parts. As had become the practice between the parties, one part was of the agreement that would eventually be made public, while the other contained the secret agreement. The public portion contained an agreement with a ten year term whereby the parties would respect each others natural spheres of interests, while Germany, Italy and Japan would affirm their recognition of existing Soviet borders.

The draft of the secret agreement included the obligation not to join any alliance directed at the four signatories and to assist each other in economic matters. The secret agreement contained a protocol defining the territorial objectives of the four signatories, with Germany laying claims to central Africa, Italy in northern and northeast Africa, Japan in southeast Asia and the Soviet zone to the to ”center south of the national territory of the Soviet Union in the direction of the Indian Ocean.” A second secret protocol provided that Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union would "liberate" Turkey from its international obligations with Britain to guarantee its borders.

One month after Nazi government foreign ministry documents describing the negotiations were publicly released by the United States, the Soviet Foreign Information Bureau wrote a response in a book titled Falsifiers of History.

After receiving translations of the newly released documents, Stalin personally edited, struck and re-wrote entire sections by hand drafts he had been given of Falsifiers before its release in February 1948.

In Falsifiers, Stalin claimed that he was merely "probing out" Germany in Axis negotiations and to have outright rejected Hitler's proposal to share a division of the world. That version persisted, without exception, in all historical studies, official accounts, memoirs and textbooks published in the USSR until 1990


From the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks#cite_note-shirer725-67

Corsair 115
11th January 2011, 11:36 PM
Yes, we really disgraced ourselves in the summer of 1940. If only the Luftwaffe had been a superior force...


I'm sure that, somehow, our intrepid 9/11 investigator will find a way to blame that German defeat on the Jews as well...

Tolls
12th January 2011, 02:50 AM
Hmmm I wonder how the French defeated the Prussian army in 1806? I've forgotten but on planet 9/11 are the French considered to be 'white'? LOL


I think he usually classes the French as white, at least the northern ones.

However Napoleon was a Corsican, so he falls under those dodgy Mediterranean types that 911 disparages whenever the likes of Italy are brought up.

Hans
12th January 2011, 03:44 AM
I think he usually classes the French as white, at least the northern ones.

However Napoleon was a Corsican, so he falls under those dodgy Mediterranean types that 911 disparages whenever the likes of Italy are brought up.

Perhaps we need a guide to 9/11's twisted world! I wonder where the South Tyrolese fit into his world view.

Tolls
12th January 2011, 03:53 AM
Perhaps we need a guide to 9/11's twisted world! I wonder where the South Tyrolese fit into his world view.

Considering his use of Anglo as an insult, and his failure to acknowledge the germanic origins of the Anglo-Saxons, I suspect it would be a "unique" view.

SanityGap
12th January 2011, 08:16 AM
I'm sure that, somehow, our intrepid 9/11 investigator will find a way to blame that German defeat on the Jews as well...

Barnes Wallis-Jewish*
R.J.Mitchell -Jewish*
Eric Bishop -Jewish*
Vera Lynn -Jewish*

Need any more proof?:rolleyes:



*Possibly/maybe

Corsair 115
12th January 2011, 11:20 AM
Just to follow up on this...

...and had some 15 year olds fighting you in the Ardennes.


The reason the Ardennes offensive failed was not because of the troops participating, but because the operation was poorly conceived—the German armoured forces only had enough fuel to get roughly halfway to their objectives. They were relying on capturing Allied fuel dumps to get them the rest of the way.*

Such a plan had no realistic chance of succeeding.

As is happened, the 101st Airborne held Bastogne, Patton turned his army 90º in just a few days, and the skies cleared, unleashing Allied air power. Which turned an unfeasible campaign into a sound defeat. Germany would have been better off having dug in all those troops along its border to defend against any western Allied offensive—as they had demonstrated in Normandy, the German army could be an extremely tough defender of terrain.

But who was it who ordered the Ardennes offensive, over the objections of many of his generals? Who was it who would not countenance a tactical retreat when it was clear the battle was not going to be won? Your old friend Hitler.


*And the primary reason for that fuel shortage? The progressive destruction of German oil production by USAAF and RAF heavy bombers.

ddt
12th January 2011, 06:13 PM
It's good nein11 is on a forced vacation, so I had some time to catch up with the thread. :)
I voted for the Jew Wilders and his PVV,
I wonder if nein11 realizes how racially impure Wilders is. His grandmother from mother's side is indeed from a Jewish family in the Dutch East Indies; but that grandmother also has several "natives" among her ancestors, who thus were from a clearly inferior race (in nein11's terms) - and most likely Muslim too. :)

dudalb
12th January 2011, 06:32 PM
Ah yes flashman - of course some of the tribes in Afghanistan are 'white' using 9/11 weird parameters.

I seem to recall the Swedish army being defeated by the Russian Slavs on more than one occassion.

Hmmm I wonder how the French defeated the Prussian army in 1806? I've forgotten but on planet 9/11 are the French considered to be 'white'? LOL

Unfortunately/fortunately the northern Europeans didn't get into Colonization as much as others, Swedish and Danish colonization being rather rare. So they have had fewer contacts with those pesky 'inferior' races. I seem to recall that the Dutch army in The Dutch East Indies and Ceylon didn't do very well against the Japanese and during 300+ years in the east and suffered a number of defeats against all types of inferior foes to include the British......

Yeah, New Sweden (aka Delaware) did not last long .

dudalb
12th January 2011, 06:33 PM
I think he usually classes the French as white, at least the northern ones.

However Napoleon was a Corsican, so he falls under those dodgy Mediterranean types that 911 disparages whenever the likes of Italy are brought up.

Our Investigator apparently never heard of the Roman Empire........

dafydd
13th January 2011, 09:22 AM
Our Investigator apparently never heard of the Roman Empire........

No surprise there,he has never opened a history book in his life.

ddt
13th January 2011, 10:02 AM
It was my mother who experienced the 'hongerwinter' herself, but that starvation was a consequence of the war, not the occupation. In fact, after the Germans took over in 1940 life continued almost unchanged.
For a while, yes. In 1941 the first razzias to round up Jews started, which would result in the murder of around 105,000 Dutch Jews. In 1942, the Arbeitseinsatz started, in which the Nazis would ship off hundreds of thousands Dutch to do slave labor for the Nazi war machine. And the Netherlands was relatively well-off during the Nazi occupation.

The hunger winter of 1944/45 was the result of the occupation. To help the Allied war effort, the Dutch railway personnel went on strike at the time of Market Garden, and kept in hiding. The Nazis, however, not only refused to run trains with food themselves, but blocked any food transport, resulting in massive food shortages in the heavily urbanized west part of the country, and around 20,000 deaths. That was wholly unnecessary as on the whole, there was enough food in the occupied part of the Netherlands.

ddt
13th January 2011, 10:32 AM
Hans (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6137983&postcount=986):

"What did you think of Anton's treason against the Dutch?"

ddt (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6166288&postcount=1255):

"You forgot to ask how nein11 thinks about Anton. Or rather, I'd be more interested to know how he thinks about Meinout."

Both are gleefully refering to Anton Mussert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Mussert), the Dutch national socialist, who got shot after the war. They both assume that I deplore that he got shot, because they assume that I have sympathy for national socialism. They are wrong. Not that I am going to put a iota of effort in denying that I am a Nazi. I am going to be smeared anyway into being a Nazi. Smearing is the essence of people of low character. A better strategy is to openly encourage to be smeared as a Nazi. At least in that case you don't bow for their tirannical political correctness. So Hans and ddt implicitly support the shooting of Mussert because of treason of the Dutch people. But now they put themselves on a slippery slope. Because they are traitors themselves (I was assuming at the time that both Hans and ddt were Dutch, because they both seemed to be able to speak Dutch, a rare quality among non-Dutch people). They both are incurable lefties, meaning advocates of unhindered third world immigration. In effect they do the same thing as Mussert: they cooperate with an invading hostile force.

<snip>

The level of my knowledge is not that relevant. Never claimed to be an original historian. But I am an effective summarizer. And integrator of knowledge.
Another post where our little Nazi confabulator shows his ignorance of history. I'm not so sure I support the execution of Mussert. The claim he helped the enemy is quite tenuous. He was against the German occupation, rather he wanted to have an independent Netherlands (with very good ties to Germany of course). He was never a real Nazi, nor an antisemite. The Germans gave him the title "Leader of the Dutch people", but that was an empty title without any powers.

Which is why I mentioned Meinout Rost van Tonningen, who was an unreconstructed Nazi and gradually had become the most influential man within the NSB. He served in the Waffen SS on the Russian front. He was appointed director of the Dutch national bank, and as such was very eager to pay the Nazis the costs they levied for the occupation, and to trade them the Dutch gold reserves for paper German money. Needless to say, his tenure is not highly valued. I happened to visit the board room of the Dutch national bank about a year ago, and his portrait is absent from the gallery there. :)

Hans
15th January 2011, 08:32 PM
Yeah, New Sweden (aka Delaware) did not last long .

Hey but the Swedes did keep Saint Barthélemy until 1878 but there African colonies/trading posts were all lost in wars with Dutch, English, French and the native tribes

Myron Proudfoot
16th January 2011, 08:42 AM
4,000+ posts? To go back to the original question. Who started both World Wars? I did, OK, I'm sorry, I let my blood sugar get too low and I was cranky. I won't do it again. Can we move on now?



(Actually I am enjoying this thread and have learned more than a few things. But the thread title makes me snicker, as does the one in the 9-11 subforum about "Dave Thomas" which makes me wonder if Wendy's is somehow related to 9/11)

kookbreaker
16th January 2011, 09:25 AM
Yeah, New Sweden (aka Delaware) did not last long .

Interestingly the New Sweden colonies were mostly populated with the Saami minority. They got along rather well with the native population as it turned out. The failure of New Sweden was more a factor of Queen Christina's lack of enthusiasm and distractions more than anything else.

Hans
16th January 2011, 10:51 AM
4,000+ posts? To go back to the original question. Who started both World Wars?

The Germans, in Poland, with a rather stale schnitzel

tsig
16th January 2011, 11:27 AM
If we are going to expand examples of White Aryans being defeated by Inferior races, The First Afghan war comes to mind.......I recommend Colonel Flashman's memoirs for a very good description of that.....

The entire Flashman Chronicles bear far more resemblance to history than does anything posted by our black shirt wannabees.

ETA:

Saggy loved the Black Natzies

Albeit he had never seen one;

He would have sinned incessantly

Could he have been one.

http://www.poemtree.com/poems/MiniverCheevy.htm

dudalb
16th January 2011, 05:07 PM
The entire Flashman Chronicles bear far more resemblance to history than does anything posted by our black shirt wannabees.

ETA:

Saggy loved the Black Natzies

Albeit he had never seen one;

He would have sinned incessantly

Could he have been one.

http://www.poemtree.com/poems/MiniverCheevy.htm

Actually the FLashman novels are very well researched. Fraser did his homework.

TSR
16th January 2011, 05:38 PM
...as does the one in the 9-11 subforum about "Dave Thomas" which makes me wonder if Wendy's is somehow related to 9/11)

.
You haven't heard? Therm*te Dust is now on the Dollar Menu...
.

9/11-investigator
21st January 2011, 08:53 AM
Actually the FLashman novels are very well researched. Fraser did his homework.

Cannot be said of you :D

Dudalb earlier in the thread opined that 'Alsace/Lorraine' was French through and through, now even the 'French' president begs to differ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348555/Sarkozy-angers-French-saying-Alsace-region-German-simple-error.html):

So much for two World Wars! President Sarkozy angers French by saying Alsace region is STILL German in 'simple error'

We remember that from the perspective of the French government WW1 was fought to regain Elsass/Lotharingen from Germany and it succeeded in that aim (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/19/article-1348555-0CD3D91F000005DC-90_634x426.jpg). Now it turns out that WW1 (and as a consequence WW2 via the Versailles peace treaty) was fought over, well nothing!

Sorry about that.

Sarkozy made his remarks in the not very French sounding town of Truchtersheim.

A real French president, not having his (Jewish) roots in Hungary/Tessaloniki, would never have made such a mistake.

Welcome back to you all! :D

P.S. never knew that Sarko was a grass sniffer (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/19/article-1348555-0CD0B90E000005DC-568_634x371.jpg). Thought it was illegal in France.

9/11-investigator
21st January 2011, 09:09 AM
Patton On jews And Germans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sG8aVuhzTo&feature=player_embedded)

It is obvious why had to die (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1099384/Controversial-General-Patton-murdered-cover-secret-deal-U-S-U-S-S-R--new-book-claims.html)

dudalb
21st January 2011, 11:26 AM
He's back, and none the wiser.

dudalb
21st January 2011, 11:31 AM
Interestingly the New Sweden colonies were mostly populated with the Saami minority. They got along rather well with the native population as it turned out. The failure of New Sweden was more a factor of Queen Christina's lack of enthusiasm and distractions more than anything else.

I saw that in a documentary on the Saami (AKA Laplanders) on the Discovery channel, which was narrated by Renee Zellwenger, whose Swedish mother is of Saami descent.

9/11-investigator
21st January 2011, 03:28 PM
Frankly, my respect for Annapolis just went down a little because they had Suvorov as a speaker. I expected better from Rowboat U......

Poor dudalb, it gets worse:

Hudson Institute:
http://www.allworldwars.com/videos/Suvorov/Victor-Suvorov.html

C-SPAN did broadcast the Naval Institute speech as well:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283856-1

Suvorov is becoming mainstream; he already is in Russia.

Corsair 115
21st January 2011, 03:38 PM
Suvorov is becoming mainstream; he already is in Russia.


It doesn't matter one whit whether he becomes mainstream or not. His ideas are still flat-out wrong and unsupported by anything resembling real-world facts.

uke2se
21st January 2011, 04:59 PM
It doesn't matter one whit whether he becomes mainstream or not. His ideas are still flat-out wrong and unsupported by anything resembling real-world facts.

Nein-11 isn't interested in facts or history. He's interested in furthering his agenda and scoring a propaganda victory. He has all but said so outright. There's nothing to gain from further participation in this thread. Let it sink off the front page, and if Nein-11 spams it to keep it on top we'll just report him.

9/11-investigator
21st January 2011, 05:42 PM
Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kZxwA9yq6c&feature=related) with General Otto Ernst Remer.

English transscript (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p108_Schoeman.html).

He spoke directly with Hitler about the Polish attack:

"Why did you really attack Poland? Couldn't you have been more patient?"

He could not. Hitler's reply:

You are mistaken. I knew as early as March 1939 that Roosevelt had determined to bring about a world war, and I knew that the British were cooperating in this, and that Churchill was involved. God knows that I certainly did not want a world war. That's why I sought to solve the Polish problem in my own way with a kind of punishment expedition, without a declaration of war. After all, there had been thousands of murders of ethnic Germans and 1.2 million ethnic German refugees. What should I have done? I had to act. And for that reason, four weeks after this campaign, I made the most generous offer of peace that any victorious leader could ever have made. Unfortunately, it wasn't successful.

We have seen earlier in this thread that this all is true.

Furthermore he says what Suvorov said after him:

First of all, it should be clearly understood that at the time of the Balkans campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece in early 1941, when we had ten divisions on the entire length of the Soviet border, the Russians had stationed 247 major military formations on our border. After the conclusion of the Balkans campaign, we then quickly placed at most 170 major military units on the border with the Soviet Union. The Russians had readied themselves for an attack.

The initial successes of our forces against the Soviets were due to the fact that the Russians were not stationed in defense positions, but were instead positioned right at the front for attack, which made it possible for us to quickly encircle large Soviet forces. Thus, in the first weeks of the war, we were able to capture more than three million prisoners of war as well as enormous quantities of war equipment, all of which was on the frontier, positioned for attack

Russian build-up confirmed by air-reconnaissance:

That's the truth of the matter, which can be proven. I recently spoke with a Mr. Pemsel, who was a long-range aerial reconnaissance pilot. In the period before the beginning of the Soviet campaign, he flew as far as the Don River and observed and reported on this enormous concentration of Soviet forces on the border.

Crucial statement:

And after he received more and more reports of Soviet preparations for an attack against Germany and Europe, Hitler reacted. I am thus absolutely certain that Hitler did not originally plan to attack the Soviet Union. Instead, he acted as the changing situation demanded.

Read his comments about Jewish and in reaction Ukrainian attrocities, later blamed on the Germans:

No, these anti-Jewish pogroms were an expression of the outrage of the people. They hated the Jews.

In Poland as well, there were often pogroms. As you may know, in Poland.there were even pogroms against the Jews after the war. That was really something. The outrage of the people in the East against the Jews, who always portrayed themselves as decent people and good merchants, is indescribable.

About Hitler as a lover:

I don't think he was a great lover. I don't think so. He had a cousin, Geli Raubal, during the period of struggle before he became Chancellor. Hitler wasn't able to pay enough attention to her, but she loved him, and she took her own life. I think she was the only woman that Hitler really loved.

Remer was advocating in 1990 what I am advocating now:

A: We Germans must leave the NATO alliance. We must be militarily independent. We must create a nuclear-free zone. We must come to an understanding with the Russians... If we really come to an understanding with Russia, then it's all over for America.

Remer confirms that the Bolshevik coup was almost entirely Jewish lead, but that changed under Stalin:

Among the Soviet leaders at that time, 97 percent were Jews. And then Stalin came to power, and politicians who pursued a [non-ideological] policy in the interests of Russia, including the "Great Patriotic War" [that is, the Second World War], which he won.

9/11-investigator
21st January 2011, 05:44 PM
Nein-11 isn't interested in facts or history. He's interested in furthering his agenda and scoring a propaganda victory. He has all but said so outright. There's nothing to gain from further participation in this thread. Let it sink off the front page, and if Nein-11 spams it to keep it on top we'll just report him.

uke2se is outright preparing for surrender on the intellectual level. I am glad that he admits that their is nothing to gain for my oppponents in this thread.

Tell me uke2se, what is it you want to know about WW2 but were always afraid to ask?

Hans
21st January 2011, 09:50 PM
Considering that after 101 pages all we've seen are poorly constructed lies, ignorance of history and denial of what history is known what more do we have to talk about 9/11? Is there anything else you wish to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about?

dafydd
22nd January 2011, 12:55 AM
uke2se is outright preparing for surrender on the intellectual level. I am glad that he admits that their is nothing to gain for my oppponents in this thread.

Tell me uke2se, what is it you want to know about WW2 but were always afraid to ask?

That horrible smell is back.

dafydd
22nd January 2011, 12:56 AM
Considering that after 101 pages all we've seen are poorly constructed lies, ignorance of history and denial of what history is known what more do we have to talk about 9/11? Is there anything else you wish to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about?

It's about time this was put to rest,we have plumbed the depths of Nein's ignorance and anti-Semitism.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 02:12 AM
Mind you, this general Remer (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p108_Schoeman.html) was not a Nazi die-hard, but he was involved in the plot to kill Hitler!

Otto Ernst Remer (1912-1997) was a German soldier during the Second World War. In July 1944 he played a key role in putting down the conspiracy to murder Hitler and seize control of the German government.

And it is him who says that Barbarossa was a forced pre-emptive attack.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 02:16 AM
It doesn't matter one whit whether he becomes mainstream or not. His ideas are still flat-out wrong and unsupported by anything resembling real-world facts.

So you are claiming that Soviet forces were not amassing along the western border?! :confused:

Got any evidence?

I mean, the Naval Institute and Hudson Institute are taking Suvorov seriously and C-Span as well.

SpitfireIX
22nd January 2011, 03:56 AM
Mind you, this general Remer (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p108_Schoeman.html) was not a Nazi die-hard, but he was involved in the plot to kill Hitler!



And it is him who says that Barbarossa was a forced pre-emptive attack.


Did you even read your own source? It says that Remer was instrumental in stopping the plot.

Further, from a Wikipedia article on Otto Ernst Remer:

Otto-Ernst Remer (18 August 1912 – 4 October 1997) was a German Wehrmacht officer who played a decisive role in stopping the 1944 20 July Plot against Adolf Hitler. After the war he co-founded the Sozialistische Reichspartei (SRP). He also advanced Holocaust denial. . . .

During this time, Remer and his men successfully stopped the 20 July plot to seize control of the German government, following the assassination attempt on Hitler. Upon being ordered by General Paul von Hase to arrest Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, Remer went to Goebbels office to do so, pistol in hand. Goebbels, however, used his oratory skills to dissuade Remer from arresting him, insisting instead that Hitler was still alive. When Remer asked for proof, Goebbels picked up the phone and asked to be put through to Hitler. Within the minute, Hitler was on the phone, and Goebbels handed the receiver to Remer. Hitler asked Remer whether he recognized his voice, then gave Remer orders to crush the plot with his troops, which he did. That same night Remer was promoted two ranks to oberst (colonel). . . .

Remer went on to command an expanded Führer Begleit Brigade (FBB), a field unit formed from a Grossdeutschland cadre, in East Prussia with little success. His men suffered high casualties, reportedly due to his leadership. The brigade was then transferred to the west for the Ardennes Offensive, in December 1944, and again suffered high casualties for little gain.

In 1945, when the FBB was expanded to divisional status, he was promoted to generalmajor (brigadier general), and appointed to command it. He was not considered a successful division commander, for when the FBD moved to Silesia in March 1945, Remer was criticized for lack of ability once again. . . .

Remer's Socialist Reich Party, which he had co-founded in 1950, was banned in 1952, after it had gathered about 360,000 supporters in Lower Saxony, and won 16 seats in the state parliament. The Socialist Reich Party also won eight seats in the Bremen state parliament.

From 1991 to 1994, Remer put out his own publication, the Remer-Depesche. Remer was sentenced to 22 months of imprisonment in October 1992, for writing and publishing a number of articles that were said to incite "racial hatred", through their questioning of the Holocaust.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047c9937d6fe08.jpg

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 06:00 AM
Not sure what you want to say with your wikipedia article quote, but I have to admit I was too quick while glancing over the IHR Remer article. My mistake, my apologies. I had never heard of Remer before.

My observation that he arrives at the same conclusion as Suvorov, namely that Barbarossa was a preemptive attack, still stands. And that is what is most important in the context of this thread.

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 06:35 AM
So you are claiming that Soviet forces were not amassing along the western border?! :confused:

Got any evidence?

I mean, the Naval Institute and Hudson Institute are taking Suvorov seriously and C-Span as well.

Why does anyone have to supply proof. It is your theory. You have demonstrate the force existed. You have to supply the projected OOB and you have to explain why this force failed so totally when the Germans attacked

Hans
22nd January 2011, 06:44 AM
Mind you, this general Remer (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p108_Schoeman.html) was not a Nazi die-hard, but he was involved in the plot to kill Hitler!
And it is him who says that Barbarossa was a forced pre-emptive attack.

Tell us 9/11 when did Hitler tell his generals to start planning for an invasion of Russia? When was that date again? LOL

Remer also claims that:

Q: Is it true that the Germans referred to the Russians as "subhumans"?
A: Nonsense! The Russians are human beings just like everyone else.
Your question, whether we called the Russians "subhumans," is nonsense. We had a first-class relationship with the Russian people. The only exception, which was a problem we dealt with, was with the Soviet Commissars, who were all Jews. These people stood behind the lines with machine guns, pushing the Russian soldiers into battle. And anyway, we made quick work of them. That was according to order. This was during a war for basic existence, an ideological war, when such a policy is simply taken for granted.
There was sometimes talk about the so-called Asian hordes, and ordinary soldiers sometimes spoke about subhumans, but such language was never officially used.

This is of course a lie...

"Der Untermensch", edited by Himmler and distributed by the Race and Settlement Head Office. Published in 1942 after the start of Operation Barbarossa, it is around fifty pages long and consists for the most part of photos casting an extremely negative light on the enemy (see link below for the title page). 3,860,995 copies were printed in the German language. It was also translated into Greek, French, Dutch, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Czech and seven other languages. The pamphlet states the following:
Just as the night rises against the day, the light and dark are in eternal conflict. So too, is the subhuman the greatest enemy of the dominant species on earth, mankind. The subhuman is a biological creature, crafted by nature, which has hands, legs, eyes and mouth, even the semblance of a brain. Nevertheless, this terrible creature is only a partial human being.
Although it has features similar to a human, the subhuman is lower on the spiritual and psychological scale than any animal. Inside of this creature lies wild and unrestrained passions: an incessant need to destroy, filled with the most primitive desires, chaos and coldhearted villainy.
A subhuman and nothing more!

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/deruntermensch.html


Well so much for Remers creditability

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 06:45 AM
Why does anyone have to supply proof. It is your theory. You have demonstrate the force existed. You have to supply the projected OOB and you have to explain why this force failed so totally when the Germans attacked

I was not around at the time, let alone in the Soviet neighbourhood to carry out reconnaisance myself. But even if I was, you would not believe me anyway since I am an 'evil Nazi and anti-semite', right?

I have Suvorov. I have Remer. I have Walter Post and a host of modern historians. I have a host of post-Soviet historians like Chmelnizky (Überfall auf Europa (http://www.buch.de/shop/home/suchartikel/ueberfall_auf_europa/viktor_suworow/ISBN3-932381-53-X/ID17303911.html?jumpId=4148641)), who say the same, based on research in archives.

http://www.weltnetzladen.com/printable/images/ueberfallaufeuropa_160.gif

Can you point to a source that explicitly denies that Soviet troops were amassing along the western border?

Hans
22nd January 2011, 06:46 AM
Why does anyone have to supply proof. It is your theory. You have demonstrate the force existed. You have to supply the projected OOB and you have to explain why this force failed so totally when the Germans attacked

Where is the Soviet Staff study? What were the objectives. Oddly knowing of this has been found in the archieves - nor commented on by Soviet or Russian planners. American historians who have access to the Soviet records find no record of it either....why is that I wonder?

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 06:57 AM
Can you point to a source that explicitly denies that Soviet troops were amassing along the western border?

Sorry history does not work that way. It is not my job to prove a negative. It is your job to show evidence of an event. Hans and I have given you a list of the sort of detail we need to see, any one or two of them would do. So rather than duck and weave I suggest you get on with your homework

Hans
22nd January 2011, 06:59 AM
On July 21 1940 Hitler directed General Field Marshal Walthier Von Brauchchitsch to begin planning to invade the Soviet Union the plan was initially called Fritz and later Directive 21 in December 1940 Hitler gave it its famous name and order it for May 1941.

So how did Hitler know in July 1940 that the 'Soviets were going to invade'

LOL

Hans
22nd January 2011, 07:03 AM
I noticed that a similar discussion is going on at rodoh.

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/10804/WW2-revisionist-claims?page=6

I should remember that in case I defeat you all, uhhh... I mean to say I am banned here, so that I can go there and subject 'my' theories to further hostile examination.

Feel free to leave at anytime with your reputation for a stunning lack of historical knowledge, verified and confirmed!

So Remer says that the nice old Hitler didn't think the Russian were sub humans - what about that Himmler document?? Any comments? What silence. Denial by silence? LOL

Hans
22nd January 2011, 07:05 AM
Here is another question 9/11 will run away from. What was Stalin's reaction to Hitlers attack against him.

Come on 9/11 TRY and do so research, tell us what Stalin did, did he immediately order his attack to go in?

Did the Soviet artillery immediately implement their prep plan? If not why not?

I look forward to either a stunning inept reply or total denial by silence......

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 07:30 AM
Sorry history does not work that way. It is not my job to prove a negative. It is your job to show evidence of an event. Hans and I have given you a list of the sort of detail we need to see, any one or two of them would do. So rather than duck and weave I suggest you get on with your homework

Why don't you read the transcript (http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/10807-conversation-between-mannerheim-hitler.html) of a recorded discussion between Hitler and Finnish Marshal Mannerheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim):

Nobody doubts it authenticity...

He does not talk about Soviet troops amassing near the border (nor denies it), yet he says:

If I had an idea - then I would have been even more difficult for me, but I would have taken the decision [to invade] anyhow, because - there was no other possibility.

This does not sound like Djenghis Kahn 2.0 conquering Russia just for the heck of it, now does it?... "there was no other possibility"

Our whole armament - you know, was - is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the west

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. Hitler expected a possible war in the West against those who could not tolerate the existence of a large German state in the first place. Hitler wanted to reverse Versailles, remember? And who had imposed Versailles on Germany? Right, the western powers. Who was he dealing with all the time, like in Munich? Right, British and French politicians.

Is there still anybody who wants to defend the ludicrous idea of a planned German attack on the USSR on the basis of this A1-quality of evidence?

No?

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 07:43 AM
Why don't you read the transcript of a recorded discussion between Hitler and Finnish Mannerheim:

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/10807-conversation-between-mannerheim-hitler.html

Nobody doubts it authenticity...

But I doubt it contents. How many tanks does Hitler claim his army had destroyed?


He does not talk about Soviet troops amassing near the border (nor denies it), yet he says:

Why bring it up. History is about relevance. By your own addmission this interview carries no relevance to the point up for debate


this does not sound like Djenghis Kahn 2.0 conquering Russia just for the heck of it, now does it?... "there was no other possibility"

So then do I take it you consider Hitler the worst military leader in history? Even a lowly corporal knows that unless an invading force can achieve a 3:1 ratio they will be defeated by a prepared enemy

There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Hitler expected a possible war in the West against those who could not tolerate the existence of a large German state in the first place. Hitler wanted to reverse Versailles, remember? And who had imposed Versailles on Germany? Right, the western powers. Who was he dealing with all the time? Right, British and French politicians.

We have nothing except Hitler expected war with the West, given this discussion point is about pre-emptive Soviet actions in the East, it has no relevence


Is there still anybody why wants to defend the ludicrous idea of a planned German attack on the USSR on the basis of this A1-quality of evidence?


No one is debating a pre-emptive strike by German forces, we are asking you for evidence for plans of a Soviet pre-emptive strike

Hans
22nd January 2011, 07:48 AM
Is there still anybody why wants to defend the ludicrous idea of a planned German attack on the USSR on the basis of this A1-quality of evidence?


You don't have any evidence

What did Hitler order planned on July 21 1940?

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 08:04 AM
But I doubt it contents. How many tanks does Hitler claim his army had destroyed?

Why bring it up. History is about relevance. By your own addmission this interview carries no relevance to the point up for debate

So then do I take it you consider Hitler the worst military leader in history? Even a lowly corporal knows that unless an invading force can achieve a 3:1 ratio they will be defeated by a prepared enemy

We have nothing except Hitler expected war with the West, given this discussion point is about pre-emptive Soviet actions in the East, it has no relevence

No one is debating a pre-emptive strike by German forces, we are asking you for evidence for plans of a Soviet pre-emptive strike

Once again, this time slowly...

My position: Hitler was forced to attack the USSR preemptively, because Stalin was preparing for war against Germany, seizing the opportunity since Germany was tied in a war with Britain.

Your position: Hitler attacked the USSR merely for territorial gain.

Your position is untenable in the light of the statements made by Hitler in Finland, recorded clandestinely.

Now do not loose yourself in obfuscating side issues whether how many tanks you doubt Hitler destroyed or if Hitler is a good or bad military leader.

Ok?

So, now that your position has been thoroughly debunked, what are you going to do in order to find a new interpretation for what really happened in 1941? You could of course adopt my position but that is a psychological too big a hurden. I understand that. I wish you success anyway while you maneuver yourself in yet another hopeless intellectual position.

Hans
22nd January 2011, 08:18 AM
Once again, this time slowly...

My position: Hitler was forced to attack the USSR preemptively, because Stalin was preparing for war against Germany, seizing the opportunity since Germany was tied in a war with Britain.

Your position: Hitler attacked the USSR merely for territorial gain.

Your position is untenable in the light of the statements made by Hitler in Finland, recorded clandestinely.

Now do not loose yourself in obfuscating side issues whether how many tanks you doubt Hitler destroyed or if Hitler is a good or bad military leader.

Ok?

So, now that your position has been thoroughly debunked, what are you going to do in order to find a new interpretation for what really happened in 1941? You could of course adopt my position but that is a psychological too big a hurden. I understand that. I wish you success anyway while you maneuver yourself in yet another hopeless intellectual position.

Hey 9/11 how come you haven't provided quotes from the Barbarossa plan itself it covers the status of the Soviet troops - who were in the defense and not in assembly areas for assault

How do you explain that? Why wasn't the Soviet army able to respond to the attack with a counter-attack?

Do you have any actual knowledge of the plan - on either side?

What you don't!

That's a surprize, LOL

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 08:19 AM
Once again, this time slowly...

My position: Hitler was forced to attack the USSR preemptively, because Stalin was preparing for war against Germany, seizing on the opportunity since Germany was tied in a war with Britain.


It matters nought how slow you say things - evidence is the final arbitor


Your position: Hitler attacked the USSR merely for territorial gain.

Your position is untenable in the light of the statements made by Hitler in Finland, recorded clandestinely.

Sorry you need to read Mein Kampf - He mentions his need to attack the Soviets in Chapter 13 (IIRC)



Now do not loose yourself in obfuscating side issues whether how many tanks you doubt Hitler destroyed or if Hitler is a good or bad military leader.

Sorry if you want to try and introduce the Finnish recording you cant pick or choose. I make no claim of how many tanks Hitler destroyed. he did state a number, in his own voice recorded for history.



So, now that your position has been thoroughly debunked,

One thing you definately share with Hitler - lack of understanding. He thought he'd beaten Britian in Dec 1940 - History shows another outcome

what are you going to do in order to find a new interpretation for what really happened in 1941?

When you show something that suggests a new interpretation should be considered, I definately will

You could of course adopt my position but that is a psychological too big a hurden. I understand that. I wish you success anyway.

I have no emotional attraction to any of the combatants of WW2 - History is history - If someone suddenly discovers "My secret plan to invade Germany" J Stalin, I would read it with great interest and change my thinking to "Stalin was the worst military leader of the modern era, not Hitler.

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 08:26 AM
911 for you to sell your story. I need to see things like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khalkhin_Gol_Soviet_map_of_battle_1939.jpg

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 08:37 AM
Where is the Soviet Staff study? What were the objectives. Oddly knowing of this has been found in the archieves - nor commented on by Soviet or Russian planners. American historians who have access to the Soviet records find no record of it either....why is that I wonder?


I believe Rezun/'Suvorov's invasion plan is based on a document of May 1941 which included a reference to 2 proposed counter-offensives, one towards Cracow and one towards Lublin. The nature of this document is apparently explored in W.Spahr's book on Zhukov.

Incidentally, Rezun's 'Icebreaker' is available to read online though it may well be infringing copyright so I'm wary of posting a link. If you do find it, and if you know anything about Soviet armour, don't read chapter 3 it will make you cry. ;)
But I do recommend doing a ctrl+F for 'Schickelgruber'. . . .

Hans
22nd January 2011, 08:38 AM
911 for you to sell your story. I need to see things like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khalkhin_Gol_Soviet_map_of_battle_1939.jpg

Really MG1962 asking 9/11 for evidence? That's like asking a box of fluffy ducks if they can spell detergent.

Hans
22nd January 2011, 08:46 AM
I believe Rezun/'Suvorov's invasion plan is based on a document of May 1941 which included a reference to 2 proposed counter-offensives, one towards Cracow and one towards Lublin.

So you figure they misrepresented the concept of counter-attacks as proof of an attack?

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 08:49 AM
I believe Rezun/'Suvorov's invasion plan is based on a document of May 1941 which included a reference to 2 proposed counter-offensives, one towards Cracow and one towards Lublin. The nature of this document is apparently explored in W.Spahr's book on Zhukov.

Incidentally, Rezun's 'Icebreaker' is available to read online though it may well be infringing copyright so I'm wary of posting a link. If you do find it, and if you know anything about Soviet armour, don't read chapter 3 it will make you cry. ;)
But I do recommend doing a ctrl+F for 'Schickelgruber'. . . .

Forget about 'Icebreaker (http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World/dp/0241126223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295714846&sr=8-1-catcorr)' from 1990 (for $750,- !).
Read the 2007 evolution from that book:

Chief Culprit (http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Military-Controversies/dp/1597971146/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 08:50 AM
911 for you to sell your story. I need to see things like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khalkhin_Gol_Soviet_map_of_battle_1939.jpg

What's your point?

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 08:52 AM
It matters nought how slow you say things - evidence is the final arbitor


[B]

Sorry you need to read Mein Kampf - He mentions his need to attack the Soviets in Chapter 13 (IIRC)




Sorry if you want to try and introduce the Finnish recording you cant pick or choose. I make no claim of how many tanks Hitler destroyed. he did state a number, in his own voice recorded for history.




One thing you definately share with Hitler - lack of understanding. He thought he'd beaten Britian in Dec 1940 - History shows another outcome



When you show something that suggests a new interpretation should be considered, I definately will



I have no emotional attraction to any of the combatants of WW2 - History is history - If someone suddenly discovers "My secret plan to invade Germany" J Stalin, I would read it with great interest and change my thinking to "Stalin was the worst military leader of the modern era, not Hitler.

MG1962 studiously ignores Hitler's remark about being forced to attack the USSR. Reason: it does not fit in his interpretation of history as delivered by Spielberg for $10,- only. Or how much does a cinema ticket cost in Anglosphere?

I leave it at that.

Hans
22nd January 2011, 08:54 AM
What's your point?

Invasion plans, especially the logistics appendix take a lot of planning or in laymen's terms lots of paperwork.

Where is this paper. It took six months from the German General staff to come up with a plan - where is the Soviet plan?

Hans
22nd January 2011, 08:57 AM
Where are Stalin's orders? Where are the depots? Why weren't the air and naval forces prepared? Why were subs and mine layers not prepositioned?

Hans
22nd January 2011, 09:01 AM
I leave it at that.

Yes the 9/11 trade mark, pompous comments, no evidence and history stand as written.

Do you ever tire of being shown to be unknowledge in history?

I guess not.

LOL

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 09:02 AM
So you figure they misrepresented the concept of counter-attacks as proof of an attack?

Basically, yes. Either deliberately or from Rezun's ignorance of how the Red Army intended to operate in 1941.

Hans
22nd January 2011, 09:05 AM
Basically, yes. Either deliberately or from Rezun's ignorance of how the Red Army intended to operate in 1941.

Yes I'd heard mention of it in something (I believe) that was written by the American LTC who wrote a lot of Soviet Military History - whose name escapes me at the moment. (Glantz?)

I wonder if it got beyond a concept?

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 09:55 AM
Yes I'd heard mention of it in something (I believe) that was written by the American LTC who wrote a lot of Soviet Military History - whose name escapes me at the moment. (Glantz?)

I wonder if it got beyond a concept?

David M. Glantz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz)

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.

Hans
22nd January 2011, 10:13 AM
David M. Glantz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz)

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.

I wonder too if this imaginary offense was based on Zhukov's concept of an attack - but it was never planned nor, as far as anyone is aware, accepted by Stalin.

This is a good summary of the question - seems pretty thin to me.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

Hans
22nd January 2011, 10:31 AM
One of the interest aspect of this myth is that the Germans and their allies never captured a copy of this alleged plan. Despite taking numerous Divisional, Corps and Army level headquarters

http://www.mydocsonline.com/pub/Cmbattles/399px-Fall_Barbarossa_1.jpg

Where is the Soviet plan...above is an image of the Barb... given to Hitler after he requested a plan to invade the USSR on July 21, 1940

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 11:06 AM
David M. Glantz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz)

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.

David Glantz (http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&biw=1184&bih=603&q=glantz+jew&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=4f3122d2c1be4f6b)...

He seems to have good connections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz) in... Russia!

A member of the Russian Federation’s Academy of Natural Sciences, he has written or co-authored more than twenty commercially published books, over sixty self-published studies and atlases, and over one hundred articles dealing with the history of the Red (Soviet) Army, Soviet military strategy, operational art, and tactics, Soviet airborne operations, intelligence, and deception, and other topics related to World War II.

And no surprise here:

Glantz is also known as an opponent of Viktor Suvorov's thesis, which he endeavored to rebut with the book Stumbling Colossus.

If we remember that Suvorov still has an unrevoked death penalty hanging over his head by the Russian state, then we should not be too surprised that only anti-Suvorov's will find a place in a state institution like an Academy of Science.

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 12:01 PM
If we remember that Suvorov still has an unrevoked death penalty hanging over his head by the Russian state, then we should not be too surprised that only anti-Suvorov's will find a place in a state institution like an Academy of Science.

Yes thats the only possible reason, absolutely no chance he is just plain wrong.

How is that homework I gave you going?

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 12:04 PM
David M. Glantz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz)

The Red Army's strategic defence was intended to include deep counter-attacks, but they lacked the mobile formations, radios and command structures to carry them out effectively. Those formations that tried to carry out the defence plan were easily encircled and destroyed by the Wehrmacht. Even when the Red Army began to launch more co-ordinated counter-offensives in July, these were conducted on too broad a front and with too little depth to be effective.

Here a Russian poster on the amazon forum comparing Suvorov and Glantz (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2N7VNOZZ3V540/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2N7VNOZZ3V540).

If there were no offencive preparations why Russians did not dig up their 3,000,000 men, 11000 superior tanks and 44,000 guns and mortars that have been deployed in the border areas
...
So why Zukov's, who was in charge of army, was proposing the attack? I guess he (gen Zukov) knew better than Mr. Glantz what were real abilities and intentions of Red Army.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 12:16 PM
Yes thats the only possible reason, absolutely no chance he is just plain wrong.

How is that homework I gave you going?

You are in no position to give me 'homework' where you just have been outmaneuvered in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6795005&postcount=4066).

You are the one who needs to do homework. A lot of it.

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 12:23 PM
If there were no offencive preparations why Russians did not dig up their 3,000,000 men, 11000 superior tanks and 44,000 guns and mortars that have been deployed in the border areas

I assume by 'dig up' he means 'dig in'. Well, they did. The Russians began constructing fortifications in Poland along the new frontier 4 days after the surrender of France.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 12:25 PM
Can somebody please come to the aide of MG1962 who has maneuvered himself in such a mess that he is unable to explain himself a way out of it:

So we have Hitler on record as saying:

If I had an idea - then I would have been even more difficult for me, but I would have taken the decision [to invade] anyhow, because - there was no other possibility.

This does not sound like Djenghis Kahn 2.0 conquering Russia just for the heck of it, now does it?... "there was no other possibility"

Our whole armament - you know, was - is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the west.


Can somebody, brave enough to admit that he still believes in the traditional fairy tale that Hitler invaded Russia as a sort of Djenghis Kahn 2.0, please help MG1962 out? On behalf of MG1962, thanks!

BTW was Djenghis Kahn a Jew? :D

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 12:28 PM
I assume by 'dig up' he means 'dig in'. Well, they did. The Russians began constructing fortifications in Poland along the new frontier 4 days after the surrender of France.

I think the Russian poster was refering to the situation in June 1941, not that of June 1940.

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 12:46 PM
You are in no position to give me 'homework' where you just have been outmaneuvered in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6795005&postcount=4066).

You are the one who needs to do homework. A lot of it.

LOL - no dog ate my homework excuses. We need the name, or a map or an OOB from this mythical invasion. Really it should not be too hard...should it?

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 12:48 PM
I assume by 'dig up' he means 'dig in'. Well, they did. The Russians began constructing fortifications in Poland along the new frontier 4 days after the surrender of France.

I think the Russian poster was refering to the situation in June 1941, not that of June 1940.

So was I.

tsig
22nd January 2011, 12:49 PM
But I doubt it contents. How many tanks does Hitler claim his army had destroyed?



Why bring it up. History is about relevance. By your own addmission this interview carries no relevance to the point up for debate




So then do I take it you consider Hitler the worst military leader in history? Even a lowly corporal knows that unless an invading force can achieve a 3:1 ratio they will be defeated by a prepared enemy



We have nothing except Hitler expected war with the West, given this discussion point is about pre-emptive Soviet actions in the East, it has no relevence



No one is debating a pre-emptive strike by German forces, we are asking you for evidence for plans of a Soviet pre-emptive strike

He also was the weakest since according to deniers he was forced to go to war, forced to invade Russia and in general had no control of events.

ETA: Makes you almost fell sorry for him, a nice guy caught in such a situation but what's a Fuhrer to do?

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 12:57 PM
Can somebody please come to the aide of MG1962 who has maneuvered himself in such a mess that he is unable to explain himself a way out of this mess:

So we have Hitler on record as saying:



This does not sound like Djenghis Kahn 2.0 conquering Russia just for the heck of it, now does it?... "there was no other possibility"



Can somebody, brave enough to admit that he still believes in the traditional fairy tale that Hitler invaded Russia as a sort of Djenghis Kahn 2.0, please help MG1962 out? On behalf of MG1962, thanks!

BTW was Djenghis Kahn a Jew? :D

And in Mein Kampf we have Hitler saying He is going to invade Russian. He actually names the place and the reason he is doing it. Vol 2 Chapter 14. For such a fanboi of the guy I really would have thought you would have read his opus by now

Though knowledge has not been your strong point in this thread so far

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 12:58 PM
So was I.

No you were not:

4 days after the surrender of France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/fall_france_01.shtml

That would be 22 + 4 = June 26, 1940

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 01:13 PM
And in Mein Kampf we have Hitler saying He is going to invade Russian. He actually names the place and the reason he is doing it. Vol 2 Chapter 14. For such a fanboi of the guy I really would have thought you would have read his opus by now


For you there is no difference between:
a) the fabulations of a young imprisoned hothead with no career worth mentioning let alone becoming chancellor of Germany and
b) 3 millions of Soviet troops amassed along the Soviet-German border (some 16 years after MK was written).

:confused:

I did read his magnum opus many year ago. I noticed that he never anticipated, let alone wished for a war with Western Europe. The mistake he made was that he assumed that British are rational thinking beings rather than a tribe wishing to commit sociocide (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/03/article-0-08377CE0000005DC-794_634x425.jpg) at the first opportunity. We know better now (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1182373/Welcome-binge-Britain-Polish-photographer-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html). Britain preferred handing over Europe to Soviet-American invaders (and now third worlders) rather than dominating the world together with the Germans. In any future design of a resurrection of European civilization Britain will have no place. Any measure must be taken in the future to prevent them from destroying Europe again, now together with the Chinese.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 01:29 PM
By no means do we solely have to rely on Suvorov if we have the American Albert Weeks. In Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941 (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Other-War-Strategy-1939-1941/dp/0742521923) he confirms what Suvorov said.

From the Amazon readers comments

Among these documents are transcripts of Stalin's famous toast to graduates of the Military academies from the 5th of May, 1941, and the text of Stalin's previously hotly disputed secret speech to the Soviet Politburo, dated August 19, 1939, just days before signing the Hitler-Stalin Pact including its secret protocol about the territorial division of Poland, the Baltics and Bessarabia. The text was discovered in Russian archives and has also been confirmed by diary entries of Comintern head Dimitrov. Stalin predicts that Germany will have to fight a long war against France and England, allowing the Soviet Union to sovietize not only defeated Germany but also France
...
An even more important document is from the Soviet General Staff. It is a war plan against Germany, calling explicitly for a pre-emptive strike against German forces! The document, titled "Considerations of the Plan for the Strategic Deployment of the Armed forces of the Soviet Union in Case of War with Germany and its Allies", is dated May 15, 1941. It has been prepared mainly by General, later Marshal, A. Vasilievsky, Deputy Head of the Operations Department of the Soviet General Staff (Stavka). The Memorandum was presented to Stalin by Commissar of Defense S. Timoshenko and Chief of the General Staff G. Zhukov.
The document "Considerations..." (15 handwritten pages long) is explicitly calling for a pre-emptive strike against German forces.
...
In fact, Weeks deals both Glantz's and Gorodetsky's apologia of Stalin a deadly blow with his well researched book.
...
If you read this book and Suvorov's you will come to the conclusion that the only country prepared for a world war was the USSR and that they almost pulled it off with Hitler as an unwitting dupe!

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 01:47 PM
He also was the weakest since according to deniers he was forced to go to war, forced to invade Russia and in general had no control of events.

ETA: Makes you almost fell sorry for him, a nice guy caught in such a situation but what's a Fuhrer to do?

tsig is slowly adapting to new intellectual realities.
He is getting there. :)

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 01:57 PM
For you there is no difference between:
a) the fabulations of a young imprisoned hothead with no career worth mentioning let alone becoming chancellor of Germany and

And 16 years later goes on to do exactly what he said he would do....invade Russia

b) 3 millions of Soviet troops amassed along the Soviet-German border (some 16 years after MK was written).

:confused:


How is that evidence coming along?

ddt
22nd January 2011, 02:05 PM
For you there is no difference between:
a) the fabulations of a young imprisoned hothead with no career worth mentioning let alone becoming chancellor of Germany and
Spouting off nonsense again? When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he was already on the road to become quite a successful politican. The NSDAP was on its way to become quite popular in Bavaria, and Hitler was an oft guest in the better Munich circles.

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 02:09 PM
No you were not:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/fall_france_01.shtml

That would be 22 + 4 = June 26, 1940

I said they BEGAN fortifying the border in 1940. BEGAN. Do you understand?

The Russians began constructing fortifications in Poland along the new frontier 4 days after the surrender of France. They continued building up until the invasion.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 02:14 PM
Spouting off nonsense again? When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he was already on the road to become quite a successful politican. The NSDAP was on its way to become quite popular in Bavaria, and Hitler was an oft guest in the better Munich circles.

You say it.

Again he was in jail when he wrote MK. So I stick with my assertion 'no career worth mentioning let alone becoming chancellor of Germany'.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 02:18 PM
I said they BEGAN fortifying the border in 1940. BEGAN. Do you understand?

The Russians began constructing fortifications in Poland along the new frontier 4 days after the surrender of France. They continued building up until the invasion.

And somehow you want to push this as a proof that one year later Soviet troops could not possibly have been amassed long the Axis-Soviet border? :confused:

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 02:24 PM
You say it.

Again he was in jail when he wrote MK. So I stick with my assertion 'no career worth mentioning let alone becoming chancellor of Germany'.

You can stick your assertion anywhere you want. The facts are he wrote he would invade Russia - Vol2 Chapter 14 - And that was exactly what he did

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 02:26 PM
And somehow you want to push this as a proof that one year later Soviet troops could not possibly have been amassed long the Axis-Soviet border? :confused:

Well why didn't the Germans kinda bump into them when they began their unprovoked attack?

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 02:31 PM
And somehow you want to push this as a proof that one year later Soviet troops could not possibly have been amassed long the Axis-Soviet border? :confused:

Why are you having difficulty following this line of thought that you started? You quoted some guy with a Russian name from Heidelberg wondering why the Red Army hadn't dug in. I'm saying that they had. They built a defensive line on their new border with Germany. Why did they build defences if they were planning to attack? Why did Kirponos have 43,000 workers building defences in March '41 if they were going to attack a few months later?

As to Hitler's intentions, he described his ideas about Lebensraum more fully in his 'Second Book' in 1928.

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 03:01 PM
You can stick your assertion anywhere you want. The facts are he wrote he would invade Russia - Vol2 Chapter 14 - And that was exactly what he did

World Bolshevism was the explicit goal of the communists, not just something Stalin wrote years before he ascended to power. And that was what the Soviets had prepared for ever since it's beginnings in the twenties. One huge military buildup at extreme cost for the population. And now that Stalin had maneuvered Hitler into war with the West-European powers he thought the time was ripe to open a second front. And that was exactly what he did in 1941.

tsig
22nd January 2011, 03:31 PM
tsig is slowly adapting to new intellectual realities.
He is getting there. :)

You admit that Hitler was nothing more than a Jew-puppet?

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 03:32 PM
World Bolshevism was the explicit goal of the communists, not just something Stalin wrote years before he ascended to power. And that was what the Soviets had prepared for ever since it's beginnings in the twenties. One huge military buildup at extreme cost for the population. And now that Stalin had maneuvered Hitler into war with the West-European powers he thought the time was ripe to open a second front. And that was exactly what he did in 1941.

None of this matters.

Did Stalin invade Germany No

Did Hitler invade Russia Yes

Did Hitle say he would invade Russia Yes

End of story. Spin it all you want how you want. The final answer comes back to Mein Kampf Vol 2 Chapter 14 Hitler did exactly what he claimed he would for the reasons he would

9/11-investigator
22nd January 2011, 04:48 PM
Why are you having difficulty following this line of thought that you started? You quoted some guy with a Russian name from Heidelberg wondering why the Red Army hadn't dug in. I'm saying that they had. They built a defensive line on their new border with Germany. Why did they build defences if they were planning to attack? Why did Kirponos have 43,000 workers building defences in March '41 if they were going to attack a few months later?

This Kirponos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kirponos)? Not a word about building defenses. Got a link?

As to Hitler's intentions, he described his ideas about Lebensraum more fully in his 'Second Book' in 1928.

I admit that he was dreaming in his younger and more irresponsible years of mildly mimicking the behavior of British, French and Dutch colonizers and acquire a strip of land here and there, but nothing on the scale the British had done, invading and occupying 25% of the planets surface. But in the climate of 1941 he could even think of stampeding into Russia just to flex a few muscles, while he was at war with Britain in the West and knowing very well that the US would enter the war at the first possible opportunity.

So what is your explanation for the words said by Hitler against Mannerheim about having been forced to attack with an army designed for war in the West. MG1962 already implicitely admitted that he has no clue. How about you?

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 05:07 PM
So what is your explanation for the words said by Hitler against Mannerheim about having been forced to attack with an army designed for war in the West. MG1962 already implicitely admitted that he has no clue. How about you?

I dont have to explain anything because he never said he was forced. And I am still waiting for you to hand in your homework about this preemptive attack planned by the Soviets.

By the time Hitler speaks to Mannerheim, he clearly has losy complete touch on the conduct of the war, otherwise he'd not have been talking about 35,000 tanks

VonKleist
22nd January 2011, 05:13 PM
This Kirponos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kirponos)? Not a word about building defenses. Got a link?

Sure. Link here (http://tinyurl.com/6aoj83a)

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 05:26 PM
Sure. Link here (http://tinyurl.com/6aoj83a)

Dude can you warn people when you do that - I have coffee everywhere now :cllaugh:

TSR
22nd January 2011, 06:13 PM
Mind you, this general Remer (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p108_Schoeman.html) was not a Nazi die-hard, but he was involved in the plot to kill Hitler!

.
And, despite what the site tries to claim, was *not* the author of the article cited.

Stephanie Schoeman supposedly was, and what you posted was a supposed translation of that interview done by Mark Weber, a known liar.

Remember that discussion about primary sources, and how they are important
to the historical method?
.

Hans
22nd January 2011, 08:25 PM
. And now that Stalin had maneuvered Hitler into war with the West-European powers he thought the time was ripe to open a second front. And that was exactly what he did in 1941.

I thought you said the evil Joos manuvered Hitler into attacking everyone from Luxembourg to Russia now its seems you blame Stalin - or are you now claiming he was Hebrew?

LOL

Hans
22nd January 2011, 08:29 PM
admit that he was dreaming in his younger and more irresponsible years of mildly mimicking the behavior of British, French and Dutch colonizers and acquire a strip of land here and there, but nothing on the scale the British had done, invading and occupying 25% of the planets surface. But in the climate of 1941 he could even think of stampeding into Russia just to flex a few muscles, while he was at war with Britain in the West and knowing very well that the US would enter the war at the first possible opportunity.


He ordered the German General Staff to prepare an invasion plan on July 21 1940. He confirmed it on December 18th 1940 ....why do you continue to lie about this?

Germany declared war on America .....so was Hitler just an idiot? LOL

MG1962
22nd January 2011, 09:35 PM
I thought you said the evil Joos manuvered Hitler into attacking everyone from Luxembourg to Russia now its seems you blame Stalin - or are you now claiming he was Hebrew?

LOL

No its complicated.

Stalin stole the Russian revolution from the Jews, then acted exactly like the Jews were - hence fooling Hitler - Then the British came along, see they owned 25% of the planet but somehow fooled Hitler that Britian saw Germany as a threat.

Then the Americans convinced the Jews that the Russians through the British had fooled Hitler into thinking he was a threat.

Then the Japanes agreed to lend the Americans a bunch of planes so that 4 or so years later the Americans could try and make the Japanese go extinct with super bombs.

Somehow this was organised by Stalin to convince Churchill to tell De Gaul tp prove to Patton that Zukov was right all along and Hitler we indeed an idot

tsig
22nd January 2011, 09:40 PM
I thought you said the evil Joos manuvered Hitler into attacking everyone from Luxembourg to Russia now its seems you blame Stalin - or are you now claiming he was Hebrew?

LOL

It seems obvious that according to posters here that Hitler was a Jew-puppet if not an undercover Jew. Why else would he lead Germany into a war unprepared and then attack Russia in the face of overwhelming odds.

WWII was a Jewish plot to get land.

Hans
23rd January 2011, 03:25 AM
The contradictions in 9/11 'theory' are mind boggling. Its a poorly constructed attempt to white wash and restructure history to make Hitler look intelligent and presentable - it fails completely. Despite continual lying and denial the basic facts remains. Hitler was a ruthless killer and invaded and occupied a number of countries and unleashed (more correctly was THE major contributor) to the start of WWII.

9/11 poor understanding of history makes his attempt to create an alternative rather pathetic. I have known 8th grade Arab girls with better knowledge of European/World History.

Some of his better howlers:
Not knowing 'Angelos' were the German Angles

Not realizing that Hitler admired the British - 9/11 seems to have forgotten this and seems to be confused saying at one point the British are hopeless, then that Hitler wanted to ally with them and then complaining they had conquered 25% of the planet……actions and results inconsistent by his declaration of ineptness.

Prideful and pompous declaration of German greatness – overlooking that they were defeat twice – attacking people you cannot beat is not a sign or intelligence but general stupidity

That the evil Joos maneuvered the Aryan super genius Hitler into doing exactly what they wanted? How strange….

That the German invasion of Norway was planned well before the limited British move to block iron ore access

Taking Slovakia was a criminal invasion

That the invasion of Denmark was unjustified

That invading Poland to regain Danzig then taking the whole country and in an alliance with the Soviet Union is not the act of a ‘peaceful’ man

That British and American bombing was somehow evil but the German bombing of Warsaw, Rotterday and a number of other cities was somehow good

That Germany had a right to invade the non threatening states of Netherland, Belgium and Luxembourg

Cannot seem to figure out that evil done by the Soviet had nothing to do with the Western Allies – by his logic the Germans were responsible too since they were allied with the Soviets at one point

Attempting to say that German wasn't as bad as the Soviet Union - cannot understand they were both terrible but Nazi Germany was a greater threat at the time. Up to 1940 the Soviet attempts to spread revolution had not involved conventional war - Nazis and their allies had. It took a while but in the end the West defeated both threats and did so without destroying the world.

That the invasion of the Soviet Union was planned well in advance and had nothing to do with a mythical Soviet attack. Hitler attacked his ally and was destroyed for it. A strategic error unworthy of an Austrian Corporal.

Probably the saddest mistake he has made - out of denial and not a lack of knowledge his reliance on poorly research tertiary sources material unstead of primary materials. He seems to think biased neo-nazi materials have some historical value - they don't in this context. As noted he is well aware of this but simply uses denial to gloss over his gross failure to do basic research

Feel free to repost and add to the 9/11 Howlers list

SpitfireIX
23rd January 2011, 04:42 AM
Not sure what you want to say with your wikipedia article quote, but I have to admit I was too quick while glancing over the IHR Remer article. My mistake, my apologies. I had never heard of Remer before.


The quotation was for the benefit of everyone reading the thread, however, on the off-chance you aren't being deliberately obtuse, I'll summarize:

Remer was, in fact, a die-hard Nazi who actually helped foil the July 20 plot, and was clearly unrepentant after the war.
Remer was an incompetent general who was only promoted because of his loyalty to Hitler.
Remer was a Holocaust denier.
One other item that I initially omitted in the interest of brevity, but that upon reflection seems very important: Remer was a junior infantry officer in 1941, and could not possibly have had first-hand knowledge of any purported intelligence concerning an alleged Soviet plan to attack Germany.

My observation that he arrives at the same conclusion as Suvorov, namely that Barbarossa was a preemptive attack, still stands. And that is what is most important in the context of this thread.


Appeal to authority fallacy. As the above points demonstrate, there is no reason to believe that Remer's opinion carries any weight to speak of.

SanityGap
23rd January 2011, 05:56 AM
By no means do we solely have to rely on Suvorov if we have the American Albert Weeks. In Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941 (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Other-War-Strategy-1939-1941/dp/0742521923) he confirms what Suvorov said.

From the Amazon readers comments

Historical verification by Amazon readers comments research.
Priceless:eye-poppi

Hans
23rd January 2011, 06:26 AM
Historical verification by Amazon readers comments research.
Priceless:eye-poppi

A new laugh filled low for his research skills. Perhaps he should start to quote pyschics and celebrity pets

TSR
23rd January 2011, 06:54 AM
A new laugh filled low for his research skills. Perhaps he should start to quote pyschics and celebrity pets

.
Or, perhaps, psychic celebrity pets? I hear Tinkerbell is absolutely *uncanny* ( or is that uncanine) at predicting pork belly futures. *That's* hawt.
.

dudalb
23rd January 2011, 01:39 PM
Spouting off nonsense again? When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he was already on the road to become quite a successful politican. The NSDAP was on its way to become quite popular in Bavaria, and Hitler was an oft guest in the better Munich circles.

Spouting off Nonsense AGAIN?

WHen did the guy ever stop?

dudalb
23rd January 2011, 01:50 PM
The quotation was for the benefit of everyone reading the thread, however, on the off-chance you aren't being deliberately obtuse, I'll summarize:

Remer was, in fact, a die-hard Nazi who actually helped foil the July 20 plot, and was clearly unrepentant after the war.
Remer was an incompetent general who was only promoted because of his loyalty to Hitler.
Remer was a Holocaust denier.
One other item that I initially omitted in the interest of brevity, but that upon reflection seems very important: Remer was a junior infantry officer in 1941, and could not possibly have had first-hand knowledge of any purported intelligence concerning an alleged Soviet plan to attack Germany.




Appeal to authority fallacy. As the above points demonstrate, there is no reason to believe that Remer's opinion carries any weight to speak of.

Remer was interviewed for the classic TV Documentary series "THe World At War" and, as of 1972, he was still an apologists for Hitler and company.

JollyRoger
23rd January 2011, 11:14 PM
Oh common thats to easy

11) other, namely politicians who don't have the problem solving skills to resolve issues with other nations with out going to war with other nations who don't have the problem solving skills to resolve their issues with other nations.

Their all at fault, if the politicians had to fight the war do you think the war would last as long as they do, and if war was not profitable do you think they would happen at all?

Tolls
24th January 2011, 06:50 AM
Oh common thats to easy

11) other, namely politicians who don't have the problem solving skills to resolve issues with other nations with out going to war with other nations who don't have the problem solving skills to resolve their issues with other nations.

Their all at fault, if the politicians had to fight the war do you think the war would last as long as they do, and if war was not profitable do you think they would happen at all?

Does that include politicians whose children die in those wars?
Just asking because I can think of quite a few for the First World War, not least Asquith's eldest son on the Somme.

I mean, I'd hate to think you were just spouting off...

Oh, and I see 911's time off hasn't been spent educating himself.

JollyRoger
24th January 2011, 09:57 AM
The title of this particular part of the forum does say Conspiracy theory

dudalb
24th January 2011, 10:03 AM
Oh common thats to easy

11) other, namely politicians who don't have the problem solving skills to resolve issues with other nations with out going to war with other nations who don't have the problem solving skills to resolve their issues with other nations.

Their all at fault, if the politicians had to fight the war do you think the war would last as long as they do, and if war was not profitable do you think they would happen at all?

Don't know much history, do you?

When you have a fanatic like Hitler in charge, normal problem solving skills do not work very well.....

Learn to be more specific in your theories instead of trotting out nice sounding general purpose theories........

JollyRoger
24th January 2011, 11:24 PM
Don't know much history, do you?

When you have a fanatic like Hitler in charge, normal problem solving skills do not work very well.....

Learn to be more specific in your theories instead of trotting out nice sounding general purpose theories........


OK then heres one more for the road.

a very wise person once said " their are three things you should never discus.

Religion, politics, and history." I asked why, and was told "because every bodies got a different version and you never gonna get any where.
Well I should have listened.

uke2se
24th January 2011, 11:47 PM
OK then heres one more for the road.

a very wise person once said " their are three things you should never discus.

Religion, politics, and history." I asked why, and was told "because every bodies got a different version and you never gonna get any where.
Well I should have listened.

The person who told you that was wrong. There is only one history: what actually happened. We learn about history from people called historians. If you or anyone else has a problem with what we call history today (deniers have such a problem) the first people to turn to would be the historians and the first evidence to look at would be the primary sources. Deniers do neither. For them, it isn't about what really happened, but how what really happened can be erased to pave way for a revival of Nazism.

There is no equality between the two opposing view points in this matter. On one side we have the world's leading experts in the subject matter, and on the other we have a lunatic fringe driven by a political agenda or simple insanity.

9/11-investigator
25th January 2011, 04:31 AM
OK then heres one more for the road.

a very wise person once said " their are three things you should never discus.

Religion, politics, and history." I asked why, and was told "because every bodies got a different version and you never gonna get any where.
Well I should have listened.

That is too pessimistic. There is a broad concensus about history in general, from the Romans until Watergate. And consider we are not concerned with individual opinions of posters but with the official narrative/concensus, based on the version of history as written by the victors. But the yesteryear victors are either non-existent (USSR) or in terminal decline (Anglosphere), giving opportunity to think things over again in order to reach a new concensus. In 10-20 years time we will have a new concensus, thanks to the internet. And to treat historic entities as shares here is my prediction for the future stock market of 2020-2030:

- Hitler: +
- holocaust: --
- Suvorov: +
- Jewish communism: ++
- Germany started WW1/WW2: -
- USA provoked war with Japan: ++
- Taylor Kent (Roosevelt was actively looking for war in Europe since at least the mid-thirties): ++
- Poland innocent victim of Nazi agression: -

Hans
25th January 2011, 10:46 AM
Let me fix that so it reflects reality

- Hitler: hated even more
- holocaust: Still historical
- Suvorov: -
- communism:--
- Germany started WW1/WW2: +
- USA provoked war with Japan: -
- Taylor Kent (Roosevelt was actively looking for war in Europe since at least the mid-thirties): -

That's what the facts show 9/11 and you making stuff up doesn't change it

TSR
25th January 2011, 01:13 PM
I was very likely you who complained about me pointing out your refusal to reveal your identity.
In the internet age it is no longer possible to surpress a piece of text. Sorry uke2se/TSR, but that is the way it is.

What are you going to do about it?
.
In what way is my "identity" relevant, since I have already specifically told you I am not Jewish (which is a matter only of concern to mindless racists such as yourself?)

And can you point out where I have *ever* advocated the "suppressing" (note the spelling) of any text at all?








What's that?






You can't, because I never have?









I much prefer you to post any crap you care to, so I can point out that it is crap, and show that crap is all you have. For example, your crap that I have advocated any sort of suppression.



Seriously, why do you think lying so transparently actually *advances* your position?
.

TSR
25th January 2011, 01:16 PM
I protested against the warning and the admin admitted that it was not really an 'attack' indeed. He merely wanted to 'depersonalize the discussion'.

.
.... which is why you still got a yellow card. You're lying again.
.

Hans
25th January 2011, 08:06 PM
I much prefer you to post any crap you care to, so I can point out that it is crap, and show that crap is all you have. For example, your crap that I have advocated any sort of suppression.

Seriously, why do you think lying so transparently actually *advances* your position?

The OP is supported by lies and denial what else can he do? The OP has no substance in reality.

9/11-investigator
29th January 2011, 12:48 PM
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=160111

This was what was destroyed by the Anglos as a by-product of their succesful attempt to conquer and divide Europe between them and the Soviets.

Corsair 115
29th January 2011, 01:49 PM
Well, that's what you get for starting a war. Germany sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

They might have saved some of their precious buildings had they had the good sense to surrender earlier. By September of 1944 it was clear the Reich's days were numbered. But they stupidly fought on thanks to your ol' pal Hitler.

MG1962
29th January 2011, 02:00 PM
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=160111

This was what was destroyed by the Anglos as a by-product of their succesful attempt to conquer and divide Europe between them and the Soviets.

Yes because we all know only German cities are worth saving. Being all superior and stuff

Screw Coventry and the people who lived in that ancient city. Only Anglos, so they dont really count

MG1962
29th January 2011, 02:02 PM
Well, that's what you get for starting a war. Germany sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

They might have saved some of their precious buildings had they had the good sense to surrender earlier. By September of 1944 it was clear the Reich's days were numbered. But they stupidly fought on thanks to your ol' pal Hitler.

Well the battle of the Bulge confirmed that

"We will crush the allies and drive to Antwerp"

"And then what oh mighty Furher?"

"I dunno"

Corsair 115
29th January 2011, 02:16 PM
Well the battle of the Bulge confirmed that

"We will crush the allies and drive to Antwerp"

"And then what oh mighty Furher?"

"I dunno"


It gets even worse:

"Mien Führer, we only have enough fuel to get halfway to our objectives."

"Not a problem. We'll just capture Allied fuel to get the rest of the way."

"Will that work?"

"Sure! Why not?"

MG1962
29th January 2011, 02:33 PM
If only they'd had a Euro pass and caught the train. How different history would have been

tsig
29th January 2011, 07:06 PM
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=160111

This was what was destroyed by the Anglos as a by-product of their succesful attempt to conquer and divide Europe between them and the Soviets.

Hitler was a puppet of the Jews. They used him to get their homeland.

9/11-investigator
9th February 2011, 09:28 AM
Yes because we all know only German cities are worth saving. Being all superior and stuff

Screw Coventry and the people who lived in that ancient city. Only Anglos, so they dont really count

The first thing Churchill did when he came into office was starting bombarding civilian targets. The British started, the Germans reluctantly responded months later. The Anglos dropped 20 times the amount on Germany as the other way around.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html

9/11-investigator
9th February 2011, 09:34 AM
Well, that's what you get for starting a war. Germany sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

Germany attacked Poland because they refused to give the German town of Danzig back, stripped from Germany in Versailles. How was that your business? Stop lying and admit you set up the Poles against the Germans so you could force Britain into war against Poland so you and your Soviet buddies had your ice breaker into Europe and divide the loot between you. And when I was in your position, surviving only at the merci of the Chinese, I would tone down a bit if I were you, your future does not look good at all. You are going to need us, not the other way around.

Hans
9th February 2011, 09:44 AM
The first thing Churchill did when he came into office was starting bombarding civilian targets. The British started, the Germans reluctantly responded months later. The Anglos dropped 20 times the amount on Germany as the other way around.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html

Nope lying again 9/11? Did you forget Warsaw? Rotterdam? I guess you did...lol

The Rotterdam Blitz refers to the aerial bombardment of Rotterdam by the German Air Force on 14 May 1940, during the German invasion of the Netherlands in World War II. The objective was to support the German troops fighting in the city, break Dutch resistance, and force the Dutch to surrender. Even though negotiations were successful, failing communications on the German side caused the unnecessary bombardment of much of the city center.

http://www.mydocsonline.com/pub/Cmbattles/300px-Rotterdam.jpg

Ah Corsair, 9/11 seems to think you are much much older and more powerful than you really are.....lol

Germany attacked Poland because they refused to give the German town of Danzig back, stripped from Germany in Versailles. How was that your business? Stop lying and admit you set up the Poles against the Germans so you could force Britain into war against Poland so you and your Soviet buddies had your ice breaker into Europe and divide the loot between you. And when I was in your position, surviving only at the merci of the Chinese, I would tone down a bit if I were you, your future does not look good at all. You are going to need us, not the other way around.

9/11 you do realize this contradicts your earlier comments that the Poles attacked Germany - please try and keep your made up story straight! lol

Germany invaded Poland with the aid of its ally, the Soviets - that is what started wwII, pretty simple, why do you continue to not understand this? Ah Danzig so they wanted Danzig...so why did they take all of Poland?

dafydd
9th February 2011, 11:26 AM
It gets even worse:

"Mien Führer, we only have enough fuel to get halfway to our objectives."

"Not a problem. We'll just capture Allied fuel to get the rest of the way."

"Will that work?"

"Sure! Why not?"

We are all lucky that Hitler was a raving nutcase.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 11:28 AM
9/11 you do realize this contradicts your earlier comments that the Poles attacked Germany - please try and keep your made up story straight! lol



As my mother used to say,"a liar needs a good memory". Nein 11's seems to have failed him.

Corsair 115
9th February 2011, 01:13 PM
The first thing Churchill did when he came into office was starting bombarding civilian targets.


As has been pointed out to you already, the idea of 'civilian' targets is essentially meaningless in a case of total war between industrialized nation-states. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. You've offered nothing to refute that. The pronounced economic and military effects on the German war effort by the Strategic Bomber Offensive were posted earlier in this thread. You've offered nothing to refute that either.


The Anglos dropped 20 times the amount on Germany as the other way around.


Which, as has been pointed out to you already, was because the Allies grasped the importance of the strategic bomber and developed it. The Reich did not. Indeed, even defending its airspace was not given a high priority by the German leadership, particularly by your ol' pal Hitler.

Craig4
9th February 2011, 01:33 PM
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=9/11-investigator;6858609]The Anglos dropped 20 times the amount on Germany as the other way around.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html]

Yeah, that's called winning the war. Germany would have it it had been able. This goes back to my other point about the Allies being superior in applying elements of national power to the enemy centers of gravity. They denied the enemy the ability to produce planes, train enough pilots and fuel their aircraft by using overwhelming force. In war, this is a good thing to be able to do.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 03:30 PM
The Anglos dropped 20 times the amount on Germany as the other way around.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html]

Yeah, that's called winning the war. Germany would have it it had been able. This goes back to my other point about the Allies being superior in applying elements of national power to the enemy centers of gravity. They denied the enemy the ability to produce planes, train enough pilots and fuel their aircraft by using overwhelming force. In war, this is a good thing to be able to do.

And the Allies were not driven by a racist agenda,and they had leaders who were not insane.

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 05:07 AM
I found this gem in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152946), but it is too good to let it pass:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/5445161/Russia-accuses-Poland-of-starting-Second-World-War.html

The Russian defence ministry posted a potentially inflammatory essay on its website which claimed Poland resisted Germany's ultimatums in 1939 only because it "wanted to obtain the status of a great power".

The lengthy diatribe, which is unlikely to be welcomed in Warsaw, also lashed out at Britain and France for giving the Poles "delusions of grandeur" by promising to intercede if the Nazis invaded.

"Anyone who has been minded to study the history of the Second World War knows it started because of Poland's refusal to meet Germany's requests," the statement read. "The German demands were very modest. You could hardly call them unfounded."

The General is completely right, of course. More importantly it is showing that the Russians might be willing to change sides from the Nuremberg to the revisionist position. It will not be long before America will be the only party holding on to the old pack of lies while the rest of the world has moved on.

Who again is the most respected country in the world according to a recent BBC global poll? America? UK? Israel?

No, the country that took over the NYSE this week: Germany.

MG1962
12th February 2011, 05:44 AM
I found this gem in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152946), but it is too good to let it pass:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/5445161/Russia-accuses-Poland-of-starting-Second-World-War.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/5445161/Russia-accuses-Poland-of-starting-Second-World-War.html)

So why didn't Hitler include those demands in the 1934 treaty.

When did Poland begin to get visions of grandure. The right of Britian and France to support Poland in times of war was upheld in the 1934 Treaty that Hitler signed

So why should he, or more importantly 'you' react so shocked when those two countries reacted exactly how they said the would if Hitler violated the treaty he signed

Craig4
12th February 2011, 06:13 AM
Your real problem is that you, on a very fundamental level fail to grasp how the world works. It's a problem with a lot of CT'ers. You see disparate facts and make connections that aren't actually there. You've reduced the world to a Tom Clancy novel failing to understand that it is both more and less complex than you grasp.

Your statement about the NYSE (which still requires US government approval to proceed) shows how little you understand about economics or generally how stock exchanges work.

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 07:13 AM
Your real problem is that you, on a very fundamental level fail to grasp how the world works. It's a problem with a lot of CT'ers. You see disparate facts and make connections that aren't actually there. You've reduced the world to a Tom Clancy novel failing to understand that it is both more and less complex than you grasp.

Your statement about the NYSE (which still requires US government approval to proceed) shows how little you understand about economics or generally how stock exchanges work.

Do you have anything of substance to say about WW1 or WW2 and who started them, the topic of this thread?

Craig4
12th February 2011, 07:45 AM
Do you have anything of substance to say about WW1 or WW2 and who started them, the topic of this thread?

Yes, that fact that you don't like it is your problem.

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 08:46 AM
So why didn't Hitler include those demands in the 1934 treaty.

When did Poland begin to get visions of grandure. The right of Britian and France to support Poland in times of war was upheld in the 1934 Treaty that Hitler signed

So why should he, or more importantly 'you' react so shocked when those two countries reacted exactly how they said the would if Hitler violated the treaty he signed

I take it you are refering to this treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

My guess would be that in 1934 Germany was too weak yet militarily to demand anything.

Are you saying that the British war garantee of 1939 was basically an error, because a garantee already existed? :confused:

BTW: the reason why Hitler say himself forced to invade was not Danzig but the persecution of the Germans in Poland by the Poles. People often (like to) forget that Poland was mobilized as well and dreamed of going to Berlin (not for tourism) because they thought that Britain, France and even the US would come to their aid, an idiotic thought. Poland, ostensibly the reason for the war to break out, after the war was merily given away to the USSR by the alllies after the war. Nobody gave a **** about these Poles. Poland was the excuse for the rising power USA to enter a war with Germany via their proxy Britain/Churchill/Focus Group. It all worked out according to plan and in 1945 the US could divide the European loot between them and the USSR. Mission accomplished. Then they invented the holostory in Nuremberg so the alllies could pimp themselves and got accepted as 'liberators'.

BTW2: the story by this Russian general was not written on personal title but posted on the site of the Russian ministery of defense. For me this is a clear sign that Russia probably is willing to accept historic revisionism (causes of war, holo tale) in return for an alliance. Putin has already offered as much (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/putin-plaedoyer-fuer-wirtschaftsgemeinschaft-von-lissabon-bis-wladiwostok-1.1027908). Would be a nice scene... CNN bringing breaking news... camera's switch to the Kremlin, impressive grandeur... big table, Putin seated in the middle, next to him David Irving from Britain, Patrick Buchanan from the USA, Gerhard Schroeder from Germany, Jean-Marie le Pen from France, Ahmadinejad from Iran, the prime minister of China and someone from the Russian Academy of Science... Putin reads a long text from a paper he holds... it is not immediately clear what he is getting at... about history and the necessity of sometimes having to review old insights... Then finally the earth shattering devastating surprise... Putin: during WW2 there never were gas chambers in German concentration camps. It was a story invented by the allies. Putin refers to a website the Russian authorities have created and put online during Putins speech. It contains a transscript of a conversation between Stephen Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Samuel_Wise) and Ilya Ehrenburg (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilja_Ehrenburg) coordinating American and Russian approach considering the impending Nuremberg trials and a 6 million figure. Putin confirms that the statements made by Hoess and all the other Germans held in captivity were indeed extorted by torture, precisely as the American judge van Roden had stated before. Putin, with trembling voice, confirms that Russian, American and British troops raped more German women than there were women raped in the entire history of mankind (http://library.flawlesslogic.com/massrape.htm).

Next the camera's show the Versailles palace where chancellor Merkel and president Villepin are standing behind lecterns. They both look nervous... it is Villepin who announces that France and Germany immediately leave the NATO alliance and enter an economic and military alliance with Russia. Anglo troops are summoned to leave Europe as soon as possible. SS-22 rockets are already deployed in Europe and all French, Russian and Chinese nuclear submarines are on highest alert. Chinese paratroopers are said to be dropped over Taiwan... Reports from Vienna where several British tourists are said to be thrown out of hotel windows...

MG1962
12th February 2011, 08:51 AM
I take it you are refering to this treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

My guess would be that in 1934 Germany was too weak yet militarily to demand anything.

Are you saying that the British war garantee of 1939 was basically an error, because a garantee already existed? :confused:.

He knew when he signed in 1934 that if he attacked Poland he risked war - He attacked Poland, he got war. Kinda blows a hole in your theory of a manufactured war

He had 5 years to think about the ramification of his actions - and still went ahead with the attack

Craig4
12th February 2011, 08:57 AM
Next the camera's show the Versailles palace where chancellor Merkel and president Villepin are standing behind lecterns. They both look nervous... it is Villepin who announces that France and Germany immediately leave the NATO alliance and enter an economic and military alliance with Russia. Anglo troops are summoned to leave Europe as soon as possible. SS-22 rockets are already deployed in Europe and all French, Russian and Chinese nuclear submarines are on highest alert.

Wow you're high. You can't possibly believe that Russia or China would risk the end of Civilization for this idiotic dream. Put the cheap paperbacks down and stop watching movies. You're living your life in a dream, a really weird one. No one (who matters) wants what you want. Russia may want to emerge as a world power again and China is becoming a major economic power (though they should really put the brakes on expansion to avoid a bubble). Their going to risk all that for what? Achieving your freakish fantasy world? Countries don't just throw around the "N" word (nuclear) casually like this. You really need to educate your self a little better about both history and the world in general. Your lack of sophistication makes your attempts to lie to people about history come of as inept.

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 09:04 AM
He knew when he signed in 1934 that if he attacked Poland he risked war - He attacked Poland, he got war. Kinda blows a hole in your theory of a manufactured war

He had 5 years to think about the ramification of his actions - and still went ahead with the attack

Would you consider 1939-Danzig a German town?

TSR
12th February 2011, 09:33 AM
Would you consider 1939-Danzig a German town?

.
No, it was the Free State of Danzig, under administration of the League of Nations, with its external affairs mostly under Polish control, of which Hitler in May 1939 said "It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our Lebensraum in the east." But then he invaded.

Another own goal.
.

MG1962
12th February 2011, 11:39 AM
Would you consider 1939-Danzig a German town?

Meaningless sidebar - he knew in 34 he risked war - he accepted that risk in 1939. The only person who started that war was Hitler

Three times the world stepped back from his war mongering

The forth time they squashed him like a bug

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 12:30 PM
.
No, it was the Free State of Danzig, under administration of the League of Nations, with its external affairs mostly under Polish control,

I know who administered the town. But Danzig considered itself a German town and wanted to go back to the Reich after the Anglos had ripped the city from Germany after WW1. I thought you guys were all about self-determination, right? As you solemny professed in Versailles. Another Anglo lie of course.

of which Hitler in May 1939 said "It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our Lebensraum in the east." But then he invaded. .

That is an historic novum you are presenting here. I am very curious as to what source you can offer to back up this claim that Hitler said anything like that. Probably another TSR lie.

MG1962
12th February 2011, 12:52 PM
That is an historic novum you are presenting here. I am very curious as to what source you can offer to back up this claim that Hitler said anything like that. Probably another TSR lie.

So because you dont know something - makes it a lie - just to help you he said it on the 17th May

And what happens next? You will say the source is corrupt (Anglo, Jewish or some such) and you refuse to accept the answer. Then we will disapear for a while then you will come back with a whole new topic when you think everyone forgot your last faux pas

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 01:01 PM
Meaningless sidebar - he knew in 34 he risked war - he accepted that risk in 1939. The only person who started that war was Hitler

Three times the world stepped back from his war mongering

The forth time they squashed him like a bug

4 times, that must be:

1. Rheinland
2. Anschluss
3. Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia
4. Danzig

1. Was Germany proper
2. The Austrians wanted nothing but an Anschluss, but the Anglos right after WW1 did not like that because that would make Germany too powerful. In the end the Germans decided to ignore the Anglos (always a good idea) and Austria and Germany got united, according to the wishes of a vast majority of the Austrians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxhmgpyiqzc&feature=related).
3. Sudetenland. Totally justified, the Sudeten-Germans wanted to return to the Reich. The invasion of Prague was indeed dubious, but not a shot was fired at the occasion. Prague btw had never been independent and the country was an Anglo created miscreant that fell apart at the first opportunity at the end of the Cold War.
4. 97% of the town was German and wanted to return to the Reich. When the Poles started to kill Germans (because of the fake moral backing they got from Britain, France and Roosevelt) Hitler thought enough was enough and decided to give the Poles a well deserved blow, exactly as the Russian general described in his recent article published on a official state website.

Britain, as we remember, invaded about every country they could lay their hands on (25% of the planet) that were certainly not British, as opposed to Rheinland, Austria, Sudentenland and Danzig, that were German.

Anglo is another word for hypocrisy.

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 01:07 PM
So because you dont know something - makes it a lie - just to help you he said it on the 17th May

And what happens next? You will say the source is corrupt (Anglo, Jewish or some such) and you refuse to accept the answer. Then we will disapear for a while then you will come back with a whole new topic when you think everyone forgot your last faux pas

If you would have known the source you would have told me, to score a point. But from the fact that you remain mysterious about the source (it probably is your ***) we can be almost certain it is another lie. He knows it is a dubious source, he simply tries it. OMG.

dudalb
12th February 2011, 01:08 PM
4 times, that must be:

1. Rheinland
2. Anschluss
3. Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia
4. Danzig

1. Was Germany proper
2. The Austrians wanted nothing but an Anschluss, but the Anglos did not like that because that would make Germany too powerful. In the end the Germans decided to ignore the Anglos (always a good idea) and Austria and Germany got united, according to the wishes of a vast majority.
3. Sudetenland. Totally justified, the Sudeten-Germans wanted to return to the Reich. The invasion of Prague was indeed dubious, but not a shot was fired at the occasion. Prague btw had never been independent and the country was an Anglo created miscreant that fell apart at the first opportunity at the end of the Cold War.
4. 97% of the town was German and wanted to return to the Reich. When the Poles started to kill Germans (because of the fake moral backing they got from Britain, France and Roosevelt) Hitler thought enough was enough and decided to give the Poles a well deserved blow, exactly as the Russian general described in his recent article published on a official state website.

Britain, as we remember, invaded about every country they could lay their hands on (25% of the planet) that were certainly not British, as opposed to Rheinland, Austria, Sudentenland and Danzig, that were German.

Anglo is another word for hypocrisy.

SO the Germans have a right to "Self Determination" but the Czechs did not?

You know, you should really stop talking about "European Supremancy" and just be honest and talk about "Germanic Supremacy" since it is pretty apparent you don't have much use for Slavic and Medittrean Europeans..except for Putin, for some weird reason.

MG1962
12th February 2011, 01:11 PM
.

Britain, as we remember, invaded about every country they could lay their hands on (25% of the planet) that were certainly not British, as opposed to Rheinland, Austria, Sudentenland and Danzig, that were German.

Anglo is another word for hypocrisy.

Another attempt at a sidebar - Sure Britain invaded lots of place. Also lost their share of wars. Unlike you, they dont find a need to blame eveyone and everything other than their own choice to conduct a war.

And as the old saying goes. "Winners are griners, losers can go please themselves" Ya gonna bitch about treaties, you should not have lost the war in the first place

MG1962
12th February 2011, 01:14 PM
If you would have known the source you would have told me, to score a point. But from the fact that you remain mysterious about the source (it probably is your ***) we can be almost certain it is another lie.

Feel free to believe that - but you were the one who told me you were going to teach me real history. So far all you have demonstrated is you know none

TSR
12th February 2011, 01:20 PM
I know who administered the town. But Danzig considered itself a German town and wanted to go back to the Reich after the Anglos had ripped the city from Germany after WW1. I thought you guys were all about self-determination, right? As you solemny professed in Versailles. Another Anglo lie of course.

.
No, it considered itself a Free State, administered by the Poles, which had a lot of German residents -- until the Nazis made a specific effort to change that opinion.



Hmmmmn. Wonder why they did that?
.

That is an historic novum you are presenting here. I am very curious as to what source you can offer to back up this claim that Hitler said anything like that. Probably another TSR lie.

.
Well, for example, one could read Peter Hoffman's "The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945."

Or Antony Best's "International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond"

Or Martin Kitchen's "A Military History of Germany, From the Eighteenth Century to the Present Day"

Or Joachim C. Fest's "Hilter"

Or Richard Hargreaves' "Blitzkrieg w Polsce wrzesien 1939"

But that would be too much like doing actual research for you, wouldn't it?

I'd wait for an apology, or even a demonstration that I have *ever* lied, if I didn't know you were incapable of admitting you were flat out wrong.
.

dafydd
12th February 2011, 01:27 PM
Another attempt at a sidebar - Sure Britain invaded lots of place. Also lost their share of wars. Unlike you, they dont find a need to blame eveyone and everything other than their own choice to conduct a war.

And as the old saying goes. "Winners are griners, losers can go please themselves" Ya gonna bitch about treaties, you should not have lost the war in the first place

Hitler gambled and he lost. He did managed to lay waste to large areas of Europe and kill a lot of Jews,that appeals to Hitler huggers like Nein 11.

TSR
12th February 2011, 01:40 PM
4 times, that must be:

1. Rheinland
2. Anschluss
3. Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia
4. Danzig

1. Was Germany proper

.
Nup. Was three separate demilitarized zones after WWI, which by treaty the Allies *could* have reoccupied at will.

They didn't.
.

2. The Austrians wanted nothing but an Anschluss,

.
Really? When was that referendum held?



Oh, that's right, the Nazi Party of Austria actively *prevented* that referendum...
.

3. Sudetenland. Totally justified, the Sudeten-Germans wanted to return to the Reich.

.
Okay -- and what about the *majority* of Sudentlanders?
.

Britain, as we remember, invaded about every country they could lay their hands on (25% of the planet) that were certainly not British, as opposed to Rheinland, Austria, Sudentenland and Danzig, that were German.

Anglo is another word for hypocrisy.

.
Ah, so because someone else supposedly did something bad, that justifies me doing something bad?

And BTW -- actual history shows, as I have demonstrated, that these were *not* German.
.

VonKleist
12th February 2011, 02:05 PM
The Hitler quote.

It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East and making food supplies secure and also solving the problem of the Baltic States. Food supplies can only be obtained from thinly populated areas. Over and above fertility, the thorough German cultivation will tremendously increase the produce.

Recorded by Lt. Col. (General Staff) Schmundt, at a meeting on May 23rd, 1939 at the New Reich Chancellery between Hitler and Göring, Raeder, von Brauchitsch, Keitel, Milch, Halder, (General) Bodenschatz, (Rear Admiral)Schniewind, Colonel (attached to the General Staff) Jeschonnek, Colonel (General Staff) Warlimont, Captain Engel (Army), Lieutenant Commander Albrecht, Captain von Below(Army).

Published in: Documents on German Foreign Policy, D, VI, no. 433, pp. 574 ff. IMT, 079-L.

The protocol is also printed in: Jacobsen, Der zweite Weltkrieg in Chronik und Dokumenten, pp. 92 ff

9/11-investigator
12th February 2011, 02:23 PM
SO the Germans have a right to "Self Determination" but the Czechs did not?

I said that the invasion of Prague was dubious. BTW was there any dictator that the US did not support and that the Egyptian revolution was greeted after it was clear that their satrap Mubarak had lost the game after being kept alive for more than 30 years by our self-described champions of democracy?

You know, you should really stop talking about "European Supremancy"

I never talk about "European Supremacy". Show me where I do. You can't.

and just be honest and talk about "Germanic Supremacy" since it is pretty apparent you don't have much use for Slavic and Medittrean Europeans..except for Putin, for some weird reason.

You simply want to put me in the Nazi-corner and hence you have to ignore that I am not anti-Russian at all. Anti-Anglo, yes, but not anti-Russian. For me Anglos are basically little Jews; Russians were the largest victims ever of the Jews.

MG1962
12th February 2011, 03:41 PM
The Hitler quote.



Recorded by Lt. Col. (General Staff) Schmundt, at a meeting on May 23rd, 1939 at the New Reich Chancellery

Dang off by a week - what did Hitler do that was interesting the week before :confused:

VonKleist
12th February 2011, 04:50 PM
Dang off by a week - what did Hitler do that was interesting the week before :confused:

From May 14th to 20th 1939 he was inspecting the defences of the West Wall.

uke2se
13th February 2011, 02:55 AM
I said that the invasion of Prague was dubious. BTW was there any dictator that the US did not support and that the Egyptian revolution was greeted after it was clear that their satrap Mubarak had lost the game after being kept alive for more than 30 years by our self-described champions of democracy?



I never talk about "European Supremacy". Show me where I do. You can't.



You simply want to put me in the Nazi-corner and hence you have to ignore that I am not anti-Russian at all. Anti-Anglo, yes, but not anti-Russian. For me Anglos are basically little Jews; Russians were the largest victims ever of the Jews.

You're losing it, Nein11. Not just the argument, mind you. You lost that before you even began.

Craig4
13th February 2011, 04:30 AM
To all concerned.

I was in the Netherlands recently and encountered many very friendly enlightened people. I wish to add this lest anyone get a bad impression of the country based on the example of its citizenry we have here with us today.

9/11-investigator
13th February 2011, 05:58 AM
The Hitler quote.

Recorded by Lt. Col. (General Staff) Schmundt, at a meeting on May 23rd, 1939 at the New Reich Chancellery between Hitler and Göring, Raeder, von Brauchitsch, Keitel, Milch, Halder, (General) Bodenschatz, (Rear Admiral)Schniewind, Colonel (attached to the General Staff) Jeschonnek, Colonel (General Staff) Warlimont, Captain Engel (Army), Lieutenant Commander Albrecht, Captain von Below(Army).

Published in: Documents on German Foreign Policy, D, VI, no. 433, pp. 574 ff. IMT, 079-L.

The protocol is also printed in: Jacobsen, Der zweite Weltkrieg in Chronik und Dokumenten, pp. 92 ff

Thank you for your constructive and on-topic contribution.

Now just to be certain, we are talking about the document at the bottom of this page, right?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1458445#p1458471

Schmundt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Schmundt) conveniently died in 1944, so he could not be interrogated in Nuremberg. He participated in a plot trying to kill Dolfie in 1944.

And we do not need to go to Codoh, or IHR, British main stream historian AJP Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor) is enough:

Note to p 269: This speech of Hitler's, discussed at greater length on p.304, conflictswith other statements at this time and I had doubts about it from the first. It is now known to be a forgery, probably concocted by some member of the German general staff in order to frighten the British. Hitler gave no speech on 23 May and most of those alleged to have been present were not even in Berlin

The Origins of the Second World War, revised edition of 1963, page 301.

Will discuss this later using the book by Generalmajor Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.

9/11-investigator
13th February 2011, 06:05 AM
To all concerned.

I was in the Netherlands recently and encountered many very friendly enlightened people. I wish to add this lest anyone get a bad impression of the country based on the example of its citizenry we have here with us today.

Craig still thinks that Holland can be kept within the confines of the NWO. That's what he probably thought of Egypt as well 4 weeks ago.
Considering the political developments in Holland it is probably one of the first within the western world to break away at some point this decade. Oh, and can you spell Apartheid?

Dream on pall, I am just an early bird.

VonKleist
13th February 2011, 06:30 AM
And we do not need to go to Codoh, or IHR, British main stream historian AJP Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor) is enough:



The Origins of the Second World War, revised edition of 1963, page 301.



You haven't read Taylor. You have merely read littlegreyrabbi.

9/11-investigator
13th February 2011, 06:44 AM
You haven't read Taylor. You have merely read littlegreyrabbi.

Your point? Is the quote incorrect?

VonKleist
13th February 2011, 06:58 AM
Your point? Is the quote incorrect?

I merely note your methodology with amusement. You are presented with a quote that you had never heard before. Regardless, you pronounce it a fake. When the reference for the quote is presented to you, you embark on a search for evidence to support your initial assertion. Littlegreyrabbi quoting AJP Taylor is sufficient for your purposes. Still, I look forward to your exploration of the evidence.

There was some rather famous chap whose reading also served merely to reinforce his own opinions rather than broaden his understanding. Now, who was it again? . . . .

9/11-investigator
13th February 2011, 07:26 AM
I merely note your methodology with amusement. You are presented with a quote that you had never heard before. Regardless, you pronounce it a fake. When the reference for the quote is presented to you, you embark on a search for evidence to support your initial assertion. Littlegreyrabbi quoting AJP Taylor is sufficient for your purposes.

I do not pronounce it fake, I pronounced that Taylor pronounced it fake. Next I had a quick glance in my copy of Schultz-Rhonhof's book and said I would discuss this topic further. So I did not push LGR's Taylor as a holy grail.

Still, I look forward to your exploration of the evidence.

Look back, (but not in anger), rather than forward. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6558508&postcount=3152

I discussed Schmund there earlier, using Schultz-Rhonhof.

VonKleist
13th February 2011, 07:38 AM
That is an historic novum you are presenting here. I am very curious as to what source you can offer to back up this claim that Hitler said anything like that. Probably another TSR lie.

If you would have known the source you would have told me, to score a point. But from the fact that you remain mysterious about the source (it probably is your ***) we can be almost certain it is another lie. He knows it is a dubious source, he simply tries it. OMG.

I do not pronounce it fake,

Jolly good.

MG1962
13th February 2011, 07:42 AM
Okay to recap - we have now agreed Hitler's motives where less than pure when he invaded Poland, czechoslavkia, Austria, and the Soviet Union

I guess after 105 pages - we have our answer. Germany started WW2

Craig4
13th February 2011, 07:50 AM
Okay to recap - we have now agreed Hitler's motives where less than pure when he invaded Poland, czechoslavkia, Austria, and the Soviet Union

I guess after 105 pages - we have our answer. Germany started WW2

Honest people had the answer at page one.

Craig4
13th February 2011, 07:56 AM
Craig still thinks that Holland can be kept within the confines of the NWO. That's what he probably thought of Egypt as well 4 weeks ago.
Considering the political developments in Holland it is probably one of the first within the western world to break away at some point this decade. Oh, and can you spell Apartheid?

Dream on pall, I am just an early bird.

Sure Holland might break away. However that it will become a republic licking the historical boots of Nazi scum is your dream. The idea that your depravity will be shared by your countrymen is the product of your inability to understand reality. Do enjoy being a misunderstood genius though. That must be very satisfying in your basement.

9/11-investigator
13th February 2011, 08:35 AM
Sure Holland might break away. However that it will become a republic licking the historical boots of Nazi scum is your dream. The idea that your depravity will be shared by your countrymen is the product of your inability to understand reality. Do enjoy being a misunderstood genius though. That must be very satisfying in your basement.

My dear fellow, where do I say I want to 'lick boots of Nazis'?

They are dead, remember? So is the USSR. But you are still at large, peddling your historic lies. But not much longer, thanks to this medium.

My enterprise here is to demolish these Anglo/Jewish lies, with the intent to escort you towards the exit of history. My intent is not to erect statues of Hitler but to hold the stories of the historic tormentors of Europe (USSR + Anglosphere) long enough under water until they do not move anymore, obviously metaphorically speaking. Rest assured that I wish you will enjoy a carefree retirement while unjoying the sun setting over your once great Nation and the crumbling rusty structures of Cape Canaveral. The center of gravity of European civilization will move back to where it belongs, namely Europe, after you attempted to destroy it, together with your Soviet pals.

Craig4
13th February 2011, 08:40 AM
My dear fellow, where do I say I want to 'lick boots of Nazis'?

They are dead, remember? So is the USSR. But you are still at large, peddling your historic lies.

My enterprise here is to demolish these Anglo/Jewish lies, with the intent to accompany you towards the exit of history. My intent is not to erect statues of Hitler but to hold the stories of the historic tormentors of Europe (USSR + Anglosphere) long enough under water until they do not move anymore, obviously metaphorically speaking. Rest assured that I wish you will enjoy a carefree retirement while unjoying the sun setting over your once great Nation and the crumbling rusty structures of Cape Canaveral. The center of gravity of European civilization will move back to where it belongs, namely Europe, after you attempted to destroy it, together with your Soviet pals.

Funny.

TSR
13th February 2011, 08:58 AM
I do not pronounce it fake, I pronounced that Taylor pronounced it fake.

.
No, you very specifically called it "another TSR lie" (leaving aside that you have yet to show the *first* one) because you, personally, were unfamiliar with it. You most definitely called it fake, and you did so in a way that constituted a personal attack on myself.

Then, presented with no less than *four* mainstream historians who discuss the quote, you chose to go with *one* who work has been soundly criticized by several other historians and who in fact lost his teaching job over his shoddy methodology and go on to cite a document someone else says someone else has shown to be fake, and which





wait for it.





wait for it.





DOESN'T EVEN DISCUSS THE QUOTE I OFFERED!


Unless you can specifically point to the para which even mentions "Lebensraum?"

I'll freely admit I merely scanned it, so may have missed the reference.
.

9/11-investigator
13th February 2011, 02:41 PM
Okay to recap - we have now agreed Hitler's motives where less than pure when he invaded Poland, czechoslavkia, Austria, and the Soviet Union

I guess after 105 pages - we have our answer. Germany started WW2

WW2 according to MG1962: Hitler, Goering and Goebbels were sitting in the Beergarten having a good time. 'You know what?', says Hitler, 'Let's start a world war, just for the heck of it. How about that?'. Goering: 'Jolly good idea if you ask me!'. Goebbels: 'Wunderbar! First Poland, then the rest of Europe, then the USSR, then Souts-America, Antarctica, Australia and finally the USA'.

You're a fascinating character, MG1962, but if I were you, I would stick with catching aligators as a career.

Hans
13th February 2011, 04:05 PM
Ah 9/11 just to make it clear that after 105 pages the fact that Germany started ww2. Despite volumes of your lies, denial and making stuff up. That conclusion still stands and the internet supports it fully.

You have failed - but then those of us who understand history knew that when you started oh so long ago.

Craig4
13th February 2011, 04:37 PM
Ah 9/11 just to make it clear that after 105 pages the fact that Germany started ww2. Despite volumes of your lies, denial and making stuff up. That conclusion still stands and the internet supports it fully.

You have failed - but then those of us who understand history knew that when you started oh so long ago.

Well we you consider the blatant dishonesty of his Nazi heros in their rise to power why would we expect integrity from one of their bad copies? It's not as if these are honorable people we're talking about.

Beyond the internet, I would add that all the intelligent, competent scholarship supports it. This people are arguing 2+2=5.

MG1962
13th February 2011, 09:02 PM
WW2 according to MG1962: Hitler, Goering and Goebbels were sitting in the Beergarten having a good time. 'You know what?', says Hitler, 'Let's start a world war, just for the heck of it. How about that?'. Goering: 'Jolly good idea if you ask me!'. Goebbels: 'Wunderbar! First Poland, then the rest of Europe, then the USSR, then Souts-America, Antarctica, Australia and finally the USA'.

Swap Hess for Goebbels and thats pretty much what happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch#The_Putsch

dafydd
14th February 2011, 03:12 AM
To all concerned.

I was in the Netherlands recently and encountered many very friendly enlightened people. I wish to add this lest anyone get a bad impression of the country based on the example of its citizenry we have here with us today.

I have many Dutch friends,I played for years in a Dutch band. All sane,intelligent,tolerant people. Nein 11 is in a tiny,tiny,minority.

9/11-investigator
14th February 2011, 04:20 AM
Swap Hess for Goebbels and thats pretty much what happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch#The_Putsch

Show us where in that link of yours we can conclude that the Nazis planned for world conquest. Just a simple quote will do.

TSR
14th February 2011, 04:50 AM
Show us where in that link of yours we can conclude that the Nazis planned for world conquest. Just a simple quote will do.
.
You first: show us where, in the document *you* cited, Lebensraum is even mentioned.

*Then* you can explain why you did not check any of the *5* sources you had been given for the quote I offered, preferring instead to lie that none had been.

*Then* you can apologize for saying everyone else was lying about the quote.

And only *then* do you have the right to demand we continue to give you citations which you have shown you will just ignore anyway.
.

Uzzy
14th February 2011, 04:52 AM
Actual historians would look at the debate between the Continentalists and the Globalists, especially the idea of the Stufenplan, from Andreas Hillgruber.

Nein/11, on the other hand, probably thinks that the common historical explanation for WW2 is indeed Hitler, Goebbels and Goering sitting around drinking and cackling like cartoon villians over world domination plans.

9/11-investigator
14th February 2011, 04:15 PM
To get an idea of the magnitude of Anglo hypocrasy have a look at this map of the extension of the British empire:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/British_Empire_1897.jpg

All this territory was invaded and conquored by these Brits in their insatiable greed for 'Livingspace'. 25% of the planet in total. This map btw does not show the maximum extent of that empire.

Now is their anybody here who can find back the German city of Danzig on the map? Of course not. It represents maybe 0.00001% of the planet's surface, and in contrast to India, Canada, Africa, etc. it was German. It had been taken from Germany by the Anglos after WW1, a war fought to smash Germany because this new state had become a threat for Anglo trade. After all made in Britain never really was a selling point as opposed to made in Germany. Who wants for instance a British car? Oh, the UK does not produce cars, sorry for that. So the French and British decided to downsize the German (and Austrian) empire's and subjected Germany after they had killed 1 million Germans in a hunger blockade. The loot continued with 'reparation payments' which brought Germany to it's knees financially. Finally enough was enough and somebody came along to free Germany from it's tormentors. The goal was to liberate Germany from the extortion racket that Versailles was and to reunite all Germans in one nation, nothing more. Danzig was the last missing item. Germany already had accepted the existence of a Polish state, even with German territories like Posen. It was just about Danzig, a city that wanted to return to the Reich. And deep in his heart Chamberlain, who really represented the interests of Britain and it's empire, found the demand not unreasonable. But his problem was that he had the Jewish paid bloodhound Churchill in his neck, who demanded from Chamberlain to take a stand against Germany. Churchill had been paid by the AIPAC du jour Focus Group (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6485818&postcount=3041) to become PM of Britain and bring Britain into war with Germany. The entire press in Britain was shouting for the war garantee. Chamberlain had no choice. Germany meanwhile had become military strong enough to show Britain the finger and took back what always had been theirs. Britain, knowing full well that a war would ruin them and their empire, hesitated in making good on the (empty) promisses they had made to the Poles. After all, committing suicide over a city that was German anyway, is a little bit much. But than Churchill became impatient and organized the invasion of Norway. That turned out to be a big failure as many earlier Churchillian military adventures as well, but at least they forced the Germans to react and the Focus group had the war it wanted and Churchill PM. The goal was reached and Focus was dismantled.

50 million Europeans had to die because Britain wanted to prevent a German town going back to Germany. At some point they will be presented with a bill of gigantic magnitude for the incredible damage they have done to European civilization.

Corsair 115
14th February 2011, 04:50 PM
50 million Europeans had to die because Britain wanted to prevent a German town going back to Germany.


I think you meant this:

50 million Europeans had to die because Germany wanted to have a town go back to Germany and was willing to go to war to do so.

MG1962
14th February 2011, 06:34 PM
911 you realise Churchill became PM until Germany invaded France - now lets think about that for a minute.

What had France and Britian done till the 10th May 1940 in the war - absolutely nothing. So why did Hitler push his luck and invade West? Great question glad you asked.

He wanted to secure his western boarder for the eventual invasion of Russia

Oh dear - what have we here - premeditated proof that Hitler was thinking about the eventual attack on Russian 14.5 months before the Russian were going to invade him (according to 911 unnamed sources)

And Danzig wanted to be German, well cry me a river. Should not have started WW1 and lost - Then Danzig may have had a chance to remain German.

And help me out - Austrian wanted to return to Germany? Really - So what was the war in 1866 all about Germany had about much claim on Austria as I do of claiming the British Crown

TSR
15th February 2011, 02:17 AM
One such remark more and you go on ignore for wasting our time.

.
Speaking of wasting our time, have you found where, in the document you cited, it even mentions Lebenstraum?

Or are you still consulting any of the five sources for the quote you lied that you had not been given?

*Then* we can go back and pull up some other ... ummmm ... let's be charitable and say errors you have made in this thread...

And BTW, I believe MG1962 refers to the fact that there was very little of that pesky actual, you know, *fighting* on the side of the Allies until 1940 -- although in the interests of fairness, I would argue that that side of things began in April of that year with the Norwegian Campaign.
.

9/11-investigator
15th February 2011, 03:07 AM
What had France and Britian done till the 10th May 1940 in the war - absolutely nothing.

Unbelievable moronic statement!

They had declared war on Germany in september 1939!!!!!!!!!!

uke2se
15th February 2011, 03:12 AM
Unbelievable moronic statement!

They had declared war on Germany in september 1939.

As I said:

*woosh*

Way to miss the point, Nein11.

Uzzy
15th February 2011, 03:26 AM
To get an idea of the magnitude of Anglo hypocrasy have a look at this map of the extension of the British empire.

*snip*


Hypocrisy. It's spelt Hypocrisy.

As for the rest of your post, that's just trolling. Words devoid of content or meaning or logical thought.

9/11-investigator
15th February 2011, 03:31 AM
I think you meant this:

50 million Europeans had to die because Germany wanted to have a town go back to Germany and was willing to go to war to do so.

They were willing to go to war with Poland about it. Hitler gambled that Britain would not live up to the promisses they had made to the Poles and was bluffing, just like they had accepted earlier reversals of Versailles. Hitler thought Britain would not commit suicide. But they did.

No you are gleefully going to say, that Britain did live up to the garantee imposed on Britain by these American Jews, who wanted to use the Danzig issue to get a foot between the door of European politics and, just like Stalin did, use an anachronistic 19th century internal European balance of power struggle to destroy the largest power on the European continent and replace Europe as the number one address on this planet by dividing the loot between them and the Soviets and terminate all European global colonies.

So thanks to you, the US and USSR won, and Europe and Britain lost.

Congratulations. We Europeans do not like it but you had your way. Although Britain was the biggest loser of them all, at least the Germans lost, and that is the most important thing a Brit can achieve in life.

But there is a little problem here for you. The US soon will go the way of the USSR. That means you Brits will be alone with us Europeans. And we certainly are going to have a second look at you and your behavior in the 20th century. And it does not look good at all for you.

Talking about America going the way of the USSR, here another tell tale sign that the NWO is dead. Our vice prime minister Maxime Verhagen has said today (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/9023566/___Multiculti_mislukt___.html?p=32,3):

In navolging van drie andere Europese prominenten heeft vicepremier Maxime Verhagen fel uitgehaald naar de multiculturele samenleving. Tijdens de opnames van College Tour, dat donderdag wordt uitgezonden, liet hij weten dat het idee om allochtonen en autochtonen naast elkaar te laten leven, compleet mislukt is.

He says that multicult is dead. He goes even further than Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron. He literally says that the idea that Dutch and allochtones living next to each other door to door is a complete failure.

Now, how about that! What next? Is brave Maxime going to wear a brown shirt and starts kicking in door's SA-style in order to round up all these poor muzzies and ship them south in a container? Of course not. Maxime's solution: we all should take example of ... America! :D

You can't make this up. Read the mocking reader comments (500 and counting). America is a 'nation' of immigrants, Holland is not. We are being disposessed and we are not going to take it. Our political class of multicultis, spineless sissy xenophiles, holo-believers and falsifiers of history is finished, just like everywhere else in 'The West'. Egypt is just one incident away here in Holland. If a muzzie kills Greetje Wilders for instance, it probably means civil war. And the multiracial society is gone forever. Already most muslims say they want to go home (because they feel what is coming). We are not going to wait until we are outnumbered, like the Euro-Americans already are. The clashes are either going to begin in France, Belgium or Holland (my guess is in that order of likelyhood). Gerald Celente says between 2012-2016. I would not want to believe that before Egypt fell. But now, in the light of what Verhagen just said, I am inclined to believe Celente, this master forecaster.

9/11-investigator
15th February 2011, 03:37 AM
Hypocrisy. It's spelt Hypocrisy.

As for the rest of your post, that's just trolling. Words devoid of content or meaning or logical thought.

If my English does not suit you, we can continue in either Dutch, German, French or Russian. Take your pick.

But you are unable to respond to my 'trolling post' in any meaningful way, right? That would require you to construct a piece of text larger than 3 lines. And the whole world knows that Anglos in general have trouble remembering more than 3 lines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMJK2hxhtZI), even if they are paid tens of thousands of dollars for it. Let alone constructing a piece of text larger than 3 lines.

uke2se
15th February 2011, 04:14 AM
They were willing to go to war with Poland about it. Hitler gambled that Britain would not live up to the promisses they had made to the Poles and was bluffing, just like they had accepted earlier reversals of Versailles.

Ah, so Hitler was trying to abuse the British withing to avoid war to expand his Lebensraum and it came back to bite him.


Hitler thought Britain would not commit suicide. But they did.

This is ironic when you think of who really committed suicide. :D In your world, Nein11, did Hitler put a bullet in his brain and take poison to escape the reality of him having lost the war, like he did in the real world?


No you are gleefully going to say, that Britain did live up to the garantee imposed on Britain by these American Jews,

American Jews signed to guarantee to Poland? Procure the document or admit you're lying.


who wanted to use the Danzig issue to get a foot between the door of European politics and,

You mean the same American Jews who Saggy informed us had wanted to go to war since 1933, but who never got their wish, the US only entering WWII when attacked by Germany?


just like Stalin did, use an anachronistic 19th century internal European balance of power struggle to destroy the largest power on the European continent

The USSR was the largest power on the European continent. Hitler gambled to expand German Lebensraum as per Nazi doctrines, and lost, badly. Why do you admire someone who was so badly trounced, Nein11? See a bit of yourself in him?


and replace Europe as the number one address on this planet by dividing the loot between them and the Soviets and terminate all European global colonies.

Is that why Hitler allied with Stalin?


So thanks to you, the US and USSR won, and Europe and Britain lost.

You mean, Nazi Germany lost. Everyone else - including Europe - won. On behalf of my fellow Europeans, I would like to thank those that fought against the evil that was Nazi Germany and utterly destroyed the regime, and who later helped build up Europe again.


Congratulations. We Europeans Nazis do not like it but you had your way.

Fixed that for you. Us Europeans like it just fine.


Although Britain was the biggest loser of them all, at least the Germans lost, and that is the most important thing a Brit can achieve in life.

Britain didn't lose anything to Germany. The Nazis lost everything, including Germany. Must be awful to be one of the few pom-pom swingers left rooting for the losing side of a war 65 years ago, Nein11. I feel for you.


But there is a little problem here for you. The US soon will go the way of the USSR.

Ah, you are now talking about your masturbatory fantasies. Well, masturbatory fantasies seldom have anything to do with reality, I'm sad to have to tell you. Heck, I often fantasize about Jessica Alba, but I don't expect the two of us to really ever be stuck in an elevator together. Perhaps you shouldn't expect your masturbatory fantasies to become reality either.


That means you Brits will be alone with us Europeans.

That's alright. By that time, you and your Nazi scum will have been "relocated to camps in the East" and us real Europeans will celebrate with our British European friends. See, I can dream too.


And we certainly are going to have a second look at you and your behavior in the 20th century. And it does not look good at all for you.

Just what are you and your twenty Nazi friends going to do against the rest of us Millions of Europeans?


[snipped bunch of stuff that doesn't mean what Nein11 think it means]

You can't make this up. Read the mocking reader comments (500 and counting).

Yes, "truth" by internet comments. Nazi scholarship at it's brightest.


America is a 'nation' of immigrants, Holland is not.

Oh really, where do you draw the line? Do you think humanity evolved in Holland? Let me be the first to tell you then: it was in Africa.


We are being disposessed and we are not going to take it.

Then you will have to get out of your basement, and as we both know that's not going to happen, you're going to have to learn to live with it or be consumed by your own hatred.


Our political class of multicultis, holo-believers and falsifiers of history is finished, just like everywhere else in 'The West'.

More of those masturbatory fantasies. THEY AIN'T REAL, NEIN11!


Egypt is just one incident away here in Holland.

You really don't know anything about your countrymen, Nein11. The vast majority of them hates you.


If a muzzie kills Greetje Wilders for instance, it probably means civil war.

Lol.


And the multiracial society is gone forever.

Unless they lose like they did 65 years ago, and chances are good. Nazis have shown themselves to be inferior to others, after all.


Already most muslims say they want to go home (because they feel what is coming).

No, they want to go home because of haters like you. Thankfully, there aren't many of you, so the Muslims can stay in peace.


We are not going to wait until we are outnumbered, like the Euro-Americans already are.

So again, what are you and your 20 skinhead bozo friends going to do about it?


The clashes are either going to begin in France, Belgium or Holland (my guess is in that order of likelyhood).

Masturbatory fantasies again. What a modern day Nostradamus you are, Nein11. Only dumber.


Gerald Celente says between 2012-2016.

And he's wrong.


I would not want to believe that before Egypt fell. But now, in the light of what Verhagen just said, I am inclined to believe Celente, this master forecaster.

Lol.

uke2se
15th February 2011, 04:15 AM
If my English does not suit you, we can continue in either Dutch, German, French or Russian. Take your pick.

This is an English speaking forum and you will post in that language or kindly get out. You don't set the rules here, Nazi.


But you are unable to respond to my 'trolling post' in any meaningful way, right?

How do you respond to a Nazi troll in a meaningful way? You don't. You make fun of him, like we're making fun of you.

little grey rabbit
15th February 2011, 04:25 AM
This is an English speaking forum and you will post in that language or kindly get out. You don't set the rules here, Nazi.



How do you respond to a Nazi troll in a meaningful way? You don't. You make fun of him, like we're making fun of you.

And you are making excellent work of it, uke2se. To me nothing says "making fun" than run arounding pleading with people not to click on a link.

That is the mark of true superiority.

Uzzy
15th February 2011, 04:32 AM
But you are unable to respond to my 'trolling post' in any meaningful way, right? That would require you to construct a piece of text larger than 3 lines. And the whole world knows that Anglos in general have trouble remembering more than 3 lines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMJK2hxhtZI), even if they are paid tens of thousands of dollars for it. Let alone constructing a piece of text larger than 3 lines.

More trolling. This amuses me.

If you want a meaningful response, you can look at any one of the previous 100 pages worth of them, which time and again you've ignored in favour of out and out trolling.

uke2se
15th February 2011, 04:38 AM
And you are making excellent work of it, uke2se. To me nothing says "making fun" than run arounding pleading with people not to click on a link.

That is the mark of true superiority.

The reason I advice people not to click on your links, and why I have taken it upon myself to report every instance of you spamming them, is that you are a spammer out to make a buck. I have already advised you of this.

dafydd
15th February 2011, 04:41 AM
And you are making excellent work of it, uke2se. To me nothing says "making fun" than run arounding pleading with people not to click on a link.

That is the mark of true superiority.

I thought that you were representing the master race here. Why do you hate Jews?

dudalb
15th February 2011, 11:08 AM
I merely note your methodology with amusement. You are presented with a quote that you had never heard before. Regardless, you pronounce it a fake. When the reference for the quote is presented to you, you embark on a search for evidence to support your initial assertion. Littlegreyrabbi quoting AJP Taylor is sufficient for your purposes. Still, I look forward to your exploration of the evidence.

There was some rather famous chap whose reading also served merely to reinforce his own opinions rather than broaden his understanding. Now, who was it again? . . . .

I has major disagreemtns with AJP Taylor's "In foreign affairs, Hitler was no worse then most other statemen until the war started." thesis, but Taylor never denied that Nazi Racial policies was evil, and certainly was never a Holocaust denier.

9/11-investigator
15th February 2011, 11:44 AM
I has major disagreemtns with AJP Taylor's "In foreign affairs, Hitler was no worse then most other statemen until the war started." thesis, but Taylor never denied that Nazi Racial policies was evil, and certainly was never a Holocaust denier.

Are you sure you want to push 'evil' as an acceptable category in writing history, rather than stay with the facts and leave using the word to philosophers, moralists and girlie lefties?

About Taylor and the h-word... I found this quote on thephora forum:

As to Taylor and the holocaust, he was in his late 60s when The Hoax of the Twentieth Century was published and he died in 1990 before holocaust revisionism began its meteoric rise with the advent of the internet. Besides which, court historians who have devoted 10-15 years of their lives getting Ph.D.s and tenure postions are simply not going to destroy their reputations by coming down on the 'wrong side' of that touchy politicized issue.

And another quote from the same forum:

He [Taylor] feared Germany, wished to sustain its postwar division, yet argued that Hitler had stumbled into war in 1939 by miscalculation, not by design.

Precisely my point.

TSR
15th February 2011, 12:45 PM
About Taylor and the h-word... I found this quote on thephora forum:

.
Any reason, other than the obvious, that you still haven't consulted the *real* historians to whom you've been referred?
.

Corsair 115
15th February 2011, 08:55 PM
They were willing to go to war with Poland about it.


And any nation that goes to war with another nation while not being mindful of the treaties that other nation has with yet other nations is being incredibly stupid.


Hitler gambled that Britain would not live up to the promisses they had made to the Poles and was bluffing, just like they had accepted earlier reversals of Versailles.


In other words, he made a gross miscalculation. (Hardly the only one Hitler would make during the period.)


Hitler thought Britain would not commit suicide. But they did.


Strange, I thought it was Germany which surrendered unconditionally, not Britain.


So thanks to you, the US and USSR won, and Europe and Britain lost.


Strange, I see neither the U.S. nor Soviet Union occupying and running the nations of Europe. In fact, I could have sworn the many nations in Europe have had elections in which the citizenry decided upon their governments.


But there is a little problem here for you. The US soon will go the way of the USSR.


What, it's going to break up into a bunch of little independent countries?

MG1962
15th February 2011, 09:33 PM
Although Britain was the biggest loser of them all, at least the Germans lost, and that is the most important thing a Brit can achieve in life.





:dl: Seriously, next time can you post a warning when you are going to be that funny. Coffee is too expensive to waste all over my monitor

Corsair 115
15th February 2011, 09:37 PM
D'Oh! In the midst of making my post I failed to edit out a portion of our intrepid 9/11 investigator's post that I wasn't going to respond to. It's about to be edited out now. So I am not in fact responsible for that bit of comedy.

For the comment quoted by MG1962, here is the proper sourcing:

Although Britain was the biggest loser of them all, at least the Germans lost, and that is the most important thing a Brit can achieve in life.

MG1962
15th February 2011, 10:42 PM
D'Oh! In the midst of making my post I failed to edit out a portion of our intrepid 9/11 investigator's post that I wasn't going to respond to. It's about to be edited out now. So I am not in fact responsible for that bit of comedy.

For the comment quoted by MG1962, here is the proper sourcing:

Ya know that just makes it even funnier - I just can't get Basil Fawlty out of my head right now

dudalb
16th February 2011, 02:07 PM
And any nation that goes to war with another nation while not being mindful of the treaties that other nation has with yet other nations is being incredibly stupid.





In other words, he made a gross miscalculation. (Hardly the only one Hitler would make during the period.)







Hitler made miscalculation after miscalculation, but his miscalculation that the UK treaty with Poland was just a bluff, and in the end the UK would back down is probably his worst.

dudalb
16th February 2011, 02:25 PM
:dl: Seriously, next time can you post a warning when you are going to be that funny. Coffee is too expensive to waste all over my monitor

Two World Wars and One World Cup..doo dah,doo dah.....

Favorite Brit soccer fan song to tune of Camptown races when playing Germany....

dudalb
16th February 2011, 02:26 PM
Ya know that just makes it even funnier - I just can't get Basil Fawlty out of my head right now

My mental image of our little investigator is that of the Late Kenneth Mars as Franz Liedkind in "The Producers" (1968)

Hans
16th February 2011, 03:20 PM
9/11 your contradiction seem to be plying up could you untangle them

1. You've told us that Germany (Europe) was destroyed by the US and USSR yet it is certainly still there and doing fairly well - please explain
2. That this same Europe is going to be the next superpower - please explain this contradiction with number 1.

dudalb
16th February 2011, 04:04 PM
9/11 your contradiction seem to be plying up could you untangle them

1. You've told us that Germany (Europe) was destroyed by the US and USSR yet it is certainly still there and doing fairly well - please explain
2. That this same Europe is going to be the next superpower - please explain this contradiction with number 1.


Good call that the Lying Dutchman equates Germany and the other "Germanic" countries with Europe. Europe bordering the Medittrenean and Eastern Europe don't seem to have much of a presence in his mental world.

MG1962
16th February 2011, 06:43 PM
My mental image of our little investigator is that of the Late Kenneth Mars as Franz Liedkind in "The Producers" (1968)


And now it's...
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland's a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We're going on tour!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany...

Hans
16th February 2011, 09:16 PM
Good call that the Lying Dutchman equates Germany and the other "Germanic" countries with Europe. Europe bordering the Medittrenean and Eastern Europe don't seem to have much of a presence in his mental world.

He doesn't mention those fine Aryans allies, the Italians, very often - i wonder why? LOL. Oh and since the '9/11 doctrine' states that one ally is responsible for the actions of another ally (Britain the USA are somehow responsble for Soviet actions) then that means Germany is responsible for the Italian attacks on Libya and Ethiopia - mein Gott, gross Colonialism - something that 9/11 applies to Britain only

peteweaver
17th February 2011, 04:25 AM
WW1 was the knock on effect of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austro Hungary by Gavrilo Princip.

Various nations had defence treaties with each other. Austro Hungary declared war on Serbia, Serbia was allied with Russia so Russia declared war on Austro Hungary, Austro Hungary was allied with Germany so Germany declared war on Russia, Russia was allied with Britain and France so Britain and France declared war on Germany. The Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany so the Ottoman Empire declared war on us Brits.

Towards the end of WW1 Germany neared Paris, but became fatigued demoralised, faltered much of the ground they had taken was difficult to cross, so supplies were very difficult. By November 1918, totally demoralised the German army surrendered, and the armastice was signed on the 11th day at the 11th hour. In June 1918 the Treaty of Versailles was signed, and this placed great restrictions on Germany.

In years to come hardship in Germany because of the Treaty of Versailles was used as an excuse for anti semitism, and particularly after the Great depression began the popularity of the National Socialist German Workers Party increased. At the same time the German communist party was gaining popularity, businesses feared communism even more than Nazism.
At the behest of Franz Von Papen, German President Paul Von Hindenburg gave Hitler the Chancellorship. It was thought Hindenburg could control Hitler. But Hindenburg died.

dudalb
17th February 2011, 03:55 PM
And now it's...
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland's a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We're going on tour!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany...


Don't be stupid,
Be A Smarty
Come and Join
The Nazi Party

Though before I get cut to shreds, I know that Mars does not perform the song in the 1968 film.
Mars as Franz>then Will Ferill as Franz, though I don't dislike the 2005 film of the Broadway Musical the way some fans of the 1968 film do.

9/11-investigator
17th February 2011, 03:57 PM
Two World Wars and One World Cup..doo dah,doo dah.....

Favorite Brit soccer fan song to tune of Camptown races when playing Germany....

Well, if we have a look at the average British soccer fan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1182373/Welcome-binge-Britain-Polish-photographer-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html) we can excuse him for these silly remarks. It's genetic, so not his fault. The UK might have won the world cup once at home in Britain, in contrast Germany did win 3 world cups and the other axis power Italy even 4.

It is clear that WW1 was intended and won by Britain, no question about it. Reason: Britain did not like the existence of a united Germany at all and was determined to see it smashed. Another greavance was that Germany made much better products then these islanders, basically they were outperformed. WW1 was fought because of jealousy, in the form of Germanophobia. On 2nd thoughts, Britain did not win WW1 at all. They were on the losing side, together with France, certainly after Russia was defeated in the east. I repeat: Brits are unable to defeat Germany, even if helped by France and Russia. Is that something to be proud of, I am asking you? Why did Britain win after all? Because the most disloyal people on this planet, the youknowwho's decide to strike a deal with the British: "you give us Palestine, and then we sick the Americans, who we own, upon the Germans". So said, so it happened. And that made the difference, not because the British somehow defeated the Germans, that is impossible as they themselves know all too well, knowledge that has been made immortal in the famous statement by Gary Linnaker enshrining the British inferiority complex towards Germany: "22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win". Besides, Germany was not defeated at all, although in a difficult position. The trouble was that the Germans believed that Americans were trustworthy and could be believed on their word (the Poles in WW2 made a similar mistake). They accepted a peace on terms as proposed by Wilson. Nothing later materialized, causing deep justified resentment in German against the alllies.

Regarding WW2, the biggest loser in terms of territory no doubt was Britain. By far. Before the war Britain's Lebensraum, uh sorry... empire encompassed 25% of the planet, nowadays Britain has great trouble in even keeping Scotland and Wales in the sorry remains of that empire. In 1939 Britain had 2 options: start an alliance with the only political entity that had friendly feelings towards them, namely Germany. Or let them send in a war with Germany by a party that was not even an allie of Britain and had no other intentions than stripping Britain of it's empire. The Brits, the natural born losers that they are, obviously chose the Americans. Britain gave Europe to the enemies of Europe on a silver platter: the US and USSR. That Britain lost it's empire is of little comfort to us other Europeans, who really resent what Britain did to us.

Nowadays Europe is united, with Germany and France running the show and with Britain sidelined. And they will be even more sidelined (as in thrown from Mediteranian beaches) when the revisionist story about the 20th century will emerge. Germany is the largest exporter in the world. And Britain? Britain is good at binge drinking with detrimental effects on the brain leading to silly statements as quoted by you.

The Spanish had the 16th century, the Dutch the 17th century, the British the 18th and 19th century, the Jews the 20th (via the USA and USSR). It is likely that the Germans will finally have their well-deserved century, namely this century, at the heart of a united Europe, including Russia, and excluding any Anglo influence.

TheRedWorm
17th February 2011, 05:47 PM
So, is it safe to boil the above rant down to "I hate Jews"?

MG1962
17th February 2011, 07:06 PM
Don't be stupid,
Be A Smarty
Come and Join
The Nazi Party

Though before I get cut to shreds, I know that Mars does not perform the song in the 1968 film.
Mars as Franz>then Will Ferill as Franz, though I don't dislike the 2005 film of the Broadway Musical the way some fans of the 1968 film do.

I must admit I have no love for the remake. I just never felt the same manic energy that was a hallmark of Mostels and Wilder's performace was captured

Hans
17th February 2011, 09:18 PM
Well, if we have a look at the average British soccer fan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1182373/Welcome-binge-Britain-Polish-photographer-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html) we can excuse him for these silly remarks. It's genetic, so not his fault. The UK might have won the world cup once at home in Britain, in contrast Germany did win 3 world cups and the other axis power Italy even 4.

It is clear that WW1 was intended and won by Britain, no question about it. Reason: Britain did not like the existence of a united Germany at all and was determined to see it smashed. Another greavance was that Germany made much better products then these islanders, basically they were outperformed. WW1 was fought because of jealousy, in the form of Germanophobia. On 2nd thoughts, Britain did not win WW1 at all. They were on the losing side, together with France, certainly after Russia was defeated in the east. I repeat: Brits are unable to defeat Germany, even if helped by France and Russia. Is that something to be proud of, I am asking you? Why did Britain win after all? Because the most disloyal people on this planet, the youknowwho's decide to strike a deal with the British: "you give us Palestine, and then we sick the Americans, who we own, upon the Germans". So said, so it happened. And that made the difference, not because the British somehow defeated the Germans, that is impossible as they themselves know all too well, knowledge that has been made immortal in the famous statement by Gary Linnaker enshrining the British inferiority complex towards Germany: "22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win". Besides, Germany was not defeated at all, although in a difficult position. The trouble was that the Germans believed that Americans were trustworthy and could be believed on their word (the Poles in WW2 made a similar mistake). They accepted a peace on terms as proposed by Wilson. Nothing later materialized, causing deep justified resentment in German against the alllies.

Regarding WW2, the biggest loser in terms of territory no doubt was Britain. By far. Before the war Britain's Lebensraum, uh sorry... empire encompassed 25% of the planet, nowadays Britain has great trouble in even keeping Scotland and Wales in the sorry remains of that empire. In 1939 Britain had 2 options: start an alliance with the only political entity that had friendly feelings towards them, namely Germany. Or let them send in a war with Germany by a party that was not even an allie of Britain and had no other intentions than stripping Britain of it's empire. The Brits, the natural born losers that they are, obviously chose the Americans. Britain gave Europe to the enemies of Europe on a silver platter: the US and USSR. That Britain lost it's empire is of little comfort to us other Europeans, who really resent what Britain did to us.

Nowadays Europe is united, with Germany and France running the show and with Britain sidelined. And they will be even more sidelined (as in thrown from Mediteranian beaches) when the revisionist story about the 20th century will emerge. Germany is the largest exporter in the world. And Britain? Britain is good at binge drinking with detrimental effects on the brain leading to silly statements as quoted by you.

The Spanish had the 16th century, the Dutch the 17th century, the British the 18th and 19th century, the Jews the 20th (via the USA and USSR). It is likely that the Germans will finally have their well-deserved century, namely this century, at the heart of a united Europe, including Russia, and excluding any Anglo influence.

More of the same nonsense from 9/11 I guess he just cannot read.

I note one thing for him. So world war 2 destroyed the British Empire?

You are aware of course that the Empire was already being dismandtle before the start of the war? Of course you don't. Can you explain in your 'da Joos' addled world view why ALL the European empires crumbled after WW2, the Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Belgian and Dutch they all went except for a few territories but the Russian well too but they fell apart in 1990. would the empires had ended without WW2? Yes

Oh one other point why would 'da joos' the men in your world view who have power because of capitalism and banking 'create' Communism the antithesis of their 'powerbase'.....??

Hans
17th February 2011, 09:20 PM
I must admit I have no love for the remake. I just never felt the same manic energy that was a hallmark of Mostels and Wilder's performace was captured

Yes the M & W production was far superior to the latter... oh my weren't they both Jewish? I wonder if 'The producers' was part of 9/11's da joos world domination plan?

SanityGap
18th February 2011, 02:41 AM
Well, if we have a look at the average British soccer fan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1182373/Welcome-binge-Britain-Polish-photographer-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html) we can excuse him for these silly remarks. It's genetic, so not his fault. .
As compared to these fine examples of Dutch manhood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbjEm6q42iY

And there's plenty more of those. Dutch football hooligans are notorious in Europe.

Rich_C
18th February 2011, 07:19 AM
WW1 was the knock on effect of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austro Hungary by Gavrilo Princip.

Various nations had defence treaties with each other. Austro Hungary declared war on Serbia, Serbia was allied with Russia so Russia declared war on Austro Hungary, Austro Hungary was allied with Germany so Germany declared war on Russia, Russia was allied with Britain and France so Britain and France declared war on Germany. The Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany so the Ottoman Empire declared war on us Brits.


Some of that isn't right and it gets a little more complicated. Russia didn't declare war on Austria Hungary, but did start mobilizing and declared their support of Serbia, which both Germany and Austria Hungary took as a threat. Germany then declared war on Russia. France started mobilizing, so Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium. Britain declared war on Germany because of the invasion of Belgium. The Ottoman Empire waited 3 months before joining in by declaring war on Britain and France. Italy was allied with Germany and AH but reneged and eventually joined the war against them.

Austria Hungary only declared war on Serbia in the first place because Germany told AH they would support them unconditionally, i.e., the "Blank Check". Then had been several wars in the Balkans in the 2 or 3 years before 1914, and Serbia WAS trying to undermine the AH empire, so AH wanted to take care of this while they perceived weakness. AH also was not a stable empire and thought taking care of Serbia would alleviate some internal problems. The Blank Check is considered the main cause of the war.

Among the secondary causes are the alliances and the time it took for all of these countries to mobilize. It took time for all of the major powers to mobilize, and if your neighbor was mobilized and you weren't, you were essentially defenseless. Also, everyone thought the war would be short. No one anticipated the trench warfare on the Western front and the inability to end the war quickly. They should have, there was trench warfare at the end of the American Civil War in 1865, but that's probably easier to say in retrospect.

Harpo
18th February 2011, 07:43 AM
Two World Wars and One World Cup..doo dah,doo dah.....

Favorite Brit soccer fan song to tune of Camptown races when playing Germany....

Britain doesn't have a "soccer" team. :rolleyes:

A'isha
18th February 2011, 08:06 AM
So, is it safe to boil the above rant down to "I hate Jews"?

I think it's safe to boil down everything he posts to "I hate Jews."

Vladd
18th February 2011, 08:35 AM
I think it's safe to boil down everything he posts to "I hate Jews."

And Britain as well it seems

dafydd
18th February 2011, 09:07 AM
I think it's safe to boil down everything he posts to "I hate Jews."

But none of our Hitler huggers will tell us why they hate Jews. They're not so coy about other matters.

Craig4
18th February 2011, 10:30 AM
But none of our Hitler huggers will tell us why they hate Jews. They're not so coy about other matters.

If you're waiting for a rational thought from their kind it might be a while.

Uzzy
18th February 2011, 11:07 AM
Nein/11 is once again showing his lack of historical knowledge (not really a surprise) and poor debating skills by repeating points that have been endlessly demolished. But I suppose we can repeat this again.

Britain entered the war in 1914 as Germany, a militaristic and expansionist nation, threatened to establish a supremely dominant position in Europe, and worse for Britain, the invasion of Belgium could have allowed for Germany to gain ports on the Atlantic ocean. Germany had, since Kaiser Wilhelm II arrival on the scene, attempted to throw it's weight around on the international stage, and did so with the Tirpitz Plan, a form of risk theory where the Germans thought a strong, powerful navy in the North Sea would force the British to acquiesce to German international demands. Pro-tip, pointing a dagger at the neck is not a way to make friends.

Further interference in others colonial affairs, such as the Kruger Telegram or Moroccan Crisis, hardly ingratiated the Kaiser to other European powers and further isolated Germany on the international stage, along with helping to harden the opposing alliances against each other.

dafydd
18th February 2011, 05:04 PM
If you're waiting for a rational thought from their kind it might be a while.

Surely they could string a few two syllable words together to explain their hatred of Jews?

Craig4
20th February 2011, 08:54 AM
Surely they could string a few two syllable words together to explain their hatred of Jews?

That would require a level of integrity beyond the capability of their kind. Let's face it, this is not an honorable group of people we're talking about here.

tsig
20th February 2011, 09:56 AM
And Britain as well it seems

I'm reminded of the Merry Minuet by the Chad Mitchell Trio.

They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain.
There's hurricanes in Florida and Texas needs rain.
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch
and I don't like anybody very much!

dudalb
20th February 2011, 11:57 AM
And Britain as well it seems

THrow the US into that mix.

TSR
20th February 2011, 12:00 PM
.
Or, to put it another way:

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

Did I just seriously date myself?
.

9/11-investigator
24th February 2011, 03:55 AM
I have just finished this book:

http://www.buch.de/buch/06573/802_194041___die_eskalation_des_zweiten_weltkriegs .html

Currently I am working on summarizing and translating it in order to post it the coming days on my temp blog/note book:

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

and finally incorporate in the final version of the story:

http://waroneurope.blogspot.com/

Just in case I will be silenced again.
Furthermore I am half way annotating this 2 hour video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsxnGLbv9SU
It is about the Bolshevik revolution as a revolution carried out by a few hundred, mainly American Jews. I will post it at the same address. Then my work will be finished (for the moment).

It is more or less Suvorov, certainly at the Soviet side: they were preparing for war and invasion of Europe since the early days of that rotten system and largest desaster in human history. On the German side the decision to invade the USSR was taken by Hitler direct after the visit of Molotov to Berlin in November 1940. Molotov had described the non-agression agreement as 'exhausted' and started to make impossible demands including Soviet military bases in Denmark. After that fatefull meeting Hitler knew that war with Russia was inevitable.

Molotov admitted in his memoirs (http://www.amazon.com/Molotov-Remembers-Inside-Kremlin-Politics/dp/1566637155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298548803&sr=8-1-catcorr) that Germany was forced to attack the USSR; it was the only way for Germany to stop the war with Britain.

The German attack was no surprise at all for the Russians except that they had expected an ultimatum first. That was what gave the Germans a 2 week surprise head start, enabling them their initial great successes.

Another point was the role of the worst ally you can imagine: Italy. They probably were decisive for Germany not reaching Moscow in time and saving Europe from the Anglo/Soviet onslaught. Because of their incompetence in Greece, Europe's worst enemy, Britain was able to gain a foothold in the 'soft under-belly' of Europe and foment a coup in Belgrad (with a lot of help of later-CIA-founder William Donovan). Germany was thus forced to intervene in Yugoslavia which cost another 4 weeks delay.

We have already seen that Anglo liar and deceiver Robert H. Jackson had seen that he could not make a case against the Germans as he was instructed to do. He had found documents in German ministeries stating that the Germans noted were surrounded by all sides and that they had to fight. Jackson's solution was to simply forbid talking about allied policy (non-agression agreement, Norwegian campaign) during the trial.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/jack37.asp

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I really think that this trial, if it should get into an argument over the political and economic causes of this war, could do infinite harm, both in Europe, which I don't know well, and in America, which I know fairly well. If we should have a prolonged controversy over whether Germany invaded Norway a few jumps ahead of a British invasion of Norway, or whether France in declaring war was the real aggressor, this trial can do infinite harm for those countries with the people of the United States. And the same is true of our Russian relationships. The Germans will certainly accuse all three of our European Allies of adopting policies which forced them to war. The reason I Say that is that captured documents which we have always made that claim-that Germany would be forced into war. They admit they were planning war, 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." Now, if the question comes up, what is a judge to do about it I would say that, before one is judged guilty of being an aggressor, we must not only let him deny it, but say we will hear his case. I am quite sure a British or American judge would say to a defendant, "You may prove your claim", unless we had something like this which says, "No political, military, or other considerations excuse going to war". In other words, states have got to settle their grievances peacefully. I am afraid there is great risk in omitting this, and I see no risk in putting it in. It may be criticized, but I see no such risk in putting it in as in leaving it out. We did not think it necessary originally, but more recently we have.

The proof that Germany was framed in this show trial is to be found in the trial documents themselves!!!

The Soviets and Anglo liars and falsifiers of history had made a long list of things that were forbidden to be discussed in Nuremberg, like the Norwegian campaign started by Britain and France, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Molotov visit to Berlin in November 1940 and a lot more.

9/11-investigator
24th February 2011, 07:04 AM
Molotov admitted in his memoirs (http://www.amazon.com/Molotov-Remembers-Inside-Kremlin-Politics/dp/1566637155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298548803&sr=8-1-catcorr) that Germany was forced to attack the USSR; it was the only way for Germany to stop the war with Britain.

Quote on page 23.

Chuev recorded Molotov’s memoirs.
http://www.richardsorge.com/literature/books/molotovremembers.pdf

Chuev: And maybe Stalin overestimated Hitler? Maybe he thought Hitler was smart enough not to attack us until he finished the war with England?

Molotov: That’s right, that’s right. Not only Stalin had this feeling but I and others did, too. On the other hand, there was nothing left for Hitler to do but attack us. He would never have finished his war with England – you just try to finish a war with England!

Who needs Suvorov if you have Molotov!

From the same link/book:

Molotov: If Hitler had attacked us half a year earlier, you know, bearing in mind our situation then, it would have been very dangerous.

Translation: the 'alliance' with Italy cost Germany (and Europe) the victory and we were subjugated for half a century by Anglo and Soviet invaders, a period now coming to and end.

MG1962
24th February 2011, 07:28 AM
From the same book

Molotov: Stalin reckoned before the war that only in 1943 would
we be able to meet the Germans as equals.

Molotov: We had to delay Germany’s aggression, that’s
why we tried to deal with them on an economic level, import export

Molotov: A mistake was made, but of minor importance, I
would say, because we were afraid to get ourselves
drawn into the war, to give the Germans a
pretext for attack. That’s how everything got
started. I assure you [...]

dafydd
24th February 2011, 07:53 AM
So, is it safe to boil the above rant down to "I hate Jews"?

Yes,but we don't know why. What cowards these deniers are.

9/11-investigator
24th February 2011, 08:09 AM
From the same book

Molotov: Stalin reckoned before the war that only in 1943 would
we be able to meet the Germans as equals.

Molotov: We had to delay Germany’s aggression, that’s
why we tried to deal with them on an economic level, import export

Molotov: A mistake was made, but of minor importance, I
would say, because we were afraid to get ourselves
drawn into the war, to give the Germans a
pretext for attack. That’s how everything got
started. I assure you [...]


I know that you are able to make a quote all by yourself, but you forgot to make a point.

uke2se
24th February 2011, 08:10 AM
From the same book

Molotov: Stalin reckoned before the war that only in 1943 would
we be able to meet the Germans as equals.

Molotov: We had to delay Germany’s aggression, that’s
why we tried to deal with them on an economic level, import export

Molotov: A mistake was made, but of minor importance, I
would say, because we were afraid to get ourselves
drawn into the war, to give the Germans a
pretext for attack. That’s how everything got
started. I assure you [...]


Highlighted the point for you, Nein11, not that I expect you to understand it even with help.

MG1962
24th February 2011, 08:32 AM
I know that you are able to make a quote all by yourself, but you forgot to make a point.

Icebreaker

9/11-investigator
24th February 2011, 08:52 AM
Icebreaker

Well, one word is better than nothing of course, but I still find it a little bit thin to count as a point. Try to formulate a sentence, complete with a subject, a verb and a direct object.

If necessary we will help you formulate your point.
That is what we are here for: to help you.

uke2se
24th February 2011, 09:03 AM
That is what we are here for

There's that word again. There is no "we", Nein11, jew. You're all alone.

9/11-investigator
24th February 2011, 09:41 AM
There's that word again. There is no "we", Nein11, jew. You're all alone.

Message to MG1962: uke2se has just acknowledged that he does not want to help you in anyway.

Rest assured that the rest of us are. Just ask.

9/11-investigator
24th February 2011, 09:45 AM
Highlighted the point for you, Nein11, not that I expect you to understand it even with help.

Nobody denies German agression and that they started Barbarossa. But that is irrelevant. What matters is what happened before that.

Here is my example again: man of unidentified color approaches woman in a parking garage, while she is putting her shopping bag in the back. The man walks in a straight line towards here and says nothing about his intentions. The woman grabs for her pepperspray and sprays in his face before he can grab her wrists.

uke2se: the woman is the agressor.

uke2se
24th February 2011, 09:57 AM
Message to MG1962: uke2se has just acknowledged that he does not want to help you in anyway.

Rest assured that the rest of us are. Just ask.

Us, Nein11, jew? You imagine you can speak for anyone other than yourself and the voices in your head?

uke2se
24th February 2011, 10:03 AM
Nobody denies German agression and that they started Barbarossa. But that is irrelevant. What matters is what happened before that.

Before Barbarossa, Nazi Germany had a long standing military exchange program - primarily to allow Hitler to get around the restrictions imposed on Germany by the Versailles treaty. They sealed their friendship by signing a non-aggression pact with a secret clause pertaining the carving up of Eastern Europe, making the pact a military alliance.


Here is my example again: man of unidentified color approaches woman in a parking garage, while she is putting her shopping bag in the back. The man walks in a straight line towards here and says nothing about his intentions. The woman grabs for her pepperspray and sprays in his face before he can grab her wrists.

uke2se: the woman is the agressor.

A better analogy than yours (which really sucks) would be: A white man with a swastika tattoo approaches a woman in a parking garage while she is putting her shopping bag in the back. The man walks in a straight line towards her and says "let me help you with that". The woman politely agrees, whereupon the man the man grabs her and forces her down and proceeds to rape her. The woman fights back and pepper sprays the man until he's docile, whereupon she calls the authorities and the man is arrested and jailed.

In this analogy - Nein11, Jew: the woman is the aggressor.

9/11-investigator
24th February 2011, 11:00 AM
Before Barbarossa, Nazi Germany had a long standing military exchange program - primarily to allow Hitler to get around the restrictions imposed on Germany by the Versailles treaty.

Correct.

They sealed their friendship by signing a non-aggression pact with a secret clause pertaining the carving up of Eastern Europe, making the pact a military alliance.

No. If Poland had decided to attack either Germany or Russia one day after the signing of the pact neither Germany nor Russia would have been obliged by the terms of the pact to come the aid of other party. That would have the case if there would have been an alliance.

Any body besides uke2se reckless enough to defend the thesis that Germany and Russia were allies?

In this analogy - Nein11, Jew: the woman is the aggressor.

Be careful, I was suspended the other day because I assumed a connection between Wroclaws ability to speak Jiddish and his identity.

Just kidding, you can say what you want, without any fear for repercussions. This site likes people like you. And that is fine with me. Let us not pretend that we like each other.

P.S. about the pact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib2Mmim17aY&feature=related

Extremely interesting discovery by the speaker… before the Hitler-Stalin pact came about there had been negotiations between Russia, France and Britain. The latter two wanted a pact with Russia. In a secret annex they had offered the 3 Baltic states to Russia!!!! This would be later part of the agreement between Russia and Germany as well, but our noble Allies had offered the same thing!! So much for the ludicrous idea that Britain (and France) cared about the independenca of states; they were merely conduction Realpolitik! No difference in moral substance between Germans and British here. During following negotiations leading to the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement there is consequent talk of independence for the Baltic states. When Ribbentrop travels to Moscow, 7 days before the start of the war, in order to sign the non-agression agreement, he expects to have to sign the independence for the 3 Baltic states. Ribbentrop is surprised when he learns what the content of the secret annex is, namely the division of Eastern Europe in spheres of influence between Germany and Russia. He phones Hitler, who is surprised as well. But he needs the non-agression agreement with Russia in order to intervene in the ever more pressing Polish situation. The secret annex was a surprise coupe of the Soviets, not something the Germans had asked for.

Mind you, the sphere of influence was a Russian, not a German idea. Or condition rather. Hitler wanted merely make sure he could 'address' the Poles over the Danzig issue. Hitler wanted merely to defeat the Polish army and take Danzig back, stolen by the alllies in Versailles.

The division of Poland was a Soviet wish and condition. Hitler had not asked for it.

uke2se
24th February 2011, 11:32 AM
No. If Poland had decided to attack either Germany or Russia one day after the signing of the pact neither Germany nor Russia would have been obliged by the terms of the pact to come the aid of other party. That would have the case if there would have been an alliance.

Which is why I said it was an offensive military alliance, which means that Germany and the USSR had planned to carve up Poland and Eastern Europe together.


Any body besides uke2se reckless enough to defend the thesis that Germany and Russia were allies?

Explaining history to a dumb person isn't reckless. Futile, maybe, but not reckless.


Be careful, I was suspended the other day because I assumed a connection between Wroclaws ability to speak Jiddish and his identity.

So?


Just kidding, you can say what you want, without any fear for repercussions. This site likes people like you. And that is fine with me. Let us not pretend that we like each other.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy against you, Nein11, Jew.