Should Churchill be seen as a warmonger and partial escalator of WW2?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Germany de facto existed since 1871. Before that Germany existed in various ways since Charlemagne and Otto the Great. The Germans as an ethnic group existed on the Prussian (now Polish) lands longer than the Poles did. The land that was cut off from Germany after ww1 was historic German land. No one is denying the atrocities in the east, but Hitler's war was different in that he did not do genocide through the air. He did that in other ways, the allies however with they genocidal campaign of fire bombing civilians is another thing.

No. Please, please do some basic research. Prussia was named after the old native Prus - who were Slavs. The Old Prussians were conquered in the 13th Century by the Teutonic Knights. And by the way the Poles had been around for centuries before the Teutonic Knights turned up in the area.

that doesn't revise anything I said to you. The Germans lived longer on the areas which were stolen from them after Versaille, the Poles occupied land that was 99,9% German

Then you are are still totally wrong. Please, this is embarrassing!

Do some basic research! The Poles occupied land that was stolen from them by the Prussians, the Austrians and the Russians. The Partitions of Poland, remember them? And before that there were NO German kingdoms in that area. Just Slavs and Poles.

dude? I'm not referring to the 3 partitions, I'm way before that! but it's no use if you don't concede any other view than yours. no hard feelings

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

This is some information on David Irving (notorious holocaust denier) who is the stated source for your Rense quote :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

as much as i dislike David Irving as a person, he is not a holocaust denier, although fervent Jewish academics might call him that, Irving has said that he believes that more than 1,5 million Jews died in the Reinhardt camps, so Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdenek and Belzek, and he says another huge number was killed by the einsatzgruppen, he is a revisionist, yes, but not a holocaust denier.

You seem to enjoy being wrong a great deal. Irving is a Holocaust denier - a court of law said so.

he isn't denying the holocaust, doesn't matter if a court says he did, his own academic research states that he believes that more than 1,5 million Jews died in the Reinhardt camps, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdenek and Belzek, and he says another huge number was killed by the einsatzgruppen. Does that sound like denial of the murder of the Jewish people? nope. I do have to admit though, irving is by far the most intellectual of these revisionist, his books are some of the most leading and factual you're able to find

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Germany de facto existed since 1871. Before that Germany existed in various ways since Charlemagne and Otto the Great. The Germans as an ethnic group existed on the Prussian (now Polish) lands longer than the Poles did. The land that was cut off from Germany after ww1 was historic German land. No one is denying the atrocities in the east, but Hitler's war was different in that he did not do genocide through the air. He did that in other ways, the allies however with they genocidal campaign of fire bombing civilians is another thing.

No. Please, please do some basic research. Prussia was named after the old native Prus - who were Slavs. The Old Prussians were conquered in the 13th Century by the Teutonic Knights. And by the way the Poles had been around for centuries before the Teutonic Knights turned up in the area.

that doesn't revise anything I said to you. The Germans lived longer on the areas which were stolen from them after Versaille, the Poles occupied land that was 99,9% German

With the non-aggression treaty made between Germany and the Soviet Union on August 23 1939 there was a secret clause agreeing to divide Poland between them.

What land did Hitler have in mind for the Poles ?

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

dude? I'm not referring to the 3 partitions, I'm way before that! but it's no use if you don't concede any other view than yours. no hard feelings

Ok, then have a look at this - en.wikipedia.org...(966%E2%80%931385) Yes, I know that it's Wikipedia, but it's not contested history in any way shape or form. Then look at that map. Germany extended to the WEST. Prussia was full of Slavs!

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
he isn't denying the holocaust, doesn't matter if a court says he did, his own academic research states that he believes that more than 1,5 million Jews died in the Reinhardt camps, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdenek and Belzek, and he says another huge number was killed by the einsatzgruppen. Does that sound like denial of the murder of the Jewish people? nope. I do have to admit though, irving is by far the most intellectual of these revisionist, his books are some of the most leading and factual you're able to find

Please read the summation of the findings against Irving in the libel case he brought against Lipstadt. His reputation as a historian was destroyed and has never been rebuilt. His books are now worthless and cannot be trusted - because he denied that the Holocaust happened.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
absolutely, I do not want to make the impression of apologizing for Hitler lol. But I guess that's what you get when you talk about alternative views within ww2...

This seems to be at odds with how this conversation has turned.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
absolutely, I do not want to make the impression of apologizing for Hitler lol. But I guess that's what you get when you talk about alternative views within ww2...

This seems to be at odds with how this conversation has turned.

how? I apologize for giving that impression! should I stop? because I don't want my first thread to come off as sympathetic towards nazism hell no...

reply to post by Alfie1


I said there are a lot of conspiracies about WW2 and the Rothschilds, I also said ''alleged'' when quoting and said ''who knows how true they are''. I think there is a bigger picture that isn't presented in school curriculums and whilst some theories might have some dubious information, there are also factual elements that are proven and most of these conspiracies go a long way back before WW2, and are still going on, there are still wars continuing as a result of these past wars. Sometimes the history books sweep too much under the carpet for the good of humanity.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
how? I apologize for giving that impression! should I stop? because I don't want my first thread to come off as sympathetic towards nazism hell no...

Blaming Churchill for WW2 when he was out of Government and on the back benches is not the best way to start.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
how? I apologize for giving that impression! should I stop? because I don't want my first thread to come off as sympathetic towards nazism hell no...

Blaming Churchill for WW2 when he was out of Government and on the back benches is not the best way to start.

i know lol sorry....that's just my opinions anyway!

reply to post by ConservativeAwakening


Well, lets see.

So dar you've suggested the Nazi's weren't aggressors but were just claiming back their land.

And you've suggested that Churchill was a warmonger and escalated the conflict

And you've quoted one of the most notorious holocaust deniers and said you think he's respectable and has a point...

How do you think thats coming across?

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
but for historical accuracy, Churchill was equally a #head to the English because he got them into a war with another country which government declared that it wanted to go side by side with the UK.

WTF?

You have to realize that there is one continuing theme about the Third Reich's actions and policies: they LIED. All the time, to everybody, pathologically and without remorse.

Friendly towards U.K.? Surely only a temporary propaganda to slow down re-armament. Germany was run by crazy fanatics with a disgusting and dangerous ideology, with a powerful army and special forces of vicious crazed murderers. Their U-boats continuously threatened all of the U.K.'s maritime powers.

Let's remember they broke the treaties and re-armed, they lied to Chamberlain and then invaded Czechoslovakia.

Their actions speak louder than their mendacious words, and their actions said that they were incorriglbly racist, aggressive, wicked, arrogant and dangerous. IF the UK declared war against Germany supposedly without justification, then what TF did Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium do? France? Why does Poland get to be wiped off the map, hmm?

The war in Europe could have been avoided if it weren't for Churchill's aggressive anti-German stance in ww1 and pre ww2

BS. The war in Europe could have been avoided if it weren't for Hitler's aggressive anti-human stance.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
how? I apologize for giving that impression! should I stop? because I don't want my first thread to come off as sympathetic towards nazism hell no...

Blaming Churchill for WW2 when he was out of Government and on the back benches is not the best way to start.

i know lol sorry....that's just my opinions anyway!

Yes, but when your opinion is totally at variance with the facts, then I have some bad news for you. Facts always win.

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by ConservativeAwakening

 

Well, lets see.

So dar you've suggested the Nazi's weren't aggressors but were just claiming back their land.

And you've suggested that Churchill was a warmonger and escalated the conflict

And you've quoted one of the most notorious holocaust deniers and said you think he's respectable and has a point...

How do you think thats coming across?

I never said the Nazis weren't aggressor, of course they were, and I said that Hitler was the worst thing that could ever have happened to the German people. And I stand by my opinion (that is, opinion) that Churchill indeed was a warmonger, no need to say he was a monster, never said that, and in fact I'm still wanting to read one of his books, but to say he didn't escalate the situation is in my opinion flat out wrong. The blame lies at the hands of the Nazis, yes......I didn't quote Irving, I only said that he is not a holocaust denier per se because he concedes that over 1,5 million Jews were killed in the Operation Rheinhardt, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek and Belzec..and that another 3 million or more were killed in the einsatzgruppen operations...should I just stop? I don't want to come off as a hitler apologist lol

More reports about International finance feeding wars for profit and power.

The Nation, newspaper report

The Treaty of Versailles, signed at the end of WWI, was designed to rip off Germany, to further consolidate the control of international bankers over USA and Europe, and to lay the basis of the next world war so that the agenda of establishment of a one world government could be carried further. The League of Nations was set up after WWI and the UN was set up after WWII. The UN building was a “gift” from the Rockefellers! Supranational bodies, like the UN, IMF, etc, will eventually become the basis of one world government by gradually encroaching over national autonomy. The national governments will gradually be rendered powerless and impotent.
WWI had added incredible sums to the coffers of the international bankers, who began setting up privately controlled central banks on the pattern of the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve. Rothschild had once said: “Give me control over a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.” Taking over the central banks of nations has been one of the most crucial elements in the strategy of international bankers over the past two centuries to bring about a New World Order. In his book, Pawns in the Game, Guy Carr wrote: “Since the great war, the international bankers had set up 26 central banks.” As WWI had been successfully managed with unprecedented profits and unprecedented control of the elite over nations, the next world war would lead much further to the goal of one world government.
To bring about the next world war both Soviet Russia and Germany were developed by the banking elite and then a clash brought about between them. The British government, which has been under the control of the bankers after Waterloo, which made Rothschild the undisputed master of English money line, always does their bidding. The US had come under deeper and enduring control of the bankers because of the privately owned Federal Reserve and WWI, which was to be used to bring about the desired result.
In his ground-breaking books, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony Sutton has completely exposed the heinous intrigues being enacted remorselessly and ceaselessly by the hidden elite. Sutton’s works are among the works of many highly distinguished authors in the West, particularly USA, which, while exposing the repugnant and absolutely inhuman effort of the elite to control human life and to destroy it whenever needed, have been assiduously ignored by the mainstream publishers as well as the mainstream media. The media and the publishers are controlled by the elite and work entirely for the promotion and protection of its interests. Hollywood too is part of creating a mental matrix of deception designed to befool and mesmerise mankind and lead it to complete subjugation by the elite.

Germany was rearmed with the deep and concealed assistance of the Wall Street and its controllers, some of whom resided, and still reside, outside the US. To quote Sutton: “The contribution made by American capitalism to German war preparations before 1940 can only be described as phenomenal. It was certainly crucial to German military capabilities.” It has been remarked that without the chemical giant I.G. Farben, there would be no WWII. The giant chemical industry, which sustained German war effort, was set up in 1926 with money from Wall Street bankers. The German I.G. Farben had Max Warburg as its Director and its American Director was his brother Paul Warburg, the hidden author of the Federal Reserve Act.
Further evidence is found in a report of a Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilisation and Military Affairs (Kilgore Committee): “The Germans were brought to Detroit to learn the techniques of specialised production of components, and of straight-line assembly…….The techniques learned in Detroit were eventually used to construct dive-bombing Stukas.”
Sutton writes: “According to Hitler’s financial genie, Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht and Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, it was the 1928 Young Plan, formulated by Morgan agent Owen D. Young, that brought Hitler to power in 1933.”
That the international bankers built the Soviet Union is established by documented records. The Bolshevik Revolution not only destroyed the Czar, it created a monopoly in Soviet business controlled by the international bankers. Lenin and Trotsky were both agents of the bankers, as has been established by several authors. Marx was also financed by Wall Street! All Soviet business went to the world’s wealthiest families, most of whom were unwelcome in Czarist Russia.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Thank you for being the only person who paid attention to my post. It's good to know that you get what he means. I had never thought about it that way but now I do, it makes sense.

reply to post by mbkennel



Here is a publication from America in 1941, before they entered the war, in the interest of evaluating the extent of the warmongering and desire for escalation coming from there...which i suggested Churchill came under the influence of.

]A cancer flourishes in the body of the world and in its mind and soul and ... the cancerous thing is Germany, Germanism, and Germans....

I am not interested in the Germans as musicians or scientists because you do not have to be a German to be either. To be a murderer, bold and gleeful, you have to be a German ... I read in the fatness of their necks the mark of the murderer. I read in their watery eyes, their faded skins, their legs without feet, and their thick jaws, the fulfillment of a crime and the promise of another....

The German hates democracy because he does not like himself. He has only one political ideal. It is based on his fat neck, his watery eyes, and his faded skin.... He dreads initiative as if it were a pox and he blubbers like a lost child if called on to depend for himself. "Submission, conformity, whether public or private, are German virtues," wrote Nietzsche. This backwardness, this underdevelopment of ego, make the Germans enemies, not only of the Jew, but of the form of life which Jewish egoism has helped create -- democracy. Democracy is to the German a truly evil thing since it robs him of his profession as a servant....

He is a pure murderer. The thought of killing defenseless people brings a glow into his fat German neck....

It is by murder that the German reduces the world fleetingly to his own measure, appeases his lack of ego, makes his bid as an artist (a strong man) asserts his crudity over the finesse of human manners to which he is an unhappy stranger. Murder is his only escape from his damnable subservience. It is the only deed open to slaves. It is the only strength possible to the docile and frightened mind....

Unlike all other murderers, they are proud of their crimes. There are no eyes of others to stare them out of countenance. Around them are only German eyes, the eyes of German thinkers, philosophers, businessmen, leaders, scientists. The understanding of murder, the belief in murder, the need for murder are all in these eyes. Wherever the little German burgher looks as he wipes his hands of murder he sees only murderers like himself -- a city, a country, a tribe, a nation, a history of murderers (The truth about the myth of the alleged German aggressive tendencies...). He does not have to repudiate his crime. He does not have to to shudder at its abnormality. He is normal....

The Germans outraged me because they are murderers, foul and wanton, and because they are fools such as gibber at a roadside, with spittle running from their mouths. They outraged me because they raised their little pig eyes to their betters and sought to grunt and claw their way to the mastery of men...
That this most clumsy and backward of all human tribes -- this leaden-hearted German -- should dare to pronounce judgment on his superiors, dare to outlaw from the world the name of the Jew -- a name that dwarfs him as the tree does the weed at its foot -- is an outrageous thing.... It is an evil thing for the world that there remains in it a tribe that has only one dream -- to cut the wings of others



The goal of world-dominion must be removed from the reach of the German and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the German from the world!" "They are but beasts; they must be dealt with as such

the German bloodlust comes "from the very depths of the German national soul," and so even if we spare only innocent Germans from the current generation, they will inevitably give birth to a new generation of wicked Germans, who will unleash another murderous war on the world, and millions of innocent non-Germans will perish. Is it not those millions who deserve our sympathy, rather than a few Germans? .

en.wikipedia.org...!


The tone of your post reminded me of the book...

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


I'm sorry, but that is all total and utter honk.

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
as much as i dislike David Irving as a person, he is not a holocaust denier

Of course the facts disagree with you, remember this....

The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist David Irving was today sentenced to three years in prison after he admitted denying the Holocaust. Irving had pleaded guilty to denying the Holocaust in two speeches on a visit to Austria in 1989

www.guardian.co.uk...

There is also his 1981 conviction for holocaust denial,
and

In the 1988 Zündel trial, Irving repeated and defended his claim from Hitler's War that until October 1943 Hitler knew nothing about the actual implementation of the Final Solution. He also expressed his evolving belief that the Final Solution involved "atrocities", not systematic murder: "I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews.

and then

In a pamphlet Irving published in London on 23 June 1989 Irving made the "epochal announcement" that there was no mass murder via gas chambers at the Auschwitz death camp.[77] Irving labelled the gas chambers at Auschwitz a "hoax", and writing in the third person declared that he "has placed himself [Irving] at the head of a growing band of historians, worldwide, who are now sceptical of the claim that at Auschwitz and other camps were 'factories of death', in which millions of innocent people were systematically gassed to death".[

then there was this

After Irving denied the Holocaust in two 1989 speeches given in Austria, the Austrian government issued an arrest warrant against him and barred him from entering the country.[95] In early 1992 a German court found him guilty of Holocaust denial under the Auschwitzlüge section of the law against Volksverhetzung (a failed appeal by Irving would see the fine rise from 10,000 DM to 30,000 DM), and he was subsequently barred from entering Germany. [

Also remember when David Irving sued for being called a holocaust denier in "Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt"

He lost, and the judge summing up said:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.[4][64] ... therefore the defence of justification succeeds.[5] ... It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants

So to claim Irving is not a holocaust denier really shows your agenda here!

Originally posted by ConservativeAwakening
I didn't quote Irving, I only said that he is not a holocaust denier

You should have quoted him, as Irving has admitted to being a holocaust denier, and also pleaded guilty to holocaust denial....

I don't want to come off as a hitler apologist

Then stop apologising for him!